Digging Up The Past: My First Campaign

[badger2305]

So I started digging in my files in the basement, and came up with notes from the first D&D campaign I played in extensively, back in high school. The referee for the game was my friend Paul Hickey, whom I haven't talked to in years. Paul and I were part of a circle of high school wargamers and role-players, and we all had gotten started on OD&D in 1974 and 1975.

I thought I remembered the distinctive aspects of the rules. I was sooooo wrong.

I figured I would spend some time to toss out some of the rules modifications from back then, and see what people have to say. It's been something of a "blast from the past" and I cannot claim to remember why we did everything we came up with. I'll let this serve as an intro, and then get into things with my next post.

[badger2305]

So one of the things I thought I had remembered were the characteristics Paul and I used. This was not true. Here's the list from 1975-76:

• Strength; no percentile roll, bonuses start at 13, and progress 13-15 (+1), 16-18 (+2), 19-20 (+3), 21-22(+4), 23 (+5)
  
• Intelligence; affected experience gained, languages, spell levels possible for mages and clerics, and chance of believing illusions
  
• Constitution; affected hit points and recovery from wounds, with similar progression as for strength
  
• Dexterity; affected chance to hit, thieving abilities, spell success (we'll come back to that), and armor class
  
• Magic Ability; affected spell success, intelligence modification (?), and saving throws (at very high levels)
  
• Holiness; affected clerical spell success, intelligence modification (?), and chance of prayer being answered
  
• Willpower; affected saving throws, wound recovery, chance of unintentionally going berserk; continuing as berserk, and illusion believability
  
• Charisma; affected chance of people believing you, chance of unusual followers and number you can have, as well as social level (?)
  
• Luck; affected chance of unusual tasks, as well as monster reactions.
  

It was interesting to go back through this list. I'm not sure I'd use this list today, but as an example of what "homebrew" rules looked like back in the past, this is a great example.

[badger2305]

Looking at weapons, I found something else I had totally forgotten. Weapons were broken out into different classes of length (which affected which one went first in combat, as I recall). In addition, weapon damage was either "normal" or "expert" - this reminded me that there were weapon proficiencies, which were gained very slowly.

The number of attacks you got per round was governed by your level - in general, fighters could make as many attacks as their level each round, up to 10th level, while other classes got fewer attacks per round. So a 5th level fighter could make 5 attacks, and a 5th level mage could make 2 attacks.

Subdual damage was dealt with differently; very few weapons were specifically used to subdue (I think); most did real damage but could also be used to subdue, but did far less damage than if they were used for their intended purpose.

Here are the weapon length classes:

• One: dagger, brass knuckles, fist
  
• Two: Long-knife, short sword, war hammer, dwarven war hammer, hand axe (single and double blade), club
  
• Three: Rapier, saber, scimitar, long sword, mace, military pick, javelin, short spear, flail
  
• Four: Great sword, 2-handed sword, battle-axe, great-axe, quarterstaff, headed quarterstaff, great mace, morningstar, long spear
  
• Five: lance (light and heavy), halberd, glaive, partisan
  
• Six: Pike
  

Weapons of a lower rating class were at a -1 to hit persons wielding longer weapons (i.e. higher rating class).

[badger2305]

So - quick question: should I keep going and say more about the campaign and the rules mods? What do you all think?

[calithena]

Please, keep going on both. This is vital living history.

I think what I liked most about RPGs was the making up your own rules and own way to play part.

[WSmith]

Post as much as possible.

[Finarvyn]

It would be interesting to brouse rules sets of "the day" to see if you derived any of your house rules from those or made them up. Stats like "holiness" are unique, as far as I can recall. (Not saying it's bad either way ... just curious.)

[badger2305]

admin said:

It would be interesting to brouse rules sets of "the day" to see if you derived any of your house rules from those or made them up. Stats like "holiness" are unique, as far as I can recall. (Not saying it's bad either way ... just curious.)

