|
Post by cadriel on Mar 26, 2012 6:49:51 GMT -6
Because a lot of the sets of OD&D out there are from OCE - including the PDFs that were sold through RPGNow a few years back - it wasn't until I started to go back through old zines (particularly Alarums & Excursions) that I realized how big the presence of the Balrog was as a monster in the earliest years of D&D, and what we lost when it went away. Sure, it more or less returned in Eldritch Wizardry and the Monster Manual with the Type VI demon / "Balor", but it wasn't quite the same. With Monsters & Treasure in printings 1-5, the Balrog was clearly the sort of "boss" monster in a way that dragons, while interesting, never were. By the time it got to the Monster Manual, Type VI Demons were just one of a number of big foes.
What's interesting is that, at least for me, having Balrogs as a standard entry makes the M&T list a fairly strong baseline for the game's monsters. Without it, it's lacking a final punch of an ultimate enemy for the PCs. Sure, I like tinkering with monsters as much as the next guy, but it gives you a solid and fairly Tolkien-esque basis for those monsters of various horrid aspect.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 25, 2012 12:43:53 GMT -6
I give a +1 to damage with 2 handers, and on the flip side 1 handed weapons can be dual wielded with a +1 to hit. Not to be a hard-ass about it, but why? Game conventions aside, two-handed weapons historically tended to be rather specialized in their use and were not raw damage machines. A well-placed dagger and a well-placed two-handed sword would hit in roughly the same way: a few inches of steel going into the target. The difference seems to me to lie more in how well the two-hander bypasses the target's defenses. I have to think somewhat about what dual-wielding styles actually do, but I feel that realistically handled two-handers and polearms should not do more damage, but instead hit more often.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 25, 2012 7:30:27 GMT -6
I've been thinking a lot about base d6 damage as a rule and generally I like it - a weapon usually does a comparable amount of actual punishment in the hand of a skilled wielder regardless of size. Variable damage helps enforce "sword supremacy" in general.
But it takes the sense out of two-handed weapons in general. Given how they were used in history, I actually don't think two-handed weapons should have extreme amounts of damage; a two-handed sword was used as a very specific instrument in battlefield control, not as a sort of over-the-top weapon that just laid people open.
What I see, though, is that 2-handed weapons should have better ability to hit. It only makes sense: for a fighting-man, you're sacrificing a shield in return for something that, let's say, will have the same effect on opponents: a +1 to hit, maybe even a +2. This seems pretty well in line with what Chainmail did, giving significantly better to-hit chances with 2 handed weapons. And it maps well if you think of being able to use the weapon's size to get around the advantage of using a shield.
Has anybody done this? What is a good break-even point for giving a 2-handed advantage?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 23, 2012 4:44:21 GMT -6
Given the d6 roll for initiative that is assumed in the FAQ, I would suppose that the rule that makes the most sense is that if you have initiative on a spellcaster, and they are casting a spell that round (intention must be stated up front), a successful hit before their initiative comes up will interrupt them. It doesn't have the kind of precision scaling that AD&D's segments do but it's much simpler.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 15, 2012 12:22:17 GMT -6
I've been thinking ever since I first got it that the original printing of Supplement V: Carcosa really needs a "Dungeons & Dragons" logo in the void at the top so it matches supplements I through IV. What would be the best way to go about doing this? I have an inkjet printer but don't want to detach the book's cover from the spine.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 14, 2012 13:13:42 GMT -6
I finally broke down and ordered both. It's weird to think about ordering two empty boxes but with what I spent on JG materials lately I really need somewhere safe to keep them...
