|
Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Apr 18, 2011 21:05:16 GMT -6
Clearly I missed some kind of fracas or something, but could someone tell me what the intention is of putting out the game? Is it another OD&D retro-clone and some one's house-rules or something else again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2011 22:00:21 GMT -6
Yep Matthew, you did indeed miss a fracas, but most of the respective threads and comments have been deleted. Basically, for a short while S&W: White Box was no longer supported by either the copyright holder or author, leaving John Adams in a difficult position as publisher, especially as he had just received a bunch of pre-orders for the next round of BHP White Box sets. When his offer to buy the rights to the game was refused, he decided to keep OD&D gaming alive (remembering that at the time S&W: WB was officially dead) by releasing a new OD&D clone - Delving Deeper. This would also prevent him in the future of being in the difficult position of finding himself the meat in the sandwich as the publisher of someone else's game, since he will own DD outright. While S&W is a near-clone of OD&D, DD aims to be a "true" clone to the degree that OSRIC is a true clone of 1e and LL is a true clone of BX. Unlike S&W, DD will clone all three of the original booklets, giving gamers the complete "original" experience, rather than just an original "feel". The intention isn't to compete with or replace S&W, remembering again that John announced DD when S&W: WB was dead in the water, and those who think it will cause those sorts of problems need to remember that adventures and supplements produced for either game will be easily compatible with the other (as indeed all material published for all the major clones is). In other words for gamers it's a win-win situation. You can read more about DD and BHP's intentions on John's Blog with his DD development posts.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 19, 2011 13:28:23 GMT -6
Hmm. Somehow I missed all of this, too. Well, the more the merrier... At some level, with the clones, it almost comes to do aesthetics as for which rule set to use since, as austro points out, all the products are almost instantly compatible.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 19, 2011 19:33:31 GMT -6
Yeah, don't feel bad. I check odd74 a couple times a day usually, sometimes more, and I missed the whole "fracas" too. Only saw fins post saying he deleted the posts. It was a bit surprising and I feel like It was a shame on the S&W endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Apr 19, 2011 20:10:40 GMT -6
Well, I no longer feel like I have lost touch with the OSR. I've been feeling for some while now that people are getting a little too eager to publish their house-rules as a whole new game. I won't get into the whole question of whether too many products is somehow bad for the movement or the hobby or whatever ('cause I don't really care), but it is beginning to just bug me. I don't get the need for LotFP and Pars Fortuna and whatnot being separate games; I'd rather just call them "Jim's House Rules" and whatnot. All that said, I've always felt the S&W was not cloney enough (is "cloney" a word? I guess it is now) and so I go from being mildly irritated at the idea of yet another retro-clone to being hopeful that DD will be something I might really like.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 20, 2011 17:39:52 GMT -6
At some point though, enough house rules as you might as well type up a certain document. LotRP feels like that to me, so does S&W.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 20, 2011 19:50:48 GMT -6
Well, there is also one complaint about clones that DD is trying to address - that being that they - including S&W - are more like clones of Moldvay or BECMI that are retro fitted with some OD&D like features. The LBB's had a much differen't idea and expectation of the game than those later rules.
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Apr 20, 2011 20:50:38 GMT -6
I have a two questions. (Well, a two part question actually.) Did any of the od&d supplements replace the Chainmail combat? If so, do any of the retro-clones feature that combat system?
|
|
|
Post by bluskreem on Apr 20, 2011 21:26:11 GMT -6
Swords & Spells was supposedly OD&D's chainmail successor (I haven't read it yet, so i can't say how effective it was.) The only clone i know that has a chainmail-esque system in it is Dark Dungeons, although that was based off the Rules Cyclopedia's battle System.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 21:42:17 GMT -6
The most obvious clone would be Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay, you can download the Basic e-book for free from his Elf Lair Games Lulu store. I haven't had a chance to look at this next one yet, but you might like to check out The Big Brown Book. And finally there is a clone of Chainmail itself called Platemail. Again I haven't had a chance to look at it, but you can find links to it and its magic supplement on Il Male's blog.
|
|
|
Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Apr 21, 2011 3:11:43 GMT -6
Yeah, it's definitely a blurry line. It just seems to me that folks are jumping to one side of that line with great abandon these days.
Now that I haven't heard of before. I have some issues with S&W (I admit that the single Saving Throw drives me nuts), but not that issue. Can you expand upon that?
I'm a huge Spellcraft & Swordplay fan (see sig), but it isn't really a clone of Chainmail. More of an alternate universe version of D&D where there was no "Alternate Combat System".
And Platemail is even less of a clone. I find it fascinating and it does use some version of the various Chainmail combat systems, but it has a lot that is quite, quite new.
|
|
|
Post by spacemonkeydm on Sept 29, 2011 8:02:14 GMT -6
what things in DD is not going to be clone like? I see that the elf lost the +1 for things like goblins and lynconthropes and the xp table is different. What other changes are there going to be in it that makes it less than a true clone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2011 8:34:20 GMT -6
what things in DD is not going to be clone like? I see that the elf lost the +1 for things like goblins and lynconthropes and the xp table is different. What other changes are there going to be in it that makes it less than a true clone. The combat bonus you mention is not in the boxed set. There is a reference to the Chainmail rules. Checking that work, one sees the referenced benefits extend only to elves (and fairies) armed with magical weapons (CM 3rd Ed. p. 29). The XP table is different because, bluntly, there have to be some differences. This is one area it seemed changes could be made that would not fundamentally alter the feel of game-play. As much as I'd love to commercially release a carbon copy of a certain rules set, it cannot be done. That last part of your statement is too subjective for me to adequately address in this forum. I'm sorry you're disappointed, and I mean that truly, and I hope you give DD a shot in spite of your misgivings.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Sept 29, 2011 8:41:04 GMT -6
It should also be added that BHP made a heck of a good looking product! Who wouldn't like to have a copy of S&W Whitebox and/or DD Boxset when it comes out.
-Mike
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Sept 29, 2011 12:05:35 GMT -6
Personally, I can't wait for Delving Deeper to be released. From I've been hearing, it sounds like the guys over at Brave Halfling have made a bunch of design decisions similar to the house-rules I would implement in a White Box game. I'm looking forward to running a White Box game without the anxiety of a game table accident ruining my expensive oD&D box set.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 29, 2011 14:29:48 GMT -6
Any time a group puts together a "clone" there is bound to be a list of things that don't directly translate to the original. My guess is that Delving Deeper will be a great game which will have some small differences but I'm not aware of what those differences will be. If we're talking about different numbers in an XP chart, I see this as insignificant and hardly worthy of losing sleep over. I just know that, based on my previous experience with Brave Halfling, the production quality will be great. I'm looking forward to getting a copy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2011 18:13:01 GMT -6
Thank you for the kind words, Marv. For you, gentle readers, here is a list of what is and what isn't in the Delving Deeper FRPG. What is in the game: - Three Classes
- Three Demi-Human Race-as-Classes (with Level Caps)
- Three Alignments
- Three Types of Armor (with lower number = better protection)
- d6 Hit Dice
- Multiple Saving Throw Categories
- Rules for Wilderness, Underwater, and Airborne Adventures
What is not in the game: - Variable Weapon Damage
- Any Type of Critical Hit System
- Sub-Classes
- Psionics
What you may be surprised to find in the game: - Missile Weapon Ranges
- Thieves (clearly denoted as an optional class)
- Initiative
- Sequence of Battle
This should be enough to give folks an idea of what we're about. If you have specific questions, please post them here and I'll do my best to answer. If your question is very specific I would appreciate it if you would IM or e-mail (using my screen name on gmail period see-oh-emm) it to me instead.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 30, 2011 11:16:40 GMT -6
What is in the game: - Three Classes
- Three Demi-Human Race-as-Classes (with Level Caps)
That's surprising. So dwarves won't be fighters, and elves won't be fighter/magic-users?
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Sept 30, 2011 11:28:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Sept 30, 2011 13:02:22 GMT -6
Still loving Old School like it was yesterday. I used to be much older then, I'm younger than that now. Well said!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 19:02:29 GMT -6
So dwarves won't be fighters, and elves won't be fighter/magic-users? I'm not sure I understand the confusion, perhaps I used the wrong term? Dwarves function as fighters, with the exception of the demi-human abilities. Elves alternate between fighter and magic-user. Halflings are fighters (with the option to be thieves if you include that class). Picking the race means you get the default class. I was under the impression that is what race as class meant. Was I mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 1, 2011 10:39:24 GMT -6
So dwarves won't be fighters, and elves won't be fighter/magic-users? I'm not sure I understand the confusion, perhaps I used the wrong term? Dwarves function as fighters, with the exception of the demi-human abilities. Elves alternate between fighter and magic-user. Halflings are fighters (with the option to be thieves if you include that class). Picking the race means you get the default class. I was under the impression that is what race as class meant. Was I mistaken? Whenever I hear people talking about race-as-class, they seem to be talking about races with unique hit dice and experience point progressions, rather than races limited to a specific class.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 11:29:25 GMT -6
Whenever I hear people talking about race-as-class, they seem to be talking about races with unique hit dice and experience point progressions, rather than races limited to a specific class. Well then, the misunderstanding is mine. With the exception of a saving throw bonus, dwarves function completely as fighting-men, etc ... Thanks for clarifying that for me!
