Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Foster, curious as to what other ways you determined initiative in your 1E games. I've only heard of d6 high role goes first, and the d10 low role goes first (literally going on the segment you role). I've actually never seen anyone use another system of initiative.

T. Foster wrote: I strongly disagree. I'd guess 95+% of AD&D games I've played in over the years (including those GM'd by the likes of Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz) did not handle initiative that way, so any definition that would exclude those games is of no use or value to me (or, I suspect, much of anyone else, except the haters who like to "prove" that no one ever really" played AD&D because it's a terrible game so we should all now play C&C/LL/S&W/Hackmaster/4E/Pathfinder/T&T/Savage Worlds/GURPS/whatever instead because it's so objectively better). Initiative is, along with perhaps unarmed combat, probably THE most widely house-ruled aspect of the game -- I don't think I've ever played under 2 different GMs who handled it exactly the same way, even those who claimed to be following the rules in the book exactly.

I would say 95% of AD&D games I have played in or run used 1d10 and was vague on segmented movement, but to be properly playing the first edition version of the game I think you have to follow the rules laid down in the book. That is not to say you could not be playing first edition AD&D without those rules, but I would not consider it "proper" first edition AD&D without them (no matter who was running or playing it).

AxeMental wrote: Foster, curious as to what other ways you determined initiative in your 1E games. I've only heard of d6 high role goes first, and the d10 low role goes first (literally going on the segment you role). I've actually never seen anyone use another system of initiative.

I cannot speak for Trent, but I know that people have used both roll high and roll low for 1d10 and 1d6. Probably the biggest diversion is whether they use segmented movement as part of the procedure.

JRT wrote:I loved his Expert Set contributions

What are you referring to here? The Growth of Animals and Striking spells? The caecilia, rhagodessa, devil swine, frost and fire salamanders, and wood, bone, amber, and bronze golems? The expanded level limits to allow halflings up to 8th, elves to 10th, and dwarfs to 12th? the one-page sample wilderness? Because everything else in the Cook/Marsh-edited Expert Set comes directly, almost word-for-word, from the original boxed set, plus those few bits from Supplement I -- a couple 2nd level cleric spells (silence 15' radius, snake charm) and monsters (blink dog, displacer beast, storm giant, hell hound) -- that got "grandfathered in" because they'd already appeared in the Holmes Basic Set. Giving David Cook credit for the D&D Expert Set is like giving Mike Carr credit for AD&D -- all he did was re-arrange what Gygax and Arneson had already written.

T. Foster wrote:

JRT wrote:I loved his Expert Set contributions

What are you referring to here?

Oops, sorry. I specifically meant the world which eventually became Mystara. He was the one who did the whole "Known World" stuff in the beginning. And X1 was included in many expert sets IIRC.

AxeMental wrote:Foster, curious as to what other ways you determined initiative in your 1E games. I've only heard of d6 high role goes first, and the d10 low role goes first (literally going on the segment you role). I've actually never seen anyone use another system of initiative.

1d6 roll high by group, 1d10 roll high by group, 1d6 roll low by group, 1d10 roll low by group, 1d6 roll high by individual, 1d10 roll high by individual, 1d6 roll low by individual, 1d10 roll low by individual, Dex bonuses/penalties added/subtracted from the roll, weapon speeds added/subtracted from the roll, spell casting times added/subtracted from the roll, roll once at the beginning of combat and go in cyclical order every round after, movement by segments, movement by phase, movement all at once, multiple attacks by segments, multiple attacks by phase, multiple attacks all at once, spell casting by segments, spell casting by phase, spell casting all at once, ties broken by weapon speed, ties broken by Dex, ties meaning simultaneous action, minute-long rounds, 10-second rounds, 6 second rounds, abstract rounds with no fixed length, etc. etc. etc.

I've seen every one of these variations, and probably more I'm forgetting. Heck, I've used most of these variations at one time or another. And yet every one of these games called itself "AD&D" and I never heard anyone question that, because we were using all the elements I listed earlier in the thread -- the ability score adjustments, class/race descriptions, weapon damages, and spell descriptions from the PH, the attack charts, saving throw charts, and magic item descriptions from the DMG, and the monster stats from the MM. And note also that a lot of these games were at conventions, and many of them were RPGA-sponsored, so even in the sense of "tournament rules" it seems to have been de facto accepted that each individual AD&D GM is going to have his own way of handling combat initiative, and no one ever complained.

JRT wrote:

T. Foster wrote:

JRT wrote:I loved his Expert Set contributions

What are you referring to here?

Oops, sorry. I specifically meant the world which eventually became Mystara. He was the one who did the whole "Known World" stuff in the beginning.

