Combat system observation

[Finarvyn]

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I tossed it into "general." I was looking at several of the older TSR RPG/Miniatures rules and was fascinated by the diversity of combat systems to be found there. Here are a few thoughts off of the top of my head about several of the systems.

Chainmail -- 2d6 versus monster type on the fantastic attacks chart.

Warriors of Mars -- 3d6 on the one-to-one attacks chart; pistol shots use an odd 2d6 system; 3d6 versus monster type on the creatures chart.

OD&D -- 1d20 versus AC on the men-versus-men attacks chart; 1d20 versus AC on the men-versus-monsters chart.

Metamorphosis Alpha -- 3d6 versus AC on the attack chart.

Boot Hill -- 1d100 on the attack chart.

Some Patterns:

Both Chainmail and WoM use a similar process where each monster gets its own column on the attack charts.

OD&D and MA both have some form of AC.

Some Differences:

Many different types of dice to be rolled when attacking.

Sometimes AC factored into monster rating, sometimes not.

[sixdemonbag]

Very interesting.

Looks like if there are more "monsters" than could comfortably fit in a chart, then some form of target number or "AC" is necessary. This presumably would allow for more monster variety without overburdening the ref with custom charts and tables to look up. In a game with a finite number of weapons and/or monsters, then those weapon vs. monster charts make a ton of sense.

OD&D and MA being more "wide open" lends itself better to a more generic level vs AC chart and might explain why the weapon vs AC, damage vs size, and weapon speeds never gained overwhelming popularity.

Maybe others can add to this list?

[sixdemonbag]

Maybe a stretch, but I'll add the DUNGEON! boardgame:

2d6 versus effect for monster attacks
2d6 versus monster type for each of the "adventurers" or spells to kill

[hamurai]

At some point you just have to abandon the tables when you start adding many new monsters, otherwise the game will turn into a quick-reading/referencing session.

The more dice you throw, the more predictable your outcome gets as the results tend towards the average (Gauss and all that), and that's really something I've debated over hours - which system is better? In the end it's everyone's choice and some folks like the "extreme" results of the d20 while others prefer the predictability of the 2d6 or 3d6.

What's your preference? (Generally spoken, I guess most if not all of us use d20s in OD&D.)

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 11, 2017 9:20:35 GMT -6 hamurai said:

What's your preference? (Generally spoken, I guess most if not all of us use d20s in OD&D.)

A question worthy of it's own thread, IMO. Many pros and cons to each unique curve.

[Finarvyn]

I thought it was interesting because nowadays most game companies put together a system and then apply it to various settings, but the old TSR stuff was more individual even though Gygax had a hand in most of them. He clearly loved to tinker.

[Zenopus]

Aug 10, 2017 14:06:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I tossed it into "general." I was looking at several of the older TSR RPG/Miniatures rules and was fascinated by the diversity of combat systems to be found there. Here are a few thoughts off of the top of my head about several of the systems.

Metamorphosis Alpha -- 3d6 versus AC on the attack chart.

Boot Hill -- 1d100 on the attack chart.

I believe only Mental Combat in MA uses 3d6 (on the chart on page 10). Physical Combat uses a standard d20 roll. See page 20; "The result is the number that must be equalled or exceeded on the generation of a random number from 1-20".

[Scott Anderson]

I don't remember where I heard this - maybe it was about Warlock and not ODD - but many players considered different systems constructed for specific purposes to be more interesting than a general solution which we might consider to be more elegant. That's why you get thieve's skills on d%, attack rolls over on d20 based on AC, saves on d20 over static numbers, skill checks under on d20 or 3d6... all various individual solutions to different problems: that's the way they liked it.

[hamurai]

When we were playing a system with d% (for example Warhammer Fantasy RPG), we ended up using increments of 5% or even 10% when applying modifiers (that's what the rulebook does, too), so more often than not, in my experience, the d% ends up being nothing more than a "fancy" d20 roll (5% chance for each number). The same is true for the thief skills, they increase by 5% or 10%, so it would have been just as easy to use the d20. So unless you have modifiers between 1% and 5%, you wouldn't need the d% at all.
Reverse, you can always substitute the d20 with a d%, if that's to your liking.

What I'm trying to say is, even though back in the day we just played with the d% for thief skills, too, I always wondered why they used a d% for this and not a d20. The d% mechanic has always felt out of place for me.

[krusader74]

Aug 10, 2017 14:06:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Chainmail -- 2d6 versus monster type on the fantastic attacks chart.

I count no fewer than 11 different combat sub-systems at work in CHAINMAIL!

