That you had discussions with "Forest O'Grady" who also just so happens to hive mind the dislike of "other people" who've been banned from DF and ODD74, and have within a few days been convinced that your original assertion was wrong but these other forums (who have no love of the Irish) require their own broadcast warnings, is precious.  We are such ignorant kids, what would we do without your guidance?  

And not only were you a guardian of D&D, but the internet too?  I hope we fund a Mount Rushmore-sized monument to all boomers everywhere, as clearly they handed everyone a golden age that gen-xers must have f'd up somehow.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117334Ummm. no. It is 100% on them. Why do you think I called them out here on an open forum

Because you're an entitled snowflake who said he thinks of himself as special for merely having existed. That's why you called them out.

Quote, one where they couldn't twist the facts, one where they couldn't delete the threads? Since they have failed so completely at their stated goal, and on purpose I would add, I have since taken steps to preserve the important discussions of the early days of gaming. I moved my gaming discussions to forums like this one, where they can't control, modify, disparage, or delete. I have also the year before last, put my gaming website back up online, and am posting directly there. I need to post more often, All is not quiet there, a lot going on behind the scenes there and 2020 should see my website growing healthy. Not only that, I'm setting up a trust to ensure the history and knowledge remains intact and available, even after I'm gone.

All of which you should have done in the first place rather than putting it on someone else's property which you had no control over. Which is why it's not on them (they owe you nothing) but on you for having put it there in the first place.

Quoteso they don't make the same mistake I did and post about the history of games, only to have the posts deleted, or that they be banned for speaking the truth.

Oh good. You admit you made a mistake. Progress!

QuoteAs to what I used for free, I'm going to let you in on a little secret about the Internet that you really should know. The Internet was never about business. The Internet and Forums wasn't originally about whether I could afford to pay and play or not. In it's original form, in the 1970's it was called Arpanet, and it was one of the first national computer networks. It was funded by a DoD research grant, meaning it was taxpayer funded, and it linked mainframe computers at universities, trade schools, government offices, and the military. It was specifically designed as a flexible open communications system that would be able to withstand a protracted nuclear war and direct nuclear weapons strikes. It was built just so people could talk to each other, even under the most difficult of conditions, and originally the only domains available were .org, .net, and .mil and .edu.  There was no .com  There was no commercial internet, ...at all. We just talked to each other online. Once the hardware (computer, modems, etc.) was purchased to enable communications all you needed was the knowledge of how the software works to make the network function. It was the cost of electricity to run my computer. I would know, I had a .mil email account on Arpanet, and was on USenet (the civilian portion of Arpanet) beginning in late 1982.

In 1984, when .com became available, and commercial companies for the first time were allowed to participate and the Internet was actually born, I was there, and behind the scenes we were having discussions about whether or not to allow commercial companies onto Arpanet. Some thought they would take it over, and use it solely to take advantage of people, others thought that we would enter a new information age, and companies would share their data and knowledge freely since there was virtually no expense to maintaining a presence and sharing on the Internet. In the end, we all took a private vote behind the scenes and opted to allow commercial companies a place at the table WE HAD ALREADY FUCKING BUILT AND WERE USING... in our generosity of spirit, in order to support opportunity, liberty, and justice for all.

..and now, five decades later, the commercial part of the Internet, the Internet that my snowflake special ass helped to build, is being thrown back in my face by ignorant kids like you.

If a company or an individual decides they want to build a website or forum, they do have the responsibility to do their best to ensure that forum is available for everyone to access and use. It's why we built the Internet in the first place. What you are doing here, I don't know, and if it is not to share information, and make a better world, and make better games, what are you doing?

Hey jackass, in terms of computers and the history of the Internet I am as old as you and I am betting more experiencde than you. My first was a mainframe prior to personal computers, which I learned to program on punchcards. I then had the Heathkit first home computer, which my family and I built (no monitor, no keyboard, just lights and switches and a printer eventually). Then we had Commodores and TRS 80s and such. Then I used BBSes, and helped build one of the largest. Then I was using the edu system with things like PINE to access email, and FINGER to find people. Eventually I went on to work for an ISP, one of the earliest ones, which became one of the major ones.

