QuoteAmidst the wave of retro-clone RPGs comes a true remake of arguably the most-played version of the world's most famous roleplaying game.
Realms of Eternal Epic is not a clone – it is a retro remake. The clone movement serves a very distinct purpose: To provide an OGL version of older school rules to facilitate authors and companies wishing to further support them. We love the clone movement, its developers and supporters, and the intent behind the surge. The 1989 Edition was heavily supported, almost to a fault, so we needn't go there. The two purposes for the Realms of 2E is: 1) to resurrect what you have in your vast library or character folio for inspiration and aid; and 2) to fix some of the bad or complicated rules in the system so that new and young players can enjoy its mystique.
The good rules remain. The tone and epic nature remains. The bad is delicately remade with modern game theory so that only the game play improves. In essence, Realms of Eternal Epic grants everyone a chance to relive the late 80s and 90s of roleplaying with an even better experience than before. It is a true remake...
A 128-page Starter Set manual will be available on July 15th. It allows players to create characters and adventure through 5th level. The Starter Set provides everything the game master needs to run adventures, as well.
The full version of the rules, which spans two books, will be available at the close of 2010.
http://www.newhavengames.com/?page_id=23
Quote from: Benoist;392984http://www.newhavengames.com/?page_id=23
Tim should be happy, he has been looking for one of these for a long time.
The part that makes me pause is "The good rules remain. The tone and epic nature remains. The bad is delicately remade with modern game theory so that only the game play improves." :hmm:
Wonder if they will replicate stuff from the Complete * Handbooks, Player's Options, etc ... supplement books.
Or for that matter, will it use descending AC with THAC0.
Quote from: Benoist;392996The part that makes me pause is "The good rules remain. The tone and epic nature remains. The bad is delicately remade with modern game theory so that only the game play improves." :hmm:
To me, this sounds alot like the theory behind Castles and Crusades.
Quote from: Benoist;392996The part that makes me pause is "The good rules remain. The tone and epic nature remains. The bad is delicately remade with modern game theory so that only the game play improves." :hmm:
Well, wait and see I guess. It might work or it might turn out they see the problems with 2E as being elsewhere to where I think they are...
Modern improvements, eh? Sounds like yet another fantasy heartbreaker. (Although, to their credit, they note that this system is not a clone.) I much prefer clones that at least attempt to stay true to the original, rather than opening the door to subjective "improvements." I think if I wanted to run a 2e game, I'd just get the 2e books on the used market. They're still cheap and readily available.
If I wanted to publish for 2e, I might think about doing a "SRD" covering 2e, and set up a trademark that would act as a code for 2e, just like OSRIC is a code for AD&D (1e). Actually, you could probably do this as an OSRIC "Second Edition Fantasy" supplement that offered optional changes to the classes, combat, et cetera. Those changes would be compatible with 2e AD&D. Then you release modules, splat-books, et cetera for your "Second Edition Fantasy" supplement.
(This approach is kind of like how Labyrinth Lord has its core rules, but then can be modified to be more AD&Dish with the "Advanced Edition Characters" supplement or more OD&Dish with the "Original Edition Characters" supplement. You'd start with OSRIC, which is already AD&D, and your "Second Edition Fantasy" supplement would offer the rules to make it compatible with 2e.)
After reading the Planescape thread, I wondered if a cleaned up 2e-alike would be the most convenient way to play the setting again.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;392999To me, this sounds alot like the theory behind Castles and Crusades.
It sounds like the theory behind every role-playing game other than the first :)
They need a "The" in the title. But I think its a good thing. I'm looking forward to it...:D
The ridiculous title as well as the poor writing that Benoist pointed out makes me fear that the author may not be the sharpest tool in the shop. Doesn't bode well.
i know the cover's a mockup, but PLEASE GOD DO SOME ANTI-ALIASING AROUND THE LOGO. :\ and yes, needs a "The" or two in there..."The Realms of the Eternal Epic" even. (or obviously "Realms of the Eternal Epic")
Quote from: kregmosier;393029i know the cover's a mockup, but PLEASE GOD DO SOME ANTI-ALIASING AROUND THE LOGO. :\ and yes, needs a "The" or two in there..."The Realms of the Eternal Epic" even. (or obviously "Realms of the Eternal Epic")
As someone pointed out on RPG.net, Realms of Eternal Epic allows it to be shortened into "Realms of 2E"...so it's likely that the lack of "the" before Epic is very likely intentional.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;393033As someone pointed out on RPG.net, Realms of Eternal Epic allows it to be shortened into "Realms of 2E"...so it's likely that the lack of "the" before Epic is very likely intentional.
