S&W "White Box" clone of the first ever D&D system

[Billiam Babble]

Okay I'm rubbish at writing reviews, I just gush with first impressions and rarely get to play test systems.

This post is merely a pointer to Swords & Wizardry White Box edition, which is a D&D retro-clone. (Well it was until I babbled for a few too many paragraphs)

Free PDF of Swords & Wizardry Whitebox Rules
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6

I was so intrigued by this one I had to order a print-to-order copy from Lulu.com (partly for research about Lulu's print and delivery service - incidentally the parcel delivery service can be a bit of a pain, especially when you don't know when it's going to arrive and the nearest depot is in Narnia, but I digress).  I mainly ordered it because I got bored of printing out the Basic Fantasy Role Playing PDF (see other thread)  Looking at their web page now, I can't quite work out which edition I've actually purchased.  Mine had the Frost Giants on the cover, not the dragon ... but hey a bound copy is a lovely thing.

I've never seen inside the original (American) White Box edition of Dungeons and Dragons  ( picture link, editions link  ) so this re-writing of the old rules under the OGL license is a real treat.  

Like the Basic Fantasy RPG and other "clones", the authors have remained true to Wizards copyright license by including armour classes which "ascend" as opposed to the older system where "minus 4" meant you hard super magical protection and a higher number like 9 meant your padded loin cloth was no good against, arrows, blades, teeth or twigs.  Apart from the presence of the "Ascending Armour Class" (AAC) everything else appears to be refreshingly old school (I hate the phrase, but in this case the school is so old that it pre-dates blackboards..., okay no, nearly pre-dates flares...)  We have entered the realm of Original D&D.  Now, Original D&D is played by elitists who feel that the rot set in and that role playing games went to the dogs with Basic and Expert D&D.  Don't mention AD&D to these guys, because you'd be cramping their style with too much power play and "restrictions".   Okay, that's unfair, but it's amazing after all these years that people on forums can still argue about loyalty to one set of die modifiers compared to another which are almost identical (although I actually find its a relief to discover that some people or so passionate about a handful of poorly printed badly illustrated pamphlets from the 1970s - I mean, these things are relics)  You have to take it on good faith that the S&W Whitebox is an almost word-for-word facsimile of OD&D (D&D in the white box).

Mythmere Games, writers of the Swords and Wizardry, claim the Whitebox "uses ONLY the first three books of the original game, with no material from the supplements at all".  Elsewhere (although I can't find the quote at the moment) it at least implies that the absence of the supplements makes the system complete, stand alone and easier to build from.  All the way through the text are House Rule boxes - presumably these have been added to the original system to make it that bit more playable and keeping in line with contemporary d20 play - Wisdom bonuses on certain types of magic saves for example.

I didn't know that Thieves were not present in the first editions of D&D, but that Clerics were!  Clerics were invented before thieves.  Just think about that.  Clerics are not exactly the staple of high fantasy or medieval literature, but perhaps they were the perfect PC in a game where undead monster types were numerous.  Thieves, of course relate to a specific type of sidekick and a whole genre of fantasy novels.  Perhaps Clerics do also, but I must have missed the shelf of Fantasy Evangelism in WHSmiths. (Cue to be humilated ... when I discover that Conan was in fact a type of priest in half of the novels ....)

The classes in the S&W Whitebox are
- Cleric
- Fighter
- Magic User

That's all folks.

Suddenly, the much berated Tunnels & Trolls with its Warrior, Wizard and Rogue (Warrior-Wizard mix) classes doesn't seem so simplistic (I had 5th edition, so lord knows what 1st ed. T&T was like).

There are races.  They are severely limited in terms of levels, but benefit from racial bonuses.

Dwarves and Halflings can only be Fighters.  
Elves can be Fighters or Magic Users, or a clumsy mixed class of both.

So I guess, only humans get to carry the holy symbols.  Fair enough.  The rest are just ungodly half-beings and pointy eared devil types ...


