|
|
Post by paleologos on Jan 27, 2010 0:22:38 GMT -6
Although packaged as the first D&D module for the Holmes edition of the rules, and sprinkled with references to AD&D, there's evidence that B1 "In Search of the Unknown" was originally intended as an OD&D module.
Consider the following:
1) The pregens in the back are divided into four classes, in which elves populate both the fighting man and the magic-user sections (whereas elves in Holmes are both fighting men & magic-users).
2) (edit: and let's not forget the demihuman thieves!)
3) Many of the dwarf and halfling pregens have ability scores below the minimums required for Constitution and/or Dexterity scores as per the Holmes (or AD&D) rules.
4) The only pregen with a Strength score of 18 has a percentile added (54) as per the Greyhawk supplement.
5) The mystical stone which can grant a limited wish without explanation of what a limited wish is in the Holmes rules.
6) Magic items in the treasure list (potion of levitation, spear +2) that appear in the OD&D magic item tables, but not the Holmes magic item tables.
Folks typically assume these are AD&Disms, but I'd argue these are actually OD&Disms instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jan 27, 2010 8:48:48 GMT -6
Based on what you've cited, I would expect so. Your analysis seems pretty sound. What do others think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 27, 2010 9:08:05 GMT -6
Wow. Never looked at it that way. I'll have to dust off my module and give it a look-see, but it sounds like you've done your homework and got this one right!
Other than Temple of the Frog in Supplement II, is B1 the only other OD&D module put out by TSR? (I can't think of any offhand, and am not counting adventures published in Dragon, but may be missing something obvious...)
|
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Jan 27, 2010 10:05:32 GMT -6
That's a very interesting thought and you might be very right. It would be interesting to talk to Mr. Carr and ask him!
|
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Jan 27, 2010 15:41:44 GMT -6
And you know, something else just occurred to me, (the absence of which is conspicuous).
Gary's B2 was expressely written for Holmes, and therefore included Dex scores for all the monsters, etc.
There are no Dex scores given in B1 (true, they can be rolled on the spot - but why are they absent if B2 has them?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 27, 2010 19:11:45 GMT -6
G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3, and S1—all published in 1978—can be considered OD&D modules. Certainly, the DMG (1979) was not published yet, so at least they can be considered part-OD&D, part-AD&D. It’s not clear how much the PH (1978) is applicable, but surely the MM (1977) is already in full force here (someone confirm?).
Finally, as tournament modules they had obviously been run under OD&D originally. But that’s true of many (most?) published AD&D modules. Cf. for example WG5 (1984), where the pregens Mordenkainen and co. are explicitly not AD&D-legal with regard to spell lists and such. (Heck, those characters even predate OD&D’s publication!)
But anyway, I would consider T1 (1979) to be the first clearly AD&D module, not to mention the first clearly World of Greyhawk product. So that would be a good cutoff point for pseudo-OD&D modules. The last possible one to check would be S2 (1979). Regards.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 27, 2010 23:21:49 GMT -6
In general, I think there's a lot of evidence that these modules originated in the OD&D era, and partly-did/partly-didn't evolve/get edited as the ruleset advanced. Gary's B2 was expressely written for Holmes, and therefore included Dex scores for all the monsters, etc. My past analysis is that B2 has even more evidence of being OD&D-based than B1. Practically all the hit point figures are, statistically, more in tune with d6 hit dice. deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/01/b2-used-d6-hit-dice.html |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 28, 2010 9:10:34 GMT -6
Brilliant Paleo! Although, as I pointed out in this Holmes thread, odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=holmes&action=display&thread=2782, B1 contains several pages of additional rules regarding henchmen, healing, wandering monsters and so forth. I assumed that those extra rules were written to compliment the Holmes book, but I wonder if they were actually meant to go with OD&D? G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3, and S1—all published in 1978—can be considered OD&D modules. Certainly, the DMG (1979) was not published yet, so at least they can be considered part-OD&D, part-AD&D. It’s not clear how much the PH (1978) is applicable, but surely the MM (1977) is already in full force here (someone confirm?). I think it hardly matters when the material was first written so much as what form it was in when published. I'd be surprised if these modules don't have significant revisions to conform to AD&D. Defientely be interesting to look through them and see. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Jan 28, 2010 10:31:27 GMT -6
And you know, something else just occurred to me, (the absence of which is conspicuous). Gary's B2 was expressely written for Holmes, and therefore included Dex scores for all the monsters, etc. There are no Dex scores given in B1 (true, they can be rolled on the spot - but why are they absent if B2 has them?) Actually I think I have a copy of B1 (In Search of the Unknown, right?) that does have Dex scores for the monsters. |
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Jan 28, 2010 13:08:50 GMT -6
My past analysis is that B2 has even more evidence of being OD&D-based than B1. Practically all the hit point figures are, statistically, more in tune with d6 hit dice. True (and I loved that analysis). I remember something about Gary being asked to come up with something for the Holmes Basic Set and that he whipped up B2 in a week or two. (Maybe the reason was that he already had something that had been developed using d6 for hit dice!) But anyway, the inclusion of Dex scores makes the final "design" most appropriate for Holmes Basic. B1 contains several pages of additional rules regarding henchmen, healing, wandering monsters and so forth. I assumed that those extra rules were written to compliment the Holmes book, but I wonder if they were actually meant to go with OD&D? Good point - I'd assumed the same thing. Some of that stuff appears in the LBBs and I'd thought it was Mike Carr's "re-edit" of the material. Was I hallucinating? Or is all that stuff new (and therefore additional rules for OD&D?) Actually I think I have a copy of B1 (In Search of the Unknown, right?) that does have Dex scores for the monsters. I'd be interested to hear which version that was. I've got a monochrome first printing and a brown-cover fifth printing, neither of which has Dex scores. (Could it be that you've got a monochrome second printing with Dex scores?) In any case, the very first printing has no Dex scores for the monsters... I guess holding that copy in my hands, it just seems that it's best suited for OD&D (especially with all the details regarding the pregens, but for the other reasons I mentioned, also) One last thing. There's a mace+1 in the treasure list (which doesn't appear in Holmes). Given everything else, I'm going to assume that it's actually a mace of disruption! |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 28, 2010 14:32:19 GMT -6
