Should All Weapons Do 1d6 Damage? Revisited

Almost three years ago I asked that question. I gave a short answer nine months ago, but I'd like to go into a bit more detail in this post. Here are the possible arguments. The answer, given the sum of them, is a qualified Yes.

1. Should all weapons do 1d6 damage?  Why not?  Combat is abstract.

This is not a good argument. Indeed, I find this kind of argument to be quite annoying. OD&D is a game. Therefore, combat must be abstract. Logically, there are an infinite number of possible combat mechanisms that will all be abstract, at least to some degree. So, the question is which abstract mechanism to choose. Thus, when defending one abstract mechanism against another abstract mechanism, it's obviously not enough to simply declare that it's abstract.

2. In a certain sense all weapons do the same damage in the end.  Being fatally stabbed by a dagger is just as bad as being fatally stabbed by a two-handed sword.

This is half right. It works if there is some other mechanism for differentiating the effectiveness of weapons. Thus, the damage might in the end be the same, but there may be different chances (perhaps based on a variety of other contingent factors) for two different weapons to end up actually inflicting damage. If you're stabbed hard in your Adam's apple by a fountain pen, you'll be just as dead as if your entire head was lopped off with an axe. But there is a reason why men marched into battle with axes (or swords or spears or pikes, etc. etc.) instead of fountain pens.

3. It’s simpler.

Also half right.  Simplicity is not always better. But it often is. On the other side, complexity can enhance the fun of decision making, can make the play of the game more interesting and can enhance the illusion of realism. But it can also detract from each of the above things. One of the main considerations of good game design--perhaps even the main consideration--is correctly judging which side of the scale is heavier in each relevant situation.

Simpler can be better

In this case, in my view, simplicity wins, partly for the reasons given in 4, below:

4. Rolling different kinds of dice (as well as different numbers of dice) for each weapon distracts from the “ballet of combat”.  Having all weapons do 1d6 focuses attention on the combat not on the dice.

This is wholly and precisely right. You don't want a boring "conga line". You do want tactics, maneuvering and in a word, thinking. Of course, having a good referee and good players is crucial. But it also helps if you rid the situations of as many additional distractions as possible.

5. Having some weapons do more than 1d6 damage introduces an annoying sort of inflation into the game.  If, for example, the damage done by a two-handed sword is increased from 1d6 in Men & Magic to 3d6 damage in Greyhawk (at least against large creatures), then to be fair (or rather, in the interests of realism or consistency), many of those large creatures must have their damage increased as well.

This also is precisely right, and the empirical part of it is borne out by the history. I guess the counter-argument is that all things being equal, inflation is supposed to be neutral. If everyone has an average of 100 hit points and all weapons do an average of 20 points of damage, then in theory that shouldn't really be any better or worse than if everyone has 10 hit points and does an average of 2 point of damage. But of course, having more points is worse. Large numbers of hit points amount to, again, just another distraction. The more hit points everyone has the more the emphasis is on, well, hit points, as opposed to the combat itself. Or, to the extent that hit points should matter, the less they do, if that makes sense. Perhaps there's a parallel with the more runs vs. less runs argument in baseball. People like it when their team gets a run (obviously), so (the argument goes) why not increase the number of runs for everybody? There's a reoccurring tendency to do this in baseball, with curmudgeons like me always saying "you think you're making it more exciting, but in fact you're making it less exciting."

6. Having all weapons do 1d6 damage introduces more diversity in the choice of weapons.  From the point of view of fantasy role-playing, this is a good thing.  If weapons do different amounts of damage, players will gravitate to only a few of them--those that do the most damage.  That’s a bad thing.

Half right. You could construct a rules algorithm that balanced extra damage against other considerations with negative effects, but in practice this is rarely done. Why it's only rarely done is an interesting question that I don't really have an answer to.

7. Having all weapons do 1d6 damage allows you to come up with other reasons (more fun and more realistic) to choose some weapons over others—some weapons you can charge with, others might be better at piercing armor, etc.  This is healthy.

Three-quarters right, although in practice such rules can become fussy and irritatingly discontinuous.

8. It’s a feature of the original game.  How could Gygax and Holmes have been wrong?

Half right (!). This argument carries some weight with me, among other things because OD&D circa 1974 had already undergone extensive play testing for years with really good referees and players. They had to have been on to something.

A diversity of weapons-Jim Roslof from Keep on the Borderlands

So on balance I'm on the side of all weapons generally doing only 1d6 of damage. But I admit that the case is not cut and dried. You can have a perfectly acceptable old school experience with variable weapon damage. My goal is to persuade people to at least try uniform 1d6 damage--the message being that it can work.

