|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 21, 2021 4:00:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 21, 2021 8:41:36 GMT -6
Thanks for the heads up, I just downloaded it! I've never looked through this one before, but I have owned a few of the associated Fast-Play Adventures from the same year (1999) such as Wrath of the Minotaur and Eye of the Wyvern. These feature even simpler rules and all advertise the Adventure Game for further play. Despite the fact that these are called "D&D", they are closer to a simplified 2nd Edition AD&D rather than a continuation of the earlier D&D line. They separate race and class (e.g., a Halfling Thief), they use THAC0, and have lots of monsters (e.g., Piercers, Ettercaps) and magic items (e.g., Dust of Appearance, Chime of Opening) that were more traditionally associated with AD&D (i.e., not in B/X). The name change is a foreshadowing of how 3rd Edition would drop the "Advanced" from the main D&D product. The Random Dungeon Generation is a neat addition & would have been useful in one of the Basic rulebooks. I'll look at the adventures in more detail later. At a glance they look better than the Fast Play adventures which have a really high ratio of wordiness to actual content. The set was designed by Bill Slavicesk, who we had as a guest at the 2nd Scrum Con this past February, where he ran a d6 Star Wars game. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 21, 2021 9:08:23 GMT -6
 I know here on this board we consider Holmes Basic to be the end of the OD&D line, but I lump the Basic sets in there as well. Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game is one of the last Basic sets published by TSR before their demise, I recently picked up a copy of this game and was pleasantly surprised by a few things...and disappointed be some other things about it. Compared to where the line had been going it is a very concise well put together introductory set. The layout and art aren't the best, but are serviceable. The best thing about it is the included Random Dungeon Generator, and the 3 included Adventures that are fairly well written, if not a bit cliche. However, well proven tropes are appropriate for an introductory set. Wizards just made the book free on Drive Thru RPG. I wrote a summary and semi-review on my blog about it. dungeoneering.blogspot.com/2021/01/dungeons-dragons-adventure-game-free-on.htmlDo you own this set? Have you read or played it? I'd consider running the adventures in my home game. This is probably the absolute best of the 2E "Basic" sets, and for my tastes superior to anything Wizards did for 3E or 4E. I'm guessing this was in the works pre-buyout because it doesn't have the typical WOTC "presentation" or writing style. I have run this with my daughter and wife. They enjoyed the colored character cards and such, but trying to wrap their heads around THAC0 was....painful. Keep in mind, neither are gamers of any sort- tabletop, computer, video etc. Only family boardgames. That said, they took to the 3.0 Adventure game much better- the game mechanics made more sense to them/were more intuitive. So I'm guessing it's actually the better "starter game", despite my personal tastes. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 21, 2021 13:24:35 GMT -6
Thanks for the heads up, I just downloaded it! I've never looked through this one before, but I have owned a few of the associated Fast-Play Adventures from the same year (1999) such as Wrath of the Minotaur and Eye of the Wyvern. These feature even simpler rules and all advertise the Adventure Game for further play. Despite the fact that these are called "D&D", they are closer to a simplified 2nd Edition AD&D rather than a continuation of the earlier D&D line. They separate race and class (e.g., a Halfling Thief), they use THAC0, and have lots of monsters (e.g., Piercers, Ettercaps) and magic items (e.g., Dust of Appearance, Chime of Opening) that were more traditionally associated with AD&D (i.e., not in B/X). The name change is a foreshadowing of how 3rd Edition would drop the "Advanced" from the main D&D product. The Random Dungeon Generation is a neat addition & would have been useful in one of the Basic rulebooks. I'll look at the adventures in more detail later. At a glance they look better than the Fast Play adventures which have a really high ratio of wordiness to actual content. The set was designed by Bill Slavicesk, who we had as a guest at the 2nd Scrum Con this past February, where he ran a d6 Star Wars game. I finished reading this, and true there are some 2e like elements, but I'd hardly say it is closer to 2e than it is to Basic. Also, the Class+Race is not clear at all, it is still very much race as class. For example the Elf is a Wizard/Fighter - but still the familiar Basic Elf.edit: it's 2e. ish. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 21, 2021 15:21:42 GMT -6
