|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 10, 2014 6:30:27 GMT -6
Fellows, with the arrival of the PoD physical copies looming for many of us, I'm pondering something. Now that we have an actual physical copy of these fantastic rules available, how many of us use such things as the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets to support DD play? Do any of us make use of the older Monsters & Treasures Assortments? ((I've never seen the latter; Is there one that is written for OD&D use... Meaning, d6 damage and hit die?))
I do know that some of the more lucky of us (Myself not included) have physical copies of the original TSR 1974 rules. And I'm sure that many who do own them probably make use of both the ref sheets and the M&T assortments. I guess, even though DD is to my opinion the 'retro clone' that most closely adheres to OD&D, that I am considering it as a 'seperate game' to OD&D simply because of cost as opposed to any real difference in rules between the two games.
But it's because of that near-identical gameplay that I ask my question. I suppose for me, it's the inability to justify over $250 for a box set of original D&D, that I choose Delving Deeper as my game of choice. I'm thinking, that with a copy of the Ready Ref sheets and an OD&D written M&T assortment, I'll basically have all I need to create great gaming!
How many of us use these two supporting materials in their DD game? And, secondarily, what other resources do YOU use at your table, when playing Delving Deeper? (Or, OD&D for that matter?).
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 10, 2014 18:31:10 GMT -6
The Monster & Treasure Assortments were, I think, published from '77 and presume a Greyhawk-like game.
Set 1 includes curiosities such as "Paladin Swordsmen" as well as some of the monsters described in Greyhawk. Eight-sided hit dice seem to be presumed as Elves (1+1 HD) can have up to 9 hit points, and Kobolds (1/2 HD) can have up to 4 hit points.
One thing that has always confused me about the M&TA monster lists is the "AL" statistic.
This seems to always be a number between 6 and 11. I can only think it must be some kind of morale rating... perhaps "AL" was meant to be "ML"? Perhaps then it's number to roll under on 2d6 for a morale check?), but if so the numbers seem to be the inverse of similar morale targets given in Chainmail, and some of the morale ratings would be seem counter intuitive.
What else could AL possibly be? It's always been a bit of a mystery to me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 10, 2014 19:35:35 GMT -6
Hmm. I still might pick one up, but I do appreciate your input on the M&T assortment. As to the AL, I'm not sure myself; Perhaps that's a good question for the OD&D study board? I'll bet some of the folks around here have some info on it. I wonder if there is any reference to that in the Ready Ref sheets? I'll have to check mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 10, 2014 19:49:41 GMT -6
One thing that has always confused me about the M&TA monster lists is the "AL" statistic. This seems to always be a number between 6 and 11. I can only think it must be some kind of morale rating... perhaps "AL" was meant to be "ML"? Perhaps then it's number to roll under on 2d6 for a morale check?), but if so the numbers seem to be the inverse of similar morale targets given in Chainmail, and some of the morale ratings would be seem counter intuitive. What else could AL possibly be? It's always been a bit of a mystery to me... "AL = attack level of monster as expressed by the monster's base number to score a hit on an unarmored opponent (armor class 9)" So it's the OD&D equivalent of THAC0. I'm not a Know It All. I just googled it and found Grognardia's explanation. Then I verified it for myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 10, 2014 19:55:13 GMT -6
Thanks, oakesspalding! Interesting find. I wouldn't have guessed it was an OD&D version of THACO myself... Nice work! |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 10, 2014 20:04:25 GMT -6
I think DD would greatly benefit from a supplement listing the additional spells, magic items and monsters offered in Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry and the relevant issues of the Strategic Review. Obviously the Ready Ref Sheets, Monster & Treasure Assortments and other contemporary OSR resources (such as the Monster and Magic books of that Zylar-whatever game written by that weirdo, what's his name) approximate different aspects of that. But an "official" DD supplement that did it would be preferable and would make a perfect companion to the nifty original DD book. What do you think, waysoftheearth? I dare you!  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 10, 2014 20:27:45 GMT -6
"AL = attack level of monster as expressed by the monster's base number to score a hit on an unarmored opponent (armor class 9)" That is exactly what I've failed to spot before, thanks! I wonder if it appears on the '77 print? (I will check it again tonight). |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 10, 2014 20:42:57 GMT -6
Yes, the 1977 versions do have the AL stat, which could also be called "THAC9". And it's found in each monster entry. There are no hit dice listed, so it's one way to estimate the HD of the monsters listed, the other being the the saving throw category (ST/F 10-12, etc). Carnivorous Apes are found nowhere else in OD&D, and here we see they have AL: 6 and ST/F 4-6 - which means they should have HD 4 (versus 5 in the MM). More Trivia: The key also indicates that AC will be written as "armor class of the monster; this number is followed by the base number required by a 1st level fighter to score a hit, thus: AC2/17" - the second number being ascending armor class exactly as used in Swords & Wizardry! But then unfortunately the entries themselves fail to include the second numbers... (The original version of the module B1 also notates AC in the same fashion). So the M&TA sheets had some early innovations... |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 11, 2014 4:42:44 GMT -6
Yes, the 1977 versions do have the AL stat, which could also be called "THAC9". And it's found in each monster entry. Yes, I've seen that but--believe it or not--I had never once spotted the KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED HEREAFTER despite searching for something exactly like it! My copy is printed on loose leaf yellow cards without page numbers. By pure chance the second card was flipped over, so that the first thing I saw after turning the front cover was the beginning of the monster listings. I expected to find a key of some sort on the inside front cover, but of course it wasn't there, and I never happened to see it on the back of the second card. How foolish do I look now?? I wonder if the first print of B2 has this feature too (it is said to list dexterity stats for all the monsters)? |
|
|
|
Post by capitalbill on Sept 11, 2014 8:10:36 GMT -6
I use both the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, and the D&D Monster & Treasure Assortment Set One and Set Two (I'm still hunting for Set Three), as well as my printouts of the Strategic Review issues and the Outdoor Survival game. I'll probably also be mixing in some of Oakes Spalding's Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, at the very least much from his Book of Monsters. I wonder if the first print of B2 has this feature too (it is said to list dexterity stats for all the monsters)? I've got a copy of B2 with the dexterity score listed and it does not list armor class in this same fashion. |
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 11, 2014 8:35:44 GMT -6
I'll probably also be mixing in some of Oakes Spalding's Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, at the very least much from his Book of Monsters. I'm going to be doing this very thing, myself. I'll be ordering Mr. Spalding's 4 booklets of Seven Voyages next paycheck, I believe... I love what he's done with monsters and particularly the pricing lists according to ships and buildings. Other great stuff in that game as well, but I haven't yet read it all. Can anyone recommend a good product that serves as a template for terse wording in descriptions/encounters? I'm considering Robert S. Conley's "Blackmarsh" for this. Believe I'll pick that up for that reason... As I tend to be way too verbose as I write things up. I could use some visual education in that regard! Thank you, everyone, for the discussion on this, also |
|
