David Megarry's Dungeon! is fascinating on many levels. We can trace the origin of this game with an exactness that is rare in game archaeology, to an early weekend in the month of October, 1972.
Dungeon!, or The Dungeons of Pasha Cada, as it was first officially named in early 1973, came about as an attempt to make a referee-less, family version of the Blackmoor game. As Dave Megarry put it, "Playing in Blackmoor is where I get my inspiration" (pers comm., Feb 2017).
It is tempting to wonder then what rules and methods in Dungeon! were inspired by Blackmoor specifically, or perhaps Twin Cities play in general, including to what extent combat in Dungeon! may have been inspired by the use of Strategos, and CHAINMAIL(TM) in Blackmoor as experienced by Megarry..
As it was with Blackmoor, CHAINMAIL certainly served as a primary source for Megarry when it came to adding to his list of monsters. Slightly over half (51%) of his original monster cards are CHAINMAIL monsters while the rest are either leader types (Chieftans) of Blackmoor originals (Green Slime, Grey Pudding and so on). It is natural then to also look for CHAINMAIL influences in the combat rules.
In the 1975 printing of the Dungeon rules we are told "...the adventurer rolls two dice. If the dice roll is equal to or greater than the number listed on the Monster Card, then the monster has been defeated...: That's the same basic technique as used in the Fantasy Combat table in CM, and although rolling 2d6 verses a target number was common practice in gaming, we can say it was at least consistent with the CM method and perhaps derivative.
However, what is interesting to me, as discussed in previous posts, is the notion in Dungeon! of non-equal combat methods, like we see in D&D but not in CHAINMAIL. By that I mean, there is one table for players, and a different table for monsters. Likewise, in Dungeon!, there are two concurrent systems. The monsters simply die when you beat their "to hit" score, but something much different is done for players. "If the dice roll is less than the number shown on the Monster card, then the monster has defeated the adventurer. In such a case, the player must immediately roll 2 dice and refer to the Combat Losing Table"
That dichotomy of player combat results verses monster combat results is interesting in and of itself, and very likely reflects a similar dichotomy in how Arneson handled players with greater care than monsters in Blackmoor play. However that may be, perhaps what is most intriguing is where this table itself is drawn from.
The reader may recall the discussion regarding the relevance of David Weselys' Strategos N (and family) to Twin Cities gaming in our delve into campaign level tabletop battles in Blackmoor. Central to the play of Strategos, in any version, is combat resolution Table T, Here is one example from Wesely (for ease of reading, I have used the one from Valley Forge(TM) - they are all much the same):
Arneson developed the naval rules for Don't Give up the Ship(TM), to work hand in hand with Wesely's Strategos N rules as reported in COTT v3(b) #4 published in 1971 - the year before Dungeon! Below is the DGutS "Melee Results" version of table T.
For reference the morale levels are:
+1
|
Flushed
|
0
|
Normal
|
-1
|
Shaken
|
-2
|
Disruptred
|
-3
|
Routed
|
-4
|
Surrender
|
If you compare table T as given in these 2 examples, to the Combat Losing Table of Dungeon!, the results show a definite bond.
The table below shows this comparison directly. The first column lists the die result table in Strategos, whereas the last column shows the die results table of Dungeon, while the inner columns compare the results.
Die
|
Strategos N (Loser)
|
DgutS
|
Dungeon! table
|
2d6
|
Tie
|
No effect
|
No effect
|
No effect
|
7, 11
|
+1
|
Drops 1 morale, 3 turns
|
Loss of 1 area
|
-
|
-
|
+2
|
Drops 2 morale, 3 turns
|
Loss of 1 area, drops 1 morale
|
Retreat 1 space, drop 1 prize
|
6,8
|
+3
|
Disorder, 1/4 out of action
|
Loss of 2 areas, drops 2 morale
|
Retreat 2 spaces, drop 1 Prize; lose 1 turn
|
4,5,9,10
|
+4
|
Routed, 1/2 out of action
|
Loss of 3 areas, drops 3 morale*
|
Seriously Wounded, drop all prizes
|
3, 12
|
+5
|
surrenders
|
Loss of whole vessel,
surrender
|
Killed
|
2
|
That's curious. Megarry certainly could have used a DGutS version of Table T to base his Combat Losing Table off of, but that's an odd choice given that DGutS is a Naval game. One wonders if Megarry was instead using a DGutS-like version of table T created or adapted by Arneson for use in Blackmoor. If he got the table directly from Arneson, Megarry might not have known of the parallel to DGutS. Here is what the man himself had to say:
"Dan,
I am a great fan of the Table T concept and would have had it in mind when I did the rules. .... FYI, I was not a naval fan and hardly dealt with Dguts at all....To answer the question, I am fairly sure I had Table T in mind but don't remember using it directly when I made the combat losing table."
Pers Comm Feb 18, 2018
For now, the close parallels between the DGutS table and the Combat Losing Table must remain a mystery. What all this does illustrate, yet again, is just how deeply ingrained Strategos was to Twin Cities gaming. We can't directly deduce anything from this regarding use of the Strategos in Blackmoor from these pairings. We can't work backwards and say, "Because Megarry, therefore Arneson." We do however need to acknowledge the likelihood of a strong Strategos influence in Arneson's gaming, manifesting in all sorts of ways, and we should keep the norms, mores, and formal rules of that system in mind as we sort through the historical data.
