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  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  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.