To save time - basic DnD

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hello everybody

Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
(blue cover) D&D Basic set?

I'm trying to include em all in my current 3ed campaign.

Taaaaaaaaa

I seem to have some vague dream that the super module "the biggest
dungeon in the world ever" used every entry in the 3ed MM.
25 answers Last reply
More about save time basic
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
    > (blue cover) D&D Basic set?

    Which one is that?

    I have a D&D that's three sets of books: red for levels 1-3, blue for
    4-14 (I think), and green for 15-36. Is that the one?

    > I'm trying to include em all in my current 3ed campaign.
    >
    > Taaaaaaaaa
    >
    > I seem to have some vague dream that the super module "the biggest
    > dungeon in the world ever" used every entry in the 3ed MM.

    Yep. It's called "World's Largest Dungeon".

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.

    BTW

    Whats the "World's Largest Dungeon" actually like?
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf wrote:
    > I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    > covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.
    >
    > BTW
    >
    > Whats the "World's Largest Dungeon" actually like?

    Big.

    --
    Justin Alexander Bacon
    http://www.thealexandrian.net
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf wrote:
    > I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    > covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.

    Isn't that red, though?

    Did it have not one, but _two_ "choose your own adventure"-type stories
    you were supposed to go through with a Fighter, to ease you into the
    game?

    > BTW
    >
    > Whats the "World's Largest Dungeon" actually like?

    I haven't played it. I know that it takes characters to level 20, and
    that it has 42 square feet of maps. If you're interested, you can take
    a look here:

    http://www.worldslargestdungeon.com/aeg_worldslargestdungeon.pdf

    Laszlo
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Whats the "World's Largest Dungeon" actually like?

    Well, there's parts that are really neat. Then there are the parts that
    are causing me to ask a friend that's heading to GenCon on business to
    hunt down the AEG guys and slap them (figuratively speaking). At the
    moment, the latter outnumber the former, at least in my shoddy memory.

    I keep promising the group that I'll post a "report from the front"
    article, and I fully intend to. It's just that RL keeps getting in
    the way. The short (to the point of near-uselessness) version is that
    it really should have had ~3 more months of design thought, ~2 more months
    of playtesting (based on the thinking), and ~1 month more with the
    editing and proofreading.

    --
    --DcB
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Murf wrote:
    > > I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    > > covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.

    You know, I never noticed the "all weapons do d6" rule until you
    mentioned it.


    > Isn't that red, though?

    Ah, no.

    > Did it have not one, but _two_ "choose your own adventure"-type stories
    > you were supposed to go through with a Fighter, to ease you into the
    > game?

    Apparently, the Blue Book is *way* before your time. This was the very
    first "Basic" version of the game, put together by J. Eric Holmes. The
    cover was most definitely blue, with a wizard in a pointy hat on the
    left waving a wand, a dragon in the middle (though the cover was blue,
    he was drawn like the red dragon from AD&D) and on the right was a
    fighter in plate mail with a shield, aiming his bow and arrow at the
    dragon. There was an adventure in the back, but it was for a group, and
    could be modified according to the size of the group.


    Murf, if no one else helps you with the list, let me know. I obviously
    have the book, and wouldn't mind trying to get you the list, provided
    that no one else is willing to help and I can find the time.


    Ralph Glatt

    Member, Old Farts Club
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    julian814 wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > > Murf wrote:
    > > > I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    > > > covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.
    >
    > You know, I never noticed the "all weapons do d6" rule until you
    > mentioned it.
    >
    >
    > > Isn't that red, though?
    >
    > Ah, no.
    >
    > > Did it have not one, but _two_ "choose your own adventure"-type stories
    > > you were supposed to go through with a Fighter, to ease you into the
    > > game?
    >
    > Apparently, the Blue Book is *way* before your time. This was the very
    > first "Basic" version of the game, put together by J. Eric Holmes. The
    > cover was most definitely blue, with a wizard in a pointy hat on the
    > left waving a wand, a dragon in the middle (though the cover was blue,
    > he was drawn like the red dragon from AD&D) and on the right was a
    > fighter in plate mail with a shield, aiming his bow and arrow at the
    > dragon. There was an adventure in the back, but it was for a group, and
    > could be modified according to the size of the group.
    >

    Ah, now I know the one! I found a copy at a garage sale. Bought it,
    too, but I doubt I have it anymore.

    Laszlo
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
    > (blue cover) D&D Basic set?
    >

    I've got it. I'll have to dig it out tonight. Can't be a very big
    list. They didn't even have Gnomes or Halflings as PC races IIRC...

    - Justisaur
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    julian814 wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > > Murf wrote:
    >
    > > Did it have not one, but _two_ "choose your own adventure"-type stories
    > > you were supposed to go through with a Fighter, to ease you into the
    > > game?
    >
    > Apparently, the Blue Book is *way* before your time. This was the very
    > first "Basic" version of the game, put together by J. Eric Holmes. The
    > cover was most definitely blue, with a wizard in a pointy hat on the
    > left waving a wand, a dragon in the middle (though the cover was blue,
    > he was drawn like the red dragon from AD&D) and on the right was a
    > fighter in plate mail with a shield, aiming his bow and arrow at the
    > dragon. There was an adventure in the back, but it was for a group, and
    > could be modified according to the size of the group.

    Ah, I've had that book for years and never used it. 2nd Edition, 1978.

    Brandon
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf wrote:
    > Hello everybody
    >
    > Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
    > (blue cover) D&D Basic set?

    Bandit
    Basilisk
    Berserker
    Black Pudding
    Blink Dogs
    Bugbear
    Carrion Crawler
    Chimera
    Cockatrice
    Displacer Beast
    Djinni
    Doppleganger
    Dragon (White, Black, Red, Brass)
    Dwarf
    Elf
    Fire Beetle
    Gargoyle
    Gelatinous Cube
    Ghouls
    Giant (Hill, Stone, Frost, Fire, Cloud, Storm)
    Giant Ant
    Giant Centipede
    Giant Rats
    Giant Tick
    Gnoll
    Gnome
    Goblin
    Gray Ooze
    Green Slime
    Griffon
    Harpy
    Hell Hound
    Hippogriff
    Hobgoblin
    Horse (light, medium, heavy war, draft, mules)
    Hydra
    Kobold
    Lizard Men
    Lycanthrope (boar, rat, bear, tiger, wolf)
    Manticore
    Medusa
    Minotaur
    Mummy
    Ochre Jelly
    Ogre
    Orc
    Owl Bear
    Pegasi
    Pixie
    Purple Worm
    Rust Monster
    Shadow
    Shrieker
    Skeleton
    Spectre
    Spider (large, huge, giant)
    Stirge
    Troglodyte
    Troll
    Unicorn
    Vampire
    Wight
    Wraith
    Yellow Mold
    Zombie

    Brandon
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Murf wrote:
    >> I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    >> covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.
    >
    > Isn't that red, though?

    There was a blue version before the one you're thinking of.

    Okay, 1974 blue book (reprinted 1978) doesn't have the choose your own
    adventure deals -- does have the good-evil, law-chaos alignment system
    we all know and love. I didn't see anything in it about weapons doing
    different damage -- ranged weapons had different ranges, but they all
    see to do the same damage. Later editions did have damage varying by
    weapon type.

    However, there are two Basic red books -- Erol Otus did one cover, Larry
    Elmore did the cover of the other one. The Erol Otus version was first
    printed in 1981. The Elmore version was printed in 1983.


    > Did it have not one, but _two_ "choose your own adventure"-type
    > stories you were supposed to go through with a Fighter, to ease you
    > into the game?

    That's the Elmore version. The Otus version, and the blue book version,
    didn't.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    One of the voices in my head - or was it ? - just said...
    >
    >
    > Murf wrote:
    > > I'm refering to the Basic D&D rule book, published about 1978. Just
    > > covered levels 1-3, all weapons did d6 dam etc.
    >
    > Isn't that red, though?

    Didn't he JUST TELL YOU it wasn't?

    You have a later version, from either 1980 or 1983.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murf <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> writes
    >Hello everybody
    >
    >Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
    >(blue cover) D&D Basic set?
    >
    >I'm trying to include em all in my current 3ed campaign.

    From said blue book:

    Bandit, Basilisk, Berserker, Black Pudding, Blink Dog, Bugbear, Carrion
    Crawler, Chimera, Cockatrice, Displacer Beast, Djinni, Doppleganger,
    Dragon (White, Black, Red, Brass), Dwarf, Elf, Fire Beetle, Gargoyle,
    Gelatinous Cube, Ghoul, Giant (Hill, Stone, Frost, Fire, Cloud, Storm),
    Giant Ant, Giant Centipede, Giant Rat, Giant Tick, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin,
    Gray Ooze, Green Slime, Griffon, Harpy, Hell Hound, Hippogriff,
    Hobgoblin, Horse (Light, Medium, Heavy War, Draft, Mule), Hydra, Kobold,
    Lizard Man, Lycanthrope (Boar, Rat, Bear, Tiger, Wolf), Manticore,
    Medusa, Minotaur, Mummy, Ochre Jelly, Ogre, Orc, Owl Bear, Pegasus,
    Pixie, Purple Worm, Rust Monster, Shadow, Shrieker, Skeleton, Spectre,
    Spider (Large, Huge, Giant), Stirge, Troglodyte, Troll, Unicorn,
    Vampire, Wight, Wraith, Yellow Mould, Zombie

    --
    Ian R Malcomson
    "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 19 Jul 2005 06:50:08 -0700, "Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> scribed into
    the ether:

    >Hello everybody
    >
    >Does anybody have to hand a list of all the critters from the ye-olde
    >(blue cover) D&D Basic set?
    >
    >I'm trying to include em all in my current 3ed campaign.

    If it's the right book, I think I have it. The first page says that the
    first printing was 1974, the version I have is '79, the third edition.

    ISBN is 0-93569609302, it's the one with the wizard and fighter on the
    cover looking in on a dragon and its horde...the box it came in had this in
    color, the manual has it in a washed out bluescale.

    The monsters listed:
    Bandit
    Basilisk
    Berserker
    Black Pudding
    Blink Dogs
    Bugbear
    Carrion Crawler
    Chimera
    Cockatrice
    Dispalcer Beast
    Djinni
    Doppleganger
    Dragon White/Black/Red/Brass
    Dwarf
    Elf
    Fire Beetle
    Gargoyle
    Gelatinous Cube
    Ghouls
    Giant Hill/Stone/Frost/Fire/Cloud/Storm
    Giant Ant
    Ciant Centipede
    Giant Rats
    Giant Tick
    Gnoll
    Gnome
    Goblin
    Gray Ooze
    Green Slime
    Griffon
    Harpy (with pictures of boobs!)
    Hell Hound
    Hippogriff
    Hobgoblin
    Horse
    Hydra
    Kobold
    Lizard Man
    Were-boar/rat/bear/tiger/wolf
    Manticore
    Medusa
    Minotaur
    Mummy
    Ochre Jelly
    Ogre
    Orc
    Owl Bear
    Pegasi
    Pixie
    Purple Worm
    Rust Monster
    Shadow
    Shrieker
    Skeleton
    Spectre
    Spider-Large/Huge/Giant
    Stirge
    Troglodyte
    Troll
    Unicorn
    Vampire
    Wight
    Wraith
    Yellow Mold
    Zombie


    Balrogs are also mentioned in the section of spells under the description
    for Hold Portal, but not statted out.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    > I haven't played it. I know that it takes characters to level 20, and
    > that it has 42 square feet of maps. If you're interested, you can take
    > a look here:

    It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
    -Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    >> I haven't played it. I know that it takes characters to level 20, and
    >> that it has 42 square feet of maps. If you're interested, you can take
    >> a look here:

    >It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    >otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.

    Actually, no. The absolute best one could do, IIRC, is about level 30
    or so (maybe 32, at the top end). Eventually, the characters hit the
    point where critters just aren't worth XP, and the CRs top out at about
    22 or 23. Given the setup, I'd be interested in seeing how characters
    get much past 25th even with full XP awards.

    The "grant 25% XP" thing is really a kludge to cover design problems.

    --
    --DcB
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > >> I haven't played it. I know that it takes characters to level 20, and
    > >> that it has 42 square feet of maps. If you're interested, you can take
    > >> a look here:
    >
    > >It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    > >otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.
    >
    > Actually, no. The absolute best one could do, IIRC, is about level 30
    > or so (maybe 32, at the top end). Eventually, the characters hit the
    > point where critters just aren't worth XP, and the CRs top out at about
    > 22 or 23. Given the setup, I'd be interested in seeing how characters
    > get much past 25th even with full XP awards.
    >
    > The "grant 25% XP" thing is really a kludge to cover design problems.
    >

    I was somewhat interested in checking this out, but a total dungeon
    slog campain sure doesn't need to advance slower. I suppose you could
    advance the challenges and fix it, but dungeons aren't that hard to
    create that I'd bother buying the module if I had to do much fixing.
    If I'm particularly lazy I've still got the 1st ed DMG with the random
    dungeon chart, which actually wasn't half bad for making dungeon slogs
    either on the fly or advance.

    Any idea why they didn't just make the thing to D&D spec in this
    respect?

    - Justisaur.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >Dave Butler wrote:
    > >> Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > >> >It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    > >> >otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.
    > >>
    > >> Actually, no. The absolute best one could do, IIRC, is about level 30
    > >> or so (maybe 32, at the top end). Eventually, the characters hit the
    > >> point where critters just aren't worth XP, and the CRs top out at about
    > >> 22 or 23. Given the setup, I'd be interested in seeing how characters
    > >> get much past 25th even with full XP awards.
    > >>
    > >> The "grant 25% XP" thing is really a kludge to cover design problems.
    >
    > >I was somewhat interested in checking this out, but a total dungeon
    > >slog campain sure doesn't need to advance slower. I suppose you could
    > >advance the challenges and fix it, but dungeons aren't that hard to
    > >create that I'd bother buying the module if I had to do much fixing.
    >
    > Well, here's a secret for you: I'm running it with normal XP, without
    > major changes.
    >
    > (My primary changes are that characters started at 2nd rather than
    > 1st (slightly better chance of surviving bad dice), and that it's a
    > six-player group instead of the assumed four.)
    >
    > >If I'm particularly lazy I've still got the 1st ed DMG with the random
    > >dungeon chart, which actually wasn't half bad for making dungeon slogs
    > >either on the fly or advance.
    >
    > True. I prefer TFG's _Central Casting: Dungeons_, but it's a more
    > generic product.
    >

    I have that as well. I started to make a dungeon with it at one point
    but I found it a bit too time consuming, and totally inapropriate for
    on the fly dungeons. The old DMG 1 tables are quite a bit easier, and
    gives a functional (if a bit chaotic) dungeon. Actually an even easier
    way is to use an existing map and fill in the monsters, treasures &
    traps with the DMG 1 tables. I've done that with dungeon geomorphs,
    but they don't have doors. I've done that with existing maps before
    with great success, once with a rl roman villa map. Another time I
    took the Saltmarsh mansion map, but I didn't actually use the DMG
    table, I just filled in with undead that I wanted to use.

    I actually don't have much trouble designing the dungeons, the hard
    part for me is designing custom Villains. I like to use classed humans
    or humanoids or undead or whatever quite a bit, and it takes a LOT of
    work in 3.x to do it properly. 1 villain can easily take me as much
    time as the entire rest of a dungeon. I'd probably find a well made
    book of villains more use. Of course I tend to want strange things
    that I wouldn't find it it anyway, but it could still be eminantly
    useful.

    Even just a better fleshed out version of the DMG NPC tables would be
    very useful.

    Hmm thinking about it, The difficulty and time sink of desigining
    villains (and characters) is one of the reasons I quit playing Hero
    some time ago, and went back to the (previous) simplicity of D&D. I
    just don't have the knack of whipping out customized characters, I
    never did, and I probably never will. PCGen really helped, and gave me
    hope back when they actually had everything from all the books. I'll
    never forgive WotC for ruining it. I know they were just trying to
    protect their IP, but they haven't put the effort into making something
    that useful that could be fan supported. F'ing bastards!

    /rant off

    > >Any idea why they didn't just make the thing to D&D spec in this
    > >respect?
    >
    > Hurm. I'm 85% certain that *they'd* say it was because of the "has
    > every monster in the SRD" bit (which is a half-truth, BTW).
    >

    What's fishy about it? Did they leave out house cats or some other
    stuff that most wouldn't usually consider monsters?

    > My group, however, is almost certain that it's because the writers were
    > morons.
    >

    Lol. Entirely possible.

    > My personal opinion is that it's due to (a) the authors failing to grasp
    > fundamental concepts of 3.x, and (b) the way the project was designed.
    >

    Both of those seem to be problems that plague 3rd party products for
    some reason. Exception of Malhavoc, but they like to make up new
    rules, which I'm somewhat interested in, but my players aren't willing
    to fork over the dough, so I don't go there. Do they actually make any
    fully 3.5 compatible modules anyway? I don't think Monte really has
    the knack of creating adventures that well anyway, he's good at
    inventing & improving rules though, I'll give him that.

    > The whole CR/EL bundle of concepts seems to have eluded the authors.
    > There are traps/challenges that are given ELs, but not CRs. There
    > are EL 5-ish encounters composed entirely of CR 1/3-ish creatures, the
    > characters supposedly being 4-5th level at that point ("hey, let's
    > butcher a few dozen demihumans that are no threat to us"). They
    > surprise the characters with an CR 7 critter when the party is supposed
    > to be no higher than 3rd, and imply that it should be at least close to
    > a fair fight[1]. They modify creatures (advanced hit dice, extra funky
    > powers) without increasing the CR. I also infer that they just didn't
    > grasp the fact that creatures eventually become worthless as XP sources.
    >

    I rule 0'd the xp system. I extend the XP scale to give XP for low and
    high threats. On the low end the ammount of XP is so pitiful that I'm
    basically just giving them something for the time in game it took to
    defeat the li'l buggers. And if they somehow take out a high level
    threat I'll give them full XP. Actually I only give out 50% DMG xp,
    but give nearly an equal value for roleplaying so it comes out about
    the same in the long run. So it probably wouldn't affect my game much.

    But I understand the default XP system and wouldn't impose either of
    those in a published module.

    I also consider a EL +4 an 'even' or 'fair' fight. But I've got a load
    of tough old players, who find normal = EL fights a bit easy. So that
    wouldn't effect me either. I often throw EL +6 or +7 fights at my
    party as well. I generally don't go above CR +4 though except with the
    very rare boss, and would be very reluctant to go that high against low
    level characters, expecting at least one death.

    Doesn't sound too bad actually for my group. My biggest issue I've
    heard so far is still the 1/4 xp.

    > It also vaguely bothers me that they didn't use the Epic rules. Okay,
    > I know they're probably flawed, but they exist, and I'd have thought
    > that gamers would have jumped at the chance to buy the first dungeon
    > (at least, that I know of) that took characters to Epic levels.

    Yeah that seems a big oversite. I know at least one of my players
    would jump at the chance to get to epic levels even if he had to slog
    his whole way there, If I told him I was reducing xp to 1/4 he'd
    probably still jump at it. The other players would probably revolt
    though.

    > One should also realize that "The World's Largest Dungeon" is a half-
    > truth. The more accurate title would be "The World's Largest
    > Conglomeration of 14 or 15 Dungeons with an Overarching Plot Point,"
    > but that might be hard to fit on a book cover. It's not entirely
    > unexpected, then, that with ~14 different authors -- apparently not
    > talking with each other -- there's a little disjointedness in the
    > module. The principle sign of this is that each map is fully populated
    > as if it were a standalone dungeon. So the simplest answer to "too
    > much XP", namely "have fewer encounters", just didn't have a chance.

    That's sad. It's pretty easy to figure out what level a standard party
    will be at after any point in an adventure. Maybe I should come out
    with a "dungeon world" that follows the rules and goes epic. If I
    didn't use customized classed monsters I could whip one out pretty fast
    :). Too bad I don't have any publishing contacts or much interest in
    doing it :)

    - Justisaur
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >Dave Butler wrote:
    >> Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >> >It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    >> >otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.
    >>
    >> Actually, no. The absolute best one could do, IIRC, is about level 30
    >> or so (maybe 32, at the top end). Eventually, the characters hit the
    >> point where critters just aren't worth XP, and the CRs top out at about
    >> 22 or 23. Given the setup, I'd be interested in seeing how characters
    >> get much past 25th even with full XP awards.
    >>
    >> The "grant 25% XP" thing is really a kludge to cover design problems.

    >I was somewhat interested in checking this out, but a total dungeon
    >slog campain sure doesn't need to advance slower. I suppose you could
    >advance the challenges and fix it, but dungeons aren't that hard to
    >create that I'd bother buying the module if I had to do much fixing.

    Well, here's a secret for you: I'm running it with normal XP, without
    major changes.

    (My primary changes are that characters started at 2nd rather than
    1st (slightly better chance of surviving bad dice), and that it's a
    six-player group instead of the assumed four.)

    >If I'm particularly lazy I've still got the 1st ed DMG with the random
    >dungeon chart, which actually wasn't half bad for making dungeon slogs
    >either on the fly or advance.

    True. I prefer TFG's _Central Casting: Dungeons_, but it's a more
    generic product.

    >Any idea why they didn't just make the thing to D&D spec in this
    >respect?

    Hurm. I'm 85% certain that *they'd* say it was because of the "has
    every monster in the SRD" bit (which is a half-truth, BTW).

    My group, however, is almost certain that it's because the writers were
    morons.

    My personal opinion is that it's due to (a) the authors failing to grasp
    fundamental concepts of 3.x, and (b) the way the project was designed.

    The whole CR/EL bundle of concepts seems to have eluded the authors.
    There are traps/challenges that are given ELs, but not CRs. There
    are EL 5-ish encounters composed entirely of CR 1/3-ish creatures, the
    characters supposedly being 4-5th level at that point ("hey, let's
    butcher a few dozen demihumans that are no threat to us"). They
    surprise the characters with an CR 7 critter when the party is supposed
    to be no higher than 3rd, and imply that it should be at least close to
    a fair fight[1]. They modify creatures (advanced hit dice, extra funky
    powers) without increasing the CR. I also infer that they just didn't
    grasp the fact that creatures eventually become worthless as XP sources.

    [1] My group was 4 (some players couldn't show up that day) fourth and
    fifth level characters, and I still got a character kill.

    It also vaguely bothers me that they didn't use the Epic rules. Okay,
    I know they're probably flawed, but they exist, and I'd have thought
    that gamers would have jumped at the chance to buy the first dungeon
    (at least, that I know of) that took characters to Epic levels.

    One should also realize that "The World's Largest Dungeon" is a half-
    truth. The more accurate title would be "The World's Largest
    Conglomeration of 14 or 15 Dungeons with an Overarching Plot Point,"
    but that might be hard to fit on a book cover. It's not entirely
    unexpected, then, that with ~14 different authors -- apparently not
    talking with each other -- there's a little disjointedness in the
    module. The principle sign of this is that each map is fully populated
    as if it were a standalone dungeon. So the simplest answer to "too
    much XP", namely "have fewer encounters", just didn't have a chance.

    --
    --DcB
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
    > >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > >> I haven't played it. I know that it takes characters to level 20, and
    > >> that it has 42 square feet of maps. If you're interested, you can take
    > >> a look here:
    >
    > >It actually has its own, much slower XP-per-area-cleared system, because
    > >otherwise it'd take characters so far past 20 it's kinda ridiculous.
    >
    > Actually, no. The absolute best one could do, IIRC, is about level 30
    > or so (maybe 32, at the top end). Eventually, the characters hit the
    > point where critters just aren't worth XP, and the CRs top out at about
    > 22 or 23. Given the setup, I'd be interested in seeing how characters
    > get much past 25th even with full XP awards.
    >
    > The "grant 25% XP" thing is really a kludge to cover design problems.

