Twenty OSR Game Systems Reviewed: My Analysis

State my assumptions

In comparing these systems I think I should start by setting out my assumptions and, so far as I am aware of them, my biases. 

Aim: I am comparing OSR systems because I like the OSR playstyle. I am sick of 5E. I’ve tried to run OSR style games in 5E, and the system was fighting me the whole time. Even making a lot of DM-side world changes, the actual 5E classes (and in particular multiclassing) are so overpowered and high magic that it made any kind of simulation of recognisable reality very difficult. So, I am looking for the best system that supports OSR style play. 

So, what are the features that make a system supportive of the OSR playstyle in my view?

Danger: characters don’t need to die constantly, but the threat of death must be real, and must remain present for the majority of a character’s career. They should never be able to just decide “oh well, let’s just attack the palace with no plan, wade through the Evil Vizier’s 500 highly trained sentinels and his coven of necro-witches because we’ll win anyway”. The power level should keep characters at a recognisable human scale. A dozen watchmen with loaded crossbows should remain a relevant threat. 

Incentives: I feel fairly strongly that “xp for gold” creates the correct incentives and helps to drive the kind of emergent gameplay that I want to see. It helps to position the characters as money grubbing thieves and tomb looters, which I find aesthetically appealing. If the main way to obtain xp is to achieve story goals or kill monsters, then that is the kind of playstyle that is going to be encouraged. 

Campaign play: I think OSR games work best when they are played as a long-form campaign. It is in campaign play that emergent game play can take you in unexpected directions. It also requires long-form play for faction play to develop, and for characters to really change the world in significant ways. It also opens the door to domain play, which I think is a good addition, if not something that should become the main focus.  

Elegant design: I think some game design elements are objectively better than others. For example, I generally think that a single unified system is better than lots of noodly subsystems using different mechanics. I think Fighters getting +1 to hit per level is better than them getting +0 at 1st level and then +2 at 4th level and +5 at 7th level. OSR systems with objectively better systems are generally better games, in my view. 

By contrast, certain differences are going to be down to taste and preference. For example, lots of people like the procedures in B/X, but others won’t see the need for them and will be happy doing dungeon exploration more naturalistically. 

In addition, some of these things are hard to categorise e.g. is side-based initiative objectively better than individual initiative, or just a matter of taste? I’m not sure. 

No over-reliance on skills: I’m not as adverse to skills in OSR RPGs as some people. I think there are situations where you can’t resolve an issue through talking or describing actions, and a skill or attribute check is a reasonable system. For example, rolling to determine whether a character knows a particular piece of lore, or whether they can scale a cliff. But too often systems become ‘skill traps’ that force actions that should be described or roleplayed into simple dice rolls. Social skills like Diplomacy or Intimidate are the worst offenders, but also information gathering skills like Insight and Gather Information. If an OSR system handles this well and avoids over-reliance on button-pressing play, then I think it’s a better system. 

Low magic: while not a particularly trad game feature, I prefer games that have lower magic and more realistic situations. I’m happy to have human only characters for example. I generally feel that D&D has too many spells that are too similar and just create headaches in parsing the game. 

Compatibility: while not essential to me (because I generally write my own stuff), I think an OSR system is probably better if it is compatible with trad systems with minimal conversion. 

What about the players?

I think these debates have a tendency to be dominated by DMs. Typically because DMs decide or propose what the group is going to play. I think it is worth thinking about player preference too. At the very least, if there are two systems that I think equally well support the OSR playstyle, I should pick the one that the players are going to like best. 

There is a reason that classes have evolved over the decades. There is a reason that the Fighter has been endlessly tinkered with, and that Thief skills are frequently house-ruled. I think there is a general consensus that these classes didn’t quite work as originally conceived. In other words, they were not as fun to play as they could be. Likewise, there is a reason that 5E is popular. While I feel it goes overboard, players like getting something cool each level. So here’s another principle: 

Character development: I think a system that has interesting character development options is a better OSR system than one that doesn’t. I’m not particularly wedded to classes, but I think to achieve long term campaign play, it helps for characters to have the scope to develop. If they get choices about how they develop, that is even better. 