Holiness and Magical Ability were both characteristics Paul specifically came up with, since he felt that neither Intelligence nor Wisdom were really accurate reflections of the ideas involved in either being devout or particularly endowed with magical talent. (Somewhat interesting in this regard, Paul was Missouri Synod Lutheran, if I recall correctly - but neither he nor his parents thought D&D was anything other than harmless fun.)

[badger2305]

Paul intensely disliked D&D mapping; it wasn't "real" enough for him: "just exactly how thick is that pencil line on the graph paper?" So he used 10 squares to the inch graph paper, with inches marked off as well. Each small square was a five foot by five foot space. Some interesting results:

• Doorways were usually 5, 10, or 20 feet wide, and mostly five feet in depth, because walls were five feet thick in most places.
  
• Secret doors were marked as thin rectangles in those five foot walls.
  
• Columns, traps, and other dungeon accoutrements were specifically placed on the dungeon maps, right down to the exact location in most cases.
  

The result was a different kind of dungeon map, more architectural in style, and with more precision in some ways, compared to the "standard D&D" map. I've always liked it more than the "standard D&D" map, but then I spent a lot of time gaming with Paul's mapping system. If I can put together an example and scan it in, I'll see if I can post it somewhere here.

[badger2305]

This was interesting to review. There was a single saving throw chart; it looks as though we discarded the differentials for "death ray" and "paralysis", etc., and replaced them with a single chart, keyed to level of character:

• Fighters got the worst saving throws, advancing only every three levels initially, i.e. Levels 1-3 had to roll a 19 or better on a d20 to save.
  
• Mages were a bit better, first advancing on levels 1-2, then every three levels after that.
  
• Clerics were different, getting to advance at level 2, then advancing at level 5, level 10, then level 17 (no idea as to why this progression was used)
  
• Thieves advanced at level 2, level 5, level 8 and level 11. Thus a 6th level Thief needed a save of 17 or better.
  

This probably sounds deadly. It wasn't. A high willpower added to saving throws for magic (particularly illusions), constitution for poisons, "etc." - not at all sure how we worked it all out in retrospect. But poisons were usually not the "save vs. instant death" variety; they usually did hit points of damage over time, so there was a waiting game aspect to it, too.

The consolidation into a single chart predates the simplification found in later rules sets. Reviewing it now makes me want to re-think just what a saving throw represents, and how to reflect that in the rules.

[badger2305]

Some of the stuff I have yet to cover include:

• Spell success
  
• Ranged weapons chance to hit, damage, and reloads
  
• Experience awards
  
• Hit location system (don't recall using it, but it's here, in Paul's handwriting)
  
• Armor damage subtraction (ditto hit location)
  
• Wandering parties (making up wandering parties of adventurers)
  
• Non-ordinary tasks (what do you do to determine chance of success)
  
• Raising or lowering characteristics (not sure when we used this chart)
  
• Hiding in the wilderness
  
• Encumbrance
  
• Potion color
  
• Characteristic modifications by race
  
• Class characteristics by type
  
• Experience per birthday
  
• Languages
  

I could have sworn there were other notes, and I haven't said a thing about Paul's world, which was incredibly detailed (three different areas, three different histories, very little interaction between them, but contact did take place).

So, more to follow.

[doc]

I'm liking your notes, Badger. It's amazing the personal modifications people make to their games. You don't get to see a lot of that sort of thing anymore.

I'd love to see your notes on race and class, and the whole "experience per birthday."

Doc

[badger2305]

Paul thought that magic-users were simply too powerful; a Sleep spell would be the end of the usual gang of orcs, and so one concept he introduced me to was that of spell success. At 1st level, a player had to roll an 11 or better on a d20 in order for their spell to succeed. At 2nd level, it was 10 or better. By 9th level, it dropped to a 7 or better, and even at 18th level, there was still a 5% chance (rolling a 1) that a spell would fail. Illusionists were in a similar boat (though I don't think Paul liked illusionists; the write-up for them is entirely in my handwriting).

