|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 10:08:10 GMT -6
I might draw it a bit differently, but for the matter at hand, this adequately demonstrates the problem with identifying where Cunning (and 3d6) entered the picture. It could have come from original Arneson notes, or from Gygax's early drafts. The point being, Cunning was there before Dalluhn, anyway, and is not exclusive to Dalluhn. Well, coming from Arneson's notes means that Cunning came from the Blackmoor campaign. His notes weren't distributed. They were based on his campaign and sent only to Gygax. There is only a single piece of evidence that Gygax may have been involved with Cunning, and that is what aldarron pointed out: the fact that only the abilities on Gaylords character sheet that later appeared in D&D were apparently changed to 3d6 at apparently the same time that Cunning was added. However, we have no evidence that Gygax came up with using 3d6, or reducing the ability list to that of D&D. Both of these changes could have come from Arneson as well. You mentioned this bit here: I have seen a transitional character sheet that suggests that neither Wisdom nor Dexterity mapped cleanly to Cunning. But without further information about this critical piece of evidence, the currently available evidence suggests that Cunning originated with Arneson in his Blackmoor campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 10:10:14 GMT -6
]Are you trying to provoke me? What, pray tell, is this "earlier draft" you are now teasing us with? If you are referring to the Mornard fragments, why not just Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, you are a pisshead. I admire Jon's patience in even interacting with you, because I won't any more. You are a rampaging butthole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 10:12:37 GMT -6
To twist "CUNNING" into "DEXTERITY" requires the sort of horsemanure twisting of word meaning that makes most people spit on those who research gaming history.
Yes, Dave probably came up with CUNNING, but that's not the assertion this pile of excrement started with.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 10:56:04 GMT -6
]Are you trying to provoke me? What, pray tell, is this "earlier draft" you are now teasing us with? If you are referring to the Mornard fragments, why not just Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, you are a pisshead. I admire Jon's patience in even interacting with you, because I won't any more. You are a rampaging butthole. My annoyance with what Jon did was 100% warranted. Look what he wrote: "Cunning" appears in drafts of D&D that predate the Dalluhn Manuscript, including an earlier draft that was certainly produced by Gygax. This should have annoyed anyone interested in having an intelligent conversation. He cited the "earlier draft that was certainly produced by Gygax" to imply that Cunning could have come from Gygax. However, he never introduced what this "earlier draft" was that he was referring to as proof that Cunning could have came from Gygax. We did not know at the time that it was this new "Guidon D&D Manuscript". Jon only revealed that fact later when The Perilous Dreamer asked him point-blank to explain what these new pre-Dalluhn drafts were that Jon was alluding to. When I take the time to start a thread and layout a detailed argument, carefully providing sources for the readers to examine themselves, it is highly disrespectful of Jon to enter it uninvited and then start casting doubt on my carefully argued points by citing sources nobody but Jon has access to. In this case it was particularly annoying because not only did he cite a source that only he has access to, but he cited a source that nobody in this thread but Jon was even aware existed.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jun 15, 2017 11:05:51 GMT -6
he cited a source that nobody in this thread but Jon was even aware existed. Ironically, Mike was aware it existed. If you put forward a hypothesis on a public forum, you are inviting comment, and my comment was (if you wind back) that I thought you had made a reasonable line of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 11:08:48 GMT -6
Even more to the point, I start a thread specifically arguing that "Cunning maps to Dexterity rather than Wisdom", and here comes Jon with this: I have seen a transitional character sheet that suggests that neither Wisdom nor Dexterity mapped cleanly to Cunning. Thats all he says about the matter. He doesn't show us a scan of any of the character sheet. He doesn't even type out whats on the character sheet. He doesn't tell us why it suggests neither Wisdom nor Dexterity map cleanly to Cunning. We are just supposed to take Jon's Almighty word that Cedgewick is barking up the wrong tree. He is basically saying "Cedgewick is wrong, trust me." Wow, thanks for coming into my thread and casting doubt on the very premise of the thread without any explanation. Is that how scholarly discourse occurs?
