|
Post by derv on May 8, 2016 18:32:00 GMT -6
Hmm, your answer leaves me feeling uncertain if you are seeing the point, which is that there is already a "logical extension of surprise and initiative" built into the rules, that is that when a PC/NPC either starts at or moves to within 30' of an opponent they can attack the opponent. Certainly you can houserule a change in Melee Distance from 30' to 1/2 move if you like, but it still functions exactly the same way. It is pretty much mechanically the same thing. First off, you are making an assumptive leap that all are in agreement with you that 3" is melee distance. As I presented in the OP, this is not obvious nor is it particularly well established outside of references to Chainmail. I feel that it might be beneficial if you re-read my comments above, starting with the OP. It seems like I may be repeating myself. Surprise, as stated in the SR FAQ, is initiative. The Combat Example gives an illustration of 10 orcs who have surprised a Hero from 30 feet. It says, "so they use their initiative to close to melee distance." They are already at 30 feet and use their 9" move to close to melee distance. They are allowed no attack during this surprise move. It follows, "Initiative is now checked." Otherwise, my position is that players are free to use initiative any way they like. I am not restricting their choices. My suggestion is that you actually attempt to use what I am proposing in play. You seem to be making statements that represent your personal opinion and perception, possibly rooted in what you feel is realistic. This is different than arguing from a position that is substantiated in some measurable way. I cannot really refute what you or others may or may not feel. What you may find is that the outcomes are often the same when the intent is melee. I attempted to show that above with my Minotaur example. But, if a person prefers to rely on GM fiat for these sort of resolutions, it will have no comparison. In fact, if this is the case, a 1-3" melee distance is also a moot point. As for fairness, I view this as a two way street. Surprise or initiative can actually offer a greater chance of evasion for the players. It can also offer the first strike. Beyond that, I do not see your argument. Some monsters breath fire, some can cast spells from a distance, some can turn to stone, some fly. Do your players complain that this is not fair? As I said above, this is exactly what the SR FAQ example presents. So, it would be reasonable to assume that some do view it that way.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 9, 2016 19:44:26 GMT -6
For a real world justification for the use of movement rates in regard to melee distance, I can only give some examples to consider.
The fastest recorded human 28 mph (this would not represent an average human speed)
Peregrine Falcon 242 mph (4 mi/min)
Golden Eagle 199 mph (3.3 mi/min)
Cheetah 75 mph (1.25 mi/min)
Cougar 50 mph (.8 mi/min)
Grey Wolf 44 mph
Jaguar 40 mph
Wild Boar 35 mph
Grizzly 30 mph
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 10, 2016 12:15:26 GMT -6
Hmm, your answer leaves me feeling uncertain if you are seeing the point, which is that there is already a "logical extension of surprise and initiative" built into the rules, that is that when a PC/NPC either starts at or moves to within 30' of an opponent they can attack the opponent. Certainly you can houserule a change in Melee Distance from 30' to 1/2 move if you like, but it still functions exactly the same way. It is pretty much mechanically the same thing. First off, you are making an assumptive leap that all are in agreement with you that 3" is melee distance. As I presented in the OP, this is not obvious nor is it particularly well established outside of references to Chainmail. eh? I can't see how I'm the one making assumptions when... Page 17 U&WA “Monsters at 10 yards distance will be able to attack.” Page 28 U&WA “When opponents are within the range indicated for melee (3”) then combat takes place.” ...is about as crystal clear as anything ever gets in OD&D. As I've said, I find this rule really handy in combats, as it eliminates the need for exact positioning or trying to count out exact movement rates and distances. .... Surprise, as stated in the SR FAQ, is initiative. The Combat Example gives an illustration of 10 orcs who have surprised a Hero from 30 feet. It says, "so they use their initiative to close to melee distance." They are already at 30 feet and use their 9" move to close to melee distance. They are allowed no attack during this surprise move. It follows, "Initiative is now checked." Otherwise, my position is that players are free to use initiative any way they like. I am not restricting their choices. Well, to start, the SR FAQ is a very interesting but problematic source that should be used cautiously. It is revisionist, introducing new rules (d6 initiative, multiple attacks per level, grappling, level ratios and new xp rules) some of which weren't so well tested or thought out. That said, a primary focus of the example Gygax gives is the illustration of the use of his "new" initiative rule, so he begins by explaining that surprise grants initiative to the surprisor, so no initiative roll is taken. So yes, in that sense, Surprise is Initiative. Note that "initiative" in CHAINMAIL Man to Man and in 3lbb OD&D is foremost the privilege of the attacker. There is a clear statement in the D&D draft; "The attacker ... will always get the first chop unless he is surprized or opponent has the higher ground." (BTPbD/Dalluhn mss, Book II p23), but it is also illustrated by the wyvern example (OD&D Vol-3, p. 9) where the PC's are attacked twice before retaliating - once for surprise, and a second time presumably because the attacking wyvern has the initiative. By creating a new initiative rule, Gygax is "fixing" the automatic double hit caused by surprise in the 3lbbs. Now, back to the example. After explaining how initiative is already determined in a Surprise, Gygax deliberately places the orcs at 30' distant, the edge of surprise range. So why 30'? In a normal combat situation, that would already be Melee distance. The reason however (and thanks to Derve for making me realize this) is to illustrate a very buried rule. First let's look at this from U&WA 9: "If monsters gain surprise they will either close the distance between themselves and the character{s) (unless they are intelligent and their prey is obviously too strong to attack) or attack." Read carefully, that sentences gives three alternatives: 1) Intelligent monsters faced by stronger opponents will avoid or be non-hostile 2)"close the distance...to attack. 3) "or attack". It is the second 2 that matter here ""close the distance...to attack... or attack". Since one of those alternatives include using the surprise move to close a distance, then clearly the whole 1" to 3" surprise range doesn't mean automatic first strike attack, but some subset of it does. That subset is given to us on page 12 as "There is no chance for avoiding if the monster has surprised the adventurers and is with in 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised." So there it is, a special Melee Distance of 1"-2" in the case of surprise. If players are lucky enough to have been surprised at 2"-3" feet the monster will have to use it's surprise round/free move to close the distance - exactly as the orcs have to do in the SR example " they use their initiative to close to melee distance." Next round, the "new" rule of roll for initiative comes into play. Undoubtedly, Surprise is a special rule that only applies to a short distance, a distance the equates to the usual Melee Range, and this is because, no matter how fast or big the monster, the players will have enough advance warning at greater distances to not be surprised. WHY? Because Surprise is a " jump out and say BOO!" rule, which is why there is a 25% chance of a character dropping what they are carying. (U&WA, p12) Really it ought to be called the "Startled" rule. But even at that, characters "startled" at 20' 30' distant, have enough time to recover to enough defend themselves if the bogey, using the it's surprise movement initiative, rushes at them, closer than that and they loose a round of action altogether, and the bogey can use the surprise move initiative to strike. ...Surprise or initiative can actually offer a greater chance of evasion for the players. It can also offer the first strike. Surprise and initiative rules do offer chances of evasion and first strike, but that isn't helped by changing surprise melee distance to 1/2 move rate. To break this down by way of example of a monster surprising a PC: We have a hostile monster (troll) with a movement rate of 12", and we have an approaching fighter PC. By the book, if the fighter is surprised, it will occur within 30' of the monster and the player will loose a round of action to the troll if it happens at 20' or less. If it happens at 20' to 30' the trolls extra round of action is "used up" by the troll rushing at the fighter, but since a troll has a movement rate greater than 2' and can easily cover 20', the fighter still must face the attack. Per U&WA p9 the attacking monster strikes first but per the SR, FAQ initiative should be checked and possibly the startled/surprised fighter would have a chance at recovering quickly enough to strike first. By your rule, Surprise is initiative, and both allow a first strike attack range equal to 1/2 of a monsters movement value. Therefore the surprised fighter will loose a move, have a 25% chance of