I have a pretty basic, perhaps dumb, question. What is the special character of OD&D Greyhawk?
To my knowledge, there were never any Greyhawk products released for OD&D, except the original GH D&D pamphlet in the white and brown box days (which had very little to actually do with the subsequently published World of Greyhawk). So, other than just using the OD&D rules in GH, is there some special characteristic to OD&D Greyhawk?
In asking this question, I am not knocking either OD&D or its use in GH. I have a good deal of OD&D material and I use the Companion Rules Box in my Greyhawk game for fiefs and mass combat (but I don't see the Companion Rules as particularly "Greyhawk" but rather as just the best rules for the job - fiefs and mass combat).
What do people see as particularly "Greyhawk" about the OD&D rules?
Or what do the OD&D Rules lend to Greyhawk by their use that is unique or special? _________________ GVD
To me, the benefit of using Classic D&D instead of AD&D or D&D3 is that CD&D is a lot more fast playing and lighthearted. The focus away from complex rules lets you focus on as much roleplaying and storytelling as you want, without getting mired in rules debates.
Combat runs quick, so if it's not the major component of your game, you can get through it quickly while still having fun. Of course, you can always add in options inspired by other editions of the game, giving combat as much complexity as your group is comfortable with.
Simple flexibility is what CD&D adds to a Greyhawk game. Rather than try and provide rules for every situation and classes, kits and races for every possible character type, CD&D expects the players and DM to fill in the blanks.
The fact that there are no Greyhawk products for CD&D is the very reason for this forum. We want to provide an alternative to Known World, or at least a resource of new material that can be used in Greyhawk or easily adapted to Known World.
To me that is why I switched to 3E or 3.5E. In the 1st edition of the game everyrhing was arbitrary. What you did in one application of your skills at diplomacy, for example, did not work again the next time. It was too hap-hazard. In 3.5 e there are specific rules whose application that never changes. The drawback is that you need to be familiar with these rules, and there is quite a bit of them. The roleplaying aspect does not necessarily change but the proceess for success is now standardized. My current DM does not understand this yet so like you mentioned either the roleplaying is killed or we are bogged down in rukes lawyering. However in another game I am in the DM balances it perfectly so their is still great roleplaying and the standard process. To get back to the original question in the previous editions the basic game was used in the Known World Setting, the Advanced game in Greyhawk and later Forgotten Realms. Why? The only reason I good guess is that at that time TSR was still evolving as a company and their business direction was severly limited, so they put out alot of different products and settings to make as much money as possible and stay afloat. As the business became more professional, they streamlined their products and rules system. Less to support and more focus can be applied hence now d20 or 3.5e. Prior to this I used all the rules in all the settings eventually settling on the advanced rules and the Greyhawk and also Known World Settings. I like them both. But now I like to replay all the 1e Greyhawk modules by 3.5e rules and it is just awesome.
While I respect that others find different editions of the game more enjoyable, let's remember that system comparison is not the focus of this forum.
I know Darva well enough to state with confidence that her comments about what makes Classic D&D a nice choice for running a Greyhawk game are not intended as a slight on the other editions. She was simply explaining why we choose to use Classic D&D. I say we, because I am her DM _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
Please accept my apologies. Sometimes these forums do not convey attitude properly. In my response I was merely stating that the standardization of some rules is the reason I switched to 3e/3.5e. It was not meant as an attack on anyone who chooses different additions to use in play.
As to the original question, I do not think that their is anything particularly Greyhawk about any of the rule systems, they can be applied to any setting with equal ease. Even the Immortal rules set can be flexible in that sense. Dungeon magazine did just that when they took the Isle of Dread Setting from the Known World and now placed it in Greyhawk. The original module was made for the Expert rules. Now Paizo placed it Greyhawk using 3.5e rules. If it works for your game that is great, if not no big deal.
...that this forum died, but I do think Rich took the wrong tact with it. Rather than adding new rules,* this should have been a forum for DE-ruling Greyhawk. Using the "simplicity" of OD&D to trim down the setting to its simplest form. Retroconverting newer material for Greyhawk to what it would have looked like circa 1976 would have been nice. Or at least that's what I would have contributed with time to spare for it...
