You have to remember that D&D & AD&D were Level based not Skill based systems. Most DM's wanted you to just use your imagination, use your own knowledge or ask someone who had the knowledge to make the game fun. They didn't want you to have rules for everything and spend all your time just looking up rules and rolling dice for everything. I have to say that most of our time was spent having fun playing. We seldom looked up a bunch of rules. As to the Major Battles and Siege situations, there were already plenty of rules for that. You could pick one to use for that session and if you didn't like it you could change it or find a different one to use. Most didn't factor in the use of magic anyway so you had to change things on the fly for each battle.
We used Critical Hit and Fumble tables and Spells and Magic Items from the Arduin Grimoire books. We used Chainmail for Siege warfare. Rules were used and rules were thrown out. That was the beauty of the D&D system. You could use whatever you wanted and make it fit your game. Some DM's used technology from Gamma World and others didn't use any technology except what was available for the time period. Each and every campaign was it's own. Or in some cases, DM's would let you "cross over" from another campaign although your items may not work exactly the same.
Minor correction in spellcasting. Page 65 of the DMG. Under “Spell casting during melee” section. The second sentence clearly states “Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time.” That makes it crystal clear when spell casting begins.
This was pointed out below by another commenter, and you are both indeed correct. Here’s what I wrote below to explain some of why that passage for me was never very apparent: “Thanks for locating this. I see what the passage is indicating , but I guarantee you I’ve read that section half a dozen times and missed the key bit. The phrase “Their commencement” might have been the factor there-if you’re not keeping the antecedent of the pronoun clearly in mind you can miss it. He never formally establishes the antecedent for “their” in a sentence, but instead relies on the antecedent being established by the section title which is odd. The subsequent sentences don’t do the passage any favors either because you move onto untangling them instead of fully absorbing what he just told you. It’s an incredible important knot of rules that needs to be called out a bit better imo. I realize plenty of folks read that passage and probably understood it no problem, but I have seen pages long threads on Dragonsfoot and elsewhere debating the point. I can only say that is likely due to the way the rules are presented.”
I started with BECMI and moved on to 2nd ed. I find this kind of discussion fascinating. It seems typical for 1st ed particularly though not exclusively. It goes to show why many people went with "ok, let's just do it this way". 😅
33:11 "I've looked in the rulebook and it does not tell you." Thanks for the video Nicholas. I looked in DMG p 65 under SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE. Second sentence: "Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time." It took me 15 seconds to find it. Monsters roll a 4 for initiative and the party rolls a 6 and wins initiative. The MU declared a fireball BEFORE initiative was rolled. It "commences" in segment 4 and "culminates" in segment 7 because it has casting time of 3 segments. This is not complicated. Why is there interpretations needed? Why is there debate? Most spells' level is same as casting time. E.g. Fireball is 3rd level = 3 segments. At 8th level a MU can cast up to 4th level spells, most being 4 segments. Most spells cast by most MUs up to 8th level will go off within same round. Any spell caster can cast from a scroll even if the spell is above a level they can normally cast (DMG 128).
Thanks for locating this. I see what the passage is indicating , but I guarantee you I’ve read that section half a dozen times and missed the key bit. The phrase “Their commencement” might have been the factor there-if you’re not keeping the antecedent of the pronoun clearly in mind you can miss it. He never formally establishes the antecedent for “their” in a sentence, but instead relies on the antecedent being established by the section title which is odd. The subsequent sentences don’t do the passage any favors either because you move onto untangling them instead of fully absorbing what he just told you. It’s an incredible important knot of rules that needs to be called out a bit better imo. I realize plenty of folks read that passage and probably understood it no problem, but I have seen pages long threads on Dragonsfoot and elsewhere debating the point. I can only say that is likely due to the way the rules are presented.
@@nicholasbielik7156 Thanks so much for the prompt and magnanimous response. I do not doubt you've seen the threads. The first sentence tells us spells' details are in the PHB. The "their" is both there, and, as you say, in the title. The debate is, as it should be, about whether one prefers to use a rule or not, as Gary often said. Full disclosure: I like many, never read these texts carefully as a kid. Most of us jumped in after being shown a bit by an older sibling or friend. In hind sight, most enthusiasts got by with charts and matrices. The "high Gygaxian" is beyond the ken of most children, including both the syntax and the vocabulary. Post 1980s texts will say the spell begins and ends. With AD&D they commence and culminate. You and I could go on and on about this. I will add that for most guys our age we remember sifting and delving through these texts when we just skimmed over them. Eight and ten year olds' impressions and conceptions of the passage of time differs from someone our own age now. We often, erroneously, think we spent more time than we did reading these texts. AD&D is an elegant system. I argue it's NOT complicated. The system's synergy is lost on most. Casting times, durations, areas of effect, initiative, surprise, encumbrance, morale, and especially, the infamous AC adjustments for weapons just weren't used by most players and DMs. Maybe older teens and adults could comprehend the texts in 1979, but eschewed those rules that presented tactical and strategic challenges to the PCs. Even most TH-cam commentators don't seem to understand what Gary clearly says about combat. The d20 roll is NOT one swing of a weapon. That explains the hp system that is contingent upon and experience level. So few used surprise, because, no surprise, it could be certain death for a PC, especially on mid-high levels. If a carrion crawler gets 3 surprise segments (rounds), it gets 24 paralytic attacks vs. a PC! Let's all commentators be frank about that, eh?
Exactly. I was like ten when I was trying to parse these passages! I love this edition, but it’s been interesting to see it in a new light as an adult. I realize that, holy cow, I’m now a decade older than Gygax was when he wrote these rules. I go back and forth about loving AD&D’s “completeness” and OD&D’s wild and woolly openness, but I’m clearly obsessed by both of these games.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I think a lot of the problems come from the fact that the game was born out of war gaming. There would be no confusion for artillery fired on one round to impact on another round latter on. Without this background, actions extending into following rounds, turn, etc. can be frustrating. Same with inches movement scale vs feet in spell descriptions
Thank you for this. I was having a hard time really articulating why I dislike 1e. and 5e. 1974 3LBB especially gives you about ten different models for -how- to systematize things that come up in your games-- 1d20 roll over, 1d20 roll under, 1d6, 2d6, percentiles.. I think specifically so twelve-year-old DMs could generalize those systems to whatever situations came up. It trains the DM to just do their best to come up with something fair, trains players to accept it even when the "call" goes against them, and keeps the game moving, hence "referee." Moreover, that systems-design aspect is a core part of the fun experience for the old-school DM... and that's the other thing that makes the meat-computer DMing of today exhaustive and less fun.
