I got a wild idea, this weekend, to run a sample combat for a group of AD&D1 characters (the base four: cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief) against some AD&D1 monsters using strictly all the AD&D1 rules, as written, by-the-book. I knew there were some rules I never used when running an AD&D1 combat, such as weapon speed factors and the weapon vs. AC chart, so I wanted to see how they actually worked in actual game play. But when I started rereading the AD&D1 books (PHB and DMG), with an eye toward running a combat with all the AD&D1 rules, I found that there are a ton of AD&D1 rules I had never used – some I never even knew about (or just don’t remember).

Quite honestly, I am astonished by how much of the AD&D1 rules I’ve never used, or never used completely or correctly. It turns out, in truth, I’ve never really run a fully AD&D1 game. My games could better be described as Basic/Expert D&D with Advanced D&D flavor. I used the AD&D1 ability scores, races, classes, and spells, but the actual game mechanics I used, it seems, were more Basic than Advanced.

I probably shouldn’t be so surprised; after all, I started my D&D career with Basic and Expert D&D. I moved up to Advanced D&D after a year or two. So my base understanding of the game mechanics was from B/ED&D. I guess I never actually read the DMG completely when I was running my AD&D1 campaign. I must have skimmed or skipped the info I assumed I already knew. Or maybe I did read all the rules and choose to ignore the more complicated stuff. I don’t really remember from 10-25 years ago.

For instance:

— I thought surprise was simply “roll a d6: a 1 or 2 means surprised for a round,” with just a couple exceptions, such as the ranger class, or a group of elves in the forest. The actual rules for surprise are much, much more complicated.

— I thought segments were just used to tell how quickly a spell caster could get off his spell in comparison/opposition to another spell caster. The actual rules require some pretty detailed segment tracking for almost all actions, not just spell casting. Including a 2-5 segment delay for a potion to take effect after being drunk.

And the biggest surprise I discovered in the AD&D1 rules:

Players must declare their PCs’ actions “precisely and without delay” prior to rolling initiative.

Seeing this rule absolutely floored me. I’ve seen this rule in Marvel Super Heroes (and I house ruled it out), and I’m currently playing with this rule in a Star Wars d6 game (and I hate it). I had no idea that this rule originated in AD&D1.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

The expression “old school style” directed at some currently published adventure modules is a disservice to those same adventure modules, and to all contemporary adventure modules.

There are some companies claiming their current line of adventure modules are designed/written in an “old school style” (though they may use different phrasing). And there are some individual adventures published in Dungeon magazine lauded as being “old school design.” And some folks on Internet message forums claim that some of the great classic modules are great because of their “old school design.”

There are some great older adventure modules. But there are also some terrible older adventure modules. Being “old school” is not a guarantee of quality.

And what, exactly, is “old school style”? Do all old/classic adventure modules have the “old school style”? Both Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and White Plume Mountain are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style. Is one “old school style” and the other not? How about Dragons of Despair and The Keep on the Borderlands? Both are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style.

What if a long-time Player’s “old school” experience included the Saltmarsh series, the Sentinel/Gauntlet series, All That Glitters, and Beyond the Crystal Cave.

Compare this to another Player’s “old school” experience that included In Search of the Unknown, Palace of the Silver Princess, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness, Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure, and Tomb of Horrors.

And another Player’s “old school” experienced the full run of the Dragonlance series.

The above three Players all played the “old school” classic adventures, but they have vastly different experiences with the “old school” days of D&D. If they liked their personal experiences in the old days, would they enjoy a contemporary adventure module with the marketing label of “old school style”?

There are some great adventure modules written and published in this day. If Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh was published today, would/could it get the label “old school style”? How about Dragons of Despair? In Search of the Unknown?

Does labeling an adventure module with an “old school style” label help it sell more? Has it become the “New and Improved” tag of contemporary adventure modules? And is this really ironic?

Does labeling a good adventure module with “old school style” do a disservice to contemporary adventure modules and writers?

If an author, today, writes a really good adventure, something (unintentionally) comparable to The Keep on the Borderlands, should it get, does it need the label of “old school style”?

If an author, today, writes a really good adventure, something (unintentionally) comparable to The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, should it get, does it need the label of “old school style”?

Would the label for either be accurate/appropriate?

Every time I’ve read someone’s description of “old school style”, the description only describes maybe a third of the actual old/classic adventures, including some real stinkers. The definition seems to exclude some real good old/classic adventures. So why is “old school style” some kind of positive buzzword? Does it suggest that the style wouldn’t exist today if it were not intentionally emulated?

