OSR Rules Review: Delving Deeper

Delving Deeper PDF:https: //www.drivethrurpg.com/product/112512/Delving-Deeper-Ref-Rules-v2-BUNDLE?affiliate_id=118139
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delving Deeper POD at LULU: www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/simon...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersive Ink Website (Character Sheet): www.immersiveink.com/?page_id=20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schley's Maps: prints.mikeschley.com/p581848...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Patreon Page: / captcorajus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Tipjar: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook: Dungeons and Dragons RPG Reviews: / rpgretroreviews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
captcorajus on Twitter: / captcorajus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
captcorajus on tumblr: www.tumblr.com/blog/captcorajus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact me: [e-mail]

[@RobbiGraves]

Regarding the "all weapons do a d6 damage" thing: the original rules assumed you would be using Chainmail, which has weapon class as well as armor class. If you attacked an opponent wielding a higher weapon class than yours, they got to roll an attack against you before you made your attack, even if it was your turn. And daggers were the lowest weapon class. So wielding daggers was a sure way to get killed. If you think about like a person wielding a dagger facing a person wielding a sword, the sword is longer, so they'll hit you before you can get in range with your dagger. By the time the Greyhawk settlement came out, it was clear no one was using Chainmail, so weapon class wasn't a thing. Therefore, variable weapon damage was introduced.

[@captcorajus]

Exactly right, thank you for adding that clarification, and that totally makes sense.

[@ilyaalexakhin8745]

Reading Chainmail it was mostly the other way around: daggers were the lowest weapon class (1), pikes were the highest (12), and if defenders WC was lower they could parry and if it was a lot lower they could also counter. Lower WC weapons also could attack more times per round vs higher WC weps. This was offset by lower WC weapons needing higher rolls to penetrate armor on hit rolls, so sure you could parry/counter/attack all the time but not hit vs armor. The exception was the first round of combat where higher WC weapons went first (closing into melee). Also BX had 1 attack per round for characters and also had all weapons do d6 damage as base rule. Although having STR contribute to melee attacks and damage meant that fighters/demis could generally have a better chance for a damage modifier than in 3LBB by raising prime. At the end of the day variable damage just makes more sense to more people who grew up with it (myself included) as it does not require further sub-systems to simulate the differences in weapon size. I always offer/petition for a group decision on d6/variable damage when playing BX/OSE, since flat d6 favours M-U heavy parties by buffing daggers.

[@MsGorteck]

Thank you Robbie and Ilyna for the very helpful comments. {Now if I could only find people to game with.}

[@Nobleshield]

People say this, but according to what I've read, even Gygax and Arneson didn' t use Chainmail at all.

[@freddaniel5099]

Being a huge fan of ODD, I appreciate the tone of Delving Deeper and the omissions that are mentioned add to the appeal rather than detract from it imo as they prompt each referee to make the game uniquely their own.

[@captcorajus]

Absolutely agree. Definitely something to pick up if you like to tinker and homebrew.

[@richardoquinn5922]

When you talked about the abilities of the elf not being explained they later clarified that in the delving deeper companion book. They also clarified some other rules too involving races and classes in the delving deeper companion too.

[@simonbull4634]

Thanks for the informative review. FWIW much of the content shown is from the (now rather dated) V2 (circa 2012/13) rather than the more recent V4 Ref Rules Compendium (circa 2014/15). Also worth a mention: V5 is in development. PDFs of all DD versions and extra supplements are available for free from my fileshare here: forum.immersiveink.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=113 Enjoy :)

[@brunoborello8309]

Simon is it real that DD is going to have a zine? I was scrolling through the internet and found the Hyperbarbaria name, but I don’t know whether it is true.

[@sunsin1592]

Crazy how many variations of the "original" rules are out there. I've settled on Swords & Wizardry & OSE as my systems of choice for the time being but it's interesting to see the various tweaks.

[@captcorajus]

Swords and Wizardy has definitely become my 'go to' as well.

[@MrRourk]

Ruins of Arduin is a S&W Compatible version of Arduin Trilogy.

[@jasonmabry8526]

I have JUST started getting in to 0e/ODD this past month and I had no idea this existed. This is a GREAT video, thank you!!!!

[@captcorajus]

You're so welcome!

[@BusyBadger]

Perfect timing! 👍 I'm a big OSR proponent, but for some reason haven't gotten around to DD. Just started looking into it on Monday night!

[@captcorajus]

Its a great D&D skeleton if you like to tinker.

[@johngleeman8347]

So interesting that older editions of D&D used the d6 and percentile dice for a lot of the mechanics resolution. :3

[@captcorajus]

I actually covered the reasons for that in my Dice retrospective/ unboxing.

[@MrRourk]

Cal Tech's Warlock Game did it the other way. Percentile for attack and other dice rolls for skills / abilities.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Original D&D games really catered to the math nerds more with actual discussion of probability distributions and why certain dice were used for things. I'm sure DMing as a kid really helped me later when I ended up majoring in engineering and mathematics in college.

[@jesserodriguez7680]

Delving Deeper is my favorite 0D&D clone. I know S&W gets a lot of love, but I feel like DD covers more ground, especially for the DM. It has wilderness exploration rules, tables for such, and dungeon stocking. The archaic language is annoying at first but soon becomes part of the fun.

[@captcorajus]

I won't disagree that it is part of the fun. I just think that in some cases its followed a bit too closely, and hampers playability. :)

[@chrismedders6201]

Version 4b is on Immersive Ink's download page.

[@mateocanplay7278]

Always enjoy your videos. Thank you.

[@MrRourk]

I was running this until Ruins of Arduin came out. Iron Falcon and Planet Eris are very good OSR OD&D rules takes as well.

[@BlackDragonRPGReviews]

Definitely picking this up. Thanks for the review!

[@fleetcenturion]

The bundle for v2 is available now.

[@thekiltedwoodworker]

I've been playing the DD ruleset for many years, with several DMs, as Simon Bull has developed and tweaked and cleaned up the rules. And, in full disclosure, I was one of the guinea pigs in his playtests and one of the editors for most of the versions. I've thoroughly enjoyed all of the years of questing and fighting and exploring and looting I've been able to do during this time. Is my opinion biased? Yep. It is. Is it the only OSR rule set you should play? No! Not at all. Is it the best one? I've no idea. Certainly I prefer it over Chainmail and OD&D. Is it worth giving a go if you love the Old School Revolution? Absolutely. Yes.

[@captcorajus]

ABSOLUTELY!

[@captainnolan5062]

I would rate this an 18, 18, 20 for a total of 19! AMAZING!

[@Hepabytes]

I really like the d6 damage for weapons. Since in d20 you always just use the single best weapon, since they all pretty much do the same thing. I played with +1 for two handed weapons and reach for pole weapons, though.

[@captcorajus]

I just think that justification for the weight and cost is important. As long as you're having fun of course. For example, you could say that for daggers, you roll 2d6 and take the lower number. For a two handed sword you could say you roll 2d6 and take the higher number. A short sword is a straight d6 and so on.

[@Hepabytes]

@@captcorajus in a perfect world you would have a short list of weapons with significant variety in mechanics. I don't see that working at the level of abstraction in D&D. You would need either facing based attack patterns or the weapon vs AC adjustments from 1e. ( which I'm told everyone ignored )

[@captcorajus]

@@Hepabytes Or you could dispense with a complex litiney of situational modifiers in favor of weapon effects. In my homebrew rules, weapons use either a d6 or a d10. A two-handed sword for example you roll 3d6 and take the two highest rolls. The weapon always goes last. A sword does 1d6. Roll two dice take the highest. A dagger does 1d6 roll twi dice take the lowest. A pole arm does 1d10 has reach. That is, if you attempt to close on someone using a pole arm, they get a 'free attack' against you. If they succeed you can't close and take damage. If they fail, you can close and attack and now the weapon does 1d10, roll 2 dice take the lowest. Since this is an abstraction, there's no no need to worry about facing at all.

[@chrishall5440]

I've moved to using d6 for weapons in my '74 OD&D games. I do the 2d6-take-highest for two-handed weapons and 1d6/2 (1-3) for small and simple weapons. That brings it inline proportionally to Greyhawk's variable weapon damage where monster/fighter hit dice is d8 and a dagger does half that (d4). I also use the properties of weapons to inform initiative and effects: flails negate shield bonus, daggers can be thrown but lose initiative to swords, spears can be thrown or used from the second rank, blunt-edged weapons work best for skeletons, etc.

[@captcorajus]

@@chrishall5440 Absolutely!! Great rules!! I used the 'edged/ piercing weapons do half damage' rule for skeletons myself. There are a lot of ways to show weapon differences, keeping things abstract without moving to a bunch of modifiers that no one is going to use because its too labor intensive.

[@RobbiGraves]

I'm a Swords and Wizardry Whitebox fan, but I do look up things in Delving Deeper when I want a second opinion on a mechanic that sticks closer to the Original Rules. I use the free online version (version 4), which has rules terms hyperlinked to their definition, so it's easier to use as a reference.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

Nice review Sounds like a fun set

[@Aaron-mj9ie]

I've heard about Delving Deeper, but never actually took a look yet. (There's just so much out there that it's easy to forget about something.) This reminds me a bit of 7VoZ.

