TheRPGSite

Ok, I'm going to come out and say it. I love old-school, and old-school gaming, but basically, I think retro-clone games suck ass. OSRIC; Labyrinth Lord, etc., they're all pointlessly stupid.

If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility without being hassled with trying to balance that with trying to look and stay close enough to "AD&D 1e with Unearth Arcana rules but without Cavaliers" or some shit like that?!

Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177Ok, I'm going to come out and say it. I love old-school, and old-school gaming, but basically, I think retro-clone games suck ass. OSRIC; Labyrinth Lord, etc., they're all pointlessly stupid.

If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility without being hassled with trying to balance that with trying to look and stay close enough to "AD&D 1e with Unearth Arcana rules but without Cavaliers" or some shit like that?!

Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.

RPGPundit

I don't think this is the best way to advertise your game, Pundit. :)

People design the "retro-clones" so that they can legally publish adventure modules for the old games they know and love. If they enjoy it, how can it be pointless and stupid?

The retroclones have also done some minor tweaking with the rules and clarified some of the writing. This gets into tastes but one could argue that some of the clones are better than the originals.
 
It seems like a lot of work just so you can legall publish adventures - when you can publish compatible products or just post for free without any apparent harrassment. But if someone wants to do it, it doesn't hurt me in any way.
 
edit:  I have more personal interest in the neo-old school or neo-clones such a Mazes & Minotaurs or Mutant Future.  But I'm considering using Basic Fantasy for a campaign as it's basic with a few nice changes.

"Old school" goes beyond RC D&D, you know. Not all old games are easily available.

A closer look will also show that for the various retro-clones, just like a real animal clone they're not a perfect copy, but a twin, with their own individual style and personality. There are usually a few tweaks, a streamlining which is often an improvement.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;281179I don't think this is the best way to advertise your game, Pundit. :)

People design the "retro-clones" so that they can legally publish adventure modules for the old games they know and love. If they enjoy it, how can it be pointless and stupid?

See, if that was their motive, then why add bullshit "extra rules" or change fundamental rules in certain areas, why not just be a copyright-free reprint?

RPGPundit

I've never found any of their tweaks to be an "improvement" or to make for a "better game" than the original. In fact, it tends to create a game with Personality Disorder. The game doesn't know what its supposed to be, whether its supposed to be made with modern design principles, or to be "Just like" some old game.

RPGPundit

I agree to an extent. With the exception of Mutant Future (because it is not precisely a retro-clone), Basic Fantasy (which is more of a AD&D/D&D hybrid), and OSRIC (a better rules reference than the AD&D hardbacks - could have been better w/o all of the nagging changes though), I cannot say I'm all too impressed with the retro-clones that have been profilerating. Personally, I would have prefered that these authors go and make new games with old-school sensibilities.

Hey, do you "old-timers" have a bone to pick with Troll Lords Castles and Crusades? I've heard that it has very straightforward rules and a whole lot of the old school feeling.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281204Hey, do you "old-timers" have a bone to pick with Troll Lords Castles and Crusades? I've heard that it has very straightforward rules and a whole lot of the old school feeling.

I've gotten the impression that Troll Lord managed to woo a large number of grognards.  Having Gary work with them probably helped with that.  It has quite a few differences from AD&D but is closer to it than D20 is.

Maybe because the PDF of RC is $5, and the PDF of simulacra are free?
The rules are in-print (in most cases).  You can get shiny, new copies from primary sources.

Also, I don't see how a ruleset, being so nearly identical to some other set which is "good", can suck.  They're pretty much the same thing.

It's also been said many a time what the intentions of most of the simulacra are.  They are to enable designers to create new adventures for classic systems, and by signaling compatibility with the simulacrum, they signal such with the original game.  Their intent was NEVER to be "more worthwhile than the original" as far as I can tell.  I won't rehash all of the defenses of the games here, there's another active thread around these boards that does that.
 
My question is this:
Let's say a simulacrum had been published by WotC instead with the EXACT SAME CONTENT, except using the phrase "Classic Dungeons and Dragons" or "AD&D" instead of the simulacrum's name.  Would this thread even exist?  Guess what, D&D isn't just what has its logos printed on the books anymore... the game is bigger than it's brand.  I can sympathize with brand-loyalty, but only to a point.

Answer:
Yes, but it would probably be complaining about how "WotC CHANGED CLASSIC DND" rather than "THIS GAME HAS A DIFFERENT NAME".

btw, what's a grognard? Where does the term come from? What does one have to do to be a "grognard"? I've seen that term in a shitload of blogs.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281209btw, what's a grognard? Where does the term come from? What does one have to do to be a "grognard"? I've seen that term in a shitload of blogs.

It's like the second item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard) of a Google search... Wow I feel tired after searching sooo hard

Grognard originally referred to Napoleon's Old Guard, then was applied to old veterans.  In the last few decades, it has come to mean an old crusty gamer, first a wargamer but now any old gamer.
 
When I start bitching about the nerve of Warhammer punks calling themselves wargamers instead of players of a low class minis game, I'm displaying a grognard attitude.

I don't see the point in the rules themseles, but they've inspired good products like Carcosa (the non-baby-raping version), Mutant Future and Eldritch Weirdness...so if that's what it takes to get people creating, yay.

Quote from: wiseman207;281206My question is this:
Let's say a simulacrum had been published by WotC instead with the EXACT SAME CONTENT, except using the phrase "Classic Dungeons and Dragons" or "AD&D" instead of the simulacrum's name.  Would this thread even exist?

Yes, except it'd be complaining about the art.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281209btw, what's a grognard? Where does the term come from? What does one have to do to be a "grognard"? I've seen that term in a shitload of blogs.

It's a guy who only likes older editions of D&D.  The steriotype is he's been "playing D&D since 75", is old, fat, bearded, and "WotC ruined D&D, you can pry my AD&D DM's Guide from my cold dead hand".

Quote from: boulet;281214It's like the second item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard) of a Google search... Wow I feel tired after searching sooo hard

Your biting sarcasm reaches out from the computer screen to choke me.

Quote from: wiseman207;281220It's a guy who only likes older editions of D&D.  The steriotype is he's been "playing D&D since 75", is old, fat, bearded, and "WotC ruined D&D, you can pry my AD&D DM's Guide from my cold dead hand".

Ok, I've met many old, fat, bearded, "WotC" hating dudes in my day. Most of them are the nicest fucking people ever; but you have to admit that the stereotype is quite true.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;281179People design the "retro-clones" so that they can legally publish adventure modules for the old games they know and love. If they enjoy it, how can it be pointless and stupid?

How many commercial adventures have been published using retro-clone rules sets? And how many folks outside the old-school design clique have bought them?

I play old-school D&D, but I have my doubts about the market for these adventures. You can already get loads of old-school adventures for free from sites like Dragonsfoot. Why should I fork out a few dollars for a PDF when I'm already extremely skeptical about the quality of these adventures? Even the old-school stuff published by Goodman Games - a professional commercial endeavour - is pretty thin gruel.

And like most long-time DMs, I have no trouble converting stats on the fly. I have a bunch of Necromancer Games adventures for 3/3.5E that I've used for older editions of D&D, and I know a big chunk of NG's fanbase did the same.

So are there really a lot of gamers out there who:

• Still play old-school D&D.


• Hang out on RPG web forums.


• Are looking for published adventures.


• Need old-school stat blocks.


• Are willing to take a chance on unknown authors publishing PDFs over the net


• Aren't getting the stuff they need already from Castles and Crusades or Goodman Games

My sense is that describes about 40 guys, half of whom are publishing or helping work on retro-clones.

Don't get me wrong. Creating and sharing creative content is a cool thing. It's helping keep old-school D&D alive (or slowing the rate of its decline). So if people are having fun writing and talking about variations of old-school D&D, all the power to them. But the retro-clone movement is commercially marginal, bears a lot of resemblance to the incestuous Indie RPG movement, and will probably have no impact outside the community of web forums.

Well, as far as OSRIC 2.0 is concerned, it's faithful to Gary's work, but about 3x better-organized.

I'm running a once-a-month AD&D game, and I find OSRIC very useful.  I still mostly lug around my original AD&D1e books, but I'll happy bring OSRIC along, too, as soon as it hits LuLu.

-O

Quote from: Haffrung;281228How many commercial adventures have been published using retro-clone rules sets? And how many folks outside the old-school design clique have bought them?

Quite a few, actually.

I know, I was surprised, too.

QuoteSo are there really a lot of gamers out there who:

• Still play old-school D&D.


• Hang out on RPG web forums.


• Are looking for published adventures.


• Need old-school stat blocks.


• Are willing to take a chance on unknown authors publishing PDFs over the net

My sense is that describes about 40 guys, half of whom are publishing or helping work on retro-clones.

Don't get me wrong. Creating and sharing creative content is a cool thing. It's helping keep old-school D&D alive (or slowing the rate of its decline). So if people are having fun writing and talking about variations of old-school D&D, all the power to them. But the retro-clone movement is commercially marginal, bears a lot of resemblance to the incestuous Indie RPG movement, and will probably have no impact outside the community of web forums.

Well, I'm one of the folks who benefits from retro-clone games.  AD&D1e isn't my primary game - I run 4e, SWSE, and WFRP2, as well - but it actually does help open up exposure to classic gaming systems.

-O

Quote from: obryn;281234it actually does help open up exposure to classic gaming systems.
 
-O

Especially for those players who started with 3rd edition.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

1) Format. You can't get it in book form. Sure you can put it up on lulu as a private download but that a technical hurdle that many won't make.

2) Marketing. The PDF only route can only go so far. Plus you can't use Dungeons & Dragons so you are forced to come up with your own branding.

3) Rules. The pre AD&D version or Versions of D&D was released piecemeal. The older rules lacked in teaching somebody to play. Many retro-clones distill the original rules into a consistent vision that is better organized.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281193See, if that was their motive, then why add bullshit "extra rules" or change fundamental rules in certain areas, why not just be a copyright-free reprint?

Because prior to Moldavy, and Gygax's AD&D, what was D&D? Even afterward rule systems like AD&D's initiative system were so poorly written that in reality everybody winged it. You got 1974 D&D, D&D + Supplements, Holmes D&D, Moldavy D&D, AD&D, AD&D + Unearthed, AD&D + Survival Guides, Mentzer D&D. D&D RC.

None of them are exactly the same but all related. The retro clones just mirror the existing situation.

The three to watch are

Labyrinth Lord / Mutant Future. The author is the most vigorous about pushing forward into NEW material and getting the products into the stores. His products are invariably good.

OSRIC 1.0 was just a marketing tool. A organized concise summary of everything you could legally use out of AD&D because of the OGL.

OSRIC 2.0 is a regular rulebook, this was propelled forward by the moderate success of Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, etc. So it was decided to make 2.0 a complete RPG where referees and players can play AD&D without reference to anything else.

Swords & Wizardry duplicate the work of OSRIC/Labyrinth Lord but for the 1974 Rule + Supplements. It is presented in two formats one using the supplements and one based solely on the original 1974 rules. Understand that the D&D the vast majority of us played originated in the Greyhawk Supplement NOT the initial 1974 release.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.

Fairly weak, really.  I mean, the so-called 'bile' is entirely forced, there is no real controversy here to get worked up over, hence, the entire essay is just an affectation.

It's got a good beat, but I can't dance to it.

Ok, I'm a total Old-School n00b who hadn't even thought about the oD&D before reading about it in this forum. It is my understanding that the charm Old School stuff has is it's "winging it" nature. That the game was more imaginative than tactical. That's really, really cool.
But, I was wondering how the Old School games handle adventuring in non-dungeon environments. I've read a good amount of blogs that chronicle various oD&D games. They all seem to follow a very similar megadungeon formula.
I'm not shitting on the mega-dungeon idea; quite the contrary, I would love to get involved in one of these old school campaign.
I'm just curious as to how good can an old school system handle investigation scenarios or horror scenarios.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281224Your biting sarcasm reaches out from the computer screen to choke me.

I'm stealing this line....

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

FREE is a powerful word.   If your primary goal is to reach the largest possible audience, $0.00 beats $5.00 any day of the week.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;281179People design the "retro-clones" so that they can legally publish adventure modules for the old games they know and love.

Based on my conversations with retro-clone people, THIS is a major motivator.  Its all about using the OGL to publish stuff for B/X or AD&D without any fear of reprisal.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281193See, if that was their motive, then why add bullshit "extra rules" or change fundamental rules in certain areas, why not just be a copyright-free reprint?

Again, based on my conversations with retro-clone people, the changes were done for legal reasons to ensure that they were not stepping on any copyright toes.  

Maybe they needed to do this and maybe not, but I know for sure that I have not seen any printed copies of Kalamar 4e in my game store.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281204Hey, do you "old-timers" have a bone to pick with Troll Lords Castles and Crusades? I've heard that it has very straightforward rules and a whole lot of the old school feeling.

C&C is good stuff.   It's AD&D 2.5 and certainly fun, but it has its own imperfections and how much a grognard enjoys C&C depends on how much their ideas of "fixing AD&D" mesh with Troll Lord's viewpoint.  

If I had a group that really wanted to play AD&D, I would run C&C for them.  

Quote from: vomitbrown;281261It is my understanding that the charm Old School stuff has is it's "winging it" nature. That the game was more imaginative than tactical. That's really, really cool.

I highly suggest reading Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming (its free)
http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

Quote from: vomitbrown;281261But, I was wondering how the Old School games handle adventuring in non-dungeon environments.

Everything is a dungeon.  Sometimes the walls are invisible.

Quote from: Spinachcat;281273FREE is a powerful word. If your primary goal is to reach the largest possible audience, $0.00 beats $5.00 any day of the week.

Oddly enough this isn't always true.  People often place value on something based on what it cost them.  When people download free stuff, they're generally less likely to actually read it - but far more download it so it kind of evens out.
 

Quote from: Spinachcat;281273I highly suggest reading Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming (its free)
http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

I like old school gaming but dislike the primer.  It's full of false dichotomies and confuses play style with rules style.  Most of both the old school and modern behaviors are found in both kinds of groups.  The primer amounts to propaganda implying "Boy, old schoolers you're so great for playing the Right Way."

Quote from: Haffrung;281228How many commercial adventures have been published using retro-clone rules sets?

Looking here (http://stores.lulu.com/oldschoolren?fContentOffset=0) and adding a few things I've read about here and there, I'd say maybe about a dozen. That's just for-money adventure modules, not including other material like Carcosa or the Fight On! fanzine which is becoming pretty major.

How many commercial adventures did WotC publish for D&D 4E? I don't know for sure, but an Amazon.com list suggests... seven?

Its all good to me as its a statement to those damn "new book tappers" with their "Oooh, I gotta new book! Look at all the skills!" that immediately says sternly and without emotion: "Ha. Ha...Ha...Ha...Ha...Ha.". Thats why...

;) Just kidding!

Seriously, the adventure producing angle was/is what its about. Recreating a viable niche for energy that doesn't feel like its being blown off for free. We've had over a decade of "free" lets see what happens when it cranks up a notch.
Give it a few years.

