|
|
Post by Thigru Thorkissen on Apr 16, 2014 18:31:02 GMT -6
I've been looking at the Chainmail man-to-man stuff (including wizards and such) and I think it could be a good basis for a quick-and-dirty (or perhaps, "reductionist") FRPG along the lines of Melee/Wizard (i.e. comparable to the Metagaming microgames). I'm still toying with how this could work, but I'm thinking something along the lines of 6 levels total with only Wizard and Fighting Man classes using the 'to hit' tables from the man-to-man section (i.e. the weapon vs. armor), or perhaps a 3d6 or 2d10 variation of it and a spell-casting system similar based on the Chainmail seer/magician/warlock/sorcerer/wizard system. I'd definitely add a few stats and saving throws, but keep it minimal.
My general philosophy on this would be something along the lines of a system that allows players to create characters in 10-15 minutes *at most* to allow one-shot or campaign adventures. However, I'd probably try to tread closer to the wargaming roots that D&D/AD&D did.
Anyway, I'm just curious what thoughts (if any) other people have...
Thigru
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Apr 16, 2014 19:34:41 GMT -6
create characters in 10-15 minutes Yawn... much too long. seer/magician/warlock/sorcerer/wizard system I believe arneson's system for wizards worked like this, and too advance you had to complete some big research project (like creating life, or composing a libram of new spells) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 21:15:25 GMT -6
I'd rather see a game based on the FCT. The man-to-man table's focus on specific armors and weapons is too limiting and too fiddly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 16, 2014 22:22:45 GMT -6
Thigru wrote:
This is what I use, though I have been toying with 3d6 and 2d10. No hit points, stats or Saves, just abilities for various racial man-types and d6 to determine various outcomes of situations like doors and traps. Wizards and Clerics affect moral, magic being less invasive and more subliminal. Character creation: name, martial status: (troop type if any), morale, armor, weapons, abilities (based on racial type or specific profession), and NPC personality characteristics from the DMG. Total time 5+ minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thigru Thorkissen on Apr 16, 2014 23:04:37 GMT -6
create characters in 10-15 minutes Yawn... much too long. Wow, tough crowd ;-) Okay, create a character in about 5 minutes, at most. Maybe roll 3 or 4 stats (one roll each), pick a few pieces of important equipment or spells, and go. Actually, I could see this as halfway between a wargame and an FRPG. tauman |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2014 4:39:12 GMT -6
Some interesting ideas, Tauman. I'd like to see what you come up with. I've used the "Appendix A" mass combat table as the basis of a RP combat system before (so I could let folks roll handfulls of dice a la T&T or Warhammer) but I'll confess that I haven't done much with the "Man-to-Man" table mostly because weapon type hasn't been as interesting to me as attacker level. (I'm willing to be persuaded, however, so I hope you keep the brainstorming alive and continue to post your thoughts on this.) Even though there aren't many posts on this thread yet, I suspect that many of the Chainmail old-timers around here have done exactly as you suggest and used the MtM table as the core of their Chainmail games, which are essentially a step away from being a role playing game. I seem to recall some of the "clones" doing much as you suggest. Maybe Jason's "Swordcraft & Swordplay"? (If so, we have a section under Elf Lair Games that discusses it.) I'm sorry, but my brain isn't giving me the right answer at the moment.  Hopefully they'll chime in with their experiences, and don't let the lack of response kill your enthusiasm for the project. Once you post more ideas maybe they'll come around!  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2014 5:16:02 GMT -6
I've been looking at the Chainmail man-to-man stuff (including wizards and such) and I think it could be a good basis for a quick-and-dirty (or perhaps, "reductionist") FRPG FWIW, the Man-to-Man rules are the basis of a quick and gritty FRPG called OD&D  You could simply try OD&D using the MtM/FCT tables instead of attack matrices I & II. Or, you could go further and also strip out ability scores, hit points, and saving throws and you'd still be left with a perfectly viable FRPG. You will likely find that hit/kills are deadlier if you use MtM/FCT with one hit kills, but as character generation would be reduced to choosing a race, name, and equipment, it may not matter. If the fatality rate does become too onerous you could have each player controlling a small group (maybe a hero and his entourage?) or perhaps reintroduce 1-6 hit points of damage per hit (which means 58% of hits will be kills). Or, if you don't want to record hit points, have a 2d6 roll of 7+ after any hit being a kill (also 58% chance of any hit being a kill). There's plenty of scope to do great stuff in there; let us know how it goes  |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 18, 2014 9:24:20 GMT -6
