Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Mar 16, 2015 2:27:12 GMT -6
Dragons melee as four Heavy Horse... so, Lance. Balrog as two Heavy Horse... likewise, Lance. Would you further tack on the other benefits of attacking as Heavy Horse, such as the +1 to hit on those four lances, and then follow up with the eight additional morning-stars on the next round of combat? That's how I'd do it. Anyone messing with that mother's a silly bugger. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 16, 2015 4:17:01 GMT -6
So it seems to me that EGG took Dave's notes and developed them into what he termed (in the article above) his "“Original” version of D&D" by around Spring 1973. Meanwhile, Dave was further developing his own rules in a somewhat different direction. So the Dalluhn Manuscript is interesting to us now because it likely represents something pretty close to EGG's "“Original” version of D&D" from 1973. The Dalluhn "manuscript" is most likely a document that either is, or derives from, playtest rules that were distributed in 1973. Now, I haven't read it; aldarron and increment should be able to let us know if there are any significant differences in the combat mechanics, but it's never come up in the online discussions of the document. Whether or not there are differences, I don't think that it's going to shed any light on Chainmail connections in OD&D, because it's already established that nobody was using Chainmail to resolve D&D combat in 1973. The "Chainmail connection" was always over-stated, deliberately, for marketing reasons as Gary wanted to sell more copies of that game. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 16, 2015 5:13:25 GMT -6
IMHO the combat system described in Dalluhn bears a striking resemblance to the Man-to-Man rules from Chainmail. They share a similar organisation, and similar language, and Dalluhn includes numerous phrases and even whole passages (the section on weapon class and blows per round comes to mind) that are copied whole cloth from Man-to-Man. Dalluhn also has a "Level vs. AC" attack matrix which resembles D&D's Attack Matrix I, and which aldarron has posted elsewhere on these forums. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 16, 2015 9:53:36 GMT -6
..... Now, I haven't read it; aldarron and increment should be able to let us know if there are any significant differences in the combat mechanics, but it's never come up in the online discussions of the document. So that caught me by surprise. I could swear I've talked a good bit about combat in Beyond This Point be Dragons ("Dalluhn"), on this board and elsewhere, including the connections to CHAINMAIL. <shrug> The combat section of BTPbD (Book II, 22-25) follows the language and proceedure of CM's Man to Man. It begins, for example with "When two creatures are within combat range and decide to use hand weapons, such as swords, maces, etc., one or several blows will be struck." The attacker rolls on the new D&D table instead of the man to man table, but such things as weapon class still apply and determine the number of "chops" per round. As to dating, the Mornard fragments peg BTPbD to the fall (Sept +) of 1973. Edits indicated in the former are found in the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 16, 2015 11:00:00 GMT -6
I love how you guys can't agree on whose pretentious title should be used for the document.  I like the idea of keeping Chainmail's "weapon class" and using the level-vs-armor-class tables with it. This keeps weapon selection meaningful without resorting to separate lookups for each weapon. (P.S.: "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" is obviously the caption of the picture on which it appears, not the title of the document.) |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 16, 2015 11:41:27 GMT -6
I just want to know which Great Old One I can summon with the Mornard Fragments...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 15:17:13 GMT -6
Dragons melee as four Heavy Horse... so, Lance. Balrog as two Heavy Horse... likewise, Lance. Would you further tack on the other benefits of attacking as Heavy Horse, such as the +1 to hit on those four lances, and then follow up with the eight additional morning-stars on the next round of combat? That's how I'd do it. Anyone messing with that mother's a silly bugger. Actually, a Balrog kills any normal figure it touches, and can't be killed in normal combat, so I honestly don't see why it matters that it attacks as two Heavy Horse, now that I think about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 15:21:24 GMT -6
I'm one of the people who did critical analysis on the Dallhun manuscript for Jon. I've read the whole thing, and the pages Gary gave me before I went to college (the "Mornard Fragments") are pages from the Dallhun manuscript with Gary's hand made amendations.
