Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Retrospective: Vikings Campaign Sourcebook

Perhaps it's simply a facet of my getting older that I can now look back on AD&D Second Edition with a lot more equanimity than I once did. Mind you, I've been traveling this particular road for some time now, but, lately, I've found myself thinking ever more fondly of 2e, which I know is heresy in certain old school circles. Earlier in this blog's existence, I accepted without question the received wisdom that Second Edition heralded AD&D's decline. After all, it was the edition that promoted railroad-y adventure design, unnecessary rules complexity, and an endless parade of splatbooks. There’s some truth to those criticisms, but, as is often the case, the reality is more complicated. As I mellow in my old age, I’ve been struck by just how many interesting, even innovative, things TSR attempted under the 2e banner, even if not all of them succeeded.

One of the best examples of this spirit of experimentation is the Historical Reference (HR) series, the so-called “green books” published between 1991 and 1994. These seven volumes attempted to show that AD&D 2e could serve as a kind of universal fantasy engine, capable of handling settings well outside the game’s usual mold. Importantly, they weren’t intended as dry exercises in historical simulation. Instead, they leaned into a blend of history, legend, and myth, presenting material grounded in real cultures but always leavened with enough fantastical elements to remain recognizably D&D.

The first entry, the Vikings Campaign Sourcebook (1991), written by 2e’s chief architect, David “Zeb” Cook, set the tone for what followed. Vikings had been part of D&D’s DNA from the beginning. Deities & Demigods included Odin, Thor, and Loki, while Gygax’s Appendix N highlighted Poul Anderson’s The Broken Sword, a novel steeped in Norse myth and heroic fatalism. Cook was tapping into a deep well already familiar to most players and the Vikings Campaign Sourcebook offers Dungeon Masters and players alike a toolkit for adventures inspired by the Viking Age.

The book begins with a broad overview of Norse society (law, honor, family, and daily life) along with a timeline of major events between the years 800 and 1100. Cook wisely avoids the caricature of Vikings as nothing more than berserk raiders, instead presenting them also as explorers, traders, and settlers. This emphasis on cultural breadth is, in fact, one of the book’s strengths and I find I appreciate that aspect of it even more now than I did when I first read it.

Character options include modifications to the standard AD&D classes, along with two entirely new ones, the berserker and the runecaster. It’s an odd choice to present these as separate classes rather than kits, especially since The Complete Fighter’s Handbook (released a couple of years previously) had already popularized kits as the preferred method for customizing characters. Whether this was simply Cook experimenting with format or an editorial decision from TSR is unclear, but it does highlight how much the HR series was still finding its footing. Additional rules cover equipment, magic items, and monsters, many of the latter being existing AD&D creatures modified to fit Norse myth more closely.

One of the book’s most enjoyable sections is its gazetteer of the Viking world, which is simply medieval Europe as seen through the eyes of the Norse. This is accompanied by a full-color foldout map, a TSR flourish I’ve always appreciated. In fact, I find this gazetteer and map more immediately inspiring than some of the book’s rules material, though that says as much about my own tastes as it does about Cook’s writing.

It must be said, though, that the Vikings Campaign Sourcebook is not an in-depth exploration of Norse history or culture. It was never meant to be. At 96 pages, it can only sketch the outlines of the period, leaving the DM and players to fill in the gaps with their own research or imagination. In that sense, it succeeds more as a primer or springboard than as a comprehensive treatment of its subject.

Despite this, the book plays well to AD&D’s inherent strengths. Heroism, exploration, and myth were already central to the game’s ethos and Cook’s presentation provides just enough historical texture to make a Viking campaign feel distinctive without drowning it in pedantry. For all its limitations, the result is a supplement that feels genuinely usable at the table.

Re-reading it now, I’m struck by how emblematic it is of TSR’s adventurousness during the 2e era. This was the same period that produced not only the Complete Handbook series and the later Option books, but also settings as varied as Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Al-Qadim. The HR series was part of this broader impulse to push beyond “generic fantasy” and explore what else AD&D could do. The Vikings Campaign Sourcebook may not have been perfect, but it was ambitious and I think that matters.

