CARCOSA Adventure Module

[crusssdaddy]

I'm going to be writing a CARCOSA adventure module soon. I'm planning on making it an adventure that can simply be played as such, or be a gateway to sandbox play if the PCs want to go off track (and they will be given ample inducement to do so). 5-6 hexes pulled from the map, detailed with random encounters, random tables for other weirdness, etc.

Probably to include one 'dungeon' of about the same size as Geoff's 'Fungoid Gardens', several lairs/cult strongholds/encounter locations of less than a dozen areas, and a bunch of entries that a DM can expand upon.

I'm wondering what rules set would people prefer? Original CARCOSA uses OD&D, but not everyone has access to those books. New CARCOSA uses LotFP, but I'm a little lazy and not feeling up to familiarizing myself with the system if it's not necessary. Swords & Wizardry... confuses me. I think I have the White Box, just downloaded 'Core', aren't there a couple other versions as well? I can't keep them straight. LL is probably most confortable to me, but I'm not sure others are ready to make that leap. OSRIC would be interesting, but a lot of work.

I'm inclined to go with OD&D, but wanted to see what people prefer, are using for their own campaigns, etc.

[Mushgnome]

Yeah! I would playtest this in a heartbeat based on your participation in my Chainmail Carcosa PbP.

I have not read the new Carcosa yet, but I have spent a little time with the free download of the LotFP rules. I think it should be fairly easy to make your adventure module compatible with both New and Classic Carcosa, for example by providing both ascending and descending AC for any monsters/NPCs.

It is not a module writer's responsibility to provide a stand-alone set of rules, in my opinion. I wouldn't worry about S&W, OSRIC, etc., personally.... if you said "compatible with Carcosa 1st and 2nd printing" I would know exactly what you meant.

[crusssdaddy]

Playtest? Awesome, I'll let you know when I have something.

Okay, so include both up & down AC notation? I could do that.

Any other edition-spanning friendly shortcuts to include? Mostly I obsess over tiny worries... like one of the Swords & Wizardys using inches for movement and the other one using feet...

[jasmith]

I'm not really sure if this is any kind of issue with anyone, at all. I buy modules & supplements based on what sounds interesting, or what I've heard is good, without regards to system. So long as it's written for TSR era D&D and clones derived therefrom. But, if the new Carcosa is being re-written to conform to the LotFP rules (did I understand that correctly?), that's what I would go with.

Or, just use whatever system you're most comfortable with. We'll sort it all out.

[Morandir]

I voted OD&D, just because I've always loved the fact that Carcosa was a straight-up OD&D supplement. But really, as Jasmith says it doesn't really matter - the systems are all so similar that I'll have no problem using your product in my game, whatever you choose. I'm just happy to see things being produced!!

[bluskreem]

I'd go OD&D myself, but as JaSmith said go with what ever makes you happy. The Carcosa crowd is largely DIYS types anyways. My Carcosa games have drifted so far apart from OD&D that it's almost a separate game altogether now.

[Melan]

People angst too much about which specific variant to use for a supplement or module. Doesn't matter; those who are interested enough to try will invariably adapt it to their needs, and they will be able to do it relatively easily.

[Deleted]

I voted LL because it's the best currently supported system, but to me CARCOSA is an OD&D setting so I should have voted that way.

[Deleted]

Well, LotFP sounds like the obvious choice because that's the new Carcosa format, but I have to vote OD&D because that's the format that the original came out. To me, Carcosa is the ultimate non-70's OD&D supplement!

OSRIC wouldn't make sense because it's AD&D. LL and S&W are fine systems and all but aren't either OD&D or LotFP so they don't really make sense, either.

#1 Choice = OD&D
#2 Choice = LotFP
All the rest are tied for 3rd.

[Deleted]

May 24, 2011 21:25:55 GMT -6 Morandir said:

I voted OD&D, just because I've always loved the fact that Carcosa was a straight-up OD&D supplement.

+1 from me.

I haven't seen the new Carcosa yet (has it hit the presses?) but I can say that I really love the way the old Carcosa is an OD&D product. There aren't too many OD&D settings and this made Carcosa very special to me. I'd like any adventures to be OD&D.

