“MacLankhmar”:
A Compromise Game

F.C. MacKnight
-

Attacks at a distance: arrows, spears and thrown axes	-	-	-	Hand-to-hand combat, at adjoining spaces
Dungeons & Dragons	Advanced Dungeons & Dragons	-	Dragon magazine	The Dragon #36

Suppose one considers that the probability method of deciding the
outcome of a battle is better than the rigorous, chess-like decisions of
LAHKMAR. Must the defender always win? Normally one would think
that the attacker would have a slightly better chance in close combat
(adjacent squares). But in LAHKMAR a horseman with an ax is going to
be defeated by a standing swordsman upon whom he rushes. Always!
So he doesn’t do so unless he has help.

Two-on-one between peers is necessary to take out a defender, and
one of the attackers must die, regardless of the logic of the situation. So
there must be a more careful attitude toward free-for-all brawls. One
must try to use spears and arrows at distance to gain an advantage
before wading in at close quarters, and the victory will go to the more
cautious strategy, as perhaps it should. But there are those who object to
this as being out of harmony with the basic, adventurous atmosphere of
the game. I was no party to originating LAHKMAR, but if I had been I
would have advocated the use of dice in deciding the outcome of a
battle.

As I remember some research I did some 40 years ago, the first
advocacy I found of battle decisions by probability, rather than cold
logic, in wargames was in the era of World War I by an American naval
officer who advised the use of probability tables and dice in simulated
naval engagements played by naval strategists on their large tables with
miniature ships.

One cannot be completely confident of position and fire power, he
argued. There is the chance that something may go wrong even in
superior positions. Sometimes the superior fleet loses in actuality, but
never in their theoretical battles, so there should be a guard against bad
luck by allowing the possibility that it could happen. And then, of
course, there may be a victory for one side even in positions that seem
completely equal and should be a stand-off.

So it is in war games like LAHKMAR-LANKHMAR. A warrior might
defeat a hero by a lucky thrust even though the chances are 20-1 against
it And a rushing horseman should have a better-than-even chance
against a man on foot.

But if you want a probability game, why not just play the new game
as it is?

For me there are these reasons.

Regardless of how combat is decided, there is a need to “increase”
the size of the board by cutting down the maximum movement of men
and mounts by 2/3 to 3/4 of that allowed in the LANKHMAR rules, as
argued earlier in this series.

The Movement Points cost system which includes engaging in combat,
embarking, mounting, changing weapons and picking up weapons
(why not disembarking and dismounting, too?) is dismaying to all but
dedicated wargame players, I would think I won’t submit to it! All this
may reasonably be dispensed with. For instance, dropping a bow to
draw a sword takes no more time than merely drawing the sword. And
in theory a man should be preparing himself against the next onslaught
when it arises.

The straying of animals and drifting of boats has some realism but is
not essential. Beached boats may be moored and animals tethered
when mounted. Only animals that lose their riders in battle and boats
depopulated in open waters need to be considered, and could be
neglected without damaging the game.

The probability tables as given in the Rules for LANKHMAR need
rigorous revision. If the reader has played it the faults will probably have
been noted. Here are some:

There is no distinction between the attacker and the defender.
Perhaps there should be.

There is no allowance for the weapon the defender has at his
disposal.

There is no allowance for one man being mounted and the other
being on foot

There is no allowance for one adversary being wounded. It is
possible for a hero to fail to kill or even wound a wounded or even an
unarmed adversary. How is this supposed to happen? Does the hero
have sudden qualms about the sportsmanship of it? Does he recognize
his adversary as a distant cousin by marriage? Or is he suddenly afflicted
by a seizure of some hereditary malady that renders him temporarily
incapacitated?

My conclusion is that while Movement Points are too cumbersome,
the LANKHMAR Combat Tables are too simplistic, and my “Compromise
Game” will require new tables. With this goal in mind I shall
examine separately the cases of attack at a distance, and attack from an
adjacent space.

Attacks at a distance: arrows, spears and thrown axes:
One of the more objectionable features of the old LAHKMAR game
was the assumption of the deadlines of attack at a distance. When
Nehwon warriors threw a spear or shot an arrow, they never missed! In
the execution of their craft they were experts of heroic proportion (led
by a super-hero who didn’t miss either)! I find this inhuman accuracy a
bit hard to swallow, and would prefer to be more realistic about it. At a
distance of 2 spaces the odds should favor a fatal hit but not mandate it
Wounding and a clean miss should also be represented on the tables.
The dice throw for a hero should be even more favorable to him, even
eliminating the miss at two spaces. And the hero should be given a better
chance of surviving a spear throw because, having quick reflexes, he
may dodge or possibly parry the cast with his own sword, pushing it
aside, diverting it or turning an on-target fatal throw into a wound.