dropping an object and be attacked up to 60' away. By your rule, it is not just the monster close at hand affecting the player character, but any monster within a 1/2 move. Numerous monsters could be in range to surprise the PC's at the same time, the PCs loose a move no matter where they are, get scared into dropping things by distant monsters and loose the opportunity to gain the initiative at longer distances. It also adds a layer of work for the DM who has to calculate all those different half moves for all involved and track what areas are affected by what characters. Beyond that, I do not see your argument. Some monsters breath fire, some can cast spells from a distance, some can turn to stone, some fly. Do your players complain that this is not fair? As to fire breathing dragons and magical monsters, etc. there's no comparison there; apples and oranges. We're talking about changing a rule from one that sometimes affords the players an opportunity to prepare for an attack and possibly gain the initiative to one that takes that chance away from them at significantly longer distances, potentially as much as four or even five times as far at your 1/2 move value and twice that if you take the whole of a creatures movement rate; a rule that is relatively simple for the DM to one that requires a lot more calculating. ...I suggest that you actually attempt to use what I am proposing in play. You are obviously making statements that represent your personal opinion and perception, possibly rooted in what you feel is realistic. This is different than arguing from a position that is substantiated in some measurable way. What you may find is that the outcomes are often the same when the intent is melee. I attempted to show that above with my Minotaur example. But, if a person insists on relying on GM fiat for these sort of resolutions, it will have no comparison. In fact, if this is the case, a 1-3" melee distance is also a moot point. I don't think anybody in this thread was advocating reliance on GM fiat, so I don't know what you mean by that, nor do I think it is necessary for a DM to measure the response of their players to know how they would react to a rule change that doesn't favor them. <shrug> As I said above, this is exactly what the SR FAQ example presents. So, it would be reasonable to assume that some do view it that way. Okay, I think you are right about that, and it's interesting to think about. It may simply be that Surprise is a special case in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2016 15:03:41 GMT -6
Well, to start, the SR FAQ is a very interesting but problematic source that should be used cautiously. It is revisionist, introducing new rules (d6 initiative, multiple attacks per level, grappling, level ratios and new xp rules) some of which weren't so well tested or thought out. Calling the FAQ revisionist is hardly fair. It never claimed to be explaining things that were merely unclear; it's just answering "frequently asked questions." Gygax was self-consciously adding material that had been left out. Anyway, which of those rules weren't well tested or thought out? I'm pretty sure Gygax had been using all of them all along. His responses are simply a matter of, "Just make something up that makes sense in the system. Here's what you can do for X, Y, and Z." I don't care what it says in U&WA, Gygax never meant that orcs can swing swords from thirty feet away and hit. 3" is melee range, but you still have to close the distance to attack. It just means "melee has begun." Missile-users and spell-casters had better be careful whom they target! You're overthinking this. Being surprised simply means "lose a turn."
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 10, 2016 17:14:13 GMT -6
I get it aldarron , it’s clear that you’re really fond of the 1-3” melee distance. But, you havn’t made it clear how you consistently apply this rule in your games. And now you are telling me that surprise is a special rule that alters the established 3” melee distance. Besides that, you have attempted to make the use of movement rates sound overly complicated, which, with how I use them, they most certainly are not. I could accept that if we were talking about Holmes or EW methods of further segmenting movement by rounds. But, we are not. What you are failing to grasp, and what is central to my argument in regards to roleplaying versus wargaming, is that you don’t have to know positioning, count squares, measure, or make complex calculations. All you have to do is be able to read and divide by two. They teach children at a young age to read and divide by two. I hope the average GM is capable of that. When it comes to melee, my method involves two factors. 1. Is the opponent within the distance of your full move? If he is, you can close the distance for melee. 2. Is the opponent closer than half of your move? If he is, you can close the distance and strike. That’s it. Nothing else. Fairly simple. Surprise distances will always be 1-3” btb. There is nothing that I’m changing with that rule. Now, let’s compare that to trying to figure out if an attacker will end up at 1-3” before and after his move. In addition, you are telling me surprise is a special rule. So, now you can’t move and strike unless you’re 2” away. Bah! You are also trying to over complicate the idea of the players being able to prepare for a surprise attack. Some monsters are fast. Why should the rules make them so? What purpose does it serve to give them a faster move? Or a movement rate at all? I gave you some real world examples above. Do you think you would be able to prepare for a charging Grizzly intent on attacking? How about a charging Grizzly who surprised you from behind? I’m really finding these to be empty arguments shaped by your opinions and perception. Try my methods in play, then let me know how it significantly changed the course of events. BTW, it does not say that when there is surprise, monster will close the distance to attack. It only says they will close the distance or attack. Whether they attack or not is the function of intent (possibly a reaction roll). They may be hostile and not attack, but instead close in to make demands and possibly surround (just as described in the wilderness section of surprise). You are reading too much into that. There is no special rule for surprise.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 11, 2016 6:52:25 GMT -6
Well, to start, the SR FAQ is a very interesting but problematic source that should be used cautiously. It is revisionist, introducing new rules (d6 initiative, multiple attacks per level, grappling, level ratios and new xp rules) some of which weren't so well tested or thought out. Calling the FAQ revisionist is hardly fair. It never claimed to be explaining things that were merely unclear; it's just answering "frequently asked questions." Gygax was self-consciously adding material that had been left out. Anyway, which of those rules weren't well tested or thought out? I'm pretty sure Gygax had been using all of them all along. His responses are simply a matter of, "Just make something up that makes sense in the system. Here's what you can do for X, Y, and Z." I don't see what's so objectionable about the term revisionist. All the supplements revise and extend the rules too, don't they? <shrug> Be that as it may, the new ratio rule is problematic and unclear, but the grappling rule is probably the one with the most issues. Have a look at this: linkand Gygax dropped it himself after using it "sometimes" link I don't care what it says in U&WA, Gygax never meant that orcs can swing swords from thirty feet away and hit. 3" is melee range, but you still have to close the distance to attack. It just means "melee has begun." Missile-users and spell-casters had better be careful whom they target! <shrug> Well, I do care what it says in U&WA, otherwise, I'd just play Basic Fantasy or something. Anyway melee range is the range within which melee takes place; the distance in which, during the heat of battle an opponent may close and strike. Nobody is suggesting orcs stand still and reach out with 30' long arms. The surprise rule in question provides a special case wherein for the first two thirds of surprise distance the surprised character lose an action entirely due to being within each others AoC, but if the surprised opponent is far enough away they can recover enough to meet the attack and possibly strike the first blow. That's precisely what happened in the SR example. The fighter had the opportunity to roll initiative, which he would not have had if he were, say 15' feet from the orcs by the rule on U&WA p12.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 11, 2016 9:07:56 GMT -6
I don't see what's so objectionable about the term revisionist. All the supplements revise and extend the rules too, don't they? <shrug> The term has multiple meanings, the most common of which is "attempting to reevaluate and restate the past based on newly acquired standards." The ratio rule was present in the original boxed set, though it was not made clear that it applied to player characters. But that is not a "new rule." That is simply making use of the existing attack tables in a novel way. It is an ad-hoc resolution of a kind of situation not spelled out in the rules, using the tools provided by the rules. Its very ad-hoc nature is being showcased. Don't misrepresent me. You know perfectly well I'm not dismissing U&WA; I said a statement that 3" = melee does not equal orcs striking from thirty feet away.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 12, 2016 7:34:55 GMT -6
