Castles & Crusades

 

This game took me by surprise. This is like if AD&D never became AD&D 2nd Edition, the old school feeling was kept, but the rules were modernized to a unified and simple system like a D&D 5E. What I find amazing is the game "feels" like a modernized AD&D, and not something more modern like a 3.5E, 4E, or 5E with the exponential curve in hit points and damage.

I wish I would have discovered this game sooner. My brother and I would have had a lot of fun with it, and we would have solved the "what happens after D&D 4th Edition" cliff our game fell off of and never recovered from. This would have been the game that replaced everything.

What Do You Get?

We have roll-high AC, unified ability saves, and the classic spells, classes, and monsters all in a package with modern, slick presentation, great artwork, and that perfect old-school feeling without some of the legacy cruft of the older rules. There is a primary and secondary ability system that takes care of skills, saving throw bonuses, and proficiencies. I like a system with ability-based saves, and I find a system with separate saves versus wands and spells (both are magic, if one is weaker give it a DRM) to be a little repetitive and I don't like to have all that record-keeping.

This game is in a cool genre of games that hits that AD&D sweet spot for me, such as Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials Advanced, Adventurer Conqueror King System, and Swords and Wizardry. I will leave Dungeon Crawl Classics out of this since that is something else entirely. Every cue is taken from an AD&D style of presentation and approach, like AD&D was the model starting point for the look and feel, but then the game was modernized and cleaned up a great deal.

This feels like a game 5E players could drop right into and find a lot to like, but old school players could jump onboard and have a great time and get that classic feeling. It truly is a great middle-ground game between more modern games and the OSR.

OSR?

Is it still OSR? Well, it wants to be. I laughed when I wrote that, but it is true. It has the OSR heart while still being a more modern design, which is cool. A lot of the newer games are doing this, taking a classic feeling and streamlining the rules for ease-of-use. Could you play OSR modules with this? I feel you could, a lot of the lower-level character rules stuff is different, but as you get to monsters, treasure, and combat things start to feel more compatible. Use the same monsters, the same B/X damages, convert the saves to the ability ones, the new stats, and play.

This feels like one of those NES or SNES emulators that plays those classic games perfectly, but underneath is an entirely modern and new engine driving the action. No it is not a classic console, but it gets the job done and offers some improvements (you are not swapping cartridges, the pins never corrode, and the batteries never run out on your saves). So in a way, it is an AD&D emulator that delivers a modern play experience with a lot of needed improvements.

Improvements Made

Old School Essentials did a little of this "cleaning and improving" in their Advanced Edition (the new classes especially), but they still remained rules-compatible with B/X. They offered new classes and takes on the classic AD&D material and branched out where things could be made to feel and play better. So it is not unheard of, and is in fact something B/X creators are starting to do. Instead of being so tied to the old ways, where can we tweak and make new things to make the game play better? While this doesn't maintain rules-compatibility with B/X, it doesn't really matter since a unified engine is driving things underneath and it all feels the same and once you drop in monsters you are playing.

The "product improved" content I feel does a lot to make the OSR into "its own thing" and not as dependent on the legacy material. It is a very positive development and I love it when OSR publishers say "it plays better this way" and make those changes, and have their game go its own way on that solid base. It is a market becoming mature and defining itself as something different.

C&C goes a little farther than B/X and unifies the underlying mechanics, with something more like 5E, and yes I know C&C came out in 2004 with this mechanic and 5E used a similar one many years later, but hey, the great ideas always rise to the top. It is honestly a good thing, since a lot of 5E players will feel at home here and the long-time C&C players will just nod and smile. We are all gamers and we want the best.

Does the unified mechanics take away from the OSR feeling? Only if that is what is important to you. If you need the B/X way of doing things, play Old School Essentials or one of the other great B/X games. Then the question becomes, do they add anything or are they just different for being different?

I like them because they do away with the traditional limited use saving throw tables, and allow you to roll versus charisma for reaction checks, constitution for sickness, strength to break free of entanglement, dexterity to grab onto a ledge, and anything else you can imagine an ability score doing. That feels like Tunnels and Trolls to me, and I loved the save versus ability system there and how simple it made adjudicating actions.

For me, used to running Star Frontiers, Gangbusters, or Top Secret and other games where you directly check ability scores for everything and anything that comes up, with a primary/secondary ability system to simulate skills and feats, it feels right at home and an improvement over B/X. Yes, I can always "roll under" an ability in B/X to check, but this makes those same checks your skills and saves all in one, so it feels unified and streamlined. Strong characters can break free easier from entanglement and paralysis, and so on.

