OSRIC 3: Hacking the Bard

There are no bards in OSRIC 3.0, at least, not yet.

The bard is turning out to be a bit controversial these days, and some groups don't like them because they weren't part of the original game. They do not add much to a traditional "dungeon crawling" party, nor do they support the classic "fighter, mage, thief, cleric" holy quadrology. Also, bards tend to attract the wrong type of player, the "spotlight hog" who ends up wanting to RP for everybody and who takes over every social interaction between the party and every NPC in the world.

If you have the best social skills, charmiest charms, and have the highest chance to "get through the required social skill rolls" part of the adventure, why not just lean on the bard some more? Social skill rolls and giving one class "all the RP skills" were among the worst additions to the game, as they siloed all RP in the game's only "diva" social class.

You can even make people do whatever you wish, even without their consent. It is a great class for Hollywood casting-couch types. Seriously, the amount of mental manipulation they give most bards in most games makes them the sleaziest character class ever written, and I would trust a thief more than a bard. At least with the thief, you will be allowed to be angry after he robs you.

Be careful about adding bards to your game. If your game is more about detecting poison needles on treasure chests, listening to doors, and quietly dispatching enemies in a stealth run through a dungeon to take its loot, why do you want a "Rock Band" wannabe along, making blasted noise? Do you know how far "bard singing" carries for? Two or three rooms, typically. You are going to give every monster in the area a free concert? We will have the dwarf shove a bag in your mouth to keep you quiet.

Bards are not for everyone; they silo RP, attract disruptive players, and shift the game's focus onto themselves as spotlight stealers. It is hard to design a great bard class without breaking the classic dungeon-based game. Most designers follow the D&D 5E mentality toward bards, and they deliberately design the class to be disruptive roleplay hogs.

Every class should be potentially "great at RP." My dwarf fighter, talking with other dwarves, about an honor-bound blood oath between dwarven clans? I don't care how high the elven bard's persuasion skill is; my dwarf will be the best at speaking to those matters, and quite possibly the only one who will be listened to. In D&D 5E? Forget it, the rules trump common sense, and the elven bard will do the talking. My dwarf will be reduced to saying "he's right" and "the elf makes sense!"

You do have a few options if you want bards in OSRIC 3.0. The first is to port a bard in from another game, such as Swords & Wizardry. This is the easiest way to do it, but it relies on having more books and rulesets around.

The next is to say bards are essentially multi-class thief/clerics or thief/magic-users with music as their focus (divine or arcane), and leave it at that. Leave the singing to RP, and just let the game's core classes define abilities. Since you are multi-class, you will level slower, but you are a hybrid with the powers of two classes, so prepare to walk the long, hard road of stardom. You will channel your magic through song and just redefine the game's existing abilities into "bard stuff" that you cast through the power of magical music. On the plus side, you will always be a full thief, and not these weak "half thieves" other games allow you to be.

I like this solution a lot since it keeps the game's core classes intact and shifts the flavor's focus to new sources of power. A cleric could be the cleric of a demon lord, and you would just reflavor the powers, but still keep the character a cleric. A kobold could channel arcane "magic user" power through shamanistic rituals, and the implementation stays the same as other magic users. This is a clean, simple, easy solution that requires no expansions, other books, or external material. It reinterprets what is there into a new method and outlook on casting magic, and keeps the fundamental roles and spells balanced.

My bard isn't "less than a thief" or "less of a caster" than other classes, only in the rate of advancement. The combinations of powers will enhance the character in many ways, while not gimping them in functioning as either a thief or a caster. You need a thief? Well, the bard will do, but they won't be as good as a dedicated thief, just due to the slower rate of advancement, but they can do everything a thief does, even backstab. Other games take that away from the bard, but this solution doesn't.

The final answer is to play Castles & Crusades, but that is another discussion entirely.

Mail Room: OSRIC 3 Hardcovers

There is a tendency in the OSR to muck things up, add too much bloat to the game, and put in so many new ideas that we lose the brilliance of the original game. Part of the reason I loved Old School Essentials Classic Fantasy was the beautiful simplicity; there are not many ways to go wrong with buttered toast, and OSE Classic was the perfect, simple, atomic, perfect recreation of the original game.

OSRIC 3.0 is exactly like that, but for AD&D.

Where Adventures Dark & Deep goes off the deep end of the pool with hundreds of pages of new additions ot the game, the ideas feel muddled and overly complex, where if all I wanted was an AD&D 1E clone, then I do not need all that extra fluff and positing of what could be.

There are times I want only the base game.

I want simple.

I want the best options.

I want a clean and streamlined game.

If I want to play just like it was the 1980s again, OSRIC 3.0 is the perfect game. The PDFs are PWYW, and you can get a free option if you're just checking them out for curiosity.

There is a post on Dragonsfoot that compares AD&D and OSRIC 3.0, and many of the differences stem from carefully considered legal reasons. The differences are extremely minor and not really a game-changer, and are only for rules lawyers. Some are welcome simplifications and clarifications (one roll to pick pockets, and rules for high-STR characters wielding 2H weapons with one hand). I like the changes and improvements, and this version is far clearer written than the original AD&D 1E PHB and DMG.

If I were starting new players with 1E, I would be playing OSRIC 3.0. Never has there been a clearer, easier-to-learn, and well-represented version of the game than this. This is a cleaner-presented, product-improved 1E with all the best options and mechanics.

And the game is derived from the Creative Commons release under a new, more open license. The now-hated OGL is finally gone from OSRIC! The game is free to live its own life without legal threats.

Stepping up from a BX set of rules to full 1E is a refreshing experience. A lot of what was left vague for younger audiences is cleared up in the full 1E version of the rules, and there is less room for interpretation in critical areas. OSRIC 3.0 seems easier than OSE in a few ways, with clearer rules for things that will come up during the game, and there will be less "winging it" at the table and more straightforward play and adventure.

Gary Gygax wrote AD&D for organized and tournament play, and the rules were designed to address the most common questions and situations that arose during play. While BX is perfectly playable at conventions and public settings, 1E clarifies many things individual groups would have to "make up on the fly" or "wing it," and standardizes play, keeping organized play clearer, fairer, and more consistent across game masters.

If you are playing organized play, 1E is a far better choice since less is left up to interpretation. Everything is compatible, from BX to games like Swords & Wizardry, so if you want adventures or more character options, they are there for the picking. The OSE Drow race? Use them as-is. The bard from Swords & Wizardry? Use that as-is. It all works together nicely.

But basing your game on OSRIC gives you a simple, consistent, and clean start. This is something more advanced, expanded games can't deliver, since you tend to have to "take in everything at once," and you lose that beautiful simplicity I like to see in a game.

First and Second Edition is Where it is At

Many people are returning to the First and Second Editions. This all mixes with the BX, White Box, 0E, and other old-school gaming crowds, so the movement is vast and mostly cross-compatible. I get the feeling Shadowdark kicked this off, with the 5E players discovering the amazing old-school play style, becoming addicted to it, then wanting something more profound, going to higher levels of play, and adding more crunch and depth.

