This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: What is the point of Retro-Clones?  (Read 7049 times)

amacris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 585
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM »
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately. 





Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2021, 02:02:30 PM »
Nothing wrong with retroclones.

My principal disagreement (and it's not even a huge one) is I dislike the 'race as class' bit ported from BECMI. I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint, but it applies to 'the good old stuff' as well as the new stuff.

Other than that, go nuts.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2021, 03:00:27 PM »
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.

And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2021, 03:17:34 PM »
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.

And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!

That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2021, 04:15:26 PM »
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.

And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!

That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.

Greetings!

Damn right, my friend! ACKS is very well-detailed, has excellent depth, and is simply outstanding.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Batjon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2021, 04:43:19 PM »
The point is that these games are no longer in print and this keeps them alive with updates sometimes in order to improve upon them slightly and such.

Take a look at the James Bond 007 retro clone, Classified.  It is excellent.  So is the FASERIP retro clone for Marvel Superheroes.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2021, 05:00:42 PM »
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.

And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!

That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.

Never said that was ALL that ACKS had to offer did I?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Arnwolf666

  • Newbie
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 43
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2021, 05:25:42 PM »
I would rather play in somebody’s house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg’s and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It’s like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It’s like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.

FingerRod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 600
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2021, 05:45:56 PM »
I would rather play in somebody’s house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg’s and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It’s like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It’s like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.

It didn’t feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80’s and into the 90’s.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2021, 05:57:00 PM »
Basic and Expert D&D are two halves of the same whole, Expert D&D takes the character created in Basic D&D all the way through 20th+ level - I have the Tom Moldvay/Dave Cook edited Expert rules (as well as the Basic predecessor) right here.  Are you perhaps thinking of the Introductory rules edited by J. Eric Holmes which did not have an official TSR "Expert" edition (actually, they did: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).

Actually most of the X caps were round 14, not 20. With the demi-humans ranging from 8 to12. The rules mention going to level 32. But aside from some suggestions, those rules would have been in the C book that never came to be in the BX series.

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2021, 06:42:56 PM »
 
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.

Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.

In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.

And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!

That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.

Never said that was ALL that ACKS had to offer did I?

No, you didn't.  :)

amacris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 585
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2021, 07:02:40 PM »
The point is that these games are no longer in print and this keeps them alive with updates sometimes in order to improve upon them slightly and such.

Take a look at the James Bond 007 retro clone, Classified.  It is excellent.  So is the FASERIP retro clone for Marvel Superheroes.

That era was a GOLDEN AGE for chart-based RPGs. Both FASERIP and James Bond 007 were glorious, along with Conan/ZEFRS and MEGs. I know there were a few others from that era but I can't remember them now. One of the things I wanted to do in Ascendant was remind people how great chart-based RPGs could be. Not every game needs to be based on weird dice tricks; you can do amazing things using charts by building the math behind the scenes.

Bond also was the first RPG I know that introduced Hero Points, bidding, and it was ahead of its time with its perks, drawbacks, etc. And the seduction rules! Chase rules! Masterful.

Am I alone in my love for 007 and other games that use One Table To Rule Them All?

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2021, 07:03:09 PM »
I would rather play in somebody’s house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg’s and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It’s like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It’s like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.

It didn’t feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80’s and into the 90’s.

Greetings!

I agree, FingerRod. Both now, and as well as back in the early years, I would characterize a majority of DM's and players played by the rules and expected to, as well, but there was a sizeable minority that tended to be very "Loosey Goosey" with the rules applications. Of course, most every DM and campaign would typically have at least a few house rules, player additions, special races, and so on. Players and DM's alike loved greatly citing rules, after all. Some of the game-session arguments were epic, too, arguing over various interpretations, which was usually hilarious. It was all in good fun. Of course, also, most of the time, the players ultimately would submit to whatever the DM ruled--but there was some element of good-natured rules lawyering and debate, just to see how far a DM would allow you to exploit some rule interpretation, or some rule that was somewhat obscure in detailing its parameters.

Such debates were usually fun and interesting, and I must say, done so much of the time with genuine enthusiasm and real intent, as far as discussing problems, weird cases, applications and so on. there were more than a few such debates and discussions that resulted in some considerable campaign rules-changes, often adopted by more than one DM in coordination with other DM's in the groups involved. Crossbow damage, spells, whatever, that often did present realism conflicts, historical chomping, or other logical inconsistencies that had often bothered many people, but who seldom argued about it. Then, you'd have a player or two in the group say, "Yeah! What about this here, DM? A, B, and C!"--and oftentimes, the DM too had harboured their own doubts about whatever. So, a lot of the debates were actually constructive and worthwhile, while also most people held a strong degree of respect for sticking to the rules. changing the rules was done, though often accompanied by considerable thought as well as debate. It was usually very good to get three or four different people chewing on the same problem, beyond the DM. I know as a DM myself, so often, I usually learned a lot, and appreciated both the efforts to change rules interpretations, but also the basic respect for the DM, and the integrity of the game rules themselves.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

amacris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 585
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2021, 07:03:34 PM »
Thanks for the kind words on ACKS. We're working on a second edition, woot woot.
ACKS: Spreadsheet Edition
Now With 11 Years More Math

May need to work on the marketing hook though

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: What is the point of Retro-Clones?
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2021, 07:08:24 PM »
Thanks for the kind words on ACKS. We're working on a second edition, woot woot.
ACKS: Spreadsheet Edition
Now With 11 Years More Math

May need to work on the marketing hook though

As long as I don't have to do all the math...
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell