|
Post by scottenkainen on Mar 24, 2015 10:32:54 GMT -6
Yeah "tribute game" is the term most often used. but homage works too. Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay is a great example of that, and from what I have seen I'd guess Zylarthen falls in that category. Platemail certainly does IMHO. [snipped] The term I usually see for these types of games is "neoclone" -- the train of thought being that a retro-clone tries to bring the game back to its roots, and then a neoclone takes you from that root point into a new direction. Hideouts & Hoodlums, as another example, was initially intended as a retro-clone, but has developed into more of a neoclone over the years. ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Mar 24, 2015 10:36:25 GMT -6
I don't think Swords & Wizardry is a "clone" of OD&D in any strict sense. The current revision of Core is closer, but still a long way from a match for OD&D. S&W has a number of rules that have no analogue in OD&D, and it doesn't have rules for some of the things that OD&D has. Whole sections of volume III of OD&D just don't show up in S&W, and its methods of determining treasure and stocking dungeons are nothing at all like the ones presented in OD&D. [snipped] Bear in mind that building retro-clones was risky, uncharted territory when Matt Finch boldly set out to explore it, so he naturally protected himself legally with lots of deviations while building his retro-clone. As time has passed and no cease and desist letters have come Matt's way (that we know of!), other authors have been emboldened to get even closer to the original rules with their retroclones. I think we must bear this in mind when evaluating the closeness or "cloniness" of S&W. ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 24, 2015 14:56:23 GMT -6
Bear in mind that building retro-clones was risky, uncharted territory when Matt Finch boldly set out to explore it, so he naturally protected himself legally with lots of deviations while building his retro-clone. As time has passed and no cease and desist letters have come Matt's way (that we know of!), other authors have been emboldened to get even closer to the original rules with their retroclones. I think we must bear this in mind when evaluating the closeness or "cloniness" of S&W. Er? OSRIC (and Basic Fantasy) came out in 2006, Labyrinth Lord in 2007, and the first version of Swords & Wizardry in 2008. It was hardly a daring "uncharted territory"; in fact, it was following several other games that were considerably "closer" to their source games than S&W is to OD&D. If you compared Labyrinth Lord to Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert, it follows them considerably down to the level of chapter organization, and has corresponding rules, spells and ideas for everything B/X presents. S&W didn't do the same for OD&D. LL does change significant things, such as clerics getting a spell at first level, the armor types, a lot of the specific numbers, etc., for the sake of not being a literal copy, but it is a clone. S&W has significant rules sections and concepts that just aren't in OD&D and is missing whole blocks of rules that OD&D had. There is a real difference. If we are being strict with the definition of a clone, then S&W is not a clone. I've run Swords & Wizardry, and I want to be clear that I am not bashing it. I enjoy the game. But it doesn't run like OD&D ever has for me, and I don't think of it as a clone. It's in the "inspired by" category as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 24, 2015 15:16:28 GMT -6
a given "clone" may mimic the mechanics of OD&D well, and even some of the sentiment, and yet totally miss the inherent system of play. When the ruleset assumes the norms and developments of game play will unfold in the manner of a Moldvay/Mentzer era game or AD&D lite, then the splendor that is OD&D has been squandered. Well said!
