Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 4674075" data-attributes="member: 31216">When I was playing BD&amp;D (1980-81), we never even bothered with the order of actions thing. We just rolled initiative (straight 1d6), and then let each monster and PC go on their side's turn, in order of the individual Dexterity.That is, on the party's turn, Silverleaf could cast his spell, then Morgan could shoot her bow, then Fredrick could move up and attack in melee, then Sister Rebecca could move up and attack in melee.But that was totally a house rule we came to use without actually consciously choosing to use a house rule. That method of handling combat just kind of happened without us really learning the details of the rules.* * *This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&amp;D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.In an edition we don't like, a wonky rule is &quot;stupid and an example of why that edition is bad.&quot;In an edition we do like, a wonky rule is &quot;meh, they're only guidelines that you can ignore or change.&quot;Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, &quot;but here's how we work around it.&quot; Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the &quot;they're only guidelines&quot; thing.* * *I'd love to play a game of BD&amp;D, again. I've offered many times to DM a game session or two for my group, but no one has shown any interest. But I don't think anyone is opposed to BD&amp;D, they just don't like one-offs. &lt;sigh&gt;Bullgrit</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bullgrit, post: 4674075, member: 31216"] When I was playing BD&D (1980-81), we never even bothered with the order of actions thing. We just rolled initiative (straight 1d6), and then let each monster and PC go on their side's turn, in order of the individual Dexterity. That is, on the party's turn, Silverleaf could cast his spell, then Morgan could shoot her bow, then Fredrick could move up and attack in melee, then Sister Rebecca could move up and attack in melee. But that was totally a house rule we came to use without actually consciously choosing to use a house rule. That method of handling combat just kind of happened without us really learning the details of the rules. * * * This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out. In an edition we don't like, a wonky rule is "stupid and an example of why that edition is bad." In an edition we do like, a wonky rule is "meh, they're only guidelines that you can ignore or change." Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, "but here's how we work around it." Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the "they're only guidelines" thing. * * * I'd love to play a game of BD&D, again. I've offered many times to DM a game session or two for my group, but no one has shown any interest. But I don't think anyone is opposed to BD&D, they just don't like one-offs. <sigh> Bullgrit [/QUOTE]

Verification