PDA

View Full Version : (2e) how are miniatures used?



Ozreth
2010-11-04, 03:22 AM
So I've been looking into AD&D2 and have decided I am going to give it a whirl. As much as I like using miniatures in my 3.5 games, I was a bit excited at the idea of a miniatures free game in 2e. After doing some research I have found that a lot of 2e players collect and use miniatures, although I have no idea how or why?

Maybe it is because I am not familiar enough with the system yet but how/why/and when would you want to use miniatures in a pre 3e game?

Thanks!

Susano-wo
2010-11-04, 03:32 AM
basically the same reasons in a 3rd+ game, its just that there's a lot less time and space devoted to battle mapping on the rules. So you rule on X sized hexes/squares, etc, or just use a sort of Xmm = X feet rule

Ozreth
2010-11-04, 03:37 AM
basically the same reasons in a 3rd+ game, its just that there's a lot less time and space devoted to battle mapping on the rules. So you rule on X sized hexes/squares, etc, or just use a sort of Xmm = X feet rule

Hm I see. So if I am looking for a miniatures free d&d game should I not be looking at AD&D2? Did people only start using minis in their 2e games after they became popular in 3rd or is it something that has always happened?

Susano-wo
2010-11-04, 03:47 AM
huh? no if you are looking for miniatures *free* tn 2nd is much easier to do than 3rd or 4th, which rely on the grid structure. Its much easier to have vague tactical combat in 2nd

...sorry, I totally misread your initial question:smallredface:

Ozreth
2010-11-04, 03:53 AM
huh? no if you are looking for miniatures *free* tn 2nd is much easier to do than 3rd or 4th, which rely on the grid structure. Its much easier to have vague tactical combat in 2nd

...sorry, I totally misread your initial question:smallredface:

Nah I think you were on the right track. I know 2e would be much better than 3rd or 4th for minis free gaming, but perhaps 1e would be better? Or are 1e and 2e about the same when it comes to this?

Thanks for the responses : )

dsmiles
2010-11-04, 04:21 AM
1e had different rules for minis. Everything's movement rate was in inches, to simplify it, since it was originally based on miniatures wargaming. No grid required, but a 1 inch hex grid is pretty standard for 1e/2e if you use minis.
Now, what 1 inch ='s depends on the scale of the minis. 25mm or 28mm are ok for 1 inch = 5 feet. Warmachine minis (30mm) are going to be a little different, as will the (very) old-style 20mm minis.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-04, 06:11 AM
D&D was originally based on wargaming, so having miniatures is pretty much par for the course. Obviously, you don't NEED minis in ANY edition of D&D, however the later editions seem to have placed more emphasis on using them.

hamlet
2010-11-04, 07:11 AM
First: Mini's are not required for AD&D. And by "not required" I actually mean you don't need them unlike 3.0 and up where technically they werent' required, but just go ahead and try not using them.

Second: You can use mini's in both 1e and 2e, though the rules are modestly different. And you would use them for, essentially, exactly the same reasons and in the same ways that you would use them in 3.x.

In First Edition, distances were measured in inches. What an inch equated to depended on if you were outside or inside. Inside the dungeon, an inch was equal to 10 feet. Outside, it was, I think, 10 yards. Yeah, that meant your fire ball was bigger outside than in. You don't really need a gridded off battle mat in this way, but it kind of helps, especially if you use the hex side rather than the square side.

In 2nd Edition, there were no hard and fast rules involved. Distances were measured in feet/yards/miles rather than inches and no assumption was made on whether or not you used mini's. Best practice, if you choose to use them, is to pull out yer average battle mat and then note the scale (I find 1 square per 5 feet works best most days) and then proceed. Just remember how far a 2nd edition character can move per round is significantly greater than a 3rd edition character.

For the most part, it is best, I find, to dispense with mini's all together in AD&D (and BECMI for that matter) unless you're involved in a very complicated battle, in which case they can be a help. For the most part, description is best. Been playing in a long running campaign for about 7 years now and we've used mini's once in all that time, and only then for a very complicated battle (multiple side corridors and doors, and lots and lots of bad guys).

Combat without mini's tends to run quicker, even if you get a bit of the "fog of war" effect where not everybody is going to have the same picture in their head at the same moment. That actually, in my view, adds a bit to the feel of the game rather than relying on a general's eye view.

Premier
2010-11-04, 07:27 AM
In my own experience, most pre-3E groups either just don't use miniatures at all, or use them as a very abstract representation ("These guys are in the middle, those are the right flank, that's the left flank, but a bit farther back, the wizard is roughly here. No, it's not really to scale.") without worrying about movement rates and exact positioning. It's certainly very easy to use any old-school edition without miniatures. I suggest you don't worry too much about it - just mention that you're looking for a mini-less game when seeking groups, shouldn't cause too much of a problem.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-04, 07:39 AM
Maybe it is because I am not familiar enough with the system yet but how/why/and when would you want to use miniatures in a pre 3e game?

My groups have never not used minatures in our games, before 3.0 or since, be it AD&D, Rolemaster or anything else, going back twenty years now.

You use them for the same reason you do in 3.x and later. Keeping track of where everyone is. (You can do it in other ways, but we've always done it that way.)

One one beef I had with 3.x and 4E both was the totally unecessary use of "squares" as a measure of movement - in-game measurements have always been a much better way of dealing with it. The artifical constraints seemed superflous. (It's something of a bad sign with wargames as well as RPG if the rules talk about moving in inches instead of having a board. Or worse, games that are on a grid, not a tabletop; something that seems to be far more common with American wargames and much rarer in UK rules. I have no idea why.) Even with 3.x, I take pains to state that the grid is just that, a measureing grid, not an absolute (I don't worry so much about diagonals and such generally); if there's a conflict, the game's "real world" wins out over the rules abstraction.

Fhaolan
2010-11-04, 08:30 AM
D&D in all of it's editions has allowed the use of miniatures. D&D grew from a skirmish-type suppliment for a wargame (Chainmail), so minatures were always there. In some cases the rules for their use were highly optional, or only came into play in specific circumstances. For example, in 2e if you pull out the 'Player's Option: Combat & Tactics' book, you'll recognize a lot of stuff that became core to 3e. For that optional ruleset miniatures are pretty much required.

It really depends a lot on how much your playing group focuses on the details of combat. Are you willing to just make stuff up, or do you really care about how far a person can travel in a combat round? Is facing important to you?

You can skip miniature use in any edition of D&D, providing you are willing to gloss over or ignore parts of the ruleset. In some editions, like 4th, it means tossing a large chunk of the ruleset out. In 2e core, it's not quite as drastic, but if you're used to using miniatures you will likely still notice some rules that would be a lot easier to adjucate if you were still using them. For example, aerial combat deals a lot with turn speeds and the like.

Gravitron5000
2010-11-04, 08:34 AM
Paperweights. It's pretty frustrating when your character sheet blows away when you play outside.

Cyrion
2010-11-04, 09:44 AM
I got into using miniatures playing AD&D because they saved a lot on pencil erasers. Prior to that we did it all on graph paper with a pencil, which works just fine.

The visual appeal of the miniatures is also worth a lot.

Ozreth
2010-11-04, 11:25 AM
Great responses guys! So from what I've gathered I will not use minis but will have a few handy in case needed.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I see two different DMG's for 2e. One is "The Dungeon Master's Guide" printed in 89, the second is the "Dungeon Master Guide" printed in 93. From what I can tell they are both the same thing, but I don't know much. Was the second one just a reprint or does it have some updates as well?

Thanks : )

LibraryOgre
2010-11-04, 11:34 AM
Missed this my first time through.

I generally do not use minis for most combats, UNLESS they are very constricted and important. A minor fight in tight quarters? I don't have a problem with the group wailing on a poor wererat in tight quarters... but they're going to be mapping the fight against the vampire. Precise facing and spacing are far less necessary, and you can simply tell someone "Yeah, you can do that, but they get an attack of opportunity"

CalamaroJoe
2010-11-04, 12:37 PM
Hm I see. So if I am looking for a miniatures free d&d game should I not be looking at AD&D2? Did people only start using minis in their 2e games after they became popular in 3rd or is it something that has always happened?


First: Mini's are not required for AD&D. And by "not required" I actually mean you don't need them unlike 3.0 and up where technically they werent' required, but just go ahead and try not using them.

I played and mastered a lot with basic D&D, AD&D 1st edition, then with a 1.5 edition (with some rules from 2nd ed. "housed in").
From a certain moment we started naturally to use miniatures (well, at first they were just plastic toy soldiers...) to help everybody understand how the fight was going on and to simplify decisions related to distance, areas of effects and line-of-sight.

Now we are playing 3.5 (since 15-20 sessions, I'm DMing) and using miniatures.
But I do not use the grid, since I prefer judge things "by thumb". Do you think we are missing something? :smallconfused:

BTW, the "fog of war" idea is really enthralling. Maybe we should try to be less meticulous...

Matthew
2010-11-04, 12:52 PM
D&D in all of it's editions has allowed the use of miniatures. D&D grew from a skirmish-type supplement for a wargame (Chainmail), so miniatures were always there. In some cases the rules for their use were highly optional, or only came into play in specific circumstances. For example, in 2e if you pull out the 'Player's Option: Combat & Tactics' book, you'll recognize a lot of stuff that became core to 3e. For that optional ruleset miniatures are pretty much required.

Exactly so. First edition AD&D has pretty much the same rules as second edition, but enthuses more about the use of miniatures, providing some very brief guidelines for their incorporation (advocating a scale of 1" = 3⅓, even though all the game rules use 1" = 10' or even 1" = 30' outdoors). In the event, second edition massively played down the use of miniatures and opted for even vaguer movement and combat rules, but then in the mid nineties completely changed tact with the C&T optional combat rule system, which is 90%+ identical to what eventually appeared in D20/3e and almost certainly requires miniatures.

As far as it goes, it seems lots of people use miniatures, and lost of people do not. My group was pretty much always in the latter camp, but I have occasionally used dungeon tiles and miniatures to change things up, as with this:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Battle%20Maps/CurseoftheWitchHead.jpg

Fun, but the scale was 1" = 10'. :smallbiggrin:

Ozreth
2010-11-04, 02:57 PM
Ok so my 3.5 conditioned brain begs the question...how the heck am I supposed to keep track of everything going on? If I've got 4 players fighting two goblins and 3 orcs am I as well as the rest of the players expected to know just where every enemy/player is standing at the beginning of each round? I know it is an easy task in theory, but turns can take some time, people get off track etc and this could snowball quickly.

The only explanation that I can imagine is that possibly 2e battles arent as time consuming or complicated as 3e+?

Still though...

Moofaa
2010-11-04, 03:30 PM
Ok so my 3.5 conditioned brain begs the question...how the heck am I supposed to keep track of everything going on? If I've got 4 players fighting two goblins and 3 orcs am I as well as the rest of the players expected to know just where every enemy/player is standing at the beginning of each round? I know it is an easy task in theory, but turns can take some time, people get off track etc and this could snowball quickly.

The only explanation that I can imagine is that possibly 2e battles arent as time consuming or complicated as 3e+?

Still though...

I've never used mini's, ever, and I played through second and third editions of D&D. With the people I play with things like facing, movement rates, etc etc just bog the game down. Seriously if we wanted a tactical game we would just play Risk or Axis & Allies. This is why I don't like the changes in 4th edition because the character abiltiies are even more tied to restrictive rules and requires more work than 3.5 did to avoid using mini's. Note that I am not wanting to turn this into a 4e bash fest- It has some good things in it as well, its just not my preferred style.

All that said, I find its not hard to keep track of things. If your doing a good job of providing descriptions of the combat area and the action going on, both you and your players should have no problem keeping track of things. I think the playstyle is more fun and keeps the game as more of a role-playing game rather than a board game.

