|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 12, 2021 16:23:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 12, 2021 16:15:59 GMT -6
Well that is, of course, what Gygax did in the AD&D Monster Manual, but in both Chainmail (2nd Edition) and OD&D (1st printing) they were lumped together. The "Eagle" influence is apparent in both their alignment (listed with the forces of Law and Neutrality in Vol 1), and their favorability towards Lawful characters noted in Vol 2. Both of these characteristics remained even after the explicit reference to the Eagles was deleted. The description does imply that the Roc of mythology should have double or triple HD as compared to Giant Eagle-sized ones, showing the roots of the later split into two entries.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 11, 2021 21:00:30 GMT -6
FWIW, in the early printings Tolkien's Eagles are called out by name at the start of the entry for "Roc", which emphasizes their intelligence more than the later printings where this is omitted. I don't recall anything relevant in Tolkien, but perhaps Gygax thought a powerful race like the Eagles would collect some kind of treasure. Type I is limited to Gems/Jewelry + Maps/Magic, which kind fits a race that is intelligent but doesn't favor coins. And being the only Type I, it seems that this type was added just for this creature. Alternately, check out the original 2nd Voyage of Sinbad tale: (emphasis added) This alone might explain the assignment of Gems!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 1, 2021 15:35:20 GMT -6
Platemail only reduces an opponent's chance to hit you by 10%, so I don't see any real reason to make it more expensive in OD&D.
Essentially, each increment of AC costs 7.5 or 10 GP:
AC 8 (shield) = 10 GP (1 increment of AC for 10 GP) AC 7 (leather) = 15 GP (equal to 2 increments of AC, each 7.5 GP) AC 5 (chain) = 30 GP (equal to 4 increments of AC, each 7.5 GP) AC 3 (plate) = 50 GP (equal to 6 increment ofs AC, 4 at 7.5 GP, 2 at 10 GP each)
Folks get hung up on the "Plate" aspect when it's really just a name for "AC 3".
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 24, 2021 13:45:24 GMT -6
In CM's description of Trolls (and Ogres) 2nd Ed p30, 3rd Ed p34 we have it that: <<Ogres are killed when they have taken an accumulation of six missile or melee hits in normal combat.>> The next sentence qualifies this, adding: <<Elves can kill them in three hits, and Hero-types or magical weapons kill them with a single hit.>> I can confirm that the 1st printing of Chainmail also has all of the above text, on page 41. I don't have a full copy of the 1st printing, just some auction images, but this is one of the pages that I do have an image of.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 11, 2021 15:30:01 GMT -6
Holmes playing OD&D would have definitely voted for all options, including "Attack Former Allies". See his article in Dragon #52 where he reviews the new Basic Set and writes (emphasis added):
This is also reflected in the early Boinger & Zereth stories in Alarums & Excursions where charmed monsters come completely under the control of PCs.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 11, 2021 9:57:08 GMT -6
This phrase that appears on OD&D Vol 1 (Men & Magic) under the description for "Strength" has been used to support the argument that the ability score point swap is "virtual", i.e., only used to determine if you get the prime requisite bonus.
However, what I just noticed for the first time is that this phrase is *not* in the 1st printing of OD&D Vol 1. Which means that it was added at some later point, perhaps as a clarification, perhaps as a change. It may be tied to the new ability score modifiers for Strength in Greyhawk, which specify that the score must be "raw i.e. not altered by intelligence scores". This is the first point at which ability score modifiers for prime requisites really began to matter. The real/virtual swap is almost moot with respect to the LBBs because there are no modifiers for the primes anyway, with the possible exception of # of languages, but that could be considered a different category as it is not a modifier to a roll.
My question: in which printing was this statement added? I only have access to the 1st printing and a late print with Tolkien references.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 7, 2021 19:52:13 GMT -6
Welcome, @sonofbear!
