YAD&DC?

[Deleted]

Does the market need another OD&D clone?

It is a fair question, and since I'm the author of YAD&DC (yet another D&D clone)? I reckon I'm as good a choice as any other to provide an answer, though by no means the sole answer, to that question.

First of all, one might want to know why I wish to take on such a project. There are two parts to that answer, let's start with the simple one.

I was asked!

To expand just a bit upon that thought, I was asked by a guy I've worked with on several other projects and for whom I have only respect, and that of the highest order. John "Coleston" Adams knows me, he knows I've been playing the game since there was a game to play. I drove to Houston and bought a copy of this game way back in the 1970's and I played and ran the game as few others have: in a vacuum. Isolated in my small town from the even the primitive gamer networking methods that existed back in those halcyon days of RPGs, I had to figure out this new type of gaming all on my own. There were no supplements (though that didn't last long), no self-proclaimed "experts" to tell me how I was doing it wrong, no endless argument over why a Magic-User couldn't use a sword. We were a bunch of guys and a few girls (who looked rather like the guys) rolling those queer little dice and having a blast.

The second part of the answer is content control. Simply put, Brave Halfling Publishing (BHP) needed a reliable base upon which to build a product line; one that BHP itself controlled. So, it might be argued the industry may not have needed YAD&DC but BHP most assuredly did. Partially connected to this line of reason was our mutual belief that no gaming system at the time the project began accurately portrayed the basic three book system we were hoping to preserve.

It is hoped the gaming community benefits from Delving Deeper. If not from the rules, then from the original edition compatible materials that spring forth from it; both from BHP and others. We also wish to grow the hobby, benefiting from new gamers able to break into (so-called) old school gaming without having to buy increasingly difficult to obtain and ever more expensive out of print publications.

So, there is your answer. I didn't think I could do it "better" than anyone else. No claim was ever made the other clones weren't fun to play, I actually have many of them in my gaming library. I just wanted to preserve a legacy, as accurately as the OGL and its OGC would allow. Did I succeed? You, gentle reader, must judge for yourself.

edit to correct a minor grammar issue ...

[crusssdaddy]

I understand the 'I was asked' portion, the others parts less so.

Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules? There are a ton of other companies that release modules and supplements for systems they don't control - for example, Expeditious Retreat is one that I have bought a number of products from and they don't control OSRIC. Why does BHP feel the need to operate differently?

As for growing the hobby, I don't see how YAD&DC does anything but clutter the market and confuse newcomers. I don't see DD as something newbies are going to buy - it seems the likely market is your & my fellow old-schoolers who might want the 'basic three book system' more faithfully replicated. But we already have a lot of choices, and we have the experience and enthusiasm to house rule, adapt, and tweak these choices... so where's the need for YAD&DC for a market segment that already has it all?

People who defend the creation of additional clones typically cite 'The more the merrier' as a defense, but I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!

[aldarron]

Jun 10, 2011 9:31:04 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Does the market need another OD&D clone?

our mutual belief that no gaming system at the time the project began accurately portrayed the basic three book system we were hoping to preserve.

IMHO, that's all the reason needed. To date, there is no clone of the 3lbb's published. period. Closest I know of is "The Big Brown Book" which also isn't published officially, and which relies entirely on d6 - a big change from the funny dice that were part of D&D's legacy.

Sure, there are moldvay clones with tweaks to make them like the 3LBB's - good and fun in and of themselves - but that's not the same thing.

I remember, when first encountering Labrynth Lord descriptions, thinking, why would Dan Proctor do this when Basic Fantasy already existed? The answer of course was to emulate a very specific ruleset that a lot of people loved, rather than the similar but often different BF. Same principle here.

When I wrote Dragons at Dawn, it certainly wasn't because I felt there was a need to produce a new and better RPG. Far from it. But I did feel there was a need for, and an interest in, knowing how "the other guy" ran his games before '74 and putting together a booklet so folks could have a go at playing that way. Similarly, I feel there's a need for an Arneson tweaked D&D, much the way S&W and OSRIC represents a Gygax tweaked D&D, but that's another story.

