|
Post by jmccann on Aug 31, 2013 11:43:57 GMT -6
Thanks, I'll bookmark that.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 28, 2013 21:34:09 GMT -6
Have you read First Fantasy Campaign? That has several pages describing the economic/ military aspects of the early Blackmoor campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 27, 2013 21:35:18 GMT -6
I know I have seen one, I am not sure if it was here or elsewhere at a different forum. I would love to see a complete chronological list from the 60s on. Even better if it has some commentary.
Does anyone here have such a thing or know where it can be found?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 21:53:22 GMT -6
My list:
a multi-mode campaign, OD&D like + chainmail or other minis for tactics + PBEM for strategic level SCS & OCS by the Gamers (not too picky about which) Close Action campaign Pacific War by VG
Oh, and a couple more:
a macro scenario of Panzer Leader. This was one of the best wargame experiences I had BITD - there was a lot of fog of war due to all the people and it was a blast.
a WWI air campaign. Not sure of the details or system
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 21:50:09 GMT -6
I can do a partial bucket list - a Middle Earth campaign, Warriors of Mars or some other Barsoom campaign, Boot Hill, Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, the orange cover version of Palace of the Silver Princess, the Lendore Isles series. I'd like to try WoM or maybe OD&D w/ a Barsoom conversion (I think there is a set of monsters etc. needed for that, or someone could convert WoM itself).
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 21:48:32 GMT -6
A few more dawned on me Twilight 2000 Flashing Blades Panzerblitz Panzer Leader Attack Sub (Avalon Hill card game by the guy that did Up Front) I have PB and PL. And you will want to give AIW a shot too.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 21:47:57 GMT -6
What's on your bucket list for games you've wanting to give a go, but haven't had a chance to yet? I've recently crossed a few off my list; Chainmail, Hawkmoon (Chaosium box set version), AS&SH, Morrow Project Have scheduled to play a game of Diplomacy soon with a large group - that has been on my list for awhile (I know it's not an rpg) Games (rpg or wargames) currently on my bucket list: Stars Without Number, The Russian Campaign, M.E.R.P. I have a copy of TRC.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 21:46:10 GMT -6
Who you calling unintelligent ?? I thought about having one of the players take the side of Chaos but decided against it. If I expand this into a campaign I will probably have some players taking the part of Chaos but I want to have something to do. I didn't mean to imply that. A judge would have an interest in the chaotic forces loosing so that the adventure could progress to the final showdown/ horseback chase/ whatever. Otherwise he doesn't get to use all that material he painstakingly dreamed up.He feels if he plays to well he'll kill the heroes. Players make unexpected blunders and shrewd tactical moves in a way that judges tend not too. I feel it makes for a more interesting game and a seemingly more intelligent enemy to have a player commanding as the EHP. Don't worry, I did not REALLY think you wuz callin me stoopid. You are right about me not trying to wipe out the players. I definitely was not trying to wipe out the players, as an independent player would have tried to do. It would be even harder to balance the overall scenario under those circumstances. Even if there were an independent player though, there was not enough threat from the Chaos forces, and the botched terrain design (too narrow valley) ended up making the Chaos side entirely too brittle.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 8:07:40 GMT -6
I would grab another player for the session take the role of the evil high priest. The chaotics would probably have done better and the battle would have more unexpected twists if they had a commander that was trying to crush the heroes. Intelligent evil is scary evil. Who you calling unintelligent ?? I thought about having one of the players take the side of Chaos but decided against it. If I expand this into a campaign I will probably have some players taking the part of Chaos but I want to have something to do.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 20, 2013 8:05:10 GMT -6
I wonder how it might have gone if the sides were well balanced? Seems that the forces of law were mostly mounted while the chaotics were mostly afoot. Therefore, the chaotics might have done well to deploy some "bait" right up the back between the arms of the hills, with their main strength positioned on either hill waiting to swoop down. In that scenario, the knights would probably have been forced to dismount in order to assault the hills, but even then they would be disadvantaged fighting their way uphill. On the other side, the lawfuls wouldn't want to fall for such an obvious trap, so they would have done well to deploy most of their strength to one flank (say, left of picture) leaving a few fast moving sweepers to delay/block the chaotic on the other flank from rejoining the battle. The lawfuls could focus much of their strength on that one enemy flank. Even if they had to scale a hill dismounted (which they probably would have to), concentrating on one hill would be preferable to attacking both hills at once, or getting crushed between them. Overall, seems like it should have been a hard ask for the lawfuls... but the battle report says the chaotics got smashed. Partly due to poor balance, perhaps, but also due to poor deployment I reckon Great fun jmccann, looking forward to hearing about what happens next! The mounted Chaotic forces held up well. There will be more foot, more medium cavalry and more missile troops and a wider valley. In the scenario the parts of the hills facing the center were impassable cliffs so what you are describing is a little off. Also, don't forget this is not just a military scenario and the bad guys have enough spells and whatnot to take out a couple of the heroes of Law. In fact that happened although it is not reflected in the battle report. The baddy got away w/ the loot and now there is a chase.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 19, 2013 19:26:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 18, 2013 20:01:42 GMT -6
We used the mass-battle rules. We just winged it for the Labyrinth Lord stuff - really spells were the only thing that were important.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 18, 2013 18:15:52 GMT -6
Thanks. I'll take a look at your links. I would like to start up an ongoing campaign and will probably base it largely on the FFC material.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 18, 2013 11:32:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 17, 2013 11:44:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 16, 2013 19:31:04 GMT -6
For me: REH Leiber Lovecraft Moorcock ERB
I had Tolkien instead of Burroughs at first, but I think in an important sense Burroughs is more influential from the point of view of influence on RPGs. Obviously a lot of Tolkien is taken as normative in terms of setting, races and so on, but I think the action of ERB is closer to RPG play.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 3, 2013 21:02:29 GMT -6
Poking around looking for more stuff to read like Jon Peterson's Playing at the World I came across this: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451640501/Has anyone heard of this guy? I have never heard of him. The book could be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 3, 2013 11:42:55 GMT -6
I wonder how hard it would be to write an algorithm using Bayesian networks to generate terrain. You could seed a map with a few locations and randomly fill in the map. I think it would be fairly simple. Rivers could use a simple physical model to determine "bendiness" based on size and slope.
