D&D/AD&D Retro clones - Why? • Page 5 • Collecting General • The Acaeum

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

D&D/AD&D Retro clones - Why?
	Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Author

dndgeek
Prolific Collector

Posts: 147
Joined: Aug 09, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:04 pm

FormCritic wrote:Take the pdf to a local photocopy place and have several comb binding versions made...?

Haven't priced this. Possible?

You can print a 300+ page color cover, b&w interior hardcover book on lulu.com for under $50 or a softcover of about the same size for about $20, with no minimum.

deimos3428 wrote:Well, it might be about preference, but it's also about technology. A book truly is an amazing analog interface. A PDF is a rather crude digital approximation of a book. You can't throw it at anyone.

I LOL'd.

In regard to pdfs, yes, I can quote verbatim many passages from most of the 1e books and some of the 2e, but no one can remember every single rule (especially spell minutiae) and if you're using more than just the 1e books, it's much, much faster to do a text search regardless of how well you know the books. I love .pdfs, though I generally use them for prep and resort to my ("playing copy") books during games.

And even though I continue to play AD&D to this day (every week), my 25+ years of experience with the system has made me very aware of its flaws. 1e initiative is more akin to a miniatures wargame rule, 1e weaponless combat is virtually unuseable, 2e weaponless combat makes little sense, 1e has no proficiencies, 2e has a too-simplified proficiency system...I could go on and on. (Now, do I consider Gary a genius for creating much of it to begin with? Absolutely.) Retroclones fix many of these issues to create a more streamlined ruleset, which ultimately makes running a game easier. Many add great new elements to the game, too, like Hackmaster Basic (and soon, Advanced) and C&C. (I still consider those and many others to be clones because the core rules closely resemble AD&D.) I disagree that these changes debase AD&D.

deimos3428 wrote:The main issue I have with "retro-clones" is that they're just D&D rehashed. The organization might be better. They might be free in both senses of the word. They might attract more people to the game. Or not, it's debatable but not really important.

But they certainly aren't significantly original, improved, or different -- by design!

That's the point. They don't want to reinvent the wheel, just fix it. If it was a new game, it wouldn't be a retroclone.

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:37 pm

DnDGeek wrote:That's the point. They don't want to reinvent the wheel, just fix it. If it was a new game, it wouldn't be a retroclone.

With all due respect to B.F. Goodrich, the wheel could probably use another look. But that's not happening. Everyone's busy churning out wheel accessories instead.

*Yeah, yeah I know. These guys make tires, not wheels. Gloss that over.

FormCritic
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:07 am

Trying to make a rounder wheel is nothing new. There is a long list of RPG's that sprang up after D&D first appeared. Most of them claim at least some level of originality, but calling all of them "knockoffs" of D&D seems quite fair to me.

None of the knockoffs have achieved the long-term, universal success of D&D, even if they have offered some areas of improvement over the original game.

I have a section on my collecting shelf that holds RPG's other than Dungeons and Dragons.

I refer to this section as "Failed RPG's."

Today, down in Portland, I handled a Pathfinder RPG book that sells for $50. Pathfinder is an attempt to re-vamp and preserve the 3.5 version of the game and keep it publishable under existing legal standards. I guess you could call it a nuevo-clone? (Future clone? Proto-clone?) The book is hefty in size as well as price. I can't see how a copy could stand much gaming unless that chunky binding is actually titanium bone lacing.

"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:31 pm

As a side note, bclarkie brought up in another thread one of the reasons I prefer books to PDFs. You can quickly add your own annotations by scrawling things in the margins.

If and when the PDF format and their readers get to the point where you can easily do that with a stylus-like device, PDFs will transform into books rather than merely documents. There is a difference. (There are programs that can edit PDFs and/or annotate them...but they are neither easy nor cheap solutions for adding personal notes to your copy.)

Also, I've been thinking about the whole retroclone thing a lot lately. Simply put, I don't like them. But I've really been trying to put in extra effort to figure out why I don't like them, and I think I have. I don't like 2E.

2E is not terribly different from 1E. In some ways it is the first "retro-clone" -- written years after 1E, by different people, with the express goal of cleaning it up, preserving it for future generations, etc. Disregard the slew of supplements that followed; that was the original goal. I do see it distinct from the "knock-offs" that were more or less comtemporary with 1E, and from the UA-era of 1E supplements.

Some people love 2E; some do not. It's not all that bad, but I think that they focussed too much on repairing the disheveled presentation and left some of the deeper underlying problems intact. But that's neither here nor there -- whether you love 2E or despise it, the big relevation for me is that the retro-clone makers are doing essentially the same thing as the 2E makers did before them. (2E has it's own retro-clones by now, I believe...that's not what I'm talking about.)

So if you believe 2E fixed 1E, you'll probably enjoy retroclones. If you disagree, you probably won't enjoy them either.

Badmike
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8079
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 24, 2026
Location: DFW TX

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:45 pm

deimos3428 wrote:As a side note, bclarkie brought up in another thread one of the reasons I prefer books to PDFs. You can quickly add your own annotations by scrawling things in the margins.

Or, do what I do and cut and paste the relevant info to a word document, to edit at your leisure!

If and when the PDF format and their readers get to the point where you can easily do that with a stylus-like device, PDFs will transform into books rather than merely documents. There is a difference. (There are programs that can edit PDFs and/or annotate them...but they are neither easy nor cheap solutions for adding personal notes to your copy.)

Also, I've been thinking about the whole retroclone thing a lot lately. Simply put, I don't like them. But I've really been trying to put in extra effort to figure out why I don't like them, and I think I have. I don't like 2E.

