Labyrinth Lord and Old School Essentials

In the B/X world, the answer to the question, "Which game is the best?" is almost always, "yes." There is another joke along the lines of every referee having their own handwritten and house-ruled B/X game and nobody is playing the same one, so the answer of which B/X game is the best becomes, "Of course, mine."

That said, I don't feel there are "edition wars" in B/X, this is more of a Linux/Unix crowd where most all distributions of the game-slash-operating system can mostly live in peace beside each other, and all the programs people use either work or can be quickly recompiled from source to be compatible. You use a distribution or play a game because of personal preference, and you can quickly switch to another because there isn't all that much to relearn.

I had this article tilted "versus" but I changed it to "and" instead, because I feel the word versus would be click-bait and I feel incompatible with the spirit of the B/X community. Why be fighting when we could be playing? Or writing your own version of the B/X and playing that?

That said, we are close to Old School Essentials: Advanced Fantasy coming out and I can not wait for that to arrive. I am getting a feeling a lot of what is in Labyrinth Lord will be added, and from some of the early releases there is also a good amount of new content in the B/X world (druids, paladins, bards, assassins, and more) that is not (or very different) in Labyrinth Lord so the experiences are diverging.

This is an exciting time for these two rules sets since I feel the future directions of each game are being forged.

Still a Place for LL?

Is there still a place for Labyrinth Lord? There is a part of me that likes this game as a classic heavy metal album from the 1980's. The presence of demons and devils adds to that feeling, and I am eager to see if OSE includes them or does a take on the infernal side of the monster population. This was a huge issue when we transitioned from AD&D to AD&D 2nd Edition back in the day, the demons and devils were gone because of a media-fueled panic. A tribe of vile orcs went from being wicked demon-worshipers to the more politically-correct "followers of an evil god."

And I feel this sort of sterilization has stuck with the the versions of D&D as the years passed by. Of course, the evil gods of D&D were "product identity" and thus they needed to be elevated in status over the more generic demons and devils, because copyrighted content and these unique characters became a way to sell the game. After a while D&D's evil gods and forces felt like comic-book characters and they felt hard to take seriously. Yes, rules wise they were very difficult to defeat, but Tiamat coming back again and again felt played out. By the end of 4th Edition we were tired of the D&D cosmology of evil.

Labyrinth Lord embraces the evil, especially the generic type espoused by demons and devils, and places the force of darkness on a pedestal and dares players to topple it over - which they often do. That is fun. That is "metal" and I love that feeling where the game comes with everything, even the bad parts, and turns the forces of good loose like paladins riding armored holy bulls in a china shop of evil.

OSE is a beautiful, tight, streamlined game - and yes I could just port the demons and other evil creatures into that and have it all. But I am looking forward to seeing OSE's take on the infernal forces. Because OS Essentials is strictly B/X without the AD&D influence, the evil side the latter brought to the game table is sorely missing. Considering how important demons and devils are to the history and perception of the game, allowing players to literally fight the forces of Hell, I feel having these monsters as bad guys is critical to getting the feeling of the B/X retro-gaming right.

This is my perception, mind you, I lived through these times and remember screaming at the TV show Donahue when they equated the AD&D Dungeon Master's guide to a satanic bible. "It is not that way! TV is so stupid! God, Mom, why are they so stupid!"

Of course the first copy of D&D we ever bought was being sold from a Christian book store. We bought both Basic and Expert there and loved the game, along with the shop's owners. I guess they used the game to teach values, and they were kind of ex-hippies anyways so it was all cool.

Is OSE too Concise?

Now as a point of comparison, here is the Labyrinth Lord description of the Lizard Folk:

These scaly humanoids resemble humans but have the heads and tails of lizards. They delight in feasting upon the flesh of other humanoids. They employ any kind of weapon, but prefer spears, tridents, and clubs. Their immense strength grants them a +1 bonus to damage. They often venture into labyrinths, especially if there is an aquatic entrance. They are otherwise found to dwell in marshes and along the banks of bodies of water.

And the Old School Essentials description of the same monster:

Semi-intelligent, tribal, aquatic humanoids with reptilian heads and tails. Often encountered in swamps and dungeons, or along rivers and coastlines.

The Labyrinth Lord Hobgoblin:

Hobgoblins are larger cousins of goblins. Hobgoblins’ hair color ranges from dark reddish-brown to dark gray. They have dark orange or red-orange skin. Hobgoblins’ eyes are yellowish or dark brown, while their teeth are yellow. Their garments tend to be brightly colored, often blood red with black-dyed leather. Their weaponry is kept polished and in good repair. Hobgoblins tend to reside below ground, but often live or venture to the surface, and suffer no penalties to daylight like their smaller cousins.