Point being that each of the published rulesets are unique and need to be treated uniquely to do them justice and Delving Deeper definetly aims at, and (hopefully) fills in a big gap in game market.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules?

I covered that in my post as best I could without bringing up the specific incident, which in large part played out right here on this forum. You were around then and you probably remember what I'm talking about. My apologies if this answer sounds vague or evasive, but I like all the people involved and have no desire to get more specific.

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!

Here we are in agreement! I've already begun working on the first supplement, hoping to capture a swords & sorcery or swords & planets type of feel of the old pulps. When that is completed I intend to support that supplement and style of gaming with a line of adventure modules. Two modules are sitting on my PC hard drive right now, one about 80% toward completion and the other about 35%.

Thank you for your thoughts, you make some very good points.

[crusssdaddy]

Point being that each of the published rulesets are unique and need to be treated uniquely to do them justice and Delving Deeper definetly aims at, and (hopefully) fills in a big gap in game market.

Okay. From my vantage point I don't see a lot of room for uniqueness anymore, if there ever was any. Is another explanation of what a Fighting Man does needed? Another level advancement table that differs by a handful of XP? Another description of a goblin? What a fireball does? And isn't a clone by definition not unique? I'm perplexed by any explanation for the need of a clone that references uniqueness.

Maybe that need comes from a love affair with the LBBs, which I don't have. Maybe that need comes from having a dog in the fight, as you do with D@D. All I'm doing is asking for what I want more and for what there is an eternal need for - new stuff.

[crusssdaddy]

Jun 10, 2011 10:52:10 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules?

I covered that in my post as best I could without bringing up the specific incident, which in large part played out right here on this forum. You were around then and you probably remember what I'm talking about. My apologies if this answer sounds vague or evasive, but I like all the people involved and have no desire to get more specific.

I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.

Re: supplements - now we're talking!

[Falconer]

I bought it for the art.

[crusssdaddy]

Jun 10, 2011 10:58:39 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I bought it for the art.

Are you referring to Delving Deeper? If so, fair enough. Are you planning on playing the game, or just enjoy the art for yourself, or use it as a reference to show players during sessions of other games you are playing? Or something else?

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 10:56:19 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.

Ah! Well, we wanted editorial say regarding what did or didn't go into the rules. The other games out there fell short of being a faithful clone. OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord did a good job of their respective systems; BHP felt there was another rules set out there that needed the same thing.

To my mind, the legacy and preservation of same was the important issue. I'm sure John would love to see them sell like hotcakes, but I just wanted to preserve something I felt was worthwhile. Other games, in my opinion, did not do that.

Jun 10, 2011 10:56:19 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Re: supplements - now we're talking!

Yeah, boy! Enough talk about rules, let's roll some dice! ;D

[robertsconley]

Jun 10, 2011 10:56:19 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I do remember, but what I don't understand is why BHP can't do business like other publishers that don't control material? If "Because we feel like it and it's our time & money!" is the answer, that's fine and legitimate, although not particularly compelling.

Re: supplements - now we're talking!

Also because of the Open Gaming License, the Brave Halfling team has a choice in the matter. In the past Third Party publishers had no choice if the situation with the system they supported was altered by the original publisher.

[Falconer]

Jun 10, 2011 11:04:18 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Jun 10, 2011 10:58:39 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I bought it for the art.

Are you referring to Delving Deeper? If so, fair enough. Are you planning on playing the game, or just enjoy the art for yourself, or use it as a reference to show players during sessions of other games you are playing? Or something else?

I like owning pretty things.

I hope it will turn out to be an ideal intro to the hobby. I can show/lend it to friends, and I can tell people on the street/internet to buy it.

Being a clone, I don’t expect it to revolutionize the way I actually play D&D, no.

[jasmith]

I wasn't able to get in on the pre-order for Delving Deeper. When will it be available for purchase again?