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jun 15, 2017 11:48:00 GMT -6
Is that how scholarly discourse occurs? No one should mistake public message board discussion for scholarly discourse. It is a mixed bag of participation, and it's all over the place. And my alluding to a piece evidence that "suggests" something just means I've seen a data point that works with that model, it is not intended to end discussion. Since this is a difficult matter for you to let rest, I was thinking of a sheet that apparently shows a character that was ported from ICSHA to SIWCDCh (so, perhaps an early 1974 sheet). The W and D scores both show ranges rather than numbers, and have question marks next to them, as if they were tentative assignments, whereas the other four abilities are given as firm values. This document is not conclusive evidence of anything in particular, but you might infer that the person doing the porting didn't know to convert Cunning into either Wisdom or Dexterity, so they kind of left those two up in the air.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 12:27:03 GMT -6
Is that how scholarly discourse occurs? No one should mistake public message board discussion for scholarly discourse. It is a mixed bag of participation, and it's all over the place. Jon, you have yourself created a higher standard for yourself than exists for us ordinary folk. Everyone expects scholarly discourse from you and better you than me.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 13:48:51 GMT -6
The W and D scores both show ranges rather than numbers, and have question marks next to them, as if they were tentative assignments, whereas the other four abilities are given as firm values. I propose that one of them (I suspect it was Gygax) split Cunning into its two component meanings. Recall the first definition I gave for Cunning from the 1913 dictionary: Merriam-Webster (1913):1. Knowledge; art; skill; dexterity. Let my right hand forget her cunning. - Ps. cxxxvii. 5. A carpenter's desert Stands more in cunning than in power. - Chapman. 2. The faculty or act of using stratagem to accomplish a purpose; fraudulent skill or dexterity; deceit; craft. Discourage cunning in a child; cunning is the ape of wisdom. - Locke. We take cunning for a sinister or crooked wisdom. -Bacon There is both a Dexterity aspect to Cunning and a Wisdom aspect to Cunning. Someone (probably Gygax), realizing this, may have split Cunning into two separate scores, providing a prime requisite for the Cleric via Wisdom. The number ranges on the character sheet are tentative because the player hadn't yet decided which of the two he wanted to have as the higher ability. If you give us the number for Cunning and the two number ranges, perhaps some relationship will be apparent.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jun 15, 2017 14:16:12 GMT -6
There is both a Dexterity aspect to Cunning and a Wisdom aspect to Cunning. Someone (probably Gygax), realizing this, may have split Cunning into two separate scores, providing a prime requisite for the Cleric via Wisdom. Could be, for all I know. Actually, the way the ranges are structured Dex is higher. Wis average, Dex above average.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 14:29:17 GMT -6
Actually, the way the ranges are structured Dex is higher. Wis average, Dex above average. It would really help to have the numerical values for Cunning and the two ranges. The player may have been asked to distribute points between Wisdom and Dexterity. For example, each of the new scores of Dexterity and Wisdom could have started as a roll. The player was then asked to distribute additional points between the new Wisdom and Dexterity scores as he saw fit.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 15:16:40 GMT -6
Here is my proposed explanation for the conversion of abilities on the transitional character sheet:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 15:50:04 GMT -6
That makes complete sense to me and is likely as close to the complete truth as we will ever get IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 16:50:14 GMT -6
Here is my proposed explanation for the conversion of abilities on the transitional character sheet: Assuming this split is correct, what difference does it make whether or not Cunning turned into Wisdom or Dexterity? How will this affect gameplay today?
