|
Post by derv on Feb 21, 2020 13:53:46 GMT -6
I’m not sure if any one noticed how easy it would be to use Bath’s method. I thought it was a neat fit with the “Infamous Characters” list- HD with manpower, side by side. Fun to think about.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 21, 2020 14:09:35 GMT -6
d10 (percentile d20): save on AC or better. Interesting. I wasn't aware that d20's were being used in 1972ish. I just assumed d6's were the norm until Gygax starting playtesting with polyhedrals.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 21, 2020 15:44:12 GMT -6
d10 (percentile d20): save on AC or better. Interesting. I wasn't aware that d20's were being used in 1972ish. I just assumed d6's were the norm until Gygax starting playtesting with polyhedrals. I don't actually know when Arneson developed his fondness for percentiles and there seems to be some question as to when he first adopted them. But "1972ish", is exactly when the hobby started hearing about them. Beyond that, as I said, this can be accomplished with 2d6 as well. Here's some guys blog post about it. Btw, Korns includes a chart just like this in MWiM (1966).
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 21, 2020 15:52:53 GMT -6
"1972ish", is exactly when the hobby started hearing about them. Beyond that, as I said, this can be accomplished with 2d6 as well. Here's some guys blog post about it. Btw, Korns includes a chart just like this in MWiM (1966). Nice link. I always forget that in the days before polyhedrals being commonly available and a phone in everyone's pocket that people had to get creative. It makes sense that Arneson would have a 2d6-to-% chart handy at the table for a variety of games. How hits were resolved prior to Gygax's involvement has always been a fascination of mine. I'll have to dig further to see if anything is out there that might provide more hints. The old blackmoor character sheets that are floating around almost create more questions than they answer. Fun stuff!!
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Feb 21, 2020 16:21:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 21, 2020 17:12:23 GMT -6
"1972ish", is exactly when the hobby started hearing about them. Beyond that, as I said, this can be accomplished with 2d6 as well. Here's some guys blog post about it. Btw, Korns includes a chart just like this in MWiM (1966). Nice link. I always forget that in the days before polyhedrals being commonly available and a phone is everyone's pocket that people had to get creative. It makes sense that Arneson would have a 2d6-to-% chart handy at the table for a variety of games. How hits were resolved prior to Gygax's involvement has always been a fascination of mine. I'll have to dig further to see if anything is out there that might provide more hints. The old blackmoor character sheets that are floating around almost create more questions than they answer. Fun stuff!! Hey I'm really just spit balling. There were a lot of ideas being thrown around and used in the wargaming hobby up to this time. They could run from simple to complex in nature. I tend to think Arneson would have kept it simple.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 22, 2020 20:40:25 GMT -6
I’m not sure if any one noticed how easy it would be to use Bath’s method. I thought it was a neat fit with the “Infamous Characters” list- HD with manpower, side by side. Fun to think about. It looks like "saving" dice in Bath's rules are a model for Blackmoor armor class, except that it's roll high on a single d6. Likewise, Chainmail 20:1 is just variations on Bath's to Hit throw for war engines, of all things. The difference between Bath hit dice and Blackmoor Infamous Characters hit dice are the modifiers. Bath uses pretty much all penalties, no bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 23, 2020 7:15:55 GMT -6
In Bath there are essentially three distinct levels of armor split up between footmen and cavalry (unarmored, partial, fully armored). This results in four actual saving throw categories. I think Dan ( aldarron ) did some research into this- speculating that Blackmoor's AC was based on DGUtS and had four tiers. I don't remember if it was a d6 roll high or roll low. I think it was suggested that the combat system was skill based. So, roll your weapon skill or higher/lower (again, don't remember). But, for monsters in CM's man to man system Michael Monard has said in other threads that they gave monsters weapon equivalents based on their natural attacks. For Blacmkoor HD would be based on size/power (FFC makes mention that the basic monsters were "hero" types). AC would be based on their natural defenses (hide, scales, shell).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 25, 2020 19:50:31 GMT -6
... So my question is: do we have a working theory on how successful "hits" were determined in Blackmoor?... We're way off topic here and that's prolly my fault. But to address the question I'd just point you to my blog. There's a few, but maybe This One will be of intereest.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 26, 2020 13:55:32 GMT -6
There's a few, but maybe This One will be of interest. That's an incredible amount research you've done there. I've been reading through the rest of your blog and it's an absolute gold mine. I think what you've laid out is as close as we can currently get to reproducing Arneson's Blackmoor combat system based on known documentation and testimony. Looking forward to future discoveries. I'm just so glad there are guys like aldarron and increment out there digging up all these old treasures!!
|
|