In developing a game which compromises between LAHKMAR
(the originally conceived game) and LANKHMAR (the commercial
product made by TSR Hobbies, Inc.), one aspect which leaves much
room for elaboration is the mechanics of combat and the development
of tables to determine the outcome of that combat.

To avoid (or cause?) more confusion, I shall hereafter refer to the
compromise game as LAKMAR, a hybrid name. LAKMAR will use
the moves and other rules given for LAHKMAR in the article in
TD-33 (January 1980), but the compromise game involves a more <done, but I can't find it>
detailed system of alternatives for what takes place during combat,
and it assigns the first throw of the dice to the attacker, that is, the
player who initiates the combat.

Let us first examine a simple encounter of swordsman against
swordsman, neither of them heroes and presumably both of equal
skill. Should there be any advantage in initiating the engagement?

In a fencing bout, the attacker may have a temporary advantage
as long as he is in the attack, but this doesn’t hold here. The initiator
of the engagement may approach his adversary but the latter may be
the one who first attacks, so that the one who initiates the engagement
by moving into proximity is only the “attacker” by the definition
of his intentions, and should derive no odds advantage for such
a role.

Referring to the contestants as A and B, we can list the following
possible outcomes of an exchange of blows:
    A wins, B perishes
    B wins, A perishes
    A kills B but A is wounded
    B kills A but B is wounded
    A wounds B
    B wounds A
    A and B wound each other
    No decision; neither is wounded, and the combat continues.

Of those eight possible outcomes, two can be discarded as impractical.
If one contestant wounds the other without himself being
wounded, it may be presumed that the wounded warrior would soon
succumb to a second blow. So, eliminating the fifth and sixth items
on the list above, we have six possible events:
    1 = A kills B
    2 = A kills B but A is wounded
    3 = A and B are both wounded
    4 = no decision
    5 = B kills A but B is wounded
    6 = B kills A

This “table” lists the outcomes in progressive order from the
most beneficial result for A to the most beneficial result for B, though
the relative positions of the third and fourth items are uncertain.

To adapt such a table for hero vs. warrior combat, one should
attach a higher probability to the hero (A) killing the warrior—
perhaps by subtracting two from the roll of a six-sided die to determine
the outcome. In so doing, “A kills B” will be the recorded result
on a roll of 1,2 or 3. However, perhaps there should be a chance for
a warrior to kill or wound a hero—no matter how slight a chance that
may be (say, 1 in 20). To incorporate that element of chance, there
would need to be a way to generate a wider range of random
numbers-most easily done by using a different type of die (d8, d12
or d20).

<?>could require a special table. Possibilities here can be most complex.
How about a desert-edge combat with Fafhrd on camel with ax
against a horseman with sword aided by a warrior on foot with
spear?

Other types of combat encounters must also be planned for.
Things are not always evenly matched, as is the case with two similar
swordsmen. In many cases, the initiator is actually attacking, and
should get some benefit because of this. An onrushing spearman
might be such an example, and certainly a horseman with spear or
upraised sword qualifies for this advantage. An approaching axwielder
would probably be rushing in, with his ax in a position to
cleave his enemy at the first blow, and a swordsman adversary must
decide whether to try to parry the blow with his weaker sword, or to
try to avoid it by stepping back or dodging, then pressing to thrust
before the ax-man can resume attack or take a defensive posture.

In short, there will be cases when the probabilities ought to be
“loaded” slightly in the favor of one of the contestants, perhaps
heavily when one combatant is mounted and has a longer-reaching
weapon, and perhaps very heavily, when one combatant is a heroand
still allow the weaker party to have at least a slight chance of
success. This is where the more sophisticated polyhedral dice come
i n .

Simply put, the procedure for developing a combat table for any
given set of circumstances is as follows: Determine the entire range
of possible outcomes. Attach relative probabilities to each single
possible outcome (i.e. one outcome may be twice as likely to occur
as another, and that should be reflected). Then, determine which
polyhedral die gives enough variation in numbers to allow for all
possible outcomes, and attach each outcome to a certain number (or
numbers) which, when rolled on the die or dice, will cause that
outcome to occur.

*    *    *

Returning to LAKMAR, what have we that needs these multiple
possibilities in varying degrees of probability? These types of tables
are to be considered:
    Attack at a distance (thrown or propelled weapons);
    Hand to hand combat, Attack and Reprise;
    Wounding tables.