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 1, 2011 14:32:19 GMT -6
Whenever I hear people talking about race-as-class, they seem to be talking about races with unique hit dice and experience point progressions, rather than races limited to a specific class. Well then, the misunderstanding is mine. With the exception of a saving throw bonus, dwarves function completely as fighting-men, etc ... Thanks for clarifying that for me! That's a relief. I'm interested in DD because of its promise to hew very close to the original; there are retroclones already that do the race-as-class thing, so that would have been a major detractor for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 15:09:11 GMT -6
Whenever I hear people talking about race-as-class, they seem to be talking about races with unique hit dice and experience point progressions, rather than races limited to a specific class. I've seen this argument a lot but in reality it's just semantics. I'm not sure why some people get riled at the idea of race = class in the 3LB (not suggesting you yourself are riled talysman). In the 3LB dwarves and hobbits can only be fighters, elves can only be fighters and magic-users (with one proviso). Humans can be any class, but no so demi-humans. They are restricted to just one option according to their race. So for instance, all 3LB dwarves = fighters, which is race = class. Human fighters don't have dwarf abilities, even though the two races share the same class, hit dice progression, etc. The dwarf has some abilities unique to his race, he is a dwarven fighter, different from a human fighter. Sure, once you add house rules or material from the supplements that then changes the nature of demi-humans, but pure, undiluted, by the book 3LB has demi-humans whose class is determined by their race alone. They have no other options. None of this really matters of course, as I said it's just semantics, but race = class is an apt description of 3LB demi-humans that differentiates them from the OD&D supplements and AD&D versions - and DD is a clone of the 3LB, not OD&D as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 1, 2011 20:04:39 GMT -6
Whenever I hear people talking about race-as-class, they seem to be talking about races with unique hit dice and experience point progressions, rather than races limited to a specific class. I've seen this argument a lot but in reality it's just semantics. I'm not sure why some people get riled at the idea of race = class in the 3LB (not suggesting you yourself are riled talysman). In the 3LB dwarves and hobbits can only be fighters, elves can only be fighters and magic-users (with one proviso). Humans can be any class, but no so demi-humans. They are restricted to just one option according to their race. So for instance, all 3LB dwarves = fighters, which is race = class. Human fighters don't have dwarf abilities, even though the two races share the same class, hit dice progression, etc. The dwarf has some abilities unique to his race, he is a dwarven fighter, different from a human fighter. Sure, once you add house rules or material from the supplements that then changes the nature of demi-humans, but pure, undiluted, by the book 3LB has demi-humans whose class is determined by their race alone. They have no other options. None of this really matters of course, as I said it's just semantics, but race = class is an apt description of 3LB demi-humans that differentiates them from the OD&D supplements and AD&D versions - and DD is a clone of the 3LB, not OD&D as a whole. As you say, the distinction between a race limited to a single class and "race as class" is a matter of semantics. In my mind, "class" includes hit dice and experience level progressions, and there are two distinct traditional ways of handling hit dice and experience for non-human races (use the same HD and xp as one of the standard classes, or create a distinct HD/XP chart.) I just prefer not confusing the two. Plus, I regard the special abilities (like dwarf underworld skills) as more a matter of background than class. If someone wanted to be a human miner, for example, I might give them the dwarf abilities (not the save bonus, though,) in exchange for some limitation (no knowledge of above ground survival techniques, maybe?) That's getting into the realm of house rules, I know...
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Oct 13, 2011 5:34:20 GMT -6
What about spells? 3LBB only (ie. no magic missile) or more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 8:10:43 GMT -6
We've expanded the spell list slightly, particularly for the low level magic-users and clerics. Magic Missile happens to be one of the first level spells added for MUs.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 13, 2011 9:01:03 GMT -6
Now that I haven't heard of before. I have some issues with S&W (I admit that the single Saving Throw drives me nuts), but not that issue. Can you expand upon that? Ah sorry Dr., only just noticed. It's my complaint, but I thought others shared the feeling. To expand. Moldvay was my first ruleset, and I think of Tom as one of the best, and cherish what he did. But it is different, and likely stems from building on Holmes. Here's what I'd say. The retroclones all follow the Moldvay/Holmes model in defining the game. Holmes made deliberate choices, obviously, about what to put in and what to leave out. He was writing an introduction for beginners, after all. Thus the emphasis was placed on low level character creation and exploration of a local underground dungeon by a small but unified party. In essence, it was an expanded and boardless version of Megarry's Dungeon! boardgame. That's the normative idea of what play is supposed to be. Moldvay expanded on that model a bit, and the Expert rules (and those bits drawn from them in the clones) do encourage some wilderness exploration - but that is seen as exceptional, secondary, or higher level activity. OD&D is very different in that "Wilderness" play, political machinations, business and trade, wargaming, seafaring, even space travel, is integral to the game right from the start. Sure, dungeons are there too, and assumed to be an important part of play, but the message is more "go forth and find your fortunes", less "take your buddies into the dungeon". In short, the Moldvay model is deceptive in that it appears to narrow the game to dungeoncrawls - a misperception that many young 3e and 4e players use to criticise the game. There's also the whole world building aspect featured in the original rules. One of the things I tried to emphasize in Champions of ZED, is that creating the campaign world through play was intended to be a big part of what the game was. In otherwords, world creation was as important as step in play, no actually far more important than character creation. All those random charts were not intended to be afterthoughts but were central to play. It's a different game, really.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Oct 23, 2011 13:08:46 GMT -6
We've expanded the spell list slightly, particularly for the low level magic-users and clerics. Magic Missile happens to be one of the first level spells added for MUs. Thanks for the answer! I'm glad to hear it.
|
|