I've been thinking of running a campaign using the Swords and Wizardry rules (and still on the fence on whether to use the core or complete rules). Interested in other poster's experience with the system.
It inspired me to write my own rules supplement (http://www.batintheattic.com/majesticwilderlands.php), and frankly I am not a rules guy. I think because the core rules perfectly capture the core essence of classic D&D and makes it clear how you can build on that to make it your own D&D for your campaign.
I prefer the whitebox rules to complete. I think it's easier to add stuff you want, then remove stuff you don't.
Quote from: RunningLaser;899886I prefer the whitebox rules to complete. I think it's easier to add stuff you want, then remove stuff you don't.
Yes. 110% yes.
The best thing about S&W WB is that it's exquisitely customizable and easy to tinker with. It's a box of tools you can use to build the game you want.
I seem to be in the minority, but I think it's a terrible system. There's a reason OD&D got dumped after 4 years. And the single saving throw just makes it even worse.
If you don't want AD&D, then there's a number of B/X games, all of which are far superior to S&W. Or if you want to use a S&W based game, try Blood & Treasure or Crypts & Things, they largely take the suckiness out of S&W
I greatly prefer the S&W: White Box rules. It's my default D&D.
FOR ME, if I am going to go "whole hog" with an AD&D clone, I might as well go Castles & Crusades. In general, I haven't found S&W "core" or "complete" to be any more engaging than Basic Fantasy, LL or OSRIC.
I suspect the preference for one retro-clone vs. another is based on how closely that clone emphasizes the stuff that matters most to you as a DM and what feel you want at the table. FOR ME, I want my OSR D&D to be very raw, swords & sorcery with system that's malleable and freeform.
But hey, the differences in OSR clones are minor flavor variations so go with whatever tastes best for your crew.
I played more than a dozen four-hour sessions of a face-to-face, megadungeon-based S&W: White Box game back in 2010 after not playing D&D since the early 1990s. Had a blast and thought it was a great re-introduction to the hobby. Simple, fast, reinforced the play style that I like - thinking your way through problems, not relying exclusively on melee or stats. Eventually we moved on to a 1E game, but I loved that S&W:WB game.
Anyway, I've also played in Matt's Mythrus Tower megadungeon game in Texas at NTRPG Con several times. I think he technically runs S&W: Complete, but I'm not sure it matters. People show up with a character of whatever version of the game they play and Matt rolls with it. Usually there are like 10-20 people at the table and he does a good job of keeping things moving. The system definitely doesn't bog down, but he knows it like the back of his hand and improvises fearlessly. If you're ever in the area, it's worth checking out.
I like S&W, White Box is my prefered version and I think "White Box Heroes" is a great expansion for added classic character classes.
Crypts & Things does S&W one better.
I like the single saving throw. I also still play 0D&D from the original books.
Quote from: RunningLaser;899886I prefer the whitebox rules to complete. I think it's easier to add stuff you want, then remove stuff you don't.
I think the white box is missing too much as it only cover what the three original booklet covers. It been my observation that what most people recognize as classic D&D is the Corebooks plus Greyhawk which is roughly what S&W core rules are.
Quote from: JeremyR;899889I seem to be in the minority, but I think it's a terrible system. There's a reason OD&D got dumped after 4 years. And the single saving throw just makes it even worse.
Well the single saving throw of Swords & Wizardry has modifier for each class for specific types of saves. For example magic-users get +2 save against spell. If you look at B/X and clones (which you recommended below). you will see that the multiple saving throw categories are all roughly spaced evenly apart. For example a 8th level magic-user gets need 12 or better against spells to save but his worst save is a 14 or better against dragon breath. So you could rework it as single save where the magic user has a 14 save at 8th level but has a +2 bonus against spells, a +3 bonus against poison or being turned to stone, etc.
Quote from: JeremyR;899889If you don't want AD&D, then there's a number of B/X games, all of which are far superior to S&W. Or if you want to use a S&W based game, try Blood & Treasure or Crypts & Things, they largely take the suckiness out of S&W
There indeed more complete clone of classic D&D out there. But they all pick an choose from the different editions to produce their list of stuff (classes, spells, items, and monsters). Along with specific rules like whether race is a class or an option, AC is ascending or descending.
What Swords & Wizardry does is distills it down to the absolute basics. White Book for the original core books, and Core for the original plus Greyhawk. Plus it has a nicely formatted rtf document that you can easily edit with a word processor to make your campaign's rules. It is deliberately not meant to be exciting in the way ACKS is or Blood & Treasure.
The thing about Swords & Wizardry Core rules is that
Most classic D&D games prefer to pick a race and then a class over race as class.
Quote from: Chainsaw;899905Anyway, I've also played in Matt's Mythrus Tower megadungeon game in Texas at NTRPG Con several times. I think he technically runs S&W: Complete, but I'm not sure it matters. People show up with a character of whatever version of the game they play and Matt rolls with it. Usually there are like 10-20 people at the table and he does a good job of keeping things moving. The system definitely doesn't bog down, but he knows it like the back of his hand and improvises fearlessly. If you're ever in the area, it's worth checking out.
When it comes to the family of D&D retro-clones we are talking inches as far as the gulf between any two sets of rules goes. One reason I think that the OSR has thrived is that the normal default for any RPG campaign is to kitbash whatever shit looks good to run the campaign with. People rarely stick with RAW or within the "approved" product line. It not always easy to see how to take a GURPS Supplement and shoehorn it into a Runequest campaign, but with the OSR being centered around classic D&D it becomes a lot easier to see how you can take ACKS' domain system throw it into Pundit's Arrow of Indra while taking most of your rules from Blood & Treasure and running Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Death Frost Doom as an adventure.
