I have an inordinate fondness for the crusader-style great helm, such as the one pictured to the right from some
weird and awesome Holmes era D&D ads.
Like fungi, the presence of helmets like this in
D&D artwork is another signpost that we're dealing with the old school. I've noted many times before that there's recognizably historical armors in the artwork of guys like Trampier and (especially) Sutherland and that, as time went on, you see fewer and fewer examples of it in TSR game products. Whether that's good or bad isn't to the present point, which is that my earliest
D&D memories are inextricably bound up with the assumption that fighting men would likely be wearing something like this on their heads.
The problem, alas, is that, with its abstract combat system
D&D has never had good rules for helmets, despite their presence on the equipment list. I'm aware of
AD&D's rules on the subject but never used them back in the day because I thought they'd slow down combat too much. And every other attempt to make helmets matter in
D&D that I've seen has been similarly poor. It's not a big deal, all things considered, but, given that I like helmets esthetically, it'd be nice if there were rules I could use that made them more just a fashion statement. Anybody have any to share?
+2 to hit opponents not wearing helmets. (Not an issue for non-humanoid, non-living, non-magical monsters-DMs decision)
ReplyDeleteHits that only hit because of the bonus are blows to the head. Cause 2x max. damage.
Should be an incentive.
Only thing that comes to mind is the "protects from critical hits" -rule from Baldur's Gate series. In those games, rolling 'natural 20' to hit yielded double damage, but wearing helmet negated that.
ReplyDeleteIn several old school modules, various traps were negated by wearing specific pieces of armour:
ReplyDeleteie: Falling brick deals d4 damage to any character opening the door. Helm negates.
Mild acid on floor inflicts 1hp and reduces spedd by 5ft per 5ft sqaure entered. Boots negate.
stinging insects inflict 1hp and 1d4 con drain on anyone tryigng to lift the treasure from the the hole unless save vs poison is made. Gauntlets negate.
In Adventures Dark and Deep, all armor includes a helmet or head covering of some sort. If the character chooses to take it off, AC is increased by 1. Sort of the reverse of a shield.
ReplyDeleteThe only game where Helmets were a boon was GW's Mordheim. In that game if a model was hit it could be knocked down, stunned, or out of action. With a helmet, you got to get a save against being stunned, and if you passed you were only knocked down. I've often wanted to include something akin to that in D&D, but there aren't really good ways to do so without allocating hits. One DM I played with worsened the AC of armor you were wearing if you weren't wearing a helmet.
ReplyDeleteFor B/X:
ReplyDeleteAll armors are assumed to employ a helm and/or coif. Removing the helm makes the AC 1 point worse.
A great (crusader) helm costs 15gp and adds an additional +1 bonus to AC; however, it raises the chance of the character being surprised to 4 in 6 and precludes the character listening at doors (using this rule, it is possible the great helm wearer will be surprised the 1st round of combat while his fellows are not; he still retains his full AC in B/X, however).
In real combat, a good proportion of the blows fall on the head. So, I think the AC should assume an appropriate helmet.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to get into visor up/down, open faced etc, then you need to deal with visibility and fatigue.
All armors are assumed to employ a helm and/or coif. Removing the helm makes the AC 1 point worse.
ReplyDeleteA great (crusader) helm costs 15gp and adds an additional +1 bonus to AC; however, it raises the chance of the character being surprised to 4 in 6 and precludes the character listening at doors (using this rule, it is possible the great helm wearer will be surprised the 1st round of combat while his fellows are not; he still retains his full AC in B/X, however).
That's very nice; I like this.
How about a natural 20 is a critical for both PC's and NPC's. The critical hit table goes 1-20, but the roll is based upon the helmet worn by the victim.
ReplyDelete1d20 No Helmet
2d10 Skull Cap
3d6 Roman/Greek Helmet with side of face/jaw protection
4d4 Great Helm like your crusader there that protects the mouth and nose.
Then put certain results as certain numbers.
1 - Massive Head Wound (brain exposed)
2 - Hit in the side of the face, broken jaw
3 - Grievous neck wound (loss of hp each round until bandaged?)