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 8, 2012 10:12:35 GMT -6
All of the above is certainly true. What I'm getting at, though, is not The Hobbit as it existed in the mind of its author. Instead, I'm here looking at The Hobbit as Joe Shmoe the fantasy fan might have looked at it before 1954. Joe Shmoe would have no faintest inkling of anything Tolkien save what Mr. Shmoe read in the pages of The Hobbit. I'm hoping for a re-publication this year of a facsimile copy of the first printing of The Hobbit. One can basically read the earliest publication by paying attention to the notes in The Annotated Hobbit, but things would be much simpler with a facsimile of what was printed in 1937. To me, having spent a lot of time in college poring through the various History of Middle-Earth tomes, it seems more... wrong... to take this approach to Tolkien than it does to, say, George Lucas's work. Tolkien spent his life creating his world, and to toss it aside in favor of using the world of The Hobbit as an otherwise blank canvas, seems to me a bit disrespectful toward the author. But there is some merit in asking how it was likely perceived. For the average fantasy fan of 1937 we can say a few things: 1. For this fantasy fan, Middle-Earth would have not been a fantasy world with its own cosmology. It would've been our world, akin to the Hyborian Age. Even planetary romances like Burroughs's John Carter books took place in our solar system, not in separate fantasy universes. This was actually Tolkien's intent, but it is something that has been consistently ignored by most of his epigones. 2. Tolkien's view of elves was pretty radical for its time. The reader might have been confused, using a more Victorian view of elves as equivalent to faeries, which Tolkien was consciously working against in his writing. 3. The reader would probably have been struck by the oddity of the protagonist. If they were a fantasy fan they would have been used to characters more like John Carter or Conan, and less like Bilbo. Given the period, it might actually be considered something like a British version of The Wizard of Oz more than having all that much in common with American pulp fantasy. Again, it would definitely have been thought of as juvenalia.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 8, 2012 9:06:52 GMT -6
That's an interesting point. Who was reading The Hobbit in the nearly 17-year period between September 21, 1937 and July 23, 1954? Was it mostly children? Or was it mostly readers of fantasy? Or both? It was considered a children's book, and a well-regarded one, until the publication of The Lord of the Rings changed that. Personally I plan to read it to my (currently in utero) child once she is old enough to understand it. ;D But what's important to remember about Tolkien's work is that, even in the case of The Hobbit, the extremely fleshed-out backstory pre-existed it. There was only vague allusion to what it all was, but it was there and to Tolkien it mattered more. The tone of The Lord of the Rings changed dramatically during the writing; you can read the volumes in the History of Middle-Earth series that provide rough drafts of how what would become LotR progressed. It was supposed to be more in the same tone as The Hobbit but grew in the telling. And Tolkien, if you read his Letters, was working on a sequel but the whole affair depressed him too much and he abandoned it. It's also worth noting that The Hobbit was revised after LotR came out, to make the lead-in clearer. Of course it's the revisionist edition that most people now have read. While in many cases your "Let's speculate" methodology sort of works, in the Tolkien case it's fairly definite how everything works, and Christopher has made a life out of presenting his father's world-in-progress. I think it's a fascinating look for anyone with the world-building itch.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 6, 2012 13:24:42 GMT -6
I'm thinking, along with my ongoing series of "What Trap Charts?" which will eventually wrap up, and "Dungeons of Tsalonia" which will continue going for a while, of instituting a feature on the lines of James Maliszewski's old call for Petty Gods, particularly because a lot of them can be tied back thematically to what I've been doing with classical alchemy. Any thoughts on that as another feature?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 3, 2012 5:54:23 GMT -6
What you need, IMO, is what I've seen called "impression of depth." This is a method of worldbuilding in broad strokes, allowing the imagination to fill in gaps that you leave by alluding to a vast backstory. The earliest D&D modules were very adept at creating this, with things like the Great Stone Face Enigma of Greyhawk. Names of things and places are left vague, or with a detail or two that indicate a much deeper story.
For instance, you might say that a dungeon has been unexplored since Eodred's March against the Orcs. Who Eodred was and why he marched against the orcs is never explained, but it fills in a broad backstory. Or you could say that the sword Arvistan has sat waiting for a master ever since the death of the last of the Aristeis clan. You don't give it as a background story, you just add details that your players can fill in with their own imagination. Your cleric's player might not know who St. Valoric was but you can tell him that the tomb he has found marks the place of Valoric's martyrdom.
The technique still works if you have a real backstory - but only tell it in hints and allusions. Tolkien did this to great effect with Lord of the Rings, it's positively dripping with an alluded backstory that is mostly told later in the Silmarillion. But you don't need to have one, you can just add the impression that a much deeper world is there.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 3, 2012 5:40:06 GMT -6
Well, it seems like it's more relevant to the source material than last year's Conan flick, and at least should be a fun ride.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 28, 2012 17:48:43 GMT -6
Cadriel, a couple questions on The storage rooms in DC#1: 1) Is that an 's' located next to room 29. (I'm assuming it is, becuase there is no other way into rooms 28-29)? Yeah, the Dungeonographer map made it a teensy bit unclear, but it's a secret door. As specified in the key for room 17, there is a well above that room. Characters will have to use a rope or similar method to get down. Yep. That's awesome. And of course it's exactly what it was meant for.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 28, 2012 16:37:37 GMT -6
I'll go out of the main stream and pick Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. It has a D&D paladin, a swanmay, a D&D dwarf, a D&D troll, and the dragon functions pretty much like you expect the D&D versions to function. It has Lawful and Chaotic alignment, holy swords, the whole kit and kaboodle. Sure it's more supplements D&D than 3LB D&D, but strictly speaking 3LB has scant literary antecedents aside from Tolkien.
