I like this very much, it adds complexity BUT it takes away one die roll! I always roll one die instead of two, or two instead of one for the repositioning and change tactics rolls respectively.

One die roll less!

Any volunteers to play test it?


I made a design mistake when I created the grid: Action should go from left to right and top to bottom. At the moment it goes from right to left and top to bottom. Will make a new one when I have time.

EDIT
Here is version 2: Flows from left to right and top to bottom.

I'm still a noob with Magic Realm, but where do you put the character's attack chits? It seems like some boxes "above" the Monster section for that purpose would be needed?

The attack chit and weapon counter go in the thrust, swing or smash box in the Character's tactic row. The move chit goes in the character's charge, dodge or duck column. The monster/native counter is placed in the 3x3 grid according to its dice roll.

It is uncertain what Hamblen planned to do with large battles. One would suppose monsters would each get a dice roll and be placed on the grid. When all the monster's have been placed, the attacks would be resolved in the normal manner.

I know I said in my first post that it eliminates one dice roll. In fact it would seem to add an extra die roll for each extra monster.

I think that this is more intuitive and possibly more elegant than the original rules. I believe it deserves some playtesting.

Hamblen is, after all, the creator of the MR Universe...

I'd be surprised if no one has tested this before. I'd really like to see some comments if anyone has tried it.

At first glance this change seems to make the combat vs monsters more random, as you can't just line up your attack knowing that if the monster hits you, you'll be hitting it too...

Really if you think about it, the combat system could be expanded on a lot. The core is the paper-rock-scissor mechanic, which I like because it gives armor flavor, helmets act differently than breatplates. Unlike most games that an tunic that has one armor class is the exact same as a helmet with one armor class. It also gives certain attacks flavor, like the cave in that always attacks in the "Smash" area.

Now really, you could come up with tons of abilities and attacks that would fit well in the system. Grappling is sort of already in the system with giant monsters, but it would be interesting if a brawler character had a tackle attack of some sort that always was put in the "Thrust" square. Maybe they would have to use the "Charge" manuver too. Then if it hit, it could make the defender unable to run or attack anyone else. A similar deal might be a missile weapon, a net, that can grapple from a distance.

But before anything like that could be done, I think the core principle needs some work before it could be expanded for reasons I gave in the earlier post.

*EDIT: I think I would also note that the exploration part of the game could use some tweaking for similar reasons as the earlier post. Here a principle that should be looked into is "Logical Equivalence". If anyone knows The Game of Life (the computer cellular automata) it can be expressed in three simple rules, but creates a lot of structured complexity. Those same three rules could also be expressed, equivalently, as a larger set of more complex rules that gives the exact same result. For computer programmers, a good programmer writing an equivalent program in an elegant few lines of code, that would take a less experienced programmer many more lines of code to write. I believe a term for the more lines of code is called "Spaghetti Code", which I think MR rules have a bit of a problem with "Spaghetti Rules".

>>which I think MR rules have a bit of a problem with "Spaghetti Rules".

Jason!

Float an idea!

The problem with rock paper scissors is that it is completely random. There is no pattern to it, it is equivalent to rolling a D3 die. So why not replace it with a die? I find that when I play different combat rounds, I seldom move my chits, (unless I lose a piece of armor) the change of intercepting or being intercepted is one in three anyway. That is why in the other thread, I proposed a system to do away with the sheet.

I think WotC did with their D20 system for D&D what you propose for MR. They developed one single game mechanic to replace a gazillion sided dice rolls and tables. And I really think it contributed to D&D's renewed popularity.

For instance: Why do you need different tables for Peer, Locate and Loot? They aren't even based on individual character abilities.

They look for different things. I would probably think less of the game if they were all combined. IE, if you didn't have to make the choice of "do I look for a site, or look for a hidden path?" or whatever else the choices may be.

And since looting doesn't really use a "table" per se (at least, not in practice), putting it on the same table as Peer and/or Locate doesn't really make much sense. You just roll, and take the card that is "x" from the top.

There are many instances in the game where one table is affected and not the others.

If in a mountain clearing, you can use the Peer table to search any woods or mountain clearing in your
tile or any adjacent tile.

The Fog spell prevents use of the Peer table. It doesn't affect the Locate or Loot Table.

The Talk To Wise Bird spell allows the target to do a remote Peer activity.

