|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 13, 2009 17:26:33 GMT -6
This table is pretty nice, Aldarron! I wonder when and why Dave used the 40% basis, but please watch the convesrion table I give above. 7 on 2d6 is translated into 39-50%, so the 40% could fit as being the base value for most weapons in the Man-to-man chart. I think dave used it (clue in the FFC price list), but did he used the system as such? I'm tinkering another one for comparison and will send it soon. Still we need to understand how and when was the gap from the 3-level system to the 8-level system (and above, the later being perhaps from Gary). It seems natural to fill the system, as steps are 1 dice, 4 dice, 8 dices, but still this is intriguing. Tim Kask suggered to have a look on Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies, which could have provided ideas. He was the original Blackmoor Bishop and the "naval combat rules" in U&WA seems to have been developped directly from this inspiration. I guess the naval rules are for Dave - even if Gary and Dave published toegether another naval wargame - and this is the place where Chainmail man-to-an combat is quoted. I guess some others features of the part of U&WA is gives interesting clues : hit localisation [to be compared with the Blackmoor Matrix], critical hits (as in EPT) and effects of hits in addition of damage. Maybe we should study it more carefully. Does someone have an old copy of FitS - I'd like to know about the damage system : "A six-sided die is rolled to determine if a hit is made, and if necessary a second die is rolled to determine the amount of damage." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_in_the_Skies |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 13, 2009 19:54:44 GMT -6
This table is pretty nice, Aldarron! I wonder when and why Dave used the 40% basis, but please watch the convesrion table I give above. 7 on 2d6 is translated into 39-50%, so the 40% could fit as being the base value for most weapons in the Man-to-man chart. I think dave used it (clue in the FFC price list), but did he used the system as such? Nice Catch Snorri! Clues in the price list... Hmm looking forward to seeing what you caught there. Did Dave ever use a system like this? Well, he used the 40% for AiF and he seems to have used a matrix in early Blackmoor, but beyond someone turning some notes to light I think we have to settle for best guesses. I'm tinkering another one for comparison and will send it soon. Still we need to understand how and when was the gap from the 3-level system to the 8-level system (and above, the later being perhaps from Gary). It seems natural to fill the system, as steps are 1 dice, 4 dice, 8 dices, but still this is intriguing. I'm not wanting to let the whole cat out of the bag, because I'm waiting to hear back for some clarifications on some things that seem to back up some of our most recent conclusions, but I have been in touch with John Snider. He says he thinks he remembers rolling a 2d6 to hit and the number had to be lower than an number Dave would determine from a paper he had. He never knew what was written on the paper but agrees that it could have been a matrix. He also says that sometime later on they switched to using percentile dice. A simple 3*3 flunky to hero 2d6 roll under matrix, perhaps starting at 1 vs 1 roll under 8 like the Dungeon Boardgame or maybe at 7 to match the 40% thing would be an easy way for Blackmoor to have started and its also easy to see Arneson expanding that into something like the 40% table I posted. Are you thinking along these lines? Tim Kask suggered to have a look on Mike Carr's Fight in the Skies, which could have provided ideas. He was the original Blackmoor Bishop and the "naval combat rules" in U&WA seems to have been developped directly from this inspiration. I guess the naval rules are for Dave - even if Gary and Dave published toegether another naval wargame - and this is the place where Chainmail man-to-an combat is quoted. I guess some others features of the part of U&WA is gives interesting clues : hit localisation [to be compared with the Blackmoor Matrix], critical hits (as in EPT) and effects of hits in addition of damage. Maybe we should study it more carefully. Bob Meyer said much the same in his post about not "making the jump from Chainmail", arguing that "If you look at combat between single planes or ships in games from that era, you will see that Blackmoor had much more in common with them than Chainmail." So its defiently a good idea to have a look at those games. Also, I'm sure you're right about more clues to ferret out of U&WA. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 14, 2009 8:22:25 GMT -6
A big clue in Fight in the skies! Searching for bits of informations, I went to the wonderful web ressource boardgamegeek.com and found this table ( www.boardgamegeek.com/image/562122) I was puzzled by the "percentage index", so I verified the maths to be sure on how to use it.  With that other table (  ), I understood and this is a pure genius: as an example, 55% = 5, 6, 7, 8 means you got approximatively 55% to roll a 5, a 6, a 7 or a 8. Let's verify 11,11 + 13,89 + 16,67 + 13,89 = 55,6. Right! And another example, 95% = all except 11, means 100-5,56= 94,44. Not bad... With this table, the gamemaster can have a system in %, but ask his players to roll 2d6, and converts very easily. Very useful when you're in 1971 and are allmost the only oen to have percentile dice at the table.   |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 14, 2009 9:43:31 GMT -6
Excellent!  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 15, 2009 11:09:04 GMT -6
John Snider was a regular member of Dave Arnesons Napoleonic group and played in the first few years of Blackmoor before going on to a military career. Mr. Snider has not been involved with gaming since joining the military, so his memories are not colored by subsequent developments in the game – including the publication of OD&D and the publication of Adventures in Fantasy, which was co-authored by Johns’ brother Richard and Dave Arneson.
I contacted Mr. Snider by email, and he was kind enough to answer some questions. The following text is from two separate emails, unaltered, except being combined together and the name of the speaker added as a heading.
Dan:
There has been a lot of speculation about the game mechanics Mr. Arneson was using during the first year or two of Blackmoor. Some have suggested Armor Class was 1-8, not 2-9.
Mr. Snider:
Boy ... that was a long time ago and memory is a fungible item these days. I can tell you what I 'think' I remember 35+ years later.
Armor .. I thought it was 1-8, my Boozero character started at 1 if I remember correctly, but then he was shall we say in his cups a tad much so Dave could have adjusted the system to account for this.
Dan:
Boozero was the name of your fighter? Heh, that’s great.
Mr. Snider
Believe was my 2nd fighter ... other one before was to staid for me, so went for this one.
Dan:
I want to make sure I’m not reading too much into your answers. So, from what you wrote about Armor Class, I take it that you remember Armor Class 1 being the worst and Armor class 8 being the strongest?
Mr. Snider
That is how I recall ... but again can not be positeive on this after 30+ years.
Dan:
There have been various ideas about how a hit was determined. Instead of using the familiar combat matrix in found in D&D, some have suggested the player had to roll 2d6-2 and score below the AC in order to get a hit; others that Arneson used percentile dice system to determine hits on a matrix. Further, the percentile system might have been a level versus level matrix table instead of the familiar level vs. Armor Class table.
Mr. Snider:
Dice .. I remember 'today' rolling a 2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too. He was the judge so we didn't always see the guts of the system when this adventure started. Later we went to the percentage dice ... so I guess it depends on what point in time you joined and/or left. I went into the military in the early 70s so I played less and less as deployment approached.
Dan:
If the “to hit” matrix was level vs level then the Armor Class may have functioned as a saving throw – perhaps the 2d6 system mentioned above.
Mr. Snider
Saving ... I remember that this was a mitigator on how bad the hit hurt or how much damage you inflicted. Yes, armor and (if rem right) agility (or whatever we called it back there) were both mitigators, as was level. Boy I wish I had my papers from back then .. then I'd be able to help you a heck of a lot more. I'll look in the archives down below but am sure don't have them anymore.
Dan:
So, if I’m reading it right, you’re saying the mitigating factors came after a hit was already determined, in other words you think you remember 2d6 being rolled to determine if a hit was successful; so Dave first checked what you rolled against something he had written down to determine if a hit was made, before Armor Class etc. came in to play? Then, Armor Class, Agility, and level were mitigators on damage received and damage done after a hit had already been determined. Correct?
Mr. Snider:
Again what I recall at first, although it might have changed as the game matured, I believe Agility was used by Dave before the roll. AC was (if recall) applied after to mitigate the damage ... this also might have changed during the 1st year or so of game maturation. Level, was used by, I can't recall how at this point .. sorry.
Dan:
Was the level mitigator perhaps a separate kind of progression like getting more dice to attack with, say 4d6?
Mr. Snider
I can't recall how level played in although I know it did, just can't recall after all that time.
Dan:
One of the things people have discussed back and forth is chronology. Dave Arneson said he invented Blackmoor over the Christmas holiday, but it’s not clear which year. Do you remember if it was December of 1970 or December of 1971? Some folks have said it was the last week or two in 1970 but Chainmail wasn’t published till the summer of ’71, and since Mr. Arneson said he started off using Chainmail, it would seem to have to have been the last week or two of 1971.
Mr. Snider:
I thought that Dave had a draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later. I thought we started in 70 not 71. Now again, formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics.
Sorry on the faulty memory but 23 years in the Army after this concentrated my focus on other things.
Dan
There will be a lot of folks on the Forum who would be very interested in what you’ve told me. Is it okay to post your answers? I won’t unless you say I can.
Mr. Snider
Is OK to post .... as long as stress the 30+ year memory lapse
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 15, 2009 11:17:25 GMT -6
As a follow up to the info from John Snider, I offer this comparison of the basic elements of of the Adventures in Fantasy combat system, and the early Blackmoor system as John described it and as described in the FFC:
Breaking down AiF Combat :
Step 1:
1) Compare combatants by type on a matrix
2) Compare combatants dexterity and use difference to modify number on matrix
3) Compare size and modify matrix number for any difference
4) Compare experience and modify matrix number for any difference
5) Roll to hit
Step 2 (hit successful):
1) Roll Armor Saving Throw (optional)
Step 3:
1) Roll d6 “Hit Dice” for damage or (optionally) roll on “Hit Location” chart for the type and number of dice to be used to determine damage
2) Add strength bonus, if any, to damage (optional)
Proposed early Blackmoor system:
Step 1:
1) Compare combatants by type (level) on a matrix
2) Apply Agility modifier - Compare combatants dexterity and use difference to modify AC (+/-1 for every two points different?)
3) Apply size modifier (later development per FFC , +/-1 for every two points different?)
3) Roll “Hit Dice” to hit, removing one d6 for each +1 of any magical defenses.
Step 2 Saving Throw vs AC (hit successful, players only) – like all saving throws in early Blackmoor, roll 2d6 -2, score equal or under means no damage)
Step 3:
1) Roll d6 “Hit Dice” for damage or (optional, later development) roll on “Hit Location” chart to determine damage
Needless to say, the similarities are striking. More than I expected for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 15, 2009 11:42:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geordie on Dec 15, 2009 12:20:20 GMT -6
Such a fascinating thread guys, great work ! ;D
Have an exalt Aldarron !
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 15, 2009 14:43:24 GMT -6
Thanks to John; and for the copy, Dan. I'm not sure about those extensions, especially when considering the earliest period of Blackmoor's development, into a "Proposed early Blackmoor system" since those aren't in John's own words. Not particularly surprising, perhaps, that that more closely mirrors AiF, given the leap or two in the dark with the mechanics. "2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too" and "draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later" do, however, not contradict the theory of development from the pre-Chainmail rules in DB#7 (etc.?) per previous discussion, and thus tend to support statements (and secondary evidence) that 1e Chainmail itself was not greatly "required" on a fundamental mechanics level, or utilised to a huge degree otherwise (save elements/inspiration that might've encouraged a general upping of the fantasy quotient, perhaps?). It might be useful to re-ask a few questions around that if it's possible to avoid feeding answers too strongly. "formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics" might also be relevant, too, to bridge at least part of that problematic winter 1970/71 through to May 1971 "gap". Still a minor issue that that's well over one year of play - even from May 1971 - before Gary became involved which, as ever, creates a problem pinning down for sure whether that meet-up GenCon in a /D&D/ context was definitely August 1972 rather than August 1971 (claimed elsewhere and aided-and-abetted by others who state that D&D was pretty much "ready" in 150 page format by 1972). Rob Kuntz has detailed a relatively well pinned-down "relative" chronology working in from the other end, but getting the two to meet up in the middle has always been problematic. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 15, 2009 14:53:22 GMT -6
And another exalt for the interview!
David, do you have access to earlier versions of Chainmail, 1st or 2nd? There are some points that should be checked about differences beteen versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 15, 2009 15:36:09 GMT -6
David, do you have access to earlier versions of Chainmail, 1st or 2nd? There are some points that should be checked about differences beteen versions. *g* Thanks for making it clear you're not reading my posts, either. Anyhow... |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 15, 2009 15:47:40 GMT -6
Sure I allways read them with a lot of interest Your point about the precise chronology of the first Blackmoor sessions, particulary, is still an intriguing but essentiel one. I was just not sure you got your own copy of that stuff, because I got some precise questions about it: - In which version did the "Class of armor worn by defender" in appendix B, second table appears with the number? All versions or only in the 3d? - In which version did the 5 levels of wizards appeared [it seems, from Europa zine, that the spell complexity table wasn't in 2nd]. Same about the number of spells and spell distances in 2nd and possibly in 1st? - Did the different species of dragons appeared in 2nd? -- It's quite probable Dave's had access to the 'pre-1st' version of Chainmail, but he makes clear in FFC he did use the 1st printing and the fantasy supplement, for mosnters and points values. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 15, 2009 16:36:04 GMT -6
Sure I allways read them with a lot of interest Your point about the precise chronology of the first Blackmoor sessions, particulary, is still an intriguing but essentiel one. Well, it was; on /one/ of the forum threads... All this does rather tie in together, anyhow. Yeah; sorry, but I'm still not overly happy with the "try to make evidence fit the expectation" approach (conscious or otherwise) since that caused so many errors and misconceptions in the first place, when even the "expectations" were based on fuzzy memories and guesses. For example, on the www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=974 thread from 5+ years ago where three separate, now apparently false, leads are /still/ in circulation: that the 150 page D&D ms. was 1972, that 1e Chainmail did not have the Fantasy supplement - I didn't have John's copy at that time, and all that 1973 Eastercon D&D pre-release nonsense. Although there is plenty good stuff in the above, I still wasn't particularly happy to have my arm twisted to hand over John's email addy at that time for somewhat panicky justification after his brother had just died; and thankfully John /did/ provide background information in what reads as a independent manner, honest as to the limitations of those recollections. I was just not sure you got your own copy of that stuff, because I got some precise questions about it: Oh, I know that. Answered Fin's long-time back on the same. There are a fair number of other people who could also supply those answers for lack of any community resource - that being impossible to organise, it seems; perhaps in part owing to the expectation of free information rather than digging deep and pooling funds together or co-ordinating material in some manner. - Did the different species of dragons appeared in 2nd? I'll dodge that for now; but suffice to say there are different species of (Blackmoor) dragons scribbled all over John Snider's (early) 1st print D&D books, as mentioned elsewhere before. Perhaps Richard got a hold of those at the time, since John was more focused to the Army by then? (per above, letter in Supernova, etc.) Best wishes, David. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 15, 2009 18:56:50 GMT -6
