Hit Points and Experience taking their roots from Strategos

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2018 15:52:32 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Michael Wittig discusses his observations regarding the source for Hit Points and Experience in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign; with additional commentary by the secret team.

Are any of these versions of Strategos available for purchase or download. I've been looking for Strategos N for years.

[delta]

Totten's 1880 Strategos is on Scribd (and Google Books), for that's worth. Sans Vol-2 tables.

[Malchor]

Jul 30, 2018 23:51:36 GMT -6 delta said:

Totten's 1880 Strategos is on Scribd (and Google Books), for that's worth. Sans Vol-2 tables.

Just requested a copy at the public library to check out those tables.

Which tables are the most important? Besides Table T.

[akooser]

Here are the important bits from Totten

225. On either side special Staff positions may be assigned, each player being responsible for the proper realization of so much of the plan as naturally falls to his position. He must study the special circumstances, make out the necessary orders, memoranda, etc., with a view both to success and failure, and be prepared to defend and elucidate his arrangements upon accurate military principles.

286. The decision in all such cases devolves more or less upon the Referee himself, but should seldom be so rendered as entirely to foreclose the question ; it should rather be formulated into a ratio, in which both sides receive due consideration, and under which, by suitably consulting the dice, a decision can be arrived at without prejudice to either side.

pg. 105 footnote
The skillful exercise of the important office of Referee requires not only a special aptitude, but it is indispensable that he, of all others, should be thoroughly familiar with the principles and methods of the Game. Referee decisions are generally premature, a tendency which must be carefully guarded against. To derive the most good from such a study, the office of Referee should be regarded, not so much in the light of an adviser, as of an arbiter. He should bear in mind the principle that anything can be attempted. The advisability of an attempt is another thing, and one that it is the object of the War Game to make evident to all concerned by results. The Referee, therefore, should generally require a positive statement of intention, as the basis of his decision ; the attempt must be willed into operation by the player. It is not until then that the Referee may properly exercise his functions. He may then duly consider all the pros and cons, Losses, Tactical, Strategical, Topographical, and Accidental Difficulties, etc., must be calculated and examined, and, the crucial moment having in due time arrived, as indicated by the circumstances of the particular case, he should make his decision, and, if desirable, state his reasons, which, however, etiquette must protect from dispute.

353. Under the guise of information, such as is usually to be derived from prisoners, deserters, spies, people of the country, newspaper reports, rumors, etc., the Referee should more or less frequently convey odd bits of intelligence to each side. This information may be reliable or not, according to circumstances, should be generally in writing for future reference, and, in conveying the Referee should govern himself by the well- known experience of war, imparting only such matters as usually become known through the medium employed, and favoring either side as little as possible.

368. The Referee now decides upon some military problem, such as the conduct and defense of a siege, the advance upon and protection of some strategic point, a campaign, battle, skirmish, etc. This is published in general terms to all the players.

369. He likewise prepares for the Commander-in-chief of each side a set of written instructions, giving the number, character, and original disposition of his forces, setting forth in concise terms the object he is to strive for, and giving such general or special information concerning the other side as may not already have been expressed in the terms of the general problem, and as he may think proper to impart. These instructions are separately sealed up in envelopes, and given in charge of the assistants.

pg. 111 Footnote
It is here desirable to impress upon students of the Advanced Game the perfect freedom in which they are left to apply its rules, suggestions, and principle--!. An almost endless number of distinct studies is opened to them, commencing with the simplest general problem of strategy, and extending thence downward to a consideration of the smallest details (from the preliminaries to the conclusion) of some decisive general engagement. Abroad, this study has been very naturally divided into several, so-called, distinct games: the Strategical Game, the Grand Tactical Game, the Siege Game (see T 23S), and the Minor Tactical or Detachment Game. They are all, however, simply special applications of the "same general principles ; in each of them, some one or more of the elements of military science are most carefully examined, as, for instance, in the Grand Tactical Game, the dis position of troops upon the field, the maneuvering of large masses, marches before and after battle, etc. —while the others, though not entirely overlooked, are, for the time, assumed upon general principles. In the case cited (Grand Tactical Game), a game results in which those peculiar studies which exercise the General officer alone are considered, and whose termination is indicated by the completion of the dispositions, etc., called for by the problem.

