101 Days of D&D Rules Cyclopedia

[Hakwood]

Day 0: Monday, November 22, 2005

Call it age, or “premature mid-life gamer crisis”, or just fatherhood, or perhaps wild, artistic flair (my favorite spin on the situation). Whatever the explanation, I’ve come to a point in my life where I realize I love, need, and long for rules-lite games. I also realize that Dungeons & Dragons will always be my first RPG love. What to do?

I’ve been doing a lot of lurking at RPGnet and I love this place. You guys rock. Taking inspiration from Grubman’s magnificent “101 Days of Savage Worlds” thread, I’ve decided that the time has come for me to give serious time and attention to the one game that may well be the answer to my rules-lite D&D needs: the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia.

A (very) brief history. In January I will be 35 years old. I have been gaming since 1980 with the Moldvay D&D Basic Set and the 1978 Gamma World RPG (1st edition). Since that time I have had the opportunity to play or GM over a dozen RPGs, none of which I’ll bother listing here (though it will perhaps come up as this 101 days experiment progresses). In the realm of D&D, I’ve DMed Basic/Expert, AD&D 1e, and D&D 3.0/3.5. I own many 2e books but have never had the chance to run it; I drifted out of RPGs during the 2e era.

My carefree days of university are long gone (and good riddance, I say!). I am a full-time teacher, a full-time husband, and a full-time dad (my daughter turns 3 next week!). I’m at a point in my life where I realize that I love rules-lite games, and perhaps *need* them, dammit. These past few years that 3.0/3.5 has come out I’ve spent far more time studying rules than I have designing adventures. And that’s no good for me. Don’t get me wrong, I love D&D 3.0/3.5 (hell, I love *any* version of D&D—“edition wars” are completely foreign to me), but it just isn’t for me. At least not at this point of my life.

AD&D 1e and 2e aren’t really options either. Although I enjoy both of them, they’re not really what one would call “rules lite” games (ever seen the unarmed combat rules in 1e?). If what I really want is good ole fashioned “old skool” D&D (which I do), then Rules Cyclopedia seems like the way to go. Oh, and just in case anyone asks, I have no real interest in Castles & Crusades (for reasons I won’t bother with here) and I’ve never even seen a copy of OD&D, but what I know of it tells me that RC is really a development of OD&D anyway.

So RC D&D it is.

The plan, then, is that I’m going to begin a 101 day “RC D&D only” experiment. This is not to curtail RPG buying (I’m pretty much done buying RPG stuff until next summer anyway) but rather it is for two other reasons: (1) I want to see if RC D&D is really the D&D game for me. I’ve tried all the others (save OD&D) and this is the only one left. (2) I want to focus on ONE game for 101 days, instead of bouncing around with the wretched “GM ADD” that has been discussed on RPGnet before. I suffer from that, big time. That’s why I’m not even going to bother mentioning the other RPGs I play in this post; perhaps it will come up later at some point. But for 101 days, my only RPG focus will be RC D&D.

In this thread, I’ll chronicle my experience of learning the rules, designing an adventure, and running my regular group through the adventure (while perhaps pimping RC D&D in the process). I’m hoping that it becomes as much a conversation as a journal.

I was inspired and intrigued by Grubman’s thread, even though I’m not interested in Savage Worlds per se. This is why I hope many of you will join in this conversation, even if RC D&D isn’t your thing. I hope just the process of studying the game, designing an adventure, and running it with my group will be enlightening. I know Grubman’s experiment did a lot for me. (BTW, thanks Grubman!)

Tomorrow morning will be Day 1. (This is Day 0--I'm talking about doing, but haven't started doing it yet :) ). I’ll begin my day with a hot coffee at Starbucks and my Rules Cyclopedia. The first order of business, after all, has to be to read the book and learn the rules.

Tomorrow we begin. I’m looking forward to hearing from all of you and getting your ideas, input, and advice (especially once we get to designing the adventure!).

Hakwood

[Dr Rotwang!]

Go read some Robert E. Howard, boy! Gets the blood movin'!

[LeftWingPenguin]

Good luck, Hackwood.

I for one will be interested to see how this goes. I've had the RC for a while now, but never found the occasion to do anything with it.

[weasel fierce]

Well, the RC does cover enough material to do just about anything you could need, in a fantasy game, so I think you'll be all set :)

[Chaot]

Good choice Hakwood,

The Cyclopedia is the best incarnation of D&D, and Mystara is the best developed world!

(Granted, you didn't specify you're using Mystara. However, I thought it important to throw it in.)

[Breakdaddy]

Good luck with your 101 days of RC! If I were only allowed to have 1 rpg book in my collection it would be the RC.

[Dalton]

In high school, my friends and I played 3 to 5 hour games of D&D Rules Cyclopedia 4-5 times a week for an entire summer. We never even came close to exhausting all the options and material in that great book. I couldn't go back to it now, but I wish you the best of luck.

Nick

[Liberator]

Now I want to go to Starbucks with MY rules cyclopedia!

Stupid work!

Nice way to de-lurk by the way!

[Ron]

Great choice Hakwood! I took a similar decision earlier this year for very similar reasons. I run a game with the RC for about three months and I didn't found the need for anything else. If I only could find time to play...

[Neil]

I hope it works out, Hakwood!

I have no doubt that you stand upon the Threshold of great adventure.:p

[izlear]

I'm reletively young for this group, 24. and I have been involved in the gaming comunity for about 11 years. and in my time I have found that Rules cyclopeidia is the best way to go. The only other product you need is modules but only if you want them, obviously not nessasary. wish you well on this indever I can't wait to read your exploits.

[crowquill]

Starbucks over-roasts.

But the D&D Cyclopedia is very cool. I've been thinking about using it to run a new game for my kids.

[Zweihander]

Starbucks over-roasts.

But the D&D Cyclopedia is very cool. I've been thinking about using it to run a new game for my kids.
Certainly pick your own poison, but either way the Cylcopedia always makes it taste better ;).
I finally Ebayed a copy for myself a few months ago and I strangely feel like a cycle has come back to its beginning. I'm just brimming with the chance to play it when the right idea hits.

[Erik Sieurin]

I've oodles of fantasy ideas and I have this strange urge to use RC for most of them.

I have bought Savage Worlds (which I like a lot) expressly to make one of those ideas a reality, so I'm making that one (blushes) multi-system.

You can all laugh now.

Erik

[Hakwood]

Day 1: Wednesday, November 23/05

I did it. I went to Starbucks this morning at 5:30 am. I'm an early riser by nature; besides, my daughter is always up by 6:30, so if I ever want a morning off I have to be gone before then anyway. :) I ordered myself a steaming hot venti mild and began to read.

I covered the little "What is a role-playing game?" introduction (yep, I'm going to read *everything*!) and the opening chapter on ability scores and initial character creation.

My thoughts:
1. As I read through the book I'm keeping a few sticky notes on the inside cover where I'm jotting down house rules. One thing I love about the older versions of D&D is that I feel freer to house rule things; 3.X is so darn tight (and thorough) and balanced that house-ruling feels--unnatural. I know this is my hangup, and not a fault of 3.X, BTW. So far I have two house rules: characters will start with maximum HP at first level (a pretty standard house rule in pre-3.0) and NO ALIGNMENT LANGUAGES. They do not exist. They are just a bad dream, like Highlander 2: The Sickening.

2. One area many folks express unease with is the idea of races-as-classes. Yet reading the class descriptions, I realize something that puts my heart at rest. Each class is more than its description. Here's what I mean: the "Fighter" class is, if you read the description, really a "Human Fighter." The magic-user is really a "Human Magic-User." The elf is really a "Elf Fighter/Mage."

So it isn't really that you have "races as classes" so much as a predetermined race/class combination that each player chooses from. In the future I will expand these combinations. Taking some of the Cleric abilities and adding the racial abilities of the Dwarf gives you a "Dwarf Cleric" as opposed to the default Dwarf, which is essentially a "Dwarf Fighter", and so on.

3. I'm already pumped. Already loving this game.

4. I don't miss some of the superfluous (in my opinion) details of AD&D 1e/2e, such as "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" and percentile strength. RC features the beloved (to me) ability check, which covers most of what I would want players to do. I'm looking forward to the skill system (coming up in a later chapter) and I like the almost 3.X way that each ability score has a set modifier that applies to a range of things. Like 3.X, you add your Strength modifier (which RC calls "adjustment" rather than "modifier") to melee attack and melee/thrown weapon damage. You apply it to your 1d6 "Open Doors" roll (and hey, it ain't old skool D&D unless you have a special "Open Doors" mechanic, baby! :D ). Your Constitution adjustment applies to Hit Points. And so on.

5. So far, it is beautifully rules-lite, with the logic of 3.X and the old skool flavor of AD&D. I'm in love.

Tomorrow: more reading, an inventory (I'm going to comb through my legion of (A)D&D books and decide what I'll be using these 101 days in conjunction with RC), and some initial adventure brainstorming.

Thanks to everyone for your encouraging comments thus far!

Hakwood (no "C" :) )

[jeff_vandenberg]

hmmm.. i've had the urges for some RC D&D.. but sadly it would be a short game and not something extended most likely. i look forward to seeing more.

[Cossack]

In the future I will expand these combinations. Taking some of the Cleric abilities and adding the racial abilities of the Dwarf gives you a "Dwarf Cleric" as opposed to the default Dwarf, which is essentially a "Dwarf Fighter", and so on.

Dwarf Cleric has been done. It is in the Dwarves of Rockhome Gazetteer.

Similar classes appear in other Gazetteers. The Five Shires gives us Halfling Druids and the Elves of Alfhiem has Elven Treekeepers, a cleric-like class. Emirates of Ylaraum has Dervishes, a desert version of the druid. The Northern Reaches includes The Wise Woman, a class of Norse myth-type mystics. The Orcs of Thar makes all the various humanoid races into playable PC classes, with two variants -- Shaman (Cleric) and Wicca (Magic-User). There's also a Merchant class in, I believe, the Darokin book.

[Dalton]

Check out this site for OD&D resources and Od&dities, a great OD&D fanzine. One of the issues has a nifty class design system.

http://tower.newcenturycomputers.net/

Nick

[Ron]

Day 1: Wednesday, November 23/05
[...]
2. One area many folks express unease with is the idea of races-as-classes. Yet reading the class descriptions, I realize something that puts my heart at rest. Each class is more than its description. Here's what I mean: the "Fighter" class is, if you read the description, really a "Human Fighter." The magic-user is really a "Human Magic-User." The elf is really a "Elf Fighter/Mage."

So it isn't really that you have "races as classes" so much as a predetermined race/class combination that each player chooses from. In the future I will expand these combinations. Taking some of the Cleric abilities and adding the racial abilities of the Dwarf gives you a "Dwarf Cleric" as opposed to the default Dwarf, which is essentially a "Dwarf Fighter", and so on.

[...]

When I started my RC campaign I addressed this to the players saying that those class/race combinations were the more likely to be found adventuring. Furthermore, I also said that things such as a Dwarf Wizard or a Halfling Cleric were odd enough to the point of being ridiculous. It seems that I've convinced them pretty well as I latter ruled that any combination would be acceptable by using the human class with a 10% XP penalty, but nobody wanted it.

I glad you're enjoying the Rules Cyclopedia, it was also a great pleasure to me to return to this version of Dungeons & Dragons.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Just a couple of things for thought:

1. Nick pointed you towards ODDITIES. Somewhere is the Perfect Class article which attempts (fairly successfully) to rationalize the RC Class system, allowing someone to break apart race and class if desired. Or, to put it another way, to add Thief abilities to the dwarf class, if you wanted a Dwarven Fighter-Thief to go with your Elven Fighter-Mage. The calculation is based on Racial Levels limits and Attack Ranks which are things that people often ignore in my experience. If you do ignore, I think it throws the calc s off.

That said, there’s a kind of purity to the classes as presented. They are supposed to be Archetypes, after all. And you can do some interesting bits if you realize, for example, that ALL elves apparently can cast magic. Even if 99% of them only know one 1st level spell and that’s it, it still means that even the lowliest elf could potentially Charm, Sleep, or Magic Missile you ass (that’s assuming that all elves are at least 1st level elves). Similarly, it means that al Dwarves are pretty tough buggers, which fits the Archetype.

2. I’m the same age and generation as you and I have always, always, always been bewildered by Alignment Languages. And never ever used them. However, I started a thread on this topic ( http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=214826) which elicited a lot of interesting thoughts on the subject. You might peruse it if you have the time. It’s been suggested that the idea was supposed to be that they were professional clerical languages, somewhat analogous to Medieval Church Latin or later Indian Sanskrit, which clerics would know and which others might have heard scraps of. That’s actually not at all a bad idea, depending upon how religion works in your world, and I have thought about instituting it if I ever ran B/X D&D again. In essence the Alignment Language would be a Cleric Cant and their scrolls et.al would be written in it.

Alternatively, it was suggested that the Chaos Language was supposed to be the analogue for the Black Speech of Mordor, with Lawful and Neutral falling into line for symmetry. That’s a less useful concept to me, but you could do something with it.

Or you could just chuck ‘em out.

Anyway, good luck with the game. Are you planning on using Mystara or your own setting?

[Hakwood]

It’s been suggested that the idea was supposed to be that they were professional clerical languages, somewhat analogous to Medieval Church Latin or later Indian Sanskrit, which clerics would know and which others might have heard scraps of. . . . the Chaos Language was supposed to be the analogue for the Black Speech of Mordor, with Lawful and Neutral falling into line for symmetry.


See, this is why I started this thread. Not only to just share and give myself some focus, but to get good ideas like this one! The idea of a clerical language is tres cool, I must say. I'm using it. (Although I haven't decided yet on how religion will function in my game. But the standard Law=Good, Chaotic=Evil will be pretty much the way I go. I don't see a need to introduce the whole nine-point alignment system. I mean, honestly, how often in AD&D (or 3.5) does it matter if an NPC is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil?


Anyway, good luck with the game. Are you planning on using Mystara or your own setting?

I'm not a huge fan of Mystara, but I may use it. Haven't decided yet. But I feel certain of two things: (1) Whichever setting I use, I will *heavily* make over in my own image. I'm not a canon-ite; instead of memorizing someone else's imaginary history, I'd far rather invent my own unique, creative history. (2) Geographically, I love the Flanaess, and may use that. But if not that, then Mystara. At any rate, I *know* that I don't want to design my own world geographically.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: I had thought of using Faerun, but changed my mind tres quickly. Far too many connotations and assumptions in the minds of players the second they see the map or hear "Forgotten Realms." Too difficult, in my opinion, to scrap all that canon and remake the world. So Mystara or Greyhawk, but my own version of it.

[Spinachcat]

Here's some more stuff you may want to check out:

Dragonsfoot for Classic D&D adventures
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cd/

Vaults of Pandius for huge amount of Mystara and Classic D&D stuff
http://pandius.com/index.html

Also, you can download B3: Palace of the Silver Princess for free from WotC and several other Mystara products as well.

[Hakwood]

Here's some more stuff you may want to check out:

Dragonsfoot for Classic D&D adventures
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cd/

Vaults of Pandius for huge amount of Mystara and Classic D&D stuff
http://pandius.com/index.html

Also, you can download B3: Palace of the Silver Princess for free from WotC and several other Mystara products as well.

Thanks for the links! And also, thanks to those other folks in this thread who have given similar links. Rest assured, I will check all of them out and, no doubt, download a bunch of stuff! :D

Just a thought: it's refreshing to *NOT HAVE TO WORRY* about "what game to play". This "101 days no matter what thing" has already given me focus. Let's hope I can keep it up, tho. I feel like a smoker who says, "I quit yesterday, and I'm doing great!"

EDIT: Just checked out some of the maps at pandius. VERY cool.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

See, this is why I started this thread. Not only to just share and give myself some focus, but to get good ideas like this one! The idea of a clerical language is tres cool, I must say. I'm using it. (Although I haven't decided yet on how religion will function in my game. But the standard Law=Good, Chaotic=Evil will be pretty much the way I go. I don't see a need to introduce the whole nine-point alignment system. I mean, honestly, how often in AD&D (or 3.5) does it matter if an NPC is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil?

Well, RC D&D only has three alignments: Chaotic, Lawful, and Neutral. It’s AD&D that adds the second term (Good, Evil, Neutral). It makes the archetypal qualities of alignment stronger.

I'm not a huge fan of Mystara, but I may use it. Haven't decided yet. But I feel certain of two things: (1) Whichever setting I use, I will *heavily* make over in my own image. I'm not a canon-ite; instead of memorizing someone else's imaginary history, I'd far rather invent my own unique, creative history. (2) Geographically, I love the Flanaess, and may use that. But if not that, then Mystara. At any rate, I *know* that I don't want to design my own world geographically.

I think doing your own is the way that our generation did it. But we also (or , at least, I also) swiped stuff right and left as desired. For me, Mystara remains “The Known World” and I swiped the fragment of Karameikos from the Expert book (cause it looked cool) and The Isle of Dread and just put it into my world. Which is 100% old-school cool. OTOH, The RC provides rather a goodly amount of info for Mystara so it’s an option. And I do like many of the Gazetteers.

You just just let it bubble around until you decide which way to go. Who’s to say that the Flanaess doesn’t lie to the west of Karameikos?

[Hakwood]

Well, RC D&D only has three alignments: Chaotic, Lawful, and Neutral. It’s AD&D that adds the second term (Good, Evil, Neutral). It makes the archetypal qualities of alignment stronger.


But isn't Lawful in RC *basically* "good"? And isn't Chaotic "basically" evil? I'm actually curious now, because this had long been my assumption, even back in the early 80s, when I was a kid. The Moldvay basic book section on alignment showed an "evil" (i.e. chaotic) rogue about to murder a bound prisoner, while the "good" (i.e. lawful) cleric tried to prevent it. The neutral fighter stood by yawning. (Maybe I'll post a scan of the picture later, if I can figure out how to do it!).

I think doing your own is the way that our generation did it. But we also (or , at least, I also) swiped stuff right and left as desired. For me, Mystara remains “The Known World” and I swiped the fragment of Karameikos from the Expert book (cause it looked cool) and The Isle of Dread and just put it into my world. Which is 100% old-school cool. . . . Who’s to say that the Flanaess doesn’t lie to the west of Karameikos?

Heh heh. Good point. ONe thing I know: I have tons of maps for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Mystara. And they shall be used. Oh yes, they shall be used. :D Original world-design is a big part of what I want to do here. I just haven't the time, energy, or inclination to memorize someone else's ideas (i.e. studying the Forgotten Realms Core Book like it was a history text or something). I'll use the maps and some general ideas about the geography, but then I'm going solo, baby! As you say, "That be old school cool!" :D

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

But isn't Lawful in RC *basically* "good"? And isn't Chaotic "basically" evil? I'm actually curious now, because this had long been my assumption, even back in the early 80s, when I was a kid. The Moldvay basic book section on alignment showed an "evil" (i.e. chaotic) rogue about to murder a bound prisoner, while the "good" (i.e. lawful) cleric tried to prevent it. The neutral fighter stood by yawning. (Maybe I'll post a scan of the picture later, if I can figure out how to do it!).

I well recall that picture (although I actually started with the ‘77 J. Eric Holmes Basic Set which hardly explained alignments art all). The implication is that Chaotic is bad and Lawful is good and Neutral is…uh…whatever. This all from Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. I reckon D&D leans more towards Anderson, but you could lean more Moorcockian gray is you want. One also has to note that the happy faerie creatures in the RC are also Chaotics even though they aren’t evil. And there are some scary, extra-planar beasties that lawful and not nice at all. So there is a lot of room to play with it howsoever you like (which, really is the whole damn point of RC D&D in general).

Heh heh. Good point. ONe thing I know: I have tons of maps for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Mystara. And they shall be used. Oh yes, they shall be used. :D Original world-design is a big part of what I want to do here. I just haven't the time, energy, or inclination to memorize someone else's ideas (i.e. studying the Forgotten Realms Core Book like it was a history text or something). I'll use the maps and some general ideas about the geography, but then I'm going solo, baby! As you say, "That be old school cool!" :D

Yep and yep. My approach in world-building these days is to admire Profs. Tolkien and Barker but emulate ER Burroughs and RE Howard. That is start with an area you need (The Borderlands of Karch, say), have some other ideas swirling around in your head (to west lies the Great Dismal Delve, with fabulous treasures and monsters), and make up new stuff as needed (he’s from…uh…the Boundless Empire of Erulan, a near-mythical place located far to the…uh…south. You want to go to Erulan and see this mighty place for yourself? Cool; see you next week.”)

EDIT: I whole-heartedly support stealing geography from whatever you want. Take the maps of Elric’s Young Kingdoms and turn them upside-down. Take a real-world map of South-east Asia and turn the water into land and the land into water. Take a map from some other game you don’t even remember anymore and to which you lost the book that’s been sitting in your closet for years and just draw some places on that. I really believe that part of the elusive “old-school” spirit that many of us are trying to recapture is that sense of a game giving you room and license to do whatever you want to, rather than to explain to you what and where you are playing.

[Bill_Coffin]

I whole-heartedly support stealing geography from whatever you want. Take the maps of Elric’s Young Kingdoms and turn them upside-down. Take a real-world map of South-east Asia and turn the water into land and the land into water.

God, I love doing this. I am also a sucker for islands, so I have taken scans of real-world archipelagos and blown them up to continent size. You get some really interesting landmasses that way. For this purpose, I'm especially fond og the southern archipelago in Alaska, some of the small islands off of Australia, and some f the small islands in the Great Lakes. In my game worlds, I've got entire empires sitting on those.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

The thing is, one literally has an entire planet’s worth of geographic material just waiting to be swiped and creatively fooled around with. I had a much-beloved (well, by me anyway) empire situated in what is a reversed-Baltic Sea.

[grubman]

Hakwood,

Hey, glad I inspired you! I hope you have as much fun with your experiment (and learn as much) as I did.

RC is a great set of rules. I don't know if I would call it "rules lite" since it has a lot of crunch. More like rules concise. My personal favorite version of basic D&D is still the Otis basic/expert combination. The RC adds a LOT of extra stuff that I don't care for...but that's just me.

I'll look forward to reading how this goes. If I can be so arogant as to offer advice to help you based on my experience...

1) Try to post here every few days, even if it is just to comment on how things are going. Having the support and interest of others is very motivational.

2) Ignore most supplemental material. The core rules are really all you need. Take advantage of the 3 months to make the game yours. Use the time to exercise your own creativity without all the distractions of reading tons of excess material by other people (there will be plenty of time for that later).

3) Avoid reading threads that actually discuss other games. This one is hard! You'd be suprised at how hard it is NOT to get interested in a game that someone else is discussing. Especially if it sounds cool. I guarantee I could write a thread about the Star Frontiers idea I've been tossing around...and half the people who read it will whip out thier SF rulebooks for a read just because I reminded them how cool SF is.

4) avoid reading non-genre material (novels). I don't know if your experiment is anything about RPG ADD like mine was, but if you are easily distracted, just read fantasy novels for the next 3 months. It'll keep you motivated and on track!

Hope it helps.

I'll look forward to seeing how your experience pans out.

[candaon]

In high school, my friends and I played 3 to 5 hour games of D&D Rules Cyclopedia 4-5 times a week for an entire summer. We never even came close to exhausting all the options and material in that great book. I couldn't go back to it now, but I wish you the best of luck.

Nick


*sigh* I had a copy & lost it somehow. I think through the "I lent it to /someone/" method.

[Erik Sieurin]

Lawful vs Chaotic: several of the monsters in the monster chapters are "Chaotic" but described as good people - the djinn, for instance, are nice and Chaotic while the ifrit are Lawful and cruel.

(Edit: whoops - the hydrax and the horde, but the efreet are Chaotic. my bad)

And - but this is beyond the RC - there are plenty of examples of nasty Lawful people and nice Chaotic people in adventures and supplements.

