|
Post by Gene M. on Jul 16, 2022 7:25:09 GMT -6
Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?). When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part. Yeah, I prefer the way Runequest handles hit locations as the amount of HP never being that big makes it clear it's more "meat points" than the abstraction of HP as representing a host of things (endurance, health, etc) in D&D. I like my OD&D combat quick and abstract. In consequence, I've never tried the Blackmoor hit locations. But maybe I should give it a go and see how it plays.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Nov 15, 2018 19:49:57 GMT -6
Excellent news.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 15, 2018 21:32:17 GMT -6
I'm also very interested in my benighted character perishing in consequence of my own stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 13, 2018 13:36:29 GMT -6
I agree that sometimes the analysis can be a bit tedious when one is explicitly encouraged to fill in the gaps and make it work how one likes.
Sometimes deep dives into game mechanics can produce interesting results, though, like Wayne/cadriel's Original D&D Setting posts. I found those inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 14:29:45 GMT -6
No matter what edition of D&D I'm running, I keep the DMG handy.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 13:44:38 GMT -6
Thanks. My wife is in printing, so I can get nice prints for gaming any time I need. Currently planning on getting the Darlene Greyhawk map printed on canvas. I have the folio but I get nervous about damaging it. Might get a Glorantha map printed too if I run Runequest soon. Not sure about the strict legality but I am not selling them, so hopefully it's fine!
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 12:44:48 GMT -6
I have a few of the Master's Tome screens. I have a bunch of art by John Bauer, Frank Frazetta, and Arthur Rackham. For OD&D I use John Bauer images on the outside and the inside is the relevant tables from the Ready Ref Sheets. I don't fudge rolls, so I don't worry about players seeing my d20 rolls. I do use a bunch of d6s to mark out monster HP, however, so the screen does conceal how much HP monsters have left. Nice collection of art you have there. Very jelly. I should be clear: just prints, no originals!
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 12:44:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 12:36:07 GMT -6
I have a few of the Master's Tome screens. I have a bunch of art by John Bauer, Frank Frazetta, and Arthur Rackham. For OD&D I use John Bauer images on the outside and the inside is the relevant tables from the Ready Ref Sheets. I don't fudge rolls, so I don't worry about players seeing my d20 rolls. I do use a bunch of d6s to mark out monster HP, however, so the screen does conceal how much HP monsters have left.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 11:58:55 GMT -6
I use spare wood blocks from my Commands & Colors: Napoleonics to give players basic positioning if they need it. Blue for player characters, brown for henchmen, and red for monsters. I mark the blue blocks with the player's initial rather than the character's in case the PC croaks.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 11:54:44 GMT -6
Foster, that was an excellent post and makes me feel confident about trying out AD&D without worrying too much that I am not quite capturing the flavor of it. Particularly as I can, if I need to, start simple and add complexity.
A couple months back I reread the PHB and DMG. I like the idea of segments, casting times, and the potential for spell interruption or getting off a spell just in time (although you can find ways of doing that in other D&D editions). For OD&D I use the weapon priority system from Judges Guild, and with Moldvay I just use the standard system, so having something a bit more detailed seemed like it might make for interesting combats. That's one reason I was thinking of trying it out, as well as 1. giving the players more class options as they seem to enjoy that, and 2. I've never run the classic AD&D modules using AD&D rules (instead just OD&D or Basic on the fly).
I've also been revisiting the Greyhawk folio and box. I've never used the Greyhawk setting (usually just homebrew it), and the idea of a ramble through Hommlet is appealing at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 7:44:45 GMT -6
Great review. It's a book full of interesting stuff. I really like the demons section, for example. I've just never found time to work it into my game.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 11, 2018 7:32:08 GMT -6
Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it? Back in high school, when AD&D first came out, my group sort of fragmented into two schools of thought: (1) The OD&D way was to "wing it" (2) The AD&D way was to look it up in the book. In other words, our AD&D players took the stance that the rulebook had been expanded and codified for a reason and that the answer to any question ought to be somehow in the book. Personally I've never subscribed to that thinking, but I can see where one might do so successfully. My take on this would be to use the AD&D rules as a guide, revel in the details of the rules as given, but don't let the rulebook slow the action during play. I think what turned me off to AD&D was the fact that my DM would stop action for 10-15 minutes while he frantically would search for a rule somewhere, and that's just not a good way to run a session. In a game make a ruling off the cuff and let the players know that later on you might contradict this ruling in the future if you unearth a rune on the matter, but keep the play going. Just my two coppers on the topic. The OD&D way is pretty much my way in any game I referee, whether it's OD&D proper, Moldvay, 5th edition, Runequest, Paranoia (who even needs rules for that?) etc. With AD&D I know I could just run it the same way, in which case it would end up something like OD&D or Basic with more classes. I feel like if I'm going to play it to know what the fuss is all about I should at least start out trying to do it by the book. In other words I want to start by giving Gary the benefit of the doubt that his complicated systems might work. However, I imagine if I got a campaign going I would probably end up refereeing it the way I do everything else--with an eye to simplicity, speed, and common sense ("getting on with it"). I wish more people played OD&D and learned its lessons. I'm a player in a Call of Cthulhu campaign and the referee in it is so concerned to play by the book that it can really slow down play. He's gotten better over time at just winging it but takes system mastery as a point of pride I think. OD&D has also made me think a lot about how we write rules for games. I think it would be better for a rulebook to teach principles of adjudication rather than having a rule for each situation.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 15:39:26 GMT -6
My stuff just came in! EDIT: I'm thinking now I should've splurged and had them inked. Oh well. Side note to Piper: the original six-sided were red, the orange in my picture earlier was due to poor lighting. Maybe I'll add pics of those dice another time. You can get the Uchida Decocolor Extra Fine Paint Markers in six colors on amazon. As far as I know it's the same ink they use to mark them. I bought a set to redo mine.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 13:26:13 GMT -6
I figured something like that--less about the specific modifiers than internalizing when/how to modify per circumstances. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 12:01:03 GMT -6
Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it?