Yeah, but you don't usually leave the "the" in such kinds of shortening anyway.
(double post)
ATTACK OF THE THE SECOND EDITION!
(you had to be there)
Anyway, yeah - this does sound a lot like Castles & Crusades...
Vaguely enthused to see 2e getting some love, but also a bit leery of "modern game theory". WTF is that supposed to mean?
Anyway, I'm curious as to how it turns out. I hope it's not another C&C; not because C&C is bad, but because we already have C&C.
Quote from: The Butcher;393041WTF is that supposed to mean?
It means it's going to be a 2e "not-a-clone." Sounds like another fantasy heartbreaker with someone's house rules as part of the mix, to me. I hate to be negative, but if I wanted to play 2e, I'd just play 2e. The books are still cheap and readily available on the used market. And I can house rule in whatever "improvements" I like; I can house rule just as well as the next guy.
If I were creating a 2e clone game, I'd leverage OSRIC, which already has the core rules I'd need. For example, maybe I'd create an OSRIC product called "Second Edition Reborn Fantasy" and trademark "SERF." The SERF supplement would have "optional" rules that replace the standard OSRIC rules, where necessary. New versions of the classes and tweaked combat rules would be the obvious place to start. Of course, the SERF versions would be compatible with 2e.
I'd probably release these things in pieces, as I finished them: SERF Classes for OSRIC, SERF Combat for OSRIC, et cetera, until the whole thing was done. Then I'd release a combined product. While it might not be strictly necessary, I'd talk with the OSRIC trademark holders to get permission and make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong with their mark.
In the end, you have a new trademark (i.e. SERF) that was code for 2e, just like OSRIC is code for 1e AD&D. Other publishers could use it to release 2e material, if they liked. Et cetera. My goal wouldn't necessarily be for people to
play SERF, although they could if they wanted to. My goal would be to encourage play of 2e by stimulating publication of modules and supplements for SERF.
(Note that I'm not interested in 2e and
won't be doing this, but this is how I'd approach it if I were going to do it.)
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;393044It means it's going to be a 2e "not-a-clone." Sounds like another fantasy heartbreaker with someone's house rules as part of the mix, to me. I hate to be negative, but if I wanted to play 2e, I'd just play 2e. The books are still cheap and readily available on the used market. And I can house rule in whatever "improvements" I like; I can house rule just as well as the next guy.
If I were doing this, I'd leverage OSRIC, which already has the core rules I'd need. For example, maybe I'd create an OSRIC product called "Second Edition Reborn Fantasy" and trademark "SERF." The SERF supplement would have "optional" rules that replace the standard OSRIC rules, where necessary. New versions of the classes and tweaked combat rules would be the obvious place to start. Of course, the SERF versions would be compatible with 2e.
I'd probably release these things in pieces, as I finished them: SERF Classes for OSRIC, SERF Combat for OSRIC, et cetera, until the whole thing was done. Then I'd release a combined product. While it might not be strictly necessary, I'd talk with the OSRIC trademark holders to get permission and make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong with their mark.
In the end, you have a new trademark (i.e. SERF) that was code for 2e, just like OSRIC is code for 1e AD&D. Other publishers could use it to release 2e material, if they liked. Et cetera.
(Note that I'm not interested in 2e and won't be doing this, but this is how I'd approach it if I were going to do it.)
I thought along the same lines as well. If I was going for a 2e clone, I'd make a supplement to OSRIC. Love the name by the way, SERF.
Oh. And it looks like the guys renamed their game "Myth & Magic".
Quote from: Benoist;393045I thought along the same lines as well. If I was going for a 2e clone, I'd make a supplement to OSRIC. Love the name by the way, SERF.
I think the "SERF" name originally got floated on an ENW thread.
Having a clone for every single variant of the D&D game out there is getting a bit tired, in my opinion. It's fine that you have reference documents and all, but for God sakes - at some point, one should just add to the corpus of references already in existence rather than creating yet-another-OGL-game-for-it. It's counterproductive, IMO.
Quote from: Benoist;393050Having a clone for every single variant of the D&D game out there is getting a bit tired, in my opinion. It's fine that you have reference documents and all, but for God sakes - at some point, one should just add to the corpus of references already in existence rather than creating yet-another-OGL-game-for-it. It's counterproductive, IMO.
That's not going to stop anyone from making their own "retro heartbreaker" rpg.
Quote from: ggroy;393051That's not going to stop anyone from making their own "retro heartbreaker" rpg.