I finished reading this, and true there are some 2e like elements, but I'd hardly say it is closer to 2e than it is to Basic. Also, the Class+Race is not clear at all, it is still very much race as class. For example the Elf is a Wizard/Fighter - but still the familiar Basic Elf. Even just looking at that Elf, you'll see that her levels are split 1/1, with separate experience totals for each class, including being different levels in each class (e.g., 2/1 Fighter/Wizard), which doesn't exist in Basic (except perhaps in Holmes, which is ambiguous). She's also got the 90% resistance to sleep/charm, which was an AD&D elf thing, not in Basic. I saw you started the same thread on DF, a few of the replies over there are also pointing to the 2E connection. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 21, 2021 15:33:31 GMT -6
I finished reading this, and true there are some 2e like elements, but I'd hardly say it is closer to 2e than it is to Basic. Also, the Class+Race is not clear at all, it is still very much race as class. For example the Elf is a Wizard/Fighter - but still the familiar Basic Elf. Even just looking at that Elf, you'll see that her levels are split 1/1, with separate experience totals for each class, including being different levels in each class (e.g., 2/1 Fighter/Wizard), which doesn't exist in Basic (except perhaps in Holmes, which is ambiguous). She's also got the 90% resistance to sleep/charm, which was an AD&D elf thing, not in Basic. I saw you started the same thread on DF, a few of the replies over there are also pointing to the 2E connection. Yes, it has some 2e elements. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 21, 2021 17:13:23 GMT -6
Huh, I always thought this was more closely related to the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D, not AD&D 2.
Interesting. Downloaded; thanks for the heads' up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jan 21, 2021 19:04:44 GMT -6
Did you read the same document that I did? I found it to be almost identical to 2E, albeit with some elements hidden from view, such as ability score modifiers being applied on the character sheets without actually presenting the full tables. The monsters are pulled straight out of the Monstrous Compendium with a few pieces of simplified terminology, such as using "Level" instead of "Hit Dice." I see very little of Basic in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 21, 2021 20:18:40 GMT -6
Neat, I don't think I even saw this one before. I figured WotC was done adding Classic content, cool to see that they aren't. Hopefully we don't have to wait as long for the next addition. This is kind of similar to the Karameikos boxed set, I've got a copy of that one (sans the map, sadly). Even just looking at that Elf, you'll see that her levels are split 1/1, with separate experience totals for each class, including being different levels in each class (e.g., 2/1 Fighter/Wizard), which doesn't exist in Basic (except perhaps in Holmes, which is ambiguous). She's also got the 90% resistance to sleep/charm, which was an AD&D elf thing, not in Basic. I saw you started the same thread on DF, a few of the replies over there are also pointing to the 2E connection. Stuff in the equipment list smells like 2E, also. And the cover design is similar to other "2E for beginners" sets. ...and most importantly, the ad on the very last page: "Now that you've been introduced to the exciting world of roleplaying with the Dungeons & Dragons box set, plunge into the endless depths of the D&D game with the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master Guide. These two manuals will guide you further into the realm where the only limit is your imagination." -- and it's pictures of the "2.5" Edition books  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 22, 2021 3:18:55 GMT -6
Did you read the same document that I did? I found it to be almost identical to 2E, albeit with some elements hidden from view, such as ability score modifiers being applied on the character sheets without actually presenting the full tables. The monsters are pulled straight out of the Monstrous Compendium with a few pieces of simplified terminology, such as using "Level" instead of "Hit Dice." I see very little of Basic in it. I skimmed it spending most of that time on reading the adventures, and posted about it. After all the complaints that it is actually 2e I reread it more carefully. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 6:51:04 GMT -6
Well, I had to nab this, because it's from the same product line and general time period that I got into D&D. Although, the product I was exposed to was a slightly different one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 6:53:51 GMT -6
Skimming through this. Aww, man. That artwork! That Goblin looks straight out of Gremlins. I'd love to use this for a one-shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jan 22, 2021 10:45:48 GMT -6
I own issue #72 of "Dungeon" magazine. Bought it around 1999-2000 in a hobby store in my city. The issue covers "Fast-Play Game. Your portal to the AD&D game!" by Jeff Grubb, a short adventures with pre-generated characters: Darkblade, Elana, Niles, Thaddeus.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 22, 2021 11:36:07 GMT -6
Skimming through this. Aww, man. That artwork! That Goblin looks straight out of Gremlins. I'd love to use this for a one-shot. Agreed. I enjoy the artwork in the product- both artwork specific to it, and the works that are "lifts" from other 2E product. I find it much more appealing than what we see typically in 5E, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Fantasy AGE, etc AND what we typically see in OSR-dom. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 22, 2021 11:46:29 GMT -6
