akiyama
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by akiyama on Sept 14, 2009 12:26:49 GMT -6
I have seen on a couple of blogs the idea floated that the old-school movement should adopt a single rules-system as a "Rosetta Stone". In other words, if there was one system that everyone understood, then all old-school modules, articles etc. could use that system's stats and assumptions. I think this is the idea. There could be many benefits to such a system.
But a Rosetta Stone system already exists. It's called Classic D&D.
OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook, BECMI, The Rules Cyclopedia, Basic Fantasy RPG, Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry are all minor variations of a single rule system. The same system is a sort of lowest-common-denominator of the rules of other variants of D&D such as AD&D and Castles and Crusades, and even 3e and Pathfinder.
The fact that no single one of the various Classic D&D rules sets is much more popular than any other is a nice reflection of the fact that all of these games encourage house-ruling. In fact, one might argue that having a "definitive" version of the rules would be against the spirit of the rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 14, 2009 12:29:26 GMT -6
Moldvay/Cook through BEMI are major rules variants of OD&D. LL is a minor rules variant of M/C, and S&W is a minor rules variant of OD&D. Basic Fantasy, so far as I can tell, is as much of a B/X variant as Castles & Crusades is an AD&D variant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2009 12:48:35 GMT -6
I agree that all of the rules sets you mentioned are essentially interchangible with minimal conversion, but I just can't see any way for the Old School community to pick one over another.
OD&D is the most fundamental, Holmes a more clear re-write. When you diverge into the M/C books though the RC you get into the "race=class" issue, which is annoying to many of the OS community. Is that enough of a difference to dis-allow picking one of those as the "true" edition? I don't know, and my opinion would be only one of many anyway.
AD&D, OSRIC, C&C and others are all built on the same basic game, and are also very interchangible and require almost no conversion at all, but they do all have variations in the rules to make them different. Same questions as above, with the same answers.
I think it would be neat to have one rules set recognized as the rules from which all are based, but other than OD&D (for historical purposes) I'm not sure how we could all agree. The closest thing I can think of might be S&W WhiteBox simply because other than Holmes (which is limited to lower levels) it's probably closest to OD&D but presented better (I hope).
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 14, 2009 12:51:23 GMT -6
Agreed with Finarvyn, and apologies if my post came off snippy. Wasn't meant to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2009 12:59:42 GMT -6
Agreed with Finarvyn, and apologies if my post came off snippy. Wasn't meant to. I don't think it sounded snippy. It just clarified some issues about the various editions. The problem fundamentally is that we're talking about a tree with branches and not a single evolution. The big "Y" was the D&D vs AD&D split, and each of those branches are pretty major and don't fork much, but then the whole retro-clone movement throws a spanner into the whole works becasue they are derivative but not exactly so. We no longer get single evolutionary paths but instead various splinter branches along the way. For example, your own Spellcraft & Swordplay is a prime "offender" because it traces its roots to both OD&D and Chainmail, but with a modern twist in rules presentation. It doesn't fit well on the evolutionary chart becasue it blends newer with older ideas. Hard to trace everything to a common ancestor when there are so many directions the games have gone over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 14, 2009 13:00:57 GMT -6
So what, you're calling me some kind of freak or mutant, then? Is that what you're saying? HUH!? IS IT!?  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 14, 2009 13:14:05 GMT -6
I think that Castles & Crusades will be the rules set that attracts the greatest number of new people to old-school D&D gaming. C&C is the only rules set under discussion that I have found on game-store shelves, in brand-new attractive and reasonably-priced hardbounds no less. I can imagine teenagers poking around in a game store and (knowing nothing of the OSR) deciding to buy and play C&C based on flipping through the C&C books. They'll then be part of the Old School Renaissance without even knowing it.