[@captcorajus]

Same here. As the 'old school' guy on KZbin I do my best to keep abreast of such things, but it can be a challenge.

[@BTsMusicChannel]

9:36 I read, write and edit every day. Send Turnbull my way when he works on the next edition. I can see a lot of things that could be cut out out and replaced with more useful material on this page alone. For instance: -- Get rid of "however" in the penultimate sentence. It doesn't even make sense because there is nothing that sets up a need for it. (-1 word) -- In the last sentence, just say "Elves speak Common, Elvish, their alignment tongue, plus the languages of gnolls, hobgoblins and orcs." (-7 words) I bet I can find a lot more throughout the document.

[@captcorajus]

I don't know him at all, but I have a feeling he's probably not forthcoming with another edition. This was released in 2013, and there's nothing else of note on his Immersive Ink page.

[@BTsMusicChannel]

@@captcorajus I hope he at least enjoyed doing it. I am making up my own home brew rule set and it is a great experience. I know he more or less copied someone else's work, but I am sure that he got a lot out of the process. It's amazing when you think about: "What do I need to run this game now, and what can I generate later as need arises." For instance, you will always need some way to resolve combat and actions (e.g., a combat system and ability/skill checks), but you can save hex crawl rules (i.e., tools to aid the DM in making judgments) and "mechanics" (i.e., processes or steps in the flow of game activity in certain situations) for later.

[@danielboggs2013]

@@captcorajus Oh Simon's been working on a v5 for a long while. It's much improved and thoroughly documented. Here is a bit of discussion where you can see some of the text. odd74.proboards.com/thread/13370/annotated-dd

[@brunoborello8309]

Daniel Boggs do you know if Delving Deeper is going to have its own zine? I’m not really sure if this is even real, but I found out the name (provided it is true): Hyperbarbaria. Please message me if you know anything.

[@TT-bw3hn]

Nice review! Maybe White Box of Seattle Hill Games for next?

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Wow - that is a rare find ! A part of American History.

[@fernandomercado2711]

How do you compare this to WBFMAG, S&W:WB, S&W:Complete, and Iron Falcon? A lot of people have a lot of different opinions. (I'm collecting them all lol :P )

[@alutheranlearningspanish1719]

Found the download page for the latest versions (v4 complete and v5 in progress) tucked away in a Immersive Ink's forums: forum.immersiveink.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=113

[@ajaxplunkett5115]

Cap, you may not think so but this review of delving deeper was one of your best. Because this RPG has flaws and you were willing to be nuanced it came across as very fair without throwing softballs. The weapons price, weight and same damage mini discussion is a hallmark point. As I was listening to your review I'm thinking the game is getting fair to above fair marks but the Value better be high on such a inexpensive print on demand item plus free PDF , and sure enough you nailed it- 20. Reminds me in a way of Basic Fantasy RPG by Chris gonnerman. That game should have a similar / high Value rating. Wish fulfillment question: Cap I hope someday you would consider doing a multi-part series on the origins of the retro clone RPG, the OSR movement and the games , famous and forgotten that were a part of it for near 20 years since 3.0D&D .

[@captcorajus]

Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. That's a great idea for a video, and will definitely consider it!!

[@hawkeyepearce1066]

Much appreciation for the review, I had no idea this take on the OD&D rules existed, and as it's free to download it gives me a chance to use the paper guillotine I acquired to make my own copy of the OD&D rules, having seen your previous vid ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/jofYnox5a6iVqsU). Should keep me busy for a while during the lockdown, thanks Cap!

[@captcorajus]

That's what I'm here for! Have fun!!

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

I have a question about making new games. I've played D&D and other RPGs since the 80s and I really like the creative design part of being a GM and making house rules and homebrew content. I have a couple ideas for my own TTRPG system that I'd like to develop, but I don't know how to go about actually marketing it and getting it into the hands of players. I could write up a pdf and post it somewhere for people to download, but I'd like a little monetary compensation for the work. Also, with so many new and different games coming out all the time, how could I make mine stand out in the crowd? One of my ideas is a simplified (but allows optional complexification as desired) d20 OGL system that borrows heavily from D&D 3.x rules, but the main difference is the presentation and use of the physical game materials. -- The other is wholly original, as far as I know. It is even more simplified and is something that anyone can pick up and start playing immediately without having to spend a lot of time learning rules or doing character creation. Should I try dropping off free samples, excerpts, prototypes, etc. at my local game store or what? How to get started?

[@captcorajus]

I don't really believe that the market is asking for "more rules' per say. What I think the OSR could use is more well written OSR adventures. IMHO. Generic, meant for any OSR.. Old School Essentials, Lab Lord, S&W, etc.