A hobgoblin king is an exceptional hobgoblin, with 22 hp and he attacks like a monster of 5 HD. All damage dealt receives a bonus of +2. A hobgoblin king is always accompanied by a loyal bodyguard, totaling 1d4 individuals. The bodyguards each have 3d6 hit points, and attack as monsters with 4 HD. All hobgoblins in the presence of the hobgoblin king have a morale score of 10.

And the Old School Essentials Hobgoblin:

Larger and nastier relatives of goblins. Dwell underground, but commonly seek prey above ground.

Now the computer coder in me loves OSE's tight, clean formats. The book is a superior reference guide. But there are other times I like the color and flavor text in Labyrinth Lord, and I can see new players coming into the game being helped by some of the longer, more colorful descriptions of things in the game than a tighter and more concise presentation.

Granted, a lot of the Labyrinth Lord text is fluff and it could be cleaned up to say more with less. The hobgoblin king is a bit over the top. There are some things we really don't need to know. But some of the notes, like the weapon preference for lizard folk, that is good information. If the players come upon the site of an ambush and find spears and tridents? And they are near the water? Yeah, that is some really useful detail, and that sort of information makes the game easier to play and a lot more interesting - especially for new players.

The OSE books can at times feel like one of those "Pocket C++ Reference" guides I have lying around the house. I feel the art does a lot of the talking in OSE to provide flavor and inspiration, but there are other times I just want to read, slow down, and be inspired by longer passages which excite my imagination. This is my only real reservation about recommending OSE to new players, that it may be a better resource for veterans who are used to the material and it speeds through a lot of the detail that makes the world come alive (for me, at least).

For experienced players who have seen enough fluff in tabletop RPGs to last several lifetimes? Yes, even I love how tight the Old School Essentials books are put together. When I read them I get a gut reaction like, "Thank you for not wasting my time!" I can find what I need in seconds.

But I do like to read and be inspired by the words. Will Old School Advanced Fantasy's demons and devils (when they are in the game) live up to the hype with abbreviated monster descriptions? Without other books will they be useful and playable on their own?

Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, as OSE is more of a reference work. But it is being played like a game, so noting the flavor text is lacking I feel is a fair point if you are saying, "Pick one and not the other" or to recommend to new players. But remember, this is B/X, have both, read the flavor text you want, and use the stats from the the book you prefer using.

Use Both!

The obvious answer is use the best of both. There are some things I am really loving about OS Advanced, like the new classes. I love the clean presentation of OS Basic. There is a lot I like about Labyrinth Lord, the flavor text and unique mix of all the classic sources.

So the obvious answer is honestly to use both. Pick a "reference" system, like tell your group Old School Essentials (Classic or Advanced) will be the way things work in this game. Then, as a referee pull out everything you like from all of the B/X sources you collected over the years. Labyrinth Lord's demons and monster lists? Fine, they work with just a few changes (and not every orc or goblin is the same in every world or every part of the world so even minor stat changes between games are okay).

This way you have a fast core game and whatever flavor you want pulled in from the sources you have grown to love. Again, the more you treat B/X like Unix/Linux the better off you are because the best of everything becomes an option.

Or use more than two systems! Most any B/X game works together well. It is a fun world to play in because it is very hard to make a bad choice when buying something. This is a huge problem with games like D&D and Pathfinder, previous versions are incompatible with the newest one, and they do that honestly to sell books. My three shelves of Pathfinder 1e books these days have more worth as reference for the OGL content contained within them so I can convert that to B/X rules. D&D post 4E is more difficult with B/X due to the abundance of non-OGL content, product identity, and the shifting licenses used.

Which game is best? The one you love. It is just in B/X it is way easier to make the games you love work together better.

Simplicity Encourages Imagination

I found a good video today by a fun channel. At 5:36 Sebastian says:

I feel the minimalistic nature of the old basic D&D rules nurtures creativity in both the players and the GM.

He goes on to elaborate not having character classes and races for every possible option, and not having rules for everything. The reference time for simplistic rules is reduced and making a die roll and ruling from ability scores is the way things are done. Watch the video and subscribe!

This statement brings up some thoughts.

In some games, your mage sees an ancient rune from a long lost empire of mages. The GM goes into quiz mode, "Does your character have the correct ancient cultures lore skill?" The answer is usually no. The players then feel they weren't told the information they needed during character creation, so they get blindsided.

In an OSR game, the question goes from, "Did the player screw up their 4-hour character design session?" to, "How should we handle this using what we have?' Let's use our imagination. Could the character know this? Well, if the character was a magic user, possibly yes. If the character came from a region once conquered by this empire, possibly yes again. We are using our imagination to make a ruling! Then, we do the same sort of thing to determine difficulty, pick an ability score, in this case INT, and d20 roll equal or under, modified, degree of success determines the information given.

