|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 24, 2007 11:04:23 GMT -6
I'm less than thrilled with you cutting and pasting a post of mine from another board, especially one that is made up in large part of cut & pasted material from a third-party copyrighted source. How about deleting this post and replacing it with a link to the original location?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 22, 2007 13:43:35 GMT -6
Nice find, Ev. My long post in that thead appears to be the "ground zero" point, the first time I'd attempted put all those thoughts into writing, which all of my later posts on the topic are amplifications, extensions, revisions and just plain rehashings of. It's almost enough to inspire me to go through all these collected threads, pull out my posts, and attempt to combine all of it into a coherent essay (or series of essays). Nah, who am I kidding, I've got Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to read...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 20, 2007 23:54:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 18, 2007 16:00:46 GMT -6
Another good one from ENWorld (which is actually linked to on the thread posted above, but deserves its own link): Would these maps make for a fun dungeon adventure?www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=165693(Skip to the second and third page for most of the "meaty" content)
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 3, 2007 11:57:46 GMT -6
It would seem the ezboard language filter has replaced "my ass" with "I disagree." Lame.
EDIT: err, make that proboards, not ezboard... (also, quote my message to see the ultra-secret trick for fooling the language filters...)
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 18, 2007 14:32:48 GMT -6
The requirement to spend 1 out of every 6 turns resting (i.e. not moving) would seem to make time-tracking in the dungeon very important for players and refs alike -- you want to be in a room (preferably with a spiked-shut door) when that mandatory rest period comes up, otherwise (if you're stuck resting in a hallway or open chamber) you'll be easy prey for whatever wandering monsters might happen to come wandering along...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 8, 2007 12:35:06 GMT -6
I think what Gary probably had in mind was when you're just sitting down with some friends to play and need a wilderness map, the outdoor survival board is a great tool for this, but if you're at the point in a long-term game where high level characters are making their own castles, exploring the world, etc., you'll want to make your own map instead. Right. I think the idea is that the OS map is used when it's just a case of players wanting to go out into the wilderness to fight some stuff and the DM doesn't have anything in particular prepared (and presumably the board is placed on the table and visible to all, rather that the DM trying awkwardly to keep it hidden). Later in the campaign, though, it's supposed to be replaced by a wilderness created by the DM which the players have to explore/map on their own. Note also that the use of the OS map in D&D appears (going by the reference to it in First Fantasy Campaign) to have been an Arneson-ism, and (per Tim Kask at DF) a lot of the Arneson-originated stuff Gygax was more or less guessing at the meanings of when he included it in D&D, so it's entirely possible Gygax himself didn't really know what you were supposed to use the OS map for, but included it anyway because 1) Arneson had made reference to it, and 2) he was friends with the guys at Avalon Hill (they published his Alexander the Great game and he offered D&D to them) and wanted to give them a "shout out" in the game (which is what one of the other TSR-oldtimers (Rob Kuntz or Steve Marsh maybe?) said when asked about it -- "you were never expected to really use it, Gary just included it as a way of paying tribute to his friends at TAHGC"). Never played it, but it certainly doesn't look like much fun.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 8, 2007 19:39:11 GMT -6
Does it ever bother anyone that someone would have had to build that dungeon by carving out chunks of rock and hauling it above ground or that such a deep dungeon would collapse under the weight of the stuff above it? Not to mention how hard it must be to keep a good sanitation engineer servicing one of those things. One can only pray that, unlike our electrical service, the magical service never suffers a power outage. Boo! Hiss! Blanket handwave explanation for all that stuff: "it's magic!"
