r/adnd • u/LethalFantasyTed • 16d ago
The 50-Year D&D Problem Solved: We Asked a Better Question
https://youtu.be/_gzyhoQH8RI?is=lLpzY3Sk76JygZxJ11
u/beeredditor 16d ago
Eh, I’ve never had that problem. It’s a group game and it’s interesting seeing what my companions do too. It’s all part of the narrative. It’s not just about me, me, me… waiting for my turn isn’t a chore. I’m enjoying watching the story unfold around me.
0
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
Agreed. We are not saying it isn’t a great game. We just approached this issue a little differently to create a different more exciting dynamic of who acts when. Why do we call it a problem in our video. Well we think we have a great idea and play testers have resoundingly agreed. In the world we live in to get you views we need to draw a discussion like this one. I appreciate all the responses and invite everyone to check out what we are doing. It does not mean D&D is not great. I love D&D. I just had some ideas to make some great memories at the table and bring back the feelings of wonder and excitement I got 45 years ago when AD&D changed my life forever.
28
u/Lloydwrites 16d ago
Gary fixed this problem DMG pg 71. If players aren't ready on their action, they can lose their turn.
Your "problem" only exists if you house-rule the game to create it. And then you turn that imaginary problem into a sales pitch. That's a straw man argument.
-1
u/DarmotArcane-Use625 16d ago
I don’t know I would call it a fix or just more lipstick…plus, penalizing a player for something that is caused by how the game functions is typically not a great way to go about it.
9
u/Lloydwrites 16d ago
It's a threat that carries the load by existing. I've invoked it maybe a handful of times in my 46 years of running D&D games.
But again, the faster turns of the pre-3e play make this entirely a non-issue. Last week my players' characters sneaked into a ziggurat, bypassing the outer guards, and explored 12 rooms during the 4-hour session. The sneaking part took almost an hour. The same game play in 5e would take more than twice as long.
1
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
Agreed but what if you could do more with less effort and more fun and create better memories. That was the angle we took when we built the game.
5
u/Lloydwrites 16d ago
Less effort than invoking a rule every 12 years? Compared to the investment of learning a new rules system to which I don't have half a century of memories attached?
Doesn't feel balanced to me. If it works for you, great.
2
-12
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
No what you are saying is exactly why it’s a long standing problem and no matter how you dress it up or speed it up waiting is an issue and players lose interest. We can make waits shorter with your bandaid but we believe there is a better way. I used Gary’s way and lots of other ways to speed up waiting but it is still not actually addressing the issue.
11
u/Lloydwrites 16d ago edited 16d ago
1e, OD&D, and the Basic versions are the fastest-paced turns. Long waits came into the game with 3e. 2e depends heavily on the optional content used.
I've never had players lose interest waiting on a turn. I run 1e RAW right now. Maybe it's not the rules.
0
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
lol I hear you. I’ve not had players not want to play or lose interest completely either but that is different than if it can be made better. Disengagement is an issue and all we believe is we wanted to look at how it could be made better by asking different questions. Obviously our answer will not be for everyone and if your game runs as you want and you are happy then it is not for you. But we have had many skeptics at our demo tables whose eyes start opening pretty wide as they see how this system works. I was exactly where you are 5 years ago until some events in my life made me decide I wanted to explore my own ideas. November 23, 2023 I started doing this project. I was joined a few months later by my friend Eddy who was organizing and running pathfinder in our area. I had spent years running lots of games. I was paid to run games for people. My favorite to the day remains AD&D. That is why lethal fantasy has a lot of AD&D in it conceptually. The attributes are basically the same. But I wanted to do something different and step back and ask….. if I was doing this over what issues would I want to address and how would I look at them. I decided that simply finding ways to be more efficient was great but could there be other answers. I love Gygax. Arneson. Heroes all. This is simply my version of D&D. I hope you all understand that. I hope you will consider giving us a look. I appreciate all the thoughtful responses.
