HTF can A.D.D.I.C.T.  be the initiative RAW from AD&D1e when it uses shit extraneous to it that was published about a decade latter?

Now, that someone thinks it makes a good job of explaining it is one thing, but claiming it's RAW?

Hey, don't strawman me!  Terms matter in this kind of thing.  I never claimed ADDICT.pdf was "rules as written".  I said it has the way to play it by-the-book.  Obviously one cannot provide new rules-as-written decades after the fact, but that was never my claim (nor anyone's I don't think?).  ADDICT.pdf goes through all the various exceptions, with a lot of citations, and goes through the examples. It then provides a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book.

I don't think anyone claims this is necessarily advisable, but it does iron out all of the "what about this?" scenarios that come up when trying to parse the wacky special cases.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 11:47:36 AM
Hey, don't strawman me!  Terms matter in this kind of thing.  I never claimed ADDICT.pdf was "rules as written".  I said it has the way to play it by-the-book.  Obviously one cannot provide new rules-as-written decades after the fact, but that was never my claim (nor anyone's I don't think?).  ADDICT.pdf goes through all the various exceptions, with a lot of citations, and goes through the examples. It then provides a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book.

I don't think anyone claims this is necessarily advisable, but it does iron out all of the "what about this?" scenarios that come up when trying to parse the wacky special cases.

So, to you "play-it-by-the-book" means something different from RAW?

Care to define what does "play-it-by-the-book" mean and how does ADDICT.pdf providing a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book isn't claiming it's to play RAW.

Sources & Citations in ADDICT.pdf that AREN'T AD&D1e but ARE way older:
Leigh L. Krehmeyer, "Surprise!", DRAGON®, May 1988: 74
Brian Blume et al., The Rogues Gallery (U.S.A.: TSR Games, 1980), 47.
Robert J. Kuntz with Douglas J. Behringer, "Robilar Remembered: Lord Robilar & Co.," The Oerth Journal 7 (June 1998): 41-43
Gary Gygax, Official Advanced Dungeons & Dragons® Unearthed Arcana (U.S.A.: TSR, Inc., 1985), 18.
Lenard Lakofka, The Secret of Bone Hill (U.S.A.: TSR Hobbies, Inc., 1981), 27-28.
Lakofka, The Secret of Bone Hill, 14.
Lenard Lakofka, "Leomund's Life," The Oerth Journal 10 (July 1999): 78-84

And more.

Well, Unearthed Arcana is a rulebook, right?  Actually a couple of them arguably are.  And the other sources also purport to tell you how to run it by the book, and not be new things entirely, correct?

Edit:  If your point is that there's multiple by-the-book ways to run it, of which ADDICT.pdf has captured the final (and majority-of-system-lifetime) version one, then that's an interesting point but probably not one I would think to care about.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 02:16:29 PM
Well, Unearthed Arcana is a rulebook, right?  Actually a couple of them arguably are.  And the other sources also purport to tell you how to run it by the book, and not be new things entirely, correct?

So I need to buy and USE all of those in order to play AD&D1e "By-The-Book"?

Even the ones published about a decade latter?

Doesn't sound like playing by the book since I need many OTHER books/Articles some of them published about a decade latter.

Which means that (by your own words) I would have to buy AD&D1e, put it on a shelf until all of those books/articles were published then buy them and percolate them in order to play AD&D1e (If not wait till 2006 for ADDICT.pdf to be published too).

So it's not  "By-The-Book" but "By-The-Books/Articles/etc".

I mean, yes, you would need to wait for AD&D 1e to be ruleset-complete in order to play the final version of it.  Does AD&D 1e have ninjas?  I would say yes, because they are right there in Oriental Adventures.  You might say no because they aren't in the PHB.

If your point is that ADDICT uses the full and complete ruleset, and that there may be a different by-the-book version using just the 1970s books, well, that's a good point.  As for the other sources, I think that would be on a case-by-case basis; for instance, if someone a couple years later is explaining how it works by the book, and there's no contradiction, then I would make the case that such a source is valid for the hypothetical 1970s-only ruleset, as it is offering the correct interpretation of the original, and does not constitute a change.

Anyway, the reason I brought up initiative is because I believe the BrOSR Pope might have endorsed an official version, and I'm eager to add it to my folder, as it represents a new and valid religion in this sphere.  I could see a future where their interpretation becomes the most common amongst actual AD&D 1e players, as, after all, most players in the OSR actually want either near-clones or inspireds-by moreso than running AD&D 1e.  Would you happen to know?

Optional content, published a decade latter CAN'T be a part of "The Complete Ruleset", because it's OPTIONAL.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 03:15:10 PM
Optional content, published a decade latter CAN'T be a part of "The Complete Ruleset", because it's OPTIONAL.