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 24, 2015 17:11:06 GMT -6
When the ruleset assumes the norms and developments of game play will unfold in the manner of a Moldvay/Mentzer era game or AD&D lite, then the splendor that is OD&D has been squandered. Unless, of course, the game was designed to feel like Moldvay or Mentzer. Both LL and BFRPG were designed that way, though I'll admit I deviated in the design of Basic Fantasy; I wanted the speedup I get from ascending AC (go ahead, shoot me, I've taken bullets for that before) and I wanted race and class separate. But I built the game with the intent that it would feel like BX, and to me at least it does. Heh. One of the things I see a lot on my own forum is people who have never played anything published before 2000, who got tired of the incredibly expensive and fantastically complex treadmill of the "modern" games and found BFRPG on Amazon for five bucks. The first thing they want to do is add a bunch of stuff, stuff that feels nothing like BX or 1E or anything I even recognize. I tell them all, if you're not familiar with the Old School, start out playing the game vanilla. You can always add stuff later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 21:32:21 GMT -6
Here is my list of simulacra Ye Olde School List of Retro Games & Clones, Retro Clones, and What Have You. There a lot of great products here and a lot of new ideas, monsters and other things that I am quite willing to use and/or try. I have played just the 3LBBs with house rules more than any other way. Contrary to what I have heard many others say I consider everything in all of the supplements to be completely optional additional material and I don't consider anything in the supplements to be OD&D per se. I have used everything from nothing of the supplements up to about 20-30 pages out of the supplements from time to time. I have seen some simulacra described as "illegal", i.e. not compliant with the OGL. I have read many of them and to me all of them stray far enough from OD&D that I have no idea why they are alleged to be "illegal", to me even the simulacra that come the closest to OD&D are a lot different. I don't get too excited about trying to make distinctions between clones, retro-clones, homage or tribute game or whatever. I am more concerned about does anything preserve the flavor of OD&D to the point I would play it, instead of OD&D? I like the idea of unique takes on the genre of OD&D and look forward to more of them. There are several that I really like a lot, they just lack a little something and I address that below. If there was any one thing that I personally object to, it is when things that are commonly claimed to be "vague" "unclear" or "incomplete" in the original are not left that way or replaced with new areas of that type. That is where the character, the do it yourself flavor is often lost. If your "finished" product comes across as an unpolished rough-hewn thing with its own "vague" "unclear" or "incomplete" areas, but still complete enough to play; but a bit of house-ruling and ref interpretation is needed, then I would say that you have truly succeeded in creating an old school game, instead of just being close but not quite. My advice - stop trying to be perfect. The real thing had "blemishes" so your thing in order to ring true must have some "blemishes". Or look at it this way, in real life which is more fun: a real woman or an air-brushed to perfection supermodel. I'll take the real woman.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 0:00:00 GMT -6
So wait, in order to make a game that's better, I have to not write down some of the rules I use? Rather, I should be vague and allow the referee to do some of the work? I'm not trying to be flippant or snarky here. Is that actually what you intended to say?
The closest I get to that is my appreciation for SW WB, for putting alternate rules in boxes near the "official" rule. I think that's a neat thing there.
My idea is to put much, but not all of the rules into the player's rule book and save the intricate ref-side minutia and "how comes" for the referee's guide. But that's not really the same thing, is it? In order to meet your platonic ideal, PD, as I understand it, one would rather have to write some asymptotic rule approximations. True? Again, not trying to be a dick. Trying to understand what you mean.
On a related tangent, I don't see how you can play the LBBs 100% in isolation without writing a good deal of rules for yourself. I am currently putting together those rules for a face to face LBB game, and I fear I will be running to 20 printed pages before I'm satisfied. At that point, Mise well just write a whole game!
