Post by blissinfinite on Jun 4, 2009 10:11:23 GMT -6
I posted this at DF but thought I'd post it here as well.
I'm feeling a bit philosophical today.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I think it was actually inspired by Hywaywolf on DF when he says that all these retro-clones are just published house rules and a post about Holmes here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=holmes&action=display&thread=1618.
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the retro-clones and all the material being self-published by creative fans of the game so I'm not at all knocking them. In fact, I see them as being more relevant and valid . But the impression I got from reading the thread on the ODD&D board is that the Holmes version, though a rewrite from the OD&D books + Greyhawk, was his variations/interpretation of the game, thus, one might say a published version of his house-rules. Many of us played that version of the game and that was D&D but, in reality, it was just an altered version of the 3 original books. Even the original 3 books were a compilation of what Gygax and Arneson were somewhat separately playing. The AD&D books that were published were a compilation from various supplements and publications with some things working well and others not but, nonetheless, the publishers thought these additions worked best. Thus their version of the game, their "house-rules" so to speak became the 'official' D&D/Fantasy RPG. Granted the authors were the original creators of the game, which added a bit more weight to the 'officialism' of it.
So TSR (and now WOTC) published these books and rules, and the revisions and editions, and so on and so on with various changes under the name of D&D or AD&D but you can look at them as just house rules of the same game. Granted, they are marketed as THE game but it is THE game in name only. 3.5 and even 4E are just variations, maybe taken to the extreme, but variations nonetheless of the OD&D books. Thus, when thinking of 3.5 and 4e as really just house rules of a fantasy RPG that was originally thought up by a bunch of wargamers in the midwest, it validates those versions as well as all the retro-clone rules that have been published. In fact, isn't this exactly what the founders of the fantasy role-playing game intended with their original rules, an anything goes, an anything can happen rule-set. But now, with the OGL, and print on demand publishing and the passion of a number of gamers, we now have various published versions of the original 3 rule books. In fact, they are exactly what the grandfathers of this game intended them to be. Hell, I play a mixture of S&W, Holmes and BFRPG. Perhaps, someday, I'll publish it as my variation of the original 3 books. But whether I publish it or I don't, it's still the Fantasy RPG that I enjoy and am comfortable with.
I don't think it's the game version that causes such fiery debate but, more the use of the name Dungeons & Dragons. But if things turned out a bit different, it could have been the original Fantasy RPG was named Swords & Wizardry (or any other name) and D&D becomes the retro-clone.
I'm feeling a bit philosophical today.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I think it was actually inspired by Hywaywolf on DF when he says that all these retro-clones are just published house rules and a post about Holmes here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=holmes&action=display&thread=1618.
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the retro-clones and all the material being self-published by creative fans of the game so I'm not at all knocking them. In fact, I see them as being more relevant and valid . But the impression I got from reading the thread on the ODD&D board is that the Holmes version, though a rewrite from the OD&D books + Greyhawk, was his variations/interpretation of the game, thus, one might say a published version of his house-rules. Many of us played that version of the game and that was D&D but, in reality, it was just an altered version of the 3 original books. Even the original 3 books were a compilation of what Gygax and Arneson were somewhat separately playing. The AD&D books that were published were a compilation from various supplements and publications with some things working well and others not but, nonetheless, the publishers thought these additions worked best. Thus their version of the game, their "house-rules" so to speak became the 'official' D&D/Fantasy RPG. Granted the authors were the original creators of the game, which added a bit more weight to the 'officialism' of it.
So TSR (and now WOTC) published these books and rules, and the revisions and editions, and so on and so on with various changes under the name of D&D or AD&D but you can look at them as just house rules of the same game. Granted, they are marketed as THE game but it is THE game in name only. 3.5 and even 4E are just variations, maybe taken to the extreme, but variations nonetheless of the OD&D books. Thus, when thinking of 3.5 and 4e as really just house rules of a fantasy RPG that was originally thought up by a bunch of wargamers in the midwest, it validates those versions as well as all the retro-clone rules that have been published. In fact, isn't this exactly what the founders of the fantasy role-playing game intended with their original rules, an anything goes, an anything can happen rule-set. But now, with the OGL, and print on demand publishing and the passion of a number of gamers, we now have various published versions of the original 3 rule books. In fact, they are exactly what the grandfathers of this game intended them to be. Hell, I play a mixture of S&W, Holmes and BFRPG. Perhaps, someday, I'll publish it as my variation of the original 3 books. But whether I publish it or I don't, it's still the Fantasy RPG that I enjoy and am comfortable with.
I don't think it's the game version that causes such fiery debate but, more the use of the name Dungeons & Dragons. But if things turned out a bit different, it could have been the original Fantasy RPG was named Swords & Wizardry (or any other name) and D&D becomes the retro-clone.
