New Releases on Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk: They make mention of "preserving continuity with previous editions, especially maps, encounters, and themes from earlier versions of CG."
(Yikes, does this include the joke Castle Greyhawk?)
They also make mention of using elements from Isle of the Ape and Dungeonland as well. (Much more to my liking.)
The mod will have a cutaway map of all 25 levels. Pretty cool.
Next month in Dragon:
The supersize final issue will have an article on Relics of Greyhawk, Apocrypha of tje Demonomicon of Iggwilv, the Wizards Three and an intriguing 'Mysteries of D&D' revealed. I'm sure that will include some GH tidbits.
Core Beliefs: St. Cuthbert This is another decent article by SKR. Nothing controversial to speak of but it covers all three of his sects, his vague background and myths. It includes sidebars on Iuz the Old and Pholtus.
(Yikes, does this include the joke Castle Greyhawk?)
As much as I wish it did (I think some "more serious" references and easter eggs referring to that module would have been a nice touch, especially from Scott Bennie's level), the authors have been adamant they didn't even look at WG7 during the writing process. Erik Mona doesn't even own a copy of it.
I am inclined to agree with you but then why the need for pluralization of using previous editions?
Because they're taking inspiration from Gygax's original dungeon as described in old Dragon articles and his On A Soapbox column, and from the WoG boxed set itself, and from modules like Isle of the Ape and Dungeonland. So there's lots of 1e continuity other than WG7.
Wish that our local gaming store carried it, or that I could afford it... :raincloud
I am intrigued, especially as part 2 is coming out, but I have not seen a copy to peruse and pass judgment on. I do like including some original Greyhawk lore in my Greyhawk - when it doesn't contradict too much.
ROB
I wonder how the wotc release will stack up against Gygax's Castle Zagyg book. I own the castle zagyg book and feel it is easily the best and most comprehensive version of the city of greyhawk ever written. Of course it was written by the creator of the setting and not from someone copying gygax's earlier works.
Well, Expedition won't be comprehensive; it's just the levels that are important to the plot (the "delve" format eats up/wastes a lot of space). I don't think there's any reason that you couldn't insert the Castle Zagyg levels into the same dungeon and get the best of both worlds.
Is Castle Zagyg Castles and Crusades or d20, or rules-independent?
It is a C&C book but as C&C is just a more simplified and stream lined version of D&D (think a slightly updated AD&D 1st ed) Any book written for C&C would be very easy to convert to D&D and any D&D book is easily converted for use with C&C. though to be fair 1st and 2nd ed AD&D are easier than 3.x D&DBZ.
I am intrigued, especially as part 2 is coming out, but I have not seen a copy to peruse and pass judgment on. I do like including some original Greyhawk lore in my Greyhawk - when it doesn't contradict too much.
ROB
I had the same problem here in kissimmee so I made a deal with the LGS manager to order a few of each C&C book. Though my love is for greyhawk and I do haunt evilbay buying up alot of old out of print Greyhawk books I just really really dislike the PnP action anime that 3.x has become. At the same time i like some of the changes such as armor class being higher = better and saves being tied to attributes and the BtH instead of Thac0, and that is why I now use C&C for my greyhawk games. Its a updated system that feels very old school.
In other news, I thought the St. Cuthbert article was very, very good, the kaorti ecology was great (though tied vaguely to the Forgotten Realms setting), and article on the River Styx was very cool, with a great map of the Lower Planes and some detail on the realm of Socothbenoth.
Where else do you think Zagig's portals will connect? Castle Amber? Ravenloft? Obscure Dungeon adventures?
Hmm, good question. Maybe going back to the inter-worlds stuff of DMG 1E, and linking to Boot Hill or Gamma World? Nah, surely not...
My eagerness to get each new issue of Dragon is tempered only by the fact that soon there won't be a new issue of Dragon to be eager for.
Hmm, good question. Maybe going back to the inter-worlds stuff of DMG 1E, and linking to Boot Hill or Gamma World? Nah, surely not...
My eagerness to get each new issue of Dragon is tempered only by the fact that soon there won't be a new issue of Dragon to be eager for.
