|
|
Post by cooper on May 10, 2012 13:25:22 GMT -6
Isn't that really just letting the hero now use strength bonus, thac0 and variable weapon dmg from greyhawk while wielding a 2 handed sword?
Variable weapon dmg with Thac0 is kind of like a blend of the fantastic and man to man combat.
Attack as 3 men with chainmail, or once on the alternate combat system w/variable dmg. In either case he's doing 3d6 dmg to the ogre. For CHAINMAIL I would replace FCT with greyhawk. HD would stay d6, but I'd do variable damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on May 10, 2012 13:42:32 GMT -6
Isn't that really just letting the hero now use strength bonus, thac0 and variable weapon dmg from greyhawk while wielding a 2 handed sword? Variable weapon dmg with Thac0 is kind of like a blend of the fantastic and man to man combat. Attack as 3 men with chainmail, or once on the alternate combat system w/variable dmg. In either case he's doing 3d6 dmg to the ogre. For CHAINMAIL I would replace FCT with greyhawk. HD would stay d6, but I'd do variable damage. you have a knack for explaining these things, I like the analysis you have done on Chainmail in the past on these forums. (Can't use d6's though because we're using the Carcosa wacky dice  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 10, 2012 13:55:11 GMT -6
I'm going to have to deal with this soon, because some of the PC's in my Chainmail campaign are about to reach 3rd level, therefore gaining the ability to attack on the Fantasy table as Hero-1. My original inclination was not to use FCT at all, because I think it's silly. For example an Armored Warrior fighting an Ogre (defends as Heavy Foot) on mass combat rolls 1d6 and needs 5+ to "kill" (hit for 1d6 damage in D&D), a 33% probability. (If you allow him to attack as 3 Men then the odds of at least one hit are higher, and up to 3d6 damage is possible.) Then our hero achieves the rank of Swordsman and gains the "benefit" of using the Fantasy Combat Table. Now he rolls 2d6 and needs 10+ to "kill" (1d6 damage), dropping his odds to 17%! But last night this occurred to me, a way to adapt an existing game mechanic... What if... A successful hit on the FCT allows you to roll your hit dice in damage, and the target gets to save for half? Kind of like a breath weapon... Our hero has reduced "to hit" but it is a trade-off for inflicting up to 3d6 damage. Makes it an interesting tactical decision... A couple of options suggest themselves: There are a couple of alternate systems posted in the Chainmail section of the boards. My "Ringmail Variant" tries to convert the charts into a number of dice to roll. My "alternate FC" thread has an idea that uses multiple attacks in place of the Chainmail charts. Again, there are many choices, depending on what you like. I ran an all-d6 campaign for a while and found certain frustrations with the fact that each +1 was an addition of +16.67% to the roll, or the fact that a character might get lots of attacks against kobolds but one attack against a troll. Sometimes you have to play something before you decide if you like it or hate it, and my personal dislike with the way combat was resolved resulted in my creation of the two systems I mentioned in the paragraph above. But not everyone has the same likes or dislikes and might not find those issues to be an irritant. Just make your own interpretation or use that of someone posting. There are some great ideas out there and it doesn't really matter if your ruling is the "official" one. Once you pick a system, just stay with it and you'll be okay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 16:42:59 GMT -6
The CHAINMAIL references were added in for backwards compatibility for those familiar with it, and perhaps to increase sales. I strongly suspect this was the case and believe that if the 3LBB are examined closely it can be demonstrated that neither Chainmail nor Outdoor Survival are needed to play D&D, shooting down the "incomplete game" argument that some toss around. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 10, 2012 17:27:32 GMT -6
The CHAINMAIL references were added in for backwards compatibility for those familiar with it, and perhaps to increase sales. I strongly suspect this was the case and believe that if the 3LBB are examined closely it can be demonstrated that neither Chainmail nor Outdoor Survival are needed to play D&D, shooting down the "incomplete game" argument that some toss around. You are absolutely correct, the game you are describing is one Dr. Holmes wrote! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 20:56:10 GMT -6
You are absolutely correct, the game you are describing is one Dr. Holmes wrote! Wrong cooper, the game I am describing is the 3LBB reformatted into a single volume to better understand the ruleset. Having done so I am 100% convinced that neither of the other two games are necessary. They can be used to supplement the game, but are not needed to play it - and the original game of D&D loses nothing by playing it without them. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 10, 2012 23:16:54 GMT -6
I agree with your first point that they are not "needed" whatever that means (is chainmail "needed" when your 10th level fighter takes his 200 men at arms into battle against 150 orcs and catapults?)
