Dungeons & Dragoons

[dwayanu]

I had (along with the instigators) some familiarity with war-games before the "dungeon adventure game" came along. My 6th- and 7th- grade gang came separately to an initiation into D&D that (for whatever reasons) was not shared at the time.

We kept on with our "galactic conquest" game that arcanely combined Outdoor Survival, Panzer Blitz, Risk and a long scroll of acetate with the Game Mastery of one Brian.

A few years ago, I became enchanted with the renaissance in 1/72 scale plastic models (especially the Napoleonic offerings). I recalled nostalgically the Airfix and Eschi armies I had fielded in my youth.

Those figures may seem pretty dinky next to the roughly 30mm scale prevalent today for fantasy games. However, having conveniently at home only a 6' x 4' table brought me pretty quickly into confrontation with the problems posed by strict attention to scale.

15 mm is the standard for tactical games, and 1/300 serves nicely for grand-tactical (requiring a few to make a manageably large playing piece, and compensating with the impact of numbers for lack of easily discernible detail).

I have been led by necessity to cook up more abstract and "back to basics" rules for deploying the 1/72 models.The results have been a lot of fun, although some "grognards" might turn up their noses at them.

In a general sense, the experience reminds me of "coming home" to the D&D expressed in the original three booklets.

[dwayanu]

This is apparently not of much interest hereabouts. Down the line, though, I hope to adapt the rules to the D&D context -- so it may not be too out of line to post some notes on progress. I trust Finarvyn to let me know if this is too far OT.

My primary inspiration is the 1962 book How to Play War Games in Miniature by Joseph Morschauser III. I aim to cover a similar scope with a similar approach, fine-tuning rules to suit my own tastes.

De Bellis Antiquitatis by Phil Barker (of WRG, not EPT, fame) and rules by Donald Featherstone and the Rev. Aelred Glidden are other notable influences. I've started with the Napoleonic era.

I'm leaving aside scale in all its aspects. The general idea is to capture the essential points of a scenario, not to depict it at any particular level of detail. Moves and ranges are chosen for effect, even though (e.g.) musketry may tell over what seem unrealistically long ranges.

The only formation explicitly represented is the infantry square, which figured so much in Napoleonic tactics. Basically, units other than skirmishers can either move or fire when their side is the "attacker"; defending infantry get free fire. Artillery fires only as attacker (in lieu of moving). Skirmishers get a phase of their own, with a "split move and fire" ability.

Movement is by "unit" (single base) and extremely flexible; there's no fiddling with wheeling or the like. I intend the rest of the rules to compensate for this freedom by posing challenges without time-consuming complexity.

I use a roster, each unit getting a number of Strength Points based on quality (poor/average/elite). SP are meant to represent a unit's morale and cohesion. Long-range fire is a matter of attrition, costing 1 SP per hit. Close combat (which includes short-range fire) is more decisive, and depends largely on relative SP. A good basic tactic is to "soften up" the enemy with fire until one has the SP superiority for likely success in a charge. The different arms and the skirmishers fit into that scheme in simple but subtle ways.

Analogues with OD&D can be seen in backing off from the detailed modeling of process that is so common in war-gaming. Think of the combat elaborations added in Greyhawk and the later supplements. The aim is to keep the game moving briskly from one decision-point to another rather than get bogged down in things not subject to player choice. A fairly simple "I go/you go" turn sequence (with some subtleties) keeps things manageable.

In a broad sense, there is a philosophical/temperamental distinction in terms of how one prefers to spend one's gaming time. I mean for the tactical/grand-tactical rules to yield fairly quick battles so that one can fight several in a few hours. The strategic context thereby becomes more prominent. Historically, Napoleon and Wellington had nearly won (or occasionally lost) their battles in the preliminary maneuvers. I aim to give players the chance to "change history" by altering plans at the strategic (and even, to an extent, grand-strategic) level. The "map game" interacting with the "table game" -- the flexible campaign -- is my ideal, not a disjointed or preset series of battle scenarios.

I am reminded of my brief experience as a "3rd Edition D&D" player, in which a single fight might occupy most of a session. That pace/focus cast into the shadows longer-term considerations, concern with which had been a hallmark of "old-school" play. From what I gather of the upcoming "4th Edition," it is designed to further that trend.

[Finarvyn]

You have some abstract things to say which will require some thought and contemplation before I can reply intelligently, but I'll give it a shot and see if I'm on the right track.

In general I tend not to let scale get "in the way" of a good game, and I really haven't collected miniatures long enough to have a good feel for what scale works best. (So, does anyone know the scale for the miniatures made by Games Workshop? Those are the big ones I collect nowadays.)

When we played Chainmail years ago, my friend had some miniatures but I never thought to inquire about the scale. I do recall liking 25mm sized units better than 15mm, but I don't know the scale ratio for either offhand. The "one man, one unit" aspect of D&D is really the only place where I thought much about scale.

I may move this to the "Chainmail" area since it's more of a miniatures based topic.