|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 3:46:04 GMT -6
FFC is sort of proto-OD&D, but it still counts, IMO. I'd leave FFC out because it is a work of garbage, aside from the map. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 5:01:55 GMT -6
FFC is sort of proto-OD&D, but it still counts, IMO. I'd leave FFC out because it is a work of garbage, aside from the map. Calling the First Fantasy Campaign garbage is harsh and completely unwarranted and quite frankly comes across as deliberately inflammatory. While it would have benefited from a good editor, it nevertheless is chock full of ideas and campaign goodies. It gives a lot of info from the prepublished days of OD&D and is quite a significant document. We must remember that FFC and OD&D were essentially "fan materials" that became something more. Everyone complains about OD&D's lack of editing and organization but they are applying 20/20 hingsight to the writing of these documents. You can not apply 2013 writing/editing standards to the seminal products of the game, especially when you were not there and are not privy to the situation they were created under. They did not have personal computers with software that does half the work for you. In the light of CoZ - OD&D + BTPTBD +, consider what OD&D might have been had Gygax and Arneson possessed personal computers and email and then have had a real editor to hold their hand through the process. Look how many clones, retro clones and fresh takes have been published in the last few years. These documents are created by people who build on the foundation of FFC and OD&D and more, but they have the benefit of computers, software, hindsight, people to help them edit, and hundreds if not thousands of other well edited documents as examples of a better way to organize things. Different standards apply and rightly so! |
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 5:29:36 GMT -6
I'd leave FFC out because it is a work of garbage, aside from the map. Calling the First Fantasy Campaign garbage is harsh and completely unwarranted and quite frankly comes across as deliberately inflammatory. It is not intended to be inflammatory. It is a frank assessment of a supplement that comes highly praised and that I paid about $80 to get hold of. I couldn't find a single interesting idea in it and it represents a kind of D&D I find embarrassing. I wish more people would come out and say it is useless. Nothing to do with presentation by the way, which I prefer to be simple, readable and light on images. I think the first two wilderlands supplements are superb. Simply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work, which is not to say there is one way to play D&D. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 6:00:50 GMT -6
Calling the First Fantasy Campaign garbage is harsh and completely unwarranted and quite frankly comes across as deliberately inflammatory. It is not intended to be inflammatory. It is a frank assessment of a supplement that comes highly praised and that I paid about $80 to get hold of. I couldn't find a single interesting idea in it and it represents a kind of D&D I find embarrassing. I wish more people would come out and say it is useless. Nothing to do with presentation by the way, which I prefer to be simple, readable and light on images. I think the first two wilderlands supplements are superb. Simply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work, which is not to say there is one way to play D&D. Biting my tongue, hard, very hard.  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 7, 2013 6:06:27 GMT -6
Calling the First Fantasy Campaign garbage is harsh and completely unwarranted and quite frankly comes across as deliberately inflammatory. It is not intended to be inflammatory. It is a frank assessment of a supplement that comes highly praised and that I paid about $80 to get hold of. I couldn't find a single interesting idea in it and it represents a kind of D&D I find embarrassing. I wish more people would come out and say it is useless. Nothing to do with presentation by the way, which I prefer to be simple, readable and light on images. I think the first two wilderlands supplements are superb. Simply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work, which is not to say there is one way to play D&D. I'm sorry you see FFC that way. Other than the OD&D LBB, FFC is one of my top inspirations for gaming when I get "writer's block" for campaigns. I own two copies -- my original that I keep in a bag and a "reading" copy which I keep near my computer. Keep in mind that D&D back then was a combination of role play and miniatures play. If you are expecting skill lists or things like that, they didn't exist back then. FFC goes back to the days when rules were few and the Referee had to "wing it" all the time. I loved those days. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 7, 2013 6:25:32 GMT -6
Simply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work Well, that’s most of us, so… |
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 6:51:21 GMT -6