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 3, 2008 15:48:23 GMT -6
Okay, now I see what you're getting at. Part of it has been called 'system-naive' play; the players don't know the mechanics of the system, so they have to decide what to do based on their knowledge of the real world, of fantasy, and of what they've already learned from the game system through actual play. The other part is the verisimilitude of the dungeon experience, which aids in the players' making their decisions.I.e.: "Okay, the floor is wet and uneven, so if I try to get a runing start to jump that chasm, I might slip and fall in. Also, I can barely see the other side in my torchlight. Maybe I ought to come up with another way to get across..." As opposed to: "The environmental modifiers of -6 means my jump check will only be 4; I don't want to risk it." At least, that's what I think you mean by that part. Yeah, that's it exactly.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 3, 2008 15:25:00 GMT -6
I, at least, know exactly what you're getting at, because it's the same way I try to approach the game. I don't have time now (posting from work) but perhaps we can try to get into this in more depth later on.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 2, 2008 18:39:04 GMT -6
That linked 1976 TSR sheet is by far my favorite D&D character sheet, and I've got a big stack of 'em (from Falconer's facsimile version) printed out on orange and green paper. It has spaces for all of the variables (except HP -- per EGG this was an oversight) and nothing that's just table entries copied out of the book (AC, saving throws, to hit chart, ability score mods, racial or class abilities). What's so cool about a sheet like this is that it's not intimidating or overwhelming to newbie or casual players -- it doesn't have a ton of numbers or tiny little print, it's not hard to find the info you're looking for. It shows exactly how simple the game really is. Plus it has a ton of blank space for the players to fill in with notes, doodles, character portraits, etc.
I know a lot of people consider a sheet of lined notebook paper as the only true old-school-D&D character sheet, and I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, but using a sheet of note-paper still requires the player to have a certain degree of familiarity with the game to know what to put on his sheet, whereas this sheet tells you exactly what you need to know (and nothing that you don't). Give somebody who's never played the game before a blank one of these, a pencil, and some six-sided dice and you can be rolling in 10 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 21, 2008 11:22:49 GMT -6
Saving throws are harder to do using 2d6, assuming you want to retain something resembling the percentages of the d20-based charts. I did a rough conversion of the saving throw chart to 2d6 values but I wasn't happy with it -- because of the curved distribution too many of the fine distinctions were lost so that, IIRC, all the classes ended up having the same saves at 1st level -- the flavor element of clerics being better against poison and death, fighters being better against dragon breath, and magic-users bad at pretty much everything were lost.
One way to retain those distinctions is to use the "percentiles on 2d6 emulator" table, which originally appeared in Fight in the Skies (or at least so I understand), was reprinted in The Dragon (and again in Best of The Dragon vol. I) in the article "What To Do When the Dog Eats Your Dice?," and has been posted online at least once by me. This is an inelegant solution to be sure (requiring 2 table look-ups per roll -- at the saving throw chart to see what your target is, and then at the emulator chart to see what you need to roll) but is probably the easiest way to achieve "d6 only" D&D.
The other method is just to rewrite the saving throw tables altogether and not worry about matching the percentages of the d20 table. Anyone serious about doing a d6-only D&D campaign should probably do this. I never did because 1) it seemed like too much work, and 2) I'm concerned about the balance issues of making saves easier or harder (resolving which would require more analysis and playtesting, which would exacerbate issue 1 even further).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 21, 2008 8:57:33 GMT -6
For attack rolls you can use 2d6 roll-low, target number = target AC (i.e. to hit an AC 9 target you need to roll a 9 or less on 2d6, to hit an AC 2 target you need to roll 2 or less on 2d6). -1 on the roll (or +1 to the target's AC, same difference) for each "step" on the attack charts (i.e. fighters get +1 at levels 4-6, +2 at levels 7-9, etc.). I've both looked at the numbers on this and tested it a bit in play and it works pretty well -- low ACs are harder to hit than in the traditional (d20) system, high ACs are easier to hit, mid-range ACs are about the same. Adjustments count for more (even a simple +1 to hit can make a huge difference if it falls at the right spot on the curve) and magic armor becomes extremely valuable (rendering characters hit-proof against low level characters and monsters unless they can find an offsetting advantage (flanking, height, etc.)). If you use this system you have to rework the monsters' attack chart to advance in the same increments as the character chart (the monster chart has too many columns) and you should probably limit access to plate armor for the first level or two.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 1, 2008 11:22:10 GMT -6
