CHAINMAIL Legitimacy in OD&D

CHAINMAIL Legitimacy in Original D&D

If maybe not be-all end-all, it's absolutely a relevant point of inquiry for me going forward. 

Firstly, by reading OD&D, it's obvious that CHAINMAIL is meant to be used as a baseline for this new game, the LBBs are littered with references to it and as mentioned, and I at least didn't feel like I understood OD&D fully before reading CHAINMAIL. It is also obvious that without CHAINMAIL, OD&D lacks necessary procedures such as morale and a complete combat system (the "Alternative" system presented is just a mechanic for hitting a target). 

To me, and likely a good chunk of contemporary players, it's not always obvious how exactly to use CHAINMAIL in OD&D: As mentioned, there are at least three combat systems in CHAINMAIL, all used  for different purposes. Intuitively, I would guess Man-to-Man would be used in most encounters, in the Underworld and Wilderness, perhaps in conjunction with the normal mass combat tables. Specific systems are rarely mentioned  explicitly in the rules: In Book 1, under Fighting Capability, reference is made to the [CHAINMAIL] Fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein If this means the Fantasy Combat Table specifically is difficult to discern. In Book 3, under Land Combat a valuable instruction is offered how exactly to use CHAINMAIL with OD&D:

The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man or creature. Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Book I or by the CHAINMAIL system, with scores equalling a drive back or kill equal only to a hit. Battles involving large numbers of figures can be fought at a 20:1 ratio, with single fantastic types fighting separately at 1:1 or otherwise against but a single 20:1 figure. 

From this we get a hint on how to use CHAINMAIL with OD&D - basically use CHAINMAIL but one figure is one man and one kill is one hit. Very useful overall.

To me, the most intuitive way to interpret one figure represents one man or creature is that it refers to the normal mass combat tables, but at a 1:1 rather than the CHAINMAIL 20:1 scale - the mass combat system is the only of the three systems using 20:1 figure scale.

The second sentence Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Book I or by the CHAINMAIL system, with scores equalling a drive back or kill equal only to a hit. seems to me the Fantasy Combat Table is the system referenced, since that is the only one I recall has a mechanic to "drive back" an enemy. 

These are the main explicit mentions on how to use CHAINMAIL in D&D. There are other clues scattered throughout the books, in the Fighting Capability columns of the classes in Men & Magic for instance, where Man, Hero, Superhero and Wizard are the reference points from which to deduce fighting capability of a given level. This is referencing the normal combat tables or man-to-man combat, take your pick. 

Strategic Review #2 (1975) clarifies the relationship between OD&D and CHAINMAIL slightly:

Combat: CHAINMAIL is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The “Man-To-Man” and “Fantasy Supplement” sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size. The regular CHAINMAIL system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters. 

Was D&D played with CHAINMAIL in the 70s? 

I have seen it hypothesized that systems were used interchangeably whatever system fit the need of the situation. I have also read in more than one place that, the OD&D boards, for example, where a few folks who played OD&D in the 70s lurk. The conclusion seems to be that neither the Twin Cities groups or the Lake Geneva groups did in fact use CHAINMAIL for OD&D to a large extent. D&D sold well, however, and the majority of people playing it were naturally not part of those founding groups. Among these normal grunts, is my impression,  the Alternative d20 system was prevalent for practical reasons. But considering the game rules prescribes CHAINMAIL, I take it for granted CHAINMAIL was used to play D&D at the time.

In case you're wandering why it's important how people (Gygax and Arneson in particular) played in the 70s - either CHAINMAIL works well with D&D or it doesn't? - Of course it's important!

How to play D&D with CHAINMAIL? 

As discussed, I assume the most intuitive way to use CHAINMAIL, is to use a mix of man-to-man and the mass combat rules for Underworld and Wilderness, and general low level play, and for mass combat use mass combat rules and fantasy  combat. Done. That's not how I will likely do it, however.

