|
Post by chgowiz on Jan 28, 2009 10:37:33 GMT -6
Are the two versions going to stay "as-is"? Is there any recommendation on what to do if someone decides they want to write/publish something for S&W? Do you see something written for core rules as being compatible with S&W/wb?
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Jan 28, 2009 12:04:08 GMT -6
Well, Myth asked me to do the layout for the 2nd printing of the Core Rules. He'd added in stuff for high level play (strongholds, mass combat), hirelings, and a sample dungeon.
If anybody seriously thinks X thing needs added, addressed, or fixed, post over at the S&W forums in the "corrections" thread and start a discussion. Any changes, of course, are ultimately up to Myth, but if you're
1) Convincing and have support 2) Genuinely trying to help get a better book made
I bet you'll be heard. Course, helps if stuff is OGL compatible/is within the scope Myth wants for S&W.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 28, 2009 18:50:08 GMT -6
verhaden is wise. Clearly, our goal in the whole S&W project is to create a rules system that people like and will use. If there are specific parts which are poorly or incorrectly done, we can look at fixing or tweaking them. (As long as we walk the appropriate legal line, that is.) In that way it's possible we'll neve be "finished."
The big problem is, of course, that OD&D screams for "house rules" and so everyone does things differently. There's just no way to generate one rules set to do everything for everyone. That's why I tried to take common tweaks and install them as "house rule options" to help a Referee come up with ideas on how a game could be run (instead of how it ought to be run).
|
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on Jan 28, 2009 21:55:13 GMT -6
Are the two versions going to stay "as-is"? Is there any recommendation on what to do if someone decides they want to write/publish something for S&W? Do you see something written for core rules as being compatible with S&W/wb? Yes, they will stay as is. There's a second printing of the Core Rules coming out shortly, with some additions, as Verhaden mentioned. After that, I think the Core Rules at least are a finished product. I don't see WB as being compatible with the Core Rules; certainly, most of the Core Rules resources can be used for WB, but it's like using the 1e Monster Manual with OD&D - absolutely doable, but not precisely compatible. Anyone's welcome to publish for S&W, and as long as you include the bracketed AC numbers for ascending AC in addition to the regular AC, you can use a compatibility logo that Verhaden designed, and say that it's compatible with S&W. Feel free to PM me with any questions about publishing; I'm happy to answer them.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Jan 29, 2009 6:09:19 GMT -6
I believe the compatibility logo was designed by Coleston. I just turned it into a series of high resolution files.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Jan 29, 2009 10:28:37 GMT -6
Yes, they will stay as is. There's a second printing of the Core Rules coming out shortly, with some additions, as Verhaden mentioned. After that, I think the Core Rules at least are a finished product. I don't see WB as being compatible with the Core Rules; certainly, most of the Core Rules resources can be used for WB, but it's like using the 1e Monster Manual with OD&D - absolutely doable, but not precisely compatible. Anyone's welcome to publish for S&W, and as long as you include the bracketed AC numbers for ascending AC in addition to the regular AC, you can use a compatibility logo that Verhaden designed, and say that it's compatible with S&W. Feel free to PM me with any questions about publishing; I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. That explanation right there is something that needs to be clearly communicated over and over when people are talking about S&W vs S&W/WB - that's the best explanation of how the product line works that I've seen so far. I'm sure when we're talking up S&W, that question might get asked. I'll use that answer. I'm not sure *what* I might think of publishing, but if the urge strikes me, I wanted to know what to aim for.
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Mar 9, 2010 14:25:19 GMT -6
I'm leaning towards using WB for my next game, largely because I could write up all my rules for The Provence of Yvonne, put it in booklet form, and have a handy dandy boxed set with most everything I need in game. Even though I prefer Race as Class, all I'd be doing is subtracting the Cleric and adding the Gnome, migrating a couple of clerical spells to the Magic-User, using some different healing rules to make clericless play smoother, and adding concepts of ritual magic and alchemy to the mix.
I'm also really glad that WB doesn't include the thief, I love thieves in-game, I just never thought it needed to be a class...
I guess I'm the oddman out though as I came into the game in the late 80's early 90's and up until I got into AD&D and AD&D 2e I played mostly from OD&D and B/X rules passed down to me more by word of mouth than anything else, the first rule book I bought was the 2nd monster manual for AD&D. So for me absolute fidelity isn't a big deal, and when I talk about my game to new players I'll probably say I'm playing S&W and not D&D to avoid confusion with the current D&D product lines.
