Goodman Games classic TSR reprints.

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Ah yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time until the "what about the baby orcs?!" question was raised. If a GM presents humanoids as "people in funny suits," misunderstood noble savages, boyfriend/girlfriend material etc. then clearly it's in poor taste to have PCs slaying non combatants.

Even though I find it childish to use terms like good and evil as objective descriptors it's perfectly fine to present humanoids as unambiguously inimical to mankind. Orcs are the unhallowed progeny of degenerates and swine-daemons. They find amusement in torturing, burning, and eating captives. Gnolls are sadistic man-eaters, each and every one. We all know what deep ones want to do to humanity. There is no peace between man and man-ape, only war. You get the picture.

Again we go back to session zero and managing expectations. It's really important for a GM to describe the tone, tropes, and genre conventions before people commit.

Like I said. There should have at minimum been a sidebar on the topic. What is the assumption the module makes as a default? The remaster doesn't even do that. It's just like the module has always been. Suddenly, out of the blue, in a room there are non-combatant females and young. What does that mean in the context of the module?

I'm not saying to censor and retroactively change the original. I'm saying it's a problem point in the original, and in a remaster should have been addressed in some way. It probably isn't a big deal, because the audience for this book will be 40+ somethings who are nostalgic for the original, and will have long ago come to terms with that element, but that doesn't mean the element causing a problem wasn't a long standing thing that needed some commentary and/or tweaking.
 
Like I said. There should have at minimum been a sidebar on the topic. What is the assumption the module makes as a default? The remaster doesn't even do that. It's just like the module has always been. Suddenly, out of the blue, in a room there are non-combatant females and young. What does that mean in the context of the module?

I'm not saying to censor and retroactively change the original. I'm saying it's a problem point in the original, and in a remaster should have been addressed in some way. It probably isn't a big deal, because the audience for this book will be 40+ somethings who are nostalgic for the original, and will have long ago come to terms with that element, but that doesn't mean the element causing a problem wasn't a long standing thing that needed some commentary and/or tweaking.
My apologies, you make an excellent point and I stand corrected. I agree that the issue could have been briefly and professionally addressed in a sidebar and am frankly a little surprised it wasn't. I was thinking of it from the perspective of someone who is familiar with the content and not someone who might be completely new to B2 and 80's D&D.
 
Like I said. There should have at minimum been a sidebar on the topic. What is the assumption the module makes as a default? The remaster doesn't even do that. It's just like the module has always been. Suddenly, out of the blue, in a room there are non-combatant females and young. What does that mean in the context of the module?

I'm not saying to censor and retroactively change the original. I'm saying it's a problem point in the original, and in a remaster should have been addressed in some way. It probably isn't a big deal, because the audience for this book will be 40+ somethings who are nostalgic for the original, and will have long ago come to terms with that element, but that doesn't mean the element causing a problem wasn't a long standing thing that needed some commentary and/or tweaking.
I think leaving it unaddressed allows each group to decide for themselves if it's a problem and how to deal with it.
 
When I incorporated Keep on the Borderlands into my Thieves' World campaign, I had done so many changes and adjustments to it that it really didn't reassemble the original B-2 anymore. The caves were moved further away and were being used by goblin raiders to raid towards the keep and other nearby dwellings etc. There were some other critters/nasties spread throughout the caves which the goblins either avoided or made some sort of deal with.

I'd forgotten all about the whole children/families aspect. In my game there was a hidden tunnel leading deeper underground into a larger cave complex where the main goblin tribe lived. Unfortunately the party never found it to explore further. I had a half baked thought to build it up into a major underground exploration branch at some point. My games tended to be more sandbox like in nature where I let the group go where they would.

A random encounter with a small group of desert Raggah led them away from that area and towards the desert and the thieves fortress which I had adapted from the old Judges Guild The Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor. Which also really didn't resemble its original anymore either. A common theme with my games back then. I was busy and so free time to develop things were a problem. Game modules were handy aids to take from, twist to my needs etc.

Anyhow, overall I agree with your review about the shortcomings of the Goodman Games reprints G Gabriel, they fail in a lot of ways one additional item being that WotC won't allow them to also be in pdf form as well, something I prefer for reading these days. Goodman Games could have done so much more with this 5e version but didn't, a wasted opportunity for sure. Still, I did snag it simply for the nostalgia of it. So they still got me there. Lol.
 
Ah yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time until the "what about the baby orcs?!" question was raised. If a GM presents humanoids as "people in funny suits," misunderstood noble savages, boyfriend/girlfriend material etc. then clearly it's in poor taste to have PCs slaying non combatants.

