|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 20, 2021 7:11:45 GMT -6
Is something like this a fair representation of "then" and "now"? Or is this missing/misrepresenting something? While I think there's some value in using this to show degrees of emphasis, I am not at all sure the two Venn diagrams are separate from each other. It's the problem of trying to illustrate these issues symbolically - while useful for some kinds of explanation, it also creates the impression that the two are separate and distinct from one another.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 15, 2021 14:44:12 GMT -6
I am planning on attending Gamehole Con myself. It will be my first time there. Also this fall I will be at Origins and Con on the Cob (a small regional con in Northeast Ohio). Origins event registration is open, as is Gamehole Con. Thinking on running any events? Some background: a convention usually ends up having about 3 events a day (e.g. 10am-2pm, 2-6pm, 7-11pm, or something like that), so over approximately three days (Thursday evening, Friday, Saturday, Sunday through the afternoon), four referees each running two events covers most/all of the time for events. So if you ran two events, and I ran two events, etc. that's half of what's needed. Anybody else going?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 12, 2021 11:23:27 GMT -6
Having just gotten back from North Texas RPG Con, I can attest to real interest in old school games and gaming. With four Tekumel events, Rob Smith, Scott McKinlay and I decided that we're going to start planning a "Tekumel Track" for next year's NTRPG. I think this concept could be applied to OD&D/Old School games at other conventions. By "track" I mean a series of events set up so that people can play pretty continuously throughout the convention, and referees don't book all of their events on the same day and time. We could create discussion threads for each convention, and coordinate event planning ahead of time (as well as recruiting new players!).
Probably the first place to start would be to discuss which conventions (if any) people are planning on going to, and potentially running events at. I will go first: I am planning on attending Gamehole Con here in Madison, Wiscowsin, in late October this year. I am also getting persuaded to go to Millennium Con in Austin, TX, in mid-November. What about the rest of you?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 10, 2021 15:13:31 GMT -6
@ampleframework, I can never find a good break down of generation theory and suggested dates. Which do you use? Any suggested resources? As a sociologist, with some training in demography, I have never found a decent, agreed-upon breakout of generations for this purpose. I'll see if I can confirm this in the current literature.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 8, 2021 15:35:33 GMT -6
That seems to be really common among roleplayers. It is baffling. Yeah. I can only say, objectively, it seems to have happened a handful of times here, mostly with "legacy" dudes, fairly high-profile people. It's sad that they're not here with us any more but it was their decision. Seriously, even though I've had to cool my own jets from time to time, I appreciate the calm atmosphere here, and I also very much appreciate the slack that others have provided to me when that's happened. It's definitely a part of why I'm back.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 8, 2021 15:33:19 GMT -6
So... interest in OD&D appears to drop off a cliff at age 60? What happens on your 61st birthday?? Based on my browsing around the forum, it seems most of the older guys are either deceased like Dave Arneson or quit the forum in a huff at some perceived slight like the original players who used to post here. I am NOT deceased! How dare you say that I am deceased like Dave Arneson?? I take umbrage at that! (Around here we take umbrage like others take tiffin, and darn early, too!) (J/K!!!! )
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 3, 2021 12:32:37 GMT -6
Hello from North Texas RPG Con! I am right now playing a game being run by Steve Winter, with a bunch of fine fellow players, including Bill Meinhardt and Mark Greenberg (and if there others here I should recognize, my apologies!).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 24, 2021 17:38:44 GMT -6
Starbeard, that's my current interpretation of the rule, but you explained it way better than I ever could. How do you handle hit points when a character change class for the first time? Elves start as multiclass, so they get only half HD when they go up a level in a class since the beginning. But a high level character changing class for the first time already rolled full HDs for each of his levels. The way I play it (not infering that this is the right one at all...): -The player-character keeps the abilities and Hit points from the former class, unless there is a rationale against it: for instance, a Fighting man embracing a new career as a Magic-user can still use a sword, because he won't forget his former training, but a FM changing class to Cleric won't because the prohibition against edged swords is a deontological one. - The character also keeps his former Hit-points count because these represent his current state of training and overall capacity to survive a fight, but won't add new hit dices as he progress in his new class (after all, imagine a 4-level Hero who becomes a Cleric: how is the the fighting capability of a 1st level Acolyte going to add anything to his combat expertise?), but he still can roll Hit-Points at every level, untill the new score is better. Exempli gratia: Sir Hughes is a 4th level Hero. He fights as such and has 12 HP (3,3,5,1+0 = 12, no Constitution bonus). He has a change of heart and decides to enter the holy orders. He now is an Acolyte: he still fights as a Hero (4 men) ans has 12 hit points, but can't use his sword anymore, because he has forfeited the shedding of blood. He can turn undead as a 1st level cleric. 