 CHAINMAIL

Reading CHAINMAIL started the same way I read my first English novel, I gave up. I gave up on CHAINMAIL a few times actually, until I didn't. When I had carefully parsed it over a few months, laboriously figuring out each sub system, I felt confident I could play a game and get it roughly right. 

The most rewarding part of this was then re-reading OD&D and watch so many parts of it fall into place. Not primarily Morale or Combat procedures, because St. Gary explicitly told me to reference CHAINMAIL for those, but for the conceptual understanding of it. I also then knew what Man +1, Hero -1 and Heavy Foot meant!

 Combat System 1: Combat Tables

I quickly became smitten with the core combat system of CHAINMAIL - the combat tables. It incorporates weapons vs armor in an elegant way, and as one who has always desired this mechanic, this was very attractive. I have read (never tried), the AD&D system for this and wasn't impressed with it. I have read and tried Oakes Spalding's system for it in the excellent OD&D clone Seven Voyages of Zylarthen but felt it didn't have impact enough except on low levels. But in CHAINMAIL, a fully armored horseman is a monster compared to lightly armored footmen. I suppose this triggers some sort of verisimilitude kink of mine. 

 Combat System 2: Man-to-Man

I was ambiguous when reading the Man-to-Man rules. It did incorporate weapon vs. armor, not unlike 7VoZ (I would even be bold and say 7VoZ is a revised version of CHAINMAIL man-to-man), but seemed very cumbersome and granular in a way I didn't feel might sit well at the table, especially at high levels or where many combats may have to be resolved simultaneously. It seemed more like a system fitting for duel-like battles. I understand it might be used just like that, for "boss fights" to use a novel term. Here, I did like Spalding's system more, similar but more functional in a table top skirmish situation. 

 Combat System 3: Fantasy Combat

This struck me as not very useful in OD&D. In a mass battle with fantasy elements such as a Dragon or Troll, it seems a perfectly feasible way to handle epic monsters vastly out-powering normal men, where let's say a Hero battles as Dragon in the midst of battle, it's super fast and heavily abstracted. The monsters presented in the Fantasy add-on have rules for engaging other legendary figures in fast, epic battle (Fantasy Combat Table) and for the monsters slaughtering droves of men using the normal mass combat rules. 

I don't immediately  see an application for this in OD&D, the system is so heavily abstracted - positions, time, abilities, strategy and spells are irrelevant here (not magic weapons and armor though) and resolution is just a die roll on a table. If anything, the real epic fights become substantially less detailed and my experience is that the tolerance for drawn out, granular battles is higher when fighting a dragon or a balrog, not the opposite. 

 Cheers! 

 

Original D&D

 When I first properly read OD&D, I was surprised to find a relatively complete game. I was mystified by certain things that seemed and it did seem slightly anachronistic at times, but I was mostly intrigued. I think what you come away with after reading the LBBs is perhaps influenced by what you believe they are. I think my preconception was that these little books obviously contained genius, something else could not be possible considering history. So if I didn't get it, it means I didn't get it - the fault must be with me. When reading accounts of people setting themselves to do the same thing, I have most frequently seen the opposite - the reader's presupposition from the get go is that this is dysfunctional, and considering the eccentric style and lack of editing makes it easy to take cheap-shots at the game and its author and the accounts become both infantile and arrogant.

I did come away with a feeling that is was something I didn't get. The reason, I think, is I didn't understand this was not an RPG and the intent was not role-playing as I have experienced it - it was a different game. Now that I write about it I find it hard to articulate what game I think OD&D is meant to be. 

Is OD&D a role playing game? 

