LL Oe Characters

[aldarron]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's the deal with Labrybrinth Lords Original Edition Characters?

I should point out that I don't have LL nor have ever looked inside. Mostly because I saw no need to. I've got the originals after all and Basic Fantasy to boot. Plus I kinda find "Labrynth lord" to be a tongue twister and a bit misleading - after all my games aren't about hunting minotaurs. Plus I realize I just mispelled it. Nevermind that's prolly just me.

Anywho, people seem to universally praise the game however, so the idea of having another in print Original Edition product from LL is nice. But is that what LL Oe Characters really is? I mean the product description is really vague. It has "retro" character classes and some spells apparently, but what about the other rules that make Oe different from Moldvey? Dice for damage, application of armor bonuses, things like that? What exactly is in this book and do you have to have LL to use it?

[Haldo Bramwise]

Mar 20, 2010 7:04:30 GMT -6 aldarron said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's the deal with Labrybrinth Lords Original Edition Characters?

I should point out that I don't have LL nor have ever looked inside. Mostly because I saw no need to. I've got the originals after all and Basic Fantasy to boot. Plus I kinda find "Labrynth lord" to be a tongue twister and a bit misleading - after all my games aren't about hunting minotaurs. Plus I realize I just mispelled it. Nevermind that's prolly just me.

Anywho, people seem to universally praise the game however, so the idea of having another in print Original Edition product from LL is nice. But is that what LL Oe Characters really is? I mean the product description is really vague. It has "retro" character classes and some spells apparently, but what about the other rules that make Oe different from Moldvey? Dice for damage, application of armor bonuses, things like that? What exactly is in this book and do you have to have LL to use it?

Original Edition Characters (and the Advanced Edition Companion too) are just tools for running OD&D-like and AD&D-like characters with Labyrinth Lord. Essentially, each of these replaces a few chapters in the core LL book to do this, but everything in these replacement chapters is still 100% LL compatible.

So for example, Original Edition Characters gives a slightly different set of attribute tables, character classes/race classes, saving throw charts, spells and spell levels and equipment list/prices to make them much more like OD&D - but they are not exactly like OD&D. Much of the flavor of OD&D is there (lower power curve, lower spell levels, limited number of spells, the cleric does not get a spell at 1st level, etc) but the game is still Labyrinth Lord. The same thing is true with the Advanced Edition Companion, but it replaces more chapters in the LL core book in order to make play much more like AD&D. But again, it is all 100% LL.

Many folks find this appealing because they can use one game system for original, basic or advanced style play. Apparently many folks who started with Holmes Basic and only slowly moved into AD&D (buying one new core book at a time) actually learned to play AD&D in a way that is very similar to this LL + AEC combination.

But if you are looking for game systems that clone the games-of-origin as close as possible, OEC and AEC may not be for you.

I hope this helps, but if you want a better, more detailed answer, you could ask the same question of the Goblinoid Games Forum. It is as nice and friendly a place as here.

[aldarron]

Yep Thanks John you nailed it for me. 'zactly what I wanted to know.

[greyharp]

I think it should also be pointed out that Swords & Wizardry is not a true clone of 0e, in that it doesn't attempt to stick as legally close as possible to the original rules, not with its dual AC system, single saving throw and a host of optional rules, etc. But what it does do is allow people to recreate the style of 0e play.

Labyrinth Lord is based on Moldvay D&D, which is not all that different from the 3LBs in many respects. With the addition of the Original Edition Characters supplement, people can use LL to recreate the style of 0e play. It's probably debatable as to which clone better achieves this, but since in both cases we're talking about recreating the style of the original game and not the game itself, it hardly matters one way or the other.

[Haldo Bramwise]

Mar 20, 2010 15:36:21 GMT -6 Greyharp said:

I think it should also be pointed out that Swords & Wizardry is not a true clone of 0e, in that it doesn't attempt to stick as legally close as possible to the original rules, not with its dual AC system, single saving throw and a host of optional rules, etc. But what it does do is allow people to recreate the style of 0e play.

Labyrinth Lord is based on Moldvay D&D, which is not all that different from the 3LBs in many respects. With the addition of the Original Edition Characters supplement, people can use LL to recreate the style of 0e play. It's probably debatable as to which clone better achieves this, but since in both cases we're talking about recreating the style of the original game and not the game itself, it hardly matters one way or the other.

Good point, Dave.

[thegreyelf]

Actually I disagree, Coleston. I find LL with 0e Characters to be more representative of OD&D than S&W WB is. That's not to say WB isn't a solid game--it is, through and through...but I think Dan nailed it with Labyrinth Lord in a way that none of us in the OSR have yet. To me, 0e Characters + LL = OD&D.

[greyharp]

I'm of the same opinion Jason, but I was trying to be diplomatic.

[thegreyelf]

Yeah, saw that after I posted. Sorry to be redundant, and hope I didn't come off as in any way insulting--S&W WB is a fantastic game. I'm waiting for my boxed set as we speak. I just am a massive fan of LL and his 0e and Advanced efforts.

[Haldo Bramwise]

No, I'm not upset. I didn't have another clone in mind. I just posted the only criticism I've read about OEC.

I've just been monitoring all of the TARGA emails and stuff this weekend and I don't have much patience left. I didn't have anything to do with what happened nor the two folks that have departed TARGA, but all the name-calling, profanity, etc has made me sick at my stomach.