*(And by "rules" I meant any new "crunchy" bits -- a forum dedicated to OD&D should be about making the new seem old, not adding new to the old, In My Opinion)
I do think Rich took the wrong tact with it. Rather than adding new rules,* this should have been a forum for DE-ruling Greyhawk. Using the "simplicity" of OD&D to trim down the setting to its simplest form. Retroconverting newer material for Greyhawk to what it would have looked like circa 1976 would have been nice. .
I agree, and that is what led to the forum being abandoned for a few months. We kind of lost sight of where we wanted to go with it. When Darva decided to reopen this thing and give it another shot, we decided to focus more on converting 2e and 3e material into Classic D&D and incoporating it into a simpler version of greyhawk.
We'll probably focus a lot on Geoff and its neighbors, primarily because Geoff has the geographic diversity to include a lot of different stuff. We'll leave the optional rules stuff here for archival, and may add similar things from time to time, but the focus will be on adapting material to classic greyhawk, as well as presenting material from our campaign (spells, monsters, etc).
Ultimately the direction is up to Darva, since it's her forum, not mine, but I think it's safe to say she agrees on this point. We don't need to reinvent the Classic D&D game, rather we just want to keep it relevant and adapt it to Greyhawk. _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
One thing I'd really like to see more of is converting new (3E or "3.5"E) D&D adventures to OD&D (I'm still pushing that phrase "retroconverting" for this). However, am I right in thinking that ENWorld no longer has its conversion library? Were there legal reasons behind that which would also prohibit Canonfire from becoming such a repository?
One thing I'd really like to see more of is converting new (3E or "3.5"E) D&D adventures to OD&D (I'm still pushing that phrase "retroconverting" for this).
I've been using the term "reverting".
Either one works.
Scottenkainen wrote:
However, am I right in thinking that ENWorld no longer has its conversion library? Were there legal reasons behind that which would also prohibit Canonfire from becoming such a repository?
ENWorld removed much of their conversion library once WotC clarified their conversion policy. It is acceptable to post conversion documents, as long as these are not presented as stand alone products. In other words, if we were to create a conversion of Fright at Tristor for Classic D&D, we must ensure that an actual copy of Fright at Tristor is still required by the DM running our converted version. Some of ENWorld's material violated this, and some was considered questionable and removed in the name of "better safe than sorry".
We are well within the realms of acceptable fair use as long as we present any conversions as a companion document to be referenced along with the original product. _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
I have a pretty basic, perhaps dumb, question. What is the special character of OD&D Greyhawk?
To my knowledge, there were never any Greyhawk products released for OD&D, except the original GH D&D pamphlet in the white and brown box days (which had very little to actually do with the subsequently published World of Greyhawk). So, other than just using the OD&D rules in GH, is there some special characteristic to OD&D Greyhawk?
Strictly speaking, module B1 "In Search of the Unknown" was for OD&D, even if it was released with the 1979 box set. And while the link is tenuous, it certainly has provision for being placed within the World of Greyhawk.
Too, you shouldn't overlook the fact that the whole OD&D rules were set in Greyhawk. You see artifacts and relics that refer to Greyhawk locales and personages, and of course the basic spell lists bear certain notable names as well. But your gist is right; Greyhawk-identified products didn't come out until AD&D.
I really think the special connection between OD&D/AD&D and Greyhawk is psychological. For years, it's all there was, and I fondly remember going through everything I could get my hands on looking for bits and pieces of old GH lore. It's just sorta connected in my mind, on an emotional level. Maybe the nostalgia factor is the key.
I have a pretty basic, perhaps dumb, question. What is the special character of OD&D Greyhawk?
To my knowledge, there were never any Greyhawk products released for OD&D, except the original GH D&D pamphlet in the white and brown box days (which had very little to actually do with the subsequently published World of Greyhawk). So, other than just using the OD&D rules in GH, is there some special characteristic to OD&D Greyhawk?
Strictly speaking, module B1 "In Search of the Unknown" was for OD&D, even if it was released with the 1979 box set. And while the link is tenuous, it certainly has provision for being placed within the World of Greyhawk.
Too, you shouldn't overlook the fact that the whole OD&D rules were set in Greyhawk. You see artifacts and relics that refer to Greyhawk locales and personages, and of course the basic spell lists bear certain notable names as well. But your gist is right; Greyhawk-identified products didn't come out until AD&D.
