|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 11, 2014 17:56:13 GMT -6
Hey folks: I got back into RP-gaming a little over a year ago now. I quickly discovered the OSR community, then you guys, then I got on the forum (got schooled several times) and I am still here and trying to learn.
I was cleaning out some of the debris of my hobby accumulation and I found that I had bought, downloaded and printed out some "simulacra," or "retro-clones."
Here is what I have:
Microlite 74 Basic Edition Swords & Wizardry Core Rules Spellcraft and Swordplay Basic Game Basic Fantasy Role-playing Game Beginner's Essentials 1st Ed.
What all have I got here?
I am not asking for critique of any of these in any way. I am only asking for genuine, fair, comparing and contrasting so that I can start to get a handle on what is out there. I just want to be a better player and DM.
Trust you guys. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 11, 2014 19:24:39 GMT -6
I hope you have read them all so you know what you have. I suggest picking up Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, Astonishing Swordsman and Sorcerers of Hyperborea as well as Lamentations of the Flame Princess for more ideas and takes on older D&D editions. Also look at Delving Deeper Labyrinth Lord Oh my lord there is a very good list of them ..... Here taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.htmlFrom your list Swords & Wizardry is a classic and one of the first retro-clones, and my favorite. I think Microlite is pretty good as well. I do not own Spellcraft and I am not a big fan of BFR, though others call it their go to game above all others. I would read S&W - 1st, BFR - 2nd, Microlite - 3rd and the Spellcraft title last. Make up your own mind, hell you may like one of the others on Owlbear's list. Best of luck. Hope this helps in some way.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jul 12, 2014 3:35:02 GMT -6
The list linked by Lorgalis is a great resource. Unless you're asking how the clones compare to one another, which is a harder question to answer.
Since my preferences run to B/X and OD&D (with a wish to run something like I envisioned or 'saw' AD&D to be when I was a young kid entering the hobby but easy to run, to which I've usually turned to S&W Complete but am now looking towards Castles & Crusades, it's no surprise that my fave clones are Swords & Wizardry:WhiteBox, Swords & Wizardry Core, Swords & Wizardry Complete (in that order) and Labyrinth Lord. Honestly, I've found something to love about pretty much all of them. One of the absolute best of the free OD&D clones in terms of presentation especially IMO is the recently released Full Metal Platemail. The author has a thread around here somewhere. The game looks great and gives everyone no excuse at all to not have their own free or low-cost games look wonderful.
Also...ya know all those crazy, wild, nutty and super-awesome covers to all of those very many fantasy paperbacks you and no one else had ever heard of that you see when you browse through a used book store? Want a game that's just like that? (well, my answer would really be Tunnels & Trolls but we're talking about D&D clones here) Then the 'next gen' clones Dungeon Crawl Classics and Fantastic Heroes & Witchery are certainly things to take into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofchutney on Jul 12, 2014 18:54:51 GMT -6
I wasn't around 'back in the day' so i've really come to all these games a fresh. There are (as that link shows) an silly number of retro clones and retro games as people feel the need to publish their interpretation of every rule set ever thought of (i'm not necessarily against this but it is bewildering at first).
Of the ones you listed in the op i've only read Basic Fantasy roleplaying and S&W core. In my view the differences between S&W core and most basic clones are relatively minor from a mechanical level (don't shoot me). Unless you have a specific interest in emulating a certain edition your choice should come down to which rule set do you find easier to read and navigate/ which on gets you excited to play once you've read it. If memory serves BFRP uses ascending AC but otherwise is a basic clone. I'd favour S&W Complete slightly, i found it easier to read, but thats really all. It also has a cooler cover which matters if your handing the book across the table to newcomers.
Generally there are subtle differences in the numbers and tables between edition, but i'd only worry about that kind of stuff if you know about it enough to have an opinion. The way saves are done can vary a bit too.
I flitter between S&W White box, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Astonish Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea (ASSH). I've had a go with Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC but dropped them because i found the rule books a bit of an effort to navigate.
the appeal of S&W white box for me is that its very very simple, so i can build on top of it. It uses D6 hit dice for everything (find em easier to roll and have more than d8s). I actually use weapon damage from other editions so combat is more brutal (lower hit die, but higher damage). Its a bit bare bones but the point is i supplement it with stuff from other games and zines.
