|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Apr 6, 2010 8:23:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Apr 6, 2010 21:29:17 GMT -6
I'd post this on your forum, but I can't be bothered to find my password at the moment.
But, barring a few things (i.e. saving throw values for the fighter) it seems that the biggest problem people have with WB that they want changed is that it's a Swords & Wizardry variant. Fix problems within the existing framework of the game? Sure. Fixing "problems" that you have with the game because it's not another game? I'm not sure how constructive that is.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 6, 2010 23:35:51 GMT -6
I honestly don't think there's that sort of politics and game loyalty involved Verhaden. Old Schoolers are a funny bunch, our rulebooks are sacred, but we're happy to go berserk house-ruling our games. I honestly don't think people have a problem with WB being a S&W variant, but the fact that it's not a true retro-clone, but rather more a near-clone is what upsets many. People wanted a clone that was as close as possible to the original, but instead got one that seemed to include unnecessary changes - Dual AC, Single Saving Throw, etc. Now obviously in reality it doesn't matter because we all house-rule our games and WB is no different, easy peasy to house rule it to replicate 0e more closely. But as I said, Old Schoolers feel that the rulebooks themselves are sacred and shouldn't be messed with. That's my guess for the psychology behind it all, nothing to do with brand loyalty, just sacred cows.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 7, 2010 0:42:20 GMT -6
I'd post this on your forum, but I can't be bothered to find my password at the moment. But, barring a few things (i.e. saving throw values for the fighter) it seems that the biggest problem people have with WB that they want changed is that it's a Swords & Wizardry variant. Fix problems within the existing framework of the game? Sure. Fixing "problems" that you have with the game because it's not another game? I'm not sure how constructive that is. I noticed that too. A number of people want to remake WB into another game. I don't want to fundamentally change it. I like the choice of AAC or DAC and the single saving throw. I don't think that adjusting the Fighter saving throw values fundamentally alters WB in such a way that it becomes another game. If you want DAC and multiple saving throws go play LL. That's what it was made for. Buy the LL Core, Original Ed Characters and Advanced Ed Companion and you have pretty much covered it all. You can switch styles of play from campaign to campaign. I picked S&W WB because it has AAC Option and a single saving throw. I believe that these are core values for this game and I don't want to see them changed. If you don't like them this is not your game. Keep looking - you will find something you like.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Apr 7, 2010 5:35:43 GMT -6
And that's fine, but if that's the case, then S&W WB needs to stop identifying itself as a retro-clone, because it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Apr 7, 2010 7:47:01 GMT -6
I honestly don't think people have a problem with WB being a S&W variant, but the fact that it's not a true retro-clone, but rather more a near-clone is what upsets many. People wanted a clone that was as close as possible to the original, but instead got one that seemed to include unnecessary changes - Dual AC, Single Saving Throw, etc. But that's what Swords & Wizardry is. It's the single saving throw, dual AC, etc. If someone made a WhiteBox game outside the umbrella of S&W, those are things I could see being changed. But if you go back to 5 saving throws and descending AC, it's not Swords & Wizardry anymore. I don't know why the project started with some of the distinctions it did, but I'm sure Myth has his reasons (though many elements changed were already established by OSRIC, BFRPG, and LL by the time S&W: Core Rules were released). He is a lawyer, and none of these games have been properly tested in court--maybe he was being too cautious? I don't know. I'm not against the content of the changes themselves (I use a lot of them in my own home game), but I'm not sure how well they fit within the established framework of the game already in its 2nd print edition (and Core being in its 3rd). I know yet another game is something a lot of people cringe at, but it'd be easy enough to make a true ~1:1 clone, given that LL and S&W have released their rules in word text documents. OEC isn't free or in a text document, but I'm fairly certain the rules fall under the OGL. If someone wanted to assume the legal risk, it would be possible to create an OSRIC-like system whose main design goal was to create and preserve a free, static rule set. -- Just my perspective. Coleston has the reigns of WB.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Apr 7, 2010 12:52:06 GMT -6
And that's fine, but if that's the case, then S&W WB needs to stop identifying itself as a retro-clone, because it isn't.I think you're being a bit over-the-top about the semantics of what makes a retro-clone game. Even if you don't like it, what's the harm of it? Clearly plenty of people enjoy the game, considering the WB boxed set has gone through more printings than I think anyone imagined ahead of time. Just because S&W doesn't copy every single mechanic from the original 3LBB exactly to your tastes, that doesn't stop it from being a retro-clone. Anyone who knows the history of D&D should already know the old categories and can tack them back on to their heart's desire, and I don't think using a single Saving Throw category radically changes the nature of the game.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 7, 2010 14:31:16 GMT -6
But that's what Swords & Wizardry is. It's the single saving throw, dual AC, etc.
