|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 18, 2023 23:54:37 GMT -6
Dwayanu wrote: What degrée of PC access is desirable/Sword & Sorcery?
a. Limit access to spells by language and training/sect etc., otherwise additions to saves are given to the spell's recipient. b. Make the spells rituals, limited by corresponding place, time of day, stellar alignment. c. Successful saves by recipient, lead to greater chances of saves in the future and thus potential corruption for the caster.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 21, 2021 12:35:39 GMT -6
Agreed, there is nothing wrong with hit points.
Further, weapon damage and hit points are scaled. No normal man, even if a knight or leader (equivalent of a veteran), can withstand the full damage of weapons.
Levels and hit points are scaled towards heroic fantasy, the more a fighting man advances from normal man towards 'hero', the less likely melee/missile combat will be a simulation, which seems appropriate for a heroic fantasy game.
Gygax alluded to this in Dragon: As the object of the game was to provide a continuing campaign where players created and developed game personae, the chance for death (of either character or monster) was reduced from that in CHAINMAIL, so that players could withdraw their characters from unfavorable combat situations (19 Dragon 15)
Arneson and his players evidently added hit points due to the mortality rate of characters as well. Thomden wrote:
I disagree, the hit point spread in OD&D is scaled with weapons and damage for normal men. Lower numbers would only serve to undermine that abstraction.
Heroes and swordsmen are always at risk of vainly delving too deep, unwittingly falling down a chute into the lower dungeon levels, or encountering the same monsters wandering up from those levels. Both aspects are sure to remind players of their character's mortality.
robertsconley wrote:
Hit points are not just an enumeration of combat endurance, they can signify injury, otherwise insinuative poison would never take effect. What's important to observe about the abstraction is hit points represent the possibility for any of these factors or the combination thereof, e.g. fatigue, luck, favor of the gods, constitution etc. dwindling away a character or monster's defenses and eventually being felled by a telling blow. While hit points remain, they essentially enumerate why the last attack did not kill the character.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 16, 2020 23:25:29 GMT -6
I expect many of you know Miller from all of his contributions to the aesthetic 1st edition Warhammer. Have been trying to discover the title of this piece and where it was originally published? The only place I spied it online was on Pinterest with only a Tumbler blog title listed. Any thoughts would be much appreciated! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 14, 2020 13:33:44 GMT -6
Wow! Thanks so much, Allan. You are brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 7, 2020 4:27:20 GMT -6
I like your line of thinking derv, thanks!
While I have come to learn TRACTICS is for use with a d20, a beta version, the 'Fast Rules' pamphlet, is for use with 2d6. I wonder if the rules around morale are similar to one or both designs in Chainmail? Perhaps, someone here, who owns a copy of either will chime in.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 5, 2020 1:28:47 GMT -6
In "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery", Gary states the morale rules from Tractics be used:
‘Standard TRACTICS Morale should be used, except where refer- ence to enemy vehicle or AFV is made; real monster or strange monster’.
Any sense of them? Did they require 2d6? Were the troop statuses (regular, veteran, elite etc.) similar to those mentioned in "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery"?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 27, 2019 0:33:07 GMT -6
Look to the snow witches in the Newhon Mythos, if I recall correctly, and in the appendices for times of the year in which rituals occur, i.e the stars align, etc.
Right, Roger Bacon was writing in the Medieval period and Faust is presumed to have lived in the late Medieval. Faerie and demonic heritage, like that of Merlin, are derived from the woolier, tribal periods of the Dark Ages and before.
Enchanted World Books are always a win! ;-)
As I mentioned, 1-3rd level is the non-heroic game, it was also the level spread for Basic D&D; the rules as written work for this! Though as I mentioned above, bringing high level monsters, like the vampire, into this venue demand some attention and modification when experience levels are capped in this way.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 27, 2019 0:04:03 GMT -6
Scott Anderson:
Indeed, each monster becomes the sole source of adversity, excluding attrition and exposure in such remote locations. Perhaps some monsters might remain on the borderland, like the vampire, holding court with lusty thralls and nomadic retainers.