The boards you went to do not date back to arpanet. They are all modern boards which their administrators PAY FOR AND OWN. They're not your property, they are their property. They owe you nothing at all. There is no contractual relationship you have between yourself and them concerning things you post there for free which they pay for when they pay for the connectivity and space and OS and message board software and all the other things they're paying for to run it. They do not in fact have a " responsibility to do their best to ensure that forum is available for everyone to access and use. " Where does your entitled butt come up with this supposed responsibility? What is the source of that responsibility? THEY OWE YOU NOTHING. You did not "build the internet". In fact by putting up a message board, THEY have built it more than you! You're again making the "I existed and I am older therefore I am entitled and special" argument.

I do share information and make the world better for gaming...I just don't complain about it if I do it on someone elses message board and they decide to take it down. Because I am not entitled to their services for merely existing.

I guess I am finally starting to genuinely understand the phrase "OK Boomer".

Quote from: Mistwell;1117346The boards you went to do not date back to arpanet. They are all modern boards which their administrators PAY FOR AND OWN. They're not your property, they are their property....

...rest of this bullshit totally snipped i.e. vasectomy of the bile and hate...

I guess I am finally starting to genuinely understand the phrase "OK Boomer".

As usual, you are wrong. Proboards from their home page - Simple, fast, easy to use, and fun.
ProBoards is the largest host of free forums on the Internet. We provide the best forums and customer service to help your online community thrive.


and from the 0D&D Proboards
Just a few random thoughts.
"Play well with others. Even if you don't agree with someone, try to be nice or get thrown out.
Try to stay on topic. If you have a thread "hijack" maybe start a new thread.
Try to stick with the subject material. The goal here is to discuss OD&D. If you have some "well, AD&D does it this way..." statements, that's okay. Just try not to go too far afield. There is a "General" section for topics that don't seem to fit anywhere else."
and...

"To answer your second question, this board has mainly been brought to life in order to discuss D&D as it was before AD&D (and thus before the Rules Cyclopedia you mentioned). The reason is, that there are several boards out there discussing "classic D&D", but there was no board especially dealing with the Original D&D only. As Finarvyn stated in his initial post, it is not prohibited to talk about other versions of the game as well, but merely as in comparing rather than in subject of a topic on its own. "

and this all happened a year before I was banned on the 0D&D 74' Proboards. I had no idea until just now, honestly...


Aug 6, 2017 at 10:25am oakesspalding likes this
Quote
Post by irishwarrior on Aug 6, 2017 at 10:25am
talysman Avatar
Aug 5, 2017 at 1:17pm talysman said:
I'm a little disappointed that the forum software resets deleted user's post counts to zero. I feel that none of the users who deleted their accounts were around very long
Not around very long? I can't see the post count either but the earliest post I could find by samsonandsolomon was
samsonandsolomon
Deleted Member

It's gonna' be an Old School Christmas. . .
Dec 23, 2007 at 9:44pm

Post by samsonandsolomon on Dec 23, 2007 at 9:44pm
We hate spam, internet or in the can, both are vile! Ugh! Yuk!

We have the suspicion that we are getting something D&D related for Christmas. Less than 48 hours and we'll find out.

So that poster was around at least 9 years plus and I read his deletion post and it was clear that he quit because the global mod told him that he would have think and believe a certain way to be a member here. But apparently none of you find that Orwellian situation offensive.

As for thebloodynine I can't see his post count either but his earliest post I could find was
thebloodynine
Deleted Member

Introductions
Dec 17, 2010 at 3:38pm

Post by thebloodynine on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:38pm
Hi all, this a great site! Tons and tons of old school goodness. I will be busy reading for months. Old time, old school player and referee. Haven't played in years, but miss it all the time. This seems to be the largest OD&D forum on the internet. Thanks greatly to the admin!

This poster was around for over six years and having read his deletion post, I see that he quit because the global mod made it clear that some posters would get special treatment and could not be questioned. But apparently none of you find that Orwellian approach offensive.

Maybe the admin should make a list of the things members have to believe on the social and political spectrum to be allowed to be a participating member here. Then we can each decide if we want to bow our knee at those altars or not. I have a low post count too and I mainly lurk too, just like these recently departed members. I have been around for 10 years and this is my 9th post. I understand since I lurk my view won't mean anything, but it should raise questions when someone, the global mod, offends long term quiet members that had never before made any trouble feel offended and unwelcome to the point that they delete their accounts.

