Which Version?

[Craig J. Brain]

Hi All!

I am keen to support the OSR. I was hoping to get the S&W White Box when BHP reprinted it, but of course that is old history now.

I am waiting for Delving Deeper, but in the meantime, I need something to use to run a few games.

Which version is the "better" one at present?

I know little of Matthew Finch's version.

I know very little about Matthew Finch's White Box Rules.

And I know even less about Frog Gods Game's version.

3 versions, all in different printings - all looking pretty good, but which one?

I may have missed some, and am happy to be redirected.

Thanks,

Craig J. Brain

[ravenheart87]

Which one is better depends on what do you want.

WhiteBox is based on three little brown books of original d&d... No high level stuff, only three classes, four races, very light rules. You can download it free from Matt's LuLu site.

Core is based on 3LBB + Supplement I. There's an optinal thief class, racial abilities are a bit different, ability bonuses have changed, high level stuff, more spells, more monsters, magic items are added. It's a bit more complex, than WhiteBox, but it's still a very light game and it's still free.

Complete is a selection from all 3LBB + Supplement I-III + Strategic Review. Right now the biggest difference between this and core is that Complete has more classes, some minor extra stuff here and there, and this one is not free.

Personally, I prefer Complete, because I like using stuff from all OD&D supplements in my campaigns. If you prefer a more purist approach, then WhiteBox is the game for you, if you want some more stuff but not too much, then Core.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 28, 2012 2:53:56 GMT -6 Craig J. Brain said:

I am keen to support the OSR.

Great to hear

Jan 28, 2012 2:53:56 GMT -6 Craig J. Brain said:

I am waiting for Delving Deeper, but in the meantime, I need something to use to run a few games.

Also great to hear

Jan 28, 2012 2:53:56 GMT -6 Craig J. Brain said:

Which version is the "better" one at present?

"better" is such a subjective term. It really depends on what you want to do with your game.

The short answer is, any of them will do the job. Your game is what you make it, not what it says in some rule book.

S&W is based on the original rules plus supplementary materials. It is not 100% "authentic" (if that matters), but it is a fine and rich game.

S&W Whitebox is likewise based on the original rules, without supplementary materials, and is likewise a fine and rich game. Some might consider it more "authentic", but still not a true clone of the originals. FYI -- It was written by Marv Breig (who runs this forum) not Matt Finch, though with the latter's approval, and published by John Adams (Brave Halfling Press). Unfortunately there was a "falling out" of some sort between the three parties that more-or-less saw the end of it (I don't know, or care to know, the exact details).

I don't know much about the Frog Gods Game's version.

But my advice would be just get your hands on any of them and get your game going. Tweak the rules as desired as you go along, that's all part of the fun ;D

p.s. Where in Australia are you?

[machfront]

The pdfs of both Core and WhiteBox are free, so you can see for yourself. (you can grab them from the S&W site or from Lulu.)

Core is essentially the 3LBBs + some stuff from Greyhawk. So, you have the big four classes, variable weapon damage and character class hit dice, monsters with multiple attacks, spells that weren't in the LBBs (like Magic Missle), Cleric spells up to spell level 7, magic-user spells up to spell level 9, attribute bonuses aren't uniform (in previous printings they were all more or less +1 for above average and -1 for below average attributes, now it follows OD&D a bit more closely) and a dozen or more little things sprinkled throughout (for example the fighting man having a Parrying class ability).

WhiteBox is more or less just the 3LBBs. Fighting Man, Magic-user and Cleric classes only. d6 for hit dice and for weapon damage (though a couple of weapons do 1d6+1 or 1d6-1). Most monsters have only one attack (and that attack does 1d6 damage). Cleric spells up to level 5 and magic-user spells to level 6. Movement is more simplified than in Core (not to say that in Core it's at all complicated or anything). No attribute bonuses, but there is an optional rule for the universal attribute bonus I mentioned above that used to be standard for both Core and WB.

Complete contains more stuff from further supplements and issues of Strategic Review. Thus, it's like an AD&D lite. Compared to Core (since Core's newest printing anyway), it's like Core ++. Not saying that in either a good or bad way. It's just Core plus more. Ranger, Druid, Paladin, Assassin. More detail on rules that already exist in Core (for example, Core has rough guidelines or suggestions for dual-class and multiclass characters, but Complete gives more detailed rules for such) More spells and general adventuring rules and travel and so on and so forth.

