Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System

[aldarron]

The last couple pages of the FFC are a kind of mini monster manual. Hard to tell when it was written but it has the appearance of being a few pages of notes that likely were made fairly early, almost certainly before an OD&D manuscript existed, judging by the lack of D&Disms in it and the fact that these creatures were more completely detailed in D&D, thus making these entries redundant. The term “value” is used a lot and bears looking at.

“These creatures are worth 18 points (or Hits) with variations. Elves get double value Hits while Hero types and Magic Weapons get Hits times six.” And “The adult Rocs will range in value from 4-24 points.”

We looked at this sentence before, but it’s the second part I want to draw attention to. “Hits” here means damage (18 points hits to kill,) and “double value” means double damage.
Now here we see a related but different meaning “…from 12 - 72 Hits with those over 36 getting double, attack value with 3/2 missles and 3/2 movement.”
Attack value seems to be a rating that is doubled rather than a doubling of damage done. (3/2 missle and movement something from Chainmail?)

Likewise:
“When young are present, the Mother Dragon will fight at double value if the young engage in combat. The Father is not doubled. If a young Dragon is captured, badly wounded, or killed, the Mother will attack at Six times normal value for Six turns while the remaining young disengage (immediately) and withdraw two moves. If the Mother is killed, seriously wounded or captured, the Father will attack at double value for three turns with a 1/6 chance the young will return to the Mother.”

And then there is a link between “double value” and Chainmail:
“In the rare times when a Nomad camp is found… with a mixed Cavalry/Infantry force; 5% Light Foot,5% Heavy Foot, 5% Armored Foot, 5% Horse Archers, 20% Medium Horse, 10% Heavy Horse… In the desert sand storms, Nomads fight at double value…”

So fight at double value, attack value, attack at double value seems to not mean the same thing as double value hits. I mean that Arneson should have said “hits” are doubled as he did in the first example with the Elves if he meant double damage. Instead he seems to be referring to a rating, an “Attack Value” that’s doubled. This may be making too fine a distinction but really it only breaks down in two ways
1) Attack value, attack ability, etc mean damage
2) Or AV, like “fighting capability” is a separate measure.

I think this is just an early term related to the Attack/Defense capablilities and fighting capability we see in OD&D and TotF. Its possible the attack values were figured into some formula, but if these systems and terms are all related, as they seem to be, then they are more likely to be number of dice thrown as in Chainmail Troop type combat and/or columns on a HD/level based matrix - a defense value vs attack value matrix, derived ultimately from the Fantasy Supplement table. A double attack value would mean going from column 2 to column 4 on such a matrix and/or using double the dice if using Chainmail Troop Type combat. That could very well explain this passage from TotF (p47) “There are 8 frogmen with double strength and hit point values, each of these also having +2 on saving throws and defensive capabilities. There are 5 frogmen with triple values and +3 on saving throws and defense, and 2 frogmen with quadruple capabilities and +4 to saving throws and defense!”
Trouble with that passage thought is there is no mention of any attack capability. In OD&D though “attack/defense” seems to be the same number in most cases – the Hit Dice number. So maybe “defense capabilities” applies to attack capabilities (attack values) too or maybe these guys defend well but attack normally but with a bonus to damage due to greater strength. Food for thought anyway.

[badger2305]

The "Civil War Ironclads" game that has been mentioned was actually Don't Give Up The Ship! - known as DGUTS! Dave was quite clear with me about this.

[aldarron]

Hey Victor! Great to see you join the discussions. Thats a very interesting bit of info. Would love to hear more of your thoughts when you get a chance. Do you still have access to Dave's notes?

[badger2305]

Some of 'em. Seriously, I have a lot of stuff I am still going through, so it's not like I have an encyclopedic knowledge of what Dave was thinking or had done. Dave Wesely and Ross Maker have a chunk of this stuff, too.

[havard]

Jan 3, 2010 11:15:10 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Some of 'em. Seriously, I have a lot of stuff I am still going through, so it's not like I have an encyclopedic knowledge of what Dave was thinking or had done. Dave Wesely and Ross Maker have a chunk of this stuff, too.

Badger, any information you can share is much appreciated!

For Dave Wesely, isn't that him posting at the acaeum here:
www.acaeum.com/forum/about3888-0-asc-20.html

Havard

[badger2305]

Jan 4, 2010 13:11:58 GMT -6 havard said:

Jan 3, 2010 11:15:10 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Some of 'em. Seriously, I have a lot of stuff I am still going through, so it's not like I have an encyclopedic knowledge of what Dave was thinking or had done. Dave Wesely and Ross Maker have a chunk of this stuff, too.

Badger, any information you can share is much appreciated!

