jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Feb 24, 2008 7:46:28 GMT -6
Since Calithena brought them up, I'm going to go ahead and post the Perrin Conventions here. Originally posted to Knights & Knaves by T. Foster [ link to original post on K&KA] I just posted this on the Holmes board (since I suspect much of the Holmes combat system derives from here) and figured while I was at it I might as well post it here as well (since these are OD&D house rules, after all). Per the introduction to Chaosium's All the World's Monsters, vol. II: "Steve Perrin's CONVENTIONS have been used entirely or in part by fantasy role-players in the San Francisco bay area and beyond since they debuted at DUNDRACON I in March 1976. They are revised and expanded here for all those who want to know how people fight these monsters. While the ideas start from D&D™, much of the material can be used with any system." THE PERRIN CONVENTIONS Many thanks to Steve Henderson. Clint Bigglestone, Nioolai Shapero, Jerry Jacks, Michael McNeil, Owen and Hilda Hannifen, Dave Harqrave, Dan Pierson, and the many contributors to Alarum & Excursions: may your characters have close shaves and your dungeons be hairy. SEQUENCE OF PLAY - Melee Round In a melee round, (which takes up 10 saconds), each character can perform one or more of the functions below, unless he is busy bleeding his life away and is no longer interested. The functions below are listed in the order to be followed, even if some of them can be thought to be simultaneous. For those wishing to subdivide movement into seconds, the approximate seconds within the round during which the action may occur are shown in italics after the description of the action. Anyone attempting to use missile or spell when meleed cannot use them, and will strike last in that melee round (see the desription of combat for the usual strike order) if he manages (via a dexterity roll) to get a hand weapon free. Otherwise, he will have no strike at all for that round, and must take the punishment if his armor fails. ORDER OF ACTION (1). Monster Motivation. The DM determines what his monster will do in the coming round. No melee time (MT) spent (2). Declaration of Intent. Players declare their character(s)'s intentions for the coming round, including specific target and the nature of missile or spell. Target can be ''first one to come through the door," "the last one in line," etc. Once declared, the character may follow through or abort, but not change his target or objective. But alternate targets can be chosen as a contingency plan. No melee time (MT) spent (3). Preparation. The undertaking of something to be completed by the next round or of the end of the current one. Involves complicated procedures such as finding a special item in a full pack, changing dissimilar weapons, pouring oil in front of the character to make a barricade, etc. It should be an activity which will last the whole turn. A DM can vary the speed of completion because of various characteristics. MT: 10 seconds base.(4). Missile Fire from Prepared Weapons. This refers to crossbows, guns, bows, wands, spells, etc., which already have been aimed. Missile weapons can be fire at this time only if the same target was fired at previously or if the character has prepared (see 3. above) opportunity fire for a specific area, such as a doorway or corner. MT: 2nd second (5). Movement Up To 30'. If characters meet within this space, missile fire or spells at one of them after this phase may hit the other, unless their sizes are disparate. MT: 2nd-5th second. (6). "At Hand" Missile Fire. At-hand missile weapons which were not already aimed may be fired at an obvious target. The intention to fire at an obvious target must have been declared during the Declaration of Intent. MT: 6th second. (7). Movement Up To 30'. More movement available for those not already engaged in melee. MT: 6th-9th seconds (8 ). Melee Resolution. Fought out for all who came next to an enemy after the first movement (see 5.). Those who came next to an enemy during the second movement (see 7.) do not have time to strike a blow for this turn, must take any fire from at-hand missiles (see 6.), but prevent even a prepared missile (see 4.) from being used on them next turn. MT: 4th-9th seconds. (9.) Spells and New Missile Fire. This can be done by unengaged characters who have not moved more than one 30' movement phase. MT: 7th-10th seconds. (10). Bookkeeplng. Take this time to add points regenerated, subtract spell points, updating the cheracter for the next round. NOTES MOVEMENT - from the basic ''armored man moves 60 feet." The phases of a character who can move 120' (12") can be done as two movement phases of 60' (6") each. The derivations and possibilities are obvious. PREPARATION TIME - time required for complex tasks can be based on a dexterity roll. For every 10% of a roll better than the needed dexterity, a character completes the task one second earlier. Example: a character with a dexterity of 12 rolls a 23. He needed 60, bettering the roll be 37%, or three increments of 10%. His task could be done within 7 seconds instead of 10, leaving him free to meet an attack. If he was spreading oil of Slipperiness in front of himself and an enemy came next to him on the second move phase, that's one enemy down. The dexterity roll would not work on anything which takes a set period of time, like gathering energies for a spell. If the character had rolled an 83, that would put him 2 increments of 10% over what he needed The task goes 2 seconds into the next round. MISSILE FIRE - a wand or stave takes a certain time to be ready for another burst, so only one charga could be expended a melee round. Missile weapons have other limits, which follow. Heavy Crossbow: one shot per two melee rounds, always to be fired in the same missile phase the first one was, unless purposefully delayed. Cannot move. Longbow, Composite Bow, Light Crossbow: two shots per melee round. First either at Prepared or Ready phase (assuming either applies), and then at the New Missile Fire phase. If moving, forsake one shot for every 30' or fraction thereof moved. Short Bow, Modern Guns: three shots per melee round if Prepared for the first one and there is no movement. Lose one shot per round for every 30' or fraction thereof moved. Thus a user of such a weapon could fire a Prepared shot, then run 60' in that round. The same applies to the user of a wand or staff or a Prepared spell or device. Early Gunpowder Gun: one shot per three to six melee rounds, depending on just how ancient the piece is. No movement allowed by firer in a round in which the piece fires. DEXTERITY - the term "dexterity roll" appears throughout these conventions. The ability to do many things, especially combat and magic, as well as complex actions such as changing weapons, turning and firing, opening a box and jumping back, closing a door quickly, etc., depends on a combination of dexterity and experience. Success in the percentile dice roll depends on the following: the basic dexterity roll is a simple roll of 5% per point of dexterity, A dexterity of 3 always has a 15% chance of succeeding; a dexterity of 18 always has a 10% chance (91-00) of muffing it. OPTIONAL RULE The type of armor worn can decrease the effectiveness of dexterity. For plate, subtract 2 from the dexterity bonus; for mail, subtract 1 from the dexterity bonus; for bare skin, add 1 to the dexterity bonus. This could be offset by experience. COMBAT (1). First strike in any sltuation, whether melee combat, spell casting, or whatever depends on who has the highest dexterity. This does not apply to surprise situations, unless it is mutual surprise. Hasted or sped conditions do count. Haste doubles dexterity in this connection. (Wayne Shaw Option: once the first strike dexterity is determined, all haste bonuses, etc., are figured, roll 2D6 for each character and add the result to the dexterity. This will give a little variety to just who gets to strike first.) (Further Modification: a character with a long weapon or a long reach and a dexterity of at least half of his opponent's will have first strike. (2). When a character takes more than 10% damage, and each time he takes damage thereafter, the percentage of hit points he has left shall be found and precentile dice rolled. If the percentage or less is not rolled, the character is knocked back(if less than 50% down) or knocked down (if 50% or more damaged). If not knocked down, roll again to see if the character is knocked back. Knocked Back: a character must make his dexterity roll in order to get in a blow if he has the lesser dexterity and therefore must strike after being hit, or retain his place of first strike on the next round if he has the higher dexterity. Knocked Down: a character gets no strike on that turn (if he has the lesser dexterity) and must make his percentage to get a strike on the next turn. If he does get a strike, it will be the last one of the turn. If left alone, he can regain his feet on making a percentage roll, but if pressed he will stay down, defending himself as best he can, continuing to get in the last shot. Remember: a character must make his percentage every time he takes damage, after the initial 10% damage is taken. (3). One-to-one combat cannot be broken off unless an opponent has been knocked back or down, or the higher dexterity fighter makes a dexterity roll. If the higher dexterity fighter makes his roll, the lower dexterity fighter may pursue, getting first shot, if he makes his own dexterity roll. (4). A combined strength, dexterity, end level score of 30 is necessary to allow a character the use of two weapons in melee combat (and strength and dexterity must each at least be 11). Anyone useing two weapons without the necessary total will add the difference betwean the necessary total and his total to the number needed to hit his opponent. A dexterity roll must be achieved to use the second weapon in any melee round. (5). When using two weapons, the first weapon strikes according to the wielder's dexterity, and the second weapon as if his dexterity were halved. EXAMPLE: a character with a dexterity of 16 is fighting someone with dexterity 12. The 16-man will get his first weapon in first, then the 12-man will strike with his, and then the 16-man will get in with his second weapon as if his dexterity were 8. (6). A two-weapon man may up his armor class by one by using one weapon as a shield in man-to-man combat. Despite any pluses on the waapon, it acts as a simple shield. Of course, if used as a shield, the second weapon cannot be used to strike. - Steve Perrin Oakland, California November, 1977
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 27, 2021 23:09:31 GMT -6
