Tonisborg Part II

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: , ,

Now that we've established some of the history, our next couple posts are going to look more at the nuts and bolts of the dungeon.

I mentioned earlier that the stocking list might not be the original list. There is some reason to think the list may have been re-made after the "new" D&D rules booklets came out in an effort to conform.  In fact this seems the best explanation of the facts at hand.

The clues to this earlier stocking list are small notes here and there on the maps.  These notes are part of the photocopy, and so were written on the original graph paper.  As such, they are often very difficult to read, but what can be deciphered resembles exactly the kind of pre-D&D gaming terminology we see in the Twin Cities, while evidencing no hint of elements from published D&D.  

For example, on both Levels 1 and 2, there is a room with a note "12 per door".  That may be a requirement to roll 2 dice to open the door, with a very low chance of success.  




This same area on Level 2 has 3 heroes and a very unD&D like light cannon.  

Another note on level 2 has an apparently animate guard consisting of "Plate(mail?) holding sword".




There are only a few notes like this, but nevertheless these little hints are fascinating windows into a pre D&D, Twin Cities dungeon set in Blackmoor.  

Level 10 has two especially interesting examples of these "nonD&D" map notes, and in this case they seem to have been re-written on the copies.  One reads "Sp. evil area Statue 2 perm wishes and 20 temps".  




The first thing we should observe is that there is no rule in D&D about "temporary" wishes,  nor are there things called "evil areas".  "Sp" probably is meant to mean "special power", a term regular readers of this blog will recognize as occurring sometimes in FFC notes.  

In fact this whole "evil area" phrase in Tonisborg is not at all unique to Greg Svenson.  A very interesting, if equally vague echo, is found in the FFC for Arneson's  Blackmoor dungeon.  In the key for Blackmoor dungeon level 5, room 18, it reads:   "Evil area, 2 permanent, 20 wishes".

As can be seen, the wording is nearly identical, with the added clarification in Tonisborg that the 20 other wishes were not permanent.

This tells us two really interesting things: first, that these ideas of temporary wishes and evil areas were established features of gameplay in the Twin Cites.  These are part and parcel of the pre D&D game.  Second, despite the fact that levels 1-6 of Blackmoor Dungeon as published in the FFC were stocked randomly using the D&D tables in Monsters & Treasures (see this post for an explanation), in the few places in Blackmoor dungeon levels 1-6 we see notations from Arneson, at least some of those notes stem from an older stocking list.

The other example from level 10 I want to mention here is a note regarding what must have been the boss creature of the level.  It is called the Ylth'yl, a name unknown to D&D.  Ylth'yl, whatever exactly it may have been, was taken from the pages of a book by Gardner Fox published in 1964 and titled Escape Across The Cosmos.  In that book, the Ylth'yl is an evil energy creature, that bears some resemblance to both the mysterious gaurdian creature of the Temple of ID, described in the FFC, and the Invisible Stalker of D&D.  

The appearance of this creature here helps us solve another mystery.  If you will recall from our discussions of David Megarry's early character sheets, one of his favorite characters, The Scholaress, met her fate in Tonisborg dungeon, fighting a 7 headed hydra.  The picture below shows the bottom of the Scholaress character sheet showing her kill record.



Take note of the area of scratched out green felt.  The words scratched out really puzzled me, but now it is quite clear the bottom word is Ylth'yl.  It may read Killed by Ylth'yl, but perhaps, like the temple of the ID monster, the Ylth'yl doesn't kill, instead it knock out and transports a character  somewhere.  In any case it seems the Scholaress encountered the Ylth'yl at least once in Tonisborg.

Since the origin of the Ylth'yl predates even Blackmoor, this monster is of no help for dating, but does hint at an earlier non-D&D stocking key.  Unfortunately, Level 10 of Tonisborg is the one level for which no handwritten key was put on the map.
   
We must consider the possibility that the whole purpose behind making the map photocopies on oversized paper in the first place was to provide a blank slate for an entirely new key in order to update the dungeon to the newly released D&D rules.  Perhaps this update had only reached level 9 by the time Megarry got the maps, and perhaps Level 10 was never in fact restocked.

