Potential player.

[GDJ]

Should I go with this or Skald, and why? I’ve never played the original Wizardry.

Many thanks!

[Abscondrel]

Play this. notch the original rpg on your belt.

[GDJ]

Will do. My belt is lacking notches. :)

[Ninth Hour]

Depends on what you want. I grew up with the original Wizardry but have to acknowledge, even as an old school player, that it has quirks and frustrations that would challenge many gamers- e.g. no real ability to customize characters other than to change classes, class change being potentially more of a handicap than a boon, random stat loss on level up (if using old school rules), Vancian magic system with limited spell slots, extremely high XP requirements for level up, disproportionately low XP in most fights. Counterintuitively, encounters tend to be high risk and low reward.

Also, it's a minor issue for those who grew up with first and second edition D&D but Armor Class follows the archaic convention of "the lower the better". However, unlike D&D, AC in this game is dictated solely by equipment and protective spells. There is no adjustment from Dexterity (or Agility, in this case)- that's how primitive the mechanics are.

Without the benefit of nostalgia, it is worth contemplating whether one really wants to put up with such idiosyncracies.

Skald, meanwhile, appears to have all the old school goodness of Ultima 4 or 5 with modern day features, like quest journal, customizable classes (complete with feats a la D&D 3.0 onward), customizable party composition (if you wish, you can recruit blank slate mercenaries instead of picking up the story-based party members), and forgiving navigation (automap and overhead view help a lot).

But in the final analysis, why not both? They each have their own charms.

[Ninth Hour]

Well, Skald just came out, so I am now alternating my time between that and Wizardry, for the full "old school" spectrum: first-person dungeon crawlers and Ultima-inspired games.