Why is there so many retro-clones, and why are they all based off of first edition?

[xBlackWolfx]

I've always wondered why all the D&D retroclones out there are based off of first edition, but the only one I can find based on second edition mysteriously has never been released.

Now, another thought just occured to me: why are there so blooming many of them? Looking through the books for the free ones, they're all essentially the same game. Basic fantasy is the only one that really stands out (its basically first edition with some upgrades like ascending AC and race-class distinction). But games like Labyrinth lord and osric and such all seem to be practically identical. Heck, I recently downloaded the Black Streams solo guide (a guide that tells you how to modify the game so that you can play with only one PC), and that thing's compatible with all the retro-clones I know of, even basic fantasy. Yeah, the rules changes suggested in it are all completely compatible with all the retro-clones, and to be honest it would even work with 3rd edition, and probably fifth (in fourth, it would probably be unnecessary since they kinda did the same thing with that system, though in a quite different way).

Why are there so many out there? They could all just get together and support one system (which they basically already do anyway) and publish material just for that.

Note btw that I've never actually played first or second edition, so I have no idea what first was actually like outside of a few minor things I've heard like thaco and such. It wasn't till probably 5 or 6 years after I first starting playing neverwinter nights that I even found out that first edition didn't have feats, or skills. I couldn't wrap my head around how a game like that could work...to me it looked like they were trying to play with just a fraction of their normal stats.

[kyoryu]

They're not all based on 1e. Some are based on 1e. Some are based on various versions of B/X (Moldvay, Mentzer, etc.). Some are based on OD&D (the three pamphlet version).

[Thrudd]

Because people like the old games, and have lots of home rules or ideas for upgrading them slightly. Most of the retro clones change or rearrange different things to make them subtly different. The old rules benefit from some reorganization and clearer explanations in some cases, and straight up clones like OSRIC do that. Though even OSRIC makes some changes and leaves out a lot of stuff.

There are actually three different editions prior to 2e, and more if you count that Basic D&D had like three different iterations, as well. Some retro clones take bits and pieces from different editions and sometimes mechanics from later games like 2e and 3e, but try to retain the older game's methodology overall.

[LibraryOgre]

A good 2e retroclone is For Gold and Glory (http://www.hawkwolf.net/) is a 2e retroclone. Myth and Magic is also supposed to be 2e, but I haven't read it.

As for why there are a lot of 1e retroclones? Because 1e had a big following, and a lot of time to make their own idiosyncratic versions that the others don't do quite right.

[1337 b4k4]

It's a fair question, but the answer is, they aren't all based off 1e. This (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/retro-clones) is a fairly decent list of the major (and secondary) players. There are essentially 3 "big" retroclones for each of the 3 main versions prior to 2e.

Swords and Wizardry is the major clone in the 0e space
Labyrinth Lord is the major clone in the B/X / BECMI space
OSRIC is the major clone in the 1e space

As for why there are so many, mostly it's either different organizations or extensions of the information (e.g. some 0e stuff is only the original 3 books, while others include the supplements, additionally while LL does cover the B/X and BE parts of the B/X/BECMI days, Dark Dungeons does a better compilation of the CMI parts). For others it's new takes on the old material. There are clones that take the base clone and then either modify to fit a theme, or even go beyond. Lamentations is a good example of this, some would argue Stars Without Number (D&D in space) is another.

As to publishing material for just one system, one of the really nice things about 1e and earlier is that the systems are largely compatible already. While the 1e power curve is a little different from it's predecessors, it's minimal to no work to take a supplement or material written for one and use it in your chosen system.

[Darth Ultron]

Why are there so many out there? They could all just get together and support one system (which they basically already do anyway) and publish material just for that.



People are people.

Once upon a time person A loved game Z, and they want to make a retro clone. And person A thinks that PTQ is the way to do it, and adds in B as they like it. But person B loved game Z too, but they liked LMNOP, so they make a retro clone with that.....and so on.

[Saladman]

Why are there so many out there? They could all just get together and support one system (which they basically already do anyway) and publish material just for that.


https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png (https://xkcd.com/927/)

[LibraryOgre]

A good 2e retroclone is For Gold and Glory (http://www.hawkwolf.net/) is a 2e retroclone.

This sentence is what happens when I get distracted while posting.

[Yora]

Why are there so many out there? They could all just get together and support one system (which they basically already do anyway) and publish material just for that.
It actually doesn't matter in practice. Usually all you get in supplements and modules are monster stats, and those are very simililar throughout almost all games. Some list Dexterity because of their Initiative system, while others list Intelligence, and some games might not list Alignment. Worst case scenario is that you have to convert the Armor class between increasing or decreasing, but otherwise everything is pretty much completely compatible regardless of which retroclone writers made it.

[Kiero]

As already pointed out, they're not just based on AD&D1e, but on a range of pre-3.x systems.

Worth noting that most of the earlier editions are grab-bag collections of an awful lot of rules, many of the clones choose to focus on some of those to the exclusion of others. Add in evolutions or additions of new rules, and there's a lot of scope for fragmentation.

[johnbragg]

I've always wondered why all the D&D retroclones out there are based off of first edition, but the only one I can find based on second edition mysteriously has never been released.