Quote from: StormBringer;281250Fairly weak, really.  I mean, the so-called 'bile' is entirely forced, there is no real controversy here to get worked up over, hence, the entire essay is just an affectation.

It's got a good beat, but I can't dance to it.

The end-times are coming, Stormbringer and I agree about something.

The old-school renaissance is just fine, and the free clones online make older styles of D&D more accessible and interesting to a generation raised on 3.x and 4e.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281319The old-school renaissance is just fine, and the free clones online make older styles of D&D more accessible and interesting to a generation raised on 3.x and 4e.

4E hasn't been out long enough to have a generation...

Quote from: jeff37923;2813204E hasn't been out long enough to have a generation...

4e has brought new gamers into the fold. It's a generation of recent origin that will be continuing to develop and grow for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;2813324e has brought new gamers into the fold.

Debateable, but I won't argue it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281332It's a generation of recent origin that will be continuing to develop and grow for the foreseeable future.

And this is unprovable because only time will tell if it is true or not.

Quote from: jeff37923;281340Debateable, but I won't argue it.

The opposite of what I said would be that no one at all has ever played 4e, nor will ever play 4e, without having played an RPG before. That's simply a ludicruous position. You might quibble over how many people it will bring it, but that has nothing to do with the point I originally made.

QuoteAnd this is unprovable because only time will tell if it is true or not.

That's a non-sequitur. If it's unprovable, then it can't be proven.

If you don't think the generation of people who play 4e will continue to grow, you're deluding yourself (something you do fairly often, if memory serves). Unless the game stops being sold tomorrow, more people will continue to buy it and play it. Once again, you might quibble over what those numbers will be, but that has nothing to do with anything I've said or any point I've made.

Are you done trying to ineptly pick fights over 4e in a thread about old-school games?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281343Are you done trying to ineptly pick fights over 4e in a thread about old-school games?

Nah, just wanted to see if you were worth taking off the IL yet.

Quote from: jeff37923;281345Nah, just wanted to see if you were worth taking off the IL yet.

That's pretty meaningless when you're going to read and respond to my posts anyway.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281261I'm just curious as to how good can an old school system handle investigation scenarios or horror scenarios.

Compared to what? I'd expect that D&D 3 and up aren't particularly better suited to those scenarios than OD&D/Basic/AD&D 1e. As you may know, the first game to tackle both those scenarios head-on was Call of Cthulhu (at least that I've heard of) but there's a good argument to be made that it wasn't old school even though it was first published in 1981.

What early D&D and other games of the period do well is primarily a mix of exploration, problem-solving, and combat, whether done in a dungeon or out of doors. IMO characterization was also a natural inclusion. I often refer people to the story of Robert the Bald (http://mmrpg.zeitgeistgames.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=594&start=0) (scroll down) which shows that outdoors adventures consisting of travel and exploration were a part of the game before publication.

However horror, investigation, and intrigue are things that could be included, but only by virtue of a lot of description. In short you could easily construct a scenario in D&D that involves a mystery. It probably wouldn't use many of the rules outside of some divination and tracking. In a way that is in the old school spirit, to wander freely away from the rules and just play pretend as needed. But when you talk about "handling" those types of scenarios, no, there's nothing special in the rules to do that, other than that they provide a framework for (a) roleplaying and (b) distinguishing character (PC) and world (GM) roles. At the time, this was quite a powerful innovation, but nowadays a lot of people want explicit, mechanical "system support".

As best I can tell, it is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D. I can't speak to the potential for success here, except that none of the people I play 3.X D&D with, almost all of whom started with the retro-cloned versions of the games, react to the idea with anything but "yeah, I really want to die 15 minutes into the game, sure."

I agree with Haffrung here that the broad commercial potential of this stuff is probably pretty vaporous. Maybe if Paizo were publishing Labyrith Lord or Osric with art in line with popular contemporary styles, and pushing it as the go-to adjunct for Legacy pdfs, they might start getting somewhere. Moving this stuff on the Lulu old-school shop is more or less parallel with selling things among the forge as best I can tell.

I get Fight On!, and I like some of the old-school stuff out there, like Bowman's (free!) Dismal Depths, but for the most part it's  the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

QuoteIf you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with [a retro-clone]?

My advice is to use the original rules.  I do.

That said, I think the retro-clones have some value.  They're a tool for publishing material for the older editions; use of the OGL eliminates a lot of concern over copyright infringement.  They're freely available, which means you can start a game and point your players to the free PDF of the rules, which can grease the skids.  Some gamers find the rules presentation in the retro-clones to be clearer than the originals, or to be in a style that's similar to modern presentations (and thus more accessible).  They provide an argument against the "it's not in print/unsupported system" attitude (which I always found ridiculous, anyway, but that's beside the point).  You can take them and edit them to taste, and avoid wear-and-tear on your out of print books.  Because they're new, they get talked about (i.e. exposure).

As far as I know, the original motivation of the first retro-clones was to provide a publishing tool.  The intent was not to provide a system that people played (i.e. no one envisioned legions "playing OSRIC").  I think that's still the primary purpose.  However, after the advent of the retro-clones, it became apparent that there was a demand for more than just a publishing tool/reference document, but also a "playable" rule-set.  I personally don't need this kind of thing, but apparently some people do.  And demands tend to get filled.

QuoteSee, if that was their motive, then why add bullshit "extra rules" or change fundamental rules in certain areas, why not just be a copyright-free reprint?

In a true retro-clone (i.e. one that intends to duplicate the rules of the source material as closely as possible), rule changes are introduced only where necessary to avoid copyright infringement.  For example, you can't copyright a mathematical algorithm, but not everything in the old rules follows a nice, neat algorithm.  Sometimes, the numbers in a given table might represent a unique "artistic presentation" that would be subject to copyright.  In cases like that, changes are introduced to avoid the problem.  

Other cases are places where the original rules are ambiguous or have more than one interpretation.  Writers of retro-clones have to make some judgment calls in places like that.

QuoteHey, do you "old-timers" have a bone to pick with Troll Lords Castles and Crusades? I've heard that it has very straightforward rules and a whole lot of the old school feeling.

After I abandoned 3e, I played C&C for a while.  I loved it at first, but eventually I started running into thing that didn't work like I wanted them to, and I came to the conclusion that I'd be happier playing traditional D&D with the original rules.  C&C is not really a retro-clone.  It's more of a "middle path" between traditional D&D and WotC D&D, and it borrows from both ends of the spectrum.  Some people love it for precisely this reason.  On the other hand, if you really like traditional D&D, you tend to find too much WotC D&D in C&C.  And if you really like WotC D&D, you tend to find too much TSR D&D in C&C.

QuoteI don't see the point in the rules themseles, but they've inspired good products like Carcosa (the non-baby-raping version)...

Carcosa isn't a retro-clone product.  I don't even think it's an OGL product, actually.

QuoteAs best I can tell, it [i.e. the retro-clone concept] is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D.

A scam?  Huh?

QuoteI can't speak to the potential for success here, except that none of the people I play 3.X D&D with, almost all of whom started with the retro-cloned versions of the games...

Really?  That's surprising (i.e. that they started with retro-clones).  Kind encouraging, too.  I don't expect the older systems to be to everyone's taste, so it's okay if someone tries it and prefers WotC D&D -- tastes differ.  But it's good to know that people are trying them (especially as a 'starting system' -- that's what really surprises me).

QuoteI agree with Haffrung here that the broad commercial potential of this stuff is probably pretty vaporous...Moving this stuff on the Lulu old-school shop is more or less parallel with selling things among the forge as best I can tell...

I think it's safe to say that dreams of broad commercial success isn't the motivation behind the retro-clones.  It would be welcomed, of course, but I doubt that anyone writing or publishing retro-clones is in it for the great business opportunities.  This stuff is getting written and published for love of the material and the hobby.

Quote...for the most part it's the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

Hell, that sounds pretty damn good, to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281194I've never found any of their tweaks to be an "improvement" or to make for a "better game" than the original. In fact, it tends to create a game with Personality Disorder. The game doesn't know what its supposed to be, whether its supposed to be made with modern design principles, or to be "Just like" some old game.

RPGPundit

They're made by ganers. It's hard to resist tinkering when they're making their free labor of love. None of the tweaks are big enough to cause a personality disorder here, and i see a certain lack of modern design principles in a change to the ability score bonus tables or renaming a monster or two.

Swords & Wizardry whitebox is the interesting one to me here. Rules are basically OD&D supplement free, but the modern design principles are basically : presentation, some thoughts about the implications of the rules, and a built in argument  "why play this game now that it's not the only one."
The "why this game" puts this one close philosophically to some aspects of the indie camp, in a way that LL or OSRIC aren't.

The retro-clones themselves are free, well executed given what they are and good fun to read (and replicate games that are good fun to play). It's just that certain views about the scope of the "Renaissance" are greatly quixotic.

Pundit : How do you feel about where, say "Castles and Crusades" falls? I don't happen to own the book (it's not free!) but the presentation in Castle Zagyg definitely seems to speak to more of a personality disorder than a clone proper. It seems to push to and away from AD&D at erratic speeds from page to page.

I can't speak for FtA!, largely since it's not free either. It seems to be a close relative of Tunnels and Trolls, maybe about C&C or Basic Fantasy close. How far off's that assessment?

Quote from: RPGPundit;281194I've never found any of their tweaks to be an "improvement" or to make for a "better game" than the original.

That's fair enough, but is also a matter of personal taste, you must admit.

And again, there's the issue of streamlining of things. That is, arranging the rules in a consistent, clear and straightforward way - the originals often didn't do that. Gygax seems to have rolled dice to see what to put where in the AD&D books, some rules contradict each-other or are unclear, Traveller's character generation system was different across the original LBB leading to vast differences in character abilities, and so on. Many of the retro-clones improve on that.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn fact, it tends to create a game with Personality Disorder. The game doesn't know what its supposed to be, whether its supposed to be made with modern design principles, or to be "Just like" some old game.

I'm not sure what "modern design principles" are. Could you tell us more?

The only thing that comes to mind is the benefit of years of playtesting and use of the old books in play. In a recent review, Rob Lang wrote of a game (http://thefreerpgblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/go-berserk-burn-pillage-and-have-non.html),
   "The book is really the result of someone trying to get the rules out of their head and onto paper; rather than a long-playtested game where you've had to explain things 200 times and so the best way to do so comes more naturally."
 Many original old school books are very much like that, the rules crammed into the authour's head like too many cheetos in a bowl on the game table, spilling out onto the page. But with twenty or thirty years of their being played by people, with all the discussion of them in magazines, game stores, at the game table and nowadays online, we can use that playtesting and hindsight to tidy them up a lot.

Yesterday, I just got my brand new Arduin trilogy hardback. It takes the original books, more-or-less reorders the pages so they fall together by topic a little better, and puts them back out in a shiny new durable book, a little larger and more readable than the old ones. Now--I'm not a collector, and books were meant to be played--but those first Arduin books are otherwise out of print, and I wouldn't necessarily want to goober them up at the flgs, regardless of how eager I might be to reference them at home. So I take it to the flgs and we read through it a litle, prompting comments like: "Oh, hey--that's John Carter." Or "Oh, hey--Deodanths in space sound like the Dark Eldar." Or "Oh wow--this is Houses of the Malazan--Power draws power--Erikson must've played this."

Well. I don't know about any of that, but it was a long, cool conversation that drew two or three players to my campaign. And that's very cool. It seems to happen more with products that are ostensibly new, rather than tattered old copies of things everyone has seen. A new iteration helps people look at it with fresh eyes.

Quote from: estar;281238...
... The pre AD&D version or Versions of D&D was released piecemeal. The older rules lacked in teaching somebody to play. Many retro-clones distill the original rules into a consistent vision that is better organized.
...

This is why I like using Swords & Wizardry for my current '0e' campaign.  It's a much clearer, better organized version of OD&D (1974 edition + bits from later supplements).

Also, I like the 'tweaks' it does introduce, namely, the optional ascending AC system, the single saving throw, and the treatment of dwarves and elves (instead of hard 'level limits', S&W increases the experience point requirements above a certain level).

Another thing: I am trying to keep my OD&D box set in good condition (and the OD&D pdfs are kind of crappy).  However, I have no hesitation about bringing my S&W books to the game, since I know that if I spill beer over one I can always just order another copy from Lulu!

One last thing: the cover art for S&W rocks. :)

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362A scam?  Huh?

I mean scam in the most loving possible way. Let's try "A fresh new reason to play pre-1985 D&D!"

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362Really?  That's surprising (i.e. that they started with retro-clones).  Kind encouraging, too.  I don't expect the older systems to be to everyone's taste, so it's okay if someone tries it and prefers WotC D&D -- tastes differ.  But it's good to know that people are trying them (especially as a 'starting system' -- that's what really surprises me).

Sorry to get your hopes up there...I mean the games being cloned, no the clones. I mean that most of my players started with Red Box or AD&D. But they all greatly prefer the WOTC versions.

 One of my players took a quick look at a page from "Dismal Depths" from "Sham's Grog and Blog" and said "Oh man! I want to play that! You're gonna update it to 3rd edition, right?"

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362I think it's safe to say that dreams of broad commercial success isn't the motivation behind the retro-clones.  It would be welcomed, of course, but I doubt that anyone writing or publishing retro-clones is in it for the great business opportunities.  This stuff is getting written and published for love of the material and the hobby.

I do think that some of the people writing and publishing envision thousands of players tossing off the shackles of 21st century style rules, though.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362Hell, that sounds pretty damn good, to me.

Sounds good to me too.

Quote from: wiseman207;281220It's a guy who only likes older editions of D&D.  The steriotype is he's been "playing D&D since 75", is old, fat, bearded, and "WotC ruined D&D, you can pry my AD&D DM's Guide from my cold dead hand".

:D

The other day when we played my Gygax Memorial (http://mostlygeek.sucanty.com/2009/01/the-sad-tale-of-wilgo-the-blingseeker-and-his-cousin-zilgo/), one of the players had a pad of the original AD&D character sheets - you know, the different ones for each character class. Out of its little box he pulled an advertisement boasting about 2nd ed AD&D coming soon!

Of course we all said that 2nd ed would ruin the game, and not be the true game... and that we'd buy all the books anyway, just so we could see just how much they sucked.

Quote from: NicephorusEspecially for those players who started with 3rd edition.

I was actually surprised to find that a few of the players in the Gygax Memorial had rarely or never played D&D before, or only 3.5. I said, "that's like a kid who's never met their grandma. It's just wrong." With over 2,000 published rpgs out there, we can't possibly play even a tenth of them all. But I think there are a few everyone should try. D&D's one, since it helps you understand where we started.

Quote from: SpinachatFREE is a powerful word. If your primary goal is to reach the largest possible audience, $0.00 beats $5.00 any day of the week.

