|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 31, 2009 0:38:59 GMT -6
I don't think either one of us is being rude, but my impression is that your desire to use Chainmail Fantasy at mass scale is clouding your reading of Gygax's actual quotes and the rules. But Chainmail Fantasy is used at mass and mixed scale (both 20:1 and 1:1) in Gary's own scenario from 1973 as referred to on the previous page... [ed. OK, two pages back now ]
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 31, 2009 1:43:50 GMT -6
That is an interesting reference. I have been looking for a report on the Battle of the Brown Hills to see how that compared. Do you know if such an article ever saw print? Unfortunately I don't have that Wargamer's Newsletter (and those who do aren't playing ball, since there was also no reply back in 2006) so it's difficult to know to what detail that "battle report" might go into, or even whether that would clarify what scale(s) EGG & co. were using for that particular setup. It clear enough, however, that the fantasy rules were not just intended for 1:1 play. I may have a copy of this. Will check.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 31, 2009 9:49:27 GMT -6
LOL, well, that I can generally agree with, particularly the conclusion. The only modifications I'd make are: (1) I assume that your acceptance of "mass serjeant figures" is hypothetical only, and that you haven't actually played that way yourself. I wouldn't want to. (2) If we more realistically assume that there is one hero/lieutenant-type leading each 1:20 figure, then we'll find that statistically it will be negligible to the results of the one die roll for that figure. Which is a significant distinction from how things play out at 1:1 scale. (That's one good example of how mathematically, scaling on discrete elements, e.g. individual men, must make qualitative changes in a model.) Sure; basically, the problem is with "scaling up" from 1:1 when an "average" result is not actually statistically average. Of course, the game plays out exactly the same way, because there is actually no difference between 1:1 and 1:20 scale in Chain Mail, which is of course precisely what makes it ill suited for mass battles. But Chainmail Fantasy is used at mass and mixed scale (both 20:1 and 1:1) in Gary's own scenario from 1973 as referred to on the previous page... Indeed; it is very interesting to see this disconnect between suitability, actuality, and Gygax's answers to the direct question. I may have a copy of this. Will check. That would be great; thanks for checking!
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 31, 2009 14:00:37 GMT -6
That would be great; thanks for checking! Alas, nope: still no Battle of the Brown Hills
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 1, 2010 17:30:53 GMT -6
Sure; basically, the problem is with "scaling up" from 1:1 when an "average" result is not actually statistically average. Of course, the game plays out exactly the same way, because there is actually no difference between 1:1 and 1:20 scale in Chain Mail... We seem to be speaking different languages, because that didn't make any sense to me.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 1, 2010 18:56:38 GMT -6
Alas, nope: still no Battle of the Brown Hills Not to worry; perhaps it will turn up yet. We seem to be speaking different languages, because that didn't make any sense to me. Well, admittedly I had trouble expressing my meaning succinctly, but the long and short of it is that if you have one figure representing 20 men (20:1 scale) and roll it in the same manner as though that one figure represented 1 man (1:1 scale) you will very likely not get the same result as if you rolled twenty figures representing 20 men. That is to say, the same problem that having one hero figure represent 20 heroes applies to ordinary men whenever the number of figures in an instance of combat is sufficiently small to not give an average outcome in the manner one would expect at 1:1 scale. To put it another way, if I were to fight an action between two units of 20 heavy foot at 1:1 scale the result would likely look very different to an action between two units of 20 heavy foot at 1:20 scale, but similar to two units of 400 heavy foot at 1:20 scale, in terms of proportional casualties. In actual play, whether you use 1:1 scale, 1:10 scale or 1:20 scale in Chain Mail, the game functions exactly the same, the only thing being altered is the scale of the losses incurred.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 2, 2010 1:06:59 GMT -6
...if you have one figure representing 20 men (20:1 scale) and roll it in the same manner as though that one figure represented 1 man (1:1 scale) you will very likely not get the same result as if you rolled twenty figures representing 20 men. I think as a statistician I wouldn't want to phrase it like that. If by "result" you mean "number of eliminations", and you scale the time appropriately, then the "average" (mean, expected value) will in fact be the same. However, the standard deviation will be different. In actual play, whether you use 1:1 scale, 1:10 scale or 1:20 scale in Chain Mail, the game functions exactly the same, the only thing being altered is the scale of the losses incurred. I mean, if you want to call each of these scales (1:1 , 1:10, 1:20, etc.) its own unique game that exists in incommensurable universes, then great. But if you use it to simulate D&D combat at a mass scale (which is my assumption), then it gets more and more radically divergent from D&D results the higher the ratio. One issue is "special characters" (Gary's phrase from S&S Introduction), a second is time & distance scale affecting missiles & spell fire, etc.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 2, 2010 10:27:22 GMT -6
I think as a statistician I wouldn't want to phrase it like that. If by "result" you mean "number of eliminations", and you scale the time appropriately, then the "average" (mean, expected value) will in fact be the same. However, the standard deviation will be different. Well, not being a statistician, and it being some ten years since I last had the pleasure of formally studying mathematics, you will have to forgive me if I am unfamiliar with the technical language of expression, and I shall trust to your familiarity with the terminology in as far as you are able to articulate the meaning intended in language appropriate to the subject matter. I mean, if you want to call each of these scales (1:1 , 1:10, 1:20, etc.) its own unique game that exists in incommensurable universes, then great. But if you use it to simulate D&D combat at a mass scale (which is my assumption), then it gets more and more radically divergent from D&D results the higher the ratio. One issue is "special characters" (Gary's phrase from S&S Introduction), a second is time & distance scale affecting missiles & spell fire, etc. I would go as far as saying that Chain Mail in no way simulates the combat system of Dungeons & Dragons at whatever scale so long as the man to man combat system is not employed, and, given that Gygax claims to have only ever employed the alternative combat system when playing D&D himself, it would probably be fair to add that Chain Mail was never ever suitable for his own needs after the "invention" of D&D. To be blunt, using Chain Mail as anything but its own game is the errand of a fool, excepting its usefulness as a context for understanding the development of D&D or as a source of inspiration in other regards. It is not at all suited to simulating the results of the D&D combat system (default or alternative) on a mass scale.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 2, 2010 14:28:53 GMT -6
Well, not being a statistician, and it being some ten years since I last had the pleasure of formally studying mathematics, you will have to forgive me if I am unfamiliar with the technical language of expression... Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. It's just that when you said "the average isn't the average" earlier that's not factually correct, and I was trying to help figure out what you were saying. To be blunt, using Chain Mail as anything but its own game is the errand of a fool, excepting its usefulness as a context for understanding the development of D&D or as a source of inspiration in other regards. It is not at all suited to simulating the results of the D&D combat system (default or alternative) on a mass scale. We'll disagree on that. My research is coming to the opposite conclusion, assuming that as Gygax said, you only play at 1:1 scale with any special fantasy figures. Let's see where we have common ground. We agree that a lone Conan-type superhero (8th level) can be represented at 1:1 scale, but not at 1:20 scale, yes?
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 2, 2010 15:05:41 GMT -6
We'll disagree on that. My research is coming to the opposite conclusion, assuming that as Gygax said, you only play with it at 1:1 scale with any special fantasy figures. If you are playing it at 1:1 scale, it is not really a mass battle system, it is a skirmish system, which is fine, but I am not seeing how there can be a correlation between either D&D combat system and the Chain Mail system unless the man-to-man system is employed. Let's see where we have common ground. We agree that a lone Conan-type superhero (8th level) can be represented at 1:1 scale, but not at 1:20 scale, yes? I think that a lone superhero type could be represented at either scale, and has been in practice. However, I also admit that Gygax has said that the Fantasy Supplement was not designed for a scale larger than 1:1. So, I would modify that statement to read: "Assuming that the Fantasy Supplement was designed for 1:1 scale combat, a lone Conan-type superhero (8th level) is best represented at 1:1 scale" with the corollary that: "Whilst Chain Mail claims to be designed for 1:10 or 1:20 scale play, it makes best sense at 1:1 scale, and increasingly less sense when figures become representative of more than one individual combatant." Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. It's just that when you said "the average isn't the average" earlier that's not factually correct, and I was trying to help figure out what you were saying. And I was politely accepting your admonishment, whilst also attempting to convey to you that being currently unfamiliar with terms like "number of eliminations", I was without the vocabulary to express my meaning in terms that you would understand or recognise as "factually correct". To be clear, the meaning I had intended was that the assumption of Chain Mail is that the "average" (which I placed in inverted commas to distinguish it from something I conceived of separately as the "statistical average") result of 10 heavy foot (for instance) figures facing off against one another at 1:20 scale would resemble that of 200 heavy foot figures at 1:1 scale, but in fact this is not the case. That is to say, 200 1 in 6 chances of killing 1 enemy do not equate to 10 1 in 6 chances of killing 20 enemies. The more dice are rolled, the more likely the result will tend towards the average result, the less dice are used the more likely the result will tend away from the average. As I say, though, I am not statistician, so I could be quite wrong in my understanding. Of course, that is all quite apart from problems of frontage and participation in the imagined combat. At 1:1 scale literally two ranks of archers shoot, but what about at 1:10 and 1:20 scale? How many ranks of archers are shooting when the two ranks of figures represent 10 or 20 times as many men than at 1:1 scale? Simply having a figure become representative of several without altering the rules to compensate is not an adequate solution for fighting larger battles if the results are to be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 2, 2010 22:11:53 GMT -6
The more dice are rolled, the more likely the result will tend towards the average result, the less dice are used the more likely the result will tend away from the average. Sure, that's a case of having equal averages, and different variances. I agree. Simply having a figure become representative of several without altering the rules to compensate is not an adequate solution for fighting larger battles if the results are to be consistent. Completely agree with that, I think it's my main point.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 3, 2010 16:16:39 GMT -6
To be blunt, using Chain Mail as anything but its own game is the errand of a fool, excepting its usefulness as a context for understanding the development of D&D or as a source of inspiration in other regards. It is not at all suited to simulating the results of the D&D combat system (default or alternative) on a mass scale. I'm doing it right now, quite successfully, in my Sunday OD&D Age of Conan game. My own exegesis on it, Forbidden Lore, is working brilliantly and with no issues whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 3, 2010 21:32:46 GMT -6
I've used the Appendix A Mass Combat Tables as the basis of my OD&D combat for several adventures in a campaign now (actually, my "Ringmail Variant" is just a re-do of those charts) with pretty good success. I find that it works well as both a mass combat and individual combat system, although my players prefer rolling 1d20 or 2d6 instead of the handful of d6's needed to make the system work.
The secret, to me, is that Chainmail (and OD&D) was never designed to be a historically accurate simulation, but instead functions as a vague abstraction of combat which can be applied to historical and fantastic situations. I mean, no one seems to disagree with the statement that OD&D is not designed to reflect each individual thrust and parry but relies on a more vague "some time passes and some damage happens" kind of approach.
In a mass setting, 20 guys attacking 20 defenders wouldn't kill all or none but somewhere in between, but the larger the pile of troops in the action then the less that it matters exactly how many were killed. We use a figure to represent some set number of guys (1 or 10 or 20 or even 1,000 if you like) and assume that this figure exists or not depending upon the roll of a single die. If realism were the goal, some number of hit points could be assigned to each unit much the same way OD&D assigns hit points to a character. But Chainmail chooses not to do this, but instead to take the simple "alive or dead" outcome.
Baically, I don't like the "it can't be used as..." statement simply because I can and often do use Chainmail in many different ways and to simulate many different scenarios. That doesn't justify Chainmail as being realistic, just easy to use.
Just my two coppers. :-)
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 4, 2010 8:47:13 GMT -6
I'm doing it right now, quite successfully, in my Sunday OD&D Age of Conan game. My own exegesis on it, Forbidden Lore, is working brilliantly and with no issues whatsoever. I cannot imagine how you can be using Chain Mail on a mass scale to get the same sorts of results, mathematically, as using either of the two combat systems in OD&D and running the whole thing in detail. In short, I think you are misunderstanding my above meaning. Chain Mail can be used to resolve mass battles, but the results will not be in accordance with a "scaled up" version of OD&D, they will be in accordance with Chain Mail. That is to say, if you have 20 men-at-arm figures with pole-axes and plate armour (armoured heavy foot) facing off against a like number, the probabilities will be different depending on whether you use: a) Chain Mail Mass Combat [20 1 in 6 chances of a kill] b) Chain Mail Man-to-Man Combat [20 5 in 12 chances of a kill] c) Dungeons & Dragons Alternative Combat System [20 1 in 4 chances of doing 1d6 damage] Basically, I don't like the "it can't be used as..." statement simply because I can and often do use Chainmail in many different ways and to simulate many different scenarios. That doesn't justify Chainmail as being realistic, just easy to use. Indeed, but the disconnect is not between "fantasy and reality", but between one mathematical model and another. Between Chain Mail and Dungeons & Dragons we have three basic systems (arguably) that can be used to determine the outcome of a particular combat. The three systems are different enough that they yield different probabilities for the same encounters, and "System A" bears very little relation to "System B", different factors determining casualty rates, even though the type of combat is the same, jut on a larger scale.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jan 4, 2010 9:08:22 GMT -6
Do you think Swords & Spells does a better job of applying the D&D combat model to mass combat?
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jan 4, 2010 9:20:20 GMT -6
a) Chain Mail Mass Combat [20 1 in 6 chances of a kill] b) Chain Mail Man-to-Man Combat [20 5 in 12 chances of a kill] c) Dungeons & Dragons Alternative Combat System [20 1 in 4 chances of doing 1d6 damage] The different mathematical model of Chainmail doesn't particularly bother me. (Also, in my case, it's even more skewed because I change the time scale of D&D combat, using 10 second rounds instead of 1 minute rounds, but retaining 1 min rounds for Chainmail mass combat. So it's 20 1-in-6 chances to kill vs. 120 1-in-4 chances of doing 1d6 damage.) However, this discussion has made me more interested in exploring other options. What happened with that mass combat system you were working on, Matthew?
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 4, 2010 9:32:32 GMT -6
Do you think Swords & Spells does a better job of applying the D&D combat model to mass combat? A better job of translating the Alternative Combat System to a mass scale then either the "Man-to-Man" to "Mass Combat" translation, yes, and no question with regards to using Chain Mail to translate the "Alternative Combat System" itself to a mass scale. That is not to say that Swords & Spells is without its own problems in that regard. It arguably oversimplifies (or over abstracts) the maths and ignores the dynamics of the alternative combat system in places, but in placing the emphasis on morale as the determining factor of a battle, I think it takes a clever and "authentic" approach to translating D&D combat to the mass scale. Of course, whether the undead are over powerful under that paradigm, and whether the game is really playable and as fun as rolling for casualties is another question... The different mathematical model of Chainmail doesn't particularly bother me. (Also, in my case, it's even more skewed because I change the time scale of D&D combat, using 10 second rounds instead of 1 minute rounds, but retaining 1 min rounds for Chainmail mass combat. So it's 20 1-in-6 chances to kill vs. 120 1-in-4 chances of doing 1d6 damage.) Sure, and it is only if you are interested in the appearance of consistent probabilities of outcomes across different scales that any of this matters. I think it is the sort of thing that matters more to the individual as they become increasingly involved and invested in the game, which I think is what happened to Gygax. However, this discussion has made me more interested in exploring other options. What happened with that mass combat system you were working on, Matthew? Still in play testing; I am also trying to find more time to play Field of Glory and War Master these days for comparative reasons. Hopefully, I will be in a position to release an initial "complete" draft in March.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 4, 2010 12:55:19 GMT -6
However, this discussion has made me more interested in exploring other options. What happened with that mass combat system you were working on, Matthew? Still in play testing; I am also trying to find more time to play Field of Glory and War Master these days for comparative reasons. Hopefully, I will be in a position to release an initial "complete" draft in March. Looking forward to seeing what you produce, Matthew. You always have a great take on game balance and how to make a game system work well.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 4, 2010 13:15:17 GMT -6
I cannot imagine how you can be using Chain Mail on a mass scale to get the same sorts of results, mathematically, as using either of the two combat systems in OD&D and running the whole thing in detail. In short, I think you are misunderstanding my above meaning. Chain Mail can be used to resolve mass battles, but the results will not be in accordance with a "scaled up" version of OD&D, they will be in accordance with Chain Mail. That is to say, if you have 20 men-at-arm figures with pole-axes and plate armour (armoured heavy foot) facing off against a like number, the probabilities will be different depending on whether you use: a) Chain Mail Mass Combat [20 1 in 6 chances of a kill] b) Chain Mail Man-to-Man Combat [20 5 in 12 chances of a kill] c) Dungeons & Dragons Alternative Combat System [20 1 in 4 chances of doing 1d6 damage] Ah, I did misread your intent. I meant to say I'm successfully using Chainmail as the core combat system for my OD&D game, per my rules in Forbidden Lore.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 5, 2010 14:57:08 GMT -6
Looking forward to seeing what you produce, Matthew. You always have a great take on game balance and how to make a game system work well. Thanks for the kind words and vote of confidence! Ah, I did misread your intent. I meant to say I'm successfully using Chainmail as the core combat system for my OD&D game, per my rules in Forbidden Lore. Right you are, no worries! I was just reading through the Reaction to Greyelf's "Chainmail Combat" PDF thread again today and my attention was drawn to the reference to the 1975 Chain Mail FAQ from SR#2 that Fin posted up elsewhere: So, we can be certain that whilst the heroes and wizards and such may not have been intended for 1:10 or 1:20 scale, that this does not hold true for the entirety of the Fantasy Supplement. That still leaves a lot of problem areas, but an interesting corollary.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 5, 2010 17:11:31 GMT -6
I still don't see an issue with including a Hero, Superhero, or Wizard within a unit, which would then simply increase the fighting capability of the entire unit. When the figure representing the hero's unit is killed, it simply "transforms" into a single hero, requiring 4 simultaneous hits to kill.
In fact, the very language that heroes require four simultaneous hits to kill suggests that they are intended for 20:1 combat--you can't get four simultaneous hits in Man to Man or Fantasy combat.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 6, 2010 0:26:46 GMT -6
So, we can be certain that whilst the heroes and wizards and such may not have been intended for 1:10 or 1:20 scale, that this does not hold true for the entirety of the Fantasy Supplement. That still leaves a lot of problem areas, but an interesting corollary. And I can agree that that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules as a whole. It's also compatible with all of Gygax's many statements over the years if you interpret "hero and other fantasy supplement figures" as nontechnical shorthand for "special characters", etc.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 6, 2010 0:30:50 GMT -6
In fact, the very language that heroes require four simultaneous hits to kill suggests that they are intended for 20:1 combat--you can't get four simultaneous hits in Man to Man or Fantasy combat. That doesn't make any sense. I think you assert that the combat tables are the same in any scale, right? Moreover, consider: (1) one heavy horse figure vs. light foot Hero, (2) many figures surrounding lone Hero, (3) many figures firing missiles at lone Hero, etc.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 6, 2010 6:56:40 GMT -6
No, the combat tables are not used in Man-to-Man combat. There is a separate table designed for that. In Man-to-Man combat, "light horse" and "heavy foot" never come into play.
*sigh* I give up, delta. You win. This debate is only frustrating me and out of respect it's best I just step back, now. I will continue to mix scales and handwave as I always have and am confident the game will continue to work fine. If that doesn't work for you, fair enough.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 7, 2010 14:20:45 GMT -6
I still don't see an issue with including a Hero, Superhero, or Wizard within a unit, which would then simply increase the fighting capability of the entire unit. When the figure representing the hero's unit is killed, it simply "transforms" into a single hero, requiring 4 simultaneous hits to kill. In fact, the very language that heroes require four simultaneous hits to kill suggests that they are intended for 20:1 combat--you can't get four simultaneous hits in Man to Man or Fantasy combat. I think the contention is that, although Chain Mail itself says that the man-to-Man rules should be used for 1:1 scale combat, in practice Gygax was using the 1:20 scale rules for 1:1 scale combat, and the Fantasy Supplement was designed for that. And I can agree that that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules as a whole. It's also compatible with all of Gygax's many statements over the years if you interpret "hero and other fantasy supplement figures" as nontechnical shorthand for "special characters", etc. Yes, I think that is quite likely. That doesn't make any sense. I think you assert that the combat tables are the same in any scale, right? Moreover, consider: (1) one heavy horse figure vs. light foot Hero, (2) many figures surrounding lone Hero, (3) many figures firing missiles at lone Hero, etc. No, the combat tables are not used in Man-to-Man combat. There is a separate table designed for that. In Man-to-Man combat, "light horse" and "heavy foot" never come into play. *sigh* I give up, delta. You win. This debate is only frustrating me and out of respect it's best I just step back, now. I will continue to mix scales and handwave as I always have and am confident the game will continue to work fine. If that doesn't work for you, fair enough. I think you guys are just having a miscommunication on this issue, in that Delta's default assumption is that Gygax used the 1:20 scale combat rules for his 1:1 scale fantasy games, and not the Man-to-Man system. The issue for him is thus that the fantasy hero's effectiveness is not consistent across scales, he gets more powerful as the scale increases. That may or may not be a problem, depending on your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 7, 2010 14:29:55 GMT -6
I think you're quite right, matthew. However, I'm not a mathematician and have never cared about the specifics of intricate numeric relationships in a game. delta is a mathematician and unless I am completely misreading him (which is possible) his approach to the game is antithetical to my entire gaming philosophy.
To me, boiling a roleplaying game down to hard numbers and inviolate rules defeats the whole purpose. I like it fast and loose and abstract, the way I feel it was intended to be. Indeed, as you're aware my Forbidden Lore makes use of all three Chainmail systems for OD&D combat, dependent up on the situation, and I suspect this is how Gygax played the game. One of my favorite Gygax quotes is, "The one thing we must never let players discover is that they don't need the rules."
To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men. That's all just a matter of how things play out in my head...the practical difference on the table is completely nil--the hero is worth four figures, and play remains identical whatever scale one uses.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jan 7, 2010 20:01:15 GMT -6
Came across a Sage Advice Q&A that might be of interest. This was a question answered by Jean Wells in Dragon #34:
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 7, 2010 21:39:30 GMT -6
That's very interesting, given that Swords & Spells is specifically referenced in the DMG...
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jan 7, 2010 22:25:38 GMT -6
That's very interesting, given that Swords & Spells is specifically referenced in the DMG... Yeah, that's what caught my attention, too. Other Sage Advice answers from that time drew clear distinctions between D&D and AD&D, though. Despite its mention in the DMG, Swords & Spells is for D&D; I wonder if that had an influence on the answer to that Sage Advice question. Even so, you'd think Swords & Spells would have been picked for the "this works pretty well, even though it's not for AD&D" part. Dunno. Maybe even the TSR people preferred rolling dice (instead of the diceless aproach of Swords & Spells), and thus gravitated towards Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 8, 2010 0:41:19 GMT -6
Indeed, as you're aware my Forbidden Lore makes use of all three Chainmail systems for OD&D combat, dependent up on the situation, and I suspect this is how Gygax played the game. One of my favorite Gygax quotes is, "The one thing we must never let players discover is that they don't need the rules." To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men. But Gygax was asked this very question, and is on record as saying a Hero is worth 4 men, and not 80.
|
|