OD&D and the clones

[True Black Raven]

A couple of people that I have a lot of respect for said
this

The reality is it's not like it use to be. Times have changed. The community is fragmented. There was a time when it seemed everyone was brain storming and discussing ideas, putting out free stuff for fun, and sharing it with the community.

and
this

Honestly, I think things shifted after the publication of the clones. The hobby fragmented slightly with their emergence. Everyone had their favorite and it was discovered that people could make a few bucks too. But, blogs and forums were still a common meeting ground, a familiar face you would check in on to see what's new. Then, google+ and the push to join the crowd happened. It had a selling point of being able to include or exclude people from your circles. It was a great recipe for further fragmenting this small community. Many of the old blogs faded away.

and
this

Instead of OD&D fans it seems that we became S&W fans, Delving Deeper fans, AS&SH fans and so on. While it all came from OD&D the branches seem to outweigh the tree and the game we love got lost. Instead of OD&D material we have Compatible material made for X clone. With the game at least back in PDF form we need to be pushing OD&D instead of clones and sending people to get the game that started it and introduce them to a solid OD&D community.

then this complete misunderstanding of the point and the assumption of something that was not said

I boggle at this. It's all the same! Yes, sure, Clone X has this way of doing a thing and Clone Y does it another way. Peanuts! There's no reason you can't take material from one clone and use it as-is in another, or in the original.

and then this further misunderstanding of the point

Very true. I'm not sure that I've actually played "pure" BTB OD&D for decades now. I like to insert rules twists and such to almost every new campaign I run. I grab monsters from C&C or the OD&D Monster Manual or from the Rules Cyclopedia all the time. For me, OD&D is as much a style and attitude as it is an actual rules set.

and then back to the point

So my question is why are we not pushing the originals since we are at a point that we can which was where we wanted to be? Have we become so dependent on clones we missed this point? Have we become ego driven where we think my clone is better or that we have taken over the market? Do we think that we are the guardians of something that we created and now see the originals as a threat to what we created which was a means to an end until we can get what we want? Gentlemen, I feel we need to rethink this and come back to what drove us in the beginning; the love for the game and wanting to see it back in print which has been achieved.

Now my 2 cents

No one is complaining about the clones, after all most of them are well written and are much easier to just pickup and play than is OD&D itself is, although contrary to the popular myth that OD&D is unplayable many us with no connection to Minneaplois or Lake Geneva, no connection to Dave or Gary and no connection to wargaming picked it up and started playing and had long running campaigns. We figured it out, when we were young that is what you did with new things you figured them out.

Neither is anyone saying that you can't borrow from here and there and everywhere for your game. No one is talking about or claiming or promoting "pure" BTB OD&D. The first thing to consider is that most of us know "zero" "zilch" "nada" people who ever tried to play OD&D BTB. In the introduction, it tells you that is not the way to play the game, they say make it your own.

What is "pure" OD&D? I submit that the answer for everyone is or could be the 3LBBs plus anything else I(you) want to use, which means that "pure" OD&D is different at every table. Go read all three books and you will or should understand that different at every table was and is the direction everyone was and is expected to go with OD&D.

So I submit that two people didn't even understand what was being talked about and that is the problem, because the point that I think is being made is an important one.

Are we promoting OD&D and BTW (pointing to the clones and supplements) look at all the great resources that you can pick and choose from to help play OD&D or are we saying Clone X is better than Clone Y and here is why you should use Clone X and BTW OD&D is just poorly written and hard to understand so use Clone X. There is a vast chasm between those two viewpoints (and I am not anti-clone at all and there are some really good ones) and IMO the first veiwpoint is way more inclusive than the latter.

This of course just considers the free stuff.

Now for the clones that are pay only or pay mostly I am not against those either and I hope they succeed. I do think it is better to introduce people to OD&D and help them learn to DIY before they go try all the shiny options. Because even if they go buy Clone Z, the hope is that they are getting it because of something specific that it offers, but they will still tweak it to suit themselves, something that OD&D is great for teaching you how to do. Better yet they will write up their own thing and put it out there for people to see.