The only place you go after Shadowdark is BX or the First Edition. White Box and Zero Edition are also strong choices, but if you want to find the heart and soul of the hobby, you will pick up a copy of OSRIC or For Gold & Glory and stick to the classic TSR version of the game as we knew it in the 1980s and '90s.

I support the community edition games, not the reprints, since I support those who use these systems to write expansions, adventures, and create new content for these classic games. This is not possible with either AD&D 1E or 2E. So, either OSRIC or For Gold & Glory are my jams —what I talk about and what I play, even though I can get (flawed) POD reprints of the originals.

First Edition is what the Stranger Things kids would have been playing, not 5E. If the whole series followed 5E rules, then none of them would die, and they would be multiclassing to hell to break reality. Most of them would be warlock/paladin characters with a level of fighter to get action surge. Money would be meaningless, and they would be stopping the show every 10 minutes to rest.

Yes, there are level limits for non-human characters in First and Second Edition, but remember, non-humans are the only ones who can multiclass, splitting their XP between two classes and advancing in each. Yes, you have level limits for non-human characters, but you get to break the rules in fantastic ways. By the time Wizards released 3E, this went away; we lost much of the appeal of non-human characters, and it began the slow progression towards the current "races are meaningless marshmallow shapes" trend we see today and the blandification of D&D.

How non-human races and multiclassing worked is an original Gygaxian design feature, not a mistake. This has its roots in the original "race as class" system in the original B/X rules, and it was significantly expanded in First and Second Editions. Instead of Elves being only fighter/mages, they can be a cleric, fighter, mage, thief, or ranger; and Elves can also multi-class as fighter/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/mage/thief, or mage/thief. So, in BX, they only have one option, whereas in 1E/2E, they have 9 options, 4 of which are compelling multi-class choices.

Non-human racial multiclassing is the expanded BX race-as-class system and is meant to be balanced by racial level limits; otherwise, a multiclass Elf would reach an insane power level. There is something to be said for raising the non-human level limits on single-class choices, but the system defaults to multiclassing for PCs, while more single-class options are available for non-human NPCs.

As for choosing between the First and Second Editions? Start with OSRIC and the First Edition. If you want bards and to lose Half Orcs, assassins, and gold-based XP, go for Second Edition with For Gold & Glory. We stopped playing First Edition, and picked up the Second Edition, and liked it much better because of the "Story XP" as the game's default. The game had moved away from the rampant greed of the original and shifted more toward adventure and storytelling, closer to the novels and tales of heroism.

The tonal shift between First and Second Edition got us back into the game. Yes, this is nearly the same set of rules, but the change in tone was significant and a statement of what the game expected from you as heroes (or villains). Monster XP was dramatically raised, and it told us to "get out there and fight!" All of a sudden, we were no longer avoiding fights or stealing bags of gems; my party was getting into dangerous, thrilling, stand-up fights with dragons and other monsters.

Since "story XP" often equaled (but could not go above) the XP gained from fights, if you were fighting monsters as a part of a goal, story arc, or plot, you essentially doubled your XP by taking missions. Gold was still valuable for trading for magic items, spell research, and other costs, but it was not the driving force behind the game anymore. You could be a lone wanderer, finding magic items, and going around helping towns like Robin Hood, and not have much wealth, and still gain levels like you were wandering around an RPG or MMO.

The effect of this change was dramatic, pulling us back into AD&D.

The game was about storytelling and heroism again.

We ran a Second Edition Forgotten Realms campaign for years, and that was a fun game. The Forgotten Realms died for us with D&D 3E, and Greyhawk and its super-characters had returned. By the time D&D 4E came around, the Forgotten Realms was a zombie corpse ambling around and trying to find its head. We never played a 5E Forgotten Realms campaign, and Baldur's Gate 3 is not the world I knew, nor one I really want to experience, having played the original.

Starting with 3E, the game's focus shifted dramatically from the adventure-oriented storytelling of 2E to hardcore personal power. It has gotten worse and worse over the years, to the point where the sole driving motivation behind D&D these days is individual power, character builds, damage per turn, and character builds designed to cheat the rules.

If you played in the 1E and 2E eras, you know that the game was completely different. And let's not talk about the 2.5E era right before the end of TSR, when they were throwing everything and anything at the game to try to revive the system before the company's bankruptcy, and the insane amount of rules bloat introduced in the Options books.

If you started with 3E, you probably have no clue about the subtle shift between 1E and 2E regarding motivation and the game's tonal focus. You were on board the "character power train" from the start and probably think 5E is the best version ever. Because 5E gives you "the most power."

The game was never about that.

For us, 2E gave us "the most story," and that is what we wanted.

The Case for OSRIC

While Adventures Dark & Deep is voluminous and a massive game, I can see why groups would like to stick with the classic OSRIC system. While the new content and expanded monster list in ADAD are nice, they are not required, and OSRIC provides an open-source version of the classic first-edition rules with no new content. OSRIC 3 is coming soon, and that will be under a much better open license than the deeply flawed OGL.

I can get reprints of AD&D books, sure, but for who knows how long? I can't rely on a Wall Street corporation for anything these days, and while these are lovely keepsakes, they have scanning errors, and the hard copies will likely go away someday and be rented as "digital goods" only on some subscription service. Gary's words are still prophetic, but I can't hold the hobby hostage to them.

The sooner you give up on your AD&D books and support something else for gaming and content creation, the better off the hobby will be. OSRIC was built in an era when we did not have POD reprints of First Edition books, and playing the game was nearly impossible with thrift-store copies. Who knows when we will be back to those days?

And while other First Edition games have expanded content, like a great, bare-bones BX game, nothing beats a focused game that just delivers the basics. In Adventures Dark & Deep, I am supporting all this new stuff; in OSRIC, the game is mine to expand. I could create a "World of Warcraft" or "EverQuest" mod with OSRIC far more easily than with Adventures Dark & Deep, since the latter is a "more stuff" expanded mod to First Edition, and there are times when just the basics are more straightforward as a starting point.

It is far easier to create a modded game off an unmodded core system.

This is also why having a Classic Fantasy version of Old School Essentials was so important. OSE Advanced Fantasy is the same sort of "more stuff" mod to the classic BX core system. Our unmodded core systems are essential; these are like the "Linux core utilities" of the operating system. Sure, you could add all this fluff to the core rules —extra stuff, added classes and races —but the "core utilities" don't need it, and it only makes the base system harder to maintain, modify, and support.

There is wisdom in keeping the core game unmodified, available, and open to all.

This ensures future generations will have a game to modify, play, and make their own someday.

Crafting the Perfect 5E Replacement, Part 16

The more I try to make Open 5E and D&D work for me, the more I find myself saying, "Why bother?"

We had the best edition of the game since its inception. We have plenty of first-edition games out there, too. OSRIC and Adventures Dark and Deep are both excellent. Zero Edition games like Swords & Wizardry are amazing. White-box games are plentiful, and many are printed at cost with free PDFs. Old School Essentials is the king of the B/X market. Even Dungeon Crawl Classics and Castles & Crusades are incredible games, full of fun and potential.

Why do I play 5E? The two significant things that the game brings to the table are subclass abilities and infinite-use attack cantrips. In the end, it doesn't matter since your damage is halved from B/X and first edition games, and your character power goes down the higher level you go. Who cares about fancy baubles you get every level if character power is not preserved?

I would rather have that d8+2 longsword work out until 20th level than have a few dozen subclass abilities and all these tricks to keep my damage contribution high, and monster hit points that scale to piles of hundreds. If I get weaker as I level, none of it matters.

The math is all wrong in 5E.

Pick up Nimble 5e and check the math, along with the average damage per level needed. And then look at the boss monsters with a few hundred hit points. My First Edition fighter scales much better with the old-school linear math.

But the First Edition has the crunch. This game will require you to consider the supplies you can carry and their limitations. You need to prepare for a dungeon session with hardcore prepper levels of detail. This feels like going on a camping trip and realizing that you forgot to take matches or something to start a fire with. Games like Shadowdark and others minimize the "prep," but that level of detail is a part of the game. What you can carry, where you carry it, and how you get it out during an emergency is a part of your "character build."

That gear? Those are character abilities, and the more you carry, the slower you move.

And there will be things you take and leave behind, just so you can haul a few more gold coins out. We no longer need the pole, spikes, and rope; leave them behind so we can get out of here alive.

Too many people see gear as "unfun" and "boring paperwork." Gear is a part of your character build, along with the weight you can haul.

Adventures Dark & Deep is a fantastic version of the First Edition game. There is so much in here that I would never really need much else. I told Grok to generate a few hundred fantasy races for me for every game, world, movie, and fantasy setting I would ever need. They are so simple that it all works. Toss a few level limits on them, and we are good to go. Grok can even make classes for you, and all those prompts are on my ADAD House Rules page.

When I am done worrying about character power and abilities, the world and story become more important. I want to strip away all the noise around fantasy gaming and focus on what is essential. We get so distracted by "builds" and "character power" that we lose sight of the story we are trying to tell.

Plus, if I want a character build game, I have the ultimate one with GURPS over there on the shelf.

Backerkit: OSRIC 3 Last Day!

https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3

Also, this is the last day to back the OSRIC 3 project from Mythmere Games. If you want this, do it now!

BackerKit: OSRIC 3

https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3

A new, non-OGL, easier-to-learn, cleaner, laid-out version of OSRIC? Closer to AD&D than 2.0? Ascending AC options? No AI art?

Made and printed in the USA?

Done by the Swords & Wizardry team?

Sign me up!

The Case for ADAD

Adventures Dark & Deep and OSRIC are mostly the same game.

But why play ADAD? OSRIC has a lot of support, but one of the best things about the OSR, first-edition, and B/X is that the games and numbers are mostly compatible. OSRIC adventures work perfectly with ADAD, so at this point, it is just a system preference.

Do you like the original, basic first-edition game? Play OSRIC.

Do you like a tuned, 1.5 Edition game with more stuff? Play ADAD.

ADAD has the better combat system, streamlined with weapon speed tied into initiative. This is nice, and the game plays more like the original creator wanted. Slower weapons will hit later in the combat round. ADAD also has an expansion skill system for roleplaying and between-session activities, and the skills do not control your turn-by-turn decisions. Anyone can try influencing people, and a referee may rule that a low CHR score is a bonus when trying to scare off others.

Rulings matter.

Not rules.

ADAD has the most stuff: new classes, more monsters, more magic items, and lots of expansion content pulled from magazine articles and forum posts. This keeps with the original Gygaxian intent and expansion wish list but sticks with the first-edition style. We get modernized classes, such as the bard and barbarian. It is hard to argue with more stuff since there is not much hardcover expansion content for first-edition games (outside of monsters).

The only argument against ADAD is wanting a simple game. Starting with OSRIC may be easier if you are new to the first edition. You will have a lot of 5E to unlearn, such as feeling the need to roll for everything. If there is no time pressure or real difficulty, just let the thief climb the wall or pick the lock without a roll! You don't need to make charisma checks for every interaction! Sometimes, hiding in shadows will work 100%, especially if your plan and hiding spot are excellent.

5E gives referees this horribly toxic habit of "using the dice to punish the players" and it sucks. Climbing a wall with a rope and grappling hook in exploration? Sorry, failed the roll! You fall and die! Ha-ha!

What are you doing?

5E also has the toxic concept of "passive skills," which protect players on their phones who ignore what is happening in the game. In the first edition, there is no passive skill for anything. You pay attention, tell the referee where you search, and you can find the scroll hidden under the cabinet without a roll.

90% of the die rolls in a first-edition game should be combat. The rest of the game is mostly "talk it out" and "make plans." You are not rolling dice every minute in a first-edition game session unless you are in combat.

In fact, your character can die without a single die roll in a first-edition game! You see a pit. My character jumps in! Your character dies.

In 5E, that will require 10 minutes of rules reference and probably six to twelve die rolls. Someone will levitate down with a healer's kit and revive you. Other players around the table will say, "Well, what about this rule or that action?" Someone will devise an ingenious plan way after the fact and try to force you into allowing them to attempt it, 30 minutes after everyone heard the thud.

What are you doing?

But you are not being fair by disallowing us to use the rules to retcon what the referee said happened! This game is about you and your choices, not the rules. Power does not come to you in this game by knowing the rules and how to abuse them. Your success or failure will not be decided by that book.

The dice are not toys that are constantly rolled for every action and interaction. You will never see a "game show roulette wheel" pop up with a musical d20 every time your character interacts with people or the environment. This is not a pen-and-paper mobile phone game.

I like what ADAD brings to the table. This game is also nearly identical to OSRIC if you just play with the OSRIC-familiar things. The extra stuff is ultimately optional, but it helps fill out the game to appeal to some of the later additions, such as the bard class. This game also has some of the Creative Commons' familiar 5E material converted to 1E.

The game is also written by a Greyhawk expert, so it feels right at home in classic settings. And since this is first-edition, nobody will become an unkillable GMNPC or immortal player character. People needing to fear the world, monsters, traps, and dungeons is perfect. Even the highest level wizard is not invincible, so high-level player characters must still play smart.

Don't cheat the rules; you will have a world where everyone is at risk and needs to be careful. Even the highest-level Elminster could be killed anytime, blow his resurrection roll, and the world would change. Action does not come without risk. Change will happen. This means a spot for the next hero will open, and that position as the "high magister" will be open for you.

Do not cheat or fudge rolls! This is how we get unkillable, no-fun, super characters! And I loathe the term "fantasy superheroes" as an excuse for poorly designed rules where no risk or danger exists. You don't need a game or rules at that point; just toss dice on a table and say what you want to happen.

