|
Post by aldarron on Feb 18, 2018 10:07:35 GMT -6
.... It would mean that the melee attack range of 3” is ignored in the case of surprise Technically, I think it isn't that the rule is ignored, but that it hasn't come into play yet. In CM, the 3" rule applies to existing melee. To start a melee presumes a 1" distance (IIRC). ....(perhaps because a surprise segment represents only a few seconds and not an entire 1-minute combat round, so there is less time for the maneuvering that is presumed to happen within the 3” melee distance in a combat round). In this case, as you say, melee range is reduced to 1” distance and all attackers beyond that will merely get to move up and attack in the regular combat round. I don't think it matters much to this discussion, but I'm actually in the turns = minutes, rounds = seconds camp. There is a super interesting thread link and I think there is also a more recent one, but I'm too lazy to keep searching It's not perfectly clear to me why the wyvern would attack twice before the players under this interpretation. Perhaps if you add U&WA pages 17 and 9 together, you get something like this: If surprise at 1”, monster may attack immediately (page 17) Surprise then grants free action, which may be an attack at 1”, otherwise move or spell (page 9) It's an odd rule, though, because it means you either attack twice in surprise or do not attack at all. Yeah, I think the idea is that at the short distance (within 2") the surprisor has the surprise move to attack automatically, and, because they are the attacker, they then automatically have initiative in the next round per CM man to man. So the result is 2 attacks (complete surprise) before the surprisee can answer back. In the case of the longer distance surprise (2+" - 3"), the surprisor uses the surprise segment to close the distance and then gets their "attacker" initiative attack, but the surprisee can try dropping some treasure or turning to run. Personally, if they do run I grant the surprisor a rear attack, but I'm not sure you could say that's btb (maybe). I think of the surprise situation as being 2 six second rounds either way, but that again is not really a necessary way to see it as far as playing the rule goes.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 18, 2018 10:58:09 GMT -6
.... I've had long winded debates with aldarron before. I believe he and I take it all in good spirits- with an understanding that each is making a defense of their assertions and weeding out information through common debate. If not, let me offer an apology to him. Perhaps that is what some are bothered by. Seconded, we all are like honeing stones for each other. At least, I certainly appreciate the challenging arguments put forth by Derv and Stormcrow and other folks. It's useful to me and I think to all of us, and I think we have all learned from each other too. None of it is taken personally on my part. Perhaps unlike some other internet spaces, we're pretty grown up here.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Feb 18, 2018 14:42:48 GMT -6
I don't even think Stormcows comment was pointed at you Piper . It wasn't. It was a general comment about how everyone on this forum is always so focused on unearthing the arcane secrets hidden in various turns of phrase in the rules that you don't even realize that the real meaning is simply what it seems to say on the surface. Those turns of phrase are just idiosyncratic writing, not carefully constructed and nuanced instructions. Didja ever do that exercise in school where you have to write instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Everyone KNOWS how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but can you write out the exact procedure, with no room for error? The students write their instructions, then the teacher attempts to follow them, interpreting the instructions literally and taking any opportunity to get it wrong within the letter of the instructions. Some kids write "put peanut butter on bread," and the teacher would put the jar of peanut butter on the bread. Stuff like that. Mine almost got the job done, but at the end, when I said "push the two pieces of bread together by the flat sides," I neglected to include the instruction that the peanut butter side should be pushed against the jelly side; the teacher intentionally pushed them together the wrong way. The point is that Gygax et al weren't writing careful, exacting specifications for the game; they were writing colloquially about fairly simple concepts (albeit concepts being put together in a new way at the time). We all know how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but if you know someone who has never seen one before, they're still going to understand basic concepts like taking the peanut butter out of the jar before putting it on the bread. You wouldn't write that in instructions to a human being. Likewise, when the D&D authors write things that SEEM obvious and straightforward, they usually ARE obvious and straightforward, even if they aren't explained clearly or exactly. With surprise, distance, and free attacks, there is nothing hidden here that we've been doing wrong all these years. There is no discovery to be made. If you're surprised, distance is short; if the distance isn't 1", the monsters can spend their free turn closing that distance. It's just explained in that idiosyncratic Gygaxian way that makes people think there's more there than there really is. As a friendly suggestion, I think you may be the one taking this all too literally. We are well aware how Gary did it, and if we weren't, we'd just ask Gronan and be done with it. This thread rather is an exercise in interpretation. For the purpose of this exercise, what the author intended is irrelevant... excuse the phrase, but as Roland Barthes said, "the author is dead." That happened the moment the ink dried on the first distribution copy of the game. Extracting different meanings out of the accidental phrasing of the text is just one way to go about finding new, fun and useful interpretations for yourself. Since one of the few things we all have in common on this forum IS the text (I assume we all own it, or a facsimile of it), it is also one of the more appropriate methods for this forum. As aldarron, derv and others said, debating out new interpretations is just a friendly way to hone our arguments and test out our ideas. No one is talking about "truth" here. We are talking about method.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 18, 2018 15:10:56 GMT -6
If you're not trying to figure out what the text is trying to say, why is the subject of this thread "I think I figured out surprise"?
I haven't been talking about how Gary or anyone actually played; I'm talking about what the text is trying to say. And I'm seeing a lot of people doing somersaults in parsing numbers and sentences in ways that clearly were never intended (and this happens a lot on this board). If you were really just playing around with what the text COULD mean given the most outrageous interpretations of the text possible, you utterly failed to communicate this.
Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point. If you want to follow the rules, follow them. If you want to do something else, make it up. I don't see why you'd want to constrain your making thing up to nevertheless fit a tortured interpretation of the text.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Feb 18, 2018 15:37:57 GMT -6
If you're not trying to figure out what the text is trying to say, why is the subject of this thread "I think I figured out surprise"? I haven't been talking about how Gary or anyone actually played; I'm talking about what the text is trying to say. And I'm seeing a lot of people doing somersaults in parsing numbers and sentences in ways that clearly were never intended (and this happens a lot on this board). If you were really just playing around with what the text COULD mean given the most outrageous interpretations of the text possible, you utterly failed to communicate this. Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point. If you want to follow the rules, follow them. If you want to do something else, make it up. I don't see why you'd want to constrain your making thing up to nevertheless fit a tortured interpretation of the text. My answer: Because (textual) constraints are a good platform for thinking creatively, according to Foucault. Others can answer for themselves. Anyway, I thought I put "in my own opinion" in bold in my original post. You seem to be the only one bent on "one official way to play," I would point out. The text speaks for itself, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 18, 2018 18:11:33 GMT -6
Anyway, I thought I put "in my own opinion" in bold in my original post. You seem to be the only one bent on "one official way to play," I would point out. "In your own opinion" just sounds like your opinion of how to interpret the text, not your opinion of what would be fun to turn the rules into. I'm not bent on one official way to play. Did I mention the whole "make stuff up" angle? I did. My only bent is to point out that the books don't say what you say they're saying. This is all very silly, and I feel the goalposts keep on being moved, so that's all I have to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 1, 2018 11:33:03 GMT -6
IMO, a journey of discovery into the heart of OD&D is what this board has always been about. Being willing to read the text creatively and speculate on nontraditional understandings is very much a part of that. Being willing to be mistaken about things, and not being belittled for it but congratulated for some interesting food for thought, was always a given in this board’s culture.
This is directed, respectfully, at no-one but Stormcrow, by the way. Great thread up till that point. And this is just about tone, so, I acknowledge it could just be my own misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Mar 1, 2018 18:39:40 GMT -6
I haven't read every post here; apologies if I'm repeating something. My current interpretation is to emphasize the word "may" in that passage ("The Wyvern may attack once again..."), as in: the Wyvern may or may not attack again before the PCs, depending on the result of the initiative dice. This is the only way I can rectify it with the advice in The Strategic Review #2 (p. 3, below). Also, this seems more reasonable than the alternative reading (always 2 attacks, and sometimes 3 depending on initiative).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2018 2:36:15 GMT -6
I haven't followed all of the above in excruciating detail either but... if one employs the man-to-man combat sequence it seems kinda straight forward..? E.g., 1. The Wyvern wins surprise, and is within striking distance. 2. It uses its surprise segment to attack so we resolve one melee round. (Assuming the players are heroic-types, the Wyvern gets just one fantastic attack in its surprise round). And that's the end of the surprise segment. Then we revert back to the next turn of regular combat resolution... 3. As the two sides are already engaged in melee combat, we go straight to the next melee segment, and resolve the next melee round. Who strikes the first blow? According to CM (3rd Ed. p25) the attacker strikes the first blow unless any of a series of special circumstances apply. 4. As the wyvern is the attacker, it strikes the first blow in the next round (unless any of those special circumstances apply), being its second consecutive attack. Then, having been subject to two rounds of blows, the players have their first opportunity to riposte.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 2, 2018 13:03:01 GMT -6
I haven't read every post here; apologies if I'm repeating something. My current interpretation is to emphasize the word "may" in that passage ("The Wyvern may attack once again..."), as in: the Wyvern may or may not attack again before the PCs, depending on the result of the initiative dice. This is the only way I can rectify it with the advice in The Strategic Review #2 (p. 3). Also, this seems more reasonable than the alternative reading (always 2 attacks, and sometimes 3 depending on initiative). I don't really see the distinction. "May or may not" is the same thing as "will" in the case of an aggressive, attacking monster already engaged in combat. The Hydra isn't going to decide to have a bite of sandwich instead of a bite of wizard, but regardless of whether an attack is made or some other move, the hydra has the initiative - the SR initiative roll is not an issue at the point this 3lbb encounter is written. The initiative business was discussed in earlier posts, I guess you missed, but if you look at WotE's post above, you'll get the gist of the idea.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 2, 2018 15:26:22 GMT -6
