|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2009 13:55:36 GMT -6
The devil with archaeological research, textual or not, is that very rarely is anything provable, so we argue over best fit of known facts to proposed models. A lesson learned in the past few decades in Anthropology/archaeology has been essentially that often, competing perspectives are not so mutually exclusive and may be perfectly valid but incomplete understandings of a more complex whole. Arneson and Gygax were nothing if not complex. I’m quite convinced there is no single, or even just two, combat methods used by either one prior to the creation of the “alternate” combat system as published in 1974. Arneson in particular seems to have experimented with both the combat and magic systems for “his” game continuously throughout his life, as evidenced by the Lionheart article and the 3e Blackmoor books. But… I think we can, and have to some extent, exposed a path of evolution and pointed out what lines Arneson was experimenting with, but to be more specific and work out the actual details brings up the need for a close look at dates, sources and timing. To begin with, it is an inescapable fact that, other than notes that may be in the possession of the Arneson family and one brief description of Blackmoor in the Castle and Crusades society newsletter, we have no textual material for winter 1971 through spring 1974. This leaves us with three lines of inquiry:
1) A systematic study of the notes which the Arneson family posseses, including – if it ever existed outside Arnesons imagination – Civil War Ironclads and the Blackmoor notebooks.
2) Oral histories from those who were there.
3) Snippets of non standard text that reflects earlier forms of the rules found in OD&D, Supplement II, FFC, and AIF, correlated with details in Chainmail where they become evident.
Line one isn’t open to us at this point. I’ve been working largely in line 2. Nic is building a convincing argument based almost solely on step 3. Lets take a closer look at the merits and pitfalls of 2 and 3.
Text analysis: As a matter of timing, In order to have the % references in OD&D make sense, Arneson must have developed a % system for combat by the time of the creation of the famous 18 page document submitted to Gygax for the OD&D rules – fall of 1973 approximately, but, working off only the OD&D material, we can’t, with any degree of confidence, assume that Arneson worked out or was using a % resolution system any earlier (i.e. 1972). Similarly, the FFC contains information dating back to January of 1971, but, aside from a few things like price lists and event histories, the information is conflated across the years 71-76 and presented in a format adapted to the OD&D rules. This means that we cannot know that any of the statistics or procedures in the FFC date to pre 1974. For example, the roll under Dexterity save, I’ve mentioned previously, might date to later, as might the 1-8 AC system found in the Blackmoor Dungeon. We can ask ourselves which parts are the oldest, and which are the most divergent from OD&D and that can be very suggestive, but it could also reflect the sections which have undergone the most revision. The best we can do with the printed material is build up a case of similarities and propose underlying mechanics that fit. In my opinion, Nic is really doing a spectacular job of getting at these mechanics.
Oral Histories When we turn to the oral histories though we find a more complex picture. The difficulty of Oral Histories is that they rely on memory, and in our case, many of our most important statements regarding the resolution systems of pre 74 Blackmoor came from 30 years later, and admittedly foggy memories so there is certainly room for error. We could, for example, discount the Lionheart article as second hand information and dismiss it entirely. Likewise, we could assume that Arnesons interview comments may have been colored by later events (like the lawsuit) and may not be perfectly accurate. But even if we did that the information we have from the players is not so easily dismissed, both because of an underlying consistency from all Oral History sources from early interviews to recent posts, and because of the outstanding character of the persons relating the history. Mr. Svenson is a particularly important and honorable source, as Arnesons’ deputy referee and the second known dungeon master in Blackmoor history. So when Greg tells us d6 were the only dice he was familiar with prior to the introduction of the OD&D rules to Blackmoor, knowing he ran games and combat scenarios prior to 1974, its unlikely he’s confused or misremembering. Not remembering exactly how combat or ability checks were done is not surprising, forgetting that you were using a type of die (d20) that was highly unusual at the time is simply improbable. The conclusion therefore is that d6’s were the common dice used in 1971, 72 and probably most of 1973, as fits the many facts we’ve already discussed. Several things are less clear however;
1) The roll under mechanic for saves and combat. Roll under shows up in everything Arnesonian from the FFC to the Lionheart article so it’s not a stretch to place it earlier for both saves and combat. It is possible however, indeed likely, that Arneson also experimented with the use of tables for combat in pre OD&D. Could the 2d6 to generate 1d10 have been used to reference a combat matrix table instead of as a roll under? Quite possibly. Such a chart could take several forms we might explore.
2) What Arneson was doing “behind the screen”. Given how secretive he was with game mechanics, its entirely possible that the was experimenting with his % dice for combat and other resolution issues from very early on, as he himself said in interview, but if this were the common or default method, we have to wonder why it does not seem to have been the Greyhawk system or why Greg Svenson wasn’t using it when he DM’d. Given the Oral History material therefore, I think the preponderance of the evidence still favors d6 as the die used for resolution purposes for both ability checks and combat for 1971, 72 and 73. Roll under ability seems well supported by a long chain of evidence and it follows that roll under AC is a fairly likely compliment, but could have in fact been roll against a matrix of some sort, or both at various times. As Nic pointed out, Blackmoor combat used variable systems (whether hit location was applied, for example) depending on the nature of the combatants so its not inconceivable that a roll under and a matrix system were in use at the same game.
The further sequence of events I would argue, is that the % system Nic is unveiling is likely to date from 1973, put together from ideas Arneson had been toying since the beginning, but systemetized as a response to Gygax’s request to write up the rules. It may be a reason Gygax balked at Arnesons manuscript is that the sudden introduction of a % based system was quite different from how they had been playing, perhaps. It may be very useful at this point to search the web for discussion of the origins of the OD&D “alternate” system for additional clues to the problem or any contradictory evidence.
Regarding Nic/Snorri’s Tables. Why is AC1 no armor? That would be backwards from what we see in the Blackmoor dungeon ACs, and of course from the way it is in OD&D. I’m assuming the mechanic is a roll over resolution, but it works at least as well as a roll under if AC1 is the best, not the worst Armor. The “Assasins Table” would seem to be the best supported by the evidence. Is there any evidence, other than it seems smoother, for the more granular version? In any case this is some really good stuff!
