This is a series of blog post I've started recently and thought might generate some discussion here.

You don't have to go to the blog if you don't want to (it has better formatting, however); I'll paste the whole text here and keep posting the rest of the series as long as there is interest in discussing it.

(If there is no discussion here I'll keep posting in the blog anyway).

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-i-pages-1-9.html

---

PREFACE

What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole.

- Dungeon Master's Guide (1e), page 7

Why I'm writing this

I have written extensively about why I love B/X. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined.

However, there is something about the original DMG that makes me feel it is the ultimate DM's book. While B/X is quick and effective, the DMG manages to be both wide and deep: it includes a wide range of relevant information while also maintaining a certain quality throughout. This is the work of people that have deep actual experience with D&D.

The writing is not particularly clear or elegant, and the art is not impressive, but there is a quality of truth to the whole thing that I can hardly find in other games.

This is all a bit vague and abstract, I know. So I have decided to read the DMG cover to cover (instead of looking up relevant bits as I usually do) to see if these impressions remain true. I tried reading the PHB, but it isn't as enticing for me; maybe I'll do that next.

Anyway, here are some concrete examples why, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:

- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Powerful fighters (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple attacks as you level up, etc.).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.

OTOH I dislike:

- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic errors and not even Gygax used, apparently).

Notice I already implemented a few ideas from AD&D to Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X homage. As I
read, I'm sure I'll find more of to add to my Basic(ish) games.

In short, my reading will not be historical or literal, but utilitarian. Let's see what I can find in the DMG to use in my own games!

Let me know in the comments if this seems like a worthwhile exercise.

So, let's do this!


Foreword, Contents and Preface (pages 1-8)

The book begins with a small foreword by Mike Carr, discussing dungeon mastering as both "art" and "science". On one hand, it is a matter of taste, flair, style; on the other, it requires experimentation, preparation, etc. It is fun, but requires effort. It is "above all, a labor of love".

This book focuses on the "science" part, I'd say - but you have to provide the imagination.

After that, we get a table of contents that I won't discuss now, but in the next post, as the organization of this book is explaining on page 9.

After the table of the contents, we get a preface by Gygax. It follows the reasoning of the foreword: you, as the referee, have ultimate authority, and you must create your own worlds, adventures, etc. However, the book advises you do not go too "wild", or you won't be playing AD&D anymore. So, keep most of the rules, races, monsters, as written, so you can have a shared experience with other AD&D players all over the world.

This feels a little more limiting than most advice you read nowadays, saying simply you can do "anything you want" with your game. This freedom is what brought me into RPGs in the first place, and I still think it is the best approach. However, I can see the value of keeping some uniformity so we can still use D&D as lingua franca.

Still, the preface lays a lot of responsibility in the hands of the referee.

The preface is followed by Credits and Acknowledgments, and then the actual introduction.

Introduction (and a note on organization) - page 9

The introduction talks about the organization of the book. The first part is commenting on The Player's Handbook. The second ADDS STUFF to the PHB, which includes... everything else. Besides the actual rules, we will get designer notes explaining why the rules are created this way.

About the organization... There is no clear separation between these two sections in the table of contents. The sections/chapters aren't numbered or clearly separated in any order except the one mentioned above. The next section (The Game, which we will cover in the next post) starts in the same page and column, and the section title is almost identical to the subsection title.

So, this book is a bit hard to navigate.

Anyway. Gygax say there was too much to add, so " the criterion was usefulness. First came material which was absolutely vital to play, then came the inclusion of what would be most helpful to you, and finally interesting items of broad I appeal to you which tends to improve the flavor of a campaign". Nice! Exactly what we are looking for.

Action and fun are more important than realism and "long and drawn out operations by the referee". Agreed!

The penultimate paragraph of the section tells the you can cut portions of the book to " maintain excitement" - including random encounters! It mentions you should skip them if the PCs are tired and out of resources, or use them when the PCs "deserve" it.

This seems like strange advice for me (especially coming from an old school perspective), as if the referee is not being completely honest, or playing softball with the players. But it is interesting to notice. And I can agree random encounters can feel anti-climatic at certain times.

Fair enough. But I'm not convinced. I think random encounters when the PCs are weak could be useful to emphasize the danger of the surroundings, the "truthfulness" of the setting, and to force PCs to consider talking, escaping, etc., instead of fighting every time. But it is something to consider.

The last paragraph repeats what we've read before: learn the rules carefully, create your own stuff, do the work, and be a great DM. It will take effort (which the players won't always recognize) but it will be fun.

What have we learned today?

Not much for now. Just an introduction, a few reminders (DMing should be enjoyable, occasionally ignore rules in favor of fun, be creative while keeping some familiar elements to have a shared D&D experience with other people), and the impression that the book could be more clearly organized. There is much more to come!

Coming next... THE GAME!

Rereading it myself (I'm running a true beginner's game for teens using a modified S&W with some additions, and going back to the intellectual wellspring is always helpful).  Thanks for posting this!