I really think the special connection between OD&D/AD&D and Greyhawk is psychological. For years, it's all there was, and I fondly remember going through everything I could get my hands on looking for bits and pieces of old GH lore. It's just sorta connected in my mind, on an emotional level. Maybe the nostalgia factor is the key.
Thulcondar
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think I agree with you. I was just pondering editions last night in a conversation and I found myself advocating/missing the simplicity of earlier editions of the game as compared to 3X, where stating out a character can take much longer etc.. 3X has lots of shinny toys but the cost is in time. I think Chatdemon and Scottenkainen are on to something when they speak of retrofitting (another term ) 3X materials for OD&D. _________________ GVD
I know I'm replying to an old post...I hope that's okay.
When I read special character, I thought character class. Now I'm reading it and interperting it to mean flavor for the game.
My impression from what I read about the late 1970s gamers playing D&D is that most of them made their own world. Then during the OD&D era there was the Greyhawk supplement which as I also understand (since I haven't read it myself) only gave some statistics like wandering monsters in different types of terrain. But it didn't provide a map of the terrain. The AD&D 1st ed. books had all kinds of references to Greyhawk stuff and the folio with a map came out in 1980. I bet a lot of OD&D players used the AD&D supplement and I bet a lot of OD&D players started using AD&D stuff as it came out until they were playing AD&D and didn't realize it. So Greyhawk is Greyhawk...even though it'll be different in each DM's interpertation/presentation of it.
the od&d greyhawk bok seems very odd. i mean, why call it Greyhawk if theres almost no grehawk in there?
introduction say things like "the material in "GREYHAWK" is noted so as to
distinguish new rules, additions to existing rules, and suggested changes. " and "Among other tilings this work will reveal to a breathlessly waiting world many of the horrid things which are part of the "Blackmoor" campaign and how to make it just as horrible in your own game. Meanwhile, find out what the devious minds behind "Greyhawk Castle" have been dreaming up for the amusement of the participants of that campaigning. . ."
i dont know..it was a little frustrating when i read this book
Welcome to the quirky world of OD&D. I am not 100% sure of this but, I think that the names for the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements came from the campaigns the rules were born in. That would explain the names. As a funny aside if you count that Greyhawk the volume III tag in the boxed set Gazetteer takes on a double meaning. _________________ Agape,
To me that is why I switched to 3E or 3.5E. In the 1st edition of the game everyrhing was arbitrary . . . It was too hap-hazard. In 3.5 e there are specific rules whose application that never changes . . . but the proceess for success is now standardized.
There was a time when a few men -- very few -- could actually wear their Congressional Medal of Honor. The rules were made by men who had tasted war: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, et al.
Today, all such heroic men are awarded the medal posthumously. That's because the rules have been changed by men who have never set foot on a battle field. Their moto is: "The only true hero is a dead hero."
Under the -- supposed -- "arbitrary" rules of old D&D, the DM could choose to award the "Congressional Medal of Honor" to a player, to wit; bragging rights! The player somehow survived their encounter with the red Dragon. He/she got to spend the rest of their Oerth life bragging about "that time when . . ."
Unfortunately, as the newer rules began to develope, survival of such an encounter became impossible, rather than improbable. And that's just not how life works.
Many people have suvived things that they should never have survived, but, somehow, they did it. The newer editions' rules leave no room for that -- real life -- "arbitrary" happening. Too much has been taken away from the DM.
Under the -- supposed -- "arbitrary" rules of old D&D, the DM could choose to award the "Congressional Medal of Honor" to a player, to wit; bragging rights! The player somehow survived their encounter with the red Dragon. He/she got to spend the rest of their Oerth life bragging about "that time when . . ."
Unfortunately, as the newer rules began to develope, survival of such an encounter became impossible, rather than improbable. And that's just not how life works.
Many people have suvived things that they should never have survived, but, somehow, they did it. The newer editions' rules leave no room for that -- real life -- "arbitrary" happening. Too much has been taken away from the DM.
But, that's just my opinion. Yep! I have one of those just as I have the legendary orifice!
You definitely have a point here. The 3e/3.5e rules do indeed tend to encourage such absolute rulings. In addition, IMHO the philosophy of WotC and its designers also appears to encourage such "by the rules" play. When I'm in a more cynical mood I've been known to say that this is because obeying the rules requires less energy and far less imagination than making your own, but I digress.