Lapak
2010-11-04, 03:31 PM
Ok so my 3.5 conditioned brain begs the question...how the heck am I supposed to keep track of everything going on? If I've got 4 players fighting two goblins and 3 orcs am I as well as the rest of the players expected to know just where every enemy/player is standing at the beginning of each round? I know it is an easy task in theory, but turns can take some time, people get off track etc and this could snowball quickly.

The only explanation that I can imagine is that possibly 2e battles arent as time consuming or complicated as 3e+?

Still though...In a lot of ways, vague combat descriptions seem more 'correct' to me, simulating the ebb and flow of combat more faithfully than battle-grid movement tracking. The 2e PHB has an example of combat involving three trolls, three PCs, and a bunch of orcs that never mentions exact locations but is at no point unclear about where people are, and when we're playing without a battle mat I try to emulate that.

Where are people in combat? They're not at square E6; they're 50 feet down the hall from you. Where are the orcs? They're mobbed around Joe the Barbarian, who got initiative and charged them.

As a side effect, tracking combat in a less grainy way makes melee-types far more effective at blocking. If Joe is 'holding his ground and blocking the passage 20 feet ahead of Arthur the wizard' rather than on a particular square, an orc who happens to have enough movement can't just cut 5' over and go around him AOO-free. By the same token, of course, the vagueness of positioning makes it much less easy to drop a Stinking Cloud perfectly to catch all your enemies but none of your allies in melee with them.

In short: combat may be just as complicated, it isn't necessarily less accurate, and it can work just fine. It doesn't work well with 3e mechanics, because those are built to assume precise position tracking. D&D did come from a wargame, and all editions do provide enough precision to make grid or hex positioning worthwhile. It's always been kind of an assumed default. But it's not flat-out necessary.

Ozreth
2010-11-04, 04:45 PM
snip.

Great summary, thanks a million : )

Are there any good lvl 1 starter modules you guys would recommend? Short and sweet. I've got the Forgotten Realms and Menzoberranzan box sets, but Im guessing those aren't good starting points. I picked them up just because they were cheap as heck at my local used book store and I love the realms.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-04, 04:51 PM
Thoughout 2E when I played back in high school, minis were used.

It makes less disagreements in movements/attacks.

"Why can't I move by him to attack at Z?"
"Didn't you saw you were X"
"No, I said I was Y"

If using Minis it makes it easier to see why you can/cannot move to Z. DMs had to be extra specific in descriptions back than as well.

Lapak
2010-11-04, 04:56 PM
Great summary, thanks a million : )

Are there any good lvl 1 starter modules you guys would recommend? Short and sweet. I've got the Forgotten Realms and Menzoberranzan box sets, but Im guessing those aren't good starting points. I picked them up just because they were cheap as heck at my local used book store and I love the realms.If you are using Forgotten Realms in 2nd edition, I'd say use Under Illefarn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Illefarn) if you can get your hands on it. I've used it in the past with success and enjoyed it. It's a 1e module, but I like it and it would need minimal adjustment to use with 2e.

It's set in a small town at the very edge of Waterdeep's sphere of influence. It's good for new players in particular, as the module starts out by giving them a very clear role (town militia) and the pre-dungeon encounters give them a grab-bag of potential encounters and situations - some straight-up combat, some potential for diplomacy, NPC interactions, and so on. Once they're ready to go Under Illefarn, the training wheels come off.

EDIT: In response to Starbuck, NOT using miniatures does require that both players and DM make good-faith efforts not to try to screw each other over by being TOO vague about what's going on, and be in general agreement about how much leeway each side gets. That is important!

dsmiles
2010-11-04, 05:53 PM
Does anyone remember the name of that 0-level adventure that was published for AD&D? That would be a good tutorial.

EDIT: GOT IT! The module is (N4) "Treasure Hunt" and it's a FR adventure, too!

Matthew
2010-11-04, 06:08 PM
If you are using Forgotten Realms in 2nd edition, I'd say use Under Illefarn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Illefarn) if you can get your hands on it. I've used it in the past with success and enjoyed it. It's a 1e module, but I like it and it would need minimal adjustment to use with 2e.

Ha! You are the second person to recommend this module to Ozreth; Gambit42 did a few days ago at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=45875). As I mentioned to him, I read the module quite recently and did not think it was very good. Out of interest, what do you like about it?

arrowhen
2010-11-04, 07:08 PM
Ok so my 3.5 conditioned brain begs the question...how the heck am I supposed to keep track of everything going on? If I've got 4 players fighting two goblins and 3 orcs am I as well as the rest of the players expected to know just where every enemy/player is standing at the beginning of each round? I know it is an easy task in theory, but turns can take some time, people get off track etc and this could snowball quickly.

AD&D doesn't have Attacks of Opportunity or flanking, which makes knowing exactly where everyone is standing much less important.

Lapak
2010-11-04, 08:09 PM
Ha! You are the second person to recommend this module to Ozreth; Gambit42 did a few days ago at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=45875). As I mentioned to him, I read the module quite recently and did not think it was very good. Out of interest, what do you like about it?It's not the first time I've recommended it on this board. So I'll just quote myself!


It occurs to me that rather than just saying 'Under Illefarn,' I should explain why. The module is structured somewhat unusually for an introductory module, in a way that gives new players a lot more structure.

The PCs are all assumed to be part of the town militia, which gives them a reason to be working together, a reason to perform the missions offered while still having some freelancing freedom, and a defined relationship to the power players of the home-base town.

It's broken down into three ramping-up missions before you hit the big dungeon-crawl portion. The three ramp-ups give them a chance to engage in some negotiation, some combat, some wilderness, deal with some buildings, and some random encounters; once they've had some experience they're ready to do some dungeoneering.

The module also does a good job of setting out the relationships within the town, both major and minor - on the one hand, how the three competing blacksmiths interact; on the other, how the local nobility came to power and what the court is like. It also adds some nice touches like making sure that the spell books of various casters contain only spells from their respective mentors' spell books. All of this makes the town a fleshed-out jumping off point for continuing adventures.