Biting my tongue, hard, very hard. Why would you take my opinion personally as if you wrote the thing? All you have is an opinion of the work too which you are free to express. ]I'm sorry you see FFC that way. Other than the OD&D LBB, FFC is one of my top inspirations for gaming when I get "writer's block" for campaigns. I own two copies -- my original that I keep in a bag and a "reading" copy which I keep near my computer. Im surprised you value it so highly. Is it possible you bought it when you were very young and it reminds you of the old days? I feel it is my civic duty to warn people not to spend a large sum on it like I did, it is now - $130 on Noble KnightSimply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work Well, that’s most of us, so… Is it though? I wonder how many people who bought it over say the last few years for a large sum feel it was worth it. As I said I didn't find any interesting ideas in it. What specifically impresses you about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 7, 2013 7:10:29 GMT -6
Maybe we should have a separate “Kent: FFC is a work of garbage” thread rather than derail this one further. Just real quick, though: If you bought it for $80 and can now sell it for $120, what’s the problem? Next time, download the PDF before making a big purchasing decision.  |
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 7, 2013 8:02:34 GMT -6
Maybe we should have a separate “Kent: FFC is a work of garbage” thread rather than derail this one further. Just real quick, though: If you bought it for $80 and can now sell it for $120, what’s the problem? Next time, download the PDF before making a big purchasing decision. You wasted a 'derailing' post to say that rather than point out what you like about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 7, 2013 8:27:09 GMT -6
]I'm sorry you see FFC that way. Other than the OD&D LBB, FFC is one of my top inspirations for gaming when I get "writer's block" for campaigns. I own two copies -- my original that I keep in a bag and a "reading" copy which I keep near my computer. Im surprised you value it so highly. Is it possible you bought it when you were very young and it reminds you of the old days? I wonder how many people who bought it over say the last few years for a large sum feel it was worth it. As I said I didn't find any interesting ideas in it. What specifically impresses you about it? I did buy it when I was young and it does remind me of the good old days. I also bought it again a couple years ago (at a high price, sadly, of around $50) for my "reading" copy. As I mentioned, I still love it. What do I love? 1. A look into the original campaign as it was run by Dave. That includes some of the army breakdowns. Not so useful in a generic campaign, but cool nonetheless. (Actually, I have used those numbers before when I ran a Blackmoor game. How many troops does Blackmoor city have? It tells you.) 2. Some of the cost charts. I find it interesting that some of the items have similar costs to OD&D, others do not. Dave's FFC cost charts are more elaborate than M&M, however. Again, these give a glimpse into what Dave's campaign was like. Notice the reference to Tarns and red/white silk slaves? That says something. 3. Rules for management of a global campaign, not just a dungeon crawl adventure. Want to build a road? Move trade goods? Much of this stuff is sort of like the old "Dynasty" computer game from the 1980's, but it was done before that. 4. A ten-level dungeon. I'd like to see Gary's Greyhawk dungeon, but may never get a chance. But I have seen Dave's Blackmoor dungeon and have run characters through it. It tells me not only what the dungeon looked like, but gives a peek at the way he keyed dungeons, the types of encounters he used, and so on. Baically, my insterest is inspirational and historical in nature. It's part of why I prefer OD&D over AD&D -- AD&D may have better organization and presentation, but OD&D is in some ways a "better" game because it gives me a general structure and I work with that to fill in the gaps. FFC gives me just enough to kickstart my brain and I let imagination take me from there. I guess if you think it's a finished product (instead of Dave's campaign notes, which essentially it is) you might not be as interested. If you have an extra copy you want to throw away, feel free to throw it my way.  |
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Aug 7, 2013 9:09:13 GMT -6
Kent: I think you would come off as less inflammatory if you used some supporting facts, what you have thus far is opinion, other then the price which is a important fact.
Others: Do you see ideas in the FFC that get expanded and more interesting in his later works? I do not own an FFC and the price has always made me hesitate. But I have Blackmoor and the DA1 and DA2 modules and wonder how it compares or sets the stage?
-Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Aug 7, 2013 10:45:56 GMT -6
I think that the FFC isn't for everyone. It can be hard to get into and if you are expecting something else, I could see how someone could be disappointed.
However, I think that the FFC is a wonderful and unique book because it unlike any other book gives us such a detailed glimpse of the very first fantasy roleplaying campaign. It chronicles the events, so that they could be run all over again. It gives us the dungeon map of Castle Blackmoor as well as the Glendover one. Although the way the book is organized means you need to be a little more patient, it does provide a window into a setting with some very uniqye features along with NPCs, magical items, monsters etc.
One thing I really like about this book is how it provides a look into all the "roads not taken" with mainstream D&D. While Blackmoor was essential in providing ideas for what a D&D campaign would be like, Arneson also experimented with many ideas that were not picked up. I think it is awesome going back and revisiting these ideas now. Many things deemed "bad ideas" by TSR back in the 1970s actually look to me like they could be a lot of fun these days.