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 17:57:37 GMT -6
Assuming this split is correct, what difference does it make whether or not Cunning turned into Wisdom or Dexterity? How will this affect gameplay today? It has no effect on gameplay today. In keeping with the topic of the board (Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign), it tells us about what Dave was doing back then. If we can agree that Gygax split Cunning into Wisdom and Dexterity, then it suggests several things about the Blackmoor game mechanics. First, from the table on the first page of this thread, we note that Wisdom did not appear on any of the Blackmoor character sheets prior to D&D, nor does Wisdom appear in Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy following D&D. Take a look at Adventure in Fantasy's abilities: Strength Dexterity Intelligence Charisma Stamina (he wrote "AKA CONSTITUTION") Health Note that the only D&D ability Arneson discarded was Wisdom. This suggests that in the original Blackmoor campaign, he was using Cunning in the Dexterity sense, not the Wisdom sense. This is further supported by what John Snider said in Dan Bogg's excellent interview here: As Aldarron noted, John's recollections are particularly useful with regard to understanding the original Blackmoor campaign: 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... So, assuming that John is correctly remembering the general idea that agility (Cunning) made you harder to hit, which seems very likely considering that his memories aren't colored by D&D at all (where else would someone that never played D&D get this idea?), then we know that this concept originated in Blackmoor (though Gygax didn't initially use it for OD&D). Furthermore, we must ask why Gygax wouldn't just rename Cunning to Wisdom, like he did with Health and Appearance. The reason why, I suspect, was that Cunning was already being used in Blackmoor to provide something like (probably exactly like) the +1/-1 modifier to missile fire listed on page 11 of Men & Magic for Dexterity. If Gygax had just renamed Cunning to Wisdom, he would have to remove this modifier (should every Cleric be an expert marksman?). But, he needed a prime requisite for the Cleric class for his new prime requisite system. One (rather elegant) solution was to split Cunning into Wisdom and Dexterity; in this way he was able to add Wisdom to serve as the Prime Requisite of the Cleric while simultaneously preserving the modifier to missile fire for high or low Cunning scores via Dexterity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 21:12:23 GMT -6
If we can agree that Gygax split Cunning into Wisdom and Dexterity, then it suggests several things about the Blackmoor game mechanics. At this point we're adding conjecture on top of other conjecture. For example, just because a term or mechanic appears first in an Arneson produced set of notes doesn't automatically mean that Dave Arneson originated the concept. Once Dave and Gary met, they were in contact and ideas were shared. It's equally likely that Gary presented Dave with the concept and Dave integrated it into his campaign (and, thus, his notes) as a play test. Also, I find it very hard to believe that Dave would switch his 2d6 resolution mechanic to a 3d6 one on his own. He had been using 2d6 for years and 3d6 offer no advantage unless you switch from using 2d6 roll under to d20 roll under. Dave switched to d100 abilities for his AiF (just as Barker did a few years earlier) when given the choice. Here's another answer in that same interview: From reading that it appears as if players were allowed to make either a dodge type save before the attack roll or an AC based save after an attack hits. I've never seen anything to suggest that Dave used any sort of ability score modifier prior to his contact with Gygax.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 21:30:24 GMT -6
This question is for aldarron should he happen to stroll by. Perhaps this "agility" Mr. Snider refers to is the mysterious circled numbers on Megarry's character sheet. It would explain why the numbers are so low, as a dodge save should be difficult. Generating with a d6+1 would give you the range, making 2 the lowest and 7 the highest.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 0:02:44 GMT -6
At this point we're adding conjecture on top of other conjecture. For example, just because a term or mechanic appears first in an Arneson produced set of notes doesn't automatically mean that Dave Arneson originated the concept. Once Dave and Gary met, they were in contact and ideas were shared. It's equally likely that Gary presented Dave with the concept and Dave integrated it into his campaign (and, thus, his notes) as a play test. Yes that is true. Aldarron pointed out yesterday that only some ability scores were changed to 3d6 when Cunning appears to have been added, which does speak to your point. We can't tell whether those edits were before or after they started collaborating. However, there is evidence that may suggest it was before, which I will get into next. Also, I find it very hard to believe that Dave would switch his 2d6 resolution mechanic to a 3d6 one on his own. He had been using 2d6 for years and 3d6 offer no advantage unless you switch from using 2d6 roll under to d20 roll