OD&D Clones

[bagger245]

How many are there exactly? I googled and found these: Sword and Wizardry, Spellcarft and Sorcery,
Spellcraft and Swordplay..

Anyone knows what are the difference and how they differ from the actual OD&D itself?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't know anything about Spellcraft & Sorcery; I've never heard of that one. I can give you some info on the other two, though.

There are two versions of Swords and Wizardry: "Core" and "White Box." Core is currently available in Word DOC format, and will be available as a PDF or POD very soon. White Box is still being worked on, but is nearing completion.

S&W:Core is similar to the 1974 "0e" rules with some additions from later rules supplements. Hit dice are slightly different, but remain d6 based. Monster hit dice are d8. Other differences include saving throws (S&W uses a "single category saving throw"), slightly different prime requisite bonuses, different XP charts (although they're similar), different (but low-powered) attribute bonuses, and a "flip-AC" system (you choose which approach you prefer: high=good or low=good). It has expanded spell lists and monsters (i.e. includes material from the supplemental rules), and uses the supplemental rules for XP awards. Weapons do variable amounts of damage. Monsters do too, and may have multiple attacks (e.g. claw/claw/bite).

S&W:White Box is similar to the 1974 rules without additions from later supplements. All hit dice (monsters and PCs) are d6-based. It, too, uses the "single category saving throw." XP progression is slightly different. Ability bonuses are closer to the original 0e rules. Spell lists are similar to the 0e rules, without some of the spells from later supplements. Monsters typically have a single attack and do d6 damage, with a few exceptions. The "flip-AC" system is used.

Spellcraft & Swordplay is less of a retro-clone than Swords & Wizardry; it's more like a "inspired by, but expanded and re-imagined" set of rules. It starts with an OD&Dish foundation, but instead of using a d20-based combat system, Spellcraft & Swordplay adopts a combat system inspired by (but not a duplicate of) d6 miniatures combat rules (thus, similar to OD&D using Chainmail combat rules, rather than the d20-based "Alternate" system).

 

[Mythmere1]

The print version of Swords & Wizardry is available on Lulu.com. The free pdf should be up in a day or two - it has to have the cover included in the pdf itself, so there's an additional layout step. As Philotomy says, the free .doc version is up, and has been for a while.

 

[cr0m]

There's also Basic Fantasy RPG, which is quite good. If you go over to the Dragonsfoot forums and look for the one called "Simulacrum Games", you'll find a boat-load of so-called "retro-clones".

 

[Irda Ranger]

Anyone knows ... how they differ from the actual OD&D itself?

Not enough. The OD&D Books and the Rules Cyclopedia are each $4.95 at RPGNow, so why anyone would buy these (other than out of curiosity or a collector's urge) always seemed odd to me.

That's one of the things that bothered me about Castles & Crusades. They go to the trouble of making a "SIEGE Engine" (which is just an inverted d20 system, but whatever) to unify the mechanics, but they leave the weird class imbalances in the system out of some bizarre fealty to "old school feel." I mean, if you aren't going to make it better, why bother?

EDIT: Other than OSRIC, which isn't intended to be a game but rather an "AD&D SRD", so the lack of changes there makes perfect sense.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

While it isn't an OD&D clone, but rather a 'Moldvay' D&D Basic clone, Labyrinth Lord is pretty well done as well. Been running it for my son (10) and some of his friends and they love it. I'm looking forward to the Swords & Wizardry release as well.

 

[Mythmere1]

Swords & Wizardry differs from 0e in a few major ways. First, the initiative system is more of a least common denominator, since 0e had no initiative system other than the references to using CM. There is only one saving throw, which doesn't change much in terms of modules and resources, and increases compatibility with house ruled systems. The method for granting XP bonuses for high attributes is also different, although the numbers are similar. All three of these diversions are predominantly for legal reasons, and each was picked to be the least intrusive in a published resource.

Like OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry is an SRD. It is not only entirely open game content, but we've released it in .doc format to allow people to cut and paste their own house rules version.

It's also somewhat easier to follow than the actual 0e rules, at least for those who are used to the "standard" presentation of rules that's been pretty much the same from 2e all the way to 4e.

 

[rounser]

That's one of the things that bothered me about Castles & Crusades. They go to the trouble of making a "SIEGE Engine" (which is just an inverted d20 system, but whatever) to unify the mechanics, but they leave the weird class imbalances in the system out of some bizarre fealty to "old school feel." I mean, if you aren't going to make it better, why bother?

I agree. Another thing that makes me wonder is all the errata/new editions they have for such a theoretically simple game, too.

 

[RFisher]

That's one of the things that bothered me about Castles & Crusades. They go to the trouble of making a "SIEGE Engine" (which is just an inverted d20 system, but whatever) to unify the mechanics, but they leave the weird class imbalances in the system out of some bizarre fealty to "old school feel." I mean, if you aren't going to make it better, why bother?

Quite simply, Davis made the game he wanted to play. He took a lot of input from the other trolls and us “playtesters”, but it was pretty clear that it was going to be whatever he wanted it to be. The only limitations were that it be legal and that Gary didn’t object to anything. (And Gary gladly just provided his own changes in the CZ stuff for anything he didn’t like.) Anything in there isn’t due to bizarre fealty. It’s there because Davis wanted it and didn’t feel it was weird.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Quite simply, Davis made the game he wanted to play. He took a lot of input from the other trolls and us “playtesters”, but it was pretty clear that it was going to be whatever he wanted it to be. The only limitations were that it be legal and that Gary didn’t object to anything. (And Gary gladly just provided his own changes in the CZ stuff for anything he didn’t like.) Anything in there isn’t due to bizarre fealty. It’s there because Davis wanted it and didn’t feel it was weird.

I totally respect that. I just thought it was odd that they released a whole ruleset (hard cover books & all) when it could have been a several-page house rules document tacked onto AD&D. "Here's how to use a d20 general skill system & saving throws using AD&D classes." It could have been an optional rule included with OSRIC. Seems like the mountain labored and gave forth a mouse, that's all.

Which is totally not a knock on how fun C&C is, or on the enthusiasm of its developers and community, just my view on how much real "innovation" went into the ruleset.