TheRPGSite

I've been downloading a lot of PDFs of OSR games lately.  One minor thing I've noticed about them is that a majority of the ones I've looked at use something either identical or much closer to the B/X ability score modifier charts than the AD&D charts.

I just think that's interesting for some reason.  I've always liked the 3/4-5/6-8/9-12/13-15/16-17/18 split better anyway.

It neatly lines up with the bell-curve of probabilities of a 3d6 roll. But then I am a B/X and BECMI/RC fan. :)

AD&D proposed methods that inflate ability scores, which makes bonuses more common (and penalties less) than is the case when such a distribution is applied to straight 3d6.

From having used the latter in Metamorphosis Alpha, I'll say there's a different psychology. Since only about 1 score in 5 gets a bonus or penalty (9.26% each way) - and mods greater than +/-1 are even more rare - one is far from being "odd man out" if one doesn't get (say) a Strength bonus.  It's remarkable good luck to get one: about 1 in 11 figures, if you're tossing 3d6 each for 6 abilities in order.

With the B/X spread, mods are more common. One thing this means is that bonuses and penalties are more likely to balance out. Then again, having a bonus in one's prime requisite becomes the norm. The BX point trades, like the AD&D boosting and choosing distribution, make it more a matter of bad luck not to get that!

Quote from: Phillip;826696AD&D proposed methods that inflate ability scores, which makes bonuses more common (and penalties less) than is the case when such a distribution is applied to straight 3d6.

From having used the latter in Metamorphosis Alpha, I'll say there's a different psychology. Since only about 1 score in 5 gets a bonus or penalty (9.26% each way) - and mods greater than +/-1 are even more rare - one is far from being "odd man out" if one doesn't get (say) a Strength bonus.  It's remarkable good luck to get one: about 1 in 11 figures, if you're tossing 3d6 each for 6 abilities in order.

With the B/X spread, mods are more common. One thing this means is that bonuses and penalties are more likely to balance out. Then again, having a bonus in one's prime requisite becomes the norm. The BX point trades, like the AD&D boosting and choosing distribution, make it more a matter of bad luck not to get that!

Them's good points.  Also why I do 3d6, none of this drop the lowest die crap.

The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical. Especially AD&D. 4d6 drop 1? How dare people want high ability scores They should be burned at the stake.

Though of course, not as bad as the Thief class. Apparently that's when the game went downhill...

But of course, there are lots of different groups that have different interpretations of how the one true game should be really be implemented, so you see a lot of variants. But they do have a lot in common.

Maybe it's just easier if each Ability Score has the same mod ranges – 16 in whatever Ability Score is +2.

AD&D is harder to keep in active memory, e.g. STR bonuses are different from CON bonuses, or for DEX AC modifiers are different from missile mods.

Quote from: JeremyR;826739The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical. Especially AD&D. 4d6 drop 1? How dare people want high ability scores They should be burned at the stake.

Though of course, not as bad as the Thief class. Apparently that's when the game went downhill...

But of course, there are lots of different groups that have different interpretations of how the one true game should be really be implemented, so you see a lot of variants. But they do have a lot in common.

What's "Puritianism"? Something for Puritans who wouldn't play without inflated stats?

Quote from: JeremyR;826739The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical. Especially AD&D. 4d6 drop 1? How dare people want high ability scores They should be burned at the stake.

Though of course, not as bad as the Thief class. Apparently that's when the game went downhill...

But of course, there are lots of different groups that have different interpretations of how the one true game should be really be implemented, so you see a lot of variants. But they do have a lot in common.

I concur. I've always seen it as Golden Era Longing. The 'perfect' past that is held in the memory is inviolate. It can never tarnish. Especially if one never thinks about it too deeply. I played 1E. A whole lot of it. It was all we had. Games moved past it for a reason.

The B/X ability mods always made more sense to me than the AD&D ones.
True20 making away with the "score gives you a modifier" thing made even more sense.