For Seven Voyages of Zylarthen I adopted uniform (or almost uniform--see 3, below) 1d6 weapon damage. But I differentiated weapons in eight or nine other ways:

1. Each weapon has a different To Hit progression for the eight possible armor classes, which among other things allows for meaningful differentiation in terms of effectiveness against different kinds of armor (or hide, natural plating, etc.). Swords are good against no armor or light armor. Maces and blunt weapons are good against heavy armor, etc. And of course certain weapons are pretty good on average. Certain weapons are not, etc.

2. Each weapon has a weapon class, for the most part based on weapon size and length. Higher weapon class weapons are more effective on the first turn of melee. Lower weapon class weapons are more effective on the second and subsequent turns.

3. Some weapons have either a penalty of -1 or a bonus of +1 on damage inflicted against large creatures. This is one minor exception to all weapons doing 1d6 damage. But it makes intuitive sense. Against a large creature you want a weapon with good, so to speak, penetration power.

4. Some weapons break more than others (for simplicity's sake, this is almost entirely based on cost, but I think cost generally tracks breakability).

5. Cost. This is a factor at low levels, enhanced a bit due to the weapon break rules.

6. Weapons have different space requirements. Whether the referee decides to rigidly enforce this is of course up to her.

7. Whether or not the weapon is wielded with one-hand or two (thus allowing or not, the use of a shield or off-hand weapon). A few weapons--the sword and spear--can be wielded with either one hand or two.

8. Encumbrance. If you want to carry a battle axe (which in Zylarthen is pretty large), then you're going to move slower and sacrifice potentially carrying other weapons or useful items of equipment.

9. Other miscellaneous special considerations for certain weapons--"staves shall be splintered", fighting with an offhand axe or dagger, breaking wooden hafted weapons with large swords, etc.

10. Finally, whatever weapon is used, there is always the option of decreasing one's To Hit chances by 5 (out of 20) but adding an extra die of damage. Theoretically, you could add multiple dice by sacrificing 10, 15 or more To Hit numbers. In my view this potentially adds an interesting decision--you can "go for it" if your back is to the wall, etc. It also on average speeds up combat at high levels. (If your base To Hit is 10 or less, it's to your advantage to add sacrifice "To Hits" for damage, at least in terms of expected damage value). This is of course also a semi-exception to the "all weapons do 1d6 damage" rule.

I feel that the above may make Zylarthen's weapon and combat system seem overly complicated. But in practice I do not think it is. Many of the rules are optional. And in the more basic cases I tried to "bake things in" to a few simple tables as opposed to forcing players and referees to add or subtract eighty-five separate bonuses or penalties.

I'm interested in other opinions, especially from those who have played in or refereed campaigns under both systems.

Twenty Years After

Well, actually only two.

First, let me answer my own question, posed more than twenty-six months ago:

Yes.

For reasons 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Somewhat for reason 8. And not so much for reason 1.

I've taken the time-off (an odd way of putting it, admittedly, since the original blog only existed for two weeks) to write a "neo-clone", Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, which I'll be releasing in a few days.

I started with a desire to write a pseudo-16th century variant of OD&D, but that gave way to a potentially richer re-imagining of the original game, with more of an emphasis on its fairy tale and even pulp science fiction aspects. I wanted to create something that even my new children could enjoy (in a few years, of course). The original idea is being reworked into a "supplement".

This blog will exist as a portal to the game, and as an occasional space to pontificate, but I doubt I'll have a lot of time. My wife and I are preparing for the arrival of two more children. We've gone from 0 to 4 in a bit more than two years, with me starting at the age of almost 48. That's two sets of back-to-back twins conceived through "natural" means. The odds of that are a bit higher than qualifying for an AD&D Paladin by rolling 3d6 in order, I think. :)

Here are Oliver and Lydia, riding the Chicago "L" on the way to Mass at our lovely St. John Cantius. They were no more than two months old when I took a hiatus from the blog. God willing, they will have two new brothers no later than the first week of May.

At the age of one-and-a half Lydia emerged from the bedroom to catch me watching the remake of Conan. She took one look at it and made the sign of the cross (which gets it about right, I think). Their most recent pastime is to creep into my office and filch my dice, which they then joyfully and madly roll on the kitchen floor until they inevitably disappear under the stove. Then they creep back into the office to steal some more.

Thank you to those who followed and commented on the early posts, and apologies for letting you down in any way. I've noticed that at least one of those commenters, Zenopus, has gone on to be a major player in the blogosphere, offering all sorts of nifty stuff of historical interest.

May your Feast of the Epiphany be peaceful and joyous!

Oakes 

Should All Weapons Do 1d6 Damage?