But let's promote OD&D and let the chips fall where they may. Let's write honest informative reviews of OD&D and of the clones. No more sanding off warts and hiding blemishes. If you want to write and sell something derivative, that is what the clones and the OGL are for. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but there is much that is not derivative and that the OGL is not needed for. As a community I think we would be well served to find out what the not derivative is and maximize it.

OD&D broke new ground and the community should be breaking new ground and if you want to do that you need to look at OD&D and not derivatives of OD&D. I say again I am not anti-clone and I have some favorite clones, but I always come back to OD&D.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2018 17:03:05 GMT -5 True Black Raven said:

But let's promote OD&D and let the chips fall where they may. Let's write honest informative reviews of OD&D and of the clones. No more sanding off warts and hiding blemishes. If you want to write and sell something derivative, that is what the clones and the OGL are for. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but there is much that is not derivative and that the OGL is not needed for. As a community I think we would be well served to find out what the not derivative is and maximize it.

OD&D broke new ground and the community should be breaking new ground and if you want to do that you need to look at OD&D and not derivatives of OD&D. I say again I am not anti-clone and I have some favorite clones, but I always come back to OD&D.

I agree! And I wrote one of the clones! At least, an earlier edition of one of them. I wrote Delving Deeper for John Adams and Brave Halfling Publishing because he saw the need to preserve a reasonable facsimile of OD&D. Note: this was the original edition of DD, the current and IMO far superior edition is the work of Simon “Ways of the Earth.” Now that the rules are legally and readily available? The need for clones is diminished; though I still believe they have their place.

At any rate? Here’s my take on it way back in December 2015: My Blog

[mormonyoyoman]

Clones? Now that the original is (are?) back, the clones are, IMHO, House Rules. Which, come to think of it, is what my groups were doing since we couldn't make heads or tails of them little booklets.

PS: Didn't know you were responsible for DD, Mr Piper, and was almost afraid to say that I liked first edition over 2nd edition. Whew!

[Deleted]

Thank you for the kind words Chet!

[oakesspalding]

I actually disagree (I think) with everyone here. Or perhaps I agree with everyone. I'm still not sure exactly what the sides are, if there are any.

I think we can and should discuss both OD&D AND the clones, without taking positions on which do or should take metaphysical priority, as it were. I think the three little brown books are sacred scripture. On the other hand, all of the best clones do at least some things better. A few do a great many things better. And I'm not just talking about the rules, per se. Or, rather, and this is sort of a subtle point, they often follow the artistic lead of their originals - turning them up to 11, as it were - not because the clone designers are any smarter than Arneson and Gygax, but because the clone designers can create their games with a neutral sort of hindsight, unencumbered by the drama and perceived market forces that were buffeting the founders along in those heady days. If any of that makes sense.

What would Gygax have done if he hadn't been seduced by the false god of more and more rules crunch and proto-splat book accretions? (We know it's a false god, now. It wasn't as clear, then.) Or if he hadn't been seduced by that office in Beverly Hills?

I think Wizards destroyed D&D (or gave it the coup de grace). I really do. And, unlike some old-schoolers, I don't think 5E contradicts that claim. But at the same time, through giving us the OGL, Wizards made this fantastic thing we have now, possible. 1974 was a great time to be alive (at least in gaming terms). But so is 2018.

I wasn't around in the early days of these boards - the time before the clones or when they first started emerging - so in one sense I can't speak to the overall trend. But it really doesn't seem to me that people are circling the wagons around particular clones in some unhealthy way. I really haven't noticed that at all. There's certainly A LOT of wagon-circling about old-school vs. new school, etc., but in a certain sense that kind of wagon-circling is, sorry to say it, what we're here for.

