|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 14, 2014 21:26:48 GMT -6
Kent, while American religiosity might be rife with fundamentalist misreadings of the scriptures or Catholic dogma substituting for scripture, that is a gross generalization of religion here. Most Roman Catholic dioceses, Protestant denominations, and much of Judaism have strived to be as rigorous as the Western Tradition allows and sometimes to a fault. While I might share your view that the general tenor of religion in America does more to exacerbate global issues, it does not represent all who are relgious. There are many religious people here and in Europe alike working for a better world.
Oakesspalding, I have to say I played with many kids who either played evil characters or DM'ed some bad-ass evil NPCs. All of those figures were expressions of the darker half of the imagination, channelled and released, but immersive not really - nobody really internalized the consequences of evil. As was mentioned above, these were villains who mirrored those of literature or film like Mad Max or Excalibur.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 31, 2014 21:11:57 GMT -6
You surmised my question squarely - right, you are not stating that OD&D's normal men are '0-lvl men'. So, In Chainmail, there are distinct differences between leaders (essentially 1+1 HD or veteran) and a normal man (levy or regular). In the 3LBBs + supplements a veteran is 1+1 HD as you have noted, a normal man is 1 HD, and both roll on the same part of the attack matix. If I understand your angle, you are approaching the difference between a normal man and a veteran from that of the 3LBBs + supplements and not so much from Chainmail. If this is so, what is the weight of that distinction (barring role playing) when discussing the thief, for as it appears mechanically there is no difference between the normal man and the veteran with the exception of a hit point?
Be a thief a veteran or not (of which I agree nominally the denotation of veteran to be absurd, barring becoming a leader type with a class), and whether Geoffrey's find is reducable to a fantasy trope or suggests a hireling/bandit - a normal man of some ill-repute, Geoffrey's citation still suggests the presence of thieves in the absence of a class by such a name.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 31, 2014 19:35:18 GMT -6
Hawklord wrote: Ah synchronicity,came across a review of his book in White Dwarf Magazine yesterday, had never heard of it and am considering ordering a copy. How do you like it?
Anathemata wrote: I err on the side of qualifiers, usually throwing in an ability that carries the essential character of that qualifier. Agreed 'one day a magic user, one day a fighter' is odd. I tend to allow any armor a mage so chooses, instead of loosing both their life and a chosen spell should they take damage during an encounter, they stand to lose just their spell. I also don't allow them to wield a weapon any better than a normal man.
porphyre77 wrote:
I have always sensed that connection, but have never articulated it myself or heard it spelled out by another. In fact, I have run campaigns with Melniboneans and played them much like elves with a chaotic neutral bent. Very cool reading of elves porphyre77.
redbaron wrote:
Nicely stated.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 31, 2014 17:44:26 GMT -6
Simon, not trying to be Cheeky, but you had posted this in a recent exchange, which is why I almost hedged equating normal men with veterans "0 level: fighter men don't exist in OD&D. In OD&D "normal" men have 1, or even up to 2 HD". So are you now stating normal men then 0-lvl?
Also, even if thieves should fail to be equatable with veterans, 0-lvl humans in the DMG engage in melee and save on the same matrices as fighters. It seems reasonable that thieves could be equated with normal men for one, and two that they are essentially a 0-lvl figure like a bandit, with the possiblity of having a class as a leader type. This is a position I have advanced a few times previously on the board.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 30, 2014 23:56:49 GMT -6
redbaron wrote:
This.
Waysoftheearth wrote:
Ways, I think what red is driving (with compliments to Geoffrey for his find) at is that 'thieves' existed initially as fighting men, because that is the default classification for normal humans in OD&D (0-lvl in AD&D).
Vile wrote: Agreed, but I think it also support Geoffrey's point that the thief as a separate class was as of yet not conceived.