This is something I would say goes in general that often gets missed when it comes to reading for meaning is, you have to to a degree put yourself in the author's shoes. I've heard a lot of literature teachers reduce this idea to knowing a bunch of biological information. And that can be helpful, but it's not always accurate. A lumberjack might write the great American novel while on an extended world cruise, and there would be no reason to think his being a lumberjack would necessarily be a significant factor into his state of mind at the time of writing. Of course an even bigger problem with leaning on biographical information, or even words in an interview straight from the horse's mouth, is sometimes there are ghostwriters involved. If it isn't a known fact that a lot of the 1E DMG is a compilation of rulings from different sources rather than a single vision or stream of consciousness, it seems fairly evident in the presentation.

So why is putting yourself in the author's shoes important when you don't even know which shoes to put on? The one thing we know with absolute certainty, even if we don't even know who the author is, is that whoever was doing the writing did so with some purpose in mind. There was something Gary or whoever was trying to accomplish, some problem he or she or they were looking to solve. And if you can figure out what that problem was, its vital context for what is actually written.

To wit, I will literally blast anyone and everyone for saying they don't like the weapon vs armor tables, especially if they say they reason they don't like it is because it's too much looking up stuff and at the end of the day the adjustments do not make a big difference. Because that's really only true if you play the standard RPG trope of motley band of borderline sociopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures. It's not true if you're running a campaign that's more like Braveheart, where you're doing mass battles, most of the characters, at least the NPCs and adversaries, are ordinary soldiers (0th level).

First of all, you want this "minutia" to matter because the effectiveness of different weapons in different situations played a part in the planning of battles, and the planning of battles were at least as important as the battles themselves. It's a huge chunk of playing that type of game.

Secondly, the lookups are not all that burdensome when you've got scores of homogenous units on either side. Buncha guys with hand axes attacking a buncha guys with chainmail armor, that's one lookup per side and it gets multiplied across 80 or however many guys.

Thirdly, a +2 or -2 adjustment here and there is HUGE difference when the "to hit" probability is as low as it is for 0th level humans. Off the top of my head, a broad sword has a -2 to hit a guy in platemail (AC 3), while a footman's flail has a +2. In terms of the number of hits scored per 20 men, you're talking about 1 with the broad sword, or 5 with the flail. It's a five-fold difference in the swing.

Do this and strategery is sure to take center stage. If that's the kind of campaign you're running, you dismiss these rules at your peril. "Oh, but even Gary said he didn't use weapon vs armor adjustments." Yeah. Gary's AD&D campaigns also were not centered around leading armies and mass combat. It was centered around the motley band of heroes trope. With every character so different, every swing requires a new lookup making it a pain in the ass. And for what? Maybe getting a +2 adjustment? Small potatoes when you're swinging +4 swords.

So circling back to my main point, the utility of this rule, when it enhances the game and when it hinders it, gives you some insight on what the rule is meant for. The unwritten implication of which is, the rule should not be applied to situations it was not meant for. So if you're running a bog standard fantasy campaign using 1E, you're actually not deviating from the Rules as Written when you ignore this rule, because in my estimation the rule was never meant to be applied to that style of play.

And that's kind of the eye you need to read the 1E DMG. Because aside from the appendices, the huge page count detailing magic items, and a few vital rules sections and tables, the book is mainly a collection of specific rulings (sometimes oddly specific). Often times their purpose is clear. But sometimes you need to read between the lines to infer it. And other times it's similar to weapon vs armor adjustments and you need to figure out what the rule is good for and what it's bad at rather than judging whether or not it tickles your fancy.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 29, 2023, 09:06:00 PM
Rereading it myself (I'm running a true beginner's game for teens using a modified S&W with some additions, and going back to the intellectual wellspring is always helpful).  Thanks for posting this!

Thank you!

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2023, 10:44:56 AM
This is something I would say goes in general that often gets missed when it comes to reading for meaning is, you have to to a degree put yourself in the author's shoes. I've heard a lot of literature teachers reduce this idea to knowing a bunch of biological information. And that can be helpful, but it's not always accurate. A lumberjack might write the great American novel while on an extended world cruise, and there would be no reason to think his being a lumberjack would necessarily be a significant factor into his state of mind at the time of writing. Of course an even bigger problem with leaning on biographical information, or even words in an interview straight from the horse's mouth, is sometimes there are ghostwriters involved. If it isn't a known fact that a lot of the 1E DMG is a compilation of rulings from different sources rather than a single vision or stream of consciousness, it seems fairly evident in the presentation.

So why is putting yourself in the author's shoes important when you don't even know which shoes to put on? The one thing we know with absolute certainty, even if we don't even know who the author is, is that whoever was doing the writing did so with some purpose in mind. There was something Gary or whoever was trying to accomplish, some problem he or she or they were looking to solve. And if you can figure out what that problem was, its vital context for what is actually written.

I agree this is important, but notice I am tackling this from a particular angle: finding stuff I can use in my games.