The Way We Played

The game is very aware of the way it used to be. They have supplemental books covering demons, and the settings and gods of many classic pantheons (Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and more). You could play a Germanic or Norse campaign, Egyptians or Greek, or mix them all together. That is what we used to do back when we had the PHB, DMG, MM, and Deities & Demigods - all the cultures and pantheons were in the B/X world of Mystara and they fit perfectly.

They have a world called Airhde that is every bit as detailed and well laid out as the classic settings of Greyhawk, Mystara, or Faerun. They have adventures written for the world to take you through it. The depth of everything to explore beyond the basic books is astounding.

It is a game I feel could have replaced our D&D 4th Edition game and kept going without running out of steam or running into the balance issues we had and overpowered splat books that took away a lot from the game. And the end of 4th Edition with the Essentials line changing everything again was a mess and took all of our original love for the first three books and crushed it. It also feels like a game that could recreate our original run with D&D and AD&D and do it justice.

This is one I am collecting and enjoying, and I wish I would have discovered it sooner.

More soon.

Starfinder: My Experience

I am sad to say my experiment with Starfinder fell through and I boxed up the game. The complexity of characters as they leveled grew, the special powers, options, pets and spells multiplied, and I found the characters for playing solo turned into a record-keeping tax that dragged down play. I am done with Starfinder, but still like the game and concepts.

For a group where the record-keeping is distributed across several people? Probably manageable a lot better than one person. Not all games are created equal, especially for solo play. Some games on the market are designed to be "party games" where they intentionally raise the complexity of characters where each player needs to be a specialist in a class build, manage the rules knowledge and record-keeping, and bring that expertise to the table for the group. For one person to manage with several multi-page character sheets? Really a tall order when you consider one person playing multiple classes and managing all that complexity themselves.

The beginner boxes for both this and Pathfinder 2? Great fun! Still recommended. Going deeper? I would only do this if you and friends are investing and committed to a game. For one person to manage it feels like a lot. Certain games are designed for more than one person, and everyone at the table can be a specialist in one small area and shine. These games naturally do better in more social and group situations.

Things I Liked & Didn't

Were there things I liked? Sure. The class builds and abilities were interesting. There was a lot of cool gear. The strong against/weak against elemental game with monsters was fun. The free-wheeling universe felt huge. The game does d20 "Guardians of the Galaxy" style sci-fi well and captures the feeling. The races and classes were fun and iconic, and had lots of cool options.

The leveled weapons felt like they were borrowed from MMO games, and the explanation of how these works felt nonsensical. The weapons exist but they are somehow harder to obtain by low level characters? Not use, but obtain. Magic is way overpowered at low levels and the way to go, and I suspect as you level magic becomes more of a necessity. If you ignore casters and just want 1d4 damage space blasters you have an abnormally difficult time with encounters (and you are paying out the nose for weapons that never do enough damage).

The ship construction and upgrades all being free was a huge negative. I ended up assuming a quasi-socialist patron system (which is what the modules tend to push) for all factions with starships where they essentially upgrade your starship for free as you level. Ships cost zero money, they are frequently given to you (but you can only have one), and they did not feel special.

Even if your ship is destroyed you will find or get handwaved a new one by an adventure path pretty soon, because the game requires you to have an adventure-assigned starship to have fun. Ship combat was okay but lacked the fun and charm of other games I have played in this genre.

We had a situation where the characters were physically poor with less than 4,000cr to their names and they now had a starship to take care of. My party wanted to take cargo runs, which would not pay for anything ship-related and money is only really useful in the game for buying personal combat upgrades. It feels like you can unbalance the personal combat game through too much money. Melee options were good and did more damage than ranged.

Do not get this game if you are expecting a Traveller experience. This is clearly more of a story and adventure focused game with a "credits as GP" sort of power-up experience than it is hard sci-fi. For some, that is exactly what they want from a sci-fi game and Starfinder is a good choice.

Some Races are "Legacy Conversions"

This is Pathfinder in space; but the elves, dwarves, and other fantasy races/heritages you would expect to see (and that would be cool) are shoved to the back of the book and feel like an embarrassment to the setting. I wanted them in the front and to see them hidden away as "optional content" like that made me feel sad and disappointed in the game's design and direction. I mean, we have monsters and magic here! Where are my space elves? The space drow? Dwarf mining planets? The space gnomes!