Bumping an old thread is fine here. In fact, I will sometimes merge a new thread with an older one that covers the same topic.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 5, 2021 9:30:08 GMT -6
My current ranking from 10 (best) to 0 (worst): 10: Star Wars 9: The Empire Strikes Back 8: Return of the Jedi 7: Rogue One 6: The Rise of Skywalker 5: The Force Awakens 4: Solo 3: The Last Jedi 2: Revenge of the Sith 1: Attack of the Clones 0: The Phantom Menace My rankings are pretty close to these, though I would place Rogue One lower and Solo higher. Rewatching Episodes 1-9 with the kids last year, and all in order for myself for the first time ever, reinforced my views. Original Trilogy > Sequel Trilogy >>>>> Prequel Trilogy. I just don't enjoy much of the Prequel Trilogy, while I find the Sequel Trilogy entertaining, with the chemistry between the leads much closer to the original trilogy, which goes a long way.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 5, 2021 9:26:58 GMT -6
aramisBold choices, placing TFA and Mandalorian below the Holiday Special!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 3, 2021 12:59:19 GMT -6
badger2305Awesome, I've played in several games with Steve in the past, both at NTX and Gary Con, and have always enjoyed it. I am participating in a few virtual NTRPGCon games. These have not been very well advertised, but there are 21 of them, including some Tim Kask OD&D games. The schedule is here: tabletop.events/conventions/ntrpgcon-2021v-virtual-Badges are $2 for a day, or $5 for the weekend, a bargain compared to virtual Gary Con. Tonight I'm playing a Tekumel game (Bethorm version), run by Manda, Jeff Dee's wife (Jeff is the Bethorm author). There's one seat left in it if anyone here is interested: tabletop.events/conventions/ntrpgcon-2021v-virtual-/schedule/4A friend of mine is running a MERP game, "Wight Gold", tomorrow night that could use more players: tabletop.events/conventions/ntrpgcon-2021v-virtual-/schedule/21(I playtested it or I would join) I'm also playing in a Holmes game run by DM Perky on Sunday, but that one is full.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 3, 2021 12:52:01 GMT -6
Sure, but that meme makes out like the "reluctant mentor" is this outlandish idea that only Johnson would use, when in fact it's such a common trope that it was used in the Karate Kid series itself.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 2, 2021 17:02:42 GMT -6
Well, Mr Miyagi did refuse to train Daniel in Karate Kid III...
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 26, 2021 11:37:55 GMT -6
I used some pictures online to make this pdf of The Character Archaic (1975, 1st printing). It's fuzzy but can be read for the most part: I appreciate your enthusiasm, but we should refrain from posting Wee Warriors material here. The intellectual property was acquired by Precis Intermedia a few years ago, and they sell digital copies now: www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=145"Wee Warriors, Palace of the Vampire Queen, The Dwarven Glory, The Misty Isles, The Embattled Trek, Labyrinthine, The Vanquished Foe, Dogtags, Dragonlord, The Character Archaic, The Endless Dungeon, The Village, and Dungeon Designer's Kit are game and game accessory trademarks of Precis Intermedia. All rights reserved." They don't offer the Character Archaic per se for sale, but do have a free pdf download of a remastered version of the character sheet from it here: www.pigames.net/store/articles.php?page=537
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 24, 2021 6:48:09 GMT -6
@ampleframework I also thought of Black Puddings when I read At the Mountains of Madness, enough that I used them in the write-up for the Ancient Builders (Old One/Primordial One analogs, which Vile Traveller included in Blueholme). But I didn't note that the Shoggoths could also be an inspiration for the "clean-up crew" term. The Blob is another strong contender for the Black Pudding, so we need to consider both as possible sources for the idea of the "clean-up crew". Gygax credited Arneson with the Black Pudding, but I don't know who coined "clean-up crew" term. See my speculation on the origins of the Ochre Jelly here for more discussion of this: Ochre Jelly Inspiration?Back in 2006 on DF, someone actually asked Gygax whether the Shoggoths served as inspiration for the Black Pudding. His reply, which includes a very Gygaxian pun:
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 23, 2021 10:07:51 GMT -6
Buried in the description of the vampire in the Monster Manual is this:
So, while magic-user isn't specifically mentioned here, it's definitely fits under the "etc" as another type of classed vampire. And the mention of clerics here certainly suggests that they retain their spell-casting powers, so one would assume the same for magic-users.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 21, 2021 7:55:44 GMT -6
The DR thing was definitely mentioned by Gary himself at one point, on the Troll Lord Games forum. Sadly, that's been flushed down the commode by the internet over the years. It's referenced multiple times, including an old thread here. It's a shame the original TLG forum no longer exists, of course. There's still multiple archived internet threads of Gary talking about how he ran his home games, though, notably at ENworld and DF. I know he made some comments about his white box games there a time or two but I'm not sure how much those comments apply here and there's a ton of threads to dig through to find relevant Gary quotes. (That's a good problem to have!) The Troll Lord Games forums, including Gary's original post, are still around; they've just moved in the intervening time which has resulted in broken links. Here's the current link to the post with "Gary's OD&D House Rules" from August 2007. I also put that corrected link in the older thread here that you linked above. For posterity, here's an exact quote of what Gary wrote there. I again stress that these are his 2007 rules for convention games. They aren't exactly the same as what was reported in 2005, and most certainly differ from what he used in the 1970s. As a followup to what you wrote above, I don't see anything about damage reduction here.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 12, 2021 5:43:04 GMT -6