Hey, Thigru--welcome to the forum! Here's an example of a session I ran awhile ago doing just what you're suggesting: Tomb of the ElephantI've also tinkered on and off with "simulacrum" of the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement rules: Primordial ODDThough they're incomplete, I've addressed some of the same issues you're thinking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Apr 21, 2014 13:27:18 GMT -6
Did you check already snorri's microgame Searchers of the Unknown?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 21, 2014 13:46:16 GMT -6
Good suggestions in this thread! Searchers of the Unknown + Chainmail Fantasy Combat Table = potentially fun mini-game. A "character sheet" for our game (shall we call it "Men of Chain"?) might look something like this: Frederick the Intrepid Hobbit (Move 12", Missile Range 15" (stone), Attack: Light Foot (dagger), Defend: Light Foot (leather), Special Ability: Invisible in brush or woods). |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 21, 2014 20:59:37 GMT -6
I created a "Man-to-Man Lite" table by converting the OD&D attack matrix to 2d6. This allows you to play "D&D with a Chainmail feel," which is to say the tactile sensation of rolling 2d6 instead of 1d20. I like to think this single table elegantly encompasses all potential combat situations, including PCs of all levels and monsters of all HD. You could paste this table into your favorite minimalist system (like Searchers of the Unknown) to create a mini-game that fits on one page.  Here's a link to a really interesting discussion and analysis of the various Chainmail and D&D tables: odd74.proboards.com/thread/8983/od-curiosAlso I have to give a shout-out to the 27th Edition Platemail rules. In many ways this system accomplishes exactly what we are discussing here (an RPG loosely based on Chainmail), though it strays (brilliantly) quite a bit from the source material and ends up not being quite so "minimal" as we're shooting for. (It may not be "quick" but it sure is "dirty"!) Platemail is chock full of game mechanics, flavor text, and artwork ripe for cherry-picking into your own house rules: index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=18476 |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 22, 2014 2:56:44 GMT -6
I created a "Man-to-Man Lite" table by converting the OD&D attack matrix to 2d6. That's sweet Mushgnome; have an exalt Here's an alternative option for those who have irreconcilable issues with attack matrices I & II:  This attack table is derived directly from the Man-to-Man Melee and Missile Tables (CM p41). It can be used for melee and shooting, and for men and monsters alike. The row labelled Actual gives the actual score required on 2d6 averaged across all weapon types; melee weapons and missile weapons across short, medium, and long ranges. The row labelled Smoothed corrects a couple of anomalies in the true progression to give us a neat pattern; use if preferred. To comply closely with the Man-to-Man Missile Table, shooting at short range should be at +1 and shooting at long range should be at -1. However, I would recommend instead that shooting at medium range be at -1 and shooting at long range be at -2. Man-sized creatures should throw one attack per HD* (or per "man" of fighting capability** if you prefer) they possess. Each successful hit is enough to kill a man (or deals 1-6 damage if you prefer). I.e., a warrior (2nd level fighter) throws two attacks per turn. Fantastic scale monsters do likewise against normal men. I.e., a 4 HD ogre throws four attacks per turn versus normal men. However, against other fantastic/heroic scale opponents monsters instead throw a single attack which deals one hit per HD (or per "man" of fighting capability) they possess. I.e., the same 4 HD ogre throws only one attack per turn versus an elemental, with a successful attack dealing four hits (or 4-24 hp of damage). Done! * N many attacks at 1 hit each is statistically identical to 1 attack doing N many hits (averaged over time). So a simplification is for everyone to have one attack that does N many hits. So long as hits can be distributed among normal men. ** Fighting Capability needn't always line up neatly with number of HD because D&D divided many single CM-monsters into multiple types. It can be handy (and fun!) to treat HD and FC separately since it means hits-to-kill doesn't have to be directly proportional to attack capability. E.g., Dryads may have 2 HD, but likely only a FC of 1 man. Same with horses. And ghouls--although these cause paralysis--and Zombies (if you prefer the CM definition). And so on... Fun times ahead |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 23, 2014 20:05:10 GMT -6