And maybe that's the answer, PD: playing the LBBs is kind of like writing your own game. Breathing life into blood and gristle hanging upon a skeleton called od&d. This is not a bad thing. Is this closer to what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Mar 25, 2015 1:57:19 GMT -6
I believe S&W:WB is a clone insomuch as it clones how most folks played rather than the messy, confusing, weird and scattered rules themselves in black and white. Matt even stated years ago, if I remember correctly, that it was about the experience and feel moreso than the often hard-to-pin-down, obfuscated and ambiguous rules of OD&D. S&W may not have the "angry villager rule" or castle construction or specifically prescribed wilderness rules but I fail to see how my table experience would differ if it did or if I used the actual 3LBBs only (as opposed to using S&W:WB only or as I actually do, S&W:WB + Ready Ref Sheets and some home made tables made by various folk for OD&D...all of which I'd use were I playing via the 3LBBs). *shrug* Desiring to imagine that S&W is somehow not a clone seems sort of disingenuous considering the intent and what was happening/happened at the time. (recall for example that at that time OSRIC was not at all the more full-fledged clone it is now). To be brutally honest, if I used the 3LBBs themselves at the table instead of WB the only thing I'd imagine that would change would be that it would take more time (going back and forth between booklets, counting down level titles to see which level number, doing much the same for the 'to hit' table for other classes besides fighting men, flipping back and forth from monster descriptions to stats, etc.,etc,blah,blah,blah...). I'd probably be more forgiving were OD&D as easy to digest, handle and use at the table as, say, Holmes. I really wish the good Dr. would have/could have simply added a small handful of pages for 'Holmes D&D' to actually be a full presentation of OD&D (thus being the published alternative to AD&D and taking the place of the original box/booklets). It's weird. No one ever says that B/X isn't "D&D". Most even accept that it's clearly a clean-up and re-edit of OD&D itself (at least as practiced by and large at the time). When someone comes along and does almost the same exact thing decades later, suddenly it's "not the same". Oh, no! Bonuses to other stats! GASP! Ya mean....like so many folks were very likely already doing in their own games in the mid to late 70s already?!? The horror! They must not have been playing OD&D! Changing things! In a game that demands that the players change things! Insanity! Oh. Well. Okay. Not insanity. Well...just...don't make it, like, a rule or something. Then...THEN it's insanity. Well...except for Holmes and Moldvay. They're okay guys. But not Finch or Proctor. Certainly not 30-some odd years later. No way. They're not Holmes or Moldvay or Gygax or Jim Bob or whoever and it isn't '77 so it just cannot be. Personally, for my own part, even after I read the original booklets (soon after when S&W was first published in '08) and finally digested much closer clones of OD&D I still found I took more old-school-style fun from S&W:WB. I'd think it's much more important and indeed more old-school to actually play than wring my hands for who knows how long over if a tiny handful of words on page x in book A and pages y and z in book B mean this, that or the other thing. I say all of this loving OD&D of course. Otherwise, why would I be here? Oh... that's right. The reason I first joined in the first place: a great place for OD&D info and ideas for my S&W:WB and Holmes games.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 25, 2015 4:53:04 GMT -6
I believe S&W:WB is a clone insomuch as it clones how most folks played rather than the messy, confusing, weird and scattered rules themselves in black and white. Matt even stated years ago, if I remember correctly, that it was about the experience and feel moreso than the often hard-to-pin-down, obfuscated and ambiguous rules of OD&D. S&W may not have the "angry villager rule" or castle construction or specifically prescribed wilderness rules but I fail to see how my table experience would differ if it did or if I used the actual 3LBBs only (as opposed to using S&W:WB only or as I actually do, S&W:WB + Ready Ref Sheets and some home made tables made by various folk for OD&D...all of which I'd use were I playing via the 3LBBs). *shrug* Desiring to imagine that S&W is somehow not a clone seems sort of disingenuous considering the intent and what was happening/happened at the time. (recall for example that at that time OSRIC was not at all the more full-fledged clone it is now). To be brutally honest, if I used the 3LBBs themselves at the table instead of WB the only thing I'd imagine that would change would be that it would take more time (going back and forth between booklets, counting down level titles to see which level number, doing much the same for the 'to hit' table for other classes besides fighting men, flipping back and forth from monster descriptions to stats, etc.,etc,blah,blah,blah...). I'd