Yes and no. You get a lot of downloads of free stuff, but not much reading of it, and thus not much playing. Basically what you find is that you get something like,

• free pdf, 1,000 downloads, 1 or 2 emails or forum threads commenting on it, no evidence of play
  
• $5 pdf, 100 downloads, 10 to 20 emails or forum threads commenting on it, a few of which show some play happening
  

Free core rules + paid-for supplements/adventures may work differently and be a good combination, the splatbooks encouraging people to read their free pdfs, it's hard to say. But we definitely know from downloads and sales figures and the feedback we get that in general people don't read the free pdfs they download.

Quote from: Cole;281361As best I can tell, it is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D...  

WTF?  A scam?  :confused:

I assume that you're joking...

Quote from: Cole;281361I get Fight On! ... but for the most part it's  the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

Sounds awesome to me!  

This 'hobbyist' stuff is hit-and-miss, I admit, but when it 'hits' it can be amazing.  I'll gladly take Fight On!, Monsters of Myth, and Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom over the stuff being published by WotC these days.

Quote from: Cole;281372Sorry to get your hopes up there...I mean the games being cloned, no the clones. I mean that most of my players started with Red Box or AD&D. But they all greatly prefer the WOTC versions.

Ah, okay.  Yeah, that sounded pretty wild, to me.  

I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits).  I used to prefer 3e, myself.  It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted.  

In my case, "going back" to Gygax D&D was surprising because I had learned a lot about system design while playing WotC D&D (those "behind the curtain" sidebars and such), and I applied that "why is this set up like this" attitude towards the older rules (something I had never really done, back in the day).  To my surprise, I found that things I thought were silly or stupid made a lot of sense if they were viewed with the original design assumptions in mind.  I touched on this a little bit in my "considering OD&D" (http://www.philotomy.com/#considering) musing, but I think Robert Fisher does a better job illustrating what I mean in his "I Used to Think..." (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...) article.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

To people who already have and play the originals, they aren't of much direct value. However, they do serve a number of purposes:

1) They are valuable player recruiting tools. There are a large number of players out there who refuse to play "out-of-print" games, especially long out-of-print games. It is easier to get such a player to try Labyrinth Lord than the B/X D&D it's based on.

2) They allow the professional publication of new adventures. This isn't very important now because most of the people running older versions of D&D or retroclones have more adventures than they need and are used to creating their own adventures anyway. However, the goal is to expand the player base for old-school games and newer players who decide to run their own games tend to expect a constant stream of third party material for their games.

3) The games themselves are nice to have at the game table instead of one's irreplaceable (at a reasonable cost) originals.  Also, the pdfs are generally designed to be printed -- without all the ink-eating borders and large pictures in some of the later originals.  The rules differences are so minor that most long time players of the originals have no trouble ignoring changes they don't like.

4) Free PDFs mean all players at the table can have a copy. No one just trying the game has to buy anything or go without.

Retroclones are also seen as one way to return control of the game to hobbyists (instead controlled by the needs of a large company for constant cash flow and profits).

QuoteIf, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you?

That's not what a lot of old-school D&D players want. They want their favorite version of D&D, not some new game that claims to be "old school" as these gamers have been disappointed by such claims too many times in the past.  Even my Microlite74 gets some of this type of reaction.

QuoteWhy not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility....

First, I've never seen a copy of Forward... to Adventure! reviewed or discussed much on any "old school" board or blog. While I could have missed such, it just doesn't look like many Old school gamers know enough about the game to decide if it is "old school" enough for them. I suspect most do not even know it exists. (In other words, if you are trying to reach Old School gamers with Forward... to Adventure!, it doesn't look to me as if you being very successful at reaching them.)

Second, "modern rules-design sensibility" often doesn't go over well with those who like TSR versions of D&D.  Even something simple like having higher numbered armor classes being better is enough to turn off some.   Modern ideas like character skill rolls that substitute for player skill (in finding traps and the like) are even less popular. Most seem to be interested in playing their favorite version of D&D (or something very close to it).

Quote from: Cole;281363...
The retro-clones themselves are free, well executed given what they are and good fun to read (and replicate games that are good fun to play). It's just that certain views about the scope of the "Renaissance" are greatly quixotic.
...

I don't think that anyone actively involved in the "Old School Renaissance" is deluded about its scope. ;)

Apparently Fight On! has sold in the triple-digits.  That means that there are hundreds of people out there so enthusiastic about old school gaming as to purchase FO!  That's not bad IMO.  However, nobody thinks that WotC is shaking in its boots.

I'm thrilled that there are so many people out there who enjoy the same kinds of games that I do.  And I take comfort in the knowledge that for every gamer active on the internet (posting at forums, commenting on blogs, etc.), there probably are 2-8 more people in that gamer's 'old school' group.

Long live the Old School Renaissance!  :shakespeare:

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281380...
I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits).  I used to prefer 3e, myself.  It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted. ...

:ditto:

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177... I think retro-clone games suck ass ...
...
If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel ...

Hmmm ... I can't help but suspect that you are so bitter towards retro-clones because you think that they are adversely affecting the popularity of FtA!  That is, were it not for free retro-clones like OSRIC, LL, and S&W, the grognards would be discovering and loving your 'new old school' game.

I own and quite like FtA!  But it's just not 'old school D&D'.

[/QUOTE]

 Originally Posted by Philotomy Jurament  View Post
...
I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits). I used to prefer 3e, myself. It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted. ...
[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Akrasia;281384:ditto:

I feel you guys. I enjoy playing later versions, but years of DMing 3.X have highlighted advantages of older styles I didn't see in the first couple years of the 2000's. My fellow players don't seem to have developed this opinion, though.

Quote from: Akrasia;281385Hmmm ... I can't help but suspect that you are so bitter towards retro-clones because you think that they are adversely affecting the popularity of FtA!  That is, were it not for free retro-clones like OSRIC, LL, and S&W, the grognards would be discovering and loving your 'new old school' game.

I own and quite like FtA!  But it's just not 'old school D&D'.

Do you have a review of FtA online anywhere?

Quote from: RandallS;281382...Retroclones are also seen as one way to return control of the game to hobbyists....

This is one of the things that I really love about the Old School Renaissance.  The contributors to Fight On! have ideas that seem more interesting and original than what is coming out of WotC these days (IMO).  The hobbyist can be true to his vision and preferences, a luxury typically not available to a designer for WotC (or any other game company).

Quote from: Cole;281388Do you have a review of FtA online anywhere?

I haven't written a review myself, but I believe that there are a couple over at RPGnet.  Just go to the review section.

Funny, even though they no longer post on the same site Pundy and Settembrini still think in sync.

S. had an anti-old-school rant the other day in which he opined that up to 70% of the Old School Renaissance cohorts are probably either Swine or Swine manque'. Who am I to disagree, much less disprove?

As for me, I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that the enthusiasm for the clones almost overshadows the enthusiasm for the originals. IMO the clones are uniformly sterile and mere means to an end.

That said, unlike the earlier Grimoire Games reprint the new Arduin apparently has a legible font. So this particular clone serves a practical purpose, and I applaud that.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281380Ah, okay.  Yeah, that sounded pretty wild, to me.

By the way, nice icon. I just got that version of Face in the Abyss a couple weeks back.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281391S. had an anti-old-school rant the other day in which he opined that up to 70% of the Old School Renaissance cohorts are probably either Swine or Swine manque'. Who am I to disagree, much less disprove?

Have a link? I love reading rants.

Quote from: Akrasia;281383Apparently Fight On! has sold in the triple-digits.  

I can't give exact numbers but that is the ballpark for Points of Light as well.

Quote from: estar;281399I can't give exact numbers but that is the ballpark for Points of Light as well.

I'm surprised it hasn't sold more. It's a fantastic product. What are Goodman's average sales. I would have guessed in the low to mid 4 figures for most of the DCC's for example.m Am I way off base?

Quote from: Cole;281363Pundit : How do you feel about where, say "Castles and Crusades" falls? I don't happen to own the book (it's not free!) but the presentation in Castle Zagyg definitely seems to speak to more of a personality disorder than a clone proper. It seems to push to and away from AD&D at erratic speeds from page to page.

Yes, well C&C is a tough call because its actually the grandaddy of the movement at this point.  It was hyped as a "remaking" of 1e, but it turned out to be more like a remaking of 3e along some old-school lines. Its very odd.

QuoteI can't speak for FtA!, largely since it's not free either. It seems to be a close relative of Tunnels and Trolls, maybe about C&C or Basic Fantasy close. How far off's that assessment?

There are three primary RPG inspirations for FtA!:
1. Old editions of D&D (RC, 1e and OD&D).
2. Nethack (the computer game)
3. Tunnels & Trolls was mostly an inspiration for the combat system.

But it doesn't end up "cloning" any of those games; in the sense of detail-emulation its closest, I guess, to Nethack.  In terms of things like the magic system, its completely novel and not like any of the magic systems detailed above.

Things like the class system and magic items and such are very similar to both D&D and Nethack, and its kind of hard to say where one inspiration ends and the other begins on those notes, since Nethack was basically a computer-version of a D&D dungeon crawl.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RandallS;281398Have a link? I love reading rants.

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2009/01/that-i-can-take-bottle-or-can-leave-it.html

Did I mention it's in German? :emot_haw:

Quote from: Cole;281400I'm surprised [Points of Light] hasn't sold more. It's a fantastic product.

Yeah, what he said.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281401Yes, well C&C is a tough call because its actually the grandaddy of the movement at this point.  It was hyped as a "remaking" of 1e, but it turned out to be more like a remaking of 3e along some old-school lines. Its very odd.

FWIW, I believe that dissatisfaction with how C&C turned out is one of the things that prompted the creation of OSRIC.  I was still playing 3e at the time, so I wasn't involved, but I'm pretty sure that was one of the factors.

Quote from: Cole;281400I'm surprised it hasn't sold more. It's a fantastic product. What are Goodman's average sales. I would have guessed in the low to mid 4 figures for most of the DCC's for example.m Am I way off base?

One quarter's results three more to go. Mind you that was a short quarter too just half of August and September.

In addition I know it has not been in the majority of game stores based on the ones I have personally sampling of four major market. It may well turn out to have long legs where orders are low but constant.

The answer of course is to wait until we have more data.

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

I appreciate the endorsements by you and Cole. 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.

Quote from: Akrasia;281389This is one of the things that I really love about the Old School Renaissance.  The contributors to Fight On! have ideas that seem more interesting and original than what is coming out of WotC these days (IMO).  The hobbyist can be true to his vision and preferences, a luxury typically not available to a designer for WotC (or any other game company).

Really. I would argue that is not the case with small press but I am biased.

Quote from: HinterWelt;281413Really. I would argue that is not the case with small press but I am biased.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281402Did I mention it's in German? :emot_haw:

It looks I'll be putting my high school German to work later today.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281261But, I was wondering how the Old School games handle adventuring in non-dungeon environments.

With this. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1511)

Quote from: The Shaman;281465With this. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1511)

Heh.  Maybe with the map, anyway.  Hex-crawling the wilderness is a time-honored old school D&D pastime.

I think we're forgetting the major force, here, which should be the default assumption for anyone's motive.  I can't speak for anyone else, but my role in OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry wasn't scamming, wasn't commercial gain, and wasn't to free thousands from the shackles of new-school gaming.  They were written because I'm a complete spaz.  I like writing stuff, I can't really help writing stuff, and I write for what I play.  The general motive for most one-man publishing of RPG material is ... compulsive geekiness.

If anyone cares to attribute sinister motives and deep plotting to my role in OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry, well, "sinister" is way more of a chick-magnet than "obsessively geeky."  So I'm totally cool with that.

(But I actually wrote all that stuff because I couldn't stop myself...)

Quote from: Mythmere;281480I think we're forgetting the major force, here, which should be the default assumption for anyone's motive.  I can't speak for anyone else, but my role in OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry wasn't scamming, wasn't commercial gain, and wasn't to free thousands from the shackles of new-school gaming.  They were written because I'm a complete spaz.  I like writing stuff, I can't really help writing stuff, and I write for what I play.  The general motive for most one-man publishing of RPG material is ... compulsive geekiness.

I think you have also nailed the motives of the guys working at Wizards and so on down the food chain.

Quote from: Mythmere;281480If anyone cares to attribute sinister motives and deep plotting to my role in OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry, well, "sinister" is way more of a chick-magnet than "obsessively geeky."  So I'm totally cool with that.

(But I actually wrote all that stuff because I couldn't stop myself...)

Incidentally, if there's such a thing as quantum leap in "D&D Emulation," it's Whitebox. What a nice playable package.

Quote from: Cole;281490Incidentally, if there's such a thing as quantum leap in "D&D Emulation," it's Whitebox. What a nice playable package.

Thanks!  For WhiteBox, much more than half of the credit goes to my co-author Finarvyn (who's the admin for the OD&D74 message board).  I never played only with the LBBs - I'm a Holmes/Greyhawk/1eMM baby, which was the mishmash going on in '78 when I started playing.  For playing, the Whitebox-only style isn't my bag, and I handed it off to Marv when it started to become clear that I was compulsively trying to "fix" what I was writing, and just couldn't do the project right without help from a more grognardly authority.  He took it and ran with it, and we decided that since the S&W Core Rules were focused on high compatibility that the S&W WhiteBox should instead be focused on reproducing the quirky, wonky nature of 0e in its full glory, just with better organization of the rules.  I think he succeeded quite brilliantly in that goal.  It's perhaps not as good a resource for 3d-party publishers, but it's a phenomenal intro to playing the game and how open-ended rules actually work (better than my Core Rules in that regard, I think).

Clones are free, or you buy a nice print off Lulu.  Can't do that with OD&D or B/X.

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.

Quote from: Akrasia;281601I'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.

Spot on.  

If I had the wherewithal to print out OSRIC or S&W, it's a matter of minutes to print the pages that get torn or spilled on, and it's back to the game.  And you can break out sections of OSRIC into separate folders, if you choose.  Less than a $1 for a report cover, or a couple of bucks if you want a nice one.  No need to cram all 300+ pages into one heavy duty ledger book or somesuch.

Quote from: RandallS;281614Speaking 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.

Agreed 100%.  It is a matter of using simple rules to introduce new players on the one hand, and a matter of using well-known rules for a session that is, perforce, shorter due to the other constraints of adult life.  In high school I could blow off 12hrs on Saturday and wrap it up with another six the next day.  Which could very well have been noon on Saturday until 6am on Sunday.

It also lends itself to online play, as has been mentioned.  I have several players in my PbP here using OSRIC, as they were unable to find their old books, or never had them to begin with.  Everyone can use the same rules because they are all available online.

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? 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.

I never really caught onto the "new school." I got out of gaming almost completely when 2e started with the kits and options and all that. I never went White Wolf. I just... stopped.

And looking back, my "halcyon days" were absolute crap. I had no idea what I was doing back in the 80s and early 90s. I would never want to recreate those days.

With the networking the internet allows to have contacts with the veterans of the gaming scene, not to mention gaining knowledge about how and why the game was designed the way it was, I'm able to run my D&D games better in every way (enjoyment, organization, knowledge of how the rules work), all without touching any core rules made after 1983 (counting the simulacra as restatements and not "new rules").

If I only knew then what I know now...

