TheRPGSite

I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever). It seems like such an intuitively stupid thing to give a career-spanning advantage to someone who got lucky on day one's 3d6 down the line. It seems ass backwards. Wouldn't disadvantaged characters learn more from constantly fighting against their lot in life?

What am I missing here? Is there some ancient Dragon article justifying it?

What rules get in your craw?

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PMWhat rules get in your craw?

(https://media.tenor.com/FRG3kywB3KAAAAAC/gary-oldman-everyone.gif)

...but yeah, I started ignoring that one early on. "You already have a mechanical edge over everyone else, so here's some extra XP forever, so you get even more of a headstart perpetually."

Vancian magic often gets brought up. I never even bothered to keep track of memorized spells. First house rule I ever made was getting rid of it.

I could probably think of more, but I was about to head out, and just wanted to get that meme out of the way.

Eh, it is unfair in a war of all against all direct comparison sense. But in actual play it was one of those: "Yay, our best junior varsity team hitter can reach varsity earlier now and help us crush our opponents! Now we can all power level off him and later we'll hit regionals, maybe even state!  8) " It also became a point of responsibility for the benefactor, as the team could now bite off more than they could chew if the big hitter didn't lead or at least speak up.

But then that's just actual play talking. I've learned over the years, just like the Punching/Wrestling Table, and the joys of System Shock as a bone-chilling brush with death, they are way more fun in practice than in reading. Sometimes in the goal to reach idealized parity we miss out on the unexpected thrills & spills baked into the intended experience.

Topc Tax: White Wolf World of Darkness, Rule of One. Ones canceling out successes and if greater than succeses it is a botch. Blows up the whole point of its math-phobic resolution simplicity out of the water. Wrong from the beginning, just rewrite it entirely or omit completely.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever).

Every AD&D game I ever played in I applied the XP bonus if my PC had the stats for it.  The one rule I hardly ever saw in practice was weapon speed factors.

Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:28:29 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever).

Every AD&D game I ever played in I applied the XP bonus if my PC had the stats for it.  The one rule I hardly ever saw in practice was weapon speed factors.

Another to add to this is the weapon vs armor type adjustment. " Oh man what an awesome hit! You wrecked that guy."  "Um sorry after consulting the weapon vs armor table you do not hit. In fact you could NEVER hit with the possible exception of a natural 20. Sorry."

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 04, 2023, 08:46:12 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:28:29 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever).

Every AD&D game I ever played in I applied the XP bonus if my PC had the stats for it.  The one rule I hardly ever saw in practice was weapon speed factors.

Another to add to this is the weapon vs armor type adjustment. " Oh man what an awesome hit! You wrecked that guy."  "Um sorry after consulting the weapon vs armor table you do not hit. In fact you could NEVER hit with the possible exception of a natural 20. Sorry."

Right!  Forgot that one.

Back in the day when I played a lot of Cyberpunk 2020, we found the fumble rolls just came up too frequently.  Too many PC deaths happened too fast for us to feel it was right.  We ended up dropping the fumbles rules altogether and modifying the critical hit rules to make things work for us a bit better.

Quote from: BadApple on October 04, 2023, 09:27:41 PM
Back in the day when I played a lot of Cyberpunk 2020, we found the fumble rolls just came up too frequently.  Too many PC deaths happened too fast for us to feel it was right.  We ended up dropping the fumbles rules altogether and modifying the critical hit rules to make things work for us a bit better.

If you were using the Friday night firefights combat system then to quote Newt " It won't make any difference."

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 04, 2023, 09:32:21 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 04, 2023, 09:27:41 PM
Back in the day when I played a lot of Cyberpunk 2020, we found the fumble rolls just came up too frequently.  Too many PC deaths happened too fast for us to feel it was right.  We ended up dropping the fumbles rules altogether and modifying the critical hit rules to make things work for us a bit better.

If you were using the Friday night firefights combat system then to quote Newt " It won't make any difference."

Combat was still intense and lethal, we just didn't have the comedic head shot suicides in the middle  of a fire fight. 

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 08:08:51 PM
Eh, it is unfair in a war of all against all direct comparison sense. But in actual play it was one of those: "Yay, our best junior varsity team hitter can reach varsity earlier now and help us crush our opponents! Now we can all power level off him and later we'll hit regionals, maybe even state!  8) " It also became a point of responsibility for the benefactor, as the team could now bite off more than they could chew if the big hitter didn't lead or at least speak up.

But then that's just actual play talking. I've learned over the years, just like the Punching/Wrestling Table, and the joys of System Shock as a bone-chilling brush with death, they are way more fun in practice than in reading. Sometimes in the goal to reach idealized parity we miss out on the unexpected thrills & spills baked into the intended experience.

Topc Tax: White Wolf World of Darkness, Rule of One. Ones canceling out successes and if greater than succeses it is a botch. Blows up the whole point of its math-phobic resolution simplicity out of the water. Wrong from the beginning, just rewrite it entirely or omit completely.

What was it about the Punching/Wrestling table?

Scion first edition was a notoriously broken mess, whoever came up with the progression for epic attributes was either on serious drugs or didn't understand mid-grade arithmetic (or both).

Another example of hilariously bad rules is an obscure game from Games Workshop, Inquisitor. Apart from being a generally glorious mess (it was a sort of "evolution" of Necromunda, focusing on small groups fights but using rules that looked like an early alpha version of what will later be Dark Heresy) they were also glaringly inconsistent with the setting. A naked Space Marine could happily punch through power armor, for example, and if the same Marine happened to actually wear his armor he could pump up strength to the point that a knife did more damage than a meltagun.

EDIT:
It is so bad that I was forgetting it: Katana Ra. While the whole game is in the "so bad it's practically a scam" camp, its action resolution rules (the core of the game) win my personal "Designed under heavy drugs" prize.
You roll 1d10, add your skill (which ranges from 1 to 4) and try to match difficulty (14 max); if you succeed, you roll another unmodified d10 and that roll actually determines if you succeed or not: 3-8 means actual success, 2 "partial" success (what "partial" actually means is never explained), 9 is a "great" success (again, nobody knows what "great" means in this context), 1 is a critical failure and permanently lowers your skill by 1 and 10 is a critical success and adds 1 to your skill. This random fluctuation is the only way to change skill values after character creation, and the only way to modify your character without having to buy equipment or getting loot of some kind. There is no experience/advancement mechanic whatsoever in the whole game.

I never liked gold for xp. Finding a chest full of gold doesn't make you a better sword fighter, nor does it increase your knowledge of magic, your faith in hour god, or your ability to find and disarm a trap. Those skills only get better by practice and execution.

I don't like level trainers either.  You're tellimg me that I have been adventuring for a year, killing monsters and doing all sorts of insane shit and I haven't gotten better at my job?  And now, I gotta pay some guy two thousand gold pieces to get more hit points?

So where did the first 10th level character come from of there was no one to train them?

Daggers getting two attacks per round and doing 1d6 damage.  So kit an army out in plate mail and give every soldier 2 daggers. They'll get twice as many attacks and do twice as much damage as any phalanx...oh and they'll attack first because polae arms are 2-handed weapons and go last in the round.

Weapons doing more or less damage vs large sized opponents.  That sword is going to deliver the same amount of kinetic energy to an ogre as it does to a kobold.  It's the targets hit points that make the difference.

Medieval guns (Arquebus) doing exploding dice damage (i.e. if you roll a 10 for damage on a d10, you get to roll another d10 and add the damage, adding another d-10 for each 10 you roll... That's not how medieval guns worked.  Mostly they sucked, they took a minute to reload, were woefully inaccurate, and black powder just didn't have that kind of punch.  You better hope that the alchemist or master gunner mixed the powder correctly...oh, is it raining out?

I should stop here.  I need to go touch some grass.

Every ttrpgs rules for Grabbing/Wrestling?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY4Tr2j7CqLcCxGWa1NZTiMI_pnpGlNWDwSwS70XZBvNPuMB2Y&s)

Quote from: rytrasmi
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter > STR14 or whatever). It seems like such an intuitively stupid thing to give a career-spanning advantage to someone who got lucky on day one's 3d6 down the line. It seems ass backwards. Wouldn't disadvantaged characters learn more from constantly fighting against their lot in life?

What am I missing here? Is there some ancient Dragon article justifying it?

What rules get in your craw?

Well ... your character's ability scores, in theory, help or hinder your character, the idea being that a fighter with a "greater than 14 Strength or whatever" should be a better fighter than one with less than 14 strength or whatever. I think we can all agree on that.

That XP bonus in early D&D editions represented that: by causing faster advancement, your ability score has made you a "better" fighter. That's how we understood the rule -- not that it's particularly cognitively fluid, because the order feels wrong obviously, but in play the math worked.

---

The rule that drives me nuts is a New School horror known as the Spot Check (by any name, in any game).

If you want a good laugh, check out the Truenamer in 3.5E Tome of Magic.

Holy hells. You could tell nobody playtested that. At least the Binder was interesting, but the Truenamer is the only class, across multiple editions of D&D, that actually got worse as you progressed in levels.

1e Weapon Speed Factor only really effects the game if there is tied initiative, or when a magic user is casting as spell against an opponent in melee range. I have always used it as it only comes up occasionally as a tie breaker.

As to gold for XP, Gary explained it as an explicit scoring mechanism - i.e. DMG p.86:

'Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience) [...]. All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!'

I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM
1e Weapon Speed Factor only really effects the game if there is tied initiative, or when a magic user is casting as spell against an opponent in melee range. I have always used it as it only comes up occasionally as a tie breaker.

Nope. It is MUCH deeper than that.

"When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks Compare the scare of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack."

Fair enough. I had forgotten that part  ;D TBH I had never used the rule that way, but that actually sounds quite good, so thanks for pointing that out. But doesn't weapon speed factor only become 'the determinant of which opponent strikes first' when initiative is tied?

I always find 3e's "confirm crit" rules dumb, but I'd use it with a small change in perspective: "critical hit gives you a free attack". Or something.

