The Stakes of Classifying Games as Rules Lite, Medium, or Heavy?

[Gorgon Zee]

Well, that was definitely not 'stock' AD&D (either edition). Weapon Speed was really a very obtuse and poorly explained rule, as-written, and frankly added very little to the game (in either 1e or 2e, it worked a bit differently in each one). While it might IN THEORY favor faster weapons, it didn't actually come into play enough to matter much. I think the way you describe using it, or variations on that, were QUITE common though! Probably a lot more playable than the original too (1e in particular has a pretty crap combat system IMHO, mostly in terms of how it is explained more than how it plays though).

Hmmm. I could dig out my books later and check, but the following link indicates it was a standard rule:

PHB Ch9 Initiative

The initiative roll determines who acts first in any given combat round. Initiative is not set, but changes from round to round (combat being an uncertain thing, at best). A character never knows for certain if he will get to act before another. Initiative is normally determined with a single...

adnd2e.fandom.com

I'll copy the relevant text in:

Standard Initiative Procedure​

To determine the initiative order for a round of combat, roll 1d10 for each side in the battle. Normally, this means the DM rolls for the monsters (or NPCs), while one of the players rolls for the PC party. Low roll wins initiative. If more than two sides are involved in combat, the remaining sides act in ascending order of initiative.

Weapon Speed and Initiative (Optional Rule)​

Weapon speed factors slow the speed of a character's attack. The higher the weapon speed factor, the heavier, clumsier, or more limited the weapon is. For the most part, weapon speed factors apply to all creatures using manufactured weapons. The speed factor of a weapon is added to the initiative roll of the character to get his modified initiative roll.

I think you are asserting at least one of:

• This (fan) site is not correct and the AD&D books have different rules --- this may be the case; I only have the version of AD&D with d6 initiative.
• This description is "very obtuse and poorly explained"

I'm not sure how you can think it doesn't come into play very much as it will apply every time unless all players and monsters are using the exact same speed weapons (which is basically never).

As far as I can read it, the way we ran it is RAW, choosing an optional rule to use; it was a dead simple rule to understand and use; in practice we found it fun, although if you tried it and found it unfun, please let us know what made it feel bad/useless/whatever for you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmm. I could dig out my books later and check, but the following link indicates it was a standard rule:

PHB Ch9 Initiative

The initiative roll determines who acts first in any given combat round. Initiative is not set, but changes from round to round (combat being an uncertain thing, at best). A character never knows for certain if he will get to act before another. Initiative is normally determined with a single...

adnd2e.fandom.com

I'll copy the relevant text in:

Standard Initiative Procedure​

To determine the initiative order for a round of combat, roll 1d10 for each side in the battle. Normally, this means the DM rolls for the monsters (or NPCs), while one of the players rolls for the PC party. Low roll wins initiative. If more than two sides are involved in combat, the remaining sides act in ascending order of initiative.

Weapon Speed and Initiative (Optional Rule)​

Weapon speed factors slow the speed of a character's attack. The higher the weapon speed factor, the heavier, clumsier, or more limited the weapon is. For the most part, weapon speed factors apply to all creatures using manufactured weapons. The speed factor of a weapon is added to the initiative roll of the character to get his modified initiative roll.

I think you are asserting at least one of:

• This (fan) site is not correct and the AD&D books have different rules
• This description is "very obtuse and poorly explained"

I'm not sure how you can think it doesn't come into play very much as it will apply every time unless all players and monsters are using the exact same speed weapons (which is basically never).

As far as I can read it, the way we ran it is RAW, choosing an optional rule to use; it was a dead simple rule to understand and use; in practice we found it fun, although if you tried it and found it unfun, please let us know what made it feel bad/useless/whatever for you.

OK, raw for 1e:
Weapon speed factor is irrelevant except in 2 situations, 1 being when there is a tie for initiative, in which case the WSFs of the two weapons are compared, and the smaller one (faster) gets multiple attacks against the larger one, depending on the difference. Secondly, when comparing whether spells and other non-weapon actions take place before or after weapon attacks (primarily regarding spells) depending on how you read the rules, weapon speed factor added to initiative is used to compare with spell casting time in segments.

Raw in 2e:
Weapon speed factor can, optionally, be applied as an initiative modifier. It is also possible to apply it as a modifier to decide whether you interrupt a spell, which was a bit more commonly done IME (maybe because it also happens in 1e, though with less clarity). In addition AD&D (both editions) have less of a straightforward resolution process, because things like missile fire and multi-attacks work differently, and that often supersedes the initiative order to a degree (again, this is much less clear in 1e).

So, yeah, in some simple 2e situations when you use the optional rule, it can effectively work as you say. Its just somewhat of a simplification. All of this doesn't even touch on what happens when you start mixing in more 'advanced' rules from various option books, or bringing in OA martial arts (which were never REALLY updated for 2e).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I didn't mean D&D IS, or should be, the 'standard', it is just considered an example of a fairly 'main-stream' game, most of which typically cast the GM as 'keeper of story', etc.

I just wanted to make it clear I wasn't suggesting every game should be directed at the broad swath audience that D&D generally aims at.

I agree that it behooves people wanting to distribute a game (sell it or whatever) to let people know what they're getting into. I think even mainstream games should do that. Probably most game designers/publishers agree, though there might be some shades there of opinion on exactly what that should entail. Your earlier post COULD have been interpreted as "niche games are a bad idea", but I didn't seriously think you meant it to be taken that way .

