J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[Gentlegamer]

Are you talking about in S&W or the OD&D rules? Because if it's the last, I'll say something I've never said before: Cite.

Cite what?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard:

This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.

*nod* Basically.

Well, perhaps it´s for the best. Otherwise he would have written an old-school game and not Over the Edge.

 

[Mythmere1]

I've made my comments on JT's blog, mainly focusing on the fact that Swords & Wizardry/0e is a free-form game with different design principles from those of the later editions. You can only judge a game based on whether it hits the target it's aiming for (and then you can, of course, still decide you hate it or love it - understanding a game is not the same as enjoying playing it).

Along those lines, I tend to ignore people who criticize S&W or any older edition based on "imbalance," but I sit up and pay attention to the poster when he's talking about "DM Fiat." The first is someone who probably (and only probably) hasn't grasped the difference between the two design principles. The DM Fiat guy, on the other hand, is speaking to the real difference between the two games, and probably has something meaningful to say.

My only real objection to JT's post (other than the fact he didn't really "IMO" it) was where he ascribed a motive to me that wasn't there. I included parallel rules for ascending AC for the purpose of broader compatibility, not because I consider it "better." I do actually use ascending AC, but I'm just about even-up on my preference between the two methods. Each has pluses and minuses.

 

[Maggan]

(other than the fact he didn't really "IMO" it)

Is that really neccessary on a personal blog? I read peoples' blogs to get their opinions about stuff, so the "IMO" seems redundant to me.

/M

 

[Mythmere1]

Is that really neccessary on a personal blog? I read peoples' blogs to get their opinions about stuff, so the "IMO" seems redundant to me.

/M

No, it isn't necessary at all, as you say - what I meant is that if his comments were made as "objective truths," I'd have more to say in response, about game theory, blahblahblah. Since I assume there's an implied "IMO," I don't. Although I think bloggers sort of should make that distinction, because those are two very distinct types of commentaries, those focusing on the objective, and those focusing on the author's preferences.

Since it's clear that JT enjoyed the game, I took the whole post as an IMO.

By the way, since I've had the good luck to be mentioned in a big thread:

Swords & Wizardry is nominated for an ENnie as Best Free Product.

Check it out at Swords & Wizardry - Lulu.com

Obviously, given the category, the pdf is free.

 

[scourger]

Tweet understands old school gaming. Check out Omega World d20. It is a brilliantly succint homage to Gamma World using the 3e rules.

 

[pawsplay]

Tweet understands old school gaming, but his flavor preference is quite different than that of most people with active nostalgia for previous editions. He's a good designer, but to me, he will always be the guy who wrote the worst edition of Talislanta.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Dude. You´re not supposed to mention the N word when referring to old-school gaming!

 

[Cadfan]

Dude. You´re not supposed to mention the N word when referring to old-school gaming!

I almost wrote a post making exactly that joke, but then I decided I shouldn't, and now I wish I did...

 

[Solomoriah]

In other words, the old modules shouldn't say X characters of Y to Z level, but rather, X characters of Y XP, presuming of course, that the game actually does balance that way, which I'm not sure that it does.

Doesn't matter if it does, as, in classic games, purely mathematical balance is not necessary.

But just a point about your assumption: Given that, up to 9th level, classic thieves tend to need about half the XP of fighters, and given that XP requirements approximately double each level, a thief will lead a fighter by only a single level most of the time.

Oh yes! From a design perspective it sure is. At the beginning of the campaign, a player selects his character's class - if the DM doesn't enforce the roll 3d6 six times, right down the values in the order given on the character sheet and see which class you might select - and is stuck with it for the life of this character. The campaign may run a long time, but the player has no chance to correct his decision. This is an example of extremely bad design!

Old school is, in part, about making choices that matter. A "bad" choice of class IS (relatively) permanent... if it were not, the choice would not have mattered.

When all classes and races are perfectly mathematically balanced, and in combat a magic-user, fighter, cleric, sorceror, thief, etc. all have about the same effectiveness (at a given level or XP total), then the choice of class did not matter. But in a proper old-school game like S&W, you have choices that matter. So you're playing a 1st level magic-user, and your spell for the day is Sleep. Do you use it on the two goblin guards, or save it for a later fight where you might need it more? See, the choice matters.

I find it difficult to believe that someone involved in the design of a system as math intensive as 3E has a problem calculating a 5% bonus to earned experience but sees nothing wrong with stacking bonuses from many sources and recalculating these multiple times during combat as buffs are applied and dispelled.

Indeed. XP bonuses are applied out-of-play; nobody is waiting for you to get the math done. But ever-changing combat bonuses slow every round of combat.