Pardon Me, But Your Destrier Just Bit My Rouncey

These are the various classifications of horses used during medieval times. This may provide the referee a bit of guidance and flavor for his campaign. Note the term classification ... these are not breeds, they are ways of classifying the type of horse.

Palfrey: a lighter weight riding horse with an ambling gait, suitable for riding long distances. An unarmored knight would ride one of these to travel long distances, then ride a charger into battle. Referred to in the OD&D rules as a light horse.

Charger: a warhorse, that is, a mount specifically trained for battle and bred for both speed and agility in addition to great strength. Chargers came in 3 classifications: destrier, courser, rouncey. Chargers were often stallions because of the natural aggression of male horses.

• Destrier: the most prized of the heavy warhorse types. Destriers stood 14-15 hands and mainly differed from palfreys in strength and training more than size. Unfortunately, destriers were difficult to find, resulting in many knights riding coursers or rounceys. Classed in the OD&D rules as a heavy warhorse. 

• Courser: prized for being light, fast, and strong. Coursers got their name from their running gait. In addition to serving in battle, coursers were often used as hunting horses. These are labelled as medium warhorses in the OD&D rules. 

• Rouncey: (or rounsey) a good all around horse, similar to a typical riding horse, trained for battle. These were often used a riding horses or even pack horses. The least desirable of the charger type warhorses. Rounceys could be both heavy or medium warhorses.

Sumpter: a packhorse, but note the term packhorse could traditionally be used for a horse, mule, donkey, or pony. A sumpter is a horse bred for sturdiness and used to carry goods or supplies on its back, usually in sidebags called panniers. These animals are built for endurance not speed.

Draught: also called draft horse (USA) or dray, as well as cart horse, heavy horse, or work horse. These animals were bred for pulling loads such as wagons or carts. Draught horses are very tall specimens with heavy musculature. They make poor warhorses because they were not very agile, though some evidence suggests they may have seen some service in battle.

Donkey: (or ass) a male donkey is called a jack and the female is a jenny. Donkeys have a much stronger sense of self-preservation than a horse and are therefore far less likely to be forced or frightened into doing something, giving rise to their reputation as stubborn. These are typically used as draught or pack animals.

Mule: the sterile offspring of a male donkey (jack) and female horse (mare). Typically used as packhorses, though their size, and therefore use, varies widely depending upon the size of its dam. Mules are considered more intelligent and less obstinate than donkeys, and are typically the only packhorse found in an underworld setting. In fact, mules (and hinnies, see below) are considered to embody the best aspects of both horses (strength, ability to travel) and donkeys (endurance, less food).

Hinny: the sterile offspring of a male horse (stallion) and female donkey (jenny). Hinnies are far less common than mules. They also tend to be smaller and have shorter ears than mules. 

Pony: a small horse, ponies for known for their temperament. A fact to which this author can personally attest: these are mean little bastards. They are treated as packhorses and are typically sure-footed and strong. Ponies can serve as warhorses, and in fantasy campaigns smaller human-types will often mount their cavalry upon them.

So ... "Fantasy" Iron Rations?

If one wanted to have a reasonable depiction of iron ration in the fantasy world, what form would they take? I like my fantasy realm to be about a half-bubble off plumb. That is, I want them to be familiar enough the typical player knows what they are, but fantastic enough to give a bit of flavor beyond real world equivalents. So like every struggling referee, I stole some ideas I really liked!

Qith'Pa: elven iron rations consisting of bars of pressed dried fruit. I always pictured these as tough and chewy like jerky but very sweet. Not the best meal perhaps, but more satisfying than more common forms of iron rations. From Weis and Hickman's Dragonlance series of novels.

Lembas: elven iron rations that were at once savory and satisfying. Just one portion of one cake would sustain a man-type for a full day's march. I always pictured these as faintly magical and retaining their goodness so long as they were kept in the green leaf wrapping. From Tolkien's LotR series of books.

Cram: (or possibly Kram, I pronounce this with an "ah" as in "yahoo") small seed cakes about palm-size. I always pictured these as looking vaguely like compressed cakes of birdseed and having a faintly sweet and spicy taste. These are sustaining but leave the typical person feeling vaguely dissatisfied. I'm having a deuce of a time tracking this reference down. I seem to recall these are gnomish in origin from Brook's Shannara series of novels. If you remember better than I, please let me know, google is singularly unhelpful in this instance.