Some other Map features:

It's not just the line mentioned above about evil area and permanent wishes that resembles Blackmoor dungeon.  Its abundantly clear that Mr. Svenson was well familiar with Dave Arneson's dungeon maps and did his best to emulate that style.  The resemblance is unmistakable, and suggests that Mr. Svenson may have had copies of the Blackmoor dungeon maps at hand.  Here are two snippets to compare:


Blackmoor Dungeon Level 7:




Tonisborg Dungeon Level 3:




Coloring:
In the sample shown above, it is obvious certain sections were gone over with color markers.  Mr Megarry explained that he had done this in order to make seperate sections distinct: "I added the coloration. The brown are areas reached from the main staircase without going through a secret door; the green are areas can only be reached by going through a secret door; the orange are areas that are reached by up or down staircases."

Levels
There are 10 levels - just like Blackmoor dungeon.  Each sheet of 11" * 17" paper has one dungeon level.  The levels themselves were originally drawn on standard 8.5" 11" three-hole graph paper.  All of the sheets have a key written in pen on the side of the map except for Level 10, which was perhaps, never completed in a form that was compatible with the standards of the 1974 D&D booklets.


In our next post, we will discuss the details of the stocking method and contents of Tonisborg dungeon.

The Lost Dungeon of Tonisborg

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: , , ,

For D&D archaeologists, Tonisborg is like the lost city of Atlantis. Hints and whispers of this very early Blackmoor spin off have excited the imagination of researchers for decades.  

Of course, it was inevitable that the game that became Dungeons & Dragons would spread beyond the confines of Blackmoor and Greyhawk.  It didn't take long for some of those among the pool of original players, to begin developing their own dungeon lairs, following the examples of their mentor, either Arneson or Gygax.  Rob Kuntz's Castle El Raja Key is perhaps the best known example, but there is also Tonisborg, from one of the central Twin Cities players; a megadungeon which held the promise of shedding light on early Blackmoor gaming.  Tonisborg was the brainchild of Greg Svenson, who started playing with Arneson and co. when he was still in High School in 1969, and is best known to D&D fans as the creator of the iconic "Great Svenny" character.

"I built a city, called Tonisborg, complete with a dungeon and a network of catacombs, during 1973 and ran many adventures there and all around the Blackmoor area in 1973 and 1974 using the play test rules for the original three little books and then the published books. Tonisborg was located approximately where Vestfold is on the current Blackmoor area maps, for anyone who is interested.

I loaned my materials to one of the other guys in 1980 so he could run an adventure for a new gaming group and never saw them again. He just said he lost them. Oh well..."

Greg Svenson, Odd74 web forum, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:34pm http://odd74.proboards.com/post/11189/thread

Greg rather politely left out the details, but David Megarry confessed to what actually happened:

"Yes, Megarry is responsible for losing the 2nd dungeon made in Minnesota. Greg moved to Boston while I was living there; in fact, we drove his moving truck from Minnesota to Massachusetts together. I was working at a copy center in the Harvard Law School in Cambridge MA. I took his copy to make a copy after visiting him and put it into a magazine at the house I was staying at to make sure I didn't bend or fold the pages. I worked 3rd shift so I went to bed. When I got up and went to get the magazines, I find that the cleaning lady for the house had thrown out the magazines and it just so happened that it was garbage pick up day: gone, gone, gone with no chance of redemption. It was painful to tell Greg that his creation was lost to eternity."

 Lost and gone forever.... That's how the story went.  Personally, I held out some hope that something of Tonisborg might one day turn up in a a dusty box from someone's basement.  David Megarry did in fact pull some dusty old maps out of a box to show to Griffith Morgan, director of the forthcoming Secrets of Blackmoor documentary.  Mr. Morgan wondered if at least some of those maps might be Tonisborg, but it wasn't until November that Mr. Megarry shared complete scans of his mystery maps with me.  Among them was a set that looked an awful lot like the types of maps Dave Arneson drew, however hese maps - photocopies of photocopies - had handwritten keys that everyone agreed was not in Arneson's hand.  

Looking at the maps - image courtesy of Secrets of Blackmoor, c2018

Even so, this particular set of maps looked so close in style to Arneson's dungeon, I felt they had to either be something he drew and someone else keyed in or they were drawn by somebody intimately familiar with the halls and corridors of Blackmoor Dungeon, who then used that familiarity as a model.  Like Girffith Morgan, I thought Tonisborg seemed the obvious candidate to explain these maps, but David Megarry was certain Tonisborg was forever lost in a Boston landfill. Nevertheless, while I had no doubt the originals of Tonisberg were indeed lost I wondered if these were photocopies of Tonisberg that had been somehow forgotten.