For Dave Wesely, isn't that him posting at the acaeum here:
www.acaeum.com/forum/about3888-0-asc-20.html

Havard

Yes!

[snorri]

Just a few points about the save against attack in Blackmoor.

- I suppose the chain mail man-to-man parry systemwas the first basis.

- The save was probably the same as against spells so 6+ for super-heroes, 9+ for heroes. Or in reverse, that's under 5 for heroes and under 8 for supeheroes, or 28 % and 72% respectively.

- We don't know how much attacks a character can "save" each round. As much as his level (1/4/8) or every attack? My heroic feeling would vote for the second.

Edit: It could be expanded as such: 12, or 2, or 3% for flunkies. Probably the ancestor for Dexterity, rolled with 2d6.

[aldarron]

Jan 7, 2010 16:18:05 GMT -6 snorri said:

- We don't know how much attacks a character can "save" each round. As much as his level (1/4/8) or every attack? My heroic feeling would vote for the second.

Yeah, second one seems likely to me too.

Jan 7, 2010 16:18:05 GMT -6 snorri said:

- I suppose the chain mail man-to-man parry systemwas the first basis.

- The save was probably the same as against spells so 6+ for super-heroes, 9+ for heroes. Or in reverse, that's under 5 for heroes and under 8 for supeheroes, or 28 % and 72% respectively.

This is an interesting idea Nico, so I’ve given it some thought.
I suppose the idea of saving throws came out of Chainmail. As I pointed out in the Ability Scores thread , they seem to have used the Basilisk saving throw as described in Chainmail. I’m also strongly of the opinion that ability scores themselves were created to provide a more specific set of saving throw categories for Blackmoor characters, than just a single catch all save number.
So I agree that Arneson may have used the Chainmail save vs spells prior to inventing the ability scores for some saving throw situations, but as regards the combat saving throw theres some issues to consider.

We know that at least in mass combat situations Arneson did use the “troop type” rules and that he attempted to use the Fantasy Supplement. In both cases, Armor is only part of the factors that make up the “type” consulted on the combat tables. Man to Man is different and far more specific in that it is armor vs weapon. However, there’s no evidence anywhere that I can see that Arneson thought that Armor and weapon types should play the central role in combat or that he ever used the Man to Man rules in Blackmoor. He borrowed the weapons list for his equipment list, true, but to me that means nothing more than he borrowed an equipment list instead of bothering to make up his own. <shrug>
I’ll just repeat here some paragraphs I wrote from earlier posts in this thread:

“However, I'm still inclined to think it’s 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.
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.
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.”

Armor Class played a role in Blackmoor combat. We are very accustomed, from 35 years of D&D combat for Armor class to play a central roll in the “to hit” matrix. I’ve suggested that there are a number of hints pointing to a very different concept of the function of Armor in Blackmoor,, but for the Chainmail style saving throw or any other to make sense as the combat saving throw we would need to have a role for AC as a modifier to the saving throw, or as a central factor of the “to hit” mechanic. The former would seem to be hard to make work with a 1-8 (or similar) range for AC and in any case adds a unnecessary layer of complexity to the save, the latter seems to be contradicted by John Sniders statement. So I still think the 2d6-2 AC save was likely the method employed.

[snorri]

Jan 11, 2010 11:19:42 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I suppose the idea of saving throws came out of Chainmail. As I pointed out in the Ability Scores thread , they seem to have used the Basilisk saving throw as described in Chainmail.

I had a look on the basilic save. It may have led to the "save vs petrification" and it could lead to a closer examination on the origins of the "5 saves system". But I was refering to those found in the Wizard section.

@Chainmail said:

Petrification: These horrible beasts will turn to stone anyone, except
a magic user or a Super Hero (can be saved by a two dice roll of 6 or better) [...] Hobbits, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, Ents, and Giants need 10 or better; all others need 7 or better to be saved.

Poison: For example, a giant spider might be unkillable by normal men, but will kill them unless they roll a save of 8 or better

[/i]

Spells : Hero-types Saved by a dice roll of 6 or better
Super Hero Saved by a dice roll of 9 or better

Dragon breath: Dragon fire will kill any opponent it touches, except another Dragon, Super Hero, or a Wizard, who is saved on a two dice roll of 7 or better.[/quote]

We have four on five. It lacks the wand (and the death ray, which is equal to poison). So these four saves could have been in use in Blackmoor, and have been generalized by comparison.

Jan 11, 2010 11:19:42 GMT -6 aldarron" said:

I’m also strongly of the opinion that ability scores themselves were created to provide a more specific set of saving throw categories for Blackmoor characters, than just a single catch all save number. So I agree that Arneson may have used the Chainmail save vs spells prior to inventing the ability scores for some saving throw situations

I guess you're right, Dan. The table could be completed with a few extrapolations.



Note this pose many questions. The reason for better saves for dwarves and hobbits doesn't seem to come from Chainmail. Is it a Tolkienish feature? A Blackmoor mechanics (which could express as "Dwarves flunkies save as Heroes"), a Gygaxian idea (as it has been "improved" by the strange +1 per 3,5 point of constitution in AD&D?).

... I started this answer to explain why I don't think the 2d6-2 is useful and why 2d6 is enough, but it will be for the next post, as the save issue was more intiguing than I would have think first.

[aldarron]

Jan 11, 2010 19:15:04 GMT -6 snorri said:

I had a look on the basilic save. It may have led to the "save vs petrification" and it could lead to a closer examination on the origins of the "5 saves system". But I was refering to those found in the Wizard section.

We have four on five. It lacks the wand (and the death ray, which is equal to poison). So these four saves could have been in use in Blackmoor, and have been generalized by comparison.

Note this pose many questions. The reason for better saves for dwarves and hobbits doesn't seem to come from Chainmail. Is it a Tolkienish feature? A Blackmoor mechanics (which could express as "Dwarves flunkies save as Heroes"), a Gygaxian idea (as it has been "improved" by the strange +1 per 3,5 point of constitution in AD&D?).

Hey that's good digging Nico! I didn't realize all those were in Chainmail and they surely do look like the precursers of the D&D save categories. Hard to say who "generalized" them though. I would guess that Gygax and company are the more likely candidates but I could be talked out of that if you can point to something that looks hints more of Arneson and Blackmoor.

Dwarves and Hobbits: surely must be Tolkien style tough dwarves and nimble hobbits.

Jan 11, 2010 19:15:04 GMT -6 snorri said:

... I started this answer to explain why I don't think the 2d6-2 is useful and why 2d6 is enough, but it will be for the next post, as the save issue was more intiguing than I would have think first.

Wise! I suspect that the 2d6 vs 2d6-2 thing may not have been used consistently so its great if you got some insights into that.

[snorri]

Jan 11, 2010 20:45:35 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I could be talked out of that if you can point to something that looks hints more of Arneson and Blackmoor.

Few details on FFC about saves, except a mention in the Snider's dragons list which don't contradict Chainmail. More quotes in Blackmoor, but mos of them are standard saves vs. poison.

As I allready said, I guess the Monks dodge rules could be a remnant of a more general combat rule, but it's difficult to prove.

Saving Throws: Monks are treated as clerics with regard to saving throws with the following important exceptions:

Missile hits may be dodged if the monk makes his saving throw against Death Ray or Poison, and magic missiles of any sort may be dodged if the saving throw versus Staves & Spells is made.

All other attacks which involve saving throws have no effect upon the monk if he makes the saving throw, and at the 8th level even failure to make a saving throw results in the monk sustaining one-half the possible damage.

Save as dodge is coherent with FFC introduction, dodge spell is coherent with Chainmail, and the mention of the 8th level is probably not an hazard - it's the Superhero level.

[aldarron]

Jan 12, 2010 6:39:08 GMT -6 snorri said:

As I allready said, I guess the Monks dodge rules could be a remnant of a more general combat rule, but it's difficult to prove.

Saving Throws: Monks are treated as clerics with regard to saving throws with the following important exceptions:

Missile hits may be dodged if the monk makes his saving throw against Death Ray or Poison, and magic missiles of any sort may be dodged if the saving throw versus Staves & Spells is made.

All other attacks which involve saving throws have no effect upon the monk if he makes the saving throw, and at the 8th level even failure to make a saving throw results in the monk sustaining one-half the possible damage.

Save as dodge is coherent with FFC introduction, dodge spell is coherent with Chainmail, and the mention of the 8th level is probably not an hazard - it's the Superhero level.

Perhaps the original Blackmoor monk, if there was one, was the same as, or a kind of, Blackmoor cleric and was therefore a more european style monk with maybe vampire hunting skills, and probably not much in the way of an eastern martial artist.

When Brian Blume either reworked (or created from scratch) the Supplement II Monk, he created a "kung Fu" eastern style monk. We don't know for sure, but I think probably all the "kung fu" stuff was added in by Blume.

The trouble with the dodge missle save is that this is exactly the sort of stuff eastern monk kung fu masters were depicted doing in '70's era movies. Indeed, the opening title sequence of the series "Kung Fu" with David Carradine shows him artfully dodging thrown spears. So I doubt this aspect of the monk has Blackmoor ties, unless it turns out there was a "kung Fu" type monk in Blackmoor too, and that seems really unlikely since there's nothing in the FFC to hint at it and none of the Temple of the Frog monks seem to have such skills.

[aldarron]

I’ve been looking more closely at Arnesonian vs Gygaxian terminology and discovered something that made me blink. Gygax virtually never used the term attack value or defense values – terms which I mentioned Arneson used several times in FFC, such as the ones I regarding the dragon who “attacks at six times normal value” or such as this quote from the Swords section (p47, 1980) “Any creature killed will add that creature's Hit Points and attack values to the victor on a ratio of one for every ten…”

Then I found the one place where Gygax did use these terms: the Sieges section in Chainmail. Point values are given for both attack and defense. Balrogs and catapults for example have an attack value rated at a certain amount of points of damage they automatically inflict when they make a hit. Various structures, likewise have “defense values” measured in points, which are automatically reduced when hit. Arneson used exactly the same terminology – attack values, defense values.

Greg Svenson has reported that one of the very first things Arneson did was to replace the instant kill of Chainmail combat with a hit point damage system. Arneson used the point values in Chainmail throughout the Blackmoor and Glendower dungeon for the monsters, probably as hit points. It seems one of his initial steps in changing the Chainmail combat to the Blackmoor method began by adapting the Chainmail Siege rules to players. He assigned an “attack value” measured in Hit Dice or Fighting Capacity (damage done) and a defense value or “hit point value” to player characters and monsters, not just catapults and casltes. Its perfectly possible then to conduct combat using Fantasy supplement table with its 2d6 to hit and then to apply the “siege” rules (attack value/defense value) for damage. Perhaps that’s what Arneson meant when he said his system “didn’t really use Hit Dice for combat”

No doubt when the Fantasy table became to unwieldy, Arneson transformed it into a more general matrix, maybe using the the attack values and defense values or maybe level based, added in variable damage and so forth.

[snorri]

Just a little thought about last Svennie post on damages. 1d6 / 4d6 / 8d6 is consistent with what we are turning around for a while, about the Early Blackmoor layer.

1] One strike could kill a lot of creatures: a superhero faces a band of orcs, he roll and hit, rol 8d6 of damages on creatures with 1-3 hits (FFC 1980, p. 62), kills at least 12 orcs per round with a medium roll. Not bad...

2] With such a range of damages, one minute rounds are effectively fast and furious.

3] The "share the damage between foes" appears in EPT as well (EPT p. 33-34), with this precision: the weakest creatures (in HPs) are killed first.

4] Facing 40-400 goblins is a fair challenge - explaining a problem Gary faced in the redaction of U&WA.

5] One hit for many creatures is easier when you got only one style of creature (so one AC) in front of you, because there's no reason to roll several time for the same AC [unlike the famous Strategic review example of combat, even if this point could be discussed, and the later AD&D "less than 1HD" rule].

6] I guess , once this rule was set, there's was no real need to have separate chances to hit for the three levels - different damages was enough. This is a point to explore [in the next post - same thing for a discussion of Dan's latest finds ].

[gsvenson]

For what it's worth, I remember Svenny killing over 200 orcs in one battle and 112 orcs in another.

[tombowings]

Jan 17, 2010 17:54:33 GMT -6 snorri said:

Just a little thought about last Svennie post on damages. 1d6 / 4d6 / 8d6 is consistent with what we are turning around for a while, about the Early Blackmoor layer.

1] One strike could kill a lot of creatures: a superhero faces a band of orcs, he roll and hit, rol 8d6 of damages on creatures with 1-3 hits (FFC 1980, p. 62), kills at least 12 orcs per round with a medium roll. Not bad...

2] With such a range of damages, one minute rounds are effectively fast and furious.

3] The "share the damage between foes" appears in EPT as well (EPT p. 33-34), with this precision: the weakest creatures (in HPs) are killed first.

4] Facing 40-400 goblins is a fair challenge - explaining a problem Gary faced in the redaction of U&WA.

5] One hit for many creatures is easier when you got only one style of creature (so one AC) in front of you, because there's no reason to roll several time for the same AC [unlike the famous Strategic review example of combat, even if this point could be discussed, and the later AD&D "less than 1HD" rule].

6] I guess , once this rule was set, there's was no real need to have separate chances to hit for the three levels - different damages was enough. This is a point to explore [in the next post - same thing for a discussion of Dan's latest finds ].

That's very close to how I've been running my home LLB campaign. Roll to hit, if you hit the AC of any creatures, roll your fighting capability (super heroes, for instance roll 8d6). You deal damage to the lowest HD creatures of whose armor class you hit first.

Cheers,
Ian

[aldarron]

Jan 18, 2010 13:04:32 GMT -6 gsvenson said:

For what it's worth, I remember Svenny killing over 200 orcs in one battle and 112 orcs in another.

Definetly makes sense when Blackmoor dungeon has rooms populated by 250 dwarves, 200 ghouls, etc.

[snorri]

The "classic Chainmail" could has this sheme:

Flunky vs Flunky Man-to-man
Flunky-vs Fantasy Standard table

Hero vs Flunky Standard table
Hero vs Fantasy Fantasy table

Fantasy vs. Flunky Standard table
Fantasy vs. Hero Fantasy table

In practice, most characters are heroes / superheroes (it seems not to be long to go from flunky to hero, but very long to go from hero to superhero. i got an hypothesis, but for another post), so the basic fight use the fantasy table.

With the AC [which is, once again, a reverse fantasy table, as I explained in a former post], hit dices (=1 / 4 / 8 dices of damages) and hits to kill [probably = value points, as a first basis), fight is farmuch easier to deal. The difference in attack lie in the damage done [even if i must admit in Fantasy table, there's a difference between hero and superheroes attacking, and I think this problem was solved by the "% layer" later - when SH begins to enter realy in the game].

So, probably, its was easier to use the AC (2d6 under AC) for flunkies as well - as they do less damage - and for monsters (doing damages equal to their Hit Dices - so huge amounts for some of them). It makes a toll really, realy nasty, but a platemail really, really hard to bypass. So, that's how I think the AC system was generalised.

But still, there are some steps which are not really clear

[aldarron]

Jan 18, 2010 18:47:50 GMT -6 snorri said:

The "classic Chainmail" could has this sheme:

Flunky vs Flunky Man-to-man
Flunky-vs Fantasy Standard table

Hero vs Flunky Standard table
Hero vs Fantasy Fantasy table

Fantasy vs. Flunky Standard table
Fantasy vs. Hero Fantasy table

In practice, most characters are heroes / superheroes (it seems not to be long to go from flunky to hero, but very long to go from hero to superhero. i got an hypothesis, but for another post), so the basic fight use the fantasy table.

Sounds about right to me too, but I'm thinking that this would only apply to the first few months/games until Dave worked at a more general system of his own.

Jan 18, 2010 18:47:50 GMT -6 snorri said:

With the AC [which is, once again, a reverse fantasy table, as I explained in a former post], hit dices (=1 / 4 / 8 dices of damages) and hits to kill [probably = value points, as a first basis), fight is farmuch easier to deal. The difference in attack lie in the damage done [even if i must admit in Fantasy table, there's a difference between hero and superheroes attacking, and I think this problem was solved by the "% layer" later - when SH begins to enter realy in the game].

So, probably, its was easier to use the AC (2d6 under AC) for flunkies as well - as they do less damage - and for monsters (doing damages equal to their Hit Dices - so huge amounts for some of them). It makes a troll really, realy nasty, but a platemail really, really hard to bypass. So, that's how I think the AC system was generalised.

I think this idea has a lot of merit but there's a few things that make me wonder if Arneson tried this.

One question that has to be dealt with is AC arrangement. If Arneson started off with a 2-9 best to worse Armor Class then why does the evidence in FFC point to a 1-8 worst to best system? Would he have switched from a 2-9 to a 1- 8 (or at least 1-6 as it is for robots in FFC)? Maybe if he changed his combat system, but then he would have switched twice, going "back" to the 2-9 system when playtesting the OD&D rules. That doesn't leave much time or reason for a short lived 1-8 system to have left a presence in the FFC and John Sniders memory.

Gygax could have picked up the 2-9 AC rating for his Alternate combat system from Arneson, but might just as easily derived it himself, perhaps more easily since he was the principal author and compiler of Chainmail. In just thinking about the way each approached the game, the 2-9 rating doesn't strike me as unusual for Gygax but doesn't really fit so well with Arneson, with his love of percentiles and decimals. Proves nothing, just seems a little out of character.

Using 2d6, roll under a single number derived from the heros column can be made to work for flunkies and superheros too, as you pointed out and some variations could be added with bonuses and penalties. The trouble is that this system takes into account only human heros and superheros. I mean it turns all the monster characters into the fighting equivalents of heros too. So a dragon attacking a balrog or a balrog attacking a flunky in Plate mail have exactly the same attack prowess (value?) as a human hero or even a flunky as you suggest. Arneson would, I'm sure anticipate these sort of situations because many of the players were playing monsters in that first year or so of play, and I'm not sure he would have been happy with a solution that equalizes all attackers chance to hit.

Keep it coming though Nico, its an interesting idea.

[snorri]

Jan 19, 2010 13:03:39 GMT -6 aldarron said:

If Arneson started off with a 2-9 best to worse Armor Class then why does the evidence in FFC point to a 1-8 worst to best system? Would he have switched from a 2-9 to a 1- 8 (or at least 1-6 as it is for robots in FFC)? Maybe if he changed his combat system, but then he would have switched twice, going "back" to the 2-9 system when playtesting the OD&D rules. That doesn't leave much time or reason for a short lived 1-8 system to have left a presence in the FFC and John Sniders memory.

I got a few answers at least on this point, but all others must be verified - whic needs more time.

1] When DA wrote the first draft of Catle Blackmoor, he could have used the MtoM AC number (from 1 to 8) as a quick notation sign. When he redone the draft with D&D, he just copied this as if it was the new standard AC [the various AC are for men and monsters which aren't on the D&D monsters charts, others monsters have the same AC as in D&D]



2] In the reverse fantasy table (see above), the maximum AC is 8. But, when DA deciced to mix the monsters AC and the men AC, he add the AC9 because it was equivalent to AC 1:

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The question should be studied for robots., I agree - but they could have came later.

[aldarron]

Jan 19, 2010 15:37:42 GMT -6 snorri said:

In the reverse fantasy table (see above), the maximum AC is 8. But, when DA deciced to mix the monsters AC and the men AC, he add the AC9 because it was equivalent to AC 1:

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The question should be studied for robots., I agree - but they could have came later.

EDIT I see now that you meant that when Arneson first made the dungeon he could have used the 1-8 and Man to Man, before switching to 2-9 roll under. That could work for the humans with AC1 but makes no sense for the monsters with AC1 who would have fallen on the Fantasy Table, right?

Hmmm. Basically, as I understand it, the argument is that Arneson generated the 2-9 range from the Hero’s column of the Fantasy table, but sometimes wrote it as 1-8 as a shorthand for the Man to Man table, and then converted the 1-8 to 2-9 in combat situations when he needed to use 2d6 roll under to hit.

That is certainly possible, but seems a rather confusing way to go about it though. All he would have had to do was number the Man to Man AC table backwards 9-2. Surely he would have thought of that. Gygax did. Testing this idea really all depends on how established the use of 1-8 low to high was in early Blackmoor as opposed to the evidence for the use of 2-9 plate to unarmored. In other words, whether it seems to be a 1-8 system or if it could just be a shorthand reference as Nico suggests.

Sometime in 1973, maybe early summer, Arneson and some of his players got Gygax’s rewrite of his 16 pages of rules for playtesting in Blackmoor. I think it is fairly clear, that Dave did not switch his campaign over to “D&D” wholesale. He continued to use some, if not all of his own rules, and this is why we see so many anomalies creep in to First Fantasy Campaign from material that has to date from 1974 or later.

Anyway, I don’t know how successful trying to parse out early references to the 2-9 system would be because of the D&D rules, but we can look at the 1-8 thing more closely. Basically, if 1-8 was used merely as a reference to Man to Man we should only see it that way in FFC, but if it were the system we might see some evidence of more important uses. Okay, so the evidences I know of for 1-8, unarmored to full plate are:

1) John Snider’s recollection almost 40 years later
2) In the FFC Blackmoor dungeon, AC 1 listed for apparently lightly armored creatures which were not a usual part of the D&D monster lists and so not readily converted by whoever converted the other monsters to standard D&D for tournament play.
3) The 1d6 method to generate a Robots AC
4) The “How to Become a Bad Guy” experience system

John Snider could of course misremember after so much time.

The Blackmoor Dungeons could certainly be just the sort of shorthand notes Nico suggests, albeit with the attendant complication of needing to be converted to 2-9 in play.

The 1d6 for robots could fit the standard D&D 2-9 if AC1 robots were meant to be so unusually tough as to have a better AC than full plate and shield AC2. Could be, although it fits neither standard OD&D or roll under 2d6 (unless its 2d6-2, in which case it makes no sense to use 2-9 since the Heros column has no 9).

The “How to Become a Bad Guy” experience system though is a stronger case. The formula at first level is Hit Dice multiplied by Armor Class multiplied by 1000 = the experience needed to progress to second level. 50% more xp for every level after. So the math works out like this:
For 1 HD creatures:
AC XP
1 = 1000
2 = 2000
3 = 3000
Etc. to
8 = 8000
9 = 9000

For HD 2 creatures its:
AC xp
1 = 2000
2 = 4000
3 = 6000
Etc. to
8 = 16000
9 = 18000
So, while the AC range is not specified in this system, it makes much less sense as a “High number is unarmoured” for AC because the higher the number, the harder it is to go up a level. However, if AC 1 or 2 represents an unarmoured creature then the experience table makes perfect sense and fits the example experience figure, starting at 2000, Arneson provided in the text. Basically if high numbers – like 8 – mean better armor then the tougher creatures need more xp to advance, as it should be. Given that this section appears to be written with multiple levels in mind I take this to be strong evidence that Arneson used a unarmored = low number to plate = high number AC system for quite a long time in his Blackmoor game. Taken with the other points then, that system seems likely to have been 1-8 unarmored to plate.

So, although I think Nico has a clever idea, given the unwieldiness of 1-8 as a kind of MtoM shorthand that must then be converted and the apparent strength of the evidence for the 1-8 AC system, at this point, I don’t really see Arneson using a 2-9 AC range in early Blackmoor.

[aldarron]

Its not obvious at first but studying Arnesons work shows he had a very different sense of combat than what we are accustomed to from D&D. Hit points really reflect this. In D&D, Hit points function as a kind of defensive combat strength. As you go up in levels you get more hit points and so become harder and harder to kill because it takes more and more hits to kill you.
Hit points for Arneson, in FFC, “hit location” in Supp II, and later in AiF, were more about actual physical damage, ( recoverable at a rate of 1 per week!) and Dave tells us that Hit points did not go up, ever. Hit points for humans in Arnesons games are typically low; 1-6 for nomads, 3-5 hp for TotF fighters, 2d10 in AiF, and probably 2d6 for PC fighters in Blackmoor.
So, in Gygaxian D&D, combat is like a boxing match - trading punches until somebody runs out of hit points. For Arneson, combat is a like a knife duel where participants avoid getting hit as much as they can, because getting even a single hit can be deadly.
Thus, Arneson gives fighters a saving throw to avoid damage, that gets progressively better as they level up.

[aldarron]

A couple interesting things I looked at and thought I’d mention:

First is from a report of a Gencon Blackmoor dungeon game in 1976 posted here: initiativeone.blogspot.com/2008/12/special-post-from-alarums-excursions-15.html

(BTW it would be interesting to compare this description with the maps and dungeon key)

“they caught sight of "the Great Sweeney." They instantly recognized him and immediately dropped weapons, etc., and ran like...er. heaven was after them.”

“While we battled (and Sweeney worked his way forward) ten of the fifty ran off”

“After Sweeney "feared" the others, we slew all but one slept orc and questioned the remaining one. He told us Richard had come down the stairs, taken one look at the horde and run back up, disappearing.”

Morale checks? Sure sounds like it, perhaps even for the player “Richard”, and Svenny must have provided a hefty modifier. Presumably, Arneson is the reaction table on page twelve of M&M.

"Sweeney, in a whirlwind, has just killed 17 orcs in this melee round" (!)

Note the (!). Bill Paley thought that was really surprising but its just the sort of thing we hear of in Arnesons his home campaign. Probably he was mixing the combat systems, using his multiple HD system with Svenson and his usual characters and the Alternate system for the other D&D players at the table.

“Very good, I'll only give you one hit die damage. How many hit points do you have?" "Four." What did the die roll up? 4." So Tindell's in unconsciousness.”
So apparently, 0 HP wasn’t instant death but unconsciousness. Notice he says "one HIT DIE DAMAGE"; again Arneson using hit dice to mean damage dice.

A second thing that’s interesting to mention is a couple things in Powers & Perils. This game has been described as AiF on steroids. It’s Richard Sniders game and I don’t mean to imply we can really take anything out of it as proof of anything in early Blackmoor. Except to say that if we find similarities it shouldn’t surprise us too much, since certain familiar ways of doing things and referring to things might crop up. I dunno a whole lot about this game and am not inclined to, but you can download the rules for a look from the Powers and Perils website. There is also an interesting write up www.powersandperils.org/SoWhat.htm By Richard Snider.

Anyway, two things from that article jumped out at me, “The basic combat system compares the Offensive Combat Value of the attacker to the Defensive Combat Value of the defender. This yields a line on the Combat Table that gives the possible results of each blow. The characteristics of each character can have a dramatic influence on both values.”

<blink> well now, doesn’t that sound familiar. The actual mechanics of how this is done in P&P are nothing like AiF or anything in the FFC, but the principle of OFV vs DFV is of course very reminiscent of Arnesons “attack values” and “defense” strengths.

The other thing that caught my eye was use of the term “Hit Point Values (HPV)” that we also see in FFV.

[aldarron]

Morale

Nico has done some interesting work on Morale in OD&D in the Men and Magic thread and that got me thinking a bit about Morale in early Blackmoor. Morale actually shows up a lot in FFC. There are spells to raise and lower morale, for instance and there are references to "morale throws" The most detailed refernce though is this one from the section on the Ran of An Foo; “The plan for the battle are drawn ahead of time (as specific as possible) where upon the troops have a +1 on all combat die throws while following the plan and a two level increase in their morale while the plan is followed. If the troops are forced to deviate from the plan, they suffer a -1 on combat throws (or additional troops needed for the throws to be made) and a -3 on morale condition.” (FFC, pg14,1980)
Thing is, this is nothing like the Morale system in Chainmail, which is basically a pass/fail system like the one in Moldvay D&D. It's more like the reaction table in Men and Magic, but not quite that either. On the other hand, it matches very well with the system in Arneson, Gygax and Carr's "Don't give up the ship." which is more of a classic wargame kind of thing. odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=otherrpg&action=display&thread=588 Seems quite likely that Arneson was using a variation of this system, and that he might even have written it for DGUTS. I'd say the odds favor Arneson or Carr (or both) as the authors because Arneson seems to have favored the use of morale in his RPG s a lot more than Gygax did as Gygax was generally pretty cavalier and dismissive of the idea, or used a pass/fail morale when he thought it necessary.

[tavis]

I'm planning to run a venture into the dungeons beneath Blackmoor Castle for the Arneson Memorial Gameday in NYC on 3/27, and I'd like to try to use an Arnesonian, proto-D&D version of the rules. I'd love to get suggestions for approaches that are fast, playable, and well-adapted to the rooms full of 200 ghouls!

Here are some of my ideas:
- rolling 1d4 for starting PC level, as in the Alarums & Excursions report
- letting PCs start with as many hireling men-at-arms as their Charisma score will permit
- giving each PC a potion of heroism for a brief "power-up" so that we can groove on the sudden temporary increase in fighting ability
- giving each PC a number of draws from a deck of weird magic items equal to (4 - level), so that players whose PCs are less powerful get more opportunities to do creative stuff using their items
- using the "alternate combat system" for to-hit rolls
- using the fighting capability for damage, and assigning damage to weak creatures first, as snorri describes above

Are there other things that have been brought up that I should include? Comments and suggestions most welcome!

[aldarron]

That sounds pretty good Tavis. I'll try to pm you tomorrow with some other ideas. Remind me if I don't.

[snorri]

Back to that one too, after reading the Chronology thread again. My question is about the "armor as save" method. Most of which seems us intriguing is that we associate save to something else.

In standard chainmail combat system, armor is one factor among others in the troop class determination. This point has allready been discussed, and is still a bit undecided, I know. Anyway, it seems the number of dices rolled led too the damage system. Right?

In Man-to-Man, we have a roll to hit, which leads to OD&D rol to hit. And, using 2d6, it can be compared to the fantasy table. But we have also saving throwns, which are on 2d6 too [I'd like so much to know if saves did existed in the first publishing of Chainmail].

What happen if, instead of an attack roll (attacker vs armor); we have a defence roll (armor vs attack)? This is a save vs attack. Make the armor class the number to toll to save and this is just fine. So, against the now classic d&d roll for attack then roll for damage, we have roll for damage then a roll for defence - and this is a player-friendly method, because the player roll when he attacks (damages) AND when he defend (save). It could easily be adapted to standard D&D pretty easily, as it’s just a matter of WHO roll WHICH die.

[aldarron]

Interesting thinking as always Nico! So, if I'm following you, there would always be a damage roll in every attack, but that roll would be negated (completely) if the defender made a successful save?

[snorri]

[my longer post vanished….]

Exactly. It makes sense after all. If one attacks and the other don’t defend, he will just hit. So roll for damage / roll for defence is a nice system and seems to fit Arneson views.

After this post, I continued to think about before to sleep. It don’t led me dream about adding muppets as a class in OD&D, but enlighten me on another big question, the birth of descending AC.

I once explained (see above in the thread, but here’s the table again) that descending AC could be a reverse of the fantasy table. But the biggest problem is that “roll 2d6 under” is less intuitive, in the game history, than “roll 2d6 over”.

So it was unclear why to reverse the AC, if it was less intuitive. It is, only as long as we consider it as a “to hit” system. But if it’s a save, the reverse method leads to a roll over. In Chainmail, as in later D&D, saves are “the lower, the better”.

"You attack the ghoul? Ok, roll for damage. Now, the ghoul roll for a save, 2d6 over its armor class of 6. "

So, the armor as save explains far much better why the Blackmoor system could have a descending AC, and why D&D inherited it – even if the alternative system hide the reasons behind.



The same table as above, to make the idea clearer.

[aldarron]

In thinking about it a little more, I doubt that they would have rolled damage first - it would seem like a lot of pointless extra rolling - but the principle of attack=hits still is perfectly reasonable. Many wargames have no "to hit roll". So the sequence could be 1) attack declared 2) defender attempts saving throw 3) attacker rolls damage if save fails. Projectile weapons could be tricky here though.

definetly an intriguing idea to explore.