[Deleted]

Hey, JASmith,

I read your post and gave John a call. He is adding another 50 units for sale tonight, so keep an eye peeled.

[Deleted]

While I have worked with John for BHP from the start, I do so on a non-paid, voluntary basis, so I feel I have no actual conflict of interest in answering your questions directly crusssdaddy, without the need to be "tactful" or "diplomatic".

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Why does BHP need it's own version of the rules? There are a ton of other companies that release modules and supplements for systems they don't control - for example, Expeditious Retreat is one that I have bought a number of products from and they don't control OSRIC. Why does BHP feel the need to operate differently?

You're right, BHP doesn't NEED its own game, but there are some good reasons why it makes sense for it to do so. BHP has concentrated on two main versions of the game - LL and S&W (Basic and Original D&D). Yep there's been some OSRIC stuff from BHP, but other companies are pumping out 1e modules, so it hasn't been the focus for BHP.

LL has been a rock, even the revised version released a couple of years after the first, only had a couple of minor amendments, which makes it a module publisher's dream. S&W on the other hand has been in a constant state of change right from the start. How many different versions of it are there now? I don't know myself, I lost track long ago. This makes things difficult for third party publishers to keep their products accurate when the game keeps changing.

You said above crusssdaddy that you were aware of the events that were the catalyst for John deciding to produce Delving Deeper, then you should be aware that when he announced his plans to do so, Matt Finch had stated publicly that S&W: White Box was no longer going to be supported by him, the copyright owner, in other words it was a dead system. John offered to purchase it, but Matt said no. Given that John had just taken a stack of pre-orders for the next print of the S&W: WB box set, this put him in an extremely difficult position, especially as the ball was already rolling in the production of that product.

Given that BHP has chosen to focus on two versions of D&D - Basic and Original - and with S&W: WB dead in the water and previous uncertainties and difficulties in working with the constantly changing S&W brand, it made a hell of a lot of sense for John to produce an in-house game as a stable base for his "Original" edition modules and supplements.

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

As for growing the hobby, I don't see how YAD&DC does anything but clutter the market and confuse newcomers.

I stated recently on my blog that I don't buy this argument, nor have sympathy for any newbie making this complaint. It stuns me how many times I see people ask questions on forums that I can answer in 30 seconds after typing a few words into the Google search box. There has been some great stuff written that clearly explains the old school scene (OSR) and retro-clones movement and easily clears up any such confusion. It is pure laziness for anyone these days to say they are confused.

I agree that the market doesn't need a new clone, and this from a man who is currently involved in the production of two new ones. However, much of the confusion around the multitude of games comes from a misunderstanding of what is meant by "retro-clone" and "clones". In one sense all these clones are just D&D with a few differences, which makes them all much of a muchness. In reality there are the "clones", which fall under that description, and the true retro-clones that seek to replicate the original games as closely as legally possible. OSRIC v2 did this with 1e, LL did this with B/X, and that's that. Only two "true" retro-clones. Matt Finch publicly admitted S&W wasn't a true clone of OD&D and recently took steps to bring it closer to that goal. His reason for not doing so in the first place was because of his concerns about legal issues.

So, while 1e and Basic D&D have been replicated and kept in print for posterity and future generations, OD&D hasn't. BHP aims to fill that gap in the market and give the hobby a true 3LB clone.

As for all those other clones that aren't true retro-clones, but just D&D + house rules, the problem of confusing newbies isn't the fault of the games themselves, but the poor job we as a community have done in explaining the easy compatibility between both those games, and between the various editions of TSR D&D. The fact that you can take a 1e AD&D module and play it easily with OD&D, B\X, BECMI, etc., demonstrates that the similarities in all these games far outweigh the differences. It's not a stretch to say they're all D&D. Doesn't matter which one you pick up, you'll be able to use it quite easily to play any old school adventure.

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I don't see DD as something newbies are going to buy - it seems the likely market is your & my fellow old-schoolers who might want the 'basic three book system' more faithfully replicated. But we already have a lot of choices, and we have the experience and enthusiasm to house rule, adapt, and tweak these choices... so where's the need for YAD&DC for a market segment that already has it all?