Kobolds could be re-interpreted as something closer to their mythic origin: wicked, even maybe semi-devilish, fays of the earth that plague miners (and, in D&D, dungeon delvers!) - rather than dog-people or tiny dragon-people. Holmes did just that for Basic, describing them as "evil dwarf-like creatures". This was prior to the illustrations in the Monster Manual, so he had nothing to go on other than mythology since neither Chainmail or OD&D Vol 2 provides any description of them, other than treating them as less powerful goblins.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 10, 2021 14:46:32 GMT -6
On an unrelated note, can someone enlighten me as to how exactly the OD&D rules "as written" incorporated Dexterity into the determinations of either initiative or of armor class? I'm aware of the Monk, but that's about it. For initiative, look at the description of Dexterity in Vol 1. "Using dexterity to determine the order of actions has its ultimate origins OD&D Vol 1: "Dexterity ... will indicate the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc" (pg 11, Vol 1). The original rulebooks don't explain initiative any further (there is a complicated optional system presented in Eldritch Wizardry), so you can understand why Holmes went with the only statement in the original rules that spoke to it." "Thus, Holmes included an updated version of LBB sentence in the section on Dexterity: "Characters with high dexterity can get off the first arrow, throw the first spell or draw a weapon and strike the first blow" (pg 5 of the published rulebook). Note the addition of melee attacks to the list of actions. Other games using dexterity in combat that predate Holmes Basic include Warlock, a 1975 non-TSR OD&D Supplement, and the Metamorphosis Alpha RPG by TSR (1976)." From: zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2014/01/part-17-highest-dexterity-strikes-first.htmlI can add the Perrin Conventions to that list now that it's more clear the 1976 version(s) used Dexterity as well. I left it out here before because I'd only seen the 1977 version that post-dates Holmes Basic.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 5, 2021 14:08:19 GMT -6
captainjapanI just noticed that A&E #17 (12/11/76) has a description of the sequence of play in the Perrin Conventions (on page 39 of pdf). It's at the end of Bill Seligman's "I Would Have Made a Great Platinum Dragon #2", but that contribution was typed up by Lee Gold, and she would often add bits to the end of contibutions to have them fill out a page. It describes the same five steps you outlined above, but in briefer format. I can't tell if it's a quote from the actual original Perrin Conventions or just the author's summation/interpretation. There's an opening quote mark in the 4th line but no closing quote mark, so I'm not sure where the quotation ends. Interestingly, Magic Missile is placed with Missile fire (step 2) rather than Spell Casting (step 5) Otherwise, there is an exception for "prepared" spells: "Spell casting may be done during MISSILE FIRE if the spell was prepared the previous turn (and no other action taken)"
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 3, 2021 23:38:50 GMT -6
jeffb said: Going by word count alone, I think Dave Hargrave must have been working on the Arduin Grimoire for quite a while. It may be that the "manna point" magic rules originate with him, but not exactly as they appear in Arduin (March 1977). The Perrin system(March 1976) is simple to grasp. All the requisite abilities - Strength, Int. or Con., and Constitution are averaged to calculate starting points. Arduin uses only Intelligence, but divides the score by 2, 3, or 4 depending on if the mage has a low, medium, or high Intelligence score. The Perrin system sets rates for spell cost at one point per spell level for non-combat spells and one point per hit die of damage for combat spells. Hargrave sets his costs arbitrarily and embeds them in with his new spell listings. Granted, Hargrave advises setting point cost at one to one-and-a-half times spell level generally. Don't forget that Warlock published their spell point formulas and costs a year earlier even than that in 1975, although their calculus is the least similar of the spell point systems and their costs are the least uniform. My problem in finding precedent lies in the fact that being first-to-press doesn't always correlate with being the originator. This frustrates my fundamentalist side. Maybe Dave Hargrave IS the father of California gaming; just not in print. Lee Gold describes a "local custom" spell point system in her first Tantivy, all the way back in A&E #1 (June 1975), a few months before even Warlock was published in Spartan (Aug 1975). Magic-users get 1/2 of the sum of Intelligence and Constitution per day, and may be "increased in terms of the number of Men he fights as". Different categories of spells use different fractions of points, with attack spells using one or more full points. There were earlier discussions of spell points in the APA-L articles that preceded A&E, but I don't have those, just the summary document provided by Gold to grodog; see here.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 3, 2021 22:07:35 GMT -6
I became aware of the 1st print when I noticed the extra mythos in the copy of D&DG at my local library! I already had my own non-Cthulhu/Melnibonean copy, received in mid-1983 (IIRC), so this was probably around '84. I'm surprised it survived in the stacks for that long!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 2, 2021 10:57:37 GMT -6
So many contributors are credited in the revised "Sequence of Play", one might wonder if any part of the "Perrin Conventions" actually belongs to Steve Perrin. In regard to this, while searching for the Perrin Conventions, I re-read a blog post by Hawklord where he writes: The linked Dundracon bio says this:
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 1, 2021 14:48:18 GMT -6
I had my Gen Con XIII program handy and checked it. There's a full page ad on page 17 for D&DG that screams across the top: "JUST RELEASED from TSR HOBBIES INC".