So I ask, what are our shibboleths that distinguish the required beliefs of the "in-group" and allow exclusion of the beliefs of the "out-group?" I saw the term hate speech tossed around, but I did not see any hate speech. I also saw the terms "-isms and -phobias" used to slander and libel a members personal moral belief system and that this belief "test" would be used to ban people. I think that is very troubling and I do not understand why it is being applauded.
oakesspalding
Level 7 Enchanter
****

oakesspalding Avatar

Posts: 576

   
Aug 6, 2017 at 11:07am  
Quote
Post Options
Post by oakesspalding on Aug 6, 2017 at 11:07am
With a few potential caveats - among them that there may have been certain things going on behind the scenes that I don't know about - I agree pretty much with the above. I can only go by what I see, and to me it appears that the poster in question was treated unjustly. While what he said may have been offensive to some, he was goaded into saying it by a moderator, Rafael, who has recently done more to fan the flames of discord and push his own agenda than to promote peace or calm. I refer readers in particular to the first Appendix N thread where Rafael burst in and starting insulting another member for no particular reason I could see.

As some of you also may have seen, Rafael also added a snarky Game of Thrones "farewell" video to the explanation messages of the deleted posters before deleting them completely. This is less the proper behavior of a moderator than of someone who needs a moderator.


So really? I'm on a message board for something in the neighborhood of fifteen years, and someone just comes along and arbitrarily decides I don't deserve to be on the forum anymore. Maybe we should apply these rules to you here, just to see how well you would like that?

So their boards are free, and they are not even keeping to their own code, playing nice and all. I call foul and won't be silent just to please you. Everyone needs to know how they operate. Everyone.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117354As usual, you are wrong. Proboards from their home page - Simple, fast, easy to use, and fun.
ProBoards is the largest host of free forums on the Internet. We provide the best forums and customer service to help your online community thrive.

That shows I am right. You are old enough to understand when something is free, it obligates them for nothing. They don't actually owe you that customer service - you paid nothing for it. You have no contractual relationship with them. It's FREE. How can you not grok that concept at your age that if something is free it can be cut off at any time for any reason...because it was free?

QuoteSo really? I'm on a message board for something in the neighborhood of fifteen years, and someone just comes along and arbitrarily decides I don't deserve to be on the forum anymore.

Yes. Exactly.  This is again you stating you think you are entitled to something because you existed for a long time. You didn't earn anything for existing for those 15 years on their board. You gained no rights or privileges because you posted there a long time. You are in their house, with their rules, which they can change at any time for any reason or no reason at all. They owe you nothing, just as you owe them nothing. It's a free service!

QuoteMaybe we should apply these rules to you here, just to see how well you would like that?

Oh have no doubt I fully understand you not liking it. And of course Pundit is free to kick me off here at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Pundit pays for this message board! He has alllllll the rights concerning how it is used and who it is used by.

If you were just complaining that you think it's unfair that would be one thing. But instead you're arguing you are entitled to something for having been posting there for a long time. Like they owe you something. That goes beyond just grousing about moderators.

QuoteSo their boards are free, and they are not even keeping to their own code, playing nice and all. I call foul and won't be silent just to please you. Everyone needs to know how they operate. Everyone.

Sure you can whine bitch moan and complain about the unfairness of it all, all you want. Nobody is telling you to be silent - I am just disagreeing with a meaningful portion of your complaint (I am free to do that too, right?) Just stop pretending they owe you something or you were entitled to something. They don't owe you and you are not entitled to it. Buyer beware - or in this case free user beware.

Quote from: Mistwell;1117356I am just disagreeing with a meaningful portion of your complaint (I am free to do that too, right?) Just stop pretending they owe you something or you were entitled to something. They don't owe you and you are not entitled to it. Buyer beware - or in this case free user beware.

Well, here we are actually a community, and our commitment to Freedom for all entitles you to post and continuously disagree with me. That is a real community. 0D&D Proboards however is not, although they claim to be. There should be a law against false advertising, but there isn't, and they may censor me all they like over there and ban me, and you may continue to attempt to censor me all you like over here, good luck with that.

Quote from: EOTB;1117344And not only were you a guardian of D&D, but the internet too?