In a similar way, every "special operation of war" can have its own game, as, for instance, a Convoy Game, a Game of the Advanced Guards, on Out-post Game, a City, Mob, or Street-fight Game, etc., the special rules of which will come directly from the character of the prototype, while the same general method of using the tables, rules, etc., given in this volume, will apply, subject only to such simple alterations as the nature of the special case in the opinion of the Referee may demand.

pg. 122 Footnote
two classes of Detachment Games have been very happily designated as " Mischief Games" and " Information Games." In the former, the opposing forces are placed at the outset more or less closely within range, and most of the maneuvering thus takes place under fire. This game involves the special study of casualties, familiarizes the player with the "tactical" use of the three arms," their relative importance and effectiveness, their combined use, etc. In the Information Game," on the other hand, the hostile forces are placed, at the beginning, sufficiently far apart to require nearly all the time ordinarily devoted to a single game in simply getting into action. This game gives opportunity for valuable study of the means of gathering information and using of seizing advantages, and disposing troops under stress of time. It also exercises the players in rapidly forming and altering battle plans, etc. Of course, the two games may be combined longer one thus results.


377. The playing of a single Advanced Game will extend over one or several meetings of the players, according to its magnitude and nature. It may, for instance, occupy several months and numerous sessions, or, perhaps, require but one meeting to complete it.

Order of Procedure
Referee announces and records the beginning of a new interval [turn] and whether it is one minute or longer.

Referee notes the continuing effect and consequences of any actions from previous turns.

Player-Commanders, acting in turn, state their orders (written if necessary) and intentions for this turn to the Referee.

The Referee and assistants execute all thus-indicated moves that require no die rolling. They also note the dispatch of messengers or scouts, any initiation of fire, and the receipt of orders, messages, spies, etc.

The appropriate tables are consulted and the related calculations made in preparation for a die roll to determine whether the Player-commanders’ “orders and intentions” can in fact be implemented.

The dice are now rolled [by the Referee and/or assistants] on the basis of the completed calculations and the appropriate table to determine which orders and/or intentions can be effected.

The Referee and assistants now implement as necessary any orders and/or intentions determined by the die rolling to be possible, executing any movements now determined possible.

Losses due to distant fire are now calculated using the appropriate table and the losses recorded upon the playing pieces, or the pieces are removed whenever sufficient casualties or other results require it.

The chances for success in hand-to-hand combats beginning this turn or already in progress are now calculated by the Referee and recorded.
Referee determines which ongoing hand-to-hand combats or rushes by units into hand-to-hand combat range end in this turn and identifies those clashes that will continue into the following turn.

Final victory or defeat in those hand-to-hand combats ending this turn is determined by the Referee with a die roll and reference to the appropriate table. Pieces representing defeated units are turned face down and the defeat recorded.
Losses in all hand-to-hand combats are now calculated and recorded on those playing pieces that remain in play (i.e., not removed from the table either as no longer effective or as destroyed).

All final results and consequences arising from this and previous turns are now effected and recorded, and those that will affect future turns are recorded.
Final corrections are called for and the turn declared closed by the Referee.


Table I
Other things being equal, simple question of POSSIBILITY may be decided by an appeal to the dice, the chances being taken as per circumstances under consideration.

Questions of Possibility will arise most frequently around incidents which obtain beyond the sphere of a “final rush”. All such questions may be readily decided by an appeal to the dice under a suitable ratio, and to suggest some such ratio is the object of the present table. These ratios may be altered for sufficient cause; and when the table fails to apply, the Referee must decide upon the ratios to be employed.

[delta]

Aug 1, 2018 7:57:42 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Which tables are the most important? Besides Table T.

I wish I knew! Some are shown here. In particular I was hoping to find tables for movement rates and firing distances, but have not succeeded at that.

[akooser]

Aug 1, 2018 10:07:11 GMT -6 delta said:

Aug 1, 2018 7:57:42 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Which tables are the most important? Besides Table T.

I wish I knew! Some are shown here. In particular I was hoping to find tables for movement rates and firing distances, but have not succeeded at that.

I have all tables for Totten!

Let me see if I can get a few of them up before I have to bail for a conference.

[akooser]

Going to be lazy V1 and V2 are here:
catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006111870

[increment]

The calculation of losses, and with it the concept that a unit in a wargame can withstand a quantified amount of damage, is certainly an idea that had been around wargaming for a long time: Strategos and other games from the late nineteenth century inherit it from the Reiswitz family games of the early nineteenth century. These idea passed down to hobby wargamers in the late twentieth century through a variety of channels: Fletcher Pratt, say, and from there to Don't Give Up the Ship. We could point to any number of others.

But when we narrow down to the question of why D&D has hit points, surely the fact that ogres can take an accumulation of six hits in Chainmail is a proximate cause. It's not like Gygax and Perren invented the idea of figures taking multiple hits or something, you could find medieval wargame units taking multiple hits in, say, the Siege of Bodenburg in 1967. Taking multiple hits was a pretty common idea, I guess I'm not sure what people are saying Strategos variants added here. We can call them another parallel, but what did Strategos add to the idea of hit points that D&D couldn't have gotten from any of of the other places?

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2018 9:13:51 GMT -6 increment said:

...[W]hat did *insert name* add to the idea of hit points that D&D couldn't have gotten from any of of the other places?

Key question for most of the research-related discussions we've been having for the last couple of years. A similarity doesn't necessarily imply a causal relation. In the past, I myself have often proposed the idea of a direct lineage between game systems - and fantasy settings - when it came to Arneson and Blackmoor. Now, the more I have been learning about the topic, the less comfortable I've found myself with my initial idea.

[Finarvyn]

Part of what I find so fascinating about all of this is that sometimes research conclusions match my intuition, sometimes they don't. Much of this comes down to a person's individual experience in the hobby.

For example, for years I've accepted the statement that "OD&D grew out of Chainmail" and have often parroted it to others. There are a couple of reasons why I am so accepting to this. (1) I experienced Chainmail and then OD&D in that order, so for me gaming did sort of follow that evolutionary path. (2) There are so many references to Chainmail in OD&D that the rules themselves appear to be looking backward in that way.

Now we discuss games like Strategos, a game which I was not exposed to in the 1970's. My initial response is, "well, that can't be right" because I didn't have that same experience. That doesn't make it less right, but it clearly is in opposition to my two points above so it requires some re-learning for me to understand.

So, to understand where elements of a game "came from" one has to know a few things. First, one has to know what was "out there" in the literature. Second, one has to know what the authors were exposed to prior to creation of OD&D. Dave Arneson said that AC came from DGUTS, which he co-wrote, and the AC in DGUTS came from a civil war rules set which he wrote but never published, but where did that set get the idea? Much of the creative process is taking things that one has seen and adapting and changing them to their own purposes, but along the way it becomes a "gray area" about how new it is and how derivative it might have been. In a sense half of the fantasy literature of the 20th century is derivative of Tolkien because he wrote his first and so many people were exposed to his before they did theirs, but that doesn't make theirs less creative in its own way.

Sometimes that is an obvious evolution, sometimes not. The notion of "hit points" and "levelling up" could be argued to perhaps be traced back to checkers wherein a character (the man) gains experience by moving across the board and eventually levels up (the king) to have new powers and abilities. Checkers was created a couple thousand years B.C. and thus could be argued to be a lot older than Strategos.

So this post is pretty long and rambling, but my point is that it's hard to "know" where a person got inspiration for an idea forty years ago because that person may or may not "know" himself where he got it.

[derv]

Question, was Gygax familiar with Strategos as played in the TC?

[increment]

Aug 5, 2018 17:58:32 GMT -6 derv said:

Question, was Gygax familiar with Strategos as played in the TC?

Well, in a sense, sure. There was a longstanding plan to try to publish a version of Wesely's Strategos rules under the Guidon Games imprint, which ultimately transitioned over to TSR and morphed into the project that became Valley Forge. And Gygax received the Corner of the Table newsletter, which carried some variant Strategos rules. And Twin Cities folks played games with Strategos rules at GenCon back in the day. But I think Gygax viewed it more as a set of Napoleonic miniatures rules, something that might compete with Column, Line and Square, than anything more expansive than that. The phrase "as played in the TC" could mean informal practices that weren't committed to the pages of the Strategos variants, and that's a bit harder to gauge.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2018 12:52:14 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

It would be really great if a moderator actually moderated, and when these kinds of discussions appear, they could assemble a list of "schools of thought" for people to consider.

