|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 14:31:11 GMT -6
And in fact we see that in TSR's published version, where the Manual of Puissant Skill at Arms shows up on the level one table. S I hope I don't sound like an idiot when I say, what do you mean by a level 1 table? There isn't a level magic item table. There is a level 1 guarded treasure table that has lower odds of a magic item appearing (Book 3 Page 7). But if rolled then you go to the magic item generation chart where anything can appear (Book 2 Page 23, or Greyhawk Page 40). Or are you talking about AD&D? I'm talking about the level one Treasure Assortment in TSR's Monster and Treasure Assortment Set One: Levels One-Three. 100 pre-rolled treasures for 1st level dungeons. #76 is the Manual of Puissant Skill at Arms (in the 1977 version). Presumably when Ernie Gygax was rolling these entries up he got "magic item," then rolled on the tables in Greyhawk to see what the item was, and that item came up, and he decided to leave it in rather than re-roll or choose something more ostensibly-level-appropriate (like a scroll of 1 spell). In other words, he did the same thing you did when you were generating your tables, and I was agreeing with you by way of an example.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 14:09:14 GMT -6
Also note that the magic item tables don't account for dungeon level. With luck you can find a really good magic item on the first level. Or a really nutsty one on the 9th level. And in fact we see that in TSR's published version, where the Manual of Puissant Skill at Arms shows up on the level one table. Sure it's a one-use item so it's not quite like dropping a staff of power or a life-stealing sword, but it's still something that conventional wisdom would generally categorize as a surprisingly good item to show up on dungeon level one, likely in the possession of some giant centipedes or fire beetles or whatever (and somebody at TSR must have felt the same way, because in the 1980 version the Manual was replaced with a scroll of 1 spell: fireball).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 12:14:28 GMT -6
Also, FWIW, the average value of the 92 monetary treasures is 155 GP.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 12:09:45 GMT -6
So, just for fun I did a quick tally of the treasures from level one of the M&TA (1977 version, though all the monetary treasure is identical in the 1980 version): COPPER PIECES - 28 (range: 100-1200; average 636) SILVER PIECES - 28 (range: 100-1100; average 543) ELECTRUM PIECES - 11 (range: 150-800; average 473) GOLD PIECES - 11 (range: 150-450; average 291) PLATINUM PIECES - 7 (range: 30-110; average 70) GEMS 4 (1-3 gems, value range 50-100 GP each; average 200) JEWELRY - 3 (1 jewel each, value range: 700-1400; average 1133) MAGIC ITEMS - 8 (1 item each; 3 potions, 1 scroll, 1 misc. magic, 1 armor, 2 misc. weapons) This looks pretty close to the SR1/DMG Appendix A "without monster" table for distribution by type (a bit more copper, silver, and magic; a bit less electrum, gold, and platinum), but the amounts are different - more variable and generally lower. FWIW I also briefly glanced at the other levels, and determined that entries containing both CP & SP appear on level 6, CP+SP+EP on level 7, CP+SP+EP+GP on level 8, and all 5 coin types on level 9. There are no entries containing only CP past level 5 (though entries of only SP, only EP, only GP, and only PP continue to appear on all 9 levels). Gems, jewelry, and magic items are never mixed with other types of treasure, but the quantity of each increases by level. If anyone else wants to continue this exercise to see how the trends hold up for the other 8 levels, feel free
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 10:33:26 GMT -6
It seems more likely the table used by Ernie was something like the one in the Solo Dungeon Adventures system in SR#1 (later AD&D DMG Appendix A), not the table in D&D vol. 3, for the reasons noted. I did a bunch of wanky study and analysis of the Monster & Treasure Assortments a dozen or so years ago. I remember wanting to figure out the ranges of the treasure amounts by level to see if I could reverse-engineer the system that was used to generate them, but I think my enthusiasm waned before I actually got that far.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 9, 2018 10:25:45 GMT -6
For a long time I've had a lot of questions about the mode and dynamics of play in the early days of Greyhawk Castle that you're the best (only?) person to ask, so I figured I might as well ask them: 1. How long did sessions usually last? I understand that Gary ran games both during the week and on weekends - were the weeknight sessions only a couple hours long or would play sometimes run deep into the night? Were weekend sessions all-day (and/or all-night) affairs? If so, would players drop in and out during the session? What is the longest session you remember playing in? 2. How many players were involved in a typical session? Is my understanding correct that the weeknight sessions tended to be smaller (sometimes only 1-2 players) while the weekend ones were larger? Was there a substantial group of players who only played on weekends + a harder-core group who also (only?) played during the week? We've all heard stories of Gary & Rob co-DMing groups of 20+ players - were expeditions that size common or unusual? Did you ever play in groups that large, and if so was it still fun? 3. How were games planned? Did players coordinate in advance and decide who they wanted to play with and when and then work it out with Gary to see when he was available and no one else was invited to play at that time, or did you just show up at his place and play with whoever else was there at the same time? In the latter case, if different players wanted to do different things (or had incompatible characters) how did that get resolved? Were there any players who didn't like playing with and tried to avoid each other? 4. How did sessions begin and end? Did they always start and end in town (or, later, in character strongholds)? If you were stuck or lost in the dungeons or wilderness when quitting time came, how was that resolved? Did you keep playing until you got home (or died) or did you ever "freeze" the action - and, if the latter, how did that affect the other players and the ongoing timeline of the campaign? I've got a lot more questions like this, if you're interested in answering them. If so, thanks in advance for your time and for allowing me to plumb your nearly-50-year-old memories
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2018 19:07:43 GMT -6
No, I'm saying OD&D as published is not a set of comprehensive rules. It doesn't provide, or claim to provide, a complete set of procedures to play, even in those areas that it gives some procedures. You have to fill in the blanks. And in so filling, you are not playing "as written," even if you're playing "within the framework" they set up. The surprise rules were not written from the viewpoint of "follow this exactly." Therefore they weren't trying to explain everything carefully enough to follow exactly. The book is just trying to give you the general idea. You're supposed to say, "Ah, I get it. Okay, I'll do stuff like that." Trying to analyze the comprehensive system hidden behind that is kind of pointless, because it isn't there. I agree completely. The rules are approximate; they're examples and suggestions meant to provide some guidelines and ideas for how to resolve things that are likely to come up, to inform the campaign referee's judgment calls. The "system" is that idea of iterative situational judgment calls by the referee and how they build up a shared imagined world for the players, not any particular numbers or procedures printed in the books. To focus too much on the latter is beside the point of the former.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2018 17:09:09 GMT -6
Let's explore something else concerning surprise, evasion, and pursuit. When an encounter is indicated, both sides check for surprise. If either side is surprised, the rules say, encounter distance is 10–30 feet. Except surprise requires being unaware of the other party's presence at the moment of encounter. If we suppose the monsters are surprised and the party is not, that means that although the rule says if one side is surprised distance is 10–30 feet, that can only mean that's the point at which both sides become aware of each other. The players can see monsters from 20–80 feet if they're not surprised. The only logical conclusion is that if players are not surprised but monsters are, then players will first become aware of monsters at 20–80 feet, and if the distance is 40–80 feet, then the monsters are, by definition, completely unaware of the players. The players may then do whatever they like so long as they don't alert the monster to their presence. They can leave, and the monster will not pursue. They can attack from long range, in which case the monsters will be pincushions for one combat round before they can react at all. They can close the distance, in which case that's their surprise action, and the next round begins already in melee and rolls for initiative (or whatever method you use to determine first strike). But notice that there is no possibility, according to a strict interpretation of the text, for a monster to surprise players and then attack at long range. Monsters surprising players always appear at 10–30 feet. Is this an oversight? Are the rules asymmetrical in favor of players? I think it's just a simplification in a condensed text; they weren't about to explain every possible option. Up until the moment the players become aware of a monster, whether an encounter even exists or not, let alone the monster's tactics, are completely up to the whim of the referee. I think it's pretty plainly just a case of the simple description (which is sufficient for the majority of cases) not considering all of the possible options (or not considering it worth the space and effort to detail all of them). If both parties are surprised it makes sense that the encounter distance is reduced to the point where they become aware of each other. Likewise if one party gains surprise and uses that advantage to close to melee range and attack it makes sense that the other party wouldn't become aware until the attackers are almost right on top of them. The third case - one party gains surprise but does not decide to close to attack - ether wan't considered or wasn't considered worth dealing with. Theoretically a monster that gains surprise but flees before the players ever become aware of it could be subsumed into "no encounter" quantum space, so the only time it really matters is when the side with surprise decides to hang back and pepper the other side with missiles or spells instead of either fleeing or immediately closing to melee range. In that case, as with pretty much everything in the game, if the specifics of an in-game situation exceed the scope of the guidelines in the books, the referee is assumed to make an appropriate judgment call. Making two encounter distance rolls when surprise is unilateral - one for where the unsurprised party becomes aware of the surprised party, the other for the reverse - is a simple enough solution that seems to be consistent with the intent of the guidelines in the book.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2018 15:44:02 GMT -6
Presumably people who know what they're doing won't choose those options (and when people do choose those options you'll know they don't really know what they're doing)
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 1, 2009 14:23:40 GMT -6
I'm shocked no one over at DF noted that the original 10 HD were 6-siders, as were all hit dice in the 3LBBs. (Unless I'm missing something somewhere...) So, the Balrog didn't really go down in hit points...it potentially went up! The change in hitdice/points is most likely an aspect of the variegated hit dice for different classes introduced in the supplements. Supplement I bumped monster hit dice from d6 to d8, and Supplement III (which bumped some monsters to d10, d12, and d20 hit dice) assumed that rule was in use. So the idea wasn't that the balrog was going from 10d6 to 8d10 but rather 10d8 to 8d10, meaning its hit points remain essentially the same (avg. 45 vs 44) but its "to hit" rolls and saving throws become worse, and it's not worth as many XP. As I said at DF, I have no idea why TSR decided to do this (and FWIW the idea of different monsters having different-sized hit dice was scrapped in AD&D, though according to EGG it was going to make a comeback in his aborted 2nd edition).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on May 18, 2009 18:50:15 GMT -6
There's a reference in the spectre monster description that Nazgul should be considered as spectres rather than wraiths (as they were in Chainmail), but no monster actually called Nazgul.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on May 4, 2009 22:31:57 GMT -6
So, I'm starting an old school game, and my players are *very* daunted by the possibility of their characters dying. In particular, they're concerned about potential problems resulting from a new first level character rejoining a high level group and facing much greater danger as a result. We've discussed implementing some sort of "fate point" system that would allow new characters to start at a higher level, but we're stuck on some of the specifics. I'm curious, how do other groups handle these issues? Do you allow for a new character to start at a higher level, and if so, how do you determine at what level they should start? Or, do you simply have the new character start at first and, I dunno, hide in the back for a while? If the players are scared of their characters dying they should do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen. if they're worried about having to start a new 1st level character as part of a high-level party, they should do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen either. Don't adjust the rules, adjust your play-style! If you go into the game assuming that your character is going to die and there's nothing you can do about it then you've already lost. Likewise if you're depending on lucky die-rolling to keep him alive. You never want to depend on a die-roll to keep your character alive (and, for that matter, every time you roll the dice you should have a Plan B in mind in case the roll fails -- and if the Plan B is "my guy dies and I roll a new one" then you should do whatever you can to avoid having to make that die roll).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 5, 2009 20:00:05 GMT -6
9. Food is fairly abundant in the dungeon. [/b] Yes and no. If he's using this to handwave away management of resources (e.g., rations), then no thank you. I am, however, a fan of using valuable dungeoneering equipment as treasure--sometimes finding a 10' pole and a cask of fresh water can be a godsend. So, in that sense--i.e., "you can sometimes replenish resources from unexpected quarters"--I would agree. In another vein, if he means "don't worry about how monsters eat, they do just fine," I agree in practicality, if not on the specific theory.[/quote] The biggest problem with this assumption is its name -- reading the actual text on Monte's site, he's not talking about PC resource-management (whether you have to carry iron rations and water, how long you can stay in the dungeon before having to return to the surface) but rather that there's an assumed ecosystem within the dungeons -- that when there aren't PCs around to eat, the big monsters eat smaller monsters, and smaller monsters eat assorted fungi that grow in the dungeon -- without worrying too much about the details. That seems fairly non-controversial (and consistent with what Gygax & Talanian did in Castle Zagyg -- describing some fungal growths in the dungeon that providence adequate sustenance for the low end of the dungeon-monster food chain). What would've been more interesting would be if he'd been making an allusion to Margaret St. Clair's The Shadow People -- there's food in the dungeon, alright, but you'll be sorry if you eat it!
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 5, 2009 0:01:03 GMT -6
One minute of abstracted action, consisting of many feints, parries, and maneuvers and one or more definitive exchanges. Combat in D&D is just as fast and furious as any book or movie, we're just not talking about all the detail and focusing instead on the end result -- who took more "damage" (which, again, is mostly abstract, at least until the last half-dozen hit points). When asked what he pictured combat in D&D looking like, Gary's answer was the final swordfight in the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood. Likewise, someone recently at DF posted a summary of this scene from the Lord of the Rings movie, ~4 minutes of furious action, as a D&D combat: Round 1) Shelob gets surprise on Frodo and attacks, Frodo fails save; Round 2) Shelob wraps Frodo in silk, Sam closes to melee range; round 3) Shelob and Sam exchange blows; round 4) Sam hits Shelob who fails morale check, flees. Another thing to keep in mind is that combat of Conan vs. a horde of 1 HD monsters or men, getting 8 attacks per round (i.e. potentially scoring a kill about once every 7 seconds, plus maneuvering, feinting, parrying, etc.) is "standard" combat, and Conan vs. the evil hero (or the big monster) where both sides are equally matched trading feints and parries and the fight might drag on inconclusively for 5 or 10 minutes, is the exception. A big part of "grokking" D&D is to understand the level of abstraction -- that we're not seeing every blow, every feint, and every maneuver, we're just getting a "summary of the action" enumerating the results of each minute of activity -- in this minute Conan killed 3 guards, injured 2 more, and suffered 2 minor nicks. If you want to narrate all the other minor details, if that makes the game more exciting or easier to visualize for you, of course you're free to, but the beauty is that you don't have to -- all of the participants are free to imagine the scene as they like in their own imaginations and the action at the table keeps moving (which brings up another oft-neglected point -- that combat in D&D ideally occurs in something close to realtime -- each 1-minute round of combat taking about 1 minute to resolve at the table).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 20, 2008 1:34:50 GMT -6
Certainly no objection to your reposting it here (and cleaning up the format -- something I was too lazy to do before). These are all the non-Martian animals mentioned by name in Vol. I-III (the expanded encounter tables in Eldritch Wizardry list some more that I didn't bother with). Stats and special abilities come from the Monster & Treasure Assortments where available, otherwise I generally simplified ("OD&D-ified") the descriptions from the AD&D Monster Manual. Glad if anyone's able to get some use from this
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Oct 11, 2008 15:26:13 GMT -6
Presumably if you're combining D&D and Chainmail you should use the D&D magic system in place of the one in Chainmail. Also, I'd say the ability of Chainmail wizards to throw endless fire balls and lightning bolts implicitly suggests that they have a wand of fire balls, wand of lightning bolts, staff of power, or staff of wizardry, not that it's an innate ability (i.e. a D&D character fighting in a Chainmail battle won't gain that ability unless he has one of those items).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Oct 11, 2008 15:16:38 GMT -6
Note also the AD&D DMG: page 9 shows a picture of the 5 platonic solid dice (no d10), and includes the following on page 10: "(assuming the use of a standard d20 which is numbered 0-9 twice without coloring one set of faces to indicate that those faces have 10 added to the number appearing)," "the d20 is used often, both as d10 and d20," and (most pertinently) So obviously by the time the DMG was published (summer 1979) the ten-sided die existed, but wasn't yet the standard and was still considered somewhat exotic and unusual. Someone older than me would have to answer if a d10 was included in a boxed set prior to the 1981 D&D Basic and Expert Sets (I'm guessing not) and when the d10 (and d20 marked 1-20) started being included as standard in stand-alone polyhedral dice sets.