Every version of D&D from the 2nd Edition has GMNPCs, and everyone was encouraged to "cheat the system for player fun!" What ended up happening was that players were the ones who were cheated out of the original game's fun. In 5th Edition, you get to play an invincible GMNPC.

You don't want to be an invincible supercharacter. Trust me, it is boring.

I leave those games and return to what I know and love.

ADAD would make a fantastic system to run a Forgotten Realms campaign with a sense of realism and deadly consequences. If you look at the cover of the original boxed set, you will see that the first edition was the setting that it was designed for. This is how we played our original Forgotten Realms setting. Greyhawk was the super-character playground, with a level 100 setting, while the Realms were supposed to be low-magic, realistic, and gritty dark fantasy.

What is the case for ADAD?

You have it all in two books, everything you need for a classic Greyhawk or Realms campaign, before they were spoiled by power gaming, fantasy superheroes, or modern "character build" gaming. You get a good selection of classes, some new, and others people expect. You get the CC-licensed content converted back into first-edition. You get a streamlined combat system that emphasizes weapon speed and initiative. Unlike every modern version of D&D, the game doesn't self-destruct after ten levels.

You can play a first-edition game in a first-edition world.

You can really go back to those days.

The chance to go back in time is a more memorable gift than most books you can buy in gaming.

The Case for OSRIC

The "more" game isn't always the "better" game.

There is a case for sticking with OSRIC and not moving to a "stuff" game like Adventures Dark & Deep.

Over the years, I find "alt classes" - like the bard and others- to weaken a party and dramatically increase the challenge. Some may like that, but the more specialized classes you have, the more players want to explore them, and the balance of the game's core classes gets lots in the shuffle.

It is like someone wanting to be a barbarian but not realizing that they will be taking a lot of damage due to their lack of armor, and then the party's healer will rush to keep up. The balance, power use, healing, and everything else around a party that would be fine with an armored fighter is suddenly thrown out of whack with a barbarian.

The same goes for specialty mages whose damage output does not match a pure magic user. All of a sudden, the specific situation the mage excels in isn't combat, and that damage potential drops, making encounters harder on the party. The same goes for thieves versus bards. In some games, the designers do a good job and ensure the damage is there, but the original first-edition rules got it right with the base classes.

It is the same for specialty healers or special-function divine classes that cannot heal as well as healers. The more specialized the class, the more niche the role, and the less the character can contribute to the party - thus altering the game's balance.

Sometimes, "keeping it simple" makes the game easier for everyone and reduces the workload on new players who ask, " What does that class do?" Shadowdark has only four classes in the book, and the game plays great. Keeping it simple works, and it makes the game better.

If you want to be a bard, simply say your cleric, fighter, thief, or magic user has a musical background as a performer. If this ability may help or be used, roll for it. If you give everyone a free background profession, someone could pick blacksmith, another survivalist, etc. You will get most of the fun and utility of a "skill system" without needing one in your game.

Does someone want a new skill? Sure, 6 months to a year of training in your off-adventure time, and it is yours. That is how it is done in real life; you spend time, apprentice, and attend school. It may cost tuition or money to pay for an apprentice and materials. All the skills "specialist henchmen" have can be taught to you, and there is your "skill list."

Or you could give a free "skill level" like this at every character level, either in a new skill or a +1 in an existing one. This is a first-edition game, mod at will.

You can have "role specialization" within the existing classes just by "saying it is so." Do bards always need "magic songs?" No. A fighter with a bard background sings in battle, and those die rolls during combat trying to weave songs for special effect will be "the player describes what they want to happen" and "the referee rules on it, and may call for a roll or not."

I sing, so the whole party gets a +1 hit and damage!

Okay, you do. No roll needed. No spell is required. You just do.

I sing to calm the owlbear! Okay, roll for that since there is a chance of failing and worsening the situation.

By default, you should not be "rolling for everything" in an old-school game, especially if you have the skill or equipment. It is punitive and player-punishing and minimizes the choices and sacrifices players make. Did you buy a rope and grappling hook, give up part of your backpack to haul it through the dungeon, and wait for your chance to use it?

Why did the referee make you roll to climb when you used it?

You could have climbed that wall without a rope and grappling hook - with a roll.

No roll is needed; you climb the wall because you made a choice, suffered with carrying it around, and used it at an appropriate time. I swear, these bad game designers came around and "skill rolled" every action, no matter the choice or situation, which hurt roleplaying.

No, it is not a +8 because you have excellent equipment. It is "No, you do not need to roll." Think about watching a Conan movie where this guy hauls around a rope and grappling hook for the whole film, and then reaches the moment he can finally use it! He fails his climbing roll, falls off, and dies. I am not watching a Conan film; I am watching a Mel Brooks comedy movie. That is horrible refereeing.

The same thing applies to backgrounds; many actions with them will be automatic. Only roll when the outcome cannot be reasonably assumed or a reasonable chance of failure exists.

That bard background is just as valuable as all others since parties need to survive in the wilderness, repair armor, smith metal, perform diplomacy, know lore, apply non-divine medicine, and all the other skills parties need.

All your fancy "game designer" bard powers are wrapped up in a background choice within the classic first-edition framework, and no extra rules are needed. Any class can be a bard, fighter, thief, magic user, cleric, or paladin.

ADAD vs. OSRIC

OSRIC vs. ADAD?

What is the difference?

Game-engine-wise, there is not that much of a difference. There may be a few things around armor vs. weapon types, initiative, classes, spells, numbers, and other fiddly bits - but the core game engines are the same. 

There is a minor difference in the combat engine being more streamlined in ADAD vs. OSRIC, and I prefer ADAD's streamlined combat which integrates weapon speed much better. The fact weapon speed it directly tired into initiative means the system Gygax wanted us to have (with speed factor) has been implemented in a way that does not seem like a penalty, and it is easy to manage and use. I would use ADAD's combat system with OSRIC, most likely.

The modules work the same, monsters work the same, spells work the same, and they are 99% compatible. Either OSRIC or ADAD is a solid choice.

The significant differences are in options, and the most considerable differences are in the new skill system and the classes available. To begin, OSRIC's class list is as follows:

• Assassin
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Illusionist
• Magic User
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Thief

ADAD has all of those, plus:

• Bard
• Jester
• Skald
• Cavalier
• Blackguard
• Vates
• Mystic
• Barbarian
• Savant
• Acrobat
• Mountebank

The ADAD Darker Path expansions add:

• Witch
• Necromancer
• Demonolater

What sells me on ADAD over OSRIC is having a first-edition bard and barbarian class, plus many more to explore and play with. If you don't need those, keep your life simple and play OSRIC. If you have 5E players wanting more class options and choices, then ADAD is the better game.

ADAD is the "more stuff" game, reflecting the first edition at the end of its lifecycle when it was expanded and fully matured. OSRIC was the game when it started, with just the first three books.

