Designing a 2e Retro-Clone

[Remathilis]

If it appears in the SRD or the Tome of Horrors or some other OGC source, you're fine. Otherwise, basically, you aren't.

Hmmm....

That's going to put a cramp in some of that conversion. While some stuff (proper names) is easy to remove, I'm concerned about a few more elements...

* Are spell descriptions (Such a Know Age or Call Upon Faith) verboten? Can I get away with similar spell effects written in 2e formats? Is the names off limits?

* Can I use class/kit names like Samurai, Crusader, Mystic, Bladesinger, or Battlerager, since they aren't proper nouns but common nouns and compound words?

* Several ToM spells make reference to the Battlesystem rules. Should I omit these references?

* Is there a list of monsters that the Tome of Horrors converted? I (sadly) never purchased it.

 

[Betote]

See, I've never played 1e AD&D, and when I played -a lot- 2e, we never ever used any splat book, apart from campaign settings or adventures, so I still have no idea of what a kit is exactly. And the sad thing? I never liked the rules. It wasn't until 3.5 (in fact, it wasn't until Age of Worms) that I got interested in a D&D ruleset, although I'm rather fond of the D&D playstyle: high fantasy, classes, "kill'em and take their stuff"...

I have, however, played and GM quite a bit of HackMaster (heck, I'm even in the credits of the Spanish edition) and found it rather enjoyable. I don't know if that was because of the 1e stuff or because of the Kenzer stuff, but I find Hackmaster to be a vast improvement over 2e.

What my life history for? Because I'd like to know what really is part of the "2e experience" that doesn't belong to 1e too. Is it enough to justify a whole retro-clone book, or would it be enough with a supplement for OSRIC, as it has been suggested?

 

[an_idol_mind]

So what might a "perfect" edition look like?

Just my own preferences, but...

* Keep the ability score tables as is, with the possible exception of removing exceptional strength (%). I personally abhor it, but it is a legacy item. If the overwhelming support is to keep % str, I'd keep it.

Exceptional Strength seems like something that should either be removed or a subsystem that should be allowed for other ability scores (i.e., thieves get exceptional Dex, mages get exceptional Int, etc). My vote would be to remove it.

* Races: Human, Dwarf, Gnome, Elf, Half-elf, Halfling, Half-orc and Half-ogre. The latter two got pushed in Skills & Powers, and would make decent additions. Other races (orc, goblin, hobgoblin, minotaur, bugbear, ogre, kobold, pixie, and tiefling) could be inlcuded later in an additional supplement. Races would be mostly left the same, with an additional human benefit for removing level limits.

My personal preference is no half-ogre, but it's not a huge deal.

* Non-Weapon Profs would remain similar to original concept, as glorified ability checks. Right now, I'm not sure in what direction to take them, other than towards a true skill system (akin to 3e on). I feel they are too important to drop though.

Nothing wrong with keeping profiencies in general as an optional system, since that's what it was for the life of 2nd edition.

* The original Monster Manual for 2e had over 350 monsters, and I fear about 1/4 of them remain closed IP. Unless there are OGL versions of some (aacrocka, abishai, skeleton golems, etc) I'm leery as to what I could do beyond the SRD I could replicate.

The Tome of Horrors had a lot of stuff, and it's all open content. I'd check that out.

I'm sure PnP can help with answering some of my questions, so before I move forward with a faithful clone or Pathfinder-clone, I'm interested in hearing more.

Cool project. This is worth keeping an eye on, IMO.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice.

* Are spell descriptions (Such a Know Age or Call Upon Faith) verboten? Can I get away with similar spell effects written in 2e formats? Is the names off limits?

Spell names and descriptions that aren't OGC already, are verboten to copy in an OGL-based retro-clone.

Game rules can't be copyright, though. So the same underlying game rules and/or mechanics can be written in your own words with your own illustrations. For safety, do not use the same names for your spells.

* Can I use class/kit names like Samurai, Crusader, Mystic, Bladesinger, or Battlerager, since they aren't proper nouns but common nouns and compound words?

"Samurai", "Crusader" and "Mystic" are common enough to be used as kit names, imo, but I wouldn't use the others. Personally I'd use kit names if they were in the dictionary.

* Several ToM spells make reference to the Battlesystem rules. Should I omit these references?

Depends. Do you intend to write an OGC version of Battlesystem? If not, don't reference it.

* Is there a list of monsters that the Tome of Horrors converted? I (sadly) never purchased it.

