Personally, the main thing I use the retro-clones for is online play.  It's great being able to say "Labyrinth Lord rules - download them free from Goblinoid Games' site" and get a game going with people all around the world, some of whom have never played D&D before.  Along with Castles & Crusades I've found that these games are great for getting started and playing quickly by PBEM, PBP, and chatroom.

While I've run a fair bit of tabletop C&C, I have not used any retroclone for tabletop play.

I'd like to reiterate the importance of them being free.  For some people, $5 is feeding your family for the day.  One player/GM I know well online is the unemployed wife of an unemployed former Oregon lumber mill worker whose house is in distress sale.  Back when times were better and her husband still had a job she was able to stretch to paying $10 for a C&C PHB, but she probably couldn't afford that now.

BTW Dan Proctor has Labyrinth Lord in general distribution - I can buy a copy from my local bookshop (eg Waterstones here in UK, Barnes & Noble in US) cheaper than I can get it from Lulu.   He has LL on bookshop shelves.  

LL is basically Moldvay-Cook Basic/Expert D&D reborn.  Personally I think it's pretty cool to see Moldvay D&D back on general sale.

Is there a free intro or 'lite' version of FTA! available?  I'd like to be able to check it out.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281407Yeah, what he said.

Me too.   Points of Light needs more aggressive marketing!  Buy it now!

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281466Hex-crawling the wilderness is a time-honored old school D&D pastime.

Traveller, too.

Pundit's rants are pretty shitty when they're just a plug for his own product.

I love how the simulacra movement undermines the niche that FTA! is apparently supposed to fill (a "normal game" in the "war against the swine"), and instead of dealing with it, it is seen as a negative.

And in ranting against the simulacra, Pundit becomes the swine he's always bitched about ("presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility," sounds like a White Wolfer or Forgie describing why their approach is better than the old standards!).

The entire idea behind the simulacra is that there is no reason to play another game. D&D, the real kinds (OD&D up through the pre-kitted 2e, all approximately the same game and cross-compatible), works just fine and doesn't need to be "updated" or "modernized."

What Pundit should do, if his ideas are so "old school" and worthy, is make a FTA!: Labyrinth Lord (and/or OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, or whatever) supplement that presents all his old-school ideas for D&D (just not saying D&D for legal reasons). This protects his "brand name," unites him with the kinds of gamers whose cause I thought he was trying to champion ("regular games for regular gamers," if the version(s) of D&D that made RPGs mainstream are "regular" anymore I guess), introduces people to his attitude and gaming style (and thus may attract people to the full FTA! game itself) and maybe he can find out what the simulacrum market actually is (and expand it through participation) instead of bitching about how there is none in his efforts to completely thumb his nose at it.

Quote from: JimLotFP;281561The entire idea behind the simulacra is that there is no reason to play another game. D&D, the real kinds (OD&D up through the pre-kitted 2e, all approximately the same game and cross-compatible), works just fine and doesn't need to be "updated" or "modernized."

First, I am more on your side here but I wanted to add a point. There ARE reasons to play other games. Mainly, from a desire for different elements. For example, say I want hit locations. I could just add them in to basic DND. This might work but it presents more problems. For example, how do I determine where I hit? What effects to certain spells have?

Now, do not get me wrong, yes, you could house rule it...or you could try a system that has it built in from the get go. Neither is "right" or "wrong" but more a case of preference.

Personally, as someone who a.) entered the hobby just in '98 and b.) did so in a country where D&D is mostly insignificant (and has been so especially at that time before the rise of 3.x), I find the clones mildly interesting to see what games have looked like back then.
But when it comes to actually GMing them, I stick for more elegantly done newer games of the same vibe (as the aforementioned FtA!, for which I'm currently prepping a campaign), just because I would have to learn the system almost from scratch anyway, so I might also go for a cleaned-up version.
I probably wouldn't mind to _play_ LL or OSRIC or whatever, but as I know of no GM in my neck of the woods who does so, this is mostly an academic question to me.

The essays and especially the adventures that accompany the retro-clones however are a whole other beast, and I'm always ready to steal especially the latter ones. (For instance, I've already decided that "The Forgotten Temple of Thaxon" for LL from "Abenteuer.", the German answer to "Fight on!", will be placed somewhere in my campaign. I just need to swap the stat blocks of the monsters, to translate the effects of some of the magic items into FtA! where it isn't exactly like LL, and I'm good to go.)

Quote from: JimLotFP;281561And in ranting against the simulacra, Pundit becomes the swine he's always bitched about ("presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility," sounds like a White Wolfer or Forgie describing why their approach is better than the old standards!).

I view FtA! as being more in the tradition of Tunnels and Trolls than anything modern. Sure it not D&D, but it kinda of like D&D, as T&T is kinda of like D&D. It one author's take on the style of fantasy that D&D represents.

FtA! and other games like Mutant Future one thing that the old school market should be doing. Coming up with NEW products that take the original material as their base and then go off in a direction different than what been done for the last 30+ years.

The problem I see with FtA! is that it has failed to gain any type of traction among the old school market like Mutant Future has. I rarely see any conversation about in any of the old school forums. Does anybody know if T&T fans are aware of FtA!.