1. Missile fire (excluding guns, catapults, cannon, and wizards): d6 roll, where # kills depends on the number of attackers firing and the defender's armor type (only 3 broadly defined armor types).
2. Gun fire: d6 >= Target Number (TN), where TN depends only on range.
3. Catapult fire: All figures within the Hit Area are killed. Min/max range and diameter of the Hit Area both depend on weapon type. Overshoot (undershoot) determined by max(2d6), where the two dice are different colors, one indicating overshoot and the other indicating undershoot.
4. Cannon fire: Hit areas depend on weapon type and variation measure (d6 roll) that determines the angle of deviation from the selected target.
5. Wizard fire: Fireball=catapult, Lightning bolt=cannon, except heroic figures and some monsters get a saving throw: 2d6 >= TN that depends on hero/monster type.
6. Mass Combat Table: # kills determined by number of successes when N rolls are made, each roll d6 >= TN, where TN depends on attacker type versus defender type, and N depends on both the numbers and type of the opposing units. Note: You need to be able to do division as in "1 die per 3 men, 6 kills."
7. Man-to-man melee: 2d6 >= TN, where TN depends on Attacker's weapon type (12 melee weapon types and 7 missile types), defender's armor type (10 armor types), and range if missile weapon.
8. Jousting: Matrix game (like rock, paper, scissors) depending on the attacker's strategy versus the defender's strategy. No dice! (TBD: How many Nash equilibra are there, and what types are they (mixed/pure)?)
9. Fantasy Combat Table: 2d6 versus TN, where TN depends on attacker type and defender type. Kill if 2d6>TN; move back 1 full move if 2d6=TN; and no effect otherwise.
10. Wizard Spells and Counterspells: Effect depends on spell (16 spells) and wizard rank (5 ranks). Spell distance and number of spells depends on wizard rank. Optional spell complexity (SC) is 2d6 versus 3 target numbers (TNs) corresponding to immediate effect (I), delayed effect (D) and negated (N). TNs depend on spell level (6 levels) and wizard rank.
11. Siege warfare: Each weapon type has a fixed damage value (no random roll). Defending structures have different point values, determined prior to play.

Morale figures heavily into combat and there are 4 sub-systems:

1. Post-melee morale: Each side computes a score = d6 * (positive difference in losses) + (positive difference in survivors) + Sum {(number of surving figures of type ) * (weight of type)}. Then the side with the lower score computes the difference in scores and looks up the effect in a table. Note: Lots of accounting. And you need to do multiplication, not just addition and subtraction. (Aside: in Geneva Medieval Miniatures this computation was vastly simplified: score = d6 * (number of survivors). The player with the higher score stands his ground and captures d6 prisoners. The player with the lower score moves back 1 full move facing away from the enemy and must rally.)
2. Instability Due to Excess Casualties: 2d6 >= TN, where TN depends on unit type. Failure means the unit is removed from play, unless surrounded (in which case they surrender).
3. Swiss/Landsknechte Pike Charge: Resolve like "Instability Due to Excess Casualties", except failure means they move back 1.5 moves. They are only eliminated if they are pursued before rallying.
4. Cavalry Charge: 2d6 >= TN, where TN depends on attacker/defender types. Dice modifiers apply for flanking, rear attack and when both sides are charging.

All morale sub-systems share a common rule for rallying: d6 >= TN, where TN depends on number of rounds spent in retreat.

The main goal of all these diverse combat sub-systems is historical accuracy. You were supposed to be able to recreate historical Medieval battles and get similar results.

So here are the main lessons I learned from CHAINMAIL:

1. Numerous sub-systems.
2. Non-uniform dice probabilities: 2d6 is most common. Some uniform (d6 most common). And a couple of diceless sub-systems.
   
3. Complex accounting procedures: Must be able to do multiplication and division, not just addition and subtraction.
4. Lots of table lookups.
5. Historical accuracy.

Aug 10, 2017 14:06:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

OD&D -- 1d20 versus AC on the men-versus-men attacks chart; 1d20 versus AC on the men-versus-monsters chart.

Don't forget that the FAQ from The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 2 Summer 1975 equips OD&D with yet another combat sub-system -- for grappling -- namely

(# attacker's hit dice)d6 versus (# defenders's hit dice)d6

• If the attacker's score is higher, then he successfully pins the helpless defender.
• If the scores are equal, then the defender is unable to return the attack, but he is still on his feet.
• If the defender's score is higher, then he tosses all attackers aside and stuns them for a number of rounds equal to the difference in scores.

