On the OSR Google Plus community, Mike M. asked: what is your favorite OSR game?

Personally, I think a number of the simulacrum games have strengths, and while I don’t exactly have a favorite, all of those mentioned below have influenced and educated me. Here then, in alphabetical order, are what I consider the selling points of the various retro and neo clones. I think this is a good answer to those that see the clones as mere cut and paste jobs, adding nothing to the games that inspired them.

ACKS (neo-clone, B/X with a focus on domain play) has my favorite take on simple balanced old school classes, working within the B/X level range. Demi-humans have some choice as to class, but still feel distinct. There are good rules for ritual magic, constructs, armies, and other high level exploits. There is also a proficiency system (encompasses skills and feats) which I find unnecessary. There is no free version.

Crypts & Things (neo-clone, a Swords & Wizardry variant for swords & sorcery) has a “colors of magic” system which combines all of the cleric and magic-user spells into one class, the magician. Using black magic can cause loss of sanity (based on wisdom) or corruption. Many nice flavor touches (casting invisibility involves temporarily existing on a dimension called “the shroud” and can potentially summon otherworldly horrors, for example). Most (but not all) of the good parts can also be found in Akrasia’s free house rules document, if you don’t care about professional layout or having an all-in-one game.

DCC (neo-clone, B/X crossed with 3E and a heavy dose of Appendix N) probably has my favorite magic system (unpredictable, lots of weird effects, still recognizable compared to other classic and simulacrum games). Illustrated by the likes of Russ Nicholson, Peter Mullen, and Erol Otus (though I love much of the art, I could do without the 70s fashion). The beta version is available for free.

Labyrinth Lord (retro-clone, B/X with a hint of AD&D via the AEC) is the lingua Franca of FLAILSNAILS, but it incorporates many third edition SRD-isms which I find distracting (too many armor types, 20 levels, first level clerics get spells, etc). The Advanced Edition Companion is an excellent halfway point between B/X and AD&D. It is illustrated by Steve Zieser and has the most consistent style throughout (both positives, to me). Free unillustrated versions of the core book and the AEC are available, but then you don’t get to see the Zieser art.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess (neo-clone, B/X through a “weird” lens) has excellent referee advice, a decent encumbrance system, and weird-themed spells (including the first level summon spell). A free unillustrated version of the Rules & Magic book is available, though that doesn’t contain the referee advice, which is the best part. LotFP also makes the nicest physical books, if you care about that.

Swords & Wizardry (retro-clone, OD&D) has numerous very useful meta-discussions about the rules, how they work, and how you might want to change them. Very much in the spirit of the original “do your own imagining.” Free, illustrated versions of WhiteBox and Core are available. If I was going to start another game right now, there would be a very good chance that I would base it on the S&W WhiteBox chassis. WhiteBox approximates the 3 LBBs, Core approximates the 3 LBBs + Supplement I: Greyhawk, and Complete approximates the 3 LBBs + all the supplements.

Definitions:

• B/X: the Basic and Expert Dungeons & Dragons rules, by Moldvay and Cook/Marsh. Characterized by the 4 classic human classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief) and 3 demi-human classes (dwarf, elf, halfling). Covers levels 1-14 (though demi-humans have level limits). If you were to only acquire one D&D or simulacrum game, this is it.
• OD&D: original D&D from 1974, 3 little brown books with some supplements. The orignal boxed set (the 3 LBBs) only supported 3 classes: cleric, fighting man, and magic-user. Noted for opaque, ambiguous, and suggestive language. If you use all the supplements, the complexity approaches AD&D levels (so don’t do that).
• Retro-clone: game designed primarily to mimic the play experience of an earlier game.
• Neo-clone: game that uses an older game as a stepping off point for to express a (generally) more focused vision.

Note, this list is intentionally meant to not be comprehensive. It is an editorial selection of available games based on my taste and what I am familiar with. All of these games are available in hard copy and/or full digital versions, but for the sake of parsimony I only linked to the free PDFs.