Edit - some dates changed from 1972 to 1971, as pointed out by David.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 25, 2009 14:44:06 GMT -6
Regarding Nis/Snorri’s Tables. Why is AC1 no armor? That would be backwards from what we see in the Blackmoor dungeon ACs, and of course from the way it is in OD&D. I’m assuming the mechanic is a roll over resolution, but it works at least as well as a roll under if AC1 is the best, not the worst Armor. The “Assasins Table” would seem to be the best supported by the evidence. Is there any evidence, other than it seems smoother, for the more granular version? In any case this is some really good stuff! Eeeeh.... because I got less brain than a feebleminded goblin and I just put th number in the wrong order That should be a better version. I'll discuss the whole point later, but I agree fully.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2009 18:28:31 GMT -6
Eeeeh.... because I got less brain than a feebleminded goblin and I just put th number in the wrong order ROTFL! Actually, I was just wondering, given that levels 1-6 were the earliest levels in Blackmoor Dungeon and that Arneson started off using the Chainmail system, is there any chance the stats are actually for use with Chainmail? I don't have Chainmail so I can't check to see if those men and mosters match the Chainmail stats.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 25, 2009 18:45:40 GMT -6
Apparently, this fit rather well OD&D (and the text mention this is the "New Convention Set"), so the scale of AC and the low AC for wizards are the most intersting things here. But the lower levels (7th and up) use "magical points" which seems to be nothing else than the point values of creatures in the Chainmail battle order - as a Wargamer, Dave organized his dungeon by army value! The 2d6 upper were probably used for saves as per Chainmail, but Im still wondering how it dealed with level and class - unclear at this point. I think 2d6 under is very unprobable : we can find roll under only with % as far as I can see (as in OD&D). Sure, there are several layers in FFC, as it is allmost unedited manuscripts from the 1971-1977 period, with a lot of tinkering: Chainmail, Dave's early tinkerings, Dave's final "18 pages" manuscrit, OD&D + supplements, Dave's tinkering on the published material, probably early thoughts on AIF... at least. I found some other intersting things - for later
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 25, 2009 19:06:38 GMT -6
Arneson must have developed a % system for combat by the time of the creation of the famous 18 page document submitted to Gygax for the OD&D rules – fall of 1973 approximately What were Gary, Rob & co. playing in 1972/73 and how would you fit the "50" & "150" page D&D mss. that were circulated for playtesting locally and more widely in between that "fall of 1973" date and actual printing for D&D (some time after 1st November 1973) prior to its release date (stated as 1st Feb 1974, etc., but might've been a bit later...)? There was no claim of a "last minute change" in rules - that I recall, anyhow - and Gary was fairly clear in his assertion that the final work did not have (late) input from Dave.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2009 20:16:57 GMT -6
Apparently, this fit rather well OD&D (and the text mention this is the "New Convention Set"), so the scale of AC and the low AC for wizards are the most intersting things here. But the lower levels (7th and up) use "magical points" which seems to be nothing else than the point values of creatures in the Chainmail battle order - as a Wargamer, Dave organized his dungeon by army value! So thats what those numbers are! I've been puzzling over that since yesterday. I even went throught the 3.5 Blackmoor dungeon to see if they fit anything there. Curiously, most of the monsters in the latests BM are the same except the numbers are much less - 18 goblins in a room instead of the original 40 for example. The 2d6 upper were probably used for saves as per Chainmail, but Im still wondering how it dealed with level and class - unclear at this point. I think 2d6 under is very unprobable : we can find roll under only with % as far as I can see (as in OD&D). I'm sure you are right regarding the evidence for a roll under Armor Class combat mechanic. I have followed occams razor as it seemed to me the most logical explanation but can find no direct evidence that such a mechanic was used and it may very well be some kind of table or matrix was used for combat from the start. One line of evidence I've been pointing to is the Lionheart article, but since he is talking about rolling under a Thac0 target number it makes just as much sense to apply his statement to the sort of matrix table Nico is talking about. Curiously though, why improbable? Not wargamey enough? For saving throws we are on much firmer ground. Svenson, in the Sham interview does state that saves were typically made against the 1-10 ability score and that must have been roll under. There's also the date uncertain statement by Arneson in FFC about the saving throw less than dexterity.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2009 21:28:54 GMT -6
Arneson must have developed a % system for combat by the time of the creation of the famous 18 page document submitted to Gygax for the OD&D rules – fall of 1973 approximately What were Gary, Rob & co. playing in 1972/73 and how would you fit the "50" & "150" page D&D mss. that were circulated for playtesting locally and more widely in between that "fall of 1973" date and actual printing for D&D (some time after 1st November 1973) prior to its release date (stated as 1st Feb 1974, etc., but might've been a bit later...)? There was no claim of a "last minute change" in rules - that I recall, anyhow - and Gary was fairly clear in his assertion that the final work did not have (late) input from Dave. Clearly they were playing the OD&D rules, developed largely in Greyhawk, presumably with the platonic dice sets. I apologize if my post seemed to confuse that. Obviously though, since the first printing was in November of 1973, fall of 1973 was too late an estimate by a season or two on my part. Doesn't matter, the point is that the earliest Blackmoor games, as related by Greg Svenson, relied heavily on d6's for resolution, apparently exclusively so when Svenson DM'd. Its unclear whether Arneson used his percentile dice when he introduced the game to Gygax - maybe he did - but the fact that Greyhawk did not use a percentile system for any kind of resolution and that both Blackmoor and Greyhawk used d6's for ability scores, and given the evidence Snorri uncovered in the OD&D text that somebody - Arneson being the more obvious candidate - began treating ability scores as percentages, is more consistent with the notion that Arneson used d6 as the resolution die of choice if not exclusion when he introduced the game to Gygax. The question were debating isn't what Gygax was doing its what Arneson was doing. Its clear that Arneson and Gygax each had their own ways of playing the game, even to some extent after the rules were published - hence the development of AIF. Was there a roll under AC system or was it always a matrix; How quickly were the % mechanics developed, how much did they cover and what was the combat system? Your dead right to watchdog my loose use of dates. I've been basically just working in the time frame of Blackmoor dungeon being created over the Christmas holiday of 1970 to the OD&D publication date of 1974. If you happen to know when Arneson submitted his manuscript to Gygax....