In an historic game, I would consider some modification without resorting to nerfing them. Following the example in my previous post, give the vampire the maximum hit points of a veteran, or whatever lvl. title experience is capped. Modify regeneration, upon reaching 0 hp, 'de hors de combat', regain 1/3 hit points/day while resting within his casket and native soil. As he may be impaled with a stake, I would lose the 'hit only by magical weapons'.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 26, 2019 23:32:09 GMT -6
Tkdco2 wrote:
Which ever class you decide to keep; I would take a hint from published Gygaxian source material, like Deities & Demigods, in which some 0-lvl npc have spell-like abilities, casting a spell as an 'n' level cleric or magic user once per lunar cycle/month, equinox, solstice etc.
Scholarly wizards, as far as I have come to understand them, are a facet of the Persian and Islamic Middle East or the late Medieval and Renaissance period in Europe. Spell casters with an otherworldly heritage suggest tribal spell casters and druids, I expect.
Consider Chainmail for simulation or Men & Magic, if playing loosely with level. A leader in Chainmail, man+1, is the equivalent of a veteran 1+1 HD in Men & Magic.
For historicity, play the non-heroic game, that of normal men and their leaders as explained in Chainmail, or if you must, add levels 2 and 3 in Men & Magic, HD: 2+1 and 3, respectively.
If engaged in lethal combat. rather than non-lethal, there is 1in6 chance of being injured, -1 on all dice rolls for 1d6+1 days. Zero hit points could be considered 'de hors de combat', 2in6 chance to survive (+1/lvl) veterans, (optionally warriors and swordsmen too). Rule that successful attacks from behind or perhaps surprise are considered 'de hors de combat'.
Adjust the healing rate, provided 1 turn in 6 is spent resting, to 1 hit point every 6 turns for hit points above zero. Recovering from 'de hors de combat' is 2d6 months and 2in6 chance convalescing without permanent injury. A permanent injury, -1 on all dice rolls', cannot be healed. Add 1 permanent hit point for each time a figure survives, 'de hors de combat'.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 23, 2019 18:49:35 GMT -6
Rafael wrote:
It's not just recent exchanges. The guy was just rarely civil, ever; nor particularly friendly to many who tried to engage him. It mattered little whether one hailed from the old or the new school. His temperament often obscured his informed and even astute observations, especially on Medieval history and warfare. It's a shame really, I heard him speaking on the BBC in 2017, I couldn't believe it was the same person. I think for those to whom he warmed, he could be very gracious.
Rafael, I hope the reality you speak of may become apparent to him in his absence.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 22, 2017 15:17:57 GMT -6
Robertsconley wrote:
As I noted above, I do not either, however, playing figures beyond the range of normal men and their leaders (veterans as they come to be understood in OD&D)that is those with multiple hit dice is the beginning of heroic fantasy...
Certainly not, as noted OD&D readily provides the option. The difficulty is that the adjucation often disrupts the abstraction or takes the form of a hand wave which to some feels overwrought and unfair. The ambiguity of the adjucation comes with the design.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 22, 2017 14:52:28 GMT -6
Foxroe wrote:
Agreed. It is the tactical considerations and technique of delivering the blade (additional weapon proficiency if using them) that are the mark of an assassin. Light and concealable weapons like those of the thief class and armor, if any, restricted to non-bulky so as to practice stealth should be specific to the trade . The skills of killing efficiently and discretely are something plied as much by a normal man as they could be by a veteran.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 22, 2017 2:39:31 GMT -6
- Gygax, (61 AD&D DMG)
Heroic fantasy offers a kind of agency counter to the realism implied in the convention of the 'normal man' i.e, multiple HD. Heroic Fantasy is the concept behind the abstraction of multiple HD. Multiple hit die are a signifier a figure exceeds 'the normal human range' as Joseph Campbell speaks of the heroic. If the realism of wounds or unfavorable circumstances that exceed the prowess of heroic fantasy characters is desired the numerical framing becomes ambiguous, e.g. do I attach a critical hit score or die or keep to the abstraction and hand wave for a desired result?