Ah, I wish you had not written that, or phrased this differently.

First, because it's a bad way to make an otherwise solid suggestion: If you want a discussion or general debate to evolve in a certain way, then you need to make the case for it. And if people don't support an idea of yours, then it's up to you to find ways to convince them. Our team's attention to your ideas rises with the positive feedback you get from other posters.

Second, because moderation is already done here, and in no small way in your favor: Michael Wittig, also known as Cedgewick, has been banned from OD&D'74 since last year, after he repeatedly tried to bully other members of the community. Under normal circumstances, we would not allow any sort of promotion of content created by him; he has lost that privilege. However, because it was you who posted this link, we decided to allow it. So, we're far from censoring or neglecting ideas and concepts; we're just managing them in the way that present circumstances seem to demand.

Aug 16, 2018 12:52:14 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

We've avoided this forum because we just don't feel like bashing heads and we've done our fair share of it. ideally there should be some effort on everyone's part to agree to disagree. Or, to say A seems plausible but C does not.

There is no way for us to excuse that the sock puppet situation got as bad as it got last year; however, you will find that, now that we've started moderating the boards with an iron fist, the general atmosphere has improved considerably. I'd be very happy if you would consider posting here more regularly - precisely because the community could greatly benefit from such an open - and respectful - dialogue.

Myself, I think a lot of the topics you present to us via your blog and via the whole movie project will only be fully understandable within the broader context you still need to present us. Supporting or refuting any specific idea is usually very easy based on simple calculations of probability of plausibility, and Wittig's article, as written, is very open for such an attack. I am looking forward to seeing the broader argument you want to make - as part of the movie.

[increment]

Aug 16, 2018 12:52:14 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Wesely is often assailed for any claims he makes in regard to dating the use of Totten.

Many years ago, Major Wesely put forward that a set of rules he authored called Strategos N was published in 1967. When we learned that the edition he identified as the earliest one was published in 1970, that induced me to state in PatW that claims that the game was published in 1967 were baseless. This has no bearing on when he first saw Totten, or when he started adapting Table T, which everyone agrees was before 1970. I don't think he is being "assailed" for any of that.

Aug 16, 2018 12:52:14 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Yet, everyone in the group has separately affirmed they they discover this manuscript in 1964, or so. (Increment, you have the library check-out card from their copy and it has the four early member's names on it along with dates. We'd love to see it. How about a scan for the kind folks of ODD74?)

As I have told you before, that check-out card does not have anyone's name on it. It does not even have the name of the book (Strategos) on it. It's a card from the university library with some time stamps on it and no further information. It could be for a Tale of Two Cities for all we know. It is not a meaningful piece of evidence.

When asked about other games that would have influenced them, the Twin Cities players deny knowledge of these other old texts, and only know of these games as references within Totten.

Well, Dave Arneson sure didn't. He saw Braunstein (we'll read Strategos into that) as a factor, an important one, but he saw things like Korns, or Fight in the Skies, as also influencing role playing. Here's him in 1979:

Well I guess the point I am trying to make with all this rambling is that here in the Twin Cities, Role Playing has always been popular. Whether it’s a 1-for-1 WW II Battle using Korns rules or WW I Air Battles using Mike Carr’s rules, there has been no lack of innovation. Dave Wesely really gave the RPG gaming around here its best boost away from traditional body counts, where you could actually win one of his Brownstiens without killing someone! Applying a fantasy setting to RPG was merely another outgrowth of an already established tradition (abet one without any real rules) in various non-fantasy settings.

So who are we supposed to follow here? Dave Arneson in 1979 who says it was a "tradition", not some single game, or the people today who deny knowledge of other old texts? This can't just be a matter of "listening to what people say," or we'd be listening to what Arneson said - the problem arises when the things people say don't agree (sometimes people don't agree with themselves, even, over the years). This is, fortunately, a place where evidence can come to the rescue. For example, we can show a May 1971 announcement from Mike Carr that he would be running Korns at Gen Con that year, a meaningful correlation on the timeline of Blackmoor. The seems to put a key one of these texts in a key person's hand at the right time, and inclines me to view this more as a tradition.

