|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 14, 2007 13:51:05 GMT -6
The 2 versions of B1 are very similar to each other, so even if you only have the later (brown cover) version you should be good to go. Some of the monster and pregen character stats are changed to conform to the 1981 rules, the rooms are re-numbered using arabic instead of roman numerals, and a couple paragraphs regarding using the module with AD&D and placing it in the World of Greyhawk are deleted. There might be a couple other similarly minor changes, but nothing significant AFAIK. The 1976 version of "The Lost Caverns of Tsojconth," however, is quite a bit different from the 1982 module version. The original version doesn't have any of the wilderness section from the module, and a lot of the encounters are different. None of the stuff from the 2nd booklet of the module appears in the 1976 version, except for Daoud's Wondrous Lanthorn. See grodog's always useful site for a detailed comparison of the two. I've never owned either version of "Quest for the Fazzle Wood" or module O1, so I can't speak to either of them.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 5, 2007 11:26:14 GMT -6
The original Dungeon Geomoprhs sets had different sample encounters in each set. The combined version includes only the sample encounters from set 1. Luckily for those who don't have the separate sets and don't relish the idea of buying them on ebay, grodog has posted the text of the sample encounters from all 3 sets on his site. Take a look at these sample encounters if you haven't before -- they're awesome and full of flavor! The Aurotyugh, the Arm of Sha-Hec'urah -- there's more good stuff in these 3 pages than in many entire 32pp modules!
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Sept 19, 2007 12:24:31 GMT -6
I've also heard fairly good things about the AD&D-compatible Role Aids supplement Psionics. I've got a copy of this (from when I picked up a massive pile of stuff on close-out from Mayfair a year or so ago) but have never read it (or even taken it out of the shrink-wrap...).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Sept 4, 2007 22:42:57 GMT -6
No Referee Screen here. The page from the Reference Sheets with Attack Matrix 1: Men Attacking, Attack Matrix II: Monsters Attacking, and the Saving Throw Matrix printed on a single facing page is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 28, 2007 11:25:05 GMT -6
Forgot to mention above, this sort of implicitly Judeo-Christian cosmology but with the "old gods" still hanging around is also present in some of Poul Anderson's historical-fantasy fiction, such as The Broken Sword and "The Merman's Children" (novella from Lin Carter's Flashing Swords #1 anthology that was later expanded into a novel of the same name that I haven't read), so I didn't just pull it completely out of my posterior...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 28, 2007 0:05:44 GMT -6
Do you have/know Unknown Gods by Judges Guild? It definitely fits the kind of feel you're describing here, with no overarching cosmology or mythology, just a bunch of random gods hanging around, stirring up trouble (btw, Chu-bu and Sheemish come from Lord Dunsany's Book of Wonder; don't know the other two off-hand).
Personally, I tend to stick with OD&D's implicit Judeo-Christian cosmology: clerics may have various patron saints or belong to varying sects (and there are rivalries and conflicts between these), but they're all ultimately part of the same Universal Church of Law with crosses as holy symbol, access to the same spell list, power against the undead, and a prohibition against spilling blood. Anti-clerics worship various demons and devils (and worse) as a deliberate perversion and mockery of the Church of Law. In addition, there are various immortal godlings running around who are generally just really tough guys who don't age -- some of them may have cults of worshippers, but they don't generally grant spells (unless they're serving as a proxy for the higher or infernal powers). This is based on the fact that neither Gods, Demigods & Heroes nor Unknown Gods actually has any substative info about characters worshipping any of these figures...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 5, 2007 11:32:21 GMT -6
I've never seen an actual physical set of these so I can't speak to what the actual maps are like other than the bare hint you can get looking at the cover scan at the acaeum. From what I understand, the most interesting/valuable part of the set was the 4 page booklet of instructions/advice on designing cities in D&D and handful of detailed sample buildings. The estimable grodog has posted a transcription of the contents of this booklet here (yes, this is the same page linked in the other Geomorphs thread; scroll down a bit for the Outdoor Geomorphs section).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 5, 2008 19:17:07 GMT -6