Me? I will go for the "more stuff" since I played AD&D back in the day, and I have campaigns that will use those new classes. The only thing missing is new race selections and more modern designs, but I can create these with Grok 3 and beta them myself.

ADAD typically expands every area it explores, from spells, equipment, strongholds, and weapons—it is all more and expanded. Is "more" better? You need to answer that for yourself.

For those wanting an easier and more streamlined game, playing OSRIC will be the better choice since the options and choices are just the classic selections. Both are on my shelves. ADAD is the apparent "more stuff" game, so it keeps me busy exploring new options. OSRIC will always be my "Old School Essentials" version of the first edition.

ADAD has a skill system where you "pay XP" to get non-combat profession-like skills for your character. This is a more in-depth roleplaying style character improvement than OSRIC. Again, this falls into the "more stuff" theme of the game, and if you don't want that extra system, stick to OSRIC.

There is an OSRIC argument for "keeping it simple" and only focusing on the original first-edition content. From this point, you could expand the game and keep your core experience as streamlined and narrowly focused as possible.

Myself?

Both games are on my shelf, alongside my first-edition books. They all support each other.

ADAD does things the best, for me.

OSRIC is Still my Death Metal Game

Some don't like the Death Metal genre, and some don't. When I listen to that style of music, I listen to a group of musicians trying to cut through "programmed music" or "classic rock" - which can become stale and tired as a genre. And they have to shock you since very little else works to break you out of a repetitive, nostalgia-drugged, almost comatose level of entertainment these days.

And I like parts of the DM genre and a few others that are a bit further from my liking. Some bands I like give me that "gonzo fantasy" feeling I want for some of my games.

I liked Mork Borg since the game was a wake-up call to a stale OSR movement, too concerned with B/X copies and clarifying rules. The game has too many imitators these days, but the entire movement felt like a fresh take on the genre and broke us free of many bad habits. This game was influenced by the DM genre, so gaming is influenced by this heavy metal movement. Mork Borg, DCC, and Shadowdark all have that "evil game" feeling, and they breathe life into a stale gaming scene. Of those three, DCC does seem the most "mainstream" of them all, avoiding a lot of controversial subjects and art. I would put OSRIC on this list, since the game is what you bring to it, and the game doesn't enforce a modern "safe" style of play.

Music does influence the hobby.

To escape from what D&D has become today, I return to some of the musical genres that inspire me—the original games. I found what I loved about the hobby back when I started. There was no death metal back then; it was just classic rock.

Still, I must escape today's corporate identity gaming social media pap.

And classic rock needs a break, too.

We have become over-reliant and diabetic on nostalgia like corn syrup in every food.

Nostalgia is getting sickening.

D&D these days is the worst of corporate entertainment. Focused on a nostalgic cartoon that few even cared about back when we played, that D&D cartoon was more of an embarrassment to the hobby than something we held in high honor. This was censored by parents, the network, and religious groups, could not show any violence, and was just not representative of the game we played. The cartoon was the lead-in for AD&D 2nd Edition, the most censored "mass market" edition ever produced.

The D&D Cartoon captures today's D&D era perfectly. Censored by Wall Street, social groups, and everybody else under the sun, it turned into a game that offends nobody. After this point, the novels drove the game, and I suspect the streaming shows and other entertainment will drive things from this point on until Bankruptcy 2.0 arrives. The censored AD&D 2e was not a success; if it had, the company would not have gone under in the late 1990s. Only the novels drove interest, and I suspect we are entering that corporate lifecycle phase for the IP next. These days, it will be streaming shows for ten years and then burn itself out.

D&D 3.5E also, was not a success, and it was getting crushed by World of Warcraft.

Dealing with modern D&D is dealing with "version death" and the replacement cycle of the game forced on us by the rise of fads and games outside of pen-and-paper gaming. With D&D 5E, the game itself was a fad due to pop-culture, and now we are in the slow decline again. When the numbers sink to a certain point, the new edition will be announced, just like clockwork.

But when I return to an earlier time, I want something that speaks to me.

And taking on a "5E attitude" in the original game will kill you quickly.

Today's games use that cocky smirk permanently etched on the face, an overconfident attitude that screams, "Nobody is better than me!" Then, they sell you a few thousand dollars of books to have their mythical "complete game" as they string you along, one book after the next.

And, of course, nobody dies or has anything bad happen to them because you are supposed to "see yourself in the game" and "nothing bad should happen to you."

Strung along for a buck, constantly.

With all its quirks, OSRIC perfectly captures the early AD&D. I have the original books (and the PoD ones) for inspiration. Still, I support the community version since that is a play where everyone is free and open to publishing. If I play this game, OSRIC is the game, nothing else.

The level limits, the strange modifiers, the incongruent systems of how things work—it is all a love letter to the peculiar, not-mainstream, niche hobby that we loved (before we all quit to play GURPS).

Not AI, my art.

Death Metal also seeks to break through the ordinary and overdone. Where some hear a cluttered mess of screams and guitar thrashing, I can listen to cleanly separated, acoustic, very skilled, and clean parts strung together in a coherent composition. There is an operatic, almost apocalyptic charm to a few artists, like you are listening to something you are not supposed to be hearing, which parallels the concept of "going into a dungeon you are not supposed to be in," ideally.

I see a lot of 5E adventures, and they look like Cartoon Network shows for kids. Talking anthropomorphic animals with giant heads and human expressions, overly colorful paintings, and a look and feel like prepackaged food with 12 cups of sugar per serving. Everyone is happy with a "too cool for school" smirk on their faces. The adventures are not deadly, the enemies aren't evil, everyone is just misunderstood, and if we could only swing unsharpened weapons at each other and fling non-lethal spells, the "town would be happy," and we could get a pile of XP.

OSRIC and first edition characters aren't there to "make the town happy."

They don't get free "quest XP" for some objective that feels more like behavioral modification enforced by the game master than a real reward.

They are also not there for "nostalgia."

Evil isn't a "misunderstood, well-meaning person."

Adventurers were greedy souls, many of whom paid the ultimate price for that sin.

I will go back to the music again here and note in a lot of it that the world is doomed, and the souls within are just waiting in line for punishment. First-edition gaming had this feeling the progression of characters toward their ultimate forms was a loss of humanity, idealism, and heroism.

AD&D 2nd Edition formalized the notion of "quest XP," which took away all the old-school charm. If you make the module writer and game master happy, you could be rewarded for progression by "moving the story along correctly" and by the "censor-approved outcomes." Often, these were tied to the "novel modules," and if "you ended the chapter how the novel ended," you got the XP and were rewarded for "playing along as intended."

I love how organized and cleanly put together you are, AD&D 2nd Edition, but you have no soul.

Pass.

D&D 3.5E is the only thing worth mentioning after this point, and this is the authentic version of "Wizards D&D." It is not Pathfinder 1e, though; that was a completely different game.