[geoffrey]

May 24, 2011 14:55:39 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

I wouldn't worry about S&W, OSRIC, etc., personally.... if you said "compatible with Carcosa 1st and 2nd printing" I would know exactly what you meant.

Well said.

The only actual changes to the text in the forthcoming (late June, I expect) re-publication of Carcosa are:

1. The sorcerers' saving throw table is tweaked a bit.
2. The AC system ascends from 12 rather than descends from 9.

Of course, quite a bit of additional stuff is being added to the tome, such as my Fungoid Gardens module, an additional 400 hex descriptions (so that each hex now has two points of interest), etc.

[Mushgnome]

May 25, 2011 8:59:22 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Of course, quite a bit of additional stuff is being added to the tome, such as my Fungoid Gardens module, an additional 400 hex descriptions (so that each hex now has two points of interest), etc.

And some new artwork from what I understand? I might buy it just for that!

crussdaddy, you can download a free version of the LotFP rules here: www.lotfp.com/RPG/products/lotfp-weird-fantasy-role-playing

I think you'll see there is nothing to worry about, the core mechanics are very OD&D compatible (except for ascending AC, but that is trivially easy to convert), while the weird stuff (dwarves THAC0 never improves??) is not relevant to CARCOSA.

[geoffrey]

Yep, the re-publication of Carcosa will have plenty of interior artwork. My self-published version had no interior art at all.

My amateurish large-scale hex map is also being re-done so as to look good in a diseased and alien way.

[Finarvyn]

May 25, 2011 9:40:00 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Yep, the re-publication of Carcosa will have plenty of interior artwork. My self-published version had no interior art at all.

My amateurish large-scale hex map is also being re-done so as to look good in a diseased and alien way.

Very cool. I look forward to seeing the new version!

[crusssdaddy]

A pretty clear mandate to stick with OD&D... sounds good to me! I've begun working on the sandbox, and also something else that is more like a supplement to CARCOSA that will also include three mini-adventures... but the mini-adventures are also very sandboxy in the sense that entry, exploration & resolution all have a number of different options.

I'm definitely excited to be working on CARCOSA material again!

[Morandir]

I'm excited to see someone working on Carcosa material. It's still my favorite bit of work for OD&D, and hopefully someday I'll get around to running a game set there...

[jimlotfp]

Let me be a butthead publisher and give you one big reason to wait for the new version before releasing your module:

The artwork is going to set an atmosphere and a look that the original version kind of left more open.

This is something to consider because the new version of Carcosa is going to have greater visibility and recognition (as opposed to reputation) due to distribution. I'm betting on outselling the first printing the first month the new version is available.

Carcosa has a lot of room for originality and new stuff, but if you use elements from the original Carcosa and they're presented in a way completely contradictory to what's in the book, that's going to cause a disconnect with some of your readers/buyers (I'm unclear whether you intend this as a commercial product).

(yes, I know the whole OSR exists to spite that mentality, but thought I'd throw it out there anyway, worst you can do is tell me to pound sand. I'd say it's fair to suggest that you at least see if you like what we do with Carcosa before you decide...)

(the artwork is all being approved by Geoffrey, by the way, and my goal is to present Carcosa as close to the way he ran it as possible, so this isn't "publisher swoops in and reimagines everything while the creator sits in the corner and counts his money")

[tombowings]

I'm not trying to rag on you, Jim; I think you're done some great work with LotFP. Furthermore, I think LotFP is a great fit for Carcosa, and it's a great idea for the two products to join forces.

But...

the main reason I voted OD&D wasn't because of some loyalty to the original legacy, but because I play OD&D or B/X rather than LotFP. While I've gotten the hang of converting ascending AC to descending on the fly, ascending AC starting at 12 rather than 10 is too much work.

When I use I module, it's for one of two reasons. 1) I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much effort into prep--which includes flipping around and modifying ACs; or 2) because I'm running a super casual game where the main purpose is to sit around having a good time with less emphasis put on the game itself.

