Hi everyone. After sleeping and eating D&D for over a dozen years I've been away from the game for almost a decade now. However, I have recently started to pick it back up.
Here are my questions. Back in 1986 TSR released Temple of Elemental Evil which lead into Scourge of the Slave Lords. I have both of these. For some reason I thought Scourge had a direct lead into the Against the Giants series. I can't find it. Am I imagining this or am I just missing it?
Also, when reading the intro to Giants I can not determine where in Greyhawk (if anywhere in paticular) it is supposed to occur. Was there another Giants series released after the G1-3 series back in 1981?
Your going to get a million replies to this - I'm just trying to see if I can answer your question first! :-)
The "G series" of modules were some of the first TSR ever published. The "A series" came later - they were actually first used as tournament modules, then published later with more background, etc. While T1 (village of hommlet) was also an early release, the much anticipated T2 never got released - until they finally put out the T1-4 "super module".
At this point, they repackaged the original A1-4 series into a second "super module", with additional material to help connect it to the story started in T1-4. Likewise, the G1-3, D1-3, Q1 modules got repackaged into another supermodule that also had extra material to connect it in with the others.
While all of this stuff has been out of print for a long time, you can still find them on ebay -OR- you can purchase a PDF version online at rpgnow.com.
The original modules were all set in Greyhawk, but weren't really connected as a campaign.
|
To piggy-back on DMR's post... The order for the whooooole sweeping arc is
Temple of Elemental Evil / Hommlet and Nulb
Scourge of the Slave Lords / the Pomarj
Against the Giants / Sterich
Descent into the Depths of the Earth/Vault of the Drow / the Underdark
Queen of the Demonweb Pits / the Abyss
As DMR noted, Agaist the Giants through Demonweb Pits were collected in the Queen of the Spiders mega-venture. The 'lead in' between Scourge and AtG is retrofit into the Queen of collection. For added fun, look up Dungeons recent Istivin: City of Shadows 3 issue arc for some familiar faces and lots of fun (courtesy of author Greg Vaughn).
The 'lead in' between Scourge and AtG is retrofit into the Queen of collection.
Aha! That's where I was missing the piece of the puzzle. I have the G1-3 package but not the Queen of the Spiders mega-venture! I remember DMing good ole' T1 and all of us waiting FOREVER for T2. I've got T1-4 and A1-4 (as well as the orginal A series) so now I'm going to try to find that Queen of the Spiders mega-venture! I have actually found a lot of old school stuff on Amazon.com, but you really have to know what you're looking for.
Thanks a bunch to both of you for your prompt (and very helpful) responses!
Funny this was asked as I have been wondering about something in the Giants module. I'm sure somebody on these boards can answer this question (if there is an actual answer).
After the Istivin arc in Dungeon recently, I decided to go back and read the Queen of Spiders mega-module just because it had been years since I had. I know that Gygax was notorious for just throwing in encounters in modules he wrote that didn't really go with the theme(for lack of a better term) of the module. Just weird things that would kill you out right, change your gender, etc...
So riddle me this:
Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Rooms 17A and 18. Weird Abandoned Temple and Vestry respectively. Glowing purplish green stone, disturbing shapes, nauseous causing walls, greasy yellow-grey translucent stone altar, insanity inducing walls, disgusting murals, downward slanting staircase blocked with rubble, etc...
Was this ever embellished upon? It is kind of hinted in the lower level descriptions that the hill giants obviously didn't build this, just the fort atop it. The masonry/mining could be attributed to the stone giants down there but I was always curious about this Lovecraftian altar and why the orcs had it blocked off and where the staircase went.
Any takers? Or was it not ever really explained. Talk amongst ya-selves...
If you guys are into old school DandD, you can download Bone Hill, Palace of Silver Princess, Dungeonland, etc. at the WoTC website. Just go to the homepage and click on Downloads. Then go to the bottom, where it says old edition.
If you guys are into old school DandD, you can download Bone Hill, Palace of Silver Princess, Dungeonland, etc. at the WoTC website. Just go to the homepage and click on Downloads. Then go to the bottom, where it says old edition.