I think it's primarily a form of wargame (funny, it even says so on the box!), not an RPG. Apart from a few sessions of Warhammer FB and 40k, I have no experience of wargames however so I've found it helpful to think of OD&D in terms of a complex board game. In a board game, persona or character is irrelevant, even if you play a figure with a name and abilities. Reality is rarely important either in most board games. It's a game board with rules for the common action you are able to do. The difference may be that in this game we are not limited to the game board and the player can have his figure do anything, and this is obviously a huge difference from any board game. But procedurally, it behaves like a board game. Example - the Movement Turn in the Underworld - you can move the figure 6 inches, have an encounter, determine surprise and reactions, negotiate or move into combat. In our 90s - present D&D games, the dungeon is just a backdrop (often to combat). There may be the occasional complication such as a trap or saving throw, but it has no procedures of its own, which to me indicates that it's not considered to be important. 

Characters in OD&D 

The other thing is that characters in OD&D are meant to be perceived more as board game characters, which I think means when you lose one, you cry because it means you lost the game, not because you were attached to the character. When we played Dungeonquest, we had no emotional bond to the figure, and I doubt the first players of D&D had much of that either. Of course, the D&D campaign may go on for years, and if lucky and clever, with the same character but I don't think player characters were as much a form of self expression, that seems to have become the norm. 

That said, OD&D can of course be played as a modern RPG, but that's where I think some things start to seem alien. 

My take-away 

Anyway, OD&D immediately started to make much more sense, and that different game seemed attractive to me and paired with the  mini-game structure, the perceived invitation to pulp, the wildness, originality and elegance of OD&D made me enamored. 

 

  

 

Blog Overview 2026

OD&D with CHAINMAIL 

Since this summer (of 2026) I'm working on making a hack of Original Dungeons and Dragon using CHAINMAIL 1:20 combat tables to resolve combat. This is by no means anything new and original, it has been attempted before. 

My Background in D&D

I have played RPGS since the late 80s, first swedish RPGs such as Drakar och Demoner (first a variant of Runequest, these days Dragonbane in english), Sagan om Ringen - Rollspelet (MERP in swedish). I both GM:ed and played. I have played D&D since the early 90s, starting with AD&D 2nd edition with my childhood group. I joined another local group in 1998 playing 1st edition and we still play today. 

When 3rd edition hit 2000, we embraced it, considering it superior to both 1st and 2nd edition in every way. Remember that was from a player perspective, the DM wasn't too thrilled with the broken CR-system and power balance-fetish, but he says he just winged it - he had been a D&D DM for quite some time by then. I specifically recalled we were impressed with the core mechanic and the math and I don't remember we noticed any drastic change how the game was played otherwise. Remember though, that starting playing TTRPGs in the late 80s meant trad games, i.e. rail roaded narration heavy games that persists to this day and I don't recall playing 1st or 2nd editions any differently. Paralell with D&D, I played a number of European trad-games and was deeply into story-telling games such FATE. I managed to design no less than 3 games myself, one set in a fantastic version of the Swedish middle ages, one in European thirty year war and one horrible hippie story game which you can read about (if you read Swedish) in earlier posts on this blog. 

We played 3rd edition until 4th edition hit, which we sneezed at and like many others went to Paizo and I started to DM a homebrew version of City of the Spider Queen using the 600+ pages Pathfinder rules. This went on until my campaign ended with a TPK in the Underdark, just at the doorstep of victory. We started play testing D&D "Next" (5th edition) 2012-13. 

By that time our DM had tired of contemporary D&D and we started playing B2 with his childhood game of D&D Basic/Expert. Unfortunately I separated from my ex wife 2013 and got a girlfriend who was into Forge-style story games, and played those for 3 years - various edgy games such as Mouse Guard, Apocalypse World etc. When life stabilized again, I had met my present wife and went back to D&D where the group was knee deep in the Isle of Dread. 

This was the first time I experienced sandbox adventure gaming, although I didn't know it at the time. And we didn't appreciate it. I think a combination of the brutality of B/X and lack of experience with sandbox games made us just feel lost and trapped. We didn't have any clear idea where to go or what do without getting killed and just froze. The campaign ended thus. 