If someone made a WhiteBox game outside the umbrella of S&W, those are things I could see being changed. But if you go back to 5 saving throws and descending AC, it's not Swords & Wizardry anymore. I could be wrong, but it seems to me reading the above that you have perhaps failed to grasp the reason why a clone is made Verhaden. A clone isn't made to produce a new and distinct game. Nor is it meant to replace the game it is cloning. Rather it attempts to clone the original game as closely as legally possible in order to produce a tool for people to publish products compatible with the original game. To say that S&W is the single saving throw, dual AC, etc., to say that without these things (things that weren't in the original game) it would no longer be S&W, seems to suggest that S&W was never actually meant to be a clone of the original game, but a completely separate game, which we know is not the case. Anyway, I think you may also have missed the point of my previous post, which wasn't to say S&W should change, but rather that some folk are simply disappointed it didn't strive to be more pure. That's not to say they don't like the game - evidence is all over the net that S&W is greatly loved and appreciated, as is the work you, Marv, Matt, etc., put in to give it to us. ...given that LL and S&W have released their rules in word text documents. OEC isn't free or in a text document That's simply because Dan hasn't got around to it yet. It is his intention to release both a text document of the OEC and a free no-art pdf, but has been caught up with his PhD work and producing the AEC. Hopefully he'll find time soon.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Apr 7, 2010 15:43:45 GMT -6
You are wrong.
In any case, regardless of original intent, clones have and are supplanting the originals. They're not just publishing tools. In the case of WhiteBox, with physical OD&D booklets in the price realm of collectors and die-hard fans and the legal PDF's having been taken away from us by WotC, Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox is actively being used as a distinct game, in and of itself.
Regarding the intent of S&W, you'll have to ask Mythmere for further clarification--but I know for a fact that he never intended it to be a project on the scale of OSRIC (free, static representation of 1E rules). Consider that the Core Rules, from the very beginning, didn't even TRY to represent a singular edition of D&D wholesale.
If WhiteBox does not have dual AC and a singular saving throw--distinguishing halmarks of S&W--it's not Swords & Wizardry. Hell, under the compatabiltiy statement license, the 2nd requirement states you must use ascending AC. It's not about politics or brand loyalty. It's simply what it is. S&W is different.
I got the point of your post. But S&W, in any variation, was never intended to be a "pure" clone with regards to mechanics. (Spirit is another story.) Issues regarding this would have been more constructive years ago when Myth first released the text document--not now. In a thread asking for suggestions and changes to WB, I'm under the impression that said suggestions follow ways to improve the current framework and model--not make it a different game entirely (and yes, making it closer to OD&D means moving it away from S&W).
And regarding your thoughts on WB as a whole not being a "true" or "pure" clone, fine. But I'll keep calling it a retro-clone of OD&D. I think it's pretty d**n close to OD&D--regardless of what you think. Sure, you can point out minutiae differences in the rule books, but at the table I can't tell the difference. From a mechanical standpoint, I don't think any of the differences should negate S&W's status any more than the mechanical differences in LL or OSRIC do.
My point being, let S&W be S&W. If you want a ~1:1 "pure" clone, you've got all the tools. You just need to find the time, assume the legal risk and do it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by geordie on Apr 7, 2010 16:47:36 GMT -6
Front page of Mythmere Games:
"The Swords & Wizardry game “clones” the original rules of the fantasy roleplaying game that started it all back in 1974, when it was published by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson."
I think that's what causes the confusion.
