Less is more. I love Whitebox because I can do anything with it. I started playing back in the early 80's when house rules were a given. We house ruled everything to fit our needs depending on what type campaign we wanted to run. There are no extra rules to get in the way it's a nice tight little system that again I can house rule to fit my needs. Oh and it's pretty darned good for doing some solo gaming too! Love me some Whitebox.
I fully agree. The beauty of White Box games is in the simplicity. The more specificity you add into the game in terms of multiple classes/skills, you start to have to tightly regiment what's possible for different characters to protect what each class is best at. In fact, I've scaled my OD&D White Box game down to one race (human) and two classes (fighters and magic-users). I've added a very light backgrounds system on top to give some thematic variance across the classes. Mechanically it works like a combination of WB:FMAG's thief skill progression mixed with the character type options from James Spahn's Untold Adventures/Unsung Heroes. Anyone can pick a lock with thieves' tools on a 1-in-6. High Dex? I'll give you a 2-in-6 chance. Someone with a thief background though gets a 2-in-6 out of the gate and will progress to a 3-in-6 chance the next time their combat and saving throws get better.
I have similar sentiments. I like just 3 classes fighter, mage, cleric. And keep the thief class to role playing, armor, and dex scores on d6. drduick.com/D&D/d6_skill/ Even better is adding dice. drduick.com/D&D/d6_adding_dice/1d6_adding_dice.html
I am really looking forward to WB Cyclopedia. When it comes to the more classes, I am not sure what to think. I love the simplicity of cleric - fighter - magic user, but I can understand the desire of players for more variants. Omnibus has interesting options (and I prefer the Omnibus thief to the FMAG one). There are even some of the classes in OSE Advanced Fantasy I like. The main problem with additional classes would be compatibility.
As you can see, I'm on the fence. One of the great selling points of WB is simplicity. Does making a bunch of classes take that away? Or does it force the DM to say a bunch of "NOs" to classes they don't want in their game?
Great video - love the Swords and Wizardry rulebooks - I think the key with is that they are at the end of the day OPTIONAL it's the simple with extras if players at your table are interested. Probably didn't need these extra in prints options but they aren't ultimately necessary but I'm personally looking for a toolkit book to pick and choose from books/PDFs that can be shared at the table.
Having too much options can hinder player creativity. Yes... It's also overwhelming to understand all the subtle differences. But, I aslo like when a book as an advanced version, more options for a GM or a group that is ready for more. I can see why James wants to regroup all his work. If it was me, I would have a 3 small book. 1st a core rule book for players, 2nd a dm book and 3rd an advanced book with class options and more options. I have not bought White Star but I read the pdf. I was interested to get it and run Star Wars adventure (west-end game). I was checking the 1st version compared to the 2nd of WStar. I prefered the 1st: It was simple, clean and with Companion book seems to be good start. I didn't buy - not knowing if I will find a group to play. Even in solo, I'm not sure... We can always ignore all the extra classes and extra options... but there is something nice with a solid core rule book that let player and DM do small mofication. And it teaches them something: bend the rules, create something!
The Thief should've been part of the OD&D from the beginning. Having a fast, lightly armored sneaky guy is its own niche. Of course all classes can try anything. But there should be someone who is better at it. Everyone can fighter but there should be a class that is better at it. And Fighters stealthing around in metal armor with huge weapons doesn't make any sense. I've heard of some DMs back then and today that require the Fighter be only wearing leather armor when attempting subterfuge. Well damn you're already half way to having a full blown Thief anyways.
@@smugzoid5156 So why not just have a Thief class at that point...lol. That is the reason why it was created. So Fighters could stick with their shiny armor wielding their sword & shield. So next WB game we play I'm going to run with a Fighter who wears leather armor and backstabs people. I'll carry some Thieves tools' too so I get better bonuses at thievery. :)
@@ChuckBarchuk sure, that works great. You forgo armor bonuses, for the ability to sneak. Works great. Even better if you were a cleric. So change it up in the keep of the flaming pass. Go leather, sneaking, lock picking cleric. I will look at your stats to infer your odds of success.
@@smugzoid5156 Silly. Why not just have the Thief. Again that's why it was created. There was a niche there. The other party members can still do all the same things that a Thief can do. But the Thief or Fighter pretending to be Thief should do it better. Honestly the class that I think is the most superfluous would the Cleric.
Did anyone ever find out anything? I mean it seems to have been almost finished a year ago and .....Did it end up getting scrapped? Is it still coming out? Do we know anything more?
I hope we end up getting a hardcover. I appreciate the accessibility and price of White box + the omnibus, but a good looking hardcover just seems to make the material seem more definitive and serious. I know that sounds silly, but that how it seems for me.@@smugzoid5156
@@smugzoid5156 My houserules for WB are BX-ified. So I have only the 7. But I wouldn't be against someone playing some other class if they absolutely wanted to. But it's not my preference. The core 7 is plenty.
Less is more. I love Whitebox because I can do anything with it. I started playing back in the early 80's when house rules were a given. We house ruled everything to fit our needs depending on what type campaign we wanted to run. There are no extra rules to get in the way it's a nice tight little system that again I can house rule to fit my needs. Oh and it's pretty darned good for doing some solo gaming too! Love me some Whitebox.