17 - Direct hit to the mouth (Missing Teeth)
18 - Direct hit to the Nose (Broken Nose)
19 - Crushing blow to the temple (eye pops out)
20 - Ear ripped off
or something like that
I do think the easiest thing is to just penalize by 1 AC anyone wearing armor without a helmet: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/04/helmet-rule.html
ReplyDeleteThere's a certain kind of rule detail which is going to result in some effectively-mandated behavior on the part of the players. This is one of them, so I recommend making it as lightweight as possible. (If you go down the path of also reducing perception with a helmet, watch to see if all PCs follow a uniform behavior -- or if you remember to assess it -- and whether the complication can then be snipped out.)
The simplest and best way I've seen of employing a helm was to simply widen the critical hit range (say, from 20 to 18+). But of course, you need to have crits in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhile not quite satisfactory in my opinion, Pendragon 5 at least acknowledges the critical importance of helmets by making them worth a quarter of the armour's full bonus.
The board game Hero Quest was another game that respected the helmet, to the point where it started to become funny in the US/Canada edition. Helmets protected you as much as almost any other armour, costed less and at least one quest it had protections against "small" cave-ins. If you didn't snap up a helmet with your first clutch of gold, you were making a mistake.
I have always allowed called shots to the head (-4 penalty to hit) to do double damage against opponents with brains, and a helmet negates that possibility.
ReplyDeleteI remember thinking, when seeing D&D game product illustrations that included warriors in very authentic-looking medieval-style armor, that such armor seemed out of place. It was too mundane when compared to the rest of the more fantastical character types that surrounded them, not to mention the monsters they were facing in said images.
ReplyDeleteDripping Green Slime.
ReplyDeleteIf you were wearing a helmet it's now ruined and you're lucky to be alive.
If you were NOT wearing a helmet... AAAAAAAHHHHbbbleeeeuuughhhh
New School game art doesn't feature helmets 'cos how else will we see all the kewl facial tattoos and eyebrow piercings modern D&D characters are supposed to have.
ReplyDelete*shakes cane* Why don't ya melt down all them extraneous buckles and forge yourself a helmet, punky ?!
I think the 1st edition DMG (Page 28, Column, 1, Paragraph 1) has a fine set of rules. Great helm limits vision to the front 60, which means the wearer is easier to flank. If using hexes only the hex directly in front of the wearer is front normally the front 3 hexes are considered front. The 2 hexes, rather than the 1, on each side are flank and the hex behind is still rear. No great helm = head AC 10. Wearing a great helm = head AC 1.
ReplyDeleteUnintelligent creatures will attack the head 1 in 6 times. When they make an attack roll a d6 on a 6 they go for the head. Intelligent critters go for the head every other attack. 4-6 on a d6.
I would add this one rule as the above applies to great helms only.
If a normal helm head AC = 4 with no vision issues.
If I were crawling around underground in tunnels filled with goblins and purple worms, no way would I want to wear one of those 'spangelhelm' buckets with little slits to peer through and little holes to breathe through. That thing seems much more suited to fighting on horseback. I'd want something like a 'barbutte' helm so I could at least see and breathe as I was trying to run away from something (I don't have to run faster than the troll... I just have to run faster than the dwarf...).
ReplyDeleteI like the -1 AC if no helm is worn plus DM's fiat in certain situations (i.e.: green slime dripping down mentioned above, watch out for falling rocks... what AC is you head as you peek around the corner, etc.)
Well my version of D&D is houseruled to hell and back so I don't know how much it applies but:
ReplyDelete1. armour without a helmet is worth 1 less; a complete set, like a suit of full plate is +1 (ascending AC) [or the normal amount]
2. wearing a helmet generally protects from wounds to the head (nothing mechanical here, you just can't describe -in fiction- stabbing someone in the face if they've got their visor down, fiction matters
3. wearing a helm can cause penalties to noticing things and increases the chance of being surprised
4. helms are invariably metal and thus cannot be worn by wizards (whose magic is thwarted by metals, instead of the standard no-armour rule)
The rule that stuck in my mind the most was the one Anathematician refers to (I think) ...
ReplyDelete"Unintelligent creatures will attack the head 1 in 6 times. When they make an attack roll a d6 on a 6 they go for the head. Intelligent critters go for the head every other attack. 4-6 on a d6." ... and then I think the AC of the helm could be different to the rest of the armour (I didn't remember the bit about intelligence)
This one of the first rules which made me realise that my friends weren't playing AD&D(1st), just Basic/Expert with extra classes, because they precluded this and never even mentioned the weapon vs. armour rules and a whole load of other stuff. This wouldn't have been a problem, if they hadn't treated Basic with such derision. I worried greatly whether or not to include rules like that in my AD&D game.