under. Dave switched to d100 abilities for his AiF (just as Barker did a few years earlier) when given the choice. Dave gave an interview in 1994 where he explained where he initially got some D20s (you can read the full interview here): The 20-siders of the time were numbered 0-9 twice. Using a pair, you can generate percentages. But, you can also add their values together to get a number from 0-18, which can be used to roll equal to or under your 3d6 ability score. In the boldfaced portion of the quote above, Arneson seems to be talking about the night in November 1972 when he took his Blackmoor notes ("a copy of Blackmoor") and some dice ("a pair of the 20-siders") to Lake Geneva to show Gary Gygax, Ernie Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and Terry Kuntz his new game ("then our 'sister' group in Lake Geneva was exposed to Blackmoor...what was to become Dungeons & Dragons was born"). The pair of 20-siders, if he is indeed talking about that night, may suggest he was rolling percentiles, but it could also suggest that he rolled 0-18 on two 20-siders that night, indicating 3d6 ability scores were in place before Gygax started collaborating with him. Then the Gaylord character sheet makes a whole lot more sense. Cunning was added in pen, onto Gaylords sheet sometime late in the process, quite probably at the same time his scores were "updated" from 2d6 to 3d6. It is particularly telling that three of his scores - the three with the least direct D&D analogs - (credibility, sex, and courage) are not updated to 3d6 while those with direct analogs in BTPBD (strength, Health, Brains, and Looks) are updated to 3d6. That tells me that the addition of cunning and the new scores probably happened during the D&D test phase and that cunning was added because it was a "new" category Gygax had put into the playtest rules. It is very possible Arneson was moving to a smaller set of 3d6 ability scores prior to collaborating with Gygax, and that these were used as the basis for the D&D ability scores (per the diagram above). You'll note on the Gaylord character sheet that there are no other edits when the pen was employed besides the fact that Brains, Looks, Health, and Strength were crossed out and increased to 3d6 and Cunning apparently added. If these changes were due to Gygax's involvement, presumably it would be because he completed an early draft of the D&D rules (like Aldarron says) and sent them to Arneson to use, yet there are no other signs of conversion to D&D other than that the 5 Blackmoor abilities affected correspond to D&D abilities -- not even the names of the affected abilities have been crossed out and changed to their D&D counterparts. In fact, there is not one change or addition corresponding to a conversion to D&D on the Gaylord character sheet that took place when the traits were changed. The changes to the 5 traits were the only changes -- would this be the case if the edits were done to convert the character to D&D during the D&D test phase?Here's another answer in that same interview: From reading that it appears as if players were allowed to make either a dodge type save before the attack roll or an AC based save after an attack hits. I've never seen anything to suggest that Dave used any sort of ability score modifier prior to his contact with Gygax. I was talking about Snider's comment "armor and (if rem right) agility (or whatever we called it back there) were both mitigators". Since Snider only played in Blackmoor, never D&D, where did he get the idea of "agility (or whatever we called it back there)" factoring into mitigating damage somehow? It could have only come from Dave's original Blackmoor campaign, since he never played anything after that. The idea of an agility (i.e., Cunning or Dexterity) affecting mitigation is extremely specific to D&D, but Snider never played D&D. Hence, Snider can only be remembering it if it originated in Blackmoor. But you're right, we need more corroboration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 7:34:35 GMT -6
You'll note on the Gaylord character sheet that there are no other edits when the pen was employed besides the fact that Brains, Looks, Health, and Strength were crossed out and increased to 3d6 and Cunning apparently added. If these changes were due to Gygax's involvement, presumably it would be because he completed an early draft of the D&D rules (like Aldarron says) and sent them to Arneson to use, yet there are no other signs of conversion to D&D other than that the 5 Blackmoor abilities affected correspond to D&D abilities -- not even the names of the affected abilities have been crossed out and changed to their D&D counterparts. In fact, there is not one change or addition corresponding to a conversion to D&D on the Gaylord character sheet that took place when the traits were changed. The changes to the 5 traits were the only changes -- would this be the case if the edits were done to convert the character to D&D during the D&D test phase?I wouldn't expect Dave to make the current characters rename their individual stats. Dave was loose in his terminology, in the FFC he uses Brains, Intelligence, and Intellect interchangably. He just doesn't seem to care about different players using both Woodscraft and Woodsmanship or Sailing and Seamanship at the same time. The term "mitigating" has a specific meaning in gaming. That term would not be used for a modifier to a to-hit roll. We know that they used a armor-based saving throw so the most likely use of agility is as a dodge-type saving throw. Another point about d20s; Dave's original AC-based to hit table used a d100 roll. So this could explain why they needed a pair of d20s to play. Finally, if Dave switched from 2d6 to 3d6 in order to use d20s, why did he only convert those numbers that eventuay turned into ability scores? Did he use d20s for Brains checks while still using 2d6s for Riding checks? I can't get over how the only stats converted are also the only stats Gary is known to have used.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 8:28:24 GMT -6