Did you read the same document that I did? I found it to be almost identical to 2E, albeit with some elements hidden from view, such as ability score modifiers being applied on the character sheets without actually presenting the full tables. The monsters are pulled straight out of the Monstrous Compendium with a few pieces of simplified terminology, such as using "Level" instead of "Hit Dice." I see very little of Basic in it. I skimmed it spending most of that time on reading the adventures, and posted about it. After all the complaints that it is actually 2e I reread it more carefully. I'm not sure we were complaining, at least I wasn't. I was fam with the product and FWIW, this is definitely WOTC era/Post TSR purchase. 1998 was when WOTC got the ball really rolling again with TSR product (revamped GH line, for example). All the "Silver Anniversary" products of 1999 were WOTC productions and they were still using TSR trade dress in order to not alienate us too quickly (that would come with 3.0, ha!  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 12:20:24 GMT -6
Skimming through this. Aww, man. That artwork! That Goblin looks straight out of Gremlins. I'd love to use this for a one-shot. Agreed. I enjoy the artwork in the product- both artwork specific to it, and the works that are "lifts" from other 2E product. I find it much more appealing than what we see typically in 5E, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Fantasy AGE, etc AND what we typically see in OSR-dom. I find that a lot of the OSR art is bad-on-purpose. Trying to purposely emulate OD&D art and some of the more amateur art from the 1e and Basic era. That's fine. It sets the tone, but I also really appreciate when the OSR uses legitimately beautiful or professional looking art. One of my books I own is a Red Box clone called Adventures in the East Mark and the artwork in that clone is just gorgeous. Here's an example. Character class art. Compare this to art of adventurers from other systems. The approach other systems take isn't bad, but I'd like to see more of this art style. Just because the rules emulate an older set doesn't necessarily mean the art has to. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 22, 2021 13:51:35 GMT -6
I'm not sure we were complaining, at least I wasn't. I was fam with the product and FWIW, this is definitely WOTC era/Post TSR purchase. 1998 was when WOTC got the ball really rolling again with TSR product (revamped GH line, for example). All the "Silver Anniversary" products of 1999 were WOTC productions and they were still using TSR trade dress in order to not alienate us too quickly (that would come with 3.0, ha! ) This was during a period I was out of gaming all together which was from the time I was discharged from the Army (honorably!), went to college, and started working professionally - pretty much most of the 90's. So I was not at all familiar with this product or what else was being published at the time. 3rd edition actually pulled me back in because some people at work started up a 3e D&D campaign. Initially I quite liked a lot of things 3rd edition did, but that edition did not scale well at all. Which got worse in 4th edition. I had the opposite experience with 5e where initially I didn't care much for it, now it is my favorite next to OD&D/BX. One of the advantages of being in the Army was a lot of dudes with nothing to do, so we played a lot of RPG's. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 22, 2021 18:05:21 GMT -6
I'm not sure we were complaining, at least I wasn't. I was fam with the product and FWIW, this is definitely WOTC era/Post TSR purchase. 1998 was when WOTC got the ball really rolling again with TSR product (revamped GH line, for example). All the "Silver Anniversary" products of 1999 were WOTC productions and they were still using TSR trade dress in order to not alienate us too quickly (that would come with 3.0, ha! ) This was during a period I was out of gaming all together which was from the time I was discharged from the Army (honorably!), went to college, and started working professionally - pretty much most of the 90's. So I was not at all familiar with this product or what else was being published at the time. 3rd edition actually pulled me back in because some people at work started up a 3e D&D campaign. Initially I quite liked a lot of things 3rd edition did, but that edition did not scale well at all. Which got worse in 4th edition. I had the opposite experience with 5e where initially I didn't care much for it, now it is my favorite next to OD&D/BX. One of the advantages of being in the Army was a lot of dudes with nothing to do, so we played a lot of RPG's. Thank you for your service! I'm Ok with 3.0, at least up to 8th level or so. It was a love/hate affair for me. I was really excited by so many of the things going on- Old settings coming back in force (GH) or getting farmed out to 3PP (Ravenloft, Gamma World), a Star Wars game, a Wheel of Time game, the arrival of companies like S&S Studios, Necromancer games, etc but I did find the rules very dense, the books poorly written, hated the dungeonpunk art, etc.. 3.5 sent me over the edge and off to other games for about 4 years. I came back because of 4E and now with 5th I am back to the love/hate affair again, but the opposite- Ruleset is fine, hate the product/business model :shrug: |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 22, 2021 18:42:54 GMT -6