Surely not? Are you sure?
In any event, the adventure itself assumes that the PCs are 8th level when you start. They'll probably reach 13th or 14th by the end. And a fair amount of that time is spent not in dungeon rooms (althoguh it does, in the end, remain a "mostly dungeon" adventure overall).
But yeah. There are literally dozens and dozens of Greyhawk easter eggs in "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk." Some of which are little more than tiny little nods to what has come before, some of which are major new world events and character developments, and some (most) that fall somewhere between.
As for incorperating elements from other versions of the Castle, throughout editions or game systems... should be easy to do. No one product can encompass everything about Castle Greyhawk, nor should it. Adding stuff from other sources should be very easy. It's what I'd do if/when I run this adventure in my home campaign.
ON THE COVER: "UDON, with Chris Stevens and Kevin Yan, crafts a masterwork piece for our cover."
ROB
All I need to do now is find a version without the cover text!
It is a C&C book but as C&C is just a more simplified and stream lined version of D&D (think a slightly updated AD&D 1st ed)
Take notes folks, I'm getting tired of explaining this.
C&C is not 1st edition AD&D Got that?
The rules are d20/3rd edition, minus feats and skills, plus some wacky ability and level roll modifier mechanics. It's not a bad system, but it is not AD&D. You might argue that it is more "ad&d spirit" than other versions of D&D, but I'd counter that that is a symptom of your DM and fellow players' play style, not the rules.
I own the castle zagyg book and feel it is easily the best and most comprehensive version of the city of greyhawk ever written.
Ah, I see, ummm, yeah...
Lets take a look at the only three items available for Castle Zagyg at this time:
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/zagyg/8050.html
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/zagyg/czpdf3.html
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/zagyg/8060.html
There's sort of, pretty much....nothing about Greyhawk city in any of those.
Of course it was written by the creator of the setting and not from someone copying gygax's earlier works.
Ah, how little you know of how Troll Lord and Gygax work:
http://trolldens.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
Concerning the project itself. This will no doubt have an impact on the project. Though take heart. Gary has been hard at work bringing on the city itself, bringing his notes up to speed so that the designers of the city modules are all on the same sheet.
So, while there is some talk on that page about EGG doing actual writing for the dungeons later on, the book you own was not designed by EGG, but by others, as you put it "copying his earlier works"
There are literally dozens and dozens of Greyhawk easter eggs in "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk." Some of which are little more than tiny little nods to what has come before, some of which are major new world events and character developments, and some (most) that fall somewhere between.
Greyhawk lore in a product called "Castle Greyhawk" is considered easter eggs? Is this a round about way of saying that the majority of the material is generic?
So, while there is some talk on that page about EGG doing actual writing for the dungeons later on, the book you own was not designed by EGG, but by others, as you put it "copying his earlier works"
Hello Rich,
It appears you have misinterpreted the blog, so allow me to explain, fine sir:
Castle Zagyg, Volume I: Yggsburgh was written by Gary Gygax and no one else. It is his baby 100%. Take a read of but 1 encounter in that volume and you will know it is pure EGG (assuming you have read some of his earlier works as your sig implies).
Rich, what you are confusing it with is this: There are 24 forthcoming town modules that are expansions of the Yggsburgh setting. These modules have been written by about 11 or 12 freelance designers, all of whom were closely overseen by Gary. I know, 'cause I'm one of them.
Gary made certain that we followed his every directive, and was in communication with us each and all throughout the entire process. He was *very* hands-on. Hope that helps clear up the confusion.Hawk on,
--Jeff T. (aka "ghul")
Hello Rich,
It appears you have misinterpreted the blog,
If Chenault's post was poorly worded, my apologies to Mr Gygax.
However, the core point I was making, that the material is in no way Greyhawk City, is still valid.
Let me clarify.
I have no ill will toward Gygax, his classic D&D and early AD&D work is the foundation of 27 years of gaming enjoyment for me. I have no ill will toward Troll Lord, or toward C&C in general. I'm just very, very weary of the game being arrogantly misrepresented as an AD&D clone.