I get it aldarron , it’s clear that you’re really fond of the 1-3” melee distance. But, you havn’t made it clear how you consistently apply this rule in your games. And now you are telling me that surprise is a special rule that alters the established 3” melee distance. Besides that, you have attempted to make the use of movement rates sound overly complicated, which, with how I use them, they most certainly are not. I could accept that if we were talking about Holmes or EW methods of further segmenting movement by rounds. But, we are not. What you are failing to grasp, and what is central to my argument in regards to roleplaying versus wargaming, is that you don’t have to know positioning, count squares, measure, or make complex calculations. All you have to do is be able to read and divide by two. They teach children at a young age to read and divide by two. I hope the average GM is capable of that. When it comes to melee, my method involves two factors. 1. Is the opponent within the distance of your full move? If he is, you can close the distance for melee. 2. Is the opponent closer than half of your move? If he is, you can close the distance and strike. That’s it. Nothing else. Fairly simple. And as I said, what I do prior to the start of melee is quite similar, but once in Melee time shifts from moves to rounds and movement by melee combatants is anywhere within Melee Range of 30'. I think what you are failing to grasp is that movement range of 30' per round in combat also obviates a need "to know positioning, count squares, measure, or make complex calculations." and since it applies to all involved in the melee, there's no need to even look at a movement rate unless somebody decides to turn tail and run. Even Simpler. What I do differently, or more specifically, would be this: (but I want to be clear that I'm not claiming this method is any more or less btb than what you do prior to melee) 1. Is the opponent stationary, more than 1/2 move away, but still within the distance of your full move? If he is, you can close the distance for melee on the next turn if morale permits. The opponent has an opportunity of action and first strike will go to the attacker (whichever side), barring circumstances like spear sets, weapon reach, spells, and possibly distractions. 2. Is the opponent stationary and closer than half of your move? If he is, you can close the distance and strike as long as Morale allows it. The opponents has an opportunity of some action, but will not get the first strike unless some circumstance - like set spears, allows it. Morale will only be an issue for monsters and level 1-3 characters, usually, so often it will simply be move and strike. 3. Is the opponent attempting to run? If they are within 30', forget it you'll catch them. Melee will immediately go into rounds and the runner will be subject to a rear attack bonus unless there is some mitigating factor. If the opponent runs from at starting point greater than 30' it's on to the pursuit and evasion rules. As long as the combatants remain in the fight, they are locked into 6 second rounds and can attack anybody within 30', provided they are not already in a 10' area of control of an opponent. A fighter lucky enough to have multiple attacks resulting in multiple kills can mow right along. A combatant can certainly try to leave the battle area, but can only do so freely if they are not in an opponents' AOC, and no enemy within 30' of them tries to stop them. If they do manage to leave the battle, they immediately switch out of combat rounds into normal moves, and could theoretically travel some portion of their full movement rate to join some other battle or do something completely different. Now as to the "special" surprise rule, the only difference is that Gygax is giving a potential break to the players. If you are surprised by an attacking monster it will get the first strike against you at 10-20', but if you are at 20-30' you have a chance to recover your wits fast enough to gain initiative yourself in the second or two it takes for the monster to initiate the surprise and close the gap. This rule almost always only applies when something basically jumps out at you close by, which is what surprise is, and it seems reasonable enough to me. Surprise distances will always be 1-3” btb. There is nothing that I’m changing with that rule. I'm glad you clarified that - and it does make quite a difference. I wondered, if you were replacing surprise distance with your 1/2 move rule and your posts all seemed to me to imply that you were. Now, let’s compare that to trying to figure out if an attacker will end up at 1-3” before and after his move. I don't know what you are trying to suggest. How is there any difference between knowing if something is within a distance of 1/2 of a given movement rate, and knowing if something is within 30'? Suppose we had an armored footman engaged in an encounter, by the book, he can attack anybody withing 30' on his turn, by your method he could attack anything within 1/2 of his movement rate on his turn. Armored foot moves at 6" per move, so in this case your rule and the book give identical results, but even if we picked a differing example there's no difference in the application of the knowledge. As for ending a full move in Melee Range and then allowing combat, like moving down a long hallway to the edge of an encounter I did use to play that way, but it seemed better to not allow any movement beyond the normal Move distance without a charge. So I prefer to make the moving characters wait till then next turn to attack in such a case, but either way, it is no more difficult to know where, for example 9" + 3" ends than it is to know where 12" ends. Some monsters are fast. Why should the rules make them so? What purpose does it serve to give them a faster move? Or a movement rate at all? I gave you some real world examples above. Do you think you would be able to prepare for a charging Grizzly intent on attacking? How about a charging Grizzly who surprised you from behind? I’m really finding these to be empty arguments shaped by your opinions and perception. Derv, you are the one making arguments based on your opinions and perceptions, I'm just arguing the rule in the booklets is fine as is. First, movement rates are useful for a lot of things, but pursuit is an obvious one. Second, of course creatures/animals/people move fast, but how realistically do you need to model that in your elfgame? I think using a rate of 30 feet per six second combat round for every combatant engaged in the melee is plenty fast enough and far enough. It is a melee, after all, not a race, so I don't feel the need to scrap the existing rule and change it to an individualized 1/2 movement distance under the rubric of adding granularity and greater "realism" regarding the movement rates of fantasy creatures in fantasy combat. In addition, you are telling me surprise is a special rule. So, now you can’t move and strike unless you’re 2” away. Bah! ... BTW, it does not say that when there is surprise, monster will close the distance to attack. It only says they will close the distance or attack. Whether they attack or not is the function of intent (possibly a reaction roll). They may be hostile and not attack, but instead close in to make demands and possibly surround (just as described in the wilderness section of surprise). You are reading too much into that. There is no special rule for surprise. This is all kind of beside the point since you have explained that you are not applying your 1/2 movement rule to surprise, but I'm game to answer anyway. It says exactly this: "If monsters gain surprise they will either close the distance between themselves and the character{s) (unless they are intelligent and their prey is obviously too strong to attack) or attack. " And exactly this: "There is no chance for avoiding if the monster has surprised the adventurers and is with in 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised." I see no sense in contorting the text with all sorts of hypotheticals that clearly aren't intended. The first sentence undeniably says monsters will either close the distance or attack. The parenthetical phrase qualifies the action of "closing the distance" to say that intelligent monsters won't do this in cases where they fear the party is "too strong to attack". It follows deductively that non-intelligent monsters will close the distance or attack. It also follows that the whole purpose of non intelligent monsters "clos(ing) the distance" is to attack, because they are too stupid to know better, unlike the intelligent monsters. So as I said, the surprising, non-intelligent monsters options either to close the distance to attack or to attack immediately. "Closing the distance" is pretty standard lingo in wargames, and non-intelligent monsters are certainly not going to be closing the distance to "make demands". Now, the second sentence tells us clearly that a monster won't need to close any distance if they surprise within 20', they can simply attack. ergo the only time a monster would need to close the distance is if the surprise occured at 20" to 30". Closing the distance, requires the use of the surprise initiative to use Gygax term, and allows the possibility that the one surprised could "avoid" the encounter - clearly they get a chance to take an action. It is pretty much black and white. So you can "Bah!" all you want to, but I'll just remind you that this is exactly how things happened in Gygax's SR FAQ example. So did he get it wrong too?
