modules most sorely needed?

[T. Foster]

I'm guessing he means a feeling like The Hobbit, a sort of dark (but not too dark) fairy tale world with lots of mystery and atmosphere, where things are generally suggested rather than being explicitly spelled out. Lots of mist and dark woods, lots of mysterious enigmatic figures (both good and bad), not a lot of detailed background exposition or explicit violence and gore.

A world that feel like this:

or this:

or this:

[AxeMental]

I don't literally mean The Hobbit (which would be limiting, the opposite of what you want AD&D or D&D to be), but rather sticking to that sort of general setting look and feel, technology, wildness, climate, freshness (as if its a new world litterally, but not so new that its still very old), etc. (but still human-centric, with all the workings of AD&D and monsters that are monsters) and as Foster pointed out mysterious and somewhat magical (but not so magical that magic looses its special rare quality). Think the Giant Series, but perhaps more loosely linked and different sorts of critters. Quality modules equal to the late 70s early 80s that so linked would create a setting of their own. One great module floating in the ether is fine. 6 great modules that relate to each other (but are also very independent) would be awsome.

Of course whats needed more then new modules is a new market of AD&D players (un-infected by the virus of "new" which is really "accept our crap because thats all your going to get"). Maybe our "Brave Hobbit" can start a new generation playing late 70s early 80s style 1E AD&D (via OSRIC). A very small chance of success perhaps, but what do we have to loose. Stranger things have happened.

[Flambeaux]

I don't literally mean The Hobbit (which would be limiting, the opposite of what you want AD&D or D&D to be), but rather sticking to that sort of general setting look and feel, technology, wildness, climate, freshness (as if its a new world litterally, but not so new that its still very old), etc. (but still human-centric, with all the workings of AD&D and monsters that are monsters). Think the Giant Series, but perhaps more loosely linked and different sorts of critters. Quality modules equal to the late 70s early 80s that so linked would create a setting of their own. One great module floating in the ether is fine. 6 great modules that relate to each other (but are also very independent) would be awsome.

Of course whats needed more then new modules is a new market of AD&D players (un-infected by the virus of "new" which is really "accept our crap because thats all your going to get"). Maybe our "Brave Hobbit" can start a new generation playing late 70s early 80s style 1E AD&D (via OSRIC). A very small chance of success perhaps, but what do we have to loose. Stranger things have happened.

This sounds like the sort of thing I want to write. And the Hildebrandt illos that T. Foster attached are definitely an aesthetic I'm keen on.

I'll admit that I have no idea where to start, though.

And, having never played the classic modules, I feel a bit hampered at the low level stuff. I've never seen what works in practice.

[AxeMental]

F: "I'll admit that I have no idea where to start, though."

Start at the beginning, and don't worry about it so much. Pretend the only thing you know about is what your mom read to you as a child (the classic fairy tales...dwarves moving in old mines, fairys in crisp fields covered in dew, giants hiding in caves, trolls under bridges) and take it from there (bringing more stuff in as you go, but start fresh).

Remember too, as in fine art the viewer (in this case reader) wants to see something of yours that is original and meaningful to you (the player should be able to feel the love and excitement that you felt when you created it), not total rehash or reproduction. Whats valuable is what you do different (not the same) as everybody else. For example, imagine if Tolkien (still alive and working) was hired to create a 1E generic module back in 78'. What might it look like, what dungeon design might he have chosen. What setting and how would he describe it (and lets assume he had no contact with the game other then a basic description of how the game worked (ie. a DM will present a world to the players to move in, incorporating his dungeon into it), instructions of laying out the setting and dungeon, populating it as he liked). Then think about how that might differ from Gygax doing the same. I think they'd both be well described, tangible, both very classic and "old school" but also different. Monet vs. Rembrandt both great artists but different.
You are just the next artist/writer down the pike, picking your subject matter, and presenting your own original take (hopefully sticking to the classics). Don't worry so much about being original (sounding too much like Gygax say), you won't be able to hide if you truely love what your creating. Each good module is a piece of art in and of itself, just like a painting a book or sculpture. Too many module writers today create for what they think others want rather then what they like themselves (ironically doing just the opposite of what the audiance is desiring). Also, they tend to copy cat the style of others. Thats fine (and perhaps beneficial to keep a since of continuity of the game) as long as you also give your unique voice and ideas. Remember, a great writer paints with words, and the reader should be able to feel the colors and sense the texture.

PS. I assume you know this stuff already, I'm just attempting to present the entire picture for the benefit of others less into the game who might stumble across this thread wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

[Flambeaux]

Axe,

Thank you. I'm going to copy-paste that onto a placard over my desk.

