Sham's Grog 'n Blog: cover to cover

Showing posts with label cover to cover. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 40

“Tricks and Traps: …The fear of “death”, its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistant with a reasonable chance for survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival). For example, there is no question that a player’s character could easily be killed by falling into a pit thirty feet deep or into a shallow pit filled with poisonous spikes, and this is quite undesirable in most instances.”

The fear of death. Yes, characters will perish while they are attempting to plunder treasure from your carefully crafted dungeon. We are however reminded that a reasonable chance for survival should be maintained. After all, there are already monsters seeking to devour the intruders. The two pit trap examples are probably read in an entirely different manner than intended now, 35 years later. At the time of this writing, those two pits are examples of instant-death traps. What I think is being shared here is referee wisdom. Avoid instant-death traps, and while your dungeon should be deadly, don’t make it so lethal that the chance of survival, especially due to instant-death traps, is extremely slim. A saving throw, a chance to avoid damage, or methods to bypass potentially deadly situations should be considered.

“Distribution of Monsters and Treasure:

As a general rule there will be far more uninhabited space on a level than there will be space occupied by monsters, human or otherwise. …It is a good idea to thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monstrous guardians, and then switch to a random determination for the balance of the level.”

A guide and tables then follow for undertaking this random distribution. As a younger man, I was unaware of these suggestions. There were no empty rooms in my dungeons back then. There were no random tables for placing monsters nor treasure. Everything was planned out and filled to the brim. I rarely even used Wandering Monsters except as plotted out “timed encounters” which gave the feel of Wandering Monsters. Again, I wish I had read and embraced these original design notions back then. I’m ashamed to admit that I didn’t know what a proper dungeon was until 2008. Sure what I made were certainly dungeons, but they were dungeons based on what I had seen TSR publish.

Also of note, the guide speaks to placing treasure, as opposed to placing monsters. The players are daring the depths in search of treasure, not monsters. Whether that treasure is guarded by some big nasty beasts or not is a decision reached after figuring out where to carefully place these player goals. Makes you think about the motivations and objectives of the early game. The ultimate goal is treasure.

“Maintaining Freshness: …Using these suggestions, and whatever else you dream up, there is no reason why participants in the campaign should not continue to find mystification, enjoyment, excitement, and amusement in the challenge of the myriad passages of the dungeons.”

Suggestions that echo the previous sentiment of maintaining player interest within the adventure hub dungeon. Sure you can move the adventure to other locales, but the dungeon is capable of housing the entire campaign if you are willing to provide the creative effort required. It’s a labor of love.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, March 2, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 39

“In beginning a dungeon it is advisable to construct at least three levels at once, noting where stairs, trap doors (and chimneys) and slanting passages come out on lower levels, as well as the mouths of chutes and teleportation terminals.”

This echoes the notion that the dungeon is to be a mazey construction of meandering halls, tunnels and passages. The suggestion to design three levels at once is a sound one. I think it’s important to add that it is not always prudent to fill these three level chunks with great detail. The entire design process described here is more or less focusing on the map and layout itself. Methods for actually stocking the dungeon are shared later. At this point, the referee is drawing maps and possibly manually placing certain details such as traps and minor notes.

“In doing the lowest level of such a set it is also necessary to leave space for the various methods of egress to still lower levels. A good dungeon will have no less than a dozen levels down, with offshoot levels in addition, and new levels under construction so that players will never grow tired of it.”

In other words, don’t plan to stop at Level 3 of your dungeon. Leave space, it tells us. It doesn’t say draw the steps and chutes yet, it says plan for them and add them later if you like. No less than a dozen levels down, not counting offshoot levels or levels that are under construction and may be added later. Yes, a growing, changing, evolving hub of adventure that should have future areas unveiled as the campaign progresses.

“There is no real limit to the number of levels, nor is their any restriction on their size (other than the size of graph paper available). “Greyhawk Castle”, for example, has over a dozen levels in succession downwards, more than that number branching from these, and not less than two new levels under construction at any given time.”

Even at the time of this writing, Gygax had an enormous dungeon going. Greyhawk Castle boasted in the neighborhood of 27 or more maps at a minimum, with two under construction “at any given time”. And that was in 1973-74.

“These levels contain such things as a museum from another age, an underground lake, a series of caverns filled with giant fungi, a bowling alley for 20’ high Giants, an arena of evil, crypts, and so on.”

Anything goes. A museum from another age? A Giant bowling alley? Open your minds and let your creative juices flow. There’s no need to limit these fantastical places to the laws of the surface.

“A sample level is shown below in order to aid the prospective referee in designing his own game:”

Granted, this is probably not what many modern megadungeon designers think of when they envision a dungeon level. As a sample level it does convey the basics. There are only eight rooms. There’s a LOT of trickery and navigational hazards, though. Not much in the way of planned encounters or treasure. It’s fairly rudimentary, but effective given its very limited description. I’ll drop a version of this somewhere in one of my campaigns.

“SAMPLE MAP OF THE UNDERWORLD LEVEL:”

An entire dungeon level on a little over one and a half booklet sized pages.

“8. … Falling into the pit would typically cause damage if a 1 or 2 were rolled. Otherwise, it would only mean about one turn of time to clamber out…”

This 2in6 chance of taking damage from falling into a pit seems to be one of those lost ideas shared in original D&D. I’ve never found any other examples of employing this rule. I’ve added a similar layer of avoiding damage from traps, based on the likelihood inherent in the individual situation. For a shallow pit, I can see a character avoiding damage. I know falling 10’ isn’t likely to kill most adventurers. Take what you might from this example.

“In laying out your dungeons keep in mind that downward (and upward) mobility is desirable, for players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much.”

Plenty of options is important. I wish I had read all of this back in the early 80’s when I really began to design a lot of my own adventures. Adventures which were unfortunately based more on the published AD&D modules, and less on these foundations of the game. My designs railroaded the characters to a climactic ending rather than envisioning a never-ending hub of adventure within the underworld.

“…successive levels, which, of course, should be progressively more dangerous and difficult.”

Rather obvious 35 years later, but this tidbit of dungeon design has become ingrained in the genre.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 38

“Before it is possible to conduct a campaign of adventures in the mazey dungeons, it is necessary for the referee to sit down with pencil in hand and draw these labyrinths on graph paper. Unquestionably this will require a great deal of time and effort and imagination. The dungeons should look something like the example given below, with numerous levels which sprawl in all directions, not necessarily stack neatly above each other in a straight line.”

Volume III gets good, and it gets good fast. If you didn’t know how to play D&D yet, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures dives right in and tells you with its opening words that the game is played by adventuring in dungeons created by hand by a referee. That the dungeon was intended to be the central focus of Dungeons & Dragons, there is no doubt. Jumping ahead to THE WILDERNESS section, p. 14, we find passages that support this fact. Everything mentioned in that section speaks to the areas which surround the dungeon. The campaign grows forth from the dungeon, its centerpiece.

One need not limit a D&D campaign to dungeons, clearly, but the theme is obvious. The dungeon is the anchor. A village, town or city and the immediate terrain surrounding the dungeon serve as extensions of this underworld affair. This then is how the game is played. What the characters may do outside of the campaign’s focal point is discussed in THE WILDERNESS section.

Step one in preparing for the game is to draw the dungeon. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

The SAMPLE CROSS SECTION OF LEVELS example provided on p. 3 conveys the fact that dungeon levels should be sprawling and convoluted. I’ve found laying out such cross sections for dungeons unnecessary, but the end result can be nice to look at. The authors go on to say that the levels shouldn’t stack neatly, one on top of the other. I’ve found that such concerns are likewise superfluous, the end result being that the players rarely know the difference. I contend that it’s perfectly fine for levels stacked on top of one another, as long as the individual level maps are interesting in and of themselves.

I have made dungeons in both ways, and I doubt I’d bother worrying about a cross section except for one reason, and that is keeping track of all of the entrances or exits to and from the dungeon itself. The cross section is perfect for such details which are easily forgotten after a referee undertakes the long process of filling a large dungeon.

Readers will notice that the term “dungeon”, as described here in Volume III, is in fact what we now call a “megadungeon”. Thirty-five years later we have found the need to redefine the very term used to name this grand game by adding a prefix. The truth of the matter is that what we now call a megadungeon was indeed what the authors had been using to run their campaigns, it’s just that they called it a dungeon. Perhaps “Megadungeons & Manticoras” didn’t have quite the zing to it. I wonder who coined the megadungeon term in the first place. It’s certainly a necessary evil now in the current gaming era. It begs the question though, were there minidungeons in 1974?

I’d also like to mention the usage of the term “campaign” here, “conduct a campaign of adventures” is the proper usage. A campaign is a collection of adventures. As we will see, the campaign is also the world which emerges from these adventures. Everything that evolves from the ongoing adventure, the continuing gaming sessions, is all a part of the campaign. These features together can form a setting, or world, but the campaign itself is the collected adventures of the players within a referee’s games. A campaign which is started by drawing a dungeon, and defined by the actions of the players.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, January 19, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 37

Being a series of articles in which the author reads the indelible words of Gygax and Arneson as presented the Original Collector's Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, published by Tactical Studies Rules. Beginning with Men & Magic, and concluding with The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, the author will consider those earliest passages, adding elucidations and interpretations along the way for your consideration.

Monsters & Treasure
IN CONCLUSION (continued)

Here are some, not all, of the reader comments I wish to quote here in regard to the reading of Volume II. I value all of your comments, so don‘t worry if I didn‘t quote you below. These just happen to be the comments I found to be of particular interest at this time:

On Monster Attacks and Damage:

From Dwayanu: Having more Hit Dice means that a combatant dishes out more damage on average. It also allows taking more damage on average. In the context of D&D's rather abstract combat model, this makes sense; look at the outcome in the long run. It also keeps things simpler and faster-playing than multiple attacks. Some monsters do more damage per "hit," as do magic weapons. The rarity of this distinction makes it all the more impressive!

"Such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed in the matrixes." Complications tend to be designed on the assumption that those things were not already factored in, and that it somehow makes sense to lay a blow-by-blow treatment on top of factors based on a thoroughly different premise.

From Geoffrey McKinney: I greatly prefer all weapons doing 1 die of damage. As a referee it makes things a lot easier (such as not having to write down the weapons every single Deep One has). As a player, it's nice to be able to use whatever weapon I think is particularly cool, rather than hunting through the weapon damage lists (such as in the AD&D PHB).
--------
On Men:

From Snorri: I guess Mermen are rather Lovecraftian Deep Ones, (not the) Tritons they became later. It fits better their stats and abilities.
--------
On Undead:

From Will Douglas: I've seen "mere mortals" (i.e.; non-clerics) use the cross to fend off a vampire in movies and such, but it never dawned one me that it would also work for non-clerics in D&D. Part of that might come from the fact that, in later editions, the cross is replaced with a 'holy symbol', but is left in about the same place on the equipment list.

From Snorri: in Chainmail: a paralysed unit can be freed if touched by a friendly elf or hero unit. In the french version, I stated elves are immune to undead paralysis and at 4th (hero) level, can also free their friends by touch. As there is no duration for paralysis, this is nice...
--------
On a Hydra‘s attacks:

From some guy named Sham: one could simply rule that a six headed Hydra could engage up to six opponents at once, but still only dealt 1d6 damage, at a maximum, to any one target.
--------
On Purple Worms:

From Frank: My interpretation of "any hit which scores over 20% of the minimum total required to hit, or 100% in any case" is that a 20 would always cause a swallow.
--------
On Swords:

From John Stephens: An idea just occurred to me: what if all magic swords have the capacity for intelligence and special abilities, but for some reason most of them haven't awoken - yet. Something has to happen to wake them up, but after that they gain experience points and abilities tied to level, and an ever increasing Ego score as well.

From Chgowiz: I tend to think of the simple 'plussie' type of weapons to be similar to the "Hanzo" type of weapons - best of the best, perfect items that convey advantages that aren't 'magical' in nature, but are just as powerful.
--------
On Poison Potions and potion sipping:

From Rod: Why not poison an actual potion?

From Matthew: Perhaps you could roll randomly (on a d8, for this example) to see what potions seem to be from sampling: 1-4 type is correctly determined (except for a delusion potion which will seem like something else), 5 appears to be a healing potion, 6 appears to be a poison potion, 7-8 type cannot be determined.

From John Stephens: I treat Poison and Delusion as ordinary potions that have gone "off" due to age, etc. A sample gives the effect of the original, but if the whole thing is taken then WHAMO! After all, those things have been down there a long time, and even magic potions have a "best by" date, or should if you ask me.

From Steamtunnel: Perhaps you could have the potion take effect with an added poison effect. Yes- the potion of fire breathing works but it also can kill you.
--------
On Magic Items:

From Brunomac: I usually have something like an amulet of protection be in the shape of a shield.
--------

As always, thank you for all of the comments in this series. Were it not for these alternate views, observations and clarifications, I’m not sure I’d have the motivation to finish this undertaking.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Friday, January 16, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 36

Being a series of articles in which the author reads the indelible words of Gygax and Arneson as presented the Original Collector's Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, published by Tactical Studies Rules. Beginning with Men & Magic, and concluding with The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, the author will consider those earliest passages, adding elucidations and interpretations along the way for your consideration.

Monsters & Treasure
IN CONCLUSION

When I wrapped up my conclusions on the re-read of Volume I, I wrote that the 20 posts I had made while going through Men & Magic would amount to more posts than Volumes II and III combined. I guess I missed the mark with that statement. I ended up with 15 posts regarding Monsters & Treasure, so unless I skim through The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, I will certainly surpass my original estimation.

As I did with Volume I, I will be looking back at the posts and comments for Volume II in order to highlight some of the noteworthy observations from readers which I think will help me realize different angles or views on the topics I covered and speculated on. I have definitely altered my view on a number of elements.

The following words, written in the Volume I Conclusion, bear repeating here as well:

“This exercise began on a whim for me, as I thought it might be fun to try and uncover some passages here and there which I felt were noteworthy, or perhaps I had been implementing incorrectly. It has now become more or less a challenge to see if I can actually read and consider each passage in the famous White Box, or LBB.

I know many will scratch their heads, and wonder why in the world anyone would want to actually undertake such a project. The joy of OD&D for many, myself included, is to treat the books as a guide; one which is a pleasure to use for playing D&D precisely due to the vagaries inherent in the books. Here’s the thing, though. Many of us spend an inordinate amount of time debating various topics within these volumes. Many of these subjects are simply rehashed theories and assertions, but others are more or less glossed over; as if some authority through the years has ‘shown’ us how to play. I blame AD&D 1e for many of the assumptions I make when looking at these rules. I am trying to distance myself from those opinions formed over nearly 30 years of gaming.

In addition, given the amount of time many of us spend considering and speculating the matters in these volumes, and the sheer collective value the originals now hold, I feel it is important to make these distinctions. This IS the Holy Grail of RPGs, and it deserves attention and its truths need to be brought forth, that they might stand on their own merits. Once we understand as much as we can about OD&D, then we can still go on our merry ways and house rule, home brew and customize ad nauseum.

By no means is this meant to be some ‘by the book’ essay or thesis which attempts to tell players that there is one right way to play OD&D. As all of you know by now, you could very well toss all three volumes in the trash bin and wing an entire campaign using just paper and pencil, and maybe some dice. I value these books more than that, so while I might end up home brewing a game that is very clearly NOT OD&D, I will always cherish and respect the words found within the LBB; those words of Gygax and Arneson written 35 years ago.”

With that I invite you to return soon for the follow-up post which will quote many of the insightful comments left by readers.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Thursday, January 15, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 35

“MAGICAL ITEMS’ SAVING THROWS: Magical items will, during the course of play, be struck by various forms of weapons. For the sake of simplicity it is generally easier to assume they survive unharmed if their wearer/user is not killed (exception, Helms). If the wearer is killed, or the items are alone, throw for them on the following table if struck by Fire (Dragon or Ball) or Lightning (Dragon or Bolt). Those items not listed should be assumed automatically destroyed.”

I recall reading this passage with great interest the first time around, and now I am reminded of how important and often overlooked this section of the rules is in the scope of the continuing campaign. Back in the headier days with my numerous game sessions and long campaigns, the characters managed to amass quite a collection of magic items. Many, many characters perished, but they were of course always looted before being laid to rest if at all possible. Thus, magic items were handed down through the gaming generations. The end result of years and years of weekly play was character sheets filled with magic items of all types. It was in those higher level Monty Haul games that I eventually created various hazards and threats to thin out this glut of magic. Such tactics didn’t always sit right with the players, but they knew that survival meant newer more powerful items, so they got used to my campaigns of holy fire, burning many older items to ash in the process.

If only I had bothered to keep in mind the fact that many untimely ends which the characters meet might have taken care of this anti-glut process for me. The above is a fine example of how magic items can become less than permanent. The table included on p. 38 below this passage details exactly which magic items might be recovered from a character slain by either Fire or Lightning. I would include other threats as well, including Acid and Crushing damage. The list of items which are entitled to a saving throw are: Staff of Power, Staff of Wizardry, Fire Ball Wand, Lightning Bolt Wand, Fire Resistance Ring, Ring of Protection, and Magic Armor and Weapons. That’s it. EVERYTHING else is automatically destroyed if the character is slain by Fire or Lightning.

“ARTIFACTS: Although not otherwise mentioned, there can be included various powerful items of Law and Chaos termed Artifacts. These items are super-powerful in comparison to listed magic and must be handled by the referee…If such items are included very harmful effects should be incurred by any Neutral or Oppositely aligned character who touches one. For Example:

Instant Death
Paralysis (until freed by designated means)
Immediate Loss of Six Energy Levels
Immediate Loss of Four Energy Levels
Insanity for 1 Month
Take 10 Hit Dice of Damage

If saving throws are allowed they should be very limited and require a very high score.”

Dreaming up Artifacts was a pastime for me in the old days. I love the concept of unique, ultra-powerful items which come with often fatal side-effects. No examples of such side-effects are given here, but touching one of these beauties could prove to be fatal indeed. Unlike Magic Swords, which could potentially be wielded by someone of a differing alignment, Artifacts offer no such possibility. Therefore in many campaigns, Chaotic antagonists with powerful Artifacts might prove to be more trouble than they are worth. I can hear the groans of my players now after they risk life and limb and possibly suffer a few casualties to defeat some foul deep down anti-hero in order to claim his mighty Blazing Sword of Eldritch Awesomeness, only to lose another character to 10 Hit Dice of Damage and be left with a useless item which they might feel compelled to destroy somehow. Harsh stuff.

“TREASURE:

Metal is melted to solid lumps by fire or lightning. Fire will not destroy Gems (optionally 10% chance of destruction) but lightning will. Both will devalue Jewelry by 25%.”

Continuing with the theme of item loss via character death from Fire or Lightning, we are reminded that even the monetary treasure on a character so slain is not safe from the sweeping broom of anti-glut.

This ends my re-read of Volume II, Monsters & Treasure. In an upcoming post I will formulate some closing thoughts before moving on to Volume III, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 34

“MISCELLANEOUS MAGIC

Medallions of ESP:…malfunctions on a roll of 6, so whenever in use roll a six-sided die to check it.”

Quite a nice item. As was observed in part 15, ESP was more or less used as a scanning ability to avoid surprise which could see real use as a dungeon early warning system. A character with a permanent magical ability such as this might prove tiresome, so the medallion does “backfire” 17% of the time.

“Amulet vs. Crystal Balls and ESP: This device presents the location, sight, or thought waves pick-up by Crystal Ball or ESP.

Scarab of Protection from Evil High Priests: The small scarab acts as a charm which absorbs the “Finger of Death” from Evil High Priests…”

The word “presents” is of course a typo and was meant to be “prevents”. As with Death-Rays and Aging (Withering), I get the feeling that Crystal Balls and ESP were seeing a great amount of use in the campaigns being run by the authors at the time of this writing. I make this assumption based on the existence of counter-measure devices of seemingly limited scope which were nevertheless included in this first edition of D&D. I often get the feeling that if there was not outright player vs. player activity, there was at the very least a sense of competition amongst the many groups of characters living in Blackmoor and Greyhawk. Next up, here’s the Death-Ray again, being counter-measured by what was probably deemed a very useful item in those campaigns. Not necessarily due to player conflict, but probably just as likely as protection from the threat of Evil High Priest antagonists in the games. Interestingly, this scarab would not protect against a Finger of Death cast by a Cleric, only those cast by Anti-Clerics. Otherwise why not just name the item Scarab of Protection from Finger of Death?

“Elven Cloak and Boots: Wearing the Cloak makes a person next to invisible, while the Boots allow for totally silent movement.”

This item(s) has been alluded to in earlier comments regarding how some referees explain some certain Elf racial abilities. Specifically, the entry on p.16 of this same volume, stating that Elves can move silently and are near invisible. It’s been suggested that this could refer to the fact that all Elves are already wearing the above item(s), and are therefore gaining this benefit. I don’t care for this interpretation at all. See part 25 explaining how I handle these Elf abilities. Now, the Elven Cloak and Boots are actually superior due to the fact that no effort is required on behalf of the user to move silently, and to be nearly invisible. This is an item which is named for it’s magical power of replicating the natural sneakiness of an Elf, not for the fact that Elves wear these when they go adventuring, hunting or to war. Furthermore, a referee might judge that the items are a singular pair, and that they lose their power if separated or worn by two different people at the same time.

“Helm of Reading Magic and Languages: …It does not protect in the same way as Magic Armor, so if it is worn in combat any hit upon its wearer should be given a 10% of striking the helm and smashing it.”

Of note is this rare reference to hit allocation during melee. The justification for this item having a 10% chance of being destroyed after being hit in melee is rather troublesome, though. The reason given is that this helm does not protect as Magic Armor does. Using this logic we can see then that all non-magic helms (or even armor) have a 10% (or more) chance of being destroyed after a hit in melee. This is of course not the case, and the reasoning behind the “smashing” of this item in melee should have been something which referred to the fragility or decorative nature of the helm; that it in fact is not a real helm (magic or otherwise) at all.

“Helm of Telepathy: …If his Intelligence rating is higher than that of human or humanoid creatures within the range of the helm the wearer may attempt to control their mind with suggestions implanted telepathically. Such suggestions will have a +2 effect in their likelihood of being carried out (see Vol. III for random actions of monsters)…Treat as non-protective helm if worn into melee.”

The Helm of Telepathy is ridiculously powerful if a referee doesn’t carefully read the table referred to, and consider the modifiers hinted at there (bribes, fear, alignment). The last bit, that the helm is non-protective brings up some concerns. Perhaps they mean read the entry above this one, which details what happens if this item is worn in combat. That’s how I read it, and it reflects a better choice of words. There is no mention of Magic Armor. But, it leads to further possible questions. What are the ramifications of wearing a non-protective helm in melee? Further house ruling and gnashing of teeth for all involved. As with most anything else in this classic version of D&D, take it in a case by case manner.

“Helm of Teleportation: …The Magic-User can Teleport himself endlessly about the universe…”

Um. Wow? Perhaps the Magic User can indeed do so, but keep in mind the dangers of teleporting blindly. The device is of course limited in that it may only be used by a Magic User who has the spell Teleport memorized and not spent; thus by a Magic User of no less than 9th level. A very powerful item with limited usage depending upon how many Sorcerers you have running around in your campaign.

“Gauntlets of Ogre Power: These gauntlets give the wearer the ability to strike as an Ogre and generally give his hands and arms the strength of an ogre. They do not necessarily increase hit probability however.”

I enjoy this original version of these little beauties so much more than I did the Advanced D&D one. First of all, they may be used by any character, regardless of class. Secondly, the wearer attacks as if he were an Ogre, which is to say at HD 4+1. HD 4+1 equals a Fighting-Man of level 7-9. In other words, the wearer of these gauntlets needs a roll of 12 to hit AC 2 in melee, unless, as is stated in the description, this would be higher than the character would normally need (“they do not necessarily increase hit probability”, as opposed to “they do not increase hit probability”). Well, that’s my interpretation and I’m sticking to it. Furthermore, attacks made by the wearers of these gauntlets deal 1d6+2 with weapon, and 1d6 without (see Ogre and Troll entries).

“Girdle of Giant Strength: Wearing this device bestows the strength and hit probability (if greater that the wearer’s own) of Hill Giant.”

This item supports my interpretation of the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, confirming that both strength and hit probability are increased (assuming we allow ourselves to accept the two items as being of like nature). We must almost combine the two descriptions to arrive at our final interpretation, though. I’d also remind readers of the Potion of Giant Strength from part 33. The wording in many of the entries I am attempting to combine here is different. For example, one is led to believe in the Monster Descriptions that increased damage is attributed to mass, and not necessarily strength. In the potion example, prowess is used to describe gaining extra damage. In the gauntlets example, strike is used, along with logical interpretation to assume that they also cause increased damage. In this example, strength is increased. I interpret this entry to mean that the item gives both increased damage and hit probability. Therefore, this nigh awesome item, usable by all classes, allows the wearer to attack using the HD 8 table, and to deal two dice of damage in melee. The HD 8 column refelcts a skill level slightly superior to that of a 9th level Fighting-Man, but just under the ability of a 10th level Fighting-Man. A very desirable item from the old rules.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, January 12, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 33

“POTIONS: All potions come in a quantity sufficient to perform whatever their end is, although a small sample can be taken without effecting the whole.”

The notion of “taking a sip” of a potion in order to glean some minor insight into its effects is as old as the hills, as they say. My players have always done this, but I’m not sure where exactly they learned this method. Perhaps it has been handed down though the ages, and as long as I can remember, it has been a staple of player magic item investigation. The question is what happens when a sip is taken of the Delusion or Poison varieties? Delusion would give some false clue, or simply hint at something untrue. Once quaffed, Delusion would just make the poor sap think the potion was something else, such as Dragon Control, Flying or Treasure Finding. Hilarity will normally ensue. Poison on the other hand is a bit trickier. If a sip is all that is required to force a saving throw, then the party has just found a large amount of poison which might be used for some sinister purpose later. I read the above passage to mean that while a small sample can be taken, the effects are not gained unless the whole amount is drunk. So, the infamous Poison Potion is a bit tricky in that regard. The best approach might be to mislead the players until such a time that the entire Poison Potion is consumed, revealing its true nature then and only then. Another solution might be to assume that the Poison Potion is dropped as soon as it is tasted as the character clutches at his neck; the contents spilling out or the vial shattering. Or, you might not care that you have allowed the players access to some amount of deadly poison. They might even thank you for it later, assuming they made their saving throw.

“Giant Strength: Gives the recipient full Giant prowess, including two dice of damage when he scores a hit.”

Aha. An example of Strength literally adding to melee damage. Previous wording had attributed such monster damage ranges to mass, and not Strength. A very potent libation, to be sure. 70 to 120 minutes of two dice of damage is nothing to sneeze at in this version of the game.

“Longevity: Reduces 10 game-years from the game-age of the character drinking it.”

I’m led to believe that game-age and game-years came into play in the old days often enough that this item was devised as a much needed counter-measure. I’m curious as to why the authors felt the need to specify “game-years” and “game-age” rather than simply years and age. Am I missing something? Why is it being deliberately spelled out to avoid confusion? I’m missing something here.

“RINGS: A ring must be worn to be employed, and only one ring may be worn on each hand if the ring is to be operable by the wearer. (The referee should be careful to enforce this in order to maintain some balance in the game).”

I’m reminded of the NPC in The Rogue’s Gallery who wore a bracelet with numerous magical rings which could be quickly changed as the situation demanded. I think it was an Assassin, but as I misplaced my copy of that AD&D product, I can’t remember for sure. You can bet in my later Monty Haul campaign most of the high level players duplicated this little trick. Of course I required a full round’s actions to swap rings, just because I got tired of the tactic. Perhaps if I hadn’t handed out magical rings like lemon drops I never would have had to cope with those antics? Hmmmm. Anyway, I later brewed up a funky magic item that allowed characters a third hand, as well as one free attack per round in melee. The now infamous "Zipper Arms" were sought high and low in that same gonzo campaign. If only I had actually READ passages like the one above, warning referees to maintain control of the game balance and not go too crazy. Ah, the youthful exuberance of yesteryear.

“Three Wishes: As with any wishes, the wishes granted by the ring must be of limited power in order to maintain balance in the game. This requires the utmost discretion on the part of the referee.”

More warnings from Mr. Gygax. Wishes are more or less flexible magic spells. Potentially powerful, but best used with extreme caution and foresight. We are treated through the old editions of the game with bits and pieces hinting at how the authors handled wishes. I’ve always taken that approach to heart, and my players, as I assume most players did as well, would carefully write out their wishes and present them to me almost in contract form. They’d pore over the notes, ensuring that everything was air-tight and straight-forward. This of course only made me think longer and harder of ways in which to pervert their wishes. They’d have been better off just stating their wishes, but of course I created that monster through the years; all it took was one or two “minor” misinterpretations on my behalf to make the players eventually behave like copyright lawyers.

“Delusion: A ring which makes the wearer see whatever he desires, I.e. a bummer thrown in to fool the players.”

Nothing earth-shattering here, fairly self-explanatory. I just like the “a bummer thrown in to fool the players” bit. Not only do I rarely ever hear anyone say “bummer” anymore, that bit of 70’s slang is actually used in a way in which I’ve never seen nor heard.

“WANDS AND STAVES:

Paralization: A paralization ray of the same dimensions as a Fear Wand. Creatures take half damage if their saving throw is made.”

Huh? Either someone was being lazy and copied the last sentence of the entry before this one (which is a Wand of Cold), or the wording is way off. I’d rule that the saving throw is for no effect, but one might assume it is for one-half duration. No actual duration is provided, though.

“Staff of Striking: This Staff does not add to hit probability, but due to the energy within it, it scores two dice of damage when a hit is made.”

This, dear readers, is in fact an item that most Fighting-Men would give up their shields for! Unfortunately it is usable by Magic-Users and Clerics only. What a waste. On the other hand, a Cleric with one of these is nothing to scoff at, provided he’s able to connect since the staff yields no bonus to hit. Still a cool magic item, as it requires no charges to operate. It’s just a 1974 beat-stick.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, January 5, 2009

D&D Cover to Cover, part 32

“ARMOR: Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer. If the shield’s bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction.”

The above quite innocent looking passage is what I once considered one of the poorest thought out of all the guides in the first three volumes of the game. In later editions, the system was changed entirely to not only arrive at fluid Armor Classes, improving in their protective quality with various modifiers, but also allowing magic armor and shields to be additive. This is one of the last gaming conventions unique to the 1974 rules that I have come to accept. It has indeed taken me months to get used to the static Armor Class system of the original game.

To recap the original system, Armor Class is not only defined by the armor worn, but also defines what armor is worn. In other words, there is only one way to achieve AC 4; Chain and Shield. Protective bonuses of any sort do not lower, or improve, this rating. It is basically a code revealing the type of armor worn. This was a major departure for my 1e mind when I first took on this edition. I spent many hours working the system over and converting it into a simplified collection of formulae and shortcuts.

Then I saw the light. Now I have adopted the original Armor Class setup. It’s up to the player to remind the referee that his magic armor (or other items) subtract from the attack rolls of monsters, just as it is his responsibility to remember to add magic or other bonuses to his own attack rolls during melee. Inspired by the method used by David Hargrave to indicate Armor Classes greater than AC 2 in his Arduin campaigns, I have adopted the simple AC expression of X+X. For example, the above wearer of Chain and Shield, who was lucky enough to find a suit of Armor & Shield +1 (Chain) would then score his AC as 4+1 rather than 3.

Why not 4+2, you might ask? Simply because, as related in the above passage, these two magic items do not in fact “stack” or become additive. Plainly put, using these rules, there is no advantage to Chain +1 and Shield +1 when compared to Chain +1 and Shield. None. Homebrew to taste. In the case of Chain and Shield +1, the character’s AC would still be 4, but the character would have a 33.3% or 2 in 6 chance to increase to 4+1 during melee.

It is quite common to see this explained as a positional or tactical translation of the protection afforded by a shield; that it protects against approximately 1/3rd of the possible directions of attack. The rules do not actually say this, though. They say that 1 out of 3 attacks will be caught by the shield, giving the additional protection to those attacks only. If engaged in single combat, presumably, the shield would always be positioned properly. But the rules state that the shield must catch the blow to effectively add any possible higher bonus it might grant. Furthermore, using a tactical ruling such as this shouldn’t be limited to magic shields, it should effect all Armor Classes, creating more detail and positional concerns than I care for. Nay. I prefer the static AC defining what is worn. AC 4 is Chain and Shield, and Chain and Shield is AC 4. No splitting hairs.

While I have indeed accepted the original game’s methods for Armor Class, and the effects of magic armor, I’m still struggling with the 1/3rd business for shields with a greater magic protection than one’s armor. My options as I see them are to:

1. Run it by the book telling players to keep a d6 handy which they must roll against each successful attack upon their character who has a shield of greater magic bonus, or

2. Use the simpler “positional/tactical” interpretation which I am not satisfied with, or

3. Allow the two values to become additive, or

4. Do away altogether with magic shields, or

5. Make magic shields do something else entirely.

Of the above options, I have used both 2 and 3 in the past. I want to avoid bonus inflation though, and as I move toward an even more abstract treatment of melee, I find the positional interpretation unsatisfactory.

Now I am considering option 5. My thoughts are to allow magic shields to give a bonus to either missiles only, or to certain saving throws, but not to Armor Class at all. A magic shield might provide it’s bonus to saving throws against certain targeted effects or dragon breath, for example, but not poison or area of effect spells. A bonus that would be judged on a case by case basis, provided the player remembered to announce such a modifier.

I’ve managed to digress from the normal scope of my reading here, but this is a major difference between the original rules and later editions of the game. As with many of the perceived peculiarities of the white box, I might simply try the by the book method, telling players who fall into the category of having a shield of greater magic value than their armor to roll a d6 every time they are hit in melee. A roll of 1 or 2 means the shield comes into play, and might raise their AC just enough to turn that hit into a miss by catching it with their shield. I have often found that once these seemingly baroque differences of the original rules are tried in actual play, they aren’t nearly as bad as they might seem at first.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Happy New Year 2009!

Happy New Year, one and all. Here's hoping that 2009 is the best yet for everyone. Inspired by Amityville Mike's list from last week, but with much less insight and forethought, here is my own list of gaming related resolutions for the upcoming year.

1. Complete The Upper Levels of The Dismal Depths: I feel that the heavy lifting is done here, now comes the actual map drawing and inking, then the compiling. I'll figure out how to merge all 12 maps, the Bestiary, and the one page Guide into a single file, create a PDF, and figure out what to do with it from there.

2. Consider revising and trimming down Ulin-Uthor, The Dim Expanse: While Ulin-Uthor will never be distilled down to the granularity of The Dismal Depths, I can certainly edit the existing work in order to dispense with much of the detail which has forced that project to the back burner. As my current gaming vehicle, The Dim Expanse might never reach a completed state, but hopefully in 2009 some section or the entire work will be finished and into PDF.

3. Finish Solstice as a Campaign Setting: Inspired by Geoffrey McKinney's Carcosa, I hope to actually finally settle on some union of Solstice, No Future and Walpurgis that will yield a unique setting which encompasses The Dismal Depths, Ulin-Uthor, and many other homebrew projects I've been working on this past year.

4. Finish the D&D Cover to Cover series: And from those notes and comments write an OD&D Companion. I'm currently on Volume 2, p. 31 with my re-reading of OD&D, so there is light at the end of that tunnel now. I've received so many excellent observations and comments from my readers that have forced me to reconsider how I approach this hobby that I feel something needs to be done with these words of wisdom. I might call it The White Box Companion or something. Hell, I don't see why I couldn't call it The Dungeons & Dragons Companion. It's clearly a review of the books, so I doubt there should be any fear of copyright infringment.

5. Finish Lower Caves of The Darkness Beneath: I've made great strides with this future submission to Fight On! My problem now is which direction do I take? Do I continue with the wordy, detailed writing that I've used thus far (one room is a full page of text) or do I take the buther knife of word economy to the whole thing and attempt to let readers sort out the many indepth themes within?

6. Attend some Cons: This is a must for me. I'm so removed from the living, breathing face to face aspect of D&D that it sometimes makes me wonder if I'm fooling myself. Besides, I wouldn't mind actually meeting some of the other members of this online old school renaissance in person one of these days.

7. Expand my face to face gaming circle: This goes hand in hand with the above resolution. Playing is an extrememly important facet of the referee design process. Given the far flung proximities of my old gaming crew, expanding my circle of players will help engender more real face to face gaming and learning.

8. Encourage my 14 year old to finish his dungeon: And then plunder it with my own Entourage. For so many reasons, I truly hope that my 14 year old son catches the D&D bug. I cannot even begin to list the ways in which this hobby has expanded my mind.

So there you have it. I'm sure I've left a few gaming projects off of this list, but the above resolutions would certainly constitute a very good year of gaming in 2009.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 31

“SWORDS: Among magic weaponry swords alone possess certain human (and superhuman) attributes, Swords have an alignment (Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic), an Intelligence factor, and an egoism rating (as well as an optional determination of their origin/purpose).”

First, I’d like to comment that the explanation of Swords here in Monsters & Treasure encompasses nearly four full pages. Swords are the Dragons of Magic Items, and are clearly meant to be an important part of the game. I believe that this is loosely based on the swords of myth, legend and literature; those weapons which dominate stories, tales and novels, and in many cases, our own history. On the other hand, I also believe this to be an intentional feature of the game which benefits the Fighting-Man class. Until Greyhawk was published, only Fighting-Men could actually use swords, which are potentially the most powerful magic weapons in the game.

As most readers of this series already know, magic swords in the original game are indeed unique, being the only weapons that might possess alignment, intelligence, communicative ability and special magical powers. You will note, however, that the passage does not say that ALL magic swords possess human attributes. Instead, it states that of all magical weaponry, swords alone possess human attributes. In other words, only swords have a chance to be enchanted or ensorcelled with humanlike qualities. How you interpret the above passage is your decision, as referee. Either all magic swords have those attributes, or only some of them do.

Since there is no actual chance provided to determine which swords are indeed possessive of human attributes, I think that most referees assume that all magic swords in the game are to be created using the tables which follow. I cannot argue with this approach, but I will share my own solution to the topic at the end of this section.

“If a character picks up a sword which is not of the same alignment as he, damage will be taken as follows:

Law - Chaos: 2 Dice (2-12 points)
Neutrality - Law/Chaos: 1 Die (1-6 points)”

The above table is a guide which shows the penalty for claiming a magic sword of opposing alignment; one which does not preclude a character from wielding it after the damage roll.

“…if the Intelligence/Egoism of the sword (see below) is 6 or more points above that of the character who picks it up the sword will control the person, even causing him to become aligned as the sword is, and he will immediately act accordingly…a hireling of a Lawful player-character ordered to pick up a Neutral sword and taken over by it would deliberately lie about its powers, while if the sword were Chaotic he would attack.”

This details the chance of immediate influence exerted by magic swords, upon both characters and hirelings. I’d allow this to effect monsters, as well. A particularly powerful magic sword could create many enjoyable sessions, or form the basis for more than a few interesting adventures by taking over characters, hirelings, townsfolk or monsters. Also of note here is a tidbit in regard to the interaction of Law-Neutral and Law-Chaos. Neutral seems to include the traits of selfishness, dishonesty and greed. Chaos is apparently opposed to Law at all times, or simply given to violent and treacherous acts.

“Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability.”

One-half of the magic swords randomly created by the referee using this table have less than 7 Intelligence, and are therefore, according to this section, not possessive of any mental power nor communicative ability. For all intents and purposes, these swords with 6 or less Intelligence might as well have no intellect.

Also, this is the first time I actually noticed that the Primary and Extraordinary Powers which follow this section are described as Mental Powers. It later goes on to state that these powers are passed on to the sword user, so the fact that these are Mental Powers may or may not have any bearing on a referee’s campaign. I’m left to wonder why the distinction was made; perhaps it’s because these magic swords are the only intelligent items in the game, or perhaps Mental Powers are different in some way than standard magical ones. Apparently these powers differ in name only, and function just like their magical counterparts.

“Primary Powers:

31-40 Locate Secret Doors
41-50 Detect Traps
71-80 Detect Meal & What Kind”

Above are a few of the interesting Primary Powers of magic swords. The first two are potentially game-breakers for dungeon crawl campaigns without some referee house ruling involved. No referee should hand an item over to a player-character which automatically points out all secret doors or traps. Instead, a limited number of daily uses, a chance of failure, a long activation time, or even all three together would create a suitable scenario and not deter referees from including such items in their campaign.

Readers of my favorite D&D forum, Finarvyn’s OD&D Discussion, are probably already familiar with that last power included above. My guess is that this is a typo that was simply never corrected by TSR, and is supposed to read “Detect Metal…”. This may seem obvious to everyone but me. Believe it or not, due to the “& What Kind” wording, I didn’t realize that this was a typo until I read a thread on the above linked form! I actually thought this was just some awkward old power from the original game. I can confidently share this fact with my readers, because they already know I’m a bit off my rocker to begin with. Besides, in all honesty, I like the idea of a sword that is able to detect meals. If anyone were to ever find a sword with the 71-80 Primary Power, I would rule that it does indeed find food for them. I wouldn’t advocate this ruling, so referees feel free to correct this typo and allow the power to detect metal. I can only imagine the inquiries mailed into the TSR office in Lake Geneva back in the 70’s, and the jokes that evolved from this typo. It’s no wonder it was never corrected.

“Extraordinary Powers:

88-92 Healing (1 point/6 turns or 6 points/day)
93-97 1 - 4 Times Normal Strength for 1 - 10 Turns Employable Once/Day

Rolling the same Ability twice indicates it is twice normal strength, range, accuracy, etc.”

As with certain Primary Powers, I would advocate limitations placed on the abilities listed in the Extraordinary Powers table, even though no such guide is provided except in the case of the two results listed above. The 93-97 result is interesting. There are no actual rules covering the extreme numbers which might be resultant from this power. The increased damage inflicted by what could be assumed to be super strong monsters is actually attributed to their size, or mass, and not simply Strength. Referees will be left to determine the advantages of increased Strength. Increases in melee damage, carry capacity, chance for opening doors and even lifting heavy objects are a few of the possible considerations. It is possible that the result would be a character with 72 Strength, assuming the power actually increases Strength. Perhaps the wording “Normal Strength” means 1 to 4 times the Strength of a normal man; perhaps it applies to the sword and not the wielder. A sword of 1 to 4 times Normal Strength might have its to hit bonus increased from say +2 to +8 for 1 to 10 Turns. While your game might never have to handle this power, it does leave me thinking of its possibilities, especially if the extremely rare scenario arises wherein this power is in fact of double strength by being rolled twice.

“Egoism: Only those swords Intelligence of 7 or more will have an Egoism rating.”

As I mentioned earlier, swords with 6 or less Intelligence might as well have no intellect. As we can see, they also have no Egoism rating at all.

“Origin/Purpose: …To determine if the sword has such a purpose roll percentile dice, and a score of 91 or higher indicates the sword has a special mission. Swords with special purposes automatically have intelligence and ego categories moved to the maximum score and they will gain an additional ability:

Law: The ability to paralize Chaotic opponents
Neutrality: Adds +1 to all saving throws
Chaos: The ability to disintegrate Lawful opponents

The special ability will only apply to those whom the sword has been endowed to destroy, or those serving such a creature…Special purpose swords will always be at their task, and any attempts by their users to go counter to them will cause an immediate influence check to be made.”

Noted in the first passage on Swords is the fact that Origin/Purpose is an optional determination. I take this to mean that not every sword has even a 1 in 10 (91-00) chance of possessing an Origin/Purpose. Referees will be inspired by this section on Swords, and I would use the relative power on those special purpose swords of Neutrality as a guide when I house rule the Law and Chaos ones. For example, house ruling that the ability is used by the sword only on a roll of 20 to hit might balance what at first blush appears to be an imbalanced item. A Lawful sword, with the special purpose of Defeat Chaos, would simply be too powerful if it paralyzed every chaotic target which it struck in the campaign.

“SWORDS, DAMAGE BONUSES: The swords all receive bonuses as far as the probability of hitting an opponent is concerned, but some also gain a damage bonus when they do hit. These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3.”

This is a roundabout way of saying that unlike most magic weapons, swords do not deal extra damage upon hitting. Their bonus is “to hit” only, unless otherwise specified. This is an important difference of the original rules and later editions.

Lastly, on the topic of whether all swords are intelligent and possessive of an alignment, I house rule the following method. Given that one-half (result of 1-6 on a d12 from the Intelligence roll) of all magic swords have an Intelligence of 6 or lower, and that swords with 6 or less Intelligence have no Egoism rating, no special Mental Powers, and no Communicative Ability, I simply rule that those swords are all standard, non-aligned, non-intelligent magic swords.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, December 22, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 30

“SCROLLS:

51-60: 1 Curse*
* The referee must take extreme care in handling all Scrolls with an eye towards duping the players when a Curse Scroll is found…having non-Curse Scrolls disappear on occasion if not identified will help to force the reading of Curse Scrolls.”

I like the footnote for Curse Scrolls. It does give one the feeling that referees were charged with presenting thoughtful challenges and ways to outsmart the players in an attempt to always keep them on their toes. There is no suggestion for unfair play, but I think at the time of this writing, that the authors had witnessed the gamesmanship of their players, and were always cooking up ways to throw a curve ball at them in order to keep things interesting.

What follows is a table which details the effects of reading such scrolls by rolling 1d8, and having the curse effect all in a 3” diameter.

“1 or 2: Any monster of the referee’s choice
3 or 4: Disease, fatal in 3 turns unless healed
5 or 6: Polymorph to insect of referee’s choice
7: Transportation 1,000 miles, random direction
8: Transportation to another planet”

The effect of being duped by a Curse Scroll can be downright nasty.

"MAPS:"

Three tables follow detailing the types of maps which might be found in a treasure hoard. Maps constitute 25% of all randomized items from the ’any’ category. We already know that maps such as these are worthless without a Magic User capable of casting a Read Languages spell. In the past, in my older campaigns, I never used maps in this manner. Maps were always hand-drawn handouts for the players, detailing actual features within the game world. These D&D maps seem to be encoded, encrypted or magically enciphered, so there is nothing to hand-out until a Read Languages spell has cracked the riddle of the map. At this point a hand-drawn handout could be employed, a simple list of directions could be given, or the referee might allow the characters to ask “North, South, East or West?” at each intersection until they locate the treasure. On the other hand, the maps might give directions that send the characters out of their current locale altogether, or so far deep into the underworld that the map is currently of no use. The rules aren’t very specific, but I come away from the whole system feeling as though it is to be handled with no handouts at all. Maps seem to be a simple system of rolling the dice and allowing the group to find some invisible or secret location, guarded by something appropriate, often just hand-drawn onto the game or dungeon map after a treasure map has been used properly. It’s as if the deciphering of a treasure map generates the treasure listed, along with its guardian.

Up next on Tuesday: SWORDS, which deserves one large article.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

PS: Added a link to an example of a well-played Curse Scroll for your reading pleasure.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 29

“SWORD:

01-35: Sword, +1
84-00: Sword -2 (Cursed Sword)”

Did you know that 7% of all items found are a Sword, +1, or that 3.4% are a Sword -2? Neither did I, but I do now.

None of the Swords found upon this table are individually described in the later section of explanations. The referee is left to his own devices when judging exactly how some of these unique Swords work. For example, Locating Objects Ability, Charm Person Ability, and Life Energy Draining Ability are not defined. The implementation of these powers is left to the discretion of the referee.

“ARMOR:”

Armor entries are simply that, not defined as either Leather, Chain or Plate. Shields may be found singly, or paired with Armor.

“MISCELLANEOUS WEAPONS:”

All magic Daggers are enchanted in such a way that their bonuses only apply to specific targets, there is, for example, no good old Dagger, +1. There is also no Mace, +1. All magical Maces are +2. Magic Arrows and Magic Bows are described thusly, without the plusses they posses. I like this fact, and wish there were more such examples, the Axe +1 and the Mace +2 could also simply be Magic Axe or Magic Mace, for example. Lastly, we find the Dwarf-only War Hammer +3, 6” Throwing Range with Return. This item is of nearly epic, artifact proportions in the original D&D, with but a 1% chance on this table, based on the previously established numbers, that equates to but a .0375% chance of this item resulting from a roll on the magic items table. 1 in 2,667 rolls, in other words. This chance is shared by 15 other items in this volume, so in fact these 15 entries are the rarest of rare.

The Rarest of Rare in Monsters & Treasure:

War Hammer +3, 6” Throwing Range with Return
Spear +3
Ring of Spell Storing
Ring of Many Wishes
Staff of Wizardry
Crystal Ball with ESP
Censor Controlling Air Elementals
Stone Controlling Earth Elementals
Brazier Commanding Fire Elementals
Bowl Commanding Water Elementals
Helm of Teleportation
Flying Carpet
Drums of Panic
Horn of Blasting
Mirror of Life Trapping

The above could form a decent collection of unique, singular artifacts for a D&D campaign.

“POTIONS:”

There are nine entries upon the Potions table not defined in the subsequent descriptions which follow. Most are self-explanatory, but the omitted Poison Potion is of interest to me. A footnote tells the referee that he should mislead or disguise when this item is discovered, but its effects are not detailed. I rule that this deadly item is a Save vs. Poison or die effect, but one could just as easily assign it dice of damage instead, with a Save vs. Poison for one-half damage result. Sipping a Poison Potion might further mislead a character, as Potions must be consumed wholly to take effect.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Saturday, December 13, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 28

“LARGE INSECTS OR ANIMALS: This category includes giant ants and prehistoric monsters…Hit Dice should range from 2 to anywhere near 20, let us say, for a Tyrannasaurus Rex. Also included in this group are the optionally usable “Martian” animals such as Apts, Banths, Thoats, etc. If the referee is not personally familiar with the various monsters included in this category the participants of the campaign can be polled to decide all characteristics. Damage caused by hits should range between 2-4 dice.”

A catch-all category for mundane, non-fantastical monsters. One might argue that Apts, Banths and Thoats are not mundane, but I think the gist here is that this category encompasses natural and native animal life forms. Included are of course giant versions of animals and creatures, dinosaurs, and Burroughs’ Martian creatures. I find it interesting that the suggestion is to poll the players/participants in the campaign if the referee is not familiar with the John Carter books. This is likely the only example I can think of that recommends player interaction in regard to game mechanics or details.

“OTHER MONSTERS: There is no practical limitation to the variety of monsters possible. In the campaigns associated with the play-testing of these rules there have either appeared or been postulated such creatures as:

Cyclopeses: Super-strength Giants with poor depth perception.

Juggernauts: Huge stone statues on wheels which crush anything in their path. They are motivated by some unearthly force.”

This entry basically tells the referee that any monster not detailed in the rules can be quite easily dreamt up and fleshed out, and then goes on to detail some possibilities. Cyclopeses are super-strong Giants ‘with poor depth perception’. Presumably they are even larger than Giants, and we get a smattering of Gary’s corny humor. Juggernauts are near and dear to this author, as detailed in an older post. Crush anything indeed.

“Living Statues: Various stone and metal monsters which come to life if trespass into a certain area is made. One of these monsters was iron, impervious to all weapons save two special ones he guarded, had a fiery breath, poison sword, and a whip of Cockatrice feathers which turned the thing struck by it to stone.”

Somewhere, in the deep down underneath of my own campaign, there is indeed a fire-breathing Living Statue of Iron wielding a Poison Sword and Cockatrice Feather Whip. Possibly one of the coolest monster descriptions ever.

“Geletinous Cubes: Underground creatures of near complete transparency which fit exactly the typical corridor of a dungeon…These monsters would be difficult to harm and have a large number of Hit Dice.”

It didn’t take long for this penultimate member of the Clean-Up Crew to be spelled correctly and published, as it appeared in 1976’s Supplement I, Greyhawk. While this monster became an iconic D&D fixture, it didn’t actually end up with a ‘large number of Hit Dice’, having but 4 HD! If I brew up another Solstice version based on this, it will most certainly have LARGE Hit Dice!

“Robots, Golems, Androids: Self-explanatory monsters which are totally subjective as far as characteristics are concerned.”

I can’t help but feel that this was the Arneson influence here. As Gygax ended up taking over creative direction for D&D, there was less and less of this kind of off-the-wall stuff. In fact, many fans of D&D in the years to come, as soon as I myself began playing, felt that rockets, lasers, aliens and flying saucers had no place in D&D. I disagree and enjoy seeing the stuff dreamt up by creative gamers, including things like Robots and Androids.

Next up, I move forward into the Treasure portion of Monsters & Treasure.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Friday, December 12, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 27

“OCHRE JELLY: The clean-up crew includes Ochre Jelly and similar weird monsters…hits by weaponry or lightening bolts will merely make them into several smaller Ochre Jellies…causes one die of damage per turn it is in contact with exposed flesh.”

The name Clean-Up Crew gives us an idea about the Icky-Stuff category of which Ochre Jelly is the first entry. An Ochre Jelly’s move is but 3”, and presumably it roams dungeon halls and corridors devouring flesh and bone along the way. It also destroys wood, so there might be tell-tale signs of their presence on dungeon levels. Weapons and lightning ‘make them into several smaller’ ones. Ochre Jellies have 5 Hit Dice, so I’d rule that each weapon or lightning attack causes 1 HD of the larger monster to split off. Thus after four such hits on the original monster, the Jelly would consist of five 1 HD monsters, each with 5 HD Fighting Capability, its own attack each round, and 1d6 worth of HP. Whether the small 1 HD versions can be further segmented is up to the referee…perhaps there is no real limit to the number of single HD Jellies! A referee could also simply divide by two the Jelly’s HP, and continue dividing the individual ‘segments’ as they are so struck. Perhaps the baby amoebas that survive such encounters will grow into adult 5 HD versions with time, or perhaps through osmosis the segments all join again to reform the single Jelly. Of particular note with these Clean-Up Crew monsters is the way in which its damage is described. Ochre Jelly causes one die of damage per turn to exposed flesh. This method of detailing damage leads me to believe that the Clean-Up Crew does not simply ‘attack’ characters as do other monsters.

“BLACK (or GRAY) PUDDING: Another member of the clean-up crew and nuisance monster…It is spread into smaller ones by chops or lightening bolts…cause three dice of damage to exposed flesh.”

A 10 Hit Dice ‘nuisance’ monster? Also segments into smaller versions when hit by attacks to which it is immune. Causes a whopping three dice damage to exposed flesh. Black Pudding moves at 6”.

“GREEN SLIME: A non-mobile hazard…Green Slime sticks to flesh and penetrates it in one turn, thereafter turning the flesh into Green Slime.”

Green Slime has always been one of those somewhat difficult to adjudicate encounters for me. The fact that it is non-mobile means characters must slip or fall into the stuff, or run afoul of some devious trap designed to sling, fling, drip or dump the gooey stuff in a deadly manner. Once it has contacted flesh, the victim has a single turn (round) to receive a Cure Disease spell, or he will be turned into Green Slime himself. Nasty stuff indeed! The rate at which the victim turns into slime is open to interpretation; it could be in one turn, or at a rate per round determined by the referee based on the type of exposure the victim is subjected to. Cure Disease will kill the Green Slime even after it has started devouring its host, but it does not say that it restores lost Hit Points or body parts. Also, Green Slime destroys wood and metal items which it comes into contact with. Falling into a pool of this menacing muck is any delver’s nightmare.

“GRAY OOZE: A seeping horror which closely resembles wet stone…It does two dice of damage to exposed flesh for every turn it is in contact with it.”

The slowest (1” move) and smallest (3 HD) member of the Clean-Up Crew. While it is susceptible to weaponry, based on my interpretation of the Black Pudding it corrodes metal in such a way that it will cause weapons that strike it to be destroyed the following round. This monster is difficult to detect, and could easily be walked into or over, destroying foot and leg armor, then doing two dice of damage.

“YELLOW MOLD: It attacks wood and flesh - doing one die of damage if it contacts exposed skin - but does no harm to metal or stone…its worst threat is its spores…send forth clouds of asphyxiating spores in a 1” x 1” cloud…Any creature within the spore cloud must make a saving throw as if they had been exposed to poison, and failure to make saving throws results in death for the parties concerned.”

Another non-mobile threat, the Yellow Mold is more or less a hazard and not truly a monster as it has no listed statistics whatsoever. Passing, crossing or getting through this hazard can be interesting, and it could be caked over treasure or hiding a secret door in the dungeon. The spores it releases are not actually poison, but rather a cloud of microscopic spores which have a chance to choke those exposed to death. At first I thought I had found an actual example of a monster with save or die poison, but it clearly states that the saving throw is rolled ‘as if they had been exposed to poison’, in other words, the saving throw is made using the Poison column.

In regard to the method in which damage is described for most of the Clean-Up Crew entries, I feel that these monsters do not create a pseudo-pod or actually reach out with a melee attack (Ochre Jelly perhaps being the exception). Rather, these slimes, molds, jellies and oozes deal damage when in contact with flesh. Exactly how this transpires is determined by the referee. Those mobile threats might be able to corner and envelop a target, but for the most part I think they have to be fallen into or walked over. The fact that Black Pudding is described as a nuisance monster, even though it has 10 HD, leads me to think that these monsters are unique in the way they actually deal their damage. It’s as though the Clean-Up Crew is more a less a collection of living traps roaming about the dungeon, devouring corpses and presenting obstacles that crop up from time to time to confound and waylay adventurers.

All of the above are new, unique creations not based on myth or literature, at least not that I am personally aware of. The slimes of D&D, like the later Beholders, Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks, are products of the imagination. There was certainly much, much more of this inventive material down the road from TSR, but the Clean-Up Crew was the first such example.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Monday, December 8, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 26

“INVISIBLE STALKERS: Invisible Stalkers resent missions which entail long periods of continuing service such as guarding a Magic-User for a month, a year, etc. They will then seek to fulfill the letter of their duties by perverting the spirit.”

And thus was begun a theme which is pervasive in D&D. Great power is accessible, but when dealing with otherworldly powers one must exercise respect and wariness. I believe that much of this is owed to combating ‘power gaming’ methods employed by early wargamers in the formative days of the hobby. It has influences rooted in mythology, particularly 1,001 Arabian Nights, but is also a most handy way of keeping Wishes and summoned Monsters from unbalancing the campaign. I’ve always appreciated the aspect in D&D that great power demands great caution.

“ELEMENTALS: …Device* Elementals…*Those from medallions, stones, gems or bracelets.”

If we skip ahead to the Treasure section, we see that only the stone is actually described as a magic item for controlling an Elemental. Clearly the device used to summon and control an Elemental is not limited to those described here, and could be virtually any item of value, including medallions, gems and bracelets, as mentioned.

“Air Elementals: They can turn into a whirlwind which will sweep all creatures under two hit dice away…”

Sweep away. So what does that entail? Incapacitate? Remove from the encounter? Sweep away to another plane? I like the notion of sweeping away such victims to say the Plane of Wind, but I’d assume it simply means that those under two HD are unable to get close enough to attack a whirlwinding Air Elemental; those that do engage it would be slung around and thrown away, taking 1d6 damage.

“Earth Elementals:…when they hit they score damage with three dice (3-18 points) against any opponent which rests upon the earth.”

That’s a boatload of damage. 3d6 being rarely matched in Monsters & Treasure. The short list of other Monsters with 3d6 damage is: Sea Monsters, Cloud Giants, Hydras and Chimeras (due to multiple attacks), and possibly Purple Worms and Rocs (as determined by the referee). I’d assume ‘rests upon the earth’ means stands on or is in contact with the ground, or the stone beneath the ground.

“Fire Elementals:…They score two dice of damage against all non-fire using opponents, and one die -1 (2-7 hit points of damage) against fire-using opponents.”

This typo means either 1d6-1 or 1d6+1 against fire-using opponents. I’d assume the former, with Fire Elementals dealing 0-5 damage against fellow fire-using targets.

“All elementals must be controlled at all times by the persons who have called them forth. Failure to control any elemental will result in its turning upon the one who called it up and attacking…Control consists merely of the summoner maintaining undivided attention upon the Elemental: and being attacked, moving or any other action will tend to break this concentration.”

Another example of great power demanding great caution. Yes, Elementals are powerful allies, but are truly a double-edged sword for those Magic-Users brave or fool-hardy enough to summon them. If the Magic-User is attacked, moves or takes any other action, the Elemental will turn and immediately move to slay their former master. Fun stuff, indeed.

“DJINN: All Djinn are aerial creatures and have not the powers typically credited to them in fairy tales.”

I suppose this means that Djinn are not all-powerful, nigh god-like beings as sometimes portrayed in myth and legend. They do not grant Wishes, per se, but can perform tasks based on the capabilities written in their description. Nevertheless, a powerful servant that will likewise often fulfill the letter of their duties while perverting the spirit.

“EFREET: …they tend to be Chaotic. Their fabled home is the City of Brass. They will serve for 1001 days.”

Slightly more powerful, Chaotic fire-based versions of Djinn. Efreet hail from the City of Brass. This is the only description that actually details a specific origin for the monster. Apparently unlike Djinn, who perhaps have an unlimited duration of service, Efreet will only obey a master for 1,001 days.

This post encompasses those monsters I have loosely defined as The Otherworldly. Eventually, this classification would be expanded upon to include such extra-dimensional monsters as Demons and Devils, but in Volume 2 we have just these four: Invisible Stalkers, Elementals, Djinn and Efreet. The Otherworldly are unique in that they are summoned from lands beyond by spell or magical item, and aside from the Djinn, service is limited and dangerous. Skeletons and Zombies are somewhat similar, being animated via spell, but those undead are not summoned from another plane of existence. While it is possible that any of these could be included in a D&D adventure, independent of a Magic-User or controlling magic item, I prefer to think of them as infrequent visitors to this world.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee

Friday, December 5, 2008

D&D Cover to Cover, part 25

“PURPLE WORMS: These huge and hungry monsters lurk nearly everywhere just beneath the surface of the land…There is a poisonous sting at its tail, but its mouth is the more fearsome weapon…Any hit which scores over 20% of the minimum total required to hit, or 100% in any case, indicates the Purple Worm has swallowed its victim. In six turns the swallowed creature will be dead. In twelve turns it will be totally digested and irrevocable.”

Purple Worms “lurk everywhere just beneath the surface”. That’s a scary notion. As mentioned earlier, I house rule that the Purple Worm’s sting delivers a 15d6, save for one-half damage poison (others might assume it is instead equal to the Monster’s hits in damage). It could just as easily be judged to be of the save or die variety, even though there is no precedence for such poison in these volumes. Based on sheer mass, one might also rule that the Purple Worm’s bite does more than 1d6 damage; perhaps in the 3d6 range. The whole 20% or 100% over business translates to 4 over or double the number required on a d20 roll to hit. Lastly, the referee will have to determine if the digestion times, given in turns, refer to move/turns or melee turns (rounds). I’d assume melee turns, but again, that’s a judgment call.

“CENTAURS: In Melee the Centaur will attack twice, once as a man and once as a medium horse.”

So, Hydras, Chimera and Centaurs are examples of Monsters which attack more than once per round then. Unless the above is simply assumed to be for rolling dice under the CHAINMAIL rules, but at different values. As I use the Alternative Combat System, I’ll let Centaurs attack twice; once with a weapon, and once with its hooves.

“DRYADS: Anyone charmed by a Dryad will never return from the forest.”

Never. Potentially worse than a save or die scenario. I’d probably rule that there is a small window of opportunity for a Dispell Magic to prevent the effects if utilized quickly enough by allies of the bewitched character. Future adventures might be undertaken to find and rescue such victims, if the referee allowed it.

“DWARVES: …clumsy monsters like Ogres, Giants and the like will have a difficult time hitting Dwarves, so only score one-half the usual hit points when a hit is scored.”

This is an important tidbit for Dwarf characters, but could also be reserved for NPC Dwarves. Personally I have ruled that this applies to all Dwarves. How to determine which Monsters are ‘clumsy’? The examples given are Ogres and Giants. Any Monster akin to one of those two examples might be considered ‘clumsy’, or slow moving. Trolls? I’m not so sure, even though they are virtually synonymous with Ogres in CHAINMAIL, they are ‘thin and rubbery’ in this very volume. Purely a judgment call, but I’d also consider including Trolls and Minotaurs.

“ELVES: Elves have the ability of moving silently and are nearly invisible in their gray-green cloaks. Elves armed with magical weapons will add one pip to dice rolled to determine damage…Elves on foot may split-move and fire.”

The first two abilities for the Elf might at first blush seem too potent to be applicable to player characters. If you break down the abilities, I think they are valid character features. Elves ‘have the ability of’ might mean ‘have the ability to’ move silently. But, don’t all characters possess the latter? Thus I assume that Elves are lighter of foot than most. My judgment is that Elves can move silently when they put forth the effort; perhaps moving at one quarter normal speed, or even slower, or perhaps only when unarmored and moving very slowly. The next, ‘nearly invisible’ does not mean totally invisible. First of all, we know the limitations of total invisibility already, and it does not equate to imperceptibility. I’d judge that Elves are very good at hiding, particularly outdoors. All Elves deal +1 damage when wielding a magical weapon; fair enough. Lastly, split-move and fire is more or less a tactical, CHAINMAIL type concern. How it translates to a game in which the Alternative Combat System is used is up to the referee. The abstract nature of the Alternative Combat System does not really take into account the nature of such abilities. Perhaps it means that Elves can always create enough room during a melee turn to effectively fire a missile weapon, rather than being forced to change to a melee weapon. Given the fact that missile weapons fire at +2 to hit at short range, I’d say this is potentially a powerful ability.

“ROCS: …the data given for Rocs is understood to be that for the small variety, and that for the largest Rocs should be doubled or even trebled…Young Rocs can be tamed and taught to serve as steeds.”

Aside from the ‘more for show’ Sea Monsters (which can range from 15 to 45 HD), Rocs are the largest Monsters in Monsters & Treasure, ranging from 6 to 18 HD. Although they can be taught to serve as steeds, if captured as young fledglings, Rocs require a substantial amount of food and care. The prospect of such a mount might certainly encourage characters to seek out Roc nests ‘high in the most inaccessible mountains’.

~Sham, Quixotic Referee