The usual OSR response when people note that OSR characters have very few abilities is to say “the answer is not on your character sheet”. I agree, and some abilities are a problem e.g. the 5E Ranger’s abilities mean that the party can never get lost and never need to worry about food. But abilities don’t have to be badly designed like those. There are lots of class abilities that don’t undermine creative problem solving. For example, a Fighter having an extra attack, or +1 to hit, or a Cleric’s ability to drive away undead. 

The other response is “OSR characters develop through the items they find rather than abilities”. While characters can develop through items, not every DM is going to want to dish out magic items willy nilly. Personally I like to use fewer items, but to make them more wondrous (broken even). 

I’m particularly interested to see how systems handle Fighters. By default, Clerics, Magic Users and Thieves all get something beyond hp each level. Fighters sometimes get nothing at all, which feels unbalanced to me. Over various editions it has been fixed, unfixed, fixed again etc. 

Analysis

So, on to the analysis. 

Castle and Crusades

Replacing lots of subsystems with a unified die mechanic is welcome, and was one of my favourite parts of 3E when it came out (although the 3E honeymoon did not last long). Saves based on attributes is intuitive and flexible. You get to make a save against level drain! I like the wide range of classes, and I think I prefer race and class separated (although I sympathise with the reasons for liking race as class). The combat system is pretty solid, and I like the slot-based encumbrance system. While the game equivocates a bit, xp for gold is there. 

The prime/secondary attribute system feels unnecessarily complicated. If the DM is going to add +8 to a target of 12, why not just decide a target number? Why not just have a range of base target numbers (easy 10, average 15, hard 20, very hard 25) and give a +5 bonus (or even better, advantage?) when rolling your prime attributes? As with 3E, adding level as a bonus means there is a risk of target number bloat. You halve that and you end up with something like 5E’s proficiency bonus. Hmm. 

Overall, I think C&C is pretty solid, but I’m quite irritated by the prime/secondary target number mechanic, but house-ruling that would not be too difficult. 8/10

Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game

BFRPG feels most like a variant of B/X, but with race and class separated. The ascending AC and ‘to hit’ bonus is probably an objectively better system than THACO (I say that as someone completely comfortable with THACO after 40 years). The ability check system seems better than C&C’s on the basis that it avoids target number bloat. The classes feel limited in terms of abilities. The Fighter repeats the misstep of AD&D of giving them no abilities (later attempts at correction include Unearthed Arcana’s weapon specialisation). It bothers me that BFRPG gives xp for fighting rather than exploration. I feel that sets the wrong incentives, but it predates the OSR and the normalisation of its precepts. 6/10

Swords & Wizardry Complete

I like the low attribute bonuses because it means you can stick firmly to 3d6 in order with no whining, and players can still have viable characters. S&WC actually has a Fighter class that isn’t radically underpowered, which I think is commendable. I like the single save score quite a bit. There is a pretty good range of classes and their abilities are okay. 

The Thief has the classic problem of being useless at his job. The combat procedure breaks initiative up into two halves with missiles and movement happening in initiative order first, and then melee happening in initiative order. I think this will just confuse me. But overall S&WC feels solid, and I can’t find much to dislike about it. 8/10

Lamentations of the Flame Princess 

Clearly the LotFP Thief is objectively better designed than the traditional one. I quite like ‘turn undead’ being a spell. The ‘to hit’ bonus and ascending AC system is clean (armour is very effective). It’s xp for gold, and I like that only Fighters get bonuses to hit after level 1. Non-Fighters are going to struggle to lay a glove on a dude in plate and shield (AC 19), which feels realistic. The new spells are fun, in a cosmic horror ‘oh god oh god’ kind of way. The slot based encumbrance system is pretty good. While I like the almost OD&D simplicity of the classes, they feel a bit too simple for my taste. I’ve also generally been put off by the 16th century setting because I don’t have a good grasp of that era.  7/10

Adventurer Conqueror King System

ACKS is a pretty good version of B/X. I like the flavour imparted to demihuman classes. I like how everyone gets access to the “cleave” attack. The stone based encumbrance is okay. I like reducing the number of spells that Clerics get, although more guidance or examples would have been welcome. I like that this is “xp for gold” by default. I like the stronghold and domain rules. While these are largely the rules that already existed in BECMI, they have been organised and expanded in a good way. The economics and trade rules are also good and will help DMs avoid having to house rule such things. I like that high level spells are lengthy rituals. 

