Here's my own stance on the retro-clones. As I've said a few times in this blog, all they really boil down to is glorified shibboleths. I don't believe that they provide a solution to an otherwise insurmountable legal problem with publishing 'unlicensed game supplements'; that problem almost certainly doesn't exist. Nor do I believe they are necessary to preserve the older versions of D&D - all of which are available to buy as pdfs.
What they are useful for is as a means for like-minded people to easily identify one another. "D&D" will generally always mean the current or latest edition of the game to most roleplayers. At the moment, it's synonymous with "4th edition D&D". Fine, no problem, that's the way the world works, whatever ones personal likes and dislikes might be. But it does mean that saying "I like D&D" is problematic for someone who likes older editions. Other people might get the wrong idea and assume you play a game involving 'controllers', 'daily powers' and half-orcs with origins that absolutely do not involve anything bad.
However, say the magic words: "Swords & Wizardry", "OSRIC", "Labyrinth Lord", and if anybody within earshot is 'in the know' - Bingo! - they'll identify you as somebody who probably shares a similar gaming style. And vice-versa. Love, or at least mutual satisfaction, (ahem) will blossom. What's more, saying "Swords & Wizardry" has a kind of cache that saying "I like AD&D" or "I like B/X D&D" doesn't. It immediately lets the right kind of person know that you are in the club. Probably you read all the blogs and forums that the cool people read, have the right playstyle (sandbox, megadungeon, 'rulings not rules'), and possess a healthy disregard for Wizards of the Coast. You are one of the special ones, and all the other special ones will identify you as one of their own. This is a nice feeling to have. Belonging. And a hint of superiority over 'ordinary gamers'.
Nothing wrong with this of course - it's natural human behaviour that we all exhibit, no matter what hobby we have. In my circle of friends in school, saying that your favourite Smashing Pumpkins album was Pisces Iscariot had much the same function - it meant you were in the know, and to be trusted as somebody with impeccable taste. More usefully, the Flemish used to get people to pronounce the words 'schild en vriend' as a means of rooting out French speakers, who would pronounce them 'skild en frend'. And be killed.
Also, I should point out that I like Swords & Wizardry a lot as a cleaned-up version of OD&D, so no complaints about it on that score. But let's stop pretending that it's all just a way of getting around a legal problem now, shall we?
EDIT: Somebody in the comments to the post at LotFP makes the excellent point that the retro clones are free. Also, they are presented better than the older editions. These two factors make them excellent tools for spreading the word. But hey, I have broken ribs and have been writing
So you're saying we should use Old School shibboleths to winkle out and kill infestations of Frenchmen? I like the way you think. ;)
ReplyDeletewv: cocat - "Pronounce it right or taste cold steel Pierre!"
Wait a sec, are you saying retro-clones are illegal? I don't get it, I thought the OGL thingy had us covered?
ReplyDeleteOh and another advantage of RC's, while the old stuff is avaiable in PDF these some like having an acual physical book with having to hunt on Ebay and pay through the nose.
The print versions of clones tend to be considerably cheaper than professional games, because they re not (with a few exceptions) being published for profit.
Chris: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying! Who's with me?!
ReplyDeleteEdsan: No, what I mean is that the illegality problem doesn't really exist. In my opinion it's fine for people to publish things "for use with Original D&D" or whatever, provided it is 'normative fair use' of the trademarks (wikipedia it). You don't need retro-clones to get around the law, because the law doesn't need getting around.
Good point about the cheapness factor though.
Where does that leave us lot who continue to toddle along contentedly with older editions of (A)D&D, and picked up one of the retro-clones mostly out of curiosity? ;3
ReplyDeletetaichara: You're out of the cool kids' club. No soup for you!
ReplyDeleteActually I fall into that category myself, I suppose.
Last time I checked the '81 Basic/Expert rules were not available for download. Labyrinth Lord does a good job emulating that particular ruleset and expands it a bit mostly with stuff inspired by 1st edition AD&D.