Retroclones are partially a product of nostalgia, and the generation that grew up with 1st edition is old enough for nostalgia to be a big factor. People who started with 2E, I think, are/were young enough to fully migrate, psychologically, to 3E.


Now, another thought just occured to me: why are there so blooming many of them?

Because a lot of people wanted to make them. Retroclones don't exist because a lot of people wanted to play old-school D&D and so a company created a product to serve the market. They exist because a lot of people wanted to play old-school D&D and so created products.


Looking through the books for the free ones, they're all essentially the same game.

Well, yeah. That's the clone part of retroclone.


Why are there so many out there?
Because, these days, anyone can make one. OGL, PRF, Drivethrurpg. Furthermore, you're talking about 1E grognards, and most of them were playing heavily-houseruled AD&D anyway. Read "heavily houseruled" as "these are MY ideas for making AD&D better(work right)." So for some folks, it was just a matter of taking their binders full of handwritten notes and turning them into a PDF.


They could all just get together and support one system (which they basically already do anyway) and publish material just for that.


I guess "they" could. But which system? Who decides? And if, somehow, you got an agreement on that decision, what happens when someone who didn't get the memo writes yet another retroclone and puts out a free PDF?


Note btw that I've never actually played first or second edition, so I have no idea what first was actually like outside of a few minor things I've heard like thaco and such. It wasn't till probably 5 or 6 years after I first starting playing neverwinter nights that I even found out that first edition didn't have feats, or skills. I couldn't wrap my head around how a game like that could work...to me it looked like they were trying to play with just a fraction of their normal stats.

That's a big part of the reason that the vast majority of the player base migrated from 2E to 3E, or came back to D&D or back to tabletop from other games. 3E skills and feats were an obvious improvement over D&D without skills and feats. (Them's fightin' words to a lot of OSR folks, but I say it's so.)

(That also, I think, generated the expectation that 4th Edition would be in some dramatically obvious way BETTER than 3rd. It wasn't, and most of the player base stuck with 3X/Pathfinder. I'm not sure that 5th is an obvious, dramatic improvement over 3rd--bounded accuracy? Advantage?. But then again, neither was 3.5, which was widely adopted without much fuss. But that was before 4th Edition taught us that we didn't need WOTC.)

[kyoryu]

Also, historically retroclones came out because people wanted to play the older games, but *couldn't find them*. Creating a retroclone allowed you to get the game to play it.

[Knaight]

As has been stated, the core reasons are that it's stupidly easy to make a retroclone (minimal design work, some rewording), early D&D has a large fan-base, and people are going to have their own few house rules or their own organizational method that they use, or whatever else that leads to a new standard. A lot of that makes a lot of sense too - there are some obvious usability tweaks to early D&D, the organization often did leave a lot to be desired, so on and so forth.

[LibraryOgre]

Also, historically retroclones came out because people wanted to play the older games, but *couldn't find them*. Creating a retroclone allowed you to get the game to play it.

As I understand it, OSRIC was specifically an effort to make an OGL-compatible version of 1e, that would allow you to create and publish materials.

[Raimun]

Because 'retro' is its own mindset.

What is the most retro RPG? Answer: 1st edition OD&D. You can't get more retro than that. Therefore, you "should" make your retroclone in the image of that very game. Otherwise, retro-people would just sneer at it: "AD&D*? That's 90s, right? And I remember the 90s. It's almost like yesterday and too complicated."

The alternative is that the people who made it are moved by the kind of nostalgia that is usually reserved for the cartoons you have not watched for 10-20 years. Except, in this metaphor you have watched the same cartoon every week for the last 10-20 years but you want to some "new" old stuff.

Of course, this might be an overgeneralization. I should know because I still think everything "3.0/3.5/3.P" is THE D&D and nothing else really compares, past or future.

Not that AD&D aged any better than OD&D.

[xBlackWolfx]

I actually knew nothing of 2nd edition. Hell, when I was first learning about d&d I thought it was the edition from the 80s! I had a hard time believing that the the 3rd edition that I was learning was only a few years old. I mean, it was published in 2000, and I started playing on that NWN server in like 2006, and a year later I think 4th was announced.

Back on rpg.net, everyone kept picking on me for not knowing anything about 2nd edition, despite it supposedly being so recent. Yeah, I should know everything there is to know about a system that went out of print almost a decade earlier and I didn't even have any connection to D&D until 2006. Of course, back then I thought 2nd edition went out of print before I was even born. And regardless, being out of print at the time I'd imagine 2nd edition books had skyrocketed in price around that point?

And its shockingly hard to find anything about it online for free. Then again, this is a guy that's used to the OGL. Honestly if wasn't for that, the only source I would've had to go on was the game as it was shown in NWN, with point-buy attributes, screwed up skills, and incomplete lists for feats and spells.

[johnbragg]

I actually knew nothing of 2nd edition. Hell, when I was first learning about d&d I thought it was the edition from the 80s! I had a hard time believing that the the 3rd edition that I was learning was only a few years old. I mean, it was published in 2000, and I started playing on that NWN server in like 2006, and a year later I think 4th was announced.

