Alternate Armor Class System

[kgauck]

I`ve tweaked my AC system a bit. I`ve always been interested in having AC
improve as one gains in level. Without a satisfying mechanism, I just
relied on feats like Dodge to reflect this. Finally, I think I have a
decent way to calculate AC improvement. You gain a +1 class bonus (all AC
class bonuses stack) to AC when you gain an additional attack according to
the BAB table. So, no matter what your class, when your BAB goes to +6/+1,
you get an AC bonus. And, again at +11/+6/+1, and so forth. This nicely
ties in to existing mechanisms, reflects the fact that the best defense is a
good offense, and grants higher level players better defensive bonuses
without the proliferation of magic armor and shields of ever greater power.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <c558382@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:47 PM


> My calculation goes like this:
> AC=10+armor bonus+shield bonus+class bonus+Dex mod+size mod
>
> Armor Bonus is modified and Class Bonus is new.
>
> Armor Bonus:
> Light Armor has a bonus of +2
> Medium Armor has a bonus of +3
> Heavy Armor has a bonus of +4
>
> Class Bonus:
> Classes who recieve no armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +0
> Classes who recieve light armor proficency get a Class Bonus of +1
> Classes who recieve med armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +2
> Classes who recieve hvy armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +3
>
> In addition:
> Light Armor has no damage reduction
> Medium Armor has -/1 damage reduction
> Heavy Armor has -/2 damage reduction

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

I`ve tweaked my AC system a bit. I`ve always been interested in having AC
improve as one gains in level. Without a satisfying mechanism, I just
relied on feats like Dodge to reflect this. Finally, I think I have a
decent way to calculate AC improvement. You gain a +1 class bonus (all AC
class bonuses stack) to AC when you gain an additional attack according to
the BAB table. So, no matter what your class, when your BAB goes to +6/+1,
you get an AC bonus. And, again at +11/+6/+1, and so forth. This nicely
ties in to existing mechanisms, reflects the fact that the best defense is a
good offense, and grants higher level players better defensive bonuses
without the proliferation of magic armor and shields of ever greater power.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <c558382@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:47 PM


> My calculation goes like this:
> AC=10+armor bonus+shield bonus+class bonus+Dex mod+size mod
>
> Armor Bonus is modified and Class Bonus is new.
>
> Armor Bonus:
> Light Armor has a bonus of +2
> Medium Armor has a bonus of +3
> Heavy Armor has a bonus of +4
>
> Class Bonus:
> Classes who recieve no armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +0
> Classes who recieve light armor proficency get a Class Bonus of +1
> Classes who recieve med armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +2
> Classes who recieve hvy armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +3
>
> In addition:
> Light Armor has no damage reduction
> Medium Armor has -/1 damage reduction
> Heavy Armor has -/2 damage reduction

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Not this bad. I've always hated this low AC in 3rd Edition (and monsters have an AC of 40). To get an acceptable AC you must push your armor with magic plus rings, cloaks etc. Mostly you can forget your Dex bonus, if you wear medium or heavy and don't have the "celestial" armor. This level-based AC incensement is a good idea to compensate this with fewer magic...

[geeman]

At 06:51 AM 1/27/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I`ve tweaked my AC system a bit. I`ve always been interested in having AC
>improve as one gains in level.

You don`t want to go with just a regular Defense Bonus as part of each of
the character classes? The one from the WoT, for instance, increases every
two or three levels and starts at +2 or +3 for most character classes. The
numbers in that text are a little tweaked for that setting, but one could
use a similar one in a more universal D20 manner. If you tie an AC bonus
to BAB that means the classes with the fastest BAB progression will improve
the quickest, which may not make sense when you think about the speed and
dodging capabilities of monks or rogues in comparison to, say, paladins or
clerics.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:38:14AM -0800, Gary wrote:
> >I`ve tweaked my AC system a bit. I`ve always been interested in having AC
> >improve as one gains in level.
>
> You don`t want to go with just a regular Defense Bonus as part of each of
> the character classes? The one from the WoT, for instance, increases every
> two or three levels and starts at +2 or +3 for most character classes. The
> numbers in that text are a little tweaked for that setting, but one could
> use a similar one in a more universal D20 manner. If you tie an AC bonus
> to BAB that means the classes with the fastest BAB progression will improve
> the quickest, which may not make sense when you think about the speed and
> dodging capabilities of monks or rogues in comparison to, say, paladins or
> clerics.

