retro-clone or the real one

[giantgenesis]

Hi there,
I have not written on the forum for a long time, but I had a question I would like to share. Since a certain time now, I began play old-school games. Like a lot of person of my age, I started by playing retro-clones, since I never had the chance to have the original books. However, recently, I have been able to find some of the older books (e.g. bd&d (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer), ad&d, and even od&d (ok, I lied, somebody let me look inside his own books).
At the beginning, it was more for ‘collection’ (you know, just want to have these books). But then, I started to think of playing those games, rather than the retro-clones.
So, I just want to know if you could, would you prefer play the original games (bd&d, od&d), or the retro-clone?
Thank

[llenlleawg]

For the most part, the retro-clones are restatements of the original rules, so much as is allowed under the OGL, anyway. Second, some of the retro-clones have added what amount to interpretations/common house rules of the original, especially where the original text is not altogether clear (e.g. how to handle elves' experience and gaining of levels as fighters and magic users). In a few cases, e.g. the optional thief class for Delving Deeper, there is a a class which never appeared as such in the original books, but which imagines what on "official" version of such a class might have looked like before, e.g. the Greyhawk supplement was released.

In any event, if you are using a retro clone, at least one of the major ones (e.g. Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord or Delving Deeper, or, for AD&D OSRIC) then you are already playing the original game. In such a case, of course, if you have the original books available to you, by all means use them! Still, the retro-clones are helpful in many ways to (a) clarify rules, (b) provide optional but common house rules, (c) put the rules cheaply, even often for free, into your players' hands, etc.

In short, I don't see much reason to choose the retro-clone over the original, but then there is no need to see a competition. The former is meant to express the rules of the latter, so you can choose one as the base expression of what you are playing and make full use of everything else in the other. That is, people who are using S&W, LL, DD, etc. are quite simply playing D&D.

[Ynas Midgard]

The two most important things to consider about retro-clones, at least for me, are (a) that they are much better organised and clarify a great deal of unambiguous rules and (b) that they are free.

I myself almost never play "by the book", thus to me it really doesn't matter if I house rule B/X or LL, OD&D or DD. Furthermore, most of the rules I use from memory, even class advancement tables, often tweaking them slightly, sometimes putting them down just to make sure I don't contradict myself.

However, the good thing about the originals is, well, that they are the originals; it is you who has to interpret the rules in any way you like. If you look around this forum, there are plenty of interesting readings about interpreting certain statements in the books.

[llenlleawg]

Feb 22, 2013 5:28:52 GMT -6 Ynas Midgard said:

The two most important things to consider about retro-clones, at least for me, are (a) that they are much better organised and clarify a great deal of unambiguous rules and (b) that they are free.

I myself almost never play "by the book", thus to me it really doesn't matter if I house rule B/X or LL, OD&D or DD. Furthermore, most of the rules I use from memory, even class advancement tables, often tweaking them slightly, sometimes putting them down just to make sure I don't contradict myself.

However, the good thing about the originals is, well, that they are the originals; it is you who has to interpret the rules in any way you like. If you look around this forum, there are plenty of interesting readings about interpreting certain statements in the books.

The clarity of the clones is a two-edged sword since, as you note, it makes clear what it obscure, but, in doing so, takes a stand on a matter which has been played differently from table to table.

I think the best way to see the clones of OD&D, once you take away the necessary differences that come from using the OGL/SRD, is as house rules in the truest sense, i.e. not variant or alternative rules, but as a set of decisions of how to interpret the original books. As such, if you had S&W or DD behind the screen, no one would know that you didn't have the original books.

Although Moldvay/Cook is now, just recently available, and was clear on its own, Labyrinth Lord, being free, is a nice "alternative" since using LL one is playing B/X D&D. In fact, the Original Edition and Advanced Edition supplements for LL would allow you to emulate OD&D alone or as it was on the eve of AD&D (or even in early AD&D) without having to acquire any of those books.

Part of the heritage of D&D has always been the recognition that it is not played just the same way at any two tables, that most of its TSR-era history has involved tables effectively using different "editions" (which, being mutually compatible, are not like the "editions" of latter days) all at the same time, and thus using no one set of books "as written". As such, be confident that, by using the clones, you are playing D&D!