DCC is a mid ground between an old and new school game. It uses ascending AC, a simplified d20 resolution system, non vancian magic and uses the character funnel (start with multiple characters) to mitigate death. All these things make it easier to play with modern gamers. The downside is it pushes you toward a certain kind of story arc, so its a more focused game.
ASSH is a very well written and easy to use rule set, but a bit more complex over all than the other two. It doesn't have elves, and globlins etc, its pure non Tolkienen weird fantasy ala Conan and Clark Ashton Smith. Which i like a lot. It has a lot of classes and optional rules and works as a complete ruleset for me. I probably favour this ruleset slightly at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 13, 2014 12:49:43 GMT -6
Thanks for all the help, folks. I knew you guys would come through for me!
Based upon y'all's collective comments I have now downloaded (and will read eventually): S&W WB, L of the FP (free w/o pics), Full Metal Platemail (fun!), and Platemail (Chainmail clone).
Thanks to all of you in this community that have built these and made them available. I don't always make the connections between the authors and their user names on this forum. So, well, just thanks.
Lorgalis, I did read these when I first printed them about a year ago now. But, fair enough, I need to read through them again, now that I have been playing 0e for a year.
Machfront, yes, I am looking for how they compare. Not severe criticism at all, but just, how well do they compare to 0e LBB proper (or whatever edition / supplements they are trying to clone). In terms of how they compare to one another, I suppose I just mean, what exactly are the differences (LLB only, LLB+Sups, 0e but using d20 system, that kind of stuff). I can do all the research, and I have started. But hearing from you guys and your personal experience just adds another layer of help, that's all.
This thread can go where the forum wills, but in terms of the desires of the "OP" (for whatever that is worth), I am most interested in 0e clones, then, perhaps, B/X clones. I am not too interested in clones after that, as 1e and later eds. are fairly available at places like ½ Priced Books.
Duke, thanks for your helpful comparisons.
Thanks all!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 13, 2014 19:45:31 GMT -6
I am looking for how they compare. Not severe criticism at all, but just, how well do they compare to 0e LBB proper (or whatever edition / supplements they are trying to clone). The main offerings in the 0e space appear to be (in the order they appeared): S&W:WB (2009/2010/?, Finarvyn et. al.), Torch & Sword (2011/?, paulg), Delving Deeper (2012/2013/2014, waysoftheearth et. al.), Seven Voyages of Zylarthen (2013/2014, oakesspalding), Full Metal Platemail (2014, Leonaru). I'm the custodian of Delving Deeper, yes, but I'm also a fan and OD&D player, so I will try to give as unbiased an opinion as I can. Perhaps it would be useful if the other authors also give similar summary from their perspective (nobody knows a product as closely as does it's author, after all)? At a high level I'd describe these as: S&W:WB is probably the most accessible/easiest to "get into" of the above, having a very approachable style and a toolkit structure; often offering several interpretations of a particular rule. It covers the 3LBBs only (no supplements) but tends to incorporate "isms" of later material into its general language/style, as well as S&W features such as ascending AC and single saving throws. I wrote a brief summary of these things a while back here. Perhaps the most important considerations might be its great accessibility, versus its not covering all the dungeon/wilderness exploration material from OD&D vol. 3. Torch & Sword offers succinct coverage of the 3LBBs (with some extras as appendices) in a big type, wide format layout with public domain art. The content is re-organised and beautifully easy to read although it has a few modern-isms. Alas, the tables aren't as pretty as the text. They do, however, reproduce many of the 3LBB's "magic numbers" exactly -- appealing but also a potential concern. Notably OGL friendly dragons, but includes Balrogs. The attack matrices are converted into an attack bonus (hijacking the "Fighting Capability" stat). Its standout features (for me) are its brevity, wonderfully easy reading, and reproduction of many 3LBB magic numbers. Some valuable notes in the appendices too. Delving Deeper covers the 