John, to be a proper OD&D clone you need a table of Martian Encounters - or else it's not the real deal.
and sexy witches.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 7, 2010 17:02:53 GMT -6
About what? Relax mate, I think you are getting yourself a bit too worked up over nothing. ...regardless of original intent, clones have and are supplanting the originals. They're not just publishing tools...WhiteBox is actively being used as a distinct game, in and of itself. You're preaching to the converted, last year my group swapped from playing D&D with the original books to playing LL. There are many reasons why playing with the clones is more practical than using the original rules. But I would be very surprised, and so would a lot of other people, if the original intent of S&W was not to clone 0e, but to produce a separate game. That it can and is played as a separate game is neither here nor there. I got the point of your post. Going by your reply, I don't think you did at all. Issues regarding this would have been more constructive years ago when Myth first released the text document--not now. I agree, although people still have a right to express their opinions, but ultimately yes you are right, too bad so sad, people can write their own clone if they have problems with S&W. In a thread asking for suggestions and changes to WB, I'm under the impression that said suggestions follow ways to improve the current framework and model--not make it a different game entirely (and yes, making it closer to OD&D means moving it away from S&W). Yes, that's right. And regarding your thoughts on WB as a whole not being a "true" or "pure" clone, fine. But I'll keep calling it a retro-clone of OD&D. I think it's pretty d**n close to OD&D--regardless of what you think. That wasn't me who suggested not calling S&W a clone. Sure, you can point out minutiae differences in the rule books, but at the table I can't tell the difference. From a mechanical standpoint, I don't think any of the differences should negate S&W's status any more than the mechanical differences in LL or OSRIC do. I agree and said something similar in one of my previous posts. To sum up my original post - some people have issues but it doesn't matter, since we all house-rule our games anyway. Not sure how that was turned into an anti-S&W rant, which is certainly was not. Anyway, that's me done in this conversation which has strayed a long way from the OP's purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Apr 7, 2010 17:34:14 GMT -6
I'm all for sexy witches.
|
|
|
Post by thebane on Apr 7, 2010 17:59:10 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone?
Best, TB
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Apr 7, 2010 18:29:15 GMT -6
Just want to say I completely disagree with Grey Elf. I see no reason to make S&W WhiteBox a complete clone of 0e. AAC and single saving throw are both MUCH better than the original versions.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Apr 7, 2010 18:50:15 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone? Best, TB I think you may be on to something here.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Apr 7, 2010 21:40:23 GMT -6
I'm not angry over anything or angry at anyone, as an FYI--sorry if that came across the wrong way.
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Apr 8, 2010 13:07:55 GMT -6
I think it mostly comes down to marketing, call it a retro-clone and we immediately know what you mean, even if its not technically a true "clone".
Maybe we need special terms for say
near rules exact clone Osric, Labyrinth Lord
games meant to mimic a certain style of house ruled old-school game S&W, S&W:WB, probably some others I don't know about
Those simply meant to capture the feel of the classic games either through being rules light. I've seen Fudge fantasy games with classes that at least reminded me of my childhood D&D games through adapting the D20/OGL SRD to the older rules Microlight20, Microlight74, C&C
but that all would probably get so confusing that attracting new players to our games would become even more maddening than it already is.
As for the original topic, what I'd change about S&W:WB, or S&W core for that matter, absolutely nothing. Its a great game, and mimics a very rules light "Lets just get on with it" style of play thats exceedingly fun. If I want a near rules exact clone thats what LL is for, if I want to stray from center more, thats what really rules light games like fudge are for.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 8, 2010 13:50:03 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone? Best, TB I think you may be on to something here. It is called the "Hot Chicks RPG". Sadly "Adults Only". But, there you have it. Come to think of it the 1975 edition of Empire of the Petal Throne has a couple "topless" b&w line art illustrations in it. Maybe you are on to something. Tastefully done, of course. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 8, 2010 19:23:56 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone? I think I'd buy a copy. Oh, wait. Wasn't there a Dragon magazine article on this? Yeah! Len Lakofka's article "Notes on Women and Magic" in Dragon #3 (1976). Len set up female-gender fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric classes with different abilities and whatnot. Heck, I'd buy Witches & Wenches anyway! ;D
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 8, 2010 19:39:37 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone? I think I'd buy a copy. Oh, wait. Wasn't there a Dragon magazine article on this? Yeah! Len Lakofka's article "Notes on Women and Magic" in Dragon #3 (1976). Len set up female-gender fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric classes with different abilities and whatnot. Heck, I'd buy Witches & Wenches anyway! ;D I just looked at the Dragon article. All women characters have spells of Seduction, Charm Men or Charm Humanoid Monster depending on their level and beauty scores. MU and Clerics have other spells usable only by women. Wild stuff!