The statement that the game "looses nothing" by not using them is pure subjectivity about your chosen play style (holmes basic). Your opinion is worth exactly that, obviously in my games I would loose a lot by not using them. It is you who are calling the original game flawed with chainmail and the wilderness survival rules, not me calling it flawed without.
Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't.
The fact that you took the time to copy out most of the rules doesn't give you any special authority. You don't need to denegrate playstyles in order to validate your own. Chainmail and the outdoor survival rules are part of d&d and can be used by those who want to, or not. There is no "offical" 0d&d. It's a buch of helpful rules for dudes to play a game, including 4 optional combat rules.
Maybe next time you are in 1974 with gary and dave you can tell them to leave that stuff out ok?
Thomas Jefferson took all the stuff out of the bible he didn't like, he prefered his edit, he disn't however pretend it was the authors intent.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251 
|
Post by 18 Spears on May 11, 2012 0:24:32 GMT -6
Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't. I found the psionic rules in EW you'uns talk about. I read the box set books over and over again and I see tak about other combat systems in them, but I don't see the removed systems. Could you'uns provide a volume and page so I can see what he took out? I know a "in your face" when I see one. Thats savage. You got the bible reference but ya forgot to compare him to hitler and call him a nazi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 0:50:06 GMT -6
I agree with your first point that they are not "needed" whatever that means (is chainmail "needed" when your 10th level fighter takes his 200 men at arms into battle against 150 orcs and catapults?) It means exactly what I said. And if a person wants to conduct mass battles, something which is not part of the 3LBB rules themselves, they could use any set of suitable wargaming rules, Chainmail or otherwise. The statement that the game "looses nothing" by not using them is pure subjectivity about your chosen play style (holmes basic). I don't believe so. It has nothing to do with my "chosen play style", but rather is from examination of the rules of the game in their entirety. Your opinion is worth exactly that, Cuts both ways cooper since your opinion is clearly as subjective as mine. According to Mike Mornard, who is a member of this board and I believe the only person to play in the original campaigns of Gygax, Arneson & Barker, Gygax never used Chainmail when playing D&D, but of course that was his chosen style. obviously in my games I would loose a lot by not using them. Which is your choice and your chosen style. The rules don't force you to use Chainmail or Outdoor Survival, they don't even require you to. It is you who are calling the original game flawed with chainmail and the wilderness survival rules, not me calling it flawed without. I did no such thing and it's dishonest of you to say so. Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't. My reformat did no such thing. Most references to Chainmail were removed, but no game mechanics. The references to Chainmail were just that - references. I plan on revisiting the project to keep 100% of the original text and I know from what I cut out the first time around that you'll not find any evidence of "2 combat systems from the rules" lying on the cutting floor. The fact that you took the time to copy out most of the rules doesn't give you any special authority. I agree and prove me wrong but I never suggested it did. Although given that I appear to be the first person ever to do so in the thirty-odd years since it was published I would say the process gave me insights into the game that escaped even the most ardent and long-term devotee - a fact made obvious to me from 35+ year veterans of the game saying that the reformat revealed to them things they didn't realise were in the original ruleset, made clear simply by better organising the original text. You don't need to denegrate playstyles in order to validate your own. Once again a dishonest accusation. I did no such thing and it makes it pointless to debate with you if you are just going to invent things that I supposedly said. That being the case please feel free to respond to this post, but I won't bother replying to any more of yours since you clearly aren't "playing fair." Chainmail and the outdoor survival rules are part of d&d Subjective view and one that I don't agree with. and can be used by those who want to, or not. Agree completely. There is no "offical" 0d&d. In that respect you're correct since Gygax never said any of his versions of D&D had to be played completely by the book. However, when brandishing the term "official", a term I never used myself by the way, it would be possible to apply it to the original text of the game as a historical document. I'm not suggesting that be done, only that it would be a fair interpretation of the word "official". Maybe next time you are in 1974 with gary and dave you can tell them to leave that stuff out ok? Thomas Jefferson took all the stuff out of the bible he didn't like, he prefered his edit, he disn't however pretend it was the authors intent. And in a bit of tit for tat, maybe you can stick your sarcasm up your arse cooper. Don't pretend to debate a subject and then resort to falsely attributing statements to the other person and then dishing out sarcastic insults. If this is your level of intelligent discussion you can count me out matey, but I hope it made you feel better after my crime of supposedly denigrating your playstyle. Don't worry Marv, I'm out of this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 11, 2012 1:02:52 GMT -6