Good find ripvanwormer!
How is it not a AD&D clone or better derived from AD&D in exactly the same way 3.5? Do you play C&C? ever actually read a C&C book? And Castle Zagyg is EGGs City of Greyhawk with names changed to protect the innocent. I would suggest actually reading a product before passing judgment based on an advert.
Ah, now we're saying C&C is derived from AD&D... Nice backpedal. Too bad what you originally wrote is still here.
(think a slightly updated AD&D 1st ed)
C&C is a simplified d20/3rd edition, not a "updated 1st edition". That is the absolute truth, and anyone who tries to state otherwise is an outright liar.
I own all the C&C rule products, I've read them. As Gygax himself states in the thread Rip linked to, Yggsburgh is a small town, Greyhawk City is a large metropolis, they are not the same. I think it's you that needs to read the damn book before spouting off.
Ah, now we're saying C&C is derived from AD&D... Nice backpedal. Too bad what you originally wrote is still here.
Not a back peddle at all. C&C is derived from AD&D just as 3.x is derived from AD&D. both C&C and 3.x share alot in common as far as some of the rules mechanics such as ascending AC and BTH bonus but that is where the similarity ends.
C&C is a simplified d20/3rd edition, not a "updated 1st edition". That is the absolute truth, and anyone who tries to state otherwise is an outright liar.
Wow.. don't you get rude and aggressive on web boards? :P
1. you should probably never claim anything is an absolute truth.
2. Calling people a liar over their opinions concerning a game is pretty sad and reflects very poorly on the character of the person doing so.
I own all the C&C rule products, I've read them. As Gygax himself states in the thread Rip linked to, Yggsburgh is a small town, Greyhawk City is a large metropolis, they are not the same. I think it's you that needs to read the damn book before spouting off.
well maybe. this is from the castle Zagyg book you decide.
Castle Zagyg pg4 Forward
Once upon a time there was a mad Archmage whose castle and dungeons became synonymous with adventuring. That place remains today. Only the names have changed to protect the concerned parties for this publication. You are holding this product now, as it is part of the changes necessary. In order to present the "abandoned" castle and its many dungeon levels, an area surrounding the place needs to be detailed. You have it! Note that this base area is completely new in order to facilitate the later addition of the old castle and dungeon material in revised form.-Gary Gygax
Free city of Yggsburgh has a population or between 22,000 and 32,000 which is NOT a small town by any stretch of the imagination.
1. you should probably never claim anything is an absolute truth.
Probably not, unless what I am saying is the absolute truth, as in this case.
2. Calling people a liar over their opinions concerning a game is pretty sad and reflects very poorly on the character of the person doing so.
Informing the others on this forum of the falacity of someone's posts is something I considered a duty of all posters.
this is from the castle Zagyg book you decide.
And this is from Gygax himself, posted on ENWorld, and quoted by Allan Grohe in the thread Rip linked to earlier:
Yggsburgh is a town, not meant to be anything like the Free City of Greyhawk. It is smaller and not near any huge lake
I think that sums it up nicely, don't you?
Castle Zagyg pg4 Forward
Once upon a time there was a mad Archmage whose castle and dungeons became synonymous with adventuring. That place remains today. Only the names have changed to protect the concerned parties for this publication. You are holding this product now, as it is part of the changes necessary. In order to present the "abandoned" castle and its many dungeon levels, an area surrounding the place needs to be detailed. You have it! Note that this base area is completely new in order to facilitate the later addition of the old castle and dungeon material in revised form.-Gary Gygax
What that means, I think, is that the name of the castle has been changed (from Castle Greyhawk to Castle Zagyg), while the city is "completely new" (as in, has nothing to do with any cities in Gygax's original campaign). New base area, old castle.
What that means, I think, is that the name of the castle has been changed (from Castle Greyhawk to Castle Zagyg), while the city is "completely new" (as in, has nothing to do with any cities in Gygax's original campaign). New base area, old castle.
This is correct.
--Jeff T.