Quote from: artikid;826848The B/X ability mods always made more sense to me than the AD&D ones.
True20 making away with the "score gives you a modifier" thing made even more sense.

Well, it does if you're using typical skills. Not as much if you're using ability checks.

Quote from: Tetsubo;826841I concur. I've always seen it as Golden Era Longing. The 'perfect' past that is held in the memory is inviolate. It can never tarnish. Especially if one never thinks about it too deeply. I played 1E. A whole lot of it. It was all we had. Games moved past it for a reason.

Yup commercial interests being the main one.

Or wait just maybe it possible to like the original and play it and like other games. Just like people like chess, chess variants, and other similar boardgames without thing that somehow chess is broken or obsolete.

And the fact that this comes up even though OSR publishing is going on in its 8th or 9th year (if you take a 2006-2007 start). So when this stops being an issue. Does it need to make it to 10, 15, or 20 years?

The way it has panned out is that there is a small but sustained interest in older edition. Barring some fad or break-out hit, it is shaping up to be a market about the size of the other third party RPGs out there. Bigger than some, smaller than others. Some companies like Goblinoid Games, Lamentation of the Flame Princess, Sine Nomine, or Frog God Games are bigger and more active other are not like my own Bat in the Attic Games.

If anything the problem is the newer is better mentality that was instilled by Gygax in promoting AD&D 1st edition over OD&D and entrenched with the progression from 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0.

Now don't get me wrong older editions can be presented better, the original form of OD&D can use a lot of improvement in presentation and many subsystems of AD&D 1st were downright unclear. However as games they run as good today as they did back in the day.

Feel like folks panning Golden Eras just aren't finished with theirs yet.:-)

For me, it's all about simplicity in the system. Players just wanna play, for the most part, and not all of them see long chargen as playing. I don't for one minute think OS systems are perfect. But I find many of the systems honest and charming. I guess then, at my advancing age, charming and honest is more important these days than cool and slick. Me of the past would likely disagree (but me of the past was pretty stupid).:-)

Quote from: JeremyR;826739The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. If you had said "Certain grognard circles, such as the ones associated with forum or product X., Y. or Z. are a lot like Puritanism...", I would have concurred. That would have been true.

But the OSR is anything but. Most (admittedly not all) of this (http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html) is OSR. There's such a staggering variety of not only thematic, but also rules-related variations and experiments, that calling the OSR at large puritanical is assinine. In fact, I'd say "D&D at large" has never been as full of variations, changes and (published) houserules as with the OSR today.

Quote from: cranebump;826859Well, it does if you're using typical skills. Not as much if you're using ability checks.

You can have no skills and just ability checks under such a system just as well.

I've been running AD&D with a bunch of newbies recently. Most of them don't know anything except to roll a d20 and add some number on their character sheet then tell me what they got. It takes about 1 second. The notion that having different ability modifiers matter beyond character creation is a bit overblown. D&D, AD&D, B/X, etc...these are all different games. They all play a bit differently. Pick whichever one you like best and use that. Claiming one is better than the other (for ability modifiers for instance) ASSumes homogeneity is good.  Why? Just roll some dice behind your screen and tell the players what happens.

Quote from: artikid;826867You can have no skills and just ability checks under such a system just as well.

Right, but not the roll under kind (sorry--I was unclear).  I think a lot of folks like the numbers. Of course, if you don't find some way to make them come into play, they're useless.

Isn't the OSR-bashing rather dated?

I have a substantive question, related to Phillip's post above.

Since AD&D's ability-generation methods inflate scores, but the effects of ability scores are then recalibrated based on higher averages (in general), what is the point?

I can think of a few:

1. AD&D still uses 3d6 for normal humans, so there's a difference you don't get in the OD&D/Basic branch. (Along with the concept of zero-level.)
2. The effects may not be calibrated identically, so e.g. maybe the threshold for experience bonuses for high scores is close to the Basic one, while the task bonuses may be different. (Don't have any books in front of me.)
3. The overall effect of the AD&D method may be to reduce the incidence of penalties without increasing the incidence of bonuses, and without increasing the average (or median) stat-based modifier.