Is this the only published OD&D module by Gary Gygax? AFAIK yes, unless you're willing to count some of the early (pre-DMG) AD&D modules such as S1, or the Holmes edition of B2, as being de facto OD&D. I have a facsimile copy of, err, dubious provenance.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 27, 2008 18:36:44 GMT -6
A question: do you say that those are the possible outcomes to the player? Not normally. I don't even usually tell them the odds of success, I'll just say "roll a d6, you want a low number." The exception might be if there's only 1 or 2 players; then I might take the time to be a little more transparent and even involve the player(s) in the decision-making process: what they think their chances, and the consequences of a failed roll, should be.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 27, 2008 18:17:33 GMT -6
I'd put his "sneaky speed" at about 30' per round and would require a fairly easy check (say 4 in 6) each round to avoid detection -- guessing the scale of the map, this would probably be 2 checks total. Getting through the door unnoticed would require a separate, harder check (say 2 in 6). If he blows this roll, how badly he fails will determine when he gets noticed by the cultists: 3 = he's got the door open but hasn't gone through, 4 = he's at the door but hasn't opened it, 5-6 = the cultists notice him before he gets to the door.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 27, 2008 0:56:55 GMT -6
There's pretty much 3 options: 1) get surprise (or initiative in the 1st round) and either zap him or evade with a spell (or wand or staff effect) before he has a chance to close; 2) have a flunky (or flunkies) who can stay between you and the fighter; or 3) run away (and hope the fighter is wearing enough armor that he has a lower move rate than you do) -- if you can open up enough distance and are willing to risk it you may choose to turn around after awhile and zap him with a spell/wand/staff. Other than that, though, in a one-on-one fight between a fighter and a magic-user, the magic-user pretty much doesn't stand a chance.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 27, 2008 0:09:34 GMT -6
The key, presumably, would be to keep the fighter from engaging...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 26, 2008 23:20:23 GMT -6
The default (from Swords & Spells) is that people engaged in melee can't cast spells, but that totally screws over anti-clerics (who have several offensive spells with touch range -- reversed cure light wounds, reversed cure disease, reversed cure serious wounds) so I definitely make an exception at least for them, and perhaps should just throw the rule out altogether...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 26, 2008 21:50:46 GMT -6
It's not as strict in practice as it appears written out (and in that regard it was probably a mistake to cite the AD&D rule as if I follow it exactly). It's all based on judgment calls, ad-hoc rulings, and common sense. That said, here's how I'd probably rule in the situations you mentioned: 1. The initiative sequence I use (memorialized here) already differentiates between "short" spells (levels 1-2) and "long" spells (levels 3+). The idea is that you can cast a complete short spell in a surprise situation (whether normal or total), but only begin a long one (though it follows that the spell would then be considered a short one in the following round). For extreme total surprise situations (3-5 segments) a caster might be able to complete a long spell (using a rule of thumb of 1 level per segment, more or less). 2. A character with a bow ready can fire once per surprise segment. Otherwise he must spend a segment readying the bow and can then fire in any remaining segments. A ready crossbow can fire once but can't be reloaded and fire again in the surprise situation. Once again that's a rule of thumb and there might be individual exceptions if it seems reasonable. 3. if the encounter distance is 10' any character can close and attack in a single segment. If the distance is 20-30' it generally takes 1 segment to close, and if it's a total surprise situation they can attack in the 2nd+ segment(s). A character with 3" or slower move rate I'd probably say needs 1 segment to close 20' and 2 segments to close 30'.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 26, 2008 20:11:05 GMT -6
I really like the difference between "basic surprise" (enemy gets 1 free action) and "total surprise" (enemy gets 2 (or possibly more) free actions). Under this method a multi-segment/round total surprise situation can decide an encounter before the other side ever gets a chance to react. This makes surprise a much more important consideration and adds more of a player-level tactical element to the game which I really like -- good players will do everything they can to increase their chance of causing surprise (by setting ambushes and being stealthy) and decrease their chance of being surprised (by being wary) whereas bad players will blunder around, miss opportunities to take out monsters commando-style, and ultimately probably get TPK'd when they wind up on the wrong end of a monster ambush.