The "Alternate Combat System" appears almost 100% intact in the Dallhun ms., plus an "instant kill" section heavily derived from CHAINMAIL. What Gary mostly did was remove the instant kill section because he hated critical hits and instant kills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 15:22:12 GMT -6
The "Chainmail connection" was always over-stated, deliberately, for marketing reasons as Gary wanted to sell more copies of that game. WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA! |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 16, 2015 18:07:28 GMT -6
I love how you guys can't agree on whose pretentious title should be used for the document. (P.S.: "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" is obviously the caption of the picture on which it appears, not the title of the document.) The "picture" is a single full page illustration on the first page, unnumbered, of the document, right before page 2 (the first page of text) and the "caption" takes up the entire upper third. There are 4 other full page illustrations, each also unnumbered (but counted); each found at the beginning of a new section and each with an actual caption at the bottom in a much smaller font and matching the section title, such as "The Underworld" and "Glossary of Terms". That makes the Beyond This Point be Dragons lettering quite distinctive in style size and purpose, and obviously intended by Arneson, who drew it, as a title of some sort. Whether for the entire document or only for the "Player Tables" section is impossible to say, but it is on the first page of the document and it is the only one of the full page illustrations that is not labeled with the section title that follows. I don't frankly care what name one gives to the manuscript - call it Dalluhn or whatever. I use both names usually for the sake of clarity, because BTPbD is the term by which I introduced the document to the gaming community and have used in many of the posts, etc. I've written, especially on this board. This is far off the OP so I won't clutter the thread with any more discussion of it here, but would elsewhere if there is interest. |
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Mar 17, 2015 0:06:44 GMT -6
Actually, a Balrog kills any normal figure it touches, and can't be killed in normal combat, so I honestly don't see why it matters that it attacks as two Heavy Horse, now that I think about it. Yeah, pretty much. Guess it would only really matter for fighting leveled PCs without the Fantastic table considered. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 17, 2015 1:31:21 GMT -6
Actually, a Balrog kills any normal figure it touches, and can't be killed in normal combat, so I honestly don't see why it matters that it attacks as two Heavy Horse, now that I think about it. It's conceivable that, by some magic spell or enchanted object, a unit or area around a wizard could be made invulnerable to fire. Then the Balrog's ability to immolate normals might be neutralised, so perhaps its normal combat features would come into play. But hardly a frequent occurrence! |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 17, 2015 1:50:09 GMT -6
The "Alternate Combat System" appears almost 100% intact in the Dallhun ms., plus an "instant kill" section heavily derived from CHAINMAIL. What Gary mostly did was remove the instant kill section because he hated critical hits and instant kills. Am I ever glad you posted that?! Saved me writing a wall a text that no-one would believe anyway. I'd like to also mention the ACS's much simplified (2d6) morale checks (not sure if this is from Dalluhn or got added after). The "Alternative Combat System" amounts (in my mind) to the regulation 1:1 combat game with an alternative to hit matrix, damage rolls, and simplified morale checks (plus a few other minor details, sure). I don't understand why some folks seem convinced that there's a giant chasm between Man-to-Man and the Alternative Combat System, and that D&D "switched" over to the latter never again to touch the former. The way I see it, the gap just isn't that big. As written up in Dalluhn the Man-to-Man rules and the ACS-to-be are so close you can see both of them staring right back at you. That's the ACS. |
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Mar 17, 2015 2:03:10 GMT -6
For that matter, have these "instant kill" rules ever seen the light of day? I imagine they're not terribly far off from the Fantastic combat table...?