Man i just cant get into a scan of somebody elses module. I like to have the real thing, its not hard to find them at hitpointe.com or dragon's trove or - if you feel brave - ebay.
da Hobbit
So riddle me this:
Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Rooms 17A and 18. Weird Abandoned Temple and Vestry respectively. Glowing purplish green stone, disturbing shapes, nauseous causing walls, greasy yellow-grey translucent stone altar, insanity inducing walls, disgusting murals, downward slanting staircase blocked with rubble, etc...
Was this ever embellished upon? It is kind of hinted in the lower level descriptions that the hill giants obviously didn't build this, just the fort atop it. The masonry/mining could be attributed to the stone giants down there but I was always curious about this Lovecraftian altar and why the orcs had it blocked off and where the staircase went.
Any takers? Or was it not ever really explained. Talk amongst ya-selves...
Simple.
Its the Elder Elemental God of Evil. Lately its been retconned into a Far Realmsian enity worshipped in ages past, before man, in times when things wiggled and squirmed rather than walked.In the World of Greyhawk the EEGoE has also linked to Thrazduin, Jubilex and as of late the Far Realms. I think its safe to say that it is its own enity and owes nothing to those gawds, and I'll go as far as to say its probably happy being left alone in this reality and is as likely to destroy, mutate, reward as it is to just ignore those calling out to it.
If you note, all three sites of the giants in the G series had been built on places containing sites once sacred to the Elder God of Elemental Evil and its capracious behavior and primal nature had awed the giants and Eclavadra had used it to unify the giants on the surface world as well as gain control of House Eilservs in the Vault of the Drow.
|
|
Funny this was asked as I have been wondering about something in the Giants module. I'm sure somebody on these boards can answer this question (if there is an actual answer).
After the Istivin arc in Dungeon recently, I decided to go back and read the Queen of Spiders mega-module just because it had been years since I had. I know that Gygax was notorious for just throwing in encounters in modules he wrote that didn't really go with the theme(for lack of a better term) of the module. Just weird things that would kill you out right, change your gender, etc...
So riddle me this:
Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Rooms 17A and 18. Weird Abandoned Temple and Vestry respectively. Glowing purplish green stone, disturbing shapes, nauseous causing walls, greasy yellow-grey translucent stone altar, insanity inducing walls, disgusting murals, downward slanting staircase blocked with rubble, etc...
Was this ever embellished upon? It is kind of hinted in the lower level descriptions that the hill giants obviously didn't build this, just the fort atop it. The masonry/mining could be attributed to the stone giants down there but I was always curious about this Lovecraftian altar and why the orcs had it blocked off and where the staircase went.
Any takers? Or was it not ever really explained. Talk amongst ya-selves...
I hate to admit it, but i liked it when Gary Gygax through things in for no apparent reason. I call it fate. In fact, S. happens, it's my motto--and it encourages smart game play. Thats my 2 cents. Yes i realize thats all my opinion is worth. ha!
Thoth from So. Cal.
I hate to admit it, but i liked it when Gary Gygax through things in for no apparent reason. I call it fate. In fact, S. happens, it's my motto--and it encourages smart game play. Thats my 2 cents. Yes i realize thats all my opinion is worth. ha!
I don't really agree that it encourages smart game play all that much. It encourages players to be prepared for absolutly anything but I question if that is really encouraging smart game play. I'd think it simply encourages the players and especially the spell casters to attempt to create the most effective generic choices of spells completely outside of the context of whatever it is they think they are doing.
Since they have no way at all of knowing what might happen next and have seen on numerous occasions that trying to reason out their situation based on anything resembling logic is a flawed concept they can't really make any kind of informed choices.
I prefer it when things make sense and are internally conistent. If your facing many many kobolds in little tiny tunnels you mostly don't have to worry about Fire Giants around the next bend or being charmed by a Nymph in the Grotto of Eden that your about to be sucked into by a magic mirror.
