A rant on retro clones...

[Wik]

Okay. This is a bit of a rant, and I apologize in advance, but I really just feel like sharing one of my ENWorld Pet Peeves.

Namely, when a poster starts talking about playing a previous edition (OD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e, whatever) and is asking for help getting started. Quite often, this poster has the books, has at least a few splats, and is just asking for feedback on the game in general.

And then, inevitably, someone will mention the corresponding retro-clone. A sort of "Hey, you play 1e? Pick up this retro clone instead! It's the exact same game, except the terms are a bit different and it's not the art you remember!".

I get that retro clones are useful. I understand their purpose, and they're amazing for people that lack the original source material, allowing them to play these great classics.

But why do people have to start recommending the retro-cloneversion of a game that someone already has?

And I get that these games might get recommended for some of the newer expansions/adventures that are being released, but most of the time, that's not how these name drops go about. Instead, it's a matter of "Ditch that old game, get this new version of that old game that's exactly the same!".

And yeah, it bugs me.

Bah humbug.

 

[kitsune9]

Roleplaying games does different things for different people. The exact same game provides a bajillion different experiences for us. It's one of the reasons that trying to find any consensus among us is like herding cats. The other thing is that just about everyone has their own idea of what the perfect OD&D, 1e, 2e, whatever is and some have taken that idea and created the retro-clone.

Now we have 1) their creator suggesting to other readers their hard work, or 2) their fans.

For some, the retroclone is the game that made a player/fan or its creator go "WOW!" and while the rest of us pretty much go "meh".

So in short, ditch whatever you're playing and play my kewl rpg instead...due in 2018.....I think.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I feel the same way about weekly recommendations to try DDI I am subjected to on the 4E forum.

Yeah, sometimes Enworld is like a broken record, to be honest. It gets with some topics I can guess the second or third post word for word, and the retro clones is one of the topics.

 

[Shades of Green]

I've deleted my offending post on the other thread you refer to. I apologize for being annoying.

 

[amerigoV]

I do not use the retros, but I was under the impression that they had cleaned up a few things. So if someone was interested in 1e, the retroclone would be 1e with some improvements (ascending AC for example). Thus, it might be an easier place to start/transition for your players.

 

[Mark CMG]

Namely, when a poster starts talking about playing a previous edition (OD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e, whatever) and is asking for help getting started. (. . .)

And then, inevitably, someone will mention the corresponding retro-clone. (. . .)

I get that retro clones are useful. I understand their purpose, and they're amazing for people that lack the original source material, allowing them to play these great classics.

(. . .)

And I get that these games might get recommended for some of the newer expansions/adventures that are being released, (. . .)

I suppose that while the thread starter might have the materials, his players might be lacking them. It's good to know which retro-clone corresponds for that reason as well as the ones you mention. Of course there might be specific times when such a suggestion is either less than useful or even intrusive, so I understand your point to your rant but you might want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(. . .) Quite often, this poster has the books, has at least a few splats, and is just asking for feedback on the game in general.

(. . .) A sort of "Hey, you play 1e? Pick up this retro clone instead! It's the exact same game, except the terms are a bit different and it's not the art you remember!".

But why do people have to start recommending the retro-cloneversion of a game that someone already has?

(. . . ), but most of the time, that's not how these name drops go about. Instead, it's a matter of "Ditch that old game, get this new version of that old game that's exactly the same!".

These parts of the rant seem to deal with specific bathwater-posts that aren't linked so I won't post to them.

 

[Nagol]

Okay. This is a bit of a rant, and I apologize in advance, but I really just feel like sharing one of my ENWorld Pet Peeves.

Namely, when a poster starts talking about playing a previous edition (OD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e, whatever) and is asking for help getting started. Quite often, this poster has the books, has at least a few splats, and is just asking for feedback on the game in general.

And then, inevitably, someone will mention the corresponding retro-clone. A sort of "Hey, you play 1e? Pick up this retro clone instead! It's the exact same game, except the terms are a bit different and it's not the art you remember!".

I get that retro clones are useful. I understand their purpose, and they're amazing for people that lack the original source material, allowing them to play these great classics.

But why do people have to start recommending the retro-cloneversion of a game that someone already has?

And I get that these games might get recommended for some of the newer expansions/adventures that are being released, but most of the time, that's not how these name drops go about. Instead, it's a matter of "Ditch that old game, get this new version of that old game that's exactly the same!".

And yeah, it bugs me.

Bah humbug.

I find this usiually happens when the OP points out a perceived lack in the chosen game or starts asking for house rules to use.

