Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 679 Location: Lille, France Karma: 45
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #60 on Dec 13, 2009, 6:26pm »
This table is pretty nice, Aldarron! I wonder when and why Dave used the 40% basis, but please watch the convesrion table I give above. 7 on 2d6 is translated into 39-50%, so the 40% could fit as being the base value for most weapons in the Man-to-man chart. I think dave used it (clue in the FFC price list), but did he used the system as such?
I'm tinkering another one for comparison and will send it soon. Still we need to understand how and when was the gap from the 3-level system to the 8-level system (and above, the later being perhaps from Gary). It seems natural to fill the system, as steps are 1 dice, 4 dice, 8 dices, but still this is intriguing.
Tim Kask suggered to have a look on Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies, which could have provided ideas. He was the original Blackmoor Bishop and the "naval combat rules" in U&WA seems to have been developped directly from this inspiration. I guess the naval rules are for Dave - even if Gary and Dave published toegether another naval wargame - and this is the place where Chainmail man-to-an combat is quoted. I guess some others features of the part of U&WA is gives interesting clues : hit localisation [to be compared with the Blackmoor Matrix], critical hits (as in EPT) and effects of hits in addition of damage. Maybe we should study it more carefully.
Does someone have an old copy of FitS - I'd like to know about the damage system : "A six-sided die is rolled to determine if a hit is made, and if necessary a second die is rolled to determine the amount of damage."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_in_the_Skies
This table is pretty nice, Aldarron! I wonder when and why Dave used the 40% basis, but please watch the convesrion table I give above. 7 on 2d6 is translated into 39-50%, so the 40% could fit as being the base value for most weapons in the Man-to-man chart. I think dave used it (clue in the FFC price list), but did he used the system as such?
Nice Catch Snorri! Clues in the price list... Hmm looking forward to seeing what you caught there. Did Dave ever use a system like this? Well, he used the 40% for AiF and he seems to have used a matrix in early Blackmoor, but beyond someone turning some notes to light I think we have to settle for best guesses.
I'm tinkering another one for comparison and will send it soon. Still we need to understand how and when was the gap from the 3-level system to the 8-level system (and above, the later being perhaps from Gary). It seems natural to fill the system, as steps are 1 dice, 4 dice, 8 dices, but still this is intriguing.
I'm not wanting to let the whole cat out of the bag, because I'm waiting to hear back for some clarifications on some things that seem to back up some of our most recent conclusions, but I have been in touch with John Snider. He says he thinks he remembers rolling a 2d6 to hit and the number had to be lower than an number Dave would determine from a paper he had. He never knew what was written on the paper but agrees that it could have been a matrix. He also says that sometime later on they switched to using percentile dice. A simple 3*3 flunky to hero 2d6 roll under matrix, perhaps starting at 1 vs 1 roll under 8 like the Dungeon Boardgame or maybe at 7 to match the 40% thing would be an easy way for Blackmoor to have started and its also easy to see Arneson expanding that into something like the 40% table I posted. Are you thinking along these lines?
Tim Kask suggered to have a look on Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies, which could have provided ideas. He was the original Blackmoor Bishop and the "naval combat rules" in U&WA seems to have been developped directly from this inspiration. I guess the naval rules are for Dave - even if Gary and Dave published toegether another naval wargame - and this is the place where Chainmail man-to-an combat is quoted. I guess some others features of the part of U&WA is gives interesting clues : hit localisation [to be compared with the Blackmoor Matrix], critical hits (as in EPT) and effects of hits in addition of damage. Maybe we should study it more carefully.
Bob Meyer said much the same in his post about not "making the jump from Chainmail", arguing that "If you look at combat between single planes or ships in games from that era, you will see that Blackmoor had much more in common with them than Chainmail." So its defiently a good idea to have a look at those games. Also, I'm sure you're right about more clues to ferret out of U&WA.
I was puzzled by the "percentage index", so I verified the maths to be sure on how to use it.
With that other table (), I understood and this is a pure genius:
as an example, 55% = 5, 6, 7, 8 means you got approximatively 55% to roll a 5, a 6, a 7 or a 8. Let's verify 11,11 + 13,89 + 16,67 + 13,89 = 55,6. Right! And another example, 95% = all except 11, means 100-5,56= 94,44. Not bad...
With this table, the gamemaster can have a system in %, but ask his players to roll 2d6, and converts very easily. Very useful when you're in 1971 and are allmost the only oen to have percentile dice at the table.