I pointed out in my video on OD&D that OD&D was sort of a “make a game” kit rather than what might be considered a proper game. In this light, AD&D is essentially Gygax’s fully expanded version of OD&D. It’s a monumental piece of work. It has a strong identity of its own, and this means it clearly isn’t going to be for everyone. If you’re a bit of a mad scientist, a tinkerer, or a free wheeler then OD&D is clearly going to be more your jam.
Some people want to build a car in their garage and some folks want to walk into a dealer and buy a car. AD&D is like buying a fussy sports car that you’re probably going to have to tinker with to get it to do what you want, but it certainly isn’t a “assemble your own car” kit.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'll need to watch that next then! I'm inclined to agree with you; for me it's better to have-- and be trained to use-- that make-a-game kit. You really can't anticipate everything in design, and even if you do, players will inevitably disagree with some aspect of the "official" system. Then they'll play it that way anyway simply because it's "official," grumbling about it the whole time. We seem to crave orthodoxy even when it is destructive.
It's really interesting. In my estimation, AD&D, with all of its gaps in game-mechanics, it's grab-bag of philosophies and perspectives on how to adjudicate a particular story-situation (and let's be honest, it's always about the story, otherwise, it's just glorified chess) , the magical thing that AD&D trained me, as a young kid, was that all of this could be solved, could be sorted out, and that dice, coupled with well realized characters and plots, could answer every tension dynamic, create thrilling and impactful story, and leave everyone feeling like a) they weren't cheated and b) the rules made sense. Even when they were completely made up! We just made shit up! But it felt 100% legit! Just awesome! Thanks, Mr. Gygax. And Jim Ward. And Eric Wujick. And Greg Stafford. And Michael Pondsmith. And Mark Rein-Heigin. And hundreds of others who literally gave me the ability to leave this planet and explore wherever the hell I wanted.
There were so many people that were crucial to the games, world, and storytelling modalities that I loved. It’s hard to keep them all in my silly ape brain. 😂
Page 9 or so in the DMG. "The dice are the tools of the trade..." I know folks have problems with the gaps, but that's where the game lives. Regarding skills: You have to also take experience into account. A Ranger can yrack, and a 1st level Ranger has the same % as a 10th level; so the difference is the experience. A 1st level will know the tracks move in a direction, and maybe a general number; a 10th level Ranger will practically identify each horse by their shoe. You have to also remember, the characters are usually quite young, a fighter could be barely 20, meaning, about 5 or 6 years of an apprenticeship (starting at age 10 or so) before taking up arms and armour.
Aging, the thing that most young people don't even think about. In most campaigns we did keep track of time. Not only the time to get to the "Dungeon" but the time spent in it. Food & water after all is a very limiting factor when in a dungeon. We had one Human Mage in a party of non-humans who complained every time we spent months doing something. He aged years and the rest of us were just like, oh well. Most DM's didn't age you for using potions of speed or for being hasted. Since humans would age so quickly, those would be prohibitive for them. Time for research and making magic items was painful enough for human mages. They could age years just to make one Staff of Power.
Spell casting time was different from one campaign to the other. One DM would have your spell go off instantly, another would check the casting time and it would either go off at the beginning, end or the beginning of the next melee round. Each melee round was a half minute, your round then the opponents round which made one full "Round". Even Gary Gygax spoke on being able to "interrupt" a mage casting a spell. So it makes sense to keep track of the time it takes to cast. And we always tried to protect our spellcasters so this wouldn't happen.
It's simple, there are no RULES, this isn't a wargame, it's a rolegame. The books are guides. They aim for consistency, but not rigidity. Think of old cars. If it was made in the 50s or 60s, it won't have seat belts. No airbags. No crumple zones. Big fuel hungry engine. Metal bumpers. No diagnostic systems. But they were awesome to drive eh. A capable DM can employ advantage disadvantage simply by saying it is so. Wargames are not as lenient. Some will claim AD&D has several flaws, and then you can find others that say all the flaws are not indeed flaws. The only reason I am currently playing 1st Edition AD&D is nostalgia. Basic Fantasy Role-playing game is actually the same game, better organized. OSE same game, different books. You usually need a magnifying glass to find the differences, and essentially have no life :) There are literally dozens of knock off designs out there. Barely anything different other than the appeal for you to buy their books instead of the other ones. I didn't like the math driven 3.5. 4th was a miniatures wargame. 5th is just lets throw elements of past editions into a bowl and stir. I don't expect anyone under 40 to have any interest in pre 3.5 though.
Interesting and informative video. I enjoy listening to the discussion about older editions and the history of our hobby. Thank you for sharing your knowledge about the game!
When I played in the 80's we always used original ad&d via the 3 core books ,the D.m.'s I had the luck to learn with always took those vague areas in the rules and fleshed them out for their adventures ,with regards to secondary skills ,the percentile dice played a role there ,based on level and time spent in the game honing those skills ,similar to thieving skills in the game
I agree with you. And different DMs played stuff differently until maybe they became players in each others' games, and then the systems gradually moved towards whatever your overall group found fairest/most intuitive. For example, I use the cleric turning tables for most thief skills, since they model a PC improving while the challenges they face also get harder.
Really great video - thank you for posting it. RE: Spell Casting Time - I thought (I don't have the DMG to hand, I'm afraid) that spell casters decided on spell choice, prior to initiative being rolled, and that the spell was started on the magic-users turn in the initiative round, during missile exchange. The spell then "went off" at the end of the casting time in segments. This was why 1 segment spells like Shield and Magic Missile were staples because you tried to get them going as soon as the round started, lest someone interrupt your spell.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take. Gygax even has a whole thing where he points out magic wands and staves are superior to spells as they don’t have casting times. It occurs to me that there is probably a Sage Advice column that addresses this, but the rules certainly aren’t very clear about all this.
@@nicholasbielik7156 for sure - I always got the impression that he wrote in such a way that presumes the reader had some prior knowledge of what he was talking about.
