|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 9:25:14 GMT -8
Hi. I am in the process of reading this document, A.D.D.I.C.T. as a complete annotated summary of the AD&D 1e combat system and I much appreciate the "scholarly" work that went into this - courtesy of the good people at Dragonsfoot.org. As I recall, initiative was for each and every 1-minute round. Segments were a measure for action order. Missile weapons had a modifier based on dexterity bonus/malus but melee weapons each had weapon speed factors and spells had casting time in segments. There were 10 segments to a round (during which time the caster was flat footed). Initiative was determined by highest party D6 roll. A result of 1 on the D6 meant surprise for a party and a tie meant action was simultaneous between two parties. That's all back in the day. 3.5 made Dex an ubber stat by making it part of everyone's initiaive determination from what I can tell. Or it might have happened in 2e with the introduction of THAC0 (to replace the "to hit" charts of 1e) . I must be thinking of 2nd edition then because that sounds about halfway like what I remember. (I first learned to play with a combination of 1E/2E books based on what we could scrape together, so it's likely I've jumbled things up). Once I unpack I'll have to check my D&D 2E books. I remember the 1 minute rounds, but the rules I remember asked for a d10 roll and you acted in the 6-second interval/segment of that minute that the d10 indicated. You might have been playing GM = System, which was totally the fashion in the Guide for DMs in AD&D 1e and completely legitimate in the day. You're unpacking? Moving?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 9:32:02 GMT -8
Hi. I am in the process of reading this document, A.D.D.I.C.T. as a complete annotated summary of the AD&D 1e combat system and I much appreciate the "scholarly" work that went into this - courtesy of the good people at Dragonsfoot.org. As I recall, initiative was for each and every 1-minute round. Segments were a measure for action order. Missile weapons had a modifier based on dexterity bonus/malus but melee weapons each had weapon speed factors and spells had casting time in segments. There were 10 segments to a round (during which time the caster was flat footed). Initiative was determined by highest party D6 roll. A result of 1 on the D6 meant surprise for a party and a tie meant action was simultaneous between two parties. That's all back in the day. 3.5 made Dex an ubber stat by making it part of everyone's initiaive determination from what I can tell. Or it might have happened in 2e with the introduction of THAC0 (to replace the "to hit" charts of 1e) . I must be thinking of 2nd edition then because that sounds about halfway like what I remember. (I first learned to play with a combination of 1E/2E books based on what we could scrape together, so it's likely I've jumbled things up). Once I unpack I'll have to check my D&D 2E books. I remember the 1 minute rounds, but the rules I remember asked for a d10 roll and you acted in the 6-second interval/segment of that minute that the d10 indicated. I've just grabbed my old 2e books . . . I was looking through them recently for an entirely, no forum related, reason . . . And yes in 2e initiative is d10
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 20, 2012 12:25:09 GMT -8
If memory serves (and it may not) it first showed up in 3.x. If in our magical construct we're talking in terms of a ritual (complex gestures and a convoluted string of words) then I agree completely with your premise. If in our magical construct we're talking in terms of a word and a gesture then I agree with the rules as expressed in Pathfinder. All sort of revolves around how we envision the magic being cast. Personally I rather like the idea of spellcasters being more mobile and active, but that's just me. Cheers, JiB Thanks JiB. I was wondering where the rule came about as I have to explain things that are different to different experiences. I already have one min-maxer that for some reason, after walking out on my game, wants to return to my game but wants to ... well, fuck, obviously wants to know all the rules and how they fit to min-max, right? So he is getting his, you-know-you-should-not-mess-with-the-book freak on. GM = System.. he just cannot grok that. And I do not need rules lawyers at my table. I might throw this fish back. Anyway, THAT is why I am so persnickety and invaded the 3.x Thread to get an answer. (For me, play should be less work and more fun.) I take the view with rules lawyers that if they want to argue they can go join a debate club. The gm makes a decision and we move on whether we like it or not. Back in AL I played a rogue in a 3.5 game and the question came up, "How many times can a rogue backstab someone?" The gm took the view that they could do it once in a given combat because after that the target knew the rogue was there and so could defend. I took the view that if they were facing away from my character they couldn't see and so couldn't defend. He said no, and I said, well ok. Some of the other players got spun up about it and a huge argument ensued with them basically agreeing with me. At this point I was out of the argument because the gm had ruled. We ended up losing a good player because of it which made me sad. I went home and checked the rule book and sent a copy of the relevant information to the gm not from an, "I was right and you were wrong," standpoint but just a, between us here's what the book actually says. The determined to go with the rules as written and so we did. Point being, it's ok to have a disagreement with the ruling, but do it with respect for the other person and in private. Just adhere to the basic rule, "Praise in public and chastise in private." Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 12:44:12 GMT -8
