|
Post by increment on Jan 20, 2016 15:18:44 GMT -6
As I'm sure there'll be a thread here, might as well start it myself... In 1970, Leonard Patt published a fantasy wargame system with Heroes, Anti-heroes, Wizards that throw “fire ball” spells, dragons, orcs, ents, and so on. The authors of Chainmail surely knew it, and it appears that Dungeons & Dragons and many fantasy games that followed owe an unacknowledged debt to Patt’s rules. Take a look for yourself: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-precursor-to-chainmail-fantasy.html
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 20, 2016 15:45:48 GMT -6
Jon -- you are awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jan 20, 2016 16:00:12 GMT -6
Great find! I bet maybe he was a college student in the Boston area and moved elsewhere after graduation, that's why he stopped writing for the NEWA publications. Sounds like we all owe this young man a big debt of creative gratitude! FIRE BALL!!!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 20, 2016 17:46:08 GMT -6
Extremely interesting Jon. Thanks for the nice write up and inclusion of the original newsletter.
Patt's description of dragons immediately brought Gygax's The Battle of Brown Hills marauding dragon to mind. I particularly like his rule for landing dragons crushing men.
I also like that he makes a point of saying wizards are "great fighters". Chainmail also makes wizards formidable in melee. It's kind of funny that this reputation does not follow them into D&D.
Do you happen to know what ancient rules the NEWA used? Tony Bath by chance?
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jan 20, 2016 18:35:39 GMT -6
I'm...speechless...(hard to imagine, huh!)
Okay, having caught my breath--
very sincere and deep thanks to you, Jon, for posting this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2016 19:21:25 GMT -6
Good catch. Lo, through the mists of time...
(NEVER throw anything away.)
(I can't tell you how sorry I am that my 3" thick file of personal correspondence with Gary from 1973-1983 got accidentally tossed in a move).
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Jan 20, 2016 21:46:46 GMT -6
Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 21, 2016 4:11:00 GMT -6
Great find !
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jan 21, 2016 11:55:41 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the post. The rules were obviously not complete, so since I saw a reference to "Ancient Rules," I thought that I would take a look around . . . so you might find this site of interest: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.html
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Jan 21, 2016 14:11:18 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the post. The rules were obviously not complete, so since I saw a reference to "Ancient Rules," I thought that I would take a look around . . . so you might find this site of interest: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.htmlYep, those are good old ones. Lots of folks still play those games even now, though mostly the more recent editions? Curiously, the wizard in Patt's rules is actually twice as capable as a hero in all respects, haha! I like the rules for the dragon, including how sufficient harassment will make it bother the other team instead.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jan 25, 2016 10:36:32 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the post. The rules were obviously not complete, so since I saw a reference to "Ancient Rules," I thought that I would take a look around . . . so you might find this site of interest: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.htmlYep, those are good old ones. Lots of folks still play those games even now, though mostly the more recent editions? Curiously, the wizard in Patt's rules is actually twice as capable as a hero in all respects, haha! I like the rules for the dragon, including how sufficient harassment will make it bother the other team instead. Okay for those looking for fantasy rules, I suggest you check out the 4th edition at the link above, starting at page 38, for Appendix IV, "Suggested Adaptations for Sword and Sorcery Fanatics." FYI, the 4th edition set of rules is dated August 1973.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 5, 2016 17:58:53 GMT -6
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Feb 5, 2016 18:59:22 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, Jon. Enjoyed reading the piece. Regardless of his inability to win at mini war battles, I can't bring myself to think of L. Patt as a "loser"; not when it is clear that his doodlings (of transferring Tolkien characters into a game-combat system) may well have influenced the inclusion of the Fantasy Supplement in CM. Thus, I'd like to reverse the stigma of the Lenny-Patt award, and bring to it the honor his name deserves. In addition, we should carry on this new tradition (as described) reported in the article. And I'd like to begin with you, for all the effort you put behind this. To Increment/aka Jon Peterson, We do hereby bestow, the 2016 Lenny-Patt award! I'm still bewildered why he never spoke up, or showed up somewhere along the way, to at least say something about his place in the scheme of it all. Regardless, could you pass along to him (for me) a heart-felt Thank You ? I guess this didn't come across as I had intended. (With subtle humor, and sincerity.)