It's perhaps worth noting that as late as 1987-88 I purchased boxed sets of Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, and RuneQuest that all came with 0-9 d20s. In Panaoia they were used strictly for percentiles (IIRC), but RQ (and probably CoC as well) definitely included instructions for how to mark the d20 (they suggested coloring one set of faces green so "green is teen") or roll it in conjunction with a second die to get 1-20 results.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Oct 11, 2008 14:57:52 GMT -6
I find it interesting that Hobbits are not in Monsters & Treasure at all, nor are they on any of the encounter tables in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. Hobbits appear only in Men & Magic, where it is said on page 8: "Should any player wish to be one..." That indicates to me that "D&D Land" as presented in the 1974 rules does NOT have any native Hobbits. The ONLY Hobbits would be Hobbit PCs (if any). One can assume that these vanishingly rare Hobbits were magically brought to D&D Land from Middle-earth. So D&D Land (as presented in the 1974 rules) has plenty of men, elves, dwarves, and gnomes running around. But no Hobbits other than any PC Hobbits. Of course, by that same logic D&D Land also has no humans except for wandering bands of bandits, berserkers, brigands, dervishes, nomads, buccaneers, pirates, cave men, and name-level adventurers. A much more reasonable reading is that non-PC hobbits, like humans who don't fit into any of the above categories, are non-combatants who spend their time in town rather than wandering around the wilderness looking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Sept 15, 2008 22:16:14 GMT -6
I'm one of those who thinks that whatever the trademark owner decides is D&D is D&D. Doesn't mean I like it, or want to play it, or think it's true to the spirit of what I like, but it's still D&D and it's mildly annoying to me when people pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Sept 4, 2008 22:19:07 GMT -6
Gary Gygax in The Dragon #15 (June 1978):
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Sept 4, 2008 0:20:45 GMT -6
So does magic missle actually automatically hit in this edition? The rules are unclear. Decide how you want it to be in your games and stick with it (but note that if you have to roll to hit that makes it an awfully weak spell, barely better than just throwing daggers). You mean if there are both friendlies and enemies in the area of effect will the spell affect only the enemies or will it affect the friendlies as well? Again, the rules don't say. use your own judgment (though personally I like the idea of it affecting friends and enemies alike -- it reinforces the notion of magic being a double-edged sword: unpredictable and potentially just as dangerous to the caster as to his intended victims -- same idea as rebounding lightning bolts, space-filling fire balls, random duration fly spells, system shock checks for haste and polymorph, high and low teleportation, chance of going insane when contacting another plane, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 26, 2008 23:48:41 GMT -6
No. The MegaTraveller map has the post-Fifth Frontier War borders (the Sword Worlds divided into the SW and the Border Worlds and at least previously neutral world (Esalin, IIRC) annexed by the Imperium) and also shows Rebellion-era vargr and aslan incursions along the borders (at least the latter of which which were later retconned anyway, IIRC). It's still completely usable, of course, since all the positions and data (except as noted above) are the same, but there are notable visible differences; you can't (credibly) just pretend the map from one is the same map from the other.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 11, 2008 13:39:46 GMT -6
I suppose you'd need to see how it worked out in actual play to determine the proper number -- my gut-feeling is that most traps will be either avoided or sprung (worth 0 XP in either case) and only a small percentage of traps will actually be disarmed or disabled. Attempting to disarm a trap is a much dicier proposition than just avoiding it (since most GMs will likely rule that a failed attempt to disable a trap triggers it) and attempting to do so as an XP harvest should be no more viable a tactic than deliberately fighting wandering monsters.