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 12, 2016 16:56:13 GMT -6
aldarron , try to think out the full process of an encounter. It follows something along these lines- 1. If surprise is possible, roll to check for surprise. a. If surprise exists, distance is 1d3" b. If surprise exists, benefactor gains a free move segment. c. If no surprise exists, distance is 2d4" 2. Ask for players intent and determine monsters reaction. a. attack b. negotiate c. flee/ avoid 3. If either side is intent on attacking, determine initiative. -initiative grants first action. The first question that springs up is, in situations where surprise exists and the distance is automatically within 3", why is it necessary to grant a free move segment? According to you, this is already melee distance. Except you have now concluded that Surprise is different and that an attacker would really have to be within 2" to attack. This leads to the second question. Let's consider an encounter without surprise. But, the distance turns out to still be 3". Can an individual attack or not? How do we determine it? Is 3" melee distance? Maybe you'll next tell me that 3" is only melee distance when melee is already established. But, how is melee established? I want you to consider something that is in the back of my mind with this threads OP. I'm going to quote your response to one of my comments first. First off, you are making an assumptive leap that all are in agreement with you that 3" is melee distance. As I presented in the OP, this is not obvious nor is it particularly well established outside of references to Chainmail. eh? I can't see how I'm the one making assumptions when... Page 17 U&WA “Monsters at 10 yards distance will be able to attack.” Page 28 U&WA “When opponents are within the range indicated for melee (3”) then combat takes place.” ...is about as crystal clear as anything ever gets in OD&D. Here's the thing, the second reference you quoted from my opening post is a Chainmail reference, even though it's found in U&WA. It's a section of the rules that suggests using Chainmail to resolve melee in air-to-ground and air-to-air combats. Why should that matter? Because in the recent past Rob K. was quoted as saying, Chainmail was NEVER used by the original players. No Chainmail and No Miniatures ever. That suggests that whole swaths of U&WA were entirely fabricated by Gary and never actually practiced. If you want to put it nicely, those parts of the text were mere suggestions of what might be possible, but never play tested. The language of melee distance being 1-3" is entirely a wargame mechanic, specifically from Chainmail. Therefore, if neither Chainmail nor miniatures were ever used, it is also questionable whether the 1-3" melee distance was actually used. Why do I think that the rigid definition of a 1-3" melee distance does not work particularly well in a roleplaying game? Because, unlike a wargame where the starting distance in a game is 4-8 feet on a table top and you are attempting to maneuver to within melee distance of your opponents figures, D&D distances are variable and generally already within those distances that would be required with miniatures. Not to mention the whole theater of the mind element that makes exact distances impossible to determine.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 14, 2016 6:49:21 GMT -6
Maybe it will help if I clarify that I do not change the form of the turn for different avenues of play. For me there are two moves to the turn, as described in the text. I do not use the OS method of travel in the wilderness, either. I use the turn. In the wilderness, a person in leather armor can travel 12” per move. So, 24 miles a day. This same person can explore a wilderness setting at 12” per move, or 240 yards in 10 minutes. If they would enter an underground cavern, they can explore at 12” per move, or 240 feet every 10 minutes. In combat, a person in leather can move 12” per move, or 240 feet a minute. Only when melee is established do I use 10 rounds per turn. For me, a round is simply and only an exchange of blows. If someone desires similitude, each move would be equal to 5 rounds. But, I do not make this distinction because I do not find it adds much to the game. Should another character want to join a melee already in progress, they would have to be unengaged in melee and not have moved more than one move that turn. Otherwise, they can move into melee on the following turn. For example, let’s say a party of four adventurers have entered a room 60 x 60 feet. The room is lit by torch light. On entering they find three hobgoblins standing guard over a moaning captive Prince chained to the wall. They are directly in front of them on the opposite side of the room. Two of the adventurers wear leather armor and have a move of 12”. The other two are wearing plate and have a move of 6”. One of the adventurers wearing leather is armed with a bow, while the other three have swords. There is no chance for surprise because the adventurers torch light gives notice of their approach and the moaning prisoner let’s the party know the room is not empty. Since the room is 60 feet across, every one of the adventurers can close to within contact of the hobgoblins. Since hobgoblins have a move of 9”, they also can close the distance for melee. But, only the two adventurers in leather could close and strike in the same move. The one player intends to shoot his bow first and remain by the door. The other three will charge into melee. As the GM, I decide that no reaction roll is necessary for the hobgoblins. They will immediately attack since they are guarding the Prince. Next, I roll for group initiative. The adventurers roll a 6, while the hobgoblins roll a 2. So, the adventurers gain the upper hand and are able to close into melee. First, the archer fires his bow and strikes a hit doing 3 pts. damage on the middle hobgoblin. Then, the others move into melee while the hobgoblins prepare to meet them. The other fighter in leather would get an immediate attack on one of the hobgoblins during his move. We now would switch to combat rounds to resolve melee and initiative would be rolled once again followed by a number of exchanges (up to 10). If a GM wants, they can determine initiative for each round, but I only do it each turn of melee. At any point during this turn the archer by the doorway can move to join the melee, since he did not move this turn. He could also fire his bow a second time if circumstance would allow. Or, he could move to try to unshackle the Prince without reprisal during this turn, even though he would be but 10 feet from the ongoing melee. He is not considered to be in melee and is not acting in a round by round manner. Let’s say he attempts to break the lock on the chain this turn. The GM requires a 1 in 6 chance, but says he will have an increased 16% chance of breaking it each turn, where it will automatically break by the sixth turn. This will take a turn to attempt and take the player into the following melee turn to complete. Meanwhile, one of the hobgoblins gets a lucky hit and slays one of the adventurers. On the following turn, regardless of initiative, the hobgoblin can move and strike the fighter attempting to break the lock. The attack will be +1 as if a flank attack, since the adventurer is unaware and focused on breaking the lock. If the party of adventurers had won initiative that turn, I would rule that the player had a chance to react. He would still receive a strike from the hobgoblin, but it would not be as a +1 flank attack. Since Zenopus and cooper brought up Holmes, I have a few thoughts on this text. Dr. Holmes (who apparently did use miniatures with D&D) is an interesting read in this regard. I’ll point out one observation and possibly share others at a later time. It seems that Holmes chose not to differentiate normal distances and surprise distances. All encounter distances are 2d6 x 10 feet.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 14, 2016 10:32:23 GMT -6