Clerics faced a similar situation: at 2nd level, they needed a 10 or better but by 7th level, the roll needed was only 5 or better. But the gods could be fickle; even at 16th level, a High Priest needed a 2 or better.

Sounds pretty difficult, right? Well, yes and no. Turns out that if you had a high magical ability or holiness, your chance would improve. A Magical Ability score of 13-15 would net a +1; 16-17, a +2; an 18 would provide a +3. Ditto for Holiness. So a talented mage or priest would have a better than 50/50 chance for their spells to succeed at 1st level, and things would only get better from there.

"But what do you do when your spell doesn't work?" you ask in anguish. Paul had an answer for that - you could fight. Recognizing that spell success might mean a lot of dead apprentices, mages were allowed to wear leather armor, and use one-handed weapons (in this, I think Paul was influenced by The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings; if Gandalf could wield Glamdring, then why couldn't D&D mages?).

One other note about mages: since Magical Ability was the important stat for them, it was possible to have a highly Talented but not necessarily very bright mage. Here's the sticky wicket - Magical Ability governed how well you could cast magic; Intelligence governed how high you could go in terms of spell level. But even if you were only low-average intelligence (9-10), and could therefore only cast spells up to 3rd level, the higher your character level, the more 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells you could cast. Put another way, you could cast a similar number of spell levels as a much more intelligent mage - but they would be limited to the spell levels you could understand.

Example: take two 11th level mages, the first with an Intelligence of 10 and the second with an Intelligence of 16. The second fellow would be able to cast each day:

• 4 1st level spells
  
• 4 2nd level spells
  
• 4 3rd level spells
  
• 4 4th level spells
  
• 4 5th level spells
  
• 2 6th level spells
  

...or about 22 spells in a day. (Did I mention we messed with spell casting progression, too?) Our first fellow, of only average intelligence, would get:

• 8 1st level spells
  
• 8 2nd level spells
  
• 6 3rd level spells
  

...or the same number of spells as the smarter fellow.

As a result, you did not need to have high scores in both Intelligence and Magical Ability - but it did help. I think the "Intelligence add" mentioned back with Magical Ability and Holiness was something of a backstop; people who were either Talented or Blessed would also be just a little smarter than others.

[badger2305]

Another system of some complexity was found with missile weapons. The usual set of weapons were there, from sling to composite bow, but things got interesting after that. Missile weapons had several characteristics:

• Range: each weapon had a different range bands for "to hit" modifiers. A long bow was at a -1 to hit from 100 to 150 yards, a -2 from 151 to 200 yards, etc. For a javelin, -1 to hit started at 10 yards and went to 25 yards, -2 from 26 to 40 yards, and so on (not sure how much home work we had done on actual ranges - Paul had done some, but that was it.
  
• Damage: as range increased, damage done decreased. Thus a long bow went from a d10 at close range (up to -1 to hit), a d8 further out (up to -3 to hit), and a d5 at extreme range.
  
• Number of shots per round: this varied from three shots every two rounds for a sling, to 1 for 1 for a long bow, 4 every 3 rounds for an Elven bow, and 2 shots a round for a thrown dagger.
  
• Required characteristics: some weapons required minimum scores. A composite bow required a minimum Strength of 9, long bows and light crossbows required a Strength of 11, while heavy crossbows required a Strength of 13 (and so on). Elven bows required a Dexterity of 11 to use.
  

Expertise provided a +1 to hit, "nothing more" - I seem to recall having a debate with Paul about these issues, since both of use felt that missile weapons were underpowered in the original rules.

[badger2305]

This was interesting. Experience was not given out for gold, as I recall; instead there were experience awards made on the basis of what class your character was.

• Fighters got 15 XP for every point of damage done to a monster.
  