Perhaps the life-saving helmet is as important as a parrying shield - perhaps both should have had there own rules - or be much more significant in terms of defence. Metal helmets and shields are a standard staple of any warrior with none or very light armour.
Now, how safe would it be for a warrior plate-mail /not/ to be wearing his helmet - one hammer blow and that's it. *crunch* Interesting stuff. Thanks for prompting me ole' brain cells Mr Grognardia. :)
Edit: I like Gregors house rules. :)
Dragon #112* had a system for Partial Armour that we used for a few weeks when it first came out, and then abandoned as it was too fiddly. That was pretty common for us and the neat new rules we'd find in Dragon. :)
ReplyDelete* I can remember this stuff... but I'll forget to bring home milk. Haha. :D
Visually realistic helmets belong to games like Chivalry & Sorcery or Pendragon. D&D is too fantastical. I always liked the crazy helmets Erol Otus came up with.
ReplyDelete1 AC worse without a helmet sounds the least fiddly, and feels the most OD&D.
Old School D&D combat and AC is abstract, so it makes no sense to me to start talking about hits to the head in combat, or increased/decreased AC due to the helmet.
ReplyDeleteThe way I play it is that the helmet only comes into play if something specifically comes down on the player's head, like the falling brick and green slime examples above. In such cases the head is either unarmoured or most usually has an AC of plate mail for the head (assuming the helm is metal). To keep the game moving I try to keep such things as simple and practical as possible.
@ Austridavicus
ReplyDelete<>
Tell that to Gary Gygax who wrote the helm rule on page 28 of the 1st edition DMG. I think he would disagree. He thought his abstract combat system needed to account for great helms.
I do not feel the rule as stated adds any real complexity to combat - its a d6 roll. But I dounderstand your trepidation in regards to adding more things to track in combat.
Tell that to Gary Gygax who wrote the helm rule on page 28 of the 1st edition DMG. I think he would disagree.
ReplyDelete@Anathematician - I must admit I take such statements with a grain of salt. It's well documented that Gygax didn't play by the book when he played D&D, nor did he expect players to use every rule. I could be wrong but I think he even said there were some rules he actually didn't like.
Anyway, as he said about the rules at the end of the 3LBs, the original version of D&D: "decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!" Which is a good kick up the bum to the BtB fundamentalists. :-)
One thing not yet mentioned here is a rule I sometimes use in my games. You can sacrifice a piece of important equipment to turn a critical hit into a normal hit or possibly survive a lethal blow (in case of magical gear).
ReplyDeleteI use it sparingly but it's usually very cinematic and fun.
@Pekka; I used a variation of that, my PCs could sacrifice a limb or other important thing like an eye to avoid a blow that would instakill them. They would still be at negative hit points, but not autodead. We had a lot of eyepatches and peg legs in that campaign.
ReplyDeleteI do think the easiest thing is to just penalize by 1 AC anyone wearing armor without a helmet: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/04/helmet-rule.html
ReplyDeleteThat might be simplest, yes.
I remember thinking, when seeing D&D game product illustrations that included warriors in very authentic-looking medieval-style armor, that such armor seemed out of place. It was too mundane when compared to the rest of the more fantastical character types that surrounded them, not to mention the monsters they were facing in said images.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's just a question where you're coming from. I already loved the Middle Ages before I started playing D&D, so, to me, the game has always had a strong "Medieval Europe + Magic + Monsters" vibe to it, which is why I see no incongruity.
Visually realistic helmets belong to games like Chivalry & Sorcery or Pendragon. D&D is too fantastical. I always liked the crazy helmets Erol Otus came up with.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted above, I don't feel the same way at all. Mind you, I also hate horned helmets, so I'm a party pooper that way.
Simple rule to make helmet important:
ReplyDeleteAn additional +2 to hit men/humanoid/demi-human's who are not wearing a helmet, when attacking from behind or with the advantage of surprise.
My only helm story came from the game where the fighter rolled a 4 for his charisma, and we ruled that was only if he kept the great helm on.