The Crystal Ball allows its owner to record an enhanced Peer activity.

The Ancient Telescope gives its owner an extra phase to do the enhanced Peer activity.

The ToadStool Circle has a result that allows the use of the Peer Table to search any clearing.

The Phantasm and Witch's Familiar can Peer, but can't Locate or Loot

Some Weather conditions prevent rolls on the Peer Table.

The Flying Activities optional rule allows flying individuals to do the Enhanced Peer activity without landing.

If you are trying to Discover chits using the Locate table you may find Secret Passages, but you won't find Hidden Enemies.

I was actually defending the MR way of doing it, but yes, I don't like playing paper-rock-scissors with a computer. Actually picking your manuver requires strategy against NPC's, but picking your attack is just like rolling a 1d3. Against players it isn't so bad because paper-rock-scissors with a person is a lot more interesting. So really the decision is do I fatiuge myself to get that garrenteed hit, or do I want to take a 2/3 chance of missing and keep my energy?

As with the peer, locate and loot tables, I think the choice is definatly relivant. Maybe you could do it in one table, but I think the choice of how to search adds to the game.

Peer - you are looking for general clues for what could be in the clearing, you can do that just as well from a mountain near the clearing. Paths could easily be seen from high ground.

Locate - you are tring to find a specific entrance to a site, you need to look under rocks, basically be very thorough. Hidden passages would be a similar deal since they aren't as easy to see as paths.

Loot - Now you know where the site is, and you are looking for specific objects in the site.

As mrb88 wrote, various spells allow you to search in different ways from different places. The choice adds dimention to the game.


I was refering to some of the more subtle annoyances, like not being able to record a move if your horse isn't activated and birdsong, and not having a chance to rearrange before recording. On face to face, you can just allow this, but it comes up a lot in realmspeak.

Also I find the whole daylight phase stuff to be sorta unintuitive. So I can move 4 spaces, but if the 3rd space is a cave, I can only move 2. But if the 4th space is a cave, then i can move 3. It seems like I should be able to make that 3rd move into a cave, get at least one of my daylight phases if half my turn was taken outside a cave. All of my friends I got to play were annoyed with this constraint.

I wonder if t would be any better if instead of "not getting sunlit phases" in a cave you instead had to record an action twice to take it in the caves, just like you have to record the same move twice if it's in the mountains. So, MV AV4-AV1, MV AV1-CN1, MV AV1-CN1 really only gets you two MOVES (same as now), but you record three phases (the fourth being useless if it's the only one you've got left). But with this scheme you could MV DW5-AV4, MV AV4-AV1, MV AV1-CN1, MV AV1-CN1, getting three actions.

Ha, I nearly typed out that exact thing. I thought about that, but totally disrupts extra phases you get from special items. But if going for a total redesign, I think its a good idea.

I had the White Knight fight a T spider on the 3x3 grid this afternoon. Mostly got sucked like an orange, but once I played a 5 fight chit. The spider picked the knight up in its mandibles. Their attack times were now equal, and the knight stabbed the spider in the eye with his great sword.

One thing: In some fights the knight and the spider kept missing each other, and the spider won because it doesn't fatigue, whereas the knight had to fatigue a chit every time to keep moving at 4 in order to prevent being undercut. When I have time, I'll calculate the odds for this grid

Obviously you guys are right about the tables, i hadn't thought it over when I wrote it. It would be nice to have these tables based on character abilities, and not be standard. That's what's nice about something like the D20 system. (Actually I like Tunnels & Trolls better, but it is less well known)

Edit
It just struck me, that is probably why WotC won't republish MR. They invested a lot in the D20 stuff, it is now the basis of D&D and even adventure game books like the wizard of firetop mountain. It seems they want all fantasy RPG's to use it.

MR does not fit the mold.

That's why I like it.

Well character's abilities are taken into account by what dice are rolled. Dwarf has the roll one die for searches in caves. I bet you could make a character that is roll one die for all locates or peers. But I think there are very few characters that have abilities like that of the original 16. (I think just the Drawf and Woods Girl)

About the combat though, I was thinking that maybe you could have a system where denizens could only change either attack or manuver, but not both. Then it would be semi-predictable. But making such large changes would require a redesign from scratch in my opinion, the game as it is might be kinda of convoluted, but it does seem to be balanced.