True, but Defense doesn`t just represent dodging. It also represents
knowning how to block, parry, and when one can rely on one`s armor to
safely deflect a blow. Given that AC represents total "defense" it would
seem odd to advantage rogues over professional soldiers.

It should also be noted that, with the exception of the Armsman class,
the WoT Defense Bonuses do not stack with armor. Thus rogues (wanders)
may have a very good AC for an unarmored person, but their AC doesn`t
begin to compare to a trained warrior in full battle-dress. Which,
IMHO, is as it should be.

The "+1 AC per base extra attack" is a very interesting idea;
particularly in a low magic BIRTHRIGHT setting where the magical
weapons/armor are rare. In my experience, the lack of magical weapons
and armor is a wash for warrior to warrior battles, but it provides a
HUGE advantage to spellcasters (a +7 bonus for shield and a +4 bonus for
haste, for example, is huge when there are very few magical bonuses to
attack) and to high-level monsters (which are designed under the assumption
that the party facing them has a "normal" level of magical arms/armor
as part of their CR).

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

In the revised Star Wars system, there is a defense bonus that is class based and is in effect at all times even when the character is denied his dexterity bonus. Armor doesn't provide any AC bonus it only provides a damage reduction against critical hits. In that system a character has vitality points (similar to hit points) and wound points (which are equal to the character's constitution score). A successful critical hit goes straight to the character's wound points. There is a -2 penalty to the chracter's defense bonus for every additional class picked up. I've got a 6th level Klatoonian with a 19 Dex who has a 20 AC. He is 3rd level scoundrel and 4th level soldier. Basically his defense bonus was a +8 (then -2 for 1 additional class).

The system works pretty well, but would require a completely different armor system to work.:)

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> In the revised Star Wars system, there is a defense bonus that is
> class based and is in effect at all times even when the character is
> denied his dexterity bonus.
>
> The system works pretty well, but would require a completely different
> armor system to work.:)

So we have Star Wars and WoT with class bonuses to AC. Add to that d20
Modern; each class gets a bonus to AC that increases with level, and
stacks fully with armor, etc. The rationale is that magical armor is
unheard of in modern, so even if they wear armor and have a high class
defense bonus, they`re not overbalanced on AC.

I don`t think it`s that big a problem to add a class defense bonus to BR
if you keep the `rare magic armor` assumption. If it really bothers you,
you could say the Dex limit from armor also applies to class AC bonuses,
so the best you could get with straight chainmail (+5 AC, Max Dex +2)
would be AC 19 (+5 armor, +2 dex, +2 class bonus).
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus includes attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round is the result of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional dodge bonus does not fit. Because the fighting development of each character class (which includes already the attack and parade) IS already reflected by the base attack bonus.

[Ariadne]

The only problem I see with this system is, that wizards/ sorcerers get no AC improvement at all. This would let them get an even lesser AC (O.K., most of them will still help themselves with magic). Most wizards would push their own AC first, making magical armor for fighters even more rare.

If you use this system, I would give a mage an AC bonus of +1 for each new attack (this is slowly enough)...

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 23:14, Azrai wrote:

Azrai wrote:
There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus includes
attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round is the result
of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional dodge bonus does
not fit. Because the fighting development of each character class (which
includes already the attack and parade) IS already reflected by the base
attack bonus.

That was originally true in earlier editions (more true the earlier you
go). I think that concept has (sadly) got completely lost by 3e, so
Kenneth`s suggestion is quite viable in an attack round broken down into
a more tactical simulation style of play. Certainly by 2nd Ed D&D, there
was a strong move toward tactical simulation of hand-to-hand combat -
which has always suffered from having its roots firmly planted in the
abstract one-minute melee round.

A mixed abstract/simulated combat model will always suffer from
comparisons - for no matter which you prefer, the elements of the other
will suck. Simulated combat makes for long drawn out melee combats, but
provide a level of action detail for those who don`t want to just make
up the narrative based on results alone. More abstract combat can be
quick and decisive, usually only one or two rolls for the entire combat
-- but may lack a certain satisfaction from an aesthetic point of view
unless your DM is particularly understanding and inventive in describing
combat results.

Most adventure gaming today is based on gaining points/level by combat -
defeating a final monster/opponent - with traps and tricks as minor
obstacles. This leads to a game style that is highly dependent on combat
(killing) ability and therefore a greater interest in combat rules and
simulated combat. The original concept of role-playing as taking on a
role - where the successful strategy was to avoid combat as much as
possible relegates combat to a more minor role. This is however much
harder to do, and almost impossible to computerize as well as having
less broad market appeal. (game concept is that of a non-zero sum game,
virtually unknown in human game systems)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 23:14, Azrai wrote:

Azrai wrote:
There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus includes
attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round is the result
of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional dodge bonus does
not fit. Because the fighting development of each character class (which
includes already the attack and parade) IS already reflected by the base
attack bonus.

