How many D&Ders had Chainmail in 1974-1976?

[geoffrey]

Does anyone have an educated guess at the approximate percentage of D&Ders in 1974-1976 who owned and used the Chainmail booklet in their D&D games?

[Finarvyn]

No idea. I know that my friend and I were miniatures fans before we discovered OD&D, and Chainmail was one of the main rules sets we used. The problem is that communication was tough back then (no internet) and so the main communication was through Strategic Review (later, Dragon) or other gamer publications, which meant that things tended to be highly local. We wern't aware of many of the cool stuff going on in Callifornia, for example. (Warlock, Arduin, etc.)

At the time we assumed that everyone had a copy of Chainmail because we had one and the rules suggested it, the same way that we assumed that everyone had Outdoor Survival.

[waysoftheearth]

It's not perfect, but you could compare the sales figures for CM and OD&D to get a rough idea. I'm sure someone here will have a reasonable idea what those were.

[Deleted]

1974, quite a few. By fall 1975 D&D had sold 5,000 copies and CHAINMAIL had never even come close.

Instead of "recommended," CHAINMAIL should be listed under "DEAR GOD THIS GAME WILL MAKE NO ****ING SENSE AT ALL WITHOUT THIS!"

[Finarvyn]

I guess I should feel lucky that we had Chainmail already. Coming from a wargame/miniatures background, so many things just made sense at the time. Stuff that folks now scratch their head and ask "how did you figure that out?"

I can't swear we did it "right" but it made sense to us and we had fun. The rest is just details.

[Stormcrow]

Jul 20, 2013 10:56:53 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Instead of "recommended," CHAINMAIL should be listed under "DEAR GOD THIS GAME WILL MAKE NO ****ING SENSE AT ALL WITHOUT THIS!"

As evidenced by the number of people who had never played Chainmail before, got a copy of D&D, and wrote to TSR for help in understanding how to play.

It's not that you need to reference the rules of Chainmail to play, it's that you need to understand how Chainmail is played and what its terminology means in order to understand those same elements in D&D.

[Deleted]

Well, don't forget that D&D says things like "Goblins get -1 to morale in strong daylight" but doesn't actually have a morale table.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 20, 2013 23:15:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, don't forget that D&D says things like "Goblins get -1 to morale in strong daylight" but doesn't actually have a morale table.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to get in my "Booklet 0" thread in the OD&D Study section. Places where OD&D makes a mention of Chainmail, so something from Chainmail ought to be included to make it "complete."

[Stormcrow]

Jul 20, 2013 23:15:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, don't forget that D&D says things like "Goblins get -1 to morale in strong daylight" but doesn't actually have a morale table.

Sure it does! Men & Magic, p. 13, "Loyalty of Non-Player Characters (Including Monsters)." When taken into service, NPCs get a loyalty score (three dice), and morale is checked against this score (roll three dice again, adjusted by loyalty). Monsters can have loyalty scores to their own leaders, and thus check morale too. "Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail")."

[Deleted]

Well, I'll be dipped in dog$hit.

I always just used the "Morale due to excess casualties" during a fight, but yes, you could indeed use that table for a combat morale check. OD&D still isn't very explicit on what can go wrong, as opposed to CHAINMAIL, but yeah, it's there.

[kesher]

Jul 21, 2013 13:22:18 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Jul 20, 2013 23:15:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, don't forget that D&D says things like "Goblins get -1 to morale in strong daylight" but doesn't actually have a morale table.

Sure it does! Men & Magic, p. 13, "Loyalty of Non-Player Characters (Including Monsters)." When taken into service, NPCs get a loyalty score (three dice), and morale is checked against this score (roll three dice again, adjusted by loyalty). Monsters can have loyalty scores to their own leaders, and thus check morale too. "Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail")."

I don't know how many frakalakin' times I've read those rules, and yet another escaped me...

...endless bounty.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2013 10:56:53 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

1974, quite a few. By fall 1975 D&D had sold 5,000 copies and CHAINMAIL had never even come close.