But then what meaning does "we play D&D" have? If someone invites me to their D&D campaign, can I expect to find D&D books in use or something else? First off, I suppose I should clarify that when I mentioned those other games what I really meant was that sets of house-rules that resembled, or diverged from baseline D&D to a comparable extent to, EPT, MA, RQ, or T&T would still be D&D to me if the people playing them still considered them to be D&D. But if you're playing under a set of published rules with another name then you're definitely playing that game, not D&D. Which, I suppose, is my answer to the "beard" argument -- you have a beard when you're willing to declare that the hair on your face is a beard; your house-ruled game is no longer D&D as soon as you stop calling it D&D. As for what to reasonably expect when joining a D&D campaign, I'd say the only real baseline expectations are that there will be a referee figure responsible for defining challenges and adjudicating actions (though that role need not necessarily be confined to a single person or distinct from playing a character), that the focus will be on individual characters rather than groups (each player could have more than 1 character apiece but they'd still be defined as individuals), and that the setting will have some degree of the fantastic, weird, or unexplained (though beyond that it could be ancient, medieval, modern, far future, or another world/dimension entirely). My personal definition would add that the activity of the game should generally focus on exploration and heroic action/adventure with at least the threat of violence and death (a game in which, say, the characters stay in town working as shopkeepers that is focused entirely on simulating a fantastical-medieval economy, would IMO stretch the definition of "what is D&D?" moreso than something like MA or RQ1 even if it followed the rules and meta-setting of the OD&D booklets exactly) but I know that's not a universally-accepted norm (thus stories of D&D campaigns in which the characters never left town and never got into a single fight). Pretty much everything else is negotiable IMO. The way you find out specifics is by asking questions of the ref and other participants -- what's the setting like? what happens in a typical session? what character types are allowed? how is combat handled? how about non-combat tasks? should I bring along my own copies of the rules and if so what books? The theoretical appeal of AD&D is that most of those questioned are already answered and thus don't need to be asked, even if that's not how it actually worked out in practice. The Moldvay and Mentzer Classic D&D sets did the same for non-A D&D, establishing a solid baseline so it was no longer necessary to ask a bunch of preliminary questions (which is why that version is so good for casual and beginner play and has been dubbed the "sit your butt down and start playing" edition). There's appeal in that approach, but there's danger too (since you think you know what you're getting into you don't bother to ask questions and only find out later that the game isn't matching your expectations) and more potential for boring sameness (the creative rut that AD&D was in from ~1984 on). I prefer the wide-open potential of D&D as originally envisaged, when the rules in the books were inspirational examples and starting points, not limits and boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 31, 2008 23:27:03 GMT -6
I'd have no trouble considering a game that broke any (or even all) of those rules sacred cows to still be D&D so long as the people playing it considered it to be D&D. EPT certainly is only not-D&D IMO because TSR chose to label it that way; the same goes for Metamorphosis Alpha, which IMO would've made for a kick-ass D&D supplement. Heck, By the Book RuneQuest (1st edition at least) has enough similarities to D&D that if people playing by those rules chose to call their game D&D I wouldn't argue with them. The same for a group playing by the rules of Tunnels & Trolls.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 21, 2008 10:58:28 GMT -6
For me the answer is more procedural than mechanical. Can I still quest for riches and glory in wicked cities, dangerous wildernesses, and mysterious underworlds? Is the majority of fiddly resolution handled by the good judgement of the referee rather than set in stone rules? If both those answers are a resounding "Yes!" then I can accept all sorts of variations from the baseline mechanics. I agree with this. I'm willing to accept a very wide degree of mechanical divergence (no ability scores, no classes, entirely different combat or magic system, etc.) and still consider the game "D&D" as long as it retains a certain essential feel which is, roughly speaking, an ancient or medieval fantasy, planetary romance, or weird-science-fantasy (as opposed to modern or hard sf) setting, a primary emphasis on exploration-based adventure, and resoluton generally handled on the basis of "what makes sense for this character?" rather than "what makes sense according to the rules?" As long as you ave all of those you can throw out or change every rule in the book and as long as you're still comfortable calling your game D&D I've got no problem with it. Oh, and FWIW I consider "OD&D" to be a ruleset, not a game. You don't "play OD&D" IMO, rather you "play D&D using the OD&D set." This is distinct from AD&D, which is both a game and a ruleset -- you can "play AD&D" (which, IMO means playing essentially BtB -- ignoring or adding to but not changing the rules in the book) and you can also "play D&D using the AD&D ruleset" (changing the rules around to suit your fancy but still using the AD&D rulebooks as the baseline).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 18, 2008 17:56:28 GMT -6