Honorable mention goes to Delving Deeper and Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperboria. Delving Deeper (retro-clone of OD&D; free version) for being, in some ways, an even closer clone of the original game than Swords & Wizardry (though without as much useful explanatory text). AS&SH (neo-clone; AD&D influenced swords & sorcery) for having art like this by Ian Baggley (though I haven’t had a chance to look closely at the rules). I don’t have much experience with OSR sci-fi games, but I’ve heard good things about Stars Without Number and Other Dust.

Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson, is one of the core books of Appendix N. In terms of direct influence on D&D, 3H&3L would probably be in any top 10. Within can be found paladins that can fall from grace, trolls that regenerate and must be destroyed with fire, a multi-racial adventuring party, and sorcerers with unseen servants.

As a novel, I prefer The Broken Sword, the other Anderson book that is often held up as influential on early D&D. It has more fully realized characters and a more complete story. 3H&3L reads in some ways like an introduction to a longer tale. That being said, the writing is beautiful, unlike some Appendix N works, and it is filled with wonderful gaming inspiration and fairy tale atmosphere. Holger is also another example of the visitor from another reality as explorer of fantasy worlds.

One of the things that I find most interesting about the various challenges presented over the course of Holger’s quest for the sword Cortana is the fact that, despite being a fearsome warrior, with a few exceptions Holger overcomes most of his foes by cleverness. I don’t want to spoil the details, but the basic idea is that Holger is not trading blows and reducing his enemies to 0 HP (most of the time). Instead, he tricks them, frightens them, uses kryptonite against them (well, not actual kryptonite, but hopefully my meaning is clear). This is how characters can game encounters that are above their level. It works well in the context of a game and it works well in the context of how fairy tales work structurally.

Despite the many tropes of D&D that were drawn from 3H&3L, fairies are notably different than the Tolkienized elves of D&D. They are less sympathetic, for one thing, and have a fascinating Christian gloss, being called Pharisees by mortals. The recent 4E cosmology partakes of Fairy-Land in some ways, through the Feywild and Shadowfell, but the atmosphere is still subtly different. The Feywild is primal nature, and doesn’t quite have the fascinating twilight ambiguity that I like so much about Anderson’s realm of Faerie. Combining the Feywild and the Shadowfell into one thing might approximate the feel, but Fairy-Land is an expression of mythic geography and is thus part of the world (you can walk to it) in 3H&3L. For example, on the lands of Faerie (page 38):

Though the sun was hidden, the night he had feared was not fallen. He could identify no source of light, but saw almost as clearly as by day. The sky was a deep dusky blue, and the same blueness pervaded the air as if he rode under water. Grass grew long and soft, with a silvery hue overlying its pale green; white flowers starred the earth. Asphodels, Holger thought. But how did he know? Here and there he saw bushes of white roses. Trees stood alone and in copses, tall, slim, milky of bark, their leaves the color of the grass. The slow wind blew through them with a tiny ringing sound. He couldn’t gauge their distances well in this tricky shadowless light. A brook ran close by which did not tinkle but played, an endless melody on an alien scale. Phosphorescence eddied white and green and blue over the water.

The Pharisees themselves are not noble savages in silk that are more in tune with nature as elves are often portrayed. Instead, they are dark mirrors. Consider this faerie knight (page 39):

The stranger came over a ridge. He bestrode a tall horse, snowy white, with flowing mane and proudly arched neck; yet the beast was subtly wrong to look at, too long of leg, too small of head. The rider was in full plate armor, his visor down so that he showed no face; white plumes nodded on the helmet, his shield was blank and black, all else shimmered midnight blue.

For sustenance, they take tribute from mortals. The logic of fairy tales mostly obtains, but they are not completely removed from the requirements of mortals. They are also the slavers of the fairies (this can be seen in The Broken Sword as well) and have goblins as menial servants. 3H&3L, page 41:

Faerie seemed a wilderness, hills and woods and uncultivated valleys. Holger asked a much subdued Hugi what its inhabitants lived on. The dwarf explained that they magicked up some of their food and drink, and got some from other realms in the Middle World tributary to them, and hunted some among the weird beasts which prowled their domain. All of them seemed to be warriors and sorcerers, their menial work done by slaves taken from the goblins, kobolds, and other backward tribes. Further questions revealed that the Pharisees knew not old age or illness, but were said to lack souls.