I know I said I wasn't going to comment further, but.... I haven't followed all of the above in excruciating detail either but... if one employs the man-to-man combat sequence it seems kinda straight forward..? E.g., 1. The Wyvern wins surprise, and is within striking distance. 2. It uses its surprise segment to attack so we resolve one melee round. (Assuming the players are heroic-types, the Wyvern gets just one fantastic attack in its surprise round). And that's the end of the surprise segment. Then we revert back to the next turn of regular combat resolution... 3. As the two sides are already engaged in melee combat, we go straight to the next melee segment, and resolve the next melee round. Who strikes the first blow? According to CM (3rd Ed. p25) the attacker strikes the first blow unless any of a series of special circumstances apply. 4. As the wyvern is the attacker, it strikes the first blow in the next round (unless any of those special circumstances apply), being its second consecutive attack. Then, having been subject to two rounds of blows, the players have their first opportunity to riposte. I'm uncertain whether the M2M sequence was used. In a recent discussion about Chainmail, @gronanofsimmerya stated that the LG group didn't employ any of the additional rules about length and heft. They simply allowed longer weapons first strike. Comments can be found here. That would suggest they probably didn't employ it in D&D either. Not to mention that CM contains no methods for surprise. I'm unconvinced about it's direct application to D&D. It seems to me that melee in D&D was "fast and furious". The methods were streamlined. They simply determined who gets the first attack through either weapon reach or initiative. That's it. Since surprise grants a free move, the Wyvern gets a free attack. It's possible the Wyvern receives an additional attack because of it's reach (as if it had initiative in the first round of melee), but this is unclear from the text. The description does say the adventurers will be able to then strike back. This is what would be expected in a normal exchange. The point that I'm making is that what is being described in the description of the Wyvern may actually fall in between what waysoftheearth , aldarron , and delta are expressing. IOW, the Wyvern has initiative after the surprise round due to reach or proximity. I hope I was able to say that without ruffling any feathers.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 2, 2018 17:46:25 GMT -6
- the SR initiative roll is not an issue at the point this 3lbb encounter is written. The initiative business was discussed in earlier posts, I guess you missed, but if you look at WotE's post above, you'll get the gist of the idea. Sorry aldarron, I don't believe we have come to any forgone conclusion on this matter. Rolling for initiative was a common practice among wargamers well before the publication of the 3LBB's, despite your unfamiliarity with such rules. Consider Featherstones book War Games, 1962. This popular book contains Tony Bath's early iteration of his Ancient Wargaming rules. As you may know, Bath wrote the commonly referenced book Setting Up a Wargames Campaign in 1973.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2018 19:30:15 GMT -6
Hey derv, sure. I generally agree with your response to my post, but notice that I intentionally wrote "IF one employs the man-to-man combat sequence...". That aside, I agree that the verbatim procedure outlined in CM is too fiddly for D&D play. None the less, the core of it is that longer weapons get strike first on initial contact or, otherwise, the attacker strikes first. That core idea (longer weapons going first) appears in many games and (as you point out) could neatly explain why the Wyvern should strike first in the first post-surprise round. Fight on
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 2, 2018 20:32:53 GMT -6
That's basically my point Ways. Wasn't singling you out really. Just trying to say that it isn't quite as simple as referencing the M2M system. Outside of this idea of surprise (because surprise grants initiative) the question still remains, how were they determining who the attacker is in a normal melee? It's a common question with the complexity of Chainmail's M2M system. But, we aren't dealing with miniatures moving on a table and if they weren't even really using that body of M2M rules, it must come down to initiative- whether weapon length or the roll of a die (because both opponents may just be armed with swords and equally intent on eviscerating one another, for example).
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 3, 2018 10:50:05 GMT -6
There's another oddity in the combat example of the Wyvern. Surprise and distance is established. Then it says, "the referee rolls a pair of six-sided dice for the Wyvern and scores a 6..."
In the Wyvern description of M&T it's clear that a ref is rolling only one die to determine if it will sting or not. With a 5-6 result it's a 33% likelihood it will not. The example's result of "6" in U&WA is consistent with this. What's the second die for? The next round? Initiative? Does this assume the Wyvern has two rounds (move segments) of action? Or is this just a lack of editing? A roll of 5-6 on 2 dice is only a 25% chance of not occurring.