I sent a couple scans to Greg Svenson.  I told him only that we had these unknown maps and asked if he recognized the handwriting.  His response was a bombshell "That is my hand writing.  Those are my long lost maps.  I had created dungeons for the city of Tonisborg,.." (pers. comm 2017).

And so Tonisborg lives again.  At some point, we will be making the complete dungeon available, but here I just want to talk about some of its features, and how that relates to both Blackmoor and D&D.

According to Greg's recollection, he created the maps for Tonisborg in 1973, "the... summer when I was living with John and Richard Snider and Bob Meyer". (Svenson, Pers. Comm 2017)

It is clear that the maps that Mr. Megarry turned up are photocopies, not originals.  In fact they look to be photocopies of a photocopy, though that is a lot harder to tell.  Megarry worked at a copy center in Boston, but says, "They... don't meet the copy center quality standards, so I did not do the copying. I got these maps from someone else earlier..." (Pers comm 2017)

These maps are copies of originals that come from 1973, yet being copies, they also introduce elements from later dates.... What then is the date of these particular copies?  For that we need to note several important facts.

First, these copies were made on legal sized paper, presumably to leave room at the margins for the hand written stocking notes which appear on every page.

Second, the hand written stocking notes are in pen, written on the photocopies, in Greg Svenson's hand.  This is most clearly seen here, where an unfortunate water stain has washed out the ink.




This means that these maps were copies prepared by Svenson at some point.  It also means that the stocking list can't be taken automatically to be the original one from 1973.  It might be the same, almost the same or it might be completely redone.  

One aspect apparent about these notes, is a number of changes and corrections.  For example, on level 1, rooms 4 and 6 are switched in the key, and room 20 & 21 are squeezed in under the listing for room 3 to include them as part of a "priests" lair.  Whereas room 22 on the bottom of the list with its Giant Ants monster is crossed out.  



We see corrections of this sort throughout the levels.  These could be copying errors.  It's easy, as any student of the text criticism of handwritten documents can attest, to skip or mix lines when copying, especially if the original is a messy working document.  That may explain why numbers and so forth are sometimes switched.  

It could also simply be a case of changes and corrections being made at the point of initial creation or alternatively, Mr. Svenson may have been using and marking these photocopies as a working copy of his dungeon for at least a short while.

Further clues to the age of the stocking list can be found within the list in the specific types of Monsters and Treasures.

The Monsters:

Reading through the handwritten room keys for levels 1-9, all monsters are exclusively found in the 1974 D&D booklets with one interesting exception: the wererat.  Perhaps unfortunately for us, the wererat is not a particularly good dating  indicator.  This monster first appears in printed D&D in Greyhawk Supplement I (1975), but we can't then jump to the conclusion that the presence of this, and only this particular Greyhawk monster indicates a stocking date post Greyhawk.  Wererat is, after all, kind of an obvious addition to the existing collection of werecreatures in 1974 D&D, and furthermore, were rats of some sort show up in Fritz Leiber's books in 1968.  Leiber's writings, of course, were well known among the Twin Cities gamers, and so we must recognize the very real possibility that Leiber, rather than Greyhawk is the source in this case.  

Another feature regarding the relevance of the Greyhawk Supplement is a point of conspicuous absence.  Among the "monsters" in the list are fighters, magic-users and "priests".  There are no thieves, no footpads, no Paladins.  In fact none of the other monsters or characters introduced in Greyhawk can be found in Tonisborg.  

It is not like Greg Svenson to be particularly game conservative.  He has, and he continues to happily play whatever the latest version is.  This absence of the 1975 Greyhawk Supplemment I monster material is therefore very suggestive.  On balance, the monsters of the stocking list seems to pre-date Greyhawk, or at least, to owe it no debt. 

The Magic Items:

Our next clues for dating the stocking list are perhaps even more telling.  There is not a single magic item from Greyhawk, or indeed from any source except the Magic and Treasure booklet of 1974 D&D.  

Furthermore, it also appears we can rule out early D&D drafts as the source, working on the assumption that the Beyond This Point be Dragons re-edit of the 1973 "Guidon" D&D draft accurately reflects its magic item contents, as I believe it does. 

On level 3 of the Tonisborg stocking list, there is a "+1 dagger (+2 vs. Gob, Kob)".  That matches a dagger in the 1974 D&D print - it says "Dagger +1 vs. Man-Sized Opponents, +2 vs. Goblins and Kobolds" whereas the BTPbD version has "Dagger +1 vs. Man-Sized Opponents, +2 vs. Goblins".  Notice this earlier version lacks Kobolds.  Another example is a Cloak of Displacement found on Level 7.  That item does not appear in the BTPbD magic item list at all, but it is in first print D&D.  

So it appears we are talking about terminus post quem of January 1974 for the stocking list.   Termnus ante quem is indeterminate, of course, but it seems unlikely Greg Svenson would have failed to include items from Supplemment I Greyhawk (1975) if he had that booklet at the time he created this list.  Therefore it is safe enough to say the internal evidence of the stocking list, dates it to the 1970's, with a likelihood of 1974.

That's the internal evidence, but we've also got some external evidence to consider.  

Contextual Evidence:

David Megarry actually moved to Boston twice.  First in January of 1974, leaving in 1976 to go work at TSR in Lake Geneva, and a second time in 1977, living there until 1980.  It was of course during the second stay that Greg Svenson's maps were tossed out by the cleaning lady.

However, the copies we have were found in a box of papers David Megarry had boxed up during his first stay in Boston ('74-'76).  David Megarry told me "I did not have the current copy with me when I was in Boston the second time. It was in a file box at my family's home in St. Paul. I eventually got all my stuff co-located with me when I came back to Minneapolis in 1980." (pers. comm 2017)

Then, just recently, Mr Megarry informed me he found a letter he wrote to Gary Gygax, dated 2 January 1975 from Boston...

"...I am now a member of the MIT Strategic Games Society. They already have most of the wargames in existence though they are weak on campaigns as such. Mostly they just play games that have an ending. Dungeons and Dragons is there and I am going to introduce the Tonisberg Dungeon made by Greg Svenson to the fantasy referee this Saturday."

Dating Summary:

We can be fairly sure between internal and external evidence, that the copies we are looking at here are those referenced in the letter to Gygax, and that Megarry got them from Svenson (somehow) between January 1974 and the end of December 1974.  Later these copies were placed into the aforementioned box when Mr. Megarry moved from Boston in 1976, and subsequently forgot he had them.  

So, when in 1980, he lost Greg's originals, both he and Greg thought they were gone for good.  Meanwhile these copies sat quietly in a box for 37 years... 


Next post we will look at some of the features of the megadungeon itself.

Support & Upkeep

Author: DHBoggs /

New Year and New Look for the 'blog.   Hopefully this new template will be more "device" friendly.  As part of this upgrade, I will be going back through old posts, fixing wonky fonts, and revising and editing content where it is called for.

A few posts back we talked about an alternative way of generating troop cost based on Arneson's Napoleonic economics, but that's not the kind of "Support and Upkeep" I have in mind today.

This 'blog and this 'blogger needs support & upkeep too.

As an archaeologist applying my trade to the detritus of play, I've been bringing unique insights into obscure gaming goodness from Arneson and the Twin Cities gamers since 2011 and it seems to me that there is still a mountain of work and material to write about.  Really, I have only scratched the surface, layers of goodness remain to be brought into the light and made available to enrich our experience of gameplay.  

I plan to keep at it for many years to come, but the sort of research and writing I do for this 'blog is very time consuming and requires a lot of highly specialized knowledge - it is not unlike a second career.   I'm not complaining or bragging, just pointing out the effort that goes into what you read, and making a small request.

I hope all of you have enjoyed and benefited from at least some of the content I've written over the years, and I'd ask, if you are able, to consider showing your support and interest by joining my Patreon group.  There is a Patreon link at the top of the column on the right.  Becoming one of my patrons will grant you access to some of my super cool personal content you can get nowhere else, but will also give you the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping me to take the time and do the research it takes to bring the sort of gaming content you can find here and nowhere else.  I wouldn't ask for this kind of support if it wasn't truly needed.  So I hope you will consider showing your appreciation for the blog thru becoming a Patron if you can.  

Thanks all.

Tavis Allison on OD&D

Author: DHBoggs /


Stumbled across this podcast of my friend Tavis talking OD&D.  Have a listen- it's good stuff.  