aldarron , try to think out the full process of an encounter. It follows something along these lines- 1. If surprise is possible, roll to check for surprise. a. If surprise exists, distance is 1d3" b. If surprise exists, benefactor gains a free move segment. c. If no surprise exists, distance is 2d4" 2. Ask for players intent and determine monsters reaction. a. attack b. negotiate c. flee/ avoid 3. If either side is intent on attacking, determine initiative. -initiative grants first action. I like this breakdown - nicely done. Number 2 applies to intelligent monsters, but non-intelligent monsters will attack automatically when they can. The first question that springs up is, in situations where surprise exists and the distance is automatically within 3", why is it necessary to grant a free move segment? According to you, this is already melee distance. Except you have now concluded that Surprise is different and that an attacker would really have to be within 2" to attack. Do you mean, "why is it necessary to "use up" the "free move" granted by surprise in order to close the distance to an opponent only 20 to 30 feet away when in usual combat anyone can travel up to 30 feet and attack in the same round"? For a definitive answer you'd have to ask Gygax that back in the '70's. (As an aside, I keep referring to Gygax because I don't think Arneson had any particular input on these surprise rules.), but I thnk there's likely a couple things at work here. From a rules perspective, I think it has to do with the AoC we talked about. Per CM we have 1" AoC (Melee Distance as distinct from Range). Note that a distance of 20' puts figures on the edge of each other's AoC. Either one could attack in a mere step or two. Also Gygax apparently viewed surprise in the dungeon as a "jump out of your skin" moment, where an attacker could strike at you and scare you at the same time, but if you were just out of reach (more than a few steps beyond the AOC), you'd have a moment to recover your wits. It's like the difference from being in a haunted house where the zombie gorilla suddenly grabs at you from a cage in the dark right next to you, or where the zombie gorilla suddenly opens a door on the other side of the room. Both cases are close enough to make you jump, but in the latter case, the zombie gorrilla would have to "use up" the "scare moment" to cross the room and grab at you. I *think* something like that is what Gygax is trying to model, but of course, I don't know. What I do know is that the effect of the U&WA surprise rules would be as follows: 0-20' = loss of move and 1/4 chance to drop 1 object. 21-30' = 1/4 chance to drop 1 object 31'+ surprise not possible This leads to the second question. Let's consider an encounter without surprise. But, the distance turns out to still be 3". Can an individual attack or not? How do we determine it? Is 3" melee distance? So at 3" or less, btb, an individual could attack on their turn, yes. But getting down to brass tacks, what does that mean mechanically? I don't think the rules make clear several things basic to your question: First, if neither side is surprised, who's turn is it? Second: does the attacker automatically "win initiative", i.e. get the first attack roll? Third, does within 3" include distances beyond movement range? I won't argue there's a definitive answer to these questions, but I'll share what I think. To the first point, in OD&D who's turn it is in unsurprised encounters would seem to be a matter of DM fiat, or perhaps the players because they are given the chance to roll first to check for surprise. I think a lot of DM.s would use an initiative roll, but there's no rule for it. Even in the FAQ where the initiative roll is introduced, it used only for matters of striking order in combat. It certainly could be used to determine turn order outside of combat situations, but it is not at all clear that is the intended rule. To the second point both CM Man to Man and the Dalluhn mss grant first strike to the attacker, excepting certain conditions, and the wyvern surprise example in U&WA seems to also grant initiative to the attacker. So I think the answer for a 3lbb only game would be attacker strikes first. However, starting with the FAQ and the d6 initiative check, it became entirely possible for the attacker to not win initiative and not get the first roll on the to hit table. So, the rules seem to have evolved from attack and strike in one round, to attack and strike or be struck in one round. The introduction of the initiative roll then brings up the question of whether in encounter distances greater than 30' it is even still proper to allow a move and strike in one round. It would seem to be the case that if you are going to require an initiative roll at the start of every round of combat then the move and strike in one round rule from CM may well be out the window, but again I don't think there is "official" guidance - at least not in the first two supplements. The third point doesn't come up often, but if a DM did allow it, it really amounts to little more than a 3" extension to the MV range to reach an enemy. I used to allow it, but it made chases harder, and it is also contrary to the 1/2 mv distance rule to enter melee of CM p16. Maybe you'll next tell me that 3" is only melee distance when melee is already established. But, how is melee established? Melee is established when a player or DM are able to roll dice and consults to hit numbers, having met the prior condition of opponents wielding hand weapons with hostile intent being within 30' of each other. The characters will remain within 30' of each other until one is dead or one possibly breaks and runs. So effectively, melee distance is the maximum radial distance a character could move in one round while engaged in combat without subjecting themselves to a rear attack or whatever flight penalties the dm normally imposes. Melee Range is not the distance a character who is not engaged in melee could travel to get into a melee. In the 3lbb's, there's no given restriction on how far you can travel in order to enter a melee beyond a characters movement rate total. Of course you can import the 1/2 move and strike rule of CM. Either way, entering melee switches the time scale from moves to rounds, and exiting melee distance switches the time scale from rounds to moves, necessarily. I want you to consider something that is in the back of my mind with this threads OP. I'm going to quote your response to one of my comments first. eh? I can't see how I'm the one making assumptions when... ...is about as crystal clear as anything ever gets in OD&D. Here's the thing, the second reference you quoted from my opening post is a Chainmail reference, even though it's found in U&WA. It's a section of the rules that suggests using Chainmail to resolve melee in air-to-ground and air-to-air combats. Why should that matter? Because in the recent past Rob K. was quoted as saying, Chainmail was NEVER used by the original players. No Chainmail and No Miniatures ever. That suggests that whole swaths of U&WA were entirely fabricated by Gary and never actually practiced. If you want to put it nicely, those parts of the text were mere suggestions of what might be possible, but never play tested. The language of melee distance being 1-3" is entirely a wargame mechanic, specifically from Chainmail. Therefore, if neither Chainmail nor miniatures were ever used, it is also questionable whether the 1-3" melee distance was actually used. So this is a different sort of argument, the implications of which are pretty big. Taken to its logical conclusion OD&D must necessarily be deeply flawed and in need of some more or less significant gutting and revision. Now, there are definitely folks who have this opinion, and there are retro "clones" tailored to suit, so it would not be particularly new or unusual to think this way. But there is also nothing new about the information. There are posts on members blog sites going back to 2009, and a discussion on this forum from various times over the years - like this one Mike Mornard on CHAINMAIL combat for OD&D. Now, before I go over that old ground, I'll point out that one school of thought couldn't care less what Gygax did or did not do. The rules were put in the books to be played, and so they play them. I'm not advocating that position myself, necessarily, but I think it is a perfectly valid one. Personally, I think it is more useful to dig into the nuances of both the text and the history. So let's begin with a little history. It is true that Gygax did not use miniatures for D&D. It is also true that both Gygax and Dave Arneson relied a lot on CM for the basis of monsters and statistics. That would include the rule for Melee Distance and a range of other things. (A fair amount of this stuff can be found on my 'blog if you are so inclined.) It is also true that for the first few games, Arneson used CHAINMAIL's Fantasy Combat table to resolve fights, until he switched to his own system with HP and weapon skills. Aside from that, it's important to consider just what is meant by "never used CHAINMAIL Combat". Primarily it meant that when it came time to roll dice, instead of rolling 2d6 on the man to man table for "normal" combat or the Fantasy Table for fantastic combat, you rolled a d20 on the Alternative table. That's pretty much the whole of it. If you look at the Beypnd This Point be Dragons mss., the combat section is at times verbatum CM's man to man rules with the weapon types taken out, but we don't need the BTPBD mss to tell us this, because it is evident in how deeply integrated CM is in the 3lbb rules and statistics themselves. Further, let's not forget what CHAINMAIL is. Yes, it is a wargame, but it is also an individual heroic combat game. Both the man to man and fantasy sections were played plenty, and both rely on the application of the rules as a whole. "When using the Man-to-Man combat system, all preceding rules apply, except where amended..." CMp25. The Lake Geneva gamers were steeped in these rules, some, like our own Gronan, still are. Knowing all this, statements like "whole swaths of U&WA were entirely fabricated by Gary and never actually practiced", appear quite extreme, even if applied to the 3lbbs as a whole. Indeed, as