So what's the deal with this? Other than having a very nice looking hardcover format, what sort of game is it?

you say white hack, I say...Diane Warren?

At first I thought it was another in the long parade of useless retroclones.

But it is its own system overall.
Just d20s and d6s.
3 base classes, Deft, Strong and Wise
3 extra classes, Brave, Fortunate and Species. Has two example species, Dagonite and Marionette.

https://whitehackrpg.wordpress.com/

Stupid name though.

I haven't seen it, but I read 'around' it quite a bit (reviews, blogs, etc.) when I was on an OSR shopping spree, and ended up concluding it didn't have anything to offer me. I think all systems in this genre fall into one of the following groups:

- The originals. Seriously, how hard is it to track down a copy of Modvay or the 1E PHB? These things are everywhere.

- Copies that simply re-organize and edit, maybe gently expand on, the originals without a bunch of new cruft or re-branded but equivalent mechanics. I would say Labyrinth Lord might be the prototypical example of this. A couple tweaks that look like everyone's house rules could be fine; more and you end up in one of the next two categories:

- Creative, interesting games that are inspired by the originals, but have differences that really bring something new to the table. DCC is a good example of this. You might or might not want to play it (I personally find it a little hard to run because of all the tables, and wish it were more compatible with B/X or 1E modules). But you have to respect its style and ideas.

– Games that try to look and smell like the originals, but introduce lots of changes I would call meaningless. Who gives a shit what kind of dice you roll for a saving throw? What difference does it make if you re-name the Cleric or Thief class to be something else? I have no patience for this sort of shit. It is like all the precious new lingo of Burning Wheel with none of the new ideas.

It's a matter of judgement where you classify any given game between the last three groups above. I decided Whitehack looked a lot like #4.

I have a copy (two, really). I've mentioned it briefly in a few other threads. It's in the white box / retro / OSR space without being an exact clone.

A few of the things that I find I really like about WH that seem to be unique (or not run of the average clone anyway):

* Core mechanic (for combat, ST, ability / skill checks) is d20, roll equal to or under your Ability (or ST or Attack Value (AV). Higher up to the target is better (quality). "blackjack" style, I've heard it called.

* Magic ("Miracles") are more free form, and cost HP. This results in spell listings getting dumped from the rules.

* "Groups" are essentially tags which get applied to Abilities (or in some cases don't have to match one) and grant a mechanical benefit - often a double positive d20 roll (and take the best) - when the tag applies. Groups cover race / species, vocation, and affiliations / memberships. This is where you wind up with difference between class and vocation ... so someone taking a Strong (class) Priest (Vocation) gets you a very different result in play than someone taking a Wise (class) Priest (Vocation), or even Wise (class) Holy Warrior (vocation).

* Ability Mods. One thing I really like is that as a result of the Ability check process, ability mod scores (the old +1, +2, etc) drop out almost entirely. There's a few - Str gets a +1 AV at 13 and a +1 damage at 16 - but they don't modify any Ability rolls. So, having a 13 vs 12 Strength is its own reward when you come time to roll. I like that - it really flattens it down to just meaningful ability scores.

I ran some Strange Stars for some friends the other weekend using WH, and it was a blast.

Quote from: Larsdangly;837084I think all systems in this genre fall into one of the following groups:

- The originals. Seriously, how hard is it to track down a copy of Modvay or the 1E PHB? These things are everywhere.

- Copies that simply re-organize and edit, maybe gently expand on, the originals without a bunch of new cruft or re-branded but equivalent mechanics.

- Creative, interesting games that are inspired by the originals, but have differences that really bring something new to the table. DCC is a good example of this.

– Games that try to look and smell like the originals, but introduce lots of changes I would call meaningless. Who gives a shit what kind of dice you roll for a saving throw? What difference does it make if you re-name the Cleric or Thief class to be something else?

This is a really useful way to look at them.

Any other standout examples in category #3, bringing something new to the table?

Quote from: fuseboy;837100This is a really useful way to look at them.

Any other standout examples in category #3, bringing something new to the table?