While I will not make many historical considerations, I´d be happy to hear other people's perspectives on why certain rules were written, etc.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2023, 10:44:56 AM
To wit, I will literally blast anyone and everyone for saying they don't like the weapon vs armor tables, especially if they say they reason they don't like it is because it's too much looking up stuff and at the end of the day the adjustments do not make a big difference. Because that's really only true if you play the standard RPG trope of motley band of borderline sociopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures. It's not true if you're running a campaign that's more like Braveheart, where you're doing mass battles, most of the characters, at least the NPCs and adversaries, are ordinary soldiers (0th level).

First of all, you want this "minutia" to matter because the effectiveness of different weapons in different situations played a part in the planning of battles, and the planning of battles were at least as important as the battles themselves. It's a huge chunk of playing that type of game.

Secondly, the lookups are not all that burdensome when you've got scores of homogenous units on either side. Buncha guys with hand axes attacking a buncha guys with chainmail armor, that's one lookup per side and it gets multiplied across 80 or however many guys.

Thirdly, a +2 or -2 adjustment here and there is HUGE difference when the "to hit" probability is as low as it is for 0th level humans. Off the top of my head, a broad sword has a -2 to hit a guy in platemail (AC 3), while a footman's flail has a +2. In terms of the number of hits scored per 20 men, you're talking about 1 with the broad sword, or 5 with the flail. It's a five-fold difference in the swing.

Do this and strategery is sure to take center stage. If that's the kind of campaign you're running, you dismiss these rules at your peril. "Oh, but even Gary said he didn't use weapon vs armor adjustments." Yeah. Gary's AD&D campaigns also were not centered around leading armies and mass combat. It was centered around the motley band of heroes trope. With every character so different, every swing requires a new lookup making it a pain in the ass. And for what? Maybe getting a +2 adjustment? Small potatoes when you're swinging +4 swords.

So circling back to my main point, the utility of this rule, when it enhances the game and when it hinders it, gives you some insight on what the rule is meant for. The unwritten implication of which is, the rule should not be applied to situations it was not meant for. So if you're running a bog standard fantasy campaign using 1E, you're actually not deviating from the Rules as Written when you ignore this rule, because in my estimation the rule was never meant to be applied to that style of play.

And that's kind of the eye you need to read the 1E DMG. Because aside from the appendices, the huge page count detailing magic items, and a few vital rules sections and tables, the book is mainly a collection of specific rulings (sometimes oddly specific). Often times their purpose is clear. But sometimes you need to read between the lines to infer it. And other times it's similar to weapon vs armor adjustments and you need to figure out what the rule is good for and what it's bad at rather than judging whether or not it tickles your fancy.

Yes, great points.

Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.

You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.

OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 02:07:42 PM
Yes, great points.

Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.

You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.

OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html

Meh. I've seen this before. It's bunk.

Have you noticed something missing from the blog post? Any indication at all that he's ever used actually the tables.

I started using them in 1993. According to my watch that makes it 30 years of using it. Or 28 years as of the date in the blog. And about the first 10 years of using it, I also did apply it to ordinary adventuring parties. For neither that nor in mass combat play did I ever run into anything that I felt was deeply wrong with these tables. The fact is, they hold up perfectly well, as-written, in actual play. There is no error. There might be a difference in preference, sure. But that doesn't make for an error. So there's good reason no one ever spotted this before Delta. Because there's no problem to spot.

Now as I said, I have seen this before. And so I can dive right into the weeds and show you where his errors are if you like. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, so to speak. But it's your thread. I don't want to derail it. I'll just say you shouldn't be saying things like "the table should NEVER be used as written" if you don't have the experience of using them extensively yourself, and even then you should be able to speak to your own experiences of what you felt didn't work for you.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 31, 2023, 04:08:10 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 02:07:42 PM
Yes, great points.

Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.

You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.

OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html

Meh. I've seen this before. It's bunk.

Have you noticed something missing from the blog post? Any indication at all that he's ever used actually the tables.

I started using them in 1993. According to my watch that makes it 30 years of using it. Or 28 years as of the date in the blog. And about the first 10 years of using it, I also did apply it to ordinary adventuring parties. For neither that nor in mass combat play did I ever run into anything that I felt was deeply wrong with these tables. The fact is, they hold up perfectly well, as-written, in actual play. There is no error. There might be a difference in preference, sure. But that doesn't make for an error. So there's good reason no one ever spotted this before Delta. Because there's no problem to spot.

Now as I said, I have seen this before. And so I can dive right into the weeds and show you where his errors are if you like. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, so to speak. But it's your thread. I don't want to derail it. I'll just say you shouldn't be saying things like "the table should NEVER be used as written" if you don't have the experience of using them extensively yourself, and even then you should be able to speak to your own experiences of what you felt didn't work for you.

I'll admit I have never used this tables, but Delta's post has me convinced with the Chainmail comparison.

If you can show me his errors, I'd certainly appreciate it! As I've seen no one trying to debunk it, I had assumed it was more or less obvious (I didn't run the numbers myself but his reasoning makes plenty of sense to me - i.e., the chainmail numbers got lost in the d20 translation).