This example is not the clearest. Many conclusions can be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 3, 2018 16:27:32 GMT -6
Dragon attack mode is determined by a throw of 2d6. Wyverns are "relatives of dragons". Possibly, it's just a trivial mix up..?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 3, 2018 17:11:27 GMT -6
..... 4. As the wyvern is the attacker, it strikes the first blow in the next round (unless any of those special circumstances apply), being its second consecutive attack. Then, having been subject to two rounds of blows, the players have their first opportunity to riposte. I'm uncertain whether the M2M sequence was used. In a recent discussion about Chainmail, @gronanofsimmerya stated that the LG group didn't employ any of the additional rules about length and heft. They simply allowed longer weapons first strike. Comments can be found here. That would suggest they probably didn't employ it in D&D either. Not to mention that CM contains no methods for surprise. I'm unconvinced about it's direct application to D&D. You are conflating two things here - what was used by the various DM's playtesting D&D, and what was put into the rules themselves. The rules as written refer unequivocally to CM as the guide to follow for combat. The operative word here being "guide". Neither Gygax nor Arneson expected, demanded, or themselves followed a by the book procedure when playing. Whether or not playtesters themselves simplified the combat process from the overly complex M2M proceedures, is not particularly relevant to the intent of the rules, when the rules themselves encourage individuality. It seems to me that melee in D&D was "fast and furious". The methods were streamlined. They simply determined who gets the first attack through either weapon reach or initiative. That's it. Since surprise grants a free move, the Wyvern gets a free attack. It's possible the Wyvern receives an additional attack because of it's reach (as if it had initiative in the first round of melee), but this is unclear from the text. The description does say the adventurers will be able to then strike back. This is what would be expected in a normal exchange. The point that I'm making is that what is being described in the description of the Wyvern may actually fall in between what waysoftheearth , aldarron , and delta are expressing. IOW, the Wyvern has initiative after the surprise round due to reach or proximity. ? How do you know the reach of a given monster? What is the reach of a troll? - the SR initiative roll is not an issue at the point this 3lbb encounter is written. The initiative business was discussed in earlier posts, I guess you missed, but if you look at WotE's post above, you'll get the gist of the idea. Sorry aldarron, I don't believe we have come to any forgone conclusion on this matter. Rolling for initiative was a common practice among wargamers well before the publication of the 3LBB's, despite your unfamiliarity with such rules. Consider Featherstones book War Games, 1962. This popular book contains Tony Bath's early iteration of his Ancient Wargaming rules. As you may know, Bath wrote the commonly referenced book Setting Up a Wargames Campaign in 1973. I respect that you have a belief you would prefer to hold on to. It's understandable, but let's be clear that it is a belief. There certainly is no d6 initiative rule even so much as hinted at in the 3lbb's. You are suggesting that it is an "understood" rule because rolling a d6 for initiative occurs in some wargames. First, note that I didn't say I was unfamiliar with the concept historically, or that I knew of no wargames or other games that used a d6 for determining turns. Rolling a d6 "to see who goes first" is no doubt as old as the d6 itself. Please re-read what I wrote and realize I was specifically talking about rolling a d6 for individual combat in medieval games. Of the individual medieval combat games I know from the time, none determine initiative by d6. The fact that people who play games sometimes play games where initiative is determined by a d6 is completely irrelevant to whether a particular game does or does not have d6 initiative. I pointed out several examples of period games of individual medieval combat that do not use d6 initiative. The 3lbb's likewise, do not have d6 initiative. I know it wasn't simply an oversight, a rule accidentally left out, because the Twin Cities gamers didn't use it. I know this for a number of reasons. Here is a few of them: - because combat was considered to be simultaneous - a habit ingrained through Strategos play. - because player stories always recount initiative based on player choice. Megarry, for example, relates how upon entering a room with a monster, Arneson would ask the players what they wanted to do. If they didn't answer quickly, the monster acted first. - because the Beyond This Point be Dragons also uses player agency based initiative, with the modifications given in CM, M2M. (For context, BTPbD was prepared by a player (Mark Bufkin) in Chuck Monson's home campaign. Monson was one of Arneson's players, and used a copy of the GD&D draft given to him by Arneson to run his campaign in 1973.) The melee rules begin as follows: "The attacker announces what weapon he is using, and takes his "Chops" at the opponent. The Player will always get the first chop unless he is surprized or opponent has the higher ground." - the 3lbb's likewise refer us back to CM for combat guidance. - The exact rule in CM, not coincidently like that of BTPbD, is: "First blow is struck by-- a) the attacker 1 unless bl the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher / or c) the defender is fighting from above (castle wall 1 rampart 1 etc. )" (2ed.)" Now you can point out that I've not said anything about Gygax, and that's true, but it doesn't matter. Gygax might or might not have used a d6 for initiative when running his own games - clearly he was by 1975, though the faq entry seems to me like a solution to a problem, not a longstanding practice, and interestingly the d6 "reaction die" of EPT is earlier. Whatever the case, the reason it doesn't matter what Gygax might or might not have been doing at his table is because if d6 initiative were an expected part of the written D&D combat rules it would have been adopted in the Twin Cities games in playtesting and it would have been included in the BTPbD rules. It wasn't, because it wasn't an "understood" and "intended" part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 3, 2018 19:32:23 GMT -6