Just to be clear, I will be the first to sing your praises for the work you've done, I use your reformat literally every day. I don't believe the game is 'incomplete' as presented, the addition of the alternate combat system, simple morale, initiative, and damage makes that clear. But that's still different from removing rules. Greyhawk supplement (and 1e/2e) includes the weapon vs. AC chart from chainmail translated into d20, removing it makes the game "incomplete" inso far as you removed an optional rule from the game. When you remove "hero-1 or 3 men" from the 3rd level fighting man, you remove a rule from CM. (in fairness you put it in an appendix. Which is your perrogative in your re-edit, but you shouldn't excise reference to rules, even if a rule exists in a supplemental book.
"split move and fire" is a combat proceedure granted to elves in your edit, but the rule appears only in CM, so too the elfs ability to hide from sight--a rule actually left out of your edit!
The LBB contain detailed rules on ship to ship combat, where are the detailed rules for seiges of castles? We're they left out because they disn't find castle sieges important enough to include in the game, or did they think it wasn't neccessary to repeat the information in chainmail?
You say references to CM were removed, but no game mechanics. The term "light foot" isn't just a "term", it is a game mechanic with a specific meaning in mass combat in CM all of the human entries in the LLB's give the CM combat classifications, further more "hero-1" is also more than a "term" it is also a combat classification with concrete rules in CM. you say someone can just use, "any mass combat system"--this is true and also wrong. Of course someone can use any modern or old mass combat system with, d&d, or GURPS or cyberpunk2020, however only d&d gives specific rules for how a 5th level fighter fights on the FCT, or what classification a dervish is, or that neanderthals attack "as flails" on the man to man combat chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 11, 2012 11:35:54 GMT -6
<sigh> Okay, here's what the book says: RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT:Dungeons and Dragons (you have it!)
Outdoor Survival
Dice —
Chainmail miniature rules
1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player)
Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)
Sheet Protectors (heaviest possible)
3-Ring Lined Paper
Drafting Equipment and Colored Pencils
Scratch Paper and Pencils
Imagination
1 Patient Referee
PlayersNotice that word at the top; Reccomended not requiredThat's all that Dave said. Chainmail is not needed to play the 3lbb game. It's nice to have and useful. It's fine to bring in information from it, but your games not going to be wonky if you don't want to use it. That's obvious from the fact that thousands have managed just fine without it. The exact same may be said of Outdoor Survival and Flight in the Skies (which is mentioned in the aerial section because it is based on FitS and FitS does provide a means of fleshing the aerial rules out if you need to.) ...... Greyhawk supplement (and 1e/2e) includes the weapon vs. AC chart from chainmail translated into d20, removing it makes the game "incomplete" What Greyhawk and later supplements add to the game and where it comes from is irrelevant Cooper. By that reasoning you must also add all the hit location and weapon length rules of Supp II because they build off the Accumulative Damage and other rules in the 3lbb's. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 11, 2012 12:33:54 GMT -6
Remember: Civil, polite, play nice, discuss rather than taunt.
We've got some great chatter going here, let's not lose the focus by lobbing gernades at one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 16, 2012 8:00:34 GMT -6
Wrote up a blog post taking a closer look boggswood.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-dealing-fighting-man.htmlTwo things from that to highlight: The Faq does contain a less than 1 HD rule I handn't noticed before and maybe more interestingly, neither the 3lbb's nor the FAQ seems to indactate that multiple attacks are exclusive to the fighter. Like to know what yuins think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2012 10:22:18 GMT -6
It seems to me multiple attacks are an advantage best left to the fighting-man types: humans, dwarves, hobbits, and elves in fighting-man mode.