Mundane: dried sausage, dried smoked jerky, dried vegetable bars, dried fruit, smoked nuts, hard cheeses, twice-baked biscuits. These will be wrapped in waxed paper and bound with twine, often with protective runes inscribed upon them. These are available in just about any settlement of size, and can be produced rapidly from supplies on hand if not pre-prepared. These are filling and somewhat satisfying, though dissatisfaction increases with each consecutive day of this fare. After a week of iron rations, reduce NPC morale by -1.

What Exactly Are Iron Rations?

On a whim, I decided to look into iron rations and any real-life analog to them. I found a reference to the WWI German Army's iron rations, these were later adapted by the militaries of other countries. Given the co-authors depth of knowledge regarding wargaming, I'm going to assume were the likely inspiration for both the name and the concept.

So what were they? One source lists a standard iron ration as:

• 1 lb. preserved meat
• 3 oz. cheese
• 12 oz. biscuit
• 5/8 oz. tea
• 2 oz. sugar
• 1/2 oz. salt
• 1 oz. meat extract (meat broth or bullion perhaps?)

Another source lists an iron ration as:

• 300 grams of hard crackers (such as Zwieback [twice-baked] crackers)
• 200 grams of preserved meat
• 150 grams of preserved or dehydrated vegetables or pea sausage 
• 25 grams of artificial substitute coffee
• 25 grams of salt

Then, of course, the US Army's much maligned K-Ration bears mentioning here. Descriptors such as "palatable" and "better than nothing" seem to be used a lot regarding them. There is also the nautical forerunner of hardtack that seems to be at least partial inspiration for the K-ration.

No matter the specific form? Iron rations were notable in their lack of so-called extras such as cigarettes, chewing gum, or instant coffee. They were the bare minimum needed a fully grown, healthy, fit human needed to remain active and were only intended for short term use. Both are vaguely cracker-like in size, appearance, and texture; and are reportedly difficult to chew. The taste was only bearable and better than nothing sounds a lot like damning with faint praise.

This may explain why trail rations are more desirable than iron rations. The former tastes more like "real" food and is more satisfying to the appetite, with the drawback of being bulkier. The latter will sustain an adventurer but will not be satisfying in the least.

May you always roll 20's!

Chain (Chainmail) & Plate (or Plated) Mail, A Primer

Pedants will insist the words chain and mail mean the same thing and chainmail is therefore redundant in much the same way as the terms cash money and past history. While this is not as clear-cut as one may have been told, the argument can be made for that usage so we will employ it here.

Chain is familiar enough to most readers as to render a detailed explanation unnecessary. Instead, we will focus on terms commonly used in conjunction with chain.

Lets us begin with a common form of chain, the chain shirt. A knee length chain shirt is a hauberk. If mid-thigh length the term haubergeon is used. A chain coat, popular in medieval Europe, was called a byrnie.

There are several patterns to assembling the rings for chain armor, with the most common being 4-to-1. This means each link links to 4 others. These links were riveted, though sometimes riveted links were alternated with solid links. Less effective were butted links. Butted means the ends of the wire link touch each other but were not fastened. Welded links appear to have possibly been used as well.

Material used in most D&D campaigns would likely be wrought iron, though steel or bronze could also be used.

Effectiveness of chain rests upon four factors: link type, link material, link weave density, link thickness. A well made suit of chain was effective versus slicing and piercing attacks, but less effective against bashing attacks. A full suit of chain would also include leggings, head protection, and even mittens.

Plated mail, the type referred to in the D&D rules as plate mail, was simply chain with plates attached to it. It is typically the best mundane armor protection in the rules as written.

This is not the type of armor normally seen in museums or conjured up by young lads dreaming of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. That type of armor is referred to as plate and is not part of early versions of the game until Unearthed Arcana for AD&D was published by TSR in 1985. There it was given the values AC 1 for field plate and AC 0 for full plate, basically light and heavy versions (respectively) of the same type of armor.

Leather Armor, A Primer

A few caveats before I begin. It's a shame to have to say this but there are actually contentious persons lurking on the web ... and pedants. So let me just state right up front I'm no Master of History^TM. I'm just a fellow who did a bit of research. There's always someone with more knowledge and long list of exceptions to general knowledge. Okay? This isn't that post. This is just a bit of information a referee may find useful. If you'd like to shed some authoritative light on any of the bullet points below, feel free to share.