probably be more forgiving were OD&D as easy to digest, handle and use at the table as, say, Holmes. I really wish the good Dr. would have/could have simply added a small handful of pages for 'Holmes D&D' to actually be a full presentation of OD&D (thus being the published alternative to AD&D and taking the place of the original box/booklets). It's weird. No one ever says that B/X isn't "D&D". Most even accept that it's clearly a clean-up and re-edit of OD&D itself (at least as practiced by and large at the time). When someone comes along and does almost the same exact thing decades later, suddenly it's "not the same". Oh, no! Bonuses to other stats! GASP! Ya mean....like so many folks were very likely already doing in their own games in the mid to late 70s already?!? The horror! They must not have been playing OD&D! Changing things! In a game that demands that the players change things! Insanity! Oh. Well. Okay. Not insanity. Well...just...don't make it, like, a rule or something. Then...THEN it's insanity. Well...except for Holmes and Moldvay. They're okay guys. But not Finch or Proctor. Certainly not 30-some odd years later. No way. They're not Holmes or Moldvay or Gygax or Jim Bob or whoever and it isn't '77 so it just cannot be. Personally, for my own part, even after I read the original booklets (soon after when S&W was first published in '08) and finally digested much closer clones of OD&D I still found I took more old-school-style fun from S&W:WB. I'd think it's much more important and indeed more old-school to actually play than wring my hands for who knows how long over if a tiny handful of words on page x in book A and pages y and z in book B mean this, that or the other thing. I say all of this loving OD&D of course. Otherwise, why would I be here? Oh... that's right. The reason I first joined in the first place: a great place for OD&D info and ideas for my S&W:WB and Holmes games. Whitebox is actually missing major details that S&W Core and Complete have, such as the rule about PCs finding secret doors on a roll of 1 in 1d6. If the only book you ever read was S&W: Whitebox, you would be totally missing the main underworld exploration rules from OD&D volume 3. Personally, I think those are good and simple rules, but the earliest version of S&W that Marv was working from didn't have them, and the revisions of Whitebox didn't add them in. Does this mean that S&W:WB isn't a good game? Not in the least. But those rules shape how dungeon exploration works in OD&D, and unless you port them in from elsewhere, they won't be in a WB game. Back when S&W first came out, I was running OD&D and wanted it to replace my LBBs at the table, but the cumulative effect of its changes meant that I wouldn't be able to do so without changing the game pretty significantly. The single saving throw, the changes to experience rules, the differences in how stats worked, the lack of a bunch of rules I used, were all enough that I wasn't comfortable using the game except when starting fresh several years later. I think that qualifies it for what we agree it is - a game that aims at the same "feel" - but I don't think that is a clone. There's nothing wrong with making changes to the game, but I don't see S&W as being "OD&D" any more than Holmes is, and in play I find it's more like B/X D&D in most of the ways that matter. I enjoy all of those games, but they are different in ways that impact on play, and we don't refer to B/X as OD&D here.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Mar 25, 2015 8:41:16 GMT -6
Er? OSRIC (and Basic Fantasy) came out in 2006, Labyrinth Lord in 2007, and the first version of Swords & Wizardry in 2008. It was hardly a daring "uncharted territory"; in fact, it was following several other games that were considerably "closer" to their source games than S&W is to OD&D. I concede only that we're all in subjective territory here. I consider the third man who ever flew an airplane (whoever that might have been) to belong to a brave "uncharted territory" of aviation. You might not. ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 25, 2015 8:44:12 GMT -6
When the ruleset assumes the norms and developments of game play will unfold in the manner of a Moldvay/Mentzer era game or AD&D lite, then the splendor that is OD&D has been squandered. That's the biggest challenge I struggle with in 'compleating' the BLUEHOLME™ Compleat Rules. Prentice was easy, but Compleat is meant to take Holmes all the way. We all know Holmes played 3LBB + Greyhawk thanks to Zenopus and his tireless pursuit of Blue Book facts, but the red-headed stepchild that is the published Holmes rulebook is so quirky that I think it would be a disservice to just tack on Supplement I and leave it at that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 8:53:40 GMT -6
