Pretty much the best D&D variant ever made. Cleaned up ODND, but still quite capable of running the original modules perfectly. Did a test run of The Keep On The Borderlands, and the only thing that required any thinking was electrum coins.
Right tool for the right job! Rules to live by. Trust me, I went back to AD&D 2nd Edition from 5e nonsense... I missed the editions of D&D that gave you a broader goal to look forward to by 9-10 level, things like Temple or Stronghold construction. The inclusion of things like Kingdom intrigue, and Wider-World political involvement.
I found Whitebox thanks to your previous channel. It has become my go to edition of DnD particularly with James Spahn's expansions. Also love the unified Saving Throw as an easy way of adjudicating most questions,.
I know this goes against Dave’s views on role playing in his early historical minis games where players took on the role of leaders/officers in the armies, but it always seemed to me that for Gary, the “role” in role-playing was mostly about “class.” In other words, the “role” of the character is the role in the game and in the party, I am a fighter, you are the magic-user, etc.
Interesting. This is why how a thing is written matters. However, this is why it has stood for 50 years because we can interpret it...Kinda like the Constitution. Lol. The key to a thing's longevity and value may well be its vagueness. The rules and intent are open to interpretation and this may be early D&Ds greatest legacy.
Agreed….BUT… we’ve always found it fun to have very basic ‘backgrounds’. No great big huge backstory for a character that may die within 30 mins of play (haha), but enough that can simply differentiate. Three human fighters….one has a background in lore (maybe his stats reflect with an above average Int), another has a background being a forester, another may be your basic tank (and perhaps has a high Con, heck maybe the “tank” happens to have an above average Char!…he’s a charmer!… what a diverse wrecking crew!) etc etc…. Fun stuff. No skills at all! But lots of stuff for DMs and the players to use and use together! 🙂 No need to hire (sometimes) when one PC may have a relevant background. No power gaming. No min-maxing. No silliness. Just a basic human fighter who knows a, b or c. (For example). It’s good stuff I believe.
Agreed, I like to ask my players for a short motivation or sentence about their characters, especially if they are new characters. It is not either or but rules do dictate much if you adhere to them.
In listening to your review here I am reminded of the D&D games we used to play when I was in college. where adventuring was full of trepidation; where we were first level for a long time and an experienced character/NPC was second or even 3rd and power and influence leveled correspondingly. As I wrote this I remembered a gaming magazine that listed out levels for characters for The Lord of the Rings where Aragorn was a 3rd-level Ranger and Gandolf was a 5th-level Wizard. I suppose if you keep a handle on advancement you can keep the threat level there and RP renown and such. Nice job.
I’ll allow hunting based on dexterity and wisdom scores. If the scores are low, it’ll be 1 in 6 chance in 2-24 hours time. If it’s mid, I’ll do 2 in 6 chance in 1-12 hours. If the scores are high, it’s 3 in 6 chance in 1-6 hours.
Thanks for this video! And how could I define for example what ingredients an Alchemist needs to prepare some kind of potion? There is no such rule in the book, should I just make it up on my own?
I can most definitely wrap my head around the concept of hiring others to do a lot of the tasks that so many newer RPGs give the players as "skills"... but there really seems to be no reason for the players to not be able to hunt for their own food IF the area would support it. I mean, sure, if the area could support it but it happens to be illegal to do so (such as a protected King's Wood or something of the like), then of course, NO "legal" hunting. But, seriously, people hunt for their food all the time. Literally. There is no reason that the players couldn't figure it out, like I said, IF the situation were such where they were allowed to do so. They seem capable of "hunting" Goblins in a cave, so how could they not figure out how to fish in a pond or hunt in a forest? None the less, I do enjoy how so many people are coming back to the games that we played back in the 70's and 80's... the style of RPG where the DM and players are part of a world that THEY are making as they go along. Rulings, not rules. Great video... really nice to see some love being given to this style of game :)
As a follow-up to the point that I was making... a YEAR ago. I really think you missed what the author of the book was saying on Page 4 with concerns to things being purposely left out of the 'rules'. You kept going on about how you as the DM/GM would not allow certain things in your game, because you want to run games RAW, and that this book did not say that A, B, or C, was included in the rules, so, you wouldn't allow them. Again... Page 4, at the bottom... clearly explains the lack of certain things. At the end of the day, it is a game that can be run in any way you want at your table. The thing is, to imply that because something was left out of the book means that the author intended it to convey a certain thing, when it CLEARLY says that was not the case... seemed a bit disingenuous. Personally, I really do enjoy this rule set. It is simple, straightforward, and it is open to a world of tweaking and adaptation.
