| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW - if someone is interested in getting some Pathfinder-related content published, Pathways, a free ezine, is up to issue 17 and has some interesting stuff. Quality varies by entry, but it's a useful vehicle for amateur contributions and probably a good entry point.
And good to see Deth back.
Err...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In light of Shifty's recent comments, I copied this from a new thread, 'I miss Dragon Magazine.'
"I have probably 80 to 85% of the hard copy issues they published, and I miss the monthly magazine I waited so eagerly for. And I particularly loved the 1e and 2e issues, because they not only included articles on mechanics but historical articles about different things, unlike the 3.x issues that dealt mainly with mechanics.
And the covers! Oh, the covers! Every cover told a story in the 1e and 2e editions."
Someone else commented they wish issues were available online...
Welcome back, Alzrius.
Gygax talks about the GM-player relationship more in his other book, Master of the Game, but he does address it a bit in Role Playing Mastery. He doesn't believe there should be a hostile, antagonistic relationship between the GM and player:
Players and GMs alike, take heed: Despite misguided perceptions
to the contrary, the game master is not the enemy of the
player characters! At least, he shouldn’t be. Those unenlightened
or unscrupulous would-be GMs who take this stance of hostility
toward PCs (or worse yet, toward players) won’t be around long
anyway, for their players will desert them in short order.
Who then opposes the players’ game personas? The GM does indeed have
the duty of effecting opposition and posing problems-but not on
a person-versus-person or person-versus-character basis. He does
this by playing the parts of the various beings who are adversarial
to the PCs engaged in the challenge posed by the session-on a
character-versus-character basis, to distinguish it from the other
forms of interaction just named.
In addition to being the architect of the world in which the PCs’ adventures take place, the game master is also the representative of all the opposing creatures, forces, and phenomena that strive to keep the PCs from achieving their desired ends. This opposition must be personified in such a way as to present the maximum challenge for PCs and their players while not being so overwhelmingly powerful that any PC
who dares to resist or combat the opposition is smeared flat when
he makes his first move.
This approach is valid and important even in the first stages of campaign creation; for instance, a GM who designs a world where the environment itself is fraught with naturally existing perils is asking for trouble. The point is to challenge the PCs, not kill them outright. The game tells what the nature of challenges
Presumably, you need to have that bedrock of trust to have the non-hostile relationship. And since so many early adventures were kill-fests, without that base of good feeling, game sessions could become emotionally ugly in a hurry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is from Gygax' book on Game Mastering. His first listed reason why campaigns fail is 'Disaffection with the Game Mastering. And among the reasons for that is the following:
There is also the "GM as adversary" problem. Some Game Masters place themselves in such a role, seeing the campaign as a GM-versus-players situation. This remnant from other game forms is highly destructive to player interest. If the GM contrives to be an opponent of the players and their characters, then the characters are short-lived, they have no ongoing relationship to the milieu, no prospect of betterment, and the players have no fun.
After all, the GM in the multiple roles as Arbiter, Moving Force, and Referee has all the power necessary to effortlessly "defeat" the players of a game. However, the Game Master thus assures his or her own demise too, for the group just melts away, leaving the "killer GM" alone with his brief moment of triumph. One of the things a Master GM must never be is a direct and personal adversary.
Which goes with Alzrius' assertion.
B
And good to see Deth back.
Err...
YOU CALLED? oh, Dr Deth.... sorry, see you in 53 years.
And I particularly loved the 1e and 2e issues, because they not only included articles on mechanics but historical articles about different things, unlike the 3.x issues that dealt mainly with mechanics.
And the covers! Oh, the covers! Every cover told a story in the 1e and 2e editions."
Oh so very much, and I think they touch on a few things here that fit right into the Gygax rules.
The provision of a central point of discussion and key topics - "Hey Bob, did you read that article on page 104 this month about Kobold eating habits? I'm totally going to incorporate that in my next game" - great for developing dialogue amongst hobbyists.
The covers were fantastic, and similarly, there were always high quality art pieces to be found throughout. Once again, food for the imagination.
Anyhow, I'm just going to ride back off on my dinosaur.
Killer GM's have always been a pain. If I just wanted to have a crappy time or argue I could just call in to the office and do some free over-time.
I agree that the GM should be trying to be collaborative, but I also agree that the GM should be representative of all the various forces and should plan accordingly. It's not being the fun police if the party acts like Murder Hobos and the GM acts out the natural part of the local constabulary and has them detained etc.
Similarly, the various 'hot button' issues today just seem like the pendulum swinging too far the other way where players have a bit of an attitude that their character is sacred and inviolate, and their deities should be seen but not heard.
There is also a general unwillingness for anything to happen in game without very clear mechanics in place - they resent and bristle at anything not covered by a specific rule supporting it... magical wall? Must be a Wall of Force, cannot be some kind of divine intervention. Plot armour not allowed to be a thing. Bad guys not entitled to dying words, because that is a free action and they already have the dead condition.
Funny you mention the specific rules thing. That is at the heart of the distinction between old school and modern games in Matt Finch's Quick Primer to Old School Gaming. Summed up with "rulings not rules." Rules and character sheets are sublimated to player skill.
I picked Swords &Wizardry for my upcoming game because I wanted a less weighty rules set and to let these PC gamers role play. We have added two players with pen and paper experience. So, I should see a couple different playing styles at the table.
Indeed, and now anything you want to do you need a 'Feat' for, whereas before it was a case of looking at various skills and trying to determine 'can I do...?'
The GM had the latitude to work something into a story.
Now we need Feats, we need a customised PRC or even full blown class to specifically represent my idea.
Want to be a Samurai? Fighter.
Want to be a Knight? Fighter.
I think the endless proliferation of rules and endless softcovers sort of set the subtext that it's 'all about the crunch' - even though ruleplay and roleplay can certainly co-exist.
Back in the day it seemed ok to approach a game as a full blown roleplay experience, or a dungeon bash with beer and pretzels and still use the same ruleset with no problem.
This almost hour-long interview with one of the founding fathers, Tim Kask, is well worth listening to. And I'm thinking about a separate thread to discuss a few points.
But go to about the 38:45 spot and listen for a few minutes. He talks about the idea that a DM is out to get the players and if that were true, why in the world would someone to play in such a game? He specifically mentions trust at the end of this segment.
His suggestion that a GM would benefit by reading books on Appendix N is interesting. And he gives three 'at the table' tips to be a good GM.
His points about D&D as a mechanism for social interaction is certainly worthy investigating.
Really, just a good interview.
This site also has a neat interview with Rob Kuntz.
It is legit to run a Killer Dungeon (such as Tomb of Horrors) as a competition, but just so long as a warning is given first. Note that is exactly what ToH was. No one went in Gygaxs ToH dungeon with the idea that was just another dungeon crawl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, and now anything you want to do you need a 'Feat' for, whereas before it was a case of looking at various skills and trying to determine 'can I do...?'
The GM had the latitude to work something into a story.
Now we need Feats, we need a customised PRC or even full blown class to specifically represent my idea.
Want to be a Samurai? Fighter.
Want to be a Knight? Fighter.I think the endless proliferation of rules and endless softcovers sort of set the subtext that it's 'all about the crunch' - even though ruleplay and roleplay can certainly co-exist.
Back in the day it seemed ok to approach a game as a full blown roleplay experience, or a dungeon bash with beer and pretzels and still use the same ruleset with no problem.
Oh Shifty! I'm right there with you. I remember playing AD&D in high school, and the introduction of Oriental Adventures opened up the idea of playing an oriental warrior. Loved it! Some of the abilities in there were VERY corner closet abilities that were either only useful once in a while, or not at all. But the FLAVOR was what I was after for my character. Still remember doodling little "oriental" symbols on his character sheet, and trying to approach every interaction with an NPC as a chance to show my adherence to a code of honor.
Now I look at all the character option books, and it makes me get verklempt. I'm not sure where the happy medium is, because I know that character options are not inherently evil, but when you flood the market with so many character options that the average GM has to have a "standing order" of what "they allow" at "their table." I think you've reached the point of retrogression.
I keep eyeing D&D 5e and thinking how nice that would be, and, as I mentioned earlier, I keep having zero luck selling the ruleset on my boys because they like the wealth of character options Pathfinder offers.
Perhaps it is only GMs that get tired of bloat? I can't see casual players caring AT ALL how many character option books there are. Why should they, it just means more ways to build their epic hero.
Want to be a Samurai? Fighter.
There was a Samurai class in 1977.
There was a Samurai class in 1977.
1976, in Dragon magazine.
It didn't make an 'official' hardcover book until 1985 with the launch of the amazing and deliciously flavoursome 'Oriental Adventures'.
Assuming you were playing AD&D and not BECMI of course...!
Otherwise, Fighter.
|
There was a Samurai class in 1977.1976, in Dragon magazine.