Nothing recent is jumping into my mind at the moment, but glancing at my gaming shelf I might say original Chivalry and Sorcery is both #3 and #4: wonderfully evocative medieval european setting details, chivalric classes and magic; plus a shit ton of impossibly complex and obscure rules and acronyms. Yet at its core it is a D&D variant (class and level based; AC and HP combat; spell levels; orcs and gnolls and hill giants and so forth).

I have the 1st edition and it's basically a more narrativist interpretation of OD&D. If you start with OD&D and come from a "story" angle vs. "game" angle, Whitehack is something you'd end up with. The 2nd edition just sounds like "more of the same"...I'll probably buy it.

Quote from: Brad;837281I have the 1st edition and it's basically a more narrativist interpretation of OD&D. If you start with OD&D and come from a "story" angle vs. "game" angle, Whitehack is something you'd end up with. The 2nd edition just sounds like "more of the same"...I'll probably buy it.

That's an apt description.  I wish someone had put that in the ad copy or in the first reviews.  I picked up the 1st based on some pretty heavy praise, and I was disappointed after the buildup.  My first impression was, yes, this certainly is someone's homebrew/heartbreaker, but it's not blowing my mind or displacing my favorite rule set.  But I may take a second look some time I can come back with no other expectations of it.

I had the original and didn't care for it.  It was $10 for the softcover at that time.  $24 for a 64 page hardcover is steep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;837040So what's the deal with this? Other than having a very nice looking hardcover format, what sort of game is it?

Hello!

I’m the author of Whitehack. I understand you want other people’s opinions, and I kind of said my piece with the game text and the presentation on whitehackrpg.wordpress.com. But I would still like to comment a bit on some of the comments.

+ The name. I kind of agree with Omega on the name. I named the first edition in the tradition of Red Box Hack, Blueholme, Whitebox etc., and in that context, the name is at least descriptive. I considered changing it for the second edition, but came to the conclusion that it would be misleading.

+ The category 4 judgement by Larsdangly. I respect his judgement, but I have a hard time understanding how he came to his conclusions based on reviews and blogs. I would urge people to read for themselves before passing their own judgements. Because most things written about Whitehack are clearly on the plus side, and if there is something indicating what Larsdangly said, I haven’t read it. As Molotov points out, the class example of category 4 qualities doesn’t apply to Whitehack. The saving throw die example doesn’t apply either. Whitehack uses a traditional d20 for saving throws. The only difference is that it is a pendragon roll, same as attacks and task rolls. The advantage of this is that you can use ST values (and attack values and attribute values) directly in Whitehack auctions. (Auctions is a powerful tool and time saver that can be used for drawn out contests like chases, tavern brawls, fights with large groups of mooks etc.)

+ Brad and Whitehack as a narrativist game. It is an interesting observation, and I think I see how it can be made, but I don’t agree with it. While there are open spaces in the game that both players and Referee provide content for, and while things like the groups mechanism will urge everyone to help build/flesh out a setting, Whitehack is *not* a narrativist game in the forge sense. I don’t agree with what I believe are the ideological implications of GNS, and I think Whitehack conflicts with some of the core ideas of that theory.

+ Saladman and what should be on the cover of Whitehack. I am seriously considering a Saladman Version of Whitehack . I would give it a different cover, after reading several posts about how the information about the game has been insufficient or misleading in some way. Saladman, did you read whitehackrpg.wordpress.com before buying? I think everything you’ve wished you had known before buying has been there all along.

Am I imagining things, or did the Whitehack author post a rather lengthy reply that was subsequently deleted..?

Quote from: Brad;837629Am I imagining things, or did the Whitehack author post a rather lengthy reply that was subsequently deleted..?

Yes, I have the notification in my email.

Quote from: Brad;837629Am I imagining things, or did the Whitehack author post a rather lengthy reply that was subsequently deleted..?

I'm pretty sure I read it too

I did, but shit came up minutes after posting, and I won't have time to participate properly in the discussion. In retrospect, I don't think the post was worth reading anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience.