Drmg023, Dragon
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
— The Magazine of Fantasy, Swords & Sorcery, and Science Fiction Game Playing —
Convention Season '79 — What Happened To July?
Convention season is fast approaching, and most people are find-
ing themselves requesting vacation periods, making plans, arrange-
ments, etc., about now. A careful scrutiny of this year’s offerings pro-
duces some disturbing results.
In the past few years, gamers have had their choice of good, reput-
able cons spread throughout the summer, one in each month actually.
PennCon
and
MichiCon
alternated between themselves as first in June,
then came
Origins,
somewhere, in July, followed by
GenCon
in mid- to
late August. In effect, something somewhere for everyone, regardless of
when your vacation fell, could be worked out.
This year, there are serious problems.
MichiCon
is scheduled to go
on the first weekend in June. A scant three weeks later, the combined
PennCon/Origins
takes place. A full eight weeks later,
GenCon
begins
again, for the twelfth year. What happened to July, the most favored
vacation month? Previously,
Origins
was held in July.
This year, for a variety of reasons, AH and SPI took over adminis-
tering
Origins.
The group from
PennCon
(who didn’t even want to bid
for the '79 con, but were there to check procedure to bid on the '80 con)
allowed themselves to be persuaded to take
Origins
'79 when no other
group showed the slightest interest. This group has a fine reputation
earned doing excellent
PennCons
(formerly known as
PhilCon),
and
felt that it was in the best interest of the hobby to not let
Origins
die. They
should have remained adamant and held out for '80.
Their troubles began when the powers that would like to be de-
cided that the site they wanted was inadequate, and further insisted that
Origins
has to be held on a campus. Previously,
Origins
had been a July
con, but this insistence precluded that this year. The only college that
would even consider it in their area was Widener, in Chester PA. The
only time they could get was in June, as the NFL Eagles train there from
July on, and no one else is allowed to use campus facilities. In short, it
was the parochialism of AH and SPI that led to this scheduling debacle.
The problems inherent with
Origins
go much deeper, though, and
bear examining. The entire concept behind
Origins
is faulty and self-
serving. From the onset, AH and SPI have treated
Origins
as theirs,
rather than the hobby’s. Under its present format,
Origins serves
the
manufacturers first, and the gamers second. AH and SPI expect to be
able to find a group of volunteer gamers willing to hustle their collective
butt off, so that the lustre of the show accrues to them (AH and SPI),
while the work, sweat and hassles all fall to the misused volunteers. In
this instance, they conned the
PennCon
group into running the show,
then refused to let them do it the way they wanted. Further, while they
seem to have been long on criticism and demands, they were woefully
short of actual assistance or guidance. They caused the scheduling
changes that have created problems for the
PennCon
group, and
created doubt in the minds of would-be attendees if there was even
going to be a show. Unfortunately, the
PennCon
group has received
some undue criticism as a result.
Continued on page 21
If your mailing label says TD 23 this is your last issue . . resubscribe.
Design/Designers Forum
Sorceror’s Scroll
— Gary Gygax
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Dungeons and Prisons
— Mark S. Day
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Features
The Thing From The Tomb
— Gardner F. Fox
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
It Weighs WHAT!!!? —
Michael Mornard . .
. .
. . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.14
News
Good News For The Gaming Hobby —
Gary Gygax
. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Convention Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
GENCON Status Report —
Joseph G. Orlowski . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 30
Variants
. 10
Water Adventures On The Starship Warden —
Carl Hursh
. . . . . . . 11
Damage Permanency —
James Ward
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Jeff P. Swycaffer
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
.
. . . .
.
Publisher
E. Gary Gygax
Art Dept.
Dave Sutherland
Managing Ed.
T.J. Kask
Tom Wham
TD Editor
T.J. Kask
LW Editor
Joe Orlowski
Circulation
Mgt.
