Steve Winter, one-half the development team for AD&D 2E, enlightens some forum posters at the TravellerRPG forums (under the moniker “the angle”). You have to be signed up to review the entire thread but I’ll re-post his more interesting quotes.
Combat
———-
“2E was a narrative game. The combat sequence was kept vague intentionally so that DMs would have maximum leeway to interpret things for the best dramatic effect. In the example you cited, the key element is that the dwarf’s player just shouted “Charge!” and rushed in. He could just as easily have said, “I pause a moment to give the wizard a chance to hit them with a fireball, then charge!” … but he didn’t. His narration indicated that he wanted to hit the enemy as fast as possible, without waiting for the wizard, so that’s the way the DM ran it. That part of the sequence had nothing to do with the initiative roll itself.”
“The question of when things happen depends on the players’ descriptions and the DM’s interpretation of the situation more than on the initiative rolls. Within the one-minute combat round, a lot of things are happening more-or-less at the same time. The initiative roll doesn’t determine exactly when any particular character does something, especially if you’re using the basic one-roll-per-side rule. Initiative is not synonymous with turn sequence as it is in many other rules. It is simply “which side has the slight upper hand this round?” That side gets to log its damage before the other guys. But they’re all in there swinging, dodging, maneuvering, and casting spells at the same time. It’s significant that in the example, the wizard cancels her fireball before the initiative dice are rolled. The dwarf is charging into melee without hesitation, so he’s bound to be in the target area before she can launch the spell. No particular rule dictates this; it’s part of the scene that the dwarf’s player created when he shouted “charge!”
“It’s meant to be chaotic; it’s intended that everything is happening at the same time. The initiative roll is a tool to help the DM decide whether the dwarf or the troll lands a telling blow* first, but they’re both hacking away and maneuvering the whole time according to the DM’s and players’ descriptions.”
“This topic was hotly contested while we were working on 2E. I played a lot of Melee/Wizard and was a big fan of its rigid definitions for what a character could do and how far he could move under various circumstances. Zeb favored the exact opposite view, that the less these things were defined, the more the DM and players could bring the scene to life and adapt to anything. We debated that more and longer than anything else. The standard rule is Zeb’s; the individual initiative rule is mine. In the end, however, I came over to Zeb’s way of thinking. For a game like AD&D, I now prefer the standard rule with its heavy dependence on narrative and interpretation. Which is not to say that I dislike or disavow the individual initiative approach. It serves very well for one, entirely valid style of play. I’ve simply come to appreciate a different style of play more.”
———-
This was always a debated topic at my game table; my friends were war gamers and I preferred a more cinematic approach. Eventually I settled into a smooth, organic method of adjudicating battles that everyone agreed upon but it’s important to note how 2E was designed. The system, by itself, is bare bones but came with dozens of optional rules to increase its complexity. In my opinion, this is how RPGs should be written.
My biggest criticism with 3rd Edition was that Wizards tried to make it all inclusive but the more hard rules you create, the less you can add or change before the inevitable issue of balance comes into question. 4th Edition streamlined a lot of material with its exception-based design but their powers system left little room for easy homebrew.
Magic Item Duration
———-
“As to swords, you’re right, there’s no indication. I’d go with one of two things. The default would be level 12, because that’s the minimum level needed to cast enchant an item. The rules, however, allow one wizard to cast enchant an item and another to cast the actual spells into the item. It’s possible that both light and protection from evil could have been placed on the item by a 1st-level apprentice. That leaves you free to make them any level you want. I’d probably tie it to the weapon’s bonus — assume the caster had three levels for every plus the weapon has, assuming it has any, or something along those lines.”
“That works, too. An attractive aspect of atpollard’s answer is that it leaves the door open for interesting developments down the road. Let’s say you tie the sword’s magical effectiveness to the character’s level but don’t tell the players that. They think they have a sword of low power. Then, after the characters have risen a few levels, suddenly the sword seems more powerful. Eventually, it turns out that the sword is a forgotten near-artifact whose power reflects the power of the wielder.”
———-
Something else that usually cropped up in play were how long item spells lasted. I always used the “12th level wizard” rule but I do like Winter’s approach to tying magic items to the player. Most people discard magic items after a certain point but if their powers increased with the wielder they’re more likely to hang onto them.
Ranged Weapons
———-
“Sling bullets: Str bonus applies to all missile weapon damage except: crossbows (never) and bows (unless they’re specially made).”
“Dagger proficiency covers stabbing and throwing. The same goes for any weapon that can be wielded in melee or thrown, such as javelins, hammers, axes, and spears. The DM could make a case for splitting them, but it’s not intended that way. “
“The note on page 90 is wrong, and for some reason it was never corrected in subsequent printings. Only the Dex mod applies to the attack roll, and the Str mod applies to the damage roll.”
“I still work with Rich Baker, and he worked on C&T (along with a lot of other 2E products, of course), so I asked him about this question in general and that C&T passage in particular. His recollection (again, reaching back over a decade) agreed with mine that Str bonuses never applied to ranged attack rolls, and no one called that out explicitly in text because it was assumed everyone knew it. He did recall specifically writing the passage in C&T about limiting the Str-based bonus on thrown weapon damage so that a high-Str character couldn’t throw half-a-dozen darts that cause 1d3+8 damage each. He didn’t restrict Str bonuses on thrown-weapon attacks because it never occurred to him that anyone would allow them.”
“I’m going by memory here, but I’m sure To Hit bonuses were meant to be split between Str = melee, Dex = ranged. I seem to remember that Str could affect damage (the assumption the character could use a stronger pull bow). Do I have any concrete proof of all this? No, but I do know my design preferences so I’m basing it on those. I certainly don’t remember anyone arguing that Dex + Str should apply.”*
*Zeb Cook, Designer AD&D 2E
———-
Another hotly debated subject. There was always much confusion regarding missile weapons but here it is in stone. Dex applies to THAC0 for all ranged/missile attacks, strength applies to their damage except crossbows and bows (unless they’re specially made).
Secret Doors
———-
“Zeb hated the idea of secret doors being found with dice rolls. The only reason we kept the thing about elves and dwarves was because it was a legacy of 1st edition. This is hinted at (in a toned-down way, I assure you) in the DMG passage about elves and no one understanding how they notice concealed doors without looking.”
“This is closest to correct, only it’s not even meant to be automatic. Players are expected to tell the DM what they’re doing. Like the DMG states, “characters tap, thump, twist, and poke” until they hit the right combination. Further down the page, it states clearly that “It is a good idea to note how each particular secret door works and how it is concealed.” That’s the rule. To find a secret door, players must literally find it.
This goes back to the earlier discussion of narrative. We placed a heavy emphasis on it. Creative narrative always was meant to carry more weight than any dice roll.
This didn’t sit well with everybody, as evidenced by the Int check described in the DL product. That’s a kludge tacked on by someone who didn’t like the tap/thump/twist/poke approach. It’s not the ‘standard’ rule.”
———-
I personally asked this question and the results more than satisfied me. It’s interesting to note how a lot of D&D material was carried over not because it had any mechanical value but purely because it was “tradition.” Some people swear by “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality but some material, especially if it’s detrimental to good play, should be removed. Up to 4th Edition, nobody truly knew what elves were supposed to be because their abilities had been compounded over 20 years.
Backstabbing
———-
“I don’t believe we put any restrictions on what weapons could be used, not even to those the thief has proficiency with. If you can sneak up behind someone with a guisarme-voulge without him noticing, you can backstab with it.”
“I don’t have a copy of First Quest anymore, so I can’t comment on what’s in there. But no actual d10 surprise roll is required in order to get a backstab. All that’s needed is for the victim to not know that he’s at risk of being stabbed in the back. That’s not likely to happen in the midst of a fight, but it can happen even if you know that the thief is behind you but you have no reason to suspect that he means you harm.
