|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 1, 2024 18:24:25 GMT -6
Who has had great influence over how the OSR developed and progressed? Perhaps "great influence" isn't the best term? IMHO the (so called) OSR is a pretty fuzzy label that kinda-sorta covers certain creative efforts of a bunch of people who generally like to do their own thing rather than be influenced by influencers Perhaps you're reaching for something like the "thought leaders" rather than "influencers" (in the youtube sense)? Just thinking out loud....
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 31, 2024 20:43:44 GMT -6
Here is a start: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7606/analysis-od-treasure-typesIt emphasises the lair treasure types (M&T p22), rather than the dungeon room treasures (U&WA p7), but the latter is easy enough to figure out given the gem/jewelry calculations in the linked topic. The upshot is: gems and esp. jewelry are the actual treasure. Coins are essentially an encumbrance trap
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 28, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 9, 2024 16:18:14 GMT -6
...having a score, and then translating that via chart into a D20 roll bonus, or applying it to a chart to come up with a percentage chance/ percentage bonus, or a bonus to a 1d6 roll is needless complication, IMO. Why have the scores in the first place? Actual scores are pretty much a waste of space on your character sheet for D&D. Somewhat off topic, but (I hope briefly), I agree that ability scores are non-essential for OD&D---in the game I'm running atm we're not using ability scores. That said, it is sometimes argued that OD&D ability scores are more descriptive than anything else. Another thought is that the separate ability scores provide a consistent abstraction across the top of a bunch of different sub-systems in OD&D. This would explain why we have a bunch of weird tables translating the (consistent) 3-18 ability scores into (specific) sub-system modifiers. OD&D uses various 1d6, 2d6, 1d20, 1d% dice subsystems, just off the top of my head. Having ability scores of different number ranges to suit the subsystems they're primarily used for would get... pretty awkward. I'm making this up on the spot, but I guess it's plausible that the abstract-ability-scores-plus-bunch-of-tables design is necessary to accommodate OD&D's patchwork of dice subsystems. The alternative design would be the 'universal' dice system for almost everything, which enables you to more naturally have the ability scores baked right into it. I agree that later iterations of D&D (e.g, 3rd, 4th, 5th) are kinda stranded halfway between these two extremes. I guess by then, 3d6 ability scores and tables of mods were a sacrosanct part of D&D identity they weren't prepared to change too radically? FWIW, Holmes D&D uses the dexterity score directly to determine order of striking
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 1, 2024 16:47:14 GMT -6
Yes. It's a matter of national recognition of/reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of the land. Ponderous as progress on those important issues may be, let that not detract from the positive possibilities of a New Year and of OD&D's 50th birthday
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 31, 2023 17:53:06 GMT -6
Happy New Year All! OD&D's 50th birthday year is here
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 27, 2023 15:20:08 GMT -6
For me, the appeal of 3LBB OD&D is more about brevity than simplicity. Arguably, it's equally complex but less specified than the later editions. It is certainly briefer! and that leaves more elbow room for a ref to carve out their own unique campaign play-style... which means their own creation
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 27, 2023 2:57:00 GMT -6
So my answer would be to point them to Swords & Wizardry Complete then, as the most fulsome and faithful version of OD&D (3LBB + some supplements, with options presented for various rules). But I'm certainly no OD&D scholar, so there might be a better option? Another answer or perspective could be that S&W Complete (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "complete") is potentially too heavy duty for: a) the total newbie, and/or b) the jaded 5e (thru 1e) player looking for something simpler. For these folks, perhaps 3LBB D&D (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "whitebox") is the better fit? edit: p.s. I have nothing whatever against S&W Complete. Just offering up alternative options
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 22, 2023 5:50:50 GMT -6
Thanks flightcommander, that may well be it. Unfortunately, I've forgotten why I was searching for it Perhaps, if I take a look at the PDF it might jog my memory...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 16, 2023 18:40:40 GMT -6
For full transparency, DD V1 (2012) was a collaboration primarily between myself, Cameron Dubeers (Wobbley Goblin Press, aka Piper on these boards) and John Adams (Brave Halfling Press)--but others were involved too (esp. Greyharp on these boards). I took stewardship as of 17th March, 2013 (shortly after the release of V2). The single volume V4 depicted in your post was first published Sept 2014. I directed them to the Immersive Ink website, but I will certainly add those links — good idea. Mmmm, your link points to my woefully neglected blog. It would be difficult to find anything useful there... prolly best point to the downloads page here
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 15, 2023 16:13:15 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the shoutout to DD. I am humbled. May I suggest you could add links to the free DD downloads here and/or the DD4 hypertext online here (for anyone interested to have a peek at no cost)? edit: p.s. I'm not sure that OD&D really is simple; one could argue it is incredibly deep and intricate. I think what you're prolly implying is that--considering its level of sophistication--OD&D remains accessible. Players can get started without reading a ton of rules or knowing everything up front; they can just start and figure stuff out along the way!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 14, 2023 23:48:34 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback blindaudelay. I'm guessing some of this is down to the tight word count and layout, but I'll be reviewing all the feedback when I get around to the next iteration.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 14, 2023 17:04:12 GMT -6
To toot the Delving Deeper horn yet again the V5 Quick-Starters are as concise a rendering of OD&D/DD as I could make them. The Players Quick-Starter prints on three letter-sized sheets (folds into 12 digest-sized pages including cover art and PC record sheet). The Refs Quick-Starter prints on four letter-sized sheets (folds into 16 digest-sized pages including cover art and a full page dungeon map). See the fancy cover art, detailed contents, and free download links in my post here. edit: Community comments/corrections/etc still welcome over in the linked topic
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 7, 2023 15:57:45 GMT -6
...and certainly representative of what we see a Chainmail caster doing on the battlefield. I guess this largely depends on what is implied by "representative". A CM-Wizard's fireball functions as a large catapult hit (with saving throws for fantastic types), and presumably occurs during the artillery and/or missile segment of the turn. In the melee segment of the turn the CM-Wizard either fights as a Wizard vs fantastic opponents, or as two AF (or MH if mounted) vs normal types. In other words, the CM-Wizard doesn't throw fireballs during the melee segment of the turn. It seems to me the continuation (or not!) of this CM-distinction over into D&D-land is a fundamental element of this discussion here
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 5, 2023 20:02:15 GMT -6
"The melee is being done upon them" makes no sense to me In general use, a "melee" refers to a disorderly situation. Especially a disorderly crowd of people. Often involving fighting---with or without weapons. In that sense, a melee isn't something that is done to someone. CM uses the term "meleed" to refer to figures that are contacted by enemy, implying that a melee occurs between them. E.g., If archers or longbowmen do not move and are not meleed at the end of a turn they may fire twice. Also note: Missiles cannot be fired into a melee. I.e., into a melee situation. In relatively recent (more recent than CM, anyways) RPG parlance, a "melee attack" refers to an attack that happens in the context of a melee (as opposed to a "missile attack" which typically happens outside the context of a melee). Perhaps "melee attack" is what was intended? The way I see it, a fighter can melee attack a M-U only when they are both in a melee. I.e., when a M-U is meleed by a fighter, both of them are then in a melee (without or without weapons), during which they can melee attack each other.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 4, 2023 21:12:06 GMT -6
Welcome Wanderer Bill It's true that the AD&D cleric continues to attain the title "Patriarch" at 8th level (albeit 110,000 rather than 100,000 XP). However, the title "High Priest" is then achieved at 9th level (and 225,000 XP), and for each level thereafter the AD&D cleric requires another 225,000 XP. Interestingly, while the AD&D Patriarch can attract religious followers and an army, only the High Priest can tax the local inhabitants. So the AD&D cleric's top-level benefits are gained across these two levels. As for Delving Deeper, pretty much what jeffb said. I vaguely recall a bunch of discussions (on these boards and elsewhere) re the OD&D cleric achieving top level too quickly compared to the other classes. That, coupled with the perceived need to include differences, is what pushed the DD (v1-v4) cleric top level out to 9th. FWIW, in v5 it reverts back to 8th.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 28, 2023 14:58:13 GMT -6
30 tons of books. That's a lot of books.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 27, 2023 17:59:23 GMT -6
Related question:
Can various monsters use their spell-like powers in melee, or are they subject to the same restrictions as M-Us?
E.g., it seems (from recent discussion) that a medusa could use their gaze attack in melee, but could a harpy sing in melee?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 22, 2023 22:15:07 GMT -6
FWIW, CM and Holmes both suggest that that merely being "attacked" is enough to prevent spell casting. They don't say the MU has to be successfully hit, although that's a common enough house rule.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 22, 2023 17:10:26 GMT -6
By the book (and assuming OD&D and/or Holmes-like play), I would say: No. MU's cannot cast spells in melee contact.
CM2 p29 (and CM3 p32): "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person".
Holmes p29: "If a magic-user is not involved in the melee he can get another spell off ... If he is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic but must draw his dagger and defend his skin! However, if the magic-user had some magical device--such as a wand or staff--it could be used in lieu of the dagger as an attack weapon."