ReplyDeleteMy standard was that all armours came with headwear. Leather armour had a cap or helmet, chainmail had a bascinet style (or open) helm, and plate had a great (or full) helm. Coifs and padding were of course mandatory for all mail armours (otherwise you don't get the vital neck protection).
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't wear the appropriate protection for the armour you were wearing, your armour class (for purposes of melee combat only*) dropped by one for each level lacking, so someone in platemail with no head protection was AC6. It really was that vital, especially if you used a shield. But readying a helmet could be done just as easily as readying a shield, and was almost never a problem. If you were going into a danger situation you probably already were wearing armour, and almost any ambush would give you time to get ready to receive the attackers.
Uparmouring your headwear had no beneficial effect.
Wearing a helmet of any kind, in addition to being fatigueing in and of itself (by being hot, sweaty, and difficult to breathe in), limited perceptions, so most people took them off when they were not needed. Wearing a helmet of any type made it difficult to look up or down (which made searching difficult). A helm (open or closed) reduced your ability to hear (as if you were on the other side of a door), and a closed helm meant that you had to look around to see what was happening (which wasn't as bad as it sounds, as in most combats the fighter's concentration was on their immediate opponent(s) anyway**).
And of course, certain special attacks, such as using a cosh to knock someone out, were negated by using a helmet.
Incidentally my leather armour tended to be cuirboulli rather than "leather jackets" leather. Non-fighters could wear it reasonably well, but usually couldn't use their special abilities while doing so. Which means thieves usually had to take it off to do their thievish schtick. Similarly, my platemail was Wisby plate (named after the armour recovered from the mass grave at the Battle of Wisby), being essentially a coat of plates rather than the later period medieval knights armour (which was the next two AC classes down).
Anyway, that's the rules I've used and tended to use since (although modified by edition and version). [Although I will note that from a very early time I have used armour absorption in my D&D games (so that armour makes you both difficult to hit and absorbs the damage taken), as have many of my friends (which is why we probably find low-level characters more survivable than the standard games). I think the best system I've seen used a random amount of absorption which was fun, and meant you couldn't rely on good armour allowing you to bull through.]
[* Missile fire was deemed to inaccurate to have an effect. Classes with special abilities in this regard, such as the Archer or Assassin, could have their abilities negated by wearing the appropriate helmet.]
[** All characters had to take time to survey the battlefield to see what was going on. Being engaged with an opponent especially limits the ability to do so. The constant gods-eye overview of the tactical situation that is encouraged by battleboards just didn't exist in my games.***]
[*** Incidentally this reminds me of many wuxia movies, where the general is a high-level fighter, but usually doesn't get to show his ability because he is busy commanding his troops, until either the last desperate sally (by either side), or the battle has gone beyond his ability to control and then both command groups move in to engage with each other. Sure the general could mow down mooks aplenty - but he just doesn't usually get the opportunity to do so. This is the frustration of the high-level fighter with an army.]
I'm rather taken with Squeeck's suggestion, to be honest. It's a little abstract but it certainly makes the helmet an attractive and important option.
ReplyDeleteClaims that D&D is "abstract" are very strange, to me. It is sort of a statement of the blindingly obvious - naturally, *ALL* games, without any exception whatsoever, are abstractions. Even allegedly "precise" simulations such as "Squad Leader" or "Drang Nach Osten" are incredibly abstract compared to the real world that they are modeling.
ReplyDeleteSo what precisely is the term "abstract" supposed to mean, anyway?
I assume that all suits of armor include a matching coif -- but not a helmet.
ReplyDeleteA character's chance of hearing anything is cut in half while they're wearing a coif.
Wearing a suit of armor without its coif (or any other piece) makes the armor's AC value 1 point worse (for each piece missing until you get to unarmored AC).
Wearing a small helmet improves AC by 1 point -- and also protects the head in every way that makes sense to the DM, including every way that any player can convince the DM makes sense.
A character's chance of hearing anything is cut in half while they're wearing a helmet. (So, if they're wearing a helmet over a coif, their chance of hearing anything is cut in half twice.)
Wearing a great helm improves AC by 2 points and protects the head in every way that makes sense to the DM, including every way that any player can convince the DM makes sense -- but also limits the character's vision to the front 60 degrees and doubles the character's chance of being surprised.
I'll have you know, Agantyr, that *my* games aren't abstract.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I did lose an eye and three fingers in the last melee. And I'm looking for two new players to replace the guys who couldn't parry.
