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.