Other than that, I agree AD&D combat is a mess. Grappling, overbearing, weapon versus armor, segments, weapon speed... I like all these ideas in theory but find the implementation horrible.

EDIT: one curiosity is that weapon speed do not affect how fast weapons are during the surprise phase/segments. In this phase, all weapons are equally fast except ranged weapons are faster.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/08/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-v-pages-61.html

AD&D is full of things like that: you have rules for helmets, rules for ear infection, and rules for hearing - but there is simply no connection between them.

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM
1e Weapon Speed Factor only really effects the game if there is tied initiative, or when a magic user is casting as spell against an opponent in melee range. I have always used it as it only comes up occasionally as a tie breaker.

As to gold for XP, Gary explained it as an explicit scoring mechanism - i.e. DMG p.86:

'Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience) [...]. All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!'

I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

Curiously enough, the AD&D itself suggests that clerics who study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline require LESS TRAINING - and therefore spend less time and gold - to level up.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-vii-pages-84.html

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:45:49 AM
Fair enough. I had forgotten that part  ;D TBH I had never used the rule that way, but that actually sounds quite good, so thanks for pointing that out. But doesn't weapon speed factor only become 'the determinant of which opponent strikes first' when initiative is tied?

Not surprising as you like I didn't use the rule.  The text is somewhat contradictory on that (surprise).

Here's one that hasn't come up yet. 

The losing plusses to magic items & changes to spell effects on other planes in AD&D.  I get the rationale to some extent, as it's designed to make extra-planar travel more exotic and dangerous and reflect varying environments.  But it just gets too hard to keep track of, especially if the penalties increase as one goes deeper as in the Nine Hells.  I think it's simply simpler to have a few special environmental effects for certain planes and leave it at that, which is essentially the approach taken by Castles & Crusades.  In most cases PCs in these environments (as well as the natives) will be fairly high level anyhow, and there will be plenty to keep track of already in terms of monster abilities such as immunities.  And certain things like no fireballs on the plane of water or easy enough to adjudicate on the fly anyhow.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever). It seems like such an intuitively stupid thing to give a career-spanning advantage to someone who got lucky on day one's 3d6 down the line. It seems ass backwards. Wouldn't disadvantaged characters learn more from constantly fighting against their lot in life?

What am I missing here? Is there some ancient Dragon article justifying it?

What rules get in your craw?

  I actually use that one and I understand why it is there.   I think if you assume the talented person is lazy your point is good...however I think the assumption that in the adventuring life everyone is trying their best all the time.   One look at the NFL and NBA tells us there is more to getting to the top than knowing all the moves and working with what you have.  I am sure all the top scientists/legal minds/scholastic experts have a similar track in that the things they had no control over...the "gifts" (AKA high attribute scores from the start) guided them and aided them in being able to progress and be better than the field of peers around them.  From that perspective it makes complete sense to me.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 05, 2023, 10:54:59 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever). It seems like such an intuitively stupid thing to give a career-spanning advantage to someone who got lucky on day one's 3d6 down the line. It seems ass backwards. Wouldn't disadvantaged characters learn more from constantly fighting against their lot in life?

What am I missing here? Is there some ancient Dragon article justifying it?

What rules get in your craw?

  I actually use that one and I understand why it is there.   I think if you assume the talented person is lazy your point is good...however I think the assumption that in the adventuring life everyone is trying their best all the time.   One look at the NFL and NBA tells us there is more to getting to the top than knowing all the moves and working with what you have.  I am sure all the top scientists/legal minds/scholastic experts have a similar track in that the things they had no control over...the "gifts" (AKA high attribute scores from the start) guided them and aided them in being able to progress and be better than the field of peers around them.  From that perspective it makes complete sense to me.

That's a compelling justification. I still find it runs against how I like to play: a hardscrabble group of people trying to win their fortune with their guts and wits. It's unearned, especially when XP is shared. Thief crawls thru a murder tunnel and finds the treasure hoard, with gold for XP the fighter gets +10% because he was born lucky? Nah dawg.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 11:05:36 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on October 05, 2023, 10:54:59 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2023, 03:53:03 PM
I'm kicking off a new campaign, so I'm rereading the rules and it occurred to me that I've never run or played a game where bonus XP (+5 or 10%) was handed out to characters with a high prime requisite (Fighter STR>14 or whatever). It seems like such an intuitively stupid thing to give a career-spanning advantage to someone who got lucky on day one's 3d6 down the line. It seems ass backwards. Wouldn't disadvantaged characters learn more from constantly fighting against their lot in life?

What am I missing here? Is there some ancient Dragon article justifying it?

What rules get in your craw?

  I actually use that one and I understand why it is there.   I think if you assume the talented person is lazy your point is good...however I think the assumption that in the adventuring life everyone is trying their best all the time.   One look at the NFL and NBA tells us there is more to getting to the top than knowing all the moves and working with what you have.  I am sure all the top scientists/legal minds/scholastic experts have a similar track in that the things they had no control over...the "gifts" (AKA high attribute scores from the start) guided them and aided them in being able to progress and be better than the field of peers around them.  From that perspective it makes complete sense to me.

That's a compelling justification. I still find it runs against how I like to play: a hardscrabble group of people trying to win their fortune with their guts and wits. It's unearned, especially when XP is shared. Thief crawls thru a murder tunnel and finds the treasure hoard, with gold for XP the fighter gets +10% because he was born lucky? Nah dawg.

   There is no rule against rewarding a character for being daring/smart/good roleplaying.   You can always give that thief a reward for doing that daring do.  Reality does reflect that the most talented people constantly rise to the top of their professions and often progress faster than their peers....and it was largely "unearned" because genetics are a real thing.  I get wanting to dump that altogether,  I also stated the idea behind the rule that I am sure Gygax considered with some parallel to real life.  It is a fantasy game though, so real life need not reflect anything in the game.   As for the fighter....I suspect he did something at some point that helped get that thief to the murder hole (not to mention the thief if he has an attribute bonus has collected the interest on that many times when the Fighter was dropping orcs and goblins up front as he was slinking about and taking out a humanoid every 3 or 4 rounds).   Conan is who he is because he was born lucky...no amount of hard work would have made him Conan.

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 08:39:36 AM

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM
1e Weapon Speed Factor only really effects the game if there is tied initiative, or when a magic user is casting as spell against an opponent in melee range. I have always used it as it only comes up occasionally as a tie breaker.

Nope. It is MUCH deeper than that.

"When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks Compare the scare of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack."

No, his summary was correct.  He said weapon speed factor only really matters when initiative is tied or when a magic-user is opposed in melee, and you quoted a section that only happens when initiative is tied.  You stripped out the section right above which makes this clear to someone who hasn't read it in awhile, but you did leave in the preface to the whole multiple-attacks debacle, which states "when weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round...." 

So when is that exactly?  When does weapon speed factor determine which guy goes first?  The preceding paragraph clarifies that this is when initiative rolls are tied (1/6 rounds feature this, statistically!):

QuoteSimultaneous Initiative: When opponents in melee have tied for initiative,
blows (attack routines included) occur simultaneously, except when both
opponents are using weapons. Each weapon has a speed factor, and in the
case of otherwise simultaneous blows, the opponent with the weapon
which has the lower speed factor will strike first. Thus, a blow from a fist
occurs before a blow with a dagger (1 to 2 ) , a dagger before a short sword
( 2 to 3), a short sword prior to a hammer (3 to 4), and so on.

So if team A rolled a 3 and team B rolled a 4, or any combination that matches, that's going to determine order.  If they are tied, then this special case rule MIGHT come in.  Even then, the condition is that it only turns on when weapon speed factor is the determinant, which means that not only must initiative be tied, but it has to actually be the factor that determines who goes first.  If there was a charge into melee, then weapon lengths, not weapon speed, determine who goes first, and this crazy dagger stabbing festival won't fire off that round, no matter the initiative dice.  This stuff also doesn't matter during the "surprise segments" that can happen at the start.

By-the-book 1e initiative is a super hot mess.  You'll rapidly turn the thread into that if you start talking about it imprecisely.  He made an overall-correct statement, and your statement is less correct and cites a rule incorrectly, so maybe my post is gonna stop the confusion now, or maybe... maybe not.  We'll see.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 04, 2023, 10:05:06 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 08:08:51 PM
But then that's just actual play talking. I've learned over the years, just like the Punching/Wrestling Table, and the joys of System Shock as a bone-chilling brush with death, they are way more fun in practice than in reading. Sometimes in the goal to reach idealized parity we miss out on the unexpected thrills & spills baked into the intended experience.

What was it about the Punching/Wrestling table?

For me, back when I was playing 1E in the 1980s, the grappling tables in the DMG were infamous because the game could grind to a halt as soon as someone tried to pummel, grapple or overbear. There were a dozen different percentile modifiers that needed to be calculated just to make the first roll. These included comparing PC vs opponent height and weight. As an early gamer, we mutually decided to just never try pummel, grapple, or overbear.

I think the psionics rules are probably a close second, especially with so many psionic creatures in the Monster Manual.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 05, 2023, 11:39:11 AM
   There is no rule against rewarding a character for being daring/smart/good roleplaying.   You can always give that thief a reward for doing that daring do.  Reality does reflect that the most talented people constantly rise to the top of their professions and often progress faster than their peers....and it was largely "unearned" because genetics are a real thing.  I get wanting to dump that altogether,  I also stated the idea behind the rule that I am sure Gygax considered with some parallel to real life.  It is a fantasy game though, so real life need not reflect anything in the game.   As for the fighter....I suspect he did something at some point that helped get that thief to the murder hole (not to mention the thief if he has an attribute bonus has collected the interest on that many times when the Fighter was dropping orcs and goblins up front as he was slinking about and taking out a humanoid every 3 or 4 rounds).   Conan is who he is because he was born lucky...no amount of hard work would have made him Conan.