Very nice retrospective. I enjoyed your thoughts on B/X, OD&D (I had completely forgotten about the board game 'Dungeon') and other systems like Runequest as well. Subbed. Due to the malleability of 1e mechanics, I'm always curious how DM's run a combat scenario and how much they adhere/interpret Gary's prose. It always seems one of the most table-specific interpretive sections of the game. Perhaps a little demonstration if you ever decide it has merit: more for viewing the stuff from a different set of eyes, rather than a critique scenario.
There’s so many rules regarding combat in AD&D that it’s easy to miss them. Often we see the game experience at the table being shaped by what rules you ignore and which you don’t. I’ll give a think to doing a video on how I interpret how things should go in the “swirling melee” of combat.
Just watched this whole series of "fireside chats" regarding early D&D editions, history, and player experience. It's really opened my eyes up to the variety and evolving nature of the early times. Given it's a dynamic reactive game, it makes sense the whole creation was a giant communal exercise in DMing. I'd love to hear more about the your history with 3/3.5/4 and you're recent experience with 5e. I first learned of D&D with 3.5, but didn't play until 5e. I remember the 4e backlash, but I can tell every version has it's merits. Being, excited about the changes in 5e24, I decided delved into this history, and it's severely fascinating. There is also a whole history to not just the rules but also the Lore! How settings were licensed, came to be owned by TSR, merged into the multiverse. How Forgotten Realms was courted to take over Greyhawk as default setting as early as 2e. It's wild to learn about. How 3e core was still technically Greyhawk, and 4e's Points of Light. How 5e's roll to hit is literally Thac0 but with Armor classes put into sensible ranges (no negatives, high better), and now you can roll up the goal boosted by your proficiency rather than roll down based on a pre-calculated starting penalty (essentially how it was constructed.) I realize 5e does a lot to synthesize the best of most editions, while opening up new room for enrichment by first polishing what is there. 5e24 looks to be pushing that concept even further, and with OSR in full healthy swing it seems like the best time to really lean into an even more Heroic AD&D/d20 lineage while the OSR bases are well covered. Things like a more amenable action economy seem great. I guess we'll see how that pans out, but I'd love your perspective on the WotC era leading up to 5e. With all the efforts of play-testing I get the sense Wizards really wants to unearth a more perfect vision of Gygax's "spring board / ready made toolbox" approach that took shape with AD&D. As if that core can still be polished so as to better construct within the ever-lingering gaps the best adventure yet. If nothing else it will be a great art book!
As I mentioned in my video on OD&D, the gaps in the early editions are essentially what birthed not only the D&D house ruling-fan culture, but also RPG game design in general. Within those gaps was the whole universe of gaming. More important than the rules was the promise and possibilities in the game.
I may eventually offer my perspectives on later editions like 4e and 5e, but, at the moment, my attention has been on other RPG systems including my own home brew systems. I’ve been thinking of sharing how I develop my short campaign “notebook” games.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'd be interested in how you develop your campaigns. The real reason I became curious with old-school rules was trying to explore ways to provide enrichment for my first campaign. Ways to wield soft power to guide a narrative without impacting player agency. I was encouraged to explore BX/OSR and hex crawls, to gain a new perspective. So my curiosity over the evolution of the rule-set and the goals in each era stemmed from there. It seems with B/X it's low friction as long as you can rapidly furnish as you go. Since we play with the AD&D lineage 5e, I appreciate the modern efforts to reduce friction of a more complex time based system. But I think it could go a lot further, which is why I'm hopeful regarding the 5e24 action economy. (Which gets fixed on the ability/feat/spells block side, rather than any fundamental encounter format change.) But I'm really hoping to inject into my player's a sense of discarding the rules as much as possible, save for the scenarios that might require a balanced system to retain tension. (I.e. combat) I guess I'm always in conflict over using fiat to maintain tension, or truly leave it up to how my player's handle themselves. Provide them impetus, let it play out. From what I've gathered B/X might require more fiat, 5e tries to create a sense of fairness for letting the player's meet their fate. In particular because 5e is less deadly given player's are strategic, while B/X seems more deadly at all times and might require DM intervention to craft the macro scenario. I love both ideas, never sure how to balance the two. Especially when it comes to setting player expectation for a scenario. (Sorry this was long.) My main insight is it's less about crafting rules, but crafting story on the fly. I can't shake the imagery of burning through torches, staking doors open, and relying on your lone dwarf with Infravision to when torches run out. Clearly systems encourage a style of play, whether they are made on the fly, or homebrewed from the start. But will modern player's want to engage at the level, when so many more heroic freedoms are promised... outside of combat alone? That's my challenge as a new DM with these old-school new-school ideas.
Also as for the henchman aspect ,we always kind of felt once a player character got that powerful it was time to create an adventure around that character and their keep or land or fortress ect... I always felt that the struggle of the lower levels was what made the game magical because you didn't have game balance kind of like life ...
got to that point and beyond!😉 the time to really deal with this stuff is when, irl u cannot gather everyone to game together and perhaps only the dm and one of the party is available..higher level characters require lots of alone time to deal with their lands, etc.
Something I think having more elaborate skill systems has done is now characters aren't assumed to be generally competent anymore. In 5e, there's the twin problems of people treating their character as basically clueless if they aren't optimized for something, or conversely a character being inexplicably knowledgeable because they rolled a 20.
I think my point was that the rules of AD&D demanded that sort of approach, or you were going to run into problems if you expected the game to have solved for you what are seemingly central issues. Gygax throws DMs in the pool and says "swim!" However, this approach WAS super functional for lots of and lots of DMs, so I'm not being critical here.
I like the plethora of monsters and spells and some of the additional sub-systems. I think a lot of DMs look at the game like a buffet and gorge themselves on the stuff that they like. My recent DM used D6 side initiative for instance, but ignored things like the weapons vs. armor charts and modifiers.
@@Samwise7RPG that’s a pretty common change. Gygax reportedly never used the weapons vs armor charts though I know people have said using that stuff does significantly change the game.
@@Samwise7RPG I’m probably going to do a video on Rolemaster at some point. I’ve had the RM2 books for years, and I am fascinated by the game though I’ve never run it.