That was originally true in earlier editions (more true the earlier you
go). I think that concept has (sadly) got completely lost by 3e, so
Kenneth`s suggestion is quite viable in an attack round broken down into
a more tactical simulation style of play. Certainly by 2nd Ed D&D, there
was a strong move toward tactical simulation of hand-to-hand combat -
which has always suffered from having its roots firmly planted in the
abstract one-minute melee round.

A mixed abstract/simulated combat model will always suffer from
comparisons - for no matter which you prefer, the elements of the other
will suck. Simulated combat makes for long drawn out melee combats, but
provide a level of action detail for those who don`t want to just make
up the narrative based on results alone. More abstract combat can be
quick and decisive, usually only one or two rolls for the entire combat
-- but may lack a certain satisfaction from an aesthetic point of view
unless your DM is particularly understanding and inventive in describing
combat results.

Most adventure gaming today is based on gaining points/level by combat -
defeating a final monster/opponent - with traps and tricks as minor
obstacles. This leads to a game style that is highly dependent on combat
(killing) ability and therefore a greater interest in combat rules and
simulated combat. The original concept of role-playing as taking on a
role - where the successful strategy was to avoid combat as much as
possible relegates combat to a more minor role. This is however much
harder to do, and almost impossible to computerize as well as having
less broad market appeal. (game concept is that of a non-zero sum game,
virtually unknown in human game systems)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 23:14, Azrai wrote:


Azrai wrote:
There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus
includes attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round
is the result of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional
dodge bonus does not fit. Because the fighting development of each
character class (which includes already the attack and parade) IS
already reflected by the base attack bonus.


I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
defensive abilities (and that they have always been included). What
about when the character wants to be purely defensive in combat? How
should his/her combat skill reflect in the combat system then --
shouldn`t the difficulty of striking him be much harder if he bends all
his skills to defense?

D&D has seen so many different parry systems over the years that I`ve
lost count. The simplest solution is to use their combat skill bonus to
improve armor class. This still allows for an attack roll but without
any skill bonuses. I don`t agree with double-dipping however -- that is,
gaining bonuses to both attack and defense.

Such a concept requires a mechanic whether using an abstract or
simulated combat system.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 23:14, Azrai wrote:


Azrai wrote:
There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus
includes attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round
is the result of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional
dodge bonus does not fit. Because the fighting development of each
character class (which includes already the attack and parade) IS
already reflected by the base attack bonus.


I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
defensive abilities (and that they have always been included). What
about when the character wants to be purely defensive in combat? How
should his/her combat skill reflect in the combat system then --
shouldn`t the difficulty of striking him be much harder if he bends all
his skills to defense?

D&D has seen so many different parry systems over the years that I`ve
lost count. The simplest solution is to use their combat skill bonus to
improve armor class. This still allows for an attack roll but without
any skill bonuses. I don`t agree with double-dipping however -- that is,
gaining bonuses to both attack and defense.

Such a concept requires a mechanic whether using an abstract or
simulated combat system.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:
> I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
> defensive abilities (and that they have always been included). What
> about when the character wants to be purely defensive in combat? How
> should his/her combat skill reflect in the combat system then --
> shouldn`t the difficulty of striking him be much harder if he bends all
> his skills to defense?

Both your ideas- being purely defensive, and using part of the attack
bonus for defense, already exist in the standard rules. Expertise allows
the first, full defense allows the second.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:

> I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
> defensive abilities (and that they have always been included).

I agree that both should be present. While I suppose they have both
always been present in some form, it seems clear to me that they have not
always been modeled equally well (nor indeed are they today).

> shouldn`t the difficulty of striking him be much harder if he bends
> all his skills to defense?

Yes, something like this should probably be present.

> The simplest solution is to use their combat skill bonus to improve
> armor class. This still allows for an attack roll but without any
> skill bonuses.

I am rather interested in a more flexible version of this -- that is to
say, let BAB (or whatever we call it) represent an uncommitted pool of
points; each round, allocate some of them to help you attack, and the rest
of them to help you defend. This starts to look slightly more like the
Rolemaster combat system, but isn`t nearly as complicated as the
full-blown RM approach.