And I should re-emphasize that I think it's particularly good for new players, as opposed to just new characters. That said, the best part of it for a DM starting a campaign in the Realms is that the town is fleshed out thoroughly enough to be immediately usable and loosely enough that a DM can play with it quite a bit - that gives someone trying to get a campaign rolling a real kick-start to give them time to develop whatever else they want to do.

Matthew
2010-11-04, 10:55 PM
It's not the first time I've recommended it on this board. So I'll just quote myself!

Ahah! Now that you mention it, I think it might have been your recommendation that prompted me to read it. :smallbiggrin:



And I should re-emphasize that I think it's particularly good for new players, as opposed to just new characters. That said, the best part of it for a DM starting a campaign in the Realms is that the town is fleshed out thoroughly enough to be immediately usable and loosely enough that a DM can play with it quite a bit - that gives someone trying to get a campaign rolling a real kick-start to give them time to develop whatever else they want to do.

I do agree that the settlement is quite well designed, but I thought the player character involvement in the militia was too contrived. The actual adventure(s) were rather uninspiring, particularly the introductory excursions, though I suppose the actual dungeon was not too bad. There is a ridiculous amount of treasure to be had, though, I remember thinking, and some advice to the prospective game master that I would consider poor. On the other hand, that is not too dissimilar from my own introduction to adventure gaming via the Hero Quest board game, so as an introduction to the hobby I can see the value of this module, but it is not really an example of the best that can be offered, I think.

Thurbane
2010-11-04, 11:03 PM
So I've been looking into AD&D2 and have decided I am going to give it a whirl. As much as I like using miniatures in my 3.5 games, I was a bit excited at the idea of a miniatures free game in 2e. After doing some research I have found that a lot of 2e players collect and use miniatures, although I have no idea how or why?

Maybe it is because I am not familiar enough with the system yet but how/why/and when would you want to use miniatures in a pre 3e game?

Thanks!
Already been covered by the replies above, but I'll say it again anyway: miniatures are totally optional in 2E (and 1E)...but they can come in quite handy for the players and DM to get an idea of where the party and opponents are in relation to each other.

The most detailed rules for using minis in 2E are to be found in Players Option: Combat & Tactics (definitely a precursor for many of the rules in 3E).

On a somewhat unrelated note, I see two different DMG's for 2e. One is "The Dungeon Master's Guide" printed in 89, the second is the "Dungeon Master Guide" printed in 93. From what I can tell they are both the same thing, but I don't know much. Was the second one just a reprint or does it have some updates as well?
Been a few years since I cracked any of my 2E books open, but from memory, both version of the 2E DMG are identical, except for a few layout changes...someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Lapak
2010-11-05, 12:11 AM
Ahah! Now that you mention it, I think it might have been your recommendation that prompted me to read it. :smallbiggrin:


I do agree that the settlement is quite well designed, but I thought the player character involvement in the militia was too contrived. The actual adventure(s) were rather uninspiring, particularly the introductory excursions, though I suppose the actual dungeon was not too bad. There is a ridiculous amount of treasure to be had, though, I remember thinking, and some advice to the prospective game master that I would consider poor. On the other hand, that is not too dissimilar from my own introduction to adventure gaming via the Hero Quest board game, so as an introduction to the hobby I can see the value of this module, but it is not really an example of the best that can be offered, I think.Mmm. I can certainly see where you're coming from. The initial excursions, as you say, I didn't value so much on their strength as adventures as I did in the way they hit all the major notes of what a D&D adventure might be - coming at it from a 'is this a good adventure in its own right,' I wouldn't disagree with you. The very fact that (to take an example) one bounces from 'rescue' to 'negotiation' to 'enemy of my enemy / semi-honorable foe?' makes them kind of disjointed. It's been a while since I've run a party through it - I don't remember a surfeit of treasure, but I'll have to dig it out and look through it again.

If you read through it on my recommendation and didn't like it, I hope at least that I didn't cost you too much money in the process. :smallredface:

Oh, and to the person who asked in the first place: you might want to check out the whole thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8659414#post8659414) I quoted myself from.

John Campbell
2010-11-05, 02:24 AM
Note also that AD&D combat rounds are a full minute long, and the combat rules don't have 3.x's draconian restrictions on combining movement and attacking. You can quite reasonably handwave away quite a lot of shifting positions.

dsmiles
2010-11-05, 04:34 AM
Note also that AD&D combat rounds are a full minute long, and the combat rules don't have 3.x's draconian restrictions on combining movement and attacking. You can quite reasonably handwave away quite a lot of shifting positions.

Actually, IIRC, they were 10 seconds, divided into 10 segments of 1 second each (for spellcsting). 6 rounds = 1 minute. 1 turn = 10 minutes. I'll dig through my books later to check, but I'm pretty sure that's right.

Thurbane
2010-11-05, 06:25 AM
Actually, IIRC, they were 10 seconds, divided into 10 segments of 1 second each (for spellcsting). 6 rounds = 1 minute. 1 turn = 10 minutes. I'll dig through my books later to check, but I'm pretty sure that's right.
IIRC, that's how it was in 2E. In AD&D 1E, a combat round was indeed 1 minute.

dsmiles
2010-11-05, 06:32 AM
IIRC, that's how it was in 2E. In AD&D 1E, a combat round was indeed 1 minute.

It's been a long time since I perused my 1e books, that may explain the fuzziness of my memories.

hamlet
2010-11-05, 07:20 AM
Combat rounds in AD&D 2e were, originally, 1 minute long. This was changed later on to 10 segment 10 second long rounds instead.

Some of us still swear by the 1 minute round.

Yes, the DMG's are identical in terms of content. For the aesthetic, though, the older printing is far superior.

Also, you would benefit greatly by having a copy of the 1e DMG on hand as well. It has more stuff in it, at times, that is very valuable. Like how much it costs to hire a sage for instance.

dsmiles
2010-11-05, 07:25 AM
Yes, the DMG's are identical in terms of content. For the aesthetic, though, the older printing is far superior.

Also, you would benefit greatly by having a copy of the 1e DMG on hand as well. It has more stuff in it, at times, that is very valuable. Like how much it costs to hire a sage for instance.