Now certianly Adventurers should be prepped to deal with the unexpected within reason but the unexpected should not neccisarly be every single encounter irregardless of the environment and in difiance of all apparent evidence. My opinion is that players show their skills and play better if there reasoning is actually worth something. If they are headed into the swamp they should be able to reasonably expect not to find many fire loving creatures and should expect to encounter creatures that like to live in swamps - if they choose spells and make decisions based on this reasoning they should have a better chance of accomplishing their mission.
|
|
Jeremy...Thanks for your comment and agreeing with me whole-heartedly for let me quote you: "It encourages players to be prepared for absolutely anything...I'd think it simply encourages the players and especially the spell casters to attempt to create the most effective generic choices of spells completely outside of the context of whatever it is they think they are doing." If that doesnt encourage smart game play then what does? Ha! -Bottom line: life isnt fair, but smart game play can weigh the odds in ones favor. But sometimes the Gods just arent with you and you die. Logic? It can only get you so far. Thats life, and the true secret of a good game. Ive been playing for 30 years(I'm 38) so let me give you a suggestion that worked great for me and my group of players. Play modules your characters have no business playing. Then try to see if you can simply survive--now thats life in the adventuring world. It was not unusual for us to play high level games with extremely low level characters. You get smart and create some wild things to get you through. It teaches you when to run, avoid, etc. It's not easy to survive, but anythings possible, and over time our success has vastly improved. Fun, fun! Games now-a-days lack in this area for we all know that with good game play ones character will most likely survive. I dont want that guarantee! Guarantees encourage flaws in game play. I dont want to sacrifice realism for guarantees. Give me risks, for after all, that is what truly makes one/s(character/s) great-not to mention, it enhances fun. Does it not? Play by the seat of your pants and always ASSUME something is lurking behind ever corner that will most probably kill you and play your character accordingly-and prepare accordingly, then act accordingly. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I play with expert players from time to time that refuse to play 12's when they can play 10's, for they are afraid to put their character too much as risk. This is way to PC for me. It can be argued that it encourages more people to play, and thats all fine and dandy but that not what made D&D great, lets not forget our roots. My opinion, at least one character should not survive every adventure. Makes for great story-telling around the camp fires. It sickens me when a party of 6 survive many levels w/o anyone dying. Whats wrong with this picture? If you dont agree then just ask any hard-core player that played 1st edition. I know they got my back. Happy gaming. Ha!
That's my 2 cents.
Thoth Amon
Thoth Amon,
Well, I'm "old school" from 1st ed and have been playing for over 25 years and am so enamored of the old style of play that my group still plays 2nd edition and all that being said - I still agree with Jeremy over you. While variety is the spice of life and "expecting the unexpected" provides a sense of danger and excitement - living in a completely random, senseless, overpowering world is not fun - it's frustrating and annoying. If everyone is constantly being thrown into the meat grinder how is character development ever accomplished? A person wouldn't dare form any kind of attachment to his/her character. As a DM, my players regularly die (probably largely because I never fudge rolls - but that's another debate) but I certainly wouldn't want to play in a campaign where not just death but overwhelming senseless death lurked in every preposterous corner (and therefore, I wouldn't dare pull such a stunt as a DM). About one character usually dies in each of my game sessions but this can be largely avoided by careful planning and logical reasoning. I'd be extremely annoyed, personally, if I came to the correct conclusion regarding the bad guy/end boss only to get stomped by some random creature that was way above my level anyway and had nothing to do with the storyline (do you even bother with storylines in your game?). Overkill and complete randomness with constant character re-creation and without room for character development sounds too much like a poorly designed video game to me. Death - reset - death - reset... So, sorry, Thoth Amon, but this old-schooler doesn't "have your back". While I respect your view, and certainly you are free to continue what works for you, I think forcing generalization in character creation/development is not good game play - and worse, encourages power-playing and munchkinism. I like my characters to have depth, background, and unique style. While logic can't resolve everything and surprises/random acts of violence can still happen, encouraging forethought and reasoning is, IMO, the cornerstone of good role-playing. If my character is going to take severe damage whether I discover the key to the puzzling lock or just mindlessly whack at it, then I may as well create a character with Intelligence/Wisdom of 2 because that's how you as the DM are treating me.