Maybe the information given is colored by the experiences of the characters. The mage may get more cold, historical information, while the character with the once-subjugated culture may have information colored by the brutality of the regime.

We didn't need a book telling us this. We did not need to reference dozens of books, such as an Ultimate Backgrounds style book to see if we had the "recall specific historical details" feat. I kid with this example, but once you start down the ultra-detailed game design road, there is no stopping with how specific and minute in detail you can go while holding the book up and selling it as "even more options!"

In that case, more options really means more reference time, more limitations, and guaranteeing the player who bought Ultimate Backgrounds at my game table will use it to argue with another player at my table who didn't buy the book and wants his character to remember a specific historical detail without the feat. We will stop the game for 30 minutes to reference the book, try and please both sides, and come up with a ruling that makes nobody happy.

Back to B/X with another type of check. Does the party fall into raging rapids and need to make swimming checks to avoid being pulled under? STR check modified by the armor worn and weight of gear carried. Seems reasonable. Want to ditch the armor in the rapids? DEX check modified by how tough the armor is to remove. Need to keep treading water for a long time, or survive in cold water? CON check, modified by the same.

Done. We used our imagination to make those rulings, often the GM came up with the rule out in the open and the players agreed with the ruling - a communal ruling that involves players - and the ability score, modifiers, and consequences were agreed upon by all before the dice were rolled.

Perhaps a player came up with a better way to handle the check or ruling, and everyone agrees. Maybe one player comes up with a cool helpful suggestion for another player to get a bonus to a roll with a clever course of action. Maybe another says, ""But if you fail there should be a chance of this happening..."

The game becomes less about the GM and the game's designers, and more about the players and the group's shared interpretation of how to handle a situation. The rules, and making the rulings, are a part of playing the game, and constantly change depending on the group, adventure, players, and situation.

The rules and how different events should be handled should be made up on the spot for most situations in the game using creativity and the group coming up with a  fair ruling. In OSR, these creativity-based non-rules are the rules. It is a form of negative space game design that purposely leaves a lot up to the group, and thus the group is encouraged to use their imagination and fill the rest of the story - and even the rules - in themselves.

"Builds"

If you play enough MMOs you learn a couple things about character builds:

They are never really balanced.

They typically ship broken.

They get stale.

Successful MMOs follow an evergreen model for character builds, and things constantly change to maintain interest, and the changes create interest in playing the game. The style of play typically remains the same, this is the tank, this is the healer, this is the damage person, but the "of the moment" style of play and the power rotations (tailored for specific encounter types) never really stays the same.

Now, in B/X games, you typically only have one "build" - which is the class, which is why these things get play tested and worked over, and B/X tends to stick with what worked before and the character class is a tried and true thing that remains similar no matter what game you play: Old School Essentials, Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and so on.

B/X builds are classes.

In the games derived from the D&D 3, 4, and 5 lineage, including Pathfinder, you start to notice some of the MMO character build tropes work their way into the game. You pick a class - but you are not done. You pick feats and special class features. You make choices every level to tweak your class. You get more feats. Your powers morph and change, and you are expected to know which choice is the best. Well, you could go to the Internet and copy someone else's build to min-max, and that is what happens in many cases too. The "best build" in many cases becomes a community choice, spread through online forums, and to be a good player you are expected to make the same choices and conform.

Why would you pick less-optimal choices?

Well, yes, roleplaying considerations, but don't you want to be a good player and the best at what you do? You see this in MMOs, you pick a class and power set that the current player base thinks "sucks" and good luck convincing anyone that you should be in their group. The world of pen-and-paper is a lot different, but there are times in my games I saw players walk into the game with a printout in hand and copied a forum build choice for choice and pretend they came up with the magic combination.

Trouble is, I read the same forums and pointed that broken build right out. Some players are fans of a game because they know how it is broken and can exploit the imbalance, I can't blame them - they want to do good and look good in front of others - but somehow I feel using the rules to your advantage isn't the way. We all use the rules to our advantage, that is life; but if that is the main reason you play a game, I feel something is missing.

There are times I want the rules out of the way and the players and story to shine through.

Many games ship in a broken state, and pen-and-paper games are no exception. I remember our run closely following D&D 4, and then getting errata for each of the dozens of books in that game weeks after the books release, having the online tools updated, and the book quickly became worthless except to record the broken state the game shipped in. You could still just play "by the book" but the game thrived on overwhelming you with choices, and the best and most broken choice was always quickly found by the community, abused in store play, and quickly nerfed in the errata.

Pathfinder did a better job by playtesting the heck out of their rules, which is why I was a fan of that game. Still, they had issues, and the D&D 3 model combined with the dozens of books approach made the game unwieldy and unplayable for us. They were fun to collect, but not to play.