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 17, 2015 9:57:26 GMT -6
For that matter, have these "instant kill" rules ever seen the light of day? I imagine they're not terribly far off from the Fantastic combat table...? For my part, I have never exactly posted the tables, but have explained them. Basically, the "missile fire" table is exactly the "Individual fire with Missiles" table from pg 41 of CM, except each weapon has a second line of target numbers ranging 2-4 pips greater. This second line represents instant kills. For Melee combat, the Instant kills table is identical to the Man to Man table of CM p41. except AC 9-2 is used instead of the armor types and horse barding is left off. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 17, 2015 17:57:56 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Slightly confused, Chainmail tables don't provide a second line as the die roll number already represents a 'kill' Or did I miss the point, as the second line of Dalluhn manuscript tables falls within the d20 spread which is later presented as the ACS? This is what Ways is referring to when he remarks, "Dalluhn also has a "Level vs. AC" attack matrix which resembles D&D's Attack Matrix I...as written up in Dalluhn the Man-to-Man rules and the ACS-to-be are so close"?
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Mar 17, 2015 18:58:56 GMT -6
For my part, I have never exactly posted the tables, but have explained them. Basically, the "missile fire" table is exactly the "Individual fire with Missiles" table from pg 41 of CM, except each weapon has a second line of target numbers ranging 2-4 pips greater. This second line represents instant kills. For Melee combat, the Instant kills table is identical to the Man to Man table of CM p41. except AC 9-2 is used instead of the armor types and horse barding is left off. Ah, I see. So it's basically just rolling a little better gets an arrow in the eye sort of deal. As for the Man-to-Man bit, would that have been rolled after a normal hit on the ACS, or something? Neat either end of it, not that I'd use such rules. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 17, 2015 19:38:41 GMT -6
For my part, I have never exactly posted the tables, but have explained them. Basically, the "missile fire" table is exactly the "Individual fire with Missiles" table from pg 41 of CM, except each weapon has a second line of target numbers ranging 2-4 pips greater. This second line represents instant kills. For Melee combat, the Instant kills table is identical to the Man to Man table of CM p41. except AC 9-2 is used instead of the armor types and horse barding is left off. Ah, I see. So it's basically just rolling a little better gets an arrow in the eye sort of deal. As for the Man-to-Man bit, would that have been rolled after a normal hit on the ACS, or something? Neat either end of it, not that I'd use such rules. yeah, that's right. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 17, 2015 19:58:22 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote: Slightly confused, Chainmail tables don't provide a second line as the die roll number already represents a 'kill' Or did I miss the point, as the second line of Dalluhn manuscript tables falls within the d20 spread which is later presented as the ACS? This is what Ways is referring to when he remarks, "Dalluhn also has a "Level vs. AC" attack matrix which resembles D&D's Attack Matrix I...as written up in Dalluhn the Man-to-Man rules and the ACS-to-be are so close"? What? There are no d20 tables for combat in Dalluhn, the "ACS" tables are in percentiles and ordered a little differently as regards level progression. You can see them in this thread Tables posted some four years ago. Regarding the instant kill mechanic, 0nly the missile fire table has a second line. So for example, if you shoot a longbow at AC9 you hit short/medium/long on 2-2-3, just as in CM, but the second line has 5-6-7, telling us if you score those numbers or better on 2d6, you not only hit, but instantly kill your target. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 17, 2015 22:31:30 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote: Slightly confused, Chainmail tables don't provide a second line as the die roll number already represents a 'kill' Or did I miss the point, as the second line of Dalluhn manuscript tables falls within the d20 spread which is later presented as the ACS? This is what Ways is referring to when he remarks, "Dalluhn also has a "Level vs. AC" attack matrix which resembles D&D's Attack Matrix I...as written up in Dalluhn the Man-to-Man rules and the ACS-to-be are so close"? What? There are no d20 tables for combat in Dalluhn, the "ACS" tables are in percentiles and ordered a little differently as regards level progression. You can see them in this thread Tables posted some four years ago. Regarding the instant kill mechanic, 0nly the missile fire table has a second line. So for example, if you shoot a longbow at AC9 you hit short/medium/long on 2-2-3, just as in CM, but the second line has 5-6-7, telling us if you score those numbers or better on 2d6, you not only hit, but instantly kill your target. That sounds like a vestige of the "dragons and magic arrows" rules from chainmail. U&WA includes critical hits for flying creatures. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 17, 2015 23:27:50 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Thanks! That helps.