More than three decades later, the Vikings Campaign Sourcebook deserves to be remembered not just as a curiosity but as evidence that AD&D Second Edition was more interesting and more daring than its detractors usually allow. Mechanically, it has many flaws, but it also captures something essential about both D&D and the Norse material it adapts, namely, the thrill of stepping into a world where myth and history intertwine and where characters stand larger than life. For Dungeon Masters curious about running Viking adventures (or simply looking to mine inspiration) Cook’s book still has much to recommend it, as do all the books in the HR-series.

24 comments:

  1. Ken Rolston did GAZ7 Northern Reaches for the BECMI line Gazetteers in 1988 covering the Viking influenced nations of the Known World - Ostland, Vestland and Soderfjord. No new classes I think, but it did have an extensive rune magic section.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's plenty of 2E material that is useful for 1E with at most minor adjustment, and the HR series is a major source of it. I particularly like the Celts book, but they're all interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I loved that series and wanted to play all of them. I had the Charlemange and the Vikings books, but the only one that managed to see play was A Mighty Fortress. Three Musketeers leavened with a hefty dollop of Ravenloft! Great times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never had the Viking HR. I don't know how well these were advertised - though to be fair I was, at the time, convinced 2ed was the end of AD&D - because I think I would have loved this one. I've read, loved, and taught the Viking sagas, and James's description of the Vikings in this HR as more than horned-helmeted raiders makes my heart glad. The Icelanders, for example, raided during the raiding season, late spring-early fall, but they were farmers and traders year-round; the sagas (written long after the fact in most all cases) are as full of planting, animal husbandry, household management, family drama, weddings, etc. as they are battles and duels, and believe me, none the less interesting or exciting for it.

      The only HR I owned was Charlemagne's Paladins, and I sought it out specifically because I was in college at the time and this was a period of history that always fascinated me. I loved it. I ran Carolingian campaign for nearly a year in my dorm using the mighty D&D Rules Cyclopedia as the base system (they came out about the same time). As someone who grew up with BECMI, the D&DRC was a work of genius in many ways, but that's another conversation. Anyway, since we regularly bashed things together, running a 2ed AD&D sourcebook with D&D rules wasn't a problem. No demi-humans, nearly everyone was a fighter-type or cleric, we kept it pretty 8-9th century. I will admit it takes someone who knows the period well, or cares enough to fake it, to play, since it's pretty restrictive, and your players have to be committed to the idea, and mine were (we started and ended with the same group of five).

      Delete
  4. My criticism of rules in this period of TSR is that a lot of things were written down and published without ever being played, so the rules are often no better than what you'd make up in your own head. Is that the case here? How does it match up to ICE's Vikings (1989) and GURPS Vikings (1991)? Has anyone played any of these - which would people recommend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ICEs Vikings was quite playable as it stood - It had their characteristic percentile tables for storm wave depths and effects on your ship! Rolemaster critical detail cranked up to 11. You could definitely play it, and we did.

      HOWEVER, I don't think Green Book Vikings was ever intended to be "played" per se. It was much more intended to be read as active background, by the DM especially but also any players so that the "shared imagination" at the table could richly detail the campaign. Yes, there are a few (very, very few, relative to I.C.E. Vikings) tables, but even most of them (IIRC) were lists for random relevant magic items, and stuff like that, not action resolution stuff.

      The books (other than mechanics, of course) are therefore somewhat complementary. However, from TSR's perspective, this is the real problem with the Historical Reference series: despite their unique content, and maybe because of the uneven quality of the series (some of them are little more than history textbooks with a "oh hey add this to your game" vibe, while others provide historical architecture for gameplay), there just wasn't quite enough reason to pick up most of the green books.

      I'd argue Vikings was an exception. I think of it more fondly than most, but it is an excellent universal resource.

      I never picked up GURPS Vikings, but it is GURPS, so it is likely both good and semi-useless for players, and good-to-great and highly supplemental for referees. But it was likely not widely played, because GURPS' success was not in the number of players, but in the number of readers.