And having them as options means you will rarely seem them in adventure paths and the official setting, which makes the entire product less appealing to me. The cool art they give as examples only makes it hurt worse, since that is all we are going to get. Yeah, I house-ruled them in, but having me make them show up and be artificially important and not in the main setting felt like a referee insert and not something organic and built into the setting.

For a game that is supposed to be all about inclusion and extending the Pathfinder universe, this entire situation feels like a huge miss to me. What I wanted to see in the game, like a different take on space-elves, space dwarves, and other fantasy races in space (like back when Warhammer 40K was cool) for a freaking Pathfinder game of all things, was lost.

Those darn goblins are all over the place in these adventures. Where are the other fantasy races?

What Next? Story Based Sci-Fi

So I am probably replacing this all with a easier to play space game. Why? I can keep all the rules in my head and focus on the story. As I get older the rules become less important and the story gets more important. All that rules stuff is nice and it works well when it is clicking and running smoothly, this feat gives me a +2 flanking bonus when this happens, and so on, but it takes a lot of work to learn and keep running. Is it worth more to me than a good story?

I don't think so. Finding time to learn versus going with something familiar that I know is an easy choice for me to make. So what are my options? Something simple, likely B/X, and with a solid foundation of space economics and adventure.

White Star

Starfinder is in that special genre known as "Guardians of the Galaxy" sci-fi. You know the genre, zany heroes, talking animals, alien brutes, 80's music, and freewheeling adventure. One of the best B/X games that also does this well is the great White Star: Galaxy Edition, and I could go and drop anything I liked about Starfinder in here and have B/X and the best of both worlds.

But I am not really looking for this type of a game. I am a little tired of the zany space adventure genre. Granted, it is a cool game and I could pare this down to fit, but the classes feel more like they fit in GotG than a more serious and grounded sci-fi game.

For those looking for a B/X Starfinder replacement based on Swords & Wizardry, this is your game. Highly recommended, and they have a setting book that goes with this. I am still excited about this as my "salvaging Starfinder content" game, but not now.

And I could have my space elves and space dwarves here by just dropping them in from Swords & Wizardry White Box. Or any other monster. It just works and I have what I want.

Stars Without Number

An easy choice. In fact, currently my favorite B/X Traveller replacement. I could reskin this to do Star Trek or Star Wars easily. This is one I want to go with, but I want a story and angle to go with the experience. I may look for a few adventures for this to get started. I feel that beginning hook is the thing keeping me from diving in, otherwise this is a cool toolkit that I don't know how I want to start with. I know, just jump in!

The starship weapons I would rename and make a little more generic (as I did in the other post). Right now they feel different for the sake of being different, and I like the simpler "laser cannon" and "laser battery" sort of starship weapons, like out of Car Wars or Star Frontiers, than I do ship weapons with "what is this again?" type names, like a diflux rapid flexinacator.

Traveller (2022)

Another obvious choice. This isn't B/X, but I know the rules well. The universe is familiar. The ships are iconic. This one I could jump right into. The only thing holding me back is I like strong character advancement in my games, that sort of leveling up and getting new powers every so often. There are some alternate XP and advancement systems in the rules companion I would need to look into.

If you are into "space truckers" and the traditional pay-for-your-play starship upgrade and purchasing experience, this is the way to go. A solid game that was recently updated, attractive, and the rules just work well. The game scales from small ships to large very well.

The universe is a classic, with ready-to-play factions and roles. You can extend the game however you like, or play in your own setting. The art in the 2022 version is cleaned up and the presentation is better.

Cepheus Engine

As a Traveller alternative and if I wanted to go more open content, there is always Cepheus Engine. They recently updated the rules and I have that as well. This game includes things outside the Traveller mold, like blasters and other generic sci-fi gear, so if you are more looking for a Traveller set of rules not tied to the Third Imperium, this is a solid choice.

Really, if I were playing Third Imperium, I would just go Traveller. If I weren't and doing something different and wanted the 2d6 type system, I would go Cepheus and all the Third Imperium stuff does not need to be changed or removed.

More Coming

I have a few more games coming, but these are my top picks so far. I am avoiding the classics such as Star Frontiers and Space Opera, for now.

Mail Room: Adventurer Conquorer King System

 

Got an interesting package a few weeks ago, the ACKS system. This is a sort of OSR retro-clone that has the expected two lower levels of play with dungeoning, progressing into exploration, and then the game takes a hard left turn and goes fully into a Civilization (the PC game) style of kingdom management and creation. I am also reminded a little of the old Master of Magic style of game, or any of those "conquer, monsters, and magic" style of PC games on Steam.

