We can steal the term "neo-retro"; there are parallels in P-n-P gaming and console gaming.

The console gaming scene has a term, which is fairly new it looks to me, since I follow these things here and there, called "neo-retro." A neo-retro game is a game designed to mimic the play style and aesthetic, or graphics, of earlier games, especially 8-bit game systems like the NES. This term is used both for a new retro-style Megaman game, but also for entirely new games designed with this aesthetic.

There seem to be a number of parallels to the retro-gaming scene in console and p-n-p gaming. One parallel is the urge to get back to a simpler time, with less time investment (whether real or perceived) and in general just good old fashioned fun without the baggage of rule/game bloat and in the case of console and p-n-p games, to get back to games that are easy to just pick up and play.

It strikes me how similar the idea is on one hand for neo-retro console games to mimic the "inferior" aesthetic of 8-bit gaming, and on the other hand for p-n-p publishers, and not just those publishing retro products, like to have a retro presentation of art and layout.

Before I go too far afield, what I'm proposing is that we call games like Mutant Future, BFRPG, Castles & Crusades, and Mazes & Minotaurs "neo-retro" games, while leaving the term "retro-clone" as a more specific instance of a neo-retro game that seeks to emulate a specific game as closely as possible. I've been inspired by some of jrients's funky graphics in the past, so allow me to present one here...oh wait I almost messed up. Since Jeff likes "three-fold" models, here's my three-fold retro p-n-p model...

I'll let the picture speak for itself to some extent. My reasoning with the near-clones is that they borrow a lot from previous games, but implement things in a slightly different way or combination to create a neo-retro game that has "clone-like" properties.

So, what do we make of the parallels between retro console gaming and retro pencil-and-paper gaming? I don't want to play amateur sociologist, but based on previous discussions in the old-school online community I wonder if one component is a general alienation to modern games, and the glut/bloat that happens with this drive by game publishers for ultra-commercialization. The drive for games to be more EXTREME!, as well as an over-polished look and intense complexity may be invading on the fun factor. I'm not going to deny that nostalgia plays at least some role, but I don't think admitting that is a flaw to the old-school renaissance. We all play games to have fun, no matter what kind of game you like or why. "Nostalgia" does not necessarily need to connote "blind admiration." People who prefer D&D 4e today, even though it is shiny and new, may go on to always prefer it and feel nostalgia toward when they first discovered it. That doesn't subtract any from the credibility of old-school gaming as relevant today and just as valid of a play aesthetic into the future.

What is a retro-clone game?

According to wikipedia, the fountain of all accurate knowledge, I am responsible for coining the term "retro-clone," at least in the context of pencil & paper RPGS. For as long as I've had a home page for Goblinoid Games I've had a description of what a retro-clone game is, at least as far as I am concerned.

I've seen the term used all over the place now, sometimes used in ways that confuse me. So I want to define a little more closely what I think a retro-clone is, for whatever my ramblings are worth.

A retro-clone, the way I use the term, refers specifically to a game that attempts to emulate as closely as is legally possible the game rules of another game. That's it. If you've ever encountered the various game emulators for NES, SEGA, and other old cartridge console games, then you have an idea what I mean.

However, I see the term used for other games, such as Castles & Crusades and Mazes & Minotaurs. We should draw a line between retro-clones and retro games in general. Mazes & Minotaurs is a retro game, but it clearly is not closely cloning another game.

Castles & Crusades is in an odd category. It clones elements of Basic D&D, AD&D, and D&D 3.5, mixing them all together for a game that can appeal to 3.xers and old-schoolers. So it is definitely a retro game, to one degree or another, but it does not emulate the rules of a specific single game. As a side note, fans of C&C who are critical of retro-clones have no moral high ground. Cloning elements of three games does not make it qualitatively more "moral" compared to games that only clone one game. IMHO cloning is cloning.

Mutant Future is also a special case, which I would call retro but not a "retro-clone." Since it borrows its core rules from Labyrinth Lord, but other elements from other OGC, it does not directly emulate a specific game.

Anyway, I'd classify this post as one of those "oddball rants" I promise in my blog header.

The Evolution of Elric Part 1

I was wandering through a bookstore in Johannesburg and saw a book simply titled, "Elric." It looks like it is a reprint of the original Elric stories as they were first published in magazines, before they were expanded into the novels.

It's interesting to see how the trappings of Elric and the world evolve not just when comparing these original stories to the novels, but actually within these short stories as they progress. This post is "part 1" because I'm about halfway through the book, and I want to put down some thoughts as I'm encountering them. I'll post part 2 when I'm finished reading it.

One of the first differences I noticed is that the kingdom of Melnibone is not described in as great of detail in the original stories. We get the overall gist, which is that it is a decadent society. In addition, the first stories seem to indicate that the Melniboneans are simply humans of an old society, and as the stories progress there is some brief description later about the features of Melniboneans, that they have slightly narrow and long skulls, no ear lobes, and slightly pointed ears, but the implication seems to be that these are "racial" traits, not traits of a separate "species" as they are in the expanded novels.

