What IS Delving Deeper?

[waysoftheearth]

I am regularly asked how Delving Deeper differs from S&W, and from S&W WhiteBox. After some thought I've decided to make a public post of it so everyone can see my reply. So...


What is Delving Deeper?

Delving Deeper is an SRD-based fantasy role-playing game that emulates the "Original Rules" via the Open Game License.

D&D's "Original Rules" are not found exclusively in the three little brown books. Depending on your perspective, some are also found in Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, and other contemporary sources including The Strategic Review and The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter.


Where Does Delving Deeper Fit In?

To appreciate where DD fits into "the big picture", we first need to decide which big picture we're interested in. To that end, here's a timeline of the major D&D-related releases of the 1970s:

1. Chainmail (1971-1979)
2. OD&D (Jan 1974-1979)
3. Greyhawk (Feb 1975-1979)
4. Blackmoor (Sep 1975-1979)
5. Eldritch Wizardry (Apr 1976-1979)
6. Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (Jul 1976-1979)
7. Swords & Spells (Jul 1976-1979)
8. Holmes' Basic Set (Jul 1977-1979)
9. AD&D Monster Manual (1977-1989)
10. AD&D Player's Handbook (1978-1990)
11. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (1979-1990)


Fundamentally, Delving Deeper covered just those first two listed releases, plus some 'zine commentary of the time (most particularly the FAQ that appeared in The Strategic Review and the unofficial untested thief as it appeared in The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter).

While the "Original Rules" were subsequently expanded (in Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods Demi-Gods & Heroes) this material is not represented in Delving Deeper.



How Does Delving Deeper Differ from "Swords & Wizardry"?

Swords & Wizardry is also based on the "Original Game" (as stated in the Complete Rules, p6). But S&W's definition of the "Original Game" is broader, including the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons set and its major supplements (lines 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, above). IMHO, this is a fully evolved view of the original game, approaching something like a pre-cursor to AD&D.

Delving Deeper eschews the supplements, and encompasses just original 1974 Dungeons & Dragons set and its Chainmail references (lines 1 and 2, above). IMHO, this earlier view of the game approaches something like the earliest publically available version of D&D.

These two views are quite different. Neither is "better" or "worse"; each is interesting in its own right.



How Does Delving Deeper Differ from "Swords & Wizardry White Box"?

(My understanding is that...) Unlike the Core and Complete variants the White Box edition of Swords & Wizardry is based largely on the original 1974 Dungeons & Dragons set without the supplements (only line 2, above).

So Delving Deeper and Swords & Wizardry White Box share a common framework. But even so, they differ considerably in their detail.

I had a decent skim through the latest (3rd print) version of the White Box last night and noticed the following differences between WB and DD (although I'm sure a dutiful read would reveal more, these are the obvious things)...

Once again, please note that I'm not saying either is "better" or "worse"; These are just a list of differences (not criticisms) I observed. I have the utmost respect for Marv, for Matt Finch, for S&W, and for the White Box.

• "d-notation" doesn't appear in the original (or DD) but is used throughout the White Box.
  
• The White Box edition appears to exclude much of what appears in volume 3 of the original; particularly the sections on preparation for the campaign, underworld exploration, pursuit/evasion, wilderness exploration, sea-faring exploration, aerial exploration, castles, and baronies. DD includes all these.
  
• White Box omits fighting to subdue, and adds a new section detailing a combat sequence. DD includes subdual fighting, and what can be gleaned of the Alternative Combat System from the original sources rules and a few of rules interpretations from Chainmail.
  
• White Box employs S&W's single saving throw method (although the original saving throw system is also described).
  
• White Box weapons deal 1d6-1, 1d6, or 1d6+1 hit points damage according to their size (although 1d6 for all weapons is also mentioned).
  
• White Box armour includes S&W's descending/ascending system of ACs.
  
• White Box uses a 3d6 roll for turning the undead. The original uses 2d6, as does DD.
  
• (Regarding monsters, the WB bestiary is quite different to the original. I would hazard the WB monster list was based on an existing S&W document rather than on the 3LBBs, but that's just a guess).
  
