I find it very difficult to enjoy any of the numerous BX clones that seem to come out weekly. LotFP really did an amazing job and has spoiled me. The Rules are a masterpiece, the early adventures great. But beyond the controversy of the later adventures the rules themselves and the core book is beautiful. It also took layout into consideration nearly a decade before anybody else was talking bout it. Add to that encumbrance and a thief that is actually fun to play. Presto!
LotFP does a lot of little stuff really well. Fighters actually have a niche, thief is well-designed, the re-priced armor creates economic decisions, progression is smoothed out, and the encumbrance system is fleshed out (so you can actually create resource management).
I think it’s a good game with evocative writing and a great chassis. In a lot of ways, I wish the game that “won” market share was a vanilla fantasy distillation of LotFP instead of BX (with a full bestiary and magic item repository).
Quote from the explanation of how OSE was made and rulings for it: "THAC0 This term was not present in the original rules, but was introduced as a convenient way of indicating which row of the attack matrix a monster or character class uses"
I mean that's crazy. THAC0 is not in B/X!!!
THAC0 and the Attack Matrix actually different:
"See the Slight Difference? Using the attack matrix, a 17 is required to hit. Using THAC0 or AAC, an 18 is required. This difference between attack resolution only manifests at the extremes of combat. The example used reflects this: a character with very poor combat ability and a big magical attack bonus attacking an opponent with a very good AC. This difference rarely arises in non-contrived cases, but is nonetheless an occasional possibility."
Honestly so many people think OSE solved the problems of the game. OSE as rules written is pretty weird! And Alexandrian has blog posts where he gets into the archeology of what is going on, hiring people...
It looks like something like ACK i.e. the scope of the game expanding to the point where you are leading junior clerics or you are a Baron with right of the King ruling a Barony, is the conclusion of the rules. That's the sort of thing that makes me feel like this archeology is all worth something, because that game, which is "out there" and hard to fine, it feels very worthwhile to try to figure it out. Love your work on Sovereign BTW!
> See the Slight Difference? Using the attack matrix, a 17 is required to hit. Using THAC0 or AAC, an 18 is required. This difference between attack resolution only manifests at the extremes of combat.
This is a great read! I've not yet finished it but it is!
Nowadays, I feel like LotFP (actually my favorite), S&W: CR or Shadowdark are better written and better entry points in OSR.
And with supplements like The Monster Overhaul (and soon-to-be The Treasure Overhaul) even Knave 2E tables, I feel like OSE loses usefulness at least to me.
> Nowadays, I feel like LotFP (actually my favorite), S&W: CR or Shadowdark are better written and better entry points in OSR.
I think LotFP is very good - I think it succeeds in creating OSR play in a lot of places where rules-as-written OSE doesn't. Straight out of the box, the adventuring rules (climbing, doors, excavation, foraging, hunting, searching, sleight of hand, stealth, swimming, tinkering, and traps) are very clear (getting lost is not clear). The economy is reasonable and there's nods toward availability (different charts for city vs rural) which helps a bunch. The game cares a lot about niche protection. Equipment has weights and the encumbrance system is well defined. The main weird part about LotFP for me is that there's no bestiary - lots of OSR modules don't include full stat blocks for enemies, and if you're trying to run LotFP you'll need a separate book of monsters. Also, *only* fighters getting better +hit bonuses feels pretty gnarly especially as you get into the upper levels.
I haven't played S&W: CR yet, but what stuck out to me when I read it was how much optionality there was, which I think is a big negative. The optionality is clutter, and each option you present to a new GM is confusing and overwhelming. The book makes *a lot* of references to "The Original Game" which doesn't matter at all if you're new to the scene and just trying to play. For example, check out page 35-36. There are FOUR options for combat sequence. WHY. S&W is also filled with lots of really wishy-washy text. For example, "Wolfsbane: Fresh wolfsbane often keeps werewolves at bay... temporarily.". How does wolfsbane actually work? There's also no mention at all about non-standard combat actions like grappling, tripping, pushing, pocket sand, etc. Lots of games assume that this is already baked in to the abstract combat flow (and so players can't declare that they're tripping someone), but if this is the case, I think it needs to be stated explicitly. If players are encouraged to do this sort of thing, they need *actual rules* that define how it works.