• Thieves got 10 XP per damage point, 1 point per 20 GP, 50 per spell level cast successfully (via scroll, I assume)
  
• Magic-users got 5 XP per damage point, and then 100 points for the highest-level spell then could normally cast, e.g. a 3rd level MU would get 100 points for a successfully cast 2nd level spell. Lower level spells gave fewer XP when cast, while a higher level spell than what would normally be possible could provide as much as 750 XP (a 9th level spell cast successfully by a 1st level MU). Illusionists operated on a similar basis.
  
• Clerics would get 10 XP per damage point done, and then XP on a basis similar to that for magic-users. Clerics would also gain 5 points for an unsuccessful turning of undead, 15 for a successful turn, 10 for an automatic turn, and 5 per dispellment of level of undead (not exactly sure what that meant).
  

[jrients]

This is awesome stuff, definitely worth as many posts as you want to devote to the subject!

[badger2305]

Labeled as the "Hitting Matrix" I recall that Paul came up with this as a completely different system for resolving combat. It's interesting, because it clearly shows its wargaming roots.

To begin with, you determine the armor class held by each combatant. "Normal" is considered AC 6 (not sure why), with the chart going to "Plus 4" (AC 10 - bare skin), down to "Minus 6" (AC 0) and then continuing to AC -3.

Once you have that determined, you need to consider whether or not either combatant was mounted (marking its wargaming background). So you have "F vs. F" (Foot v. Foot), M vs. F (Mounted v. Foot), F vs. M, and M vs. M. Each situation results in a single percentile dice roll, giving the hit location as well as success (if I recall this all correctly).

Let's take two opponents, one is AC 6 and the other AC 3; both are on foot:

To hit AC 6:

Normal	Body	Legs	R. Arm	Head	Horse	Choice
F vs. F	1-12	13-21	22-33	34-36	--	37-42

...and I assume that any roll over 42 was a miss. I suspect there were some thoughts given to critical hits, as well.

To hit AC 3:

Normal	Body	Legs	R. Arm	Head	Horse	Choice
F vs. F	1-9	10-15	16-24	--	--	25-27

If either was mounted, then there was a chance that your hit landed on the horse.

It's a fascinating example of a really different way of doing things, but the potential problems of implementing this system are fairly evident. I don't recall using it, but there might have been a playtest session somewhere in there. Paul was a thoughtful, creative guy, and I was lucky to game with him for the time we did in high school.

[badger2305]

This is definitely murky territory; I doubt we actually used this, though it mirrors ideas I've had since I gamed with Paul.

Armor was broken down into greater detail: "Leather armor" was divided into "Leather vest" and "Leather shirt" and "Leather cap". Similarly, there were several kinds of helmets (open, closed, leather and steel caps, etc.). Two types of chainmail, boots, greaves, full plate, horse barding, gauntlets and shields.

Based on the hit location system detailed in a previous post, the armor would provide some protection from damage done. So a hit to the body would see one point subtracted from the total, if someone was wearing a leather vest. A chainmail shirt would subtract three points. However, a blow to the legs would not see any damage subtracted, due to the two types of armor mentioned. Similarly a blow to the head would encounter no resistance due to armor, unless you had a helmet of some kind, or full plate, or a shield of some kind.

Additionally, armor possessed hit points. A leather vest would have 10 hit points, and a chain vest had 25; full plate armor had 50 hit points. Along with hit points, there was weight. That leather vest was three pounds, a chainmail shirt was 20 pounds, and full plate was 70 pounds.

Lastly, there were entries for magical armor of different sorts, including +1 to +5 plate armor, +1 to +5 shields, magic helms, Bracers of Defence (and of Defencelessness), and a Dancing Shield.

[WSmith]

This truly is some amazing stuff. Please keep posting. I would love to see the scans of the maps too if possible.

Did your spellcasters have to memorize or prepare spells before hand or since there was a chance for spell failure, did they just choose which spell to cast at the time of the casting?