I used to think the market was only our small niche of aging old schoolers, but things are changing. Publishers who were considered successful a couple of years back by selling 200 units are now easily selling 1,000+. You only have to read the blogs and forums to see that many DM's are introducing people to old school games and that the clones are being purchased by these groups. So I no longer buy the argument that newbies won't buy the clones, they will and they are doing so.

As for having it all, I guess it depends on your opinion about the need for accurate and true retro-clones to keep the original versions in print. In the case of a 3LB clone, given that it's the Moses tablets of the RPG world, I reckon there's a bloody good reason for seeing it done properly, especially as the excesses of the 3e/4e versions drive many more gamers to seek a simpler, earlier game.

As I said above though, no we don't NEED another clone, we just need to explain the scene a bit better. But the fact is just a couple of minutes on Google and any bugger can work it out for themselves, if they're not too lazy or lack the initiative to do so.

I think too that this "too many clones" complaint overlooks one important aspect, the market decides. While there are possibly dozens of clones out there, there are only a few that are dominating the show, that are being strongly and actively supported by the market (customers). They are OSRIC, LL and S&W - "the big three". The market will decide the fate of DD, whether it will turn the big three into the big four, bump S&W off its pedestal (which I doubt since it's a popular game in its own right), or languish in the wings with all the other clones that had their 15 minutes of fame and then withered away. Time will tell.

Jun 10, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

People who defend the creation of additional clones typically cite 'The more the merrier' as a defense, but I'd rather see you and BHP expend your professional creative energies on new content - adventures, settings, supplements, etc. - that would make me much merrier than another clone!

You've got to understand here crusssdaddy that according to many old school publishers, while you'd prefer to see more modules produced, it's the games and not the modules that are making money for the publishers. And since publishing requires money, they have to concentrate on what will bring in the dosh for them to continue operating.

There's a thread elsewhere on this forum (I think) where someone made the complaint that there was bugger all modules being published, only to have someone list how many old school modules were actually out there on the market. I seem to remember it was over 140, and the list was in no way complete. The fact is the module publishing side of the business has not been neglected because of the multitude of clones.

[jasmith]

Jun 10, 2011 15:39:10 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Hey, JASmith,

I read your post and gave John a call. He is adding another 50 units for sale tonight, so keep an eye peeled.

Cool! I can't do anything until next week, but if they're still available wednesday, I can order one. ;D

Unemployment is getting annoying.

[jasmith]

Jun 10, 2011 17:26:17 GMT -6 @austrodavicus said:

There's a thread elsewhere on this forum (I think) where someone made the complaint that there was bugger all modules being published, only to have someone list how many old school modules were actually out there on the market. I seem to remember it was over 140, and the list was in no way complete. The fact is the module publishing side of the business has not been neglected because of the multitude of clones.

My incomplete count of modules/supplements available for $$$ was 108:
odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=5661&page=3#70648

Looks like I forgot Jim Stater's Nod. And R. C. Pinnell's Lulu store stuff. That's another 20+. Add in what's been released since I made that post in April, your 140 figure is probably pretty close.

I forgot to count Fight On! and Knockspell, too! Gotta be around 160, then! ;D

[crusssdaddy]

@ Austro

"BHP doesn't NEED its own game." So I guess we agree on that point?

I think it's hard to reconcile your aspirations for hobby growth with your attitude toward newcomers. If a newbie has a question or is confused and your response is "Look it up on Google, moron!" I don't think that's conducive to a healthy growth environment. Even if in practice your response is less hostile, that statement betrays an old guard clubbiness in which newcomers are sneered at and belittled. Amusing for the experienced hands I suppose, but I don't think you can claim to have a legitimate role in growing anything if that's your philosophy.

I'm not sure how to answer your claim as to the source of the confusion - I guess mapping the confusion is confusing? But adding more subtly competing products to the pot can only increase that confusion, not help explain it away.