Moderator note: this post and the next ten follow-ups split off from a post in the A&E back-issues thread.Here is a list of A&E contributors and the early issues in which they appeared. The list is reported to have been compiled by Lee, herself. I just purchased my first run of 10 issues, #10-19, in case one of them reprinted any portion of the fabled Steve "Perrin Conventions" for bay area play circa 1976. Alas, they are not to be had. Still, I don't regret the purchase. The format of the zines reads pretty much like these discussion threads. You guys are every bit as creative and scrutinizing as the original d&d fans. The Perrin Conventions are reprinted in All The World's Monsters, Volume 2, available from DriveThruRPG: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1713/All-the-Worlds-Monsters-Vol-2
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 28, 2021 0:44:57 GMT -6
Here is a list of A&E contributors and the early issues in which they appeared. The list is reported to have been compiled by Lee, herself. I just purchased my first run of 10 issues, #10-19, in case one of them reprinted any portion of the fabled Steve "Perrin Conventions" for bay area play circa 1976. Alas, they are not to be had. Still, I don't regret the purchase. The format of the zines reads pretty much like these discussion threads. You guys are every bit as creative and scrutinizing as the original d&d fans. The Perrin Conventions are reprinted in All The World's Monsters, Volume 2, available from DriveThruRPG: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1713/All-the-Worlds-Monsters-Vol-2My understand is that version of the Perrin Conventions is incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Apr 28, 2021 5:50:49 GMT -6
My understand is that version of the Perrin Conventions is incomplete. You are correct. Once, a few years back , I saw the complete version of it online. At the time I was not terribly interested and moved along. In more recent years , I have become far more interested in the "reactions" to OD&D, and can no longer find it. Maddening.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 28, 2021 20:30:26 GMT -6
My understand is that version of the Perrin Conventions is incomplete. You are correct. Once, a few years back , I saw the complete version of it online. At the time I was not terribly interested and moved along. In more recent years , I have become far more interested in the "reactions" to OD&D, and can no longer find it. Maddening. I sent an email to Lee Gold, asking if she still had a copy and if so, would she be willing to share it. Keep your fingers crossed!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Apr 29, 2021 7:27:02 GMT -6
You are correct. Once, a few years back , I saw the complete version of it online. At the time I was not terribly interested and moved along. In more recent years , I have become far more interested in the "reactions" to OD&D, and can no longer find it. Maddening. I sent an email to Lee Gold, asking if she still had a copy and if so, would she be willing to share it. Keep your fingers crossed! This would be great, but I'm guessing she might feel the need to check with Steve first, in this day and age(?) And if she needs to deal with the NuChaosium (since part of it *is* published in ATWM), I'm not very hopeful. Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 29, 2021 8:25:35 GMT -6
I sent an email to Lee Gold, asking if she still had a copy and if so, would she be willing to share it. Keep your fingers crossed! This would be great, but I'm guessing she might feel the need to check with Steve first, in this day and age(?) And if she needs to deal with the NuChaosium (since part of it *is* published in ATWM), I'm not very hopeful. Fingers crossed. You are quite correct. Lee mentioned in her reply to my second query that I ought to get in touch with Steve Perrin directly. So there's that. (More work, but nothing terrible.)
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Apr 29, 2021 22:18:59 GMT -6
badger2305 , increment contributed to a paper on mana and gaming. I told someone, once, that the published conventions in All the World's Monsters came to six pages, mimeoed. Now, I don't know where I got that idea from. Nicolai Shapero, another bay area dm who picked up the rules handout at Dundracon, remembered it being a single sheet - front and back. I'm still not entirely clear on what ratio of combat sequence to magic system to critical hits table to whatever else comprised the original whole. Perrin had even offered up a twenty(!) page version to interested A&E readers during the time he was collecting submissions for AtWM. I've got an inkling that the spell points portion of the Perrin Conventions is a derivation of Arduin magic. I know his critical hits table is from Hargrave. None of this is in the published version and that's probably for the best. House rules documents can be an unwieldy mess. The published conventions are concise. Here is the link to Lee Gold's transcription of the Perrin critical hit table that she got at Dundracon I. I'll guess this was a part of the "conventions". Like I said before, Perrin borrowed these from Hargrave. He set the record straight on this point, in a later issue. Moderator note: quote edited for readibility
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 29, 2021 23:57:23 GMT -6
Here's what Perrin wrote about the Conventions in A&E #30 (Jan 1978):
Notes:
-The rules submitted by Nicolai Shapero that Perrin references above can be found in A&E #28 (Nov 16, 1977)*, in Shapero's contribution "Notes for the Underground #19", under the title "The House Rules of Storm Gate Dungeon (with apologies to Steve Marsh)". Shapero also put them in issue #2 (Aug 25, 1977) of his own APAzine, The Lords of Chaos, under the same title but with a correct "apologies to Steve Perrin".
-Funny to see the Typo from the other thread also referenced here. It must have been very well known to A&E readers back then.