It didn't make an 'official' hardcover book until 1985 with the launch of the amazing and deliciously flavoursome 'Oriental Adventures'.
Assuming you were playing AD&D and not BECMI of course...!
Otherwise, Fighter.
The 1976 version appeared in issue #3; it lacked a lot of detail and substance, and it was clearly written using the Original D&D rules. In 1981, issue #49, the Samurai appeared in much greater detail as well as substance, and it was clearly written using the 1st edition rules (and it was an NPC class).
The height of the 'Japanese' craze of the late 70's early 80's.
All we needed were bad headbands with 'Ninja' written on them from the back of comic books and we were good to go.
Hmmm. Memories huh?
I still remember that D&D (and RPG's in general) were often about ambience too. I still do things like hold Talk Like a Pirate Day events where we run scenarios that are Pirate themed, but we run them in a park down by the harbour so we can hear see and smell the water (and watch sailboats swing by), or other sessions down by a river in a national park where we are frequently interrupted by inquisitive wildlife, but once again you are talking adventures in a forest... whilst walking in a forest. For Chinese New Year I ran a weekend where we played the Quest for Perfection trilogy and we ate various asian foods, I built a scale model of Nesting Swallow for the finale, we kept the traditional Japanese music playing (Shakuhachi) and got deeply invested.
I have a few other ideas for other events where it is a bit more immersive, but I find the continuous need for a grid and rule checks something that can break the natural flow.
There's a fantastic little trail that runs along a river nearby that passes through several picnic areas, I was thinking an adventure like Perils of the Pirate Pact is divided into clear scenes, the players could literally walk along the river to the next picnic area and find the next scene and so on and so forth. Because there's a neat little road that runs along nearby that picks up the same picnic spots... so they could leave you in one spot, but you'd already be at the next spot by the time they got there.
Anyhow, off topic...!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAGING SWAN PRESS & CREIGHTON BROADHURST
Creighton Broadhurst runs Raging Swan Press over in the UK. They've put out a TON of stuff for Pathfinder, and have expanded to 5th Edition and some OSR stuff.
I've got a couple dozen items, from his campaign setting to modules to GM aids. Consistently high quality. 'Retribution' is one of the best first level adventures I've ever seen and 'Shadowed Keep on the Borderlands' is a great homage to ToEE's The Moat House.
Creighton has his own blog and he writes some pretty cool old school commentary. Such as this one about Timeless Advice from the Keep on the Borderlands.
Another was Two Reasons I Love Resource Management
And The Concept of CR-Appropriate Challenges is Too Ingrained in our Minds.
He plays Pathfinder, but he's got old school sensibilities (he was a Greyhawk writer).
I get his posts through Raging Swan Press on FB, but most are from his website, CreightonBroadhurst.com. He reprints blog posts, which brings lots of neat stuff up.
The impetus for starting this awesome thread up again was a post I decided to write on why I picked Swords & Wizardry over Pathfinder for a game I'm going to run. And that was really a discussion of old school vs. modern gaming style.
And the heart of that was Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming.
The post went live this morning. I think it's got some pretty good stuff that reflects a lot of what we've been talking about over the life of this thread.
I think folks will enjoy it and I'd love to see some comments here in this thread. I quoted Gygax early in the post.
Mended - Frog God reposted my Black Gate Swords & Wizardry essay and the first comment was similar to yours about getting your kids to leave all those Pathfinder options behind.
What can you say that would get Pathfinder players to try S&W?
And I came up with a reply:
'In the ‘Role Playing Mastery’ thread I link to in the post, a guy is having the same dilemma, wanting to move his sons’ game to 5th edition, but they love the plethora of Pathfinder options too much to switch.
It’s a tough obstacle to overcome because all those options are right there, written down, available for your character to use. And there are a LOT. But maybe one way is to try and sell them on the idea that in a rules lite system, you actually can do more.
You’re not limited to attempting just those feats and skills written down on the character sheet. It’s more like a movie, where the player gets to explain what they want to do in a scene. And anything is allowable. They can try to swing from a chandelier or pull a Matrix kind of move. What they attempt is limited only by their imagination – not the character sheet.
I know my response is a bit thin - it's a really tough sell. Most players seem to love the plethora of options (which I call 'options bloat'). And I get it: I'm a big Pathfinder fan myself. But looking at it from behind the GM screen, it's kind of like, "Get your head out of your cell phone and look around." Don't be tied to your character sheet. Look up and tell me what your character wants to do and maybe we'll try it.'
