rob@anwar.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) (05/08/85)
[you turn the corner and see a line-eater bug!]
I hear so much about the `Balrog', I even have a Balrog miniature
made by Ral-Partha. However, I have been unable to find any
reference to the Balrog in the TSR AD&D hardcover manuals
(Monster Manual, MMII, Fiend Folio).
Before I go ahead and use the stats for a `Demon - Type VI (Balor)',
can anyone clue me in on the real stats for the Balrog, and why they
don't appear in the manuals (was there some sort of copyright dispute -
like when Melnibonean Mythos disappeared from the Demigods & Dieties
manual)?
rob
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax}!philabs!hhb!robshp@crystal.UUCP (05/09/85)
> > I hear so much about the `Balrog', I even have a Balrog miniature > made by Ral-Partha. However, I have been unable to find any > reference to the Balrog in the TSR AD&D hardcover manuals > (Monster Manual, MMII, Fiend Folio). > That's because TSR couldn't rip-off quite everything. Read Tolkien. Repeatedly. TSR ain't God. (Neither's Tolkien, but he had more class :-)
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (05/11/85)
> [you turn the corner and see a line-eater bug!] > > I hear so much about the `Balrog', I even have a Balrog miniature > made by Ral-Partha. However, I have been unable to find any > reference to the Balrog in the TSR AD&D hardcover manuals > (Monster Manual, MMII, Fiend Folio). > > Before I go ahead and use the stats for a `Demon - Type VI (Balor)', > can anyone clue me in on the real stats for the Balrog, and why they > don't appear in the manuals (was there some sort of copyright dispute - > like when Melnibonean Mythos disappeared from the Demigods & Dieties > manual)? > rob > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax}!philabs!hhb!rob Well, here we go again. The Balrog (you remember--it killed Gandalf temp- orarily in LotR) appeared in the original (white box) D&D rules as a very tough demon-type critter. If you don't have access to those rules, use the Type VI demon--it's similar. --Mr. Blore, the DJ (or DM?) who would not die! (aka Steve Howard)
bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (05/13/85)
In article <172@anwar.UUCP>, rob@anwar.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) writes: > ... was there some sort of copyright dispute - > like when Melnibonean Mythos disappeared from the Demigods & Dieties > manual? There was no copyright dispute to the best of my knowledge. Chaosium clearly held the rights to product Melnibonean and Cthulhu based material. They only wanted TSR to put something that said "Used with permission from The Chaosium". TSR had a temper tantrum and decided to strip the pages out, put in some chintzy art and *still* charges $12.00 for the book. I had also heard that Chaosium was considering obtaining the rights to publish Nehwon material. What will TSR do then? They have already cut 16 pages of material out of the book. Will another 9 disappear? -- Dr. Bob UUCP ..!ihnp4!plus5!bob The opinions expressed here are only loosely based on the facts.
jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) (05/19/85)
In D&D (the original, greyish-brown box of booklets) there was a monster called Balrog. It was strengthened quite a bit and the name was, for copyright reasons, changed to Balor when the Monster manual was published. Before going really comercial in 1977, TSR held views that are usual in the small end of the gaming industry. Copyrights were not all that important, service was on a personal basis and E G Gygax said that D&D wasn't a perfect game - go ahead and change it to your liking. Those were times! Jacob (I think hobbits were called hobbits and not haflings in the first edition of D&D but I'm not sure)
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (05/20/85)
> In D&D (the original, greyish-brown box of booklets) there was a monster > called Balrog. It was strengthened quite a bit and the name was, for > copyright reasons, changed to Balor when the Monster manual was published. > Before going really comercial in 1977, TSR held views that are usual in >the small end of the gaming industry. Copyrights were not all that important, > service was on a personal basis and E G Gygax said that D&D wasn't a perfect > game - go ahead and change it to your liking. > Those were times! > Jacob > (I think hobbits were called hobbits and not haflings in the first edition > of D&D but I'm not sure) Yes, they were hobbits. In fact, if you get a copy of the "Collector's Edition" D&D (which is not the original edition that a "collector" would want), you will note that certain parts of the manual are in a different typeface: "halflings", "treants", and all the other cases where they had copyright "problems". -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA "MU" said the Sacred Chao...