|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 11, 2013 8:05:52 GMT -6
Sulldawga wrote: I started with AD&D first edition, but through years of dialogue on K&K and some exchange here (not to mention the wealth of OD&D commentary archived here) I have moved closer to Chainmail MTM in the past year. I run two styles of the game; one is non-heroic (lvls 1-3), the other is a version of Chainmail and the Dungeon Boardgame mechanic that works with 'kills' instead of 'hits'.
I have very strongly house-ruled magic users and clerics to reflect the setting. In short, I have focused on their status as normal men, and the consequences of magic are reflected on morale dice (yes, morale dice and fear are interchangeable in this campaign) with the possibility for insanity as a result of failed casting and failed morale dice.
Classes: fighters usually with racial modifiers e.g. monastic knights are 'fanatical' (see dervishes) and are supplied armor, weapons and horses (the number depending on rank) and begin with very little money (see monks as an example - using a silver standard). Thieves are handled as expert hirelings and are written up like the bandit - having a 'racial ability' which is reflected in the primary mechanics, e.g surprise; most are 0-lvl/normal men what have you.
I encourage players to play PC's from any racial group. I don't limit how many PCs a character may play since the game lends itself mechanically more to a wargame (Chainmail MTM) than an rpg. That said, the game still plays like an rpg. I mention that because often we try have a game that includes like racial types (assassins with assassins, templars with templars and retainers/henchmen, thieves with thieves, cultists and cultists etc. - obviously there are overlaps too, like cultists and assassins etc.) unless there is some work done to craft specific character or adventure backgrounds to allow for overlap
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 9, 2013 15:53:27 GMT -6
I have been running a campaign set in the Levant for quite a few years now. Occassionally, the adventures have even involved Southeast Asia as well. Most if not all of Aher's background on the Crusades has colored the campaign I have run. Maybe his comments might appear long-winded to some, but there's nothing about the material he has presented that is not part of an honest backdrop for adventuring in the Levant. And to Falconer's examples of literature to draw from, the likes of Cadfael would be quite at home with Aher's vision of the Levant.
Historically speaking, I don't know if Krusader meant to conflate the conspiracy at the heart of Warhammer's Enemy Within Campaign with the heretically deemed movements and even cultures of the Middle Ages, but they trully bear no resemblance to one another. It should be noted that the Cathars composed tens of thousands of people murdered during the crusade in France, and the Waldensians were part of the protestant reformation and are extant in Italy today right near the Vatican. It should also be noted that these groups were excommunicated by the Roman Church, so the idea of casting their alignments as chaotic does not follow. I would cast both the Church and the excommunicated as Lawfuls with a serious disagreement about the nature of God and faith. That said, Krusader's adventure as he has described is rich and well-constructed, though I might leave out the mephits and stick with the white phosphorous/evaporating gases or the hidden zinc jar of naphtha - doesn't have to be any less miraculous, Aquinas in the vein of Aristotle would just call those 'effecient causes'.
It is one thing appropriate an historical backdrop, it is another to just pick and choose what makes everyone feel comfortable. There is enough fantasy and lack of rational observation to go round in our post 9/11 digital age, why add to it? I have found that players enjoy historical detail and enjoy the opportunity to ponder the meaning of that detail both in the game and in relation to their actual lives. Why dumb-down the moment for anyone?
I very much appreciated Derv's and Bexley's comments which I believe kept the conversation about the history of the crusades from turning into Walt Disney affair.
And to Falconer's point about it being 'nice to have them feel like heroes, instead of reluctant villains, or like they have to be fighting other Christians in ideals'... the moral question is always part of playing a 'hero' and certainly the point of playing with alignment. PC's worried about whether or not they have become villains by their actions or that they may bear heretical views that put them at odds with say the pope's military orders is what playing in the Levant is all about.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 8, 2013 21:39:02 GMT -6
Inkmeister wrote:'The fighter class can model all kinds of stuff, the details are filled in by roleplaying. I prefer to keep things more general and abstract, rather than trying to represent every idea in little rules tweaks. The advantage to a simpler game is there is less to keep track of, less to balance, less unintended consequences'.