[badger2305]

wsmith said:

This truly is some amazing stuff. Please keep posting. I would love to see the scans of the maps too if possible.

I have only my sketch maps of the area we played in - Paul made us map everything. He wanted to pass all of it to me later in high school, but I didn't feel right taking it. However, I did let him give me one of his earlier campaign maps, which provides the feel of how we did wilderness maps. I'll scan one of my later ones, too, and some dungeon maps.

Did your spellcasters have to memorize or prepare spells before hand or since there was a chance for spell failure, did they just choose which spell to cast at the time of the casting?

No. No memorization was required. Paul and I both thought that it was silly (though after reading Jack Vance's stuff, I figured out where the idea came from). You just chose what you wanted to cast, and then rolled to see if it worked.

More to come soon.

[badger2305]

The entire monster encounter system was revamped by Paul to meet his own needs. In particular, I noticed that he set specific base values for hit points, with a variable amount on top of that, e.g. "Minotaur, 30 + 1-12 HP" instead of the more usual number of dice to roll.

When it came to wandering parties of monsters, Paul went into some detail about their composition. The types he had listed were:

• Bandits
  
• Brigands
  
• Nomads
  
• Dervishes
  
• Buccaneers
  
• Pirates
  
• Cavemen
  
• Orks
  

To use the last as an example:
"Orks: die 1-9: 1-20 {appearing}, die 10-11: 2-40, die 12: 1-100.
"Composition 50% 1st level - spear, dagger; 10% 2nd level - scimitar; 35% - 1st level - bow, dagger; 5% - 2nd level - short bow, scimitar. Any party over 20 will be led by a 3rd level, AC 4, sword and dagger. A party of 100 or more will be led by a 4th level, AC 4, sword, dagger, and they have a 25% per 100 of having 1-4 trolls with them.
"If 20-90 orks are met on an ork-road there is a 25% chance they are escorting 1-8 waggons with 200-1200 gp each. {!} All orks are -1 hitting and low morale in daylight; they attack orks of other tribes on sight; if in a forest, orks may ride Dire Wolves; none can ride horses."

In addition to this, Paul re-did the encounter tables almost completely, which most referees ended up doing to suit their own campaigns. The encounter tables that were modified and updated in Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc., were simply not a good match in most cases for actual campaigns (and I seem to recall several different encouragements in the rules and in Strategic Review and The Dragon to write up your own).

Lastly, Paul came up with a system for determining the composition of adventuring parties player-characters might encounter. To begin with, you determined who the leader of the party was, by character class and race, e.g. a human fighter, or a Elven fighter-mage. Then you determined the composition of the rest of the party, according to several rolls. Let's use the Elven fighter-mage as an example:

Fighter-Mage Elf:

• 75% chance of 1-4 fighters; 20% chance being human, 10% chance being hobbit, otherwise elven
  
• 75% chance of 1-2 mages; 20% chance of being human, otherwise elven
  
• 10% chance of a thief; 75% chance of being human, 15% of being hobbit, otherwise elven
  
• 10% chance of a cleric
  

...so in a few quick rolls, you would have a good idea of the relative kinds of people in a wandering party of adventurers. There's no notes about the levels in a party, which seems odd; Paul tended to be fairly careful about keeping track of such things.

[badger2305]

Before moving on to Non-Ordinary Tasks, it's worth noting the price list that Paul and I worked on, which was much longer than I remembered: four and a half pages, two column, on lined college-ruled filler pages. The categories included were as follows, with a few examples of each:

• Weapons: everything from a dagger (4gp) to battle-ax (20gp) to light cross-bow (25gp).
  
• Armor: Plate was the most expensive (750gp) with chainmail at 80gp, and leather at 30gp. Shields were 15gp to 25gp.
  
• Clothing: belts, boots, hose, kilts, shirts, doublets, robes, cloaks, caps and hats
  
• Provisions: mead and cider were cheap, fine brandy was 2gp a glass, while meals ranged from 15 coppers for cheap stew and bread to "banquet/person" was a gold piece. Waybread was a gold, as well.
  