BEST. BOOK. EVAR!!!!

EVAR!!!!!!

:biggrin:

arrowhen
2010-11-05, 10:50 AM
The 1e DMG also had the incredibly useful random prostitute table.

Cyrion
2010-11-05, 10:52 AM
Finding modules for earlier editions might be a challenge, but Palace of the Silver Princess is available for free downlows on the WOTC site. It's for the Basic edition of D&D but surely adaptable for whichever edition you want to use it for. The Secret of Bone Hill and the Assassin's Knot were also reasonably good for beginning adventures.

Matthew
2010-11-05, 01:53 PM
Mmm. I can certainly see where you're coming from. The initial excursions, as you say, I didn't value so much on their strength as adventures as I did in the way they hit all the major notes of what a D&D adventure might be - coming at it from a 'is this a good adventure in its own right,' I wouldn't disagree with you. The very fact that (to take an example) one bounces from 'rescue' to 'negotiation' to 'enemy of my enemy / semi-honorable foe?' makes them kind of disjointed. It's been a while since I've run a party through it - I don't remember a surfeit of treasure, but I'll have to dig it out and look through it again.

Yeah, just glancing back through I see a suit of armour worth 28,000 GP, but I would have to make a list to be sure of my impression.



If you read through it on my recommendation and didn't like it, I hope at least that I didn't cost you too much money in the process. :smallredface:

No worries, I had a copy to hand, just had not gotten round to reading it.



Actually, IIRC, they were 10 seconds, divided into 10 segments of 1 second each (for spellcsting). 6 rounds = 1 minute. 1 turn = 10 minutes. I'll dig through my books later to check, but I'm pretty sure that's right.



IIRC, that's how it was in 2E. In AD&D 1E, a combat round was indeed 1 minute.



It's been a long time since I perused my 1e books, that may explain the fuzziness of my memories.


Combat rounds in AD&D 2e were, originally, 1 minute long. This was changed later on to 10 segment 10 second long rounds instead.

Some of us still swear by the 1 minute round.

AD&D 1979-1989: 1 Round = 1 Minute = 10 Segments
D&D 1981-2000: 1 Round = 10 Seconds
AD&D 1989-2000: 1 Round = 1 Minute

...but, as Hamlet mentions, Combat & Tactics appeared in 1994-5, which presented an alternative optional combat system with rounds of 10-15 seconds, but basically an average of 12 seconds (as it was also stated 50 Rounds = 10 Minutes).

hamlet
2010-11-05, 03:30 PM
...but, as Hamlet mentions, Combat & Tactics appeared in 1994-5, which presented an alternative optional combat system with rounds of 10-15 seconds, but basically an average of 12 seconds (as it was also stated 50 Rounds = 10 Minutes).

That is if you pay any attention to those horrible books.

Ozreth
2010-11-05, 03:37 PM
Finding modules for earlier editions might be a challenge, but Palace of the Silver Princess is available for free downlows on the WOTC site. It's for the Basic edition of D&D but surely adaptable for whichever edition you want to use it for. The Secret of Bone Hill and the Assassin's Knot were also reasonably good for beginning adventures.

Actually a used book store in town here has a HUGE RPG section with at least a hundred ad&d2e modules, not to mention all of the material they have for other editions. So im lucky on that front.

Also, when you guys say the 1e DMG, do you mean AD&D1 or OD&D?

Matthew
2010-11-05, 03:44 PM
Also, when you guys say the 1e DMG, do you mean AD&D1 or OD&D?

There is no OD&D DMG, but generally when people say "1e" they mean AD&D 1e, as AD&D 2e was the only one explicitly promoted as a "second edition". Some folks take unkindly even to that, using only "AD&D" and "2e" to distinguish between the two. In fact, though, AD&D 2e was never meant to be thought of as truly distinct from 1e, several of the handbooks presenting first edition alternatives and so on; it is probably best thought of as a set of optional rules for first edition.

Ozreth
2010-11-05, 04:05 PM
Ah gotcha, thanks : ) So the AD&D1 DMG was the first DMG? Is that the black one with the red devil guy on the front? What did people use before that?

Matthew
2010-11-05, 04:13 PM
Ah gotcha, thanks : ) So the AD&D1 DMG was the first DMG? Is that the black one with the red devil guy on the front? What did people use before that?

It is indeed, though it was later sold with a different cover (contents unchanged). The DMG was released in 1979, prior to that people used either the Holmes boxed set (1977) or the original boxed set (1974). The original boxed set consisted of three booklets of about forty pages each:

Men & Magic: Some character creation rules and spell lists.
Monsters & Treasure: A list of monsters and treasures.
Underworld & Wilderness: A brief set of guidelines for dungeon and wilderness play, along with some combat rules.

As I understand it, people used these in combination with articles (from White Dwarf, Dragon, and various fanzines), house rules, the AD&D Monster Manual (1977), the Player's Handbook (1978), and basically were left to fill in most of the blanks on their own. It was very unstructured.

Ozreth
2010-11-05, 05:40 PM
I see! Another question (heck, I might just change the title to "2e noob thread" ha), is there anywhere I can get the TSR published 2e character sheets? I know there are tons of homebrew ones out there but I'd like to get a look at the original.

Matthew
2010-11-05, 06:11 PM
I see! Another question (heck, I might just change the title to "2e noob thread" ha), is there anywhere I can get the TSR published 2e character sheets? I know there are tons of homebrew ones out there but I'd like to get a look at the original.

Hmmn. The WotC website used to host digital copies on its Previous Editions Downloads page, but though they still host the downloads the page is no longer there and I am unsure of the address. The Mad Irishman (http://www.mad-irishman.net/pub_dnd_2e.html) hosts facsimiles, I believe.

Hawriel
2010-11-05, 06:18 PM
My group used minies and tiles to make dungeons for almost two years. We tossed it because we didnt want to carry all that crap with us. We also build a gaming table with a dry erase surface. A pack of collored dry erase markers is alot easer to deal with than several boxes of minies and terrane.

