Talk:Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones

Merger proposal

I propose that Variant Dungeons & Dragons games be merged into this article, as the content is mostly redundant, and this article has more information and is better organized (and has a better name, in my opinion). The other article talks a little more about the topic of fan dissatisfaction, which would be nice to add to this article if it can be sourced properly. I've heard multiple claims that Pathfinder is now outselling D&D, if there's a reliable source for that, it could be relevant. I'd also like to see this article's title corrected to "simulacra", which is the proper plural, but that would come later. Any thoughts? As neither of these articles get much attention, I may just make the change in the next couple of days if no one objects. zorblek (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet an opinion about the plural of simulacrum since it's an English-assimilated Latin word. Thus, it could be ruled by English grammar... or not. Concerning the main purpose of this discussion I see no obstacle to procede by merging Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums... Kintaro (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. I looked it up in various dictionaries, and they all listed "simulacra" but not "simulacrums". I'm not really a stickler for linguistic standardization, but I figured someone would eventually complain so we might as well fix it now. zorblek (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My own English dictionary is the 1993 edition of the [New] Shorter Oxford. It states that both plurals are correct (Volume 2, page 2867). Regards! Kintaro (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, what if we just merged both into something like Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums? bad idea? Kintaro (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having checked the American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and Webster's Standard, I get two for "simulacra" only and one for either. I suggest that "simulacra" is the more widely accepted and traditional form, and that "simulacrums" is an English bastardization that is slowly gaining ground. We should probably avoid the controversial word and use something else, like "clones". This is supported by other related Wikipedia articles that refer to them as "retro clones". Canonblack (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have two different things confused here:

Firstly there is the idea of a merger, which I would support if it was a true merger, rather than just the zapping of one article and it becoming a redirect.

Secondly there is the idea of the article name not being as good as it could be, this is a valid thing to talk about, but you have people voting on one of two merger options and I think that is confusing. Plus, User:Kintaro is right. The commonly used term for these games is actually 'retro-clone' That currently redirects to Open gaming#Retro-Clone_systems, but I think that it should be pointing to an article such as this one (or that the open gaming article should be merged with both of these articles). I think that players of these systems are much more likely to be searching for 'retro-clone' or 'variant' than 'simulacrum'. In fact I think that some Dungeons & Dragons players would expect this article to be about the Simulacrum spell from the 3rd Edition rules.

Considering making this article about 'retro-clones' would make the merger/non-merger and name decision easier, as it would then be about deciding if all the systems mentioned on both articles qualified as 'retro-clones' or if two terms would need to be used. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a variant of Dungeons & Dragons, but would not easily fit into the term 'retro-clone', as it promotes itself as being 'more advanced' than the rules it copies, while most of the games on this article and the 'variants' article promote themselves as being 'emulations of earlier rules'. I would support the merger, but I'm not really happy that either article does the job. These games are not actually based on D&D, but are based on the System Reference Document, which I believe that Wizards of the Coast intended to get people to support the 3rd Edition rules, not make retro-clones or variant rules. It is a pedantic distinction, but as it is the legal defence of the people that created the 'retro-clones' and variants, I think the article we end up with needs to be a bit more clear about the games not being directly based on Dungeons & Dragons. I also think that the article that we end up with should have a 'Response to open gaming/retro-clones/variant rules' section that states that the creation of these games was a contributing factor towards Wizards of the Coast moving away from supporting the OGL and releasing 4th Edition under the GSL. I think that the inclusion of background information like that will show these games in the culture (of fans and commercial companies showing support for old out of print versions of Dungeons & Dragons and Wizards of the Coast wanting to do what they can to ensure that fans buy their current D&D products.