The ACKS classes themselves are a bit underwhelming in terms of class abilities. I don’t really like the “proficiency” system, or the way that many of them are individual rules subsystems. I don’t think the “attack throw” mechanic is objectively worse than THACO, but it is a complication for complication’s sake. 7/10

Dungeon Crawl Classics

I feel quite conflicted about DCC. I really like everything the game stands for and is trying to achieve, but…I hate quite a few of its game design decisions. Hate the weird dice and having to buy a new dice set just for this game. Hate that extra attacks use a weaker die. The noodly subsystems for ‘mighty deeds’ are overly complex, and the swingy ‘deed die’ adds complexity for little advantage. The spell outcome implementation feels bloated and could have been handled by simpler ‘wild magic’ tables rather than half a book. Most flavours of D&D already have too many spells and require too much referring to the rulebook, and DCC puts that on steroids. It isn’t an xp for gold system. I do like ‘rolling for spells’ and fumble and critical tables. I also like the ‘funnel’ system for 0 level characters. 4/10

Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea

I like the low attribute bonuses. I really like that character race provides a culture rather than mechanical benefits. I really like how Hyperborea replaces multiclassing with fixed variant classes. Again, this strikes a good balance between letting players have the kind of character they want, but avoiding 5E style CharOp crap. I like that classes cap at level 12. This is a gold for xp system. I like that Fighters have good effective abilities and that Thieves have usable skills. I like the little extra abilities that other classes get, like Mages being able to summon familiars or Clerics making scrolls. I like the basic skill resolution mechanic, although I’d like to see a reference table of all 1d6 skills. I like the single save. I really like that the AD&D surprise and initiative rules have been replaced with something sensible. I like that the rest of the poor AD&D rules have been given the boot. I probably won’t use the setting, but I do really like it and how much adventuring potential it has. 

I don’t like the combat phase mechanic, and would probably go with something simpler. Some of the classes feel unbalanced e.g. Barbarians and Monks get too many abilities at 1st level compared to other classes (a longstanding AD&D problem that wasn’t fixed). I don’t like the attack matrices, and would prefer THACO or ascending AC/to hit. I don’t really like Classes having minimum attribute scores to qualify for them; unlike Basic D&D, it looks like it is possible to roll so badly that you qualify for no classes at all. Hyperborea (like AD&D) is silent on what happens then. 9/10

Beyond the Wall

I like the low level range and human defaults. I like the simple attribute check system, although given the attribute generation mechanic it seems likely that characters will have high attributes, which feels like it will be unbalanced. Given that characters can double specialise for a +4, that seems even more likely. The combat system is a clean ascending AC system. I like the rules on customising monsters. 

I don’t think the fairly standard D&D spells really complement the low fantasy design intention. The ‘at will’ cantrips also seem at odds with this. The small number of classes is limiting. I’m not a fan of the predictable static initiative system. I don’t like that it isn’t an xp for gold system. 5/10

Into the Odd 

The random generation of starting equipment is fun, and I like how that is linked to how well you roll your attributes. I quite like the dual health system where hp come back quickly, but Str loss takes longer. The arcanum are fun and I like the “fallen sci fi” setting the game presents. The fact that the game also includes an example region and dungeon is impressive, given that most games fail at this. 

