A rant on retro clones...

[Wik]

Treebore, you're okay, though. Because you make the recommendations followed by a point. I mostly get irked by "Retro Clone is better than GAME, you should play that instead" and variants thereof.

I think I kind of see why people would do it, though. And I thank everyone for their inputs on all this. Basically, please just ignore me... as I said earlier, I was just a grumpy Wik last night.

 

[Chainsaw]

I mostly get irked by "Retro Clone is better than GAME, you should play that instead" and variants thereof.

As it relates to OSRIC (the trailblazer, in my opinion), I think the writers and contributors would agree with you and also be irked (even if a little flattered). In fact, I have many times seen P&P recommend people play AD&D from the 1E PHB/DMG and only refer to OSRIC as a game aid or supplement. Of course, OSRIC was originally designed to facilitate 1E module publishing (not to replace 1E) and was incomplete as an actual game - it was only expanded to its current state at the request of various fans.

Even with S&W, I bet Matt would also agree OD&D (or OD&D with supplements) is better, but because those books are getting prohibitively expensive (check eBay - a set could cost you hundreds of dollars), he puts together a much cheaper alternative that captures as much of the original flavor as legally possible.

I really can't speak to any of the other clones, as I don't play them.

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, OSRIC is missing a lot of little details. Most of which are intentionally left out for DM's to house rule upon as desired.

For example, and I only now/remember these because of a current thread elsewhere (DF), OSRIC does not have XP bonus' for high attributes. Nor does it describe how to handle armor when worn by a multi class fighter/mage, etc... What races can be which class. Things like that are left out so each group can decide how they wish to handle it.

So OSRIC is not a complete rewrite of 1E, things are left out and will need to be decided upon by a GM, likely one familiar with other iterations of D&D so they can fill in any gaps they want filled in, and do so with the version they like best.

 

[SmokestackJones]

Hmmm...interesting thread.

Personally, I'm a bit glad someone chimes in with a retroclone recommendation, seeing as I can't keep straight which retroclone corresponds to which version of the game (although I now know if I was going to use a 'clone it'd be Dark Dungeons, as I'm a big fan of the Rules Cyclopedia).

As have been noted D&D isn't the only game with retro-clones.

Yet, how many other RPGs can boast a retroclone for practically every single flippin' version of the same game.

Yeah, these are the kind of problems ya WANNA have.
-Tom Servo

-SJ

 

[Diamond Cross]

Well, instead of trying to buy a different game for a single rule that you don't agree with, why not just try to make the rule mesh better with the system of the game you're already playing?

It's just a waste of good money to buy umpteen million different books for one simple rule, that probably doesn't truly need to be fixed in the same place.

I'm also not into retro-clones myself. If they're exactly the same as the actual game, then it's just dissonance to me.

 

[Chainsaw]

Well, instead of trying to buy a different game for a single rule that you don't agree with, why not just try to make the rule mesh better with the system of the game you're already playing?

It's just a waste of good money to buy umpteen million different books for one simple rule, that probably doesn't truly need to be fixed in the same place.

I would agree with both points.

I'm also not into retro-clones myself. If they're exactly the same as the actual game, then it's just dissonance to me.

You seem to generalize all the clones as being simply redundant and unneeded (maybe I misunderstand you). In S&W case, OD&D w/Supplements are OOP and expensive. In OSRIC's case, the system was originally conceived as a tool for publishing new modules compatible with an OOP system (1E). In either case, what's there to be negative about?

If you've got a beef with a particular system, could you be more specific?

 

[Diamond Cross]

I would agree with both points.


You seem to generalize all the clones as being simply redundant and unneeded (maybe I misunderstand you). In S&W case, OD&D w/Supplements are OOP and expensive. In OSRIC's case, the system was originally conceived as a tool for publishing new modules compatible with an OOP system (1E). In either case, what's there to be negative about?

If you've got a beef with a particular system, could you be more specific?

You didn't misunderstand me, I'm not very big on retro clones. I just don't understand it. If the game is no different then why not just stay with the original books instead of just renaming them if they are the exact same rules?

I'm simply frustrated with this tribalism stuff. And that's all it really is. Don't like the name just change it to a different name and viola'! It's all of a sudden a brand new game. It's just ridiculous to me. Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

And I don't really have any beef with any systems. My beef is with stupid attitudes and too much change way too soon. To me, there's no such thing as a bad system, it's how you make it fun for yourself and the players that count.


However, I also prefer less complicated games. For what I mean, the Hero system is way too complex for me to run.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

OSRIC does cover multiclass armour options, actually, Treebore; it's dual class armour that are a bit vague. But you're substantially correct; OSRIC covers what it reasonably and lawfully can in 400 pages.

 

[Diamond Cross]

In addendum to my last post, I realize that it is to avoid legal entanglements with copyrighted name as one of the reasons.

 

[Treebore]

You didn't misunderstand me, I'm not very big on retro clones. I just don't understand it. If the game is no different then why not just stay with the original books instead of just renaming them if they are the exact same rules?

I'm simply frustrated with this tribalism stuff. And that's all it really is. Don't like the name just change it to a different name and viola'! It's all of a sudden a brand new game. It's just ridiculous to me. Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

And I don't really have any beef with any systems. My beef is with stupid attitudes and too much change way too soon. To me, there's no such thing as a bad system, it's how you make it fun for yourself and the players that count.


However, I also prefer less complicated games. For what I mean, the Hero system is way too complex for me to run.

I would probably agree with you, but I also buy RPG's pretty much "just because". So I may buy them "just because" they look cool, or do something in slightly different ways that I may find interesting enough, and so on.

Now if I was wanting to be particular, or more frugal/disciplined with my money on RPG's, I would likely look at this situation more in line with you.But I am not, I like looking at alternative ways to do and say things, or present them, to more clearly state ideas, etc... and I get that, and more, out of the clones, so I buy them.

BTW, I do not consider OSRIC, at least, to be overly expensive. It is a 400 page book packed with a lot of info. Now the full color version, THAT I do consider to be expensive!