Hmm, where is the upkeep rule and the rule about magic items granting XP (I know AD&D has an XP value for items, but I don't recall seeing such a statement in OD&D). The Support & Upkeep rule is at the top of Vol. III, p. 24 ("Player/Character Support and Upkeep"). On re-reading now it doesn't actually mention that it's a recurring monthly fee (I must've interpolated that from the analogous AD&D rule) and this could perhaps be construted as a one-time fee (i.e. every time the character gains new XP he must pay out GP for upkeep equal to 1% of that amount). XP for magic items is mentioned in a brief and possibly ambiguous reference on vol. I, p. 18: "as characters meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.) they gain 'experience'" (emphasis mine) and covered in considerably more detail (including some example item values) in the D&D FAQ from TSR#2.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 18, 2008 17:43:30 GMT -6
Removing or modifying level caps won't destroy the game; at worst you'll find your parties having more demi-human characters and fewer human ones which might be a flavor issue but if you can live with that not a problem otherwise. One piece of fiction you might want to check out, both because it's just a cracking good piece of swords & sorcery (one of the best of the genre) and also because it seems to address "humanocentrism" in a way similar to what D&D's rules suggest (i.e. that non-humans have numerous inborn advantages over humans but lack the same mortality-driven "existential drive" that leads humans to overachieve), is The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson. It might not change your mind (and there's nothing wrong if it doesn't), but who knows, it just might... (See also a series of posts in, err, "passionate" defense of demi-human level limits that I wrote at dragonsfoot (though the edited highlights-only re-post at The Knights & Knaves Alehouse is probably an easier read) shortly after reading this book, when its ideas were particularly fresh in my mind)
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2008 23:10:49 GMT -6
GOLD: Beyond the first couple adventures (once everybody's able to afford plate mail, long bows, and all the silver arrows and holy water they can carry) gold becomes essentially just a means of keeping score in both OD&D and Classic (B/X) D&D. Characters in OD&D have a few more things to spend money on -- OD&D places more emphasis on acquiring an entourage of retainers and followers, spending money to gather info, monthly upkeep (gold = 1% of the character's XP), magic-users researching new spells, and high-level characters developing baronies (not just building and manning a castle but also investing in infrastructure) -- plus OD&D gives XP for magic items characters will tend to have a bit less gold for the same XP total as Classic D&D characters, but even so they'll quickly find themselves with large surpluses of gold and not much to do with it. The Dave Arneson rule that XP is only gained for Gold that is spent on a hobby/interest is a good way to keep money flowing out at something approaching the same rate it flows in. A simpler alternative I sometimes use (if the players won't riot) is to simply remove excess gold by fiat -- allow the players to pay their upkeep, restock their equipment, and perhaps set a bit aside for an emergency, and simply declare the rest of the money gone at the start of the next adventure/session. This is totally true to the genre (no matter how big a treasure Conan, Kothar, of Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser won at the end of one story they were always broke and hungry at the beginning of the next), eliminates the problem of what to do with all that gold, and doesn't really penalize the players -- they already got the XP, they're allowed to purchase whatever equipment they want, and if they're serious about saving up for a castle that should be allowed too. LEVEL CAPS: These are even more strict in OD&D than in Classic D&D -- 4th level(!) for hobbits, 6th for dwarfs, and 8th for elves. What this does, though, is make the reason behind the limits more clear -- they're not there for balance, they're there to make demi-humans into second-class characters. Demi-humans fit as supporting characters -- as NPC retainers or as the characters of more casual or short-term players -- but ultimately D&D is a game of human fighting men and magic-users (even clerics are distinctly second-best at higher levels) and all of the serious players will recognize that. This, again, fits the genre -- The Lord of the Rings isn't about Gimli and Legolas, it's about Aragorn. From this perspective -- that demi-humans are second-class characters, front-loaded with abilities (and thus eminently suitable for casual players) but not really suitable for the long term -- the limits make sense. SAVE OR DIE: There are two answers here. The first is "easy come, easy go." To someone familiar with the basic rules creating a new OD&D or Classic D&D character takes all of about 10 minutes (even less if you don't agonize over ability score point-swapping or what equipment to purchase) and therefore it's not really a problem that 1st level characters have a mortality rate of 50% or higher. It's pretty much a given that at least some characters are going