Another thing that is different, which surprised me the most, is that in the earlier stories Elric's sword Stormbringer is simply an evil blade that likes to kill, but as I get further into the book Moorcock is altering his descriptions so that instead of simply sending its victims "to hell," the sword is now "drinking souls." Also there was no epic struggle between Stormbringer and it's "brother" Mournblade. In the original short stories Elric's cousin simply already had the sword, it was noted that the swords were of a simlar type, and left at that. No funky cosmic struggle, which was ok with me.

Even though I'm only halfway through, I can say so far that there is no indication of an "Eternal Champion" nonsense which turns me off of the Elric stories. I'll have to wait and see if it surfaces later. These stories lack a lot of the detail that was fleshed out in the novels, and so far I don't feel like the original stories are worse for it. A lot of the fleshing out, as far as I can tell, takes things in different directions that I personally don't care for. I like the idea of the struggle of Law and Chaos, and I like that so far it hasn't gotten too bloated with pseudo philosophical nonsense as it does in the books.

One final thing I'll say is that something that is difficult to stomach in the books is that in many cases the writing, with all due respect to Moorcock, sucks. It flows poorly and leaves an amateurish impression. In the original short stories, though, I don't get this at all. So I'm left wondering if the poor writing is the result of Moorcock either rushing to write the novels or is it from a labored effort of trying to flesh out the stories in new directions. I have no idea, maybe it's some combination.

More later.

Been Away

I want to keep posting here on a fairly regular basis. As some of you know, I'm in South Africa at the moment and my access to the internet has been spotty. So I'll do the best I can until I get back to India in late December.

Why are we even talking about the "1st edition feel"?

One of the fascinating things happening right now are the numerous discussions about how the actual play of D&D 4e either does or does not have either a "1st edition feel" or a "Basic D&D feel," both of which have been claimed by people playing 4e. These debates can get very heated, and it actually seems to me like there are players of 4e out there who really, really want 4e to be perceived in this way. But why? Who cares, and what does it matter? I only mentioned in passing in one blog post that I think 3.x publishers are partially responsible for the "old-school revival," and I think this relates to what I'm talking about here.

When 3.0 came out, as there always is with a new edition, there were flames galore on the internet. The shift represented a major change in the way D&D was presented. I remember being shocked as I thumbed through the new 3.0 core books. Forget about whether mechanics were in any way related to old editions, just looking at the art and presentation alienated my old-school senses. The stat blocks and variious powers/feats were completely alien to me. It was clear that this new game would play very different than 1e or even 2e. But lest we dwell on the rules too much, I want to move on to the main topic.

The point I'm getting around to is that 3.x, despite people like me who dreaded it, was received with great enthusiasm. People were very unapologetic at accepting it, basking it its differences compared to older editions. there were a number of people who welcomed the change. One thing that is very different about then versus now is that you never saw anyone talking about the "1st edition feel" At that time I don't think as many people really even cared about that, much less found it something desirable to inject into the new edition.

That is, until the marketing efforts of Goodman Games and Necromancer Games. I honestly think that their marketing is very much responsible for the internet phenomenon we have now where it is so important to some people that 4e have that old-school feel. Whereas in the shift to 3.x no one cared, in this shift to 4.0 people have been told over and over by marketing that the old-school feel is both desirable and maybe the best way to play....but it butts heads with the idea of what system to use.

The problem with the "1st edition feel" is that not only does that mean something different to many people, but it is also warped to mean whatever it needs to mean to be attributed to 4th edition. But rather than argue the finer points of that, I think it is enough to acknowledge, and I think many people would agree with me, that this whole desire to play like the old-school but to do it with the current rules, if that is even possible, is a desire injected by 3.x publishers.

So I think what all of this means to the "old-school revival" is that more and more people are starting to explore the idea that maybe, just maybe, the best way to get that old-school feel is to actually play the old-school games. That maybe, just maybe, those games are not "evolutionarily obsolete systems" after all.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that either 3.x or 4.o are bad games, because they may very well be, but frankly I don't care because they don't interest or appeal to me. That they can be "old-school," though, at least in terms of what I think is old-school, no, not for me. And that's ok, they don't have to be anything other than what they are, which are games designed both in system and aesthetics to appeal to a specific market of which I am not a part. But the really interesting thing is that this marketing of "old-school feel" is bridging this gap between old-school and the new audience WotC is aiming for, and I think that bridge will help bring in new people who may not switch over to older games, but who may at least develop an appreciation for them.

Mutant Future Podcast Review

The guys over at Midnight's Lair put together a very nice review of Mutant Future, based on a game they ran at Draconis, a game convention in Canada. I just want to shout out a thanks to those guys, and I'm very glad they had a good time!

This review is very interesting to me because from some of their comments I take them to be more "modern gamers," or part of the "new school" instead of "old school" to some extent. What I mean by that is gamers who are more accustomed to sort of streamlined game systems and games that spend a lot more time talking about "story" and role playing.