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 29, 2009 7:41:32 GMT -6
Here’s another thought exercise working off Nico’s idea that the assassins’ table represents an adaptation of a % combat table Arneson may have used. The disjointed nature of the table suggests it might be an expansion of a smaller table, rather than worked from scratch; consistent with the fact that there were only 3 levels in Blackmoor originally. I noticed the assassins’ table makes three % jumps from 5% increments to 10% to 15%. Further, these 3 jumps occur intervals of 2, and 3 columns and at three more columns (level 8) occurs the first column to start at 1% - seemingly the first full column. On the face of it, there is no obvious logical reason for the way these columns jump in percentiles, but the fact that it occurs in 3’s and that Blackmoor had three levels leads me to wonder if those jumps represent stages between, flunky, hero, and superhero. If so, flunky would have two stages, heros three stages, and superheros three or possibly four stages. Assuuming its three stages, that would be 8 levels. Nico has pointed out that the Blackmoor dungeon has 1-8 Armor classes listed. This is consistent with the 1-8 classifications of Armor mentioned in Chainmail and is nicely symmetrical with 1-8 stages, making an 8*8 chart – for whatever that’s worth. On the other hand, Dave said his Armor Class came from a naval rules he created with currently unknown AC system. Given that he used 1-10 for ability scores, we shouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility 1-10 AC system too. Nevertheless that remains a complete speculation so we will work with the 1-8 numbers for which we have some evidence at least. The assumption then is that the level of the assassin replaced the earlier AC column. The worst assassin (level 1) being the worst Armor Class (8, we’ll assume). If so, reverting it would give us the following roll over percentile chart. Roll Over Since Arneson generally used roll under systems, we can easily reverse the %, giving us the following chart: Roll Under Thoughts? Note that these are basically the same tables Snorri posted, except the AC and player level columns are switched. Also I took the liberty of adding 99’s or 1’s to match the 1 in level 8 of the assassins’ table. I also note that these tables would make it considerably more difficult – without modifiers of various sorts – for a 1st level character to win against well armored opponents, than is the case for the standard OD&D character. For example, a 1st – 3rd level OD&D fighter has a 50% chance to hit an unarmored opponent, the hypothetical 1-3 Blackmoor fighter would have only a 25, 30, 35% chance to hit the same. By the way, it occurs to me that it is not difficult to generate percentiles in 5% increments (consistent with the chart) by using 3 d6. One method I can think of is 2d6 -2, for the tens and then 1-3 for +5, 4-6 for -5. So percentile dice are not necessarily needed for this chart. With that in mind, I'm reconsidering the significance of this quote by Mr. Svenson: "We used 2d6, but we were doing individual combat on the first adventure and we changed very rapidly to something far more like the alternative combat system within the first month of play (this would be in January of 1971). So, it was something in between. If we needed specific probabilities we used 3d6 (a couple of us were math majors and could figure out the dice rolls needed to get any specific probability). I did not see a d20 before the brown box came out. I actually never played Braunstein." I had suggested before that the only obvious reason to have 1-10 ability scores on a 2d6 was as part of a general percentile system. Realizing that it was relatively easy for them to use d6 to do this, and that HP were 1-100 from the start, lends weight to the idea that Arnesons early adapted "naval game" rules were percentile based from the start, and not roll under AC, as I had earlier argued. So it then becomes a question why Greyhawk was not percentile based, and the answer to that may lie in the habits developed from Chainmail, and the attraction of using platonic dice.
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 29, 2009 17:28:48 GMT -6
I guess also the 2d6 under (or equal) AC makes a better sense... <clip> aside: Although I don't have the original LGTSA rules from a couple of issues before (and, as mentioned, I don't recall Dave Arneson ever saying those were the basis of his combat system), I was having a browse back through DB#7 (September 1970) which Dave would have had available just prior to Blackmoor, even if not used therein. For reference, the combat system detailed in the "Whose Rules are These?" article which Gary "found" and republished under his own name(!) are 2d6 roll under against 8 classes of armor (albeit not linear) for various weapons. Rather a complex matrix and would benefit from simplification, perhaps...
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 29, 2009 18:34:53 GMT -6
I guess also the 2d6 under (or equal) AC makes a better sense... <clip> aside: Although I don't have the original LGTSA rules from a couple of issues before (and, as mentioned, I don't recall Dave Arneson ever saying those were the basis of his combat system), I was having a browse back through DB#7 (September 1970) which Dave would have had available just prior to Blackmoor, even if not used therein. For reference, the combat system detailed in the "Whose Rules are These?" article which Gary "found" and republished under his own name(!) are 2d6 roll under against 8 classes of armor (albeit not linear) for various weapons. Rather a complex matrix and would benefit from simplification, perhaps... Any chance you could post a pdf. somewhere David? Those newsletters sound like real goldmines. I think the claim was made that first Blackmoor reference in print is Arneson, Dave (July 1972). "Facts about Black Moor". Domesday Book (Castle & Crusade Society) (13): 6-7. I took this reference from wikipedia but prresumably its an accurate reference.
