The system could accommodate BOTH wargaming AND role-playing, depending on how you wanted to use it. This is epitomized by the humanoid entries. Looking at the encounter numbers in the NO. APPEARING for creatures like orcs and goblins reveals that these were meant to be fighting forces on a battlefield, not numbers encountered on level 1 of the local dungeon. Everything in the entry suggests a wargame approach, from the numbers of leaders to the weapon breakdowns, to their racial abilities.
The one part of these statistics that has caused me fits in the past is the DAMAGE/ATTACK entry. For example, under ORC it lists the damage as "1-8 or by weapon type." It has taken me many years to realize that this is referring back to the rules in the OD&D rulebooks (later carried into Basic D&D) about two separate systems of damage. In OD&D, all attacks made by player characters did 1-6 points of damage, regardless of the weapon type used. An alternate rule in the Greyhawk Supplement allowed you to cause damage based on the weapon type, with larger, heavier weapons causing more damage than smaller, lighter weapons. In essence, the straight die roll per creature type was meant to be used in wargaming with large numbers of creatures, while the weapon damage alternative was meant to be used in the dungeon setting of AD&D role-playing. This is why, for example, kobolds cause 1-4 points of damage when they obviously normally wield weapons that cause 1-6 points of damage (short swords, javelins, spears, etc.), while ogres cause 1-10 points of damage when they typically use weapons that only cause 1-6 points of damage (clubs, spears, etc.).
I believe that Gygax was working towards revamping the original Monster Manual before he was ousted in 1985(?). The modules he wrote in the early 1980s seemed to be heading in a direction different than the statistics listed in the original Monster Manual. Just look at the monster listings in T1: The Village of Hommlet for specifics on how he was changing the system on the fly (in particular, the zombies in the crypt and the ogre in the dungeon level). I believe he was leaving the wargaming rules behind and heading towards a more unified damage approach that used the variable weapon damage for ALL creatures that used them (specifically humanoids). It's obvious in the Players Handbook that he was already of a mindset of moving away from generic damage values base on creature type (nowhere does it state that the weapon damage ratings are optional).
So, it seems you can use one system or the other, so long as you are consistent. I can't imagine any player agreeing to using a d6 for both a dagger and a two-handed sword, but if you don't use that system, then the monsters also should be ranked according to strength scores and do damage accordingly. This makes ogres a much more formidable opponent! It also makes giants a little less intimidating, unless you double or triple the dice of damage for their weapons based on size. A hill or stone giant might be double base damage plus strength bonus; a frost and fire giant might be triple base die damage plus strength bonus; and a cloud or storm giant would be quadruple base die damage plus strength bonus. This is very similar to how it was done for AD&D 2E. Perhaps some of the 2nd Edition material was stuff that had already been proposed by Gygax after all. We did see some of this development in the DMG, page 15 under the Strength ability description, and in the Strength charts in the front of Deities & Demigods (which enumerated stats for giants with 19+ Strength).
- kobolds = 9 STR
- goblins = 10 STR
- orcs = 12 STR
- hobgoblins = 15 STR
- gnolls = 16 STR (+1 dmg)
- bugbears = 17 STR (+1 to hit/+1 dmg)
- ogres = 18 STR (+1 to hit/+2 dmg)
- trolls = 18+ STR (varies from +1/+3 to +3/+6)
- hill giant = 19 STR (+3/+7)
- stone giant = 20 STR (+3/+8)
- frost giant = 21 STR (+4/+9)
- fire giant = 22 STR (+4/+10)
- cloud giant = 23 STR (+5/+11)
- storm giant = 24 STR (+6/+12)
For another example, lets take a typical ogre with 18 Strength. Such an ogre in the old system causes only 1-10 points of damage normally (regardless of weapon). If using a weapon, like a spear, it should attack at +1 to hit and cause 1d6+2 (3-8) points of damage. Note that the minimum and maximum damage were modified by 2 points on the low and high end, giving a greater chance for a median amount of damage. But, if the ogre is instead wielding a two-handed sword, he causes 1d10+2 damage, or 3-12. Now what about a stronger leader ogre with, say, 18/85% strength wielding a bardiche? Such an ogre would attack at +2 to hit and cause 2d4+4 points of damage, or a range of 6-12. Such a creature would likely slay any 1st level character with a single blow!
A typical club-wielding hill giant normally causes 2-16 points of damage in the Monster Manual. Using the system above, that giant would strike at +3 to hit and cause 2d6+7 (9-19) points of damage. As you can see, the average damage value increases dramatically, from 9 points to 14 points! But one must remember that what is good for the players is also good for the monsters if the DM is to remain fair. Otherwise, the DM can tell his players that they will all cause only 1-6 points of damage from now on, regardless of weapon type, modified only by strength and magic! In fact, there is little reason to even have weapon charts in this case, as most people ignore the secondary characteristics of speed factors, length, modifiers versus armor types, etc. (I don't, but I know many that do).