Leather armor isn't soft or supple. It's hard as nails and effective protection. Those two qualities also mean it is stiff and unyielding. Leather armor or cuir bolloi was made by boiling a shaped leather piece in tallow or oil. It's closer in aspect to a piece of flexible sheet metal than a soft leather jherkin (which is how many neophyte players to the game picture it).

So, why leather armor if chain or plate was so much better? Well, leather was plentiful and inexpensive in relation to metal. It could be produced faster than metal armors.

Why not leather armor? Metal was better. So, if you were a big deal you would seek the best protection you could find. Metal armor was much more difficult to come by in terms of both availability and cost, so leather armor was better than nothing.

On a side note: I've been told by those who know better than I that leather armor was more effective than typically represented in the pre-1983 D&D rulebooks. Given I've heard the same about shields? I can buy that. I've no desire to change it because I'm of the opinion that, as a game-ism, it works just fine. But if you're a hardcore simulationist you may want to take a closer look at that aspect of your campaign.

So what was studded leather armor then? I've been told by Medieval wonks that this simply did not exist in the way described in some rules sets. It's possible the author was confusing it with jack or brigandine.

Why A Supplement & Not A New Game?

Introduction

The question of why write a supplement and not a new game has indirectly arisen surrounding my latest work "Journeys In The Land Of Khordesh." I wrote it to translate my OD&D campaign, which I began in 1975, into Swords & Wizardry: Core^TM (S&W:C) written by Matthew J. Finch and published by Mythmere Games. I'd like to take an opportunity to address this and another question at this time. [Neither I (Cameron S. DuBeers) nor Wobbly Goblin Press are associated with either Matthew J. Finch or Mythmere Games in any way. --ed.]

Why a supplement? 

Several reasons, actually. Chief among which is the belief there is no real need to rewrite Matt's work just to make a few minor changes to the rules. I'm not exactly of the mind there are too many 1974 retroclones on the market, but I can certainly understand the point of view of persons feeling that way.

Another reason is, given the nature of the works inspiring S&W:C? A supplement adding to and even changing aspects of the game is quite within the spirit of the pioneers of the hobby. Booklets detailing aspects of both co-authors' long-running campaigns were in print very shortly after the original boxed set was released.

Last of all, there is already a well established community of folks playing S&W:C. I flatter myself to think at least some of my house rules may be of use to my fellow gamers. It's nice to see how someone else solved the same problems you have. Some gamers favor complex expansions of the rules, but I and many others just want to nudge the rules a bit to get what we want out of them. My "swap your prime requisite score for any other rolled ability score" adjustment came from a local referee in whose B/X game I played, Alex Johnson. The gaze attack rules were written by Jason Cone and published on his website. Both are simple and straightforward solutions to issues I've had with my campaign. Many of the rules I either made up, based upon similar gaming systems rules, or absorbed through years of play and have long forgotten the source. As such? They are freely offered to other referees in the hope these rulings will help their campaign as they helped mine.

Why Swords & Wizardry: Core and not Delving Deeper?

One of my adult children was interested in participating in my campaign. He had heard bits and bobs of it in his childhood but for reasons unimportant to the discussion neither he nor I were ever able to play a game. So, now he's an adult and is interested in participating in the old man's campaign. In his current city of residence he played for a brief time in a S&W campaign and was already partially familiar with those rules. So, I used S&W:C for that reason.

Why not Delving Deeper (DD) is another question I get asked, often with didn't you write that game? tacked onto the end. Well, yes and no to the latter part. I wrote the initial version submitted to Brave Halfling Publishing (BHP) after BHP broke away from publishing Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox. The DD rules have passed into the hands of another, Simon Bull, who has done a wonderful job of tuning them up and presenting them as a polished work ready for publication. I am a big fan. So, while it is technically correct I wrote DD? That really only applies to first and second editions of the game. In its current iteration so much of the work is Simon's I really don't consider it "my" work any longer. I think DD is a fine game and I highly encourage everyone to check it out.

As to the why I didn't use DD if I like it so much? That's simple, my son was already familiar with S&W from his brief local experience and I thought it would be easier to get him up to speed with the same rules. Play-by-post can be challenging for a new boot, and he would be in the game with experienced players, so I wanted to ease him into the game as best I could.

