Comparing Whitebox FMAG with Delving Deeper

 Good day people.  I thought it might be fun to do a basic compare and contrast between two games which claim to be based on Original D&D.  I was going to also add Iron Falcon into the mix but since IF explicitly contains the Greyhawk supplement, in addition to the original three little books, I decided not to add it to the mix.

Both Delving Deeper (DD) and White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game (FMAG) are reworkings of the original three D&D booklets, plus a smidge of Greyhawk.  I will break this review down into sections and give one or the either a point based on which I prefer.  As usual, my opinions are mine and y'all can most certainly form opinions of your own.  This also isn't some graduate-level course in comparing Critical Text to Textus Receptus, this is just lil' ol' me with a once over of both books.

I took some pictures of some interesting details.  I tried to include the original, comparable, D&D booklet when able.

I am comparing FMAG, ordered from Amazon and DD, ordered from Lulu.  

FMAG is 140 pages long, plus 2 pages for house rules, a character sheet, and the OGL.  It is printed on scratchy pulp paper.  I paid $4.59 for it and it has the fighter, cleric, and magic user fighting some lizard men on the cover.

DD is 129 pages long, plus OGL; the character sheet is within the text.  It is printed on smoother paper.  I paid $3.96 for it.  The cover is also a fighter, magic user and cleric fighting some lizard men, with some large critter in the background - a hydra, perhaps.  The cover is black and white.

The point here goes to DD.  I like both of the covers but DD is both cheaper and printed on higher-quality paper.  I will judge the internal layout and such later.

Since both games start with character creation, we shall start our comparison here.  FMAG has gone with a standard modifier array, -1, 0, or +1 for ability score modifiers.  DD has stuck closer to the original with a variant range of modifiers.  Both games have organized the tables better, of course.  I mean, really though, it would be difficult NOT to organize better than OD&D.  I see the pros and cons for both games and their modifier choices.  Generally, I prefer a static chart but the simple DD tables are really nice.  Interestingly, DD has gone with strength-based door opening while FMAG bases it on race.  Though I prefer a single chart for ability score modifiers, I find that I prefer the few charts that DD uses.  DD gets a point here, as well.  So far we have DD 2 and FMAG 0.

 

 

Next up we have classes.  Both games include the original three classes - cleric, fighter (originally fighting man), and magic-user. Additionally, both games dip into the Greyhawk supplement and insert the thief as a playable class.  Both games make sure to point out that the thief is optional.  I am very happy that both games included the thief, as it is my favorite class.

 

In regards to thieves, FMAG allows thieves and x-in-6 chance to perform thievery, whereas DD gives a 3-in-6 chance for thievery at all levels.  FMAG allows thieves to do double damage for successful backstabs while DD adds on damage based on the thief's level.  As far at thieves go, I think that neither one is better.

Cleric turning in both games is different than in the original.  DD sticks with 2d6 vs. target number but makes the target number a bit easier at each level but otherwise follows OD&D.  FMAG makes the odd decision to switch to 3d6 vs. target number.  I cannot fathom why they chose this.  I assume it is to make the bell curve more belly, but it seems to be a really arbitrary change.

Both games go with the fairly normal one attack per fighter level against schlubs.  Neither game allows clerics a spell at first level.  A 10th level cleric in FMAG will have a few more spells per day and will average a bit more hit points.  A 10th level wizard in FMAG will have one additional spell but will average 7 hit points less.

I can't really decide which game I prefer for classes.  I definitely prefer the 2d6 clerics' turning but I prefer the level-based thief improvements in FMAG.  I will give both books a point here and call it a tie.

FMAG 1, DD 3 so far.

Spells.  The mighty sorcery of magic-users and the powers on high anointing their chosen ones the ability to alter reality with faith.  Here's a little something about me.  When I see OD&D cleric spells go from 6 at 1st level, to 4, to 4, and back to 6, I start to twitch.  

Gygax and Arneson couldn't have spent a few minutes and thought up two more spells at each of these levels?  

FMAG follows OD&D in this regard, while the author of DD has soothed my soul by giving six spells per level at each level.  The same with wizard spells.  FMAG has various numbers of spells per level for magic-users while DD gives the same number at each spell level.  DD breaks spells down per class and per level while FMAG combines them into one list, organized alphabetically.  FMAG also uses a larger font and a line at each spell so they are easy to find.  I like this.