Attack at a distance
Weapons under consideration are the spear, arrow, stone (from
Mouser’s sling) and ax thrown by Fafhrd and the Northern Mercenaries.
There will be tables for two-space throws or “shots”, three
spaces, and four spaces with decreasing probability of success as the
distance increases; and possibly additional tables for heroes especially
adept at either propelling the weapon or avoiding it. It must
be considered whether “shooting” from horse-, camel-back, or
shipboard would have the same accuracy as from solid ground, and
also a factor is the effect of forest trees and shrubbery on missile
accuracy.

Combat at adjacent spaces
Here we have Warrior against Warrior, Hero against Hero
(possibly the same table would do, but maybe not), and Warrior
against Hero. There would be tables for swordsman against swordsman,
swordsman against spearman, swordsman against ax-wielder,
spearman against spearman, spearman against ax-man, and ax-man
against ax-man. Also, contestant on foot vs. one mounted on horse
or camel, with the same permutation of weapons. Horseman vs.
horseman and camel rider vs. camel rider, likewise. It is unlikely but
possible that there could be a combat between a camel rider and a
horseman at the desert edge! And combat at sea (adjacent boats)
could involve a different set of possibilities.

In each of these combats, there is the problem of whether the
instigator of the engagement may be considered as having an advantage.
If so, there should also be a Reprise table for continuing combat
with no attacking advantage. When there is no attacking advantage,
there is no need of a special Reprise table. In combat between
diverse weapons, the attack may give advantage to one weapon and
the continuation to the other.

Then there is the problem of two men against one. Usually the
two would win a complete victory, but a hero against two warriors <?>

Wounding tables
LAKMAR should also pay more attention to the nature and effect
of wounds. In LAHKMAR and LANKHMAR all wounds have the
same effect, but a throw could determine just what and where the
wound may be, and how it affects the recipient’s further activity. He
might be able to handle a bow but not travel (leg or hip wound), or
he might be unable to fight but could travel (arm wound). He may or
may not be able to handle his mount or the boat in his charge.
Severity of wound is a factor: He may be able to continue fighting at
a lower degree of effectiveness.

The Heroes in combat
Each hero has a terrain in which he has an advantage, either by
being able to MOVE where others cannot or being able to MOVE more
swiftly there.  Fafhrd can cross mountains, Mouser can swim as
rapidly as a boat, Pulgh moves faster than others in a swamp.  Movarl
likewise in the forst.

How about combat? Here too each hero has a specialty that must
be taken into consideration. Originally the favorite weapon was the
ax for Fafhrd, the sling for Mouser, the spear for Pulgh and the sword
for Movarl. This is complicated by Leiber’s near deification of the
swordsmanship of Fafhrd and the Mouser in their printed saga to the
extent that Fischer’s original specialties were neglected.

To maintain equality of forces it would seem that we should
either raise Pulgh and Movarl to the same level of fighting power as
Fafhrd and the Mouser, or strengthen the terrain advantage or
warrior power of Lankhmar and Kvarch Nar with respect to the
Mingols and the City of the East. I think that this latter has been done
to some extent with respect to the terrain. Lankhmar has the advantage
of the Sinking Land and the salt marsh; Kvarch Nar has the
forest which slows down the movement of adverse forces. The other
Citadels are more easily available to attack. So, a bit of combat
favoritism for Fafhrd and the Mouser is not out of line.

Ax: Fafhrd is the only hero proficient in the use of the war ax;
except for him, only the northern mercenaries use it. Fafhrd, as a
hero, should have a higher proficiency than the other northerners.
The ax can also be thrown, with far less accuracy than the spear but a
greater likelihood of a severe wound if it hits. Fafhrd may be allowed
some possibility of a hit at three spaces (as well as 2, the range of the
other Vikings), and since he carries a sword he is more likely to use
the ax as a throwing weapon. (Remember that the ax remains where
it lands, either in the adversary or on his space if there is a miss. This
leaves the mercenaries weaponless, so they must be way of throwing
their axes away.) If anyone besides Fafhrd and the northerners
uses or throws an ax, their success should be rated very low.

The spear, Pulgh’s specialty: He must be rated higher than
Fafhrd, Mouser and the common warriors both in distance and
accuracy. But since Fafhrd is now well-known as a strong spearman,
I suggest that both Fafhrd and Pulgh be allowed 4 spaces for possible
spear throws, but Pulgh be given greater accuracy.

Missiles: No hero is particularly good with the bow, and if they
use one, the success should be only that of a warrior. But Mouser has
his sling, which rates somewhat higher than the bow in putting
opponents permanently out of combat. It does seem a bit too much
to allow the sling to be more accurate than the bow, but the skullcrushing
possibility may give the Mouser better effect at each distance
(2, 3, and 4 spaces).

