|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Mar 17, 2013 15:00:47 GMT -6
I have done a great deal of thinking about this today and I believe it best if BHP drops the single-volume version of DD so that Simon can move much quicker to realize his plans for the game. The new changes to DD would require a few weeks worth of layout work for me (changes in text AND in my arch nemesis - tables!) and I do not want to make people wait any longer for it. I think folks would much rather look forward to your much higher quality versions of DD in the near future.
Simon, I think you are doing a great job guiding the game and I have no regrets in giving it to you.
I do apologize for not posting here or on the DD Google+ group. I have been monitoring both, but I have just not had the time to do much posting anywhere on the internet since November.
It has never been my intention to slow up DD or to hold up the progress of the game. The boxed sets are all hand made and no matter how I do it, each one requires nearly an hour of physical labor to print, sort, bind, trim, wrap and pack. Looking back, I can see how much better off DD would have been if I would have just made a single-volume version to begin with and then out-sourced the printing. That would have made this process much faster and all of the boxed sets would have shipped by January. You live and you learn. If it helps, I have learned that many resellers now offer BHP's old WhiteBox boxed sets for around $100 now. I hope these much larger, fully-illustrated DD boxed sets become just as valuable to folks too.
I also realize that it appears like I have put DD on the back burner in favor of other things BHP is publishing. But honestly, in 2011-2012, the only things BHP released were X-plorers sold some new gaming boxes. It was during those two terrible years of transition for my family that I created everything BHP has newly published so far in 2013 for DCC RPG and Dagger RPG. For frustration over the appearance of DD being a lower priority for BHP in the last few months, I do apologize.
I would like to include the new changes list in the remaining DD boxed sets. However, they are keyed for Simon's reference edition of DD, so I may need to try and adapt them.
Please feel free to ask me any questions or voice any concerns you may have with me.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2013 4:14:38 GMT -6
Thanks for the update John, and thanks also for your endorsement. Despite DD becoming a faaar bigger undertaking than I ever guessed, I still consider it an honour and a privilege to be involved, and I still intend to do my utmost for the project.
For those folks who were looking forward to John's single volume edition of DD, have no fear. My ambition knows no bounds and there will still be a high production value edition of Delving Deeper. I had plans "laying in wait" that will be brought forward, but please allow me a week or so's grace to sort through what needs doing before I commit to what's coming next...
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 18, 2013 5:14:23 GMT -6
Well, hopefully it materializes one way or another. Personally, as I've expressed before, I have zero interest in buying anything in a cardboard box if there is any choice in the matter. They break; they tear, they are not game table and transport friendly - so a nicely illustrated, single volume hardback I can pull off a shelf and throw in a bookbag - that is where it's at for me and I think a lot of other gamers feel similarly.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Mar 18, 2013 10:28:11 GMT -6
Well said, aldarron. I'm very much in that category. Simon, I look forward to seeing what you put out.
John, thanks for taking this step for all of us. I can imagine it's difficult to give up some of the control of your baby, but I think in the end this will get it int that many more hands.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2013 10:31:45 GMT -6
Please feel free to ask me any questions or voice any concerns you may have with me. John— Are you licensing or otherwise allowing Simon to use the Mark Allen art i the single-volume edition? (I guess Simon could answer this one, too.) How are you feeling about the second shipment (to include Alchemical Synergy, Perilous Mazes, modules, dice, and a map, IIRC)?
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Mar 18, 2013 10:56:09 GMT -6
Please feel free to ask me any questions or voice any concerns you may have with me. John— Are you licensing or otherwise allowing Simon to use the Mark Allen art i the single-volume edition? (I guess Simon could answer this one, too.) How are you feeling about the second shipment (to include Alchemical Synergy, Perilous Mazes, modules, dice, and a map, IIRC)? I am being as supportive as I can be about DD moving forward under Simon's control, but I cannot comment on the art situation right now. Zach is on top of Perilous Mazes and I will start working with him just as soon as the last DD box ships. The map and dice are on hand. Alchemical Synergy is another story. With all the Chainmail additions to DD in this newest revision (something we had decided to not do when creating DD), I am unsure about the state of Alchemical Synergy at this very moment.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Mar 18, 2013 11:31:25 GMT -6
If you'd like any advice relating to single-volume layout and what to expect from LULU or another POD press, just ask (if your boundless ambition doesn't take the project to a BBP OSRIC or FGG S&W level with respect to printing and distribution).