Other than perhaps the dungeon maps and a few magic items, most of this book does not provide material that you could just pick up and run with zero prep though. I think it is a book more useful for those with the patience to sit down with it a bit and use it to get into the mindset of the Twin Cities Gaming group and see what kind of ideas they would bring into their games and then see how that could be adapted to your game.
Also of course, it is a unique document of the history of roleplaying games, for those of us interested in that part of it.
If you are more interested in a finished module ready to run, I would recommend going to DA1 Adventures in Blackmoor or even the D20 line.
-Havard
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Aug 7, 2013 10:53:16 GMT -6
Others: Do you see ideas in the FFC that get expanded and more interesting in his later works? I do not own an FFC and the price has always made me hesitate. But I have Blackmoor and the DA1 and DA2 modules and wonder how it compares or sets the stage? The DA modules could not have happened without the FFC and Supp II. DA1 has a fairly simple adventure about the kidnapping of the King of Blackmoor (Uther), but also gives a very detailed presentation of the world that was introduced in the FFC. Many of the characters used as PC in the original campaign appear as fully detailed NPCs in DA1. DA2 is of course the expansion of the Temple of the Frog from Supp II, but also goes back to the Loch Gloomen Campaign Season from the FFC. DA3 finally reveals more details on the Valley of the Ancients which is just hinted at in the FFC. Pretty much where everyone ends up being killed in the original campaign. DA4 is the module Dave had the least influence over, but of course the Duchy of Ten plays an important role already back in the FFC. I wrote a piece on Arneson's Duchy of Ten here. -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 7, 2013 10:58:28 GMT -6
The First Fantasy Campaign has the first ten levels of the Blackmoor dungeons, roughly as Arneson used them in convention play during the mid-1970s. (The maps and description coincide closely with Bill Paley's actual play report in Alarums & Excursions, which I reprinted here.) It also has lots of info about how Arneson actually ran a large-scale game. So yeah, it's definitely different from Blackmoor and the DA series. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 7, 2013 11:27:28 GMT -6
Here's a great tidbit from page 19, in the section on the Town of Blackmoor:
"Off the map one mile to the northwest is the ruined Temple of the Id Monster. This contains a single great Jewel guarded by several Undead Superheroes. The one who grabs the Jewel and escapes is then pursued by the Id Monster that only he can see. This creature will attack the Jewel, and its carrier if any. The creature and the Jewel will then vanish while the carrier will reappear under the Troll Bridge, quite naked, upon the town garbage heap having suffered the tomemt of being eaten alive."
I think the best parts are the sections on the "Infamous Characters", "Facts about Blackmoor", "Blackmoor Dungeon".
The town/dungeon setting could benefit from some reformatting to make the various encounter areas more easily digestable.
It's definitely one that needs to be up on rpgnow as a pdf download. The publication rights must be complicated however, due to the product/layout/maps being produced by Judges Guild but copyright to Arneson.
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Aug 7, 2013 13:06:46 GMT -6
It's definitely one that needs to be up on rpgnow as a pdf download. The publication rights must be complicated however, due to the product/layout/maps being produced by Judges Guild but copyright to Arneson. Bob Bledsaw reverted the rights of the FFC to the Arneson family before both men passed away. WotC holds the rights to Blackmoor. Possibly WotC could block a republication of the FFC, but OTOH they did allow a guy to publish a game report book from the Living Greyhawk Campaign. Obviously IANAL. -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 7, 2013 14:32:54 GMT -6
It's definitely one that needs to be up on rpgnow as a pdf download. The publication rights must be complicated however, due to the product/layout/maps being produced by Judges Guild but copyright to Arneson. Bob Bledsaw reverted the rights of the FFC to the Arneson family before both men passed away. WotC holds the rights to Blackmoor. Possibly WotC could block a republication of the FFC, but OTOH they did allow a guy to publish a game report book from the Living Greyhawk Campaign. Obviously IANAL. -Havard Dave Arneson's Blackmoor is up for sale on RPGNow, so I don't imagine it'd be much trouble to sell FFC there as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 7, 2013 15:25:09 GMT -6
For a long time, Arneson’s people claimed they would have to scrub the Hobbits/Balrogs before publishing a PDF. I wonder if that’s REALLY an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Aug 7, 2013 23:17:52 GMT -6
FFC is sort of proto-OD&D, but it still counts, IMO. I'd leave FFC out because it is a work of garbage, aside from the map. No one has really responded to the "leave it out" part (or maybe they did in the original thread). The original thread was asking about influential early campaign worlds. No matter what one might think of the production qualities of FFC, it IS documentation of the first fantasy campaign that led directly to the publication of D&D. Beyond that, while the production quality and editing is not great, and the material isn't always directly useful in D&D, I find it inspiring every time I read it. Now it's true, when I play, I mostly just use the maps, but still, I couldn't dream of parting with my signed copy of FFC. Honestly, campaign worlds with MORE stuff published quickly trend towards uselessness in my book. If I want to use someone's campaign world, I want a map, and a few pages of description. I don't need an encyclopedia for your campaign world. It becomes too cumbersome to use in play, and too constricting. So in the end, I hold up FFC as a nearly perfect example of how I would like to see campaign worlds published. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 9, 2013 5:41:47 GMT -6
The FFC is priceless for insight into the freewheeling early days of fantasy role play gaming, true, but some may not be seeking that kind of inspiration as much as concrete methods to apply to their campaign.
