|
Post by jmccann on May 31, 2015 13:14:29 GMT -6
Interesting. I'e blended ... Swords and Sorcery with PRESTAGS, but never thought to mix in War of the Ring. We need a seperate PRESTAGS thread. Finarvyn, I'd like to hear about the S&S PRESTAGS variant.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 30, 2015 21:18:32 GMT -6
I love Delta's Book of War and am currently using my own "rules lite" variation for a HX crawl I am running in Planet Eris. It moves from one to one scale to 10 (normals) to one scale. Three D&D rounds per mass-combat turn. And a d6 roll determines hit. It is elegant and I am growing to like it very much. I wonder what would happen to move it to the next lvl, a lvl of HX and counter? What if we moved it to a 30 to 1 scale? What if one turn was ten D&D combat rounds? What would that look like? How would that change it, again, at that level of scale? 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?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 27, 2015 22:35:51 GMT -6
I don't know how I missed this thread the 1st time around. This is a subject I am very interested in. I have been noodling around ideas for years on how to do this but it has never come to anything. I think it is my design holy grail to have a campaign with character level roleplaying, skirmishes and larger minis battles, all tied into a multiplayer strategic game framework. If I ever get the Middelsae campaign going (in the inactive PBP section) it will be something like this.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 15, 2015 22:56:44 GMT -6
This does not sound like a Gygax quote. Be that as it may, there are a fair few people who disagree with you. Safe to say you don't know the source then? Not quite sure how you expect me to respond to your question. You presume such a quotation exists and I clearly do not. If such a source existed and I were aware of it I would not have responded as I did. Leaving aside the question of whether the statement as written is an accurate quotation, can you point to any writings or interviews which are clearly attributed to Gygax where he expresses a similar thought?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 14, 2015 19:37:18 GMT -6
Hi All, Can some kind soul point me to the source in which Gygax said "the first six levels *are* the characters' backstory"? This does not sound like a Gygax quote.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 1, 2015 22:32:13 GMT -6
... That said, I still don't like the art in the original books. I'd like to see every single piece re-done by Otus, Frazetta, Trampier and Ford. What?! No love for DCS?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 1, 2015 22:30:30 GMT -6
My advice is buy singles. I had the U&WA only from my actual OD&D set and realized while searching for replacements for M&M and M&T that a set put together from singles is much cheaper than buying a set. Of course if you want a box and ref sheets, you'll be out of luck.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 1, 2015 22:26:46 GMT -6
I started playing in the late 70s so I can address this to some extent. I was not an old curmnedgeon then but I think the consensus may be that I am one now.
We recognized that there was a range of abilities demonstrated by the different artists. We would compare the two Davids. I remember when Earl Otus's art began to make an impression. Different people had different favorite artists. I don't know of anyone who disliked all of the art, but many people strongly preferred some of the artists to others, and there was also a range of quality within an individual artists work.
There was no one I knew who hated all or most of the art.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 11, 2015 23:25:05 GMT -6
I played Wizard's Quest with my nephew (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/310/wizards-quest), which is a simple Risk-like game with a few twists. I had always played it multi-player with children, but playing it two-player with an adult was completely different. My gaming group played this for a while as a quick filler game and found it to be fairly interesting. I seem to recall it was a little broken in some way, but played multiplayer there were some interesting games.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 7, 2015 19:34:04 GMT -6
I don't remember if the last book I read (Swords & Ice Magic? The one where they live on faux-Iceland) even mentioned Lankhmar. In a way, it might not be canon, either. The stories of them sailing the ocean and encountering faux-Aztecs kind of felt different as well. You are talking about the stories that were set on Rime Isle, starting in Swords and Ice Magic. Lankhmar is mentioned as is Nehwon. I agree these do have a different feel though.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 5, 2015 19:58:05 GMT -6
Oh sorry, I missed the point of the post... 1. Swords 2. and 3. Sorcery How's that?? I'll try again a little more seriously: 1. Grim 2. Pulpy 3. Humorous
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 5, 2015 19:56:57 GMT -6