regards U&WA specifically, a good portion of that material is derived from Arneson's campaign, not Gygax, and thus results from several years of play (again, well documented on my 'blog). Arneson's contributions apparently include both the air to air rules you cite, and the naval rules. In any case, the air to air rules are an adaptation of Mike Carr's FitS, which they all played all the time. The point is, air sea and land battles were being fought, especially in Blackmoor during the formulation and testing of the D&D rules. This stuff may well have been written quickly at the last moment for inclusion in the game, but its wasn't just pulled out of thin air, it was based on experience and a solid knowledge of the rules. Nevertheless, as regards CHAINMAIL, the normal movement rates and rules in OD&D are those of Chainmail, HD are a translation of CM point costs, the time and distance and scale rules are those of CM, the armor types, and so on. One has to ask, what section or rules specifically were never actually practiced? I don't pretend to be a CHAINMAIL expert, but as someone who did put together one of the principal references (CHAINMAIL Combat with OD&D) a few years back, it seemed to me in the process of creating that document, that only a few of the rules in the 3lbb's are specifically tied to CM combat. Of those that are, the ones most "fabricated and never actually practiced" would seem to me to be those for integrating D&D characters with the mass and fantasy melee tables - such as the "fighting capability" statistic. The point I'm making is that while it is certainly true the attack matrixes and weapon classes in CM were not used by Gygax to resolve combats during D&D playtesting, it would be erroneous to conclude that something close to none of the combat related rules and methods of Chainmail were being employed. It is not the case that Gygax reacheded into the CHAINMAIL chest at the last minute and threw a whole bunch of CM "stuff" into D&D that neither he nor Arneson ever used.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 14, 2016 13:55:07 GMT -6
As mentioned, "chainmail was never used", means that combat was resolved with the alternative combat system, not that nothing in the chainmail books were utilized in D&D.
On the "theater of the mind" combat. Yes, combat was not done with miniatures at Gary's D&D games, but exploration was not theater of the mind. Exploration was painstakingly graphed. This means, at the start of an encounter at least, players knew exact distances between themselves and enemies.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 14, 2016 20:20:57 GMT -6
aldarron wrote:
Chainmail appears to set the precedent for deciding initiative. In the turn sequence section, players dice for initiative, the winner choosing to move first or last. The moving unit is the attacker should he enter the defined distance for melee. These rules precede the MTM, thus applying to the MTM should they otherwise be not amended in the MTM description itself.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 14, 2016 22:09:10 GMT -6
So this is a different sort of argument, the implications of which are pretty big. Taken to its logical conclusion OD&D must necessarily be deeply flawed and in need of some more or less significant gutting and revision. ------------- Knowing all this, statements like "whole swaths of U&WA were entirely fabricated by Gary and never actually practiced", appear quite extreme, even if applied to the 3lbbs as a whole. ------------- The point I'm making is that while it is certainly true the attack matrixes and weapon classes in CM were not used by Gygax to resolve combats during D&D playtesting, it would be erroneous to conclude that something close to none of the combat related rules and methods of Chainmail were being employed. It is not the case that Gygax reacheded into the CHAINMAIL chest at the last minute and threw a whole bunch of CM "stuff" into D&D that neither he nor Arneson ever used. I’m not really desirous of or attempting to rehash old debates. I’m simply expressing a (no longer) hidden motivation behind my post. If I‘m giving a different impression, you should know that I am in agreement with a majority of what you are saying about Chainmails relation to the development of D&D. Yes, my statement that “whole swaths of U&WA were entirely fabricated” is extreme. But, it’s meant to express the extreme implications of statements of absolutes such as “was NEVER used” and “was NOT present”. These statements regarding Chainmail and the use of miniatures with D&D are presented as “fact”. They are said to encompass reading Dave’s notes/MS and being present for his demo in 1972. They are also inclusive of the original play testing and include playing in Blackmoor at the Dungeon Hobby Shop in 1975. Chainmail is further described with the diminutive term as “residual”. So, if these statements are to be accepted at face value, since they cover a fairly large space of time prior to the publication of D&D in 1974, I would be inclined to believe that Gary did “reach into the Chainmail chest at the last moment and threw a whole bunch of Chainmail stuff into D&D”. Most of this “stuff” has not stood the test of time, but other’s have simply habituated confusion (such as fighting abilities). Now, I can see how some might want to rationalize Rob’s statements. But, I’m always a little wary of people that want to justify and qualify by narrowing the intent of such statements. If the intent was meant to be qualified, it would not be a statement of absolutes. I’m not saying you are doing this necessarily, it just seems like a natural reaction for a lot of folks. Ultimately, if I was going to qualify Rob’s statements, it seems to be that D&D was not intended to be played as a wargame <period> It is something other. With all that aside, I often hear comments that basically amount to “take the original players word for it”. Now, I can be as entrenched in my opinions and view points about the game as the next guy. But, sometimes I say “Okay, step back a second. Let me think about this in a different light, let me take someone‘s word for it”. As this relates to the idea of melee distance, when I stopped and thought about it, I really do not use a fixed 1-3” defining melee distance as part of the resolution. I question whether a large segment of gamers actually use it. They may practice the idea loosely, but I have doubts about a rigid codification adopted from Chainmail being used.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 15, 2016 6:34:58 GMT -6
Maybe it will help if I clarify that I do not change the form of the turn for different avenues of play. For me there are two moves to the turn, as described in the text. I do not use the OS method of travel in the wilderness, either. I use the turn. In the wilderness, a person in leather armor can travel 12” per move. So, 24 miles a day. That's one way to do it. I know that some would argue 24 miles a day is a bit far for a "realistic" travel rate in a pre modern world, but it is a logical extension of the movement rates. I prefer to use hexes in overland travel, and so mark travel rates per 5 mile hex as per D&D, but I use a "movement factor" which equals movement rate divided by 3 to determine hexes traveled (a mv rate of 12" = 4 hexes). One thing to note here is that D&D is deliberately not consistent when it comes to movement at different scales. I don't know if you're interested, but I wrote about how the D&D overland travel rates per hex evolved from the weekly rates of Blackmoor here (scroll down to the paragraph titled "Map Movement"). This same person can explore a wilderness setting at 12” per move, or 240 yards in 10 minutes. If they would enter an underground cavern, they can explore at 12” per move, or 240 feet every 10 minutes. In combat, a person in leather can move 12” per move, or 240 feet a minute. Only when melee is established do I use 10 rounds per turn. For me, a round is simply and only an exchange of blows. If someone desires similitude, each move would be equal to 5 rounds. But, I do not make this distinction because I do not find it adds much to the game. Should another character want to join a melee already in progress, they would have to be unengaged in melee and not have moved more than one move that turn. Otherwise, they can move into melee on the following turn. For example, let’s say a party of four adventurers have entered a room 60 x 60 feet. The room is lit by torch light. On entering they find three hobgoblins standing guard over a moaning captive Prince chained to the wall. They are directly in front of them on the opposite side of the room. Two of the adventurers wear leather armor and have a move of 12”. The other two are wearing plate and have a move of 6”. One of the adventurers wearing leather is armed with a bow, while the other three have swords. There is no chance for surprise because the adventurers torch light gives notice of their approach and the moaning prisoner let’s the party know the room is not empty. Since the room is 60 feet across, every one of the adventurers can close to within contact of the