Tomorrow, I'll tell you what I really think.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2018 20:04:24 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I actually disagree (I think) with everyone here. Or perhaps I agree with everyone.

I'm not sure either!

My take? The clones are great and are relevant. I just think the main reason many of them were created was to preserve something now freely available. That's why I originally wrote DD, after all. My main point, while I can't speak for the original poster, was this. If you are looking to recreate an "old school" campaign as they did in '74, why not just go back to the material they created as a part of that process? Go right to the source, as it were.

After getting familiarity with that? Then go take a look at the various OSR clones and supplements.

[oakesspalding]

I can't argue with that. Though I should add one little caveat:

For me, at least, it was reading the early clones that first inspired me to go back to the original source. I'm not sure I would have appreciated it as much, or even been motivated to do so, otherwise, if that makes sense. Of course, that just might be an effect of where I happened to be at that particular place and time. We all came into this in our different ways.

[Deleted]

Indeed!

I'll never forget when I chanced upon that boxed set after hearing someone mention it at Chess Club in high school. This "new game," new in every way it was said. It allowed you to create a whole fantasy world just like (sorry Gary!) Lord of the Rings.

I'll always be thankful I was there in the games infancy and had the chance to read the TLBBs with zero foreknowledge (save the sukoshi bits, above) of what was inside.

[mormonyoyoman]

Mar 11, 2018 20:48:09 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I can't argue with that.

Of course you can. This is the internet and these are the times when absolutely anyone can be offended by absolutely anything.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2018 21:46:01 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Mar 11, 2018 20:48:09 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I can't argue with that.

Of course you can. This is the internet and these are the times when absolutely anyone can be offended by absolutely anything.

No you can't! How dare you?!? 

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 17:27:56 GMT -5 @piper said:

Mar 11, 2018 17:03:05 GMT -5 True Black Raven said:

But let's promote OD&D and let the chips fall where they may. Let's write honest informative reviews of OD&D and of the clones. No more sanding off warts and hiding blemishes. If you want to write and sell something derivative, that is what the clones and the OGL are for. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but there is much that is not derivative and that the OGL is not needed for. As a community I think we would be well served to find out what the not derivative is and maximize it.

OD&D broke new ground and the community should be breaking new ground and if you want to do that you need to look at OD&D and not derivatives of OD&D. I say again I am not anti-clone and I have some favorite clones, but I always come back to OD&D.

I agree! And I wrote one of the clones! At least, an earlier edition of one of them. I wrote Delving Deeper for John Adams and Brave Halfling Publishing because he saw the need to preserve a reasonable facsimile of OD&D. Note: this was the original edition of DD, the current and IMO far superior edition is the work of Simon “Ways of the Earth.” Now that the rules are legally and readily available? The need for clones is diminished; though I still believe they have their place.

At any rate? Here’s my take on it way back in December 2015: My Blog

Thanks, and btw that is an awesome blog post.

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 18:35:05 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Clones? Now that the original is (are?) back, the clones are, IMHO, House Rules. Which, come to think of it, is what my groups were doing since we couldn't make heads or tails of them little booklets.

PS: Didn't know you were responsible for DD, Mr Piper, and was almost afraid to say that I liked first edition over 2nd edition. Whew!

Most of the clones are house rules, a few are not really clones per se and they go well beyond house rules, I think we should see a lot more of that. House rules are fun to read, everyone should post their house rules.

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 20:17:39 GMT -5 @piper said:

Mar 11, 2018 20:04:24 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I actually disagree (I think) with everyone here. Or perhaps I agree with everyone.

I'm not sure either!

My take? The clones are great and are relevant. I just think the main reason many of them were created was to preserve something now freely available. That's why I originally wrote DD, after all. My main point, while I can't speak for the original poster, was this. If you are looking to recreate an "old school" campaign as they did in '74, why not just go back to the material they created as a part of that process? Go right to the source, as it were.