Though I love WB the best, Core gets best in show from me. The new WB printing is the best ever, but it's now been officially 'left to the fans' and to remain evergreen...which is nice, but it still has some errata and there are weird issues with the looks of some of the tables and the cover. Doesn't effect the awesomeness of the WB rules though of course.
Complete has even worse printing issues. The art is very pixilated and most has a washed-out look to it. You can't just grab it off of Lulu and all the hardbacks from FFG are sold out. Also the pdf isn't free.
Core, by contrast to both, is more solidly put together, looks beautiful, has a free pdf and you can order a print right from Lulu.

Having said that, I certainly couldn't help anyone decide because all three of them are awesome.

[Deleted]

I'm going to go against the flow here for just a moment. Don't misunderstand, Matt's S&W is a fine product and you'll do just fine if that is the way you go.

Still, I'd like to give mention to Proctor's "Labyrinth Lord" and the (cough-cough) original edition supplement to LL: "Original Edition Characters". The OEC makes for an OD&D gaming experience that is a hard combination to beat!

www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

[jmccann]

Jan 28, 2012 11:17:15 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I'm going to go against the flow here for just a moment. Don't misunderstand, Matt's S&W is a fine product and you'll do just fine if that is the way you go.

Still, I'd like to give mention to Proctor's "Labyrinth Lord" and the (cough-cough) original edition supplement to LL: "Original Edition Characters". The OEC makes for an OD&D gaming experience that is a hard combination to beat!

www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

I looked at S&W and LL and picked up LL instead and OEC. I think it is more faithful whereas S&W takes some liberties.

[ravenheart87]

I don't really like LL+OEC. I have everything I need for an OD&D-based game in a single book with S&W. On the other hand, I would choose LL+AEC for an "AD&D-light" campaign anytime over OSRIC.

jmccann: Which liberties are the problem?

[jmccann]

I don't like AAC and single saving throw. The many suggested house rules in sidebars also bug me. Don't suggest my house-rules for me thanks!

These are not huge issues. In addition to this though, the fact that LL seems to be reliably in print with a core book and some options, while S&W is split across multiple confusing releases with some kind of kerfuffle over authorship (which I can't figure out) in the recent past is enough to sway me toward LL. I don't have time to read S&W white box, core rules and whatever else there is to figure out how to play S&W or which version I want.

[tombowings]

I'm a huge fan of 1st printing of the White Box (heard good this about the second printing, too) and the original S&W 3rd printing.

The newer "updated" games, leave something to be desired, in my opinion.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 28, 2012 4:26:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

[S&W Whitebox is likewise based on the original rules, without supplementary materials, and is likewise a fine and rich game. Some might consider it more "authentic", but still not a true clone of the originals. FYI -- It was written by Marv Breig (who runs this forum) not Matt Finch, though with the latter's approval, and published by John Adams (Brave Halfling Press).

Whether it is a more "authentic" game or not I'll leave for others to judge. I enjoyed writing the WB in the style in which I play, which is to say very "loose" and with options instead of hard-and-fast rules. I've since moved on and no longer run my WB, nor have I really kept up on what Matt has done with it over the past year or so. The free downloads are worth a look, however, and the price is right.

Others have mentioned LL (and the OEC supplement) and I'll say that I agree that this is a wonderful rules set as well for those looking for something OD&D-like but better organized. The OEC really captures the OD&D style of play.

Jan 28, 2012 4:26:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

there was a "falling out" of some sort between the three parties that more-or-less saw the end of it (I don't know, or care to know, the exact details).

An unfortunate misunderstanding that really derailed the WB product line as it was realy starting to take off. On the other hand those events caused John to decide to support the creation of Delving Deeper, so hopefully some good came out of it.

[Craig J. Brain]

Thanks all!

I think I'll take a look at Complete I found one version at CanCon today (when I went back unsupervised, but it may have been White Box.

Something about LL just didn't grab me when I thumbed through a print copy yesterday.

[ravenheart87]

"I don't like AAC and single saving throw. The many suggested house rules in sidebars also bug me. Don't suggest my house-rules for me thanks!"

AAC is completely optional, and multiple saving throws are included since S&W Complete in every version. Those advices (or suggestions) are useful for some people - especielly those, who are new to old-school gaming. I don't understand why did you find them so offensive.