For the fun of it I thought I’d dissect the arguments for the OD&D pre-Greyhawk/Holmes Basic/S&W Whitebox convention that all weapons should do 1d6 damage.  For each argument, I’ll make the positive claim and then offer a critique in the next post.  We’ll see where we end up.

1. Should all weapons do 1d6 damage?  Why not?  Combat is abstract.
2. In a certain sense all weapons do the same damage in the end.  Being fatally stabbed by a dagger is just as bad as being fatally stabbed by a two-handed sword.
3. It’s simpler.
4. Rolling different kinds of dice (as well as different numbers of dice) for each weapon distracts from the “ballet of combat”.  Having all weapons do 1d6 focuses attention on the combat not on the dice.
5. Having some weapons do more than 1d6 damage introduces an annoying sort of inflation into the game.  If, for example, the damage done by a two-handed sword is increased from 1d6 in Men & Magic to 3d6 damage in Greyhawk (at least against large creatures), then to be fair (or rather, in the interests of realism or consistency), many of those large creatures must have their damage increased as well.
6. Having all weapons do 1d6 damage introduces more diversity in the choice of weapons.  From the point of view of fantasy role-playing, this is a good thing.  If weapons do different amounts of damage, players will gravitate to only a few of them--those that do the most damage.  That’s a bad thing.
7. Having all weapons do 1d6 damage allows you to come up with other reasons (more fun and more realistic) to choose some weapons over others—some weapons you can charge with, others might be better at piercing armor, etc.  This is healthy.
8. It’s a feature of the original game.  How could Gygax and Holmes have been wrong?

Am I leaving any out?

D&D Unplugged: A Golden Age?

In his seminal old school Musings, Philotomy Jurament makes a strong case for why one should consider playing OD&D with only the three original 1974 booklets (plus the appropriate house rules, of course)—that is, D&D pre-Greyhawk, where all weapons do 1d6 damage (though Philotomy advocates tweaking this a little bit), ability scores have few explicit modifiers on combat, player characters and monsters use only a 1d6 for hit dice, and so on.  Matthew Finch’s Swords and Wizardry White Box and some of the White Box spin-offs like Ruins and Ronin track the same mechanic.

We might call it D&D Unplugged.

I find it very attractive.  A psychologist might say it satisfies my deep-seated bias towards minimalism or fundamentalism or whatever.  I don’t know.  And I’m not going to argue for the approach here.  What I am interested in is how well it comports with the actual history of the game.

Many people in the OSR are trying to recapture their first experiences with the game.  I’m 48 and started playing when I was 15.  That was the spring of 1979, I think.  We played using the AD&D Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook and various bit and pieces such as the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets and the Dungeon Master’s Guide “official” preview charts in Dragon Magazine.  As I recall, publication of the Guide was still a few months down the road while the original three-booklet box set and supplements were sold-out and hard to find.  There was the Holmes Basic Set, which in some ways was a cleaned up version of the three original booklets, but everyone I knew thought it was for babies.  It was what your kid-brother played with, or whatever.  Even then, though the game was growing by leaps and bounds, the market was still only 10%, or so I would estimate, of what it would become a few years later.  Things were still quite small.  Back issues of Dragon magazine from a few months before had a feature called “Mapping the Dungeons” where any Dungeon Master could get their name and address published in the magazine—there were something like eight DM’s in all of Massachusetts, and so on.  Many of the classic modules had not yet been written and Judges Guild had just published the first (and at that point only) city adventure.

Those who advocate D&D unplugged want us to go back five years before that to (I guess) the spring of 1974.  Now, if the three original booklets are to be the standard, they only lasted in their unmodified form for one year.  The first supplement, Greyhawk, would come out in the spring of 1975. This was before the first issue of Dragon Magazine and roughly simultaneous with the first issue of its predecessor The Strategic Review.  Now, Greyhawk would lay the framework for AD&D, and so (the hard-core purists might say) it was the beginning of the end in so far as it introduced Thieves, Paladins and all sorts of foofy inflationary elements like two-handed swords doing 3d6 damage and monsters with three attack routines.  Yet as far as I can tell from looking at the original sources, no one treated Greyhawk as heretical.  Rather it was regarded as a natural and perhaps even necessary improvement on the original game.  And again, it needs to be stressed—Greyhawk only came out one year after the first publication of the original booklets. The number of people playing Dungeons and Dragons at that time was very small.

So the question is, suppose its true that pre-supplement D&D really is preferable or superior in certain fundamental ways (as I think it might be).  If so, then it tracks a golden age that never existed.  Or at least if that golden age existed, it lasted for no more that a year for a very small group of people, few or none of whom (if the sources can be trusted) understanding it for what it was and who would thus go on to embrace the end of it when it came.

I find this fascinating and odd.