When Dave Arneson called Chainmail "the basis for all our combat" in Blackmoor in 1977, we have to make a similar assessment of whether the evidence is more consistent with that, or with these other hypotheses. Is there a tradition around the concept of hit points, one that encompasses 1800s Kriegsspiel, and the Siege of Bodenburg, and Chainmail, or did none of the "old texts" matter other than Strategos A?

[increment]

Aug 17, 2018 23:38:04 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

ask you if you consider 1970 to be the only valid date for the adaptation of Strategos in the Twin Cities ( by wesely) at this point and if so why?

I already said above, and in PatW, that Totten was known in the Twin Cities before Wesely published his Strategos N. So we can and should date the "adaptation of Strategos in the Twin Cities" differently from when Major Wesely published that edition of rules, definitely.

[increment]

Aug 18, 2018 10:29:26 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

So back to the question and perhaps an expansion of the question: Are you still of the opinion that Strategos is not being heavily used in the Twin cities before 1970. Or, if you do not like that date, what date would you choose as a likely date for the Twin Cities gamers to begin playing Strategos?

PatW, my posts above, and this blog post over here all say that people were working with the Strategos rules before Strategos N was published, that is, before 1970. PatW says that Wesely was working towards an adaptation of Strategos in 1968, because the second issue of CoTT tells us so. None of this is controversial to anyone as far as I know.

[increment]

Aug 18, 2018 15:24:07 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Do you think there is there any significant value in the use of Strategos by David Wesely toward the invention of Role Playing Games?

Of course. There's a chapter in PatW dedicated to affirming that, called the "Return of the Referee", which highlighted the principle that "anything can be attempted" and identifies Totten as the vehicle through which that idea, and in general free Kriegsspiel practices (today I might say semi-rigid), were popularized in the Twin Cities. I just don't think Totten was the only way that those ideas passed down to the gamers of the early 1970s, and Dave Arneson didn't think so either.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2018 9:44:04 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

You brought up Wittig. And are implying that I am seeking favor.

I think you simply have a tonality problem here. It's understandable that you might have hoped for a different response to the article, given that you host it on the movie website, and that you personally came here to post the link. (Not that there would be anything wrong about this, either.) But if you act like you're miffed when people begin to ask questions that go beyond the superficial, you're yourself limiting any positive effect you might create sharing any content.

Like, whenever we're having this sort of discussion, I feel like someone needs to remind you that you've already won the hearts and minds of your general audience. In fact, in a display of very uncharacteristic unity, everybody seems to look forward to seeing your movie, and you almost have almost universally been welcomed you into circles that are otherwise fairly recluse. - So, there's no need for you to be this defensive, really. That people are trying to debate you is a sign that they see you as a peer, not that they want to rebuke you.

Aug 17, 2018 9:44:04 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

I suppose I should be more clear about how the forum is moderated, and what I would like to suggest. The mods like to present themselves as impartial and do not step into things much. What I am suggesting is that a moderator could be an active host in a discussion and create more context by asking people to do things like elaborate on a comment, so that it is more clear. Or, define their temrinology. This would create a siutuation that is more like a moderated debate.

So if one were an active host in the situation they might say something like:

It appears that Person A is favoring argument Y because, whereas Person B is favoring argument X because....

Then the OP's could see if perhaps their argument is not clear to readers and expand on what they said. This would help keep people from going off in some instances and keep things firmly focused on the core points of discussion. It would be a very active type of moderation. I do not expect this to happen because it would require a lot of effort. Yet, some mods may take a shine to this kind of involvement.

Not sure what other experiences you've had on the worldwide web, but at least in the "Dragonsfoot family" of oldschool communities, this would be novelty. Personally, I am not sure it would be particularly advisable, because the lines between being a mediator or a facilitator and being someone who de facto is policing content are fairly blurry. In this particular situation, I also think it's a bit too much to ask from any uninvolved third party to act as mediator:

Gaming history discussions, as interesting as they are, are a territory for the absolute experts, especially when we're talking about topics not immediately related to the general focus of attention and debate. And your supposed mediator, he or she would need to have a basic proficiency in the topic he or she is dealing with. How do you find such a person, in the first place? - Like, our team here consists of people that have literally written annotated versions of D&D, and even for us, the things you're debating are relatively difficult to follow, as most people that are D&D-fans today aren't necessarily war gamers.