But must it be so? I'm not so sure. If we apply the philosophy and principles of older editions to newer editions, they can still work. In my own campaign I do this by making sure the players understand that I do NOT consider myself as DM to be bound by ANY of the rules as written. As far as the 3e/3.5e rules themselves are considered (and all power creep aside, which is another subject entirely), I do find that they are a much more internally consistent and complete rules set. It appears that it is precisely because of this consistency and completeness that the rules seem to encourage gamism. Since there's a rule for pretty much everything, then one is tempted to think that one must use the rules as written. But I encourage both players and DMs to avoid this temptation.
To my mind, the single biggest flaw of the 3e/3.5e rules is that they excluded the statement from the forward of the old AD&D rulebooks: "These are only guidelines." Had they incorporated that statement and philosophy into the 3e/3.5e rules, I'm betting they'd be perceived far differently than they currently are.
All that said, I prefer the 3.5e rules for my own games. But I do everything I can to make sure I don't fall into the 3.5e mindset. I believe that it is incumbent on every DM to choose what is best for his own game. Therefore, I choose the 3.5e rules and the 1e/OD&D philosophy. It seems to work well for me.
The 3e/3.5e rules do indeed tend to encourage such absolute rulings . . . But must it be so? . . . If we apply the philosophy and principles of older editions to newer editions, they can still work. In my own campaign . . . I do NOT consider myself as DM to be bound by ANY of the rules as written. As far as the 3e/3.5e rules . . . I do find that they are a much more internally consistent and complete rules set . . . To my mind, the single biggest flaw of the 3e/3.5e rules is that they excluded the statement from the forward of the old AD&D rulebooks: "These are only guidelines" . . . Therefore, I choose the 3.5e rules and the 1e/OD&D philosophy.
You are dead on, my friend -- as usual.
The original rules were a little haphazard, especially for the inexperienced DM. Often times these "young" DM's simply did not know which way to turn.
3e and 3.5e are definitely an improvement, for that reason alone. You expressed my sentiment in stating that the true problem seems to be that many DM's -- and "rules lawyers" -- stick to a "you can't do that" attitude, when, in fact, the DM can do whatever he/she wants to do!
Sticking to the rules to the extent that you begin killing off your players isn't going to make anyone happy -- nor make for interesting game play. We're all supposed to be having fun. Sometimes, the "hard and fast" rules system hinders the enjoyment of the game.
Your home game is not tournament play and shouldn't be. (A reason I don't enjoy tournament play nearly as much ).
The original rules were a little haphazard, especially for the inexperienced DM. Often times these "young" DM's simply did not know which way to turn.
Yes, even though I can now understand those old rules better and can manipulate them, ignore them, or create new ones whenever I need to, back then I found things a little confusing sometimes. As a child (I started playing when I was 9) I sometimes had difficulties DMing situations that I could easily handle now - since there weren't any rules to cover certain situations, I didn't know what to do. And when you add in all the articles in Dragon and various other sources, the sheer volume of rules and information were daunting (even as a teenager).
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
3e and 3.5e are definitely an improvement, for that reason alone. You expressed my sentiment in stating that the true problem seems to be that many DM's -- and "rules lawyers" -- stick to a "you can't do that" attitude, when, in fact, the DM can do whatever he/she wants to do!
This is indeed the crux of the problem with 3.5e, and one that cannot be understated. Even WotC's website encouraged rules lawyering - do you recall EVER hearing the phrase "character build" back in the 1e days? Of course not! Sure, there were always min-maxers and "powergamers" even then, but that kind of play was actively discouraged in Dragon magazine and practically everywhere else. Now it's not only encouraged, but the WotC website, Dragon, and numerous other websites will teach you how to do it. The assumption - often plainly stated - is that you're not playing the game well unless you're a powergamer.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Sticking to the rules to the extent that you begin killing off your players isn't going to make anyone happy -- nor make for interesting game play. We're all supposed to be having fun. Sometimes, the "hard and fast" rules system hinders the enjoyment of the game.
Definitely. But even now the WotC websites and plenty of others focus on how to use the rules to create monsters, characters, and settings that lend themselves to gamism rather than to roleplaying. It's pretty sad if you ask me. WotC has forgotten that it's roleplaying and not roll-playing that made D&D popular.
