Post by Mr. Darke on Sept 27, 2014 13:30:56 GMT -6
Good review. Personally, I like the single save and the way attack bonuses are handled. Also having AC being done in both Ascending and Descending shows that there is not much difference between the two ideas.
That said, I wholly agree about the treasure system. It seems to want to make sure magic items are harder to find and is not as generous as OD&D was with them. Perhaps this was an unconscious reaction to the newer games where magic items were easier to get?
All in all; good review and spot on. Any chance you will do one of BFRPG?
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 27, 2014 15:45:11 GMT -6
Sure. I've never looked at it very carefully, but the prospect of a review would allow me to do so. I confess that I've always been a bit put off by the (sorry) sort of boring name. Indeed, I think the name is dull in proportion to how the name 'Swords & Wizardry' is terrific. Recently Tenkar has written some posts making it more understandable why the people behind Basic Fantasy (and OSRIC) might not have been so concerned about names. Everything I've read points to the game itself being very good. And we found out on the last Save or Die! podcast that even that 'gaming freak' himself Ethan Gilsdorf plays it.
Thank you, Finarvyn, for a great and truly seminal game. I'd be interested in any comments or corrections.
Thanks for such a kind review. I think your comments are spot on and I probably would have made some changes if I had a "do over" because there are a few details of the rules that don't match the way I play and I sort of wish I'd had complete control over the final product.Also, as a spin-off of the Core S&W rules, I felt that certain things (such as the single saving throw) ought to match the main rules set. On the other hand, as one of the first neo-clones I was really paranoid that WotC would come crashing in and threaten us with legal action and I know that some of my design decisions were biased by that fear and I ended up making some changes from the original just to keep things different. In retrospect, this was probably a poor decision. Overall, however, I liked the way the game turned out.
If I wanted to change one thing about the review, it would be simply to have you add the Brave Halfling cover art side-by-side along with the original Pete Mullen cover. I think that John's work on the Brave Halfling version was my favorite one overall.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) S&W WhiteBox author (2009) C&C playtester (2003) Builder of the TrollBridge for T&T; Amber Diceless player since 1993 OD&D Player since 1975; Metamorphosis Alpha since 1976
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Post by stevemitchell on Nov 22, 2014 15:45:21 GMT -6
"I probably would have made some changes if I had a "do over" because there are a few details of the rules that don't match the way I play and I sort of wish I'd had complete control over the final product."
Fin, would you be willing to post these changes as house rules? I am a big fan of S&W Whitebox, and would be very interested to see any suggested tweaks or revisions you have in mind.
I've been using Swords & Wizardry since it first came out, and I was always enthused by White Box. To me, it presented the perfect platform to tinker with, even moreso than Core/Complete. I ended up basing my Ultima RPG rules on it, and I've since converted my solo game (originally Microlite 20, then S&W Core, now S&W WhiteBox) to it. Marv did a fantastic job.
I didn't mind the treasure tables, because if I wanted to put a magic item there, I would. Magic items in my campaigns are terrible, rare and powerful things.
D&D Game referee. Running a solo game for @theprincesswife. Running a D&D campaign (AD&D-lite-ish-kinda-houseruled) both online and tabletop.