After getting familiarity with that? Then go take a look at the various OSR clones and supplements.

That is really the point I was trying to make and I believe the point the original posters I quoted were trying to make as well.

[Mr Darke]

As one of the quoted posters, I want to just add that I am not anti-clone. What I am doing is rethinking their place and by extension my place in this whole thing. What others do or think is their call and I don't want to sound like I am forcing anyone to agree. What I am trying to throw out there, for serious discussion, is what to do now that one thing that we always wanted has come to pass. Sadly it seems that the games being back in some form of print has been lost in the background.

I know what I want to personally see happen is the community shifts its focus back to what drove us in the first place. I am not saying that the clones are irrelevant or unneeded, nor am I taking an elitist position that the clones are beneath the original game. To be honest, if it wasn't for S&W Core and later Complete I may have never looked at OD&D closer.

As I expressed in a PM over this subject we used to produce material directly for the games we love which has now seemingly shifted away from that due to that material shifting to clones. A point expressed above expanded on this in that the lure of a few bucks may have drove this. I won't fault someone wanting to be paid for their work but that is not what the retro/old school community was originally built on.

I don't feel there are sides to this, and I hope it doesn't turn into a side based argument. I do feel that we need to step back and looks at things from a new perspective and decide on how to proceed from there.

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 20:04:24 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I actually disagree (I think) with everyone here. Or perhaps I agree with everyone. I'm still not sure exactly what the sides are, if there are any.

I think we can and should discuss both OD&D AND the clones, without taking positions on which do or should take metaphysical priority, as it were. I think the three little brown books are sacred scripture. On the other hand, all of the best clones do at least some things better. A few do a great many things better. And I'm not just talking about the rules, per se. Or, rather, and this is sort of a subtle point, they often follow the artistic lead of their originals - turning them up to 11, as it were - not because the clone designers are any smarter than Arneson and Gygax, but because the clone designers can create their games with a neutral sort of hindsight, unencumbered by the drama and perceived market forces that were buffeting the founders along in those heady days. If any of that makes sense.

What would Gygax have done if he hadn't been seduced by the false god of more and more rules crunch and proto-splat book accretions? (We know it's a false god, now. It wasn't as clear, then.) Or if he hadn't been seduced by that office in Beverly Hills?

I think Wizards destroyed D&D (or gave it the coup de grace). I really do. And, unlike some old-schoolers, I don't think 5E contradicts that claim. But at the same time, through giving us the OGL, Wizards made this fantastic thing we have now, possible. 1974 was a great time to be alive (at least in gaming terms). But so is 2018.

I wasn't around in the early days of these boards - the time before the clones or when they first started emerging - so in one sense I can't speak to the overall trend. But it really doesn't seem to me that people are circling the wagons around particular clones in some unhealthy way. I really haven't noticed that at all. There's certainly A LOT of wagon-circling about old-school vs. new school, etc., but in a certain sense that kind of wagon-circling is, sorry to say it, what we're here for.

Tomorrow, I'll tell you what I really think.

I think we agree a lot more than we disagree, I am not saying hide the clones, I am saying put OD&D out their and back front and center in the conversation, I think there is value in educating people about OD&D, at the very least it gives them a point of reference and then the can return to it anytime they want or need to. You have a very fine clone of your own and I am not advocating we chase people away from it, but they will appreciate it more if they are familiar with the original, because then they can see what you did and the decisions you made. 

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2018 22:23:37 GMT -5 Mr Darke said:

I don't feel there are sides to this, and I hope it doesn't turn into a side based argument. I do feel that we need to step back and looks at things from a new perspective and decide on how to proceed from there.

As mod, I don't have any issues with the conversation so far. Everyone is being civil and respectful.

[Mr Darke]

Mar 11, 2018 20:04:24 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I actually disagree (I think) with everyone here. Or perhaps I agree with everyone. I'm still not sure exactly what the sides are, if there are any.