[@Johnny_Nitro]

Hey Cap, another observation... you gave the value a 20 because it was free? So by all other metrics this module was barely above average but the 20 pulled up the score a lot. Maybe this is a nitpick but would every free module get a 20 for value?

[@captcorajus]

Well.. umm.. yeah. how can you mark down the value rating for something that's free? You should pause the overall ratings slide and look at the gradient rating's scale. The 20 only pulled the rating up one step from 'Above Average' to 'good'. That's not really 'a lot'.

[@Johnny_Nitro]

@@captcorajus So... if you found a truly abysmal old school module that was ugly, confusing and terminally unplayable as long as it was free it would get the value crit? "Free" does not always equate to good value, consider most KZbin comments. All opinions cost the creator zero dollars, but not all comments add value or provide anything having worth. So even a bad module that is free is still bad. The value then is derived not from monitary investment but time investment. In that regard I would say the Value of this module is somewhat low. If you only have a set block of time I do not see anyone running this module when so many better ones exist. My 2 cents.

[@Wedneswere]

Good thing all the weapons do 1d6 damage.👍 Who doesn't love that?🧠🏅

[@BTsMusicChannel]

I love your reviews and your channel...but I am starting to wonder in the rating system. If 13 is above average, and this gets a 13, what is the standard for average? Not a number, but what constitutes "average" -- I don't think I have ever seen anything rated below average. That said, the rest of the content in this review, and all of your others, is outstanding. It's just that the numbers you assign seem to be "nice guy" numbers, not according to some real standard on a bell curve with standard deviations around the average. Maybe we need to recalculate the average by adding up all your ratings and then finding the mean. I bet if we did that, we'd find that 15-16 is the average.

[@captcorajus]

Well, here's the thing. What you're seeing is that I really don't choose to review something I don't like. That is, I'm not reviewing things that I wouldn't recommend in some way. Usually, I find something appealing or positive or a REASON why YOU who took the time to watch the video, might find what I... who took the time to make the video....would find useful. Or, to put it another way a negative review would mean that I have to take the time to review something, I don't like. lol I've said this before. It takes me THREE days minimum to make a video. If I'm going to commit the time and effort to make a video, why would I do one on something I'm not going to recommend? There are most definitely 'below average' OSRs out there to be sure, I just haven't decided to review them. And yes, I guess I'm 'guilty' of being the 'nice guy' here... I just have no desire to take a dump on something someone has worked hard on. I have in the past elected NOT to review things that have been presented to me primarily because I knew I could not recommend them in the end. Some of these things many others have said positive things about, and I'm like, "Are you kidding me?" I'd invite you to take a look at my 4E D&D review which is quite clinical, and my analysis states some black and white facts such as "Before 4E, for 30 years the number 1 rpg was dungeons and dragons. After 4E it was Pathfinder." (Now its D&D again with 5E but that review came out well before 5E). The point is... I've got the MOST dislikes on that video than any other one that I've done, and all I did was base my analysis on things that can be shown to be empirically true. I like to think that this channel is a place for people to come to watch something positive and enjoyable, and so I approach my subject matter with that in mind. Hopefully that answers your question?? Thanks!!

[@BTsMusicChannel]

@@captcorajus I completely get the it takes time to put up the vids thing, and I appreciate your efforts. I like the content more than the ratings, though. Your channel is awesome and it is one of my favorites. I am glad that you are not selling out in your reviews. (It makes a little more sense why the numbers are so high, yes.) Plus you seem like a good person to me. :D

[@Johnny_Nitro]

@@captcorajus I'm not sharpening my pitchfork Cap, but I can see my observations are not in a vacuum. The wonderful contribution your channel provides is a fair look at old school modules. So as you focus on products that you would recommend others can go forth and engage with something enjoyable. However avoiding the stinkers as you encounter them rather than alerting others to their foulness can (through omission) potentially hurt the hobby. I was fortunate enough to have had some great experiences when I first played the game. If instead my first forray into this genre had been some clunky hackjob modules I would not have been back for seconds. Do like Captain America and jump on some grenades now and then. The rest of us will be spared. Plus, think of the children Cap, think of the children. 😊

[@99zxk]

I hate it when they say something like thieves succeed on 1-3 on a d6 because technically any die will work since it's a 50%. Over all, I think I'll pass. Labyrinth Lord seems like a better choice.

[@captcorajus]

it is!

[@Gallowglacht]

But Delving Deeper thieves succeed on a 3-6. A 2/3 chance, not 50/50.

[@99zxk]

@@Gallowglacht How is 3/6 a 2/3 chance?

[@99zxk]

@@Gallowglacht OH, wait, I see what you're saying. I was thinking it was 1-3.