I agree with your assessment of the game and its balance. One could argue that the modifiers associated with men racial types (bandits, dervishes, woodsman etc.) are there to approximate the mean specimen, since ability scores are unique to PC's and NPC's. That argument may not hold up, however, as other racial types associated with PC's (dwarves, halflings, elves etc.) usually benefit from racial modifiers. I, myself, have done away with ability scores substituting static modifiers for racial types ( so there are dervishes, woodsman, berserkers etc. in the campaign) and managed to not harm the core abstraction.
Even without applying racial modifiers, the beserk quality of being impelled to engage in melee until all foes are slain adds a certain color to the game without having to alter the dice. I prefer having modifiers in addition, but one could play with certain mechanisms like the one above and achieve much the same for dramatic effect.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 26, 2012 17:47:03 GMT -6
Aher wrote, 'Basic D&D...adds the following rules about spoilage (69 RC)..Deutsche Wikipedia has an article on Eiserne Ration'. Thanks for this interesting post!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 16, 2012 22:38:29 GMT -6
Taking a step back here. Zenopus interprets the wandering monster die as a dungeoneer's skill:
I like his reading of this, but I have always understood the roll to be random, more or less part of the dungeon key, having little reference to the party. Isn't the 'Avoiding Monsters' taken up in U&WA (12)? Has anyone else interpreted the die as Zenopus? Zenopus or anyone else can you present some of the considerations you imagine assumed in that roll?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 6, 2012 3:26:27 GMT -6
Thanks JC, completely completely missed the idea of connecting the movement die roll to melee initiative. Much clearer now. 'Both opponents roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move)' (9 Chnml).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 4, 2012 16:24:47 GMT -6
Jcstephens and rsdean your accounts seem intuitive. I was just struck by how entirely 'unclear' this is as you note. It does not appear that dicing for initiative is a precident set forth anywhere in Chainmail. I had just assumed Gary was relying on simultaneous initiative, though I'm not sure how that would actually work. If the two of you or anyone else has a clear idea of this please post!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 2, 2012 20:02:36 GMT -6
I must be overlooking something, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction. In the 'man-to-man' battery of Chainmail how does one determine which of the combatants within melee range (3") is the attacker and whom is the defender. I realize there are all sorts of qualifiers about the combatant as defender, attackers positioning, and combatant's weapon class, but which of the opposing figures has the initiative?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 24, 2011 13:05:38 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Yeah, thanks, looks like I conflated Chainmail initiative with that of AD&D [discharge of missiles is (d) out A-H (61 DMG.)]. BTB then, missile weapons in 'Man-to-Man' are deadly, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 10, 2011 12:38:06 GMT -6
Agreed, and your point is one of the reasons I framed the question in terms of the 'Man-to-Man' battery.
Imagine this however: Departing from the RAW, consider missile weapons in the same light as melee weapons, i.e, 1 projectile/rd. [(10/turn) (8 U&WA)].
To do this accurately (as the ranges given reflect firing at an arc) the effective range for a longbow, for example, must be altered by dividing by 10 (Delta wrote a good piece on this), the effective range (s, m, l) being 70 yds (210 yds outdoors (AD&D)/mass combat range). If a skirmisher charges at 15"/turn he moves 15 yards/rd (10 rds/turn). If he is 45 yards from an archer, he will be fired on at least twice (thrice if the archer is willing to risk the shot) before engaging him.
Another key place I am departing with the RAW, barring closing range, is to dice for initiative for missile weapons only in relation to other missile weapons. Otherwise, at the beginning of every 6 second melee round I would be dicing initiative which seems pointless in the example barring the skirmishers carrying missile/projectile weapons themselves.
Again, I am just trying to explore the apparent discrepancy betweem real world demonstrations of fire rates and that of the game, and to suggest a possible alternative, while attempting understand what is assumed in the abstraction as it is provided in the game.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 7, 2011 13:16:18 GMT -6
Mushgnome wrote:
This is true, given that arrows and swords do the same amount of damage in Chainmail and the 3LBBs, but considering a fire rate by round instead of turn does not appear to me to shift the initial balance.
Indeed, I really like that perspective, well said. That certainly appears to be an apt interpretation of missile fire into a unit in which one is rolling 'to kill' but is unable to achieve the 'coup-de-grace'.