I think we can and should discuss both OD&D AND the clones, without taking positions on which do or should take metaphysical priority, as it were. I think the three little brown books are sacred scripture. On the other hand, all of the best clones do at least some things better. A few do a great many things better. And I'm not just talking about the rules, per se. Or, rather, and this is sort of a subtle point, they often follow the artistic lead of their originals - turning them up to 11, as it were - not because the clone designers are any smarter than Arneson and Gygax, but because the clone designers can create their games with a neutral sort of hindsight, unencumbered by the drama and perceived market forces that were buffeting the founders along in those heady days. If any of that makes sense.

What would Gygax have done if he hadn't been seduced by the false god of more and more rules crunch and proto-splat book accretions? (We know it's a false god, now. It wasn't as clear, then.) Or if he hadn't been seduced by that office in Beverly Hills?

I think Wizards destroyed D&D (or gave it the coup de grace). I really do. And, unlike some old-schoolers, I don't think 5E contradicts that claim. But at the same time, through giving us the OGL, Wizards made this fantastic thing we have now, possible. 1974 was a great time to be alive (at least in gaming terms). But so is 2018.

I wasn't around in the early days of these boards - the time before the clones or when they first started emerging - so in one sense I can't speak to the overall trend. But it really doesn't seem to me that people are circling the wagons around particular clones in some unhealthy way. I really haven't noticed that at all. There's certainly A LOT of wagon-circling about old-school vs. new school, etc., but in a certain sense that kind of wagon-circling is, sorry to say it, what we're here for.

Tomorrow, I'll tell you what I really think.  

Concerning the bolded points I never could take to that attitude. I never did like the equation of a game to a religious or pseudo-religious standing. So I am hoping that is a type of sarcasm on your side rather than a true attitude (I am reading it as good natured sarcasm). While I love retro/old school D&D I never got along with the 'one true way' or near religious attitudes concerning the game and its creators. 

That said, I will echo the sentiment that I think we all agree for the most part but are coming in from different paths, which is fine. As far as the OGL is concerned there has always been a question that comes up every now and again about how much it is actually needed to produce material for OD&D or AD&D vs actually making clones. The way it looks is that it is unneeded for supplements as long as you are careful in wording however it is a safety net when it comes to full on games but may not be needed at all. It is a better safe than sorry bet on the parts of content creators. I have a hard time explaining this one but I think you get the idea. 

At the end of the day OSR rose as a way to support OD&D, CD&D and AD&D. Dragonsfoot and other sites did a great job of that before the OSR and still does. I am not knocking the OSR at all but think that it is time for the whole of it to reevaluate things. 

[Deleted]

It is always good to step back and evaluate your methods and examine your goals. The problem with any movement is momentum, the OSR has built up a lot toward going back to the beginning of D&D and FRPGs. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, however, we (the editorial we, not us on Murkhill specifically) have largely failed to move past that point.

We've figured out from where we've come. Now where do we go? Do we endlessly loop back around to where we believe D&D started? No, I say! Take the TLBBs and imagine the hell out of them! Think like a pirate!

I'd love to hear a rules change start not with "well, Gary wrote a great game and all but [xyz] is just plain stupid!" But, rather: "that was a great solution but, for my world, it works better this way" (followed by an amazing alternate system for doing the very task under discussion).

I made a 'blog post about this but don't want to keep posting (and self-promoting) my 'blog, so I will recap:

OD&D is succinct. This doesn't mean it must avoid detail. For example, if you are running a nautical campaign? Expand the ship battle section to suit your needs. Don't like clerics? Rip those pages out of the book and substitute (or not) something else. Who knows? You may wind up with a huge book of more rules than all the AD&D books combined and a campaign completely unlike Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Kalibruhn, or Tekumel, etc. ... and that's a good thing! Why does your campaign need 6 ability scores ranging in value from 3-18? No reason. Why do you need the core four (or three) classes? Races? Or Vancian magic? Or magic at all?

