Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3869023" data-attributes="member: 3192">Back in 1971 Chainmail was first published.&nbsp; It was a Medieval Miniatures Wargame.&nbsp; At the rear of the booklet there were two appendices, each building on the other.&nbsp; The first was an option to include Fantasy creatures into your medieval army battles.&nbsp; Some of these included Dragons, Wizards, and Heroes (fighting men).&nbsp; The second appendix contained rules for playing these fantasy creatures as Skirmish Miniatures against each other.&nbsp; Three years later this boxset comes out as Supplement to the Chainmail rules.&nbsp; It doesn't contain any combat information, but assumes the 2nd appendix option for use during play.&nbsp; Instead it changes everything from a skirmish-level miniatures combat to a game where people play the actual role of the creatures. The characters one could play by default were Fighting-men (swords), Magic-Users (sorcery), and Clerics (a mix of the two).&nbsp; There were no rules for many things, but there were no rules against adding more either.&nbsp; In fact, most everyone did just that.&nbsp; They changed the rules, added and removed, and generally did want they wanted to the game.&nbsp; The mindset you ask about started, however, with magic as the province of the M-U, combat as the province of the F-M, and a weaker mix of the two for Clerics.&nbsp; There already was a class who could deal out both combat and magic.&nbsp; And superpower heroes weren't generally thought as a medieval fantasy.&nbsp; It was simply not prevalent in the fantasy fiction up until that time.&nbsp; In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes.&nbsp; It's not badwrongfun.&nbsp; It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today.&nbsp; Well, wizards are always going to be better through sheer versatility.&nbsp; A fighter cannot chop down a mountain with his sword, but a high level wizard can and defeat an entire army as you state above.&nbsp; Combat is not the only thing magic can effect, but by basing all classes upon combat they lose their definition.&nbsp; Every mage is a battle mage, every fighter is a magic warrior.The question isn't any longer, &quot;Why don't they include magic for Fighters?&quot;, but, &quot;Will they include options for non-magical Fighters and non-combat Wizards?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3869023, member: 3192"] Back in 1971 [u]Chainmail[/u] was first published. It was a Medieval Miniatures Wargame. At the rear of the booklet there were two appendices, each building on the other. The first was an option to include Fantasy creatures into your medieval army battles. Some of these included Dragons, Wizards, and Heroes (fighting men). The second appendix contained rules for playing these fantasy creatures as Skirmish Miniatures against each other. Three years later this boxset comes out as Supplement to the Chainmail rules. It doesn't contain any combat information, but assumes the 2nd appendix option for use during play. Instead it changes everything from a skirmish-level miniatures combat to a game where people play the actual role of the creatures. The characters one could play by default were Fighting-men (swords), Magic-Users (sorcery), and Clerics (a mix of the two). There were no rules for many things, but there were no rules against adding more either. In fact, most everyone did just that. They changed the rules, added and removed, and generally did want they wanted to the game. The mindset you ask about started, however, with magic as the province of the M-U, combat as the province of the F-M, and a weaker mix of the two for Clerics. There already was a class who could deal out both combat and magic. And superpower heroes weren't generally thought as a medieval fantasy. It was simply not prevalent in the fantasy fiction up until that time. In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes. It's not badwrongfun. It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today. Well, wizards are always going to be better through sheer versatility. A fighter cannot chop down a mountain with his sword, but a high level wizard can [i]and[/i] defeat an entire army as you state above. Combat is not the only thing magic can effect, but by basing all classes upon combat they lose their definition. Every mage is a battle mage, every fighter is a magic warrior. The question isn't any longer, "Why don't they include magic for Fighters?", but, "Will they include options for non-magical Fighters and non-combat Wizards?" [/QUOTE]

Verification