How many clones do you need?

Today I listened to a Swedish gaming podcast, Viskningar från kryptan [Whispers from the Crypt], about a new old school game Svärd och Svartkonst [Sword and Sorcery]. Incidentally, this coincides with a new release of Delving Deeper being talked about. It's interesting, because I felt roughly the same level of interest in both of them. Let's begin by considering the older one.

As some of you might know, that latter game was once part of the train wreck that is Brave Halfling Publishing. But, after having been published by BHP, others have kept developing it, and now have a new version available.

When I heard about that, my first impulse was to groan and turn away. Buy that game? Again? But wait a minute. Haven't I done that before, and cheered my fortune almost every time?

Naturally, Delving Deeper has had a troubled road to walk to get to my door, but I don't think this apprehension about a new version of the game has that much to do with the troubles with the delivery of the last one. The fact that SoS didn't make me look forward that much to its release might be a clue to a general state of disinterest for new old school games, for me.

I have pdf copies of OD&D, LotFP first boxed set, Delving Deeper boxed set from BHP, Swords & Wizardry White Box Edition, Swords & Wizardry standard edition, Dragons At Dawn, Ambition & Avarice, Dark Dungeons, B/X and BECMI, AD&D1 and also multiple editions of T&T and other non-D&D old school games. Guess how many of those I have played? Why should I play them all? Are they all interesting enough on their own? I think most people have probably done like me, but mostly play or or two of them that best suit their taste and personality.

While this might be old news to most of my readers, I have not really had these thoughts sink in before. I've read a blog post about someone who really found one of the games mentioned above really great. I rushed out to buy it, and might have browsed it a bit before putting it on the shelf among the rest. Now suddenly I find myself with doubts. Why do I not at once become enthusiastic for these new game releases? I think I might have reached the point where I say I really don't need any more clones, or retro inspired games.

Since it feels like I have lost some enthusiasm, I'm planning on taking them out one by one and post my thoughts about it. If nothing else it might tell me what it was I found to enticing, and that I no longer can grasp.

Then again, I might already have Delving Deeper, but SoS? Maybe I should just buy, one more, and then call it quits...

The idea of Interludes

I have been very much into the idea if running Savage Worlds for a week or so. It's a game that manages to look kind of plain when read, but everyone I've heard of who have run it have come away raving fans. We'll see if I can manage to actually try it out one of these days.

One of the things that easily makes you a Savage fan is the support Pinnacle give their games. Recently they released the Deluxe edition of SW, and guess what? They posted the major rules differences in a couple pdfs on their web pages, for free! At least it makes me want to go out and buy the new book, just because!

The thing I wanted to bring up today is the new rules for something called Interludes which is a quite neat thing I think could be imported into any game. Go check it out and see what you think. For you who like to stay around, here's when I tell you how it can be worked into any game. This is how I'd do it.

When you have any kind of pause in the action in your game, shuffle a deck of cards and have a player at random draw a card. The next time you do it, choose anyone one. Now, what the player who drew a card does, is she tells a short flashback or similar story which develops the back story and fleshes out the psychology or her character. It doesn't have to be long, but it has to show some new aspect of her personality, or an old one explained in a new light.

The suit of the card decide what the theme of the vignette is.

Hearts - some kind of love or romantic angle
Clubs - some kind of violence of physical conflict
Diamonds - some kind of relation to possessions and material riches
Spades - some kind of spiritual or religious angle

How about that? The rules from Pinnacle are slightly different, but I liked the idea enough to post my own take on it. I think this can be used just as well with pretentious new school games of the Story Game kind as well as neck beard grumpy old schooler games where you make it all up and roll some bones. Heck! Roll some dice when telling the story if it helps you decide what happened! I like the idea, any way you slice it.

Opinions on the classics, take two

My post yesterday about how some fans relate to the classics seems to have stirred up some feelings. That is good. I sometimes like to stir the pot a bit, and try to be a bit subtle or a bit outrageous. Quite dangerous on the web, I know. More often that not, nobody really get want you want to say anyway. Yesterday wasn't bad, but I think I actually was less focused than I would have wished, so I'll add some to it.

So, Gygaxitis was my word for when some people seem to be so smitten by the words of Gary that they loose a sense of perspective. Now, there are many reasons to respect Gary Gygax. He was a visionary, and a talented scenario writer with a very personal style. I was very sad to hear of his passing, and did even cry. I am a fairly emotional being. It's also true that for those who are interested in an older style of play, like myself (!), it's not only fun but also instrutive to read old rules like those Gygax wrote.

But, when I first encountered the idea of retro D&D, it was mainly on Dragonsfoot, and I felt that the atmosphere there was sometimes just silly. One thing I felt was weird, and after a while even repulsive, was the venom spewed upon some elements of gaming. Most notable was Dungeoneer Survival Guide and its companion piece about the wilderness. You could very easy get the idea that some persons would benefit from playing something else, at least once!

Now, James gave a very good and far more sensible rejection of DSG in my comments yesterday. I have seen far to little of that. Part of the reason I wanted shake up the wasps nest a bit was to get some good feedback, which I got. Once thing he said was that it felt tiring to hear that those who value Gygax get ridiculed and accused of being blind. Frankly, sometimes it's true. That might be why that accusation pops up once in a while! But, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I personally think a lot interesting can be learnt by studying the "ways of old". It don't have to turn into hagiography, and most often it doesn't. When it does, it's very easy to make fun of.

Maybe I should also mention something about ToEE. I started my post by talking about the Temple, but it was just my way of introducing the idea of how expectations differ. I have absolutely no idea at all how impressions of ToEE differ depending on attitude towards Gary. I don't think I care.

One of these days I'll try to say something simple, straight and easy, instead. I have some ideas on game design percolating. We'll see how much sense that'll make when I have put down some words on screen.