Okay, as I have not seen the post of the manuscript it was not clear to me, as we were discussing MTM combat I was strictly interpreting any 'hits' as 'kills' (I realize in Chainmail kills are hits when dealing with non-normal figures like heroes and the like).
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2015 5:30:06 GMT -6
have these "instant kill" rules ever seen the light of day? Like Dalluhn, EPT also has instant kill and double damage rules that we otherwise don't see again until much later. One can't help but wonder whether M.A.R. Barker recalled these two rules from an early D&D experience when writing EPT, or just happened to invent these as house rules? It seems almost too coincidental FWIW, I'm pretty sure EGG would have quickly figured out that the instant kill/double damage rules were an unnecessary overhead, at least in the lower level game. Combat is deadly enough at lower levels even without instant kill checks/double damage hits... A regular hit doing 1-6 hp will kill a figure with 1-6 hp ~58% of the time! (Technically, Dalluhn has it that a figure is unable to attack at 0 hp, but slain at -1 or fewer hp. It's not clear whether that was intentional, but EGG is also said to have allowed OD&D players to survive to a few negative hp in later years). |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 18, 2015 5:30:38 GMT -6
This sounds similar to the Warriors of Mars Individual Combat Tables- a Gygax and Blume product.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 18, 2015 6:12:33 GMT -6
have these "instant kill" rules ever seen the light of day? Like Dalluhn, EPT also has instant kill and double damage rules that we otherwise don't see again until much later. One can't help but wonder whether M.A.R. Barker recalled these two rules from an early D&D experience when writing EPT, or just happened to invent these as house rules? It seems almost too coincidental .... Well, lets not forget that the "Dalluhn" mss. is really Barkers. Barker gave it to Keith for helping clean out his garage. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2015 6:31:44 GMT -6
Barker gave it to Keith for helping clean out his garage. A Kingly gift!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 16:47:31 GMT -6
Like Dalluhn, EPT also has instant kill and double damage rules that we otherwise don't see again until much later. One can't help but wonder whether M.A.R. Barker recalled these two rules from an early D&D experience when writing EPT, or just happened to invent these as house rules? It seems almost too coincidental I played "Greyhawk" with Gary Gygax. Then I played "Blackmoor" with Dave Arneson, and encountered "Double Damage on a 20." I swiped that rule. Then I started running D&D at the U of MN, for, among other players, Phil. |
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Mar 18, 2015 22:55:13 GMT -6
Like Dalluhn, EPT also has instant kill and double damage rules that we otherwise don't see again until much later. One can't help but wonder whether M.A.R. Barker recalled these two rules from an early D&D experience when writing EPT, or just happened to invent these as house rules? It seems almost too coincidental FWIW, I'm pretty sure EGG would have quickly figured out that the instant kill/double damage rules were an unnecessary overhead, at least in the lower level game. Combat is deadly enough at lower levels even without instant kill checks/double damage hits... A regular hit doing 1-6 hp will kill a figure with 1-6 hp ~58% of the time! (Technically, Dalluhn has it that a figure is unable to attack at 0 hp, but slain at -1 or fewer hp. It's not clear whether that was intentional, but EGG is also said to have allowed OD&D players to survive to a few negative hp in later years). Oh jeez, that's right! Hell, the one DM I occasionally play games under uses exactly the same instant kill rule as EPT. There's been a couple BBEG's taken out by throwing knives, haha! And as mentioned as well, WoM's got instant kill rules too, each being roughly 3 - 4 pips higher than necessary to wound, though that is checked on 3d6. So very similar. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 19, 2015 11:36:28 GMT -6
My how this thread has grown ;-) Keep it coming, very enjoyable and illuminating!