One big piece of advice: don't release the single volume edition until it's ready, both from a formalized rules standpoint and from a typo/corrections standpoint. I know people are getting antsy with regards to waiting and delays, but the product is best served by stability and consistency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 14:19:15 GMT -6
John— Are you licensing or otherwise allowing Simon to use the Mark Allen art i the single-volume edition? I cannot comment on the art situation right now. I hope the Mark Allen art gets used for the hardback. It's what I've been waiting on this whole time.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2013 15:12:56 GMT -6
I would like to include the new changes list in the remaining DD boxed sets. However, they are keyed for Simon's reference edition of DD, so I may need to try and adapt them. Maybe include it in the second shipment? Or just not include it at all. It sounds like it will be an ever-evolving document, anyway. I’m personally fine with the BHP version being a “stable release.” Alchemical Synergy is another story. With all the Chainmail additions to DD in this newest revision (something we had decided to not do when creating DD), I am unsure about the state of Alchemical Synergy at this very moment. Personally, I attach a lot less importance to AS than I used to. I’m fine with whatever you decide. Just my own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by alcyone on Mar 18, 2013 15:23:33 GMT -6
Alchemical Synergy is another story. With all the Chainmail additions to DD in this newest revision (something we had decided to not do when creating DD), I am unsure about the state of Alchemical Synergy at this very moment. Just my opinion as a boxed set customer: I don't expect you to track Simon's changes. He released an errata, that seems good enough, we can surely apply it ourselves to even Perilous Mazes and Alchemical Synergy. I think it's best to just keep your specifications frozen, and if anything still is not fully developed, develop against what you shipped.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2013 16:44:28 GMT -6
John— Are you licensing or otherwise allowing Simon to use the Mark Allen art i the single-volume edition? (I guess Simon could answer this one, too.) I've written to Mark to inquire about licensing his artworks for future DD products. Can someone explain what "Alchemical Synergy" is/was intended to be?
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Mar 18, 2013 17:06:37 GMT -6
John— Are you licensing or otherwise allowing Simon to use the Mark Allen art i the single-volume edition? (I guess Simon could answer this one, too.) I've written to Mark to inquire about licensing his artworks for future DD products. Can someone explain what "Alchemical Synergy" is/was intended to be? It was supposed to show how to convert your S&W characters to Delving Deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2013 20:36:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2013 20:39:17 GMT -6
It was supposed to show how to convert your S&W characters to Delving Deeper. Perhaps I'm missing something... but isn't as simple as: A 5th level S&W fighter becomes a 5th level DD fighter? Sure, you may need to look at the ability score adjustments, the to hit AC X values, and re-roll your HD for hit points. But that's it isn't it? edit: oh, and lookup the saving throws.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2013 21:05:14 GMT -6
I think the idea was that we would essentially get three versions of Forging a Hero:
1. Forging a Hero (creating an OD&D character) 2. Perilous Mazes (creating a Holmes character) 3. Alchemical Synergy (creating a S&W:WB character)
The advantage of the latter is that you would be able to pick up a S&W module and use it with your DD set without having to cross-reference an actual S&W set to convert anything. That’s just my impression. I’m not sure what the IP owners can and cannot legally say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Mar 20, 2013 7:55:22 GMT -6
I think the idea was that we would essentially get three versions of Forging a Hero: 1. Forging a Hero (creating an OD&D character) 2. Perilous Mazes (creating a Holmes character) 3. Alchemical Synergy (creating a S&W:WB character) The advantage of the latter is that you would be able to pick up a S&W module and use it with your DD set without having to cross-reference an actual S&W set to convert anything. That’s just my impression. I’m not sure what the IP owners can and cannot legally say on the matter. Exactly. But as I said, we are re-evaluating what to do. Making DD much more "Chainmail-ish" does provide a much-desired OGL RPG for a select group of folks in the OSR who have been looking forward to one. I think it also makes DD much more unique and in many way a much neater game to run and play. But at the same time, it also moves DD farther away from the mainstream of D&D rpgs which makes the development of or even the need for conversion supplements much more difficult and possibly even unneeded. But, of course, conversion supplements are not (nor should they be) a design factor for Simon and DD. I just need to ponder it a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Mar 20, 2013 8:21:47 GMT -6
The differences between Delving Deeper, SW: White Box, Original D&D are pretty subtle. Is anyone going to pick up an for one edition and be stuck because they can't figure out how to play it? Am I missing something here?
