AD&D 1E Snarf's Challenge: Was it Possible to Play 1e RAW? SHARE YOUR STORIES!

[Snarf Zagyg]

So....
How do I phrase this...

If we ever played with Gary Gygax...since he's the one who wrote the rules...would that qualify as playing it RAW?

#humblebrag

Heh, just kidding. But my answer to that is a resounding NO. Gygax (for he is large and contains multitudes) did not play by the rules that he prescribed for others.

 

[mixmastashizz]

I ended up making my own combat document to streamline the text. Its not ADDICT, but leans closer to the OSRIC method of using the die roll to indicate the segment you act.

It has some houserules, but there's a fundamental contradiction between the weapon speed rules and the attacking in melee rules for spell casting that make it so every DM needs to make a choice between 'quantum' initiative, or 'deterministic' initiative. In other words, is initiative meant to just determine who goes first by comparisons of states or is each action meant to take place in a specific discrete time in the round.

As far as weapon speeds go, it really only comes to play to break ties and doesnt seem to be meant to add to your initiative die roll. Spell casting time absolutely is meant to add to the die roll however, and the d6 initiative with 10 segment round ensures that most spells are resolved in the round they are cast. I think the DMG mentions that at some point but I cant remember.

 

[Koloth]

I know I played 1E. But mostly played some variation of fighter and/or thief. Maybe because of the magic spells are limited and easy to interrupt thing. Backstabbing the enemy mage was always an objective. No good memories of what house rules we used vs RAW. We did migrate to 2e fairly quickly when it came out. I do remember the inside vs outside distance thing. We did have fun with the bouncing lightning bolts and fireballs that insisted on filling the entire volume. Mage says "I cast fireball into the 10x10 room". The rest of the party standing along the hallway outside the entrance "NO!". Followed by backstabbing our mage becoming the objective as a survival thing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So I've been loving the responses and the thread so far, and it is EXACTLY what I was hoping for.

THANK YOU! Keep it up.

Two different thoughts ....


First, I'd like to thank the many commenters discussing the RAW of 1e, and especially @Sacrosanct and @Voadam for their contributions (everyone else as well, of course, but I wanted to discuss what they are talking about in particular). Voadam went in-depth about one (it's just one- there are others, but it's a doozie) of the internal conflicts that exist in the rules- essentially, why you can't play 1e RAW. No matter how much close you try to get to the Platonic ideal of playing 1e "RAW" ... you will only ever be able to play the shadows on a wall. Because even if you scrupulously applied every single rule, every single sub-system, and correctly did the flow chart for all combats (does the opponent wear a helmet? what are you attacking?), and even assuming you could do interpretations to avoid some rules conflicts, you will still be left with situations where application of the RAW won't work, and you are required to house-rule a solution.

But I was also hoping for feedback like what we received from Sacrosanct- that someone is trying to scrupulously play, as close as possible, to the RAW. I am fascinated by this, and I hope that he posts further updates on the experience on an ongoing basis! As I always says, "The perfect is the enemy of the three martini lunch good." Please let the rest of us know the good, the bad, and the ugly from turning it up to 11!


Second, I was reflecting on the title. Playing 1e RAW? So ... does that mean someone is rawdogging 1e?

Nothing wrong with that, amirite?

 

[Lord Shark]

For my group back in the day, the list of AD&D rules we didn't use is probably longer than the one of rules we kept.

 

[fuindordm]

But in 1e I don't think that is the case. The DMG on page 65 has the whole Spell Casting During Melee section.

My interpretation of p.65 is that if a spellcaster begins a combat round adjacent to a melee combatant then they should not even attempt casting.

"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving -- such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."

To get your normal AC during melee you must be actively dodging and parrying, since this activity is an assumed part of melee and justifies the low number of "real attacks" per round. On the other hand, even a one-segment spell requires the caster to adopt a position of stillness and concentration to get in the proper frame of mind before releasing the spell. If a PC tried to do this next to a hostile combatant, then I would give the latter a free attack at +4 to hit (no Dex but active magical defenses might apply) -- similar to striking a motionless opponent. I would give that free attack regardless of who won initiative. Attempting to cast a spell is these conditions is an act of desperation!

So the sword vs spell question normally only comes up in play if an enemy unexpectedly charges the spellcaster on a round where they announce they are casting a spell, and I consider that the only condition worth tracking is whether the enemy reaches the caster during the casting interval. If we add weapon speed to the initiative on top of that (+5-7 segments for a typical one-handed weapon) then the fighter would almost never make their attack in time. Weapon speeds (typically 5-10 for the weapon in hand) are not really on the same scale as casting times (typically 1-5 for common cleric and MU spells).

Is it RAW? I think it is as close to RAW as any other interpretation, regardless of GG's Dragon article and convoluted examples given.

 

[fuindordm]

But I was also hoping for feedback like what we received from Sacrosanct- that someone is trying to scrupulously play, as close as possible, to the RAW. I am fascinated by this, and I hope that he posts further updates on the experience on an ongoing basis! As I always says, "The perfect is the enemy of the three martini lunch good." Please let the rest of us know the good, the bad, and the ugly from turning it up to 11!

I don't think I ever played RAW. As a teenager, we didn't master the rules, ignored things we didn't understand fully or that were too fiddly (WvsAC, detailed initiative decision tree vs simple d6) made liberal use of suggestions in Dragon; I don't think we even used surprise correctly at that epoch.

