Chainmail as proto-D&D

[Finarvyn]

One of the discussions I see a lot on OD&D boards is which combat system to use. The company line is that the “alternate” system is actually the one that was used and that the Chainmail system was never really used to play OD&D.

I have a little bit of trouble with this statement.

We know that Chainmail was in print well before OD&D. We also can see that there are some huge similarities between certain aspects of the two games. This would lead me to believe that there was a gradual evolution from Chainmail into OD&D, and not some quantum jump from one game to the other.

A couple of thoughts come to mind:
1. The concept of the Hero having 4 attacks and the Super Hero with 8 clearly was a carryover from one to the next. The OD&D Hero is 4th level and Super Hero is 8th level. OD&D takes these base levels and fills in the gaps.
2. In Chainmail, not all wizards are created equal. Chainmail mentions the following:

WIZARDS (including Sorcerers at -1, Warlocks at -2, Magicians at -3, Seers at-4).

which would tell me that Chainmail was already working up a level system for the Magic-user as well.
3. The spell list evolves from 1971 to 1975 and it’s easy to trace how a few spells get added each time. This is clearly not a “new” system, but an evolution of an old one.
4. The OD&D books continually refer back to Chainmail. This happens often enough that many gamers ask if they need Chainmail in order to play OD&D.

If such an evolution clearly occurred over a several year period, why should we assume that Chainmail was never used as “the” combat system for OD&D? Perhaps by 1974 it was determined that the “alternate” system should be the “official” one, but since Chainmail is clearly a proto-OD&D then a true “return to the roots of the game” campaign would include Chainmail in some form as the combat system of choice.

Comments or thoughts?

[grodog]

Having played Chainmail for the first time at LGGC via Paul Stormberg's Moathouse event, I don't see a lot of similarities to the combat rules for D&D. Hits either kill the unit (whether hero or standard) or have no effect (for the most part). Initiative is there, yes, as are spell effects, but in general the game didn't really feel D&D like to me---it did, however, feel much more like a tactical wargame.

D&D certainly has aspects of tactical wargaming build into it, but even so the two games felt very different from a game-play POV.

All of this is colored through my lens of a) never having really played OD&D, and b) never having played Chainmail prior to the LGGC event. So take all of my impressions with a larger grain of salt than usual

[Finarvyn]

grodog said:

All of this is colored through my lens of a) never having really played OD&D, and b) never having played Chainmail prior to the LGGC event. So take all of my impressions with a larger grain of salt than usual

I should have gone to the LGGC. Heck, I'm outside of Chicago and only a couple hours from there.

My experinece with Chainmail is mostly from a few decades ago, so I'm probably not any more of an expert on this than you are.

[grodog]

You should have gone, the show was a blast. I'll be posting pics, hopefully tomorrow (I'm about 1/2 done).

[crimhthanthegreat]

We did not play Chainmail (not as a table top miniatures game), what we played was just with the Chainmail fantasy rules, which we were mailed a handwritten copy of. We (over a frantic 2 months of play created houserules. These included progressing to greater levels of power, some additional spells and monsters and other things. I will try to find the original houserules and post them. When we switched to OD&D from Chainmail Fantasy, we did not immediately switch to the alternate system the first few months, when we did switch over then we didn't go back, except for a once a year nostaligia game we play.

[Finarvyn]

crimhthanthegreat said:

We did not play Chainmail (not as a table top miniatures game), what we played was just with the Chainmail fantasy rules, which we were mailed a handwritten copy of. We (over a frantic 2 months of play created houserules. These included progressing to greater levels of power, some additional spells and monsters and other things. I will try to find the original houserules and post them. When we switched to OD&D from Chainmail Fantasy, we did not immediately switch to the alternate system the first few months, when we did switch over then we didn't go back, except for a once a year nostaligia game we play.

Wow. I would love to look at a copy of this, either hand written and scanned or typed up. I've been digging around in old boxes and trying to find my old notebooks, but I'm afraid that most of them were lost long ago.