Then there's the silly rationale, "goes to 11"--it's just nicer to have double-digit scores even if the net effect is no different.

And finally the organic development theory--bonuses were introduced in Greyhawk, and Gygax simply did a nip-and-tuck from there to get the effect he wanted, without considering that there was a simpler approach if you start from a blank slate.

Quote from: cranebump;826872Right, but not the roll under kind (sorry--I was unclear).

Yes you can if you use a different dice than the d20. B/X used a d6 to solve many things like spotting secret doors and traps, or opening doors.

So an ability check would just be roll 1d6 lower than or equal to your ability score.

You can make it work with ability negative scores as well, or scores that exceed 6, simply using an open-ended roll system kinda like the one ICE uses for MERP or Rolemaster.

Quote from: artikid;826878Yes you can if you use a different dice than the d20. B/X used a d6 to solve many things like spotting secret doors and traps, or opening doors.

So an ability check would just be roll 1d6 lower than or equal to your ability score.

You can make it work with ability negative scores as well, or scores that exceed 6, simply using an open-ended roll system kinda like the one ICE uses for MERP or Rolemaster.

I think you mean roll below target # + Mod? Is that right?

Yeah, you can do it that way. The only thing I can see that makes that less desirable is that is the range of mods might be narrower than the range of scores. Having a +1 in a skill on a d6 roll where '1' is a success grants a 33% chance of success (2 in 6). The B/X 13-15 score range that grants the +1, however, grants a 65-75% chance of success, if you're just rolling under. I'm sure you can modify that stuff to fit, but you have the scores, why not use them? (On that, I'd rather have people roll a d20, add the score, with 20 being the target number).

It's all preference, obviously. I've gone further and further away from rolling anything other than what the books allows, so we're using a lot of d6 rolling, by RAW. I guess the scores are less relevant, but people still don't mind rolling them. There's still some ability damage in the game here and there where they can be somewhat relevant that way, I guess.

Quote from: Arminius;826877Since AD&D's ability-generation methods inflate scores, but the effects of ability scores are then recalibrated based on higher averages (in general), what is the point?

I think the problem result from that much of early edition D&D is reactive instead of proactive as in the author is working towards some master design.

Basically the D&D rules came about because Gygax adapted Arneson's rules and over several iterations developed through playing Greyhawk came out with the final OD&D rules. Development didn't stop there resulting in Greyhawk and the later supplements.

D&D become wildy popular causing TSR and Gygax to be bombarded with questions and requests. Gygax also has a group of people to work with generating ideas of their own. He mashes this together into AD&D 1st edition.

A lot of the addition originate from the desire to customize characters to one's own taste. Because tabletop roleplaying was so new, players first instinct was to go for more rules. Gygax was not immune this despite originating the game. So in the supplements and later AD&D, he goes for more rules. One of those new rules is the new ability score scale. But since things were going fast and furious it was bolted on top of the original design in AD&D.

You are correct in pointing out that humans rolled with 3d6 are distinctly different and less powerful than character rolled with one of the alternatives. But I think it was more by accident than something deliberately done.

I think it works well for campaigns where the character are special people destined to be heroes. Not so well for a more low key gritty campaign, for that I think the OD&D setup works better or a tamped down ability score scale.

The heart of the problem is the idea that you need rules for everything in tabletop roleplaying and that only if we had a better design it would fix everything.

Sometimes a better design does help. AD&D 2nd edition kits certainly helped with customizing characters, and the redesigned D&D 3.0 was brilliant in making highly customized character in a game still recognizable as D&D.

The resurgence of interest in the oldest edition of D&D, the rise of games like Fate, and the general interest in RPGs with simpler mechanics taught people that you don't need formal rules to cover everything. That sometimes less is better. That much of what we think we need rules for can be handled by just writing it down in natural language and roleplaying accordingly.