Geoffrey wrote: As do I.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 13, 2014 20:56:07 GMT -6
Zulgyan wrote: Not with OD&D/AD&D mechanics, contemporary-style rpgs by design are applied mechanics, they reflect the player character not the setting (i.e. dungeon key in FRPG), that's why the percentile dice gets so much milage. The Fubar engines of which Torreny and I spoke of are awesome, but they are static mechanically and thus more like a wargame.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 12, 2014 22:15:45 GMT -6
joseph wrote: Cool, it's a great game, and there are some fantastic homebrew versions of investigators, monsters, scenarios, heralds and ancient ones that are floating around the internet. As have I, Arkham aesthetically really catches something Lovecraftian, and the mechanics really work well with keeping to the atmosphere. Impressed - it's a tough game. Our whole group usually gets wasted before the Ancient One comes to plow us under, but then again I like to play with lots of boards and expansions at the same time
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 11, 2014 17:16:12 GMT -6
Torreny wrote:
Thanks Torreny, Aliens vs. Predator and Star Wars whoa! Fan of their version of LOTR, will have to look into these! BTW Fubar Afghanistan has a nice twist on some of the core rules.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 8, 2014 21:27:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 1, 2014 15:22:05 GMT -6
Derve wrote:
That was specifically answered in eldritch wizardry with the 6 segment round… gygax states that the Eldritch Wizardry initiative rules were for those players wishing for more detailed rules covering man-to-man combat. - Cooper(http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/5567)
Granted, segments and seconds are not the same, but it's clear Gygax was attempting granularity in the MTM combat turn. 10 seconds/melee rd or 6 melee rds/turn still does not offer an adequate take on fatigue. 3 Chainmail turns still seems more appropriate, even if that means most combatants will meet death before fatigue.
Derve wrote:
I see, yes, that is sort of what I am suggesting above, except leaving rds. as they are and shifting the abstraction of time in which fatigue sets in; otherwise the sense of melee being 'fast and furious' is lost.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 24, 2014 13:31:28 GMT -6
redbaron wrote:Very cheeky...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 23, 2014 14:23:31 GMT -6
Interesting article, thanks, I tend to err on the side of 'secret' in both dice rolls and tabulation of lost hit points. All that dice rolling in the hands of the players in my experience lends itself to a 'roll playing' game. As a referee the task is to set the mood and the scene keeping the number-crunching, if any, off the minds of the players. As for keeping up with the abstraction, the numbers, keep it lean, the more external modifiers in the hands of the players or that are not already assumed as part of the abstraction, the more work for you as a Dungeon Master, and the less able will you be to lend yourself to your players on behalf of the mood and scene.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 21, 2014 10:23:48 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth, I think redbaron was thinking of this: I may be mistaken, but in AD&D barring a resurrection spell, elves may only be reincarnated.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 21, 2014 9:55:15 GMT -6
As was cited by Jamesm and Gronanofsimmerya there is the DMG helmet ruling. Nothing wrong with rolling an extra d6 along with the roll 'to hit', that is, a 3in6 chance that the 'to hit' dice will be compared with the AC of an opponent's head (barring combat with an unintelligent monster).
jdjarvis's ruling (see above) compliments this well: (paraphrased)
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 20, 2014 23:14:34 GMT -6
redbaron wrote:
I was never able to imagine why one type monster left you fleeing in panic and another left you frozen in your tracks. I had included both as options along with insanity for a Homebrewed a fear/morale failure table, but your explanation really sheds light on how fear might take shape with respect to undead and other monsters. Moreover, though I had intuited your sense of elves, I had not put all of that together. Well-thought out and nicely stated.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 9, 2014 17:11:48 GMT -6
Gronanofsimmerya wrote: Noted and amended (see above).
Certainly not, but approaching simulation, of which Chainmail very clearly does, provokes questions in this vain.
Moreover, given that the rules are open to amending 'allowing for historical precedence and common sense' taking a closer look at the fatigue rules is much in the spirit of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 9, 2014 15:55:52 GMT -6
Derv wrote: 'One turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle' (8 Chnml). Defining a turn of play and time in battle as roughly equivalent makes simulation a conundrum for all of us.
Moreover, as evidence here, my reading of rounds and turns is incorrect - the turn is equated with 'time in battle', not merely a nominal reference to who is giving the dice a go, though a round as a cycle of dice rolling remains roughly the case. So much for abstraction.
If you mean to lengthen the round to 1 minute by lengthening the turn to 10 minutes and then applying the fatigue rules as written (rounds and turns which are not defined therein), that accomplishes the same result as I suggested by defining fatigue in terms of 3 turns.
Was not able to make sense of this.
Thus, I return to the codification of melee rounds, and thinking of fatigue in terms of 3 turns, by which most 'normal men' would more than likely to meet death before succumbing to fatigue. Something I don't really see a problem with.