OK, so why just 10% then? The range 3-18 would seem to demand much more, if we're modeling success in the real world. My fighter has regular average dude-bro STR 11 and yours has a heroic STR 18. You're fine with only advancing slightly faster than me? "Reality" would dictate that you become a hero and I become a dirt farmer. I should have a level cap. You should probably get 50% more XP, etc etc. A 10% XP bonus is just enough to say "F you buddy, you didn't roll as well as the other guy on day one" but not nearly high enough to meaningfully reflect the things you're talking about.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 01:47:08 PM

"Reality" would dictate that you become a hero and I become a dirt farmer.

No, as there are MANY intangibles that will contribute to success.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 05, 2023, 09:30:18 AM
Other than that, I agree AD&D combat is a mess. Grappling, overbearing, weapon versus armor, segments, weapon speed... I like all these ideas in theory but find the implementation horrible.

They're all spot rules, that's why. It's literally a kitchen sink of everything Gygax et al could come up with that might happen in a chaotic melee situation. It's not cohesive because none of it is meant to be used all the time, and when things do come up the referee is supposed to "figure it out". Reading the DMG through the lens of modern gaming will make you start thinking that the game is an unplayable mess. But in reality, DMs were supposed to be referees and adjudicate situations using their brains; the DMG was just "here's a good way to do that," it's not a collection of rigid rules.

I think the prime example is initiative...NO ONE knows how it's supposed to work. I mean you can try to make a good argument based on a lot of research (that ADDICT thing was a good try), but I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it that way. Typically the DM just says, "hmmm, the party is being really quiet, I bet they can surprise this group of monsters, oh they didn't, well roll a d6 and see who goes first, and those goblins are really far away so the sleep spell should go off before they can close the distance, but that one is shooting an arrow...I guess it can hit the MU before he's done, but that spell is pretty fast, so I'll give him a 50/50 chance to do it, okay he gets it off."

With proper buy-in, old school adjudication is waaaaaaaaaaay better than some set of rigid rules because you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, whenever you want, and the DM assigns a chance to do it and rolls some dice. This is why when people say Amber isn't random because it's diceless, they have no clue what they're talking about. Amber is run exactly how old school DMs ran AD&D, just without rolling dice and relying solely on stats and roleplaying.



To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
I think the prime example is initiative...NO ONE knows how it's supposed to work. I mean you can try to make a good argument based on a lot of research (that ADDICT thing was a good try)

ADDICT was much more than a good try.  But ADDICT never tried to figure out, as you say, "how it's supposed to work".  It just tried (and succeeded) to tell you how to play it by the rules.  It's quite clear to anyone that how it was written in the book was never how it's supposed to work. 

If you want RAW AD&D 1e initiative, there's ADDICT.PDF.  For everything else, there's your own damned brain.  No one, including the guys who built that file, were under any delusions that what was in the rulebooks was what was intended or played at the time.  It's an honest and successful attempt at anyone who wants to try it out as it was written, however.  Which, I hasten to add, is of academic interest at best.

QuoteWith proper buy-in, old school adjudication is waaaaaaaaaaay better than some set of rigid rules because you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, whenever you want, and the DM assigns a chance to do it and rolls some dice.

I mean, I disagree, especially with initiative.  Without some sense of how play order is supposed to progress, tables can and do spend a bunch of time on small details, and the DM hurrying that along could easily get a played totally wasted.  AD&D 2e had a goofy initiative system, but it was well defined and worked ok and had design space for a ton of weapons.  If you go out there with a guy with two short knives and a plan, it's better if you knew ahead of time whether you get to stab the other guy once, twice, or some number up to eight depending on if he's holding a slow enough stick or axe.  It's reasonable to know that kind of information when you decide to be Double Dagger Guy.

QuoteTo answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character.

Here I'm back to agreeing with you.  I think this stuff is potentially more disruptive than grapple / overbearing because whatever the DM advocates might not be considered to taste very easily, and it's got huge potential for disruption.  This has to be the worst set of rules because unlike the others, it's definitely meant to be included and it feels really crazy to throw it out to the players of whatever system has it.  By contrast, throwing out the AD&D 1e initiative rules and running your own isn't just standard, it's literally what Gygax did and literally what ever DM at that time did.

Grapple / overbearing (at least in the early editions) definitely is crappy though.  It didn't help that they kept screwing around with it.  In AD&D 1e it functioned but badly.  In AD&D 2e it changed depending on which splatbook you had access to, and it was really terrible.

I really dont like mechanics where someone has to do something because someone else rolled something thats kinda unrelated. One example i can think of is theres a mechanic in a game called Hyper Tellurians where you can somehow get an NpC to appear from nowhere and take a fatal hit for you.

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

I agree, these types of meta rules/currencies annoy me, too. DCC and other games have Luck, which I find fun at times but ultimately I can take it or leave it. Anything more meta than Luck hurts immersion. That's one of the reasons I did not choose Forbidden Lands for this campaign. It's got a lot of very subtle meta stuff. It's a good game, along with its sibling games, but not what I want for an old school campaign.

I only played 3.5e for a few games, but I do remember that 'Attack of Opportunity' p'ssd me off as a player - in that it slowed everything down . As I never bothered with 3.5e for long, I can't say if it was badly implemented in the actual rules or by the guy running the game, but it reminded me of the 'interrupts' in MegaTraveller combat which, while I got the idea behind them, often slowed combat down to a standstill.

In defense of 3d6 down the line, this is something that averaged out over a few characters, assuming a style of play with some PC mortality. In that context, it was awesome to have a fighter with 18 Strength, and if it wasn't your character it was a memorable part of the party dynamic.

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM

As to gold for XP, Gary explained it as an explicit scoring mechanism - i.e. DMG p.86:

'Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience) [...]. All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!'

I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

I use XP for gold (among other things) because it is a NEUTRAL reward system. Giving XP for "completing the adventure" is completely subjective and depends on the hoops the DM wants you to jump through to be able to level up. Now if your group doesn't mind being led by the nose through planned encounters culminating in a big boss fight, rinse and repeat then the per adventure method works.

Using the per adventure method with early TSR D&D is an invitation to TPK central. Low levels are where the party learns to work together, and attempts to explore and obtain as much treasure as possible without risking their lives in combat unless conditions are favorable or they have no choice. Being paraded through a string of encounters that the DM thinks that they "should" go through before getting to level is often a death sentence.

Treasure based XP lets the party figure out how they want to seek their fortunes. Gold can be obtained by combat, stealth, trickery, and good old luck finding some in forgotten places. Fiat based XP means you level up whenever you do what the DM thinks you should be doing.

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 05, 2023, 09:30:18 AM
Other than that, I agree AD&D combat is a mess. Grappling, overbearing, weapon versus armor, segments, weapon speed... I like all these ideas in theory but find the implementation horrible.

They're all spot rules, that's why. It's literally a kitchen sink of everything Gygax et al could come up with that might happen in a chaotic melee situation. It's not cohesive because none of it is meant to be used all the time, and when things do come up the referee is supposed to "figure it out". Reading the DMG through the lens of modern gaming will make you start thinking that the game is an unplayable mess. But in reality, DMs were supposed to be referees and adjudicate situations using their brains; the DMG was just "here's a good way to do that," it's not a collection of rigid rules.

I think the prime example is initiative...NO ONE knows how it's supposed to work. I mean you can try to make a good argument based on a lot of research (that ADDICT thing was a good try), but I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it that way. Typically the DM just says, "hmmm, the party is being really quiet, I bet they can surprise this group of monsters, oh they didn't, well roll a d6 and see who goes first, and those goblins are really far away so the sleep spell should go off before they can close the distance, but that one is shooting an arrow...I guess it can hit the MU before he's done, but that spell is pretty fast, so I'll give him a 50/50 chance to do it, okay he gets it off."

With proper buy-in, old school adjudication is waaaaaaaaaaay better than some set of rigid rules because you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, whenever you want, and the DM assigns a chance to do it and rolls some dice. This is why when people say Amber isn't random because it's diceless, they have no clue what they're talking about. Amber is run exactly how old school DMs ran AD&D, just without rolling dice and relying solely on stats and roleplaying.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

When you say "the DMG was just "here's a good way to do that"", I have to make an observation:

I understand this is the GOAL of the DMG, but the RESULT is as often " here's a TERRIBLE way to do that" - as it happens with the rules discussed in this thread.

But the DMG hits the nail on the head on other subjects.

It's something like a trove of random treasure: some good, some bad, some valuable, some worthy but too heavy to carry, and a few cursed items.

EDIT: you make a good point of initiative: the reason it is a can of worms is because it often deals with special cases requiring rulings. This week I had to made a couple of rulings/improvisations on the fly that ended up killing a PC, and it nearly ruined my campaign. Sometimes, I think I'd rather have strict rules to take some of the load off my back.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

I agree, these types of meta rules/currencies annoy me, too. DCC and other games have Luck, which I find fun at times but ultimately I can take it or leave it. Anything more meta than Luck hurts immersion. That's one of the reasons I did not choose Forbidden Lands for this campaign. It's got a lot of very subtle meta stuff. It's a good game, along with its sibling games, but not what I want for an old school campaign.

Brad named the company that is worst for my wife and I. We tried playing in a Modiphius Barsoom group. They'd been playing for a year and still didn't know all the rules.

Metacurrency that increments based on stuff you do.
So, you're kind of forced to do that regardless of what you want to do.
Because you need the metacurrency to trigger your skills that let you actually survive.

And something like 6 different wound tracks? Really? (And I don't mean like Traveller abilities as hit points.)

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2023, 10:56:36 AM
EDIT: you make a good point of initiative: the reason it is a can of worms is because it often deals with special cases requiring rulings. This week I had to made a couple of rulings/improvisations on the fly that ended up killing a PC, and it nearly ruined my campaign. Sometimes, I think I'd rather have strict rules to take some of the load off my back.

That's the benefit of strict rules -- or even just knowing which rules are strict.