I'm still studying the issue, and I think it is well within the scope of this thread - i.e., finding stuff in AD&D you could potentially use (for me, in B/X, but could be used in any game).

(one example: the mace. In Chainmail, and, I think in real life, it is a great tool to defeat basically any type of armor or shield - not so in the AD&D table).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 05:45:22 PM
I'll admit I have never used this tables, but Delta's post has me convinced with the Chainmail comparison.

If you can show me his errors, I'd certainly appreciate it! As I've seen no one trying to debunk it, I had assumed it was more or less obvious (I didn't run the numbers myself but his reasoning makes plenty of sense to me - i.e., the chainmail numbers got lost in the d20 translation).

I'm still studying the issue, and I think it is well within the scope of this thread - i.e., finding stuff in AD&D you could potentially use (for me, in B/X, but could be used in any game).

(one example: the mace. In Chainmail, and, I think in real life, it is a great tool to defeat basically any type of armor or shield - not so in the AD&D table).

I'll start with the big, main reason, then later I can get into everything about the post that's raising flags with me.

The whole claim that it's wrong because they double-counted I think is bunk. As a math guy myself, I get having a heightened awareness about double-counting. It's not clear that is what happened here, though. His own absolute error table shows you how often his calculation is off. It may be close. But this is far from any kind of conclusive evidence at all that this is where it came from. It's not an over-statement to say, he's literally just making shit up that fits.

I don't think his theory is implausible, mind you. I do a lot of converting between systems and even just re-organizing information within a single system to look at it new ways. Sometimes I do slam tables together. I get it. I can totally see Gary or any number of game designers doing it. I know for a fact it's the sort of thing I might do. So let me grant for the sake of argument that he has his history right as far as where these numbers came from, and let's also grant that Gary did smash tables together. Note I am being extremely fair to his case.

Here's the problem. If this is how it happened, with tables being smashed together, it certainly wasn't done "blindly" as evidenced by the differences noted in the Absolute Error table. Why didn't the math work out exactly? Gary must have decided to make some adjustments to the table smash results.              Delta affirms this when he talks about the spear. So if Delta posits that Gary made a correction to the spear, why wouldn't he have also made a correction to the mace if that was wrong?

Unless it wasn't wrong. Unless it was exactly as intended. If it's as intended, then there is no arithmetic error. And if there's no arithmetic error, there's no story here. Whether tables were slammed together or not, it's a fact supported by the same evidence Delta cites that there was a reasonability test applied to the final form. That alone is logically sufficient to entirely dismantle Delta's case. You can still argue it emotionally if you like, but it objectively is not supported by math or logic.

And as for double-counting, when you're going from a 2d6 mechanic to a 1d20 mechanic, you're dealing with a change in scale. You smash together two tables with variations for a 2d6 mechanic and just add them without any further mathematical manipulation, it kind of does fit the change in scale. To the degree there was a table slam, the effect would be to reconcile two different tables put together to fit two different game purposes through averaging them.




So now here's all the little things that really irk me about the article.

QuotePlayers of 1E AD&D duel with the most heavy-weight table in the PHB (p. 38): the "Weapon Types, General Data, and 'To Hit' Adjustment" table, which includes Armor Class Adjustments, intended to recreate the matchups of certain weapons versus certain classes of armor.

AD&D 1E PHB Weapon TYpes Table

It's among the more complicated things in the game.

I don't know of any player who's ever "dueled" with the table. And I don't know there's anything complicated about this table. It's a friggin' table.  Even if you consider tables extremely complicated, the game's got so many tables, this is hardly more complicated than most other things players will "duel" with. So right off the bat, he's already making vacuous statements for emotional effect.

QuoteOn the one hand, they're not listed as variants or optional rules;

The books are prefaced that everything is optional. As a matter of practice, very little is marked as optional. But it's understood.

Quoteand they're ingrained to the DMG example of combat -- so many 1E players do pound these tables into their games, determined to faithfully use them no matter how awkward they are. On the other hand, at least as many players of the game overlooked them,

This doesn't happen. Almost nobody uses these tables in their games. Almost nobody does mass combat in their games, either, so almost no one has a reason to use these tables in their game. But that's not what he makes it sound like, does it? No. He's trying to paint up swaths of non-existent people as fools. Because when you have nothing real to say, you have to set up straw men to knock down.

QuoteAs usual, the answer is given more clearly if we take a step back to the Original D&D texts.

Ever think in finding clarity by taking a step forward to Gary's later works? I mean Dangerous Journeys has some extremely detailed armor/weapon systems. If you're trying to map his thoughts, that's the source that would have the most data.

You know what you'll find there regarding the mace? When insane amounts of detail are given to damage types vs armor types? You find that, better armor does indeed provide better protection against even the mace but just not to the same degree as other weapons. Same as you get out of the 1E tables. By the way, even though it's a ton simpler, this sort of thing surfaces to a subtle degree in the Lejendary Adventure RPG as well. How many times in a row does Gary have to do this before we accept that's how he intended it?

