D&D General The Eternal Braid: Why D&D Continuing Dialogue With RPGs is its Success

[Mannahnin]

Weapon speed is in the AD&D PHB, it’s called speed factor. They just switched to d10s instead of d6s.

And added it to an individual initiative count (or two counts, if you're using two weapons with different speeds), and used it every round.

In 1E weapon speed factor only applies on ties. And doesn't come into play in the round when combatants close to striking range- in that round, longest reach strikes first.

 

[overgeeked]

And added it to an individual initiative count (or two counts, if you're using two weapons with different speeds), and used it every round.

In 1E weapon speed factor only applies on ties. And doesn't come into play in the round when combatants close to striking range- in that round, longest reach strikes first.

It was handled slightly differently, but it did actually exist in AD&D. That your group didn’t use it isn’t the same as didn’t exist. Which is something we run into a lot in these discussion. Not you personally, but all of us. We remember how we actually played, not the letter of RAW.

 

[Mannahnin]

It was handled slightly differently, but it did actually exist in AD&D. That your group didn’t use it isn’t the same as didn’t exist. Which is something we run into a lot in these discussion. Not you personally, but all of us. We remember how we actually played, not the letter of RAW.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't write that it didn't exist, or that my group didn't use it. I wrote that weapon speed factor in 1E only applies on ties. And only in subsequent rounds after the combatants have closed to melee range.

I appreciate the sentiment in all sincerity, though.

 

[overgeeked]

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't write that it didn't exist, or that my group didn't use it. I wrote that weapon speed factor in 1E only applies on ties. And only in subsequent rounds after the combatants have closed to melee range.

I appreciate the sentiment in all sincerity, though.

I was responding to this...

But that's not what 2E does, right? 2E introduces a whole new system using d10s for initiative and individual speed factors based on weapon or action. That's definitely not in any prior edition of D&D, and I don't even remember seeing it as a variant in Dragon Magazine.

This is wrong. It existed in AD&D. It’s handled slightly differently. Also look at how Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI handled things. And OD&D and Chainmail. The turn sequence is fairly clear. Missile fire happens before melee. Extra attacks happen at the end of the round. Spells have casting times. Spells can be interrupted and lost.

 

[Willie the Duck]

What we have here is a disagreement as to whether 2e was a new system or handled things slightly differently. Neither position is more correct. D6 + speed factors adjudicating ties is different and distinct from D10 + speed factors all the time (especially also when one considers that 1E had 10 distinct segments and no more), but there is a lot of re-used terminology and the practical outcome is probably very similar.

 

[Mannahnin]

I appreciate that Willie. I don't think the practical outcome is very similar. At least the two seemed to play very differently, IME.

OD&D had no initiative system per-se. It was left to DM judgement, or potentially to importation of something like the Chainmail system.

Holmes Basic, of course, used descending Dex order, as he had to improvise a system and used the vague references to what Dexterity does in the 1974 set as his basis, because he wasn't referencing Chainmail or the article in The Strategic Review.

B/X gives the staged system Overgeeked describes, but gives conflicting info about whether to use it as the winning side runs through all the steps, then the losing side, or whether it's meant to be interspersed. The text seems to say winners do everything THEN losers do everything, but the example of combat seems to indicate an interspersed order. IIRC BECMI is clearer.

AD&D 1E has a baseline of d6 side-based, with numerous special cases. Weapon speed factors on ties, weapon length in the round when the combatants close to melee, combatants with two attacks automatically win initiative with their first attack, then go last with their second, spells have their segments in casting time added to the initiative roll, potions have delayed onset...

AD&D 2E has a baseline of d10 individual initiative, with each weapon or action having defined speed factor, and you count up from 0 or 1; lowest rolls go first. IIRC, for example, a dagger is speed factor 2, a shortsword 3, and a longsword 5. A two hander is something awkward like 8. So it's tough for a two-hander or polearm to win initiative over a dagger, for example. In 1E the two hander would always get to strike first as the combatants close to melee, and once they engaged, the dagger would win ties. Whereas in 2E each round it's a d10+2 vs. a d10+8 or so, lowest roll strikes first.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One distinct thing about ttrpgs with regards to market dominance: you need buy-in from multiple players to get a game going. This means once a game gets entrenched as the most popular one, it's very difficult to shift because of network effects. This is an added barrier to market entry that doesn't really apply to board games or video games.

This applies to wargames as well: if I want to get into wargaming in the US in the 2000's, I would have a much easier time if my game of choice was Warhammer 40k. Because most other wargamers were playing that it was much easier to find someone to play with. If I wanted to play Chronopia or even Warhammer fantasy, it was much harder to find other people to play with, which might mean I don't get to play and thus drop out. It somewhat applies to MMORPGs as well.

Now getting into DnD doesn't cost nearly as much in dollars as wargaming, but it does cost time to learn and you still want to be able to find people to play with. Which means you most likely will get more chances to play if you learn the most popular system. Sending time and money on Exalted might just get you books of lore to think about but no gaming.

It isn't a guarantee - DnD lost the clear top spot twice in its history already - but in each case it starts with a mistake by the makers of the game that created an opening and someone else diving in with another good game that capitalized on what people didn't like about the current edition.