Background
Labyrinth Lord simulates the Basic D&D game as best it can. Since the Basic D&D game is NOT covered by the OGL, this is more a "If we started at D&D 3.5, how close can we get to a Basic D&D feel." It is a challenging design goal, since you can't replicate Basic D&D to the number and letter, but you are looking to emulate the feel of the earlier game. It is possible, and LL succeeds at its design goal very well. The game, while founded in D&D 3.5, looks and feels like an older edition, and plays very well.
Throwbacks
Labyrinth Lord utilizes the classic "race as class" convention, which I find very fun and nostalgic. The spells feel like classic spells, with a couple differences, which is also nice. Combat works off a chart, the monsters feel like the classics, and even the world design and treasure feel authentically nostalgic. The hard numbers are not the same, but there is enough here to make everything feel like it should. A sample dungeon is given, and all the examples and flavor text read like they were written by someone who understands the original material very thoroughly.
If you want to simulate some of the material from AD&D, the game has you covered. The separate book, the Advanced Edition Companion does what many of us did back in the day, is use the AD&D books as source material for our D&D games. The AEC book features a replacement for character generation, that allows separate race and class combos, and also replaces the original game's spell system with a more 'advanced' one. There is a section of monsters inspired from the hardcovers, and everything is made to work together. This is a pretty bold undertaking design-wise, and it succeeds very nicely. With this book plugged into the original system, the game plays like a basic D&D game with an AD&D mod to it. It is a clever idea, and it works quite well.
Overall Feel
Labyrinth Lord is an important game, because it gets back to the roots of roleplaying. The game is deadly, characters do not have a lot of powers, and there are little rules to help survival. To play the game, you need to interact with the referee - you can't hide behind a list of powers or a rulebook. Clever strategies like taking cover behind a table versus archers aren't handled in the rules, players need to think of them on the spot, and the referee needs to reward creativity (and punish foolishness) directly during play as an interpretation. The referee has the power to declare a tactic gets a bonus or penalty on the roll, worsen or improve the situation, or anything else based upon what is happening live at the table.
Because of this, LL is a tougher game to referee for some people. It is a more social game than one that puts the referee in the position of a rules book enforcer. The game demands improvisation, and most situations are handled live between the players and referee. In some games, finding a trap requires a search skill roll. In LL, the players need to declare where they are searching, how they search, and any measures they take to keep themselves safe. Puzzles are figured out by the players, not die rolls. Because of this, a referee's descriptions and skill at coming up with fair, interesting, and fun results is key. You need a vivid imagination, and a knack for description that puts players in another place.
There is a good deal of trust involved between the players and referee, more so than modern games. The referee has the ability to say, 'everyone dies.' In modern games, there is a tactical element, figure play, and a whole series of rules that need to be accounted for before the referee says, 'everyone dies.' A LL referee needs to be mature, fair, and impartial - all the while running the monsters to their deadliest. This is the same as modern games, but in LL, there is strong interpersonal element. Your interaction with the referee matters, what you say means something, and the player's wits are directly tested. In other games, the player's character design skills are often the thing that is tested.
This is also a problem for some people with LL, characters are extremely simple, and there's not much too them. Some people love character design, and I am one of them, but there is also a certain appeal in the basic and simple. It is not an easy game to sell to hardcore players used to designing characters and min-maxing for maximum power. A LL player needs to be more interested in the social, puzzle, and world aspects to the game - and also the challenge of surviving an impossible mission.
vs. Pathfinder
Pathfinder is really close to the feel of LL, although Pathfinder characters have more powers, and much better survivability. When you have a 600-page rulebook backing you up, players can find a rule to survive with, a character build to be confident in, or a favorite tactic to use in battle. The games share the same deadliness at lower levels, with LL being the harsher of the two. LL is the simpler game, by far, and has a far simpler combat system than the figure-ready Pathfinder combat system. LL requires a chart for determining to-hit, which is a minus to some, along with more restrictive rules for thief skills, saves, and other systems. Players used to buffing an ability score to get a save bonus will be disappointed.
