LL vs. OSRIC -- Which to play?

[Clangador]

I picked up the books yesterday. I will play this game.

[Matthew]

Good stuff! Look forward to hearing how you find it, Clangador!

[Goblinoid Games]

I picked up the books yesterday. I will play this game.

Welcome and thanks for the support. I wish you the best with it and very much hope you enjoy it.

[Clangador]

I purchased LL + AEC yesterday w/ a gift card I got for Christmas. Took the books to work and skimmed thru them. I like most of what I saw. One of the things that did stand out as bad (for me) was fighters don't get weapon specialization. Other than that, I like almost everything else as well or more than OSRIC. Kudos.

[Clangador]

Actually I should say that to play an AD&D-type game I will still go to OSRIC, but if I want a slightly faster-playing game, LL will do it for me. I imagine what will happen is that I will run LL for my kids (ages 12 & 9), but when I get together with my gaming buddies, we will play OSRIC.

[scadgrad]

LL with AEC runs almost EXACTLY like my AD&D sessions did back in the late 70s and 80s. Weapon Spec only got into the equation with the release of Unearthed Arcana and you can house rule that in if you like (I have done so). So what is it about AD&D/OSRIC that you feel is missing? I'd be interested to know. It seems like everything needed is in AEC with the possible exception of weapon spec and advancement for demi-humans, both of which are easy add ons as house rules. I'm curious what it is that makes OSRIC superior in your eyes.

[Clangador]

Well I guess the main thing would be segments. I like them.

[Brad]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see any reason to play OSRIC. If I want to play AD&D, I'll just pull out the books and play it. They're not that hard to find, and you can get a PHB off eBay for $5. OSRIC doesn't "fix" any of the issues that a lot of people have with AD&D, yet strips out all the flavor. LL + AEC isn't exactly AD&D, but it's typically how most people play and did play AD&D in the first place. LL seems to fix a lot of issues I had with B/X, yet retains all the good stuff, too. AEC adds the parts of AD&D that are the most fun. It took me a while to figure out (basically reading the first 50 issues of Dragon helped), but you've got to remember that AD&D itself as published is nothing more than a hodge-podge of houserules for OD&D. Even though it bears Gygax's name, he didn't write some of that stuff, he merely collected it and put it between two covers. OSRIC's intent, at least initially, was to duplicate these warts to enable publishing AD&D adventures, yet now they seem to have shifted to making it a more playable game. Again, why? I really don't understand the reason behind it. LL actually does something useful: combines B and X into a unified book. I don't even think OSRIC is a good reference because the slight differences make it nearly useless in a true AD&D game. Speaking from experience, when I tried to use OSRIC as a replacement for the PHB in a game I was running, I grew irritated.

YMMV, of course, and this is nothing more than an anti-OSRIC rant, but LL offers an actual game while OSRIC only appears to be an actual game. Further, LL does more in 140 pages than OSRIC does in 400. Perhaps most importantly, K&K has a lot more jackasses than the GG forums.

[austrodavicus]

I was a diehard 1e fan for years and although I had fond memories of being inspired by the Basic books, 1e was my passion. When, after a long break, I started playing 1e again five years ago, I felt vaguely dissatisfied with my game but couldn't work out why. Getting involved with the LL scene and playing around with some house rules made me realise what was niggling at me, I was simply sick of the level of complexity of 1e. As a DM I wanted a faster, smoother game. I didn't want to have to stop in each session to discuss how a rule should be interpreted. When Dan released the AEC I realised I could have the best of both worlds, an Advanced game with a Basic feel. And yes, given that there was so much of 1e that I never have used ever (weapons vs. armour, etc.), LL + AEC did a great job of giving me back the game I used to play when I was young.

I think, however, that OSRIC is a great tool both from a publisher's perspective and for those who revel in the complexity of 1e. Unlike some people who complain that there are too many clones (not a complaint I've seen here in this forum), I love all the little differences between the growing suite of similar and compatible clones, which inspire me to try all kinds of different house rules in my game.

[jasmith]

I think, however, that OSRIC is a great tool both from a publisher's perspective and for those who revel in the complexity of 1e. Unlike some people who complain that there are too many clones (not a complaint I've seen here in this forum), I love all the little differences between the growing suite of similar and compatible clones, which inspire me to try all kinds of different house rules in my game.

After a year and a half in the OSR, all of my various Rule Books have become Collections of Rulings, from which to put together my houseruled version of the game. The backbone is based on LL, though.