Quote
Yikes. I'm pretty sure this is the biggest numerical error I've ever seen in the legacy of D&D, and I do think it seems to have escaped everyone's notice for lo these 45 years and counting.

So I'd say that any 1E players who are still engaged in this gnashing-of-teeth exercise with these tables would be wise to put it to bed, because the whole effect of those tables in O/AD&D was fundamentally broken all along. It doesn't even begin to serve the goal that they're allegedly for. I'm guessing that they were never playtested at Gary's table -- again, he was adamant that he never used them, and was essentially disinterested in the whole project -- but once they got printed and published, everyone took it on faith that they were fit for the purpose. But they very much weren't.

This is his "Everyone is dumb except me" refrain.

There's no numeric error here.

It hasn't escaped anyone's notice. In fact, I noticed within my first month of using the tables that, oh, on average each point of AC makes the target more than 5% harder to hit with a weapon. I'm pretty sure I've Ackchyually'ed people before on this very point in response to claims that armor in AD&D isn't effective enough. Possibly as far back as usenet in the mid 90's. Yeah. Because weirdly these tables actually do solve some problems that usually don't get mentioned when the tables get brought up.

I've never met anyone  engaged in any kind of gnashing-of-teeth over this.

The tables are not  fundamentally broken.

They do serve the goal that they're for. Not that he knows the purpose--he didn't mention anything about the difference between using these in individual combat versus mass combat.

Playtested? I would challenge the automatic assumption that  playtesting is necessary when a) the game and its parts have emerged from actual play rather than having been designed in a bubble, and b) when you're talking about entries on a matrix it's literally giving a ruling as to what to do when these two variables meet. Playtested? Not playtested? Either way, even Delta apparently believes that Gary intentionally corrected the spear adjustments. There absolutely was a test for reasonableness applied. So, yes, it was definitely tested. We can say that with a fair bit of certainty.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 31, 2023, 10:15:59 PM
snip

Thanks for the detailed response!

You make some good points.

I remain convinced of the "translation error" because, if you remove the spear from the list, the chainmail version is just too close to Greyhawk to believe that it took much thinking between both (practically identical to original-8 in some cases). A simple transposition/error seems more likely.

The mace, I think, is a good example - believing that Gygax did a 180 on purpose (from "great at defeating armor" to "not particularly good at anything") requires an explanation I don't see.

There are other reasons to avoid the AD&D table, IMO:

- Gygax repeated recommendations/regrets.
- Some extreme weirdness I cannot explain (or justify), such as your shield HINDERING you when fighting someone with a mace, or chainmail being BETTER than plate against a 2H sword (when most plate had chain underneath).
- Too fiddly even for mass combat.

On the other hand, you did make me consider some aspects I had missed - taking a look at Dangerous Journeys, for example.

And while I think I spent too much time looking at these tables, I believe the idea of weapon against armor has merit, even if I disagree with some particular numbers. So, in the end, AD&D DID inspire me to try and create something (much simplified) to my B/X games, which is the whole point of the exercise.

(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM

(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).

Well, in BEMCI/RC, the optional weapon mastery rules are supposed to fix that problem, albeit in a different way than AD&D.  I'm not sure weapon mastery does everything it sets out to do, and it's not my favorite set of rules, but it certainly  does make weapons different enough to give some players a reason to broaden their choices a bit. 

Of course, those rules are arguably more complex than the weapon vs armor charts.  OTOH, they are integrated with the B/X style already.  Porting the weapon vs armor charts to B/X cleanly would probably be a combination of porting and then adjusting to some of the assumptions of the weapon mastery rules, while shedding most of the details of the weapon mastery rules.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 01, 2023, 05:19:51 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM

(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).

Well, in BEMCI/RC, the optional weapon mastery rules are supposed to fix that problem, albeit in a different way than AD&D.  I'm not sure weapon mastery does everything it sets out to do, and it's not my favorite set of rules, but it certainly  does make weapons different enough to give some players a reason to broaden their choices a bit. 

Of course, those rules are arguably more complex than the weapon vs armor charts.  OTOH, they are integrated with the B/X style already.  Porting the weapon vs armor charts to B/X cleanly would probably be a combination of porting and then adjusting to some of the assumptions of the weapon mastery rules, while shedding most of the details of the weapon mastery rules.

Yes, good point! BECMI/RC is a whole different matter... I do think I prefer AD&D in this regard. And I enjoy minimalism, so I added this paragraph to my minimalist house rules:

---
Weapons [optional]. The "slow" tag gives -1 initiative, +1 to hit, and +1 damage on critical hits (the lance gets the same bonuses but no initiative penalty). Maces and war hammers get the same benefits but no initiative penalty. All 1d4 weapons, hand axes, spears and swords get -1 to hit against chainmail (i.e., AC 14) or better, unless the opponent is prone or unaware (e.g., backstab). See also "great weapons" and "critical hits".
---

This seems to be enough to give each B/X weapon a niche.... leaving multiple attacks for another day.

Greetings!