The OSR was one of the pioneers in this and a major influence on why D&D 5e turned out the way it did.

My view is that is great that it happened and that its best benefit is that for me it feels like the range of RPGs is complete. When I want the detail I can use GURPS, if want to go light I can go with Swords & Wizardry or D&D 5e. If want lighter still I can go with Fate or Microlite.

Quote from: cranebump;826882I think you mean roll below target # + Mod? Is that right?

Yeah, you can do it that way. The only thing I can see that makes that less desirable is that is the range of mods might be narrower than the range of scores. Having a +1 in a skill on a d6 roll where '1' is a success grants a 33% chance of success (2 in 6). The B/X 13-15 score range that grants the +1, however, grants a 65-75% chance of success, if you're just rolling under. I'm sure you can modify that stuff to fit, but you have the scores, why not use them? (On that, I'd rather have people roll a d20, add the score, with 20 being the target number).

It's all preference, obviously. I've gone further and further away from rolling anything other than what the books allows, so we're using a lot of d6 rolling, by RAW. I guess the scores are less relevant, but people still don't mind rolling them. There's still some ability damage in the game here and there where they can be somewhat relevant that way, I guess.

Yes it's all preference of course.

What I meant is just roll under score: with abilities ranging from 1 up (no limit).
So a Strength of 3 means roll 3 or less on 1d6.
Str 6? You fail on 6 and any subsequent roll of 2 or more.
Str 7? You fail on 6 and any subsequent roll of 3 or more.
Str 8? You fail on 6 and any subsequent roll of 4 or more.... etc... etc... etc..


However this can work with any range: a Str of -1? roll 1 and then 5 or less to succeed
Str -2? roll 1 and then 4 or less to succeed.
Why abolish the scores/modifiers dichotomy? To have a cleaner character sheet and mechanics.

But then, again it's all a matter of taste.

For example, as much as I love D&D in all its forms, I could never stand Saving Throws as separate from ability score checks.
Or HP as separate from CON.
In these fields I find myself more at home with T&T.

Quote from: artikid;826890For example, as much as I love D&D in all its forms, I could never stand Saving Throws as separate from ability score checks.
Or HP as separate from CON.

I like how Microlite did HP's, with your STR (which doubles as your CON score) serving as the base for HP's. I agree the original save categories are wonky, though they do fit the spelunking/exploration mentality of the original game (when it came to threats, at least). That said, M20's STR, DEX, MIND covers just about everything.

Gamma World 1e  for me +1 per point over 15.

Quote from: JeremyR;826739The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical. Especially AD&D. 4d6 drop 1? How dare people want high ability scores They should be burned at the stake.

Though of course, not as bad as the Thief class. Apparently that's when the game went downhill...

  Nah. There's a small, vocal and annoying subset of the OSR that's like that, but they're about as representative of the hobby as the Elite Storytellers or fanatic SJWs over at TBP.

  Personally, I see the OSR as largely the creative destruction of AD&D 1E's pretense of "One Game to Rule Them All." :) But it should be noted that I'm not a member of the OSR by any stretch (although my gaming for the past year or so has been decidedly 'old school'--Star Wars d6 2E and AD&D 2E. :) )

Quote from: Arminius;826877Isn't the OSR-bashing rather dated?

Some people long for the lost  Golden Age of OSR bashing.

QuoteI have a substantive question, related to Phillip's post above.

Since AD&D's ability-generation methods inflate scores, but the effects of ability scores are then recalibrated based on higher averages (in general), what is the point?

I think the abilit scores weren't inflated primarily because of the bonuses at all, but because of the addition of minimum scores. In OD&D, you can play a Fighter with Str 3, or an M-U with Int 3. It didn't matter, other than to slow down advancement a tad. AD&D adds  minimum scores for each class and race. We also see this in one of the classic lines,  B/X I think, at least for races. I always thought of that as a big mistake.

Quote from: languagegeek;826741Maybe it's just easier if each Ability Score has the same mod ranges – 16 in whatever Ability Score is +2.

