Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3763001" data-attributes="member: 54792">Dude, I'm not following you at all, that statement makes no since <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> .&nbsp; Every 1E player&nbsp; I know did it basically the same way: -(2 sided) A vs B, role d6, side with highest role goes first.&nbsp;&nbsp; -If A (say the PCs) wins everyone in A goes before B (monsters).&nbsp; -The DM checked the tables, we never saw them, if we looked we got &quot;the warning&quot;. Any variation in methods used between DMs was minimal in how it played out.&nbsp; The academics behind it didn't matter to the player.&nbsp; Now thats a completely different experiance then 3E (each person and monster is placed in order of attack, and that order is kept until the battle is completed.&nbsp; No tables are used, so players have a better understanding of what they need to hit and do stuff, and are burdened with number crunching during combat (which ruins the immersion experiance). Look, in 1E the interpretation of the rules didn't really matter to us players.&nbsp; We were given the dice and told to role, that was it.&nbsp; It was like going to Mass in Latin.&nbsp; The player was &quot;out of the rules loop&quot;.&nbsp; If one DM was using surprise rules or weapons speed reaction, I didn't know.&nbsp; That was his job not mine.&nbsp; &nbsp; You know, after reading your posts on this thread, I think 1E probably wasn't the best fit for you and your group.&nbsp; We all talk to the DM, try to get him to reconsider things etc.&nbsp; Thats also part of the fun of the game.&nbsp; However, there is a fine line that can be crossed, where your players become rules lawyers, thats when you grab the handle and flush.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; Yep, I doubt you'd last long at Gary's table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3763001, member: 54792"] Dude, I'm not following you at all, that statement makes no since :confused: . Every 1E player I know did it basically the same way: -(2 sided) A vs B, role d6, side with highest role goes first. -If A (say the PCs) wins everyone in A goes before B (monsters). -The DM checked the tables, we never saw them, if we looked we got "the warning". Any variation in methods used between DMs was minimal in how it played out. The academics behind it didn't matter to the player. Now thats a completely different experiance then 3E (each person and monster is placed in order of attack, and that order is kept until the battle is completed. No tables are used, so players have a better understanding of what they need to hit and do stuff, and are burdened with number crunching during combat (which ruins the immersion experiance). Look, in 1E the interpretation of the rules didn't really matter to us players. We were given the dice and told to role, that was it. It was like going to Mass in Latin. The player was "out of the rules loop". If one DM was using surprise rules or weapons speed reaction, I didn't know. That was his job not mine. You know, after reading your posts on this thread, I think 1E probably wasn't the best fit for you and your group. We all talk to the DM, try to get him to reconsider things etc. Thats also part of the fun of the game. However, there is a fine line that can be crossed, where your players become rules lawyers, thats when you grab the handle and flush. :D Yep, I doubt you'd last long at Gary's table. [/QUOTE]

Verification