OSRIC vs. AD&D, part II

My last post was my impressions of AD&D 1st edition, by way of character creation.  For this entry, I'll go through the OSRIC rules and make a character that way.  There are no statistic block standards for any of this, but the presentation needs to be modified somewhat from the standard AD&D form to allow for player-necessary information that doesn't show up in standard published statistics blocks and to highlight slight differences between OSRIC and AD&D.

Robertus Cordner: 1st-level Human Cleric; Strength 13, Dexterity 14, Constitution 16, Intelligence 7, Wisdom 18, Charisma 15; Hit Points: 3; Age: 22; Armor Class 4; Alignment: Neutral Good
Equipment: Scale mail, medium shield, heavy flail, sling, pewter holy symbol, heavy boots, tunic.
Physical Description: Slim; Height: 5'7"; Weight: 170 lbs.

Organization: I organized the statistics block above in pretty much the order that the OSRIC document walks a reader through character creation.  The only real difference is that the standard ability list (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) is organized before race and class, while I list them here afterwards.  Note the location of Age in the stat block above.  For most purposes, age tends to be almost unimportant or overlooked, and anyone else would shift it to the Physical Description area.  However, the OSRIC book puts an emphasis on age as related to class, rather than only race, and beginning age generation is listed there.  The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide emphasizes age that way as well, but that information rests exclusively in the DM's tome.

Another thing a few purists might notice is how the standard ability list is out of normal order.  This actually makes a big difference when it comes to random character generation, and it can mean the difference between a character becoming a wizard or a thief, for example, because those prime-requisite scores are in different locations.  Robertus, up above, would have become a clumsy, durable, dwarf fighter if the order was standard.  However, this is only impportant in individual cases, and wouldn't make much difference to the way the game is played.

There is no dungeon master's section.  After years of play, like I said in my last post, the idea of one person controlling all information has become unrealistic.  The OSRIC rules, though, are not intended to be a complete and polished game in itself.  It is a collection of rules found in other places, gathered together for ease of reference, not necessarily for ease of use.  There are no collective tables that show me comparative bonuses and penalties of one race compared to others, either for ability scores or class limitations.  There are no tables that do the same thing for each class's armor and weapon permissions, hit dice, or weapon proficiency slots.  Scrolling through the OSRIC material to compare one thing to another to help make a desicion takes a long time.  This is a collection of rules for people who already know the rules.

There is also a tendency to organize things (spells, classes, treasure) alphabetically.  This, too, gets in the way of functionality.  When I'm looking at a choice between many spells of the same level, it is much easier to see them all in the same spot, rather than spread out all over the spell section.  When I have to scroll through a computer document, rather than flip through pages of a book, the problem increases.

Ironically, the only thing arranged by type is the monster section of the OSRIC rules, which was arranged alphabetically in the 1st edition Monster Manuals.  I suspect this has something to do with avoiding duplication of organization methods, but it is also a reflection of organizational and categorical style found in D20 products.  In fact, all of that alphabetizing of other sections is a D20 method of organization.  Despite the rules being similar to 1st edition, then, the organization in OSRIC suggests that those rules will be used in a different way - the D20 way.  A quick look at the new 1st-edition supportive material that is being published lately (under the 'compatable with OSRIC' banner) confirms that.  There is something about these products that make them decidedly NOT 1st-edition AD&D products, and the rules deviations are only a small reflection of that.

What's missing: It hadn't even crossed my mind until one of my cohorts pointed it out to me, but I found out later that the OSRIC set is missing rules on grappling.  For a player well-versed in the rules already, as this document seems to be directed to, that isn't much of a problem.  New dungeon masters or players, though, will find that the rules are either incomplete or rather bare-boned.  The response to this is two-fold: 1) the rules are left open so that interpretation of what rules are present can fit the situation; and 2) the compilers of OSRIC may have left out material they didn't care for or were afraid of crossing copywrite laws with.  What is most disturbing, though, is the lack of the monk character class and psionics.  Regardless of how poorly done one may claim the psionics rules in 1st edition (and 2nd) AD&D were, exclusion of them, and thus the monk character that possessed them, damages the general tone and overall atmosphere of an authentic 1st edition replication.

One more thing that bothers me is a result of avoiding lawsuits.  In an effort to not reproduce the AD&D method of organization for fear of copywrite infringement, the character classes are no longer organized by classes and sub-classes.  The paladin and ranger were sub-classes of the fighter, druid a sub-class of the cleric, illusionist a sub-class of the magic-user, and assassin a sub-class of the thief.  These are small distinctions when the rules still follow those general categories (the rules often repeat phrases like "uses the fighter's 'to-hit' table").  However, it does damage the new player's ability to think in those terms, and it adds a lot of extra material that doesn't need to be there.

All-in-all, it's nice to see 1st-edition material in use again, but I wonder about how it's being used.  If these rules are only going to be presented in the same way that 4th edition D&D is, and suggestions to use those rules in the same way, then why do we need a reprint of an old edition at all?  I contend that it is possible to do something else, and perhaps to respark an older method of play, but I don't know if anyone is open to the idea or would even know how.