Joe Orlowski
Publisher’s Statement
THE DRAGON is published monthly by TSR Periodicals, a division of TSR Hobbies, Inc., P.O. Box 110, Lake Geneva, WI 53147
It is available at better hobby shops and bookstores, or by subscription. Subscription rate is $24 per 13 issues. Single copy and back issue price is $2.00, but availability of back issues is not guaranteed. Subscriptions outside the U.S. and
Canada are $28 per 6 issues, and are air-mailed overseas. (Payment must be made in U.S. currency or by international money order.) All material published herein becomes the exclusive property of the publisher unless special
arrangements to the contrary are made. Subscription expiration is coded onto the mailing list. The number to the right of the name, prefixed by “LW” or “LD” is the last issue of the subscription. Notices will not be sent.
Change of address must be filed 30 days prior to mailing date.
Unsolicited material cannot be returned unless accompanied by a stamped return envelope, and no responsibility for such material can be assumed by the publisher in any event. All rights on the entire contents of this publication are
reserved, and nothing may be reprinted in whole or in part without written permission of the publisher. Copyright 1978 by TSR HOBBIES, INC.
Second-Class Postage paid at Lake Geneva, WI 53147
4
Table of Contents
En Garde!
in Solitaire. —
Geoffrey Laking .
. .
.
. . . . .
.
. . .
.
. . . . .
.
. 5
Mind Wrestling
March, 1979
En
Garde in Solitaire
George Laking
Unique among role-playing games currently marketed is the game,
EN GARDE!
It’s unique flavor stems from the fact that it was designed mainly for
solitaire play. The game system is laid out in flow-chart fashion, making
it easy for the solitary gamer to guide his character through a month’s
actions in a “Yes-No” manner:
*Will Armand court Mistress Y, Yes or No?
(If no, go to bawdyhouse this week; if yes, pay courting fee and roll the
dice).
*Did Mistress Y accept him, Yes or No?
(If no, go to bawdyhouse or try again next week; if yes, record status
points and enjoy Mistress Y’s “female companionship!").
The only point where the
EN GARDE!
game system breaks down
is in the cumbersome rules for fighting a duel.
Under the present rules, another player is always required for duel-
ing, whether the action takes place against a non-player or player’s
character. Furthermore, each duelist is required to secretly write one or
more sequenced actions for use with a simultaneous movement/
combat system! For the solitaire gamer playing
EN GARDE!,
this duel-
ing system is totally unworkable.
To make the game truly solitaire, the members of the Mid-
Columbia Wargaming Society (Richland, WA) have substituted the fol-
lowing:
Although Jacques is the superior duelist from an expertise view-
point, he is the weaker opponent, having a CE of 100 compared to
Karl’s 140 CE. The difference between them is 40 points, representing a
10% hit probability modifier (140 - 100 = 40 ÷ 4 = 10). Jacques’ hit
probability is then 1-40% (50% - 10% = 40%), while Karl has a hit
probability of 1-60% (50% + 10% = 60%).
The duelist with the higher Expertise factor always has the initia-
tive. If both are equal, a six-sided die is rolled and high die determines
who has the initiative. If tied, both roll again. (Note that, if a player
character is dueling a non-player character, the player character
always
has the initiative, no matter what the expertise factor of his non-player
opponent).
The superior duelist rolls percentile dice, applies the defense mod-
ifier (if any) to the die roll and compares it to his hit probability to see if
he scored a hit on his opponent. If both duelists are equal, there will be
no die roll modification. However. . . !
If a duelist has the higher expertise factor, he subtracts the defense
modifier from his die roll to see if he hits (being more skillful than his
opponent, he stands a better chance of slipping past his opponent’s
guard). If he is the inferior duelist expertise-wise, he adds the defense
modifier to his die roll (his more skillful opponent finding it easier to
parry his thrusts).
For example, Jacques and Karl (having determined their CE/DM
factors and their hit probabilities) now cross swords and have at each
other. Jacques rolls “42” on the percentile dice (normally a miss for
Jacques) but after subtracting the defense modifier for his superior ex-
pertise from his die roll, we see that Jacques has scored (42 - 3 = 39) a
light head wound against Karl (refer to Critical Hits Table, below).