But concerning OD&D (and this is the OD&D forum, after all): there is much in the older rules systems that can (and should be) be used in newer systems. Those rules encourage several things, such as:
1) Individualism - The player is encouraged to choose his character's actions without hindrance, and that character lives or dies by its player's choices. Similarly, the DM is encouraged to create his own setting and adventures. These days the opposite is true - there is much more emphasis on playing within a framework as decided by the publisher. "You're not a game designer. You don't know what you're talking about. If you did, you'd be working for the Wizards instead of arguing with me," as one designer once told me. I think that attitude says a lot.
2) Freedom - There are no limits other than the imaginations of those at the table. Nowadays most published adventures and settings tend to be rather linear. If the players leave the DM's adventure site, there's nothing for them to do and nowhere for them to go. DMs often don't know how to handle it when that happens. Tragic, no?
3) Personal Ingenuity - Since the rules don't cover certain situations, the DM and players have to come up with their own solutions. These days everything has to happen according to the established rules. Coming up with a "better way" is frowned upon and often derided.
4) Imagination - Settings, characters, monsters, and virtually everything else in OD&D had to come from the DM and players, not from a book. While some new systems do contain subsystems for designing your own creatures, etc., you're supposed to do it the way the game's designers did it. Too much innovation puts you on the outside.
I could go on, but I'm getting tired and my secretary insists I have to go back to work now. So I'll close with this:
I understand perfectly well that many DMs and players these days are under time constraints and just don't have the time to do everything themselves, so I fault no one for using published adventures and rules, or for sticking to them doggedly. It's even worse for those with wives, kids, and jobs. For those without the time and energy, published, linear modules and clear, all-inclusive rules can be a good thing.
Nonetheless, much is lost when one allows any single publisher to create one's fantasies whole-cloth. I believe it is time for a revival of old-school thinking, regardless of whether or not that includes old-school rules. The newer generation should be encouraged to create its own worlds and ideas rather than getting them from a computer or a book. When the imagination is allowed to blossom, everyone benefits.
Even WotC's website encouraged rules lawyering - do you recall EVER hearing the phrase "character build" back in the 1e days? Of course not! . . . Now it's not only encouraged, but the WotC website, Dragon, and numerous other websites will teach you how to do it. The assumption - often plainly stated - is that you're not playing the game well unless you're a powergamer . . . WotC has forgotten that it's roleplaying and not roll-playing that made D&D popular . . . I believe it is time for a revival of old-school thinking, regardless of whether or not that includes old-school rules. The newer generation should be encouraged to create its own worlds and ideas rather than getting them from a computer or a book. When the imagination is allowed to blossom, everyone benefits.
Hallelujah! Amen brother! Let's hear it for the choir!
Having -- regrettably -- been away from the game for awhile, I understand your point perfectly. On Canonfire! I read constantly about things like a Genasi Assault Swordmage (Elemental Tempest), or a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord (Platinum Warlord) . . .
What in the hell are those? (I really don't know, but no, I'm not really asking.)
In OD&D the player characters were already special, that's why they had levels to begin with. Now, NPCs have levels, so, now the player character needs something more in order to be "special." It's really getting out of control.
As you said, its no longer role-playing, just roll-playing. The newer editions are becoming far too constricting, in that regard.
That's the "charm" of OD&D -- role-playing. The players actually had/have to think for themselves and make real decisions. So did/does the DM.
After reading the OD&D books and playing a game or two there is something about just having three classes and four races. In my opinion it is better than having all the extras added in later editions. _________________ Agape,
After reading the OD&D books and playing a game or two there is something about just having three classes and four races. In my opinion it is better than having all the extras added in later editions.
I can sympathize with that. Mind you, I do like to have options and incorporate a lot of them in my campaign, but simplicity has its own value. In terms of game design, I like to call it "restraint". In other words, a game could be designed with millions of classes (or the equivalent), millions of character options, and millions of whatever-else-you-can-think of, but it would soon get out of hand. One of the things that people often complain about with 3.5e is the sheer volume of options available.
