Talk:Greyhawk (supplement)

Image copyright problem with Image:Greyhawk Supplement 1975.jpg
The image Image:Greyhawk Supplement 1975.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Greyhawk and need for Chainmail
The article cites "Designers & Dragons" which states that with the publication of Greyhawk supplement Chainmail rules were not needed. However, Chainmail is still needed to have a turn order / initiative / etc. which is NOT covered in Greyhawk. So the reference is simply incorrect. Rjljr2 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I came here to address the same thing (unchanged in article after 2.5 years). The citation from Pulsipher in White Dwarf #23 is absolutely in error. Pulsipher appears to have incorrectly recalled the "Alternative Combat System" which appeared simultaneously with the Chainmail-derived system in original D&D Volume 1. Note that the Wikipedia page for Dungeons & Dragons (1974) correctly notes this fact (see "optional combat system"). The second citation by Applecline is missing a book page number and cannot be verified (nor could it be correct).


 * The above user's observation is also correct: neither original D&D nor Greyhawk present any turn order/initiative system, and presumably one must rely on Chainmail for that. In short: Greyhawk made no changes to the core combat system whatsoever.


 * I'm going to remove that mistaken line and the two citations that attempt to support it. If I should support this null-hypothesis in some other way, hopefully a more experienced editor can provide guidance. Danielrcollins (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)