Default Rules: AD&D or OSRIC

[Sizzaxe]

I kind of know the answer to this question, but for some reason it's causing me angst. So bear with me as I explain and then I'd love to hear your advice, suggestions and counsel.

I'm a public school teacher and run our highschool gaming club. And though we've played numerous different editions, I started gaming in 1981 and am a 1e man through and through. So when I found OSRIC a year back or so I was thrilled. Probably half our club members prefer OSRIC over 4e Pathfinder and the rest of the lot--which is great for me. We proceeded to download and print off OSRIC and have at it. I still have an extensive 1e library so that's what I used and preferred. However, what I found was that the "small" differerences between OSRIC and 1e caused us a few hangups. Admittedly they were small, but they created a "sense" among my young gamers that OSRIC was more definitive than the older rule set. This probably caused the most vehement problems with fighter weapon specialization differences between UA and OSRIC, but there were other things that came up. I can't recall the spell description difference that became a problem in the middle of combat once, and whenever a player without a rule-set handy would ask me a question relating to the tables in my books I had to learn to defer to OSRIC instead.

Now, don't get me wrong. When I first found OSRIC I fell in love. Mainly because I was looking for new 1e compatible supplements/modules and realized most gamers couldn't touch publishing such stuff because of copyright. OSRIC solved that dillemma for us quite handily.

But now I'm facing the following. For gamers who don't have any original 1e stuff, OSRIC becomes their deafult rule-set. However, for 1e players to truly mesh and play with an OSRIC based group we have to decide which becomes the primary rule-set: Osric or AD&D. I like to think my AD&D rules are definitive. But I'm finding that instead they have been relegated to OoP supplements that support my OSRIC-based game.

For some reason this bothers me. It may just be nostalgia and I need to grow up and get over it. But it has made me wonder about copying all my 1e books and handing them out to my players so we can all be on the "same" page. (for the copyright police: I never really said that ). No I'm not gonna do it, but it has caused me some angst.

Have any of you felt this way? Initially I never thought the small differences would be an issue -- but they have become so in a group where _all_ my players use OSRIC instead of 1e. If you have run ino similar "problems" how have you handled it?

[Benoist]

Have any of you felt this way? Initially I never thought the small differences would be an issue -- but they have become so in a group where _all_ my players use OSRIC instead of 1e. If you have run ino similar "problems" how have you handled it?

What are these specific issues, and what specific situations created this angst?

Personally, I'm running an OSRIC/AD&D game online. Players include a RuneQuest/Call of Cthulhu Spanish GM, an AD&D purist, a storygame sympathizer and so on. We've got -I think, from my perspective- a great group dynamic going on at the (virtual) game table. I decided from the very start that OSRIC would be the core system, mostly because everyone would have access to it fairly easily, legally, for free, without buying stuff on eBay or whatnot, and it presented a condensed version of the rules with hand-picked options which happened to reflect what I wanted out of the game (i.e. sans WP/AC table, for instance). While we are using OSRIC as a primary reference, I am running the game with AD&D. I would accept Monk characters, use creatures from the MM/MM2/FF trio, and so on.

So far, I've had no problems in the game in that regard.

Another question coming to mind: did your DM actually say something like this when he started the game, i.e. OSRIC comes first, then AD&D, or any variation thereof?

[Falconer]

AD&D 1e pre-UA trumps all, for most of us here.

Perhaps you are unaware of just how inexpensive hard copies of the three core AD&D books are. I usually get them for around $10 a pop after shipping on eBay. Printing usually isn’t even that cheap! Of course you have to be patient, wait for nice quality books to come up for auction with no "Buy it Now," set a limit for yourself and bid that limit in the last minute of the auction. With patience, you can amass a large library for your club for relatively cheap!

[Sizzaxe]

Yeah, we did say first that OSRIC would be the default. When there were questions we would let OSRIC decide the argument. When OSRIC didn't cover it we would refer to oop stuff. Then I changed. I was tired of little details in OSRIC differing with my books, so I said if there was a discrepancy 1e trumped all.

The issues were minor but they kept coming up in a group of teen gamers just learning the game. Things like spell description variations--in which OSRIC was actually more complete than 1e most of the time. Experience point variations, magic item descriptions. Small stuff, but it came up.

And yeah, I've tried to get players to turn to the net to get used copies of books--but most don't have credit cards with which to easily purchase them. So I did consider buying several copies of each of the 1e core books to have them on hand. That may be the way to go.

[Benoist]

So you are the DM yourself, am I getting that right?

[Matthew]

Usually I defer to myself (or whoever is the game master) as the final arbiter of what is the correct answer to any given rule question. The original rulebooks and OSRIC are the guidelines on which I base my answers. It may be that I will choose different answers to the same questions over the course of a campaign, as my own feelings on what is "right" has shifted, and I do not feel that is a bad thing. Although I know such a lack of consistency may bother some people, I think it is better to rule as seems appropriate, rather than stick to the precedent of a rule that no longer seems so. With inexperienced participants, though, there is always a greater desire for order and consistency, and I think that is fine as well. Let the kids play how they want to play and defer to the rules that they want to defer to, as that will be part of the process of learning. Explain why you think a rule should be one way [e.g. as laid out in the originals, rather than in OSRIC] and they will likely make up their own minds on the issue for the future. Whilst I can sympathise with the feeling that there are niggling differences, I recommend examining why they are niggling at you. Are you worried that you are playing the game "wrong"? Are you worried that other people might be playing the game "wrong"? It is easy to get obsessive about the things you love, but dangerous too!