Permitted to craft a single volume, I'd probably pick...."The Jewels of Gwahlur" by Howard, "Turjan of Miir" from the first Dying Earth volume, "The Jewels in the Forest" by Leiber, the middle part of The Hobbit (the caves, the forest, etc), and as much of Three Hearts and Three Lions as I could fit in the rest.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 28, 2012 10:07:39 GMT -6
It's all Christian Walker's fault. I loved getting Iridia and when I found out he was doing it again with Loviatar, I was inspired to pack together all the stuff from my notes, put it into some kind of publishable format, print it off and send it to people. It's been a lot of fun, and I'm now compiling more monsters for the next issue, which will probably also feature an essay on weirdness in the game.
One thing I'm particularly curious about is how much detail readers want for the dungeon levels. The first issue's dungeon level is strictly a one-page dungeon level template, since it's the store rooms - a variation on I've run a couple of times - and doesn't really have a lot of intricate parts. The crypts, which will probably be published as level 2 or 3, are different - they have charts for determining crypt contents, which will presumably be on another page. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Stonehell as ultimately a model: one page of information if it's needed, and one page of dungeon level. But I'm really loving the one-page level template now that I've got a good way to get my maps in there.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 25, 2012 19:21:59 GMT -6
Thanks! The first batch are going out on Monday. I'm interested in feedback once you get it.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 25, 2012 18:53:50 GMT -6
Dungeon Crawl is a brand-new fanzine with trap charts, monsters, spells, magic items and a one-page dungeon for classic dungeon games. Issue #1 is now available. Check it out! Announcing Dungeon Crawl #1
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 21, 2012 5:12:56 GMT -6
One source I'd consider is a couple of the early Instrumentality stories by Cordwainer Smith. Specifically, Mark Elf and Queen of the Afternoon are both part of setting up Smith's massive, mostly starfaring Instrumentality timeline. Things like the manshonyaggers (Menschenjäger) and the general feel are very good for early post-apocalyptic scifi.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 18, 2012 19:25:31 GMT -6
cadriel: I think they've back away "multiple styles at one table". It's now more of the new edition supporting multiple styles of play but not at the same time. Each group will choose if they want a "core" game, or a more complex type built on that core. Of course, assuming that the games published by WotC are nothing but more complex versions of older D&D betrays an utter lack of understanding of the different assumptions behind the different games. I'm really not sure what WotC will offer that would make gamers attracted to classic editions buy anything for it. Their track record leaves quite a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 18, 2012 17:53:57 GMT -6
The buzz seems to be that they are trying to make a version that is modular enough that people who like 3e character optimization can play at the same table as people who prefer OD&D. It's probable that the game will have options for simple fast and deadly combat, and for highly detailed combat, and options for feats and skills and character optimization, and rules for playing "a fighter."
It more or less means that WotC expects old school gamers to buy 5e. Personally I think it's mostly marketing hype, because I don't find anything aesthetically interesting enough about WotC D&D to actually buy a product from them.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 18, 2012 6:43:52 GMT -6
I loved issue #5 because it's probably the one I felt most a part of making. Also #4 which had the very neat Arduin theme.
I'm also kinda curious whether anyone's used either the lizardmen I did in #5, or the magic weapon drawback chart from #4, in game.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 17, 2012 13:32:57 GMT -6
The BFRPG stuff is solid in quality. I'm not overly fond of all the module presentation bits - the checkboxes for monster HP are a nice thought but take up too much space, and I'm not a fan of boxed text - but there are some good dungeons for it. The variant classes are all a bit idiosyncratic for my taste. I also happen to think, with some slight tweaking, that BFRPG is a better clone of OD&D than Swords & Wizardry. If I liked the Moldvay style ability bonuses I'd probably want to use it, but since I don't....well, I still sometimes think about downloading the OpenOffice docs and modding the hell out of it.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 10, 2012 11:45:00 GMT -6
cadriel, in case you missed it there was a thread last fall in the Holmes Forum started by Falconer about this exact time period, which he termed the "Lost Edition" or "5-point alignment era". You might find the discussion there interesting, as well: The Lost EditionYeah, I read and enjoyed that thread, it had similar ideas to what I'm thinking of. One thing I'd like to get at, since I don't seem to be the only one drawn to this particular slant on the rules: if you use this style of rules, what has NOT worked for you? What stuff have you tried and discarded, or thrown out and found that your game was the better for it? Heresies and controversies welcome.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 9, 2012 7:57:30 GMT -6
Probably, you would like the Grey Book, which started as a Holmes expansion, but morphed into AD&D lite. I think the Grey Book is neat but not exactly what I'm looking for - frex, my Cleric charts use increments of 100,000 where the Grey Book uses 50,000 past Patriarch. I cut out things where I don't like them, like Exceptional Strength and minimum # of spells per level (doesn't work with how I like spellbooks). There are lots of little reasons why I don't want to use Grey Book. Also it doesn't quite get the "kitbashed" feel that I want my rules to have.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 8, 2012 20:13:08 GMT -6
This is not just an idea I've had recently, but one that I've been rattling around in my head for probably over a decade now. It comes from when I was in high school, rediscovering older AD&D rule books - using a mishmash of 1st and 2nd edition books, Dragon articles, and whatever else it took to put together the game we wanted. Back then I used to think that there would be a way to find the bits and pieces for the perfect D&D game.