Ok well it sounds like you don't know the answer to my question and have instead invented a technicality wherein "complete" means "the inclusion of things I say, but not things I do not say; and certainly not everything", which is, I believe, not a useful definition.  I believe that the complete AD&D 1e ruleset is what you get once you add together all the books released under AD&D 1e.  As far as what the differences between "complete" AD&D 1e's initiative (as compiled in ADDICT.pdf, more or less) and "original" AD&D 1e, that would, I hope, be another thread entirely.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:46:35 AM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

I haven't seen the old Godwin forfiet in a while.  Neat to see it still lives.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years.

Is your standard for excellence ten-plus years old, non-imaginary, and played by 10 or more people, then?  Seems like a low bar, but okay.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats.

A quick Google will show you 'thank you for testing' credits on scores of games, so your doubt isn't completely sane.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything.

Wow a Godwin AND a True Scotsman in the same post?  Do you genuinely believe nobody is playing games other than AD&D?  You're trolling, right?  Right?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

In point of fact, baseball is definitely a poorly designed roleplaying game.

Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 02:45:22 PM

Anyway, the reason I brought up initiative is because I believe the BrOSR Pope might have endorsed an official version, and I'm eager to add it to my folder, as it represents a new and valid religion in this sphere.  I could see a future where their interpretation becomes the most common amongst actual AD&D 1e players, as, after all, most players in the OSR actually want either near-clones or inspireds-by moreso than running AD&D 1e.  Would you happen to know?

Hadn't seen the question, sorry.

I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:46:35 AM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

I haven't seen the old Godwin forfiet in a while.  Neat to see it still lives.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years.

Is your standard for excellence ten-plus years old, non-imaginary, and played by 10 or more people, then?  Seems like a low bar, but okay.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats.

A quick Google will show you 'thank you for testing' credits on scores of games, so your doubt isn't completely sane.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything.

Wow a Godwin AND a True Scotsman in the same post?  Do you genuinely believe nobody is playing games other than AD&D?  You're trolling, right?  Right?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

In point of fact, baseball is definitely a poorly designed roleplaying game.

Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Plenty by the looks of it, no surprize there I think autists were always over-represented in the hobby.

Can't offend me by calling me what I obviously are. Yes, sarcasm, hyperbole, nuance are hard to grasp, even more so in writting, especially from people I haven't interacted much.

After a while it gets easier, once I know (if given the chance since I tend to go hard) the person and their style of writting I'm more able to detect when it's either of those, but never a 100%.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 04:49:15 PM
I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Yea fair enough.  I have a whole other theory there- that when someone wants to lead a group, they'll say something that binds them generally irrevocably to that group, so that their genuineness can't be doubted.  I think this is why whatshisface posted a few of those memes, without mounting any sustained intellectual or religious defense of the implied position- simply doing it is enough to break him away from normalcy.  And of course many of his followers have such things as core values, and this will make them more loyal.

I don't claim to believe such an action is a deliberate one of self service- I just think that such a self-branding event is often present whenever looking at any group that has their own little pile of shibboleths.

And yea, I'm not curious enough to try to crawl into the BrOSR sphincter to look around either.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 04:54:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 04:49:15 PM
I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Yea fair enough.  I have a whole other theory there- that when someone wants to lead a group, they'll say something that binds them generally irrevocably to that group, so that their genuineness can't be doubted.  I think this is why whatshisface posted a few of those memes, without mounting any sustained intellectual or religious defense of the implied position- simply doing it is enough to break him away from normalcy.  And of course many of his followers have such things as core values, and this will make them more loyal.

I don't claim to believe such an action is a deliberate one of self service- I just think that such a self-branding event is often present whenever looking at any group that has their own little pile of shibboleths.

And yea, I'm not curious enough to try to crawl into the BrOSR sphincter to look around either.

From what little I saw before I knew Jeffro was an anti-semite and many of his followers too. You're not missing much. His main claim is to play RAW then proceeds to vomit a bunch of shit that isn't RAW.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 05:21:24 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

There are several of us that are on the spectrum here and we struggle with nuance.  Many of us carry deep shame for the trouble we have caused other by simply not understanding.  Us making jokes about autism isn't about downplaying the cost and struggles it brings but about recognizing our own weaknesses, reaffirming our shared experience, and reminding each other that we can step back a moment to adjust our perspectives.  Ridiculing a child for behavior that they really can't control is shitty but nudging a couple of adults who've hijacked the conversation into a little self reflection is perfectly fine.

Please don't be offended on our behalf.  It undermines us and our efforts to find social equilibrium.