These are exceptions. It is not a built in mechanic. And it gives just three variations: Roll 2 dice, roll 2 dice - 1, roll 1 die.

Anyway, I do not think it diminishes the game at all, apart from making it more complicated. I use Karim's table swatches and it takes a second. (Compared to the eighties when we played version one rules, spending more time thumbing the rulebook than actually playing)

All the denizens are placed on the grid according to their dice rolls. (Or if hired or controlled, by their players)

The denizen who owns the combat sheet attacks vertically. All his opponents attack horizontally.

If the sheet owner's target is on the same column as him, he hits.

If the sheet owner is on the same row as his attacker he is hit.

Natives on horseback
The sheet owning native is not placed on the grid: His counter is placed on the character's attack tactic row, (if he is unhired, according to the dice roll, otherwise as his player wishes) as if it were and attack chit/weapon counter, in his horse is placed in the character's maneuver tactic row, like a move chit.

For non sheet owning natives the native counter is put on the monster's attack tactic column, and his horse on on the monster's maneuver tactics row.

The grid does eliminate a favorite tactic: Attack with a long weapon in the same direction you maneuver. This way, if the denizen hits you hit too, with a longer weapon, and cancel it's attack.

Thats why Hamblen told McKnight: "Beware, it makes the monsters more dangerous."

My questions are this
-- Why did Hamblen still think after so may years that the melee sheet should have been different? Is it possible he did not like the tactic described above?

--Why did the powers that be (his AH bosses) decide to go with the "monsters attack and maneuver in the same direction" mechanic? Did they think the game would be more balanced?

I wish I could ask Hamblen these questions. And also what the "more" was he promised at the end of his interview with Steve mcKnight.

I would love to see "Magic Realm, the Director's Cut"!

Many thanks, Wynand, for posting this 3x3 melee chart. As many times as I've read that article, I never realized that Hamblen actually gave enough of a description of it that someone could make one and try it out. I can remember trying to visualize in my head how a 3x3 chart would look & work... and giving up on it. Looking now at your chart, however, it all seems so simple and obvious!


I've never heard of anyone trying this. Perhaps, like me, no one realized that it was even possible.

But, beyond that, I suspect that most players would reject using this 3x3 chart because it will make combat much more random. Randomness by itself, of course, is not a bad thing... but the penalty for dying in Magic Realm is so severe (you lose everything and start over with a new character) that players simply won't accept a combat system with a high level of randomness in the outcomes. This is one of the reasons why it's so difficult to convince players to try the Optional Combat Rules; all of the die-rolling involved unfortunately makes players think that combat will become too random: "No way! I don't want to get killed if a monster makes a lucky die roll!"

I'll give this 3x3 chart a try with the Optional Combat Rules, but I doubt that I will adopt it for regular use. I suspect that it is going to make combat too random for me, as well.

Note, however, that monsters fighting with maneuvers and attacks in different directions is already in Magic Realm in a limited form: If a character absorbs a monster and then fights in that monster's form, he can still place his attack and maneuvers in different directions (because characters can always do this). So, for example, an absorbed T Troll could maneuver in Charge while attacking in Smash.


I think that the biggest obstacle to a reprint is the fact that literally nobody knows who has the rights to the game. If you want to republish Magic Realm, your first step is probably to hire a law firm that specializes in IP issues, and start spending money... perhaps a lot of money.


Hamblen's name for the "full" expanded version of Magic Realm is "SuperRealm" (see p. 442 in the MagicRealm.net Forum Archives PDF).


It's not at all clear how Hamblen intended the 3x3 chart to be used. Would it have been standard, or an optional rule, or would it only be used by certain monsters? We just don't know. But, in a Q&A session with Steve McKnight, Hamblen mentioned that SuperRealm had a spell that forced a character to fight "precisely like a monster" in which the character is transformed into a monster and *cannot* split his maneuver and attack into different directions, which suggests that at least some monsters still worked this way in SuperRealm (see question 39 in "The Designer's Comments").


Hamblen's intent was to have a "starter game" followed by various expansions. The basic combat system in Magic Realm is from the starter game.

For a better understanding of why Magic Realm was plagued by so many production issues and mix-ups, and why the expansions idea was abandoned, I recommend that you read "Avalon Hill Talks About Magic Realm" which recounts the whole unfortunate story of Magic Realm's development, as it was reported in the pages of the Avalon Hill General.

