|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 3:53PM
#51
|
|
|
I have all of the books in question, but there's no way I'm typing out all of the monsters from MC1 & MC2.
Well, if you want 'Common MOnsters' that's where OD&D helps, lol. The list I did is all the monsters from Monsters and Treasure. You might of course also include the ones from the OD&D supplements, there are a good number of classics there. Overall OD&D has ALMOST 300 monsters in all sources, which I am pretty sure basically makes up the 1e MM1 monster roster.
1e actually is a pretty good summarization of OD&D and its various sources.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:04PM
#52
|
|
|
Great Hocus-Smokus! I'll get right to work.
This isn't an analysis of what should be in the "core" for 5e or what our favorite aspects of the game are. It's a pretty straightforward, value neutral analysis of what common elements have been included in the initial rulebooks in previous editions. For example my favorite epic monster in DnD is Tiamat, but she isn't included in MM1 for 4e or the Monster Vault, so I won't include her in the final analysis. I also agree with Garthanos that the Druid should have been included in PHB1 for 4e, but it wasn't.
Would it be better to use haldrik's 4 group classification system? I could lump the various edition rulebooks together and look at common threads across Oe, Ae, 3e and 4e, instead of across each edition within those groups. If something is missing from one ruleset in a group, it doesn't matter as long as another ruleset in that group contains it. For example, Essentials includes the Druid, so I would include the Druid as a core class in the 4e group.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:07PM
#53
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
You can click on the pics then click View Full Sized to see them much bigger.
I get a message saying that I can't vview them due to privacy restrictions.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:11PM
#54
|
|
|
Sorry Hocus, I have the same problem as wrecan. I did a copy/paste into a word document, but when I zoomed it I lost too much resolution.
I'm sure we can figure something out.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:15PM
#55
|
|
|
I'm not sure it makes sense to include OD&D. OD&D was basically Gygax' and Arneson's home game, written down. If Rob Kuntz woke up one morning and wanted to play a half-dwarf, Gygax would have written up some rules and would have appeared in the next supplement. OD&D really doesn't represent a coherent attempt to put together a comprehensive game, as much fun as it was to play.
Yeah, OD&D is basically Gygax' and Arneson's barely legible "homebrew" design notes. At that stage of development, the game wasn't quite playble unless you just free-formed it. D&D didn't really come into fruition until the release of the Blue Box and AD&D 1st edition. That's when the game started jelling and coming together as a cohesive concept...and it's what ultimately became what most people know as D&D.
Heh, I know some people that would flame you right clear off the forum for that 
Personally I agree that OD&D was not clearly written. Nevertheless there's quite a bit of coherent design there, more than one might at first suspect. The other problem is where exactly does the game turn into a fully coherent design? I dare you to fully explain to anyone how 1e works and get a consensus on that. Holmes Basic is still VERY obtuse.
However, I can tell you from personal experience that there was actually a pretty fair amount of consensus on how OD&D and Holmes were supposed to play in most respects. Gary and others also did answer questions and even without anything like the Internet a lot of 'lore' circulated around. Games were different in each place, but it was all based on the same elements. From that standpoint you CAN nail down OD&D. From the standpoint of "how did combat work" or "how do you calculate hit points" it is a bit fuzzier. Still, the official races and classes are not in doubt.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:17PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
You can click on the pics then click View Full Sized to see them much bigger.
I get a message saying that I can't vview them due to privacy restrictions.
OK...didn't realize I had my privacy settings set so strict. I dropped them for viewing purposes. Try it now. If it still doesn't work, then I'll try something else.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:19PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
That's when the game started jelling and coming together as a cohesive concept...and it's what ultimately became what most people know as D&D.
Yeah, and now, at this point, with so many editions/versions/variants, etc. the game has changed in a way; I like it, very nebulous, you can basically tweak the d20 system to your heart's content.
But the 1st Ed PHB is definitely The Don for me.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 4:24PM
#58
|
|
|
@Hocus_Smokus.
Perfect. I pasted the lists into a word document and I'll get right to work.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 5:11PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I'm not sure it makes sense to include OD&D. OD&D really doesn't represent a coherent attempt to put together a comprehensive game, as much fun as it was to play.
Yeah, OD&D is basically Gygax' and Arneson's barely legible "homebrew" design notes. At that stage of development, the game wasn't quite playble unless you just free-formed it. D&D didn't really come into fruition until the release of the Blue Box and AD&D 1st edition. That's when the game started jelling and coming together as a cohesive concept...and it's what ultimately became what most people know as D&D.
Heh, I know some people that would flame you right clear off the forum for that
The other problem is where exactly does the game turn into a fully coherent design? I dare you to fully explain to anyone how 1e works and get a consensus on that. Holmes Basic is still VERY obtuse.
2e started to become more coherent and self-consistent, if still more complex than it needed to be for what it delivered. If you demand a 'cohesive' vision of D&D, that's probably the best you could do - but you'd have a very un-focused vision of 'core,' since it was already loaded with sub- classes and races by then, for instance.
We can't go dredging for the 'core' of D&D if we exclude it's past. Indeed, the strongest picture of the core conept of D&D is going to come from it's earliest incarnation: those first 3 booklets. that they lacked hard covers notwithstanding.
I rather like the exercise implied in this thread, BTW. Where 5e is trying to find the heart of D&D by looking at the Union of the first 3 books of each ed, this is looking at the necessarily smaller and more telling Intersection of them.
Besides, I love the idea of the Theif - which never worked very well - being excluded from Core D&D. It doesn't hurt that skills are completely gone in any and all forms, as well.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 6:47PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I'd say that since 4e had a very deliberate view against the Gnome, complete with a propaganda cartoon, that it should not be considered core.  One suggestion is to take a look at what is core for every campaign setting and edition.
Moderated by
ORC_Arjac
on Sep 27, 2012 - 07:12PM
|
|
|