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 11:57:39 GMT -6
Not that there’s anything wrong with using the Moldvay rules but the DMG does include mechanics for reactions (pp 244-245) and morale (p 273) if you’ve got that book. I’ve got the adventure but haven’t played it or run it yet. Just from reading it, it seems really well put together. I should've been clearer, but I have used the reactions rules in part. So if a player roleplays out the encounter, I use adjustments -2 to +2. If instead a player uses a Cha skill, then I use my adaptation of the DMG rule with DCs and the like scaled for different outcomes. The morale rules I found not to work all that well in practice as the wisdom stat is all over the place for monsters, so I use the 2d6 method. The spirit, though, is straight Moldvay. I know modern D&D hates using anything but d20 and the occasional d100 for subsystems but I like having the 2d6 curve.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 10:58:32 GMT -6
I've been running this module for a group and one major thing I discovered is that the whole Syndra countdown to death is in tension with the otherwise sandbox/hexcrawl design. I recommend either ditching that as an adventure hook or introducing it when they're higher level. I should have caught that issue in reading but it made itself known in play!
As ritt points out, it's really amenable to old school play, and probably the most amenable out of all the 5e modules. The random encounters aren't meticulously balanced so you get some tough combatants. I also run 5e with monster reactions and morale rules straight out of Moldvay, which then means those encounters aren't automatically combats. The players get a lot of opportunities to be creative problem-solvers. I also rejiggered it so that XP is for gold (and stocked locations accordingly!).
I'm thinking about adding in stuff from the Mythras book Monster Island. The map is mostly empty, so there's a lot of room to make additions.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 10, 2018 10:04:43 GMT -6
Barely related - Gamescience still sells copies of their "Fantasy Gamer's Compendium" which is a compilation of the little OD&D booklets originally published by Little Soldier Games. It's an affordable peek into OD&D amateur press, the original booklets going to Arduin-level prices on eBay. I have that book! It's got some fun stuff in it. I haven't used any of it for my game, but it's a good read.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 8, 2018 9:43:29 GMT -6
I can’t speak to the claims about accuracy but I use them. Re-inking now and then doesn’t bother me. I just like the way they feel better than Chessex. I don’t use minis except for big Chainmail battles (and then I just use cheap ones!) so I suppose the excess that would have gone to that went to my dice instead. I get the most use out of my 0-9 twice d20 inked in red and white, which I prefer to a pair of d10s.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Mar 5, 2018 13:38:48 GMT -6
I think this place is great. I don't post much, but I read often! Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Jul 21, 2017 19:20:08 GMT -6
Wow Gene, great post. Thank you for sharing it all! Thanks. Honestly I felt like I was rambling!
