|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 26, 2013 1:19:48 GMT -6
For OD&D it's very simple and strait forward, you just have to use a little discretion. Translate Hit Dice to either strictly d8 or d6 (depending on whether you're using post-Greyhawk, or purely LBB). For attack you should translate any high bonuses to damage to a die type of the rest of the damage being dealt. For example 2d6+8 = 3d6+2. Armor class should cap at 30, and there is a simple formula (that isn't 100% perfect), where you count only every 2 points above 20 (or 25) as adding to the Armor Class. For example 22 = 21, 24 = 22, etc... Once you figure that, you simply flip it to descending armor class by subtracting it from 20 (if you prefer descending). Finally 3E style mechanics such as being flatfooted get completely ignored, and any abilities that are actually important to the monster or game play are either kept wholesale (a description is usually found with the ability), or some minor conversion to make it work may be necessary (but this seems to be rare).
There you go, no cheat sheet really, at least not for OD&D. I use this method of AD&D 1E and 2E as well. The most important factor to consider is that you'll determine appropriate level and XP afterwards, so that acts as a balancing mechanism. I use this method all the time in my 0E/1E games, and it works wonderfully. In fact I use a lot of 3rd Party 3E material for my old school games.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 2, 2013 10:42:18 GMT -6
I'm definitely going to give a look into Sword & Magic, as it sounds like a more comprehensive Castles & Crusades. This should link to the download page of the somewhat abridged English version (it still contains the skill system). Thanks, I'll admit I was a bit lost after googling it.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 1, 2013 20:58:19 GMT -6
Another approach I've done myself in a heavily houseruled game was to use the saving throw number (only had one in this case). Specifically, d20 + situation-specific ability modifier + a discretionary +2 or +4 bonus for being a relevant class should beat your ST number. I've actually considered this before, and if you say it worked well I very well may start using it. It's honestly the best system I've heard of in theory. I know Blood & Treasure uses a similar (if not identical) system. Furthermore absolutely everything in your post rings true with me, which is why I'm asking the question. I'm definitely going to give a look into Sword & Magic, as it sounds like a more comprehensive Castles & Crusades. What you and Chainsaw said about the more basic skills is definitely what I do already. I don't think rolling for campfires or rope tying is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 1, 2013 2:41:39 GMT -6
I've been pondering about general skills lately. Having played with quite a few 3E guys lately, I'm hating the D20 system, for numerous reasons. The reliance on roll-playing, and in fact discouraging of problem solving is almost painful. However there are certain things that must be delegated to dice rolls, for game reasons. Surprise rolls are an immediate example, and so is finding Secret doors, and even springing traps. All of those rules are presented in "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures", usually relegated to a chance on a d6 roll. While I do find this mechanic rather elegant, I do see some areas where a unified mechanic, or even scalable one could be desirable.
For example, while I hate the d20 mechanic, having that fall back on, with provided guidelines is kind of nice. Furthermore the ability for players to improve those abilities over time is nice, and having some classes with those abilities highlighted can be even nicer. Being a convert from Runequest/Call of Cthulhu, I've been considering a d% system. This would be great as there's already a precedence, at least in AD&D. Lots of abilities (surprise namely) is presented as a % chance in many places. A nice chart with common percentage chances for various situations would be extremely helpful. Further the limit vs d20's limitless modifiers vs target number is nice.
So my question to you guys is thus: How do you handle general adventuring skills? How do you prevent it from turning into "roll-playing"? Is it all in the way you present it, or do the mechanics really matter that much?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 26, 2013 9:59:50 GMT -6
From what I recall of both rulesets, doesn't the Knight have a lot of aid and buff abilities? I'd go with a paladin or bard with war college. In fact the paladin in my group might as well be a knight/cavalier. He has bonuses when charging and mounted due to some background he took (something to do with nobility if I remember right).
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 20, 2013 16:49:32 GMT -6
I think for me it is all more disheartening then irritating. As everyone has always known, you don't have to stop playing your old games. As I've stated I think NEXT is fun, and I'm currently playing in a 5E Campaign at my FLGS. What's really sad about it not being backwards compatible, not even remotely, is that I can't use it with my OD&D game. Sure it's captured the "spirit" of D&D very well, and it's tons of fun. But There is no way I'm going to be able to use 5E spells, monsters, classes, etc... in any of the games I DM.
EDIT: I meant to say (and forgot) that what's the most disheartening part, is that there's going to be a new version of D&D in stores, that I'm not going to want to buy. I wanted to be able to buy the NEXT books, and pillage them for material, but it's just too different from older editions crunch wise. This is the same thing that made me sad about 4E while it was still out. With Pathfinder, I love checking out the new books, and getting them to pillage material from.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 16, 2013 2:33:36 GMT -6
Thanks talysman, summed up exactly what I've been saying.
I'm not so hung up on the numbers for the sake of numbers. I do for a fact use 1E, 2E, 3E, and B/X materials in my OD&D games. Having to use the 5E versions of "classes, spells, and monsters" cuts out the most material from every other edition. Modules are never going to be a problem. The majority of material ever released for D&D is classes/character options, spells, and monsters. Making them flat out incompatible to where I have to use the 5E options, severely limits you. They're funneling you into buying that editions material.
The fact that so many spells have so drastically changed means conversion is no longer simple. It really is arcane and complex now. I know in 1E, 2E, and 3E "Cure Light Wounds" healed 1d8 or 1d8+1 hit points. In OD&D 1d6+1 I believe. Now in NEXT it heals 2d8+1. It completely shifts the power level of certain material. There aren't clear guidelines, or any apparent rhyme or reason to these changes or decisions.
Like I keep saying, it is a fun game. It is a game where a cleric "feels" like a cleric, and a fighter "feels" like a fighter. But it's not a unifying D&D, and I certainly can't use any material from the last 40 something years of gaming.
EDIT: To clarify I'm not hung up on the XP chart, or spells. I'm using them as key examples I have experience with. The 3E players in my group have noted that Feats, and feat progressions have drastically changed. My DM wanted to allow us to use 3E feats in our game, but he simply can't, because he would either have to heavily convert and combine the old ones, or make them up from scratch. There aren't any clear guidelines, or any discernible reasoning behind any of the design decisions in this game.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 15, 2013 2:09:45 GMT -6
I think it's how the skills are presented. In games like 3.5, and most D&D style games that introduce skills, they are presented as shortcuts to areas of normal role play. I've definitely experienced this at my local gaming store, playing with 3.5 players, and in the new NEXT play test. In fact most DM's discourage role playing if there are skills. Every five seconds it's "make a perception check", or "I check for traps". Even when I take time to describe my actions, the DM will either request a skill roll, or tell me it doesn't matter, because my character failed his skill roll.
With games like Call of Cthulhu and Runequest, the skills are presented as alternative the class abilities. While there are spot skills, more of the skills are substitutes for combat abilities, or other areas where role playing isn't optimal, like researching in an old library, or performing rituals. I've noticed when using the Basic Role Playing system for my SWAT based campaign, players are still very careful to describe their actions, and check specific areas, as perception checks function very differently from D&D. In these games stealth, and perception, function much more like the Thief combat skills, then general "I look for traps" skills.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 15, 2013 1:58:59 GMT -6
Wow I just went back through the packet to finish up my character for tonight's game. The XP table resembles nothing from any version of the game. This is nowhere near the "Rosetta Stone" of gaming. You're not going to be able to use any previous D&D material with this game without considerable conversion. Why do you feel that is this the case? XP is a player-sided mechanic for the most part, so if the players are all using D&DN then they're all on the same page (almost literally). If you're using old modules, you'd have to use the XP from the D&DN materials of course, but that's not much trouble. Were you anticipating being able to drop in a fighter directly from the 1st edition players handbook, XP tables and all? Just wondering why you feel this way, because I'm not sure why these conversions would be much more of a bother than between most other editions (the possible exception being 1st and 2nd AD&D). I'd probably just have the hit points figured out ahead of time and written in pencil in the old module, and a book open to the relevant part of the monster material. Much like I'd be doing for most games. I actually like the new XP tables from what I remember. Knocked a couple of them zeros offa there. The XP was just an indication of how far they strayed. In older editions you'd need around 2,000 xp to get to next level for most classes. They've dropped it down to 250. While you're right, it would be a simple conversion, its a clear example where they've just completely deviated from the usual D&D. If this is game is supposed to be the "Unifying D&D", then you'd think it would keep most of the "D&D things" we're used to. I actually just got done playing tonight, and a huge area that has changed is spells. "Cure Light Wounds" now does 2d8+2 at first level. "Burning Hands" did somewhere around 3d8+something damage. This right here is proof I could not(edit) pick up a spell book from another version and use it with minimal conversion or consideration. The same spells are completely different. D&D NEXT is not a bad game, but it is not the game we were promised. We were promised that you could sit down at one table and have everyone playing a different edition together. While this was obviously too much to hope for, you can't use material from any other edition without either heavy conversion, or simply using it as inspiration. As ridiculous as it sounds I use 3.5 material with my OD&D games all the time, with minimal conversion. Usually I simply ignore this or that. Spells actually can be used as is with most cases. Obviously 1E, 2E, and B/X material can be used with practically no conversion at all. With NEXT I can't see doing any of that.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 14, 2013 14:20:06 GMT -6
Wow I just went back through the packet to finish up my character for tonight's game. The XP table resembles nothing from any version of the game. This is nowhere near the "Rosetta Stone" of gaming. You're not going to be able to use any previous D&D material with this game without considerable conversion.
Edit: To be fair I'll say this, the same thing everyone said about 4th: It looks like a fun game, but it definitely isn't D&D.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 11, 2013 15:02:36 GMT -6
Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for!
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 11, 2013 0:59:47 GMT -6
The link doesn't lead to an article unfortunately, it just leads to the homepage.
Though if you don't mind me sharing, my friend and I played an interesting variant in high school, wherein you could move your piece twice on your turn. That was the only addition, and it made for a very interesting game, save one move IIRC (involving knights). You had to calculate several moves ahead, and account for the strangest of movement directions.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 7, 2013 7:35:04 GMT -6
I've seen it before, and assumed it was all monsters that could be found in the 1E Monster Manual. Is it more than that? Because I'd love to compile it into a useable gaming book, if it isn't already done.
Edit: I see now that some of those are in fact found in the 1EMM as they are from the supplements. So better question, has anyone ever compiled the monsters from Dragon Magazine in one place?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 7, 2013 4:20:53 GMT -6
What are some good 3rd Party monster books/supplements? Heck I don't even care if they're good, I have a monster collecting obsession. I've already grabbed all three "All the World's Monsters" and I have the first and fourth Arduin Grimoire. What else is there?
Also any later edition supplements are welcome (if it's allowed on this board). I already know of a few 3E books (Creature Collection, Tome of Horrors, Monsternomicon) which can easily be converted to work with OD&D. I'm personally looking forward to the Adventures Dark & Deep Bestiary, as 1E monsters require practically no conversion.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Nov 1, 2013 2:15:25 GMT -6
Although later of versions of Basic Role Playing, and Runequest, attempt to take the "roll playing" method, I highly recommend the older versions. In 1E/2E BRP there are very few skills, that subsume the basic mechanics of D&D: Stealth Skills for Surprise, Combat Skills instead of Attack Rolls, etc... All use a simple d% system, derived from the Greyhawk Skill System. The 1st Editions of both games are very old school, in aesthetic and play style. And yes I have played both, actually starting with those systems. I've played Stormbringer, but it's supposed to be along the same lines.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 31, 2013 2:05:15 GMT -6
I would not do it frequently, or as a permanent part of my campaign. However I have always wanted to run Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, because it included like material.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 31, 2013 2:03:40 GMT -6
Fantastic, I love stuff like this, and this in particular would be of great use to an adventuring party. I would love to have a book filled with interesting magic items like this, and general useful adventuring gear, like elven rope; an old school magical emporium of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 29, 2013 5:19:48 GMT -6
Maybe I'm getting old. It may be a great game, but I sincerely don't understand the trend toward "big numbers" in modern games. Why do 1st level characters need to be running around with 20-30 hit points? 6-10 I could understand, but 30 is around OD&D superhero level. Has the rest of the world decided that combat is actually pretty soft and all PCs should be superheroes from the get go? I see in the 13th Age SRD a kobold warrior has 22 hit points, a gnoll 50. Storm giants have 650 hp, Balors 850 hit points, and huge red dragons 1200. I really wonder how this kind of thing is manageable at the table, let alone how it can add value to the game experience..? After my short foray into AD&D and 3E this is exactly why I went back to playing OD&D. For now I've come to the conclusion they new school and old school are just completely different games, to be enjoyed for their own merits each. However after playing 3E/Pathfinder I can definitely say number inflation detracts from the game greatly, and doesn't add anything to it for me.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 29, 2013 5:00:28 GMT -6
2) Maybe it would be a good house rule to remove spell levels completely? If first level wizards can take total control over a person, why can't they cast a small lightning bolt or a fireball (dealing 1d6 damage, of course). Maybe it would be fun for 1st level clerics to be able to cast weaker Raise Dead to resuscitate recently killed PCs, maybe with a risk of spell failure? I really like this, like a lot. In fact I might steal this to make a "Sorcerer" class. I like the idea of having a few known spells, that slowly increase with power, that can be cast rather frequently (not unlimited).
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 27, 2013 11:03:29 GMT -6
To me that is the beauty of Swords & Wizardry, and the "Old School Primer". I was never around in the 70's or 80's to play D&D, so I don't know how OD&D or B/X, or AD&D was actually played. What I do know is there are games like S&W and people saying "Hey you can play D&D like this, with few rules, and lots of imagination". I know I've never cared about how many feet an elf can move in a 10 minute turn, even if it is integral to how OD&D was actually played. I do care about whether that elf hit an orc in combat, or whether he gets to cast a magical spell that day; and OD&D handles those aspects the best out of any RPG I've played.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 25, 2013 14:12:24 GMT -6
A bit of the above. Make sure no room is actually empty, even if it's "empty". Leave clues as to what horrible monsters are cavorting about: perhaps slime on the floor, or beheaded corpses. Obviously fill it with traps and tricks, so even if it's just "which of the two doors do you go through?" something interesting happens. Finally make sure there are discernible (even if barely so) sections of the dungeon, each with a unique environ. For example one level might be full of fungus, another a temple to some foul beast, and yet another some crazy sorcerers experimental chambers. Just always make sure there is something to describe, even it is mundane trivia. It helps to keep the dungeon feeling alive, and organic. Hope that helped some.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 24, 2013 14:08:44 GMT -6
I’m not familiar with 3e or 4e, so I may be missing some perspective, but there is a LOT of lingo in 5e that I don’t recognize. I just looked at the Fighter class. Action Surge? Martial Paths? Advanced Maneuvers? It all seems so technical. Why do they get to increase ability scores when they level — what happened to magic pools and tomes? And, how is all this less complex than AD&D, exactly? How is this “essentially B/X”? Anyway, I’m sure 5e will be an okay game… I’m just skeptical about how many people will switch to it, at this point. WotC can’t go on making new editions forever. The more they do it, the more disunited and disloyal the fanbase becomes. I would have thought their best strategy at this point is to be good stewards of the previous editions. Yeah it's mostly 3e/4e talk. And while I agree it's no better than AD&D, its based off of B/X. So much of the early discussion on the game was basically: "Were going to take Basic D&D and add a bunch of stuff on top of it..." Which is exactly what they've done. Personally I wish WOTC would do exactly what you're talking about. In fact in a perfect world they'd go to the people making OSRIC, S&W, LL, Pathfinder, etc... and go "Here you're now officially making D&D retroclones through us". However Hasbro would never let that happen. My problem is simply: "Does Next improve upon anything I already play?" (E.g. "is it better than OD&D, C&C, DCC, or 13th Age?") My honest answer has to be "not really." It's fun, but not any better than other options I already play. ________________________ BY THE WAY -- I'll be moving this to "other editions" soon. Me sentiments exactly. For me it's a bit personal because I've been running a playtest of my houserules there, and everyone tells me "Oh it's just like NEXT!, you should run that instead!". Well I've been working on my rules long before NEXT was announced, and quite frankly it doesn't do anything better. I've honestly switched back to S&W WhiteBox recently.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 24, 2013 12:32:26 GMT -6
Oh, and welcome back! Thanks for the warm welcome everyone One of the influences you didn't mention - the Backgrounds - which are extremely similar to 2E kits. I like the mechanic quite a bite, and I like that they are not restricted to certain classes. The last character I played was a Monk (obviously asian inspired as has been its history), but I took the Priest background, and the Healing Initiate specialty (which granted access to some very minor healing spells.... suddenly he was a western, Friar Tuck type fighting monk...very cool. I love that the classes are adaptable like that. I'm surprised I missed the kit's throwback to 2E, because I just grabbed a copy of the Complete Fighter's Handbook for my wife. Good eye. Also I love what you did with the monk, I really wish that was the standard, what with D&D being a medieval styled game after all. I'm more worried about the stylistic tone to be honest. I got a notice they released a new adventure about a dragon lich. Nope, a dragon isn't sweet enough, a lich won't cut it, let's make it a dracolich! It's like the Mountain Dew of gaming, the same kind of over the top mentality that brought us "Sharknado". If I open the book and see some understated, atmospheric art featuring dungeoneers wearing backpacks and carrying 10' pole, i'll be happy. I've noticed this to be the biggest difference between our style of gaming, and modern gaming. It's the hardest thing to explain to 3.x players getting involved in my game: You can't be a werewolf-demi-lich-vampire-half/dragon PC, and you certainly shouldn't have a +6 to hit and damage at level 1. In fact I've noticed it's this attitude more than anything that ruins games like Pathfinder/3.X for me. I notice it really doesn't come from the rules, so much as the artwork and aesthetic of the game; players relate it to over the top fantasy and anime. Fortunately from what I've seen of the art (a friend of mine is keeping tabs on 5E very seriously) it seems to be more old school; just in full color and very touched up. Overall, as it is right now? No thank you. I had a big rambling post typed up but felt it was over the top negative for me, and these boards. Ultimately there is nothing 5e does better than previous editions, and it doesnt really account for every edition's strengths, it more often than not takes on the goofiness (subclasses, prestige classes, damage on a miss, lame combat options and large stat blocks for monsters, etc). Imitation Vanilla watered down 3.x D&D is how I would describe it. It's funny, so did I. In fact I surprised myself by not blogging about it yet. I will say this though; I completely agree with you, and I feel D&D NEXT suffers a very bad case of multiple personality disorder. The biggest reason I haven't switched too it (despite demand at my FLGS), and the biggest reason I won't unless it is largely revised: it's not actually compatible with anything yet. When I made my game I made sure to use a base set of stats for everything: Armor Class, Attack Rolls, Hit Dice, etc... For monsters and for players. This meant it was very easy for me to either use material from TSR games with almost no conversion; or convert later material on the fly since I knew what I was converting it to. It seems NEXT's formulas and vital information were conjured from thin air. While it may be internally balanced, I don't see me being able to use most D&D material (TSR or WOTC) without heavy consideration or conversion. I may be wrong, but the fact their presentation does nothing to make me feel otherwise, means they've failed in my book.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Oct 23, 2013 12:24:40 GMT -6
So I haven't posted in a while, but I'm back. I've had my foray into the world of later editions of D&D, and suffice it to say I remembered why I started playing OD&D. I've lately run a very AD&D styled game at my local gaming store, and then played in a 3.5 game, and I can clearly say that mechanics can, and do get in the way of having fun. With AD&D not so much, but I definitely see it as a different game, even if there are compatibilities; that is while I will continue to use material from AD&D in my OD&D campaigns, I will no longer try and whole sale mix the two games into one super-system.
Anyway on to the real subject of this post, I just had the chance to make a character for D&D NEXT for a friends upcoming campaign. Frankly I can't tell if I'm flabbergasted at their audacity, or just plain disinterested in what we all already new. While this is an OD&D board, and I know we all mostly play OD&D, I know many of us also play other versions of TSR-era D&D. I also know that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for WOTC to have not studied the OSR, retro-clones, and various retro-gaming blogs. If I may, let me share with you some of the obvious inclusions in NEXT that have been heavily "borrowed" from the old school gaming community.
At the core of it D&D NEXT is essentially B/X D&D with the classes from AD&D. This is something people in the old school community have been admitting to doing for decades. WOTC is just now formalizing what we've been doing for ages. Even in the OD&D community, tons of people have written up conversions for including the AD&D classes in their games. In fact I don't remember who, but one of the OSR bloggers even commented that WOTC is probably scared of B/X because it is the most successful and widely played version of D&D.
"Proficiencies" - The name alone harkens back to the AD&D system from the Wilderness Guide (IIRC), and the formalized 2E skill system. Further it functions almost exactly like class abilities from Castles & Crusades, but perhaps expanded upon. Characters have a proficiency bonus (determined) by level, which adds to a d20 roll to perform special actions and abilities, also generally determined by class or background. This proficiency bonus includes attack rolls with proficient weapons (once again a throw back to AD&D weapon proficiencies). In fact from what I can recall the bonus progression caps at a +6, just like OD&D (really S&W if you use AAC).
Including Feats from 3rd Edition is also something several people in the OSR have done. Off the top of my memory I know Delta (the blogger) has a set of house rules out with a few selected feats for his OD&D game. I'm not positive, but I think there was even a set of feats somewhere on here. Another OD&D variant game (well S&W variant) Blood & Treasure includes feats, and I know that's not the only second wave clone to do so. My game Arcane Adventures included feat-like abilities.
Attribute Based Saving Throws are another "borrowed" item from Castles & Crusades, if not other games. You're class determines a set of attributes to use for saving throws, or something along those lines. Sounds very similar to Primes to me.
This is a very small one, but further proof that there either reading our blogs, or coming to the same conclusions we are. "Finesse" which was a feat in 3E D&D that allowed you to add your dexterity bonus to melee attacks, is now a function of specific weapons - no need to waste character abilities on it. I don't remember what blog suggested it, but the author said the exact thing: he questioned why a player could not just specify they were using their rapier in a fencing style to the same effect. In fact in my rules it's listed as a function of certain weapons.
I haven't read the rules all the way through, and this was all gleamed just through a cursory glance during character creation. I wonder what everyone else thinks of NEXT. Personally I was so bewildered by the positive uproar everyone at the store was showing it. Not to say it doesn't deserve it; but I've been pointing out these things for the last couple of years. I guess I'm just thinking: "Yeah that's great, where have you been?"
So what are you're thoughts on NEXT? Or am I being a grumpy young grognard?
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 14, 2013 15:01:17 GMT -6
Never underestimate the uses of a spear. As zeraser pointed out, hallways are a great example. They can also attack through slits, or cages. Furthermore they function excellently in lieu of 10' poles.
I think really, that the real life concept of a spear being a poor man's weapon, carried over to D&D. The true power of the spear lies in player creativity, and it's diversity.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 14, 2013 14:56:27 GMT -6
I've used old wooden hinged cigar boxes I've bought at thrift stores. That is perfect for me! There's a few tobacconist near me that sell their old boxes. I love the look of that wood grain box, with burned paper, and the dice tray is genius!
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 10, 2013 16:02:52 GMT -6
"How do you win?" ROTFL It has always baffled me why the womenfolk can't comprehend RPGs. It is all about storytelling and chattering with one's friends, so you'd think they'd like it. *puzzled face* Then again, Chess has a definite objective of winning, but they don't like that either. *shrug* I think it all boils down to the martial origins of those games. Perhaps it needs a new marketing campaign to target the distaff demo: Fifty Shades of Greyhawk: The Role-Playing Game. You just made me openly weep No but seriously I've gotten a few girls to play RPG's, and you're absolutely right, they love it. You just have to explain that its "chattering with one's friends" and they jump right in.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 3, 2013 21:19:17 GMT -6
I will follow with interest. Us "young" OD&D enthusiasts gotta' stick together! Glad to know there's more than one of us, thanks for the support!
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 2, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -6
I think it depends on what you want to do, and especially if you're doing it primarily for your own gaming group or primarily as a resource for the wider community. Both are totally valid goals, in my opinion, although "for the community" seems to have fallen into disfavor -- but I, as one example, like publishing and arranging books not just because of the content, but because I like making books as an (almost) independent hobby. So, I don't think it's a presumptuous or a self-aggrandizing thing to publish something you've done a lot of work on. Whether or not many people will use it, these materials are like art. Don't ever let someone's opinion hold you back on it. If it is purely for your gaming table, with the expectation of releasing it in general as a totally secondary goal, then I would definitely go with the compilation. Give your players the entire book. Go totally to town, and use art from the internet, whatever you need to make it perfect. Then remove the copyrighted stuff for the net version, of course. If it is primarily for the community, then you have to think about what those people will want, and what they will use. Some hard decisions have to be made -- for example, I would have liked to split Rappan Athuk into a couple of volumes for easier use, but you'll find that binding is the major portion of the cost of a book, and it is much cheaper to give the buyer more pages than a second book. I always want to see more material for Swords & Wizardry -- it has already spawned Crypts & Things, Woodland Warriors, Ruins & Ronin, and Hideouts & Hoodlums. It's a good starting point (especially to cut and paste blocks of typing where things aren't changed, if nothing else). There's also the matter of being proud of what you produce, which is the ultimate test. If you're prouder of an independent system, then NEVER alter that. Pride in your work is the absolute be-all-and-end-all of why one does this. People will inevitably show up and complain about your work, and you have to never let that get to you ... and the way to do that is to have not compromised your vision of it. You (and your players) must be the measure of your task, not the public at large. There is nothing more rewarding than sitting back and saying, "I made that, and it is good in my opinion." That's why I wish you luck so strongly on this -- those of us who write resources, whether it's games, or modules, or maps, or art, or geomorphs, or blogs -- whatever it is -- are builders. The net is filled with people who are complainers and destroyers -- FILLED with them, as you will discover. Those of us who are ultimately builders and creators need to stick together and support each other. Truly profound words of wisdom, and this is why I miss your blog! I really appreciate the positive feedback and words of inspiration, as you said, there is often too much negativity. I think for now I'll definitely take your advice, and go with independent, as my main goal is personal use. I must also say I share you exact same view on writing books. I don't get to play nearly as much as I would like to, and this gives me a secondary hobby, still tied in with RPGs.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Mar 2, 2013 12:37:15 GMT -6
what practical resources are there for Sandbox DMs? I ask in earnest, because I'm sure there are some. For Swords & Wizardry's sandbox-type material, you might want to look at Tome of Adventure Design (http://talesofthefroggod.com/tome-of-adventurer.html) which is only $42 in stitched signature hardcover, like the old AD&D books. It's almost entirely tables for generating sandbox material. Also, in terms of plug-in hex crawls, probably the six Hex Crawl installments by John Stater are ideal (http://talesofthefroggod.com/hex.html). These are the Valley of Hawks, the Winter Woods, Beyond the Black Water, The Shattered Empire, the Pirate Coast, and the Troll Hills. More are coming, but these are the ones in print so far. The print copies are $9.99 each. In terms of sandboxery, from the description of the first in that series: "What a hex crawl is, literally, is a wilderness sandbox of areas, encounters and villages that players travel around in. It provides no story line, just hundreds of story hooks and possibilities. The Valley of Hawks is a wooded river valley that cuts across a verdant prairie.... " So those are fairly useful if you're looking for plug-and-play sandbox areas rather than a generation resource like Tome of Adventure Design. Definitely. As a matter of economics, we don't have print run sizes that can produce a full color book for $27, or even $42. Pathfinder has print runs of tens of thousands. Their unit cost is probably 20% of ours or even less since our binding is library quality. I don't think you will find full color anywhere in the OSR for that reason (other than our Razor Coast book, but that's an aberration for various reasons). You might check out Monsters of Myth (FES) and Malevolent and Benign (from Expeditious Retreat). Those are both in the lower price range (B/W interiors), and are both for OSRIC, not Swords & Wizardry. -- I'm not trying to sound like a commercial for Swords & Wizardry, it's just that it's the particular clone you focused on for criticism, and I don't think the critique was valid. All that aside, I'm totally pumped to hear that you're working on a new clone. I love the variety, I'm definitely not in the "Stop Clones" party. I look forward to seeing the progress on it. First off thanks for the well wishes. Second the full color comment wasn't a wish (prefer B/W), more of a comparison. And I wasn't by any means trying to pick on S&W, it's just the clone I'm most familiar with, and if anything my posts should be more or less read as: "I'd love to have more S&W stuff I can use", and not as mindless criticizing. That aside I appreciate the recommendations and will be checking them. Since you're on here, as a quick question to you personally; Would you rather see another "Swords & Wizardry Compatible" product, or something that stands on its own? As of right now I'm working on making it a completely independent system, and am thus no longer S&W as a base document. But if you have a good reason for keeping it as a S&W product, I'd love to hear it.
|
|