"What is more, the new classes' powers and limitations are only stated but it is never explained why the Monk or Assassin should be subject to them."
"However, the rules support the notion that had crept on me reading the character classes section: That D&D really is about killing people and stealing their stuff."
"But the third and biggest problem is the total lack of any content related to roleplaying. There is nothing inside which inspires players or GMs, nothing which could awake their powers of imagination and draw their characters into the story (what story?). Judging by their publications, the 1975 role-playing community must have been a lot more creative than today's."
Not exactly. My freind, you should try to find a copy of the Dragon Magazine Archive, a truly fascinating collection of the magazine during almost all the years it was worth reading. While all of us who started with D&D would like to look back on the earliest years with rose-colored glasses, the truth is that early D&D really did resemble Hackmaster in all but name.
You see, D&D really was all about killing monsters and taking their stuff and (even more importantly) gaining EXP. No, really: it was. The whole roleplaying thing was developed later, when the good folks at TSR decided they needed AD&D. Even then, there wasn't nearly as much an emphasis on roleplaying until Dragonlance and later Forgotten Realms were developed.
Even so, the fact that the amazingly deep Empire of the Petal Throne setting was the very first campaign setting released as a campaign setting (and not designed as a supplement) did hint that the Hackmaster-esque state of the very early years wasn't going to stay that way forever. Despite things like Metamorphosis Alpha (quite literally D&D in Space), there were signs that someday actual sophistication would take place in our hobby.
It's all there in the Archive. The letters page alone is incredibly revealing.
"the SciFi part is the thinly disguised Harry Mudd (he even brings a set of matched Starfleet replicators! (third floor, rooms 2 and 5)), who really didn't deserve being abducted from Roddenberry's universe, raped, mutilated and plugged into Blackmoor"
Dude, this is D&D you're talking about. They started with "raping, mutilating and plugging in" Tolkien, Jack Vance and that guy who wrote the Conan books. D&D was a mixed bag from the very start. Like I said, I'd love to look at it through rose-colored glasses, but the truth is too amusing to ignore. :rolleyes:
Location: Exploring an Ancient Civilization under White Fang Bay
Posts: 3,446
Re: [RPG]: Blackmoor, reviewed by clmeier (1/1)
Role-playing was there from the very beginning, though it emerged partly by accident: Arneson thought a wargame would be cool where each player just controlled one figure (in 1972), and the players started role-playing their characters a lot spontaneously.
I got better role-playing out of Temple of the Frog back in '77 than I could ever have gotten out of most eighties and nineties modules. The thing is, you make your own story with the stuff that's provided; whereas a scripted plot just winds up being a big drag, at least for me. Yes, having NPC motives helps you do this, but that stuff is easier to make up (at least for me) than combat stats.
It is true that a lot of early D&D was played by wargamers, looked like a wargame, and added things primarily to support wargamers' concerns. But to say that role-playing came later, with 'AD&D' is a joke. I was there when AD&D came out, and role-playing was already well-established, and nobody took AD&D as something which was pushing people in a more 'roleplaying' or 'story-oriented' direction. I mean, nobody at all.
__________________
Looking for your old-school fantasy roleplaying fix? Don't despair...Fight On!
It is true that a lot of early D&D was played by wargamers, looked like a wargame, and added things primarily to support wargamers' concerns. But to say that role-playing came later, with 'AD&D' is a joke. I was there when AD&D came out, and role-playing was already well-established, and nobody took AD&D as something which was pushing people in a more 'roleplaying' or 'story-oriented' direction. I mean, nobody at all.
Quite, my group had already been roleplaying for several years when ADnD came out.
That said I recently got a copy of this too and the reviewer IMO is spot on, it's dreadful.
I recommend in the future that you critique products based on what they actually try to accomplish, not what you though, hoped or wished they might try to accomplish.