It is a fascinating game and I haven't seen this done to the extent this game dives into the subject. There are a number of custom changes to the rules, spells, and classes to make them work better in mass battles. For instance fighters were rebalanced to make higher-level heroes a more potent force against small units. The fireball was dialed back some in blast radius to keep it from being a mass battle-ending spell. It is still useful, just not overly powerful in the context of having mages on the battlefield supporting medieval infantry.

There is a lot of cool and different kingdom management stuff in this game. Even if you use just the kingdom management parts with your favorite B/X or OSR rules set it is a cool read and makes you think about the higher level empire-building game. Where a lot of B/X games feel like they pay lip service to the "attracting followers and establishing strongholds" point of the game at high level, this one dives in and explores that part of the play experience.

I do feel the game, by the rules, is solid and is worth a play to see the changes they made to the rules and tweaks they made to make everything work. It is interesting to see high-level play and mass battles considered as part of the overall play experience, and see how that changes some of the traditional classes and spells we have grown so accustomed to doing X or Y and then no real testing or play with those on the epic kingdom level was done so they just kind of stayed how they were as "dungeon spells."

There is a lot of innovation in the OSR world and this is why limiting your experience to a reprinted official set of rules, the current OSR community favorite, or strictly following B/X (or one flavor of B/X) may keep you from having cool new experiences and perspectives on what old school gaming can be. Of course, I speak as someone who had played them all when they came out, and there are players who doesn't know the wonders of the older games, so I don't discourage that exploration at all.

It is always useful to think of B/X and OSR as Unix/Linux, and borrow, add to, use the best parts of, and jury rig to your heart's content. This is how gaming was in the old days, and we hacked games and made them our own out of several systems and built unique games and sets of Frankenrules that were fun, pulled in cool stuff from several systems, and were completely ours.

There are a lot of cool systems out there to explore, and they have a lot to offer. And in the OSR and B/X style world, a lot is cross compatible or borrowed from various parts of games to create a unique experience.

First Look: Castles & Crusades

Castles and Crusades started in 2004, back in the D&D 3.0 days. This is one of the first OSR games, though the mechanics are a more modernized system called the Siege Engine (similar to the D&D 3.x DC system, but this basically fixes DCs at 12 or 18, and gives the referee leeway on additional difficulty and which DRMs apply), and it retains the traditional AC combat system. It dispenses with the OSR saving throws, and the 3.x fort/ref/will saves, and uses ability-based saves instead. D&D 5 borrowed the concept of ability-based saves, so if you are coming from 5E you will recognize that right away.

It is funny how D&D 4 borrowed a lot from Iron Heroes and went in a different direction, and then the designers at Wizards course-corrected and made a game more like this. You can't and shouldn't really say "stole from" since that is a negative and encourages flaming and system wars, which are lame. All games are cool. Lots of games share mechanics. We don't flame Sorry because Monopoly also uses dice for movement. It is what it is. D&D 5 does things in a cool and different way. C&C did some things earlier.

The game sticks close to the AD&D core. It is kept very rules-light with lots of optional extras in the Castle Keepers Guide, including higher-level play and heroic characters. The classes are mechanically different, some play more OSR, while others play more modernized. All rolls are still handled by the game's core mechanics, so there are no "1-2 on a d6 skill rolls" or large percentage tables of thief abilities.

It features some legendary designers and is named after the legendary Castles and Crusades Society, the gaming society founded by Gary Gygax. The game definitely has pedigree and also some serious design credentials behind it.

What is This?

It is a unique and cool game that sits on the crossroads between OSR and D&D5. It can be played as a compromise game between OSR and 5E players, and everyone will find something they like. The game is deadly, but there is no "death at zero hp." The game has that AD&D old-school feel without all the complexity. There is no THAC0 or support for alternate AC systems, or compatibility notations such as AC 5 [14]. This is a roll-high system with unified mechanics.

This is not D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e. The fiddly and complicated feat and interrupt-based mechanics, complex character builds, and weight of the system have been completely torn out. Though to be fair, if you want feats, they are reworked and presented as an optional advantage system in the referee's book. So now the game plays more like Pathfinder, and those players can come in and feel at home.

There is a little Tunnels and Trolls in here with those ability based skill rolls and saves. In T&T you make a 2nd level STR save, and in C&C you make a STR check at a DC of 12/18 with your ability score mod, optional level mod if your class helps, and a difficulty set by the referee. Every score matters and can be checked, saved against, or used in the game. The ability scores and classes replace skills, though there is an optional background skill system in the referee's book. This core-concept I love.

