|
|
Post by havard on Jun 27, 2010 15:37:51 GMT -6
Any thoughts on how to adapt the D20 line of Blackmoor to the older editions?
I am thinking that alot of the magic rules, PrCs and Feats can simply be ignored. Or would you go around it in a different way?
Havard
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 27, 2010 23:07:39 GMT -6
What’s the point? FFC + TotF is the genuine Arneson material, and that’s the stuff that hits the inspirational sweet-spot. So the later repackaged/filled-out Blackmoor-label products just don’t do it for me. I feel like I could fill out Blackmoor just as well as they did, probably a lot better for my purposes and more OD&D-feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 28, 2010 5:06:45 GMT -6
I know that Havard is of a different school of thought than I am. I tend to be a "Blackmoor elitist" and put the old Arneson products on a higher pedistal than the newer materials (which Dave approved of but certainly aren't the same as the way he played "in the day").
However, I also have a box of 3E stuff (and now the 4E book) and think that it's not a bad question. Also, the 3E materials help fill in the gaps that Dave never filled in within the FFC.
My secret in using 3E stuff in my OD&D game is simply to ignore most of what is there. I don't mean background text, but almost all of the rules information. Reference to feats and skills go away. I use ascending AC, so I can keep that info, but if you want true OD&D you need to adjust that. I tend to ignore a lot of the racial rules, assiming that humans were all pretty much the same even if they come from another culture. Magic is a problem, depending upon whether you cap spells off at 6th level or use Greyhawk's 9-level system.
I guess I tend to "wing it" a lot and don't have an actual list of what I use. That would make a nice project.
|
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Jun 30, 2010 22:00:53 GMT -6
I think you would be better off using the descriptive stuff, but ignoring most of the stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 18, 2010 6:21:26 GMT -6
For the record, Dave was heavily involved with every step of the 3.5 Blackmoor books--and the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor supplement is completely accurate to his notes. I know this in two ways:
1. I have a friend who worked as an editor on the project (Eric Kiefer; his name's in the book).
2. I've compared the first 10 levels with the maps in FFC and they're identical. The rooms are stocked slightly differently and the two "tunnel" sub-levels are missing from the later version; however, even FFC itself is clear that the stocking of the room isn't how it originally was, but was re-done for tournament play "over the past five years." Gary and Dave are well known to have changed and re-stocked their dungeons as the years went by.
Personally, I'm thrilled to have at least one of the two original megadungeons in print.
As for using it with OD&D, that's not hard at all--just replace all the stats with OD&D ones. If you have a 3.5 goblin, use a Monsters & Treasure goblin. If you have a 10th level D&D Fighter, use a 10th level OD&D fighting man. If it doesn't exist in OD&D...ignore it or make it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 18, 2010 6:39:33 GMT -6
For the record, Dave was heavily involved with every step of the 3.5 Blackmoor books--and the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor supplement is completely accurate to his notes. Oh, I know this but the 3E content still bothers me. I know that there weren't feats and prestige classes and the like in 1971, yet there they are in the d20 books. It may be Arneson material, but isn't 100% "early Arneson" in any stretch of the imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jul 18, 2010 16:17:11 GMT -6
For the record, Dave was heavily involved with every step of the 3.5 Blackmoor books--and the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor supplement is completely accurate to his notes. I know this in two ways: 1. I have a friend who worked as an editor on the project (Eric Kiefer; his name's in the book). 2. I've compared the first 10 levels with the maps in FFC and they're identical. The rooms are stocked slightly differently and the two "tunnel" sub-levels are missing from the later version; however, even FFC itself is clear that the stocking of the room isn't how it originally was, but was re-done for tournament play "over the past five years." Gary and Dave are well known to have changed and re-stocked their dungeons as the years went by. This is pretty interesting Jason. I am always interested in hearing details about the creation process of the various Blackmoor products. I also noticed that the floor plans of the FFC are identical to DoCBM. I wonder how much of the backstory also comes from Dave. Do you have any idea?  Indeed! Megadungeons actually dont work as well for 3E as it did for older editions, so converting those actually makes alot of sense IMO. Agreed. More on this in the next post Havard |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jul 18, 2010 16:21:17 GMT -6
]Oh, I know this but the 3E content still bothers me. I know that there weren't feats and prestige classes and the like in 1971, yet there they are in the d20 books. It may be Arneson material, but isn't 100% "early Arneson" in any stretch of the imagination. I think what we have to do here is consider setting and rules content as two separate things. Feats, Prestige classes and all that is part of the 3E system and has no place in OD&D. I would never suggest bringing rules elements over to the previous editions. I am not talking about adding much in the way of rules at all, but in some cases there might be the question of how to handle things under the different rules. Would you allow Gnomes, Docrae or say Beastmen as PCs for instance? Havard |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 19, 2010 10:29:51 GMT -6
Havard, in the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor book, there are sidebars labeled "Arneson Speaks!" which Dave authored directly and discuss certain quirks and anecdotal aspects of the dungeon. It's really a great product. From what Eric told me, aside from game mechanics, the Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor product was entirely from Dave's own notes. And I believe that the vast majority of the core Campaign Setting book was directly from Dave (if not in his own words) as well. But I'd have to double-check on that.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to work up rules for the Blackmoor-specific character races. Docrae I'd probably just treat as Hobbits--mechanically there's no reason not to. Gnomes, I could pull something from AD&D if I had to. There's enough out there to work with.
|
|