You are conflating two things here - what was used by the various DM's playtesting D&D, and what was put into the rules themselves. No, I don't believe I'm conflating anything. I'm drawing a logical conclusion. If they were not using the complexities found in the M2M rules when running Chainmail battles, it's highly unlikely they were using them with the ACS when running melee's in D&D. I find no real reference to these complexities mentioned in the 3 LBB's. The only place that the M2M system is directly referred to is for boarding actions. Not to mention, the examples under discussion in this thread do not follow any conventions found in Chainmail. Surprise (which grants initiative) is not found in Chainmail either. It seems you are still using Dalluhn to inform your understanding of the 3 LBB's as written. I was being gracious to your views here, aldarron . But, you are absolutely right, there is no guidance about the reach of a monster or it's equivalent weapon class to be found- not even in Chainmail. Is it found in Dalluhn? No. Maybe we should throw this idea of reach as a determining factor out the window. Is it Chainmail or Strategos that is informing this discussion and your views? You seem to want it both ways. It always boggles my mind that people assume Chainmail's M2M implies the use of the simultaneous move system. The move/ counter move system is also available and it happens to contain an initiative mechanic. Do you allow a monster a counter blow after a killing blow? Where does it say in the 3LBB's that the players always get the first strike? I do find it interesting that you are now claiming player intent was really the determining factor for originally establishing melee in the TC. It harkens back to my argument made in the other thread I linked to here. Maybe you should re-read it. {edit-clarification of my stance:} Keep in mind, you are the one who keeps saying that I'm suggesting a d6 initiative is expected. I don't think any one method is implied. But I do think it has to be determined and I do think all the original players knew the options. This is such a basic mechanical function that I find your argument of ignorance among the original players ludicrous. If you have familiarized yourself with some of the early war games of the period, besides Strategos, you would have found that how initiative is determined is often presented as an option, just as it is in Chainmail. The simultaneous move system came into and out of fashion due to a desire for closer simulation.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 4, 2018 16:20:20 GMT -6
You are conflating two things here - what was used by the various DM's playtesting D&D, and what was put into the rules themselves. No, I don't believe I'm conflating anything. I'm drawing a logical conclusion. If they were not using the complexities found in the M2M rules when running Chainmail battles, it's highly unlikely they were using them with the ACS when running melee's in D&D. I find no real reference to these complexities mentioned in the 3 LBB's. The only place that the M2M system is directly referred to is for boarding actions. Not to mention, the examples under discussion in this thread do not follow any conventions found in Chainmail. Surprise (which grants initiative) is not found in Chainmail either. You are. Let me try to help you see it through using Gygax as an example. Actually there are so many Gygax examples it's hard to pick one, but let's stick with the early stuff and talk Greyhawk, and I'll continue with your theme of drawing on the voices of original players, specifically quotes from Rob Kuntz. "Did you guys use the 1st Supplement in addition to the LBBs? BTW: We never really used the demi-human caps in the game. I believe EGG threw those in like he did so many other "balancing" acts because the game concept was so open so as to be uncontrollable except by the whims of separate DMs." Rob Kuntz from link"(Stormcrow asked) Were the extensive adjustments for ability scores given in the published Greyhawk, or anything like them, used before the original set was published, and just not included in that set? (RJK answered) Yes. We were using some of if not all of those parts about mid-late through the reboot of the (2nd) Castle, which is when EGG and myself started making notes for the supplement, this just after the release of OD&D. This is about the time that Robilar re-rolled his strength (it had been an 18) and I got it to 18/51." linkI posted a link to some of Gary Gygax's house rules as found on the internet, and HERE was RJK's response: "I suggest that what was posted at the referring link by Aldarron are not House Rules; they are rules we all used during the playtest of the game. Pedantic? Nope. By the time these were published and in wide circulation, the rules which were to approximate AD&D (that is, those we continued to formulate and use in play in our Greyhawk Campaign and as expressed in Supplement #1, Greyhawk, Gygax & Kuntz), replaced many of these in our view as played and as published." These quotes, and others like them, carry the common theme that play at the table in Lake Geneva was one thing, and what was written into the rules for everyone else was another. The game at the table was more dynamic and fluid. The rules as written were more fixed and tied to CHAINMAIL. Mixing "game as played at time X and table Y" with "rules as written for public consumption at time Z" is conflation. I was being gracious to your views here, aldarron . But, you are absolutely right, there is no guidance about the reach of a monster or it's equivalent weapon class to be found- not even in Chainmail. Is it found in Dalluhn? No. Maybe we should throw this idea of reach as a determining factor out the window. If you are referring to this statement I made "Typically initiative was based on position and weapons and/or who was attacking.", then you missed two of the three "typicals". It actually might be useful to cite the WoM rules here since they were published by Gygax in '74 months after the 3lbb's. Melees are conducted differently when fought on an individual basis. Blows are given according to initiative. To determine which figure strikes first the following priorities are used. 1 supe3rcedes all other; 5. is used only when all others do not apply. 1. If one figure surprises the other (ambush, flank attack, rear attack, etc.) ist strikes first. 2. The figure with the longer weapon strikes first. 3. The charging figure strikes first if weapons are of equal length or if the defender's is shorter 4. If man vs animal the man strikes firs (he needs it!); if man vs man the figure with the higher level of ability (13th, 12th, 11th, and so on downP strikes first. 