OK, that makes more sense. I'd still say, though, that the "known world" as presented in module X1 never seemed too intriguing or spectacular to me -- most of it is explicitly just a bunch of disparate real world cultures crammed together into a small space, and the most intriguing and unique part (the magocracy of the principalities of Glantri) I always suspected was more the doing of (X1 co-author) Tom Moldvay anyway (on the basis of his having used it as the setting for his module X2, whereas Cook's later Expert modules (X4 & 5) continued the trend (of X1 and I1 and, later, OA) of exploring non-European RW settings/cultures). Really, I think to the extent people find that setting interesting is much more due to the additions of the line's later developers -- Frank Mentzer, Aaron Allston, and Bruce Heard -- than Moldvay and Cook's initial map and page of capsule descriptions in X1.

Matthew wrote:That is not to say you could not be playing first edition AD&D without those rules, but I would not consider it "proper" first edition AD&D without them (no matter who was running or playing it).

To which I reiterate my position that any definition of "proper first edition AD&D" that would exclude probably 90+% of games that have been played under that label during the past 30+ years isn't very useful or valid.

T. Foster wrote: To which I reiterate my position that any definition of "proper first edition AD&D" that would exclude probably 90+% of games that have been played under that label during the past 30+ years isn't very useful or valid.

I dunno about that. If a player picked up a PHB and popped along to a game of AD&D he would presumably expect the rules contained therein to be used. If they are not being used he may conclude that the game is either not being played properly, or that proper play of the game allows for the alteration or negation of rules that displease the participants. The latter case, in my opinion, is the least useful definition, since it is too vague and all encompassing (basically allowing people to redefine the game to their own preferences), whilst the former simply allows that the game is not always (perhaps only very rarely) played as written, but still assumes the existence of a "proper", "standard", or "ideal" version from which such games deviate. Just as with any game that is played without the use of a particular rule, the game was played, but not exactly as described in the rulebook. For example, a few months ago I played Field of Glory without properly understanding the rules for bolstering units or using the exact base measurements, but I still played Field of Glory.

If somebody asked me to describe how initiative in first edition AD&D works, I would (after taking a deep breath) proceed to explain that each side rolls 1d6 and the highest acts first, with both acting simultaneously on a draw, and that each round is divided into ten segments that may affect the outcome for individual characters (the general idea being that shorter actions have a better chance to complete before longer ones do). I might afterwards explain that not everybody agrees that X is the correct interpretation and that many people modify these rules in various ways, but I would not start off by describing an alternative.

You may also have to consider what really effects the tactile and visual experiance for the players. If the DM is not using the tables, the player will have no idea (assuming theres a screen). This could drastically alter what happens in the game (and be farther off from 1E). If a player is asked to role d10s to determine hits based on percentage, the feel of the game is altered more in the mind of the player, even though the chances to hit might be close to identical (and the game keeps closer to the AD&D outcomes). But, yeah, look and feel count as well (who doesn't associate 1E with a shit load of odd colorful multi-sided dice).

I think you could also show that roling d10s (1 for initiative and 2 for percentile) take longer then d6 and a d20, something else that throws the game off its intended btb feel.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You can’t name any one thing that makes it suddenly “not AD&D”. Early on, someone mentioned the four classes. Well, guess what? If you took out the Thief but left the rest of the game 99% BTB, is it “not AD&D”? (Anyway, what’s the difference between a party that just doesn’t happen to have a Thief as opposed to a campaign where the DM has outlawed the class?) This whole debate on initiative is the same thing. You’re not going to find any criteria that everyone here will all agree on, so what’s the point? If the AD&D books are your reference (or arguably OSRIC) to some degree, then it’s AD&D. I mean, unless it’s ridiculous and you really on purpose change 75% of the rules. If you’ve got a house rules document of a modest page count, besides which house rules it’s BTB, then that is fine.

Matthew wrote:I dunno about that. If a player picked up a PHB and popped along to a game of AD&D he would presumably expect the rules contained therein to be used. If they are not being used he may conclude that the game is either not being played properly, or that proper play of the game allows for the alteration or negation of rules that displease the participants. The latter case, in my opinion, is the least useful definition, since it is too vague and all encompassing (basically allowing people to redefine the game to their own preferences), whilst the former simply allows that the game is not always (perhaps only very rarely) played as written, but still assumes the existence of a "proper", "standard", or "ideal" version from which such games deviate. Just as with any game that is played without the use of a particular rule, the game was played, but not exactly as described in the rulebook. For example, a few months ago I played Field of Glory without properly understanding the rules for bolstering units or using the exact base measurements, but I still played Field of Glory.