Gygax holds loosely to his own advice, penning multiple rulings peppering his modules which break with the abstraction allowing for broken limbs and decapitation. Of course, this dance begins with rulings like hit location in OD&D. Realism and Fantasy are at odds even for Gygax and he looks for ways to undermine 'the stuff of heroic fantasy'! Why? Well, to satisfy a latent need for 'simulation - realism' (9 DMG) which is assumed or perhaps 'obscured' in the abstraction. Real life Beheadings and kidnappings happen even in a fantasy roleplaying game - no matter 'how absurd' (9 DMG). He writes 'this is not to say where it (realism) does not interfere with the flow of the game the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged' (9 DMG).
Like OD&D and AD&D in their day, adherents of OS confront the same question of agency in the tension between realism and heroic fantasy. Once Heroes and Superheroes grace the field or hall one may be tempted to find another mechanic to discern an outcome, i.e, the d20 saving throw. And yet traps and secret doors may kill or thwart the designs of any level character on a d6; perhaps a numerical outlier of an earlier design much like being thrown from a horse in Chainmail.
For myself I am fond of dice reflecting the realism of the encounter and leaving the agency to party order, positioning, weapon choice, fatigue, morale scores (a version of a save) and appropriate implementation of figures as needed - a figure dawning plate mail will not be taking point as a scout. As our campaign is limited to normal men and leaders in a low-fantasy setting weapon entrapment, incapacitating wounds or a slow death are easily plausible and all with a discrete roll of one and two 6 sided dice.
Conversely, a figure of heroic fantasy conjures the idea of someone who stands beyond the normal range of adversity; so, of course, as did Gygax, we default to more hit dice and addendums to the abstraction should the probability spread be not wide enough to frame the slim or decreasing probability of failure in a fantasy milieu.
'OS always works' as Dungeondevil espouses, but the heroic concept beneath the design makes it harder and harder to achieve a desired realism in D&D without resorting to wider probability spreads and more dice rolling, giving OD&D and AD&D a sometimes passing resemblance to games like Gurps, Warhammer and Rolemaster.
The same consideration applies to scenarios like kidnapping: it is hard to imagine a heroic fantasy figure deprived of the chance to avail the odds and yet in a grittier game, events occur that are not in the figure's favor and all within the company or unit must adapt or fall apart.
Given the dance Gygax engages there is precedent for either choice. One may turn the abstraction inside out for an emphasis on the realism of a wound or circumstance at the risk of obstructing play and disrupting the elegance of the abstraction itself, or as ritt and Gronan remind us, one may handwave and make up the game desired, both are well within the bounds of OS.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 19, 2017 23:36:32 GMT -6
There is always a dragon in the campaign. It is deadly given our style of play is non-heroic (1st-3rd lvl) and to be avoided. They dwell deep within the wilderness which makes their lair perilous to reach.
Dragons are elemental, they are a manifestation of something inimical to men and a parley is rather absurd.
They are daimonic, again elemental. As Tetramorph observes, despite their corporeality, they are within the ranks of demons and gods.
Any mention of them lay within the myriad of rumors heard on the road or by the hearth. Often they are the antagonist who has settled in flame upon a distant outpost of which the party is meant to relieve or rescue.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 9, 2017 12:25:24 GMT -6
Scott Anderson wrote:
Gygax elaborates the description from the PHB in the U.A on page 22 to include kobolds and goblins alike.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 8, 2017 21:23:48 GMT -6
Zulygan wrote:
A fair sentiment, but messy, I expect, as players are more likely to conflate compounding elements of the rules with a character being unique as the OP suggests.
It is positive only if one wishes to slide into Advanced and later editions. The game does not remain simple. Simple means the efficacy of class is assumed in the game elements themselves, i.e. , level, weapon choice (Chnml MTM) or attack matrices (3LBBs), etc. The uniqueness, barring player skill, background and particular style (Roman, Norman, Celtic etc.), is implied in the game "elements" or abstraction. Inserting or compounding elements of the game without having a sense of what is implied in the abstraction encumbers the simplicity of the design.