3LBBs, Chainmail's fantasy supplement and 1:1 rules, plus some contemporary 'zine content (a "proto"-thief and a few additional spells and monsters). DD uses authentic OD&D language without recourse to the familiar modern-ism, but what differentiates it for most folks is that DD integrates material OD&D assumes from Chainmail, retains Chainmail/OD&D's dichotomous normal/fantastic combat and original "turns", and maintains the normal/fantastic distinction throughout. DD goes to great length (perhaps too far?) to be OGL compliant. Seven Voyages of Zylarthen covers the 3LBBs plus Greyhawk. The standout thing (for me) is the graphic design/presentation is very close to that of the 3LBBs--those that love 0e's no-frills/functional presentation and organisation will love Zylarthen's presentation. It includes public domain art. To my knowledge it covers the stated material quite completely, noting that: Zylarthen omits the cleric class (integrating the clerical spells with the M-U list, and allowing all PCs to turn undead) and includes a thief class instead. It offers an alternative encumbrance system, a Man-to-Man-like attack matrix in place of Attack Matrix I combined with a "Fighting Capability" attack bonus. Zylarthen gives copious acknowledgements to referenced source materials. Full Metal Platemail coves the 3LBBs plus and some material from Chainmail with isms from later material in its general language. The overall presentation appears styled after 3e and is beautifully augmented with public domain art. Those that love the 3e-style separation of crunch/fluff, captions for each rule, and general organisation will love FMPM's presentation. It includes the three 3LBB classes, and adds stats/descriptions for the Barsoom monsters named in the 3LBBs. The standout features for me are the overall 3e-esque organisation and integrated artwork, as well as and the exact reproduction of many of the 3LBB's "magic numbers"--which is both an appeal and a potential concern. I don't think it's within the OGL, but others disagree. The prospective gamer probably doesn't care either way. To summarise, I'd suggest: S&W:WB for its elegant toolkit approach and accessibility. T&S for its brevity, outstanding readability, and exactness of some 3LBB tables. DD for its authentic 0e language and normal/heroic play. Zylarthen for its 0e presentation and additional GH coverage. FMPM for its 3e presentation and its exact reproduction of the 3LBB tables. Or, get all five and pick and choose the bits you like from each. Enjoy! edit: Removed some license-related remarks. Added Torch & Sword. Added publication dates.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jul 14, 2014 4:26:59 GMT -6
The main offerings in the 0e space appear to be (in the order they appeared): S&W:WB ( Finarvyn et. al.), Delving Deeper ( waysoftheearth et. al.), Seven Voyages of Zylarthen ( oakesspalding), Full Metal Platemail ( Leonaru). I'd add to this list Paul Gorman's excellent 0e/LBB retro-clone Torch & Sword. The author is a frequent contributor to these boards as @ paulg. The work is minimalistic--it only covers the 3LBBs and it doesn't attempt to "correct" their omissions and ambiguities. It's well organized and has an index. It includes really good artwork. It's licensed under the OGL. It's free--- the PDF is here. And the LaTeX source code is also freely available. I recommend this one in addition to the four just mentioned by @ WotE.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 14, 2014 9:29:39 GMT -6
This is all super helpful. I am busy with other stuff for a week. Next week I will download and print DD and start comparing for myself.
Thanks so much, folks! (And thanks, Ways, for helping me to know who is who in terms of authorship.)
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 14, 2014 14:20:29 GMT -6
Cheers to Ways for an informative post. I should say that he has been a very kind, helpful and supportive online friend to me and was quite generous with his time in reviewing and commenting on the close to final drafts of the first two SEVEN VOYAGES of ZYLARTHEN volumes.
However, with respect, I want to strongly disagree with the implication that Zylarthen may not be OGL compliant.
Specifically why I believe this, or why it may or may not be the case for any other game that uses the OGL is perhaps not an appropriate topic for the current thread (and every time the general issue comes up in other threads things seem to get contentious) but I want to, so to speak, put it down for the record.
