Being introduced to AD&D through the 2nd edition rulebook, I had no idea at the time that people used miniatures at all for AD&D play. I didn't get a 1st edition rulebook until quite recently, and I was astonished to see the use of inch-based measures in stat blocks.
I'd largely overlooked the "zone of control" rules - they're not exactly heavily emphasized in the rulebook - and TBH, I think it makes for a better game in tactical terms if you don't mess around with the action economy using AoO and instead just deal with it in terms of realistic order resolutions (i.e., fleeing doesn't necessarily prevent someone from launching an attack on you that round even if the abstract initiative system says that you "go first," similar to how the system indicates that someone with a longer-reach weapon will strike first during a closing phase).
Your story is very similar to mine, with one exception. When I started playing Baldur's Gate, and other Infinity Engine games, I kept wondering at certain little combat quirks. That got me to go back to the rules and see how we'd been playing a more Theatre of the Mind version of the game, though we did use "marching order" to determine who the enemies focused their attacks on.
Once I did that, I looked at the old Moldvay Cook Basic set and saw the disengagement rules. I didn't have the words to contextualize what was happening mechanically though until I started playing SPI games and read John Dunnigan's books on game design.
It's amazing that in high school we played AD&D regularly and I never, ever understood why movement was given in inches. But somehow we managed to play anyway.
Being introduced to AD&D through the 2nd edition rulebook, I had no idea at the time that people used miniatures at all for AD&D play. I didn't get a 1st edition rulebook until quite recently, and I was astonished to see the use of inch-based measures in stat blocks.
I'd largely overlooked the "zone of control" rules - they're not exactly heavily emphasized in the rulebook - and TBH, I think it makes for a better game in tactical terms if you don't mess around with the action economy using AoO and instead just deal with it in terms of realistic order resolutions (i.e., fleeing doesn't necessarily prevent someone from launching an attack on you that round even if the abstract initiative system says that you "go first," similar to how the system indicates that someone with a longer-reach weapon will strike first during a closing phase).
Your story is very similar to mine, with one exception. When I started playing Baldur's Gate, and other Infinity Engine games, I kept wondering at certain little combat quirks. That got me to go back to the rules and see how we'd been playing a more Theatre of the Mind version of the game, though we did use "marching order" to determine who the enemies focused their attacks on.
Once I did that, I looked at the old Moldvay Cook Basic set and saw the disengagement rules. I didn't have the words to contextualize what was happening mechanically though until I started playing SPI games and read John Dunnigan's books on game design.
It's amazing that in high school we played AD&D regularly and I never, ever understood why movement was given in inches. But somehow we managed to play anyway.