I am not writing this to "rebuke" you, either - there was a pretty good Napoleonics forum around a while ago whose name escapes me now, but I think it shut down. You might want to look for more context in those circles.

Anyway, to close this in a way that isn't all too ranty, I think you're making one mistake: You want to have the discussion about your movie before its release. Once you've finished your work, and once the information you want to present the general public has been shown within a proper context, discussions like this one will be happening on a different level.

---


- Well, well, "weasel"! Good luck with your endeavors! Can't wait to see the movie once it's out!

[Malchor]

Aug 17, 2018 10:34:09 GMT -6 increment said:

As I have told you before, that check-out card does not have anyone's name on it. It does not even have the name of the book (Strategos) on it. It's a card from the university library with some time stamps on it and no further information. It could be for a Tale of Two Cities for all we know. It is not a meaningful piece of evidence.

Not a librarian, but did work in a public library long ago as a part-time job while in high school.

The system for loaning books used to be a two-card system. When the book was in the library, it had the card with the book's name other information, this is also the card could have people's names on it and due date (will explain why it could). When loaned out, the card with the book information was removed (at the library I worked at, we had a machine to take a photo of the card with the book info and the patron's library card) and filed that card with all of the other cards from books that were checked out. We would then take a card from a stack that had nothing but dated, stamp the return date on it and place that in the book so the patron knew when to return the book. Many of the older books in our library still had book cards (the ones with book information) that still had people's names on them and date stamps from before the photo system was installed).

If the book had a card with only dates and no other information, someone has one hell of a late fee waiting for them (the maximum late fee is usually the cost of replacing the book) because they checked the book out and never returned it. The library would still have the card with checkout history—if not for progress and all such cards having likely been tossed. The library might still know the name of the last person who checked it out though since they have a bill to pay.

[Malchor]

Aug 20, 2018 1:28:00 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Malchor, The two card system would have been used when? I was only familiar with a 1 card system back in the 70's. Not sure what would have been used in the 60's. As I understand it a card with people's names was always held back to track who had what book.

....

This was in the 80s.

It is two cards because the library needs to know what books are out (they pull and file the cards from all checked out books), the library needs to know who has the book (either the patron writes their name on the book card or a photo is taken with book card and patron's library card), and lastly the date card is put into the pocket of the book at check out to inform the patron when the book is due.

So it comes down to the library's need to know which books are out, who has it and when it is due; and the patron's need to know when the book is due (the pocket or other parts of the book are stamped with the name and location of the library to inform the patron (or anyone who finds the book) where to return it (important to students who tend to have access to more than one library)).

This in no way negates Dan Nicholson's story at all. The book card, the one with information about the book, is the one with the history of who took it out as well, this sits in the book's pocket on the shelves. Dan would have been able to see that information when he pulled the book off the selves. It would have been a simple thing for him to copy the names off the card, then if he wanted he could go check out the book—adding his name to the card as well.

One last note. It was rare, but did happen that the book's card was missing (the one with book's information). We would just hand write one to get the loan transaction done, then type a new official one later (clipping the temporary card to the new official one until the book was returned, because the handwritten one was the one photographed with the patron's card, and the newly typed one is the one that will be slipped into the book on return).

BTW, One of the ways I got the job at the library was that I founded the D&D club there. We had a D&D club in Junior High and members I knew started moving off to High School, so I wanted a place we could still play together, but that is another story.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 20, 2018 1:28:00 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Point well taken Rafael, I will reconsider my comments. And yes, it's been nicer on here. I must have going off of my time here the last time I was posting and it has changed.

Historically this has been a very polite board. We did have a rough patch but the moderator team helped me "clean out Dodge" and we're back to where we were before. I value input from all of our historians and prefer that this board not "take sides" so it's appreciated that we all keep a non-antagonistic tone here.

[aldarron]

Aug 2, 2018 9:13:51 GMT -6 increment said:

But when we narrow down to the question of why D&D has hit points, surely the fact that ogres can take an accumulation of six hits in Chainmail is a proximate cause. It's not like Gygax and Perren invented the idea of figures taking multiple hits or something, you could find medieval wargame units taking multiple hits in, say, the Siege of Bodenburg in 1967. Taking multiple hits was a pretty common idea, I guess I'm not sure what people are saying Strategos variants added here. We can call them another parallel, but what did Strategos add to the idea of hit points that D&D couldn't have gotten from any of of the other places?