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 29, 2009 19:12:39 GMT -6
[OT/ref. only] Those newsletters sound like real goldmines. I think the claim was made that first Blackmoor reference in print is Arneson, Dave (July 1972). "Facts about Black Moor". Domesday Book (Castle & Crusade Society) (13): 6-7. I took this reference from wikipedia but prresumably its an accurate reference wiki'? You gotta be kidding? *jk*Yes, I know it's not so bad in places for anything totally mainstream - Barker's article was a mess, for example - and thankfully I got to Dave Arneson's article whilst he was still alive and removed most of the factual errors just about in time... there were still a couple I hadn't quite gotten around to fixing 100% in time for the world's media to casually "research" their news stories direct from wiki', though. That full ref. for Blackmoor's first appearance on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_and_Crusade_Society , etc., is accurate however, afaik. Blame me if it's not, but DB#13 was stated many years ago, run past DA, EGG, etc., for confirmation and I've scoured elsewhere in the "likely" newsletters to back up that assertion... Still looks solid. Negative, sorry, on that request unless I can figure out how to wangle "fair use" somehow. Just sold all my copies of DB (as in "literally a few hours ago") which would be my neck on the block even more should a full .pdf appear - as opposed to anything resembling "thoughts on scribbled notes" - in addition to being against wholesale piracy, personally (a minority position, it might seem!). Regards, David.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 30, 2009 18:36:39 GMT -6
Still struggling with the same problems... So I will throw a lot of thought, not because I arived to any conclusion, but because sharing the question may have another have the answer Aldarron? 1) A piece to the puzzle, with an interview of Gary: www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/lynch01may01.htmlIntersting points on the birth of Chainmail, what were the elements which allready appeared in the first edition (the one Dave did used). What Gary says confirms Dave's about hit dices: 2) If we follow step by step Dave about what he said and the problems he had to solve… what happens? First, he explained the first issue was about the hit points. In Chainmail, the result of an attack dice is death or nothing, and Dave explained the players disliked that fact. Te solution he found is, as Gary explains in the interview, was already the D&D one (converting the attack dice into “hit dice”) – but this contradicts the allegation from Dave about the lack of actual hit dice in Blackmoor… There’s a problem to solve there (maybe the system had hit dices, but with the development of the localization charts and size charts, the system evolved to a more complex method). Note that, if the conversion is rather easy from Flunkies / Heroes / Superheroes, this is not always self-evident for all fantasy creatures. According to interviews, the fantasy table was increasing quickly with new monsters and its maths aren’t very clear – so he probably had to switch to a a more standard system. Then, he added the armor class system. When I think about it, I’m a little puzzled. The Man-to-Man table seems to be the source of the 8-AC system, Dave seemed to have developed the game for the ‘battle rules’, and we know the problem with the Man-to-Man it doesn’t intend to be used with fantasy fighting. Here, in percent, the basics maths of Chainmail ‘combat tables’ Why did Dave switched from the 3-AC system to the 8-AC system? It’s rather unclear, but the 8-AC system is maybe more clear to deal with at individual scale, as it clearly says what armor give what protection and what’s the role of the shield. And the ‘Man-to-Man’ system makes easier, because you don’t have the problem of “4 men for one dice’: it seems during the fisrt sessions, the characters were PC flunkies among NPC flunkies, but even with the use of henchmen it evolved to a more individual scale. What’s not sure is that, if he did used the full table of weapon vs AC (a very gygaxian one) or not. He probably did used the initiative system with length of weapon, as he pay attention to this in supp. 2. A very simplified version of the Chainmail table, adding heroes and superheroes could look like this: (A=Automatic hit – I suspect it could be possible as in many wargames, but this could be discussed) (to be continued for sure…)
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 1, 2009 17:19:55 GMT -6
Still struggling with the same problems... So I will throw a lot of thought, not because I arived to any conclusion, but because sharing the question may have another have the answer Aldarron? 1) A piece to the puzzle, with an interview of Gary: www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/lynch01may01.htmlIntersting points on the birth of Chainmail, what were the elements which allready appeared in the first edition (the one Dave did used). What Gary says confirms Dave's about hit dices: 2) If we follow step by step Dave about what he said and the problems he had to solve… what happens? First, he explained the first issue was about the hit points. In Chainmail, the result of an attack dice is death or nothing, and Dave explained the players disliked that fact. Te solution he found is, as Gary explains in the interview, was already the D&D one (converting the attack dice into “hit dice”) – but this contradicts the allegation from Dave about the lack of actual hit dice in Blackmoor… There’s a problem to solve there (maybe the system had hit dices, but with the development of the localization charts and size charts, the system evolved to a more complex method). Note that, if the conversion is rather easy from Flunkies / Heroes / Superheroes, this is not always self-evident for all fantasy creatures. Heh, I had just read that interview too, and was most particularly struck by the origin of the Dungeon boardgame lying in Blackmoor. One thing I've been considering is that typically, in wargames, there is no "to hit" roll. Hits are automatic and a percentage of the defender strength (in soldiers usually) is removed from the game, depending on whatever factors exist to affect it. However, the idea of the removal of an automatic amount of hit points per attack does not seem to jive with anything we know of from Blackmoor or D&D. So I don't particularly favor that idea. Its the special nature of Ironclad ships that requires different wargame rules. The point of Ironclads weren,'t just that they were low to the water and hard to hit, it was also that the armor plating was famously hard to penetrate. Arnesons' Civil War Ironclads game may have had ships with hit points ranging from 1-100, and a combat table of chance to penetrate armor class by weapon type (6pdrs, 12pdrs, musket etc.), resulting in variable damage by weapon This is entirely consistent for both a ACW Ironclads game, and for Blackmoor. In such a game, the hit points for a given type of ship/individual are fixed, but stronger attacks have a more damaging effect against weaker armors and vice versa, once a hit is successfull. This would require two steps (presumably two tables) a chance to hit/penetrate step and a damage step - as with D&D. Arneson might easily have translated Weapon type vs Armor Classs into attacker level vs Armor Class, (the assasins table?). So as the character/monster levels up and becomes a stronger weapon on the table, they gain more attack/damage dice. A key difference in the Blackmoor system may lie then in damage/attack dice. Hit Dice in OD&D is short hand for dice used to determine hit points. Maybe this is short for hit point dice but its a little strange really as Hit Dice sounds likes an offensive, not defensive term. The FFC uses the term Hit dice repeatedly but then Dave tells us that "our combat system did not really use Hit dice.", hinting that there might be some confusion over the term. In the forward to FFC he tells us "...the number of hits a body could take ran from 0-100. As the player progressed he did not recieve addtional hit points, but rather he became harder to hit." Presumably then, there were no Hit Dice in the D&D sense, except perhaps that when a character was first created dice may have been used to determine the characters permanent number of Hit points. Monsters seem to have simply had a fixed number of points that varried only if old or weak or whatever, perhaps based on the point costs in Chainmail, since those point values were important statistics in the Blackmoor Dungeon notes. In any case, what I'm suggesting may be happening is that Arneson in FFC and Gygax in the quote Snorri posted are using the familiar D&D term Hit Dice as a familiar convention for what had actually originally been attack/damage dice in Arnesons original system. This also makes perfect sense for Arnesons experience points system. Going by that we get a character/monster advancing in levels, gaining a 50% per level attack increase using the d6. Thus: lvl 1 1d6 lvl 2 1d6 + 1-3 Lvl3 2d6 lvl 4 3d6 lvl 5 4d6 + 1-3 (hero?) lvl 6 6d6 lvl 7 9d6 lvls 8+ 10d6 (superhero) While all this sounds like wild speculation around a handfull of statements, the idea that hit dice might have been damage dice in the Arnesonian system is really drawn from Richard Sniders Additions. In the experience section in FFC, Arneson makes the cryptic statement "See Dragons section by Richard Snider to see how it worked for more complex creatures." (p78 1977 edition) There's nothing in the dragons section on how they gain experience, only how they increase in damage and HD as they increase in level. In that section, Hit Dice are absolutly conflated with damage dice, and the number of dice used for damage increases with the Dragons level. Hit Dice are the dice one rolls to determine damage done, not how many hit points a creature has. In fact the Dragons have a fixed number of hit points depending on thier level. We are even given these defintions: Explanations: Max. H. Damage = Maximum amount of damage Dragon can take. HD = Number of Hit dice rolled for victim of breath attack for type/level of Dragon (p83 1977, p57 1980) Daves' "See Dragons section " indicates Snider is working within the well established system used in Blackmoor, fleshing out the details for different kinds of Dragons and their breath weapons, not charting a course divergent from Arnesons. HD in Blackmoor meant Damage Dice, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 2, 2009 18:27:16 GMT -6
I agree on your views on the Snider Dragon's table, even if this is a piece difficult to date - I got the impression Dave took a piece of draft from Richard Snider, but put some additions of his own - with the D&D frame allready in mind. But I got the same impression they had fixed Hit points values ("damage" stat) and variable damage.