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Apr 9, 2010 15:15:28 GMT -6
I think it mostly comes down to marketing, call it a retro-clone and we immediately know what you mean, even if its not technically a true "clone". Maybe we need special terms for say near rules exact clone Osric, Labyrinth Lord games meant to mimic a certain style of house ruled old-school game S&W, S&W:WB, probably some others I don't know about Waste of time. Something about the most hard-fought battles are over the most inconsequential details, except this isn't academia.
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Apr 9, 2010 22:00:51 GMT -6
Meh, I'm in the middle of trying to write an adventure module for Labyrinth Lord, and waiting for baited breath for my S&W WhiteBox set to ship, so clearly I'm groovy with the lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 10, 2010 13:27:08 GMT -6
Meh, I'm in the middle of trying to write an adventure module for Labyrinth Lord, and waiting for baited breath for my S&W WhiteBox set to ship, so clearly I'm groovy with the lot of them. I look every day in the mail box too see if mine has arrived yet. Unless you are a penguin who just ate a hardy meal check out this thread. The post you want is on the first page, second from the bottom: ;D bravehalfling.forumotion.net/open-discussion-f6/the-editor-s-corner-t142.htm
|
|
|
Post by thebane on Apr 10, 2010 22:23:23 GMT -6
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone? Best, TB I think you may be on to something here. Run with it! (But not scissors!) On a serious note and to answer what I would change... very little, other than what I perceive as an inflated XP requirement for Magic-users. YMMV. Best, TB
|
|
Fandomaniac
Level 4 Theurgist
I've come here to chew bubblegum and roll d20's and I'm all out of bubblegum.
Posts: 191
|
Post by Fandomaniac on May 30, 2010 20:31:24 GMT -6
The rules are coming along nicely, but I'm still looking for something much closer to the original source material. I understand that due to legal reasons, some things must be different, but there are so many differences that it resembles more of a seriously house-ruled version of OD&D than a retro-clone.
Here are some of the discrepancies I've found: The racial abilities do not match the original source material at all. Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones. I would really prefer to see these re-written to be truer to the original material or listed as "Optional House Rules" or not listed at all as it is in the S&W Core Rules.
All weapons should be listed as 1d6 damage regardless to size. Again, bonuses and minuses could be listed as "Optional House Rules".
The XP system for the original source material is 100xp per Hit Dice.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 30, 2010 21:57:46 GMT -6
Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones. I'm pretty sure that it says Hobbits are +3 to hit with slings in the errata printed in the back of supplement I. I will quote the exact text for you tonight...
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on May 30, 2010 23:46:02 GMT -6
Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones. I'm pretty sure that it says Hobbits are +3 to hit with slings in the errata printed in the back of supplement I. I will quote the exact text for you tonight... Waysoftheearth is correct. According to page 68 of Supplement 1: Greyhawk, "All hobbits add +3 to hit probabilities when using the sling."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 31, 2010 5:09:45 GMT -6
Thanks Tombowings ;D that's exactly what I see in my 4th print.
|
|
Fandomaniac
Level 4 Theurgist
I've come here to chew bubblegum and roll d20's and I'm all out of bubblegum.
Posts: 191
|
Post by Fandomaniac on May 31, 2010 8:54:59 GMT -6
Yes, but S&W Whitebox is suppose to clone the core 3 LBBs minus the supplements. If you going to list anything outside the core 3 LBBs, they should be listed as "optional house rules".
However, if you include Chainmail as part of OD&D core, I personally agree with Philotomy's view (from philotomy.com) that the Hobbit's "deadly accuracy with missiles" translates as a +1 to hit with slings.
Also, S&W Whitebox list this as: "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles: Halflings receive a +2 'to-hit' when firing missile weapons in combat." That's +2 with all missile weapons. To be true to Chainmail, the bonus should only be with slings or weapons involving "stones".
|
|