The art is gorgeous. The printing is great quality. The core books are full color pieces of art.

This game feels like the coolest thing to come out of the D&D 3.0 era, it cut its own path, stayed true to itself and fans, and has been doing its own thing ever since.

B/X Compatibility?

This isn't B/X, but you can play B/X with it. A lot of B/X material is very compatible. If you had a module designed for another system, such as Barrowmaze, simply keep 90% of the content the same but use C&C monster statistics - or convert on the fly if need be. You can do the same with AD&D modules, or even 5E adventures if you want to.

If B/X is like the Linux/Unix of the OSR world, C&C is sort of like the Wine emulation layer that lets you play Windows games on Linux (if Wine existed in a perfect world, but to be fair it is getting really good). If there is something in another system you really like (D&D 5, Pathfinder 1/2, B/X, T&T, AD&D) you will find something similar here either as a core rule or option.

I have not seen a game that hits the middle-ground so solidly with a unified mechanic such as this one.

Old School Flavor

The game keeps the classic alignment system, and maintains the law-chaos and good-evil paradigms. It feels like a natural evolution of AD&D to me into the modern day, more so than D&D 3.5 or Labyrinth Lord (which feels like a B/X AD&D emulator). If you do not care for OSR mechanics but want the OSR feel and flavor, this works very well.

Also I feel like I could run an evil campaign like we used to do from time to time in AD&D and not have the game tell us we are playing it the wrong way. Those typically ended in Shakespearian tragedy as evil was finally punished, and the evil PCs fell one by one as the forces of good rallied (or bigger evil betrayed them). That is also cool. Those were fun games, sort of a puritanical lesson in "crime does not pay" like a gangster movie. You gotta have that tragic ending for an evil game because it is so satisfying and classic Hollywood.

If you want demons and devils, they are done very nicely in a separate book called "Tome of the Unclean." This keeps them out of the main game for people who don't want them, and devotes and entire book to them so they are done right. Again, this checks one of my boxes and does it in a very cool and flavor-filled sourcebook that adds to the fun.

...vs. Basic Fantasy?

The game is actually similar in spirit to Basic Fantasy. It is a rework and reengineering of AD&D to be more along that rule-light framework, where Basic Fantasy rewords B/X. If you play Basic Fantasy you will probably feel right at home once you realize the Siege Engine replaces the "leveled saves" of that game and a lot stays the same. Very highly compatible in terms of feeling and design.

...vs. Dungeon Crawl Classics?

Okay, this I feel is a Street Fighter moment. And this one is going to be a good fight where I root for both sides. The truth is they don't have to fight and these two games are both winners on my shelf and table.

The games are similar in that they take an OSR base and take it in a new direction without care for numerical compatibility and one-for-one rules replacement. Where DCC has more of a gonzo Heavy Metal feeling of wild and deadly fantasy, C&C has that classic AD&D feeling. I could see myself playing both at the same time and both qualify as top-shelf games currently.

DCC unifies the DC mechanic around a floating DC and variable dice sizes based on difficulty. Since there are two variables to manage (DC and die size) creating task difficulty can be a little difficult since both sides float. DCC also uses fort/ref/will saves. 

C&C fixes the DC at two values, puts a little yes/no variability into the allowed bonus in regards to class, adds the ability score modifier, and floats only one side - the challenge level (which raises the target number). One side floats so this is a faster and easier system to adjudicate. Also there are no additional recorded saves.

DCC allows for rolls that you can put a lot of "English" on with rules like spellburn, so wildly high rolls can happen even at low levels. C&C follows the more traditional feeling and balance to classes.

Where DCC replaced my complete Pathfinder 1e collection, I can see C&C becoming my OSR game of choice. It would replace many of my B/X games because it hits the same AD&D feeling while unifying the mechanics. Since I am not tied to the B/X mechanics, if a game hits the feeling with a simpler system and unified mechanics, I am there.

Both are incredible games and they share that "common starting point, but different direction" feeling. Honestly I love games that do this since I have enough B/X games as it is, and at this point I am looking for new and different things. Where C&C has the traditional feeling, DCC has that anything goes feeling. Both are very cool.

...vs. B/X?

If you care more about B/X compatibility, there are too many games out there to choose from. Old School Essentials, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and many others. If you absolutely need B/X mechanics, play a B/X set of rules.