I'm not seeing a lot of publishers out there who are selling 1000+ units of anything, and certainly not easily. Jim Raggi looks like he is, but the amount of work he puts in is remarkable. I assume LL has and all the S&Ws (though that's divided between multiple publishers, is it not?) and OSRIC... do free downloads count as sales? I would argue not, if money is the overriding factor that your last paragraph stresses.

I know there are a lot of new modules out there - but they are scattered among all the various clones, which diminishes the impact and appeal. You may not care, but to dismiss with a wave of the hand the concerns of people who do is stubborn and evasive.

I'll fall back on my original observation - having a dog in the fight (or two in your case!) might explain the 'need' for more clones.

[crusssdaddy]

Jun 10, 2011 19:13:33 GMT -6 jasmith said:

Jun 10, 2011 17:26:17 GMT -6 @austrodavicus said:

There's a thread elsewhere on this forum (I think) where someone made the complaint that there was bugger all modules being published, only to have someone list how many old school modules were actually out there on the market. I seem to remember it was over 140, and the list was in no way complete. The fact is the module publishing side of the business has not been neglected because of the multitude of clones.

My incomplete count of modules/supplements available for $$$ was 108:
odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=5661&page=3#70648

Looks like I forgot Jim Stater's Nod. And R. C. Pinnell's Lulu store stuff. That's another 20+. Add in what's been released since I made that post in April, your 140 figure is probably pretty close.

I forgot to count Fight On! and Knockspell, too! Gotta be around 160, then! ;D

I like the Fight On! way of doing business (though I've written 3 articles for them myself, so I may be biased). They don't need their own system, they don't even need the OGL or SRD or any of that mumbo-jumbo. Very efficient, elegant & appealing!

[jasmith]

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I know there are a lot of new modules out there - but they are scattered among all the various clones, which diminishes the impact and appeal. You may not care, but to dismiss with a wave of the hand the concerns of people who do is stubborn and evasive.

I'm sure some folk are really attached to specific systems and buy accordingly. But I've got the impression that most OSR gamers buy modules from across the whole spectrum. They're so bloody compatible that it's not an issue.

I've got S&W, LL, LL/AEC, OSRIC, AD&D and B/X modules, I've purchased in the past couple of years. I've got some that don't even bother stating what edition/version they're for.

All of the "big three" are well-represented, anyway. Even if I wanted to confine my purchasing to "one system" I'd still have plenty of stuff to buy. I don't see why Impact and Appeal should suffer, at all.

[Mike]

Yep, I'll happily buy and use any OSR module.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

"BHP doesn't NEED its own game." So I guess we agree on that point?

...having a dog in the fight (or two in your case!) might explain the 'need' for more clones.

So what's it going to be crusssdaddy, I agree with you that we don't need more clones, or I have "a dog in the fight" and say we do? I'm guessing from these contrary statements that I perhaps didn't explain my thoughts very well.

Simply put:

• I don't think we NEED more clones.
  
• However, I do think there is value in having a "true" 3LB clone.
  
• I agree the situation is confusing.
  
• However, a couple of minutes on Google will clear that up for most folks.
  
• And, I think we, the online old school community, have failed to make it easier for newbies to understand.

I've said before elsewhere that what would be really good is a permanent website (not a forum or blog) that explains the whole OSR/retro-clone scene in an unbiased fashion, simple information with lots of links for newbies. When I can spare the dosh I'll do it myself.

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I think it's hard to reconcile your aspirations for hobby growth with your attitude toward newcomers. If a newbie has a question or is confused and your response is "Look it up on Google, moron!" I don't think that's conducive to a healthy growth environment. Even if in practice your response is less hostile, that statement betrays an old guard clubbiness in which newcomers are sneered at and belittled. Amusing for the experienced hands I suppose, but I don't think you can claim to have a legitimate role in growing anything if that's your philosophy.