[Chainsaw]

Not an either/or for our group. When we play AD&D, we have the originals and OSRIC at the table, referring to OSRIC where the originals aren't clear or we can't find something. It's a helpful supplement. Back when I was in capitalbill's S&W White Box game, we didn't use the original LBBs because none of us had them. We do now. If we played again, I imagine we'd treat S&W the same way we treat OSRIC - as a supplement. YMMV and all of that.

[talysman]

It's mostly a matter of what's available. I have OD&D, so I run that, with some changes I made. Heck, most of the rules I can apply without referring to a book; I ditched the stuff that wasn't memorable. But I don't rule out using *parts* of retro-clones. For example, I think I'll use the Delving Deeper thief from now on.

However, if players want a copy of the rules for themselves, you have to make a decision: which game is currently cheap or free, and easily accessible? Direct your players to that ruleset, which will probably be a retro-clone, and warn them about any differences.

The only original rules that currently qualify as cheap and available are B/X, because of the PDF release, so if you are running B/X, you can direct people there. Otherwise, if you run AD&D, direct them to either OSRIC or LL+AEC, or maybe S&W Complete, whichever is closer to the way you run it. And if you are running OD&D, direct them to some version of S&W or to Delving Deeper, again depending on which is closer to what you actually do.

[Deleted]

Like Chainsaw there's no either or for me. We pick and mix. Our current game has been a 1e one. Before that we played a heavily house-ruled OD&D and before that LL + AEC. I'm about to start DMing a game and it's 1e but using AEC abilities, and as usual there'll be an eclectic mix of house rules from all different versions of D&D and its clones. They're all just tools for my game.

[bexley]

I think you're limiting yourself. Rather than decide which book to run a game out of, use them all. Treat every book as if it was a supplement with optional rules and go nuts, have fun.

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2013 20:39:33 GMT -6 bexley said:

I think you're limiting yourself. Rather than decide which book to run a game out of, use them all. Treat every book as if it was a supplement with optional rules and go nuts, have fun.

I like the way you think! :-)

[giantgenesis]

Thank you for all your answers. I think I'll follow your advices and use all books as supplement with optionals rules, but also use retro clone for the better presentation (I take a look at delving deeper and the presentation with tables is far more clear, for me at least, than od&d ... well in my memory of the od&d presentation).

[benoist]

I'm an OD&D and AD&D player when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons. In AD&D's case, I will use the AD&D books and OSRIC interchangeably, often at the same time, in much the same fashion as Chainsaw described above, and for pretty much the same reason. In OD&D's case, however, I will prefer the originals to S&W White Box. The exception would be S&W Complete, if I had in my mind to use OD&D plus selected elements from all the gamuts of supplements over the years, since I find it does a great job at building the experience I'd most likely want out of such a game framework, including the options and the like (thinking initiative for instance, there).

[Deleted]

I still have my Little Brown Books, and run OD&D. Once the PDFs come back, try it out.

Also, I will point out that "back in the day" we played "It's my game, I'll do it the way I want." I used OD&D, bits and pieces from AD&D, and if I found rules or ideas from other games that I liked, I'd glue them on!

[llenlleawg]

Feb 24, 2013 15:25:27 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I still have my Little Brown Books, and run OD&D. Once the PDFs come back, try it out.

Also, I will point out that "back in the day" we played "It's my game, I'll do it the way I want." I used OD&D, bits and pieces from AD&D, and if I found rules or ideas from other games that I liked, I'd glue them on!

While I'm of slightly newer vintage than you, beginning as I did with Holmes, I'd agree entirely. In fact, that's what you had to do with Holmes, if you wanted to go past 3rd level! We just got the OD&D supplements, some issues of The Dragon and the AD&D books as they came out. It never occurred to us that we were playing anything other than "D&D" and we never thought of this as "mixing editions" as might be said in these latter days. We just played, and when we played with other folks, the differences seemed insignificant enough, or interestingly different enough, that none of this bothered us!