One memorable anecdote is an assassin PC who tried to convince me that they could backstab a dragon while clinging to a wall that they were in the process of climbing. I don't remember all the details but my refusal led to a vigorous round of rules lawyering on both sides! In another game I gave a few leader-class giants in the G1-3 campaign MU or illusionist levels (because they were actually jotnar you know) which yielded many lamentations and threats of reprisal from the party. So those years were far from RAW but still enjoyable for everyone!

Today I am running a party through T1-4 and trying to stick close to pre-UA RAW, but I don't see any point to DMing if I can't adjust the rules to taste, so I would say that about 20% of the overall rule set is house rules. Some classes are revised or slightly adjusted, and I brought in some selected concepts from UA and 2nd edition. I got rid of exceptional strength and just made an auxiliary Strength table to be used by fighters, rangers, paladins and barbarians. I still don't use WvsAC. On the other hand, I am running combat, surprise and its interaction with thief skills, case-by-case initiative, and morale very close to RAW now that I understand the intention behind the rules better and can appreciate how they work together to create a fairly realistic experience where combat is dangerous, potentially deadly, but neither side usually wants to fight to the death.

 

[David Howery]

well, some group somewhere out there in the world might have played 1e RAW. But every group I ever was in had a lot of 'rules not used', house rules, etc.

 

[Voadam]

My interpretation of p.65 is that if a spellcaster begins a combat round adjacent to a melee combatant then they should not even attempt casting.

"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving -- such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."

To get your normal AC during melee you must be actively dodging and parrying, since this activity is an assumed part of melee and justifies the low number of "real attacks" per round. On the other hand, even a one-segment spell requires the caster to adopt a position of stillness and concentration to get in the proper frame of mind before releasing the spell. If a PC tried to do this next to a hostile combatant, then I would give the latter a free attack at +4 to hit (no Dex but active magical defenses might apply) -- similar to striking a motionless opponent. I would give that free attack regardless of who won initiative. Attempting to cast a spell is these conditions is an act of desperation!

So the sword vs spell question normally only comes up in play if an enemy unexpectedly charges the spellcaster on a round where they announce they are casting a spell, and I consider that the only condition worth tracking is whether the enemy reaches the caster during the casting interval. If we add weapon speed to the initiative on top of that (+5-7 segments for a typical one-handed weapon) then the fighter would almost never make their attack in time. Weapon speeds (typically 5-10 for the weapon in hand) are not really on the same scale as casting times (typically 1-5 for common cleric and MU spells).

Is it RAW? I think it is as close to RAW as any other interpretation, regardless of GG's Dragon article and convoluted examples given.

I think you are missing some big points on the page 65's SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE section and page 70's motionless opponent rules.

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain. Use the following procedure for spells cast during melee:"

"4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell."

This seems to be the mechanical implementation of "Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting" It does not the seem the same as the helpless opponents situation on page 70 which grants an extra attack sequence in an applicable round.

There might be an argument in the RAW for the motionless opponent special circumstances to apply though to the relatively motionless caster, but since that imposes more penalties, it seems more RAW to use the specifically specified penalized for the only "relatively" motionless action. It could have said in 4 that the caster is motionless (with a reference to the special attacks rules for motionless opponents, or spelled out all the motionless opponent considerations), but it specifically states just losing dex as the procedure to apply for spells cast during melee.

From page 70:

Special Types Of Attacks:

Flank Attacks: All flank attacks negate any defender armor class addition for shield. Attacks against a rear flank, where the opponent is virtually unable to view the attackers, negate dexterity armor class bonus.

Rear Attacks: Opponents attacking from the rear gain a +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield, and also negate any consideration for dexterity.

Stunned, Prone or Motionless Opponents: Treat all such opponents as if being attacked from the rear, but in this case the “to hit” bonus is +4 rather than +2.

Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents: If a general melee is in progress, and the attacker is subject to enemy actions, then these opponents are automatically struck by any attack to which they would normally be subject, and the maximum damage possible according to the weapon type is inflicted each time such an opponent is so attacked. The number of attacks or attack routines possible against such an opponent is twice the number normally allowed in a round. Otherwise, such opponents may be automatically slain, or bound as appropriate to materials at hand and size, at a rate of one per round. Note that this does not include normally sleeping opponents (see ASSASSINS’ TABLE FOR ASSASSINATIONS).

 

[TheHand]

I know no group I ever played with back in the day played it RAW; there were some who definitely tried, but each table I gamed with did things their own way and I did things my way, and we all just grew to accept that.

Late stage 1e I had a notebook (that was practically its own source book) with photocopied Dragon articles and my own written out house rules. Even if it wasn’t RAW I wanted things to be fair and spelled out.

The initiative we ended up using for a while was 1d10+spell segment or weapon speed. Lowest went first and monsters had generic modifiers based on size (so a goblin was generally faster than an ogre). Casters who took damage before their spell failed to cast. It worked pretty well but we jettisoned it during 2e Ad&D for simpler.

2e was also the time we all started getting into other fantasy engines, playing HERO and Stormbringer and then hacking apart Stormbringer to make our own flavor (Dragonbane reminds me a lot of what we came up with, so I get a pseudo-nostalgia from playing it now!).

But reading threads like these is so fascinating because 1e is such a treasure trove of history (and rules) that my younger self didn’t fully understand or appreciate back then!