If you, as a player, die, it is because of something you chose knowing the risks. Not because the GM pulled some rule out of their nether regions that killed you. (Not saying that's what you did. I'm thinking of one particular session I was in where none of the the physics worked the way one expected due to the GM's arbitrary decisions. Not science but just "that's the way they work".)

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on October 05, 2023, 11:39:11 AM
   There is no rule against rewarding a character for being daring/smart/good roleplaying.   You can always give that thief a reward for doing that daring do.  Reality does reflect that the most talented people constantly rise to the top of their professions and often progress faster than their peers....and it was largely "unearned" because genetics are a real thing.  I get wanting to dump that altogether,  I also stated the idea behind the rule that I am sure Gygax considered with some parallel to real life.  It is a fantasy game though, so real life need not reflect anything in the game.   As for the fighter....I suspect he did something at some point that helped get that thief to the murder hole (not to mention the thief if he has an attribute bonus has collected the interest on that many times when the Fighter was dropping orcs and goblins up front as he was slinking about and taking out a humanoid every 3 or 4 rounds).   Conan is who he is because he was born lucky...no amount of hard work would have made him Conan.

OK, so why just 10% then? The range 3-18 would seem to demand much more, if we're modeling success in the real world. My fighter has regular average dude-bro STR 11 and yours has a heroic STR 18. You're fine with only advancing slightly faster than me? "Reality" would dictate that you become a hero and I become a dirt farmer. I should have a level cap. You should probably get 50% more XP, etc etc. A 10% XP bonus is just enough to say "F you buddy, you didn't roll as well as the other guy on day one" but not nearly high enough to meaningfully reflect the things you're talking about.

   Reality is without magical items intervention early the experience is 10 percent because I am going to be getting 110 percent more experience than you are because you are going to be dead.   The game works itself out with that bonus long term.

The last few posts dance around two things I believe to be very true in any game but particularly RPGs.

1.  A bad rule is better than a vague rule or an implied rule.  Having a 1-out-of-6 fumble is better than something that vaguely states "if you roll badly, the GM might all it a fumble."  Even if it's terrible, it's at least a solid anchor.

2. Whether a rule is good or bad may be heavily dependent on case use.  A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

???  How the fuck would you use them in an urban environment unless the players lacked money and needed to steal food, lodging  and the like? 

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 03:37:46 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

???  How the fuck would you use them in an urban environment unless the players lacked money and needed to steal food, lodging  and the like?

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:44:00 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 03:37:46 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

???  How the fuck would you use them in an urban environment unless the players lacked money and needed to steal food, lodging  and the like?

That's what I thought.  Maybe you'd like to rephrase it so it makes sense.

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
1.  A bad rule is better than a vague rule or an implied rule.  Having a 1-out-of-6 fumble is better than something that vaguely states "if you roll badly, the GM might all it a fumble."  Even if it's terrible, it's at least a solid anchor.

What about the rule that the GM can deem something successful on a x:6 chance? That is sort of an "if you roll badly..." type of GM fiat. I don't have a problem with this, though I'm used to the x:6 being tabled before the roll and perhaps even being negotiated with the player.

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 04:05:06 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:44:00 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 03:37:46 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

???  How the fuck would you use them in an urban environment unless the players lacked money and needed to steal food, lodging  and the like?

That's what I thought.  Maybe you'd like to rephrase it so it makes sense.

You really do have a special kind of autism, don't you?

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
The last few posts dance around two things I believe to be very true in any game but particularly RPGs.

1.  A bad rule is better than a vague rule or an implied rule.  Having a 1-out-of-6 fumble is better than something that vaguely states "if you roll badly, the GM might all it a fumble."  Even if it's terrible, it's at least a solid anchor.

2. Whether a rule is good or bad may be heavily dependent on case use.  A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

I'll agree with statement 2.  But hard disagree with statement #1.  A rule that is badly implemented immediately pulls players out of the game.  Suddenly it becomes about the mechanical effect of the rule and not the in-universe fiction.  I'd much rather have the GM go "Nah, that doesn't make sense in this case" than have a character trip a gelatinous cube because "it's in the rules"...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 06, 2023, 06:18:37 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
The last few posts dance around two things I believe to be very true in any game but particularly RPGs.

1.  A bad rule is better than a vague rule or an implied rule.  Having a 1-out-of-6 fumble is better than something that vaguely states "if you roll badly, the GM might all it a fumble."  Even if it's terrible, it's at least a solid anchor.

2. Whether a rule is good or bad may be heavily dependent on case use.  A wilderness survival campaign makes resource management and encumbrance rules very important whereas a urban investigation campaign makes the rules an unnecessary burden on all players.

I'll agree with statement 2.  But hard disagree with statement #1.  A rule that is badly implemented immediately pulls players out of the game.  Suddenly it becomes about the mechanical effect of the rule and not the in-universe fiction.  I'd much rather have the GM go "Nah, that doesn't make sense in this case" than have a character trip a gelatinous cube because "it's in the rules"...

AKA, it's easier to replace a missing rule with a good rule--or even an adequate rule--than it is to replace a bad rule with anything.  A bad rule by itself is bad enough. However, bad rules don't tend to stay independent, but instead build up a lot of related bad rules trying to fix the problems.  Let it go on long enough, it's a cancer grown throughout the rule system.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 05, 2023, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM

As to gold for XP, Gary explained it as an explicit scoring mechanism - i.e. DMG p.86:

'Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience) [...]. All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!'

I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

I use XP for gold (among other things) because it is a NEUTRAL reward system. Giving XP for "completing the adventure" is completely subjective and depends on the hoops the DM wants you to jump through to be able to level up. Now if your group doesn't mind being led by the nose through planned encounters culminating in a big boss fight, rinse and repeat then the per adventure method works.

Using the per adventure method with early TSR D&D is an invitation to TPK central. Low levels are where the party learns to work together, and attempts to explore and obtain as much treasure as possible without risking their lives in combat unless conditions are favorable or they have no choice. Being paraded through a string of encounters that the DM thinks that they "should" go through before getting to level is often a death sentence.

Treasure based XP lets the party figure out how they want to seek their fortunes. Gold can be obtained by combat, stealth, trickery, and good old luck finding some in forgotten places. Fiat based XP means you level up whenever you do what the DM thinks you should be doing.

XP for Gold is NOT "neutral". Treasure and what sort of "hoops" you have to go through to get to it is still ultimately subject to the subjective whims of the DM. And is demonstrably more limited than XP through other methods (completing adventures is not the only one of them, any type of objective or achievement may work) because you're limited to treasure hunting as your sole means of progression. While other means of XP award can include absolutely anything, including securing treasure itself as a type of adventure objective, as well as any other objective that may seem appropriate for the group, their goals and the theme of the campaign.

All that XP for Gold does is turn something that's already it's own reward into even more of a reward. And an obligatory proxy for advancement that inevitably leads to inflation due to excess wealth. Which then leads to necessitating additional hoops for advancement, such as requiring training to advance through XP for Gold in order to get rid of that excess gold. When you could have simply given that XP directly, instead of jumping through various hoops to work an unrelated middleman (gold) into the equation.

XP for Gold is the most "dog chasing its tail" asinine nonsense thing ever to rear its head into D&D, other than Initiative and Vancian magic. Which leads me to...

Quote from: Venka on October 05, 2023, 03:46:10 PM

QuoteWith proper buy-in, old school adjudication is waaaaaaaaaaay better than some set of rigid rules because you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, whenever you want, and the DM assigns a chance to do it and rolls some dice.

I mean, I disagree, especially with initiative.  Without some sense of how play order is supposed to progress, tables can and do spend a bunch of time on small details, and the DM hurrying that along could easily get a played totally wasted.  AD&D 2e had a goofy initiative system, but it was well defined and worked ok and had design space for a ton of weapons.  If you go out there with a guy with two short knives and a plan, it's better if you knew ahead of time whether you get to stab the other guy once, twice, or some number up to eight depending on if he's holding a slow enough stick or axe.  It's reasonable to know that kind of information when you decide to be Double Dagger Guy.

You literally don't need "Initiative" to run the game. Initiative, as conceived in TTRPGs, is strictly an arbitrary game convention that has no basis on reality. It exists based on a set of unwarranted assumptions, such as (but not limited to): you need to establish order of actions in order to run combat; two or more people can't possibly act and potentially kill each other at the same time—all of which is false.

People do in fact simultaneously kill each other in actual fire fights all the time, and swordsmen running each other through was totally a thing that did happen back when swords where a common sidearm. The idea that you need to establish who goes "first" in combat and then break a tie if people roll the same "initiative" is game conventional BULLSHIT. And it has persisted all these years due to a combination of unexamined assumptions (mentioned above) and player selfishness, cuz everyone wants to go "first" before anyone else. As well as the belief that because you can potentially (mayyybe) end a fight before you get hit by shooting someone in the head "first" that that means that therefore ALL combat revolves around that edge case scenario—which isn't even entirely true, cuz some people have in fact survived getting shot in the head, so not even THAT edge case is absolute.

But even when people get killed by getting shot in the head, the VAST majority of combat situations do NOT involve actually hitting someone in the head and taking them out "first" before they attack. In the vast majority of situations people can still let out one final attack, even if mortally wounded, before succumbing to their wounds, cuz 9/10 you don't die instantly from mortal wounds. It's only in TTRPG land where you have this weird convention of people getting frozen in time waiting for their "turn" under the notion that 1) if they get hit before they act they can't possibly take action before dying, and 2) it's IMPOSSIBLE to run combat without establishing a discreet order of actions.

I have run combat numerous times without initiative and it's not just doable, but way faster than having to stop the game every time combat starts (or every round, depending on what system you're using) to make a superfluous roll and take tallies. You can just handle it based on a combination of proximity (those closest to their target go first) and readiness (those ready to act go before those that need to make preparations, such reloading or moving to position), and by resolving opponent actions at the same time that they're attacked (assuming they're ready to act).