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 370
|
Post by flightcommander on Feb 5, 2016 23:09:43 GMT -6
increment++
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 23, 2016 0:17:07 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the post. The rules were obviously not complete, so since I saw a reference to "Ancient Rules," I thought that I would take a look around . . . so you might find this site of interest: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.htmlYep, those are good old ones. Lots of folks still play those games even now, though mostly the more recent editions? I am not sure if this is a question or not since there is a question mark but the sentence is written as a statement. A few of the games are still played pretty widely: Hordes of the Things and De Bellis Antiquitas. De Bellis Multitudinis was played pretty widely until a few years ago. The old Ancients 6th ed. that these later games were based on was the first miniatures wargame rule set I purchased, after seeing a game at a Dragonflight convention in Seattle in the early 80s. I think a few people play either the 7th ed. or a game derived from that by a different company. I have never know anyone who played the other games they have produced.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Feb 24, 2016 3:32:35 GMT -6
Thanks for the article, what a fantastic discovery. I'd be very interested in reading someone's report on putting on a game with these rules. I have never know anyone who played the other games they have produced. In California I've only seen HoTT, DBA and WGR 6 being played, but in the UK almost all of their ancients rules editions still have some following. DBA/HoTT tournaments are fairly frequent, if small, and everyone knows at least somebody who occasionally pulls out their favourite edition of DBM, DBMM or WGR—mostly 6-7e, but I've seen a couple people go all the way back to their oldest edition on hand for the nostalgia. The OSR might have gotten a few new people into WGR, but mostly it's it's the old guard dusting off their saved copies. It definitely helps that it isn't too uncommon for historical gamers here to have personally known or at least gamed with one or more WRG or SoA board members. It's not unlike saying that many of OD&D's longest running supporters come unsurprisingly from the Great Lakes area. The one I haven't seen yet is a game of 4th edition fantasy, but I'll bet there's at least one group hidden away in Scotland still rolling with it!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2016 8:06:15 GMT -6
Patt's rules make several references to rules in the Ancients ruleset he used. One term that appears in the section on Wizards is "impetus bonus". This exact term appears in Tony Bath's Ancients rules that were included in Donald Featherstone's Wargames published in 1962 (caveat: I'm looking at a reprint of this book, not an original). I didn't see this term in the WRG rules linked above. It does appear again in Chainmail. Might there be a link, perhaps indirect, between Tony Bath's rules and Patt's? Was "impetus bonus" used in any other 1960s wargame rules?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 9:24:41 GMT -6
Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor used improving "saving throw" against damage rather than increasing hit points. Rolling a save vs an attack is straight out of Tony Bath's rules.
The miniatures wargame world was microscopic back then. You may safely assume everybody who was at all serious about it read all these rules.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 25, 2016 12:46:15 GMT -6
Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor used improving "saving throw" against damage rather than increasing hit points. Rolling a save vs an attack is straight out of Tony Bath's rules. The miniatures wargame world was microscopic back then. You may safely assume everybody who was at all serious about it read all these rules. This is very true; everyone knew Featherstone's War Games and anyone who did ancients or medievals knew Bath's rules. It is really hard to find systems that didn't share some of the concepts derived from those precedents.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Feb 25, 2016 17:09:28 GMT -6
Awesome find and great write up-- very interesting and awesome to know the game was conceived so far back there! Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 19:17:01 GMT -6
]This is very true; everyone knew Featherstone's War Games and anyone who did ancients or medievals knew Bath's rules. It is really hard to find systems that didn't share some of the concepts derived from those precedents. One concept I really, really hope to get across in my book is how small the gaming world was back then, when GenCon was 250 or 300 people and everybody pretty much knew of each other, even if they hadn't met. "Oh, so YOU'RE Dickie Hurtz."
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2016 23:14:17 GMT -6
Good to hear; I suspected as much but its hard for a wargamer novice like myself to get a sense of who was using what rules at what time, particularly with two sides of the Atlantic involved.
Other references that Patt makes to his ruleset, with a comparison to Bath's 1962 rules:
Saving Throws - Attacks by a dragon landing or wizard fireball are saved on a 5 or 6. This term and odds are straight out of Bath's rules as noted by Gronan above. Pre-Melee Morale - "Any unit attacked by the dragon will check as in Pre-Melee Morale". Bath has a section describing when and how to conduct "Pre-Contact Morale". Infantry - Orcs are either Light or Medium Infantry. Bath has Light and Heavy Infantry, but no Medium. Point Values - Heroes are worth 10 points (5 men), so a "man" is worth 2 points. In Bath, infantry are 1 point, cavalry 2 points. Morale - Heroes and Wizards add 1 or 2 points, respectively, to any units in 6-inch radius. In Bath, Staff Officers and Commander-in-Chiefs add 1 or 2 points, respectively, distance not specified.
|
|
|
Post by delverinthedark on Feb 26, 2016 10:52:14 GMT -6
This is a deeply interesting artifact! I wonder how Patt's rules stand up in play today. Has anyone here essayed using them, if only in adapted form, for a game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 20:08:49 GMT -6
Well, it's only the fantasy part, so you'd need the rest of the ruleset. Implication of the text seems to be that he probably used Bath's rules or something similar. And yeah, people still use that, and WRG 5th and 6th edition, and CHAINMAIL, and TRACTICS...
