Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2010 10:17:19 GMT -6
Its nice to see DA's "vision" laid out in a more complete fashion I like what I see so far. Seems to be a great product and I can't wait to put it in play. Clearly a lot of research went into this book! I have to admit a bit of reservation, however. Did Dave's family authorize or give their approval on this project? And did anyone interview Robert the Bald or The Great Svenny to get their reactions? It occurs to me that if Dave had been alive then the authors of DAD would have asked him if it was okay to use his stuff. I mean, someone is making money on it, right? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I'd like to see more BLACKMOOR books put out, and I want to know more about the early days, but I want it to be done with the right permission and I'm not sure if DAD was or not. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 9, 2010 11:32:39 GMT -6
Ah, well, Dragons at Dawn does not pretend to be Blackmoor or to replicate all the contents of the First Fantasy Campaign, or Adventures in Fantasy or what have you. I heartily reccomend that persons interested in Arnesons campaigns buy those products. What D@D is is a set of rules that follows the methods and approaches Arneson used prior to the publication of Dungeons and Dragons as best they can be detemined through backwards engineering. Much of his gaming has been described, but very little detailed. As such Dragons at Dawn is an original work meant to provide the player with the pre D&D experience, not a cut and paste copy of Arnesons work. I have been in touch with several of the original players, including Mr. Svenson, who have been positive about the project but have yet to talk with Mr. Arnesons daughter.
As for money being made, the reality is that profit in small scale RPG publishing is meagre. I have been fortunate to recover the small sum I spent on the interior art and hope to make enough to treat my wife to a nice dinner for her birthday for putting up with me spending so much time on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 9, 2010 13:31:48 GMT -6
As for money being made, the reality is that profit in small scale RPG publishing is meagre. I have been fortunate to recover the small sum I spent on the interior art and hope to make enough to treat my wife to a nice dinner for her birthday for putting up with me spending so much time on this. A good plan. Gaming works better when the wife approves.  |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 9, 2010 13:44:52 GMT -6
Ah, well, Dragons at Dawn does not pretend to be Blackmoor or to replicate all the contents of the First Fantasy Campaign, or Adventures in Fantasy or what have you. Yeah, it seems the book is more a presentation of "Classic Fantasy Roleplaying in the style of Dave Arneson" than "Dave Arneson's Classic Rules for Fantasy Roleplaying," if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 9, 2010 13:45:54 GMT -6
I'm eager to read about the game. My print copy has been ordered from lulu, and I'm dying to read it. To tide me over until I receive it, will some kind souls give reviews (as detailed as you can!) of the game? What are the magic systems like? What is the combat system like? How easy a game is it to understand? Is it easier or harder to understand than Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox? What's the monster line-up like? What are the monster stat blocks like? How fragile are beginning characters in this game? How compatible (or incompatible) is the game with OD&D? Etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 9, 2010 13:57:32 GMT -6
Ah, well, Dragons at Dawn does not pretend to be Blackmoor or to replicate all the contents of the First Fantasy Campaign, or Adventures in Fantasy or what have you. Yeah, it seems the book is more a presentation of "Classic Fantasy Roleplaying in the style of Dave Arneson" than "Dave Arneson's Classic Rules for Fantasy Roleplaying," if that makes sense. Heh. That's brilliant! Wish I had said that. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 9, 2010 14:13:56 GMT -6
Hey Geoffrey - I'll answer the one about the monsters. I felt that including long monster catalogs with the rules made a lot of sense in the '70s but these days there are sooo many sources for monsters I choose to only include the 8 or so that show up in either the FFC or (in the case of one - the Charmsnake) from Greg Svensons first Blackmoor adventure account and are either not represented in print or represented very differently in later publications. You can actually use the familiar stat blocks from classic D&D, ignoring irrelevant info, adjusting movement rates to the one minute round, and - if you choose to use it for monsters - converting the AC. All one really needs in most cases for monsters is HD, and HPV. Others will likely have thoughts on the compatibility issue but for my own game I find Monsters and Treasures and parts of UW&WA to be excellent, easily adapted source material. |
|
|
|
Post by bluskreem on Apr 9, 2010 22:48:41 GMT -6
Are Balrogs playable?
|
|
|
|
Post by piper on Apr 9, 2010 23:34:08 GMT -6
Why not? Volume I: Men & Magic, page 8: |
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Apr 9, 2010 23:57:35 GMT -6
I like the Demi-human descriptions, Halflings are described almost as a race of men desperately trying to become Faeries, whereas elves are fairies seeking to be men.