D&D 5E is so far down the road and embracing the modern censors and Wall Street and Hollywood mentality that it isn't even D&D anymore. The characters are "me, myself, and I" drop-ins, where you "see yourself" in "classic dungeons." The "whoa!" sound effect plays, and you can feel the cringe. It is the worst mobile game marketing these days: expensive art, flashy graphics, and no gameplay or heart.

2025 D&D is "Influencer D&D," and it has no soul.

It's not AI; it is my art. Pick up a pencil or brush.

The newer genres of music, incredibly hardcore and "wake me up" genres, appeal to me like OSRIC does. The edge and brutality remind me of the better days in gaming before the corporations took over and lobotomized the experience. Level limits, the harsh nature of the environment, save-or-die, and all the strange combinations of races and classes you need to discover are a part of the "simulation" you need to find and experience.

Entering the rules is like entering a labyrinth.

And you can't expect your humor, witty remarks, or cosplay ability will help you survive. Nor can you fall back on rules that won't let your character die, or mechanics that reward you for failure. Failing forward in this game means falling into a 30-foot deep poisoned pit of spikes full of snakes.

Playing OSRIC isn't nostalgia. It is a challenging game to play and survive. It isn't an easy mode. But it is the first and best version of the game ever imagined. Characters can and will die. Unlike 5E, it is not you, so it is okay.

Even though I have all these fantastic old-school games, OSRIC still holds a place on my shelf.

OSRIC vs. DCC

Dungeon Crawl Classics is an all-time classic and an A-tier game for me. I love the emergent gameplay and iconic classes. It is a modded 3.5E-style game and, for me, a drop-in replacement for all of D&D 3.5E that does away with all the overpowered builds of that game but retains the over-the-top outcomes.

The game was created as a reaction to the hobby's drift away from Appendix N sources and seeks to model an experience based on those books. It is a reaction to Wizard's mainstreaming of D&D from version three to today. The hobby has gotten so used to superheroes as a fantasy that we forget what made the hobby strange and extraordinary.

OSRIC is the best version of first-edition gaming. It includes all the strange and arcane limitations, ability score requirements, level limits, low ability score modifiers, and that "flat and dry" feeling that old-school games need. Too many games these days are "pander and gimme" games, where they give everyone ability score modifiers; things are far too simple, and you are given everything and expect even more.

In this game, your ranger's to-hit is what it is, you have no hit or damage modifier, and your AC is okay. Then, you decide if you want to open that next door. You don't get "free XP" for quest completion; killing monsters is a secondary source, and gold is the primary. If a referee wants to give out "quest XP" for destroying an abandoned fort housing orcs, the referee should say, "A nearby town puts an 8,000gp bounty on the destruction of the fort and all inside." When the deed is done, the town pays up, and the party splits it and anything they found inside as their reward and experience.

There are your "quest XP."

What do you spend money on? You can't buy magic items, but you can purchase retainers and upgrade fortifications. The only weak part of OSRIC is the stronghold rules, but there are so many games (and 3rd party books) that cover this, and you can always borrow one you like. The Into the Wild Omnibus has a sound system for domain management with costs, and this works well. Also, training for the next level costs gold; you must find a trainer or work this out with the referee.

Going back to DCC, I love this game for all the crazy stuff that happens, but a part of me wonders, "How did we get here?" We got here because a generation of gamers forgot what the first edition was all about. In first-edition games, if something strange was on the wall of a dungeon, nobody knew what it was unless they pushed, prodded, examined, and used a few spells to figure it out. Nobody knew all the monsters, and the referee was free to reskin and add abilities to the existing ones, creating entirely new monsters for their games.

You could not rely on rules, books, bestiaries, spell lists, or anything else as "reliable information."

Everything can be changed. This is rule zero.

Today's games rely on rules on certainty, fairness, sound options, and predictable character builds. Everyone, even the referee, should follow the rules. DCC comes along and tells you, "You can do this!" It gives you charts with hundreds of silly and unexpected results.

In OSRIC, it doesn't even need to be said. The game is not whacky and crazy, nor over the top or insanely silly. It can be played seriously or over the top; there are no rules for this, nor are there table results telling you, "You can!" This is greater freedom than DCC, as you are not opening a book and finding a table result to justify your creative urges. I love DCC since it opens my mind, but my mind opens far broader than that.

It happens if something happens to a character that gives them a permanent adjustment. I don't need a chart, table result, or something in the game which allows me to. This happens in DCC, but in OSRIC, it isn't said, so it is the rule.

AD&D 2nd Edition started the slide, and D&D 3.0 accelerated the decline. We are lost in a sea of rules, rulings, and books telling us what we can or cannot do. Gaming has been destroyed by overruling and printing books for every subject and topic and turning them into mini-games inside the structures of more significant games.

DCC is both remarkable and utterly unnecessary. While excellent and mind-opening, the tables and charts can ultimately limit your imagination. Those tables and graphs are only needed because we lost our way and need rules to return to what we once had.

To be fair, DCC says you can do away with everything. Any result can be substituted for "one more fun." DCC is still one of my best games, and the dice alone are incredible.

Still, I remember the old days. We never needed any of this.

Also, the modern concept of "Quest XP" puts the referee in an unwanted role of "XP welfare" for "good deeds" when the original games did not have the concept of rewarding anyone for the referee or module writer's "pet stories." This began in AD&D 2nd Edition to support the fiction, and it was a corporate move to mainstream the game. In the first edition, the referee could award XP for anything, but the main driving force of advancement was written into the rules one way for a reason.

Where did characters get XP from?

Gold and defeating monsters.

Whose stories are we playing?

The players.

"Quest XP" is the behavioral modification and control of player actions. It tells players, "You will not advance in the game unless you jump through the hoops presented to you by the referee or module writer." In the first edition, you only advanced by killing and taking the loot. Your stories, and the stories of others, were backdrops and motivation, but no rewards were tied to them.

The first edition got it 100% right. This is where the slide and decline began, and how we got to today, when the entire game is presented as a behavioral modification.

DCC gives you the tools to break free.

OSRIC is where you escape to.

OSRIC & D&D 3.5E

If you want to play the best version of D&D, I recommend the first-edition AD&D. I use the OSRIC index as a guide and to simplify the rules, much like the OSE books do. If there is something outside these books, the original three books can fill in the missing spots, but I do not miss them.

Also, the first edition is the best-balanced version of the rules. You are not getting all the bells and whistles of the Wizards' implementations, but you do not need them. This is the game Gary Gygax designed, poured his heart into, and perfected. OSRIC has all the patches, clarifications, and fixes. A few parts were eliminated (bards, psionics, monks), but these were for the better.

Also, with OSRIC, I get to play the OSRIC+ game incorporating the BRW Games books. The old ADAD game was terrific, and it is nice that we still have the "added parts" in these books to enjoy and expand our game. You can find the bard in this book; it is a better version.