I never used this rule when playing AD&D back in the 80s (we always played it just like you describe), and only discovered it when I carefully re-read the AD&D rules c. 2003, but I fell instantly in love with it and now could hardly imagine playing without it.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 26, 2008 19:15:12 GMT -6
I do it like in AD&D: if you roll a 1 on the surprise check you're surprised for 1 action*, if you roll a 2 you're surprised for 2 actions, if you roll a 3+ you're not surprised (unless you're facing something like a bugbear with a greater than normal surprise chance). If the distance is greater than 10' it takes an enemy at least one of those actions to close to striking distance, but if you're already within 10' they get both actions.
*AD&D calls these segments; I'm deliberately trying to avoid that terminology but the effect is pretty much the same -- you can attack once, or fire a readied missile, or start a spell, or move 1/10 your normal per-round movement (i.e. 15', 12', 9', 6', etc.).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 15, 2008 20:55:40 GMT -6
In both the section on dungeon adventuring and the sample of play I wrote for OSRIC v2.0 I included the Caller. Stuart (aka Papers&Paychecks, OSRIC editor) softened by recommendation, labeling it "optional" and changing the tone from "you should do this" to more "it might be helpful to consider this" (I'm guessing because he himself probably doesn't have a Caller in his games). If you've got only 1 or 2 (or possibly 3, if they're all well-behaved) players, you don't need a Caller. But if you've got 4 or more and don't want the game to descend into chaos of the extrovert players trying to one-up each other and monopolize the DM's attention while the introvert players sit back and get lost in the shuffle completely, a Caller is almost mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 13, 2008 17:38:56 GMT -6
It was published across 2 issues (#5 and #6, IIRC) under the title "Night of the Walking Wet."
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jan 30, 2008 11:48:02 GMT -6
Just a map might not be enough help - though there were no modules with the original sets it must be pointed out. But, I like Foster's idea in general. Maybe some maps, foes, ideas for things that can happen - sort of the dungeon version of what those newfangled designer types call a 'relationship map' or 'conflict web'. (Plus the real maps of course.) Something to give the DM room to invent and expand plus some basic material she can drive with to move things forward when she's not sure what else to do. Sort of a "DM's Design Kit:" the sample level maps, a few detailed stand-alone rooms (along the lines of the sample encounters from TSR's Dungeon Geomorphs sets), some sample detailed NPCs with backstories and goals (both fellow-explorers and dungeon inhabitants), some missions - reasons to go into a dungeon, some events - "stuff that can happen in the dungeon," and some lists (probably formatted as random tables) of traps, tricks, monsters, treasures, and "dungeon dressing" to help the DM fill the thing up and/or add ambiance on the fly.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jan 30, 2008 1:35:09 GMT -6
How about Judges Guild's (unkeyed) Dungeon Level Maps I 1-5? To me something like this is much more suited to the open-ended DIY spirit of OD&D than any finite, pre-defined module could ever be...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 11, 2007 0:12:24 GMT -6
While I've got everything out and prepped (and before I forget how to do it all) here's another tidbit from the 4th printing OD&D set -- the "missing" piece of art from p. 35 of Vol. I: Not too great a piece, even by the low standards of the OD&D set's art, but nonetheless a fun curiosity for those who only have a 5th+ printing
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 10, 2007 22:50:28 GMT -6
I've always wondered about the old school sample dungeons, and kind of figured that the one in OD&D was drawn for EGG or RJK The entire sample level, but especially the sections around areas 2, 4, and 8, appears quite similar in style to the map of Greyhawk Castle level 1 posted by the ENWorld mods from their OD&D game with Gary at this year's GenCon. I don't think this sample map actually represents a level from Greyhawk Castle, I'm pretty sure Gary created it specifically for the book, but I do think it is representative of Gygax's mapping style c. 1973.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 10, 2007 22:39:14 GMT -6
OK, let's see if this worked:
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 10, 2007 13:23:52 GMT -6
It's the exact same dungeon presented differently. It might still be worth posting a scan, though. When I get home tonight I'll look into the feasibility of doing so (I'm not exactly the most tech-savvy person around...).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 10, 2007 11:32:08 GMT -6