1,500 XP later he's an Adept. He rolls 2d6+0 and scores 1,1+0 = 2, so he stands at 12 HP. He still fights as a Hero but now can Turn stronger undead and cast 1st level clerical spells. After some more undead-smiting, he reaches 3,000XP and becomes a Priest. He rolls 3d6+0 and obtains 4,6,3+0 = 13. He still attacks as Hero (becaus hero beats Priest) but now defends with 13 HP ('caus 13 is better than 12) ans casts 2 firts level spells. This makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 23, 2021 7:13:50 GMT -6
Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great." I don't have any idea what Morrowind is but this a such a great Pro Tip for life, it's worth calling out. Morrowind is the third game in the Elder Scrolls series of computer games. It's twenty years old and still very playable, and was recently updated and re-released, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 22, 2021 6:32:04 GMT -6
In principle, I actually prefer the monsters from real-world mythology. They come with a sense of groundedness, deep cultural connections, sense of awareness/recognition by first-time RPG'ers, literary precedents, opportunity to read up elsewhere and so learn more about real history, etc. In contrast, "D&D as its own thing" seems a bit shallow to me. Often (in published materials) the wacky monsters seem like really stretching primarily for the purpose of achieving protectable IP content. So in the poll I picked "I like the Gygaxian smørgasbord". But it's possible I may have blinders on about the joys of discovery with a completely novel menagerie of monsters, which is not something I've ever done. Whenever I looked at All The World's Monsters, I would get this vague sense of there being some embedded taxonomy of monsters from different campaigns that would make more sense if they weren't cheek-by-jowl with a bunch of other monsters. I might go back and look again at that. But the best example of a completely made up array of monsters would be that found in Empire of the Petal Throne. Appropriate to the setting, yet alien in their appearance and makeup. You can see how that served as potential inspiration for Ken Rolston and company when they were putting together Morrowind.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 18, 2021 19:29:33 GMT -6
It also seems large for a typical barony in a temperate climate. I've therefore ruled that we are to clear 10 miles, or a radius of two hexes from the hex within which the stronghold lies. This is 5 hexes across or 25 miles. So a messenger could travel across the whole barony in one day. Or go from the center to the edge and back in one day -- making command control make more sense. Also, it just makes for a more manageable campaign clearing 19 hexes rather than, what is that, 42 (sorry, numbers)? It also means less overlapping of boundaries leading to border disputes between baronies. This makes a great deal of sense (including some of the later concerns about terrain effects on the WS board). It also matches the conditions for castle encounters in U&WA: in the stronghold hex itself - 3-in-6 chance occupants will come out; one hex away - 2-in-6 chance; two hexes - 1-in-6 chance. So the effect would be to make space three or more hexes away more likely to be a wilderness encounter. One caution about the effects of terrain - keep in mind that many castles have occupants and servitors who are capable of flight. So while terrain will have an effect, the flight ability will lessen that. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 14, 2021 12:35:12 GMT -6
In going back through UWA, I've found mention of various monsters that are not written up, and apparently do not show up elsewhere. You left out some of the animals, but I don't much care about those because they are easily addressed by the entries for large and small animals and insects, respectively. Some of the monsters you left out that don't have stats in the 3LBB include: • Cyclopses • Dopplegangers • Gelatinous Cubes • Golems • Juggernauts • Living Statues • Salamanders • Shadows I noticed those, as well. Some of those get mentioned elsewhere (Greyhawk, etc.). I think it was mentioned that murquhart72 had come up with stats for the Barsoomian monsters?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 14, 2021 10:59:17 GMT -6
Eh, to be honest, they can do whatever they want. I don't expect I'll be purchasing any more 5e material or any subsequent editions of D&D going forward, anyway. That circus has left me behind 100%. All my observations on the topic are firmly from the sidelines. From a purely business-oriented perspective, of course, what they're doing makes the most sense. If I suddenly became the CEO of Lamborghini or something I wouldn't say to myself "You know what? I think we're finished making these cars. We'll sell pickup trucks instead." In that corporate, profit-driven environment, that'd be absolutely insane and the stockholders would oust me quickly. That's the kind of environment that owns the D&D IP now, and so it doesn't particularly interest me. Hasbro is just a less-rich Disney like every other company these days. I say we go back to telling stories around the camp fire before somebody buys up the rights to that, to. Total aside, but take a look at Lamborghini's attempt to put together wheeled combat vehicles. They're... interesting. 😜