• Sundry: mallets, small, medium and large sacks, casks, paper, Greek Fire, wolvesbane, prayer beads, glass marbles - just a sample of the sorts of stuff here.
  
• Animals: guard dogs, Heavy (war)horse, Draft Horse, goats, cows, chickens, eagles, pidgeons, tack and harness.
  
• Transport: rafts, boats, barges, caravels, cogs and galleys.
  
• Services: Man-of-Arms/Month, Assassin/Level/Job, Smith, Scribe, Navigator, Lieutenant, Captain, General, Soothsayer, Oracle.
  
• Upkeep: Fighter, non-fighter, officer, knight, specialist
  
• Housing: Poor room/night was the cheapest at 50 coppers, a good room was 2gp; small houses to buy were 5000 gp, rural inns were 18,000gp
  
• Magic: Adept's staff was 2000gp, Conjuror's staff was 4000gp, a Wizard's staff was 10,000g, and spells/level were 100-600gp.
  

Whew! I sense some later influence of C&S on this list, but most of it was in Paul's handwriting, with some additions and editing by me.

[badger2305]

This is a bit messy. Paul obviously wanted a system to determine the chance of doing something risky or unusual. Given the condition of the notes, we messed with it a little, coming up with the following system.

First, roll percentile dice (it's a little unclear, but I think this is what we did). Add the relevant characteristic to this roll. Generally speaking, this results in the following:

% Die + Characteristic	Type of Die
01-20	1-2 (originally 1d4)
21-40	1-3 (originally 1d6)
41-60	1-4 (originally 1d8)
61-80	1-5 (originally 1d10)
81-100	1-6 (originally 2d4, I think)
101-120	1-8 (originally 2d6, I think)
121-140	1-10 (originally 3d6, I think)

Then take the relevant characteristic and the level of the character, multiply this by the die roll you get from the right hand column on the table, and this yields the percentage chance of accomplishing the task.

So let's take an example. Say a Hobbit fighter, 4th level, with a strength of 15, no other factors to consider, wants to push a stone boulder off a cliff, to crush some orks. First percentile die roll comes up 43; so roll either a d4 or a d8 (depending on when we tested this); result is 4. Strength of 15 plus 4th level = 19; multiply this by 4 = 76% chance our bold hero can lever the rock off the edge. Not bad for a little guy.

There were some additional effects on the final characteristic number to take into account:

• Luck of 3-5: -1
  
• Luck of 16-18: +1
  
• Luck of 19-20: +2
  
• Luck of 21-22: +3
  
• Bless spell: +1 to +4
  
• Curse spell: -1 to -6
  
• Prayer: +1 times the level of the cleric
  

I know we tested this system, which resulted in the revisions I noted above in the table. It actually worked reasonably well and fairly quickly during actual game play. Given the statistical distribution, someone with high relevant characteristic had a decent chance of accomplishing something. If I were to use this system again, I'd probably add in a set of mitigating factors (essentially pluses and minuses), and go with it pretty much as is.

[badger2305]

I have no idea if we ever had a chance to use this chart. As far as I can tell, Paul intended it as a means of raising or lowering characteristics, and this may or may not have been connected with non-ordinary tasks. (That's really clear, isn't it? ;D )

Additionally, there were TWO different ways of doing this. Here's method one:

• If 18 or 3: 40%
  
• If 19 or 2: 35%
  
• If 20 or 1: 30%
  

...with the scale continuing upwards to 26 (1% chance of raising it). I suspect players would have had to roll dice to see if they could get their characteristics higher (or forced to see if it went lower).

Method two was simpler, but also more variable: If 18, roll dice again; add score over 12. If 24, repeat. If 3, as above, but subtract scores under 9. If -3 (!), repeat.

