|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 1:10:09 GMT -6
I'm in the works with a new OD&D retro-clone and am doing a little bit of research. For now, I have two (and a half) questions for you all: What is your favorite thing about retro clones? If you were to write your own retro clone new rules would you include? What would you leave out? Thanks for your responses. Edit 1: I feel like some of my statements are being misinterpreted. I'm not trying to improve the original game. I'm trying to present the game as a toolbox to create your own fantasy game using the LBB as a starting point. My plan it for parts 1 through 4 will detail the information in Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and the Underworld and Wilderness adventures. The fifth, and final, section will be the toolbox. Ideas from Supplements 1 and 2 and well as from the gaming community will go here. The idea is that Referees can take what they want and leave the rest. For example, I will present a clone of the combat system presented in Chainmail. From my perspective, every version of D&D is just someone's house rules. The original LBB were just a bunch of Gary and Dave's compromises concerning how to play the game. Later, in Supplements I and II, they published they rules they played with. AD&D followed a similar trend, as did Homes. They were all just different ways of playing the same, uncodifyable game. The toolbox section will detail different ways people play the game. No everyone plays the same and I want to capture that. I'm not trying to improve the game; I'm trying to present the idea that the rules are guidelines and there is no right way to play the game. Edit 2: I now realize that the term "retro clone" is not appropriate for this project and am working to find an alternative. Edit 3: If you are curious about the project, check out the new blog I've created: swashbucklershideout.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 27, 2009 3:25:45 GMT -6
What is your favorite thing about retro clones? That they facilitate interest in and publishing for the systems they are cloning. I'm more interested in the supporting products (e.g. modules) than in the systems, themselves. For example, I'd run AD&D, not OSRIC, but I'd enthusiastically use OSRIC products (e.g. Monsters of Myth, Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom) with AD&D. Same goes for OD&D and Swords & Wizardry; I run OD&D, but I'll happily use S&W products in my OD&D game. For me, the guiding principle of a retro clone is to make it clone, to the highest degree possible. My goal would be to *not* introduce new rules, and to include everything that was originally presented. Veer from that too much and you're not putting out a retro clone, but a fantasy heartbreaker. (I think OD&D presents some challenges for retro cloning because of the built-in ambiguities and lacunae in the rules.)
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 4:05:01 GMT -6
For me, the guiding principle of a retro clone is to make it clone, to the highest degree possible. My goal would be to *not* introduce new rules, and to include everything that was originally presented. Veer from that too much and you're not putting out a retro clone, but a fantasy heartbreaker. (I think OD&D presents some challenges for retro cloning because of the built-in ambiguities and lacunae in the rules.) Thanks for the input. I guess I should have stated by goals more clearly. I do wish to stay true to the original rules, but the overall preservation of the game's feel is more important than the rules themselves. For example, I prefer saving throws to be done a al Swords and Wizardry. I haven't found that it changes the feel of the game, but the mechanics are slightly different. Such liberties I feel OK, with trying out. From my perspective, every version of D&D is just someone's house rules. The original LBB were just a bunch of Gary and Dave's compromises concerning how to play the game. Later, in Supplements I and II, they published they rules they played with. AD&D followed a similar trend, as did Homes. They were all just different ways of playing the same, uncodifyable game. At the end of the book I intend to have a number of Appendixes of alternative/optional rules and rulings. I'm trying to gather some ideas to try out. I feel this will concrete the notion that the OD&D is more of a toolbox than a set of unbreakable rules.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 27, 2009 7:22:26 GMT -6
The "toolbox" approach is exactly what drove my WhiteBox rules for S&W, only I tried to use sidebars rather than putting everything at the end. Part of the problem as I see it is that OD&D is all about experimentation -- I may not use the exact same rules in any two campaigns that I run -- and thus is hard to codify.
For example, I've been tinkering of late with using a combat system more similar to Chainmial (see my Ringmail posts in the Chainmail section) and sometimes regret not making it the basis of my WhiteBox combat, then I realize that for most gamers OD&D is about the "alternate" combat system and would be unhappy with my tweaks.
So, when I developed WhiteBox we had a panel of Old School gamers look over the manuscript and make suggestions, and even now discussion is still occuring on the Mythmere Games boards about whether or not I got it right.
Good luck in your projectm and be sure to keep us updated!
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on Dec 27, 2009 10:38:53 GMT -6
I would take the one orignal rules set I have the most fondness for and make something as close to it as I can. There's been a couple of clones of it so far, but because of the need to make artistic changes to avoid intellectual property issues they really didn't get it as close as I wanted. They look quiet literally like 3.5 house ruled to play like older versions of D&D, which isn't bad, but they are still 3.5 at their core, not the old rules.