Character classes determine saving throws.  But wait, there's only ONE saving throw attribute - although, there's many adjustments and exceptions (race and class).  Magic Wand, fire breath, falling rock, falling in love, falling off cliffs - that's one number, modified by circumstance and maybe an attribute modifier (dexterity, strength, wisdom) - which are mentioned a lot less than you think.  ONE saving throw!

[20.2.10 Edit: In D&D Men And Magic, characters have 5 saving throw categories similar to Basic.  S&W Whitebox definitely differs here.  Incidentally, in the Silver Anniversary Boxed Edition of D&D the character sheets only have one Save Throw number.]

Attributes:  all the same.  The six staples St Dx In Wi Cn Ch. 3d6.  Love it.  
I'll come back to attribute modifiers - I had a bit of a shock, but it was really my second or third shock after classes and wait for it ...

Weapon Damage.  

Combat.  It's sort of the same stuff we're used to:  Roll higher than armour class with a d20, then roll the damage and take it off the hit points.  Fair enough.  Different weapons do different damage.  Well, they do, but no that different ...  

      Weapon / damage 

      Axe, battle 1d6+1 
      Axe, hand 1d6 
      Club 1d6 
      Dagger 1d6-1 
      Flail 1d6 
      Mace 1d6 
      Morning Star 1d6 
      Polearm (bardiche, halberd, etc.) 1d6+1 
      Spear 1d6 
      Staff 1d6 
      Sword, long 1d6 
      Sword, short 1d6-1
      Sword, two-handed 1d6+1

Notice anything?

I mean, a two-handed sword does 1d6+1 damage! :o  (Look, just give me a shield, bugger the two-handed weapons!) All the damage dice are d6s.  But, but, I like my d10s!  
It struck me as wonderfully simple: d20s throw to hit, throw a d6 for damage with simple modifiers - you have a small weapon -1, a strong character +1 (optional rule), or and don't forget that magic ring +1.  
Can you imagine OD&D players horror when they saw the new damage rules with all those many sided dice with big numbers? ;)  I have to roll a what?

This reminds me of when you're learning Basic D&D (red box version) you're told you can use a d6 for all weapons and that variable weapon damage is a more advanced rule which is optional when playing early games (eek, look at all the funny shaped dice... how will I remember which one to roll?  No, but seriously, I feared missile weapons and magic rules, but that might have been because I started with Fighting Fantasy where everything was gritty and up close, sword on sword, like it should be, range is for elves...)

[20.2.10 Edit.  Major amendment required here.  Although I was excited about variable weapon damage using bonuses on d6s, there doesn't appear to be any variable weapon damage in the first three OD&D books upon which S&W Whitebox is apparently based.  D6s are used for damage, but so far reading through I haven't found any special variable damage rules, which is strange considering the variable prices and weights of weapons.  In the Greyhawk supplement I, Gygax jumps straight to d10s and d8s and so forth for weapon damage.  So at no point is there a variable damage system which uses d6s.  However, Gygax also suggests in Greyhawk different Hit Dice for characters and monsters so maybe S&W is trying to keep the game balanced because all hit dice are d6s.]

Flip back through the rules and the attribute bonus table is also very sparing.  So, let's look up how your beefy, yet agile character, Str 18, Dex 14, is going to benefit in combat.  

  Attribute Roll   Description         Bonus
        3–6           Below Average    -1
        7–14          Average
        15–18         Above Average    +1 

Ye Gods, this system is tight.  He gets a +1 on hit rolls with melee weapons, that's it.  But again, easy to remember: you either have a bonus (or negative modifier) or you don't.  (*Snaps bow*)

In a system like this a +1 magic ring or sword would be a very powerful artefact indeed.

AD&D Strength 18(45) "+4" anyone? (I may need to re-check this... pass me the OSRIC pdf...)

The only attribute given a range of bonuses is Charisma in relation to the hiring of muscle and labourers (when you become a land owner, or are just trying to command respect from a penny thug you hired for the day.)  Perhaps it comes into Morale rules too ...