A few different responses to that:

1) The segment-based initiative rules aren't in the PH. The description of how initiative works in the PH is so light on details (and includes so many caveats -- "typically" and "seldom" and "in most other cases") that there's a very wide range of initiative systems that could fit within it without raising player eyebrows:

PH p. 104 wrote:The initiative check is typically made with 2 six-sided dice, 1d6 for the party and another of a different size or color for the creatures encountered. This check is made each round of play where first action is a factor. Because a round is a full minute long, dexterity seldom is a factor in the determination of which side acts first. However, if one group is slowed or hasted, or one or more members of the group are, the initiative will always go to the non-slowed or hasted side. In most other cases, the group with the higher die score will always act first.

2) Even so, the hypothetical player who read the AD&D PH and then joined a game expecting it to conform exactly to that book is at odds with how the game is actually experienced by the vast, overwhelming majority of people who've actually played it. In practice, almost everybody who has ever joined an AD&D game as a player has done so before ever having seen the PH, has played in several sessions before acquiring a copy, and even then pays attention only to the ability score charts, class and race descriptions, weapon and equipment lists, and spell descriptions. I'd hazard to guess that fewer (probably far fewer) than 10% of people who played in AD&D games and owned the PH back in the 70s-80s (and even up to the present if we're counting people newly introduced to the game, and not veterans who've stuck with it for 20+ years) ever actually read it from cover to cover, especially pp. 101-109. I know that, for instance, I used to plead and cajole with my players to read the "Successful Adventuring" essay on pp. 107-109 because I was convinced it would improve their play, and I'm pretty sure not a single one of them ever did, even the ones who were dedicated and "into" the game and had collections and used to go to the game-club and cons and such.

So while the idea of someone carefully reading the PH and then joining a game and being confused or disappointed or drawing some inappropriate conclusion upon finding that initiative is in fact not "made with 2 six-sided dice, 1d6 for the party, and another of a different size or color for the creatures encountered" is theoretically possible, I'd hazard a guess that such a situation has never actually occurred among all the millions of people who've played in AD&D games from the 70s to the present. At most it's something that happens years after the fact, when someone is re-reading the rulebook after years away from the game and thinks "hmm, we never played it that way" (something that, admittedly, you see a lot of in threads at DF, RPGNet, etc. and that most of us probably felt at one point or another).

3) You're muddying the waters by shifting the goal posts (how's that for a mixed metaphor!) from what is "essential" or bare minimum to AD&D to what constitutes "ideal" AD&D. This thread is about the former, so bringing in the latter is an unhelpful distraction. Also, comparing the experience of AD&D (a deliberately loose and customizable framework of guidelines) with a formalized wargame with (presumably) no neutral referee to adjudicate isn't relevant because the two different types of games have completely different design goals and different dynamics of play, and viewing D&D through the prism of the latter is how you end up with 4E.

I'd actually say spells and monsters before any of the classes, initiative or other stuff.
But even that is wrong due to when the monster manual was in use.
There's some significant differences in the spells between the two, though.

Well, a lack of consensus is hardly something new when this question is asked, but there is still merit in debating it even if it is just to read the opinions of other people. From my point of view, "AD&D" provides a lot of leeway with regard to what it can encompass, but if asked to differentiate "first edition AD&D" from the larger corpus of material, I look to a narrower definition. If players cannot choose to be thieves, then no it is not first edition AD&D to me. The difference between the game master forbidding it and the players choosing not to take one is whether they have the choice or not.

T. Foster wrote: A few different responses to that:

1) The segment-based initiative rules aren't in the PH. The description of how initiative works in the PH is so light on details (and includes so many caveats -- "typically" and "seldom" and "in most other cases") that there's a very wide range of initiative systems that could fit within it without raising player eyebrows:

PH p. 104 wrote: The initiative check is typically made with 2 six-sided dice, 1d6 for the party and another of a different size or color for the creatures encountered. This check is made each round of play where first action is a factor. Because a round is a full minute long, dexterity seldom is a factor in the determination of which side acts first. However, if one group is slowed or hasted, or one or more members of the group are, the initiative will always go to the non-slowed or hasted side. In most other cases, the group with the higher die score will always act first.

Well, I am not talking about the specific implementation, only that 1d6, spell casting times and segments need to be present, since they all are described in the Player's Handbook.