      Delete
    2. From my look at the ICE vs the TSR books, they actually look very similar. The majority of both is fluff such as history/culture with maps and timelines and layouts. The ICE one does have more directly gameable material - such as stats for the new monsters, random encounter charts, adventure hooks - but that appears to be in addition to the stuff that the TSR one has.
      I did a quick comparison of one of the obvious things they have in common - a list of viking names - and of the male names begining with V chatGPT says the ICE list is better, the TSR one has lots of suspect names and is missing lots of common ones.
      Interestingly the ICE one is written by Lee Gold, editor of Alarums & Excursions. I didn't realise she wrote some published supplements.

      Delete
    3. Lee is also author of Land of the Rising Sun for Chivalry & Sorcery and GURPS Japan as well as the RPG Lands of Adventure.

      Delete
    4. I'd argue that Rolemaster Vikings worked better mostly because Rolemaster the game was less distinct in "official" game environment and atmosphere. Our GM's imaginary continent relied on no I.C.E material, and could tack on a really fun excursion to the island of Bracklosbania or whatever he called it, where we had to team up with a small (human) Viking flotilla to survive the coordinated attack of a ghost ships, some famous Norse giant, and water monsters during a squall. Because it was Rolemaster, it could all be mechanically resolved (after about 4 hours, not counting set up!) We ended up campaigning with the Vikings back to their homeland to be honored as foreign friends.

      This was before the Green Book ever came out, but I do think the Green Book had stuff that had D&D-specific enhancements, but I should mention that I was hardly playing that game at that point: I was immersed in Rolemaster and running a remarkable **campaign** in Paranoia whose conspiracy went way deeper than the satire ever intended, but mostly nearly all my friends had moved away from pulpy "good thieves" D&D. So whether it was good or bad, (I think pretty good), Green Book Vikings just came at the wrong time for me.

      Delete
  5. If you look at the timelines given in the Viking, Charlemagne, and Celts, you could use all three books set around 800 AD. It would make an epic Medieval campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have read several icelandic sagas and generally take an interest in viking related stuff, though not recent depictions of them so much, and I was impressed with the TSR Vikings sourcebook. David Cook really did his homework.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hated these books (but loved 2e) because they had the depth of your average newspaper article. waste of paper, could have been a memo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the Crusades and one other one (at least) were really, really bad and worse, boring. Vikings was good, and Celts had some interesting stuff. Romans(?) was a big disappointment, based on the bookstore skim I took. This is all off of old memory of books I mostly didn't use, so I should really go back and look at them again.

      I think the big strike against them is that the authors were not on the same page. The books lacked uniform structure. There should have been some common tables that reflected the non-D&D "historic realism outcomes" (such as basic medical/diseases, taxation, conscription, judicial) that would very generally be true throughout eras, and I could be wrong, but not all the books even had armor descriptions with associated AC!

      Again, my memory fails, but I do have a profound sense of giant holes and inconsistent formatting and content that really could have used a "showrunner."

      Delete
    2. Someone mentioned they needed support, and I agree. some adventures (who wants to be varangian guards? ME ME ME!) to get the rhythm going would have been a very good thing, I think

      Delete
  8. Ultimately, for me the immediate problem I had with 2e was that it lacked the secrecy at the heart of the original game (yes, including at least BEC of BECMI) - which was the DM-imagined setting and open world dungeoncrawl, buried under the secret doors and traps of typos, amateurism, hallucinogenic motiffs, Gygaxian blather, forgotten pulps, and rails that ended in a bricked-in-tunnel if the party didn't leap from them in time.

    OSR D&D felt like it was cobbled together by a highly intelligent, eclectic band of adventurers seeking their fortune and fame through graft and improvisation. It played that way, for sure. 2e lacked the magic: it was well-built, orderly, organized, and effective. But it felt like it was revised by a corporate committee, seeking stockholder comfort through market analysis and ROI. Maybe that's why the few times I played it, it felt like a business meeting, or at best a club meeting, following Roberts Rules of Order.