Experience Points - XP for characters is very similar to other D&D games - with that bizarre prime requisite bonus of 5% if you're wise, strong or smart (in Basic its 5% or a mighty 10%).*  Monsters XP is similar to Basic/Expert D&D but that instead of an "XP awarded" value being listed you get an equivalent HD value of the monster - which doesn't seem that far off the modern Challenge Rating, at first glance.

*[20.2.10 Edit - 10% and 5% adjustments are both used in OD&D.  Again, Mythmere Games are simplifying.]

Spells?  Extremely simple descriptions, but with lots of reminders that the DM's decision is final, plus the usual warnings about the misuse of Wishes.  I haven't absorbed difference in spells with other systems, suffice to say, Magic Users are still extremely weak in the lower levels and then stunningly powerful at later levels.  Many of the classic favourites are in there.

Hit Dice (for determining Hit Points): all d6s.  What?!  Naturally, only a Fighter gets to roll a whole d6 every level.  Lucky, tough Fighters.  Other characters have to suffice with +1 hp every other level.  It's shocking!   Monsters have d6 for Hit Dice. Again, there's a beautiful uniformity in all this.

Incidentally, the Monsters seem to have a less special attacks.  Trogs don't stink, for example. (Cool, 'cos vomit rules bore me.)

Levels.  Level 10 seems to be the highest level, but the S&W version provides some guidelines for further levels especially since MU's would have no access to Level 6 spells until Level 12.  We can assume that Level 6 spells were originally included for magical treasure, monsters, gods and super villains only.

Okay, I'm running out of steam here.  

Summary:
If you're really into vintage systems and love Dungeons & Dragons, check it out.  You may never play it, but it's a fascinating, succinct read.

(By the way if you want to still want to play an old style Thief - you crazy modern progressive heretic, you-, there are additional character supplements on the Mythmere website:
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=18 )

[MortiS-the-Lost]

For British gamers the 'White Box' is verging on pre-history, this is where it all started in the UK, this is the 'three barely understandable rules booklets in a box' that Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone imported into the UK back 1975. In some ways it can be viewed as D&D in it's primordial state. But it's worth remembering that Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and friends had already been developing D&D for years before they published the White Box and unleashed D&D on the public for the first time. In fact there supposedly is a lot of debate as to who first came up with the idea and where exactly it all started. I'm noting to going talk about pre-history though, partly because it will quickly get off topic and partly because I don't care if Castle Blackmoor was the first game of D&D ever played or not.

All this aside it's interesting to see how the first published version of D&D worked and how things have changed since. However 'Swords & Wizardry White Box edition' is not White Box D&D, it's an OGL game. Under all it's old retro artwork and old school dice modifiers it's still the D20 system. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying S&W (nor the D20 system) is rubbish, I just need to make the point that should be viewed a Retro-D&D Emulator and not as the original rule-set itself (It's like running my old Atari and Spectrum games on my Laptop). S&W makes D20 play like White Box D&D in the same way that CoC D20 makes it play like CoC. As such it is an interpretation of the way White Box D&D played.
This makes S&W a rather strange niche product in comparison to most other 'OD&D clone' games. Devout players of the original 'White Box' D&D will not want it because A, it's based on that-there new-fangled D20 system and B, they already have the original White Box. Newer players wanting to play something 'old skool' and nostalgia junkies (like us) will not necessarily buy it because there are lots of other Retro-D&D  products out there to choose from (Hack Master, OSRIC, ect) and there's not real reason to pick one over another. Which begs the further question why are all these different companies making Retro D&D products? As has been said in previous threads it can't be for the money and with so many other companies producing similar materials it's not as if they are plugging a gap in the market. It's my philosophy that (unless your radically changing it or you can improve on it some what) producing something that a lot of other people produce is just crowding the market place for such products and besides most of these OD&D clones are free.(a few more words on this and then I'm going to get back on subject)
To look at it in a wider (an non commercial view) most gameing groups have their own set of tweaks and houserules (and in some cases derivative home-brew games) which make games play the way they want to play them. Therefore (in a strictly technical sense) there are as almost many different rules sets are there are GMs, nobody's group plays in exactly the same way as another group and yet with the advent of the internet and PDF files a lot of people are publishing what essentially are house rules and expecting other people to play in the way to do. In this environment trying to competitively sell such a product seems pointless as GMs I know, including myself look at many different sources for rules and grab what they need from each one. (and besides in 5 billion years the sun will explode, engulfing the earth and rending all human endeavour entirely pointless)  