While it is sometimes not as obvious, (and may well require some hand holding for the less patient reader) there is still plenty of very useful guidelines to be found between those covers, totally separate from any historical value.
I think some of the most generally useful (ahistorical) guidelines are these:
Investment details and methods for Land and Sea Trade; 10, 11
Example materials for campaign handouts; 14-21
Specific guidelines otherwise absent from D&D and AD&D for how to use the % in lair statistic and apply outdoor encounter tables; 25
Detailed guidelines for creating wilderness hexmaps with randomly determined features; 26-27
Dungeon Stocking notes; 30
Chance Cards; 47 – 49
Guidelines for creating characters of monster races; 52
A specific example of a monster character with levels, (dragon); 57
*Pages are per the 1980 edition, being the most common one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 19:04:43 GMT -6
"People who can't understand books written for grownups shouldn't talk about them." -- C.S. Lewis
FFC is invaluable as a historical document.
|
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 15, 2013 19:41:49 GMT -6
People who can't understand books written for grownups shouldn't talk about them. They should talk about D&D instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 15, 2013 20:08:30 GMT -6
Kent, I hope that, in a few years, no longer being under the illusion that FFC might be the equivalent of WoG, and the sting of the eBay transaction having worn off, you will be able to appreciate it for what it is.
It’s basically the pre-Gygax D&D manuscript.
I don’t use anything from it in play, but I find it hugely inspirational. I’ve never read about a more player-driven campaign, anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 16, 2013 10:33:49 GMT -6
This thread seems to have weirdly turned into a "we must convince Kent that he's wrong" in addition to actually answering the thread's main question.
Kent, you said at one point (to paraphrase) that much of the FFC is the kind of D&D that embarrasses you; that's an interesting take. From whence the embarrassment?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 16, 2013 16:10:40 GMT -6
FFC explains how to organically determine the number of heroes, wizards and # of spells someone can "recruit" for a CHAINMAIL campaign (not just a battle).
Sure CHAINMAIL gives you a point cost ( as does FFC) but it doesn't tell you how many can replace killed ones. FFC is the best resource for playing a serious world building campaign or organic history of a campaign world. An alternative to a Tolkienian top down mini-novel of a setting; FFC shows how your gaming group can make their own history--just like Blackmoor and Greyhawk histories and borders were written.
You see hints of the FFC throughout ad&d. With gygax's half-finished essays on 1% of a population being heroic, or on tithing and taxes due to lords. All of this was plagiarism and reduction to the point of uselessness of the wealth of information in the FFC.
Not to be overly harsh, but Kent's opinion on the FFC is useless as a blanket statement. Just as someone who declares Beethovens 9th symphony worthless. It is his job to make an argument, not ours to defend the book. He has everything to prove. Not one of the founders and writers of the worlds most popular game.
