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.
The meaning of a part of a quotation is quite likely to differ from the meaning of the whole of it, true. But we shouldn't conclude anything about the meaning of the whole of a quotation from a fragment alone.
When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds)
The question of what "turn" refers to in the above quotation should be answered by considering the context in which it was written.
In U&WA (printed from 1974 to 1979) it is stated explicitly that the turn (underground) is 10 minutes long.
The article (above) was written for Dungeons & Dragons in 1975. At that time Gygax was not advocating the use of Chainmail for D&D. (In fact, he would later go on public record stating that he never played D&D with Chainmail).
However, at that time he was advocating that players use the Alternative Combat System to resolve D&D battles (first para of the FAQ).
EJH's Basic D&D would not be printed until 1977, so Holmes' "combat turn" of 10 "melee rounds" each being 10 seconds long (the 100 second "combat turn") had not yet arisen. So the term "turn" (in the quote) is unlikely to refer to these.
In addition, EGG (later, in 1978) went to the trouble of publishing an explanation of why a "turn" (underground) in D&D was 10 minutes long, rather than 1 minute long as it had been in Chainmail:
The Dragon, Issue 15 (June 1978)
Quote:
As D&D grew from CHAINMAIL, it too used the same scale assumptions as its basis. Changes had to be made, however, in order to meet the 1:1 figure ratio and the underground setting. Movement was adjusted to a period ten times longer than a CHAINMAIL turn of 1 minute, as exploring and mapping in an underground dungeon is slow work. Combat, however, stayed at the CHAINMAIL norm and was renamed a melee round or simply round.
So what do we have?
1. U&WA (1974) states explicitly that a turn (underground) is 10 minutes, 2. EGG (earlier 1975) advocates Alternative Combat System for D&D (i.e., not 1 minute Chainmail turns), 3. The above SR article is written (later 1975), 4. Holmes' (1977) 100 second "combat turns" arose, 5. EGG (1978) "retrospectively" explains why D&D turns were changed from "1 minute Chainmail turns" to "10 minute dungeon exploration turns". Don't forget that OD&D boxed set were still in print at this time!, 6. EGG (2005) states he didn't play D&D with Chainmail (i.e., neither did he use 1 minute Chainmail turns).
In that context, it is hard (for me) to see how the term "turn" in the article above can refer to anything other than U&WA's 10 minute "exploration turn".
In fact, the only anomaly I can see is (as was illustrated previously in this thread) that the term "turn" was used to mean both "exploration turn" and also "melee round" in the 3LBBs.
It seems to me only that the terminology hadn't settled at that time and/or that the original D&D was rushed out without a decent proof-reading. Nothing more.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 94 Location: A stale, dusty library Karma: 1
Re: Length of a Combat Round « Reply #76 on Mar 26, 2012, 5:16am »
It seems to me the biggest problem with the change from the Chainmail combat turn of 1 minute to the OD&D exploration turn of 10 minutes with 1 minute combat rounds is what is actually happening during combat.
Correct me if I am wrong, in a Chainmail 1 minute combat turn there is a magic phase, a missile phase, a movement phase and then multiple melee phases. Thus in 1 minute there is quite a bit happening.
In a 1 minute OD&D combat round, each combatant gets 1 set of actions (magic, or 2 missiles (if bow), or move and melee, or other combinations, but you get the idea). The combat is very abstract, such that in 1 minute it appears that not much occurred. Especially because only 1 phase of melee occurred instead of the multiple melee phases in Chainmail's combat turn.
In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.
Since it seems that most OD&D combats are fast and furious, i.e. only takes a few rounds anyway, an OD&D combat is unlikely to take more than 1 exploration turn. Thus, the scale of exploration turn and combat is resolved in OD&D.
In the end, IMO, it really depends on how abstract you want your combat to be. Plus, consider that in Holmes (I believe), a combat, no matter how many rounds will take up one exploration turn (to rest and recover). Does it really matter if the combat rounds are one minute, 10 seconds, or 6 seconds?
