I've never played AD&D1

[Delta]

How did AD&D1 convention/tournament games handle all these rules? Did such official games use *all* the AD&D1 rules? How long did ‘full-rules’ AD&D1 combat take?

You can't. The initiative rules are contradictory.

Most of what you're talking about Gygax considered optional and didn't use himself. But at that time none of the publishers felt it was precise enough to label them as such. But I'm pretty sure you already knew all that.

The one thing I'll say is that the "declare before initiative" is completely critical to making spellcasting as dangerously perilous as it's made out to be throughout the rules. That's what forces them to commit and possibly have spells disrupted if they lose initiative. That part I do enforce in AD&D, just for spellcasters, because it's specially noted in the numbered list under "Spell Casting During Melee".

One thing I'll say in favor of 3E is that it's made it clear you're free to tailor the rules to taste, identify Variants as desired, and I think that's improved my AD&D game in this regard.

 

[Glyfair]

I can't ever remember playing with all the rules. They were just complication for complication's sake. Not as much as some other systems that were out at the time, though.

Not only did I never use all the rules, I never gamed with anyone who I know did (maybe Lawrence Schick, who was in my group at a gaming convention).

 

[howandwhy99]

To my understanding, declaring actions is an old wargaming method of running games where communication is tracked between commanders and units on a battlefield. Orders are given by commanders at the start of each round by some means and every unit acts after them.

In D&D every character is commanding themselves essentially, so they can change orders in the heat of combat regardless of initiative rank. Personally, I like to keep the simultaneous actions when two or more characters act within the same segment (same initiative). They can still change their action beforehand, but it's in secret and they are committed to it when the segment plays out. It's fun to see as allies blow up each other.

The method is a lot more fun (and practical) for mass combat where large groups acting in precision is important. In D&D, I think most games just drop declared actions and say any action can be changed at any time. The D&D way does assume all events are known by all participants at all times and that no creatures are ever acting under orders.

 

[molonel]

We used some 1st Edition AD&D rules, but not others. Weapon speed rules? I knew they were there, but we never used them.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I tried using all the rules 1e at one time, but it slowed the game down. The guys I was gaming with at the time weren't all that interested in getting into the detail of combat and the like, so I eventually scaled back on what I used.

 

[Aaron L]

I tried using all the rules 1e at one time, but it slowed the game down. The guys I was gaming with at the time weren't all that interested in getting into the detail of combat and the like, so I eventually scaled back on what I used.

Same here. I wanted to run a strict by-the-book game once, weapon vs AC, total initiative system, detailed segment tracking, helmet rule (no helmet means 50% of attacks go for your AC 10 head, or something like that) and everything, and it was a nightmare and no one had any fun.


I didn't try it a second game.

 

[tx7321]

Q, please don't feel bad. I don't think there are many of us who understood the rules "back in the day". But back then at least we didn't know how off we were.

Anyhow, I only started playing BTB last year. And have since stopped using the armor tables (but still use WSF). Do read the OSRIC document covering rules, the ADDICT (I think thats what its called) at DF, and then re-read the DMG and PH combat rules, it might help clearify some of it. There may be things you interpret differently then others. Remember, these rules are very obscure and unclear, and your educated guess is as good as anyone elses.

 

[rgard]

Weapon speed only comes into play when initiative is a tie.

I would ignore weapon vs. armor class unless it seems really ridiculous (a bo stick against someone wearing full plate, for example).



Really? What is surprising about that?

"Weapon speed" At one point we figured out that the weapon speed for a sword was twice that of a dagger...so we convinced the DM that our characters could get two attacks with a dagger in lieu of one with a sword! We sure broke the barbarian with 2-handed sword paradigm.

In hindsight, what we did in the above case was indicative of AD&D play all around. Lots and lots and lots of house rules. When joining a new gaming group it usually took 2-3 sessions to find out which version of AD&D was being played.

 

[Agamon]

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.

Quasqueton

I meant it as a caveat, but you're welcome nonetheless!

 

[dcas]

1- This is a very major rule, yet I’ve never, ever, anytime, anywhere, played, seen, or even heard about it. I’ve never read a reference to it on a message board. I’ve never had anyone mention I was skipping it in my AD&D1 campaigns. I’ve never had a DM use it in their AD&D1 campaign.

2- It is a rule I have always thought extremely annoying and bothersome in those game systems I have seen it in (MSH, SWd6). (I am currently playing a SWd6 game, and I hate this rule.)

How could I miss such a major rule for a game system I played for 15 years, with a couple dozen people in 3 or 4 distinctly different groups. This isn’t a one-line, throw-away rule – it has a couple paragraphs dedicated to it, with firm rules for how a DM is to handle it (including enforcing delays in the game combat for decision delays at the table).

I cannot imagine playing a game without it. As a GM I have never allowed a player to change his character's action in response to the initiative die. Think of it -- without this rule a spellcaster could decide NOT to cast a spell (fearing it would be interrupted) if the party lost initiative. The possibility of a spell being interrupted and lost is not just a hypothetical.

I guess I've always seen this rule as fundamental to the game.

I know 3.x uses cyclical initiative, but don't players have to declare their character's actions prior to the first round of combat?