to die, and some players are likely to lose several characters a session (especially those who don't learn from their mistakes) and that's just the shape of the game. Don't get too attached to your character or invest a lot in backstory and such until he hits at least 4th level (and if you want a game where you can invest in the characters from the start consider starting at 4th level). The other answer applies perhaps more to OD&D than Classic D&D which is that the player's skill is more likely to determine the character's life or death than random die rolls. In OD&D there is no "find traps" roll that lets the player off the hook -- the way you find a trap in OD&D is by describing exactly how your character searches for it: if your description is good enough you'll find the trap and survive, if not, you'll get caught by the trap and die (which brings up another point: saving throws should always be viewed from the perspective of "default failure" rather than "default success" -- it's not that you have to make the saving throw to continue, it's that you screwed up and your character deserves to die, but if you're lucky you might get a second chance). Of course, a lot of the responsibility here falls on the DM and how he designs his dungeons -- generally character death should come from the decisions the player made (where other/different decisions could've kept the character alive) rather than fortune alone. GOOD DUNGEONS: This is entirely subjective and different people will have different definitions of what a "good" dungeon is. Here's mine. A good dungeon allows for a lot of player choice and decisions -- it has multiple entrances and exits and means of getting from level to level, it has multiple valid and rewarding routes rather than one correct path, it doesn't have "level bosses" that must be defeated before the characters can progress to the next stage. A good dungeon has a variety of challenges -- exploration (wandering in the maze trying not to get lost), combat (things to kill, and things to avoid), negotiation (things to talk to), and problem-solving (tricks or obstacles that the players must think, rather than fight or roll, their way through); what the perfect ratio of the above is will depend on the individual group, but IMO none should be neglected entirely, neither should any one be allowed to dominate too much. Most importantly, a good dungeon should be a reflection of the personality of its designer -- every dungeon should be unique and individual and not feel exactly like any other. Don't follow the rules or the examples within them too closely or try to make your dungeon exactly like someone else's, rather use it as the expression of your own interests and your own dreams. For an example of a "good dungeon" that fulfills all of the above criteria and IMO captures the OD&D spirit just about perfectly, it's hard to do better than Under Xylarthen's Tower.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2008 18:47:00 GMT -6
Ugh, I just accidentally deleted a huge reply to this post. No time to reconstruct it now, 'cause I'm at work (shouldn't have tried to write it here in the first place). More later (unless I check back and see that others have already covered all the things I would've said...).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 10, 2008 16:36:10 GMT -6
Another key essay from Gygax on the difference in intended approach between AD&D (official rules conformity) and D&D (anything goes) is in Dragon #67 (Nov. 1982): "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D Game." One of the big problems with this essay was that by this point "D&D" had become conflated with the kiddie/intro/mass-market version (i.e. "Classic D&D") and the freeform/toolbox/tinkerer's version (i.e. OD&D) was no longer on the market (as, indeed, it never was again until the pdf was finally released last fall) so the hardcore hobbyists who wanted to customize the game naturally tended to AD&D, and were then resentful when Gygax told them they shouldn't be doing that to his game (a resentment that carried through unabated for decades -- people were still angrily citing this essay on ENWorld as proof that Gygax was a dictator who wanted to tell everyone how they should be playing the game as recently as a year or two ago (and very well may still be doing so except that I have all of tose people on my Ignore List so I no longer see it )).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 10, 2008 10:32:19 GMT -6
I've got a lot of thoughts (many of which I've shared in the past) regarding what I feel to be the proper place of house rules in "AD&D" vs. "D&D" games. IMO if you're intending to play the former it behooves you to not change a lot of the material in the rulebooks -- you can ignore things, and you can add things, but you generally shouldn't change things. If you're intending to play the latter, pretty much anything goes. And yes, by this definition it's perfectly possible (and, in fact very common) to play a game that's actually "D&D" even though all the rulebooks say "AD&D" on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 19, 2008 12:58:50 GMT -6
Assuming that in the mundane world (i.e. everyone but the PCs, their entourages, and the adventuring NPCs (friendly and hostile) they meet on adventures) almost everybody is "0-level" or at most 1st level (which in OD&D means no spells) helps this issue -- it's not like the church can use a simple "cast purify food & drink" test to determine who are the real clerics and who are the anti-clerics in its priesthood.