"Claims that D&D is 'abstract' are very strange, to me. It is sort of a statement of the blindingly obvious - naturally, *ALL* games, without any exception whatsoever, are abstractions."--Angantyr
ReplyDeleteOf course statements that game mechanics are "abstract" seem like unnecessary statements of the obvious if you assume that people are making absolute statements about the inherent nature of the game mechanics.
But that's not what they're doing.
They're making comparative statements about the relative nature of the game mechanics compared to other game mechanics.
There's an implied "relatively" before every "abstract".
Make sense now?
So what precisely is the term "abstract" supposed to mean, anyway?
ReplyDelete@Angantyr - the best answer to that question is to be found on page 61 of the 1e AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide in the section "Encounters, Combat, and Initiative", where it points out that that the "to hit" roll in a combat round doesn't represent a single hit of a weapon on a specific part of anatomy causing specific injury and debilitation. That single roll abstractly represents "numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering...some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage...So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair."
It goes on to say about the abstract nature of hit points that "Damage scored (to characters and some monsters)...is not substantially physical...it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections."
Anyway, have a read of the section and it will make clear the difference between the abstract nature of D&D combat and the more "realistic" combat mechanics that can found in some other RPGs, where specific body parts can be hit and damaged, as well as specific pieces of armour. Getting too hung up about the helmet and producing complex house rules to "fix" D&D misses the point of the abstract nature of the game (Disclaimer: I am not criticising those who would do just that. House rule and have fun! I do.)
Rolemaster has several rules that make the wearing of a helmet both useful and bothersome. Many criticals are reduced or negated by the wearing of a helm. Any spells are more difficult to cast with a helm, but defense against Mentalism or other mind effecting spells is increased. Great helms also have a negative modifier to perception.
ReplyDeleteFor D&D, I've always used AC reduction by one. I do like the increased possiblility of a critical hit, and may have to adopt that one.
Excellent answer, austrodavicus! I wish I'd thought to explain all that!
ReplyDeleteI'd add one thing though...
While I agree that "Getting too hung up about the helmet and producing complex house rules to 'fix' D&D misses the point of the abstract nature of the game", I don't think that rules which merely incorporate helmets into D&D's abstract Armor Class system do that.
Mind Flayers...
ReplyDelete@austrodavicus - I will start by pointing out that while your discussion on hit points, hit location, etc., is very well referenced, it is totally irrelevant to the point I am making. Where did I even mention hit location or the nature of damage? You are putting words in my mouth - I never even brought that up.
ReplyDeleteI asked the question I asked because I am really curious as to what makes you think OD&D is in fact abstract. For example, how is having 70 M-U spells, 26 Cleric spells, and dozens of magic items, each with a dedicated description that is at least a paragraph or more in length (up to four pages, for swords...) in the LBBs, to be considered “abstract”? That’s not abstract at all – that’s actually pretty nitty gritty detailed.
Going further, if the system is so “abstract” then how do you justify having different armor classes based on armor worn (or lack thereof)? If helmets and weapons used don't matter, why should armor type? After all, I could argue that not having armor makes me more agile and able to dodge blows, which is just as effective as absorbing them with plate, right?
And what about the Hit Location and Critical Hit rules for fliers in U&WA (p. 27)? How does one seriously consider that "abstract"? Indeed, these rules completely contradict your citation above from the DMG about striking specific parts of anatomy and causing specific injury and debilitation, and yet are an established part of OD&D canon.
If lack of specific hit location and specific injury are the only criterion for making a game abstract in the sense you intend it, then should Metagaming's "Melee" be considered as ideally abstracted as OD&D? No hit location rules of any kind are featured in the original basic rules (though the Advanced set did have them as an option).
Not necessarily saying that OD&D is "detailed", but plainly it is nowhere near as abstract as many seem to believe. And this intellectual inconsistency is a point I find so troubling, given the sarcasm and even viciousness that most Old Schoolers display in setting upon any who would challenge the Holy Writ of the LBBs, as predictably exemplified by Adam. I swear it would be much easier discussing the positive community benefits of interracial marriage with a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard than OD&D combat rules with Old Schoolers...
@Angantyr - I repeat...
ReplyDeleteWhen people say that D&D is "abstract", they're not saying that it's absolutely abstract.
