J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[Ariosto]

Early on, I had the same response to the AD&D sub-classes, experience bonuses and high ability scores. (I would note that some subjects being raised in this thread may be as little pertinent, or even irrelevant, to Swords & Wizardry as they were to the original D&D set.)

Chance in character generation is simply part of the old D&D game -- and the game aspect has, despite the apparent shortage of "crunch", a very big footprint. There is a lot to say on that subject, but basically it is a very different kind of game than some other RPGs. It may be helpful if one comes (as did its expected audience) from a historical war-gaming background.

It certainly does not increase understanding and appreciation to come in with a heavy expectation of its being Game X instead of itself -- any more than that smooths the path in approaching 4E.

There are plenty of games I either don't find much fun to play or lack interest even in trying. That does not make them bad designs. Some may be very excellent designs ... for the attainment of goals I do not happen to share!

Card-driven games, for instance, are not my cup of tea. Draws from the deck in The Sword and the Flame are something I accept, but do not wax enthusiastic about. Piquet, though, is simply Not For Me, Thanks!

I think it is worthwhile to discuss our preferences, especially when it sheds light on the utility of different techniques as means to different ends. Simply learning about unfamiliar paradigms can be illuminating, whether or not they add to the set of one's personal pleasures.

To judge a design's success or failure as if it were "supposed" to be something quite other than what the designer had in mind, though, seems to me counter-productive.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Sure, you could play it without minis, but I don't think that was really any harder or easier on play than later editions. ...

Having DMed many different editions of D&D, I can say that it is much, much, much easier to run OD&D (or its 'retro-clone', Swords & Wizardry) without minis than it is to run 3e or 4e.

I ran two 3e campaigns and, except for the most simple combats, I could not run combats without minis and battle mats (or equivalent). That simply has not been the case in my OD&D games.

Many other gamers report exactly the same experience (including, apparently, Jonathan Tweet).

 

[Treebore]

Having DMed many different editions of D&D, I can say that it is much, much, much easier to run OD&D (or its 'retro-clone', Swords & Wizardry) without minis than it is to run 3e or 4e.

I ran two 3e campaigns and, except for the most simple combats, I could not run combats without minis and battle mats (or equivalent). That simply has not been the case in my OD&D games.

Many other gamers report exactly the same experience (including, apparently, Jonathan Tweet).

Yeah, in 3E and 4E if you are playing btb you are using mini's. If your willing to play "loosely" or "close enough" then you can get away with not using mini's.

In 2E and prior I do not remember having to use mini's to be sure we were following the rules. Maybe we did. I only remember liking to use mini's to be sure of who was and was not within the AoE of the various spells, but I also remember just guessing.

 

[Primal]

Wasn't Tweet part of the 4E Design Team as well. Until he got laid off, which was (IIRC) around last Christmas.

 

[SteveC]

Having looked at Swords and Wizardry after a friend suggested it for a summer campaign, I have to agree with Tweet. I'm an old fart, so I played OD&D back in the day, and this really is a pretty good update for those rules, keeping a lot of the quirky parts of the old game in place.

My take on these old school games isn't so much that it's nostalgia that is influencing them, but rather the desire to return to a game that runs largely by GM houserules and fiat. Before anyone gets excited, that's not a bad thing in my mind.

I used to play a lot of the Amber Diceless RPG, and that taught me a lot about running games like OD&D and these retro clones, basically because Amber is pretty much all fiat. In the hands of a good GM there's nothing better, but in the hands of an average or poor GM, look out!

So that's what I think is largely the interest behind Swords and Wizardry: a history of good GMing. A game like 3x or 4E with so many rules can survive a mediocre or poor GM much better than these games, because the group has a common framework to understand how things work. Want to know how your character might climb a cliff? In 3x onward, you know it's going to be a skill check (climb or athletics). In earlier editions, it might be anything from "make a strength check on a D20" to "if you aren't a thief, you can't).

Obviously deciding how those rules work largely determines whether or not you're going to have a good experience with the game. That's why I say that retro games have their audience largely based on the quality of the GM. If you have a GM that says "no, you can't" all the time, are you going to enjoy an old-school game? Likely not.

--Steve

 

[stuart]

In the original rules the only game effect that a high strength, intelligence or wisdom would give you is the bonus/penalty to experience. There was no other mechanical effect in the rules. It was how the game modeled a strong person being a better fighter, etc. All the ability bonuses and adjustments from Str, Int, and Wis were added in later supplements and editions.

Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, which didn't effect xp at all, did have various mechanical game effects.

That's interesting. I'm certainly not an expert on OD&D...

In Basic D&D (Moldvay or Mentzer) you still get those xp bonuses... but you ALSO get bonuses for the high stats. I think it makes more sense in the original rules then like you're describing. There's no reason to give someone a bonus to their dice rolls AND to their xp rewards for making good dice rolls... all based on being lucky during character generation.

 

[Ariosto]

Actually, the original XP modifiers and the later modifiers to other things have just the same reason. One can indeed get ahead by trying harder, but not having to try so hard in the first place also makes a difference. The muscular tend from the start to be better fighters, the intellectual better magic-users. That's the "simulation" reason, anyway.

The "game" reason is that it's like being dealt a hand of cards. You've got the same chances in the deal as everyone else, and the same opportunity to play well or poorly (which, along with the other chance factors along the way, really determines the outcome).

Character mortality is a significant factor here, along with the variable development of multiple characters in any case in a wide-open campaign. If you take for granted that both Mighty Mike and Average Joe are going to be rubbing shoulders session after session, advancing in lockstep until both reach 20th or 36th (or whatever) level ... then an initial disparity is understandably odious. Where's the New Deal?

The problem arises because that's not how the game was designed to be played.

 

[billd91]

True and for the same reason I think that balancing tough classes with the requirement of high ability scores is also a very poor mechanic. It doesn't balance the classes, it just makes them rarer*, but when a qualifying character is finally rolled he is doubly rewarded.

I believe that assuming that the high stat requirements balances the class powers is a faulty assumption. It does what you suggest it does - it makes them rarer, not just among game groups that actually adhere to the character generation rules, but also in the game world.

 

[Nikosandros]

I believe that assuming that the high stat requirements balances the class powers is a faulty assumption. It does what you suggest it does - it makes them rarer, not just among game groups that actually adhere to the character generation rules, but also in the game world.

Well, I've seen people argue that the stats requirement are a balancing mechanism.

Furthermore, many DM's will allow players to choose the class to play and will do the same when creating NPCs... first pick a class and then build the character (see for examples the followers tables or the tables for encounters in the AD&D DMG).

 

[WayneLigon]

Thief has a 15% chance to automatically disarm a trap. Disarming a trap is always available by descriptive action . . . by the player of any class.

Are you talking about in S&W or the OD&D rules? Because if it's the last, I'll say something I've never said before: Cite.