|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 12, 2007 13:09:33 GMT -6
I've always liked the Barbarian sub-class that appeared in White Dwarf. Interesting and different from the TSR version that came later. I'll see if I can dig it up when I am back home next week.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 9, 2007 9:55:00 GMT -6
Not bad at all; I like the "4th level rule". I remember that Bards had a similar restriction, where a player had to advance before you became one. Rangers could be similar, specializing at 4th. It might also be useful to add the Druid to the list, where a player would have to advance as a Cleric until 4th level before switching to Druid. An interesting concept. I had to think about that for a moment, and then realized I was reading it as if we were talking about Prestige classes from D&D3.14159... So if Paladins use the same experience point progression as normal Fighters, then any switch would keep the same level. Hmmm. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 7, 2007 8:20:18 GMT -6
One of the things I am considering doing in future campaigns is to make paladinhood subject to a Quest. In other words, if you want to be a paladin, you first have to show your devotion in the form of successfully completing a quest. Until then, you are a fighter, and progress as one. After the quest is successfully completed, you become a paladin, at whatever level your experience points would be.
As a referee, you then get to use the Quest as a means of inculcating the values you want the Paladin to practice. The Quest itself does not need to take forever, but long enough to make it worthy of the effort. It also provides a great hook for adventures for the party.
This may seem overly directive, but I think it'll help players get into the mindset of the paladin so that when their character is a paladin, they will act like one (whatever you think that should be).
Comments welcome.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 6, 2008 23:25:33 GMT -6
Hmm. I think I'm completely unmoved by the arguments against thieves. I like them as a class, and I think they fit an archetype of a certain kind of hero-adventurer.
One of the things I have been considering has been to let *all* classes have some chance to do things thieves do, but thieves are the class that gets the regular boost in those areas. It's not that different from trained/untrained usage of weapons by fighters and non-fighters, conceptually speaking. Everybody can pick up a weapon, but fighters are the ones who use them well.
I will agree that there's a certain amount of chrome bolted onto the class of Thief which comes from all those percentages chances for things, but that's not that different from Rangers (who get all sorts of goodies as they advance). If I were to draw the line on classes that sound good but are mechanically flawed, I would have to say the original Strategic Review Bard: all fighter, half-MU, half-thief - and Charm and Lore options to boot! Two and a half characters for the price of one. THAT needs reworking.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 12, 2007 13:21:32 GMT -6
I'm of several minds about Alignment. I've seen it used as a strait-jacket, and I really dislike that. On the other hand, the Law/Neutrality/Chaos split works well in Moorcock, but seems a bit simplistic to me, even as an overarching perspective. On the third paw, I'm not sure if I like alignment, at all, anyway. What might be interesting is to take the Law/Chaos, Good/Evil split and instead of a nine-cell table (including Neutrality), you make one of these primary and the other secondary, to represent which element is most prevalent in someone. This might seem fiddly for people who want a taxonomy, but it allows you to figure out pretty quickly were someone stands: - Neutral/Good - someone who does the right thing for others, but otherwise might bend the law or uphold it, depending on what would be good to do.
- Neutral/Good - someone who strives to maintain balance, but is otherwise pleasant and helpful to others.
- Lawful/Evil - Willing to uphold the law, despite a cruel streak. Not willing to break the law even if that would be advantageous.
- Lawful/Evil - willing to twist the law so as to gain advantage and do harm to others. Quick to interpret the law in evil ways.