(I should mention that S&W Whitebox is my favorite version of D&D, so it's not favoritism that makes me predict that C&C will carry the day.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2009 13:26:03 GMT -6
So what, you're calling me some kind of freak or mutant, then? Is that what you're saying? HUH!? IS IT!? Maybe ... still friends anyway?  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2009 13:33:14 GMT -6
I think that Castles & Crusades will be the rules set that attracts the greatest number of new people to old-school D&D gaming. C&C is the only rules set under discussion that I have found on game-store shelves, in brand-new attractive and reasonably-priced hardbounds no less. I agree, but many folks seem to dislike C&C because they actually want to sell a product to make money instead of just giving it away. It certainly has the biggest presence at the game stores. I should mention that S&W Whitebox is my favorite version of D&D Yeah, my WhiteBox comment felt kind of self-serving when I typed it and was actually added as a last-minute edit that I thought about taking back out after posting it.  It just seems like 1974 OD&D is the game but many people have problems with its wording. At this time, Holmes and S&W (core or white box) appear to be the only options designed to be really close to OD&D in philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 14, 2009 13:36:12 GMT -6
See, for me I think the wording of 1974 OD&D is part and parcel of its charm, and I've never found it to be the arcane codex of slog it has a rep for being.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 14, 2009 14:10:43 GMT -6
Now there's a phrase I'll have to work into my next game...  |
|
Arminath
Level 4 Theurgist
WoO:CR
Posts: 150
|
Post by Arminath on Sept 14, 2009 15:41:13 GMT -6
When you diverge into the M/C books though the RC you get into the "race=class" issue, which is annoying to many of the OS community. I did a search and came up empty. I don't understant the race=class issue anyone has that plays OD&D (no supplements). Dwarves are fighters, elves are Fighter/Magic-users and Hobbits are Fighters. It's not like when you see someone playing a dwarf you have to guess what class they are, they just say, "I'm playing a dwarf". So in essence, for non-humans race IS class. The only difference between OD&D and BD&D is the level limits. Or am I missing something? |
|
akiyama
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by akiyama on Sept 14, 2009 18:06:05 GMT -6
I've always thought race=class in B/X is a rule that is meant to be broken. I mean, my assumption is that the only reason the race=class rule exists in B/X is to make the game simpler for beginners to learn and play, and that experienced DMs will allow halfling thieves or elven fighters if that's what the players want. So to my mind race=class is a fairly trivial difference between rules sets, because I can't think of a good reason not to ignore it. Similarly the ascending AC system in Basic Fantasy RPG is to me purely a cosmetic difference because it makes no difference in actual play - the die rolls one needs to hit are identical whether one uses an ascending or descending AC system. I think whether one sees the differences between rules sets as minor or major is a matter of perspective and temperament.
I will defend my assumption that OD&D is closer to all the games I mentioned than to first edition AD&D:
If you are playing OD&D using all the rules from all the supplements, or even just using Greyhawk, then you are playing something close to AD&D. But the main difference - as I see it - is that in OD&D, most of the rules that will make their way into AD&D are optional rules, whereas in AD&D all of the rules are part of a whole game. It's not the individual rules that make the difference, it's the overall effect of having so many non-optional rules.
I mean, I could add the Paladin character class from Greyhawk to any of the rules systems I mentioned, and to do so would be easy and would feel to me like I was going "with the grain" of those systems. Whereas to drop the Paladin from AD&D would be easy to do but I would feel the game had lost a bit of its AD&Dness as a result.
Dropping the Paladin from OD&D doesn't even feel possible to me; the Paladin isn't even there to begin with, except as an optional rule, like everything alse in the supplements. The overall effect of the supplements and the early Dragon magazine articles is to underline the fact that there are lots of things about the rules that you can add to and change.
B/X of course takes additional rules from the supplements and adds them to the White Box rules, just as AD&D does. And it adds some rules of its own, just as AD&D does. It is not the same game as OD&D. But it adds less than AD&D, and the resulting game is simpler, and it feels more like a starting point to be added to and tinkered with than AD&D does, and for all those reasons I think the gap between OD&D and B/X is shorter than the gap between OD&D and AD&D, and that if one is going to lump OD&D in with one or the other then one should lump it in with B/X, not with AD&D.
Although I suppose that, as I said above, this conclusion is a product of my personal perspective and temperament, and one might as easily argue that OD&D plus supplements should be considered as a complete game and should be lumped together with AD&D as being more Gygaxian than B/X.