The end result is that when I create publishable modules I have to worry about conversion issues: what numbers and names did they use? Tedious.
And then one decided to change certain elements already in place, making two different sets of rules to deal with. I've begun to think that for some the explanation "We had to change certain things to avoid stepping on artistic license of the orginals." is being used more as an excuse to house-rule elements than any real need.
Make my own; keep the details as close to the orginal as I could; end of the hastle.
The clones offer the chance to publish new material; I could do that without clones, just not use names so blatantly. Using a retroclone name then means some people will see a name like S&W or Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy and think "That's not for my game, so I can't use it." Even though I personally design things for the adventure foremost, not game system, so the adventure suits any system.
And I don't sell anything; I design freebies. I'm not loosing sales or money. I just note some people still just acquire things for one system, by name not by material.
I like the retroclone idea a lot; it lets people distribute the rules, buy them in stores, get brand new copies, make their own custom versions easily and distribute them -- all sorts of things.
But I don't need any more clones, unless they aim to be even more faithful to the rules I have the most fondness for. Or unless they fullfill a truly radical change like making a pocket version based on using only six-sided dice, squeezing the rules to fit it into a small digest sized book. For people who might be going somewhere or just sitting at home and might want to pull a book out, some d6s and play D&D. Something they wouldn't have to make their self.
If I was making clones, I'd make those two: one truer-to-the-original and one just-for-fun pocket version.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 27, 2009 11:41:25 GMT -6
In terms of 90% of game play, the existing clones and the rules they are based off of are indistiguishable to the players. While the wheel can be reinvented a million times, you should ask yourself why you would want to do that or if you are going to produce a significantly different kind of wheel. In other words, what will you do that will make your game play differently in significant and important ways that nevertheless closely emulates things in your original that you feel have been missed by existing works? When you know the answer to that you will know what to write.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 13:31:57 GMT -6
Thank you all for all of the great responses, but I'm still looking for more. I can see that many are unsatisfied by the deviations many of the retro clones took from the original rules. That's great! I feel that the original rules are so wonky that it may even help me in my endeavor. My goal with this project is to create a tool box. Parts 1 through 4 will detail the information in Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and the Underworld and Wilderness adventures. The fifth, and final section will be the toolbox. Ideas from Supplements 1 and 2 and well as from the gaming community will go here. The idea is that Referees can take what they want and leave the rest. For example, I will present a clone of the combat system presented in Chainmail. I have started a blog to detail my thought process: swashbucklershideout.blogspot.com/.
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Dec 27, 2009 14:18:01 GMT -6
My son and I are at the American Museum of Natural History, where one of the things we looked at was a book of commentary on the Koran. The standard form for these is to have one page of the Koran printed in the center (in a green box for the one we looked at) and then the commentary printed in the margins. I think that'd be an awesome community project for us! The version that had the facsimile of the original books included would be relegated to the Underdark, but we could publicly release the 8.5 x 11 pages of commentary surrounding a "paste your scan of Vol. X page Y here" box. I think you could do a lot of this with existing materials - e.g. quotations from appropriate forum threads.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 14:58:11 GMT -6
That's what I'm going for, Travis, but I want the document to be assessable to people without access to the LBB.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Dec 27, 2009 15:13:17 GMT -6
Philotomy summed up my feelings better than I probably could. What is your favorite thing about retro clones? They keep alive my favourite game (0e/Basic/1e) and not only that, but can be seen to grow the game, bringing the old back into the fold, as well as those new to the game. If you were to write your own retro clone new rules would you include? What would you leave out? The whole idea of the phrase "retro-clone" is to be as true to the original as legally possible, that's the "clone" part. To deviate from this idea is to miss the point of the phrase. Changing a small amount of things to keep the clone legal is fine, but it should be kept to the most practical minimum. Changing rules for personal preference isn't cloning, it's tinkering, creating a variant, simple house-ruling. I think it's a shame that the term "retro-clone" is getting blurred and distorted in this way, as it creates confusion. I feel that the original rules are so wonky that it may even help me in my endeavor. Sadly, this seems to me to be a bad place to start from when deciding to create a clone. Most of the people who have worked on the clones that are faithful to the original, have done so because of a consuming love of the original games. I'm afraid I can't get my head around the idea of someone saying "I don't like this game" or "I think this game is badly done", "so I'm going to change it, improve it, and call my version a clone." I would rather see it said "this isn't a clone but my interpretation of how I would like to play the game - my house rules". When a definition becomes blurred, broadened, and changed, it runs the risk of becoming meaningless. Dan Proctor, author of the clone Labyrinth Lord, wrote an interesting post on the subject back in July, where he discusses the mourning of the term "Retro-Clone". His post from the same period entitled " All Old-School Games Promote Tinkering" is an examination of the idea that clone encourage the creation of variants, and is relevant to the subject.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 15:40:11 GMT -6