This is mostly thinking out loud, but it might provide a different interpretation of the old 3 x 3 system. "Alignment: Myers-Briggs for D&D characters"
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 14:57:55 GMT -6
GAH!!!!! I have a 2nd Edition Gold Cover CHAINMAIL too! Crom and Mitra Almighty!!! I told you to hang onto your stuff, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 20:33:33 GMT -6
Dave Arneson mentions using Chainmail several times in his First Fantasy Campaign (from Judges Guild). This came out in 1980, so it was all still fresh in his memory. Of course Chainmail (like all wargames of the time) would be house ruled at the drop of a hat; that's just the way things went in those days. It's been said that Greyhawk was merely Gary's house rules; well, D&D could then be called Gary's interpretation of Dave's house rules of Chainmail. I find this topic amusing from the historical/anthropological standpoint, but I really prefer to forget all that and just play. Yup; my previous post ought not be interpreted as suggesting that Dave did not use Chainmail at all. One thing that Dave mentioned to me was that the "rules" went back and forth from St. Paul to Lake Geneva more than once, and that Gary sent them to press a little earlier than Dave had anticipated (or really wanted, apparently).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 15:10:52 GMT -6
...but I think once you get past the basics of 'how it was done' it's important to remember that the details may require a lot of cross-checking to get straight, and that since this was an organic, growing practice there may have been different approaches at different times, all of which may have some or even equal claim to being 'authoritative'. I think we're in violent agreement here.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 15:09:40 GMT -6
I realize that the dominant story of D&D's origins has it growing directly out of Chainmail, but lately I've been reading a number of accounts that suggest Chainmail was more of an adjunct to an established type of game. That is, Arneson's first fantasy games were basically a variety of Braunstein (a series of games created by Dave Weseley), with Chainmail slotted in just as a method of doing mechanical combat resolution. Maybe the version of the story depends on whether you're getting it from GG's perspective or DA's. My suspicion, from talking with Dave and others, was that it was rather freeform on all sides. Example: There was a miniatures battle fought at the University of Minnesota (probably in Coffman Memorial Union), between Britons and Romans. Romans had war elephants, and so Dave gave the Druid leader a phaser (Star Trek having been popular among some people back in the mid-60's). Druid cooks elephant, battle stops in uproar, Romans then go on to grimly dispatch Britons. Such a game would require some house-ruling to make it work. The Braunsteins were more formalized successors to this (Dave Wesely knows for sure); I suspect Chainmail was Gary's selection, and Dave did his own thing (and thus we have at least two combat systems in OD&D).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 21, 2008 19:24:11 GMT -6
There is the Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery article from The Strategic Review; that has relatively modern weaponry translated into a D&D context. (I sent a copy to Wothbora already)
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Feb 27, 2008 10:04:35 GMT -6
Does anyone here have extensive collections of Alarums & Excursions? Or for that matter, The Wild Hunt?
On a side note, what I've been struck by is how some of the discussion on this board has recapitulated some of the discussions from these old 'zines (APAs to be precise). Which is kinda cool, actually.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 31, 2007 11:39:20 GMT -6
So, I'm in my local Half-Price Books today, and HEY! I smell old stuff in here! I came away with a full pack of BD&D character sheets (the green ones), a pristine copy of the Dungeon Geomorphs set (unlike my other, much less than pristine copy) and a beautifully preserved Hexagonal Mapping Booklet (also, much unlike my well weathered and beaten one) The treat was getting this home and looking at the maps that were still in the Mapping booklet. Very cool stuff. So, now I'm thinking of running a game on these maps. Anyone else used a map found in a second-hand gaming product? (Or characters as well. Though there were no filled out character sheets.) I might be in Cedar Rapids sometime soon; anything else there? ;D
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 20, 2007 10:00:45 GMT -6
One of my more memorable sessions was RuneQuest, with visitors from Traveller, D&D and one other forgotten (maybe Superhero:2448 or Space Quest?) campaign. Sure! There's the Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery battle account from The Strategic Review, and then later D&D characters on the Starship Warden (D&D meets Metamorphosis Alpha). And yes, the cross-overs from Traveller to fantasy and vice-versa happened here, too.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 8:53:28 GMT -6
As far as TSR having the rights, I wouldn't think so. It's not a TSR product. I don't recall exactly who published it (i.e.; what company Dave had that published it) but it is definitely NOT from TSR. So that gives us some hope, doesn't it? One can hope. I was thinking that since it is an index of TSR products they might have claimed it as part of settling the lawsuit, but I don't know one way or the other. Someone that knows DA personally needs to ask him. I know Dave. I can ask him. I suspect he's still got the rights, but I could be wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 22, 2008 11:45:57 GMT -6
I recall having a discussion with a friend in high school; a cup of coffee had splashed onto a sheet of white cardboard he had been intending for his next big campaign map. He was a little upset about this, despite his father's assurance that it was an accident - but then he got an idea.