I think that Leiber's best were the early ones. SNIP Good luck in your search. I've heard that about the earlier stories, but I've never checked. It has been about 5 years since I read the entire series of stories. It might be time to read them again, this time in order of writing. What do you think changes in his writing? I don't get why Leiber is not always in print and widely available. I often look for F&GM and other Leiber books in bookstores, and it alarms me that F&GM are barely in print. I don't like the omnibus volumes but they are the only choice right now. I needed to replace one of the Dark Horse volumes (lent to my dad & lost) and I had to take a chance on a used copy because not all of the volumes were available new on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 27, 2015 23:02:06 GMT -6
Hey, jmccann, good question. In my campaign, the church is very clearly a fantastical version of the medieval Christian one. Not all clerics are adventuring clerics. These just function in the normal way one might imagine. Adventuring clerics all have powerful patrons (saints or angels) that grant them "boons" (their spells). This introduces a layer of distance between the Christian god (God, if you believe they are the same) and the fantastical shenanigans we game in D&D. It has worked nicely so far. No one cries "Blasphemy!" or "stop being so preachy!" either way. It works. I then have "saracens," as in the French matter. These are neutral men like dervishes, etc. They are knights that come and challenge you, etc. There are still covens and glens with pagan priests and priestesses around. These are neutral until confronted by men of Law (the church). If they do not convert, they become Chaos. Well, that is how I try to do it. Hope that helps towards the OP. I'd like to hear more about how this works in terms of game mechanics, and how it functions in play. I see you have a blog, I'll have to head over there to do some reading. Do clerics all belong to the fantastical church? Do the pagans provide the anti-clerics? And how do you differentiate their powers?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 27, 2015 22:52:41 GMT -6
You can get away with an old-fashioned polytheism, where everyone in a region worships the god of that region (which may be expressed as one god, a married pair, some kind of triad...) but other gods may get minor sacrifices/prayers for specific situations, sort of like asking a saint for a blessing. SNIP If you want a Christian analog in that kind of setting, you adopt some of the external symbolism, but you don't make the religion a proselytizing monotheism that denies other gods unless you *want* conflict. This is basically the approach I am taking. There are a couple of polytheistic systems along w/ some druidic/ shamanic types. I want to have multiple sects of Christian analog (some quite hostile to others) with varying degrees of adoption and power and saints' cults. I want the clerics of different religions to each have varying powers and a very different feel. They do *not* get powers directly from the deity, although they may interpret it that way. So, my gods aren't *objectively* real. Can you explain why you set it up this way? Tetramorph has a similar arrangement with a Christian analog although it seems he does it as a distancing mechanism to avoid causing offense or irritation.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 27, 2015 22:40:43 GMT -6
See, I think the, let's say "verifiable existence" of deities changes the assumptions to such a degree that any historical analog is pointless. I think your modern attitude is influencing your thinking quite a bit here. Before science provided the explanations we take for granted, storms/ disease/ whatever would have been interpreted as "verifiable existence" of deities. So clerics' powers and other divine manifestations in the game are different in degree but not categorically different from what was interpreted as divine presence in premodern times in our world. So I don't agree that historical analogs are completely pointless. I think it changes things somewhat though.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 24, 2015 0:01:47 GMT -6
I have been thinking about religions in a quasi-medieval setting. One common feature of D&D campaigns is that there is often a hodge-podge of religions more or less randomly jumbled together without a lot of regard to given to how the religions would interact together. Often there is an analog to Christianity, or some cults w/ aspects similar to Christianity (e.g. St. Cuthbert), existing alongside one or more polytheistic religions, nature cults, and who knows what else.
It seems to me that typical D&D settings with have more in common w/ pagan antiquity in terms of differing religions in close proximity than with later periods. In actual history, once Christianity achieved some critical mass and was adopted by Constantine, there was a little bit of see-sawing, but its uncompromising ideology caused it to sweep aside previous religions once it was adopted by Theodosius. There were heresies and schisms, and conflicts w/ pagans on the frontiers, but you don't really see a stable situation which looked anything like the D&D religious setup. Similarly, Islam quickly established itself across a great swathe of territory. There were pockets of other religions within the Muslim area and some non-muslims achieved some prominence, but again, no arrangement resembling D&D religions seems to have ever existed. So it seems that a typical D&D hodge-podge with lots of polytheistic religions and a Christian (perhaps Muslim as well) analog should not really be a stable configuration of religions if they are constituted as the real-world historical religions were.