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Mar 9, 2010 18:05:53 GMT -6
Personally i really liked "white box" but every time i want to run it i just feel guilty or something for just not bringing out the d**ned real books. i don't know why... maybe it's just that mystique the originals have to me or something.. but overall i really love the rules and have adopted some of the rules especially saving throws.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Mar 10, 2010 20:12:16 GMT -6
Personally i really liked "white box" but every time i want to run it i just feel guilty or something for just not bringing out the d**ned real books. Not me. The formatting and font-type is just so much better on S&W:WB I don't ever want to go back.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 4, 2010 22:38:23 GMT -6
(SNIP)The main criticism I've heard is that I should have picked one AC method or the other, instead of making them alternate options (and the reason for that is to open up materials from C&C and BFRPG as potential sources of usable supplemental material). This is one of the things I really like about the S&W rules (both sets). I use the AAC and would never go back to DAC. But, having both makes conversion of other material so much easier. As has been said elsewhere some people like one or the other. Some even use both at different times in different types of games. Lack of the AAC is why I finally had to decide to (sadly) give LL a pass. That was the "deal breaker". Including both armor class systems is one of the best things about S&W. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 5, 2010 4:51:23 GMT -6
Personally i really liked "white box" but every time i want to run it i just feel guilty or something for just not bringing out the d**ned real books. i don't know why... maybe it's just that mystique the originals have to me or something.. but overall i really love the rules and have adopted some of the rules especially saving throws. I know where you're coming from! When I DM I have my WhiteBox, Rules Cyclopedia, C&C Player's Handbook, and Judges' Guild DM Screen all handy because I grab rules from various sources when we play. Heck, my players don't know "what game" we're playing most of the time. Also, recall that the retro-clone movement was designed to allow publishing of modules and such, and not entirely as a replacement for the real thing. When I hit writer's block and need to be motivated, I always dust off a copy of the LBB and re-read the words of Gygax and Arneson. Those books inspire me!
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 5, 2010 20:39:57 GMT -6
Also, recall that the retro-clone movement was designed to allow publishing of modules and such, and not entirely as a replacement for the real thing.For some of us the retro-clones are the real thing. ;D Original copies of "the books" are either unavailable at any price, too expensive or fit only to be locked away as a "collector's investment". I would love to have a copy of Warriors of Mars. But I can't afford to pay hundreds of dollars for it. The same for the 3 LBB. For me it's S&W White Box or NOTHING. Seems to me that you don't know what you have created. You have done a wonderful thing, but don't seem to realize the magnitude of your creation. It is true that S&W WB is not the "Original Game Books", but it is a wonderful thing in its own right.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 6, 2010 16:17:24 GMT -6
For me it's S&W White Box or NOTHING. One of the things I love about the OSR is that, unlike a few years ago when a small amount of forums was THE scene, these days most people don't take sides or wave the flag of just one version of the game, such as the 1e fundamentalists (I used to be one). These days most people seem to embrace all the various TSR versions and retro-clones equally, happily borrowing elements from each and any of them for their games. For some of us the retro-clones are the real thing. I think so too pineappleleader. I have all the original 0e books, but I'd never use them to play with. The clones allow me to play the game I've always loved, whether it be 0e, Advanced or Basic, without having to wear out the original books in my collection.
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Apr 6, 2010 16:45:01 GMT -6
One of the things I love about the OSR is that, unlike a few years ago when a small amount of forums was THE scene, these days most people don't take sides or wave the flag of just one version of the game, such as the 1e fundamentalists (I used to be one). These days most people seem to embrace all the various TSR versions and retro-clones equally, happily borrowing elements from each and any of them for their games. I agree wholeheartedly. The scene today seems to me much more friendly to folks like me who are engaged with multiple versions of D&D (and extensive houserules thereof); very different from 2005 where I posted at Dragonsfoot and Planet AD&D looking for people's stories of encountering stirges in their campaigns and help with an index of every published appearance of the stirge, and was thoroughly flamed because I'd be using this as part of a d20 book. However, the growth in popularity and visibility of the OSR seems to have led to people complaining that it's insular - perhaps because of bad experiences some years in the past, perhaps because it's not so much that fundamentalists have loosened up (Greyharp's example notwithstanding) as simply been outnumbered by less doctrinally pure folks like me so you can still find people who are exclusionary if you look, and perhaps because people feel threatened by that growth and calling us a clique is a bludgeon that's near to hand.
|
|
|
Post by pineappleleader on Apr 6, 2010 16:59:26 GMT -6
For me it's S&W White Box or NOTHING. One of the things I love about the OSR is that, unlike a few years ago when a small amount of forums was THE scene, these days most people don't take sides or wave the flag of just one version of the game, such as the 1e fundamentalists (I used to be one). These days most people seem to embrace all the various TSR versions and retro-clones equally, happily borrowing elements from each and any of them for their games. By that I did not mean that it was the ONE. I steal..borrow...rules, monsters, adventures, etc. from many editions of D&D. Until WB I was not exposed to the 3LBB. I originally thought Five Box D&D was the original rules system and AD&D was the "advanced rules". The main reason I am using WB instead of another game is the AAC. I really dislike the DAC, even though it is traditional. I can't afford to buy the 3LBB, so in that sense it is "White Box or Nothing". ;D
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 6, 2010 17:14:09 GMT -6
I can't afford to buy the 3LBB, so in that sense it is "White Box or Nothing". ;D Yep, I understand. The only reason I ended up with an original WB set and supplements is because I had something rare to trade, which was a big bit of luck on my part.
|
|