If LotFP didn't use descending AC starting at 12, I would probably be running it as my go-to game. It's a great game and captures a lot of the type flavor I enjoy.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 3, 2011 10:36:12 GMT -6 tombowings said:

the main reason I voted OD&D wasn't because of some loyalty to the original legacy, but because I play OD&D or B/X rather than LotFP.

When I use I module, it's for one of two reasons. 1) I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much effort into prep--which includes flipping around and modifying ACs; or 2) because I'm running a super casual game where the main purpose is to sit around having a good time with less emphasis put on the game itself.

I have to agree, and I voted OD&D for much the same reason (except that I do have some OD&D loyalty in addition).

I think that Jim has done an awesome job with LotFP and matching Carcosa with LotFP was a great concept, but I don't actually play LotFP because it's just a bit too different than the rules I'm used to using.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 3, 2011 1:05:59 GMT -6 jimlotfp said:

Let me be a butthead publisher and give you one big reason to wait for the new version before releasing your module:

The artwork is going to set an atmosphere and a look that the original version kind of left more open.

Jim, you don't need to "defend" your game, because it's fine work.

I think also that the "new" Carcosa will be awesome and I'm planning on buying a copy to go with my Deluxe LotFP!

To me, choosing OD&D for a module isn't a vote against LotFP but a preference toward OD&D. I wish I could have voted twice. Or, maybe it can be produced in both formats.

[geoffrey]

I prefer for modules to not even have AC numbers listed. I like AC to be listed as "leather armor and shield" (or whatever the case may be). D&D has an AC scale, AD&D has a different one, C&C has a third, LotFP has yet another, and for all I know there are other iterations of the same old Joyous Game which have different AC notations.

By listing the actual type of armor equivalent rather than a number, all the numerical confusion is avoided. ;D

Doing it this way in my own campaign notes helps me "keep it real". For example, I might think, "Hmmm. I'll give this monster an armor class of 3. That sounds about right." But then I'll go to write "AC plate", and I think to myself, "This is absurd. There is no way this monster's hide is as tough as plate mail. It's not even as tough as chain mail! I'll go with leather and shield instead."

[jimlotfp]

I wasn't talking about the rules (Carcosa throws out just about everything ruleswise anyway), I was just thinking about how the artwork and the bit of added content might create a different vibe than assumed...

I know that how I thought of Carcosa was a lot different than what was actually written, so the art is going to highlight parts of Carcosa that nobody ever talks about, I think it's going to greatly affect perception.

Well, I hope so anyway, or the art isn't so meaningful.

[Finarvyn]

Geoffrey and Jim -

Would it be a good idea to edit the CARCOSA section of the boards to include both Carcosa and LotFP? (And move any LotFP threads there as well?) I wouldn't want to do it unless both of you thought it was a good idea....

- M.

[geoffrey]

Jun 3, 2011 15:48:42 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Geoffrey and Jim -

Would it be a good idea to edit the CARCOSA section of the boards to include both Carcosa and LotFP? (And move any LotFP threads there as well?) I wouldn't want to do it unless both of you thought it was a good idea....

- M.

I'd probably leave things as they are.

[Finarvyn]

Okay.

[crusssdaddy]

If the release date for the new CARCOSA holds to later this month (or even late next month), it will be coming out well before I'm done with anything. Just in the past couple days, I've decided to shift the locale from the Radioactive Desert to the Bottomless Lochs!

I should have plenty of time to digest the aesthetic of the new version and make appropriate adjustments to bring it in line with what Geoff's been doing all along.

Quick question: Is LotFP planning any official support for CARCOSA, beyond the core book? Modules, sandboxes, etc.?

And I think I'm going to do a 'Shub Spawn of the Week' feature on my blog - randomly generate a Spawn, then come up with a paragraph with some crunch and a hook or two. I'll cross post them here.

[skatay]

I always thought Carcosa went better with a gorier fight mechanic than vanilla D&D, so I recommend either RQ2 or my own Fight on hack, Doomquest. But since the product seems bonded with the LotFP, I'd consider that my second choice.