There was a Samurai class in 1977.1976, in Dragon magazine.
It didn't make an 'official' hardcover book until 1985 with the launch of the amazing and deliciously flavoursome 'Oriental Adventures'.
Assuming you were playing AD&D and not BECMI of course...!
Otherwise, Fighter.
Manual of Aurania.
Manual of Aurania.
Oh cool!
I'd never heard of that one, I suppose that is also the point of the wayback, no internet - just word of mouth, Dragon mag, FLGS.
Here in Australia we were very much out of the loop when it came to anything other than official merch, and it was easier to get things mail order from the UK than the US.
Mind you there were obviously some odd gems arriving, I scored a white box at a garage sale a couple of years ago for $5.
Interestingly, the fourth member of our gaming group declined to play Swords & Wizardry. He prefers lots of combat and not much role play, with some more optimization.
We have such a hard time getting together, I'll just go with three players (and a number of characters to be determined).
I thought he'd try it. I'm viewing this as a gaming experiment. Already collecting data!
Mended - Frog God reposted my Black Gate Swords & Wizardry essay and the first comment was similar to yours about getting your kids to leave all those Pathfinder options behind.
What can you say that would get Pathfinder players to try S&W?
And I came up with a reply:
'In the ‘Role Playing Mastery’ thread I link to in the post, a guy is having the same dilemma, wanting to move his sons’ game to 5th edition, but they love the plethora of Pathfinder options too much to switch.
It’s a tough obstacle to overcome because all those options are right there, written down, available for your character to use. And there are a LOT. But maybe one way is to try and sell them on the idea that in a rules lite system, you actually can do more.
You’re not limited to attempting just those feats and skills written down on the character sheet. It’s more like a movie, where the player gets to explain what they want to do in a scene. And anything is allowable. They can try to swing from a chandelier or pull a Matrix kind of move. What they attempt is limited only by their imagination – not the character sheet.
I know my response is a bit thin - it's a really tough sell. Most players seem to love the plethora of options (which I call 'options bloat'). And I get it: I'm a big Pathfinder fan myself. But looking at it from behind the GM screen, it's kind of like, "Get your head out of your cell phone and look around." Don't be tied to your character sheet. Look up and tell me what your character wants to do and maybe we'll try it.'
So funny! Your argument here is the exact argument I use for tearing them away from RPG video games to come to the table and play. In a game, say for example Skyrim, when you see a collection of crates, you may or may not be able to interact with it. When we play at the table, when I've described the environment, it is a playable environment in it's entirety. Want to light the crates in front of you on fire? Yep, you can do that, and guess what, they'll burn. Want to cause a distraction by throwing a rock onto the roof of the building across the street? Yep you can do that.
I do agree that your argument is a bit thin for switching from one table system to another. No matter the system, any RPG should allow a good GM and good players to do whatever their imagination creates. The one thing I've been mulling over lately is how much they LOVE character creation. They love it! We've made more new characters in the years they've played than I can even remember. They have a whole folder full of characters they've played once, or maybe even not at all. That is the beauty, and the trap, of the options bloat. They have a folder of characters as thick as my wrist and not one of them is exactly the same. The beauty of 5e and other old school systems is the elegant simplicity of play. I just need to find a selling point for my boys for that elegant simplicity of play. Part of me wants to create characters for them, and say, hey, let's play a little encounter with these pregens in the 5e system, and see how it works? Another option I have is that my oldest son is currently eating up R.A. Salvatore's Drizz't novels. If I picked up this Faerun accessory book, I might just be able to convince him it would be worthwhile.
I'll tell you what though, I need to come up with something that gets them back at the table, because I'm starting to get the withdrawal itch!
Looking forward to reading your post Holmes! I'll pop back in and comment once I have a chance to read it thoroughly later this morning.
The impetus for starting this awesome thread up again was a post I decided to write on why I picked Swords & Wizardry over Pathfinder for a game I'm going to run. And that was really a discussion of old school vs. modern gaming style.
And the heart of that was Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming.
The post went live this morning. I think it's got some pretty good stuff that reflects a lot of what we've been talking about over the life of this thread.
I think folks will enjoy it and I'd love to see some comments here in this thread. I quoted Gygax early in the post.
Excellent stuff Holmes. I really look forward to future posts about how the game is actually progressing. Good thing your Dwarf Fighter/Cleric rolled that high Wisdom score, eh?! :)
Mended - I don't remember a lot of the old rules. I was surprised to see zero spells for a 1st level Cleric (without the wisdom bonus). Ouch! And especially since the Druid's 1st level spells are useless. We laughed about 'Predict Weather.'
