The RetroClone Bandwagon: I'm off of it.

[francisca]

But... LL is not based on AD&D to begin with. It's B/X D&D.
It's no surprise that you'd end up with a huge list of house rules to make it AD&D.

Yeah, I'm well aware of what LL is, and what its based on. I figured the AEC would get me enough of "the way there", but in the end, like I said, just jumping to AD&D was the way to go.

[Benoist]

Yeah. I feel you there.

When I'm asked about AEC, I'm always saying "I like LL, but I don't care for AEC. I'm not nostalgic of all the mistakes I used to make when running AD&D twenty years ago. What I want is AD&D, so I choose OSRIC over AEC every time."

[Flambeaux]

For me it's S&W since I neither own nor can afford the original books.

That said, if I were to play B/X or BECMI/RC I'd just use the books I own rather than LL.

And if I were to play AD&D I'd probably just play AD&D. But I have run games using OSRIC as the rulebook and they were fun and much easier to convince someone to try than "hey, let's play AD&D".

I have found a few people that are willing to play OSRIC after swearing to me that they hate "D&D".

[T. Foster]

Yeah, the calculus for S&W vs OD&D is definitely affected by the fact that it's a whole lot harder (or at least more expensive) to get ahold of an OD&D set than later-edition books (and that even if you do the original rules are, umm, "less than clear" in a lot of areas). So I can totally see choosing to play S&W as proxy-OD&D a lot more than the other clones. I particularly don't understand why LL seems to be so popular

[francisca]

Yeah, the calculus for S&W vs OD&D is definitely affected by the fact that it's a whole lot harder (or at least more expensive) to get ahold of an OD&D set than later-edition books (and that even if you do the original rules are, umm, "less than clear" in a lot of areas). So I can totally see choosing to play S&W as proxy-OD&D a lot more than the other clones.

Yup. Mythmere has made OD&D, in the iteration as S&W, accessible to many more people than otherwise would have experienced it. Not only by making it available, but by making it easier to understand.

I particularly don't understand why LL seems to be so popular

Actually, I don't either, other than it is Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert in one package, which is what a lot people started with. Neither of those products were ever available from WotC in electronic format, and I've seen the Basic set go for $20-$40 on ebay, which baffles me.

[Flambeaux]

Yeah, the calculus for S&W vs OD&D is definitely affected by the fact that it's a whole lot harder (or at least more expensive) to get ahold of an OD&D set than later-edition books (and that even if you do the original rules are, umm, "less than clear" in a lot of areas). So I can totally see choosing to play S&W as proxy-OD&D a lot more than the other clones. I particularly don't understand why LL seems to be so popular

It appeals to both the B/X crowd and the BECMI crowd. That's actually a HUGE segment of the population that played at least some D&D in one form or another between 1980 and 1998.
And Goblinoid Games has been very successful in marketing it in a way that OSRIC, S&W, etc. haven't really tried.
They set out to make a marketable game, not just an accessible set of rules to aid publication.

I'll admit I'm curious about it, but not enough to pay for it when I already have Holmes, B/X, BECMI, and the RC plus nearly 15 years DMing BECM games in my head.

It does lend itself very easily to using the Known World/Mystara Gazetteer series which many, myself included, remember quite fondly.

Back on topic, OSRIC is what led me to take another look at AD&D and that led me to consider OD&D once S&W emerged. Now I find I prefer the flexibility and simplicity of S&W:WB, although the last WB game I started mutated to S&W: Core Rules within a few months.

[francisca]

I'll admit I'm curious about it, but not enough to pay for it when I already have Holmes, B/X, BECMI, and the RC plus nearly 15 years DMing BECM games in my head.

Very few differences between B/X and LL. The notable differences in the latest revision are Clerics get a spell at 1st level, and leather armor is AC 8, then the obvious need-to-make-to-be-legal stuff like the Xp charts. Thats about it off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, its very well (re)written game, and quite fun to play. it just wasn't what I was really after, afterall.

[Flambeaux]

Very few differences between B/X and LL. The notable differences in the latest revision are Clerics get a spell at 1st level, and leather armor is AC 8

So the AD&D "cleric gets a first level spell to start" and an oddball AC conferred by leather armor. Huh...