I prefer the layout of the spells in FMAG but I prefer the distribution of spells in DD.  FMAG follows OD&D much closer here.  However, since my review isn't on how close the games follow OD&D, I will have to give the point to DD for spells.

FMAG 1, DD 4 is the count.

The equipment chapter is about what you would expect in both games.  Prices vary, items vary, but both games include the important stuff.  FMAG has options for both ascending AC and descending AC while DD follows descending armor class only.  DD uses the standard OD&D 1d6 damage with all hits, regardless of weapon uses, while FMAG varies this a bit with heavy weapons doing +1 damage and light weapons doing -1.  Even though plate armor in FMAG is too cheap, in my opinion, I do prefer variant damage.  The point goes to FMAG for equipment.

FMAG 2, DD 4.
 

Having both ascending and descending armor class is a much better choice, especially for the kids who are new to gaming, having started after 2000.  Of course, converting takes like half a second so it's not a big deal at all, but I do prefer having both options.  

Fighters in DD are slightly better at 1st level than FMAG, which follows the original game.  This makes the fighter a bit better than the other non-fighter classes in combat, right from the start.  I like this.  Both games have their strong points in regards to combat, ascending AC for FMAG and better 1st level combat for fighters.  I will say this is a tie and each gets one point.

FMAG 3, DD 5 is the current count.

When it comes to movement, both games have food, beasts, and water speeds.  FMAG has the charts all in the same place while DD has them spread out, character movement in one place, water movement in the sailing section, etc.  Since both books are so short, it is not a big issue to flip to the sailing chapter for ship speed but FMAG gets the point for keeping pertinent information together.

FMAG 4, DD 5.

Critters will be our next point of comparison.  As you can see, DD follows OD&D's style with a table of pertinent information in one place and other information on each monster.  FMAG breaks up each monster into its own stat block.  I compared black pudding from all three games and they match up.  Both DD and FMAG are an improvement on OD&D's scattered monster chart.  I much prefer all information on each critter in one spot and not flipping through the book for something that is going to happen constantly.  I mean this is D&D, right?  The characters are going to throw down with all manner of beasts.  Keeping it all together is is more useful.  Separating sailing speed from mule speed is forgivable.  This is not.  FMAG gets the point here. 

We are tied up at 5, folks!  Do you feel the pressure building?  Ready to place some bets on who is going to get the win?

Jumping to treasure, I wanted to show y'all an interesting change.  In both OD&D and DD, a healing (or curing) potion is going to be rolled 4% of the time whereas in FMAG, it jumps to 25%!  I imagine this is because you can't swing a dead cat in a published module back then without hitting a potion of healing in every third room, so FMAG decided to make this actually make sense in the rules.  I don't particularly care one way or the other so I won't give a point to either or, or rather I'll give a point to both to keep with what I've been doing.

FMAG 6, DD 6.

Both games have rules for dungeon exploration, populating the dungeon, wilderness exploration, jousting, and campaigning.  Both games limit dwarves to fighter or thief, both games give elves a bonus to find secret doors, and both games include everything needed to successfully play a game of D&D.  FMAG limits all classes to 10th level while DD does not have this limit.  FMAG has a BX-like elf which is both a magic-user and a fighter as well as the old swaparoo that OD&D and DD use.  

It is difficult to give either book a point here since they all include basically the same information.  I prefer having the BX-like elf but I prefer allowing levels higher than 10.  I think DD edges out FMAG a hair, so I will give DD the point.

FMAG now sits at 6 points while DD climbs to 7.

The last comparison is going to be how pretty each book is.  FMAG womps DD in this category.  It has great art, a great layout, I love the font and the chapter headings.  DD has very little art and what it has is not as good as FMAG.  FMAG is filled with art and there isn't a sucky piece in it.  FMAG easily get the point here.

So there we have it folks.  Each game gets 7 points based on my preferences and general awesomeness.

The question is, which book should you buy?  The answer is simple, buy both!  They are both dirt cheap.  Heck, shipping will cost as much as the books.  Take the one which you prefer, grab yourself a Ticonderoga #2 pencil, and make adjustments which you prefer from the other book into the one which you think you will use as your base.  This is what I am going to do.  I will use Delving Deeper as the base, primarily due to the icky paper in FMAG, and write in any changes from FMAG.  All that being said, you won't regret either game.  Both games are 100% usable as is and are far, far better for gaming that whatever sewage WotC is spewing forth these days.