Thanks JiB. I was wondering where the rule came about as I have to explain things that are different to different experiences. I already have one min-maxer that for some reason, after walking out on my game, wants to return to my game but wants to ... well, fuck, obviously wants to know all the rules and how they fit to min-max, right? So he is getting his, you-know-you-should-not-mess-with-the-book freak on. GM = System.. he just cannot grok that. And I do not need rules lawyers at my table. I might throw this fish back. Anyway, THAT is why I am so persnickety and invaded the 3.x Thread to get an answer. (For me, play should be less work and more fun.) I take the view with rules lawyers that if they want to argue they can go join a debate club. The gm makes a decision and we move on whether we like it or not. Back in AL I played a rogue in a 3.5 game and the question came up, "How many times can a rogue backstab someone?" The gm took the view that they could do it once in a given combat because after that the target knew the rogue was there and so could defend. I took the view that if they were facing away from my character they couldn't see and so couldn't defend. He said no, and I said, well ok. Some of the other players got spun up about it and a huge argument ensued with them basically agreeing with me. At this point I was out of the argument because the gm had ruled. We ended up losing a good player because of it which made me sad. I went home and checked the rule book and sent a copy of the relevant information to the gm not from an, "I was right and you were wrong," standpoint but just a, between us here's what the book actually says. The determined to go with the rules as written and so we did. Point being, it's ok to have a disagreement with the ruling, but do it with respect for the other person and in private. Just adhere to the basic rule, "Praise in public and chastise in private." Cheers, JiB I couldn't be more 100% behind you than I am. And I would not pettition for a rematch/do-over/retcon after my interpretation was accepted. But that had nothing to do with gaming. That has everything to do with who we are as people. Some people need that codified too. Sad. But never play with assholes even other wise good player assholes. (You're seeing this happening on Facebook I think...?)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 13:39:48 GMT -8
I take the view with rules lawyers that if they want to argue they can go join a debate club. The gm makes a decision and we move on whether we like it or not. Back in AL I played a rogue in a 3.5 game and the question came up, "How many times can a rogue backstab someone?" The gm took the view that they could do it once in a given combat because after that the target knew the rogue was there and so could defend. I took the view that if they were facing away from my character they couldn't see and so couldn't defend. He said no, and I said, well ok. Some of the other players got spun up about it and a huge argument ensued with them basically agreeing with me. At this point I was out of the argument because the gm had ruled. We ended up losing a good player because of it which made me sad. I went home and checked the rule book and sent a copy of the relevant information to the gm not from an, "I was right and you were wrong," standpoint but just a, between us here's what the book actually says. The determined to go with the rules as written and so we did. Point being, it's ok to have a disagreement with the ruling, but do it with respect for the other person and in private. Just adhere to the basic rule, "Praise in public and chastise in private." Cheers, JiB I couldn't be more 100% behind you than I am. And I would not pettition for a rematch/do-over/retcon after my interpretation was accepted. But that had nothing to do with gaming. That has everything to do with who we are as people. Some people need that codified too. Sad. But never play with assholes even other wise good player assholes. (You're seeing this happening on Facebook I think...?) Then there is the old argument that I prefer . . . they're not rules they're guidelines. As such they should be used as dictated by the individual situation with all things being considered - the exceptions proving the 'ruling'. The backstab example? in that combat that ruling could be considered right because of the circumstances considered by the GM . . . but that doesn't mean that the next combat will be the same because the circumstances will have changed requiring possible reconsideration of the current 'ruling' by the GM to reflect these changes (with polite player input)
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 20, 2012 16:18:07 GMT -8
I totally agree on all counts. I didn't send him the information so he would change his mind. I sent it to him simply as a here is the information at hand, and I'm fine with it being the way you said.