I don't understand this reasoning regarding CHAINMAIL. The proximate cause of Hit Points in D&D was HP in Blackmoor. The question then is whether the proximate cause of HP in Blackmoor was CM or prior use in other wargames - be it Stragegos or Ironclads as Arneson claimed or whatever. It makes no sense to claim the adaptation of an established practice to a new thing derived from a broadly similar reference in a booklet published after the practice is documented to have already been in place.

Further, Ogre's requiring 6 hits is an obvious dead end, as they do not have anything like 6 hit dice (avg. 21 hp) in Blackmoor. Instead, Arneson simply reassigned their point cost as hit points (15). A much stronger alignment between hit points and the hits of CM exists in the case of heros (4hits/4hd) and superheroes (8/8). One still can't call that a proximate cause for hit points however, because it is meaningless on the fantasy combat table where a single hit equals a kill, a case for which HP were considered to be the remedy.

The assignment of points to figures then, to mitigate instant kills on the FCT, was clearly not suggested by the mass combat statistics of Ogres, but was an adaptation of a tradition already in place (especially in naval gaming), traceable, as you've noted to multiple sources.

Note that none of this has anything t0 do with the origination of the concept of variable hit dice for HP, as is done in D&D, and which in some ways may be more interesting, than merely assigning points.

[Deleted]

Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack. Or, if you prefer, hairy Crom's sweet nutsack.

You know, it's possible for more than one person to have similar ideas. Wargames had been around for decades before either Strategos N or CHAINMAIL. Some things like units slowly losing effectiveness are simply basic ideas.

Not only is it not necessary to draw a solid line from each and every word in original D&D to something produced by either Dave A. or Dave W., or to Totten, or du Vernois, or H.G. Wells, or Tony Bath, or Don Featherstone...

... it is not possible.

Nor, for many of us, is the attempt particularly interesting. Attempting to establish a single channel of idea flow is doomed to failure, and there is limited value in watching the attempt.

[Deleted]

And experience is the same. The notion that "units start Green, and may eventually end up as Elite" is a basic concept that quickly occurs to any historical gamer who reads any history at all. "How did the Old Guard become elite" is an elementary question; once "success in battle" enters as part of the answer, the notion of units gaining experience is fundamental. I figured it out on my own at age 16. I was a bright young lad, but not that bright. If I could figure it out, anybody could.

[increment]

Sept 17, 2018 7:23:36 GMT -6 aldarron said:

The assignment of points to figures then, to mitigate instant kills on the FCT, was clearly not suggested by the mass combat statistics of Ogres, but was an adaptation of a tradition already in place (especially in naval gaming), traceable, as you've noted to multiple sources.

I understand that there is some interest in falsifying, as the original linked blog post says, the claim that "everything [Arneson] designed in Blackmoor must also be a derivation from Chainmail." Not that anyone actually maintains that, nor is anyone even holding a torch for the claim that experience derived from Chainmail, to my knowledge. But is Strategos A really "a more likely source for the application of hit points" on the strength of this single phrase that an elephant requires "5 hits to kill"? More likely than the rules Arneson characterized as "the basis of all our combat" in Blackmoor -- even if we want to caveat that with "at first" -- rules which describe a variety of circumstances where units could withstand multiple hits of damage before they perished?

This isn't a matter of something being suggested, it's just already there... to the degree that Chainmail is clear about what's there. The Ogre is a great example because the text goes on to describe how they take six hits in "normal combat" -- but slightly-magical elves can kill them in three hits and Heroes in one. So hits in Chainmail are, well, relative, I guess. There are threads elsewhere on this board trying to figure out how the fantasy system and "normal combat" were supposed to interface. I have no doubt Arneson looked at this muddle and substituted in a variety of alternatives over time, and could have drawn on all sorts of existing systems for inspiration in that. I still don't understand what is supposed to be unique to Strategos that can be discerned in Blackmoor's resulting treatment of hits.

