|
When I was preparing to run The Temple of Elemental Evil (never happened, sadly, but perhaps someday) I got the impression at some point that the adventure assumed something like 8 - 10 players in a party. I can't really remember why, but was this an accurate assessment? Is this normal for AD&D adventures? What about Basix/Expert etc?
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
As I understand it, it was not unheard of, if not commonplace, for groups to be larger than they tend to these days. Basically it went like this: One GM would run for a lot of people (up to 10 or so at a time on some occasions), and each player had a stable of characters rather than a favored character. Characters could one day tool around in one person's game and then the next day be in someone else's - if you played that often - and people were constantly going in and out, such that you might have a core group of players that was of indeterminate size but probably larger than you'd expect, but you didn't know for sure who would be there on any given day, necessarily. I think that sums it up, based on stuff I have heard people like Old Geezer (Michael Mornard, one of the guys at Gygax's early tables) say. This is his and others' narrative, so what actually happened might not necessarily line up entirely but it seems to support some of the OSR trends I have seen, especially with the Hangouts games and whatnot on G+.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
My BECMI group in the late 80s (I was 8 when I started playing) and later my AD&D and 2e groups ranged from 2-10 players, depending. BECMI handles 10 players (even relatively new players who are actual children) just fine. AD&D / 2e a bit less so. Even more modern D&D will handle a group that large as long as everyone pays attention and learns the rules they need to know to run their character. That was easier in BECMI than AD&D. AD&D and 2e mostly put the extra workload on the DM rather than the players, which made it easier for people to drift in and out of games. Making a 1st level AD&D/2e character with the core rules could be done in about 20 minutes. Even wizards were easier in AD&D than in 2e and beyond, since the DM gave you your starting spells (or I guess let you pick if he was nice) and controlled what you could learn via placing spellbooks and scrolls as treasure. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
^^ I'm not a big fan of the "mother may I" approach to spells, so it really helps that earlier editions had spell lists short enough to make a small ban list. There are like what, 8 spells per level in BECMI? The bad ones stick out enough that you can see what's hosed and ban them. With 2/3rd edition AD&D, the list of available spells is so huge it is almost better to make a list of approved spells ie your spells as treasure approach.Halloween Jack posted:In early boxed-set D&D any fighter of any level can put on plate mail and take his defense from "totally hosed" to "really good," while later editions assumed everyone would start with the best mundane armor they could wear and that magic items are part of level progression. What little Gamma World I've played indicates it's not meant to be balanced. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:^^ I'm not a big fan of the "mother may I" approach to spells, so it really helps that earlier editions had spell lists short enough to make a small ban list. Neither am I. I think my first actual "these rules are less fun than they could be" realisation had to do with the way it wouldn't hurt anything to let players pick their own new spells. Then 2e (with splats) and 3e (core) showed me how loving wrong that is when there are spells for everything up to and including removing restrictions on spells. I think I posted somewhere on here about the spell list inflation between 1e, 2e, and 3e. The sheer number of spells is ridiculous in 2e, no poo poo there were weird unintended interactions. Then 3e added feats to the problem and it was nearly impossible to look at the spell list and just ban the bullshit, because the bullshit often only came out if someone spotted a combination, or even just lucked into one. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
I pretty much don't let people bring less than 6 characters to a B/X game any more--if there are less than 6 players at a session I let some of them bring multiple characters or highly encourage them to bring hirelings. I'd really say that the game works best with 6-8 players. You can go in with less, but it's entirely possible for a pair of 14th level characters to TPK in a single round to a pair of ghouls on the dungeon's first level with some bad rolling. The most I ever played with was I think around 16, when pretty much every one of our active and inactive players got together to celebrate our group's 100th session. That was a loving nightmare, though--the session went so badly (our first encounter with Phase Spiders, among some other things) that we were actually afraid the campaign was about to fall apart for a little while afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
For B/X, any group with less than 4 people should be looking at Black Streams Solo Heroes rules.AlphaDog posted:I think I posted somewhere on here about the spell list inflation between 1e, 2e, and 3e. The sheer number of spells is ridiculous in 2e, no poo poo there were weird unintended interactions. Then 3e added feats to the problem and it was nearly impossible to look at the spell list and just ban the bullshit, because the bullshit often only came out if someone spotted a combination, or even just lucked into one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
I gotta gush and this seems like the likely place. So I was just at the local gaming store to play some Ghostbusters RPG for Halloween. During a break, I was going through their used stuff and found the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Monsters of Faerun monster supplement. This isn't the exciting part. Buying the books caused the owner to remark "oh you like old D&D stuff." He then took me in the back and mentioned something about a 1981 TSR game catalogue. Not exactly a big deal in my mind, but I figured it would be a fun relic to take. What I didn't expect was that this was on top of... well, these. Not exactly a comprehensive collection, and the quality is spotty in some of them, but almost all the modules are titles I've had an eye on. I'm also particularly excited about grabbing one of the original Deities & Demigods prints. So, which module should I run first?  EDIT: And sorry about the quality. I'm using a camera phone and I don't know poo poo about photography so I didn't really try hard. I figured anyone who would remotely give a poo poo will comprehend what they're seeing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
So, does anybody here have a copy of Ambition & Avarice? Basically it looks like an old school retroclone, but with some newer-style stuff like Expertise (unique abilities for each class), a create your own spell system, and promises lots of options for non-magical classes which don't pale in comparison to magical classes at higher levels. It sounds interesting, and was wondering if you folks had any experience with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I gotta gush and this seems like the likely place. You probably know this, but the Deities and Demigods with Cthulu in it is rare and worth more, so take good care of it! Only the first print run had it, because they were threatened with legal action by the Lovecraft license holder. Against the Giants is one of my favorites from back in the day (the other being Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm still trying to decide what to do about the Deities and Demigods thing. None of these books are in especially rad shape, but that one in particular is probably in the best shape out of everything in the pile. My room is sort of an amalgam of loosely organized piles right now, but with this collection now in my hands I've decided to get a bookshelf. Gotta take care of my poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:Yeah, I'm still trying to decide what to do about the Deities and Demigods thing. None of these books are in especially rad shape, but that one in particular is probably in the best shape out of everything in the pile. Bookshelves are easy enough to build yourself, and "bookshelves I built myself to hold my gaming books" are exactly the sort of bookshelves original AD&D stuff should be kept in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:So, does anybody here have a copy of Ambition & Avarice? Basically it looks like an old school retroclone, but with some newer-style stuff like Expertise (unique abilities for each class), a create your own spell system, and promises lots of options for non-magical classes which don't pale in comparison to magical classes at higher levels. I grabbed a copy of it, the PDF+print bundle that is, and have it in my library, but I haven't gotten to run it. It looks like good stuff. There's a G+ community for it (isn't there one for almost everything?) where some homebrew stuff has been posted. My big issue with it is that it uses a "civilized" and "barbaric" dichotomy for races, though how it handles the race and class split is interesting. Also, the fact that everyone can basically rogue it up to some degree is a good feature for dungeon crawling. It's also cool because it gives some advice for how to run your game using an old-school philosophy, but I don't think the text is written with the same tone as some of the other OSR philosophy stuff is. That attitude that a lot of the stuff has - that the old school method is superior to other ways - is off-putting to a lot of folks who might otherwise want to try it out. I might be remembering with rose-colored glasses. I guess I'll have to take another look at it now!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
Sounds like the Swords and Wizardry Complete pdf is going to be free because something mythmere games did on kickstarter is succeeding. Someone tell me what's so complete about this compared to the barebones version I got for free years ago?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Sounds like the Swords and Wizardry Complete pdf is going to be free because something mythmere games did on kickstarter is succeeding. Someone tell me what's so complete about this compared to the barebones version I got for free years ago? S&W Complete borrows more elements from the supplements published during the 1970s. For example, it separates race and class, adds additional classes such as the Assassin, etc. It does have some 1st Edition AD&D elements, but still keeps a lot of the "Zero Edition" conceits like the three-fold alignment (Law/Neutrality/Chaos). Libertad! fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Recently took a look at ACKS and ACKS Player's Companion, they look interesting, especially a lot of the options in the Player's Companion. Kind of curious if it is possible to build a class using the Lizardman race with the Dwarven Fury abilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Speaking of ACKS: the latest Bundle of Holding is focused on "Old School Revival" games. Highlights include the core ACKS rulebook, Vornheim: The Complete City Kit, and Swords & Wizardry's Monster Book and Eldritch Weirdness supplements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Recently took a look at ACKS and ACKS Player's Companion, they look interesting, especially a lot of the options in the Player's Companion. Kind of curious if it is possible to build a class using the Lizardman race with the Dwarven Fury abilities. Should be possible: the Dwarven Fury's raging ability is basically just the Berserkergang proficiency for free. I recall that in one of my more  moments I went and checked whether the XP budgets of each of the classes in the Player's Companion matched up to the class creation rules, and it's all there.This was also around the time where I thought it'd be fun to run a game of ACKS where each of the players made their own custom class for their character. Never mind the amount of time we would've spent just crafting classes for a bunch of characters that are very likely to die in the first level 1 dungeon, but knowing my friends the classes they would've built would've been either stupid-optimized, jokey and dysfunctional, or at worst both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