Shadowdark is a well-put-together system. I like:
- class progression via random talents
- no one has darkvision
- advantage/disadvantage is a good system, better than modifiers imo
I don't like
- roll to cast
- the xp system (causes conversion overhead)
- the DC system (I *really* don't like coming up with DCs)
- the keywording consistency is rough
- attributes scores (which you don't control) are much more important than in BX
- backstab is not defined
- I'm never a fan of when a game says "pick a background, and have the GM use fiat to determine if it helps somehow". In play, I find this results in annoying mother-may-i style negotiation. I prefer for characters to have a background in adventuring (which should be a real profession in these sorts of worlds), and for past careers to be RP flavor.
- I don't like the luck metacurrency
- I don't like the carousing rules (require lots of gm improv)
That said, I really like Kelsey. I think she's great! I've had nothing but extremely positive experiences with her, and I think she's a big benefit to the scene at large.
> And with supplements like The Monster Overhaul (and soon-to-be The Treasure Overhaul) even Knave 2E tables, I feel like OSE loses usefulness at least to me.
The Monster Overhaul is very inspired, but sort of like the tome of adventure design, I don't find it useful. This, I think, is mostly a play style thing. I almost exclusively play modules, and modules come pre-stocked. It *feels* like the monster overhaul is meant to be used in the adventure design / prep phase (despite its claims that it's meant for at-the-table use), and I'm not doing that phase! I buy modules to skip that phase!
Agree strongly that Shadowdark having a different system for XP creates conversion overhead/headaches.
One point - the Shadowdark Thief Class has Backstab:
" Backstab. If you hit a creature
who is unaware of your attack,
you deal an extra weapon die of
damage. Add additional weapon
dice of damage equal to half
your level (round down"
This means that you can "backstab" anyone who is not aware that you are there, i.e. firing a bow from cover in an ambush is a backstab. I think that's pretty well defined for the players and the game runner.
It says "unaware of your attack", which has all of the same sort of ambiguities that we have in BX, 1e, etc. If you're flanking someone and they aren't facing you, are they aware of your attack?
Similarly, is it a backstab if you attack them from the front but they were unaware? Like from invisibility.
I'm okay with having fuzzy edges, but prefer for core class features to be very well defined
If the old rulebooks are "ambiguous" about this, even though I think any reasonable GM can do it, then it would be an ask to make a new version not ambiguous.
But more concretely, the Thief class is not native to the world of B/X in the way the other three classes are.
The other three and their usefulness can be derived from the monsters on random encounter tables. No extra sauce necessary,
The Thief (and perhaps all "Expert" classes) depend on the world and its dungeons having certain features.
The Thief (and maybe all "Experts") is part of the metagame.
Kind of radical thesis, usually aimed at "lockpicking" and "listening to doors," but why not apply to Backstab/Sneak Attack as well?
A reasonable GM can definitely do it; no argument there. Rather, I'm saying that lots of reasonable GMs will all do it *differently*.
- Some GMs will let ranged attacks work, some won't.
- Some GMs will let backstabs work when a target is restrained, prone, etc, some won't.
- Some GMs will let flanking thieves backstab (5e style), some won't.
- Some GMs will let the thief backstab multiple times in the same combat by passing some sort of stealth check (like move silently, hide in shadows, etc).
- Some of them require different amounts of actions for this; sometimes it's just a move action to hide, sometimes it takes the attack action (so you can only backstab every other turn).
---
I think these are all reasonable interpretations / limitations, hence the GM has a tough time going wrong. That said, how much I'd be willing to play thief depends *pretty heavily* on how they rule how backstabs work, and so when I'm playing I tend to ask the GM ahead of time. In tables I've played at, I've seen the thief player and the GM hash out how backstabbing works in the middle of the first combat.
This happens because the rules have room for interpretation! Like I said, normally that's fine. There's a whole spell school (illusions) that have this same problem, but for a thief it's core to their combat identity and comes up basically every time. I think it's worth spending the extra ink on really detailing exactly how the designer has *playtested* backstabbing in their home game.
Really amazing write up, and I appreciate all the links to related blog posts, that'll make for some good reading. It's so interesting to see a system examined at this level of detail
I haven't read this extremely closely, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious. That being said, it seems like a lot of your suggested changes are not dissimilar to saying "Use ACKS instead of OSE" or "Use AD&D instead of OSE". Is there a reason you'd recommend using OSE over ACKS or AD&D?
This is incredible work. Would love to see the same for Shadowdark.
Thanks Kevin!
I find it very difficult to enjoy any of the numerous BX clones that seem to come out weekly. LotFP really did an amazing job and has spoiled me. The Rules are a masterpiece, the early adventures great. But beyond the controversy of the later adventures the rules themselves and the core book is beautiful. It also took layout into consideration nearly a decade before anybody else was talking bout it. Add to that encumbrance and a thief that is actually fun to play. Presto!
