|
|
Post by havard on Apr 1, 2009 15:18:33 GMT -6
Does anyone else find that their website has been gone for a terribly long time?  Havard |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 1, 2009 16:09:02 GMT -6
I know that I've been unable to access Dave's Blackmoor MMMRP site for quite a while, but haven't tried Code Monkey becasue that site hates AOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 1, 2009 16:34:00 GMT -6
I could get into the Code Monkey forum page but I don't see a list of any forums. On the left sidebar is a list of "chatterings" that goes until a couple of days ago, and there is a message on one of the pages that says they were attacked by some internet security problem. When I click on "store" it takes me to a page where you can pre-order some 4E Blackmoor softcover book for $35, but there aren't many other details about it.
Quite the mystery. :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by gsvenson on Apr 2, 2009 15:47:24 GMT -6
I don't have any trouble accessing the MMRPG site. It was down for two days when they were redoing some part of it a few weeks ago, but otherwise has always worked fine for me. I don't go to the Code Monkey site, so I can't say anything about that...
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on May 19, 2009 8:11:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 19, 2009 10:28:35 GMT -6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZikulaZikula is a free open source Web Application Framework released under the GNU General Public License. It can be used to develop robust, secure, interactive and editable websites and web based applications. Zikula is written in PHP object oriented and fully modular. It requires a database and may use all leading database platforms like MySQL, PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server. In July 2008 PostNuke version 8 was released as Zikula version 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on May 19, 2009 14:16:10 GMT -6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZikulaZikula is a free open source Web Application Framework released under the GNU General Public License. It can be used to develop robust, secure, interactive and editable websites and web based applications. Zikula is written in PHP object oriented and fully modular. It requires a database and may use all leading database platforms like MySQL, PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server. In July 2008 PostNuke version 8 was released as Zikula version 1. Thanks! Seems to me like this isn't as much fishy as it is the CMP guys trying to get a new forum up and running. Hopefully this is a good sign. BTW, I just heard word the Blackmoor 4.0 project is still happening so this sounds like good news  Havard |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 9:17:34 GMT -6
Is it going to be for 4th Edition D&D?
I admit I am not expert on 4e, but I get the impression it has a very specific implied world and isn’t very adaptable to other worlds. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 20, 2009 9:23:40 GMT -6
I think that the original 4E core rulebooks were somewhat world-specific, but as they add back in all of the extra classes they took out it seems like 4E is becoming more generic. (For example, at one point some of the races were very unusual and therefore world specific. Now they put half-orcs back in and many worlds have those.)
I'm sure Code Monkey will do a great job of 4E Blackmoor but I'd still much rather see them roll back the clock and support some variant of "old school" Blackmoor. (LL, S&W, OSRIC, pick one.) My feeling is that 3E Blackmoor was interesting but pretty far from the primary source material (you think Dave had "feats" back in the 19790's?), and I just can't imagine a 4E book being more like Dave's original campaigns.
I'll probably buy it, but complain about it. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 9:59:33 GMT -6
Heh, well, if you want to know what Arneson’s campaign was like, you’ve got FFC. Other than that, Blackmoor has taken on a life of its own, as defined by Dave Ritchie during the BECMI era, and by Dustin Clingman & Jeff Quinn during the 3e era. Unfortunately, I would say that Ritchie’s Blackmoor felt like Dragonlance, and Clingman/Quinn’s Blackmoor felt like, oh, take your pick of any of a hundred other 3e “Campaign Settings”. In other words, they tended to conform to the popular idiom of their time rather than give Blackmoor its own distinctive feel as defined in FFC.
No disrespect meant to them! I’m sure they had Arneson’s support at the time, and I’m sure it’s only in retrospect that their efforts can seem “dated”, and at the time it seemed as if they were presenting Blackmoor in all its glory to a modern audience.
However, today, with the Old School Revival and all the amazing and truly Old School goodness abounding, I wonder if it would be possible to do a version of Blackmoor that could make a clean break from the Ritchie Blackmoor and be unabashedly in the tradition of FFC. Indeed, any other presentation would surely ring false.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 20, 2009 10:39:57 GMT -6
Amen, Falconer. An EXALT is in order.
I don't dislike the other Blackmoor campaigns, and some of the other authors have had some neat ideas.
They're just not Dave's. Dave's (original) Blackmoor and Gary's (original) Greyhawk are, to me, very special. Blackmoor should be presented in a "gonzo" rules-lite system like OD&D and Greyhawk ought to be AD&D.