It not to say that other approaches have their own pitfalls. For example by choosing the title Points of Light makes it a tougher sell to the Old School market. Unless somebody has read me, read another, or browse through it, then they would naturally think it is 4e only.

But on the other hand when working with a publisher, like Goodman Games, you have to sell to broadest audience possible. And like Dungeon Crawl Classics we hope that the brand itself (Points of Light) will come to mean something and have value.

Quote from: Skyrock;281582P I stick for more elegantly done newer games

I am interested in what you mean by elegantly done? Understanding this may help retro clone authors appeal to newer gamers.

Unless you are unable to get hold of say DND Rules Cyclopedia or want a set of rules that have been reworked and fixed, Id say there is no real reason to entertain any of these new "old school" games. Im sure each and everyone of has games we've never read or run, and thats about as cheap as old school gaming can get.

Ultimately you need to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish by going old school anyhow? An attempt to recapture those halcyon days? Its not going to happen, we are too jaded for that. They only way it will happen is by recruiting a new bunch of players or teaching your children to play.

Quote from: estar;281412.... There will be a 2nd Points of Light. In addition I am working on other products as well. Some I plan to propose to Goodman and other companies. Others I plan to release under my own name.

I really liked the first PoL, and plan to purchase the second one when it's available.  I also really liked your 'Wild North' setting for Fight On! #3.  I'll be curious to see what you produce in the future.  

Quote from: Lawbag;281594Unless you are unable to get hold of say DND Rules Cyclopedia...

I own four copies of the RC.  It's one of my favourite games.  However, it is not the same as 0e D&D or even B/X D&D (the Moldvay/Cook version).   (And, obviously, it's not AD&D.)  

None of the retro-clones out there now try to simulate the RC.

Quote from: Lawbag;281594...
Ultimately you need to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish by going old school anyhow? ...

I'm accomplishing "having a good time with my friends."  It's not really that hard to understand.

I've been running a 0e D&D campaign with a couple of old friends using Swords & Wizardry since New Year's day.  It was easy for us to get cheap copies from Lulu.  (The 0e D&D rules are expensive these days, and although I own a box set, I would rather not use it at the game.)  S&W is more clearly and better organized than the 3LBB + supplements.  The game itself plays fast and fun -- just right for a few tired gamers in their late 30s on a weeknight.  It's exactly what we want in a FRPG.

Really, it's extremely simple.  Retro-clones are both free (or cheap, if you want a print version) and fun.  I don't understand the opposition.

Quote from: Lawbag;281594Ultimately you need to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish by going old school anyhow? An attempt to recapture those halcyon days?

Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to recapture anything. Those old days never really went away for me. I tried 3e and 4e, found them not to my taste and continued playing what I had always been playing.

However, I like the retrogame movement because

a) it ensures that these older games can live on forever (thanks to the OGL) no matter what the corporate owner of the original material does and no matter how expensive used original copies of these games become with the passage of years.

b) as the retroclone versions of games are under the OGL, it ensures fans can produce their own modifications, web sites, fanzines, adventures, etc. without having to worry about possible repressive fan material policies from a game's corporate masters (e.g. TSR in the 1990s, Palladium).

Quote from: estar;281588I am interested in what you mean by elegantly done? Understanding this may help retro clone authors appeal to newer gamers.

Puh, that's hard to nail down. There are mainly many smaller things going for FtA! in favour of retro-clones for my preferences, but I'll try to nail down some examples.

For instance, I like that there's a single unified system for Everything Except Combat that always consists of ACT/PAS, attribute and skill + 3d6 vs your target number, regardless of whether you try to survive a fireball, to climb a wall or to listen on a door (what would take three radically different kinds of rolls in most older versions of D&D).

Likewise, stuff like preparation or teamwork is already included in the system by the Stunts (as opposed to made up on the spot), which allow to use skills for special effects, including boni for other rolls.

Speaking of Stunts, they also take away one of the main problems I would see as a prospective retro-clone GM: The inclusion of the Thief and other skill-dependent classes like Assassins.
Make your obstacles especially for the thief, and the rest of the party won't have much sensible stuff to do. Throw in non-thiefy challenges that give the rest of the party something to do (like combat), and the thief player won't be able to contribute much.
Mix&match, and I'd probably permanently feel that I serve injustice to someone and should be responsible for the players to get their fun (as opposed to just presenting the players the adventure and just let them catch their fun for themselves, while I just keep on refereeing and running the opposition into them without taking my players by their hands, if you catch the difference).
And there's also the issue that the existence of thief proto-skills implies that other characters could never try to pick pockets or climb walls, or only with massive penalties, so that the Thief class keeps some sense...
In FtA!, the "thief" just shines with thief-y problems and gets his stunts to activate special conditions in combat, so he can get his fun for himself regardless of the challenge that I throw at the party. Likewise, non-thieves tend to have more pure combat prowess, but yet have a couple of skills, so they too have their chance to win their own fun outside of combat without me just handing it over to them.
And all while it yet keeps a class system and all the strengths of it.