Additionally, Matt's Core edition of S&W was much more in line with way I ran a campaign. This is so subjective I'm going to avoid going into more detail because gaming style discussion invariably provokes a fruitless debate. I'm simply not interested in justifying my gaming style to someone who likes a different way of playing. There is plenty of table space for all of us, no need to fight over which is better.

Other random FAQ style bits.

Kordesh? My old campaign was actually referred to as Warhaven and there is still a formidable walled city/fortress by that name in the campaign. Warhaven sounded good to my college-aged self but sounds a bit too fanciful to my older self. So, I changed the name for publication.

Why 2 Elvish Races? That was influenced by Tolkien's elves and for no other reason. I made them short because that's how I always pictured elves.

What about gnomes? The original boxed rules mentioned them as player-character races but basically put in a short aside about them being "shorter dwarves." Taking my lead from the co-author's constant exhortation to make the rules mine, I decided to expand them a bit and differentiate them for their cousins.

Why no evil characters? What kind of evil are you talking about? Morally ambiguous is okay, I allow thieves in my campaign after all. Murder, rape, arson, slaughter of innocents ... basically the whole "murder hobo" mindset is out. I run a basically heroic campaign and don't find refereeing the whole chaotic evil overlord type of character to be fun. And face it: running a campaign is too much work to do if it isn't "fun."

I hope this adequately addresses any questions you may have.

A Brief Synopsis of D&D Movies

I've posted a similar list but I'm trying to generate a bit of buzz for the upcoming D&D film Dungeons & Dragons: The Hand of Fate (D&D-IV) by Warner Brothers. First, those which came before.

Dungeons & Dragons (2000) aka D&D: The Movie, by New Line Cinema. This film had the potential for greatness with an A-list actor in a major role and quite a few familiar faces. The tone of the movie, however, wandered from serious to slapstick and back again in a rather aimless fashion. A low budget and freshman director were the two major problems with the film. Rumors also speak of increasing friction between Sweetpea Entertainment and TSR's CEO Lorriane Williams.

Dungeons & Dragons Wrath of the Dragon God (2005). A sort-of sequel to the first, this made-for-tv film is my favorite of the lot. In spite of a far lower budget and C-list actors, this film managed to get across the feeling of player-character party on a quest quite well.

Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (2012). Another television movie but not set in the same milieu as the first two, D&D:TBoVD takes a rather darker turn. The unknown actors do a reasonable job for most of the film but come across as a Community Little Theatre Group at times. This one is my least favorite, in part for the storyline and in part because it looks as if it were shot on video. When I bought my copy it wasn't even available for retail in the USA.

Which brings us to Dungeons & Dragons: The Hand of Chaos (2017, unconfirmed). What do we know? As Ed Greenwood proudly told us last year, it will be set in his Forgotten Realms milieu. I'm only familiar with FR from the PC games, but know enough about it to know this is an encouraging development. Too bad they couldn't get Greyhawk from Gary's estate but I'm happy for Ed.

Besides a title and setting we also have a possible protagonist, Ansel (Divergent) Elgort. I'm not familiar with this young man's body of work but that is no surprise, I'm neither of fan of YA fiction nor of the movies they spawn. I've seen no hard evidence he is confirmed, only "in talks."

We have a direction, that is, Guardian of the Galaxy (2014) meets Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Though the studio executive was careful to avoid stating as interpreted by Peter Jackson it would be difficult, to say the least, to convince me he was thinking solely of the books.

We know Courtney Solomon and Sweetpea Entertainment, responsible for the first 3 films, is involved in the production. The director will be Rob Letterman, who brought us Goose Bumps (2015) and Shark Tale (2004). The script will be penned by David Johnson who brought us Wrath of the Titans (2012) and is apparently also writing the DC Super-verse film Aquaman (2018).

Sweetpea Entertainment is joined by Warner Brothers and Hasbro in the film production. Zinc Entertainment, one of the production companies for films II and III, is not listed on the IMDb page.

There you have it. As of today? That's what we know. I'm guardedly optimistic, but I tend to be that way. I know most geeks like to broil things early, before we know much, to give themselves a head start on dissing any fan property. Personally, I'm not attending a movie to figure out ways to hate it. If it gives 2 hours of entertainment, I'd say it was a good film.