|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Apr 9, 2015 10:29:20 GMT -5
If I or anyone new were going to use a Simulacra simply because the original games are out of print and going for high prices at places like eBay, what Simulacra would you recommend and why? Please provide info on any OD&D related Simulacra regardless of whether it is free or for sale. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 9, 2015 17:48:35 GMT -5
waysoftheearth's Delving Deeper has free versions, good lay-out, and is, well, awesome. I also love austinjimm's Planet Eris House Rules (google around to find, I think Admin Pete also has it listed in the "retro-supplements" section in his Old School Resources). It is great, old school in feel, etc. You do need the other 3 LBBs (especially the later two) to use it, though. I must say I also like Full Metal Plate Mail.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 9, 2015 22:38:46 GMT -5
Full Metal Plate Mail integrates important elements from Chainmail that are missing from the LBBs. It has everything you need in 100 pages. It adds some cool monsters that are not in the LBBs but are thematically correct, such as several key Barsoomians. Free.
Torch and Sword Beta is brief, mostly complete, and flavorful. Paul Gorman wrote it in 2011. It's free. The best part about it is it's the whole game in 79 pages. Perfect to print out and hand to someone.
Delving Deeper is more in-depth and better laid out. It includes some elements from Greyhawk I think. Free. I would recommend them in that order.
Iron Falcon which is by Chris Gonnerman (Basic Fantasy) is brand new, just released. Also free. It is LBBs+Greyhawk. It's a good game. The flavor is good. It's not my favorite one because he is a stickler for obeying the OGL and therefore has made some important changes to some things. That's not a criticism, it's just a negative for me personally.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 10, 2015 4:44:04 GMT -5
I'm not going to argue that any of the clones are "better" or "worse" than any of the others; each fills a particular niche and probably the best perspective can be had by reading them all. However, as the custodian of DD, it is effectively my duty to defend its integrity. I should therefore draw your attention to the following... . I am not aware of anything from Chainmail/Outdoor Survival that is represented in FMPM that is not also represented in DD. The reverse in not true. . FMPM has a relatively "modern" presentation; the author has said the layout emulates 3rd edition D&D. FMPM also emulates 3e in that each game mechanic is "encapsulated" by a headline so that, for example, dwarves and hobbits both share the "Short but Tough" benefit, dwarves are said to be "Stonewise", elves have the "Armored Caster" benefit (which, incidentally, is not quite as per D&D), and so on. D&D (and DD) instead has rules described in paragraphs of prose. . FMPM has Humans, d-notation, a Game Master, Mages, Level-Drain, etc., etc. Meanwhile, D&D (and DD) instead has Men, number ranges, a referee, magic-users, energy-drain, etc. etc. . Neither FMPM nor Iron Falcon maintain D&D's distinction between normal and heroic types, nor normal and heroic combat! DD of course does, and I believe T&S does too. Insofar as I am aware, DD is the only game mentioned above that respects Arneson's notion of the flunky (aka normal) tier, which is echoed repeatedly throughout the 3LBBs. . Delving Deeper doesn't (from memory) include anything substantial from Greyhawk beyond stats for those few monsters that are referred to in the 3LBBs, but not given stats until GH. The notable exception is the Storm Giant who has somehow eluded the cut thus far. DD includes an optional thief in honour of the pre-supplements era thief, which was in use from the earliest days; certainly prior to the publication of Greyhawk. . Delving Deeper and Iron Falcon go to a lot of trouble to be strictly legal under the terms of the OGL. FMPM and T&S include most of the D&D tables verbatim (including the class level titles in the case of FMPM) which is cause for legal concern according to Ryan Dancey, creator of the OGL. None of these, or any other, details need bother anyone in the least, of course. FWIW, Crimhthan The Great you may find DD's biggest departures from the 3LBBs are that it includes a handful of additional spells (mostly non-GH), and in the aerial and naval games. The original mini-war-games of U&WA are not represented in the SRD so these are copyrighted intellectual property of WotC. Therefore, DD replaces these copyright mini-war-games with additional exploration rules which extend the classic wilderness exploration game. If you're interested, you can browse Delving Deeper Online for a look about, or download it free as PDFs or DOCXs from my fileshare, or else buy the single volume printed booklet from Lulu for under five bucks. Enjoy
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 10, 2015 6:56:11 GMT -5
I defer to Ways of the Earth on the finer points he has covered. Thank you for the corrections and clarification.