Thank you for your service! I never had to sleep in a cold garage with only 1 bathroom for thousands of soldiers, but there was definitely some tough challenges to go through. Best decision (next to marrying my wife) I ever made. I'm Ok with 3.0, at least up to 8th level or so. It was a love/hate affair for me. I was really excited by so many of the things going on- Old settings coming back in force (GH) or getting farmed out to 3PP (Ravenloft, Gamma World), a Star Wars game, a Wheel of Time game, the arrival of companies like S&S Studios, Necromancer games, etc but I did find the rules very dense, the books poorly written, hated the dungeonpunk art, etc.. 3.5 sent me over the edge and off to other games for about 4 years. As a Gamma World fan since 1st edition (and I have them all) that version was a disaster. An example of casting the wrong person for the job, someone who clearly had no love or understanding of what made Gamma World cool and so tried to "fix" it and just messing everything up. We've since seen this happen to a lot of franchises (*cough* Star Wars *cough, cough*). I came back because of 4E and now with 5th I am back to the love/hate affair again, but the opposite- Ruleset is fine, hate the product/business model :shrug: Interesting, I actually like the business model. Instead of endless splat books they are putting out much fewer, much higher quality, hard cover books that aren't just "Monster Manual 27" or "Player's Handbook 5" or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 22, 2021 19:56:52 GMT -6
I'm Ok with 3.0, at least up to 8th level or so. Actually, I'm okay with pretty much any edition of D&D up through level 8 or so. I wish most came with options of buying books where the upper level stuff is cut out. Maybe that's why I like OD&D so much, and B/X. Focus on the lower level stuff. After a certain point I feel like characters become just too powerful and that makes them less fun to play, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2021 1:35:38 GMT -6
The thing with OD&D is, with levels capped at 10 by default and the option to rule a stretch a land, it shifts the focus away from the dungeoneering/wilderness exploration. Using 5E as an example, there's absolutely no reason to retire a 10th-level character because they just get to get the really mighty abilities around that level, and players will want to continue play until level 20. And that's done in the same way it was done before, only the enemies will have to become more powerful, too.
We've never played 5E above level 10 in our campaigns so far, and I'm not eager to do so at the moment. Might be fun for a one-shot, to try some high-level game mechanics, but that's enough for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 6:34:07 GMT -6
5e completely fell apart for my tastes by about level 14 as both a player and a DM when I was involved in it. It has the problem I call the "Shonen manga problem". Let's use Dragonball Z for example. The way those stories are structured, the good guys meet a super powerful new bad guy, and the way they beat him is to get stronger than they've ever been, and then a while later another new bad guy appears and he's even stronger, etc. It just becomes repetitive and absurd at some point. I don't like the fact that I'm controlling a character who can wipe out an entire village single-handedly because of the immense disparity between what I can do and what they can do. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a world to be structured that way. I feel like a Mary Sue. The low levels, however, were fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 23, 2021 6:39:38 GMT -6
I'm Ok with 3.0, at least up to 8th level or so. Actually, I'm okay with pretty much any edition of D&D up through level 8 or so. I wish most came with options of buying books where the upper level stuff is cut out. Maybe that's why I like OD&D so much, and B/X. Focus on the lower level stuff. After a certain point I feel like characters become just too powerful and that makes them less fun to play, IMO. I'll play ANY edition, running them is something different. I look at it from a slightly different viewpoint Fin- it isn't an issue with PC's becoming too powerful, it's that the system falls apart and cannot challenge them at higher levels. The framework was never meant to handle what it became. 4e largely fixed this issue, but too many sacred cows have to be sacrificed and D&D players want to eat their cake and have it too. |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jan 23, 2021 7:19:25 GMT -6
Sorry for going off topic, but I strongly disagree. Let your powerful Wizard or Lord be surprised by 1d4 Medusae  Anyway, I downloaded "Adventure Game" and who knows, maybe I even use these characters in some AD&D-basic game. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 23, 2021 13:39:48 GMT -6
yeah, with any RPG it's how you run it that matters. The rules can facilitate a certain type of play style.