And this isn't just me, but there are games without individual initiative (their names escape me right now, cuz I've only read about them or skimmed the rules). And even early D&D had Side Initiative, which isn't quite what I'm describing above, but still not the mess that became the later addition of Individual Initiative, which is invariably what people really mean when they utter the word "iNiTiAtIvE" in a TTRPG context. But people used to run combat in old D&D without keeping track of order of actions of all combatants, and combat didn't become impossible to manage. And Individual Initiative didn't replace it because it was more efficient, but because people are selfish wanted to go "first", and probably erroneously believed that it was more "realistic" than Side Initiative, when it wasn't.

PS: And this rant doesn't even go into all the logical inconsistencies that arise out of Individual Initiative, such characters charging from 60 feet away going "first" before melee combatants right in front of their opponent, cuz the guy charging "won" the bullshit initiative. But this post is already too long as it is.

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 04:20:23 PM


You really do have a special kind of autism, don't you?

You REALLY have the IQ of a turnip.

Yall muthafuckas need some Eye Q pills!

(https://www.nutritioncompany.eu/media/catalog/product/cache/79ae1921e4c04fff3b8a27a29a79b054/n/u/nutrition_company_werk_102_8_.png)

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 07:05:53 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 04:20:23 PM


You really do have a special kind of autism, don't you?

You REALLY have the IQ of a turnip.

The only thing wrong with the sentence you highlighted was I put "a" instead of "an."  I could go back to fix it but now I'm not going to.

Go back and read it carefully. Ask someone with a well developed language mastery to read it for you if you have to.

You frequently show the reading comprehension far below a high school graduate.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say I think it's likely you skim read too fast and miss things.  Combined with your arrogance, it makes you a bit irritating.

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 08:03:06 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 07:05:53 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 04:20:23 PM


You really do have a special kind of autism, don't you?

You REALLY have the IQ of a turnip.

The only thing wrong with the sentence you highlighted was I put "a" instead of "an."  I could go back to fix it but now I'm not going to.

Aw, you got twiggered

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 08:03:06 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 07:05:53 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 04:20:23 PM


You really do have a special kind of autism, don't you?

You REALLY have the IQ of a turnip.

The only thing wrong with the sentence you highlighted was I put "a" instead of "an."  I could go back to fix it but now I'm not going to.

Aw, you got twiggered

::)

Quote from: Tod13 on October 06, 2023, 11:07:37 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

I agree, these types of meta rules/currencies annoy me, too. DCC and other games have Luck, which I find fun at times but ultimately I can take it or leave it. Anything more meta than Luck hurts immersion. That's one of the reasons I did not choose Forbidden Lands for this campaign. It's got a lot of very subtle meta stuff. It's a good game, along with its sibling games, but not what I want for an old school campaign.

Brad named the company that is worst for my wife and I. We tried playing in a Modiphius Barsoom group. They'd been playing for a year and still didn't know all the rules.

Metacurrency that increments based on stuff you do.
So, you're kind of forced to do that regardless of what you want to do.
Because you need the metacurrency to trigger your skills that let you actually survive.

And something like 6 different wound tracks? Really? (And I don't mean like Traveller abilities as hit points.)

I'm like 6 months into playing in a Modiphius Conan game, and yeah, their ineptitude at writing rules is something special. Fortunately its an online game, so I can just do something else while the sorcerer player negotiates with the GM for 20 minutes about how a basic spell works.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 06, 2023, 10:47:03 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on October 06, 2023, 11:07:37 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

I agree, these types of meta rules/currencies annoy me, too. DCC and other games have Luck, which I find fun at times but ultimately I can take it or leave it. Anything more meta than Luck hurts immersion. That's one of the reasons I did not choose Forbidden Lands for this campaign. It's got a lot of very subtle meta stuff. It's a good game, along with its sibling games, but not what I want for an old school campaign.

Brad named the company that is worst for my wife and I. We tried playing in a Modiphius Barsoom group. They'd been playing for a year and still didn't know all the rules.

Metacurrency that increments based on stuff you do.
So, you're kind of forced to do that regardless of what you want to do.
Because you need the metacurrency to trigger your skills that let you actually survive.

And something like 6 different wound tracks? Really? (And I don't mean like Traveller abilities as hit points.)

I'm like 6 months into playing in a Modiphius Conan game, and yeah, their ineptitude at writing rules is something special. Fortunately its an online game, so I can just do something else while the sorcerer player negotiates with the GM for 20 minutes about how a basic spell works.

Wow. We didn't do that, even trying to learn Mongoose Traveller 2nd Ed starship combat.

If I were running a Traveller game, I might ignore most of the combat roll modifier rules. There's just sooooo many.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 04:16:54 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 06, 2023, 03:22:31 PM
1.  A bad rule is better than a vague rule or an implied rule.  Having a 1-out-of-6 fumble is better than something that vaguely states "if you roll badly, the GM might all it a fumble."  Even if it's terrible, it's at least a solid anchor.

What about the rule that the GM can deem something successful on a x:6 chance? That is sort of an "if you roll badly..." type of GM fiat. I don't have a problem with this, though I'm used to the x:6 being tabled before the roll and perhaps even being negotiated with the player.

Players being able to influence their odds of success by taking specific actions is what original D&D is all about. Approach doing something as stupidly as possible and your odds will be poor.

Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2023, 06:36:28 PM

You literally don't need "Initiative" to run the game. Initiative, as conceived in TTRPGs, is strictly an arbitrary game convention that has no basis on reality. It exists based on a set of unwarranted assumptions, such as (but not limited to): you need to establish order of actions in order to run combat; two or more people can't possibly act and potentially kill each other at the same time—all of which is false.

People do in fact simultaneously kill each other in actual fire fights all the time, and swordsmen running each other through was totally a thing that did happen back when swords where a common sidearm. The idea that you need to establish who goes "first" in combat and then break a tie if people roll the same "initiative" is game conventional BULLSHIT. And it has persisted all these years due to a combination of unexamined assumptions (mentioned above) and player selfishness, cuz everyone wants to go "first" before anyone else. As well as the belief that because you can potentially (mayyybe) end a fight before you get hit by shooting someone in the head "first" that that means that therefore ALL combat revolves around that edge case scenario—which isn't even entirely true, cuz some people have in fact survived getting shot in the head, so not even THAT edge case is absolute.

But even when people get killed by getting shot in the head, the VAST majority of combat situations do NOT involve actually hitting someone in the head and taking them out "first" before they attack. In the vast majority of situations people can still let out one final attack, even if mortally wounded, before succumbing to their wounds, cuz 9/10 you don't die instantly from mortal wounds. It's only in TTRPG land where you have this weird convention of people getting frozen in time waiting for their "turn" under the notion that 1) if they get hit before they act they can't possibly take action before dying, and 2) it's IMPOSSIBLE to run combat without establishing a discreet order of actions.

I have run combat numerous times without initiative and it's not just doable, but way faster than having to stop the game every time combat starts (or every round, depending on what system you're using) to make a superfluous roll and take tallies. You can just handle it based on a combination of proximity (those closest to their target go first) and readiness (those ready to act go before those that need to make preparations, such reloading or moving to position), and by resolving opponent actions at the same time that they're attacked (assuming they're ready to act).

And this isn't just me, but there are games without individual initiative (their names escape me right now, cuz I've only read about them or skimmed the rules). And even early D&D had Side Initiative, which isn't quite what I'm describing above, but still not the mess that became the later addition of Individual Initiative, which is invariably what people really mean when they utter the word "iNiTiAtIvE" in a TTRPG context. But people used to run combat in old D&D without keeping track of order of actions of all combatants, and combat didn't become impossible to manage. And Individual Initiative didn't replace it because it was more efficient, but because people are selfish wanted to go "first", and probably erroneously believed that it was more "realistic" than Side Initiative, when it wasn't.

PS: And this rant doesn't even go into all the logical inconsistencies that arise out of Individual Initiative, such characters charging from 60 feet away going "first" before melee combatants right in front of their opponent, cuz the guy charging "won" the bullshit initiative. But this post is already too long as it is.

Individual initiative does suck and is one major contributor to why people zone out and don't pay attention to what is happening until it is their personal turn. Good old side based initiative works just fine with combat rounds being simultaneous 1/6 of the time. Without determination of some order, spell disruption is not possible. Only at very low levels is getting killed by the other side going first an issue unless you are dealing with a devastating spell effect, a dragon's breath, or something of that nature.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 08, 2023, 09:24:26 AM

Individual initiative does suck and is one major contributor to why people zone out and don't pay attention to what is happening until it is their personal turn. Good old side based initiative works just fine with combat rounds being simultaneous 1/6 of the time. Without determination of some order, spell disruption is not possible. Only at very low levels is getting killed by the other side going first an issue unless you are dealing with a devastating spell effect, a dragon's breath, or something of that nature.

Yes.  A couple years later I started running AD&D games I switched to side based init.  The positive change in players enjoyment of combat was very noticeable.

I deal with spell disruption logically.  E.g. no matter who wins init if a spell caster is throwing something that takes an entire combat round (10 seconds) to cast he will not get it off before the archer ready with arrow knocked can shoot him.  This tends to make spell caster not as deadly.

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM
I deal with spell disruption logically.  E.g. no matter who wins init if a spell caster is throwing something that takes an entire combat round (10 seconds) to cast he will not get it off before the archer ready with arrow knocked can shoot him.  This tends to make spell caster not as deadly.

That's pretty much how I handle it. Any spell that isn't specifically a Free Action/Reaction goes after anyone who's ready to act at the start of the round. And any spell that takes one or more rounds to cast is cast at the end of the round. Anyone acting before that could potentially disrupt it. Otherwise the spell is cast at the same time as anyone either taking preparations or attempting something that takes one or more rounds, without disruption.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 08, 2023, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

That's one reason I like the racial bonus for humans with C&C.  It is immediate and meaningful.  Same with the penalty side for demi humans.