Personally, I never bothered with Law and Chaos as big forces in Basic D&D, because you had the nice Energy/Time/Matter/Thought free-for-all on Entropy when it came to metaphysics, and people-as-people (or monsters!) when it came to ethics. Notice, f'rinstance, that Detect Evil notices beings who bears you ill will, or things with "evil enchantments", not people of different alignment. Protection from Evil gives you bonuses when people whack you, no matter what the alignment. Dispel Evil affects monsters that are undead or "enchanted", not beings with a special alignment. I think Holy Word is the only magic effect where your alignment MATTERS...

Erik

[Hakwood]

DAY 2: Thursday, November 24, 2005

At Starbucks again this morning at 5:30. Finished reading Chapter 1: Steps in Character Creation. Some thoughts:

Alignment

Read a bit about alignment. Found this passage:

"To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. . . . They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'. Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish 'evil' personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality." (11)

Earlier in the passage, we are also told, "Lawful behavior is usually the same as 'good' behavior." (11)

So although it seems that the Law/Chaos concept is pretty closely tied to Good/Evil, we have a broad enough definition to allow flexibility. The text explicitly states that a Chaotic player character (and, presumably, NPCs and monsters) could be merely "happy-go-lucky" and "unpredictable", i.e. not necessarily "evil".

I like this. It means that it is perfectly viable to have "good" characters in the Law, Neutrality, or Chaos axis.

THAC0

I've never quite understood how THAC0 as a mechanic is supposed to mesh with the to-hit charts, because, frankly, they seem to contradict. I had this same problem in AD&D 1e; in AD&D 2e, as you all know, the to-hit charts were scrapped completely.

For example: let's say my group decides to abandon the to-hit charts (which is likely what I'll do) and go with straight THAC0. Let's take the example of a Level 1 Fighter. According to the chart, he needs to roll 20 or better to hit Armor Class -3. But if we use a straight THAC0 calculation, he suddenly needs to roll 22 or better (the 1st level Fighter's THAC0 is 19). So it seems that the charts, at least at more powerful armor classes, are easier on the characters. Any comments on this? It's probably minor, but I want to think through all these details.

Demihuman level limits

At first I thought of adding a house rule: "No demihuman level limits." Then it occured to me that the odds of running a campaign in which demihuman PCs will actually *reach* their level limits are slim to none. That's the beauty of RC D&D: SLOOOOOOW level progression. I loved this about AD&D as well. You take a long time to move through a level. The game is about playing a character, not levelling a character. Obviously, this isn't everyone's cup of tea; many folks like the faster level progression of 3.X.


Finally, I want to thank all of you who have made contributions to this thread thus far, especially Grubman and Dr. Samsara, but many others too. I initially promised myself that I would try to reply to each person's posts, but I realize now that time will simply not allow that. But I'll reply here and there, when I can, but focus my main comments for my daily updates.

Grubman: good advice about focusing just on the core book. I have about fifty million D&D/AD&D books, from Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook) through to 3.0 (no 3.5 stuff). For now, I'm only going to use two books: the Rules Cyclopedia and the Creature Catalog.

More later!

Hakwood

[Whollyrandom]

*sigh* I had a copy & lost it somehow. I think through the "I lent it to /someone/" method.

RPGNow sells a reasonably readable (ie scanned, but not, so far as I can tell, incompetently scanned) pdf of the Cyclopedia for $4.95.

I know it's not the same, but it still contains all the same information ...

[budman]

Good Luck

hakwood

101 days is hard but haveing spent 6 years with Odnd you can do it

[Neil]

[B]At first I thought of adding a house rule: "No demihuman level limits." Then it occured to me that the odds of running a campaign in which demihuman PCs will actually *reach* their level limits are slim to none. That's the beauty of RC D&D: SLOOOOOOW level progression. I loved this about AD&D as well. You take a long time to move through a level. The game is about playing a character, not levelling a character. Obviously, this isn't everyone's cup of tea; many folks like the faster level progression of 3.X.

Hakwood

Now, just check the optional rules section for Demi-human levels.:)

I'd comment on the THACO, but I don't have the book to hand.

Alignment could easily be switched to Good, Neutral and Evil if it suits you or your players better.

[Participant-Observer]

Grubman: good advice about focusing just on the core book. I have about fifty million D&D/AD&D books, from Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook) through to 3.0 (no 3.5 stuff). For now, I'm only going to use two books: the Rules Cyclopedia and the Creature Catalog.

Hmmm ... apart from the organization into category (humanoids, undead, dragons, moulds, slimes etc.) aren't all the monsters from Basic thru' Masters included in the RC?

I can think of one more supplement that might help you. Wouldn't RCD&D benefit from levels for humanoid monsters? This was featured in Orcs of Thar and the Creature Crucible series (or at least John Nephew's book Tall Tales of the Wee Folk so I assume it was also in the underwater, aerial, and lycanthropy volumes). In the long run, I would want to build non-character class antagonists to challenge my PCs -- although, YMMV etc.

[grubman]

Hmmm ... apart from the organization into category (humanoids, undead, dragons, moulds, slimes etc.) aren't all the monsters from Basic thru' Masters included in the RC?
.

But the creature catalog has all those cool pictures! In fact, for me, that is one of the major flaws with both the basic rulebooks and the RC. I know it isn't feasable to include illustrations for every monster, and keep the page count down...but to me, dry stats without cool pictures is just boreing. As they say, a picture says a thousand words.

[Participant-Observer]

But the creature catalog has all those cool pictures! In fact, for me, that is one of the major flaws with both the basic rulebooks and the RC. I know it isn't feasable to include illustrations for every monster, and keep the page count down...but to me, dry stats without cool pictures is just boreing. As they say, a picture says a thousand words.

Ah. thanks for the clarification. It's not something I have, unfortunately. It also has the advantage of being written by the splendid TSR UK crew, before they got axed and took their dice to Games Workshop.

[Harrek]

THAC0
I've never quite understood how THAC0 as a mechanic is supposed to mesh with the to-hit charts, because, frankly, they seem to contradict. I had this same problem in AD&D 1e; in AD&D 2e, as you all know, the to-hit charts were scrapped completely.

For example: let's say my group decides to abandon the to-hit charts (which is likely what I'll do) and go with straight THAC0. Let's take the example of a Level 1 Fighter. According to the chart, he needs to roll 20 or better to hit Armor Class -3. But if we use a straight THAC0 calculation, he suddenly needs to roll 22 or better (the 1st level Fighter's THAC0 is 19). So it seems that the charts, at least at more powerful armor classes, are easier on the characters. Any comments on this? It's probably minor, but I want to think through all these details.


I was going to say it's the same thing, but that the chart accounts for a natural 20 being an automatic hit. Then I took a look at the chart... I forgot all about that - they broke the THAC0 progression by extending some values. 2, 20, 30 are all repeated five times before moving to the next.

Use one or the other. My preference would be THAC0 so you don't have to look things up.

I had forgetten the bit about negative to-hit values adding to damage as well. That's kinda neat.

[Hakwood]

Wouldn't RCD&D benefit from levels for humanoid monsters?

That's precisely the level of detail I want to avoid. If I want a more powerful monster, I'll just jack up hit dice, add special abilities and spells, etc.

One of the things I didn't like about D&D 3.X is the incredible level of detail for monsters. It's cool from a simulationist perspective, but for a rules-lite dude like myself, it's more than needed.

[Hakwood]

I was going to say it's the same thing, but that the chart accounts for a natural 20 being an automatic hit. Then I took a look at the chart... I forgot all about that - they broke the THAC0 progression by extending some values. 2, 20, 30 are all repeated five times before moving to the next.

Use one or the other. My preference would be THAC0 so you don't have to look things up.


Agreed. THAC0 it is. I remember the old days of AD&D 1e I really liked the charts because of the, I don't know, "old school coolness" of charts or something :) but when 2e introduced THAC0 I thought, "Much better."

[Hakwood]

Another quick thought: Grubman suggested that I only look at threads related to RC D&D. I like this idea! Only moments ago I saw the thread titled "What is GURPS good for?" Now one of my beloved games is GURPS 3e. I was tempted to look at this thread. Then I recalled the words of Grubman. So instead I posted this little update.

For 101 days, no non-RC D&D threads!

Whew.
;)

[EDIT] I just started a blog that will supplement this thread. In this blog I'll keep a list of house rules as they develop, some pictures, maps, whatever else strikes my fancy. Wheeee! Check my .sig.

[Neil]

I just started a blog that will supplement this thread. In this blog I'll keep a list of house rules as they develop, some pictures, maps, whatever else strikes my fancy. Wheeee! Check my .sig.

I use those two house rules too. I'd also go with the THACO route, now I've looked.

From the other variations of D&D that we've played recently another House rule for hit points has surfaced in our games club. I'll mention it in case anyone likes it.

Player characters who roll below the mean average for their hit dice when they gain a level get to round the low number up to that mean average. This results in characters with higher average hit points and a greater chance of survival, but they are the heroes, right?

So, for D4 round rolls of 1 up to 2, for D6 round rolls of 1 or 2 up to 3, for D8 round rolls of 1, 2, or 3 up to 4, etc.

[Hakwood]

Let's talk about world design.

There are, essentially, two ways to build a world: from the top down, or from the bottom up. I used to think I was a top down person, but now I realize I'm a bottom up dude.

Allow me to explain.

The top down method says, "Start with a planet. Then add continents. Then create countries. Then counties/districts. Then cities. Then villages."

The bottom up method says, essentially, the opposite. "Start with a village," it says. "Then add the countryside. Throw in a dungeon and an abandoned castle rumored to be infested with sinister, man-sized, intelligent spiders. Then expand the borders until you have a country. Then . . . "

You get the idea.

So I'm sitting here waiting for parents to show up (I'm a teacher, and tonite is parent/teacher interviews :( ) and this inspiration hit me: stop trying to create a whole frickin' planet. Start with a village. Start from the bottom up.

Now remember that I want to create my own *setting*, based on the *geography* of an existing setting. So use the map for, say, Faerun, but change what the map represents. "Waterdeep? Oh yeah, that's that old abandoned city that was destroyed by the ferocious attack of the Linnorm Quackos the Terrible ten years ago. The Sword Coast? Better avoid it: it's controlled by an entire army of sinister, cannibal halflings with psychic abilities. They've made a pact with a demon who keeps them running the show in exchange for the souls of their daughters. But only every full moon."

Whatever. You get the point.

When I get home, I'm digging out a map. Maybe Mystara, maybe Faerun, maybe the Flanaess. (Don't ask which yet! Can't decide! Can't decide!). But *whichever* I start with, I'm going to pick a village. And *that* will be where the adventure begins. All the details, including surrounding geography and the political structure, etc., will be added in later.

Bottoms up. ;)

[Neil]

I'll start with a planet for Sci-fi games and fill bits in as I go around the large scale planetary map, but for something like this I'd likely go Bottoms Up! too.

My favourite section of Faerun is Moonshae. As a GM, er... DM, I've considered using the maps and some of the cultures to start with as inspiration, but populating it with new characters and history as we go, thus avoiding the metaplot and revolving the game around the players. I wouldn't even stick it in Faerun, it would be elsewhere.

[Participant-Observer]

When I get home, I'm digging out a map. Maybe Mystara, maybe Faerun, maybe the Flanaess. (Don't ask which yet! Can't decide! Can't decide!). But *whichever* I start with, I'm going to pick a village. And *that* will be where the adventure begins. All the details, including surrounding geography and the political structure, etc., will be added in later.

IIRC correctly, there was a thread a couple of months ago about basing a fantasy campaign on a single village. Anyone?

[Bill_Coffin]

I never played with the Rules Compendium, but I did play a whole lot with The Red/Blue Basic.Epxert rules, even while I was also playing separate AD&D games. Looking back, it's weird seeing how one company made two product lines that essentially competed with each other. For more rule-lite gaming, the Basic/Expert/etc. stuff was the way to go. everything you needed in these great 64-page booklets. Simply awesome. Seeing the RC was a great nod to this game. my only major complaint about it is I wished they had recycled the old Dee, Otus, Willingham, etc. artwork, because man, I LOVE that stuff.

As for your campaign, Hakman, judos to you for it. I think you're in for a really fun time, as the RC really does a lot to provide a solid, concise rules set (remeber those?) as well as not cramming a whole world and metaplot on you. Because...who needs them, really?

I commend your decision to build your campaign world from the bottom up. One, it's a more organic process for you and the players. Two, it offers you total flexibility, since you can't contradict with what hasn't been built yet. (e.g., "You head south for ten days...oh, wait. That'll bring you into the ocean. Um. You go west for ten days...no, that's into the mountains...")

I think you'll find some really great resources in old copies of Dragon Magazine, too. There was a stellar article (I forget which issue; I'll post it later) that gave some rules for building your own class. Basically, every perk brought with it higher XP factors. I thought it was a great device and I'd love to use it myself. There was also a cool article for AD&D about playing humanoids, but it could be easily adapted to RC D&D, especially to the notion of races as characters. The thing with humanoid PCs was you rolled up specia abilities for them, like a thick skull for head butting, oor an iron gut so you could digest anything...neat abilities that made these guys more than your average orc, goblin, whatever. Simple, distinctive, not too difficult or off-balancing.

Anyway, I'll be checking up on this thread and posting my thoughts as you remind me of things. You picked a hell of a game to go steady with, and I wish you all of the fun and sucess it is sure to bring. Game on, dude. Game on.

EDIT: Found 'em. The D&D Class Building article was in Dragon #109. The article on playing humanoids was in Dragon #141. I offer these up keeping in mind the excellent advice you have already received in this thread to not tie yourself to too much source material. I agree; too much dampens the great DIY spirit is old skool D&D. But there is some really fun stuff to be found, and chosen selectively, will serve to inspire, not constrain, you. These Dragon articles are in that mold, IMHO.

[Hakwood]

Just for some old-school nostalgia for all you folks, I just posted the "alignment picture" that we discussed earlier. See my blog! (I was going to post it here, but to save space for the thread I'll just keep it on my blog).

[Nahualt]

[B]
That's the beauty of RC D&D: SLOOOOOOW level progression. I loved this about AD&D as well. You take a long time to move through a level. The game is about playing a character, not levelling a character. Obviously, this isn't everyone's cup of tea; many folks like the faster level progression of 3.X.


Hakwood


See this is one thing that I miss from old editions...

[PhoenixAndy]

*sigh* I had a copy & lost it somehow. I think through the "I lent it to /someone/" method.
That happened to me. Then one of my friends reminded me which of my *other* friends had it, so I got it back, after about 3 years.

I recently picked up a nearly pristine copy for the borrower as an early xmas/birthday present, so now he never needs to "borrow" my copy again.

[PhoenixAndy]

I was going to say it's the same thing, but that the chart accounts for a natural 20 being an automatic hit. Then I took a look at the chart... I forgot all about that - they broke the THAC0 progression by extending some values. 2, 20, 30 are all repeated five times before moving to the next.

Use one or the other. My preference would be THAC0 so you don't have to look things up.
I'd agree. I don't think it really makes sense that it's no harder or easier to hit someone with an AC 5 points different at certain points in the table.

[Dr Rotwang!]

II whole-heartedly support stealing geography from whatever you want. Take the maps of Elric’s Young Kingdoms and turn them upside-down. Take a real-world map of South-east Asia and turn the water into land and the land into water.Just did this last night. Recognize it?

<center>http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Rotwang/medflip.jpg</center>

It's the Mediterranean, minus a few islands and plus a large southern landmass, flipped on its vertical axis.

It's not done, but it's a start. Also -- if you have Photoshop, I can slip you a neat trick for creating imaginary landmasses and coastlines at random.

[Random Code]

Oh, Hell's Bells... :mad:

Awesome, awesome thread - full of love and nostalgia, a brilliant and lethal combination if ever there was one!

Only problem is, I now can't resist getting off my metaphorical arse and picking up a copy of RC and Rahasia. God, I LOVED that scenario. :D

'Thanks' Hakwood! ;)

[Bill_Coffin]

I must say, one fo the things I always loved about RC D&D was the smaller list of magic items compared to AD&D. AD&D kind of had too much of a good thing in that department. I'm running a PBeM AD&D campaign right now, and I'm seriously considering just writing out pretty much all magic items except for the really powerful ones, and maybe introducing an artifact or two so when folks gain a magic item, they *really* gain a magic item. It would also be their "main" item or signature item instead of one more gadget in a long list.

Something else I loved about RC D&D was the hex-based mapping style. I know it was used in AD&D too, but for some reason, I really associate it with RC D&D more than any other version. I remember fondly poring over that two-page hex map in the back of the Expert D&D rulebook, not knowing much about the countries listed, but having a ball imagining what was there.

[Bill_Coffin]

Also -- if you have Photoshop, I can slip you a neat trick for creating imaginary landmasses and coastlines at random.

I'd really appreciate it if you hooked me up with this. Any chance you could post it here or send it to me privately? I *love* using Photoshop to create maps. Heck, I use that program more as a glorified sketching utlity than anything else.

[Zweihander]

Oh, I think there should be no secrets here. I loves to try and make maps.

[Hakwood]

DAY 3: Friday, November 25, 2005

A little burned out this morning. Not because of any RPG-stuff, but due to a couple of factors: (1) It's been a long, hard week at school. (2) Parent-teacher interviews are always f**king exhausting. They all went well, but it's draining. Last night I found myself in one of those "dead tired but wide awake with heart pounding" states at 1 am. Yuck.

So here I am, 8 am, in my classroom, just checking in. Some awesome stuff about the maps and mapping, you guys. I agree that the old hex-maps are cool (and my preference as well). To this day whenever I see a sheet of hex mapping paper I think, "Isle of Dread." :D

Here's a question: How do you handle mapping in your games? For most of my DMing career I've described the room/corridor/forest/whaddever and had the players sketch their own map. But I realized recently that this is slow and tedious and often results in me giving painfully precise details to guide the mapping:

ME: "Okay, there's a huge, vaulted chamber with a lofty ceiling about fifty feet above you. There's a crystal fountain in the center of the chamber, and 13 doors ring the chamber on all sides."

PLAYERS: "Slow down, slow down" (furiously mapping)

ME: (glancing at map) "No, there isn't a door there. It's a few feet to the other side. And--uh huh--no, the fountain isn't quite where you've drawn it. It--oh hell, just give me the map." (furiously scribbles correct map)

Yech.

Then a few months ago I ran a Cthulhu one-shot in which the characters woke up in a haunted castle, with no idea how they got there (this is a wonderful convention for one-shots: "You awake--with no idea where you are or how you got there." :D ). Instead of doing the tedious "I describe, they try to map accurately" thing, I borrowed a page from Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and virtually every other survival horror video game (of which I am a huge fan): They found a map of the castle early in their travels, a torn, stained, crumpled map. This map was an accurate guide to most of the castle--except, of course, for secret corridors and hidden rooms where wet, heavy things crawled insanely across the floor . . .

Anyway, I may take a break today from looking at the RC, just because I'm rather depressed, to tell you the truth. When I get home after work I'll take my 3-year-old for a walk, and spend the evening watching kung fu movies with my wife. ;)

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

Something else I loved about RC D&D was the hex-based mapping style. I know it was used in AD&D too, but for some reason, I really associate it with RC D&D more than any other version. I remember fondly poring over that two-page hex map in the back of the Expert D&D rulebook, not knowing much about the countries listed, but having a ball imagining what was there.

Yep. Hexes rule. One thing I like about Mystara/Karameikos boxed set maps.

BTW, Bill, you *do* realize that every time I look at your avatar, my heart aches with joyful memories of a kinder, simpler time of life, right? ;)

[Bill_Coffin]

Yep. Hexes rule. One thing I like about Mystara/Karameikos boxed set maps.

Aw, yeah. Karameikos is better than $240 wortha puddin'.

As for mapping in games, generally, we get around it by not doing it. OPur adventures generally are more mission-oriented rather than dungeon crawls, so mapping is never a large issue. There's nothing wrong with dungeon crawls; they just were never to our liking much.

BTW, Bill, you *do* realize that every time I look at your avatar, my heart aches with joyful memories of a kinder, simpler time of life, right? ;)

Verily, my friend. Verily. BTW, don't be afraid fo buying that $20 2600 joystick with the games pre-loaded into it. You'll play Adventure for a day straight, just like I did. And that's when you'll realize the thing's got Yar's Revenge on it too...

[Harrek]

DAY 3: Friday, November 25, 2005
Yech.


That's how I used to do mapping, too, and I agree - waaaay too tedious. If you're going to do a dungeoncrawl, there's a few easier ways to do it:


Handouts, as you suggested.
Use a battlemat or tiles - works best if you're also going to use minis (just remember you don't have to have accurate minis - dice, coins, cardboard tokens all work fine)
Let the players make a map, but it should be sketchy - just boxes and lines. It would let them retrace their steps, but they don't need to know the room is exactly 40' x 30' with a double row of 5' pillars...



As for the world map - definitely start small. All you need are a starting town, a starting dungeon, and a vague idea of the area in-between (actually, most BD&D games I remember would start at the entrance to the dungeon - even the town comes along later). Only the dungeon needs any detail to begin with.

[Random Code]

Here's a question: How do you handle mapping in your games?

I don't normally map stuff in games I play because my style is more Narrativist now.

BUT: D&D REQUIRES mapping, doesn't it?!

What I would suggest is mapping it yourself (ie, the DM). Okay, it loses the 'who is mapping?' feel, but you save time and all kinds of hassles - and you don't lose out on the magic of the players and yourself experiencing a gradually growing panorama that is the Dungeon of Ultimate Evil Number 459! :D

[Liberator]

[B]

Here's a question: How do you handle mapping in your games?



If the players want to try and map, I let them.

But, this gets difficult if you have players with low stats in things like...intelligence or wisdom who don't have any innate direction sense abilities like Dwarves and such. So...if you really want it to reflect their characters abilities....it's a tough call sometimes.


There's a great KODT strip about mapping where their map is so bad, they end up running into the same pit trap over and over again.

[Participant-Observer]

Let the players make a map, but it should be sketchy - just boxes and lines. It would let them retrace their steps, but they don't need to know the room is exactly 40' x 30' with a double row of 5' pillars...



That's a pretty good way of handling it, I think. As the GURPS 3rd edn. rulebook pointed out, the PCs most likely aren't surveyors. And there's even less chance of them having a theodolite, plumb-bob, and miscellaneous other gubbins.

[weasel fierce]

One trick I usually do, when we play old school D&D or AD&D is to start out with a simple dungeon adventure. It gets people in the mood, and there's usually enough opportunity to build up to the actual campaign events.

Also, for a lot of people, playing dungeons is something we've "grown past", and its usually good fun to go back.

[Neil]

snippage

I mapped that dungeon and stuffed the Lizard Man King last week.:cool:

He built this dungeon in a swamp...

[Participant-Observer]

That's a pretty good way of handling it, I think. As the GURPS 3rd edn. rulebook pointed out, the PCs most likely aren't surveyors. And there's even less chance of them having a theodolite, plumb-bob, and miscellaneous other gubbins.

Of course, now I think about it, that might make an interesting scenario in itself. The PCs and their henchmen are given a royal charter to clear out, map, and fortify an old set of catacombs.

[cjh]

That's a pretty good way of handling it, I think. As the GURPS 3rd edn. rulebook pointed out, the PCs most likely aren't surveyors. And there's even less chance of them having a theodolite, plumb-bob, and miscellaneous other gubbins.

That was how the game was played, though. No one had surveying equipment but everyone mapped exactly as the DM told them to. Everybody knew that they were in a 30' by 30' and that was just a part of the way that things were played back then.

I am assuming (and the OP can contradict this) that a part of the reason the OP chose the Rules Cyclopedia was to play an old school game.

[Participant-Observer]

One trick I usually do, when we play old school D&D or AD&D is to start out with a simple dungeon adventure. It gets people in the mood, and there's usually enough opportunity to build up to the actual campaign events.

Also, for a lot of people, playing dungeons is something we've "grown past", and its usually good fun to go back.