It is funny, I see a lot of people playing the original print on demand AD&D and B/X games that are officially released and foregoing the more modern alternatives. I love the old games, I own them and grew up with them, but at this point I want to support the indie creators who are innovating and reinventing the genre.

Also, with my current collection of B/X I have everything I need. The only thing I am looking forward to is the forthcoming Old School Essentials demons book they promised.

Also, most all of my B/X adventures and sourcebooks are usable with C&C, so I don't really lose anything and I can keep buying and investing in the indies that make non-rules B/X adventures and settings.

So really, the feelings of both B/X and C&C are the same, they just get there in different ways.

The In the Middle Everything Replacement

D&D 4's Nerrath? The original gray-box Forgotten Realms? Mystara? Your own world? Classic Greyhawk? Pathfinder's Golarion? I can see playing all of them in C&C with a few tweaks here and there. The game feels like what came before but modernizes and streamlines the mechanics.

They even have their own setting of Aihrde with looks like a fun and deep world to explore.

I rarely find games I instantly fall in love with and feel they are a classic, and this one has slipped under my radar for far too long. I ask myself, why did I dismiss this for so long? Maybe it was because I thought once I had B/X I had it all, or that newer games such as Pathfinder 2 were better because of the new and shiny factor. I simply didn't "need" a game that did things a different way than what I was used to, and I feared it would end up in a box.

This game does not feel that way.

It is one I wished me and my brother would have checked out sooner, because this is what we would have chose to settle down on and play for our main campaign. I really can't tell you how good that feels. This would have been the one.

More soon.

Index Card RPG: Differences Between 2e and Master Edition

I am still waiting for the delivery of my Master Edition (collectors) of Index Card RPG Master Edition, but I found this great post on the differences between 2e (which I have and likely many others since it is still up on Amazon), and the newer addition, check it out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ICRPG/comments/prey8s/an_extensive_comparison_of_icrpg_2e_and_icme/

There seems to be an item missing from the above list, equipment tags have been removed from the game. I suppose it is easy enough to say, "you are using a long weapon in an airshaft, the roll is hard" without a tag needing to guide you. I did like the tag system, but I can see how it was very subjective, may or may not apply in different situations, and makes you feel your rulings should be forced in some situations when ultimately it is up to the referee to decide.

Many of the "in play" rules are the same, and many around character creation and progression have been streamlined and better and more consistent options given no matter the genre.

I wish the book would come so I can give it a look over, as I am not a huge fan of playing from PDFs. I could print a copy of the core rules and player's section out, but the book should be close to shipping so I don't feel like printing 70 pages for little use.

The new edition looks like a fun, streamlined, and internally consistent version and I am looking forward to giving it a look.

Off the Shelf: Dungeon Crawl Classics

Off the shelf? Well, I wanted a feature for pulling games I may have had off the shelf and giving them another look. Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) is one I have had, but never really had the time to give it proper consideration. Sometimes my schedule only allows me a quick look at a game, I give it a very wrong first impression, and I pick it up later to discover I was completely wrong and this deserves another look.

I shelved DCC because of its size and the perceived complexity of the magic system. It seemed like "too big of a game" to really wrap my head around. I felt the siren's call of Old School Essentials, simple, direct, clean, and that did OSR about the best of any other game.

The truth is, DCC's non-magic rules are about 10% of the game and ultra-simple. 80% of the rest are magic spells and their casting charts. And to compare this to OSE as an old-school game I feel is unfair to both genres - though it can be an OSR style game if you want it to be, but can be a lot lot else too.

A 3.5E Game

DCC shares a lot of design improvements with the classic Basic Fantasy, where the improvements made in 3.5 edition that improved play were kept. Ascending AC. The DC system. Fort, reflex, and will saves. It sticks closer to 3.5 than does Basic Fantasy, so if you can follow the Pathfinder 1e design language everything feels right at home here.

It is clearly a game that uses existing design language and elements to create a new experience. There isn't a B/X emulation here, though it could be played that way for sure.

Gonzo Deadly

The game is gonzo crazy, deadly, and as off the wall and out there as you can imagine it to be. Run a Paranoia-style fantasy RPG parody? Got you covered. Run a serious, deadly, classic Warhammer FRP meat grinder? We can do that too. Do a fantasy world like the Heavy Metal movie? Yeah, it works. Horror? It works. Conan? It works. You want to go more middle of the road?

Depends.

It can do generic fantasy, but I feel the beauty of this games lies in the extremes. If I were to do a sort of B/X fantasy I may want to use Old School Essentials, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, or other games where there is that safety net of expectations present - just for the players sake. You know, the class options, the what can happen in the world, the standard B/X style script of adventure and dungeon.