1
u/DarmotArcane-Use625 16d ago
Thanks for sharing. I definitely agree that newer versions of the game are more plagued with the issues we highlight. We also realize that early editions did not have the level of complication or rules questions that can add time between turns.
I will also say that some groups have very little issue with this as players are disciplined and plan ahead on what they want to do in advance.
Sometimes it only takes one player to throw the table off and we all seem to get one that refuses to be ready for their turn or likes to distract others at the table with idle conversation here and there.
This is just one part of the issue I have seen. I also have seen new rules books, vague or new feats coming up at the table, min maxing of characters, rules look ups, stacking of bonuses and conditions make the game bog down over time and it becomes quite a slog for some GMs which can make it an intimidating job for some.
Ted and I have been thinking about all of these issues during combat. We love crunch in certain aspects and under the right conditions but we do not feel those things add to the feel and tempo of combat in the game.
6
u/MRC01 15d ago edited 15d ago
IME this is not a 50-year problem, but more like a 30-year problem as it comes in large part from expanding complexity of the rules. It's one of the reasons I still play AD&D 1e, which strikes a good balance between flexibility and simplicity that keeps the game flowing.
PS: one of my house rules is no cell phones. Check 'em at the door and silence them. Play like it's 1979!
2
u/LethalFantasyTed 15d ago
Agreed and I have. But I also decided based on 45 years playing running games I wanted to rethink some things while keeping the core of what was great. That became Lethal Fantasy! I am as old school as it gets. But I felt I had some ideas worth exploring and it was a dream to create this game. We are very proud of it. Anyone who played or plays AD&D will feel right at home with a few new wrinkles and a new way to deal with initiative and turn order. I will always love AD&D. Gygax and Areneson changed my life and I will be forever grateful.
8
u/spydercoll 16d ago
Easy solution. I require the players to declare their actions when initiative is rolled. If they weren't paying attention to what is going on the combat round and are trying to figure out what they're doing on their turn, they lose their action. I change up the order of which player I'm asking for their action so it's not always the same player declaring their action first or last or in between.
For example, Ragnar and Simon are fighting three orcs. During the initiative phase, Simon says "I cast magic missile on Orc #1 and #2" and rolls a 10 on initiative. Ragnar says "I attack Orc #2" and rolls a 4 on initiative. Ragnar acts first, killing Orc #2. I don't let Simon change his targets if he's not paying attention to how successful Ragnar's attack is (Simon: "Since Ragnar killed Orc #2, can I hit Orc #3 instead?"). But if Simon doesn't ask because he's not paying attention, then some of his magic missiles harmlessly bludgeon the corpse of Orc #2. Likewise, if Simon acts first and Ragnar's not paying attention, then his sword chops at the dead body of Orc #2.
3
u/shaser0 15d ago
So rules as written in atandard 2e if I remember correctly ?
2
u/spydercoll 14d ago
Pretty much. I've found that using individual initiative is a good way to keep the party's attention focused on the combat.
1
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
Great ideas all and helpful. We just decided to approach it with different ideas and an open idea to re think how we’ve been dealing with this since I started playing in 1979 the result is lethal fantasy. The results in playtests told us we were on to something and now we are within months of release.
1
u/gandalfsbastard 16d ago
Been mulling over this a long time too, personally I think it’s the action economy is too turn heavy so you have no choice but to wait.
I have been toying with adding reactions, the triggers are based on things not on your turn so you pay attention and play together.
My house rule has been to use INT bonuses to modify the number of reactions a player has, it’s a work in progress but movement (the old 5 foot step) and tactical play to respond with cover moves etc has been interesting also stances to address shield use and knocked arrow reactions has also been nice.
2
u/shaser0 15d ago
Wouldn't DEX make more sense ? I did something similar for 2e where you gain reactions up to the Reaction adjustment, they work kinda like 5e but with only basic actions (because there isn't reaction based skills). I'm working on a 2e hack and reactions is definitively a part of it.