These are the questions we should be asking ourselves, not which edition's fireball spell is the best fit for your campaign ... we should be asking if a human uses magic at all and, if so, can he even cast a spell like fireball?

There is no true way to do it, the game is what you envision it to be. Pay no heed to those who would correct you with taunts of badwrongfun and just keep having fun in your world.

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 22:23:37 GMT -5 Mr Darke said:

As one of the quoted posters, I want to just add that I am not anti-clone. What I am doing is rethinking their place and by extension my place in this whole thing. What others do or think is their call and I don't want to sound like I am forcing anyone to agree. What I am trying to throw out there, for serious discussion, is what to do now that one thing that we always wanted has come to pass. Sadly it seems that the games being back in some form of print has been lost in the background.

I know what I want to personally see happen is the community shifts its focus back to what drove us in the first place. I am not saying that the clones are irrelevant or unneeded, nor am I taking an elitist position that the clones are beneath the original game. To be honest, if it wasn't for S&W Core and later Complete I may have never looked at OD&D closer.

As I expressed in a PM over this subject we used to produce material directly for the games we love which has now seemingly due to that material shifting to clones. A point expressed above expanded on this in that the lure of a few bucks may have drove this. I won't fault someone wanting to be paid for their work but that is not what the retro/old school community was originally built on.

I don't feel there are sides to this, and I hope it doesn't turn into a side based argument. I do feel that we need to step back and looks at things from a new perspective and decide on how to proceed from there.

I agree, which is why I started this thread, I thought your view was worth exploring.

[True Black Raven]

Mar 11, 2018 23:07:35 GMT -5 @piper said:

It is always good to step back and evaluate your methods and examine your goals. The problem with any movement is momentum, the OSR has built up a lot toward going back to the beginning. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, however, we (the editorial we, not us on Murkhill specifically) have largely failed to move past that point.

We've figured out where we've come from. Now, where do we go? Do we endlessly loop back around to where we believe we started? No, I say! Take the TLBBs and imagine the hell out of it! Think like a pirate!

I'd love to hear a rules change start not with "well, Gary wrote a great and all but [xyz] is just plain stupid!" But, rather: "that was a great solution but, for my world, it worked betters this way" (followed by an amazing alternate system for doing the task under discussion).

I made a 'blog post about this but don't want to keep posting (and self-promoting) my 'blog, so I will recap:

OD&D is succinct. This doesn't mean it has to avoid detail. For example, if you are running a nautical campaign? Expand the ship battle section to suit your needs. Don't like clerics? Rip those pages out of the book and substitute (or not) something else. Who knows? You may wind up with a huge book of more rules than all AD&D books put together and a campaign that looks completely unlike Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Kalibruhn, Tekumel, etc. ... and that's a good thing! Why does your campaign need 6 ability scores ranging in value from 3-18? No reason. Why do you need the core four (or three) classes? Races? Vancian magic? Magic at all?

There are the questions we should be asking ourselves, not which edition's fireball spell is the best for your campaign ... it should be can a human use magic and, if so, can he even cast a spell like fireball?

There is no true way to do it, the game is what you envision it to be. Pay no heed to those who would correct you with taunts of badwrongfun and just keep having fun in your world.

I very much agree with you on this, one of the attractions of this forum is the no taunts of badwrongfun and no One True Wayism^TM. I am sick to death of both. What each of us envision it to be.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Mar 11, 2018 20:48:09 GMT -5 oakesspalding said:

I can't argue with that. Though I should add one little caveat:

For me, at least, it was reading the early clones that first inspired me to go back to the original source. I'm not sure I would have appreciated it as much, or even been motivated to do so, otherwise, if that makes sense. Of course, that just might be an effect of where I happened to be at that particular place and time. We all came into this in our different ways.