Wasn't Vornheim done by that old-school douchebag Zak S who writes totally incoherent blog posts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Wasn't Vornheim done by that old-school douchebag Zak S who writes totally incoherent blog posts? How were Zak Smith's blog posts incoherent? Also, what makes him a douchebag, other than preferring old-school D&D? He didn't actively engage in edition wars, smear new school products, or poo poo on the way people play D&D in his blog. In fact, he was panned heavily by the grognard community because he used modern game mechanics in his video-blogged game. I get the feeling sometimes that goons just have a hate-on for anyone who likes tables and random rolls. Jesus christ dude, let the man enjoy his badwrongfun without attacking him personally or trying to discourage people from buying his products.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:How were Zak Smith's blog posts incoherent? Also, what makes him a douchebag, other than preferring old-school D&D? He didn't actively engage in edition wars, smear new school products, or poo poo on the way people play D&D in his blog. In fact, he was panned heavily by the grognard community because he used modern game mechanics in his video-blogged game. It's cute that you want to rail against goons or whatever but Zak is legitimately a shithead for reasons that have nothing to do with RPGs, and he was banned from RPGnet specifically because he's incapable of making coherent posts. (Also banned from SA because he's incapable of making coherent posts.) He's one of the most hateful people I've encountered in the RPG industry and it got to the point where I've had to block him from every single social media network. He's also done literally every single thing you said he's never done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Mikan posted:It's cute that you want to rail against goons or whatever but Zak is legitimately a shithead for reasons that have nothing to do with RPGs, and he was banned from RPGnet specifically because he's incapable of making coherent posts. (Also banned from SA because he's incapable of making coherent posts.) He's one of the most hateful people I've encountered in the RPG industry and it got to the point where I've had to block him from every single social media network. I stand corrected. He always seemed like a reasonable guy to me, I never saw him be a crazy person, at least relative to the other people in the grognard community.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:How were Zak Smith's blog posts incoherent? Also, what makes him a douchebag, other than preferring old-school D&D? He didn't actively engage in edition wars, smear new school products, or poo poo on the way people play D&D in his blog. In fact, he was panned heavily by the grognard community because he used modern game mechanics in his video-blogged game. Is it opposite day? Clearly it's opposite day. Although I'm okay with OSR discussion I think it's better to leave the personal stuff out, which is basically the other big reason I refuse LotFP discussion. For a long time the OSR has been of a bit of battle of personalities but that's far enough removed from the games that I feel okay with leaving it to IRC or the chat thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
E: Rulebook Heavily is right. No reason to get personal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:E: Rulebook Heavily is right. No reason to get personal. I want to add that Vornheim is a really great "little" supplement and I would buy a lot more things like that if there were a lot more of them to buy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Vornheim is a good example of fantasy that is focused on the fantastical rather than world-building, something that is rarely seen today. For example, the palace shaped like a hand, with tower fingers reaching toward the sky, the gardens of black flowers, and the fact that all snakes are secretly books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Vornheim is a good example of fantasy that is focused on the fantastical rather than world-building, something that is rarely seen today. For example, the palace shaped like a hand, with tower fingers reaching toward the sky, the gardens of black flowers, and the fact that all snakes are secretly books. Agreed. Additionally, unlike other city setting books, it's not filled to the brim with "Street Name #9" or "Bjorn's Wine Company" details. Zak views such things as unimportant details the DM or PCs can come up with during the game session or for their own games. Instead he relies upon quick and easy table generation for encounters, streets, etc. Otherwise it's just more locations for the DM to remember which might never come into play
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:Agreed. Additionally, unlike other city setting books, it's not filled to the brim with "Street Name #9" or "Bjorn's Wine Company" details. Zak views such things as unimportant details the DM or PCs can come up with during the game session or for their own games. Instead he relies upon quick and easy table generation for encounters, streets, etc. You see, this is the stuff I remember from his blog. I thought his philosophies on world building combined imagination and tables in a way most people haven't really approached. Either I had blinders on to the drama, or I had a selective memory about his posting. I'll probably end up buying this product just so I can take a look at the book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Is Vornheim worth reading even if you're not a fan of Zak's posting style? Edit: well I guess that answers my question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