It's a good reminder of things I should know but, in the rush to be a responsible adult, I had forgotten. And eloquently stated, IMHO.

As for the (literary) classics, I'm reading them to my kids. Since we're homeschooling our growing brood, story time is an official part of the school day -- even if it is at 9:30pm.

Mile grazie!

[team-preston]

Since I'm an illustrator by trade...I think very visually.
What you can do is take the images above...almost literally and put them in front of you. As you narrate bits to the players, detail out the bits you see and what THEY would be seeing:

The moss, slippery rocks/ logs. Stinky fetid water. Give the players a description of what is in a "scene" and see where they go. Then just describe as you go. Be prepared for the unexpected as PCs go in the damnedest directions...and that is okay...just roll with it. Keep focusing on where they want to go, describing the scenes before them in detail (sight, sounds, smells, feels).

Throw in a couple puzzles, secret doors, odd clues, and an opposition of some sort and you're there.

Try and make your NPCs characterful: have the farmboys Cletis and Randy show up to cause trouble. Inbred and dumb as a bag of hammers but a lot of fun to play. The thieves guild boss who gives out advice and jobs to wannabe adventures, he's a master of disguise and acts like the total beggar with a lisp and a filthy mind and demeanor. Or the magician who is an absolute prima-donna and hypochondriac who will under no circumstances leave his tower to find things on his own.

Be ready for the adventurers to get in over their heads...and let em. Be able to adjust the power level of encounters by giving the opposition a morale: they can get shaken and flee too.

Most importantly have fun and try and give the players a good time.

[Flambeaux]

Jeff,

Thanks for your advice. I'm generally fine with the DMing, but I've historically been dependent upon published modules and unhappy with my own creations.

It's the creation of the scenario and it's verbal illustration that I have difficulty with. But it strikes me that providing those memorable word paintings and tone poems makes the DM's job easier, since that's usually what I want (and can't find).

[team-preston]

It may sound cheezy...but I use 3x5 cards clipped to my screen to give me reminders on stuff.

"Describe what they see, smell, hear, taste, feel"
"Roll dice for no reason at all"
"Build up action to a good teaser, then shift to the next PC"
"colorful NPCs!"

Whatever works for you really. Those are what I tend to use.

Modules are cool and all, and some people use them. I personally find them useful only for strip-mining. Your mileage may vary.

Have faith in yourself and your ability to narrate the scenes. Keep trying to improve and you will.

The Force Will Be With You...Always.

[AxeMental]

Team-Preston, good advice on how to use an illustration, and let that be a reminder to illustrators who produce artwork (ie. focus on the setting more then the characters and action) even if its kewl, its useless to the DM who's needing the artwork to pull from just as much (if not more so) then the words describing it in the text. B&w art also lets the DM pull from his own imagination which is infinitely more detailed and personalized then anything an artist could present.


Preston, you also totally nailed the "how to" of being a good DM. I espl. liked your advice on NPCs.

Man you'v stumbled across the right website, welcome.

[team-preston]

Team-Preston, good advice on how to use an illustration, and let that be a reminder to illustrators who produce artwork (ie. focus on the setting more then the characters and action) even if its kewl, its useless to the DM who's needing the artwork to pull from just as much (if not more so) then the words describing it in the text. B&w art also lets the DM pull from his own imagination which is infinitely more detailed and personalized then anything an artist could present.

Oh totally: look at the Hildebrandt images above. The color one is beautiful and all...but you kinda get lost in all the color. The greyscale image has so much more for your eye to grab on to and run with.

It might be cool to print off images like that for the other side of the screen too. I'm a big fan of handouts and images for people to see and put their hands on as examples of what their characters are experiencing.

For my recent XXXX game, I pulled imagery from the XXXX online Concept Art pages for a Dark Elf ship they encountered. So I described it, but they had a handy pic too to reference.

Whatever you can do as GM to enhance their immersion in to character, whether to describe in-character or even have OOC references helps the players stay in-character...helps keep that imaginary space rolling along.

(Axe: thanks for the kind compliment. I do love this stuff. Good GMing skills are key to the Old School gaming style. I think of forums like this as a sort of support group for GMs)

[jgbrowning]

Oh totally: look at the Hildebrandt images above. The color one is beautiful and all...but you kinda get lost in all the color. The greyscale image has so much more for your eye to grab on to and run with.

I agree. There's to much red/orange in the color illustration that makes the details seem to run together for me. It's still a very good illustration of course.

The B&W's are sweet. I've always been a big fan of B&W art.

joe b.