Even though I find it childish to use terms like good and evil as objective descriptors it's perfectly fine to present humanoids as unambiguously inimical to mankind. Orcs are the unhallowed progeny of degenerates and swine-daemons. They find amusement in torturing, burning, and eating captives. Gnolls are sadistic man-eaters, each and every one. We all know what deep ones want to do to humanity. There is no peace between man and man-ape, only war. You get the picture.

Again we go back to session zero and managing expectations. It's really important for a GM to describe the tone, tropes, and genre conventions before people commit.
I'm fine with either way, as long as the setting makes it clear. Personally, I go for a mix. Orc are near human but gnolls are constantly hungry demons.

Think of it this way. Suppose you were clearing an old house or something and found some roaches, including a nest full of baby roaches. Would you go 'oh can't hurt them, they're just babies!" Now suppose a fantasy world where the roaches had near-human intelligence and weighed 200 lb.
 
Ah yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time until the "what about the baby orcs?!" question was raised. If a GM presents humanoids as "people in funny suits," misunderstood noble savages, boyfriend/girlfriend material etc. then clearly it's in poor taste to have PCs slaying non combatants.

Even though I find it childish to use terms like good and evil as objective descriptors it's perfectly fine to present humanoids as unambiguously inimical to mankind. Orcs are the unhallowed progeny of degenerates and swine-daemons. They find amusement in torturing, burning, and eating captives. Gnolls are sadistic man-eaters, each and every one. We all know what deep ones want to do to humanity. There is no peace between man and man-ape, only war. You get the picture.

Again we go back to session zero and managing expectations. It's really important for a GM to describe the tone, tropes, and genre conventions before people commit.

So you want to turn Goblinoids and Monstrous Humanoids in D&D, into Greenskins and Beastmen from Warhammer Fantasy. I for one think this is a great idea. Hasn't someone already done this however?
 
Think of it this way. Suppose you were clearing an old house or something and found some roaches, including a nest full of baby roaches. Would you go 'oh can't hurt them, they're just babies!" Now suppose a fantasy world where the roaches had near-human intelligence and weighed 200 lb.

Makes me think of the Voight Kampff test, the question about the wasp.

Deckard: "You see orc females, huddled in fear in the corner of the room, clutching their young and speaking rapidly in their own language, presumably pleading for their lives."

Rachel: "I kill them."

Suddenly, I want a GM Screen with a Voight Kampff replica on the player facing side.
 
Last edited:
Like I said. There should have at minimum been a sidebar on the topic. What is the assumption the module makes as a default? The remaster doesn't even do that. It's just like the module has always been. Suddenly, out of the blue, in a room there are non-combatant females and young. What does that mean in the context of the module?
In the first game I played ever set in the s module, we saved them and helped them get better lives. Of course, the DM treated monsters as smart enough to surrender, or run away. So even males that surrendered to our characters were taken prisoner for justice. Something about the cave having magic-ed the monsters into their actions in the first place at least most of them, so we helped out. Ended up with an orc tribe farming some lands abandoned by others due to different monster attacks. I can't remember if that was the game where we trained them as local peasant militia or not. *shrugs* I was a /very/ different kid than a lot of other D&D players apparently.

I'd never read the module at the time, and it was a VERY early D&D game for me, so it made sense to the pre-teen me.

Of course in a recent 5E game, a year or so ago? I found out my character was the only one who actually tried to help rather than slaughter critters that were obvious under the power of nastier sorts. So I don't think I've changed much. (Lawful Good Transmuter wizard.) It didn't occur to me to just KILL everything before me...*shrugs* I guess I'm the weird D&D player even now. (Not that I want to play a lot of D&D anymore.)
 
Well everything 5e requires 150-250+ pages that used to be 32-64. ToEE had lots of room to expand and whole sections left blank so if they filled those in for GMs it could easily bulk up. It's also got a lot of company history around it so I could see pages filled with that. A few people writing about how they experienced it and I can see two books.

I mean all the others are 32 page books expanded in to massive hardcovers so it's what I'd expect.
 
What the heck is in there that required two books?

The original was quite a large module so the 5e version, which are done with larger font, more spacing and new art, is probably quite the tome itself.

I believe they've also included the Village of Hommlet but don't quote me on that one.
 
Well, going by previous releases.

It's going to reprint the pastel version of T1 Village of Hommlet

Then it will reprint the green cover version of T1 Village of Hommlet

Then it will reprint the T 1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil supermodule, including the map booklet. This means Village of Hommlet gets reprinted again.

Then there will be some retrospectives and stuff like that.

Then, T1-4 will be reprinted again with 5e stats and hopefully expanded material for Nulb and the Elemental Nodes at minimum.
 
The original was quite a large module so the 5e version, which are done with larger font, more spacing and new art, is probably quite the tome itself.