|
|
What youre saying does sound pretty bad when stretched out to the 10th power-something i didnt do. I enjoyed all the classic modules and never at any time did i take out the 'fate' card and yet, we all had fun. Also, i dont see how it takes away from character development. If you are a good player usually everyone lives but if youre not, then i expect one to die in every adventure (perhaps this is my bad by not elaborating enough). How else do you get better unless you die from time to time? Of course, the more you play--and learn--the better your chances for survival. I respect your opinion and i am glad you respect mine but perhaps youve exaggerated my POV just a bit(again, perhaps my fault for not elaborating enough). Riddle me this: If the 'fate' card was so horrible, then explain the popularity of the classics? I'm sorry if i seem rough around the edges but i get a little bothered with the new gamers (players after 1st & 2nd edition--especially the ranked players)that never seem to die. My only point was that D&D has been dumbed down to make it easier. In the old way, you were much more involved with your character (and character development) because keeping him or her alive was a real challenge. Even though i like alot of the new modules, i find them incredibly easy even at 12. The only time people seem to die is when a player does something stupid. I remember my first module ever played: i died twice (2 characters) and i learned from my mistakes and never died in that fashion again. A thought: ever think that the 'fate' card Gary Gygax threw in was deliberate to enhance
game play? After all, that was his answer when posed this question near 15+ years ago. I was there. Guarantees equate to bland risk, no guarantees equates to real life. The more risk the more emotionally attached and involved you are to your character--which encourages smarter game-play. A point to the writer that mentioned that a character should reasonably assume whats in a swamp--why? -and whats logic got to do with it. This is a primevil world after all, and nobody has a book of every living creature living within the worlds of D&D--which is why D&D comes up with new monters all the time. I dont recall Bilbo crying to Gandalf about the unexpected creature in the swamp. Gandalfs only reply was that "there are older and fouler things living in the depths of the earth." EXPECT NOTHING and prepare for anything and you'll live to tell stories and sing songs of glory around the camp fire. Shake it up and surprise your characters and things are infinitely more fun. I appreciate your opinion and i thank you for giving it but in my games, i will continue to throw in the 'fate' card to trip up the arrogant. Heck, we even use trained rats with string to get around traps. You get pretty inventive when you realize the alternative is death. In the end, i allow 'Chaos Theory' to be incorporated--not unlike Gary Gygax, others do not--which is the only difference between our gaming styles. We are all right, which makes D&D the greatest game ever-something we all can agree on whole-heartedly. Have a great game!
Thoth
Thoth,
Sorry if I came off as harsh - it was not really my intent. I reread my last post and (gulp) now must apologize for my nasty tone. As you said, clearly I did not fully understand your point of view from your earlier post. I think the fate card can be fun to add flavor to the game and mix things up a bit (if used with discretion). One time I had the PCs sight a white dragon as it glided into its nest/lair near a mountaintop. After they got all stocked up to resist cold,etc.,and readied their heat/fire spells/weapons, the dragon breathed fire and shocked their socks off! It was actually an albino red dragon and not a white dragon at all. Ha! Another great DM moment brought to you by yours truly. It was fun but I don't pull stunts like that all the time or it would be frustrating for the players. I wouldn't have a problem throwing something unexpected in a swamp if there was some reasonable explanation to why it was out of its typical habitat. I love Gary Gygax (who could not respect the father of the game?) but I hated Tomb of Horrors for instance because it was completely illogical and just a wicked party killer - no amount of wit or wisdom is going to save the party from hideous death. It is not terribly difficult for a DM to willfully kill one or more PCs simply by throwing some overly-difficult encounter at them without warning. I agree with you that long-lived characters often are representative of poor campaign design/poor DMing but the pendulum can swing too far the opposite way as well. I just don't like nonsense like behind the third door in the goblin warren is a tarrasque. Things need to exist by some sort of explanation even if that explanation is outside usual logic. I agree life is not always logical but it is rarely preposterous. That was my point.
