Length of a Combat Round

[waysoftheearth]

I know I said I would bow out of the discussion... but I just rolled a 3 on a d20

Mar 17, 2012 8:44:23 GMT -6 cooper said:

0d&d was written explicitely with CHAINMAIL in mind, so I'm really at loss for people looking to ad&d for "original intent".

Cooper, I think you might find that I actually wrote:

might hint at that co-author's original intent

Note "hint"? My statement was not intended quite as you portrayed it.

If folks want to play D&D with Chainmail that's great. But when you try to reconcile what appears in print in the 3LBBs with Chainmail, you find various inconsistencies including (among other things, I'm sure) the subject matter of this thread.

If, on the other hand, you use the alternative combat system, ignore all references to Chainmail and simply take what appears in print in the 3LBBs as given then rounds and turns work absolutely fine. No problem. That is what I was alluding to above, although it took me a while to realise it myself.


edit: clarified "use the alternative combat system" in the last para.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 17, 2012 9:19:51 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Interesting indeed. I don't mean to be entirely dogmatic, but would rather recognize that some instances of carelessness with terms doesn't imply they are always synonomous.
Looking to your examples:

They aren't really "my" examples, they are simply what is printed in the 3LBBs.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that "turn" is always used synonymously with "round"; only that it sometimes is, and therefore we should treat the term "turn" cautiously whenever it appears.

Mar 17, 2012 9:19:51 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Dragons: You must be right about this instance Simon. FFC original has:

Why thank you

More evidence of the same can be found in the FAQ (SR Vol. 1, No. 2) published pre-greyhawk, where EGG writes:

When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round,
...
Iniative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round.
...
the Hero scores 15 and the Orcs scored but 8, so the Hero has tossed both aside, stunning them for 7 turns between them.

- Round 2: lniative goes to the Hero.

(Yes, "initiative" is misspelled in the article).

[cooper]

Mar 17, 2012 18:41:17 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

If folks want to play D&D with Chainmail that's great. But when you try to reconcile what appears in print in the 3LBBs with Chainmail, you find various inconsistencies including (among other things, I'm sure) the subject matter of this thread.

There are no inconsistencies that I'm aware of. Of course d&d works well with chainmail combat or the alternate system, or the heroic combat system, or the man to man system, all of which are supported in the rules.

If you have found an inconsistency, I would be happy to read about them. 1 min. combat rounds are not an inconsistency, if for no other reason that Gygax wrote in dragon #15 that he was changing his own rule about the 1 min. combat turn to make it less lethal. That's not an inconsistency, that's a rules change.

[Stormcrow]

I find this entire thread to be rather ludicrous. Yes, D&D derives from Chainmail, which had one-minute turns. Yes, the language in D&D can be careless. But the argument just doesn't pass the common-sense test. We know from first-hand accounts that no one who helped write the rules and playtest the game used Chainmail as the combat system; they all used the alternative system or something akin to it. We know that later texts specified ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute movement turn. What evidence is there to support the notion that the Gary had anything else in mind, besides twisting the meaning of his words into something that happens to resemble Chainmail?

Seriously. Does anyone here actually think Gary was thinking of anything other than ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute exploration turn? Or are you just claiming that the text could be interpreted otherwise if you wanted to?

[Zenopus]

Well, Holmes and Moldvay both use 10 sec combat rounds, so it's interesting to me to look where this interpretation comes from.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 23, 2012 11:48:54 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Well, Holmes and Moldvay both use 10 sec combat rounds, so it's interesting to me to look where this interpretation comes from.

Are you sure they were interpreting, and not actually redefining?

[cooper]

How hard is it to understand that the game they played at home was slightly different then the game they wrote? They used the alternate combat system, yet it is only one alternate rule among the four---3 man +1 (chainmail) hero-1 (fantasy combat) "attacks as flail" (man to man)--presented in the books.

Advocating to play like gary played, and play as various optional rules are presented can be two different things.

[Zenopus]

Stormcrow: No, I'm not sure, hence my interest in this discussion...

Cooper: Well said.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 23, 2012 12:04:19 GMT -6 cooper said:

How hard is it to understand that the game they played at home was slightly different then the game they wrote?

Not hard at all, thank you very much for your scorn.

They used the alternate combat system, yet it is only one alternate rule among 3 man +1 (chainmail) hero-1 (fantasy combat) "attacks as flail (man to man) presented in the books.

How hard is it to understand that you're forcing a semantic interpretation because you reeeeeeally want to make it look like Chainmail?

D&D is not Chainmail. It is derived from it, but it is not just a Chainmail supplement!