    I wouldn't really call them "design problems", per se. The fact that
    the 3rd edition XP system is fundamentally incompatible with the
    massive dungeon crawls of 1st edition is not that much of a secret. And
    since I don't think it's a design flaw to design a massive dungeon
    crawl, the XP system needs to give way.

    The problem with the WLD is that their solution creates imbalances that
    they don't acknowledge. If you change the rate at which XP is
    accumulated without changing the rate at which treasure is accumulated,
    then your characters are going to be unbalanced for their current level
    (since they're going to have a lot more wealth than they're supposed to
    have). There's way to work around that, but apparently the WLD design
    team didn't take it into account.

    This is just one of the many things about the project which reveal the
    fact that the design team fundamentally doesn't understand how the D20
    system works.

    Which is why I don't own the book.

    --
    Justin Alexander Bacon
    http://www.thealexandrian.net
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:48:32 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > The best I can usually manage from the weak ones is the threat of
    > scattering and making a run for help, or leaving an inconvenient corpse.
    > Oh yea, some things surrender too; players /love/ that.

    When I'm playing my throughly Neutral wizard, the only things that get
    to surrender are thing we want surrendering, I assure you. :)

    > This is all focused around the concept that self-motivated PCs who
    > want to be involved in the world, are willing to take some time off and
    > hand on missions to more appropriate teams, are all good for the game.

    Hmm. Yes. Useful things, those sorts of players.

    > IIRC, it talks about options to allow it, like leaving the summoned
    > creatures there (after durations run out) as free willed beings that
    > might suddenly be a bit pissed at the whole situation. Or perhaps it
    > just said that they didn't want you XP farming them, so banned it.
    > <shrug>

    Something like that. This seemed to me to suggest a fundamental lack
    of understanding, on the part of the writers, of the difference
    between a calling and a summoning.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1122054614.473152.7070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

    > I actually don't have much trouble designing the dungeons, the hard
    > part for me is designing custom Villains. I like to use classed humans
    > or humanoids or undead or whatever quite a bit, and it takes a LOT of
    > work in 3.x to do it properly. 1 villain can easily take me as much
    > time as the entire rest of a dungeon. I'd probably find a well made
    > book of villains more use.

    I agree with all of the above, save the last statement. For me, Villains
    are too personal to get from a book.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:25:53 -0500, Dave Butler

    [reasons why WLD banned /summon [foo]/]

    >Would Shadow Conjuration bypass both interpretations?

    By the rules printed in the module, yes. (This is one of the many places
    where there's no internal consistency in the module.) My house rules
    treat [shadow] spells much the same as [summoning] spells: if you need
    to touch another plane, you need to jump through the hoops.

    --
    --DcB
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 25 Jul 2005 09:41:47 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > WTF?!?!
    >
    > That's actually worse for my players. I love summoning, and my players
    > have been using it extensively. You seriously impact all of the pure
    > casters with that one. I could see changing it, I'm not too fond of
    > the "celestial animals" which don't really fit my idea of the outer
    > planes. But just wiping it out all together?
    >
    > WTH was the reasoning behind that piece of genius?

    It's a prison for extradimensional nasties, you see. Obviously you
    can't have them gateing and teleporting home again, so none of that
    stuff is allowed. Of course, they could have thought about this for a
    while, and realised there's a difference between summoning and
    calling.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave said -
    This, however, creates a number of problems, among them: (a) why don't
    (haven't) the baddies with /summon [foo]/ powers use(d) them, and (b)
    what happens if the PCs figure out that they can summon 14+ days worth
    of badgers?

    Yeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr we got our self a badger square dance
    ho-down party. "Come on badgers, take a partner"
    Badgerssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Basic Video Games