Philotomy summed up my feelings better than I probably could. What is your favorite thing about retro clones? They keep alive my favourite game (0e/Basic/1e) and not only that, but can be seen to grow the game, bringing the old back into the fold, as well as those new to the game. The whole idea of the phrase "retro-clone" is to be as true to the original as legally possible, that's the "clone" part. To deviate from this idea is to miss the point of the phrase. Changing a small amount of things to keep the clone legal is fine, but it should be kept to the most practical minimum. Changing rules for personal preference isn't cloning, it's tinkering, creating a variant, simple house-ruling. I think it's a shame that the term "retro-clone" is getting blurred and distorted in this way, as it creates confusion. I feel that the original rules are so wonky that it may even help me in my endeavor. Sadly, this seems to me to be a bad place to start from when deciding to create a clone. Most of the people who have worked on the clones that are faithful to the original, have done so because of a consuming love of the original games. I'm afraid I can't get my head around the idea of someone saying "I don't like this game" or "I think this game is badly done", "so I'm going to change it, improve it, and call my version a clone." I would rather see the honesty to say "this isn't a clone but my interpretation of how I would like to play the game - my house rules". When a definition becomes blurred, broadened, and changed, it runs the risk of becoming meaningless. Dan Proctor, author of the clone Labyrinth Lord, wrote an interesting post on the subject back in July, where he discusses the mourning of the term "Old School". His post from the same period entitled " All Old-School Games Promote Tinkering" is an examination of the idea that clone encourage the creation of variants, and is relevant to the subject. I wasn't trying to say that I am attempting improving on the LBB, merely that no one plays them as written. To quote from page 4 of Men and Magic, "[the rules] are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." What I want to concentrate on is the idea of rules as guidelines--that there is no right to play the game. The basic rules will be as true to the LBB as legally possible. I love the game, but I love the idea that no one plays the game the same. Every game is different. S&W White Box comes closest to what I'm trying to accomplish with their House Rule variants dispersed throughout the text. By using the word "wonky," I was referring to ambiguity of the original rules. I want to see a game that, "Yes, there are different ways to interpret these rules and each of them is completely valid." Hit Points are a great example. Do you reroll all of your character's hit dice each time the character levels or do you add the additional hit dice to the character's current total? Both seem like valid ways of interpreting the text and, therefore, both should be presented. The Supplemental Rules section will detail different ways people play the game. No everyone plays the same and I want to capture that. I'm not trying to improve the game; I'm trying to present the idea that the rules are guidelines and there is no right way to play the game. I feel like posts are begin misinterpreted. Is there something I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Dec 27, 2009 16:41:10 GMT -6
I feel like posts are begin misinterpreted. Is there something I'm missing? Tombowings, my reply above did two things - it answered your two questions in the OP, and it offered my personal opinion about the use of the term "retro-clone" in regards to your project and other similar ones that have already been produced. It was in no way intended as an attack on what you are doing, nor a misinterpretation of your ideas. Personally I think tinkering is a wonderful thing (as does the vast majority of this forum), I'm three quarters finished a similar project myself, although mine is for my gaming group's use only. House-ruling is indeed in the spirit of the original game. The only issue I had is with your use of the term "retro-clone". If you read the two links I included in my reply above, you'll perhaps better understand my concerns. Your OP asks forum members about our favourite thing about retro clones, in order to get feedback for your own project. It seems to me your project isn't actually a clone as such, pedantic of me I know, but I think it's both a valid and important point. I believe it's important to the OSR for terms such as "old school" and "retro-clone" to be kept as clear as possible, in order to better grow our little niche of this hobby of ours. Please don't be discouraged by my hair-splitting, as it's projects like yours that keep the OSR rolling along.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 27, 2009 16:53:45 GMT -6
I can see that many are unsatisfied by the deviations many of the retro clones took from the original rules. I'm curious what your sources are for this?