I believe they've also included the Village of Hommlet but don't quote me on that one.
Yeah the 5e conversion for the Village is in the first book. Some people are annoyed the whole conversion isn't in the 2nd book.
 
So, the ToEE reincarnation has been out for a while. Do you think there will be any more of this line of redos? Has Goodman announced something and I've missed it?
 
So, the ToEE reincarnation has been out for a while. Do you think there will be any more of this line of redos? Has Goodman announced something and I've missed it?
I could be mis remembering but I think they are redoing some old judges guilds ip they purchased off JG first and then they plan to come back. The question is what will they be able to license.
 
So, the ToEE reincarnation has been out for a while. Do you think there will be any more of this line of redos? Has Goodman announced something and I've missed it?
I haven't heard anything but I'd love GG forever if they did "The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth" (S4) + "The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun" (WG4) together in one volume.
 
“The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun" (WG4)

I still have my copy of this, despite someone passive-agressively spilling their coffee on it and an issue of Dragon for reasons never properly explained. Still have both to this day.
 
I've previously been sort of down on this series simply because the books are mostly the same as my original copies but with 10x the page count (literally). But someone gave me a couple of them recently and I started using them in my weekly gaming sessions, and I've come around. I really enjoy the introductory essays that frame the module. I like the expanded artwork and sometimes like the new maps (they aren't always great...), and the additions in content are modest and sensible. I continue to hate it when they include multiple versions of the same original module (as they are nearly indistinguishable) and the 5E conversions are useless to me, as I actually run them all using TFT, and if I did anything else it would be to run them in B/E or 1E. But, overall, a cool line of books.
 
I've previously been sort of down on this series simply because the books are mostly the same as my original copies but with 10x the page count (literally). But someone gave me a couple of them recently and I started using them in my weekly gaming sessions, and I've come around. I really enjoy the introductory essays that frame the module. I like the expanded artwork and sometimes like the new maps (they aren't always great...), and the additions in content are modest and sensible. I continue to hate it when they include multiple versions of the same original module (as they are nearly indistinguishable) and the 5E conversions are useless to me, as I actually run them all using TFT, and if I did anything else it would be to run them in B/E or 1E. But, overall, a cool line of books.
How does running them with TFT work out? A lot of work or very little? Have you felt the need to do anything to deal with the generally higher lethality of TFT combat?
 
How does running them with TFT work out? A lot of work or very little? Have you felt the need to do anything to deal with the generally higher lethality of TFT combat?
I find it takes literally zero work to run classic D&D modules and settings with TFT. The stat blocks for creatures are different, but most things you will encounter have official TFT versions, and those that don't can be ad libbed quickly. The stat blocks for NPCs are more problematic if you don't know TFT well, but I find it trivial to assign stat scores, talents and spells that adequately represent the character's strengths and weaknesses.

The question of lethality, and, more generally, power level, is obvious but more nuanced than it appears at face value. Yes, TFT characters at all experience levels are always at some level of risk of death in combat against a wide range of foes. And there is never a situation where a TFT character can fight while heavily outnumbered without great risk (so, your favorite fighter can't single handedly slaughter 20 orcs unless there are some major tactical advantages on his or her side). On the other hand, nearly everything in the game is similarly vulnerable. Don't get me wrong; a 14 hex dragon is a really tough monster with an excellent chance of detonating your party. But almost nothing is invulnerable, and, overall, the power level, with respect to close combat, is relatively 'flat'. So that means your characters are exposed to risks if they fight, but they also always have a path to victory as well. Personally, I find that to be much more interesting and exciting than the high level D&D situation, where a bunch of foes are beneath your contempt, a bunch present threats and a bunch are outrageously more powerful than you. It means characters are always deliberating about whether and how to fight a foe, and the exact match ups and situations are more important. That means fighting is closer to roleplaying, which makes it more fun.

A second thing people often point out is the lack of clerical healing in TFT. True, but also misleading. The game has physicker talents that are quite effective, armor (esp. fine and magic armor) that is effective, and healing potions, if your party has an alchemist, or your GM chooses to hand them out as a way of encouraging people to fight more often. And, because your 'hit points' don't scale up with experience in the same way, you need less healing. So, I'd say I agree that you can't use clerical healing to 'reboot' after every fight, and so you are more likely to end up with a real injury that leaves you stove up for a week or two. I sort of prefer that, but if you hate it then its the wrong game for you.

A third thing people don't talk about much but should is how things like traps, secret doors, etc. translate. Here TFT is actually a better system than any standard edition of D&D because it has cooked into it a very well designed system of clear rules governing spotting, avoiding and disarming. It also has a clear, concrete rules governing the navigation of obstacles, such as climbing or jumping over gaps. That means complicated tactical spaces are easier to fit into combat naturally and following rules everyone at the table knows.