* Ironically, I apparently encountered a Typo when typing this "site-tation" up last night! It's now corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 30, 2021 0:07:37 GMT -6
I just located a 10-page pdf version of the Perrin Conventions dated December 1976 in a post on Facebook (apparently it's been sitting there since 2014...!) www.facebook.com/groups/ArduinGrimoire/permalink/1478274579086237The intro makes reference to the earlier version published for DunDraCon I, which Perrin also referenced in the quote from A&E #30 posted above. One caveat: the type face is not the same throughout the document, and the page numbering is off, so just be aware that this may be a jumble of pages from more than one source. Part of the Prologue (page 1) and pages 2-7 appear to be an earlier version of the Perrin Conventions published in ATWM#2 (November 1977). Much of the wording is the same. The rest of the pages cover magic, which was omitted from ATWM#2.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Apr 30, 2021 1:42:49 GMT -6
I'll just make two observations:
1) Increment had access to, at least, numbered pages 6(Combat) to 11 of that document, based on his statement that:
”The term ‘spell point’ is used throughout the six pages of the original ‘Perrin Conventions’, though one brief aside on the fifth page notes that the spell point system is ‘also known as the “manna point system”’.
The ”manna point" mention is under heading #6 of the "How Magic Works" section.
2) Shapero's Stormgate house rules also appear in A&E #28. - November '77 (same month as Perrin's published conventions). Sequence of Play is indeed the simpler 5 step prep-missles-movement-melee-spells sequence. Otherwise, yes, I would say that Shapero modeled his rules directly off whatever conventions were distributed by Perrin. The likely convention order being: Sequence of Play, then Dexterity rules, Combat additions, and finally the ”How Magic Works" portion.
Great find! Fantastic find!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Apr 30, 2021 5:44:41 GMT -6
I just located a 10-page pdf version of the Perrin Conventions dated December 1976 in a post on Facebook (apparently from 2014...!) www.facebook.com/groups/ArduinGrimoire/permalink/1478274579086237The intro makes reference to the earlier version published for DunDraCon I, which Perrin also referenced in the quote from A&E #30 posted above. One caveat: the type face is not the same throughout the document, and the page numbering is off, so just be aware that this may be a jumble of pages from more than one source. Part of the Prologue (page 1) and pages 2-7 appear to be an earlier version of the Perrin Conventions published in ATWM#2 (November 1977). Much of the wording is the same. The rest of the pages cover magic, which was omitted from ATWM#2. I don't "do Facebook", so I cannot see the document, but good work! I'll see maybe if I can get my wife to take a look on her FB account over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Apr 30, 2021 7:52:07 GMT -6
The version I've worked from is one I got from Steve Perrin, which includes only six numbered pages, the last of which only has about 1/3 of a page of text. Whether or not we should consider the separate critical hits table part of the "original" Perrin conventions is debatable, as I understand it was mostly Hargrave's material. But definitely Perrin later reworked and expanded it a couple of times.
Last I spoke to Perrin about it he intended to make them more broadly available as part of some offering, but I'm not sure what ever came of those plans.
I'll add that in the DunDraCon version, what appears on numbered page 2 is basically the same as what is on numbered page 5 of the December version. Numbered page 1 is a less elaborate "Sequence of Play" as seen in the unnumbered pages at the start of the December version. None of the "optional" stuff appears in the DunDraCon version. "How Magic Works" starts on page 4 of the DunDraCon version, per page 8 of the December version. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 30, 2021 11:30:35 GMT -6
The version I've worked from is one I got from Steve Perrin, which includes only six numbered pages, the last of which only has about 1/3 of a page of text. Whether or not we should consider the separate critical hits table part of the "original" Perrin conventions is debatable, as I understand it was mostly Hargrave's material. But definitely Perrin later reworked and expanded it a couple of times. Last I spoke to Perrin about it he intended to make them more broadly available as part of some offering, but I'm not sure what ever came of those plans. I'll add that in the DunDraCon version, what appears on numbered page 2 is basically the same as what is on numbered page 5 of the December version. Numbered page 1 is a less elaborate "Sequence of Play" as seen in the unnumbered pages at the start of the December version. None of the "optional" stuff appears in the DunDraCon version. "How Magic Works" starts on page 4 of the DunDraCon version, per page 8 of the December version. And so on. Steve Perrin wrote Colonial Troopers for my small press NightOwlWorkshop.com and we've discussed publishing a cleaned up well presented and illustrated version of his Perrin Conventions. Since Dundracon was cancelled I haven't seen him this year, but I will ping him about it.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 30, 2021 19:31:40 GMT -6
Whether or not we should consider the separate critical hits table part of the "original" Perrin conventions is debatable, as I understand it was mostly Hargrave's material. FYI, for everyone else in this thread, I just came across a publication of this critical hit table in A&E #12 (June 12 1976) as part of Lee Gold's Tantivy. She introduces it as: "Steve Perrin's critical hit table (as distributed at Dundracon)". It's a relatively short (less than one page) percentage table full of amputations and other grievous bodily harm. This issue also happens to have Perrin's first contribution to A&E, titled "Tuesday Morning Report #1". As part of it, he writes: "If anyone has any questions concerning the Perrin Conventions they picked up at DunDraCon I, just write to me at the above address."