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #64 on Dec 15, 2009, 12:09pm »
John Snider was a regular member of Dave Arnesons Napoleonic group and played in the first few years of Blackmoor before going on to a military career. Mr. Snider has not been involved with gaming since joining the military, so his memories are not colored by subsequent developments in the game – including the publication of OD&D and the publication of Adventures in Fantasy, which was co-authored by Johns’ brother Richard and Dave Arneson.
I contacted Mr. Snider by email, and he was kind enough to answer some questions. The following text is from two separate emails, unaltered, except being combined together and the name of the speaker added as a heading.
Dan: There has been a lot of speculation about the game mechanics Mr. Arneson was using during the first year or two of Blackmoor. Some have suggested Armor Class was 1-8, not 2-9.
Mr. Snider: Boy ... that was a long time ago and memory is a fungible item these days. I can tell you what I 'think' I remember 35+ years later. Armor .. I thought it was 1-8, my Boozero character started at 1 if I remember correctly, but then he was shall we say in his cups a tad much so Dave could have adjusted the system to account for this.
Dan: Boozero was the name of your fighter? Heh, that’s great.
Mr. Snider Believe was my 2nd fighter ... other one before was to staid for me, so went for this one.
Dan: I want to make sure I’m not reading too much into your answers. So, from what you wrote about Armor Class, I take it that you remember Armor Class 1 being the worst and Armor class 8 being the strongest?
Mr. Snider That is how I recall ... but again can not be positeive on this after 30+ years.
Dan: There have been various ideas about how a hit was determined. Instead of using the familiar combat matrix in found in D&D, some have suggested the player had to roll 2d6-2 and score below the AC in order to get a hit; others that Arneson used percentile dice system to determine hits on a matrix. Further, the percentile system might have been a level versus level matrix table instead of the familiar level vs. Armor Class table.
Mr. Snider: Dice .. I remember 'today' rolling a 2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too. He was the judge so we didn't always see the guts of the system when this adventure started. Later we went to the percentage dice ... so I guess it depends on what point in time you joined and/or left. I went into the military in the early 70s so I played less and less as deployment approached.
Dan: If the “to hit” matrix was level vs level then the Armor Class may have functioned as a saving throw – perhaps the 2d6 system mentioned above.
Mr. Snider Saving ... I remember that this was a mitigator on how bad the hit hurt or how much damage you inflicted. Yes, armor and (if rem right) agility (or whatever we called it back there) were both mitigators, as was level. Boy I wish I had my papers from back then .. then I'd be able to help you a heck of a lot more. I'll look in the archives down below but am sure don't have them anymore.
Dan: So, if I’m reading it right, you’re saying the mitigating factors came after a hit was already determined, in other words you think you remember 2d6 being rolled to determine if a hit was successful; so Dave first checked what you rolled against something he had written down to determine if a hit was made, before Armor Class etc. came in to play? Then, Armor Class, Agility, and level were mitigators on damage received and damage done after a hit had already been determined. Correct?
Mr. Snider: Again what I recall at first, although it might have changed as the game matured, I believe Agility was used by Dave before the roll. AC was (if recall) applied after to mitigate the damage ... this also might have changed during the 1st year or so of game maturation. Level, was used by, I can't recall how at this point .. sorry.
Dan: Was the level mitigator perhaps a separate kind of progression like getting more dice to attack with, say 4d6?
Mr. Snider I can't recall how level played in although I know it did, just can't recall after all that time.
Dan: One of the things people have discussed back and forth is chronology. Dave Arneson said he invented Blackmoor over the Christmas holiday, but it’s not clear which year. Do you remember if it was December of 1970 or December of 1971? Some folks have said it was the last week or two in 1970 but Chainmail wasn’t published till the summer of ’71, and since Mr. Arneson said he started off using Chainmail, it would seem to have to have been the last week or two of 1971.
Mr. Snider: I thought that Dave had a draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later. I thought we started in 70 not 71. Now again, formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics.
Sorry on the faulty memory but 23 years in the Army after this concentrated my focus on other things.
Dan There will be a lot of folks on the Forum who would be very interested in what you’ve told me. Is it okay to post your answers? I won’t unless you say I can.