So wait, in order to make a game that's better, I have to not write down some of the rules I use? Rather, I should be vague and allow the referee to do some of the work? I'm not trying to be flippant or snarky here. Is that actually what you intended to say? The closest I get to that is my appreciation for SW WB, for putting alternate rules in boxes near the "official" rule. I think that's a neat thing there. My idea is to put much, but not all of the rules into the player's rule book and save the intricate ref-side minutia and "how comes" for the referee's guide. But that's not really the same thing, is it? In order to meet your platonic ideal, PD, as I understand it, one would rather have to write some asymptotic rule approximations. True? Again, not trying to be a dick. Trying to understand what you mean. What I am trying to say is that there comes a point in the process that continuing to strive for "air-brushed" perfection become counterproductive. To paraphrase and restate from an earlier post: as you create your vision of OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI or the RC by giving your take on the rules and hopefully preserving at least some of the sentiment, it is still entirely possible that you may miss the inherent system of play. What I am saying is that if your goal is to create an old school flavor game that an old curmudgeon like myself might use to play in lieu of my battered beater copy of the 3 LBBs; then the most important part is to retain the sentiment and the inherent style of play that you are trying to emulate. I can easily alter anything back to OD&D that I want if your presentation grabs me. What I am trying to say is that "air-brushed" perfection doesn't grab me. I am still not sure that I am communicating the point that I really want to make. "shrugs"
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Mar 25, 2015 8:55:08 GMT -6
Honestly, I really think some of the S&W quirks are an outgrowth of its growing pains. Matt had a target idea for the game that didn't quite exist -- that nebulous proto-AD&D aka OD&D with select supplemental material -- and it was released in a not-quite refined state. Then the game was neigh endlessly tweaked, not only by Marv, but the entire S&W forum. There was a lot of input from a wide variety of perspectives (for better or worse) that really made the game what it now is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 9:39:54 GMT -6
On a related tangent, I don't see how you can play the LBBs 100% in isolation without writing a good deal of rules for yourself. I am currently putting together those rules for a face to face LBB game, and I fear I will be running to 20 printed pages before I'm satisfied. At that point, Mise well just write a whole game! And maybe that's the answer, PD: playing the LBBs is kind of like writing your own game. Breathing life into blood and gristle hanging upon a skeleton called od&d. This is not a bad thing. Is this closer to what you mean? Bitd I played the 3 LBBs in 100% isolation and our house rules that were used all the time, might have been half a page. Now we were always trying new things and I created a lot of monsters and treasures; but I don't think of monsters and treasures as house rules per se. While I don't see it as stark as you do, breathing life into it is OD&D, so yes, playing OD&D is like writing your own game but you don't need to write much OD&D is much more complete than it is given credit for. You make rulings when you need to. The ones you use a lot you may write down. But to play OD&D once you have some experience can be done using only a few tables and there is no need to refer to the rules during the game. Edit: We did have Chainmail too.
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 25, 2015 12:42:05 GMT -6
What I am trying to say is that there comes a point in the process that continuing to strive for "air-brushed" perfection become counterproductive. To paraphrase and restate from an earlier post: as you create your vision of OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI or the RC by giving your take on the rules and hopefully preserving at least some of the sentiment, it is still entirely possible that you may miss the inherent system of play. I understand what you are talking about. When I set out to write Iron Falcon, one of my goals was to leave it as loosely defined as the original 3LBB+GH core I set out to emulate. Spells, for instance, are just as close as I can get them mechanically. The only things I nailed down that were not previously so defined were things I felt I had to have for playability. And man, is that hard. You see a gap and you want to fill it. Wow. It wasn't that way when I wrote BFRPG, because Moldvay, Cook, and Marsh had provided a method for most of the things I needed methods for. But prior to BX most of the classic rules were pretty loosely assembled.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 12:45:54 GMT -6
Thanks PD. I think we're getting to the root of it. There's a "feel" and an ethic to the LBBs that is very hard or impossible to duplicate once you clean it all up.
I just finished my house rules. Hard to say how many words, but the page count is a lot lower than I thought it would be. A lot of it is just for fast reference; the rest is specific chargen guidelines- basically, it makes it so the several other players don't need to own the books or clones.
So you are actually right, there's not a ton to write. The only thing I added was specific initiative rules. I also changed a very few rules for dungeon and wilderlands play because I use them and like them. Domain level play, if it ever gets there, is greatly codified and improved. And I don't use CM, so I wrote my own mass skirmish rules and jousting rules- but again, these are really ancillary and nit-picky. The LBB body of work stands on its own.
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 25, 2015 12:50:26 GMT -6
Honestly, I really think some of the S&W quirks are an outgrowth of its growing pains. Matt had a target idea for the game that didn't quite exist -- that nebulous proto-AD&D aka OD&D with select supplemental material -- and it was released in a not-quite refined state. Then the game was neigh endlessly tweaked, not only by Marv, but the entire S&W forum. There was a lot of input from a wide variety of perspectives (for better or worse) that really made the game what it now is. I'm not sure I agree that the target you mention does not exist. It's the target for my Iron Falcon rulebook, and with the help of a very short list of people I've been corresponding with, it's coming together. There have been a few moments when I did wonder if that target could be found, though... 3LBB+GH-CM is a tough equation with a lot of variables. In some ways, now that I can see it, it makes a lot more sense than I expected. I could never quite digest the original books... bits and pieces scattered hither and yon. I learned on BX and then moved on to 1E and a bunch of non-D&D games, and 2E in its time, before moving back toward BX and creating BFRPG. But every one of those games was organized in a way I could understand, with things related to each other presented together (or linked in some logical fashion). One of the rules I misunderstood in the 3LBBs was Elf advancement, and when I stated my confusion over that I was told that I should have factored in the monster description for Elves along with the Chainmail writeup on them. Too scattered. I am in awe of anyone who learned that game from the books alone, without a game master or a group to learn from.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 25, 2015 17:35:24 GMT -6
Check out austinjimm's Planet Eris house rules for LLBS+GH-CM. Just google and you'll find it. It is fun to play and the document has the right feel.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 18:40:06 GMT -6
Check out austinjimm's Planet Eris house rules for LLBS+GH-CM. Just google and you'll find it. It is fun to play and the document has the right feel. Found it. Love the cover. Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Mar 27, 2015 1:29:05 GMT -6
Whitebox is actually missing major details that S&W Core and Complete have, such as the rule about PCs finding secret doors on a roll of 1 in 1d6. If the only book you ever read was S&W: Whitebox, you would be totally missing the main underworld exploration rules from OD&D volume 3. Personally, I think those are good and simple rules, but the earliest version of S&W that Marv was working from didn't have them, and the revisions of Whitebox didn't add them in. Does this mean that S&W:WB isn't a good game? Not in the least. But those rules shape how dungeon exploration works in OD&D, and unless you port them in from elsewhere, they won't be in a WB game. Back when S&W first came out, I was running OD&D and wanted it to replace my LBBs at the table, but the cumulative effect of its changes meant that I wouldn't be able to do so without changing the game pretty significantly. The single saving throw, the changes to experience rules, the differences in how stats worked, the lack of a bunch of rules I used, were all enough that I wasn't comfortable using the game except when starting fresh several years later. I think that qualifies it for what we agree it is - a game that aims at the same "feel" - but I don't think that is a clone. It's absurd for me to argue that the rules are present when they clearly are not but I don't think that automatically disqualifies it as a clone. I suppose it also says more about me than the game(s) since I hate dungeons and almost never