ReplyDeleteBut I otherwise mostly agree with the main thrust of your post. I think the legal dangers are minimal (though real) and new branding on these old games allows them to stand out in the vast crowd of the edition of the month.
It also does something that the old versions didn't have, up till now, new energy and new blood. It's like the reboots of BSG - basics are there, spirit is there, but because it's something that more people can be a part of and possibly add to, it gives them an excitement.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't provide art for 0E books, but I could for S/W. Yes, in the end, it's the same thing, but having a free, more readable version of 0e with drawings inside that I added - well, that gives me something to be excited about. To me, it's less about being in a "cool club" and more about having new tools that do very similar things, but these tools are in active development and I can add to them and use them. In the end, I go back to the same "place" (my worlds) and the tools are all the same, but this time, I got to help make it or affect it.
Maybe that's dumb? I don't know - I like it.
Jeff: I didn't realise the Basic/Expert sets weren't available on pdf. That's weird and a little sad.
ReplyDeleteChgowiz: I understand all that, and I think my post was possibly more rain-on-parade-ish than I meant it to be. The democratisation that the retro-clones represent is a great thing. But I can definitely sense an in-group/out-group thing developing in some parts of the 'movement'.
You know what? So can I. I think that's inevitable, and I'm doing what I can to not get into that fray, but still support the things I feel are good. I'm glad you raise the points you raise. Seems like there's a ton of thinking going on.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't cool to like "Siamese Dream" or "Mellon Collie"? I'm out of the cool club for Pumpkins fans!!!
ReplyDeletenoisms, over on the LotFP blog you replied to my comment saying...
ReplyDelete@David Macauley: Eh, that remark just tells me that you've completely missed the point of both my comment and the blog entry. But hey, that's just the nature of the beast I suppose.
...and I thought it more appropriate to reply in your space. I truly do want to understand what you are saying, which is why I am here.
I don't feel I missed your point entirely, but perhaps I fell victim to this: "I think my post was possibly more rain-on-parade-ish than I meant it to be."
I do agree with the cliquey nature of the beast, that's true of any edition or game and not paticular to the old school movement. I have recently seen however, efforts from within to break down the walls of unnecessary and misguided loyalties that create these cliques. Ironically, the whole Rosetta stone trigger to James Raggi's post was one of these attempts.
Most people within the old school movement have no problems swapping between the various editions and clones, they're all easily compatible. Showing that easy compatiblity to outsiders who might get caught up in labels is our challenge. Brand loyalty is unnessary and I believe publications like Fight On! and to a lesser degree, Knockspell, show that many grasp the fact that this is the case.
I just don't buy the idea that the retro-clone movement automatically = private clubs. Those who feel that way are very much the minority, as demonstrated by the amount of cross-forum, cross-clone pollination that goes on.
You know what? So can I. I think that's inevitable, and I'm doing what I can to not get into that fray, but still support the things I feel are good. I'm glad you raise the points you raise. Seems like there's a ton of thinking going on.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem is, if this "in group/out of group" attitude develops and edition wars between whether Labyrinth Lord and Sword and Wizardry are more old school than each other, or whether or not any of them are actually the inheritors of D&D, all you've done is factionalize a group into idiotic and screaming fundamentalists who stop caring about why they started the movement in the first place (i.e., playing and advancing the game) and more about who's right and who's to be demonized.
But the problem is, if this "in group/out of group" attitude develops and edition wars between whether Labyrinth Lord and Sword and Wizardry are more old school than each other, or whether or not any of them are actually the inheritors of D&D, all you've done is factionalize a group into idiotic and screaming fundamentalists who stop caring about why they started the movement in the first place (i.e., playing and advancing the game) and more about who's right and who's to be demonized.
ReplyDeleteI hate to sound pessimistic, but I think that is sorta inevitable. Look at Paizo vs. WotC. There's an interesting discussion elsewhere (http://tankardsandbroadswords.blogspot.com/2009/04/little-bit-of-war-with-your-games.html) about how this has happened with historical wargaming. We see this in our political and religious discourse. Humans love to raise the pheonix and then kill it when it flies.
