|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 5, 2011 19:29:41 GMT -6
If you're really really familiar with the structure of the three core AD&D books, and if you prefer the hit dice progression from Greyhawk/AD&D, then you can pretty much play OD&D style with AD&D by changing the following: Sounds like how I played AD&D through most of the 80's! |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 9, 2011 8:45:32 GMT -6
Here's one solution. Every DM has his own personal retroclone printed specifically for his campaign: cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2011/09/perfect-retroclone.htmlThis gets me thinking. Perhaps the perfect OD&D retroclone would be some kind of umbrella software package that would allow you to produce your own customized rulebook for your campaign. You could pick and choose the rules and options you wanted to include, as well as the artwork, and it would generate a printable rulebook that you could give out to your players. It would even allow you type in your own house rules that it would insert in the text where you wanted them. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 8, 2011 22:12:24 GMT -6
See these previous threads discussing this topic: grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/02/terminology-question.htmlwww.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10584Summarizing: Men & Magic has: "Before they begin, players must decide what role they play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user." (pg 6). Alarums & Excursions is an APAzine that started in the 70's. From irbyz's (harami/faro) comments it sounds like the usage there is unconfirmed/apocryphal. Holmes may have been the first D&D rulebook to use this term (I'm not sure about this), but it was preceded at least Strategic Review #7 (April 1976), Dragon #1 (Jun 1976), and Metamorphosis Alpha (1976). There's also an Owl & Weasel (White Dwarf predecessor) usage from April 1976: ""It is a multi-player role-playing game vaguely similar to Dungeons & Dragons, comprising only of a rulebook and played with pencil, paper and dice." - En Garde! review (SJ); O&W #15, 4/76" |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 5, 2011 20:30:22 GMT -6
Fin, it's on page 6, left column, section titled "USING THIS MODULE WITH ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS", right before "BACKGROUND".
My monochrome copy is a 2nd print (no prices on the back cover), but as far as I know it's the same as the 1st print monochrome (prices on the back cover). The front cover of each has a sentence referring to AD&D.
If you still don't see the paragraph, confirm that your booklet is the correct one; it should have a Wizard logo on the title page. If it has a Face logo, it's a later booklet. The Face logo booklet has the two paragraphs about AD&D replaced by a dragon drawn by David Sutherland. (As a trivia note, this same dragon was used in the 2nd print of B2 a part of a replacement for the paragraphs about using the module with AD&D, but then was dropped when the module was revised for Moldvay).
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 5, 2011 19:15:24 GMT -6
It's just two paragraphs. There's not much information there. It basically just says that AD&D players should have no trouble using the module, and can use their own monsters rather than the list given in the module.
More interesting is this note found elsewhere:
"Note: In the mythical WORLD OF GREYHAWK (available from TSR) the stronghold can be considered within any one of the following lands - the Barony of Ratik, the Duchy of Tenh, or the Theocracy of the Pale."
B1 first appeared in Nov 1978, which is several years before the World of Greyhawk was actually published, so this note refers to a work in progress rather than an available product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 4, 2011 20:09:48 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff. I hadn't put the B1 - Blackmoor connection together before. There's a great interview with Mike Carr at Save or Die: saveordie.info/?p=333It's almost an hour and a half long. B1 is discussed at about the 30 minute mark. |
|
|
|
Balrog
Sept 4, 2011 19:10:26 GMT -6
Post by Zenopus on Sept 4, 2011 19:10:26 GMT -6
If anyone wants a scan of the original Balrog entry from Monsters & Treasure from a woodgrain set, see this Acaeum classifieds ad, fourth scan down: www.acaeum.com/forum/about11819.htmlYou should be able to drag the image to your desktop. Update: The link above is dead now since it was in the Acaeum Classifieds, which are deleted after a period time. However, I had also posted the image here if anyone still wants it: Balrogs in the Blue Book |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 24, 2011 5:51:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 21, 2011 7:29:36 GMT -6
Dungeons & Dragons is a genus. OD&D and AD&D are different species, but they can still interbreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 19, 2011 13:24:30 GMT -6
Maybe I'm just a smarty-pants, but I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to that kind of reasoning. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test. You may, of course, view it differently. I know this won't convince you, but for the record, Holmes' statements match with Gary's: "... I persuaded Gygax that the original D&D rules needed revision and that I was the person to rewrite them. He readily conceded that there was a need for a beginners' book and "if you want to try it, go ahead". I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as "the basic set"” (pg 68 of Holmes' FRPG book, emphasis added). Now it's certainly possible he worked out the specific details (e.g., "levels 1-3") with Gary prior to editing, but the intention as stated by both Gary and Holmes always seems to have been to create a beginner's book. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 18, 2011 20:03:48 GMT -6