[foster1941]

Hey Allen,

How did Paul Stormberg handle attack dice in melee -- were they rolled per figure (i.e. 20 men) or per man (i.e. 4 20-man figures attacking = 80 attack dice)? And how were 1:1 scale figures (heroes, monsters) handled? Not having played the game, just read the rules, the intention here is unclear to me so I'd love to know how it was handled in actual play (with some actual C&C Society players on-hand who would presumably have corrected Paul had he been doing it wrong...).

[grodog]

Attack rolls were made for individual units of 10 men/figure or 1 hero/figure, but they were often made in concert: for example, our line of 7 archer units atop the Moathouse outer wall fired as a single roll, in order to have maximum effect against the enemy (ditto for our forces behind the arrow slits). I gather that there's a cross-matrix that allows for greater effect when more units act in concert, but truthfully I didn't refer to the rules much during the game---I ceded that to the referee (Paul).

Individual hero units rolled individually (don't think we ever deal with them acting in concert), and would destroy multiple non-hero units/figures at a pop---they're vicious against non-hero units....

[grodog]

admin said:

crimhthanthegreat said:

We did not play Chainmail (not as a table top miniatures game), what we played was just with the Chainmail fantasy rules, which we were mailed a handwritten copy of. We (over a frantic 2 months of play created houserules. These included progressing to greater levels of power, some additional spells and monsters and other things. I will try to find the original houserules and post them. When we switched to OD&D from Chainmail Fantasy, we did not immediately switch to the alternate system the first few months, when we did switch over then we didn't go back, except for a once a year nostaligia game we play.

Wow. I would love to look at a copy of this, either hand written and scanned or typed up. I've been digging around in old boxes and trying to find my old notebooks, but I'm afraid that most of them were lost long ago.

I'll second that: if you can find the rules, and scan them, they would be a huge research boon for digging into how Chainmail FS evolved into OD&D!

[foster1941]

So Paul interpreted all the references to "Men" as being "Figures" instead. Makes sense, and certainly simplifies the game, but also makes Heroes (and other fantastic creatures that count as multiple men -- Trolls, Giants, etc.) much more powerful than they are in D&D. In D&D a Hero is worth 4 men, but in Chainmail he's worth 4 figures, which means 40 men (or even 80)! Perhaps you could justify it the way they do in the Dragon Pass boardgame (which, obviously, has a bigger scale, but the idea holds) -- each "Hero" figure doesn't actually represent just the individual Hero, but also includes his retinue of bodyguards, henchmen, followers, etc.

I'd love to play Chainmail sometime, to see how the game works and feels in actual play rather than just reading the book (I'd love to see, for instance, how the Morale rules work out in actual play -- it seems, from reading the rules, like morale is likely to be THE deciding factor in many engagements). Though, truth be told, I think I'd actually rather play it straight medieval and leave out all the Fantasy Supplement stuff...

[WSmith]

I too would like to play Chainmail, but I hate to admit that the rulebook I have (PDF 3rd) makes me confussed when I try to make sense out of it. Maybe this forum will clear up some of my misunderstandings.

[Finarvyn]

foster1941 said:

So Paul interpreted all the references to "Men" as being "Figures" instead. Makes sense, and certainly simplifies the game, but also makes Heroes (and other fantastic creatures that count as multiple men -- Trolls, Giants, etc.) much more powerful than they are in D&D. In D&D a Hero is worth 4 men, but in Chainmail he's worth 4 figures, which means 40 men (or even 80)! Perhaps you could justify it the way they do in the Dragon Pass boardgame (which, obviously, has a bigger scale, but the idea holds) -- each "Hero" figure doesn't actually represent just the individual Hero, but also includes his retinue of bodyguards, henchmen, followers, etc.

Y'know, this is one of the oddities of Chainmail that I never tried to justify or explain to myself. I assume that a Hero is 4 figures, no matter what the scale, and it just works. When you put the math to it such as you have it certainly sounds absurd, but I just played it and never really tried to explain it.

WSmith -- hopefully we can all discuss how Chainmail works and how we can best make sense of it all. When I played as a lad, my rules-lawyer friend usually kept track of the details so I don't recall exactly how we played. As with any minimalistic rules system, they are somewhat vague and hard to interpret so hopefully we can figure it all out together!

[tgamemaster1975]

I have never played Chainmail so I am interested in hearing more about it.

[grodog]

foster1941 said:

So Paul interpreted all the references to "Men" as being "Figures" instead. Makes sense, and certainly simplifies the game, but also makes Heroes (and other fantastic creatures that count as multiple men -- Trolls, Giants, etc.) much more powerful than they are in D&D.

Absolutely: we were astonished that our 4 units of armored foot and our evil SH were able to tie up Otis (good SH), two supporting Heroes, and a Fire elemental for long enough for our EHP to scoot away.

foster1941 said:

I'd love to play Chainmail sometime, to see how the game works and feels in actual play rather than just reading the book (I'd love to see, for instance, how the Morale rules work out in actual play -- it seems, from reading the rules, like morale is likely to be THE deciding factor in many engagements).

It didn't really come up in our first event, but morale played a large role in the "Battle for the Brown Hills" event Paul ran.

foster1941 said:

Though, truth be told, I think I'd actually rather play it straight medieval and leave out all the Fantasy Supplement stuff...

That was Rob's complaint: too much magic mucking around with real siege warfare and battlefield tactics Perhaps next year Paul will run both a fantasy and non-fantasy Chainmail game, if there's sufficient interest.

[oldgeezer]

Hi, there.

Hey, Grodog! This is "Gronan of Simmerya".

I used to play CHAINMAIL * A LOT *. I was also part of Gary's D&D group.

We never, EVER used CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Also, the varying levels of wizard in Chainmail 3rd Ed were written AFTER D&D was written.

But the Hero/Superhero was transferred from Chainmail to D&D, yeah.

Old Geezer

[oldgeezer]

wsmith said:

I too would like to play Chainmail, but I hate to admit that the rulebook I have (PDF 3rd) makes me confussed when I try to make sense out of it. Maybe this forum will clear up some of my misunderstandings.

Tell me what you would like to know.

Remember, it's a WARGAME. Put together two armies on opposite sides of the table, and pound seventeen kinds of holy hell out of each other.

Old Geezer

[Rhuvein]

Howdy Gronan.

I only had a chance to peruse the Chainmail rules while watching the action at the LGGC, and was a bit overwhelmed.

But after reading a little more tonight, I stumble across the jousting section/table.

Has anyone ever run jousting tournament at a CON or on one's table top?

Seems like it might be a lot of fun. ;D

[grodog]

Hi Mike---

We missed you at the show. Will you be attending GenCon??

[coffee]

I tried playing Chainmail once. My opponent, however, was not a wargamer. He was a roleplayer (and a very Gygaxian DM, to boot). He kept trying to roleplay his troops, as opposed to actually fighting the battle with his units.

I think the second or third time his troops got disordered he quit in disgust.

[foster1941]

coffee said:

I tried playing Chainmail once. My opponent, however, was not a wargamer. He was a roleplayer (and a very Gygaxian DM, to boot). He kept trying to roleplay his troops, as opposed to actually fighting the battle with his units.

Heh, I had that same problem when I'd try to play wargames with my rpg friends -- they'd keep trying to "roleplay" their units and wouldn't just play the game straight (this was especially a problem in Squad Leader where some of the counters actually had names); therefore I was never able to hone my tactical skills through practice, so when I'd go up against real wargamers (at cons, or in college) I always got my clock cleaned. I coulda been an ace Diplomacy player if only my d**n friends had actually cared more about actually trying to win and less about talking in silly fake accents!

[coffee]

I never tried Diplomacy.

A younger player in my group got it for Christmas one year and he brought it to the group. A bunch of the guys said "Hey! We never play Diplomacy anymore! Let's give it a try!"

And, after that, none of them would talk to another for over a week.

So, I'm guessing it's not my kind of game...

On the other hand, I love Squad Leader (the original, no supplements). If you didn't live halfway across the country, I'd challenge you to a game -- novice to novice.

[WSmith]

oldgeezer said:

wsmith said:

I too would like to play Chainmail, but I hate to admit that the rulebook I have (PDF 3rd) makes me confussed when I try to make sense out of it. Maybe this forum will clear up some of my misunderstandings.

Tell me what you would like to know.

Remember, it's a WARGAME. Put together two armies on opposite sides of the table, and pound seventeen kinds of holy hell out of each other.

Old Geezer

Greetings Mike. Good to see you here.

I will try to re-read it later and see what I was confused on. Oddly enough, unlike some others, I was trying to read it from a wargame standpoint. I think maybe the fact that my actual wargame experience is limited to a tiny bit of WH40K and LotR doesn't help with my comprehension.

[thorswulf]

I have never played a game of Chainmail. It did make sense to me when I did finally get to read it as I had been wargaming for awhile at that point. My only grouse with the 1:20 rules is that morale can bea bit of a headache to figure out initially. I ran a few calculations with different theoretical forces and finally figured it out for myself. One thing I really like about it is there is none of that d**nable different base sizes crap. Ugh! I use 3/4" or 1" bases for infantry, and 1&1/2" x 3/4" or 1"x2" for cavalry. Big monsters I base however they will fit.

As a side note, some of you old wargamer/D&D players probably remember Wargamer's Digest. This was one of the first magazines that had very infrequent articles by Gary Gygax about various historical things in relation to wargaming. I love thumbing through the old ones I have and sighing at the prices of minis way back in the day. My first one was $.60 cents. Some are listed for $.35 in the magazines. *Big Sigh*

[Falconer]

So, did Arneson's campaign use the Chainmail combat rules?

If so, I reckon if I ever run an OD&D game, I'll use the Chainmail combat rules, along with as many rules from First Fantasy Campaign as I can fit in. It would be fun to try an Arnesonian-style game, whereas I'm pretty familiar with a Gygaxian-style game from early OAD&D 1e.

In fact, I've wondered about running a RPG from just Chainmail and FFG (i.e., without even the OD&D set), and making up everything else I need from scratch. Regards.

[coffee]

falconer said:

In fact, I've wondered about running a RPG from just Chainmail and FFG (i.e., without even the OD&D set), and making up everything else I need from scratch.

If you ever do, please let us know how it goes!

[serendipity]

coffee said:

I tried playing Chainmail once. My opponent, however, was not a wargamer. He was a roleplayer (and a very Gygaxian DM, to boot). He kept trying to roleplay his troops, as opposed to actually fighting the battle with his units.

So, the wargamer shifts counters about tactically without caring particularly about the people they represent, whereas the role player cares more about keeping individuals safe than whether a particular strategy might help him win. That's probably a pretty good illustration of one major difference between wargames and role playing games. One is global, and the other is local.

I've had a rather disconcerting thought. Do you think this discussion is connected to the idea behind why farmers recommend never naming livestock which later is to be slaughtered? Because there truly is a difference between moving one unit two squares and sending Lieutenant Thomas and his six men into the front line.

[thorswulf]

Well, that might be true in large games where 12 figures represent 500, but in skirmish games it doesn't hold true. Most skirmish games have players controlling up to 20 men at most, with commanders being very important! So if the Gunny gets nailed everybody has a very bad day! Ususally the other side if they can make a morale check.... Then there are classic skirmish games like Boot Hill where you have a VERY vested interest in staying alive when the lead starts flying!

[jdrakeh]

I'm looking at using Chainmail as a 'proto-RPG', as well. I've rocketed off an email to Dave Arneson to ask how he approached this himself in the early days (I gather that his 'one player to one figure' wargame was what initially inspired Mr. Gygax to develop a true role playing game in the form of D&D).

[Finarvyn]

Everything I've ever seen seems to take the general form of "well, we did it differently at various times in the camaign and Dave likes to make things up on the fly". If you get a more definitive answer, I'd like to see it. I've often wondered if Dave's Adventures in Fantasy game is more like the way his original campaign was run....

[ewilen]

I realize that the dominant story of D&D's origins has it growing directly out of Chainmail, but lately I've been reading a number of accounts that suggest Chainmail was more of an adjunct to an established type of game. That is, Arneson's first fantasy games were basically a variety of Braunstein (a series of games created by Dave Weseley), with Chainmail slotted in just as a method of doing mechanical combat resolution.

Maybe the version of the story depends on whether you're getting it from GG's perspective or DA's.