Now, this is unofficial, but were I the DM, I would allow the thief to ask for a surprise roll because he wanted to get the additional +1 bonus to hit with surprise. This would represent the typical movie moment where the thief does something like tapping the victim on the shoulder to make him look left before jamming in the knife with his right hand. If that roll didn’t result in the victim being surprised, however, then the whole maneuver would fail and the thief would lose the backstab bonus. I think this is a good example of how 2E allows flexibility in resolving situations.”
———-
Resting
———-
“We weren’t aiming for anything that dogmatic. That’s a fine way to break it down, especially in a situation like Dragonlance where characters are constantly on the move.
The basic idea, though, was that a character would recover 1 hp on the D&D equivalent to a ‘slow day off work’ (puttering around the garden, going for a walk, catching a movie), 2 on what amounts to a ‘sick day’ that you spend mostly in bed or a recliner in front of the TV but not being waited on hand and foot, and 3 in what amounts to a hospital. And by “day,” we meant a 24-hour period. Compared to the high energy, high stress, high danger routines of heroic adventurers, traveling is a break, even by foot. Climbing cliffs or slogging across the Badlands or through the Okeefenokee wouldn’t be. The decision on what types of travel are ‘restful’ lies with the DM, keeping in mind that heroes are a lot tougher than you or me.
Ultimately, the goal was to enforce periods of rest on characters. People who go on crusades and fight monsters need a lot of recuperative time off.”
———-
Miscellaneous Subjects
———-
“Multiple Attacks: I can see how this rule could be interpreted that way, but that’s not correct. A character that moves up to half his normal distance retains his full melee capability. If he has multiple attacks, he still gets them all, regardless of whether they come from using two weapons or striking with the same weapon twice as a high-level fighter.”
Fighters losing their multiple attacks in 3rd Edition is what killed that class. 2E straight up allows you to move and full attack.
“Speed Factors for Dual Weapons: Use the worst of the two speed factors. Don’t add them together.”
“That’s right. We weren’t quite as rigorous with jargon as we probably should have been. [small shields] can be used against two attackers would be correct.”
Something I have to remember to addendum in For Gold & Glory. Small shield AC isn’t used against two attacks, but up to two attackers.
“I’m afraid that my memory is no better than Zeb’s on that question. The hand ax certainly ought to be an S weapon, and the horseman’s mace probably should. I don’t recall any specific reason why they’re not.”
Another change I need to make in addition to how secret doors work.
“The parry rule is written entirely from the perspective of characters. I’d have to say that there is no hard-and-fast rule here. Going on the defensive implies that the creature possesses a sense of self and self-preservation. If you think that a huge spider has that, then it could conceivably go on full defense if it fears for its survival. Are we talking about Shelob here, or just some hoi-polloi giant spider in a random encounter? It really needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis.”
“If you choose to use them in your campaign, then the “Options” books such as Combat & Tactics (and, to a lesser degree, the PHBRs and DMGRs) supersede the core rulebooks. For example, if you choose to use the Complete Fighter’s Handbook in your campaign, then where it conflicts with the PHB, you would go with what’s in the CFH. A DM could allow or reject things on a case-by-case basis if he wants, but it’s easier to just say “all in” or “all out.”
With that in mind, it’s not really a question of rationalizing what’s in one book in light of what’s in another. You defer to one or the other, not both.”
———-
A rather productive and fun to read topic with two months worth of juicy material. I’ll end this post on my favorite game-related quote in that topic:
“It’s all about flexibility, really. Unlike a wargame, an RPG needs to be an open system that allows for anything to happen, and even to happen in different ways. That was my chief objection to 3rd edition; when you try to legislate everything, you turn everyone into a lawyer and nothing gets done.”
I’ve enjoyed every edition of Dungeons & Dragons; they all have their individual merit and downfalls which make them enjoyable (and frustrating) in play. While I won’t say one edition clearly trumps the other, I prefer the style of the old, pre-competitive gaming where roleplaying felt more personal and less about mechanics.
I like it when developers talk about their work. It’s unfortunate that a lot of material ends up becoming lost during the creation phase. I started the FG&G project as a means to reference and bring 2nd Edition into the new century. I hope the developer’s musings shed some new light on old material.
Post a Comment