This is precisely why I like the scores in (B/X-derived) ACKS - because modifiers are consistent. Which also makes it easy for me to write a shorthand for NPCs where I just list the ones that have a modifier.

For example:

Spoiler

Saskia - originally one of Rhyanidd's tenant farmers from home, the group's groom and the closest thing to the princess' valet.

Fighter 2. Move 120', AC 4/5, HD 2+2, hp 14, Att 8+/9+, Saves: Fort 12+ Ref 14+ Will 15+, Init +0, Mor +6
Dmg: 1d6+3 (spear), 1d4+2 (dagger), 1d6+3 (javelin)
Str+1, Con+1.
Proficiencies: Seasoned Campaigner, Animal Husbandry, Animal Training (horse), Survival, Riding, Weapon Focus (spear).
Languages: Celtic, Germanic
Equipment: Leather armour (good), medium shield, spear, dagger, javelins (5), medium riding horse, medium war horse. Enc 5/6 stone.

Quote from: Kiero;826939Which also makes it easy for me to write a shorthand for NPCs where I just list the ones that have a modifier.

Here's something easier: Warrior, 16HP, AC 4, Attack: Longsword d8+1

From this statline I know this is a 2nd level Fighter with a +1 to STR. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant, and if it becomes relevant, convert to PC.

Quote from: Brad;826941Here's something easier: Warrior, 16HP, AC 4, Attack: Longsword d8+1

From this statline I know this is a 2nd level Fighter with a +1 to STR. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant, and if it becomes relevant, convert to PC.

That quoted NPC is a PC's hench(wo)man, the extra detail matters given that they could become a PC on a temporary basis without warning. It also means I don't have to memorise or look up any of the derived stats. And in a game where everyone has more than one weapon and spears break, a single weapon damage value isn't enough.

Quote from: Kiero;826945derived stats

Well that's the issue, isn't it? The more complex the character becomes, the more information you need for the stats to be useful. The one I provided is essentially a complete AD&D character. Just giving an example about how the different stat mods are pretty much meaningless after the character is made.

The nice thing about +1 per point over 15 is that it rewards exceptional scores but can be completely ignored for everything else.

Normally I'm a hard core every point should count psycho but this is D&D we're talking about.  The second version of Dark Passages used a scale that mapped to 3e-5e but split the to hit and damage bonus (or whatever) so you got something for every point.  It worked okay but tended to be too complex for what was originally intended as a dead simple game.

I'm playing around with +1 per point over 10 and -1 per point under 10 and +1 per level on skills on a current project but I think it'll wind up requiring a second d20 roll to work well past 5th level, and the PCs start as 10th level amnesiacs.

Aren't some OSR games more streamlined ruleswise than oldskool games ever were?

I mean there was a lot of clunkyness in in the earlier D&D versions. Some OSR games are nostalgic to the old days, but seem to me like modern games with it's streamlined design.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;827134Aren't some OSR games more streamlined ruleswise than oldskool games ever were?

I mean there was a lot of clunkyness in in the earlier D&D versions. Some OSR games are nostalgic to the old days, but seem to me like modern games with it's streamlined design.

Yes, many are written with a particular intent in mind, and pare away or revise the stuff that doesn't fit. Most of the older games were a grab-bag of all sorts of rules, which were often ignored or forgotten, and so there's an editorial decision right there as to what you include. As an example, look at all the rules around overland travel, weather and so on in the Moldvay Expert Set.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;827134Aren't some OSR games more streamlined ruleswise than oldskool games ever were?

I mean there was a lot of clunkyness in in the earlier D&D versions. Some OSR games are nostalgic to the old days, but seem to me like modern games with it's streamlined design.

Osr games (assuming: OGL-based d&d clones, basically) are all over the place but I think you're right in this sense: bitd, designers and groups didn't shy away from borrowing or devising new custom mechanics. E.g. early editions of D&D either included whole separate sections on mass combat, sea combat, and aerial combat, or invited players to grab them from wargames. AD&D had separate subsystems for dealing with encounters and evasion during overland travel. I think it's much more likely these days for designers to look for ways to universalize existing mechanics.

I doubt that the tendency toward the B/X spread is due to some kind of dislike of AD&D; there's a lot of OSR people who are big fans of AD&D.  I just think that the other spread is more 'classic', with the modifiers people tend to think of in the game.

Quote from: estar;826886The resurgence of interest in the oldest edition of D&D, the rise of games like Fate, and the general interest in RPGs with simpler mechanics taught people that you don't need formal rules to cover everything. That sometimes less is better. That much of what we think we need rules for can be handled by just writing it down in natural language and roleplaying accordingly.

Quote from: estar;826886That sometimes less is better. That much of what we think we need rules for can be handled by just writing it down in natural language and roleplaying accordingly.

Quote from: estar;826886That much of what we think we need rules for can be handled by just writing it down in natural language and roleplaying accordingly.

Yes. Yes it can (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/11/secondary-skills.html).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;944835Yes. Yes it can (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/11/secondary-skills.html).

My preference is for something a little more concrete than AD&D style secondary skills. But not that much more.

Earthdawn uses the 3-18* scale to render a "Step", which is added to a talent/skill rank to figure the dice pool to roll. The basic math is Attribute Step = 1 + Attribute Value/3 (round all fractions up).

I like having 3e-style d20+bonus vs DC mechanics. But not having any fixed list of skills.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;944835Yes. Yes it can (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/11/secondary-skills.html).

Sweet Crom's hairy NUTSACK, yes.

If you're a Hero, you can do anything it's reasonable for a Hero to do.  If you're a Theurigst, you can do anything that's reasonable for a 4th level magic user to do.

In case of question, talk to the damn referee like a grownup.  FKR forever!!

The B/X version is easier to remember, and gives bonuses for scores of 13 or better. AD&D stats are harder to remember and mostly don't give bonuses for stats lower than 15. For example, a fighter with a STR of 14 in B/X gets +1 to hit and damage. That same fighter would need a 17 in AD&D to get those pluses.

Quote from: JeremyR;826739The OSR is a lot like Puritianism.

The original game is the one true game, anything else is heretical. Especially AD&D. 4d6 drop 1? How dare people want high ability scores They should be burned at the stake.

Though of course, not as bad as the Thief class. Apparently that's when the game went downhill...

But of course, there are lots of different groups that have different interpretations of how the one true game should be really be implemented, so you see a lot of variants. But they do have a lot in common.

Quote from: Premier;826865Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. If you had said "Certain grognard circles, such as the ones associated with forum or product X., Y. or Z. are a lot like Puritanism...", I would have concurred. That would have been true.

You mean this site?

Quote from: Arminius;826877Then there's the silly rationale, "goes to 11"--it's just nicer to have double-digit scores even if the net effect is no different.

That's why I scribble in big "0" in front of my (more often than not) single digit attribute scores. It makes me feel better.;)

Quote from: estar;944844My preference is for something a little more concrete than AD&D style secondary skills. But not that much more.

Have you given HackMaster a look?

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;945770Have you given HackMaster a look?

4th or  5th edition? They are very different sets of rules.

But yes I have both.

Fourth Edition
It is a monstrosity and the ultimate AD&D wet dream. People consider it a parody and while there definitely parody elements in that especially in the commentary and flavor text it is AD&D on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids. My friends and I tried and realized that much detail wasn't our cup of tea anymore. If that hit in the late 80s then it would have been a different story.

Fifth Edition
A very nice RPG with a unique method of handling time in combat. Basically there are no combat round and every action takes so many seconds.  I have to say while Harnmaster has the best injury system in my opinion, Hackmaster 5th however has one of the best ways of organizing combat time. Very free form with combatants not locked into a you go, I go order.

The only problem I have is grasping what happens in the seconds after you swing a sword (or any other action). If you have a speed factor of 5 and swing on second 6, you can't swing again until second 11. I don't get what the character can do in between if anything. The rules to me are not clear on that point.