However, a slightly more nuanced view might be:
If this was the first moment of initial contact, then there could be a question of whether the MU could throw their spell before contact is made. This would likely be situational, and might come down to encounter distance, move rates, relative dexterity scores, and/or an initiative die (as suggested by M&M, the FAQ, and Holmes).
I was tempted to go with the "depends on some dice rolls" option because combat encounters almost always involves that initial step of "getting into contact" where the MU might be able to use a magic spell before contact.
On the other hand, it appears the OP describes a situation where the MU is already in melee contact. So, I voted no (although more realistically i would say: "No, almost never").
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 13, 2023 2:31:31 GMT -6
SITUATION #1 -- The group plans to move together through a hallway. One player takes his turn and moves ahead. Then because of initiative order, the monsters go and move between the character and the rest of the party. Not at all what they planned, but the dice said otherwise. SITUATION #2 -- The group is in a line in a narrow hallway. First player to go happens to be in the back, and he moves ahead and shoots an arrow and then moves back to the end of the line. Players take turns moving up and attacking and moving back. Maybe not how the rules read, but it's how my players interpret them. In both situations the counting of the squares seems to result in absurd play. Seems to me that the issues described are the product of using a move/counter-move system. Regardless which specific move/counter-move system is used, they all share/feature that "un-natural" sequence of movements. They play more like a game of chess than a cinematic combat. OTOH, the upside of the move/counter-move systems is that it's easy to run the game when everyone takes their whole turn in full and that's it: they're done. Next person's turn... The alternative is a simultaneous movement system. The downside of these is that players have to declare their orders first, and then wait for the ref to figure out if/when they get to resolve some/all/none of their orders second. (FWIW, issuing orders and waiting to see how the ref resolves them is what happens in most PBP games, so a simultaneous movement system is a natural fit for these). The upside is that the unnatural movement of SITUATIONs #1 and #2 above don't happen, cos everything is imagined to all be happening simultaneously, and is played out/resolved in the appropriate order by the ref. So, I guess what I'm looking for is to see how others handle movement on a battle map. Do these situations bother you? How do you handle them? I'm getting to the point where using minis is really messing with the vibe of the adventure, but my players are so excited to paint their minis and love counting squares in an adventure. Maybe I'm the only one bothered by this. I have struggled back and forth with this too. I have lots of minis and dungeon scenery stuff I would love to get more use out of with D&D, but I don't want to devolve into exact floor plans and counting squares. I've even considered photographing minis/dioramas For my PBP games, but ultimately it's too time consuming so I end up drawing/posting ASCII mud maps instead ( way quicker, but less spectacle). In F2F games, I'll make rough hand-drawn maps and put a few minis on them, or else other tokens that represent figure locations. All these methods serve largely the same purpose: to illustrate roughly where things are, relative to one another. One upside of keeping the maps crude/abstract is that "square counting" isn't practical because a) the scale is never declared, and b) the representations aren't accurate enough anyways. The even better upside is that a loose rendering of the situation requires the players to fill out the white space in their imaginations. Bing. The main distances that actually matter in most of my games are "in contact" (already fighting) and "within range" (can join or be joined into the fighting). The rest is skirting around the edge of the melee. I always dice for surprise and the distance between sides at the beginning of any encounter; the latter along with movement rates determines whether there's time for spells/missile fire before the melee crunch. That and flight/pursuit aside, movement speed across larger distances typically only matter for determining the late arrival of reinforcements or flanking actions during a combat. In my experience these do happen... sometimes, but not every day of the week. Hoping my rambling hasn't strayed too far afield...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 12, 2023 5:44:02 GMT -6
I simply do not understand why the text is written how it is. I suspect that may simply be the Gygax writing style. He often focussed in on a case in point, where perhaps a higher level overview might have been more instructive. The M2M rules are a classic example. But as I have highlighted above previously the order of striking doesn't scale up well to combats that involve less than 20 figures but more than just a handful. You could have a unit of three figures attack a single figure but on the same turn two other figures come from the flank, then three more attack from the rear. Who goes first? It doesn't actually make sense. The lines become blurred. The whole thing breaks down. That is my issue with it and why it just feels like something is missing. I have been playing around with the order of striking initiative for years, including trying to stress test the system with awkward edge cases. I wouldn't say "the whole thing breaks down", but more likely what's missing is the assumed (in the D&D context, at least) element of referee fiat. The referee decides what happens first. It's a feature, not a bug