I don’t think the “save check” system fully works. I’m not opposed to the idea of automatically hitting, but there needs to be something else to make that work. I don’t know whether that should be a roll to hit a location or stagger your foe or something, but it feels a bit flat as it is. My main concern about ITO is that characters have nothing really to distinguish them, and only develop in minimal ways. Given that I want my players to like whatever we play and to feel like their characters have some scope to improve, this is a significant weakness. 4/10

Troika

The concept of Troika is great, and I enjoy the hints about the setting scattered through the character backgrounds. The system is clunky. I was tempted to blame this on being limited to 2d6, but then Traveller demonstrates that a good system is possible. The way that armour modifies the random roll on the damage table feels overly complicated. If it’s only going to reduce damage by 1 to 2, why not just have armour do that? The initiative system is innovative, but I suspect that in practice not being able to do anything every other turn because the “end turn” token has been drawn before your token will feel unfair and unfun. The sample adventure in the book is very poor and conveys an odd impression of the intended playstyle. 2/10

White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game

I like the low attribute bonuses which make low attribute characters viable. I like that ascending AC is offered as an option. I also like the single save score from S&W.  I like that it is open for you to adapt and expand as you see fit. I like that a +1 sword is an awesome item! But it is a very simple and limited system. The classes are probably too simple to sustain a long campaign nowadays. There is a reason D&D developed and evolved. Those pressures are still with us. 6/10

Low Fantasy Gaming

I like the range of classes, and classes capping out at level 12. I like the roll under attribute skill checks (although this is another ‘4d6 drop the lowest’ system, which may unbalance that). I liked the way monsters had a special ability that could be triggered, but a roll of 19 would mean that it rarely happens.

I didn’t like that the game was partly incomplete and you had to invent class features yourself or borrow them from other games. That said, I thought aiming to give classes a feature of some kind at nearly every level would be enjoyable for players. I didn’t think the skill bonuses were useful enough. (I would prefer 3d6 attribute rolls and then +2 for a skill.) Given that the selling point of LFG is that it is “low fantasy” I expected it to handle arcane magic differently. It’s essentially D&D but with a miscast table. 7/10

Knave

I like the random equipment generation. Being able to cast a spell only if you have a spellbook is quite a fun idea. I really like the original list of levelless spells, and there are some fun ones in there. I think Knave would be a good game to run a one-off for new roleplayers, and it would probably work well as a children’s RPG (I find most children’s RPGs are way too complicated). 

I don’t mind that the game is classless, but I am bothered that characters have no abilities of any kind to distinguish themselves. Every character is essentially identical. 3/10

The Black Hack

I like the “roll under attribute” rolls in place of skills, and advantage / disadvantage. I also like using “roll under attribute” as saves. Having players make all the rolls is quite cool. Slot-based encumbrance is simple. The usage die idea is interesting, but I’m not convinced.  

The initiative rules lose me. Seems like a mess to run. I don’t like how armour absorbs a certain amount of damage and then stops, because it’s unintuitive. I can see that you need armour to work differently in a “roll under attribute to dodge” system, but simply reducing damage by 1 to 3 would work better IMHO. The classes don’t really develop after 1st level, which I think will limit player interest. I’d  prefer more classes. 5/10

Old School Essentials Classic Fantasy

I like the option for ascending AC / to hit bonus. I like that the spell list is smaller and some of the higher level spells are missing. D&D has too many spells. I like the implied cap at 14th level. The game procedures are okay, although I wouldn’t use them as written. I like that this is an xp for gold system. 

There are a reasonable number of classes, but they all feel quite limited in terms of abilities. Fighters are very boring, and I hate that the Fighter’s ‘to hit’ bonuses are only gained in 3 level increments. The traditional Thief skills mean they are terrible at everything. They should be able to be reasonable at one skill at least. I like OSE a lot more as DM than as a player. 6/10

Mork Borg

Stat system is okay. Random gear is fun, and slot based encumbrance is okay. I think I quite like the variable armour protection rule. I like that players make all the rolls. Casting by having a scroll is quite fun. The monsters are very good (that goblin!!!). The optional classes are quite good. I like the doom. 

I don’t like milestone levelling. I don’t like that the classes don’t really develop. I think it would be fun for a short campaign, but no more than that. I don’t like that the setting is only sketched out. I’d like more details, and a better idea of what adventurers in this setting should be doing, given that money doesn’t seem that important. 5/10

Forbidden Lands 

I like the range of races, and the good selection of classes. I like that race is represented by a single talent. The core mechanic is okay, although not compatible with most other OSR material. I like that attributes can’t be increased. I like that characters can buy new talents with xp, so they always have development opportunities (although it looks like you can buy a new general talent for 3xp, which means one after every session, which feels too much…). The stronghold rules are great, and give a nice balance of customisation and simplicity. 