The idea of a "magical priesthood" where it's known/assumed that all clerics have a repertoire of magical spells at their disposal feels like an AD&Dism to me (and is probably the #1 thing I really disliked about Gygax's Living Fantasy); I much prefer the attitude towards clerics casting spells to be more like "miracles" -- it's not assumed that every member of the priesthood is a spell-caster; on the contrary, only exceptionally pious and holy individuals are able to perform occasional miracles. And yes, this throws the idea of the PCs going to the local shrine and dropping a couple thousand GP on a remove curse or raise dead right out the window.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 12, 2008 16:18:46 GMT -6
Something to keep in mind when discussing Gary's take on real-world religion in D&D is that he was very religious (whether he always was or only became so later in life isn't something I'm in a position to state, but it's undeniable that for at least the last 3-4 years he was very religious) and perhaps had theologically-based issues with inserting his own real-life religion into a fictional setting that others of us might not share (or at least not to the same extent).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2008 18:43:18 GMT -6
What you would need to look at (and what could add to some real fun in creating a game world) is exactly what Christianity would mean in a world populated by races other than human and where arcane magic is a given fact of life. Given that, in OD&D, only humans may become clerics, would this imply that other races are not allowed to belong to the church, or perhaps that other races choose to disregard religion altogether as a human conceit (which is how I do it in my game)? Are magic users actively hunted as heretics? Perhaps it might be like EPT where spellcasters need to place themselves in service to the church to avoid possible persecution. In the first regard some of Poul Anderson's fantasy books ( The Broken Sword and especially The Merman's Children) might provide some good ideas. The interplay between Christianity and sorcery also gets some attention in Lord Dunsany's The Charwoman's Shadow. Fletcher Pratt's novel The Blue Star is about a world where magic is real but is suppressed by the church and may hold some inspiration for your latter idea.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2008 14:34:32 GMT -6
That's the way I do it. Clerics = members of ahistorical, hierarchial, implicitly-Christian "Church of Law"; Anti-clerics = devil worshippers, more or less. Beyond that there are also ancient spirits, pagan godlings, and demons (including Elder Horrors from alien dimensions) but those are all more like big NPCs or monsters than "deities" in the later-edition-D&D sense. Worshipping and paying homage to such a figure might have no effect whatsoever (beyond perhaps keeping it from eating you) or the being might be able to grant a specific power or two to its followers, but certainly not the whole panoply of spells and powers granted to members of the cleric class.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 27, 2008 17:12:16 GMT -6
I love the OS map, especially the jrients version that's redrawn to look like a D&D map (whereas the original has pools instead of castles and little deer-heads in place of monster lairs). It's a perfect "generic wilderness" for wandering aimlessly around looking to get into trouble, and also easy enough for the DM to fill in if he sees fit -- choose which village is the "home base," which castle or monster lair is "the dungeon," and give the players reasons to go to specific locations instead of just wandering.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 4, 2008 9:01:50 GMT -6
Brian Blume receives no "special thanks for suggestions and ideas" credit in Supplement II, which is how contributors were generally acknowledged, so he probably only suggested "hey, we should add a kung-fu martial artist character to D&D!" and then Dave, or perhaps Gary or Rob (both of whom are thanked for "suggestions and ideas" in Supplement II, alongside Steve Marsh (which we now know is for all his underwater stuff) and Tim Kask (presumably for "polishing up" various things)), actually sat down and wrote out the details.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 25, 2008 23:34:50 GMT -6
Nice to know my instincts are occasionally spot-on If you ever come across the confirmation somewhere on the web or elsewhere, please make note of it. I'd be very interested in hearing what else he has to say on the origins of the RQ rules. Here ya go
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 25, 2008 22:55:55 GMT -6
In fact, I'd not be the least bit surprised if Steve Perrin got the job of designing the RQ rules on the strength of the Perrin Conventions, though I can't corroborate this. Steve has confirmed (somewhere in an online Q&A/interview -- the Acaeum, maybe, or perhaps RPGNet?) that this is exactly the case.
|
|