[RPG]: Spellcraft & Swordplay -- Fantasy Role-Playing Game, reviewed by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara (3/5)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14037.phtml

Matt Slepin's Summary:

An intriguing new offering in the "grognard game" field of remaking older Dungeons & Dragons, Spellcraft & Sorcery harkens all the way back to the primeval origins of the game with a combat system based on <i>Chainmail</i>.

Go to the full review for more information.

[The Grey Elf]

Excellent review. Thanks!

I do want to make one clarification, however: I've been lauded by several reviewers for "my" innovative take on grognardian magic.

I cannot take credit for this, and I should be clear about that before someone like Old Geezer comes along and outs that fact.

The magic system is, in point of fact, strongly inspired by the magic system in Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement, just like the combat system is inspired by Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat.

This isn't to say that either one is an exact mirror, mind you. S&S is an original game in many respects, having as much in common with its source as any other original OGL game does, but containing a lot of original thought and interpretation as well.

As Samsara points out, the game's not perfect; as a game designer I've become accustomed to looking at finished products and thinking, "Why did I do that?" I expect it happens to all of us, and certainly there are things that, if I ever do a full print run with distribution, or a second edition through Lulu, will be cleaned up. But there's a way to go before that.

As for the elite paths, my original thinking was that the harsher requirements to enter them made up for the experience advancement; I didn't want them looked at as separate classes, but rather extra abilities you got for being a sort of paragon. It's possible, however, that the harsher requirements aren't enough. If that's the case in your game, I'd recommend just increasing experience requirements by 10% for elite paths.

Again, great review! Thank you!

[Breakdaddy]

A nice well thought out review. I have a copy of the game as well and have skimmed through it. I really like what Vey has done with this game and applaud the fact that he has taken the chainmail tack with the base rules as opposed to the D20 route. The magic system that he has revived is also a welcome change from standard vancian magic. This game is definitely on my short list of games to deploy for my group in the near future.

[torbenm]

Originally Posted by The Grey Elf

The magic system is, in point of fact, strongly inspired by the magic system in Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement, just like the combat system is inspired by Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat.

The "forget if you fail" mechanism is also quite similar to the system used in Dragon Warriors, which was reviewed last week.

[maasenstodt]

Originally Posted by The Grey Elf

As Samsara points out, the game's not perfect; as a game designer I've become accustomed to looking at finished products and thinking, "Why did I do that?" I expect it happens to all of us, and certainly there are things that, if I ever do a full print run with distribution, or a second edition through Lulu, will be cleaned up. But there's a way to go before that.

I've been thinking about picking up S&S because of the attractiveness of its unique tie to Chainmail along with the recommendations of James Raggi and James Maliszewski, but I have some niggling issues, most of which were brought up in the review (e.g., the use of percentiles for Thief skills, the disjointed artwork, etc.), that have dissuaded me from doing so.

I've considered C&C to be my go to version of D&D since that game's 2nd printing was released, but I've been wowed by Matt Finch's work on S&W, which has inspired me to set to work on a new West Marches style game. That gives me plenty to keep me busy for the time being, so I'll wait until that revised edition of S&S is made available before dropping my cash on a hard copy.

Keep up the good work, Jason!

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by maasenstodt

I've been thinking about picking up S&S because of the attractiveness of its unique tie to Chainmail along with the recommendations of James Raggi and James Maliszewski, but I have some niggling issues, most of which were brought up in the review (e.g., the use of percentiles for Thief skills, the disjointed artwork, etc.), that have dissuaded me from doing so.

I've considered C&C to be my go to version of D&D since that game's 2nd printing was released, but I've been wowed by Matt Finch's work on S&W, which has inspired me to set to work on a new West Marches style game. That gives me plenty to keep me busy for the time being, so I'll wait until that revised edition of S&S is made available before dropping my cash on a hard copy.

Keep up the good work, Jason!

Well, there's not going to be a revised edition (the currently available one is technically the revised version). At some point in the distant future there may be a second edition, provided the game does well enough to merit one, or I have the cash to do a distribution-level printing.

And I still don't see the artwork as disjointed. Every gaming book showcases multiple and varied styles of artwork; I just don't see Elmore's art as being as "not-old-school" as some do.

That being said, if someone would be willing to point me towards free fantasy artwork I can use for commercial purposes that would give me good pics of elves, dwarves, halflings, dragons, wizards, and warriors, which they feel would be better suited to the game than Elmore's work...I'd be happy to have all the resources I can get!

The optional thief skills system Samsara discussed in his review is going to be in the first sourcebook, which is currently in development.

[capnzapp]

Based on my comments on other nostalgia games, you'd think I'd be griping about a Substance score of 5 here too...

But I'm not. This is a very good and reasoned review, clearly explaining how you arrived at your evaluation. Including that all-important concession that not only might this not cater to all tastes, it is not competing with modern game design at all.

Hats off - this is how a nostalgia review should be written!

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by capnzapp

Based on my comments on other nostalgia games, you'd think I'd be griping about a Substance score of 5 here too...

But I'm not. This is a very good and reasoned review, clearly explaining how you arrived at your evaluation. Including that all-important concession that not only might this not cater to all tastes, it is not competing with modern game design at all.

Hats off - this is how a nostalgia review should be written!

Well, I also put playability first when designing the game, rather than a "true-blue" re-imagining or re-rendering of old school rules. I had no real sacred cows; if I didn't think something worked, I changed it.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Originally Posted by The Grey Elf

I do want to make one clarification, however: I've been lauded by several reviewers for "my" innovative take on grognardian magic.

I cannot take credit for this, and I should be clear about that before someone like Old Geezer comes along and outs that fact.

The magic system is, in point of fact, strongly inspired by the magic system in Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement, just like the combat system is inspired by Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat.

Good point.

Originally Posted by maasenstodt

I have some niggling issues, most of which were brought up in the review (e.g., the use of percentiles for Thief skills, the disjointed artwork, etc.), that have dissuaded me from doing so.

I've considered C&C to be my go to version of D&D since that game's 2nd printing was released, but I've been wowed by Matt Finch's work on S&W....

Well, S&W doesn't have Thieves at all, so if you don't like the percentiles, you could drop the Thieves entirely and be in the same place.

I actually spent a long time dithering over whether or not to explicitly compare S&S to other examples, S&W being the obvious one. I decided not to because I felt it was potentially too distracting. In the interests of full disclosure, I think S&W is excellently done, but I have a number of problems with it and find myself really preferring S&S, which came as rather a surprise to me. But, different strokes and all that.

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara

Well, S&W doesn't have Thieves at all, so if you don't like the percentiles, you could drop the Thieves entirely and be in the same place.

Indeed--no thieves at all vs. %-based thief skills...

I actually spent a long time dithering over whether or not to explicitly compare S&S to other examples, S&W being the obvious one. I decided not to because I felt it was potentially too distracting. In the interests of full disclosure, I think S&W is excellently done, but I have a number of problems with it and find myself really preferring S&S, which came as rather a surprise to me. But, different strokes and all that.

And that is the most flattering comment I've gotten from ANYONE about S&S.