Thanks.

[francisca]

Very few differences between B/X and LL. The notable differences in the latest revision are Clerics get a spell at 1st level, and leather armor is AC 8

So the AD&D "cleric gets a first level spell to start" and an oddball AC conferred by leather armor. Huh...

Thanks.

Yeah, thats the notable stuff. The rest are pretty minor (IMO) compared to those.

[AxeMental]

Besides being used as a publishing tool I think OSRIC is an excellent aid to learn 1E, even for experienced players to reconsider some of their interpretations.

[Ghul]

If a retro-clone plays any differently from the game Gary Gygax wrote, then it's the GM's fault for failing to houserule it correctly.

But you have to admit, the OSRIC initiative system is a little easier to digest.

[geneweigel]

Off the wagon? I don't think I exist in the Plane of Retroclone at all because I don't even know what you're talking about with all these acronyms!

AEC? I swear I've never heard of that one and I've been on this forum almost everyday for months!

[foxroe]

AEC = Advanced Edition Characters (adds classes, spells, and such from AD&D to Labyrinth Lord)

[Benoist]

Advanced Edition Companion, actually. But close enough!

The introduction of the review really hits the nail on the head, IMO:

When I describe my earliest gaming days, I typically claim that I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons almost exclusively. After all, the books and modules my friends and I were using had the AD&D logo on their covers and we loved the depth provided by the reams of races, character classes, monsters, spells, and magic items. Yet, if I were to be honest about it, we weren't playing AD&D at all, at least not according to the full rules of the game. We ignored weapon proficiencies, segment-based combat rounds, grappling/pummeling/overbearing, helmet rules, and a host of other distinctive elements of AD&D. In truth, our games were closer to Holmes or Moldvay, with lots of AD&D-derived options tacked on. In speaking with many other players of my vintage, this seems to have been a common experience.

That's where Dan Proctor's Advanced Edition Companion enters the picture.

[Mythmere]

The thing to keep in mind is just that there are two totally different goals wrapped into the retro-clone thing, and they are completely unconnected except at an abstract legal level.

One of those goals is to publish modules and resources in a way that doesn't put the publisher at risk of a sudden WotC going into 1995-TSR suppress-all-homebrew legal mode. I don't think anyone has a problem with new modules (including those with zero interest in clones), provided that there's enough information about what you're getting. Reviews = very important.

The second goal (completely independent of the first one) is to:
(a) provide tool for introduction of new gamers to old gaming, and
(b) for S&W, to be a usable table-substitute for very expensive original books.

(a) is important only to those who are trying to pick up new gamers for old gaming. But for these gamers, the cheap-and-easy clone approach lowers the "barriers to entry" for a new gamer. (b) is only important to those who want to play 0e, but for 0e gamers S&W is a definite resource -- as Foster says, the calculation is very different based on the pricing of the books on ebay/amazon. If AD&D books ever become $50 a pop ($150 for a set), then OSRIC is going to be in the same position.

The perception of a bandwagon isn't based on what the retro-clones do, it is based on how much they have taken over the agenda on old school sites. And I think the reason for that isn't about the games - it is about the products (modules).

This is a side effect of all the stupid fucking terminology discussion about "OSR" and people declaring that they are "against" it, "for" it, etc. The result is now that when people try to express the idea that there is a lot of new material (for which OSR used to be the shorthand), they try to avoid the term "OSR" because they'll get jumped all over by the terminology police. So they talk about "retro-clones" to mean "new product." What they really mean is OSR, but now when people want to talk about "all the new product" they sound like they are buying into the rules as well as the modules. Thanks to all the bullshit where internet pundits decided to take a descriptive term, declare by strawmanship that it's a prescriptive term, then attack the strawman. They lowered the level of discourse across the old school internet in the interest of being "edgy" and "controversial."

Attacking the use of the term "OSR" is the new political correctness on old school boards, and it has caused people to switch over to using terms that are far less specific (and misleading), to avoid the OSR-bashers. (who generally have their own agendas).

EDIT - Francisca, I'm not attacking you - I'm attacking the people who created the perception you developed.

EDIT EDIT - and to avoid getting too much OT, I put further thoughts over on the S&W message board instead of keeping going here.