[Falconer]

[capheind]

Labyrinth Lord is awesome, both taken as a means to publish classic D&D modules, but also as a separate rules system. The same is true for S&W, I'd also like to toss in a you rock for you coleston, for putting out the whitebox-box. Lots of rocking, which is all good. As far as game "purity" read the brown books, their very very vague with lots and lots of gaps, so at the end of the day any retro-clone is just going to be D&D as the author played it. But this is all just my opinion.

[coffee]

Mar 21, 2010 23:03:57 GMT -6 capheind said:

so at the end of the day any retro-clone is just going to be D&D as the author played it.

Gotta agree with this right here.

Oh, and Falconer? Don't worry about it. If you don't know what happened, just sit back and consider yourself lucky.

[Falconer]

With pleasure!

[Haldo Bramwise]

Falconer: I just posted that I had not mentioned S&W:CR or WB in my answer to aldarron nor did I suggest to him that he should try them instead.

But I thought my reply sounded a bit snarky, so I deleted it within a half hour of posting it.

[aldarron]

Are there any guidlines or references in OEC for the ways in which it does not emulate OE? I mean, capturing the "feel" of something is a pretty nebulous criteria and I'm a little perplexed at how there can be 60 pages in the book if its not much more than spells and three character classes. Prolly gonna spend the massively reasonable sum of 5 bucks to buy the thing just out of curiosity but its interesting to know what other OD&Ders have to say about the product and whether it is really a good way to go to introduce new players to a OD&D like experience as opposed to a Moldvey lite one (not that I have anything at all against a Moldvey style game).

[thegreyelf]

Well, it's spells, three character classes, and three races. I don't have my copy with me, but iirc he swapped out the combat rules and equipment chapters, too.

[danproctor]

Mar 22, 2010 12:28:54 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Anyway, is there any guidlines or references in OEC for the ways in which it does not emulate OE? I mean, capturing the "feel" of something is a pretty nebulous criteria and there's 60 pages in the book which seems like a lot for just spells and three character classes. Prolly gonna spend the massively reasonable sum of 5 bucks to buy the thing just out of curiosity but its interesting to know what other OD&Ders have to say about the product.

If you go through and compare the rules of OD&D (the core three books) to the Moldvay/Cook rules you find that they are pretty much identical except in the way characters are handled. So fundamentally what the OEC does is present the core characters more like the original edition rules. You can then just plug those into the core Labyrinth Lord rules. In LL using 1d6 for all damage is an optional rule, so you would likely want to use that rule instead of variable damage.

IMHO Jason and Dave are right in that LL + OEC is the closest rule emulation for a "pure" original edition clone currently available. That's no knock against S&W at all (or any of the other OD&D based games now out there, for that matter), because they had different goals in writing it, but if you account for the fact that those old Moldvay/Cook rules are at their core the same as OD&D anyway, then simply by default LL will be close to original edition too. S&W is different in the rules presented, and probably just as importantly, the rules omitted. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just depends what you're looking for.

[Haldo Bramwise]

Mar 22, 2010 13:34:49 GMT -6 danproctor said:

In LL using 1d6 for all damage is an optional rule, so you would likely want to use that rule instead of variable damage.

Well, in all the times I have read OEC, I never noticed that in text just before the equipment lists.

I retract my statement that some folks criticize OEC for not being close enough to OD&D. It appears that such criticism is clearly wrong.

[capheind]

Event though LL does appear to be the more exacting copy, I'd say WhiteBox, at least to me, conveys the feel of classic D&D to new players a bit better.

[thegreyelf]

I disagree, capheind. In fact, one of my issues with S&W (and OSRIC) is that while they reproduce a similar rules set (near exact in OSRIC's case) they don't have the feel of the original. I can't put my finger on what's missing from them, but something was lost in the translation that wasn't with LL.

Of course, that's terribly subjective, and everyone's mileage will vary on that issue.

[geoffrey]

Mar 25, 2010 6:44:02 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

In fact, one of my issues with S&W (and OSRIC) is that while they reproduce a similar rules set (near exact in OSRIC's case) they don't have the feel of the original. I can't put my finger on what's missing from them, but something was lost in the translation that wasn't with LL.

Perhaps it's because OD&D and AD&D were written in Gary's distinctive style, while B/X wasn't.

[thegreyelf]

That wouldn't explain why I think LL + OEC feels like OD&D.

[capheind]

I think its the presentation for me, White box feels more like an early RPG type product, at least in its white-box form. That said I am currently in the throws of writing a module for LL, so I'd have to say I'm a fan of both takes on the game.

[thegreyelf]

Mar 25, 2010 17:54:56 GMT -6 capheind said:

I think its the presentation for me, White box feels more like an early RPG type product, at least in its white-box form. That said I am currently in the throws of writing a module for LL, so I'd have to say I'm a fan of both takes on the game.

That's a valid point--I'm eagerly awaiting my white box set from BHP as we speak. That might affect my impression of it.

[aldarron]

There may be more behind this idea of "feel" of the ruleset than just, well, feelings. I mean the impression a set of rules gives as to how to play the rules may be as important to the way the game is played as the rules themselves. Okay, that's vague, but what I'm thinking of is that S&W in some respects feels more like BECMI to me than OD&D (I just have the pdfs mind you) in that there is a lot of focus on imagined novices learning to understand and play the game in a more or less standard way. Whereas OD&D has more of a do it yourself "feel" to it. Is this perhaps part of the "feel" you guys are talking about with LL OeC?

[capheind]

To me reviving the older games is more about getting back the feel of the games than an absolutely exacting rule system. Reading the little brown books its striking how little there really is to them, some rules for basic dungeon exploring, combat, and levels and thats about it. What made the game fun was taking this very basic language and doing amazing things with it.