Few miniatures rules suck badly enough to be completely superceded. Further, much like RPGs, miniatures wargame rules have suffered from rules bloat.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 28, 2016 12:01:28 GMT -6
Well, it's only the fantasy part, so you'd need the rest of the ruleset. Implication of the text seems to be that he probably used Bath's rules or something similar. And yeah, people still use that, and WRG 5th and 6th edition, and CHAINMAIL, and TRACTICS... I purchased a copy of "The Courier" it appeared in. Volume 2 issue 7. I've read several of the old couriers when it was published by the New England Wargamers Association. They seemed to be big on the rules by Charles Sweet. Those, from what I understand, are played on a square grid. There seems to have been a series of articles on Ancients Rules by David Sweet, possibly Charle's son. 1970 would probably be about the time of WRG 2nd edition, which may still be what they used. Those seemed to be used by the tournament playing world anyway.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 28, 2016 15:03:32 GMT -6
So, upon reading the intro, these were purposely made simple to be used with any rules but were developed for the New England Wargames Association Ancient rules. Probably their own house brand rules. It's the last line of the intro paragraph. Also, the photo shows the game. No grids so it isn't a Charles Sweet style game.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 28, 2016 15:57:02 GMT -6
Thanks for tracking down the exact issue with Patt's article, jacar. I agree regarding the Sweet rules, which have all movement listed in squares rather than inches & no references to the other Bathian rules that Patt alludes to like saving throws, impetus bonus, pre-contact morale etc. FYI for anyone interested, Sweet's rules are summarized in this post: blundersonthedanube.blogspot.com/2013/03/updated-ancient-rules-charlie-sweet.htmlThere's also a downloadable transcription at the bottom of this post: wargamingmiscellany.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.htmlPerhaps another issue of the Courier describes the NEWA Ancient rules that Patt refers to? Which other issues did you look at, jacar?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 28, 2016 18:33:46 GMT -6
I read most of 2-7. I skimmed and read articles from 2-1 through 2-6 as well. I did not find the NEWA rules. Yes I was looking! I suspect 2-8 does not have them. So most of volume 1 is also online. If it is anywhere, it is probably in that volume. I think 1-1 is a free download from somewhere. EDIT So I just checked Vol2 issue 8. No Ancients rules there. I also bought the existing issues of volume 1 at WGV. If the rules exist in the magazine, it is in issues 6, 7 or 8 of Volume 1. Those have not been uploaded to WGV yet. Maybe Don Perrin does not have them yet?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 6, 2019 16:13:29 GMT -6
I finally downloaded the issue with Patt's rules that jacar identified and linked above. It's a $1 pdf at the Wargame Vault, a Drive Thru RPG affiliated page. www.wargamevault.com/product/129439/The-Courier-Bulletin-of-the-New-England-Wargamers-Association-V2-7-1970?manufacturers_id=3610The issue is undated --- but should be about Nov or Dec 1970 --- and has 32 pages. The main part of Patt's rules are on page 12-13, with a B&W photo of the setup on page 14. Page 16 has more related content that I hadn't seen before: "A PARTIAL LIST OF THE FORCES ENGAGED IN MIDDLE EARTH". It's a list of forces engaged at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, including Men from the South, Men of Minas Tirith, Men of Rohan on one side, and Men of Harad, Easterlings and Orcs on the other. All are given descriptions, some have specific numbers of troops. There's a citation to Return of the King page 49. Patt's drawing of his demo game is also titled "Battle of the Pelennor Fields", but not all of these forces are marked on his map so it's not clear to me if he used all of these in his game. But it could be useful info if someone wanted to attempt a recreation of Patt's demo game.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Feb 16, 2019 15:57:30 GMT -6
Fascinating story. I will go to my own Chemistry lab (=wet-bar) and concoct a potion of celebration in his name!
|
|