5. The figure which did not just move strikes first." Is it Chainmail or Strategos that is informing this discussion and your views? You seem to want it both ways. I'm baffled as to how this is a meaningful answer to any of the points I made, or how it is even a meaningful dichotomy at all. D&D developed in a stew of ideas; a mileaux of many many sources. There is no "wanting it both ways" It always boggles my mind that people assume Chainmail's M2M implies the use of the simultaneous move system. The move/ counter move system is also available and it happens to contain an initiative mechanic. Indeed that would seem mind boggling. Good thing I don't do that. I said TC combat, years prior even to the publication of CM, was simultaneous in Strategos, and Bruanstein. The same habit was carried into Blackmoor play, and thence into early D&D. The fact that CM allows simultaneous combat was complementary, not derivative. Where does it say in the 3LBB's that the players always get the first strike? Nowhere. Is this relevant? What the 3lbb's say is this: "The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man or creature. Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Volume I or by the CHAINMAIL system..." U&WA p25 and what CM says is this: "First blow is struck by-- a) the attacker 1 unless bl the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher / or c) the defender is fighting from above (castle wall 1 rampart 1 etc. )" (2ed.) In the case of the hydra in the surprise example, the second attack makes sense per the CM rule. No claim was being made by me that the 3lbb's had an unspoken player attacks first rule, if anything, the claim I'm making is that 3lbb initiative is a matter of DM fiat regarding the determination of who is the attacker, or arguably at least in some cases, who is fastest, per the dexterity entry. I do find it interesting that you are now claiming player intent was really the determining factor for originally establishing melee in the TC. It harkens back to my argument made in the other thread I linked to here. Maybe you should re-read it. .... Keep in mind, you are the one who keeps saying that I'm suggesting a d6 initiative is expected. I don't think any one method is implied. But I do think it has to be determined and I do think all the original players knew the options. This is such a basic mechanical function that I find your argument of ignorance among the original players ludicrous. If you have familiarized yourself with some of the early war games of the period, besides Strategos, you would have found that how initiative is determined is often presented as an option, just as it is in Chainmail. The simultaneous move system came into and out of fashion due to a desire for closer simulation. This has me really wondering if you actually read what I wrote or if I just wrote so poorly I was misunderstood. Firstly, I would have to thoroughly agree that "my" "argument of ignorance among the original players" regarding the "basic mechanical function" of d6 initiative is indeed quite ludicrous. Trouble is I never made any such argument. I'd like to see where you think I did. I'm also curious why you keep insisting I know nothing of period wargames besides Strategos. This is particularly odd since I pointed out examples. I can only say that your assertion is very far from true. I will confess, however, to not being very familiar with wargames rules in their current iterations as I lost interest in keeping up with the latest and greatest years ago. All of that is however an ad hominem red herring as it fails to address the actual points I made in the previous post. It seems you are still using Dalluhn to inform your understanding of the 3 LBB's as written. This seems like a topic for a different thread so I appended it to the bottom. I use the full Beyond This Point be Dragons mss as assembled by Mark Bufkin - not just the so called Dalluhn version recovered by KD. (BTPbD includes a missing page, maps and an outline). The particular instance cited in my post was informative regarding play style among TC players, but yeah sure, the majority of the BTPbD text is identical to the text of GD&D and useful for comparison with the 3lbb's in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 4, 2018 18:01:39 GMT -6
I'm going to step over all the dribble here and ask you plainly, how would initiative be determined in the Wyvern example if there was no surprise? How does the text instruct us to handle such a case where there is no basis for the Wyverns reach? Who is the attacker if both are intent on attacking?
Do the players automatically get to go first, as you suggest but is not mentioned in the 3LBB's? You mentioned EPT reaction time (d6 initiative) earlier. Maybe Dex is a factor, like Holmes. I'm really not feeling the WoM's connection, though it's a nice early initiative method. It contains the same problem as CM's M2M rules- you have to establish who the attacker is first. Also, there is no mention of level determining who goes first in the 3LBB's and you already ruled out reach as a factor. Is a role of a d6 too rudimentary an explanation for you?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 5, 2018 12:11:57 GMT -6
how would initiative be determined in the Wyvern example if there was no surprise? How does the text instruct us to handle such a case where there is no basis for the Wyverns reach? Who is the attacker if both are intent on attacking? Do the players automatically get to go first, as you suggest but is not mentioned in the 3LBB's? You mentioned EPT reaction time (d6 initiative) earlier. Maybe Dex is a factor, like Holmes. When there is no surprise, the referee will determine the distance between monster and PC's (20' - 80'). Melee has not begun, we are operating under normal movement rules. Who goes first depends upon vision or other senses. The hydra operates with no vision restrictions, unlike the PC's who are probably exploring by lamplight. It is likely the Hydra will become aware of the PC's first. Presumably the Hydra is non-intelligent, and thus will immediately charge the PC's (U7WA 12) as the attacker, and regardless of where they are the hydra should be able to reach them in one move, but that is not always the case with all monsters. The referee will inform the PC's they are being charged by an attacking monster and ask them what they want to do. The PC's likely have one move to react. Any attempt to shoot missiles or cast spells prior to melee will be depend on Dexterity for success. As the attacker, the hydra will strike first, unless the PC's have successfully prevented that through some action: for example, a spell or spears set against the charge (M&T p31). Now, if, as often happens, the PC's and monster become aware of each other simultaneously, then it will be up to the Referee to adjudicate who moves first - who is the attacker - based upon circumstance.