More I read the FFC and more I think Dave went very lately from the 3/5 level system (3 for fighters, 5 for wizards) to the D&D one. He always use heroes and superheroes terms in the older parts. The use of Points values from Chainmail is also a common feature.
It's intersting to read the price list in "Blackmoor, the campaign", p. 5 : most prices are simply 10gp per point of value. Also, all weapons listed are those from Chainmail, including arquebuse (a light foot is 10gp / 1 point , a longbow 40 gp / 4 points, bombard 300 gp / 30 points), and more interesting, the melee weapons are those from the 'man to man' table. It could be an evidence he did used that table - but how he fitted it to the Hero / superhero frame is still a mistery. I tried to find a math in the prices of weapons, but was unable to find it.
I checked in Dungeon! To hit, you must rol 2d6 under 8.....
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Dec 2, 2009 19:25:04 GMT -6
Wanted to drop a thank you note in here for you guys - this is very interesting stuff!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 2, 2009 21:27:38 GMT -6
. I checked in Dungeon! To hit, you must rol 2d6 under 8..... Interesting indeed! The plot thickens...
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 4, 2009 16:03:37 GMT -6
I compared the combat sequence in AIF ( ) and in Chainmail. Prety interesting about how Dave handed combat: 1/ The biggest change is the inversion of Artillery and Magic. Magic is artillery in Chainmail, so the change reduces a bit the potence of a wizard [you have time ti hurl him your axe before he lightningbolt you. 2/ No clear initiative system in AIF, unless I misread it. I guess the 1d6 per side was too common to worth being explained. 3/ The most intesrting point: alltough the book I don't provides rules to play an Elf, dave still need to refers to the 'split move and fire' rules for Elves, which comes directly from Chainmail. More I think about it, and more I think the "% layer" was short lived: Dave used an "expanded Chainmail" system, mostly with d6 - maybe using d100 for his own purposes as a referee / judge. And he never had to write a full set of rules, just notes about it. Then, probably when he discussed with Gary about the idea of publishing a fantasy wargame - which was released under the D&D name, Dave had to put all his ideas on a paper. At that time, he probably knew Gary was about toput a d20 (double-ten) in the box and it provided opportunity to expand its use - so he could have make use of it in the manuscript. Then Gary copied some paths of it, but changed others to fit better his own ideas (about saves and combat, obviously) - leading to the situation where 'missing links' of older versions of the rules are embeded into the final release. Just toughts, but I hope it's a tiny step toward a better understanding.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 4, 2009 18:45:51 GMT -6
Nice comparison Nico. Its been my hunch for some time that Arneson didn't bother with determining initiative, letting the Role Play take care of that instead of the roll play. We share the same perception regarding the evolution of his combat system, although I think I tend to think of it more as a borrowing of some Chainmail features rather than an expansion per se. I suspect that the Chainmail point values for monsters may have been used directly as Hit points by Arneson and I wonder about the Armor type tables in Chainmail. Although our evidence for 1-8 AC in Blackmoor seems razor thin at the moment, if that is drawn from the Chainmail table it should be the reverse of what we are used to. The Chainmail table goes from worst to best, and if you assign numbers straight across that table you will get AC8 as plate mail and shield. Such a reversed AC table would make no sense for a 2d6 roll under system though, and I see no obvious reason why it would have been changed by Gygax to our familiar AC2 = plate mail, either. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 5, 2009 16:15:15 GMT -6
About initiative, their is another point: If Dave did used the attack rank system for weapons from Chainmail man-to-man, there's no use for it. The attacker is the one who entered into melee range during the move phase (and, probably, the quickest one - so it links to the armor), and then, check the differences of weapons size. As the first price list in FFC fits exactly the Chainmail MtoM fight, I guess he could have used it.
Edit: I searched for a mathematical relation between D&D HD and Chainmail Ponit values, but can't find it. same thing between Morale rating and HD. I admit PV could have been used for a base in Blackmoor for something more than balance, but still can't find what for.
In Chainmail, allmost all critters die in one hit, except Heros (4), Superheroes (8), Werewolves (4), ogres and trolls (6), giants (12). These numbers are still mostly in D&D.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 7, 2009 16:36:57 GMT -6
My thinking is that Arneson initially translated the point value of a creature into Hit points mostly as a matter of convenience. He doesn't seem to have been generating random HP values in the pre D&D days so he had to come up with HP values somehow. Here's a quote that seems to support this idea from the Loch Gloomin section of the FFC, under Trolls and Ogres "These creatures are worth 18 points (or hits) with variations." Points in the dungeon notes refer to the Chainmail PV's, so this seems like an early statement where the terminology is evolving from "points" to "hits" or "hit points" and again they are fixed numbers that vary at referee discretion - not something generated by random "Hit Dice". BTW the FFC is not the only place where Arneson uses "Hit Dice" to mean attack/damage dice; Hit Dice is also used to mean damage dice throughout AIF.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 7, 2009 17:06:52 GMT -6
Right, the "PV=HP" solution makes sense, at leas for the Early Blackmoor era [by the way, PV is the word for HP in French, but that's another story]. After all, dave didn't know HP had to be rolled! Could it be possible that heroes actually does 4d6 of damage, and Ogres 6d6? it should be checked, but it makes sense, as it enables to make works together the Man-to-Man and the Hero system. Maybe Richard Snider's Power & Perils could give some clues too?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 7, 2009 21:32:39 GMT -6
Combat in AiF – some ideas for Blackmoor Combat in AiF is quite different from OD&D, but the particulars are more than I want to get in to here. In summary though, AiF combat is a body type vs. body type (yes like the body types in the hit location segment of Supp II) matrix, modified by attacker level, height, and other factors. Armor plays a very incidental role and is even listed as an optional rule. If the Armor rule is applied it basically works as a saving throw after a successful hit. The victim must roll under the protective value of their armor to see if they have received any damage.
