|
Post by jmccann on Mar 4, 2017 16:34:25 GMT -6
I don't care if it is the most popular game, but having a sizeable pool of people is helpful. I think w/ the greater visibility of OD&D there is more likelihood of getting someone who might be focused on later editions to take an interest in the older style of play.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 5, 2017 23:25:53 GMT -6
I also did not realize the dates were part of a quotation. I think having the correct dates present whether in footnotes or endnotes, and making it clear what is a direct quotation as you have done is very useful.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 31, 2017 15:34:45 GMT -6
I think if you are not going to check the dates you should leave them out. I went to the facebook page and saw more errors than the ones Michael points out upthread.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 25, 2017 20:17:39 GMT -6
My local group played a lot of Civilization bitd. We stopped playing most big straight up wargames (too much work and they were harder to finish as we went to college and work) at some point but continued w/ Civ. I played Kingmaker a couple of times and really liked it. It never caught on with the group though. I have played a few games of Dip, mostly online.
A couple of multi-player wargames we played a fair amount were Third Reich and Swords and Sorcery. S&S has a few 3 and more player scenarios and we had a lot of fun at first although we found that large combats kind of bogged down.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 15, 2016 11:06:31 GMT -6
Who created the OSM, by the way? I am not really acquainted with Avalon Hill history... James Dunnigan, of SPI fame, designed the game for AH. There is a story that it was in response to a bet that JD could design a game about anything. I don't believe there were any direct connections at the time between DA and him or any of the New York SPI crowd although I think the Twin Cities and LGTSA groups would have been familiar w/ S&T since Siege of Bodenberg was in the July 1967 issue. Can you describe more fully what you see as similar between the maps? I don't see similarity.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 13, 2016 12:15:03 GMT -6
Nice pictures, very thought provoking. I had not given any thought to modelling the hill. I like this model but I want to build some easy, straightforward castle pieces first to solve the basic modelling problem. The complexity of this model is pretty high. Linka has a modular castle system, I am thinking of making something similar. I have been using scuptamold to make the walls, but I want to experiment with some cardstock/ featherboard/ (styrofoam?) now with some kind of surface treatment.
I like the cardstock masonry idea. Using different thicknesses of paper you could get some slight variation in height, and a thin layer of Das clay or something similar here and there could add more interest. Also you could "plaster" the wall in places, leaving some off in places to show damage.
I am interested to see how your image processed printouts work - I have seen great model railroad building models using a similar approach. Cardstock models can be very effective.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 8, 2016 18:19:27 GMT -6
The Battle of the Brown Hills, an article by Gygax appearing in Wargamer’s Newsletter #116, November 1971 has references to Orc tribes as well. Vile Rune is mentioned, as are the Orcs of the Mountains and Orcs of the Longspear. Chainmail is the ruleset. Here is a snippet from the OOB in the scenario described by the article: 20 Orcs of the Mountains with sword and shield. 20 Orcs of the Mountains with bows. 20 Orcs of the Vile Rune with sword and shield. 20 Orcs of the Longspear. The article also refers to the Ogres of Iuz. You can read the article here: vintagewargaming.blogspot.com/2012/06/battle-of-brown-hills-early-chainmail.html
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 4, 2016 22:44:56 GMT -6
Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Strangelove. Maybe some other Kubrick movies.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 25, 2016 0:45:24 GMT -6
I think a marriage subsystem using cards and maybe a couple of six-siders should be easily "bolted" on to Bath's card generation system. I'd be interested in seeing that.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 19, 2016 21:38:19 GMT -6
Having read novels about Sharpe and Hornblower lately, I have a yen to try Napoleonic-era wargaming. Any suggestions on which rules to use? Close Action by Clash of Arms would be my suggestion for a boardgame. clashofarms.com/close-act.html boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3553/close-actionAre you interested in larger engagements like Trafalgar etc. or smaller engagements with 1 or a handful of ships per side? Boardgame or miniature?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 17, 2016 11:16:02 GMT -6
Any updates on either model? About the finish of the scratch built model, have you considered trying to put a thin skin onto your cardboard structures? I think you could build up a thin layer of Das clay (or similar material) and scribe lines after it dries to represent stone edges. Here is a kit which uses blocks to represent stones: www.aedesars.com/construction-kits/kits-castles/Burg-branzollThe blocks seem too large for this model but it would be very easy to vary the actual Branzoll like your crenellation variant. It is a little pricey though, $138.53 on Amazon right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2016 15:44:01 GMT -6
I have been working on castle models lately, building stone walls and turrets, so I am interested to see the progress of this project.
I also have not heard of Burg Branzoll before and it is an interesting castle. What have you read about this castle being the inspiration for Castle Blackmoor?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 6, 2016 14:47:26 GMT -6
Dave had phasers, tricorders, med kits, lightsabers, that kind of thing, and I try to keep in the spirit of his campaign where possible. How late did he run Blackmoor? Star Trek dates to the late 60s and so it was around at the beginning but Star Wars did not come out till 77. Was the campaign still active then?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 3, 2016 22:56:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 23, 2016 0:17:07 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the post. The rules were obviously not complete, so since I saw a reference to "Ancient Rules," I thought that I would take a look around . . . so you might find this site of interest: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.htmlYep, those are good old ones. Lots of folks still play those games even now, though mostly the more recent editions? I am not sure if this is a question or not since there is a question mark but the sentence is written as a statement. A few of the games are still played pretty widely: Hordes of the Things and De Bellis Antiquitas. De Bellis Multitudinis was played pretty widely until a few years ago. The old Ancients 6th ed. that these later games were based on was the first miniatures wargame rule set I purchased, after seeing a game at a Dragonflight convention in Seattle in the early 80s. I think a few people play either the 7th ed. or a game derived from that by a different company. I have never know anyone who played the other games they have produced.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Dec 15, 2015 21:16:37 GMT -6
I'd say you have a couple of options. (1) Noble Knight -- a little expensive but they have good buyers who are also good at grading the product's condition. That way you tend to avoid yellow crayon dragons. I will second the NK recommendation. They will fix any issues with their items in my experience in addition to being knowledgeable about their items.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 8, 2015 21:25:20 GMT -6
Dupuy's Numbers Prediction and War is interesting, and also dates to the period of OD&D (pub. 1979) www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318The Perla book is largely overshadowed by Peterson but has some material regarding naval wargames that Peterson does not include. Peterson is by far the most informative for the period leading up to OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 3, 2015 9:37:04 GMT -6
0e: Mellotron EPT: Theramin
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 8, 2015 13:55:40 GMT -6
I have a copy of this. I have not played it (one of my buddies bitd had it and we took a stab at playing, but it did not get off the ground) but I love to set up the map. Someday perhaps I will play it.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 4, 2015 0:09:36 GMT -6
Glad to see you're back. I agree w/ the approach of not posting about drama and personalities. Post about games and gaming projects. The other stuff is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 19:29:34 GMT -6
Just poking around a little on the internet and it seems that the idea of a geas or geis has it's roots in Irish folklore. Wiki- GeisIt's interesting in that it has similarities to the Celtic (Welsh) tynged. The word and idea could also be compared to the Norse wyrd, which suggests ones predestined fate or destiny. It can be both a blessing and a curse. Interesting stuff, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 19:27:51 GMT -6
I think GP are already a rather gamey abstraction in OD&D. If you use GP and the price list as written in your campaign, you are giving up a great deal of opportunity for simulation. I think this level of abstraction suits most casual players of OD&D. If you have a group that is interested in adding some "grit" so to speak to the liquidation of treasure gained through adventuring you should give that a shot. I think there are a lot of potential ways you could do this. Not everyone is going to be interested in adding that to the game though. I am still working out the economics of my campaigns. But I am leaning toward using a silver standard as Delta discusses here: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-money.htmlI like the idea of having some friction in terms of easily liquidating treasures. I think that is a different question than what you are asking though, it seems like you are really interested in making an in-game guarantee that the players can accurately assess the value of items and then reliably be able to cash in when they want. I think if you want to make those guarantees to your players that is fine.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 14:52:31 GMT -6
Did PRESTAGS form the basis for Gondor and Sauron? I don't think I have ever seen the PRESTAGS rules.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 14:49:09 GMT -6
To me, the wording smacks of Arneson's influence. In the FFC he says, "Good guys took prisoners, paid taxes, and would undertake missions for the King, etc. Bad guys turned all their loot over to their leader, never took prisoners (unless it was part of a Geas). They also stabbed each other in the back at the first opportunity. Everyone else was in the middle....On mixed expeditions, everyone was obliged to try and kill Neutrals due to the latter's lack of 'Purity'." Arneson also used a random reaction table which he called a "Basic Hostility Table". It used percentiles to determine reactions based on alignment. Lawfuls automatically attacked Chaotics. Chaotics attacked Lawfuls at 80%. Lawfuls and Chaotics were equally hostile towards Nuetrals at 50% and Neutrals were even hostile towards Nuetrals at 30%. Arneson even has a note that reads, "Chaotic and Lawful Magic Users will fight each other automatically. Lawful vs. Lawful MU will never fight each other." As for literary influences, I agree that Vance is obvious and even Leiber seems appropriate. I wouldn't rule out Welsh and other folklore, either. Any specific stories? I am not familiar enough with Welsh or other folklore to know of any but I am interested to read up on it. Does this theme occur in Norse or Icelandic stories? Regarding the Anderson connection, that is very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 14:11:19 GMT -6
"If not hostile" leads to the MU attempting to geas the player. This is of course a hostile move itself, and can lead to far worse outcomes that the hostile case of toll collection. There are ways to come up with plot devices to justify this but it still bothers me.