Extended probability tables also allow us to consider spear throws at
greater distances with less chance of success; even at 4 spaces, though at
that distance only Fafhrd and Pulgh should be allowed any possibility of
success. The Mouser, for example, might cast an accurate spear, but his
physique would not be adequate to handle a very long cast He should
lose his hero rating even at 3 spaces.

(Note that I do not suggest the probabilities in actual numbers. I
think the player would be more satisfied to construct his own tables after
such discussion as I bring to bear on the subject, and that such tables
would depend on how many and what kind of dice he uses. One normal
die as suggested in the LANKHMAR Rules is insufficient to properly
appraise the probabilities: 2 dice are better. And he may wish to use
octahedral, dodecahedral or icosahedral dice from a D&D set )

To continue, the thrown ax should be only for Norsemen and
Fafhrd. If others throw the ax they should have a very small probability
of success. Fafhrd should be allowed a 3-space throw with fair success;
possibly the other Norse also, but with significantly smaller chances.
Generally the Northerners should avoid a cast with improbable success
because they are left defenseless unless a corpse is handy from which to
pick up another weapon.

It is with the bow that the probability tables give a definite advantage
in reasonableness. The three-arrow rule of LAHKMAR may be dispensed
with and the holder of the bow may be considered as having a
quiver full of arrows. Probability of success should be high at 2 spaces,
and successively less at 3,4 and 5 spaces. Some slight possibility should
exist for a fatal wound at the shorter distances, but the probability of a
miss should always be high. It seems doubtful that a hero should have a
greater likelihood of avoiding an arrow than anyone else except maybe
the Mouser who is a small man, offering a smaller target. Mouser’s sling
effectiveness should be something like that for an arrow, with perhaps a
little more probability of a fatal throw.

Shooting from a horse or camel should be a shade less effective than
when the archer stands on solid ground, unless one thinks that the
added elevation would compensate for the less certain aim.

Another benefit of the full-quiver concept vs. the three-arrow rule is
the elimination of the necessity in LAHKMAR of using arrows taken out
of a dead man. A messy business, pulling them out, since at least one
must have penetrated a vital spot! And we know too that the corpses are
quickly removed from most localities by the Pleistocene Vulture, or the
giant Nehwonian Condor, which would doubtless carry them off,
arrows, swords and all, even maybe a protruding spear! An optional
rule, then, might be that all fatally thrown spears would be eliminated
with the corpse, and the only weapons left for recovery would be the
victim’s own spear, ax or bow which could have been carried rather
than worn. Of the death-dealing weapons thrown at the victim, only an
ax would remain after the victim has been flown off to the nearest
mountain. Allow two moves for the giant scavengers to get there.
Swords might be left if the victim dies with it in his hand, but since only
the Norsemen would need one it isn’t important.

Hand-to-hand combat, at adjoining spaces:
This is an even more complex situation. First, take the case of
combat with the same weapon. There would be a table for peers and
one for unequal fights. Between peers there should be the same chance
for either contestant to kill, wound, or no-decision unless you think that
the attacker has a slight initial advantage. If there are enough numbers
on the chance-mechanism used, this can be taken care of. It also
assumes that the combat throw (of dice) will be made as soon as the
attacker moves into position, rather than waiting for the defense to
decide whether to move or fight as in the non-chance LAHKMAR. (I
would favor this in the Compromise Game but the other way is equally
possible. ) If a no-decision throw is cast, the “defender” has the option of
continuing the fight on his next move or retreating out of range.

The table of hero vs. warrior-or-equivalent should give the hero a
heavy advantage with a very small probability of anything other than
total victory.

If the engagement involves one man who is already wounded, I see
no reason to allow any hope in close combat, and he should be
considered eliminated without a throw.

How about disparity of, weapons? Is sword vs. spear an equal
contest? Sword vs. ax? Spear vs. ax? In sword vs. spear, if each
contestant carries a sword it may be considered that the spearman may
use his sword if he considers his spear would not give him an equal
chance, so I see no reason to worry about that If the spearman is a
Quarmallian that is all he has, but since he is aided by magic he should
be at no disadvantage anyway.

