Help me identify this retro-clone

I find it weird that he doesn't make any money off the printed books. I mean, to charge for the PDFs would make a big difference, but once I have my wallet open to actually pay for a copy of a book, I want to know that at least a few bucks of what I'm spending is going to the author.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm really fascinated by Labyrinth Lord and Dark Dungeons providing such a similar experience. What is the motivation for producing each one? Is there rivalry? Or is reengineering a BECMI retroclone a hobby unto itself, like rebuilding antique autos?

They're not the same.

Labyrinth Lord is a clone of the 1981 edition of D&D, usually called "B/X" (the Basic Set by Tom Moldvay, and the Expert Set by Dave Cook and Steve Marsh).

Dark Dungeons is a clone of the Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals, specifically with all of the optional rules "switched on." So it has all of the high-level stuff (from the '84 Companion Set, the '85 Masters Set, and the '92 version of the Immortals rules) that Labyrinth Lord does not, and it assumes the use of General Skills and Weapon Mastery (whereas Weapon Mastery was merely optional in both BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia, and General Skills, which first appeared in the Mystara Gazetteers, didn't appear in BECMI at all).

As retro-clones, it goes without saying that the purpose of these books is to (1) keep old rules "in print" and available to new players, and (2) to "emulate" those rules for the sake of new support materials, like settings and adventures.

Lastly, the plug. Check out Engines & Empires; it was a setting written for Labyrinth Lord before Dark Dungeons came out, but it's really much closer to the latter game in terms of scale and scope. :cool:
 

They're not the same.

I didn't say they were the same. But either is compatible with the BECMI family of modules, supplements, etc. They are very similar at the interface level with virtually every part of those games. If the purpose is to keep the old games played, it seems like the first goal would be to develop a relatively "pure" version of the rules and get a bunch of people to rally behind that brand. Instead, we have two ever-so-slightly-different-in-tone versions of the same rules engine.

Should I be expecting a clone of the 1983 version to appear any day now?
 

Remove ads

Top