I've never played AD&D1

[Henry]

OK, this is the one-sheet I am using for the NC Gameday this weekend. It doesn't follow the "accepted" rules precisely, and in fact, I'm more likely going to ignore the "melee vs. spellcasting when the melee side lost" part, because it adds too much complication to the table. But this is a one-sheet meant to make it relatively easy to pick up 1E combat at a game table.

 

[RFisher]

Me too.

Of course, we intentionally ignored some things, like the weapon AC adjustments or spreading multiple attacks throughout the round. There are many things, like initiative & surprise, that I certainly didn't realize we were doing the Basic way until a few years ago.

For me it was more how my group played AD&D. I had played a little Basic, but when I joined a group that played AD&D, I learned to play it the way they already did. I suspect many/most of them may have learned it from older players they had gamed with rather than having learned it directly from a Basic set themselves.

The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic/Expert edition has the declaration (before initiative) step, but it can be easy to miss. As I see it, it is there for two reasons: To make disrupting a spell possible & to handle an opponent getting an attack on a retreating foe. (This edition has a strong only-one-attack-per-round--for PCs--concept & so doesn't have AoO or the parting-shot of AD&D.) Anyway, I'm not surprised that any of us who started with that edition never caught the declaration rule.

I remember reading the order of combat stuff when 3e first came out & recognizing that they had changed things to work almost exactly as my group had always played it. On a combatant's turn, he resolves all his actions for that round (modulo readied actions & AoOs) & most decisions don't have to be made until the action being involved is being resolved. That's definately one of the things I like about 3e.

I keep meaning to give the declaration step a good try in my current campaign, but it just doesn't come natural to me.

 

[Quasqueton]

My group is currently playing SWd6; the declaration step is a major component of those rules. I HATE the declaration step. It is a major annoyance to me (but I'm not the GM, and the rule is not something you can remove from the core mechanics).

Regarding using all the rules in a convention/tournament game:

Not usually, they didn't, no. Psionics for example was widely ignored.

Doesn't that pretty much nullify the reason for *making* the AD&D1 rules in the first place? I mean, as a player, I'd expect to play with all the rules of the game.

Quasqueton

 

[Nifft]

That's cool. But completely by the RAW? Are you sure you want to do that?

By the Mother of Unholy Tables! That's worth quoting again.

Thanks, -- N

 

[RFisher]

Regarding using all the rules in a convention/tournament game: Doesn't that pretty much nullify the reason for *making* the AD&D1 rules in the first place? I mean, as a player, I'd expect to play with all the rules of the game.

Which reason? To create a version without Arneson's name on it or to make Law Shick happy?

Oh, you were thinking of the stated reason, weren't you. (^_^)

 

[tx7321]

P. 65 DMG "(If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.")

This is interesting.


I think the RAW does not consider this sentence. Clearly its stating the attacker is going on role 5 (the casters role) not roll 4 (his own). The problem with the RAW, is that it is just someone's best interpretation of the rules, that doesn't make it correct.

As DM you must read the rule books for yourself carefully, and then draw your own conclusions (and as you pointed out in the first post, be careful not to color your readings to heavily with what you assume to be true based on what you started with like OD&D).

In the end it is very unlikely that 1 BTB method for 1E combat will ever be agreed upon. Which ever system you end up using will be the one thats most comfortable and logical to you.

 

[SuStel]

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.

Actually, I (the name Stormcrow wasn't available here) said that if you kill the rule that says attacks against spell casters come on that round indicated by the opponent's or their own initiative die score, then the initiative rules are a coherent whole. The key is to understand them as determining who goes first, not when do I go?

I believe that the rules as written can be validly interpreted in contradictory ways. The "correct" way to use them is to start with "roll d6's; high roll goes first," and use the rules in the book to adjudicate special circumstances.

 

[T. Foster]

I don't think anyone has addressed my question about convention and tournament AD&D1 games: Did they use *all* the AD&D1 rules? I mean, that pretty much was Gygax's driving reason for organizing the AD&D1 rules -- for convention and tournament play consistency.

Quasqueton

I never played any tournaments in the "early AD&D"/Law Schick era, so I can't speak to how things worked then, but I played in a lot of tournaments in the late 1E era (1986-88) and without exception all those games used streamlined BX/2E-style combat rules. The changes to AD&D combat in 2E weren't fiat rulings from on high, they were adjustments to bring the system into line with how people (which is to say the RPGA, pretty much) were already playing the game.

That said, as I mentioned previously I've come to greatly prefer the complicated 1E RAW surprise rules (with multiple segments, mutual surprise, individual surprise-mitigation by Dex (but only if you're unencumbered), bonus attacks (but not bonus spells) during surprise segments, etc.) -- provided that both sides are rolling d6. Using non-d6 dice for surprise (as the monk, the barbarian, and many creatures/races from FF & MM2 do) completely screws up the otherwise straightforward system -- you really don't want any part of the RAW surprise calculations when, say, a drow and a 7th level monk encounter each other...

 

[SuStel]

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.

Eh. Since everyone here is saying they didn't use all the rules anyway, what difference does it make if the new books spell it out for you?

 

[Qualidar]

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.

My Monk player coined a phrase for this: The Monk Blues.

So I guess I've never played 1 ed. AD&D either. Every DM I knew had various house rules. Almost everyone but me ignored the 'weapon vs. AC' table.

AD&D – The most fondly remembered game that no one has ever played.

~Qualidar~