He waited for the coffee splashes to dry, and then very carefully outlined the ones he thought looked good, and used that for coastline for his new continent. The rest of it he merged into mountains, etc. Worked pretty well, as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Feb 1, 2008 8:28:30 GMT -6
I think he's dead-on. Surprise is a situation which referees need to think about carefully. Two cases that aren't covered fully in his analysis: - Missile weapons in surprise situations
- The chance of mutual surprise (e.g. two groups moving down corridors that come together, and do not initially see or hear one another).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 11, 2007 0:06:19 GMT -6
Scott Rosenberg tried something similar to that in his D&D world back in the mid-70's. He wrote about it in his fanzine at the time, and mentioned that ruined cities were something of a challenge. Hmmm. Sounds like fun, though!
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 22:05:49 GMT -6
Oldgeezer's OD&D campaign was set in Medieval England, reign of Edward III, if I recall correctly. So we all learned the pre-decimalisation English monetary system. 1 pound (livre) was worth 20 shillings, and each shilling was worth 12 pence. Twenty-one shillings to the guinea, and I think five shillings to a crown. We usually dragged out enough money from the dungeon to keep us in acceptable armor. It was fun, though not the strangest monetary system I could recall.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 12, 2007 9:46:01 GMT -6
For my next campaign, I've been thinking about the following background: - Adventuring starts in a land that used to be inhabited by an empire of mages. Said empire obliterated itself some time ago in a cataclysmic magical war. What's left are the remnants, some decades later. The adventurers are starting from a small nation on the coastline, that was not included in the war.
- "Dungeons" per se are the underground fortresses of these wizards. They are sometimes small, and sometimes very large, and have all sorts of tricks, traps, monsters - some of which are the "garrison" and some of which are new. And there would be links to other places and other planes which would allow for new and wandering monsters.
- The dungeons themselves have warning and alarm enchantments, such that a large invasion force would trigger summonings that would then be disgorged onto the attackers, thus discouraging the "stripmine" approach I mentioned before. So a small band of adventurers might be able to gain entrance where a larger force would not.
- Ideally, the adventurers would be encouraged by the powers that be to investigate these places, bring back treasure and loot, and hopefully eventually carve out their own fortresses and resettle the land. Whether or not this actually works will be a campaign Maguffin. (Another maguffin would be figuring out how and why the mages destroyed themselves.)
I haven't decided much more than this, but I wanted a background that would allow for classic dungeons and have a reason for why they are that way. I also wanted some initial hooks to use for a larger plot that would be developed and unfold as the PCs progressed. One aspect of that would be to not decide everything all at once, but leave "mysteries" that could be explained as a result of what the players did and discovered. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 11, 2007 9:09:23 GMT -6
Having a dungeon "appear" also avoids the problem of "hey, let's go mine for gold and kill things!" when a dungeon is too mundane. What's to stop the local lord from setting up camp and then systematically looting the dungeon? (This is the sort of mechanistic thinking that I recall sometimes springing up back in the past - a real story-killer unless the referee knew what they were about)
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 15, 2007 10:01:59 GMT -6
This weirdly enough sounds like a game I might want to run as a PbEM or in a forum. I've got the 1st Edition (and would probably download the PDF to save the original paper), and there's something weirdly wacky and fun about this old chestnut. James Ward deserves some credit for doing something fun and original here. Hmmm. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 5, 2008 20:23:47 GMT -6
Lines to write on. ;D
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 3, 2008 16:16:24 GMT -6
Frank, you seem to regard the open-ended character of OD&D as relatively unimportant. However - as I said at the beginning of this conversation - it's not unimportant, it is actually a key element of the game. And it's not far afield from the topic of discussion - it's part of the grounding for that discussion. You seem to be missing that.
To me, the argument you keep making is that since you don't understand part of OD&D, you simply won't use it. That's fine - but stop trying to tell me that wilderness adventures, city adventures, and even adventures in other worlds are somehow not part of OD&D, because they are.