I think the whole area is unclear, and does not tell the whole story. I think I'll talk to User:BOZ as he is pretty good at untangling this sort of thing.Big Mac (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums
(If you support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

1. I support this merger.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Sure; "Variant Dungeons & Dragons games" sounds like it should be about Arduin Grimoire or RoleMaster instead of its current content. Ben Standeven (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
3. I also support this merger. I can see the reasons why one would want to distinguish between variants and simulacrums, but unless the variants page is significantly reworked, it seems to me that a merger would be in the interests of both. My preference would be to see the variants page expanded, but I have not the time available myself. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
4. support. A merged article would be more useful, but it could get large rather quickly. Web Warlock (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums
(If you do not support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

1. Oppose based upon the recognizability and naturalness criteria of WP:TITLE. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games AND Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums into Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums
(If you support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

1. Kintaro (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games AND Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums into Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums
(If you do not support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

title and the usage of "simulacrum"

I've heard and read about "retro-clones" in the context of D&D rpgs a lot, but never simulacrum. Not used in this sense, anyway - to a gamer like me, that term refers to the various in-game magic spells that duplicate creatures; creating more or less false copies of persons or monsters. So I did a google search, getting 139K results for "d&d retro clone" and 91K results for "d&d simulacrum". Okay so that could be taken to mean I'm wrong, or at least uninformed. But all first-page results clearly refer to simulacrums as the in-game spells (and their creations). Except one: this very page. I know you're in the middle of a merger vote, and I don't have an opinion either way, thus this separate section: I propose that the usage of "simulacrum" in the page name is removed.

Any term you end up using that do not refer to these variant games as "simulacrum" (in any singular or plural form) whatsoever will be fine. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, but I oppose this change. A quick Google of "Dungeons & Dragons Retro-Clones" reveals around 7,000 hits and of "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums" around 30,000 (most being copies of the original article). Either way, at Dragonsfoot where these games were originally championed the "simulacrum games" subforum was created way back when to harbour them. Whilst retro-clones is a popularly used term it is not an accurate description, especially when applied to modern simulucrums (or simulcra) of Dungeons & Dragons, such as Path Finder. Moreover, the article is now utterly confusing, using simulacra throughout in preference to "retro-clone" despite its title. Worse, Dungeons & Dragons simulacra has virtually no hits on Google. What a mess. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested renaming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: common name according to section above, and disambiguates according to Hekerui. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums → Dungeons & Dragons retro clones –Per above. In short, I contest the usage of "simulacrum" in this context and argue a phrase such as "retro clone" is much more widespread. Thanks Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) CapnZapp (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Retro-Clone is the accepted term. Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is, do we have any reliable source - and for this purpose, I'd say even one would do - which tells us what the "proper" name should be? If it's "retro-clone" then fine, but I would rather have something (even just one thing) to confirm it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose retro clone seems to be jargon and not adequately descriptive. There can be no proper name, only a useful one for readers. Of course simulacra would be more understandable than simulacrums. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Relisting comment The IP is right—we could use sources in this discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support "simulacrum" has an in-game meaning and may confuse for that reason. Hekerui (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

For Gold and Glory

Hi, there is AD&D 2E clone, named For Gold and Glory. It is available on Lulu, but I can't find more information about this game (except fora, of course).

Below is the sole more or the less official info (not even homepage) I could find (link to download included): http://osrcompatible.org/products/

I think it deserves at least a "see also" mention, but given low info, I won't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.34.42 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you need more reliable sources before you add any information about this. 2601:D:9400:3CD:C478:3823:8325:BCC2 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Classification of Basic Fantasy RPG

I'm the author of Basic Fantasy RPG, and I believe it is wrongly categorized. Unlike Castles & Crusades, Basic Fantasy RPG resolves everything using mechanics that would be more than familiar to players from 1981; the only exception is the use of ascending AC, which some other games classified here as retro-clones also use. In some details, Basic Fantasy RPG is "more compliant" with the 1981 edition than Labyrinth Lord. In particular, because BFRPG doesn't give a cleric a spell until 2nd level, whereas LL does; the game being mimicked doesn't give one either. There are other examples, but that is the one that always seems to come up in conversation.