And on the masters of Faerie, along with a great example of an OD&D stronghold encounter (page 43):

The castle gates opened and the drawbridge came down, noiselessly. Trumpets blew again. A troop rode forth with banner and scutcheon, plume and lance, to meet him. He reined in and waited, his hand tight around his own spear. So these were the masters of faerie.

The were clad in colors that seemed luminous against the twilight, crimson, gold, purple, green, but the hue of each garment shimmered and flickered and changed from moment to moment. Some wore chain mail or plate, argent metal elaborately shaped and chased; others had robes and coronets. The were a tall people, moving with a liquid grace no human could rival, nor even a cat. A cold haughtiness marked their features, which were of a strange cast, high tilted cheekbones, winged nostrils, narrow chin. Their skin was white, their long fine hair blue-silver, most of the men beardless.

The Pharisees are not exactly agents of Chaos, though they do seem quite willing to assist the witch Morgan, if for no other reason than to ease their boredom. Here is Alfric speaking, on page 47:

‘You mortals know not how tedious undying life can become, and how gladly a challenge such as this is greeted. ‘Tis I should thank you.’

I would be very tempted to replace the B/X elf class with a Pharisee class, which would probably be similar to the elf in my recent alternate take on races post. Basically, details as elf, but can be turned as undead of similar HD. Vulnerability to iron as specified. Perhaps limited to a custom list of enchantment and charm spells, drawn from AD&D or Second Edition for variety. I’ve seen the elf done by limiting to druid spells before, but after reading 3H&3L, I find the enchanter archetype more appealing and appropriate.

I just played my second session of DCC RPG (run by Josh from Being Giant) yesterday. Our first session was a zero level funnel with four character each. Two of mine survived, and became Natan the Cultist (wizard) and Javid the Thug (thief). I rolled for their alignment, and both turned out to be chaotic. Natan’s background was a trapper, so I’m picturing him a bit like a mountain man but with some voodoo going on. Javid was a scribe with an intelligence of 5, so he must have been a failure at that career, probably just writing random characters and hoping nobody would notice. For the second session, I generated another zero to serve as a retainer (Pergamoy the smuggler).

There was one other player in our second session, with a first level cleric, a first level halfling, and a newly generated zero. I have read the criticism that DCC is insufficiently lethal after zero level, but that was not our experience. Of our six characters, only two survived (Natan the Cultist and the halfling). The less fortunate were slain by the rakes and hoes of some sort of underworld gardeners. It’s true that characters reduced to zero HP get one round per level of bleeding out during which they can be saved, but that was not enough for us, even with a cleric in the party. I do think there is an aspect of the funnel which is 3d6 in order, four times, choose the best. The only character of mine that survived from my first four probably had the best scores. It seems natural to be more cautious with the character that has the most potential.

Characters above zero level also have a “not really dead” chance which is a luck check (it functions sort of like a saving throw), but the thief and the cleric both failed their second chance roll too. This is a nice compromise between danger and survivability (and is similar to how I play basic and original D&D, with a save versus death at 0 HP, success indicating unconsciousness rather than death).

Every class felt like it had interesting things to do without having a huge list of powers. The magic system really shined. For every spell (you begin with 4 + intelligence modifier), you roll for a unique side effect (this is called “mercurial magic”). For example, Natan becomes ravenously hungry every time he casts detect magic, (mechanically this is a personality penalty until he eats). Whenever he casts magic missile (which for him is a ray of frost), he changes something nearby into lead and something else into gold (determined randomly).

Spell checks are required for every casting, and you can use the spell again if you don’t fail the spell check (so the system offers more spells than traditional D&D without being unlimited). In practice, this felt very similar to my vancian variant 1 rule (save to retain spells), and I like it a lot (though I still think all those tables are probably overkill, and unique spell fumble charts might be a better use of that space). You don’t need to prepare specific spells beforehand though, which destroys the planning aspect of the magic-user class. The thief ability to burn luck for temporary bonuses was also nice. It allows you to have a greater chance of success on important rolls, without making the outcome certain.