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Jul 21, 2017 8:53:16 GMT -6
What is a tabaxi? Is that the fallen angel or the cat dude? Do the players even know or care? Nowadays having an actual human in the party is becoming pretty rare, at least in 5E Adventurer's League play at my game store. That's the cat guy! I know because a friend of mine DMs 5e. Since my friend loves cats, I opted to play a tabaxi. I don't really like 5e or the Forgotten Realms setting, but I had decent fun at my friend's table. You are absolutely right about very few humans. I don't think we had a single human PC in my friend's game. Part of it is the novelty of fantasy adventuring for inexperienced players, but I think all the mechanical incentives to play demihumans tend to steer people away from humans. In my OD&D campaign, humans are more numerous than other races, so I encourage my players to play humans. As to the thread topic, I haven't had any trouble introducing people to OD&D. The higher lethality can be a bit of a turnoff to modern players, but it tends to encourage smarter play. Moreover, my players like having a chance to play a new character if a PC bites the dust, and those of my players who aren't into combat appreciate the built-in disincentive to fight. Most of my players are not seasoned tabletop players, so the simplicity of OD&D is an asset in getting them to play compared to something like Pathfinder. With 5e, it starts somewhat simple, but gets more and more complicated and harder to track as PCs level up, and there are too many spells. Players have to read and reread the rules to keep track of what they can do. With a lot of players, that's a guarantee that play will get bogged down in looking things up and discussing rules. With OD&D, there's none of that, so they can just play without having to memorize a long list of class features. I have seen a little resistance to OD&D because of a lack of those features, but for people who have experienced how complicated modern D&D can get, the absence helps. If you're reading the 5e PHB, all that stuff can seem very cool. But it's hard to get it working fluidly in play without doing a lot of homework away from the table, and few people have the time. What I emphasize is that you can take the three core (four if I'm allowing the thief) and just roleplay or equip them differently. You can run a witch that, by the book, is a straight magic-user, but make the fluff different. Maybe throw in a bit of potion-brewing and a familiar. In my campaign I discourage the drive to differentiate mechanically. In the character creation handbook I made for my players (they have access to Men & Magic too) I give an example of how choosing different equipment can differentiate fighting-men from each other. Consider someone in heavy armor with a shield, spear, and sword (a hoplite more or less) versus someone in leather who concentrates on speed, archery, and stealth. Both are fighting-men by the books, but have two different approaches. I use the Judges Guild Weapon Priority for settling most questions of initiative, so the equipment choice is already some mechanical differentiation, but no additional class is necessary to distinguish the two characters. I run a sandbox campaign without much use of modules. When I do dip into published material, I adapt it, so it's not all that recognizable. I use them mostly for a dungeon level here or there if I haven't had enough prep time. I run my campaign open table for a pool of about ten players, probably going up to around fifteen soon. My players appreciate the freedom of the campaign compared to the railroady stuff in other games. My campaign setting for the most part is just a city atop a megadungeon. There's a wilderness but they haven't shown much interest in leaving the city & its dungeon. So players who want to delve go down, and those who want more social interaction just do some city adventures (investigating a crime, planning a heist, whatever). I had a session a couple weeks ago where there were only maybe three instances of dice rolling on the players' part. They mostly explored the city, interacted with NPCs, and investigated a mystery. The next session, with a slightly different group of players, was a dungeon crawl, which we'll be picking up again tonight. From what I've read of modern systems and their proponents, there seems to be a lot of distrust of the DM out there. So there's an emphasis on rules (& on published adventures). If you have a rule-bound potential player, the Free Kriegsspiel philosophy of older D&D might be a hurdle. I find that attitude baffling, but it's out there. Me, I just wouldn't play with a referee who was too obviously arbitrary or capricious. Seems like an easier solution than trying to fix bad refereeing through having an extensive rulebook. Players will always go off the story rails, and they will always precipitate a situation without a rule to cover it. Isn't that why we play this instead of a computer game? One of the ways I get people into my campaign is by emphasizing the freedom aspect because they get to help create the world that they explore. Apologies for the length of my post.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Jul 2, 2017 0:57:28 GMT -6
Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Jun 29, 2017 7:36:22 GMT -6
Count me as very interested to read it! I think using a print-on-demand service such as Lulu is a good idea as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on Jun 22, 2017 14:24:47 GMT -6
I showed up about twenty minutes after they'd opened, hoping to grab the Runequest quickstart, and every free item had been snatched up. Apparently they'd been waiting something like half an hour to get in, then stormed the place. I think each person just grabbed one of everything. Disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on May 26, 2017 10:00:22 GMT -6
Welcome Gene M. ! Yep, this is a great place to hang - much less "drama" than other hangouts. Thanks! I've noticed. That's always nice.
|
|
|
Post by Gene M. on May 26, 2017 7:49:05 GMT -6
Hello everyone,
I'm Gene, and I DM for a group of eight players in the Triangle region of North Carolina. I run OD&D, mostly the LBBs with bits and pieces from the supplements and some house rules stolen from various sources, including this board. Although I own Swords & Spells, for mass combat I use Chainmail.
My players are all new to D&D and tabletop roleplaying games, and I am relatively new as well. I prefer OD&D because of the simplicity of the rules—with eight people, modern rulesets get a little hard to manage.
I also just plain like it better, especially keeping hit dice & damage d6 (although I know many prefer the Greyhawk way of doing things). I like and have run Basic too, but the openness of OD&D appeals to me.
Anyway, I've long enjoyed the posts on this board and thought I should finally register. My thanks to everybody posting here as I've learned a lot.
|
|