I've given the group (which is now three players) the option of 2 characters each, or one each and I'll run an NPC. So, we might lose the dwarven Cleric. I hardly knew him...
First session will be Monday night, which will give them the opportunity to roll new characters for the group dynamic if they want.
I've started writing down elements that show the difference between a PC background and a pen and paper one.
And I'm not just belittling PC gaming (which some people do). I played Adventure on my Atari 2600 and have video gamed almost all of my life. But I become more and more convinced there is a distinction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember a lot of the old rules. I was surprised to see zero spells for a 1st level Cleric (without the wisdom bonus). Ouch! And especially since the Druid's 1st level spells are useless. We laughed about 'Predict Weather.'
No 1st level spells was a thing for Basic and it's various versions and clones. In 1st edition AD&D, clerics most certainly received a spell at 1st level (and of course more if their WIS score was high enough). As for the Druid's spell list, I can't speak of their list in S&W, but in 1st edition AD&D, the spell list is not that bad, considering.
And I must say, the ability to predict the weather, can be a very handy thing... For example, if the party will be traveling a mountain pass during the winter, knowing that a major snow storm or blizzard is coming could mean the difference between life or freezing to death...
Just sayin' :-)
Elf - Most of my rules memory starts with AD&D, so going through S&W is really pulling stuff out of the memory vault!
We didn't find much help with the spell list. And the +1 to hit for Faerie Fire is at the GM's discretion.
Level 1
Detect Magic
Detect Snares & Pits
Faerie Fire
Locate Animals
Predict Weather
Purify Water
Though there are a couple useful ones at second level.
The player mentioned that in WoW, the Druid is recommended as a good hybrid - helpful with either melee or spells.
But in S&W, the spells don't do much early. Shape changing doesn't occur for several levels and at 1d4 HP and leather, they probably won't last long in melee.
So, while maybe a good choice because leveling occurs so quickly in a PC game, it's going to be a tough hall in S&W. A Ranger seems like a more powerful outdoor-oriented character. But I'm letting them play anything they want within the rules. Fun is the goal.
|
|
Level 1
Detect Magic
Detect Snares & Pits
Faerie Fire
Locate Animals
Predict Weather
Purify Water
Wow, that is pretty bad...
Here is the 1st edition list for 1st level spells:
Animal friendship
Detect Magic
Detect Snares & Pits
Entangle
Faerie Fire
Invisibility to Animals
Locate Animals
Pass Without Trace
Predict Weather
Purify Water
Shillelagh
Speak With Animals
Pretty big difference... And a lot more useful with spells like Shillelagh and Entangle.
Druids are also a lot more hardy at 1d8 HP...
So, it is interesting seeing these differences between the two systems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in S&W, the spells don't do much early. Shape changing doesn't occur for several levels and at 1d4 HP and leather, they probably won't last long in melee.So, while maybe a good choice because leveling occurs so quickly in a PC game, it's going to be a tough hall in S&W. A Ranger seems like a more powerful outdoor-oriented character. But I'm letting them play anything they want within the rules. Fun is the goal.
Right!!! Here's the thing with that though, which you'll hear a lot in the min/max, flavor vs. optimization threads. It isn't fun to die. Right?! I mean, it isn't. You want a character that is viable, and this is one of those situations where a players ability absolutely has to trump the game design. You want a druid, why? Because they are awesome in WoW... Looking at the early specs you have here, they are NOT awesome in S&W, at least at early levels. Do they progress quickly, and gain access to some powerful spells after suffering through damn near uselessness (read: I ready my sling) in early levels? They darn well better, or you're going to run into a situation where nobody ever plays a druid, because, why would you... This, for me anyway speaks to the reason why some of the changes in game design happened. It also speaks to, at least parts of, the idea of balance. Clearly, from what you've displayed here, characters are not balanced at early levels. Do they balance over the course of leveling up? Over the course of a long running campaign? These might be good things to keep track of as your game continues.
|
|
Kind of odd too. OD&D, which S&W supposedly emulates, didn't have a Druid (or a Ranger for that matter)
Druids did appear in OD&D. They were in the "Greyhawk Supplement" (1975) as NPCs, and then again in the "Eldritch Wizardry Supplement" (1976), though this time, as a proper PC class.
The Ranger was in the second issue (1975) of "The Strategic Review", which was the predecessor of "(The) Dragon Magazine".
