Swords & Wizardry

[Ichneumon]

So, I accidentally stumbled upon Swords & Wizardry when scouting this forum and the internet, and I must say I like it very much. Somehow I find reading the rules inspiring and I'm actually considering changing systems from 4eD&D to S&W next time I'm DMing a campaign.

What's your opinion on S&W?

Is it weird that I actually like the idea of races/classes being the same thing?

[Satyr]

It's perhaps nice for those who long for an evening of nice retro nostalgia, but for anything else, it is pretty much worthless. It is always nice to see what a long way RPGs have come in their 30 years evolution, and how greatly they have improved since the humble beginnings. Stuff like this let you appriciate what you have and how it had developed.

I would not like to waste any time with the original old games, and I see even further point in copying those.

[oxybe]

no offense satyr, but i find that statement kinda funny from someone doing a 3rd ed rewrite. again, no offense just kinda funny.

a lot of gamers, as weird as it sounds to some of us, honestly dislike the "advances" in the game in 3rd ed & 4th ed and feel that they are a step back & over complicating the game rather then a progression.

retro-clones have their place, as does BECMI, 1st ed, 2nd ed, ect... heck, i purchased a 1st ed PHB a while ago since i never know just who's going to start up a game (i'm now ready for 1st through 4th ed, woo!)

[bosssmiley]

So, I accidentally stumbled upon Swords & Wizardry when scouting this forum and the internet, and I must say I like it very much. Somehow I find reading the rules inspiring and I'm actually considering changing systems from 4eD&D to S&W next time I'm DMing a campaign.

What's your opinion on S&W?

Is it weird that I actually like the idea of races/classes being the same thing?

Welcome home Ichneumon.

You might want to grab a free copy of Chgowiz's S+W Quick Start to help get your players up to speed. Then noodle around some of the blogs to see exactly how far S+W can be stretched from its supposedly cliché roots:

Carcosa, Savage Swords of Athanor, Planet Algol, and Sham's Grog 'n' Blog are all good fun.

I only 'got' race-as-class recently myself. Wouldn't go back though. Remember all the jumping through hoops you had to do to get a decent Gish in WOTC D&D? The Elf class points & laughs. The Pixie class giggles. And we're not sure what the Octopus class is doing.

[hamlet]

Welcome to the Dark Side, Ichneumon. We have cookies.

Bosssmiley has good advice. Check out the blogs since they have so much to offer. I'd add Grognardia to the list. He has done so much to investigate the old style of gaming and to learn about the game's roots and to expand upon it's potential. He's also building what I can only describe as a tutorial on how to build a megadungeon as the heart of a campaign.

There are plenty of modules out there that would be child's play to use with S&W, and if you're looking for stuff that is custom tailored, Lulu has a few, as does Lamentations of the Flame Princess including the excellent Death Frost Doom and The Grinding Gear. I'd even more highly recommend No Dignity in Death. Well, just about everything that LOTFP has put out honestly.

As for Race as Class, yes, that's a common default, especially when it comes to the BECMI/LL version of the game. However, read closely and you'll see that it's not hard wired in S&W, just recommended. There's nothing at all stopping you from separating race and class, and frankly, I recommend it. I also recommend, if you have cash to throw at this, that you pick up the old Supplements I - IV for added fun that is 100% compatible with S&W. Stuff in there like the Druid, Thief, Monk, Assassin, and a whole bunch of other things including the artifact rules and good stuff like that.

On top of all of that, one last recommendation for you. Mythmere published a S&W monster book as well as a product called "White Box Heroes" on Lulu which I recommend. Just all kinds of good stuff there.

[Matthew]

I am with Bosssmiley and Hamlet. Welcome, Ichneumon!

Swords & Wizardry is a relevant and fun as any other version of Dungeons & Dragons, only preferences differ. If you prefer not to waste your time jumping through endless hoops to build a level appropriate orc, then it is the game for you.

[Ichneumon]

Although the actual system doesn't really matter, in essense it is always just rolling dice and adding numbers, I find that the system would likely fit quite well with what I'm trying to create with my games as a dm.

Oh I like the extra classes in the WhiteBox Heroes, btw. Thanks!