Of course if you're using the thief class things may be a bit different (making the lower XP value perhaps more appropriate).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 11, 2008 13:30:02 GMT -6
My initial thoughts: 1. You can't turn the bag inside out, no matter how hard you try 2. Turning the bag inside out turns it into a normal, non-magical bag (whether returning it to its original shape restores the enchantment or not depends on my mood, and what kind of munchkinism you were trying to accomplish by turning it inside out in the first place...) 3. Turning the bag inside out opens a rift in time and space and summons Yog-Sothoth
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 11, 2008 12:27:19 GMT -6
Avoiding a trap is like avoiding a wandering monster and shouldn't be worth any XP (not having to deal with the trap is its own reward). Actually disarming or disabling a trap should probably be worth the same as defeating a monster of the same level (100 XP/level using Vol. I; using Greyhawk I suppose you'd use the dungeon level as the hit dice and count complications as special abilities?). The same goes for solving a puzzle or trick that can actually be dealt with successfully (as opposed to just being an enigma or an annoyance).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 7, 2008 17:53:13 GMT -6
Since posting my list upthread I've read Dunsany's The Charwoman's Shadow, which I liked even better than TKoED, so I'd modify the list to switch those two. I feel looking at the list like there's other things I've read recently that should replace one or two more of those titles, but I can't think of what they are at the moment -- I'll have to take a look through the "recently read" pile when I get home tonight to remind myself...
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 5, 2008 11:30:38 GMT -6
I've never played with Dave Arneson so maybe his method is different (and reputation does portray his games as being even more deadly than Gary's) but from both playing with (admittedly only twice at cons, not regularly over several years like the OG) and obsessively reading accounts of others playing with Gary the impression I've come away with is that while he absolutely wanted players to be smart, he every bit as importantly wanted them to be active and decisive -- a bad decision will get you killed either way, but a good decision now is better than a great decision 15 minutes from now. The party that stands in the hallway discussing the best method for dealing with a trap is going to get harrassed by wandering monsters; the guy who, when it's his turn in combat, tries to figure out all the possible maneuvers and the attendant benefits and drawbacks of each is going to get skipped and lose his turn. It's not just the ability to make clever and tactically sound choices, it's the ability to do so quickly and decisively, when the pressure is on. You don't get 15 minutes to come up with the right move, you get 10 seconds (if you're lucky)! Please correct me if I'm smoking crack here, OG
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 2, 2008 14:12:27 GMT -6
It's funny to see this idea proposed (and reacted to) as if it were something new, because it's exactly the assumed default campaign-structure of both OD&D and even 1E AD&D. Consider, for instance, the following from the section on "Establishing the Character" from the AD&D Players Handbook (p. 34):
This suggests both that it's assumed each new player/character will start out with a brief one-on-one session with the DM to get the characters set up (something Gygax also recommended in Mythus, btw) and that from there it's the burden of the player to get in contact with the other player characters to arrange expeditions, and if the other player characters aren't available or willing, that he might have to adventure alone or with NPCs.
See also, among other places, the essay on Successful Adventuring at the back of the PH and the section on Time in the Campaign in the DMG where the same dynamic -- players take the initiative in planning expeditions, and the party makeup from expedition to expedition is wholly fluid -- is clearly assumed.
