|
Post by Scott on Oct 9, 2012 11:34:28 GMT -5
Would an adventure like the Moathouse work without Hommlet? Would the module be such a classic if it was just the dungeon and some notes for the DM on what should be in the homebrew village? The Moathouse had Hommlet. The Caves of Chaos had the Keep. Before he would do Castle Zagyg, Gary insisted on putting out Yggsburgh. It seems that Gary had a home base as part and parcel to starting a campaign. What ammount of detail do you think should be minimum in these campaign starting adventures?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 9, 2012 12:59:04 GMT -5
Would an adventure like the Moathouse work without Hommlet? It depends on who you ask most would say yes. However its like a challenge to some. That aside, in all truth absolutely no way. Detailed locales and not these "story hook" and "lairs" of late 1E/2E era. It worked in WOG 1983 set but only there and nowhere else because it wasn't an adventure for sale but something else loaded with goods throughout. Would the module be such a classic if it was just the dungeon and some notes for the DM on what should be in the homebrew village? No, it would be as remarkable as N1 CULT OF THE REPTILE GOD The Moathouse had Hommlet. The Caves of Chaos had the Keep. Before he would do Castle Zagyg, Gary insisted on putting out Yggsburgh. It seems that Gary had a home base as part and parcel to starting a campaign. What ammount of detail do you think should be minimum in these campaign starting adventures? At least a map with names and jobs and not lengthy more than a sentence character history unless its something thats going to happen instantaneously.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 9, 2012 13:22:02 GMT -5
I was thinking about N1 as I was writing that. One of the ideas I had tossed around was a mini-setting, like the East Mark, except instead of a town the size of Yggsburgh, a hamlet the size of Hommlet. And then toss in a few dungeons like Mound Island and the Cursed Mine.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 11, 2012 7:12:21 GMT -5
I love the mini-setting idea. That is exactly what I was thinking of.
Get out your colored pencils.
I think the minimum amount of detail should be what makes it easy for the DM to run the game, i.e., stats, treasure, traps, what is where, who is in town and what is available to buy, etc. and with descriptive detail that short but evocative.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 11, 2012 11:31:32 GMT -5
Another common theme with Gary's starting points is that the PCs never come from there. Exploring the home base is as much a part of the adventure as exploring the dungeons. Would having the PCs be from there, and have some local knowledge be a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 11, 2012 12:34:15 GMT -5
The Caves of Chaos had the Keep. Heh, I got an e-mail for the D&D Next Playtest, which as i mentioned priorly I read through and they were trying to simplify 3rd/4thedition back to a 2nd edition in a 2.5 it seemed, but this update has a Cave of Chaos playtest adventure. I've said it before it isn't about the "rules type" its about the "rules type" making it as uninteresting as a car manual. Gygax D&D isn't about rules its about style. Sophisticated class over gamist nerd.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 11, 2012 12:50:33 GMT -5
Another common theme with Gary's starting points is that the PCs never come from there. Exploring the home base is as much a part of the adventure as exploring the dungeons. Would having the PCs be from there, and have some local knowledge be a bad thing? Yes, its bad when a player comes in with the lowdown on the elves all summed up into a roleplaying goulash based on a vague assumptions of Tolkien, Santa and supplemental 2Eeky* shit. *If you haven't guessed by now that YouTube game session video I had made with the Buck Rogers' Twiki references was a wordplay on Lorraine Williams' era garrulous word supplements that seemed like bad DMs tweaking things to make them more wordy as "2Eeky"..... then its fucking Twiki/2Eeky!
|
|
Falconer
Enchanter
Knight Bachelor
AD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Posts: 330
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 11, 2012 14:02:08 GMT -5
Another common theme with Gary's starting points is that the PCs never come from there. Exploring the home base is as much a part of the adventure as exploring the dungeons. Would having the PCs be from there, and have some local knowledge be a bad thing? To me, when a player asks the DM a question with the understanding that “My character would know that!” that’s the worst thing you can let happen in a game. I have the idea of letting the PCs be from the home base, but to completely demolish any expectation of the players being able to know what their characters know. The first thing you would have to do as a MU, for example, is find your master’s tower in order to get your starting spellbook. Even though the character has obviously been apprenticed there for years, in the actual game you would have to wander around until you “found” it. What do you think? Too like a CRPG?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 11, 2012 14:49:41 GMT -5
The MU example could be the opposite with complete cut off from the mundane surroundings or the masters (of all) could be from out of town.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 11, 2012 15:22:19 GMT -5
I think it would be the same as not being from there, but with the weird logic disconnect.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 12, 2012 8:07:35 GMT -5
Even though the character has obviously been apprenticed there for years, in the actual game you would have to wander around until you “found” it. What do you think? Too like a CRPG? Yes, that would seem too much like a video game to me... I specifically thought of Candlekeep in the Baldur's Gate game, which your character grew up in but has a fog of war effect up until you actually move around and 'explore' it! I think somehow a fundamental part of the AD&D START is that you are a stranger to the home base. Even the PH references your character approaching a town or castle and 'stating your name and business.' IMO it works better that way, because you are a stranger to the game world when you start out, and your character is a stranger to the starting home base, so, like Scott says, there is less of a logical disconnect. However, this really isn't needed as much for veteran players in an existing campaign, i.e., with veteran players starting new characters. I've been in and ran plenty of games that started out "at the top of a flight of stairs, leading down into a mouldy, cobwebbed dungeon" with barely a reference to the home base, which worked just fine. There's something to be said for jumping right into the action, and filling in the background details later.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 12, 2012 11:29:12 GMT -5