In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.
I quite agree with this assessment, except that I would not say that D&D and Chainmail combats are very similar. The difference in scale can explain much difference. The tactics of a few against a few are much different than the those of dozens against dozens.
The meaning of a part of a quotation is quite likely to differ from the meaning of the whole of it, true. But we shouldn't conclude anything about the meaning of the whole of a quotation from a fragment alone.
The question of what "turn" refers to in the above quotation should be answered by considering the context in which it was written....
Gentleman, this is simple and direct, so lets not obsfucate. It has nothing to do with who did or did not use CHAINMAILs various combat tables (and that's all Gygax was talking about as he clearly did directly apply large portions of CHAINMAILs rules including movement rates) or with what holmes did in 1977 or what Gygax wrote in 1978. It has only to do with what Gygax wrote in 1974 and his comment on it one year later.
So I will repeat because my question remains unaddressed.
The sentence very clearly says:
"in a non-combat situation... turns are longer."
ergo
In combat situations, turns are shorter.
That is a direct, inescapable deduction.
There is no way around it.
The question that must be addressed is how long are the "longer" turns, and how short are the combat turns?
Once again I will repeat:
The two defined OD&D turns are the 10 minute Move/Turn and the day long "wilderness" turn.
In the sentence being referred to, Gygax informs us very clearly that there is a base 20% plus an additional 5% chance per "longer" turn of "non-combat situation" of being hypnotized. Is this "longer" turn, ten minutes or one day?
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.
If Gygax meant to say there is only a 5% chance per day of being hypnotized, that would be strange indeed. Is it possible Gygax meant some third kind of turn? Of course, possible, but that would be introducing a new and completely undefined turn length (an hour? a half day? ).
As Ways has repeatedly pointed out the usual use of "turn" regards underground movement and is specified as 10 minutes in length. So by far the most probable meaning of Gygax sentence can be re-stated as follows:
When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer being each approximately of ten minutes duration as PC's map and explore (remember however, that one combat turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase....
Frankly, in context, it is difficult to see how it could mean anything else, but I'd be interested to know if anyone can see a different meaning that satisfactorily explains the "longer turn" referred to as anything other than the 10 minute move/turn.
In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.
I quite agree with this assessment, except that I would not say that D&D and Chainmail combats are very similar. The difference in scale can explain much difference. The tactics of a few against a few are much different than the those of dozens against dozens.
What I meant by very similar is that the 'phases' are similar, not the tactics or amount of combatants.
You're absolutely right. In combat, turns are called rounds and are one-minute long. They are definitely shorter than the kind of turn used to explore dungeons, which are called turns.
You're absolutely right. In combat, turns are called rounds and are one-minute long. They are definitely shorter than the kind of turn used to explore dungeons, which are called turns.
You are implying that Gygax either conflated the meaning of turns and rounds in the very same sentence in which he points out the difference between them (that's not impossible, but its a stretch), or that he could be saying "where turns are longer than these rounds", which is a more possible reading but assumes added meaning where I initially simply took the statement at face value. On the other hand given Gygax's habit of opaque writing that could be exactly what he meant, as you say, that the shorter "turns" were the previously mentioned rounds, in his mind. It's a plausable reading.
I can't figure out if this thread is comedy gold or if all of you are really this obsessed ...
It has nothing to do with obsession, it has to do with distraction/curiosity. It's a debate about ambiguous wording and a thought experiment about if the traditionally accepted view maybe wasn't in the original meaning.
So ... you're saying you're a little girl? That is a brave admission.
Eugene, not everyone can appreciate your sense of humor. Things are a bit different here than on the only other board I recall seeing you on (DragonsFoot). We're a bit more relaxed and quite a bit more respectful of each other around here. Try and take it down a notch, would you?
![[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
![[avatar]](http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/3500/3509/p_19_th.gif "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/TakingaSeat.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/ICON18Spears.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c100/Mortania/Carrington.jpg "[avatar]")