[Zenopus]

Stormcrow, you sounded scornful of this entire thread above, so I'm surprised you would take offense at cooper's response.

[waysoftheearth]

I also just noticed this in The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 5 (December 1975):

Robe of Scintillating Color

...the wearer can cause it to form scintillating bands of color that form a dazzling pattern. This pattern causes the wearer to be 5% (-1 on 20-sider) harder to hit, the effect being cumulative. Therefore, after 5 melee rounds, the wearer is 25% harder to hit (-5), and so on.

Further, any creature or person that looks at it has the same chance (5%) per round, of becoming hypnotized. Again, the effect is cumulative. For instance, looking at it for four melee rounds means that the looker has a 20% chance of becoming hypnotized, and subject to the commands of the wearer. When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase. Any magic user that becomes hypnotized by the robe who has an intelligence of 17 or 18 has a 10% or 20% chance, respectively, of going permanently insane.

"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.

[aldarron]

Mar 25, 2012 6:34:03 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I also just noticed this in The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 5 (December 1975):

Robe of Scintillating Color

...the wearer can cause it to form scintillating bands of color that form a dazzling pattern. This pattern causes the wearer to be 5% (-1 on 20-sider) harder to hit, the effect being cumulative. Therefore, after 5 melee rounds, the wearer is 25% harder to hit (-5), and so on.

Further, any creature or person that looks at it has the same chance (5%) per round, of becoming hypnotized. Again, the effect is cumulative. For instance, looking at it for four melee rounds means that the looker has a 20% chance of becoming hypnotized, and subject to the commands of the wearer. When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase. Any magic user that becomes hypnotized by the robe who has an intelligence of 17 or 18 has a 10% or 20% chance, respectively, of going permanently insane.

"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.

Solid proof Simon! You get another exalt for that. Gygax's use of "remember" is a clear reference to the rule in U&WA.

The wording here is very interesting. "in a non-combat situation... turns are longer."

ergo

In combat situations, turns are shorter. How much shorter, I wonder?

The two defined OD&D turns are the 10 minute Move/Turn and the day long "wilderness" turn.

Which of these longer-than-combat -turns does Gygax mean here? Does he mean there is a base 20% plus an additional 5% chance per day of being hypnotized, or 5% per ten minutes?

Given that there is 5% chance per melee round of being affected, the longer-than-combat turn being referenced here would seem IMHO, to be the ten minute Move/Turn.

The most logical conclusion then is that the shorter-than-non-combat-turn (i.e. the combat turn) is the CM 1 minute turn. Isn't it?

[aldarron]

Mar 23, 2012 11:21:42 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

I find this entire thread to be rather ludicrous. ....
Seriously. Does anyone here actually think Gary was thinking of anything other than ten one-minute combat rounds in each ten-minute exploration turn? Or are you just claiming that the text could be interpreted otherwise if you wanted to?

You know old fellow, sometimes it's okay to buck the establishment a little bit, ask questions etc. The world isn't going to fall apart.

As it happens, I know that Arneson did not intend or think of combat rounds/attack rolls as being a minute long, and never used a ten minute turn in any of his works,we also have the ten second round from Holmes, so to me, it seems less than ludicrous to question when and where Gygax adopted that meaning of turn, no?

[Zenopus]

Mar 25, 2012 6:34:03 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

"melee rounds" and "turns" are clearly two completely separate things here, there being 10 of the former in each of the latter. Exactly as described in U&WA (p8), only here the terminology is unambiguous.

Well, it unambiguously says that there are 10 rounds per turn, but I don't think there was any disagreement about that. The question is how long are the rounds/turns? 1min/10min or 6 sec/1min?

The wording regarding "When it is used in a non-combat situation where turns are longer" sounds like it supports shorter turns in combat.

[Stormcrow]

The mind boggles.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 25, 2012 8:47:24 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Well, it unambiguously says that there are 10 rounds per turn, but I don't think there was any disagreement about that. The question is how long are the rounds/turns? 1min/10min or 6 sec/1min?

The wording regarding "When it is used in a non-combat situation where turns are longer" sounds like it supports shorter turns in combat.

The meaning of a part of a quotation is quite likely to differ from the meaning of the whole of it, true. But we shouldn't conclude anything about the meaning of the whole of a quotation from a fragment alone.

Mar 25, 2012 6:34:03 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer (remember, one turn contains 10 melee rounds)

The question of what "turn" refers to in the above quotation should be answered by considering the context in which it was written.


In U&WA (printed from 1974 to 1979) it is stated explicitly that the turn (underground) is 10 minutes long.

The article (above) was written for Dungeons & Dragons in 1975. At that time Gygax was not advocating the use of Chainmail for D&D. (In fact, he would later go on public record stating that he never played D&D with Chainmail).

However, at that time he was advocating that players use the Alternative Combat System to resolve D&D battles (first para of the FAQ).


EJH's Basic D&D would not be printed until 1977, so Holmes' "combat turn" of 10 "melee rounds" each being 10 seconds long (the 100 second "combat turn") had not yet arisen. So the term "turn" (in the quote) is unlikely to refer to these.


In addition, EGG (later, in 1978) went to the trouble of publishing an explanation of why a "turn" (underground) in D&D was 10 minutes long, rather than 1 minute long as it had been in Chainmail:

The Dragon, Issue 15 (June 1978)

As D&D grew from CHAINMAIL, it too used the same scale assumptions as its basis. Changes had to be made, however, in order to meet the 1:1 figure ratio and the underground setting. Movement was adjusted to a period ten times longer than a CHAINMAIL turn of 1 minute, as exploring and mapping in an underground dungeon is slow work. Combat, however, stayed at the CHAINMAIL norm and was renamed a melee round or simply round.

So what do we have?

1. U&WA (1974) states explicitly that a turn (underground) is 10 minutes,
2. EGG (earlier 1975) advocates Alternative Combat System for D&D (i.e., not 1 minute Chainmail turns),
3. The above SR article is written (later 1975),
4. Holmes' (1977) 100 second "combat turns" arose,
5. EGG (1978) "retrospectively" explains why D&D turns were changed from "1 minute Chainmail turns" to "10 minute dungeon exploration turns". Don't forget that OD&D boxed set were still in print at this time!,
6. EGG (2005) states he didn't play D&D with Chainmail (i.e., neither did he use 1 minute Chainmail turns).


In that context, it is hard (for me) to see how the term "turn" in the article above can refer to anything other than U&WA's 10 minute "exploration turn".


In fact, the only anomaly I can see is (as was illustrated previously in this thread) that the term "turn" was used to mean both "exploration turn" and also "melee round" in the 3LBBs.

It seems to me only that the terminology hadn't settled at that time and/or that the original D&D was rushed out without a decent proof-reading. Nothing more.

[Professor P]

It seems to me the biggest problem with the change from the Chainmail combat turn of 1 minute to the OD&D exploration turn of 10 minutes with 1 minute combat rounds is what is actually happening during combat.

Correct me if I am wrong, in a Chainmail 1 minute combat turn there is a magic phase, a missile phase, a movement phase and then multiple melee phases. Thus in 1 minute there is quite a bit happening.

In a 1 minute OD&D combat round, each combatant gets 1 set of actions (magic, or 2 missiles (if bow), or move and melee, or other combinations, but you get the idea). The combat is very abstract, such that in 1 minute it appears that not much occurred. Especially because only 1 phase of melee occurred instead of the multiple melee phases in Chainmail's combat turn.

In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.

Since it seems that most OD&D combats are fast and furious, i.e. only takes a few rounds anyway, an OD&D combat is unlikely to take more than 1 exploration turn. Thus, the scale of exploration turn and combat is resolved in OD&D.

In the end, IMO, it really depends on how abstract you want your combat to be. Plus, consider that in Holmes (I believe), a combat, no matter how many rounds will take up one exploration turn (to rest and recover). Does it really matter if the combat rounds are one minute, 10 seconds, or 6 seconds?

[Stormcrow]

Mar 26, 2012 4:16:38 GMT -6 Professor P said:

In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.

I quite agree with this assessment, except that I would not say that D&D and Chainmail combats are very similar. The difference in scale can explain much difference. The tactics of a few against a few are much different than the those of dozens against dozens.

[aldarron]

Mar 26, 2012 2:42:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

The meaning of a part of a quotation is quite likely to differ from the meaning of the whole of it, true. But we shouldn't conclude anything about the meaning of the whole of a quotation from a fragment alone.


The question of what "turn" refers to in the above quotation should be answered by considering the context in which it was written....

Gentleman, this is simple and direct, so lets not obsfucate. It has nothing to do with who did or did not use CHAINMAILs various combat tables (and that's all Gygax was talking about as he clearly did directly apply large portions of CHAINMAILs rules including movement rates) or with what holmes did in 1977 or what Gygax wrote in 1978. It has only to do with what Gygax wrote in 1974 and his comment on it one year later.

So I will repeat because my question remains unaddressed.

The sentence very clearly says:

"in a non-combat situation... turns are longer."

ergo

In combat situations, turns are shorter.

That is a direct, inescapable deduction.

There is no way around it.

The question that must be addressed is how long are the "longer" turns, and how short are the combat turns?

Once again I will repeat:

The two defined OD&D turns are the 10 minute Move/Turn and the day long "wilderness" turn.

In the sentence being referred to, Gygax informs us very clearly that there is a base 20% plus an additional 5% chance per "longer" turn of "non-combat situation" of being hypnotized. Is this "longer" turn, ten minutes or one day?

Given that there is 5% chance per melee round of being affected, the longer-than-combat turn being referenced here would seem IMHO, to be the ten minute Move/Turn.

If Gygax meant to say there is only a 5% chance per day of being hypnotized, that would be strange indeed. Is it possible Gygax meant some third kind of turn? Of course, possible, but that would be introducing a new and completely undefined turn length (an hour? a half day? ).

As Ways has repeatedly pointed out the usual use of "turn" regards underground movement and is specified as 10 minutes in length. So by far the most probable meaning of Gygax sentence can be re-stated as follows:

When it is used in a non-combat situation, where turns are longer being each approximately of ten minutes duration as PC's map and explore (remember however, that one combat turn contains 10 melee rounds), there is a 20% base chance of becoming hypnotized, with an additional 5% per turn increase....

Frankly, in context, it is difficult to see how it could mean anything else, but I'd be interested to know if anyone can see a different meaning that satisfactorily explains the "longer turn" referred to as anything other than the 10 minute move/turn.

[Professor P]

Mar 26, 2012 8:09:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 26, 2012 4:16:38 GMT -6 Professor P said:

In fact, my guess is that most OD&D combats are very similar to a Chainmail combat. A magic-user uses his spell early in the combat (if at all). Missiles are fired until melee is engaged, and then missile use ceases so that comrades are not accidentally hit. Melee continues until the combat ends.

I quite agree with this assessment, except that I would not say that D&D and Chainmail combats are very similar. The difference in scale can explain much difference. The tactics of a few against a few are much different than the those of dozens against dozens.

What I meant by very similar is that the 'phases' are similar, not the tactics or amount of combatants.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 26, 2012 9:09:49 GMT -6 aldarron said:

In combat situations, turns are shorter.

That is a direct, inescapable deduction.

There is no way around it.

You're absolutely right. In combat, turns are called rounds and are one-minute long. They are definitely shorter than the kind of turn used to explore dungeons, which are called turns.

[aldarron]

Mar 26, 2012 16:41:34 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 26, 2012 9:09:49 GMT -6 aldarron said:

In combat situations, turns are shorter.

That is a direct, inescapable deduction.

There is no way around it.

You're absolutely right. In combat, turns are called rounds and are one-minute long. They are definitely shorter than the kind of turn used to explore dungeons, which are called turns.

You are implying that Gygax either conflated the meaning of turns and rounds in the very same sentence in which he points out the difference between them (that's not impossible, but its a stretch), or that he could be saying "where turns are longer than these rounds", which is a more possible reading but assumes added meaning where I initially simply took the statement at face value. On the other hand given Gygax's habit of opaque writing that could be exactly what he meant, as you say, that the shorter "turns" were the previously mentioned rounds, in his mind. It's a plausable reading.

[Deleted]

[18 Spears]

I can't figure out if this thread is comedy gold or if all of you are really this obsessed ...

[18 Spears]

Mar 26, 2012 20:03:22 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

So ... you're saying you're a little girl? That is a brave admission.

[busman]

Mar 26, 2012 20:47:32 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

I can't figure out if this thread is comedy gold or if all of you are really this obsessed ...

It has nothing to do with obsession, it has to do with distraction/curiosity. It's a debate about ambiguous wording and a thought experiment about if the traditionally accepted view maybe wasn't in the original meaning.

Debate and thought. It's pretty common on ODD74.

[18 Spears]

Mar 26, 2012 22:15:35 GMT -6 busman said:

Debate and thought. It's pretty common on ODD74.

Let me know when either shows up, because I don't see much evidence in this thread.

[busman]

Mar 26, 2012 22:24:27 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

Mar 26, 2012 22:15:35 GMT -6 busman said:

Debate and thought. It's pretty common on ODD74.

Let me know when either shows up, because I don't see much evidence in this thread.

Welcome to the board, hope you enjoy looking around.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 26, 2012 23:41:32 GMT -6 busman said:

Welcome to the board, hope you enjoy looking around.

Have an exalt for that Busman!

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2012 21:06:45 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

So ... you're saying you're a little girl? That is a brave admission.

Eugene, not everyone can appreciate your sense of humor. Things are a bit different here than on the only other board I recall seeing you on (DragonsFoot). We're a bit more relaxed and quite a bit more respectful of each other around here. Try and take it down a notch, would you?