'It is always a good idea to amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense — follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter (8 Chnml.). Given my conclusions above, I realize this sentence can be read in two ways that suggest intended ambiguity; 1. historical precedence may have been overlooked in some cases erring on the side of abstraction 2. historical precidence is encouraged in understanding the abstraction as written...or 3. "It's just a stupid game." -- Gary Gygax, on too many occasions to count(courtesy of Gronan)
The conundrum is this rare space of design in which one lands between simulation and abstraction.
If I were not to codify the number of melee rounds in a turn and contrary to the above ruling in Chainmail on time, I would consider melee rounds and turns as time 'in play' rather than 'time in battle'. As for reconciling archery (see link above) I would continue to observe time 'in play' and time 'in battle' as 'roughly equivalent'. Thus I would continue to codify the # of melee rounds in a turn for hurled and missile weapons (10:1), so that fire rates were given more historical precidence, and movement rates would be determined per round instead of per turn to meet oncoming hurled/missile weapons.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 9, 2014 0:45:19 GMT -6
Gronanofsimmerya wrote:
I have come to realize through exchanges like these retro-engineering to be more geometric than algebraic, the versions of the game I began with are a semblance of the earliest ruleset.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 8, 2014 21:57:16 GMT -6
Derv wrote: I was beginning with Eldritch Wizardry (6 Eldritch Wzdry) dividing the turn (there, referred to as a round) in 6 segments (assuming 10 seconds each), and settling on 10 segments (6 seconds each) in AD&D. For archery, as I noted in a previous thread, I divided the turn into 6 second segments (see AD&D segments and rounds). (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9182/rate-fire-minute-turn-round#page=2) You are right though, 'a turn ends when the melee is over and one side won...Rounds are variable' - thus the abstraction. For melee it might be reasonable to assume the exchange of 3 chances for landing a telling/killing blow might be sufficient for consideration of fatigue. Sounds good to me. What becomes hard to reconcile is the turn is defined. It is one minute long. So I return to the initial question regardless of whether or not the turn is subdivided. Yet, each player having a 'turn', I can imagine the hour glass (as in Chess or Scrabble) giving up its contents after a minute and thus, the minute turn. So maybe the turn is only defined for the players not the figures, bearing only a likeness to time on the battlefield...that would do nicely Agreed. Gronanofsimmerya wrote: Ha! thanks Gronan, well said. Indeed, thanks. As I mentioned to Derv, if not only rounds, but turns are abstract in that they represent time for the players but not actual time on the battlefield, then this becomes merely a case of acknowledging the medium itself. Time is defined for the players not the figures.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 7, 2014 9:46:40 GMT -6
gronanofsimmerya wrotre Indeed it does, nor would I wish to get rid of it, but its parameters feel a bit constrained. Sure, we all know it's a game. If Gary handwaved the time scale - good to know...all the more reason it should be addressed. Assuming he had more than handwaved the ruling, I was curious as to his logic. Regarding other aspects of Chainmail, he certainly seems to have given the game some consideration as a simulation. It's true though, if fatigue could only come into play after a Chainmail turn or more, the odds of it playing a role in the encounter would be limited.
Cooper wrote: Not true. If one is running Man-To-Man especially as a skirmish, limited battlefield engagement, or even in a dungeon, a 'normal man', if well armored, may see more than 3 turns of combat. I will concede, should fatigue be based on 3 Chainmail turns, many 'normal men' would meet death before fatigue. I realize this adjustment from rounds to turns would delay if not remove Gronan's 'more interesting' aspect from the encounter, but maybe that's okay?
Jacar wrote: I think Cooper was responding to my initial suggestion of thinking of fatigue in terms of turns. And yes, order is not important, one must merely satisfy any of those conditions. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 5, 2014 0:30:16 GMT -6
Ha! Very cheeky - this thread is about warriors not wargamers. Skilled combatants don't engage with all their might, unless otherwise on the edge of collapse and medieval weapons have a bit more balance than a baseball bat.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 4, 2014 23:42:40 GMT -6
I like the rule, but can't wrap my head around the time ratio. Can anyone explain why a combatant would tire in 3 rds. or 18 seconds (assuming there are 6 seconds to a round, 10 rds. to the turn)? You become fatigued if any of the following apply: 1. Moving 5 consecutive turns. 2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing. 3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds. 4. Meleeing three rounds.