Quote from: JimLotFP;281631And looking back, my "halcyon days" were absolute crap...With the networking the internet allows to have contacts with the veterans of the gaming scene, not to mention gaining knowledge about how and why the game was designed the way it was, I'm able to run my D&D games better in every way...If I only knew then what I know now...

That point resonates with me.  I wouldn't go so far as to say my gaming was crap, back in the day, but I do understand the philosophy and assumptions behind the old systems much, much better, now, and consequently I run a much better game than I used to.  That "if I only knew then what I know now" is spot on.

I aspire to "If I only knew then what I know now..." in the sense I hope one day to be master of my craft enough to say that. I've been GMing longer than I care to mention and I've learned a lot along the way but I just never seem to get to that point where I can say "I know what I am doing here and it works."

Sort of off topic, sorry.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281641I aspire to "If I only knew then what I know now..." in the sense I hope one day to be master of my craft enough to say that. I've been GMing longer than I care to mention and I've learned a lot along the way but I just never seem to get to that point where I can say "I know what I am doing here and it works."

Sort of off topic, sorry.

It's a continuing process. Five years from now I hope to look back at my current games and know I'm doing it so much better. I'm just finishing up a blog post noting some mistakes and not-so-good pacing in my game last Friday. It's never perfected. I just hope in five years I don't consider my current games total crap. :) (then again, the games I do consider total crap... come on, I was a self-taught pre-teen gamer... that is not a combination that signifies quality. :))

Quote from: estar;281587The 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!.

Mutant Future has several hooks:  

It's evocative of early Gamma World
It's based on Basic D&D rules
It's free - go take a look for yourself
And of course it's a well-written, high quality product
Plus Dan Proctor is well known as a nice guy, which I think makes a different among active members of the Internet RPG community

Assuming FTA is also a high quality product, if it were free it could reasonably hope to gain the sort of attention Mazes & Minotaurs has.   But it needs to be marketed, it needs hooks to bring people in.  And T&T is a much less successful game than D&D, so 'like T&T' or even 'like Nethack' is less of a hook, I think.

Quote from: HinterWelt;281580Now, 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.

Generally, I'd rather house rule it than change from a game that works well for me to another game that might not (without a lot of house rules to make to do what I want it to do). Of course, I got my start with OD&D which was intended for house rules. In fact, making up needed rules was considered part of the fun of being DM so I've never considered the RAW to be holy writ in any RPG.  

To be blunt, I have a hard time understanding those who do consider the RAW holy writ, especially as I firmly believe that RPG rules should be adapted to fit the campaign world and not the campaign world bent and warped to fit the rules. I do understand that others feel differently and respect that (by not inviting them to my games ;)), but I cannot begin to understand why they feel as they do. It's my job as GM to run a game (and a campaign world) that works for my players and the original designer of the game wasn't designing the rules for my homebrew world or the specific needs of my players -- changing the RAW to work for my world and players is part of my job as GM.

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

As with all games, to have fun.

Quote from: LawbagIts not going to happen, we are too jaded for that.

Speak for yourself.

Quote from: LawbagThey only way it will happen is by recruiting a new bunch of players or teaching your children to play.

For an rpg to feel fresh and new to a person, the person doesn't have to be entirely new to roleplaying. It's enough that they're new to this particular rpg, or that it's presented to them in a new and lively way, and that a few people in the group are enthusiastic about it.

Quote from: AkrasiaReally, 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.

Some people don't like an rpg free market, or a game group free market. They want a monopoly of their favourite game, or perhaps an oligopoly of their favourite three or four. They don't like the competition. I love the competition, because it means lots of new ideas get tossed out there, and old ideas presented in a new way, and it keeps me on my toes and encourages me to be a better, more enthusiastic, more interesting and fun GM and player.

Quote from: RandallS;281650Generally, I'd rather house rule it than change from a game that works well for me to another game that might not (without a lot of house rules to make to do what I want it to do). Of course, I got my start with OD&D which was intended for house rules. In fact, making up needed rules was considered part of the fun of being DM so I've never considered the RAW to be holy writ in any RPG.  

I know a game publisher is supposed to tell you how you NEED the latest rules but I agree with you entirely. This is possible for some folks...and not for others. Some folks are quite happy with the system they play...others are looking for something new or different...and when they switch, they may end up playing that game forever more very happily. If you can house rule something (and to be honest, hit locations is just one dear to my heart and pretty easy to graft to any system) then hell yes, you should stick with that system you enjoy. Why? Because it may have a load of other elements you are very happy with.

However, I just started gaming last week so I don't know anything about "old school"...what is this "b-a-s-i-c D-And-D" you speak of? ;)

Quote from: RandallS;281650To be blunt, I have a hard time understanding those who do consider the RAW holy writ, especially as I firmly believe that RPG rules should be adapted to fit the campaign world and not the campaign world bent and warped to fit the rules. I do understand that others feel differently and respect that (by not inviting them to my games ;)), but I cannot begin to understand why they feel as they do. It's my job as GM to run a game (and a campaign world) that works for my players and the original designer of the game wasn't designing the rules for my homebrew world or the specific needs of my players -- changing the RAW to work for my world and players is part of my job as GM.

Rules as written is a phenomenon I am just as confounded by. I assume it is a level of comfort thing. Don't get me wrong, to have common ground it is convenient to have a central reference. The RAW is just that to me. If you come to my game table you will not find me playing Iridium as written...yes, I house rule my own system. :eek:

I would argue though, that rather than campaign world, it would be group that you would be houseruling for. If the group (and that includes GM) think that you need specialized rules for swimming, then you should make them. Sure, the setting is part of that and a consideration but it really comes down to what the group wants to do and be able to do.

That said I find rules should support the setting, not be defined by them. But, maybe, that is a discussion for another thread. ;)

I don't have an issue with house rules as such as it someone choosing to customise the style of their campaign. I do however expect the rules as written to be sensible and playable. What is often missed out in these discussions is that you often find out that you need a house rule at the worse possible moment - right smack in the middle of a game.

I like the Gamma World setting very much. However the rules ( was working off the 4th edition at the time) are a mess. When I started running Gamma World I hit a lot f problems.  I went through a long painful process full of false starts and mesed up games until finally at the end of it I ended up with a set of house rules which made the game work for me.  

These days I just don't think I'd have the time and patience to put up with that.

Quote from: HinterWelt;281656I know a game publisher is supposed to tell you how you NEED the latest rules but I agree with you entirely.

I used to think that way and I ended up with a room full of games that I never played and probably never would play. About 1990, I learned my lesson.

QuoteHowever, I just started gaming last week so I don't know anything about "old school"...what is this "b-a-s-i-c D-And-D" you speak of? ;)

LOL.

QuoteI would argue though, that rather than campaign world, it would be group that you would be houseruling for.

I do both. For example, my Arn world requires arcane magic to be different from divine magic and both have to be different than psionics.  If I and my group want to play in Arn and use a game system that doesn't have that separation, I'm going to have to houserule the system so that the rules fit the campaign world (as I am not going to rewrite my campaign world to fit a set of rules).

Quote from: S'mon;281509Is there a free intro or 'lite' version of FTA! available?  I'd like to be able to check it out.

There's a small sample PDF over in the FtA! website (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/FTA.html) on Flying Mice's pages; and a combat and stunt cheat sheet.  That's the closest it gets.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimLotFP;281561Pundit'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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're a "Negative" in the sense of them harming the industry or something (like I feel Swine games do); I just think that they're pointless and don't personally like them.

QuoteThe 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."

Except that's my argument for why we DON'T need "Castles & Crusades", "Labyrinth Lord" or any of those other retro-clones, the originals still exist and don't need updating.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;281273I highly suggest reading Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming (its free)
http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

How utterly self-serving that thing was. Wow. Can you say, "Our way is the right way, this new stuff is the wrong way"?

That's like the "old school gamers" who argue that because the original D&Ds basically only had combat rules that the game was really anti-combat and mainly focused on role-playing.

Utter, utter nonsense.

Quote from: S'mon;281648And T&T is a much less successful game than D&D, so 'like T&T' or even 'like Nethack' is less of a hook, I think.

Personally I think that if some FtA! fan were to want to try to promote FtA! seriously, they'd probably do better going and promoting it on Roguelike/Nethack fan forums than on T&T fan forums (if indeed the latter even exist?).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Soylent Green;281659I don't have an issue with house rules as such as it someone choosing to customise the style of their campaign. I do however expect the rules as written to be sensible and playable.

What is sensible and playable varies from person to person. 4e apparently makes a lot of sense and seems very playable to a whole lot of people. For me, the combats are unplayably detailed and lengthy and the powers system sucks because the effects of the powers often do not map to anything that could likely physically happen (tripping gelatinous cubes and the like). I see 4e as not sensible and not playable. Others see it as the most sensible and playable version of D&D they've seen. Both opinions are 100% correct. :)

QuoteWhat is often missed out in these discussions is that you often find out that you need a house rule at the worse possible moment - right smack in the middle of a game.

For me, this isn't a problem. I've been making such mid-game rulings since the first game of OD&D I ran back in 1975. I didn't have a problem then and don't now. Of course, I make far better rulings now than then -- experience really does help.

Quote from: SpinachcatI highly suggest reading Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming (its free) http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

Agreed. I've given the link to my players. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;281671Except that's my argument for why we DON'T need "Castles & Crusades", "Labyrinth Lord" or any of those other retro-clones, the originals still exist and don't need updating.

Again the focus on D&D clones. RuneQuest, Cthulhu, Traveller, James Bond - all these games are "old school", and all have their clones.

Not all the originals are still in print, or at least not in the same form as 20-30 years ago.

And again, they can be and often are streamlined, tidied up and generally made clearer than they once were.

You might simply ask yourself why you bothered writing FtA! I mean, it's obviously extremely derivative of a few other fantasy rpgs. What can it do they can't? If you condemn the clones, you have to condemn FtA! on the same basis.

I wouldn't condemn either. With over 2,000 published rpgs out there it's pretty hard to come up with something that isn't a copy of something else, in one way or another. But I wasn't the one who - obviously lacking any sense of irony - started a ranty thread about clones.

I've only played a few rpgs, all of them decades old.  I dig the retro-clones because they have given me new stuff for the hobby like Monsters of Myth and the modules from EXP.R. press.  I reckon it's pretty cool that folks are making stuff that I can easily understand and have fun with.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281669There's a small sample PDF over in the FtA! website (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/FTA.html) on Flying Mice's pages; and a combat and stunt cheat sheet.  That's the closest it gets.

RPGPundit

OK, thanks - hard to tell from that, but judging by the skills list and the character sheet it seems more complex than I generally like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281671Except that's my argument for why we DON'T need "Castles & Crusades", "Labyrinth Lord" or any of those other retro-clones, the originals still exist and don't need updating.

Labyrinth Lord gives me Moldvay B/X up to level 20 (instead of 14) in a single book; with better writing than Cook-Marsh's Expert set, and cleans up a few flaws in B-X such as the Cleric spells per day table.  And like I said it lets me play online easily.

Castles & Crusades gives me D&D with a unified mechanic and a streamlined system which takes mininal effort to GM.  Good for general play, I'm finding the unified mechanic makes it particularly good for chatroom based play.

Re LL, I could and did get by without it using B/X or BECM, which apart from the Basic sets I got off Ebay.  C&C fills a niche that didn't exist before, since it feels like AD&D but is much simpler to run.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281673Personally I think that if some FtA! fan were to want to try to promote FtA! seriously, they'd probably do better going and promoting it on Roguelike/Nethack fan forums than on T&T fan forums (if indeed the latter even exist?).

RPGPundit

They do.  The thing is, T&T players have pretty much done what OD&Ders seem to have done: Picked their system, and they basically don't much care about other games unless they are in fact interested in other games to play.  They already LIKE T&T, and aren't looking for its replacement.

Plus the fact its still in print, still getting support products, and the myriad of available editions in print (like 4 of them.  Seriously.) that are all 80-99% compatible means they are set.

(I reviewed the newest version on my blog, which also got a nicer laid out version here:  http://aliveandoutofprint.org/forums/articles.php/?p=130 )

And that's sort of the deal with this whole retro clone deal.

I have the originals.  ALL OF THEM.  O, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, RC, A1, A2, 3.0.  

Unless there is some magical program to let me easily edit in my house rules I just don't need the remakes.  Most people are NOT gonna play the retroclones, or even the original.  Or even a neoclone like C&C.  (One player says he had a bad experience running it and will never play it again.  Yet he will still run 3.x, even though his last game was an utter DISASTER.  The problem is I got him into gaming with 3.0 and he loves it in spite of everything else.  Luckily he will play non D&D RPGs.  But for D&D its 3.x or 4.  I would rather NEVER GAME AGAIN than play 4.)

So the creators have a problem.  Make an as close to original clone, and its basically a pointless waste of time.  Make a massively house ruled version and the grognards will bitch and moan how you have desecrated the spirit of old school gaming you fuckface that probably likes Larry Elmore artwork and enjoyed Dragonlance corporate loving douche.

Of course making a "in the spirit of" original game has its flaws too.

Mainly there are TOO MANY Sword n Sorcery FANTASY RPGS out there.  Nobody really wants or needs another one.  

Heck, D&D alone is really 5 different fantasy RPGs. (O, Basic, AD, 3.x, 4.)

I myself own enough non D&D fantasy games to not need any more.  Tunnels & Trolls 7.5, Runequest 3rd, Castles & Crusades, Runequest Mongoose (PHB only. 3.33 US at a clearance price is enough to grab it.), D6 Fantasy, MERP, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (1st ed rulesbook, and a ton of 2nd stuff.).

And that's just what I remember.  If we count the generic or multifunction systems, I have many more.

We just don't need any more fantasy RPG systems, retro or not.

Some cool worlds?  Fuckin A we do.  

Neat house rules documents that easily plug in and fix old systems?  Rock on.

Adventures?  Hells yeah!

More rulesets?  No.  Not so much.

I guess if these retroclones allow for new stuff to be made and its the ONLY way it can be they serve a purpose.

Otherwise most do NOT.  Outside of OD&D and maybe RC, the books aren't scarce or expensive.  

They sold tens if not hundreds of thousands of these things.  There are probably more Mentzer Basic sets that were sold in its day than the entire 4th ed D&D line will sell in books PERIOD.  (Maybe not so much when the inevitable 4.5 or Revised comes out though.)

You can probably get Mentzer or Moldvay Cook Basic and Expert for about the same price as most hardcopy retroclones.  (And regardless of what the old school horde says, they really aren't any different.  Moldvay is more compact and thieves have faster skill advancement, Mentzer has better artwork, and is far superior to teach the game.  I say get whichever one you like best.  Or Black Box Basic.  All are sub 20 on the Bay.  Then 5 bucks for Rules Cyclopedia, and print out the pages you need to fill in the blanks.  If you stick to 1-14 level play you really just need the Dominion and Stronghold rules anyhow.  And maybe the Mystic class.)

Quote from: Captain Rufus;281719Of course making a "in the spirit of" original game has its flaws too.

Which makes a large fraction of the 2,000+ rpgs ever published "flawed", since most are derivative of one or more other rpgs.

