Next year, I'm back to running AD&D

[howandwhy99]

Once I combine AD&D and Moldvay, I come to this form of keeping track of time, which I intend to use.

For these examples, I'm assuming that the speed of the party is 6"

* "Exploring" actions take place on the turn scale (1 turn=10 minutes). When you search a room, it takes a turn. When you engage in combat, it takes 1 turn. (Admittedly AD&D has 1 minute rounds compared to the shorter rounds of Basic, but I hope most combats don't go above 10 rounds...)

* Movement rate when mapping is 60 feet per turn.

* Movement rate when not mapping is 60 feet per round - or 600 feet per turn.

* Standard Wandering Monsters will be encountered 1 in 6, once per two turns.

Time is a major resource in my games too. Your action cost is quite like mine, but mapping isn't quite so costly. I use d6 initiative, 1 minute rounds and standard turns, hours, days, etc. An old, but once common method I stumbled upon for tracking actions is using dice as clocks behind the screen.

d6 Segments (my own rules here), d10 rounds, d6 turns, d12 hours (or d24 if I had one). Then a calendar for the rest.

When walking around the table I put my hands behind my back to keep track of different counts, kind of like a volleyball player signaling another player. Left hand is the round count, right hand is the bonus or penalty on the roll. DCs I can typically remember because I know my own system.

Also, mapping by players should be beneficial, if maps matter in your game. But it doesn't have to be onerous. Even a simple line map not on grid paper can work in most cases.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the odd things about Unearthed Arcana is that a lot of the material got worse (less balanced, explanations missing) than when it was originally published in Dragon Magazine. Comeliness is a case in point.

We've found UA is worth cherry-picking from - some of the spells etc. fit in just fine and lots of other stuff can be tweaked - but to just throw the whole book into the rules is asking for headaches.

I have massive problems with the Barbarian - even David's take on it still retains a lot of the problems, such as its XP table and hatred of magic-users.

We changed Barbarian to a sub-RACE of Human, generally less technically/magically advanced but tougher. They don't like or use arcane magic.

Most Norse are Barbarians in my game.

We kept Cavaliers but toned them down somewhat. We gave the Cavaliers' stat advancement to all classes based on their prime stat(s). We kept weapon specialization but again toned it down. And so forth. We bailed on Comeliness entirely.

Question: how long do you expect this campaign to run for and-or what levels are you expecting to reach? I ask because if you're looking for a long game you might want to either tone down experience-for-treasure or remove it entirely. Given this, I'd also suggest keeping training in order to bleed off some wealth but put in a system where an untrained character can still advance (though slower) so if training is inaccessible for a while the characters don't stall. We did this many years ago and it's worked out well; so well, in fact, that our 3e DM put exactly the same system into his game when he introduced training there.

Lan-"be warned: the math required to work out untrained experience penalty can be a bit daunting"-efan

 

[MerricB]

Question: how long do you expect this campaign to run for and-or what levels are you expecting to reach? I ask because if you're looking for a long game you might want to either tone down experience-for-treasure or remove it entirely. Given this, I'd also suggest keeping training in order to bleed off some wealth but put in a system where an untrained character can still advance (though slower) so if training is inaccessible for a while the characters don't stall. We did this many years ago and it's worked out well; so well, in fact, that our 3e DM put exactly the same system into his game when he introduced training there.

Lan-"be warned: the math required to work out untrained experience penalty can be a bit daunting"-efan

The campaign will be running fortnightly, and length will depend *greatly* on how the players find it.

That said, I detest ultra-slow advancement with a passion. I really don't want to see the characters at 2nd level after a year of play. If they're around 6th-7th or higher its fine by me.

Cheers!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

We've found UA is worth cherry-picking from - some of the spells etc. fit in just fine and lots of other stuff can be tweaked - but to just throw the whole book into the rules is asking for headaches.

That's how I'd approach UA. I've no problem with additional spells and magic items. I think the UA unarmed combat rules are worth using, too. That's about it, though.

If weapon specialization is used, my suggestion would be to only allow it at certain levels. My pick would be 4th level (i.e., Hero) for standard specialization and 8th level (i.e. Superhero) for double specialization. I'd also probably assign a penalty to non-specialized weapons. So you can choose to be *really* good with your specialized weapon at the price of being not so good with other weapons, or you can be a "master-at-arms" kind of guy who can fight with just about anything.

Also see the following posts from a weapon specialization discussion on KnK:
KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View topic - Weapon Specialization
KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View topic - Weapon Specialization
KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View topic - Weapon Specialization
KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View topic - Weapon Specialization

 

[MerricB]

Ah, I'm reminded of why I don't frequent old-school boards by the deranged ramblings of Axe Mental...

 

[MerricB]

Weapon Specialisation won't be used in the game (at least not unless I see the magic-users totally outclassing the fighters, which might not happen at all).

Indeed, with the henchmen likely to come into it, each player is probably going to be controlling a fighter-type and a spellcaster, so that idea of balance-of-actions isn't so important.

I'm very much leaning towards scrapping the weapon proficiency rules altogether: you're proficient in all weapons your class can use. There's going to be a fair bit of informing the game with original D&D and basic D&D concepts; by no means will it end up being "straight" AD&D...

Cheers!

 

[David Howery]

Just looking at the article... oh, look, it's a David Howery article.

um... thanks?

I've always been of the opinion about 1E (and 2E, for that matter), that it was a perfectly fine game... until all the extra rulebooks came out. FF and MM2, no problem, more critters are always nice. UA, well, lots of stuff I never used, but nice new spells and weapons (I never allowed anyone to use the Barbarian and Cavalier 'as is' from UA... thus, the basis of the two articles in #148). DSG and WSG... okay, I rather liked these two, but NWP started adding to the complexity of the game. Then came all the special world rulebooks, etc. etc. In the end, it was just too damn much. 2E went down a similar dismal path. Basically, I think you're on the right track by limiting everything (at first) to the core PH/DMG (I'd still include the other monster books, if you have them)....

 

[MerricB]

Sorry, David. I didn't type that right. What I was thinking was:

"Cool! It's a David Howery article!"

Yep, I have FF and MM2. I'll lift monsters from them as seems appropriate. The only AD&D hardcover I don't have is the Wilderness Survival Guide, which I've never quite managed to buy. Oh, and the Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia - I have L&L, but it's another of those books that although I like it for saying, "Hey, look - these are the pantheons of old!", it has never, ever added anything to my D&D games.

I want gods to be important in D&D. Indeed, the AD&D game I'll run will be very involved with the gods of the barbarians, but the D&Dg/L&L approach leaves me cold.

Cheers!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Weapon Specialisation won't be used in the game…Indeed, with the henchmen likely to come into it, each player is probably going to be controlling a fighter-type and a spellcaster, so that idea of balance-of-actions isn't so important.

I'm very much leaning towards scrapping the weapon proficiency rules altogether: you're proficient in all weapons your class can use.

All that sounds good, to me. I usually don't use weapon specialization. I've also run AD&D games where I scrapped weapon proficiencies as you describe, above. However, I do apply the non-profiency penalty in cases where the PC in using the weapon is less than ideal conditions (e.g., not enough "space required).

When I play a low-level MU in AD&D (or OD&D, for that matter), I try to get charm person, and use that to help me enlist some men-at-arms as personal friends and dedicated protectors. So obviously I also think the hireling/henchmen concept is solid.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Ah, I'm reminded of why I don't frequent old-school boards by the deranged ramblings of Axe Mental...

Hahaha! I'll have to tell him that; it will probably either amuse or mystify him. Maybe both.

(I think Axe is still suspicious of me because my main game is OD&D instead of AD&D. Although at this point there's an awful lot of AD&D in my OD&D, and quite a bit of OD&D in my AD&D...)