Finally then my question. How can a number of different religions, including Christian and Islamic analogs, be realistically set together in society in a stable way, in a typical D&D setting? Or thinking about it a little differently, how can you start with religions having fairly real-world elements, and derive a setting with a number of religions conducive to a D&D campaign? I have a few ideas, but I'd like to hear the comments of others before going into them.
|
|
|
ISBNs?
Mar 19, 2015 19:39:35 GMT -6
Post by jmccann on Mar 19, 2015 19:39:35 GMT -6
In addition to the other points, having your own ISBNs gives you control over how your books showup in catalogs that bookstores use. If you are just publishing 1 or 2 things, Lulu or whoever's ISBNs are probably fine but if you want to have more control over marketing you might want to have your own ISBNs.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 17, 2015 23:06:54 GMT -6
... Each ref creates a unique one of a kind game, that is what the 3LBBs are designed to do. When I learned to ref back in 1975, none of the players (the non-refs), ever read any of the 3LBBs, they truly didn't need to. With OD&D only the ref needs to read the guidelines, then he alone brings a unique game to life for the players to create and play characters in a one of a kind world. The referee is not imitating the vision of a world that someone else has, the referee presents a unique vision that only he has to the players. I think it is this rather than the disorganization that I find appealing about this version of the game. AD&D with its explicit emphasis on unifying different campaign worlds was a reaction to this for whatever reason but the earliest version really encouraged a more unbounded approach to campaign building.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Dec 20, 2014 23:09:46 GMT -6
This game came up recently in another thread. Being co-designed by Dave Wesley and having been played by D&D authors Gygax and Holmes, I think it is not off topic here. I had a look on Boardgamegeek and was not surprised to see that the entry for this game has a lot of info. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1577/source-nileOne file there is a review by Gary Gygax which originally appeared in issue 20 of The Dragon. Another variant by John Eric Holmes appears in issue 24. The Avalon Hill General Vol. 18 #6 and Vol. 21 #3 have articles on the game. I remember seeing references to the game and being interested in it but have never played it. I am interested in it for the terrain generation and would like to hear from anyone who has played it and can comment on it as a game or as a source of mechanisms for generating wilderness terrain for D&D. Has anyone here ever played the game, or used it to generate maps for roleplaying?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Dec 20, 2014 18:33:09 GMT -6
If you want to create a random map, find Dave Wesley and Ross Maker's game "Source of the Nile." It has rules for random terrain generation including rivers that make sense, lakes, waterfalls, and taking the surrounding terrain into account. Thanks for reminding me of that. I think I also recall a magazine article extending SOTN terrain generation for fantasy terrain types. I can't remember if it was in the Dragon or some other magazine, sometime in the late 70s - early 80s. EDIT: The Dragon #24, April 1979. It is by none other than J. Eric Holmes and appears to add lost civilizations (the article's title is "Lost Civilizations"). The civilizations have a pulpy feel.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 3, 2014 21:29:54 GMT -6
OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play Simulationist. Certainly an OSR mindset rejects Narrativist play, at least consciously. For Narrativist (Story Now) play, you need completely different rules to intentionally (a priori vs. ex facto) create a "story", defined contextually as character-driven/centered change. I agree with Kesher on this - I don't think there is a rejection of Gamist play in OSR (or in OD&D) at all. I would say that Simulation is overall the strongest consideration but there are plenty of places where the Gamist approach prevails. The preoccupation with balance is the clearest manifestation of this.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 26, 2014 12:29:30 GMT -6
Just doing a little research about the various rules editions for Boot Hill and thought I would share.... ! This would fit in really well at the www.acaeum.com/index.html site. I don't see any discussion of printings over there, even in the forums.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 14, 2014 19:08:21 GMT -6
