Computers beat up my role player

[Hussar]

Ah, at last!

Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap

As I have covered on another thread here on these boards what I did not have a chance to get into a revised edition of OAD&D but did have the opportunity to demonstrate in the Yggsburgh campaign setting for the C&C game is the following;

Monster HD number would have remained basically the same, although intelligent monster leader types would have more HD than the run of the mill members of their sort, thus using the attack matrix their chance to successfully attack would remain the same save for exceptional members of their kind that would increase.

Monster HD type would vary by the size and robustness of the creature: Small and relatively puny ones would have d4, those slightly more powerful would have d6, then d8, next d10, and finally d12 for the big and very robust monsters such as ogres, giants, and of course dragons. Furthermore, normal robust adults of large humanoid sort would have their d12 HPs determined by rolling d6 and adding 6 (for 7-12 HPs per HD), while elderly, injured, and immature specimins would only half the normal potential--so a d6 for the d12, This same system applies to the lesser HDs as well--d10, d8, d6, and d4.

Finally the large and powerful or otherwise particularly deadly monsters would have in addition to any strength bonus added to their damage inflicted, a size or attack form bonus equal to the number of HD they possessed (or half that number of the wealer sort getting onlt hald HD potential). Thus for example an oger would be attacking with a +4 additional damage, a hill giant +8 for size and ferocity, plus theior Str bonus, of course.

Now I suppose some whill call that monster munchkinism...

Cheerio,
Gary

P.S. Of course my ideas regarding gaming, and virtually everything else for that matter, change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding. I do believe that is called growth and maturity.

It's really a shame these rules were never instituted in 1e. I know I would have really liked to have seen them. :/

 

[Col_Pladoh]

It's really a shame these rules were never instituted in 1e. I know I would have really liked to have seen them. :/

Ah yes...

There would have been a number of changes in the AD&D revised edition that I planned, the new and unusual classes--Mountebank, Mystic, and Savant, two of them demanding at least an effort at role-playing.

Have a look ar the C&C game. Some of the monster HD and HP adjustments are in the Yggsburgh campaign setting, as are some character skill bundles that are of more recent vintage. those make for more varied PCs and more interesting NPCs, so all that are encountered need not be of a class to be meaningful.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Halivar]

I didn't start playing until the 3.0 era. What is this UA you all speak of, and what is this stat-rolling mechanism you refer to?

 

[Quasqueton]

There would have been a number of changes in the AD&D revised edition that I planned

So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to change it? [/silly]

I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?

Quasqueton

 

[Glyfair]

I didn't start playing until the 3.0 era. What is this UA you all speak of, and what is this stat-rolling mechanism you refer to?

UA is was the Unearthed Arcana. It was sort of the first real "expansion" of the D&D rules.

The stat generation method was similar to the roll 4d6 and take the best 3 mehtod. However, each class had a certain number of dice you rolled for each stat, and there was no rearranging. Typically you rolled 9d6 for your prime stat, 8d6 for the secondary stat down to taking 3d6 straight for your least needed stat.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to change it? [/silly]

I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?

Quasqueton

Hard to say, but the soul and spirit of the revised game would have remained the same. The change might have been likened to that from D&D to AD&D.

For the record UA sold exceptionally well, along with OA bailed TSR out of its cash flow problems at that juncture. Had there been more time it is likely I would have polished and revised a few parts of both these works, bur the exegencies of business prevented that.

Cheerio,
Faey

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to change it? [/silly]

I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?

Quasqueton

I would wager that those who found the spirit of 2e/3e differed too much from 1e would have found Gary's version of 2e more to their liking. Of course some would have bitched anyway.

Edit: Gary said it better than me.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Back in the 70s there were a cadre of complainers that were never satisfied with anything done to A/D&D in the books or in magazine articles. I said rather crossly, "If we printed and sold the material at the current price on leaves of solid gold, there would be a chorus of those birds whining about the weight."


Gary

 

[diaglo]

Back in the 70s there were a cadre of complainers that were never satisfied with anything done to A/D&D in the books or in magazine articles. I said rather crossly, "If we printed and sold the material at the current price on leaves of solid gold, there would be a chorus of those birds whining about the weight."


Gary

hiya.

diaglo "still complaining about Supplement I Greyhawk" Ooi

 

[Col_Pladoh]

hiya.

diaglo "still complaining about Supplement I Greyhawk" Ooi

That opinion is a minority one for sure. The Greyhawk Supplement to D&D sold in huge numbers with virtually no colmplaints about it's contents.

Of course when I DM OD&D thses days I eschew that particular supplement as well as the others, play the three booklets with a few house rules tossed in

Cheerio,
Gary