In summary: a highly recommended approach to old-school dungeons of all sorts!
 
I find it takes literally zero work to run classic D&D modules and settings with TFT. The stat blocks for creatures are different, but most things you will encounter have official TFT versions, and those that don't can be ad libbed quickly. The stat blocks for NPCs are more problematic if you don't know TFT well, but I find it trivial to assign stat scores, talents and spells that adequately represent the character's strengths and weaknesses.

The question of lethality, and, more generally, power level, is obvious but more nuanced than it appears at face value. Yes, TFT characters at all experience levels are always at some level of risk of death in combat against a wide range of foes. And there is never a situation where a TFT character can fight while heavily outnumbered without great risk (so, your favorite fighter can't single handedly slaughter 20 orcs unless there are some major tactical advantages on his or her side). On the other hand, nearly everything in the game is similarly vulnerable. Don't get me wrong; a 14 hex dragon is a really tough monster with an excellent chance of detonating your party. But almost nothing is invulnerable, and, overall, the power level, with respect to close combat, is relatively 'flat'. So that means your characters are exposed to risks if they fight, but they also always have a path to victory as well. Personally, I find that to be much more interesting and exciting than the high level D&D situation, where a bunch of foes are beneath your contempt, a bunch present threats and a bunch are outrageously more powerful than you. It means characters are always deliberating about whether and how to fight a foe, and the exact match ups and situations are more important. That means fighting is closer to roleplaying, which makes it more fun.

A second thing people often point out is the lack of clerical healing in TFT. True, but also misleading. The game has physicker talents that are quite effective, armor (esp. fine and magic armor) that is effective, and healing potions, if your party has an alchemist, or your GM chooses to hand them out as a way of encouraging people to fight more often. And, because your 'hit points' don't scale up with experience in the same way, you need less healing. So, I'd say I agree that you can't use clerical healing to 'reboot' after every fight, and so you are more likely to end up with a real injury that leaves you stove up for a week or two. I sort of prefer that, but if you hate it then its the wrong game for you.

A third thing people don't talk about much but should is how things like traps, secret doors, etc. translate. Here TFT is actually a better system than any standard edition of D&D because it has cooked into it a very well designed system of clear rules governing spotting, avoiding and disarming. It also has a clear, concrete rules governing the navigation of obstacles, such as climbing or jumping over gaps. That means complicated tactical spaces are easier to fit into combat naturally and following rules everyone at the table knows.

In summary: a highly recommended approach to old-school dungeons of all sorts!

(I mean, ad-libbing stats is easy in TFT, but it's at least some more work than zero). Primarily I find that, compared to lower level D&D, TFT is no more lethal, but this changes a bit when comparing to higher levels of D&D. And yes, the power scale is compressed, so characters don't graduate to being able to face hordes of low level foes, but as you say, even a dragon can be handled by starting TFT characters, with some luck and good planning. There aren't really many "speedbump fights" in TFT just there to drain resources though, which is a feature of some D&D dungeons. I think of TFT labyrinths as generally smaller than D&D ones too, especially those meant for higher level characters and very especially those that aren't conducive to retreating to rest up for a week and then come back strong. Places where the characters are trapped or on a timer for instance. Have you done anything to let characters rest if necessary in those, or has it not been an issue?
 
Last edited:
TFT dungeons are generally short because not very many have been published, and the people who published and most of those are short. I have home cooked TFT megadungeons and I'm sure other long term players do as well. The system is awesome for that kind of play; you just need to approach long term adventures a little differently than you might if you were running 20th level D&D demigods.
 
TFT dungeons are generally short because not very many have been published, and the people who published and most of those are short. I have home cooked TFT megadungeons and I'm sure other long term players do as well. The system is awesome for that kind of play; you just need to approach long term adventures a little differently than you might if you were running 20th level D&D demigods.
Well, more are being published all the time now at least, so maybe we'll see a published TFT version of a real megadungeon. We never played in dungeons at all in my longest running TFT campaign, it was all outside world adventures, and fights were always a big thing when they happened. But long term adventures is the thing. A lot of D&D adventures feature big dungeons that you kind of need to get through in one go. That changes the dynamic when healing is a lot more limited (but not nonexistant). In a megadungeon that you can just enter and leave as you wish, yeah, maybe you need to make more trips than the D&D characters or whatnot, but that's totally doable. But if it's more a "you're stuck here until you get out", how have you dealt with that? I'm genuinely asking here because I'd like to try using some scenarios for D&D in TFT instead.
 
But if it's more a "you're stuck here until you get out", how have you dealt with that? I'm genuinely asking here because I'd like to try using some scenarios for D&D in TFT instead.
I think it could be done if the party can establish a base camp (or even a safe room) or make allies. You might need to hint at those options.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top