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 14, 2021 10:34:33 GMT -6
This is really excellent work! In going back through UWA, I've found mention of various monsters that are not written up, and apparently do not show up elsewhere. Some of them are associated with other monsters (giant versions of something, for example), but others appear to have not been specifically written up, aside from "various small animals" and the like: - Pterodactyls
- Cyborgs
- Robots
- Androids
- Spiders
- Centipedes
- Lizards
- Ants
- Weasels
- Apes
- Scorpions
- Lions
- Boars
- Snakes
- Cave Bear
- Dire Wolves
- Saber-tooth Tiger
- Mastodon
- Spotted Lions
- Woolly Rhinoceros
- Titanothere
- Mammoths
- Tyrannosaurus Rex
- Tricerotops
- Brontosaurus
- Stegosaurus
If they were listed elsewhere, my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 14, 2021 7:03:57 GMT -6
Honest question. Why bother with all of these calculations? It kind of defeats the overall purpose of the game in my opinion. It can help determine whether or not a party of adventurers can evade pursuing monsters, or vice versa. Some people like this kind of calculation, others do not. Since the game has some specific measurements, such as movement, you can use this, or not. Up to you.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 12, 2021 12:39:07 GMT -6
Excellent! I think I will delete my post and do some thread necromancy where you pointed.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 6, 2021 14:41:58 GMT -6
Whenever I compare the various Perrin Conventions and scattered mentions, I always seem to arrive at the same quandary, "Am I reading a new rule clarification or just an unpopular rules elaboration that has since been dropped?" Yes. (/snark) Seriously, these sorts of things were constantly changing, with people trying them, adapting them, changing them, from pretty much the first moment they were put on a page. At some point, they began to be their own thing, rather than an addendum to D&D's combat system. A&E is festooned with different approaches to different aspects of the game; eventually Runequest emerges as another game. I think what I'm saying here is that even after tdenmark has a chance to produce the Perrin Conventions for a modern audience, that will simply be one version amongst the many shadows of it, that were dynamically in flux during that time.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 3, 2021 20:03:19 GMT -6
If I had my druthers, I'd have NO initiative except for certain situations where a "roll off" might be necessary. When I started playing Dungeon World that was a huge revelation/game changer for me. The Prof tried that as well with his group, and it didn't work out. It really depends on your group. Rules lawyers, people who just feel the need for structure, and many of us old schoolers dismiss the idea without trying it, but I've no issue with adopting some more "modern" mechanics I see as improving gameplay at *my* table- "No initiative" is one of them. That said, rolling every round, group initiative generally adds to drama, especially when a PC is in a dire situation at the end of the previous round or a situation could drastically change by the fall of the dice. It keeps players focused between turns. So for that reason, I usually use it in my D&D games. Cyclic initiative ala WOTC editions is completely the opposite and I hate it with a passion* *exaggerated opinion for internet purposes I'm not fond of cyclic initiative a la 5e, either. IIRC, Lee Gold wrote about rolling for initiative where the difference between the d6 rolls for each side determined for how many rounds the winning side had the initiative. It's an interesting thought - and would result in some different tactical thinking, possibly.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 29, 2021 8:25:35 GMT -6
I sent an email to Lee Gold, asking if she still had a copy and if so, would she be willing to share it. Keep your fingers crossed! This would be great, but I'm guessing she might feel the need to check with Steve first, in this day and age(?) And if she needs to deal with the NuChaosium (since part of it *is* published in ATWM), I'm not very hopeful. Fingers crossed. You are quite correct. Lee mentioned in her reply to my second query that I ought to get in touch with Steve Perrin directly. So there's that. (More work, but nothing terrible.)
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 28, 2021 20:30:26 GMT -6
My understand is that version of the Perrin Conventions is incomplete. You are correct. Once, a few years back , I saw the complete version of it online. At the time I was not terribly interested and moved along. In more recent years , I have become far more interested in the "reactions" to OD&D, and can no longer find it. Maddening. I sent an email to Lee Gold, asking if she still had a copy and if so, would she be willing to share it. Keep your fingers crossed!