Well, while I love AD&D, and revere Gygax, some aspects of the old rules can and should be looked at with a careful eye. There is a reason that medieval armies in Western Euroe, but also throughout Eastern Europe and Russia, and down into India, equipped many of their infantry warriors with various kinds of maces and war hammers.

Maces and War Hammers are not *just* a bit cheaper and easier t make, than say, a finely-crafted sword. Maces and War Hammers are brutally effective and ruthlessly lethal against all kinds of armoured opponents, whether they are wearing leather armour, chainmail, lamellar, or plate armour. Primary sources in both medieval Russia and India all discuss the ferocious lethality of maces and war hammers against armoured opponents. The Russians for example, developed the Chekan--which was a hand weapon that combined a hammer-head on one side, and a short, puncturing steel spike on the other side. Absolutely brutal against any kind of opponent, whether they were on foot or mounted. Likewise, the Indian armoursmiths and weapon smiths, funded and directed by great emperors and kings fighting enormous wars--were keen to ensure that their troops in the field had plentiful access to a variety of lethal styles of maces and war hammers as weapons. In many instances, they provided expert witnesses and staff to survey and interview warriors in the field about weapon effectiveness against different kinds of enemies. Over and over again, Indian weapon smiths experimented with different materials and weights, to achieve the most efficient balance of speed, agility and ease of use, and brutal effectiveness.

Thus, if anything, I think maces and war hammers should be even more effective. Aside from a poke, maces and war hammers were like egg-crackers and "Can Openers" against armoured enemies. Importantly, even foot soldiers, the infantry, could devastate charging cavalry troops by using maces and war hammers. After the initial charging surge--if that didn't break the infantry formation--the cavalry were often pinned and drug into ferocious hand to hand combat, where quite honestly, against heavy infantry armed with maces and war hammers, the mounted troops were often crushed in terrible defeat. Regardless of the battle's ultimate outcome, heavy infantry warriors armed with maces and war hammers guaranteed that mounted cavalry would suffer severe casualties.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM
I remain convinced of the "translation error" because, if you remove the spear from the list, the chainmail version is just too close to Greyhawk to believe that it took much thinking between both (practically identical to original-8 in some cases). A simple transposition/error seems more likely.

That's the story Delta tells. It's not the story at all when you look at the actual numbers. On his own Absolute Error table, there are a lot of deviations. The only weapons listed on the Absolute Error table that line up exactly are the two-handed sword and morning star. Every other weapon deviates from the hypothesis. Including the mace. Not to mention, the weapons he has listed, those he can find in those previous sources, is less than half the weapon list in AD&D. What's the explanation behind them?

QuoteThe mace, I think, is a good example - believing that Gygax did a 180 on purpose (from "great at defeating armor" to "not particularly good at anything") requires an explanation I don't see.

Again, this may be the story Delta tells. But it's just not true. This claim is not supported by any evidence at all. It's only supported by an illusion.

As I mentioned towards the tail end of my last post, Ackchyually, when you take into account the weapon vs armor tables in 1E, 1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit. In other words, you can't make any accurate assessment without adjusting your expectations likewise.

Here's a an example.
Going strictly by the hit tables, the difference in number needed to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 should be 8 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a broadsword to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 13 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a horseman's mace to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 7 points.

It's easy to be fooled that the mace is still facing the brunt of armor protection--7 out of 8 points, anyway. But it's actually facing 7 points compared to other weapons that face more like 13 points. And so it actually is diminishing the protective value of armor by about half.

So it's an objective fact that there's been no 180 change in the purpose of the weapon. It's simply an untrue claim. It's just its effect has been softened. And I find this to be more reasonable than the original chainmail. And that you see this repeated in Gary's later fantasy RPGs as well. So even if you insist on calling it a 180 change in purpose, what you see in AD&D is clearly what he had intended.

And here's another way you can look at it. Of those weapons listed in Chainmail, only the Flail and the Two-Handed Sword work better vs AC 2 than the mace. In the AD&D tables, the only weapons rated better than the mace vs AC 2 that also appear in Chainmail are the two-handed sword and the (footman's) flail. And it remains equal to the halberd, just as it is in Chainmail, but does better than the morning star in AD&D even though they were equal vs AC 2 in Chainmail. So it certainly has not lost any positioning at all in the pecking order of weapons that do well against good armor. And in fact it made gains over the morning star. Again, the claim is complete and total bunk with zero evidence behind it and plenty of evidence contradicting it.

Quote- Gygax repeated recommendations.

If you asked him his advice, he had a way of figuring out what you wanted to hear and giving you that answer. Because he really wanted individual GMs to decide these things for themselves.

I was once at an in-person Q&A with Gary when someone asked him about Psionics. And just like Delta quotes, sure enough, he says he never used it. But there was more too the answer in that live Q&A, and I know it's something that's out there somewhere. The other part of it is he said he didn't feel Psionics were appropriate for the fantasy genre, and better fits in sci fi. His remark was met with thunderous applause.