(I have this theory that D&D players can be divided into three personality types - strategists, creators and Gygaxians - who run their games in different ways and prefer different types of rules. But I've written enough, I think. It is mildly pleasurable to think about D&D rules in an abstract way, but I occasionally get this nagging feeling that there might be better ways to spend my time)
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Sept 14, 2009 18:50:06 GMT -6
I don't think a Rosetta stone set of rules is needed. The various earlier editions of D&D are so easily compatible that it seems completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2009 20:51:52 GMT -6
See, for me I think the wording of 1974 OD&D is part and parcel of its charm, and I've never found it to be the arcane codex of slog it has a rep for being. I agree 100%, since I played OD&D for years before they even invented AD&D or the others. We never felt like we didn't understand any of the rules, and that set is still my favorite of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 15, 2009 7:58:24 GMT -6
I agree with everything you said, but this... If you are playing OD&D using all the rules from all the supplements, or even just using Greyhawk, then you are playing something close to AD&D. But the main difference - as I see it - is that in OD&D, most of the rules that will make their way into AD&D are optional rules, whereas in AD&D all of the rules are part of a whole game. It's not the individual rules that make the difference, it's the overall effect of having so many non-optional rules. ... is worthy of an exalt. I actually thought about running AD&D Light -- taking out the rules I don't like or the classes I hate (yes, Illusionist, I'm looking at you...) In the end, it would be much quicker and easier to just add the rules I want to OD&D. So when I run the thing, that's what I'll do. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Sept 15, 2009 8:20:26 GMT -6
I don't think a Rosetta stone set of rules is needed. The various earlier editions of D&D are so easily compatible that it seems completely unnecessary. Agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 21, 2009 12:45:20 GMT -6
There is a Rosetta Stone, but it's not any rule set. It's the B-Series modules. If you can run those without major modification, you're using an acceptable variant of the rules.
For me, that includes OD&D (1974) through AD&D 2E, and their clones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 21, 2009 14:18:26 GMT -6
I actually thought about running AD&D Light -- taking out the rules I don't like or the classes I hate (yes, Illusionist, I'm looking at you...) In the end, it would be much quicker and easier to just add the rules I want to OD&D. So when I run the thing, that's what I'll do. Makes me wonder if a decent solution might be to start with OSRIC (AD&D clone, rewritten to be more readable) and deleting from there. I know you can get a PDF download of OSRIC for free, but I don't think there is a Word version. I'd prefer to start with a Word doc and slash from there.... It would be ironic if the first of the retro-clones turned out to be the best model for a Rosetta Stone. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 21, 2009 15:07:31 GMT -6
There is a Rosetta Stone, but it's not any rule set. It's the B-Series modules. If you can run those without major modification, you're using an acceptable variant of the rules. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Sept 21, 2009 15:12:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Sept 21, 2009 15:22:08 GMT -6
I actually thought about running AD&D Light -- taking out the rules I don't like or the classes I hate (yes, Illusionist, I'm looking at you...) In the end, it would be much quicker and easier to just add the rules I want to OD&D. So when I run the thing, that's what I'll do. Makes me wonder if a decent solution might be to start with OSRIC (AD&D clone, rewritten to be more readable) and deleting from there. Dan Proctor's soon to be released Advanced Edition Companion for Labyrinth Lord may be what you're looking for. It basically allows you to turn LL into AD&D-lite, but leaves out a lot of those sub-systems in 1e that most of us never used anyway. |
|
zendog
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 125
|
Post by zendog on Sept 21, 2009 15:41:20 GMT -6
Makes me wonder if a decent solution might be to start with OSRIC (AD&D clone, rewritten to be more readable) and deleting from there. I know you can get a PDF download of OSRIC for free, but I don't think there is a Word version. I'd prefer to start with a Word doc and slash from there.... It would be ironic if the first of the retro-clones turned out to be the best model for a Rosetta Stone. I'd prefer to add to S&W:WB than delete from OSRIC, but I never played full on AD&D back in the day. I ran B/X but we used stuff from White Dwarf and the AD&D 1st ed hardbacks we liked, and used AD&D module too. Thinking about it a good Rosseta Stone might be a word.doc of S&W:WB & Core, LL, and OSRIC with any straight up repetitions (identical spells, etc.) removed, major differences (Saving Throws) included as optional variants, and minor differences (Price lists, etc. ) averaged out. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclopeatron on Sept 21, 2009 17:48:22 GMT -6
OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook, BECMI, The Rules Cyclopedia, Basic Fantasy RPG, Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry are all minor variations of a single rule system. I totally agree. All of these rule sets are so similar I've never been actually able to figure out exactly which of these so-called "versions" we are playing at the table... We just call it "D&D". As a DM I use bits and pieces from each, with a more recent focus on using tables copied from Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry simply because the players can download the books for free. We almost never crack open a book during gameplay anyway, so who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 22, 2009 10:36:20 GMT -6
It may be more interesting, fun and useful to make the Rosetta Stone a flow chart to enable to a group to build their own D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 22, 2009 10:46:47 GMT -6
That license only applies if you want to use the phrase Compatible with OSRIC Plus there this Designation of Product Identity and Open Game Content: The terms “OSRIC,” “OSRIC,” and “O.S.R.I.C.” are Product Identity and trademarks; all artwork and formatting is Product Identity. The Variable Experience Point Rule on p.118 is Product Identity. Aside from the previous two sentences, Chapters I, II and III of this work are Open Game Content.
Which are Character Creation, Spells, and How to Play (combat)Chapters IV, V and VI are Product Identity to the extent permitted under the OGL and to the extent such material is subject to copyright, except for any text language derived from the SRD or the Tome of Horrors, which is Open Game Content. Which are Dungeon, Town, & Wilderness, Monsters, Treasure. You would have to pick through them and see which stuff is SRD derived and which isn't. So incorporate PARTS of OSRIC would be doable under the Open Game License. The OSRIC Open License allows you to use all of OSRIC provided you meet the all of the terms of the license. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 22, 2009 12:49:05 GMT -6
OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook, BECMI, The Rules Cyclopedia, Basic Fantasy RPG, Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry are all minor variations of a single rule system. I totally agree. All of these rule sets are so similar I've never been actually able to figure out exactly which of these so-called "versions" we are playing at the table... We just call it "D&D". As a DM I use bits and pieces from each, with a more recent focus on using tables copied from Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry simply because the players can download the books for free. We almost never crack open a book during gameplay anyway, so who cares? I agree 100%. I think that the "best" rules system is really a blend of the best of all of the systems. Of course each gaming group will probably end up with a slightly different blend, which is why a single version will never be accepted by all. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Sept 22, 2009 13:07:19 GMT -6
All the TSR editions of D&D are roughly compatible with one another, barring a few idiosyncrasies (Does AC start at 10 or 9; race-as-class, etc.) and my experience in those days was that we readily used products made for one version with the others with a minimum of fuss. I don't really consider them to be separate games at all, since their fundamental mechanics all stem from the LBBs of OD&D, even if, in some cases, they're filtered through other things along the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 22, 2009 14:25:04 GMT -6
All the TSR editions of D&D are roughly compatible with one another, barring a few idiosyncrasies (Does AC start at 10 or 9; race-as-class, etc.) I agree, and the retro-clones (including 4th edition HM, BFRPG, and C&C) are also in the same category. I regard all these as slightly differing versions of the same game. An analogy is all the versions of Monopoly (which all are slight variations on the same game): Star Wars Monopoly, National Parks Monopoly, Beatles Monopoly, Denver Broncos Monopoly, Mega Monopoly, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 22, 2009 14:28:53 GMT -6
I wonder if any two D&D groups have ever used D&D rules identical to each other. Even, for example, two groups both using B/X and nothing else. The chances are very slim that they would apply the B/X rules in the exact same way:
"Oh, we're pretty casual about rolling for morale."
"We let halflings go to level 10."
"We give the poor 1st-level cleric a spell."
"We ________________."
Etc.
|
|
It just seems like 1974 OD&D is the game but many people have problems with its wording. At this time, Holmes and S&W (core or white box) appear to be the only options designed to be really close to OD&D in philosophy.