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 27, 2021 23:09:31 GMT -6
Moderator note: this post and the next ten follow-ups split off from a post in the A&E back-issues thread.Here is a list of A&E contributors and the early issues in which they appeared. The list is reported to have been compiled by Lee, herself. I just purchased my first run of 10 issues, #10-19, in case one of them reprinted any portion of the fabled Steve "Perrin Conventions" for bay area play circa 1976. Alas, they are not to be had. Still, I don't regret the purchase. The format of the zines reads pretty much like these discussion threads. You guys are every bit as creative and scrutinizing as the original d&d fans. The Perrin Conventions are reprinted in All The World's Monsters, Volume 2, available from DriveThruRPG: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1713/All-the-Worlds-Monsters-Vol-2
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 22, 2021 14:27:07 GMT -6
Excellent work! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 20, 2021 16:46:54 GMT -6
It's not a redefinition, though. It was confirmed by Mike Mornard on this site that the way Gygax and friends always used charm person was to make the target react favorably to the caster, rather than the spell completely enslaving a person or something to that effect. "Charmed, I'm sure," is how Mornard described the spell. I've never understood why this is a problem. Every time the DM rolls dice to determine an NPC's reaction and gets the maximum result, i.e. an enthusiastic response, the DM has to make a judgement call on what that means. That's really all that charm person does, at least in my view. It's an automatic maximum result on a reaction roll, and if the situation is such that getting one person to react enthusiastically to the party would not make a difference, charm person isn't going to change the outcome. Do you have a link to that assertion by Mornard, by any chance? I could go ask him, I suppose...
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 18, 2021 13:18:56 GMT -6
Might be getting further afield, but what about Michael Berkey's Where No Man Has Gone Before?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 17, 2021 13:15:08 GMT -6
This puts me in mind of the "Typo" - a monster that lurks unseen, but when in proximity to magic-users, causes their spells to go awry in interesting ways: - "Sleep" might be changed into "Sweep" - causing monsters to vigorously attempt to clean the floor with their weapons
- "Cone of Cold" might result in a vast quantity of fish to appear, aimed at the enemy - a "Cone of Cod"
- "Fire Ball" produces a large, jangling sphere of metal - a "Wire Ball"
- "Find Traps" reveals the existence of luxurious warm capes nearby - "Find Wraps"
Or the Glitch, from White Dwarf #4: a tiny ball of fur with some unusual properties: "What it doesn't realise is that it has unique magical properties; while it is within 30' of a melee. All those taking part (including monsters) must save against magic each melee round or their blows will miss whatever the die roll, spells will fail to function, magic devices and weapons become useless etc. This goes on until either the melee moves away or the Glitch gets fed up and wanders off."
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 12, 2021 11:46:39 GMT -6
So What Do Those Symbols Mean?In Outdoor Survival, there are a variety of symbols marked on the map, besides the various kinds of terrain: - Bases
- Catch-basins
- Trails
- Fords
- Food Sources
So, adapting the Outdoor Survival map to the uses of D&D required some re-interpretation: It is unfortunate that Gary provided no further guidance than that, since it leaves some items undefined or ambiguous. However, we can see some clear patterns emerge from the definitions that Gary does provide. There are: - 26 catch basins
- 9 bases - five clustered in the center of the map; four at the cardinal points
...which means we have 26 castle locations, some of them quite remote, and nine towns. I think the use of the word "town" in this context is quite important, because it is one of the only clues we have about what Gary intended - these aren't villages, and might be cities. But to the extent that Gary was attempting to leave as much room as possible for the referee to create their own setting, rather than imposing very much from the outside, these are left undefined as to their larger size. But this leaves three symbols relatively undefined or ambiguous: "food sources" and "fords" and "trails". Let's first look at the latter two, since they are a bit more easily dealt with. Given that fords are directly related to rivers as a terrain feature, we can assume they are fords - or possibly bridges, depending on the surrounding context. As for trails, those provide unobstructed passage through the surrounding terrain, so those can be assumed to be trails, or possibly roads of some variety. However, it's those pesky "food sources" (for the omnivorously-inclined) that are left undefined. A number of commenters have suggested that these are monster "lairs", which is - on a first look - an understandable assumption, i.e. "deer" = "wildlife" = "monster". But I will suggest that this is something of a mistake. Since neither Gary nor Dave used the rules for Outdoor Survival, but adapted the map for their own purposes, we should not get too distracted by what is suggested by the symbol used on the map. After all, there's nothing about "catch basin" that suggests "castle" so what could that "food source" symbol be referring to? A clue can be found on page 24 of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures: There are 28 "food source" symbols, providing for a like number of villages, which is only slightly more than the number of castles, but they are not distributed in any sort of linked pattern. Some villages are next to castles, others some distance away, and vice versa. But the vast majority of the map is within 20 miles of a castle or town, providing for a relatively "settled" area - though questions might be raised about when and where to use the wilderness wandering monster tables (we'll come back to that).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 12, 2021 10:50:23 GMT -6