One non-D&D source that might -- I know, I know, I'm sorry -- is the Ars Magica scenario, Broken Covenant of Calebais, recently rereleased. The authors deliberately tried to a "do a dungeon right."

The covenant is a magically created (I think) underground set of chambers for a group of wizards. They had a falling out and destroyed each other. Their ghosts, and the descendents of a race of magically created servitors, now inhabit the complex.

On the whole, I remember it as a very well thought out adventure. Or you could just steal the basic scenario I outlined above. :)

[Dr Rotwang!]

I'd really appreciate it if you hooked me up with this. Any chance you could post it here or send it to me privately? I *love* using Photoshop to create maps. Heck, I use that program more as a glorified sketching utlity than anything else.Yoooooooooou BETCHA!

Here's (http://www.dndresources.com/index.php?module=articles&type=user&func=display&aid=1671&theme=parchthemeframe&XARAYASID=e97ed65bd17c19b45d791cce0d7cb92b) the source from which I learned it, but a simple run-down follows:


Open a new document in a size to suit your tastes.
With black and white as fore- and background colors, run the "Render Clouds" filter.
Under Image>Adjust, select "Brightness/Contrast". Set Contrast to 100 and leave Brightness at 0.
Lookit! Jagged coatlines!
From there, it's down to whatever crazy Photoshop Fu you wanna use to turn a simple black-and-white image into a map; I often turn it into an Alpha Channel selection which I use to replicate the outlines as often as I need to on other layers. Or, you can just duplicate the very same layer, fill the bottom one with blue, set the coastlines layer to Multiply, use the magic wand to select the black stuff, and chage colors inside it. It's photoshop, so there's a lotta different tricks you can use to get things done.

The southern landmass in my map above was made with the "Render Clouds, Adjust B&C" method, and could you tell?

[Participant-Observer]

The southern landmass in my map above was made with the "Render Clouds, Adjust B&C" method, and could you tell?

Actually, no. :) What a neat trick!

So far, I've got the best raw results off 500 pixel x 500 pixel squares. 1000 pixel and 2000 pixel squares end up looking a little too busy for my tastes.

As for real world maps, somewhere there must be good pics of the world with raised/ lowered sea levels that might make stuff even harder to double guess.

[Hakwood]

That was how the game was played, though. No one had surveying equipment but everyone mapped exactly as the DM told them to. Everybody knew that they were in a 30' by 30' and that was just a part of the way that things were played back then.

I am assuming (and the OP can contradict this) that a part of the reason the OP chose the Rules Cyclopedia was to play an old school game.

Hmmm. . . interesting point. Yes, I want old school, which is why I chose RC D&D. However, to me, that doesn't mean that the game must be run in the exact same way that I ran it back in 1980 (when I was 10). I mean, playing all night long and getting strung out on Mountain Dew were also part of that old school vibe, but I ain't doing that again, either. ;)

Raises an interesting question, though: What is "old school"? There isn't one answer, because there were multiple "old schools", even back in the day. Gygax and Arneson didn't see eye to eye. Nor did Gygax and Moldvay/Cook (Advanced vs. Basic/Expert). Runequest or Call of Cthulhu were both alive and well in the early 80's and played and felt far different than AD&D. Which in turn felt different from B/X D&D. All were "old school", at least by a definition most gamers would use.

Darnit, now you've got me thinking about what I mean by "old school"!! :o Which is good. I love this thread. I've been doing more serious and productive thinking about my gaming these past three days than in the past three months.

Keep it going, brothers.

Hakwood

[sys64738]

re: maps

It's not really all that useful an idea for a fantasy game, but what my Aftermath! (post-apocalypse genre) GM did was hand out out an old beat-up road atlas to the players for us to navigate around with. Of course, he used a much more detailed map that included things like military bases, reserves, etc. And whenever the two maps did not agree, his was (of course) the one that was "right".

[Hakwood]

re: maps

It's not really all that useful an idea for a fantasy game, but what my Aftermath! (post-apocalypse genre) GM did was hand out out an old beat-up road atlas to the players for us to navigate around with. Of course, he used a much more detailed map that included things like military bases, reserves, etc. And whenever the two maps did not agree, his was (of course) the one that was "right".

Actually, I think this *is* a useful idea for a fantasy game. The players get ahold of a beat-up old map of the "Known Kingdom" and follow it around. However, who's to say that old map is still accurate? Especially in these troubling times with armies of demon-possessed orcs storming down from the mountains in the north, led by Siphilac, the dreaded Beholder Mage . . .

[sys64738]

I recommend not using the name "Siphilac" for your bad guy. Well, ok, I guess it depends on what kind of game you're shooting for.

[Hakwood]

I recommend not using the name "Siphilac" for your bad guy. Well, ok, I guess it depends on what kind of game you're shooting for.

Heh. Don't worry, it was just a hypothetical name, a place-holder, if you will. Though it is cool in a campy sort of way . . . "Siphiliac the Rot Lord" or whatever. :D

[Turjan]

Just did this last night. Recognize it?

<center>http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Rotwang/medflip.jpg</center>
It took me a split second to recognize it. It took me about one second to notice that it was actually flipped. Noticing that Crete was in the wrong spot and that there was some additional landmass took a few seconds longer.

But I don't consider that surprising, as it's one of the most prolific spots on earth ;).

It's not done, but it's a start. Also -- if you have Photoshop, I can slip you a neat trick for creating imaginary landmasses and coastlines at random.
Thanks for posting those tricks. I really suck with Photoshop, and your points are very useful to know :).

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

It's Friday night of Day 3, and I'm home with a pounding headache, fiddling away at the keyboard while my wife gives our 3-year-old daughter a bath. I was pretty depressed today but I feel a lot better now. Coming back to this thread and reading your dudes' comments helps. ;)

I just *had* to post this pic to my blog:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6588/1905/1600/DnD%20002.jpg

If that doesn't make you want to run an old-school D&D dungeon crawl, then I don't know what else will. :D

Just another random thought: on the subject of "old school" and the connotations thereof, I know it is common for many gamers to think that "old school" = "mindless dungeon crawl".

Yet look at what Gary Gygax (the King of Old School) wrote waaaaaay back in 1978:

"Each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces." (Dungeon Masters Guide, 1978)

So although many gamers run "old school" games as mindless dungeon crawls, and although there is (obviously) nothing wrong with that whatsoever, it was never the sole intention of the game. D&D/AD&D has always been about much more. (Bear in mind, I don't know how OD&D, from 1974, approaches this issue. My knowledge of the game begins with AD&D 1e and later Moldvay/Cook D&D).

I'm going to bed soon. This weekend will be a time of much (a) Rules study, (b) Pregen character creation (otherwise my players will want to play 3.x instead ;) ) and (c) World design--including choosing a section of map to develop.

Keep the comments coming. Even though I'm not replying to each message, I'm reading -- and appreciating -- all of them.

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

Here's some more stuff you may want to check out:

Dragonsfoot for Classic D&D adventures
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cd/

Vaults of Pandius for huge amount of Mystara and Classic D&D stuff
http://pandius.com/index.html

Also, you can download B3: Palace of the Silver Princess for free from WotC and several other Mystara products as well.

I already thanked you for these links, Spinachcat, but I wanted to thank you again, especially for the Pandius link. I just checked it out today, and the maps they have for Mystara blew my mind. I printed several of them out and I may well use them in world design.

Thanks!

[Breschau of Livonia]

One thing which always bugged me about the original D&D (and 1st edition AD&D as well) way of doing things was the near-uselessness of low-level thief characters. Their main advantage is their thieving abilities, but for the first several levels their chance of success in using such abilities is painfully low. I'd be curious if you wind up doing any house-rules around this.

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

I found my map! There I was, sorting through my AD&D 2e Kingdom of Karameikos boxed set, looking for potential maps, and I found it. A beautiful, full-color, poster-sized map of Karameikos. It's large scale (1 hex = 8 miles) and thus beautifully detailed.

This is where the world begins.

Check out a small sample of this map:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6588/1905/1600/DnD%20003.jpg

KEWL.

I'm going to bed now. Must be rested for Day 4.

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

One thing which always bugged me about the original D&D (and 1st edition AD&D as well) way of doing things was the near-uselessness of low-level thief characters. Their main advantage is their thieving abilities, but for the first several levels their chance of success in using such abilities is painfully low. I'd be curious if you wind up doing any house-rules around this.

Three comments:

1. It's important to remember that D&D/AD&D was a very low-powered game at lower levels, compared with D&D 3.x. First-level characters in 3.x are already highly experienced ass-kickers. First-level characters in pre-3.x D&D are much lower-powered. The assumption with the 1st level Thief is that he is still super wet behind the ears; in fact, his official level title in Moldvay/Cook is "Apprentice." So the low % for his thief skills (except for Climb Walls, which starts at 87% at 1st level) is justified by the game's power scale.

2. Having said that, I agree that a 1st level thief seems underpowered, even by the standards of RC D&D. He only has a 15% chance of picking a lock? A 10% chance of hiding in shadows? I have similar concerns about 1st level Magic-Users, who have a piddly 4 hit points, can wear no armor and use few weapons, and can cast one spell per day. I get around that for MU's by giving them several scrolls and perhaps a wand, as a gift from their wizard mentor. Makes perfect sense in-game, and addresses the weakness of the character. But that doesn't help the thief.

3. Here, I believe, is the answer to your question without needing to house rule: On page 23 of the RC we are told the following about thief abilities: "A stuck or exceptionally difficult lock, carefully hidden trap, slippery wall, or very faint noise may cause a penalty to be applied to the normal chances of successful skill use. The DM could assign the task a penalty of -5%, -10%, -20%, or higher depending on the difficulty of the task."

From this passage I can easily extrapolate that an exceptionally rusty lock, a poorly concealed trap, a sturdy, bumpy wall, and a loud noise may cause a bonus to be applied, +5%, +10%, +15%, +20% or higher, depending on the ease of the task.

I guess that's sort of a house rule, as the RAW doesn't mention bonuses, only penalties. But as I said, it's a perfectly logical extrapolation.

So now the 1st level thief has a fighting chance, depending on the conditions of the situation.

[Dr Rotwang!]

Thanks for posting those tricks. I really suck with Photoshop, and your points are very useful to know :).No problem, I love being helpful. Still, it doesn't make me special. There is much power in googling the words photoshop tutorial, and all may draw from the same font as I.

[Dr Rotwang!]

I already thanked you for these links, Spinachcat, but I wanted to thank you again, especially for the Pandius link. I should thank you too, as I once had 'em bookmarked, but then lost 'em. Wahooo!

[Hakwood]

DAY 4: Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005

It's Saturday afternoon and I just got back from (a) a long photo session at Sears with my wife and daughter, followed by (b) a birthday party of three-year-olds. I'm wasted. Didn't sleep well last night, either. So I don't expect to do much today with D&D RC.

HOWEVER . . .

I've started reading class descriptions. Of particular interest is the Fighter class, which can branch off at 9th level into a Paladin (Lawful), Knight (Neutral) or Avenger (Chaotic). The Avenger is essentially an "evil" (well, chaotic) Paladin, with similar abilities, except he can command undead rather than turn them.

At some point I'm going to develop a full Paladin class (Knight and Avenger don't interest me), which should be pretty simple. Just give him the base Paladin abilities (detect evil, etc.) at 1st level, and once he reaches 4th level he gets cleric spells and the ability to turn undead (he casts and turns undead as a cleric 3 levels lower; so a 4th level Paladin in this set-up would cast and turn as a 1st level cleric).

I'm sure this has already been done before, though. Anyone have a link?

I also read the Cleric and Magic-User. I love the idea of the RC Druid, who can only use WOOD weapons. THAT is old school. :D As with the Paladin, tho, I intend to modify the Druid so that he can be played as a complete class right from 1st level; as it stands, he is like the Paladin/Knight/Avenger; a 9th level optional class.

My world will be using the sweet Karameikos map (I posted a link to a small section of it in an earlier post) and I've decided it will be almost a "post apocalyptic" setting. One hundred years after a plague devasted the "Known World", your heroes will bravely explore the haunted landscape, etc.

Where civilization ends, adventure begins.

Hakwood

[Participant-Observer]

I also read the Cleric and Magic-User. I love the idea of the RC Druid, who can only use WOOD weapons.


One thing I do like about D&D3.5's Cleric is the ability to "burn" learned spells as healing/ cure spells of the same level or lower. Incredibly handy for the PCs, and takes some of the anxiety out of spell selection. Were I to run an "OD&D" game myself, I'd probably snag this from D&D3.x and make it a house rule.

(Other than that -- RC D&D's Clerics only get to learn spells at 2nd level, IIRC. Something that would have most AD&D/ D&D3.x players up in arms, I'm sure. Losers. ;) )

I'd probably NOT try to make new classes for the Paladin, Druid, etc. I like the idea of these subclasses being a special order that one can only get "tapped" for after a certain point in one's career. But YMDV, obviously. :)

[JimLotFP]

At some point I'm going to develop a full Paladin class (Knight and Avenger don't interest me), which should be pretty simple. Just give him the base Paladin abilities (detect evil, etc.) at 1st level, and once he reaches 4th level he gets cleric spells and the ability to turn undead (he casts and turns undead as a cleric 3 levels lower; so a 4th level Paladin in this set-up would cast and turn as a 1st level cleric).

Wouldn't that totally destroy the need for a cleric at all after a few levels?

[Hakwood]

Wouldn't that totally destroy the need for a cleric at all after a few levels?

Hmmm. I never thought of it that way. Let me get out the book . . .

[flip flip]

Here's what we're told:

****
PALADINS

A Lawful traveling fighter may be known as a paladin if he meets the following requirements. If he does not meet those requirements, he may become a knight (described below).

1. A fighter must swear fealty (an oath of service) to a Lawful clerical order to gain paladin status. . . .

2. A paladin can detect evil (as per the cleric spell) as often as once per round . . .

3. If the paladin's Wisdom score is 13 or greater, the character can cast cleric spells as if he were a cleric of one-third his actual experience level (round any fraction down); if a fighter becomes a paladin right at 9th level, he'll immediately gain the spells of a 3rd level cleric.

[Ah, I see. I got this part wrong. He casts not as a cleric 3 levels lower, but *one-third* his current levels. So a 9th level paladin casts as a *3rd* level cleric, not a *6th* level cleric.]

*****

Okay, I've seen enough. I'm not going to worry at this point about making 1st level Paladins or Druids (though I may do so at some point in the future).

This is something I want to be careful of: not to do too much too soon. I'm not even finished reading the rulebook yet, and already I want to redesign some of the classes! :o That's the problem with being an experienced gamer learning a new game, I suppose--the tendency is to overreach. But I must remind myself: KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Okay, so here's an unofficial rule: NO MONKEYING WITH CLASSES. At least, not until I finish studying all the rules and have an adventure prepared. Once I run my group through their first session, I can experiment with classes a bit.

Whew!

(And keep the comments and critiques coming! Don't let me go off into an unproductive direction!)

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

Okay, my daughter is happily playing with her Fisher Price "Little People" (which are actually rather cool, I must say) and I just finished reading Chapter 2: Character Classes.

To sum up, here they are:

Cleric (at 9th level, Cleric can become a Druid)
Fighter (at 9th level, Fighter can become Paladin, Knight, or Avenger)
Magic-User
Thief
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Mystic (basically a Monk)

***
Don't let the races-as-classes thing deter you from this wonderful game. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a careful reading of the class descriptions reveals that the classes can be further described as follows:

Human Cleric
Human Fighter
Human Magic-User
Human Thief
Dwarf Fighter
Elf Fighter/Magic-User
Halfling Fighter
Human Mystic

***
The Druid, Paladin/Knight/Avenger, and Mystic don't interest me at this point. My next task, as I read through the rest of the rules, is to design FOUR pregen characters (my group has four people in it; my wife and three of our friends).

These are my picks for our pregens:

Dwarf Fighter (male)
Human Cleric (female)
Elf Fighter/Magic-User (female)
Human Thief (male)

I wanted a halfling in there, but c'est la vie. The Elf is more than capable of filling the magic-user role, so that left a spot open for a thief, which I think is needed (backstabbing, lockpicking, and all that kind of goodness). Our group has two men and two women, so the gender assignments of the characters will fit perfectly.

Hakwood

[grubman]

These are my picks for our pregens:

Dwarf Fighter (male)
Human Cleric (female)
Elf Fighter/Magic-User (female)
Human Thief (male)


Great mix. If you are mixing and matching the races anyway, you might want to consider making the Elf a straight up MU. Don't get me wrong, Elves rock...it's just that they progress in XP 1/2 as fast as everyone else. It might be a little depressing for the player playing an Elf to watch his companions go up in level 2 times faster than he/she. (just an opinion)

[Participant-Observer]

Great mix. If you are mixing and matching the races anyway, you might want to consider making the Elf a straight up MU. Don't get me wrong, Elves rock...it's just that they progress in XP 1/2 as fast as everyone else. It might be a little depressing for the player playing an Elf to watch his companions go up in level 2 times faster than he/she. (just an opinion)

Eugh. Good point. Wasn't it 4,000 xp to level up for an Elf, vs. c. 2000 for a Fighter and 1500 (or even 1200) for a Thief? The Elf might be tougher at first level, but is going to take far too long to get a satisfactory power level for a spellcaster.

IMO. Obviously.

I like your take on the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Makes sense. Might one give it an ingame rationalisation by suggesting that there are elements of Elven, dwarven, and halfling society that we just don't get to see?

I also like the post-plague idea for your campaign ...

[Neil]

*cough*

Now, just check the optional rules section for Demi-human levels.:)


The rules I alluded to let you play the race classes to levl 36, the same as the humans.

The second character I played in D&D was an Elf. In some ways I led the way.:D

[Nihtgenga]

Cleric (at 9th level, Cleric can become a Druid)
Fighter (at 9th level, Fighter can become Paladin, Knight, or Avenger)
Magic-User
Thief
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Mystic (basically a Monk)



I don't recall the Mystic from my dimly remembered Basic/Expert days. Was it an RC thing? If you feel like indulging a curiousity, how similar was it to the 3.x monks? With a name like mystic I would have actually predicted psionics.

[Harrek]

I don't recall the Mystic from my dimly remembered Basic/Expert days. Was it an RC thing? If you feel like indulging a curiousity, how similar was it to the 3.x monks? With a name like mystic I would have actually predicted psionics.

I think mystic was added in the Companion set (maybe Master, I don't remember, and I only have the RC now). They are like AD&D monks, really:


Mystics are monastic humans who follow a strict discipline of meditation, denial, seclusion, and mastery of the human body. Mystics are skilled in unarmed combat. They live in cloisters, or monastic communities.

[Bill_Coffin]

Just a quick note about bumping up a thief's skills for easy conditions, like picking a rusty lock or picking the pocket of a giant-sized mark or something...this makes perfect sense to me. After all, won't beginning thieves try to take down much easier scores, the one they know they can pull off and not get clapped in irons? Leave the triple-locked vault room in the King's Tower go for another day, bub. For now, you're better off breaking into Hogbottom's Moneylending and seeing if you can steal the 1,000 sp he plans to use to pay off his loan shark tomorrow morning...

[Elizabeth Brooks]

Dwarf Cleric has been done. It is in the Dwarves of Rockhome Gazetteer.

Similar classes appear in other Gazetteers. The Five Shires gives us Halfling Druids and the Elves of Alfhiem has Elven Treekeepers, a cleric-like class. Emirates of Ylaraum has Dervishes, a desert version of the druid. The Northern Reaches includes The Wise Woman, a class of Norse myth-type mystics. The Orcs of Thar makes all the various humanoid races into playable PC classes, with two variants -- Shaman (Cleric) and Wicca (Magic-User). There's also a Merchant class in, I believe, the Darokin book.

My life has been incomplete ever since I somehow ended up not owning all of the Gazetteers.

I weep.

[JohnBiles]

1. It's important to remember that D&D/AD&D was a very low-powered game at lower levels, compared with D&D 3.x. First-level characters in 3.x are already highly experienced ass-kickers. First-level characters in pre-3.x D&D are much lower-powered. The assumption with the 1st level Thief is that he is still super wet behind the ears; in fact, his official level title in Moldvay/Cook is "Apprentice." So the low % for his thief skills (except for Climb Walls, which starts at 87% at 1st level) is justified by the game's power scale.



I'm going to disagree. A first level character in 3E is still not very tough. He can be somewhat tougher than a RC char of equivalent class (he has a slightly larger hit die usually and may have a bit more ability to dish out damage), but he'd still die at the hands of a 2 or 3 HD RC monster, most likely.

A high level 3X char, OTOH, is way tougher than a level equivalent RC char.




2. Having said that, I agree that a 1st level thief seems underpowered, even by the standards of RC D&D. He only has a 15% chance of picking a lock? A 10% chance of hiding in shadows? I have similar concerns about 1st level Magic-Users, who have a piddly 4 hit points, can wear no armor and use few weapons, and can cast one spell per day. I get around that for MU's by giving them several scrolls and perhaps a wand, as a gift from their wizard mentor. Makes perfect sense in-game, and addresses the weakness of the character. But that doesn't help the thief.



Until 3E, all low level D&D thieves, in any version, were miserable incompetent at low level. Mages at least can generally rely on their one little spell working.

(A simple house rule for an RC game to give the mage a little more punch would be to take his stat bonus connected to his intelligence and have that many more first level spells. Adds a little punch at low level without making them ridiculous later on. Even 1 or 2 extra spells helps a lot)



3. Here, I believe, is the answer to your question without needing to house rule: On page 23 of the RC we are told the following about thief abilities: "A stuck or exceptionally difficult lock, carefully hidden trap, slippery wall, or very faint noise may cause a penalty to be applied to the normal chances of successful skill use. The DM could assign the task a penalty of -5%, -10%, -20%, or higher depending on the difficulty of the task."

From this passage I can easily extrapolate that an exceptionally rusty lock, a poorly concealed trap, a sturdy, bumpy wall, and a loud noise may cause a bonus to be applied, +5%, +10%, +15%, +20% or higher, depending on the ease of the task.

I guess that's sort of a house rule, as the RAW doesn't mention bonuses, only penalties. But as I said, it's a perfectly logical extrapolation.

So now the 1st level thief has a fighting chance, depending on the conditions of the situation.

Yeah, a good suggestion.

[JohnBiles]

DAY 4: Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005


My world will be using the sweet Karameikos map (I posted a link to a small section of it in an earlier post) and I've decided it will be almost a "post apocalyptic" setting. One hundred years after a plague devasted the "Known World", your heroes will bravely explore the haunted landscape, etc.

Where civilization ends, adventure begins.

Hakwood

Suggestion; if the world is plague wrecked, have Duke Stefan come from the Southern Continent instead of Thyatis, since Thyatis is probably too wrecked for a Duke to have the manpower to take over Karameikos.

[Ratpick]

Having followed this entry for quite some time now I've come to consider getting myself a copy of RC D&D. It sounds just the way I'd like to run D&D myself.

More please. :)

[Dr Rotwang!]

... For now, you're better off breaking into Hogbottom's Moneylending and seeing if you can steal the 1,000 sp he plans to use to pay off his loan shark tomorrow morning...And lo, was an adventure born.

[Arkaengel]

Great thread, this.

If you're already looking around Dragonsfoot, you might want to grab the complete run of the OD&Dities PDF fanzine they link to; one of the issues (I forget which one) had a great set of formulae for designing balanced custom classes for OD&D and RC D&D. That might help you build your knight class.

[Hakwood]

DAY 6: Sunday, November 27, 2005

As I sit at my computer this beautiful sunny morning, hearing the pleasant strains of Dora the Explorer and the squeals of delight of my three-year-old in the other room, I feel good.

Last night I read Chapter 3: Spells and Spellcasting. At least, I read some of it and skimmed most of the spell descriptions. But boy oh boy, I love how simple the spell descriptions are. 3.x spell descriptions had so many factors and so much detail that I always found it hard to play a spellcaster (much less DM a party with spellcasters in it!). Even AD&D 1e/2e spell descriptions tended in that direction. I like the simplicity of RC D&D, as always.

I'm going to spend the morning with my daughter and then this afternoon my wife is going to give me a few hours off. During that time I will read Chapter 4: Equipment and Chapter 5: Other Character Abilities. Chapter 5 contains information on Weapons Mastery (which I can tell you right now I ain't using! At least not until I've mastered the rest of the rules) and the Skills section.

Once I knock off these two chapters I'm set for creating some characters.

Hakwood

Minor edit: I was looking back at previous posts in this thread and I realized that there were a few times when I screwed up the Day # thing. So, just for the record, Tuesday was Day 1. Thus Sunday, today, is Day 6.

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

Just read Weapons Mastery and General Skills (Chapter 5).

A few quick, fragmented thoughts before I watch Kingdom of Heaven with my wife:

1. The Weapon Mastery rules seem unusually complicated/detailed for RC D&D. They stick out somewhat for this reason, as if the entire book is rules-lite but then takes a strange twist into high-crunch for this one set of rules.

2. Having said that, I really, really like the Weapon Mastery rules. I think they give RC D&D that little bit of extra tactical/character customization detail that many gamers would want.

3. Having said that AND that, I must say that I have no intention of using Weapon Mastery in my 101 day experiment. But at the end of this experiment, if I end up going full-blown RC D&D (essentially whoring myself ;) ) then I'll add WM to my long-term campaigning.

4. LOVE the General Skills system. A straight ability check with the option to increase the skill score, depending on how many slots you use. Each skill is tied to an ability. Say you take Alchemy. Your Intelligence is 13. You put one slot into Alchemy, and you now have an Alchemy skill of 13. To succeed, roll less than or equal to 13. If you devote, say, two additional slots to Alchemy, you now have an Alchemy skill of 15 (base INT +2 for the extra slots). Skill descriptions are nice and brief, with few detailed mechancis spelled out. Old school common-sense and DM judgment rules the day.

This game rocks.

Hakwood

[Nihtgenga]

I think mystic was added in the Companion set (maybe Master, I don't remember, and I only have the RC now). They are like AD&D monks, really:

I was under the impression that the Companion rules didn't intro any classes at 1st level, but modified existing ones like cleric -> druid etc.

Anyway, thanks for answering the question. :)

[Ron]

Weapon mastery rules in fact look a little out of place in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. Still, they are not hard to implement (they are resumed in a single two page table) and they are great fun. I would recommend you to consider revising the attack bonus benefits of Weapon Mastery, as they are quite high. Many people half them to get a more balanced bonus.

[Dr Rotwang!]

Dude. I'd totally use those Weapon Mastery rules.

Totally.

[loseth]

Dude. I'd totally use those Weapon Mastery rules.

Totally.

Ditto. They stop that 'I hit the monster, the mosnter hits me, ad infinitum' style of combat by upping the deadliness of weapons in high-level hands.

[Hakwood]

Dude. I'd totally use those Weapon Mastery rules.

Totally.

Oh, I intend to use them. Just not right away. Have to crawl before I walk, and all that kind of thing. ;)

[Hakwood]

DAY 7: Monday, November 28, 2005

Froze my ass off walking to school this morning. It's a full day today; Sartre in English 11, government in Socials 9, Solaris in Film 12. Not sure if any D&D will get done.

It's funny, but last night was my first "temptation" to look at a non-D&D RC game. I found myself thinking of a Call of Cthulhu/Dark*Matter crossover. Then I found this little voice asking, "Which mechanics to use? Cthulhu BRP, Dark*Matter fast play, or GURPS 3e?" I almost walked over to my storage bin where all my non-D&D stuff is stored; at the last minute I said, "NOOOOOO!", tore myself away, and picked up my Rules Cyclopedia.

Whew.

So I did it! So far, only D&D RC! But the temptation will return.

Oh yes, it will return. :D

[Philomousos]

Great reading so far (you bastards!)... to address a previous point about old skool gaming: I played in a Basic/Expert/Companion (i.e. RC) game for about 3-5 years as a lad. Although there were a couple dungeon complex episodes, it was mostly an event-driven story. Basically, there were set piece encounters or encounter sequences strung together by narration and roleplaying scenes.

There's nothing about RC D&D that requires 10'x10' rooms with secret doors and orcs guarding chests. In fact, given the Conanic (like that word? I like that word.) levels of whupassitude (how 'bout that one?) even a fairly low-level schlub can attain with it, I'd use the Weapon Mastery rules with RC to run a sword and sorcery game if I was absolutely forced to run a D&D ruleset. It does basically all it needs to if you're happy with rules light fantasy. In fact, if you use the rules for Skills, you get almost as much out of it as you would encumbering yourself with 3.x.

[Hakwood]

There's nothing about RC D&D that requires 10'x10' rooms with secret doors and orcs guarding chests.

Absolutely. The thing I love about this game is we have rules for sword and sworcery stuff, but *also* rules for:
--strongholds and dominions
--mass combat (war machines and seige engines!)
--immortals
--planes of existence
--land, air, and water travel

. . . not to mention character levels 1-36. :D


It does basically all it needs to if you're happy with rules light fantasy. In fact, if you use the rules for Skills, you get almost as much out of it as you would encumbering yourself with 3.x.

You know, I truly love the RC D&D skill system. It's simple yet comprehensive. I am starting to realize that I spent FAR too much time with 3.x studying rules. RC is "freeing my imagination" (to use a somewhat cliche) to let me focus on other things.

Hakwood

[Dr Rotwang!]

Oh, I intend to use them. Just not right away. Have to crawl before I walk, and all that kind of thing. ;)Yeah, but they're not that hard.

C'mon, Hakwood! I believe in you!

[Hakwood]

Yeah, but they're not that hard.

C'mon, Hakwood! I believe in you!

Weeeellll . . .

[blushes, smiles coyly]

I suppose I couldn't hurt to give them another look . . . ;)

BTW, to anyone out there who has said the art in RC D&D is lame (and many folks have), I have THIS picture:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6588/1905/1600/DnD%20005.jpg

SWEET!

[Hakwood]

BTW, to anyone out there who has said the art in RC D&D is lame (and many folks have), I have THIS picture:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6588/1905/1600/DnD%20005.jpg

:eek:

You know, it occured to me shortly after posting this that I can't just post a *cool* picture from the Rules Cyclopedia. Throws the Force out of balance and all that.

So, just to add to the fun, here's perhaps the ugliest RPG artwork I've ever laid eyes on. I just can't decide what's worse: the DM's mullet, or his hairy forearm/hand . . .

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6588/1905/1600/DnD%20006.jpg

:eek:

[Dr Rotwang!]

Those pictures! I cannot see them!

Oh. Yeah, the Weapon Mastery rules boil down to some Saving Throws and like that. Oh, and extra damage, and to-hit bonuses, and in some cases AC modifications. In short: nothin' outta the ordinary.

[Hakwood]

DAY 8: Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Not much to report today. Still plugging along.

My daughter's birthday is today! She's *officially* three now (though we've been telling her she's 3 for the past few weeks--I think she's finally got it. ;) ).

After school I'm heading out to Starbucks for a few hours with my wife's blessing. At that point I'm going to make my first pregen, a crusty old (well, crusty *young*, actually) Dwarf Fighter. I'll post him here when I'm done.

Oh, and if the links to my cool pictures from the RC aren't working, just click on the link to the blog in my .sig. I've posted them there too. You owe it to yourselves to see these pics!

Beholder vs. Wizard! (Too cool!)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6.../DnD%20005.jpg


Mullet/Hairy Hand DM! (Too horrible!)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6.../DnD%20006.jpg

EDIT: Grrrr . . . these links aren't working for me either now! Just click on my blog link in my sig. I want to hear some discussion of the DM mullet!
Hakwood

[Philomousos]

DAY 8: Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Not much to report today. Still plugging along.

My daughter's birthday is today! She's *officially* three now (though we've been telling her she's 3 for the past few weeks--I think she's finally got it. ;) ).

After school I'm heading out to Starbucks for a few hours with my wife's blessing. At that point I'm going to make my first pregen, a crusty old (well, crusty *young*, actually) Dwarf Fighter. I'll post him here when I'm done.

Oh, and if the links to my cool pictures from the RC aren't working, just click on the link to the blog in my .sig. I've posted them there too. You owe it to yourselves to see these pics!

Beholder vs. Wizard! (Too cool!)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6.../DnD%20005.jpg


Mullet/Hairy Hand DM! (Too horrible!)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6.../DnD%20006.jpg

EDIT: Grrrr . . . these links aren't working for me either now! Just click on my blog link in my sig. I want to hear some discussion of the DM mullet!
Hakwood


I'd forgotten about the DM picture (my RC is in another city, hanging out in a box). You know, if I'd known that roleplaying had anything to do with mullets, I would have chosen a different hobby!

Oh, well. Too late now. :D

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Criminy, a fella goes away for a few days of holiday gluttony and the thread explodes into action. Just a couple of quick points then:

1. Dr. Rotwang’s map is cool. I no know nothing of Photoshop, but that’s the stuff.

2. Using a post-cataclysm Karameikos is an excellent way to use some good maps and ideas and do it all your way. Excellent.

3. The Weapon Mastery rules are a good idea, but poorly executed IMO. The charts and occult symbols make my brain hurt. I fell sure that there is a simpler way to implement them, but I haven’t ever really tried to do it. And it may not be appropriate here for Hak’s experiment.

4. Racial level limitations sort of kind of worked back in the B/X days when your humans were basically only going to 14th level anyway. It’s a super-sucky mechanic for a game where the human might go to 36th. And Strike Ranks is an attempt to circumvent the stupid mechanic without just getting rid of it; very dumb IMO. Of course, I never played a game that long; 14th level was about right for me to top out at, but I’m just saying.

5. Granted that Hak wants to stay away from fiddling with the rules too much, I’ll post a link to a thread with what I thought was [url=http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=204000]an excellent, rules lightener[/url[. The idea was that all character’s base combat damage is based on their Hit Dice, rather than weapon choice. The underlying thought is that you could let MU’s use swords and go Gandalf, but they still only do 1d4 because they are great fighters. I think this is keen because it always bothered me that you had these weapon choices in theory, but, of course, the fighter is a fool not to use a Sword. It could be complicated by making single- versus double-handed mods. Anyway, I provide the link FYI.

[Hakwood]

Racial level limitations sort of kind of worked back in the B/X days when your humans were basically only going to 14th level anyway. It’s a super-sucky mechanic for a game where the human might go to 36th. And Strike Ranks is an attempt to circumvent the stupid mechanic without just getting rid of it; very dumb IMO. Of course, I never played a game that long; 14th level was about right for me to top out at, but I’m just saying.


Me too. In the old days of AD&D 1e, the characters basically retired at 9th level and set up castles, etc. I don't imagine even wanting to play RC D&D much past 10th or 11th level or so, especially with the long levelling times.

And Dr. Samsara, I must say I'm disappointed that you have no "mullet commentary". ;)

[Hakwood]

5. Granted that Hak wants to stay away from fiddling with the rules too much, I’ll post a link to a thread with what I thought was [url=http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=204000]an excellent, rules lightener[/url[.

The link ain't working for me. Is it just me?

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

Just added my third house rule, a favorite of mine no matter what RPG I'm running.

3. No encumbrance rules will be used, although as DM I reserve the right to conduct an encumbrance audit.

I love this idea, which I took from an old Knights of the Dinner Table script. For the most part, I like my action fast, furious, and cinematic. I can't be bothered to calculate the exact reduction in a character's lifting strength based on the weight of chainmail vs. plate mail.

BUT if a player says, "I pick up the heavy iron chest and swing it on my shoulder, while running up the steep slope at top speed carrying the body of my fallen retainer!" I'll say, "Encumbrance audit!!"

See the link to my blog (my .sig) for my other two house rules (scroll down to the "House Rules" entry--past the Mullet DM, the map, and the other sweet pics).

Hakwood

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

The link ain't working for me. Is it just me?

No, it’s not just you. I misformatted. Try this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=204000).

Mullets? What’s not to love?

Oh, are there people who really, really used the encumbrance rules? I guess maybe there were and are, but nobody I knew ever did. You carried whatever you needed to. You had a mule or something for the rest. Done.

[Dr Rotwang!]

HAK --

Huh! Your house rules look like my house rules!

...if I had any.

[Philomousos]

UPDATE

Just added my third house rule, a favorite of mine no matter what RPG I'm running.

3. No encumbrance rules will be used, although as DM I reserve the right to conduct an encumbrance audit.

I love this idea, which I took from an old Knights of the Dinner Table script. For the most part, I like my action fast, furious, and cinematic. I can't be bothered to calculate the exact reduction in a character's lifting strength based on the weight of chainmail vs. plate mail.

BUT if a player says, "I pick up the heavy iron chest and swing it on my shoulder, while running up the steep slope at top speed carrying the body of my fallen retainer!" I'll say, "Encumbrance audit!!"

See the link to my blog (my .sig) for my other two house rules (scroll down to the "House Rules" entry--past the Mullet DM, the map, and the other sweet pics).

Hakwood


Good idea. Keep the rules around but go light on enforcement... prevents egregious infractions and saves the headache.

On the Mullet/hairy hand picture: I think I know how this happened. I would provide the following as evidence, if it weren't for the fact that I just made it up...

**********
Dear "DonjonMeister",

Congratulations on your apparent gaming success, including having your likeness prominently displayed in an edition of my beloved Dungeons & Dragons game. I would, however, be so bold as to observe that you may have misinterpreted the advice I gave to you during our fateful encounter at last year's UberCon: I distinctly recall that I told you that every good DM needs a mallet and a heavy hand. BOTH of which are figures of speech.

Yours Truly,

E.G.G.
**********

[Hakwood]

Good idea. Keep the rules around but go light on enforcement... prevents egregious infractions and saves the headache.

On the Mullet/hairy hand picture: I think I know how this happened. I would provide the following as evidence, if it weren't for the fact that I just made it up...

**********
Dear "DonjonMeister",

Congratulations on your apparent gaming success, including having your likeness prominently displayed in an edition of my beloved Dungeons & Dragons game. I would, however, be so bold as to observe that you may have misinterpreted the advice I gave to you during our fateful encounter at last year's UberCon: I distinctly recall that I told you that every good DM needs a mallet and a heavy hand. BOTH of which are figures of speech.

Yours Truly,

E.G.G.
**********

:D :D :D LOL!! :D :D :D

Pepsi spilled on floor--check. ;)

[Hakwood]

DAY 9: Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Just finished Chapter 8: Combat and Chapter 9: Mass Combat.

A few thoughts:

1. I love the combat system. Most of it I will use straight as written (one of the nice things about this game), but there is one section marked "Optional" that I won't be using, at least not right away. That is the lengthy section on unarmed combat and wrestling. The complexity of these rules mirrors those of the weapon mastery rules, and, not surprisingly, is designed to be used in conjunction with them. As with the weapon mastery rules, I like the look of this section, and its logical coherence impresses me (unlike the unarmed combat/wrestling rules for AD&D 1e, which strike me as rather bizarre, to be frank). But it's more complexity than I want right now. Besides, unarmed combat and wrestling/grappling almost never happen in my games. Not because I don't want them to, but it seems my players always use weapons or magic. So it's not much of an issue anyway.

2. The chapter on mass combat is incredibly cool but I'll never use it. It's like a country having nuclear weapons: they don't plan to ever use them, but they like knowing they're there. ;)

Also, I made up my first character this morning, a Dwarf (who is, of course, not just a "dwarf", but really a "Dwarf Fighter"--see earlier in this rather lengthy thread for my discussion of the races-as-classes issue).

Another random thought: I like that in RC D&D all elves are magic-users. I was initially thinking of changing this, but I'm keeping it. It fits the traditional archetype of elves as magical beings . . . I may even turn their abilities into an innate magical use, similar to the sorcerer in 3e.

I'm delighted with the ease of character creation. I made this character in about 10 minutes, and this is with me still learning the game. I'll post the character here later today.

On to Chapter 10 . . .

Hakwood

P.S. Here's a question for all you world-builders out there. I've decided that my world will be post-apocalyptic, using the geography of Karameikos/Mystara. It will be set approximately 100 years after a devastating plague wiped out 60-70% of the members of the intelligent races. My question concerns money and economics. Does it make any sense at all to have coinage in such a world? I envision that city-states exist, though no countries or kingdoms. Would individual city-states value gold, silver, etc? Or would such a world likely be barter only?

[loseth]

Does it make any sense at all to have coinage in such a world? I envision that city-states exist, though no countries or kingdoms. Would individual city-states value gold, silver, etc? Or would such a world likely be barter only?

I'd say 'yes'. Gold and silver are beautiful and difficult to get (you need to mine them). That pretty much guarantees they'll be valuable in any human or pointy-eared-human society. How valuable will depend on how much is floating around-post apocolypse, and, given that we're talking D&D, it'll probably be a lot that's floating around. So, I'd guess that coins would have something like a half, a third or maybe a quarter of their pre-plague value relative to easy-to-produce goods like food. Goods that are actually much harder to make post-apocolypse would, of course, retain a similar value relative to coin.

[izlear]

DAY 9: Wednesday, November 30, 2005



P.S. Here's a question for all you world-builders out there. I've decided that my world will be post-apocalyptic, using the geography of Karameikos/Mystara. It will be set approximately 100 years after a devastating plague wiped out 60-70% of the members of the intelligent races. My question concerns money and economics. Does it make any sense at all to have coinage in such a world? I envision that city-states exist, though no countries or kingdoms. Would individual city-states value gold, silver, etc? Or would such a world likely be barter only?


I would dare say in a world like that people would value anything that is rare. I would say that gold will not be laying around on streets which would make it rare, preacious, and valuble. So you may be right about a Barder system but I would say if you offered a chunk of gold a person would take it.

Also if there was a government of these city states I would say there would be a coinage. . . considering city-states often turn into cities which sometime turn into empires.

[Thorn Drumheller]

DAY 9: Wednesday, November 30, 2005

P.S. Here's a question for all you world-builders out there. I've decided that my world will be post-apocalyptic, using the geography of Karameikos/Mystara. It will be set approximately 100 years after a devastating plague wiped out 60-70% of the members of the intelligent races. My question concerns money and economics. Does it make any sense at all to have coinage in such a world? I envision that city-states exist, though no countries or kingdoms. Would individual city-states value gold, silver, etc? Or would such a world likely be barter only?

Hey Hakwood,

This thread has made me glad I kept my RC. As for the coinage issue, maybe just think of it another way. Here in the real world our money is based off the gold reserve, correct? Instead have some primitive coinage based off of agriculture. A copper piece equals a half-bushel of corn or something like that.

Thorn Drumheller

[Hakwood]

Okay, still on the subject of post-apocalyptic economics, here's a simple and, perhaps, dumb question: :o

WHY do people value gold and silver? Is it just their beauty? I mean, what good are they? Sure, they are rare and beautiful, but just because they are rare and beautiful does that mean people will gladly hand over food in exchange for gold or silver coins? This is a fundamental thing that has always puzzled me about cash economies.

I can understand why oil is so precious, but I'm puzzled by gold, and other precious metals.

[Alcamtar]

I can understand why oil is so precious, but I'm puzzled by gold, and other precious metals.

I don't know, but I'll offer some opinions:

(1) They represent wealth. HOW they came to represent wealth I don't know, maybe because they were some of the first metals to be discovered and worked? Anyway, everybody wants wealth--which means they want gold and silver. Once they get it, other people become envious and want it too. It's self-perpetuating.

Also, wealth is power, and "he who has the gold makes the rules". If you have a huge pile of gold, you have a vested interest in maintaining or even enhancing its value. You also have the power and status to do something about it. The only people who would want to change the medium of currency are those who lack wealth but have an interest in some other medium (say, you own a coal mine and want to use coal for money). But those people, lacking wealth and status, do not have the power to change it.

(2) Gold does not rust or tarnish. It'll still be as good as new in 1000 years.

(3) Gold holds its value over time. Values of other commodities may fluctuate wildly, but gold stays very steady, probably because the total quantity of gold grows only very slowly.

(4) Historically, gold is basically useless. Anything that is beautiful and enduring but essentially worthless and available in very limited quantities is a luxury item. Since it's useless, only the idle (rich) would want it. Since it is available in limited quantities and lots of rich people are competing for it, only the rich can afford it. Since only the rich have it, gold = status. Since gold = status, EVERYONE wants it. see #1.

(5) The world has a NEED for a medium of exchange. If you have what I want but I don't have anything you want, then we can't barter. Currency provides a universal means of storing wealth to facilitate complex trade. The more specialized people are in their jobs, they more they have need of currency. It is even more important for inter-city trade. Currency must be something that does not fluctuate in value, or nobody will have faith in it--and must be something that is not useful or consumable, or it will fluctuate in value.

Historically the poor people did not use much coin--they bartered. Coinage became widespread as trade become common and as jobs became specialized. Especially the rise of towns: people in towns are dependent on one another and therefore require some system of trade.

In a post apocalyptic world, what is going to happen:

(a) Everyone will scramble to cover their basics. People will become self-sufficient or they will not survive. Everyone is a farmer. Money will have little value, inflation will skyrocket.

(b) If anyone does find money lying around they will recognize its value, take it and hide/hoard it "just in case" it is useful in the future. Only an idiot would walk by a bag of gold. OTOH it is not immediately useful so they probably won't risk life and limb in dangeous ruins to recover it.

(c) Eventually society stabilizes, trade is re-established, people begin to specialize. Towns spring up. The ambitious begin to seek greater power, both military and economic. The need for trade and the need for a means of storing wealth for the future produces a need for currency. Now you could invent a new currency, but everyone has to agree on it for it to have any value. And as stated it needs to be stable and enduring. Plus you have all those people who hoarded gold when it was lying around, and they have a vested interest in maintaining the value of that gold. And most likely all the gold is in the hands of the people powerful enough to take it from the weak and hold on to it. So almost certainly, gold will be selected as the medium of exchange.

Mike

[izlear]

I would say Gold and silver is valuble because it is pretty rare anywere which means it is a universal curency. It is rare and by nature greed takes over. If some one has something that another person wants the other person will try to get some too (or take person 1's)

I would say this is why gold is so saught after.


(Sugestion) It seems in a campaign such as you are sugesting there could easily be a fare amount of rebuilding and also rediscovering the past civilatation. So there could be explorations for things such as old curencies (which could be valuble) as well as old magics.

This is just an idea though. Just make curency extreamly rare and extreamly valuble.

[NeuroZombie]

I just wanted to drop a note and say that I had not read this thread until today. I did so since I decided that I am going to run an RC campaign w/my group whenever we can't get all the players together.

That said, I am so glad that I caught up on the thread an will now subscibe to it!

[Theophage]

Okay, still on the subject of post-apocalyptic economics, here's a simple and, perhaps, dumb question: :o

WHY do people value gold and silver? Is it just their beauty? I mean, what good are they? Sure, they are rare and beautiful, but just because they are rare and beautiful does that mean people will gladly hand over food in exchange for gold or silver coins? This is a fundamental thing that has always puzzled me about cash economies.

I can understand why oil is so precious, but I'm puzzled by gold, and other precious metals.

This is how I understand it:

Coins represent a universal trade item. This means that I don't have to have something you need to get something I need from you; you can take my coin and get what you need from someone else. I'm sure you understood this part of it.

Why gold and silver then? Well, imagine that the unit of universal exchange was small rocks. I want something from you, so I pick up some small rocks and give them to you. "I don't need your rocks," you say, "I can pick up my own rocks to go get what I need!"

Thus the unit of universal exchange must be something that people can't just grab or make themselves. In addition, coins are minted with particular seals and/or artwork to make it so that counterfeiting isn't easy. If the coins were simply round lumps of the metal, I could cover a rock with a little gold and silver (maybe thirty rocks per real coin I used) and voila, I got more money. This isn't to say that counterfeiting, coin shaving, and other practices didn't go on, it's just that they weren't so easy.