Now, my concept of the perfect D&D game has changed a lot since then, but I think the idea was not too far off target. I have been doing a lot of looking at different rule sets, and I think in general I like my D&D a bit lighter than AD&D, a bit heavier than Basic and Expert. What seems, to me, to strike about the right balance is that kind of inspired blend of rules and influences that seems to have peaked around 1977/1978. You have the full OD&D game with supplements, the first issues of the Strategic Review and The Dragon, the Holmes booklet, the Monster Manual, the first Judges Guild materials, the Arduin booklets.... the list goes on. In that time before the AD&D PHB and DMG, the D&D game was much more something tailored by the individual referee, much less a single unified once-for-all system.
So what I'm looking for are thoughts on this same line. Whenever I find time to actually run a game, the next thing I run will probably be Wilderlands, with the details primarily drawn from the various JG books (Castles, Villages, Temples, Islands). And I'm seeing OD&D/Holmes with Supplements I (but no percentile Strength) and III (but no psionics) as being the "core" rule set, with Holmes along for the ride and the rules clarifications. Ready Ref Sheets play the role of the DMG, and from there it's a matter of filling stuff out. So: where are some interesting places to go from there? I have the PDFs of the runs of SR (all), Dragon (1-250) and White Dwarf (1-100), so that's no issue. I have the first 20 issues of Alarums & Excursions. I've got an extensive collection of TSR modules. And I've got a number of newer retroclone books, supplements and modules. Content is not an issue, I just have to figure out what to include and not to include.
Does anybody else share this philosophy towards OD&D? What do you include? What have you had that hasn't worked for you?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Oct 13, 2010 16:49:04 GMT -6
My IRL name is Wayne S. Rossi - I was credited correctly with the gemstones article but not in the Grognard's Grimoire. Could you possibly see your way to correcting that?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Oct 2, 2010 4:53:10 GMT -6
One thing to consider is the timers in the game. The main ones built in are the wandering monster chart (which speeds things up), the lifespan of torches (same), and the requirement to rest after 5 turns of exploration (which slows things down). Fiddling with these timers, or building in new ones, is the most straightforward way of altering the pace of your dungeon crawl.
In terms of timers, the flooding dungeon is an interesting idea, although it's a bit one-time. Riffing on that, what about the idea of a tidal dungeon level? Where on a certain level, there is a body of water that rises and falls, and when the tide is low some areas are just damp but as it comes in they fill with water. Some parts could be above the high water mark, and "safe," while others would only have a limited time before they flooded again. Of course we know where the good treasure will be. Another timer that I think would be interesting is a known radiation level - you HAVE to leave the dungeon within say 4 hours, and if you don't you have to save vs poison every hour or get a lethal case of radiation poisoning.
The other thing to consider is physical layout. A dungeon with a lot of twists and turns and alternate routes will be explored more slowly, while one that resolves down to pretty much a straight line will be explored in a quicker fashion. And if you build in things like mine carts and chutes and the like (which was pretty much where my mind went on seeing the title of this thread) you can really make it literally fast. Well, that and you can have a classic Indiana Jones style mine cart chase with a bunch of orcs, which would be pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Sept 5, 2010 14:32:06 GMT -6
The Seeker accepts the wine gladly, then gathers up his belongings (carefully donning the leather armor) and follows P. Ecstasy quietly.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 31, 2010 18:40:25 GMT -6
The Seeker Experience Points: 0 Color and Gender: Black Male
History: Perhaps to be sought.
Strength: 15 Intelligence: 18 Wisdom: 13 Dexterity: 15 Constitution:12 Charisma: 9
Hit Dice: 1 +1 Armour Class: 6
Other Bonuses: 8 languages, +1 to hit with ranged weapons
Coin Purse: 8 GP Equipment: Sword Leather Armor Shield Large Sack Standard Rations
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 31, 2010 15:05:52 GMT -6
Cadriel, although Enmerkar has passed on, you are welcome to roll up a new character, should you so wish. Sure, would you want to roll the stats for the new PC and I can appear after the current room's conflict is done?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 30, 2010 12:26:39 GMT -6
Don't change it, it's better this way. BTW, it's still August so October is technically MONTHS from now. ;-)
Can we get a teaser on what that next book will be or have?
|
|