Back on rpg.net, everyone kept picking on me for not knowing anything about 2nd edition, despite it supposedly being so recent. Yeah, I should know everything there is to know about a system that went out of print almost a decade earlier and I didn't even have any connection to D&D until 2006. Of course, back then I thought 2nd edition went out of print before I was even born. And regardless, being out of print at the time I'd imagine 2nd edition books had skyrocketed in price around that point?

And its shockingly hard to find anything about it online for free. Then again, this is a guy that's used to the OGL. Honestly if wasn't for that, the only source I would've had to go on was the game as it was shown in NWN, with point-buy attributes, screwed up skills, and incomplete lists for feats and spells.

2E came out in... let me check my notes... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) 1989. AD&D hardbacks in 1977. 3E in 2000.

Sounds like the folks on rpg.net are elitist jerks.

I'm not sure the price of 2E books skyrocketed when they went out of print, because the demand collapsed. 3E was almost universally acclaimed as a step forward, and well worth the cost of the books. The only people with a continuing need for 2E books were holdouts playing 2E campaigns, and they already had the books.

As for information online, I'd say the reason is that 2E doesn't have a large, active fanbase. If you're into nostalgia and old-school and OSR, you're probably focused on AD&D 1E(1977) or the Basic D&D Boxed Sets. The generation that started with the 2E books was young and new enough that they, er, we transitioned pretty easily to 3E.

In the grand scheme of things, 2E was much more similar to 1e than to 3E. To-hit charts were replaced with THAC0, Bards became a base class instead of a prestige class, half-orcs and barbarians and assassins were removed from the core rules, demons-and-devils were de-emphasized, illusionists went from a base class (sorta like 3X fixed-list casters) to specialist wizards. A lot of those changes were reversed in later splatbooks.

ANd Neverwinter Nights was built on a 3E chassis--feats and skills are 3E concepts.

[Yora]

What really would be the difference between a 1st and 2nd edition retroclone? 2nd doesn't have half-orcs and assassins. 2nd edition removed stuff, and didn't really add or improve much to my knowledge. It isn't like there was anything in the game that would be missing if you're playing a 1st edition clone.

[Thrudd]

What really would be the difference between a 1st and 2nd edition retroclone? 2nd doesn't have half-orcs and assassins. 2nd edition removed stuff, and didn't really add or improve much to my knowledge. It isn't like there was anything in the game that would be missing if you're playing a 1st edition clone.

2e created rules for specialist wizards and codified the schools of magic, combining illusionist spell list with normal magic users.

It also created the idea of cleric domains (spheres) and made Druids function in the same manner as clerics, only having access to different spheres. A cleric could have the same spells as a Druid if their deity granted the same spheres.

Thieves in 2e can assign percentage points to their skills as they see fit, rather than a standard progression as in 1e.
Bards are a standard class in 2e, and completely different from 1e bard, monks and assassins are gone.

Rules for weapon specialization were simplified from the 1e UA and made a part of the core rules.

Initiative and the flow of combat in general were changed: it is a d10 instead of d6, combat rounds became more abstract rather than the six second segments used in 1e. It was a bit of an improvement in that the 1e system could be hard to follow when you were trying to keep track of when a high level spell was going to go off.

Class restrictions on races were lightened slightly, and level limits were raised significantly (to the point where it is almost pointless to even have them).

Awarding xp for gold became an optional rule relegated to a sidebar that could easily be missed in the DMG.

There are other important changes, too, that I can't think of right now.
Many people, like me, never completely converted, but ended up playing a sort of hybrid of 1e and 2e. Since so many 1e games were already heavily houseruled, this was a natural progression for lots of people.

But it was definitely a distinct game with some significant changes, if you were actually going by the book for both editions.

[johnbragg]

What really would be the difference between a 1st and 2nd edition retroclone? 2nd doesn't have half-orcs and assassins. 2nd edition removed stuff, and didn't really add or improve much to my knowledge. It isn't like there was anything in the game that would be missing if you're playing a 1st edition clone.

I suppose if you're really considering how a 2e retroclone would be different, you'd have to incorporate some of the 2e splatbooks.

The Complete X series expanded from the base of weapon proficiencies for fighters, coming up with a bunch of things you could spend a weapon proficiency on that 3E would call "feats". I remember you could specialize in a combat style (weapon-and-shield, TWF, THF, single-weapon-no-shield) and get bonuses whenever using that style.

The Complete Priest book created all kinds of options for cleric, changing spheres of magic, playing with armor-and-weapons. Remembering vaguely, you could play a cleric of war, trade in come spheres of magic, and remove the restriction to blunt weapons. Or you could play a priest(ess) of love, drop the armor entirely, fight with nets and bows and add the Enchantment/Charm mage spells to your spell list. (Class balance had not quite been invented as a concept.) Or a lot of things in between--a dwarven priest of the god of Dwarfs could maybe have axes, maybe have free Battleaxe proficiency.)

But if you're doing that, why not just play 3X? Or build your houserules/new system on 3X?

[LibraryOgre]

Because 'retro' is its own mindset.