Quote from: Venka on October 05, 2023, 03:46:10 PMI mean, I disagree, especially with initiative.  Without some sense of how play order is supposed to progress, tables can and do spend a bunch of time on small details, and the DM hurrying that along could easily get a played totally wasted.  AD&D 2e had a goofy initiative system, but it was well defined and worked ok and had design space for a ton of weapons.  If you go out there with a guy with two short knives and a plan, it's better if you knew ahead of time whether you get to stab the other guy once, twice, or some number up to eight depending on if he's holding a slow enough stick or axe.  It's reasonable to know that kind of information when you decide to be Double Dagger Guy.

Well I am not saying to have NO rules at all, just that trying to shoehorn the infinity of reality into a set of codified rules that allow no variation or deviance is stupid. You give the DM a framework and examples and let them make it their own game, adding as they see fit, whatever makes sense to them.

But see, I realize that's the entire issue here. In Ye Olde Dayes, especially with the wargamer crowd, this sort of thing was fully expected and appreciated. You sit down to play D&D with Bill, it's going to be a lot different than playing with Ted. And that was okay. "My DM allows us to time travel!" "Ours doesn't, but all the characters can play guitar." Or whatever. Every game was different, and no one thought anything about it. Some games were Monty Haul bullshit, but when you're 12 a thief with a TIE fighter makes perfect sense. Not saying who was running that game, but it was fun. Then the older dudes had game worlds with intrigue and actual villains that weren't just rando goblins to kill, you had to use your brain to solve puzzles and whatever else. But all those games were a reflection of the DMs running the games.

Now, we really don't have that nearly as much, if at all. I think if someone like Tenbones were to run AD&D for us (meaning most of the posters on this board), we probably wouldn't question his house rules. "Oh you use a d12 for initiative like and also magic-users get a d6 for hit points. Okay." That'd be about it. Do you really think the retards on reddit and even in the hobby shops playing 5th edition BtB would just be okay with that? I can already imagine the arguments in my head before the game even started...they want HARD RULES ON A PAGE AND ANY DEVIATION WILL BE MET WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Yeah, but why? Because for whatever reason, the craft of being a good DM is gone. I think that has more to do with player entitlement than anything else. D&D 3rd didn't start the trend, but given that it dwarfed everything else, the whole "at level X you need Y amount of treasure and Z amount of conflict" really really really accelerated this nonsense to the extreme end of stupidity. When I first started playing, arguing with the DM meant you were gonna get fucked in-game, and if you continued you got kicked out. The End. Now, the players will bitch about pure stupidity ad nauseam because God forbid their 3rd level ranger doesn't have a magic bow yet! Hey, can we get some bags of holding, too, Mr. DM?

So anyway, hard(er) rules are necessary because without them the DM is gonna hear endless crying and whining. Instead of the DM laying out how the game is supposed to work and the players buying in, they show up with a character who has a 45 page backstory and uses thirteen splat books, with every single level mapped out on graph paper, including what magic items they'll get and when. You're not wrong, but I think you're right for different reasons than you might think...

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 04:10:20 PM


Well I am not saying to have NO rules at all, just that trying to shoehorn the infinity of reality into a set of codified rules that allow no variation or deviance is stupid. You give the DM a framework and examples and let them make it their own game, adding as they see fit, whatever makes sense to them.

Yes, this is how to run a D&D game that is enjoyable.  Reality is far to complex to model closely with rules.  Best to let a GM handle things as they come up using a broad framework

Rolemaster (2nd ed and others i think) had a stupid amount of penalties for wearing armor  and various other things (I remember first learning the rules and thinking that the authors had a thing for penalties). Even though armor already had a higher probability of being hit (but less likely to take serious damage).

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 08, 2023, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

Right. It's just a flat-out bad rule, yet it gets defended incredibly loudly by some OSRers.

I view it as an indefensible sacred cow of game design that is almost irrelevant in practice, trivially easily fixed, doesn't actually impact the play feel of the game, and yet almost universally retained for... Reasons.

I hold it against any OSR game that retains it. And so many do.

Most of the defenses are either that it's for balance... Which it objectively does poorly at best, and more realistically doesn't do period. Or that it's because Gary wanted/people want humanocentric games... But in practice I've never seen it actually deter anyone from playing a non human, because 95%+ of characters will never make it to those levels anyway.

It's just dumb.

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 08, 2023, 09:24:26 AM

Individual initiative does suck and is one major contributor to why people zone out and don't pay attention to what is happening until it is their personal turn. Good old side based initiative works just fine with combat rounds being simultaneous 1/6 of the time. Without determination of some order, spell disruption is not possible. Only at very low levels is getting killed by the other side going first an issue unless you are dealing with a devastating spell effect, a dragon's breath, or something of that nature.

Yes.  A couple years later I started running AD&D games I switched to side based init.  The positive change in players enjoyment of combat was very noticeable.

I deal with spell disruption logically.  E.g. no matter who wins init if a spell caster is throwing something that takes an entire combat round (10 seconds) to cast he will not get it off before the archer ready with arrow knocked can shoot him.  This tends to make spell caster not as deadly.

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:53:13 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

IIRC ranged weapons do not have speed factor.

(which is another oddity IMO)

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 04:10:20 PMNow, we really don't have that nearly as much, if at all. I think if someone like Tenbones were to run AD&D for us (meaning most of the posters on this board), we probably wouldn't question his house rules. "Oh you use a d12 for initiative like and also magic-users get a d6 for hit points. Okay." That'd be about it. Do you really think the retards on reddit and even in the hobby shops playing 5th edition BtB would just be okay with that? I can already imagine the arguments in my head before the game even started...they want HARD RULES ON A PAGE AND ANY DEVIATION WILL BE MET WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Yeah, but why? Because for whatever reason, the craft of being a good DM is gone. I think that has more to do with player entitlement than anything else. D&D 3rd didn't start the trend, but given that it dwarfed everything else, the whole "at level X you need Y amount of treasure and Z amount of conflict" really really really accelerated this nonsense to the extreme end of stupidity. When I first started playing, arguing with the DM meant you were gonna get fucked in-game, and if you continued you got kicked out. The End. Now, the players will bitch about pure stupidity ad nauseam because God forbid their 3rd level ranger doesn't have a magic bow yet! Hey, can we get some bags of holding, too, Mr. DM?

At the risk of stating the very obvious in  slightly offensive way, a lot of bad DMs are responsible for why a lot of players think this way.

Not exclusively! There's certainly some real player entitlement and bad behavior picked up from MMOs and other things at play too, but you only have to get screwed a few times by DMs making really bad house rules, particularly ones they make up after the game starts, for you to get wary whenever a DM says "hold on, I have a house rule for that...".

I lost a particularly beloved dwarven thief to "dwarves can't swim, they're too dense" many, many years ago.

It would have been fucking helpful to know that before I got on the damned boat, Zach!

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 09, 2023, 11:13:40 AM
At the risk of stating the very obvious in  slightly offensive way, a lot of bad DMs are responsible for why a lot of players think this way.!

Yeah, of course. And I knew a couple of bad DMs who didn't have players after a while because of stupid nonsense. The best part is no amount of codification will ever outpace a bad DM, so trying to write down a set of iron-clad rules that are impenetrable to terrible DMing is going to fail. And you also piss off the good ones who move on to other games.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:53:13 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

IIRC ranged weapons do not have speed factor.

(which is another oddity IMO)

Correct. So missile fire users have to win initiative in order to disrupt a spell.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 12:11:38 PM

Correct. So missile fire users have to win initiative in order to disrupt a spell.

If the spell is only a couple of segments to cast. If a whole round, no

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM
An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Uh-oh, looks like someone made a claim about initiative systems in AD&D!  AD&D 1e has "segments" which are six seconds each, so that part both checks out and makes it clear we are not talking about AD&D 2e.  So far so good!

QuoteMost spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round.

So far this is also generally true about AD&D 1e.

QuoteThe segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first.

Nope!  Only under very specific circumstances is this true.  First, you're talking about the "speed factor of the weapon", which means that we are talking about one or more melee weapons attacking a caster.  For simplicity's sake, lets assume we aren't talking about the surprise segments, and we'll assume that the melee weapon user is already within melee range (the charge mechanics require a different mechanic).

Lets assume Sam Shortsword (weapon speed factor 3) is trying to attack Charlie Caster.  Sam's side rolled 5 on initiative and Charlie's side rolled 4 on initiative.  Charlie had decided to cast invisibility (casting time 2 segments).  Does Charlie get to cast before Sam attacks?  No!  In this case, winning initiative guarantees that Sam gets to attack Charlie first.  If the melee attacker wins initiative, weapon speed factor is ignored.
Ok, what about if Sam's side rolled 1 on initiative, and Charlie's side rolled 6.  That seems like the best possible result for Charlie here, right?  6 is the highest number on the initiative die, and 1 is the lowest.  What we do here is take 3 (weapon speed factor) minus 1 (losing initiative die), and get 2.  Charlie finishes his cast as Sam attacks him.  Sam may get the hit in, but Charlie is invisible.  What if Sam, who just missed interrupting the initiative, had rolled a 2 instead of a 1?  Then we would have had 1, and Sam WOULD have interrupted (assuming he hits).  Similarly with if Sam's side had rolled a 3 (yielding 0), or a 4 (yielding 1).  But a 5 would have yielded the same 2 (and therefore a tie) as the 1 did.  This is because you treat negative numbers as positive on this math.   If the melee attacker loses initiative, weapon speed factor is part of a goofy calculation and he may go first, simultaneously, or after the spell is cast.
Ok, what if they TIED?  Both initiative dice the same?
In the case of a tie, the short sword (weapon speed factor 3) will strike after the spell cast (casting time 2), in a direct comparison.  But ONLY in the case of a tie.

QuoteA quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Yes, but again it's strange.  If your quick weapon is a dagger (weapon speed 2), and the caster's side won initiative with a 6, then your possible losing scores of 1 through 5 would be as such:
1: 2-1 = 1, beats 2 or longer
2: 2-2 = 2, beats 1 or longer
3: 2-3 = 1, beats 2 or longer
4: 2-4 = 2, beats 3 or longer
5: 2-5 = 3, beats 4 or longer.
But if your "quick weapon" is a morning star (weapon speed 7, not very quick), you could still interrupt a lot of high level spells:
1: 7-1 = 6, beats 7 or longer
2: 7-2 = 5, beats 6 or longer
3: 7-3 = 4, beats 5 or longer
4: 7-4 = 3, beats 4 or longer
5: 7-5 = 2, beats 3 or longer.

Note that this is melee.  Ranged weapons are a whole different thing (they don't have a weapon speed factor at all).  Charging is a whole different thing.  The surprise segment prior to initiative are a whole different thing.  Etc.

I can hardly wrap my head around that.

So, ranged weapons are SLOWER - but, during SURPRISE, they are a lot FASTER.

Also, during surprise, speed factor doesn't matter.

I'm not sure there is a reason to ever surprise anyone with a dagger. I might be missing something, but thieves should be using 2H-swords for that.

EDIT: which, coming back to the theme of the thread, means... there are rules I dislike not because they are bad/boring, but because they simply DON'T FIT with the rest of the rules.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 12:11:38 PM
Correct. So missile fire users have to win initiative in order to disrupt a spell.

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 12:19:09 PM
If the spell is only a couple of segments to cast. If a whole round, no

So, if Larry Longbow's side wins initiative versus Charlie Caster, then his ranged attacks will resolve prior to Charlie's casting- his casting time is ignored.  He could easily disrupt Charlie in this case.

If Larry Longbow's side doesn't win initiative though- say his side rolled a 1- then we compare the casting time to Charlie's winning die.  That's the segment Charlie needs to have beaten (so to actually get a spell off reliably versus a ranged attacking enemy, Charlie is rooting to win the initiative with the largest possible roll).  Of the 36 possible combinations, Larry gets to definitely attack first 15/36 times (that's how often his side wins initiative, assuming everyone is just rolling normal d6s).  Here's how the math breaks down for when Charlie chooses a (first column) segment casting time spell, with the percentage being the chance Larry gets to interrupt with his longbow.
Casting time 0 or 1: 42% of the time.
Casting time 2: 44.4% of the time.
Casting time 3: 50% of the time.
Casting time 4: 58.3% of the time.
Casting time 5: 69.4% of the time.
Casting time 6: 83.3% of the time.
Casting time 7 or more: Larry always gets a chance to interrupt with his longbow.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 03:17:12 PM
So, ranged weapons are SLOWER - but, during SURPRISE, they are a lot FASTER.

There's not really any great general rules.

QuoteAlso, during surprise, speed factor doesn't matter.

Speed factor doesn't matter most of the time.  It doesn't matter if you are charging, it doesn't matter if you win initiative versus a caster, it doesn't matter if you lose initiative versus another guy in melee with you, it doesn't matter during rounds you are moving and only weapon lengths resolve attack ordering.  Speed factor is always added by a special rule and always in a specific way.

QuoteI'm not sure there is a reason to ever surprise anyone with a dagger. I might be missing something, but thieves should be using 2H-swords for that.

Page 19 PHB bans thieves from using two-handed swords.

QuoteEDIT: which, coming back to the theme of the thread, means... there are rules I dislike not because they are bad/boring, but because they simply DON'T FIT with the rest of the rules.

I'm actually not sure if AD&D 1e initiative rules even count as bad.  It looks like two competing initiative systems, neither used by Gygax at the time, got glued together.  As a result, the by-the-book initiative system is a lot of crazy stuff, and I don't know if it's fair to call it a bad set of rules.  It's more like an emergent pile of behaviors that everyone houserules.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 03:17:12 PM
So, ranged weapons are SLOWER - but, during SURPRISE, they are a lot FASTER.

In my prior post I said that there's no general rules here.  But lets give some examples as to why.
Lets say your side has 3 surprise segments to act in (this is a lot of surprise segments!).
On your team is you, Eric Diaz the Unencumbered 13th Level Fighter With Two Daggers.  Also is your buddy Larry Longbow,who has arrows at the ready, from the other examples.  The encounter begins with the enemy a bit over ten feet away.

On the first surprise segment, you close distance, and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the second surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the third surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.

This is because of this inscrutable line from page 64 DMG:

QuoteEven if distance prevents striking with weapons, the discharge of arrows, bolts or
hond-hurled weapons is permissible at three times the normal rate providing the weapon/missiles are ready, otherwise at normal rates for rounds.

The normal firing rate for a round is two arrows, so Larry is gonna shoot six.  You are getting four attacks because you are dual wielding (so there's some penalties to hit or whatever), and are normally entitled to two attack per round from being a 13th level fighter.

So it's true that ranged weapons are "faster" in surprise segments, but it's because of this bizarre haste rule that allows for a baseline firing rate of one arrow per second for the entire duration of surprise- but only if you had readied the arrows or whatever.

Once surprise is over, melee weapons do have advantages in melee versus a caster compared to ranged weapons.  Mostly the advantages come into play if you, the melee weapon user, do not have initiative or a tie, and are using a fast weapon, and the enemy caster is using a spell with a short casting time.

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 03:14:45 PM

Nope!  Only under very specific circumstances is this true.  First, you're talking about the "speed factor of the weapon", which means that we are talking about one or more melee weapons attacking a caster.  For simplicity's sake, lets assume we aren't talking about the surprise segments, and we'll assume that the melee weapon user is already within melee range (the charge mechanics require a different mechanic).

Lets assume Sam Shortsword (weapon speed factor 3) is trying to attack Charlie Caster.  Sam's side rolled 5 on initiative and Charlie's side rolled 4 on initiative.  Charlie had decided to cast invisibility (casting time 2 segments).  Does Charlie get to cast before Sam attacks?  No!  In this case, winning initiative guarantees that Sam gets to attack Charlie first.  If the melee attacker wins initiative, weapon speed factor is ignored.
Ok, what about if Sam's side rolled 1 on initiative, and Charlie's side rolled 6.  That seems like the best possible result for Charlie here, right?  6 is the highest number on the initiative die, and 1 is the lowest.  What we do here is take 3 (weapon speed factor) minus 1 (losing initiative die), and get 2.  Charlie finishes his cast as Sam attacks him.  Sam may get the hit in, but Charlie is invisible.  What if Sam, who just missed interrupting the initiative, had rolled a 2 instead of a 1?  Then we would have had 1, and Sam WOULD have interrupted (assuming he hits).  Similarly with if Sam's side had rolled a 3 (yielding 0), or a 4 (yielding 1).  But a 5 would have yielded the same 2 (and therefore a tie) as the 1 did.  This is because you treat negative numbers as positive on this math.   If the melee attacker loses initiative, weapon speed factor is part of a goofy calculation and he may go first, simultaneously, or after the spell is cast.
Ok, what if they TIED?  Both initiative dice the same?
In the case of a tie, the short sword (weapon speed factor 3) will strike after the spell cast (casting time 2), in a direct comparison.  But ONLY in the case of a tie.

QuoteA quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Yes, but again it's strange.  If your quick weapon is a dagger (weapon speed 2), and the caster's side won initiative with a 6, then your possible losing scores of 1 through 5 would be as such:
1: 2-1 = 1, beats 2 or longer
2: 2-2 = 2, beats 1 or longer
3: 2-3 = 1, beats 2 or longer
4: 2-4 = 2, beats 3 or longer
5: 2-5 = 3, beats 4 or longer.
But if your "quick weapon" is a morning star (weapon speed 7, not very quick), you could still interrupt a lot of high level spells:
1: 7-1 = 6, beats 7 or longer
2: 7-2 = 5, beats 6 or longer
3: 7-3 = 4, beats 5 or longer
4: 7-4 = 3, beats 4 or longer
5: 7-5 = 2, beats 3 or longer.

Note that this is melee.  Ranged weapons are a whole different thing (they don't have a weapon speed factor at all).  Charging is a whole different thing.  The surprise segment prior to initiative are a whole different thing.  Etc.

Thanks for the walk down memory lane.  It has been a few decades since I played in a 1e campaign

All these AD&D initiative replies make me feel like I'm back in junior high.

(https://media.tenor.com/2_JKU1N6unoAAAAC/wind-in-hair-fabulous-wind.gif)

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 03:17:12 PM
So, ranged weapons are SLOWER - but, during SURPRISE, they are a lot FASTER.

In my prior post I said that there's no general rules here.  But lets give some examples as to why.
Lets say your side has 3 surprise segments to act in (this is a lot of surprise segments!).
On your team is you, Eric Diaz the Unencumbered 13th Level Fighter With Two Daggers.  Also is your buddy Larry Longbow,who has arrows at the ready, from the other examples.  The encounter begins with the enemy a bit over ten feet away.

On the first surprise segment, you close distance, and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the second surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the third surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.

This is because of this inscrutable line from page 64 DMG:

QuoteEven if distance prevents striking with weapons, the discharge of arrows, bolts or
hond-hurled weapons is permissible at three times the normal rate providing the weapon/missiles are ready, otherwise at normal rates for rounds.

The normal firing rate for a round is two arrows, so Larry is gonna shoot six.  You are getting four attacks because you are dual wielding (so there's some penalties to hit or whatever), and are normally entitled to two attack per round from being a 13th level fighter.

So it's true that ranged weapons are "faster" in surprise segments, but it's because of this bizarre haste rule that allows for a baseline firing rate of one arrow per second for the entire duration of surprise- but only if you had readied the arrows or whatever.

Once surprise is over, melee weapons do have advantages in melee versus a caster compared to ranged weapons.  Mostly the advantages come into play if you, the melee weapon user, do not have initiative or a tie, and are using a fast weapon, and the enemy caster is using a spell with a short casting time.

Interesting stuff, thanks!

AD&D is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma to me, so it is always fun to try and understand how it should work.

EDIT: TBF, I think the 2-daggers for a fighter stuff is a bit unlikely, since they aren't great weapons. I don't remember if sword-and-dagger is a thing in AD&D. A 13th-level fighter would probably be using whatever magic weapon he found in his travels.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 05:35:52 PM
Interesting stuff, thanks!