[jeffb]

At my table on game day I have s&w complete as the main book in front of me, and the 1e MM.

But, I prep with,and pull from alot more and they are all sitting off to the side just in case: 1E DMG, C&C PHB (spells), Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert, 2e Monstrous Manual, a couple of issues of Knockspell, M&T assortment, Best of Dragon Vol.1, Holmes Basic, and my old LBB PDFs. I also have my 3e and 4e books handy,.especially for monsters,as I find they often give me some good ideas for monster attacks/abilities that are more excting than the same ol claw/claw/bite.

All of the pre 3e versions are largely compatible, usually I just have to make sure to tone down the bigger numbers of AD&D to OD&D, and especially so.if I am adapting from 3rd or 4th edition.

[Finarvyn]

To me, the clones are cool but the originals are cooler. I still own my OD&D brown books from the 1970's and that is still my "go to" game system when I don't have time to prep a game otherwise.

[giantgenesis]

Like I said before, I do not have OD&D, while I have sometime access to it, so I already read it. Of what I remember of OD&D, I can easily understand that S&W white box and OD&D are quite different games, and that some players could prefer one game over the other. Since I don’t have a copy of OD&D, I looked (I bought – can wait to have it) at Delving Deeper. While I had the PDF since a certain time, a never really read it, until this week-end (I read volume I)

I have to say that I’m quite impressed by the product. Like most retro-clones, DD it much clearer (and I talk about the presentation) than the original game (especially with tables). Furthermore, there are some minor tweaks (for example, the price of items [100gp for plate vs 50gp or something like that], but also the fact that they state the bonus of halfling with missiles in the book(!) rather than in CHAIMAIL, etc.) and some more 'major' tweaks (e.g. the thief class – I know that it appears elsewhere, but the thief in DD seems very nice) that I really appreciate compared to – what I remember – about OD&D.

Personally (but it may be an unconscious desire of not having to buy OD&D books!!!! – or maybe it’s because I don’t have ‘lived’ the OD&D period, but I find that DD is like a ‘revised edition’ (and a good one ) of OD&D.

Anyway, since I don’t have OD&D yet, I think that my next game will be a mix of DD, holmes D&D, S&W white box, philotomy’s house rules, and my house rules. If I have the chance, eventually, to have the OD&D books permanently (and I talk about the three core books), maybe I could find interesting stuff inside that I prefer compared to DD … but honestly, I have been happily surprised by delving deeper!

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks for your positive appraisal of Delving Deeper Giantgenesis! It's always great to hear that folks appreciate all the work that went into it.


It's doubly rewarding to hear that while you don't have direct access to the 3LBBs, you found yourself a copy of Delving Deeper -- IMHO that is precisely what it's for! Exalt for sharing your story


For the record, it's worthwhile restating that the minor differences observed in the numbers and tables are necessary for legal reasons. I might also clarify that Delving Deeper is an SRD-based fantasy role-playing game that emulates the original rules.

The original rules do not reside exclusively in the 3LBBs; they are also resident in Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, and other contemporary commentary including The Strategic Review and The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter.

Delving Deeper acknowledges that the original rules were still in active developed for a number of years after the 3LBBs appeared, and brings it all together for you in one place.

Enjoy !

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Feb 25, 2013 3:15:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

For the record, it's worthwhile restating that the minor differences observed in the numbers and tables are necessary for legal reasons. I might also clarify that Delving Deeper is an SRD-based fantasy role-playing game that emulates the original rules.

The original rules do not reside exclusively in the 3LBBs; they are also resident in Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, and other contemporary commentary including The Strategic Review and The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter.

Delving Deeper acknowledges that the original rules were still in active developed for a number of years after the 3LBBs appeared, and brings it all together for you in one place.

That right there was one of the best and most lucid descriptions of DD that I've read thus far. At least for those of us that understand the various historical references that you make.

I need to keep this!

Cheers!

[blackbarn]

I like playing the originals best, however the retro-clones are fine, too. I do think reading the originals will better inform you when you run a retro-clone, however. Some of them leave out or change things that I personally think are important parts of the game, so understanding what is different helps.