Ultimately, I'm making a case for expanding the imaginative possibilities of OD&D. You seem to be making a case for limiting that scope. Unless we've got further things to say about that particular side of the debate, let's acknowledge our difference and move on.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 3, 2008 15:13:29 GMT -6
I have also come to feel that it makes sense to play a game in the style the game best supports, and if I want a different style, to use a game more suited to that style. Sometimes it makes sense to tweak a game, but if I find myself re-writing or adding whole segments of the game, then I start to think perhaps I should be using a different game that already supports the play style I want. Except that where this discussion started was a realization that OD&D - unlike other, later RPGs - specifically invited and expected a certain amount of modifications and elaborations. (In some ways, a conscious attitude not unlike Calithena's "let a thousand flowers bloom" approach). This sense of incompleteness sets OD&D apart from other games, and encourages referees to move beyond the framework simply as presented. You don't have to do that, but "staying in the dungeon" was never the only intention for what AD&D was supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 2, 2008 12:22:07 GMT -6
Beyond encounters which feed into the D&D combat system, the rules have almost no support whatsoever. GMs who want to handle diplomacy or other "social" encounters are left to make up their own rules. What I have seen happen consistently is that such rules IGNORE the fundamental aspects of the game system. If I understand you correctly, you are dismissing the idea because you've never seen it done well or properly. But that doesn't invalidate the idea - it simply means that previous examples don't measure up. Why not simply come up with a better system? "House rules" are an acknowledged way of dealing with this kind of situation - why can't a referee design such a system? "Relatively pure D&D" - that sounds like you are suggesting playing D&D "by the book" - is that what you mean? I suspect you mean that referees ought to take their cues from the material presented in the rules as printed (and not slavishly follow them - that would be dull!) If that's the case, when you look at Volume Three, over half of it deals with adventuring outside of the dungeon. So I guess I'm confused by what you mean then by "relatively pure D&D". What it sounds like it is that Volume Three includes material you don't understand and don't want to use in your own game play. For your own campaign, that's fine - but there are clear suggestions made in the rules for game play outside of dungeons, so that's part of "relatively pure D&D" or so it seems to me. Put another way, what it sounds like is this: "I don't understand that other part of the rules, so to play the game 'correctly' I'm going to ignore it." Is that what you mean? Let me quote from the Afterward in Volume Three: To me, this suggests that referees were expected to come up with their own rules to cover situations not listed. And since wilderness, city, and even otherworldly adventures were envisioned in the rules, this logically means that those areas were left to the "referee and his players" to figure out. It doesn't mean they shouldn't go there, because the rules were less detailed than those for dungeons - precisely the opposite! Those areas were left for you to work your own imagination on, and come up with answers that work for you and your campaign. Since there is general recognition that "house rules" are an expected part of playing D&D, what is to stop anyone from filling in those gaps and coming up with a really great campaign? They might even share those rules with other referees and players - and thus fulfill the suggestion made in the Afterword.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 1, 2008 18:30:27 GMT -6
The problem is that the game doesn't support any sort of resolution to conflict other than combat. The leveling system also plays havoc with any sort of logic to a "world." War game campaigns with Chainmail are a different animal. Chainmail units don't gain levels. A figure is a normal man, a hero, or a superhero, it doesn't change. I don't think it's possible to play a logical "outside the dungeon" campaign (that doesn't just look like a dungeon with different props) without starting to ignore the rules, and that's what I've seen. With all due respect, Frank, there's a lot in the rules that can't get handwaved away just because you don't understand how it might work. Simply asserting that "it's not logical!" doesn't invalidate their presence, nor does it deal with the basic premise I suggested at the beginning of this conversation - namely that the rules are incomplete and require further work to build a campaign, and that is expressly left to the referee to do. Here are some things cribbed directly from Underworld & Wilderness Adventures: - "The so-called Wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, not to mention the area immediately surrounding the castle (ruined or otherwise) which housed the dungeons."
- Referees need a ground level map of the dungeons, a map of the terrain immediately surrounding this, and a map of the town or village usually used by the adventurers as a base of operations.
- Blackmoor and Greyhawk are both mentioned, the first as a small town and the second as a large city
- "Both have maps with streets and buildings indicated, and players can have town adventures roaming around the bazaars, inns, taverns, shops, temples, and so on. (Venture into the Thieves Quarter at your own risk!)"