What that means, I think, is that the name of the castle has been changed (from Castle Greyhawk to Castle Zagyg), while the city is "completely new" (as in, has nothing to do with any cities in Gygax's original campaign). New base area, old castle.
thats true. once again you are correct sir. castle and dungeons are gygax originals the city is new. regardless it is a very worthy book and I would think very useful in any setting or with any system. for the sake of my sanity I just replaced greyhawk city with Yggsburgh in my personal greyhawk campaign.
thats true. once again you are correct sir. castle and dungeons are gygax originals the city is new. regardless it is a very worthy book and I would think very useful in any setting or with any system. for the sake of my sanity I just replaced greyhawk city with Yggsburgh in my personal greyhawk campaign.
Apology accepted.
Just a request to keep things civil and a reminder that we don't have to agree with each other to treat each other with respect.
~Brak
As for C&C being a simplified version of D20 and not an upgraded version of AD&D I ask that you do only one thing. Run any OD&D or AD&D module with C&C and then attempt to do the same with a 3.5. Better try to run a 3.5 module with C&C then we will discuss which versions required the greater amount of modifications and conversion and see if C&C is upgraded AD&D or stripped down 3.x
As for C&C being a simplified version of D20 and not an upgraded version of AD&D I ask that you do only one thing. Run any OD&D or AD&D module with C&C and then attempt to do the same with a 3.5. Better try to run a 3.5 module with C&C then we will discuss which versions required the greater amount of modifications and conversion and see if C&C is upgraded AD&D or stripped down 3.x
You don't quit, do you?
C&C is an OGL game, and as such, must include the OGL in every product. Section 15 of the OGL requires a product to list all other OGL products it is derived from. Let's take a look at section 15 of the OGL included in every C&C product:
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards ofthe Coast, Inc.
System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
I think that makes it pretty clear where C&C comes from. Notice that in no C&C product's OGL are any OD&D, Classic D&D, AD&D or AD&D 2nd edition products ever mentioned.
And here's a link to the SRD, if anyone is interested:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
that is an entirely lame argument but I understand that you are not willing to take the challenge.
Your inability to convert between editions doesn't concern me. Facts do. As I showed, it is an indisputable fact that C&C is a modified d20 game, 3e D&D slimmed down and tweaked.
As I said in one of my original posts in this thread (you know, the 2 year old ones that you recently decided you had to argue about?), I am speaking only about game mechanics. Style of play, feel, flavor, whatever you want to call it, has very little to do with game mechanics, it has to do with the way a DM runs a game.
Your inability to convert between editions doesn't concern me. Facts do. As I showed, it is an indisputable fact that C&C is a modified d20 game, 3e D&D slimmed down and tweaked.
As I said in one of my original posts in this thread (you know, the 2 year old ones that you recently decided you had to argue about?), I am speaking only about game mechanics. Style of play, feel, flavor, whatever you want to call it, has very little to do with game mechanics, it has to do with the way a DM runs a game.
I agree 100% and thats why I think you should try to run AD&D module and a 3rd ed module with C&C and let me know which one required the least amount of modification. In can tell you right now that to run OD&D or AD&D with C&C requires that you alter AC from descending to ascending. So OD&D/AD&D ac4 becomes a C&C/3rd AC of 16. That is the only similarity that C&C shares with 3rd and we probably both know that Ascending AC started in Gammaworld way before 3rd ed was released.
Seriously, lets talk about game mechanics if you would like, C&C uses separate XP lists for each class, Thief abilities are class abilities not skills, Saves based on attributes (like 3rd) but based on all six attributes and using 1st ed terms. monsters worth individual xp with no CRs. Uses D20 for to hit rolls saves and skill/attribute checks (so does 3rd but they both get that from OD&D)
Lets talk about game mechanics.. does 3rd ed use a seige system whereby a player designated an attribute or three as a primary attribute and needs only roll better than 12 before modifiers while all other attribute checks require a eighteen?
You say C&C is a simplified 3rd ed and I say it is a updated version of AD&D. 3rd edition is an updated version of AD&D also is it not?