Simply changing the page would be the wrong approach, I'm told, as Wikipedia depends on proper citations. Who exactly should I cite in order to make this change properly? Having it wrong here is causing me no end of trouble with people saying BFRPG is not a retro-clone... they use Wikipedia as their standard of truth. A compliment to Wikipedia, I'm sure, but it would be nice if the "truth" were a bit truer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolomoriahBFRPG (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I went looking for citations, and I also read the page in detail. The games on this page are retro-clones in the strictest sense, cloning the mechanics of a single game with a high degree of faithfulness. I could see how Basic Fantasy RPG might be omitted from that list... until I found this little gem in the description for Spellcraft & Swordplay: "S&S is a re-imagining of the original edition Dungeons & Dragons with the original Chainmail combat rules based upon the 2d6 Man to Man table retained and expanded, and has been described as an interesting What If style of game. Advances in the game above other simulacra include a unified task resolution mechanic and ability based skills and saving throws." If we define a "retro-clone" as a game that clones a classic version with a high degree of faithfulness, then S&S does not qualify. Or if it does, then so does Basic Fantasy RPG; I could just as accurately say that "Basic Fantasy RPG clones the game mechanics and overall feel of the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert rules. Advances in the game include separation of race and class and the use of ascending AC." With a little legwork I can easily come up with references for that. SolomoriahBFRPG (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to include Legends of the Flame Princess

This is a fairly common publisher and edition of OSR& retro-clone products and probably belongs here. Proposed text 2.10

"Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a OSR game that uses the Open Game License to recreate game rules of the late 70s/early 80s, with LotFP's particular twisting of those rules flattening out the power level a bit and emphasizing a more horrific and deadly attitude. Inspired by underground heavy metal, horror literature and film, with an emphasis on Weird Fiction and Mythos strands of pulp literature" Will come back and update after two weeks or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeLord2345 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

While retro (even regressive) in its mentality, it's not a clone. It doesn't seek to faithfully recreated an earlier edition of D&D using open gaming content and the fact that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted while rephrasing the rules to avoid the copyright on the text itself. While each retro-clone might tweak a rule or two (like the house rules of old), LotFP makes major wholesale changes in order to create a new game experience. It's what was called a "fantasy heartbreaker" back in the day. In short, it was omitted intentionally, because it doesn't fit the definition. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree, It sits in the OD&D & B/X area. I have several of the other games, they have about the same level of change. I feel it is better to be inclusive in this list, than exclusive

See attached link - this is a legitimate enough source I think for a reference https://techraptor.net/tabletop/reviews/lamentations-of-flame-princess-review

Checking the publishers site itself: "Rules-wise, LotFP belongs to the "Old School Renaissance" family of games that uses the Open Game License to recreate game rules of the late 70s/early 80s, with LotFP's particular twisting of those rules flattening out the power level a bit and emphasizing a more horrific and go-for-the-throat attitude. A PDF version of the full rules without any of the game's artwork is available here for you to use for your own purposes. (The full-version PDF includes all of the art, while the physical version is a beautiful high-quality artifact in its own right.)" which is obviously is referencing D&D https://www.lotfp.com/RPG/about

It is very similar to the early RPG experience and is usually recommended on social media when retro clones are brought up. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1751/overview-of-dd-retro-clones

I also will point to Grognardia, a repected blog in the OSR - I'm not sure if it is appropriate to use as a reference, but definitely shows the general attitude toward it.