Resource management is the same in both games, although it is easier in Pathfinder for everyone to have a pocket wand of cure light wounds to top off hit points during an adventure. Magic items in Pathfinder are really good, and can actually fill missing class roles in a party. In LL, your mage typically has one or two magic missile spells available for an entire dungeon. In Pathfinder, you can buy a wand with 50 magic missile shots stored in it, and use it throughout the adventure. That wand in LL typically has less utility, and most characters can't use one. Pathfinder is clearly the 'high magic item' game, and this is a byproduct of its D&D3 roots.
Simplicity is its own beauty. The world of Pathfinder is huge, with dozens of lands, thousands of monsters, varied classes, and infinite races (Race Design Guide). The size of Pathfinder can be intimidating, both in the rules and in the world. You have to accept a big commitment in order to play, either in understanding, time, or both. LL's world is simple and defined. The big bad in the basic book is a dragon, and that's it. Add in the AEC book, and you get demons and planar creatures, but not thousands of options. There is a beauty in that simplicity, having a limited number of working parts to build with, and having a world defined along a known set of options. Do not underestimate the allure of simplicity when designing a game, it is just as powerful as a wealth of options, if not more so.
Pathfinder clearly wins of style, support, the world, variety, and quality. LL wins on simplicity, interaction, and original feel. I love both games, and would play either in a heartbeat.
vs. D&D 4
LL is a bit farther from D&D4. D&D4 is not a deadly game, as characters have healing surges to keep them alive through a long dungeon run. D&D4 characters had a wide variety of powers at first level to use repeatedly in a combat to vanquish monsters, and there are built-in character roles to fill with party members. D&D4 is designed to be a fun figure combat game first, and a dungeon survival game last. D&D4 is clearly designed to be closer to a superhero game than LL.
Resource management in D&D4 is somewhere in between Pathfinder and LL. While there are powerful magic items in D&D4, there are significant use limitations applied to them by the rules, limiting the times per day they can be used by character level (not by item charge). It is a really game-y solution, and one that is not as satisfying and free as the other two games. D&D4 characters also need to track powers that recharge by turn, encounter, and day; along with healing surges. Record keeping in D&D is the highest, with power cards needing to be printed, and many per-character resources needing to be tracked.
D&D4 loses on simplicity, since typically a computer program is needed to generate legal characters - especially at higher levels. Our group needed the program, and disliked not being able to work on a character at home. The errata in the books was also problematic, with the program updated, and huge printouts needing to be carried around and referenced for out book-based players. There is also much more stuff in D&D4, thousands of feats, magic items, powers, and options - the generation program (when we used it) can't display all of these in an easy to understand format, it often dropped down a huge list box of feats or powers, and novice players struggled to make a meaningful choice.
That said, I still like D&D4's focus on the hero, the dangerous-themed world, and some of the choices they made to get rid of sacred cows, and make the game more action oriented. The original three books were still an incredible tabletop game (not like original D&D, but it was fun). D&D4 wins on all those points. LL beats them on simplicity, feeling like D&D, and forcing players to think and be social. It was too easy for players in our D&D4 group to hide behind a power list to solve a problem; in LL, that simply isn't possible, and forces players to think and be engaged.
Getting There from Here
"Can you get there from here?" If all you want to do is quickly get together with friends, roll 3d6 and pick classes, and play a simple dungeon game - LL is the go-to game. Players don't need a lot of books, the rules can be freely downloaded from the Internet, and the action is quick and simple. If you are looking for detailed character designs, or that superior figure game - LL is not it. The question then becomes, how much of what you are looking for in a fantasy game does LL provide? If LL can provide 60, 70, or 80% of that dungeon experience, and do so simple and fast, it fills the bill for me. You can 'get to the experience' from here.
Granted, sometimes you need to play in Pathfinder's Golarion, or D&D4's Nerrath, and there just aren't ways of getting those experiences outside those games. In that case, you go to the game you want to play. The only thing missing from those games is that original D&D interaction between player and referee, where the player's choices and wits mean more than the rules or character build. In that case, for me at least, LL and the more simple games win. I like them all, and really, it is a matter of player choice which one is best for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment