|
|
Post by Jakob Grimm on Jul 19, 2018 21:35:59 GMT -5
Wow, there was so much more that could be commented on in Vol III (well the whole thing really) it seems to have skipped 95% of the volume.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 22:12:16 GMT -5
Wow, there was so much more that could be commented on in Vol III (well the whole thing really) it seems to have skipped 95% of the volume.
As I read his post? He finished work on the annotations but has not finished posting them. He seems to be a posting a page or so per day and has only just finished posting Volume 2. Keep an eye on his page, I'm sure he'll continue to post the pages of volume 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jakob Grimm on Jul 19, 2018 22:16:24 GMT -5
Wow, there was so much more that could be commented on in Vol III (well the whole thing really) it seems to have skipped 95% of the volume.
As I read his post? He finished work on the annotations but has not finished posting them. He seems to be a posting a page or so per day and has only just finished posting Volume 2. Keep an eye on his page, I'm sure he'll continue to post the pages of volume 3.
That would be good indeed. I was confused by two posts at the beginning of volume III and then a post about the last page of Volume III. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jul 20, 2018 8:25:58 GMT -5
Wow, there was so much more that could be commented on in Vol III (well the whole thing really) it seems to have skipped 95% of the volume.
As I read his post? He finished work on the annotations but has not finished posting them. He seems to be a posting a page or so per day and has only just finished posting Volume 2. Keep an eye on his page, I'm sure he'll continue to post the pages of volume 3.
I'm hoping it is not over yet, I was enjoying them. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 9:29:45 GMT -5
As he said - it was a long shot. And a worthy goal. WotC does have a justified fear: the trademarks of "D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are easily lost when (not only if) someone can show they've become generic. If that is really a thing, then that horse left the barn back in what about 1975 or 1976. It is in my opinion a fact that both of these are generic terms for role playing games, the same as it is with the term Dungeon Master being a generic term for the person that runs the game. I think you could make a strong case that most of the excluded IP from the SRD is now generic. Is there anyone so sheltered and ignorant that they have not heard the term gelatinous cube or beholder? Besides which gelatinous cube was the brain child of @gronanofsimmerya, did anyone ever buy his rights to it? |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 9:32:37 GMT -5
A lot of people enjoy the hell of Philotomy's Musings. A lot can be done without Wizards of the Coast's blessing. While the original text can't be used without their blessing, I think people would get the point if the annotation was paired up with a near-clone using OGL text. Certainly the community can help out with alternative to stuff like the Book III dungeon map. I recommend the starting point for the rule side to be an outline and posted here so we can help with suggestion on which bit of open content works in place of the original text. Or help with anything original that needs to be created like the aforementioned map. if you posted that outline, I would be all over that thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 9:42:30 GMT -5
@piper posted this comment and link. The post linked to above is titled with today's date. I would have noted that some people lump OD&D in with CD&D (Classic D&D) and point out that these are long standing errors and it is too late to fix the terminology problem. The only thing included under the term Classic D&D should be OD&D. The supplements, Holmes, B/X etc are not part of Classic D&D, but do to a forum that for a long time and to this day maintains this error in their forum names (cough DF cough) it is too late to fix. Everybody is indoctrinated into this mistake. Further some people even lump everything from B/X to the Rules Cyclopedia under the term OD&D and this ignorance of the games history should be inexcusable since those games are substantially different in every way, including tone and point of view from OD&D (the 3LBBs). |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:05:41 GMT -5
@piper posted this comment and link. The post linked to above is titled with today's date. Also it was not the Tolkien estate that sent the Cease & Desist letter to remove Tolkien & LotR references from OD&D it was IMO a very despicable (go read this man's history) man Saul Zaentz who did so. Saul Zaentz was better known for going the extra mile over and over to screw over John Fogerty link & link. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:16:15 GMT -5
In the introduction I would have played up more of the fact that By the Book play was and is anathema to the spirit and letter of the "rules". The introduction makes it clear that playing BtB and being inflexible was in no way how the game was intended to be played and that the BtB mafia are playing the game in the least imaginative and least fun way possible as stated or at least strongly implied in the rules themselves. That is not to say that BtB is Bad Wrong Fun, it is not, it is just minimal fun compared to maximum fun. Do yourself a favor and break out of the restrictive prison of BtB play. Everyone in your game will benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:26:26 GMT -5
BTW the way I am not picking on @piper here, he did a good job, I am just a more in your face guy is all. IMO the phrase "The scope need not be restricted to the medieval ..." was solely an invitation for home brewing. The idea of publishing comprehensive settings was a few years away and came from outside TSR. Notably by Bob Bledsaw and his company Judges Guild. Had TSR been better run and the Gygax ego a bit smaller TSR might have published a lot of the games that ended up being published by competitors. Arduin arguably could have been part of a long series of D&D supplements that were mainly ideas and optional things to try, Holmes could have been a full blown reorganization of D&D instead of only three levels and leaving out a boat load of rules. And we could have been spared so much of the bad things that happened to the detriment of the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:35:18 GMT -5
