|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 10, 2009 10:55:55 GMT -6
Oldschoolers generally don’t like d100, for an unknown reason, as OD&D is absolutely full of its use – and the “double 10-sided dice” is easier to use as d100 than as the iconic d20. Searching for the roots of the Arneson fighting system (see the thread on that issue), I was struck by the Dryad description, and had a look to other references of percentiles in the game which could suggest a “layer” of a game system which, as in a palimpsest, didn’t had be erased by Gygax final writing of the rules. I found some interesting clues :
- The % of survival with constitution (which looks to cap at 12, so fit best a 2d6 system).
- Feeblemind’s description, which says it has 20% more of success, then translate as +4 to save.
- Purple’s worm description (“Any hit which scores over 20% of the minimum total required to hit, or 100% in any case, indicates”), which can be translated with a d20, but looks like if the DM had to roll a d100 and do the best score.
- Dryads description (“they have a powerful Charm Person spell with a +10% chance of succeeding”).
- Ring of Mammal control (“The ring immediately begins to drain energy from the wearer, making him weaker at a rate of 10%/turn until a maximum of 50% is attained. This weakness is reflected in both attack and defense capabilities.”). There, it seems clear that % is used both for attack and defence.
- Displacer cloak (“It makes it 10% harder to hit its wearer, whether by smiting or Wand (add +2 to defense and saving throws”). It’s translated in d20 terms, but why have % if they’re not a part of the game?
- Maybe % of success with Dispel magic, which looks exactly like the Assassin table from Blackmoor I already quoted.
My suggestion is that :
- It existed a proto-version of the game which used d100 instead of d20.
- This version could have ask to roll “d100 over” a score. This suggestion is enforced by the use of this method in EPT, as James Maliszewski allready quoted in an article.
- Characters had % of attack and defence chances.
- Spells had chances of success (maybe a % conversion of Chainmail system), maybe rather than saves.
- Unlike EPT, it seems Abilities score where in 2d6 (an assumption which Jason use in S&S, and I use as well as E&S). The % of survival gives a clue on how the 2d6 ‘chainmail’ system translate into d100
- With these assumptions, we probably got the basis of the early % system from Arneson, and can link it to the quotes from Blackmoor (there are some suggestions about hit localization in OD&D as well) and from First Fantasy Campaign.
I’ll try later to put all these ideas in a draft version of proto-Blackmoor % system.
|
|
|
|
Post by geordie on Nov 10, 2009 16:43:02 GMT -6
Very interesting, good idea !
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 10, 2009 17:16:09 GMT -6
Percentile dice are my favorite in OD&D. My favorite technique: Determining by DM fiat the percentage chance of X, then (myself or a player as appropriate) rolling the percentiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 16, 2009 11:18:03 GMT -6
Great stuff Nic! You have probably thought of this, but one caution I would provide is that using a percentage in a rule doesn’t necessarily imply the use of percentile dice. Having just finished the playtest draft of my “Arnesonian” RPG, I found it sometimes convenient to write “there is a 50% chance of x” without meaning “ roll percentile dice”, rather assuming the referee would use a 1d6 or whatever they found convenient. Some of the quotes you mention could possibly fall in this convenient writing category. That said there is no doubt that you are on to something. It’s a fact that Arneson liked percentile dice, and that by the publication of Adventures in Fantasy in 1978 (only 6 years after the creation of Blackmoor) his game relied entirely on a “match or roll under” system using a range of 1-100 generated with 2 d20’s. I think for your project – and as an archaeologist you will appreciate this – a very important thing to keep in mind is relative dating, and what information applies to when. My impression, is that the percentile dice system you are looking for evolved in and applies to the 1974-76 period. Since Gygax used 3d6 for ability scores, and Svenson remembers them being 2d6 prior to the publication of OD&D, I suspect that Arneson had not yet switched all his Blackmoor mechanics over to percentile dice when cowriting D&D, but your research suggests that he was using it for some things, things which Gygax preferred to use more of the “funny dice” for so as to give them a broader role in the game. Probably Gygax thought all those novel dice would be a selling point for the game. I have not read Arnesons dice article in the hackmaster magazine, but it might contain important clues for when Arneson began using more than a d6 in Blackmoor. However, given what has already been discussed, a working hypothesis for the timeframe of evolution of Dave’s game mechanics can be summarized as:
1972 – 1-10 roll under system using 2d6. Arneson seems to be using 1-10 because of a preference for a decimal type system.