Edit: I see a thief class and I think Greyhawk, even though home brewed thieves were there essentially from the beginning. That is again my perception rather than (THIEF = GH+) being cut and dried.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 10, 2015 9:35:32 GMT -5
Swords & Wizardry White Box I liked for its simplicity, and easy customization. I ran a few campaigns with it.
Delving Deeper I like for the opposite reason. Simon has grappled with the same questions I had with OD&D, and come up with informed answers to fill in the blanks. In effect, all the rulings I was considering using were incorporated into DD. He really incorporated Chainmail well. It is a bit more fussy to run that S&W
Not strictly OD&D, but many of my players really enjoy Labyrinth Lord, which is a B/X clone. Blueholme is a Holmes clone which looks good, but I have not tried.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 10, 2015 10:12:45 GMT -5
Blueholme is a Holmes clone which looks good, but I have not tried. Try it, try it!
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 10, 2015 10:25:51 GMT -5
Swords & Wizardry White Box I liked for its simplicity, and easy customization. I ran a few campaigns with it. I tried to blend simplicity with a "toolbox" approach when I wrote S&W:WB because that's the way I run my OD&D campaigns. I think it's hard to pick out a specific simulacra game without knowing exactly what style you prefer. There are many and each is designed to replicate the game with different styles and flavors. I think that BFRPG is a great game, for example, if you like B/X. I like the fact that Labyrinth Lords has specific docs designed to allow their game to be played like OD&D or AD&D. OSCRIC is very complete and is totally full of goodness if you like AD&D. Although Castles & Crusades isn't a "simulacrum" technically, it is a great blend of "3E mechanics with 1E flavor." So many choices.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 10, 2015 13:57:32 GMT -5
Yeah. Blueholme is Holmes, but Holmes is essentially ODD. Plus BLUEHOLME is also really pretty and flavorful.
Marv: I don't mean to leave out S&W. It's a very popular game. I only own the free PDF.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Apr 11, 2015 5:59:37 GMT -5
I would also add that Delving Deeper is my preferred OD&D simulacra. It keeps the feel of the original LBB's while adding elements from chainmail without having to own chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 11, 2015 6:40:11 GMT -5
Try it, try it! I'm curious about Blueholme, particularly insofar as Holmes provides greater detail around combat mechanics, which in turn may be taken as insight into how D&D was being played at the time Holmes learned it. I guess the real challenge in the Holmes space is that most folks can pick up the genuine article on Ebay for a song. I have enough sets to make me a loony Questions for Vile Traveller re: Blueholme: 1) Is Blueholme based on the published product, or the Holmes manuscript? 2) If the former, is a specific print targeted? 3) Where Blueholme goes beyond player level 3, what is the primary source material?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 11, 2015 7:40:42 GMT -5
Try it, try it! I'm curious about Blueholme, particularly insofar as Holmes provides greater detail around combat mechanics, which in turn may be taken as insight into how D&D was being played at the time Holmes learned it. I guess the real challenge in the Holmes space is that most folks can pick up the genuine article on Ebay for a song. I have enough sets to make me a loony Questions for Vile Traveller re: Blueholme: 1) Is Blueholme based on the published product, or the Holmes manuscript? 2) If the former, is a specific print targeted? 3) Where Blueholme goes beyond player level 3, what is the primary source material? The Holmes manuscript is available?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 12, 2015 5:02:29 GMT -5
The Holmes manuscript is available? Zenopus has been blogging about it on his site: zenopusarchives.blogspot.hk/2013/11/at-long-last.htmlI'm curious about Blueholme, particularly insofar as Holmes provides greater detail around combat mechanics, which in turn may be taken as insight into how D&D was being played at the time Holmes learned it. I guess the real challenge in the Holmes space is that most folks can pick up the genuine article on Ebay for a song. I have enough sets to make me a loony Questions for Vile Traveller re: Blueholme: 1) Is Blueholme based on the published product, or the Holmes manuscript? 2) If the former, is a specific print targeted? 