Advice for Fin

[calithena]

This and a bus ticket will get you a bus ride, but I figured I'd voice it.

Less is more for this project, or it would be if I were doing it anyway. Whenever the question is 'should I include'..., the answer is no if it's not in the actual LBBs, with only a few exceptions.

I can think of one or two exceptions to that, but basically, leave as much as possible for the individual DM to decide.

Talking it out here is good of course (I think Jerry's suggestion of using the EGG house rules as bonus guidelines is great, frex) but that would be my general approach.

[jrmapes]

I agree very much. There are a couple tweaks I think would be ok like tweaking the spell list a bit and tweaking the equipment list a little and of course EGGs house rules. BUT as Cal said,

"Less Is More..."

If it's not in the LBBs then it shouldn't be included should be the mantra (with aforementioned exceptions IMO).

Again I have to emphasize the use of Knockspell magazine for the optionals and even maybe the later officials. Matt hasn't said much about it in this thread although he has in a few other places. I may be off base and I hope Matt would correct me in my thinking if I am. But it is my understanding that Knockspell will be the set piece for much of the items and ideas that you are questioning plus the whole "imagine the hell out of it" which could and easily can become outlets for the options as seen in the books and the skewed and out there takes others have on them - like as I mentioned about the inclusion of Thieves.

Don't get me wrong, the questioning is good and great and is needed. Just as it is needed that everyone get on the same page about how much or how little is to go into S&W WB and where Knockspell comes into play.

Heaven knows I may have misunderstood Matt when we spoke, wouldnt be the first time.\\

Jerry

[calithena]

To amplify, though, Jerry - it's not just knockspell. Part of the beauty of the LBB's is that EVERYTHING can be used as a supplement for them with a DM who wants to set it up that way, from Greyhawk and Arduin to what we do in Fight On! and for this project, from Runequest to Exalted 2 and D&D 4, from Sorcerer to The Mountain Witch. They're the real 'rosetta stone' of roleplaying. A 'retro-clone' designed at preserving this ought to be as flexible as possible.

The more material you fix in the rules, the less they are what the individual DM wants them to be. IMO, again.

But this is veering into philosophy, and this isn't my project, so I'll just leave it at that. Good luck, Fin, I know you'll do it well.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 20, 2008 5:51:32 GMT -6 calithena said:

Good luck, Fin, I know you'll do it well.

Well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that one.

I do appreciate the input and feedback, however, which in part is why I keep SPAMming the boards with my polls. The second trim-though is underway and I still haven't gotten to the monsters yet. My main focus has been on the character creation stuff and spells. I got slowed down a tad when I started edit #2 before I got Matt's reply, and had to un-do a couple of things.

Back on track, though.... ;D

[philotomy]

Jun 20, 2008 3:48:03 GMT -6 jrmapes said:

I agree very much.

Me too, FWIW.

[mythmere]

I think everyone is on point here, both in terms of the rules and also in terms of the strategy for Knockspell magazine to be the "voice" of house-rules.

The core elements of S&W that are different from 0e, and legally establish it as a different game, are these: single category saving throw, changed potential percentage of prime requisite bonus, different xp charts (close in number and progression, but not the same), different attribute bonuses (however done), the way hit rolls are calculated, and the flip-AC system. There are other tweaks, insignificant but present. These aren't core to the game's independent identity.

Outside of this independent identity package of the game - and it sounds much more divergent than it is - I think the LBB version should be as little altered as possible. The GH "Core" version is built on the philosophy of altering nothing, although it "picked out" one part of GH to use - namely, the revised HD and damage methods. Oh, and all the spells and monsters from all 0e. But sticking to the original numbers and system wherever possible.

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, that's the plan. I just have to curb my occasional enthusiastic "game design" flurry where I put in something neat but new, and usually take it back out before Matt suggests I take it back out. :-)

[coffee]

I say save all that stuff you want to put in (and then take back out) and put it all in a supplement of your own. Your version of Greyhawk, for instance.

That way, you can have the best of both worlds. And we get to see what you've come up with.

[Brickman]

Good advice coffee. I'm sure everyone has their own idea of how they'd like to supplement the core books and supplements seem like the appropriate place for custom work.

[dwayanu]

My $.02, after a first look at S&W:

Leave out the AD&Dish ability-score-derived bonuses/penalties. IMO, they're not "white box" -- and even in their proper context, they're given too early at 13/8 rather than 15/6.

Stick with spell-casting as in M&M: Clerics get no spells at 1st level, and a big boost at 6th. Clerical and magical lists go to 5th and 6th spell levels respectively.

Damage is 1d6, except for Ogres and Giants (and any others so indicated in M&T).

Basically, if it wasn't in there in the first place then don't add it. Whoever wants to can cook up a Holmes-style hybrid by leavening with bits from S&W "standard." There are already plenty of "retro-clones" that amount to Joe Somebody's preferred "mix, match and mutate" version.

"White box" to me means that spicing up is left for home cooking.