I had to "re-find" it. I couldn't for the life of me remember "OSRIC".
I was thinking how much I wouldn't mind owning a bound copy of OSRIC and then realised that perhaps I could just satiate that desire by actually spending some time with my old DMG. You really can dip in and out of the DMG - it's fascinating to think of situations where many of the rules / advice would have applied (good for reading on the loo! Sacrilegious, I know).
I found a bizarre paragraph which I thought about scanning (but I'm never in the right place with enough time) because it mentioned conflicting scales when using figures - but perhaps redundant scale systems should be a thread in it's own right (check it out - for example: 3 1-inch squares across to represent a 10ft wide corridor).
I think the main problem we are having with scale here is that there is little constancy between miniatures and rules sets so far as scale goes and there is even a general inconstancy in the scales of miniatures them selfs. I spent some time with a tape-measure, a ruler, some dungeon maps, a few miniatures from different systems and calculator last week and to cut a long story short I have come to the conclusion that all scale (like time and space) is relative.
Another time I will go into a long rant about this full of pictures to illustrate my point(s). But for now I'm going to suggest that we all just go with what looks right and what is most convenient for the rule set in question.
~The ravings of a single mad Goblin is bad enough, but such a power-hungry, malice-filled creature as Mortis can never hope to be understood~
This is so cool! Although I mostly play 3rd edition these days, I spent decades playing 1st edition and I still refer back to it when I can't find what I want in the 3.5 books. Thank you for making this available - it will get lots of use, I promise you!
I've been playing AD&D since before it was printed in hard cover back in 78'. And this PDF is 2-Kewl! Thanks! This makes referencing 1st Edition as easy as 1-2-3. These guys deserve to be placed in The Hall Of Heroes.
Very good question. Without either set of rules to hand .... in OSRIC... The experience point tables for classes are slightly different (perhaps there was a copyright reason for this - and class/game balance). Very slight changes to spell descriptions and names. No French sounding weapon names. No specific weapon vs specific armour class tables. No psionics rules or Bard class -if I remember right. (?) The loss of psionics affects monster listings as well, I think - i.e. brain mole and mindflayer (or equivalent) are no longer there I think. Lots of little optional rules dropped, but almost certainly it's an well averaged out facsimile of AD&D whilst keeping within copyright agreements of open game license - plus the idea that AD&D game formulas are in public domain from an assorted of computer games over the years (never fully understand the details of that either)
According to bits and bobs I've read on the forums, problems only occur when the fine details of the AD&D rules are compared tables and rules in OSRIC - if you're using both sets of rulebooks at the same table for example. In many ways OSRIC is a better made/finished set of rules than the original PH and DMG. I don't think OSRIC ventures into the Unearthed Arcana territory.
Curiously and personally, I believe the original DMG is more fun to casually read, but OSRIC is a better organized pick-up-and-play set of rules.
Also, they also provide a tiny bit of insight as to why OSRIC has to be different from AD&D.
OSRIC is still considered to be a cornerstone of the system-cloning of the Old School Renaissance movement - which has been maturing of late with the availability of reprints of earlier editions of games. Labyrinth Lord is very popular amongst AD&D clone fans.