More Beyond This Point be Dragon News

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: ,


Long story short: the good news is that at least one other copy of the Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript has turned up - in the possession of Mark Bufkin's daughter Heather.  The bad news is that according to Heather, it is missing the same pages as the Keith Dalluhn copy.  (I can't verify that they are exactly identical, but am hopeful Heather will forward a pdf when she is able to make a copy).

There is more good news however, Heather has a lot of her dad's gaming materials including a key outline of the manuscript I'll share with you below.  Here for your enjoyment are some excerpts from Heather from our ongoing conversation.  

"Dad was a Twin Cities native who moved to Duluth in his senior year of high school. I don't know if he had any gaming history in the Cities prior to college. 


When I was in high school and got into roleplaying, Dad proudly gave me all his old materials, including this manuscript, which yes I still have. I remember him telling me one of his gaming buddies was from Wisconsin and friends with one of the D&D creators, and they playtested an early version of the game, but didn't particularly care for some of the structure so they wrote their own version. I was sure the one in the pink binder, the one you're talking about, was his adaptation, but then a couple years ago I spotted an image of the cover on a display board about early D&D and assumed it was the playtest draft instead. I guess it turns out it was Dad's after all.


So, bad news. The copy I have is exactly as incomplete as yours.... From some of the other materials I found, it seems possible BTPbD was never finished.


I remember asking him about the artwork and he said one of his friends did it. He did draw the maps, however. A LOT of maps. I have all the originals and they're very detailed, Tolkien-esque work. He was a big LOTR fan as well as C.S. Lewis; he read the Narnia books to me as I was growing up and they were indeed one of his favorite series.


Actually now I'm second-guessing myself. He might have done some of the art; it might only be one particular piece that he didn't (or did) do. 


I saw some speculation on linked pages that there might have been another typist, but Dad was a newspaperman, news editor of the Statesman at one point, and made a lot of his own posters and things, so I'm certain he typed and put it together himself. It's some of those posters that's making me hesitate to say he didn't draw any of the art, although he might have asked his artist friend to do those as well for all I know.


This is incredibly awesome and I'm happy to share what I can with the community. Dad would never have imagined there'd be so much interest in something he threw together in college.

Thanks again for contacting me."

I think it is very important to note what Heather said about "not caring for the structure" of the D&D game as he knew it.  It is evident from what has been revealed about Gygax's "Guidon D&D" draft, that it was structurally a bit of a mess (a characteristic, not coincidentally, the printed version of D&D is also much criticized for).  Mark Bufkin, being a journalist, evidently chaffed at the poor organization of the text to the extent that he was motivated to reorganize it himself, and in the process, rework any dependencies on polyhedral dice to standard six siders - as Chuck Monson had explained.  The bulk of the text of BTPbD is otherwise unchanged from that of GD&D (with a number of interesting exceptions to be sure).

In fact I think it has always been clear that BTPbD is distinctively well organized and appeared to be a distinct and deliberate branch of development, as I've said from the start.  While it was argued by some that the structural and textual improvements in BTPbD could be explained away as part of the normal "churn" of an intermediary draft prepped by Gygax, that conclusion seemed more wishfully than factually based.   It seems Heather's comments cement what we already know about the manuscript, that its creation involved a strong motivation for reorganization.

To this end Heather has been kind enough to send along something else - a picture of Mark Bufkin's working outline of "Book II" of the text:



There's several things to note here.  Let's start with the heading titles and page numbers - they match exactly those of the manuscript, including the missing illustration on page 22.  Another thing sure to be noted is the fact that we now know what sections were intended to follow "The Baron and the Lord", which is the last section in our existing copy of BTPbD.  This included a section for the endgame of Clerics, a discussion of "other creatures" and more notes for the referee.  It seems likely these were never actually written, but perhaps a bit more digging will let us know for sure.  One clue is that these sections were added to the outline with an orange pen, and probably indicate the plan of a work in progress, as if the outline had been made just prior to the completion of Page 28 - The Rewards of Success illustration.

In any case this new information helps us really nail down the intended scope and purpose of Mark Bufkin's revision. 

