Blackmoor should change rules

[Finarvyn]

I think that it's great that Blackmoor is currently in print, but I persoanally find it such a shame that it's being done in the d20 system.

Before I begin, I should point out that I own most of the Zeitgeist Games product line (and plan on picking up the rest next GenCon). I believe that something like Blackmoor should be supported and find the content interesting even if I am put off by the rules.

General thoughts:

1. To me, Blackmoor screams "old school". Blackmoor is one of the special campaigns that began when the game began. (I guess the "big three" would have to be Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and the Wilderlands.)

2. Blackmoor was created in an era when rules could change at a whim, but d20 was designed in an attempt to standardize everything. This implies a fundamental incompatibility, in my opinion. I think the reason that no one can truly "pin down" Dave's rules is that he changed them as he saw fit, and the rules were made to be fun at the moment. The present game line has all of the key words but loses much of the spontaneousness.

3. To continue with that thought, if a person wants "pure" Blackmoor, he or she needs to go to find the old First Fantasy Campaign book. When I read through FFC I don't find a single mention of "feats", which is part of what I dislike about the new Blackmoor -- it's not the old campaign but has evolved too much in a "rules heavy" way.

4. To follow along with this reasoning, I think it would be great if some day Blackmoor can be re-imagined again, only in a more rules-light way. I would think that an adjusted OD&D rules system would be great, or a retro edition such as Labyrinth Lords in order to capture the feel. I guess ideally it would be done in a totally new game that was essentially OD&D but made whatever changes would be needed to capture the original spirit of Dave's campaign.

5. As a counter to my own argument, is it possible that such a game system would in some way be an anti-Blackmoor simply because an intangible would become tangible? Possibly, but it would be nice to see, anyway!

Anyway, anyone who knows me knows that I love Blackmoor and continue to champion its cause. I just wish that the Blackmoor being published was more like the Blackmoor of Genesis.

Just my opinion.

[geoffrey]

I agree 100%. I think that Dave should put together HIS version of the "inspired-by-Chainmail-with-fantasy-supplement" rules from back in the very early 70s. Call it "Dave Arneson's Original Fantasy Rules" (DAOFR). From what I understand, the rules would be very lite and very short (perhaps 32 pages or so). Then sell the rules through lulu in both hardcopy and pdf.

Finally, publish Blackmoor material using DAOFR. I would buy it ALL.

Blackmoor is my single favorite published setting for D&D (with Wilderlands a close second). But the Wilderlands' presentation is WAY better than the 3.x-saddled Blackmoor. Consequently, I find myself thinking of and referring to the Wilderlands way more often.

[geoffrey]

From a post on RPG.net:

WARNING: I cannot speak for Dave's writing or published Blackmoor books, just the game as he ran it that night and the discussions we had about Blackmoor during and after the game. With that agreed, read on.

>3) SciFi / Fantasy blending was the genre. As one player put it, it was D&D meets Naked Lunch.

We encountered goblins weilding mind-control wands to use a purple worm as a digging machine to create tunnels for a mass transit system. The scifi/fantasy blending was very much in the mood and feel - I don't mean steampunk devices or obvious spaceships, but traveling was much more going to an alien place with alien creatures than going into a fantasy forest full of goblins.

We were ALL veteran D&D players and the dungeon felt wrong. You know those crazy architectual weirdness of the old modules. Yeah, some of those are there to make the character's scratch their heads and enhance the "this isn't Kansas" atmosphere. You get the message that dungeons are not treasure troves, they are murder holes and we are fools for coming here.

The further we got from town and the deeper we went, the vestiges of civilization as we knew it were getting less and less. We were not just adventurers, we were explorers and invaders to a different world. I felt much more like the crew of the Nostromo than the Fellowship.

>4) It was SO not Tolkein and not the pseudo-medieval Greyhawk. The world was odd and tweaked where magic was used to emulate technology in many aspects, but unlike the "logic" of steampunk science, this was a world were you could just cast spells to do stuff where nobody really understands the magic they wield.

I see Tolkein as more than elves, dwarves and orcs, but a feel and a texture of a flowing high fantasy where good vs. evil is the dominant paradigm. The pseudo-medieval feel of Greyhawk is the sense that there is a class structure and technology transposed from the Dark Ages of Europe. This is not the case in the Blackmoor as it was presented by Dave on that night.

Magic was a tool, but our magic items were presented to us the way artifacts show up in Gamma World: you learn by trying and sometimes it doesn't work the way you hoped. You know that stat block in the book, toss it. My Staff of Power could do more and it could do less, so could potions. We didn't have 100% trust in our magical items "just cuz the book says" and they had a mystical appeal to them.