There are all manner of circumstances that would negate a sneak attack. I have no gripe whatsoever with it being dependent on the situation or negated all together, though in that case I'll probably not play a character for whom sneak attack plays a significant role in their ability to be useful in a fight.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 21:51:13 GMT -8
I totally agree on all counts. I didn't send him the information so he would change his mind. I sent it to him simply as a here is the information at hand, and I'm fine with it being the way you said. There are all manner of circumstances that would negate a sneak attack. I have no gripe whatsoever with it being dependent on the situation or negated all together, though in that case I'll probably not play a character for whom sneak attack plays a significant role in their ability to be useful in a fight. JiB Aye, there was no criticism on your behalf . . . Sending the information the way you did, politely, was exactly the way to go, it was just a shame that the rest of the table erupted into an argument.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 22:07:33 GMT -8
a shame that the rest of the table erupted into an argument. Sign of the times.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 21, 2012 6:11:53 GMT -8
I don't know that I'd say it's a sign of the times, because that implies that it was once different, and these sorts of arguments have always come up as long as I've been gaming (which is a really long time because I'm really old).
It is unfortunate that an argument resulted and even more so that we lost a good player from it.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 21, 2012 6:29:37 GMT -8
It is unfortunate that an argument resulted and even more so that we lost a good player from it. JiB Difference in experience. Why was this guy a good player? What made him a good player? His behaviour suggests to me he was a litigious asshole or, at the very least, a player terribly unsuited to play at that table he sat. (That's not to say he would not take a bullet for you or make great conversation on a rainy day or had a beautiful sister....) Why not just say: good riddence?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 21, 2012 7:03:48 GMT -8
I don't know that I'd say it's a sign of the times, because that implies that it was once different, and these sorts of arguments have always come up as long as I've been gaming (which is a really long time because I'm really old). It is unfortunate that an argument resulted and even more so that we lost a good player from it. JiB Aye . . . The rose tinted glasses of time
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 21, 2012 7:05:52 GMT -8
I don't know that I'd say it's a sign of the times, because that implies that it was once different, and these sorts of arguments have always come up as long as I've been gaming (which is a really long time because I'm really old). It is unfortunate that an argument resulted and even more so that we lost a good player from it. JiB Aye . . . The rose tinted glasses of time Not sure it is rose coloured glasses. Probably I just associated with a better class of gamer in those days. I am without a net over here. Very upsetting.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 21, 2012 7:13:08 GMT -8
Aye . . . The rose tinted glasses of time Not sure it is rose coloured glasses. Probably I just associated with a better class of gamer in those days. I am without a net over here. Very upsetting. I did go for a time wearing actual rose tinted glasses and things really do look better through them . . . Sort of warm and soft everywhere . . . Though things were more herbal back then . . .
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 21, 2012 7:30:47 GMT -8
Not sure it is rose coloured glasses. Probably I just associated with a better class of gamer in those days. I am without a net over here. Very upsetting. I did go for a time wearing actual rose tinted glasses and things really do look better through them . . . Sort of warm and soft everywhere . . . Though things were more herbal back then . . . I have an eager player for my game tomorrow giving me ulcers on Facebook today .
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 21, 2012 8:22:03 GMT -8
I did go for a time wearing actual rose tinted glasses and things really do look better through them . . . Sort of warm and soft everywhere . . . Though things were more herbal back then . . . I have an eager player for my game tomorrow giving me ulcers on Facebook today . How so ?
|
|