I feel excluding it from this list is a bad choice TimeLord2345 (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That it's OSR is not in question. But this isn't a list of all OSR games; if this were about any OSR game then we'd also have to include Dungeon Crawl Classics, for example. This is a list of a specific subset of them, ones that are aimed at recreating exactly specific old editions. LotFP explicitly declaims that. The publishers themselves position it outside the retro-clone category. All retro-clones are OSR, but not all OSR games are retro-clones. oknazevad (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an apples to oranges comparison. Though influenced by old school, DCC is OSR by association only. Not all OSR games are OSR at all. DCC is an original set of rules that are not compatible with the original game. LotFP is 90% Basic/Expert D&D. It so very compatible that I can use it directly with my old BX or BECMI D&D material, or OSE. And I do this all the time, as do many others I know. This cannot be done with DCC or Basic Fantasy. 2600:6C44:117F:D353:D578:1F9F:1DD6:B0A (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A game can be OSR and have zero compatibility with another OSR game. OSR is a school of thought in design, not a statement of compatibility. DCC is fully OSR as it seeks to evoke the feel of playing in the early days of RPGs in its tone (PCs are disposable and loot is king), playstyle (dungeon crawling, naturally) and mechanics (like using unusual dice, much as the standard polyhedrals were uncommon to early players). Heck, there's nothing about the OSR that's even limited to D&D; games modeled on other early RPGs are just as much OSR.

The difference here is one of intention. Does a game seek to simply evoke a general old-school feel, which makes it OSR, or does it specifically seek to be mechanically equivalent to a specific older edition of a specific game, which makes it a retro-clone. DCC is definitely the former, which no one disagrees with. The games listed here are the latter (including Basic Fantasy, which can run any official B/X module – one just needs to subtract the enemy AC from 20). LotFP is more the former, as it's not intended to replicate a specific older edition. This article is not simply a list of OSR games, it's a list of retro-clones only, like the title says. That's why DCC isn't listed, it is OSR, but it is not a retro-clone. Same with LotFP. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LotFP is very much a B/X clone with a little tweaking. I've played D&D from the earliest days. I've also provided appropriate sources. It is worth noting that this page merged with the Variant Dungeons & Dragons games page which would fit LotFP appropriately. Again I reiterate it is better this page be inclusive than exclusive TimeLord2345 (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the most important thing would be, what do independent reliable sources say about this game? If independent reliable sources do not refer to it as a clone, then we should not be concluding "well, I think it is" because that makes it original research. If independent reliable sources do refer to it as a clone, then we should not be arguing against it. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

At which point I direct you to the independant reliable source I provided "...Lamentations of the Flame Princess is mechanically very close to the 1981 Dungeons & Dragons B/X sets on which it is based." That indicates to me it is a retroclone

https://techraptor.net/tabletop/reviews/lamentations-of-flame-princess-review TimeLord2345 (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the techraptor article, and I enjoyed reading the rules for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. I agree with oknazevad that the game is not a retro-clone, as it doesn't seem to clone the feel of the earlier games. It's not just a matter of using rules that are mechanically the same; at least as important is the idea that it tries to duplicate the intention of the earlier game. Is there a similar list of OSR games that could include Lamentations of the Flame Princess? If not, such a list might make for an interesting additional article to add to the Wikipedia. But LoftFP doesn't seem to be a good addition here. Rray (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Side comment though, I think LOTFP has won some awards if I am not mistaken, and I will probably get around to starting an article sooner or later if no one beats me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

When you do, I'll be happy to help with it. Rray (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rray LotFP definitely does try to copy the feel of the earlier games, that's also an opinion you have offered. If you are looking for old school feel this article references the Satanic panic in relation to LotFP. https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/lamentations-of-the-flame-princess-rekindles-satanic-panic It is very much intended as B/X retroclone and it is quite striking that is not here. I was asked for reliable reporting on it and provided it. LotFP is a fairly early example of the OSR and until later additions such as OSE, the recommended B/X clone on the OSR reddit and other forums. I feel given it's importance, especially since it did it did win an ENNIE in 2011 it should be here https://web.archive.org/web/20190213085352/http://diehardgamefan.com/2011/12/26/diehard-gamefans-2011-tabletop-gaming-awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeLord2345 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The techraptor article you linked to originally detailed the difference in atmosphere from the original game in a lot of detail. The article you've linked from digitaljournal doesn't seem to include anything relevant to the discussion here at all. Having won an Ennie doesn't warrant inclusion in this specific list. No one's arguing that the game is bad or lacking notability; the consensus is that it's not a retro-clone. It's an OSR game. Maybe someone else will chime in with additional opinions. Rray (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)