Ralif Redhammer
Legend
We used it back in the day as well. Were I to revisit 2e, I'm not sure I would, though. Yes, it adds depth to the game, but I'm not sure it provides enough value to justify the additional layer to initiative.
TSR On the Relative Merits of the TSR Editions
- Thread starter DammitVictor
- Start date
Zardnaar
Legend
Same opinion lol.
Smaller group maybe. Balances things better though. Is it worth the grind?
cbwjm
Legend
I think nowadays I'd probably stick to side initiative, one roll. Maybe use the order of actions from BECMI but since it doesn't really affect anything, probably just let people do things in whatever order they want on their turn.
Zardnaar
Legend
Probably the same. Maybe duels and boss fights might be a nice compromise.
rabindranath72
Adventurer
We always used modified group initiative as it kept things interesting without having to waste a lot of time on different rolls.
The Soloist
Hero
My wife reminds me that when we played 2e in the 90s, we used individual initiatives with dexterity reaction and spell casting time. The wizard player instead upon them. We didn't use weapon speeds unless there was an initiative tie to determine who went first.
David Howery
Hero
from what I remember about my group in 1E days, initiative was simply one roll for each side, winner goes first, in the event of a tie, everything happens at once. The only exception I can remember is when there were spellcasters on both sides casting spells... in the event of a tie, the spell with the shortest casting time went first, so the other wizard might get his spell negated if he got fireballed or something....
Neonchameleon
Legend
iii) Games where you don't just have random PCs but where you create the group and even the setting together because you want to emphasise the roleplaying and character interactions. I can do the mechanical part of creating a PbtA or Daggerheart character faster than I can an AD&D character (AD&D is not even remotely lightweight and there's much better organisation for PBTA games in general than anything D&D) - but the time consuming part of character creation is going to be discussing who our characters are to each other and creating which part of the setting they come from.
If I want this then I'll start a 5e game (or a Daggerheart one) before you've even started your AD&D one. That's because I teach newbies and sometimes open campaigns by using level zero characters with default assumed stats of 12 and we'll sort things out in play. No emails needed and everyone will earn their class in play.
Yup! Different groups want different things - and I find Session Zero goes with high inter-character RP groups.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Flatland Games (Beyond the Wall, Through Sunken Lands, Grizzled Heroes) has entered the chat.
Gus L
Adventurer
I don't know why you assume I'm talking about AD&D... I don't like it as a system and I find it's online culture tends to attract the worst of the old OSR these days (which is sad for the decent folks who just like the game) ... but I don't play it precisely because it feels fiddly, excessive and ill assembled from half complete Strategic Review articles to work as a court exhibit. So AD&D is too much, especially for what one gets in return.
I'm an OD&D player by choice - the LBBs from 1974 with house rules, something that makes the char gen of B/X look complex. This is part of why I like it. B/X and it's pack of retro-clone spawn are also perfectly fine with me for a Dungeon Crawl game, and very quick to set up as well. The only complex game I have any interest in running these days would be something like Pendragon (though Mythic Bastionland is more interesting to me right now) and I would say it's something that benefits from a longer character building process.
However, my point here is not that quick set up games are superior to slow ones, but that not everyone wants a slow character build game, even if there are plenty of people who do ... and that some games and play styles lend themselves to slow or fast set up based on things they want to do and what sort of play they want to emphasize.
You seem sort of mad at this AD&D referee? It's not me.
I have to shrug at your fix for complex chargen games here though ... Pregens are of course always an option. They're an option for this AD&D referee who wants to do quick starts as well, and doing so has been popular since the late 1970's in the form of "tournament games" and is arguably one of the intended purposes of AD&D. I personally like emails because I play online mostly and it give players a chance to ask questions at their own pace directly of the referee so if you have a player who is really squicked out by spiders or doesn't play with another player since "the incident" or something they can tell the referee without getting the whole group involved. For a public game one can do most of the same in 5 minutes.
Agree, it's a thing some people like - but it is not universal and not a necessity. That is works well for some kinds of games, and not others is precisely my point here.