Some of that stuff appears in the LBBs and I'd thought it was Mike Carr's "re-edit" of the material. Was I hallucinating? Or is all that stuff new (and therefore additional rules for OD&D?) It's just about all unique to Carr. For example, "The passage of a day — or 24 hours — will mean the healing of 4 hit point of damage for each character." That's pretty radically different from the 1hp every other day of OD&D. We could ask him, but I do lean toward the idea that he was asked to write some of these rules to "flesh out" the holmes book. Prolly the module itself had been around longer. BTW my monochrome 2nd printing has no dex stats for monsters. EDIT: Its actually 1 HP per day in B1 - typo on my part. This is still different from the OD&D rate but the same as the rate Arneson used in Blackmoor - where Mike Carr played before going to work for TSR. |
|
|
|
Post by paleologos on Jan 28, 2010 15:02:23 GMT -6
For example, "The passage of a day — or 24 hours — will mean the healing of 4 hit point of damage for each character." That's pretty radically different from the 1hp every other day of OD&D. We could ask him, but I do lean toward the idea that he was asked to write some of these rules to "flesh out" the holmes book. Prolly the module itself had been around longer. You're probably right. The additional rules must have been meant to supplement Holmes. Maybe you're not far off that the adventure itself predated those additions. Incidentally, the line about healing on page 5 states 1 hit point per day in my 1st printing - how about that! |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 24, 2013 0:26:21 GMT -6
I previously came across this 2008 post from Frank Mentzer that confirms this theory: "Mike wrote B1 pretty much based on OD&D but modified it a bit when Holmes was finalized." |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 24, 2013 2:55:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 24, 2013 8:04:01 GMT -6
I am not sure whether, during that transitional period, it makes much sense to distinguish OD&D from AD&D. I certainly didn't, having started with Holmes (the set with Monsters & Treasure), then adding the supplements, and then the MM, PHB, and finally DMG, using issue of The Dragon with some of the charts and previews of the DMG before it was published. To me, at any rate, when we got the PHB, it seemed just a cool and supplemented version of what we were already doing with the supplements. In any event, I never thought of there being two "lines" which were distinct until Moldvay's Basic came out, and even then, it was easy enough to use modules and such from both in the same game.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jan 25, 2013 14:30:12 GMT -6
G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3, and S1—all published in 1978—can be considered OD&D modules. Certainly, the DMG (1979) was not published yet, so at least they can be considered part-OD&D, part-AD&D. It’s not clear how much the PH (1978) is applicable, but surely the MM (1977) is already in full force here (someone confirm?). I think it hardly matters when the material was first written so much as what form it was in when published. I'd be surprised if these modules don't have significant revisions to conform to AD&D. Defientely be interesting to look through them and see. Clearly (IMO) the Giant modules are Greyhawk based; the giants' hp throughout all 3 adventures in no way fit the d6 spread. So, I'd call the Gs OD&D + based. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Aug 26, 2020 18:28:28 GMT -6
Palace of the Vampire Queen?
|
|
|
|
Post by atlantean on Aug 26, 2020 19:45:42 GMT -6
Thanks for this excellent discussion! I had previously thought that putting B2 in the Holmes box set was somewhat of a screw-up on TSR's part as I had believed that it was written with Cook-Moldvay in mind. You've convinced me otherwise. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 27, 2020 12:38:09 GMT -6
Thanks for bumping this one, I never read through it and found some interesting notes. Some of that stuff appears in the LBBs and I'd thought it was Mike Carr's "re-edit" of the material. Was I hallucinating? Or is all that stuff new (and therefore additional rules for OD&D?) It's just about all unique to Carr. For example, "The passage of a day — or 24 hours — will mean the healing of 4 hit point of damage for each character." That's pretty radically different from the 1hp every other day of OD&D. We could ask him, but I do lean toward the idea that he was asked to write some of these rules to "flesh out" the holmes book. Prolly the module itself had been around longer. BTW my monochrome 2nd printing has no dex stats for monsters. EDIT: Its actually 1 HP per day in B1 - typo on my part. This is still different from the OD&D rate but the same as the rate Arneson used in Blackmoor - where Mike Carr played before going to work for TSR. Eureka, I actually went to my books because of this every-other-day nonsense; and lo, there it is: I've been playing OD&D for at least a dozen years, and somehow never noticed the "other" part in "every other day." Sheesh! |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Aug 28, 2020 20:29:55 GMT -6
Thanks for bumping this one, I never read through it and found some interesting notes. It's just about all unique to Carr. For example, "The passage of a day — or 24 hours — will mean the healing of 4 hit point of damage for each character." That's pretty radically different from the 1hp every other day of OD&D. We could ask him, but I do lean toward the idea that he was asked to write some of these rules to "flesh out" the holmes book. Prolly the module itself had been around longer. BTW my monochrome 2nd printing has no dex stats for monsters. EDIT: Its actually 1 HP per day in B1 - typo on my part. This is still different from the OD&D rate but the same as the rate Arneson used in Blackmoor - where Mike Carr played before going to work for TSR. Eureka, I actually went to my books because of this every-other-day nonsense; and lo, there it is: I've been playing OD&D for at least a dozen years, and somehow never noticed the "other" part in "every other day." Sheesh! How did I miss that! Thanks! |
|
