Designing a 2e Retro-Clone

[Psion]

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.

That depends on your goal, really. What are you trying to accomplish here? What you'd get here is something that isn't really any better than the books already on my shelves. So unless you have some alternate goal, like being a reference point for creating reference materials (like OSRIC), then that doesn't buy you much.

If the goals at the heart of this product is to "update the 2e gaming experience" and/or "let me use my 2e stuff as-is", then a strict approach really isn't necessary or desirable.

If those aren't goals... well, I, at least, don't see any benefit in the project.

It's true that interested parties might want different perfections (the Pathfinder RPG forums should serve as an illustrative example), I think that it should be possible to come up with a list of most common bugbears and axe them, giving you a slimmed down baseline you can then supplement.

If I can pick on the post before yours as an illustration:

Of course, here are my ideas for 2nd Edition:

Bring back the half-orc and monk.

Wasn't in the core and wasn't in most published materials, so if your ultimate goal is plug in playability, this is stuff that can wait for a supplement.

Make the ability bonus tables make sense (either 3e or BECMI).

That's a good streamlining.

Get rid of level limits.

It's very easy to ignore them if they are there, and at the same time, replicating the table is a copyright sticky-wicket. I'd come up with an alternate optional method for those who want to replicate the experience. (An example might be a list of racial aptitudes that translate in another table.)

Allow the character a small number of S&P points for character customization.

WAY optional, not representative of the "core 2e experience", and a lot of work to boot.

Make all the skills percentile like the thief (ala Buck Rogers XXVc).

Possible, but making all skills/proficiencies D20 is a shorter leap from an OGL product.

Ascending AC and BAB.

Yes. This is a method simplification, not a truly substantial change.

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).

All of these sound like major departures of intent. Simplify, streamline, but no alteration please.

Get rid of exceptional strength, give warriors a 1d4 strength bonus, allow ability bonuses with advancement.

Something like that, yes.


So, in short, I think what Philotomy and Mythmere are points well taken, but they advocate more "truth to the original" than I really think buys you anything.

 

[Mythmere1]

So, in short, I think what Philotomy and Mythmere are points well taken, but they advocate more "truth to the original" than I really think buys you anything.

One point, though - the reason for the "truth to the original" approach isn't truth to the original for its own sake. I don't play 2e or even like it particularly, so I've got no dog in this hunt whatsoever. The reason for "truth to the original" approach is because it gains credibility for the project's end result (I went into more detail in the post above). Too many changes to it, and what you've got is a fantasy heartbreaker.

It does have a lot to do with the project's goals. Swords & Wizardry and OSRIC have taken very different tacks because the project goals are different. Both projects shifted direction somewhat learning from Dan Proctor's excellent results with Labyrinth Lord. Nevertheless, there's a very big risk in terms of acceptance by the community if you diverge too much from the original.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

For the record, I don't play 2e, either. My opinion is rooted in the credibility issue. If you want to make a 2e clone, and you spread the word on that basis, then you should make a 2e clone. If you want to make an "inspired by 2e" game, then don't emphasize the "clone" aspect, or you'll be setting yourself up for a lot of unnecessary flak from the community.

The benefit to a clone is the instant market potential. It's a known quantity that is compatible with the books on gamers' shelf, and with all those 2e adventures, settings, et cetera. You can immediately mix and match old rulebooks, new rulebooks (PDF or POD), old adventures, new adventures, et cetera. New players can be given a free set of PDF rules.

This is a strong foundation to build on, not only because of numbers and credibility, but because the rules are now OGL, which encourages publication and customization. A new skill system for "SERF" can be published and everyone knows it works with SERF, but it also has mind-share credibility and compatibility with 2e, itself.

If you make a "fantasy heartbreaker," that isn't really 2e, I think you lose a lot of mind-share that you would have enjoyed, otherwise. People who prefer RAW 2e, or who don't agree with some of your changes will just reject SERF out-of-hand. Word will spread that "this isn't really 2e."

If SERF is *really* a 2e clone, you'll get a lot of buy-in and activity (e.g. there are a lot of 2e players on the DF 2e forum), and you don't lose the ability to offer improvements or innovations in supplements, down-the-line. In short, I think you gain more than you lose, with this approach.

 

[Obryn]

I'm with the folks who argue that the point of a clone game is to ... well, make it a clone.

I'm not terribly interested in a 2e clone right now, but if I were, I'd want it to do 3 main things.

(1) Allow me to use my existing products & box sets with a very minimal amount of conversion work. (Ascending AC is fine; removing exceptional strength is not.)

(2) Allow third-parties to create new products compatible with it.

(3) Help people without access to the out-of-print books learn how to play the game.

Minor changes are fine. I think OSRIC walked a great line here, for example. I just don't think the point of a clone game is to try and make the existing game better; I think it's to make the out-of-print game available, and enable the use of existing products.

From there, if you want to make supplements, it's an admirable goal. However, I think a clone project's first goal should be compatibility, and everything else should follow. The 'added value' is inherent in its compatibility.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

This is all worthy of further thought...

Doing a faithful 2e clone (or a supplement as OSRIC) is probably the best path, with minimal invasion to the origin rules (removal of names or circumventing IP) which would mean a lot of cross-referencing, fact checking, a plenty of OGL/OGC scouring.

(This is looking less like a project and more like work) -

I'd have to mull over the project for a while, see what is possible, and what isn't. I'm not sure yet how much labor I could put to exactly such a project (and its sheer amount of weight) at the present. Perhaps down the road it might be feasible, and I'd certainly love to work on another person's project.

Thank you, everyone who aided with advice and opinion.

 

[Betote]

A suggestion: don't change the rules. Clarify, yes. Add errata, yes. Change, never. So you could have attack bonuses and ascending AC because it doesn't change the maths (I'd go for the S&W take of providing THAC0 and Attack Bonus, as well as ascending/descending AC, and let the user choose), but not eliminate Excepcional Strenght, because it's a feature of the system, not a bug. If you find that something is very obviously prone to be changed or houseruled away (as the nefarious unarmed combat tables), include them anyway and, if anything, add a sidebar with a "suggested optional rule"

Don't add anything that wasn't core, either. That includes kits, S&P, Tome of Magic, Half-orcs, Assassins et al. As much as you (or I) would like to see them, they're not part of the "essence" of the game. You'd be surprised by how many people has played 10+ years of 2e without knowing what a "kit" is, because they just bough the core books.

With that you should be able to assemble a 2e clone in not too much time, if you use OSRIC and Tome of Horrors as sources. An then, if you still see the necessity of "pathfinderizing" it, you could publish a separate book called "SERF Companion" or something like that with kits, updated races, wild magic and anything else.

That's if you want a retro-clone, of course. If what you're looking for is a 2.5e (as Pathfinder is a 3.75 or Hackmaster a 1.5), then by all means change, remove or add whatever you feel like to In any case, I promise to have a read at it. I know you'll be able to sleep a lot better now that you know that

 

[bagger245]

Me wants a pure 2nd ed clone... Else, I have C&C which is AD&D 2.5 to me...

 

[Psion]

I just don't think the point of a clone game is to try and make the existing game better; I think it's to make the out-of-print game available, and enable the use of existing products.

The point of any such project is to meet the needs of the designers and users, whatever that may be. Making a clone to the tune of Spellcraft & Swordplay ("tuned up" BECM clone) is just as good a goal as making one to the tune of Swords & Wizardry.

 

[Mythmere1]

The point of any such project is to meet the needs of the designers and users, whatever that may be. Making a clone to the tune of Spellcraft & Swordplay ("tuned up" BECM clone) is just as good a goal as making one to the tune of Swords & Wizardry.

This is absolutely and completely true. No argument. All I'm focusing on is the "marketing." A Swords & Wizardry type clone gets lots of immediate attention (which is very good because it means ancillary fan projects get started and the snowball starts). Spellcraft & Sorcery, BFRPG, and other games where there's built-in tweaking have a steeper hill to climb.

And I still point out - it's the nature of the internet that someone who doesn't like the tweak will get on the net and post all over the place that "it's not the real game, it's a fraud," etc. I've already seen posts describing the "identity crisis" of Spellcraft & Sorcery. It's just the way of things that the more you diverge the more strident is the criticism from self styled pundits. (apologies to James M, since I think he wrote the "identity crisis" review - you're not the sort of person I'm talking about).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Listen to Myth. What he says about the "nature of the internet"--which I found really well put--is the difference between releasing something that's going to spread around and get used, and releasing something that'll sink without trace.