mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 3, 2008 19:56:23 GMT -6
The name of the game is Swords & Wizardry Here is the link (which I think should work) mythmere.keepandshare.comThis is just the Players' Section. The GM section will be finished in a few days with the monsters and treasure. Pete Mullen is doing the cover artwork. What I've posted is still a draft. I figured that in this case I'd bring the net community in early to give comments and edits. This is less of a "clone" than OSRIC was, because I'm shooting for a "rosetta stone" effect as well. In the following week, I'll provide a lot more information on what's going to be done with this project - I intend to support it with a pdf magazine. License features: All OGL except trademarks "S&W," "Swords & Wizardry," "Mythmere Games," and "Flip-AC System." WP document will be released to allow cut and paste; house rules campaigns created with cut and paste can be posted and even sold. Major Differences: Base 10 AC Variations in xp tables One saving throw Mix of material from supplements but still only 3 classes Variation in "to-hit" progressions To-hit is a formula, but I'll add the full table in appendices. Matt Finch |
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Jun 3, 2008 20:20:38 GMT -6
Base 10 AC? I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying "no armor" and/or "shield" i.e. skin is AC 10 instead of AC 9? Is this meant to be a brand new game since you say less a clone than OSRIC?
|
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 3, 2008 20:45:15 GMT -6
Base 10 AC? I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying "no armor" and/or "shield" i.e. skin is AC 10 instead of AC 9? Is this meant to be a brand new game since you say less a clone than OSRIC? Yes, skin is 10AC, not 9. No, it's not a new game, depending on where you think one game "separates" from another. What I mean by less of a clone than OSRIC is that there are one or two larger variations - namely the use of a base 10 AC, single saving throw category, etc. OSRIC didn't have any divergences quite that big from 1e. For people already playing using the white box or supplements, the only value of a retro-clone is in the articles, modules, etc that it spawns - the secondary material. The presentation in those materials should be indistinguishable and thus completely usable without a hitch. And look at it this way - anyone using even a fraction of the Arduin Grimoire is playing something much further removed from the White Box than Swords & Wizardry.  |
|
|
|
Post by RandallS on Jun 3, 2008 21:12:44 GMT -6
The name of the game is Swords & Wizardry From a very quick glance through the pages, it looks interesting. I'm very happy to see retro-clones of the original game coming out. I just mentioned Swords & Wizardry in my blog as coming soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 3, 2008 21:15:03 GMT -6
I've only skimmed it, but Swords & Wizardry looks interesting so far. I'm not entirely sure how you combine White Box with Basic since they have a few variantions between them, but it might work. Can I assume that "Basic" means Holmes?
Thoughts, more-or-less at random: (From a skim, so I may have missed something obvious)
1. Ability scores below 3 but not above 18 seem a little odd. Do you see many uses for stat values of 1 or 2?
2. Flip-10 (dual AC numbers) is nice, although I'm sure somebody will hate it.
3. I noticed that 1st level Clerics get spells. Not so in the White Box. Also, Cleric bonus spells -- is that a Greyhawk thing? I'm having a brain cramp but I don't recall these numbers in White Box or Holmes.
4. Saving Throw -- is this a single number for all saves?
5. Hit Dice -- the d10 for the fighter (for example) is kind of AD&D-ish. Is it your intent to blend several versions together? Magic user = d6 an interesting house rule, but not one of the editions you quote from.
6. I'm not sure if I like the dual attack roll charts.
7. I notice that demi-human level limits are removed. That will spark some discussion.
8. I kind of like the "turn undead" chart in d20 form rather than 2d6.
I like what you've done overall, but I guess I'm not entirely certain if this is really supposed to represent OGL OD&D or a nifty house rules set. Either way is fine, but I'm just a little confused.
