Why Alternative Combat System

[harlandski]

I've looked at the DD v4b rules online. I can see how faithful it is to the original books, and the annotated v5, which you kindly shared waysoftheearth is just a gem with its specific references to the original books.

My question is: what motivated the emulation of the Alternative Combat System in v4b? (As far as I could see there are no combat rules in v5 annotated yet.)

I can think of a few possible reasons:

- most people used the ACS back in the day anyway (that's the impression I got from @gronanofsimmerya)
- you have to use it to comply with the terms of the OGL: If this is the case I'd appreciate the whys and wherefores
- the author personally prefers it

My question is not motivated simply by curiosity. As I'm enjoying playing OD&D with as many of the Chainmail rules as I can make sense of, I have half an idea to make a retro clone of my own based on this concept, but I'm not sure if that will be possible with the OGL or either the 3rd or 5th edition SRDs, all of which which I'm only beginning to grapple with.

[Deleted]

I don't know what v4b is.

But Dave Arneson had dropped CHAINMAIL long before he ever showed BLACKMOOR to Gary Gygax.

Rob Kuntz has stated repeatedly that CHAINMAIL was included in OD&D to boost sales of CHAINMAIL.

D&D did not "evolve" out of CHAINMAIL in any meaningful way. Dave Arneson started his first couple of BLACKMOOR games using the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Combat Table but dropped it within the first three or for games, per Swenson, Mayer, Megarry, et al.

The entire "Use CHAINMAIL for D&D" movement is based on mistaken premises, I fear.

[talysman]

Jan 16, 2019 12:36:10 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

D&D did not "evolve" out of CHAINMAIL in any meaningful way. Dave Arneson started his first couple of BLACKMOOR games using the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Combat Table but dropped it within the first three or for games, per Swenson, Mayer, Megarry, et al.

The entire "Use CHAINMAIL for D&D" movement is based on mistaken premises, I fear.

I'd like to think that, as long as people don't say "OD&D was meant to be played with Chainmail", they're just interested in using Chainmail.

My personal interpretation of the inclusion of Chainmail as a combat system alongside tha "alternate" combat system is that D&D is not really about the combat system. It's about the other rules, the rules for adventuring. You can use whatever combat system you prefer: d20 combat, Chainmail, TFT Melee, Arms Law, or something else.

Edit: By "inclusion of Chainmail", I mean in the original books. Since this is the Delving Deeper forum, harlandski is asking about Delving Deeper version 4b and why it uses the "alternative" combat system instead of Chainmail. All of that is related, of course. Pretty sure waysoftheearth went with the alternative system because it's the standard.

[Deleted]

Okay, since I followed a notification to get here I didn't know it was about some game other than D&D.

[waysoftheearth]

In case you don't know the history of D&D, it all began with the fantasy rules in CHAIMAIL. Dave A. took these rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D. When I played in his ''Blackmoor'' campaign I fell in love with the now concept and expanded and changed his 20 or so pages of hand-written ''rules'' into about 100 ms. pages.

...

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the rules found in D&D. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. D&D is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to ''survive''. Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rule to suit yourself and your players. D&D enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them--except as a referee in my own small campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

...

I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign Should be a 'variant', and there is no ''official interpretation'' from me or anyone else. If a game of ''Dungeons & Beavers'' suits a group, all I say is more power to them, for every fine referee runs his own variant of D&D anyway.

Sections of EGG's letter to A&E readers; issue #2 (Jul 1975).
Emphasis mine.


As far as I'm concerned "the premise" of trying out CHAINMAIL--or any other rules elements--with D&D is not to pretend we are doing what Arneson or EGG (whose "campaigns differ from the rules found in D&D") may have done 40+ years ago, but to have fun.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 16, 2019 7:24:43 GMT -6 harlandski said:

My question is: what motivated the emulation of the Alternative Combat System in v4b? (As far as I could see there are no combat rules in v5 annotated yet.)

I can think of a few possible reasons:

- most people used the ACS back in the day anyway (that's the impression I got from @gronanofsimmerya)
- you have to use it to comply with the terms of the OGL: If this is the case I'd appreciate the whys and wherefores
- the author personally prefers it

V4 was written a while back now but, as I recall it, it was an attempt to emulate the printed rules within what the OGL legally allows. The printed rules include the ACS, so DD wouldn't have been DD without it.

The introductory section of the Annotated H&M (p2) sums up my more recent thinking (V5-era refinements to the earlier motivations).

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 16, 2019 14:51:58 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'd like to think that, as long as people don't say "OD&D was meant to be played with Chainmail", they're just interested in using Chainmail.

My personal interpretation of the inclusion of Chainmail as a combat system alongside tha "alternate" combat system is that D&D is not really about the combat system. It's about the other rules, the rules for adventuring. You can use whatever combat system you prefer: d20 combat, Chainmail, TFT Melee, Arms Law, or something else.

Awesome post talysman

[harlandski]

Jan 17, 2019 2:37:54 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In case you don't know the history of D&D, it all began with the fantasy rules in CHAIMAIL. Dave A. took these rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D. When I played in his ''Blackmoor'' campaign I fell in love with the now concept and expanded and changed his 20 or so pages of hand-written ''rules'' into about 100 ms. pages.

...

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the rules found in D&D. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. D&D is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to ''survive''. Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rule to suit yourself and your players. D&D enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them--except as a referee in my own small campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

...

I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign Should be a 'variant', and there is no ''official interpretation'' from me or anyone else. If a game of ''Dungeons & Beavers'' suits a group, all I say is more power to them, for every fine referee runs his own variant of D&D anyway.

Sections of EGG's letter to A&E readers; issue #2 (Jul 1975).
Emphasis mine.


As far as I'm concerned "the premise" of trying out CHAINMAIL--or any other rules elements--with D&D is not to pretend we are doing what Arneson or EGG (whose "campaigns differ from the rules found in D&D") may have done 40+ years ago, but to have fun.

Amazingly inspirational quote from Gygax - I'm fascinated that neither he nor Arneson played OD&D 'by the book', and I love the idea that every campaign is a variant.

So with my own adventures (haven't quite got to the campaign yet), I feel I've very much been doing what Arneson and Gygax did, not in detail but in principle, insofar as I've been experimenting with what makes most sense for me, and keeps my players on their toes. For example my rust monster became something quite different and terrifying once it had five flail attacks per round, as it attacked almost the whole adventuring group in one gigantic sweep.

I'm also definitely having fun - thanks for the reminder of that being the point of a game! :-D