Dave told us more about this out of game with his home campaign. You know the coolness of Earthdawn's magic items in that you gain more powers as you learn about them? Yeah, Dave explained that every magic item should have a story behind its creation and creator. So I asked him point blank why the HELL wasn't all this cool shirt in my freaking books? He smiled and said that back then they figured all people needed was the basic framework and they would add in and discover the rest as they played. Dave said the rules were never meant as the end point....only the beginning.

My response: Dave, you gotta write this stuff down!!!

[Finarvyn]

And please keep in mind that my intent is not to bash Dave's current efforts with Zeitgeist Games, which are all officially sanctioned by Dave. Zeitgeist began creating Blackmoor materials (as I recall) before the flurry of retro-clone games and at the time d20 looked like the wave of the future. Products created by Zeitgeist are decent enough, considering the framework under which they are operating.

I'd just rather see something closer to a "roll back the clock" version, that's all.

[dwayanu]

(Please bear with me ...)

I'm not fond of using the RISUS rules, but I'm fond of RISUS "stats." Think of 1 = slightly significant and 6 = legendary.

Example: Greedy Goblin (1), a Backstabbing Sneak (2) and Silver-Tongued Liar (3) with a magical Bag of Bees (2).

A broader range (up to 10 or 12?) might be desirable for Blackmoor, and D&D ability ratings on 3-18 for major characters are probably a "must-have."

Something like that -- perhaps plus a handful of more "war-gamy" specs (e.g., equivalents to D&D HD, AC and Move) -- might be just the thing to avoid making "the intangible tangible."

I'm thinking that such an approach can give a good impression of what the designer has in mind without being too detailed or rules-system specific. If more detail is needed, it ought to be in "real world" terms.

When it comes to Arneson, I'm much more interested in what's in his imaginary worlds than in his game mechanics (although he did a WW1 naval game I enjoyed).

[Finarvyn]

May 17, 2008 16:27:18 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

When it comes to Arneson, I'm much more interested in what's in his imaginary worlds than in his game mechanics (although he did a WW1 naval game I enjoyed).

I'm interested in both, actually.

While I agree with you in principle, I'm not so hot on picking a system like RISUS to protray Blackmoor. I think that one of my biggest reasons for this is that BM began in the early stages of OD&D and should maintain some of that format. Or at least a simiar format as found in a retro-clone system.

I'm afraid that converting this material over to RISUS, or another over-simplified system, might cause Blackmoor to lose some of its flavor; its charm. The same thing that the 3E is doing (in my opinion) only to the other end of the spectrum.

I'm all for trying to preserve Blackmoor as originally imagined, if this is at all possible.

[dwayanu]

I get you, but let me clarify:

I'm talking about not tying setting material to any particular rules set. As I said right off the bat, I'm not fond of using RISUS.

I suggested D&D-equivalent combat stats (AC, HD, MV) partly for flavor. Using real-world equivalents such as "mail" for AC 5 would be even more generic. D&D ability scores are not just "old school" but carry over pretty easily into many other games.

The big difference is in the stuff that tends to bloat "stat blocks" and involve rules lookups (thereby tying the write-ups to the author's rules set): special abilities and gadgets.

"Blackmoor was created in an era when rules could change at a whim, but d20 was designed in an attempt to standardize everything."

Everything strikes me as hyperbole. The scope of D20 rules seems fairly typical of games going back to the late '70s or early '80s, the complexity of the special cases being what stands out. Of course, it inherited the tons of "stuff" from AD&D.

A new Blackmoor RPG would be another "standard," with the same perils of "drift" and eventual incompatibility.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the merits of such a product. I passed on my autographed copy of Dave's later FRPG because it really did not excite me enough to play it. Based on that, I'm not eager for another rules design from him. I understand that others may not feel the same!

A write-up of his "original rules" seems unlikely, in part because of the mutability you mentioned.

[dwayanu]

Another thing:

I wouldn't mind longer write-ups with less "Gamese." All we really need long descriptions for are new things. If you've got an FRPG, then you've probably got knights, goblins, dragons and so on already.

That's my own preference with D&D modules, actually. If there are a dozen encounters with orcs, then just give me their hit points; I don't need a "stat block" each time.

I'm talking about "old school" versions, natch; I won't run D20.

(D20 nightmare: the same darned mass of canned text twice on facing pages in a Goodman Games product. To me, that's a rip-off.)

The "encyclopedic" stuff could be in separate volumes, leaving the scenario modules to actual adventure material.

[havard]

I would like them to go the way of Freeport and publish systemless sourcebooks every now and then...