To be sure, there is latitude to shade the classes; some fighters are fanatical, berserk or just a higher morale rating than those of their unit type (see Gronan's point above concerning troop type), some have military training and access to particular types of weaponry and armor while others not, etc. There are various minor permutations that may be 'applied', from morale ratings to a +1 "to hit" modifier that enumerate something characteristic of this kind of fighting man (a fanatical warrior might have +1 "to hit" as exemplified by the Dervish man type). Further, those qualities or advantages often reveal a dearth of resources or access to arms, armor and even mounts perhaps, characteristic of another type of fighting man. Nonetheless, all of this compliments the abstraction rather than burdening it with unnecessary bells and whistles that slow the game and ignore the design.
I think the DM or the DM and the players together are more likely to come to an understanding of the design and the implied "variety", rather than permitting players to tinker and play around with the game. It's a subtle distinction, complimenting the game and playing around with the game. Admittedly, most of us, myself included, have confused the two.
Sixdemonbag wrote:
You "could" and can play an entire campaign with only class and level based stuff. We rid ourselves of stats some time ago and as you suggest never think on it. Conversely, as Gronan suggests, experience modifiers and prime requisites are useful. Moreover it's a rather elegant use of stats, should one choose to use them at all.
Hamurai wrote:
The melee rounds in Chainmail are indefinite, while the turn is certain. It may be that each melee rd. is a 'chop', a swing or in a 'fast and furious' melee these are actually the telling blows.
Agreed. This is a fine example of what is assumed or implied in the abstraction, or elements of the game.
Scott Anderson wrote:
I rely on descriptors rather than stats in this case, but again, should one use stats, this is gold; well said, Scott.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 9, 2017 16:42:00 GMT -6
Ritt wrote:
It's true, Waysofthearth schooled me on this a few months back.
gronanofsimmerya wrote:
Huh, fascinating, that's really cool Gronan. Anything, you care to add?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 3, 2017 18:56:49 GMT -6
Found this particularly instructive for those who lean on tactics and weapon type in the resolution of melee. Further the exposition sheds light on the sense of vulnerability expressed by conventions like armor class. Lastly, morale is well-framed with regard to training, arms and armor. Broadly speaking this observation reinforces of much of what is implied in mass and even man-to-man melee in Chainmail. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGY2OqMXF9w Invasion of Gotland
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 14, 2016 19:03:30 GMT -6
Were you to provide a map fitting the time period or one just prior, I think the map in White Plume Mountain is exemplary (though I like your handout as well). Much like that of White plume, maps in the medieval period are meant to locate oneself cosmologically rather than geographically; the account for distance in leagues would come later. One might consider such a map within the limits of Europe as if to say, "If we go south from Manz we will eventually come to where the men speak Italian, continuing on and we will come to Rome, the seat of Holy Mother Church". Cartography by the 1600's has probably become more observational and geographic, nautical maps of the period might offer a sense of how discrete mapping had become...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 28, 2016 9:42:44 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
That players will have to earn the characters who do "x", here confusion arises for many. Understandably, many would like to begin as Fafhrd and Mouser or some derivation thereof. One may do so, of course, but that is not necessarily apparent.
This is the implication of the fantasy combat table and 4th level or hits and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 26, 2016 10:36:21 GMT -6
Gygax is concerned about playability, but it is always with regard to his interest in realism (emphasis on "ism") and it's full expression as simulation. Gygax was not satisfied with Parcheesi or even Chess this is why he began with the simulation that is a wargame.
To be clear here, "games" are a rational expression. That is, like the word, there is a ratio, a proportion between "the play" (returning to Kesher's citation above)and the thing the play imitates. The History of art reveals much of the same story, there is primitive art, like cave painting, and there is realism in art, like the portraiture of Vermeer or Wyeth, one of profound simplicity the other of beguiling detail.
Whatever the proportion between the imitation and it's subject - the game and the world, the act and not just the end or result is an expression of our willing suspension of disbelief; sustaining that depends much on everyone's understanding of the play - a lot of the reason this continues to become a topic of discussion.