This post highlights many of the things that make it evident that Gygax was always in the need of an editor. The whole magic-users arm themselves with a dagger instead of a staff? Hopefully most referees were more than smart enough to catch errors like this and correct them in their own games. IMO the phrase "archaic grammatical sense" should be replaced with the phrase "standard English." |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:44:13 GMT -5
Reportably Gygax wanted the game kept humanocentric and that is the reason for the level limits and the restriction placed on non-human characters of not being able to see in the dark, even though if they were not players characters they could see in the dark. It would be interesting to know if any type of level limits or other restrictions on non-human characters was part of the original Blackmoor game. My guess is that is a Gygaxian feature (bug some would say) and if you don't want to use level limits then you don't want to play Gygaxian D&D. I don't care if the game is humanocentric or not and given that game says you can play anything as a character, level limits IMO are nonsensical. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jul 20, 2018 10:52:51 GMT -5
As he said - it was a long shot. And a worthy goal. WotC does have a justified fear: the trademarks of "D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are easily lost when (not only if) someone can show they've become generic. If that is really a thing, then that horse left the barn back in what about 1975 or 1976. It is in my opinion a fact that both of these are generic terms for role playing games, the same as it is with the term Dungeon Master being a generic term for the person that runs the game. I think you could make a strong case that most of the excluded IP from the SRD is now generic. Is there anyone so sheltered and ignorant that they have not heard the term gelatinous cube or beholder? Besides which gelatinous cube was the brain child of @gronanofsimmerya, did anyone ever buy his rights to it? You've proven my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 10:58:27 GMT -5
Besides Michael Moorcock for further reading, I would add Poul Anderson for further reading. Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) The Broken Sword (1954, revised in 1971) The Merman's Children (1979) IIRC there are at least a couple of short story collections that should be included as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 11:01:46 GMT -5
This post he addresses feedback which includes some of the things I just posted earlier today. I am reading through the blog post by post without reading other peoples comments, just giving my first impressions to each post. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:04:29 GMT -5
As far as lowering one ability to raise another, although the rules present it as an option I cannot remember ever seeing anyone use that option. Charisma is, I agree, not a dump stat in OD&D. I would make the case that there are no dump stats at all in OD&D. As for Charisma, if I am the DM, then regardless of the edition using Charisma as a dump stat would be done at your characters peril. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:14:42 GMT -5
The 20% chance referenced here is not related to the players or player characters. This is in reference to monsters having a 20% chance of knowing the player character common tongue in addition to their own language and is for use by the referee/DM. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:22:43 GMT -5
He says regarding morale, I would disagree that it is fuzzy and ill-defined. The below text establishes the baseline for NPCs.A table follows that uses the adjusted numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:25:41 GMT -5
I agree, simple and easy to use. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:28:01 GMT -5
Easy method and all or nearly all of the printing of OD&D have about the same pagination. I am not sure about that in regard to the newest anniversary printing that deletes some much compared to the original. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:31:08 GMT -5
I never liked how easy it was for Magic-Users to gain levels so this is one area that I house ruled things to make it less of a disparity. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:40:12 GMT -5
Excellent points are made here. Our group did rerolled all the hit dice in toto when gaining a level the first couple of years, but it was player choice to do it or not. If you did it, you had to keep the new total, even if it was lower than what you had before. If you gained fifth level as a fighter, first you would re-roll the existing four dice and make any adjustments and if the total was lower then tough, then the new die was rolled and added. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 16:49:29 GMT -5
In the example that he gives, we always used the option that gave the NPC swordsman the best chance of hitting. We saw no reason to penalize the monster because he was a human monster. And yes if he entered your service, we ruled he still used the monster table. All NPCs used the monster table and only PCs used the first table is the way that we ran it. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 17:22:23 GMT -5
For missile ranges we just whipped up homebrew numbers and went back to playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 21, 2018 17:25:12 GMT -5
One question that came up was how long do they stay turned and our answer was "as long as the turning cleric is alive" if the cleric dies they will come back. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jul 21, 2018 18:15:14 GMT -5
Q Man, I am glad to see that you agree with @piper at least now and then. 
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jul 21, 2018 22:27:32 GMT -5
Q Man is a tough reviewer but I am sure that @piper has broad shoulders.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jul 23, 2018 8:52:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jul 23, 2018 8:53:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jul 23, 2018 8:54:19 GMT -5
|
|