hobgoblins. Since hobgoblins have a move of 9”, they also can close the distance for melee. But, only the two adventurers in leather could close and strike in the same move. The one player intends to shoot his bow first and remain by the door. The other three will charge into melee. As the GM, I decide that no reaction roll is necessary for the hobgoblins. They will immediately attack since they are guarding the Prince. Right with you. In my opinion that's all by the book and I play the same way. Next, I roll for group initiative. The adventurers roll a 6, while the hobgoblins roll a 2. So, the adventurers gain the upper hand and are able to close into melee. So this goes back to one of the things I mentioned in my previous post - in an unsurprised situation, who gets the first move? Your solution is to "roll initiative.". Now that's fine, but it is not really "initiative" in the sense the word was used in early D&D. Initiative was about who first rolled to hit dice, due to factors of weapon weight or length or dexterity or position, or as randomly determined by an initiative die. I'm not saying it is "wrong" to use a d6 to determine who gets the first move, - in fact, as Sepulchre pointed out above, using a d6 to determine who moves first is a CM rule (page 9) - but I am saying that everyone should be aware that when it is used to determine both movement and striking order, it is randomizing two different things. (personally I use dex scores and mix movement between PCs/NPCs instead of by sides, but that is just my personal preference) First, the archer fires his bow and strikes a hit doing 3 pts. damage on the middle hobgoblin. Then, the others move into melee while the hobgoblins prepare to meet them. The other fighter in leather would get an immediate attack on one of the hobgoblins during his move. We now would switch to combat rounds to resolve melee and initiative would be rolled once again followed by a number of exchanges (up to 10). If a GM wants, they can determine initiative for each round, but I only do it each turn of melee. At any point during this turn the archer by the doorway can move to join the melee, since he did not move this turn. He could also fire his bow a second time if circumstance would allow. Or, he could move to try to unshackle the Prince without reprisal during this turn, even though he would be but 10 feet from the ongoing melee. He is not considered to be in melee and is not acting in a round by round manner. Right, the only difference here is that I would not simply allow the archer through. Three pairs of combatants, each pair controlling a minimum of 10' around them all swirling around within 30', is going to make it next to impossible for the Archer to avoid getting within melee distance of one of the hobgoblins on the way to free the prince in a 60' wide room. So, if he wants to try to do that, I would make him roll to get through. Personally, I'd have him roll against his dexterity score, ala Arneson, and assign a bonus of maybe +2, since the Hobgoblins are all engaged with the fighters. If there happened to be a hobgoblin who was not engaged, I'd simply have him intercept the archer. Otherwise I'd say we are on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 15, 2016 9:28:21 GMT -6
...... and include playing in Blackmoor at the Dungeon Hobby Shop in 1975..... ? I don't know what you mean here. In the 1970's Blackmoor was played in the Twin Cities starting in 1971. I don't recall of any Blackmoor games that took place at the Dungeon Hobby shop in Lake Geneva, and in any case 1975 is after the publication of D&D in 1974, so it wouldn't be relevant anyway. All the Blackmoor D&D play I was referring to took place in 1973 when Arneson & Gygax were collaborating on the rules and testing the drafts Gygax typed up.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 15, 2016 18:06:39 GMT -6
If there happened to be a hobgoblin who was not engaged, I'd simply have him intercept the archer. Otherwise I'd say we are on the same page. If there was an unengaged hobgoblin, I would not allow him to pass through unopposed either. But, all the hobgoblins are predisposed and he has enough movement to pass around the entire melee and still approach the Prince. Practically, as a GM I would not insist that his character must strike a blow against the hobgoblins. That would seem a little forced to me. What is compelling him to engage? I don't recall of any Blackmoor games that took place at the Dungeon Hobby shop in Lake Geneva, and in any case 1975 is after the publication of D&D in 1974, so it wouldn't be relevant anyway. All the Blackmoor D&D play I was referring to took place in 1973 when Arneson & Gygax were collaborating on the rules and testing the drafts Gygax typed up. I understand the original comment to show the entire scope of time that neither Chainmail nor miniatures were used. This includes from the original showing of the game concepts by Dave to well after D&D was published, but specifically in a Blackmoor adventure. So, a time period from 1972 up to 1975, but certainly implied for after 1975 too. It would seem to specifically include the time period you are referring to.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 16, 2016 7:48:26 GMT -6
..... all the hobgoblins are predisposed and he has enough movement to pass around the entire melee and still approach the Prince. How did you determine this? In the example, the room was 60" across and there are 3 hobgoblins. Lets suppose they are shoulder to shoulder- at a minimum that's 10', (U&WA p12) giving a total melee area of 70'. But of course they aren't tightly bunched together, they are in fight, pushing and swinging and dodging about. I don't see how there is any "safe" corridor through to the prince. Practically, as a GM I would not insist that his character must strike a blow against the hobgoblins. That would seem a little forced to me. What is compelling him to engage? I didn't say he had to strike a blow to get through. I said he has a chance and I'd allow a saving throw for it. If he failed the throw, then I'd rule the combatants got in his way as they were dodging around in the wild and bloody swirl and I'd rule the archer would be subject to potentially being hit, possibly even accidentally by one of his own party. I'd roll a 1d4, with 1-3 being hobgoblin attacks, and a 4 being an accidental attack by one of his own. None of these rolls would count against the normal rolls the combatants are making against each other. If the archer survived, he could then try again to get through or pick a hobgoblin and counter attack. I don't recall of any Blackmoor games that took place at the Dungeon Hobby shop in Lake Geneva, and in any case 1975 is after the publication of D&D in 1974, so it wouldn't be relevant anyway. All the Blackmoor D&D play I was referring to took place in 1973 when Arneson & Gygax were collaborating on the rules and testing the drafts Gygax typed up. I understand the original comment to show the entire scope of time that neither Chainmail nor miniatures were used. This includes from the original showing of the game concepts by Dave to well after D&D was published, but specifically in a Blackmoor adventure. So, a time period from 1972 up to 1975, but certainly implied for after 1975 too. It would seem to specifically include the time period you are referring to. I'm not sure what your impression are of the development of D&D are, or what the specific quote is you seem to be attaching so much weight to is (link?), although probably that isn't important. I think it is abundantly clear that Arneson's playtest group used minis throughout 1973 and Gygax's didn't. I think it is also clear that both were using the alternate table for combat resolution and not the CM tables, as they worked on the rules. I think it is also clear that the rules of CHAINMAIL underlay the development of the D&D rules, and that was true for both playtesting groups. What I think I hear you saying is that, regardless of what happened in '73, the idea of "no CM" has inspired you to cherry pick out whatever rules you feel are really just CM rules that "nobody used". Ultimately that's up to you, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing others that you know the "tested" D&D from the unused fluff. That's all fine as a matter of choice - please don't suppose I'm saying you should't do as you please, but let's recognize that these are arbitrary decisions you are making about the rules. I don't doubt that there are rules in the 3lbb's that weren't used much (FC, for example), or that there are rules who's final, revised form wasn't used a lot before publication nor do I doubt that some of the rules were used a lot more by Arneson than Gygax and vice versa. I've pointed to the % lair rule before as one Arneson used, but Gygax seemingly not so much, since Arneson felt he had to explain the operation of the rule in the FFC. However, I would say that saying a rule wasn't used or used much by this guy or that, even if true, doesn't mean it is useless in the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 21:02:11 GMT -6
I PLAYED with both Gary and Dave.
