Let's Read the AD&D 1 Rulebooks!

[Verte]

So, to be clear, I have read the AD&D 1 rulebooks before, but not from cover-to-cover in consecutive order, and not in a while. I'm pretty sure there is information I never read thoroughly or don't remember accurately. I grew up with AD&D 1 and it's always been what conceptualize D&D as being. Lately, I've had an urge to run an AD&D campaign, which pretty much requires having a more sophisticated understanding of the system. Plus, there's my nostalgia for AD&D and my dissatisfaction with D&D 3.5 motivating my desire to thoroughly reread all of the AD&D 1 stuff I can access.* I plan to start with the Dungeon Masters Guide, move on to the Players Handbook, and from there read the Monster Manual, the Fiend Folio, and the Monster Manual II.

The Dungeon Masters Guide - Cover, Foreword, Preface, and Introduction

I have the reprinting with an orange spine and Jeff Easley's cover art that depicts a robed figure opening a pair of golden doors that lead to a landscape lined with all sorts of snarling monsters. I used to think the robed figure - the proverbial antagonistic DM, I guess - was really sinister, and I still think it's a really awesome, foreboding piece. Of course, nostalgia may be speaking here, since I never owned the original version with cover art by David Sutherland III. Anyway, onwards to the book's insides.

On the title page there's Darlene Pekul's drawing of a unicorn - while very atmospheric, I never really understood why it was placed there instead of anywhere else in the book. There's a nice foreword by Mike Carr in which he asks "is Dungeon Mastering an art or a science?" It's very effusive, positive, and encouraging.

After skimming over the detailed table of contents, I skip over to Gary Gygax's Preface. Some interesting notes are the fact that he admonished the DM to keep the book out of the players' hands, both at the beginning of the Preface, e.g. "What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee" and near the end of it: "As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it something less than worthy of honorable death". Other ideas seem less dated and more applicable to modern campaigns. Mostly this preface emphasizes the fact that each campaign will differ depending on the participants, hopefully changing and growing for the better. It also emphasizes the view that the campaign has to be built on the framework of the rules and that all of those rules are there for a reason. Considering how many house-rules people added on to the game, I think mainly the first point was taken to heart, not so much the second.

Onwards to the Introduction, which begins with the following statement: "The format of this book is simple and straightforward." For the most part, the introduction briefly lists the contents of the book, and then expounds on the design philosophy behind it. Finally, there is further advice to thoroughly understand the game before running it in order to be able to alter certain rules effectively (the example in this case is a DM who gets rid of wandering monster roles when the campaign already has many dangers and the players are being careful). It ends by welcoming the reader to "the exalted ranks of the overworked and harassed" and assuring them they will "have to prove in every game that [they] are still the best".

Anyway, those are my current impressions of the very beginning of the DMG. Soon enough I'll continue onwards.

*Mostly I'm just tired of D&D 3.5. It's not like I actively dislike it, or haven't had fun with it, but more like I am not really motivated to explore it anymore.

[Rhynn]

Once you finish with AD&D 1E, you should move on to the OD&D books. Now that is a weird and wonderful ride, and one that you can seemingly repeat over and over and always discover new things, or interpret something differently... :smallcool: Not that that's not true of the AD&D 1E books - they're also full of odd discoveries.

[hamlet]

Yeah, despite your system preference, those books are just flat out good reading.

Here's a question: why aren't you including the Unearthed Arcana in your list of rereads? It had some really good stuff in it, though the DM obviously has to filter out the chaff.

[Verte]

Mostly it's just that I don't have a copy of Unearthed Arcana at this point, whereas I have all of the books I listed. The same goes for OD&D, which I'm very interested in reading. I've read through some of the Swords & Wizardry retro-clone of the White Box, which gives me an idea of the rules, but that's just not the same. 'Course, who knows where I'll be at when I've finished revisiting the AD&D core books?

[Rhynn]

the Swords & Wizardry retro-clone of the White Box, which gives me an idea of the rules

The very fact that it does means it's nothing like reading the OD&D books. Any OD&D retroclone has done a lot of piecing together and clarifying to even have a "ready to go" set of rules. OD&D itself has to be cobbled together, with a lot of decisions/rulings from the DM. :smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

The very fact that it does means it's nothing like reading the OD&D books. Any OD&D retroclone has done a lot of piecing together and clarifying to even have a "ready to go" set of rules. OD&D itself has to be cobbled together, with a lot of decisions/rulings from the DM. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it was basically illegible in a lot of ways. Great game with a good, strong DM, but unless you had somebody to really help you through it, learning how to play was frustrating and infuriating.

AD&D was created specifically to provide a "unified system" under which tournaments could be held. It stuck better than the little brown books did, so it ended up being the de facto system of D&D for a long time despite the greatness of the Basic/Exper, and BECMI lines, which are still great to play.


Mostly it's just that I don't have a copy of Unearthed Arcana at this point, whereas I have all of the books I listed. The same goes for OD&D, which I'm very interested in reading. I've read through some of the Swords & Wizardry retro-clone of the White Box, which gives me an idea of the rules, but that's just not the same. 'Course, who knows where I'll be at when I've finished revisiting the AD&D core books?

Ah, I see. I sometimes forget that not everybody has everything like a mad packrat like I do.

You should, at some point when you have spare cash on hand, acquire a copy. Not because it's essential to the game or anything like that, but it's got a lot of interesting ideas in it. A lot of it is half baked, but with a bit of judicious work and some intelligent forethought, a lot of it can be very usefull. To say the least, the magic items, spells, weapon specialization rules, etc., are really quite nice. Just ignore the Barbarian and the Cavalier garbage and you're in.:smallsmile:

[Sylthia]

I like how the AD&D Monster Manuel thinks that 300 orcs would make for a good encounter. I think Boromir would disagree.

[Rhynn]

I like how the AD&D Monster Manuel thinks that 300 orcs would make for a good encounter. I think Boromir would disagree.

That's stinkin' late-2E/3E thinkin'.

300 orcs isn't an "encounter" in the dull, linear sense of "here, fight this." It's an encounter in the sense of "this hex contains a monster lair, e.g. an orc village."

The "% in lair" roll is essential for creating settings, because it becomes a feature. Now the hex this encounter was rolled in contains a monster lair. The PCs can do whatever they want about it.

The Monster Manua was written very deliberately, but modern players often lack the context to really understand it.

[Twilight Jack]

I like how the AD&D Monster Manuel thinks that 300 orcs would make for a good encounter. I think Boromir would disagree.

One of the biggest differences between AD&D 1e and later editions is in the very notion of a "good" encounter. In Gygax's AD&D, three hundred orcs is just something that happens. Pray to whatever gods you serve that it never happens to you.

[Rhynn]

One of the biggest differences between AD&D 1e and later editions is in the very notion of a "good" encounter. In Gygax's AD&D, three hundred orcs is just something that happens. Pray to whatever gods you serve that it never happens to you.

That's not actually the case, though...

The differences between wilderness and dungeon adventures are pretty critical.

Edit: Incidentally, the 2E Monstrous Manual (the revised 2E's compilation and re-edit of the Monstrous Compendiums) still has the orcs' No. Appearing at 30-300.

[hamlet]

That's not actually the case, though...

The differences between wilderness and dungeon adventures are pretty critical.

You're both right. Yes, 300 orcs were probably a big village or huge stronghold. But every now and then, a wandering encounter with 300 orcs might conceivably happen, in which case, just run might be the only option.

Those "No. Appearing" lines were really there for the random generation of things to fill your own dungeons/wilderness design and the DM had better damned well come up with a reason why all those orcs are there and to find a way to make sure it's not just a party instant kill.

[Rhynn]

You're both right. Yes, 300 orcs were probably a big village or huge stronghold. But every now and then, a wandering encounter with 300 orcs might conceivably happen, in which case, just run might be the only option.

Those "No. Appearing" lines were really there for the random generation of things to fill your own dungeons/wilderness design and the DM had better damned well come up with a reason why all those orcs are there and to find a way to make sure it's not just a party instant kill.

Actually, "No. Appearing" is explicitly not to be used for dungeons, isn't it?

And you need a pretty dense DM to just go "oh, 300 orcs jump out at you." If an orc horde or tribute caravan is encountered, you have to actually... depict it in a way that makes sense. "You see dust rising in the distance, and hear the chant and drums of an orc band on the move" or whatever.

[Twilight Jack]

That's not actually the case, though...

The differences between wilderness and dungeon adventures are pretty critical.

Edit: Incidentally, the 2E Monstrous Manual (the revised 2E's compilation and re-edit of the Monstrous Compendiums) still has the orcs' No. Appearing at 30-300.

Your clarification is correct, of course. I recognize that an orc encounter in the middle of a dungeon was never intended to constitute 30d10 of the buggers. I was being deliberately glib to make a point about the difference in design philosophy.

[Elderand]

A great way to look at difference in design philosophy is to look at identical spell under adnd and 3.5

Haste which takes years of your life, a not insignificant chance of teleporting outright killing you....

[Rhynn]

I personally think one of the best examples of the change in philosophy is the complete lack of hexmaps in AD&D 2E (and, obviously, 3E and 4E). Obviously, Forgotten Realms 1E started that already.

[Sylthia]

A great way to look at difference in design philosophy is to look at identical spell under adnd and 3.5

Haste which takes years of your life, a not insignificant chance of teleporting outright killing you....

Didn't they have a youthening spell to counteract the effects of Haste?

[Lord Torath]

Nope. They had a Potion of Longevity which removed 1d12 years of aging, but each one of those you drank after the first had a cumulative 1% chance of reversing all the aging the potions have removed.

There was also an Elixer of Youth which made you 1d4+1 years younger, unless you took a quick sip first to determine what the potion was (the by-the-rules approved method of determining the contents of a potion), in which case you only got 1d3 years of youthening. (Edit: This wasn't in the DMG, but in Unearthed Arcana. It bugs me how so many of the treasures seem to punish you for being cautious. You have no idea what this potion does, but if you want it to have full effect, you must chug it completely. Even if it's a potentially useful potion, you've just squandered a Potion of Giant Control if there aren't any giants around!)

And, of course, the availability of the potions was entirely dependent on the whims of your DM.

[Rhynn]

And, of course, the availability of the potions was entirely dependent on the whims of your DM.

Yeah, that's way too common in 1E (and some early 2E material), whether it's Gary Gygax or not. Ed Greenwood's Undermountain is full of traps and tricks specifically designed to screw with experienced adventurers, and it just feels entirely unnecessary. Why would you punish players for playing smart? Gah.


And, of course, the availability of the potions was entirely dependent on the whims of your DM.

I completely expect players to want to create elixirs of youth, which I think is a great way to bleed out their money and keep them adventuring for rare components. Lucky the 1E/2E magic item creation rules are pretty much "the DM will make something up."

[Sylthia]

Yeah, that's way too common in 1E (and some early 2E material), whether it's Gary Gygax or not. Ed Greenwood's Undermountain is full of traps and tricks specifically designed to screw with experienced adventurers, and it just feels entirely unnecessary. Why would you punish players for playing smart? Gah.

I never did reach level 2 in a 1st ed game. It's like a game of Grape Escape, you know you're going to die horribly, it's just a matter of when.

[Jay R]

I never did reach level 2 in a 1st ed game. It's like a game of Grape Escape, you know you're going to die horribly, it's just a matter of when.

No. You know it's possible that you will die, so you actually play cautiously, and don't attack everything you meet. For instance:

One of the biggest differences between AD&D 1e and later editions is in the very notion of a "good" encounter. In Gygax's AD&D, three hundred orcs is just something that happens. Pray to whatever gods you serve that it never happens to you.

This is a good encounter. It's clear that you cannot face them straight up, so you might send the thief sneaking into their encampment to search, or sneak away, or try diplomacy skills, or lead them to the nearby dragon you found, so he'll be busy killing orcs while you loot his lair.

I once talked a small horde of goblins into attacking a few ogres with me. This got all the goblins in a ten foot wide corridor sixty feet long, which is the size and shape of a Lightning Bolt.

Once you recognize that an encounter is a situation with many possible approaches, instead of simply the next designated fight, you can role-play more than combat.

[Sylthia]

No. You know it's possible that you will die, so you actually play cautiously, and don't attack everything you meet.

Maybe that's the intention, but 1st ed has a reputation as a meat grinder for a reason.

[Lvl45DM!]

Maybe that's the intention, but 1st ed has a reputation as a meat grinder for a reason.

I've never played anything BUT 1st ED so dunno how it compares. But damn, as a DM its frigging IMPOSSIBLE to kill party members! Bastards always have SOMEONE who makes their perception, they always make their saves. We've got lots of parties playing the same campaign and i made a dungeon SPECIFICALLY to kill off a party. 6 levels of stronger and stronger monsters. Got most of em but the party wizard managed to kill the shoggoth with bloody darts!

[hamlet]

Maybe that's the intention, but 1st ed has a reputation as a meat grinder for a reason.

A reputation among whom? I've played it for most of my life, pretty much since I was old enough to throw dice. Never felt that way to me, really, except with the odd bad DM who quickly learned that players can just walk out of the room.

It might be that that reputation was fostered by WOTC in order to sell copy of their "new and improved" games and the effort they spent on convincing us how little fun we were actually having playing those old crappy versions back in the day.

Yes, an AD&D character is comparitively frail, especially at first level, when stacked up against a 3.x character or the immortal 4e characters. But really, that meant you had to be a good player. You had to be clever, thoughtful, and learn to reign in your own stupidity and impulses. Combat was not the preferred method of problem resolution. You gained tremendously more experience from gaining treasure than killing monsters and generally with significantly less risk. And, hell, it makes for better stories if you tricked a horde of 300 orcs on a raid to help you clear out a bigger problem instead, simultaneously thinning their ranks dramatically so that they can be handled by the local militia and then raiding their lair for all the loot unmolested.

Essentially, that reputation of AD&D as a killer game is based on ignorance.



EDIT: Also, for clarity's sake, the actual wording of the No. Appearing line in the original MM:


NUMBER APPEARING indicates a good average spread.
This number is furnished as a guideline only, and it should
be altered to suit the circumstances particular to any
adventure as the need arises. It is not generally
recommended for use in establishing the population of
dungeon levels.

[Rhynn]

Essentially, that reputation of AD&D as a killer game is based on ignorance.

I agree with almost everything you said, though I'm willing to allow that AD&D 1E may have had 3% "killer GMs" compared to 2E's 2% and 3E's 1%, and that this was slightly facilitated by the books reflecting the development of gamer culture. (I think the changes weren't generally entirely handed down from on high, and even the original Dragonlance modules reflected trends already in evidence.)

Oddly, I never hear about killer GMs in BECMI... :smallconfused:


immortal 4e characters

But this I kinda disagree with, On our first (and only) test run of 4E, I quickly killed all 3 PCs with a perfectly XP-value-calibrated "appropriate encounter" (for 3 PCs) of goblins. :smallamused: No dirty tactics or weird tricks, either, just straight-up tank-and-spank.

(Obviously, though, 4E characters are much hardier.)

To me, the real difference between the editions is the emphasis placed on combat as a purpose unto itself. This started with Combat & Tactics, to me. Then 3E went whole hog on the late 2E attitude of "adventures are a series of combat encounters," and 4E just went absolutely crazy on it. It's very easy to tell how much more combat-focused the games got by looking at the amount of rules constructs (feats, spells, rules, maneuvers, powers, etc.) devoted to combat.

The most important single point in this difference of philosophy, to me, is the "XP for GP" rule that 2E turned into an optional rule so skillfully buried at the end of a paragraph of characteristically bad prose that most people who played 2E seem to honestly think the rule was entirely gone.

"XP for GP" meant that, in 1E, you got more XP for bringing back the dragon's hoard than for killing the dragon. Possibly two, three times as much. Dungeons would have, say, 5,000 XP worth of monsters and 20,000 XP worth of treasure. (In fact, a 1:4 ratio is recommended, AFAIR.)

The result was that combat, being dangerous, deadly, and unpredictable - especially at low levels - was the last option. The first option was sneaking, the second was trickery, the third was negotiation (or intimidation, or bluffing), and the fourth and fifth (in whichever order) were combat and fleeing.

AD&D 1E was, "played straight," not a game of great heroes doing great things (although DL certainly pushed this point), but a game of professional tomb-robbers seeking gold and glory, and often doing some good while at it.

[Jay R]

Maybe that's the intention, but 1st ed has a reputation as a meat grinder for a reason.

It does now, yes. But it didn't when it was the primary game.

That reputation comes from people who learned to play in a world with CR, who assume that they should be able to defeat any encounter with combat.

Playing 1E like you play 3E or 4E is as inappropriate as going into a fist fight thinking it's a game of tag.


A reputation among whom?

Among modern gamers, who are very different from early gamers. For the first few years I played, all D&D players were strategy game players and voracious readers of fantasy. This meant several things:

1. Strategy games are PvP. They expected to lose games unless they played well.
2. Fantasy readers knew lots of stories, and expected to have to flee from overwhelming foes, like Frodo did, like Conan did, like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser did. The assumption was that the foes were often too powerful to face head on, so the heroes had to sneak into Mordor or a castle, and achieve their goals by stealth.

I remember one player stating that an encounter we could easily defeat in straight-up melee was just a waste of time.


Essentially, that reputation of AD&D as a killer game is based on ignorance.

Not quite. It's based on two facts.

1. Gygax did write killer dungeons. But the Tomb of Elemental Evil was always considered different from most dungeons. That's why it's well known.
2. There was no CR. People who assume that there will never be an encounter stronger than them will attack anyone they meet. That action will kill the party in short order. But it's not because the game is a killer; it's because the action was stupid for that game.

The proof of the pudding is the 300 orcs we've been discussing. By 3E or 4E standards, that's a killer encounter, because the PCs don't have the force to defeat it directly by themselves. By 1E standards, that's a situation in the world, and the players need to decide how to handle it, considering options such as fleeing, sneaking around them, trying to confuse them, leading them into a trap, or going and telling the local baron that they are coming.

But if a player has been taught that all encounters will have a proper CR, then he or she has been trained to lose to this encounter. That's not anybody's fault - the player simply hasn't learned to play that game.

[hamlet]

It does now, yes. But it didn't when it was the primary game.

That reputation comes from people who learned to play in a world with CR, who assume that they should be able to defeat any encounter with combat.

Playing 1E like you play 3E or 4E is as inappropriate as going into a fist fight thinking it's a game of tag.



Among modern gamers, who are very different from early gamers. For the first few years I played, all D&D players were strategy game players and voracious readers of fantasy. This meant several things:

1. Strategy games are PvP. They expected to lose games unless they played well.
2. Fantasy readers knew lots of stories, and expected to have to flee from overwhelming foes, like Frodo did, like Conan did, like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser did. The assumption was that the foes were often too powerful to face head on, so the heroes had to sneak into Mordor or a castle, and achieve their goals by stealth.

I remember one player stating that an encounter we could easily defeat in straight-up melee was just a waste of time.



Not quite. It's based on two facts.

1. Gygax did write killer dungeons. But the Tomb of Elemental Evil was always considered different from most dungeons. That's why it's well known.
2. There was no CR. People who assume that there will never be an encounter stronger than them will attack anyone they meet. That action will kill the party in short order. But it's not because the game is a killer; it's because the action was stupid for that game.

The proof of the pudding is the 300 orcs we've been discussing. By 3E or 4E standards, that's a killer encounter, because the PCs don't have the force to defeat it directly by themselves. By 1E standards, that's a situation in the world, and the players need to decide how to handle it, considering options such as fleeing, sneaking around them, trying to confuse them, leading them into a trap, or going and telling the local baron that they are coming.

But if a player has been taught that all encounters will have a proper CR, then he or she has been trained to lose to this encounter. That's not anybody's fault - the player simply hasn't learned to play that game.

Except you're missing the point of the 300 orcs. The 300 orcs aren't just an encounter. It's not a random "and something leaps from the underbrush to attack you" kind of thing. It's specifically and explicitely about stocking the dungeon/wilderness. It's something the DM rolls up in advance while creating the realm in which the players will be adventuring. It also, in the same paragraph I quoted above, goes on to explain in explicit terms that it's the DM's duty to make it make sense and to play fair.

Then, if you go and read the DMG about random encounters, you'll notice something else. See page 174 - 176 or so. Literally, random encounters were a different animal. The numbers encountered on those charts are significantly smaller. Couldn't find Orc, but only 2-7 bugbears instead of 6-36.

The numbers in the Monster Manual are explicitely about dungeon stocking and world building. Random encounters were the purview of the DM and he was expected to tailer them to a number of circumstances including location, party level, situation, etc.

But, again, that would imply that you've actually read the rules.

[Lord Torath]

But, again, that would imply that you've actually read the rules.Which is, after all, what this thread is about. :smalltongue:

[hamlet]

Which is, after all, what this thread is about. :smalltongue:

Yes, sorry about that.

Nervous twitch.:smallamused:

[Sylthia]

Except you're missing the point of the 300 orcs. The 300 orcs aren't just an encounter. It's not a random "and something leaps from the underbrush to attack you" kind of thing. It's specifically and explicitely about stocking the dungeon/wilderness. It's something the DM rolls up in advance while creating the realm in which the players will be adventuring. It also, in the same paragraph I quoted above, goes on to explain in explicit terms that it's the DM's duty to make it make sense and to play fair.

Then, if you go and read the DMG about random encounters, you'll notice something else. See page 174 - 176 or so. Literally, random encounters were a different animal. The numbers encountered on those charts are significantly smaller. Couldn't find Orc, but only 2-7 bugbears instead of 6-36.

The numbers in the Monster Manual are explicitely about dungeon stocking and world building. Random encounters were the purview of the DM and he was expected to tailer them to a number of circumstances including location, party level, situation, etc.

But, again, that would imply that you've actually read the rules.

One would expect something in the actual monster entry for a suggested number to meet in dungeons as well.

Fight, flee, etc. does not have to be fight everything you meet, but it's not unreasonable to expect a reasonable chance of success in a significant percentage of encounters. I've had plenty of encounters as both a player and a DM where the party decided to flee or use diplomacy. Often the party would try diplomacy or stealth first, but if someone fails their roll, combat should be hard, but not an automatic TPK.

[hamlet]

One would expect something in the actual monster entry for a suggested number to meet in dungeons as well.

Fight, flee, etc. does not have to be fight everything you meet, but it's not unreasonable to expect a reasonable chance of success in a significant percentage of encounters. I've had plenty of encounters as both a player and a DM where the party decided to flee or use diplomacy. Often the party would try diplomacy or stealth first, but if someone fails their roll, combat should be hard, but not an automatic TPK.

Well, first off, nobody's arguing that the books are very well edited. They're not. Hell, I read them frequently and discover new things in them all the time.

Second, you're again laboring under the idea of an "appropriate encounter." There's really no such thing in AD&D. Just encounters. Nor encounter types either. And there really aren't "rolls" for social interaction. You're human and realistically you can handle that all on your own.

[Rhynn]

One would expect something in the actual monster entry for a suggested number to meet in dungeons as well.

Why? That depends on the dungeon, surely? And the dungeon level, more importantly. That's why the suggested numbers to encounter in dungeons are on the Monster Level Tables in the DMG Appendix C.


Second, you're again laboring under the idea of an "appropriate encounter." There's really no such thing in AD&D. Just encounters. Nor encounter types either. And there really aren't "rolls" for social interaction. You're human and realistically you can handle that all on your own.

Yup, this.

The change came at some point during 2E, I think. Adventures became linear trudges from combat to exposition scene to combat. Even the ones that should have been location-based (Undermountain II, Ruins of Myth Drannor).

[Jay R]

Except you're missing the point of the 300 orcs. The 300 orcs aren't just an encounter. It's not a random "and something leaps from the underbrush to attack you" kind of thing. It's specifically and explicitely about stocking the dungeon/wilderness. It's something the DM rolls up in advance while creating the realm in which the players will be adventuring. It also, in the same paragraph I quoted above, goes on to explain in explicit terms that it's the DM's duty to make it make sense and to play fair.

Then, if you go and read the DMG about random encounters, you'll notice something else. See page 174 - 176 or so. Literally, random encounters were a different animal. The numbers encountered on those charts are significantly smaller. Couldn't find Orc, but only 2-7 bugbears instead of 6-36.

The numbers in the Monster Manual are explicitely about dungeon stocking and world building. Random encounters were the purview of the DM and he was expected to tailer them to a number of circumstances including location, party level, situation, etc.

But, again, that would imply that you've actually read the rules.

I have. When they came out. (My DMG is signed by Gygax, the month it came out in 1979.)

But you're mistaken if you think that's the original source of the number 30-300. That's the same number from original D&D, which came out in 1974, and which I first read in 1975 (Monsters and Treasures, p. 3).

You are quite correct that that's the number found in their lair - in a village or cavern complex. Random encounters were designed by the DM, not by the book.

What made you think I missed that? It simply didn't need to be brought up in my post. But of course the fact that it is a village makes it much easier to flee or sneak around them, as I suggested.

[angry_bear]

From what I understand, an encounter in a game like AD&D or Hackmaster (Adapted from 1st Ed rules, and honestly the way that it should have been adapted in the first place rather than 2nd Edition imo) isn't necessarily a combat situation, so much as, well, an encounter.

You come across a dragon in the forest, it doesn't mean that you have to fight the dragon, it means you either have to run like hell, or find out what that dragon is doing there. Maybe a band of orcs stole it's treasure and it's looking for them. Play your cards right, and maybe it will want to recruit the party to find it's missing treasure, and in exchange it'll give you a cut. To my understanding, an encounter in 1st Ed is supposed to be used to enhance the story, which doesn't automatically mean "Time to draw your weapons and fight," It can also mean an adventure hook, or even just a weird occurrence for the party that leads nowhere...

[Rhynn]

From what I understand, an encounter in a game like AD&D or Hackmaster (Adapted from 1st Ed rules, and honestly the way that it should have been adapted in the first place rather than 2nd Edition imo) isn't necessarily a combat situation, so much as, well, an encounter.

Theoretically, every encounter is supposed to start with a reaction roll. Those orcs may be perfectly friendly to you. Of course, the DM may just says "nah, the orcs are hungry and attack." But the tables are there.

Obviously, a lot of people did play any particular edition of D&D as a hackfest, but that's a choice.

[Lvl45DM!]

Theoretically, every encounter is supposed to start with a reaction roll. Those orcs may be perfectly friendly to you. Of course, the DM may just says "nah, the orcs are hungry and attack." But the tables are there.

Obviously, a lot of people did play any particular edition of D&D as a hackfest, but that's a choice.

Reaction rolls took the fun out of it though.. we only used reaction rolls for the kids who wanted to play charming people but couldn't pull it off.

[Rhynn]

Reaction rolls took the fun out of it though.. we only used reaction rolls for the kids who wanted to play charming people but couldn't pull it off.

Well, it's not that you have to roll, but their existence should give DMs a pretty clear idea of the range of options for the players encountering even your basic 2d6 orcs or goblins. It doesn't mean "2d6 orcs attack you"...

[Lvl45DM!]

Well, it's not that you have to roll, but their existence should give DMs a pretty clear idea of the range of options for the players encountering even your basic 2d6 orcs or goblins. It doesn't mean "2d6 orcs attack you"...

Yeah I never saw it like that before. Fair point. I have one DM at the moment who is really obtuse with his orcs, they are always vicious stupid evil. I'm playing a half-orc and would love the chance to roleplay occasionally to avoid fighting them. Never happens. Which makes me sad.

[Jay R]

Yeah I never saw it like that before. Fair point. I have one DM at the moment who is really obtuse with his orcs, they are always vicious stupid evil. I'm playing a half-orc and would love the chance to roleplay occasionally to avoid fighting them. Never happens. Which makes me sad.

Well, don't make it easy for him. You could choose to fight on the side of your relatives.

Or perhaps the next time you see orcs, ask, "Is Uncle Bob there? I miss Uncle Bob."

[thirdkingdom]

From what I understand, an encounter in a game like AD&D or Hackmaster (Adapted from 1st Ed rules, and honestly the way that it should have been adapted in the first place rather than 2nd Edition imo) isn't necessarily a combat situation, so much as, well, an encounter.

You come across a dragon in the forest, it doesn't mean that you have to fight the dragon, it means you either have to run like hell, or find out what that dragon is doing there. Maybe a band of orcs stole it's treasure and it's looking for them. Play your cards right, and maybe it will want to recruit the party to find it's missing treasure, and in exchange it'll give you a cut. To my understanding, an encounter in 1st Ed is supposed to be used to enhance the story, which doesn't automatically mean "Time to draw your weapons and fight," It can also mean an adventure hook, or even just a weird occurrence for the party that leads nowhere...

This. I love random encounters, 'cause they're just plot hooks ready to happen. You roll up a random encounter, then roll up the percentage in lair. If they're not encountered in the lair I roll another %. 1-50 indicates the lair is somewhere in the current hex. 51-75 means the lair is in an adjacent hex, and 76+ the lair is somewhere else. About half the time the lair itself will be a dungeon in its own right.

Reaction rolls are also critical, I feel, and add a lot to the game. Encounters are not "balanced" in older editions, and reaction rolls are one way for PCs to escape death in the dangerous wilderness. The party encounters a hydra? Roll. Eh, the hydra's not hungry right now.

[Terraoblivion]

There's one thing I never really understood about the spells in AD&D...How does anybody survive long enough to master haste or teleport? Unless you assume that a wizard just needs to have reference materials on hand to cast their spells and never actually practice it, chances seem to be good that they'd be dead by the time they knew how to cast them. And that doesn't even get into the question of how the people developing said spells surviving until they managed to create a version stable enough to use at all. It seems oddly illogical that these spells would stick around in a magic system based on learned, repeatable skill rather than divine gift, inner power or similar.

The whole discussion about encounters is rather baffling to me as well, actually, mostly because it seems to exist in a vacuum where the only options are old school D&D and modern D&D and nothing else. It comes off kinda weird when you're more used to systems like WoD, Mutants and Masterminds or Legends of the Wulin where such a thing as a random encounter is a complete nonsequitor. Both positions just come off as valid, just as means to different ends and among many possible ends and possible means to said ends, rather than something you can really have a meaningful discussion about what is the right or the wrong way about.

[Rhynn]

How does anybody survive long enough to master haste or teleport? Unless you assume that a wizard just needs to have reference materials on hand to cast their spells and never actually practice it, chances seem to be good that they'd be dead by the time they knew how to cast them.

Where are you getting this idea? Nothing in any edition of D&D suggests to me that you practice spells. And doesn't 3.X have a considerably more thorny problem with spells that have XP costs?

D&D wizards learn spells by researching and studying, not by practicing them.


The whole discussion about encounters is rather baffling to me as well, actually, mostly because it seems to exist in a vacuum where the only options are old school D&D and modern D&D and nothing else. It comes off kinda weird when you're more used to systems like WoD, Mutants and Masterminds or Legends of the Wulin where such a thing as a random encounter is a complete nonsequitor.

Old D&D is very simulationist: you have a world (in the beginning, it may only consist of a dungeon and a town) and the players generally get to do what they want within that world. Random encounters are pretty essential.

[thirdkingdom]

Randomness itself is pretty essential. I try and rely as much as possible on die rolls and build a story from the results as opposed to going in with a set plan.

[Rhynn]

Randomness itself is pretty essential. I try and rely as much as possible on die rolls and build a story from the results as opposed to going in with a set plan.

One of my favorite parts of the OSR blogosphere are the crazy awesome random tables.

Some of my favorites...
100 NPCs (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/100-npcs-table.html) and 100 Plots (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/compiled-100-random-adventure-plots.html) over at Planet Algol. And by golly, when you roll "a terrible howling storm of acid and radiation lashes the land driving all into shelters where they must contend with cannibalistic madness," you go with it! (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/live-by-random-tabledie-by-random-table.html)

The aftermath of battle (http://middenmurk.blogspot.fi/2013/04/aftermath.html) at Middernmurk. Just the names of the troops are awesome. Palatine Gonfaloniers, Pestilential Goatherds, Armigerent Protodeacon... that poor, poor Armigerent Protodeacon.

One die roll and one sentence out of a 100 can turn into a great encounter or even a full session of awesome play.

[Terraoblivion]

Where are you getting this idea? Nothing in any edition of D&D suggests to me that you practice spells. And doesn't 3.X have a considerably more thorny problem with spells that have XP costs?

D&D wizards learn spells by researching and studying, not by practicing them.

How does research and study contrast with practice? I mean, when I started studying history I had a year of classes in historical methodology, followed by a year of scientific theory of the field, with all my other classes including papers aimed at training specific skills in how to research history. Not just that, when doing research, even in fields that reside purely in verbal form, you need several attempts to get it right. In science, you generally need to attempt an experiment several times before managing to set it up properly and account for sources of error. It's really just about the same with any learned skill. There is also the question of what kind of code can encode information on how to perform a spell so perfectly that you don't need some attempts to pull it off correctly. No human language achieves that degree of accuracy and the prevalence of bugs in computer programs rather indicates that programming languages aren't quite that clear either.

So unless spells magically implant themselves in your mind and guide your hands, mouth and whatever other parts of your body are necessary, some element of practice is pretty much required. It also doesn't eliminate the question of what exactly it is apprentices do and how mages get better if their research is wholly divorced from effort aimed at improving skills. I'm also still not sure how somebody would develop a spell without ever testing if they got it right.


Old D&D is very simulationist: you have a world (in the beginning, it may only consist of a dungeon and a town) and the players generally get to do what they want within that world. Random encounters are pretty essential.

That's not the point of what I was saying. It was the whole argument over what was the one, true way of presenting challenges and telling stories with only two possible options being shown. I'd also really not agree that older D&D is very simulationist, at least it seems to fail at both emulating reality and the heroic fantasy it drew its roots from. I'm not saying that it's bad, I'm not particularly wedded to strict simulation of anything as the basis for good game design, just that it really doesn't seem to simulate anything but itself in my experience. An open sandbox isn't in itself a simulation, it's an open sandbox and only through rules specifically created to emulate reality, a specific narrative structure and similarly does it become simulationist. A group might choose to emulate something, even without rules or narrative to guide them, but that is a choice rather than an innate feature of the game. I mean, look at GTA, it's an open sandbox, but if anybody told you it emulated reality or classic crime fiction people would look at you like crazy. You could strive to emulate both in it, but it doesn't offer any particular support for doing so.

Also, I wouldn't say that random encounter tables are essential for either simulations or open sandboxes. For simulations, they'll ultimately be a shortcut by plopping something more or less fitting in, rather than running a complex model keeping track of where everything in a given region is, which is helpful, but ultimately more arbitrary than the GM trying to make a call. For an open sandbox it's a very useful tool in cutting down on GM stress, but not really something you absolutely couldn't do without.

And before you start commenting on how my experience is shaped by 3.x, I've played more BECMI than 3.x, read as much AD&D 2e as 3.x and my experience with both happened before 3e was even released.

[Rhynn]

How does research and study contrast with practice?

It comes down to the rules being pretty simple. Whatever wizards do, it does not involve "practice casting" spells to full effect and paying the costs. Learning permanency in 3E doesn't cost you XP; learning haste in AD&D doesn't age you.

What wizards do and where they get their spells obviously varies by setting. In Dragonlance, they do get their spells from gods (Solinari, Lunitari, and Nuitari). Perhaps the classical interpretation is that they study arcane formulae, diagrams, patterns, words, and gestures. Presumably, if these are practiced, they are practiced in the abstract: just like practicing with swords lacks critical elements of the real thing (actually being able to follow your blow through the opponent, etc.), practicing a spell may lack the follow-through and completion. It's pretty classic for magic-users to practice only parts of a spell; the gestures, the chants, etc. Elric of Melniboné has a good description of Elric practicing the ritual to summon Arioch, and a good description of his summoning Lords of the natural world, which involves not just getting the intonations right, but also marshalling his mind to think of the right contexts for the words.

Or perhaps the reason a fighter can't just study a spell and 1st-level wizards start at age 30-40 is that they really just have to get that good at memorizing things that they can't fail to cast the spells correctly; maybe that's what the memorization is. Maybe the whole point of memorization is that you study the spell until an infallible pattern forms in your mind and you just know you can unleash it as magic. It is magic, after all: maybe with enough study, it just "jumps into" your mind.

You're basically going backwards: you're starting with an assumption and then wondering why the rules don't fit it. The answer is simple: it's the wrong assumption. You've got the rules, you need to go backwards from them to figure out how spellcasting works. There's a lot of possible interpretations. Going out of your way to pick one that doesn't fit the rules (in any edition) seems a little silly.


It was the whole argument over what was the one, true way of presenting challenges and telling stories with only two possible options being shown.

Well, we were talking about new D&D and old D&D. Basically, old D&D modules (Basic, AD&D 1E up until around DL1) present a location and its inhabitants, and the PCs can do whatever they like. Wilderness adventures are based on a hexmap in which things exist and the PCs can go find them. New D&D (DL modules, most of AD&D 2E, pretty much all published 3E and 4E modules) present a series of "encounters" (even when those encounters are rooms). Someone over at Dragonsfoot, IIRC, even did an analysis of various modules from various editions by drawing the maps as simply lines of connections, which showed how later modules are mostly lines from point A to point B with some possible detours, and older modules are crazy open and interconnected.

Other games don't really enter into how D&D worked and works.


I'd also really not agree that older D&D is very simulationist

It is in the sense that it sought, generally, to present a living world; in AD&D 1E, especially "Gygaxian naturalism" ruled the field.

You've got a hexmap to explore, you need some random tables to create content on the fly.


For an open sandbox it's a very useful tool in cutting down on GM stress, but not really something you absolutely couldn't do without.

How would I determine what PCs run into when exploring an area except by rolling on a random table appropriate to the region or terrain?

It is not possible to model the contents of every hex and the location of these contents. You need tables to roll on.

[Verte]

Ok, so I had been planning to post in a more timely fashion, but of course other things ended up getting in the way of that. I'm sorry for not posting in my own thread for over a week - it looks like there was some really interesting discussion, too. Anyway, onto the writeup below.

The Dungeon Masters Guide - The Game and Creating the Player Character

This section begins with more discussion about the overall design philosophy, which is useful to be reminded of again. There are schools of gameplay described: the "realism-simulation" school and the "game" school. Gygax describes AD&D as belonging firmly in the latter school, and it is strongly implied that it is supposed to be an adventure game first and foremost.

Then there's the explanation of how the dice are used. Except for the bell curve, I recall glossing this part over most of the time. I guess the fact that this much detail is needed shows how new the ideas were at the time. It's also neat that different variants on uses for dice - like using the d4 as a multiplier - are mentioned. I haven't personally seen any dice with playing card suits yet, though.

There's also advice on how to go about using miniatures, which is strongly suggested as a requirement for each player. The suggested "HO" scale is 25 mm, while the ground scale is 50 mm. What does HO stand for?
The "Aids to Playing" section that follows is basically a blurb selling the AD&D miniatures and character sheets, as well White Dwarf and The Dragon magazines.

Now onto the meat, or "Creating the Player Character". This section advises against rolling 3d6 in order because it may be discouraging for new players to play a weakling of a race and class they don't want. I assume 3d6 in order was default for OD&D. There are four other methods suggested. The first is roll 4d6, remove the lowest, repeat six times and arrange as desired, which would become default in later editions. Method II uses 3d6 rolled 12 times, pick six and arrange as desired. Methods III and IV personally seem much more tedious.

Then there's info on assigning ability scores to NPCs. Special NPCs get hand-picked scores, especially if they have high levels. General nobodies get 3d6 rolled in order, except without 6s and 1s. Henchmen get 3d6 rolled in order, except certain classes get bonuses to certain abilities.

There's also a note on how the wish spell affects ability scores, with the suggestion that it should only add 1/10 of a point to those abilities that are greater than or equal to 16, so you would need 10 wishes to go from 16 to 17. Other ability-raising effects would function as normal.

There's also reference made to the random characteristic tables for NPCs, with the warning not to require them for PCs. This is because players should be allowed to determine their characters' traits for themselves. However, it is suggested that they may be used as an aid if a player wants. Also, the use of random height and weight tables is proscribed.

Towards the end of this section are optional guidelines for non-professional skills, which are basically different trades that PCs may have learned before adventuring, in addition to what they would know from their classes. There is a random table with 21 types of trades. It seems to me that the DM is supposed to roll or choose a trade for each PC and basically estimate what they would know from that background.

The final portion of this section is devoted to starting levels for PCs. It is assumed that new players will start off with 1st level PCs; it is suggested that if there is a mixture of new and experienced players that they initially be divided into separate parties so the experienced players don't ruin any surprises. However, other accommodations are suggested if only one new player joins an established group, such as allowing that person to make a 2nd to 4th level character (I recall thinking a 2nd level character wouldn't last long with such a setup - does anyone have any experience with this?). There is also discussion about dissatisfaction amongst new players playing 1st level characters, with the suggestion of running a separate higher level campaign for them after the other one has started to assure them that they will reach higher levels of power.

The next two sections cover character age and aging, disease, death, and character abilities - I plan to post about them today or tomorrow.

As far as random tables and sandbox games are concerned, I think that it would add a lot of work to run a sandbox game without some sort of similar aid. I mean, I think the main point is that the party can try exploring wherever they want, with the expectation that they'll find something different. I would probably still use some random elements for a sandbox using say, GURPS, which I think is better at other aspects of simulation.

And yeah, the more linear nature of many 3.5 published adventures is what got me to start reading AD&D modules for ideas, which is what led me to want to run AD&D instead, which is what led me here. I'm thinking specifically of the Red Hand of Doom and the Shackled City campaigns as examples of somewhat linear 3.5 adventures that I've played.

As far as magical practice and research, I believe there are training rules in AD&D to cover how the PCs gain abilities unrelated to exploring the wilderness and dungeons when that's what most of the actual game covers. And yeah, AD&D seems to be different from other games in the sense that it doesn't seem like the magic system for either magic-users or clerics is meant to emulate just one kind of magic from fiction or mythology. However, there are still more recent games that create a magic system (or supernatural power system) that also draw on multiple influences to create something that isn't quite right for emulating just one work of fiction. On the other hand, the advantage of games like those is that you can work to come up with your own take on magic without contradicting a specific author's word on it.

[Rhynn]

I went and found that dungeon map analysis (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710&start=35) on Dragonsfoot. Just compare Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury (3E era) to the old modules, especially In Search of the Unknown, Keep on the Borderlands, Palace of the Silver Princess, and Descent Into the Depths of the Earth... that's a difference in philosophy for certain.

[ken-do-nim]

Interesting. I skimmed the thread to this point, and I've read at various points a disbelief that a character can survive in 1E. Having played a heck of a lot of 1E and a heck of a lot of 3.5E, folks ... 3.5 is the tougher to survive system.

I think the "toughness quotient" goes:

Classic
3.5
1E without UA
2E
1E with UA (aka, the Cakewalk game)

[Rhynn]

What rules do you think make 2E easier than 1E without UA / make 1E harder than 2E? Or was 2E just played that way?

[ken-do-nim]

What rules do you think make 2E easier than 1E without UA / make 1E harder than 2E? Or was 2E just played that way?

The only way in which 2E is measurably harder than 1E is the beef up that dragons and giants got. On the other hand, the low level monsters like hobgoblins and ghouls have a worse to-hit than their 1E counterparts.

But the ways in which 2E characters got boosts more than makes up for any of that. I was never in a 2E game that didn't use weapon specialization, and there's weapon mastery in PC&T. Then there are wizard specialists, who have more spells than 1E mages, etc.

[hamlet]

The only way in which 2E is measurably harder than 1E is the beef up that dragons and giants got. On the other hand, the low level monsters like hobgoblins and ghouls have a worse to-hit than their 1E counterparts.

But the ways in which 2E characters got boosts more than makes up for any of that. I was never in a 2E game that didn't use weapon specialization, and there's weapon mastery in PC&T. Then there are wizard specialists, who have more spells than 1E mages, etc.

It's not really fair comparing core books only 1e (i.e., sans UA) with 2e with all the PC&T books. That's just apples and oranges there.

In the end, I think that 1e and 2e are about the same in terms of toughness, but they balance out a little in some changes here and there. Like you said, dragons and giants and demons and devils got tougher, but some of the lower level creatures tend to get shafted a bit on the to-hit charts. In the end, I think what really happened was that it made a 1st level character slightly more survivable (slightly mind) and made it a bit tougher on higher level characters.

[Rhynn]

On the other hand, the low level monsters like hobgoblins and ghouls have a worse to-hit than their 1E counterparts.

Huh, do they? It's THAC0 19 at 1+ HD, improves by 2 every 2 HD. I know the 2E MM has the wrong THAC0s listed for some monsters, though (they don't match the chart).


But the ways in which 2E characters got boosts more than makes up for any of that. I was never in a 2E game that didn't use weapon specialization, and there's weapon mastery in PC&T. Then there are wizard specialists, who have more spells than 1E mages, etc.

Well, Player's Option is as much part of 2E as Unearthed Arcana is of 1E... weapon spec and wizard specialization you're right about, of course, although I never considered them that big of a deal. Those are pretty much the only boosts in the PHB compared to 1E, right? Meanwhile, all ability score creation methods except "3d6 in order" are "alternative methods" in 2E.

I think the real difference was in playstyles, with 2E replacing modules with "adventures" that embraced the worst ideas from late 1E play ("encounters," defeating monsters and "story awards" as the main source of XP gain, etc.) and running (outside the core books, anyway) with the idea that PC death was "not fun" and shouldn't happen...

[ken-do-nim]

Let's see, what else ...

2E got rid of the repeating 20s on that attack chart, which makes it harder on pcs all things considered.

2E thieves can't backstab undead, another point on the harder column.

2E paladin protection from evil I think is only 1 point of protection rather than 2, so again harder.

2E fighters with two attack routines take the first like everybody else, and the second at the end of the round. That's a huge nerf compared to 1E, where a two attack routine round means automatically winning initiative.

2E characters don't have a chance of wild psionics just in the core rulebooks.

2E doesn't lower magic resistance by character level, which both helps and hinders, but definitely makes high level play harder.

2E has 18 dexterity give a +2 to hit rather than +3.

Okay, I can go with 2E being more lethal than 1E. Revised chart:

Classic
3.5
2E
1E without UA
1E with UA (aka, the Cakewalk game)

Still, my point was that 3.5 is a lot harder than people give it credit, and 1E is a heck of a lot more survivable than people give it credit. It can be hard to compare Classic with the other systems, because it is lower-powered in general, both for monsters and characters. I don't have any experience playing above 7th level in it.