From a business perspective I can certainly understand producing tons of options - it gives you something to sell. But unfortunately after a while your customers get overwhelmed. Therefore I advocate "restraint" in releasing such options. I feel WotC and other game companies would be better off if they produced the tools for making those options rather than the options themselves. Then they could sit back and provide other materials (modules, settings, etc.) instead of more splatbooks. They'd be able to maintain their customer base for longer periods, wouldn't upset anybody by producing new editions, and wouldn't burden their customers with the "need" to buy too many products. (And yes, I've discussed such a business model with those who know what they're talking about and some think it could work - others not so much.) Then, instead of producing a new edition every several years they could just repackage the existing rules, update them a bit, switch out unpopular options with popular ones, and everyone could keep playing.
I also advocate "restraint" in designing settings and adventures. Different people like different degrees of fantasy. For example, for the d20 Modern game some people like to include magic and others do not - that's the nature of human beings. But for the last several years game companies have been pushing an ever-higher degree of fantasy in their products. Heck, I've played some games in which I had to all but ignore any sense of reality I had. This is a problem in game design, though, because it limits your customer base. Similarly, adventures and settings with too high a degree of fantasy are harder to relate to and harder to DM the farther they get from reality. Therefore, I think game designers would be better off if they'd limit the degree of fantasy in their published products and instead produce the tools for adding a higher degree if desired. Otherwise they risk working themselves into a smaller niche market than they already have.
In terms of this "restraint" concept, OD&D (and, to a slightly lesser degree AD&D) provide an excellent starting point for roleplaying. Had these games been allowed to continue, and had they turned from producing rules to producing tools instead, I suspect they'd still be around. Maybe the d20 boom wouldn't have happened, but I suspect there would have been a steadily growing and much more reliable market in its place.
In my own games I've found that this concept of "restraint" bears remarkable fruit. People tend to enjoy games much more the better they can relate to the characters and situations involved. For example, I once had a player who came to my game with what he called a "37th level god". He was used to an extremely high degree of fantasy and said he preferred games that "pushed the boundaries". He even displayed a certain amount of smugness as he said that last bit. I proceeded to run him through a short campaign that dealt mostly with fighting orcs and similar "boring" creatures, along with a moderate degree of roleplaying and such. For about 2 sessions he complained about the lack of fantastic battles raging across multiple planes and similar things. But how did he like the game at its end? Let me just say this: his "boring" 6th level fighter is now framed and on his living room wall. The 37th level god of which he was once so proud is in a box in his basement. How do you think he liked playing with "restraint"?
But for the last several years game companies have been pushing an ever-higher degree of fantasy in their products. Heck, I've played some games in which I had to all but ignore any sense of reality I had.
Ditto. A simple example: Recently, during my travels, I stumbled upon a small group playing in Arkansas and I sat in, but only as an observer. I was only there for the one night and didn't want to upset any game play by adding another character for the DM to have to run.
One character was pushed down a flight of stairs, jumped up and ran back into the fight. I asked: "But supposing he's broken his neck in the fall? Or maybe an arm?" I was then informed: "Oh, that can't happen with these rules."
Reality check: Broken bones can't happen?
Its getting a little crazy. Now characters are immune to "accidental" hurts? They don't trip when they run? Their horse didn't almost bite their finger off while they were feeding it sugar?
After reading the OD&D books and playing a game or two there is something about just having three classes and four races. In my opinion it is better than having all the extras added in later editions.
Agreed. That's why I'm moving away from 3.5e.
Saludos!
Gabriel _________________ Discord: @GrillWizard
I don't think there was a hex map in 1979. For rules by 1979, you had OD&D available, "Basic" with the Holmes edition with the blue cover, and the three AD&D core books out.
For maps, the Greyhawk folio came out in 1980 "Approved for AD&D Rules." I think both Expert sets had hex maps as well, but they of course don't cover Greyhawk. Those sets came out in 1981 and 1983. I used to have the first Expert set and now I only have the second Expert book.
Yeah, I was thinking that the hex maps came out near the "end" of my "gaming career," as it were. The maps that came with the '83 box set I purchased looked familiar, when I "first" saw them, and I think they might be what I was thinking of.
Or course, the map for the LGG is completely different from anything I remember. Not that there's a lot "new" about it, except its "looks," which I like.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
) 3X materials for OD&D.
-- stick to a "you can't do that" attitude, when, in fact, the DM can do whatever he/she 