Note though, that in my view, Ways' opinions on the OGL, expressed both publicly and privately to me (among other things in terms of whether Zylarthen was compliant with it) have been unwaveringly consistent and reasonable, and I have profited from their expression. I think we would both agree that adhering to the OGL (if the game author decides to use it) is but one part of an author's legal and moral obligations. There are considerations of plagiarism, for example, which can come in a number of forms, as well as intellectual property issues concerning non-game related sources such as (in the case at hand) Burroughs or Tolkien. And of course, whatever one thinks of the OGL--from believing it's a fantastic legal gift to suspecting it as a tricky legal gimmick, or whatever--if one decides to slap it on the back of one's game, then one has has a moral obligation to take it seriously. One is publicly agreeing to abide by it, after all.
Looking at Zylarthen's relationship to OD&D and the 3 LBB's from a general point of view (and not from a legal one) I would say it was intended to be the most similar in terms of the aesthetic--not merely the layout, format and presentation but also the overall tone and spirit--but the least similar in terms of actual or explicit game mechanics and content (although it still is of course quite close to OD&D, as things go). Whether the intention succeeded is another question. And of course, if it did, whether that even is a good or worthwhile thing is yet another question!
I was interested to see that Tetramorph found Platemail. Now that's a game that is pretty explicitly "illegal". Or at least it would be if it was offered for public sale (among other things it uses AD&D art by Trampier and others). But as it seems to be happy occupying a private "fan" niche, I think that's okay. And it includes all sorts of really cool ideas, attractively presented. I have no idea who the author is (I don't have it with me--is he or she listed on the cover?) but clearly he or she doesn't seem particularly interested in any sort of recognition, even within the relatively small OSR community. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.)
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 14, 2014 15:10:50 GMT -6
The main offerings in the 0e space appear to be (in the order they appeared): S&W:WB ( Finarvyn et. al.), Delving Deeper ( waysoftheearth et. al.), Seven Voyages of Zylarthen ( oakesspalding), Full Metal Platemail ( Leonaru). I'd add to this list Paul Gorman's excellent 0e/LBB retro-clone Torch & Sword. The author is a frequent contributor to these boards as @ paulg. The work is minimalistic--it only covers the 3LBBs and it doesn't attempt to "correct" their omissions and ambiguities. It's well organized and has an index. It includes really good artwork. It's licensed under the OGL. It's free--- the PDF is here. And the LaTeX source code is also freely available. I recommend this one in addition to the four just mentioned by @ WotE. I hadn't seen this one--nice!
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Jul 14, 2014 16:12:13 GMT -6
I have Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry White Box (Sadly, only the softback from Lulu) and Delving Deeper.
I like Delving Deeper and Swords & Wizardry White Box best with Delving Deeper taking the top spot. It is more "familiar to me" as S&W does things like a single Saving Throw and Ascending AC.
What is so great about both systems (IMO) is how easy it is to "bolt stuff" onto the systems. As someone who tried to take 3.5 and 2nd and make a "new" sort of game, I found it exhausting. Changing 1 thing had so many unintended effects. With Delving Deeper (And I assume S&W), I just take whats there and come up with new stuff that shifts the rules to what I want. I hope that makes sense.
As a quick example, a few years ago, my daughter played as a ranger (using my crazy hybrid). Even though her sheet clearly said she could track and had all sorts of ranger powers, she never used them. It was just too much to consider. (My other daughter and my friend as well). They would constantly listen to the encounter set up and then.....the heads would drop to their sheets and they would be like "uuuuuh".
