|
|
Post by codeman123 on Jul 17, 2008 18:33:24 GMT -6
so everyones been talking about this on all the forums but has anyone actually gone through with a good revision of the 3lbb i really would like to see one with some better artwork(even though the old art is cool  ) and just some reorganizing of the rules-set as a whole... and swords and wizardry is cool but we need the real thing i think.. |
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Jul 17, 2008 18:35:26 GMT -6
oh yeah ps i know this has been talked about forever.. i know this is old hat... but jesus.. lets do it already!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jul 17, 2008 19:33:02 GMT -6
Swords & Wizardry: White Box version is been worked right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 18, 2008 9:33:54 GMT -6
so everyones been talking about this on all the forums but has anyone actually gone through with a good revision of the 3lbb i really would like to see one with some better artwork(even though the old art is cool ) and just some reorganizing of the rules-set as a whole... and swords and wizardry is cool but we need the real thing i think.. Didn't J. Eric Holmes do this? How about Tom Moldvay? Because other than that, S&W is as close as we're going to be able to get, legally. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 18, 2008 10:25:54 GMT -6
Yeah, the problem is that the folks who own the "real thing" are not interested in a reprint or official revision.
The best solution we've been able to come up with is to go the route of the "retro clone" game -- essentially the idea is that you can take OGL material and tweak it so that it looks a lot like whatever version you're trying to emulate.
OSRIC did it for 1E AD&D, Labyrinth Lords for B/X D&D. Swords & Wizardry hopes to do it for teh little brown books...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -6
This forum, Fight On! and the work on Swords & Wizardry has inspired me to try my hand at doing some writing for OD&D for publication. Right now I am trying to get a group together to play and playtest.
|
|
WSmith
Level 4 Theurgist
Where is the Great Svenny when we need him?
Posts: 138
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 4, 2008 17:28:56 GMT -6
I started to a while ago but then realized it was better if I just made my own Supplement cause I customized too many rules to be true to the 3lb.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver on Aug 4, 2008 17:41:55 GMT -6
I started to a while ago but then realized it was better if I just made my own Supplement cause I customized too many rules to be true to the 3lb. I have to confess I'm baffled by the desire to revise or standardize OD&D beyond what's necessary to allow third-party publishing of new material (e.g., Swords & Wizardry). A lot of the fun of OD&D, maybe even the point of selecting it as a ruleset, is that each Referee has to exercise his judgment and creativity in developing a personal version. It's not just an option, it's a necessity if you want a playable game. I suspect a lot of Refs feel the same way, and it would be both impossible and undesirable to try to build any kind of consensus or compromise document. I think it'd be greeted with a lot of polite smiles but little enthusiasm. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Aug 4, 2008 21:27:51 GMT -6
I suspect a lot of Refs feel the same way, and it would be both impossible and undesirable to try to build any kind of consensus or compromise document. I think it'd be greeted with a lot of polite smiles but little enthusiasm. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. Yessss, to the driver you must listen. The force is strong with this one. Well, I guess Holmes/Gygax ruleset would be the only revision that I would consider. And is it really a revision? More like a streamlining/consolidation and/or bridge forward. Otherwise, honestly . . OD&D stands as is. I would have no other way. Just my opinion. ;D |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Aug 5, 2008 8:11:01 GMT -6
One of the objectives of the S&W book is simply to give new players (those who started even as early as 1e) an organized presentation of the rules. Before anyone tells me that the disorganization of the rules is part of the charm, I agree with that. However, from my own experience, it's also a "barrier to entry." My experience with detoxing from 3e is that a "bridge edition" can be necessary - I would not have gone back to 1e if I hadn't had the more d20 rules of C&C to ease me back into how AD&D is played. The AD&D rules, seen from the vantage point of four years of 3e, looked incomprehensible to me. The C&C rules, on the other hand, organized in a familiar d20 format, were easily assimilated. Then, moving on to 1e was much easier. There's value in having a book of rules which are easily assimilated.
But I think a "consensus" or "canon" version of 0e would actually defeat the purpose. 0e is all about NOT having any immutable rules. It's a toolkit.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 5, 2008 8:19:28 GMT -6
But I think a "consensus" or "canon" version of 0e would actually defeat the purpose. 0e is all about NOT having any immutable rules. It's a toolkit. Nicely said. |
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Aug 6, 2008 0:10:38 GMT -6
well come on... im not saying "revise it" and dont standardize it... i just would like to see a more consise document that sticks to the 3 lbb and gives some more order and arrangement to it.. something that anyone can just pick up and play straight out of and fully understand the specifics of the game itself..
|
|
|
|
Post by Brickman on Sept 25, 2008 17:30:01 GMT -6
Yey verily codeman. If someone could just reorganize it, make cleaner tables or even better artwork - but not revise the text at all. Maybe put it in a standard 8.5x11 or A4 format would be nice too. More information on one page.
|
|
) and just some reorganizing of the rules-set as a whole... and swords and wizardry is cool but we need the real thing i think..