You basically can't do this without a copy of the ToH. Either you, or someone collaborating with you, has to have it. That's because you need to know who was the author in order to cite Section 15 of the OGL correctly (which is also why in the document I linked above nearly a whole page of tiny writing is taking up with citations from the ToH).

 

[bagger245]

Start with the core 2nd ed rules first then branch to the Player Options books... Make a faithful clone of it as well as introduce fixes as optional... This is the only way we get to have our own 2nd ed rulebooks for those who don't.

 

[vagabundo]

As with any potentially large project, start small, release often and gather feedback.

Good Luck. 2e was my first real DND game. Although I was self-taught with the Rules Cyclopedia the games weren't pretty.

 

[Lokathor]

1 more vote for:
-No more exceptional Strength
-AC goes upwards
-naming such a system "SERF"

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I think Hackmaster did a lot of that already. If it weren't for 3e its probably about in the direction I would go. Of course, here are my ideas for 2nd Edition:

Bring back the half-orc and monk.
Make the ability bonus tables make sense (either 3e or BECMI).
Get rid of level limits.
Allow the character a small number of S&P points for character customization.
Make all the skills percentile like the thief (ala Buck Rogers XXVc).
Ascending AC and BAB.
Make the saving throws make sense (probably one per ability score like Castles and Crusades).
Penalize multiclass characters significantly (at least x2 or x3)
Not have the xp tables level off (maybe not a unified 3e table, but make each table advance like that).
Get rid of exceptional strength, give warriors a 1d4 strength bonus, allow ability bonuses with advancement.

 

[Mythmere1]

Because I'm a lawyer, I'm more restricted in the advice I can give than P&P is, but here are my $0.02:

1) You could use Swords & Wizardry or OSRIC for the base: I'd recommend OSRIC because it already has the high-detail approach of 2e and has more of the classes, etc. In either case, if you're doing a full game based on OSRIC, you need Stuart's approval to avoid restrictions in the OSRIC open license which are there to prevent altered copies circulating as the original. With S&W, as long as you're not sharing the S&W trademark, that's not the case, but as I mentioned it would take a LOT more duplicative labor to bring the S&W text up to 2e.

2) Keep in mind that although there are several retro-clones out there, there's not open season on the original books; they're still copyrighted, and copyright law has to be borne in mind. You can rewrite the descriptions of numerically-based rules, but you can't use distinctive names - moreover, tabular formats can be copyrightable so be careful about how you present tabular data.

3) It may appear that everyone wants a perfected edition, and probably they do. But each of these people has a different vision of how to perfect the game. Each will complain loudly when your game diverges. It is best to keep strictly to the rules you're cloning, with the only deviations being for legal reasons. Even the legally-caused diversions will be a source of considerable complaint. A "retro-clone" has a certain credibility if it's done faithfully. An attempt to improve the game loses that credibility. The first steps toward retro-cloning, C&C and BFRPG, were "improvement" games because we hadn't really thought up the idea and method for doing a retro-clone. Those two games both have pretty good followings because they came early into a "market" where they were new. Later attempts to fix OOP games have fallen pretty flat as these later attempts are competing, as it were, with retro-clones being perceived as the real thing. Swords & Wizardry (0e), Labyrinth Lord (Moldvay Basic) and of course OSRIC (1e) have all pretty much taken dominant status because they've got pre-prepared audiences - you don't have to teach, explain, or persuade like you would with a "fixed" edition. I only released Swords & Wizardry in the last 3-4 months, and even though its got the smallest base audience of the three big clones it has had tens of thousands of downloads. OSRIC had fifty thousand plus downloads in its first week. You're just not going to see that with something that's got any element of being "my personal improved version of ..."

4) I would definitely dual stat the AC like I did in Swords & Wizardry. You'll gain compatibility with both C&C and BFRPG, not to mention that many modern gamers simply have no interest in playing a descending-AC game. Many people will write off the whole effort based on this. I wish we had done this with OSRIC - I think it's my only regret about the OSRIC text.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It is best to keep strictly to the rules you're cloning, with the only deviations being for legal reasons.

Absolutely. Listen to Myth on this one. If you're not so inclined, my advice is to find someone ruthless in their insistence on fidelity to the original rules, and let them look over everything. Resist the temptation to improve or fix things, at this point. If you are adding stuff, make it optional; the dual AC thing is a good example of offering an "improvement" that people can ignore, if they don't agree it's an improvement. Only deviate from the original when you are forced to from legal concerns.

Once you have a "close as legally possible" clone, then you start offering options or changes to the base system (probably in supplements, like "SERF Companion 1" or whatever).