    The game itself - the mechanics, the motifs, the ethos (well maybe a little of the ethos) - had not changed. But the spell had been cast and forgotten, but the wizard's book had gone missing forever. It would not be recovered, certainly not by TSR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man! Daniel, your take on AD&D 1e vs 2e is great. Really dude, it perfectly describes the difference.

      Delete
  9. To put it another way, it is the difference between the pirates of Star Trek: TOS and the HR department in space of TNG?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! That's also a good comparison. Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones would both fit into OD&D, 1e and BX whereas there's no place for them in 2e.

      Delete
  10. One problem with the green books is that while they are quite successful in outlining a setting in fewer than 100 pages, they don't offer much support in what players will actually *do*. Standard AD&D2 adventures can be tricky to make work (although some fit well) and TSR didn't follow up the green books with specific adventure content, for understandable reasons.

    So they ended up as decent books with good intentions, pushed out into the market to die, which is a shame.

    (I'm reminded of Games Workshop's Warhammer Historical line, which crowbarred the Warhammer tabletop rules into a variety of historical settings in a similar half-hearted fashion.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree fully on your point about the lack of follow-up and hence the resources withered. Overall my opinion is that Graeme Davis did a good job on the Celts, providing a description of an evocative environment that manages to be both realistic and dream-like. The downsides are that the monster section is a bit rubbish and including a 3-4 page adventure plus some other hooks in the book over some of the realistic detail would have been better I think.

      Delete
    2. One advantage with the books that lean more towards the "age of myth" are that you can use a lot of the standard D&D monsters. Half of the Monster Manual comes from Greek myth, for example, and there's plenty of stuff from the Norse cycles in there too.

      Of course, then you're steering away from the historical gaming focus of the green books. It's a tricky balance, and possibly part of why they weren't super popular, despite their quality.

      Delete
    3. Do you remember the Shady Dragon Inn supplement from the (mid?) 80s? I had the EXACT same feeling when I picked it up when it was new. I was still young enough to be intrigued by the action figury character inserts like Strongheart (and moreso the badass Warduke) but the big book of pre-generated characters and potential party combinations was all it produced! No suggestions on settings or potential adventures, no sense of order to the single-class or mixed party combinations: just random characters thrown together.

      That had so much potential to be a platform for players to form a meaningful party in a dynamic, player contributed setting, with commonly held characters that were uniquely our own. ("Hey! You play Hobknob the Hafling also? What's your version like?" or whatever, at conventions.) This could have been done, easily with perhaps 2-4 more pages of material (and they could have cut the rosters if they were targeting a page count.)

      The map for the Inn was perfunctory and uninspired. The owners quarters were pretty much the same as the rented rooms. I don't even think he had a double bed in it, which made no sense, since he lived there. There was no key to the map, no posted job wall, nothing really interesting about the inn. Super generic. On top of that, the map was decently sized for small miniatures...but was just printed on the stapled pages. It would have been a useful insert, or at worst, printed on the inside of a detachable cover. You couldn't (back in the day) ever hope to get a playable map off the Xerox machine at dad's work.

      These kind of supplements are a little bit tragic. But I do think some of them mine well for inspiration and repurposing.

      Delete
    4. The better Green Books incorporated/modified/enhanced the monster manual listings, but I agree, it ended up feeling like a secondary purpose to most of them: i.e. to "get the history right" more often than to "play D&D in a historical setting.)"

      Gygax in particular, but also Holmes and Moldvay, did an absolutely absurdly great job of obsessing about historical details and mashing them up with incompatable details ("bastard swords and automatic crossbows" for example) into a sword & sorcery blender to come up with a bombastic verisimilitudinous fake reality that absolutely could not exist....but somehow did.

      Anything that followed this cartoony rift in the space-time continuum of young men at play was bound to look dowdy, taciturn, well-lit and wholly unsurprising.

      We can't overlook the overt objective of TSR to cater to their "concerned mother" overlords. Stripping the weird from D&D was practically a business model by 1990 or so.

      Delete