What is the most retro RPG? Answer: 1st edition OD&D. You can't get more retro than that. Therefore, you "should" make your retroclone in the image of that very game. Otherwise, retro-people would just sneer at it: "AD&D*? That's 90s, right? And I remember the 90s. It's almost like yesterday and too complicated."


I think you're running into a terminology problem. OD&D tends to refer to D&D as it existed in the 70s and 80s, both as its own entity and as separate from AD&D, which came out in 1977. When most folks talk 1st edition, it tends to apply to the 1st edition AD&D, not to the previous versions of D&D that have existed since 1973; the "white box", the "LBB", "Mentzer", "Holmes", and "RC" that tend to get mentioned.

[Yora]

If we want to go strictly by release schedule, it would be like:

D&D 1st Edition (OD&D, 1974)
D&D 2nd Edition (Holmes, 1977)
D&D 3rd Edition (Moldvay/Cook B/X, 1981)
D&D 4th Edition (Mentzer BECMI, 1983)
D&D 5th Edition (Rules Cyclopedia, 1991)

AD&D 1st Edition (AD&D, 1977)
AD&D 2nd Edition (AD&D, 1989)
AD&D 3rd Edition (D&D 3rd Ed., 2000)
AD&D 4th Edition (D&D 5th Ed., 2014)

D&D 4th Edition (2007)

[LibraryOgre]

If we want to go strictly by release schedule, it would be like:

D&D 1st Edition (OD&D, 1974)
D&D 2nd Edition (Holmes, 1977)
D&D 3rd Edition (Moldvay/Cook B/X, 1981)
D&D 4th Edition (Mentzer BECMI, 1983)
D&D 5th Edition (Rules Cyclopedia, 1991)

AD&D 1st Edition (AD&D, 1977)
AD&D 2nd Edition (AD&D, 1989)
AD&D 3rd Edition (D&D 3rd Ed., 2000)
AD&D 4th Edition (D&D 5th Ed., 2014)

D&D 4th Edition (2007)

Yeah, but then there's a whole host of other arguments... I wouldn't count 3.x as a version of AD&D, for example, nor would I discount 3.5 as a full edition, given the minimal differences between 1e and 2e.

[Thrudd]

If we want to go strictly by release schedule, it would be like:

D&D 1st Edition (OD&D, 1974)
D&D 2nd Edition (Holmes, 1977)
D&D 3rd Edition (Moldvay/Cook B/X, 1981)
D&D 4th Edition (Mentzer BECMI, 1983)
D&D 5th Edition (Rules Cyclopedia, 1991)

AD&D 1st Edition (AD&D, 1977)
AD&D 2nd Edition (AD&D, 1989)
AD&D 3rd Edition (D&D 3rd Ed., 2000)
AD&D 4th Edition (D&D 5th Ed., 2014)

D&D 4th Edition (2007)

Actually, 1e AD&D is more like the 2nd edition of the original white box D&D, it combines the white box and its three supplements released between 74 and 76 almost verbatim. It has less in common with Basic, which was designed as a simplified version that didn't use material from the supplements (that originally was intended only to introduce players to the hobby and then refer them to AD&D when they wanted more).

But apparently enough people stuck with Basic instead of moving to AD&D that they decided to expand that system as a separate line of games, culminating in the Rules cyclopedia. Or maybe the authors didn't like how AD&D was going and decided to do it their own way, I don't know.

So there is the AD&D line:
74-76 White box+supplements (1)
77 AD&D (2)
89 2e AD&D (3)
'00-03 3e/3.5e D&D (4)
'14 (5e) D&D (5)


The Basic line:
74 White box D&D (1)
77 Basic D&D (2)
81 Basic revision + Expert (3)
83-85 Basic/Expert revision + companion, master, immortals (4)
91 Black box/Rules Cyclopedia (5)

4e D&D (mostly unrelated to all previous and subsequent editions)

[LibraryOgre]

4e D&D (mostly unrelated to all previous and subsequent editions)

If I had to relate 4e to an existing system, I'd probably lean towards Earthdawn.

[Maglubiyet]

What really would be the difference between a 1st and 2nd edition retroclone? 2nd doesn't have half-orcs and assassins. 2nd edition removed stuff, and didn't really add or improve much to my knowledge. It isn't like there was anything in the game that would be missing if you're playing a 1st edition clone.

2e had class "kits", expanded spell lists and psionics rules, rules for monster characters, plus a lot of new gear. Not a huge improvement, but a starving man in the desert will call a cactus a banquet.

Kits were actually pretty innovative for D&D's class structure system. Until PrC's came along they were the only way to differentiate two characters with the same class.

[johnbragg]

But apparently enough people stuck with Basic instead of moving to AD&D that they decided to expand that system as a separate line of games, culminating in the Rules cyclopedia. Or maybe the authors didn't like how AD&D was going and decided to do it their own way, I don't know.


I'm not certain, but I think the TSR strategy was that Basic D&D was more kid-friendly (or maybe parent-friendly), and (I'd guess) lower priced than the A&D hardbacks.

Plenty of BECMI grognard stories start with getting the Red Box set as a gift and go from there. AD&D grognard stories mostly start with a player group that was recruiting.

But the plural of anecdote is not data, so I could be wrong here.