You really don't know me at all if you think I'm that sort of person crusssdaddy, and it certainly wasn't what I said previously. I believe I said I wasn't "sympathetic" to those who complained the situation was confusing, but didn't bother to do a quick search on the subject. Not being sympathetic is a VERY different thing to having a negative and hostile attitude to newbies, calling them a "moron" while failing to answer their questions, sneering and belittling them, and all the other things you inferred in your reply that I might be guilty of.

A read through my many forums and blog comments (under "Greyharp", "austrodavicus", and "David Macauley") over the last several years, as well as some rather long and detailed posts on my own blog on this subject aimed at clearing up many of the misconceptions, will show that I have instead gone out of my way to help people understand the scene - and have done so for years. I see no contradiction in admitting a lack of sympathy for laziness and putting into practice a desire to help and encourage. They are not mutually exclusive and I don't put the former into action, unlike many of the "old guard" you mention who sit like trolls under the bridge on forums I no longer frequent.

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I'm not sure how to answer your claim as to the source of the confusion - I guess mapping the confusion is confusing? But adding more subtly competing products to the pot can only increase that confusion, not help explain it away.

I agree, but wringing your hands while bemoaning the situation is not going to change anything. The fact is the genie is out of the bottle. We were given the gift of the OGL/SRD combined with the cheap and free tools of publishing that enable us take control of our hobby. People have the tools, they are going to create - and we gamers benefit. We can either do something to help make it easier for newbies to understand, or we can whinge about it. I chose the former course, which is why so many of my blog posts talk about the nature of the OSR. I DO want the scene to grow, I DO want newbies to cut through the confusion, understand the scene and join in the fun. Playing devil's advocate in my statements is NOT the same as supporting those statements.

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I'm not seeing a lot of publishers out there who are selling 1000+ units of anything, and certainly not easily. Jim Raggi looks like he is, but the amount of work he puts in is remarkable. I assume LL has and all the S&Ws (though that's divided between multiple publishers, is it not?) and OSRIC... do free downloads count as sales? I would argue not, if money is the overriding factor that your last paragraph stresses.

If publishers don't share their sales figures, we won't know will we? You're right, not many are probably reaching those numbers yet, but a few are, and that number seems to be growing from what I read and hear.

As for the money side of things, that is just a practicality. It costs money to publish, artwork, boxes, etc. Sell a game for $20 and you'll get a much larger profit margin than selling a module for $7, especially when the former sells better than the latter. Publishers who run their business at a loss won't stay in business very long.

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I know there are a lot of new modules out there - but they are scattered among all the various clones, which diminishes the impact and appeal. You may not care, but to dismiss with a wave of the hand the concerns of people who do is stubborn and evasive.

Given the time and effort I have put into the fight against the very traits in our hobby that you accusing me of, reading that last statement of yours crusssdaddy literally made me feel sick in the stomach, not to mention angry, but as you don't actually know me, and given that I shouldn't give a toss what you, a total stranger, thinks of me, I guess I should just harden up. I can only say again that I am not guilty of the accusations that you are making about me, as those who DO know me in the scene will be able to tell you.

On the subject of modules for various systems by a multitude of publishers, I agree with you, but think that it just takes one proactive person and a cheap website to provide the solution. As I said, if I can afford it in the near future I'll take on the task myself and create a website that newbies can be directed to, and that us old hands can use too as a central depository of links.

[aldarron]

Jun 10, 2011 10:52:27 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Point being that each of the published rulesets are unique and need to be treated uniquely to do them justice and Delving Deeper definetly aims at, and (hopefully) fills in a big gap in game market.

Okay. From my vantage point I don't see a lot of room for uniqueness anymore, if there ever was any. Is another explanation of what a Fighting Man does needed? Another level advancement table that differs by a handful of XP? Another description of a goblin? What a fireball does? And isn't a clone by definition not unique? I'm perplexed by any explanation for the need of a clone that references uniqueness.

Maybe that need comes from a love affair with the LBBs, which I don't have. Maybe that need comes from having a dog in the fight, as you do with D@D. All I'm doing is asking for what I want more and for what there is an eternal need for - new stuff.

