Over on RPGnet, there's a pretty cool thread where they're compiling a list of OSR games.

Thought this was a really cool take on 0e -- much more in line with how I imagine the game than a lot of the clones.  It's nicely organized, integrates mass combat very well, and I'll be damned if there's a detail missing -- this book contains all the little bits, minutiae, and explanation of design intent that I've seen missing from other retro games.

It also uses d6s exclusively, which I kind of like.

http://feysquare.com/?page_id=84

And from the afterward:

QuoteWhile I can’t copy the original material 100%, I hope you enjoyed this product because I really think it’s in the spirit of the old game much more than other products claim to be.

By that I mean TBBB’s take on 0e is closer to the original wargame, which is what 0e was based on, than the usual retroclone take which is “modern role play, stripped out rules.” Despite being the first role playing game, 0e was quite complex but with little to no clarification in the original books a lot can be missed or glossed over. I understand that few people will enjoy the game’s presentation but that’s not the point. The fact that it exists is all I care about.

“0e” is a very different game than the contemporary ones we play today -- there’s a very different style, assumptions, and method of play. In this section I want to address some concerns about the game’s design that are commonly asked by people who grew up on the contemporary editions (like myself). I hope this section will shed new light on the material because I’m proof that it’s not impossible to teach a new dog old tricks.

Kudos to this guy for building his game and sharing it with the world.

Doesn't do it for me as a 0e clone, though. YMMV.

Quote from: Benoist;440980Kudos to this guy for building his game and sharing it with the world.

If it'll get more people interested in the origins of the game (and the hobby), then it's a win for everyone in my book.

QuoteDoesn't do it for me as a 0e clone, though. YMMV.

0e would be pretty boring if everyone had the same tastes/interpretations.  

The fact that we've ended up with so many variants for early editions speaks to how inspirational they can be, even if people may disagree on the design specifics.

Quote from: Peregrin;440981If it'll get more people interested in the origins of the game (and the hobby), then it's a win for everyone in my book.

Totally. If some guys pick up his PDF, roll some dice and enjoy it old school, dude, I have nothing to bitch about!

Just curious -- what about this doesn't do it for you in terms of being a 0e simulacrum/clone/whatevs?

Stuff like the use of the d66 (I associate the d66 and d666 with In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas, not OD&D). The vocabularity and general tone of the game that just don't make me think of OD&D. That kind of thing. I'm already served by the likes of S&W, Spellcraft & Swordplay and those kinds of games in the clone department, anyway. There's a game for everyone.

The name of this invokes BAD BAD BAD imagery.

Heh, I've put at least that much work into Dark Passages and it didn't get on their list.  I may have offended a few D&D fans over there or something

Oh well, Dark Passages (not to be confused with Dark Dungeons) isn't exactly a retro clone.  It's a D&D clone but 'retro' wasn't a factor in designing it.  Even so it does look more like older versions of D&D than newer ones on the surface.  If I ever get around to tidying up and formating the supplement it'll become more aparent that it's more than that, though there's been so little interest that it's not high on my priority list.

There's too many D&D varients at the momement.

You aren't kidding about too many OSR games. More people should just publish supplements instead of entire new games. But I've been saying this for a year now, and have been completely ignored. Most OSR publishers are more interested in the sales of core rulebooks instead of supporting the hobby overall.

Quote from: danbuter;441165More people should just publish supplements instead of entire new games. But I've been saying this for a year now, and have been completely ignored.

I share your feelings.

It sounds a lot like what Spellcraft & Swordplay (Jason Vey's retro-clone) already did, at least in terms of the design goal (sticking with the wargame approach, and using d6 instead of d20). I haven't read the rules yet, so maybe he diverges from that. It will be interesting to see whether it feels like a duplication or whether he's tapped into a different approach to the wargame+d6 interpretation of pre-Greyhawk OD&D from the one taken in Spellcraft & Swordplay.

I definitely agree that the wargame interpretation is different from what's done in Swords & Wizardry, which is definitely based on the actual books rather than on extrapolating Chainmail as an alternate development. For myself, and this has been my difficulty with other Chainmail extrapolations as well, I haven't ever seen the CM system work particularly well in the figure-by-figure combats that characterize an RPG. (edit - mainly because it's too lethal for my tastes, not because the mechanisms fail in any objective sense, but wargames tend to have "live" or "die" resolutions and don't translate well from that without losing the wargame feel in the process)

It will be interesting to see what's done differently than in Spellcraft & Swordplay:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14037.phtml (RPGnet review by Matt Slepin):

QuoteIt is in this light that I review Jason Vey’s new game Spellcraft & Swordplay (hereafter S&S). This game is largely an emulation of the original, three little booklets plus Supplement I: Greyhawk. What makes it really intriguing and, insofar as I know, unique, is that it also attempts to reach even further back to the progenitor of the game, namely the Chainmail rules for medieval miniatures. In the introduction, Vey states that he designed the game to occupy a sort of middle-ground between a retro-clone and a nostalgia game. I’m not entirely sure what that means; possibly he sees S&S as too different from OD&D to be a true retro-clone, but too similar to be a nostalgia game. I’m not sure that this is the case—without trying it, I believe that I could run the Temple of the Frog or In Search of the Unknown under S&S with no more appreciable conversion work than if I did so using Swords & Wizardry.

