Where do I get started with OSR-gaming? Should I start with pic related, B/X, AD&D or a retroclone like Old-School Essentials? If I start with B/X or pic related should I move on to AD&D once the content starts running dry?
>>84518135Basic Fantasy RPG. Best part is that its free.https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/140455/Basic-Fantasy-RPG-3rd-Edition
>>84518135OSE are very luxarious prints, you're paying for those books when you use those. i would recommend you maybe check out Basic Fantasy, the pdfs are free, and the prints are unbelievably cheap. it doesn't really matter if you start with B/X editions and move onto AD&D or you just dive into them, do what you want.
>>84518135>once content starts to run dryIf you're playing all the way through to immortals that's not going to be something to consider until years from now.
>>84518135Basic volume of B/X. 64 pages.Then the expert volume.
Where you start depends on where you want to end up. If you want to just have a fun simple game to play with your friends learn something like Labyrinth Lord.If you want the fundamental game with lots of available support material then start with a well organized interpretation of B/X like OSE or BFRpg (or just the red book of you want authentic flavor)If you want to start with something that will show you how the modern game began to take form and give you the tools to create a variety of game experiences start with an AD&D system like OSRIC or Gold & Glory
>>84518135My dude, we have a thread just for that. What are you doing?
>>84518135The RC is a great book but I'd recommend reading at least one of the Basic sets first (or the 1991 starter set that is a part of the same edition, I suppose. B/X is great for getting the basics down. >should I move on to AD&D You should definately read it and see what's different & whether you wish to stick with the Basic line or not, you'll want to bask in the wisdom of the DMG. Overall AD&D has the most depth but it's undeniably wonky. It's the best in my opinion, but ya gotta be able to handle that wonk!
>>84518135>should I move on to AD&D once the content starts running dry?it's not going to 'run dry', there's lifetimes of stuff and it's easy to DIY even if you have trouble finding something to your taste. you move on to AD&D if you feel like playing with a more complicated ruleset, or just pick and choose what you want from it. or you start with AD&D. whatever. retroclones generally play almost identically to Basic anyway, they're mostly packaged for marketing purposes and to not legally be B/X or BECMI, with a few house rules thrown in.
>>84518157>>84518166What does Basic Fantasy do better than other retroclones?>>84519144>>84521479What does AD&D do to make it more complex than Basic and how is it wonky? I know it has more classes and race and class is separate and apparently it has simultaneous initiative or something like that but what else?
These are all basically the same game when you're just learning to play so pick whatever the fuck you want. I'd personally suggest starting with Basic because that keeps things focused on what matters but if you wanna try and learn OD&D or AD&D first then go for it buddy.
>>84522208Basic Fantasy takes advantage of being open to all, rmeember that saying two heads are better than one? imagine like hundreds of heads thinking together
>>84518135Your biggest decision is going to be whether you prefer "race as class" in the Basic line, or "race and class" in the Advanced line.
>>84523998I prefer race and class but I'm not opposed to playing games with race as class if the rules run smoothly, as far as I know AD&D has a bunch of tricky stuff in it and most people just ended up playing it as Basic D&D with AD&D classes and races but I'm interested in what the actual rules differences are between the two.
>>84524323OSRIC cleans up a lot of the cruft, and S&W Complete (which is technically more like OD&D with all the supplements or a proto-1e) has a similar feel. Or you can refer to the 2e PHB, which also streamlines considerably
>>84518135The Rules Cyclopedia is all you’ll ever need for a lifetime of gaming
>>84522208Retroclones are all similar. There's no substantial difference if you play OSE or BF or some other thing except some fluff and a few houserules if any. BF seems to have made the most sensible choices while remaining true to OSR. It uses ascending AC and does away with race-as-class.
>>84518135first ask the osr generalyour pic is a good choice drivethrurpg has affordable reprintsBasic Fantasy is cheap and has a few modern sensibilities that make it more appealing with modern players (ascending AC, no race as class)LOTFP has some nice changes like thief skills if you can stand the edgeOSE is the current belle of the ball in the OSR crowdI say start with the official rules (Rulescyclopedia, its an all in one package) see how you feel about it and find a retroclone that addresses any problems you have with it
>>84526746B/X is all you need for a lifetime of good gaming
>>84526746>>84528342I've heard that the rules cyclopedias thief's are really low-powered compared to B/X thief's and that demi-humans have really low level limits which makes them pretty useless for high level play. Does this affect the game severely?
>>84522208>What does AD&D do to make it more complex than Basic and how is it wonky?As with any classic D&D game it's only as complex as you make it but there are a few different subsystems and if you want to use the lot of them it means learning a bunch of different ideas from scratch. Like the pummelling, grappling & overbearing rules for instance. They are their own little system. There is no 'core mechanic'. >simultaneous initiative Basic has that too, AD&D just goes into more depth. Things like weapon speed factors can be used to break ties when it matters, like when two guys are otherwise going to kill each other (can still happen if speed factor is the same) or to see if a weapon hits before a spell is cast. It's kind of hard to explain, AD&D has so many design decisions that seemed really questionable when I first read them but I have warmed up to the lot of them. I'm even considing using the usually ignored weapons vs. AC table in the future.
>>84528625>I've heard that the rules cyclopedias thief's are really low-powered compared to B/X thief'sVery much true. It is a good idea to use the thief table from the 1981 Expert set if you don't want thieves to be fucked. And perhaps the spell tables up to 14 as well. As for demihuman limits, classic D&D is generally not a high level game. Getting into double digit levels is pretty rare and attack ranks keep them in the game during that super high level stuff. The RC has optional rules for letting demihumans advance to level 36 anyway.
>>84518135Bumping this up as I'm another anon playing through B/X (as I prefer it to AD&D 1e's sheer amount of rules for everything), though I do miss some things like Str adapting weight allowance and the weapon adjustments ala speed factor etc seem fun (I liked how space to swing got a call-back in ep.1 of Goblin Slayer), though I dislike the 10 segment per round stuff and keeping track of the minutiae that surprise adds into that with everyone acting and doing different things every segment, I like the Warhammer style 'move, magic, ranged, melee phase' style that B/X does more.Oh, also prices for retainers/henchmen npc adventurers at a per dungeon rate I'd love to have.