"This has happened before and it will happen again." I think there's a great deal of cyclical behavior at work and I think the only thing I can do is discourage that tendency, play my games, keep on talking about what I love and try to learn from mistakes and not repeat them.
In that light, maybe you should do something as simple as crafting a mission statement that specifically says that the rules themselves are unimportant, but it's the spirit and the intent that matter.
ReplyDeleteI'd hate to see this thing die on the vine because some can't put aside their nerd rage.
They are decidedly NOT "better than" AD&D (or basic, or original, whatever).
ReplyDeleteThe very notion gives me headaches.
Badmike: It's okay to like them, you just have to like Pisces Iscariot the best. Otherwise, I'm sorry to tell you this but... you're not one of the cool kids, I'm afraid. ;)
ReplyDeleteDavid Macauley: Thanks for the comment. I don't want to argue for a second that each retro-clone is developing its own clique - as you say, most people seem to interchange at will. What I'm worried about is that people who aren't already 'in the know' find it difficult to work out what all the retro-clones are, what they represent, and what's to recommend them. There's something cliquish about the whole thing taken as one.
That's not deliberate on the part of the majority of 'old schoolers' - just, as Chgowiz says, a kind of natural human impulse.
Hamlet: My bigger concern is a kind of crystallization of playstyles - tentpole megadungeon, swords & sorcery/pulp fantasy atmosphere, etc. An orthodoxy seems to be unconsciously developing...
Bill S.: I hope I didn't give that impression. In terms of presentation and pricing I think the retro-clones are better. but that's all.
Sounds like the same old story to me; some folks do indeed prefer complaining about what other people are doing to just getting on with their own projects.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who says "X is better than Y" in this context is wallowing in subjectivity, because what they are really saying is "I like X better than Y". Yeah, therein lies your preferences, and shared preferences are the basis on which friendships and relationships are built, but it is also okay to disagree about things.
The Red Priest put it best during the whole TARGA Big Tent discussion. Old school is doing whatever the fuck you like and not giving a shit what somebody else thinks about it.
Storm in a teacup.
I'm cool with that. I don't much fancy soup ;3
ReplyDelete*ducks*
My order of retro-clones - Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Basic Fantasy, and Swords & Wizardry - arrived today.
ReplyDeleteNot only are my BECMI/RC/1E/2E books showing the signs of many years of loving play, but... I have to say it... a number of times I turned up to the local gaming club with pre-3e versions of D&D, reactions ranged from attempts to convert me to the latest edition to outright derisive laughter. And this in a gaming club proud of its many years of independence and openness to all games and gamers. Part of why I stopped gaming...
There is a Garfield-style "new and improved, new and improved - just think, all this time I've had 'old and inferior'" mentality at work, methinks. So if I show gamers a 'new and improved' version of an old game, and it is in attractive print format, laughter will be banished and more players will be likely to sign up for the campaign. Or so I believe, and am soon going to be staking my DMing reputation upon...
The prospect of one day, maybe, writing my own retro-clone sourcebook/supplement is of course a courtesy feature :)
Word verification: stanial - standing in denial.
a number of times I turned up to the local gaming club with pre-3e versions of D&D, reactions ranged from attempts to convert me to the latest edition to outright derisive laughter.
ReplyDeleteThat really sucks. I've had reverse experiences - where people at my FLGS will watch and smile or even ask me about the older versions (it's happened twice). I've not had any derisive laughter. I will contrast that with the note that I've abandoned attempts to reach out to a closer/new gaming store because they are catering more to the young miniature/4E crowd. I tried to extend my hand and offer demos and was met with resounding silence. Shame, really.
...and one of my former players, of many years standing, just now asked if I'd be interested in playing 3.5 D&D, knowing already that I replied "Basic/Expert" to his question as to whether I'd be running 2E again any time soon.
ReplyDelete*sigh* :(
I wonder what the blogger ratio of
ReplyDelete"time spent playing D&D (in whatever version is prefered) vs. time spent blogging about which version of D&D they hate/love" is.