Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 6024242" data-attributes="member: 92305">
<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol"></li>
</ol>I don't know.&nbsp; I wasn't there when they were writing the edition.&nbsp; I just reported what the man told me.&nbsp;My guess is that they didn't want a radical change from 1E AD&amp;D.&nbsp; 2E AD&amp;D was a mess--a hodge-podge of ideas, written over a long period of time, mixing all sorts of dice throws, collected together.&nbsp; &nbsp;2E AD&amp;D was its own mess, but I think the intent was to present a cleaned up version of the 1E AD&amp;D rules.&nbsp;Winter told me that they walked a tight rope, with one leg trying to implement Zeb's idea of a more free-form, map-less game, and the other leg trying to keep the legions of fans happy who were already in love with 1E AD&amp;D.&nbsp;Keep that in mind when looking at 2E AD&amp;D rules, and they may make more sense to you.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol"></li>
</ol>I can speculate why 1E and 2E had Declaration phases in the combat round.&nbsp; A Declaration phase was common in RPGs back then.&nbsp; It was a hold-over from combat board games, and the reason has to do with advantage.&nbsp;If one character moves before the other, the second character has the advantage of knowing what his foe does--and, therefore, can use his actions to counter or take advantage of what his foe did.&nbsp;You'll see a lot of rules back in the 80's in different games that try to make this &quot;fair&quot;.&nbsp; Didn't 2E use a system where Delcaration was done in reverse order?&nbsp; I don't remember.&nbsp; It's been a long time.&nbsp; Some games would roll initiative, then go into the declaration phase in reverse order so that those going early in the round would have the advantage of knowing what their slower foes would be doing.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heck, in 1E, we were throwing 1d10 (not the recommended d6) and adding the speed factor (which isn't how speed factor is used in 1E) for initiative, then resolving actions in order, long before we ever heard about 2E.&nbsp; And, we pretty much kept that round progression through 2E as well, ignoring the raw rule.&nbsp; It wasn't until 3E, which, ironically, we didn't really play, that we said, &quot;Hey!&nbsp; They finally got the combat round procedure right!&quot;&nbsp;I think a lot of groups played as we did.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, the Declaration phase never worked for us, as I elaborated upon above.&nbsp; I did play it RAW in some games, but it sure made the game boring.&nbsp; A couple of years ago, we started a 2E based Dragonlance game.&nbsp; I used the RAW combat round.&nbsp;We're usually a map-centric group, and I can tell you that 2E's RAW combat round procedure didn't work well for us at all, even when I forced us all to live by what was written over several game sessions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Water Bob, post: 6024242, member: 92305"] [LIST=1] [/LIST]I don't know. I wasn't there when they were writing the edition. I just reported what the man told me. My guess is that they didn't want a radical change from 1E AD&D. 2E AD&D was a mess--a hodge-podge of ideas, written over a long period of time, mixing all sorts of dice throws, collected together. 2E AD&D was its own mess, but I think the intent was to present a cleaned up version of the 1E AD&D rules. Winter told me that they walked a tight rope, with one leg trying to implement Zeb's idea of a more free-form, map-less game, and the other leg trying to keep the legions of fans happy who were already in love with 1E AD&D. Keep that in mind when looking at 2E AD&D rules, and they may make more sense to you. [LIST=1] [/LIST]I can speculate why 1E and 2E had Declaration phases in the combat round. A Declaration phase was common in RPGs back then. It was a hold-over from combat board games, and the reason has to do with [I]advantage[/I]. If one character moves before the other, the second character has the advantage of knowing what his foe does--and, therefore, can use his actions to counter or take advantage of what his foe did. You'll see a lot of rules back in the 80's in different games that try to make this "fair". Didn't 2E use a system where Delcaration was done in reverse order? I don't remember. It's been a long time. Some games would roll initiative, then go into the declaration phase in reverse order so that those going early in the round would have the advantage of knowing what their slower foes would be doing. Heck, in 1E, we were throwing 1d10 (not the recommended d6) and adding the speed factor (which isn't how speed factor is used in 1E) for initiative, then resolving actions in order, long before we ever heard about 2E. And, we pretty much kept that round progression through 2E as well, ignoring the raw rule. It wasn't until 3E, which, ironically, we didn't really play, that we said, "Hey! They finally got the combat round procedure right!" I think a lot of groups played as we did. Yeah, the Declaration phase never worked for us, as I elaborated upon above. I did play it RAW in some games, but it sure made the game boring. A couple of years ago, we started a 2E based Dragonlance game. I used the RAW combat round. We're usually a map-centric group, and I can tell you that 2E's RAW combat round procedure didn't work well for us at all, even when I forced us all to live by what was written over several game sessions. [/QUOTE]

Verification