So, only if one considers that the spearman has an actual advantage
over the swordsman (which I do not) would one need a special table for
spear vs. sword. As I see it, the only advantage a spearman has is to
make a strong cast as soon as he gets just beyond the reach of his
opponent’s weapon, and if that is deflected he is beaten before he can
bring his own sword into action (unless he is ambidextrous!) If he
chooses not to do this I think the spearman is at a slight disadvantage at
least.

In sword vs. ax, there should be a slight advantage to the ax if the
ax-man is on the attack; not otherwise. This is based on the premise that
the ax is a long-handled, two-handed type; not the short, one-hand
variety Fafhrd holds in his left hand like a parrying dagger on the
LANKHMAR box lid. Ax vs. spear may also warrant a slight advantage
for whichever is the attacker.

In all these cases the hero should have a great advantage over the
warrior.

How about a mounted man vs. a peer on foot? I must admit
ignorance here. How important is the horse? Can it be trained to charge
and strike with the hooves against an armed man? If not, it may be as
much a disadvantage as an advantage. It may aid the foot warrior if the
horse becomes difficult to manage. And unless the horse is regarded as
an efficient fighting force, a hero should get his usual assist from the
probability tables even if he is on foot

I think camels would be more of a hindrance than a help and would
favor the foot warrior.

If both contestants are mounted, the odds for no-decision should be
raised since it will be more difficult for men to get at each other unless
they use their spears as lances and run together.

Finally, there is the case of a two-on-one combat. Unless the single is
a hero, there should be no chance for the single fighter. Hero vs. 2
warriors is a complex matter and would depend on the weapons used
and which of the contestants is mounted, if any. By this time the reader
may have decided that the whole thing is too involved and one had best
stick to the regular LAHKMAR convention! And it should be more
apparent why I prefer to leave the actual making of the tables to the
player.

It should help if in a game of this complexity there were a third,
fourth or fifth party who is not an active player but a referee who would
be in charge of such tables, and when a special situation comes up
invents a compromise between two other tables. Or quickly makes a
new one!

Such a referee would also be in charge of the cycles of the sinking
land, and these other responsibilities:

Be sure the weapons left on the board by a dead man are the right
ones.

Remember how long a body remains on the board before being
carried off by a giant vulture.

Remember where there might be a sword lying about for a Norseman
who has thrown his ax and can’t easily recover it.

Give out and keep account of geases and rewards; decide if a
geasman is proceeding most directly on his quest and still in accord with
safety.

Be in charge of movements of loose boats and animals as per
directions in LANKHMAR, and animals being called to Movarl.

Decide on points that rules don’t cover.
It should possibly be mentioned that geases are the same in this
Compromise Game as in the others.

Finally, I would like to comment on and protest against this statement
on the cover of the Rules Pamphlet of the LANKHMAR game:

“. . . but while this combat is seemingly on a man-to-man basis, the
pieces actually represent whole companies of men. . . .”

No! Spell it anyway you like. Lankhmar is a game of single men;
heroes led by super-heroes. Even if it doesn’t make much sense to have
8 men and a leader going out to conquer another citadel, that’s the way
it is! To make it otherwise would change the whole game. And the
statement is obviously out of harmony with the directions contained in
the Rules pamphlet, seemingly written by someone, other than the
authors of the Rules, for the benefit of diehard wargame players who
like to think in those terms and are uncomfortable without masses of
soldiers. If they can’t adjust, the game is not for them.

LANKHMAR (LAHKMAR) is a game of personal involvement with
individuals. It is also a game involving verbal banter, bombast and
braggadocio on the part of the players.

Some examples:

At the onset of the game from the Lankhmar player:

“Pulgh is making a statement to his constituents and all enemies:
‘Let it be known that it is my intention and pledge to end the nefarious
existence of that loutish boor Fafhrd. I shall feed his liver by hand to my
pet vultures, and hang his dismembered carcass on the walls of
Lankhmar. And as for that disreputable cutpurse and varlet known as
the “Mouser” . . . ’ ”, etc., etc. Or “‘Aided by my honored ally, the
Mouser’’’, if that be the case!

An intergame conversation:

“That was a dastardly deed truly worthy of your thoroughly corrupt
regime— to deliberately attack and finish off a heroic wounded warrior
to no advantage.”

“Would you deny that that ‘heroic’ warrior was none other than the
infamous Grotch who vilely and gratuitously slaughtered that group of
children in your expedition against Ilthmar?”

“What else would you have had him do with the little vipers? They
would only grow up to be like the rest of those basilisks that inhabit that
den of thievery, debauchery and every iniquity! It was a blessing to
Nehwon to dispatch them.”

This sort of thing doesn’t go with massed armies!