"Mozart sucks", Tells you nothing about Mozart, but everything about the person who says it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kent on Aug 16, 2013 17:35:34 GMT -6
Kent, I hope that, in a few years, no longer being under the illusion that FFC might be the equivalent of WoG, ... I find it hugely inspirational. I’ve never read about a more player-driven campaign, anywhere. I didn't have any expectation it would be like WoG or anything else. I did expect to find it inspiring, as you say, because of the esteem in which it is held but for me it is a dud; I won't be referring to it again. This thread seems to have weirdly turned into a "we must convince Kent that he's wrong" in addition to actually answering the thread's main question. Kent, you said at one point (to paraphrase) that much of the FFC is the kind of D&D that embarrasses you; that's an interesting take. From whence the embarrassment? No, I think its fine for people to stick to their guns. I think its important to get the alternative view out there too. As to embarrassment, there is a kind of D&D which doesn't grow up with the group who play it. It stays the same as the first game played at age 10 - 12, without accommodating the maturing interests and knowledge of the participants. So FFC strikes me as this sort of immature presentation of the game, and yes it has historical value as a curiosity, but I don't see any reason to revisit his weak and badly written campaign ideas. Perhaps I criticise it so much because I create everything myself and find Arneson's ideas redundant. Not to be overly harsh, but Kent's opinion on the FFC is useless as a blanket statement. Just as someone who declares Beethovens 9th symphony worthless. It is his job to make an argument, not ours to defend the book. He has everything to prove. Not one of the founders and writers of the worlds most popular game. "Mozart sucks", Tells you nothing about Mozart, but everything about the person who says it. You are some moron if you think saying 'Mozart sucks' and 'Arneson's FFC sucks' are similar judgements. I was not trying to influence anyone. I was inviting people with a similar appraisal to come forward and say so. The fact that no one has, apart from possible instances of timidity, indicates the predominant taste of the people who post here so it is revealing and useful in its own way. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 16, 2013 18:54:44 GMT -6
Yes, of course unanimity of opinion is a clear indication of heard mentality and can never be an indication of broad agreement of learned opinion...
Yes, Arneson is the mozart of gaming. Gygax and Arneson weren't just some dudes who were into gaming and were lucky by being the first. Their ideas were brilliant, simple, and had a profound impact on all game designers up to and including mega-titles of modern games like Skyrim. They literally invented hit points...(sure the concept sounds simple to us in retrospect, but so does the wheel, or lift allows for airplanes to fly).
If you don't think FFC is good. Then state your case. No one has to prove Arneson's genius, his legacy proves that. It's you Kent who have to prove yours. Someone can't just say, "Aliens exist and have visited Earth" and then expect everyone else to prove that theory wrong.
You have to prove your opinion/theory right, no one is obligated to disprove you. That's the way scholarship works. Your opinion of Arneson's work is wrong until proven persuasive.
To be honest, I get the feeling you don't understand parts of it (perhaps the chainmail/wargaming parts) and so in your unsurprising (to most of us) way have decided to gather information you lack by provoking others into helping you. This strategy usually works well on internet forums, so congratulations. You are being schooled appropriately.
Here's another:
Intelligent magic swords in D&D grew out of arneson's magic swords in FFC and the staves of power and staves of magi are legacies of wizard swords in the same book. Which shows one then how to make more staves that the two examples. The staff of power and staff of magi are examples of what can be made. That's awesome to think about in game terms, just for the seeds of possibilities it germinates. It also shows how a DM could allow magic-users to wield swords, by splitting magic swords into "fighter" and "magic-user" versions without changing balance of power in class abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Sept 23, 2013 5:26:48 GMT -6
I got my copy secondhand without the map long ago for cheap, and have used bits from time to time. I see it mainly as what it was offered as, a retrospective. I wouldn't pay more than 5 bucks for it, but I'm not a collector.
|
|
mannclay
Level 4 Theurgist
...you know what you are not, what you are you cannot know... - insane sorcerer
Posts: 116 
|
Post by mannclay on Feb 16, 2014 20:21:57 GMT -6
Calling the First Fantasy Campaign garbage is harsh and completely unwarranted and quite frankly comes across as deliberately inflammatory. It is not intended to be inflammatory. It is a frank assessment of a supplement that comes highly praised and that I paid about $80 to get hold of. I couldn't find a single interesting idea in it and it represents a kind of D&D I find embarrassing. I wish more people would come out and say it is useless. Nothing to do with presentation by the way, which I prefer to be simple, readable and light on images. I think the first two wilderlands supplements are superb. Simply put, I am doubtful I could game with someone who thought the FFC was a good piece of work, which is not to say there is one way to play D&D. hey, fella...this is an old thread i know, but...wanna get rid of your FFC? Is it 1st/2nd print? sell it to me, buddy. But first post pics. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Feb 25, 2014 15:22:26 GMT -6
I got my copy secondhand without the map long ago for cheap, and have used bits from time to time. I see it mainly as what it was offered as, a retrospective. I wouldn't pay more than 5 bucks for it, but I'm not a collector. In addition to describing the setting of Blackmoor and multiple scenarios you can run in that setting, I also think it offers a ton of adventure ideas and campaign concepts that can be brought into any game. Although it is written in the "here's what we did" style, it is fairly easy to translate that to "here's what you can do".  -Havard |
|
