|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 21, 2015 17:18:08 GMT -6
Openly declaring that you’re going head-to-head against S&W probably put S&W fans within the old school community on the defensive. Hah. If only. The S&W fans have not given me any trouble... it's the priests of the church of 3LBB who have attacked me. Like I said, I got a thorough chewing for allowing Dwarf Clerics (among other things). You have to make some changes when you write a retro-clone... I felt that was a rather minor one. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 21, 2015 17:58:47 GMT -6
I thought perhaps the Dwarf Clerics thing might be because you claimed you were making a more faithful clone than S&W.
Ah well, I have no dog in the fight, I’m sorry it was thought I was stirring crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 21, 2015 19:02:14 GMT -6
t's the priests of the church of 3LBB who have attacked me. Never forget the titles of the Four Gospels: GREYHAWK BLACKMOOR ELDRITCH WIZARDRY GODS, DEMIGODS & HEROES In 2008 I published Supplement V: CARCOSA. I caught grief for calling it "Supplement V". How dare I pretend to write a fifth Gospel?  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 22, 2015 5:03:19 GMT -6
A gentle admin reminder to keep things chill and relaxed here. Not that we're over a line yet, but I can see potential to hurt here and I'd like to avoid it. Now that Chris is posting about his own creation, I'd like to avoid driving him away.(1) Chris, glad to see you weigh in on this thread. I'm honored to have you here, even if you've been a member for a while. BFRPG is a great product and I have high hopes for Iron Falcon as well. I started out writing Iron Falcon because I didn't think S&W was as close as I wanted to be to that particular era of game. <snip> I'll admit I was unaware of some of the other OSR 0E-era clones, but now that I do know about them, I'm finding they don't target quite the "moment" I'm aiming for. (2) This may be better addressed in its own thread rather than in the middle of this one, but can you be more specific? What "moment" are you trying to recreate and what elements are you improving to get there?
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 23, 2015 14:48:55 GMT -6
I don't have any agreement with Chris regarding use of his Product Identity, and so won't comment on his projects, but will say that I agree with those who feel there is a gap in an accurate "Supplement I only" D&D simulator. Personally I have little love for the direction Greyhawk led the game, but intellectually it is an interesting thing to look at anyway. Some of Supplement I's quirks that I'd expect to see in any simulacrum of this sort would be the restriction of magic body armor to plate (per the table), 50% xp for hirelings, and something reflective of the expansion of the monster level charts for dungeon stocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 23, 2015 18:40:21 GMT -6
A gentle admin reminder to keep things chill and relaxed here. Not that we're over a line yet, but I can see potential to hurt here and I'd like to avoid it. Now that Chris is posting about his own creation, I'd like to avoid driving him away. Hah. They haven't driven me away from Dragonsfoot yet... (1) Chris, glad to see you weigh in on this thread. I'm honored to have you here, even if you've been a member for a while. BFRPG is a great product and I have high hopes for Iron Falcon as well. Why thank you! I started out writing Iron Falcon because I didn't think S&W was as close as I wanted to be to that particular era of game. <snip> I'll admit I was unaware of some of the other OSR 0E-era clones, but now that I do know about them, I'm finding they don't target quite the "moment" I'm aiming for. (2) This may be better addressed in its own thread rather than in the middle of this one, but can you be more specific? What "moment" are you trying to recreate and what elements are you improving to get there? On my ironfalconrpg.com page it says: Boldface added to highlight the bit you asked about. |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 23, 2015 18:45:20 GMT -6
I don't have any agreement with Chris regarding use of his Product Identity, and so won't comment on his projects, but will say that I agree with those who feel there is a gap in an accurate "Supplement I only" D&D simulator. Personally I have little love for the direction Greyhawk led the game, but intellectually it is an interesting thing to look at anyway. As I said elsewhere, I want to be able to play that game. I wanted to understand it, and writing Iron Falcon is my way of doing that. I'm involved in a productive conversation with another author who has given me a lot of help; and as I said on Dragonsfoot, even those who found fault with me helped me understand the game. Some of Supplement I's quirks that I'd expect to see in any simulacrum of this sort would be the restriction of magic body armor to plate (per the table), Ack. No, despite the table of which you speak, I'm not planning on doing that. I am aware of it. Absolutely. and something reflective of the expansion of the monster level charts for dungeon stocking. I actually like the way the encounter table shuffles the monster levels around. I couldn't reproduce them as they were due to copyright, so I used the same method but expanded it from six tables to ten. Same method, broader distribution, much the same effect in the end. I also fixed up the Monster Summoning spells to use the new tables... the spells got simpler since there are now more tables to choose from. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 8:36:44 GMT -6