* Unless there is a good reason not to, (or they're just a dick) the referee will likely ask the PC's what actions they want to take, and allow them the opportunity to become the attacker. Circumstances may negate that possibility for the players, such as "There can be up to three characters attempting to force open a door, but this will disallow them rapid reaction to anything awaiting them on the other side." (U&WA p9) Lastly, were the Hydra to be considered an intelligent monster, the referee would roll on the Random Actions table (U&WA p12) after determining the sighting distance, giving a chance for the monster to take some action other than charging at the PC's. The rest remains the same. *As we've been discussing, there is no particular guidelines for the 3lbb referee here and this is why early gamers unsure of what to do and perhaps uncomfortable with DM fiat, sometimes developeed other conventions, such as the dexterity based initiative used by the SoCal Warlock bunch and adopted by Dr. Holmes, and the "reaction roll" Barker came up with. Others just assumed a simultaneous strike situation, which is what you see in the Judges Guild Gen Con IX tournament rules, for example: "A. The Alternative Combat System, D&D Book I will be used, as well as the Weapon Damage Table from GREYHAWK. Only the "against man-sized opponents" column. B. Melee starts when opponents come to within 10' of each other. All blows are considered simultaneous, except as detailed under Surprise. C. No "initiative die" system will be used in the tournament." Incidentally, these rules also break surprise down along the lines I suggested: "1. Successful listening (1 for men, 1-2 elf/dwarf) or Clairaudience spell will negate surprise for party. 2. A visible light source with the party will negate surprise for wandering monsters. 3. If party "bounces" on door, surprise is negated for any monster in the room. B. If party is surprised, there is a 25% chance that each member will drop whatever he is carrying in his hands, excluding shields, as they are strapped to the arm. A dropped torch has a 1/3 chance of being extinguished. It takes 1mr to recover a dropped item. C. Surprise distances are 10' to 30'. 1. 10': which ever is unsurprised gets a free blow, and first blow position on the second melee round. 2. 20 feet to 30': which ever is unsurprised can close, and gets first blow position on the first melee round." I'm really not feeling the WoM's connection, though it's a nice early initiative method. It contains the same problem as CM's M2M rules- you have to establish who the attacker is first. Also, there is no mention of level determining who goes first in the 3LBB's and you already ruled out reach as a factor. Is a role of a d6 too rudimentary an explanation for you? I picked WoM, instead of C. Sweet, or Featherstone or DB7 because of its intimate proximity in time, authorship and basic rules to 3lbb D&D and the point was simply to illustrate what I said about individual melee combat rules of the time generally lacking the d6 initiative die, with initiative instead determined by various factors. It shows the d6 initiative die wasn't a rule that should be taken for granted for the 3lbbs. I did not mean to imply that WoM contains unprinted D&D rules. However one might postulate that the WoM rules reflect some solutions by Gygax and Blume to questions arising from their experiences of ongoing D&D play, as D&D was certainly an active influence on the development of WoM. The lack of a d6 initiative die in WoM in favor of a more complex system doesn't prove anything regarding the use of a d6 initiative die in D&D. However if d6 initiative were the expected method for the 3lbb's, it is highly curious that WoM doesn't follow suit.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 5, 2018 13:06:12 GMT -6
I have to admit I am still a bit unsure on how surprise should work, so here (briefly) is my reading of the text in Book III: Players will see monsters at a distance of 20-80 (2d4 x 10) feet (in the underworld), unless they are surprised. If there is a chance of surprise, the players roll 1d6 and 1d6 is rolled by the GM for the monsters. A roll of 1-2 will indicate surprise. If there is a condition of surprise, then the distance between the party and the monsters will be 10-30 feet (1d3 x 10) feet (in the underworld). So I think that this is the roll of another die, rather than determined from the surprise die roll (IMO) . . If the distance is determined to be 10 feet (1-2 on the roll to determine distance), then the party/monster can make a melee attack in the surprise segment/round. If the distance is determined to be 20 or 30 feet, then the party/monster can fire a missile weapon, cast a spell, or spend the surprise segment/round to move into melee distance, with an attack being possible on the following round.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 5, 2018 16:11:09 GMT -6
One possibility for the Wyvern's extra attack is that the outcome of the surprise die roll is also being used as the outcome for the initiative die roll. The surprise roll *is* the initiative roll. If the party is surprised, they must have rolled a 1 or 2 in 6. If the Wyvern is not surprised it must have rolled a 3-6 on the surprise roll. Therefore, the Wyvern has a higher d6 roll so it gets to attack first. But since the party is also surprised the Wyvern gets a bonus action. If, for example, the party had rolled a 3 and the Wyvern a 4-6, it would have gone first, but without the benefit of surprise. So, when an encounter occurs, each side rolls a d6. Highest number goes first (as in Chainmail, pg 9). But if a 1 or 2 is rolled, that side is also surprised and the other side gets an extra action before they go first. The outcome (automatic initiative following surprise) is the same as what Delta wrote here (and was linked by graelth in the first post in this thread), I'm just postulating a possible reason for this: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/09/surprise.htmlYou can picture the development of this. Start with a d6 roll to see who attacks first, and then decide to integrate a mechanism for surprise into it. "Oh, you rolled a 1 or 2 on your d6 roll, that's such a low roll that you must be surprised, so your opponent gets a free action before their normal attack".