As I've in NorCal and SoCal, I've met many older programmers from the early days of the net and Game Daddy's discussion is nearly word for word what I've heard many times over the years from retired engineers and developers. They were a idealistic bunch, not surprising since many came from academia or were California techno-hippies. Their shock and dismay over what the internet has become is understandable when you hear the sincerity in which they speak about their original creation.

I'm sympathetic to their dismay, but like for all of us, another reading of Shelley's Ozymandius is in order.

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117358Well, here we are actually a community, and our commitment to Freedom for all entitles you to post and continuously disagree with me. That is a real community. 0D&D Proboards however is not, although they claim to be. There should be a law against false advertising, but there isn't, and they may censor me all they like over there and ban me, and you may continue to attempt to censor me all you like over here, good luck with that.

You think my dissenting with your opinion is an attempt to censor you?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117371As I've in NorCal and SoCal, I've met many older programmers from the early days of the net and Game Daddy's discussion is nearly word for word what I've heard many times over the years from retired engineers and developers. They were a idealistic bunch, not surprising since many came from academia or were California techno-hippies. Their shock and dismay over what the internet has become is understandable when you hear the sincerity in which they speak about their original creation.

Hmmm? Now we are just one Arcology among almost a countless number in a sea of the sprawl. There was a moment though, when we had a clear vision of what everything tech should be.

So it turns out I'm extra special for having started playing D&D in 1977? :cool:

So I'll share some wisdom with you, made indisputable because I played OD&D back when: People who announce they or their games are Arnesonian or Gygaxian are pretentious jackasses. Claiming there are no flaws in the original rules is dishonest propaganda. Acting0 superior because you were there 40+ years ago is only deserving of mockery.

Regarding that last point, mocking me for this post will only prove my superiority.

Quote from: rawma;1117375So it turns out I'm extra special for having started playing D&D in 1977? :cool:

So I'll share some wisdom with you, made indisputable because I played OD&D back when: People who announce they or their games are Arnesonian or Gygaxian are pretentious jackasses. Claiming there are no flaws in the original rules is dishonest propaganda. Acting0 superior because you were there 40+ years ago is only deserving of mockery.

Regarding that last point, mocking me for this post will only prove my superiority.

Yep, you are extra special because you have been around awhile. Your opinion about what constititutes a jackass is your opinion though, and not established fact, because nothing is indisputable, and this is precisely what makes this message forum better than say the 0D&D 74 Proboards because you have the right here to dispute whatever anyone claims, where you don't have that right on the other message forums. Who here has claimed there are no flaws in the original rules? Only you are are here to discuss superiority, ...you know some of us are here to actually discuss games, right?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117371As I've in NorCal and SoCal, I've met many older programmers from the early days of the net and Game Daddy's discussion is nearly word for word what I've heard many times over the years from retired engineers and developers. They were a idealistic bunch, not surprising since many came from academia or were California techno-hippies. Their shock and dismay over what the internet has become is understandable when you hear the sincerity in which they speak about their original creation.

I'm sympathetic to their dismay, but like for all of us, another reading of Shelley's Ozymandius is in order.

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Greetings!

Very nice, my friend!

My mind boggles at reading through the melodramatic screeching and pretentious farting in this thread though.

Makes me want to light up my pipe and pour some fresh coffee.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117377...you know some of us are here to actually discuss games, right?

Not you, as far as anyone could tell from this thread.

Quote from: rawma;1117375People who announce they or their games are Arnesonian or Gygaxian are pretentious jackasses.

I mostly agree with you, but based on many forum threads, its clear Dave and Gary had significantly different DMing styles which isn't surprising. However, what exactly exists as concrete "ways to GM" as Gary or as Dave seems to be lacking based on what I've seen. Perhaps others can point to old archives which do discuss their individual styles and how to emulate them. I know people often point to Gary's writings in the DMG and Dragon as evidence of his DM style, but what game designers write for publication and what they actually do in actual play at an actual table with actual players are often quite different in my experience.

I was fortunate to play with Dave Arneson once at a charity event at a convention, but that was decades after OD&D was created so I can't say the Dave DM experience I had was how Dave ran his tables in the Disco Era. However, I can confirm he certainly had a unique DMing style that I found surprising, refreshing and inspiring.