I think the above tables are a good start. They might need to be extended to two hexes at least (I think 2 would be enough) - I think large scale groupings will need to have influence from at least 2 spaces distant if not further.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 1, 2013 23:20:37 GMT -6
I recently read through Kent's blog which had some great stuff - now it is gone. That is a real drawback of web stuff - it is ephemeral unless you save a copy.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 1, 2013 23:16:21 GMT -6
BIG SNIP... The forward is co-authored by Phil (Empire of the Petal Throne) Barker, which is kind of cool. Tony Bath is most known (to me, at least) because of the miniatures campiagn he ran for Conan's Hyboria back in the 1960's. It's an interesting mix of stuff with variable interest value depending upon your campaign style. ANOTHER SNIP... If you love miniatures rules this is a good book. If you are looking for a guide to RPG campaigns its value is limited, in my opinion. Nope. Different Phil Barker! This guy is English and writes for WRG (several widely used sets of minis rules for numerous periods). His prose is turbid, to be kind. EPT Barker was born in Spokane and had little to do with the English minis guys like Bath, Featherstone etc. I agree with your assessment - if you are interested in the history of minis and the prehistory of RPGs this is a very interesting book, but otherwise you will not find it to be very useful.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 27, 2013 11:31:52 GMT -6
I just started the group. There is an announcement of a forthcoming game to be played online, and I mentioned my forthcoming event at the Dragonflight convention in Seattle.
Any of the topics you mention would be fine. I hope there will be scenarios, aars, rules variants and so on.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 27, 2013 11:08:17 GMT -6
I am pretty lukewarm about google plus but it is another channel with more eyeballs. Fin, you might benefit by plugging these boards. A lot of plus posts are links to blog posts.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 26, 2013 22:35:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 21, 2013 19:42:27 GMT -6
My campaign is embryonic or larval now (first play will occur at the Dragonflight convention in the beginning of August). I currently have no dwarves or elves and voted that way in the poll, however I am not certain there will never be any. It may be that they are very distant - say as remote as the Middle East or South Asia from Europe. They will not be present in early play. I am trying to create a pulpy, gritty sword and sorcery setting as opposed to a mythic, high-fantasy one. Howardian rather than Tolkienesque.
A couple of posters upthread make interesting points that I agree with - Kent with the point about novel nomenclature and Geoffrey who expresses something I have thought about -- although I have considered the distinctions between D&D the system vs. D&D the setting vs. D&D the game. Not having elves/ dwarves/ whatever "default" component in no way marks a campaign as being more creative than one with that component. And a campaign with these elements may be very creative and original depending on how the referee handles those elements.
If you get too far from the default setting, gameplay breaks down too much for the D&D system to be useful -- think about starship combat. Even within the quasi-medieval setting, mass combat does not work with straight D&D and requires Chainmail or some other similar game to resolve. But not having demi-humans strains the system not at all and achieves a very distinct feel.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 20, 2013 23:28:10 GMT -6
The 2nd paragraph has "if a room sinks fours levels" instead of "if a room sinks four levels". This typo is present in the original as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 15, 2013 10:50:26 GMT -6
Soldering would be difficult but you would have a strong bond. Pinning the sword would be very poor because after drilling there would be very little metal left leaving a weak repair. Drilling the hand and replacing the sword altogether would be the best repair, but I second Mike's suggestion to get a new mini. Then use this one to do a conversion, maybe to a mace.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jul 14, 2013 23:16:10 GMT -6
You might be able to solder it. That might be tricky. The other choice which would definitely work would be to cut off the remains of the sword, drill out the hand with a pin vise, and replace the sword.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 27, 2013 23:34:45 GMT -6
I hadn't realized. I'll take a look at it. Thanks Fin!
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 18, 2013 22:30:55 GMT -6
I think that is a good approach. You should think about what the PCs could do that would have any effect. Fireballs, lightning come to mind. Missile and melee weapons would have pretty much no effect although it might be possible for indirect fire from missile weapons to affect soft-topped vehicles. What level are the players?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 17, 2013 21:50:28 GMT -6
Thanks for the ideas Jmccann. This will probably just be for a one shot game, but one never knows! Because it is a one shot, I'm hoping to not have to buy anything. Basically looking to see if anyone had done this before and had some idea of workable stats/armor/ movement for those kinds of vehicles? I could just wing it, but that can cause problems sometimes. I think the problem is not get "workable stats/armor/ movement for those kinds of vehicles" but to get those to interact w/ your D&D game mechanisms in a fun and somewhat balanced way. In Gygax's case Gary and the players were familiar with both medieval/ fantasy and WWII games. Without that kind of background I think for a one-shot you might be best served by just winging it.
|
|