The Marches Campaign

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:04 am Post subject:

Yeah, those have been kicking around for a while. I'm pretty sure that for each particular campaign, I'm only starting the first set of characters off at 1st level. No need to go through endless iterations of "delve-sleep-leave."

I'm getting weird in my old age because I've concluded that EGG peaked in 1974 and, except for the odd passage in the 1e PHB and DMG, everything was strictly downhill from there. Sad

_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Nick · (Sinlocah) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 121

I think you have a point, Scott. I have played many different systems and the ones with the least amount of rules tend to be the most fun. Unfortunately they break down quickly when you reach 'higher levels'. OD&D is an exception, but the balance between presenting challenges to higher level characters while not giving them someting too difficult is a real problem for DM's.

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject:

Everything I've read and experienced leads me to believe that OD&D characters were meant to get to about 9th level or so, then clear a few hexes, found a barony, and do some occasional wargaming. The original books had no magic-user spells above 6th level, no cleric spells above 5th level, and the biggest monster was the purple worm at 15 HD (although sea monsters and rocs could get arbitrarily huge). Dragons were kind of nasty but by no means so uber that you needed to get a headset and coordinate a 120-character raid.

When the Greyhawk supplement came out, the stat inflation began, very high-level spells became common, monsters got ridiculous, and the OD&D chassis was not well suited for it. I also think Gygax had a bad taste in his mouth from his experience with the Tolkien estate, as we start seeing fewer "classical" monsters and more "some crap the DM made up."

AD&D obviously works all right, as we played it for decades and enjoyed the hell out of it, and it was my favorite edition until a few years ago. But now I find its design philosophy drastically at odds with my own. I dimly recall Arneson saying somewhere that one of his differences with Gygax was that Gygax liked to come up with endless rules and subsystems for different situations, and Arneson preferred to extrapolate from a minimal set of rules.

I started off a Gygax and have become an Arneson. Sad

_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Nick · (Sinlocah) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 121

A few rules and many exceptions is the way the gaming community has been going for years (D&D just caught up) and I believe that is in the Arneson philosophy. I much prefer it this way myself. It seems like it would scale up well which keeps players interested.

I did not know OD&D characters were supposed to go on campaign. Did he have wargamming rules available? My ignorance of early D&D sometimes shocks me...

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject:

The original "3 little books" assumed ownership of the Chainmail wargaming rules, and the familiar "roll d20" combat system was originally presented as the alternate combat system for D&D. Apparently they figured most people would just adapt Chainmail and its "Fantasy Supplement" section, which had some rules for man-to-man and fantastic combat respectively. There are some sections of the OD&D books you have to make up from whole cloth if you don't have Chainmail (elves' bonuses against certain creatures, hobbits' missile weapon bonus, etc.).

Originally, a Normal Man could take 1 hit. A Hero was supposed to be worth 4 Normal Men, so he could take 4, and a Superhero could take 8. I think Arneson was responsible for the innovation of using the same Man from game to game, thus progressing him from "Flunky" to "Hero" and so on. Obviously this had its roots in wargaming campaigns which allowed units to acquire veteran status, but I think it's the first time individual troops started becoming ongoing proxies for the players.

The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures booklet (3LB Vol. 3) had additional rules for naval warfare, and for converting the Avalon Hill Outdoor Survival boardgame map for use as the initial wilderness area. There were tables for rolling up inhabitants of each of the citadels and castles on the converted map, along with the monster lairs, so you could hex-crawl, set up in a hex and fight your neighbors, etc. There were also rules for tax income from your holdings.

The Judges Guild book First Fantasy Campaign is essentially a document of Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign, and it's clear that there were at least occasional army-level actions played out on the tabletop, and that PCs and their allies frequently became involved in such struggles. I'm lucky enough to own a hard copy of FFC as part of my burgeoning Judges Guild collection, and I wish they'd release it as a .pdf so more people could see it. It's really pretty fascinating and inspirational.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject:

Old Geezer, who used to post frequently on rpg.net, and who gamed in the original Lake Geneva and later Tekumel campaigns, posted this in a discussion on old D&D. I ran across it quoted on Knights & Knaves Alehouse and think it's a pretty apt description of why I currently like kitbashed OD&D and very sparsely detailed settings like the original Wilderlands:

Bhartec Redhands · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:

If you look in the Temple of the Frog section you can see that things could quickly escalate into major battle with 100s or 1000s of soldiers.
http://www.blackmoorcastle.com/D&D%20-%20Supplement%202%20-%20Blackmoor%20(TSR2004).pdf

I think the option of army vs army combat is assumed to always be on the table. At least if the PCs individual intrusions did not work out as intended.

WyzardWhately · (Lars) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 260

Man, I've always wanted to play in a D&D game that escalated to army-scale combat, but It's never happened for me.

Bhartec Redhands · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:

I've had a pretty good time in the occasions we have done this. Oddly it seems to work best with a low to mid level parties rather than high level ones, say levels 3-5. The PCs can still lord over the minions but its not high level enough to cause a ton of logistical headaches. You can pick up a 100 pieces of el-cheapo D&D minis for a couple bucks on ebay now a days so it pretty easy to do anymore.

WyzardWhately · (Lars) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 260

Scott: I remember you posted some in the thread I started in D20 Open over on RPG.net. The one discussing this game generally & Lars specifically. I've necroed it since he gained second level.

Anyone else with an interest is also welcome to post their own thoughts on OD&D, character sheets, etc., in that thread. People seem to get a kick out of it.

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject:

The TPK in the initial "3.0 launch campaign" I ran happened around 6th or 7th level with a poorly eyeballed siege scenario that we played out on the tabletop.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject:

Bhartec Redhands · Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: TRAPS!

I started playing D&D well after the whitebox rules so I never played without a thief. So in OD&D .. is detect trap essentially just keeping someone expendable up front? Perhaps some of the more 'seasoned' [old] OD&D players can enlighten me.

Scott · Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject:

Anyone can try to detect or spring a trap. You can use a 10' pole, dwarven detection abilities, a Find Traps spell, an animated zombie, a pig on a leash, or whatever. Just describe what you're doing and I'll adjudicate it.

If someone actually wanted to play a "thief," they'd probably play a Fighting Man (maybe a Magic-User, or a Cleric of certain gods) with a thiefly character concept, and I'd assume that some ability in trapfinding etc. was present if it fit the concept. You could play a dwarf mechanician, a ninja-mage, or any number of concepts where it'd be likely you had some facility in the thiefly arts.

I've contemplated adding the Thief class. If I did, I would rule that the Thief gets the same chance as everyone else to do stuff that anyone can do -- sneak, spring traps with a pig, climb -- but could do some things that no one else could do, like climb very sheer surfaces, find magical or well-concealed traps, find traps even if the *player* has no idea how to find them, sneak in unfavorable circumstances, and so on. Some other OD&D folks run it this way and seem to have good results, without a) skewing the whole game where no one else but a Thief can be stealthy, or b) killing every 1st level Thief because their abilities stink out loud.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

WyzardWhately · (Lars) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 260

So, I have decided to construct the battle-hymn Lars is currently howling. It is most likely not the same one he is trying to sing along with the Brothers, but a cacophony is the least of our worries now. The tune can be heard here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=V5BxymuiAxQ

I love my axes
And I love hacking things
I love gold pieces
And I love Valcerdies
I love the Underworld!
It's such a violent place!
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada

I love dead heathens
I love the RECKONING
I love new trophies
I love the dead-burning
I love the Underworld!
It's such a crazy place!
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada
Boomdeyada

Yes, I am a bad, bad person.