[badger2305]

This was a much more straightforward system. It looked like this:

Terrain	50'-100'	101'-500'	501'- 1000'	1001'-5000'	Search
Clear	10%	20%	40%	80%	05%
Forest	20%	40%	65%	90%	15%
Swamp	25%	40%	65%	90%	15%
Marsh	20%	35%	50%	65%	10%
Desert	05%	15%	30%	50%	05%
Hills	10%	25%	55%	80%	10%
Mountains	5%	20%	55%	90%	15%

Given what's here, the rest of it all seems to make sense. Party size, month of the year, racial advantages, Invisibility rings and other magic items, as well as nighttime weather and phase of the moon - all acted as modifiers to your chance to hide.

Party Size	1-2	3-6	7-12	13-20	21-50	51-100	101-500
Hiders % DM	+5	--	-5	-10	-20	-40	-50
Hidees % DM	--	--	-5	-10	-15	-20	-30
Searchers	--	-5	-10	-20	-50	-100	--

Not at all sure what the difference was between "hiders" and "hidees."

Then there were percentage modifiers for what month it was:

January	-10	April	-10	July	--	October	-5
February	-10	May	-5	August	--	November	-5
March	-15	June	--	September	--	December	-10

After that there were percentage modifiers based on the race and mounting of the hider and searcher:

Percentage Modifier	Elf	Hobbit	Animal	Dwarf	Orc	Mounted
Hider	+15	+10	+10	-5	-10	-75
Searcher	-15	-5	-15	+5	+5	-25

And then magical devices would assist in hiding:
Invisibility Ring: +90%
Invisibility Cloak: +80% (probably not stackable, but I do not recall for sure)
Elven Cloak: +15% (seems paltry but maybe I'm not remembering how this all worked)

Lastly, there were modifiers for time of day and phase of the moon:

Night	Dusk	New Moon	Full Moon	Cloudy	Dawn
%	+20	+40	+30	+50	+10

And that's about that for the Hiding in the Wilderness section of Paul's rules.

[badger2305]

One of the things I've mentioned already is the different dungeon mapping system that Paul and I used. I've scanned in a sample level of a dungeon, which you can see here: www.flickr.com/photos/24049254@N02/2285498949/


picasaweb.google.com/badger2305/MyPictures/photo?authkey=g3igAjkD_7A#5177813472809252210

(It looks as though the messageboard doesn't like Flickr's URL; you may need to cut'n'paste it into your browser to see the actual map). Edit: I've added a Picasa file of the same image; the board seems to tolerate the link better.

I'll include a map key below (though I haven't included any monster placements, so this is just the layout description):

• 1: This is a large 12-sided chamber almost 100' across, with many pillars around the edges of the room (marked by small circles on the map), with a door in the SE side of the room, about 15' wide. The entire room is vaulted and goes up into the darkness. I think I intended this to be a magic-user's summoning chamber and workshop. (Can you tell this was done to make mapping interesting?)
  
• 2: (I seem to have left #2 off this map)
  
• 3: This is a 40' x 40' room, with truncated corners. There is a 10' door in the west wall, leading to #5. This was intended to be the magic-user's main room, library, etc.
  
• 4: A secret door (marked by a rectangle in the wall) from #5 leading to this passageway. It slopes upwards from #5 (arrows indicate up), to a set of arrow slits (three of them, marked by circles in the wall) high up in the south wall of #1. The passageway continues to the west, sloping down (and probably leading to the next lower level).
  
• 5: This is a hallway, 15' wide. From the middle door, it goes 15' to a 10' door to the east, and then continues another 30' on the east wall to a door to the northwest, leading to #1. The west wall of the passage is about 10' shorter, due to the angle of the NW door. South of the middle door, there are two 5' doorways on either side, before reaching #10.
  
• 6 through 9: these are all 25' by 25' rooms, with 5' doors leading to the passageway marked as #5. Each room has its corners truncated. These would be storerooms, guardrooms, and the like for the magic-user and his guards.
  