LotFP does a lot of little stuff really well. Fighters actually have a niche, thief is well-designed, the re-priced armor creates economic decisions, progression is smoothed out, and the encumbrance system is fleshed out (so you can actually create resource management).
I think it’s a good game with evocative writing and a great chassis. In a lot of ways, I wish the game that “won” market share was a vanilla fantasy distillation of LotFP instead of BX (with a full bestiary and magic item repository).
Excellent detail! Very enjoyable read
Thanks! Glad you liked it :D
Quote from the explanation of how OSE was made and rulings for it: "THAC0 This term was not present in the original rules, but was introduced as a convenient way of indicating which row of the attack matrix a monster or character class uses"
I mean that's crazy. THAC0 is not in B/X!!!
THAC0 and the Attack Matrix actually different:
"See the Slight Difference? Using the attack matrix, a 17 is required to hit. Using THAC0 or AAC, an 18 is required. This difference between attack resolution only manifests at the extremes of combat. The example used reflects this: a character with very poor combat ability and a big magical attack bonus attacking an opponent with a very good AC. This difference rarely arises in non-contrived cases, but is nonetheless an occasional possibility."
Honestly so many people think OSE solved the problems of the game. OSE as rules written is pretty weird! And Alexandrian has blog posts where he gets into the archeology of what is going on, hiring people...
It looks like something like ACK i.e. the scope of the game expanding to the point where you are leading junior clerics or you are a Baron with right of the King ruling a Barony, is the conclusion of the rules. That's the sort of thing that makes me feel like this archeology is all worth something, because that game, which is "out there" and hard to fine, it feels very worthwhile to try to figure it out. Love your work on Sovereign BTW!
> See the Slight Difference? Using the attack matrix, a 17 is required to hit. Using THAC0 or AAC, an 18 is required. This difference between attack resolution only manifests at the extremes of combat.
What are you referring to here?
---
> Love your work on Sovereign BTW!
Thanks!
Thanks for this!
This is a great read! I've not yet finished it but it is!
Nowadays, I feel like LotFP (actually my favorite), S&W: CR or Shadowdark are better written and better entry points in OSR.
And with supplements like The Monster Overhaul (and soon-to-be The Treasure Overhaul) even Knave 2E tables, I feel like OSE loses usefulness at least to me.
Looking forward to more of your reviews!
Hey juauke, thanks for stopping by!
> Nowadays, I feel like LotFP (actually my favorite), S&W: CR or Shadowdark are better written and better entry points in OSR.
I think LotFP is very good - I think it succeeds in creating OSR play in a lot of places where rules-as-written OSE doesn't. Straight out of the box, the adventuring rules (climbing, doors, excavation, foraging, hunting, searching, sleight of hand, stealth, swimming, tinkering, and traps) are very clear (getting lost is not clear). The economy is reasonable and there's nods toward availability (different charts for city vs rural) which helps a bunch. The game cares a lot about niche protection. Equipment has weights and the encumbrance system is well defined. The main weird part about LotFP for me is that there's no bestiary - lots of OSR modules don't include full stat blocks for enemies, and if you're trying to run LotFP you'll need a separate book of monsters. Also, *only* fighters getting better +hit bonuses feels pretty gnarly especially as you get into the upper levels.
I haven't played S&W: CR yet, but what stuck out to me when I read it was how much optionality there was, which I think is a big negative. The optionality is clutter, and each option you present to a new GM is confusing and overwhelming. The book makes *a lot* of references to "The Original Game" which doesn't matter at all if you're new to the scene and just trying to play. For example, check out page 35-36. There are FOUR options for combat sequence. WHY. S&W is also filled with lots of really wishy-washy text. For example, "Wolfsbane: Fresh wolfsbane often keeps werewolves at bay... temporarily.". How does wolfsbane actually work? There's also no mention at all about non-standard combat actions like grappling, tripping, pushing, pocket sand, etc. Lots of games assume that this is already baked in to the abstract combat flow (and so players can't declare that they're tripping someone), but if this is the case, I think it needs to be stated explicitly. If players are encouraged to do this sort of thing, they need *actual rules* that define how it works.
Shadowdark is a well-put-together system. I like:
- class progression via random talents
- no one has darkvision
- advantage/disadvantage is a good system, better than modifiers imo
I don't like
- roll to cast
- the xp system (causes conversion overhead)
- the DC system (I *really* don't like coming up with DCs)
- the keywording consistency is rough
- attributes scores (which you don't control) are much more important than in BX
- backstab is not defined
- I'm never a fan of when a game says "pick a background, and have the GM use fiat to determine if it helps somehow". In play, I find this results in annoying mother-may-i style negotiation. I prefer for characters to have a background in adventuring (which should be a real profession in these sorts of worlds), and for past careers to be RP flavor.