Now this has me speculating. What if the original Blackmoor system was a level vs level (“hit dice” aka damage dice vs “hit dice”) attack matrix like the Assassins’ table and the AiF combat tables? In the FFC Introduction Dave says “As the player progressed he… became harder to hit.” That’s what we see in the Assassins’ table. In OD&D on the other hand, as the character progresses it becomes easier for him to hit target AC’s – a different principle entirely. How could Armor Class figure in then? It could be a bonus subtracted from the target number – essentially the system Nico proposed earlier in this thread. However, keeping in mind that Armor Class in an ACW Ironclads game was likely to be about ability to penetrate, not “hit” per se, its possible that Arnesons system was based on the idea of seeing whether the Armor held after being hit. In other words Armor Class could be mechanic used in a saving throw as it is in AiF. Again in the FFC intro Dave says “…the player received a ''Saving Throw" against any Hit that he received. Thus, although he might be "Hit" several times during a melee round, in actuality he might not take any damage at all. Only Fighters gained advantages in these melee saving throws. Clerics and Magicians progressed in their own areas, which might or might not modify their Saving Throws.” We don’t know what this saving throw was, but it could just as easily been against an AC rating as against dexterity. This idea brings me back to that mysterious 2-9 AC. We don’t know if it comes from Gygax or Arneson, but it is really convenient how well it fits as a 2d6-2 “saving throw” system…
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 8, 2009 18:17:52 GMT -6
Good points on AIF, Aldaron. I checked again Temple of the Frog in Blackmoor and found a few interesting points which fits some of your ideas, as well as others gems. I don't know to which point Tim Kask edited it (but I could ask him on DF), but he probably let some clues for us.
« Sword: +3 in combat, this sword may fire up to six (20 point) lightning bolts a day. It can detect metal and the presence of any living being within 100 feet. It also adds a 20% chance of opponent's weapons breaking while involved in melee, this sword being unbreakable. » [Blackmoor, p. 34]
In OD&D, no reference to breaking weapons, but fore sure, this one has to be find in Chainmail man-to-man:
« For any defender whose weapon is four to seven classes lower than the attacker, the defender has the option to give the first blow OR parry the attacker's blow, by subtracting 2 from the attacker's roll. If the attacker equals the original requirement for a kill the higher weapon breaks the defender's weapon. If the parry is successful, the defender gets one counter blow. » [chainmail, p. 24-25]
To clarify a bit, you can parry only if you got a really shorter weapon than you opponent, and if the attackers hit, he breaks your weapon instead of you. But the +20% in the temple of the Frog refers apparently to a more developped version of that - probably because Dave's saving thrown in defence are parries.
« Their presence will raise the morale of personnel by 10% » [Blackmoor, p. 35] May the morale have been converted to % too? It seems so
This room holds 12 2nd level fighter/personal guards for the Keepers of the Frog. They take 3-5 hit points each and are armored in chain & shield and well practiced with the bow (add 10% to chances of hitting), and sword (add 5% to hit probabilities). [Blackmoor, p. 45]
3-5 points for a 2nd level fighter is rather low, as it should be 2d6, or even 2d8 after the publishing of Greyhawk. But it's also 2 times the point value of a Heavy Foot, 'with variations' (as per the FFC Ogres). Curious... You will note, as I allready quoted, they have modifiers in percent in fight.
« There are 8 frogmen with double strength and hit point values, each of these also having +2 on saving throws and defensive capabilities. There are 5 frogmen with triple values and +3 on saving throws and defense, and 2 frogmen with quadruple capabilities and +4 to saving throws and defense! » [Blackmoor, p. 45]
The best of for today! No 'double hit dices' but 'strength and hit point values'. Strenght need to be explained (maybe double dice of damage), but once again, it seems to be a fix hit point value - and I should emphase on value, as per in point value. A +4 bonus in saving thrown and defence seems a big score, so maybe on 2d6, as the save against lighting bolts in Chainmail. It makes sense.
A last note on d100 and 2d6. What to do, if you're a rather secretive DM, to make your players roll d100 when you're the only one to own the needed d20? You ask them to roll 2d6 and you convert on the fly with a (2d6-2)x10. If needed, you ask them a second roll - they don't need to know why - for the unit. Weird, statisticly false, but why not?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 8, 2009 22:38:23 GMT -6
Good points on AIF, Aldaron. I checked again Temple of the Frog in Blackmoor and found a few interesting points which fits some of your ideas, as well as others gems. I don't know to which point Tim Kask edited it (but I could ask him on DF), but he probably let some clues for us. Brilliant Nico. I'd be surprised if there is anything in Temple of the Frog that didn't come straight out of Arnesons notes. My sense from asking Mr. Kask about the Blackmoor Monk was that his work on Supplement II was mostly the organizing of the "basketfull of papers" he inherited from Blume and whatever notes Gygax gave him, not extensive rewriting involving the Frog. « Sword: +3 in combat, this sword may fire up to six (20 point) lightning bolts a day. It can detect metal and the presence of any living being within 100 feet. It also adds a 20% chance of opponent's weapons breaking while involved in melee, this sword being unbreakable. » [Blackmoor, p. 34] In OD&D, no reference to breaking weapons, but fore sure, this one has to be find in Chainmail man-to-man: « For any defender whose weapon is four to seven classes lower than the attacker, the defender has the option to give the first blow OR parry the