Karl now strikes, rolling a “58” (normally a hit) against Jacques.
Being the inferior duelist, however, he must add the defense modifier to
his die roll for a modified result of “61” (58 + 3 = 61). This is outside his
hit probability (1-60%) so his blow misses.
If the number found after rolling the percentile dice and applying
the defense modifier indicates that a hit has been scored, refer im-
mediately to the following Critical Hits Table and apply the results
shown.
(2) The Critical Hits Table
Using the modified die roll number to score a hit, refer to the col-
umn marked "Die Roll” to determine hit results and damage points:
SHORTHAND DUELING METHOD
The rules applying to dueling are modified thusly:
(1) Combat Effectiveness
Before the duel begins, the Combat Effectiveness
(CE)
of each
duelist must be computed first. The combat effectiveness of a character
is found by adding his STRENGTH, CONSTITUTION and ENDUR-
ANCE factors together. This will change during the course of the duel
and must be re-computed eveytime a character is wounded.
(2) The Defense Modifier
The Defense Modifier (DM) represents the difference in EXPER-
TISE between the two duelists. The defense modifier must be found for
both duelists and is determined by subtracting the Expertise factors of
both duelists from each other.
If both are equally skillful, both will have a defense modifier of
“O.” Otherwise, it will be a whole number ranging from 1-15. This may
change during the duel should a character sustain certain types of
wounds which hamper his movement and ability to effectively handle a
weapon.
For example, Jaques d’Uberville (with an expertise factor of 18)
squares off against Karl von Badenhaus (with an expertise of 15). The
defense modifier for both is “3” (18-15=3) but each will apply the
modifier differently depending on their status as the superior or inferior
duelist.
DIE ROLL
RESULT
DAMAGE POINTS
1-10
Light Leg Wound
Base 20 + 16-sided die roll
11-20
Light Left Arm Wound
Base 20 + 16-sided die roll
**21-30
Light Right Arm Wound
Base 20 + 16-sided die roll
*31-40
Light Head Wound
Base 20 + 16-sided die roll
##41-50
Light Body Wound
Base 25 + 16-sided die roll
51-60
Serious Leg Wound
Base 50 + 120-sided die roll
61-70
Serious Left Arm Wound
Base 50 + 120-sided die roll
The defense modifier thus represents how easy (or
to get past your opponent’s guard to score a hit.
difficult) it will
#71-80
Serious Right Arm Wound
Base 50 + 120-sided die roll
be
*81-90
Serious Head Wound
Base 50 + 120-sided roll die
!91-99
Serious Body Wound
Base 100 + 120-sided die roll
THE DUEL
0 0
DEAD
(1) Scoring
Once the combat effectiveness and the defense modifier for each
duelist has been found, the duel can begin.
Now the underlying assumption of this dueling system is that,
between two equal opponents of equal skill and expertise, each stands
an equal chance of scoring a hit on their opponent. This equal chance
factor is represented by a basic 50% hit probability using percentile dice.
To determine the exact hit probability, subtract the CE factor of
each duelist from the other and divide by four. The number thus found
is added to the basic hit probability of the stronger duelist, subtracted
from the hit probability of the weaker. Let’s look at our two duelists —
Jacques and Karl — and see how this works.
Notes to Critical Hits Table:
*
Opponent may defend only in following phase
* * Opponent’s expertise factor halved; recompute defense modifier
#
Opponent’s expertise factor quartered; recompute defense mod-
ifier
##
Opponent’s strength halved; recompute combat effectiveness
! Opponent surrenders (non-player character only)
At the end of each phase of dueling, the CE DM factors of both
duelists are re-computed (unless noted above) to reflect hit damage
taken. If a duelist has sustained no injuries in a phase, his CE factor will
not change.
5
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]