use said rules (so much so that I actually had not even noticed they were missing from WB. But I do agree the straightforward x in 6 checks for traps, doors and so on are nice and simple and useful rules. It would take very, very little space to add them to WB and I'll admit it's sort of odd at least the dungeon stuff is missing (especially since they've been present since at least the second printing of Core if I recall correctly. There's nothing wrong with making changes to the game, but I don't see S&W as being "OD&D" any more than Holmes is, and in play I find it's more like B/X D&D in most of the ways that matter. I enjoy all of those games, but they are different in ways that impact on play, and we don't refer to B/X as OD&D here. I must say I think it's odd you don't consider Holmes as OD&D considering it's intent and pedigree. I didn't state that B/X is OD&D but it's very clearly a restatement/edit of OD&D as it was understood and (mostly) played at the time. I'm certainly under no illusion it's a 1:1 kinda thing either. I do find it a little weird that you'd find the almost Tunnels & Trolls-like loose and wild and wooly and free-form presentation of WB to play near the same as the tightly prescribed, almost robotic and highly procedural B/X. That's just odd, man. EDIT (aside) - For my own part I actually came back full-force to D&D because of S&W:WB after years of pretty much exclusively running T&T more or less giving old-school D&D the angrily extended middle finger during that time. I was so sick and tired of the procedures. I wanted fantasy paperback covers and failed 70s fantasy comics action and adventure. I didn't want to time things and count torches. But then I was tired of all the d**n d6s and all the adding no matter how I pared down the weapons and adds and Monster Ratings and went way down to RISUS. But I found I missed having some things that were...measured. I missed knowing the relative power of such-and-such a level or hit die and the easy-to-figure probabilities of d20 'to hit' and saves. I missed all the different dice. But I wanted things as simple and not concerned with rules for the environment. I wanted/need rules for what the PCs can and could do. Rules for the environment don't speak to adventure for me. Heck, in T&T a monster doesn't even roll an attack for missile attacks. It's solely on the PCs to "save". At first it was weird but I found I preferred the idea that it centered on the PCs. Them dodging or by virtue of luck alone, not being hit by the orc's arrow spoke more to adventure than 'orc rolls to hit, rolls damage' for missile attacks and similarly for traps or loose mountain rock or rotten, old rope bridges, etc.,etc.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 27, 2015 7:14:29 GMT -6
Brendan at Necropraxis is developing his game in a manner that puts all the dice in the hands of the player. It looks slick. Players attack; players defend.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 22, 2015 10:15:39 GMT -6
I must say I think it's odd you don't consider Holmes as OD&D considering it's intent and pedigree. It’s best not to go down this road, I think. The history of online D&D fandom has shown that specific edition identifiers are the safest way to avoid confusion and unnecessary arguments on subjective matters.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 22, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -6
Right, Falconer. I think it depends upon what one means by "OD&D." Is it "Original D&D," or "Old (or even "Old-school") D&D." I think some folks think they are the same and use them interchangeably. But, although Holmes and B/X are certainly "Old" (in the sense that they are among the very first TSR publications) and quite certainly "Old School" (in the sense that even 1e is concerned "Old School" by many "OSR" voices on the inter-webs) they are most certainly not the "Original" edition. I usually use the abbreviation 0e ("Original Edition") rather than OD&D in order to avoid that possible confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 22, 2015 18:51:12 GMT -6
OD&D is Original D&D, that is, the “little booklets” — the 3 volumes and their official and unofficial supplements.
