OD&D Clones
- Thread starter bagger245
- Start date
Having read, downloaded, or even played most of the clones being discussed here, and being bored at work today, I figured I would briefly give my thoughts on each (all of the following are IMnsHO, YMMV, etc.):
Castles & Crusades: Love, love, love it. But yeah, all of Irda's criticisms are totally valid. It's basically a cleaned up AD&D with some of bits I like from 3rd ed. thrown in. (I guess Davis and I like much of the save stuff.) Owning AD&D and 3rd ed., I could have easily done this myself, but I am very happy to have it in nice, thinnish, hard-bound book. I enjoy their monster book (particularly their stand-ins for traditional, yet non-SRD monsters), but it's totally not needed if you have any older edition monster books lying around.
Labyrinth Lord: This one strikes me as being closest to Basic/Expert D&D, with its separate, level-capped classes for demi-humans and d8-for-fighter-based HD system. Seems designed to scale up to 14th level. Haven't played it, seems solid-enough, only minor differences from its source material.
Basic Fantasy RPG: Still based off Basic/Expert, but with more stuff from other editions. Class and race are separate, and classes scale up to 20th level. Seems to have more campaign-related info than Labyrinth Lord.
All three systems use the Basic/Expert ability score modifiers (upto +/- 3, 9-12 is no bonus). The latter two use traditional effect-based saves (e.g. poison, breath weapon, spells, etc.) while C&C uses its own ability-based system. (Kind of like if 3rd ed. had 6 categories instead of 3).
Swords & Wizardry: just now heard of it. Lets see if I can get their from work.
Castles & Crusades: Love, love, love it. But yeah, all of Irda's criticisms are totally valid. It's basically a cleaned up AD&D with some of bits I like from 3rd ed. thrown in. (I guess Davis and I like much of the save stuff.) Owning AD&D and 3rd ed., I could have easily done this myself, but I am very happy to have it in nice, thinnish, hard-bound book. I enjoy their monster book (particularly their stand-ins for traditional, yet non-SRD monsters), but it's totally not needed if you have any older edition monster books lying around.
Labyrinth Lord: This one strikes me as being closest to Basic/Expert D&D, with its separate, level-capped classes for demi-humans and d8-for-fighter-based HD system. Seems designed to scale up to 14th level. Haven't played it, seems solid-enough, only minor differences from its source material.
Basic Fantasy RPG: Still based off Basic/Expert, but with more stuff from other editions. Class and race are separate, and classes scale up to 20th level. Seems to have more campaign-related info than Labyrinth Lord.
All three systems use the Basic/Expert ability score modifiers (upto +/- 3, 9-12 is no bonus). The latter two use traditional effect-based saves (e.g. poison, breath weapon, spells, etc.) while C&C uses its own ability-based system. (Kind of like if 3rd ed. had 6 categories instead of 3).
Swords & Wizardry: just now heard of it. Lets see if I can get their from work.
I like the style/feel of LL better, but BFRPG has much better and more expansive encounter tables, which can be used with any of the retro-clones.
...“whole”...must...not...comment... (^_^)
They wanted to publish CZ. Gygax wanted it to use a system very similar to AD&D but didn’t want to actually use AD&D. Besides, they felt using AD&D would be more of a legal risk than they were willing to take. OSRIC didn’t exist yet. (Indeed, C&C inspired OSRIC, I believe.) Heck, it was said that it was going to be as close to AD&D as legally possible.
C&C was never meant to be innovative. It was meant to be a vehicle for publishing CZ.
Irda Ranger
First Post
I very rarely actually "laugh out loud", but this is one of those moments. It wasn't just a grin. 
And yeah, I totally know what you mean.
That actually explains a lot. And I like it when things that previously bothered me suddenly "make sense", so thanks.
By the way Robert, I really like your site and have fleshed out your Injury Table concept here. I'd really love to know your thoughts on where I went with it.
Ebonyr
First Post
I really like Labyrinth Lord as well. The retro-clones were made so that RPG companies could again publish 0e and 1e style games legally. 
Remathilis
Legend
My only complaints with C&C stem from the six-save system. While it would not be difficult to reconcile them back to Fort/Reflex/Will, the six-save system struck me as a backwards step rather than forward step.
HelloChristian
First Post
I wouldn't call TLG a mountain.
Anyway, my fav retro-clone is Labyrinth Lord, but I've just sneakily printed out Swords & Wizardry on my work printer and will peruse it on my way home now...
I really, really like LL. I've always loved Moldvay Basic D&D, so LL is full of awesome, as far as I am concerned.
I should really check out some of the other retro clones. I really want to play some 1e style D&D.
Irda Ranger
First Post
I actually disagree with that. It's not the number of categories that's important, but rather their completeness and distinction. A good saving throw system should allow a player or DM to say clearly that "Effect X is opposed by Save Y.", for any novel X.
The old (A)D&D system failed on both completeness AND distinction. Why were all spells saved against the same, even if the effects were totally different? What made a wand different than a staff? If someone had a magical baton, was it a rod/staff or wand? So clearly the Fort/Ref/Will system of 3E was a big improvement.
But the C&C system is just a more fine-grained 3E system, not a return to the confusing (A)D&D days. 4E mashes together Int and Dex, but C&C distinguishes between them. That's fine and good.
Similar Threads