I wouldn't expect Dave to make the current characters rename their individual stats. Dave was loose in his terminology, in the FFC he uses Brains, Intelligence, and Intellect interchangably. The FFC is comprised of a pile of handwritten notes that Arneson gave to Judges Guild from different times in the campaign. Some of the FFC dates to pre-D&D Blackmoor, some of it dates to after D&D. Yet, I agree that he may not have made them change the ability score names. But, again, if those changes were from the D&D playtest phase, where are the other changes? Nothing but the 5 ability scores were changed. For example, Gaylord has a 13 brains. Lets say thats intelligence in the D&D playtest and he didn't change it. There is no indication that he qualifies for the new 5% bonus due to his high prime requisite. In D&D, each character had a list of languages they knew. Where's the list? Why isn't he renamed a magic-user? Does a level 7 magic-user in D&D get 16 spells? Where are the spells by level? Why are the Blackmoor magic concepts (source of power, no spells by level) still present, unchanged? Why is there a weapon classification list still, with no additions for D&D combat? If this is early D&D, where is his Ego score-- it appeared in early D&D character sheets: I'm not familiar with a source for this, but I remember hearing others mention something like this. Where did you see this? Even if it is true, it doesn't rule out rolling under ability scores with the 20 siders employed to generate 0-18. Arneson only mentioned a pair of d20, and in his article he talks about only taking the d20 from the set of dice and discarding the rest. With only 1 type of die being employed, he could easily be using them for both percentiles and for 0-18 rolls. Finally, if Dave switched from 2d6 to 3d6 in order to use d20s, why did he only convert those numbers that eventuay turned into ability scores? Did he use d20s for Brains checks while still using 2d6s for Riding checks? I can't get over how the only stats converted are also the only stats Gary is known to have used. It is very possible Arneson was moving to a smaller set of 3d6 ability scores prior to collaborating with Gygax. It is known that his campaign was in a constant state of flux. As I argued above, the Gaylord character sheet shows no other signs of conversion to D&D. If it is reasonable that Arneson didn't make his players change their ability names to D&D ones, it is just as reasonable that Arneson didn't make his players eliminate old abilities that were no longer being used.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 16, 2017 9:05:09 GMT -6
This has gotten even more interesting, but I'm afraid I've left a misimpression with this: As Aldarron noted, John's recollections are particularly useful with regard to understanding the original Blackmoor campaign: 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... So, assuming that John is correctly remembering the general idea that agility (Cunning) made you harder to hit, which seems very likely considering that his memories aren't colored by D&D at all (where else would someone that never played D&D get this idea?), then we know that this concept originated in Blackmoor (though Gygax didn't initially use it for OD&D). John Snider told me his "focus" shifted away from gaming for the 23 years he spent in the Army. When I wrote that he "has not been involved", I meant he didn't participate in game play and development as he had before, not that he never ever played later versions of D&D or any other RPG in his life. He did (and does) still play games of various sorts. Even so, I think I was wrong to say he could not have been influenced by later developments. At the time I wrote that I wasn't aware that in the '90's Mr. Snider returned to the Blackmoor setting to develop an Egg of Coot campaign. The Blackmoor Documentary team have published a lot of his maps for it.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 16, 2017 9:08:23 GMT -6
This question is for aldarron should he happen to stroll by. Perhaps this "agility" Mr. Snider refers to is the mysterious circled numbers on Megarry's character sheet. It would explain why the numbers are so low, as a dodge save should be difficult. Generating with a d6+1 would give you the range, making 2 the lowest and 7 the highest. Hmmm, Nice idea! I'll have to play around with that and see if it works. Thanks Hedge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 9:18:42 GMT -6
An elephant is warm and mushy.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 9:21:05 GMT -6