[jmccann]

Jan 29, 2012 15:11:09 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

AAC is completely optional, and multiple saving throws are included since S&W Complete in every version. Those advices (or suggestions) are useful for some people - especielly those, who are new to old-school gaming. I don't understand why did you find them so offensive.

They rub me the wrong way but they're not so bad. The other things I mentioned were more important in forming my preference for S&W over LL.

[Koren n'Rhys]

As noted above, the WB and Core versions are available for free download. Get both, read through and decide just what amount of rules you are more comfortable with.

For me, when I play S&W, I like WB. If I want more rules, I go to LL. Personally, I found Complete too heavy for my taste.

[strangebrew]

I have several different printings of Core and White Box, but I haven't seen Complete.

For Core, I like the 3rd printing more than the current (4th) printing. The layout is more crisp and clear, and it has d6 based hit dice which I like. Some things were added to the 4th to bring it closer to the original rules, but I like the 3rd printing's interpretation more. If I wanted to play the original 0e, I think I would do just that. The art is better in the 4th printing, though.

For White Box, I like the Brave Halfling (3rd printing) version's layout the best.

For an actual game I'd prefer the White Box. I think it might be my favorite set of D&D rules out there right there (excluding nostalgic and retro-fetishist urges). The only thing it is lacking is campaign rules (dungeon, wilderness, baronies, etc) and flavor, but I tend to use the B/X '81 set for dungeon stocking and wilderness rules anyways. I like how the monster and spell entries are super simple, and the rules are so simple that you can change anything you want without making the system crash.

Send me a PM and I can send you the S&WC 3rd printing BH SW:WB Free Edition .pdf if you want.

[keith418]

I love, love, love S&W: WB. To me, it's like all the best things about the OD&D system, except it's much easier to use and play. I house rule using OD&D anyway.

I like LL and the other clones, but I am really invested in OD&D more than B/X. It's what I started with in 1977 and S&W:WB really aides your play. I was convinced when i tried it and saw how easy it was to find everything. I also like to use the old Judges Guild materials and the S&W:WB makes a smooth fit. I have S&W: Core too, but I prefer to just add in stuff on my own from the original 4 supplements.

in-the-cities.com/

[Finarvyn]

Feb 5, 2012 15:48:50 GMT -6 keith418 said:

I love, love, love S&W: WB. To me, it's like all the best things about the OD&D system, except it's much easier to use and play.

Thanks. You make me blush.

It's hard for me to say the WB rules are "better" since in many ways I see them as a pale copy. The original rules have a certain flavor that I love and I use them as inspiration all the time. The WB might be better organized, but "better"? I just don't know.

[Deleted]

S&W:WB is a remarkable "clone" and Marv did a great job of writing it, and John a great job of publishing it.

[keith418]

Feb 5, 2012 21:08:27 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

It's hard for me to say the WB rules are "better" since in many ways I see them as a pale copy. The original rules have a certain flavor that I love and I use them as inspiration all the time. The WB might be better organized, but "better"? I just don't know.

It ain't really "either / or". It's both &and. I use both mushed together - S&W:WB house-ruled with OD&D, or OD&D house-ruled for S&W:WB. In this sense, S&W:WB augments the original for me.

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2012 22:01:24 GMT -6 keith418 said:

It ain't really "either / or

We all approach the game different ways. So, for Marv it may very well be "either/or". I'm glad you've found an approach that works well for you ... but your solution may not fit for everyone.

[keith418]

I would never argue with anyone on this point. I would say, however, that S&W:WB served to help me appreciate OD&D even more!

[Craig J. Brain]

I am told that I have a copy of the boxed set on its way to me here in Australia, and I am looking forward to checking it out. Marv, I keep hearing about the great job you did on it, so I finally get to see for myself first-hand

[keith418]

Does using a retro clone help make your campaign more individualistic and creative? There's a great article on that here: asusurrusincarcosa.blogspot.com/2012/01/recently-i-have-been-becoming-more.html

I think this guy is 100% correct and that S&W:WB is the best bet for what he's describing.

in-the-cities.com/

[Deleted]

An interesting post, but I see no reason to consider his opinion any more valid than that of anyone else. The facts he quotes seem reasonably accurate to me.

[keith418]

"Language is philosophy. When the mind puts into words what it sees, by that very fact it unconsciously introduces metaphysics."