Always good to remind ourselves of this...  As I have noted elsewhere, I don't buy this assertion. People certainly used only the 3LBBs with or without Chainmail until Greyhawk first came out 14 months after OD&D was published(Blackmoor came out 20 months later). The ref that brought OD&D to college in the fall of '75 started us out with just the 3LBBs even though he had Greyhawk and I started reffing with just the 3LBBs. After I had reffed a for quite while then he brought out Greyhawk and we jointly decided what to try and keep and what to try and not keep. Perhaps I am wrong, but the vast majority of OD&D players the first few years were adults or young adults and I find it hard to believe that the majority adopted each supplement in toto as it arrived. The main things our group adopted were monsters, spells and treasure. The new mechanical things are what we carefully considered before trying. He used more of the mechanical things than I did. My preference has always been the 3LBBs plus house ruled spells, monsters and treasure from where ever I found them or created them. I have always preferred to limit the mechanics to the 3LLBs or to tweak those mechanics and try different things. IMO the stat bonuses introduced in Greyhawk are a slippery slope and while I have used them from time to time they are not my preference. I have a hard time believing that bitd I was completely unique in that regard. Perhaps the percentage of people who preferred the LBBs to Greyhawk mechanics were not the majority over the period running up to 78-79, but we were certainly not non-existent either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 8:43:52 GMT -6
From the introduction, this seems to be a pretty succinct statement of what he's after: This focus shows a clear and thorough understanding of the spirit of OD&D. So I have high hopes for the finished product.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 27, 2015 9:21:51 GMT -6
Yep. Write the game you want to play. Put it up on the Internet. Talk about it. Enjoy it. Collect people who like it too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 10:19:18 GMT -6
Took a break from writing and looked around, and found this thread. Thanks for all the kind words, guys! I'm a huge fan of BFRPG and think a lot of Chris and what he has done so far. However, Iron Falcon strikes me as too late to the table. This may be so. But even though Iron Falcon isn't the kind of collaborative project that Basic Fantasy is, it's still being done as if it were Open Source. (It is OGC, after all.) Open Source is ultimately driven by creators fulfilling their own wants or needs. I started out writing Iron Falcon because I didn't think S&W was as close as I wanted to be to that particular era of game. I set it aside when I decided S&W was already as close as I was... that is, that I was making the same decisions as Matt did. But then I read a blog post (a series of them, actually) berating him for not getting close enough, and when I analyzed the "evidence" I concluded I could get closer. I'll admit I was unaware of some of the other OSR 0E-era clones, but now that I do know about them, I'm finding they don't target quite the "moment" I'm aiming for. But yeah, it's late in the game, and I'm not really bringing anything special or innovative to the table. This isn't BFRPG, and it's not supposed to be. For me, writing Iron Falcon is a way, probably for me the only way, to (a) learn how the early games worked while (b) creating something I can use for my own games. (a) is important. I wanted to know just how far away from the early game I'm targeting that I actually was... using an existing clone might be entirely acceptable, except that I can't compare the fidelity of any of the clones to 0E without understanding it first. So I kind of had to do it. I've been told by a few purists that I'm a bad person because I'm not perfectly representing the 0E experience (though to be fair, it's really the 0E+Supplement-Wargame experience I'm going for). I've been told by a few others that my choices of what to make optional vs. mandatory are, well, not so much wrong as suboptimal. One particularly unhappy fellow freaked because I officially allow Dwarf Clerics. Seriously, is it THAT important? Eh. It sells, or it doesn't sell. People like it or they don't. I don't know how it will shake out, and I'm not really sure that it matters. I am a huge fan of Chris and I do consider myself to be an OD&D Purist. IMO if you do not believe in house-ruling, then you are not an OD&D purist  you are a OD&D Traditionalist and there is a difference between the two (BtB vs house rules). So I consider all the clones/retro-clones/or whatever you want to call them (some clones claim not to be clones) to be a collection of each authors house-rules of OD&D or Holmes or B/X or BECMI or name the version. Since I am an OD&D player none of the clones fill a niche for me, so a new one being "late to the table" is not a negative in any way for me. When you take OD&D and try to "fix" all of its "faults" and try to make it "perfect and complete" the more you lose the charm of OD&D. A lot of the so-called faults of OD&D are what make it special and when you clean those things up the "special" may be gone as well. The things that excite me about this clone are these two: one Chris happens to be a really good writer and a deep thinker and two he is trying to really understand OD&D especially the spirit of the game and he is writing it like he would play it. My hope is that his version will have its own idiosyncrasies that will make it unique and special in the way OD&D is unique and special. So is Chris somehow a "bad" person for the way he is doing this? IMO that is way off base. This is his vision the same way others have their visions. If I wrote one my vision would be different than the rest of you. If he does things I like I will use them. I have hopes that he might even entice me to actually play his game. There are a couple of others out there that I have not had time to read in detail for which I have the same hope. There are some which have no free pdfs that I may not