sorry about that I don't seem to have train of thought so much as wandering dune-buggy of thought driving aimlessly toward the horizon.

I've decided to stop now and try to talk about the S&W White Box properly later.

[Billiam Babble]

I think I get what your saying about the bad rash of OGL games, but honestly, check it out, apart from the ascending armour class system there is absolutely no resemblance to WoC's SRD 3.5.   Which is why its a fascinating interpretation of the OGL licence.

There are no skills, feats, attacks of opportunity and all the other stuff that defined 3rd edition D&D as different from AD&D 1 and 2.  My only problem is that prior to the Holmes and Metzner Basic/Expert sets I have never been able to look through an older edition of D&D, so I'm in no position to defend the quality of this supposed replica.  I've seen a few OGL games.  I am very aware of the bizarre travesty/curiousity that is d20 CoC, which I guess was a natural conclusion, when the D&D d20 Monster Manual was borrowing from Lovecraft, and d20 Modern was being developed (and I still wince at level progression in Star Wars as well, 4th level stormtroopers, pfft).  

The only other retro-clone I recently come to know well is the Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game which is very similar to the 1980's Basic / Expert, more so than to D&D 3 or 3.5 - similarities are the armour class system and the fact that the levels go to Level 20.  Classes, spells, prices, saving throws are all from those original sets, not the SRD.  I was assuming and hoping, perhaps very wrongly, that the S&W Whitebox was loyal in some way to an older edition of D&D otherwise the decision to bring it out would make no sense at all - but that raises an interesting point in itself: perhaps I want to own something that appears to be from the distant past so badly that I believe anything they put in front of me, until I get my hands on a facsimile of OD&D.  So I don't really have a basis assuming that OD&D plays like that - but if I was engineering a game backwards it might end up looking like S&W Whitebox, but who knows, perhaps d6s were not the core dice apart from the d20 - but it would make sense.  

You said yourself that OSRIC makes for useful reference for AD&D players.  Again, perhaps its a case of just having copies of rules for new gaming groups when we don't fancy photocopying delicate old rulebooks (as long as the game was as good as true to the originals, as in the case of OSRIC).  Also you make a good point, who can Whitebox be aimed at?  The OD&Ders won't be interested, and it's barely a whole system for new players.  Perhaps it's intended market has something to do with this bizarre phantom of an idea about a golden age of pen and paper role-play.  Perhaps some players are looking for an psuedo-authentic freebie with which they can one-up friends.  In all honesty, I don't think I'd ever actually play it, but in saying that, it's rather nice having a single rule set which doesn't pressurise me into buying lots of accessories (but this may be my knee-jerk reaction against the multiple Players Handbooks in DnD 4 which makes a mockery of having 3 "Core" rulebooks).

Personal confession: I rather like the idea that these OGL /retro-clones having a large (at least an online) following, because when I fantasise about writing solo-gamebooks, I find it much easier to adapt Basic D&D, than I would DnD 3.5 or the utterly baffly DnD 4 - therefore there might still be an audience for me! ;)

[MortiS-the-Lost]

Yea, sorry that was only supposed to be a few lines about the commercial viability of the various OD&D clones that have sprung up recently. I think I've been a lot more harsh than I intended and ranted on for far too long. I certainly didn't mean to come across as not liking the OD&D clones, OSRIC has become very useful when working out rules for my group's home-brew games.
On reflection I'd say S&W (and by extension the other  retro-clones) is probably aimed at nostalgic people like me and you, as it gives us something to rattle at the newbies who wanna play 4th ed when we want to show them how D&D should be done.