The stale feeling is also interesting, because one could say that B/X never changes so is thus the most stale. At least with a new edition of a D&D or Pathfinder, things change up and the evergreen model applies. There are new things to learn. There is excitement. This is true, and this also appeals to a certain type of player. But there is also something to sticking with what works and focusing on the story, and not the character build and mechanics. Part of me loves B/X because really, anything I buy is mostly compatible with each other, every game plays the same with a couple small tweaks, and I can be a part of B/X communities and online discussion by really talking about any of the games.

B/X is like the Unix of RPGs. Boring, not slick and glamorous, provides basic functionality, but it pretty much well powers everything and runs the world. It is also extendible like crazy, and custom distributions of Linux and other variants can provide that excitement and rush of something new. Players of commercial RPGs look forward to new editions of the game that change everything. Players of B/X get the same game presented in different ways, with new ideas bolted on to a framework that is already working and proven.

The excitement in B/X is when someone takes the same thing and presents it in a compelling way that opens our eyes and excites us to the new possibilities.

With Old School Essentials, do I have to box up all my old Labyrinth Lord books, expansions, and adventures? No, I don't. They all pretty much well work the same and the adventures are mostly compatible. I could play Barrowmaze with Dungeon Crawl Classics if I wanted to. I could convert Mutant Future over to play with Old School Essentials.

No, I am not interested in the evergreen model anymore outside of MMOs, and I feel a new edition of D&D coming soon since it feels like D&D 5 is in the "experimental expansions" phase where they break the game and try new things before tossing it all out and printing new books. Beyond the first three books we never really bought into D&D 5, and we didn't even buy Pathfinder 2 - but no shade thrown on those who love those games. They just weren't for us, and they are good games.

I just have a full shelf of Pathfinder 1st Edition books I will never use again and I am looking to sell off, and same with D&D 4. This is the legacy of an evergreen game, you get into this consumerist mentality where you need to keep buying books and then throwing them all away. To keep an evergreen game going, they constantly need to be throwing out the past. And oh yeah, you are going to need new adventures with that shiny new edition too, because, you know, everything has changed again.

With B/X it is the complete opposite. Everything I buy I can use for the most part with whatever cool new version of B/X that comes out next. Also, what works is what we know and understand. There isn't the excitement of chasing builds and new rules, but a settling into the story and world that B/X players tend to enjoy more than the mechanics of the current version of the game.

Player Narrative Control vs. Rules Complexity

It seems to me the more complicated the rules, the less control over the narrative a player possesses.

It is an interesting theory, and some in some games you don't have to look far to find examples of this. In the Pathfinder supplement Ultimate Intrigue, you needed a feat to call a truce during a combat. That feels like something a crafty player should be able to come up with, make an offer, and have the referee call for a CHR roll or ruling on the spot given NPC motivations and the adventure.

We throw down a bag of treasure and look at the attacking kobolds. We got a deal? We can make this mutually beneficial to both sides. Work with us and there could be...more...

In B/X, make a CHR roll if the referee thinks this has a chance of working, maybe raise the difficulty based on the offer. And then we are on our way. No social combat system needed. Those ability scores are good for something, after all.

But in general, the more rules players are beholden to, the less control they have over the world in general. Because there will always be a rule sitting out there somewhere saying you can't do something, when it should be up to improvisation and your skills and ability scores. Even a skill layer takes away options. Star Frontiers used a lot of base ability score checks for climbing, swimming, weight lifting, dodging, spotting hidden items, and other physical actions closely tied to ability scores - and there were no companion skills to punish the unskilled. This was pulp sci-fi, if your doctor was strong they could lift a heavy log off someone and play continued. Make a STR roll and let's keep playing!

The new edition of Traveller and the athletics skill comes to mind, which bothers me slightly. It essentially modifies what should be ability score rolls. To me, a skill is a specialty outside of an ability score - not a skill for using an ability score. Skills need education, training, and practice. Ability scores should be what comes naturally and need no skills to use. If I have a high STR, well, of course I can lift weights. There is a level of detail there I feel is not needed.

This is why games with long lists of skills feel like they destroy the usefulness of ability scores to me. What is your STR, just a modifier to STR skills or does it have any practical use on its own? Why even have a STR score if it does nothing without an attached skill? Games like this devalue the base ability score set and slow up play by forcing reference for every action attempted during play.

What is the skill for that?

A system like B/X, and especially one like Old School Essentials where B/X ability score checks are ruled into the game, and skills are not used in the system (or are optional) make that set of ability scores even more powerful. You have a high DEX? Well, that obviously includes some DEX skills like balance, knife throwing, jumping, and a bunch of other cool DEX things you learned through life. An ability score in a system without skills automatically comes with built in skills.