They're just saying that it's relatively abstract when compared to many other roleplaying games.
There's an implied "relatively" before every "abstract".
Make sense now?
@Angantyr - I'm sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth or picking a fight, I assure you that wasn't my intention. As Ed pointed out, I wasn't suggesting the whole of D&D is abstract, only some mechanics. As for the inconsistency of a combat system that is abstract but has numbers attached to armour types, I wouldn't argue with that conclusion. You've got the wrong man if you think I'm trying to start an argument, nothing turns me off quicker and life is too short, believe me I know first hand. And on that note, that's me done in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the AD&D rule was just about perfect. 99% of the time you could ignore it because everyone would be wearing the helm that came with their armor. In the case where somebody decided to forego their helm, you bring out the rule long enough to convince them that that was a bad idea. Then you go back to not needing it again.
ReplyDeleteThat is an AD&D rule I’d be happy to import into B/X or Labyrinth Lord. The only reason I don’t is that I’m currently happy with more of a comic book or TV aesthetic in my D&D.
austrodavicus said: "the best answer to that question is to be found on page 61 of the 1e AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide..."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I consider DMG p. 61 to be quite harmful. It's part of a significant set of rules from Greyhawk/AD&D that I find it's best to delete from the system.
Fundamentally, that section is just a rationalization for Gygax's abominably-considered 1-minute melee round time scale. The proposed rationale isn't even consistent in regards to things like missile ammunition used per attack roll, effects of poison strikes, etc.
Something like Holmes/Basic edit to 10-second rounds is a much cleaner and more reasonable fix to the complaint that DMG p. 61 is responding to.
"...Gygax's abominably-considered 1-minute melee round time scale. The proposed rationale isn't even consistent in regards to things like missile ammunition used per attack roll, effects of poison strikes, etc. Something like Holmes/Basic edit to 10-second rounds is a much cleaner and more reasonable fix to the complaint that DMG p. 61 is responding to."--Delta
ReplyDeleteI agree that 1-minute melee rounds are way too long if you take into consideration anything beyond just what AD&D1E DMG p.61 itself says.
But I think even 10-second melee rounds are still way too long unless you also assume what AD&D1E DMG p.61 says about abstract combat in general.
I think you need the type of abstract combat described on AD&D1E DMG p.61 unless you make melee rounds only about a second or two long.
Abstraction is sort of a state of mind. When I was younger, I didn't pay any heed to the fact that it was abstract -- a "hit" meant you hit with one blow and scored a wound on your foe. That's always been more intuitive, and more "right" to me.
ReplyDeleteEven when my best friend and I had more time to peruse the rules in depth and discuss which ones we agreed with and which we did not, we still played like that. Didn't slow anything down, and brought to mind more readily classic paintings of Conan cleaving through his foes.
@ Ed Dove
ReplyDeleteYou are really not getting my point at all. I ask the question I ask because, honestly, I do not think the word "abstract" as you apply it to OD&D means what you think it means.
P.S.: You can take your [i]italicised[/i] emphatic words and go stick them away somewhere. I can read just fine, and I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. The trouble is you are simply flat wrong.
@austrodavicus
My comment at the end really wasn't directed to you - just to Adam mostly. In re-reading it I understand your confusion, though. You're behavior was fine - even exemplanary. I did not even take offense at you putting words in my mouth, in this instance. I only highlighted it to show how readily you and others leap to conclusions so easily. Sorry to have made you think you were the source of trouble - you weren't.
"You are really not getting my point at all. I ask the question I ask because, honestly, I do not think the word 'abstract' as you apply it to OD&D means what you think it means."--Angantyr
ReplyDeleteOh! I see now! You're not genuinely asking a question that you actually want answered. You're just snidely asking a rhetorical question to try to prove that everybody else is wrong and you're right without having to put forth the time and effort to explain exactly why and how. Thanks for explaining!
"P.S.: You can take your [i]italicised[/i] emphatic words and go stick them away somewhere. I can read just fine, and I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. The trouble is you are simply flat wrong."--Angantyr
As austrodavicus said, "And on that note, that's me done in this discussion."
@ Ed Dove
ReplyDeleteI was genuinely asking a question. Pity you did not have an intelligent answer. Typical. Thanks for leaving the discussion, since you have nothing of value to contribute, anyway.