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 5, 2018 17:14:57 GMT -6
Interesting . . . surprise and initiative combined to start off an encounter. . . However, IMO, I think the text does not support a combined surprise/initiative roll because surprise is indicated only on a roll 1-2 while the distance based on surprise is indicated as 10-30 feet. To get a result of 20 feet of distance, you have to roll a 3-4; to get 30 feet of distance, you have to roll a 5 or 6. My interpretation is also supported by the Wyvern example. The text refers to a "surprise distance determination" which seems to indicate a separate roll than just a roll to determine surprise. A roll of "2" in the example indicates that the Wyvern was within 10 feet, which means it could attack during the surprise segment/round. This seems to indicate the following on a die roll: 1-2 = 10 ft., 3-4 = 20 ft., 5-6 = 30 ft. Unfortunately, it is not very directly spelled out in the text. . . EDIT: In short, I tend to agree with the OP . . .
|
|
|
Post by delta on Mar 5, 2018 17:21:13 GMT -6
The outcome (automatic initiative following surprise) is the same as what Delta wrote here (and was linked by graelth in the first post in this thread), I'm just postulating a possible reason for this: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/09/surprise.htmlThanks for reminding me of that. :-) Just to be clear, I've evolved my current interpretation away from that, based on the TSR #2 quote I put above.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 5, 2018 17:23:52 GMT -6
One possibility for the Wyvern's extra attack is that the outcome of the surprise die roll is also being used as the outcome for the initiative die roll. The surprise roll *is* the initiative roll. Yikes, it sounds like a d6 initiative roll and just makes too much sense, Zenopus.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 5, 2018 17:35:20 GMT -6
When there is no surprise, the referee will determine the distance between monster and PC's (20' - 80'). Melee has not begun, we are operating under normal movement rules. Good gravy! Is movement and intent a factor for establishing melee? It's only taken two separate threads of discussion and two years of time to pass. I think you may be coming around. There's hope yet. *I'm full of exclamatives tonight, by gosh
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 5, 2018 18:04:56 GMT -6
Interesting . . . surprise and initiative combined to start off an encounter. . . However, IMO, I think the text does not support a combined surprise/initiative roll because surprise is indicated only on a roll 1-2 while the distance based on surprise is indicated as 10-30 feet. To get a result of 20 feet of distance, you have to roll a 3-4; to get 30 feet of distance, you have to roll a 5 or 6. My interpretation is also supported by the Wyvern example. The text refers to a "surprise distance determination" which seems to indicate a separate roll than just a roll to determine surprise. A roll of "2" in the example indicates that the Wyvern was within 10 feet, which means it could attack during the surprise segment/round. This seems to indicate the following on a die roll: 1-2 = 10 ft., 3-4 = 20 ft., 5-6 = 30 ft. Unfortunately, it is not very directly spelled out in the text. . . My hypothesis above was just that the surprise/initiative rolls were combined, not the distance roll. I agree on separate rolls for surprise/initiative and for distance. Distance is 20-80 (2d4 x 10) with no surprise, 10-30 (1d3 x 10) when surprise exists.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 5, 2018 19:35:16 GMT -6
Thanks for the comment. Understood . . . It is interesting how the "encounter distance" rule evolved . . . OD&D Book III: No surprise = 2d4 x 10 ft; surprise = 1d3 x 10 ft AD&D DMG: No surprise = 1d6+4 x 10 ft; surprise = 1d3 x 10 ft Basic: No surprise = 2d6 x 10 ft; surprise = not stated Expert: No surprise = not stated; surprise = 1d4 x 10 yds. (outdoors) Rules Cyclopedia: No surprise = see Encounter Distance Table; surprise = 1d4 x 10 (ft. or yds.) EDIT: added reference to OD&D for completeness. . .
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 6, 2018 3:24:04 GMT -6
OD&D Book III: No surprise = 2d4 x 10 ft; surprise = 1d3 x 10 ft OD&D Book III Underworld (p9): 10-30ft (with surprise), 20-80ft (without) Wilderness (p17): 10-30yd (with surprise), 40-240yd (without) Distance possibly reflects visibility, so perhaps wilderness distance should be less at night than during the day? Either way, I like it that surprise and non-surprise distances don't overlap in the wilderness rule.
|
|