– Spengler

I would ask whether or not the language in OD&D points one towards the Greyhawk or Blackmoor campaign models - if the structure of OD&D - in that sense - leads one to these kinds of structures. You can fight that inclination and build a wholly orignal campaign using the OD&D rules that isn't influenced in that direction, but it might be harder.

The retro clones are stripped of the kind of language that might lead one into a Greyhawk or Blackmoor duplicate without really being aware of it. Therefore, they help one create an entirely original world - or help one do it without a struggle.

[Finarvyn]

The part I like most about WB (and what some hate the most) is that it was designed to reflect my style of "options." Why tell a GM how to run his game? Present some standard rules and some variant options and let them pick. Don't like the XP progression? Change it. Don't like the way the elf is written? Re-do it. Like d6 hit dice or different ones for each class? Great!

D&D sort of did this as SR and Dragon and the supplements came out, since the boxed rules suddenly weren't "complete" any more. New classes and variants were being offered constantly. That's part of the problem we're facing 35 years later, when we can't agree on what makes up "official OD&D" because of the options.

[Deleted]

Feb 9, 2012 15:09:01 GMT -6 keith418 said:

I would ask whether or not the language in OD&D points one towards the Greyhawk or Blackmoor campaign models - if the structure of OD&D - in that sense - leads one to these kinds of structures. You can fight that inclination and build a wholly orignal campaign using the OD&D rules that isn't influenced in that direction, but it might be harder.

An interesting question. In absence of the supplements, since they weren't published yet, my campaign proceeded in a different direction than GH and BM. I've often wondered how I might have done things with those books in my possession.

I agree there are challenges involved with fighting the direction the game took. Even if a world-builder referee was able to easily take that leap, there would be the expectations of one's players.

I would opine that more mature players, or at least folks whose first experience with the game was an early edition of the game, would be far more inclined to take variant rules or settings in stride.

[Deleted]

Feb 9, 2012 15:39:27 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

... we can't agree on what makes up "official OD&D" because of the options.

And options were necessary to conduct the game!

[keith418]

I think many of us, if not most, would ideally want to come up with our own distinctive and wholly original campaign worlds. I'd like to produce something, personally, that would be as striking and as memorable as the Wilderlands or even Greyhawk. At the end of the day, I can't quite see R. A. Salvatore writing novels set in it, but I'd want that to be an option.

Now, there's just no way to easily do this. It takes effort, hard work, and a lot of imagination. But I think the retro clones can help - in that they carry less "baggage" and are more stripped down. You won't unconsciously start replicating Blackmoor and not realize it. In that sense, the clones almost force you to make more "DM as demiurge" decisions. Part of what makes the OSR the OSR is that we don't need to go and "buy" a world to play in - the box sets, the splat books, that everyone else is buying. We can decide to make our worlds instead.

My own experiment is not to try to lay out the whole world at once - employing what Zak S. calls the "frustrated novelist" approach - but to let it grow organically over time using the basic encounters that the playing itself generates, as well as a few ideas and settings tucked here and there. My feeling is that these elements will gel together and that the play itself will create the world.

So far, I - as the DM - vastly prefer the sense of adventure and surprise that comes from this method, rather than trying to run a game in a world that someone else made - no matter who great that world might be.

in-the-cities.com/

[Deleted]

Side note: Who is Zak S?

World building can be classified two ways: top down and bottom up.

Bottom up is referenced in TLBBs: make up a starting area and a few levels of a megadungeon, throw in a town and some surrounding wilderness, and have at it. Top down indicates a detailed setting including maps, societies, spiritual beliefs, etc., before starting play.

Bottom up is nice because, as you point out, it allows the players themselves to influence the world. It allows the referee to add things in as the players give him ideas or show a preference for a certain style of play. It also makes it easier for the referee to discard an idea that becomes increasingly counter to the way the campaign progress. After all, it is easier to strike out a one line notation of "Greek inspired pantheon" in the ref's notes than it is to discard a 17 page treatise on Greek mythology and how it influences NPCs and the overall milieu.

Top down design has another obvious (to me, at least) disadvantage in that much of the ref's hard work will never be used. It has the advantage of allowing quick access to lots of information which can really help with suspension of disbelief. Of course, it requires ready access to a potentially large amount of text.

My approach is to have some specific ideas around which a campaign will be based, and some general guidelines for the rest. If I have to ad-lib, I make a note and flesh it out before the next session.