Quote from: SHARK;1117378Makes me want to light up my pipe and pour some fresh coffee.

The crack pipe has been lit too many times in this thread already!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117382... its clear Dave and Gary had significantly different DMing styles which isn't surprising. However, what exactly exists as concrete "ways to GM" as Gary or as Dave seems to be lacking based on what I've seen. Perhaps others can point to old archives which do discuss their individual styles and how to emulate them. I know people often point to Gary's writings in the DMG and Dragon as evidence of his DM style, but what game designers write for publication and what they actually do in actual play at an actual table with actual players are often quite different in my experience.

I was fortunate to play with Dave Arneson once at a charity event at a convention, but that was decades after OD&D was created so I can't say the Dave DM experience I had was how Dave ran his tables in the Disco Era. However, I can confirm he certainly had a unique DMing style that I found surprising, refreshing and inspiring.

I would be really interested to read a discussion/comparison of the two styles. Unfortunately when I go searching I only seem to find discussion of who invented what and the falling out.

Seconding Spinachcat -- if anyone "can point to old archives which do discuss their individual styles", that'd be really cool.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1117383I would be really interested to read a discussion/comparison of the two styles. Unfortunately when I go searching I only seem to find discussion of who invented what and the falling out.

Seconding Spinachcat -- if anyone "can point to old archives which do discuss their individual styles", that'd be really cool.

Fine. I have already had discussions with folks on other boards as well as on G+ about this, much of which has been lost. Over the holidays, I'll try to find my original notes as well as my unplanned interview with Dave Arneson in 2004. I'll start today though with my notes in discussion with DH Boggs as well as over on Murkhill, and here in other threads where we were discussing Chainmail and D&D. This part of this discussion starts with Dave Arneson, because RPGs started with him, however over the holidays I'll take a look at Gary's playstyle, both when he first worked out the iteration of the rules he liked best with 1eAD&D and later in his life, when he went back, and began again to re-use that earlier freestyle more closely matched 0D&D rather than the more formal and structured AD&D. Totally appropriate for this thread, I would add...

Hrmm? There are some key references regarding HP and AC that have been overlooked in the First Fantasy Campaign, namely in the Introduction, and I'll quote this here and now because it seems that this entire article is going into a place with Dave Armeson's game design that is completely unfamiliar to me, and I spent a considerable amount of time talking directly with him about this, in 2004. I think you guys are overthinking this, and since we can't ask him right now, we need to take a close look at what he wrote in his introduction for his Blackmoor game, in the First Fantasy Campaign in 1977.

Okay so, from the Introduction in FFC on Page 2,

"So it was with the dungeon of BLACKMOOR. It began with only the basic monsters in CHAINMAIL and was only some six levels deep. Six levels was chosen because it allowed random placement with six sided dice (no funny dice back then)(sic.). So even in the Dungeon it became quickly apparent that there was a need for a greater variety of monsters, more definition even within the type of monsters, and certainly a deeper dungeon."

This tells me that Dave started with the Chainmail rules, which used a 2d6 versus a target number to hit when using the man-to-man combat rules, and a hit beating the target number in Chainmail results in a Kill, except with heroes, superheroes, and some fantasy monsters, who would receive a saving throw by rolling 2d6. If the attacker matched the target number then the defender was forced to withdraw by 3 inches.

I just want to note here, that when Dave is referring to placement, he isn't talking about player characters, rather, ...what level of the Dungeon the various monsters will be placed into, when generating random dungeons.

Chainmail also featured mass combat rules, and every creature was treated as either light foot, armored foot, heavy foot, or whatever. Some of the enchanted creatures had some special kinds of attacks which were individually described. Basically a player would roll a d6 for each miniature that made up the unit, and a 6 would hit and produce a kill. There were some variations, for example medium horsemen could roll 2 dice per mini, with a 4,5, or 6 producing a casualty. Heroes rolled four dice, and superheroes rolled eight dice, with 6's producing casualties. Units which took excessive casualties (more than 25%) would have to make a morale check. Heroes and superheroes that were hit, could make a 2d6 saving throw to avoid being killed.