I revised my table inspired by waysoftheearth's "smoothed" calculations. The probabilities diverge slightly from the OD&D attack matrix, but it is a more "fun" and aesthetically pleasing progression.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2014 23:47:15 GMT -6
I revised my table inspired by waysoftheearth's "smoothed" calculations. The probabilities diverge slightly from the OD&D attack matrix, but it is a more "fun" and aesthetically pleasing progression. As per the ACS Attack Matrices, we see here the practical limitation of only being able to advance "so far" (i.e., any target number less than 3 on 2d6 is "impractical"). But a neat side-effect of using 2d6 instead of d20 is the "diminishing return" of each successive step in the advancement. One question thou... why is there no advancement between fighter 7-9 and fighter 10-12 against targets without shields? The result of this is that shields have no effect on hit probability thereafter. Was this the intention? Edit: I might be nice to introduce a column for monster HD too |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2014 5:30:12 GMT -6
One question thou... why is there no advancement between fighter 7-9 and fighter 10-12 against targets without shields? The result of this is that shields have no effect on hit probability thereafter. Was this the intention? Well... 2d6 is less granular than 1d20. So you have to "double up" somewhere; there must always be instances where improving AC by 1 pip has no advantage. If you arrange the table so shields always make a difference, then you have situations where upgrading armor type has no effect on hit probability (you can just carry a shield instead of switching to heavier armor). It's still "smoother" than my original (mathematically more accurate table). For example if you look at the first line of my original table, you'll see that there is no benefit upgrading from AC7 (leather) to AC5 (chain) if you plan on fighting low-level enemies. I think I succeeded in eliminating that quirk. You could continue "smoothing" my table by shifting it 1 column at fighter level 10. Then you'd have a nice, smooth progression where everything fits an obvious pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 6:17:54 GMT -6
If you arrange the table so shields always make a difference, then you have situations where upgrading armor type has no effect on hit probability (you can just carry a shield instead of switching to heavier armor). I think this is a "feature" of the MtM table. Shields are worth ~10% defense on the MtM table--the same as what each "armour grade" (two pips of AC) is worth on the d20 tables. That's why the "smoothed" row on my table seems to make pretty good sense to me: A shield alone is equal to leather armour (but with leather you still have two hands free). Leather+sh is as good as mail, but mail leaves an extra hand free. Mail+sh is as good as plate, but plate leaves an extra hand free. Well, I think it's kinda neat anyways |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Apr 24, 2014 7:45:33 GMT -6
I think the 2d6 table is intriguing; if nothing else it makes the gradations between levels make sense.
But what I'm wondering is how you'd treat magical weapons and armor under this system. For instance, say a Veteran is facing off against a Hobgoblin (AC 5). Normally he needs a roll of 8 or better to hit. But if we give him a Sword +1, what do we go to? If the Veteran needs a 7 to hit, the Hobgoblin is effectively AC 7. If we make the Hobgoblin's AC 6, then the Veteran's magic sword does him no benefit and he still needs an 8.
Likewise, if the Veteran (with a normal weapon this time) is facing against a Bandit with chain armor and a shield (AC 4), he needs a 9 to hit. If the Bandit has magical armor per the percentage chances given, and we assume that it's +1 Armor, then either the Veteran's roll is adjusted such that he needs a 10, effectively giving the Bandit AC 2, or the Bandit's effective AC is 3, and the Veteran still needs a 9 to hit.
By my reading of Monsters & Treasure, the adjustments should be made to the to-hit roll rather than the Armor Class. So, a Veteran with a Sword +1 needs a 7 to hit a Hobgoblin, while a Veteran with a normal weapon needs a 10 to hit a Bandit with chain armor +1 and a shield. Effectively a +1 bonus is roughly 1.5 times (on average) as potent with this table as it is in the Alternative Combat System's matrices. (That's leaving aside probability and considering only impact relative to armor class.) The impact would be even more severe with a +2, where a Veteran's 6 to hit a Hobgoblin has taken him from effective AC 5 to AC 9.
Swinging magic weapons to shift armor class / table ranks, meanwhile, makes them less effective. Versus the Hobgoblin the Veteran's magic sword has no special effect, and likewise the Bandit's enchanted chain shirt does him no more good against our Veteran with a mundane weapon than a normal one would. We've now halved their effectiveness relative to the ACS.
None of this is a problem per se, but it does need to be considered: either magical weapons become significantly more potent, or much less so, depending on how you choose to resolve them in this system. That's really what you lose when you eliminate the 5% steps that OD&D was built around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2014 7:55:47 GMT -6
A "smoothed" progression like 6/7/7/8/8/9/9/10, while appealing to the eye, is a mathematically inaccurate 1d20 to 2d6 conversion. The crux of the issue is that, using 2d6, you have a 44.4% chance of rolling a 6, 7, or 8. So, any accurate conversion is going to have lots of 6s, 7s, and 8s! The more the table clings to the 2d6 bell curve, the more quirky situations where improving your armor doesn't actually help much. Look at the first row of my original table: improving from AC9 to AC3 (6 "pips") only changes the to-hit roll from 7 to 9. Changing from leather (AC7) to chain (AC5) doesn't help at all vs. foes with 1-3HD, because the system just isn't granular enough! In order for the table to fit your proposed design goal ("shields are always beneficial") we must flatten the bell curve. If you arrange the table so shields always make a difference, then you have situations where upgrading armor type has no effect on hit probability (you can just carry a shield instead of switching to heavier armor). I think this is a "feature" of the MtM table. Shields are worth ~10% defense on the MtM table--the same as what each "armour grade" (two pips of AC) is worth on the d20 tables. That's why the "smoothed" row on my table seems to make pretty good sense to me: A shield alone is equal to leather armour (but with leather you still have two hands free). Leather+sh is as good as mail, but mail leaves an extra hand free. Mail+sh is as good as plate, but plate leaves an extra hand free. Well, I think it's kinda neat anyways I tend to agree with you, that this gives more weight to shields and feels more "realistic" to me, based on the historical importance of shields. Maybe I will re-do my table yet again tonight, to be less mathematically appealing, but even "smoother." Or maybe I will just keep using 1d20 in my campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 17:11:18 GMT -6
None of this is a problem per se, but it does need to be considered: either magical weapons become significantly more potent, or much less so, depending on how you choose to resolve them in this system. That's really what you lose when you eliminate the 5% steps that OD&D was built around. I don't think magic (or any other) adjustments need be a problem for 2d6 resolution, we just need to recognise that 2d6 is coarser grained than is 1d20. Each pip on 2d6 on is worth an average increment of 9.1%, so almost twice as much as each pip on a d20. Therefore, a +2 sword in d20 terms should have a +1 adjustment in 2d6 terms. A +1 adjustment (in d20 terms) could either be ignored as simply too minor or, if you wanted to get fiddly, could apply a +1 adjustment to 2d6 only when an even number is rolled (50% likely). This technique would maintain the fidelity of those finer grained d20 adjustments quite closely. p.s. It's specifically the ACS that is built around 5% steps A "smoothed" progression like 6/7/7/8/8/9/9/10, while appealing to the eye, is a mathematically inaccurate 1d20 to 2d6 conversion. This really the crux of it--we're solving different problems. I've converted the MtM tables and that works out neatly (not surprising since both input and output are 2d6 based). You're trying to convert Attack Matrix I but that doesn't work out quite so neatly (since the input is d20 and the output is 2d6 based). |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Apr 24, 2014 17:33:29 GMT -6
I don't think magic (or any other) adjustments need be a problem for 2d6 resolution, we just need to recognise that 2d6 is coarser grained than is 1d20. Each pip on 2d6 on is worth an average increment of 9.1%, so almost twice as much as each pip on a d20. Therefore, a +2 sword in d20 terms should have a +1 adjustment in 2d6 terms. A +1 adjustment (in d20 terms) could either be ignored as simply too minor or, if you wanted to get fiddly, could apply a +1 adjustment to 2d6 only when an even number is rolled (50% likely). This technique would maintain the fidelity of those finer grained d20 adjustments quite closely. Sure, that's just another way of putting my comparison - either you are making big steps and magic items are more powerful, or you are making small ones and they're less significant. This is pretty much the most important ramification of the charts you guys are working out; the probabilities themselves are pretty similar, although not identical. It's the way the other elements interact with the coarser grained interpretation that merits closer analysis. It's a relatively small tweak in terms of the armor / shield groupings but there is a bigger change for magic items. How your games work, of course, should be your decision. I just find it curious to analyze combat numbers and not look at how they interact with other parts of the system. Understanding that is key to making the decision that works best for you. Gygax and Arneson both used versions of the ACS throughout the time that OD&D was developed. We can say very confidently that the magic items in Monsters & Treasure were created with the ACS in mind rather than the Chainmail man-to-man tables. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 18:39:31 GMT -6
either you are making big steps and magic items are more powerful, or you are making small ones and they're less significant. What I tried to illustrate above is that magic items can be made not more powerful nor less significant but (approximately) equally powerful regardless of whether you use 2d6 or d20 resolution--presuming one is willing to scale their adjustments appropriately. Edit: Or, if one were adverse to "scaling" magical adjustments specifically for 2d6, one could revert to +5% and +10% adjustments instead of +1 and +2 adjustments. This kind of language appears variously throughout the 3LBBs and other OD&D material (and even AD&D material), so there's nothing "wrong" with it. Then, it's only a matter of apply your "+10%" adjustment correctly for whichever type of dice you are throwing. In the d20 case +10% translates to a +2 adjustment. In the 2d6 case +10% translates to a +1 adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 19:01:39 GMT -6
We can say very confidently that the magic items in Monsters & Treasure were created with the ACS in mind rather than the Chainmail man-to-man tables. That's true. But equally, the magic items from the Fantasy Supplement were created for use with the MtM/FCT (2d6 based) resolution systems. It's interesting that both systems have magical weapons with +1, +2, and +3 adjustments! So in fact, a +3 weapon on the FCT (Excalibur is mentioned specifically) is worth approximately +5 to +6 on the ACS Attack Matrices |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2014 20:18:49 GMT -6
This one is self-explanatory. Statistically speaking, it is garbage... but the numbers are pleasing and 'smooth' to the human eye. I started with the assumptions "AC8 is always better than AC9, AC2 is always better than AC3, and each row of the table should improve vs. every AC." Once those constraints were in place, the table practically wrote itself.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 21:33:00 GMT -6
This one is self-explanatory. Statistically speaking, it is garbage... but the numbers are pleasing and 'smooth' to the human eye. I started with the assumptions "AC8 is always better than AC9, AC2 is always better than AC3, and each row of the table should improve vs. every AC." Once those constraints were in place, the table practically wrote itself. What is statistically garbage compared to Attack Matrices I & II might be gold compared to MtM/FCT. Your latest table is almost identical to my combined MtM/FCT matrix:  The blue rows are derived directly from the MtM rules (as shown previously). The red background column contains the numbers that the Man-types on the FCT need to hit the average AC of the man-types (around AC 4) on the FCT+2. These numbers are also the same as the numbers the that non-Man-types on the FCT need to hit the overall average AC (around AC 3) on the FCT+2. (I didn't bother highlighting the AC 3 column as well, cos the numbers are the same). What is the "FCT+2" you may ask? In order for the hit probabilities on the FCT to align with those on the MtM table, all rolls on the FCT have to be adjusted by +2. But that makes fantasy combat much deadlier! you cry. Yes, it does. I crunched the numbers and the FCT+2 makes kills 1.672 times as likely as on the regular FCT. But then, when we turn "kills" into "hits", we make combat only 0.583 times as deadly because (assuming hits do 1-6 points of damage) it is 58.3% likely a hit will wipe out a hit die worth of hit points. Combining 1.672 times as deadly and 0.583 times as deadly, we get: 1.672 x 0.583 = 0.9747. So the FCT+2 with "hits" is virtually the same deadliness as is the FCT with kills. Moreover, the FCT+2 then has the same average hit probability (assuming average ACs) as does the MtM table, so we can combine the two together into one matrix. See above If we also reduce MtM from kills to hits, then we should also add 2 to those target numbers, but that derails everything. So, in order for it to all work on one matrix, we have to presume "kills" versus mooks and "hits" versus big guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2014 21:51:44 GMT -6
It is neat to arrive at the same progression independently from two different directions. If I had the patience I would add AD&D combat tables to the mix to see how the thinking progressed through the years; is the pattern consistent? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2014 22:06:38 GMT -6
What is also interesting is that a superhero-1 has virtually the same average performance as does a hero+1.
Likewise, a man+1 has virtually the same average performance as does a hero-1.
In terms of fighting capability the progression given for fighters in M&M is not really as "smooth" as it appears to be.
Levels 1-3 are "Man +1" and "Hero-1" (the same)
Level 4 is "Hero"
Levels 5-7 are "Hero+1 and Superhero-1" (the same)
Level 8 is "Superhero"
Levels 9-10" are "Superhero +1"
FWIW, a fighting capability of "Wizard" is (on average) equivalent to "Hero +1".
|
|