Had the Holmes edition gone higher than level 3 it would doubtless gain more respect. No question, and that was always my big beef with it, but I think this was TSR's attempt to milk the game, rather than anything that Homes would have intended. Pure speculation, but it's mine and I'll go with it. ;-) My impression from reading the statements from Gygax and Holmes, is that Holmes had the idea of an introductory set and proposed it to Gygax, and volunteered to do it himself to which Gary said "if you want to try it, go ahead" (quote from Holmes book). For example, Gygax wrote: " ufficient information across the board to enable play for a group for a limited period of time--enough to determine if the game is "right" for the group. That's what the Basic Set of D&D was for, and that was a good idea that J. Eric Holmes came up with." --- Gary Gygax, Dragonsfoot forum post, 2002 |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 18, 2011 19:49:49 GMT -6
I think these forums and the members here have shown more appreciation for Holmes than any other forums I've seen. We've got a dedicated Holmes forum that is fairly active. Knights & Knaves also has a Holmes forum, but it's low traffic, perhaps because they are more AD&D oriented over there. Keep in mind that Gary and Dave (and Rob and others) did the hard part. They created this game from scratch. Holmes was more of an editor, attempting to put together a better organized version of the rules. I agree with this 100%. Holmes was respectful of the original invention. In Dragon #52 he wrote: "we kept the rules as close as possible to the original intent. D&D is, after all, a truly unique invention, probably as remarkable as the die, or the deck of cards, or the chessboard. The inventor’s vision needs to be respected." A close text comparison of Holmes and the LBBs will show just how close the wording is in many parts. Holmes added a few things, mostly to clarify sections not clearly spelled out in the original rules (initiative, throwing oil). More important was his selection of what to leave out for beginners. Overall, I think his biggest contribution was the entire concept of an introductory set, and limiting it to just levels 1-3 (which was retained by Moldvay and Mentzer). In a way, this shows the greatest respect to OD&D: he wasn't trying to replace the original, just create a gateway. He didn't know at the time that TSR would change it to a gateway to AD&D, though I doubt he minded, since he seems to like AD&D well enough in his FRPG book. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 14, 2011 8:53:18 GMT -6
I have never looked at the Holmes set, so I couldn't say. However, it may be that some of my contributions to OD&D were used in the Holmes set (giant slugs, f'r instance) or it's a playtester's acknowledgement. Thanks for the info. Giant Slugs are found in the Greyhawk Supplement, but did not make it into the Holmes Basic set. I'd love to hear about any other contributions of yours that we used in OD&D or the Greyhawk Supplement. Interesting that you've never looked at the Holmes set! This confirms that it generally didn't make much of an impression on folks already playing D&D. They either kept playing D&D, switched to AD&D or went on to other games. Which is expected. Why would a veteran player be interested in a "basic" set? |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 11, 2011 20:17:58 GMT -6
Gronan,
You are thanked in the Preface to the first (Holmes) Basic Set for your idea contributions. Did you help out at all with this set, or is this (as I suspect) a carryover from the Greyhawk supplement? There are nine other folks who are thanked, and they all appear to be either authors of, or acknoweldged in, the supplements. I note that Jeff Key and Alan Lucien were also thanked along with you in both Greyhawk and the Basic Set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 11, 2011 5:30:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 10, 2011 10:00:24 GMT -6
Vito: just watched this last night, and enjoyed it, thanks for pointing it out. I put some more comments in kesher's MA thread. But I can see your point about D&D: the mutants reminded me of the orcs from the LoTR movies, the spaceship is really just a big labyrinth with lots of locked doors and secret chambers, and the plot had a quest structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 10, 2011 9:56:18 GMT -6
I watched Pandorum last night & thought it was well done. Much better than the Metacritic rating of 28 would have one believe. It really got zero attention when it came out (despite having Dennis Quaid). I hadn't even heard of it until last month when vito mentioned it in another thread, which kesher pointed back to this one. I agree it was totally a Met Alpha scenario (or, going back to the novels, Orphans of the Sky and Non-Stop/Starship). I would also group it with some other recent Sci-Fi films I've seen (and liked) - Sunshine (2007), Moon (2009), Virtuality (2009 -Ron Moore's failed pilot for a new TV series). Each of these has some themes shared with Pandorum. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 24, 2011 7:37:07 GMT -6
Perhaps everyone knows this, but it's not really made clear in that blog post (or the Risus post) that John Van De Graaf is the co-author (along with Laurie Van De Graaf) of the TSR module O1 The Gem and the Staff (1983, for the D&D Expert Set), and the earlier tournament version Quest for the Fazzlewood (1978, which I presume was written for OD&D, so of particular interest to this board). "Quest for the Fazzlewood was published by Metro Detroit Gamers, who also published Lost Caverns of Tsojconth. It was used as a tournament module at Wintercon VII in 1978, and later publicly released (probably in very small quantities). The module was expanded (and many of the names inside were changed) into O1 Gem and the Staff by TSR in the mid-1980's." O1 at the AcaeumIt would be interesting to compare the Ryth Chronicles to the module, particular the Fazzlewood version (since many names were changed in the later version). Of course, Fazzlewood is extremely rare & expensive so it may be difficult to find someone willing to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 23, 2011 19:59:26 GMT -6
For the record, here's Holmes' quote about Warlock from his 1981 FRPG book:
"At Caltech in Pasadena, students Cowan, Clark, Shih, Smith, Dahl and Peterson put together a set of rules with what they felt to be an improved combat and magic system: Warlock. I used their combat table when I first began playing D & D, because I could not understand the one in the original books” (page 65).
