Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,554 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
YAD&DC? « Thread Started on Jun 10, 2011, 10:31am »
Does the market need another OD&D clone?
It is a fair question, and since I'm the author of YAD&DC (yet another D&D clone)? I reckon I'm as good a choice as any other to provide an answer, though by no means the sole answer, to that question.
First of all, one might want to know why I wish to take on such a project. There are two parts to that answer, let's start with the simple one.
I was asked!
To expand just a bit upon that thought, I was asked by a guy I've worked with on several other projects and for whom I have only respect, and that of the highest order. John "Coleston" Adams knows me, he knows I've been playing the game since there was a game to play. I drove to Houston and bought a copy of this game way back in the 1970's and I played and ran the game as few others have: in a vacuum. Isolated in my small town from the even the primitive gamer networking methods that existed back in those halcyon days of RPGs, I had to figure out this new type of gaming all on my own. There were no supplements (though that didn't last long), no self-proclaimed "experts" to tell me how I was doing it wrong, no endless argument over why a Magic-User couldn't use a sword. We were a bunch of guys and a few girls (who looked rather like the guys) rolling those queer little dice and having a blast.
The second part of the answer is content control. Simply put, Brave Halfling Publishing (BHP) needed a reliable base upon which to build a product line; one that BHP itself controlled. So, it might be argued the industry may not have needed YAD&DC but BHP most assuredly did. Partially connected to this line of reason was our mutual belief that no gaming system at the time the project began accurately portrayed the basic three book system we were hoping to preserve.
It is hoped the gaming community benefits from Delving Deeper. If not from the rules, then from the original edition compatible materials that spring forth from it; both from BHP and others. We also wish to grow the hobby, benefiting from new gamers able to break into (so-called) old school gaming without having to buy increasingly difficult to obtain and ever more expensive out of print publications.
So, there is your answer. I didn't think I could do it "better" than anyone else. No claim was ever made the other clones weren't fun to play, I actually have many of them in my gaming library. I just wanted to preserve a legacy, as accurately as the OGL and its OGC would allow. Did I succeed? You, gentle reader, must judge for yourself.
crusssdaddy Level 5 Thaumaturgist member is offline
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 329 Karma: 20
Re: YAD&DC? « Reply #1 on Jun 10, 2011, 10:59am »
I understand the 'I was asked' portion, the others parts less so.
Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules? There are a ton of other companies that release modules and supplements for systems they don't control - for example, Expeditious Retreat is one that I have bought a number of products from and they don't control OSRIC. Why does BHP feel the need to operate differently?
As for growing the hobby, I don't see how YAD&DC does anything but clutter the market and confuse newcomers. I don't see DD as something newbies are going to buy - it seems the likely market is your & my fellow old-schoolers who might want the 'basic three book system' more faithfully replicated. But we already have a lot of choices, and we have the experience and enthusiasm to house rule, adapt, and tweak these choices... so where's the need for YAD&DC for a market segment that already has it all?
People who defend the creation of additional clones typically cite 'The more the merrier' as a defense, but I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!
« Last Edit: Jun 10, 2011, 11:01am by crusssdaddy »
our mutual belief that no gaming system at the time the project began accurately portrayed the basic three book system we were hoping to preserve.
IMHO, that's all the reason needed. To date, there is no clone of the 3lbb's published. period. Closest I know of is "The Big Brown Book" which also isn't published officially, and which relies entirely on d6 - a big change from the funny dice that were part of D&D's legacy.
Sure, there are moldvay clones with tweaks to make them like the 3LBB's - good and fun in and of themselves - but that's not the same thing.
I remember, when first encountering Labrynth Lord descriptions, thinking, why would Dan Proctor do this when Basic Fantasy already existed? The answer of course was to emulate a very specific ruleset that a lot of people loved, rather than the similar but often different BF. Same principle here.
When I wrote Dragons at Dawn, it certainly wasn't because I felt there was a need to produce a new and better RPG. Far from it. But I did feel there was a need for, and an interest in, knowing how "the other guy" ran his games before '74 and putting together a booklet so folks could have a go at playing that way. Similarly, I feel there's a need for an Arneson tweaked D&D, much the way S&W and OSRIC represents a Gygax tweaked D&D, but that's another story.
Point being that each of the published rulesets are unique and need to be treated uniquely to do them justice and Delving Deeper definetly aims at, and (hopefully) fills in a big gap in game market.
I covered that in my post as best I could without bringing up the specific incident, which in large part played out right here on this forum. You were around then and you probably remember what I'm talking about. My apologies if this answer sounds vague or evasive, but I like all the people involved and have no desire to get more specific.
I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!