No problem.  AD&D 1e initiative is more meme than system at this point, but it is technically a self-consistent system.  On Dragonsfoot they also kind of worked out how Gygax himself was running initiative decades after the fact (he posted and told them what he was doing- he obviously didn't use what was written in the book by the 2000s, and probably honestly not even in the 70s).  But basically AD&D 1e initiative takes houserules to not be just super confusing.

AD&D 2e, on the other hand, has a well defined initiative system- though granted, it loses a lot of the interesting stuff.  Weapons caring about speed factors and length actually is a really neat design goal.

QuoteEDIT: TBF, I think the 2-daggers for a fighter stuff is a bit unlikely, since they aren't great weapons.

My example was for simplicity's sake, but daggers can go absolutely bonkers in 1e AD&D too.  If you end up in combat versus a man with a really slow weapon, and you're using two daggers, and initiative ends up tied, there's a whole other system that lets you get extra attacks with the daggers that you wouldn't have had with a long sword and a dagger, for instance.

QuoteI don't remember if sword-and-dagger is a thing in AD&D. A 13th-level fighter would probably be using whatever magic weapon he found in his travels.

Yes to both.  I just chose daggers in that example as something you can definitely dual wield (your second weapon must always be a dagger or a hand axe).

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 07:18:53 PM
AD&D 2e, on the other hand, has a well defined initiative system- though granted, it loses a lot of the interesting stuff.  Weapons caring about speed factors and length actually is a really neat design goal.

These design goals work better in games where the combat system is less abstract. We got WOTC D&D by designers trying to stick more and more stuff that fits better in a blow by blow combat system onto the same old abstract D&D framework. It is an odd fit that never feels quite right. I don't actually use AD&D initiative by the way. I use good old B/X straight win/lose/tie rules.

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 03:14:45 PM
Lets assume Sam Shortsword (weapon speed factor 3) is trying to attack Charlie Caster.  Sam's side rolled 5 on initiative and Charlie's side rolled 4 on initiative.  Charlie had decided to cast invisibility (casting time 2 segments).  Does Charlie get to cast before Sam attacks?  No!  In this case, winning initiative guarantees that Sam gets to attack Charlie first.  If the melee attacker wins initiative, weapon speed factor is ignored.

This is correct.

QuoteOk, what about if Sam's side rolled 1 on initiative, and Charlie's side rolled 6.  That seems like the best possible result for Charlie here, right?  6 is the highest number on the initiative die, and 1 is the lowest.  What we do here is take 3 (weapon speed factor) minus 1 (losing initiative die), and get 2.  Charlie finishes his cast as Sam attacks him.  Sam may get the hit in, but Charlie is invisible.  What if Sam, who just missed interrupting the initiative, had rolled a 2 instead of a 1?  Then we would have had 1, and Sam WOULD have interrupted (assuming he hits).  Similarly with if Sam's side had rolled a 3 (yielding 0), or a 4 (yielding 1).  But a 5 would have yielded the same 2 (and therefore a tie) as the 1 did.  This is because you treat negative numbers as positive on this math.   If the melee attacker loses initiative, weapon speed factor is part of a goofy calculation and he may go first, simultaneously, or after the spell is cast.

This is also correct.

QuoteOk, what if they TIED?  Both initiative dice the same?
In the case of a tie, the short sword (weapon speed factor 3) will strike after the spell cast (casting time 2), in a direct comparison.  But ONLY in the case of a tie.

This one I'm a little uneasy with, only because melee weapon versus spell casting is a special case of a general case. The general case is any sort of melee (like monsters who don't have a weapon speed) versus spell casters. And unfortunately the general case does not come out and explicitly say what comes of ties. It tells the attacker gets to use whichever initiative is more advantageous, and so when the spell caster wins initiative, casting in melee bumps their win down to a tie. But it doesn't confirm that ties remain ties. For all I know, they could be bumped down to a loss. I mean I would tend to lean towards this is correct, but I think there can be one or two other interpretations that fit both letter and spirit of the rule that I'd hesitate to dismiss.

QuoteNote that this is melee.  Ranged weapons are a whole different thing (they don't have a weapon speed factor at all).  Charging is a whole different thing.  The surprise segment prior to initiative are a whole different thing.  Etc.

True, but I do not believe the following to be correct or supported by the Rules as Written at all:

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 03:36:01 PM
If Larry Longbow's side doesn't win initiative though- say his side rolled a 1- then we compare the casting time to Charlie's winning die.  That's the segment Charlie needs to have beaten (so to actually get a spell off reliably versus a ranged attacking enemy, Charlie is rooting to win the initiative with the largest possible roll).  Of the 36 possible combinations, Larry gets to definitely attack first 15/36 times (that's how often his side wins initiative, assuming everyone is just rolling normal d6s).  Here's how the math breaks down for when Charlie chooses a (first column) segment casting time spell, with the percentage being the chance Larry gets to interrupt with his longbow.

The thing is, the wonky rule about comparing spell casting time to some combination of weapon speeds and dice rolls is a special case for melee attacks against someone casting a spell. And even the general case that rule falls under is specifically for spell casting while in melee. That's it. There is no weird rule or exception that applies to spell casting in combat per se. Only in melee. And so a ranged weapon versus a spell caster is resolved by the initiative dice--before, after, or tied. Casting time is not a factor. Nor is adding or subtracting any losing or winning initiative die. It just follows the regular initiative rule. With one small caveat. That the missile weapon attacker gets the advantage (or disadvantage) to any Missile Attack Adjustment for very high or low Dexterity scores applied to the initiative roll.

Quote from: Venka on October 09, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
On the first surprise segment, you close distance, and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the second surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.
On the third surprise segment, you attack four times and Larry Longbow fires six arrows.

This is because of this inscrutable line from page 64 DMG:

QuoteEven if distance prevents striking with weapons, the discharge of arrows, bolts or
hond-hurled weapons is permissible at three times the normal rate providing the weapon/missiles are ready, otherwise at normal rates for rounds.

The normal firing rate for a round is two arrows, so Larry is gonna shoot six.  You are getting four attacks because you are dual wielding (so there's some penalties to hit or whatever), and are normally entitled to two attack per round from being a 13th level fighter.

This interpretation is hotly disputed. But I think it's perfectly clear that this is just incorrect.

The email correspondence in which Gary supposedly affirmed this interpretation, he clearly was not. He called it possible but unlikely. He did not endorse this interpretation at all, other than in the sense that the individual DM is free to do that if they want, and it wouldn't be physically impossible.

One of the more sane folks on Dragonfoot questioned this ridiculous rate of fire, ceding that people could interpret the rules to support either way, but questioned why would we assume the more extreme interpretation should be presumed true with the burden of proof placed on the more sensible. I think I know the answer for the tendency of some gamers to do that. It's because when you're looking backwards, you've got these games 1E and 2E, and they're similar in a lot of way, and for posterity we're so eager to draw out all the differences that I think there's a tendency for differences to be exaggerated. On the other hand, when 1E was written, there was no 2E, and no motivation or ability to differentiate it from 2E. So I think motivated misinterpretation of this rule after the fact is far more likely than anything like this being the original intent.

As far as looking at what the rules actually do say, the meaning of "rate" assumes a time element. The rate of fire of a long bow is 2 per round. Triple that rate on a per round basis would be 6 per round. That's literally what the rules are saying. To interpret otherwise is to assume the intent and and say we're not going to nitpick technicalities of language usage when we're clear what the intent was. Only we're not clear. That assumes the conclusion to reach the conclusion.

But the big smoking gun from the DMG is in the example of combat, it has a character using a missile weapon that was explicitly readied, and that character's side won initiative. The RoF in that case was 1, and the character had 2 surprise segments to attack, but not only did the character not get 3 shots the first segment, 3 the second, they didn't even get a second shot on the second segment. It's just not a thing.

Although if we assume this rule actually means what it says, the weapon would be boosted to 3 shots per round, which I guess might look something like segments 1, 4, and 7 (or 1, 5, 9, or something similar). THAT would be consistent with the example of the combat.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 06, 2023, 10:47:03 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on October 06, 2023, 11:07:37 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 03:25:25 PM
To answer the original question, the worst rules in general are some sort of meta-mechanic/economy that players can use to influence things outside of the scope of their character. I like Force Points and ASP from EABA because the character has an in-game reason for avoiding something bad (the force! he's super lucky!) but crap that allows players to literally alter the game in some way that contradicts what the DM stated would happen is just annoying and dumb. That Modiphius Conan game uses this sort of crap, that doom mechanic or whatever it is...just obnoxious. It's literally a sort of side game that directly affects the game itself, but has no true in-game rationale. I hate that crap.

I agree, these types of meta rules/currencies annoy me, too. DCC and other games have Luck, which I find fun at times but ultimately I can take it or leave it. Anything more meta than Luck hurts immersion. That's one of the reasons I did not choose Forbidden Lands for this campaign. It's got a lot of very subtle meta stuff. It's a good game, along with its sibling games, but not what I want for an old school campaign.

Brad named the company that is worst for my wife and I. We tried playing in a Modiphius Barsoom group. They'd been playing for a year and still didn't know all the rules.

Metacurrency that increments based on stuff you do.
So, you're kind of forced to do that regardless of what you want to do.
Because you need the metacurrency to trigger your skills that let you actually survive.

And something like 6 different wound tracks? Really? (And I don't mean like Traveller abilities as hit points.)

I'm like 6 months into playing in a Modiphius Conan game, and yeah, their ineptitude at writing rules is something special. Fortunately its an online game, so I can just do something else while the sorcerer player negotiates with the GM for 20 minutes about how a basic spell works.

  Yeah I have a couple Modiphius games (Conan and Mutant Chronicles and I got the Fallout RPG for nostalgia) and they seem to have a big budget given the IPs and the production value of books...but boy did they really need to spend more on someone to develop a game system.   That feels like a system that someone who has never played or run and RPG cooked up.