Observations about Chainmail/OD&D. . .

I was re-reading the 3rd printing of Chainmail today and it struck me that, in many ways, both Chainmail and OD&D (1974) are much more about genre simulation than later versions of D&D (including Basic D&D and AD&D). For example, in Chainmail. . .

Chainmail Rules said:

A Hero-type*, armed with a bow, shoots a dragon flying within range overhead out of the air and kills it on a two [dice] roll of 10 or better, with a 2 plus 1 on the dice firing an enchanted arrow. Rangers are Hero-types with a +1 on attack dice.

Click to expand...

I can't help but think that the death of Smaug inspired the rule above. Where are the mechanics in later editions of D&D that allow one to recreate this very specific scene from popular fiction? Absent. Indeed, later editions of D&D seem to have far less in the way of mechanical support for genre than Chainmail does.

What I mean to relay here is that, despite the presence of many genre tenets in later editions of D&D, there aren't many actual mechanics devoted to recreating those genres during actual play. In later editions of D&D stuff like the one-hit dragon kill was either dropped entirely or marginalized so that everybody could ostensibly do it. Weird.

It also became apparent that almost all of the fantasy rules in Chainmail (and, to a lesser extent, OD&D) are lifted right out of Lord of the Rings. Other sources be damned. And, to be clear, this is a positive thing because you end up with rules like:

Chainmail Rules regarding Dwarves said:

Goblins and Kobolds are their natural (and most hated) enemies, and Dwarves (Gnomes) will Goblins (Kobolds) before any other enemies in sight, regardless of orders to the contrary. However, Dwarves and Gnomes will not have to roll an "obedience die" (as do Knights) to follow orders, i.e., they will not automatically attack, but if ordered to to attack, and Goblins (Kobolds) are within charging distance, they will attack the Goblin (Kobold) formation to the exclusion of orders to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Where are the mechanics for how uncontrollable racial hatred effects combat in later editions of D&D? Again, I do believe they're absent, despite being a well-established staple of Tolkien's fantasy (to say nothing of Dennis L. McKiernan and other, later, high fantasy authors). This is great simulationist crunch.

In this afternoon of reading, I am slowly being convinced that Chainmail + OD&D (1974) is better suited to the kind of game that I enjoy (i.e., a game with mechanical support for genre emulation) than later editions of D&D are. The bit with heroes, arrows, and dragons particularly sold me. PCs should be able to do wildly heroic stuff like that out of the gate!

I've read, played, and run OD&D before but never noticed much of this in the past.

Hmmm. . . I wonder if I'm having a stroke or something.

[Edit: Since it has been mentioned, in true grognard fashion, I'm using the designator "OD&D" to refer to Original D&D which was only ever published as three little digest-sized booklets offered in woodgrain, brown or white boxes. So, I am not referring to the later Basic, B/X, or BECM editions of D&D when I say "OD&D".]

As Diaglo can tell you, there are different versions of OD&D. Your preference sounds like the first version, while the Mentzer version that introduced me to D&D doesn't have as many such rules. Just wanted to add that for the uninformed who may swing by.

Deuce Traveler said:

Your preference sounds like the first version, while the Mentzer version that introduced me to D&D doesn't have as many such rules. Just wanted to add that for the uninformed who may swing by.

Click to expand...

I suspect that diaglo would tell you Mentzer designed BECM D&D, not OD&D Thanks for reminding me that there is often confusion on the terminology, though. I've edited the original post for clarification.

jdrakeh said:

Where are the mechanics in later editions of D&D that allow one to recreate this very specific scene from popular fiction? Absent. Indeed, later editions of D&D seem to have far less in the way of mechanical support for genre than Chainmail does.

Click to expand...

What about arrows of dragon slaying? I always thought they were there only to keep a vestige of that bit from the hobbit.

I don't disagree with your overall point, though.

I would also point out that AD&D1e included a racial interactions table & fluff about the relations between races. While the Chainmail rule is appropriate for a wargame, to me it is less appropriate for a role-playing game. But that's me.

jdrakeh said:

I was re-reading the 3rd printing of Chainmail today and it struck me that, in many ways, both Chainmail and OD&D (1974) are much more about genre simulation than later versions of D&D (including Basic D&D and AD&D). For example, in Chainmail. . .


...In this afternoon of reading, I am slowly being convinced that Chainmail + OD&D (1974) is better suited to the kind of game that I enjoy (i.e., a game with mechanical support for genre emulation) than later editions of D&D are. The bit with heroes, arrows, and dragons particularly sold me. PCs should be able to do wildly heroic stuff like that out of the gate!

...I've read, played, and run OD&D before but never noticed much of this in the past.

...Hmmm. . . I wonder if I'm having a stroke or something.

Click to expand...

Highlighted the parts of your great post that reflect where I've been in my gaming for about three years now--both to comment that you're not alone, and I think you've summed up a lot of how I feel about the matter really, really well.

It ain't for everybody (or there wouldn't've been an Advanced version of the game, let alone a Fourth Edition on the horizon) for for those who make a certain connexion with it, hardly anything else compares.

Some cool insights in your post; I, for one, thank you for sharing 'em.

next session is this sunday for our campaign.

edit: now you know why i like Chainmail D&D.

Crazy question. . . has anybody here ever run a short fantasy campaign in the vein of D&D using just the Man-to-Man and Fantasy rules in Chainmail?

I've always thought that the Chainmail rules were originally set-up for short battles rather than RPGing. More like Warhammer 40k than the DnD game we now know and love.

I'm running OD&D, but I'm using the alternate combat system, rather than the Chainmail man-to-man rules. The combat sequence that I'm using is derived from Swords & Spells (and thus Chainmail, as well), but that's not really the same.

There's a thread at the OD&D discussion boards that talks about Chainmail as proto-D&D. I think Crimhthan_the_Great mentions that he sometimes still runs OD&D with Chainmail rules.

I've never run an actual campaign that way, but I've run a fair number of test-fights using D&D characters with the Chainmail Man-to-Man charts, and although I like only using six-sided dice (IMO only the referee should be required to own any dice with other than six sides) the results weren't that great because the feel was too different from my D&D-based expectations: weapon-choice became too important with the "standard" sword, mace, battle axe and especially spear all being very weak choices (even the dagger's better, at least against AC 6-9); to be effective in combat you want at least a morning star or flail and preferably a two-handed sword (which is pretty much better against every type of armor than every other weapon). The difference between 8+ to hit and 6+ to hit may not look all that big on the chart, but in play, because of the distribution of 2D6, it means the latter weapon is hitting almost twice as often as the former (42% vs 72%).

Another thing I've never done (but always kind of wanted to) was to revert to the Chainmail system fot combat involving mooks -- so if you've got a Hero and 12 men-at-arms vs 20 goblins, the men-at-arms count as heavy foot, the goblins as light foot, and the Hero as 4 armored foot (meaning when attacking the goblins he rolls 4D6 and any roll of 4+ kills a goblin). Doing that would obviously speed things up and, I suspect, make them more fun.