What is the Alternative Combat System?

Fantastic! Excellent work!

Um, wow?

Thou Art Exalted!

Nicely done! I often ponder "What is the kernel or nucleus of D&D" and this helps crystallize that thought.

Nice ! have an exalt !

Thanks



Thanks Cooper, I will look into that section.

edit: I see what you mean Cooper; (CM p41). I will have to rewrite (or eliminate) that note.


The "issue" is that a fighter with a bow firing at +2 to hit (short range) already has a major advantage in OD&D terms. If he has a high dexterity he will be +3 to hit. If he has a magical bow then he will be (at least) +4 to hit. If he has magical arrows as well he will be (at least) +5 to hit -- an ungodly advantage in OD&D terms. Firing twice per round in addition would be Armageddon.

And it works both ways. Imagine now your party of brand new 1st level PCs ambushed by a dozen brigands with bows... it isn't fair.

In any case, you may note how that "rule" is greyed out in my original post. That was meant to imply that I am aware it is tenuous. I would love to find better evidence for something to this effect, but there may (or may not) be any.




What is "W&UW" Cooper?

I would hope so, a magic item hard fought to get in the first place and with limited charges should be more powerful than arrows which can be had for 2 to a gold piece in, what I assume for most campaigns, any community larger than a peasants homestead.

From what you wrote above, though, group initiative was not part of OD&D, correct?

Beyond telling players to determine initiative, it isn't in there at all. I mean, it's mentioned but a rule is never given. Individual initiative is implied as shown in WotE's post and given a bit more weight in the FAQ, but nothing explicitly stated.

Edit to add: I see WotE beat me to the answer. Okay, carry on ...

Now it would be really cool to see these items compared in the evolution of the game with various editions and even how carried over in the clones. (in a nifty table)

Except the combat example in the FAQ then goes on to use group initiative, using one die for the fighter and one die for all of the orcs.

I think the "assuming that is the number of combatants" bit means he's assuming there are only two sides; it's not a three-way fight, for example.

One mustn't come to too strong a conclusion based on these early writings. Everything Gary wrote was on a kinda-sorta-make-it-up-as-you-go basis.

Juicy stuff and great work putting that al together. Now as we say in anthro, let us problematize...

I don't know if you've read the Blackmoor Combat threads (running at about 10 pages, it's a slog), but a lesson learned in that study is that you have to preface any assertion with "at one point", something I'm not seeing here.

So, I'm assuming two things: a) you are attempting to establish author intent; b) you believe that intent is consistent from the date of publication through until 1976 when the fifth print was released.

While neither of these is at all unreasonable, the second point is particularly tricky. We know that D&D underwent a lot of revisionism between 1973 and 1976, and there is no reason to think the combat system was immune from that.

There's a second issue I've also mentioned that seems consistently ignored by just about everybody. D&D had 2 authors, and the man who is most responsible for creating "the alternative combat system" in the first place had nothing to do with the FAQ or any of the other sources cited outside the 3Lbb's.

In the end I'd be a lot more comfortable with this thread if the title was "How did Gary Gygax define the Alternative Combat system in 1976" than the more generalist view taken.

With those cautionary caveats in mind, I'd agree with most of you list and am only going to quibble with a few points.

[/li][li]Combat rounds are approximately one minute long (U&WA p8).[/quote]

could be. We've been through this one on the other thread, and Gygax initial intent with round length remains enigmatic, particularly with the way combat is described in the FAQ. One thing I can say with certainty is that when Arneson used the Alternative system it was blow by blow (or chop by chop as he put it in the FFC) combat where each die roll represented an attack swing in a matter of seconds, following in the footseps of CHAINMAILs Man to Man.

[/li][li]Players give a statement of intent each round (Note 1).[/quote]

Not buying it. CM's written orders are referenced only in flying battles and can't be stretched to cover a general player "statement of intent" rule. In the play example in UW&A page 13, in what is the only thing that comes close to an example of the start of combat, the caller mearly anounces that "all will be ready for combat". It's unclear, but doesn't seem strikingly like the players are giving statements of intent.

[/li][li]The referee adjudicates the order of in which attacks are resolved... (implied M&M p11)
[/li][li]...or else initiative is 1d6 per combatant (FAQ).[/quote]

Not entirely sure what you mean here Simon by referee adjudication. M&M p11 implies dexterity determines combat order ala Holmes.

[/li][li]Rear attacks strike at +2 to hit (Note 2).[/quote]

<shrug>
Arneson put rear attacks at +3 (DA, A Quarter Century of Role Playing?:p3)

[/li][li]Successful hits deal 1-6 hit points of damage unless stated otherwise (M&M p19). [/quote]

Another issue of what point in the history of the alternative combat system you are looking at.

