Will 1e AD&D have me back?

[Treebore]

Oh, and if you do run AD&D again... use something simple for the initiative rules. Even Gary didn't use the rules as written. It's the one thing in AD&D that really shows the game's roots in Chainmail.

There's a really good summary on dragonsfoot of how the initiative system is meant to work, but you'll probably find it easier for just "both sides roll d6, whoever rolls higher goes first."

Cheers!

yeah, i just use d10's, same thing, higher goes first. This detailed exactly "who goes in what order" is just too detailed for something that is abstract to begin with. In the older systems, or C&C. 3E is very rules specific, so you do need to know.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

You can go back, but as T. Foster says, you'll enjoy it more if you approach it as its own thing. I talked about that a bit, here (written for OD&D, but applies to AD&D, too). RFisher talks about it on his page, too.

 

[painandgreed]

I have C&C. I'm not overly fond of it, actually. I'm not really keen on the Siege Engine, and I kind of figure if I'm going to try to play 1e AD&D, why not just play 1e AD&D?

*ding* Same here. C&C just made me want to play 1E or 3E, wihtout any desire to continue playing C&C.

I played in a 1E game not too long ago. The GM just said "it's 1E, make characters" and everybody did. It was actually fairly refreshing to go back, read the rules as an adult with better comprehension, and make what I would of them. We hit the ground running and it was fun.

True, if I ran 1E, I'd be tailoring house rules here and there for bits, but that's part of what I like about it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

*ding* Same here. C&C just made me want to play 1E or 3E, wihtout any desire to continue playing C&C.

Interesting. Playing C&C also whetted my appetite for older editions. However, in my case, I'm still running C&C, too. Right now I'm running two C&C games and one OD&D game. When I start a new game (probably not real soon, as my plate is pretty full), it will either be OD&D or AD&D.

 

[Delta]

As far as the 1E initiative goes (yes, I've been forced to correspond with EGG over the issue), the rules are really close to being reasonable. (They're not, but they're close.)

What I do is this -- Each side rolls 1d6, high roll goes first. Ties are broken by low weapon speed or spell casting time.

 

[TarionzCousin]

1E has moved on and is seeing other people now. It's time for you to move on, too.

Besides: 4E is all young and sexy.

---

Try playing Hackmaster. It's like 1E with five times the charts.

 

[jdrakeh]

Maybe I'm missing something but why is starting a game of an edition still currently in print, receiving support, and not yet cancelled any more "pointless" than starting a game of an edition long OOP and currently only receiving support via a different rule set (OSRIC)? Don't get me wrong, if you're hankering for 1e -- play it. It's just that this justification seemed pretty screwy to me.

 

[kaomera]

I <3 1e Initiative. But then again we probably used a pretty watered-down version. IIRC:

A) Check for surprise.
1) DM secretly rolls first-round initiative (d6s), lower is better.
2) Surprise round if initiative roll indicates same (generally a "1" or a "1 or 2" on either side; mutual surprise cancels out).
B) Declare actions.
C) Resolve actions.
1) Roll initiative (d10s) if needed (not on 1st round!), lower is better.
2) Each character modifies their side's initiative by casting time, weapon speed, Dex mod, etc.
3) First missile fire (side winning initiative).
4) "Fast" (or instantaneous) actions.
5) Movement based on declarations is adjudicated / carried out by DM, based on initiative.
6) Segment 10+ actions.
7 thru 14) Segments 9 thru 2 actions.
15) Second missile fire (side lost initiative).
16) Segment 1 or lower actions.
17) "Slow" actions (including those taking multiple rounds to complete) and ongoing effects.
--> Return to "B".

I remember that keeping a total initiative modifier for typical actions (like attacking with a given weapon, or casting a given spell) was a big thing. Several of the character sheet styles we used didn't have a spot for this, and you'd get dinged to "slow" actions if you fumbled it!

 

[kaomera]

Maybe I'm missing something but why is starting a game of an edition still currently in print, receiving support, and not yet cancelled any more "pointless" than starting a game of an edition long OOP and currently only receiving support via a different rule set (OSRIC)? Don't get me wrong, if you're hankering for 1e -- play it. It's just that this justification seemed pretty screwy to me.

It's not that it's any more "pointless", it's just that it's no longer (significantly) less pointless... Or at least that was the momentary thought that led me to think "Hey, if I'm not playing f2f I'm not as constrained as to which players I have access to. I could probably find some players who would actually go for some 1e!"

Because I'd really love to run some 1e for my regular gaming group, even just a 1-shot. But they've made it clear that it just isn't their thing. Some of them would begrudgingly allow me to run something 1e, just to be nice, but at that point I'd rather just run 3.5.

 

[Delta]

I <3 1e Initiative. But then again we probably used a pretty watered-down version. IIRC:

You're thinking 2E.