Quote from: estar;899935When it comes to the family of D&D retro-clones we are talking inches as far as the gulf between any two sets of rules goes.
Estar's right. There's only a dick's difference between any of the retro-clones.
Just pick your favorite and play with it!
S&W uses OD&D as a base; White Box does "plain" OD&D (which is deliberately vague at times and thus perfect for hacking), while Complete uses material from the OD&D supplement line (and ends up feeling a bit like a leaner, meaner AD&D 1e).
I used Complete to run Benoist's Marmoreal Tomb (Gygax Magazine #3 IIRC) and we had grand old time. It was probably the first time many people in my group got to play "TSR" D&D RAW — most got their start with 2e but houseruled the hell out of it; full HP at 1st level, spontaneous casting, etc. — and while a couple were turned off, well, I had more than enough of a group to keep going. Even after the dungeon swallowed 7 PCs in a single session (one guy rolled three character sheets that night).
I've had a ton of fun with S&W, but you can put me down as another vote for "whatever edition or clone floats your boat." If you want straight OD&D, S&W White Box (or Delving Deeper, or Labyrinth Lord with the Original Edition Companion) will do. If you want pared-down AD&D, S&W Complete (or Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Edition Companion). And if you want something else, well, there are more OSR games out there than you can shake at 10' pole at.
For curiosity's sake, what sort of game are you thinking of running?
How many did you lose to the Stirges? What killed the most people?
Damn, let's see if I recall. I lost three to the stirges, I think, but I'm sure they were the chief cause of death. One or two to the wolves. One got pelted to death by kobold sling fire. Oh yeah, and one thief tried to climb up the entrance, failed the climb walls roll, failed a save and fell to his death.
Dungeon got a rep as a PC killer in my group. A fun time was had by those who braved the death of their first PCs!
Quote from: JeremyR;899889I seem to be in the minority, but I think it's a terrible system. There's a reason OD&D got dumped after 4 years. And the single saving throw just makes it even worse.
Must say, I was with you 100% on the single saving throw, until trying it in several game sessions. It really is a brilliant distillation of the concept of Saving Throw, extremely easy to use and as flexible as you want it (Magic-User? add a little bonus against magic/spells. Fighter? add a little bonus against poison, etc.). Though now I think of it almost as a "Luck" stat.
S&W has become my favorite D&D ruleset from which to build upon.
The single saving throw is my second-favorite recent innovation to D&D (The first being ascending AC).
Quote from: The Butcher;899961For curiosity's sake, what sort of game are you thinking of running?
Just a very basic exploration campaign. I have some younger people in my group who are interested the early TSR material. So I want to run them through a campaign that feels like the stuff I started on (and the Swords and Wizardry books seem like a nice way to introduce newer players to it).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;899984Just a very basic exploration campaign. I have some younger people in my group who are interested the early TSR material. So I want to run them through a campaign that feels like the stuff I started on (and the Swords and Wizardry books seem like a nice way to introduce newer players to it).
Use the one you like best. In fact, if you are in any way sentimentally attached to any TSR edition, use it, or the clone that best resembles it. No offense meant towards game designers like yourself, but my experience suggests that GM enthusiasm beats game design most of the time ;)
Going strictly by design I'd suggest Labyrinth Lord because it's got very explicit mechanics for exploration and very little crunch on the players' end. S&W is less explicit and more reliant on GM rulings. Since both are available for free, legal download online, I'd look at both.
The single saving throw was the one thing I really liked. So much so I put it in Arrows of Indra and in Dark Albion's Appendix P.
S&W inspired me to write Sabres & Witchery, Blood & Bullets and Ancient Mysteries & Lost Treasures using it as a base. My new Black Books: Tomes of the Outer Dark is based on S&W, and although it's moving further and further away from the base, it was S&W that got me into writing more OSR material (after initially writing a couple of rpgs with a starting base of Castles & Crusades).
Simon W, start some threads talking about your games!
Definitely heard good stuff about Sabres & Witchery.
Quote from: The Butcher;900073but my experience suggests that GM enthusiasm beats game design most of the time ;)
Hell yeah! The best thing a game designer can do is inspire GM enthusiasm. I gotta give Palladium mucho credit on that front.
I've run (and played) in S&W Complete and quite enjoyed it...it was effectively the system that won me back into an OSR fold. However I recently snagged the White Box edition along with Brave Halflings S&W Companion and I think it's what I'd use next time.....the distillation to its most essential elements is hard to resist, even if the core conceit between Complete and White Box is not all that different. I've also been running a ton of White Star lately, which is basically somewhere in the middle, with the simplicity of White Box, but enough additional options to feel more "Complete." It's easily my favorite iteration of S&W now.
Like others, I have found the single-save mechanic to be amazing (and also the ascending AC option). Single-save did not seem very appealing to me until I experienced it in action, after which I realized the simple genius of the mechanic.
S&W: WhiteBox with the Ascending AC option is a beauty to behold. The best Retroclone out there, by far.
I really like S&W a lot. I am okay with the single save but they give the options for multiple. I'm actually a really big fan of the C&C Siege engine for those sorts of things but I tend to run systems RAW because it's easier on players. I haven't been able to lockdown a long term game where house ruling and customization would work.