Mr. Snider Is OK to post .... as long as stress the 30+ year memory lapse
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #65 on Dec 15, 2009, 12:17pm »
As a follow up to the info from John Snider, I offer this comparison of the basic elements of of the Adventures in Fantasy combat system, and the early Blackmoor system as John described it and as described in the FFC:
Breaking down AiF Combat : Step 1: 1) Compare combatants by type on a matrix 2) Compare combatants dexterity and use difference to modify number on matrix 3) Compare size and modify matrix number for any difference 4) Compare experience and modify matrix number for any difference 5) Roll to hit
Step 2 (hit successful): 1) Roll Armor Saving Throw (optional)
Step 3: 1) Roll d6 “Hit Dice” for damage or (optionally) roll on “Hit Location” chart for the type and number of dice to be used to determine damage 2) Add strength bonus, if any, to damage (optional)
Proposed early Blackmoor system:
Step 1: 1) Compare combatants by type (level) on a matrix 2) Apply Agility modifier - Compare combatants dexterity and use difference to modify AC (+/-1 for every two points different?) 3) Apply size modifier (later development per FFC , +/-1 for every two points different?) 3) Roll “Hit Dice” to hit, removing one d6 for each +1 of any magical defenses.
Step 2 Saving Throw vs AC (hit successful, players only) – like all saving throws in early Blackmoor, roll 2d6 -2, score equal or under means no damage)
Step 3: 1) Roll d6 “Hit Dice” for damage or (optional, later development) roll on “Hit Location” chart to determine damage
Needless to say, the similarities are striking. More than I expected for sure.
harami2000 Level 5 Thaumaturgist member is offline
Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 298 Karma: 7
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #68 on Dec 15, 2009, 3:43pm »
Thanks to John; and for the copy, Dan.
I'm not sure about those extensions, especially when considering the earliest period of Blackmoor's development, into a "Proposed early Blackmoor system" since those aren't in John's own words. Not particularly surprising, perhaps, that that more closely mirrors AiF, given the leap or two in the dark with the mechanics.
"2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too" and "draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later" do, however, not contradict the theory of development from the pre-Chainmail rules in DB#7 (etc.?) per previous discussion, and thus tend to support statements (and secondary evidence) that 1e Chainmail itself was not greatly "required" on a fundamental mechanics level, or utilised to a huge degree otherwise (save elements/inspiration that might've encouraged a general upping of the fantasy quotient, perhaps?). It might be useful to re-ask a few questions around that if it's possible to avoid feeding answers too strongly.
"formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics" might also be relevant, too, to bridge at least part of that problematic winter 1970/71 through to May 1971 "gap".
Still a minor issue that that's well over one year of play - even from May 1971 - before Gary became involved which, as ever, creates a problem pinning down for sure whether that meet-up GenCon in a /D&D/ context was definitely August 1972 rather than August 1971 (claimed elsewhere and aided-and-abetted by others who state that D&D was pretty much "ready" in 150 page format by 1972). Rob Kuntz has detailed a relatively well pinned-down "relative" chronology working in from the other end, but getting the two to meet up in the middle has always been problematic.
Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 679 Location: Lille, France Karma: 45
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #69 on Dec 15, 2009, 3:53pm »
And another exalt for the interview!
David, do you have access to earlier versions of Chainmail, 1st or 2nd? There are some points that should be checked about differences beteen versions.
David, do you have access to earlier versions of Chainmail, 1st or 2nd? There are some points that should be checked about differences beteen versions.
Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 679 Location: Lille, France Karma: 45
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #71 on Dec 15, 2009, 4:47pm »
Sure I allways read them with a lot of interest Your point about the precise chronology of the first Blackmoor sessions, particulary, is still an intriguing but essentiel one. I was just not sure you got your own copy of that stuff, because I got some precise questions about it:
- In which version did the "Class of armor worn by defender" in appendix B, second table appears with the number? All versions or only in the 3d?
- In which version did the 5 levels of wizards appeared [it seems, from Europa zine, that the spell complexity table wasn't in 2nd]. Same about the number of spells and spell distances in 2nd and possibly in 1st?
- Did the different species of dragons appeared in 2nd?
-- It's quite probable Dave's had access to the 'pre-1st' version of Chainmail, but he makes clear in FFC he did use the 1st printing and the fantasy supplement, for mosnters and points values.
Sure I allways read them with a lot of interest Your point about the precise chronology of the first Blackmoor sessions, particulary, is still an intriguing but essentiel one.
Well, it was; on /one/ of the forum threads... All this does rather tie in together, anyhow.