|
|
Thoth,
Sorry if I came off as harsh - it was not really my intent. I reread my last post and (gulp) now must apologize for my nasty tone. As you said, clearly I did not fully understand your point of view from your earlier post. I think the fate card can be fun to add flavor to the game and mix things up a bit (if used with discretion). One time I had the PCs sight a white dragon as it glided into its nest/lair near a mountaintop. After they got all stocked up to resist cold,etc.,and readied their heat/fire spells/weapons, the dragon breathed fire and shocked their socks off! It was actually an albino red dragon and not a white dragon at all. Ha! Another great DM moment brought to you by yours truly. It was fun but I don't pull stunts like that all the time or it would be frustrating for the players. I wouldn't have a problem throwing something unexpected in a swamp if there was some reasonable explanation to why it was out of its typical habitat. I love Gary Gygax (who could not respect the father of the game?) but I hated Tomb of Horrors for instance because it was completely illogical and just a wicked party killer - no amount of wit or wisdom is going to save the party from hideous death. It is not terribly difficult for a DM to willfully kill one or more PCs simply by throwing some overly-difficult encounter at them without warning. I agree with you that long-lived characters often are representative of poor campaign design/poor DMing but the pendulum can swing too far the opposite way as well. I just don't like nonsense like behind the third door in the goblin warren is a tarrasque. Things need to exist by some sort of explanation even if that explanation is outside usual logic. I agree life is not always logical but it is rarely preposterous. That was my point.
I tend to agree with most everything you said and i love the albino Red Dragon encounter. Awesome! Simply awesome! Hope you dont mind if i steal that scenario for one of my campaigns--with full credit given to you, of course. I love Tomb of Horrors for the exact reason you didnt care for it: it's sick, twisted and evil--which was the point of its creation, after all. When either me or my players get into that suicidal mood to test all boundaries of rational thought with our name level characters, thats when we enter the Tomb of Horrors. Last time i played Toh, our entire party was all but wiped out. A few of us made it to the final Lich encounter in sorry shape(keep in mind i am trying to remember the the exact details of said scenario for it has been over 20 years). Out of 10-12 characters, i believe 1 to 3 survived intact, maybe not. Out of my 2 characters, one died 25% into the module(crushed or something like that), and my Paladin made it to the Lich encounter having been turned into a girl(gender reversal) with my alignment reversed(which caused me to lose all my Paladin benefits--oh, and if i remember correctly, i was also in the buff(no armor, weapons-nothing). My demise came swift by the Lich. Fun stuff! In fact, in the near future there is talk of another adventure to the new ToH. I believe they should put out 1 ToH-esce type of module every year(no more than one) as a challenge module. Believe it or not, our ToH's adventure is the classic module most remembered and talked about amongst us old gamers(i'm 38). The Gods were definitely not with us on that game day--especially for my Paladin. Ha!
Thoth Amon, the Atlantian MindFlayerian
|
|
Continuing on with the so-called "death" modules: Not only would i love to see one come out once a year, i would want it as difficult as Tomb or Horrors, where your life expectancy is around 25%. Then if you survive it you automatically level up. So the reward would always be a level, which is pretty good when you are a high level character. Equation: Extremely high risk=1 level up. My 2 cents. Anyone else want to chime in with their opinions?
Thoth-Amon the Atlantian Mindflayerian
|
Continuing on with the so-called "death" modules: Not only would i love to see one come out once a year, i would want it as difficult as Tomb or Horrors, where your life expectancy is around 25%. Then if you survive it you automatically level up. So the reward would always be a level, which is pretty good when you are a high level character. Equation: Extremely high risk=1 level up. My 2 cents. Anyone else want to chime in with their opinions?
Thoth-Amon the Atlantian Mindflayerian
I never understood how someone could love Tomb of Horrors. It's the most terrible adventure I've ever seen. Nothing more than a player killer and too much stuff in so few rooms. But at least it got a reputation. I never ran it, and I know from my players that they as well don't like it.
Even if you make it to the last room, at least there, the by than surviving characters will die!!! Anyway, just my thought!But having a good old adventure published for the new edition once a year would be great!
I would love to see CASTLE AMBER, or RAVENLOFT and HOUS ON GRYPHON HILL. The last two would make great for a single Dungeon issue! ;)
Extremely high risk=1 level up? Yes, I make this on a regular basis. If my players survived a tough adventure, they most of the time get a level. But they would get it anyway (most of the time) because of the EL calculation.