What surprised me was the commonality between Chainmail and Into the Odd (ItO), an RPG which I have already reviewed. This is despite there being 44 years between their publications. ItO is a rules light adventure game; Chainmail is a rules heavy system for running medieval style wargames. On the surface then, two dissimilar things. Yet their approach to gaming, standing in contrast to D&D, strikes me as sharing a kinship.
The Combat System
Chainmail was written by Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gyax and Jeff Perrin, and served to plug some of the gaps in the original D&D (OD&D) rules. One such gap was the rules for combat, for which Chainmail has multiple versions to pick from. But OD&D also had its own “alternative” method – the roll to hit system. It was the “alternative” that has gone on to become the defacto d20 to hit system for all subsequent editions of the game.
The full smorgasbord of Chainmail combat rules might be a bit clunky for your average RPG campaign. But its individual modular elements can be very direct and efficient at resolving combat outcomes. For example, in the mass combat rules, a whole unit of 20 men can be wiped out through a single d6 roll. Its man-to-man rules are also a matter of one hit kills for a normal soldier.
As D&D transitioned into a character-based game, having your hero wiped out in a single roll became possibly less palatable. Thus D&D combat has become increasingly atomised into drawn out micro phases. If Chainmail combat rules can be time consuming, this is through the layering of procedural elements, which are at least intended to make combat more realistic. Whereas D&D 5e combat seems to have become more about system mastery and what I have described as the illusion of player agency.
44 years later, Into the Odd came full circle in the rejection of the “to hit rolls” which are the staple of D&D. ItO is a direct damage system, with damage rolls deducted straight from your hit protection. This has similarities with Chainmail. Where two formations of troops meet, there will normally be some damage every turn due to the large dice pools. In both, there will normally be a decisive outcome in a short number of turns, in Chainmail due to its regular morale checks. This stands in contrast with the long slog of turns which D&D combat can spiral into.
Materialism in Chainmail
Chainmail itself was a transitional system between historical medieval warfare and fantasy battles. It was also transitional between mass wargame combat and man-to-man combat rules. In so far as it deals with historical warfare, it has a quality perhaps in common with most such games – it is rooted in materialism.
In Chainmail, it is for the most part physical things that differentiate soldiers from each other; this is what determines their identity. Troops fall into one of six categories such as Light Foot or Heavy Horse. What this boils down to is the weapon, armour and mount they are equipped with. These categories vastly affect the troop’s combat capabilities, as you can get an idea of in this appendix table.
In a key move, RPGs replaced the unit of troops with a single character. To facilitate this, Chainmail also provides rules for man-to-man melee. But unlike D&D, combat capability for individuals is again governed solely by weapons and armour, as demonstrated in this table.
One aspect I find particularly interesting is the initiative rules, where combat order is governed by the weapons combatants are using. The reach of long weapons enables you to act first in the initial turn of combat. There are furthermore special manoeuvres such as parry, available by virtue of wielding a shorter weapon. Again, it is the possession of the physical object that determines such abilities, not an abstract feat or class feature of the character.
How different this is to 5th edition D&D, where a loin clothed 10th level fighter with a pen knife would destroy the average soldier wielding a claymore in full plate. ItO, as I’ve covered in my review, falls squarely on the Chainmail side of the fence. It is objects in the game world that determine both a character’s combat and magical capabilities, rather than an abstract feature of your class.
Environmental factors are another material condition which influences combat outcomes in Chainmail. The terrain and weather affect troops’ fatigue level, which reducing their ability to fight; cover reduces the effectiveness of missile weapons.
The above contrasts with the typical approach of 5th edition D&D, that I have referred to as idealist poetics. This is where “thought determines being”; where a character’s virtues and flaws determine outcomes in the world, such as the victor in a conflict. We might find this in a bad Hollywood war film, where the brave, determined hero acts to turn the tide of a battle. Such personal qualities in a soldier have no bearing in Chainmail.
The Shift into Fantasy
Chainmail’s tag line is “rules for medieval miniatures”, but about a third is taken up with a supplement for fantasy battles. This was designed to recreate battles from popular fantasy books such as Lord of the Rings. It is also the point at which the materialist basis of Chainmail was apparently abandoned.
The fantasy supplement introduces the “Hero” type of miniature, which are stated as having “the fighting ability of four figures”. As each figure for standard troops represents 20 men, this is quite some individual. This is not the mention the “super hero” – as the rules state “these fellows are one-man armies!”.
Chainmail was derived from systems which sought to realistically recreate historic battles. It is telling that there is no equivalent for the hero in its medieval section. No general would deploy a single person against a troop formation on account of their being a hero. It sounds plain silly in this context, but it is exactly the principle that has carried through to D&D, where the characters rise to the ranks of such heroes.
Summary
Chainmail’s shift into fantasy occurred around the same time it was transitioning into a tool for RPGs. Chailmail’s rules themselves were subsequently jettisoned from D&D, losing with it the materialist elements I have described above. Was this then an integral step in the move from wargaming to RPGs?
From the example of the ItO game, I would say the answer is no. Here, the characters are the equivalent of your average footman from Chainmail, who has slung on some dungeon crawling gear. The fantasy element of the game comes not from featuring overpowered heroes, but the oddness of the world you encounter. D&D’s direction is perhaps a reflection of the type of fantasy novel that was popular at the time of its publication. An RPG based on something like China Miéville’s novels would likely take a very different direction.