Sword: Can we allow Fafhrd and Mouser to dominate swordplay
as they do in Leiber’s saga? Or must we use sword proficiency
as a means of equalizing any superiority Fafhrd has in spear and ax?
Pulgh is already behind Fafhrd in power, since the two are nearly
equal in spear but Fafhrd has his ax too. Mouser’s effectiveness with
the sling is difficult to equate, but it seems that he may be behind
both in non-swords. And so far, Movarl has no special powers except
being able to call animals, which seems insufficiently compensatory.

The sword was originally Movarl’s strong point. Should we make
him superior to Fafhrd and the Mouser in this category? “No way!”
says Harry, who, if chance enters the game, wants Fafhrd and
Mouser to be preeminent in swordplay, too. My suggestion is that all
heroes be given strong probability sword preference against warriors,
but Pulgh slightly less in hero-vs.-hero combat. I suggest that
Movarl’s ability with the sword be given in his relation to warriors.
Let us make Movarl ambidextrous, able to handle a sword in each
hand simultaneously and thus able to successfully fight two warriors
simultaneously, which however would not help him greatly against
another hero.

Heroes in Defense
It has already been pointed out above and in part 5 of this series
(TD-36) that the hero gets preferential treatment in hand-to-hand
combat with warriors and is allowed a bit less vulnerability in missile
attack with spear or ax because of presumed greater quickness in
reaction time. The hero can occasionally dodge, avoid or fend off the
slower-moving missiles that would reach an ordinary warrior, and
the Mouser gets a greater speed allowance than the others because
he is a smaller target as well.

How about arrows? This is a general problem for heroes and
warriors alike. What garb do we imagine the Nehwonian military to
wear? Do they have a costume that offers any protection against
arrows? Do they wear any metal or heavy leather that could change
what would be a fatal shot into a mere wound? The probability table
for LAKMAR must describe just how devastating the arrow attack
should be; what proportion of wounds and fatalities there are to
misses or non-registering hits.

The Leiberian saga is imprecise about all this, often allowing the
reader to use his own imagination for precise details. Certainly the
Lankhmarians had gone past the stage of using shields defensively,
because they used lighter swords that permitted “fencing.” Parrying
with the sword was in vogue, with the occasional use of the dagger in
the left (non-sword) hand or cloak on the left arm. In this out-oftown
situation with bowmen aiming at you, some additional protection
would be natural. The use of a buckler would be sensible and
would enable the fast-moving Mouser to often parry an arrow. So it
would not be amiss for there to be an adjustment to the arrow tables
when Mouser is the target.

*    *    *

In review, then, it would seem that the number of probability
tables, including special adjustments, might be nearly astronomical,
restricting the game of LAKMAR to diehard probability gamesters.
And their victims! The probability freak could act as referee for a
good contest between players who need not worry about such
matters. The function and advisability of a Referee (a term obviously
related entymologically to Banshee) has been promoted in Part 5 of
this series, and I think that this last section (6) demonstrates that the
need for one in LAKMAR is almost as great as that for a Dungeon
Master in Dungeons & Dragons!

SUMMARY
This series of articles was originally intended merely to describe
the origin of the game (part 1) and how to modify the TSR board and
rules to play the original game as conceived by Harry Fischer and
Fritz Leiber (parts 2, 3, 4). This resurrection of the original game I
designated as LAHKMAR (Fischer’s spelling); Leiber’s spelling,
LANKHMAR, I reserved for the new TSR game, its board and the
Citadel from which it was named. Having accomplished that task, I
then became fascinated with the idea of adopting the chance or
probability-outcome of combat, as used in TSR’s LANKHMAR and
most current war games, to the longer, slower-moving LAHKMAR,
along with elaborations and what I regarded as improvements on the
combat tables. That project has occupied the last two sections of the
series.

(Editor’s note: The next, and last, article in Prof. MacKnight’s
series about LANKHMAR and its creators will be a special postscript.
Fritz Leiber and Hurry Fischer, writers of the Fafhrd and the Gray
Mouser books and the creators and developers of Lankhmar, created
a puzzle for MacKnight to solve when the three men were cohorts
more than 40 years ago. “Fafhrd and Mouser in the Dungeon” is the
name of the game. It, and its solution, will appear in TD-38.) <link>

<30.16 = 1>
<31.32 = 2>
<33.12 = 3>
<34.42 = 4>
<36.46 = 5>
<37.31 = 6>