For Matthew -- Repeating 20s

[James Maliszewski]

I was recently given a copy of an interview Gary Gygax did in Summer 1980 for a fanzine called Gryphon. The interviewer is Rudy Kraft, who did a lot of work for Chaosium back in the day and he asks Gary about a lot of stuff, including the "dramatic" changes to the combat tables in the DMG. When I read Gary's response, I thought of you.

Gryphon: Why was that done?

Gygax: In order to prevent certain armour classes from being hit proof. The concept of armour class and weapon size originated in Chainmail. When I put it into Dungeons & Dragons, I just reversed the order of armour class. I looked at Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and decided that I really didn't want to expand armour classes, and I don't want to go into lengthy explanations or special tables regarding size, speed of motion, and so forth. So by repeating the 20s it makes lower level and less adept things able to hit the higher armour class.

I doubt any of this is news to you but I thought I'd offer it nonetheless.

[Matthew]

Nice to be thought of! Actually, though some of this is explained in or can be inferred from the DMG, other parts are not entirely in accordance with my expectations, which naturally makes for fascinating reading. So many thanks for bringing it to my attention. My observations follow:

1) "In order to prevent certain armour classes from being hit proof."

This is the same language as in the DMG explanation (no access to the books right now, but I recognise it). That strongly suggests that Gygax was definitely the author of the passages in question. It also points again to concern for "hit proof" but not for "hit prone" creatures.

2) "The concept of armour class and weapon size originated in Chainmail."

We knew this, of course, but interesting to see it reiterated (and Aglicised, for that matter; was Gryphon a British fanzine?). Also, it clearly relates "weapon speed" directly to "weapon size" as a concept designed into AD&D.

3) "When I put it into Dungeons & Dragons, I just reversed the order of armour class."

This is possibly the most interesting item, as I have had the strong impression that Arneson was responsible for reversing armour class, particularly because the DMG talks about retaining it only for continuity with the original game. Still no explanation for why, but assuming that this innovation was indeed Gygax's own (and to be fair the armour classes are not simply reversed in order, and I suppose "put it into" is not the same as "thought of", if we were looking to really parse up the meaning...), it points more strongly to Tractics and percentages as a possible causal factor.

4) "I looked at Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and decided that I really didn't want to expand armour classes, and I don't want to go into lengthy explanations or special tables regarding size, speed of motion, and so forth."

This is interesting, as the DMG allows armour classes to be extended above 10 for cursed items, but not below −10, which again suggests a concern with "hit proof" characters, but little interest in those who are "hit prone". The purpose of the above in relation to the next point is tantalisingly hidden. How would have expanding the armour class range have made less adept things able to hit the higher armour classes, I wonder?

5) "So by repeating the 20s it makes lower level and less adept things able to hit the higher armour class."

This also points to the "important note on modifiers" being Gygax's own as well, which still leaves us with a questionmark over the various points in the PHB and DMG where the text has modifiers applied to the die roll or hit number directly. Like others, I suspect that the intent was not for a −1 penalty to hit to result in a 0 level man at arms being unable to hit armour classes 1 to −4, for instance. Hard to get away from that conclusion from the text, though, but this at least does something to reinforce the point!

[James Maliszewski]

(and Aglicised, for that matter; was Gryphon a British fanzine?).

I'm not certain, but I too noticed the spelling. Let me check with my source for the article and see what I can find out.

This is possibly the most interesting item, as I have had the strong impression that Arneson was responsible for reversing armour class, particularly because the DMG talks about retaining it only for continuity with the original game.

That was always my impression as well, but it's one of those things that's hard to determine with any reliability, since both Arneson and (apparently) Gygax claim to have been the one responsible.

In any case, glad the snippet was of interest to you. If I find anything further along these lines, I'll be certain to send them along to you as well.

[James Maliszewski]

Gryphon seems to have been an American publication, as its "editorial offices" were in La Puente, California, so I'm not sure why the UK spellings were used in the article. In my limited experience, many American gamers affect British spellings for things associated with "Ye Mediaeval Tymes," so perhaps that's what's going on here, but who can say?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It always interests me that so many people from the US view Commonwealth spellings as appropriate for mediaeval concepts.

("British English" isn't quite the right word, I don't think, for English as it's spoken in about sixteen nations that spell "colour" with a "u". I prefer "Commonwealth English", or ideally just plain "English", and I'm coming to prefer "US English" over "American English" for the dialect as well, since Canada's on the American continent.)

From my point of view US English seems to be more appropriate for olden tymes. US English preserves various Shakespearean constructions such as "gotten" or the "-ize" suffix where most nations would use "-ise", and it's always struck me as charmingly old-fashioned.

[James Maliszewski]

Having looked more carefully at the rest of the interview, it's clear that "armour" is the only word to use a UK spelling. Very odd.

[Geoffrey]

From my point of view US English seems to be more appropriate for olden tymes. US English preserves various Shakespearean constructions such as "gotten" or the "-ize" suffix where most nations would use "-ise", and it's always struck me as charmingly old-fashioned.

I seem to remember learning in a college English language course that the pronunciation of English in areas of New England is the oldest English pronunciation in the world. I have no idea if that is actually true.

[BlackBat242]

And I've seen it said that up in the backwoods of the central Appalachian mountains (West Virginia, Virginia, eastern Kentucky, & western North Carolina) is where the closest accent to Elizabethian English can be found.

So it depends on which linguist you are reading, I guess.

[Falconer]

I'm coming to prefer "US English" over "American English" for the dialect as well, since Canada's on the American continent.

That’s not quite accurate, at least not in our language.

America = The USA (But the USA is a political entity, the republican government which currently governs this land, whereas America is the actual land we inhabit.)

North America + South America = The Americas.

Canada is part of North America. Canada is part of the Americas. But Canada is not part of America. Anyway, that is how we Americans look at it. And we have as much a right to name our own country as, say, Columbia. Or Macedonia.

[genghisdon]

Well, I am a Canadian, and also an American. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are part of America. So is Brazil, ect. Not to be a dick about it; as Citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have pretty much de facto made the name their own, but it is a far older name than any modern nation states that occupy the continent(s) today. To me, it smacks like a German claiming they were European, while his French, Danish, Greek, ect, neihbours were not. IE: Silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas (naming section)

http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html

http://www.helium.com/items/428976-hist ... heir-names

Actually kinda interesting, but it sure is clear it wasn't the founding fathers of the USA that came up with it. Not that they weren't awesome & all, but america isn't theirs or yours alone.

[Falconer]

When someone says “I am a Canadian,” it is instantly understood what he or she means.

When someone says “I am a Columbian,” it is instantly understood what he or she means.

When someone says “I am an American,” it is instantly understood what he or she means.

There is basically no other way for us Americans to self-identify, so I kind of have an issue when people want to rob us of that.

(I don’t know if this counts as politics, so sorry if I’ve overstepped the bounds. Anyway, I’ve made my case.)

[Benoist]

As a French guy (from actual France) living in Canada, I gotta agree with Falconer on this. It's a terminological battle that's been lost a loooong time ago. I think we should just get over it and assume that when someone says "an American", s/he's talking about "a US citizen". Period. "North American" will be used to refer to either US or Canada or both, "South American" for countries thereof, and that is that. To me at least.