One small disagreement, there is a skill system in DMG, the secondary skill list. My bad joke since childhood has always been I rolled 76 or higher personally... Anyway, I always really liked the non-weapon proficiency system that started in Oriental Adventures and was refined in 2nd edition. To me, that, along with making the monsters more powerful and giving more xp for monsters, was the principal improvement 2nd edition offered. Why do you think it still wasn't a very good fit?
For domain play / high level games there is always Birthright. I gave the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG a try for a few campaigns and I loved the house generation tables, and the house fortunes rolls.
Thank you! So much magic in the three books. It’s the Black Sabbath of fantasy rpgs. So many other versions of fantasy rpgs, many of them refined and improved the original. Still, nothing comes close to the feel and charm that Gary & co. Brought to this masterpiece. Art, imagination, everything culminating in This incredible achievement. Keep up the great videos.
Watching this video has inspired me to make one of my own where I've tried to solve some of the issues raised here. (Basically I run a hybrid of AD&D 1st and 2nd Editions with a couple of "adjustments" to the systems) Great Video Nicholas!
The main reason I like to let spells start on segment one is that it avoids the nightmare that is casting times overlapping rounds and the whole can of worms that opens up, such as: If I start casting a spell on segment six of round one and finish on segment two of round two, does the opposing side have two opportunities to interrupt it? And can I then begin and possibly finish a second spell during round two or do I have to wait for round three? Casting multiple spells in a single round is typically seen as forbidden even when Hasted, after all. It's a mess and basically requires some serious house ruling per the above when simply starting on one doesn't. Not going there, thanks.
Not that hard to run. Use a 10 segment combat Round. First option - all spells resolve on round 10 if they would go into the next round. Second - spells taking effect in the next round will take effect without interruption. Think of a capacitor charging up and then discharging. MU declares spell, rolls initiative and takes their turn. Spells can only be interrupted if the enemy attacks while the caster is in the middle of casting on that round. I have seen an initiative board used with two rounds worth of combat and chits used to track who and what goes when. Once you get used to running it, it just becomes second nature - like time tracking while the players explore.
@@Marcus-ki1en Sure, but that's still house ruling to cover gaps that don't have to be there in the first place. Start spells on one and there's no need.
@@Marcus-ki1en Nope. The PHB rules for spell interruption work just fine as written this way (WSF vs. casting time in melee, other attacks coming on caster's initiative segment, etc.) There a PDF summary/FAQ called ADDICT that you can find via Google that breaks it all down.
2nd edition really fixed initiative too. My house variation is: 1) Always individual initiative. Group initiative is unfair to players from many directions. 2) Everyone rolls d10. Use Dex, specialization, magic bonus, and all other modifiers, plus add the speed factor of your weapon or the casting time of your spell, (or the activation time of your magic item, I make all of them 2 segments instead of the complicated list in the treasure section). Obviously, casting time isn't modified by dex, (but other 2nd edition flavors like Alacrity and Signature spells can speed you up). 3) Every goes in lowest number order first. At higher levels, especially for warriors, this leads to negative initiative rolls. But it's all just a number line so it doesn't matter, lowest number goes first. This is superior to group initiative because then everyone has a chance to be first and get the killing blow over the arc of many fights.
One of my biggest complaints about TSR and even Wizards of the Coast today was a lack of a published random encounters tables. There was definitely DMs out there with good tables they were using but nobody at TSR ever stepped up to publish something very useful for the DMs wanting to providing a more open world system.
For the secondary skills, we rolled a percentile to see how good you were at that skill. If you were a farmer and rolled an 11%, well then you obviously left farming because you sucked at it. It was always up to the DM how you used any secondary skill and what you needed to succeed. It really didn't come up too often so why make a bunch of rules for it.
The way seconday skills are treated here really speaks to Gygax's great instincts as a designer. Just imagine what what a waste of space all those pages of detailed procedures for being a jeweler or mason or fisherman or limner would be. What a waste of life creating them all in the first place would be. What do we get instead? Rules for fighting monsters, exploring dungeons and wilderness areas, casting spells, finding all sorts of fabulous treasures. Actual cool, fun stuff that's worth the ink because you're going to want to be doing it all the time. Many later skill-based games would take such deep dives into utter mundanity, much to their detriment. Besides, can you really call yourself a Dungeon Master or a judge or a referee or what have you if you're not making any calls like the ones secondary skill use requires? If you're just following pre-set procedures and pre-set procedures only? Not in my eyes. Such a one is merely acting as a slow, inefficient computer made of meat and not truly engaging with the craft at all. To that end, it's interesting that even that huge section on hireling morale has the following caveat: "If you are certain of your DM ability, most of these factors should be apparent without actually checking them out, simply by empathizing with the character or group in question, and having them act accordingly."
Absolutely. The game wouldn’t exist without him. Please see my discussions of Origins of D&D and OD&D. But Dave didn’t write a word of the AD&D rules as they were apparently written to avoid Gary having to consider Dave’s competing ideas about what D&D should be and also to avoid having to pay him royalties. See Jon Peterson’s book The Game Wizards for more information. All these weird rules I talk about here are 100% Gary Gygax.
Man, videos about old school games that don't try to pretend they were something they weren't are so hard to come by. A very flawed system that had a certain charm, but I'll never see the appeal of going back, at least not in the actual books. Maybe Osric or OSE or something. Or I'll just stick to RuneQuest ;)
Anthony Huso on his blog “The Blue Bard” is probably the best advocate for AD&D 1e that I’ve ever run across, but I think that much of this comes down to what you are looking for in a game.
You have to remember that D&D & AD&D were Level based not Skill based systems.
Most DM's wanted you to just use your imagination, use your own knowledge or ask someone who had the knowledge to make the game fun. They didn't want you to have rules for everything and spend all your time just looking up rules and rolling dice for everything.
I have to say that most of our time was spent having fun playing. We seldom looked up a bunch of rules. As to the Major Battles and Siege situations, there were already plenty of rules for that. You could pick one to use for that session and if you didn't like it you could change it or find a different one to use. Most didn't factor in the use of magic anyway so you had to change things on the fly for each battle.
We used Critical Hit and Fumble tables and Spells and Magic Items from the Arduin Grimoire books.
We used Chainmail for Siege warfare.