A slight digression: Something T.Foster over at the Alehouse suggested that I thought was quite clever for dealing with the specific nature of missile fire in an abstract context:
Nagora posted this cleverness:
Or one could dispense with counting arrows and assume arrows to be salvaged from felled opponents, or picked up from the battlefield, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 7, 2011 12:55:25 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: Agreed and a good cautionary note. The example I gave really rests on an archer being stationary. I would imagine that having to aim at a target is assumed in the 1arrow/6 second rate involves a fair amount of concentration that would mirror firing missiles at an advancing unit on a battlefield. Some have argued that the abstract nature of the fire rate implies landing 'the best potential shot' within that 60 second period. This point of view, however, seems to coincide with the concentration needed to find a target at various ranges during a demonstation and landing a shot that would chip away hit points in a game situation. That said, a unit employing the charge maneuver would negate any consideration of this.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 7, 2011 11:35:27 GMT -6
Mushgnome wrote:
Thanks Mushgnome, this I was aware of, but did not make explicit. I imagined that there might be some exception in the 'man-to-man' battery.
Cooper wrote:
That sounds about right, how did you pull this from the RAW in Chainmail?
The assumption here is that the unit or single man is in range, but certainly they could fall back. Indeed, charging is where the rate of 10 arrows/minute becomes untenable and possibly irrelevant.
1) If the archer is not going to continue to loose arrows up until the very last moment (possible morale chk.) drawing a melee weapon would certainly come into play 2)Most of the demonstrations I have seen involve an archer loosing 8-10 arrows/minute at a target. Granted the target would be considered short range. However, I imagine questions concerning longer ranges is assumed in the abstraction involving range modifiers. 3) True, the full fire rate could only be applied if the opponent appeared to be within the s/m/l range familiar to trained and seasoned archer. That assumption, however, does not seem unreasonable. 4) Well, certainly this modifies the engagement of the archer might possibly mitigate the range modifier. Fair enough, yet this interpretation of time assumes that all adversaries are within closing range. If a unit advanced at its normal rate without charging, wishing to use its shield adjustment vs. missiles (bear with me, I may be thinking AD&D) instead of bringing upon themselves further harm, it seems to me that an adjusted fire rate more akin to historical demonstation might be fitting.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 7, 2011 9:05:04 GMT -6
Something we are bandying about over at the Alehouse, does anyone have any thoughts on why these rates of fire are so wildly different from what we have discerned from historical research and re-enactments? I realize that the # of arrows is not specified in mass combat in Chainmail, that is why I framed my initial question in terms of the 'man-to-man' battery, guessing that maybe the number of arrows might become a consideration. Anyway any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 7, 2011 8:55:07 GMT -6
We don't use stats just classes and some applied racial qualities (see MM or GryhwkGlss) for color. If we were to roll stats I am inclined to agree with Howandwhy99 who wrote:
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 6, 2011 1:29:18 GMT -6
Are missile/projectile weapons addressed in the Man-to-Man component? If so any ideas on how fire rate would be handled? I realize 'Man-to-Man' may simply refer to list combat and this question may be seeking to interpret more broadly single combat.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 30, 2011 12:30:22 GMT -6
Waysoftheearthwrote:
Very good points. I have been playing in a low magic ancient world setting for so long now I had forgotten about experiences like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and overlooked that some here play with an integrated post-earth or sci-fi battery. I think alien civilizations and landscapes are just too remote psychologically for the medieval mind. I would handle this much like Gygax did with S3, without an encrypted keycard access to the 'dungeon' or 'lair' is limited at best. As for diabolical locks on other planes (imagining something like the automated gears and fly wheels of the door at Hogworts) the cunning of these mechanisms I imagine could only thwart the wiles of most thieves.
If the technology level were that of the Roman or Renaissance period in which lock mechanisms were actually sophisticated I agree a locksmith's picks and tools might be applicable. As I mentioned above, I think the issue with opening locks is the time required and the possible 'fouling' of the lock. With enough time anyone proficient with these tools should be able to open most locks save fouling one.
One must be actively searching for these so I would rule that the 'thief' has a normal chance to notice a secret door, the player being more mindful of hazards or secrets in the dungeon just chooses to follow a hunch more often than others in his party. If one wished you could rule a special case in which this 'thief' character interacts with secret doors (and the like) as would an elf. I am of course noting the 'thief' in parenthesis as a special case, a sort of 'racial quality' like one sees under the notation for 'Man' in the AD&D MMI. In this case 'thief' instead of 'bandit/brigand'.
Understood. I tend to rule that a +4 'to hit' from behind describes this advantage, and if using multiple segments of suprise a lot of damage can be done.