But with Delving Deeper.....a Fighter with a +1 using bows, a single d6 survival skill that covered anything she could think of (tracking, snare traps, hiding, etc) and a pet dog equaled the kind of "ranger" she always dreamed of.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 14, 2014 17:43:23 GMT -6
I'd add to this list Paul Gorman's excellent 0e/LBB retro-clone Torch & Sword. Great suggestion, I'd somehow forgotten that one. I will review it again and add it to the list. I want to strongly disagree with the implication that Zylarthen may not be OGL compliant. To be fair, I only said I didn't know if it was OGL friendly--although that concern was based on the pre-public version. I should have checked the current version before commenting. My apologies; I've removed the offending remark from my post above.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 14, 2014 22:50:15 GMT -6
But with Delving Deeper.....a Fighter with a +1 using bows, a single d6 survival skill that covered anything she could think of (tracking, snare traps, hiding, etc) and a pet dog equaled the kind of "ranger" she always dreamed of. THANK YOU!!! That is so shatteringly and obviously RIGHT! I wish I could just sit everyone down and force them to absorb that! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Okay. I feel better now. I'd add to this list Paul Gorman's excellent 0e/LBB retro-clone Torch & Sword. The author is a frequent contributor to these boards as @ paulg. The work is minimalistic--it only covers the 3LBBs and it doesn't attempt to "correct" their omissions and ambiguities. It's well organized and has an index. It includes really good artwork. It's licensed under the OGL. It's free--- the PDF is here. And the LaTeX source code is also freely available. I recommend this one in addition to the four just mentioned by @ WotE. Re: Torch & Sword 1. Re: the Batten illustrations. Great minds think alike, even when they're not aware of doing so. 2. As I recall, I didn't like Torch & Sword the first time I saw it (I'm saying this out of honesty and with respect). But I liked it much more a few hours ago. So I was trying to remember why I didn't like it the first time. After a few minutes it hit me: I still don't understand why it is presented with a "horizontal" orientation. At first I thought it was so you could print it out in pamphlet form, but then I noticed that some of the tables occupy the center of the horizontal page. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps Paul would like to weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2014 5:50:31 GMT -6
Added paulg's Torch & Sword, above.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 15, 2014 9:04:52 GMT -6
I don't have in-depth analysis to share, but I'll say that I originally liked Swords & Wizardry: White Box best, which was the retroclone closest to OD&D at that time. Now, however, Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rulebook is growing on me. It seems to be the best version of AD&D, if it was "fixed" to be more like OD&D.
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Jul 15, 2014 9:57:36 GMT -6
2. As I recall, I didn't like Torch & Sword the first time I saw it (I'm saying this out of honesty and with respect). But I liked it much more a few hours ago. So I was trying to remember why I didn't like it the first time. After a few minutes it hit me: I still don't understand why it is presented with a "horizontal" orientation. At first I thought it was so you could print it out in pamphlet form, but then I noticed that some of the tables occupy the center of the horizontal page. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps Paul would like to weigh in. At the time, I thought the two-column landscape pages would make a full page view very readable on 16:9 computer monitors, and the short columns would make it readable on tablets without much scrolling or zooming. It also works reasonably well printed with a coil binding (on the long or short page edge, depending on how you rotate the pages while printing). However, it's not a format I've used since, and I can understand why you might not like it. Torch & Sword was an experiment/research project for me in several respects.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 15, 2014 10:25:46 GMT -6
I've just been rereading it, and yeah, given its layout, I'd totally coil-bind it on the long end.
Nice work!
|
|
bycrom
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 90
|
Post by bycrom on Jul 17, 2014 10:00:27 GMT -6
By Crom! Is the glory that is Crypts & Things faded so quickly?
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 17, 2014 12:03:09 GMT -6
Sheesh--it's hard to keep track of them all! But yeah: Crypts & Thingsbycrom: Dogbrother, have you played it? If so, speak!
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 17, 2014 15:19:02 GMT -6
IMO, games that omit the Cleric class, or Demihumans races, and otherwise innovate and change things up a lot, don’t really count as clones. I don’t mean that to be disparaging, and I hope their authors wouldn’t consider it disparaging to not be called a clone, but their design goal is something other than cloning. I think S&W and DD definitely count as clones. Where they differ from OD&D it is mainly for legal reasons. I can’t speak to all the others as I am not as familiar with them, except for C&C, DCC, AS&SH, which I definitely would not consider clones (though AS&SH does qualify as old school, IMO).