Hope this helps

[Harrek]

While all the sim-economics are interesting, I don't know that they matter. What is important is what you want from the game. Do you want the characters to have to trade chickens for swords? Do you want them to roll into town with a sack of ancient gold (and be able to spend it)? You can come up with a reasonable rationalization for whichever you prefer.

[Theophage]

I almost forgot...

As to the value and use of coinage in a post-apocalyptic setting, this depends on how stable things are currently. If the only way to get food is to grow it yourself or steal it from someone who does (and ditto for other items) then resources such as food will be heavily guarded and will probably only be parted with for something of equal value to the owner (batering). If, however, things are running a bit more smoothly and a reasonable amount of goods are reasonably available, then money will be back in fashion.

So what effect the post-apocalypse will have on the value and availability of coinage? Since a great many people died, there will be much more coins per person left than what was had before. This in itself will cause the money to be worth less (prices will be higher). Add to that the fact that goods will be rarer now than then (since less people produce them) prices now will be much higher than pre-apocalypse prices.

Also since there are more coins per person than before, city-states will probably be able to get along just fine by using the pre-apocalyptic coinage. Governments may want to re-mint the existing coins with their own symbols, however, just because they can.

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

And now, my very first character for Rules Cyclopedia D&D:


Deg Goro
1st level Dwarf Fighter
Alignment: Lawful
Sex: Male
Age: 100
XP 0 (bonus 5%)
Next level: 2200

STR 15 [+1 Open doors, melee attack/damage]
INT 10
WIS 10
DEX 13 [+1 Armor Class, missile/thrown attacks]
CON 12
CHA 10

THAC0 20
Armor Class 4 (Chainmail, DEX +1)
Hit Points 8

Saving Throws
Death Ray or Poison 8
Magic Wands 9
Paralysis, Turn to Stone 10
Dragon Breath 13
Rod, Staff, Spell 12

Class Abilities
Lance Attack
Set Spear vs. Charge
Infravision
Detect traps, sliding walls, sloping corridors, new construction 1-2/1d6

Skills and Languages
Survival (Mountain) 12
Mountaineering 13
Dwarf, Common

Weapons and Armor
Battle Axe 1d8
Crossbow 1d6 (60/120/180)

Chainmail (AC 5)

Equipment
Backpack
Clothes, plain
Grappling hook
Rope, 50 feet
Iron Spikes (12)
Quarrels (30)
Rations (1 week)
Water skin

Background: At 100 years old, Deg is just a teenager by dwarven standards. Tired of the sheltered life he has lived in the village of [whatever it’s going to be called], he has finally decided to set off in search of adventure, fame, and fortune—and not necessarily in that order. He is a strong, brash, aggressive warrior, if at times inexperienced and a tad foolhardy.

[Dr Rotwang!]

Allow me to explain why having gold = wealthy, no matter what.

http://www.grunt.com/images-bs/Gold%20on%20pallet.jpg

http://www.coinexinc.com/welcome.jpg

http://www.shipofgold.com/images/eureka_ingot_and_coin.gif

You know you want it.




Am I right?

[The Wyzard]

Dr. Rotwang, you are my hero.

[Hakwood]

Allow me to explain why having gold = wealthy, no matter what.

http://www.grunt.com/images-bs/Gold%20on%20pallet.jpg

http://www.coinexinc.com/welcome.jpg

http://www.shipofgold.com/images/eureka_ingot_and_coin.gif

You know you want it.



Women? What women?

Gimme da gold!!! :p

[Hakwood]

DAY 10: Thursday, December 1, 2005

Thanks for all the feedback on the issue of coinage vs. barter in a post-apocalyptic economy. I've decided to go with the idea of city-states rebuilding, each using their own form of coin, but usually accepting each other's coins. So you'll have these pockets of rebuilding civilization (all within walled cities), and the wild frontier everywhere else. I love it.

No gnomes as PCs in RC D&D, and guess what? I don't miss them. Halflings are more than enough for me. I also like the fat-chubby-git-with-furry-feet halfling of RC D&D rather than the slender-quick-gold-earring-wearing-gypsy halfling of 3.x.

If I get a chance today (which is unlikely :( ) I'm going to make up a second character. Once I have all four pregens made I'm going to start planning the adventure. I'll be asking you guys for tons of ideas, which I will promptly steal. ;)

Oh, and I read Chapter 11: Experience (I think it's 11; don't have the book in front of me). RC has a wonderfully detailed experience system, which is probably more crunchy than I need. I usually just wing experience.

Hakwood

[Participant-Observer]

Also since there are more coins per person than before, city-states will probably be able to get along just fine by using the pre-apocalyptic coinage. Governments may want to re-mint the existing coins with their own symbols, however, just because they can.

An old prof of mine suggested that for citystates in the Mediterranean, having your own mint was akin to a modern nationstate having its own airline. You (and everyone else) knew you'd arrived when you got one. After independence from the USSR, several of the Baltic states immediately set up their own airlines, IIRC.

One thing that's not been mentioned so far -- the stamp of the issuing authority (before money simply becomes a "token" of value, like a modern bill) is supposedly a guarantee that the coin contains a certain amount of precious metal. All Athenian obols ("Owls") for instance, were meant to be the same weight of silver. And people accepted that, because of the stamp.

When things went hyper-inflationary in the third century AD, older coinage in the Roman empire was taken out of circulation by owners who didn't want to lose the value, and quite often people might turn the coins into really smart stuff like gold plates. Later issues of denarii were simply not trusted to have the same value as earlier issues, as certain emperors were adding base metal to boost production to pay their bills.

All very basic and off the top of my head, I'm afraid. I have some books on this type of thing, somewhere, but it's far from my specialty. :)

A second thing occurs to me, as I write: if you've just had an extended period of crisis, there's a good chance that people might have started burying their wealth, "until things get better." And often enough (perhaps not often enough for archaeologists), things didn't. (Michael Crawford writes about this for the Roman civil wars of the first century BC -- but in probably more detail than any RPGer needs :) ). Could be handy for adventurers, no?

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Another random thought: I like that in RC D&D all elves are magic-users. I was initially thinking of changing this, but I'm keeping it. It fits the traditional archetype of elves as magical beings . . . I may even turn their abilities into an innate magical use, similar to the sorcerer in 3e.

If you are still in the mood for house-rules and mods, I think that some thought about elves and magic is in order. Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this lately, so it’s an excuse to try out something.

As presented in the RC, there are two types of magic in the world: clerical and…oh hell, let’s just call it “arcane” for now. Humans can use both kinds, but not simultaneously. No other race can use clerical magic (I said going off of the RC; the Gazetteers change that). That implies that humans have some kind of special relationship with the Immortals and the Greater Powers.

The only other ace which can use arcane magic (again: just the RC here) is the elves. And they seem to use it identically to humans except that where it is a learned skill among humans, it appears to be inherent to elves (also, they can’t get as good at it). Now you could leave it like that, but it’s not that interesting and I keep thinking about modifications you could make:

1. “Elves as Nature Spirits”: Elves in the RC are tree-huggers we all know and love. Given that, it would make snese if elven magic were more nature-oriented than it is. You could ditch Druids and give the Druid spell list to the elves instead.

2. “Elves as Creatures of Glamour”: this is not the default version of elves in D&D, but there is a strong, folkloric tradition of elven glamour and illusion, of conjuring feasts from rocks and straw and all that jazz. You could juggle the elven spell list to resemble the AD&D illusionist. This would be more work than #1, but would preserve druids and make elves distinctive, yet still in line with MU’s. And I’m not sure it’s that much work, because spells in D&D aren’t that complicated nor balanced, so importing the Illusionist spell list wouldn’t be to strenuous.

3. “Elves as Inherently Magical”: this is the idea you proposed above of keeping the same spell list but altering the way elves access it i.e. making them RC D&D versions of D&D 3.141’s sorcerers. This is probably the easiest version, but the least distinctive. It would also make 1st elves that much more powerful than their 1st lvl MU’s buddies, but might help them out a bit when they are struggling at latter levels. Of course, since your group only has the Elf, comparisons would so much matter and giving him more flexibility may help.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[Hakwood]

1. “Elves as Nature Spirits”: Elves in the RC are tree-huggers we all know and love. Given that, it would make snese if elven magic were more nature-oriented than it is. You could ditch Druids and give the Druid spell list to the elves instead.

I like this--a lot. I may just do something like this.

2. “Elves as Creatures of Glamour”: this is not the default version of elves in D&D, but there is a strong, folkloric tradition of elven glamour and illusion, of conjuring feasts from rocks and straw and all that jazz. You could juggle the elven spell list to resemble the AD&D illusionist. This would be more work than #1, but would preserve druids and make elves distinctive, yet still in line with MU’s. And I’m not sure it’s that much work, because spells in D&D aren’t that complicated nor balanced, so importing the Illusionist spell list wouldn’t be to strenuous.

When I go home today, I'm going to take out my beloved AD&D 1e Players Handbook and check out the Illusionist spell list. And you know, I may just photocopy it and add it to the RC--for Elves only. ;)


3. “Elves as Inherently Magical”: this is the idea you proposed above of keeping the same spell list but altering the way elves access it i.e. making them RC D&D versions of D&D 3.141’s sorcerers. This is probably the easiest version, but the least distinctive. It would also make 1st elves that much more powerful than their 1st lvl MU’s buddies, but might help them out a bit when they are struggling at latter levels.

I've decided not to bother with the "elves as inherently magical" thing. Or maybe just make it a flavor-text thing; "Since elves are all inherently magical, they readily take to the study of magic, which is an integral part of their culture" etc.

But Dr. Samsara, I must tip my hat to you. The Druid spell list/Illusionist spell list is gold. I love it!

Hakwood

[NeuroZombie]

1. “Elves as Nature Spirits”: Elves in the RC are tree-huggers we all know and love. Given that, it would make snese if elven magic were more nature-oriented than it is. You could ditch Druids and give the Druid spell list to the elves instead.

PERFECT!!!! This is a brilliantly simple mechanism to make elves a bit more interesting! Kudos!

[Hakwood]

PERFECT!!!! This is a brilliantly simple mechanism to make elves a bit more interesting! Kudos!

In fact, I may go further, and give elves druid (RC) and illusionist (AD&D 1e) spells, but not allow them the standard "magical" (i.e. magic-user) spells . . .

Hmmm. . .

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Thanks guys. As I say, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to make BD&D (or RC D&D) a bit more…well, I shouldn’t say “interesting”, but more to my way of thinking, without making it more complicated. I think that if the 80’s taught me anything it was that A Flock of Seagulls haircut rules! No, wait, that’s not it. It’s that “more complicated” does not equal “more interesting”.

I’d definitely restrict elves from using the MU list if you go with #1 or #2, although I think I’d let them use most if not all wizardous items.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Thanks guys. As I say, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to make BD&D (or RC D&D) a bit more…well, I shouldn’t say “interesting”, but more to my way of thinking, without making it more complicated. I think that if the 80’s taught me anything it was that A Flock of Seagulls haircut rules! No, wait, that’s not it. It’s that “more complicated” does not equal “more interesting”.

I’d definitely restrict elves from using the MU list if you go with #1 or #2, although I think I’d let them use most if not all wizardous items.

[Hakwood]

I’d definitely restrict elves from using the MU list if you go with #1 or #2, although I think I’d let them use most if not all wizardous items.

Okay, it's official. This is house rule #4:


4. Elves will have available to them all the spells on the druid spell list and all the spells on the illusionist spell list (AD&D 1e). They may NOT cast spells from the standard magic-user spell list. They can, however, use magical items as usual.

(I'm going to write up flavor text explaining the *why* of this--i.e., they're magical, illusory, woodlandish, fairyish type creatures--but for now, this house rule establishes the mechanic).

Keep up the excellent advice, dudes.

Hakwood

[Harlequin Jones]

Money is, essentially, a measure of wealth - like using meters to measure distance or kilograms to measure mass. It is not wealth itself, but the ability to command wealth. What makes something money? General acceptance, nothing more. If most people think something is money, then it is. The core of this belief is the belief that the money can be traded for anything else they might desire. Doesn't matter if it's gold or dollars.

Rare metals (gold, silver, etc) became associated with money for several reasons: they're durable (unlike cattle or vegetables, gold and silver will not grow old or spoil), homogeneous (one piece of gold is identical to another piece of the same mass), divisible (you can cut a bar of gold in half to pay two separate debts - not useful with precious stones, where cutting decreases their value), and rare (see the aforementioned comment about rocks as money).

This doesn't mean that gold is always valueable. In times of famine, a man might gladly trade a pound of gold for a pound of food.

So, it depends on how well-recovered your world is from the apocalypse. If society has rebuilt enough so that food, clothing, and shelter are common rather than dear, then the inhabitants will probably begin to use the old coins to trade amongst themselves. If people are running around scavanging for resources MadMax-style, then probably not.


Harley

[Nihtgenga]

Keep up the excellent advice, dudes.

Hakwood

Don't know if I will have advice for you but, even having read for a couple of years how good the RC was (Basic/Expert has been my favourite D&D to date, but I will never DM any version) I pretty much ignored it.

Got to the end of this thread last night and went and downloaded a copy from RPGNow and printed it this morning. I'd say thanks, but I will never end up playing the bloody thing.

(Oh what the heck, full credit for a good sell. :)

I am enjoying reading it much more than C&C at least.

Keep up the updates, enjoying them immensely.

[Hakwood]

DAY 11: Friday, December 2, 2005

I made an Elf. Thanks to my houserule, inspired by my esteemed colleague, Dr. Samsara (the Fiendish One ;) ) elves are now "Fighter/Druids." Their spell list is no longer the magic-user spell list from RC, but a combination: druid spells and illusionist spells (from AD&D 1e). I'm calling them "Fighter/Druids" rather than "Fighter/Magic-Users" or "Fighter/Illusionist", because I love the "elf as magical woodland creature" archetype, whcih I think "Druid" reflects the best.

Accordingly, here is the achingly beautiful, stunning, alluring Elmatra, sexy female elf beyond compare (hey, you wanted old school, right? ;) )

Elmatra
1st level Elf Fighter/Druid
Alignment: Neutral
Sex: Female
Age: 182
XP 0 (bonus 5%)
Next level: 4000

STR 13 [+1 Open doors, melee attack/damage]
INT 13 [+1 Languages]
WIS 10
DEX 14 [+1 Armor Class, missile/thrown attacks]
CON 8 [-1 HP per level]
CHA 11

THAC0 19
Armor Class 5 (Scale Mail, DEX +1)
Hit Points 5

Saving Throws
Death Ray or Poison 12
Magic Wands 13
Paralysis, Turn to Stone 13
Dragon Breath 15
Rod, Staff, Spell 15

Class Abilities
Lance Attack
Set Spear vs. Charge
Infravision
Detection
Immunity to Ghoul Paralysis

Skills and Languages
Survival (Forest) 13
Nature Lore 13
Hunting 13
Tracking 13
Healing 13
Elf, Gnome, Common

Weapons and Armor
Sword (normal) 1d8
Long Bow 1d6 (60/120/180)

Scale Mail (AC 6)

Equipment
Backpack
Clothes, robe
Water skin
Arrows (20)
Rations (1 week)

Background: Elmatra is a young elf from the tribe of -------- who inhabit the --------- forest. She is a refugee from a devastating war with the orcs of --------- who annihilated her people.

[Neil]

Accordingly, here is the achingly beautiful, stunning, alluring Elmatra, sexy female elf beyond compare (hey, you wanted old school, right? ;) )

Elmatra
1st level Elf Fighter/Druid
Alignment: Neutral
Sex: Male

Background: Elmatra is a young elf from the tribe of -------- who inhabit the --------- forest. She is a refugee from a devastating war with the orcs of --------- who annihilated her people.

I think the Elven Druids are neat idea too. :cool:

I know you said old school, but is your discrepancy in the sex of this character because of an ol' school desire to start a discussion about humans not being able to tell what the true sex of an Elf actually is? ;)

[Hakwood]

I think the Elven Druids are neat idea too. :cool:

I know you said old school, but is your discrepancy in the sex of this character because of an ol' school desire to start a discussion about humans not being able to tell what the true sex of an Elf actually is? ;)

Eh? Oh, crap! I get it! I forgot to change "Male" to "Female"! ACK! Dumb. Hang on, I'll change it . . .

Thanks for catching that one!

(Now the "do dwarven women have beards" question is another issue . . . )

[Neil]

What's really odd is that I didn't notice that other thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=232646)until after I made the post.:D

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Hak—you forgot Elmatra’s known spells. Which raises a point: do Elven Fighter-Druids use spellbooks like Human wizards? Maybe they use some more flavourful analog, like a crystal within whose depths the elf finds the patterns to cast some particular spell. And perhaps they string these crystals together as they collect them, making something like a druidic rosary. Or they could study a yantra painted on the bark on some particular tree?

I’m just rambling now. Anyway, hot elf chick—check.

I am enjoying reading it much more than C&C at least.

Hmn, but would the C&C illusionist spell list work better than the the AD&D list?

[Hakwood]

Hak—you forgot Elmatra’s known spells. Which raises a point: do Elven Fighter-Druids use spellbooks like Human wizards? Maybe they use some more flavourful analog, like a crystal within whose depths the elf finds the patterns to cast some particular spell. And perhaps they string these crystals together as they collect them, making something like a druidic rosary. Or they could study a yantra painted on the bark on some particular tree?


You do realize, of course, that you've now given me yet *another* inspiration. I love the "spell rosary" idea. Meditate on the rosary, get your spells. Find a scroll or a spellbook, and if its the right kind of spell, "put it into the rosary" somehow. I think I'll use wooden beads instead of crystals; seems more "earthy" (or "Mystary").

Nifty.

As for Elmatra's spells, yep, I forgot. I'm thinking of giving both elves *and* magic-users *four* spells in their spellbooks (or spellbeads, whatever) instead of the canonical two. Doesn't affect their spell use per day limit, which I think is the *real* limitation. Gives them more options.

Her two druidic spells will be Faerie Fire and Detect Danger. Dont' have my AD&D 1e Players Handbook in front of me, so I'll have to give her two illusionist spells when I get home from work.

Hakwood

[Neil]

I think I'll use wooden beads instead of crystals; seems more "earthy" (or "Mystary").

How about a Druidic / Pagan runestick?

http://glenavalon.com/ogham/celticogham.html

[Thuvasa3]

Quick question for those of you familiar with the Rules Cyclopedia:

I still have all of my original "basic rules." The boxes are gone, but the books from the boxed sets are waiting in the garage. :)

Is there much of a difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and the boxed sets? Anything new that I shouldn't live without?

Thuv

[Hakwood]

Quick question for those of you familiar with the Rules Cyclopedia:

I still have all of my original "basic rules." The boxes are gone, but the books from the boxed sets are waiting in the garage. :)

Is there much of a difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and the boxed sets? Anything new that I shouldn't live without?

Thuv

When you say "Basic Rules", I'm assuming you mean the Mentzer rules that came in four sets: Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, correct? If so, then as I understand it, their content is virtually identical to that of Rules Cyclopedia.

The earlier two books from the Moldvay/Cook era, simply Basic and Expert, are slightly different from Rules Cyclopedia.

Hopefully someone more informed than I can give a more thorough answer, though.

[Nihtgenga]

2. Having said that, I agree that a 1st level thief seems underpowered, even by the standards of RC D&D. He only has a 15% chance of picking a lock? A 10% chance of hiding in shadows?

Another way to look at this is that thieves have skills that are independent from the skill slot rules that govern everything else (want to make a ranger? Make a fighter using track skill slots. Want to give him some stealth abilities? Tough luck.

One solution to this and the above quote would be to have a 0 level thief that is 5% across the board in the thief skills (maybe 40% for scaling things). This is the base chance for any non-thief to use these abilities. Now you can spend skill slots on individual thief skills, with the thief level equal to the skill slots. Thus a fighter with 2 slots is treated as a 2nd level thief in move silent (only) and has 25%. Likewise a 1st thief with 2 slots in Move silent is treated as a 3rd level thief with 30% (and later when he reaches 8th level, his Move Silent is 10th with 58%.

[Hakwood]

Another way to look at this is that thieves have skills that are independent from the skill slot rules that govern everything else (want to make a ranger? Make a fighter using track skill slots. Want to give him some stealth abilities? Tough luck.

One solution to this and the above quote would be to have a 0 level thief that is 5% across the board in the thief skills (maybe 40% for scaling things). This is the base chance for any non-thief to use these abilities. Now you can spend skill slots on individual thief skills, with the thief level equal to the skill slots. Thus a fighter with 2 slots is treated as a 2nd level thief in move silent (only) and has 25%. Likewise a 1st thief with 2 slots in Move silent is treated as a 3rd level thief with 30% (and later when he reaches 8th level, his Move Silent is 10th with 58%.

To be honest, this is the kind of thing I want to avoid. The idea of every character class being able to learn every skill is very NON-old school, and smacks of 3.x. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;) But what I love about D&D RC is that you have very strong, specialized, and *limited* archetypes. This is, in my opinion, one of the key elements of "old school" gaming (or at least old school D&D).

D&D 3.x says, Want to give a fighter some stealth abilities? Go for it!

D&D RC (and AD&D) says, What to give a fighter some stealth abilities? Tough--that's the thief's job.

Even monkeying with the elf class as I did earlier makes me a bit nervous. I want to change as little as possible and just enjoy the game. But I'm happy (delighted, in fact), with the druidic/illusionist elf.

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

As of today, these are my house rules:

HOUSE RULES

1. No alignment languages.

2. Maximum hit points at 1st level.

3. In general, encumbrance rules will not be used. But as DM I reserve the right to conduct an encumbrance audit.

4. Elves in my campaign are essentially druidic in nature; they are magical, woodland creatures who also excel in illusion. They have access to all the spells on the druid spell list (from the Rules Cyclopedia) and all the spells on the illusionist spell list (from the AD&D Players Handbook). They may NOT cast spells from the standard magic-user spell list. They can, however, use magical items as a magic-user.

[Nihtgenga]

D&D RC (and AD&D) says, What to give a fighter some stealth abilities? Tough--that's the thief's job.

Even monkeying with the elf class as I did earlier makes me a bit nervous. I want to change as little as possible and just enjoy the game. But I'm happy (delighted, in fact), with the druidic/illusionist elf.


I was looking at it as 'to make a Ranger, a fighter would need a couple of stealth skills' (not actually a Fighter/thief) - and using skill slots mean you would be very second rate to the thief.

(I like the idea of having some mechanic that would allow anyone to say w'e are going to sneak up on someone' or the like. Heck, my MS means I can barely walk, but I can still move softly when I want to - I just have to move really slowly ;)

Can see where you are coming from though.

I agree the elf is very cool. When you say that you are using the illusionist spells from AD&D do you mean you are going to import the spells from AD&D or just use the list to identify which spells in RC are illusionist spells?

[Breschau of Livonia]

Quick question for those of you familiar with the Rules Cyclopedia:

Is there much of a difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and the boxed sets? Anything new that I shouldn't live without?
Thuv

The biggest difference I can thing of rules-wise is the Cyclopedia includes the skills system that appeared in the Gazeteer series. It also includes some optional rules for advancing demi-human characters to 36th level.

The Companion and Masters rules have a few things that don't make it into the Cyclopedia. The Companion has tournament rules (i.e. jousting, etc.) The Master set has some extensive rules for artifacts.

[Hakwood]

DAY 12: Saturday, December 3, 2005

I just finished my masterpiece: my own private D&D Rules Cyclopedia character sheet. One page, simple and straightforward. I'd love some feedback. Check it out here:
http://rulescyclopedia.blogspot.com/

[grubman]

DAY 12: Saturday, December 3, 2005

I just finished my masterpiece: my own private D&D Rules Cyclopedia character sheet. One page, simple and straightforward. I'd love some feedback. Check it out here:
http://rulescyclopedia.blogspot.com/

Very nice, except personally I won't use a character sheet if it doesn't have a place for a character illustration. It's very important to me for setting the mood when I'm playing the character.