I concur, it is my favorite system
I fully agree. The beauty of White Box games is in the simplicity. The more specificity you add into the game in terms of multiple classes/skills, you start to have to tightly regiment what's possible for different characters to protect what each class is best at. In fact, I've scaled my OD&D White Box game down to one race (human) and two classes (fighters and magic-users). I've added a very light backgrounds system on top to give some thematic variance across the classes. Mechanically it works like a combination of WB:FMAG's thief skill progression mixed with the character type options from James Spahn's Untold Adventures/Unsung Heroes. Anyone can pick a lock with thieves' tools on a 1-in-6. High Dex? I'll give you a 2-in-6 chance. Someone with a thief background though gets a 2-in-6 out of the gate and will progress to a 3-in-6 chance the next time their combat and saving throws get better.
I have similar sentiments. I like just 3 classes fighter, mage, cleric. And keep the thief class to role playing, armor, and dex scores on d6.
drduick.com/D&D/d6_skill/
Even better is adding dice.
drduick.com/D&D/d6_adding_dice/1d6_adding_dice.html
I am really looking forward to WB Cyclopedia. When it comes to the more classes, I am not sure what to think. I love the simplicity of cleric - fighter - magic user, but I can understand the desire of players for more variants. Omnibus has interesting options (and I prefer the Omnibus thief to the FMAG one). There are even some of the classes in OSE Advanced Fantasy I like.
The main problem with additional classes would be compatibility.
As you can see, I'm on the fence. One of the great selling points of WB is simplicity. Does making a bunch of classes take that away? Or does it force the DM to say a bunch of "NOs" to classes they don't want in their game?
Great video - love the Swords and Wizardry rulebooks - I think the key with is that they are at the end of the day OPTIONAL it's the simple with extras if players at your table are interested. Probably didn't need these extra in prints options but they aren't ultimately necessary but I'm personally looking for a toolkit book to pick and choose from books/PDFs that can be shared at the table.
I am very curious on what it will be, I'm hoping he puts a couple modules in it (like the omnibus).
@@smugzoid5156 Agreed -still I like your videos on this.
Having too much options can hinder player creativity. Yes... It's also overwhelming to understand all the subtle differences.
But, I aslo like when a book as an advanced version, more options for a GM or a group that is ready for more. I can see why James wants to regroup all his work. If it was me, I would have a 3 small book. 1st a core rule book for players, 2nd a dm book and 3rd an advanced book with class options and more options.
I have not bought White Star but I read the pdf. I was interested to get it and run Star Wars adventure (west-end game). I was checking the 1st version compared to the 2nd of WStar. I prefered the 1st: It was simple, clean and with Companion book seems to be good start. I didn't buy - not knowing if I will find a group to play. Even in solo, I'm not sure... We can always ignore all the extra classes and extra options... but there is something nice with a solid core rule book that let player and DM do small mofication. And it teaches them something: bend the rules, create something!
I agree. The core book is fantastic. The companion helps out of you want a simple skill set.
I find much of the galaxy edition unused at my table....
The Thief should've been part of the OD&D from the beginning. Having a fast, lightly armored sneaky guy is its own niche. Of course all classes can try anything. But there should be someone who is better at it. Everyone can fighter but there should be a class that is better at it. And Fighters stealthing around in metal armor with huge weapons doesn't make any sense. I've heard of some DMs back then and today that require the Fighter be only wearing leather armor when attempting subterfuge. Well damn you're already half way to having a full blown Thief anyways.
Yea, HOWEVER.... if the DM states, if you wear leather armor you can back stab. It would give fighters an option to be "thief like."
@@smugzoid5156 So why not just have a Thief class at that point...lol. That is the reason why it was created. So Fighters could stick with their shiny armor wielding their sword & shield. So next WB game we play I'm going to run with a Fighter who wears leather armor and backstabs people. I'll carry some Thieves tools' too so I get better bonuses at thievery. :)
@@ChuckBarchuk sure, that works great. You forgo armor bonuses, for the ability to sneak. Works great. Even better if you were a cleric.
So change it up in the keep of the flaming pass. Go leather, sneaking, lock picking cleric.
I will look at your stats to infer your odds of success.
@@smugzoid5156 Silly. Why not just have the Thief. Again that's why it was created. There was a niche there. The other party members can still do all the same things that a Thief can do. But the Thief or Fighter pretending to be Thief should do it better. Honestly the class that I think is the most superfluous would the Cleric.
Warrior, Rogue, Spellcaster. Done.
Did anyone ever find out anything? I mean it seems to have been almost finished a year ago and .....Did it end up getting scrapped? Is it still coming out? Do we know anything more?
Great question, my buddy Chuck says it is in production (layout and art).
I hope we end up getting a hardcover. I appreciate the accessibility and price of White box + the omnibus, but a good looking hardcover just seems to make the material seem more definitive and serious. I know that sounds silly, but that how it seems for me.@@smugzoid5156
The original 7 classes is the best: Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling. Your welcome.
So, you are opposed to the extended classes in omnibus?
@@smugzoid5156 My houserules for WB are BX-ified. So I have only the 7. But I wouldn't be against someone playing some other class if they absolutely wanted to. But it's not my preference. The core 7 is plenty.
@@ChuckBarchukwell we are back into the arguement, of race and class... which of course I always win based on logical reasoning.
@@smugzoid5156 lol
A distinct lack of Gnome illusionist. Gnomes are cool.@@ChuckBarchuk
No it will not hinder creativity. It allows people to play a halfling thief, elven cleric, or dwarf bard.
Dwarf bard.... now you have ruined my excitement..
@@smugzoid5156 lol