Saying something is “old school” implies there is a “new school.” But if so many new adventure modules are being written in the “old school” style, where’s the “new school”? I’d suggest that there is no “school” style at all. Adventure modules, old and new, can be both good and bad, similar and different, and all combinations of these adjectives.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

A concept that I constantly see stated on various Internet message forums is that D&D3 combats take a long time to play out. Often, the unit of time given for D&D3 combats is “hour” or “hours.” And no one responds to these statements with any astonishment or surprise. It’s as if such statements are universally accepted fact. Now, the thing that astonishes me about this, is not that some people may experience ridiculously long (in real time) battles, but that it seems to be the common experience.

I used to play with a group that took extraordinary amounts of time to do anything. Combat was especially maddening for me. A single combat round took about 20 minutes to play out. The worst situation was a 2 hour battle against 5 normal skeletons. And we were 7th level!

Each Player took many minutes to decide exactly what he wanted to do in his round. The DM answered a barrage of questions for each potential action: “Is the BBEG looking at me? If I move over here, will he get an attack of opportunity? Can I sheath my bow and pull out my greatsword and charge him?” Etc. Players would move their mini on the battle grid, get told that movement draws an AoO, and then change their minds. They’d count out the movement from one point to another to get the exact measurements. They’d draw area of effects out on the battle mat before deciding whether to cast fireball.

I mean, it was absolutely absurd. And terribly frustrating for me. I can’t stand sitting on my hands for 20 minutes waiting for my one 6-second action to come back up. The DM had some really cool combat encounters, but what should have been fast and furious and exciting action bogged down into long, drawn out ordeals listening to all the Players calculate out every possible action for each Player in turn. It even took a ridiculous amount of time for someone to decide just to do another full attack.

Out of an 8 hour game session (every other week), we’d have 6 hours spent on 2-4 combats. Maybe a total of 10-15 rounds. After a couple combats, I started timing them with my watch. I noted and recorded the time, so my statements here are not guesstimates. I had hard evidence. I had to quit that group because I just couldn’t take it.

Since that group, I’ve played in two other groups (including my current). I’ve not experienced that problem again. My current group has had several combats that lasted over 20 rounds, and 1 to 1.5 hours real time. We’ve had one combat that lasted 55 rounds, but took less than 2 hours to play out.

Out of curiosity, I’ve been timing the combats in my game. I’ve not timed every combat, and some data (written on pieces of paper among all my DM notes) got lost, but I’ve timed enough to see the pattern for our group. Below is a sample of that data:

Party: 5 combatants of ~7th level

Combats:

3 monsters, EL7, 4 rounds, 17 mins (4.25 min/rnd – 32 seconds/combatant)

3 monsters, EL6, 3 rounds, 7 mins (2.33 min/rnd – 17.5 seconds/combatant)

7 monsters, EL6, 3 rounds, 7 mins (2.33 min/rnd – 17.5 seconds/combatant)

8 monsters, EL6, 2 rounds, 6 mins (3 min/rnd – 13.8 seconds/combatant)

Party: 6 combatants of ~7th level

Combats:

6 monsters, EL7, 4 rounds, 25 mins (6.25 min/rnd – 31.3 seconds/combatant)

1 monster (“respawned” 4 times), EL6, 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 2 rounds, 2 rounds, 6 rounds, 49 mins total (3.27 min/rnd – 28 seconds/combatant)

Party: 5 combatants of ~8th level

Combats:

5 monsters, EL11, 7 rounds, 28 mins (4 min/rnd – 24 seconds/combatant)

7 monsters, EL17, 9 rounds, 55 mins (6.1 min/rnd – 30.5 seconds/combatant)

Party: 4 combatants of ~6th level

Combats:

2 monsters, EL4, 2.5 rounds, 6 mins (2.4 min/rnd – 24 seconds/combatant)

12 monsters, EL7, 4 rounds, 16 mins (4 min/rnd – 15 seconds/combatant)

5 monsters, EL5, 5 rounds, 22 mins (4.4 min/rnd – 29.3 seconds/combatant)

Party: 5 combatants of ~7-9th level

Combats:

12 monsters, EL8, 2 rounds, 12 mins (6 min/rnd – 21.2 seconds/combatant)

12 monsters, EL8, 1 round, 3 mins (3 min/rnd – 10.6 seconds/combatant)

6 monsters, EL6, 2 rounds, 6 mins (3 min/rnd – 16.4 seconds/combatant)

6 monsters, EL6, 2.5 rounds, 7 mins (2.8 min/rnd – 14.3 seconds/combatant)

6 monsters, EL6, 5 rounds, 9 mins (1.8 min/rnd – 9.8 seconds/combatant)