attacker's blow, by subtracting 2 from the attacker's roll. If the attacker equals the original requirement for a kill the higher weapon breaks the defender's weapon. If the parry is successful, the defender gets one counter blow. » [chainmail, p. 24-25] To clarify a bit, you can parry only if you got a really shorter weapon than you opponent, and if the attackers hit, he breaks your weapon instead of you. But the +20% in the temple of the Frog refers apparently to a more developped version of that - probably because Dave's saving thrown in defence are parries. Possibly so, but I think its more likely that the chance of a sword breaking refers not to the Chainmail rule but to some critical hit system Arneson was using. The Lionheart article mentions criticals and I seem to recall Arneson mentioning it in interviews. So a particular die roll or a certain amount of pips beyond what was needed might require a "saving throw" to see if your weapon broke. Also, I've never noticed "parry" in any of the Arneson material so I'm not sure he liked the idea of singling out that kind of move. « There are 8 frogmen with double strength and hit point values, each of these also having +2 on saving throws and defensive capabilities. There are 5 frogmen with triple values and +3 on saving throws and defense, and 2 frogmen with quadruple capabilities and +4 to saving throws and defense! » [Blackmoor, p. 45] The best of for today! No 'double hit dices' but 'strength and hit point values'. Strenght need to be explained (maybe double dice of damage), but once again, it seems to be a fix hit point value - and I should emphase on value, as per in point value. A +4 bonus in saving thrown and defence seems a big score, so maybe on 2d6, as the save against lighting bolts in Chainmail. It makes sense. Great stuff. I'm particularly intrigued by the phrase "on saving throws and defense". For one, it reminds me of the sentence in the Lionheart article where Arneson tells him the "method of attacking corresponds to ability and skill rolls". Aside from that though it links saving throws and defense together and uses the same modifier for each - suggesting the defense capabilities are on the same scale as saving throws. If defense here means Armor Class - and its hard to see what else it could mean - then it would seem to be strong evidence for use of AC as a saving throw as I suggested in the previous post. I've a few more thoughts about Arnesons Armor Class system. I mentioned in a few posts back that if Arneson is taking the AC categories from the list in Chainmail - as it seems he did - then it would seem to make more sense for the numbers to run from 1-8 worst to best, rather than the 2-9 best to worst in OD&D, simply because the Chainmail categories are listed worst to best, left to right. So, for the sake of argument, lets suppose Arneson read that list and assigned numbers straight across - no armor = AC1, Plate and Shield = AC8. This works well as a 2d6-2 roll under saving throw system - you have to roll under your AC to avoid damage. Perhaps Gygax didn't like Armor Class as saving throw and so changed it to a more Chainmail like attack roll, switching to the OD&D 2-9 system for reasons of his own. Whatever that may be an AC1 = no armor might explain those strange AC1 that show up in the Blackmoor dungeon levels 1-6. Those levels were converted by Dave (or someone working for him) to OD&D stats for tornament use and its possible a few stats were left from an older system. If you look at the monsters who have AC1, with the exception of a magic user, they are mostly anomalies not found in Men and Monsters or Supplement 2; Giant Scorpions, Giant Beetles with 9 HD, and Evil Priests. Its difficult to imagine these foes being armored with the equivalent of full plate and shield. They are more likely to have been considered low armor monsters, particularly if Armor Class really was an AiF style roll under saving throw. One other thing that is better explained by a 1-8 worst to best Armor Class is Arnesons experience point/level system in the "How to become a Bad Guy" section of the FFC. While I made an argument in the thread that it was a workable system withthe familiar descending AC system, it makes better sense with an ascending, worst to best system. If AC1 is the normal AC for an unarmored human and they start off with 1HD, then by Arnesons system (1+1*1000) they need 2000 XP to advance to second level. This is exactly the XP a fighting man needs in OD&D for 2nd level and it is also the exact figure Arneson gives in his example of how the system works. Indeed, the example he gives would be a very unlikely scenario unless AC1 was typical for HD1 creatures. We're not really proving anything, but there are an awful lot of pieces that seem to be coming together here. A last note on d100 and 2d6. What to do, if you're a rather secretive DM, to make your players roll d100 when you're the only one to own the needed d20? You ask them to roll 2d6 and you convert on the fly with a (2d6-2)x10. If needed, you ask them a second roll - they don't need to know why - for the unit. Weird, statisticly false, but why not? Yeah, I think so to.
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 8, 2009 23:25:53 GMT -6
Brilliant Nico. I'd be surprised if there is anything in Temple of the Frog that didn't come straight out of Arnesons notes. My sense from asking Mr. Kask about the Blackmoor Monk was that his work on Supplement II was mostly the organizing of the "basketfull of papers" he inherited from Blume and whatever notes Gygax gave him, not extensive rewriting involving the Frog. Rather more than just "organizing" the rest, but was clarified in full from Tim's perspective on www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=434353#p434353 ; "In Blackmoor, we supplied something entirely new; a concrete example of how to construct a major edifice in a campaign. I refer, of course, to the Temple of the Frog. TotF was Dave’s creation. All I did was legitimate editing; I made it read better and looked out for inconsistencies such as any DM might make in something like that.