|
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 3, 2008 21:42:26 GMT -6
I've only skimmed it, but Swords & Wizardry looks interesting so far. I'm not entirely sure how you combine White Box with Basic since they have a few variantions between them, but it might work. Can I assume that "Basic" means Holmes? Thoughts, more-or-less at random: (From a skim, so I may have missed something obvious) 1. Ability scores below 3 but not above 18 seem a little odd. Do you see many uses for stat values of 1 or 2? Nope - that's a bust. I'll change that. That's where I expect most of the hate and threat-mail to come from. Fortunately, after all the OSRIC hate mail, I've gotten thicker skinned. I can't recall whether clerics had spells at first level in Holmes, but bonus cleric spells are definitely not white box. That's in there for a rosetta stone effect with the "advanced" games: I'm not just trying to hit the white box, I'm trying to create a baseline clone/simulacrum whose resources will work with almost any edition. Anyone who plays with the original rules (not using the S&W rulebook) reading a module/resource based on S&W will find NPC clerics with more spells than normal, or if the module doesn't say how many spells the cleric has, it won't be visible - you'll just check the actual white box you're using and never know the difference. It's normal for NPCs to have odd numbers of spells or strange abilities, so there's no jarring effect to that. Yes. Yes, versions are blended. I thought the variation in HD type came from the supplements and that everyone had a d6 in the original? Did we play it wrong? There will be a full table for the standard progression in the appendices. For normal AC, I like to see a full table. I just didn't want to reproduce the table for each character class in the middle of the description. Might not be a bad idea, though. You need to have dual to hit systems in order to have the ascending/descending AC stats, though. Yeah, it always does. Thanks! For the purpose of this board, it's neither. It's a publishing vehicle to set up an OGL source for creating resources. Unlike the way we worked OSRIC, I'm going to actively support it. What we learned from OSRIC is that most people with material won't go to the trouble of self-publishing. You need a vehicle to bring in the small essays, module ideas, and other small-scale material - and you need a third party to put together artwork, layout and writing. Part of my plan for OSRIC was that the ability to charge for something would defray costs, allowing an author to find a professional artist and work together. That doesn't happen the way I thought it would. I got a bit off topic there - the point being, no one at this board is going to pick this up and use it. It's too close to the original to be a new game, but it's too far away to be a substitute rulebook. It's useful because of the potential for new material. I'm probably going to do the support as a "magazine" - a counterpart to Fight On!, only for the OGL retro-clones. OGL material can't be in a magazine that uses non-OGL material, and vice versa. So unless there's going to be a lot of potential lost, there has to be an OGL counterpart to Fight On!. |
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Jun 3, 2008 23:08:49 GMT -6
I'm probably going to do the support as a "magazine" - a counterpart to Fight On!, only for the OGL retro-clones. OGL material can't be in a magazine that uses non-OGL material, and vice versa. So unless there's going to be a lot of potential lost, there has to be an OGL counterpart to Fight On!. I'm slowly working my way through purchasing all the published OSRIC and LL material and I'm delighted with Fight On!, so if you go ahead with this project Matt, I'll happily purchase this too. I was thinking about the subject of a retro-clone OD&D last week and thought it would be great to have a rule book with blank columns in all the charts. Assuming the clone has to make changes to the numbers to prevent it being an exact copy of the original, this would enable the user to write in the numbers he wants (i.e. the originals), crossing out the clone numbers and voila! - the original rules in a neat and tidy, easy to read format. In the meantime, having only given the document a quick once-over, I like what you've done so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jun 4, 2008 1:35:18 GMT -6
Excellent work on spell descriptions!
Can I copy and paste them into my own version of D&D? That would save me lots of work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 4, 2008 7:30:13 GMT -6
mythmere, I was just confused and not trying to be overly critical. As far as HD goes, all characters were d6 in the LBB but magic users were downgraded to d4 when fighters were boosted to d8, which is why I commented on the "house rule" aspect -- it's not qute one or the other system, but a blend. Nice work, overall. I'll spend even more time reading it today. Excellent work on spell descriptions! I haven't read these yet -- which edition(s) of the rules are these spell lists taken from? |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 4, 2008 7:50:17 GMT -6
Excellent work on spell descriptions! Can I copy and paste them into my own version of D&D? That would save me lots of work! Yes, you can. Or at least, once the draft is finalized (say, a month?) I'll "activate" the licenses and also release a word-processing document to make it easier for cutting and pasting. You'll even be licensed to sell your version if you want to. |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 4, 2008 8:31:07 GMT -6
Fin, I didn't take your remarks as critical - it is very hard to take one of these things and x-ray it for the bones and muscles underneath. Especially when the author's trying to hit a middle ground between a couple of goals.
