S&W White Box History?

Discuss Swords & Wizardry White Box - Rules questions, commentary, house rules

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby foxroe » Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:20 am

Mach Front wrote:I'll never understand why Matt made so many changes (both in keeping more with OD&D and S&W as a 'thing' as well as more art and a very different layout) and didn't bother with noting it was a wholly different printing with a completely separate print date. :?: ...and why in the world he was 'finalizing' it without finding someone who could do better layout in general. Jessie/Verhaden had done layout over the year or two BHP had it and though it was slim with art, it still looked wonderful. I wish Matt had gone to him to work on it one last time. And the nonsense with that cover. Ugh. And knowing you were going to leave it alone for years...indeed...for forever? Huh? There are a number of fans who would likely have taken the time to help and grant their skills, but Matt didn't even reach out. Confusing then. Confusing now.

While he was soliciting review for the final printing of WB, I sent Matt two versions that I had been working on in the background. Both versions were 99% faithful to his final draft - I implemented all of the current errata and cleaned up the layout and art without changing anything. The first version was a faithful, polished clone of his draft, and the second version was the same, but split up into a players' book and a referee's book (I had just chopped the draft down the middle, right after the spells section). The only response I got was "How did you do this?". I replied, but never heard back. I didn't push it... he seemed... annoyed. I still have them, and they were what I was personally using until SW:FMAG came along. ;)
- Fox
User avatar
foxroe
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:08 am
Location: Portlandia

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Mach Front » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:22 am

Yeah. This is kinda weird so I too am curious as to the "why"'s.
But just to clarify, I'm not saying this in a negative way. Sounds good to me (he said, after he belly-ached too much about the perfectly fine previous name lol). :mrgreen:
User avatar
Mach Front
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:44 am

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Mach Front » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:25 am

foxroe wrote:The first version was a faithful, polished clone of his draft, and the second version was the same, but split up into a players' book and a referee's book (I had just chopped the draft down the middle, right after the spells section). The only response I got was "How did you do this?". I replied, but never heard back. I didn't push it... he seemed... annoyed. I still have them, and they were what I was personally using until SW:FMAG came along. ;)


Man. What?
That's....so odd. That's all I can say.
User avatar
Mach Front
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:44 am

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Mach Front » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:36 am

geordie racer wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:I would like to know what leaving it to the fans means? Was that discussed at all back then?

The ability to remix and republish, rather than just supporting though supplements and adventures, if I remember correctly. Matt actually posted a thread a while later asking 'well, what have you done with it ?'


Ooohh. You're absolutely correct. I remember that also being a factor/portion of it as well. Yes.
And I'd forgotten also about his thread you mention, though I do recall now. Right again.
However, considering the license, wouldn't that have been a 'thing' from the get-go regardless? If so, then the question is still begged.
User avatar
Mach Front
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:44 am

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Mach Front » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:41 am

geordie racer wrote:Eric Norred kept plugging away to get WB supported/improved long after most of the initial S&W fans had migrated to Labyrinth Lord (seen as a more stable platform and more accurate clone of Basic than S&W was of OD&D + GH).


I did. Gah. I tried so very hard to "bump" the issue now and again without coming off as a without-a-life-fan-boy. That lie was difficult. ;)

Also, I'm posting because someone who's work I dig just "name-dropped" me. Is...is this what it feels like to be famous?
"You like me! You really like me!"
No. No, Sally. We don't. We very seriously do not. Sorry. :roll: :lol:
User avatar
Mach Front
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:44 am

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby The Wanderer » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:56 am

foxroe wrote:Just out of curiosity, why "The", and why drop "Game"?
Also, how beholden to the license would you be if you changed "White Box" to "Whitebox"?


Why add "The"? to change it up just a bit. Also it would be naming the game after a magic item I made for the game. I posted briefly about it on G+ but I'll duplicate it here:

Mythic Magic Item
The White Box

The White Box was created by two men who were masters of eldritch sorcery. They brought their powers together to create a magical artifact, that would transport the users to other worlds of magic and wonder. It is said no one knows what it is, until they hold it in their hands and discover the magic for themselves. For some the box may appear to be made of wood and for others it may even appear as a book.

So that's about it in a nutshell, but I have thought that it actually might not be worth it. To barely change the name, by just adding "the". Should I drop it?

In regards to removing Game. The subtitle was pretty long, graphically it kinda messes with the new game logo. Shortening it up made it look a lot better, and I didnt think we were losing anything by dropping the game. I think the only argument for keeping it would be to very easily identify the book as a game. Should I keep it?
White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game
http://whiteboxgame.blogspot.com/
User avatar
The Wanderer
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: North of the Emerald City

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Mach Front » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:06 am

All things (now? seemingly?) considered and also the fact that WB:FMAG is only just now (and happily has quickly enjoyed) it's own identity, why change anything?
Why not keep it as is/was?
If a "The" or a lack of "game" doesn't matter in the long run (and if it did, then why not change the name wholesale...that is to say...if not going for something different such as the tossed about "White Wyrm" et al.) then...well...may as well sit comfortably within what has already been solidly established during the last half year. Yes?
User avatar
Mach Front
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:44 am

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby The Wanderer » Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:13 pm

I was thinking about it all last night and you are right. There isn't a need to change it because they are too similar. The slight changes to the name were just a holdover from the whole name change process.

Crazy. After all the posts about it and thinking non stop about it. I'm just keeping the name the same. Ha ha that is sunny but not funny.

So the name stays the same folks!
White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game
http://whiteboxgame.blogspot.com/
User avatar
The Wanderer
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: North of the Emerald City

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby Shadow Demon » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:35 pm

The Wanderer wrote:So the name stays the same folks!


Everything is now full circle. Same title with S&W compatibility logo?
User avatar
Shadow Demon
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:57 pm

Re: S&W White Box History?

Postby The Wanderer » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:50 pm

Yes, the logo has to stay
White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game
http://whiteboxgame.blogspot.com/
User avatar
The Wanderer
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: North of the Emerald City

PreviousNext

Return to White Box Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron