|
Post by jeffb on Sept 8, 2020 9:21:40 GMT -6
Newt Newport is back at it with an upgraded version of OpenQuest.
For the uniformed- this is based on Mongoose's D100 SRD license from the mid Y2Ks. A simplified "Mongoose Runequest/Legend" system. It is not attached to Glorantha or any other world directly, and it looks like Newt will actually be hosting a SRD website for it this time. It is different than Chaosium's BRP- OQ designed to run smoother and faster at the expense of some crunch/detail/granular rules (Fine by me!) The Skill list/system and combat is fairly well streamlined compared to BRP.
There is a sample PFD of the first couple chapters up on the KS page.
I have used the original version of Openquest for running Balastor's Barracks ( the original RQ1 "dungeon crawl"), Apple Lane (RQ2) and some other Gloranthan classics (can I say that here without nuChaosium coming after me?). I enjoyed it so much, I've adopted it as my RQ of choice- and it was easy to convert/run on the fly with old RQ materials.
I've got nothing to do with the KS or OQ/Newt, I just happened to come across it while looking for character sheets.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 3, 2020 19:36:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 3, 2020 17:20:52 GMT -6
One thing I like about OD&D is that when I read it I feel like it came off of somebody's typewriter and I think, "yeah, I could have done that." That sums it up perfectly. Because the original is so crudely made there is something about the fantasy of imagining if you had been in that time and place to launch the most influential (and best!) game in the world off of your typewriter. And for those who don't have it, I highly suggest grabbing the PDF of Tunnels & Trolls First edition and giving it a serious read through. It's 2 bucks on drivethru. You will most assuredly get that "author's voice" from Ken, that done a typewriter vibe (a LHanded typewriter from 1917 at that!) and it's a extremely interesting reaction piece to OD&D, and I can't help but sympathize with Ken's feelings coming from a completey different gaming perspective than the Midwest OD&D groups.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 31, 2020 12:50:48 GMT -6
Tags are easy hover your mouse over a users name- then type that in your response to tag someone including the "@" (if you click on the name, you'll go to the user page, so just copy it, or type it) machfrontFeel free to C&P anything I said and have at it with a new thread- might be better off in one of the general forums for the most views/traffic, though.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 29, 2020 17:08:12 GMT -6
Once modules started becoming commonplace in bookstores (80/81), those became the focus and homebrew waned (too much work). Not to go too far afield and likely the subject for a separate thread, but I find this interesting as I’ve always considered modules (like published campaign settings) to be much more work than ‘my own thing’. Of course, it’s not as though I put in much work for such. I don’t plan or write much anything down really, but at least can retain my own ideas. When I go over a module or setting I feels as though I’m studying a text for which there is an exhaustive test over soon. No thanks. Heh If I’m going to run someone else’s published adventure it’s going to have to be bare-bones and a few pages. 😆 It was pure lack of time and lack of interest after 3-4 years of doing it all ourselves. As we got older D&D was not the primary hobby of any of guys in our group. Videogames(Atari) had taken over a couple of the group as a main entertainment, I was Fishing or Hunting most of the year as well as playing guitar. One guy was a Comic addict and budding comic artist, etc. A couple were also in the Scouts. We became very busy. So modules were a welcome advancement- "Hey I just got this cool thing called XYZ, lets play saturday". It was much easier to familiarize and wing a published adventure. As we were not into long term campaign play with big overarching plots or mega dungeons, Instead running episodic games ala Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser- having a plug and play "module" was perfect for us. Far less work than doing our own thing.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 27, 2020 6:40:29 GMT -6
I've personally always considered gargoyles (of the fantasy sort) to be magical constructs and as such would have no language of their own, assuming they spoke at all. Interesting. In all my years of playing I've never even thought of them as a construct.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 26, 2020 15:15:32 GMT -6
I'm guessing in Tom and Eljayess' original Known World, the goblinoids were distinct races-or so different/removed from each other over time that languages became very different.
Thinking about, I actually would prefer this. Tired of all the gobbos being lumped together. Perhaps Hobgoblin is just human terminology. Maybe they are not related to goblins at all. Same with Bugbears.
As for gargoyles, why wouldn't they have their own language?.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 20, 2020 7:53:38 GMT -6
Sorry to take so long to respond to your comment. I've been largely absent from this board for a while and I didn't see the Notification. The text was finalized a few months later, and I privately printed a few copies for my own use. But I put aside the project of finding an artist combined with perhaps putting together a Kickstarter effort to pay for the art. After a hiatus of over two years, I have resumed writing and publishing. So I may finally do it. Thanks for asking! Welcome back! Been wondering where you have been. Enjoyed your breakdown of T&T (1E) recently.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 20, 2020 7:47:21 GMT -6
In recent years I have had more fun with the following "adventure starter" someone came up with for Dungeon World than is legal. I've used this for O/TSR D&D , 5E, 13th Age, and DW, of course. Just grab a map or two, a monster manual and go. No need to stick to a hard script.
For each category/question roll randomly, DM choice, or let your players choose (this has been the most fun for me, creatively as a DM)
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 17, 2020 11:42:57 GMT -6
At this point though, why would anyone bother? You still have a rigid initiative and action system with all the classes baked into and around it- and if you change the initiative system, you mess some things up (which I know from personal experience turns into what the youngsters call "rocket tag") You still have massive numbers inflation for HP, rolling damage , etc. Several class abilities are more complicated/PITA/time consuming than their OD&D counterparts (Turn Undead for example) 5E fans are going to balk that you took away all their customization and cool stuff (which is already an issue for those neutral/opposed to 5E as is) Re-learning spells/spell names Bigger, unwieldy statblocks. Slower combat/gameplay (Better than 3/4e sure, but still slower than O/TSR games) Now requires you to ignore 3/4 of what is presented mechanically in 5E compatible product and requires more "re-balancing" or extra effort by the DM when gauging/prepping said products. I think 5E is a fine rules system- the best WOTC version to just sit down as play as written, but stripping to the absolute core seems counterproductive. Just run C&C or O/TSR games and you have a bazillion compatible products, a more solid framework to build upon(instead of tearing down), still faster gameplay, and player expectation is not a concern. I mean, your personal preference aside, that was the stated goal of 5e during development--the ability to dump and add mechanics, which they referred to at the time as "modules"--and run it as you liked, to appeal to a broader range of styles of gaming. 3.x ONLY applied to wargamers after a certain point, as did 4e, because of their intensive focus on incremental bonuses and tactical movement. 5e played in an OD&D style gives you a streamlined, unified mechanic that makes play, quite simply, FAR less arcane, FAR more understandable, and just as open and freeform as OD&D. And you'd be surprised how many 5e fans are QUITE open to just that sort of streamlining. Also, in our 5e line, Troll Lord Games has proven just how easy it is to streamline those stat blocks and still have everything you need to run a combat. An orc, for example, looks like this: Orc (CE Medium Humanoid) HP 15 (HD 2d8+6), AC 13, Spd 30. Str 16 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 7 Wis 11 Cha 10. Perception 10. Intimidation +2. Scimitar +5 (1d8+2) or Heavy crossbow +5 (1d10; 100ft/400ft). SA Darkvision 60ft; Double move as bonus action. The truth is, the majority of 5e monster stat blocks are extraneous. I've been running the AD&D A-series with my Friday group and converting on the fly, very rarely needing to crack a book. A basic knowledge of the system allows me to assign proficiency bonus and ability bonuses without a second thought, and knowing how saves, advantage and disadvantage works enables one to quickly invent or mimic monstrous abilities. And speaking as someone who owns and ran Dungeonesque, who also runs a stripped-back version of 5e every other week, NO re-balancing or extra effort is required on the DM's part whatsoever. Spells? MOST of the spells in 5e have the same or similar names as they've always had. It's really not as difficult or "Why would you bother?" as you seem to think it is. I may be misreading you on this, but tbh, the majority of your complaints seem to be coming from a place of not interesting YOU PERSONALLY because YOU prefer a true old school game, than an actual place of why would ANYONE bother. Sure it's it's my opinion- based on experience- because I did exactly that (stripping a bunch of stuff out) with one of my groups years ago. The only tangible in game benefit you mentioned is the universal mechanic (for those who have issues with O/AD&D's quirks). Of course C&C already has that covered. For players, you still have more complicated ways of things- again, turning undead (Have fun rolling all those saves against that mob of zombies/skeletons), working with/tracking higher level spell slots, more daily/encounter tracking of abilities and spells (and more of them on the character sheet) A more rigid action economy with actions/reactions/bonus actions, etc.By getting rid of class choices, skills, backgrounds it definitely makes for a cleaner character sheet- but- because class abilities and internal rules consistency/logic/design remain- those things that actually define 5E- You are not really getting close to an "OD&D" experience, AFAIC. Gameplay-wise- stripping 5E to it's core doesn't make the system better-it just waters it down somewhat. And sure we can handwave a bunch of stuff like the action economy and spellcasting details to make things run faster, but we can do that with O/TSR D&D too, and make everything run on ascending AC, and a single ST system like Whitebox- which is FAR simpler to run/play than any version of D&D proper (thanks Fin!) Don't misunderstand this as "grognardism", I love and play systems like 13th Age, FFG Star Wars, and Dungeon World. I just cannot agree that 5E becomes an "old school substitute" or that gameplay is fundamentally improved by removing the elements of skills, backgrounds, class choices, inspiration, etc. Now if you are just trying to tap into the broad 5E player base and that's the motivation, then fine! Go for it. But that's a completely different subject. Re: Dungeonesque. I had some LGS owner trying to convince me to buy it a few weeks ago- I had never heard of it (or perhaps forgot about it?), but the box intrigued me. I told him I'd like to take a look inside the box first- he showed me his personal copy. It is essentially the basic 5E rules with some stuff stripped out. Pretty, but WAYYYYY overpriced @ $50 retail, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 17, 2020 8:17:13 GMT -6
To hit an OD&D style, for example, I'd dump skills, pare it down to just F, C, W, R, and use only the iconic archetype (ie. ALL fighters are Champions, ALL Rogues are Thieves, etc.), dump Inspiration, dump Backgrounds, and run with it. At this point though, why would anyone bother? You still have a rigid initiative and action system with all the classes baked into and around it- and if you change the initiative system, you mess some things up (which I know from personal experience turns into what the youngsters call "rocket tag") You still have massive numbers inflation for HP, rolling damage , etc. Several class abilities are more complicated/PITA/time consuming than their OD&D counterparts (Turn Undead for example) 5E fans are going to balk that you took away all their customization and cool stuff (which is already an issue for those neutral/opposed to 5E as is) Re-learning spells/spell names Bigger, unwieldy statblocks. Slower combat/gameplay (Better than 3/4e sure, but still slower than O/TSR games) Now requires you to ignore 3/4 of what is presented mechanically in 5E compatible product and requires more "re-balancing" or extra effort by the DM when gauging/prepping said products. I think 5E is a fine rules system- the best WOTC version to just sit down as play as written, but stripping to the absolute core seems counterproductive. Just run C&C or O/TSR games and you have a bazillion compatible products, a more solid framework to build upon(instead of tearing down), still faster gameplay, and player expectation is not a concern.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 16, 2020 19:42:46 GMT -6
Falconer mentioned 5th Age. I was done playing D&D by the time DL came out. any curiosity was stifled by those original adventures after taking a looksee, anyway. I dug some of the fiction/world elements but the adventures..gah. So when The SAGA card game arrived it was my first real dive into DL. I Loved the system. I loved the SAGA materials. "The Bestiary" from this system is quite possibly my fave monster book of all time. I wish all monster manuals were done this way. I understand the fanbase rejected the timeline and game, but as someone with no baggage from WOTL/HOTL, I felt it was quite good.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 16, 2020 19:25:46 GMT -6
Special editions are far worse than the orange spine re-covers. Special editions are more akin to the DSG/WSG- a bunch of tacked on stuff the creators thought we would like but ultimately rejected.
I did the survey but I'm not sure why. I have as much love for 5e or a future 6e as I do for Disney SW- I.e. I'd rather see the property die than continue to be butcher...er... developed.... by the current owners. If someone wants me to watch/play the current version, I'll give in for the sake of the group's entertainment, but you will never hear me suggest it. It's made me appreciate the prequels/TSR even more..warts and all.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 14, 2020 7:33:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 14, 2020 7:29:53 GMT -6
I double the dragon's HD for the purposes of rolling to hit. Me three.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 13, 2020 5:41:00 GMT -6
Me three.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 12, 2020 7:24:54 GMT -6
Doesn't get much love in the OSR fandom, and I cannot fathom why. I think it's a pretty vibrant but self-contained community, so there's not much overlap with the OSR-sphere. Agreed, I just don't understand why it was not embraced like other games- likely because they stick to their guns, and don't trend with the OSR in general- and thus they stay under the radar. Which is probably a good thing. In fact I'm going to say it *is* a good thing
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 11, 2020 19:27:26 GMT -6
Fort Sodiug (sew-DEE-ugh) works for me!
Named after the human explorer who first discovered the region
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 11, 2020 19:22:00 GMT -6
Yep. Great product. I bought one back in 08? From Lulu.
Doesnt get much love in the OSR fandom, and I cannot fathom why. Frankly,I think it's the clone that has remained most true to the intent and spirit of the OSR. It never went commercial like S&W and has a mass amount of free support product from the community. They just plug away and keep producing good stuff behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 4, 2020 20:29:09 GMT -6
BTW.
Fin, you seem burned out over the past few months. Methinks you need to get away from D&D for a bit and play something else. Maybe someone in your group could run a short alternate game if something different? CoC. Traveller. MSPE. Gamma World/MA.
I believe you need a recharge.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 4, 2020 12:16:13 GMT -6
I don't mind.....plots.
The A series - find out what is going on, and ultimately destroy the slavers.
The U series-Stumble into a plot of the Smugglers (and as I've said, I don't hold much love for U2/U3 so I went straight from U1 tying it into A1)
The issue is when the module just doesn't work when the players don't follow along from point A to point B to point C . This is the big issue for the "Adventure Path" model- whether Paizo or WOTC or whatever. There is no way to keep players on the railroad tracks for 10 or 15 levels other than locking them in the caboose. These are simply movie plots, and the players are following a script with some randomness thrown in for the combats.
It's pretty easy with the old adventures to allow players to go off the rails, and for DMs to compensate with some general improv- either running them into some kind of sideline for awhile. It is (an assumed you will learn) set of skills for TSR era D&D. Wing it. The Adventure paths often have sections for "winging it", but from what I have seen have mostly been railroading them back into line, and no info for "what if".
This becomes more of an issue when it's a "Save the world from massive Evil" plot, which the early 5E adventure paths are very guilty of (Princes, Tyranny, etc). I avoid those kinds of plotline anyway.
One of the best things I ever did was purchasing Dungeon World. By nature the game makes you improvise on the spot and keep your plot lines and themes loose at best. I've run a few old A/D&D adventures with the system pulling back some of the world decision player facing elements, and though things went off the rails from the "pre established" plot, I was able to work in the general ideas and it actually made the adventures BETTER than as written. B3 was particularly awesome.
No reason you can't do the same thing with OD&D or 5E or GURPS.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 3, 2020 17:12:25 GMT -6
And possibly Ned Shakeshaft from U1?
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 30, 2020 9:32:17 GMT -6
This is a very rough idea for a set of OSR rules I've been working on- based on S&W's Saving throw system- but expanded.
the idea is that I'm a huge fan of the "superheroic" art style that permeated the very late 70s and early 1980s TSR products. In particular Jeff Dee. Bill Willingham, and Jim Roslof are my favorites. This art was more like a S&S comic book- big action, powerful characters. Some imagery I'm referring to-
L1 Bone Hill cover T1 Village of Homlett cover (green) S1 Tomb of Horrors Cover (green) and S2 White PLume Mountain (Orange, second cover) Moldvay/Cook Basic and (especially) Expert rulebooks All 4 covers of the A series (especially A1) C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness GW1 The Legion of Gold The Blue cover D series (some great interiors here too) The minigames like SAGA and Revolt on Antares The Roslof cover for Dungeon!
As written TSR era D&D gameplay, IME, doesn't really live up to those images for characters, except maybe at very high levels for casters. In B/X particularly, Characters are pretty weak and fragile for several levels, and not capable of much in the way of "heroic fantasy" gameplay. Even powerful characters are susceptible to instant deaths/save or dies.
Classes like The Thief and Fighters become boring because they are beholden to magic items to make them powerful- which is something I want to remove or at least vastly downplay. I wanted characters who start out competent at first level. More importantly so do my player groups over the years. They love the simplicity and free-form of "old school D&D mechanics" but not the "grind" to become competent, the "heroics will get you killed nearly every time" gameplay, or the disparity between casters and non casters.
I wanted to allow for smaller party sizes- 3-4 characters, instead of 4-8 characters and the idea of including retainers/hirelings, etc.
I wanted to get away from a "Daily" resource management for spellcasters and Vancian magic in particular. My player's hate it, I'm not a fan because the fiction gets thrown to the wayside and it becomes said daily resource management game within the game (Cleric- I'm memorizing all my boring cure spells..again. It's no secret that I personally prefer 4E's character spell/power/exploit design system by far over any edition (at will, encounter/minor spells/maneuvers, daily/major spells/maneuvers), but wanted to keep it more simple and compatible with O/B/X D&D more or less.
So this is a rambling set of initial thoughts/mechanics that addresses these things. It is by no means complete or set in stone. And with my horrible inability to convey things with few words, it probably seems more "dense" than it really is.
game mechanic= Throw of the Dice - Based on S&W style ST’s – Saving Throws, Skill Throws, Spell Throws, Stunt Throws or just an “ess-tee”
ST target is 18+ for non adventurers, commoners. Reduced by 1 per Character level. So a 1st Level Character would have a ST of 17+. 5th Level character would have a Spell/Save/Skill Throw of 13+. The Idea is that a character sheet has a Static ST target number and a single bonus/penalty to apply to their D20 roll.
And of course a DM could say – Make a Saving Throw add your CON bonus. Or Make a Skill Throw, add your CHA bonus, etc for improvised tasks.
Spellcasting-Vancian Casting = gone. Spell casters get several known spells at each spell level, plus a bonus # for high Ability score. And they can find spellbooks/scrolls and the like. Spellcasting throws help to offset the greater spell knowledge, but spellcasters may cast a specific spell only once per encounter/combat unless they were unsuccessful, in which case they can try again. So, no spamming Fireball and Lightning bolts.
However a Spell Throw of “1” causes the Magic User to fumble the casting creating a disastrous result or lose the ability to use that spell for the day.
Likewise, a natural 20 results in maximum effectiveness (max damage, max # of targets or HD affected, etc)-
SAVING THROWS- Though there are static #s for the character, the DM can apply penalties for extremely potent magic/items/opponents. “The poison on this trap’s needle is particularly nasty- it is harvested from the tiny Jade Scorpions of the Great Wastes. It is said that during the process, 10 men die for every thimbleful obtained- you have a penalty of -3 to your roll- may the Gods of Light be with you, defiler of tombs!”
COMBAT ROLLS As per typical OSR games- Attack bonus + STR or DEX bonus vs. AC (ascending system used).
Monsters HD determines attack bonus as in S&W, as well as ST’s- Base 18+. 1HD creature has 17+ ST . 9 HD creature has 9+ ST . Max bonus is +10. DMs can fudge around with numbers but this is quick and easy.
Classes
Magic Users- have an inherent +3 bonus to Spell throws to cast and Spell Saving throws to resist spells. Can add INT bonus to these rolls, if any. Wizards may get a Skill throw bonus for a “arcane lore/knowledge” check of some sort at DM’s discretion. Magic Items such as a Staff of The Star Mage may improve the Wizards Spell bonus if they can be found.
Melee/Ranged Attack Bonus +1 cumulative at levels 3,6,9,12 for a maximum of +4
Thieves- All Thievery Skill Throws would garner a +3 inherent Bonus. Thieves could add their DEX (INT?) bonus (if any) to Thievery Skill Throws, or Saving Throws to avoid Traps/Poison, etc.
Thieves Attack Bonus= +1 cumulative at levels 2, 4, 6,8,10 for a maximum of +5
Clerics have an inherent +3 bonus to Spell throws to cast and Spell Saving throws to resist spells. Can add WIS bonus to these rolls, if any. Clerics may get a Skill throw bonus for a “religious lore/knowledge” check of some sort at DM’s discretion. Magic Items such as the Robes of The Lightbringers may improve the Cleric’s Spell bonus if they can be found.
Turning is a Prayer (Spell), not a granted ability for all Clerics.
Cleric’s utilizing healing spells for those of opposed Alignment (Law vs. Chaos), must require the recipient to accomplish a Lawful (good) or Chaotic (evil) deed as appropriate by the end of the day or both the recipient and cleric will suffer the God’s wrath (penalties to all rolls? Inability to cast healing spells? Loss of hit points and a curse?- DM’s have fun with this)
Neutral Clerics healing those of other alignments will suffer no Throw Penalties- The Neutral God’s would love to have more converts- but healing amount will be minimum possible “just a small sample of Yana-Or’s power, brave Warrior..… She would smile more favorably upon a true believer! Have I told you the tale of Yanna Or’s battle with Xin during Creation? NO? Well that is a tale all TRUE Warriors should know!”
Clerics Attack Bonus +1 cumulative at levels 3, 5,7,9,11 for a Maximum of +5
Fighters- In addition to any Ability Score Bonus for STR, Fighters receive an inherent +3 bonus to all Feats (Skill Throws) of Exceptional Strength- Breaking doors, bending bars, lift gates. This bonus also applies to knowledge/lore re: fighting styles, weapons, great warriors/battles of history, etc. per the DM’s discretion.
In addition to any Ability score bonus for CON, Fighters receive an inherent +3 bonus to any Saving or Skill Throws that require physical fortitude or endurance- Resisting Poison or the Elements such as extreme heat or cold, swimming a river, etc.
Fighters receive a cumulative +1 bonus to all attacks and damage at each level with a Maximum of +8 for each.
In lieu of a strike, Fighters may perform a Combat STUNT* on their turn- This is a STR Skill Throw with normal bonus/penalty for high Strength and the Fighter’s inherent Bonus of +3 . Fighters can use this stunt to push a foe backward up to 10 feet (or intimidate them to back up), knock them prone (within reason, sorry guys, no knocking a dragon prone), disarm them if they can be , shoot an item out of their grip with an arrow, etc.
Some notes about COMBAT STUNTS Work with your DM for specific cases. DM’s - work with your players. This is a game of fantasy, not a combat simulation. If your Fighter wants to swing on a ship’s mast rope and cut some Pirate’s sword hand off as he goes by and succeeds on the STUNT, then roll with it! It will be super memorable.
Now if our Swinging Fighter rolls badly- heh…make THAT memorable too- Rope breaks, flies into several Pirates on the deck, takes a bunch of damage, maybe breaks his arm , or leg. DMs get to have fun too.
*Please note all Classes can perform a Combat Feat- however the Fighter and only the Fighter receives the inherent +3 Bonus to this roll during combat.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 29, 2020 9:52:53 GMT -6
I hate promoting that place, but Jim has a bunch of good articles over there JIM WARD on Demons & DevilsI don't see it as writing for children. It was simply writing to a broader audience. O/AD&D was written for a different time and audience- Wargamers/College Kids. By 1989, the market had more kids/young adults, teens, non wargamers, than 10-15 years prior. And specifically, even if it was written with the YA market in mind-that's a good thing. Individual tables can decide how "mature" they want the game to be. As an adult running games for young kids for many years- trying to sift through some certain author's/company's work to make it more presentable for kids is a PITA, and usually not worth the trouble. I personally am not into edgy and dark, grim and gritty Fantasy. Elric is as far I like to step into that territory, so I'm fine with it keeping it PG. Individuals can always make things darker/more MA right at the table or look for specific products that are geared towards MA- Baking it into the core game is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 28, 2020 12:56:42 GMT -6
And Kids on Bikes is the new cool flavor of the past year. Love the show, but conveying the realities of living in the time period to my Kids has been difficult at best. My parents grew up in the Great Depression, and while I didn't experience it, I understood the reality of the time period at a young age, and I always was into History so things like CoC were easy for me to grasp and play as a kid. When you have to explain a phone booth, no cable TV, vacuum tubes, a cassette player, 8 track and records to them, Home computers of the time, no internet, world politics, you realize you will have to do far more work explaining to them why their PC's can't do this or do that than playing the game. That's my experience anyway.Now my son- nearly 21 gets it, but as a kid- nope. My 9 yo old girl- nope. I doubt she will at 20 either But good luck!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 27, 2020 13:42:59 GMT -6
It also helps to know that the original 2E books were designed specifically as rules reference manuals, and not as instructional manuals. They were intending for people to learn the game through experienced folks, or the intro products they produced. They state as much in several places, including the 2E preview document.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 27, 2020 7:55:53 GMT -6
I had pretty much given up on D&D by 1983 and TTRPGs period by late 1985, and got my RPG fix through CRPGs, especially the Gold Box games when those showed up. I came back to TTRPGs 4 Years or so after 2E's release- mianly due to interest from what I was seeing in the CRPGs and on my local bookstore shelves. FOr me, having missed the glut of 1984 and beyond from TSR, the 2E Product shelves at the bookstores (B Dalton, Waldenbooks, etc) were impressive. Tons of books. All the crazy campaign settings, plus ones I was familiar with-Greyhawk (FTA), Forgotten Realms etc.
I hold no ill will to the edition. I think as a set of game mechanics, and utility as a set of rulebooks 2E is far superior to 1E. OF course it is missing Gary, and I'm guessing THAT is what people find bland/mediocre, etc about it. I agree. If I wan inspirational reading, I'm crcaking open the 1E books. If I want functional clear rulebooks, I'm going 2E.
I don't have much issue with what Mr. Ward did as regards to the Demons and Devils and parents and whatnot. It doesn't hurt the game, make it less playable, etc. The renaming of Demons and Devils is not nearly as much of a crime as the abomination that is PLanescape and the the ratification of a significantly changed Great Wheel cosmology through all AD&D official products. That's the real crime, Berk. If anything, that is the only real problem I have with 2E-later on they tried hard to make things official across the campaign settings as part of a AD&D multi-verse. Sadly that transferred into 3rd, and now 5th (another reason to love 4E).
I started collecting RPG material in 1994 and I picked up hundreds of 2E books (and hundreds of others) . The Biggest issue with 2E was the amount of budding fiction authors who were not game designers, and vice versa. There were few people who had the creative mind, and the game sense. Of course with all the people coming and going, and freelancers, it had to be tough. Certain lines, like FTA GH, and Ravenloft seemed to have the highest quality of good fictional elements, and game utility. Whereas, FR was feast or famine.
SO yeah, I never got all the animosity- But it just seems that D&D players are two camps- Those who want new editions and changes, or those don't want anyone effing with their edition of choice and to keep things static.
I also think as youngsters, we are less wise, more hardheaded, and more snobbish. As we get older, maybe have families and children, we loosen up a bit, and enjoy things just because enjoyment is much harder to come by as a responsible adult.
Despite the warts, I'd still rather see the 2E business model in action vs. Today (and as I stated in the other thread- I'm aware of the business ramifications of each- I'm speaking solely as a fan). I miss print magazines, I miss a pile of books to choose from on varying subjects. If anything today's D&D is "bland". 2E is a breath of fresh air after reading a 5E hardcover.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 26, 2020 9:11:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 25, 2020 14:14:34 GMT -6
Personally I feel 13th Age's ranger dual wield is the best I've encountered but it is likely too powerful for OD&D games.
If when you roll your attack, you get an even natural roll (hit or miss) you get a follow up attack roll (only one follow up no matter what the second roll is)
As a dual wielder you drop weapon damage for both weapons one die step, however. So if you normally had 1d6 short swords, they would become 1d4 short swords. If you want, you can choose before your attack to roll normally one attack, and deal normal damage for the weapon type.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 25, 2020 14:02:15 GMT -6
Started bfore AD&D. However l, I would say I have a fairly equal mix of OD&D and modern Indy/Narrative influence. I am not a stickler for OD&D in the letter of the rules, but rather in the Spirit of the game.
|
|