The rules reflect in many ways the philosophy and the spirit of the campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 10:59:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on May 21, 2009 10:53:50 GMT -6
I think that the original 4E core rulebooks were somewhat world-specific, but as they add back in all of the extra classes they took out it seems like 4E is becoming more generic. (For example, at one point some of the races were very unusual and therefore world specific. Now they put half-orcs back in and many worlds have those.) True. For Blackmoor this shouldnt be such a big deal since that setting didn't really involve much more than the basic races/classes. OTOH, I fear we may see the inclusion of things like Dragonborn and Tieflings in the new Blackmoor. ZGG/CMP may have commented on this at some point, but I can't remember what they said. My main worry about the 4E books is that from what I have seen of WotC's 4E books, many of them are very concentrated around rules and "crunchy bits", with very little flavor text, which is what I would be mainly interested in. Hehe, that sounds like a plan The main advantage with having Blackmoor books coming out for the latest edition of the game is that it attracts attention to Blackmoor and sparks conversation. Havard |
|
|
|
Post by havard on May 21, 2009 11:03:00 GMT -6
Heh, well, if you want to know what Arneson’s campaign was like, you’ve got FFC. Other than that, Blackmoor has taken on a life of its own, as defined by Dave Ritchie during the BECMI era, and by Dustin Clingman & Jeff Quinn during the 3e era. Unfortunately, I would say that Ritchie’s Blackmoor felt like Dragonlance, and Clingman/Quinn’s Blackmoor felt like, oh, take your pick of any of a hundred other 3e “Campaign Settings”. In other words, they tended to conform to the popular idiom of their time rather than give Blackmoor its own distinctive feel as defined in FFC. No disrespect meant to them! I’m sure they had Arneson’s support at the time, and I’m sure it’s only in retrospect that their efforts can seem “dated”, and at the time it seemed as if they were presenting Blackmoor in all its glory to a modern audience. As you say, we already have some invaluable sources for what Dave's campaign was like, the FCC being the primary one. I like seeing what others have done with the setting though, both publishers and fans. It is interesting that you describe the BECMI and 3E iterations as "seemingly dated", but I do agree that you have a point As a fan creation that would certainly be possible. Commercially, I think it may also be so, but there could be complications if a company would want to do that and at the same time publish a 4E version. Should WotC decide to terminate their Blackmoor lisence, returning to the FCC would certainly be a natural option. I wonder how much money one could make from the Old School movement though? Havard |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jun 9, 2009 11:50:35 GMT -6
Still nothing at their site...*sigh*  Havard |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 10, 2009 9:02:56 GMT -6
As I understand it, their agreement with WotC for the IP (WotC owns Blackmoor as much as they do Greyhawk), Zeitgeist is required to keep it with the current edition of D&D--so there's small hope of seeing an "Original Edition," or even "older edition" Blackmoor.
On the other hand, I have a buddy (Eric Kiefer) who has done editing for them--he edited parts of The Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor and he told me that contrary to popular rumor, that book was in fact done straight from Dave's original notes. It's as close to the original castle as you'll get, and probably closer than Castle Zagyg is to Castle Greyhawk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 10, 2009 10:17:11 GMT -6
That's interesting. Even the "new levels" that weren't there in FFC? Those are by Arneson, too?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 10, 2009 11:22:22 GMT -6
So I've been told.
Remember that Blackmoor went on long after the 70's and the publication of FFC. He likely added to the castle as the years went on.
|
|
|
|
Post by gsvenson on Jun 10, 2009 14:13:30 GMT -6
I pretty much stopped adventuring in the original Blackmoor dungeon in 1975, but I remember adventures (vaguely) where we went below what was published in FFC in 1977.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 11, 2009 8:19:20 GMT -6
That's really neat. I guess I sort of assumed that levels 1-10 were "official" and 11-20 were cranked out for the d20 book. I'll have to go back and re-assess....
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jun 11, 2009 8:46:13 GMT -6
On the other hand, I have a buddy (Eric Kiefer) who has done editing for them--he edited parts of The Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor and he told me that contrary to popular rumor, that book was in fact done straight from Dave's original notes. It's as close to the original castle as you'll get, and probably closer than Castle Zagyg is to Castle Greyhawk. *Very interesting* greyelf! Thanks for sharing Havard |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 11, 2009 10:24:40 GMT -6
Cheers. There's an unfair rumor going around that Zeitgeist somehow ravaged Blackmoor and it wasn't really Dave's stuff anymore, which just ain't true...indeed, now that I think about it, I vaguely remember asking him at Gen Con last year, "So how close to your original is this?" referencing the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor book I'd just bought, and him responding something to the effect of, "That's it. That's my original dungeon."
The exact quotes are fuzzy--I was excited to meet the man face-to-face--but I seem to remember that conversation taking place. My memory cannot be relied on there, however. My knowledge of what Eric told me, though, is firm: we've discussed it several times.
Though what I'm hearing about the 4e version (advancing the timeline 270-odd years) does ring suspiciously like they're pulling a Forgotten Realms with it. And THAT will be upsetting.
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jun 11, 2009 12:38:31 GMT -6
Very cool.  Though what I'm hearing about the 4e version (advancing the timeline 270-odd years) does ring suspiciously like they're pulling a Forgotten Realms with it. And THAT will be upsetting. It is a possibility. I will be very surprised if the 4E books contain no mention at all of 4E specific races/classes. Advancing the timeline would be a reasonable way of explaining changes to the setting. OTOH, what first lept to my mind when I saw talk of the timeline was that it would be some kind of homage to the DA series. Even prior to the Mystara connection, I think there would have been speculations to what the introduction of technology would do to Blackmoor. Dustin Clingman (of ZGG) has mentioned the idea of exploring different Eras of the Blackmoor setting long before there was any serious talk of a 4th edition of D&D. Also, note that there will be 4E products for both the +200 years setting and the classic era. Havard |
|