The problem is, after D&D, he went on to write two more fantasy RPGs, and both of them have psionics. Well, they're actually called Psychogenics in both games, with a note in DJ that Psychogenics is the more correct term. That psionics implies technologically enhanced mind powers. But it's not like when he said he didn't use psionics he really meant he just called it something different. And the applause wasn't for a name change. He gave the answer people wanted to hear, and I don't think for one second that he thought mind-powers, no matter what you call them, are out of place in the fantasy setting. Despite him being on record saying it is.

Quote- Some extreme weirdness I cannot explain (or justify), such as your shield HINDERING you when fighting someone with a mace, or chainmail being BETTER than plate against a 2H sword (when most plate had chain underneath).

Chainmail being better than plate against a 2H sword is not a thing. But the mace/shield does raise questions. Just not about the same issues being argued. You're also worse off having a shield if you have no other armor against a footman's flail. I've always interpreted that being the shield catching the chain causing the head to wrap around and go bonk.

It's possible there was a transcription error. That the footman's mace adjustments were meant to be the adjustments for the footman's flail and the line of adjustments somehow got swapped. But the other thing is, the way the modern nerd categorizes the differences between the mace and flail so neatly was not necessarily viewed so cleanly back then. In fact, about 20 years ago when I attended a workshop regarding medieval weapons, with Gary Gygax himself on the panel, the museum that hosted the event literally had a thingie with a chain on display and labeled as a type of mace. So maybe he's got footman's mace as one of those. I really don't know.

You know what I do know, though? The number of times in 30 years someone used an ordinary shield but no armor. If you're not sure what that number is, the hint I'll give is that leather armor is cheaper than all shields but the wooden shield, does not reduce movement rate, and does not use up a hand.

Quote- Too fiddly even for mass combat.

I don't know what that means.

QuoteOn the other hand, you did make me consider some aspects I had missed - taking a look at Dangerous Journeys, for example.

If you want the better organized and expanded AD&D in Gary's vision, Advanced Mythus is it. But I really like Lejendary Adventure because it's much more rules lite and I think more in the spirit of D&D, with it's nitty-gritty rules working well to compliment the stuff that's in the 1E DMG without repeating it.

Another thing I like about LA is it boldly returns to some of Gary's old ideas that other people have also argued impressively Gary really didn't mean. Like the whole way illusions changed over the editions, and the insistence that Gary never really intended illusions that could actually hurt you, it's just there was no thought on it one way or another back then (I think it's Frank Mentzer that pushes that the hardest), and then in LA he's got an illusion power that very specifically says it can cause wounds to spontaneously open "as stigmata do."

So always be very, very careful about some of the very well-made cases about D&D and the history of D&D, because a lot of it is complete bullshit no matter how compelling it sounds, no matter what documentation is produced, and there's evidence that it's total bullshit in Gary's later games for anyone who bothers to look.

I wonder if Gary's locked down works ever see the light of day again, if anyone will ever pay the ransom to get the backup files of the Lejendary.com forums released. Because Gary posted a ton of stuff there. It makes the Dragonsfoot Q&A threads with Gary seem like amateur hour. I think there's probably some stuff in there that can flip a lot of things accepted as known fact on their heads.

On the weapon vs armor table.

TSR put out in Dragon 74 and later sold a Fighting Wheel. This marvelous little gadget allowed you to just look it all up fairly easy.
 

Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 09:20:59 PM
Greetings!

Well, while I love AD&D, and revere Gygax, some aspects of the old rules can and should be looked at with a careful eye. There is a reason that medieval armies in Western Euroe, but also throughout Eastern Europe and Russia, and down into India, equipped many of their infantry warriors with various kinds of maces and war hammers.

Maces and War Hammers are not *just* a bit cheaper and easier t make, than say, a finely-crafted sword. Maces and War Hammers are brutally effective and ruthlessly lethal against all kinds of armoured opponents, whether they are wearing leather armour, chainmail, lamellar, or plate armour. Primary sources in both medieval Russia and India all discuss the ferocious lethality of maces and war hammers against armoured opponents. The Russians for example, developed the Chekan--which was a hand weapon that combined a hammer-head on one side, and a short, puncturing steel spike on the other side. Absolutely brutal against any kind of opponent, whether they were on foot or mounted. Likewise, the Indian armoursmiths and weapon smiths, funded and directed by great emperors and kings fighting enormous wars--were keen to ensure that their troops in the field had plentiful access to a variety of lethal styles of maces and war hammers as weapons. In many instances, they provided expert witnesses and staff to survey and interview warriors in the field about weapon effectiveness against different kinds of enemies. Over and over again, Indian weapon smiths experimented with different materials and weights, to achieve the most efficient balance of speed, agility and ease of use, and brutal effectiveness.