(Though I'd love to see a: this is what's different between X and Y just to know what changes were made.)
|
|
|
Post by stevemitchell on Mar 20, 2013 8:52:41 GMT -6
"Making DD much more "Chainmail-ish" does provide a much-desired OGL RPG for a select group of folks in the OSR who have been looking forward to one."
Ah, isn't that what Spellcraft & Swordplay is supposed to do? I thought the point of Delving Deeper was to make it more D&D-ish than even Swords & Wizardry Whitebox. Chainmail-ish and D&D-ish are not the same things, in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Mar 20, 2013 11:20:48 GMT -6
The "Chainmail-ish" changes to DD are essentially minutia in light of a Chainmail/OD&D based FRPG such as Vey's S&S. DD still exclusively uses the 1:1 "alternate combat system" from the 3lbb's for it's core combat mechanic. I don't see that giving the fighter class few tweaks and some clarifications on dwarfs and halflings really even warrants a "Chainmailish" descriptor. At least no more that 3lbb OD&D, IMHO. :-)
|
|
|
Post by alcyone on Mar 20, 2013 12:46:24 GMT -6
The "Chainmail-ish" changes to DD are essentially minutia in light of a Chainmail/OD&D based FRPG such as Vey's S&S. DD still exclusively uses the 1:1 "alternate combat system" from the 3lbb's for it's core combat mechanic. I don't see that giving the fighter class few tweaks and some clarifications on dwarfs and halflings really even warrants a "Chainmailish" descriptor. At least no more that 3lbb OD&D, IMHO. :-) I regret having used the "word" "chainmail-ish", as it seems to be injecting some fear and uncertainty where I think none is warranted. It's just that every sentence Ways used to talk about the errata had the word "chainmail" in it and that the fighter changes arose from the "get your fighter back from chainmail" thread. Anyhow, since they are called out specifically in the errata you may adopt them or not as you see fit. I would have gone further; applying strength to missile attacks for fighters such as S&W suggests. Long live the fighters!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 20, 2013 15:33:55 GMT -6
Making DD much more "Chainmail-ish" Guys, I don't know where all these "Chainmail-sh" and "diverging from mainstream D&D" concerns have sprung from, but they simply aren't true. The changes detailed in the Errata Sheet bring DD closer to the 3LBBs. The few extra features from Chainmail that were added to a handful of monsters were added because the 3LBBs explicitly state that all monsters are assumed to have the abilities detailed in Chainmail (from memory see M&T, top of page 5).
|
|
|
Post by alcyone on Mar 20, 2013 18:04:59 GMT -6
Guys, I don't know where all these "Chainmail-sh" and "diverging from mainstream D&D" concerns have sprung from, but they simply aren't true. With no mischief intended, this is where it sprung from (bold mine): The main updates in "version b" of the Ref Rules include: the fighter gets what he's owed from Chainmail, HD progression for all classes slows at high levels as per M&M, Dwarfs can see at night and Halflings can sneak and hide as per Chainmail, added a missile ranges table, and Dragons and Rocs get some extra stuff from Chainmail. As well as a bunch of minor corrections. You may be able to imagine where someone skimming this might get the impression that Chainmail was an important part of the errata. The changes to the fighter are significant and not widely integrated into other clones or subsequent D&D editions, so they might seem to be "Chainmailish." I don't disapprove at all, I think it's all fine, but that is what prompted me to remark so.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 20, 2013 19:32:31 GMT -6
You may be able to imagine where someone skimming this might get the impression that Chainmail was an important part of the errata. The changes to the fighter are significant and not widely integrated into other clones or subsequent D&D editions, so they might seem to be "Chainmailish." I don't disapprove at all, I think it's all fine, but that is what prompted me to remark so. I can see what you're saying. OD&D certainly inherits a lot from its Chainmail roots, which is partly what makes OD&D "uniquely OD&D". Recognising this is partly what makes DD "uniquely DD"
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Mar 29, 2013 16:37:20 GMT -6
Wait - What? The boxed sets are no longer in stock? Some of us (ME! ME! ME!) haven't received our original order yet.
(confused)
|
|