lasko@regina.DEC (09/24/84)
[SET FLAME/LOW] I'll assume that "DM/Gandalf_as_a_player_character/Republican" was referring to me by the nickname "Mr. Democrat". Since D/G/R apparently misunderstood me, I will repeat myself. AD&D and D&D ARE NOT THE SAME. TSR currently owns four fantasy role-playing games (one of them, Dragonquest, doesn't enter into this discussion). The first Dungeons & Dragons (the old brown or white box, now called the Original or Collectors set), Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (characterized by hardcover books), and the newer Dungeons & Dragons (characterized by softcover books or boxed sets, lacking the word "Advanced" on the cover.) In fact, there was even an intermediate version of Basic D&D that was sold in a boxed set with a light blue rulebook, but I haven't seen any of those around in some time. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons contains rules to cover levels 5-15. And I believe that the top level covered in the Expert Set of the D&D rules is 14, but I will double check. One cannot mix AD&D and D&D rules systems together officially (such as for a contest entry), and I wouldn't really want to in any case, since AD&D covers quite a bit more. So, D/G/R, which is it? D&D, AD&D, either, both, or neither? And, if I'm restricted to just the Expert Set of D&D rules, I'm going to have a lot of angry MUs who can't cast 1st level spells because they aren't "covered" in the Expert Set, and players in general will be a bit peeved if they can't use the Cure Light Wounds spell because it isn't "covered" in the Expert Set. And I, as a module designer, would like to have access to the beasties described ONLY in the Basic Set. But, I suppose you are correct, levels 5-15 are not covered by the Basic Set! Gosh. I hesitate to correct your grammar, but perhaps you meant: Frankly, levels 5-15 may ONLY be covered by either the Expert, or the Advanced rules, ... instead of... >>Franly, level 5-15 may ONLY be covered by Expert & Advanced rules, I fail to see how "expert D&Ders" can not be aware of the differences and history behind the several Dungeons & Dragons games. I can read quite well, thank you, and I've been an avid GM and role-player for over eight years. I could have come up with a clearer, and more consistent set of rules by cribbing from the rules to several of the Dragon's Module Design Competitions. Please, do feel free to post clarifications. What stands now sounds a lot like: "Hey everyone, give me all of your good ideas, 'cause I've run out." Again, correcting your grammar, hesitatingly, and only to prove my point: >>This has been a DM, and Gandalf as a player character implies two people, since one cannot be a DM and a player character at the same time. DM's run non-player characters. [SET FLAME/MEDIUM] Incidentally, I am a moderate Republican, not any flavor of Democrat. I don't wish to engage in politics here, merely state my position. (And why don't you use your name(s)?) Tim Lasko Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard Mass. "The opinions expressed are not those of my employer" {decvax, ihnp4, allegra, ucbvax, ... }!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-regina!lasko lasko%regina.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
ksl@hou2e.UUCP (K.LIU) (09/26/84)
Thank you. << THIS HAS BEEN xxx SITTING IN FOR yyy FOR NBC NIGHTLY NEWS >> Evidentaly, problems have occured: 1. I would like to point out that the word "or" is different from the symbol "&", mind you. 2. If number 1 is true (I'm sure it is, though you might not...), therefore the phrase: ... may cover either AD&D or Expert ... == means either, not both. For the sake of argument, let's say number 1 is false. If in case, number one IS FLASE, than I'm wrong, and then you may flame it. 3. I would like to say, that since you must not know what DragonLance is, I'll tell you. DragonLance is a set of modules for AD&D like "The Two Towers" belongs to "The Lord of The Rings." << THIS HAS BEEN AN EDITORIAL REPLY BY yyy TO xxx's EDITORIAL >>
nonh@utzoo.UUCP (Chris Robertson) (09/27/84)
I agree with Tim Lasko 100% -- I fail to see why we should all be creative
for the dubious rewards of having our modules spread across assorted nets
with no copyright guarantees, plus one, or maybe two, or pehaps just the
first, or the second, or neither, programs for doing some of the things
which are fun to do by hand (such as generating characters), which aren't
witten yet! I'd feel rather more like trusting the judgement of people
who could organize their thoughts and spell, too.
Come on, guys -- this has to be the most transparent rip-off attempt
at other people's ideas I've seen in a long time.
If you really want to get some good, original modules, try something
like the following:
1. Suggest a module sharing/rating arrangement -- someone acts as
co-ordinator, collects 'subscriptions', does preliminary judgment (i.e., can
this thing be played?) and mailing.
People contribute modules in playable form (that is, regular AD&D(tm)
glossy-module style -- map, description, DM notes, the works, though
of course we can't expect TOO much gloss for amateur things...).
Modules which do not have enough info to be playable are returned to
sender, with explanation.
2. About once every 1-2 months, depending on how long the module-of-the-month
is, a module is mailed to those on the subscription list. Their groups
play it. The groups mail feedback to the co-ordinator, who re-mails
it to the author.
3. Copyright is stressed. No one except the author is allowed to make
a profit from the module in the future. Suggestions will be acknowledged,
but as this is a mutual benefit system, reward for pointing out good/bad
points in another author's module is to have him do it for yours later...
Expanding something like this into a module-swapping club might work.
It would be a lot of work for the co-ordinator, who needs to be an
experienced DM, too, to do preliminary judging of adequacy.
It's a lot of effort to write up a module, though, so I expect response
would be very spotty. But let's not have silly "fame and fortune plus
these great programs ... when we get them finished ..." lures, please.
--Chris Robertson {decvax, linus}!utzoo!nonhksl@hou2e.UUCP (K.LIU) (09/29/84)
Dear folks who do not read all of the articles before they speak: Famous quote: "Read before you flame." Somehow, you look like a politican, possibly former. I would also like to point out: written is spelled with a R! Also, apparantly, many of you flamers prefer to read none, flame all. I would again like to point out: In my third article, I pointed out that if you would not like to have your module spread out, to have warnings at the front and end. Besides, I'm pretty sure the majority of us prefer the thought of automatically rolling their characters. Sure sounds good to those who create NPCs. Please keep the net clean of dragons! To those AD&D fans who suffered: Please excuse my pet dragons who like to flame(and for a good chinck of your h.p.!) K.Liu a.k.a Dungeon Master
lasko@regina.DEC (09/30/84)
Since I believe I'm being spoken to in houxm!hou2e!ksl's latest posting, I feel
compelled to reply.
1. Yes, "or" is different from "&".
2. And yes I meant "either...or" and not "either...or...or both". AD&D and
the Expert Set of D&D don't cover the same things for levels 5 through 15.
For example, I cannot be a 6th level Druid in D&D (anymore) since the Druid
in D&D must start off as a cleric, and then change at 9th level. Not to
mention the fact that the Druid rules are covered in the Companion set.
D&D and AD&D are two different games. You have a few days back specified
which game you were looking for (AD&D), and that's fine.
Pax?
3. Huh? (I'm not sure whether you are talking to me here, since I can't recall
ever bringing in the DragonLance saga or the modules into this discussion).
Are you saying that "The Two Towers" is a module for "The Lord of the Rings",
or that the DragonLance modules are part two of an AD&D trilogy?
Tim Lasko
{decvax, ihnp4, allegra, et. al.}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-regina!lasko