One of the things I think is very cool about this review is that we get a window into seeing how modern gamers who are "old-school curious" react to older games. But in truth I don't know the gaming background of the reviewers, and how much they played older games, but I *think* this is a fair assessment of their leanings based in the comments.

One of the things that came up was that they felt some of the rules were not well thought out or considered, like saving throws and how to find traps. I think this feeling comes for a couple of reasons. First, Mutant Future is designed to be compatible with Labyrinth Lord. So there are constraints, but mainly rules like these are designed to be simple. This isn't a skills-base system. It assumes that everyone can pretty much attempt anything, so what you have are guidelines that can be used as written or adapted on the fly to other situations.

But, I don't want to spend a lot of time commenting on those sorts of observations. I think it's fair for people who are used to more "unified" and "story driven" games to find elements of Mutant Future confusing. Also I think the reviewers recognize where these design choices come from. What I do want to say something about is how the reviewers seemed a bit baffled about how to take the wacky randomness of Mutant Future and run a story-driven game session.

Part of this bafflement is due to the fact that older games, and I mean specifically D&D and their variants prior to AD&D 2e, are not "story driven" in the same way a lot of modern games are. If you go back to the older modules, whether for AD&D or Gamma World, what you have are skeletons of a story. You have a situation that is described only as much as the referee needs to throw the characters into it. The actual story emerges in play, as the characters interact with the environment and each other. There is no compulsion that the characters actually "finish" the module in the way it was "intended," or that they follow a specific path and have interactions A, B, and C required to take place in any order.

This is in contrast to games that emphasis the story and have more rules surrounding how to create a story. In old-school games this is taken for granted because they assume you know how to tell a story, that you don't need any rules about how to play your character. It is up to the characters to help tell the story, based on the situation and how the dice fall. That is one difference between some story driven games, that randomness is seen as bad to the story. I disagree, but I recognize that these are two different approaches.

One thing I think that can sum up some of the difference between old-school and "new-school" story driven games is that old-school embraces the fact that it is a game, and everything that goes with it. Randomness, character death, these are all opportunities, not limitations. It's true that old-school typically means that the dice decide when randomness is a factor...but not always. Referees have always fudged die rolls. What do people think the GM screen is for, anyway? It isn't entirely to hide the GM's notes. Brutal interpretation of the dice is definitely, at least to me, an old-school characteristic but it doesn't have to always take place.

So, certainly adventures are possible but they need to be designed in a way that makes them flexible. They have to be able to adapt no matter what the players decide or how the dice fall. The story can't necessarily be geared toward everything culminating into a particular encounter or situation.

Anyway, what a great review! I'm very happy to be seeing people enjoy Mutant Future!

It's all about $

A business seeking a profit should be about making money, of course. So we can't blame WotC when they discontinue a game line because it isn't making any money. Or more accurately in the case of D&D, when they create a new edition because it will make more money than the current version.

Consider this quote from Andy Collins, D&D rules manager:

"Nothing is forever. Any expectation that the debut of a new game (or TV show, or comic series, or brand of dog food) also includes an implicit promise that it'll be supported ad infinitum is simply unreasonable.

All we can keep doing is making games & accessories that we believe are worth you, the customer, paying for. Enough folks told us (by their absence) that the current model of D&D Miniatures didn't meet that criteria that we had to make a change."

Now of course he's talking about the miniatures game, but the same is true for D&D proper. When he says that, "All we can keep doing is making games & accessories that we believe are worth you, the customer, paying for," it is a politic way of saying "we make games for maximum sales."

And that's OK. We all know how it works, it's business, no big surprise there. Also consider another of Andy's quotes regarding the minis and why not publish stats compatible with the old ones:

Every minute that a designer, developer, editor, typesetter, graphic designer, or web specialist spends getting a set of stats to the website is a minute they're not spending on another product.

If those minis stats are going to make the company more money than that other product, it might well be a good idea.

But if I can use those folks on a different, more profitable project--say, a D&D sourcebook, or an RPG-focused minis product--I'm obligated as a responsible member of WotC management to support their reassignment.

Yup, that's cold and heartless. But any other decision leads to me AND those folks looking for new jobs when the company's bad business practices leads to layoffs or bankruptcy. I'm not particularly interested in exploring that eventuality.

So for those of you out there who keep asking why WotC won't republish old editions of D&D, I think you have your answer right there. It's not that they have some secret agenda. It's nothing personal against AD&D, OD&D, Basic D&D, etc. If they thought they would make money hand over fist on any of those you can bet anything they'd have published them a long time ago. Again, it's about the $.

The point of all of this? This is why hobby publishing is so important. The biggest goal of hobby publishing is not to make money. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Swords & Wizardry, those of us who produce these games do so because we enjoy the hobby and want to see these rules carry on.

So when Andy says, "Any expectation that the debut of a new game... includes an implicit promise that it'll be supported ad infinitum is simply unreasonable." He's wrong. It isn't unreasonable depending on the publisher's goals.