Calling all Grognards...

[redwullf]

C&C and actual TSR/WoTC titles aside, which old school fantasy RPG clone / simulacrum do you find most intriguing, or enjoy playing the most?

EDIT: tickles your fancy above the others, I should ask.

[kreider204]

I've haven't played any of the others - C&C pretty much does it for me - but I'm impressed with BFRPG. If I were to introduce someone to RPGs and wanted something nice and basic, that's the one I'd use.

[AGNKim]

I've haven't played any of the others - C&C pretty much does it for me.

This.

[Traveller]

I don't do simulacrum games. It's either the original, or I don't touch it.

[Omote]

It's hard to pick just one. From the list, there are 3 that I enjoy the most (and have played all three). But if I HAD to pick, it would be Labyrinth Lord only ever so slightly ahead of Basic Fantasy RPG. The only single reason why I pick LL over Basic Fantasy is the artwork on the current LL/AEC books, when in fact I like the rules/layout of Basic Fantasy much more.

~O

[redwullf]

I realize this poll may ignite some passions. I'm just trying to get a basic feel for what's popular from among a crowd whose opinions I value.

[Breakdaddy]

I like a few of em, but since S&W White Box is closest to my beloved OD&D, I went with S&W

[serleran]

None.

[Frost]

Although I own S&W Whitebox, I've only played LotFP. Not really sure I'm qualified to vote, having not read or played the rest. The S&W Whitebox is pretty neat, but C&C is my main man.

[Tadhg]

I like LL the best. But, I’m not going to vote, since I haven’t run it or any of the others.

While I support the clones to the degree that they may introduce new/younger players to the game (and hopefully back to the original books) and that they allow for new modules and such, I don’t feel that clones are old school.

They are simply some anonymous internet person’s re-organization of the original game’s rules.

Not saying that’s bad, but for me ~ I prefer the original games as written and published and if I need to reorganize something, I’ll do it my way.

The original games have a “heart & soul” in them with their writing, style, art and presentation ~ while the clones are sterile, cold and frankly boring in their writing and presentation. The one good thing about the clones is that some of the artwork is outstanding.

Anywho, aside from C&C – I enjoy playing O/B/A D&D.

[Pilgrim]

I don't play clone systems, it's just easier to run the original or C&C instead, but if I had to choose one, I think S&W would be the pick.

[Arduin]

Mazes & Minotaurs from '72 is an interesting OS RPG...

[CKDad]

C&C actually hits the sweet spot for me as far as general high-fantasy gaming goes. It's got the right blend of structure and adaptability for my needs. I have enough systems I can't play due to time/lack of interested players already - don't need more, personally!

But hey, everyone has to find their own fun!

[tylermo]

It's been ages since I played the old D&D games, and I have only skimmed my non-art copy of LL and LL Compendium. Can't comment fairly. I'm happy with C&C, so I'll probably stick with it for traditional fantasy.

[Piperdog]

I hate to add to the non-voters, but it's too tough! I like LL a lot, but as Omote said, I think the artwork and layout do a lot to invoke a nostalgia in me, and it may be more that than anything else. I do like how Myth and Magic is shaping up, and it is coming across as a super streamlined 2nd edition with a dose of C&C. Then there is Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, which at first read looked ridiculous, to be honest, but someone on the boards said to try it in play, so I did. Awesome! Different enough from D&D yet familiar at the same time. I just hate the idea of buying a bunch more dice. But where the rubber meets the road, C&C is my game.

[Lord Dynel]

While I support the clones to the degree that they may introduce new/younger players to the game (and hopefully back to the original books) and that they allow for new modules and such, I don’t feel that clones are old school.

They are simply some anonymous internet person’s re-organization of the original game’s rules.

Not saying that’s bad, but for me ~ I prefer the original games as written and published and if I need to reorganize something, I’ll do it my way.

The original games have a “heart & soul” in them with their writing, style, art and presentation ~ while the clones are sterile, cold and frankly boring in their writing and presentation. The one good thing about the clones is that some of the artwork is outstanding.

Anywho, aside from C&C – I enjoy playing O/B/A D&D.

It's like you were in my mind, Rhu. I swear.

I support the clones because they often introduce people to and older style of gaming when you didn't need skill ranks and feats to define your characters - a backstory and your character's actions were more than sufficient. They also provide a ruleset for new supplements and adventures to use, thus continuing support for older systems. But for me, all the clones do is get me yearning for the real deal, and that's usually BD&D or 2e AD&D. For some reason, the clones - despite being well-written by those who have a true love of the game - just don't do it for me.

But I did pick one of the above - Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. Like C&C, it's got some serious old-school feel but they do some innovative things with their system to give it a feeling all its own. Plus, there's some fantastic art in there (including some Holloway and Easley pieces!).

[mordrene]

i voted basic since i played moldvays edition of dnd and houseruled race and class as separate entities. which, is what basic does. Plus, i love teh gimick of using line paper to print the character sheet on.

[gideon_thorne]

This might interest some folks. Remember the Mazes and Monsters movie? Well, once upon a time, someone did a fan made rpg based on the mention of stats in the film.

http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2009/1 ... mazes.html

[Go0gleplex]

Also none.

[Rikitiki]

I didn't vote in the poll...'cause, like others, my vote would be: None, really.

"While I support the clones to the degree that they may introduce new/younger players to the game (and hopefully back to the original books) and that they allow for new modules and such, I don’t feel that clones are old school." <-- what Rhuvein said, and I quite agree.

FWIW - got introduced to OD&D in 1980 (played one game), got hooked and
immediately picked up AD&D 1st Ed. and continued playing/DMing that version
'til 2002 when I moved up here (Oregon near Mt. Hood). 3 years ago I got to
pining to play again so I internetted what was out there and saw OSRIC and
some of the others...but none came close to my beloved AD&D 1E.

That is, until I discovered C&C...hmm, lessee, a game which (to me) had all
the goodness of 1E with a streamlined, sensible rule-set AND I get to
convert-on-the-fly ALL my 1E modules and such?! SOLD!

Today I have but one "go to" RPG (C&C)...AND a great community - Huzzah!

[finarvyn]

I like a few of em, but since S&W White Box is closest to my beloved OD&D, I went with S&W

Tough for me to pick only one. WhiteBox would be high on my list since I did it, and Labyrinth Lords has been a favorite of mine for quite a while. I ended up picking DCC RPG since that's been my flavor since March, but if you asked me again next year who knows what would be my top pick then. It changes as my mood changes.

C&C would still rank next to OD&D.