The sample dungeon level at the beginning of Vol. III was also redrawn between the 4th & 5th printings, and the one in the 4th printing is much more interesting -- it's drawn on a faint-but-visible square grid, it uses the "standard" D&D mapping symbols (little rectangles for doors, box with a x in the middle for covered pits, etc.) and it's much clearer that it's just a sub-section of a larger level (IIRC you can make out some additional rooms & corridors beyond what's described in the book). The same map in the 5th printing is redrawn with no grid, non-standard mapping symbols, and everything outside of the described rooms filled in solid black.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jun 25, 2007 12:21:44 GMT -6
(Cross-posted from the K&K Alehouse)
The following text covering miscellanesous construction costs for strongholds is present in the 4th printing of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Volume III (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures) on pp. 21-22, but is missing from the 5th and 6th (OCE) printings. This is the most significant content (as opposed to spelling or formatting) difference I've spotted between the various printings of OD&D:
I assume this text wasn't deleted intentionally and that leaving it out was simply an editorial oversight.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 26, 2007 18:27:34 GMT -6
Yeah, sounds like the same system minus the (frankly, rather silly) "BUC" acronym. My problem with the system was remembering what in-game coins are worth in BUCs -- sure it's easy to determine that a meal costs $25 and a room $75, but what is that in copper/bronze/silver/gold coins? Having to do that conversion (at least for me) erases the convenience of the BUC standard. Perhaps if I used it more I'd get more comfortable with it, but after 20+ years the D&D 50 (or 100 or 200) CP = 10 (or 20) SP = 2 (or 1/2) EP = 1 GP = 1/5 PP standard is so ingrained in my mind that it's hard to displace it.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 26, 2007 17:53:43 GMT -6
Is the LA/GFW system more-or-less the same BUCs (Basic Unit of Currency) system as seen in Mythus, where items are priced in BUCs equivalent to their cost in present day $ and an exchange-rate table of what all the metals are worth in BUCs? Despite its supposed user-friendliness I always found that system to be more of a hassle than D&D's gold/silver standard (especially 10+ years later, when the $ (and thus the BUC) isn't worth what it used to be). I can see estimating prices being somewhat of an issue with the latter, but the price-lists in the rulebooks (dungeoneering equipment, weapons and armor, livestock and transportation in Vol. I, costruction costs and experts' wages in Vol. III) are extensive enough that I always found it easy enough to make comparison-based estimations.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 21, 2007 12:07:06 GMT -6
Since there's no procedure for roll-based trap searches in the rules -- even for dwarfs it's simply mentioned that "they note ... traps ... in underground settings" with no associated die-roll or percentage for success -- that leads me to believe that descriptive/negotiation-based searching (or at least ad-hoc rolls determined by the DM rather than any fixed/defined procedure) was the assumed method (though I suppose it's possible a die-roll like for secret doors was intended and simply missed in the published rules).
My method is description/negotiation plus ad-hoc rolls: the players state where and how they're searching, and on that basis I determine how likely they are to find the trap -- it might be automatic, it might be a die-roll (on which dwarfs would typically get a bonus), or they might not have any chance of success. It's subjective and it varies by situation, and there's no single "magic word" or procedure that will always work, but it works in practice and keeps the game moving.
EXAMPLE: In a room, there's a pit-trap hidden under a rug. The players are searching the room for traps. If they say "we're searching the room for traps" with no further detail I'll assign a chance, 2 or 3 in 6 say (since a pit under a rug isn't exactly the most ingeniously-hidden trap...), that they find the pit trap (and if this roll fails there'll be the standard (2 in 6) chance that they unknowingly trip it); if they say "we look under the rug for a trap" they'll find it automatically with no die roll required; if they say "we're examing along the walls, the ceiling, the bed, and the armoire looking for traps" (i.e. they mention specifically where they're searching that doesn't include where the trap is) they'll have no chance of finding it (and, instead, will have the standard, or perhaps even increased to 3 or 4 in 6 since they're obviously moving about a lot in the room, and not paying any attention to the rug, chance of tripping it). In another room, or with another type of trap, the exact procedure would be a bit different (though the general idea would still hold).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 5, 2007 11:30:16 GMT -6
When this would matter would be when in either a long hallway or a large room a monster can see the party but they can't see it -- standard encounter distance is 20-80' and if we assume torches and lanterns illuminate an area approx. 30' radius (which is, IIRC, what later editions say) that leaves considerable room for monsters lurking in the shadows -- the party will be able to hear them (since they weren't surprised, otherwise the encounter distance would've been 10-30') but they can't see them...
|
|