And you don't need to keep a huge list of them, calculate percentages, level them up, and use your ability scores as modifiers. Now, in B/X some activities (like thief skills) are special cases because they require special training, and that is understood when you begin play. But for everything else, a referee ruling and a creative player plan is all that is needed.

If the game had more rules to control every possible action? More reference, more flipping through the book, slower play, and the less things your character can do without making some choice to be good at one thing while not being good at others. There are times I like the complexity. There are others that say, I rolled a high DEX, let me do all these fun DEX things without punishing me with choosing which DEX things I want to do good versus not-so-good.

Let my high scores mean more, please, and save the skills for really specialized trainings, and not the everyday heroic things pulp heroes do.

Retrospective: Autoduel Champions

I seriously don't know if many people remember this one. I need to set this one up historically.

Champions was still in the multiple softcover books, pre 3rd Edition as I remember (I could be wrong, my Champions knowledge that far back is sketchy). So this was the superhero game of the time.

Car Wars was still the three plastic pocket boxes of Car Wars, Sunday Drivers, and Truck Stop. Deluxe Car Wars has not been released.

Abd the year was 1983. Thriller. The US invasion of Grenada. SDI. Return of the Jedi. McNuggets. Minivans. The release of the Famicom/NES in Japan (US was 1985). The last big year for the Atari 2600.

So the two companies making Champions and Car Wars get together and produce a book that does three things:

1. Add Car Wars to Champions
2. Add Helicopter Rules to Car Wars
3. Add Superpowers to Car Wars

I know...what do helicopters have to do with this? I guess if superheroes fly, then Car Wars needs to fly. Let us break down each rules section and how it worked, and how we used it in our games. Strap yourself in.

Champions: Car Wars

This section created rules for Car Wars cars and combat inside the Champions game. All the movement was done on hex grids, the damage scales adjusted, and the weapon stats converted over to the Champions scale. This was our first look at Hero system, and a lot of this was so alien and strange to us we ignored it until we started playing Champions years later.

One notable change from Car Wars in this section was the use of non-ablative armor on the cars, versus Car Wars' ablative armor. This concept would later show up in the Car Wars supplement Deathtrack as the metal armor rules.

These rules were surprisingly Max Max meets 007, and I could see a lot of Champions players scream with delight at being able to finally have armed and armored cars in their games. This must have been a huge thing for Champions players at the time, I mean, those still not playing Car Wars all weekend at the hobby store. Everyone played Car Wars in our neighborhood. We played D&D and the number one question during the game was, "When are we playing Car Wars?"

Car Wars: Helicopters

This section introduced totally broken helicopters into Car Wars, and these were later cleaned up in Deluxe Car Wars. The weight allowances on these flying beasts was so high you could stack hundreds of points of armor on them, and your only option for fighting these flying takes was to shoot the flimsy rotors off and watch the armored flying safes fall to the ground, take hundreds of points of damage in a collision with the ground, and watch the passengers crawl out unscathed because the damage from plummeting thousands of feet from the sky did not penetrate the insides.

We never really designed out choppers that way. We could, but they weren't fun. We stuck to faster, lighter armored and armed choppers that mirrored car designs - which we in fact a lot more deadly because of their acceleration and mobility on the battlefield. A chopper that can fly and has double or triple the acceleration of a ground vehicle gives you a whole lot more options when fighting in an urban environment. I am just going to hover low over this tall building where you can't see me, wait until you take a course of action, and circle around to your weak spot at my leisure.

Very few arena cars had decent top armor when this came out, and even fewer could shoot straight up (or a map with a slant range long enough) so it made chopper versus car battles like turkey shoots unless you custom designed cars to fight choppers.

Still, we thought these rules enough were cool to use in our games, and we had a lot of fun with these massive sky behemoths. When Deluxe Car Wars came out, our massive week-long 100 car arena and helicopter battles were all but over, so we never really got to enjoy the revised helicopter rules in DCW.

Car Wars: Superpowers

Now I owe an article on this one, but we used the original Traveller RPG as our rules for our Car Wars RPG. The skill ratings were extremely similar. Both systems were 2d6 roll-high. The format for characters means we could quickly roll them up, spend the 30 starting skill points in Car Wars, and have a character quick - or hundreds of them.

This superpowers system in Autoduel Champions was our superpower system for years, at least until Marvel Super Heroes came out. This worked very well, scaled nicely with the Car Wars rules, and gave us these cool Traveller superpowers that worked very well with our houseruled system. You could rate various superheroes easily, give them armor that defended against the types of weapons they could buy flight, energy blasts, super speed, running, stretchy limbs, and other powers with a quick and easy system that fit well within our Car Wars and Traveller framework.