At the time I wrote that I wasn't aware that in the '90's Mr. Snider returned to the Blackmoor setting to develop an Egg of Coot campaign. The Blackmoor Documentary team have published a lot of his maps for it. That may be true, but you interviewed him in 2009, right? Would he be struggling so hard to remember from the 90's? Even though it is not as conclusive per the case that he never played after the original Blackmoor, he could still be remembering from the original campaign.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 16, 2017 10:04:08 GMT -6
...It is very possible Arneson was moving to a smaller set of 3d6 ability scores prior to collaborating with Gygax. It is known that his campaign was in a constant state of flux. As I argued above, the Gaylord character sheet shows no other signs of conversion to D&D. If it is reasonable that Arneson didn't make his players change their ability names to D&D ones, it is just as reasonable that Arneson didn't make his players eliminate old abilities that were no longer being used. It would be entirely consistent for Arneson to mix and match old habits with new. However, the trouble with supposing Arneson initiated the switch to the 3d6 range is that none of Megarry's characters show 3d6 stats and the second page of his characters almost certainly bump up against the playtest period of 1973 or perhaps go even even later. The Scholaress character was still alive in 1974 - she died in a Tonisburg dungeon adventure run by Greg Svenson in Boston. I think the players in Blackmoor didn't really start to change their stat habits until late 1973. ..... Lets say thats intelligence in the D&D playtest and he didn't change it. There is no indication that he qualifies for the new 5% bonus due to his high prime requisite. In D&D, each character had a list of languages they knew. Where's the list? Why isn't he renamed a magic-user? Does a level 7 magic-user in D&D get 16 spells? Where are the spells by level? Why are the Blackmoor magic concepts (source of power, no spells by level) still present, unchanged? Why is there a weapon classification list still, with no additions for D&D combat? If this is early D&D, where is his Ego score-- it appeared in early D&D character sheets: <shrug> Perhaps because he didn't need some of that info on his character sheet. Why would Arneson change the way the longstanding "wizard of the Wood" cast spells? I doubt he would bother. In other words, I doubt Arneson would have asked Gaylord to scrap his familiar old character just to conform to all the new rules, but adding a few new ability scores was a pretty minor and easy "update".
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 10:21:37 GMT -6
I've updated the character sheet table with Peterson's transitional character sheet and removed the character sheet from BTPBD/Dalluhn (because, as the diagram on the first page of the thread shows, that manuscript is an offshoot-- which Peterson mentioned earlier in this thread as well-- that does not fit into the lineage of OD&D. With the addition of the transitional character sheet, we can see the likely forking of Cunning (which now appears twice) by Gygax to Wisdom and Dexterity for OD&D, to provide a prerequisite ability for Gygax's prerequisite system (Wisdom serving no other purpose in OD&D), followed by Arneson eliminating Wisdom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 11:44:39 GMT -6
I would say that Charisma combines not just looks, but courage, credibility and leadership all into one.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 12:09:51 GMT -6
I would say that Charisma combines not just looks, but courage, credibility and leadership all into one. Thats exactly right- Men & Magic says "Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth." This is one of the aspects that makes the transitional character sheet that Increment has interesting. If you look at the most recent version of the character sheet table above, I only listed the abilities for it that Increment mentioned. It probably has more abilities, including courage, credibility, and leadership. Then, as we expected, Gygax combined them into Charisma. But without seeing it, we don't know for sure. What if it lists only the 5 abilities Increment mentioned, which just happens to be the same abilities that were modified on Gaylords character sheet? That would be strong evidence that the other abilities on Gaylords character sheet were not being used at the point in the campaign when the character sheet was marked up with the pen. That would mean Arneson had only Appearance, and Gygax expanded Appearance into Charisma, adding back the aspects (courage, credibility, leadership, etc...) that Arneson had dropped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 12:26:52 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with a source for this, but I remember hearing others mention something like this. Where did you see this?
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 16, 2017 13:27:58 GMT -6
Oh right, from the Dalluhn manuscript-- great catch Hedgehobbit! With the word "Chops" it certainly has Dave's fingerprints all over it. Do you (or anyone else) know of other mentions of Arneson using percentile combat resolution prior to the D&D development period?
|
|