Rules were used and rules were thrown out.
That was the beauty of the D&D system. You could use whatever you wanted and make it fit your game.
Some DM's used technology from Gamma World and others didn't use any technology except what was available for the time period. Each and every campaign was it's own. Or in some cases, DM's would let you "cross over" from another campaign although your items may not work exactly the same.
Minor correction in spellcasting. Page 65 of the DMG. Under “Spell casting during melee” section. The second sentence clearly states “Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time.” That makes it crystal clear when spell casting begins.
This was pointed out below by another commenter, and you are both indeed correct. Here’s what I wrote below to explain some of why that passage for me was never very apparent:
“Thanks for locating this. I see what the passage is indicating , but I guarantee you I’ve read that section half a dozen times and missed the key bit. The phrase “Their commencement” might have been the factor there-if you’re not keeping the antecedent of the pronoun clearly in mind you can miss it. He never formally establishes the antecedent for “their” in a sentence, but instead relies on the antecedent being established by the section title which is odd. The subsequent sentences don’t do the passage any favors either because you move onto untangling them instead of fully absorbing what he just told you. It’s an incredible important knot of rules that needs to be called out a bit better imo. I realize plenty of folks read that passage and probably understood it no problem, but I have seen pages long threads on Dragonsfoot and elsewhere debating the point. I can only say that is likely due to the way the rules are presented.”
I started with BECMI and moved on to 2nd ed. I find this kind of discussion fascinating. It seems typical for 1st ed particularly though not exclusively. It goes to show why many people went with "ok, let's just do it this way". 😅
Interesting and informative video. Thanks!
33:11 "I've looked in the rulebook and it does not tell you." Thanks for the video Nicholas. I looked in DMG p 65 under SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE. Second sentence: "Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time." It took me 15 seconds to find it. Monsters roll a 4 for initiative and the party rolls a 6 and wins initiative. The MU declared a fireball BEFORE initiative was rolled. It "commences" in segment 4 and "culminates" in segment 7 because it has casting time of 3 segments. This is not complicated. Why is there interpretations needed? Why is there debate? Most spells' level is same as casting time. E.g. Fireball is 3rd level = 3 segments. At 8th level a MU can cast up to 4th level spells, most being 4 segments. Most spells cast by most MUs up to 8th level will go off within same round. Any spell caster can cast from a scroll even if the spell is above a level they can normally cast (DMG 128).
Thanks for locating this. I see what the passage is indicating , but I guarantee you I’ve read that section half a dozen times and missed the key bit. The phrase “Their commencement” might have been the factor there-if you’re not keeping the antecedent of the pronoun clearly in mind you can miss it. He never formally establishes the antecedent for “their” in a sentence, but instead relies on the antecedent being established by the section title which is odd. The subsequent sentences don’t do the passage any favors either because you move onto untangling them instead of fully absorbing what he just told you. It’s an incredible important knot of rules that needs to be called out a bit better imo. I realize plenty of folks read that passage and probably understood it no problem, but I have seen pages long threads on Dragonsfoot and elsewhere debating the point. I can only say that is likely due to the way the rules are presented.
@@nicholasbielik7156 Thanks so much for the prompt and magnanimous response. I do not doubt you've seen the threads. The first sentence tells us spells' details are in the PHB. The "their" is both there, and, as you say, in the title. The debate is, as it should be, about whether one prefers to use a rule or not, as Gary often said. Full disclosure: I like many, never read these texts carefully as a kid. Most of us jumped in after being shown a bit by an older sibling or friend. In hind sight, most enthusiasts got by with charts and matrices. The "high Gygaxian" is beyond the ken of most children, including both the syntax and the vocabulary. Post 1980s texts will say the spell begins and ends. With AD&D they commence and culminate. You and I could go on and on about this. I will add that for most guys our age we remember sifting and delving through these texts when we just skimmed over them. Eight and ten year olds' impressions and conceptions of the passage of time differs from someone our own age now. We often, erroneously, think we spent more time than we did reading these texts. AD&D is an elegant system. I argue it's NOT complicated. The system's synergy is lost on most. Casting times, durations, areas of effect, initiative, surprise, encumbrance, morale, and especially, the infamous AC adjustments for weapons just weren't used by most players and DMs. Maybe older teens and adults could comprehend the texts in 1979, but eschewed those rules that presented tactical and strategic challenges to the PCs. Even most TH-cam commentators don't seem to understand what Gary clearly says about combat. The d20 roll is NOT one swing of a weapon. That explains the hp system that is contingent upon and experience level. So few used surprise, because, no surprise, it could be certain death for a PC, especially on mid-high levels. If a carrion crawler gets 3 surprise segments (rounds), it gets 24 paralytic attacks vs. a PC! Let's all commentators be frank about that, eh?
Exactly. I was like ten when I was trying to parse these passages! I love this edition, but it’s been interesting to see it in a new light as an adult. I realize that, holy cow, I’m now a decade older than Gygax was when he wrote these rules. I go back and forth about loving AD&D’s “completeness” and OD&D’s wild and woolly openness, but I’m clearly obsessed by both of these games.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I think a lot of the problems come from the fact that the game was born out of war gaming. There would be no confusion for artillery fired on one round to impact on another round latter on. Without this background, actions extending into following rounds, turn, etc. can be frustrating. Same with inches movement scale vs feet in spell descriptions
Thank you for this. I was having a hard time really articulating why I dislike 1e. and 5e. 1974 3LBB especially gives you about ten different models for -how- to systematize things that come up in your games-- 1d20 roll over, 1d20 roll under, 1d6, 2d6, percentiles.. I think specifically so twelve-year-old DMs could generalize those systems to whatever situations came up. It trains the DM to just do their best to come up with something fair, trains players to accept it even when the "call" goes against them, and keeps the game moving, hence "referee." Moreover, that systems-design aspect is a core part of the fun experience for the old-school DM... and that's the other thing that makes the meat-computer DMing of today exhaustive and less fun.
I pointed out in my video on OD&D that OD&D was sort of a “make a game” kit rather than what might be considered a proper game. In this light, AD&D is essentially Gygax’s fully expanded version of OD&D. It’s a monumental piece of work. It has a strong identity of its own, and this means it clearly isn’t going to be for everyone. If you’re a bit of a mad scientist, a tinkerer, or a free wheeler then OD&D is clearly going to be more your jam.