I am familiar with a couple of the literary antecedents mentioned here. In these cases though there is an existing relationship (at least in the instances I am thinking of) between the wizard and the geased individual. Ningauble and Sheelba have outcomes or desires in mind when they send F&GM on errands. In one of the Vance stories the protagonist stole something from the geasing wizard. I can see a way to apply the rule as written to a small number of encounters (and it will take more thought).
This is unlike the situation with the Fighting Man and Cleric encounters which I could see applying numerous times in even a short campaign, without seeming odd or forced.
Another interesting point here is that alignment is not seen as prescriptive of behavior in any way other than by categorizing the participants. As written, a wizard of Law would geas a non-hostile Lawful character.
I could see using this one time in an OS-based wilderness campaign, but no more often than that.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 11:43:11 GMT -6
There is some great discussion here, thanks. I will respond later when I have a bit more time.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 18, 2015 23:59:48 GMT -6
I think this is more of a sword and sorcery trope. I don't run a wilderness campaign in this way, but it's appropriate should your fantasy milieu cleave tightly to that genre. Any examples? The only thing I can think of that seems to fit that sort of plot element would be a geas for a specific item. It seems like a very limiting approach.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 18, 2015 22:08:44 GMT -6
I am considering running an OD&D Wilderness campaign and am reading the rules in OD&D. I am trying to figure out how much I want to change the rules before running the game.
The reactions of the Fighting Men and Clerics seem reasonably within the bounds of some kind of fantastic medieval framework. But I do not like the rules for the Magic-Users. Passersby who are NOT HOSTILE to the MU are sent on a geas to get treasure. Others are assessed a toll of a magic item and if the passersby have no items, the toll is 1,000 - 4,000 GP. This kind of behavior doesn't fit the kind of game I am interested in running. It would be much more interesting to have even a slightly fleshed out NPC and role-play the encounter.
If you have run wilderness campaigns of this sort, did you play MUs this way? How did it go?
If not, what did you do instead, or what would you do instead?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 2, 2015 21:16:04 GMT -6
jmccann, that makes a lot of sense. But if I don't want to use miniatures, but, rather, hex and counter style, which levels of scale would map best to that style of wargaming? I think any scale could work. It sounds like what you want is kind of a toolkit of wargames, with a couple of different scales, where there would be a lot of units to choose from and there would have to be mechanics to translate from the battle/ war resolution to events at the scale of the RPG. Sounds intriguing, I have noodled thoughts about this sort of game for a long time. A game that Fin mentioned recently, Swords and Sorcery by SPI in the late 70s, comes to mind as a source of mechanics and ideas. It was an outgrowth of a D&D campaign by one of the SPI designers/ developers and has some strong gonzo elements. It corresponds to a scale perhaps a little smaller than your top campaign level. The game has been criticized as being "Fantasy WWII" but we had a lot of fun with it. I think you would have to tinker a little to get more dynamic outcomes, but it has some really great elements from role-playing. A couple of other SPI games that have been mentioned recently, Gondor and Sauron, have a smaller scale but still are at a higher scale than RPGs, and correspond roughly to the barony scale you mention, would also be fruitful games to borrow from. This might be getting a little afield of the topic though.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 1, 2015 23:46:42 GMT -6
I think there is one more level of interesting minis battles before going to the hex sheet. What is the largest number of figures you want to field? What size battle are you interested in gaming w/ minis? I am sure you are right. I am not much of a wargamer, so I don't know all my lvls of scale (skirmish, tactical, strategic, theatre, etc.) very well, and I would love to learn. I think for my campaigns I would think in these terms: Heroic = one-to-one "normal" D&D combat HX-crawl = enough to deal with running into an army of 300 out in the wilderness (this is what I use Book of War for) Barony-warfare = once baronies are established, resolving large scale wars b/w them; I imagine hex-and-counter for this Campaign-lvl = highest possible campaign world lvl; here I am using Risk I am open for suggestions though! With this list, you are capping the size of an army in a battle using figures to 300, or 15 figures at 20:1 scale. Chainmail can reasonably handle at least 10 times that many figures. For what you call campaign-level, you will definitely need a map. But you could still play out many battles on the tabletop at 20:1, most medieval battles did not have tens of thousands of men (at 20:1, a battle like that will be a lot of work and need a lot of room). For what you call barony-warfare, U&WA p. 16 has 30 - 180 men in addition to the Guards/ Retainers on p. 15, so you could easily play out those battles with miniatures. At 20:1 scale you could have several barons fighting against several others and easily keep it to a size Chainmail can handle.
|
|