3) Where Blueholme goes beyond player level 3, what is the primary source material? It's pretty clear that Holmes was basically playing 3LBB + selected parts of Greyhawk, and he referenced both Chainmail and Swords & Spells when he wrote his Basic Dungeons & Dragons. 1) The BLUEHOLME™ Prentice Rules predate the discovery of the manuscript, so they're based on the published rules. For a time after Zenopus started blogging about the manuscript I flirted with the idea of going down that route, but I stuck with the published books because tat, after all, is what people had played. I might do a "zero edition" of the Prentice Rules based on the manuscript, but not in the near future. Anyway, that basically takes it back to OD&D, pretty much. 2) All versions of them, and anything Holmes wrote on top of that in articles, books and fiction. 3) Although the text is basically complete the BLUEHOLME™ Compleat Rules are stuck in the development queue behind 3 Forbidden Mazes of the Jennerak adventures. They draw only on what we can gather about Holmes's own game from his other writings, so it's not a simple 3LBB + Greyhawk (we have Iron Falcon for that now). It only pulls in creatures that appear in his other writing, for example - there are dreenoi from the Starguard game, the race that Holmes managed to get to the heady heights of 4th level as a PC (by kind permission of John McEwan), and flesh golems can be turned into stone golems by a basilisk. Spells and additional classes, though, come from OD&D, the supplements, The Strategic Review, and early Dragon Magazine. In addition, where gaps appear some judicious reference to AD&D was made. But Compleat tries only to go in the direction that Holmes's games seemed to go rather than just importing OD&D whole-cloth. Oh, and if you need a hard copy there's a 30% off sale at Lulu through the 12th of April ... dreamscapedesign.net/2015/04/12/lulu-sale/
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 12, 2015 6:23:23 GMT -5
Sounds interesting Vile Traveller, thanks It's pretty clear that Holmes was basically playing 3LBB + selected parts of Greyhawk, and he referenced both Chainmail and Swords & Spells when he wrote his Basic Dungeons & Dragons. Is it plausible that Holmes may have also drawn from his prior experience with Warlock? it's not a simple 3LBB + Greyhawk (we have Iron Falcon for that now). IF explicitly eschews Chainmail and wargaming concepts, so I don't think it would be quite the same thing, but your model sounds more Holmesy anyway. I sent you a PM
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 13, 2015 7:47:21 GMT -5
It's pretty clear that Holmes was basically playing 3LBB + selected parts of Greyhawk, and he referenced both Chainmail and Swords & Spells when he wrote his Basic Dungeons & Dragons. Is it plausible that Holmes may have also drawn from his prior experience with Warlock? From Zenopus's delvings it does sound that Holmes was playing with Warlock ideas when he first approached TSR, but his ideas like spell points were shot down pretty smartly. I suspect the manuscript being blogged by Zenopus is a later version, where some things had already been "fixed". I've glanced through Warlock once but never really read it, certainly never played it, so I'm not sure if any Warlock-isms slipped through the rather haphazard TSR editing net in the final cut ... Anyway, as far as BLUEHOLME™ goes, it's firmly rooted in the published rules, the promises made therein*, hints from Holmes's other writing, and what I consider a logical extension of the rules. Of course, everyone will have their own opinion! * E.g. Witches! Never mentioned by Holmes in his manuscript, clearly inserted by an over-eager TSR employee into the published book, but never delivered in an official form by TSR.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 14, 2015 5:46:45 GMT -5
Marv: I don't mean to leave out S&W. It's a very popular game. I only own the free PDF. No worries. I don't make any money off sales and am not associated with the company any more. I think it has some good points and some bad points. When I was commissioned to build the game I was also given a "steering committee" who made some decisions different from those I would have made. If I was to write my own RPG system from scratch, it woudn't quite be S&W:WB. I do, however, feel the urge to reply when anyone praises the WB.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 19, 2015 3:42:28 GMT -5
I have read S&W and find it to be a very functional edit of OD&D's style, producing something which feels more complete and structured than the original game. OSRIC does something similar for AD&D although there's too much stuff in it for my personal needs. (I do like the way its PDF is put together though).