So it was definitely available at that Gen Con, which was Aug 24-26.
Depending on when they had it ready, it may have also been available at the earlier Origins, but we would need to check the program book or con reports to see if there is any evidence for that.
* * * * *
Other Gen Con XIII ads for new TSR products include the Knights of Camelot boardgame and the World of Greyhawk folio, along with WoG Fantasy Figures by Minifigs. TSR also has ads for the Dungeon Hobby Shop and Dragon Publishing, and TSR artist Darlene has her own ad for Art & Calligraphy.
Other companies/products with ads include Valiant Miniatures, Balboa Game Company, SPI, Iron Crown Enterprises, Judges Guild, The Courier magazine, Martian Metals, International Team Games, Asteroid by GDW, Titan, Ral Partha, La Bataille D'Austerlitz, TA-HR miniatures, Tom Loback General Artworks, Lyles Hobby & Craft Center, Game Room Productions, Grenadier Models and, on the back cover, "New Fantasy Aids!" by Dimension Six.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 1, 2021 14:16:26 GMT -6
Yes! I did grow up in the region. Some of my favorite places to visit growing up were the DC Zoo, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and the Baltimore Aquarium. In the later '80s, I bought my OD&D "Collector's Edition" Whitebox at a game store that used to exist in the Harborplace Mall in the Inner Harbor. That's as specific as I will be in a public forum.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 1, 2021 13:08:21 GMT -6
No firm date , sorry. It was under the Xmas tree that year for me. But I had seen it much earlier at Crown Books behind the counter As far as I remember, the first D&D book that I ever looked through was a Monster Manual at a Crown Books! This was before I got my Holmes Basic set. I remember the Bulette on the title page - which I recognized from my sandbox toys - and the ferocious-looking Carnivorous Ape.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 1, 2021 12:56:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 30, 2021 19:31:40 GMT -6
Whether or not we should consider the separate critical hits table part of the "original" Perrin conventions is debatable, as I understand it was mostly Hargrave's material. FYI, for everyone else in this thread, I just came across a publication of this critical hit table in A&E #12 (June 12 1976) as part of Lee Gold's Tantivy. She introduces it as: "Steve Perrin's critical hit table (as distributed at Dundracon)". It's a relatively short (less than one page) percentage table full of amputations and other grievous bodily harm. This issue also happens to have Perrin's first contribution to A&E, titled "Tuesday Morning Report #1". As part of it, he writes: "If anyone has any questions concerning the Perrin Conventions they picked up at DunDraCon I, just write to me at the above address."
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 30, 2021 0:07:37 GMT -6
I just located a 10-page pdf version of the Perrin Conventions dated December 1976 in a post on Facebook (apparently it's been sitting there since 2014...!) www.facebook.com/groups/ArduinGrimoire/permalink/1478274579086237The intro makes reference to the earlier version published for DunDraCon I, which Perrin also referenced in the quote from A&E #30 posted above. One caveat: the type face is not the same throughout the document, and the page numbering is off, so just be aware that this may be a jumble of pages from more than one source. Part of the Prologue (page 1) and pages 2-7 appear to be an earlier version of the Perrin Conventions published in ATWM#2 (November 1977). Much of the wording is the same. The rest of the pages cover magic, which was omitted from ATWM#2.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 29, 2021 23:57:23 GMT -6
Here's what Perrin wrote about the Conventions in A&E #30 (Jan 1978):
Notes:
-The rules submitted by Nicolai Shapero that Perrin references above can be found in A&E #28 (Nov 16, 1977)*, in Shapero's contribution "Notes for the Underground #19", under the title "The House Rules of Storm Gate Dungeon (with apologies to Steve Marsh)". Shapero also put them in issue #2 (Aug 25, 1977) of his own APAzine, The Lords of Chaos, under the same title but with a correct "apologies to Steve Perrin".
-Funny to see the Typo from the other thread also referenced here. It must have been very well known to A&E readers back then.
* Ironically, I apparently encountered a Typo when typing this "site-tation" up last night! It's now corrected.
|
|