As for the system overall it has some D&Dism not as close as DCC RPG but not as different as Palladium Fantasy.

As for classic D&D, I published my take as the Majestic Wilderlands supplement (http://www.batintheattic.com/).

I have 5th edition. I'm yet to run a campaign with it (which is being planned), but we have done some skirmishes, with the mechanics.

Hmmm... That's a good question. I'm going to steal it and post in up in the Kenzer Forums. And give the DMG & PHB a second look. When we ran it, we were to busy trying to hack some goblins. I will get back on your point.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;945778Hmmm... That's a good question. I'm going to steal it and post in up in the Kenzer Forums. And give the DMG & PHB a second look. When we ran it, we were to busy trying to hack some goblins. I will get back on your point.

Thanks, I asked them at Origins once but they were busy with people in their booth so they only gave me a summary answer which didn't explain much. Note they were friendly it just busy that hour and never got back around for a fuller answer.

The basic question is I swing my sword on second 6, with a speed of 5. What are my options for second 7,8,9, and 10. If any?  Interestingly enough with bows is a little clear as they have a side box that break downs the length of time. So if the character wants to do something earlier, you know where he was at with the bow and why he can't shoot it.  But even there I am not clear if that was their intent or not.

If I had to make a ruling in a game you could abort early and move but I would rule that your sword is unready and you will have to take the time to re-ready as if drawing it for the first time.

This is why I gave up on ultra-detailed systems long ago.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;945815This is why I gave up on ultra-detailed systems long ago.

Hackmaster Basic is not that complex just unusual compared to other combat systems.

Estar here is the thread over at the Kenzer forums... It includes a post from Dave as well.

Post: http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showthread.php?65362-This-question-came-up-in-another-forum-about-the-count&p=1305038#post1305038

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;945939Estar here is the thread over at the Kenzer forums... It includes a post from Dave as well.

Post: http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showthread.php?65362-This-question-came-up-in-another-forum-about-the-count&p=1305038#post1305038

Thanks, look like the answer is that you can always move just can't attack until your count's up.

Quote from: estar;9457754th or  5th edition? They are very different sets of rules.

But yes I have both.

Fourth Edition
It is a monstrosity and the ultimate AD&D wet dream. People consider it a parody and while there definitely parody elements in that especially in the commentary and flavor text it is AD&D on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids. My friends and I tried and realized that much detail wasn't our cup of tea anymore. If that hit in the late 80s then it would have been a different story.

Fifth Edition
A very nice RPG with a unique method of handling time in combat. Basically there are no combat round and every action takes so many seconds.  I have to say while Harnmaster has the best injury system in my opinion, Hackmaster 5th however has one of the best ways of organizing combat time. Very free form with combatants not locked into a you go, I go order.

The only problem I have is grasping what happens in the seconds after you swing a sword (or any other action). If you have a speed factor of 5 and swing on second 6, you can't swing again until second 11. I don't get what the character can do in between if anything. The rules to me are not clear on that point.

As for the system overall it has some D&Dism not as close as DCC RPG but not as different as Palladium Fantasy.

As for classic D&D, I published my take as the Majestic Wilderlands supplement (http://www.batintheattic.com/).

Quote from: estar;945954Thanks, look like the answer is that you can always move just can't attack until your count's up.

While playing around with 5th edition I was curious about this too. I don't have a problem with lighter weapons generally having lower speed factors but when you are measuring in actual seconds the differences get absurd, especially since I don't remember STR modifying these counts.

So if you have a skinny thief with a dagger against a regular man at arms with a sword, the thief will be much faster, but if that man at arms had an insane strength that permitted him to move that broadsword around as if it were a car antenna it still doesn't affect the count (IIRC). Not to mention that if anyone went into battle with a melee weapon that could only be employed every 6 or more seconds then they would be suicidal.

I believe GURPS handles these types of speeds much better when that kind of complexity is called for.