Some people want to build a car in their garage and some folks want to walk into a dealer and buy a car. AD&D is like buying a fussy sports car that you’re probably going to have to tinker with to get it to do what you want, but it certainly isn’t a “assemble your own car” kit.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'll need to watch that next then! I'm inclined to agree with you; for me it's better to have-- and be trained to use-- that make-a-game kit. You really can't anticipate everything in design, and even if you do, players will inevitably disagree with some aspect of the "official" system. Then they'll play it that way anyway simply because it's "official," grumbling about it the whole time.
We seem to crave orthodoxy even when it is destructive.
It's really interesting. In my estimation, AD&D, with all of its gaps in game-mechanics, it's grab-bag of philosophies and perspectives on how to adjudicate a particular story-situation (and let's be honest, it's always about the story, otherwise, it's just glorified chess) , the magical thing that AD&D trained me, as a young kid, was that all of this could be solved, could be sorted out, and that dice, coupled with well realized characters and plots, could answer every tension dynamic, create thrilling and impactful story, and leave everyone feeling like a) they weren't cheated and b) the rules made sense. Even when they were completely made up! We just made shit up! But it felt 100% legit! Just awesome! Thanks, Mr. Gygax. And Jim Ward. And Eric Wujick. And Greg Stafford. And Michael Pondsmith. And Mark Rein-Heigin. And hundreds of others who literally gave me the ability to leave this planet and explore wherever the hell I wanted.
Totally agree with you, Mike!
And Dave Arneson? Do not forget him, please.
Yes! Dave Armeson! Of course! OG designer!
There were so many people that were crucial to the games, world, and storytelling modalities that I loved. It’s hard to keep them all in my silly ape brain. 😂
Oh, poop. I’m replying on a different account. But yes, I agree 100%! Dave was part of my early gaming pantheon.
Page 9 or so in the DMG.
"The dice are the tools of the trade..."
I know folks have problems with the gaps, but that's where the game lives.
Regarding skills: You have to also take experience into account. A Ranger can yrack, and a 1st level Ranger has the same % as a 10th level; so the difference is the experience. A 1st level will know the tracks move in a direction, and maybe a general number; a 10th level Ranger will practically identify each horse by their shoe.
You have to also remember, the characters are usually quite young, a fighter could be barely 20, meaning, about 5 or 6 years of an apprenticeship (starting at age 10 or so) before taking up arms and armour.
Aging, the thing that most young people don't even think about.
In most campaigns we did keep track of time. Not only the time to get to the "Dungeon" but the time spent in it. Food & water after all is a very limiting factor when in a dungeon.
We had one Human Mage in a party of non-humans who complained every time we spent months doing something. He aged years and the rest of us were just like, oh well.
Most DM's didn't age you for using potions of speed or for being hasted. Since humans would age so quickly, those would be prohibitive for them.
Time for research and making magic items was painful enough for human mages. They could age years just to make one Staff of Power.
Spell casting time was different from one campaign to the other.
One DM would have your spell go off instantly, another would check the casting time and it would either go off at the beginning, end or the beginning of the next melee round. Each melee round was a half minute, your round then the opponents round which made one full "Round".
Even Gary Gygax spoke on being able to "interrupt" a mage casting a spell. So it makes sense to keep track of the time it takes to cast. And we always tried to protect our spellcasters so this wouldn't happen.
Aarrgh! The Chivalry & Sorcery Magic system! That's one scary system lol
It's simple, there are no RULES, this isn't a wargame, it's a rolegame. The books are guides. They aim for consistency, but not rigidity. Think of old cars. If it was made in the 50s or 60s, it won't have seat belts. No airbags. No crumple zones. Big fuel hungry engine. Metal bumpers. No diagnostic systems. But they were awesome to drive eh. A capable DM can employ advantage disadvantage simply by saying it is so. Wargames are not as lenient. Some will claim AD&D has several flaws, and then you can find others that say all the flaws are not indeed flaws. The only reason I am currently playing 1st Edition AD&D is nostalgia. Basic Fantasy Role-playing game is actually the same game, better organized. OSE same game, different books. You usually need a magnifying glass to find the differences, and essentially have no life :) There are literally dozens of knock off designs out there. Barely anything different other than the appeal for you to buy their books instead of the other ones. I didn't like the math driven 3.5. 4th was a miniatures wargame. 5th is just lets throw elements of past editions into a bowl and stir. I don't expect anyone under 40 to have any interest in pre 3.5 though.
Interesting and informative video. I enjoy listening to the discussion about older editions and the history of our hobby. Thank you for sharing your knowledge about the game!
When I played in the 80's we always used original ad&d via the 3 core books ,the D.m.'s I had the luck to learn with always took those vague areas in the rules and fleshed them out for their adventures ,with regards to secondary skills ,the percentile dice played a role there ,based on level and time spent in the game honing those skills ,similar to thieving skills in the game
I agree with you. And different DMs played stuff differently until maybe they became players in each others' games, and then the systems gradually moved towards whatever your overall group found fairest/most intuitive.
For example, I use the cleric turning tables for most thief skills, since they model a PC improving while the challenges they face also get harder.
Really great video - thank you for posting it.
RE: Spell Casting Time - I thought (I don't have the DMG to hand, I'm afraid) that spell casters decided on spell choice, prior to initiative being rolled, and that the spell was started on the magic-users turn in the initiative round, during missile exchange. The spell then "went off" at the end of the casting time in segments. This was why 1 segment spells like Shield and Magic Missile were staples because you tried to get them going as soon as the round started, lest someone interrupt your spell.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take. Gygax even has a whole thing where he points out magic wands and staves are superior to spells as they don’t have casting times. It occurs to me that there is probably a Sage Advice column that addresses this, but the rules certainly aren’t very clear about all this.
@@nicholasbielik7156 for sure - I always got the impression that he wrote in such a way that presumes the reader had some prior knowledge of what he was talking about.
Very nice retrospective. I enjoyed your thoughts on B/X, OD&D (I had completely forgotten about the board game 'Dungeon') and other systems like Runequest as well. Subbed.
