|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 10, 2008 11:28:29 GMT -6
I just sent Mythmere several pages of feedback regarding the most recent draft of Swords & Wizardry and along the way I was trying to compose a few ideas about the philosophy of such a rules set. Just thought I'd share. ;D
Keep in mind that these are my thoughts, not his, and he may or may not agree with any or all of them.
1. It’s been a long time…
I’ve been playing OD&D since 1975 and it has pained me that the game has slowly become obsolete and that nobody knows about it any more. That’s one of the reasons I started the Original D&D Discussion boards. And that’s what attracts me to S&W. This looks like the first rules set since the 1970’s that has the potential to the same thing as the original rules set. That’s part of what has me so pumped up about it!
2. To “fix” or not?
OD&D wasn’t perfect. AC numbers going into the negatives, random dice used for various tables, little predictable pattern in saving throw charts (and so on) make it not the perfect game. How many charts in the book use percentile dice rather than a d20, yet all of the numbers are divisible by five? So how much can you change it without changing it? If something has been broken and you fix it, does that make the fix less worthy?
This is the fine line to walk. Fixing something broken without changing the essence or the feel of the rules. S&W’s unified saving throw, for example, doesn’t match the original rules but certainly captures the spirit of the game and so is a “good” fix in my opinion.
3. Greyhawk or No Greyhawk?
There is a spectrum between the LBB and AD&D and somewhere therin lies the Supplements. Greyhawk is the most obvious because it contains the most useful rules of all the supplements – thief and paladin classes, expanded stat charts, differing HD dice types by class, expanded spell lists, expanded treasure tables, and so on. Blackmoor has the assassin and monk. Eldritch Wizardry the druid. Strategic Review has the ranger, illusionist, bard, and the list goes on.
I can see a rules set where AC is given in terms of “ armored foot” or “medium horse” and spells are cast by rolling 2d6 as per Chainmail. A game where an 8th level fighter would be “few and far between” to quote Chainmail. That rules set would be about as “grass roots” as the game could get. Heck, a Chainmail canon RPG wouldn’t even include the Cleric class, much less the Thief.
On the other end is the rules set which allows for everything as it approaches a pre-AD&D model with more than a dozen classes, 20 character levels to advance through, 18(xx) exceptional strength, +5 swords
One of the tricky points to ponder in this sort of project is where to cut off the newer ideas. Do you allow Thief but no Paladin? Do you include Magic Missile but not Thief? These decisions are by far the hardest (in my opinion) and will set the tone for the entire rules set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jun 10, 2008 11:44:40 GMT -6
1. It’s been a long time…You must be happy with the renaissance we are experiencing then! 2. To “fix” or not?I don't think that OD&D needs to be fixed, but promoted. S&W is an excellent tool for that and will promote what's really important: the OD&D spirit. It will help younger generations of gamers access the philosophy of the game. It will be cheaper. It will enable people to publish OD&D compatible materials (will it?) I think it's something to help OD&D out, but not fix it or replace it. What is an imperfection and what is a perfection in OD&D is way too subjective anyway. 3. Greyhawk or No Greyhawk?I think that easiest approach is to limit oneself to the contents of the LBB as for the core S&W document. By doing this you skip all those dilemmas of what do you or do not include. I provides an objective parameter to what is core. All the rest of the stuff can be surely done as supplements to S&W. You can even have S&W and then AS&W as a separate document with all the stuff that is not included in the core LBB. By the way... are you aware of this? www.mediafire.com/?wzmtzz9zo5t (by Traveller from the Troll Lord forums) BEST WISHES FOR S&W!! Long live OD&D!!
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Jun 10, 2008 12:03:16 GMT -6
I'm with Zul on this, don't fix, keep it to 3LBB. This way expansions can come out that allow people to add GH or fix issues, etc. The core should be the core books as close as they can be. This allows the most flexibility.
