A while back I mused on using Weapon Speed and its weird, weird rules in my next AD&D session.
I'm leaning towards, "Not this time."
A couple of encounters have some special considerations that I think will complicate the Weapon Speed rules. Because of such, we'll have rules no one is really familiar with faced with exceptions, which I absolutely know will cause time to be spent arguing if it's X and Y then it should be Z even if the module says it's really not-Z-at-all.
Similarly, I don't think it's the place to use Weapon vs. Armor Type adjustments. Probably not, anyway. I'll have to take a closer look. I suspect it'll feed value into a couple of players who'll closely examine the rules and leverage their weapon choices vs. the enemy, and give the others one more modifier they don't know and have to deal with. It'll also make a joke of one stated tactic in the module, too, which isn't really a good outcome, either.
I might have to save those for some other situation where I feel like they make a lot of sense to drive play decisions, yet don't add too much complexity in the process. That might not even be possible. It's clearly not a good fit here.
In the previous post, you mention ADDICT. The way I think about it not how it described in (c). Instead I think of each side initiative being the segment the other side STARTS on. So if Able rolls a 5 and Baker rolls a 3. Then Able starts on segment 3, and Baker starts on segment 5. Everything else follows from when considering weapons speed and spell casting time.
ReplyDeleteThe way I've chosen to run initiative is identical to yours, except that I don't factor in Weapon Speed in any way. Canonically, it should only matter on a tie, and I'm not sure it's worth comparing weapon speeds and getting potentially multiple attacks for some combatants (but only versus some others) and so on just to factor it in.
DeleteAgree, I been spoiled by GURPS more logical approach for so long that AD&D Combat RAW list of exceptions and special cases to have much appeal. Which is why for may own take, the MW RPG, I opt for a combat round based around the idea of individual initiative and everybody can do two things (half move and attack for example).
DeleteBut if I had to (say at a convention) then the above make it tolerable.
This is why I don't like switching out rules systems for 'filler' games. Besides, don't your guys have extra "standby" paper-men? I thought that was one of the whole points of the way you were running, so they could swap out characters when they needed different characters for different missions.
ReplyDeleteOr are they trying to 'stay on target' with the core team they got?
We just like playing more than one game, and more than one game system. Doing it on "filler" games is a good route to go.
DeleteI think it's the 'stay on target' thing, plus not everyone has a backup guy.
"...plus not everyone has a backup guy."
DeleteSacre bleu! L'hérésie! They must be named and shamed! Drug into the town square and pilloried for all to pelt with rotten fruits until they learn the ways of proper OSR!
"Always have a back-up paper man!"
We're not OSR, so it's totally fine.
Delete