Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1106970There'll be a lot left out in any version. The play example I often give is of a party who, encountering mummies in their sarcophagi, cast hold portal on on sarcophagus, had the whole party sit on the other holding the lid down, used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid, poured oil in and lit it up.

No edition of D&D mentions whether hold portal works on a coffin lid. No edition lists a rock drill for purchase, nor has a skill or other rules for its use. No edition mentions how much access to fresh air is required for oil to burn, still less whether something confined in a small space takes more damage or the same from it.

Any finite rule set will fail to cover infinite reality or player imagination. At some point the DM must say "no, don't be stupid," or "interesting, make a roll." The question is not whether the rules are complete, since none are, but whether they are sufficient.

The game designer must also consider that nobody will remember all the rules, so that the longer the rules, the longer people will spend looking them up. Anyone can read rules at home on their own, if you're in a game group for a session then you want to play, not read. As well, human nature being what it is, the more rules there are, the more likely that when the DM is confronted by something outside the rules, they simply say, "no, you can't do that." A more minimalistic rules set lends itself more to, "interesting, make a roll." To this day my players remember drilling into the mummies' sarcophagi. We all remember Jon's evil cackle as he mimicked drilling. It would be a shame to have missed out on that simply because it wasn't covered by the 1,024 pages.

So: rules cannot be complete, but must be sufficient. What is sufficient? Well, that can be argued, and people's needs will be different. I would suggest that there's a reason so many rpgs have followed the model of having a relatively short book of core rules with a bunch of supplements expanding on various aspects. Each group can then mix and match to suit themselves.

I gotta say, Kyle, pretty much whenever you post I find myself nodding along.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1106970There'll be a lot left out in any version. The play example I often give is of a party who, encountering mummies in their sarcophagi, cast hold portal on on sarcophagus, had the whole party sit on the other holding the lid down, used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid, poured oil in and lit it up.

No edition of D&D mentions whether hold portal works on a coffin lid. No edition lists a rock drill for purchase, nor has a skill or other rules for its use. No edition mentions how much access to fresh air is required for oil to burn, still less whether something confined in a small space takes more damage or the same from it.

Any finite rule set will fail to cover infinite reality or player imagination. At some point the DM must say "no, don't be stupid," or "interesting, make a roll." The question is not whether the rules are complete, since none are, but whether they are sufficient.

When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. (OD&D is particularly poor in that it doesn't always adequately explain things it does intend to give rules for.) So, how is grappling handled? Roll d20 to hit? Compare strength, or dexterity, or somehow factor in level? Or grappling is resolved as in Chainmail? And dodging - plus what on AC? versus the first attack, versus all from one attacker, versus all attacks in the same round? What if you need to block a hallway against two opponents - what are your options? What if you're one of the two trying to get past that one guard? I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers. Given some clue as to how to handle a situation gives you a reasonable way to proceed with parallel situations and keeps the game moving faster. You can run 5e having read little more than the Basic rules PDFs, and they're certainly longer than they really need to be.

QuoteSo: rules cannot be complete, but must be sufficient. What is sufficient? Well, that can be argued, and people's needs will be different. I would suggest that there's a reason so many rpgs have followed the model of having a relatively short book of core rules with a bunch of supplements expanding on various aspects. Each group can then mix and match to suit themselves.

5e is more like this than you credit, I think; there's wide swaths of 5e rules that I have not read, and it hasn't hurt me playing or DMing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107021There are several contributing factors.  I can only guess at how much each factor contributes based on general observations, since I did not test each factor in isolation.  (My goal was just to get to the best way, as quickly as possible.  The overall measurement was a tool in that, not an experiment for its own sake.)

However, in general I think these are the big ones:  

Cyclic doesn't scale very well.  There's a tipping point of players.  It varies in each group, but it is there.  It's roughly the point at which players being a bit slow in their decisions starts to cause people to tune out, thus creating a negative feedback loop of distraction.  If the players are sufficiently attentive, knowledgeable of the system,  and don't cross that line of numbers of players, then you will not see this factor emerge. I routinely run for an average of 7-9 players, but the range is more like 5 to 13.  And not always the same group composition, either.  Going from 6 to 7 or 7 to 8 was often but not always sufficient to almost double combat time with my group, as that line got crossed.

If you ask several people to decide what they are doing and then let you know as they can, the order will naturally vary each time.  This often means that the one person this round that needs a few seconds to consider, or look up a spell, or something similar, is not holding up the game.  By the time I've processed the other 3 people that can act right now, the 4th is ready.