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 1, 2021 20:53:58 GMT -6
Whether or not we should consider the separate critical hits table part of the "original" Perrin conventions is debatable, as I understand it was mostly Hargrave's material. FYI, for everyone else in this thread, I just came across a publication of this critical hit table in A&E #12 (June 12 1976) as part of Lee Gold's Tantivy. She introduces it as: "Steve Perrin's critical hit table (as distributed at Dundracon)". It's a relatively short (less than one page) percentage table full of amputations and other grievous bodily harm. This issue also happens to have Perrin's first contribution to A&E, titled "Tuesday Morning Report #1". As part of it, he writes: "If anyone has any questions concerning the Perrin Conventions they picked up at DunDraCon I, just write to me at the above address." I took a look at the first Arduin Grimoire to compare the Lee Gold - typed critical hit table to Hargrave's first published table. They are clearly derived from the same source. They use basically the same language with results occurring in similar spreads of probability. The table in Arduin is about a third more complex, but Arduin is full of complex tables. The Arduin table has damage ranges for every entry and footnotes that are 50%, again, the length of the table. I think it's appropriate that we consider a critical hits table, regardless of authorship, to be part of the complete DunDraCon handout. Perrin brings up either a crits table or, at least the potential for a crits table on numerous occasions in A&E, usually when the prospect of revising the "Conventions" or prepping for the next DunDraCon comes up. So many contributors are credited in the revised "Sequence of Play", one might wonder if any part of the "Perrin Conventions" actually belongs to Steve Perrin. I'm being facetious, of course. On the other hand, I noticed this: The person who uploaded the above, Perrin Conventions, to Facebook (or maybe another person before him) took care to direct readers to Dave Hargrave's fumble table, as well as the crits table. This is a correction. Someone else's name has been stricken-out and Hargrave's has been penned in. The fumbles table is also published in Arduin Grimoire, but not until the next year(?) So, Hargrave's tables are expected to be circulating to the same people as the Perrin Conventions. Makes sense to me that they might be in the same packet. (note: the note at the bottom of the image. Perrin and friends originally rolled two 10-sided dice and summed the results when rolling to-hit so that the range was 2-20. This is straight from the horse's mouth)
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 2, 2021 10:09:27 GMT -6
Since jrients reproduced the Perrin Conventions as published in 1978, without magic rules, etc., up top; and since Zenopus has tracked down the rest, I thought it might be nice to speculate on the contents of the core of the thing. The Dundracon "Sequence of Play" is Steve Perrin's legacy contribution to the dungeons & dragons game, if there is one. Below, is my best attempt to recreate page one of increment's Perrin Conventions, without actually seeing the original. Seeing how familiar the original combat sequence is, to modern eyes, makes it seem almost mundane.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 2, 2021 10:57:37 GMT -6
So many contributors are credited in the revised "Sequence of Play", one might wonder if any part of the "Perrin Conventions" actually belongs to Steve Perrin. In regard to this, while searching for the Perrin Conventions, I re-read a blog post by Hawklord where he writes: The linked Dundracon bio says this:
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 3, 2021 5:58:41 GMT -6
After some time spent reading these I come away with this:
I really enjoy these "responses" to D&D. I love the variants. I love the creativity. I love how people immediately (like my group) took the game and made it their own instead of trying to get official answers "from on high".
A system built from the ground up (Runequest) did this 1000X better than this "bolt on" that is TPC.