They BOTH winged it for who was in or out of combat. The difference is Gary did it without miniatures and Dave used miniatures on a hex grid. He told you when you were in range or not, and he was not looking at any rules.
Jesus H. yodeling Christ in a gorilla suit, STOP MAKING THIS SO d**nED COMPLICATED!
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 16, 2016 21:05:38 GMT -6
..... all the hobgoblins are predisposed and he has enough movement to pass around the entire melee and still approach the Prince. How did you determine this? In the example, the room was 60" across and there are 3 hobgoblins. Lets suppose they are shoulder to shoulder- at a minimum that's 10', (U&WA p12) giving a total melee area of 70'. But of course they aren't tightly bunched together, they are in fight, pushing and swinging and dodging about. I don't see how there is any "safe" corridor through to the prince. The archer has a 12" move. You could give the three in melee a total area of 30 x 30 feet, he could still maneuver around it. Now, he would have to enter to within 1" of at least one, but possibly two of the hobgoblins, to get to the Prince. Either could choose to lower their defenses with who they are currently in melee in order to enter melee with the archer. But, they will suffer an uncontested attack as a result. I would rule this as an unwise, thus unlikely choice. They are focused on what is at hand. But, it could be a randomized reaction. Accidental injury is not generally something I would impose in this situation. I imagine that if the archer would need to make a saving roll in this case, you would be doing the same for the Prince?
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 16, 2016 21:19:38 GMT -6
I PLAYED with both Gary and Dave. They BOTH winged it for who was in or out of combat. The difference is Gary did it without miniatures and Dave used miniatures on a hex grid. He told you when you were in range or not, and he was not looking at any rules. Just curious Michael, how were you guys playing out mass combat in Gary's games?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 23:28:58 GMT -6
All in our heads. If we asked a range Gary would roll dice and tell us a number. Or we'd say 'Do I see a leader or somebody who appears to be shouting orders?' and he'd roll dice and give us an answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 19:48:11 GMT -6
My point (and I do have one) is that Gary and Dave, and Rob, and everybody else I ever played with, used those numbers as guidelines to make on the fly judgements about how combats went.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 18, 2016 19:51:33 GMT -6
All in our heads. If we asked a range Gary would roll dice and tell us a number. Or we'd say 'Do I see a leader or somebody who appears to be shouting orders?' and he'd roll dice and give us an answer. I'm curious about name level characters with strongholds. Would you use the d20 to resolve combats between armies? How were casualties determined?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 7:48:59 GMT -6
I wasn't there when Robilar's castle was attacked. But in situations like attacking an orc village, the combat between normal units would be described in very abstract terms. We PCs tended to concentrate on the leaders and special units to break their morale. We'd say things like "this unit of heavy foot will go to the east gate with forty archers" and Gary would roll dice and give us very abstract results. We'd get full casualty numbers after the battle.
"Keeping the game moving" was more important than worrying if you lost 15 or 18 archers.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 19, 2016 17:24:47 GMT -6
Thanks Michael. I agree that one wants to keep the game moving.
How about you? When you left Lake Geneva and started running your own D&D campaigns, did you continue to run mass combat in such a loose manner? Or, didn't it occur that often? How do you run them now and how do you determine casualties? I guess what I'm asking is if you have any sort of preferred method or do you just wing it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 18:55:03 GMT -6
I've played enough CHAINMAIL to map out the game in my head approximately. I still use the method above, and like I said, at the end of the battle if you've lost 15 archers instead of 18 who cares?
I recently had my PCs involved in a war between the brown rats and the black rats; actual rat sized rats in legions and cohorts with pikes and crossbows and cavalry riding badgers. If I'd tried to do it inch by inch we'd still be there.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 20, 2016 15:32:33 GMT -6
I PLAYED with both Gary and Dave. They BOTH winged it for who was in or out of combat. The difference is Gary did it without miniatures and Dave used miniatures on a hex grid. He told you when you were in range or not, and he was not looking at any rules. Jesus H. yodeling Christ in a gorilla suit, STOP MAKING THIS SO d**nED COMPLICATED! I always figured the melee range was set to 3" precisely because the slowest PC movement rate is 3", which means that any character in melee could move anywhere in the melee zone in one round... so there's no need to track precise movement. All that's needed is to remember relative positions. "Chuck and Bob attack the ogre, while Alvin, Simon and Theodore rush the goblins." Plus, except for special areas, most dungeon rooms or corridor intersections are about 30x30 feet. I've never bothered to track precise distances in melee, for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 20, 2016 18:29:53 GMT -6
I've played enough CHAINMAIL to map out the game in my head approximately. I still use the method above, and like I said, at the end of the battle if you've lost 15 archers instead of 18 who cares? I recently had my PCs involved in a war between the brown rats and the black rats; actual rat sized rats in legions and cohorts with pikes and crossbows and cavalry riding badgers. If I'd tried to do it inch by inch we'd still be there. That sounds like something I would have enjoyed playing in. So, since you have Chainmail memorized, you basically use it as a template in a very loose application for those situations. You might quickly roll some six siders with the Combat Table and judge casualties for the immediate conflict between normals with a broad brush, but then focus more on the melee between the characters and NPC leader-types using the Alternative Combat System. Would you say that is what Gary was doing as well? Which would explain why, besides wanting to bridge with a wargaming audience, he included rules and examples of play using Chainmail. Possibly he actually did see these sort of elements in the context of Chainmail? But, with a much looser use of the rules, to keep the game moving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 19:36:13 GMT -6
Nope, no dice, or very few. When I say I use CHAINMAIL to map out the game in my head, I mean I think of blocks of troops moving around, positions, flanking, etc. Once per round I might roll to see if one side or another seizes an advantage.
See, we used to play a lot of CHAINMAIL with something like "300 points regular, 100 points fantasy." Most of the battles turned into "See whose fantasy stuff wins, and then the rest of the army is fodder." Something like "I have a Superhero with magic sword, magic armor, and magic arrow, and you have a Dragon. I just killed your Dragon. There is now no way you can touch my Superhero."
I just remembered that in D&D. Now, if the PCs come up with a great tactical plan for the normal troops I'll give their side an advantage. But mostly the normal troops just grind away at each other.
|
|