Just draw a map denote the scale then put your mark. If you want to use minies thats great. It adds creativity because peaple love to get the right mini for their character. You really dont need to be trapped by the grid system. No matter what edition. Get a ruler and say one inch = X depending on what you need. facing is relative to the minies invalved. Reach and OOA are based in distance from minies. Think in terms of 40k wargaming.

Thurbane
2010-11-05, 07:27 PM
My favorite DMG cover was the Easley one, with the pic of the guy in robes opening a door with a crapton of monsters behind him.

It was only years later that I realized this was a depiction of the Greyhawk god Dalt (?), god of portals...

dsmiles
2010-11-06, 08:26 AM
My favorite DMG cover was the Easley one, with the pic of the guy in robes opening a door with a crapton of monsters behind him.

It was only years later that I realized this was a depiction of the Greyhawk god Dalt (?), god of portals...

I've got both that one, and the mega-efreet.

:smalleek: That's Dalt? HOLY CRAP BATMAN!! I never realized it...:smallredface:

Attilargh
2010-11-06, 11:42 AM
Hmmn. The WotC website used to host digital copies on its Previous Editions Downloads page, but though they still host the downloads the page is no longer there and I am unsure of the address.
Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20060831231011/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads) to the rescue!

There's some fiddling involved when downloading, since you can't simply click the link to get the stuff, so here's the Player's Option character sheets from the Gates Of Firestorm Peak module: Pages one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/pocs_1.pdf) and two (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/pocs_2.pdf).

If you want to grab the rest of the stuff there (and you should, because hey, free schwag!), right-click the link to what you want, copy the URL into the address bar and manually remove everything before "www.wizards.com".

Janus
2010-11-06, 11:46 AM
Hmmn. The WotC website used to host digital copies on its Previous Editions Downloads page, but though they still host the downloads the page is no longer there and I am unsure of the address. The Mad Irishman (http://www.mad-irishman.net/pub_dnd_2e.html) hosts facsimiles, I believe.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/downloads
Google strikes again!

EDIT
...and of course the link for older editions doesn't work. Well, if you want 3.5, it's there.
Sorry.

EDIT pII
Just sent Wizards an email telling them to fix the broken link. We'll see what happens.

Matthew
2010-11-06, 10:25 PM
Ah, memory was playing tricks, then, the WotC website was only hosting the Player's Option versions. The Mad Irishman looks to have pretty much perfect facsimiles of the originals, so worth looking. We used "TSR 9246 Character Record Sheets", by the looks of things; I probably have a digital copy around here somewhere.

Ozreth
2010-11-07, 12:24 AM
Ah, memory was playing tricks, then, the WotC website was only hosting the Player's Option versions. The Mad Irishman looks to have pretty much perfect facsimiles of the originals, so worth looking. We used "TSR 9246 Character Record Sheets", by the looks of things; I probably have a digital copy around here somewhere.

Awesome, thank you : )

How do you guys feel about the 2e starter box sets?

EvilJames
2010-11-08, 05:48 AM
AD&D doesn't have Attacks of Opportunity or flanking, which makes knowing exactly where everyone is standing much less important.

Actually it did have attacks of opportunity they just didn't come up too much.

hamlet
2010-11-08, 09:21 AM
Awesome, thank you : )

How do you guys feel about the 2e starter box sets?

I've only seen the inside of one of the starter sets (First Strike or something like that), and it was of virtually no use to me. I already knew the rules, so the abridged and shortened rules were useless to me.

Further, I don't think they're very useful to new players either as the AD&D rules really aren't that difficult to grasp whole hog and comprehend as long as you take it slow and don't try for immediate mastry and memorization. Just remember that you're going to have to look stuff up repeatedly until it sticks in the brain, then you'll do better.

As for character sheets . . . in terms of 2nd edition AD&D, I'd make a simple suggestion: the original sheets are far to complicated for my tastes and simpler is better. I have a .DOC version of a character sheet that we fill out on the computer for our campaign. Fits the entire character on one side of one page and simplifies matters dramatically. I recommend that kind of thing whole heartedly.

Jarawara
2010-11-08, 11:20 AM
Old Grognard Alert!

Yeah, as others have said, miniatures have been in use since the beginning. D&D grew from the old Chainmail game, (which I'm pretty sure involved miniatures gaming), and certainly the Little Wars crowd was using miniatures of all sorts long before D&D took hold. Heck, Gygax himself was asked in an interview, was D&D a 'roleplaying game', or a 'wargame'? He answered 'wargame'.

I used to collect miniatures, especially the old Grenedier lines. That company is out of business now. But to my knowledge they were making fantasy miniatures even before D&D came out - I started playing D&D in 1980, and have since collected literally thousands of miniatures that predate that date (though how many of them predate OD&D original publication, I am not sure).

As an interesting aside - the first time I ever saw a group playing D&D that *wasn't* using miniatures... was in 3rd edition. All the 2nd and 1st edition groups always had miniatures, even if we simply were using old game peices and knik-knaks. (I still remember foldly a battle where the DM used spare chess peices to represent the Kobolds. Took me awhile to realize that the Queen that towered over me was in fact only half my size. :smallbiggrin:)

Miniatures were used to judge locations for area affect spells, missile fire targetting, who could attack who, who was flanking who, where you could move, how far you could move, and so on and so forth. Oh, and by the way...


AD&D doesn't have Attacks of Opportunity or flanking, which makes knowing exactly where everyone is standing much less important.

... most people who played AD&D ended up making up rules on the fly, and then those rules were shared between groups, became commonplace, and finally worked their way back to WotC to show up in later editions. When Attacks of Opportunities first showed up in 3rd edition, I marveled at the hubbub it caused - after all, AoO have been around since 1980. I know this - because I invented Attacks of Opportunity! Or rather, my DM did, at my expense.