I also have to strongly disagree with adventurers (having no discrete rules) ‘cannot’ hunt nor forage. Even basic ‘folk’ in such a “realm” or ‘context’ would be able or slightly familiar, as today, of how to hunt, fish and forage. Also…no man-at-arms (later a “fighter”), no clergyman (later a “cleric”), no studious maker of potions and careful student of the craft of magic (later a “magic-user”) nor a crafty pickpocket, safe in his environment (later a classed “Thief”) would EVER decide to exit into the insane and excessively dangerous world of “adventure”… unless they knew or were reckless enough to go far beyond into such nonsense! Yes! They absolutely CAN hunt, fish and forage….because they are NOT men-at-arms, clergymen, alchemists or apprentices, nor brigands or burglars…. They are not heros….but they are a slight cut above. They are lustful or nutty enough to be ‘adventurers’. I think that’s more than enough to grant them license to hunt, fish and forage. Even B/X gave them rules for it.
Great point and observation. If I am using a game rules as written then I will disagree with you. But if I am ignoring the rules then I agree with you. It is all about how our group chooses to use the rules and rule book.
I think you miss ther point of the lack of rules for skills. Originally there were no rules for skills because those things were just allowed without a skill check. It was all theater of the mind and the only thing that needed roles was combat. Me thinks you read too much into the intent of the original war gamers who made the game up. I love WhiteBox, and it is my game of choice so I find it funny how you and I get a different read from the same book.
Pretty much the best D&D variant ever made. Cleaned up ODND, but still quite capable of running the original modules perfectly. Did a test run of The Keep On The Borderlands, and the only thing that required any thinking was electrum coins.
Right tool for the right job! Rules to live by.
Trust me, I went back to AD&D 2nd Edition from 5e nonsense... I missed the editions of D&D that gave you a broader goal to look forward to by 9-10 level, things like Temple or Stronghold construction. The inclusion of things like Kingdom intrigue, and Wider-World political involvement.
I found Whitebox thanks to your previous channel. It has become my go to edition of DnD particularly with James Spahn's expansions. Also love the unified Saving Throw as an easy way of adjudicating most questions,.
Lots to think about! Great video!
Thank you.
I know this goes against Dave’s views on role playing in his early historical minis games where players took on the role of leaders/officers in the armies, but it always seemed to me that for Gary, the “role” in role-playing was mostly about “class.” In other words, the “role” of the character is the role in the game and in the party, I am a fighter, you are the magic-user, etc.
Interesting. This is why how a thing is written matters. However, this is why it has stood for 50 years because we can interpret it...Kinda like the Constitution. Lol. The key to a thing's longevity and value may well be its vagueness. The rules and intent are open to interpretation and this may be early D&Ds greatest legacy.
Arrow making is Fletcher.
Bow making is Bowyer.
Agreed….BUT… we’ve always found it fun to have very basic ‘backgrounds’.
No great big huge backstory for a character that may die within 30 mins of play (haha), but enough that can simply differentiate.
Three human fighters….one has a background in lore (maybe his stats reflect with an above average Int), another has a background being a forester, another may be your basic tank (and perhaps has a high Con, heck maybe the “tank” happens to have an above average Char!…he’s a charmer!… what a diverse wrecking crew!) etc etc…. Fun stuff. No skills at all! But lots of stuff for DMs and the players to use and use together! 🙂
No need to hire (sometimes) when one PC may have a relevant background. No power gaming. No min-maxing. No silliness. Just a basic human fighter who knows a, b or c. (For example). It’s good stuff I believe.
Agreed, I like to ask my players for a short motivation or sentence about their characters, especially if they are new characters. It is not either or but rules do dictate much if you adhere to them.
Holy Shiz, this is the first video of yours i seen but you really gave me an interesting perspective of rules in general.