[Thrudd]

I'm not certain, but I think the TSR strategy was that Basic D&D was more kid-friendly (or maybe parent-friendly), and (I'd guess) lower priced than the A&D hardbacks.

Plenty of BECMI grognard stories start with getting the Red Box set as a gift and go from there. AD&D grognard stories mostly start with a player group that was recruiting.

But the plural of anecdote is not data, so I could be wrong here.

The first Basic set (Holmes) was written with the clear intention of graduating to AD&D. Every other paragraph ended with "you can find more about this in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons". It mentioned that there were more options and more classes and further levels and more of everything in AD&D. This is the set I had, and I did indeed graduate to 1e AD&D, getting a hold of 2nd hand books from various sources. So my friends and I taught ourselves AD&D from the books, after starting out with Basic.

That language was gone from the later revisions.

[Maglubiyet]

I'm not certain, but I think the TSR strategy was that Basic D&D was more kid-friendly (or maybe parent-friendly), and (I'd guess) lower priced than the A&D hardbacks.


I think basic box set was around $12 iirc. Not sure though - it was a present (lol). Each of the three AD&D books (DMG, PH, & MM) was at least $15 - DMG might have been $20.

We had no idea they were even different games for a long time. We quickly capped out on the basic set and got the other books to continue our adventures with expanded monster and magic item lists.

[johnbragg]

The first Basic set (Holmes) was written with the clear intention of graduating to AD&D. Every other paragraph ended with "you can find more about this in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons". It mentioned that there were more options and more classes and further levels and more of everything in AD&D. This is the set I had, and I did indeed graduate to 1e AD&D, getting a hold of 2nd hand books from various sources. So my friends and I taught ourselves AD&D from the books, after starting out with Basic.

That language was gone from the later revisions.


I think basic box set was around $12 iirc. Not sure though - it was a present (lol). Each of the three AD&D books (DMG, PH, & MM) was at least $15 - DMG might have been $20.

We had no idea they were even different games for a long time. We quickly capped out on the basic set and got the other books to continue our adventures with expanded monster and magic item lists.

That fits my idea/recollection that teh Box Sets were marketed to parents as gifts, and the AD&D hardbacks as stuff you'd buy with your own money. (Also consider the Red Box with the dragon on the cover vs the big ol' red demon on the AD&D Players Handbook.

[BayardSPSR]

What is the most retro RPG? Answer: 1st edition OD&D. You can't get more retro than that.

Speaking of, are there any clones of Chainmail out there?

[aspekt]

First, as a 1e AD&D (HC books) kid and an outsider to most of 2e AD&D I think the biggest difference honestly lay in the reams of content pumped out for 2e.

Ive actually run across a number of blogs working on stat conversions from 2e to 5e. In part because of a belief that the the 2 systems are actually mechanically similar enough; and in part because of a dearth of materials for 5e that converted 1e/2e materials could supply.

As a sidebar, I'd add LotFP to a list of BECMI clones, with a touch of 1e's tendency towards adversarial Player/DM relations.

[aspekt]

Speaking of, are there any clones of Chainmail out there?

Oddly enough I ran across one just the other day. But I'll need to remember the name and post back to you here.

-'-------update

I found 2 othets I hadn't heard of before:

Melee & Wizards

27th Edition Platemail

But the one I was after is titled Scalemail .

I am fairly certain that all 3 are opensource free as in free beer.

[Raimun]

Speaking of, are there any clones of Chainmail out there?

Ah, but Chainmail is not retro enough. [Edit: Yes, I know that doesn't make sense but I don't make the retro rules.]

If you drop the name "Chainmail" (as in the first rpg), no one in the retro circles will respect that because it's not 1st edition OD&D (which itself is not an accurate term but you know... retro people). The name "Chainmail" will be simply lost because it's not OD&D, ie. not retro enough: "Chainmail? Is that like a RPG from the '89?".

Retro is its own mindset. "Super Mario Bros. is the best video game ever, because it's the first!" "OD&D is the best tabletop RPG ever because it's the first!"

[Grac]

Ah, but Chainmail is not retro enough. [Edit: Yes, I know that doesn't make sense but I don't make the retro rules.]

If you drop the name "Chainmail" (as in the first rpg), no one in the retro circles will respect that because it's not 1st edition OD&D (which itself is not an accurate term but you know... retro people). The name "Chainmail" will be simply lost because it's not OD&D, ie. not retro enough: "Chainmail? Is that like a RPG from the '89?".

Retro is its own mindset. "Super Mario Bros. is the best video game ever, because it's the first!" "OD&D is the best tabletop RPG ever because it's the first!"

You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
1: there's no 'retro people'. There is the OSR movement, 'old school revival' or renaissance, depending on the person.

2: OSR encompasses many games, but mostly a *style* of play. This is why 2nd edition will not get its own wave within the OSR, because the rules are largely the same as 1e, while the spirit carried on into 3e, and is still largely dominant.

3: the games typically celebrated and cloned are OD&D, the basics (B, B/X, BECMI, RC), and AD&D.

4: Chainmail is not only well known among OSR people, it is itself frequently dissected for rules that fit D&D, or to understand some assumptions behind D&D that were not made explicit in the original rule books. And, of course, there's the bits of OD&D which specifically point to Chainmail.