Yeah; sorry, but I'm still not overly happy with the "try to make evidence fit the expectation" approach (conscious or otherwise) since that caused so many errors and misconceptions in the first place, when even the "expectations" were based on fuzzy memories and guesses. For example, on the http://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=974 thread from 5+ years ago where three separate, now apparently false, leads are /still/ in circulation: that the 150 page D&D ms. was 1972, that 1e Chainmail did not have the Fantasy supplement - I didn't have John's copy at that time, and all that 1973 Eastercon D&D pre-release nonsense. Although there is plenty good stuff in the above, I still wasn't particularly happy to have my arm twisted to hand over John's email addy at that time for somewhat panicky justification after his brother had just died; and thankfully John /did/ provide background information in what reads as a independent manner, honest as to the limitations of those recollections.
I was just not sure you got your own copy of that stuff, because I got some precise questions about it:
Oh, I know that. Answered Fin's long-time back on the same.
There are a fair number of other people who could also supply those answers for lack of any community resource - that being impossible to organise, it seems; perhaps in part owing to the expectation of free information rather than digging deep and pooling funds together or co-ordinating material in some manner.
- Did the different species of dragons appeared in 2nd?
I'll dodge that for now; but suffice to say there are different species of (Blackmoor) dragons scribbled all over John Snider's (early) 1st print D&D books, as mentioned elsewhere before. Perhaps Richard got a hold of those at the time, since John was more focused to the Army by then? (per above, letter in Supernova, etc.)
I'm not sure about those extensions, especially when considering the earliest period of Blackmoor's development, into a "Proposed early Blackmoor system" since those aren't in John's own words. Not particularly surprising, perhaps, that that more closely mirrors AiF, given the leap or two in the dark with the mechanics.
Well, the thing that's not got any direct evidence other than its the priciple at work in AiF is the proposal that Dave was using a level vs level matrix to determine a to hit number. Arneson wasn't using AC (according to Snider) and there had to have been some method of arriving at a to hit number.
The +/- 1 thing was just something I threw out there to see what ideas might pop up. Another possibilty on how the modifiers may have worked could be taken from AiF. AiF uses a high dexterity minus low dexterity and divide by 2 formula to determine modifiers. In AiF it gets complex but something like that in Blackmoor could have been much simpler and would be easy if all your ability score numbers are by 1-10 at first and convert to increments of 10 later when percentiles come in.
The rest of the sequence is tied to the various lines of evidence closely enough that any other interpretations would likely have to be quite complex or contradictory, although I'm certainly open to ideas.
One thing I would modify about my proposal though is the "match or roll under" business, which does come from AiF directly. Lionheart said Arneson told him it was roll under, not equal or under. I think that's probably right because in a 2d6-2 saving throw system it would mean an AC 1 (no armor) would always take damage when hit.
"2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too" and "draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later" do, however, not contradict the theory of development from the pre-Chainmail rules in DB#7 (etc.?) per previous discussion, and thus tend to support statements (and secondary evidence) that 1e Chainmail itself was not greatly "required" on a fundamental mechanics level, or utilised to a huge degree otherwise (save elements/inspiration that might've encouraged a general upping of the fantasy quotient, perhaps?).
It might be useful to re-ask a few questions around that if it's possible to avoid feeding answers too strongly.
"formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics" might also be relevant, too, to bridge at least part of that problematic winter 1970/71 through to May 1971 "gap".
Still a minor issue that that's well over one year of play - even from May 1971 - before Gary became involved which, as ever, creates a problem pinning down for sure whether that meet-up GenCon in a /D&D/ context was definitely August 1972 rather than August 1971 (claimed elsewhere and aided-and-abetted by others who state that D&D was pretty much "ready" in 150 page format by 1972). Rob Kuntz has detailed a relatively well pinned-down "relative" chronology working in from the other end, but getting the two to meet up in the middle has always been problematic.
Cheers, David.
Yeah, that was a very interesting bit of information about the Chainmail manuscript and should definetly help out with the chronology. There seem to be a lot of things pointing toward that earlier xmas 1970 date. Mornard's bit about throwing a dragon into a medieval miniatures game fits right in with the idea that the first 6 months or so were a lot more of an experimental/slow period of development. Maybe the story as Arneson remembered it later, using the Chainmail monsters right away etc., was a time compacted version. Just throwing out ideas here.
![[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://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/images/avatars/goblinoidgames/210153305548cd4dcd40ac6.gif "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq210/wizardinabottle/fits.gif "[image]")