There is little enough advantage to playing a fighter, otherwise. Since you've asked for opinions I thought I would throw mine in.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 16, 2012 11:23:51 GMT -6
I think too much emphasis is put on wizards casting spells in combat all the time, which then leads to questions about, "having nothing to do when a wizard is out of spells." further, casting spells in combat or memorizing combat spells leads to burning through memorized spells too quickly (magic missilex2 gets burned up much faster than having featherfall and detect magic).
Expecting mu to melee in combat puts magic in it's rightful spot--abilities to help exploration of a dungeon. Letting 5th level magician attack as 3 men+1 just as the rules states, means "sleep" can be saved for the ogre and not on the first group of goblins you bump into and you don't end up in 4e with magic missile as an "at will" ability. More magical and mystical and less "marvel hero super power". Just look at the 0d&d spell list. Out of twenty 1st/2nd level spells, only sleep is clearly a combat spell and charm person/phantasmal force are borderline and even those three spells circumvent combat.
There is little to fear of overshadowing the fighting-man in a fight. AC0 with plate, and 5 men+1 puts him ahead of the magician, and with his magic sword (light spell+abilities) the fighting-man also has an exploration role out of combat.
Edit: according to mike mearls today, overwhelming feedback in 5e from players from all editions was for at will low level pew-pew powers. I'm not a fan, but I will say I like the way he presented it (basically, you have a cantrip that creates acid for your alchemy experiments, or a flame to start a camp fire and you can also use that cantrip as your at-will combat power)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 16, 2012 21:56:23 GMT -6
Wrote up a blog post taking a closer look boggswood.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-dealing-fighting-man.htmlTwo things from that to highlight: The Faq does contain a less than 1 HD rule I handn't noticed before and maybe more interestingly, neither the 3lbb's nor the FAQ seems to indactate that multiple attacks are exclusive to the fighter. Like to know what yuins think. If the FAQ "does contain a less than 1 HD rule", I can't see it. In fact, the example given details 1 HD Orcs versus a 4 HD fighter. Neither of these are less than 1 HD. But, insomuch as you do ask for our thoughts... I couldn't help but notice that you've misspelled my monicker in your blog post But my main quibble with your essay is the (I believe) unjustified weight you ascribe to the phrase "fantastic combat" where it appears in the FAQ. Yes, that term has meaning in the context of Chainmail. Chainmail began as an historical war game. Later, when the fantasy supplement was added, it became necessary to distinguish between ordinary and fantastical combat. D&D was never historical; it was always fantasy. So no such distinction is necessary. D&D combat is fantastic combat. That aside, the FAQ itself begins by recommending that Chainmail not be used for D&D. The remainder of the article, dedicated to answering FAQs about D&D, would hardly then be answered in the context of Chainmail. That would directly contradict the author's own freshly minted recommendation. In my view, the statement "When fantastic combat is taking place..." in the FAQ simply means "When D&D combat is taking place...". While Chainmail was initially historical, D&D was always rooted in fantasy. D&D is purely fantasy. D&D combat is "fantastic combat". That's how I read it, and I suspect also how the vast majority of readers (not being Chainmail buffs) would read it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 16, 2012 22:34:55 GMT -6
Wrote up a blog post taking a closer look boggswood.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-dealing-fighting-man.htmlTwo things from that to highlight: The Faq does contain a less than 1 HD rule I handn't noticed before and maybe more interestingly, neither the 3lbb's nor the FAQ seems to indactate that multiple attacks are exclusive to the fighter. Like to know what yuins think. I was going to ask the very same question regarding other classes last week, but never got around to it. The examples are with a superhero and a hero, but it never specifies that the rule only applies to a fighting men. I wasn't sure if it was specified somewhere else, though. If the FAQ "does contain a less than 1 HD rule", I can't see it. In fact, the example given details 1 HD Orcs versus a 4 HD fighter. Neither of these are less than 1 HD. He's referring to this line from the FAQ: Assume the following dice score by the Hero. Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.I'm having trouble parsing the construction of that sentence, but perhaps you can take a whirl, ways. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 16, 2012 22:56:07 GMT -6
He's referring to this line from the FAQ: Assume the following dice score by the Hero. Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.I'm having trouble parsing the construction of that sentence, but perhaps you can take a whirl, ways. You are absolutely correct, Zenopus! Thanks for pointing that out -- I will have to get my eyes checked. As to the literal meaning of that phrase, that may require some further thought  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 17, 2012 0:37:38 GMT -6
It seems to me multiple attacks are an advantage best left to the fighting-man types: humans, dwarves, hobbits, and elves in fighting-man mode. There is little enough advantage to playing a fighter, otherwise. Since you've asked for opinions I thought I would throw mine in. FWIW -- I documented the fighting Man's "advantages" here. |
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on May 17, 2012 8:05:47 GMT -6
But my main quibble with your essay is the (I believe) unjustified weight you ascribe to the phrase "fantastic combat" where it appears in the FAQ. Yes, that term has meaning in the context of Chainmail. Chainmail began as an historical war game. Later, when the fantasy supplement was added, it became necessary to distinguish between ordinary and fantastical combat. D&D was never historical; it was always fantasy. So no such distinction is necessary. D&D combat is fantastic combat. That aside, the FAQ itself begins by recommending that Chainmail not be used for D&D. The remainder of the article, dedicated to answering FAQs about D&D, would hardly then be answered in the context of Chainmail. That would directly contradict the author's own freshly minted recommendation. In my view, the statement "When fantastic combat is taking place..." in the FAQ simply means "When D&D combat is taking place...". While Chainmail was initially historical, D&D was always rooted in fantasy. D&D is purely fantasy. D&D combat is "fantastic combat". So, what then do we make of the distinction Gygax makes in the "D&D" FAQ when he makes the remark that the encounter described between the hero and the orc is expressly "non-fantastic"? Gygax states: "this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less." It seems clear that the distinction lies at the 1-HD threshold, and it therefore seems to suggest that multiple attacks are gained when "fantastic" characters (i.e., characters of more than one HD) engage in combat with "normal (non-fantastic)" characters. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 17, 2012 8:41:43 GMT -6
You're right on Kris Kobold, I can't wriggle out of that one. Gygax clearly slips parenthetically back into Chainmail speak there. The moral of the story; don't reply without checking the source material again But I still can't make sense of the first reference to "fantastic combat" in the Chainmail context, because the phrase implies the exact reverse of what I'd expect. The first phrase says: "When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round". I.e., in combat there is normally one attack per round. If it did involve fantastic figures, and special rules for them, then surely there would be something other than the standard one attack per round? |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 17, 2012 8:53:03 GMT -6
I couldn't help but notice that you've misspelled my monicker in your blog post  Darn it anyhow. Sorry about that Simon. Will fix pronto. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 17, 2012 9:12:48 GMT -6
You're right on Kris Kobold, I can't wriggle out of that one. Gygax clearly slips parenthetically back into Chainmail speak there. The moral of the story; don't reply without checking the source material again But I still can't make sense of the first reference to "fantastic combat" in the Chainmail context, because the phrase implies the exact reverse of what I'd expect. The first phrase says: "When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round". I.e., in combat there is normally one attack per round. If it did involve fantastic figures, and special rules for them, then surely there would be something other than the standard one attack per round? Well keep in mind that Gygax had been playing CHAINMAIL for 2 or three years longer than D&D, and that he was the author of it. He is the one who made the distinction between normal and fantastic combat in CM in the first place, and there's no reason to think he was confusing his own terms or that all D&D combat is fantastic by default. In fantastic combat - wheter it is in D&D or CM - there's normally one attack per round. (some creatures might get two or three if they have special attacks - but that's not the usual by definition) But "normal" combat in either D&D or CM can have multiple attacks as is demonstrated by the reference to the troll who attacks a normal man. If that troll were attacking another troll, there would only be one attack each, in either game. I haven't tried to find all the references to "normal" and "fantastic" combat Gygax makes in other places but it's very clear he is making that distinction in both D&D and CM. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 9:31:15 GMT -6
... and there's no reason to think he was confusing his own terms or that all D&D combat is fantastic by default. Actually, there is. When Gygax wrote his Lejendary FRPG he consciously avoided using any terms from D&D. His reasoning was that different nomenclature would help get players into the mindset this was a different game. Yet, while running Lejendary Adventures, he constantly slipped up and used the D&D equivalent term instead of the Lejendary one. So, while this anecdote is by no means a conclusive contradiction? It certainly shows that, author or not, he could still get a bit mixed up at times. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 17, 2012 9:59:09 GMT -6
He's referring to this line from the FAQ: Assume the following dice score by the Hero. Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.I'm having trouble parsing the construction of that sentence, but perhaps you can take a whirl, ways. Yeah that's why I wrote "His use of “ratio” and “base” suggest you are supposed to create a fraction and reduce to determine whether fantastic combat is taking place. Upon reflection, I don’t think that’s what he actually meant." on the blog. It gives me a headache trying to figure that one out, but I think Gygax is a victim of his own vocabulary here, using words that clouded an intended simple meaning, something like "the orcs have but one HD to the Hero's 4 so its normal (non-fantastic) as is any combat with 1HD or less". If that isn't what he meant then you are looking at creating fractions with HD and reducing. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 17, 2012 10:06:25 GMT -6
... and there's no reason to think he was confusing his own terms or that all D&D combat is fantastic by default. Actually, there is. When Gygax wrote his Lejendary FRPG he consciously avoided using any terms from D&D. His reasoning was that different nomenclature would help get players into the mindset this was a different game. Yet, while running Lejendary Adventures, he constantly slipped up and used the D&D equivalent term instead of the Lejendary one. So, while this anecdote is by no means a conclusive contradiction? It certainly shows that, author or not, he could still get a bit mixed up at times. But we are not talking about offhand remarks here. The FAQ is an article in print and was no doubt reviewed a time or two before being typeset. The terms are also used consistently throughout the piece and in other places. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 10:20:42 GMT -6
But we are not talking about offhand remarks here. The FAQ is an article in print and was no doubt reviewed a time or two before being typeset. The terms are also used consistently throughout the piece and in other places. I'm willing to concede that is possible. I would point out, however, reading the SR indicates to me the review and editing process was rushed. It is also possible the article was merely checked for typos and printed "as is". |
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on May 17, 2012 10:28:55 GMT -6
... and there's no reason to think he was confusing his own terms or that all D&D combat is fantastic by default. Actually, there is. When Gygax wrote his Lejendary FRPG he consciously avoided using any terms from D&D. His reasoning was that different nomenclature would help get players into the mindset this was a different game. Yet, while running Lejendary Adventures, he constantly slipped up and used the D&D equivalent term instead of the Lejendary one. So, while this anecdote is by no means a conclusive contradiction? It certainly shows that, author or not, he could still get a bit mixed up at times. I was under the impression that the terminology used in LA was created in order to distance the property from D&D and its current copyright owners for legal reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 17, 2012 10:41:40 GMT -6
In fantastic combat - wheter it is in D&D or CM - there's normally one attack per round. (some creatures might get two or three if they have special attacks - but that's not the usual by definition) But "normal" combat in either D&D or CM can have multiple attacks as is demonstrated by the reference to the troll who attacks a normal man. If that troll were attacking another troll, there would only be one attack each, in either game. I still get the impression that people may be reading more precision into the vocabulary used in the rules (and FAQ,) BUT... the distinction between fantastic combat normally being only one attack per round and other combat involving multiple attacks on normal men almost leads me to think that "fantastic combat" means any combat where both sides would normally get multiple attacks -- troll vs. hero is "fantastic" (one attack each,) troll vs. mercenaries is non-fantastic (troll gets multiple attacks.) Non-fantastic combat is anything you don't want to (or need to) focus on. A mild supporting factoid is a comment Mike Mornard has made about how Gygax handled combats against orcs and the like: he rolled a single die (d4 for heroes, d6 for level 6 types, d8 for superheroes, etc.) and said "that's how many orcs you killed." Not written anywhere in the rules, but it seems like a reasonable house rule to blow through the uninteresting parts of combat and focus on the more important stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 10:48:14 GMT -6
I was under the impression that the terminology used in LA was created in order to distance the property from D&D and its current copyright owners for legal reasons. That's possible, too; but what I posted above is what he told me when I asked about why he didn't just use terms most gamers already knew. |
|
)
Darn it anyhow. Sorry about that Simon. Will fix pronto.