Kind of odd too. OD&D, which S&W supposedly emulates, didn't have a Druid (or a Ranger for that matter)Druids did appear in OD&D. They were in the "Greyhawk Supplement" (1975) as NPCs, and then again in the "Eldritch Wizardry Supplement" (1976), though this time, as a proper PC class.
The Ranger was in the second issue (1975) of "The Strategic Review" - the predecessor of (The) Dragon Magazine.
Elf, I want to play a game with you. I feel like it would be one of the most awesome games I've ever played in. :) I mean, honestly, I think the people that are regular posters in this thread should start up a PbP here on the boards. How fricken fun would that be?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elf, I want to play a game with you. I feel like it would be one of the most awesome games I've ever played in. :)
I thank you. That's kind of you to say. :-)
I'm afraid that my style of DMing would not go over very well by today's standards. I am very much a DM of the past (if you catch my meaning).
Elf, I want to play a game with you. I feel like it would be one of the most awesome games I've ever played in. :)I thank you. That's kind of you to say. :-)
I'm afraid that my style of DMing would not go over very well by today's standards. I am very much a DM of the past (if you catch my meaning).
Trust me, I know exactly what you're saying, and that is why I said what I did. I think I would have mind-boggling amounts of fun with you as my DM. :) Probably get caught up in a sweeping narrative of epic proportions and never be able to look back.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to try AD&D (or Basic) style rules again - see how they fit with my memories and how they address some of the issues I have with 3.x, but I've got no interest in the whole Old School ethos thing. It wasn't how we played back then and it doesn't interest me now.
Before entirely switching back to 2nd edition, I ran a couple of one shots with my players, mainly to see if it was merely nostalgia that was drawing me away from 3rd edition and Pathfinder. But I found that it was pretty much exactly as I remembered it being.
So for me, playing 2nd edition is not about joining the OSR movement, but about embracing not only the edition of D&D I loved, but the playstyle I enjoyed along with it (i.e. the "Old School Ethos" thing you spoke of).
|
|
Trust me, I know exactly what you're saying, and that is why I said what I did. I think I would have mind-boggling amounts of fun with you as my DM. :) Probably get caught up in a sweeping narrative of epic proportions and never be able to look back.
Again, thank you for the kind words.
What is your preferred edition of D&D (if any)?
Hmm DE keeps pulling out all these funky rulebooks and supplements we never even heard of until the internet was created... :P
AD&D was reasonably well supported - you could buy the books in department stores and toy shops, there was no real 'FLGS' concept.
By the time 2nd Ed (my personal fave) came out, we had FLGS around.
Per 'Know weather', surely this was a dubious spell - people can't look at the sky and get an inkling of what is coming?
These days it would be a Survival roll.
***
S&W sounds funky, and yeah I'd be curious how that would go with modern gamers who have grown up on computer games.
Hmmm I remember old multiclassing, and splitting up XP etc.
Some classes sure levelled faster than others!
Yeah, that's a pretty useless spell list. Kind of odd too. OD&D, which S&W supposedly emulates, didn't have a Druid (or a Ranger for that matter). If it's bringing the Druid in from AD&D, I would have expected more of the Druid's spell list to make it in. The main Druid go to spell was always entangle. Shillelagh was a decent back up to get you pretty good magic weapon.
I'm not a SW expert. But there's a White Box edition, which seems to be just the core part of Original D&D. The Complete Rules, which I'm using, incorporates stuff up to 1st Edition. And it's got a few other 'non-authentic' additions to smooth out the game.
Entangle (which I used a ton in Neverwinter Nights) would certainly be helpful.
Regarding another point you made: For me, the retro/OSR angle for this upcoming game is because I want the two new players to have a more story-telling approach to pen and paper RPGing. And a rules-light retro is the way to achieve that. Something far away from the MMO/PC experience. Which Pathfinder would more resemble.
Meant to say earlier, I'm kind of surprised none of them went multiclass. It was always a common solution to the "but I can't do anything at 1st level" problem. It may just not be how they think about multiclassing.
M-U/thieves were always my go-to, back in the day.
I suggested an elven Fighter/Magic User to the WoWer, but she didn't bite.
Also, making the Thief an Elf or Half Elf to gain the 1-4 secret door roll, but the PC Gamer didn't go for it either. They just went with basic race and class options. Which could be lack of pen and paper experience.
Whereas, I took the dwarven fighter/cleric (which isn't a player option in the rules, but mentioned for NPCs).
We'll see if they change anything before we start Monday night.