This sentence appears nowhere in the 1st print. I think it first shows up in the 5th print (along with the change to clerics), but it might possibly be in the 4th. It is therefore an added rule, circa late 1975/ early 1976.

Without this sentence things change. In original, err, original Dungeons and Dragons there are monster entries which mention greater than 1d6 damage in a manner that implies that larger and stronger creatures are expected to inflict greater damage whether made implicit or not. The following entry in particular highlights the conflict:

"LARGE INSECTS OR ANIMALS: This category includes giant ants and prehistoric monsters. Armor Class can be anything from 8 to 2. Hit Dice should range from 2 to anywhere near 20, let us say, for a Tyrannasaurus Rex... Damage caused by hits should range between 2-4 dice (2-24 points)."

The rule stated there is unequivocal, "Damage caused by hits" from any large insect or animal should cause a minimum of 2d6 in damage. Many of the creatures in the monster list would certainly fall in the "large" classification. One might argue that "monsters" are not animals but that would seem a little silly IMHO. So with out the added "all do 1d6" rule you cited, the intention would seem to be that "man type" creatures do 1d6, and larger than man type do greater damage.

Thank you, Alderron, for your (as ever) meritorious input





In fact my goal in putting this thread together was more practical and less academically oriented.

My goal was simply to describe the Alternative Combat System as it appears in the 3LBBs and the FAQ with as little reference to other sources as possible.

The motivation being to illustrate what is contained therein so that others can use the Alternative Combat System in their games without having to trawl the source texts first hand to piece it together. Let's recall that many gamers don't have access to the 3LBBs at all, but that shouldn't stop them from playing should it?!

I assumed the 6th print because a) it is by far the most numerous print in circulation (practically all the other prints are considered rare and expensive collector's items), and b) it is the most up to date print. Sure, it still contains a lot of errors (which you may recall I attempted to document here) -- but it also contains various additions and/or corrections.



That's true of course, but as I stated above, I was primarily concerned with what actually appears in the 3LBBs and the FAQ. Moreover, I don't have access to the early DA source materials so I'm in no position to reference it. If there are any particularly compelling passages you know of, it would be great to see some quotes (with references)!


I have no problem with attaching that qualifier for academic purposes, but I think unnecessary for practical gaming. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't really matter who authored the materials; what does matter is what the presented material is and how it can be used to play D&D.




The caller is a player. In the examples you refer to we see the caller stating what the PCs intend to do. How is this not stating intent?

Moreover, directly after that example (U&WA p14) the text says:


Thus play is expected to continue as per the example for the duration of the game.

It is true that we don't see an explicit example of a "non-caller player" stating his intent in the 3LBBs, but whether or not there is a caller at all is for each gaming group to decide. The example in the FAQ is more abstract -- with the author surmising the player's intent for the reader. However, if it were actually played out at the gaming table, the referee could not possibly know what the player wanted to do if he did not somehow declare it.

Overall, I agree with you that the "statement of intent" rule is not explicitly given, but it is implied in U&WA (p14) and is a practical necessity in any case.

I will update the "statement of intent" rule to refer to U&WA p14.



Not exactly a la Holmes, I don't think. Holmes says explicitly that a player with a higher dexterity score should act before one with a lower dexterity score. Page 11 of M&M says only that dexterity will indicate the character's speed with actions, such as firing first, getting a spell off, and so on. It doesn't state how dexterity will indicate this and therefore how it shall be accomplished is up to the referee.

I agree that comparing dexterity scores is one possibility, but recall that monsters don't have dexterity scores in OD&D -- Holmes added rolling monster dexterity scores on the spot to cover that one off. Other means of adjudication are equally viable, and the 3LBBs leave it to the ref to decide how.



Yes, I agree totally. That is why I wrote: "Successful hits deal 1-6 hit points of damage unless stated otherwise (M&M p19)."

I hindsight, what I really meant to say was:


(M&M p19)


Thanks again for your input Aldarron

There are discussions going on about how best to do it, but I promise Simon, those materials will be made available to everyone in the not to distant future. I can't stomach hoarded knowledge. <<cough Domeday Newlsetter cough>>



Heh, yeah. What I was thinking, partly in refence to the simultaneous movement rule, is that players can be giving thier actions in turn as the combat unfolds rather than "verbal orders" from everybody before any action takes place in the round.



Okeydoke. "Other means of adjudication are equally viable" makes sense to me.



Nah, thank you for giving me something to chew on for a while.