• 10: Octagonal room, 50' at the widest. There are pillars near each of the eight corners of the room. It opens up to the north, leading to the passageway #5. There is a reinforced door (marked by double lines), 10' wide, in the center of the east wall. Just north of that door, in the NE wall, is a 5' door, facing directly east. There is also a secret door in the SW wall, near the upper corner, leading to a 5' passageway going south connecting to the cavern marked #13. This would be the initial "reception area" for the guards of the magic-user.
  
• 11: This passageway is 10' wide, initially going downwards to the NE for approximately 120', although the ceiling of the passage does not slope, thus getting higher the further one goes. It then turns west, and slopes back upwards for 50', and ends in a reinforced door. The entire passageway is covered in intricately-carved murals, which hide the set of arrowslits in the north wall of the passage looking down from high above (approximately 30' up).
  
• 12 to 15: rough caverns. There is a secret door in #13 to the NW, leading to a 5' wide passageway that eventually would lead to #10 (a secret entrance). There is a door connecting #12 and #13, and another door connecting #12 to #15, with the direction of motion marked by the semi-circle on one side. $15 also has a 5' wide door to the west, leading to a 5' wide passageway going west.
  
• 14: pool. This could be anything from a spring to a magical pool.
  
• 16: Room, 35' EW by 25' NS. There is a 5' wide door in the middle of the north wall.
  
• 17: Room, 100' EW by 30' NS. A series of statues line the northern and southern sides of the room, creating a center aisle 10' wide. There is a 10' wide opening to the east, and a 10' wide door to the west.
  
• 18: Passageway to the north, 10' wide, jogging slightly west (or you might say, going south, with a slant to the S-SE in the middle). At either end of the jog there are stairs going up for 15'. At the north end of the passageway is a 10' wide door to the north.
  
• 19: Octagonal room, 40' EW by 45' NS. There are two pillars at each of the corners of the north, west, and south walls. In the middle of the room is an octagonal pool, with a large statue or plinth near the eastern edge of the basin. A passageway leads to the west, 5' wide, going only 5' before reaching a spiral staircase 5' wide to the south, going upwards in a clockwise direction.
  

It's a very different system of mapping, and it complicates mapping a fair bit. While it might seem frustrating to players, it actually encouraged a kind of "portolan" style of mapping - sine we knew our maps wouldn't be absolutely correct, we took copious notes to show how things fit together even if we knew the lines were off somehow. I'll also freely admit that this example is a bit overdone to show off some aspects of the system itself.

Hope you like it!

[James Maliszewski]

doc said:

It's amazing the personal modifications people make to their games. You don't get to see a lot of that sort of thing anymore.

No, you don't and it's a pity. One of the reasons OD&D continues to have such appeal for me, despite all my frustrations with various parts of it, is this very point: it encourages modification and that, to me, is where the heart of this hobby lies.

[James Maliszewski]

badger2305 said:

One of the things I've mentioned already is the different dungeon mapping system that Paul and I used. I've scanned in a sample level of a dungeon, which you can see here: www.flickr.com/photos/24049254@N02/2285498949/

That's simply a gorgeous map. I don't think my old dungeon maps ever looked that good!

[coffee]

I agree with jamesm on both of his last points.

That is a beautiful map.

And I love the way you can modify D&D to be whatever you want. You can bend, fold, spindle and mutilate it, and yet it still retains its essential "D&D-ness".

[badger2305]

I have other dungeon and wilderness maps to share. Interestingly enough, I don't recall having any city maps to share, though I do recall talking with Paul at some length about cities, general layout, etc. For example, the first city my characters started in, Andlay, in the country of Lorin, was on the east bank of the Andlay River, and was on the border of the country. Therefore the city was fortified, and the bridges across the river were guarded. I remember there being a lot of discussion about various quarters of the city - but no maps. Seems a little odd in retrospect, but there you are.