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Jul 17, 2014 16:00:11 GMT -6
Reading through PaulG's "Torch & Sword" was definitely worth it! Had a great time looking through it. It's found a home on my harddrive now. I love me some Delving Deeper, though. And yeah, AS&SH is totally worth time too! Great game; Definitely not a clone.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofchutney on Jul 17, 2014 16:04:53 GMT -6
IMO, games that omit the Cleric class, or Demihumans races, and otherwise innovate and change things up a lot, don’t really count as clones. I don’t mean that to be disparaging, and I hope their authors wouldn’t consider it disparaging to not be called a clone, but their design goal is something other than cloning. I think S&W and DD definitely count as clones. Where they differ from OD&D it is mainly for legal reasons. I can’t speak to all the others as I am not as familiar with them, except for C&C, DCC, AS&SH, which I definitely would not consider clones (though AS&SH does qualify as old school, IMO). I'd agree, personally i prefer original takes on the genre that are inspired by, to one degree or another, the original games to be more interesting than straight clones.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 17, 2014 16:32:00 GMT -6
By Crom! Is the glory that is Crypts & Things faded so quickly? Crypts & Things is an adaption of S&W that integrates a bunch of house-rules/new mechanics. There are a load of reviews linked from here. It appears that the PDF version isn't free.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 17, 2014 19:48:45 GMT -6
IMO, games that omit the Cleric class, or Demihumans races, and otherwise innovate and change things up a lot, don’t really count as clones. I don’t mean that to be disparaging... I half agree (and I know you don't mean to be disparaging). I think your definition is one meaning (almost certainly the original meaning). On this meaning the idea is to "work backwards" from the SRD to get as close as legally possible to a particular edition. Not excluded is to make some "improvements" during the process, either in presentation or in a few tweaks here and there. The motivation was originally to, well, clone something that there was still a small "market" for but was out of print and generally unavailable, though I think the idea of "cleaning things up" has become more and more important. Labyrinth Lord and Delving Deeper are the best examples of these ("best" meaning best at satisfying the definition), with OSRIC close behind. In my view, Swords & Wizardry doesn't attempt to imitate a particular edition but instead tries to clone what we think we remember about "old school" play. It's sort of a mash between AD&D, OD&D and even a bit of Holmes and Classic. That's not a criticism. Swords & Wizardry is brilliant! But I think there is another meaning, and that is this: Any modern game that uses to a significant degree OD&D mechanics or setting, that in a pre-OGL and pre-SRD world with a jealous dominant player such as TSR headed by Gary Gygax, would have very quickly received a Cease and Desist letter. Again, that's not a criticism or snark on anyone living or dead. In a sense it's a backhanded thank you to WOTC for granting these games the space. But remember, once TSR withdrew their support, Judges Guild went through the tedious process of relabeling all of their statistics to create the "universal roleplaying mechanic" or whatever it was called. Any current game that uses strength, intelligence, wisdom, constitution, dexterity and charisma, even if it is in the service of roleplaying in a world of alien bunnies inhabiting 5th century Australia or whatever, would have received such a letter in the old days.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 23, 2015 19:43:34 GMT -6
By Crom! Is the glory that is Crypts & Things faded so quickly? There's a fair number of S&W variants out there. Ruins & Ronin, Lost Empires and Carcosa come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 23, 2015 20:00:58 GMT -6
Three "0e" clones not mentioned would be: The Big Brown Book by Justen Brown. From the Foreward: "TBBB combines all the material found in the original “Medieval Miniatures Rules” along with the three brown books found in “Fantasy Medieval Campaigns” box set. As an added bonus, there are few elements inspired by “Wilderness Survival”. .... The Big Brown Book is built entirely around six sided dice (d6)." Iron Falcon 3lbb + Greyhawk And of course, my own Champions of ZED: Champions of ZED, Zero Edition Dungeoneering is a dedicated original game simulacrum, informed by the 3lbbs, select details of the Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn draft and source materials, and CHAINMAIL. CoZ also incorporates Gygax and Arneson house rules, and a small amount of Supplement II inspired material. In a nutshell, CoZ is OD&D with CHAINMAIL combat.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 23, 2015 22:28:15 GMT -6
To reference oaksspaulding's second definition of retroclone, I would more properly call that kind of game an "homage game" where the object is clearly early games. My own game (soon to be "our" own game) is an homage game. The DNA is ODD, but the mechanicals are different, and there are a number of more modern conventions inherent.