The B/X feeling.

This is like if satanic panic AD&D came along, ate Warhammer, went insane reading Rolemaster crit charts, got drunk with Tunnels and Trolls, destroyed several licensed properties along the way, had a kid with Cthulhu, and sat across the table wearing a vintage Van Halen 1980 concert t-shirt as your DM.

This is the Pathfinder I always dreamed of playing. Just anything goes crazy and free, deadly, with corruption and incredible feats and failures happening on a regular basis. With a lot less rules. I bring up Pathfinder because I had to buy three shelves of books to get it to that gonzo-crazy point, and I only use about 10% of the pile of books on my shelves I have to get it there.

Everything is Unique

One thing I love about the design language here is everything is unique. There is no real standard list of monsters and magic items. This is like that wonderful time for us when the D&D 4th Edition game only had a player's handbook and DMG and the monster manual came out months later. We had fun. The game was ours. We could make up any monster using the guidelines given, even space aliens, mirror a couple character powers, and we were playing a unique, crazy, and incredibly fun game that was ours.

And then the books started coming out for 4th Edition and ruining things for us slowly.

But DCC recaptures that. They constantly tell you to change things, make up your own monster stats, and use the book's creatures as starting points. None of this is written in stone. They purposefully don't give stats for a large number of the "fantasy standards" because they want you to make your own and make them yours.

Make a eyeball on a foot monster, give it a touch save poison effect, a few HD, a good AC, some attacks, a few special abilities and defenses, a d6 power chart, some save numbers, an initiative number, and go. This is probably the only one of these in the world so it doesn't really matter if the PCs kill it and your forget the stats, or it kills the PCs and you forget the stats.

The magic items are similarly unique. Every time a wizard learns a spell it is unique. If you can figure out a way to use a chart of random tables and make something else unique, it is unique. All the better.

Nobody knows what to expect.

Remember when I said "that B/X feeling?" To me, B/X is sort of like classic rock these days. Oh, I love my classic rock to hell and back, just like I love my B/X. But for some players they may come for that B/X feeling and not want all this potential insanity flying around. Spells corrupting their casters. Spells misfiring horribly. Monsters and treasures they can't predict. Character power that swings wildly. Nothing is known or can be predicted. Death could be through that next door.

Like the incredible Mork Borg, this is a game that shocks our senses and slaps us in our face, screaming at us to wake the heck up from our nostalgia-induced sleep.

With pen-and-paper games pretending to be lifestyle brands and MMOs, and character protection built in as a player retention strategy, I feel this is a good thing. B/X still is incredible, but there are times I want to break free, like the Queen song goes.

Change is good. Like a great horror movie, I don't want my feelings protected and I want to feel fear again. I need to feel alive.

We need that fear of the unknown in our gaming and that sense of wonder back.

Lots of Dice

I bought a standard set of Zocchi dice and I use these to play. Before I had a bucket and could never find the one I needed. Make sure yours all match in style, and cut down the number you play with to one or two sets so you can learn them. Don't do what I did and buy two types of d14 and d16 and never be able to find the right one. Buy different colors and make sure the d16 is unique. Trust me on this, it makes the game a lot easier to learn and you start being able to recognize the dice faster.

One Book

Another thing I love is you only need one book to play. You can buy modules and expansion, mutate them to your liking, but part of the game's philosophy is to give you the base DNA for your game, and you take it from there. There won't be dozens of expansion books for this game. You can go out into the community for that and go crazy if you want new material. But to keep that "the game is yours" feeling, they stuck with the core book and tell you to make up the rest.

Where Does This Fit In?

For me, this is my gonzo Pathfinder 1e replacement. It is a lot easier to learn and play correctly, the power levels are there, and it checks all the boxes for a wild and unpredictable game with corruption, dark powers, and insane monsters and worlds. I still play Pathfinder 1e, but this does what I wanted that game to do much easier.

I am sad I did not pull this out earlier and give it a go.

Wow.

Lesson learned.

A great game and now one of my go-to games for the gonzo genre.

The +3 Modifier at 18

 

One of the reasons I avoided playing Swords & Wizardry for the longest time as the lack of a ability score modifier of higher than a +1 (at 15), and this modifier only applies to specific things for specific classes. For instance, the fighter is the ONLY class that gets a +1 to-hit and damage in melee with a strength score of 15 or higher.