For a few years we tried a few other games, and ended up playing the board game Frosthaven. This was mildly amusing until one of the group said what everyone was thinking "Unless we start playing a proper game again I'm done". Unfortunately neither myself or our original DM were interested in DMing at the time so a fellow player stepped up and we started that 5th edition campaign that we had been planning to do when we were play testing "Next".

We have played 5e now for a few years and have some experience of the finished product. Firstly, it hasn't been quite as I remember it from play testing. The Next kit was sleek and fast, no feats, no multiclassing and no tricks and the finished product wasn't like that, even though we only play with the three core books. And while we've had tons of fun playing the campaign, the weaknesses of modern D&D has crept up on us the last two years. The main problem for me is that it's apparent we are participating in a preconceived story, written by someone else. I have many other issues with 5th edition I won't elaborate on that here.

The OSR

My story of discovering the OSR is by no means unique, I've heard accounts very similar to my own many times by now. A couple of years back I started to become aware of other ways to play the game, I have forgotten exactly how. I was probably smitten mostly with the simplicity, speed and the lost dungeon mini-game, which I don't recall I've ever played properly (except in a convention Tomb of Horror one-shot in D&D ten years ago). I got my hands on the usual lookers of the OSR, as it was 2024, Cairn, Knave, Mörk Borg and Shadowdark (I ran Shadowdark for my group and they had no reservations about anything except possibly the slightly askew torch timer rules and communist turn rules). I found the Classic Adventure Gaming (CAG) podcast and which seemed right from the get go. I immediately set myself to read AD&D again (as a slightly older man) and OD&D and I was thoroughly surprised to find it so highly functional, quite the contrary to the view of main stream OSR. I also started to glimpse a different game to any D&D I had previously played, except for, in retrospect, those few sessions of the Isle of Dread. I saw for the first time the brilliance of procedural game play, of empty rooms, of time keeping, of aging, open ended play and other aspects of the Game of Old. 

For a while I just consumed OSR blogs and social media while continuing to study old rulesets. Enamored with the idea of Adventure Gaming campaigns I tried my hands at refereeing the Swords & Wizardry, AD&D and OD&D rules. Whenever I tried out any out any of them I found it hard not to massively tinker, so I settled for OD&D, since it seemed designed for that out of the box. 

DISCLAIMER 

The scope of this blog at this moment is preparation for a campaign (which I intend to be grand!) and draws from my reading of texts in addition to one shots of play testing when the current DM is on hiatus from time to time and my musings on the subject of OD&D and CHAINMAIL is not based on years of campaign play (I have to date refereed OD&D only a handful of times), which it should be for anyone to claiming expertise on the subject - I am inexperienced at this particular branch of the hobby. Adventure Gaming in general and refereeing in particular is a primarily a craft, not an academic subject. This blog is primarily a way for me to structure my thoughts.

[Ödets fångar] Spelbar version färdig

Nu är det så pass organiserat att jag kunnat skriva ihop en spelbar pdf som går att titta på via länkarna till vänster på bloggen. Nu ska det speltestas och så småningom layoutas. Jag har jagat gratis dps i flera veckor nu och testat bl.a Scribus, PagePlus och LyX. Scribus har så långt visat sig vara allt annat än inuitivt och LyX väldigt begränsat. PagePlus kändes mer ok och var det enda av de tre som jag kunde snabbt sno ihop något nästan genast, men det kostar 1000 spänn.

[Ödets fångar] och karta klar

[Ödets fångar] Utkast till kartan

Eftersom reglerna egentligen bara väntar på speltest så har jag pulat med settingen. Det ska vara ganska sketschartat men en karta ska helt klart vara med. Iden är en värld som grundas på ett fyr-ekrigt hjul där varje fält domineras av ett element. Eftersom spelvärlden ska befinna sig i obalans mellan elementen har varje enskilt element tagit över sin del av världen och jag hoppas att det är begripligt utifrån kartan också. Så här ser den ut

[Ödets fångar] Sammanställning

Just nu sammanställer och städar ut bland alla docs till något som är funktionellt och klart för speltest. Det går skitbra!