> I don`t agree with double-dipping however -- that is, gaining bonuses
> to both attack and defense.

I do. I think people like Conan and the Three Musketeers should have very
high ACs in melee combat, even though they wear no armor, because they`re
so good at swinging their swords around that no one can get near them
without similar skills. However, I wouldn`t make the defense bonus so
purely class-focused: *without* their swords, they should not get nearly
as big an AC boost (although bar stools and suchlike could be substituted
with a substantial improvisation penalty).

The size scaling in 3e gives some precedent for "double-dipping", in what
strikes me as an eminently reasonable way. That is, progressively smaller
things get progressively bigger bonuses to both BAB and AC, and larger
things penalties. This means, as the example points out, that both humans
and halflings hit humans easier than they hit halflings, and halfling vs.
halfling is the same as human vs. human. Since the BAB and AC bonuses are
identical, then the net bonus for the halfling to hit the human is the
same as the net penalty for the human to hit the halfling.

I think exactly the same idea should apply to BAB (absent confounding
factors like ability scores and magic). For example, compare Fighters of
different levels to the creatures of different sizes setup above. A Ftr 5
attacking a Ftr 1 already has the same bonus relative to another Ftr 1
making the attack (+4) that a Ftr 9 does when attacking a Ftr 5 relative
to another Ftr 5 making the attack. I think a Ftr 1 attacking a Ftr 5 or
a Ftr 5 attacking a Ftr 9 ought to have the mirror-image to-hit penalty
(-4). Then Ftr 1 vs. Ftr 1, Ftr 5 vs. Ftr 5 and Ftr 9 vs. Ftr 9 would all
play out exactly the same (no net bonus to either side), instead of the
current mechanic of increasing level causing both sides to hit more often
but each time inflict a smaller percentage of the total damage needed to
take down the opponent.

I realize this is the sort of thing which is supposedly represented by hit
points increasing with level, but I think hp do a rather poor job of it --
if hp are really supposed to model defense, then someone who`s disarmed
should have their hp drop substantially; someone who`s tied up should have
their hp drop to or below their first-level total; armor should increase
hp, not AC; and missile weapons and falling should do much greater damage,
to reflect the fact that there is very little even a skilled fighter can
do to protect himself from those sorts of attacks.

I think the confusion between AC and hp is one of the greatest weaknesses
of the D&D combat system -- anything representing the chance of a blow
landing or not should affect AC, and anything representing the resistance
to blows which actually land should affect hp. The current system is so
intermixed that it becomes difficult to decide how to implement small
alterations (such as a new spell or item). Dinosaurs should have terrible
AC (easy to hit things bigger than the canonical "broad side of a barn"),
but immense numbers of hp (even with a magic greatsword, it`ll take all
day to hack up a brontosaurus). Conversely, normal-size insects should
have extremely high AC, but less than 1 hp (almost impossible to hit, but
any blow at all should kill). 3e does a good job of making a start at
this with size modifiers, but I think the idea ought to be taken much
further. Magic should still be able to provide either or both of AC
increases or damage reductions; but the biggest change is that normal
armor ought to actually *reduce* AC, while providing damage reduction
instead. I`d use BAB for both attack and defense bonus, and would have hp
determined only by species, size and Con -- not level at all. This might
require some rescaling of spell damage numbers, but if we simultaneously
linearize the magic system, it ought to work fine. =)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
> > defensive abilities (and that they have always been included).
>
> I agree that both should be present. While I suppose they have both
> always been present in some form, it seems clear to me that they have not
> always been modeled equally well (nor indeed are they today).

Fighting defensively (-4 to attacks, gain a +2 to AC), Full Defense (no
attacks, gain +4 to AC), and Expertise (5 points of BAB to AC transfer)
already exist, and do a reasonable job. To this you can add the Parry
rules from Dragon, if you like them, I`m not sure that I do.

> I am rather interested in a more flexible version of this -- that is to
> say, let BAB (or whatever we call it) represent an uncommitted pool of
> points; each round, allocate some of them to help you attack, and the rest
> of them to help you defend. This starts to look slightly more like the
> Rolemaster combat system, but isn`t nearly as complicated as the
> full-blown RM approach.

The expertise feat is somewhat like this. It allows up to 5 points of BAB
to be reallocated from attack to AC. I`m going to introduce an improved
version of this as well, in a swashbuckling Cerilia campaign I`m working
on (and working to get my gaming group to buy-in to). It would go
something like:

Improved Expertise: prereq Int 13+, Expertise.
Benefit: Same as expertise, essentially, and stacks with expertise,
allowing a total of up to 10 points of BAB to transfer to AC.