The DM had a rule that once you entered a space adjacent to an enemy, you were 'locked in combat', and couldn't move any farther. That's basically the 'Zone of Control' rules used in many wargames at the time. So here I am in a hallway, there's an orc in front of me blocking the way (he was technically fighting someone else, but he was set in the middle and thus blocking the hallway). I moved my miniature past the orc so to get in behind him. DM says I can't - zone of control and all. I said "Dude, I just want to rush past, he's busy fighting someone anyway." He says "No, you can't, he's swinging his sword around throughout the area. You'd be turned to mincemeat." I said "Fine, turn me to mincemeat, I am going to rush past him." He said "Fine." I shouted "FINE" He shouted back "FINE!"

I moved the minature past the orc. The orc swung a free attack, critted me, and faceplanted my character into the hallway behind him. But I got up where I wanted to be, bloody well mangled, but grinning ear to ear because I knew I had just invented a new rule. 'Zone of control' had just been surplanted by 'attacks of opportunity'.

Thurbane
2010-11-08, 04:45 PM
Actually it did have attacks of opportunity they just didn't come up too much.
Really? I don't remember these at all.

hamlet
2010-11-08, 04:54 PM
Really? I don't remember these at all.

Yes.

If you turned and fled in melee combat, opponents were entitled to an attack at your back.

Thurbane
2010-11-08, 05:29 PM
Yes.

If you turned and fled in melee combat, opponents were entitled to an attack at your back.
Hmm, haven't cracked open my AD&D books in a long time. Was that 1E or 2E?

Siosilvar
2010-11-08, 05:38 PM
Hmm, haven't cracked open my AD&D books in a long time. Was that 1E or 2E?

I don't remember anything in 1e or 2e, but it's there in Moldvay Basic.


Defensive Movement
...Fighting Withdrawal section...

RETREAT: Any movement backwards at more than 1/2 the normal movement rate is a retreat. If a creature tries to retreat, the opponent may add +2 to all "to hit" rolls, and the defender is not allowed to make a return attack. In addition to the bonus on "to hit" rolls, the attacks are further adjusted by using the defender's Armor Class without a shield. (Any attacks from behind are adjusted in the same manner).

...example using Huxley the fighter...


EDIT: Page 104-5 in my 1e AD&D Player's Handbook.

Participants in a melee can opt to attack, parry, fall back, or flee. ... Fleeing means as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes a character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed.

EDIT: Years for the above two sources are 1981 and 1979, respectively.

hamlet
2010-11-08, 06:02 PM
Hmm, haven't cracked open my AD&D books in a long time. Was that 1E or 2E?

Most editions of D&D, actually. Essentially the logical consequence of showing your back to the enemy like the low coward that you are.

dsmiles
2010-11-08, 06:20 PM
Most editions of D&D, actually. Essentially the logical consequence of showing your back to the enemy like the low coward that you are.

In DnD, discretion is often the better part of valor. If you believe some of the number crunchers, it's a full 5% of the time when you're supposed to run away. :smalltongue:

Thurbane
2010-11-08, 06:26 PM
I don't remember anything in 1e or 2e, but it's there in Moldvay Basic.

EDIT: Page 104-5 in my 1e AD&D Player's Handbook.

EDIT: Years for the above two sources are 1981 and 1979, respectively.
Great, thanks for that.

Been many a year since I played any pre-3.X editions - I'd totally forgotten about those rules. Thanks for the reminder. :smallsmile:

fusilier
2010-11-08, 06:57 PM
I used to collect miniatures, especially the old Grenedier lines. That company is out of business now.

Grenadier is out of business, but some of their fantasy lines are still in production. I know Mirliton (http://www.mirliton.it/) has a good number of the Grenadier lines in production (called Mirliton Fantasy, or even Grenadier) -- unfortunately they are located in Italy, and shipping to the US can be expensive. I think some other lines may be in production else where, but I don't have the time to look at the moment. They were classic fantasy figures, some of which made decent historical figs too.

Also wanted to add that I remember using miniatures in AD&D 2e too, but not always. It seemed like if the combat was straightforward you could get by without using them, but they were helpful when the combat got complicated -- it was also fun finding and painting a mini for my character.

dsmiles
2010-11-08, 07:00 PM
-- it was also fun finding and painting a mini for my character.

It isn't anymore? I still love to paint minis. Of course, nowadays, I pick the mini, write the story, then make the character, but to each his/her own.

Matthew
2010-11-08, 09:51 PM
How do you guys feel about the 2e starter box sets?

As in First Quest? It is a pretty good introduction to AD&D for beginners, I thought. We played all the adventures (except the Spell Jammer one) when we were introducing some new players to AD&D about ten years ago, and found them a lot of fun. The audio CD is hilariously bad, though it does manage to convey their general enthusiasm for the game. One interesting thing about First Quest is that it says some things that ought to have been said in the main second edition rulebooks.

Jarawara
2010-11-08, 11:08 PM
Grenadier is out of business, but some of their fantasy lines are still in production. I know Mirliton (http://www.mirliton.it/) has a good number of the Grenadier lines in production (called Mirliton Fantasy, or even Grenadier).

Hey, thank you for that. I'm not really collecting anymore (I already have several *thousand*, and I play online where we don't use miniatures. :smallsigh:), but if I find that **one** that I was missing, to complete my boxed set of ultra rares... it will be worth it to pay the extra shipping. Thanks for the link!

hamlet
2010-11-09, 08:02 AM
In DnD, discretion is often the better part of valor. If you believe some of the number crunchers, it's a full 5% of the time when you're supposed to run away. :smalltongue:

Actually, technically speaking, in AD&D, you're not really supposed to be getting into the fight unless you're pretty sure you can win in the first place, and it's the only option. Fighting in AD&D (both 1e and 2e) is high risk and, generally speaking, low reward compared to sneaking around the back and walking off with the treasure uncontested.

Jarawara
2010-11-09, 10:53 AM
Actually, technically speaking, in AD&D, you're not really supposed to be getting into the fight unless you're pretty sure you can win in the first place, and it's the only option. Fighting in AD&D (both 1e and 2e) is high risk and, generally speaking, low reward compared to sneaking around the back and walking off with the treasure uncontested.

hamlet,

I am not opposing what you said, but what makes you say it? Why is getting into a fight such a no-no? Or more to the point - what is different about 3rd edition that changed the basic nature of the game, so that fighting now has become the point where before you weren't supposed to be getting into the fight?