[maxo-texas]

Day 0: Monday, November 22, 2005
I’ve been doing a lot of lurking at RPGnet and I love this place. You guys rock. Taking inspiration from Grubman’s magnificent “101 Days of Savage Worlds” thread, I’ve decided that the time has come for me to give serious time and attention to the one game that may well be the answer to my rules-lite D&D needs: the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia.

Tomorrow morning will be Day 1. (This is Day 0--I'm talking about doing, but haven't started doing it yet :) ). I’ll begin my day with a hot coffee at Starbucks and my Rules Cyclopedia. The first order of business, after all, has to be to read the book and learn the rules.

Tomorrow we begin. I’m looking forward to hearing from all of you and getting your ideas, input, and advice (especially once we get to designing the adventure!).

Hakwood

Hey.

I've been playing cyclopedia for about 15 years- 3book set back since 1976.


For a short campaign it doesn't matter, but the game breaks down after level 12ish. I have enormous amounts of material for handling post 12 characters- my current campaigns are 8th level about to be 9th and 13-14th levels (started in 1992).

A few things I suggest...
If you don't know, don't add a rule, roll 2d6- if it is low, it's bad for the players. If it is high, it's good for the players.

I recommend adding back IN experience for roleplaying (I give 100 to 400 exp* level (capped at level 10) per session)

It's a great game system tho of course I've tinkered with it (even have my own pdf cyclopedia I hand out to players which as a cyclopedia friendly Bard class and merges the Blackmoor monks with Mystics).

[maxo-texas]

Quick question for those of you familiar with the Rules Cyclopedia:

I still have all of my original "basic rules." The boxes are gone, but the books from the boxed sets are waiting in the garage. :)

Is there much of a difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and the boxed sets? Anything new that I shouldn't live without?

Thuv

They fixed some broken rules but it is basically the same game. I think weapons mastery is backpatched to level 4 from the expert set.

OH- Do NOT use the damage in the weapons mastery. It's really broken badly.

I use the following.

Mastery adds one to the damage range (so a d8 becomes a d9, d10, d11 and then a d12 at grand master).

Do not use the deflect rules. As saving throws drop, it gets rediculous.

I use
5 deflect at skill, then 8, 11, and 14 and grandmaster.

[Dr Rotwang!]

DAY 12: Saturday, December 3, 2005

I just finished my masterpiece: my own private D&D Rules Cyclopedia character sheet. One page, simple and straightforward. I'd love some feedback. Check it out here:
http://rulescyclopedia.blogspot.com/Neeet!

[Hakwood]

DAY 13: Sunday, December 4, 2005

A few more house rules (nothing official yet, but these are some ideas I'm bouncing around)

-- Death at -10 hp, rather than 0.

-- Elves and Magic-Users start with 4 spells in spellbooks (elves, spellbeads) rather than the standard 2.

-- Weapons size and type does not affect initiative (this rule is due to some odd sections in the equipment section that tell us, "If a player uses a crossbow, he loses initiative to anyone without a crossbow" etc. No way do I want to go there! Too much of a pain.

-- Demihumans can advance to level 36 via the chart on page 266. (I just discovered this chart this morning! Very, very nice).

***

Well, last night I had my group over and we finished up our 3.5 slog through the Tomb of Horrors. I dropped the idea--for the first time--that I was working on an "old school" D&D game. Then I added, "Using Rules Cyclopedia." Two of the group members said, "Cool!" My wife, naturally, said, "Hurrah!" :) But one guy says, "Oh noooooo! Not that! It's WAAAAY too complicated!"

Long story short: he went on a mini-rant about how the Rules Cyclopedia was MORE COMPLICATED than 3.5.

Even the strongest, most ardent supporters of 3.5 would not try to argue that it is *simpler* than Rules Cyclopedia. They may well argue that 3.5 is *superior* in some way, but *simpler*? Hardly.

So he and I had this lengthy debate on the complexity of RC vs. 3.5. Not which game was *better*, mind you. Just which was more *complex*. Suffice it to say, he really had no case.

I concluded by telling him, very gently, that he didn't need to feel any obligation to play in my upcoming RC game. Two of the other players said, "We know a guy who would love to join the group" and the original guy says, "No, no, no, that's okay. I'll play!"

Hmpf. I'm the Dungeon Master, not the Dungeon Buddy. Don't mess with me. ;)

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

DAY 14: Monday, December 5, 2005

Has it only been 14 days? It feels like it's been a lot longer. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I don't know.

I've finished reading the Rules Cyclopedia. I'll post some overall impressions in another entry; for now I just wanted to mention two things: (1) I have an updated House Rules list posted below (it's also in the first entry of my blog; see my sig). (2) Adventure design begins *this week*. I'll be looking to pick all of your brains for ideas. I want to craft a short dungeon crawl (nothing too fancy; nothing too big) that makes heavy use of puzzles (NOT riddles, mind you) of the "decipher the code, get the object, overcome the obstacle" variety. The kind of thing you find in video games like Zelda or Silent Hill. So start thinking . . .

HOUSE RULES (as of December 5, 2005)
1. No alignment languages.
2. Maximum hit points at 1st level.
3. In general, encumbrance rules will not be used. But as DM I reserve the right to conduct an encumbrance audit.
4. Elves in my campaign are essentially druidic in nature; they are magical, woodland creatures who also excel in illusion. They have access to all the spells on the druid spell list (from the Rules Cyclopedia) and all the spells on the illusionist spell list (from the AD&D Players Handbook). They may NOT cast spells from the standard magic-user spell list. They can, however, use magical items as a magic-user.
5. At 0 hit points, a character falls unconscious. Each round they must make a Constitution check. If they succeed, they stabilize. If they fail, they lose an additional 1 hit point. Death is at -10 hit points.


Hakwood

[Breschau of Livonia]

See you've got me dusting off my old stuff...

This might not be an issue for you if you stay low-level but anyways... One thing that bugged me about the pre-3.0 versions of D&D is there is not much in the ways of difficulty. For example, if you need to roll a 3 or higher to save vs. spells , then your save is the same regardless of whether you are facing a 36th level magic-user casting a 9th level spell or a 1st level magic-user casting charm person...

Now to be fair, there are a few allowances built into the system (for example, a lot of 9th level spells have no save) but I remember back in our Companion-level Norwold game (which was... eek, some twenty years ago) rolling for saving throws began to get "ho-hum, half damage". It was also frustrating for players to cast spells and have them resisted so easily.

I'm not quite sure if there is an easy house rule for this - personally this is one of the areas that I think D&D 3.x did a very good job in streamlining. Again, at low levels I never found this to be a problem so it might be moot for you...

[Hakwood]

See you've got me dusting off my old stuff...

This might not be an issue for you if you stay low-level but anyways... One thing that bugged me about the pre-3.0 versions of D&D is there is not much in the ways of difficulty. For example, if you need to roll a 3 or higher to save vs. spells , then your save is the same regardless of whether you are facing a 36th level magic-user casting a 9th level spell or a 1st level magic-user casting charm person...

Now to be fair, there are a few allowances built into the system (for example, a lot of 9th level spells have no save) but I remember back in our Companion-level Norwold game (which was... eek, some twenty years ago) rolling for saving throws began to get "ho-hum, half damage". It was also frustrating for players to cast spells and have them resisted so easily.

I'm not quite sure if there is an easy house rule for this - personally this is one of the areas that I think D&D 3.x did a very good job in streamlining. Again, at low levels I never found this to be a problem so it might be moot for you...

It's easy. The DM applies a modifier to the saving throw depending on the circumstances. A spell cast by a powerful, high-level magic-user might lead to a -5 penalty to the save; a spell cast by a red-headed stepchild adept might lead to a +5 bonus to the save. Etc.

Applying modifiers to reflect circumstances should be so ingrained in the DM's mind that it's just a given during the campaign. One thing I never liked about 3.x was how, ad nauseum, they list modifer after modifier and circumstance after circumstance, attempting to stat out in great detail what should be, for most good DMs, instinct.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

To be fair, this is isn’t necessarily a bug. Some folks like to have everything spelled out for them. What this density of rules is not is old-school, where when we believed that GM discretion/fiat was an integral part of the game.

So Hak: are you ready for scenario ideas yet?

[Hakwood]

To be fair, this is isn’t necessarily a bug. Some folks like to have everything spelled out for them. What this density of rules is not is old-school, where when we believed that GM discretion/fiat was an integral part of the game.

So Hak: are you ready for scenario ideas yet?


Oh yes indeed. In fact, I even have something you can work from.

The other day I was flipping through my voluminous trove of DUNGEON back issues, looking for maps and cool pics. I want to design a simple site-based adventure, something that can be completed in a session or two, but that leaves plenty of room for more.

Then I found it: THE OLD MILL. (Click on my blog link to see it...)

Begin.

Hakwood

[maxo-texas]

See you've got me dusting off my old stuff...

This might not be an issue for you if you stay low-level but anyways... One thing that bugged me about the pre-3.0 versions of D&D is there is not much in the ways of difficulty. For example, if you need to roll a 3 or higher to save vs. spells , then your save is the same regardless of whether you are facing a 36th level magic-user casting a 9th level spell or a 1st level magic-user casting charm person...
...

I added in spells from high level areas (can't research most of them) that have negative modifiers.

Example:
Bolt of Poison ▼
Range: 180'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: Damages, Slows one Target
Save: Poison (-8).
This spell sends a blast of poisonous liquid at one target that inflict 1d6 points of damage per level. This spell also slows the target so that it loses one attack dice and suffers a -1 to AC until the end of next round and the spell inflicts 10% splash damage to all adjacent to the target.

But if you want to avoid adding new spells, you can could easily add a series of wands that do the same thing for standard spells. (Wand, -1 to saves, -2 to saves, up to -8 to saves). You could make the wands where you need to be a certain level to use them. The saving throws were one area where the game was kinda broken- the casters in my game really love the new spells.

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, now this thread actually made me register myself here at RPG.net just so I could give a few comments. It already brought back lots of fond memories from a time when roleplaying indeed was a much simpler but equally fun hobby, and I hope it will continue to do so for a little longer. :)

As for your houserule about elven magic, I'd suggest you take a look at the spell list they put into GAZ #5 "The Elves of Alfheim". It actually has everything you are looking for, nature-oriented spells, illusion spells, and a little wizardly magic mixed into it. Would save you the hassle to convert 1E AD&D illusion spells back to D&D. ;)

About those saves, I'm not sure it's really necessary to give penalties to them. Remember that damage caps for RC D&D spells are much higher than what you have now while characters stopped rolling for hit points after 9th level, and only got a fixed, small number of HP without adding Con modifiers. And to be honest, even making the save on a 20d6 Fireball, for example, can be pretty painful, and that's just a 3rd level spell. :D After all, a saving throw is the only failure chance a spell has in D&D, in contrast to other game systems, where the wizard has to make skill checks or similar, to see if his spell goes off in the first place.

[Hakwood]

Heh, now this thread actually made me register myself here at RPG.net just so I could give a few comments. It already brought back lots of fond memories from a time when roleplaying indeed was a much simpler but equally fun hobby, and I hope it will continue to do so for a little longer. :)

Welcome, friend! I look forward to your participation. "The Circle is Now Complete."


As for your houserule about elven magic, I'd suggest you take a look at the spell list they put into GAZ #5 "The Elves of Alfheim". It actually has everything you are looking for, nature-oriented spells, illusion spells, and a little wizardly magic mixed into it. Would save you the hassle to convert 1E AD&D illusion spells back to D&D. ;)

I don't have any of the Gazetteers (ARGH--how do you spell that **()@#$# word?). For now, I'm restricting myself to the RC core book, the Creature Catalog, and the AD&D 1e Players Handbook (for the Illusionist spells only). At some point, however, I fully intend to go a huntin' on eBay . . . ;)


About those saves, I'm not sure it's really necessary to give penalties to them. Remember that damage caps for RC D&D spells are much higher than what you have now while characters stopped rolling for hit points after 9th level, and only got a fixed, small number of HP without adding Con modifiers. And to be honest, even making the save on a 20d6 Fireball, for example, can be pretty painful, and that's just a 3rd level spell. :D After all, a saving throw is the only failure chance a spell has in D&D, in contrast to other game systems, where the wizard has to make skill checks or similar, to see if his spell goes off in the first place.

True. The saving throw vs. magic thing doesn't bug me at all. And as I said, the DM can always add bonuses or penalties if needed. But the whole point of RC D&D is its simplicity. Obviously, that comes at the cost of detail and the greater "realism" (for lack of a better word) that goes with it.

Hakwood

[Hakwood]

DAY 15: Tuesday, December 6, 2005

I had an epiphany this morning as I was walking to work in the friggin' -20 C cold. Sometimes you'll hear people complain that RPGs, especially if you are GMing them, are far too much work for too little payback. I remember one dude awhile back (I think it was here on RPGnet) making the comment that he wasn't going to run RPGs anymore because he was spending hours preparing for each gaming session and he didn't enjoy it; all the hours of prep were like work to him. He was switching to boardgames because, as he put it, "They give instant gratification for almost no preparation, other than setting up the board."

Here's my epiphany: for me, all the hours of preparation are part of the fun. When I study the rules, write notes, design dungeons, create pregens and NPCs, and post stuff to this thread and my blog, I'm not "preparing" for the fun I'll have at the session. I'm actually having fun just by doing this.

That, I think, is the sign of the true hobbyist: all aspects of the hobby are enjoyable, not just the actual "doing" of it. I suppose it's like a golfer who not only enjoys golfing, but also enjoys talking about golfing, shopping for new golfing equipment, reading golfing magazines, writing about golf, debating hypothetical golf scenarios, playing golf computer games, and watching golfing on TV.

By the way, is my blog link working? I've been having some trouble with it. Check it out and let me know. Remember, the adventure I want to design is going to be called "The Haunted Mill." The map on the blog is a general framework; obviously, I want to add a dank, sinister cellar (heh heh--mwah hah hah). But not too much else; I want this first adventure to be quick and concise. I've had many problems in the past as a DM with designing these huge, sprawling campaigns that implode under their own weight after a session or two. I want my first RC adventure to be a 1-2 session deal. Then I can build on it if the players desire.

Hakwood

[loseth]

For saving throws, may I suggest:

a) Assign classes a 'good,' 'OK,' or 'bad' rating for each save type.
b) The value of any individual PC's save is 1.5 x PC level for 'good,' 1 x level for 'OK,' 0.5 x level for 'bad'.
c) Give every incoming effect that the PCs need to save against a level. For incoming mage spells, the level would be the caster's level. For a monster attack, the level would be the HD of the monster. For a dungeon trap, the level would be the recommended party level for the dungeon +/- a small modifier based on where in the dungeon the trap is (nearer the end boss = higher level).
d) If the incoming effect level exceeds the PC's save value, the PC fails his/her save. If the PC's save value is equal to or greater than the incoming effect's level, then the PC makes his/her save.
e) Give the PCs a certain number of luck/fate points (e.g. 1 per session) which they can spend to automatically make a single save.

This is simple and eliminates the 'automatic half damage' for high-level PCs, but doesn't sentence them to certain doom on the odd occasion that they do face a really nasty save.

[Hakwood]

For saving throws, may I suggest:

a) Assign classes a 'good,' 'OK,' or 'bad' rating for each save type.
b) The value of any individual PC's save is 1.5 x PC level for 'good,' 1 x level for 'OK,' 0.5 x level for 'bad'.
c) Give every incoming effect that the PCs need to save against a level. For incoming mage spells, the level would be the caster's level. For a monster attack, the level would be the HD of the monster. For a dungeon trap, the level would be the recommended party level for the dungeon +/- a small modifier based on where in the dungeon the trap is (nearer the end boss = higher level).
d) If the incoming effect level exceeds the PC's save value, the PC fails his/her save. If the PC's save value is equal to or greater than the incoming effect's level, then the PC makes his/her save.
e) Give the PCs a certain number of luck/fate points (e.g. 1 per session) which they can spend to automatically make a single save.

This is simple and eliminates the 'automatic half damage' for high-level PCs, but doesn't sentence them to certain doom on the odd occasion that they do face a really nasty save.

Waaaay too complicated. My preference is to just leave them as is. If I wanted to make saving throws detailed, complex, and balanced, I'd be playing 3.x. I don't mind automatic half damage for high-level PCs, and I don't mind when PCs die as a result of a nasty save.

Simplicity. The benefit is that it's easy. The drawback is that it's less detailed.

;)

[Hakwood]

Dungeon Module HW 1: The Haunted Mill

The first module in the "Hakwood" series. ;)

As you can see from the map on my blog, there are four levels to the mill: 1-3 and the Cap.

I'd like to have a filthy, dusty, mouldy cellar as well, which I'll add in later. But for now, I'd like to detail the mapped levels.

The PCs will be given a map of the mill (but not the cellar). It will be both a 'prop' (i.e. on parchment, with tea-stained edges ;) ) and a working map. Obviously it will not have all the DM info--which doors are locked, where the monsters are, what the puzzles are, etc.

Help me think up some cool puzzles! Some "push this block, get this key, open this area" kind of thing. No riddles, mind you.

I want undead here too. And ghosts of some sort.

Hakwood

[Geron Raveneye]

I don't have any of the Gazetteers (ARGH--how do you spell that **()@#$# word?). For now, I'm restricting myself to the RC core book, the Creature Catalog, and the AD&D 1e Players Handbook (for the Illusionist spells only). At some point, however, I fully intend to go a huntin' on eBay . . . ;)

Well, as far as I saw, most of the spells in that list from the Gazetteer appear in the Rules Cyclopedia as well. If you plan to search around for Gazetteers on ebay or elsewhere in the future, I have a suggestion for you: I got me a few pdfs of the old Gazetteers for convenience (and they are cheap ;) ), so I could extract those few pages with the modified spell list for elves and the spell descriptions and send them to you via email. :)

Your link works fine, by the way. And I remember that adventure you culled the mill from. "The Murder of Maury Miller", a really nice low-level adventure. Heh, was great fun running it with some of my players back then. :cool:

[loseth]

Waaaay too complicated. My preference is to just leave them as is. If I wanted to make saving throws detailed, complex, and balanced, I'd be playing 3.x. I don't mind automatic half damage for high-level PCs, and I don't mind when PCs die as a result of a nasty save.

Simplicity. The benefit is that it's easy. The drawback is that it's less detailed.

;)

:confused: I use the system I posted above because it's simpler than the default RC system + DM modifiers.

[Hakwood]

:confused: I use the system I posted above because it's simpler than the default RC system + DM modifiers.

I guess it's just a matter of preference. I think we're getting into one of the charms of old school D&D: there is a fairly simple system that invites DMs to modify, tinker, add and subtract as they see fit. I'm comfortable with the saving throws as they are, but if a person uses their own system, as you've posted, that works fine too.

Some people call this a "bug" of the game, or call the game (sigh), "broken." But I've always liked how flexible the older RPGs were/are. Newer games are so tightly written, intricately detailed, and mathematically balanced, that there is much less for a creative DM to do. ;)

At any rate, I appreciate your post, Loseth. I hope I didn't come across as dismissive or critical of your ideas. If I did, I apologize. :( I just like all the feedback and points of view we're getting here.

Game on! ;)

[Hakwood]

UPDATE

I've got a spiral-bound notebook that I've titled, "The Game." In this book I'm keeping all the notes and scribblings I'm accumulating as I go through Rules Cyclopedia.

I found it very helpful to make a list of all the mechanics the game uses, and sort the list by type. I thought I'd post it here, just in case anyone is interested.

MECHANICS (by type)

1d6, fixed result
Open stuck door
Dwarven/Elven detection
Surprise
Find secret doors
Listening

1d6, roll high
Initiative

2d6, roll high
Turn undead
Monster/NPC reaction
Hiring retainers

2d6, roll low
Morale

3d6, roll high
Ability scores
Starting gold (x10 gp)

1d20, roll high
Saving throw
Attack roll

1d20, roll low
Skill check
Ability check

d%
Thief abilities
Halfling woodland abilities
Evasion

Variable dice, roll high
Damage rolls (by weapon)
Hit point rolls per level (by class)


I've probably missed something, but these seem to be the basics. Some folks see a list like this and say, "Oh, man! All those mechanics! I'm so glad I play 3.5! Just 1d20 high for everything!" Heh heh. Anyone who's ever tried to DM 3.5 knows that the system is extremely complex in spite of the (relatively) unified mechanic. And, in fact, there are many things in 3.5 that aren't "1d20 roll high", such as arcane spell failure, damage dice, d% to stabilize, etc.

At any rate, I'm finding that I really *like* the varied mechanics of Rules Cyclopedia. Not for any logical reason, but because it's -- uh -- cool. Ah, I don't know. I'm 35 and a grognard. I started playing D&D in 1980. Whaddayawant from me? ;)

Time to go to bed. ;)

Hakwood

[Breakdaddy]

Hakwood, is there a link on your blog for a PDF version of your homebrewed character sheet for RC? I would like a high quality PDF for my own use.

[Wart]

Hakwood: the reason that you and some others might be having trouble getting to your blog is that your IP address is blacklisted.

I believe Blogspot have a policy of blocking users who come from blacklisted IP addresses to stop spammers. Fine in theory, but many people (such as myself) are assigned dynamic IP addresses by ISPs - this means we have a different IP every time we connect to the internet, from the IPs allocated to our ISP. This means that sometimes people get blacklisted purely because someone else who subscribes to their ISP happens to be a spammer. If you fully disconnect and reconnect to the internet you should be able to get to blogspot.

[Hakwood]

Hakwood, is there a link on your blog for a PDF version of your homebrewed character sheet for RC? I would like a high quality PDF for my own use.

If told you that I don't know how to make a PDF file, would you promise not to laugh at me?

And if I told you that I'll gladly make you a PDF file of the character sheet if you only tell me how, would you tell me?

[Theophage]

5. At 0 hit points, a character falls unconscious. Each round they must make a Constitution check. If they succeed, they stabilize. If they fail, they lose an additional 1 hit point. Death is at -10 hit points.


It seems odd to me that different characters with different amounts of hit points and different constitution scores would all die at -10 HP. All going unconscious at 0 makes sense since when they reach zero is different for each, but it seems to me that if one character is healthier than another, he should take longer to die one he reached unconsciousness and vice versa. Perhaps death occurs at -(CON) ? Of course, everbody at -10 is simpler, and the CON checks each round does make higher CON characters last longer...

Anyway, just a thought. BTW this has to be my favorite thread here (and one of the few that I post to).

<edit>

Ooh! How about making the next character a halfling who is a wannabe swashbuckler and ladies man? He left the Shires because he just knows he is destined for greater things...

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Hak—I think your listing of die mechanics is a useful exercise and interesting to boot.

Irrelevant rambling: when I required the ’81 Basic D&D rules a few years ago, I was struck by how much was accomplished by d6. And I liked it. This is in sharp contrast to how I viewed it at the time: I was much more of an AD&D gamer in the G.O.D., which doesn’t use d6 as much (since it has higher Hit Dice and weapon damages and so forth) and using lots of different dice seemed cooler (on the theory that: dice are cool; many dice are cooler).

There’s a part of me that thinks it might be neat to eliminate the other dice and work it all on a d6 now. I think this might legitimately be viewed as devolution, since OD&D was even more d6-oriented than B/X D&D. But I’m not suggesting that you do that, since that’s a radical change. I think. Although your list suggests that it may not be as much work as that, since d20’s map fairly easily onto 3d6.

Okay, I’m rambling.

[Hakwood]

It seems odd to me that different characters with different amounts of hit points and different constitution scores would all die at -10 HP. All going unconscious at 0 makes sense since when they reach zero is different for each, but it seems to me that if one character is healthier than another, he should take longer to die one he reached unconsciousness and vice versa. Perhaps death occurs at -(CON) ?