Ok now I’m going to shift subject back to what I intended to talk about last time before I got carried away ranting about OGL products. The line up of Classes in early D&D and S&W ...

The classic Dungeon-delving party (according to many) consists of a Fighter, a Magic User, a Cleric and a Thief.  It’s worth noting that in the Red and Blue books Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Thief where the human Classes while Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit/Halfling were non-human Classes (but of course AD&D decided that Race and Class should be different things) The D&D board game reflects this same party dynamic as do the basic and starter sets from the 3rd to 3.5  period, I'm sure most people reading this are familiar with Regdar, Mialee, Jozan and Lidda (but 3rd edition itself decided Bard, Monk and pretty much everything was a core class and don't even get me started on 4th) oh and the first D&D set I owned  The NEW Easy to Master Dungeons and Dragons  also has the 'core four' as the humans classes and then the 3 non-humans as classes. (I think I've mentioned enough examples for now)

My own idea of the classic dungeon line up is Fighter, Elf, Dwarf and Wizard, but I think this is due to me having started out with HeroQuest (and Lord of the Rings might have had something to do with it too)


 ^ To try and avoid confusion (at the risk of causing further confusion) here's a picture of a bunch of the older Player's Handbooks from the various Editions and Revisions of D&D I own (and a Goblin)

Like you I haven't ever got my claws on the original D&D 'White Box' (or was it 'Brown Box'?) and the earliest version of D&D (as opposed to AD&D) that I own is the Red and Blue Books with the Larry Elmore covers (the same ones you had?). So I had to do a little research (Mainly reading Wikipedia) to fill a few gaps in my knowledge of that period.

So, yes the first ever published D&D had Fighter (or Fighting-Man), Wizard and Cleric ... but no Thief. As you said it seems a bit odd that a staple of fantasy novels like the Thief was left out and yet the Cleric made it in, but there are reasons it turned out that way.

The first question I'm going to try to answer is 'why did the cleric come first?' and I must warn you that in this next bit I ramble a bit, but it does get to the point eventually.

First of  all, as legend has it D&D was based on the original  Chainmail  game (published in 1971 – not to be confused with the D20 Miniatures game of the same name published circa 2002) but White Box D&D wasn't just based on it, it used Chainmail as it's combat system (what later became the D&D combat system was offered as an optional part of the rules) being a large scale tactical battle system Chainmail didn't really have rules for Thieves and yes it didn't have rules for Clerics either, but I think I can explain their development at this stage.
This is where things get a little unclear as Gygax liked to boast and take credit for things, so exactly who did what is difficult to determine but it's clear that he did not come up with D&D all by himself. Pre D&D Gygax had added fantasy elements to Chainmail in 'The Fantasy Supplement' basically substituting 'historical' troop types for fantasy creatures. Large monsters counted as large groups of men, Heroes (Fighters) counted as smaller groups of men and Wizards basically were artillery units (some might argue they still are). Still no sign of Clerics though.
The legend continues with Dave Arneson using the Chainmail rules as the basis for a game called 'Blackmoor' (which would later become a D&D setting) in which players controlled 1 figure each (Bla, bla, bla role-playing bla bla) the debate as to whether these were the first games of D&D or not is irrelevant to this discussion (and pointless in general), but I remember reading on an OD&D forum I came across that the original Cleric was created at some point during the early days of Blackmoor as a Vampire-Hunter type character with rules for healing magic and the like. In case anyone is interested it was probably this page http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34843&start=15
So it was from there the Cleric evolved and was incorporated into the main game. Here you can see the game starting to take shape, before Clerics there were only 2 classes (Fighter and Wizard) and as such it could be said that in historical games there is only the Fighter class(!).
Therefore Clerics, if you think about in these terms 'fill the gap' between Fighter and Wizard, they can cast useful spells (mainly healing) but can also take part in hand-to-hand combat; an obvious extension of game play.
Interestingly in HeXeN (a fantasy action RPG based on the DooM engine) the Cleric is kind of 'mid-ground' character somewhere between the Warrior and the Mage, good with both combat and magic but master of neither.