I will also recommend Lamentations of the Flame Princess for the sake of its codified house rules - the way it handles thief skills, the shift from feudal domains to early modern holdings and taxation, and the only encumbrance mechanic I have ever been able to stomach - though not for its aesthetic proclivities. The art-free free download is the way to go. Insert your own reliable imagery and fill the blanks.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Apr 19, 2015 8:55:20 GMT -5
I will also recommend Lamentations of the Flame Princess for the sake of its codified house rules - the way it handles thief skills, the shift from feudal domains to early modern holdings and taxation, and the only encumbrance mechanic I have ever been able to stomach - though not for its aesthetic proclivities. The art-free free download is the way to go. Insert your own reliable imagery and fill the blanks. This is also how I like LotFP - as a rulebook it's possibly my favourite take on the Classic D&D concept. I haven't tried any of the published scenarios so I will reserve judgement, but I haven't been tempted by any of them - neither have I ever been tempted to run Tomb of Horrors.
|
|
|
Post by Koren on Apr 27, 2015 15:19:03 GMT -5
As someone who considers himself a "B/X guy" for the brevity and elegance of those rules, I'm a fan of Labyrinth Lord, which has a HUGE amount of cool compatible supplements and other material available. That said, I've most recently grown fond of Basic Fantasy RPG due to it's inclusion of some "modern" ideas (primarily Ascending AC and BAB) and the fact that the XP tables aren't all screwed up like in LL. That's the ONE thing I hate about that clone.
I have to say I'm also a fan of S&W (White Box especially) for the same reason. I have a copy of Delving Deeper too, but reading through it, all those things that Ways pointed out which make it a closer clone of OD&D are all the things I don't like. I started with B/X so that stuff just seems too esoteric for my taste.
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 2, 2015 18:01:10 GMT -5
Delving Deeper, all the way.
But, this is because I yearn for d6 based hit dice across the board and no variable weapon damage to match.
In my opinion and play experience such a simple thing as that provides for unique effects in the game that aren't readily apparent until tried out first-hand, such as monsters becoming really, truly scary (that kobold, upon scoring a decent enough hit, can end it all with a club; No more will that Dragon be scoffed at by fighters with ridiculous combat bonuses from exceptional strength, double specialization, and damage versus large creatures... and a critical hit... Potentially resulting in over 30 fricken' points of damage. I am not playing World of Warcraft here).
I like the tension that offers in-game, and the resulting intelligent decisions my players make when they take off their AD&D goggles.
And in my personal opinion, Delving Deeper IS original dungeons & dragons. The only slight changes being legal ones, or a few extrapolations from the chain mail parent and some stuff from the strategic review... all of which I adore.
I know d6 across the board isn't for everyone. But I encourage everyone try it before they dismiss it out of hand as 'unrealistic' (fantastically untrue when played in context) or just not as fun as variable dice. I've made the switch gleefully and am never going back.
And if you DO try it... I heartily encourage you to try it with Delving Deeper, unless you want a bunch of modern stuff in your game like ascending AC and stuff. Try the other clones if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by rastusburne on Oct 15, 2015 4:48:33 GMT -5
My personal preference is Swords & Wizardry. It's a nice level of complexity. I run a pretty lite game so I mainly use the original D&D white box with some bits of Greyhawk, but I have a bunch of custom classes, and I keep a copy of S&W complete at the table to handle any ambiguities. Delving Deeper is good too, the only contention I have with it is using Wisdom for extra languages. I can see the rationale for why this was done, and it's an easy house rule to fix.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 15, 2015 4:54:44 GMT -5
Delving Deeper is good too, the only contention I have with it is using Wisdom for extra languages. I can see the rationale for why this was done, and it's an easy house rule to fix. You'll be pleased to know that rule was dropped several versions ago. In v4 a high wisdom only affects prime requisite scores: ddo.immersiveink.com/dd.html#wisdom
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 15, 2015 7:15:42 GMT -5
Delving Deeper is good too, the only contention I have with it is using Wisdom for extra languages. I can see the rationale for why this was done, and it's an easy house rule to fix. You'll be pleased to know that rule was dropped several versions ago. In v4 a high wisdom only affects prime requisite scores: ddo.immersiveink.com/dd.html#wisdomI had not seen the rule for Wisdom for extra languages, likely because it was dropped several versions ago. I kinda like that as an alternate house rule.
|
|