[Deleted]

And those threads on normal combat and fantasy would be answered by ten minutes of actually playing the game. And starting in Lake Geneva was not necessary, a lot of people figured it out on their own. Context matters, and a lot of questions answer themselves when the little men (et al) are actually on the table.

[Malchor]

Sept 17, 2018 18:11:23 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

And those threads on normal combat and fantasy would be answered by ten minutes of actually playing the game. And starting in Lake Geneva was not necessary, a lot of people figured it out on their own. Context matters, and a lot of questions answer themselves when the little men (et al) are actually on the table.

Will add that playing live with physical items (e.g., figures and dice) will give a different perspective than virtual tabletop with scripts to run calculations and deal with accounting. That's how I went down the road of 1 die per man, being 20 dice for a fresh figure representing 20 men,not arguing that's how it is, but that that was how my group interpreted it, and while we actually played, playing virtually with a script to toss buckets of dice—of course, if we were playing live, I'd toss those 20 throws in batches and just count the 6's, which is not that hard.

But to @gonanofsimmerya's point, I'm making a mini Chainmail set of all paper tokens to try it out in a physical space.

[Deleted]

Well, when we actually played, the notion of actually throwing 20 dice per figure on the table never even occurred to us because nobody had that many dice.

I've honestly never heard that before.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2018 4:53:35 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Will add that playing live with physical items (e.g., figures and dice) will give a different perspective than virtual tabletop with scripts to run calculations and deal with accounting. That's how I went down the road of 1 die per man, being 20 dice for a fresh figure representing 20 men,not arguing that's how it is, but that that was how my group interpreted it, and while we actually played, playing virtually with a script to toss buckets of dice—of course, if we were playing live, I'd toss those 20 throws in batches and just count the 6's, which is not that hard.

But to @gonanofsimmerya's point, I'm making a mini Chainmail set of all paper tokens to try it out in a physical space.

And throw away your scripts and other electronics. PLAY the game with the technology used to WRITE the game.

For instance, last year at GaryCon, in "Battle on the Ice," 10 Heavy Horse charged a unit of Light Foot.

By the combat table, HH vs LF is 4 dice per man. Plus one die per man for charging.

Times ten figures.

That's fifty dice. If you multiplied that by 20 men per figure, that would be

ONE THOUSAND DICE.

There is absolutely NO circumstance under which it is reasonable to ask players to throw ONE THOUSAND DICE for a single combat. Especially since, in the SAME TURN, we had 10 HH attacking 15 Medium Horse, and 10 Heavy Foot meleeing 20 Levees.

Which gives you now 1400 DICE.

Get out of the virtual world! Get some counters, some dice, some rulers, and some sample scenarios from Paul Stormberg, and RUN THE GAME.

Because the only rational answer to somebody asking you to roll a thousand dice is to hold their head under water until they change their mind.

[robertsconley]

I concur with what Gronan said and its illustrate a larger issue with delving into this stuff. For me it clear that all of what went on is a result of hobbyists, like Arneson and Gygax, trying something and found it to work or not work and then moving on with playing the campaign.

None of this was a white paper exercise particularly for Dave Arneson. There is little of any design principle at work other than what works in actual play and does it feel right given the premise of the campaign.

For Napoleonic it important to know how the different caliber of cannon worked for Medieval battle how far a unit can move in the time period of a round given their equipment. And that was accomplished by reading primary and secondary sources like battle reports, and scholarly works like Totten.

Most of this from reading the source material is stated in percentages. So hobbyists learned about probability and figured out various ways to roll the odds with dice.

I know most of you read the same stuff I have and know the above detail. But there isn't a deeper design principle at work here. Rather it is straight forward process.

• Read the source material
• Figure out what fun and interesting to game. <--The most important step.
• Figure out the odds for the things that have uncertain results.
• Determine what dice you are going to be using for the above.
• Determine the different scales you will be using.
• Determine the procedures you will be using that ties all this together.
• Play
• Revise
• Repeat any of the above as necessary. Hopefully just involves a lot of play that is fun.

If one wants to recreate what was it like then lock yourself in a room with a note book. Write up some rules for a campaign using just what you know know, then call some friends, and play to see how it works. Rinse and repeat.

Finally I enjoy the research that Jon Peterson and other done and find it informative. But comes to playing our hobby, learning the above is by far the most useful thing gleaned from what we learned.