Hmmm, well I'm a little perplexed by your vantage point, because this very forum is dedicated to exploring what is unique and interesting about OD&D as opposed to classic or AD&D or what have you. There are reasons why there is a Holmes Thread a thread for each of the 3LBB's etc., and as post after post discusses, there are real, game changing differences between editions. In particuar, the 3lBB's without supplements and with all the rules and methods either completely dropped or much marginalized in later editions is substantially different than B/X or becmi around which the popular clones are modeled.

When in Becmi or BX, for example, would players be staring at an outdoor survival type hexmap while the DM rolls to see if they have encoutered a wandering castle whose lord will demand taxes or a joust for safe passage?

To be clear, it is editions as a whole, not individual rules I'm comparing when saying each is unique as a package of playing style.

Jun 10, 2011 19:52:47 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

@ Austro

"BHP doesn't NEED its own game." So I guess we agree on that point?

I think it's hard to reconcile your aspirations for hobby growth with your attitude toward newcomers. If a newbie has a question or is confused and your response is "Look it up on Google, moron!" I don't think that's conducive to a healthy growth environment. Even if in practice your response is less hostile, that statement betrays an old guard clubbiness in which newcomers are sneered at and belittled. Amusing for the experienced hands I suppose, but I don't think you can claim to have a legitimate role in growing anything if that's your philosophy.

I'm not sure how to answer your claim as to the source of the confusion - I guess mapping the confusion is confusing? But adding more subtly competing products to the pot can only increase that confusion, not help explain it away..

Personally, and with all due respect, I think your imagination is running away with you a bit Crussdaddy. Everybody uses search engines and nobody around here is condescending to newbies. Its not an accurate charcterization.

Folks who want to really dig into the OSR material will take the time to do so. Those who just have a passing interest or want to try out a game will likely downlod BF or one of the other freebies or maybe buy whichever one catches thier attention first. I really can't imagine people are going to run screaming from the OSR because they have half a dozen or even a dozen rule sets to choose from. I never ran out of a licquor store because there were too d**n many bottles of wine. I just don't see the "confusion" you imagine being a problem at all.

[jasmith]

Jun 10, 2011 20:56:59 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Jun 10, 2011 10:52:27 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Folks who want to really dig into the OSR material will take the time to do so. Those who just have a passing interest or want to try out a game will likely downlod BF or one of the other freebies or maybe buy whichever one catches thier attention first. I really can't imagine people are going to run screaming from the OSR because they have half a dozen or even a dozen rule sets to choose from. I never ran out of a licquor store because there were too d**n many bottles of wine. I just don't see the "confusion" you imagine being a problem at all.

I found the OSR almost two years ago, by finding a blog. ChicagoWiz's I think. Within an hour, I had downloaded LL, S&W, OSRIC and a buncha free supplements/modules.

And had a pretty good picture of what was going down. Granted, I'm a smart guy and did web research for a living, at the time, but really! There's no poor, lost souls out there, desperately struggling to sort all this crazy OSR stuff out. It's just not that complicated.

[crusssdaddy]

Given the time and effort I have put into the fight against the very traits in our hobby that you accusing me of, reading that last statement of yours crusssdaddy literally made me feel sick in the stomach, not to mention angry, but as you don't actually know me, and given that I shouldn't give a toss what you, a total stranger, thinks of me, I guess I should just harden up. I can only say again that I am not guilty of the accusations that you are making about me, as those who DO know me in the scene will be able to tell you.

You harden up and I'll lighten up and maybe we'll meet in the middle... like Hawaii or something!

[crusssdaddy]

To be clear, it is editions as a whole, not individual rules I'm comparing when saying each is unique as a package of playing style.

I'm not really talking as much about different editions, so that's another question.

I just don't see the 'confusion' you imagine being a problem at all.

Clearly we disagree, but is it fair to say it's all in my imagination? Austro says he sees the same confusion all the time and has written extensively to cure it...