Looking around at the comments by Brunomac on Grognardia, I see that Paul Crabaugh frequented Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica. Holmes also had connections with Aero Hobbies and its owner Gary Switzer. A number of minis painted by Switzer appear in Holmes' book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 23, 2011 19:47:19 GMT -6
Thanks! How different are the rules in that link from the original Spartan rules? I'm not sure, because I haven't seen these newer rules, but I would imagine they are different in many details. There's a lot of differences between the 1975 (33 pages) and 1978 rules (56 pages). The 1978 rules add more complexity across the board. A quick look at those Mike Riley files and it seems they are greatly revised/expanded. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 23, 2011 19:38:17 GMT -6
What are these 'Warlock' rules? I've never heard of them. Here's the introduction from the Warlock rules published in Spartan (Aug 1975): The 1978 Complete Warlock rules start with the same three paragraphs, although they are revised/expanded a bit. Despite the 1978 rules being "complete", they still don't include anything beyond Men & Magic rules. They do add a lot more complexity, such as more character classes. Two further Warlock rulebooks appeared in 1979 and 1980 and finally had some Monsters & Treasure (I haven't seen these). So, Warlock was one of the first (first published?) attempts to take post-Greyhawk Supplement D&D and "get it right". The intro sounds a bit arrogant, and laughable in retrospect, but it's a natural impulse that has led to innumerable other rpgs. Warlock started as a supplement to D&D like Arduin except that it's been largely forgotten. Probably because it's mostly rules with very little flavor text. I think it deserves a little more attention due to the very early publication date and the connections with Holmes. California seems to have been a very active place for these variants between Warlock, Arduin and the Perrin Conventions. I came across this quote from Dragon magazine yesterday, posted on Grognardia: "In the Good Old Days, the days of the original three books of the Dungeons & Dragons game, the number of variants on the rules was roughly equal to X, where X was the number of players in the game. Alas, we all get older and more conservative, and with the publication of the more detailed, more structured D&D Basic Set, variant rules tended to become one with history." (Paul Crabaugh, Dragon #109, Paul's the same guy quoted by Tavis in his first post, so Paul may have been thinking of Warlock when he wrote this) The irony being that this rule set may have been one inspiration that led to Holmes offering to edit the D&D rules to make them more clear, leading to the Basic Set, which then helped confine variants like this to the dustbin. Except for at CalTech itself, where the gaming group(s) seem to have carried on the Warlock tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 22, 2011 5:24:03 GMT -6
Thanks, Fin!