When Marvel Super Heroes came along, Car Wars and Traveller fell by the wayside, and the superheroes (sadly) took over our games. At least in Car Wars with superheroes, there are equalizers against the massive powers of superheroes and villains. Your combat car could even the odds, and the average person could fight a superhero. Heck, they could be a superhero with a car like that and great skills.

The End of an Era

And then that era was over as the Marvel and DC pen-and-paper games came in, blew out the power level of our games with cosmic energies, and all of a sudden the average person was a nobody again.

There was no great equalizer.

Superheroes were again, the "chosen ones."

Of all the things I don't like about the modern superhero movie and myth, it is this denial of the power of the average person in comparison to the hero on the screen. We wait for superheroes and strong figures to come and save us from ourselves. Back when I went to college, we were taught the power of collective action. If a manufacturer was selling weapons to oppressive regimes, and this company also made consumer goods - like refrigerators - than our community agreed to not buy those consumer goods. We recycled because we knew if millions of us did, it would make an impact. We divested in countries with horrible human rights abuses. If enough of us did together and all as one, we would make a difference.

We were all superheroes back then.

Today, I feel we have been trained well by Hollywood to simply wait for the next savior. Let's not individually make a difference in anything, we can just have some "figurehead leader" do it for us. If someone is worried about carbon footprint, for example, do they shop that way? Do they demand Amazon give them information on a product's carbon footprint and shop for lower alternatives? Do they live that way and make informed choices? Do they make a small difference in their lives and urge others to do the same?

Nah, let's just wait for someone or some slogan that makes us feel good about ourselves. Even if the plan does not work or the person will never accomplish the goal let's fight for it like it is the end of the world. The superhero. In essence, I feel the superhero myth has become mass-market collectivism, a false corporatized feeling of doing good sold to us like junk food. You see this in the Marvel and DC movies, those heroes never inspire the people of those worlds to help save themselves, nor could the people of those worlds ever hope to.

Champions Allows Talented Normals

This is likely due to Champions allowing normal people some chance against superheroes. There is this model in the Hero System where everyone uses the same character generation rules, so theoretically a highly-trained super agent could equal the power of a superhero. They wouldn't have all the damage resistances, powers, and immunities - but at least those points could be put to work in some way that could best a hero's powers with skills, abilities, and training.

And Autoduel Champions leveled the playing field further. Combat cars out of Car Wars could help even the odds against those with extraordinary powers. With the Marvel Super Heroes and DC Heroes games, I get the feeling normal people and even highly trained agents are still inferior to heroes with powers. This power level only seems to get worse as time goes on and the superheroes get stronger and stronger.

There is an article waiting here, as in Champions feels more grounded in power level, character design, and scope. This game also does not have the power of brand names, so your heroes are the most important in the world instead of the trademarked ones.

Blinded by the Marquee Lights

Looking back and seeing the organic system we came up with, and how equal that made each side, versus the later official games, makes me wonder if we didn't make a mistake in abandoning what we had back then. Both the Marvel Super Heroes and DC Heroes games felt like they intentionally weakened the balance between the average person and superheroes. If you played an average person, or even your own creation, you were a nobody compared to Batman or Wolverine.

And our Car Wars superhero game became more of a super-heroic soap opera past that point as we switched to those systems, and the grim and gritty life on the street, and the average person along with it, faded from importance. The balance was gone. There was no equal to these modern gods.

And after that we gave up on our characters and played with the copyrighted IP characters of Marvel and DC. The superheroes each year only got more and more powerful, both in powers and in our imaginations. Like a Lovecraftian monster, our humanity and ability to affect change was crushed by the people in the spandex tights.

Looking back at this game, as broken and as of an era as it was, makes me wonder what we lost when we fell in love with the hype. I get this feeling our game, our campaign, and the world in a larger sense.

Some interesting feelings today for a book very few likely remember.

Retrospective: Gangbusters 3rd Edition

Gangbusters is one of my favorite systems that I rarely played as a kid. I love the era, the genre, the cops and robbers theme, the private eyes, the violent Noir setting, and the artwork. We rediscovered this game and it still shined through with its ease of play, simplicity, and pure pick-up-and-play value.

No cell phones. No TV. No computers. No Internet. You wanted to do a records search? Have your secretary go down to city hall, the newspaper office, or the library. You read the newspaper and listened to the radio, and no, there wasn't 24-7 news either. Air travel? Very, very limited and not commercialized. You took a boat to Europe or Asia.

The 1920s and 1930s Noir era is as close as we will get to a fantasy setting for the modern gaming. This is still all about your name, who you are, and your reputation with others. Legends, like Elliot Ness, can still exist. A city can live in fear of a criminal gang, and it will take a crack team of a few incorruptible G-Men to save the day. This is a fantasy setting with guns and cars.

