NicK Garai
First Post
Playing with every rule does become legalistic and is no longer role playing but rule playing. I honestly don't think I would want to go back to 1st Edition again.
I've never played AD&D1
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Quasqueton
First Post
Wow! Thanks Agamon. *That* is a great 'cheat sheet' for the AD&D1 combat rules. I've been slugging through dozens of pages of dense text to learn that stuff. Having it broken down into outline form is great.Agamon said:
Quasqueton
Kralin Thornberry
Explorer
Actually, I rather liked the weapon speed rule.
My group actually used it all the time, not just to break ties. We just added in the weapon speed (modified down for magic items, -1 per +, if that makes sense).
And I liked the fact that you declared what you were going to do before you rolled.
My group actually used it all the time, not just to break ties. We just added in the weapon speed (modified down for magic items, -1 per +, if that makes sense).
And I liked the fact that you declared what you were going to do before you rolled.
We always used the "declare actions at start of round" rule. It was never an issue with us.
I was aware of most of the other rules, but we didn't use them. Why?
Surprise modifications
Let's face it: they don't come up that often. The worst problem was with a monk. Who played monks in 1e? Only those who created them at higher levels, or had a deathwish. So, most of the time you didn't have to worry about them.
Initiative
We didn't use it because we couldn't understand it. Weapon length when charging, weapon speed on ties, casting time vs. weapon speed, archery vs. spell... it collapsed into a terrible mess. The summary prepared by the DF team on initiative is great; but look at the references for the rules. Urk.
Weapon Factors vs Armour Type
At times, we considered them. Then we realised, "Hey, we're fighting monsters, and they don't apply", and ditched them.
...
How long does AD&D combat take with all the rules? Seriously, not long. Initiative normally does boil down to "who rolled higher". Weapon types either don't apply, or are simple to apply. Surprise doesn't get affected often, and is once-only, in any case.
Cheers!
I was aware of most of the other rules, but we didn't use them. Why?
Surprise modifications
Let's face it: they don't come up that often. The worst problem was with a monk. Who played monks in 1e? Only those who created them at higher levels, or had a deathwish. So, most of the time you didn't have to worry about them.
Initiative
We didn't use it because we couldn't understand it. Weapon length when charging, weapon speed on ties, casting time vs. weapon speed, archery vs. spell... it collapsed into a terrible mess. The summary prepared by the DF team on initiative is great; but look at the references for the rules. Urk.
Weapon Factors vs Armour Type
At times, we considered them. Then we realised, "Hey, we're fighting monsters, and they don't apply", and ditched them.
...
How long does AD&D combat take with all the rules? Seriously, not long. Initiative normally does boil down to "who rolled higher". Weapon types either don't apply, or are simple to apply. Surprise doesn't get affected often, and is once-only, in any case.
Cheers!
kaomera
Explorer
Quasqueton said:
That's part of my favorite bit from AD&D. I'll admit, we where probably never nearly as precise as RAW suggested, but declaring before initiative was, for me at least, a lot of fun. (And it neatly side-steps the need for AoOs.)
But, yeah, a lot of other stuff just wasn't worth bothering with.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I'm doing this very thing this weekend at the NC Gameday. 
The Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl (an abridged version, anyway) and when we did it for the Hill GIant Chief a year ago, it actually went pretty well, and most people had fun with it.
Let's see, Stormcrow and Sieg from Dragonsfoot both did work up a "by the book" interpretation on AD&D1 Initiative, surprise, etc. and one thing that came up is that, by the book, it really didn't have one solid interpretation. (Stormcrow, I think, did say that if you killed that one rule about spells and weapon speed factors, it was a coherent whole, but there has indeed, been some controversy on it.
I'll post the version I'm using for the gameday as soon as I get a chance.
The Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl (an abridged version, anyway) and when we did it for the Hill GIant Chief a year ago, it actually went pretty well, and most people had fun with it.
Let's see, Stormcrow and Sieg from Dragonsfoot both did work up a "by the book" interpretation on AD&D1 Initiative, surprise, etc. and one thing that came up is that, by the book, it really didn't have one solid interpretation. (Stormcrow, I think, did say that if you killed that one rule about spells and weapon speed factors, it was a coherent whole, but there has indeed, been some controversy on it.
I'll post the version I'm using for the gameday as soon as I get a chance.
Garnfellow
Explorer
Gary Gygax certainly didn't play the rules as written -- I've heard a couple of his players note that what made EGG a great DM wasn't his total and absolute command of AD&D rule minutiae: it was his ability to weave a fast-paced and captivating story, and to improvise elegant rulings on the fly.
Probably the one person who could come closest to claiming to have run a strict RAW AD&D 1e game is/was Frank Mentzer, and I think even he has said that he never really was 100% compliant, either -- at least not with his house games.
Frank seems to have a very practical approach to running games -- he focuses on the game-play experience at the table, and not a strict, procrustean application of the rules. If a rule didn't quite work right or wasn't logical in a specific context, he'd simply ignore it rather than let that errant rule get in the way of his player's experience.
In some ways, Frank's approach very much anticipated the later work of Robin Laws and other game designers who stepped back and asked, "what's the point of this rule, and how does it improve the intended play of this game." Before that, most designers seemed to be asking only "how does this rule provide more realism or detail to the game?"
Probably the one person who could come closest to claiming to have run a strict RAW AD&D 1e game is/was Frank Mentzer, and I think even he has said that he never really was 100% compliant, either -- at least not with his house games.
Frank seems to have a very practical approach to running games -- he focuses on the game-play experience at the table, and not a strict, procrustean application of the rules. If a rule didn't quite work right or wasn't logical in a specific context, he'd simply ignore it rather than let that errant rule get in the way of his player's experience.
In some ways, Frank's approach very much anticipated the later work of Robin Laws and other game designers who stepped back and asked, "what's the point of this rule, and how does it improve the intended play of this game." Before that, most designers seemed to be asking only "how does this rule provide more realism or detail to the game?"
Last edited:
Quasqueton
First Post
Dammit, you guys always schedule the NC Game Day on a weekend where I've already got a commitment. Been so for the past couple/three years.Henry said:
I would absolutely love to watch that game, and take notes.
Quasqueton
