Search results

Also, B1 came before B2. ;)

It's not because I want to, but it might be that I wasn't paying as much attention before. For the reason you mention. :) EDIT: but I really don't think so. I think there's been a big increase.

Sorry, I said "obviously" because I wrote a couple of retro-clones, so "obviously given that it's me," not "obviously" in the sense of "obviously better." I know a lot of players who prefer elegant rule sets, and they're particularly good when you've got a system where several different factors...

Is it my imagination or has there been a HUGE uptick in the number of threads relating to "back in the day," 0e, 1e, Basic, etc.? I started noticing it about a week ago, although it seems like it was going on to a lesser degree a bit earlier. I imagine it's just a fluke or a temporary...

Yup, I agree with all that. I'm just pointing out that it's often used as a way to dismiss old style games, I'm not saying you're doing that (obviously you aren't). It depends on the context.

I voted megadungeon, because that's what we played earliest, and probably most (influenced by the Holmes book). But we also began serialized adventures with G1 later on, and then sandbox-style once Greyhawk came out (we kind of suddenly put the sandbox idea together when we had Greyhawk on top...

I'd get that too, except I'm one of those people who prefers new, inked dice. Got my set of Zocchi sharp-edged dice, don't need any others. :) But mainly, the original books and supplements.

My first one? Goblinear Crag. Take the cross-section dungeon from the Holmes Basic book, then apply a middle-schooler's thought process to it - bigger is better! There were about 20 levels and sublevels in the masterpiece I created, with the level maps based on the B1 style. I looked at it a...

That's nicely put! I usually talk about this using the terms "wonk" (when a game uses different subsystems for various tasks or classes) and "elegance." (when the same system is used for everything). Obviously, I prefer a wonky system because it gives more character to different types of things.

I'm with JRR Neiklot. It's not in the word itself, it's in the way many people use it when they're trying to subtly backhand OOP games. But as a reason to play, it's a perfectly valid reason.

Cool, thanks! :)

I voted! Is the "I voted" banner available anywhere other than in the voting booth itself? I didn't snag the code while I was on the page.

I would buy a market-priced edition of the original D&D (1974-1978) books, but I wouldn't want to pay a "collector's premium." I'd be buying them for use in play, and I'd like a set that didn't cost me $200 to assemble. I probably wouldn't buy an AD&D set - I have those and I can still buy more...

If anyone truly, wholly, absolutely disagrees with JT's comments about the technical side of Swords & Wizardry, you can certainly vote for S&W as best free product. :) Voting has begun. (and/or for Mythmere Games as best publisher)

As a relevant matter, Swords & Wizardry has been nominated for an ENnie Award for best free product, and Mythmere Games has been nominated for Best Publisher (I don't know how difficult that second one was).

I definitely think Swords & Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience...

Started with Holmes Basic, played a mishmash of OD&D + AD&D PHB. Definitely used the megadungeon as the center of everything, starting with a kid's enthusiastically deep 20 level dungeon side-view, and maps were based on the method of B1. The only campaign I had was Blackmoor, so the...

Excellent game. Another hidden benefit - it's compatible with all the Swords & Wizardry modules, it's compatible with all the Labyrinth Lord modules. It's compatible with all the Moldvay Basic modules (need to flip the AC, though). There's a huge body of materials for it. (obviously, I somewhat...

No, it isn't necessary at all, as you say - what I meant is that if his comments were made as "objective truths," I'd have more to say in response, about game theory, blahblahblah. Since I assume there's an implied "IMO," I don't. Although I think bloggers sort of should make that distinction...

I've made my comments on JT's blog, mainly focusing on the fact that Swords & Wizardry/0e is a free-form game with different design principles from those of the later editions. You can only judge a game based on whether it hits the target it's aiming for (and then you can, of course, still...