[crusssdaddy]

Jun 10, 2011 21:07:57 GMT -6 jasmith said:

Jun 10, 2011 20:56:59 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Jun 10, 2011 10:52:27 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Folks who want to really dig into the OSR material will take the time to do so. Those who just have a passing interest or want to try out a game will likely downlod BF or one of the other freebies or maybe buy whichever one catches thier attention first. I really can't imagine people are going to run screaming from the OSR because they have half a dozen or even a dozen rule sets to choose from. I never ran out of a licquor store because there were too d**n many bottles of wine. I just don't see the "confusion" you imagine being a problem at all.

I found the OSR almost two years ago, by finding a blog. ChicagoWiz's I think. Within an hour, I had downloaded LL, S&W, OSRIC and a buncha free supplements/modules.

And had a pretty good picture of what was going down. Granted, I'm a smart guy and did web research for a living, at the time, but really! There's no poor, lost souls out there, desperately struggling to sort all this crazy OSR stuff out. It's just not that complicated.

Ditto. I believe I found rpg.net first in the midst of a spirited CARCOSA discussion... then I went and got CARCOSA and that sealed the deal! But I'm not a newbie, simply returned from a long absence and with the original literature still tucked safely in a corner of the closet, and the memories held even closer...

[crusssdaddy]

but really! There's no poor, lost souls out there, desperately struggling to sort all this crazy OSR stuff out. It's just not that complicated.

Then methinks the OSR blogosphere and forum commenters protest too much!

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2011 0:02:29 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Then methinks the OSR blogosphere and forum commenters protest too much!

You have a blog and you're commenting on a forum, protesting about the confusion of too many clones. Hmmm.

Methinks it's easy to stir the pot to get a reaction and then sit back pressing buttons by ignoring rebuttals and reply with inflammatory statements. OK, I understand now, I've got your number.

[crusssdaddy]

Jun 11, 2011 0:06:47 GMT -6 @austrodavicus said:

Jun 11, 2011 0:02:29 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

Then methinks the OSR blogosphere and forum commenters protest too much!

You have a blog and you're commenting on a forum, protesting about the confusion of too many clones. Hmmm.

Methinks it's easy to stir the pot to get a reaction and then sit back pressing buttons by ignoring rebuttals and reply with inflammatory statements. OK, I understand now, I've got your number.

Which rebuttals did I ignore? If you're talking about your request to scour the net for references to 'austrodavidicus', 'greyharp' and 'david mccauley' then yes, I did ignore that part. But I thought we each made our points about the rest and can agree to disagree. If we can't even agree on that, then... oh well.

[aldarron]

It seems pretty simple really, this debate, and getting pointlessly sidetracked. Everybody seems to care about growing the pool of old school D&D players and gaming material.

Crussdaddy and others from time to time have observed that it must be initially confusing for a newbie who, without anyone to guide them, encounters the multiple sets of rules from different publishers covering the classic and advanced versions of the game. Further, they imagine that seeing several choices will be off putting and keep said newbies from looking into it any further or ever desiring to play. It is therefore better to have one or two flagship products around which we all rally.

Okay, the opposing view, is that such "confusion" is temporary and irrelevant, as with any product from multilple vendors, persons who are interested will seek out the information they need or simply pick by trial and error.

There's no anecdotal or other evidence I know of to support the former, but there is plenty to support the latter, in my opinion.

Jun 10, 2011 23:49:23 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

To be clear, it is editions as a whole, not individual rules I'm comparing when saying each is unique as a package of playing style.

I'm not really talking as much about different editions, so that's another question.

..

If your argument is "we don't need another B/X clone" or "we don't need another AD&D clone" then sure, I agree. Those versions have pretty well been nailed.

Here though we are talking about a clone of a specific ruleset - the 1974 rules - that nobody has done a clone of. LL is a clone of B/X. S&W is a kinda sorta clone of greyhawk & supplemnet D&D. Both have retrofits to emulate the character clasees and spells of the 3LBB's, but that's kinda like retro fitting an F18 to fly like a Sabre.

If you're argument is "its all the same.", then I disagree.