I just bought Chainmail, so it's obvious we can purchase it legally now;).

It seems WotC listened to us, or at least to their accountants. Now, old-school players, tell me how to use the original combat system that doesn't involve the "alternative d20 rules"!

It is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Quote from: AsenRG;940941I just bought Chainmail, so it's obvious we can purchase it legally now;).

It seems WotC listened to us, or at least to their accountants. Now, old-school players, tell me how to use the original combat system that doesn't involve the "alternative d20 rules"!

I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

QuoteIt is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Interesting take on it. I never thought about the fact that progression in comparison to Chainmail is rather lopsided in OD&D.

I've always wanted to run an OD&D campaign using Chainmail.

Quote from: Larsdangly;940949It is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Thank you for the suggestions!
I'll consider how to use them best for the kind of games I tend to run:).

Quote from: Arkansan;940982Interesting take on it. I never thought about the fact that progression in comparison to Chainmail is rather lopsided in OD&D.

I've always wanted to run an OD&D campaign using Chainmail.

Well, at least now you can:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Playing it as a war game is certainly on the table. I just need more paper minis.
I think I have a decent grasp on the concepts you mentioned, but we'll see.
And I don't think you were using Chainmail rules for D&D! I'm thinking of trying it simply because it looks like it might be fun. After all, isn't THAT what you were doing, too;)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Same here. Its a wargame not an RPG. But D&D does refference back to it for mass battles. So does AD&D. Same with Outdoor Survival which was also used with D&D. Its not an RPG. But it is a fun, if mean, board game. And came with a real survival manual!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

The issue is that 'Morale', 'flanking' and 'terrain' are already counted, and aren't worth all that much anymore.  In fact, they weren't worth much since 2e, because of the push away from (but not removal of) miniature use.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Gronan, do you have large "skirmish" style scenes with more than 20 characters acting (ship boarding battles, raid the hill-fort, etc), in your D&D games? Also, what turn/round scale do you use?

I'm very curious how those were resolved in the first edition(s) play-style(s).

I have a feeling one style was "roll handfulls of d20s when meleeing with multiple characters, separate hits, determine random targets on the other side, roll damage" for melees, as missile and spellcasting was actually handled outside of the "melee sequence", and many of the early statblocks are simple enough that they can represent multiple individuals (Hommlet, the Moathouse, Caves of Chaos, etc).

Full disclosure, I'm re-designing the ship-to-ship combat rules in Earthdawn 4E for FASA. Thank you for any info you can provide.
(This goes for everyone else in the thread, too. This forum has been a key research resource in the last 6 months, huge amount of gaming knowledge here. )

Edit: Chainmail Actual Plays or stories are *gold* as well.

I am having trouble remembering how we handled a lot of questions that come up in combats before the DMG came out. OD&D actually is super vague about nearly every issue - the 'alternative combat system' we now regard as normal is really just a d20 to-hit and 1d6 damage mechanic. And it doesn't functionally change much from the Chainmail to-hit and damage mechanics: There, you roll 1 or 2d6 and deal out 'hits', but a to-hit roll is a to-hit roll in the end, and in a world where a hit does 1d6 damage and a hit die is worth 1d6, the outcome is the same, on average. Seen this way, the alternate combat system is hardly different at all. BUT, you are only presented with a to-hit and damage rules. When do I move (before or after attacks) and how far? Are weapons different from each other in reach and speed? How close do I have to be to someone to engage them in combat? Does it matter if I'm to their side or behind? A common answer to this is 'that's the part you are supposed to make up!', but I call bullshit. Chainmail provides clear, explicit rules for all these things. They just didn't translate over to the core system D&D books until nearly 1980. So, if you like playing OD&D and think it is better for a game to include a couple pages of rules on something you spend a lot of time doing (fighting), it could be a great idea to come to terms with Chainmail and assimilate it into your game. Plus it is really fun. And you will automatically get a great rules set for resolving skirmishes, battles, sieges, and so forth.

p.s., people who are interested in this abstruse subject might be interested in '27th edition Platemail', my vanity OSR project that re-imagines D&D as if it had grown out of Chainmail directly. It's easy to find a copy online, but pm me your e-mail address if you'd like a copy sent to you.

Quote from: Telarus;941079Gronan, do you have large "skirmish" style scenes with more than 20 characters acting (ship boarding battles, raid the hill-fort, etc), in your D&D games? Also, what turn/round scale do you use?

I'm very curious how those were resolved in the first edition(s) play-style(s).

I have a feeling one style was "roll handfulls of d20s when meleeing with multiple characters, separate hits, determine random targets on the other side, roll damage" for melees, as missile and spellcasting was actually handled outside of the "melee sequence", and many of the early statblocks are simple enough that they can represent multiple individuals (Hommlet, the Moathouse, Caves of Chaos, etc).

Full disclosure, I'm re-designing the ship-to-ship combat rules in Earthdawn 4E for FASA. Thank you for any info you can provide.
(This goes for everyone else in the thread, too. This forum has been a key research resource in the last 6 months, huge amount of gaming knowledge here. )

Edit: Chainmail Actual Plays or stories are *gold* as well.

When I have to run a big battle I'm essentially using CHAINMAIL in my head, and thinking of units of troops as red and blue blocks.  Remember, though you CAN play CHAINMAIL in a "meat grinder" style where you just push units of troops against each other, smart players will use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units.  I can run a battle in my head fairly well; if 10 heavy horse plow into 30 goblins, it's going to be bad for the goblins.  The essential combat mechanic of CHAINMAIL is "like vs like, 1 kill per six figures, adjust up or down for disparate troop types." That plus basic familiarity with the morale table and we're good to go.

Does this help?

Indeed And if your players are involved would you let them take an action, and let the results of that influence the situation in your head?

Really good to have your perspective. So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

Quote from: Telarus;941355So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

Disrupting troops and breaking formations can be the whole ballgame in a battle, even Spartans can fail morale checks - ask the Thebans.  But even if you assume that PCs don't break and run, squaring off your 3 fighters vs. X orcs when missile fire starts coming in from the sides or a goblin warg rider charges from behind will be the same result - you're quite possibly fucked.

The only real difference is, a non-wargaming roleplayer will have very few reference points as to how melee combat actually works, relying solely upon Hollywood, where a wargamer has had superior forces totally destroyed by superior tactics many, many times.

Quote from: Telarus;941355Indeed And if your players are involved would you let them take an action, and let the results of that influence the situation in your head?

Really good to have your perspective. So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

The PCs are indeed independent agents.  They do what they want.  Now, they can join a unit and get the bonuses for leaders in CHAINMAIL, or they can work separately.  If your 8th level fighter has a bow and so does his 4th level squire, you're going to put a serious dent in that unit of 30 goblins in a single round.  Or if you're a magic user, find the big tough-looking gobin in better armor who's yelling and waving his arms and drop a fireball on him (eliminating a leader forces a morale check.)

Et cetera.

Quote from: CRKrueger;941410Disrupting troops and breaking formations can be the whole ballgame in a battle, even Spartans can fail morale checks - ask the Thebans.  But even if you assume that PCs don't break and run, squaring off your 3 fighters vs. X orcs when missile fire starts coming in from the sides or a goblin warg rider charges from behind will be the same result - you're quite possibly fucked.

The only real difference is, a non-wargaming roleplayer will have very few reference points as to how melee combat actually works, relying solely upon Hollywood, where a wargamer has had superior forces totally destroyed by superior tactics many, many times.

Which is why we never traveled in the wilderness with only three of us.  Yes, if you attack 300 orcs single handedly, you will die.

In the words of Master Yoda, "A bug this is not; a feature it is."