- I don't like the luck metacurrency
- I don't like the carousing rules (require lots of gm improv)
for more, I think this was a great deep dive: https://scholomance.substack.com/p/tabletop-review-shadowdark-rpg-by
That said, I really like Kelsey. I think she's great! I've had nothing but extremely positive experiences with her, and I think she's a big benefit to the scene at large.
> And with supplements like The Monster Overhaul (and soon-to-be The Treasure Overhaul) even Knave 2E tables, I feel like OSE loses usefulness at least to me.
The Monster Overhaul is very inspired, but sort of like the tome of adventure design, I don't find it useful. This, I think, is mostly a play style thing. I almost exclusively play modules, and modules come pre-stocked. It *feels* like the monster overhaul is meant to be used in the adventure design / prep phase (despite its claims that it's meant for at-the-table use), and I'm not doing that phase! I buy modules to skip that phase!
> Looking forward to more of your reviews!
Slowly but surely!
Agree strongly that Shadowdark having a different system for XP creates conversion overhead/headaches.
One point - the Shadowdark Thief Class has Backstab:
" Backstab. If you hit a creature
who is unaware of your attack,
you deal an extra weapon die of
damage. Add additional weapon
dice of damage equal to half
your level (round down"
This means that you can "backstab" anyone who is not aware that you are there, i.e. firing a bow from cover in an ambush is a backstab. I think that's pretty well defined for the players and the game runner.
It says "unaware of your attack", which has all of the same sort of ambiguities that we have in BX, 1e, etc. If you're flanking someone and they aren't facing you, are they aware of your attack?
Similarly, is it a backstab if you attack them from the front but they were unaware? Like from invisibility.
I'm okay with having fuzzy edges, but prefer for core class features to be very well defined
If the old rulebooks are "ambiguous" about this, even though I think any reasonable GM can do it, then it would be an ask to make a new version not ambiguous.
But more concretely, the Thief class is not native to the world of B/X in the way the other three classes are.
The other three and their usefulness can be derived from the monsters on random encounter tables. No extra sauce necessary,
The Thief (and perhaps all "Expert" classes) depend on the world and its dungeons having certain features.
The Thief (and maybe all "Experts") is part of the metagame.
Kind of radical thesis, usually aimed at "lockpicking" and "listening to doors," but why not apply to Backstab/Sneak Attack as well?
A reasonable GM can definitely do it; no argument there. Rather, I'm saying that lots of reasonable GMs will all do it *differently*.
- Some GMs will let ranged attacks work, some won't.
- Some GMs will let backstabs work when a target is restrained, prone, etc, some won't.
- Some GMs will let flanking thieves backstab (5e style), some won't.
- Some GMs will let the thief backstab multiple times in the same combat by passing some sort of stealth check (like move silently, hide in shadows, etc).
- Some of them require different amounts of actions for this; sometimes it's just a move action to hide, sometimes it takes the attack action (so you can only backstab every other turn).
---
I think these are all reasonable interpretations / limitations, hence the GM has a tough time going wrong. That said, how much I'd be willing to play thief depends *pretty heavily* on how they rule how backstabs work, and so when I'm playing I tend to ask the GM ahead of time. In tables I've played at, I've seen the thief player and the GM hash out how backstabbing works in the middle of the first combat.
This happens because the rules have room for interpretation! Like I said, normally that's fine. There's a whole spell school (illusions) that have this same problem, but for a thief it's core to their combat identity and comes up basically every time. I think it's worth spending the extra ink on really detailing exactly how the designer has *playtested* backstabbing in their home game.
Really amazing write up, and I appreciate all the links to related blog posts, that'll make for some good reading. It's so interesting to see a system examined at this level of detail
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it <3
I haven't read this extremely closely, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious. That being said, it seems like a lot of your suggested changes are not dissimilar to saying "Use ACKS instead of OSE" or "Use AD&D instead of OSE". Is there a reason you'd recommend using OSE over ACKS or AD&D?
A whole lot of content is built to run OSE specifically, and it has a whole lot less cruft and crunch than 1e or ACKs.
I think OSE is an easier game to run and GM, it’s just missing a few important bits.
That said, if you’re trying to do domain stuff, yeah - play something else.
I did not the same in depth analysis but came up to the same conclusion and developed the same corrections except the following point:
"Create some sort of market availability system to let players know what they can buy."
I just wing it.