TSR On the Relative Merits of the TSR Editions

[Ralif Redhammer]

We used weapon speeds and casting timed.

Daggers and shorts words were great.

We used it back in the day as well. Were I to revisit 2e, I'm not sure I would, though. Yes, it adds depth to the game, but I'm not sure it provides enough value to justify the additional layer to initiative.

 

[Zardnaar]

We used it back in the day as well. Were I to revisit 2e, I'm not sure I would, though. Yes, it adds depth to the game, but I'm not sure it provides enough value to justify the additional layer to initiative.

Same opinion lol.

Smaller group maybe. Balances things better though. Is it worth the grind?

 

[cbwjm]

Same opinion lol.

Smaller group maybe. Balances things better though. Is it worth the grind?

I think nowadays I'd probably stick to side initiative, one roll. Maybe use the order of actions from BECMI but since it doesn't really affect anything, probably just let people do things in whatever order they want on their turn.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think nowadays I'd probably stick to side initiative, one roll. Maybe use the order of actions from BECMI but since it doesn't really affect anything, probably just let people do things in whatever order they want on their turn.

Probably the same. Maybe duels and boss fights might be a nice compromise.

 

[rabindranath72]

We always used modified group initiative as it kept things interesting without having to waste a lot of time on different rolls.

 

[The Soloist]

My wife reminds me that when we played 2e in the 90s, we used individual initiatives with dexterity reaction and spell casting time. The wizard player instead upon them. We didn't use weapon speeds unless there was an initiative tie to determine who went first.

 

[David Howery]

from what I remember about my group in 1E days, initiative was simply one roll for each side, winner goes first, in the event of a tie, everything happens at once. The only exception I can remember is when there were spellcasters on both sides casting spells... in the event of a tie, the spell with the shortest casting time went first, so the other wizard might get his spell negated if he got fireballed or something....

 

[Neonchameleon]

B) What kind of game might work better with hour long character generation then 5 minute character generation? I think that long character generation times favor games with i) larger amounts of fiddly rules (usually combat for tactical combat) ii) where the backstory/player plans for the future of the character matter more and need to be planned out prior to play iii) where characters are expected to last a long time - one doesn't want to spend that long char gen process every few session if one is unlucky. So I suspect games that the genre leans into these sorts of ideas.

iii) Games where you don't just have random PCs but where you create the group and even the setting together because you want to emphasise the roleplaying and character interactions. I can do the mechanical part of creating a PbtA or Daggerheart character faster than I can an AD&D character (AD&D is not even remotely lightweight and there's much better organisation for PBTA games in general than anything D&D) - but the time consuming part of character creation is going to be discussing who our characters are to each other and creating which part of the setting they come from.

C) Yes session 0 again. I get that it's popular in some RPG spaces and communities. It and the need for it are a design choice as well. It's not something I want for my games - I want people to be able to play right away.

If I want this then I'll start a 5e game (or a Daggerheart one) before you've even started your AD&D one. That's because I teach newbies and sometimes open campaigns by using level zero characters with default assumed stats of 12 and we'll sort things out in play. No emails needed and everyone will earn their class in play.

All of these are design choices - and if I'm poking you about session zero and your preferences I apologize if it comes across as meanspirited, for me it's more friendly snark because you give an impression that your preferences are simply how things should be done. I find when I have this attitude about games (i.e. back in 1986 when I thought all RPGs were D&D) that people presenting different RPGs, different kinds of play, and different goals for play can be quite revelatory.

Yup! Different groups want different things - and I find Session Zero goes with high inter-character RP groups.