[Sizzaxe]

Yeah. I'm the DM most of the time. There were two campaigns running, each twice a week. But trying to DM four times a week with two different campaings was a bit much for me. Not to mention the other group preferred Pathfinder. So I let an older student take over the PF group and he runs that game twice a week. I run the 1e game. For now the standing rule is 1e trumps. But some make noise like "why can't we just go with what's in OSRIC?", "Everyone has those rules," etc etc ...

And thanks Matt -- I fear you may have hit at the heart of the matter. Why _is_ this bothering me? I mean beyond the trifling bother of making an adjustment here or there?

Well, at the risk of sounding uber-grog or overly sentimental I'll try and share what's in my heart and mind: I long for the old days. The days when TSR reigned supreme, and we could look to them for all rules related issues. Sometimes even to Gary himself. Yeah the DM is the final word and he's always right, but we all played the game sent to us from the Ivory Towers on Tactical hill. Okay, so those days are gone. TSR is gone and alas, even Gary is gone. But when I play 1e, I want to use my old books. I want to introduce others to the way things used to be, to the spirit that breathes in those old books. To the game the way it was meant to be. The writing in the old works was Tolkienesque in its beauty--some have even called it Old Gygaxian. So I guess when we "defer" to OSRIC (which is a great piece of work nonetheless) I feel like the old fades a little further into the past, and that soemthing is lost.

Yeah -- it's nostalgic. But I wonder if there's not something to it. Or am I just being a grog?

[Benoist]

Well, the fact you are the DM makes me look at the issue in a different way.

As such, I would say it is a paramount importance that you actually feel comfortable with the game you are running. Think of it in terms of hosting a party: if you invite people over but you think the Chili's too spicy, you hate the look of the table cloth, or the punch has not enough kick to it (especially the punch, that's important ), then you are setting yourself up to have a "meh" experience as a host, and the guests will feel that. So they'll have less of a good time than they would have had otherwise.

DMing IME works pretty much the same: the more comfortable you feel with the tools you are using, the more enthusiastic you will be about the game, the more the players will feel it, and have a chance to be enthusiastic about it themselves.

So, from there, it feels to me like your issue with OSRIC vs. AD&D seems pretty important, important enough for you to post about it here and wonder what the fuck is going on, basically. My advice from there is to dump OSRIC altogether, get some copies of the PHB to the players, and run the game from there. AD&D it is. The more confusion you introduce to the game table, especially when that confusion affects you, the DM, the more confusing the game itself will become. In a game like AD&D, you need to have a strong aura as a referee. So you need to create a clear game situation where players know what to expect. Discard the OSRIC rules altogether.

[Falconer]

No, many of us agree with you and like to think of AD&D 1e as an immortal standard. When you refer to those great books and read those memorable phrases on those beloved pages, you are a part of something that has been tradition for millions of people across several generations now. Because of that, there’s something slightly more real about an AD&D-legal character; and something about his adventures that sounds slightly more true when you retell them.

[bbarsh]

Usually I defer to myself...

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

Seriously, for me it is always going to go back to the three core 1e books.
With the modules that I publish, even though they are OSRIC compliant, I would be remiss if I said they were pure OSRIC. After completing a module, I go through and stat it out with OSRIC, and make sure spells, spell description, etc fit OSRIC. If it is ambiguous, it stays 1e. I often include 1e magic items that don't appear in OSRIC.
So, I think the default for many of us will always be 1e. But having the OSRIC system available for everyone is a practical must.
Also, the details are generally so small, it really isn't worth the time to debate it out. I guess character generation has some larger changes, although I don't think they are a big deal.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

Ha! If you cannot trust yourself, etcetera.

[Tholianweb]

Probably half our club members prefer OSRIC over 4e Pathfinder and the rest of the lot--which is great for me

That is promising HOWEVER Pathfinder is NOT 4th Edition. Pathfinder is 3.5 and 4th Edition is just the stuff you put in a pig's pen to eat (slop???)...

[Matthew]

That is promising HOWEVER Pathfinder is NOT 4th Edition. Pathfinder is 3.5 and 4th Edition is just the stuff you put in a pig's pen to eat (slop???)...

I suspect that sentence is just missing a comma, since D&D has no monopoly on edition abbreviations and it is unlikely that a fourth edition of Path Finder is meant...

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Probably half our club members prefer OSRIC over 4e Pathfinder and the rest of the lot--which is great for me

That is promising HOWEVER Pathfinder is NOT 4th Edition. Pathfinder is 3.5 and 4th Edition is just the stuff you put in a pig's pen to eat (slop???)...

That's enough about post-Gygaxian so-called "D&D". It's all off-topic here.

Threadjack over, back to 1e and OSRIC.

[Benoist]

That's enough about post-Gygaxian so-called "D&D". It's all off-topic here.

Argh. Apologies. Didn't see that before I went and posted in the other thread about these remarks.