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 11, 2023 21:12:07 GMT -6
Why a d6? I think Holmes liked to boil a lot down to a d6 roll but OD&D has plenty of variations on how dice were used. Haha! I knew that would be "controversial" the moment I wrote it It's not important, other than for a sense of what the pre-funky dice era may have been like. IMHO it's fun to recall that not everyone had funky dice in the early days (e.g., the Dalluhn ms talks about drawing cards from a deck to generate 1-10 or % numbers). Arguably, the 3LBBs describe a largely a 2d6-based game with a flurry of funky dice elements thrown in at the end. Even with boat loads of funky dice, I still like d6s. They encapsulate just the right granularity of chances for the type of play I like. More die faces tends toward more, finer-grained outcomes with more modifiers which, IMHO, doesn't add much. the concept of "surprise" (roll of 1 for surprise) versus "complete surprise" (roll of 2 for surprise) does show up in Eldritch Wizardry in April 1976. The term "complete surprise" is also mentioned in the entry for the catoblepas in the Strategic Review #7 in the same month, and then is repeated in the Monster Manual entry in 1977 but with an explanation ("2 on a 6-sided die"). "Complete surprise" barely appears in AD&D (in the Phantasmal Killer spell in the PHB, and in the Crossbow of Speed in the DMG) and isn't explained there, so it is interesting it appears in the MMII, and could conceivably be a holdover from the OD&D era. Thanks Zenopus. I had assumed "complete surprise" was synonymous with the AD&D concept of having more than one surprise segment but, as you rightly point out, AD&D doesn't call it "complete surprise" (I just went and looked). Both the PHB and the DMG do describe how AD&D surprise comprises a number of 6-second segments of surprise (with each segment allowing equivalent of a full round of melee attacks, or other actions). The number of segments of surprise is (I think?) equal to the difference between the two parties' d6 surprise dice. The DMG examples are... convoluted... but I think it's technically possible to get 6-1=5 segments of surprise! It seems (to me) likely that "complete surprise" was a new term in EW (1976) because it appears under the "Alternate Combat System (Addition)" heading, and describes surprise in terms of the newly introduced segments (of a melee round) concept. " If surprised lose the 1st segment on a die roll of 1 and the 1st and 2nd segments on a die roll of 2" seems straight forward, but it's less obvious what the impact of missing these segments is, given this implies missing only the first one-sixth or one-third portion of the round (but not the entire round). In any event, it seems (to me) the EW version is saying when actions will fall within a round and that a surprised party will miss only the first segment(s)/portion of the round. Whereas the AD&D version is saying that actions take (6-second) segments of time, and that a surprised party will miss one or more whole segment(s)/opportunities to act. the term also appears in the MMII in the entry for the Boalisk ("Complete surprise (1-2 on 1d6) indicates someone has met the gaze and gets no saving throw"). Back on topic, the Boalisk description has a bit more which addresses the original question. It says: An interesting side-track here is that it calls 1-2 on a d6 complete surprise, whereas EW suggests only a 2 is complete surprise. But the main point is the next sentence: " Otherwise," (i.e., without complete surprise) " any creature meeting its gaze (indicated by failing a saving throw vs. petrification) becomes...". So it's saying the saving throw determines whether its gaze was met. It also says that the gaze attack is in addition to its regular melee attack(s), and that it gazes at one individual each round (usually its melee opponent). Seems like pretty comprehensive coverage, albeit from MM2.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 10, 2023 19:28:56 GMT -6
The "something very similar" would have to omit the distinction between surprised and completely surprised, and would have to use a six-sided die
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 10, 2023 17:15:56 GMT -6
I'm wondering if anyone has ever come across any examples across D&D published material regarding some specific mechanics for handling Medusae. My main hang up is how to actively handle the avoidance of the Medusae's gaze? I was thinking of something like a 2 in 6 chance each round that a random character within 30' must make a Saving Throw or be turned to stone. The AD&D MM (sometimes considered the final OD&D publication) has this: Reading it literally, the medusa's gaze appears to be an "always on" 30ft radius effect, with the saving throw accounting for all the variations on whether or not the creature's gaze is met. Personally, I would consider limiting this to the forward direction the creature is paying attention to. Perhaps a 270 degree arc if it is scanning around, searching. Or at least not directly to its rear. Reflecting the monster's gaze is a key element---and possibly one reason why steel mirrors are in the basic equipment list. If the players carry and present mirrors, then the monster might also have to save vs petrification each turn that mirrors are within 3". So it cuts both ways. Darkness is an interesting option that might advantage the players. I.e., if they can't see in the dark but if the monster can see in the dark... then perhaps there's a situation where the players can't be petrified but the monster can! Regarding tricking a medusa, I would never reduce this to an ability check. For me, the detail of whatever scheme the player imagines or invents to deceive the monster is the essence of D&D. It's up to the player to outwit the monster. That's D&D. If required, the random reaction of an intelligent monster to whatever they players might present can be determined with the monster reaction table (UWA p12), surely one of the most useful ref tools in the game! The ref can adjust the reaction throw based on how convincing the players' scheme is.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 31, 2023 16:15:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 25, 2023 20:06:17 GMT -6
When you get down to the 3 LBBs, there isn't much there that is even copyrightable. And a lot of what is, is covered by the 5th ed CC version (like the names of the stats and spells in sequence order). Disney (another "evil empire") is kind of showing us the way and how far you can push the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" mantra. The whole text of the 3LBBs is copyright, as claimed on the title page of each booklet. But all that means is: I can't literally copy the text verbatim as it appears in the 3LBBs. Whether the full, formal process of registering the copyright was followed in 1974 has been raised by members here, but it probably wouldn't practically mean much either way. FWIW, there was a detailed discussion on what is/is not copyrightable recently on these boards here. The relevant concern for DD V5 is RC's point toward the end that " a section by section, line by line rewrite is not a realistic goal under any scenario." (see here and my reply here). The upshot of all that for DD v5 is: I don't subscribe to the inductive reasoning that says: one copyright case was previously ruled X, therefore we can assume all future copyright cases will also be ruled X. It may turn out that way, but in my mind we're not there yet. In terms of what terminology is included in the 5e SRD, see my comparison of what is and isn't covered here. The crucial part of that comparison I still need to complete is a list of the more general game terms from OD&D. This is harder because there isn't a nice neat list of terms already pre-prepared as an SRD document. I'd have to go find all the terms, which is itself a bit of a mission. But even without formally assembling a complete list, we already know from passing observation that a material portion of the terminology in (what I'll call) CM-era OD&D doesn't appear in either the 3e/3.5e or the 5e SRDs. Terms like M2M, FCT, ACS, fighting capability, normal combat, fantastic combat, normal-heroic-fantastic, simultaneous movement system, turn segment, melee range, first blow, counter blow, weapon class, etc. etc. are all missing. Not to mention other key terminology related to dungeon and wilderness content generation. That stuff just isn't in the 5e SRD. Nor, for that matter, was it in the 3.5e SRD, and this is important. It means that the OGL-based retro clones which did include these CM-related game words were already incorporating materials outside the coverage of the 3.5e SRD anyways. So, either we "got away with something" largely because WotC didn't know about it, or WotC knew about it all along and simply didn't care. I think the latter is reasonably likely. Hobby publishing is just too small to bother them, is more or less impossible to police and would be a public relations nightmare, and falls outside the digital/micro-transactions business model WotC appears to be pursuing anyway. So, moving on. It seems that a DDv5 published under the CC/5e SRD would have approximately the same protection/coverage as DDv4 had under the OGL/3.5e SRD. That both include CM/OD&D material outside these SRDs has only become a concern for V5 NOW (as opposed to not being a concern for V4 previously) because WotC has demonstrated how willing they are to throw the fans and hobbyists to the lions the moment they imagine they see a dollar sign. Given DD is more a hobby than a commercial interest I think it's unlikely to ever attract any real notice. The more plausible risk is being swept up in some broader effort to clear out a collection of similar publications.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 25, 2023 19:13:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 23, 2023 23:49:04 GMT -6
Mmm, yeah. Unfortunately (for me) the BFSRD is miles from anything like OD&D. It prolly doesn't help me much
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 12, 2023 21:23:25 GMT -6
It is rather strange that every time Gary gave an example of a melee anywhere it was nearly always 1 figure versus several of a single type so it just leaves so many questions regarding melee involving many figures, but the number of figures is not enough to constitute 1:20 combat. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any hard and fast rule for how many figures should be involved before 1:20 scale is applicable. I guess from a wargaming perspective this would be up to the players commanding the forces. I agree that hard and fast rules are rarely the norm; everything is up to the ref. However, there are a few interesting reads on this question that come to mind... EPT (p32) has a section on Larger Combats: The Introduction to S&S (p1) is essentially a short essay on the topic, and suggests that 1:10 is an ideal compromise. I won't quote the whole thing here (assuming you have access to S&S?) There's also delta's Book of War, which is well worth a read. One of the unique things about player characters in OD&D is that they are generally not subject to morale dice. The players supply their own PC reactions and morale, rather than relying on dice throws. This is basically one of their superpowers. So, on this one, I think it depends mostly on how much you're leaning toward an RPG versus a wargame experience. There's no right or wrong; it's simply up to the referee
|
|