0e is Zeroth Edition, a nickname for used by authors & publishers who wish to refer to OD&D while avoiding the D&D trademark.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 22, 2015 21:59:38 GMT -6
I've never used "OD&D" to mean anything other than "Original D&D". When I mean only the three original booklets of OD&D then I, as most, say "3LBBs". *shrug* Since the majority of the text of Holmes is taken directly from the original booklets and it's original intent was to be an intro to Original D&D itself, and since the consensus of most old-school folks (indeed the members here) is that Holmes qualifies as OD&D (there's a reason there's a Holmes sub-forum after all), it's just weird to not consider Holmes as being under the umbrella of OD&D. If someone were to say that they were using the 3LBBs plus the thief, some spells, monsters, treasure and variable hit die from Greyhawk, I'll bet you'd call what they're playing "OD&D". If that same person said they were using Holmes as their 'core' plus expanding advancement from 3LBBs+Greyhawk would you really say that they weren't playing "OD&D"? The fact is that Holmes is somewhat of a snapshot of (at least the first three levels of play) how the overwhelming majority of folks were actually using and playing OD&D at the time and some time before and after. It may not be precisely 3LBBs + Greyhawk, but it's certainly every bit "OD&D" as a game would be as played by someone who used parts of the 3LBBs and parts of Greyhawk and bits and pieces from Strategic Review, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, etc. I guess when I think to say "Holmes" I usually mean the booklet itself. If I were to reference a very specific rule from it that is not precisely the same (or doesn't exist in such-and-such a form) as x or y from the original booklets, then I'd say "Holmes". If I'm simply referring to, say, dungeon procedure rules or fighter saves at level 2, then it doesn't matter from which and I'd simply say "OD&D". I'm babbling like an old Robin Williams character now, but I think you know what I mean. It's an argument of much more merit and interest debating that the far greater reach of revision of the original rules that became what we know as "B/X" or even BECMI, or heck for that matter 1E as to whether they are 'still' "OD&D" considering their fidelity to specifics and/or spirit/intent than it is to effectively split hairs like nobody's business and attempt to wrench out some bouncy ship's plank that Holmes somehow doesn't fit within the (you must admit, rather large and loose) context of OD&D. But, as I'm going on and on and more or less provoking extended (and hopefully not argumentative) debate far beyond the scope of this thread, you are right only when you say it's best to not go down this road. See? See what you've done?!?
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 22, 2015 22:11:47 GMT -6
To be brutally honest if I came across someone who said: "Well, I finally read The Lord of the Rings but I skipped the first chapter or two of The Fellowship of the Ring , when I got the council with Elrond in Rivendell I just skipped it and watched that scene from the old animated movie and PJ's live-action version instead and then skipped ahead and I also didn't bother with the last chapter or two of The Return of the King, I wouldn't say that they really and truly didn't experience The Lord of the Rings for real. Instead I'd say something along the lines of "Lucky." or "Smart.". (Then of course I'd say: "Now go read an overflowing handful of Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar short stories in whatever order you wish and actually experience joy while reading.")
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 22, 2015 22:37:27 GMT -6
A quick but relevant aside: I'm hope I'm not misread as being snarky or rude. I'm attempting to be overly-snarky to the point of absurdity to (at least somewhat humorously) make a point. Also, I've sipped on one and a half Rum & Cokes and stood outside staring at the trees, clouds and stars the combo of which always makes my synapses fire all funky and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 7:43:44 GMT -6
OD&D is Original D&D, that is, the “little booklets” — the 3 volumes and their official and unofficial supplements. 0e is Zeroth Edition, a nickname for used by authors & publishers who wish to refer to OD&D while avoiding the D&D trademark. Whereas I use OD&D to mean Original Dungeons and Dragons which for me means the 3LBBs, Chainmail and Outdoor Survival - that to me is OD&D. All supplements, official or unofficial, The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon are 100% optional resources for OD&D, they are not themselves OD&D, but they can be used to play OD&D as they are not the game they are only resources for the game. I view the Judges Guild materials and The Arduin Trilogy the same way, they are not the game, they are only resources for the game.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 23, 2015 10:35:18 GMT -6
…precisely. To me, Chainmail and Outdoor Survival are not OD&D, they are altogether separate games that may be plugged into OD&D (or vice-versa).
|
|
|
Post by distortedhumor on Sept 21, 2017 12:01:48 GMT -6
I think that every game designer who makes a go of making a retroclone makes some choices early on or later in the process on how close they want to be to the original source. I for one in my project decided I wanted to start with the white box rules and make them simpler, and put in some modern ideas that didn't exist back in OD&D. That said, I am very happy with how it turning out as I plug away at it.
Needless to say, I have no issues with a clone that is not a exact replica of OD&D. With the PDFs of the LBBs and so on the demand for a exact replica for me at least is not that great.
|
|