References:

MagicRealm.net Forum Archives
http://www.nand.it/mr/mrnet.pdf

The Designer's Comments
http://www.geocities.com/n_and/mr28.htm

Avalon Hill Talks About Magic Realm
http://www.geocities.com/n_and/mr26.htm

Wow, I'm surprised! I really thought some of the long time players would have tried this...

BTW, Richard Hamblen's comments on MR from the interview in the General are very interesting:

Interesting: What most people who can't get into MR complain about.



Richard Hamblen says here about combat what many fans say: I love it but it needs to be more simple.

How to simplify it? Tell us, Richard!

For me the 3x3 grid is definitely more elegant, but it adds time to combat because you have to roll for each monster on the grid (presumably). It may be more fun, though.

Hamblen's comments about wanting to simplify the combat system need to be taken in context: the interview was conducted six months after the initial release of the 1st edition of Magic Realm, and it was published in 1980, years before the publication of the 2nd edition rulebook.

When he actually had the opportunity to re-work the rules for the 2nd edition – long after this interview occurred – he instead changed most of the optional rules for combat in the 1st edition into standard rules, and he also created the all-new Optional Combat Rules system. Neither of these can be considered as "simplfying" the 1st edition combat rules!

In the 1st edition, weapon times, daggers, loss of a sharpness star when hitting armor, weapon length determining order of attack in the first round, armored monsters, T monster heads and clubs, armored natives, and aiming magical attacks and spells were *all* optional rules that the players did not have to use. Thus basic combat in the 1st edition was much simpler than in the 2nd edition.

We can't know whether Hamblen actually tried to create a simpler combat system but failed... or simply had a change of opinion... or if the majority of the players demanded more detail and complexity instead of less. But when he had a perfect opportunity to introduce a simplified combat system, he chose not to do so.

Hi Jay

Thanx. It does put things in context and perspective. Alan Moon did a list ("My four years at AH") in which he described the playtesting of Gunslinger: He said that the game started out as fun, but then Richard made it more and more complex until he (Moon) did not enjoy it anymore. I think this was possibly more or less the same time Hamblen did that interview in '80. (I never played gunslinger) Maybe he was like Alice in Wonderland when he said "Simplify, simplify, simplify": Alice said, "I give myself very good advice but I very seldom listen to me."

I also realize that he came from a war game background: Games that last a month, millions of tiny chits with obscure symbols on them, rulebooks the size of the NY telephone directory and so forth. So "Simplify" is a relative term.

The way I interpret Steve McKnight's interview with him is that many years after the second edition he was still unhappy with the combat system: He refers to the game's "faults" and then he said:



And the when he was asked about possible rule changes, the only ones he mentioned were related to combat. (Although he said there was more)



I think that I respectfully disagree. From the way I understand the above quotation he was not afforded the opportunity at all. The optional combat rules may have been an attempt to patch something he would rather have replaced.

Edit
Just found this line in another McKnight/RH interview (in that pdf archive)

Hi Jay

You are probably right about the third ed rules: He had could have introduced any new rules there if he wanted to, not being restrained by his employers.

In the end one can only speculate about what goes on in someone else's head.

How old would RH be now? Must be in his sixties? Do you know whether he is still alive?

I think one of the things that makes Magic Realm so nice is that weapons, armor and items have a lot of dimention.

For a lot of the old RPGS weapons had a single statistic, extra damage. That means weapons can only be better, worse or equal to any other weapon. Only three relationships.

In Magic Realm, you have these:

Alerted Side Speed
Alerted Side Sharpness
Unalerted Side Speed
Unalerted Side Sharpness
Weight
Length

This means that weapons aren't better or worse than each other, but are good for specific purposes. Now the problem is that for every statistic you add to an object, the game system has to complicated itself to take that statistic into account. Then if you want to make the game not random, you have to introduce a choice on how the object can be played, or all encounters would be predetermined by objects equiped. This is where the attacks and manuvers come in.

So, if you could come up with a system that takes several object statistics into account, plus a single decision on how the object is played, you would have one that is as interesting as MR. Now the idea would be to make the system more intuitive and have less rules needed to describe it.

Is such a system possible? Maybe not, but I think thats what would need to be figured out.