I learned on B/X so I didn't have either CHAINMAIL or OD&D at the time, but I know when I first saw OD&D I thought it seemed odd that there were times when Dave and Gary suggested we use CHAINMAIL or OUTDOOR SURVIVAL and we didn't have either one.

Sounds like Gronan has data to back up the fact that alot of guys didn't have CHAINMAIL even back then!

[keith418]

We had it.

[strangebrew]

Jul 21, 2013 13:22:18 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Sure it does! Men & Magic, p. 13, "Loyalty of Non-Player Characters (Including Monsters)." When taken into service, NPCs get a loyalty score (three dice), and morale is checked against this score (roll three dice again, adjusted by loyalty). Monsters can have loyalty scores to their own leaders, and thus check morale too. "Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail")."

I read a post on a blog or message board awhile ago which discussed NPCs and monsters as having two scores, Loyalty and Morale. Loyalty is rolled as 3d6, adjusted by Charisma. Morale is then rolled as 3d6, adjusted by Loyalty. The post detailed how you could have a low-Loyalty, high-Morale NPC, such as a shifty but courageous henchman, or a high-Loyalty, low-Morale NPC, like a true but cowardly friend. A monster, for simplicities sake, would probably just have Morale determined by 3d6, plus or minus any special bonuses.

It's a bit cumbersome but I like this, especially since the idea of Loyalty influencing a roll against itself is a bit awkward for me. If an NPC has a high loyalty, there's the benefit, you don't need an extra modifier (a high Loyalty giving you an additional benefit for rolling against Loyalty, unless I'm misunderstanding things).

I also like the idea of rolling d20 to check instead of 3d6, since the bell curve has already been factored in to the initial rolls (twice already, in fact).

[Stormcrow]

Actually, according to the book it works like this...

NPCs and monsters get a secret loyalty score on three dice, adjusted by the character's charisma and any other special circumstances.
Look up the score on Men & Magic, p. 13 and find any adjustment to morale.
When it's time to roll for morale, roll two dice on the reaction table on p. 12, adjusting according to loyalty. Some creativity is required to interpret the result; what does an NPC who gets "uncertain" do in a combat situation? I would probably say that 9+ is good morale, "uncertain" means the NPC fights only defensively, 3-5 is retreat, and less than 3 is running away.

[busman]

Didn't have it. Never noticed it was missing. Never had any problems playing or being confused. I was 7, my brother was 10. We just played and had a great time. I still have never played Chainmail, and I still don't really know the rules, though I've read through them a time or two out of fascination for the start of the hobby. We were wargamers coming into it, Gettysburg, Tobruk, Panzer Leader, etc.; maybe that made the difference.

I seriously don't recall a single boggle, ever. Maybe we were too young to get caught up in the minutiae that I experience now that I'm older. But, we never had a massive, oh god we were doing it all wrong moments, as AD&D came out either, it was all one seamless experience: white box > Monster Manual > PHB > DMG. This was 76-77, so we never got Greyhawk or Blackmoor or the like. By the time it had become a hobby for us, AD&D was out. I remember looking through Eldritch Wizardry at the Game Keeper when I was buying a module or two, but remember thinking that was from when we first started playing, and not what D&D was now.

[jacar]

I played Chainmail only as a separate game. We played a good bit of DnD like Busman did. Lots of fun. Added AD&D as an expansion and still play v1 of AD&D today.

[oldkat]

Don't feel bad, Kesh-- I read stuff all the time and more often than not I fergit what I was just reading before I turn the page. For me, its mostly to do with my age, and the brain I have now instead of the one I used to have. But that's just the ways of things.

Now what were we talking about?

[rms]

I'm another that interrupted Loyalty and Morale as different. I'd role Loyalty for a new retainer, and then apply that bonus to Morale in the appropriate circumstances. This is how I read it to this day, so I agree that OD&D actually lacks rules for Morale, as written. They appear in Chainmail, or I steal them from B/X D&D now (which is very similar).

[Deleted]

I don't think there is a "right" answer, either method is viable. Being intimately familiar with CHAINMAIL I simply used the "Morale due to excess casualties."

[Stormcrow]

Since D&D says to use either its version or the rules in Chainmail, you're covered either way!

[simrion]

Jul 23, 2013 14:59:41 GMT -6 @keltset said:

Jul 20, 2013 10:56:53 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

1974, quite a few. By fall 1975 D&D had sold 5,000 copies and CHAINMAIL had never even come close.

I learned on B/X so I didn't have either CHAINMAIL or OD&D at the time, but I know when I first saw OD&D I thought it seemed odd that there were times when Dave and Gary suggested we use CHAINMAIL or OUTDOOR SURVIVAL and we didn't have either one.

Sounds like Gronan has data to back up the fact that alot of guys didn't have CHAINMAIL even back then!

This is the boat I was in as well.

[rsdean]

For what it's worth in this discussion, I had already had Chainmail in 1976 when I got D&D. What we didn't have was enough miniatures to play a significant game, since they were expensive and hard to come by for my less than 15 year old self. We also didn't have any adult miniatures gamers around, so our miniatures games didn't include all the rules features (like morale ). The bottom line was that I read the notice that I needed Chainmail, breathed a sigh of relief that I already had it, and don't recall ever pulling it out during an actual game...

[Otto Harkaman]

Jul 20, 2013 13:02:26 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Jul 20, 2013 10:56:53 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Instead of "recommended," CHAINMAIL should be listed under "DEAR GOD THIS GAME WILL MAKE NO ****ING SENSE AT ALL WITHOUT THIS!"

As evidenced by the number of people who had never played Chainmail before, got a copy of D&D, and wrote to TSR for help in understanding how to play.

It's not that you need to reference the rules of Chainmail to play, it's that you need to understand how Chainmail is played and what its terminology means in order to understand those same elements in D&D.

I never noticed until now that there is no mention that I have found so far in Men & Magic or Greyhawk on the Turn sequence. Its in Chainmail, about rolling initiative etc.

Am I missing it somewhere?

[peterlind]

My entry into OD&D was a bit late (1977). I did have a copy, though. I just read it through and I think that was good enough for most folks back then. At the game table, I never really saw Chainmail actually used, but we just knew what was in there.

[rsdean]

Sept 10, 2013 22:06:57 GMT -6 Otto Harkaman said:

I never noticed until now that there is no mention that I have found so far in Men & Magic or Greyhawk on the Turn sequence. Its in Chainmail, about rolling initiative etc.

Am I missing it somewhere?

No. That's why it's in the FAQ from the early Strategic Review.

[Otto Harkaman]

Sept 28, 2013 16:33:08 GMT -6 rsdean said:

Sept 10, 2013 22:06:57 GMT -6 Otto Harkaman said:

I never noticed until now that there is no mention that I have found so far in Men & Magic or Greyhawk on the Turn sequence. Its in Chainmail, about rolling initiative etc.

Am I missing it somewhere?

No. That's why it's in the FAQ from the early Strategic Review.

This was in Strategic Review Vol 1 #2, QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RULES?

The description of Initiative is still pretty brief in this article and I don't see anything about the Turn Sequence. There is a combat example but I haven't gone through it yet.

[peterlind]

Back then, before the AD&D Player's Handbook came out, I was not aware of the FAQ in the Strategic Review. And in my gaming, no one pointed it out to me. From what I remember, the GM pretty much set out his version of how combat proceeded. Sometimes by DEX order, sometimes by a die roll, etc. Some GM's also used a sequence of actions such as 1) Movement, 2) Missile, 3) Melee, and 4) Magic.

Also, I did not notice a multiple attack rule being used for Fighters against 1 HD or less creatures. It was just 1 attack per round. Perhaps I was just not paying attention back then when another player invoked the rule?

[Otto Harkaman]

The group who initiated me to D&D had Chainmail and used initiative and the turn sequence from it. I remember the whole thing vaguely because I believe I was twelve at the time. They were all much older than me, most in their later teens or early twenties.

I do see now that it was crucial to have Chainmail before the Holmes book came out, which is really where I began to understand the rules on my own. Also the Strategic Review vol 1 #2 would have helped.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2013 19:54:08 GMT -6 Otto Harkaman said:

I do see now that it was crucial to have Chainmail before the Holmes book came out ...

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I didn't have it back then and never missed it.