Thus, if anything, I think maces and war hammers should be even more effective. Aside from a poke, maces and war hammers were like egg-crackers and "Can Openers" against armoured enemies. Importantly, even foot soldiers, the infantry, could devastate charging cavalry troops by using maces and war hammers. After the initial charging surge--if that didn't break the infantry formation--the cavalry were often pinned and drug into ferocious hand to hand combat, where quite honestly, against heavy infantry armed with maces and war hammers, the mounted troops were often crushed in terrible defeat. Regardless of the battle's ultimate outcome, heavy infantry warriors armed with maces and war hammers guaranteed that mounted cavalry would suffer severe casualties.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Great points. In chainmail, the mace is about FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2 (because of 2d6 probabilities). I think this might be realistic, but from a practical standpoint it feels too much.

On the other hand, I think the mace is too weak in most D&D versions. It is strictly worse than the sword in B/X, and in 5e it is weaker than the quarterstaff!

Certainly something that deserves to be fixed...

Quote from: Omega on June 02, 2023, 12:06:55 AM
On the weapon vs armor table.

TSR put out in Dragon 74 and later sold a Fighting Wheel. This marvelous little gadget allowed you to just look it all up fairly easy.
 

Neat!

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
As I mentioned towards the tail end of my last post, Ackchyually, when you take into account the weapon vs armor tables in 1E, 1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit. In other words, you can't make any accurate assessment without adjusting your expectations likewise.

Here's a an example.
Going strictly by the hit tables, the difference in number needed to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 should be 8 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a broadsword to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 13 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a horseman's mace to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 7 points.

It's easy to be fooled that the mace is still facing the brunt of armor protection--7 out of 8 points, anyway. But it's actually facing 7 points compared to other weapons that face more like 13 points. And so it actually is diminishing the protective value of armor by about half. So it's an objective fact that there's been no 180 change in the purpose of the weapon. It's simply an untrue claim. It's just its effect has been softened.

Yes, this is a good point. I don't think it's comparable to chainmail, where the mace simply ignores armor, and is five times better than a sword against AC 2. But it's still a decent weapon against armor, relatively to other weapons.

"1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit" is true and gave me some interesting ideas.

Which brings us to the next point:

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PMAnd I find this to be more reasonable than the original chainmail. And that you see this repeated in Gary's later fantasy RPGs as well. So even if you insist on calling it a 180 change in purpose, what you see in AD&D is clearly what he had intended.

Now on this point we fully agree. While I think some mistakes have been committed, the most important part for me is: which rules can we use (in my games, or anyone else's). And here AD&D beats chainmail, of course, and also can be useful to "fix" B/X.

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
And here's another way you can look at it. Of those weapons listed in Chainmail, only the Flail and the Two-Handed Sword work better vs AC 2 than the mace. In the AD&D tables, the only weapons rated better than the mace vs AC 2 that also appear in Chainmail are the two-handed sword and the (footman's) flail. And it remains equal to the halberd, just as it is in Chainmail, but does better than the morning star in AD&D even though they were equal vs AC 2 in Chainmail. So it certainly has not lost any positioning at all in the pecking order of weapons that do well against good armor. And in fact it made gains over the morning star. Again, the claim is complete and total bunk with zero evidence behind it and plenty of evidence contradicting it.

Here's the difficult part: If the mistake Delta claims occurred, it wouldn't change the "pecking order", as it would have been repeated for every weapon (except the spear).

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
Chainmail being better than plate against a 2H sword is not a thing. But the mace/shield does raise questions. Just not about the same issues being argued. You're also worse off having a shield if you have no other armor against a footman's flail. I've always interpreted that being the shield catching the chain causing the head to wrap around and go bonk.

It's possible there was a transcription error.

2H sword: my bad, I looked at the wrong column. I mean a 2H is better against AC 8 than AC 10, which is equally absurd IMO. Same for the shield hurting the wielder.

There could be an explanation for this, but again, I'm looking for useful/cool ideas, and " drop your shield when you see a mace/flail", or "lose the leather armor when you see a 2H sword" is not something I can use.

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
If you want the better organized and expanded AD&D in Gary's vision, Advanced Mythus is it. But I really like Lejendary Adventure because it's much more rules lite and I think more in the spirit of D&D, with it's nitty-gritty rules working well to compliment the stuff that's in the 1E DMG without repeating it.

Another thing I like about LA is it boldly returns to some of Gary's old ideas that other people have also argued impressively Gary really didn't mean. Like the whole way illusions changed over the editions, and the insistence that Gary never really intended illusions that could actually hurt you, it's just there was no thought on it one way or another back then (I think it's Frank Mentzer that pushes that the hardest), and then in LA he's got an illusion power that very specifically says it can cause wounds to spontaneously open "as stigmata do."

So always be very, very careful about some of the very well-made cases about D&D and the history of D&D, because a lot of it is complete bullshit no matter how compelling it sounds, no matter what documentation is produced, and there's evidence that it's total bullshit in Gary's later games for anyone who bothers to look.

I wonder if Gary's locked down works ever see the light of day again, if anyone will ever pay the ransom to get the backup files of the Lejendary.com forums released. Because Gary posted a ton of stuff there. It makes the Dragonsfoot Q&A threads with Gary seem like amateur hour. I think there's probably some stuff in there that can flip a lot of things accepted as known fact on their heads.

That sounds extremely interesting!