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 17:03:03 GMT -6
I can see that many are unsatisfied by the deviations many of the retro clones took from the original rules. I'm curious what your sources are for this? I cannot provide you with link, I only have a few minutes before I have to leave for a meeting. Mostly it has to due with writing and publish adventures, not actual play.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 17:06:00 GMT -6
Tombowings, my reply above did two things - it answered your two questions in the OP, and it offered my personal opinion about the use of the term "retro-clone" in regards to your project and other similar ones that have already been produced. It was in no way intended as an attack on what you are doing, nor a misinterpretation of your ideas. Personally I think tinkering is a wonderful thing (as does the vast majority of this forum), I'm three quarters finished a similar project myself, although mine is for my gaming group's use only. House-ruling is indeed in the spirit of the original game. The only issue I had is with your use of the term "retro-clone". If you read the two links I included in my reply above, you'll perhaps better understand my concerns. Your OP asks forum members about our favourite thing about retro clones, in order to get feedback for your own project. It seems to me your project isn't actually a clone as such, pedantic of me I know, but I think it's both a valid and important point. I believe it's important to the OSR for terms such as "old school" and "retro-clone" to be kept as clear as possible, in order to better grow our little niche of this hobby of ours. Please don't be discouraged by my hair-splitting, as it's projects like yours that keep the OSR rolling along. I value your opinion and didn't take your response as an attack. I was merely frustrated with my inability to communicate my ideas effectively. I think you're right though; I do need a different term than "retro-clone." Do you have any suggestions? P.S. I did read the link you presented, thanks for providing them.
|
|
fitz
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by fitz on Dec 27, 2009 17:10:45 GMT -6
My favourite thing about the retroclones is that they tend to be much, much better organised than the original games. I played AD&D for years, and even after years I still had to search to find stuff that I knew existed in one of the books somewhere.
(I'm also a fan of the introduction of ascending AC, which I think is one of the few worth-while things to come from 3.x)
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 27, 2009 17:46:39 GMT -6
I plan on presenting both ascending and descending AC and well as a section on Chainmail combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2009 19:32:50 GMT -6
Maybe you should consider a new term, such as "retro-variant". That may not be the best choice, but I'm throwing it out there for consideration. My personal project, MyD20 Lite, starts with a retro-clone base, but it is definitely a variant system, given that it takes elements of 3E and even 4E that I liked, and added them to the basic game, to create a system I would enjoy running. Since MyD20 Lite is ultimately designed to meet my personal tastes, I don't feel the urge to call it a retro-clone, and may start using the term retro-variant to cover my bases.
With Regards, Flynn
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on Dec 28, 2009 9:48:06 GMT -6
Maybe call it a "retro-game" -- it's a game and retro -- if you're pressing for any sort of "retro" designation.
I personally prefer any and all games to just be called "games". With a descriptor like "easy and simple" or "chock full of character development options and scads of details, suited for people who have lots of money to spend and want loads and loads of books to buy" or "concentrates entirely on narration and doesn't use dice" or a "homage to an older game, with my own personal tweaks". And things like "Have fun with your d20s and d8s" or "Just roll some d6s" or "Percentile dice are your freinds!"
A quick label might help others form an opinion at a glance (most people might require one for all I know, I'm not all that main-stream), but that's not what I need. If I was going to use a label, I'd favor "retro-game" or "retro fantasy role playing game". Or "retro fantasy adventure game".