[E.T.Smith]

...I'm actually considering changing systems from 4eD&D to S&W next time I'm DMing a campaign.

Be sure to read the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming first. Its vital to understand that S&W shouldn't be run using the same assumptions as D&D4.

[hamlet]

Oh I like the extra classes in the WhiteBox Heroes, btw. Thanks!

To continue the shameless shilling . . . you can also pick up copies of the KnockSpell magazine from Lulu for a lot of extra fun stuff for S&W. There's another compatible magazine for the OSR whose name escapes me at the moment.

Of course, you dont' actually need any of this stuff, technically speaking, but still.

Although the actual system doesn't really matter, in essense it is always just rolling dice and adding numbers, I find that the system would likely fit quite well with what I'm trying to create with my games as a dm.

That's the important part. If it inspires you, fits with what you want, and does what you need, then there's no excuses that need to be made.

[Ichneumon]

Be sure to read the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming first. Its vital to understand that S&W shouldn't be run using the same assumptions as D&D4.

I like the way how the lack of rules encourage "creative actions". Too often, at least in my experience. The first thing players do when they're confronted with a situation is grab their character sheet and search for a right option. The only games that were really interesting and actually "so fun we forgot the time and were constantly laughing and enjoying ourselves" was a Mutants and Masterminds game in which no one of us, including the DM, knew the rules very well so we mostly ignored the rules and sometime rolled a d20 once in a while.

[Starbuck_II]

Be sure to read the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming first. Its vital to understand that S&W shouldn't be run using the same assumptions as D&D4.

Pg 4-5 of that primer has terrible (well not good) DMs.
In Modern: the DM makes you fall prone for no reason after trying to jump down + attack goblin (after prodding the DM lets him try a jump check to not fall prone).

Old: hH does same thing. At least Old says it was the low roll that did it (plus double damage if he didn't fail roll). Modern one was just a jerk trying to penalize him.

They used a bad example for Modern.

But reading thay does remind me of AD&D back in the day.

[Attilargh]

In D&D, untrained characters fall prone unless they beat the jump DC by five. If this were D&D, John the Roguish would actually still be prone. Oh, and he'd take 1d6 points of falling damage.

[Ichneumon]

I agree the examples in that file are a bit unfair and biased. However, the point they try to make though, is somewhat true.

[jmbrown]

I have major respect for OSRIC, S&W, and Labyrinth Lord for what they accomplish. The old ways should be preserved and rewritten in a manner for the newer generations to reference and enjoy. Some people find them unnecessary but it's important to understand your past to make sense of the presence.

[Matthew]

I agree the examples in that file are a bit unfair and biased. However, the point they try to make though, is somewhat true.

Exactly so. The overblown characterisation (if I remember rightly) was intentional in order to achieve the greatest contrast. You can pretty much play D20/3e or D20/4e exactly as you can S&W, the only question is at that point why are you bothering with all these rules you are ignoring anyway? That was my major dissatisfaction with D20/3e, an overwhelming desire to tinker with the system and make it more like AD&D, at which point I realised I might as well be playing AD&D.

[Mythmere]

Pg 4-5 of that primer has terrible (well not good) DMs.
[snip]
They used a bad example for Modern.

But reading thay does remind me of AD&D back in the day.

Yes, the 3e DM in the examples is a terrible DM - but I couldn't think of any other way to illustrate how rules govern more in 3e as opposed to 0e except stripping it down to the rules in the examples.

Keep in mind, though, the Primer's not supposed to be about whether one system is better or not - it's about how to leap the gap between how the two games are played so differently.

I'm glad people are enjoying Swords & Wizardry so much - it's been a surprise and really gratifying how incredibly fast it has caught on. Look for it in game stores and stuff - it will be there soon.

BTW - since the lulu site got mentioned - all the modules and things are slowly moving over from lulu (which is where we started) to Black Blade Publishing's site. Which is http://black-blade-publishing.com/ So there are only a couple of books left on the lulu site at this point.