After a little practice with the change, it changes how efficient narration works.  In cyclic initiative, you will often get clumps of a few players together and then a few monsters.  Essentially, it's a form of side-by-side for that fight.  The recurring player then monster then player then monster thing rarely happens.  With side-by-side, I can count on the clumping.  It becomes natural to handle a clump mechanically, then narrate at once for the entire clump.  Because multiple actions are being narrated, this leads to players paying more attention, and thus a positive feedback loop can be maintained.  (As a side effect of this, the fights sometimes become even more interesting, because the fights get faster as they go.)

This next point is subtle, and I'm not sure if it is distinct, or an outgrowth of the previous two points.  Players making decisions as a clump leads to them making decisions faster.  I'm not just talking avoid analysis paralysis here, but decisively picking an action and going through with it.  Might be a bit of a "herd" thing.  Might be conditioning from a stop, GO, stop, GO.  Might be something from my GM style of making them sweat that is being emphasized by the order.  I'm not sure.

Finally, there is the issue of numerous and varied monsters.  For various reasons in 5E mechanically and my own preferences, I want to have variety of monsters in most fights.  (I don't want a huge variety, kitchen sink in the campaign, but what I do use, I use in varied groups.)  Those reasons have nothing to do with this point, except that as a side effect of using the varied monsters, there is inevitably some quick consulting of notes, picking up different dice, etc.  Doing monsters in clumps means that the average handling time for each monster goes down.

As I have said elsewhere, running D&D for 3 or 4 players, often fighting a solo monster, it doesn't really matter which system you use.  It will be relatively fast, as long as you avoid analysis paralysis and other such player issues.  And of course analysis paralysis will hurt any game, even early D&D.

The rule is that DMs roll one initiative for identical monsters and they act together; fighting a single monster type this differs from your sides initiative only in that the PCs go in a particular order. Many DMs use folded index cards with PC names, hanging on the GM screen or standing on the table, in initiative order, so players can expect when they will act, and can be ready. I also use miniatures (at least, some kind of marker) so that they can see a lot of the situation as the round proceeds. If they delay the game too long (which depends on how much they've played) or haven't paid attention, they can be skipped as a natural consequence of hesitation; I'm not going to change the rules to cater to bad players. I've played with as many as 9 players (don't tell the AL organizers, as 7 is their limit) and certainly at least 5 different enemy initiatives with a group of 7, plus familiars and other PC allies with distinct initiative, and it's always worked OK for me.

Yeah, big fan of OD&D.

Me, too.

Quote from: rawma;1107125The rule is that DMs roll one initiative for identical monsters and they act together; fighting a single monster type this differs from your sides initiative only in that the PCs go in a particular order. Many DMs use folded index cards with PC names, hanging on the GM screen or standing on the table, in initiative order, so players can expect when they will act, and can be ready. I also use miniatures (at least, some kind of marker) so that they can see a lot of the situation as the round proceeds. If they delay the game too long (which depends on how much they've played) or haven't paid attention, they can be skipped as a natural consequence of hesitation; I'm not going to change the rules to cater to bad players. I've played with as many as 9 players (don't tell the AL organizers, as 7 is their limit) and certainly at least 5 different enemy initiatives with a group of 7, plus familiars and other PC allies with distinct initiative, and it's always worked OK for me.

Yep, tried all of those.  Index cards is about the fastest way to do cyclic, or some variation using a whiteboard.  The only initiative system I haven't yet tried is popcorn initiative.

Quote from: rawma;1107125When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. [...] I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers.

"System A does not give you answers, and you have to make it up. System B gives you poor answers, and then you have to make it up. Therefore B is superior."

So... 500 more pages to read just to have make things up anyway? Okay.

In a social creative hobby, you are complaining that you have to be creative. Okay.

The way I handle initiative is have everybody roll 1d6+mods. I have a rule that fighter get to add their to hit bonus to the die. The difference between hitting AC 9 1st and at their current level. Monster add half (round down) of their hit dice. I roll initiative for named NPCs, and high HD monster. Every other monster gets lumped in a single roll.

Then I call out does everybody have a initiative of 10 or higher. And deal with those in order, taking the NPC or monsters turn if they come up at this point. Then I ask if anybody has a 9, then an 8 and count down. I been successful in managing group as large as 12 individual using this.