- Potential adventures in the wilderness include: jousting with Lords, being sent on treasure finding expeditions by Wizards, being sent on a Quest of some sort by a Patriarch or EHP. There are also possibilities of rumors, legends, and other information.
And if you add in all of the things necessary and possible for starting your own stronghold, there's a lot of potential adventure ideas. Simply finding and recruiting specialists to work at your castle, or overseeing your demesne, or infrastructure development (yes, it's there!), or "exploration, ship building, sea trade (great article about this in The Dragon #6), land trade, trapping, and tourism (!)" There is even a section on "Other Worlds" - so really, there is a LOT of space beyond the dungeon for adventuring. How it works and how things are resolved start with adventuring and exploration. Past that, it's up to the referee.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 1, 2008 15:13:46 GMT -6
In discussions I've had with Michael Mornard, he's mentioned that Gary intended for the game to develop to another level, where player-characters were responsible for larger issues and conflicts, and not focus on dungeon-delving. Not too surprisingly, given the wide range of wargaming milieux that Gary was familiar with, this meant leaving the form and nature of those issues and conflicts up to the referee - much as would be done for a more "traditional" wargame campaign.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 1, 2008 7:29:29 GMT -6
I think the most important thing for a GM to realize is that the important story is the one that arises from play. The GM can poison the game just as much as a story setting by trying to impose his own story on the game. Sure. And by that standard, sticking only to the dungeon as the setting for adventure is imposing a particular story on the game. With all due respect, Ffilz, it's a cop-out to do that, because the game was incomplete from the start. The referee was expected to add their own setting to the game - that's why it's called "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures." As has been talked about here and elsewhere, the progression of character development was seen by Gary and Dave to lead to Lords, Wizards, and Patriarchs. Along with that, there were rules provided (part of that "implied setting" so you can't ignore it) for building strongholds and attracting followers. At some point, the expectation was to leave the dungeon. Sure, you might go back, but the game was expected to expand beyond it. The scope for player-character adventure didn't weaken, it got bigger. "Exploration and adventure" can be supported by wilderness - one of the common threads among early D&D campaigns was how deadly wilderness encounters could be, given the number of monsters encountered. I would suggest that the very thing you mention - "wilderness encounters as mini-dungeon" - is exactly what I'm talking about. The referee was expected to add their own setting to give shape and context to the campaign. If you look at First Fantasy Campaign, you will see a range of things outside the dungeon that act as challenges for the PCs (e.g. The Egg of Coot). But it is exactly those things that make Blackmoor the unique setting that it was (and is). Put very simply, the challenge to the referee was not just to build a really massive dungeon, it was to build their own distinctive campaign. And that means they have to add their own ideas about the world-outside-the-dungeon and how it works.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 31, 2008 0:07:41 GMT -6
The mega-dungeon is honest in its approach and tells you upfront what it is about in terms of setting and game. Still, I do believe the game can support story as long as it keeps it goal clear: dungeons and dragons (or exploration and adventure) and not deep characterization or plot. There are no mechanics to support the latter, and in fact, it's high mortality mechanics serve more to hinder them than help. I agree about the implicit "honesty" of the mega-dungeon as a place of adventure. But I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make about what lies beyond the mega-dungeon. Namely, the mega-dungeon in its own way is the most structured part of the game, whereas what lies beyond is up to the referee to construct and the player-characters to interact with. As far as "game balance" vis-a-vis the setting is concerned, that seems to be a later concept layered on top of the nature of the game itself. There have always been discussions about game balance and the rules - but that is (I would suggest) different from imagining a setting for the game.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 30, 2008 20:58:38 GMT -6
As cool an idea as the megadungeon is, I think that it only gets cooler when it exists within an interesting context. I would agree. A logical extension of what I'm talking about here is something of a conceptual response to what I've read elsewhere about the role, nature and purpose of a mega-dungeon within an OD&D campaign. Specifically, I'm making a real distinction between the assumption that some people have made that the mega-dungeon is the be-all and end-all of an early game. That assumption is partially or wholly based on an interpretation of what's presented in the three brown booklets as being the entire scope of the game. A different interpretation of the text as presented would be that what isn't there is important for the referee to figure out, and not that wildernesses, etc. are somehow unimportant.
|
|