Like I could use this Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game and run an old school D&D game without missing a beat. I could even have it at the table when playing 5e and refer to it while doing a bit of conversion of AC and the like on the fly.
But then I gave up being a rules lawyer back in 7th grade after one particularly pointless argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 13:43:50 GMT -6
yeah, with any RPG it's how you run it that matters. The rules can facilitate a certain type of play style. Like I could use this Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game and run an old school D&D game without missing a beat. I could even have it at the table when playing 5e and refer to it while doing a bit of conversion of AC and the like on the fly. But then I gave up being a rules lawyer back in 7th grade after one particularly pointless argument. It's all a matter of perspective. For me, these early nineties sets are old school because they're from my childhood, and when I look at AD&D and compare it to regular D&D I simply see a more thorough version of the same thing. Pretty much everything before the d20 changeover is variations of OD&D. |
|
bobjester0e
Level 4 Theurgist
DDO, DCC, or more Lost City map work? Oh, the hardship of making adult decisions! ;)
Posts: 195 
|
Post by bobjester0e on Jan 26, 2021 6:33:03 GMT -6
I had this boxed set at one time. My overall impressions really helped me formulate an early opinion about what D&D was to become under WotC, and it was not an opinion that I share publicly much anymore. (wink)
I wound up giving this set to a friend who played 3.5 and was looking for something simpler and "old school". lol
My memories of this set are that this set was really for introducing 10-12 year olds to D&D and it was not at all what I was looking for (which is what my 3.5 playing friend wanted to introduce his 8 year old daughter to D&D!)
At least it found a home that was (hopefully) put to great use, but now I can't help but wonder about this random dungeon generation system. I don't recall anything about that, so it must have also been below my radar for random goodness - having used the 1e DMG generator for nearly everything since 1980.
What is different about that that might pique my interest in 2021? If its free, I might have to DL a copy and give it another shot!
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 26, 2021 14:16:24 GMT -6
What is different about that that might pique my interest in 2021? If its free, I might have to DL a copy and give it another shot! This set really kind of paved the way for the WOTC approach with the 3.0 Adventure Game, The D20 Star Wars adventure game, etc. It is more concise and straightforward than the lavish and wordy TSR sets that preceded it- "Introduction to Advanced D&D" Grey and Yellow boxes and the black and brown "Classic" D&D sets- All with their multiple lengthy booklets, maps, charts, cards, DM screens, etc. And the Silver Anniversary set was much more affordable because of that. I do find the Silver Anni adventures more interesting than the adventures they did for the 3.0 Adventure set, though certainly they are geared for the complete novice in both. It's free and definitely worth a look |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 26, 2021 16:20:44 GMT -6
At least it found a home that was (hopefully) put to great use, but now I can't help but wonder about this random dungeon generation system. I don't recall anything about that, so it must have also been below my radar for random goodness - having used the 1e DMG generator for nearly everything since 1980. I only took the briefest of peeks at it, but it does look similar to the one from the DMG. I did see that it has its own wandering monster list. I'll take a closer look later.
It is free, grab it |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jan 26, 2021 20:46:15 GMT -6
I don't like the fact that I'm controlling a character who can wipe out an entire village single-handedly because of the immense disparity between what I can do and what they can do. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a world to be structured that way. I feel like a Mary Sue. The low levels, however, were fun.
The power aspect itself doesn't really bother me; a major monster ought to be able to wipe out a whole village, so it doesn't really seem incongruous for a hero or wizard who can defeat one to be able to...
And plenty of fantasy series have characters who are easily that powerful, or more so. Even in the Mistborn series, where the magic is really quite limited, two people go up against like 300 soldiers and win in book 2. It might be a High Fantasy vs Sword and Sorcery thing though.
I do, however, like the old-school idea where high-level characters get invested in the world - baronies, dominions, etc. - rather than just "same adventures but with tougher monsters and larger treasures". It's a qualitative shift...
|
|
)