If you want to play loose and poetic - play Chainmail or White Box, if you want more granularity - play AD&D, or Rolemaster, or Runequest. The choice comes down to how much of the math (the imitation) you wish to be spelled out - everyone who has played rpgs knows exactly what that means especially in contrast to war games in which most of what is subsumed is hidden behind a simple d6 chart.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 21, 2016 12:49:02 GMT -6
The Fiendish Dr. wrote:
I think all of this rests on the distinction between normal and fantastic combat found in Chainmail. Essentially, A world in which a human single-handed might challenge a monster of 3 or more hit dice (or fall from a great height) is a world of heroes (a lvl title that correlates with the figures of fantastic combat in Chainmail)a world of fantasy. A milieu in which many humans might confront a creature of fantasy/horror (that can by design be hit by normal weapons) and survive is that of "normal men" and "normal combat". So if you want more realism, use normal combat in Chainmail and flavor it with some monsters you want to see in the campaign, or keep a level ceiling at 3rd level (i.e., just play Basic).
Well said.
This approach essentially emulates the design. Leveling does allow one to shrug off more damage and the attack matrices, saving throw tables, class abilities and a player's tactical choices in response to these bear that out. Granted if the essential currency of the game were hit points (i.e. every consequence in the game were framed by hit point loss) I think this would definitely be a beginning to a compelling design.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 14, 2016 15:05:04 GMT -6
hedgehobbit wrote:
From a different angle, very similar to the point I was making. A corollary would be how fantastic/heroic does one wish the game to be? I think Chainmail MTM is a format that works quite well for Medieval simulation (a game of normal men and their leaders) and the low magic and Cthulesque campaign. Obviously, levels lend to the eventual fantastic/heroic format.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 4, 2016 7:57:18 GMT -6
Kesher wrote:
Agreed, by design they don't follow the same rules. This kind of notation is present in OD&D and AD&D, it's nothing more than a shorthand, a vestige of the wargame. Higher skill among monsters was not acquired rather it was implied as the game dictated or required. Now an rpg, the platform for players changed. "Strength and skill" are magnified or made granular to support the heroic and especially player-centered aspect of the new game. A figure, once defined by fixed abilities, is understood through the graduated or serial framework of experience points; abilities are acquired rather than implied. It's a new convention reserved for players, while the monsters remain, in this respect, within the static boundaries of the wargame.
The elegance of the early editions is revealed by how much is assumed in the distribution of probability. In the wargame this is observed by the MTM table,in the rpg level is the primary "attribute" rather than weapon type,nonetheless, subsumed as part of the distribution. The more mechanics applied, the more evident it becomes the framework in place is a poor design, much like having to patch a leaky roof, or alternatively, that the original design is not entirely comprehended.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 3, 2016 10:22:25 GMT -6
Personally, fiddly percentages, too much of a departure.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 21, 2016 1:36:02 GMT -6
Xerxes, sorry for the delay. I am running Firefox for internet access and it has been failing to download and upload; so here is a link to the article:
*Link removed my your friendly neighborhood modmonster.*
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 18, 2016 22:07:25 GMT -6
Xerxes wrote:
Hmmm...try the "High Seas" article in Dragon 116, I cannot speak to the historicity of prices and repairs, but the author at least lists sources and all appear to speak to the subject. For historical conversion, after losing sleep over trying to make sense of it all, I use this formula (equipment lists in the AD&D PHB, and wages in AD&D DMG and the ship prices in this article): Weapons, armor and items: prices in gp translate to silver(d.)deniers by multiplying by 10 Wages: prices in silver pieces translate directly to silver (d.) deniers.
If you don't have a copy of 116, message me and I will email you a pdf.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 18, 2016 8:51:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 14, 2016 20:20:57 GMT -6
aldarron wrote:
Chainmail appears to set the precedent for deciding initiative. In the turn sequence section, players dice for initiative, the winner choosing to move first or last. The moving unit is the attacker should he enter the defined distance for melee. These rules precede the MTM, thus applying to the MTM should they otherwise be not amended in the MTM description itself.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 9, 2016 15:16:30 GMT -6
jdn2006
The bell curve is more old school due to the prowess of trained combatants being implied in the distribution of probability, rather than applied by modifiers. That is the elegance of the MTM table in Chainmail.
|
|