There's the legal goal of not violating WotC's copyright IP: in this case I'm incontrovertibly firm ground with the single saving throw the MU's d6 hit die, etc., etc.
Then there's the "intro to this game for new players" side (this was an unexpectedly common use of OSRIC - better than I'd hoped for). Here, the same things that give the document legal strength are weaknesses. Someone introduced to the White Box with this game is likely to think that one saving throw category is the RULE, not an adjustment. Since we're talking 0e here, I think that's not a huge problem. If someone takes from my rules the idea that you couldn't play WITH saving throw categories, then I failed to get across the whole point of 0e to that person. 0e isn't about the exact rules, it's about flexibility.
Then there's the high-compatibility side. As a matter of complete selfishness, what I miss about the old days is the lightning-like creativity of Dragon Magazine and White Dwarf articles, which declined and declined and declined as the games became more specific and rules-bound. By cutting back to the basic elements, I'm hoping to see that "imagine the hell out of it" attitude emerge in whatever gets published under the S&W umbrella. In order to get enough people writing and reading those materials, however, the results have to be seen as "compatible" with various different games. Take Labyrinth Lord, for example. Materials from S&W are going to be compatible (partly because of that sacrifice to the base 10 AC). Anyone with a 0e idea can publish it using S&W, and expect to pick up readers who play Labyrinth Lord. This requires a little bit of toggling - adding the ascending AC numbers is obviously in service of this compatibility goal (Solomoriah's game and the Chenault brothers' game both use ascending AC).
So, yes - it is very hard to take a look at a retro-clone (or simulacrum game, or something in between) and figure out where all those factors have been balanced in. I don't take offense at questions at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 4, 2008 12:31:39 GMT -6
That is an excellent, excellent idea...
|
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Jun 4, 2008 12:55:39 GMT -6
Nearly all the material in Fight On!, though not OGL, is directly gamable within Swords and Wizardry and all the other OGL retro-clones. So we are supporting those games with content, and we can also give them props by name. The only thing we currently aren't doing is printing specific names of specific games with specific articles and saying 'x is for y', since that would force us to use the OGL (I think). I think it's great to have more stuff for the old games out there and this ruleset looks pretty cool. Happily, people playing S&W and the other retro-clones will be able to use Fight On! to supplement their play, as well as whatever else is published. |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 4, 2008 14:38:53 GMT -6
That is an excellent, excellent idea... Hmm. Layout issues ... but I see what you mean. What we COULD do is to put one up on POD with nothing BUT blank columns and call it the "Tinkerer's" version or something. I mean, no numbers at all anywhere in the book. Or maybe do them in like 4 point font, leaving room for the "real" number to be written in - but the reader still knows what the original was... Keep in mind that we'll be releasing a WP document so that cutting and pasting's already do-able ... but then you've got to do your own layout, so I see why that might not be so great for lots of people. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jun 4, 2008 15:11:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 4, 2008 15:23:53 GMT -6
I vote for this one, if possible. |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 4, 2008 15:52:32 GMT -6
;D The number of choices in checkboxes would make it 10,000 pages long. Cool that you'd already had that idea - I took the opportunity to bookmark your blog, btw. I'm seriously going to try and figure out a way to create a DIY version - I just have to think it through, so please keep ideas coming. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2008 16:15:10 GMT -6
That has garnered the most positive responses of any white box OGL proposal I have seen. If you could use the PDF layer and form capabilities in Swords & Wizardry (A great title) to implement jeff's idea then you will have a document that is usable by anybody wanting to play white box style D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 4, 2008 16:21:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2008 16:24:00 GMT -6
For what is worth I am a programmer and given the data. I could make a windows based software that would allow the user to check what they wanted and produce a PDF. I would open source the code this so other programmers can port it to their platform (like Linux and Macs). With the data is in a good XML format it would be stupidly easy to code.