I mostly see the marketing advantages of these old-new systems. While it is legally possible to create products in support of old editions, it seems that simulacra are able to build and bring together creative communities.

Food for thought: I see discussion about XRP's adventure modules, but precious little about the ones you find on Dragonsfoot (although people do play them, as Premier should confirm), while the former cost money and are for a simulacrum, and the latter are free and are explicitely for AD&D. Simulacrum products get reviewed, non-simulacrum ones generally don't. There are of course exceptions - my Garden of al-Astorion did get a review on Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16637), Fight On! has had some recognition, and of course Carcosa proved extremely well covered by various commentators ;) - but it seems that the key to success, if we measure success by peer recognition and mindshare, mostly lies in community-building, and that simulacrum games, or retro-clones, or whatever, are the currently fashionable tools for that.

Quote from: Melan;281725but it seems that the key to success, if we measure success by peer recognition and mindshare, mostly lies in community-building, and that simulacrum games, or retro-clones, or whatever, are the currently fashionable tools for that.

True - I guess a problem with the adventures on Dragonsfoot is the lack of quality control.  Something like The Endless Tunnels of Enlandin is fantastic and deserves much attention, but others are not very good.

Well, commercial products do not come with a guarantee of quality either. I have bought OSRIC products that were fairly lackluster, while some of DF's offerings were excellent - e.g. Where the Fallen Jarls Sleep and a few others. All in all, it is important to watch the label, but you should look at the author's name first instead of the brand. When we make that distinction - and buy things from people we trust - we will have made a huge step towards building healthy hobbyist communities. For example, I buy Sword&Wizardry products from Matt Finch (Mythmere) because I trust he will deliver something interesting and useful, while I avoid the products of others even if they started to support S&W.

Quote from: Melan;281758Well, commercial products do not come with a guarantee of quality either.

True - the current rpgnet thread on Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics is certainly bringing that home!

Huh, weird. I totally agree, except I wouldn't say the clones "suck". I just don't understand their use in a world where the originals are still available.

If I want to run AD&D, I use the AD&D books. Last year when I ran it, I only had the pdf's available (which were pretty cheap), but I have now rebuilt most of my 1E collection ( I have everything but MM2 and Deities & Demigods), and that's all I would ever bother to use anyhow.

Quote from: Melan;281725...but it seems that the key to success, if we measure success by peer recognition and mindshare, mostly lies in community-building, and that simulacrum games, or retro-clones, or whatever, are the currently fashionable tools for that.

Agreed. Retro-clones generate buzz and a sense of community. However, I'm skeptical of claims that they have grown the pie of old-school players (and by players I mean people actively running tabletop games), instead of simply giving the old-school players who hang out on web forums more stuff to read and discuss. The 'renaissance' in old-school gaming is about internet forum exchanges and house-ruled PDFs, rather than a growing market or community of active players. At best every new ruleset just cuts the same pie into smaller pieces.

Double-post.

A lot of things said here are true.

Maybe retroclones and their supplement products will indeed never be commercially viable.  They are however legal and free to developers and players.  I don't see what's "sucky" about offering that sort of utility, even if it is only existing fans that will bother to take advantage of it.

I must reiterate that to say a game like LL is different (or even distiguishable) from D&D in ANY sense is a terrible misconception.  It is a relative, they are one in the same.  Players of Basic D&D will use LL.  The same goes for other simulacrum products.  If you happen to run LL, you ARE running Basic D&D.  The distinction here is arbitrary, and made by people who cannot separate name from product.  If you're not blowing your nose on a Kleenex, but your target is still made of soft paper... it's still a tissue.  The only way to get a experience different enough to be worth distinguishing is to use a handkerchief or your finger... a different RPG altogether, if you will.

Personally, I never buy supplements for anything.  I don't read free ones, either.  That, and I don't like ebay.  So, there you have it. LL was what I wanted, and though perhaps not its intended function, it has one nonetheless.

Quote from: Haffrung;281773The 'renaissance' in old-school gaming is about internet forum exchanges and house-ruled PDFs, rather than a growing market or community of active players.

I disagree.  A week hardly goes by without me finding a new blogger or forum poster who has a campaign up and running, mostly Swords & Wizardry lately. but also some retro-games.

I suppose the closest you can get to re-playing that magic feeling is to re-run those classic adventures either with a new crowd, or with a bunch of players who are so long in the tooth they have forgotten the original.
 
Ive played and run the same CoC adventure several times over.

Quote from: jrients;281796I disagree.  A week hardly goes by without me finding a new blogger or forum poster who has a campaign up and running, mostly Swords & Wizardry lately. but also some retro-games.

I have to agree with Jeff on this.  Lately I'm finding much more useful, interesting and inspiring content on blogs than I am on forums (although there's some gems on the forums, the signal to noise is usually not as good).

My decision to run my next game as a homebrew world / dungeon rather than use a published module was largely influenced from reading blogs like Jeff's, Grognardia, etc.

The fact that indicating compatibility with something is a GREY area. There have been court cases supporting doing this, and other against it. This has a chilling effect in that who want to get dragged into court.

In contrast by saying that your are compatible with Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, etc is a lot easier because they have all licenses that allow this.

This is of vital importance if you doing anything COMMERCIALLY. It is not sufficient just to have the original available in PDF if you want to succeed commercially.

This has been the primary motivation behind the retro-clones. Not the only one but the most important.

For D&D most of the major variants are now covered. That is 1974 OD&D, B/E/C/M/I D&D, and AD&D 1st. 2nd Edition is the only remaining older version not having a retro-clone.

Because they are now covered we will be seeing a shift to new product that expand the old school product line as opposed to recreating older material. Some will be a new games like Mutant Future, some will be house rules + campaign source material like Carcosa, and of course adventures.

The trick is whether any of us will produce something truly novel. If that happens then Old school market could expand into the size of second tier for RPGs. I know myself and other authors are working at various ideas.

Finally I found selling product commercially is a great motivator to "Get things done". Even if it is for a pittance. The fact you have actual customer who paid real money makes you take your efforts more seriously.

Mind you there is nothing wrong with making things for the love of it. But the Wild North (done for free) sat around for FIVE years before being completed. In contrast Points of Light took five months from proposal to final turn in.

Having the retro clones out there provides the motivation that the reprint PDFs doesn't give. So I am really glad and appreciate that the authors put in the work to get them written and laid out.

Quote from: Haffrung;281773At best every new ruleset just cuts the same pie into smaller pieces.

I don't think this is as much of a problem as it may appear. Most versions of TSR D&D -- through the core books of 2E -- (and their retroclones) are close enough that adventures for any one can be played in any of the others with the GM converting stuff on the fly where conversion is needed. Most people playing those games now have no more trouble doing this than GMs did back in the days of the originals.  There is less real gameplay difference between OD&D plus Greyhawk and AD&D 2e than there is between 2e and 3e or between 3e and 4e.

Most of us may have a favorite edition, but will play in any well-run game of any of the various older editions. The divisions between the games apparently  appear bigger to those who don't play one or more of them than they do to those of us who do play them.

Quote from: Haffrung;281773Agreed. Retro-clones generate buzz and a sense of community. However, I'm skeptical of claims that they have grown the pie of old-school players (and by players I mean people actively running tabletop games), instead of simply giving the old-school players who hang out on web forums more stuff to read and discuss. The 'renaissance' in old-school gaming is about internet forum exchanges and house-ruled PDFs, rather than a growing market or community of active players. At best every new ruleset just cuts the same pie into smaller pieces.

I think there is some indication that it has increased the number of people running the games at least in the sense that many forum nostalgists are now actually putting up and running games, often it seems at local shops. Each of those is basically 4 or 5 new people *playing* old school games, even if it's either 0 or 1 new people *running* them. Maybe we'll see some of those guys turning into old-school style GMs. I don't think it is, or ever is likely to be like a fever burning across the nation. The majority of people I game with aren't very warm to the idea of revisiting the 80s(heaven forbid the 70's) rules wise, either. But a couple hundred people out there playing a pre-1990 roleplaying game for the first time is a nice thing to think about. I don't have statistics here, nor, I take it, do you, but I do think the clones have gotten *some* people off their asses.

Quote from: RandallS;281822I don't think this is as much of a problem as it may appear. Most versions of TSR D&D -- through the core books of 2E -- (and their retroclones) are close enough that adventures for any one can be played in any of the others with the GM converting stuff on the fly where conversion is needed. Most people playing those games now have no more trouble doing this than GMs did back in the days of the originals.  There is less real gameplay difference between OD&D plus Greyhawk and AD&D 2e than there is between 2e and 3e or between 3e and 4e.

Most of us may have a favorite edition, but will play in any well-run game of any of the various older editions. The divisions between the games apparently  appear bigger to those who don't play one or more of them than they do to those of us who do play them.

To paraphrase Jacobim Mugatu, "AD&D, OD&D, Labyrinth Lord – they're all the same game! Doesn't anybody else see that? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!"

These products are basically all mutually compatible. The pie might be getting sliced in terms of brand loyalty to a particular clone, but I think that's a matter that impacts play in the wild very little.

To compare it with the post d20 OGL world, you could say that, say, the split between Pathfinder and 3.5 SRD compatibility might be hurting some companies. But in the retroclone world, there isn't anyone's large, multiple staffers, family-feeding business on the line here, let alone millions of dollars.

I think the player who says "You're going to be running a session of D&D using Swords and Wizardry Whitebox? Screw you, douchebag, I'm a LABYRINTH LORD MAN." is a fictional construct.

Quote from: Cole;281847I think the player who says "You're going to be running a session of D&D using Swords and Wizardry Whitebox? Screw you, douchebag, I'm a LABYRINTH LORD MAN." is a fictional construct.

Yup.

I pitched my game as "Old School D&D Night".  As I get ready for the game I'm using mostly B/X... but also stuff from all the other Classic editions when it makes sense and/or looks like fun. :)

Quote from: Haffrung;281773... However, I'm skeptical of claims that they have grown the pie of old-school players (and by players I mean people actively running tabletop games), instead of simply giving the old-school players who hang out on web forums more stuff to read and discuss. The 'renaissance' in old-school gaming is about internet forum exchanges and house-ruled PDFs, rather than a growing market or community of active players...

Be 'skeptical' all you want.  My experience has been that giving people a link to a free set of rules has been very effective in getting new people to try that game, and ultimately becoming regular players.

QuoteAt best every new ruleset just cuts the same pie into smaller pieces.

:confused: How so?  The pre-3e versions of D&D, including the retro-clones, are all pretty much cross-compatible.  Most people playing these games are aware of this obvious fact.

EDIT: It seems I'm merely restating things already stated by Jeff Rients, Cole, and others ...

Quote from: RPGPundit;281671...
Except that's my argument for why we DON'T need "Castles & Crusades", "Labyrinth Lord" or any of those other retro-clones, the originals still exist and don't need updating.
...

"Castles & Crusades" is NOT a retro-clone.  It is a new game that takes elements from B/X D&D, 1e AD&D, and 3e D&D.  (For some people this is a good thing, for others a bad thing.)

As for LL, it's free to download.  The B/X D&D rules on which it is based are not free, or even available in PDF (you can't get the Moldvay/Cook D&D rules via PDF).  Since these books are softcover, it's hard to find them in decent condition after 28+ years.

And I would disagree with you about 0e D&D.  It's great, but really in need of better organization and clearer presentation (not to mention the problem of having material spread across different supplements).  That's why I dig Swords & Wizardry.  It cleans up and re-presents the 0e rules in a cheap and attractive package.

Finally, OSRIC was conceived originally as a vehicle for publishing for-profit 1e AD&D products, not as a complete 'retro-clone' its own right.  It's done pretty well in that regard -- I really like Monsters of Myth, among other things.  I personally would rather play with the original 1e AD&D books, but I like OSRIC as a reference (especially for things that are not clear in the original AD&D books, e.g. rules concerning surprise).

Quote from: Akrasia;281864:confused: How so?  The pre-3e versions of D&D, including the retro-clones, are all pretty much cross-compatible.  Most people playing these games are aware of this obvious fact.

This is very true.  I'd say most people willing to play old-school editions of D&D are willing to play most of them.  Though the rules are slightly different they all create nearly an identical gaming experience.  I may run Basic D&D, but that doesn't mean I haven't or won't participate in a game of OD&D, AD&D, LL, OSRIC, C&C, etc... I just have preferences.  I also happen to like 1st edition BESM for a rules-light system, I like BT fiction even though I've never played, WFRP and WAB interest me, etc.  Are there really people out there who refuse to play anything but their chosen system?  I suppose you could get away with it if your particular brand was stupidly popular, but still?

Makes me wonder how some people got into the hobby in the first place.

Quote from: Akrasia;281866The B/X D&D rules on which it is based are not free, or even available in PDF (you can't get the Moldvay/Cook D&D rules via PDF).  Since these books are softcover, it's hard to find them in decent condition after 28+ years.

I've got multiple copies of the B/X D&D rules and have had no trouble in either finding them on ebay, at my local used book store, or in FLGS. It is the stuff that is only available online that I end up having people not have seen.

Now with that said, I also agree that retro-clones like Labyrinth Lord have a place in gaming because they allow people to create and market adventures for a system compatible to those old rules that probably introduced them to gaming in the first place.

So to answer the OP. Yes, Old School does indeed Rock. But Retro-clones allow the Old School to remain fresh and an option to today's gamers. So when you have an Old School player using a Retro-clone to game with, you have the gaming equivalent of Johnny Cash doing the cover of Nine Inch Nails

"Hurt" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO9dbmJ_2zU)

And that's a Good Thing.

Okay, here's my thought:

If a person writes a clone, and has fun...then another person reads the clone, and has fun...then he or she runs that clone and has fun...

...

...please point out the problem.

Quote from: jeff37923;281884I've got multiple copies of the B/X D&D rules and have had no trouble in either finding them on ebay...

I have multiple copies as well (including my original sets), though my experiences with ebay have not been entirely positive (often these books are in less than 'mint' condition, despite sellers' claims to the contrary, or smell like someone's damp basement).

At least with a retro-clone I know that I can get a fresh, new, clean copy from my printer or Lulu.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;281886Okay, here's my thought:

If a person writes a clone, and has fun...then another person reads the clone, and has fun...then he or she runs that clone and has fun...

...

...please point out the problem.

Hence my confusion at the Pundit's original rant and others' denigration of retro-clones.

They're free and fun.  Oh the horror!

Quote from: Akrasia;281887I have multiple copies as well (including my original sets), though my experiences with ebay have not been entirely positive (often these books are in less than 'mint' condition, despite sellers' claims to the contrary, or smell like someone's damp basement).

At least with a retro-clone I know that I can get a fresh, new, clean copy from my printer or Lulu.

Yech!

You got a point about funky smelling books...

But like Dr Rotwang! says, you can have fun with both.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281408FWIW, I believe that dissatisfaction with how C&C turned out is one of the things that prompted the creation of OSRIC.