Here we are in agreement! I've already begun working on the first supplement, hoping to capture a swords & sorcery or swords & planets type of feel of the old pulps. When that is completed I intend to support that supplement and style of gaming with a line of adventure modules. Two modules are sitting on my PC hard drive right now, one about 80% toward completion and the other about 35%.
Thank you for your thoughts, you make some very good points.
crusssdaddy Level 5 Thaumaturgist member is offline
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 329 Karma: 20
Re: YAD&DC? « Reply #4 on Jun 10, 2011, 11:52am »
Quote:
Point being that each of the published rulesets are unique and need to be treated uniquely to do them justice and Delving Deeper definetly aims at, and (hopefully) fills in a big gap in game market.
Okay. From my vantage point I don't see a lot of room for uniqueness anymore, if there ever was any. Is another explanation of what a Fighting Man does needed? Another level advancement table that differs by a handful of XP? Another description of a goblin? What a fireball does? And isn't a clone by definition not unique? I'm perplexed by any explanation for the need of a clone that references uniqueness.
Maybe that need comes from a love affair with the LBBs, which I don't have. Maybe that need comes from having a dog in the fight, as you do with D@D. All I'm doing is asking for what I want more and for what there is an eternal need for - new stuff.
[quote author=crusssdaddy board=bhpjohn thread=5922 post=74291 time=1307721553]Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules?
I covered that in my post as best I could without bringing up the specific incident, which in large part played out right here on this forum. You were around then and you probably remember what I'm talking about. My apologies if this answer sounds vague or evasive, but I like all the people involved and have no desire to get more specific.
I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.
Re: supplements - now we're talking!
« Last Edit: Jun 10, 2011, 11:59am by crusssdaddy »
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
crusssdaddy Level 5 Thaumaturgist member is offline
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 329 Karma: 20
Are you referring to Delving Deeper? If so, fair enough. Are you planning on playing the game, or just enjoy the art for yourself, or use it as a reference to show players during sessions of other games you are playing? Or something else?
I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.
Ah! Well, we wanted editorial say regarding what did or didn't go into the rules. The other games out there fell short of being a faithful clone. OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord did a good job of their respective systems; BHP felt there was another rules set out there that needed the same thing.
To my mind, the legacy and preservation of same was the important issue. I'm sure John would love to see them sell like hotcakes, but I just wanted to preserve something I felt was worthwhile. Other games, in my opinion, did not do that.
I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.
Re: supplements - now we're talking!
Also because of the Open Gaming License, the Brave Halfling team has a choice in the matter. In the past Third Party publishers had no choice if the situation with the system they supported was altered by the original publisher.
Are you referring to Delving Deeper? If so, fair enough. Are you planning on playing the game, or just enjoy the art for yourself, or use it as a reference to show players during sessions of other games you are playing? Or something else?
I like owning pretty things.
I hope it will turn out to be an ideal intro to the hobby. I can show/lend it to friends, and I can tell people on the street/internet to buy it.
Being a clone, I don’t expect it to revolutionize the way I actually play D&D, no.
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 504 Karma: 67
Re: YAD&DC? « Reply #13 on Jun 10, 2011, 6:26pm »
While I have worked with John for BHP from the start, I do so on a non-paid, voluntary basis, so I feel I have no actual conflict of interest in answering your questions directly crusssdaddy, without the need to be "tactful" or "diplomatic".
Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules? There are a ton of other companies that release modules and supplements for systems they don't control - for example, Expeditious Retreat is one that I have bought a number of products from and they don't control OSRIC. Why does BHP feel the need to operate differently?
You're right, BHP doesn't NEED its own game, but there are some good reasons why it makes sense for it to do so. BHP has concentrated on two main versions of the game - LL and S&W (Basic and Original D&D). Yep there's been some OSRIC stuff from BHP, but other companies are pumping out 1e modules, so it hasn't been the focus for BHP.
LL has been a rock, even the revised version released a couple of years after the first, only had a couple of minor amendments, which makes it a module publisher's dream. S&W on the other hand has been in a constant state of change right from the start. How many different versions of it are there now? I don't know myself, I lost track long ago. This makes things difficult for third party publishers to keep their products accurate when the game keeps changing.
You said above crusssdaddy that you were aware of the events that were the catalyst for John deciding to produce Delving Deeper, then you should be aware that when he announced his plans to do so, Matt Finch had stated publicly that S&W: White Box was no longer going to be supported by him, the copyright owner, in other words it was a dead system. John offered to purchase it, but Matt said no. Given that John had just taken a stack of pre-orders for the next print of the S&W: WB box set, this put him in an extremely difficult position, especially as the ball was already rolling in the production of that product.