Thanks Ways, I tend to rule similarily, but with a 3in6 ceiling, unless an the thief is an elf.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 24, 2011 22:05:40 GMT -6
Wel,l here are my coppers in response Ways: hide in shadows/moving silently: echoing Tank's point of 'any lightly armored character being stealthy' or the emphasis on non-metal armor (see AD&D PHB), these abilities suggest an increased chance [similar to ranger (PHB) or woodsman (Gryhwk. glssgphy)] to surprise, preferably 3in6, unless an elf. Urban thieves are more akin to a bandit/brigand type (see AD&D MMI) plying such these characteristics while residing in the seedier districts of the city. Pick pockets: surprise roll (as surprise dice can suggest evasion as well). open locks: echoing Philotomy, most locks in a dark age/medieval setting will be crude (1in6/open doors or normal chances with a locksmith hireling if able to be persuaded to go into a dungeon), or no lock at all - door or window is barred [Three rolls of 2in6/barred door (22 Q1), three rolls of 1in6/ barred door (17 B2)] - possibly chained, requiring a total of 6 rolls. The issue is how many turns, and how much noise it will require to gain passage through a door. With regard to locks, time is the factor - being limited to 1-4rds (see DMG), a turn for more complex mechanisms, and dicing a 1d6 a roll of 6 indicating the lock is fouled and no further attempt may be made. The tried-and-true approach - get hold of the keys from one of the place's inhabitants or if all else fails hacking the door to pieces [each die of damage of 4 or more yields 1 structural pt. and making sure to include 3 wandering monsters chks. over the period of a turn (97 AD&D DMG)]. Otherwise, hauling a treasure chest for example back into town or city for a locksmith to address. Dwaynu touches on this in that a thief/locksmith is now on site instead of outside the dungeon, adventures were less likely to haul out a chest filled with coppers, and the dungeon environment altered to 'protect the niche' of the thief...'dungeon doors formerly just stuck became locked, The "Remove Traps" roll got applied to things besides treasure chests, and traps tended to function reliably (not just 1/3 of the time)'. Find traps: thieves have no better chance of finding a trap (small spring-loaded or gear-driven devices) than a scribe, nor disarming one, resorting to the same trial-and-error methods of 'non-thieves'; the chance of spotting traps is a relic of Classic editions; larger traps (pits etc.) can be discerned by dwarves or by all party members through 'careful and descriptive play' to be found, removed or bypassed. One might add dex adj to avoid traps as seen in the Tomb of Horrors, but again that would pertain to all PCs. climb walls: rope, grappling hook and/or spider harness, or take the stairs ...I think it's important that castle and city walls really are a formidable challenge to the designs of PCs. hear noise: give a non-metal armored PC the advantage of 'keen hearing' as an elf, 2in20 (see AD&D DMG). back stab: 'see no good reason a thief should be physically better at killing from behind - he just has a much easier time getting there' – Joe Mac Conceptually I sympathize with Jamesm's paraphrased words attributed to Gygax, 'Thieves were originally intended primarily as henchmen rather than PCs...they weren't the stuff from which heroes were made' and following this up with theMattjon's warning of 'dropping the bastard like a hot potato when the job's done'. Mechanically, Wothbora addresses the issue from the start, 'the system becomes unstable once various "skills" are brought into play'. This is clarified by Foster's analysis citing a 'fiddly percentage-based skill system and the slippery slope to RQ'.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 23, 2011 14:49:12 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: Interesting explanation Cooper, very helpful! Have always felt that way and eventually had to house rule clerics as 0-lvl normal men with scribe or sage abilities depending on what historical analogue was being used.
Had made the connection between 'Bless' and the static ability in Chainmail, but not the Morale/Turning Undead mechanic. Nicely done. Interestingly, for years I have houseruled turning as part of the morale mechanic.
GronanofSimmarya wrote:
Very interesting, had no idea about 'Sir Fang' and vampire hunter analogue, thanks Gronan.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 4, 2011 10:15:58 GMT -6
Man-To-Man Combat: (applies against normal men only) normal man: 1 attack (roll 2d6), leader (veteran):as a normal man +1 (roll 2d6+1) commander: as a normal man +2 (roll 2d6+2) berserker: as a normal man +2 (roll 2d6+2) berserker leader (veteran): as a normal man +3 (roll 2d6+3) warrior: as two normal men +1 (roll 2d6, roll 2d6+1) swordsman: as three normal men (roll 2d6, roll 2d6, roll 2d6) giant orcs: as a normal man caveman: as two normal men +1 (roll 2d6, roll 2d6+1) (7 M&T). ogre: as six normal men (roll 2d6,roll 2d6,roll 2d6,roll 2d6,roll 2d6,roll 2d6)...realize this guy is questionable as he is not a man.