5: Chainmail was not an RPG. It was a wargame. Like Warhammer.

6: there is no '1st edition OD&D'. That doesn't make sense. Its not a thing 'retro people say'. Stop making things up. First edition always refers to the first edition of AD&D.

[rredmond]

That's how I heard it. Chainmail is a wargame, not an rpg really.
But goodness, I thought there was a clone... even though I'm not sure why it would be needed. Maybe I've heard that others have incorporated some of the Chainmail rules into OD&D clones or simulcra. I'll check around a bit.
Be well,
--Ron--

[LibraryOgre]

2: OSR encompasses many games, but mostly a *style* of play. This is why 2nd edition will not get its own wave within the OSR, because the rules are largely the same as 1e, while the spirit carried on into 3e, and is still largely dominant.


I linked to a 2e retroclone, and mentioned another, upthread. There is a 2e component to the OSR movement, but it does tend to be a bit quieter... most folks playing 2e these days started with 2e and stuck with it, or came back after a while away, while a good chunk of 2e's player base went on to other games.

[LuisDantas]

Something that I have not seen mentioned here are the technological and psychological changes since the 1980s.

AD&D 2nd Ed was published in 1989 to some extent as a formalization of various popular houserules of the time.

The D&D Rules Cyclopedia is from 1991.

In 2000, the regular D&D was discontinued and AD&D resumed being just plain D&D in the form of D&D 3.0. And at that point in time, self-publishing was far more of a practical reality than it was at any point in the 1980s. Laser and Inkjet printers could actually be had by hobby fans.


D&D 3.0 is from 2000. D&D 3.5, from 2003. D&D 4.0, from 2008. The first six or seven years or so of the 2000s were both the period of time when POD publishing became an established and respectable reality, with considerable impact in the industry, and the period of the dramatic rise and fall of the d20 OGL and SRD. After two or three decades of simply accepting that the established publishers must have their say, we all were basically taught involuntarily by Wizards of the Coast that no, actually, there is little to no reason to defer to their wishes or even to assume that they have a definite plan. Dedicated fans can organize and express themselves very much at cross purposes with the publishers of their own favorite products if it comes to that.

So it was something of a perfect storm. Paizo taught us that systems can for all practical purposes be rescued from the past even if the publishers would rather that we do not. Lulu, RPGNow and DTRPG taught us that indies could have nicely produced, easily available books as well. Kickstarter taught us that fandom can easily give their money for people whose ideas they like. The web taught us that being in the minority does not mean we have to be silent.

Given that conjunction of circunstances and the rather massive numbers of D&D in the 1970s and 1980s, a few retroclones were very much inevitable.

[Premier]

So it was something of a perfect storm. Paizo taught us that systems can for all practical purposes be rescued from the past even if the publishers would rather that we do not.

Point of order: I think it's fair to say that OSRIC has taught us that lesson well in advance of Paizo. Of course, Paizo still deserves credit for doing it on an unprecedented scale.

[LuisDantas]

Point of order: I think it's fair to say that OSRIC has taught us that lesson well in advance of Paizo. Of course, Paizo still deserves credit for doing it on an unprecedented scale.

Oh, right. I did not realize OSRIC came quite that early on.

[Digitalelf]

Paizo taught us that systems can for all practical purposes be rescued from the past even if the publishers would rather that we do not.

Paizo did not "rescue" any game from the past, they just kept the d20 torch burning, as Pathfinder is not a retro-clone. Other than being the most popular, Pathfinder is really no different from the other various d20 games such as Monte Cook's "Arcana Evolved", Fiery Dragon's "Iron Heroes", Mongoose Publishing's "Conan d20 RPG", Alderac Entertainment Group's "Spycraft", Wizards of the Coast's "D20 Modern", or any other variant of 3.0 and/or 3.5 D&D.

[Knaight]

Paizo did not "rescue" any game from the past, they just kept the d20 torch burning, as Pathfinder is not a retro-clone. Other than being the most popular, Pathfinder is really no different from the other various d20 games such as Monte Cook's "Arcana Evolved", Fiery Dragon's "Iron Heroes", Mongoose Publishing's "Conan d20 RPG", Alderac Entertainment Group's "Spycraft", Wizards of the Coast's "D20 Modern", or any other variant of 3.0 and/or 3.5 D&D.

There's a substantial difference. The rest of those listed are games that share the same core engine (d20 system, class and level, use of other dice for damage, most have the same attributes), but are distinct games. Pathfinder is pretty much just 3.5 all over again. There are a handful of very minor changes, but it's a clone that had some tweaks applied to it, not a distinct game.

[Digitalelf]

There's a substantial difference. The rest of those listed are games that share the same core engine (d20 system, class and level, use of other dice for damage, most have the same attributes), but are distinct games.

Different games? I don't agree... Calling Armor Class a "Defense Bonus" or Hip Points "Health" or "Stamina" are just minor tweaks IMO. Lowering the overall level of magic, or changing the way magic works (or getting rid of it entirely in the case of "modern" or "real life" games like Spycraft for example); these are things DM's and Gm's have done as "house rules" since day one of the hobby, and yet people still consider such changes and house rules to be within the realm of the same game. So again, hardly the makings of a entirely new and distinct game. Same goes with changing around the classes and class system, calling a class by a different name, or having different classes entirely is again, not a game changer...