I agree 100% if it wasn't for both the Labyrinth Lord & Basic Fantasy clones I'd never have chosen to look into OD&D & B/X D&D. I love the DIY custom-ability of OD&D, I can house-rule it depending on the needs of my campaign; where as that gets harder the later the edition as there are more working parts baked into the system. If I want I can toss the save system & replace it with a roll-under-stat save system, I can do it. If I don't want to fuss with THAC0 I can use 3.+ ascending AC & To-Hit system instead, I can do that. If I want to add a simple skill system I can.

With B/X D&D I can do the same; where as 4e you can't without changing A LOT & only slightly less so with both 3.5/PF & 5e. There are a lot of players (including me early on) who loved the perceived "options" added to later editions - but most of those things could've been done in 3LBB OD&D and B/X D&D by "roleplaying" it.

I like how the clones take some of this into account with their house-rules that they bake into their game. But I got to the point why do I need a ton of extra classes to add "options" when I can discuss with my players the kind of game & characters they want to play; if a house-rule is needed to help the players do just that I can help create some. In the end all I need is OD&D or B/X D&D for my games; then mod them as needed for a given campaign. If i don't want to fuss with it I can see if there is a OSR that has what I need instead.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Mar 11, 2018 23:07:35 GMT -5 @piper said:

It is always good to step back and evaluate your methods and examine your goals. The problem with any movement is momentum, the OSR has built up a lot toward going back to the beginning. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, however, we (the editorial we, not us on Murkhill specifically) have largely failed to move past that point.

We've figured out where we've come from. Now, where do we go? Do we endlessly loop back around to where we believe we started? No, I say! Take the TLBBs and imagine the hell out of it! Think like a pirate!

I'd love to hear a rules change start not with "well, Gary wrote a great and all but [xyz] is just plain stupid!" But, rather: "that was a great solution but, for my world, it worked betters this way" (followed by an amazing alternate system for doing the task under discussion).

I made a 'blog post about this but don't want to keep posting (and self-promoting) my 'blog, so I will recap:

OD&D is succinct. This doesn't mean it has to avoid detail. For example, if you are running a nautical campaign? Expand the ship battle section to suit your needs. Don't like clerics? Rip those pages out of the book and substitute (or not) something else. Who knows? You may wind up with a huge book of more rules than all AD&D books put together and a campaign that looks completely unlike Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Kalibruhn, Tekumel, etc. ... and that's a good thing! Why does your campaign need 6 ability scores ranging in value from 3-18? No reason. Why do you need the core four (or three) classes? Races? Vancian magic? Magic at all?

There are the questions we should be asking ourselves, not which edition's fireball spell is the best for your campaign ... it should be can a human use magic and, if so, can he even cast a spell like fireball?

There is no true way to do it, the game is what you envision it to be. Pay no heed to those who would correct you with taunts of badwrongfun and just keep having fun in your world.

Preach!!! Piper earns an Exalt!

[Deleted]

Thank you! (blush)

[captaincrumbcake]

I've been saying such for years and been ducking flying turds for it. But, Piper is right, and deserves an exalt for saying it again.

So, there. 

[Mr Darke]

Where I am at right now is to go back to what I feel is the foundation of the community. If I write anything for 'publication' it will be for OD&D or Classic and given away.

This community has given a lot to me and I want to give back. I feel. Free sharing of ideas is what I want to see and to help drive that I will be a player in that sphere.

Now, off to making water craft for people who make more money than I do.

[Mighty Darci]

There was a time when it seemed everyone was brain storming and discussing ideas, putting out free stuff for fun, and sharing it with the community.

Isn't this what we are about? At least it seems that way to me.

[mormonyoyoman]

Maybe we have enough clones. The concept of rolegaming is so large that I'd like to see or make something that is significantly different from D&D - any version. (Definitely not another D&D 4.) All I ask is that there are few rules, or all based on one master rule, and that it feels real. (GMs supply the sense of fun.)