Dave and his group, didn't like the Chainmail system very much, because the mortality rate for the leaders (i.e. the player characters) was too high. The Players didn't like getting killed, by just one hit from the monsters. It's especially bad, whena like a single Orc scored a hit on a Hero or Superhero, and the Hero or SH failed the saving throw, and would die in the Dungeon, so just as he described, Dave adapted his naval rules from his ironclad games, but it wasn't a straight transfer as you all are trying to recreate here in this article. The Introduction for FFC clearly described how Dave adapted the Naval rules for his BLACKMOOR game, to quote;

"So there were now different types of Dragons by size (With each HD the Dragon had, the player could now roll a dice for the Dragon to Hit, with a 6 producing a casualty in the mass combat system, and there was also 2d6 monster attack table for man-to-man melee in Chainmail  when a player faced off with a monster in a one-on-one duel.) and other new creatures like Gargoyles, from standard mythology. AC was determined by the description of the creature creature (Hide, scales, etc.) and how impervious it was in the accounts given in mythology about it."


Here it very clear, that each creature got it's specific armor class based on it's skin type, as well as additional information, Hide was equivalent to armor, Scales to Chainmail, and Dragonscales to Platemail, and so on… with variations. So the GM was now keeping a monster table describing variable monster stats, Orcs had One HD, or one attack per mini, Kobolds ½ HD, or it was that two Kobolds miniatures were needed in any attack, to get that hit. Uruk-hai Orcs, 2 HD, So they would get two d6 rolls on the Chainmail table. In Man-to-man melee, they got two attacks, and so forth. The FFC Introduction at this point goes on to describe how the monsters were assigned Hit Dice.

"HD was determined pretty much on the size of the creatures physically and, again some regard for its mythical properties. For regular animals that were simply made larger, like BEETLES, a standard textbook provided interesting facts about the critters and all were given HD proportional to their size , relative to other Beetles, for instance. Insects were all given about the same AC with additions, again, for unique properties."

A paragraph later Dave goes on to talk about combat;

"Combat was quite simple at first and then got progressively more complicated with the addition of hit location, etc.. As the players first rolled for characteristics , the number of hits a body could take ran from 0-100. As the player progressed he did not receive additional hit points, but rather he became harder to hit. All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player received a "Saving Throw" against any hit he received. Thus although he might be hit several times during a melee round, in actuality he might not take any damage at all."

Okay, so what I'm gleaning from this is that now is that Dave is using HP for characters, just like with his Naval Wargames, and he rolls a d100 to determine the hit points that a specific character starts with during Character Generation. This is a fixed number that never goes up or down. Note that Dave has just started using levels, for the player characters in Blackmoor. Dave is also now using Polyhedral dice, (which he discovered and purchased in the late 1960's, not D6's exclusively for his Blackmoor game at this point). At this point I believe that each successful hit delivers 1d6 points of damage, and that hit damage is applied against characters as well as the Monster HP, which were determined by the HD, which the GM (Dave) decided and recorded prior to, or sometimes even during the game, especially when he thought up new monsters on the fly, he wanted to throw into his dungeons. Note that with this system, some monsters instantly become much more difficult to kill as well (Like Dragons, Large Dinosaurs, and Giants, for example). Let's continue though with the FFC Introduction though, to provide additional enlightenment as to how the original Blackmoor game was being played…

"Only Fighters gained advantages in these melee saving throws. Clerics and Magic-users progressed in their own areas, which might, or might not modify their saving throws. And so it went, Hit location, so that even the mighty Smaug could fall to a single arrow in the right place (very unlikely), Height Differentiation so that the little guys could run around more, and the big ones could kill more etc. Still these were guidelines, hit location was generally used only for the bigger critters, and only on a man-to-man level were all the options thrown in. This allowed play to progress quickly even if the poor monsters suffered more from it."

Dave's words here. The only thing I want to note right now, is from earlier where Dave said "As Players progressed he did not receive more HP, but instead became harder to hit." So too with the armor class, Leather armor added two, to the number required to hit using Dave's system, and chainmail added four, with Platemail adding six, and a medium shield adding one to the required number to hit. This was elegant, fast, and just in line with the kind of speedy play Dave wanted. He wanted one to-hit roll instead of a dice pool with counting, for determining hits to speed up man-to-man combat rounds. Because the players wanted more chances to be heroes, they were insta-killed much less often than with using Chainmail, with the Introduction of "levels" and "Hp". All of this originated in Dave's Blackmoor game and was adopted later in Lake Geneva. This also ties in with something Dave told me during my informal interview in 2004. He said that every time armor took a hit, he would reduce it's effectiveness by one, unless the players spent money to fix the damaged armor, or repaired it themselves after the battle. A set of leather armor hit twice in a fight for example, would no longer provide any bonuses for the player wearing it. He said he preferred playing this way because it was simple, elegant, and once he knew the basic to-hit roll required, the armor, and the magic to-hit modifier of the magic weapon, he could do all the math quickly in his head to determine what the player needed to roll to hit his foe, whether it be a monster, or another player wearing armor, or even magic armor.

Also from my informal interview with him, He didn't like the whiff factor in the Chainmail rules where almost 2/3rds of the time most of the attacks had no chance of doing any damage at all. He lobbied to speed up combat by having the polyhedral dice included in the game, and switched to using a d20 instead of d6's for combat to-hit rolls out in Minnesota, dropping the 2d6 saving throws that were being made, in favor of modifying the man-to-man combat tables with experience points and levels making it easier for Fighters to hit, for example, ...and more difficult for Magic-users to hit.  Blackmoor streamlined Chainmail by making just one dice roll to determine whether the player was hit, and made his saving throw, which replaced making two rolls, using separate calculations. I'll finish with the FFC Introduction, and have a couple of closing comments for you today;

"By the end of the Fourth Year (1974) of continuous play BLACKMOOR covered hundreds of square miles, had a dozen castles, and three separate referees as my own involvement decreased due to other commitments. But by then  it was more than able to run itself as a fantasy campaign and kept more than a hundred people and a dozen referees as busy then as they are today. Whether there there will ever be a co-ordination of all the area dungeons in the future as they were way back in "The Good Old Days" is unlikely, but there are 20-30 people meeting every 4th Saturday to do BLACKMOOR and other Fantasy related areas, so who can tell… After all, the keynote is that 'anything is possible' just that some things are more likely than others."

Dave Arneson
~1977

When the Dungeons & Dragons White Bookset was originally published in 1974 one was supposed to already own Chainmail, because the rules clearly stated that you were to use Chainmail first to run combat. If you didn't own a copy of Chainmail, then you could play Dungeons and Dragons using the alternative combat rules which were included in Book 1, Men & Magic. These alternative combat rules didn't come from Gary's game in Lake Geneva, they were the rules we just described that were designed by Dave Arneson for his Blackmoor game which were adapted from his Naval Wargame rules using a variation of the Man-to-man combat tables from Chainmail, and including a d20 with a single roll to determine hits and make the saving throw instead of using 2d6 and making a separate to-hit roll and a saving throw. D&D also used levels and HP, instead of the insta-kill rules of Chainmail which was a wargame. D&D was a roleplaying game with much drama because a player was unlikely to get killed receiving a single blow from a monster, instead he had a pool of HP, and could play conservative and withdraw from combat to spare his/her life and return another day, or risk everything, and take a fight right to a nail-biting conclusion.

At this point, After Dave heads up to Lake Geneva in 1972 to run a game for Gary, Rob, Terry, and Ernie, then Gary adopts these rules and Gary and Rob and the Lake Geneva gaming group begins working diligently to produce a coherent set of new rules based on eighteen pages of notes that Dave provided them. It was shortly expanded by early 1973 into a fifty page rules set. This is all clearly outlined in Rob Kuntz's book "Dave Arneson's True Genius". I'll add here that the first couple boxed sets of the original D&D little brown books that I bought in 1977 included three wooden d6's instead of a d20 to be used to play the game with. It was extremely fortunate that my first GM informed me that I needed plastic Polyhedral dice, and I was in luck and managed to trade back my first edition third printing brown boxed set for a set of Polyhedral dice, a Holmes Bluebook boxed set, and a copy of the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets from the mile high comics book store I bought it from, becuase the store owner wanted a "Collectors Item". Even back in the day, a brownbox D&D set was worth much more than its' listed sales price, and I didn't care because I just wanted to play the game. A couple months as soon as I could afford to, I picked up a Whitebox D&D set, that was in May of 1977, becuase I had made the money to buy that mowing lawns.