That's a lot of over thinking going on here there should be a level of medieval and quasi-medieval knowledge by the participants then if not then they must burned and overwhelmed. Handholding I believe is the one of the worst things you can do in D&D. There is always that one DM who is like "did you know in the medieval times they did.. " play it don't say it. what happens when the veterans show up if its introductory?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 12, 2012 17:20:12 GMT -5
That's a lot of over thinking going on here there should be a level of medieval and quasi-medieval knowledge by the participants then if not then they must burned and overwhelmed. Handholding I believe is the one of the worst things you can do in D&D. There is always that one DM who is like "did you know in the medieval times they did.. " play it don't say it. what happens when the veterans show up if its introductory? And thats an example of genuine frontier gibberish. Right, Gabby? I was waiting outside school for an hour in the car so I tapped out the basis of my thoughts...' I think the context of what I'm saying as game advice is a kind of never see for whom the bell tolls because it tolls for thee kind of thing. That is, as an old hand at having an open door to the D&D public, I dont even need to know what types of players there are to start there is a universal type player waiting to come out of all players. Let them catch up! Play the way you would want it as a player. Introduction will be cut out of their hit points.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 14, 2012 9:55:30 GMT -5
As much as I love B2 and T1, there are a few things about them that I have noticed that I think I would address when designing a new starting adventure. One is that it is not clear what the place to be explored is, or where it is, or why the characters would want to go there. Two is that they're both really difficult for the average size group I would expect most groups to start play with (3-5 players with 1st level characters). In my experience, players don't like to hire men-at-arms or wait around until they have a group of 8+ characters before going anywhere. And they don't want to ask for help from higher level NPC's and give up large cuts of the treasure -- they almost always want try to make a go of it themselves. There are areas and encounters in each module that I would say are more for 2nd-3rd level.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 14, 2012 10:44:05 GMT -5
I agree with that. The way Gary assumed the games would be played, and the way they actually ended up being played are very different.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 14, 2012 13:27:11 GMT -5
I do think some handholding is needed in the sense of setting expectations. I am tired of scenarios that go like this:
Players: There are three of us now, let's go explore these Caves we heard about. DM: At the tavern you are talking in, you notice several men-at-arms, and comments from the barkeep give you the impression they are out of work mercenaries. Player 1: We don't have enough money to hire men-at-arms. Player 2: Yeah, we barely have have enough to equip ourselves. DM: One stranger at the tavern approaches you -- you get the impression he is a slightly more experienced adventurer. He suggests you explore the Caves together. Player 1: No way am I giving up an extra share of treasure to this guy. Player 2: I hate NPC's. Player 3: We tell him to buzz off. DM: Several times at the KEEP, you are given the impression that the Caves are very dangerous, and that quite a few small parties have gone to explore them but never came back. Players: Let's go.
One could argue that these players are "stupid," but this is the behavior of the majority of players that I've seen. If a novice player has read a lot of Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, etc. and rolls up a fighter to start play in B2, why shouldn't his expectation be that one or two or three characters can go on a successful adventure together? That is the standard in most fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 14, 2012 14:53:40 GMT -5
I agree with that. The way Gary assumed the games would be played, and the way they actually ended up being played are very different. I wouldn't be so fast with saying Gygax didn't expect this or that because its a horrible road.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 14, 2012 15:17:24 GMT -5
In the NOTES FOR THE DUNGEON MASTER section in B2, EGG definitely makes provisions for how to handle a smaller party:
"This module has been designed to allow six to nine player characters of the first level to play out many adventures, gradually working up to second or third level of experience in the process. The group is assumed to have at least one magic-user and one cleric in it. If you have fewer than six players, be sure to arrange for them get both advice and help in the KEEP. For example, they should have advice from a friendly individual to "stay near the beginning of the ravine area, and enter the lower caves first" to avoid their getting into immediate trouble with higher level monsters. Likewise the services of several men-at-arms must be available to smaller parties. If only two or three player characters are to adventure, be sure to have a non-player character or two go along, as well as a few men-at-arms."
It's great advice, but it often isn't taken by the players, when given in the form of hints via NPC's.
I suppose a DM could just "break the fourth wall" and flat out say to his players: "Look, you won't survive in the Caves if only three of you go."
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 14, 2012 16:43:07 GMT -5
The Caves of Chaos are somewhat of a "grind" to steal CRPG slang, meaning there's a lot of repetition. There is a lot of tactical fighting. Personally, I like this sort of thing, but I realize a lot of players get bored with the repetition. If you don't like slaughtering lots of humanoids, then B2 isn't for you. If you envision your adventuring party as a sort of tactical strike team, like the fantasy equivalent of Navy SEALs, then its loads of fun.
It is notable that each humanoid lair in B2 is very much on the light side as far as numbers appearing. Orc Lair "B" for example, has 22 male orcs, counting the chief. Orc lairs had 30-300 in OD&D, and then left unspecified in Holmes Basic D&D and were scaled back to 10-60 in Moldvay Basic D&D. So, Orc Lair "B" is light even by Moldvay standards.
Sometimes when I look at the Caves of Chaos, I see it as a humanoid sampler pack.
"I'm not sure if I want an entire case of kobolds. What if I get sick of them." "Try the humanoid sampler pack!" "But what if I get sick of humanoids, in general?"
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 14, 2012 17:16:26 GMT -5
But wait. There's more. We'll throw in one Temple of Evil Chaos free.
|
|