When we did revisit this later and play the game, it was still as wild and violent as we left it. This almost played out like a Batman movie with the criminals getting more and more outrageous with their plots and schemes, and the good guys of law enforcement fighting a daily war against pure criminal anarchy. And our love of radio shows came through in these games, with some players adopting the shadowy identities of masked vigilantes to fight the rising tide of lawlessness. Players mimicked The Shadow, the Green Hornet, and other crime fighters, modified their Packard Sedans to become armed crime fighting vehicles, and waged shadowy wars on the streets as the gangsters increasingly became frustrated with their shipments of alcohol getting blown up by the good guys.

Booze is the Vice

And booze was the vice of this game, so it was a more innocent time and you had this "screw the rich" theme going on. This wasn't crack cocaine or human smuggling or some dark crime in the corner of the Internet with a tragic human and societal cost. This was a sort of innocent vice being cooked up and smuggled in to feed the excesses of the rich who ignored the law, and the poor who had to suffer and live by different rules.

The gangsters were working as violent proxies for the rich flouting the law, and the good guys were the average working folk trying to enforce the law equally for all. So the more booze you busted, the more the rich suffered, and you chalked up another victory for the working class and equal treatment for all. There still was this notion of "right is right" based on working-class principles and the common person in this genre.

Criminals were either tools of the rich serving a need for contraband, or using death and violence to get rich and join that club. When corrupt, law enforcement was a tool used to protect the rich. At its ideal and most chivalrous state, law enforcement was the guardian of the working class and its "what is fair is fair" values - and in essence anti-wealth. The press played into this as well, exposing corruption and taking down the scions of power and influence through public outrage.

Contrast that above paragraph with today's world. If you go into this game with "today's assumptions" about wealth and power you may not see some of the core conflicts in the game. I feel you do have to go back to your traditional fantasy tropes about good and evil, fairness and wealth, and frame the conflicts in this game against a simpler time.

Figures like Al Capone were the "dark wizard" corrupting all which they touch and the rising tide of darkness threatened to overturn a just and fair kingdom of light.

Make the Era Yours

That said, the era was one of massive racial and gender inequality, but you could make this pretty color and gender-blind and let everyone live out their fantasies in this era. Again, this is fantasy, and if players were uncomfortable with an exact historical recreation of the time, just ignore history and make the game your own. Any game set in in the pre 2000's modern era is going to have this issue, and how I deal with this is to know my players and deliver the fantasy they want to experience.

We are here to have fun.

I know it is in vogue today to say a game is a reflection of a past we should forget, but in our young minds at the time, that past never existed. The game, as written, is mostly color and gender-blind with fun and opportunity for all. If you did a modern version of this? Tweak the art, add some iconic female characters, and say this is how things are in the game and this world. Warhammer FRP did this with the art direction of the new game and I feel this is a good way to include more players in the fun.

I can't sit at a table and tell a player she can't be a female Elliot Ness, Sam Spade, or Al Capone, or a player with a skin tone that wasn't reflected in the time they couldn't be that either. Are you serious? I would be a dick GM to pull that crap. To me, those character archetypes sound incredibly fun and I want them at my table.

Otherwise what you are doing is transposing the biases on the past onto the players of today. If your group is okay with a period-accurate world and wants to experience the time, sure, explore that, but the core of this game is pulp, fast action, cops and robbers gangster shootouts and deep-shadowed Noir fun. Everyone should be able to see themselves in that world and enjoy being a part of the fun.

Fast Characters

The TSR d100 systems were incredibly fast to create characters for, and Gangbusters is no exception. These games simplified play by having most of the common checks covered by ability scores.

Muscle, Agility, and Observation were the game's three primary ability scores, rolled on a weighted d100 scale. These were checked directly for combat and all actions, and Agility covered gun combat and melee to-hits. We always ruled it was Muscle for melee to-hits as a houserule to keep agility from being so important, and to keep the "muscle is for feats of strength" theme going.

Presence was a charisma like score rolled on a weighted d10. For all intents and purposes, this was just like a d100 score divided by ten, and the unique range was more of a reaction-roll thing to keep this score unique and apart from the others.

Luck was a d100 roll divided by two. This was an innovative score and it answered a lot of questions in the narrative simply and easily. Did the nearby farm have a working phone? Luck check. Was there a an empty taxi waiting outside the newspaper office? Luck check. Did the killer leave an important clue at the scene of a crime? Luck check. Did the warehouse have guards posted tonight? Luck check. This score did more work during our games for narrative fill-in moments than I can ever count. Top Secret and Star Frontiers were jealous of this ability score, and it just sped up play and defined options incredibly.

Hit Points, Driving, and Punching were derived scores - and Driving was the only derived score that was checked against.