Due to the malleability of 1e mechanics, I'm always curious how DM's run a combat scenario and how much they adhere/interpret Gary's prose. It always seems one of the most table-specific interpretive sections of the game. Perhaps a little demonstration if you ever decide it has merit: more for viewing the stuff from a different set of eyes, rather than a critique scenario.
There’s so many rules regarding combat in AD&D that it’s easy to miss them. Often we see the game experience at the table being shaped by what rules you ignore and which you don’t. I’ll give a think to doing a video on how I interpret how things should go in the “swirling melee” of combat.
Just watched this whole series of "fireside chats" regarding early D&D editions, history, and player experience. It's really opened my eyes up to the variety and evolving nature of the early times. Given it's a dynamic reactive game, it makes sense the whole creation was a giant communal exercise in DMing. I'd love to hear more about the your history with 3/3.5/4 and you're recent experience with 5e. I first learned of D&D with 3.5, but didn't play until 5e. I remember the 4e backlash, but I can tell every version has it's merits. Being, excited about the changes in 5e24, I decided delved into this history, and it's severely fascinating. There is also a whole history to not just the rules but also the Lore! How settings were licensed, came to be owned by TSR, merged into the multiverse. How Forgotten Realms was courted to take over Greyhawk as default setting as early as 2e. It's wild to learn about. How 3e core was still technically Greyhawk, and 4e's Points of Light. How 5e's roll to hit is literally Thac0 but with Armor classes put into sensible ranges (no negatives, high better), and now you can roll up the goal boosted by your proficiency rather than roll down based on a pre-calculated starting penalty (essentially how it was constructed.) I realize 5e does a lot to synthesize the best of most editions, while opening up new room for enrichment by first polishing what is there. 5e24 looks to be pushing that concept even further, and with OSR in full healthy swing it seems like the best time to really lean into an even more Heroic AD&D/d20 lineage while the OSR bases are well covered. Things like a more amenable action economy seem great. I guess we'll see how that pans out, but I'd love your perspective on the WotC era leading up to 5e. With all the efforts of play-testing I get the sense Wizards really wants to unearth a more perfect vision of Gygax's "spring board / ready made toolbox" approach that took shape with AD&D. As if that core can still be polished so as to better construct within the ever-lingering gaps the best adventure yet. If nothing else it will be a great art book!
As I mentioned in my video on OD&D, the gaps in the early editions are essentially what birthed not only the D&D house ruling-fan culture, but also RPG game design in general. Within those gaps was the whole universe of gaming. More important than the rules was the promise and possibilities in the game.
I may eventually offer my perspectives on later editions like 4e and 5e, but, at the moment, my attention has been on other RPG systems including my own home brew systems. I’ve been thinking of sharing how I develop my short campaign “notebook” games.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'd be interested in how you develop your campaigns. The real reason I became curious with old-school rules was trying to explore ways to provide enrichment for my first campaign. Ways to wield soft power to guide a narrative without impacting player agency. I was encouraged to explore BX/OSR and hex crawls, to gain a new perspective. So my curiosity over the evolution of the rule-set and the goals in each era stemmed from there. It seems with B/X it's low friction as long as you can rapidly furnish as you go. Since we play with the AD&D lineage 5e, I appreciate the modern efforts to reduce friction of a more complex time based system. But I think it could go a lot further, which is why I'm hopeful regarding the 5e24 action economy. (Which gets fixed on the ability/feat/spells block side, rather than any fundamental encounter format change.) But I'm really hoping to inject into my player's a sense of discarding the rules as much as possible, save for the scenarios that might require a balanced system to retain tension. (I.e. combat) I guess I'm always in conflict over using fiat to maintain tension, or truly leave it up to how my player's handle themselves. Provide them impetus, let it play out. From what I've gathered B/X might require more fiat, 5e tries to create a sense of fairness for letting the player's meet their fate. In particular because 5e is less deadly given player's are strategic, while B/X seems more deadly at all times and might require DM intervention to craft the macro scenario. I love both ideas, never sure how to balance the two. Especially when it comes to setting player expectation for a scenario. (Sorry this was long.) My main insight is it's less about crafting rules, but crafting story on the fly. I can't shake the imagery of burning through torches, staking doors open, and relying on your lone dwarf with Infravision to when torches run out. Clearly systems encourage a style of play, whether they are made on the fly, or homebrewed from the start. But will modern player's want to engage at the level, when so many more heroic freedoms are promised... outside of combat alone? That's my challenge as a new DM with these old-school new-school ideas.
Also as for the henchman aspect ,we always kind of felt once a player character got that powerful it was time to create an adventure around that character and their keep or land or fortress ect... I always felt that the struggle of the lower levels was what made the game magical because you didn't have game balance kind of like life ...
got to that point and beyond!😉 the time to really deal with this stuff is when, irl u cannot gather everyone to game together and perhaps only the dm and one of the party is available..higher level characters require lots of alone time to deal with their lands, etc.
Something I think having more elaborate skill systems has done is now characters aren't assumed to be generally competent anymore. In 5e, there's the twin problems of people treating their character as basically clueless if they aren't optimized for something, or conversely a character being inexplicably knowledgeable because they rolled a 20.
I'm more in that camp where I feel liberated as a DM to determine how to adjudicate situations that aren't specified in the rules.
I think my point was that the rules of AD&D demanded that sort of approach, or you were going to run into problems if you expected the game to have solved for you what are seemingly central issues. Gygax throws DMs in the pool and says "swim!" However, this approach WAS super functional for lots of and lots of DMs, so I'm not being critical here.
I like the plethora of monsters and spells and some of the additional sub-systems. I think a lot of DMs look at the game like a buffet and gorge themselves on the stuff that they like.
My recent DM used D6 side initiative for instance, but ignored things like the weapons vs. armor charts and modifiers.
@@Samwise7RPG that’s a pretty common change. Gygax reportedly never used the weapons vs armor charts though I know people have said using that stuff does significantly change the game.
That chart reminded me of my Rolemaster Standard System days with Arms Law. :D
@@Samwise7RPG I’m probably going to do a video on Rolemaster at some point. I’ve had the RM2 books for years, and I am fascinated by the game though I’ve never run it.
I really enjoyed this video. Thank you for recording and posting it.