what edition did you use? Also, I agree with Sean - it would be best if it printed out at digest size. Thanks! I've been wanting to do this for a while. Edition is 3rd, but I also have a pdf version with the Tolkien stuff in there. Is there a list of changes throughout the editions anywhere? My plan is to create 2 layouts. One deluxe sized with lots of room for notes and another that is LBB digest sized. Currently this is standard 8 1/2" x 11" Fortunately I have some familiarity with layout, so once all the paragraph styles and tables are set up, making different sized booklets shouldn't be overly difficult. It would really be fun to do an annotated version that illuminates obscurities in the rules. I'd need help with that though, I'm familiar, but not an expert with the rules. Or something even more ambitious that reorganized it in a way that removed redundancies and grouped relevant information together better. Making good progress so far. For these pages I had to recreate the diagrams for Method of Fire. www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html has info on editions and printings. I agree that some kind of reorganization would be useful.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 13, 2014 19:32:36 GMT -6
what edition did you use? Also, I agree with Sean - it would be best if it printed out at digest size.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 8, 2014 17:11:10 GMT -6
I hope this is not too much of a derail but it is not completely off topic... maybe? Anyway here is an interesting take by a long-time SPI designer. I disagree with a number of his points but there is a great deal of interesting history in the article. www.wargaming.co/wargamearticles/farewellhexes.htm
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 8, 2014 17:03:57 GMT -6
TSR made a mess of every single SPI title they reissued. Was this still Gary TSR, or Williams TSR? The TSR buyout happened in 83, and Gary lost control of TSR in 85. So it cannot be pinned on Lorraine.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 7, 2014 23:14:28 GMT -6
I owned all three, but 3rd edition TSR was an abomination so I sold it. TSR made a mess of every single SPI title they reissued.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2014 20:10:38 GMT -6
I am late to the party and my favorite quote (from U&WA) is already taken. So I had to look through the AD&D PH and DMG, and found a short quote I think is good. The AD&D volumes are more verbose, that is for sure! One thing I notice is that I remember EVERY SINGLE ILLUSTRATION in all 3 of the AD&D books. Not just the well-known ones like Emirikol, or the scratchboard ship by Darlene, but all of them, including the little ornamental swords, skulls and so on.
Anyway, here is my quote, from page 9 of the DMG:
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2014 19:58:56 GMT -6
Well I caved in and bought a copy after browsing an, erm, electronic version ... like Apple says, it's free marketing! And it certainly worked in my case. But I refuse to read it before I finish my semester prep. There's just no time. d**n you, book, stop looking at me!! Yeah, this is a dense long read. I read it over a nearly week-long vacation in a cabin in the woods (with excellent wifi!) near Mt. Rainier 2 years ago. My only regret: the book is much too short! Jon really needs to go back and release a "director's cut" with all the edited footage restored.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 16, 2014 12:00:45 GMT -6
Is it just me, or does it seem like we've just stumbled on a major milestone in understanding the Tolkien influence on OD&D? I mean, when I first discovered OD&D I hadn't read the Silmarillion and so I knew that it didn't shape my view of how Tolkien-isms fit into the game, but somehow I never thought about the fact that the Silmarillion didn't affect how Dave and Gary created the game, either. I feel like something obvious was just discovered here. I am curious - what elements of the Silmarillion did you consider may have influenced Gygax? For that matter, do you think the Silmarillion had any influence over later developments (the Drow perhaps)? Even if you don't accept Gygax's statements about the relative unimportance of Tolkien's writings in the development of D&D, the major points from JRRT I see in early D&D (I have not given this much thought though) are: influence on racial characteristics and relations between the races, and a source of monsters (arguable the area where JRRT had the greatest impact on D&D). Probably the Ring had some impact on early conceptions of artifacts but that influence would be just one among many from artifacts available in lots of Appendix N sources. These are all present in LOTR and The Hobbit. Somewhat related: my clearest memory of a JRRT inspired occurrence in early D&D (77 or 78, so just post Silmarillion but we had not read it) was a Nazgul on a flying beast which forced us to take cover. We rolled well and escaped disovery. That was straight out of ROTK, so we pretty clearly had LOTR in mind as an inspiration for our roleplaying.
|
|