Would not fatigue be more applicable after 3 consecutive Chainmail turns of melee, and to movement after 5 AD&D turns. I would keep the terminology as set out in Chainmail but refer to 5 movement turns as 1 rest every hour unless on a forced march. Any thoughts one way or the other?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 3, 2014 20:38:39 GMT -6
Derv wrote: Yes, wanted to limit the example to normal combat and normal combatants and the like. The term 'commander' is from Chainmail (21 Chnml).
Thanks Derv, I didn't have time to deepen the example as you have, but I was thinking along the same lines, e.g. Mace vs. spear gives the ogre 12 rolls of 2d6.
Right,forgot about that, good point!
Indeed, the leader of this band is counting on them.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 3, 2014 17:14:51 GMT -6
I considered a hill giant (8 armored foot) for this example, as that has been cited as the equivalent of Tolkien's cave troll, but for the sake of clarity I chose a creature that btb can be engaged in normal combat. Thought I would post a full example of a MTM encounter, though my initial question lies with the number of attacks allotted to each combatant.
Follow-up Question: If 8 heavy footmen accompany the commander, can the ogre (if the number of attacks are determined by hit die) use the additional 2d6s to attack the other men-at-arms instead of just the commander?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 2, 2014 13:49:22 GMT -6
Stormcrow wrote:
Thanks, agreed.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 1, 2014 16:45:47 GMT -6
Talysman wrote: Indeed you have...I did not mean to appear dismissive; I think I just remain in favor of these skills being defined within the dungeon key and any modifiers being part of a racial ability. I also think that letting fantastic creatures like demi-humans racially define the limits of adventuring skills like surprise and the discovery of secret and concealed doors rounds out the sense of where normal men fit in the game. It becomes hard to reconcile heroes/superheroes i.e. and other men who operate on the fantasy combat table, because they still function as normal men when it comes to the dungeon key. None of that is to say, that one cannot retrofit, heroes/superheroes and the like into a modified d6 context, as you and others have done with the thief.
Certainly not, rules as written post 3LBBs. Barring even the addition of the 'Manual of Aurania' and attempts to retrofit the thief to a d6 I think the spirit of the game places the thief as a class in question. That is, there is room for debate by virtue of the the thief as a class in and of itself, and as evidenced by the number of past posts concerning whether or not the game necessitates a thief class. Turning to the question of magical locks one could argue that they are really the domain of magic users.
I like the notion of these skills being a secret, but some of these rulings put us beyond the bounds of the game as written. I understand this is a bit of homebrew, but it feels a bit overreaching. Even levelled thieves still work with tools and are screwed if directly under observation - that is, there remains something mundane about these skills.
You are right. To me The stealth skills add an extra die roll to the surprise dice which I find extraneous. Moreover, because stealth directly affects surprise, I see no reason not to refer to them as mundane, as surprise is mundane. If one wished to include Pick pockets, open locks, climb walls, hear noise, find/remove traps and read languages in the game they strike me as better fitted to racial abilities for men and demi-humans.
You may be right.
This is very clever, and if i were going to run a thief as a class this is a really cool design.
Finarvyn wrote: Indeed, and some in the past...most of which have been very insightful.
Kesher wrote: Thanks Kesher, it's an understanding I came to after many questions of my own and some very astute responses of others here and at the Alehouse.
Waysoftheearth and Kesher wrote: Thanks for the link - all very fascinating.
Stormcrow wrote:
I take it your emphasis is on the qualification of 'non-magical'. As Talysman had suggested, the lock level corresponds with the dungeon level then? Maybe that is of no consequence. Interesting...'Likewise with other skills there were no rolls at all'
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 27, 2014 14:27:25 GMT -6
Talysman wrote: Surprise accomplishes the same end, without having to address fiddly percentages which is at cross purposes with the d6 mechanic of the surprise dice that already addresses remaining unnoticed.
True, but you can accomplish the same end with surprise dice (see PHB description having to do with going unnoticed). This is a fair D6 application, I think you can handle locks and traps, as I described above, without needing trap and target levels. A thief hireling with a flat d6 chance modified by particular circumstances (say surface quality/climbing walls etc) can be handled without resorting to levels at all. All of these skills are really better fitted to the working Dungeon Key. Like the man-racial types, have an urban counterpart to the brigand - thief, with thief skills that are actually static but hieghtened racial abilities. Wanted to also mention there is a great seen in Robin and Marian (Robin Hood) with two fighting men (Sean Connery and Nicol Williamson) scaling the wall of a gatehouse.
