|
Post by calithena on Oct 25, 2007 7:44:25 GMT -6
At the risk of heresy, I also want to point out that neither Gary nor Dave is a 100% reliable witness of their own early play. They both are obviously as authoritative as witnesses can get, but
(a) they sometimes seem to contradict themselves, as we all do when trying to remember things that happened a quarter century ago, and
(b) there are other at least equally reliable witnesses, e.g. Michael Mornard on this thread and the Great Svenny who's webpage is linked elsewhere on these boards, whose accounts don't square with Gary's and Dave's at every point, and who for that matter may sometimes contradict themselves as well.
According to Great Svenny for instance the first proto-D&D game was one where Dave used Chainmail but added a bunch of man-to-man stuff and role-playing/immersion techniques to it.
Now Gary and Dave were both hardcore wargamers and were making this stuff up as they went, so when we're confronted with seemingly contradictory stuff (e.g. the question of Dave's influences, or how the stat trading rules in the 3 brown books worked in play) it may all be true - all those influences played important roles in the first case, the interpretation of the BBs worked one way in one session/campaign and another in another, frex - but I think once you get past the basics of 'how it was done' it's important to remember that the details may require a lot of cross-checking to get straight, and that since this was an organic, growing practice there may have been different approaches at different times, all of which may have some or even equal claim to being 'authoritative'.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Oct 25, 2007 11:54:22 GMT -6
I totally agree with your analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 25, 2007 12:42:46 GMT -6
And since the rules seemed to undergo continual evolution, it wouldn't be fair to ever claim that one exact set of rules was always played in a given campaign. The DM's (or "referees" back then) didn't seem to worry about consistency but aimed at fun instead. If it would make a good adventure, it was okay.
|
|
|
Post by greentongue on Nov 1, 2007 8:54:22 GMT -6
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. Comments or thoughts? I still remember how mad I was when I drove halfway across the state to buy D&D (white box with 3 tan books) and when I got home found out that I needed Chainmail to play. There was NO combat system in the original books! A short time later Greyhawk was released and it included a combat system so that Chainmail was no longer needed. =
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 3, 2007 16:19:55 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the "alternative" (D&D standard) system was in the original set -- and it was certainly in the white-box ("Original Collectors' Edition") set. I still have those books, and the essential matrices are on pp. 19-20 of Volume 1 ("Men & Magic").
Some bits were missing, e.g., initiative; most missile ranges; and rates of fire. Of those three topics, Greyhawk addressed only the second one; it also added the options of variable damage by weapon and weapon-versus-armor mods.
Still, "NO combat system" seems an exaggeration! Perhaps memory has played a trick? That happens often enough to me.
|
|
|
Post by greentongue on Nov 3, 2007 16:54:39 GMT -6
I can't argue the point as all I have left is my painful memory. Since I stopped playing D&D when RuneQuest was released, I traded those books away. (For Tunnels & Trolls I'm sad to say.)
We all know which has the higher collector's value. =
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 3, 2007 17:04:35 GMT -6
RuneQuest definitely did a better job of explaining how to play! It also quickly captured more of my attention (at least as GM) than D&D.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 4, 2007 6:57:57 GMT -6
The "alternative" system was indeed a part of Men & Magic and we never needed Chainmail in order to play because we used the "alternative" charts. As was mentioned, the boxed set did not include all of the minutia of a traditional combat system, but as wargamers we just assumed that everyopne takes turns and the whole combat process worked out for us without a problem.
I've seem people post the "no combat system in OD&D" comment on several boards and this always puzzled me because we ran combat just fine at the time. I guess I'm not sure what they are looking for in a "combat system" but I still run my OD&D games with a simple initiative roll and that's about it. I improvise everything else and it's always worked for me.
|
|
|
Post by greentongue on Nov 4, 2007 12:28:16 GMT -6
I don't remember an "alternative" system. It has been a few years though. I was in the Navy and had heard stories from this new game called D&D so I went and found a copy. Guess I just didn't know what to look for. (unless there was an older copy that didn't have this "alternative" system included yet.) =
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 4, 2007 18:55:52 GMT -6
As far as I know, no early edition was without the "alternate" system. I've got a 4th printing with "Hobbits" and "Ents" and so on, and I don't think there were significant changes prior to the Tolkien estate wiping out those words so my guess is that the "alternate" system has been there from the beginning.
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, my copy of Men & Magic lists class levels on pages 16-18 and gives "Fighting Capability" (such as 2 Men +1) for each level. This would correspond to the Chainmail system in some manner, and says so in the rules.
On pages 19-20 is a section called "Alternate Combat System" which comes complete with the Men Attacking matrix and Monsters Attacking matrix. This is where you match up the level of the attacker versus the AC of the defender. These are the charts found in the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheet booklet as well as the JG DM Screen. These are the charts most similar to every other edition of D&D and AD&D written from then until the present.
It's probable that you never realized that this was the "alternate" system because the other one was never really developed past the little brown books. In any case, it was assumed that the reader could figure out how to use the charts and little was actually stated about how they worked. That's kind of where the "no combat system" comments came from...
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Nov 17, 2007 23:36:56 GMT -6
We always used the alternate system and with large groups of players, never had a problem with it, everything flowed quite smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Nov 17, 2007 23:40:20 GMT -6
At the risk of heresy, I also want to point out that neither Gary nor Dave is a 100% reliable witness of their own early play. They both are obviously as authoritative as witnesses can get, but ... snip ... You make an excellent point and I agree you have to sift through it and if you are trying to play the way they played, pick the story that you like the best and claim if for your own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2007 21:53:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 15:09:40 GMT -6
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. My suspicion, from talking with Dave and others, was that it was rather freeform on all sides. Example: There was a miniatures battle fought at the University of Minnesota (probably in Coffman Memorial Union), between Britons and Romans. Romans had war elephants, and so Dave gave the Druid leader a phaser (Star Trek having been popular among some people back in the mid-60's). Druid cooks elephant, battle stops in uproar, Romans then go on to grimly dispatch Britons. Such a game would require some house-ruling to make it work. The Braunsteins were more formalized successors to this (Dave Wesely knows for sure); I suspect Chainmail was Gary's selection, and Dave did his own thing (and thus we have at least two combat systems in OD&D).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 15:10:52 GMT -6
...but I think once you get past the basics of 'how it was done' it's important to remember that the details may require a lot of cross-checking to get straight, and that since this was an organic, growing practice there may have been different approaches at different times, all of which may have some or even equal claim to being 'authoritative'. I think we're in violent agreement here.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 6, 2007 17:00:02 GMT -6
Dave Arneson mentions using Chainmail several times in his First Fantasy Campaign (from Judges Guild). This came out in 1980, so it was all still fresh in his memory. Of course Chainmail (like all wargames of the time) would be house ruled at the drop of a hat; that's just the way things went in those days.
It's been said that Greyhawk was merely Gary's house rules; well, D&D could then be called Gary's interpretation of Dave's house rules of Chainmail.
I find this topic amusing from the historical/anthropological standpoint, but I really prefer to forget all that and just play.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 6, 2007 20:33:33 GMT -6
Dave Arneson mentions using Chainmail several times in his First Fantasy Campaign (from Judges Guild). This came out in 1980, so it was all still fresh in his memory. Of course Chainmail (like all wargames of the time) would be house ruled at the drop of a hat; that's just the way things went in those days. It's been said that Greyhawk was merely Gary's house rules; well, D&D could then be called Gary's interpretation of Dave's house rules of Chainmail. I find this topic amusing from the historical/anthropological standpoint, but I really prefer to forget all that and just play. Yup; my previous post ought not be interpreted as suggesting that Dave did not use Chainmail at all. One thing that Dave mentioned to me was that the "rules" went back and forth from St. Paul to Lake Geneva more than once, and that Gary sent them to press a little earlier than Dave had anticipated (or really wanted, apparently).
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 7, 2007 4:10:08 GMT -6
Yeah, that matches up with what Gary said in an article (I have it in Best of the Dragon V. 1, so I can't attribute it any closer than that.) He said that Dave 'complained bitterly' that it wasn't right yet, but the players demanded to have something in print.
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Dec 13, 2007 15:38:35 GMT -6
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! Sorry guys, I haven't found them yet, but I still have quite a few places to look, I am pretty sure I still have them and I will let you know when I locate them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2008 13:26:23 GMT -6
what we played was just with the Chainmail fantasy rules, which we were mailed a handwritten copy of. Say, Crim, did you ever find these? It would be fun to see something like this that was pre-ODnD!
|
|
scogle
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 69
|
Post by scogle on Jul 25, 2008 17:06:41 GMT -6
I really think that Chainmail is the better system for running combat in "Core OD&D" (i.e. 3LBBs, nothing more). In the Chainmail system, one finds an extensive (by the standards of the day) set of simulationist rules covering such things as terrain, morale, attacks by weapon-type, a complete turn sequence, initiative, and more.
OD&D really feels like an expansion of the "Fantasy Supplement". It is obvious in the wording of the document that it was assumed to be used in conjunction with Chainmail. The alternative combat system seems like an afterthought, with lots of gaping holes. Chainmail seems to fill all of these.
I think the "alternative system" only really saw completion in Supplement I, which suggests that it was Gygaxian, while the Chainmail system was more Arnesonian.
|
|
oldgeezer
Level 3 Conjurer
Original Blackmoor Participant
Posts: 70
|
Post by oldgeezer on Jul 29, 2008 22:09:00 GMT -6
Not so much, really.
You're being fairly rigidly bounded about what was a very, very, VERY mushy process.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 25, 2008 10:55:58 GMT -6
The truth is, Chainmail doesn't work very well as a set of combat rules for OD&D. There's so much fiddling that needs to be done, that in the end you're playing a whole new game (albeit one that certainly feels like Chainmail mashed with OD&D.) If you head down to the general forums, you'll note that my own efforts at this resulted in a new game, which I call Spellcraft & Swordplay (and in which I gave philotomy and Old Geezer props for help, info, and ideas over at RPGNet)!
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 25, 2009 9:42:53 GMT -6
HAHAHAHAHA....upon re-reading this thread I just wanted to come in here and meekly withdraw the above comment, pointing to my own eventual successful interpretation as proof that Chainmail does, in fact, work very well as a system of combat for OD&D. I am curious, however, how one would go about running a "campaign" with Chainmail. Certainly it could be done; the pieces are all there. But how would you handle advancement from, say, Man to Hero to Superhero or Seer to Magician to etc.? Would you have intermediate levels between for warriors? Would it be based on battles fought, enemies slain? I'd like to come at this from a world where D&D never came to be (meaning we don't have XP tables). What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Sept 25, 2009 10:55:34 GMT -6
Why not randomly roll among the surviving Men and Seers at the end of each battle to see which advance? Tracking individual enemies killed is new-school: random fate is wargame style. The best part about GW's Necromunda skirmish game was rolling on one advancement table if you survived, and another if you didn't.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 25, 2009 11:57:42 GMT -6
True to a point but I seem to recall Dave having a method in his game whereby he tracked the experience of players and informed them when they'd increased in rank...
Rolling randomly, I think, could result in far too fast an advancement. You could become a superhero after relatively few campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 25, 2009 12:38:31 GMT -6
I am curious, however, how one would go about running a "campaign" with Chainmail. Certainly it could be done; the pieces are all there. But how would you handle advancement from, say, Man to Hero to Superhero or Seer to Magician to etc.? Would you have intermediate levels between for warriors? Would it be based on battles fought, enemies slain? I'd like to come at this from a world where D&D never came to be (meaning we don't have XP tables). What do you think? I was just talking to Victor Raymond about this, so I'll consider this post to be the Universe kicking me in the butt... I've actually been working on and off on exactly this: an rpg extracted straight from Chainmail. I call it PRIMORIDAL_ODD. It's about halfway typed up from my notes, but I'll try and finish it up in the next week or so and post it. I've even done an early-stage playtest of the combat rules that worked pretty well. I don't have a copy of it on this computer, but here's the xp system in essence: I run the levels (calling them ranks) for both Fighting Men and Magic Users from 1-4, with a jump to Super Hero/Wizard after that as a final rank---five in total. All are allowed to attack on the Fantastic Combat chart, subtracting the difference between their rank and the "chart" rank. I.e., a Veteran would subract three (4 (Hero)-1) from any dice rolls, which would preclude him from attacking a fair amount of the creatures on that table. He could hit ghouls, but not giants, etc. Characters progress by participating in adventures. It's something like three adventures will raise you from 1st to 2nd rank, five more after that will raise you to 3rd rank, etc. As a side note, hirelings (common men/soldiers) who survive an adventure containing Fantastic creatures have a chance to rise to 1st rank (Veteran/Seer): the chance is 6-(# of such adventures survived), so if nothing else, after the 6th adventure, they'll be 1st rank, becoming Henchmen or new player characters.
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Sept 25, 2009 12:49:46 GMT -6
True to a point but I seem to recall Dave having a method in his game whereby he tracked the experience of players and informed them when they'd increased in rank... Maybe an equally wargamey solution would be track victory points - objectives in each battle that were summed at the end, not tracked during play. Kesher, your system sounds great and it sounds like it'd be easy to strap on victory point rules or craft the random advance tables so that, on average, characters and henchmen advanced at the rates you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 25, 2009 13:50:57 GMT -6
OD&D really feels like an expansion of the "Fantasy Supplement". It is obvious in the wording of the document that it was assumed to be used in conjunction with Chainmail. . I think the thing to keep in mind is that different things were going on in different groups and this is why we get different ideas about what led to what etc. Arnesons and the Blackmoor players all agree that they started off using the Chainmail combat system but abandoned it almost immediately - after two or three sessions. They did continue to use some aspects of magic and monsters. But none of that matters really because it was Gary Gygax who physically wrote the 3LBBS and he wrote it as an extension of his Chainmail. I'm not taking anything from Arneson (certainly not!) - his ideas are found throuout the books and it was his idea to Fantasy roleplay in the first place, but for Arneson, the fantasy game wasn't an evolution of Chainmail so much as but one of many cases of a few borrowed elements. Whereas for Gygax, it was a kind of evolution, by linking back to his earlier work when writing the rules. Since it was Gygax who formally wrote up and published the rules, its only natural that they would read like a follow on to Chainmail and refer back to that game. No doubt some groups played D&D as an extension of Chainmail more than others. In any case what we do with all that now can be very interesting, like Jasons S&S and I'm looking forward to reading Kesher's rules.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 19, 2009 9:00:41 GMT -6
Since writing the above I've gained a little better perspective on it. The truth is that by the time they were working on the D&D rules, neither Arneson or Gygax was using the Chainmail combat systems. According to Mike Mornard, Gygax used the "alternative" rules from the start, and Arneson had his own thing too. They wrote D&D to be compatible with the Chainmail rules for various reasons that seem most to have to do with their own systems irreconcilabilties, the need for a compromise, the idea that it, along with Outdoor Survival would provide a common ground that referee's could customize thier own system from, and probably the idea that it would encourage people to buy Chainmail. Here's a quote from Mornard on DF. "Actually, the Chainmail equivalencies were a beforethought... The "Chainmail" equivalencies were put into D&D to give some backwards compatibility."
|
|