Done. This is, if I may say so, a superb idea. I'll update the blog. ;)

[Aaron Smith]

[B]

Help me think up some cool puzzles! Some "push this block, get this key, open this area" kind of thing. No riddles, mind you.

I want undead here too. And ghosts of some sort.

Hakwood

With all due respect for your epic level quest that you've begun, and no offense intended towards your game of choice... WHY are you doing puzzles?! I know they're 'a classic' and I know 'they're old school'... but they are the single most fustrating experience bar NONE that I have ever had. Even with riddles, I can at least tell the GM, "Look, it's been 30min, can our wizard roll her intelligence and solve this thing please?" But sequence keys to progress? I can't stand those things!

If most of your group is puzzle solvers, or folks who like to game the game, then I can't say this is a bad idea. For those folks, it can be a lot of fun to spend the 20-30min puzzling out the answer. Speaking as someone who HATES brain puzzlers and riddles, a session like this would be mind numbingly boring.

If you're looking to emulate the feel of 'solving riddles and puzzles', but keep the game flowing quickly, you might be served to reduce it to a quick check and then make it flashy and cinimatic in description. Allow the PC's to be cool with your description. But in my experience, puzzles and riddles both reduce the game to a 30-40min pause followed by one die roll and the Gm explaining his plot. Because if he doesn't the game stops. So you're going to be slowing the game down, killing pacing, and reducing player enjoyment for... what reason?

[Hakwood]

With all due respect for your epic level quest that you've begun, and no offense intended towards your game of choice... WHY are you doing puzzles?! I know they're 'a classic' and I know 'they're old school'... but they are the single most fustrating experience bar NONE that I have ever had. Even with riddles, I can at least tell the GM, "Look, it's been 30min, can our wizard roll her intelligence and solve this thing please?" But sequence keys to progress? I can't stand those things! . . . in my experience, puzzles and riddles both reduce the game to a 30-40min pause followed by one die roll and the Gm explaining his plot. Because if he doesn't the game stops. So you're going to be slowing the game down, killing pacing, and reducing player enjoyment for... what reason?

I see what you mean, Aaron. Hmmm. First, I should clarify what I mean by "puzzle." I *don't* mean something like, "You see a complicated math problem. You must solve it to continue." :) I suppose when I say "puzzle" I mean, "A task that must be completed for the game to progress" or "Something the characters have to accomplish using their wits."

I don't want the game to be simply, "Enter mill. Kill monsters. Take their stuff." Now of course, killing monsters and taking their stuff is definitely old school :) but it isn't *all* there is to old school.

I don't know, maybe the word "puzzle" is bothering you; maybe I need a different word. But I want a challenge for the players to face, some obstacle to overcome, something that must be accomplished using their minds, not their swords. And something that won't get resolved by a mere dice roll.

Hakwood

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Perhaps the problem Aaron is identifying is the one wherein the PC’s must solve the…uh..conundrum in order to progress, but they are unable to. For instance; they never find the third part of the key to assemble or the second part of the map or missed the secret door. This places the game into a situation in which the DM either railroads the thing to progression (thus making the puzzle pointless in the first place) or refuses to allow the game to progress (which isn’t much fun for anybody).

These may not be the kinds of puzzles you are thinking about, but it’s a situation worth thinking through. I’ve had my share of this problem and, like Aaaron, really grew to hate this aspect of the old-school (I’m recalling so great unpleasantness with “The Ghost Tower of Inverness” and that damn key). Of course, a nice, long-term puzzle which is not time-sensitive is another matter. That is, whenever the PC’s work out the conundrum, they get some kind of goodie (physical or narrative), but they don’t suffer for not working it out.

[Hakwood]

BTW this has to be my favorite thread here (and one of the few that I post to).

Cool!


Ooh! How about making the next character a halfling who is a wannabe swashbuckler and ladies man? He left the Shires because he just knows he is destined for greater things...

You know, I *was* going to make the party an Elf, Dwarf, Cleric (human) and Thief (human), but you just gave me an idea. Let's do it this way:

(Elf) Fighter/Druid--female
Human (Cleric)--female
(Dwarf) Fighter--male
(Halfling) Fighter--male

note: the "official" class name is in (parentheses); the fuller description either precedes or follows it.

This way I have *all four races*, which is cool. You can't beat a dwarf, an elf, a human, and a halfling for old school goodness. Especially if the two women (elf and human) are hot babes with bare midriffs. :p

One problem I originally had was that the above mix leaves us with no thief, and no "open locks" ability. But that's a minor issue at best. Where there are locks, there are keys, or at least ways to break down the door . . .

Hakwood

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Negative CON for death is the way we always played it.

If you really want some sort of bonus/penalty system for mages casting spells, the simplest approach would be to take the mages level and compare to the victim's level. If the level difference is in favor of the victim, they get a bous to their saving throw. If the mage overshadows the victim, then the victim gets a penalty. Granted you can wind up with some severe penalties/bonuses this way, but it's a simple rule of thumb. At higher levels, maybe the level of the spell has an influence, but that's starting to get more complicated.

For puzzles... you could always look at some of the conventions from some computer games. Things like requiring a party member or two to pull some lever while a 3rd runs across the narrow ramp that's extended and can then trigger the full bridge for others to cross. Then there's some of the old Doom style stuff where you need to retrieve the specific object in order to be able to pass. For the fantasy game, it's essentially the same thing. Just make the key look like something else. Like a specially shaped figurine that has to be put in place and then the command word spoken. Heck you could even rip off a couple of ideas from National Treasure, or Indiana Jones style bits.

Just make sure that if they don't do it the "special" way, they can still improvise a solution of some sort. They're Adventurers and by the gods, _nothing_ should keep them from looting that tomb!

[izlear]

One option since you are going with pregens would be to make extra characters for the number of players. This lets the players have plenty to pick from. Make 6 in stead of 4 you know just to have enough for plenty of options.

A question for you Hack. Are you going to make up a "Players guide" for your game for the players to have for quick refference? a small book to just explain the houserules and show how they work with the RC book.
If so I would like to get a copy of that too if possible.\


Great thread, I recently got hold of Keep on the border land and I think I am going to run it in all its old school glory (but possibly with C&C) I can't wait.

Thanks agian.

[izlear]

One more comment I would like to make.

An Idea I have for magic (in any D&D game) is to allow magick users the ability to use petty magic. By petty magic I mean magic that would be tossed around easily in a "School" of magic.
Though this is not magic in context I would say it would be much like the sound Obi Wan Kenobi made to distract the storm Troopers in the tracter beam room (A New Hope)
Trickster magic.
my point is I have been toying in allowing magic users to freely use this magic above and beyond their prepared spells (this would be more along the lines of Arcane magic users)
of course there would have to be a firm deffinition of what "Petty Magic" is and isn't and I supose there could be some "This isn't Old school" sentament but I always felt restricted by the D&D magic system.

I think you have already helped it by giving the 4 starting spells, but there might be more that could be done.

just an idea

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Great thread, I recently got hold of Keep on the border land and I think I am going to run it in all its old school glory (but possibly with C&C) I can't wait.

Hey Izlear, if you have never run the Keep before, you might be interested in this thread ( http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=225890) discussing the module. Somewhere around p.3 I say some terribly interesting things about it. ;)

[Hakwood]

For puzzles... you could always look at some of the conventions from some computer games. Things like requiring a party member or two to pull some lever while a 3rd runs across the narrow ramp that's extended and can then trigger the full bridge for others to cross. Then there's some of the old Doom style stuff where you need to retrieve the specific object in order to be able to pass. For the fantasy game, it's essentially the same thing. Just make the key look like something else. Like a specially shaped figurine that has to be put in place and then the command word spoken. Heck you could even rip off a couple of ideas from National Treasure, or Indiana Jones style bits.

Now THAT'S the shit I'm talkin' 'bout! Yep. Something they have to DO that requires their WITS in order for the game to unfold. However, I like the idea of multiple solutions to prevent a nasty bump in the road.

So, they enter the mill. Now what? I want skeletons in peasant's clothes, working steadily in the mill, ignoring the PCs. Until . . .

[The Venomous Pao]

So, they enter the mill. Now what? I want skeletons in peasant's clothes, working steadily in the mill, ignoring the PCs. Until . . .

Until one of the characters is injured by one of the giant rats that attacks the party. That's when the skeletons "smell" blood - the way to end their curse. Or something else all Pirates of the Caribbean" and stuff. :)


Edited to say "Great thread, by the way." I've been following along all lurker-like. 'Cos I can :)

[Hakwood]

Until one of the characters is injured by one of the giant rats that attacks the party. That's when the skeletons "smell" blood - the way to end their curse. Or something else all Pirates of the Caribbean" and stuff. :)


Edited to say "Great thread, by the way." I've been following along all lurker-like. 'Cos I can :)


Sweet! Guess what? I'm using your idea. They get attacked by giant rats. When the rats bite, they bleed -- then the skeletons attack.

Man oh man, I gotta write this down.

ALSO--I had an inspiration tonite while reading Dr. Suess to my 3-year-old. It concerns the nature of fear and the role I want fear to play in this game. Although this won't be a "horror" (i.e. Ravenloft) type of adventure, I definitely want some spooky stuff.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. We're reading that timeless classic "Wocket in my Pocket" and I come across the picture of the Vug under the rug . . . (see my blog--damn, I hope the link works).

And it occurs to me: that which we can't see can be scarier than that which we do. Stephen King once said that too many horror writers use this as a cop-out for not attempting horrific description, and I agree with him. There's only so many times you can say, "The thing on the couch is so horrifying you cannot begin to describe it!" On the other hand, that scary thing underneath the mill, the thing that the goblins are all afraid off, the thing that, legend has it, has been summoned here from another plane . . .

What the hell IS that thing?

IDEA: Goblins in the mill (a goblin shaman is animating the skeletons; the giant rats are the goblins' pets). A goblin cult, to be exact. Worshipping The Thing Under the Mill. Which the PCs -- get this -- will NEVER SEE. Their job is to "Close the Gate". Or something.

Hakwood

EDIT: I'm changing the name of the adventure.

Dungeon Module HW 1: The Haunted Mill

is now . . .

Dungeon Module HW1: The Thing Under the Mill

[Philomousos]

EDIT: I'm changing the name of the adventure.

Dungeon Module HW 1: The Haunted Mill

is now . . .

Dungeon Module HW1: The Thing Under the Mill

Quite "utilitarian" titles.

OK - I got nothin'. :) I'm really enjoying this thread, though. When I go home for Christmas, I'm dragging the RC out of storage.

[The Venomous Pao]

Sweet! Guess what? I'm using your idea. They get attacked by giant rats. When the rats bite, they bleed -- then the skeletons attack.

Man oh man, I gotta write this down.

Huzzah! I contributed! Yay me! :)


IDEA: Goblins in the mill (a goblin shaman is animating the skeletons; the giant rats are the goblins' pets). A goblin cult, to be exact. Worshipping The Thing Under the Mill. Which the PCs -- get this -- will NEVER SEE. Their job is to "Close the Gate". Or something.

Oh yeah. I dig it. I totally dig it.

Just for grins, consider throwing a Thoul at them. I always liked Thouls and they're near the top of the "old school monster list" for me. Them and living statues - love that picture in Moldvay Basic*. I remember being very disappointed that neither were in AD&D.

And if you need a better rationale for the Thouls' existence, perhaps the Thing Under The Mill had a <strike>hand</strike> tentacle in their origin...


* Or was that a picture of something else? A kobold, perhaps? I'm not at home tonight so I can't just grab the book and look. Oh well. I remember a picture on the same page that I associate with living statues. So that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[Hakwood]

Quite "utilitarian" titles.


The Keep on the Borderlands
Isle of Dread
Tomb of Horrors
White Plume Mountain
The Village of Hommlet
Descent into the Depths of the Earth

. . . utilitarian is old school, baby! ;) :D

(I'm curious to see just how many times we can use the term "old school" in this thread. :D )

[Harrek]

* Or was that a picture of something else? A kobold, perhaps? I'm not at home tonight so I can't just grab the book and look. Oh well. I remember a picture on the same page that I associate with living statues. So that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

You are in fact thinking of the Erol Otus kobold:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/Harrek/kobold.jpg

[Harrek]

So - you're talking about an old mill, and you say you want environmental "puzzles." The obvious thing to focus on is the machinery of the mill itself. Every time the wind blows, the old sails should flap, and the gears spring to life with squeaks and groans. Don't forget the possibility for industrial accidents (with adventurers around, they are usually not-so-accidental).

[Hakwood]

So - you're talking about an old mill, and you say you want environmental "puzzles." The obvious thing to focus on is the machinery of the mill itself. Every time the wind blows, the old sails should flap, and the gears spring to life with squeaks and groans. Don't forget the possibility for industrial accidents (with adventurers around, they are usually not-so-accidental).

Nice. And the goblins are going to somehow use the mechanism to "open the portal" or whaddever to let out the thing beneath the mill. I envision a dank, musty cellar, with a door in the floor. THAT door leads to a lower level, little more than a filthy hole in the earth, with grotesque spiders with bulging sacs and 14 legs (thank you, Stephen King!). In the floor of THIS tiny chamber is a massive iron door, bolted shut and covered with countless runes and wards. Sealing IN whatever lies beneath . . .

And those goblins want to open it up . . .

Hakwood

[Breakdaddy]

If told you that I don't know how to make a PDF file, would you promise not to laugh at me?

And if I told you that I'll gladly make you a PDF file of the character sheet if you only tell me how, would you tell me?

Hey, no worries. While there are multiple ways to make a PDF file, the way I do it is with Adobe Acrobat (Full version, reader wont do this). I drag and drop or scan in a high quality image to the software and save it as a PDF. If you have a higher resolution JPG I will make a PDF for you if you don't have acrobat. There are other ways to do it, but I've never done it except through acrobat.

[shirosan]

In the floor of THIS tiny chamber is a massive iron door, bolted shut and covered with countless runes and wards. Sealing IN whatever lies beneath . . .

I'm envisioning that you could bring the campaign full-circle once the PCs get to a high enough level by having them return to the Old Mill to finally confront the Thing. :D

Oh, also, for this adventure you could unify the goblins and the "undead" ideas by having a goblin priest who knows Raise Dead and is making the skeletons--little goblin skeletons, culled from dead members of the tribe. Cute! And deadly!

(Great thread, BTW!)

[tetsujin28]

I hate puzzles. Especially in computer games. That's when I head to the 'net, find all the cheats, and avoid them.

[MusedFable]

I hate puzzles. Especially in computer games. That's when I head to the 'net, find all the cheats, and avoid them.
I agree, nothing worse than an arbitrary bottleneck to gameplay.

"You can go back to the fun gameplay after you play 20 questions with a doorknob":mad:

[Harrek]

I hate puzzles. Especially in computer games. That's when I head to the 'net, find all the cheats, and avoid them.

Agreed, though I think he may really be looking for something more like environmental challenges. These are often puzzles in video games - the annoying part being they only have one solution coded in. The advantage of PnP is you can allow the PCs to come up with whatever crazy solution sounds plausible (and fun!).

For example, in a Zelda game, often you can see some treasure or the like on a ledge you can't quite reach yet. At some point later you get a gizmo that lets you climb walls, or Tarzan-swing, or whatever, and the problem is solved - but usually only one trick will work for any particular challenge.

In a D&D game, you don't have to be so strict in interpreting solutions. Present a problem and a bunch of resources, and see what the players do with it. If it is cool, then they succeed. Whatever you do, don't write your puzzles so they only have one right solution.

[shirosan]

In a D&D game, you don't have to be so strict in interpreting solutions. Present a problem and a bunch of resources, and see what the players do with it. If it is cool, then they succeed. Whatever you do, don't write your puzzles so they only have one right solution.

Right. I think he has more in mind something like the classic scenario where one or more mysterious objects are laid out before the party and the PCs must decide what to do about it.

Or, since a picture's worth a thousand words, something like this wonderfully evocative old Dragon magazine cover:

http://www.larryelmore.com/images/art/color/lg_co_110.jpg

[The Venomous Pao]

You are in fact thinking of the Erol Otus kobold:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/Harrek/kobold.jpg

That's the one. Somehow my 12-year-old mind saw that on the page and connected it with the living statues, not with the kobolds. And far be it from a 35-year-old mind to question what the earlier version deduced :)

Thanks for scanning that puppy in.

Oh, and even though it's not a living statue, I still like 'em. And thouls, of course. Don't forget the Thouls...

[Hakwood]

DAY 17: Thursday, December 5, 2005

Today I find myself thinking, "Holy crap! 101 days is a long frickin' time!"

Then I find myself thinking, "Will I last 84 more days? How will I survive without some horror gaming? Some sci-fi? Some Paranoia XP? Some . . . "

Then I remind myself, "That's the whole point of doing this, ya twit. Because right about now, day 17 or so, my attention starts wandering and I start putting stuff on hold and digging out another game. And nothing ever gets accomplished. Let's stay the course, doofus, and at the end of 101 days we'll have something special."

Then I say, "Okay."

Then I stop talking to myself.

***

As some of you have pointed out, puzzles blow. But as some of you have also pointed out, it's not really "puzzles" I want so much as environmental challenges. The gold chalice up on the ledge--how to get it down? Every time we step on this block, the door at the far end of the room opens. How can we all get through?

Etc.

That picture from DRAGON beautifully illustrates this idea. Without challenges (other than combat), the game becomes a mindless hack n' slash. :eek: Which is fine, if you want a mindless hack n' slash. ;) But I don't. :D

Minor point: I'm going to use the Druid spell list from the AD&D 1e Players Handbook instead of the RC core book for my Elf class. More spells there and this way it keeps it consistent with the Illusionist spells the Elf can also pick from. So, the rule is:

Magic-users and clerics choose their spells from the RC D&D spell lists as usual.
Elf characters choose their spells from the Druid and Illusionist lists in the AD&D 1e Players Handbook.

****
I'm excited about the weekend coming up and I'm going to set some goals for myself. By the end of Sunday

1. I will have finished all four pregen characters and posted their sheets to the blog. With character pics!

2. I will have made notes on the entire combat chapter for my reference.

3. I will have made notes on "other rules I need to know off the cuff", such as distance parties can travel in a day overland, etc.

4. I will have done some scribbling about the contents of the mill itself.

****
Took an inventory yesterday. At this point it seems that my "Rules Cyclopedia D&D" collection is the following:
1. RC D&D core book (duh)
2. Creature Collection
3. AD&D 1e Players Handbook (for the Druid/Illusionist spell lists)
4. AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide (this book is too wonderful not to use as a reference text)
5. AD&D 1e Monster Manual 1 and 2 (isn't it obvious why?)
6. AD&D 1e Fiend Folio (my favorite monster book of all time)
7. AD&D 1e Legends & Lore (I'm going to reference this for gods in my world)
8. AD&D 2e boxed set: Karameikos: Kingdom of Adventure (core geographical setting)
9. AD&D 2e boxed set: Ravenloft (one day, long after the 101 days . . . )
10. AD&D 2e boxed set: Planescape (ditto).

Whew!

Hakwood

[izlear]

DAY 17: Thursday, December 5, 2005




Minor point: I'm going to use the Druid spell list from the AD&D 1e Players Handbook instead of the RC core book for my Elf class. More spells there and this way it keeps it consistent with the Illusionist spells the Elf can also pick from. So, the rule is:

Magic-users and clerics choose their spells from the RC D&D spell lists as usual.
Elf characters choose their spells from the Druid and Illusionist lists in the AD&D 1e Players Handbook.



Hakwood

I like your idea about Elf Spells, as I think it really works, but have you thought about making the characters choose from the Druid list or the ilusioninst list. This could very well indicate "Different types of Elfs. I mean wood elves may very well have druid woodsy/nature magic. But high elves may speaciallise in much more illusion magic. Its all in how the Elf in question was raised and in what kind of invironment he learned to use his natural ability.

[Hakwood]

I like your idea about Elf Spells, as I think it really works, but have you thought about making the characters choose from the Druid list or the ilusioninst list. This could very well indicate "Different types of Elfs. I mean wood elves may very well have druid woodsy/nature magic. But high elves may speaciallise in much more illusion magic. Its all in how the Elf in question was raised and in what kind of invironment he learned to use his natural ability.


It would be incredibly easy to create *two* Elf classes: the Fighter/Druid and the Fighter/Illusionist. Both would have unique spell lists from the Magic-User (who is human).

Hmmmmmm . . . I must ponder this idea. But I like it a lot, Izlear.

Hakwood

[TheMouse]

It would be incredibly easy to create *two* Elf classes: the Fighter/Druid and the Fighter/Illusionist. Both would have unique spell lists from the Magic-User (who is human).

I like that very much.

[GM Victory]

Nice. And the goblins are going to somehow use the mechanism to "open the portal" or whaddever to let out the thing beneath the mill. I envision a dank, musty cellar, with a door in the floor. THAT door leads to a lower level, little more than a filthy hole in the earth, with grotesque spiders with bulging sacs and 14 legs (thank you, Stephen King!). In the floor of THIS tiny chamber is a massive iron door, bolted shut and covered with countless runes and wards. Sealing IN whatever lies beneath . . .

And those goblins want to open it up . . .

Hakwood

The mill hasn't been used in years. Recently, the villagers have come to believe that the mill is haunted too and report sighting the dead walking about it at night. They tell tales of deep booms coming from within (the goblin shaman trying to bash the runed door open).

Some of the excavation was helped by a crude earth removal system using the turning of the mill. Sometimes the goblins would use it for a quick ride topside by hanging on to the rope and a foot in the bucket.

[Theophage]

Damn I wish I was playing in this game!

One problem I originally had was that the above mix leaves us with no thief, and no "open locks" ability. But that's a minor issue at best. Where there are locks, there are keys, or at least ways to break down the door . . .

I thought OD&D Halflings were essentially fighter/theives? But as you said, no big loss.

It would be incredibly easy to create *two* Elf classes: the Fighter/Druid and the Fighter/Illusionist. Both would have unique spell lists from the Magic-User (who is human).

And very easy to justify:

fighter/illusionist = high elf

fighter/druid = wood elf

[Hakwood]

DAY 18: Friday, December 9, 2005

Not a lot to report today; in a previous post I outlined some goals for this weekend, so it's this weekend that's going to be packed. I'm hoping to give an update or two on Saturday/Sunday and a HUGE post Sunday night (crosses fingers).

A few comments:

Damn I wish I was playing in this game!

I thought OD&D Halflings were essentially fighter/theives?

That's what I thought initially, but if you look at their abilities, they're closer to fighters. Any armor or weapon (as long as it isn't too big) and no real thieving abilities except their "hide in the woods" ability. Needless to say, it should be easy to whip up a Halfling Fighter/Thief or even a straight Halfling Thief. But other than my tinkering with the Elf, I'm going to avoid changing classes at this stage.


And very easy to justify:

fighter/illusionist = high elf

fighter/druid = wood elf

Yep, that's exactly what I'm doing. I love the idea! The High Elf; snobby, aloof, wearing beautiful clothing and shining chainmail, living in beautiful manors that they maintain immaculately in spite of the devastation all around them (remember, my setting is post-plague). Masters of illusion. The Wood Elf; rustic, earthy, wearing leather armor and camouflage [looks wrong, but I checked the spelling ;) ] made of twisted branches of leaves, faces smeared with mud. Masters of the Druidic Way, a oneness with nature that baffles and unnerves all other intelligent beings--including their aloof illusionist cousins.

The mill hasn't been used in years. Recently, the villagers have come to believe that the mill is haunted too and report sighting the dead walking about it at night. They tell tales of deep booms coming from within (the goblin shaman trying to bash the runed door open).

Some of the excavation was helped by a crude earth removal system using the turning of the mill. Sometimes the goblins would use it for a quick ride topside by hanging on to the rope and a foot in the bucket.

[Scribble scribble] I will be using this word-for-word. With your kind permission. :)

Eeeeeeeeekkkk! I'm pumped! ;)

Hakwood

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

I thought OD&D Halflings were essentially fighter/theives? But as you said, no big loss.