I should mention some resources I found very useful in writing this blog post.
The Combat System
Chainmail was written by Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gyax and Jeff Perrin, and served to plug some of the gaps in the original D&D (OD&D) rules. One such gap was the rules for combat, for which Chainmail has multiple versions to pick from. But OD&D also had its own “alternative” method – the roll to hit system. It was the “alternative” that has gone on to become the defacto d20 to hit system for all subsequent editions of the game.
The full smorgasbord of Chainmail combat rules might be a bit clunky for your average RPG campaign. But its individual modular elements can be very direct and efficient at resolving combat outcomes. For example, in the mass combat rules, a whole unit of 20 men can be wiped out through a single d6 roll. Its man-to-man rules are also a matter of one hit kills for a normal soldier.
As D&D transitioned into a character-based game, having your hero wiped out in a single roll became possibly less palatable. Thus D&D combat has become increasingly atomised into drawn out micro phases. If Chainmail combat rules can be time consuming, this is through the layering of procedural elements, which are at least intended to make combat more realistic. Whereas D&D 5e combat seems to have become more about system mastery and what I have described as the illusion of player agency.
44 years later, Into the Odd came full circle in the rejection of the “to hit rolls” which are the staple of D&D. ItO is a direct damage system, with damage rolls deducted straight from your hit protection. This has similarities with Chainmail. Where two formations of troops meet, there will normally be some damage every turn due to the large dice pools. In both, there will normally be a decisive outcome in a short number of turns, in Chainmail due to its regular morale checks. This stands in contrast with the long slog of turns which D&D combat can spiral into.
Materialism in Chainmail
Chainmail itself was a transitional system between historical medieval warfare and fantasy battles. It was also transitional between mass wargame combat and man-to-man combat rules. In so far as it deals with historical warfare, it has a quality perhaps in common with most such games – it is rooted in materialism.
In Chainmail, it is for the most part physical things that differentiate soldiers from each other; this is what determines their identity. Troops fall into one of six categories such as Light Foot or Heavy Horse. What this boils down to is the weapon, armour and mount they are equipped with. These categories vastly affect the troop’s combat capabilities, as you can get an idea of in this appendix table.
In a key move, RPGs replaced the unit of troops with a single character. To facilitate this, Chainmail also provides rules for man-to-man melee. But unlike D&D, combat capability for individuals is again governed solely by weapons and armour, as demonstrated in this table.
One aspect I find particularly interesting is the initiative rules, where combat order is governed by the weapons combatants are using. The reach of long weapons enables you to act first in the initial turn of combat. There are furthermore special manoeuvres such as parry, available by virtue of wielding a shorter weapon. Again, it is the possession of the physical object that determines such abilities, not an abstract feat or class feature of the character.
How different this is to 5th edition D&D, where a loin clothed 10th level fighter with a pen knife would destroy the average soldier wielding a claymore in full plate. ItO, as I’ve covered in my review, falls squarely on the Chainmail side of the fence. It is objects in the game world that determine both a character’s combat and magical capabilities, rather than an abstract feature of your class.
Environmental factors are another material condition which influences combat outcomes in Chainmail. The terrain and weather affect troops’ fatigue level, which reducing their ability to fight; cover reduces the effectiveness of missile weapons.
The above contrasts with the typical approach of 5th edition D&D, that I have referred to as idealist poetics. This is where “thought determines being”; where a character’s virtues and flaws determine outcomes in the world, such as the victor in a conflict. We might find this in a bad Hollywood war film, where the brave, determined hero acts to turn the tide of a battle. Such personal qualities in a soldier have no bearing in Chainmail.
The Shift into Fantasy
Chainmail’s tag line is “rules for medieval miniatures”, but about a third is taken up with a supplement for fantasy battles. This was designed to recreate battles from popular fantasy books such as Lord of the Rings. It is also the point at which the materialist basis of Chainmail was apparently abandoned.
The fantasy supplement introduces the “Hero” type of miniature, which are stated as having “the fighting ability of four figures”. As each figure for standard troops represents 20 men, this is quite some individual. This is not the mention the “super hero” – as the rules state “these fellows are one-man armies!”.
Chainmail was derived from systems which sought to realistically recreate historic battles. It is telling that there is no equivalent for the hero in its medieval section. No general would deploy a single person against a troop formation on account of their being a hero. It sounds plain silly in this context, but it is exactly the principle that has carried through to D&D, where the characters rise to the ranks of such heroes.
Summary
Chainmail’s shift into fantasy occurred around the same time it was transitioning into a tool for RPGs. Chailmail’s rules themselves were subsequently jettisoned from D&D, losing with it the materialist elements I have described above. Was this then an integral step in the move from wargaming to RPGs?
From the example of the ItO game, I would say the answer is no. Here, the characters are the equivalent of your average footman from Chainmail, who has slung on some dungeon crawling gear. The fantasy element of the game comes not from featuring overpowered heroes, but the oddness of the world you encounter. D&D’s direction is perhaps a reflection of the type of fantasy novel that was popular at the time of its publication. An RPG based on something like China Miéville’s novels would likely take a very different direction.
I should mention some resources I found very useful in writing this blog post.
The Bandits Keep podcast and Youtube channel
Experimental Gameology
Just found this relatively new blog on OSR Campaign Wiki! I look forward to read more!
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are enjoying it! I hope to publish some more posts soon.
Delete