Can Someone Explain C&C and OSRIC to Me?

[F. Gilmakin]

Before it gets said, I know there are other posts about these systems, but they drone on for ages. Can someone please tell me succinctly three things: 1.)Are these better, worse, or simply analogous to AD&D 1e?, 2.) Are they able to be integrated with 1e?, and 3.) would you recommend such an integration?

Thanks for indulging me!

[lightningcat]

I haven't got to play either, only read them.
As I recall, they are more of a replacement then an addition. For those of us that missed those days.
But many of the adventures and add-on books claim to work well with both.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

These systems take the core principles of the old editions they model, and update them with elements of the d20 system.

OSRIC is very like AD&D 1e, but it appears to have done away with some of the arbitrary rulings in favour of a slightly more systematic approach. The spells are derived from the SRD more often than from the AD&D counterparts.
(I've read it, but not played it.)

C&C is more like Cyclopedic / BECM D&D. It adds a proper system for skill use (ability modifier + level + d20, whereas BECM D&D had d20 vs Ability score checks), and adopts most of the d20 version of combat (splitting up the round into action types, etc).
(Again, I've read it, not played it.)

[The Big Dice]

1. I'd say tidied up rather than better or worse. I haven't seen a copy of C&C, but OSRIC is like AD&D would be if it was written now. A little cleaner, a little less wordy. But more or less the same game.

2. OSRIC seems like it should integrate just fine with 1e.

3. If you turned up a bunch of AD&D modules (some of them are really good) at a garage sale, OSRIC is a very good option for being able to use them with your gaming group. The integration isn't a bad thing. But if you've got AD&D, you don't strictly speaking need OSRIC.

[LibraryOgre]

Before it gets said, I know there are other posts about these systems, but they drone on for ages. Can someone please tell me succinctly three things: 1.)Are these better, worse, or simply analogous to AD&D 1e?, 2.) Are they able to be integrated with 1e?, and 3.) would you recommend such an integration?

Thanks for indulging me!

1) OSRIC strives to be a reproduction of 1st edition through the medium of the SRD/OGL. For the most part, if you're playing OSRIC, you're playing 1e.
Castles and Crusades is very similar to AD&D and TSR D&D (TD&D), both in feel and in play. They've made a few changes from the 1e spine (attribute bonuses are standardized, AC ascends, and saves are based on attributes), the feel of the game is, IMO, very similar. It may be more palatable to newer gamers than OSRIC.

2) Without a hitch. OSRIC is supposed to be plug-n-play with 1e, and 1e was pretty plug-n-play with TD&D and 2nd edition.
Castles and Crusades requires a little bit more work. ACs need to be converted (subtract the 1e AC from 20 to the get C&C AC), and you may need to adjudicate how saving throws work for certain powers, but I've been running a 1st edition adventure (Ruins of Adventure) with 4th printing C&C for a few months, and before that, I was running C&C using a TD&D adventure (B2: Keep on the Borderlands).

3) Yes. My preference is for C&C.

[Matthew]

As others have said, OSRIC is AD&D restated as best as can be managed legally. C&C is somewhere between D&D, AD&D and D20.

[Draz74]

C&C is somewhere between D&D, AD&D and D20.

Isn't it more rules-light than any of the three, though?

[Matthew]

Isn't it more rules-light than any of the three, though?

Not really. It is certainly more rules light than D20, but no lighter than default AD&D/2e or plain old D&D, as far as I can tell.

[F. Gilmakin]

1) I was running C&C using a TD&D adventure (B2: Keep on the Borderlands).

You wouldn't happen to have a pdf of the maps from that would you? I bought my copy of B2 used for dirt cheap and the previous owner ripped all the maps out.

[Another_Poet]

Looks like your questions have been answered, so I'll just add:

C&C ROCKS. It's my favorite variant of D&D to date. I've played OSRIC, 3.x, PF, and 4e and I feel C&C has a better combination of detail & simplicity, and runs much more quickly at the table, than any of them.

[LibraryOgre]

You wouldn't happen to have a pdf of the maps from that would you? I bought my copy of B2 used for dirt cheap and the previous owner ripped all the maps out.

Arrrgh. Unfortunately, no. I went diving into our now-closed FLGS and bought my TD&D adventures over the course of a number of years.

EDIT: One of my players observed that you don't so much "build" a character in C&C as "select" one. Pick a race, pick a class, pick your primes. The differences based solely on stats are pretty small (an 18 or 19 only confers a 15% bonus over a 9-12), and may be overshadowed by bonuses from race. This simplicity makes it a bit difficult for some people to get... they're used to a lot more mechanical fiddling in their character creation. However, it makes it very easy to pick up a character and go, and, IMO, allows more energy to be given to their non-mechanical development.