The "Manna" point system is probably the best swipe. Which I gather is really Hargrave's work.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 3, 2021 11:21:12 GMT -6
jeffb said: I hear what you're saying about Runequest being a superior product. If, back in the day, you put the question to most Runequest fans, "Why are you playing this and not D&D?", they would probably have said that they couldn't understand how to play by just reading the rules they bought. Sure, some highly motivated super-fans, like Steve Perrin or Dave Hargrave (or like some of us!), couldn't wait the four years that it took for Runequest to release so that they could play a complete roleplaying game. Runequest, Stormbringer, and, oh-my-gosh, Call of the Cthulhu all played silky smooth on Perrin's original core mechanics (distilled out as the Chaosium Basic Roleplaying System) compared to od&d. You wouldn't know it looking at the inflated page counts of later books, but Perrin's rules come to something like 20 pgs. with illos! My interest in the Perrin handout stems from my interest in Holmes Basic and, by extension, the Holmes era of play. These bay area house rules may be worked into my next table copy of Holmes, if I ever get it printed. At the very least, they will be stapled and tucked inside the back cover. Holmes had good things to say about Runequest when he reviewed it, even though Runequest combat was made to be the "realistic" style that many rpg's were moving towards and that Holmes eschewed. At least it wasn't as realistic as Warlock. Going by word count alone, I think Dave Hargrave must have been working on the Arduin Grimoire for quite a while. It may be that the "manna point" magic rules originate with him, but not exactly as they appear in Arduin (March 1977). The Perrin system(March 1976) is simple to grasp. All the requisite abilities - Strength, Int. or Con., and Constitution are averaged to calculate starting points. Arduin uses only Intelligence, but divides the score by 2, 3, or 4 depending on if the mage has a low, medium, or high Intelligence score. The Perrin system sets rates for spell cost at one point per spell level for non-combat spells and one point per hit die of damage for combat spells. Hargrave sets his costs arbitrarily and embeds them in with his new spell listings. Granted, Hargrave advises setting point cost at one to one-and-a-half times spell level generally. Don't forget that Warlock published their spell point formulas and costs a year earlier even than that in 1975, although their calculus is the least similar of the spell point systems and their costs are the least uniform. My problem in finding precedent lies in the fact that being first-to-press doesn't always correlate with being the originator. This frustrates my fundamentalist side. Maybe Dave Hargrave IS the father of California gaming; just not in print.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 3, 2021 16:41:52 GMT -6
jeffb said: I hear what you're saying about Runequest being a superior product. If, back in the day, you put the question to most Runequest fans, "Why are you playing this and not D&D?", they would probably have said that they couldn't understand how to play by just reading the rules they bought. Sure, some highly motivated super-fans, like Steve Perrin or Dave Hargrave (or like some of us!), couldn't wait the four years that it took for Runequest to release so that they could play a complete roleplaying game. Runequest, Stormbringer, and, oh-my-gosh, Call of the Cthulhu all played silky smooth on Perrin's original core mechanics (distilled out as the Chaosium Basic Roleplaying System) compared to od&d. You wouldn't know it looking at the inflated page counts of later books, but Perrin's rules come to something like 20 pgs. with illos! My interest in the Perrin handout stems from my interest in Holmes Basic and, by extension, the Holmes era of play. These bay area house rules may be worked into my next table copy of Holmes, if I ever get it printed. At the very least, they will be stapled and tucked inside the back cover. Holmes had good things to say about Runequest when he reviewed it, even though Runequest combat was made to be the "realistic" style that many rpg's were moving towards and that Holmes eschewed. At least it wasn't as realistic as Warlock. Going by word count alone, I think Dave Hargrave must have been working on the Arduin Grimoire for quite a while. It may be that the "manna point" magic rules originate with him, but not exactly as they appear in Arduin (March 1977). The Perrin system(March 1976) is simple to grasp. All the requisite abilities - Strength, Int. or Con., and Constitution are averaged to calculate starting points. Arduin uses only Intelligence, but divides the score by 2, 3, or 4 depending on if the mage has a low, medium, or high Intelligence score. The Perrin system sets rates for spell cost at one point per spell level for non-combat spells and one point per hit die of damage for combat spells. Hargrave sets his costs arbitrarily and embeds them in with his new spell listings. Granted, Hargrave advises setting point cost at one to one-and-a-half times spell level generally. Don't forget that Warlock published their spell point formulas and costs a year earlier even than that in 1975, although their calculus is the least similar of the spell point systems and their costs are the least uniform. My problem in finding precedent lies in the fact that being first-to-press doesn't always correlate with being the originator. This frustrates my fundamentalist side. Maybe Dave Hargrave IS the father of California gaming; just not in print. Please don't mistake my commentary on TPC as dismissive of it's worth or value or anything. I totally get why people are interested in it. I am too, though I likely would never use it. As for RQ, I was a bit later to the fold- late 81?, maybe winter-spring 82 ? I couldn't find it any local gamestores until then. I was always fascinated by the Chaosium ads in The Dragon. RQ was easy to learn for sure thanks to the wonderful examples of Rurik and Company, but the Authors went out of their way to explain the "why's" of many elements, and much of it seemed so straightforward and full of "real world" common sense/logic when it came to mechanics of characters, combat, and even Magic (Glorantha, is another story!). (O)D&D was so much more abstract (and many concepts, as well all know, poorly explained to boot). Ad for Hargarve, I've made my points about my issues with his system/s (and more so his attitude) elsewhere in the forum, but no doubt of his influence during that time period- Whether he was first to print, or not. It was enough for Gary to call him out several times at least by game mechanics, if not by name.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 3, 2021 23:38:50 GMT -6
jeffb said: Going by word count alone, I think Dave Hargrave must have been working on the Arduin Grimoire for quite a while. It may be that the "manna point" magic rules originate with him, but not exactly as they appear in Arduin (March 1977). The Perrin system(March 1976) is simple to grasp. All the requisite abilities - Strength, Int. or Con., and Constitution are averaged to calculate starting points. Arduin uses only Intelligence, but divides the score by 2, 3, or 4 depending on if the mage has a low, medium, or high Intelligence score. The Perrin system sets rates for spell cost at one point per spell level for non-combat spells and one point per hit die of damage for combat spells. Hargrave sets his costs arbitrarily and embeds them in with his new spell listings. Granted, Hargrave advises setting point cost at one to one-and-a-half times spell level generally. Don't forget that Warlock published their spell point formulas and costs a year earlier even than that in 1975, although their calculus is the least similar of the spell point systems and their costs are the least uniform. My problem in finding precedent lies in the fact that being first-to-press doesn't always correlate with being the originator. This frustrates my fundamentalist side. Maybe Dave Hargrave IS the father of California gaming; just not in print. Lee Gold describes a "local custom" spell point system in her first Tantivy, all the way back in A&E #1 (June 1975), a few months before even Warlock was published in Spartan (Aug 1975). Magic-users get 1/2 of the sum of Intelligence and Constitution per day, and may be "increased in terms of the number of Men he fights as". Different categories of spells use different fractions of points, with attack spells using one or more full points. There were earlier discussions of spell points in the APA-L articles that preceded A&E, but I don't have those, just the summary document provided by Gold to grodog; see here.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 4, 2021 23:01:54 GMT -6
jeffbI understand what you're saying It's interesting; on second look, there is not a lot of overlap in coverage between "Magic in Arduin" and Perrin's "How Magic Works". Besides the formulas for calculating initial spell points (manna points) and the regeneration of the same, the Arduin Grimoire does not include rules on the same topics as Perrin. Perrin seems most interested in how the points are spent. Hargrave devotes a lot more space to the various and novel effects of different projectile spells. ZenopusI wish I had access to those last APA-L's before Alarums launched. I've been over that summary .doc before, but had forgotten about it. I suspect that if Lee was selling back issues of these like she does, A&E, that you would already have them. By the by, did you happen to notice the scans of Booty and the Beasts, with the Erol Otus art, that was also posted to that Arduin Facebook group? I just grabbed it. I don't know what the scan quality is. So cool to see! There was one more book with Otus art, by that publisher. Necronomicon, maybe?. Not to lead this thread too far astray, but Gygax' response to A&E #1 included a plug for Barker's War of Wizards microgame, for which TSR was taking over distribution. I think (but, don't quote me) that War of Wizards had a point system to cast spells. Not spell points, though, if that makes sense. The Hannifens would represent the connecting tissue between Steve Perrin (and the rest) and Lee Gold, before Perrin started contributing zine content. If there was any transmission of house rules between San Francisco and L.A., that is where I might expect to find it. Unfortunately, Hilda Hannifen's Mockturtle zine seems to be mostly play reports and little concerned with mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 5, 2021 14:08:19 GMT -6
captainjapanI just noticed that A&E #17 (12/11/76) has a description of the sequence of play in the Perrin Conventions (on page 39 of pdf). It's at the end of Bill Seligman's "I Would Have Made a Great Platinum Dragon #2", but that contribution was typed up by Lee Gold, and she would often add bits to the end of contibutions to have them fill out a page. It describes the same five steps you outlined above, but in briefer format. I can't tell if it's a quote from the actual original Perrin Conventions or just the author's summation/interpretation. There's an opening quote mark in the 4th line but no closing quote mark, so I'm not sure where the quotation ends. Interestingly, Magic Missile is placed with Missile fire (step 2) rather than Spell Casting (step 5) Otherwise, there is an exception for "prepared" spells: "Spell casting may be done during MISSILE FIRE if the spell was prepared the previous turn (and no other action taken)"
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 5, 2021 14:28:46 GMT -6
Steve Perrin wrote Colonial Troopers for my small press NightOwlWorkshop.com and we've discussed publishing a cleaned up well presented and illustrated version of his Perrin Conventions. Since Dundracon was cancelled I haven't seen him this year, but I will ping him about it. Alright. I just had a good chat with Steve. I cannot reveal any of the details, it would be too early to talk about it, but I'll just say things are looking positive. I'm glad this thread came up, I usually see Steve every year at Dundracon so it was an opportunity to catch up. I've long felt the Perrin Conventions deserved to be in a nice updated presentation. Maybe along with some other old school wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on May 6, 2021 3:33:55 GMT -6
Steve Perrin wrote Colonial Troopers for my small press NightOwlWorkshop.com and we've discussed publishing a cleaned up well presented and illustrated version of his Perrin Conventions. Since Dundracon was cancelled I haven't seen him this year, but I will ping him about it. Alright. I just had a good chat with Steve. I cannot reveal any of the details, it would be too early to talk about it, but I'll just say things are looking positive. I'm glad this thread came up, I usually see Steve every year at Dundracon so it was an opportunity to catch up. I've long felt the Perrin Conventions deserved to be in a nice updated presentation. Maybe along with some other old school wisdom. Waiting with quiet anticipation!
