Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8348260" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yet, there is a vast array of things this analysis leaves out. I'll just give a brief exposition of what you would be looking at if you had the LBBs and decided to have a combat. First of all there's nothing explicit which even talks about resolving combat, when it happens, or how, AT ALL. I gleaned the following by consulting vols 1 and 3. Vol 1 simply states that you need Chainmail in order to play. It does not state why or how you would use it. Later in the volume an 'alternate combat table' is provided. There is again, no explanation of any sort associated with it. Volume 3 under the topic of 'movement and turns' states no more than "combat has 10 rounds per turn", though it does also explain briefly what an exploration turn is, and its length as 10 minutes (so we can assume 1 minute rounds). Nothing else is stated.Later in volume 3 is a one paragraph topic called 'Land Combat', where we finally learn you will use Chainmail to resolve fights "or the alternate combat matrix." It then clarifies that a 'kill or drive back' result from Chainmail is merely a 'hit' in D&D, but there's no implication of what a hit DOES. Presumably knowing of the existence of hit points and weapon damage, we are supposed to extrapolate from 'hit' to 'roll weapon damage'. I know of nothing which actually states this!Furthermore, in respect of 'initiative' and 'simultaneity' you would be wrong in your assumptions! There are actually THREE possibilities. First of all Chainmail (I have 3rd edition, earlier ones might vary slightly) on page 9 specifies 2 turn orders, which are alternatives to each other. In one the two sides roll initiative and alternate movement, including missile fire and artillery, with 'split fire' and 'passthrough fire' (firing while moving or at moving targets) taking instant effect, then artillery, with simultaneous effect, and then melee (by the survivors of above) having simultaneous effect. The other option is both sides write down their movement and the referee figures out who gets to end up where, with the other factors basically as above (note how both of these contribute to the 1e melee structure). The THIRD possibility is given on page 25 by the 'Man to Man Melee' rules, which are a bit unclear as they state they are built on the 20:1 standard rules, but then state that when characters are within 3" of each other they engage in melee, with the order being determined by a set of factors including types of weapon, length, attacker first, terrain advantage (IE if you are atop a castle wall you get to strike first at someone scaling up) etc. The actual man-to-man melee stables are then in an appendix, but they really add nothing to our knowledge. Presumably you would replace those with the mysterious 'alternate' matrix if you wished. Finally, if you peruse Holmes Basic, there is no initiative roll there at all! People move and attack in Dexterity order! Beyond that there is some discussion of certain weapons getting 2 attacks/round and others getting one every other round, but not really an explanation of how that works into the rest of the system.The upshot of all this being that initiative, as such, is not an actual defined rule of D&D in its original form. Depending on how you interpret the way you are supposed to use Chainmail, initiative MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT exist! No real explanation of how spell casting factors into this is apparent, though presumably it is an analog of artillery fire, which seems to be the case in fantasy supplement for Chainmail. So you begin to see exactly the vast degree to which the game is not really a game! There could not possibly be a rule 0, as such, in early D&D. That is to say, maybe on certain points there could, but since the DM was pretty much making up the entire game from almost scratch it seems petty to even mention how he might hack Turn Undead or whatever.Right, there are definitely a LOT more points in 1e that are possible to define as having specific rules that are actually present and knowable and usable. Even so there are vital elements which are not specified by the rules that have to be extrapolated from SOMEWHERE. While most groups were in enough contact with other gamers to get the 'consensus/official' way, I have encountered isolated groups who had completely variant interpretations that are nevertheless consistent with what is actually written!But which is that? lol. I honestly do not know. I know how we did it way back in the mid-70's. I really honestly do not know if that is similar to how Arneson or Gygax intended or how they actually did it (except I expect Gary's way is codified mostly in 1e, and we did NOT do it that way!).</blockquote>

Verification