Given that BHP has chosen to focus on two versions of D&D - Basic and Original - and with S&W: WB dead in the water and previous uncertainties and difficulties in working with the constantly changing S&W brand, it made a hell of a lot of sense for John to produce an in-house game as a stable base for his "Original" edition modules and supplements.
As for growing the hobby, I don't see how YAD&DC does anything but clutter the market and confuse newcomers.
I stated recently on my blog that I don't buy this argument, nor have sympathy for any newbie making this complaint. It stuns me how many times I see people ask questions on forums that I can answer in 30 seconds after typing a few words into the Google search box. There has been some great stuff written that clearly explains the old school scene (OSR) and retro-clones movement and easily clears up any such confusion. It is pure laziness for anyone these days to say they are confused.
I agree that the market doesn't need a new clone, and this from a man who is currently involved in the production of two new ones. However, much of the confusion around the multitude of games comes from a misunderstanding of what is meant by "retro-clone" and "clones". In one sense all these clones are just D&D with a few differences, which makes them all much of a muchness. In reality there are the "clones", which fall under that description, and the true retro-clones that seek to replicate the original games as closely as legally possible. OSRIC v2 did this with 1e, LL did this with B/X, and that's that. Only two "true" retro-clones. Matt Finch publicly admitted S&W wasn't a true clone of OD&D and recently took steps to bring it closer to that goal. His reason for not doing so in the first place was because of his concerns about legal issues.
So, while 1e and Basic D&D have been replicated and kept in print for posterity and future generations, OD&D hasn't. BHP aims to fill that gap in the market and give the hobby a true 3LB clone.
As for all those other clones that aren't true retro-clones, but just D&D + house rules, the problem of confusing newbies isn't the fault of the games themselves, but the poor job we as a community have done in explaining the easy compatibility between both those games, and between the various editions of TSR D&D. The fact that you can take a 1e AD&D module and play it easily with OD&D, B\X, BECMI, etc., demonstrates that the similarities in all these games far outweigh the differences. It's not a stretch to say they're all D&D. Doesn't matter which one you pick up, you'll be able to use it quite easily to play any old school adventure.
I don't see DD as something newbies are going to buy - it seems the likely market is your & my fellow old-schoolers who might want the 'basic three book system' more faithfully replicated. But we already have a lot of choices, and we have the experience and enthusiasm to house rule, adapt, and tweak these choices... so where's the need for YAD&DC for a market segment that already has it all?
I used to think the market was only our small niche of aging old schoolers, but things are changing. Publishers who were considered successful a couple of years back by selling 200 units are now easily selling 1,000+. You only have to read the blogs and forums to see that many DM's are introducing people to old school games and that the clones are being purchased by these groups. So I no longer buy the argument that newbies won't buy the clones, they will and they are doing so.
As for having it all, I guess it depends on your opinion about the need for accurate and true retro-clones to keep the original versions in print. In the case of a 3LB clone, given that it's the Moses tablets of the RPG world, I reckon there's a bloody good reason for seeing it done properly, especially as the excesses of the 3e/4e versions drive many more gamers to seek a simpler, earlier game.
As I said above though, no we don't NEED another clone, we just need to explain the scene a bit better. But the fact is just a couple of minutes on Google and any bugger can work it out for themselves, if they're not too lazy or lack the initiative to do so.
I think too that this "too many clones" complaint overlooks one important aspect, the market decides. While there are possibly dozens of clones out there, there are only a few that are dominating the show, that are being strongly and actively supported by the market (customers). They are OSRIC, LL and S&W - "the big three". The market will decide the fate of DD, whether it will turn the big three into the big four, bump S&W off its pedestal (which I doubt since it's a popular game in its own right), or languish in the wings with all the other clones that had their 15 minutes of fame and then withered away. Time will tell.
People who defend the creation of additional clones typically cite 'The more the merrier' as a defense, but I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!
You've got to understand here crusssdaddy that according to many old school publishers, while you'd prefer to see more modules produced, it's the games and not the modules that are making money for the publishers. And since publishing requires money, they have to concentrate on what will bring in the dosh for them to continue operating.
There's a thread elsewhere on this forum (I think) where someone made the complaint that there was bugger all modules being published, only to have someone list how many old school modules were actually out there on the market. I seem to remember it was over 140, and the list was in no way complete. The fact is the module publishing side of the business has not been neglected because of the multitude of clones.
« Last Edit: Jun 10, 2011, 6:43pm by austrodavicus »
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://mux.net/~ulmo/ThorinII.jpg "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/images/estarsm.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SIGeq9D8APs/UUSXldBtiCI/AAAAAAAAEiQ/eM8iLi_zT7k/s320/100100.JPG "[avatar]")