The obvious drawback to this style of campaign is that it places a tremendous burden on the DM -- not only must he have a wide variety of material prepared (or, much more likely, be very good at improvising from minimal notes) but he also must be constantly available, whenever the players are. IIRC in the West Marches campaign the GM put a minimum-floor on the number of players (he'd only run a session for 3+ players or something like that) but the "classic Greyhawk" paradigm has no such limit, and single-player sessions (with or without NPCs) are prevalent -- per Gary, at the height of the Greyhawk Campaign c. 1973-74 he was running games 4-5 times a week, single-player or small groups during the week, large groups on the weekends. Between prepwork and play, that's pretty much a full-time job. I know I wouldn't be up to it, and can't imagine a lot of other people are either (at least among adults with jobs and families).
As for "returning to base camp" at the end of each session, some simple ground-rules can suffice there: in a dungeon expedition, you are required to exit the dungeon at the end of the session -- you can go back to town or camp out in the wilderness (in which case see below) but you are not allowed to stay in the dungeon. Practically-speaking this means the session runs until the characters are willing/able to leave the dungeon (which might make for some long sessions) and if the characters are so lost or so trapped that they can't get out of the dungeon before they have to stop playing they are assumed lost. An exception could be made if the players in attendance agree on-the-spot to meet the very next day to resolve the expedition -- their characters hole up for the "night" (and are subject to a night's worth of wandering monster checks) and the next day they pick up exactly where they left off. Since theoretically (if the characters have sufficient resources and the players sufficient free time) this could go on indefinitely and monopolize the campaign (i.e. no one else is able to play because the DM is forced to continue the same endless dungeon expedition every night), the DM could perhaps set some limits -- no single dungeon-expedition may ever last more than 3 days under any circumstances, or something like that.
For characters in the wilderness (or on another plane) at the end of a session, the solution is easier -- those characters simply aren't available for additional play except as part of that group, until they get back to town/base and the campaign-timeline is brought back into sync (which, again, might require a DM-imposed limit to keep a subset of players from dominating the campaign if they find themselves advantageously out-of-sync with the main campaign-timeline (i.e. if the characters can't be brought back into sync within a single session's worth of play they are declared by fiat to have wasted the remaining time doing nothing). Presumably this will lead to the more active players eventually establishing several different characters so as to ensure that they always have at least one character available at any given time.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 2, 2008 13:25:36 GMT -6
Swords & Spells was never labeled or advertised by TSR as D&D Supplement V (and was, in fact, released simultaneously with Supplement IV). The modern practice of referring to it as such is wholly erroneous. S&S is not a D&D supplement but rather an independent D&D-related game -- as its cover-page states: "rules for large-scale miniatures battles based on the game Dungeons & Dragons."
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 2, 2008 13:13:55 GMT -6
I never played ToH but I ran it, for two players (one an experienced vet the other a rank newbie) with 1st level characters. Player #2 mostly just observed while player #1 led the way. This guy was good, really good -- through clever play, outside the box problem-solving, and avoiding unnecessary risks he was able to avoid or circumvent all of the traps and make it through the entire dungeon, all in a single session. I nerfed the actual combat encounters (both of them -- the 4-armed gargoyle and the hasted mummies) and must have done something (don't remember what) about that one section where the party has to cast a dispel magic in order to progress further, but otherwise I ran the adventure straight, and I ran it ruthlessly -- I was fully intending to kill these characters, and was surprised again and again by this player's cleverness and resourcefulness.
When I posted this at ENWorld a couple years ago I was scoffed at and told that this player surely already knew the module and had snowed me. That's possible, I suppose -- it's been probably 20 years and I don't remember all of the details exactly -- but I never had that impression at the time (I had an epidemic of players reading the module in those days so I developed a strict zero-tolerance policy -- if I suspected you of having read the module I started changing things on the fly to make them tougher; if I had proof you'd read the module I ended the session/campaign and refused to keep running it), I was mostly just amazed at all the clever stuff he came up with. If he was snowing me, he did so very well.
|
|