Contrast this with the majority of B/X, which is based off of books later than the original "Chainmail" and white box style rules which did not have the 13-15 is +1, the 16-17 is +2, and the 18 is +3 modifiers (and the similarly decreasing negative ones). I grew up with these modifiers, so I thought if a game did not have these, it wasn't really good enough for me.

This is another reason I did not play Stars Without Number and the Worlds Without Number games, as I felt the +1 and +2 modifiers of these games did not feel up to my "standard" of needing that +3 at an 18.

Looking Back

I can see why the original games never had these generous ability score modifiers. They apply to every class, and scale to three times the original +1 modifier. When you have these modifiers, you are putting a huge upwards pressure on ability score inflation, and to get these "cool bonuses" the 4d6 drop lowest ability score generation method was likely created.

And with strength, you factor in a +1 essentially raises your weapon damage by one die, given the averages. A 1d4 dagger with a +1 STR mod is equal to a 1d6 weapon, since they have the same average  roll (3.5). A 1d4 dagger with a +3 modifier is like a 1d10 weapon. Note I am NOT taking into account the +5% extra to-hit bonus per +1, which would make a 1d4+1 dagger with a +1 to-hit superior to a 1d6 short sword with a +0 to-hit (3.675 vs 3.5 average damage). 

That d4+3 to-hit and damage? A 6.325 average damage versus the d10/+0 weapon's 5.5, almost a full point of damage more on average (factoring the to-hit bonus on repeated attacks), with a minimum nearly the average of the 1d10 weapon's at a full 4 points.

Those B/X modifiers are VERY generous, especially when combined with magic items. Get a +3 STR mod with a +2 weapon and you are doing serious damage with high averages.

Back to white box Swords & Wizardry. Basically, no real special modifiers unless you are a fighter with STR 15 or higher. That class gets it because that is why you play a fighter. Magic weapons? All classes benefit from to-hit and damage bonuses, and those modifiers become VERY valuable. As a consequence, magic items become highly desirable.

Also, the game feels better balanced because at low levels, ability score bonuses are not guaranteeing one hit kills versus many weaker monsters (especially 1d4 hp ones). Also, there isn't this great push to pump those ability scores up, and a 3d6 generation method feels fine here.

+2 at 18?

A few white box style games feel like they are making a compromise with a +2 at the highest scores (Stars Without Number, Worlds Without Number, and another one is White Space). Original Swords  & Wizardry sticks to the +1 all the way up. I can see this as a special nod to the need to have some difference there to make the upper range compelling, but it doesn't really bother me that much. Now that I understand the why, the exceptions can be a lot better rationalized.

It's What I Grew Up With

So I had this bias based on the games I grew up with, and that was coloring how I saw these games. Because Swords & Wizardry did not have the +3 bonus, it felt like less of a OSR game to me. And I will admit, I was wrong. There are times I feel those generous B/X ability score bonuses are too much, they put too much pressure on players to roll high, and they make the low level game with high scores more of a blowout than something with a predictable balance and less-spiky damage rolls.

I see why the "white box" lineage is popular, and this is one of those key differences. This is also one of the huge differences between B/X and the Stars/Worlds Without Number games, since they also pull down those modifiers and flatten that modifier curve.

I still like my +3 at 18, but I can see how that puts a lot of pressure on ability score inflation and makes low-level/high-modifier games easier. There is less "ability score swing" with games, and when you design a class you get to say what that 15+ score +1 goes to. Saving throws? Attack and damage? Reaction rolls? There is a model here that is followed and a standard practice.

So this is more of how I came to understand the "why" of white box style games' modifier system, and how those games don't feel like they have a problem to me anymore. They exist in a flatter design curve, and given how more games are moving towards that model (such as D&D5's bounded accuracy model, and also the excellent Stars/Worlds Without Number), the original white box rules we all started with feels more like the ultimate design goal rather than a system without that +3 modifier ideal.

It is honestly making me wonder what the "true" OSR style game is to me and that tighter balance curve. Is it B/X with the higher range of modifiers and stacking bonuses? Or is it more of a Swords and Wizardry style game with less of a focus on ability scores and more on play style, strategy, and tactics?

What is the idea OSR balance level, especially with low-level play?

Once you make a point that ability score modifiers are very generous in B/X (and create that ability score inflation), are very powerful at low levels, and compare that with a flatter model game like white box, you wonder where the game plays and feels the best.

I am really wondering now if the white box model has the best feeling versus the B/X games I grew up with. It may not matter at all, but I can clearly see the white box fans' view now on how less is more.