That trips people's "this isn't what he wants" switch and they respond with alternatives that might be more palatable to the OP.

I know if I'm thinking about applying house rules to more than cultural enforcement, I look around for a game that more closely matches the genre/play style I'm looking to play.

Let's see if my hypothesis holds up:

My question is, what sort of rules changes should I make to really give the game its best sheen?

Yep.

 

[nedjer]

TRPGs are quite heavily weighted against change:

a new system means persuading yourself and others to learn the new setup and integrate it alongside the group's style

players take 'ownership' of games, brands, styles of play and settings, because of the time and commitment to the hobby. It's not so much moving on as divorcing your system and the community that shares that system

a new system often involves GMing a few awkward games in unfamiliar territory risking GM hero to zero

the grass isn't always greener and after three months of persuading everyone to switch it's hard to shrug your shoulders and ditch the new baby with its bathwater

These hurdles, and more, seem to form a bit of DeLorean loop.

 

[GreyLord]

Okay. This is a bit of a rant, and I apologize in advance, but I really just feel like sharing one of my ENWorld Pet Peeves.

Namely, when a poster starts talking about playing a previous edition (OD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e, whatever) and is asking for help getting started. Quite often, this poster has the books, has at least a few splats, and is just asking for feedback on the game in general.

And then, inevitably, someone will mention the corresponding retro-clone. A sort of "Hey, you play 1e? Pick up this retro clone instead! It's the exact same game, except the terms are a bit different and it's not the art you remember!".

I get that retro clones are useful. I understand their purpose, and they're amazing for people that lack the original source material, allowing them to play these great classics.

But why do people have to start recommending the retro-cloneversion of a game that someone already has?

And I get that these games might get recommended for some of the newer expansions/adventures that are being released, but most of the time, that's not how these name drops go about. Instead, it's a matter of "Ditch that old game, get this new version of that old game that's exactly the same!".

And yeah, it bugs me.

Bah humbug.

Specifically, such as in a thread you started previously, if they want to CHANGE RULES AROUND THAT ARE THE SAME as already done in a retro...and are asking advice on how to integrate those rules...

Well the Retro already did it for them. Much easier to say...hey, what you want is already done in the retro clone...or other system.

I'm not about to give advice on something already covered IN DEPTH by something else.

In fact, one could call it a pet peeve if someone says...I want to do ascending to Hit values...and a lot of things from 3.X that were integrated into some retroclone...

But then states that retroclones are useless.

Why expect ME to do all the work someone else has already done for you?

Now if it's covering something NOT covered, or that I do differently, I'll give you all the advice in the world. I've played a LOONG time with a LOT Of systems, and had experience integrating, changing, and doing a ton of houserules.

So, normally I don't simply suggest a retroclone or something that integrates 3.X concepts with older game systems (such as what I did in a previous thread you started).

However, when someone specifies almost precisely the exact things covered in a game system (such as change in how skills are done and ascending Armor/BAB) and those changes were already done by someone else in an easy to access item which is free...my advice is to look at the document which covers the exact thing you are asking.

So...normally I'd give advice on something (personally, I don't like retroclones...I play C&C, but it's not so much a retroclone as a way that integrates different versions of D&D together, and I can stand the S&W whitebox, but all other retros are poor copycats of the original...IMO...and I'd rather play 3.X, 4e, or any other RPG besides them...or simply play the originals as THEY ARE WRITTEN or WITH HOUSERULES NOT COVERED BY RETROCLONES), but if asking for retroclone ideas (normally 3.X ideas integrated with the older D&D or AD&D game systems) then that's what I'll give as advice.

PS: Hence, I really don't play any retros (as stated previously, C&C isn't a retro...as in Gygax's and Trolllord's own game system...or can be used to houserule all the D&D editions (OD&D, 1e-4e) together into one game system). If playing older systems by themselves I'll play them as is with their own houserules that are NOT carry overs from 3.X (if I wanted to play 3.X I'd play 3.X in those cases) rules. Things like Grandfathered 1e rules into 2e, and things like that are more pertinent to REAL houserules for the older systems in my books. I prefer their THAC0, combat tables, saving throws, powerful spells, etc. as they are rather than the 3.X or 4e take and renditions on such things.

 

[grodog]

In general, when I see folks getting curious about older editions, it's usually when they have some books or modules but not necessarily enough to run a game using them. In those instances, adding a retro-clone into the mix makes sense, to supplement what they already have. (And, as amerigoV mentions, some of the clones are very useful in trying to better understand rules nuances that aren't clearly-stated in the original editions).