Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM

That is what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying - 1:1 Time, no exceptions.

FWIW: On the "No play for you. Come back 1 year." That is when you are supposed to switch to a new character. Troup play with a given player controlling various PC's and henchmen at various times is the default mode of play. (It has been a while but, I assume ther are spells that might help that process along as well. AD&D is rather gonzo fantasy.)

He actually Blogs play reports from his campaign showing how 1:1 time works in practice... (https://jeffro.wordpress.com) So in his defense, they do get it to work.

I take him at his word; 1:1 time gaming is possible.

My main objection to what Jeffro is going on about with his "fake D&D" spiel is making a pronouncement on what was Gygax's "preferred" style of play, at a time when he cannot tell us what his real opinion on the issue is.

  I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.

   

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM

That is what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying - 1:1 Time, no exceptions.
...stuff I wrote...

  I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.

I agree.

On: "...the assumption that this is the only way to play"

TSR promoted the 'standard' mode of play that Jeffro & crew are railing about as Fake D&D since the beginning of the game. Even during the era when Gygax was at the height of his creativity and influence over at TSR.

So which is it Gary? Oh wait, he is not around to weigh in on the issue. A bit convenient...


On: "...necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,'..."

I don't see exactly how Bradford thinks this will work - he says it, but I think it is more a matter of doing what Pundit says and having the stones to stand up against the wokeoso's.

IMHO the hobby's professional convergence got underway good and proper when D&D - the market leader - moved from middle America to the left coast. Because those with the control only hire like minded people. Not that the lake Geneva WI crew were anything resembling a right wing coalition... But the culture at Adkison's WOTC was a different animal entirely! And D&D exerts a huge influence over the RPG hobby as a whole.


On: "...finally making the game accessible to the general public. ..."

I'm not so sure on this one. "Changing the game" to attract the normies is part of the reason that the hobby is in the state that it is currently in. When you give an equal voice to casual players that don't really care all that much about the actual game, you get the issues we see now.

And honestly I think that the normies won't be anymore attracted to the 1:1 time RPG format than the standard one. For many of the same reasons - just applied to different aspects of the 1:1 campaign.

I also believe that running a 1:1 campaign requires a higher level of commitment from a GM than the standard mode of play, and the hobby has always had a big GM / player deficit even under the easier to run standard play mode.

And they are certainly not going to rally to their cause the people who would otherwise be disposed to give 1:1 time RPG gaming a try by telling them that they are all still playing "Fake D&D"...

I had the chance when I got off work to hunt down the quote I knew I'd read in the DMG. There is a parenthetical note "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" on pg 37.

It clearly doesn't say you must. It clearly doesn't say the only way. It says best. And I think a reasonable person would take this to mean "generally best" which means there could be better ways to handle it in some cases. You don't have to interpret it to mean generally best, but I'd consider that interpretation most likely correct but at the very least makes the list as a valid interpretation of real D&D.

The other thing is it says "when no play is happening." Not always and at all times the 1:1 time frame applies. Nothing here backs the soup Nazi theory of AD&D. Though you can certainly play that way if you choose to.

Here's where I spike the ball. There's an example given in that section that poses a real problem for the whole "Gary sez 1:1, no exceptions" hypothesis. It has on day 51 of the campaign character A heading off to seek some oracle, newbie characters E and F head into the dungeon, while characters B, C, and D do nothing. Basically, their players don't game again until 4 (real) days later.

E and F barely survive day 51. They rest for a few game days then try again on Day 54. They stumble upon the worst monster on the first level, surprise it, slay it, and come out with a huge haul. On day 55, B, C, and D enter the dungeon to find that area has already been cleared out. But if they hadn't been so lazy, gone there on day 52, they could have found the monster and snagged all the swag.

Then Gary ponders, so what if the players for characters B, C, and D show up 4 days later as planned but say, "Yo, I think we're only going to take 1 day off and go into the dungeon on day 52." That is, playing out day 52 after E and F already played out day 54, slayed the monster, and gone the treasure.

Gary here says that even though in this case character's B, C, and D would have gotten there first, the activities of E and F should be allowed to stand. In game, he justifies it as destiny had decreed the monster in question would not fall to characters B, C, and D, and therefore the creature was somewhere else when they visited its lair on 52. Out of game, he justifies the call saying "Some penalty must accrue to the non-active," meaning because the players for B, C, and D snoozed they loozed.


As a DM, it might make my job easier to just say, hey, you guys weren't playing, 1:1 went into effect, B, C, and D go out on day 55 rather than 52. Then I won't have to reconcile things like what happens if players E and F get there before players B, C, and C, but characters B, C, and D get there before characters E and F. And maybe that's what Gary meant when he said "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" But you can see clear here that Gary is contemplating other ways of running the campaign, even to go so far as giving advice on how to untangle the mess you can get yourself in straying from the 1:1 time ratio.


The example continues and dispels the "no soup for you" as it follows the journeys of character A, who travels for 11 days, visits the oracle remaining for 3 days, journeys back another 11 days, arriving home late on day 75, taking a brief rest, then ready to adventure on day 77. He then says, and this quote is juicy, "Allowing that activity to be not unusual for a single session of play,"--in other words, those 25 days just took place in a single session, and that's pretty typical a thing.

Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 11:13:09 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 23, 2021, 10:09:31 PM
Here it is again, in 11 words:
Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

So what happens when Initiative is tied?

I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.

(and then my monsters murderize their PCs with murder sauce)

As for spellcasting, I have casters declare IF they are casting before initiative is rolled which makes the D6 v D6 roll even more tense, which is fun.

D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 26, 2021, 08:31:44 PM
D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.

That works too! I just enjoy giving players a false sense of security! I also give PCs their max HP at convention games. Oh the bravado of that first battle!

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
... and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' ...

No one needs to exclude the Critical Role fans.  They don't play D&D anyway, just watch...

Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously.  That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.  There ar ehsitorical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.

Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:21:25 PM
I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.

My first time as DM was only after playing the game twice. Initiative was not among the rules I knew at that time, so I just had players go first.

That was so long ago, I don't remember exactly how those games went. But I can safely report what didn't happen. The pages didn't fall out of my book. The dice didn't spontaneously burst into flame, and the planet didn't break off its axis and go hurtling into the sun.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 26, 2021, 09:20:30 PM
Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously.  That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.  There are historical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.

That is how BtB initiative works. I think that's the common sense conclusion without being told what to do.

Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:35:27 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on August 26, 2021, 08:31:44 PM
D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.

That works too! I just enjoy giving players a false sense of security! I also give PCs their max HP at convention games. Oh the bravado of that first battle!

Hah that is sick...

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM

That is what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying - 1:1 Time, no exceptions.

FWIW: On the "No play for you. Come back 1 year." That is when you are supposed to switch to a new character. Troup play with a given player controlling various PC's and henchmen at various times is the default mode of play. (It has been a while but, I assume ther are spells that might help that process along as well. AD&D is rather gonzo fantasy.)

He actually Blogs play reports from his campaign showing how 1:1 time works in practice... (https://jeffro.wordpress.com) So in his defense, they do get it to work.

I take him at his word; 1:1 time gaming is possible.

My main objection to what Jeffro is going on about with his "fake D&D" spiel is making a pronouncement on what was Gygax's "preferred" style of play, at a time when he cannot tell us what his real opinion on the issue is.

  I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.

I wouldn't say there is only one way to play. But I would say the Critical Role way IS wrong and those kinds of people should not expect that kind of play in the games I GM. I'm not an adherent to the Gygax Bible. But I do espouse and encourage the old school mentality. And I actually think if presented properly it can be just as successful and compelling to normal people. What turns them off is the autism on display by OSR publishers at times. The petty infighting and everyone's separate insistence on their way being the only way.

I think there's room for games with full crunchy AD&D rules "as Gygax intended" and the simpler b/x stuff. I like both kinds of games and so do the groups I frequent. I don't understand either RPG Pundit or the BrOSR when they say I have to pick one or the other. That kills the OSR more than anything else.

Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:21:25 PM
I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.

(and then my monsters murderize their PCs with murder sauce)

As for spellcasting, I have casters declare IF they are casting before initiative is rolled which makes the D6 v D6 roll even more tense, which is fun.

Sounds good to me. The debate was over how AD&D as written works and whether it was well organized and understandable. Your method sounds playable and in my experience will work as well as other. In my experience both folks bad in the day played with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, magic items, etc.) with Basic D&D rules for combat, variations of 1d6 roll high. Varying on whether it was individual initiative or group initiative.

With AD&D as written, ties is one of the instances when weapon speed comes into play. It determines the order of who strikes, along with possibility of getting multiple attacks on an opponent.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 26, 2021, 09:20:30 PM
Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously.  That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.  There ar ehsitorical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.

That works as well, although not how AD&D does it. See Simultaneous Initiative on page 66 of the DMG.

Quote from: estar on August 27, 2021, 01:19:43 PM
Sounds good to me. The debate was over how AD&D as written works and whether it was well organized and understandable....

This is why I felt that all the talk of RAW AD&D was a bit of a red herring...  Yes, you can do it.

Yet by Jeffro's own admission:

"AD&D is the definitive expression of all things Gygaxian. It's a landmark work, epochal even. There was nothing like it before in history and there can never be another work that even approaches its influence and significance. It is staggeringly awesome. But it is not accessible. "
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149712026412785665

"The Holmes, Molvay, and Mentzer box sets were accessible. Original D&D and first edition AD&D were not. They were #EliteOnly and required #WinningSecrets in order to be mastered!"
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149807845434515456

He then goes around telling everyone that is not playing D&D with 1:1 time that they are playing FAKE D&D.

To support his 1:1 Time = The Standard;  He then cites the selfsame AD&D rule set that he had described as: "not accessible"...

At the very least I think he communicates his position poorly.

I've never heard of this BrOSR or this Jeffro guy.  Is this a Twitter thing or something?
Where did they come from?  Why now? What is their history to act like they're the conduit of Gygax's ghost?

People can't even come together on agreement how AD&D 1e rules are all supposed to work for something as basic as combat so colour me less than convinced that they discovered the 'true 1e way': did someone unearth some arcane document in Gail's house that explains it all?

I like the AD&D discussion but this just sounds like another opinionated grognard(s), acting like they discovered the Da Vinci code.