In listening to your review here I am reminded of the D&D games we used to play when I was in college. where adventuring was full of trepidation; where we were first level for a long time and an experienced character/NPC was second or even 3rd and power and influence leveled correspondingly.
As I wrote this I remembered a gaming magazine that listed out levels for characters for The Lord of the Rings where Aragorn was a 3rd-level Ranger and Gandolf was a 5th-level Wizard.
I suppose if you keep a handle on advancement you can keep the threat level there and RP renown and such.
Nice job.
Wow! Agreed. That is very cool. I definitely see Aragorn as 3rd level and Gandolf as 5th level. Now, that's good stuff.
DUDE, "I want to make a poison" is a perfect way to make a quest. Don't say there are no rules, say "Do you have a poison recipe?"
Placed in the game for wealth control
I’ll allow hunting based on dexterity and wisdom scores. If the scores are low, it’ll be 1 in 6 chance in 2-24 hours time. If it’s mid, I’ll do 2 in 6 chance in 1-12 hours. If the scores are high, it’s 3 in 6 chance in 1-6 hours.
Thanks for this video! And how could I define for example what ingredients an Alchemist needs to prepare some kind of potion? There is no such rule in the book, should I just make it up on my own?
I remember being a sub of your old channel. What was it called? I just can't remember.
I can most definitely wrap my head around the concept of hiring others to do a lot of the tasks that so many newer RPGs give the players as "skills"... but there really seems to be no reason for the players to not be able to hunt for their own food IF the area would support it. I mean, sure, if the area could support it but it happens to be illegal to do so (such as a protected King's Wood or something of the like), then of course, NO "legal" hunting. But, seriously, people hunt for their food all the time. Literally. There is no reason that the players couldn't figure it out, like I said, IF the situation were such where they were allowed to do so. They seem capable of "hunting" Goblins in a cave, so how could they not figure out how to fish in a pond or hunt in a forest? None the less, I do enjoy how so many people are coming back to the games that we played back in the 70's and 80's... the style of RPG where the DM and players are part of a world that THEY are making as they go along. Rulings, not rules. Great video... really nice to see some love being given to this style of game :)
As a follow-up to the point that I was making... a YEAR ago. I really think you missed what the author of the book was saying on Page 4 with concerns to things being purposely left out of the 'rules'. You kept going on about how you as the DM/GM would not allow certain things in your game, because you want to run games RAW, and that this book did not say that A, B, or C, was included in the rules, so, you wouldn't allow them. Again... Page 4, at the bottom... clearly explains the lack of certain things. At the end of the day, it is a game that can be run in any way you want at your table. The thing is, to imply that because something was left out of the book means that the author intended it to convey a certain thing, when it CLEARLY says that was not the case... seemed a bit disingenuous. Personally, I really do enjoy this rule set. It is simple, straightforward, and it is open to a world of tweaking and adaptation.
I also have to strongly disagree with adventurers (having no discrete rules) ‘cannot’ hunt nor forage.
Even basic ‘folk’ in such a “realm” or ‘context’ would be able or slightly familiar, as today, of how to hunt, fish and forage.
Also…no man-at-arms (later a “fighter”), no clergyman (later a “cleric”), no studious maker of potions and careful student of the craft of magic (later a “magic-user”) nor a crafty pickpocket, safe in his environment (later a classed “Thief”) would EVER decide to exit into the insane and excessively dangerous world of “adventure”… unless they knew or were reckless enough to go far beyond into such nonsense!
Yes! They absolutely CAN hunt, fish and forage….because they are NOT men-at-arms, clergymen, alchemists or apprentices, nor brigands or burglars….
They are not heros….but they are a slight cut above.
They are lustful or nutty enough to be ‘adventurers’.
I think that’s more than enough to grant them license to hunt, fish and forage.
Even B/X gave them rules for it.
Great point and observation. If I am using a game rules as written then I will disagree with you. But if I am ignoring the rules then I agree with you. It is all about how our group chooses to use the rules and rule book.
I think you miss ther point of the lack of rules for skills. Originally there were no rules for skills because those things were just allowed without a skill check. It was all theater of the mind and the only thing that needed roles was combat. Me thinks you read too much into the intent of the original war gamers who made the game up. I love WhiteBox, and it is my game of choice so I find it funny how you and I get a different read from the same book.