Also, before any combat takes place using either sub-system (grappling or the Alternative Combat System), there is a d6 surprise roll and a d6 initiative roll. These rolls are common to both sub-systems.


...Now fast-forward to the d20 OGL system circa 2000, and you get one unified mechanic: d20 + (bonuses that make the task easier) >= TN + (circumstance modifiers that make the task harder). The base TNs are easy-to-remember multiples of 5. You could table the modifiers, but it boils down to what makes sense given the character's abilities, skills and the circumstances. The main lessons are:

1. One unified mechanic.
2. Uniform dice probabilities: d20.
3. Simple accounting procedures: Only have to add. (No multiplication, division, or even subtraction!)
4. No real need for table lookups.
5. Cinematic (not historically accurate).

These are exactly the opposite of CHAINMAIL's design principles!!!

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2017 14:49:16 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I thought it was interesting because nowadays most game companies put together a system and then apply it to various settings, but the old TSR stuff was more individual even though Gygax had a hand in most of them. He clearly loved to tinker.

Um.

That's just not how it worked. Firstly, CHAINMAIL predates TSR considerably. Secondly, Warriors of Mars and MA were both developed by other people.

This isn't a case of "a corporate identity," it's a case of freelancers submitting to an editor.

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 11, 2017 23:03:24 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

I don't remember where I heard this - maybe it was about Warlock and not ODD - but many players considered different systems constructed for specific purposes to be more interesting than a general solution which we might consider to be more elegant. That's why you get thieve's skills on d%, attack rolls over on d20 based on AC, saves on d20 over static numbers, skill checks under on d20 or 3d6... all various individual solutions to different problems: that's the way they liked it.

This is basically UNIX philosophy, as well.

So, if OD&D is to UNIX, as AD&D is to Windows, then which edition is the MacOS analog? 

[murquhart72]

Parallel system that's prettier but predictable? B/X and BECMI maybe?

[jdn2006]

Aug 12, 2017 11:59:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Aug 11, 2017 14:49:16 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I thought it was interesting because nowadays most game companies put together a system and then apply it to various settings, but the old TSR stuff was more individual even though Gygax had a hand in most of them. He clearly loved to tinker.

Um.

That's just not how it worked. Firstly, CHAINMAIL predates TSR considerably. Secondly, Warriors of Mars and MA were both developed by other people.

This isn't a case of "a corporate identity," it's a case of freelancers submitting to an editor.

Ah-hah! To carry along with that theme as a casual sort of thing: I noted (and could be absolutely wrong on this) that various elements of D&D - or at least AD&D - came from other sources not so much Gary Gygax. Such as pole arms described in Strategic Review (or something like that) and so on. And if that is correct, it is hard to know what Gary Gygax himself thought up (not that he was against the other people's ideas and would not use ideas from others he liked) and what others contributed. Case in point, the Thief in Greyhawk almost totally invented by the California group (or whoever). And of course the supplements with the quirkiness of the individuals who thunk 'em up. Very much a community sort of thing at first.

[Deleted]

Well, Gary wrote that Strategic Review article on polearms...

But yeah. Joe Fisher wrote up the Ranger as an 18 year old kid. It was not a factory, it was more a bubbling cauldron we all pitched stuff into.

[murquhart72]

In other words, D&D wasn't manufactured so much as hand-crafted and organically grown

[Deleted]

Artisanal.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRlBtabKRFM

[Scott Anderson]

I wish there were more Pole arms.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 12, 2017 11:59:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Firstly, CHAINMAIL predates TSR considerably.

Right. Chainmail goes back to the pre-Guidon days. I haven't seen those rules, but I'm aware that they existed.

Aug 12, 2017 11:59:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Secondly, Warriors of Mars and MA were both developed by other people.

Yes, but Gary was involved in some way with all of them, right? WoM has "Gygax & Blume" on the cover and I know that Jim Ward played in Gary's game before Gary encouraged him to write up his ideas for a game.

My main point was that there was a lot of crossover in the folks who played one game or another, and the folks who designed one game or another, yet they all came up with very different systems along the way. I guess I would have expected more of a "hey, that worked well so let's adapt it to another setting" in some way, particularly with some of the of the adventures going from one setting to the next. (Gary sent folks to Barsoom, Jim Ward sent D&D characters onto the Warden.)

Anyway, I thought it was neat.

[kenmeister]

With regards to sub-systems, I still think AD&D jumped the shark with the unarmed combat rules in the DMG. Of course they fixed that in Unearthed Arcana.

At any rate, I think the Universal Table used in Marvel Super-Heroes is the best TSR system for addressing everything