|
|
zendog
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 125
|
Post by zendog on Apr 10, 2010 4:58:59 GMT -6
I like the Demi-human descriptions, Halflings are described almost as a race of men desperately trying to become Faeries, whereas elves are fairies seeking to be men. That is a neat handling of those races, very cool. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Apr 10, 2010 8:45:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 10, 2010 11:09:50 GMT -6
Rules are given for playing anythig your heart desires. Some of the details (such as class restrictions) you will have to work out for yourself in some cases of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 11:53:27 GMT -6
I love how we're leaving Geoffrey hanging.
The magic is based (mostly) on the physical concoction of spells.
The combat is (at it's core) rolling and referring to a chart of target numbers based on the modified hit dice of the combatants.
The rules are easy to grasp as they aren't really that complicated. I'd say somewhat harder than S&W:WhiteBox, in that Dragons at Dawn assumes heavily that you already know how RPGs work.
There isn't much of a monster line-up. Conversion to the game system is fairly painless, as Hit Dice will have similar meaning with regard to combat ability (but not necessarily HP). AC will need slight adjustment, but that's always been an easy fix.
Just reading it (not playing it yet), it looks like only Warriors can't initially be killed with a single blow from an equal opponent under fair circumstances. I'd call beginning characters fragile (compared to newer D&D games).
I would say Dragons at Dawn is compatible with OD&D given that you aren't bothered by the separate magic system, AC conversion, and the need to determine hit points separately from HD (which determine combat ability). Things like ability scores and character levels are basically the same. In other words, it would be easy to referee an adventure constructed for either regardless of the game you're playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 10, 2010 12:07:14 GMT -6
Thanks for the helping hand, Random! ;D The magic is based (mostly) on the physical concoction of spells. From looking at the table of contents on the lulu preview, it looks as though there are about 10 pages of spell descriptions. What are the spells like? How similar or different are they than OD&D's spells? Are the spells grouped into spell-levels? Does the magic seem noticeably more or less powerful than OD&D's magic? |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 12:20:09 GMT -6
The spells are grouped in levels 1 through 6 (which means you could easily mix and match with normal OD&D spells), and include many familiar spells and a few others not as much. The first level spell list is especially different.
Some of them are quite powerful (Lightning Bolts and Fireballs in particular are quite deadly, but there are drawbacks to casting them).
The main difference is the way magic is prepared and stored, rather than with how it is cast. A particularly rich Wizard would be a tremendously dangerous opponent (as he would have the resources to employ a great many spells).
I don't want to rant too much, as I just read through the book once and then glanced back a few times. I obviously can't answer as well as the author or someone who's grabbed these rules and put them into use.
[edit]In my previous post I said ability scores are basically the same. Well, that's true in that they are basically the same categories. The range is different though (not 3-18).
|
|
|
|
Post by piper on Apr 10, 2010 12:45:24 GMT -6
I love how we're leaving Geoffrey hanging. Your criticism is valid, and I apologize for helping derail the thread. Since I have not yet read D@D I was trying to help any way I could. Next time I will start a different thread to deal with any side-issues that crop up. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 13:18:46 GMT -6
I love how we're leaving Geoffrey hanging. Your criticism is valid, and I apologize for helping derail the thread. Since I have not yet read D@D I was trying to help any way I could. Next time I will start a different thread to deal with any side-issues that crop up. Man, you guys take me for being much more serious than I actually am. The only reason you should take it that way was if Geoffrey started the thread, but he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by geordie on Apr 10, 2010 14:14:52 GMT -6
All but energy spells (which require a save vs Con to succeed) are tied to physical objects (vials, gas-filled glass balls, powders in paper tubes, scrolls) and need to be made or purchased*. It takes one week to make level 1 spells, one month for level 2 spells, and 1 year for level 3 and higher. A Wizard can augment spells increasing their effect.
*Beware - Spells have the alignment of the wizard who created it, and wizards can't successfully use spells of a diff alignment to themself without bad things happening.
Elfin song magic is different (more like a ritual) - mages get spell points (no ingredients needed), can cast any spell as long as they have the points, succeed at a Save vs. Con, and the time to cast it - they are singing their spells. Higher level Elfin mages take less time to sing the spells. If you don't want elves in your game - make a mystic class who practise ritual chanting, or psionics concentrating. Or singing Nagas/Cactoids/whatever !