C&C was the Troll Lord's vision of AD&D 3e and that was automatically destined to create dissatisfaction with everyone who does not share that same vision.   Back during the AD&D heydey, I knew a dozen GMs who had folders or binders full of "fixes" and everybody wanted something different.

Quote from: JimLotFP;281561The entire idea behind the simulacra is that there is no reason to play another game.

WTF?

Quote from: CavScout;281672How utterly self-serving that thing was. Wow. Can you say, "Our way is the right way, this new stuff is the wrong way"?

I did not get that feeling from the Quick Primer.   Sure, its written from a certain perspective with the agenda to promote Old School, but any right-wayism is just Matt's enthusiasm.  

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;281886If a person writes a clone, and has fun...then another person reads the clone, and has fun...then he or she runs that clone and has fun...

OMG it's Reefer Madness!

Quote from: Akrasia;281888Hence my confusion at the Pundit's original rant and others' denigration of retro-clones.

They're free and fun.  Oh the horror!

Some people can't handle competition.

Quote from: Akrasia;281888Hence my confusion at the Pundit's original rant and others' denigration of retro-clones.

They're free and fun.  Oh the horror!

Again, I'm not saying they're evil or damaging to the hobby, I'm just saying that I personally don't like them.

RPGPundit

This is all good and well, but people, you must all wisen up to the awesomeness of the gem in the raw that is DragonQuest.

Seriously, this is a shade of old school that hadn't been on my map until a week ago. Derivative and eclectic at first glance, unique in tone at second. A million little cool ideas and WTFs add up to... I dunno, something special. A deadly environment with a whiff of Vance.

If I had 5000 bucks to sink into a futile project I'd pay Jason Durall to do a rewrite, print 500 128-page hardcovers, sell 200, and use the rest as wallpaper for my non-extant basement.

Alright, watch this clip from an old-school fantasy cartoon show from the 80s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZUv-YGxOeg

Blackstar!!! Retro and Awesome! \m/

See the guy at the end - the one that changes from a flying lizard man into a blue  elf guy?  That's Clone.

So in conclusion:  Retro Clone -- Awesome

Where does Metal, Magic, and Lore fit in the old-school continuum? It plays like a double-vanilla fantasy coelacanth--A genetic throwback--the missing link between RuneQuest and Rolemaster. It's not really trying  to do anything new. It's just trying to do what the old games did better. And generally speaking, it does.

Now I know it's a "fantasy heartbreaker." But as far as I can see, that kind of label is only good for explaining why the game would be hard to sell. I'm not trying to sell it, but I am trying to play it with folks who would appreciate it. If I say "old-school renaissance," folks come out of the woodwork to play Arduin, or any of these retroclones. But they're a little more reluctant to play something that isn't exactly the game they remember. So what do we do with these games? I don't want to buy the rest and paper my basement . . .

Quote from: stu2000;281913Where does Metal, Magic, and Lore fit in the old-school continuum?

From glancing through a copy at the game shop some months ago, it doesn't seem all that old school to me. Perhaps on close reading I would be more impressed with it's old-schoolness, but at $45.00 I'm not willing to pick it up on that type of speculation as 19 times out of 20, my first impression holds. :(

QuoteBut they're a little more reluctant to play something that isn't exactly the game they remember. So what do we do with these games?

Perhaps they are reluctant to play because Metal, Magic, and Lore doesn't sound as much like their type of game to them as you think it would/should?

Quote from: RandallS;281916Perhaps they are reluctant to play because Metal, Magic, and Lore doesn't sound as much like their type of game to them as you think it would/should?

I guess. I mean--the group I have to play it are the kind of guys that will play anything. I love my guys. But I'd hoped there might be a kind of sub-niche I could use to draw the folks to whom it would appeal.

But yeah--I can see how it's an oddball product . . . Ah well. Person-by-person, I guess. The old-fashioned way.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281905This is all good and well, but people, you must all wisen up to the awesomeness of the gem in the raw that is DragonQuest.

Seriously, this is a shade of old school that hadn't been on my map until a week ago

Played it in 1982. RQ is a lot more elegant.

Quote from: droog;281923RQ is a lot more elegant.

Read it in 1984. DQ is a lot less loopy.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281926Read it in 1984. DQ is a lot less loopy.

Ah, but I've played them both. Handling time counts when you play.

Handling time, schmandling time.

You like loopy, admit it already.

Quote from: stu2000;281921But yeah--I can see how it's an oddball product . . . Ah well. Person-by-person, I guess. The old-fashioned way.

Have you tried offering to run a one shot session?  As long as people don't have to buy the book to try it, I've found with a bit of work I can drum up enough players to try almost anything once. Heck, I even gave 4e a try in a one shot.

Quote from: RandallS;281930Have you tried offering to run a one shot session?  As long as people don't have to buy the book to try it, I've found with a bit of work I can drum up enough players to try almost anything once. Heck, I even gave 4e a try in a one shot.

I run frequent one-shots at the flgs, and I have a periodic group who meets mainly to humor me, I think. I also can get folks to play almost anything a few times. I had a little MetaScape (of all things) game going for a while. And I'm getting quite a group around Wooden Suits and Iron Men, a weird little sourcebook for a not-particularly successful beer & pretzels generic, Duel.

I guess what seems odd to me is that my group building strategies are working fine for some games I think are maybe a little sub-par or poorly conceived, but less well for a game I think is nicely put together.

Now--I advocate for people having a good time, and the heart wants what it wants and all that. I want to run games my friends will enjoy. And I have no shortage of opportunities to do that. So everything's pretty groovy. My problem is that I'm generally very good at putting games in the hands of folks that will like them, and the folks I thought would really dig MML don't. And I wouldn't necessarily picked those that do. So mostly I think I'm trying to figure out what it is I'm missing about this game, blinded by affection for it, or something. It's definitely an oddball product.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281929You like loopy, admit it already.

I like loopy elegance, and if you ever meet my wife you'll see what I mean.

Quote from: Spinachcat;281893

QuoteThe entire idea behind the simulacra is that there is no reason to play another game.

WTF?

I think what Jim meant, but perhaps didn't express accurately, is that these old and old-school systems are perfectly valid, playable, usable and fun systems, with neither more nor less problems than more recent ones.

You know, as opposed to to the usual claims leveraged by 3etards and 4orons that old versions of D&D were somehow "broken", "inadequate", "primitive" or "cumbersome"*.



*This last one I always found especially rich coming from fans of a system where you have to keep a dozen feats and skills in mind and when they stack or not and how they all affect your racial template and ECL and a single small fight lasts hours. And grappling rules. [/OFF]

Quote from: stu2000;281934So mostly I think I'm trying to figure out what it is I'm missing about this game, blinded by affection for it, or something. It's definitely an oddball product.

The guy at the shop showing me his copy of it seemed really excited by it as well. Perhaps it is one of those games that really strike a chord in a few people while the rest of us just don't get it.

Quote from: Haffrung;281773Agreed. Retro-clones generate buzz and a sense of community. However, I'm skeptical of claims that they have grown the pie of old-school players (and by players I mean people actively running tabletop games), instead of simply giving the old-school players who hang out on web forums more stuff to read and discuss. The 'renaissance' in old-school gaming is about internet forum exchanges and house-ruled PDFs, rather than a growing market or community of active players. At best every new ruleset just cuts the same pie into smaller pieces.

I can only offer myself as an example to refute this idea that the retro-clones are not generating new play.  I have not run a regular game since my son was born, but since early in the new year I have been getting together with three old friends every other week to play Swords & Wizardry.

One of the attractions was the fact that rediscovering the Old School vibe allowed me to release my need to over plan everything and just concentrate on what is in front of me.  One barrier to GMing for me now that I don't have the same free time was that in previous campaigns I would want to have everything set out and ready for the players to explore.  With this campaign I just started out by having them name the tavern they hang out in and went from there.  We've completed three sessions and I haven't even named the city yet...and we are having a blast making it up as we go along.

In any case, I am a retro-clone success story, I suppose.  The fact that everyone was familiar with D&D from long association was a plus, the fact that they could download the rules for free was a plus.  I also like that I was exposed to a new view of D&D by having easy access to a version of the 1974 version and through the online discussion that has been generated by the retro-clone movement.  The D&D of my youth was Moldvay Basic, so some of the aspects of the original are fresh to me.  And that is cool!


TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;281973...In any case, I am a retro-clone success story...

Welcome to the club!  :D

I like DQ and RQ...and I've heard Jason Durall does, too ;).

Plus, if you want non-loopy fantasy BRP, there's Stormbringer.

DQ is better for skirmish-level tactical detail, rather like TFT. Makes sense, both were created by board wargamers. BRP is better for characters who "are what they are", while DQ (again like TFT) is better for letting players guide character development through expenditure of XP on skills and abilities.

At the time it came out, I was very disappointed with DQ's half-measure approach to deconstructing D&Dish class-based development. Now I like it both because of the active player choice on XP use, and because the skills-as-classes approach simplifies the whole issue of fields of related knowledge.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;282057I like DQ and RQ...and I've heard Jason Durall does, too ;).

I didn't say I disliked DQ. I just said it wasn't as elegant as the other.

Also, I'm talking system, not setting, but I'm sure you know that.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281905This is all good and well, but people, you must all wisen up to the awesomeness of the gem in the raw that is DragonQuest.

Seriously, this is a shade of old school that hadn't been on my map until a week ago. Derivative and eclectic at first glance, unique in tone at second. A million little cool ideas and WTFs add up to... I dunno, something special. A deadly environment with a whiff of Vance.

If I had 5000 bucks to sink into a futile project I'd pay Jason Durall to do a rewrite, print 500 128-page hardcovers, sell 200, and use the rest as wallpaper for my non-extant basement.

I agree 100%, I loved DQ when I bought it way back when and I still love it now. I only ever got to play it with my brother, and I've always wished for a revival so I could play in a campaign with a whole group of folks. A retro-clone of DQ would be awesome as hell.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281905This is all good and well, but people, you must all wisen up to the awesomeness of the gem in the raw that is DragonQuest.
...

I still own my copy from the very early 1980s (the single book SPI version).  It's in pretty good shape, and I flip through it from time to time, whenever I'm visiting my folks.  I still love the whole section devoted to the Dukes, Earls, Princes, etc. of Hell (the section later purged in the TSR version).  I also own one of the modules, The Palace of Ontocle.

I ran it a few times in the early 1980s.  From my recollection: adepts outclassed everyone else, and combat required a tactical board.  So, probably not a game I'd run today, despite how charming I still find the book.

Quote from: Akrasia;282071I still own my copy from the very early 1980s (the single book SPI version).  It's in pretty good shape, and I flip through it from time to time, whenever I'm visiting my folks.  I still love the whole section devoted to the Dukes, Earls, Princes, etc. of Hell (the section later purged in the TSR version).  I also own one of the modules, The Palace of Ontocle.

If you look through the DQ section about dukes, princes, earls of hell (etc) and then at the WOTC Tome of Magic version of the Binder, you may see some eerie similarities. . .

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;282073If you look through the DQ section about dukes, princes, earls of hell (etc) and then at the WOTC Tome of Magic version of the Binder, you may see some eerie similarities. . .

They all derive from the demons found in renaissance textbooks on supposed magic like the "Key of Solomon," etc. For whatever reason, somewhere along the WOTC production line they got changed up so that the Binder has his dark pacts with lovelorn elves and frustrated gnome mathematicians from beyond the grave. Really that was a great puzzle to me. It seems probable that earlier in the project the solomonic demons were going to be used as they stand...some of the ability sets the pacts gave you seemed tied to what the Key claim the demons to be "powerful over."

I recommend getting a hold of De Plancy's "Dictionnaire Infernal" and using the illustrations in question as your basis.

Are you saying DQ and the WOTC book have a common source? I think I did see the Key of Solomon mentioned in DQ, but I didn't know what it was. Those demons are pretty scary, as in Book of Ebon Bindings scary.

Yep. Some of the original AD&D boss fiends come from these sources too, like Asmodeus or Glasya.

Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Infernal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lesser_Key_of_Solomon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonarchia_Daemonum

The Dictionnaire, at least, is easily had on Amazon. Just clicking on the names of a number of the devils will show you its, generally horrible, picture. Here's the Big A, for example.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Asmodeus.jpg)

In the Solomonic hierarchy, Asmodeus only merits a #32. Topping the billboard charts down south is actually Bael, depicted in this not-before-bedtime-kids fashion.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Bael.jpg)

One of the reasons D&D had a problem with religious types in the 80s and TSR pulled the devils + demons from the books in 2nd edition.  They didn't just use vague vanilla-fantasy names for these guys... they used the real deal.

Pulled them from D&D 2e and DQ 3e.

SPI published a pocket wargame using "historical" demons, called, um, Demons. I liked the art and map but game play seemed underdeveloped. Would like to try it again sometime with the right people.

Pseudomonarchia and the Lemegeton / Lesser Key are both widely available for free online. Here's a website with both and more:

http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;282285Pseudomonarchia and the Lemegeton / Lesser Key are both widely available for free online. Here's a website with both and more:

http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm

That's an excellent link!

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.

RPGPundit

My game's more popular than your game.  :)

Also, neener neener neener.

Quote from: P&P;282499My game's more popular than your game.  :)

Damn. :D

Quote from: P&P;282499My game's more popular than your game.  :)

Also, neener neener neener.

Sorry, and that game would be?

RPGPundit

Can I just say that as a GAMER...old school and otherwise.  That this is the most ridiculous thread I have seen in quite some time. Been playing for 27 years.  Guys...who CARES what version of the game you play? Do you and your friends enjoy playing it? Then that's good enough for me! What is the beef with guys making retro-clones? I love the movement...I think it's fun. It allows for a very low competition, creative outlet for many people who just enjoy sharing their ideas and works with others. Retro-clones provide a legal framework for this.

Having something currently in print is a hell of a lot easier than trying to win it on ebay . . . and I DON'T like stuff printed from my printer. So Lulu is the perfect place for this kind of marginal market share material. No one in the old-school renaissance has any illusions about this somehow catching up with WOTC's D&D or overtaking any other mainstream game. But some of us, just some of us, are tired of the consumerism involved with our gaming and just want it to be fun and something we feel like we can contribute to.

Mike

Quote from: RPGPundit;282708Sorry, and that game would be?

RPGPundit

OSRIC, I believe.

removed

Quote from: RPGPundit;282708Sorry, and that game would be?

RPGPundit

OSRIC.

C'mon guys...can't we all get along? Aww fuck it, I'm just going to go back downstairs and play some more Jenga...I've got the initiative on that fugly bar hostess and gorram, but she's gonna turn over the treasure or topple that tower before the night is through.

For fans of Luke Reinhardt's Diceman, I give you Kellri's Khmer Reaction Table

d6   Result
1    Put on a suit and tie and go to early Mass
2    Put on a Speedo and go swimming in the Mekong
3    Another Angkhor beer, another plate of fried crickets
4    Offer the bargirl with the obese German $20 just to sit somewhere else
5    Tell the guy at Happy Pizza you want 'Apocalyptically Happy' this time
6    Try another Little Walter impression on the loudspeaker

Quote from: mwhite212;282735Can I just say that as a GAMER...old school and otherwise.  That this is the most ridiculous thread I have seen in quite some time. Been playing for 27 years.  Guys...who CARES what version of the game you play? Do you and your friends enjoy playing it? Then that's good enough for me! What is the beef with guys making retro-clones? I love the movement...I think it's fun. It allows for a very low competition, creative outlet for many people who just enjoy sharing their ideas and works with others. Retro-clones provide a legal framework for this.