And I like "retro fantasy adventure game" because there's a subtle nostalgia there for me: a time before gamers got obsessed with a monotonous analysis of what they called "role playing" games. That time in the 70s and 80s when game designers understood they hadn't invented "role playing" games, they'd just invented a newer, specific type played with dice, pencils and paper. So they didn't bother with the term "role playing" except in passing.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 28, 2009 10:08:20 GMT -6
I'm curious what your sources are for this? I cannot provide you with link, I only have a few minutes before I have to leave for a meeting. Mostly it has to due with writing and publish adventures, not actual play. I don't get that sense either. There might be gnashing of teeth at times over hanging a label of "compatible with..." for brick/mortar shelf purposes, but if anything, some wish for a "Big Dog" to emerge, versus more options. I'm just curious as to the "problem" you'll solve between "I can see that many are unsatisfied by the deviations many of the retro clones took from the original rules." and "Mostly it has to due with writing and publish adventures, not actual play." as I've not seen anyone saying "I can't write XYZ for OD&D because Swords & Wizardry or Whitebox makes it too hard." I'm not bashing, I'm curious what you're trying to solve. In order to answer your other questions and properly evaluate what you're doing, I'd like to know what you're trying to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 28, 2009 14:15:40 GMT -6
I don't get that sense either. There might be gnashing of teeth at times over hanging a label of "compatible with..." for brick/mortar shelf purposes, but if anything, some wish for a "Big Dog" to emerge, versus more options. I'm just curious as to the "problem" you'll solve between "I can see that many are unsatisfied by the deviations many of the retro clones took from the original rules." and "Mostly it has to due with writing and publish adventures, not actual play." as I've not seen anyone saying "I can't write XYZ for OD&D because Swords & Wizardry or Whitebox makes it too hard." I'm not bashing, I'm curious what you're trying to solve. In order to answer your other questions and properly evaluate what you're doing, I'd like to know what you're trying to achieve. Well, that wasn't really one of the problems I was trying to solve. But there are slight compatibility issues when writing adventures, such as some monsters names (demons in particular) and some treasure. Overall, it's not too big of a deal, but I could see where it would be a bit frustrating. As for what I'm trying to achieve, my goals have been in a bread-mixer for the last couple days. As of now I'm writing a set of guidelines for creating your own fantasy adventure game based on (but not completely adherent to) the OD&D ruleset. I think I'm going to call when the project a "Fantasy Adventure Game." I don't want to shoehorn it into roleplaying, even; I'll leave that up for interpretation. Thanks for all the help everyone. I'm going to start another thread once I have some sort of outline and goals as to what I'm attempting to accomplish.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Dec 28, 2009 15:20:11 GMT -6
I think I'm going to call when the project a "Fantasy Adventure Game." F.A.G.!!!! Have you thought this out fully Ian? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 28, 2009 15:52:58 GMT -6
F.A.G.!!!! Have you thought this out fully Ian? ;D I guess not. Although it could prove to be fantastic marketing material. I mean "fantastic" not as in "great," but as in "only in my wildest dreams," of course.
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Dec 28, 2009 19:20:43 GMT -6
I like the clones, though I wish they all had Ascending AC instead of the old version. They also have gotten a lot of new products published for older games that otherwise might not have seen the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 29, 2009 9:10:07 GMT -6
My son and I are at the American Museum of Natural History, where one of the things we looked at was a book of commentary on the Koran. The standard form for these is to have one page of the Koran printed in the center (in a green box for the one we looked at) and then the commentary printed in the margins. I think that'd be an awesome community project for us! The version that had the facsimile of the original books included would be relegated to the Underdark, but we could publicly release the 8.5 x 11 pages of commentary surrounding a "paste your scan of Vol. X page Y here" box. I think you could do a lot of this with existing materials - e.g. quotations from appropriate forum threads. Ever seen a Scofield or Ryrie or Rice study bible? Where every paragraph is annotated with references to other parts of the "text" and extensive footnotes are provided on each page regarding any notes, outside sources, points of interests etc. that apply. While that's a massive amount of work, I could imagine such a thing being done for the 3lbb's.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 29, 2009 13:54:29 GMT -6
aldarron - now THAT is an interesting idea! We should bug Sham/Dave to publish his walkthru the LBBs - those were thought provoking posts - can you imagine such a deal with Sham, Delta, Philotomy, Fin, et al? ETA - d**n, now you have my head buzzing with that idea. Have an EXALT - that's a neat concept!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 29, 2009 14:08:28 GMT -6
I had that same idea a while ago, but it was only Volume I and it was just MY interpretations of the game, so my players would have a leg up on things.
But then I never did anything with it.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 29, 2009 16:54:33 GMT -6
It would definitely be an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 30, 2009 10:08:27 GMT -6
How could we do this, legally, without any sort of actual printing of the text from the LBBs?
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Dec 30, 2009 10:45:27 GMT -6
I never wanted anyone to assume that I was comparing the 3 LBB to the Bible - but biblical research was in fact the inspiration for the as yet unfinished Cover to Cover series that Chgowiz refers to above. The notion of dispelling misconceptions and removing misinterpretations are involved in the type of biblical research I was reminded of.
To be clear: Beyond the inspiration I do not in any way whatsoever wish to make a comparison between the 3 LBB and the Bible.
As I mentioned before somewhere, I do wish to not only finish that read through, but also get others involved to create a "D&D Companion" of sorts. Including multiple contributors would be key in avoiding the pitfall of personal interpretation.
I'd imagine such a thing is perfectly legal, but I didn't major in Law so who knows.
FYI: Originally the series was titled By the Book, but I quickly changed it because that title can be misconstrued entirely. The best part of the series was the invaluable comments along the way by various readers...often correcting me or pointing out things I had misunderstood myself.
|
|