In addition I will dictate an arbitrary initiative order from time to time. If the opponents of the party not aware at the start of combat then I will have the entire party go first with those closest going first working my way back. The same with other circumstance where there is a clear spatial arrangement as how people respond. In most cases this works out to the benefit of the PC.

In general it works far more often than not and the continual shift in initiative give the combats in my campaign an added dynamic.

Also crucial but a separate is issue is handling people taking their turns. I start coaching if the player takes too long in larger group. I never tell them what to do but quickly try to help them narrow the options to two or three advantageous choices. For the more experienced players, I allow them to talk and question for a minute or two but at some point I will announce that I will count to 5 and they need to make a decision. I am not rude about this and debated I remind them that is a loose representation of the time pressures they would face if this was actually happen. The handful of times the argument persisted beyond that, I firmly remind the player that there are others awaiting their turns. I can't say I been perfect in this regards but feel I gotten better over the years. When a players mutters about this they feel like I am overly simulationist.

And there are times when no amount of experience at referee doesn't make up for the fact the party put themselves in a bad tactical situation. Not bad in that they are losing, although that could be part of it, but bad that combat becomes a grind even with OD&D. Something that happened this Monday when a players playing a fighter had to hold a corridor while fighting a bone golem (an reskinned iron golem) (it a high level party). It was vital that he did this but for him it amount to making a long series of d20 rolls while the rest of the party dealt with a horde of weaker Undead behind them. He was bored out of this skull while the rest of the group was pulling out scrolls, wands, figuring out spells, along with some attacks from a thief type.

Afterward we had a serious discussion of switching to D&D 5e, I didn't say this but I didn't see it playing out much different with a 5e fighter. Yeah he would have some extra actions and ability but still would have had to hold the corridor. And the extra damage he done would have been soaked by the increased amount of hit point everything has in 5e.

Long story short the party won but expended a fair amount of their resources.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1107154"System A does not give you answers, and you have to make it up. System B gives you poor answers, and then you have to make it up. Therefore B is superior."

So... 500 more pages to read just to have make things up anyway? Okay.

In a social creative hobby, you are complaining that you have to be creative. Okay.

What, you had to be rude and dishonest at the same time? Your page count to read for 5e is exaggerated as I've pointed out twice now. I don't claim great answers, but I'd risk nothing to wager you're not creating great or even consistent answers on the fly.

Quote from: rawma;1107125When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. (OD&D is particularly poor in that it doesn't always adequately explain things it does intend to give rules for.)

The key is to describe the situation (to yourself) as if you are there. As the players describe what they want to do as if they are there.

Then use the following items to craft a ruling that reflects the odds of success if it doesn't automatically succeed or fail. A ruling that will use one or more of these components.

d20 to hit roll
Level
Armor Class
Saving Throw
Attribute scores
A class ability

My interpretation and use of the above are

d20 to hit roll
Roll whenever a character does a physical actions that results in an effect on something defending itself or could defend itself.
Level
Use whenever something need to be decided on the based on the experience of the character

Armor Class
Used when there is damage to be resisted. Otherwise use AC 9[10]+ dex mod to represent a simple touch

Saving Throw
Roll to avoid a catastrophic result or danger.

Attribute Score
Represent the character raw potential in six areas.

Class Ability
Characters can fight, cast arcane spells, cast divine spells, or turn undead. There a few more naunces particularly with fighting but that pretty it for the 3 LBBs.

To handle what Attributes and Levels represents I ruled that anything outside of combat  is resolved by a 15 or better on a d20 if involves a chance of significant failure like stealth, research, pickpocketing, etc.  That if you had an attribute score of 12 to 14 that was relevant you add +1, if you have a score of 15 to 17 you add +2, and a 18+ added +3. In addition I add these bonuses to AC, to hit, and damage which kind of a house rule but more a variation of what the Greyhawk supplement does. Monsters get half HD as a bonus for similar rolls outside of combat or special attacks like grappling.

I also added a rule that a fighter may inflict an adverse result on an opponent, disarm, trip, hit a specific location, etc. Most of the time it in lieu of damage. But in all case the target gets a normal save and if it succeeds neither the damage or the adverse takes effect. This is to allow me to handle consistently any manuveurs the fighter want to do but not making it better than the normal to hit roll. It it scale as higher HD creatures and high level NPCs have better saves.

Now you may decide differently. For example you may decide to multiply the attribute by 5 and use percentage dice roll low. Or you my decide to use a d20 below the attribute, or 3d6 below the attribute. You may combine these mechanics different than I would.