Having something currently in print is a hell of a lot easier than trying to win it on ebay . . . and I DON'T like stuff printed from my printer. So Lulu is the perfect place for this kind of marginal market share material. No one in the old-school renaissance has any illusions about this somehow catching up with WOTC's D&D or overtaking any other mainstream game. But some of us, just some of us, are tired of the consumerism involved with our gaming and just want it to be fun and something we feel like we can contribute to.

Mike

Very well put Mike.

Quote from: RPGPundit;282708Sorry, and that game would be?

RPGPundit

OSRIC

Actually, it's Labyrinth Lord.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;282774Actually, it's Labyrinth Lord.

No, that's Dan Proctor, whose retro-clone game is selling in brick and mortar stores as well as the internet.:)

Quote from: Mythmere;282819No, that's Dan Proctor, whose retro-clone game is selling in brick and mortar stores as well as the internet.:)

"Okay, so...I got a skid of bricks, three bags mortar...hey, look!  Labyrinth Lord!  Put one'a THOSE in my cart...dude, this store ROCKS."

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;282831"Okay, so...I got a skid of bricks, three bags mortar...hey, look!  Labyrinth Lord!  Put one'a THOSE in my cart...dude, this store ROCKS."

You don't buy your RPGs at Home Depot?  Weird.

I don't mind the retro-clones.  They keep alive varieties of D&D and other RPGs that otherwise would never return to popular perception; being (as it were) above the fold is necessary in maintaining a viable player community.

Quote from: Mythmere;282819No, that's Dan Proctor, whose retro-clone game is selling in brick and mortar stores as well as the internet.:)

It also looks a hell of a lot prettier than FTA!  :p

Quote from: Mythmere;282819No, that's Dan Proctor, whose retro-clone game is selling in brick and mortar stores as well as the internet.:)

Labyrinth Lord is selling in game stores?

Very interesting.   I hope he does great.   I would probably buy a well-illustrated version of Mutant Future if I saw it in a store.

BTW, any difference between the Game Store versions and the Lulu version?

Anyone know the price?

Quote from: Mythmere;282819No, that's Dan Proctor,

Nonono, it's the other way around.

Quote from: Zachary The First;282739OSRIC, I believe.

Unless "P&P" is Gary Gygax posting from beyond the grave, its not really his game, is it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RandallS;281382(In other words, if you are trying to reach Old School gamers with Forward... to Adventure!, it doesn't look to me as if you being very successful at reaching them.)

Apparently so. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=34404)

(I did wonder why Finarvyn started a query thread about it at Dragonsfoot, though. Doesn't he post over here as well, which should make it obvious that it's Pundit's game?)

Quote from: Spinachcat;282878Labyrinth Lord is selling in game stores?

Very interesting.   I hope he does great.   I would probably buy a well-illustrated version of Mutant Future if I saw it in a store.

BTW, any difference between the Game Store versions and the Lulu version?

Anyone know the price?

UK price for Labyrinth Lord at eg Waterstones book shop is cheaper than buying if off Lulu (as I did).

US - Barnes and Noble has it listed here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Labyrinth-Lord/Daniel-Proctor/e/9780615150314/?itm=4 - max price is $17.95 new but they sell second hand copies cheaper.

I only have a Lulu version, AFAIK it's the same.

Quote from: RPGPundit;282933Unless "P&P" is Gary Gygax posting from beyond the grave, its not really his game, is it?

Oh no, someone's e-peen might be bigger so lets argue about what ruler we can use to measure!

Quote from: wiseman207;281220It's a guy who only likes older editions of D&D.  The steriotype is he's been "playing D&D since 75", is old, fat, bearded, and "WotC ruined D&D, you can pry my AD&D DM's Guide from my cold dead hand".

Oi!

Well, 1971.

And it's "brown box", not "AD&D DM's Guide".

Quote from: Old Geezer;282962Oi!

Well, 1971.

And it's "brown box", not "AD&D DM's Guide".

I was one year old when you started playing D&D. :p

Quote from: PaladinCA;282967I was one year old when you started playing D&D. :p

I was 15. I didn't start playing RPGs until I was 21. I had to go through my "rock star" phase first... :P

-clash

Quote from: S'mon;282873It also looks a hell of a lot prettier than FTA!  :p

Sorry. I don't do pretty. I can manage clean.... on a good day.

-clash

Quote from: GrimGent;282942Apparently so. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=34404)

(I did wonder why Finarvyn started a query thread about it at Dragonsfoot, though. Doesn't he post over here as well, which should make it obvious that it's Pundit's game?)

Not surprising. Old schoolers don't want a new game. They want their old game, whichever old game it was. FtA! is a new game.

Old Schoolers should not be a target market for FtA! at all.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPundit;282933Unless "P&P" is Gary Gygax posting from beyond the grave, its not really his game, is it?

It's Gary's underlying game mechanics, enabled by Matt "Mythmere" Finch's vision, re-imagined by a bunch of helpful people from the internet.  :)

But it's my name on the cover and my cock on the block.  :P

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;282882Nonono, it's the other way around.

No, really:  Mythmere's right.

OSRIC's my copyright; Mythmere and I own the trademark jointly.  (Mythmere also owns Swords & Wizardry).

Dan Proctor was, admittedly, a fairly prolific contributor to OSRIC 2 but the games he actually owns are Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future and GORE.  Labyrinth Lord is his most popular game, but I think Mutant Future's the most interesting.

Quote from: Old Geezer;282962Oi!

Well, 1971.

And it's "brown box", not "AD&D DM's Guide".

I was 5...

Hey OG - you going to GaryCon? First Beer is on me - and I don't drink (much) so you probably won't even have to return the favor!

Quote from: flyingmice;282970Old Schoolers should not be a target market for FtA! at all.

OI picked up a PDF copy of FtA! a week or so ago to see if it really was something Old School. It looks like an interesting gamesystem, but it doesn't strike me as something most "old school" style players would be very interested in. I know I'm not really interested in playing it, although I might borrow a few ideas (random tables are almost always good!) from it.

Quote from: PaladinCA;282967I was one year old when you started playing D&D. :p

* cries *

Quote from: James J Skach;282974I was 5...

Hey OG - you going to GaryCon? First Beer is on me - and I don't drink (much) so you probably won't even have to return the favor!

Where/when is it?  (damn, they're keeping it quiet, or something)

Quote from: Old Geezer;282980Where/when is it?  (damn, they're keeping it quiet, or something)

http://www.garycon.com/

(I wish I was going ... :( )

Quote from: Old Geezer;282980Where/when is it?  (damn, they're keeping it quiet, or something)

Akrasia got the link there...right..see it? it's right...there...

Anyway, my DM and I (at the least) are driving up from Crystal Lake - so that's about an hour and a half, depending. I don't have the money to stay overnight, and I'm not sure, yet, what Sunday holds...

Come on over to my house (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189) and we'll talk ;)

Oh, Budgefars!  Gary Con is scheduled for the same weekend I have already commited to going to Kansas City and playing model train geek.

Poop.

Ah well, perhaps another time!

Have fun!

Quote from: wiseman207;281782A lot of things said here are true.

Maybe retroclones and their supplement products will indeed never be commercially viable.  They are however legal and free to developers and players.  I don't see what's "sucky" about offering that sort of utility, even if it is only existing fans that will bother to take advantage of it.

I must reiterate that to say a game like LL is different (or even distiguishable) from D&D in ANY sense is a terrible misconception.  It is a relative, they are one in the same.  Players of Basic D&D will use LL.  The same goes for other simulacrum products.  If you happen to run LL, you ARE running Basic D&D.  The distinction here is arbitrary, and made by people who cannot separate name from product.  If you're not blowing your nose on a Kleenex, but your target is still made of soft paper... it's still a tissue.  The only way to get a experience different enough to be worth distinguishing is to use a handkerchief or your finger... a different RPG altogether, if you will.

Personally, I never buy supplements for anything.  I don't read free ones, either.  That, and I don't like ebay.  So, there you have it. LL was what I wanted, and though perhaps not its intended function, it has one nonetheless.

Love your imaginative if slightly disgusting analogy! And I agree...how can LL suck if they just said Moldvay Basic is awesome? It's 97% the same game. And now you can legally...with a wink and a nudge...make Basic D&D adventures and products under the LL name.

So here's a question for y'all: is Mongoose Traveller just a high-budget retro-clone of "classic" Traveller?

Quote from: The Shaman;283008So here's a question for y'all: is Mongoose Traveller just a high-budget retro-clone of "classic" Traveller?

I think so. It is certainly close enough to Classic Traveller that all my CT adventures and most of the supplemental material will work just fine. I figured I would hate Mongoose Traveller based on some of their other product, but was pleasantly surprised by something that is really "close enough" to CT.

Quote from: P&P;282973Labyrinth Lord is his most popular game, but I think Mutant Future's the most interesting.

Very True.   LL is a good solid retroclone, but MF is Gamma World Improved.

Quote from: The Shaman;283008So here's a question for y'all: is Mongoose Traveller just a high-budget retro-clone of "classic" Traveller?

Yes.

Had a look at the FTA sampler via that DF thread and what most struck me is the art at the beginning. It's not a good choice for old school and IMO it's also incongruous with the title. I always thought FTA was an over the top name for an RPG but that piece is so...earnest.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283041Had a look at the FTA sampler via that DF thread and what most struck me is the art at the beginning. It's not a good choice for old school and IMO it's also incongruous with the title. I always thought FTA was an over the top name for an RPG but that piece is so...earnest.

Sigh. Like all the illos, that's mine.

The reason it's not a good choice for old school is that I am not an old school illustrator, I don't want to be one, and I have no use for being one. FtA! is not an old school game. FtA! is a new game that tries - and very successfully in my opinion - for an old school feel in play. It uses modern system tools to achieve that feel.

I didn't feel I needed to copy Erol Otis as it's not a clone of D&D at all. If anything old school it's closer to T&T. I never intended to market it to or for old school players. They have their old games (and retro-clones of those old games) that they are happy with, and I respect that. I don't advertise it at Old School fora, and I don't suggest it when people talk about old school games on various fora.

It's actually a brilliant intro game for newbies. That's what it's designed for, and it succeeds beautifully in my opinion.

-clash

Apologies if I've touched a nerve. I would like to look at the game sometime and see if my off the cuff opinion still holds. Old school or not, that one illo's style just seems too serious for a lighthearted game of mayhem, or for kids who want "action!"

Quote from: flyingmice;283057I never intended to market it to or for old school players. They have their old games (and retro-clones of those old games) that they are happy with, and I respect that. I don't advertise it at Old School fora, and I don't suggest it when people talk about old school games on various fora.

See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

However, all you have to do is have me try to explain Supers Inc. and you will see the same problem...:o

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283079Apologies if I've touched a nerve.

It's OK, Elliot - I had just posted yesterday about how FtA! wasn't an old-school game. That was why the sigh. :P

QuoteI would like to look at the game sometime and see if my off the cuff opinion still holds. Old school or not, that one illo's style just seems too serious for a lighthearted game of mayhem, or for kids who want "action!"

I think the illo I chose does it's job, showing a character using a skill, which is far more difficult than you'd think.

(Image removed to prevent future confusion.)

I didn't choose the sample for the illo, I chose it because of the text. Stunting is the cool mechanic of the game - what makes it stand out from the crowd. The illo is just showing a character using a skill - in this case, Wilderness Lore. In other words, "Elf woman fighter using Wilderness Lore skill to track something in a desert."

FtA! can be played very lighthearted, but there is nothing lighthearted mandated in the text. I generally run it as fairly serious, but that's my nature as a GM. FtA!GN! is much more comic, though it has its serious bits as well. I even used a couple of cartoons in illustrating FtA!GN!

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;283080See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

However, all you have to do is have me try to explain Supers Inc. and you will see the same problem...:o

Hi Bill:

I don't see that as a problem for a game, just a problem for marketing a game. I *prefer* less focused games that I can bend to *my* will. If FtA! were just an old school game, or just a humorous game, or just a beginner's game I wouldn't have loved it so much and I wouldn't have wanted to publish it. It's why I prefer Nebuleon and Shades of Earth to SA.

Quote from: CavScout;282956Oh no, someone's e-peen might be bigger so lets argue about what ruler we can use to measure!

Um, no not really. If Monte Cook, or Kevin Siembieda, or any number of other dudes, including lesser-known-dudes than the above said that to me, about games they actually designed, there'd really be no debate. But when all you've done is basically re-compile the most popular RPG in history, you're not really allowed to call it "your" game.   That would be a little like a guy who makes elevator muzak jingles out of "The Girl From Ipanema" trying to claim that he invented Bossa Nova.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;283080See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

Yes, FtA! is not a microgame. Its actually usable for long-term play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmice;283087Hi Bill:

I don't see that as a problem for a game, just a problem for marketing a game. I *prefer* less focused games that I can bend to *my* will. If FtA! were just an old school game, or just a humorous game, or just a beginner's game I wouldn't have loved it so much and I wouldn't have wanted to publish it. It's why I prefer Nebuleon and Shades of Earth to SA.

Well, the problem WITH the game comes when the expectations of the customer are not met. If someone buys FtA thinking they are getting an old school game, will they be disappointed? Possibly. What makes this doubly frustrating is that they may not. It is not outside the realm of the purpose of the game to be one that scratches the old school gamer itch. Sure, not a retro-clone but in the spirit of it. So, it becomes one of managing expectations, pointing to reviews and getting your patter about the game down pat.

And as to your point, I agree. It is why I write my games the way I do. I am doing it again with Zombipocalypse. How do I describe it? A zombie game? A sci-fi game? A post-apoc game? All three? Again, a vague definition that will not aid the sale or the understanding of the game.

In the end, Clash, I am just saying that to me, expectation of the person playing my games is VERY important to me. I do not even want someone to sit down at my table with the expectation of a 1930's pulp game and end up with Shades. Sure, I could run it that way but I think the player would be disappointed. This goes doubly so for a customer. If they are considering my books I want them to get as clear an idea of the game as possible. Unfortunately, I think that you and I make games that are...hard to peg in one genre...no, how about not easily summed up? And yes, I like it that way too. ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;283108Yes, FtA! is not a microgame. Its actually usable for long-term play.

RPGPundit

You misunderstand. I am not talking about a microgame but a clear definition for customers. What is FtA? Fantasy? Old school fantasy? A universal tool kit? New indie inspired fantasy? Is it a setting or a system sourcebook? The confusion that has arisen in this thread alone (on your site I might add) goes a long way to showing that there is some confusion on this point. Clarity to the customer about exactly what your product is can only help with customer satisfaction and sales.

