A rant on retro clones...

[JeffB]

I realize this is the internet, and a rant, but I feel you are being a bit overly dramatic about the whole thing.

You asked for some suggestions that one or more of the RetroClones already tackle quite readily. In addition, the books are easier on the wallet and easier to procure for the rest of your players than OOP materials.

Also many posts in this thread are spot-on.

Next time perhaps post on the Legacy D&D House Rules forum, so there is no confusion on exactly what you are looking to do/looking for?

 

[Wik]

Ha, ths is what happens when you post late at night and are just a bit grumpy that you can't go to sleep.

For the record, this is something that bugs me just a bit, but not really as much as I may have implied on last night's post. It's up there with the whole "Oh, you really like [game that is not Savage Worlds]? You should try Savage Worlds" bit that always seems to pop up on this thread.

And while I realize that in my OP I asked for house rules feedback, only one of the house rules I mentioned appeared in a retro clone, and it was a very simple house rule - so, again, why the pushing for the new yet very similar game.

But, whatever. I was just a grumpy Wik last night.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It's not just retro-clones, it's a general rule of RPG messageboard behaviour.

The rule is:-

Q: "I like game X, but there's a problem because..." (insert reason here). "Can anyone recommend a similar game I might like?"
A: "Try game Y! I like game X too, and when I tried game Y I had a lot of fun!"

This is a cool answer.

Q: "How should I handle situation Z in game X?"
A: "Play game Y instead! I used to play game X, but when I tried game Y, I found it's much better."

This is not a cool answer.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'd also bet that a fair number of commenters don't actually read (or incorrectly read) the post they're responding to. They might honestly believe they're giving relevant info, just because they misread the OP. Same could be said for responders who simply failed to look at all the other responses and get a sense of the direction of the conversation and its (attempted) course corrections.

This is the internet after all, not a world renowned for coherent thought and rationality.

 

[prosfilaes]

Q: "How should I handle situation Z in game X?"
A: "Play game Y instead! I used to play game X, but when I tried game Y, I found it's much better."

This is not a cool answer.

When you're talking certain situations in very similar games, that's about all you can do. If your problem with GURPS 3rd Ed is that you have to tweak IQ & DX to optimize points versus skills, and the Compendium I set of skills and advantages is inconsistently specific and redundant at points, there's one reasonable answer: go to GURPS 4. There are certainly problems with any game where the best answer is "You're using the wrong set of rules if that's bothering you."

Dennis Ritchie, the creator of the programming language C, allegedly once said in response to a feature request, “If you want PL/I, you know where to find it.”.

 

[Ariosto]

"Use this published rules set instead."
"Add house rules changing X, Y, and Z thus and so."
Etc.

That's groovy if it's what the OP is asking for, naturally!

Otherwise, it's like the people at RPG.net who reply to anything by suggesting a switch to Savage Worlds (or Spirit of the X brand F.A.T.E., or whatever hobby horse they happen to be riding).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

I never get those.

Might have something to do with my sig.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Not that I ever do this, but I can think of a few reasons why someone would:

1. To fill gaps. Missing a key book, or need some adventures? Clones are easy to obtain and can fill a gap in one's collection of the original system, e.g. instead of sourcing a 2e Monstrous Compendium just use the MM for Clone-J instead as it's probably close enough for rock and roll.

2. To provide ideas for houserules and tweaks. Looking to change or fix feature X? If there's a clone out there that's already done a decent job with it, might as well check it out before doing all the heavy lifting yourself. Doesn't mean you have to completely adopt the clone's entire system.

3. Because the suggestor honestly feels the clone is better than the original. They rarely if ever are, of course, and I can see how these suggestions would become annoying over time; but I'll cut 'em some slack until-unless I figure they're trying to stealth me into a new-style system - at which point I'm done.

Lan-"and if it's not the same, how can it be a clone anyway"-efan

 

[The Green Adam]

I'll agree with the original poster's observation, see your annoyance and raise you one.

So, essentially, all the originals and the retro-clones are variations of the same game. With a few tweaks here and some minor adjustments there, these are all some version of pre-2nd Edition AD&D or D&D.

So, if someone asks for help with a system question and can't just make it up themselves for some reason , why not point out the rule from the retro-clone your so fond of that helps answer the query. Note what the source of the help was. Maybe, just maybe, the people asking will find that interesting and seek to know more about the retro-clone.

But in the end - you're all playing the same game. Make it up. Darn game has too many useless rules anyway.

AD
Barking Alien

 

[Treebore]

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

Personally? I recommend them because they are much better laid out, much more clearly written, and just much better presented and easier to understand and play.

Still, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the originals and will never part with them, but that is my honest opinion as to why I recommend the new clones over the originals.

Which I think is important because I think such things will be highly effective in helping new people actually like the game easier.

Of course I have also had a lot of more hard core fans than I am get deeply offended over my opinion, but that is gamers for you.

Now if you aren't interested in spending money getting these clones and are perfectly happy sticking with the originals, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. HOWEVER, if you have the money I think it will be a big help getting new people into liking it a good bit easier.

That is why I do it, and is strictly my opinion, so if you don't like it, thats fine. Just don't get bent out of shape over it (ie I don't want this to turn into another edition board war). Its simply my opinion.