I did a similar program for my company's line of machines. We use the same motion control hardware on all of them but they each have different features and devices. I made a checklist like Jeff's D&D checklist and the result was a valid control software that could be burned on the motion controller for that machine.
Even if we didn't want to deal with releasing the software we could use the tool to produce multiple pdfs of D&D.
The basic idea is that you have two XML files, one with sections of text that is tagged this includes variants of the same rules. The other XML file control the checklist. The software reads the checklist XML and present the choices to the users. The result is a list of tags in order. Then the software extracts the tagged text from the data XML and dumps into a complete PDF.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 4, 2008 16:29:38 GMT -6
For what is worth I am a programmer and given the data. I could make a windows based software that would allow the user to check what they wanted and produce a PDF. I would open source the code this so other programmers can port it to their platform (like Linux and Macs). With the data is in a good XML format it would be stupidly easy to code. I did a similar program for my company's line of machines. We use the same motion control hardware on all of them but they each have different features and devices. I made a checklist like Jeff's D&D checklist and the result was a valid control software that could be burned on the motion controller for that machine. Even if we didn't want to deal with releasing the software we could use the tool to produce multiple pdfs of D&D. The basic idea is that you have two XML files, one with sections of text that is tagged this includes variants of the same rules. The other XML file control the checklist. The software reads the checklist XML and present the choices to the users. The result is a list of tags in order. Then the software extracts the tagged text from the data XML and dumps into a complete PDF. That is absolutely awesome! Have an exalt for that! |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 4, 2008 16:34:28 GMT -6
I haven't had a chance to keep working on the DIY ideas yet, but will as early as tomorrow. As far as the game's actual skeleton,
based on comments so far, here are the changes I'm going to make for the next draft:
1) The d6 HD for the MU will be changed to a d4
2) the base (skin) AC will be 9, not 10.
3) Cleric bonus spells will be eliminated
4) cleric spells will begin at level 2 not 1
5) xp charts will change somewhat to get closer, not sure how much yet
6) level limits won't go in - these are "simulated" with a massive increase in xp costs.
7) Halflings will go back in as an option
8) single saving throw category will remain for legal reasons
I think this brings the game solidly into being a retro-clone; the different hit dice for different classes will be there from the supplements, as will higher level spells (but not including any from AD&D). Most of the other supplemental material other than monsters will not be there, since I want to keep the game very open-ended for house ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jun 4, 2008 16:37:51 GMT -6
Zulgyan, you've pointed to something pretty nifty!
"Old school" doesn't mean you can't use the latest digital technology, does it?
|
|
tank
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 58
|
Post by tank on Jun 5, 2008 6:03:00 GMT -6
1) The d6 HD for the MU will be changed to a d4 2) the base (skin) AC will be 9, not 10. 3) Cleric bonus spells will be eliminated 4) cleric spells will begin at level 2 not 1 5) xp charts will change somewhat to get closer, not sure how much yet 6) level limits won't go in - these are "simulated" with a massive increase in xp costs. 7) Halflings will go back in as an option All great changes!! |
|
|
|
Post by hackman on Jun 5, 2008 9:26:20 GMT -6
I really like JRents idea, it's great. Myth, thanks for your work. I like the original document you came up with. I have some preference for the changes you've made, but you really have come up with a thoughtful and all inclusive "publishing compromise" so cudos. I really like the straight d6 aspect of OD&D, so I'd encourage you to keep MU's at d6, even if the other classes stay closer to the AD&D standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2008 12:21:04 GMT -6
That is an excellent, excellent idea... Hmm. Layout issues ... but I see what you mean. What we COULD do is to put one up on POD with nothing BUT blank columns and call it the "Tinkerer's" version or something. I mean, no numbers at all anywhere in the book. Or maybe do them in like 4 point font, leaving room for the "real" number to be written in - but the reader still knows what the original was... Keep in mind that we'll be releasing a WP document so that cutting and pasting's already do-able ... but then you've got to do your own layout, so I see why that might not be so great for lots of people. A pdf Tinkers version would be really really cool. |
|
