A computer programer! Well, I can see why 3E would be a game you'd really like.
As to 1E initiative:
Merric, what you summarized above is only 1 interpretation on how 1E initiative works, and IMHO is not the best interpretation.
Another interpretation of BTB intiative:
(Note: A round is made up of 10 6 second segments (for a total of 60 seconds per round), it is assumed that all activities can be at least started within the first 6 segments). I should also be noted that the damage caused within a round can be the result of much activity preceding it (faints, perrys, accumulated minor scratches etc.)
1. Role for surprise if applicable (if none won)
*State intentions*
2. Both sides role a d6, you role for when your opponent goes within a 10 segment round. (so if A roles a 3 and B roles a 6, A gets his telling blow or begins casting on segment 6, and B gets his telling blow or begins casting on segment 3). If a PC has a dex bonus, that + goes as a negative to his opponents role.
Example: A (archer with 18 dex) roles a 3 B the swordsmen roles a 5, normally A wouldn't fire until the 5th segment, but apply his +3 bonus as a -3, so 5-3=2 so the 18dex archer fires his bow on seg 2, thus going first.
The effect is still, high role goes first (because the higher you role the later the other guy gets to act within the 10 seg. round). But in this way you know at which point in the round damage is done and spells go off.
Note also: Spell casters keep their dex bonus for AC until they start casting, at which point they must be still, and then regain it after the spell is completed. Also, a spell caster who starts a 5 segment spell on seg. 6 would not complete his spell until seg 1 of the following round.
When a person chooses to charge (and they are in range to do so), they are moving so fast that the opponent does not have time to react normally. In that case charging rules apply.
The only thing that is certain about initiative in AD&D is that there is no clear cut explination in the rule books, and thus, each DM should read those rules for themselves and come up with the best understanding they can. Do not fall into the trap of taking as gospel how others interpret these particular rules of the game (even if those individuals sound athoritative, they can be wrong) 1E combat rules are far from "cut and dry".
One of the great things about AD&D is that because the rules are so obscure and convoluted (as written), the DM can choose to use the interpretation that works best for him and still be playing BTB (assuming they are logical interpretations). This personalization of the game is actually one of its strengths (though I doubt it was intended).
Basically though, a DM who states, high role goes first on a d6, ties are settled with WSF or simo, is playing as BTB as anyone else. The rules don't spell it out.
Anyhow, sorry for the thread-jack. MerricB, if you want to discuss 1E initiative further, probably should start another thread of that title as this is completely off topic here.
Anyhow, many DMs have a hard time with both dealing with the prep-time (with monster stat blocks, who could blame them) and running battles in 3E. So its only logical to conclude that part of the change in dungeon design reflects changes in how the rules effect its playability (this would come out in test runs of the modules).
One advantage of writing more outside adventures (vs. dungeon crawls) is that problems can be avoided or delt with in more effective ways outside (avoiding, flanking, attacking from above, evasion etc.) (thus shortening and simplifying battles. In a dungeon there is only one way to reach point A to point B, thats goind down the hall...in a forest or city there are likely more possibilities to get from point A to point B. Slugging it out can often be avoided all togheter.
I'll happily play or DM any edition of the game. I'm fascinated with the development of the game, and I try to pay attention to what is happening and what has occured before.