• White Box adds some monsters (Banshees, Blink Dogs, Bugbears, Lemures, Harpies, Hell Hounds, Liches, Lizardmen, Ogre Magi, Giant Rats, Giants Slugs, Specters, Storm Giants, Worgs, Yellow Mold) as well as a new section on designing your own monsters. From memory, I think DD adds only the Lizardman (in tribute to the "Lizard logo"), the Storm Giant, and the Thull.
  
• WB also omits some OD&D monsters (including Brigands, Buccaneers, Dervishes, Nomads, Pirates, Cavemen, Gnomes, Halflings, Pixies, Nixies, and most of the many monsters that are mentioned in the 3LBBs but not described explicitly). DD includes every monster mentioned or described in the 3LBBs (excepting those owned by other copyright holders).
  
• White Box Dragons have 8 age categories (as per Greyhawk, AD&D). FWIW -- DD also differs from the original on Dragons, ascribing them SRD-like number of six-sided HD.
  
• Also notable is that White Box eschews the "treasure type" system, and describes a new method of generating treasure (in which magic swords lack extraordinary powers and occur no more frequently than do other magic weapons -- woe to fighters!). DD uses treasure types and an emulation of the original distribution of magic-items.
  
• WB includes only spells appearing in M&M, DD includes some additional spells.
  
• WB clerics don't "top out" at 7 HD.
  
• WB clerics don't have spellbooks; spells are divinely given (as per Greyhawk & AD&D).
  
• WB clerical spell progression is very close to the original, while DD's is SRD-based (same total number of spells per day in each).
  
• WB fighters don't "top out" at 9 HD.
  
• WB fighter multiple attacks are versus foes of 1 or fewer HD (as per AD&D).
  
• WB fighters lack morale benefits, sensing invisible opponents, and other chainmail benefits of the original.
  
• WB magic-users don't "top out" at 7 HD.
  
• WB magic-users require triple XP (woe to magic-users!) to reach 9th and 10th levels.
  
• WB magic-users have fewer HD (5 rather than 8 at 10th level).
  
• White Box doesn't include thieves (neither does the original, but DD does).
  
• WB dwarves don't see by night.
  
• WB Elves don't add +1 damage with magical weapons, but do get +1 to hit/damage versus "Hereditary Foes".
  
• WB provides a variant elf which looks very similar to the red box Basic D&D elf (a combined fighter/magic-user class called the "elf").
  

Allow me to reiterate: I am not being critical of the White Box! The White Box is a great work that combines an open-ended philosophy and some new things with the original game in a classy "toolbox" style of presentation.

I created the above list because I have been asked to, and also to illustrate that -- in all fairness -- Delving Deeper is not just a poor cousin of S&W:WB.

Delving Deeper is uniquely (edit: there are other games in this space now) positioned as an emulation of the earliest published Dungeons & Dragons with Chainmail game. I hope folks will be able to see where DD "fits in" and read it for what it is, rather than worrying about what it isn't.

Enjoy!


edit: corrected spelling of "notation".
edit: added points about clerical spell progression and spell lists.
edit: acknowledge there are now other 3LBB+CM games available.

[Deleted]

Excellent post Simon, thank you for taking the time to put all that together. Hopefully you'll be able to dispel some misconceptions that seem to be out there.

[scottenkainen]

Nicely described. I do prefer DD in some areas, particularly:
>The White Box edition appears to exclude much of what appears in volume 3 of the original; particularly the sections on preparation for the campaign, underworld exploration, pursuit/evasion, wilderness exploration, sea-faring exploration, aerial exploration, castles, and baronies. DD includes all these.<

Question, though -- what does "d notion" mean?
>"d notion" doesn't appear in the original, but is used throughout the White Box. D notion doesn't appear in DD.<

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[verhaden]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_notation

DD gives the expected range, instead.

[scottenkainen]

Oh...you mean terms like "3d6"?

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2013 6:12:39 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Question, though -- what does "d notion" mean?

I pretty sure Simon meant "d notation" in the now common use of XdY+Z was used to show the number of dice (X), type of dice (Y), and any modifications to the die roll (plus, minus, times Z).