[Deus] Ny version!

Jag har lagt upp en ny version av Deus kallad 1.002 BETA. Förbättringarna som gjorts är att jag tagit bort temperament. Jag tyckte det i grunden var bra men det hängde inte ihop med något annat alls, så det rök! Har också lagt till ordkrig så spelet har därmed fått en mekanik för argumentation som är väl förankrat. Fakatarutor har också gjort sitt inträde. Designmässigt har jag efter sjätte försöket lyckats övertala open office att göra kolumner, vilket drog ned sidantalet från 120 till 100. Det är fortfarande skitfult men det var åtminstone sidbesparande.

Inspiration och förändring

Nu har jag fräshat upp mitt minne av Oidipus från gymnasiet och oj, vilken skithistoria det är, egentligen. Hursomhelst har jag drivit iväg från tragedigrejen; jag gjorde det till ett eventuellet framtida projekt som jag kallar Sorgespel! Jag läste igenom reglerna till både Mouse Guard och Lady Blackbird för att få lite inspiration. Skitbra båda. Verkligen! Från MG knyckte jag raskt lite idéer till hur misslyckanden kan hanteras på ett kul sätt, och LB fick mig att backa tillbaka till en idé jag sorterat bort tidigare, nämligen att iställer för att ha resurser bara indelade efter kunskapområde, vidgat dem till att omfatta en teoretisk, en praktisk och en social aspekt, d.v.s. man kan använda alla karaktärsresurser på 3 sätt. Vi får se om det stannar eller om jag stryker.

Har också huggit tag i det faktum att ödets fångar så långt saknat karaktärsspelande i mekaniklistan. Aktörerna blir egentligen bara belönade med hard cash för att sträva mot sitt öde. För att få extraresurser krävs det ju bara att man sitter med runt bordet. Detta var egentligen anledningen till att jag grävde ned mig i LB från början. Tanken just nu är att man måste spela ut vissa karaktärsdrag för att få del i ER-belöningar. Dock gjorde det systemet spretigare än innan, eftersom jag skulle bli tvungen att lägga till karaktärsdrag, personlighet eller liknande. MEN, om jag parar ihop resurser med karaktärsdrag för jag båda i ett och ger bara resurserna ytterligare en aspekt, utan att addera ett subsystem till. Målet just nu är att skriva ihop ett antal resurser som svara mot följande kriterier:

• ska kunna användas som ett färdighetsområde för att lösa flera vanligt förekommande hinder
• ska kunna användas praktiskt, teoretiskt och socialt
• ska kunna fungera som ett karaktärsdrag som kan spelas ut och ge ER

Detta är höga och komplexa krav, så vi får se hur svårt det blir.

Tvivel och tragik

Nu har jag kommit lite längre och har lagt upp en synopsis om Ödets fångar. Jag har dock tvivel, och de är på grund av konceptets bristande originalitet; ödesmättad fantasy med ödesstyrda karaktärer och ödespoäng har ju gjorts förut, både på svenska och engelska. Jag är dock fortfarande ganska förtjust i hela idén att spela odödliga, ödestyngda gothhjältar i ett berättartungt och regellätt system. Så, det kanske ger sig! En ny idé jag fick idag var att lägga till tydliga och explicita element från den antika tragiken och jag bollade till och med med att karaktärerna inte ska kunna lyckas med sina övergripande mål, i sann tragisk anda. Nu är det kanske inte ett så säljande element i spel, men det är en intressant tanke. En annan ide som jag gjorde en rubrik av är att kunna göra olika fatalistiska utspel som ger olika fördelar i spelet [som att få göra om ett test]. Vi får se om jag skrappar hela idén eller om angsten passerar!