8 monsters, EL7, 4.5 rounds, 11 mins (2.44 min/rnd – 11.3 seconds/combatant)

8 monsters, EL7, 3 rounds, 6 mins (2 min/rnd – 9.2 seconds/combatant)

3 monsters, EL6, 2 rounds, 7 mins (3.5 min/rnd – 26.3 seconds/combatant)

1 monster, EL7, surprise round, < 60 seconds (* min/rnd)

4 monsters, EL7, 5 rounds, 11 mins (2.2 min/rnd – 14.7 seconds/combatant)

3 monsters, EL6, 4.5 rounds, 7 mins (1.56 min/rnd – 11.7 seconds/combatant)

4 monsters, EL7, 5 rounds, 10 mins (2 min/rnd – 13.3 seconds/combatant)

4 monsters, EL7, 6 rounds, 16 mins (had to look up a rule, and had a brief argument) (2.67 min/rnd – 17.8 seconds/combatant)

4 monsters, EL7, 4.5 rounds, 9 mins (2 min/rnd – 13.3 seconds/combatant)

4 monsters, EL7, 6 rounds, 13 mins (2.17 min/rnd – 14.5 seconds/combatant)

********************************

Average mins/round for the total: 3.1 mins/rnd

3 mins/round = ~90 seconds for DM (who has far more to do), ~22.5 seconds per Player

My group (of 3-6 Players in the above data) consists of a mix of Players who absolutely know the rules (at least for their own character) and never need to reference the books or ask the DM (me) anything, to Players who don’t know what BAB means and have to look up a rule every time (regardless of how many times they’ve already looked it up) and require the DM’s attention and guidance constantly, and all those variations in between.

I don’t think my Players know that I’m timing the combats. I’ve not kept it a secret, but we’ve never discussed it, and I don’t think they care. So there’s no timer hanging over anyone’s head about their turn in the combat. This time tracking is just something I do and never talk about with them. We could go even faster if I hounded everyone about it, but everyone seems fine with the current speed of combat play.

So this makes me wonder: Is my group the anomaly, that our combats go quickly in real time? Is it really the common experience that combats take hours to play out in other people’s games?

Looking at the average in the data, a combat would have to go over 20 rounds to break the 1 hour real time mark. And a 20-round combat is usually quite the epic event.

What is going on in everyone else’s group that combats take hours to play out? I’m genuinely confused about this.

[Edit: Having thought about it for a while, I wonder if people are terribly misjudging the passage of time. Most people can’t tell time length very well based on feel. Check this by asking a friend to time for you. They tell you when to start, and then you tell them when you think one minute is up. Then they tell you how much time has actually passed. It gets much harder to judge two minutes, five minutes, etc.

This is why many service industries (like restaurants) use time coding on tickets/ receipts. “I’ve been waiting 20 minutes for my steak.” But the ticket shows it’s only been 6 minutes.]

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

This anecdote was from many years ago (mid 1980s). I was a Player, not the DM.

We came to the strong gate of the tall, iron fence surrounding the evil castle’s grounds. As we open the gate, we hear the baying of probably large wolves coming from the forest around us (on the outer side of the fence). We stop. After a minute, we see the large forms of many dire wolves moving through the trees, slowly getting closer. We go into combat mode and ask for initiative.

The DM stops us and asks, “Why don’t you just go through the gate and close it?”

We Players, “. . .”

The DM, exasperated, “The wolves are just atmosphere to get you through the gate. Geez, guys.”

The adventure was the original Ravenloft, and the sounds of the approaching wolves were supposed to drive us on, into the adventure with a heart-pounding beginning. But we were not rushed by the sounds of the wolves in the distance. We were not frightened by the sounds of them getting closer. We were not moved by seeing them coming into sight. We were going to fight. The DM could have added more wolves; to really show that we shouldn’t stand our ground, but that could easily have just turned a atmospheric scene into a killer encounter. We had a way out of the encounter, right there, but we chose to take on a dangerous challenge for no reason.

I’ve seen similar scenarios, with all kinds of DMs (myself included) and all kinds of Players (myself included), through many, many, many years. Unless the Players have several minutes to think about how they are going to approach a living challenge, they almost always chose to fight – even when they have an obvious way out. And I’ve seen total party kills result from such behavior.

It’s a frustrating phenomenon for a DM. Heroes in books and movies often run from, hide from, and avoid unnecessary or dangerous fights. Why do RPG heroes always choose to fight? I don’t have an answer, myself. I just have enough evidence through more than a couple decades experience that this is apparently nothing new, and not rare. I’d love to know the psychology behind this.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com