[LurkerInPlayground]

no offense satyr, but i find that statement kinda funny from someone doing a 3rd ed rewrite. again, no offense just kinda funny.

a lot of gamers, as weird as it sounds to some of us, honestly dislike the "advances" in the game in 3rd ed & 4th ed and feel that they are a step back & over complicating the game rather then a progression.

retro-clones have their place, as does BECMI, 1st ed, 2nd ed, ect... heck, i purchased a 1st ed PHB a while ago since i never know just who's going to start up a game (i'm now ready for 1st through 4th ed, woo!)

Thumbs up.

What needs to be understood about retro-D&D is that they follow a much different play philosophy than modern RPG's. For one thing, they're more freeform and are relatively simpler (and quicker to run).

And there is a certain swords and sorcery aesthetic to retro-D&D that's lacking in modern games.

Personally, I'm fond of the OSRIC 1e clone.

Keep in mind, though, the Primer's not supposed to be about whether one system is better or not - it's about how to leap the gap between how the two games are played so differently.

That is true. However, the problem is that 3e and 4e don't really properly explain that skills work best as puzzles. It's problematic as-written.

The 4e manual goes the other way and has examples of "skill challenges" which are nothing more than a series of rolls to automatically succeed. It doesn't involve the players in problem-solving and is boring.

The fact of the matter is that third edition emulates a lot of the traditions of of D&D while losing sight of the purpose of those things.

It helps explain why the monk pretty much sucks. Being a grab-bag of abilities that don't synergize wasn't really a problem. The hobby didn't revolve around min-maxing your character. Retro-D&D is brutally lethal, so a simple character creation process was required as a matter of course. You don't juggle feats, arrange ability scores *just right* or assign skill points.

A lot of spells also have in-built drawbacks in their previous iterations:
- Certain polymorph spells could cause the loss of identity if somebody spent too long polymorphed. And you only got the creature's immediate physical abilities but nothing fantastically useful.
- Haste aged you 1 year for using it (or was it a week?). So it wasn't something you used until you needed it.
- Fly didn't have in-built Feather Fall. You could die from a fall if your spell went out in midair.
- Gate didn't assume the cooperation of the entity you summoned, you had to bargain with it. Said entity doesn't like being summoned.
- DM's could deliberately pervert the intentions of a Wish. No part of the spell description automatically entitled you to a toolkit of versatile abilities.
- Fireball has a deliberately large radius because it needed to be a double-edged sword.
- Hit points level off at level nine. Hence, direct damage doesn't suck so much.

Really, it's a pity 4e didn't go that direction with rituals. Greater power at a significant cost.

[Satyr]

no offense satyr, but i find that statement kinda funny from someone doing a 3rd ed rewrite. again, no offense just kinda funny.

a lot of gamers, as weird as it sounds to some of us, honestly dislike the "advances" in the game in 3rd ed & 4th ed and feel that they are a step back & over complicating the game rather then a progression.

retro-clones have their place, as does BECMI, 1st ed, 2nd ed, ect... heck, i purchased a 1st ed PHB a while ago since i never know just who's going to start up a game (i'm now ready for 1st through 4th ed, woo!)

Sacrificing the last 30 years of development for the sake of nostalgia is not a very appealing idea. There is nothing wrong with liking the old stuff, but wouldn't it a much better idea to not try to just emulate the older stuff and ignore all the beautiful improvements but to find a simple dialectiv snythesis and try to combine the best fof two worlds?
Especially because it is already done and ready for the consumer.

[Ichneumon]

Especially because it is already done and ready for the consumer.

I'm sorry, but judging from that link, I feel you don't understand what the "good" quality of the old rules actually is and how the old differs from the new. Or at least, we differ in opinion.

The book you linked, judging from the information on that page, is about adjusting the GURPS rules (which I think is a good system too btw) to be more fitting for a "dungeon crawling" adventure. However, appropriateness or focus for "dungeon crawling" adventures is not what differentiates the D&D editions the most, I think.

It's true that many of old dventures, and as far as I can see that is, focussed on kick in the door style dungeon crawling hack-and-slash style adventures, but I do not think that's the essential point that changed between the editions, as 4e does hack-and-slash as good, (or even better, in my opinion) than these old rules, and I think the old rules are as much appropriate for other styles of play as the new rules.