So there you have it Clerics mostly likely came before Thieves as a Class mainly for game-play reasons.  

Wow! It's late now and I've been writing for quite a long time, I'll talk about Thieves (in needless detail) and other early D&D stuff another night. I hope ramblings thus far have been interesting and answered a few questions (ha! I've probably raised more questions than I've answered).

[BobbieTheDamned]

sweet a free D&D history lesson

Mort I've got the 'green' companion rules for the red/blue set which may be yours for pretty printed paper if you're interested, was planning to e-bin it but I thought I'd offer it to you first.

[Billiam Babble]

No worries, dude, - I think when a company tries to re-own and rewrite heritage we have a lot to lose unless we speak up.  My knowledge is far too sketchy and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing etc.  Reading about, I've made a few discoveries - apparently the saving throw system doesn't resemble early (O) D&D (1974), it's an S&W playability compromise.  I'm still divided about OGL games, myself.  Basically, if it's cheap or free, I'm in.  Unless, of course I can find a market niche myself, then I'm a total convert and OGL whore.

Cleric = Vampire Hunter.  Now that makes a lot of sense.  "Cleric" just doesn't have that exciting ring does it?  But then when I used to think of "Monk"s I used the imagine the characters from the KP Crisps adverts ...

Okay, I've been scouring the web.  It turns out that Wizards (WoC) did, for a short time, provide pdfs of the white box rule books (pre-dated by the "brown box", you're right), but have stopped for reasons that verge on capitalistic paranoia (theories abound).  A friend sent me a pdf of the Chainmail rules a couple of years agao, but I found it indecipherable and it's become lost on a memory stick somewhere.  

However I rediscovered some priceless documents (on esnips.com).  With your permission, Mortis, I'll upload the pdfs to the forum and start a thread on White Box D&D Men and Magic etc. + Greyhawk and Blackmoor (+original Chainmail).  We can wait for the lawyers to call, before we remove them. ;)

The whole Gygax vs. Arneson tale is rather odd - I find it hard to filter the folk lore theory from the facts, but it definitely stems from the relationship between Chainmail and those early rule books.  

Nice piccie!  That goblin guard is essential for warding off ebay-ers and temptations of online selling.

Also I adore my 1980's Basic (Red Box) D&D set.  - We may have run a thread on that particular branch of boxed games. :)

There's some real gems in those dragonsfoot forums - I think it was in a forum like that I found some OD&D players come down very hard on a Basic player, which I found rather bizarre - Popular People's Front of Judea  ... Splitter!

[MortiS-the-Lost]

There are Green books too?
how did TSR expect anyone to keep track of this? (did you mean Teal rather than green? I am aware of there being some Teal D&D books from this era, but not Green)

Yea I'm interested, bring 'em over next time you visit!  

[Billiam Babble]

Green?  Okay I'm confused.  Where did I type that?  Must be a typo.  No green books, I think.

I think I'll add some short edits in brackets to the review in the first post, turns out, quite a lot of the S&W Whitebox doesn't represent the rules in (O)D&D.  Surprise, surprise, after I tried to defend it.  

[MortiS-the-Lost]

That was directed at Rob, who is trying (and succeeding) to sell me some Green D&D books. My insanely long post about the origins of classes is delayed until I've finished reading the OD&D PDFs you posted  

[Billiam Babble]

*grins*

Don't trust him! ;)

[BobbieTheDamned]

I guess its kinda teal The companion rules set 1013.

[Billiam Babble]

Oh those rulebooks.  I was imagining some sort of hardbacks. I'd reckon they'd pass as green. Heh. Companion set, cool.

[MortiS-the-Lost]

Yea I'll buy 'em!