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 1, 2015 16:07:49 GMT -6
"why the hell didn't Gary write the game he was playing?" Or, perhaps, "what the hell happened?" I've been thinking about this. The answer is probably entwined in the fact that OD&D is not the exclusive work of one mind. The rules as written are as much a reflection of Arneson's game as of EGG's. Arneson's game must have differed to EGG's in many details and some of these are visible to us here and now due the excellent research of aldarron, including the following specifics (dubiously paraphrased by me): The Twin Cities folk used the term "Flunky" to refer to minion and hireling-types generally below hero status. New players usually started out as flunkies too: the classic example being Greg Svensons' "The Great Svenny" who started off as a flunky man-at-arms in service to Lord Fant. In this post Greg Svenson agrees that a "flunky" is a "normal man" is "under a Hero". In this post GS recollects that there were three "tiers" of fighters (flunky|man-at-arms, then hero, then superhero) and that DA told players how many points of damage they could sustain at each tier. We also have GS's (1972) notes in the back of his 2nd edition CHAINMAIL which detail what those points were: By averages these figures translate to exactly Mortals with 2d6 hp, Heroes with 4d6 hp, Superheroes with 8d6 hp, and Wizards with 6d6 hp. So Arneson gave "Mortal" types two dice worth of hit points in OD&D terms. FWIW, Arneson also gave Men, Elves, and Dwarves 2 Hit Dice apiece in his subsequent game: Adventures in Fantasy. Snider (AiF co-author) also stated that he ran Ghouls as flunkies in his game. First Fantasy Campaign also has this seemingly innocuous line: The following facts should be born in mind for most creatures encountered in small groups: that is that these represent "Hero" type monsters. This resonates with the previously suggested notion that M&T's Number Appearing stat is a meaningful indicator of normal/heroic status. Or at least, Arneson seemed to think so. Furthermore, the phrases "hero type" and "Superhero type" appear numerous times throughout FFC implying that heroes and superheros are not all the same, but are members of a broader "type". In support of that idea, the 1971/2 "infamous characters" are known to have had 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 Hit Dice (i.e., damage dice) plus bonuses. I.e., they did not all have exactly 4 or 8 Hit Dice. There is also a comment about a 14th level Lord. Given all this, it seems plausible that Arneson's game began with a three-tiered system for fighter-types: mortal, hero, superhero. Then, early on, DA conceived of levels within these tiers granting increments in hit dice (damage dice) by level, while hit points remained fixed at 7, 14, and 28 pts by tier. The mortal tier appears to have included at least "flunky" peasants, scoundrels, and the like with 1 hit die (damage die) as seen in Dave's bandits in M&T, and the "man-at-arms" with 2 hit dice (damage dice) as a small increment for the less-than-heroic player. Both had 7 hp (equivilent to 2 HD in today's OD&D terms). It also seems plausible that when Gary wrapped Dave's rules in the broader context of the 3LBBs, the notion that the first "tier" of fighters were sub-heroic "flunkies" remained (now appearing as fighter levels 1-3 on Attack Matrix I). EGG added rules over the top that obscurred some of DA's method, and also smoothed out the hit point progression by changing Hit Dice from "dice rolled for damage on a hit" to "dice rolled to determine number of hit points that can be sustained". It seems to me that the above "fabrication", or some sequence of events similar to it, would be a reasonable basis for an answer to Gronan's question. In summary: It seems clear that Arneson used the equivilenet of 2 HD "normals" in his game. It also seems clear that the 3LBBs are as much a reflection of Arneson's sentiement as they are of EGG's. Together, these two "presumptions" can go a long way toward explaining why the rules as written don't represent exactly the game EGG played, and also the perenial difficulty in obtaining a single satisfactory definition of what is a "normal-type" in OD&D. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 16:56:24 GMT -6
On the other hand, Gary "touched it last;" he worked on it pretty much alone for the last six months or so. Any inconsistencies must be laid at his feet, he typed the final draft.
|
|
