Reaction to Greyelf's "Chainmail Combat" PDF

[Finarvyn]

May 20, 2009 6:03:01 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I actually think this is pretty cool, Fin. But I know what you mean; I'd thought people would be jazzed about me formatting my own "using Chainmail with OD&D" stuff as an OD&D-style pamphlet for download...but nothing.

The following are my thoughts and commentary to supplement Jason’s (Greyelf’s) “Chainmail Combat with OD&D” document.

First, you can find a full discussion thread on this here. Also, you can download a copy of the PDF here.

Jason has produced a 13-page document, of which 4 pages are cover and intro and contents and the remaining 9 pages represent the “meat” of the essay. What Jason has done is to study the three main combat systems of Chainmail and explain the use of each. He mentions the Troop Type system, the Man-to-Man system, and the Fantasy Supplement system. What I like best is the fact that Jason has taken pains to slowly explain (with examples) how each of the systems works. My present “Ringmail” musings are more along the Troop Type system, so that’s where I’ll focus my comments. Also, Jason spends the most time discussing this one.

1. He uses the “toolkit” approach, giving options rather than rules and I think this works well, especially since there is no single “accepted” way to run Chainmail-style combat.

2. In the Troop Type System section he divides up AC in the same basic way that I did in my “Ringmail” variant, so I like that, although another option is also presented.

3. Jason spends time analyzing the use of Fighting Capability from OD&D. His interpretation of modifying the largest die roll is interesting, and somewhat different from my method of modifying the number of dice to be rolled.

4. Jason explains the rounding process, but this is where I found my own games to bog down. I suggest that adding my dice chart would make that a lot easier because I’ve let the computer do the rounding and give me access to a number of dice faster.

In general I think that this essay is well written and explains fully Jason’s interpretations of the various combat systems from Chainmail. I have a few slight variations to the way I interpret things like Fighting Capability, but overall Jason has done a fine job of organization and explanation.

If you haven’t downloaded it yet, do so. It’s a fine read!

[thegreyelf]

Thanks! Glad you approve.

And you know in reading your Ringmail thread I did consider nipping a few ideas (with your permission, of course) and including them. The real reasons I didn't were:

(1) sheer laziness--didn't want to reconcile your interpretations with mine at the time.
(2) I wanted to keep things both "quick and dirty" in the style of OD&D, and have as little deviation from OD&D and Chainmail as written as possible. That's why I tried to provide textual references for all my readings and interpretations.

Perhaps in an expanded or "advanced" version of the pamphlet we could find a way to merge ideas from our two interpretations. It would be an interesting undertaking. Could potentially be produced as a S&W supplement if we did it properly...

Dunno if I'm ready to dive into something that ambitious at this point (lots of projects on my plate) but something to consider down the line.

[aldarron]

Really a fine effort and much appreciated Jason.

Some questions:

Forbidden Lore p 9:
“Always round dice up, so that all characters throw at least one die. Bonuses are pips added to or subtracted from the highest of all dice thrown.”

Huh? Lets say I’m a 3+2 hd heavy foot monster and I need a 5 or 6 to hit a light foot adventurer. I roll my three dice and get a 5 a 6 and a 3. Why in the world would I add my +2 to to my 6? Naturally I would add it too the 3 making it a 5 and thus another hit.

Forbidden lore p.9
“As per the combat table, if he gets a result of 6, he scores a hit and deals 1d6 damage to his foe as in Men and Magic, page 19.”

Page 19, and the footnote in question is clearly the Alternative combat system. Is there any other reason to assume a d6 damage die should be rolled? A level 8 fighter would score 6-36 points of damage in one round, but would be required to roll a lot of dice twice for no obvious reason. On the other hand I read “scores equaling a drive back or kill equal only to a hit.” (p25, Underworld and Wilderness Adventures), to mean something like, when it counts as a kill on the table the die counts as damage. In other words, if our level 8 fighter rolls his 8+2 dice and scores 3 hits, lets say two 5’s and a six, then the opponent takes 5+5+6+2 damage. There would be no second roll for damage as there is in the Alternate system. I ask because this strikes me as an advantage to using Chainmail over the alternate system and because it is more in line with what we’ve been uncovering about Dave Arnesons use of the term Hit Dice, meaning he typically used the term to refer to damage dice, not hit point dice.

[thegreyelf]

Question 1: Because it keeps everything fair requiring it to be added to the highest die thrown. To reverse your question, let's say you're a 4-1 and you roll a 5, 6, and 3. Since the 3 is already a miss, why not just subtract the 1 from that die? That -1 will never make a difference in that case, while subtracting it from the highest die will sometimes matter. Likewise, adding it to the highest die will sometimes make a difference if, for example you'd rolled a 2, 3, and 4, but needed a 5.

Question 2: Your interpretation of the footnote in question and the meaning behind the U&WA rule is 100% different than mine. Since you never get a hit on less than a 5 using the Chainmail tables, you're saying that fighter would never deal less than 5 points of damage on a hit. I can't subscribe to that. Weapons in OD&D deal 1d6 damage. I disagree that the footnote in question applies only to the alternate combat system. Indeed, removing damage rolls makes a horrifically gonzo type of fantasy play wherein mass amounts of damage will constantly be doled out. No, I think it's perfectly clear that even using Chainmail for combat, damage rolls must be used. Of course, like everything in OD&D, you're free to ignore that and keep with a one-roll engine.

I should also add, just as a general note, that I've been using this system in my Age of Conan game and it's working great. Man-to-Man, as you'd expect, gets used more often than Troop Type, but I suspect that will shift as the characters gain levels and find themselves Heroes against small hordes of lower hit die creatures.

[Deleted]

Page 25 of Underworld and Wilderness Adventures with the "scores equaling a drive back or kill equal only to a hit." is referring to the FANTASY COMBAT TABLE Appendix E.

If you read the footnotes for this table two dice are rolled. A score under equals no effect, the same equals a drive back one move, and over the number needed is a kill.

The conversion to D&D would mean a Super Hero 8 + 2 fighter would roll two six sided dice, a score under would mean no effect, a score equal or higher would inflict 1-6 hit points of damage.

But of course this is just my take on the meaning of the page 25 quote.

[thegreyelf]

Agreed, though I also think it refers to the Man-to-Man table, wherein a "kill" would result in 1-6 damage.

[aldarron]

Thanks for replying so clearly Jason. I’d suggest that you add a bit of your explanation into Forbidden Lore, but I’d personally like to see it listed as an optional rather than fixed rule because I’m unconvinced.

Dec 22, 2009 6:52:19 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Question 1: Because it keeps everything fair requiring it to be added to the highest die thrown. To reverse your question, let's say you're a 4-1 and you roll a 5, 6, and 3. Since the 3 is already a miss, why not just subtract the 1 from that die? That -1 will never make a difference in that case, while subtracting it from the highest die will sometimes matter. Likewise, adding it to the highest die will sometimes make a difference if, for example you'd rolled a 2, 3, and 4, but needed a 5.

Wargames generally, and for sure back in the day, are, like actual combat, about taking advantages. True, modern RPGs have sought fairness and balance as quixotic principles, but if that were the concern of Gygax and Arneson, its strange they didn’t say bonuses and penalties should be applied to the highest die. So, unless someone can demonstrate that this was a commonly understood practice among wargamers at the time, I have to think it is an interpretation based on more present day sensibilities.
Using the penalties as an argument is a bit problematic, since penalties aren’t really covered in the rules. On the other hand, the only penalties I can think of – except those meant to apply to the fantasy combat table – would likely be situation specific – and how to apply them might well be explained in the details. I do agree that applying penalties to the highest die makes good sense but I don’t see any hints in the rules that penalties and bonuses (or anything else) need be symmetrically handled or “fair”. Thus I see no reason not to let the bonus be a bonus every time and let the player put it where he wants.
Basically I’m arguing for a “strict constructionist” view of the rules, sticking as close as discernable to the intention of the “founding fathers” prior to subsequent developments in the game. Segueing to the next…

Dec 22, 2009 6:52:19 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Question 2: Your interpretation of the footnote in question and the meaning behind the U&WA rule is 100% different than mine. Since you never get a hit on less than a 5 using the Chainmail tables, you're saying that fighter would never deal less than 5 points of damage on a hit. I can't subscribe to that. Weapons in OD&D deal 1d6 damage. I disagree that the footnote in question applies only to the alternate combat system.

That’s just the thing though, I’m trying to “interpret” as little as possible. How do you know weapons in OD&D do 1-6 damage? Maybe I missed something, but the only reference to 1-6 damage I know of is the footnote in question. While its dead obvious 1-6 damage is done in the alternate system, applying that footnote to any other combat systems detailed in the game is a big assumption. For me to accept such a big leap requires more than a “just because”. That’s not to say it’s wrong, just that more evidence is needed to show that this is what was also intended for the Chainmail system.

In fact, we can read the U&WA rule in one of three ways:

1) a hit = 1 point of damage
2) a hit = the damage rolled on the dice that indicate hits
(usually a 5 or 6)
3) a hit requires a damage roll with a d6

My point really is that option 3 is an option, with, as far as I have seen, no more and no less support in the text than the other two. It matters not one whit to me which of these options has proven popular in the past or which anyone – including me - might prefer, but rather what was meant. On the face of it, a straight reading implies the first, but doing only 1 point of damage would lead to painfully long combats, third option somewhat shorter but requiring a second roll, second option fastest of all.

Dec 22, 2009 6:52:19 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Indeed, removing damage rolls makes a horrifically gonzo type of fantasy play wherein mass amounts of damage will constantly be doled out.

Gonzo or fast and furious? If you consider that Arneson started with instant kills, switching to a 5 or 6 HP at a crack system could be seen as a definite improvement while still ending combat quickly, and it’s really not vastly more than one gets in later versions of D&D when you add in weapons that do variable damage and magical bonuses. This is deadly of course for low level characters, but then, shouldn’t it be?

What I’m really suggesting is that the way damage or bonuses are handled might be approached with the same sort of toolkit mentality as Chainmail itself, and that there are equally valid ways of reading the text, with their own strengths and weaknesses, that you haven’t mentioned in the Forbidden Lore document, and it would be nice to see a little more in there with a little more explanatory discussion. Some day, perhaps.

[thegreyelf]

I think what this comes down to is that Arneson's game was substantially different than the one written in the core OD&D rules, as was his implementation of Chainmail (Arneson himself said he used almost none of Chainmail after Blackmoor began, and indeed had his own system of rules that didn't resemble D&D much at all).

You are looking (or seem to be) for a more philosophical approach that examines what Arneson might have done, and what Gygax might have done, then compares and contrasts the two. Forbidden Lore doesn't do that. Forbidden Lore looks at my interpretation of how Gygax may have intended (based on my interpretations of the extant text) Chainmail to be used as the Combat System for OD&D. I wanted to provide a workable framework for doing so, which fit into the existing text, and after playtest, FL does just that.

Indeed, trying to compare and contrast what the two wanted would be fruitless, as Arneson was decidedly unhappy with the way OD&D sat in its final form, and Gygax (based on statements by Mike Mornard) never used Chainmail in OD&D at all, and indeed put the Chainmail references in there specifically to shoehorn in backwards compatibility for fans of Chainmail--what he intended seems to be for people who wanted to use Chainmail to interpret the references, as I have done. Your interpretation may (and seems to be) quite different; that's valid and indeed, you've got some interesting ideas. I'd encourage you to work up your own document as an alternate interpretation, in fact, which we could then compare and contrast. I'd love to see it! I just think it's different than mine. I don't see me changing much in mine based on interpretive differences since I've now playtested it fairly extensively and it works very well.

I don't agree that the note about weapons doing 1d6 damage is a footnote in anyway. There's nothing to indicate it's a footnote to a table--it's a clear line of text stating "all weapons deal 1d6 damage." Nor--aside from the fact that it follows the Alternate Combat System table--is there any indication it's tied solely to the alternate combat system.

Your system returns the game to an instant kill system. Period. No matter what level it is, if someone is taking a minimum of 5 or 6 points of damage per hit, they're always going to drop fast, if not instantly, which I would argue goes against the idea behind D&D. In fact, even Arneson said he implemented hit points because his players hated instant kills. No, I am 100% convinced (and you would be extremely hard-pressed to convince me otherwise) that all weapons must deal a separate 1d6 of damage, outside of the 'to hit' roll.

[snorri]

FFC makes a lot of references to Chainmail and Arneson seems to have use it, with some changes, until D&D was released - and probably later. The game forward let appears it was written first for people allready involved in campaigns - that's only later it proved to be a huge success, but that was probably unexpected.

One change is that Arneson did use Hit Points - even if we don't know if they were variable or not (Dan suggested Point Value could have been the first base for Hit Points, which seems possible). If so, probably the 1d6 variable damage were too. The fact they look as a footnote in D&D seems like if it was a forgotten, but rather ovbvious precision.

I'm still struggling with some points I'll try to write very soon.

[aldarron]

Dec 25, 2009 11:04:33 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I'd encourage you to work up your own document as an alternate interpretation, in fact, which we could then compare and contrast. I'd love to see it! I just think it's different than mine. I don't see me changing much in mine based on interpretive differences since I've now playtested it fairly extensively and it works very well.

Heck, you have put together such a good reference work I wouldn't try to reinvent that wheel. I'd just cob on to yours for a houserule document, and add in some of the things I mentioned and maybe try to work out the troop type tables into an easier refernce table. Maybe also add a sample combat for each type. That'd be about it.

I have actually just stumbled on something that helps your case for 1d6 damage being the intention for Chainmail OD&D. Its from Fins post odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=links&action=display&thread=301 of a FAQ from 1975.

"1. Combat:

Chainmail is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The “Man-To-Man” and “Fantasy Supplement” sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size. The regular Chainmail system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc. It is suggested that the alternate system in D&D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters.
When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on). "

Still not entirely clear that the 1d6 damage roll is intended to apply to both Chainmail and Alternate OD&D combat but it certainly seems to imply it.


I have got another question regarding your take on fighting capability. You have the player choose between the hero -x and the fights as xmen, depending on which is most advantageous, but I had seen others say that Hero -x, is for use on the fantasy table only. What say you?

[thegreyelf]

My interpretation is drawn from the statement in Chainmail that Heroes equate to four figures, and Superheroes are the equivalent of two heroes. That's why I give the more advantageous of the two in my tables.