The Problem of Scale
Over time, there has been a lot of attention paid to the scale of the Outdoor Survival map. In the Outdoor Survival rules, it says:
The map board itself is 34 hexes by 43 hexes. Some quick math reveals that a 3 mile (or 5km) distance across each hex provides a 102 mile by 129 mile area, providing an area of 13,158 miles - nicely approximating the figure provided in the rules. But on page 17 of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, Gary provides a different measure:
This actually helps explain the difference between the measures found in Outdoor Survival for distance someone may travel in a day, and those provided by Gary on page 16 of Volume 3. From Outdoor Survival:
This can be contrasted with the guidelines found on page 16:
Given that Gary was attempting to provide a default background (or stand-in setting) for the referee to use until they had devised their own above-ground map, the differences in scale and distance are relatively minor - but they are also indicative of how both Dave and Gary adapted the map to the needs of D&D, rather than suggesting that D&D wilderness adventures should somehow get slotted into the strictures of the rules of Outdoor Survival.
One more note: In "How To Set Up Your Dungeons & Dragons Campaign - And Be Stuck Refereeing It Seven Days Per Week Until The Wee Hours Of The Morning!" in Europa #6-8, Gary suggests a much smaller scale for the referee's map:
...but again, the relationship between this map and the Outdoor Survival map is left completely undefined. Moreover, Gary's suggestion of using a much smaller scale (1 hex = 1 mile across) isn't congruent in any way with the distance-traveled figures provided in Volume 3; the math - and resulting scaling issues - are left up to the referee to figure out. My suspicion is that Gary was attempting to provide more useful advice about how to approach the issue of starting a campaign, rather than paying attention about how to square all of that with Outdoor Survival, as he was writing his article about a year after the initial release of OD&D. That isn't to say that the Outdoor Survival map isn't useful - but trying to interpret how to use it will take some more work.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 12, 2021 10:07:46 GMT -6
The Outdoor Survival Map in D&DSo what exactly was the role of Outdoor Survival in Original D&D? That's a good question. To begin with, the Outdoor Survival map was used as an additional area to the south of the original Blackmoor map - but not the game rules for it: To clarify. We used the map for the map's sake; no, not ever the game. Dave Arneson "Dark Lord of Gaming" The inclusion of the Outdoor Survival map in The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures was partially due to this usage, and also possibly due to the relationship that Gary had developed with Avalon Hill while working on the revised version of the Alexander the Great board game, originally published by Guidon Games. But how exactly the map was to be used wasn't all that clear from the instructions provided in Volume 3: What's interesting here is that Gary is quite clear that the Outdoor Survival map is separate from the map of the area immediately around the dungeon, which would also include the town nearby used for respite by the adventuring party or parties. There's a tantalizing vagueness to this relationship, which never really gets resolved in Volume 3 or elsewhere. In particular, what is meant by "offhand adventures" or "general adventures" as distinct from any other sort of adventure isn't really clear. It can be reasonably inferred that the Outdoor Survival map was intended as something of a default option for wilderness, failing any exploratory work done prior to the campaign by the referee, or during the campaign by the players: The exact relationship between the Outdoor Survival map and the "Referee's Map" is never defined. (I'll come back to that later.)
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 12, 2021 9:36:44 GMT -6
I cast Thread Necromancy!
After several years caught up in academia, and now having stepped away from that, I am revisiting the Wilderness Architect. I've discovered there is a section missing from it, having to do with the Outdoor Survival map, which we never used when I first started gaming. Given the inclusion of the Outdoor Survival map in The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, I realized it should get looked at and discussed. There have been several threads on this board that have looked at Outdoor Survival, its rules and map, but I think there's room for addition analysis and evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 8, 2021 17:23:11 GMT -6
Here's an interesting comment on this subject, from "Monsters Mild and Malign" by Don Turnbull, page 15-16 White Dwarf #4, Dec/Jan 1977/8:
|
|