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 10, 2010 14:17:41 GMT -6
All but energy spells (which require a save vs Con to succeed) are tied to physical objects (vials, gas-filled glass balls, powders in paper tubes, scrolls) and need to be made or purchased*. It takes one week to make level 1 spells, one month for level 2 spells, and 1 year for level 3 and higher. A Wizard can augment spells increasing their effect. Awesome. That's right out of Conan. Makes sense, too, since I remember reading that Conan was one of the things that Dave Arneson was reading when he invented the game. |
|
|
|
Post by piper on Apr 10, 2010 14:23:39 GMT -6
Man, you guys take me for being much more serious than I actually am. The only reason you should take it that way was if Geoffrey started the thread, but he didn't. This criticism is also valid. I'll try to stay out these posts in the future and offer again my apologies to everyone for my insensitivity. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 10, 2010 14:34:27 GMT -6
Just bought and downloaded Dragons and Dawn and I'm pretty impressed. Most of the few complaints I have are due to the organization of the text, but overall, it was a good read and well worth the $8
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 10, 2010 16:09:20 GMT -6
Man, you guys take me for being much more serious than I actually am. The only reason you should take it that way was if Geoffrey started the thread, but he didn't. This criticism is also valid. I'll try to stay out these posts in the future and offer again my apologies to everyone for my insensitivity. Bah! Post as much as you like. Its good to get a range of perspectives. Nobody thought you were being insensitive. This isn't DF. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 16:16:33 GMT -6
This criticism is also valid. I'll try to stay out these posts in the future and offer again my apologies to everyone for my insensitivity. Bah! Post as much as you like. Its good to get a range of perspectives. Nobody thought you were being insensitive. This isn't DF. Yeah, he's misunderstood me both times it would seem. Perhaps I'm speaking in some sort of 23 year old Arkansan lingo? |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 10, 2010 16:16:59 GMT -6
Just bought and downloaded Dragons and Dawn and I'm pretty impressed. Most of the few complaints I have are due to the organization of the text, but overall, it was a good read and well worth the $8 I'd be interested in what your thoughts are about that. One thing I did was put the spells in a handy appendix at the back of the book. Of course that's not traditional, but I have always found it annoying to read an rpg only to have to skip through 15 pages of spells to get back to the rules, and then when you do need to look at the spells you have to look in the table of contents tp find them. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 17:44:38 GMT -6
I thought the layout was fine. It's really not long enough to get lost in.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 10, 2010 19:55:22 GMT -6
One thing I didn't do is the Bible-esq two colums per page deal that has become virtually standard with RPGs. This is simply because the 3LBB's, Supplement II, FFC, and AIF are all single column. (and Carcosa, come to think of it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by piper on Apr 10, 2010 21:12:09 GMT -6
Yeah, he's misunderstood me both times it would seem. Perhaps I'm speaking in some sort of 23 year old Arkansan lingo? One last apology to you, Mister Random, and I'm [EOT]. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 10, 2010 21:14:07 GMT -6
One thing I didn't do is the Bible-esq two colums per page deal that has become virtually standard with RPGs. This is simply because the 3LBB's, Supplement II, FFC, and AIF are all single column. (and Carcosa, come to think of it.) Two columns are better for larger formats, while single column is best for booklets. Speaking of which, I tried to print Dragons at Dawn as a booklet but I was unsuccessful in using Adobe Acrobat's automatic booklet setting. It apparently doesn't agree with my printer, so I'll have to arrange the pages manually to get them to print correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Apr 11, 2010 9:21:27 GMT -6
One thing I didn't do is the Bible-esq two colums per page deal that has become virtually standard with RPGs. This is simply because the 3LBB's, Supplement II, FFC, and AIF are all single column. (and Carcosa, come to think of it.) Two columns are better for larger formats, while single column is best for booklets. Speaking of which, I tried to print Dragons at Dawn as a booklet but I was unsuccessful in using Adobe Acrobat's automatic booklet setting. It apparently doesn't agree with my printer, so I'll have to arrange the pages manually to get them to print correctly. I use ClickBook (not free) to print booklets and it worked just fine. The point about single column for booklets is excellent. I'm not really a big fan of the font used in D@D, but I will admit that its weight makes it stand out very well in the shrunk booklet printing. BTW, I'm liking what I see so far. |
|