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 6, 2021 14:04:40 GMT -6
Zenopus said: I was looking at this when I inserted the note about centaurs' split moves in the NOTES portion of my sequence(above). I initially noted Seligman down, as the author, on my copy. Then I searched the interwebs for anything I could find on Bill Seligman. duh! no. Thanks for the advice. I think you're right. It is much more likely to be Lee Gold's unattributed filler content than Seligman's (based on proximity, alone). I wlll, hereafter, refer to Lee as the author of the A&E write-up. There are a few things that stood out for me in the A&E #17 explainer. One, that you mention, is some confusing punctuation e.g., "...all action in a melee round (redefined as ten')". Not "ten seconds", not even 10', but ten ' . About the open quotation in, "one of the five functions below will be performed by the characters involved in an encounter..., I'll just say the elipses close this quotation of Steve Perrin. The colorful "...bleeding his life away." exception must be taken straight from the convention handout as it also appears in All the World's Monsters 2. Lee says, here, that encumbrance modifies dexterity in the determination of initiative order. I tried to track this down in the December '76 'conventions' document. The only connection I see is maybe in the OPTIONAL RULES 1., appended to the bottom of page 5, where it says that the "type of armor can decrease the effectiveness of dexterity as armor" It goes on to list plate armor granting a minus 2 modifier to a dexterity "bonus"(?) and chainmail granting a minus 1 modifier. In the RPGGeek entry for the Perren Conventions, it is mentioned that Lee Gold received a set with annotation by Steve Perrin and a 5-page Sequence of Play. So, maybe Lee is referencing the December '76 conventions(the same ones we're looking at) when she posts to A&E #17. increment has a copy without the OPTIONAL RULES appended to the bottom of the pg. 2 Dexterity rules. What I'd really like is to find is corroboration for Lee's "encumbrance" modified initiative order. Otherwise, I just see dexterity modifying armor class (Dexterity rules 2. and 3.) Regarding the "...or more" of the "one or more of the functions" that Perrin says characters could perform, Lee lists elves, centaurs, hobbits, thieves, and monks among those expected to attempt the percentile based "dexterity roll". It is the same check that players will fall back on when choosing to change weapons or perform various other feats of reflex and agility, but Lee gets more specific. She sets the dex. roll up as a requirement for double dipping in the combat sequence. According to Lee, if you fail at one percentile check (the one to perform your bonus action) then you are required to check again. A second failed roll means that you will be sitting out this round, entirely. There's also no mention of this in the December '76 conventions. Is she remembering something from the original house rules or is she reading from a whole new Sequence of Play that she just received from Perrin; and that he later ditched just like he ditched the extra Movement and Missile fire phases in the published conventions. Whenever I compare the various Perrin Conventions and scattered mentions, I always seem to arrive at the same quandary, "Am I reading a new rule clarification or just an unpopular rules elaboration that has since been dropped?"
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 6, 2021 14:41:58 GMT -6
Whenever I compare the various Perrin Conventions and scattered mentions, I always seem to arrive at the same quandary, "Am I reading a new rule clarification or just an unpopular rules elaboration that has since been dropped?" Yes. (/snark) Seriously, these sorts of things were constantly changing, with people trying them, adapting them, changing them, from pretty much the first moment they were put on a page. At some point, they began to be their own thing, rather than an addendum to D&D's combat system. A&E is festooned with different approaches to different aspects of the game; eventually Runequest emerges as another game. I think what I'm saying here is that even after tdenmark has a chance to produce the Perrin Conventions for a modern audience, that will simply be one version amongst the many shadows of it, that were dynamically in flux during that time.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 6, 2021 19:45:41 GMT -6
badger2305 I know you're right. However, I was just telling thomden that he should ask Steve to contribute a little context to those original house rules. That's even more valuable to me than another revision; although I'm sure it would be much refined considering how long Mr. Perrin has been at this game. I have a feeling I'll end up incorporating Lee Gold's material into my imagined combat sequence. There's good stuff there.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 8, 2021 21:38:07 GMT -6
Thought I'd post this here. First time I saw this, it didn't make much of an impression. Then I bumped up the resolution and put my nose against the screen. Notice the first page of the Perrin Conventions magic rules at about the 5:30 mark. Not quite the same as the December 1976 version, but very close. I'm nearly as interested in the Bill Keyes reference tables. If I look real close, I can see the Armor modifiers in the Dexterity table (3:40 mark) that Lee Gold described in A&E #17 and appear to be the optional rule at the bottom of page 5 of my set. I wonder if these tables are also from Dundracon I.
|
|