I’m not sure if the combat will drag. With the roll to hit, then the parry roll, and then the armour roll, it feels a bit like Palladium. I don’t like that it isn’t particularly deadly. I hate the initiative system, and would just replace it with a 1d10 roll for each combatant. Talents all depend on Willpower and you mainly getting that by failing and pushing rolls. This only happens when you push and roll a 1 on your attribute dice (usually 2d6 to 4d6). This also causes attribute damage every time which takes a quarter day rest to recover. It seems like characters will constantly be scrounging for Willpower, but maybe that’s a good thing? There are quite a lot of rules and rules subsystems. These aren’t lengthy, but there are a lot and it irks me, Klytus. 6/10

Cairn

I like rolling under attributes to save. As with ITO, I feel like the automatic damage combat system lacks something. I find the encumbrance penalty to hp plain weird. The crit table is a good idea, and I like the concept of critical injury being how you advance, but mechanically I don’t think how it has been implemented works well. 2/10

Old School Essentials Advanced Fantasy

The wide range of classes is good. The separate class and race rules work well, and if you are addicted like me to the idea of a Dwarf Cleric, Elven Ranger or Halfling Druid, then they give you that. Having most of the AD&D monsters and magic items converted for B/X is great. I really like that they did not add the higher level spells from AD&D. 

I think it’s a shame that the Fighter was not updated at the same time with e.g. weapon specialisation or 1 attack/level against 1HD creatures. It’s hard to see why anyone would play the Classic Fighter instead of the Barbarian, Ranger, Knight or Paladin. 8/10

Worlds Without Number 

I like the setting, and it is more detailed and supported than in e.g. Into the Odd. I like the low attribute modifiers. I like the skill check system, but it’s essentially the Traveller system and that’s solid. The Traveller career mechanic is nicely adapted. The range of classes is good, and even better with the ones in the deluxe edition. I like that humans are the default. I like that classes cap out at level 10. The Foci (feats) remind me of the “proficiencies” (feats) in ACKS, but the ones in WWN feel more streamlined. I like the encumbrance slot system. The combat economy feels like 5E. The limited bonuses to d20 rolls (+2 attribute, +4 skill) gives an outcome that reminds me of 5E’s ‘bounded accuracy’. I am not a fan of the way that multiclassing has been designed (feels messy). 

I don’t like that it isn’t an xp for gold system. I don’t like that it includes social skills like Connect and Convince which I think should be role-played. But overall, it feels pretty solid. 8/10 

Final conclusions

The games that I rated highest are: Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry Complete, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea, Old School Essentials Advanced Fantasy, and Worlds Without Number. 

I think what all five of these games have in common is that they are full games (not rules light); they have a lot of character classes; and the classes have a good number of abilities. They are mostly gold for xp games. More fundamentally, I think what most of them have in common is that they are all systems that aim for the kind of sweet spot that represents how most people played back in the day. I’m talking about the fact that people either played Basic+ i.e. a version of Basic with AD&D stuff added (separate race/class, minsters, spells, items), or they played AD&D- i.e. a version of AD&D with impractical rules ignored and replaced by Basic D&D ones. 

Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea comes out on top for me. I really like the AD&D core, but updated to replace nearly all the rules that we had to house-rule out in the old days. The approach to multiclassing and races is fresh and elegant. The classes are generally nicely built, and I like how many options players have. It does have more complexity than I want to handle right away, but I like that it is there if I need it. 

If my players wanted to have a stronghold at low level, I think the Forbidden Lands stronghold rules would be ideal. If we end up wanting domain play, then the ACKS domain rules would be ideal. 

Disclaimer: I wasn’t even aware of Hyperborea until I commenced this series of reviews.  I have no relationship with North Wind Adventures (the publisher of Hyperborea). My conclusions are my own.