But my point however, was that Pathfinder is no retro-clone, any more than the d20 offshoots that I mentioned are.

YMMV...

[LibraryOgre]

I tend to agree that Pathfinder is not a retro clone. It started publishing before 3.x ended, it doesn't use the license in an innovative way to recreate a past game... it just uses the license as is.

[Yora]

Many of the popular retroclones don't really do much innovative either.

The main difference I see is that almost all retroclones are oldschool, while Pathfinder is not. You could argue that it's a clone, but not retro.

[Knaight]

Different games? I don't agree... Calling Armor Class a "Defense Bonus" or Hip Points "Health" or "Stamina" are just minor tweaks IMO. Lowering the overall level of magic, or changing the way magic works (or getting rid of it entirely in the case of "modern" or "real life" games like Spycraft for example); these are things DM's and Gm's have done as "house rules" since day one of the hobby, and yet people still consider such changes and house rules to be within the realm of the same game. So again, hardly the makings of a entirely new and distinct game. Same goes with changing around the classes and class system, calling a class by a different name, or having different classes entirely is again, not a game changer...

But my point however, was that Pathfinder is no retro-clone, any more than the d20 offshoots that I mentioned are.

YMMV...

Sure, but take d20 Modern and Spycraft. There's roughly no overlap in the equipment, the classes are completely distinct, there's extensive subsystems for things that are far more relevant in their settings (e.g. computer systems and vehicles), so on and so forth. Those in particular are different games. Even Iron Kingdoms has enough new content and enough minor tweaks to be a distinct game using the same system, though it's fairly similar. All of them are closely related, none of them are clones. Pathfinder meanwhile has a huge amount of overlap, and is a full on clone. The only reason it's not a retro-clone is that the game it's based upon isn't old enough to be retro.

[obryn]

Many of the popular retroclones don't really do much innovative either.

The main difference I see is that almost all retroclones are oldschool, while Pathfinder is not. You could argue that it's a clone, but not retro.
For a weird hybrid OSR sorta-retro-clone, check out Exemplars & Eidolons (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/144651/Exemplars--Eidolons). While the main purpose is a template for publishing RPGs, the game itself is really fascinating.

[LibraryOgre]

Many of the popular retroclones don't really do much innovative either.

The main difference I see is that almost all retroclones are oldschool, while Pathfinder is not. You could argue that it's a clone, but not retro.

The innovation is not in cloning (since they try to be faithful), but in the use of the license in a way not obviously intended (i.e. recreating 1e, instead of creating a slight variant on 3e).

[Digitalelf]

Sure, but take d20 Modern and Spycraft. There's roughly no overlap in the equipment, the classes are completely distinct, there's extensive subsystems for things that are far more relevant in their settings (e.g. computer systems and vehicles), so on and so forth. Those in particular are different games.

I see what you're saying (and have been saying), I do, but to me, a different list of available equipment and skills is still hardly a new game.

Take for instance the 2nd edition AD&D version of Masque of the Red death; even though it is set on "Earth" during the 1890's and uses new distinct classes, has a different list of equipment, and proficiencies, it still requires not only the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook and Dungeon master's Guides to make use of the setting, it also requires the Ravenloft Boxed set...

The d20 version of the MotRD setting likewise requires the game books as well (though in the case of this d20 version, the books it requires are the 3.5 edition game books).

It is also for this reason that I do not think that TSR's "Buck Rogers XXV" is an entirely new game either, for even though it uses a percentile skill mechanic, at it's core, it is still 2nd edition AD&D.

In the case of Buck Rogers, I might be standing alone, but it takes a lot more IMO than "enough new content and enough minor tweaks" of a particular game system to make it an entirely new game.

But like I said, YMMV...

[ken-do-nim]

Actually, 1e AD&D is more like the 2nd edition of the original white box D&D, it combines the white box and its three supplements released between 74 and 76 almost verbatim. It has less in common with Basic, which was designed as a simplified version that didn't use material from the supplements (that originally was intended only to introduce players to the hobby and then refer them to AD&D when they wanted more).

But apparently enough people stuck with Basic instead of moving to AD&D that they decided to expand that system as a separate line of games, culminating in the Rules cyclopedia. Or maybe the authors didn't like how AD&D was going and decided to do it their own way, I don't know.

So there is the AD&D line:
74-76 White box+supplements (1)
77 AD&D (2)
89 2e AD&D (3)
'00-03 3e/3.5e D&D (4)
'14 (5e) D&D (5)


The Basic line:
74 White box D&D (1)
77 Basic D&D (2)
81 Basic revision + Expert (3)
83-85 Basic/Expert revision + companion, master, immortals (4)
91 Black box/Rules Cyclopedia (5)

4e D&D (mostly unrelated to all previous and subsequent editions)

Personally I think 3e/3.5e descends just as much from the Basic line as it does from the Advanced line. The way I do D&D history is

OD&D (parent)
- Basic
- Advanced
d20
- Pathfinder
- 4e
5e

I.e. OD&D branches into Basic and Advanced, recombines into d20, branches again into Pathfinder and 4e, recombines into 5e. Kinda sorta and all that.