The main difference in philosophy between Swords & Wizardry & D&D 4e, as I see it, lies in how much dice "skill" rolling should replace player actions and how much game statistics should determine the game.

On the one hand, having skill rolls makes things easy and predictable. It allows you to create characters to actually be better at stuff than others in certain fields. It grants you physical evidence in the form of a larger character sheet to customize your character and differentiate it from other characters. So, you can create a really intimidating or diplomatic character that by game statistics actually has a bigger chance of intimidating or persuading a NPC than someone with lower ranks in that skill.

This is not a question of "how much do you rp your actions", although I can't deny the fact that having the option to roll a skill check for actions like "intimidate" and "search" may encourage players to not discribe in detail how they search or what they say as they'd naturally feel it would be inferior to the result of their dice.

It is a question about how much focus should lay on the player and not on the character. I don't mean the difference between acting in and out of character. I feel the old systems are made in such a way that they encourage you to really feel that when you survived and won a campaign or dungeon, it was you who did it. It wasn't just a character you made and helped make the right choices once in a while and mechanically rolled for the dice. You were the one looking through the dungeons, searching for traps, searching for clues. Your exact discissions to search particularrly that part of the room or to say just that to the goblin guard are it what determinded the outcome of your actions. It wasn't simply "being good at talking or scouting or searching" and doing the right thing and rolling the right numbers at the right time.

I believe ultimately what system you use doesn't really matter a lot. However, I do think that the different design philosphies make the different systems more easy or adapted to different ways of playing the game in a certain way.

EDIT: I might of course be completely wrong in this. I have never actually played S&W or "old school style" games. However, this is my interpretation of the philosphies behind the different systems, ignoring the fact that in the beginning all adventures were simply "dungeon crawling". I could be very wrong in this, but I think it is more than just genre difference between "high fantasy" and "sword and sorcery".

[Matthew]

Do not mind Satyr, he has very specific and unyielding views as to what makes for a "good" RPG, and he is not about to see any other side of things.

[Chgowiz]

@Ichneumon - welcome! Enjoy the game, have fun!

@bossmiley - thank you!

@Matthew - Aha! I will now proceed to erase a great deal of feedback I had. I had a sneaking suspicion, but was rising to the bait.

[Ichneumon]

Thanks all.

Could someone tell me what the main differences in mechanics are between OSRIC and S&W? I know one is 0e and the other is I think AD&D, but I'd like to know as I have stumbled upon a physical copy of the AD&D Player's handbook. I like the concept of Nonweapon proficiencies, although I'm not sure if I'd use them in a game, yet it seems that the OSRIC pdf file does not contain information on them. Could someone cast light on why that is?

[Matthew]

Could someone tell me what the main differences in mechanics are between OSRIC and S&W? I know one is 0e and the other is I think AD&D, but I'd like to know as I have stumbled upon a physical copy of the AD&D Player's handbook. I like the concept of Nonweapon proficiencies, although I'm not sure if I'd use them in a game, yet it seems that the OSRIC pdf file does not contain information on them. Could someone cast light on why that is?

Certainly. AD&D is basically OD&D revised and expanded, more spells, more races, more classes, more equipment, and more rules. The general thrust was to make fighters (fighting-men) better relative to magicians (magic-users), though in fact it reduced the fighting ability of fighters in two specific ways for some reason, which was later increased again in Unearthed Arcana via weapon specialisation. S&W comes in a "basic" and "expanded" version, with the former representing something very close to the 1974 rules, and the latter incorporating some of the rules from the supplements that came out before AD&D. OSRIC is basically the 1979 version of AD&D, and only selectively incorporates monsters, magical items, and the occasional rule from later releases. It also tries to present the game as it was played, skipping some of the more complicated rules (and by complicated, I also mean unclear), which were difficult to legally replicate in any case. So you will not see the weapon type versus armour class adjustments in OSRIC, for instance (by all accounts Gygax never used them anyway), which does mean some of the weapon choices can be a bit unbalanced (crossbows and two-handed weapons have better armour busting properties than bows and one-handed weapons in AD&D).