ever get to look at which is a shame since if I am going to shell out money for a hard copy I want to be convinced first that is is worth it. BTW a couple of years back we had a Dwarf Cleric IMC, it didn't bother me and the player had a lot of fun. IMO if you take OD&D and house rule it your way then you are perfectly representing the 0E experience as you see it. IMO OD&D consists of the 3LBBs, Chainmail, and Outdoor Survival. Everything else is house-rules - all of the supplements (official and unofficial), The Strategic Review, The Dragon and all other sources of inspiration, monsters, spells and treasure are house-rules from which you can use as little or as much as you like. You are also free to subtract from this as well as add. Is there a point at which it is no longer OD&D, IMO yes and I know it when I see it. That means that I consider all of the OE clones to be house-ruled OE. My quibbles usually fall under the heading of "if I wrote something and wanted to claim compatibility with your clone do you force me to include something I do not want to". If you don't do that then I usually have no quibbles. Personally I hope many more clones are written (of high quality and I can not think of any so far that I would consider of poor quality) and many materials to support them. So I don't care if there is a gap or not. Keep them coming! BTW to be clear here: I am not saying OD&D Traditionalists are wrong or bad people - I am not, what I am saying is that OD&D was both explicitly and implicitly set forth as a game to be house-ruled and made your own; therefore a Purist house-rules and a Traditionalist goes BtB. Two completely different styles of play and two completely different viewpoints with not much overlap. IMO that is the source of most old school arguments and also explains the disconnect many have with everything written after the version they started with. All of the above expands on comments made elsewhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 10:37:41 GMT -6
I've been told by a few purists that I'm a bad person because I'm not perfectly representing the 0E experience. James Altucher says that no matter what you create, somebody will hate you for it. Now geoffrey, what would you know about that? How true! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 10:58:42 GMT -6
t's the priests of the church of 3LBB who have attacked me. Never forget the titles of the Four Gospels: GREYHAWK BLACKMOOR ELDRITCH WIZARDRY GODS, DEMIGODS & HEROES In 2008 I published Supplement V: CARCOSA. I caught grief for calling it "Supplement V". How dare I pretend to write a fifth Gospel? IMO neither of you should catch or have caught any flack. I am about as Purist as it gets and I do not consider the supplements to be anything more than collections of house-rules that are pick and choose options. The 3LBBs are the basic suggestions not the LAW. |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 27, 2015 14:01:00 GMT -6
Well, just for the record, as I don't seem to have posted about it here... R44, released yesterday, is "final." I have a proofer looking at it, and when he's done I'll post my first print release candidate. So anyone waiting for me to be done before looking at it... hey, I'm basically done now. ironfalconrpg.com |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 27, 2015 14:03:52 GMT -6
"Play as Thou Wilt" is the whole of the law...
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 27, 2015 14:04:24 GMT -6
The things that excite me about this clone are these two: one Chris happens to be a really good writer and a deep thinker and two he is trying to really understand OD&D especially the spirit of the game and he is writing it like he would play it. My hope is that his version will have its own idiosyncrasies that will make it unique and special in the way OD&D is unique and special. Thank you for the kind words. I hope you find Iron Falcon to your liking! To be clear, the "purists" (you say "traditionalists" and I can work with that) who attacked me seem to consider the original rulebooks as the Word of God, and me a heretic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 14:34:35 GMT -6
Well, just for the record, as I don't seem to have posted about it here... R44, released yesterday, is "final." I have a proofer looking at it, and when he's done I'll post my first print release candidate. So anyone waiting for me to be done before looking at it... hey, I'm basically done now. ironfalconrpg.comFantastic, I will snag a copy and start looking at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 14:35:01 GMT -6
"Play as Thou Wilt" is the whole of the law... Quite! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 14:37:42 GMT -6
The things that excite me about this clone are these two: one Chris happens to be a really good writer and a deep thinker and two he is trying to really understand OD&D especially the spirit of the game and he is writing it like he would play it. My hope is that his version will have its own idiosyncrasies that will make it unique and special in the way OD&D is unique and special. Thank you for the kind words. I hope you find Iron Falcon to your liking! To be clear, the "purists" (you say "traditionalists" and I can work with that) who attacked me seem to consider the original rulebooks as the Word of God, and me a heretic. Odd to consider the rules that way when they openly within those very pages talk about writing in your changes and encourage it! All I can say is that for OD&D we need more heretics then. |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 28, 2015 0:04:11 GMT -6
Indeed, I agree!
By the way, everyone... if you participated in this thread (or the ones at the Basic Fantasy or Dragonsfoot forums), you are eligible to be credited in my game. I will not credit you if you do not agree, since not everyone who participated approves of Iron Falcon.