However, I suspect ZGG's contract with WotC specifies that they may only publish Blackmoor with the latest edition of D&D. I believe they will be switching to 4e by the end of the year.

Havard

[Finarvyn]

Jun 4, 2008 11:53:59 GMT -6 havard said:

I believe they will be switching to 4e by the end of the year.

I hope not.

[havard]

Jun 4, 2008 15:07:48 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jun 4, 2008 11:53:59 GMT -6 havard said:

I believe they will be switching to 4e by the end of the year.

I hope not.

Yeah I'm not too thrilled about that either. I am not particularly interested in buying all of the BM books over again. I would much rather see them make new stuff.

OTOH, some of Dustin's early comments seemed to suggest that they were interested in continuing using the 3.5 rules. I don't see how that would work economically in the long run though. C&C and other systems seem to be impossible with their current contract with WotC however.

Havard

[geoffrey]

Since Dave himself has recently said on these boards that he owns everything except the name "Blackmoor", why not publish under the name "Black Moor" (or some other winky-wink name)?

[havard]

Jun 4, 2008 21:39:21 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Since Dave himself has recently said on these boards that he owns everything except the name "Blackmoor", why not publish under the name "Black Moor" (or some other winky-wink name)?

I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Havard

[aldarron]

Recreating a set of rules to approximate the proto D&D of Blackmoor is I think very possible, although as you say you would be attempting to set in stone something that was often changing. The thing to do though is not to start with OD&D, but rather to start with AIF minus the combat and % dice systems, add in a cleaned up and coherent FCC, the basic classes as we have discussed here as they appear in OD&D and supplement II, and then look to EPT and OD&D and Arnesons posts to round out the rough spots. If anybody could ever track down a copy of the combat rules from Daves naval game, that could be used to judiciously recreate the combat system - which would probably not be radically different the the OD&D "alternate" system. A lot of work, doing all that, but more a case of editing than rewriting. It would be an interesting project but wether it would be really worth the trouble is a different question.

[snorri]

A close and careful study of the clues provided in FFC about classes, races, combat system (with his % of save against hits) and what he grab from Chainmail and whathe left apart, could lead us to soemthing close to the original system.

[aldarron]

Not sure what there would be to get from Chainmail. Arneson said they abandoned the chainmail combat system after the first three games in 1971. Maybe some of the monsters, but AIF, FFC and Supplement II would be more relevant. Might be something from Chainmail carried into the original Blackmoor campaign but I'm not sure what that might be.

[snorri]

Is it still possible to find - legals - pdf of Aventures in Fantasy somewhere ?

[coffee]

I don't even know if there were illegal pdfs AIF. I would love to have a legal one, myself.

[Finarvyn]

Oh, the illegal ones are out there. I've never heard of any legit ones, however.

[aldarron]

I am slowly scanning in my copy. When that is complete, I will share. Honestly, the AIF core mechanics do not look fun or even practical to play - lots of divide by x formulas. Probably done to distinguish from D&D and probably lots of the game mechanic was Richard Sniders idea, but the magic, monsters, education system, and campaign creation sections are definetly remiicent of The First Fantasy Campaign material.

[havard]

Well, I guess its too late to change rules now, eh?

Havard

[snorri]

Still we can recreate a set of rules with our archeological finds and retroclone the early Blackmoor system...

[Finarvyn]

Well, it would be interesting to see if anyone could create Blackmoor-like materials without getting squished by WotC. I know that Greg Svenson at one point had mentioned doing his own stuff up nice and it would be cool if such things would be more compatible with older versions rather than newer versions of the rules.

[aldarron]

Well, I think that depends on whether you mean campaign setting material or rules and system mechanics material. I think it would be quite easy to avoid WotC concerns in an FFC retroclone by never using the word Blackmoor, or any of thier proprietary critters, or the town, dungeon or castle of Blackmoor, or directly using D&D classes and game mechanics - all of which is quite possible. Classes would be the trickiest, probably, but since things like "fighter" and "cleric" aren't specific to D&D thats not too hard to work around. When working out the rules, no mention need be made of the campaign setting. Since there is a ton of Blackmoor setting material already published, enterprising DM's can use that and convert to retroclone FFC rules as they please. I'd also bet there are parts of the original Blackmoor setting that could form the locational basis for a retroclone adventure- Bleakwood or Glendower come to mind as names tht probably aren't claimed as trademarks. Arneson used Bleakwood in AIF. Wotc isn't the issue for a proper FFC retroclone, its the Arneson and Snider estates or whoever it is who owns the rights to FFC and AIF.