Additionally, most retroclones per se lean a little on more than one edition and/or get filtered through the gauzy veil of "editorial judgment" and "taste", which is a plus IMO. There is much more to a game experience than bare bones numbers, and the game author's writing style and presentation choice is instrumental to germinating the seed that grows to become the eventual table experience.
Of the ODD retroclones proper currently available, I like Torch & Sword for its brevity and atmosphere and I like Delving Deeper for readability and completeness. These are my 1 and 1A for reference works.
I like Full Metal Platemail better than either of them by a hair's breadth because of what it adds to the LBBs. Notably, cool monsters and a general cleanup of corner-case rules. The delineation between the cleric and anticleric and the wilderness adventure section are particular treats in FMPM.
I think IF is going to knock it out of the park by the way. I don't like much from Greyhawk personally but that is no indictment of IF, which is a super product.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 24, 2015 9:17:10 GMT -6
To reference oaksspaulding's second definition of retroclone, I would more properly call that kind of game an "homage game" where the object is clearly early games. My own game (soon to be "our" own game) is an homage game. The DNA is ODD, but the mechanicals are different, and there are a number of more modern conventions inherent. Yeah "tribute game" is the term most often used. but homage works too. Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay is a great example of that, and from what I have seen I'd guess Zylarthen falls in that category. Platemail certainly does IMHO. Additionally, most retroclones per se lean a little on more than one edition and/or get filtered through the gauzy veil of "editorial judgment" and "taste", which is a plus IMO. There is much more to a game experience than bare bones numbers, and the game author's writing style and presentation choice is instrumental to germinating the seed that grows to become the eventual table experience. I think we all agree a retroclone need not be drawn of a single source (none of the ones mentioned are), and there will be some variation in mechanicals due to IP rights. The big issue you bring up though is editorial judgement. That's where most (not all) of the 0e clones have failed. From a DM's standpoint a given "clone" may mimic the mechanics of OD&D well, and even some of the sentiment, and yet totally miss the inherent system of play. When the ruleset assumes the norms and developments of game play will unfold in the manner of a Moldvay/Mentzer era game or AD&D lite, then the splendor that is OD&D has been squandered.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 24, 2015 9:30:36 GMT -6
I don't think Swords & Wizardry is a "clone" of OD&D in any strict sense. The current revision of Core is closer, but still a long way from a match for OD&D. S&W has a number of rules that have no analogue in OD&D, and it doesn't have rules for some of the things that OD&D has. Whole sections of volume III of OD&D just don't show up in S&W, and its methods of determining treasure and stocking dungeons are nothing at all like the ones presented in OD&D.
None of that is to say that it's a bad game; it focuses on being a playable game that has a "feel" like OD&D does. But you can't swap it out for OD&D, even with S&W Whitebox. Not that I've ever hesitated to take PCs from one game to another, using OD&D, S&W, B/X and Holmes characters - the only consequence is that specific numbers changed depending on the rule set.
Delving Deeper I think has some interesting ideas, and I want to pilfer its monster section, which has stats for a lot of the monsters that OD&D didn't write up in any detail. But I have no compunction about borrowing monsters from any of the dozens of books I have, or making them up as the occasion presents itself. At the end of the day I wouldn't swap out DD for the LBBs, because it has a different interpretation of the fiddly details than I do.
Iron Falcon I think is an interesting project. I like its to-hit chart, which I've used instead of OD&D's for a session, because it gets a bit more granular. I have no particular intention of playing it but I like that it's there to grab stuff from.
Personally I'd like it if there were just a book that was very very close to OD&D volume 1 for character creation, and didn't worry about the rest. And that would just be so that I could play hangout games of OD&D without people needing the original set.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 9:56:23 GMT -6
Aldarron: I would very much like for you to read Treasure Hunters and to judge it by that standard: does it "feel" right? Does it groak the roots and compass of the original games? This is not a challenge to you but rather an entreaty. I want to get the feel of it right.
|
|