One small disagreement, there is a skill system in DMG, the secondary skill list. My bad joke since childhood has always been I rolled 76 or higher personally...
Anyway, I always really liked the non-weapon proficiency system that started in Oriental Adventures and was refined in 2nd edition. To me, that, along with making the monsters more powerful and giving more xp for monsters, was the principal improvement 2nd edition offered. Why do you think it still wasn't a very good fit?
Hahahha, wrote this too quick, you then immediately discuss the secondary skills.
I just started out running for an AD&D 1st/2nd group that I was playing in. Thanks for pointing out some of these that I wasn't aware of.
For domain play / high level games there is always Birthright. I gave the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG a try for a few campaigns and I loved the house generation tables, and the house fortunes rolls.
Thank you! So much magic in the three books. It’s the Black Sabbath of fantasy rpgs. So many other versions of fantasy rpgs, many of them refined and improved the original. Still, nothing comes close to the feel and charm that Gary & co. Brought to this masterpiece. Art, imagination, everything culminating in This incredible achievement. Keep up the great videos.
"The Black Sabbath" of RPGs is a great way to describe AD&D. I'm glad you're enjoying the channel!
Watching this video has inspired me to make one of my own where I've tried to solve some of the issues raised here. (Basically I run a hybrid of AD&D 1st and 2nd Editions with a couple of "adjustments" to the systems) Great Video Nicholas!
That's exactly what I run, 45% 1st edition, 45% 2nd edition, and 10% Ed ed. Rough estimates of course, like and DM would make!
The main reason I like to let spells start on segment one is that it avoids the nightmare that is casting times overlapping rounds and the whole can of worms that opens up, such as: If I start casting a spell on segment six of round one and finish on segment two of round two, does the opposing side have two opportunities to interrupt it? And can I then begin and possibly finish a second spell during round two or do I have to wait for round three? Casting multiple spells in a single round is typically seen as forbidden even when Hasted, after all.
It's a mess and basically requires some serious house ruling per the above when simply starting on one doesn't. Not going there, thanks.
Not that hard to run. Use a 10 segment combat Round. First option - all spells resolve on round 10 if they would go into the next round. Second - spells taking effect in the next round will take effect without interruption. Think of a capacitor charging up and then discharging. MU declares spell, rolls initiative and takes their turn. Spells can only be interrupted if the enemy attacks while the caster is in the middle of casting on that round. I have seen an initiative board used with two rounds worth of combat and chits used to track who and what goes when. Once you get used to running it, it just becomes second nature - like time tracking while the players explore.
@@Marcus-ki1en Sure, but that's still house ruling to cover gaps that don't have to be there in the first place. Start spells on one and there's no need.
@@willmistretta But doesn't that mean that spell casters always go first on their round? Bit of an advantage to casters...
@@Marcus-ki1en Nope. The PHB rules for spell interruption work just fine as written this way (WSF vs. casting time in melee, other attacks coming on caster's initiative segment, etc.) There a PDF summary/FAQ called ADDICT that you can find via Google that breaks it all down.
2nd edition really fixed initiative too. My house variation is: 1) Always individual initiative. Group initiative is unfair to players from many directions. 2) Everyone rolls d10. Use Dex, specialization, magic bonus, and all other modifiers, plus add the speed factor of your weapon or the casting time of your spell, (or the activation time of your magic item, I make all of them 2 segments instead of the complicated list in the treasure section). Obviously, casting time isn't modified by dex, (but other 2nd edition flavors like Alacrity and Signature spells can speed you up). 3) Every goes in lowest number order first. At higher levels, especially for warriors, this leads to negative initiative rolls. But it's all just a number line so it doesn't matter, lowest number goes first. This is superior to group initiative because then everyone has a chance to be first and get the killing blow over the arc of many fights.
One of my biggest complaints about TSR and even Wizards of the Coast today was a lack of a published random encounters tables. There was definitely DMs out there with good tables they were using but nobody at TSR ever stepped up to publish something very useful for the DMs wanting to providing a more open world system.
For the secondary skills, we rolled a percentile to see how good you were at that skill. If you were a farmer and rolled an 11%, well then you obviously left farming because you sucked at it.
It was always up to the DM how you used any secondary skill and what you needed to succeed. It really didn't come up too often so why make a bunch of rules for it.
The way seconday skills are treated here really speaks to Gygax's great instincts as a designer. Just imagine what what a waste of space all those pages of detailed procedures for being a jeweler or mason or fisherman or limner would be. What a waste of life creating them all in the first place would be. What do we get instead? Rules for fighting monsters, exploring dungeons and wilderness areas, casting spells, finding all sorts of fabulous treasures. Actual cool, fun stuff that's worth the ink because you're going to want to be doing it all the time. Many later skill-based games would take such deep dives into utter mundanity, much to their detriment.
Besides, can you really call yourself a Dungeon Master or a judge or a referee or what have you if you're not making any calls like the ones secondary skill use requires? If you're just following pre-set procedures and pre-set procedures only? Not in my eyes. Such a one is merely acting as a slow, inefficient computer made of meat and not truly engaging with the craft at all.
To that end, it's interesting that even that huge section on hireling morale has the following caveat: "If you are certain of your DM ability, most of these factors should be apparent without actually checking them out, simply by empathizing with the character or group in question, and having them act accordingly."
The original white box set was "acting". Everything that came after has been "reacting" and back filling or clarifying (albeit on the fly)
I want to add two words, a very relevant name: Dave Arneson. He also exists.
Absolutely. The game wouldn’t exist without him. Please see my discussions of Origins of D&D and OD&D. But Dave didn’t write a word of the AD&D rules as they were apparently written to avoid Gary having to consider Dave’s competing ideas about what D&D should be and also to avoid having to pay him royalties. See Jon Peterson’s book The Game Wizards for more information. All these weird rules I talk about here are 100% Gary Gygax.
Man, videos about old school games that don't try to pretend they were something they weren't are so hard to come by. A very flawed system that had a certain charm, but I'll never see the appeal of going back, at least not in the actual books. Maybe Osric or OSE or something. Or I'll just stick to RuneQuest ;)
Anthony Huso on his blog “The Blue Bard” is probably the best advocate for AD&D 1e that I’ve ever run across, but I think that much of this comes down to what you are looking for in a game.