I know. It just bears saying, though.
Wonder if this 2E retro clone will resemble Castles & Crusades or Troll Lord's earlier unpublished "Sword & Sorcery" rpg. The snippets that Troll Lord published for "Sword & Sorcery" looks like 2E AD&D with ascending AC, along with some custom house rules for saving throws and skill checks.
dammit we need more clones for Dragons of Underearth and TFT already :D
By the way Caesar Slaad, did you know the quote in your sig is taken from Dorothy Parker?
Quote from: Age of Fable;393061By the way Caesar Slaad, did you know the quote in your sig is taken from Dorothy Parker?
She hates 4e too? ;)
Yes, I knew that.
Quote from: Benoist;393050Having a clone for every single variant of the D&D game out there is getting a bit tired, in my opinion. It's fine that you have reference documents and all, but for God sakes - at some point, one should just add to the corpus of references already in existence rather than creating yet-another-OGL-game-for-it. It's counterproductive, IMO.
Agreed.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Age of Fable;393010It sounds like the theory behind every role-playing game other than the first :)
Bingo!
I wish them luck. I didn't see much difference between the AD&D 1e and 2e rulesets. Most players I knew weren't big on either proficiencies or kits.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;393085She hates 4e too? ;)
She sent me this poem this morning:
4th edition has no heart.
World of Darkness thinks it's art.
WFRP is all blood and axes,
3.5's like doing taxes.
One's too short, the next too dense,
The third's just right, but makes no sense.
On the whole, dear friends, it's best
To give up and play HeroQuest.
Quote from: Age of Fable;393211She sent me this poem this morning:
4th edition has no heart.
World of Darkness thinks it's art.
WFRP is all blood and axes,
3.5's like doing taxes.
One's too short, the next too dense,
The third's just right, but makes no sense.
On the whole, dear friends, it's best
To give up and play HeroQuest.
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Shut up, we're playing AD&D
The beer is in the fridge
Quote from: Benoist;393050Having a clone for every single variant of the D&D game out there is getting a bit tired, in my opinion.
Yeah, it gets old quick, but I'm all for it. When it comes to retro-clones, the more the merrier, as long as they're free of course.
If this was Serious Business, I can see how glut would be a Bad Thing. If the authors are seriously thinking of selling it in game stores, for cold, hard cash, I suspect that's a good, sure-fire recipe for heartbreak. But free PDFs on the intarwebz? Go crazy.
Having a retro-clone of 2e is like having a Cadillac Cimmaron enthusiast's club.
Quote from: The Butcher;393249If the authors are seriously thinking of selling it in game stores, for cold, hard cash, I suspect that's a good, sure-fire recipe for heartbreak. But free PDFs on the intarwebz? Go crazy.
Yeah; no argument from me on that.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;393057dammit we need more clones for Dragons of Underearth and TFT already :D
I thought about a TFT retro-clone a long time ago...
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7149/tnti.gif)
BUT Dark City Games seem to have a pretty good handle on it. ;) Plus I always assumed SJG would go ballistic. (although why they haven't done it themselves is beyond me...I'd reintroduce the ol' pocket box games in a heartbeat, but they seem to be too ate up with those horrible Munchkin ______ games to do anything else...)
Most amusing! But probably only a small number of people would get the reference.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;393254Having a retro-clone of 2e is like having a Cadillac Cimmaron enthusiast's club.
Well,
excuse me, Mr. I-was-playing-1e-when-you-kids-were-in-diapers, but some of us happen to have been introduced to the hobby at the heyday of 2e, and feel the same sentimental attachment to 2e's whitewashed take on D&D, that you express towards 1e's dense and pretentious prose, or the LBB's crappy art or whatever pushes your "this is D&D" button. :mad:
To be honest, I'm no huge fan of AD&D 2e myself. It may well be the weakest edition of D&D, but that's kind of like saying "
Fellowship of the Ring is the weakest book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy" or "
A Voyage to Sfänamoe is the weakest Clark Ashton Smith tale". In fact, I don't think
weakest is the right term.
Least awesome, maybe?
Quote from: The Butcher;393321To be honest, I'm no huge fan of AD&D 2e myself. It may well be the weakest edition of D&D, but that's kind of like saying "Fellowship of the Ring is the weakest book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy" or "A Voyage to Sfänamoe is the weakest Clark Ashton Smith tale". In fact, I don't think weakest is the right term. Least awesome, maybe?
I often wonder about this; many of the problems people have with 2E seem to have waaaay more to do with various pieces of splat that they disliked, rather than the game itself. Not to start a flamewar, but I played 1E, and I really did think 2E was generally an improvement.