TotF was the only part of BM that was Dave’s alone. In fact, if the whole of the book were analyzed, Dave wrote the TotF segment, and I wrote about 65 or 70% of the rest. Gary, Brian and Rob, and Terry, too, contributed the rest. Some of the ideas might have been Dave’s, but the execution, expansion and explanation were ours. (I am confident that Gary will back me up on this. Rob was a great help to me on this because he was very handy to bounce ideas off of, and a good sport about it. I was afraid of going to Gary too much for fear he would think he had hired a boob or incompetent.) "
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 9, 2009 15:20:57 GMT -6
In Chainmail, allmost all critters die in one hit, except Heros (4), Superheroes (8), Werewolves (4), ogres and trolls (6), giants (12). These numbers are still mostly in D&D. In Holmes and post Greyhawk D&D monsters damage is given through a number/type of attacks per round. What I wasn't realizing is that 3LBB D&D damage is, according to this quote from Monsters and Treasure, determined by Hit Dice, exactly as we have been arguing Arneson was doing in Blackmoor. "Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)" p5. It's possible that this quote even comes from Arnesons manuscript. Its curious the the heading uses the phrase "Defense Capabilities"; exactly the same phrase we see in Temple of the Frog. Following Nico's lead, I had a closer look at some of the items described in TotF and the text. I'm making the assumption that the text is little changed from what Arneson wrote. Further I assume that Arneson used nothing from they Greyhawk supplement. I seem to remember Arneson claiming he had submitted his portions of Supplement II before Supplement I was published. Its also clear that TotF was written with the 3LBB rules as the basis, but I assume also that Arneson worked off of older notes and wrote according to his own style of play, as we see from the wierd references Snorri has posted, so we can find curious anomalies. Its also curious that he doesn't seem to think its important to list AC's for encounters. On occaision, he will mention armor, such as chainmail, but not an AC, Whereas he usually does give a Hit Point Value. Another indication of the general unimportance of AC for monsters in his system? The section describing the Armor of Stephen the Rock is particularly interesting. “Battle Armour…+3 on defense and saving throws” Now there are a couple ways to look at this. A quick reading almost looks like Arneson is saying defense Throws and Saving throws. While I still find it interesting that these phrases are linked, I now think its doubtful that “defense throws” ala an FFC combat saving throw are meant. If plate mail +3 were to refer to an AC 2d6 save system based on 2-9 or 1-8 AC, either ascending (11 or 10) or descending (0 or -1), it can work, but would usually mean bonuses would be needed to have even a slight chance of damaging the armor. It's possible, but looks like a stretch. However, it’s seems a better fit for the Monsters and Treasure bonus system: “ARMOR: Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer. If the shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction.” (p31). Clearly, this is another use of Hit Dice in the Arnesonian attack/damage dice sense. Some have interpreted this to mean subtract from damage roll, but it doesn’t say take away from the die roll, it says take away from the dice. Logically, it means take away dice. In which case only a 4HD or greater opponent could hit a +3 Armor. So the bonus applies to hit dice. Chainmail combat would result in less hits and less damage whereas the Alternative combat system using the d20, or even possibly any of the systems we’ve been discussing including the AC as saving throw system, would simply mean less damage.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 9, 2009 15:27:31 GMT -6
Waw! Nice reading of TotF! I will read it again and again to find other clues. Now, just a little table: From Greg Gailman, In search of Kelandor's gold, Judge Guild, 1982. I guess it could be useful.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 11, 2009 22:11:44 GMT -6
We’ve been having some fun tinkering with the Assasins table and its stimulated a good bit of thought. However, following Davids suggestion I asked Tim Kask over on DF about the table. I’ve rearranged the paragraphs from two posts of his response for the sake of clarity.
Tim Kask: “When originally tasked with the BM Supplement, I objected most strongly to Gary that the Monk and the Assassin were grieviously over-powerful and unnecessary. If you wanted to go around killing PC's and NPC's in your campaign, work it out with the DM. The monk was unbelievable, even for a fantasy. Or words, perhaps harsher, to that effect. I was told, in terms that left very little wiggle room, that this was to be "Dave's book" and he could have in it what he liked.
In seeking out what you referenced on the other site, I see references to different dice being used to generate numbers, and rolling under a number instead of over, and different claims about an armor system based on his ironclad rules, which I vaguely recall seeing, if only briefly. That does not jibe with the material I was given to work with. However, it may well be that Dave simply converted his material to fit into the published schemata. To the best of my increasingly faulty memory, the table you cite on pg. 6 is my interpretation of what Dave tried to quantify as the abilities of the character. In his Foreword, Gary states that "... the material herein is arranged to follow the format of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS..." It's what I did to his stuff that I used; some of his tables or charts, such as this particular one, were "re-imagined" by the editor when the first were deemed incompatible. I never played in one of Dave's adventures; I have no idea how he ran his own campaigns, old or newer. It seems that he favored a lot of counting (and therefore rolling) by 10's, and sometimes 5's.
I remember thinking at the time I was making this chart that a Lvl 8 Executioner should have about an even chance of knocking off a Superhero. (Also keep in mind that the advanced levels published in GH were more for structuring NPC's tough enough to challenge a group of 5th to 8th Lvl PC's, than they were for PC's getting that powerful anytime soon.) Once I had determined that point of equity, the chart filled itself out, so to speak. After all, these were base percentages that did not take into account a +3 Garrotte (15% bonus) or a +3 Ring of Protection (15% the other way), or any other items or artifacts the individual DM might introduce into his campaign. I threw in the 01's because, Hey!, it's fantasy...
Keep in mind that at that point in time, we figured the odds of even getting to Lvl 9 or Lvl 10 were so high that it wouldn't pose a problem. This was before the gross inflation of XP's and the corresponding levels. The highest level player in Gary's GH campaign was a 7 or possibly 8 at that time, and they had been playing more than any other group with the possible exception of Dave's. If I had it to do over again today, and allowing for that inflation, the chart probably would have gone on straight 5% increments, both across and down.
And never, ever forget that we were publishing guidelines, not rules. (at that point in time).”
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 12, 2009 6:24:00 GMT -6
Nice! I read your questions on DF too. It makes things clearer on some points: - Gary admitted that BM was material for Dave's campaign [note the M&M introduction, which appeals to players allready involved in a campaign] - The 01 is a Tim addition, but the % were from Dave - and Tim confirms Dave's method with %. - We still don't know if the monk and assassin were written before or after the pre-release of D&D, but it may confirm your intuition that assassin was first Dave's thief / spy. Maybe the note about monk being a cleric sub-class could means it was the original cleric. - Tables have been made on a 8/8 grid and expanded as we thought. Not bad!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 12, 2009 10:16:48 GMT -6
Good points Nic. Trouble is that the Assasin material has been extensively rewritten, and the monk, as a product of Blume, may not have any real Blackmoor material in it. For a retro-Blackmoor thief though I would definetly go with expanding the Assasin, as its clear that, whatever amount of rewriting he may have done, Kask was trying to stay faithful to Arnesons ideas. The 8*8 aspect of the table is indeed interesting, and nice to know we guessed right, but it sounds as though Tim Kask started with that for his own reasons rather than any connection to tables Arneson had done. Also Kask says he chose the numbers for the table, "I remember thinking at the time I was making this chart that a Lvl 8 Executioner should have about an even chance of knocking off a Superhero... Once I had determined that point of equity, the chart filled itself out, so to speak." On the other hand, as you point out, we have another source seeming to confirm that Arneson was working in percentiles , as you've argued all along. Although the figures used in the Assasins table have no connection to Blackmoor combat, we not left entirely sourceless for possible recreations of such a table. In fact Arneson does give a % combat table in AIF. Its got all those body types vs. body types etc., which seem to have no connection to early Blackmoor, stemming instead from the Hit Location done for supp II, but it does have one very impotant figure: For man to man combat, the chance to hit is 40%. Translated to a level vs level table with 5% increases you get: I'd point out that these percentages are much more in line with the D&D d20 table than the Assasins table figures.
|
|