Just email me the way you want your name to appear, and I'll get you in there.
solomoriah@basicfantasy.org
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 28, 2015 22:25:01 GMT -6
Announcing!Iron Falcon Rules Release 45 -- March 28, 2015This is the first print release candidate. It includes numerous corrections submitted by James Lemon, as well as a significant correction to the Thief Abilities table pointed out by Peter A. Lindstrom. Also, a few more names are on the credits list. ironfalconrpg.com
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 29, 2015 9:18:30 GMT -6
Sounds like I'm going to get to do a playtest today! My regular group will be down a player, and they're about to go into what should be a big fight in the regular campaign, so we won't be able to do that... so I should be able to whip out Iron Falcon and have them test it.
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 29, 2015 18:08:07 GMT -6
Okay, so I had my playtest. Here are a few things I've discovered:
1) The wording of the "Trading Points" subsection is not as clear as I want; I'll be revising it.
2) The encumbrance table could be a bit clearer as well. I need to add "Up to" to the weights.
3) No mention is made of the Half-Elf in the Thief writeup. I should note somewhere what bonuses, if any, they get. The original rules are mum on the subject, I believe, but that doesn't mean I can't give them half bonuses or something like that. Just have to make up my mind and write it down.
4) I don't think any guidance is given on frequency of encounter checks or the odds of an encounter in the dungeon. I should review the whole section, in fact.
5) There is no pricing for sling ammunition. If the wielder is supposed to use found stones, I need to note that, or otherwise provide some guidance.
6) There is also no pricing for Thieves' Tools, nor any entry for a Tinderbox or other means of making fire.
I need to give all of the above some thought and then put up a revised version. Suggestions are welcome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 29, 2015 21:53:04 GMT -6
I think introducing thieves' tools would alter the game play, because it makes it much more difficult for them to escape upon being captured and relieved of their equipment. I like the idea of them being to pick a lock with whatever they have at hand, like a rusty nail.
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 29, 2015 22:22:53 GMT -6
I've elected to leave out Thieves Tools, as they are absent from the supplement. In my own game, I'd require them, as I see it DuBeers' way; but given that the classic gameplay didn't require them, I'm leaving them out.
I am adding the tinderbox; it's just too obvious. And I did add the sling bullets; I broke out the ammunition items into their own table, which helped fix some flow anomalies as well. A player wishing to use found stones, river rocks, etc. could still do so, but I'd rule such ammo would be bulkier at the same weight (as lead is heavier by volume than stone in the general case... about four times, give or take).
Tomorrow, when I'm less sleepy, I'll hammer the flow into shape and upload R46 with the changes noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 29, 2015 23:05:24 GMT -6
I'm glad you mentioned that bit about the Tinderbox. It's in the Holmes Basic list & I never noticed it was missing from the original. I just checked the Holmes Manuscript and as expected it is absent there as well. So it was added by Gygax/TSR & is the only new equipment in Holmes Basic not found in the original list. There are a number of similar instances where Gygax uses Holmes Basic to clarify points in the original rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 29, 2015 23:19:56 GMT -6
That's funny. If you have a thief class, you leave out thieves tools. If you didn't, it would make sense to have them so duffers could try thief stuff
For the tinderbox, I don't think it's totally necessary. It could be assumed with the purchase of torches or a lamp. You could do it either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 29, 2015 23:25:27 GMT -6
I think introducing thieves' tools would alter the game play, because it makes it much more difficult for them to escape upon being captured and relieved of their equipment. I like the idea of them being to pick a lock with whatever they have at hand, like a rusty nail. I think there's another (more subtle?) element to the introduction of thieves tools which is that the name of the item implies that they're for theives only. The implication is then that nobody else has any proper business carrying these tools, and therefore nobody else has any proper business trying any of the things that might be accomplish with them! They represent a logical constraint (for the player)--almost like the M-U's spellbook edit: can't spell "thieves" |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 30, 2015 8:17:40 GMT -6
For the tinderbox, I don't think it's totally necessary. It could be assumed with the purchase of torches or a lamp. You could do it either way. I'm uploading R46 now, and I did add the tinderbox. One additional line, and a few more gold pieces sucked out of the player's starting money. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I left out the thieves tools, as mentioned before; leaving them to the referee's decision (given that they are totally absent from the original material) seems good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 30, 2015 8:20:04 GMT -6
Announcing!Iron Falcon Rules Release 46 -- March 30, 2015This is the second print release candidate, containing revisions I discovered a need for after my playtest yesterday. Please see the forum threads for details on the changes in this release; they're pretty minor. ironfalconrpg.com
|
|
you are a OD&D Traditionalist and there is a difference between the two (BtB vs house rules). So I consider all the clones/retro-clones/or whatever you want to call them (some clones claim not to be clones) to be a collection of each authors house-rules of OD&D or Holmes or B/X or BECMI or name the version. Since I am an OD&D player none of the clones fill a niche for me, so a new one being "late to the table" is not a negative in any way for me. 