[Finarvyn]

Apr 1, 2013 6:12:39 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Question, though -- what does "d notion" mean?
>"d notion" doesn't appear in the original, but is used throughout the White Box. D notion doesn't appear in DD.<

The original rules used notation like 30-300, which sometimes was confusing because you might interpret it in different ways. Would you roll 30 10-sided dice? Would you roll one 10-sided die and multiply by 30? The "d notation" would clarify this as 30d10 or 30x(1d10). I like that sort of notation better, which is why I stuck it into the WB.

[kesher]

Simon: Awesome and very helpful explication!

Yet another reminder that I need to read DD more carefully...

[talysman]

There's another difference between S&W White Box and DD: Clerics in White Box can't memorize as many spells per spell level as in DD. White Box is actually closer to the original in this respect.

[funkaoshi]

Great post. Nice to see this outlined neatly in one place. (You might want to add an FAQ or some such thing to the immersive ink website.)

[capheind]

On some level I like the idea of range notation, since it allows a degree of creativity in how you get there

[Vile Traveller]

This really doesn't help.

I still can't decide which to try first ...

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2013 9:56:07 GMT -6 talysman said:

There's another difference between S&W White Box and DD: Clerics in White Box can't memorize as many spells per spell level as in DD.

As I mentioned above, I'm sure there are a whole raft of other differences as well.

DD's clerical spell progression is derived from the SRD, and thus access to higher level clerical spells comes later in DD than it does in WB which, I agree, is nearer to the original in this respect.

It's worth noting also that some spells (e.g., cure serious wounds, speak with plants, create food) are demoted to lower spell levels in the SRD and thus also in DD, so access to these comes sooner than the spell progression chart alone might suggest.

Despite all this, the total number of spells clerics can memorise each day in DD is actually identical to that in WB.

Another difference is the spell lists. WB includes only the spells that appear in M&M, while DD includes a few other spells from other sources as well.

I'll add both differences to the list above.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2013 12:49:33 GMT -6 funkaoshi said:

You might want to add an FAQ or some such thing to the immersive ink website.

There are a hundred things I would like to do to my neglected website, but there are only so many hours in a day

p.s. I still haven't got your message about help with markdown, Funkaoshi

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2013 22:02:52 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

I still can't decide which to try first ...

Perhaps you need to try them both first? ;D

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, I don't know why it took me so long to download this. I guess I just felt like I needed my own familiarity with the LBBs first.

Thank you for this gift to the OS community. It is a truly amazing piece of work. And truly a gift because you give it away.

I am looking forward to spending some real time reading through it and becoming familiar with it, and using it to become more familiar with the LBBs.

Exalt!

[waysoftheearth]

Enjoy

[kesher]

Just ordered the hardcopy reference, and am looking forward to reading it!

[Scott Anderson]

Seeing how meticulously some authors pick what to include, and their scholarship about the pros and cons of their own work versus that of others, reminds me what a noob I really am when it comes to this stuff.

On one hand, it makes me want to bury my own homage game in the back yard instead of sharing it with anyone. But on the other hand, it makes me want to learn more and get better at this.

[Vile Traveller]

Jan 30, 2015 0:49:32 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

On one hand, it makes me want to bury my own homage game in the back yard instead of sharing it with anyone.

Don't!!

But on the other hand, it makes me want to learn more and get better at this.

Do!

[makofan]

I find WB to be elegant, consistent, clean, and easily expandable. I find DD to be exactly the house rules I would use if just playing OD&D. They are both great. DD is quirky and charming, and brings in a lot of chainmail stuff.

[tetramorph]

Hey, waysoftheearth, in all your extra spare time, could you do the same thing that you did above, comparing DD to S&W but instead compare DD to 0e?

That would be awesome!

[waysoftheearth]

That would be a bit of a mission tetramorph!

The short answer is: every table of facts/figures in DD differs from the original in some small detail and many DD rules are made "clear" where the original is less so. DD adds definition to some of the original's terminology and makes broader use of these terms; it explicitly includes content from Chainmail that is otherwise only implied in the 3LBBs and also integrates some "new" material from a short list of contemporary sources.

While each of these differences represents a small departure from the original, it is hoped these add to the utility of DD and facilitate broader participation in "the 0e game". That's ultimately what DD is for