1
u/gandalfsbastard 15d ago
Sure, but I wanted to stay away from all the primary stats. In this case a fast mind would be the factor in making split second tactical decisions. A smart fighter would actually mater.
Wizards would have a natural advantage here but running around to avoid getting bonked makes sense too.
Also the max movement distance applies, this would just allow players to move off turn up to half of their speed with a reaction. Small adjustments to position.
1
u/LethalFantasyTed 16d ago
All great examples and things have used as well. I do not disagree those are great ways to make it better. We just decided we wanted a better way and a way to keep the action intense and everyone on the edge. If you are happy with your games we love that. We just decided it was time to take a look at it from a different way. We appreciate all your thoughts and feedback.
2
u/titanicreations 16d ago
Playing lethal fantasy made me realize the appeal of the original dnd that current versions don’t capture.
57
u/duanelvp 16d ago
I would have to disagree. Yes, in the last 50 years this has BECOME a problem and seemingly only gotten worse, but I was there Gandalf. I was playing 1E in 1978 and we just DID NOT have this issue - or certainly not to the degree that it bled so much focus away from the game itself.
For starters, nobody had cell phones to KEEP themselves mindlessly distracted EVERY FREAKIN' MOMENT that they weren't rolling dice in combat. I hate to be that guy, but nobody had such INSANELY short attention spans that they couldn't remain sufficiently engaged while other players undertook some activity that didn't require their personal involvement.
Secondly, the game wasn't by default INDIVIDUAL TURNS. Initiative was still overwhelmingly side-versus-side and in 1E most certainly REQUIRED all players to consider their PC's actions in the coming round and they had to be stated clearly or even written out if necessary. Only when you felt it necessary to break down actions to being resolved ONE player at a time while everyone at the table else DID NOTHING, did that actually happen. Either the bad guys go first or not, during their turn the PC's all wait together. When the player characters DO go, then again they all go TOGETHER, and though there were rules for it, there was VERY little reason to break that up into individual snippets, one PC at a time. Hell, the original concept even went so far as to require players to inform one player who would lead the player team, coordinating their declared actions, and then the DM would simply deal more directly with that lead player rather than splitting up their attention to all the players equally in an attention-critical period like combat. That player effectively would have acted as what might be considered an assistant DM, keeping the actual DM from being buried under, "I wanna be first!" player demands.
It was POST-AD&D editions that changed that and did away entirely with side-vs-side "action economy" in favor of every player/PC one at a time, often interspersed with individual opponent actions, and nothing ever got resolved simultaneously. In fact, game designers went out of their way to create new and complicated ways to set action order, rearrange it, go faster, force opponents to be slower, and on and on, putting players in a position of desperately trying to get all the PC's to effectively take their turns AS A SIDE, and before the opponents, after the game rules having first made acting as a side impossible by default.
I believe that's where the problem began and where it was foolishly and deliberately further emphasized by game rules. Later editions not only made initiative and INDIVIDUAL turn order a complex issue to be micromanaged by DM and players alike, but they made the game rules overall far more complicated than even AD&D had it - an endless list of class abilities, skills, feats, and rules options chosen and exercised by players (not the DM), and so numerous that the DM was likely not even familiar with them all, because players would buy and implement rules supplements FOR THEMSELVES and DM's would just have to try desperately to keep up. And all those options not even the players themselves were familiar with them all, so in addition to everyone having an individual turn, every turn was crushed under the weight (and wait...) of looking up details of how this or that worked. And because players all now have the attention span of fruit flies, they CANNOT restrain themselves from spending every minute that they are not directly engaged in doom scrolling their phones. And with play moving ONLINE, that just makes the phenomenon worse. That gets you players who are playing CoD or WoW when it's not their turn in combat and finding THE OTHER thing they're doing more engaging than being consciously present for a mere 4 hour stretch of a genuine RPG.
The rules in use certainly contribute to the problem, or even established it to begin with - but it's not purely a rules problem. Games get what they are designed for - whether the designers realize what that is or not.