|
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 10, 2008 12:21:15 GMT -6
A retro-clone (at least as I see it) serves two functions. Firstly, it provides a publishing vehicle, and there are a couple of benefits to that: (a) a shared "name" for the game, which is admittedly a code word for the original trademark, but it serves to communicate compatibility (which is important when the game is OGL), (b) protection under the OGL. The OGL shields a publisher from the claim that "overall similarity" with original materials evidences a copyright violation. Anyone not using the OGL but piling similarity upon similarity upon similarity risks a copyright problem ... even if each individual element appears not to be copyrightable. By using the OGL, where all these terms are available for use and modification, virtually all of 0e becomes usable, no matter how the terms are combined. It's not a complete shield - something that's clearly derivative of non-rules elements could still constitute a copyright violation - but I've been very careful. I think as long as a publisher references S&W for the rules, he's not going to have a copyright violation unless he really pretty much knows that he's copying. Secondly, a retro-clone serves to introduce new players to the game. Younger gamers blow their minds when they see the disorganization of AD&D, much less the OD&D books with their supplements, optional rules, and stream-of-consciousness presentation. Giving them a book that's organized into a modern, familiar format lets them "try out" the older games much more easily than they otherwise could. I have seen OSRIC suggested for this purpose on ENworld, one 3e gamer to another, many times as an intro to 1e. I think there's perhaps even more interest in trying out 0e, thanks to Diaglo's mantra. S&W has a third goal and capability, not directly related to being a retro-clone. It will be compatible with a huge number of games that are fundamentally based on the LBs. It's a root language. S&W products will be usable with Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, and even games using ascending armor class. (since these are trademarks of Solomoriah and TLG, I can't use the names of the specific games). Fourthly, there's a personal goal -- advancing the sort of gaming that uses imprecise rules. It's different from using highly specific rules - there's more imagination and free-form resolution. Fifth, I want to reintroduce supplemental material that's free-wheeling. This is another personal goal related to the above. Dragon Magazine of the 0e period was dramatically different from the Dragon of 1e (fitting fantasy into rules) and of 2e (building more official rules to fit fantasy, but using the same game mechanism - skills - for every expansion). So, that's the manifesto, in a nutshell. On to one other matter: which supplemental material? I used monsters (more variety and no rules-problems with the LBs) I used magic items (same lack of problems, just more variety) I used hit dice (leaves more room for house ruling new classes, since varying hit dice can be used to weaken or strengthen) I used spells (that was iffy, but higher level spells and spell choices were important for compatibility, and I know only a very few people who didn't think that the new spells and spell levels were a natural expansion of the LBs for higher level characters). Mainly, that was it. I left out all the supplemental classes, because I view these as things where there should be the opportunity to house rule. I did this because of the thief. Thieves made a radical change to the game's internal processes, even greater than the effect of having an "identify" spell. Suddenly, traps aren't puzzles, they are die roll challenges to a thief's character sheet. I wanted to leave this facet of the game open to choice. I think that's it.  Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jun 10, 2008 12:28:23 GMT -6
S&W is in the right hands me thinks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 10, 2008 13:46:02 GMT -6
don't fix, keep it to 3LBB. This way expansions can come out that allow people to add GH or fix issues, etc. The core should be the core books as close as they can be. This allows the most flexibility. But keep in mind that it's impossible to exactly reproduce the LBB legally, and so some differences must exist in order to make a rules set different. "Fixing" a problem part of the rules is one way to make it different yet keep it the same. |
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jun 10, 2008 13:58:21 GMT -6
don't fix, keep it to 3LBB. This way expansions can come out that allow people to add GH or fix issues, etc. The core should be the core books as close as they can be. This allows the most flexibility. But keep in mind that it's impossible to exactly reproduce the LBB legally, and so some differences must exist in order to make a rules set different. "Fixing" a problem part of the rules is one way to make it different yet keep it the same. Exactly. Of course, one man's problem is another man's perfect rule. So I tended to make my "fixes" based on good compatibility rather than on what I thought was better or worse. It was a more objective approach. |
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Jun 10, 2008 14:45:30 GMT -6
don't fix, keep it to 3LBB. This way expansions can come out that allow people to add GH or fix issues, etc. The core should be the core books as close as they can be. This allows the most flexibility. But keep in mind that it's impossible to exactly reproduce the LBB legally, and so some differences must exist in order to make a rules set different. "Fixing" a problem part of the rules is one way to make it different yet keep it the same. Aye. I guess I'm more trying to keep in flavor with the original books than including Greyhawk. Making "fixes" in order to keep things different seems like the goal, I'd like to see. |
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Jun 10, 2008 16:34:51 GMT -6
I guess I'm more trying to keep in flavor with the original books than including Greyhawk. Making "fixes" in order to keep things different seems like the goal, I'd like to see. Keep in mind Matt said he will release a Word-style version of the rules, which will enable you to customise your own copy. |
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Jun 10, 2008 17:10:07 GMT -6
I guess I'm more trying to keep in flavor with the original books than including Greyhawk. Making "fixes" in order to keep things different seems like the goal, I'd like to see. Keep in mind Matt said he will release a Word-style version of the rules, which will enable you to customise your own copy. No doubt. I was just stating my particular slant so that everyone would know which axe I'm grinding when I make suggestions. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 13, 2008 7:27:09 GMT -6
Grind away! That's what these boards are all about!
I think that it would be interesting to have a SW rules set with only LBB and later expand it to be SW plus which would include more of the supplement material. SW plus would be based on SW but expanding it, sort of the way "Expert" expanded on "Basic" D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jun 13, 2008 8:35:41 GMT -6
That's quite a juggling act, Mythmere, but you're sorting it out admirably!
The clarity of OSRIC's presentation, and its potential for use in actual play, impresses me greatly. It's like "the second edition that could have been." Even some of the mechanical changes strike me as improvements.
I think that aspect is something wisely accepted. Gary's words are not about to lose their value; gamers are likely to keep turning to his seminal texts for inspiration generations hence.
However, it seems meet that the torch should pass to the living, to those who sustain the life of the game by carrying its spirit in themselves and expressing it in play.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Jun 13, 2008 9:23:23 GMT -6
I think that aspect is something wisely accepted. Gary's words are not about to lose their value; gamers are likely to keep turning to his seminal texts for inspiration generations hence. However, it seems meet that the torch should pass to the living, to those who sustain the life of the game by carrying its spirit in themselves and expressing it in play. Wow. Every once in a while I run across a posting on the internet that rings so true that it gives me pause to reflect on the wisdom of the words. This is one of those posts. Our hobby is about active engagement, about interaction, creative thinking and self-involvement. Creating a cult of personality around Gary and treating the original texts like a religious document to be preserved exactly as originally printed would be the biggest disservice one could ever make to this hobby. Thank you for that moment of Zen. |
|