[Yora]

What thing from Basic, that isn't in AD&D, do you see in 3rd edition?

[Khedrac]

What thing from Basic, that isn't in AD&D, do you see in 3rd edition?
3rd Ed raided BECM D&D for quite a few of its monsters, notably the Nightshade undead (which they really tuned down). That said, I agree with you, I don't see 3E as having much descent from Basic.

[neonchameleon]

First, as a 1e AD&D (HC books) kid and an outsider to most of 2e AD&D I think the biggest difference honestly lay in the reams of content pumped out for 2e.

Really, really not. The biggest difference was the change in the XP system. In oD&D and 1E you had the rule that 1GP = 1XP. The purpose of this rule (and something it was effective at) was to create a team of expert treasure seekers who didn't want to conquer the dungeon so much as loot it. And any fight avoided was a good thing. The second biggest difference was the deprecating of the hireling rules.

Read the 2E DMG - it's about storytelling, encounter based play, and what would now be called adventure paths. It also advocates fudging the dice because 2e really isn't a good system for actually playing the game type they were intending you to play.

[LibraryOgre]

What thing from Basic, that isn't in AD&D, do you see in 3rd edition?

One thing to note is the standardized attribute modifications. I think some of the feats have a basis in the fighter special maneuvers from RC.

[Yora]

One thing to note is the standardized attribute modifications.

Ha, I had almost listed that as the one thing I could see being similar in B/X and 3rd edition. :smallwink:
But I thought "cleaning up Gygaxs messy tables" is so obvious that I don't consider it as an inspiration or influence. It's simply rational bugfixing that either Holmes or Moldvay were able to see 20 years earlier. Orderly math is not a terribly creative innovation.
Maybe 2nd edition didn't change it to maintain compatibility with 1st.

[HauntWrigs]

There are actually three different editions prior to 2e, and more if you count that Basic D&D had like three different iterations, as well.

I just finished reading Of Dice and Men today and the author lists all the major revisions: Original, Basic, Advanced, Advanced Second Edition, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0. And now there's 5e/Next.

[Yora]

Wrong. Basic also got four different editions. :smallbiggrin:

[Kiero]

Wrong. Basic also got four different editions. :smallbiggrin:

Which are actually appreciably different to each other.

[Yora]

3.0 and 3.5 are as well. AD&D 1st and 2nd perhaps less so, other than assassins and half-orcs being removed.

[LibraryOgre]

3.0 and 3.5 are as well. AD&D 1st and 2nd perhaps less so, other than assassins and half-orcs being removed.

Also changes to initiative and surprise, and the removal of monks, redefinition of illusionists, and alteration of the druid spell advancement. Those are the biggies. I tend to liken it to the difference between 3.0 and 3.x... enough to throw you, but not enough to cripple you, with most material translating directly.

[obryn]

AD&D 1st and 2nd perhaps less so, other than assassins and half-orcs being removed.
There's quite a bit more than that... Off the top of my head...

(1) Initiative uses a d10 and incorporates weapon speed factor (to an exactly backwards effect)
(2) Attributes of 3d6-in-order are assumed; in 1e 4d6b3 arrange-to-taste was "Method I." AD&D needs higher stats, due to how far out the bell curve all the stat mods are. (The 'example character' of Rath has almost crazily mediocre stats, and there's a lot of advice in the roleplay-vs-rollplay/powergaming-is-bad vein)
(3) Non-weapon proficiencies by default in the rules
(4) XP system with per-class bonuses that results in drastically slowed character advancement compared to XP-for-GP. (XP-for-GP is still an optional rule, but not assumed.)
(5) Revisions to most spells. The 10d6 cap on fireball and lightning bolt is introduced, for example; previously a 22nd-level Magic-User rolls 22d6 for fireball damage
(6) Specialist Mages instead of Magic-User vs. Illusionist. Illusionist spells (which were 7-level, like clerics') are folded into the Wizard list.
(7) Spheres for clerics, which were unfortunately very clumsy until later sourcebooks filled them in.
(8) Dramatically different monster rules, especially for dragons.

The two editions are pretty much 'adventure compatible' along with the Basic line, in that a 1e Adventure should work just fine, with a few tweaks, in 2e. Or in BECMI, for that matter.


On the other hand, the differences between B/X and BECMI are a lot smaller. The most dramatic is in Thief Abilities, which scale much slower under BECMI to fill out 36 levels. (Like Thieves needed nerfed, eh?) BECMI adds on stuff that never appeared in B/X, but in fairness, most of it appeared in the C/M portions. Paladins/Avengers/Druids first appeared in the Companion rules as proto-prestige-classes, and Weapon Mastery (and IIRC Mystics?) didn't show up until the Master rules.

BECM and RC are so close as to be identical, though the "I" portion is enormously different.

[viking vince]

I've always wondered why all the D&D retroclones out there are based off of first edition, but the only one I can find based on second edition mysteriously has never been released.



Because first edition is so freaking cool.