As to non-weapon proficiencies, that sounds as though you have picked up the second edition version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1989-2000). You will note that the entire proficiency chapter is labelled "optional", though weapon proficiencies were actually introduced in the first edition AD&D PHB (1977). In 1985 non-weapon proficiencies were introduced to AD&D in the form of Oriental Adventures (1985), and were haphazardly expanded in the Wilderness Survival Guide (1986) and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1986). Basically, the design paradigm at the time was moving towards skill based systems and AD&D was to some extent jumping on the bandwagon, and this was carried over into second edition.

Many AD&D players do not use proficiencies, and many others consider them invaluable, but they the school of thought OSRIC follows is that they took the game in the wrong direction, and if people really wanted them an optional supplement would appear of its own accord, so they were not included.

[Jayabalard]

Sacrificing the last 30 years of development for the sake of nostalgia is not a very appealing idea.

There's no sacrifice if you don't think there actually was much improvement. There are a fair number of people who think the recent incarnations of D&D are about the same level of improvement as "pimp my ride" ... I mean, there are some interesting concepts, but most of the stuff is just flashy and not actually useful at all in practice.

[erikun]

You can pretty much play D20/3e or D20/4e exactly as you can S&W, the only question is at that point why are you bothering with all these rules you are ignoring anyway?

This can be turned around, though. Why bother with S&W when the best part of the game has nothing to do with the system itself?

I do agree with the general philosophy of S&W, though. The player calling out an action and the DM ruling/rolling for success is better than the "I use my daily power" idea found heavily in 3rd edition and 4th edition. There is nothing stopping you from using such concepts in other game systems, although the rules-heavy D&D3e makes it quite difficult.

Some of the particulars in the S&W Quick Primer are discouraging, though - rather than needing your trap-detecting skill points to find a trap, you need your trap-detection widget to find a trap. Don't have the widget? Don't find the trap.

[Matthew]

This can be turned around, though. Why bother with S&W when the best part of the game has nothing to do with the system itself?

As I recall, that is the "great secret that you must never let the game masters know", which is to say you do not need S&W any more than you need any other game. Some structure is needed for it to be a game, and game systems will supply that to various degrees. As I say, you can run D20/3e and S&W exactly the same, all you do when picking one over the other is determine how many rules you want available and what message you are sending to your players as regards the bits of the game that will be structured in advance.

[Ichneumon]

One of the best games I once played was a "Modern" game in which we all ended up being blown to pieces by a communist suicide terrorist. We used practically no rules except for the 6 D&D-like abilities/attributes and a d20 which we used once in a while. Rolling high means good result, rolling low means bad result. That's all that was needed for a session of fun.

[Jayabalard]

This can be turned around, though. Why bother with S&W when the best part of the game has nothing to do with the system itself?

Why make an engine that doesn't have a bathtub and a rubber duck attached?

The answer in both cases is the same: because those extraneous elements get in the way and don't add anything. So there are certianly people who are going to go with reducing the clutter, using S&W rather than those other systems.

Some of the particulars in the S&W Quick Primer are discouraging, though - rather than needing your trap-detecting skill points to find a trap, you need your trap-detection widget cleverness to find a trap. Don't have the widget the right amount of cleverness? Don't find the trap.

Fixed. I don't find anything discouraging about that.

[Ichneumon]

Fixed. I don't find anything discouraging about that.

I'd like to add to that, the fact that "being prepared" is part of the cleverness. So, in case of traps, part of the challenge is to know you are likely going to face traps and taking with you the right "tools for the job" or else improvise with the tools you have, like the player did with the water in the example.

[ken-do-nim]

I'd like to add to that, the fact that "being prepared" is part of the cleverness. So, in case of traps, part of the challenge is to know you are likely going to face traps and taking with you the right "tools for the job" or else improvise with the tools you have, like the player did with the water in the example.

Here here. In my pbp on DF, the party just chased a horrid monster as it retreated back to its lair. It led them into a part of the dungeon they hadn't seen yet, and it went down a cliff. The thief climbed down, the rest of the party looked at each other stupidly when it was discovered that no one brought a rope along.