*Note: Spellcraft & Swordplay isn't the same as Swords & Wizardry - yes, I know, the names are really similar, which makes for confusion when they're discussed side-by-side.

Quote from: danbuter;441165You aren't kidding about too many OSR games. More people should just publish supplements instead of entire new games. But I've been saying this for a year now, and have been completely ignored. Most OSR publishers are more interested in the sales of core rulebooks instead of supporting the hobby overall.

I wrote Dark Passages for two very specific reasons.  One was to illustrate what I believe an introductory D&D rule book should look like and contain.  The other was to lay down clearly what I see the core game at the heart of D&D to be.  So it's more of an essay (or rant) on D&D from where I sit.  The supplement would cover the other classes and races as well as the class*, race, and spell building rules.  I got a start on a retro clone of Battle System 2e but I don't know if it would fit in the supplement.  Ideally I'd want Battle System to be fully linked into the realm management rules so they might form a third supplement.

Oh well, there's a dungeon and wilderness area detailed at the end of Dark Passages that might be useful with other versions of D&D anyhow.

*Incidentally the class building rules also handle multiclassing.  You just deduct the overlapping abilities from the XP cost for the classes.

Quote from: danbuter;441165You aren't kidding about too many OSR games. More people should just publish supplements instead of entire new games. But I've been saying this for a year now, and have been completely ignored.

There has been a staggering number of modules and other supplement published in the last few years, many multiples of what TSR + JG put out over similar time periods. It makes a lot more sense to count those rather than to tell people what they shouldn't be doing, especially when a lot (but definitely, I agree, not all) of those publishers are also publishing the resources you want to see. I put together a list (still a work in progress) of what's out there, and it runs to something like 20 pages. That includes the descriptions, so I don't know what it would be single spaced, but probably 5 pages at least. LOTS of stuff.

QuoteMost OSR publishers are more interested in the sales of core rulebooks instead of supporting the hobby overall.

I don't think publishers are much interested in sales numbers at this point, just because any new clone is going to sell very, very few copies. The older clones sell copies, and newer retro-type games like SWN sell copies, but a specific brand-new clone isn't likely to get any measurable traction in terms of sales.

They're not, I agree, written to support the hobby as a whole - I think the motivation is to support the hobby of that single niche-within-a-niche: Holmes Blue Book extrapolated to higher levels, OD&D with a wargame spin, etc. The new publishers are hobbyists who are focusing on their game of choice, and that's what hobbyists do, for the most part. Very few hobbyists focus on "the hobby as a whole," they focus on their particular hobby as they play it.

But your comment doesn't really make sense - in terms of saying what people should NOT do - when the publication and free-distribution rate of supplements is staggeringly larger than at any time in the hobby's history. Very, very few of those modules aren't compatible with anything else - it's the same as it always was - the older D&D versions are almost totally compatible in terms of the usability of resources.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's a bottom-line motivation that clouds the picture for these people.

I think it has more to do with the idea of creating your own meaningful set of rules and sharing them with the world. So there's a vanity press aspect to it (this is not necessarily a bad thing - there's always vanity involved with a labor of love), along with a passion for a certain aspect of the game (wouldn't that be cool if instead of this you had that...), with just little thought given to the way these ideas would actually benefit the hobby the best (i.e. producing another retroclone is the default attitude, instead of publishing a supplement for an already existing clone).

As for saying what people should and should not do, I'm personally not saying that people should stop producing their own games altogether. I think, however, that there are projects that could have better served by taking on the form of supplements to existing clones rather than being their own separate games (like for instance 2e clones which could have taken the form of specific supplements to OSRIC), as well as there are projects which really need to be their own games to benefit everyone best. It depends on the particulars of the projects, to me. It's worth to think about those kind of things before automatically defaulting to the production of "yet another retroclone."

Retooling an existing rule set is one of the easiest forms of game design.  To make a good supplement you need to have ideas of your own.

Really, I generally put work into my own games but Dark Passages was more of a drawn out online rant in any case.  Don't get me wrong, if I had the money to package it right and put it on the shelves in stores I would, likely ahead of my own designs.

But then 'properly' would involve proper artwork, a couple sprues of modular plastic figures (by Kev Adams or Tom Meir), and thick cardboard scenery.  Enough toys that even the hardcore D&D fanatics might buy the box just for the other contents.