0d&d was written explicitely with CHAINMAIL in mind, so I'm really at loss for people looking to ad&d for "original intent".
Cooper, I think you might find that I actually wrote:
Quote:
might hint at that co-author's original intent
Note "hint"? My statement was not intended quite as you portrayed it.
If folks want to play D&D with Chainmail that's great. But when you try to reconcile what appears in print in the 3LBBs with Chainmail, you find various inconsistencies including (among other things, I'm sure) the subject matter of this thread.
If, on the other hand, you use the alternative combat system, ignore all references to Chainmail and simply take what appears in print in the 3LBBs as given then rounds and turns work absolutely fine. No problem. That is what I was alluding to above, although it took me a while to realise it myself.
edit: clarified "use the alternative combat system" in the last para.
Interesting indeed. I don't mean to be entirely dogmatic, but would rather recognize that some instances of carelessness with terms doesn't imply they are always synonomous. Looking to your examples:
They aren't really "my" examples, they are simply what is printed in the 3LBBs.
Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that "turn" is always used synonymously with "round"; only that it sometimes is, and therefore we should treat the term "turn" cautiously whenever it appears.
Dragons: You must be right about this instance Simon. FFC original has:
Why thank you
More evidence of the same can be found in the FAQ (SR Vol. 1, No. 2) published pre-greyhawk, where EGG writes:
Quote:
When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, ... Iniative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round. ... the Hero scores 15 and the Orcs scored but 8, so the Hero has tossed both aside, stunning them for 7 turns between them.
If folks want to play D&D with Chainmail that's great. But when you try to reconcile what appears in print in the 3LBBs with Chainmail, you find various inconsistencies including (among other things, I'm sure) the subject matter of this thread.
There are no inconsistencies that I'm aware of. Of course d&d works well with chainmail combat or the alternate system, or the heroic combat system, or the man to man system, all of which are supported in the rules.
If you have found an inconsistency, I would be happy to read about them. 1 min. combat rounds are not an inconsistency, if for no other reason that Gygax wrote in dragon #15 that he was changing his own rule about the 1 min. combat turn to make it less lethal. That's not an inconsistency, that's a rules change.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 216 Location: Greenlawn, NY Karma: 4
Re: Length of a Combat Round « Reply #63 on Mar 23, 2012, 12:21pm »
I find this entire thread to be rather ludicrous. Yes, D&D derives from Chainmail, which had one-minute turns. Yes, the language in D&D can be careless. But the argument just doesn't pass the common-sense test. We know from first-hand accounts that no one who helped write the rules and playtest the game used Chainmail as the combat system; they all used the alternative system or something akin to it. We know that later texts specified ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute movement turn. What evidence is there to support the notion that the Gary had anything else in mind, besides twisting the meaning of his words into something that happens to resemble Chainmail?
Seriously. Does anyone here actually think Gary was thinking of anything other than ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute exploration turn? Or are you just claiming that the text could be interpreted otherwise if you wanted to?
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: Length of a Combat Round « Reply #66 on Mar 23, 2012, 1:04pm »
How hard is it to understand that the game they played at home was slightly different then the game they wrote? They used the alternate combat system, yet it is only one alternate rule among the four---3 man +1 (chainmail) hero-1 (fantasy combat) "attacks as flail" (man to man)--presented in the books.
Advocating to play like gary played, and play as various optional rules are presented can be two different things.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
How hard is it to understand that the game they played at home was slightly different then the game they wrote?
Not hard at all, thank you very much for your scorn.
Quote:
They used the alternate combat system, yet it is only one alternate rule among 3 man +1 (chainmail) hero-1 (fantasy combat) "attacks as flail (man to man) presented in the books.
How hard is it to understand that you're forcing a semantic interpretation because you reeeeeeally want to make it look like Chainmail?
D&D is not Chainmail. It is derived from it, but it is not just a Chainmail supplement!
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,216 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Length of a Combat Round « Reply #70 on Mar 25, 2012, 7:34am »
I also just noticed this in The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 5 (December 1975):
Robe of Scintillating Color
Quote:
...the wearer can cause it to form scintillating bands of color that form a dazzling pattern. This pattern causes the wearer to be 5% (-1 on 20-sider) harder to hit, the effect being cumulative. Therefore, after 5 melee rounds, the wearer is 25% harder to hit (-5), and so on.
Further, any creature or person that looks at it has the same chance (5%) per round, of becoming hypnotized. Again, the effect is cumulative. For instance, looking at it for four melee rounds means that the looker has a 20% chance of becoming hypnotized, and subject to the commands of the wearer. When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase. Any magic user that becomes hypnotized by the robe who has an intelligence of 17 or 18 has a 10% or 20% chance, respectively, of going permanently insane.
"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.
I also just noticed this in The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 5 (December 1975):
Robe of Scintillating Color
Quote:
...the wearer can cause it to form scintillating bands of color that form a dazzling pattern. This pattern causes the wearer to be 5% (-1 on 20-sider) harder to hit, the effect being cumulative. Therefore, after 5 melee rounds, the wearer is 25% harder to hit (-5), and so on.
Further, any creature or person that looks at it has the same chance (5%) per round, of becoming hypnotized. Again, the effect is cumulative. For instance, looking at it for four melee rounds means that the looker has a 20% chance of becoming hypnotized, and subject to the commands of the wearer. When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase. Any magic user that becomes hypnotized by the robe who has an intelligence of 17 or 18 has a 10% or 20% chance, respectively, of going permanently insane.
"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.
Solid proof Simon! You get another exalt for that. Gygax's use of "remember" is a clear reference to the rule in U&WA.
The wording here is very interesting. "in a non-combat situation... turns are longer."
ergo
In combat situations, turns are shorter. How much shorter, I wonder?
The two defined OD&D turns are the 10 minute Move/Turn and the day long "wilderness" turn.
Which of these longer-than-combat -turns does Gygax mean here? Does he mean there is a base 20% plus an additional 5% chance per day of being hypnotized, or 5% per ten minutes?
Given that there is 5% chance per melee round of being affected, the longer-than-combat turn being referenced here would seem IMHO, to be the ten minute Move/Turn.
The most logical conclusion then is that the shorter-than-non-combat-turn (i.e. the combat turn) is the CM 1 minute turn. Isn't it?
I find this entire thread to be rather ludicrous. .... Seriously. Does anyone here actually think Gary was thinking of anything other than ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute exploration turn? Or are you just claiming that the text could be interpreted otherwise if you wanted to?
You know old fellow, sometimes it's okay to buck the establishment a little bit, ask questions etc. The world isn't going to fall apart.
As it happens, I know that Arneson did not intend or think of combat rounds/attack rolls as being a minute long, and never used a ten minute turn in any of his works,we also have the ten second round from Holmes, so to me, it seems less than ludicrous to question when and where Gygax adopted that meaning of turn, no?
"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.
Well, it unambiguously says that there are 10 rounds per turn, but I don't think there was any disagreement about that. The question is how long are the rounds/turns? 1min/10min or 6 sec/1min?
The wording regarding "When it is used in a non-combat situation where turns are longer" sounds like it supports shorter turns in combat.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")