If you think it should be automatic, just say everyone can do it, but note
that they`ll automatically meet the prereqs for stuff depending on
Expertise. If you`re going to do that, I`d give everyone power attack (up
to BAB no limit like you`d be doing with expertise) as well.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

> Azrai wrote:
> There is one problem with your system Kenneth. The D&D attackbonus
includes attacks and parades, they are not seperated. A fighting round is
the result of many hit and runs. In that sense some kind of additional dodge
bonus does not fit. Because the fighting development of each character class
(which includes already the attack and parade) IS already reflected by the
base attack bonus.
>

Explain this? How are parries part of the attack sequence and of BAB? In
what way does parrying improve? Do you mean hit points? Because right now,
there isnothing defensive about BAB.

/carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>The original concept of role-playing as taking on a
> role - where the successful strategy was to avoid combat as much as
> possible relegates combat to a more minor role.

This is not strictly true. The first role-playing games were strictly
combat - they grew out of tabletop games. Everyting having to do with the
role came later.

Not that this invalidates your argument. The first isnot always the best. In
fact, the opposite is more often true - or we would all be using rock clubs
right now.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 04:42, Stephen Starfox wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>The original concept of role-playing as taking on a
> role - where the successful strategy was to avoid combat as much as
> possible relegates combat to a more minor role.

This is not strictly true. The first role-playing games were strictly
combat - they grew out of tabletop games. Everyting having to do with the
role came later.

Let`s not get into a big argument over this okay. But, bzzzzt - "Sorry
Carl, only half points. Role-playing grew out of historical re-enactment
-- through Dave Arneson. Gygax was developing tabletop gaming rules.
Both were members of the same club/organization although they lived in
different cities. Arneson adapted some of Gygax`s tabletop rules to
individual combat for use in his fantasy roleplaying game (Blackmoor
campaign). When Gygax saw what Arneson was doing, he suggested that they
collaborate and publish. He started the Greyhawk campaign and begun
writing the first D&D rulebook. Most of the rules for D&D came from
Gygax working on Arnesons notes - Gygax published them as supplements to
his previously published chainmail tabletop game.



Not that this invalidates your argument. The first isnot always the best. In
fact, the opposite is more often true - or we would all be using rock clubs
right now.

Define "best".
Of course improvements often make things better. But "good/best" can be
subjective - for example, there are two different awards for science
fiction/fantasy - the Hugo and the Nebula. Rarely are they won by the
same author for the same work - "Dune- Frank Herbert" is the only one I
can think of. For me, "best" would be winning a Nebula. For WoTC, they`d
much rather have a Hugo.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> Let`s not get into a big argument over this okay. But, bzzzzt - "Sorry
> Carl, only half points. Role-playing grew out of historical re-enactment
> -- through Dave Arneson. Gygax was developing tabletop gaming rules.
> Both were members of the same club/organization although they lived in
> different cities. Arneson adapted some of Gygax`s tabletop rules to
> individual combat for use in his fantasy roleplaying game (Blackmoor
> campaign). When Gygax saw what Arneson was doing, he suggested that they
> collaborate and publish. He started the Greyhawk campaign and begun
> writing the first D&D rulebook. Most of the rules for D&D came from
> Gygax working on Arnesons notes - Gygax published them as supplements to
> his previously published chainmail tabletop game.
>

This was news top me - thanks.



__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 19:22, Stephen Starfox wrote:

From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> Let`s not get into a big argument over this okay. But, bzzzzt - "Sorry
> Carl, only half points. Role-playing grew out of historical re-enactment
> -- through Dave Arneson. Gygax was developing tabletop gaming rules.
> Both were members of the same club/organization although they lived in
> different cities. Arneson adapted some of Gygax`s tabletop rules to
> individual combat for use in his fantasy roleplaying game (Blackmoor
> campaign). When Gygax saw what Arneson was doing, he suggested that they
> collaborate and publish. He started the Greyhawk campaign and begun
> writing the first D&D rulebook. Most of the rules for D&D came from
> Gygax working on Arnesons notes - Gygax published them as supplements to
> his previously published chainmail tabletop game.
>

This was news top me - thanks.

Apropos of nothing but sheer coincidence - the D&D movie was on pay TV
tonight. In which Dave Arneson was a technical adviser and also an extra
(he stands around in a wizards robes looking all wizardly - not hard for
a 50+ year old man with a white beard).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.