I don't recommend AD&D 2nd Edition. This is TSR forcing Gary out and bending the knee to the Satanic Panic. It feels like a censored game without the epic battle between gods and demons. It is much more slick and polished, but I feel it loses its heart and soul. If you love this, great, but it feels like so much is lost here. Even though they brought the renamed demons back later, the game embraces escapism rather than feeling like a test of a player's humanity and morals.

I like OSRIC and the BRW books the best. AD&D 2nd is up there (and a worthy choice), but it can never top the original experience of the late seventies to late eighties. The original rules have a raw, primal, gritty feeling, and Gary's writing makes the experience magical, almost spiritual.

OSRIC for the rules.

Original AD&D books for inspirational reading.

Gary's words will inspire you to play something greater than yourself.

The best version of "Wizards D&D" is D&D 3.5E, without Pathfinder 1e's improvements. Staying true keeps Hero Lab compatibility, and it keeps prestige classes as the focus of the game. This version has massive problems; there are broken builds all over the place, cheese tactics, and a considerable margin between optimized and unoptimized characters. Minions can ruin the game. Casters rapidly outpace martial classes. Skill modifiers can become outrageous.

But this is the best of the West Coast designs. Granted, Wizards can never design a game that works past level ten, but having Monte Cook and other legendary designers doing the game design here more than makes up for the MtG-inspired mess that Wizards brings into the fold.

I am not considering Pathfinder 1e since it is a tonal shift away from the D&D design ethos. Pathfinder 1e is more of a game built for adventure paths, and it has a strong Golarion focus and feeling. With D&D 3.5E, campaign sourcebooks, and prestige classes are built for these worlds. If you are playing in Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, play the game supported by the sourcebooks. D&D 3.5E skills feel more "dungeon-focused" than Pathfinder 1e's generic skill list.

D&D 3.5E beats 5E, hands down. The builds are better, the rules are old-school, and the prestige classes give us things to work toward. It is more complicated, but not by much, considering the slog D&D 5E's high-level combat has devolved into, with all the multiple action types, double-casts, resting rules, and general interconnected mess of relationships and rules interrupts.

D&D 3.5E feels more straightforward to play than 5E. So what do we lose, "advantage and disadvantage?" Are we back to modifiers? So? No significant loss, and the A/D system feels so overused these days that it gets tiring. The A/D system is also a hammer for all problems when it is too blunt, a tool that lacks nuance and ways to finesse and modify a roll.

Both of these games are my "peak D&D."

Grimdark Pathfinder 2: Rules

I want a darker, more horror-infused game full of suspicion and hard times.

Pathfinder 2E defaults to a lighthearted world mood, sort of an "everyone gets along" neutral-positive setting where no controversial subjects exist, everyone gets along, there is universal acceptance for every point of view, and controversy and conflict - in the setting - are written out of the rules. This broadens the game's age range, so eliminating many of these topics extends the game's range and longevity.

I get it; the game is a neutral base, blank sheets of paper that make no assumptions about your world. The Remaster books are much better setting-neutral rulebooks with the OGL stripped out and binned. If you don't like the presentation of a particular Remaster monster, reskin and rename it. Designing new monsters is easy, so we are back in D&D 4E, where groups were expected to develop their own monsters and build encounters that way.

And I am done with 5E; the more dungeon-focused games of 3.5E and the better experience of Pathfinder 2E are where my tactical dungeon gaming is these days. If it isn't that, then the first-edition rules speak to me the most. Also, I have tried setting-neutral 5E, and once you start mixing in 3rd-party content, things start to break down since every book attempts to rewrite the core rules to make setting-specific ideas work with the rules. Setting-neutral 5E seems to gravitate back towards "Wizards reality," and I can't get that feeling out of the game.

I am coming to see the OGL and SRD as chains, not expressions of my imagination.

Ideas and concepts that come from outside the tabletop gaming community are superior. Too often, we endlessly recycle the same dog food of "things in old games" and convert it to new rules, never ask questions, and endlessly repeat the past. When I saw the work the Paizo team did in the Monster Core Remaster book by "doing their own thing" with the monsters they supposedly "lost," I was shocked.

Then new stuff is ten times better since the team actively put their imagination into rebuilding these and, in many cases, went back to the original lore and made something more faithful to the myths and legends than a 50-year-old SRD hand-me-down.

If we enshrine the past too much, it becomes a tomb of dreams and ideas that we end up living inside.

This is the "rot" that lives within the hobby. Gygax and his team pulled ideas from "outside roleplaying" to make the first edition D&D game. The entire "Appendix N" thing comes into the discussion here. When those ideas first went in, they were new—fresh from outside sources.

Every edition of D&D past AD&D was a rewrite that included the previous edition without adding too much new. As we enter the "nostalgia era" of D&D, where they endlessly recycle a cartoon and mass-market strategy that nearly bankrupted the company in the 1980s, we get more of the same. The same 50-year-old ideas are recycled, and nothing fresh is pulled in. The game becomes a buffet of artificial and recycled foods. Nothing fresh. Nothing new. Nostalgia is recycled and repackaged. The 50-year-old mutant ideas, once the "original source derived," are seen as more authentic to the myth than the original myths themselves.

You can reprocess food so much that it turns into poison.

I am trying to fund this mythical Pathfinder 2 Grimdark game, but I must reflect deeply on my inspirations and sources. Once upon a time, I saw other horror games as inspirations. Now, I know those are false sources. They are a few times removed from the original sources of horror, fear, suspicion, and the darkness inside the human spirit.

These games also need to be stripped of their whitewashing and happy-game narrative style. As for the guardrails and safety tools, I don't need them, and they will get in the way.

This is why I like the first edition and OSRIC; they are one level removed from the original inspirations, and Appendix N is in there, so I can go back to those works and "find them for myself." Every future edition tried to hide these and present these "nostalgia pass-downs" as the original IP. Appendix N is the Rosetta Stone, so I can look those things up and find what they mean to me.

I love Dungeon Crawl Classics, but that, again, is Appendix N written through someone else's eyes when it is always better to return to the source and find meaning for yourself. My ideas, pulled from an original source and translated into any game of my choice, are always superior to a game trying to translate them for me. Or worse, going back to the SRD, which has ideas passed through hundreds of designers and now an unrecognizable blob of numbers and text that maybe has "the flavor" of the original idea but no soul and nothing else.

But Grimdark Pathfinder 2 is more than Appendix N. That is just an example and a warning to not rely on sources inside the hobby too much, to lean on nostalgia, and to ignore the truth you can only find in reading an original source and creating new ideas through that synthesis.

The goal of today's entertainment companies is to strip your imagination away, deeply plant the seeds of nostalgia, turn the past into golden calf idols, and instill a culture of dependency on them as the primary source for your imagination. D&D 5.5, with its booze-like nostalgia-infused imagery, pours those feelings down your throat and shamelessly recycles your memories into reprocessed factory food.

Parts of the OSR are just as tied to nostalgia, so this isn't just a Wall Street thing. It is a more profound idea that we don't question or submit to without thinking. Yes, I love my nostalgia, too, but I understand how it can turn into a diet of the past and never think about the future—or even the things inside myself.