TnT reacted by "doing the opposite" of many D&D standards, blurring the perceived limitations of classes, the unique SR and generic MR, and a healthy disrespect for rules. Runequest went further and eradicated classes almost entirely. (I'd argue that Rune Lord and Rune Priest are classes though not available to beginning PCs.) Almost immediately, we had the first two salvos in the Rules Lite vs Rules Heavy arguments.

I love to read the clones rules, as most address one or more of the weaknesses of various versions of D&D - many of them have been quite clever & each of them are fun to study. Me? Don't much like classes, charts, or (as AD&D kept seeming to do) making up yet another rule each time a new situation came up. Absolutely loved, and still love, the freewheeling seat-of-the-pants GM style that Arneson personified. (Was really disappointed that AiF didn't show any of that. And what was the idea of using radioactive printing?)

Or maybe I'm getting too old and impatient for lotsa rules. If I ever wrote my own game, it would probably consist of one page with three rules.

Or maybe I should stick with my favorite clones - ice cream clones.

[robkuntz]

Nothing new stated here that Gary did not already note in D&D quotes and other, such as,

“...My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them...” -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975.

If people just think of D&D as Gygax's initial system condition it becomes pretty simple to wrap your head around it.

Even though he began "playing god" for them through AD&D most of us now know the reasons for that, just as I did BitD.

The problem with clones is not so much the clones, but the ethos that presumes that pre-made adventures will be used with them, which is not congruent with but a minor strand of the concept as I have noted elsewhere but indeed sides with the disposable market side and in due course represent the majority of material published on the back end, just like with latter TSR and Wotc, etc. So I personally see no difference. Just smaller versions of WotC because of the same disposable model.

[robkuntz]

Mar 16, 2018 13:48:27 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Maybe we have enough clones. The concept of rolegaming is so large that I'd like to see or make something that is significantly different from D&D - any version. (Definitely not another D&D 4.) All I ask is that there are few rules, or all based on one master rule, and that it feels real. (GMs supply the sense of fun.)

TnT reacted by "doing the opposite" of many D&D standards, blurring the perceived limitations of classes, the unique SR and generic MR, and a healthy disrespect for rules. Runequest went further and eradicated classes almost entirely. (I'd argue that Rune Lord and Rune Priest are classes though not available to beginning PCs.) Almost immediately, we had the first two salvos in the Rules Lite vs Rules Heavy arguments.

I love to read the clones rules, as most address one or more of the weaknesses of various versions of D&D - many of them have been quite clever & each of them are fun to study. Me? Don't much like classes, charts, or (as AD&D kept seeming to do) making up yet another rule each time a new situation came up. Absolutely loved, and still love, the freewheeling seat-of-the-pants GM style that Arneson personified. (Was really disappointed that AiF didn't show any of that. And what was the idea of using radioactive printing?)

Or maybe I'm getting too old and impatient for lotsa rules. If I ever wrote my own game, it would probably consist of one page with three rules.

Or maybe I should stick with my favorite clones - ice cream clones.

I was critical of the clones because of the duplication.  If you're going to push house rules, push house rules, do a volume or a compilation of them, like in a magazine or small publication, like variants in 'zine articles in wargaming  publications (IW, Panzerfaust, et al) or The Dragon, etc. from bitd.  But they just kept on coming (and still are coming!) which has indeed glutted as well as fractionalized the market AND kept the momentum upon back end modules, instead, all of which has not pushed major creative boundaries (except for some house rules and more pre-made adventures to use with them).

[Deleted]

I bought my first "clone" at GaryCon this year.

It's called "Crypts & Creatures."

The reason I bought it is it's complete in 36 pages. The author said "I'm tired of gigantic volumes of rules. We don't need that. All we need are some basic guidelines and then make the rest up. So I wrote a set of rules to do that and sell it for five bucks."

I haven't read the rules yet, but dang, I like this guy's style.