Blackmoor is supposed to be exactly what it is, the original D&D setting updated to match the current version of the rules. It's not supposed to be a modern setting with modern sensibilities, up to and including the desire to be filled with logical or even pseudological economics, sociology, ecology and "content related to roleplaying" or "story" ("story", for God's sake! It was 1970s era D&D, not Tribe 8!).
You're simply not judging the book based on what it actually is. You're reviewing a microwave oven and panning it for not having dual airbags and four-wheel drive.
That being said, some of your complaints have merit. The prose is far from great. The sci-fi angle in the adventure is pointless. The maps are lousy.
Still, considering that you're comparing apples and oranges on the most basic level, I can't agree with your overall ratings. It's not great, but it's good for what it is designed to be: A D&D setting from 1975 with 2005 D&D rules pasted on top.
Blackmoor is supposed to be exactly what it is, the original D&D setting updated to match the current version of the rules. .... It's not great, but it's good for what it is designed to be: A D&D setting from 1975 with 2005 D&D rules pasted on top.
Hi Yamo,
I'm going to take a punt here and guess that you didn't actually bother to read the review, just the ratings. I say this because the review is about the *1975* version of Blackmoor, not about the more recent version which has been "updated to match the current version of the rules".
I'm going to take a punt here and guess that you didn't actually bother to read the review, just the ratings. I say this because the review is about the *1975* version of Blackmoor, not about the more recent version which has been "updated to match the current version of the rules".
Cheers,
Jimbo
Haw!
That's what you get when you catch me at the end of a long workweek. Jesus.
I did actually read the review (which is how I spotted the complaints about the art, prose, etc) , but not very carefully and for some reason I assumed that he was referring to the 2005 version, which, if I had done more than flip through, I wouldn't have confused with the old one.
In that case, I guess the gist of my feedback still stands well enough. I'd advise against judging an D&D setting from 1975 as though it was created to service today's audience and shared the same goals as today's new products.
I'm getting a bad, elistist vibe from this review and some of the comments. It's like they're looking down on the past and patting the current edition on the back, to pretend that we have somehow evolved and are superior to those poor slobs from the dark ages.
Lest you forget, D&D 3e is just as focussed on killing things and taking their stuff than the earliest edition of D&D. The only difference is that now you have 1000 pages of rules instead of 100. And a "uniform" mechanic that's supposed to be "advanced" design, but falls through the cracks due to the complexity of the ruleset as a whole. Well gee, I guess 6 pages (1/2 pages actually, since the book is digest size) of hit location rules isn't that big of a deal after all.
The details are different, but the end result is the same. It's all about orcs and pies unless the DM puts forth the effort to make something else out of it. And people back then were just as capable at that as they are now.
Incidentally, the earliest verion of Tekumel (EotPT) was based on OD&D. But then this is a setting that has elements of SF, so perhaps the reviewer's bias would simply use that as more fuel to mock the old game. And that's what this review was all about, isn't it? To pretend we're no longer cavemen.
OOG! OOG! Old cavemen stupid! New cavemen smart!
Hey, almost forgot to mention this: you can download the book in PDF from Dave's website (for free). So in that respect, you really did waste your money. But now you own an actual piece of history, which should mean something to you if you're a passionate RPG enthusiast.
BTW, just so we're on the same wavelength, I never played OD&D. It was before my time. I don't plan on playing it. But I also don't plan to write a review to bash it either.
Last edited by Silverleaf; 07-16-2005 at 11:11 AM..
Weird. Somehow I missed that this was about the 1975 version, too, when I read the review....skimmed thru, I guess.
Why are you being so harsh to an ancient classic? And heck, when I was 10 years old I figured out that the average D&Der was a hack'n'slash gamer; never ran my game that way, but I did eventually migrate to other games like Runequest and T&T, if only to boast that I wasn't one of those "AD&D guys"....
Okay, now I gotta go back and re-read the review in context of the 1975 thing....jeez, how did I miss that?!?
:rolleyes:
1975 role-playing community
Linear Mode