There were skills in the game, but they were more like generic "areas of expertise" like fingerprinting or art forgery. The rules for creating a character could fit on one page of the book, but they use two here to provide examples. Even if you had those "skills" you would use your ability scores to make rolls in them. Spot an art forgery? Have the skill and roll Observation. What mattered were ability scores, not formulas, and not skill levels and tertiary chances of success. Contrast this with Rolemaster's pages long lists of skills and formulas for calculating the success chance of each one. How much easier could that game be if a skill was a simple "unlock" for performing tasks and your ability scores (and possibly a level) controlled chance of success?

Story > Character

A lot of games today state that, "Our rules are more important than your character." When you give a character simple stats and leave the rest up to the player you empower the player a great deal. The "game" isn't figuring out the complicated puzzle the game designers left for you in "optimizing your build" and "min-maxing" for the highest chance of success and damage output. Honestly, this is what Pathfinder and D&D 3.5x felt like for us, figuring out the best build in the complicated mess the game designers created. And the rules needed to be long-winded and complicated to conceal the best strategies.

With a B/X style of character creation, where as little of the game is as hidden as possible, you get a more solid player to gamemaster contract. I am not some "keeper of the secret tome" of "the best way of playing" - I am here as the storyteller, and the players are here as participants. The rules are the same for everybody. Your ability scores do most of the work for you. The game is more about your decisions in the story than your decisions in the rules.

Do I like diving through complicated rules systems and figuring out how they work? Yes, a part of me has been doing that for 40 years playing these games. I enjoy depth, but I also enjoy the game getting out of the way of the story. But a huge failure of games promising depth is they always end up broken and needing a new edition to fix things all over again. Until the next edition.

When a game goes out of print and unsupported, then the profit cycle stops. The community can come in and clone it and make it a timeless classic. This is where we are with B/X. I really hope the TSR d100 games follow suite, since there are some timeless classics here.

Game Shopping: OSE Advanced Fantasy

Some news, the pre-order page is up for those who missed out on the OSE Advanced Fantasy Kickstarter.

https://ose-advancedfantasy.backerkit.com/hosted_preorders

I ordered the Advanced Fantasy book set (players guide and referee's book), along with a GM screen. For those new to OSE, the OSE Classic version is more the B/X style ""red box" style of game, while the newer OSE Advanced is more the "1st Edition Advanced" style of game.

So what do I expect? Well, for one, everything that made the 1e Advanced rules so cool, the wide variety of monsters, spells, and magic items, the classes (some of which we already saw with the companions), higher level play, and just the "more more more" feeling of the old 1e Advanced hardcovers.

It will be interesting to see how the ultra-organized OSE authors handle the mass of information, if the organizational style can deal with the metric ton of options and choices and still be approachable and usable. I applaud splitting the books into player and referee, this seems like the first step in making the huge volume of information coming at us approachable and better organized.

I also look forward to the world crafting they are planning, along with art direction. The 1e Advanced rules introduced a whole rogue's gallery of campaign bad guys to the fantasy continuity, from the dragons, demons, devils, psionic creatures, dark elves, giants, and many other factions laid out in the old 1e Advanced monster book. I am looking forward to the art and interpretations of these factions to see how they fit into the world. I am not sure we are getting psionic rules, to be fair, and that seems like an obvious optional addition to this rules set (unless psionics are being handled as one-off special attacks and not available to players).

I am really liking OSE Classic, the organization and artwork are blowing me away the more I read this and I feel Labyrinth Lord's hold on my imagination slip just a little. I don't fault Labyrinth Lord, and it still is a great choice for those diving into B/X, and from what I see there aren't any "system wars" in the B/X community. Maybe I am on the wrong forum, but from what I see in reviews and discussions, the B/X community is refreshingly chill and accepting of what your choice of game is, from Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy, Old School Essentials, and even Dungeon Crawl Classics - the B/X community is just a wonderful place to be and very open and accepting.

These games are for everybody, the world, and to bring us together at the game table.

Well, when this comes it will come, and now I can't wait. I guess more reading of OSE Classic is in store, and still, this is a wonderful game that is the essence of B/X. I still like Labyrinth Lord for the junk drawer trip down memory lane it is for me, but OSE Classic (and the soon to be released Advanced) and wonderful, modern implementations of a rules system that is itself becoming a timeless fairy tale.

Snow White or Cinderella are stories passed down to successive generations, maybe retold, maybe given a pretty gold-foil book and elaborated upon each time, but the essence remains the same. A warning, because some companies do try to "own" the legacy, but I like to think the world is a bit smarter than to let that happen. B/X is becoming just like these fables, but to the roleplaying world. Maybe one game or the other dopes things differently, maybe one family or person likes this version of the tale or that for different reasons, but that shared legacy of storytelling unites us. To see new writers and creators picking up the torch makes me feel this legacy, and these stories, are in good hands.