Trying out d6 instead of d20 for the first time - do I have this right or have I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2011 20:22:35 GMT -6
Thanks Aldarron, I imagine you are probably correct here, though I realize the game and its evolution is organic, I am often rather disappointed when I come to such a conclusion - sort of like comig to a random dead-end in a dungeon - no searching for secret doors will change the outcome...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2011 18:43:00 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Could also apply the less granular ruling in Sword & Spells...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2011 17:41:16 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
What purpose does that serve? Was there something previously wrong with men-at-arms?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 22, 2011 23:12:19 GMT -6
Kesher and Tombowings thanks for the curiosity, I think Cooper pretty much nailed it. As Waysoftheearth noted this strictly affects combat vs. 'the least of foes'. I find it to be compelling as it is an exaggeration (i.e. powercreep) of where we began in Chainmail. Otherwise it appears that the integration of the Attack Matrices and the ruling on multiple attacks against normal men might have just gotten lost in the translation.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 9, 2011 11:39:04 GMT -6
Bargle posted this at the Alehouse, but surprisingly got no feedback, so I thought I would post it here:
Is there a distortion here, if so what are your thoughts and why do you believe this occured?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 25, 2011 0:23:20 GMT -6
Dmoffgood, try this blog out for starters, read the responses too, they will lead to some very informative exchanges on the very subject via Dragonsfoot. tombsofhorrors.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 24, 2011 11:11:09 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: I would submit that the probability distribution of the 2d6 is part of the 'implied landscape', the abstraction that is. 2d6 subsumes part of how difficult it is to vanquish armored opponents.
Cooper I am probably a little dense on probabilities sometimes, could you expand on the 'extra attack' part?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 19, 2011 1:37:59 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Thanks Cooper!
Alexander wrote:
Indeed, the berserker's +2 cannot be taken too lightly.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 19, 2011 0:44:21 GMT -6
Dungeondevil:
I do as well, and though Chainmail is new to me, I have found it to be a bit of a locus point to really assess the necessity of the changing style and mechanics of the OD&D/AD&D and AD&D (post U.A) . Specifically, I have been thinking about the alternative combat system without the fantasy supplement in Chainmail. Thanks for the detail of normal, concise and very helpful.
In AD&D this array of 'monsters' are all 0 lvl with the exception of leaders. Variable weapon damage is employed instead of 'variable hit dice' as Cooper notes, and the 'to hit vs. armor types' table replaces the MTM.
Cooper wrote:
Hey Cooper, so sorry I did not. I must have just missed it, have been back to the thread a quite a few times...Glad you reminded me to read it...this time I got, I think before I wasn't sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek or for real. Thanks! yeah, that citation seems pretty spot-on.
Ahhh...I see. Yet, which unit determines our measure for normal man? As you illustrate, if it is to be armored foot then the heavy horseman must have 3 hit dice or 3 hits from a single armored foot (knight). If the measure is light footmen then the heavy horseman must have 4 hd if I have understood the example. The determination of which unit is the normal man and the subsequent defining of hit dice for other normal men appears a bit ambiguous, does it not? This, I am sure, must be rote by now, but it is really helpful and really interesting. Variable hit dice instead of variable damage...
If a berserker [heavy foot (10 Chnml.)] was in a melee with a knight (armored foot), the berserker is 1-1hd. That is armored foot vs. heavy foot (1 die/man, kills on a 5 and 6). The knight would be considered 2 hd. That is heavy foot vs. armored foot (1 die/2 men, kills on a 6) The berserker has +2 on attack dice, so he kills on 4,5, and 6. Do I seem to be reading this correctly?
Okay, so in AD&D where normal men become 0-lvl, a leader, like AD&D serjeant is described as 1st lvl. a veteran of a few battles. This is also the case for elites in Sword and Spells.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 18, 2011 20:35:02 GMT -6
Who would of thought, interesting.
|
|