My Kingdom for a Horse - another look at troop costs

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: ,

When Arneson set up his economy for Blackmoor, he had plenty of experience to draw on from his Napoleonics campaign.  He choose however to use gold as the standard currency, not the pounds Sterling he used for Napoleonics.  In many ways his economy was a blank slate and so he picked nice round figures to work with.  For example,a village of 3000 "men" produced an even 3000 GP in taxes.   Arneson set up his prices for things and wages paid, accordingly, no doubt as he thought best.  However, when it came to the costs of hiring troops to build armies, he cheated a bit and simply borrowed the point costs of CHAINMAIL for the cost of his troops and some equipment.

Sure, it was an entirely practical thing for Arneson to borrow from CHAINMAIL and works well enough for setting up a few wargames, but somehow the problem was made even worse when Gygax reworked Arneson's figures for the first print of D&D as shown in the table below:


Game Element
CM Cost (points)
Blackmoor Cost (Gold)
OD&D 
Cost (Gold) 
Light Foot
1
10
2
Heavy Foot
2
25
3
Armored Foot
2.5
32
5
Light Horse
3
25
10
Medium Horse
4
40
15
Heavy Horse
5
55
20
Pike
1
10

Arquibus/Crossbow
1.5
15
4
Bow
3
25
5
Long/Composite bow
4
40
10
Lt. Catapult/Cannon
15
150

Hv Catapult/Cannon
20
200

Bombard
30
300


Now granted, there's something of an apples to oranges comparison going on here because in CHAINMAIL, the cost is per "figure" which represents a one time purchase of 10 or 40 actual soldiers.  Furthermore, the OD&D costs are not a "purchase" cost but rather a monthly fee for an individual soldier - more of a support and upkeep cost per man than per figure.  Nevertheless these lists are clearly related   Although the Blackmoor list represented a one time purchase cost that appears to be prices for individual soldiers, Gygax may well have thought they were for figures of 10 men, or perhaps that it was a recurring cost,  judging from the difference between the OD&D and Blackmoor lists.

In any case, the OD&D prices have always been problematical.   Simply put, they don't make any sense in terms of the rest of the economy.

Perhaps the most obvious problem is that players could field unrealistically massive armies quite cheaply, when, for example, it costs less to buy a soldier for a month of service than is does to buy a pack of rations for a week.  Even assuming the original Blackmoor price costs or a 100 gp hireling fee or some other up front expense, the montthly OD&D fee remains woefully inadequate.

The way to fix the problem is of course to increase the hiring cost of soldiers and the frequency of the upkeep fee.  The question then becomes a matter of how much.  

The solution chosen by some is to attempt to base both initial cost and monthly support and upkeep on medieval data.  Such data however is far from straightforward, and liable to give a wide range of costs.

I propose a more Twin Cities solution.   In the 3rd Anniversary issue of CotT, Arneson gives a "recap of the Napoleonic Campaign rules Jan 15 1971" that begins with a price list.  The prices given in the list are all in Pounds Sterling.  However, those of you with long memories might remember the post I wrote   HERE   comparing the cost of building a mid 18th century stone fortress in the "wilderness" of North America with the costs and artisan wages of building the same wilderness fortress according the tables in OD&D.  You may also remember that doing so gave us a conversion rate of 8.3 Gold Pieces per Pound Sterling.  Now granted, there would likely be a bit of inflation between 1760 and 1800, but as the values are fairly general to begin with, I don/t think it's worth quibbling over a few percent difference, so I'll assume a pound is a pound.

It's possible then to look to Arneson's napoleonic troop costs and convert them to gold pieces, as shown in the table below:



Arneson's List
MMSA Napoleonic
Pounds Sterling
MMSA converted to gp (8.3)
Light Foot
5
42
Heavy Foot
5
42
Armored Foot
5
42
Light Horse
13
108
Medium Horse
15
125
Heavy Horse
21
175
War horse
15
125
Draft Horse
15
125
Arquibus/Crossbow
1
8
Lt. Catapult/Cannon
97 (6pdr)
805
Hv Catapult/Cannon
190 (12pdr)
1577
Bombard
380 (42pdr)
3154


These upfront costs make a whole lot more sense in terms of the rest of the economy of Blackmoor and D&D and give us a nice little tie in to the roots of the game.   