Seeing OGL-free games breaks the chains in my mind.

New myths and legends exist.

You can pull in ideas from original sources, run them through your mind a few times, and create something more meaningful to your truths and feelings than this endless stream of nostalgic drool.

OSRIC Hack

Use OSRIC for this game.

You start off in a loincloth in a ten-by-ten cell.

The cell door is locked.

You have whatever your level one class gives you.

You figure out how you escape.

Start this game solo or with a group of four level-one characters per player.

Outside the door is a random dungeon. Use your Oracle dice to determine if you find anything needed or helpful in each room, especially light sources, usable armor pieces, weapons, food, water, and other supplies needed to live. Every hall, passage, door, room, and chamber are randomly generated.

Number of monsters encountered? Be realistic; it will usually be one to the party size, rolled randomly.

Remember, wandering monsters are one in six every three turns.

Resting? Your cell is safe, given that the door is still intact and nobody suspects anything. Something comes by every day to drop off gruel. Play it by ear. Or there is no resting.

Roll the dungeon randomly using the charts in OSRIC, or better yet, use the Book of Lost Tables since this creates dungeons too, and can do random hex-crawls and settlements, which we will need later.

Also of use is the Book of Lost Lore, and Table 147 is the monster reaction table - so every encounter may not be a fight. Perhaps some of those creatures are locked down here with you. They may help you escape. They could also pretend to be your friend and turn on you at any moment or when it doesn't look good. This book also has tables for random gear, sundries, armor pieces, weapons, and other items.

Stairs have a 50-50 chance of being an exit.

Once you leave, go to the Book of Lost Tables and begin your hex crawl. Hopefully, you will find a settlement. Roll a random alignment, race, and size using the tables in the Lost Tables book. Use "roll under" d20 ability score rolls to make survival rolls, and don't forget the skill system in Book of Lost Lore, but those will cost you XP. This book also has survival skills and hunting rules.

Give every character a skill pick as a background or former profession if this part is too lethal, or be generous with achievement XP when significant milestones are hit; escaping the dungeon should be a substantial reward if you go this route. Building a shelter, finding food and water, and other "firsts" should be rewarded. Perhaps give XP for each hex explored and uncovered. 100 XP every day they survive.

If your character dies, start again. In the same dungeon somewhere, perhaps in a new one.

Ignore OSRIC's training and level-up rules; in this school of survival and hard knocks, you level up on the spot or use the cost as a debt later when civilization is found, needed to fill in gaps and brush up on training before any further progression can happen.

Hopefully, you will haul enough loot to civilization to rent or buy a house and establish a home base. You may find friendly NPCs or hire retainers. Once you have a home, the game opens up, and you may have to return and fight for it as you explore the world. Let the Oracle dice decide.

Then, you can build your kingdoms and legends from there.

OSRIC and the Soul of First Edition

I liked the lower ability score modifiers of Swords & Wizardry, and OSRIC is more of the same. Most characters won't have modifiers to to-hot or damage, AC, or many other freebies that many modern games, and a fair proportion of OSR games, freely hand out. I also enjoy level limits and high ability score requirements for classes.

In Swords & Wizardry, there are no ability score requirements for being a paladin; alignment must be lawful, though a STR 13 or higher gives you an XP bonus. Anyone can be a paladin, just like in 5E. I love S&W; it is another A-Tier game with the softness and accessibility that many modern games have. I get why the game has to sell and deliver on player fantasy, but this puts it more in the mainstream genre than an OSRIC.

In OSRIC, you must have minimum ability scores: STR 12, DEX 6, CON 9, INT 9, WIS 13, and CHR 17 to be a paladin. You must be lawful good. With a 3d6 generation method, that charisma requirement will mean 11% of characters will qualify for this at a minimum since that 17 is a 1.85% chance to roll, assuming you can place scores where you want. Rolled straight, this drops to less than 1.85% of characters.

AD&D 2nd Edition was similar: STR 12, CON 9, WIS 13, and CHR 17.

Swords & Wizardry is a great game; it is easier on requirements and accessible while still delivering the old-school feeling. Something feels missing, though.

By the time we get D&D 3.5E from Wizards, a paladin is just a WIS requirement of 11 to cast spells and 14 to get the highest spells. Anyone can be a paladin. Wizards D&D ceases to be D&D at this point. It may have all the same pieces, but the soul is missing.

How does letting everyone be everything make a game lose its soul?

So, can only one percent of characters created be paladins? Yes. If you manage to roll one, it will be memorable, a highlight of your experience with that campaign. Being a paladin in OSRIC automatically means more than being one in S&W or 5E. You pulled a golden ticket. You get to play one; even if that wasn't your original idea, you now have that choice.

As a result, there are very few paladins in the world. If people see one, they may be in awe of this rare person walking among them. You are guaranteed to attract attention, good or bad.

In OSRIC, the answer to the question, "Shouldn't everyone be entitled to play the character they want?" is no.

You will never understand old-school gaming if you don't understand why that fact exists.

You will also be blissfully unaware of what modern gaming has become.

This isn't gatekeeping, exclusionary, or for any other negative social reason. It used to be only the top 1% of applicants get into a prestigious university, and this sets you up for life - given you use what you have been given and make good choices. Old school games simulate this too; it is a part of life for your average Midwestern kid, growing up, and knowing most of them will never make it to the pinnacle of the prestige classes or get into the best schools.

But there are other ways to make it, given what you have, hard work, determination, and smarts.

You accept inequality exists.

The measure of your success in life is finding the other way around.

This isn't a game about letting everyone be anything they want. This is a game about dealing with the hand you are dealt. The former is childish escapism, while the latter is life.

You may never be a level 24 paladin, but you can be a level 24 fighter or thief. You can impact the world just as much, or even more, without being born into privilege or raw talent. That paladin who rolled well may get there, too. Or they may fail along the way, sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and become a legend.

Having a guaranteed 18, no score lower than a 14, any class you want, any race you imagine, free player housing safe spaces the referee can't touch, and being given success on a platter with zero fear of death and failure is a game I don't want to play. It is a game that teaches you nothing about adversity and the difficulty of life.

And also, if you are paying attention, this is another huge difference between old-school and modern gaming.

Old-school gaming wasn't escapist entertainment.

It was preparation and training for how to live a meaningful life, get ahead, and survive hardships, given whatever you started out with.

This is also why religion used to hate D&D; it replaced them as values and morals teachers. D&D, in the old days, when it was hardcore old-school, was a religion. Demons and devils tempted your soul. Lucifer was there. Orcus's minions ravaged the land. The succubus was there. Greed, stealing from the innocent, and being evil were options. You couldn't be a half-demon "Tiefling" with Satan's blood in your veins, a vampire who feasts on blood, and say you are just "misunderstood."

You were asked, "What would you do?" and you had to answer in front of people you knew.

When D&D went "escapist," religion quieted down pretty quickly.