BrainParasite posted:Is Vornheim worth reading even if you're not a fan of Zak's posting style? They may as well not be the same person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:You see, this is the stuff I remember from his blog. I thought his philosophies on world building combined imagination and tables in a way most people haven't really approached. Either I had blinders on to the drama, or I had a selective memory about his posting. I'll probably end up buying this product just so I can take a look at the book. Yeah, I don't think there's a blogger I've seen who delivers as many mind-blowing posts about roleplaying as Zak does. He does have a bit of a difficult personality (he's a dangerous mix of methodical, creative, idealistic, Weird, and hyperopinionated), and plenty of his posts seem like the types of things that are meant to be almost more inside jokes than anything else, but I really don't get the hate for him here. Vornheim is super dense in a way that's perfect for me but I could easily see being hard to process for some poeople. I'm not sure I'd actually use any of its charts or anything myself, but what the book seems really good for is as an example of what kinds of things you should figure out when creating a setting. It's a good lesson on the kinds of prep that actually seem to contribute to making an interesting setting versus the types that you might as well just pull out of your rear end mid-session.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Yeah, I don't think there's a blogger I've seen who delivers as many mind-blowing posts about roleplaying as Zak does. He does have a bit of a difficult personality (he's a dangerous mix of methodical, creative, idealistic, Weird, and hyperopinionated), and plenty of his posts seem like the types of things that are meant to be almost more inside jokes than anything else, but I really don't get the hate for him here. Try Rob Donoghue. You might find your mind changed Redpill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Yeah, I don't think there's a blogger I've seen who delivers as many mind-blowing posts about roleplaying as Zak does. He does have a bit of a difficult personality (he's a dangerous mix of methodical, creative, idealistic, Weird, and hyperopinionated), and plenty of his posts seem like the types of things that are meant to be almost more inside jokes than anything else, but I really don't get the hate for him here. Okay, really now. If you want the skinny on Zak S, ask in the month's chat thread. I even invite PeterWeller to repost his thing there for all to see. If you don't want the skinny on Zak, don't post stuff like this. (The short version is that he's a really, really awful person who does really, really awful things.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
I think people can post about Zak's book and blog without dragging the rest of his baggage along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Yes. What people shouldn't do is "Why is he so hated here guys??", because that's not discussion of his works and does not invite it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
If anything, it's a testament to the quality of Vornheim that some of its most vocal proponents around here tend to be the posters who've been most critical of the author's... distinctive online persona.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Stonehell looks pretty awesome, do you guys foresee the need for any real effort to convert to S&W? What about ACKS? The reason I'm not interested in running it in LL is that I already have a bunch of stuff for S&W that I also would like to run at some point, and I really like ACKS a lot. I'm really torn between the two to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
SavageMessiah posted:Stonehell looks pretty awesome, do you guys foresee the need for any real effort to convert to S&W? What about ACKS? I think the main difference I'm aware of is the different ways AC is represented. I don't know all the material intimately, but I have copies of some of it so I can say this, assuming I didn't do the math wrong when I tried to figure this a while back. ACKS assumes no armor is an AC of 0. In d20 terms, this would be 10. A monster's AC is added to the roll required to hit it, so a 1st level fighter needs a (10+monster's AC) to hit it. From then on, AC works like it would with an ascending system, e.g. d20. You get to add your bonuses and stuff but it's a roll-over system, where the target number is your class's attack throw number for your level. A system based on THAC0 is a bit arcane to me, so I prefer something like Delta 20, as I think it's called, which helps me conceptualize THAC0 easier. Basically you add your bonuses together, then add the monster's AC, and you add that to the die roll and try to beat a 20. I believe this math's out to the same as THACO, but it's easier for me to keep track of, and it also allows for roll-over also. Of course, even despite the fact that you are basically talking ascending versus descending, the AC for one monster might be different from one implementation to another, besides, which I think I have actually seen. So that's something to keep in mind. Here's something that I found while looking for some information that might be of help: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/14309/how-does-swords-wizardry-differ-from-labyrinth-lord It's a lot more oriented toward making characters from what I've seen, but that can have an impact for conversions too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
A-ha! Now I remember the point where I gave up on ACKS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
I really like a lot of things about it but I've read most of the book and I think it's just more game than I want. I'll probably end up running S&W with only the original 3 classes and just borrowing liberally from ACKS from the campaign level stuff for determining e.g. how many mercs the PCs can hire from a given region. Who knows though. My tastes in games change so frequently and dramatically that my games almost never last more than 1 or 2 sessions so it's probably not worth the effort to think about it, heh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 18:12
|
|