Some may remember, that at about the same time Arneson was setting up his Napoleonics price list, fellow gamer Randy Hoffa was setting up a rival campaign.  While Hoffa's campaign notes don't show up in CoTT, we do have copies of them.  His prices are set up in Florins, not Pounds, but he provided a conversion rate which shows that most of them are really the same as Arneson's.  Going to Hoffa's list however does let us add a couple more items:

Randy Hoffa's list
Florins
Pounds (.025)
In GP (8.3)
Horse equip (tack & saddle
178
4.45
37
wagon (2 horse)
1600
40
332
Harness
76
1.9
16



Okay, that gives us a "Twin Cities" base purchase cost for infantry and cavalry troops. Now, what about that monthly fee in OD&D?   Well, Support wasn't a simple monthly fee in the Napoleonics campaign, so we need to do a bit more translating to make it practical for a D&D campaign.  As related to me by original player Stephen Rocheford, "The support costs were annual.   The support costs at war annually were x 3.  If you mobilized your army the increased costs commenced immediately."  Further, in the "Recap" notes we are told "support costs .. vary from 3-6% depending on the country...", and that certain types of troops require a greater degree of support; specifically "Cavalryman and Horse,..Artillary men and Engineers, ... Seamen or Marine" are all doubled in support costs, and rifles and riflemen have their suppost costs tripled.

Alright, for our purposes it's simplest just to assume a base 5% Support cost for everybody.  That would mean our cavalry, sailors, and specialty troops would have a support cost of 10%, per the doubling rule mentioned above.  Further, any troops being deployed, as they most likely would be in a D&D game, have these rates tippled.  So infantry and so forth would have a yearly support cost of 5% when garrisoned, and 15%  in the field; likewise cavalry support costs 10% in garrison and 30% in the field.

That's not the end of it though.  In addition to the support cost, there is also a yearly Upkeep and Replacement cost of 5% to cover worn out equipment and worn out men.  We can add that to our costs above.   Working all this out  and using the figures from the tables above we get the following table:



Game Element & Percent
Purchase cost in GP)
Yearly Support & Upkeep
Garrisoned/deployed
Light Foot 10/20
42
4.2/8.4
Heavy Foot 10/20
42
4.2/8.4
Armored Foot 10/20
42
4.5/9
Light Horse 15/35
108
16.2/37.8
Medium Horse 15/35
125
18.75/43.75
Heavy Horse 15/35
175
26.25/61.25
War horse
125

Draft Horse
125

Arquibus/Crossbow 15/35
8
1.2/2.8
Lt. Catapult/Cannon 15/35
805
120.75/281.75
Hv Catapult/Cannon
15/35
1577
236.55/551.95
Bombard 15/35
3154
473.1/1103.9
Large Wagon (w. 2 horses)
(332 Hoffa)

Tack & Saddle
(37 Hoffa)



Let's clean this up a bit and make it a little more game friendly by rounding to nearest half:

Game Element & Percent
Purchase cost in GP)
Support & Upkeep
Garrisoned
Support & Upkeep
Deployed
Light Foot 10/20
42
4
8.5
Heavy Foot 10/20
42
4
8.5
Armored Foot 10/20
42
4.5
9
Light Horse 15/35
108
16
38
Medium Horse 15/35
125
19
44
Heavy Horse 15/35
175
26
61
War horse
125


Draft Horse
125


Arquibus/Crossbow 15/35
8
1
3
Lt. Catapult/Cannon 15/35
805
121
282
Hv Catapult/Cannon
15/35
1577
236.5
552
Bombard 15/35
3154
473
1104
Large Wagon (w. 2 horses)
(332 Hoffa)


Tack & Saddle
(37 Hoffa)




So there's that.  If Arneson had used his Napoleonic figures and converted from pounds to gold pieces, it should have come out about like the table above.

But hold on, those are yearly costs.  And of course, if you divide these S & U costs by 12 to get a monthly figure you can see the support and upkeep is even less than that given in OD&D!

Which once again brings us back to the question of realism.  In fact, the converted troop costs are much closer to historical norms than the troop costs based on CHAINMAIL points, but monthly S & U costs remain far too low, relative to the rest of the economy.

The fix is pretty simple, charge these Support and Upkeep costs monthly instead of yearly, and your D&D economy will be in balance.  It will also help motivate those players to go out and get gold!

So next time your adventurers want to hire a dozen heavy footmen and a reliable warhorse and a wagon to haul their loot, ignore the D&D price lists and charge them the arm and leg they should be paying!

About Me

My photo
Rural American father of three. Archaeologist, Anthropologist, Filmmaker, craftsman, and a licensed Real Estate agent.
Powered by Blogger.

My Blog List

Followers