T. Foster wrote: 2) Even so, the hypothetical player who read the AD&D PH and then joined a game expecting it to conform exactly to that book is at odds with how the game is actually experienced by the vast, overwhelming majority of people who've actually played it. In practice, almost everybody who has ever joined an AD&D game as a player has done so before ever having seen the PH, has played in several sessions before acquiring a copy, and even then pays attention only to the ability score charts, class and race descriptions, weapon and equipment lists, and spell descriptions. I'd hazard to guess that fewer (probably far fewer) than 10% of people who played in AD&D games and owned the PH back in the 70s-80s (and even up to the present if we're counting people newly introduced to the game, and not veterans who've stuck with it for 20+ years) ever actually read it from cover to cover, especially pp. 101-109. I know that, for instance, I used to plead and cajole with my players to read the "Successful Adventuring" essay on pp. 107-109 because I was convinced it would improve their play, and I'm pretty sure not a single one of them ever did, even the ones who were dedicated and "into" the game and had collections and used to go to the game-club and cons and such.

So while the idea of someone carefully reading the PH and then joining a game and being confused or disappointed or drawing some inappropriate conclusion upon finding that initiative is in fact not "made with 2 six-sided dice, 1d6 for the party, and another of a different size or color for the creatures encountered" is theoretically possible, I'd hazard a guess that such a situation has never actually occurred among all the millions of people who've played in AD&D games from the 70s to the present. At most it's something that happens years after the fact, when someone is re-reading the rulebook after years away from the game and thinks "hmm, we never played it that way" (something that, admittedly, you see a lot of in threads at DF, RPGNet, etc. and that most of us probably felt at one point or another).

Sure, but we are not talking in practice here, we are talking theoretically what constitutes the game. Will it still be recognisable with 1d10 used in place of 1d6? Sure, but that is a deviation from the stated rules, and an alteration of the basic structure. It is not the sort of thing I consider to be intended to be different from group to group, even though in practice it might be.

T. Foster wrote: 3) You're muddying the waters by shifting the goal posts (how's that for a mixed metaphor!) from what is "essential" or bare minimum to AD&D to what constitutes "ideal" AD&D. This thread is about the former, so bringing in the latter is an unhelpful distraction. Also, comparing the experience of AD&D (a deliberately loose and customizable framework of guidelines) with a formalized wargame with (presumably) no neutral referee to adjudicate isn't relevant because the two different types of games have completely different design goals and different dynamics of play, and viewing D&D through the prism of the latter is how you end up with 4E.

Perhaps, but I would argue that I am actually looking for an ideal minimum that can be put into practice, rather than shifting the goal posts. I would agree that adventure games are different from war games in the level of formalisation, but I would disagree that the basic structure of AD&D is not comparable with the complete structure of Field of Glory. The basic structure, in my estimation, is not customisable, otherwise you might as well throw out the attribute tables along with initiative procedure. After all, the practical minimum is that I call it AD&D and the players accept that it is.

Falconer wrote:Early on, someone mentioned the four classes. Well, guess what? If you took out the Thief but left the rest of the game 99% BTB, is it “not AD&D”? (Anyway, what’s the difference between a party that just doesn’t happen to have a Thief as opposed to a campaign where the DM has outlawed the class?)

That sort of depends to me. If the DM simply said "the thief class doesn't exist in this game and you can't play it" but otherwise kept the stuff I mentioned (the ability score charts, the other class descriptions, the weapon damages, the DMG tables, most of the spell, magic item, and monster descriptions) then I'd probably still consider it an AD&D game, but a pretty lame one. If, however, the DM said "the thief class in the book doesn't exist and you can't play it, but you can play this other [rogue/scout/specialist/whatever] class instead" then I'd consider that at best "variant AD&D" even if everything else was handled exactly BTB. A game that said "you can play the thief class in the book and you can also play this [rogue/scout/specialist/whatever] class" wouldn't automatically be non-AD&D (so long as it met the other criteria) but it would depend on the feel, power, and prominence of that new class, whether it complemented or overshadowed and superseded the PH classes.

Matthew wrote:Sure, but we are not talking in practice here, we are talking theoretically what constitutes the game ... After all, the practical minimum is that I call it AD&D and the players accept that it is.

I suppose the direction I've been approaching the topic from, and think is a more interesting and fruitful topic of discussion, is not the theoretical but the practical -- what would make me as a player not accept a game as AD&D (or at least think of it as "variant AD&D") even if that's what the GM called it. And that's the list I came up with (though in light of Falconer's last post I'll modify the inclusion of the class and race descriptions slightly -- one or more of the classes and/or races in the PH can be absent, but if they are present they need to function pretty much as described in the PH -- "you can't play a cleric in this game because this world is trapped in a pocket-dimension where communication with the gods is impossible" = still AD&D; "here's our version of the cleric class that replaces the spell lists with various ritual incantations and sacrifices that have to be performed at certain places and times and with certain tools that you will quest for" = not-AD&D).