No reason to base a class on this, keys, magic items and knock spells handle enchanted doors.
There in nothing out of the ordinary about hiding in shadow, it can't be achieved by ordinary adventurers or 'thieves' without the presence of a shadow, so the shadow is what makes it possible; the effect is an increased chance to surprise, handling it as a racial ability that modifies surprise gets to the heart of the matter, and the only pre-requisite becomes the character's intent and how encumbered they may be. A thief racial type/hireling would hide in shadows like a ranger surprises in his natural environment, while a other PC's (PC's can have a racial character btw, I have fighting men who are racially fanatic like the dervish) have a normal chance to surprise.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 27, 2014 10:25:10 GMT -6
Jacar: The more reason it makes sense to describe these skills as hieghtened but static racial abilities (e.g. see dwarf)centered around the 'dungeon key'.
redbaron wrote: Yep and a 'skill' that is rarely employed in a game...too risky at low levels and at cross purposes with dungeon exploration. Should it be useful, roll for surprise with a 3in6 chance [see ranger's hieghtened surprise as an example of a ceiling for class or racial ability (demi-human have capped d6 abilities)].
Brilliant...and well-placed image.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 27, 2014 9:11:19 GMT -6
librarylass: The granularity of the percentile system really is about 'skills'. This rubs against the fundamental abstraction of the game: classes are described in terms of abilities not skills and the dice tend toward a leaner probability spread and thus allow for less modification, that is less granularity. That tension is there because of the switch from a wargame concept to an rpg concept. While it is tempting to leave room for the unexpected by using the percentile dice, 'lots of weird counter-intuitive results from percentile skill systems are the result'. The D20 spread from the alternate combat system is the core mechanic in skill system in the later AD&D publication, Oriental Adventures. It's a question of how necessary the abilities of a class need a probablity range that is open to situational modifiers, but that is also a question of ability vs. skill.
Conceptually, I think you correct in considering the expression of a thief in terms of skills. One of the arguments against the class is the core expressions of the thief are mundane, knowledge that any 'normal man' (see Chainmail and OD&D) could acquire.
A cardinal difficulty with thieves is their "special abilities" all being mundane.- geoffrey(http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=329&page=6)
The design element of abilities themselves ideally is abstraction, shape your skill list into a set of core abilities that reflect the essential expression of the thief in the game. By the 'game' I mean, what the thief does in the dungeon, e.g. look at the 'dungeon key' (opening doors, searching for concealed or secret doors, finding traps etc.). NOTE: the thief may be more appropriate as a hireling (0-lvl) or race (see brigand) than a character class.
You are mistaking how I play OD&D for OAD&D. In the original D&D game there was no thief class, and the traps were not as frequent or complex. A 10' pole in cautious hands and a dwarf PC were usualy sufficient to spot most of them – Gary Gygax (http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-40.html#post2332482)
I believe Gary once said that Thieves were originally intended primarily as henchmen rather than PCs. They were specialists you brought with you if there were a particularly nasty trap you could disable on your own, but they weren't the stuff from which heroes were made. – jamesm (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=329&page=3)
redbaron wrote:
I share the affinity with a slight alteration -
Any lightly armored character: Stealth: agreed, surprise is the issue. Perception: agreed, surprise is the issue. Sneak attack: again surprise is the issue. Echoing Joe Mac, 'see no good reason a thief should be physically better at killing from behind - he just has a much easier time getting there' (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/329?page=3#page=4) climbing: 4in6 is fair, I would probably translate a few surface modifiers in the DMG and lighting conditions into a d6 spread. Given that I would favor 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. Pick pockets: instead of a save vs. paralyzation, apply the surprise dice.
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)'. (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/329?page=3#page=4)
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 24, 2014 16:12:51 GMT -6
redbaron wrote:
This.
I think looking to hero types in literature is a good way to set the boundaries of the dice so that one can get on with the game and not be preoccupied with advancement. Within these kind of limits, keep demi-humans as presented in Chainmail (Hf/Hf- could homebrew wood elves: defend:light foot & attack:armored foot), but tweak for particular demi-human personalities' e.g. particular elven personalities (legolas) gaining an additional +1 on the dice (leader designation), and the greatest of elven warriors (Haldir as conceived by Peter Jackson) gaining an additional +2 on the dice (commander designation), leaving hero designations for men, but allow access to the lvl. title of magician. Elven wizards, like an elven queen, would be magicians.
|
|