RC Halflings are actually a bit more like Rangers than Thieves: move silently, good fighters, bonuses vs. big’uns, bonus with missiles. I never really liked Halflings in AD&D because they were so canted towards thieves and I didn’t like thieves (I know it’s from The Hobbit. Don’t care). But I kind of like RC Halflings. I think the Jeff Dee picture in the Expert rules of the Hulling Sheriff standing tall against the big’un helped: they come across less as Hobbits and more as Little Folk out to kick ass.

Their biggest drawback is that they officially stop advancing at 7th or 8th level ( I forget which), making them the weeniest of demi-humans. But if you toss out level limits, they are pretty decent.

[Hakwood]

Their biggest drawback is that they officially stop advancing at 7th or 8th level ( I forget which), making them the weeniest of demi-humans. But if you toss out level limits, they are pretty decent.

And I fully intend to. I love that table in the Appendix sections that stats out demihumans right up to level 36. Woot! :)

[GM Victory]

DAY 18: Friday, December 6, 2005
[Scribble scribble] I will be using this word-for-word. With your kind permission. :)

Eeeeeeeeekkkk! I'm pumped! ;)

Hakwood

Absolutely.

GMV loooves Mystara, the longest campaign I've ever run was there.

[artikyulet]

Beggin' yer pardon, Hakwood, but since when is Friday the 6th of December? Unless we're separated by a couple of international datelines, today's the 9th, right?

That aside, this is a fantastic thread. I don't even like D&D and I still can't quit reading. Best of luck. You're doing a great job.

[Hakwood]

Beggin' yer pardon, Hakwood, but since when is Friday the 6th of December? Unless we're separated by a couple of international datelines, today's the 9th, right?

That aside, this is a fantastic thread. I don't even like D&D and I still can't quit reading. Best of luck. You're doing a great job.

[Blush] Date changed. ;) And thanks for the kind words.

Hakwood

[Miles R.]

Harwood,
First off i wanted to say great thread!!One of the best ive read since i joined the forum:cool: Second,what are your thoughts on the many character classes publised in the many earlier dragon magazines?Are you planning on using any of them or sticking to the ones listed in the RC?

[Nahualt]

Regarding the Saving throws vs magic penalties, the way I used to do it back then was that for every4 levels/or hit dice the saving throws had a -1 penalty. So if a Wizard level 8 cast a spell,his opponets had to roll Vs magic at -2, same with creatures: a 4HD medusa would impose a -1 to the saving throws. This would make magic more dangeorous but will also represent the increase in power.

[Hakwood]

Harwood,
First off i wanted to say great thread!!One of the best ive read since i joined the forum:cool: Second,what are your thoughts on the many character classes publised in the many earlier dragon magazines?Are you planning on using any of them or sticking to the ones listed in the RC?

Sticking to the ones in the RC for now. The only changes I've made to those is splitting up the Elf into an Elf Fighter/Druid and an Elf Fighter/Illusionist. Eventualyl, of course, I'll mix and match (i.e. the standard Halfling, who is basically a Halfling Fighter, can be tweaked to become a Halfling Thief, etc.).

However, once I get really comfortable with the game, I'm going to get my hands on everything I can. My long-range plans include an eBay buying orgy to get all the Gazetteers . . . ;)

[Hakwood]

DAY 19: Saturday, December 10, 2005

As usual, I've overextended myself a bit. This weekend won't bring nearly as much achievement as I had at first hoped. That's what it's like when you have a three year old and you have parents coming in from out of town soon for Christmas.

Nevertheless . . .

I've decided on a few more things:

1. My campaign setting will officially be called "The Waste Lands". The subtitle will be "A campaign setting suggested by Mystara and the Kingdom of Karameikos." The Kingdom of Karameikos boxed set for AD&D 2e has been a wonderful resource for ideas and inspiration. One of my tasks is to write up a brief (1-2 page at most) intro to the setting for my players. Sort of a "Welcome to the Waste Lands" kind of thing.

2. There will be FIVE groups of antagonists in this adventure: (1) Goblins, both mooks and their sinister shaman. (2) Giant rats, controlled by the goblins. (3) Grimlocks, who have made an uneasy alliance with the goblins. They live in the filthy, dank cellar beneath the mill and eagerly await the release of the Thing Beneath the Mill. (4) A single redcap--which is, for those of you who don't know, an evil brownie. What’s his role? Don’t know yet. But I must have this lurking bastard in there somewhere. (5) The Thing Beneath the Mill, which is really more of a plot device than a true antagonist, because the PCs will never see it, and, heaven help them, if they actually encounter it, it will annihilate them. I envision the Thing as sort of a Great Old One (a la Lovecraftian mythos) but I refuse to try to detail or describe it. That adds to the terror. See my previous comments on Dr. Suess' Vug under the Rug for my reasoning on this.

3. I bought three back-issues of Dungeon (all from 1999). Damn, those were the days. I mean, I like Dungeon now, but I *really* liked the black-and-white map era. Very clean lines, great for photocopying. Anyway, I've found a nice map for the (small) cellar/dungeon below the mill. Thus the maps are complete. No more than what I have! I want to keep it simple.

4. The module will NOT be called “The Thing Beneath the Mill”, because that gives too much information away. :mad: You can talk about the metagaming firewall all you want, but even experienced gamers will spend the entire time looking for the "Thing" if they know the module is called "The Thing Under the Mill." ;) I still don’t like the original name, “The Haunted Mill”. Instead, the module will be called “The Horrible Mill.” Nice. :D

**** For a glimpse of the evil brownie (redcap), the grimlocks, and the map of the cellar below the mill, see my blog. I know that some of you have had trouble linking to the blog from this page; if that's the case, I encourage you to just try going to the blog directly through your browser. It's worth it (if I do say so myself, heh heh :D ).

Hakwood

[Xolis]

Hakwood,

Great thread! Very inspiring!

Are you planning to use miniatures in your game?

[Philomousos]

DAY 19: Saturday, December 10, 2005

As usual, I've overextended myself a bit. This weekend won't bring nearly as much achievement as I had at first hoped. That's what it's like when you have a three year old and you have parents coming in from out of town soon for Christmas.

Nevertheless . . .

I've decided on a few more things:

1. My campaign setting will officially be called "The Waste Lands". The subtitle will be "A campaign setting suggested by Mystara and the Kingdom of Karameikos." The Kingdom of Karameikos boxed set for AD&D 2e has been a wonderful resource for ideas and inspiration. One of my tasks is to write up a brief (1-2 page at most) intro to the setting for my players. Sort of a "Welcome to the Waste Lands" kind of thing.

2. There will be FIVE groups of antagonists in this adventure: (1) Goblins, both mooks and their sinister shaman. (2) Giant rats, controlled by the goblins. (3) Grimlocks, who have made an uneasy alliance with the goblins. They live in the filthy, dank cellar beneath the mill and eagerly await the release of the Thing Beneath the Mill. (4) A single redcap--which is, for those of you who don't know, an evil brownie. What’s his role? Don’t know yet. But I must have this lurking bastard in there somewhere. (5) The Thing Beneath the Mill, which is really more of a plot device than a true antagonist, because the PCs will never see it, and, heaven help them, if they actually encounter it, it will annihilate them. I envision the Thing as sort of a Great Old One (a la Lovecraftian mythos) but I refuse to try to detail or describe it. That adds to the terror. See my previous comments on Dr. Suess' Vug under the Rug for my reasoning on this.

3. I bought three back-issues of Dungeon (all from 1999). Damn, those were the days. I mean, I like Dungeon now, but I *really* liked the black-and-white map era. Very clean lines, great for photocopying. Anyway, I've found a nice map for the (small) cellar/dungeon below the mill. Thus the maps are complete. No more than what I have! I want to keep it simple.

4. The module will NOT be called “The Thing Beneath the Mill”, because that gives too much information away. :mad: You can talk about the metagaming firewall all you want, but even experienced gamers will spend the entire time looking for the "Thing" if they know the module is called "The Thing Under the Mill." ;) I still don’t like the original name, “The Haunted Mill”. Instead, the module will be called “The Horrible Mill.” Nice. :D

**** For a glimpse of the evil brownie (redcap), the grimlocks, and the map of the cellar below the mill, see my blog. I know that some of you have had trouble linking to the blog from this page; if that's the case, I encourage you to just try going to the blog directly through your browser. It's worth it (if I do say so myself, heh heh :D ).

Hakwood

You need to track down a copy of "Night's Dark Terror", one of the British D&D modules, ASAP if you don't have it already. It is an excellent, nay, EXCELLENT campaign module and quite possibly the best xD&D adventure ever written.

And it is set in Karameikos *and* it has a Cthulhoid horror in it. As well as a secret society, a lost city and just in general a metric f*ckton of cool stuff to do.

From what you've been saying, I think you'll really enjoy it. Also, its interpretation of Karameikos is very much one of isolated farmsteads and trading posts under constant siege from monsters, etc.

[Harrek]

You need to track down a copy of "Night's Dark Terror", one of the British D&D modules, ASAP if you don't have it already. It is an excellent, nay, EXCELLENT campaign module and quite possibly the best xD&D adventure ever written.

Agreed. I think Night's Dark Terror is the best module TSR ever produced, Basic or Advanced.

[Participant-Observer]

Agreed. I think Night's Dark Terror is the best module TSR ever produced, Basic or Advanced.

Personally, I think it's possibly the best fantasy scenario/ module ever, period (possible rivals being Griffin Island/ Mountain and Broken Covenant of Calebais).

[Hakwood]

UPDATE BEFORE BEDTIME

Well, it's 9:17 pm (Pacific Standard Time) and, as most parents of toddlers, I'm going to bed soon. Remembering those days of all-night gaming still makes me giggle with near-hysteria. But this is good; life moves on.

Prepare yourselves; I'm going to babble a bit. Stream-of-consciousness type stuff. I hope I don't come across as indulgent or pretentious; if I do, just pretend I'm being ironic.

This is a funny hobby we have, isn't it? I mean, of course, funny-strange, not funny-ha ha. I was sitting on the couch a few minutes ago when I was struck by some simple number-crunching. This experiment is 101 days. Of those 101 days, how many will be spent *actually playing* Rules Cyclopedia D&D? Probably three or four--if that. I'm deliberately designing the Horrible Mill module to be short and intense, because one of my problems in the past has been trying--constantly--to create mammoth "epic" style adventures in virtually every genre: pulp action, supers, fantasy, horror, space opera--you name it. I've been like that man in the Russian folk tale who was offered a deal by the devil: you have one day to walk as far as you want, and wherever you walk will become your land. On one condition: you must be back at your farmhouse by midnight.

Even if you've never heard the story you can guess the ending: the man gets greedy and walks an incredible distance in the sweltering sun, never even stopping to rest or take water. As midnight approaches, and he is still a ways from the farmhouse, he panics and begins to run. He dies of a heart attack just as he reaches his porch. The devil, naturally, is smiling in the rocking chair.

So no more of these huge adventures. I never finish them, dammit. Small bite-sized pieces.

But that means that of these 101 days, only a few will be spent actually *playing*. Meaning I have over ninety days of non-playing to do gaming stuff.

So what's the rush? Why am I starting to get stressed over all the "work" I have to "do" for RC D&D? Why am I not slowing down and enjoying myself?

This is the secret to life that Aristotle taught us centuries ago: moderation in all things. In my own life there are many things that matter: wife, daughter, religious faith, teaching career, writing aspirations, gaming . . . but everything in its proper time and place.

From now on I'm going to start pacing myself. Tomorrow is day 20 and I'm already starting to feel the dark edges of burnout brushing against my mind (yeah, I know there's about three metaphors in there, but I'm tired, so forgive me ;) ). Part of the reason is that I'm telling myself that I have a lot to do in very little time. The reverse is true. I have a lot of time in which to do, comparatively, very little. And what little there is will be (and has been) enjoyable. Fulfilling in its own right.

I've realized one secret to being a DM. This works for me, mind you; I'm not saying this applies to all of you. But I think I'm cut out to be a DM for one reason: I've learned that I love RPGs even if I never get a chance to run one or play in one. I love them anyway. I love the reading, the writing, the planning, the creativity, the world-building. What if I design a kick-ass campaign and no one wants to play in it? Well, then designing the campaign is rewarding and fulfilling for its own sake.

Starting tomorrow, then, I'm slowing down and enjoying this more. And to do that I'm going to give myself one very concrete rule: every day I can do ONE thing for RC D&D. Just one. Tomorrow I'm going to create a pregen character. Just one. And then I'm done for that day.

Monday I'll study the combat chapter. Then I'm done for that day.

And so on.

Moderation in all things. And as 2006 looms just around the corner, I'm going to take the necessary steps to cultivate a love for gaming that is focused, disciplined, yet spontaneous and creative. A love for gaming that is defined by both moderation and passion and unclouded by unreasonable expectations or endless "to do" lists. My gaming will then take its rightful place in my life, an important place, yet one that is, obviously, far lower on the list than family, faith, friendships, and career. (Dammit, screwed up the alliteration. Oh well. ;) ).

Yep, these past 19 days have been awesome. Truly awesome. And even as I feel tempted to pull the plug and pursue another game instead (that damned GM ADD that prompted the 101 days experiment to begin with) I just remind myself that I will stay the course. But tonight I learned that I must walk the course, not run it. One step at a time, not wild leaps.

For those few of you still reading [grin], let me close with the words of the great E. Gary Gygax, words that serve as a constant inspiration to me, so much so that they are proudly displayed in my office here at home:

Each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces.

Gary Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, 1978.

One thing I realized tonight is that the best way to build a jigsaw puzzle is to do it slowly and carefully, one piece at a time. One piece, if you will, per day.

Hakwood

[grubman]

Prepare yourselves; I'm going to babble a bit. Stream-of-consciousness type stuff. I hope I don't come across as indulgent or pretentious; if I do, just pretend I'm being ironic.


The thing I got the most out of my experiment was a lot of insight on myself. The work and playing was fun, and I did get the extensive groundwork for expereince with SW accomplished...but what I learned about myself was by far the most valuable.

Keep strong through the burnout, it'll pass :)

[Breakdaddy]

Agreed. I think Night's Dark Terror is the best module TSR ever produced, Basic or Advanced.

Absolutely. It doesn't hurt a bit that it was written by the same guys who brought us the ULTIMATE warhammer campaign, The Enemy Within.

[Ratix]

I've been like that man in the Russian folk tale who was offered a deal by the devil: you have one day to walk as far as you want, and wherever you walk will become your land. On one condition: you must be back at your farmhouse by midnight.

[snip]

So no more of these huge adventures. I never finish them, dammit. Small bite-sized pieces.
That sounds like me and stories I try to write. They almost always form as novel-length or more in my head, but in actuality I'm probably more suited to writing short stories. Nice to hear that you've realized this about yourself, you'll no doubt get more out of all this now.

I've realized one secret to being a DM. This works for me, mind you; I'm not saying this applies to all of you. But I think I'm cut out to be a DM for one reason: I've learned that I love RPGs even if I never get a chance to run one or play in one. I love them anyway. I love the reading, the writing, the planning, the creativity, the world-building. What if I design a kick-ass campaign and no one wants to play in it? Well, then designing the campaign is rewarding and fulfilling for its own sake.
Amen, man. I feel the same way, and for the longest time I thought of it as just being an armchair gamer. But there's a level to our hobby that can be enjoyed in the way you described without having to game weekly with a circle of friends for years at a time. Besides, if you love making adventures and worlds, you're more likely to have something to run in a pinch.

Starting tomorrow, then, I'm slowing down and enjoying this more. And to do that I'm going to give myself one very concrete rule: every day I can do ONE thing for RC D&D. Just one. Tomorrow I'm going to create a pregen character. Just one. And then I'm done for that day.

Monday I'll study the combat chapter. Then I'm done for that day.

And so on.
Good advice. When I've tried building worlds or adventures, I tried to do too much at once and sorta burnt out on them. It got to the point where I needed a break from it, and I just got used to not working on it... not cool. And as you say, we all have other things we could/should be doing.

[Colin Fredericks]

I had a monthly D&D game end recently. It was 3rd edition (and then 3.5), but set in the original D&D world, and with game alterations to make it more like original D&D. Fun times.

If you're looking for general antagonists for your post-plague world, consider one group or another of the Shadow Elves / Schattenalfen. Disease-spreading seems like it would be right up their alley, though I think the Shadow Elves would have to be pretty heavily mislead to do it. The Schattenalfen are bastards to begin with.

As for puzzles, when I have them in my games (http://www.valentgames.com/console.shtml) I often like to pull out actual physical puzzles: sometimes a 100-piece jigsaw, sometimes Jenga, sometimes stacking cups to do a Towers of Hanoi. A little time pressure for the former, or failure penalties for the latter ("Every time you screw up Towers of Hanoi, you lose 1d4 hit points from the trap"), can inject some tension into them. It's good for when you want the players, rather than their characters, to be the ones solving the puzzle. This doesn't always work, but it's better than trying to explain the rules to Double Fanucci (http://www.irondune.com/words/frobozzica/appc.html).

--Colin

[Hakwood]

DAY 20: Sunday, December 11, 2005

Well, I did what I set out to do today: one thing only. And what was that one thing, you ask? I made the "official" character sheet for one of the party of pregens that I'm going to give to my players.

You may recall from earlier ramblings that the party will consist of four:

Human Cleric
Dwarf Fighter
Elf Fighter/Druid
Halfling Fighter

Earlier in this thread I posted some stats for the Dwarf and the Elf, though I plan to change those for the final product. But today I officially completed the fancy-schmancy character sheet, with all stats, right down to gear, for Colby Dimblebottle, Halfling Fighter.

Check it out on my blog, and let me know what you think!

One thing I've learned over the years: if you want to run a game your players aren't familiar with, you MUST give them pregenerated characters. Personally, I *hate* character creation as a player unless I know the system.

But hand them a pregen, and say, "Let's play", and they'll play pretty much anything.

Hakwood

[Ratpick]

You know, based on the looks and style of the Rules Cyclopedia halfling, I'd rather play one than one of the new 3.5 halflings. I'd rather be a little guy who kicks big guys' asses than a little sneaky thieving bastard.

Looks good to me. :)

[Hakwood]

You know, based on the looks and style of the Rules Cyclopedia halfling, I'd rather play one than one of the new 3.5 halflings. I'd rather be a little guy who kicks big guys' asses than a little sneaky thieving bastard.


I've always liked the "pipe-smoking fat dudes with hairy feet" halfling, rather than the "slender gypsy wannbe with boots and gold nosering" halflings of 3.x. Of course, it's purely a matter of personal preference. Either is cool, and the physical appearance is mostly just flavor text anyway.

One thing I'm surprised at is that I don't miss gnomes as a PC race. They exist as "monsters" (to use the RC term for any creature that isn't a player character) and could easily be statted up, of course. But I don't miss them. Halflings are nicely filling that gap for me.

Hakwood

[pmh1882]

My two pennies:

- Mapping: I never tended to bother too much with hideously accurate sizes. Most descriptions were based on the room we sat in. 'Twice the length of the this room', 'A circular room half as wide again.' It also allowed me to point reasonably accurately to where things were. That was as close as it got for my guys.

- Hit points: I very generous and gave players their CON score in hp. Fighter-types got to add their CON bonus too. I rationalised this by saying that they were the heroes and I didn't want to have to fudge situations to avoid character death because of a random die roll at critical points. There were no resurrection spells in my game world so I didn't want to off them too often.

[kid_cthulhu]

Pardon me, but I'm sure somone here will have the info I want. I have been looking for a copy of Rules Cyclopedia for around a year, and every time I find one (always on e-bay) it's a bit more than I'm willing to spend. I know there is a pdf at rpgnow, can anyone attest to the quality of it? That it has everything that came with RC (ie. all the pages). Thank you for the assist guys. Soon I'll come back and wax nostalgic for you all. Yes, I believe I will!:)

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

One thing I'm surprised at is that I don't miss gnomes as a PC race. They exist as "monsters" (to use the RC term for any creature that isn't a player character) and could easily be statted up, of course. But I don't miss them. Halflings are nicely filling that gap for me.

Crikey, what role did gnomes ever fill? I mean pre-Dragonlance? And post-Dragonlance, it was just all so annoying.

Apologies to all the gnomes out there. But with elves, dwarves, and halflings, one more group of little people is not needed.

Hak—I don’t really like “The Horrible Mill”. It lacks zing, although I certainly get your point about not referencing the thing. Two alternate suggestions: “Under the Mill” or “The Forgotten Mill”. The first will probably make them look for something to be under, but it’s D&D and we can assume that they will assume that there is a dungeon beneath.

Pardon me, but I'm sure someone here will have the info I want. I have been looking for a copy of Rules Cyclopedia for around a year, and every time I find one (always on e-bay) it's a bit more than I'm willing to spend.

With a little patience you ought to be able to pick up an RC on Ebay for ~$15.00. Can that be too much for such delights? Surely not. :D

[Hakwood]

DAY 21: Monday, December 12, 2005

I am bloody tired today. And a tad discouraged. It's been "one of those days." :( Blah blah blah, my job, blah blah blah, blah, blah blah. Take one tough day at work, add in one day of a cranky 3-year-old, and mix in a little existential angst for good measure, and you have one TIRED Dungeon Master.

Hmpf.

However, I did one thing today, as I've been promising myself: I found a VERY cool map of a town that will serve as the PC's home base. The town is called Restenford, and it featured in the classic AD&D modules L1: Secret of Bone Hill and L2: The Assassin's Knot. The map itself is a beautifully detailed shaded map from DUNGEON #71 (damn, do I LOVE those pre-3.x DUNGEON mags!). Check it out! It's on the blog for you, waiting.


Hak—I don’t really like “The Horrible Mill”. It lacks zing,


I'll be honest with you, good Doctor. I don't like "The Horrible Mill" either. Seems . . . unfinished somehow. At first I thought of "The Horrible Mill on the Hill", but that just sounds dumb. :p


although I certainly get your point about not referencing the thing. Two alternate suggestions: “Under the Mill” or “The Forgotten Mill”. The first will probably make them look for something to be under, but it’s D&D and we can assume that they will assume that there is a dungeon beneath.


Yeah, the whole "block metagaming" thing is probably an unneeded concern. As you say, the first thing they'll be looking for is a trapdoor that leads to a dungeon. :) Maybe "Beneath the Mill" or "The Horror Beneath the Mill". I don't like "Under the Mill", but "The Forgotten Mill" is actually quite good.

For about twelve seconds I considered "The Door in the Floor", then thought, "Okay, I've definitely been reading too much Dr. Seuss to my daughter." :D

Let's keep the name of the module open for now, but "The Forgotten Mill" and "The Horror Beneath the Mill" are both contenders. ;)

Sigh. I hate having a bad day. I'm a little down, to be honest. At least my daughter is sound asleep (after the usual Dr. Seuss session) and my wife is happily baking ginger snaps in the kitchen. So things could be worse. ;) I'm off to read Stephen King as I fall asleep . . . :cool:

Hakwood

[Nihtgenga]

Pardon me, but I'm sure somone here will have the info I want. I have been looking for a copy of Rules Cyclopedia for around a year, and every time I find one (always on e-bay) it's a bit more than I'm willing to spend. I know there is a pdf at rpgnow, can anyone attest to the quality of it? That it has everything that came with RC (ie. all the pages). Thank you for the assist guys. Soon I'll come back and wax nostalgic for you all. Yes, I believe I will!:)
I printed it 2 to an A4 page and it is quite readable if a little hard on the eyes. 1 to 1 printing should be quite ok. Having said that, it is almost impossible to read the weapon masteries table. Some of the symbols blur together.

[Nihtgenga]

Let's keep the name of the module open for now, but "The Forgotten Mill" and "The Horror Beneath the Mill" are both contenders. ;)

What not approach it laterally? For example: "What lurks in the Mill"? You are referring to what is under it, but the players could just see goblins, etc.