Quote from: Bobloblah;393331I often wonder about this; many of the problems people have with 2E seem to have waaaay more to do with various pieces of splat that they disliked, rather than the game itself. Not to start a flamewar, but I played 1E, and I really did think 2E was generally an improvement.
Speaking strictly for myself, I generally dislike the Bowdlerisation of (A)D&D that took place in the early 2e era. It seems TSR was intent on dispelling the "bad publicity" of (A)D&D and sell it as a "family friendly" game. No "demons" or "devils" or "assassins", for example.
Also, (A)D&D trying to pass itself off as a high fantasy (or worse, "romantic fantasy") RPG comes across as a strange beast indeed.
I don't consider any of this a deal-breaker (especially as these elements were slowly reintroduced as the 2e product line grew), but some people were/are fairly irked, and I can vaguely relate to that. However, AD&D 2e is one of my favorite editions of the game, and possibly the one I've played the most.
Quote from: The Butcher;393321Well, excuse me, Mr. I-was-playing-1e-when-you-kids-were-in-diapers, but some of us happen to have been introduced to the hobby at the heyday of 2e, and feel the same sentimental attachment to 2e's whitewashed take on D&D, that you express towards 1e's dense and pretentious prose, or the LBB's crappy art or whatever pushes your "this is D&D" button. :mad:
LOL :D :D :D
Sorry man, that just made me chuckle. Yeah, I tend to come off like that a lot, the "Cadillac Cimmaron" comment was just a joke.
QuoteTo be honest, I'm no huge fan of AD&D 2e myself. It may well be the weakest edition of D&D, but that's kind of like saying "Fellowship of the Ring is the weakest book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy" or "A Voyage to Sfänamoe is the weakest Clark Ashton Smith tale". In fact, I don't think weakest is the right term. Least awesome, maybe?
I would actually play 2e long before I'd play later versions. Can't say I care much for the adventures in it but there we go.
I like 2e to the degree that it resembles 1e. ;) I agree with DungeonDelver that I'd rather play 2e than 3e or 4e.
My personal rating of 2e at the low end of the TSR D&D scale is a combination of things. A big one was the presentation and prose of the core books. I bought them and tried to like them, but there was just no getting around my sense of disappointment. They seemed dry and soulless, in comparison to 1e. (That was especially true of the 2e DMG. I remember thinking "what the hell -- where is all the cool stuff?) I also didn't care for most of the changes and excisions. As more and more 2e product was released, my hopes for something cool and good (e.g. good adventures) were always dashed. I didn't like the direction they went with adventures. Some of the high-fantasy style art wasn't too bad, but it dominated and I got sick of it, and also associated it with my disappointment in 2e products. I didn't like the direction the splats went, either. Basically, despite the core of the game being very similar to 1e, I didn't like any of the directions that 2e went with adventures, with art/presentation, with rules changes, with rules additions, et cetera. I gave up on it.
(Note that some of my criticism/experience with 2e could also be applied to late 1e products.)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;393340LOL :D :D :D
Sorry man, that just made me chuckle. Yeah, I tend to come off like that a lot, the "Cadillac Cimmaron" comment was just a joke.
That was the idea. :D
Quote from: thedungeondelver;393340I would actually play 2e long before I'd play later versions. Can't say I care much for the adventures in it but there we go.
Yeah, most adventures were crap. Dragon Mountain was pretty cool, though.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;393354My personal rating of 2e at the low end of the TSR D&D scale is a combination of things.
Your peeves with 2e sound a lot like my own. The difference being that, having been introduced to the game in the days of 2e, my immediate alternative was the D&D RC (all too often looked down by AD&D 2e fans), and the local heartbreaker.
I discovered AD&D 1e only a few years ago, though I've never played it (and in fact I suspect it reads better than it plays). Nonetheless, I enjoy the prose and I love the aesthetics.
When it comes to running a game, though, I still default to the D&D RC, though I steal stuff from all over. I love the S&W spell lists, and the AD&D 1e classes (I'd love to stat-out Rangers, Bards, Assassins and Illusionists in the D&D RC "proto-prestige class" approach used for Paladins and Druids).
These threads always make me want to run D&D. It's like a bad habit I just can't shake. ;) Well, back to work now...
That's a pretty solid Dorothy Parker impression! Kudos!
Thanks!
Anyway, I mostly missed out on 2nd edition, but I have the impression that the distinctive feature of it was the settings and kits, not the core rules. So wouldn't expansions for OSRIC work better?