Thanks to John; and for the copy, Dan. I'm not sure about those extensions, especially when considering the earliest period of Blackmoor's development, into a "Proposed early Blackmoor system" since those aren't in John's own words. Not particularly surprising, perhaps, that that more closely mirrors AiF, given the leap or two in the dark with the mechanics. Well, the thing that's not got any direct evidence other than its the priciple at work in AiF is the proposal that Dave was using a level vs level matrix to determine a to hit number. Arneson wasn't using AC (according to Snider) and there had to have been some method of arriving at a to hit number. The +/- 1 thing was just something I threw out there to see what ideas might pop up. Another possibilty on how the modifiers may have worked could be taken from AiF. AiF uses a high dexterity minus low dexterity and divide by 2 formula to determine modifiers. In AiF it gets complex but something like that in Blackmoor could have been much simpler and would be easy if all your ability score numbers are by 1-10 at first and convert to increments of 10 later when percentiles come in. The rest of the sequence is tied to the various lines of evidence closely enough that any other interpretations would likely have to be quite complex or contradictory, although I'm certainly open to ideas. One thing I would modify about my proposal though is the "match or roll under" business, which does come from AiF directly. Lionheart said Arneson told him it was roll under, not equal or under. I think that's probably right because in a 2d6-2 saving throw system it would mean an AC 1 (no armor) would always take damage when hit. "2d6 and having to get below a set number. Now Dave had a paper that he used to get the number needed that may have been the matrix folks are referring too" and "draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later" do, however, not contradict the theory of development from the pre-Chainmail rules in DB#7 (etc.?) per previous discussion, and thus tend to support statements (and secondary evidence) that 1e Chainmail itself was not greatly "required" on a fundamental mechanics level, or utilised to a huge degree otherwise (save elements/inspiration that might've encouraged a general upping of the fantasy quotient, perhaps?). It might be useful to re-ask a few questions around that if it's possible to avoid feeding answers too strongly. "formal playing of the Blackmoor campaign might have really started later, then just shall we say experimentation and feeling out the play mechanics" might also be relevant, too, to bridge at least part of that problematic winter 1970/71 through to May 1971 "gap". Still a minor issue that that's well over one year of play - even from May 1971 - before Gary became involved which, as ever, creates a problem pinning down for sure whether that meet-up GenCon in a /D&D/ context was definitely August 1972 rather than August 1971 (claimed elsewhere and aided-and-abetted by others who state that D&D was pretty much "ready" in 150 page format by 1972). Rob Kuntz has detailed a relatively well pinned-down "relative" chronology working in from the other end, but getting the two to meet up in the middle has always been problematic. Cheers, David. Yeah, that was a very interesting bit of information about the Chainmail manuscript and should definetly help out with the chronology. There seem to be a lot of things pointing toward that earlier xmas 1970 date. Mornard's bit about throwing a dragon into a medieval miniatures game fits right in with the idea that the first 6 months or so were a lot more of an experimental/slow period of development. Maybe the story as Arneson remembered it later, using the Chainmail monsters right away etc., was a time compacted version. Just throwing out ideas here. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 15, 2009 19:02:45 GMT -6
Such a fascinating thread guys, great work ! ;D Have an exalt Aldarron ! Thanks Snorri and Geordi! Now I go to eleven! |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 15, 2009 22:58:25 GMT -6
Arneson wasn't using AC (according to Snider) and there had to have been some method of arriving at a to hit number.
"I remember 'today' rolling a 2d6 and having to get below a set number." compared with odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blackmoor&action=display&thread=2740&page=3#40798"...DB#7 (September 1970) which Dave would have had available just prior to Blackmoor, even if not used therein.
For reference, the combat system detailed in the "Whose Rules are These?" article which Gary "found" and republished under his own name(!) are 2d6 roll under against 8 classes of armor (albeit not linear) for various weapons. Rather a complex matrix and would benefit from simplification, perhaps... " (and which Gary is even /encouraging/ development from, in that article) , which, even if modified/enhanced, could still be encompassed within "I thought that Dave had a draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later. I thought we started in 70 not 71"about as well as could be expected for an unprompted reply from John. (Well; given that any prompts present were, if anything, more in the /opposite/ direction?) John wasn't exactly a slouch at picking up Chainmail - in 1e format, as Dave had, which does at least give further backing support to that general timeline proposal. None of which explains however why Dave Arneson, Rob Kuntz, et al, all seem to have thought that the elapsed time between Blackmoor starting and Greyhawk starting was not /that/ long (6-9 months/less than a year/whatever). The question to John in that context is "was there another winter and spring between his own first/second player recollections in Blackmoor and Dave getting in touch with Gary" with his "rules" since at present D&D is lurking right at the tail end of 1972 (almost into 1973) post-GenCon by Rob's chronology - and Gary's to a varying degree, perhaps - whereas Blackmoor is pinned (if anywhere?? ...and still awaiting explanation as to why that date was picked "out of the hat" /twice/ - by Greg Svenson and Dave Wesley, even if Dave then diverges for perhaps obvious reasons at later dates) at May 1971 (sort of explosion?), perhaps, when the advent of 1e Chainmail /might/ have given further expression to advance those earlier experiments that had extended back to winter 1970/71. The +/- 1 thing was just something I threw out there to see what ideas might pop up. Another possibilty on how the modifiers may have worked could be taken from AiF. AiF uses a high dexterity minus low dexterity and divide by 2 formula to determine modifiers. In AiF it gets complex but something like that in Blackmoor could have been much simpler and would be easy if all your ability score numbers are by 1-10 at first and convert to increments of 10 later when percentiles come in. The rest of the sequence is tied to the various lines of evidence closely enough that any other interpretations would likely have to be quite complex or contradictory, although I'm certainly open to ideas. One thing I would modify about my proposal though is the "match or roll under" business, which does come from AiF directly. Lionheart said Arneson told him it was roll under, not equal or under. I think that's probably right because in a 2d6-2 saving throw system it would mean an AC 1 (no armor) would always take damage when hit. Appreciated and enthusiastic, yes; and would /love/ to see various forms of "reconstruction" proposals for various periods. Even more, I'd like to see if those linking events, inspirations, etc., within a timeframe that /can/ be pinned down "as best possible" for once and for all since the other end of the candle is already nicely burning. Not that I have any problems personally going around the thesis-antithesis-synthesis loop for another five years, but that was one of the main reasons you asked me[/quote] to get in touch with John, I trust? Actual mechanics /can/ be better placed within that framework, I believe, rather than retrofitted from sources at least six or seven years removed (FFC, AiF) and well educated guesswork in the present day. Cheers & Thanks again, David. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 16, 2009 8:21:29 GMT -6
Arneson wasn't using AC (according to Snider) and there had to have been some method of arriving at a to hit number.
"I remember 'today' rolling a 2d6 and having to get below a set number." compared with odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blackmoor&action=display&thread=2740&page=3#40798"...DB#7 (September 1970) which Dave would have had available just prior to Blackmoor, even if not used therein.
For reference, the combat system detailed in the "Whose Rules are These?" article which Gary "found" and republished under his own name(!) are 2d6 roll under against 8 classes of armor (albeit not linear) for various weapons. Rather a complex matrix and would benefit from simplification, perhaps... " (and which Gary is even /encouraging/ development from, in that article) , which, even if modified/enhanced, could still be encompassed within "I thought that Dave had a draft copy of chainmail (or something like it) prior to publication, at least what he had behind the judge's invisibility spell was a raft of paper and not a book .. that came later. I thought we started in 70 not 71"about as well as could be expected for an unprompted reply from John. (Well; given that any prompts present were, if anything, more in the /opposite/ direction?) Well, I look at this problem in terms of what's the likeliest solution. You're right that none of Johns statements contradict the possibility of roll under AC to determine "to hit" numbers. Indeed, when I started this thread I was all but convinced that this was exactly how it was done. But Arnesons quote in FFC that "all normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion" (p2.) suggests an attack matrix. Roll under AC is hard to see fitting in to that statement. Also John tells us AC was a mitigating factor after a hit was made. If its roll under AC to hit, and then roll under AC or some other use of AC to mitigate the hit, the AC is made to function twice. This is possible of course but seems like an overuse of one statistic. Further, AC for monsters is de -emphasized in both FFC and TotF to the extent that it is often not given at all, suggesting it is not a particularly key statistic for monsters, as it should be if its roll under AC to hit. We also have it from Arneson in FFC that a saving throw (players only) was made after a they were hit. Exactly the same occurs in AiF, and that saving throw is roll under armor value. Given all of the above, I'm suggesting that the use of 2d6-2 roll under AC is still a key componenent of Arnesons original combat system, but that it occurs as a saving throw vs damage rather than as a to hit roll, and I think you're probably right about him picking up the germ of the idea from the article you found in DB#7. As an aside, its curious that when asked on this very forum if to hits in early Blackmoor were 2d6 roll under AC, Arneson never answered, nor does he seem to have said anything about it anywere else. Maybe the lawsuit restrictions had something to do with that, but it could also be that its not a simple yes or no answer, and maybe explaining AC as a saving throw was more than he wanted to get into. He did tend to keep his posts cryptically short. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 16, 2009 12:01:26 GMT -6
Well, I look at this problem in terms of what's the likeliest solution. You're right that none of Johns statements contradict the possibility of roll under AC to determine "to hit" numbers. Indeed, when I started this thread I was all but convinced that this was exactly how it was done. But Arnesons quote in FFC that "all normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion" (p2.) suggests an attack matrix. Roll under AC is hard to see fitting in to that statement. Ah, sorry... I see the possible disconnect here. The DB#7 tables as they stand are attack matrices with various types of weapons against 8 classes of armor. There is not, however, necessarily a linear relationship for each weapon between the "roll under" number and the class of armor; that is to say, if the first class of armor requires "roll under 9", the second class does not necessarily require "roll under 8", third class "roll under 7", etc. That's why I was flagging that "2d6-2" or similar is not a "necessity" if utilising such an approach or something based thereupon. = "Saving ... I remember that this was a mitigator on how bad the hit hurt or how much damage you inflicted. Yes, armor and (if rem right) agility (or whatever we called it back there) were both mitigators, as was level."Is it not possible to read that as "damage reduction" for armor with a possible "save" based on agility (as John recalls, anyhow)? Cannot be at all sure, I know, but such additional refinements would be above anything from DB#7, anyhow, which understandably given the context revolves around scores required for a disabling blow. (Worth noting in passing that initiative and bonuses for run/trot/charge are in the DB#7 outline, as is morale). As an aside, its curious that when asked on this very forum if to hits in early Blackmoor were 2d6 roll under AC, Arneson never answered, nor does he seem to have said anything about it anywere else. Maybe the lawsuit restrictions had something to do with that, but it could also be that its not a simple yes or no answer, and maybe explaining AC as a saving throw was more than he wanted to get into. He did tend to keep his posts cryptically short. Well, it /shouldn't/ have been a problem if the DB#7 article was indeed underlying at that early stage since although that bears Gary's name, it was openly filched from U.N.Known. Gary does suggest further modifications, however, and encourages additional enhancements in various areas, so it could be seen to be "his" to that degree: also, that it was possibly a further push towards 1:1 scale which is a key element for most RPGs, no? (A conspiracy theorist approach might even suggest that hedging on acknowledging such a source could be read in the context of not additionally giving the nod to Gary's dual-scale campaign wargame with RPG elements in the same issue). 02c/ymmv on any & all of the above, of course. d. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 16, 2009 17:01:00 GMT -6
I agree with Dave on these points. The DB#7 matrix, and later the Chainmail man-to-man matrix, even if they could have differed (Dave, your advice?), are... matrices, not formula. It means the number needed for each weapon vs. each armor differs,a ccording to what the author think about the relationship between these two factors. This method is the same that was later in use in AD&D. What DA could have changed would be a 'flat' - formula-like- method for monsters, like in the alternative system. Why? He first adapted the matrix to each new monster - then, as he said, the matrix became to long and difficult to use, so he probably found a simplier method, where the specific relation between armor/protection and weapon was less important. So, there's no need for a "2d6-2" formula. Another problem is that the Fantasy table don’t take in account the armor – while the Hero / super-hero descritpion makes clear it could vary. Jut a few interesting probabilities : according to the Fantasy table, and if I’m not wrong with the maths, the chance to kill each other are : Hero Vs Hero : 41,66 (58,33% to push back) Super-Hero vs Super-Hero : 27,77 (41,66% to push back) Hero Vs Super-Hero : 8,34 (16,67% to push back) Super-hero vs Hero : 72,22 (83, 33% to push back) Maybe the 40% suggested by Dan could come from there (hero vs hero), but that’s an hypothetical hypothesis  I’ll add more stats tomorow. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 17, 2009 9:06:17 GMT -6
Continuing the study of the Fantasy table in Chainmail, I wanted to verify how it would look if it was a 'roll under' rather than a 'roll over'. Why? As far as I undesratnd, Gary had a first version of the man-to-man as a roll under (the DB7), then turned it as a roll over (Chainmail). And it seems Dave had a preference for a roll under. So:  I compared with OD&D AC and put in color the creatureswhere the number is the same. Maybe the 2-9 is just the reverse of the Fantasy table, later udpated for some creatures. In this case, 2d6 under makes sense. If so, Dave could later have adapted the 1-8 MtoM sacle to this one (I'll provide later such an adapted table). Edit: The changes seems to have been made for creatures which have been split (such as ghouls / wights or Trolls / ogres) or divided in several categories (lycanthropes, giants...). Just another point: I compared the number needeed for a Hero and a Super-Hero to hit.  The difference is generally 2, just like the gap between the first and second line (flunky and hero) in the alternative matrix (but not the same as the hero / superhero gap in this table, which is 3). So, if we roll under, the AC table for a super-hero is at -2, or - same maths- he rolls 2d6-2 (the favored Dan's 2d6-2!). What do roll a flunky? Still unclear - maybe he just don't, but it seems Dave sent fantasy monsters against flunkies. Maybe this is the problem Gary had to solve, and he did by expendaing the table from 2d6 to 1d20 - using his brand new solution to use the percentile dice as a d20. |
|
|
|
Post by deodanth on Dec 17, 2009 9:54:36 GMT -6
I hope you would made a point to thank Mr. Snider for Star Probe and Star Empires. He wrote both, IIRC.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 17, 2009 13:19:16 GMT -6
The DB#7 tables as they stand are attack matrices with various types of weapons against 8 classes of armor. There is not, however, necessarily a linear relationship for each weapon between the "roll under" number and the class of armor; that is to say, if the first class of armor requires "roll under 9", the second class does not necessarily require "roll under 8", third class "roll under 7", etc. That's why I was flagging that "2d6-2" or similar is not a "necessity" if utilising such an approach or something based thereupon. = "Saving ... I remember that this was a mitigator on how bad the hit hurt or how much damage you inflicted. Yes, armor and (if rem right) agility (or whatever we called it back there) were both mitigators, as was level."Is it not possible to read that as "damage reduction" for armor with a possible "save" based on agility (as John recalls, anyhow)? Cannot be at all sure, I know, but such additional refinements would be above anything from DB#7, anyhow, which understandably given the context revolves around scores required for a disabling blow. (Worth noting in passing that initiative and bonuses for run/trot/charge are in the DB#7 outline, as is morale). Thanks for clarifying that David, and continuing to clue us in to the key parts of that article. I agree that there is nothing directly contradicting the use of the DB#7 system or something based on it, etc., and we definetly need to explore that further, along with what Arneson meant when he said his Chainmail moster matrixes were getting too big to. However, I'm still inclined to think its less likely he was using a weapon vs AC or similar matrix than a simpler level vs level. My reasons for this are that Arneson tended to not like specific damages based on weapon types. He famously scoffed at Gygax's pole arms tables, saying all ploe arms are "a stick with a pointy thing on the end"(paraphrase). He also said in FFC intro that "combat was quite simple at first" - statement that could mean anything, but suggests a very basic, unelaborate proceedure, perhaps hard to reconcile with even a simplified weapon vs AC or vs creature. The FFC also doesn't give any indication that normal weapons were especially differntiated. So I have my doubts that weapon type played much of a role in Arnesons intial system. Will definetly be looking more closely at that though. **EDIT: It occurs to me that we might be talking past each other here a little bit concerning exactly what system we mean. My comments are directed to the system Arneson developed, based on his Ironclad rules, after abandoning his "Chainmail" based combat of the first two or three sessions, wherein he gave each monster had an individual combat matrix. The DB#7 system might well have been at the heart of that. I think Snorri is trying to work some of that first system out now. ** Armor could certainly have been a "mitigator" by being a damage reducer, and such a system would not contradict any of the lines of evidence we've looked at so far. Thing is though that I can't think of anything in particular to suggest it either. It's my impression that that would have been an unusual way to handle Armor in 1971 (you may have a better idea about this) and also seems problematic for an AC system derrived from Ironsides style game where penetration, not damage reduction is the issue. Off hand I can think of only two cases connecting Arneson to percentages of damage, those being in R. Sniders dragon breath attacks, and in Supplement II's hit location system where damage is actually inflated, not reduced. Even the combat saving throw looks like an all or nothing affair "Thus although he might be 'Hit' several times during a melee round, in actuality he might not take any damage at all." (FFC Introduction) Regarding wether that saving throw could have been against agility (dexterity) I originally thought the same thing, which is why I asked John if it and the other mitigators were applied after a hit had already been established: " Dan: So, if I’m reading it right, you’re saying the mitigating factors came after a hit was already determined, in other words you think you remember 2d6 being rolled to determine if a hit was successful; so Dave first checked what you rolled against something he had written down to determine if a hit was made, before Armor Class etc. came in to play? Then, Armor Class, Agility, and level were mitigators on damage received and damage done after a hit had already been determined. Correct? Mr. Snider: Again what I recall at first, although it might have changed as the game matured, I believe Agility was used by Dave before the roll. AC was (if recall) applied after to mitigate the damage ... this also might have changed during the 1st year or so of game maturation. Level, was used by, I can't recall how at this point .. sorry." Assuming John is remembering correctly, the "Saving Throw" was not against Agility, leaving Armor Class and level as the remaining mitigators. Given the other lines of evidence 1-8 AC as saving throw(the Lionheart article, the 2d6-2 ability scores/saving throw system, the Aif AC saving throw) looks well supported. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 18, 2009 15:59:08 GMT -6
About this question of the weapon matrix, I got mixed feelings. The base of our problem is, we don’t exactly which of the 4 combat system Dave used as a basis for his own fighting system. Evidences do exist for several possibilities:
1) Classical Chainmail [where weapons types have less importance, apart for pikes and range weapons]
- Dave make references to the “light foot, armed foot, heavy foot” classes in two old parts of FFC: the ‘Blackmoor campaign’ section (but it’s for armies composition, not individual characters) , and the monsters section (after Snider’s additions).
- The Hero / Super-hero figures are possible to use with this system, and this makes sense even with the OD&D fighting capacity “as 4 men, as 6 men”
- This makes sense with very large parties – with fifty warriors in the Dungeon, as in early Blackmoor.
- Monsters in M&T use, apparently, this system (the troll example., as well as the troops composition)
BUT this is not really practical to use with individual characters, at least as long they’re not heroes [maybe not a problem, as the Svenny tales let seems becoming an hero was possible during the session itself, at least in the very early gaming).
2) Man-to-Man [were weapons types does matter a lot]
- The “8-AC” links to the Chainmail system – even if we know the evidences are a bit weak, it seems it does exists.
- The list of weapons prices in the FFC ‘blackmoor campaign’ is exactly the list of weapons in the MtoM table.
- U&WA naval battle rules states the fight does use man-to-man combat.
- Supp. II introduces, with the tall difference system, another reference to the length of weapons.
As Dave said the full combat system was used only at man-to-man scale, maybe MtoM was in use in such situations, bt not against monsters.
3] Joust
- No evidence, even if the joust system is quoted in the U&WA part about castles. But this is the fighting system in Chainmail were the localization makes more sense.
4] Fantasy table [where weapons don’t matter at all – the most ‘abstract combat’]
- More I look on this table, more I think the 2-9 AC originated here. Maybe the fact that some creatures can be hit only with magic weapons in D&D is linked to the fact originally only heroes could hit them.
So the problem is still there. Probably Dave did use a mix of several systems, according to the situation, as he explained all options were not always in use – depending to the fight. The fact that Gary remixed the M-to-M table in Greyhawk, and later in AD&D proves he was still considering important, and other players probably did used it. May the alternative system in D&D, despite of his “d20 Gary’s signature”, be considered as an evidence Dave’ merged all systems into a more or less united one? Could the fantasy table have played a more important role than we thought ?
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 18, 2009 23:57:02 GMT -6
If Blackmoor really did start in December of 1970 - the date which seems to have the best support, it seems really unlikely that the first Blackmoor combat had anything to do with the fantasy supplement since the fantasy supplement to Chainmail wasn’t published yet. It's concievable Arneson might have had some kind of advance copy of the yet unpublished fantasy supplement from Gygax, but neither Gygax nor Arneson have ever suggested such a thing. Seems like something somebody would mention. A Dec 1970 date would then seem to suggest that Arneson was misremembering starting with Chainmail monsters.
As I pointed out in the chronology thread, 2 of the 4 monsters that Greg Svenson says were encountered are not even in Chainmail, making the "started off with Chainmail monsters" literaly untrue. However, no fantasy supplement does bring up the problem of levels, because if there was no fantasy supplement, there were no Heros and Superheroes. Although…. Wesely claimed that Arneson was basically the catalyst for the fantasy supplement, so perhaps we shouldn’t rule out the idea that Gygax got the idea for adding Hero’s, Superheroes, and monsters to Chainmail from correspondence with Arneson. That seems like something Arneson would remember though, and I find it an unlikely solution. But I'll come back to this.
Arneson characterizes his problem this way in the “lost interview” at GAMESETMACH. “We started out using the Chainmail combat system. They had a fantasy supplement for Chainmail. I think we used that for two games. We quickly discovered it didn't work for what we were doing since they were mass-combat rules, not individual rules.
We were doing role-playing and they weren't role-playing. We started off our monster list, and I think Chainmail had only seven or eight monsters. So we quickly came up with twenty or thirty.
We tried setting them up in a matrix, but that didn't work because it was quickly taking up an entire wall.”
First problem: “mass combat rules, not individual”. This suggests he was trying to use the normal “troop type” rules and not attempting to adapt the “man to man” weapon v armor rules or Fantasy table. Its Interesting that he seems to have not remembered that the Fantasy table can be used for individuals and if it was available for his use then there would have been no "not individuals" problem. Also its worth noting that the Man to Man rules really work best between between equals, not monsters, and heros. On the other hand, his answer to Snorri question is that he used the Fantasy Supplement. So, IF Arneson did have an advance copy of the complete Chainmail rules, or perhaps whenever he did finally get them, he says he tried using the Fantasy Supplement.
Second problem: "started off OUR monster list,... Chainmail had only seven or eight" (There is ten in the 3rd edition) Unlike in the FFC where Arneson simply says "It began with only the basic monsters in Chainmail" here Arneson is seems to be saying he created a monster list that would include the monsters in Chainmail. This better fits the facts of Svensons first adventure, allowing the possibility that the Chainmail monsters Arneson included in his list weren't really added in "at the start" until they actually appeared in print a few months after Blackmoor began.
Third Problem: Each monster had to be individually added to the combat matrix, making it way to big.
This problem could apply to either the Classic troop type rules or of the fantasy table but makes no sense for the Man to Man table. The fantasy table could get quite big and "take up an entire wall"as could the troop type table if you were making an individual table for each new monster against each troop type, but somehow that seems less likely. The Fantasy table really seems like a better fit for this though. In both cases the tables could be kept smaller by assigning equivalencies. Mike Mornard did not play with Arnesons group till a couple years later, so he wouldn’t know firsthand what Arneson did, but I found this quote from him on DF to be interesting:
“As far as how do monsters attack normal men in Chainmail - they were given a normal equivalent. Ogres, for instance, were considered (I think) equivalent to 4 Heavy Foot. You would simply use the normal combat tables. Of course, most monsters had huge morale impacts on normal men.”
It seems likely that anyone, including Arneson, would do the same with the troop type tables, but given how Arneson tended to treat monsters as individuals (see the Mortality radio piece where he talks about how these orcs are different from those orcs, etc.), he probably wouldn’t have done that initially if using the Fantasy table. I think though, that the notion of “equivalents” was his eventual solution. My suggestion is that instead of saying a "snake woman" is equivalent to a wight or whatever on the Fantasy Table, he found a way to assign numerical values to all creatures and created a table of numbers to cross refernce. This table may have been based on Hit Dice.
Svenson has indicated that Arneson added Hit Points when his players complained of dying to easily, but it seems the unwieldiness of the whole thing, at least they way he was using it, is what caused him to abandon Chainmail combat matrixes and “So, I adopted a combat system I used for Civil War Ironclads because they had armor class, hit points, all that stuff. And we did that for the monsters, we assigned values to them: giants are big, orcs are little. We tried to make the creature's power similar to what its size was.”
Hmmm, a creatures power, (Attack/Damage aka Hit Dice) similar to its size (also linked to Hit Dice in Adventures in Fantasy), mentioned right after hp and armor class as the key components of his new combat system. The suggested meaning is that he is replacing all those long, individualized Chainmail monster vs monster matrixes with a simpler one based on “power/size” values or HD matrix, AC and HP.
Note that a HD based matrix (essentially a level vs level) need make no reference to heros or superheros, but could easily suggest the idea of levels of experience. A fighter might gain HD as he advanced. Now IF Arneson created a HD matrix before getting the fantasy supplement, he could easily map Hero and Superhero onto his existing matrix, with each getting a HD range (like hero -1, hero, hero +2), pretty much as we see it done in OD&D. These HD levels then are only steps within the flunky, hero, superhero categories - again much as they are in OD&D.
Now, time line wise we would have elements Dave's "Ironclad" system (hit points) mixed with the classic troop type Chainmail system sometime in January or February of 1971 at the earliest, leaving only a 4-6 month gap at the most until Chainmail with the fantasy suplement appears in print. At that point its reasonable to assume that he experimented with the Fantasy Table and filled a wall with his new monster lists, adopted the level names of hero and superhero, and the point values of monsters for HP. After "two or three" games. He probably introduced his new numerically based "to hit" matrix to replace the Fantasy Table.
Since all of this would have occured within a 6 month span, I think its not impossible that Arneson misremembered exactly when the fantasy supplement elements came in to his game, or how long that very early pre publication of Chainmail 1e experimentation period lasted.
I think it likely then that his system developed in pieces at various times in the first year - Hit points first to prevent instant death, Saving throws aganst Abilities and against AC second to provide more chances to not die, a simplified to hit matrix next - to get rid off those growing chainmail monster matrixes and much later still (possibly not till OD&D is written) comes hit location.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 19, 2009 23:19:13 GMT -6
More Hit dice clues from the FFC:
Blackmoor Military Manpower. Distribution (Initial)
Baron Fant: HD: 8 + 2; 28 Men
Captain Krey: HD: 4 + 1; 20 Men (gone)
Dwarves: 150
Elves: 180
Peasants: 158 Men (base)
Earl of Vestfold: HD: 9 +1; 351 Men
Baron Jenkins: HD: 6 + 2; 28 Men
Swenson's Freehold: HD: 8 + 5; 30 Men
Merchant's: HD: 4 + 1; 14 Men
Bandit's: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men
Inspector General Snider: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men
Wizard of the Wood
This list apparently dates from sometime late in the first year or early in the second of Blackmoor. There are two important things to note about the HD, which appear to refer to the troops in each location or under each person listed. First is that a number of them have unusual HD bonus numbers, especially 8+5 in Svensons freehold. These numbers need to be looked at more closely.
The second thing to notice though is that they exist. Hit Dice is the only number Arneson feels is important enough to record, ergo it is likely the only number needed to resolve combats. Once again, highly suggestive of a HD v HD combat matrix.
The FFC introduction provides another clue in support of this hypothesis: “HD was determined pretty much on the size of the creature physically and, again, some regard for It's mythical properties. For regular animals that were simply made larger, like Beetles, a standard text book provided interesting facts about the critters and all were given HD proportionate to their size, relative to other Beetles for instance.” Here again HD is tied to the size and powers of the creature and suggesting it is a central combat mechanic.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 28, 2009 22:15:16 GMT -6
"Sleeping dragons may be attacked with a free melee round by the attacker and +2 on Hit Dice for chances of hitting." Monsters and Treasure, p12
Blackmoor combat:
One possibility is that, as in Chainmail, all of a characters HD or "fighting capability" dice are to be thrown to determine hits on a d6 based table. Only hits would then count for damage. Problem: Arneson definitely used HD as a term for damage dice, suggesting in most cases all dice would be rolled again for every hit. Highly unlikely.
However J Snider and G. Svenson reference 2d6 being thrown for combat. This is also the method used in the Chainmail Fantasy table and in Dungeon by Dave Megarry which comes out of Blackmoor and seems likely to have used a simplified Blackmoor mechanic. 2d6 was certainly being used for saving throws and other rolls and this further fits Lionhearts report that Arneson said the method of attack rolls corresponded to the method used for saving throws.
So 2d6 is by far the likely method being used "to hit".
The question is "to hit" against what? For various reasons, I have suggested some kind of HD matrix was involved. To explore this idea further, I've been looking more closely at Chainmail combat with OD&D. Nico has uncovered a lot of Chainmail elements in FFC and it is clear that Arneson continued to draw on that work for inspiration.
Gygax used the alternate system, not the Chainmail with OD&D system from very very early in his Greyhawk campaign. Arneson too had his own system, but judging from the content of the FFC, it was something of a hybrid between elements of Chainmail and Arnesons Ironclads game. I have suggested that it was natural for Gygax to include the backwards compatibility with Chainmail that we find in OD&D because Chainmail was his product and because doing so bridged the differences in Gygax and Arnesons approaches. I suspect now there is an additional reason that has to do with Arnesons' continued use of Chainmail derived terminology and ideas. What I'm suggesting is that not all of the Chainmail rules and references in OD&D were created from scratch by Gygax, because they bear the influence of houserules Arneson made and used in his Blackmoor system, and may be little changed from the "pages of notes" Arneson sent to Gygax.
When one considers the back and forth conversations the two had when playtesting and writing the rules its only natural to suspect that those elements that don't conform to what we know of Greyhawk and Gygax's methods, are good candidates for elements arising with Arneson. Among these possible elements are some terms we need to look at more closely:
Attack, Defense, and Fighting Capability.
In Chainmail, the Troop Type rules use different attack and defense categories such as attack as Heavy Foot, defend as Light foot. A unit or an individual using this system has different attack and defense capabilities and they are tied to the number of dice used in combat.
OD&D uses the terms "attack/defense" and attack capabilities, defense capabilities in some places - the ogre reference for example, where an attack is described under the attack/defense heading, indicating the two terms are bound together. Likewise the term "Fighting capability" which must, by definition, subsume the ideas of attack and defense. Although clearly related to Chainmail, these terms are not a normal part of Chainmail terminology. In Chainmail there are a couple of instances of "melee capability" and defense ability or attack ability, but the OD&D terms as we know them are not part of even the 3rd editon of Chainmail's Gygaxian prose.
Temple of the Frog on the other hand repeatedly references attack and defense capabilities. We even see things like double and quadruple defensive capabilities referenced. We also see double strength referenced. Likewise in FFC and Chainmail we see creatures with double strength (more in FFC). There is also an ambiguous reference to "Fighting Ability" in FFC. All these terms have roots in Chainmail, and Totf is clearly incompatible with the "Alternate System". Even so, it's unclear to what degree, if at all TotF was originally written to conform to the Chainmail with OD&D rules. Hardly any of the monsters are from the Fantasy table and no equivalents to Fantasy table monsters are given or much in the way of other conversion references except a mention that "all men are as heavy infantry" (p40), and the possibility that some of the stats can be converted to the Man to Man table. In any case, Arneson clearly favored these terms and the concepts behind them, and must have been employing them at some point in his Blackmoor game. It is not unreasonable to assume that their appearance and interpretation in OD&D owes something to his influence, if not from him directly.
We have a pretty good idea what Attack/Defense Capability means in OD&D, but, just as "Hit Dice" sees several interpolations, we can expect these terms to have had similar but not exact meanings in Blackmoor.
It seems likely that the Chainmail rules Arneson began with were the Troop Type ones, for reasons discussed previously. Although he is adding in AC, HP and HD, he seems to still be using or favoring the idea found in troop type and Fantasy supplement of differening attack and defense capabilities, that are based, not on armor or weapons but on the "power" of the combatant, which he measures with Hit Dice instead of "troop type" or "monster".
Arneson's reference in the Gamesetmatch interview relating size and power as a key component of his combat system ties directly to his statement in the FFC that after abandoning the by the book Chainmail combat system he used size and "mythical properties" to determine Hit Dice. Everyone agrees that HD were a key Arnesonian innovation. It's also clear that he often used the term to mean damage dice and perhaps attack dice as well, depending on the method used. (see above quote from p M&T p12.)
Both the Ogre attack/defense description in Monsters and Treasures and fighting capability in Men and Magic are tied directly to Hit Dice for monsters while Player Characters are given special Fighting Capabilities that diverge from HD only slightly, seemingly more at higher levels.
Gygax, on the other hand, while recognizing that size was reflected in Hit Dice, clearly though of HD as a measure of Hit Points and not so much more. However, this is exactly what one would expect given that he was using the d20 alternate combat system, wherein both the attack and damage rolls are completely separated from Hit Dice and based on the Armor Class of the combatant.
In other words, the function of HD was key to Arneson's combat system and only secondarily had anything to do with the number of Hit Points, whereas for Gygax, Hit Dice played no roll in his combat mechanic so the only function they had left for him was as a determiner of Hit Points. This is virtually the only way to explain the discrepancies between the uses of the term and the facts we have uncovered.
Arnesons solution to his combat problem in Blackmoor then seems to have been to create a base "fighting capability" for players and monsters based on their capacity to cause damage, i.e. their Hit Dice in Arnesonian parlance. Further, following the concept in the Chainmail Troop Type system the actual Attack Capability or Defense Capability - the number of dice being used - for a being may vary. Thus a character or creature may have a bonus or a penalty to their HD for attack and defense. Double and quadruple defense capabilities make perfect sense if the defense column on a matrix is based on HD. Put simply, a creature with 2HD and double defense capability would defend as a creature with 4 HD.
Although this conclusion would seem to be contradicted by Arnesons statement in the "How to Become a Bad Guy" section of FFC: "To progress to the next level (which in Blackmoor meant getting 50% more Hit Dice per level, although our combat system did not really use Hit Dice). To figure out when you got to a higher level, you took the creature's Hit Dice (whatever it was on that level)" The statement itself appears contradictory but can be interpreted in one of three ways. Arneson could simply be saying that "we used the term 'Hit Dice' differently in Blackmoor, to mean damage dice, not hit point dice as it is in D&D" or "we used something like Hit Dice, but called it something else" or "Hit Dice in Blackmoor did not serve a combat function." The third possibility may sound like the most like the intended meaning but is really the most problematic. After all, why call them HIT dice if they have nothing to do with the combat system, and why repeatedly mention Hit Dice in relation to early Blackmoor combat, and why use the term to mean damage dice when OD&D explains it differently? I have to think this confusing statement is a classic Arnesonian doublespeak referring to the fact that in Blackmoor hit points were assigned, not rolled for and that the term Hit Dice in Blackmoor was different from OD&D's Hit point Dice.
If the second or third meanings is to be understood as the correct one, we have to acknowledge that it may not have been a straightforward HD "to hit" matrix. It is possible Arneson used HD as a gauge for some other metric such as Fighting Ability or level, much as we see it in OD&D. Nevertheless, Hit Dice must have been at the heart of his system.
Likewise, bonuses and penalties apply based on magical items, probably as in Chainmail for swords and OD&D for Armor. Additional modifiers may apply for dexterity, level, moral, and the situation. Modifiers may have varied in how they were applied with things like double defensive capabilities or magic armor changing the number of HD, others such as HDX +X applying only to damage or perhaps damage and morale.
Comparing and summarizing:
Combat in FFC Breaks down as:
1 an attack "to hit" step
2. a chance to avoid damage step
3 a damage step
Based on the FFC, steps and the nature of Ironclads, I argued that Arnesons Ironclads system, must have had three steps:
1 an attack "to hit" step
2. a chance to penetrate armor step
3 a damage step
Likewise AiF breaks down as
1 an attack "to hit" step
2. a chance to avoid damage by saving against armor step
3 a damage step
The AiF and FFC systems are significantly different from both Chainmail and D&D. D&D and Chainmail have steps 1 and 2 together - Chance to hit is determined by armor class - an idea that Arneson seems to not have liked. The general continuity between FFC and AiF, tied to our other lines of evidence leads me to believe that steps combat for Blackmoor have been reasonably solved as follows
1 a 2d6 attack roll on a HD and or level based matrix, modified by agility, experience, and other factors.
2 saving throw vs AC
3 rolling your HD (+ or - Dice as required) and summing the total, adding or subtracting bonus and penalties as indicated as per OD&D
One last note regarding the idea that Blackmoor AC was a 1-8 worst to best rating; here's another little gem from FFC.
"Robots: I roll one 6-sided dice for Armor Class, and another dice for the number of Hit Dice." Of course, this gives robots a AC range of 1-6.
Regarding levels in Blackmoor, I have speculated that flunky, hero, superhero could have been mapped on to a HD matrix, covering several levels within each category. Such a thing would no doubt have been a part of the materials Arneson was contributing to OD&D during the writing process. "Rabbit" wrote a really interesting post that seems to reveal the very same thing.
"I have a theory, I think all the die roll modifiers and what is added after 3rd, 5th, and 6th levels that says (or Hero -1), and (or x men) were added sometime between first conception and publication. This would give you 1-3 levels 1-3 men, 4-6 levels Hero, 7+ levels Superhero. If this was a first rough draft out of Chainmail it would give you three levels of each class."
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 29, 2009 17:46:06 GMT -6
Back to Snorri's question about what Chainmail rules Arneson tried to use for Blackmoor combat, I worte: Arneson characterizes his problem this way in the “lost interview” at GAMESETMACH. “We started out using the Chainmail combat system. They had a fantasy supplement for Chainmail. I think we used that for two games. I just found the Following on Rob Kuntz blog pied-piper-publishing.com/ from the Dec 14 2009 entry: After the initial Blackmoor adventure events proceeded at a furious pace. Phone calls to Dave. Letters exchanged between the two. During this time EGG noted that he had begun crafting a “dungeon” setting similar to Dave’s Blackmoor. About two weeks after this adventure, Gary handed me a slim manuscript which had been mailed to him by David. I sat down and read for the first time the rules that David had used during it. They consisted of “16 pages of [typed] notes” (as EGG emphasized while I was perusing them). He and I both noted that they were based off of EGG’s Fantasy Supplement to the rules Chainmail (Gygax & Perren, Guidon Games 1971) but with copious additions of formulas which I faintly (at least then) equated to those from the miniatures game Strategos N (David Wesley, 1967) that I had watched being played at GENCON 2." So, there again its the Fantasy supplement that is referenced. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 29, 2009 22:13:35 GMT -6
Back to Snorri's question about what Chainmail rules Arneson tried to use for Blackmoor combat, I worte: Unfortunately, less useful to answer that /specific/ question than one might think... > “We started out using the Chainmail combat system. They had a fantasy supplement for Chainmail. I think we used that for two games. This is presumably May 1971-ish. > I just found the Following on Rob Kuntz blog pied-piper-publishing.com/ from the Dec 14 2009 entry: > After the initial Blackmoor adventure events proceeded at a furious pace. Phone calls to Dave. Letters exchanged between the two. During this time EGG noted that he had begun crafting a “dungeon” setting similar to Dave’s Blackmoor. About two weeks after this adventure, Gary handed me a slim manuscript which had been mailed to him by David. I sat down and read for the first time the rules that David had used during it. They consisted of “16 pages of [typed] notes” (as EGG emphasized while I was perusing them). He and I both noted that they were based off of EGG’s Fantasy Supplement to the rules Chainmail (Gygax & Perren, Guidon Games 1971) but with copious additions of formulas which I faintly (at least then) equated to those from the miniatures game Strategos N (David Wesley, 1967) that I had watched being played at GENCON 2." > So, there again its the Fantasy supplement that is referenced. Having talked with Rob when he wrote that blog entry, he's sticking with a date of winter 1972 for those "16 pages of notes" and pushing other Lake Geneva dates back into 1973 than had previously been stated as 1972. I'm not at all sure that the Blackmoor group were playing something /that/ close to the Fantasy Supplement for 16+ months without even appearing to use the 1e Chainmail that was on the table at some point or any strong recollection of having done so from actual play for such a long period of time. Also doesn't address that combat rules could've been reworked/expanded from DB#7's man-to-man rather than 1e Chainmail, yet still having (and given the appearance of) the same /origins/... Per Lake Geneva play, we don't know for sure what relationship those notes bore to actual play in Blackmoor, or even as demoed at, or after, GenCon in August 1972. Rob honestly stated that he didn't know, and tracking back dates from his p.o.v. from what was published in the Domesday Book unfortunately doesn't lead back any further than winter 1971/72. (aside: Rob didn't recall that Wesley's Stategos-N was revised in 1970 but worth noting in passing since that's post-GenCon 2). Wish there was something more clear-cut from all this. d. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 30, 2009 10:29:19 GMT -6
Just a thought about Flunkies and Heroes.
We still tend to consider the Blackmoor system with D&D glasses, and the progression from flunky to hero as a level change.
In Chainmail, the difference between a flunky ("man") and an Hero is enormous. And the only tale we have about how a Flunky become an Hero shows it happens, on referee choice, during the gamle itself [at least in very early Blackmoor]. I guess charcaters weren't flunky for very long and most characters were Heroes [and superheroes cam later].
So, the standard fighting system apply to flunkies (or flunkies vs. fantasy creatures), and the Fantasy table for Heroes. And, if most characters are heroes fighting fantasy creatures (most of those found in dungeons), the fantasy fight is the most current version. Maybe the "Hit dices" were used as number of attack, but that could be discussed too.
Then, if I'm right the fantasy table numbers have been reversed to create the AC system [on DA assumption that lower is better], it's normal it became the basis for the standard fight. With the 2d6 under AC, it's really easy to use (and fits the tales we have). No need to wonder how it could have been used with level changes, as characters were heroes.
A second step may have to generalize it to all combats - and later, to change it into a % system.
Edit: just a quote from the Monk class in supp; II
It fits exactly the description of Dexterity in M&M, which is not clarified into rules. I guess it is exactly what was dexterity in Blackmoor: a save against spells and missiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 1, 2010 13:21:01 GMT -6
Also doesn't address that combat rules could've been reworked/expanded from DB#7's man-to-man rather than 1e Chainmail, yet still having (and given the appearance of) the same /origins/... d. David, I'm wondering if you have any specific thoughts in mind about this possible line of development? Are you thinking that Arneson may have developed a level or troop type vs AC table, or the straight, roll under AC to hit or something else? |
|
I’ll add more stats tomorow. 