Geoffrey's analysis fits with the Spartan Warlock rules. I just checked and the Magic-User table has every level up to 40th listed. 40th requires 5.2 million EXP, and the wizard has 15+2 HD and the following spells: 21x1st, 14x2, 11x3, 10x4, 7x5, 6x6, 4x7, 3x8, 2x9, and one 10th level spell (gained at this level). The Cleric and Thieves tables likewise each go up to 39th level. One interesting variant is that Thieves abilities are treated like spells, with slots and lists for 8 levels of abilities. The Fighter table only goes up to 13th level, but HD appear to continue to go up with a new dice per every two levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 21, 2011 19:37:09 GMT -6
I agree with everything Aldarron said above. I have Spartan magazine #9 (Aug 1975), which has the earliest published version of the Warlock rules, and the Complete Warlock (1978). Tavis, unfortunately there's no answer to your question in these rule sets, as they focus exclusively on the material from Men & Magic. There's no monsters, treasure or campaign info. We were actually just discussing these rules on the Acaeum a few weeks ago. Vault Keeper (also a member here) resurrected an old thread to ask about the rules. Here's my response: I have Spartan #9. I bought a copy from Noble Knight last year for $50; it's one of the more expensive collectibles I've bought. I was interested in seeing it b/c J. Eric Holmes mentions in his FRP book that he used the combat system from it when he started playing, because the OD&D combat system was confusing. (The irony here is that I find the Warlock combat system to be overly complicated; it actually says "the numbers involved in our combat system may look a bit frightening"). The Warlock article takes up most of Spartan #9 (pages 4-37 of 50 pages). It's not an article about the creation of the Warlock rules - it's the rules themselves - an earlier version of the same material found in the Complete Warlock. (For comparison, I also have a beat-up copy of the CW I picked up on the cheap in a lot, thanks to lokiwookie here). There is a brief introduction, three paragraphs, that describes the development of the system, but it's found in almost identical form in the CW. The Spartan Warlock rules are a very early (Aug 1975!) clarification & expansion of Vol I of OD&D - Men & Magic plus the M&M additions from Greyhawk, though there's a lot of (IMO) unneccesary complexity added to the rules, which gets worse in the CW (for example, a quadruple magical-fighting-cleric-thief class). Echoing the change in OD&D, the Spartan Warlock rules refer to hobbits whereas the CW refers to halflings. By the way the picture shown for the "draft" copy on afterglow2 looks identical to the first page of the magazine article. It's also the same length (34 pages). Is it possible this draft is just a photocopy or cut-out of the article? * * * * I'll also add that I found Holmes mentioned a few of the particular spells from Warlock in a short story in Alarums & Excursions: The Adventure of the Giant ChameleonThere, now we have almost all of the info on the internet about Warlock in one place.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 18, 2011 5:14:37 GMT -6
Goodman has a DCC RPG Quickstart ("Adventure Starter") for Free RPG day. You can pick it up at participating stores today (June 18th) or on-line at Nobleknight for 1 penny with a purchase of $15 or more. It's 16 pages, so it's not the entire beta. www.freerpgday.com/Free RPG day retailer locater: www.freerpgday.com/stores.htmTo buy at NK, add 1 cent item to cart, and then $15 worth of other merch, and then checkout. (It's already active, I think they started selling it at midnight last night). DCC RPG Adventure Starter at NK |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 16, 2011 20:19:14 GMT -6
Some more info on upcoming MA releases by EE, courtesy Frank Mentzer on the Acaeum:
"we do hope to reissue certain vintage game systems, beginning with Jim Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha. One of the early releases in that line may be the original deck plans of the Starship Warden, circa 1975 but updated to reflect 35 years of RPG history".
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 15, 2011 21:51:41 GMT -6
Some info reported on the Acaeum regarding Ward's MA game at NTRPGcon:
grodog wrote:
Jim Ward's 10am Metamorphosis Alpha game (suitably christened "The Outpost of Doom"!) ---easily one of the best convention games I've ever played.
Kingofpain89 wrote:
Saturday morning was the not-to-be-missed Metamorphosis Alpha game with Jim Ward. Our team's job was to take a shuttle from the Warden to an orbital outpost to find out why no communications were being replied to. Suffice to say the entire station was a deathtrap. The A.I. on the station was "corrupted". The previous research and rescue group had become something less than human. And even though our entire team of seasoned vets were armed to the teeth with all manner of weapons, defenses, and unthinkable technology, we were no match for the imagination and wicked humor of Jim Ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 12, 2011 7:54:15 GMT -6
These went pretty fast & were all sold out by mid-day on Friday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 9, 2011 20:09:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 3, 2011 14:15:33 GMT -6
For anyone that's confused, Thu = Sauron in the 1930 Quenta. Tu/Tuvo is an earlier conception from the Lost Tales that predates the Sauron character. Tu is more a helpful wizard who teaches the elves. This website puts it well: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHistoryOfMiddleEarth?action=source"Composite Character: Sauron grew from a combination of three characters from the ''Lost Tales'' - he has the name of the wizard Tu (Tu - Thu - Thaur - Thauron - Sauron), the position of Fankil/Fangli (The Dragon to Melko), and the narrative role of Tevildo Prince of Cats in ''The Tale of Tinuviel''." |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 3, 2011 12:48:23 GMT -6
Oh, that is just too good! Thanks. Tu (also called Tuvo) could be a lich, Maia (mad demigod?), or an ancient non-human archmage hanging out deep in The Underworld. In the places where Balrogs hide and the Watcher in the Water came from. The party could start out in Lake Town, or perhaps Dorwinion down the river on the inland sea (where wine is made). After the Battle of the Five Armies, wood elves and dwarves from the Iron Hills might be welcome in Lake Town (and lawful werebears!). The party could explore the surrounding area (Withered Heath, Mirkwood, Lonely Mountain). Perhaps search for the remains of the Master and his dragon gold. Eventually they could find rumors or a map of the caverns of Tu far to the East. Anything might be put between since Tolkien left it mostly undescribed. They might travel through the Last Desert to the East of East, avoiding wild Were-worms. |
|