Oh, and I might add, so is SA! I have had folks tell me of their campaigns with squirrels, chipmonks, dogs, cats and a one guy mentioned a possum. However, that is not the message I try and send. I choose to send a very clear "This is a one night game, humorous, where you play squirrels".

Quote from: HinterWelt;283113Well, the problem WITH the game comes when the expectations of the customer are not met. If someone buys FtA thinking they are getting an old school game, will they be disappointed? Possibly. What makes this doubly frustrating is that they may not. It is not outside the realm of the purpose of the game to be one that scratches the old school gamer itch. Sure, not a retro-clone but in the spirit of it. So, it becomes one of managing expectations, pointing to reviews and getting your patter about the game down pat.

I have throughout been VERY careful not to call it an old school game, and to ensure people know the mechanics are not old school in form or function. Can they get an old school "feel" in an FtA! game? Very much. Is it for old school gamers? No. They are happy with what games they have. It's a complex concept which I have been doing my best to handle truthfully. What is FtA!, really? It's a kick-ass game for newbies, designed to integrate old and familiar concepts with new, streamlined techniques to reach the fun. Unfortunately, there is no method I can access that will reach the newbie market, such as it is.

QuoteAnd as to your point, I agree. It is why I write my games the way I do. I am doing it again with Zombipocalypse. How do I describe it? A zombie game? A sci-fi game? A post-apoc game? All three? Again, a vague definition that will not aid the sale or the understanding of the game.

In the end, Clash, I am just saying that to me, expectation of the person playing my games is VERY important to me. I do not even want someone to sit down at my table with the expectation of a 1930's pulp game and end up with Shades. Sure, I could run it that way but I think the player would be disappointed. This goes doubly so for a customer. If they are considering my books I want them to get as clear an idea of the game as possible. Unfortunately, I think that you and I make games that are...hard to peg in one genre...no, how about not easily summed up? And yes, I like it that way too. ;)

Apparently Pundit as well. I had nothing to do with the creation of this game beyond editing it (minor, as Pundit is a very good writer who doesn't wander off the topic) and illustrating it (major.)

-clash

Edit: If folks want to discuss this further, please separate it into another thread! I think we're irritating the old school guys.

Sorry clash, but I don't see how a game with a cover that looks like that is ever going to sell, no matter how brilliant the rules.  That is... not nice.

In the spirit of constructive criticism:

• I think the "montage of images" approach is much less effective than a single compelling scene.

• More as a matter of taste, I'm not too keen on the drawing style, which appears to be photographs run through filters to look like watercolors.

• That said, the two illos I like best are the one with the two knights and the one with the archer.

• Given the title, I'd look for a picture that has more of a sense of, well, going forth and confronting the unknown/adventuring. Therefore the main subjects should be facing somewhat away from the viewer, focusing their attention on something outside the illustration, or on some kind of challenge (a fortress, a group of menacing humanoids, a single large monster, etc.). By "somewhat away" I mean anywhere from 30º off center to nearly dead away from the viewer; the idea is to show that the character(s) are moving toward something adventurous which is either illustrated or suggested.

A couple of covers which I think handle this sort of theme well include In the Labyrinth (http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/inthelabyrinth.jpg), RQ3 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Runequest_cover.jpg) (both showing how the adventurers can be focusing forward on an "adventure" that's in the foreground), and Fantasy Hero 1e (http://westkarana.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/stp60959.JPG) (not as effective in execution but it shows the idea).

Quote from: S'mon;283119Sorry clash, but I don't see how a game with a cover that looks like that is ever going to sell, no matter how brilliant the rules.  That is... not nice.

Thanks for your opinion, S'mon.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283126In the spirit of constructive criticism:

Thanks for your opinion, Elliot. I replied in the other thread.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;283114You misunderstand. I am not talking about a microgame but a clear definition for customers. What is FtA? Fantasy? Old school fantasy? A universal tool kit? New indie inspired fantasy? Is it a setting or a system sourcebook? The confusion that has arisen in this thread alone (on your site I might add) goes a long way to showing that there is some confusion on this point. Clarity to the customer about exactly what your product is can only help with customer satisfaction and sales.

The answer is more or less like the answer to "What is D&D?".

FtA! is certainly fantasy, has certainly got an old-school feel, it is a toolkit (not a universal one in the GURPS sense, though), and it is not a setting (there is a setting in FtA!GN! of course, but that's strictly optional).

The idea that an RPG will only be good, or will be better, if its limited to being only ONE of the above things, is nothing more than moronic Forge propaganda. History (and D&D) has proven the opposite to be true.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;283136The answer is more or less like the answer to "What is D&D?".

FtA! is certainly fantasy, has certainly got an old-school feel, it is a toolkit (not a universal one in the GURPS sense, though), and it is not a setting (there is a setting in FtA!GN! of course, but that's strictly optional).

The idea that an RPG will only be good, or will be better, if its limited to being only ONE of the above things, is nothing more than moronic Forge propaganda. History (and D&D) has proven the opposite to be true.

RPGPundit

And I never said it would be. Having the ability to communicate to your customers clearly what it is and is not, though, will help folks have a better experience with your game.

I think Clash is doing some good communicating over on the other thread.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;283326I think Clash is doing some good communicating over on the other thread.

RPGPundit

I would disagree.

In honor of this thread, we will be playing Swords & Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/)...and we will rock.

Quote from: HinterWelt;283373I would disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement. Reading clash's comments I finally understood what FtA is *exactly*. And it sounds unique and interesting. If I weren't so indifferent to the T&T combat resolution...

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;283468I disagree with your disagreement. Reading clash's comments I finally understood what FtA is *exactly*. And it sounds unique and interesting. If I weren't so indifferent to the T&T combat resolution...

And yet there seemed several people still not clear. I do not doubt Clash's ability to explain at length what FtA is about, I doubt his ability to do so in short or in terms that are clear to its intent. In fact, his clearest explanation did not come from him...it came from someone who played the game.

Please note, this is not an attack on Clash. We all do certain things well. I am not sure concise market speak is something Clash is well versed in. I was merely offering suggestions and will bow out at this point before I raise the ire of potentates and generals. ;)

Quote from: HinterWelt;283470And yet there seemed several people still not clear. I do not doubt Clash's ability to explain at length what FtA is about, I doubt his ability to do so in short or in terms that are clear to its intent. In fact, his clearest explanation did not come from him...it came from someone who played the game.

Please note, this is not an attack on Clash. We all do certain things well. I am not sure concise market speak is something Clash is well versed in. I was merely offering suggestions and will bow out at this point before I raise the ire of potentates and generals. ;)

I'm not a marketing writer, and have never pretended to be one. It is neither natural nor easy for me to write marketing material, and when I write it - which I have to do - it sounds forced and awkward to me. Far from disagreeing with Bill, I agree entirely. I try, and I do my best, but my best is not very good.

-clash

Added: And this should be in the FtA! comments thread!

well then, maybe we should get skyrock or whoever to do our marketing blurbs for us.  I think hinterwelt is exaggerating the issue, but I do agree with the idea that NO ONE is a better marketer than the satisfied customers themselves.

RPGPundit

Me as a non-native speaker as marketing spin-doctor? This sounds like a recipe for a reenactment of the Quin marketing disaster.

And in regards of the "satisfied customer", I'm probably the one-in-thousand exception in the target group, as I certainly enjoy a good traditional dungeon-crawl, but hadn't yet found a system that really makes me happy. Even FtA! certainly isn't yet *perfect*, but as it is delivered in the box it's the closest thing to what I've been in search of, and with the one or another houserule, it's even damn close to what I've been looking for.
Other folks mileage will vary (for instance, while I have a dislike for the more wonky parts of older D&D like the ThAC0 calculation or the thief's proto-skills, other folks enjoy it just *because* of that), and even those who align with my preferences and would agree that FtA! takes a step ahead would need to weight the effort of re-learning, re-prepping, group persuasion etc. with the potential boons.

I take as evidence that even here, I'm the only one who yet makes use of FtA! and speaks about it. At least I haven't heard in a long time what other folks who picked it up and tried it back then (Sean, joewolz, jrients, Zachary etc.) are currently doing with the game.

How about a Forge AP, Skyrock? Ron Edwards is a T&T fan.

Quote from: kregmosier;283407In honor of this thread, we will be playing Swords & Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/)...and we will rock.

Excellent!  Post your results on the Swords & Wizardry forums! (http://swordsandwizardry.com/forum/) :)

Quote from: Skyrock;283576I take as evidence that even here, I'm the only one who yet makes use of FtA! and speaks about it. At least I haven't heard in a long time what other folks who picked it up and tried it back then (Sean, joewolz, jrients, Zachary etc.) are currently doing with the game.

I think one of the things I find weird about FtA! is that the Pundit's got an audience but there's no sense of an FtA! community - no FtA! forums, just that one page where you can buy it. There are countless threads where there's only 2 or 3 of us making any comment upon Pundit's ideas for the schools of magic. Apart from Skyrock's Trollans -there wasn't a lot of homebrewing going on months after FtA! had come out. I prefer scenius to genius, I love collaboration between fans - sparking ideas off each other, but I wasn't getting this from FtA! so I went back to playing Redbox Hack, Microlite 20/74/hard core and more recently Swords and Wizardry, all of which have a vitality that FtA! has lost along the way.

All of this I find a mite depressing as I've had a load of fun with FtA! in the past. It's a bloody good set of rules but if it lacks the support and interest of the RPGsiters it's gonna sink - who else knows about it ? My gaming group played the hell out of it, our last campaign was based upon a ship of wizards and the crew touring an Earthsea-like world of islands and archipelagos. It was mint.

And if anyone slags of Clash's artwork I will chin them - it's spot on.

Quote from: Sean !;283642I think one of the things I find weird about FtA! is that the Pundit's got an audience but there's no sense of an FtA! community - no FtA! forums, just that one page where you can buy it. There are countless threads where there's only 2 or 3 of us making any comment upon Pundit's ideas for the schools of magic. Apart from Skyrock's Trollans -there wasn't a lot of homebrewing going on months after FtA! had come out. I prefer scenius to genius, I love collaboration between fans - sparking ideas off each other, but I wasn't getting this from FtA! so I went back to playing Redbox Hack, Microlite 20/74/hard core and more recently Swords and Wizardry, all of which have a vitality that FtA! has lost along the way.

All of this I find a mite depressing as I've had a load of fun with FtA! in the past. It's a bloody good set of rules but if it lacks the support and interest of the RPGsiters it's gonna sink - who else knows about it ? My gaming group played the hell out of it, our last campaign was based upon a ship of wizards and the crew touring an Earthsea-like world of islands and archipelagos. It was mint.

And if anyone slags of Clash's artwork I will chin them - it's spot on.

Hi Sean!

Do you think maybe a Yahoo Group would help? I've got some good communities going with my In Harm's Way Napoleonic and IHW: Aces games.

-clash

Sean:
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. There has been a certain buzz around in the beginning, and then it died off mostly. Apart from Pundits FTA!GN! previews, I've been the only to put up something occassionally, like the cheat-sheet (which can be found on the HP) or my conversion of some of the TDE magic-user-types to FtA! spell schools (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=10519) (incomplete, didn't take off).

I also had some conversations with some Germans on German forums about the game, but none of them have done something with it. Most folks bought it only because of Pundits notoriety, most agreed that it's well done, though not outstanding, but not a single one of those has played it, not even for one-shots or test sessions.


In regards of homebrewing with FtA! though, I'm currently prepping a campaign in the vein of West Marches and Cinder, which includes also changed and new races, together with some house-rules and adaptions (for instance, I'm already certain about adopting Jeff's Ale&Wenches-rule (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/12/party-like-its-999.html), which will also result in some retooling of the experience system to make it work).

Maybe it would it help if I translate some of the crunchy bits to English. That would have to wait though until everything is set for playing, as I put keeping promises to my players above pimping the system used. (Especially as I hooked up again with a old player of me from my very first group, who had to drop out due to his unsteady scheduling in his study situation, and is now keen of the Cinderesque "Wednesday's game day, cool if you can drop by, if you can't, it's cool too" approach to finally get some gaming again. So it's important to me, as we haven't found the time to game together in more then 5 years... But ah, I digress.)

To put my half-done TDE conversion to good use, I'm also going to re-use most of the spell lists and twist them a bit around to fit the setting better - namely Buffoon school (as the race-specific magic of the goblins), Sharisad (as a native magic from my pseudo-Polynesia) and Witchcraft/Witch Curse (as the spell lists of the obligatory pseudo-feminist secret earth mother cult).


Clash:
A yahoo group is certainly better then nothing, it's easy to set up, and it's comfortable to combine with downloadable files and their announcement.
However, it's isolated and mostly ignored by outsiders (as opposed to more centralized forums like here, where you have your account and your right to post already anyway and are more ready to contribute to it if the urge hits you).
So I'd rather look if FtA! could get an own forum here, as here's anyway the rules FAQ and therefore anyway a forum to look at for FtA! players. Of course, I have doubts that here would be much public support for such an unpopular system, and it could result in everyone wanting their own forum for their own system here.

Pinhead should definitely set up a forum. He should also play it and write AP reports. He's missing a golden opportunity for promotion. I'm serious about the Forge thing, too.

After the campaign has gone on a bit, I planned anyway to do an AP about my experiences with West-Marches-like campaigns. I haven't yet decided if it would be more interesting to and if I'd be more interested in the opinions the German-speaking or the English-speaking crowd, but if I go for the latter, I might as well put up a copy on The Forge.
While I doubt it's ever going to happen, the thought of RE being playing FtA! amuses me...

I would say go for it, and invade the Forge, but of course Edwards would probably make up some bullshit excuse about how its "not a true Indie game" the way he does with any game he doesn't like.

RPGPundit

You are a moron, dude. Allow me to explain why.

1. You can't spam or troll ('invade') the Forge. RE will just move posts to the inactive forum.

2. Genuine AP reports are treated the same way regardless of whether they're about D&D or DitV. They sit there, and if they raise interesting points people chime in to say something or ask questions.

It doesn't matter if your game is 'true indie' or not when it comes to the Actual Play forum. If you wanted to get your own FtA forum at the Forge, you would probably have to ditch Clash and publish it yourself. And mend fences with RE of course.

Why would I be interested in posting to a forum that is at this point considerably less successful than this one?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;283980Why would I be interested in posting to a forum that is at this point considerably less successful than this one?

Actually, I didn't say you would, but you said go for it, invade the Forge. I suggested that Skyrock write one, because  think I might have seen his moniker over there. As far as the Forge forum goes, you're probably better off here with your own platform (cf. Luke Crane).

There appears to be a resurgence of interest in geeky old-school play among the Story Gamers. Might as well put your game under their noses. Probably somebody will say Forgey things about it and you'll get annoyed, but it's a market.

Yes, I actually have an account over there - but rather under my real name then under my moniker, and I've only used it a couple of years ago to ask some questions about Sorcerer and to comment on the German Forge Booth in Essen (which has been run by acquaintances of me - RPG Germany is a small country).

But first back to campaign prep, there's stuff that needs to be done before even the raw material for AP threads is ready...