Grey Paladin
2010-11-09, 11:13 AM
Experience points used to be awarded primary for getting the treasure and achieving goals. Combat experience was rather low while risk was high.

Jarawara
2010-11-09, 11:36 AM
Experience points used to be awarded primary for getting the treasure and achieving goals. Combat experience was rather low while risk was high.

Ah, yeah, that's right. I keep forgetting that, because most people I know didn't award xp on gold, but rather on meeting party goals. And since that's how we still do it, to me nothing has changed.

But I do see your point.

EvilJames
2010-11-09, 11:44 AM
hp was generally lower in 2nd ed, so risk is a bit higher, but I've never felt that combat was always the second choice.

Edit: also now that I think about it there are also rules that provide a similar effect to 3.x's flanking if not executed the same. Anytime you are attacking someone from behind you get +2 on your attack (I believe rogues got an additional +2 but that may have been a homebrew rule another DM used that I adopted, I'm not sure)

hamlet
2010-11-09, 11:52 AM
Ah, yeah, that's right. I keep forgetting that, because most people I know didn't award xp on gold, but rather on meeting party goals. And since that's how we still do it, to me nothing has changed.

But I do see your point.

Depending on who you were and what game you wanted, one of the very first house rules created was awards for "story goals" or "good roleplaying" to de-emphasize the wholesale theft of valuables from dungeons and tombs.

But yes, originally, the conception of D&D was a game of exploration and looting rather than killing monsters and heroism. Combat was rewarded, but less so (and with the obvious attendant risks of finding oneself filleted by the foe) than simply walking out with the gold and magic items in hand having avoided the enemy entirely.

fusilier
2010-11-09, 11:57 AM
It isn't anymore? I still love to paint minis. Of course, nowadays, I pick the mini, write the story, then make the character, but to each his/her own.

Not so much. The games (with my group) have lately lost their persistence, and as the GM has tons of pre-painted minis, most of the players feel no need to find good miniatures for their characters. That's just my experience however.

dsmiles
2010-11-09, 01:16 PM
Not so much. The games (with my group) have lately lost their persistence, and as the GM has tons of pre-painted minis, most of the players feel no need to find good miniatures for their characters. That's just my experience however.

I seriously dislike pre-painted minis. The WotC DnD minis are particularly bad at representing my characters, as they all look the same. Plus, I prefer the 28mm 'heroic scale' minis by Rackham and Reaper, and the 30mm minis by Privateer Press. Theirs are so much more betterer.
I even try to get and paint minis for all my mooks (which has left me with a serious dearth of painted minis).

fusilier
2010-11-09, 02:57 PM
I seriously dislike pre-painted minis. The WotC DnD minis are particularly bad at representing my characters, as they all look the same. Plus, I prefer the 28mm 'heroic scale' minis by Rackham and Reaper, and the 30mm minis by Privateer Press. Theirs are so much more betterer.
I even try to get and paint minis for all my mooks (which has left me with a serious dearth of painted minis).

I don't care for pre-painted minis either. The only problem I have with the heroic scale minis is that, due to scale creep over the years, they sometimes don't mesh well with older fantasy lines or historical minis (which I have a lot of).

Another thing that I've never cared too much for is fighting on a grid. While it makes some rules clearer, I generally prefer the measuring tape approach -- it also allows me to use whatever terrain is handy, without having to have grid-lines traced on everything. D&D's scale is convenient in this way, as one inch = 5 feet is the scale of the old minis (and only a little bit small with the newer ones).

hamlet
2010-11-10, 08:25 AM
Well, I kinda like pre-painted minis. Though that largely has to do with my complete lack of mini-painting skills.

Frankly, I wish I had both the skill and the time to do that kind of thing. Not to mention the money. I'd love to sit down and paint hundreds of minis up exactly as I wanted them, but my abilities give "slop-n-go" a good name.

dsmiles
2010-11-10, 08:36 AM
Well, I kinda like pre-painted minis. Though that largely has to do with my complete lack of mini-painting skills.

Frankly, I wish I had both the skill and the time to do that kind of thing. Not to mention the money. I'd love to sit down and paint hundreds of minis up exactly as I wanted them, but my abilities give "slop-n-go" a good name.

Over in the Arts & Crafts forums or on the WH40K Miniatures thread in Other Games, you may be able to find people willing to do commission work. I don't (lack of time and sufficient skills) but I'm sure other people do.

hamlet
2010-11-10, 08:41 AM
Over in the Arts & Crafts forums or on the WH40K Miniatures thread in Other Games, you may be able to find people willing to do commission work. I don't (lack of time and sufficient skills) but I'm sure other people do.

Funds are the other important factor involved here. I've a choice to make. Save now for the car I need to buy in about 1.5 years (when this one hits 200k) or buy minis and have them painted now.

A tougher decision than you'd imagine.

dsmiles
2010-11-10, 08:47 AM
Funds are the other important factor involved here. I've a choice to make. Save now for the car I need to buy in about 1.5 years (when this one hits 200k) or buy minis and have them painted now.

A tougher decision than you'd imagine.

Unfortunately, I'd be of no help in that decision. (I'm heavily weighted towards the minis. :smalltongue:)

hamlet
2010-11-10, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately, I'd be of no help in that decision. (I'm heavily weighted towards the minis. :smalltongue:)

Oh to have disposable income . . .

Actually, I find a great compromise when I actually need minis is the tokens/icons from Fiery Dragon I think. Little things about the size of a quarter or something with the iconic monsters on them. Cheaper, and just a effective IMO, for hordes of monsters.

Toastkart
2010-11-10, 11:18 AM
Years ago, back when my brothers and I played AD&D we used Legos as our miniatures. We never really built whole towns or dungeons, just small areas where the action was going to take place, and it was never to scale, but it was a lot of fun.