Naw, I'm a big believer in a game design being judged on what its trying to do. I just don't think that begins and ends at mechanics, but also at making it clear what kind of players its intended for. And I think some game designs kind of think they're aimed more broadly than they really are.

 

[Hussar]

Well, that was definitely not 'stock' AD&D (either edition). Weapon Speed was really a very obtuse and poorly explained rule, as-written, and frankly added very little to the game (in either 1e or 2e, it worked a bit differently in each one). While it might IN THEORY favor faster weapons, it didn't actually come into play enough to matter much. I think the way you describe using it, or variations on that, were QUITE common though! Probably a lot more playable than the original too (1e in particular has a pretty crap combat system IMHO, mostly in terms of how it is explained more than how it plays though).

Really?

That was bog standard 2e Initiative. Roll d10, add weapon speed and lowest goes first. Medium creatures are +3 with natural weapons, large are +6. Gack, the stuff that gets lodged in my brain. I haven't played 2e D&D in over 20 years and I STILL remember that system. The only PITA of it was remembering initiative counts. We just did it on a scratch pad.

 

[Staffan]

Really?

That was bog standard 2e Initiative. Roll d10, add weapon speed and lowest goes first. Medium creatures are +3 with natural weapons, large are +6. Gack, the stuff that gets lodged in my brain. I haven't played 2e D&D in over 20 years and I STILL remember that system. The only PITA of it was remembering initiative counts. We just did it on a scratch pad.

That was the double-optional rule. Initiative was weird in 2e, and came in three steps of "officialdom":

Standard initiative: Each side rolls d10. Lowest goes first. If everyone on one side qualifies for various modifiers, they can apply.

Group Initiative: Each side rolls d10. Each combatant on that side then modifies the d10 depending on weapon speed or creature size, casting time, and whatever else. Lowest goes first. So if we're on the same side and I'm casting a magic missile (casting time 1) and you're fighting with a longsword (speed factor 5), and we roll a 6, I'm going on 7 and you on 11.

Individual initiative: Each combatant rolls d10 and modifies it as with group initiative. Lowest goes first.

In each case, creatures with multiple simultaneous attacks (e.g. dual-wielding, most monsters) get all of them in at once, while creatures with multiple attacks with the same weapon (e.g. archers, high-level warriors) get one attack at the proper initiative and then handle the rest at the end of the round.

 

[gorice]

But beyond that, I think its at least perverse to design to group-dynamic assumptions that seem uncommon enough you're asking for bad experiences on a large number of groups trying to engage with your game. That doesn't mean there isn't sometimes some purpose in it, but at that point they should not be at all surprised that people trying out the game frequently have complaints. And its double this when the designers don't explain what sort of group they're aiming at.

I mean, I think artists have a moral duty to do more than shovel out comforting cliches. Aesthetic variety has value. There's also the old chicken-and-egg problem of not knowing what 'taste' really means in a monoculture.

In any case, I think your statement is premised on the assumption that a common group dynamic actually exists. I don't think it does, as a single coherent style of play. Everyone is 'playing D&D', but then you dig a little, and find that all these different groups are effectively running different systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In any case, I think your statement is premised on the assumption that a common group dynamic actually exists. I don't think it does, as a single coherent style of play. Everyone is 'playing D&D', but then you dig a little, and find that all these different groups are effectively running different systems.

I don't think you can overextend it, but I do think there are some pretty common failure states that you should plan for as a designer, or warn people you deliberately haven't' for some reason.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not sure how anyone reads the text for a game like Apocalypse World, dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, or Monsterhearts and comes across with the belief that group dynamics should function anything like they do in a D&D game. That's a big part of why they are written in such provocative language. To get that point across. They pretty much already come with a Surgeon General's warning.

I think a fair point could be made for some games that straddle the line like Exalted Third Edition ,Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition and to a lesser extent FFG Star Wars which lure you in with action adventure premises and hit you with a bunch of indie style social mechanics some players might not be expecting. These are some of my favorite games, but they should probably have some more upfront warnings.

 

[Campbell]

I also disagree that designers should feel compelled to meet existing expectations when following up on a previous property particularly if they are interested in serving other audiences. I count among my very favorite game Vampire The Requiem Second Edition, Exalted Third Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, and Pathfinder Second Edition. All represent major breaks from previous iterations. All are phenomenally better games for it. On a creative level their design quality is way better than their forbearers.

I think we can question if they made right decisions for commercial success, but as compelling play experiences all are first rate which is more than can be said for the game lines they descend from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really?

That was bog standard 2e Initiative. Roll d10, add weapon speed and lowest goes first. Medium creatures are +3 with natural weapons, large are +6. Gack, the stuff that gets lodged in my brain. I haven't played 2e D&D in over 20 years and I STILL remember that system. The only PITA of it was remembering initiative counts. We just did it on a scratch pad.

Yeah, I just don't remember doing anything at all with weapon speed factors unless there was a tie, etc. I'll have to go dig out the original version of the 2e PHB, because the text on the CD version of the 2nd 'printing' (should really be called a 2nd edition of 2e, it is very different in some details) doesn't match with the way we ever played it. Anyway, the problem is there are a lot of exceptions to that anyway, and several variations. For example pretty much every missile weapon fires more than once, and thus gets to fire at different times (and missile fire in any case has its own period of resolution). Same with multi-attacks, which are quite common in 2e, unlike 1e where they were rare aside from higher level fighters and such.