However the process would be the same, look at the situation accordingly, decide on the odds and the procedure that resolves, and have the player roll. The lack of explicit rules doesn't mean the tools are not there.

Quote from: rawma;1107125So, how is grappling handled? Roll d20 to hit? Compare strength, or dexterity, or somehow factor in level? Or grappling is resolved as in Chainmail?

I handle grappling with a to hit roll and now the target is grappled in lieu of damage. The target can try to break free the next round with an opposed strength roll. If still grappled the attacker can attempt to constrain the target with an opposed strength roll (monster get a bonus of half HD). Or do a take down and pin the target to the group with an opposed strength roll. If the attack has a dagger, shortsword, or mace, they get advantage (like 5e). If this was five years ago got theywould have gotten a +4 to hit.

Quote from: rawma;1107125And dodging - plus what on AC? versus the first attack, versus all from one attacker, versus all attacks in the same round?

I would rule if you roll 15+ on a 1d20 plus your dex bonus then anybody trying to attack them will have disadvantage (or -4).

Quote from: rawma;1107125What if you need to block a hallway against two opponents - what are your options?

If the hallway is ten feet wide you can't. If it is 5 foot wide you can and your opponent has to kill you or knock you over. However with the ten foot hallway it will take one of the attackers two rounds to work their way around you.  Because I rule you can only take 5 foot steps while engaged.

Quote from: rawma;1107125I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers.

5e is solid but it does come with a cost and it is not excess verbiage. It has a similar power curve to that of OD&D especially the basic rules. But does it different. To allow diversity and combat details, it grants more hit points and increases the way damage can be done. This in conjunction with the 20 level span means there more stuff to either understand, or develop if you are rolling your own. I wrote my own 5e classes and material and noticeably more tedious than what I had to do with OD&D.

There is nothing wrong with how 5e does things. Many hobbyists like the added details expressed as rules mechanics. But many things can be done just as well as with OD&D with a lot less rules overhead.

Quote from: rawma;11071255e is more like this than you credit, I think; there's wide swaths of 5e rules that I have not read, and it hasn't hurt me playing or DMing.

So you know where I am coming from I ran the same setting several times with both 5th edition in my own rules based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry.

The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).

I guess what I'm asking is, the impetus for first playing with the original rules, happening to be even older than me? Or was there some specific revival of interest in the original rule-set? Or was it something like 'well, Wizards of the Coast offers this dubious new edition of D&D but they also got yet another reprint of original, and that's pretty much that, and I have no reason to cherry pick for particular used stuff, so let's go with option B' ?

Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).

I was also wondering how many people actually sought out actual OD&D to play, as opposed to say Swords & Wizardry. OD&D has some great material in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures that isn't replicated in clones, but I was wondering how many people actually rely on real-OD&D for the mechanics of play.

My OD&D exposure is via White Box - Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, by Charlie Mason.  It's an OSR reorganization of Swords & Wizardry White Box, which is a reorganization of OD&D.  

White Box FMAG starts with White Box D&D, and adds the Thief class; as well as both Ascending and Descending Armor Class, and the "option" of a Single Saving Throw.

Quote from: S'mon;1107173I was also wondering how many people actually sought out actual OD&D to play, as opposed to say Swords & Wizardry. OD&D has some great material in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures that isn't replicated in clones, but I was wondering how many people actually rely on real-OD&D for the mechanics of play.

There is a small but persistent group of OSR hobbyists who focus on white box play i.e. the 3 LBB versus the 3 LBB + Greyhawk. And many forum posts talking about the experience has them using the 3 LBB as well as their clone of choice. I think it been an non-issue since Wizards started selling PDFs of OD&D again.

What most causal observer of the OSR may not realize that the 3 LBB only D&D is as distinct as AD&D versus B/X. Still D&D but has it own feel. The way hit points are rolled, the fact everybody does 1d6 damage and so on.

The other thing that it is not possible to run 3 LBB by the book. There are a number of areas where rulings need to be made at the start of the campaign that make each 3 LBB only campaign distinct in terms of mechanics. A good outline of the issues is Philotomy's Musings.

OD&D is best D&D.

Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).

Old school conventions that emerged after EGG's passing opened the floodgates for easy face-to-face exposure. For example, I first played in some OD&D games at NTRPG Con in 2010 run by old guard (Kask) and new guard (Mythmere, Philotomy). At the same time, I think these events catalyzed interest in people who couldn't attend in person. Both groups wound up blogging and posting online about their experiences.