2E is not terribly different from 1E. In some ways it is the first "retro-clone" -- written years after 1E, by different people, with the express goal of cleaning it up, preserving it for future generations, etc. Disregard the slew of supplements that followed; that was the original goal. I do see it distinct from the "knock-offs" that were more or less comtemporary with 1E, and from the UA-era of 1E supplements.

Some people love 2E; some do not. It's not all that bad, but I think that they focussed too much on repairing the disheveled presentation and left some of the deeper underlying problems intact. But that's neither here nor there -- whether you love 2E or despise it, the big relevation for me is that the retro-clone makers are doing essentially the same thing as the 2E makers did before them. (2E has it's own retro-clones by now, I believe...that's not what I'm talking about.)

So if you believe 2E fixed 1E, you'll probably enjoy retroclones. If you disagree, you probably won't enjoy them either.

Interesting theory. I am a fiddler and have always been; for me, 2E plays like my 1E house rules. And I do like retroclones. You may have hit the hammer on the head of the nail here. Most traditionalists, or die hard original AD&D or D&D lovers don't like retroclones probably for the reasons you state. What would be interesting is to see how many of these "traditional" games have a very low number of house rules...I suspect the more you get into house ruling your game of original D&D, the more you might be convinced to drift into using a retro clone.

Mike B.

SimperingToad
Verbose Collector

Posts: 1382
Joined: Nov 03, 2008
Last Visit: Apr 07, 2026
Location: My Pad

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:03 pm

Going by that definition, were those using extensive houserules the original Retro-cloners?

New T-Shirt: "I was a Retro-Cloner before it was cool!"

I believe Acrobat Pro allows you to annotate PDFs, but the Pro version costs a few pennies.

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:29 pm

SimperingToad wrote:Going by that definition, were those using extensive houserules the original Retro-cloners?

Not in my opinion, unless you also went to the trouble of publishing them and it was many years after the original. But it sounds like a good t-shirt idea.

SimperingToad wrote:I believe Acrobat Pro allows you to annotate PDFs, but the Pro version costs a few pennies.

Yes, it does. But not with the ease or price of a pencil -- yet. Really, putting the feature in Acrobat Reader would be a huge boon for PDF users. You don't annotate when you write; you do it when you read.

BadMike wrote:Most traditionalists, or die hard original AD&D or D&D lovers don't like retroclones probably for the reasons you state. What would be interesting is to see how many of these "traditional" games have a very low number of house rules...I suspect the more you get into house ruling your game of original D&D, the more you might be convinced to drift into using a retro clone.

Ah, the traditionalists. They're another breed entirely, they don't even like UA. Nestled between them and the 2E fans, you've got what I'd call the 1E Evolutionists. I'm one of them, and I think somewhat arrogantly that Gary fit that group as well.

An evolutionist would agree that 1E isn't perfect; it could use some fixes. They would disagree that 2E fixed the right bits, and they tend to like UA or at least are not completely offended by it like a traditionalist. Gary wanted to make a 2E, but his version would have been markedly different than what TSR produced.

I'm taking us into complete conjecture-land here, but I think it'd be something more like this:

introduction of a strong skill or skill-bundle system, but without ever completely eliminating classes
explosion of demi-human racial variants, particularly elves.
maintain two separate games; a simple and an advanced version
in all likelihood the rulebooks would retain their complicated, often contradictory style, but with stronger indexing
emphasis on alternate genres and parallel worlds
simple, low-cost books without color interior art

All of these points are things that Gary did continue to work on and produce in his post-AD&D career, just not within the rubric of 1E. The emphasis is very much on the development of broad concepts over specific rules or presentation -- I don't think you'd ever really see a "cleaned up" version with Gary at the helm. Too much creativity to be printed to worry about such things, I suppose. That's my take on it, anyway.

jcp
Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:46 pm

Take the pdf to a local photocopy place and have several comb binding versions made...?

Haven't priced this. Possible?

I recently had a 330 page document printed at a local copy shop and spiral bound for ease of reading and reference. The total cost with binding and tax included was under $12.

FormCritic
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:18 pm

In the sense discussed here, D&D 3.5 is a retro-clone of AD&D.

The 3rd Edition of D&D is essentially AD&D without all the arguments.

3rd Edition takes every (and I literally mean "every") argument that could possibly spring up and provides excruciatingly clear rules for the situation. In most cases it incoporates certain "house" rules that were almost universally applied.

Of course, "3.5" is also an ironic name because it is an attempt to settle all the excruciating arguments that 3.0 created by clarifying the rules even more.

Toss bombs at 3rd Edition as you will, but it is essentially a fix of AD&D.

Two things I cannot stand in my fellow gamers:

1) Those who are intolerant of various editions of D&D.
2) Those who don't think that 2nd Edition sucked.

"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:49 pm

FormCritic wrote:In the sense discussed here, D&D 3.5 is a retro-clone of AD&D.

On that one I am not so sure, but you make a fair point. I remember thinking at the time just prior to the release of 3E how it was billed as a "fix" for 2E, and I was excited to see something more evolutionary. I was not at all impressed with the result.

To my mind, they had just repeated the many of the same mistakes made when introducing 2E. I can't comment on the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 specifically, but from what I understand the trend of focussing on presentation and rules specifics when "fixing" the game has persisted in all later editions.

3rd Edition takes every (and I literally mean "every") argument that could possibly spring up and provides excruciatingly clear rules for the situation. In most cases it incoporates certain "house" rules that were almost universally applied.

Yeah, that. It still seems like the wrong focus to me entirely.

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5