|
|
Post by Wothbora on Apr 17, 2008 13:38:52 GMT -6
Several months ago I came across a reference to a Caltech (I think it was Caltech) Version of D&D that was served a "Cease and Desist Order" back in the 70's by TSR. I remember spending a day or two and finally finding a copy of the text, but (of course) I did not bookmark it, save it, or even print it (thinking I'd remember where it was).
Anyway, (as hard as it is for this librarian to admit), I cannot find anything remotely close to what I discovered before. All I remember was that the version I read online was a lot like a mixture of D&D and RuneQuest all molded into one.
Does anyone have even the remotest idea of what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wothbora on Apr 17, 2008 13:52:18 GMT -6
Scratch that... It's called Warlock... members.fortunecity.com/caltechwarlock/ Nothing earth-shattering about this version. Just couldn't find it and I wanted to archive it for future reference. Frustrating, the PDF and Word versions of the complete text don't appear to exist... |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 17, 2008 15:13:18 GMT -6
Scratch that... It's called Warlock... members.fortunecity.com/caltechwarlock/ Nothing earth-shattering about this version. Just couldn't find it and I wanted to archive it for future reference. Frustrating, the PDF and Word versions of the complete text don't appear to exist... Yes. it was printed in The Spartan #9 (IIRC); I have a copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 17, 2008 17:51:06 GMT -6
And here's a link to an earlier thread on the topic, if that helps. (It was hidden in the "Third Party OD&D" section.) |
|
|
|
Post by Wothbora on Apr 17, 2008 18:08:09 GMT -6
Thanks... I totally missed that thread. It is interesting to me how much players used to "homebrew" RPG's to fit their own needs/campaigns... Again, thanks for the link to the Warlock thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Apr 22, 2008 1:11:21 GMT -6
It is a rather boring variant, actually - very much a technical mofication of D&D without actually providing anything conceptually interesting. Same crunch-monkey attitude 3.x encourages.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 22, 2008 7:37:47 GMT -6
It is a rather boring variant, actually - very much a technical mofication of D&D without actually providing anything conceptually interesting. Same crunch-monkey attitude 3.x encourages. It's interesting that you mention this. There seems to be a desire lurking in the wings of some rules discussions that is rooted in making the rules more "logical" (I put in quotes because I don't think it's "logical" in a precise way, but more in a "I don't get why the rules are designed a particular way, so I'm going to make the mechanics more obvious" kinda way). These "technical modifications" always seem to be modest by themselves, but taken together, bring the mechanics of the rules to the forefront of how to play, thus allowing that "crunch-monkey attitude" to take hold. Case in point: I've never really been that fond of "magic point" systems - they end up treating magic as a kind of easily exchangeable energy, and each magic-user as a kind of rechargeable battery. By itself, it's not so bad - but it encourages a style of play I'm not necessarily fond of; magic ought to be a little mysterious and not always easily resolved/exchanged/manipulated, or so it seems to me. I'm not sure if this is really clear, or where it is exactly going, but I'm definitely interested in other people's thoughts about this. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 22, 2008 8:30:26 GMT -6
Case in point: I've never really been that fond of "magic point" systems - they end up treating magic as a kind of easily exchangeable energy, and each magic-user as a kind of rechargeable battery. By itself, it's not so bad - but it encourages a style of play I'm not necessarily fond of; magic ought to be a little mysterious and not always easily resolved/exchanged/manipulated, or so it seems to me. Very much agreed, particularly on this point. A lot of D&D mechanical elements have unexpected consequences for the feel of the game, which is why I'm wary of eliminating many of them myself. Besides, it's not as if there aren't already vast swaths of game mechanical real estate that OD&D leaves open to individual interpretation and house ruling as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 22, 2008 9:44:05 GMT -6
Badger, I completely agree. Spell points are the bane of the system, and are usually occasioned by somebody who doesn't grasp the subtleties or the intent (or, indeed, the art of 'planning'.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 22, 2008 16:12:45 GMT -6
While I would agree that spell points make for a very different game than D&D, I don't think they are ruinous. I have seen some very good spell point systems, but they definitely make for a different feel of game. What I have seen them do is make it more feasible to make the single big encounter still resource limited. This is because such systems tend to make the big flashy magics more expensive.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Apr 24, 2008 23:14:45 GMT -6
Badger, I am in complete agreement. Especially on how "mechanics" are not equivalent to "rules". (As an analogy, we could say mechanics are the ingredients, rules are the ingredients organised by the recipe recipe, and the resulting game is the food. A bit awkward but probably accurate.)
|
|
|
|
Post by gleemaxjr on Apr 24, 2008 23:59:18 GMT -6
This particular variant has been reprinted, as well. I believe by Little Soldier, or somesuch thing. I do have Spartan #9, but have yet to read it.
I suppose I am unlike some of you in that I enjoy "monkeying" the rules. Without that, one cannot see how far the system bends.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 25, 2008 7:22:10 GMT -6
This particular variant has been reprinted, as well. I believe by Little Soldier, or somesuch thing. I do have Spartan #9, but have yet to read it. I suppose I am unlike some of you in that I enjoy "monkeying" the rules. Without that, one cannot see how far the system bends. No, if you read my thread in "Around the Campfire" about my first campaign, you'll see that my first referee and I really enjoyed playing with the rules. We just didn't succumb to thinking that there were "obviously logical improvements." We made changes to fit the game we wanted to play, but did not assume that they were improvements (which is rather explicitly stated in the Warlock rules). And some of what I am objecting to as far as "improvements" are concerned are attempts to "smooth out wrinkles" - wrinkles that might be design features, not bugs. There's nothing wrong with house ruling - I encourage it - but what you end up with is something different, not necessarily better. |
|