1973 – Beginning of use of “funny dice”. (probably not earlier). Probable early experimentation with use of percentile dice in Blackmoor.
1974 – OD&D published. Switch in Blackmoor from 1-10 roll under system to OD&D “Alternate” combat system and saving throw matrix.
1974 – 1975 Arneson continues experimentation with percentile dice developing a percentile based combat system for the assassin, hit location system, and other uses.
1977 Publication of First Fantasy Campaign. Continued development of Percentile based game mechanics for Blackmoor/Bleakwood game setting, specific mention of use of percentile dice in Blackmoor as well as numerous 1-100 tables.
1978 Publication of percentile based Adventures in Fantasy, which includes the setting of Bleakwood – originally a location in Blackmoor.
Personally, I find the method of generating percentages in AIF less than clear, “….roll two 20 sided dice and, reading one die first, write down the generated number from 01-100 (double zeros are 100 on this scale).” AIF page 2. This short sentence is basically all the explanation one gets for how to use 2d20 to generate 1-100 . I’m not sure exactly how teen numbers are to be handled. Perhaps Mr. Svenson remembers.
It is frequently said that Adventures in Fantasy (published just four years after OD&D) is what D&D would have been if Gary Gygax had not been in the picture. I think this is clearly false, as several aspects of the game are very different from play in early Blackmoor, - such as being characterless – and I’m sure this and other aspects of the game are very deliberate developments to make the game distinct. The magic system is probably the closest to early Blackmoor, but I think we have to look at the rest of the game as being a response to AD&D, with clues and bits of influence from 1972 – 74 Blackmoor. A cousin, in other words, not a direct descendant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2009 11:57:47 GMT -6
Personally, I find the method of generating percentages in AIF less than clear, “….roll two 20 sided dice and, reading one die first, write down the generated number from 01-100 (double zeros are 100 on this scale).” AIF page 2. This short sentence is basically all the explanation one gets for how to use 2d20 to generate 1-100 . I’m not sure exactly how teen numbers are to be handled. Perhaps Mr. Svenson remembers. Back in the day, twenty-sided dice were numbered 0-9 twice, this means each d20 was basically a double d10. Gamers would use a marker to color half the sides so that one could distinguish between a result of 7 versus one of 17. Therefore, one could interpret the Arneson quote as meaning the same thing as rolling two 10-siders to generate a number from 1-100. HTH. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2009 12:03:28 GMT -6
I keep rereading my above post, and though I know what I'm trying to say I'm not quite certain that meaning is coming through.
Basically, I'm saying the original twenty-siders could be used as either a d10 or a d20. One could therefore roll 2d20 to generate the same results as 2d10 used as d%, all you had to do was ignore the coloration (or lack thereof).
My head is about to explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 16, 2009 12:23:58 GMT -6
I keep rereading my above post, and though I know what I'm trying to say I'm not quite certain that meaning is coming through. Basically, I'm saying the original twenty-siders could be used as either a d10 or a d20. One could therefore roll 2d20 to generate the same results as 2d10 used as d%, all you had to do was ignore the coloration (or lack thereof). My head is about to explode. That makes sense. I bought a boxed set of AIF that was cheaper due to shelf wear of the box, and there were no dice included. Still, seem odd to use d20's when they could have just put in d10's. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 16, 2009 12:41:48 GMT -6
- Ring of Mammal control ( “The ring immediately begins to drain energy from the wearer, making him weaker at a rate of 10%/turn until a maximum of 50% is attained. This weakness is reflected in both attack and defense capabilities.”). There, it seems clear that % is used both for attack and defence. I just wanted to add that I find this one especially convincing for snorri's argument. How do you take 10% of a 3-18 strength rating? Note there is nothing in that statement about rounding up or down. If one did round up for 15+ strength characters they would loose 2 points per turn when everyone else only loses one. Senseless. One would expect it to say something like 1 strength point per turn or some such for the 3-18 system. 10% per turn only makes sense if the ability score ranges from 0-100. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2009 12:50:51 GMT -6
Still, seem odd to use d20's when they could have just put in d10's. There were no d10s in the original dice sets. They came a bit later. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 16, 2009 16:44:50 GMT -6
That's a pity I can't find a copy od pdf of AIF to get the full comparison between the various layers, but I'm pretty sure it would be interesting. I got some facts in my bag to bring in the discussion, but here's a curious one, I allready just mentionned. Look at the % of survival in OD&D and Revification chances in EPT:  The same could probaly be expanded more or less like this:  * With AD&D glasses, the meaning of these chances in OD&D ar pretty clear. But nothing in the text suggest it as such : "It will influence such
things as the number of hits which can be taken and how well the haracter can withstand being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc." explains the description of Constitution. * I allready suggested this number could be used as a Save, if you don't use the alternative system. But the fact it caps at 12 is a trouble with a 3d6 range [which is, for bell curve reasons, better anyway]. But with stats rolled with 2d6, they perfectly make sense... I got some other reasons to suspect this, I'll explain later  It would be really interesting to know precisely when the d20 (double d10) came into the market. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 16, 2009 17:15:41 GMT -6
This is a great thread! I have a few questions I'll need to post later, but here's a quick one:
What article is this?
Oh, and if someone reading this has/can make a pdf copy of those rules, at least get them to the archeologist!
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 16, 2009 21:12:11 GMT -6
This is a great thread! I have a few questions I'll need to post later, but here's a quick one: What article is this? Oh, and if someone reading this has/can make a pdf copy of those rules, at least get them to the archeologist! The article - probably the last one Arneson submitted to a magazine - is in Knights of the Dinner Table #150 www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_23_24&products_id=665 . I haven't read it, and am reluctant to spend $9 + for a single article of unknown content. I'm slowly creating a pdf. of the AIF rules but since my wife gave birth to our second daughter last week, nobody better hold thier breath waiting on it. Oh, and actually Kesher, we are both archaeologists.  |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 17, 2009 1:22:52 GMT -6
my wife gave birth to our second daughter last week Congratulations! |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 17, 2009 8:11:10 GMT -6
my wife gave birth to our second daughter last week Congratulations! Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 17, 2009 14:15:52 GMT -6
Hey, thanks for the link, and I second the congratulations! No pressure from this end, for sure---I've got three kids of my own, so I get it! However, I'd be happy to help with the process---if you've got scans, I can build them into a document for you. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 17, 2009 14:34:17 GMT -6
I searched among various histories of wargame, learned a lot of useful things, but can't get know when exactly the "twenty-sided d10" came in. It seems he was allready well-known among wargamers before the introduction of the other flunky dices (which came with OD&D). I suspect it could have been in use very early in Blackmoor, but as d10 and not as d20 - this is Gary who put the emphase on d20. Does anyone have clues or rememberings about this?
Edit: great, with this message, I turned to be a magician!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 15:43:05 GMT -6
It was the supplier of the dice Gygax (and the early versions of the company that morphed into TSR) used that was the issue, not the availability of d10.
d10 is not a platonic solid, the teaching supply company that sold the dice sets only packaged platonic solids in the set.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 20, 2009 9:56:29 GMT -6
While Nic continues to puzzle this out I have some thoughts:
The more I think about the implications of the quotes he has already posted, particularly the one on Strength I commented on above, I think Arneson must indeed have proposed a percentile dice system in those original 18 pages and that it must have been a kind of proto AIF system, at very least in terms of the Ability scores. I would revise the timeline I proposed to suggest that in 1973 Arneson really began to develop the percentile system that shows up in AIF.
The question is too what extent this early system is preserved in AIF - and for that I think all we can say for now is that he was primarily using his match or roll under system for "saving throws" versus an ability score, and to generate spell points for the magic system. FFC shows us he was also using percentile dice for all sorts of random tables etc. Nic is suggesting that it may have been a roll over system instead of a roll under and that may be, but I will leave it to him to work that out.
In any case I think it is very unlikely the complex way combat is handled in AIF has any roots in this early period. For one thing, the "hit location" system in AIF is radically different from that in Supplement II. Basically, it doesn't locate hits at all but rather dictates what die to use for damage.
Nics discovery of a combat system in the Assasins table is a much more likely candidtate for the system Arneson put in his 18 page document.
Okay, so if Arneson was proposing simplifying the dicing to percentiles, why do we have the 3d6 ability scores and "alternate combat system" as they are in OD&D? The short answer is that these all come from Gygax.
I've mentioned the attractive selling point of those funny dice and I'm sure that is a factor, but I think most of these things go back to the Greyhawk campaign. Gygax began the campaign in 1972, only a few months after Arneson created Blackmoor, so he would have learned the game from Arnesons earliest system (the 2d6 roll under and 2-9 descending AC we discussed in the combat system thread). That is the system Gygax would have begun experimenting with and I think its the system OD&D grew from via Gygax. At some point he added another die, making it 3d6 for the bell curve. The averaging effect was probably seen as prefferable by Gygax to a 1-100 range for ability scores. So its easy to see why Gygax may have rejected % for ability scores and, having done that, it only makes sense that he would stick with other mechanics already developed in Greyhawk. The OD&D mechanics then, if not from Arneson must arise in Greyhawk, most likely from play situations where Gygax invented a rule or proceedure.
Nic has argued that the early players were in touch from time to time and sharing ideas (particularly Barker and Arneson who seem to have been genuine friends), while I absolutely agree that some people were sharing ideas and players no doubt commented on the rule differences between groups when they were aware of them, I think the distances involved between Minneapolis and Lake Geneva also allowed a certain amount of independant development. It no doubt helped that Arneson seems to have been fairly tight lipped about the rules to his players, experimented often, worked off the cuff a lot, and clearly preferred rulings to rules, leaving a kind of vaccuum, as it were for Gygax and others to add their own details and methods. Basically, what I'm arguing is that Arneson moved from 2d6 to the percentile system Nic is uncovering, while Gygax moved from 2d6 to the OD&D system, by adding a d6, expanding the 2-9 armor class and changing it from roll under to a combat matrix, adding Chainmail like saving throw categories, possibly because it seemed more specific and refined than abstract ability scores as saves, and creating the Vancian magic system.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 20, 2009 16:18:25 GMT -6
Well done again, dear colleague! I read again a Dave's interview which strenghten our hypothesis: www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23161. I quote some very intersting parts: Mid-60's! So, my feeling that Dave already knew d20 (double-10) dices before the other funky dices seems right. I'll give later my views on how Dave solved his headache problem for the conversion from d6 to d100. But clearly, he says they were using the d20 as percentile dices (and not as d20, something which need to tinker the "double-10 dice"). So, clearly, the early Blackmoor game had d6 and d100, nothing else, and such probably since the first sessions. We're on the good way discovering the "Arneson hidden manuscript" Edit: Gary probably invented the turning a 'double-ten' d20 into a "twenty-results" d20 by painting half the faces. I can imagine he priced his invention and developped a system around it. I'm not sure the fact 3d6 and 1d20 prefectly matches for roll under, as most of his sugestions abour roll under abilities weren't made with d20 (something which seems to appears written first by Moldvay, but probably in use sooner). But the fact it made the bell curve better is probably a good point - remember the way he explains this in AD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 20, 2009 16:59:28 GMT -6
Thanks Nic. This is fun Looking forward to what you come up with next. I'll try to get you a pdf of at least the relevant parts of AIF when I get a chance, but I'm thinking your research with OD&D, FFC, and EPT will give a better basis of comparison to work from. There is one person who may well know at least the general details of Arnesons early systems - Richard Snider - having been an original player, and having worked with Arneson on both the FFC and AIF. Wouldn't it be great if we could hear from him! |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 20, 2009 17:11:40 GMT -6
John Snider was in a better position than Richard for the actual game playing history. Gygax began the campaign in 1972, only a few months after Arneson created Blackmoor ? |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 20, 2009 17:50:41 GMT -6
Reading the interview of Greg Svenson made by David Bowman, it seems Dave made real his fmous quote "roll the dice and I will tell you whats happen". This piece is really interesting for depicting the early Blackmoor, before the release of OD&D : shamsgrog.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html. Note also the quote on attributes: 2d6 to 1 to 10 looks like a use of a bell curve to get a linear range. I will continue to think about it, but I guess the way I found is not so bad (to be continued...). |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 20, 2009 21:53:54 GMT -6
John Snider was in a better position than Richard for the actual game playing history. Gygax began the campaign in 1972, only a few months after Arneson created Blackmoor ? Can you expand on that a bit? I mean why would John Snider be in a better position and would you happen to know how to draw his attention to these threads? As for the second bit, Gygax started creating the Greyhawk campaign in 1972 after he played a session of Blackmoor with Arneson. I believe it was in the fall and I think the first games in Greyhawk were played with his kids. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 21, 2009 8:50:36 GMT -6
Can you expand on that a bit? I mean why would John Snider be in a better position and would you happen to know how to draw his attention to these threads? John is a closer equivalent to Rob Kuntz, although going into the Army meant that he couldn't carry forward that working relationship in quite the way Rob did. Richard didn't join in until a bit later... I do still have John's email somewhere on the old PC but a cold call might not be the best approach. As for the second bit, Gygax started creating the Greyhawk campaign in 1972 after he played a session of Blackmoor with Arneson. I believe it was in the fall and I think the first games in Greyhawk were played with his kids. Squeezing everything from Blackmoor through to Ramshorn Castle into the second half of 1972 is a bit of a tight squeeze and a rather long time from Wesley's Strategos-N (aka Braunstein) games. It might help to get that chronology pinned down c/w www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2008/03/ff_gygax?currentPage=3 , say, since the interrelationships with what else was going on are important and help to tally with what little primary evidence is available (e.g. that Chainmail wasn't particularly heavily used in gameplay according to Dave elsewhere tallies with John's copy of Chainmail - 1e, not 2e - which is barely opened). As to non-d6 usage, both Wesley and Arneson were familiar with - and used - these long before D&D, so to be 100% certain that "funny dice" were not in use in any way prior to 197 3 (by which time there were at least four or five worlds stated to be in play and it would have been difficult to throttle back the gameplay) might be a bit of a leap in the dark, perhaps. Since Gygax used 3d6 for ability scores, and Svenson remembers them being 2d6 prior to the publication of OD&D, I suspect that Arneson had not yet switched all his Blackmoor mechanics over to percentile dice when cowriting D&D, but your research suggests that he was using it for some things, things which Gygax preferred to use more of the “funny dice” for so as to give them a broader role in the game. Probably Gygax thought all those novel dice would be a selling point for the game. Or, to quote Wesley on the sidelines; "Back in 1965, I read the rules to a game published in 1880 that said one could use a "12-sided teetotum" instead of a 6-sided die, for resolving odds of 6:1, 7:1 etc up to 11:1, but did not explain what a teetotum was or how to make one. I had seen a set of models of the regular polyhedra in my High School trig class, and decided that a "12-sided teetotum" must be the 12-sdied thingy (a regular dodecahedron) I had seen in the set. Wanting to try out the game, I went to school, got out the "Edmund Scientific Supplies" catalog, and ordered one set of the polyhedra from them for $6.00 (gasolene was $ 0.20 /gallon then, so that would be about $66.00 in today's money). This set of five polyhedra came with the faces already numbered, to make it easy to see that there were 12 sides on a dodacahedron, or 20 on an icosahedron, which made them easy to use as dice. So they became the ancestors of all the D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 sets ever sold. ... SO why are my dice the ancestors of all the D&D dice? Well, while I only saw value in the D12 and D20, the other guys in our wargaming group thought they were all "cool", and we used them in our wargames (and kept buying these expensive sets from Edmund Scientific as they wore out). When Dave Arneson (one of the guys in our group) invented his fantasy role-playing game, and took it to Gary Gygax to be cleaned-up and published, they decided to use the cool polyhedral dice, even though I told them that they should just use regular dice, because "No one is going to buy your game for $10 if they then have to spend another $6 to get the special dice before they can play it". But they ignored me and of course, "Dungeons and Dragons" did not sell, and no one has ever heard of it. By the way, a 12-sided teetotum is not a D-12! I finally found one in a game published in 1828, which I paid a lot of money for, just to get the teetotum (the game is REALLY stupid, but the teetotum is kind of clever)." , etc. Ah... and "cowriting D&D" (as published), too? 02c/ymmv, anyhow, d. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 21, 2009 10:19:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 21, 2009 10:47:55 GMT -6
Sad indeed  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 21, 2009 13:38:21 GMT -6
John is a closer equivalent to Rob Kuntz, although going into the Army meant that he couldn't carry forward that working relationship in quite the way Rob did. Richard didn't join in until a bit later... I do still have John's email somewhere on the old PC but a cold call might not be the best approach. Now is probaby not the best of times, but, given that the people who know the early history of the game are becoming fewer and fewer, if you have John Sniders email and could send a short message asking him to respond to these posts or even answer some interview type question (as Greg Svenson has done with Dave Bowman) to post on a blog or in Fight On! orsome such, you would be doing us all a service As to non-d6 usage, both Wesley and Arneson were familiar with - and used - these long before D&D, so to be 100% certain that "funny dice" were not in use in any way prior to 197 3 (by which time there were at least four or five worlds stated to be in play and it would have been difficult to throttle back the gameplay) might be a bit of a leap in the dark, perhaps. "no funny dice back then" is a quote from Dave Arneson in the Introduction to the FFC. I understand him to mean the "platonic solids" d4, d8, d12, not percentile dice necessarily. He clearly did have d20 percentile dice, but apparently not the others, or wasn't using them if he did. Edit: Also, this statement can only really be said to apply to Blackmoor. Other groups might well have used the plattonic dice. I presume Gygax was from very early on. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 21, 2009 14:30:57 GMT -6
> Now is probaby not the best of times, but, given that the people who know the early history of the game are becoming fewer and fewer, if you have John Sniders email and could send a short message asking him to respond to these posts or even answer some interview type question (as Greg Svenson has done with Dave Bowman) to post on a blog or in Fight On! orsome such, you would be doing us all a service
Email addy incoming in your mailbox but that's from close to five years ago when I was asking around on various research questions. Certainly not at all comfortable with asking those out the blue and wrapping that in a condolences message, however well meant. :/
That previously went nowhere for in-depth questions to John since I was relying on others to pass me various lines of enquiry which were either under a stack of boxes here (DW interview, etc.) or that they had sourced elsewhere. Wasn't exactly happy to be left high-and-dry on that thanks to "politics", etc., and knowing that it might be easy to ask the "wrong question" given the relationship with EGG, etc.
Re. John rather than Richard, that's not to imply that John was the only person in place but that Richard, in his own words, came along later and also wasn't at the core for D&D developments. Some of the other names on the list are more readily accessible these days vs. 5 years ago and have already replied with their recollections; for which, thanks.
Richard; "As I understand it, and saw once I was introduced to the group, those involved were my brother, Greg Svenson, Fred Funk and Dave Megarry. I came in on the periphery as it was getting ready to be put together. Contact with Gygax was restricted to Arneson only as far as I know".
> "no funny dice back then" is a quote from Dave Arneson in the Introduction to the FFC. I understand him to mean the "platonic solids" d4, d8, d12, not percentile dice necessarily. He clearly did have d20 percentile dice, but apparently not the others, or wasn't using them if he did.
"Had" per Wesley, but not using/or else behind the screen as with those d10/20s?
The general trend sounds about right but if you move 1972/73 back to 1971/72(?), I'd be happier.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 22, 2009 15:57:24 GMT -6
About the changes from d6 chainmail to d100, the solution is not easy to find and I don't think I found it yet. Just some hypothesis and doubts I will try to explain. A bit complicated, but I hope it makes sense – not as the solution, but as a step toward it. - Dave explained clearly that the conversion gave him headaches, although some good maths wereplaying with him. So we can bet he wasn't searching an exact translation, but something that makes sense in a game session. - I suspect he used a bell curve, provided by the math’s. Then rounded it (unlike the famous AD&D thieves skills, Blackmoor tables shows only 5 to 5 steps). Then, in order to solve the lower and higher numbers problematic rounding, he bowed a little the curve. - EPT contains such a bowing, in the chances of failures for spells. Steps are from 10%, from 60% of failure at level I, to 20% at level V, then drop to 5% under 20 (so steps are 20, 15, 10, 5 and 0). - In OD&D, if my suspicion the % of survival have been first wrote in a 2d6 frame is right [but this need to be clarified], the cap is at 90% with a 12. Using the bases above, I sketched a table of conversion from 2d6 to 1d100 which fits. Your suggestions are more than welcome (and that don’t solve the 1-10 abilities, but I will add my thoughts in a next post].  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 22, 2009 20:30:30 GMT -6
You're talking about the Constitution bonus, if I'm following correctly. Wouldn't 2d6 -2 put the 40-50% chance survivial more in line with the Rounding column without smoothing the curve?
|
|
It would be really interesting to know precisely when the d20 (double d10) came into the market. 