[Lord Torath]

2E characters don't have a chance of wild psionics just in the core rulebooks.Considering the 1st Edition Psionics rules (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/index.htm), I'm not certain being able to get wild talents in 1st Edition is a benefit. 2nd Edition, using Complete Psionics Handbook, it's definitely a benefit. But as you said, not available out of the core books.

[hamlet]

But isn't this thread about reading the 1ed books?:smallsmile:

[Lord Torath]

:smalltongue: Touché.

[ken-do-nim]

:smalltongue: Touché.

Err ... staying on topic is harder than any rpg system? :smallcool:

[Lord Torath]

Not that it's really on-topic, but since you asked:
But, again, that would imply that you've actually read the rules.
Which is, after all, what this thread is about. :smalltongue:
Yes, sorry about that.

Nervous twitch.:smallamused:Hamlet's just paying me back. :smallbiggrin:

Now where were we?

[Verte]

I went and found that dungeon map analysis (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710&start=35) on Dragonsfoot. Just compare Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury (3E era) to the old modules, especially In Search of the Unknown, Keep on the Borderlands, Palace of the Silver Princess, and Descent Into the Depths of the Earth... that's a difference in philosophy for certain.

Huh, that was an interesting read. I do think that some older modules were linear in design - like the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - but it is harder to find new modules that actively avoid being too linear. This is especially frustrating for 3.5, since one of the perks is supposed to be that characters can be more varied mechanically. I know it probably wasn't intended, but it seems like that sort of analysis could be applied to other kinds of scenarios, not just dungeoncrawls. A mystery could be designed in the same way, ensuring that there are multiple branches that lead off in different directions. One of the frustrating aspects of trying to run those kinds of published scenarios is filling in the holes left over because the writer wanted a more tidy ending.

As for 2E compared to 1E, I don't know as much since I never really read the rules for 2E. And it makes sense that discussion would veer off into comparisons between the two occasionally, so I don't mind that much at all.

Anyway, now onto my impressions of aging, disease, and death in AD&D 1E.

Character Age, Aging, Disease, and Death

Establishing the starting age of all characters is proscribed - PCs and henchmen are supposed to use the tables whereas other NPCs don't have to. There are two random tables for age - one for humans, and one for non-human (or demi-human) characters. On the following page, there is an accompanying table that lists different age categories by race and subrace. Keeping track of each PC's aging from both magical and natural causes is also proscribed.

The aging subsection describes the changes to ability scores due to aging. It also has the aforementioned age categories table. Some interesting things I noted are that Dwarven clerics start at least at age 252 years, or already into old age. Elven clerics start out at least at age 510 and gnome clerics at least at age 303, or into middle age. For most other classes, each race that can take that class starts out as a young adult or mature adult. I think the reason that demi-human clerics start at an older age is that they aren't supposed to be clerics very often - PC dwarves, elves, and gnomes can't be clerics at all - so this one additional factor working against them.

There's also a list of spells and effects that cause magical aging. Except for haste and potions of speed, all of these spells would only affect human spellcasters, due to level limits on non-human characters.

The section on disease is not supposed to be a detailed treatment of the subject, and there isn't information on how to simulate specific illnesses (such as typhoid, small pox, tuberculosis...). Diseases and parasites are separated for purposes of determining contraction and infestation, as well as effects.
In regards to disease, it seems that you're supposed to check for each PC once a month, unless conditions are particularly favorable, in which case you check once per week. If a PC is actually exposed to a carrier, than you check upon exposure.

There are separate tables that tally up the factors that influence risk of disease and infestation. For example, a venerable PC traveling in a crowded, dirty city located in a marsh during the rainy season has a 13% chance of catching a disease each week. If they drink the water, they have a 14% chance of picking up a parasite each week. In contrast, a young, healthy character staying in a small village located in the foothills of a mountain during the fall has a 1% chance of picking up a disease each month.

The next page details the effects of disease and parasites, broken up by each area of the body. There is a table on which you can roll percentile dice to determine the area of the body affected (unless you know the specific source it came from, in which case you pick the are). Then, you roll a d8 for occurrence (acute or chronic) and another for severity (mild, severe, and terminal). There is a similar, smaller table for parasites. Most have some chance of being terminal, and the lightest penalty is being forced to rest for a week. Constitution and HP have some effect on severity and occurrence. This means that someone with a constitution of 18 and at least 1/4 of their hp is highly unlikely to contract a terminal disease (though it is possible). Overall, I like these rules, and I think I would want to use them in a more gritty campaign.

Now onto death. Death in combat is basically treated as not a very big deal since it can be reversed by magic. Death due to old (or venerable) age is treated differently, since even if reversed, the chances of dying again due to the same causes are very high. There is a set, maximum age beyond which characters can't be raised. Potions of longevity, wishes, and liches are mentioned, but it is assumed that the best way to "ensure longevity" is to have heirs.

Following this, there is an explanation of how to determine maximum age, alongside a table. Under the rules, a human could live from age 62 to age 139, a a dwarf from age 262 to 699, a high elf from age 897 to age 1999, a gnome from age 461 to age 949, a half-elf from age 177 to age 344, a halfling from age 103 to age 218, and a half-orc from age 47 to age 99. So, I assume the DM would roll secretly for these ages if a campaign continued on for that long? I think it would be a bit weird to know exactly long you had without magic or divine communication.

This section ends with an explanation of death due to disease and parasitic infestation. There is a 90% chance that a character will have the same disease when brought back until it is cured, and effects such as ability loss will remain until sufficiently powerful magic (such as a wish) are used.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, obviously the quality of old modules varied. Some were absolute stinkers (like N2 The Forest Oracle), but IMO nothing in 3.X even comes close to even the "good" BECM and AD&D 1E modules, nevermind the best ones.

I actually started a thread about the aging rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281268) a while back, because they are... interesting. You are spot on about the crazy ages for dwarven and elven clerics: they are never PCs in 1E (without Unearthed Arcana). Meanwhile, basically all fighters (humans for certain) get a +1 bonus to Strength within a few years of starting adventuring, which is awesome!

[hamlet]

Ah the disease/parasite rules.

I had a lot of fun with those rules once or twice, specifically when the party had to escape from a castle they were trying to loot but discovered it wasn's unoccupied at all. To save themselves, they dived down a privy shaft (they were actually all gnomes and halflings believe it or not) and out to safety that way, and half of them immediately contracted some nasty illnesses because of it. You see, the rumors of an empty castle were actually due to a plague that caused the castellan to seal the place up.

Heh, good times.

And actually, the age rules can be a lot of fun. We recently had a first level illusionist start at age 55 while the rest of the party were young whippersnappers in their teens and early twenties. Very strange party dynamics there.

[Mutazoia]

So unless spells magically implant themselves in your mind and guide your hands, mouth and whatever other parts of your body are necessary, some element of practice is pretty much required.

Obviously it's taken as read that some wizard somewhere in time researched the spell, probably with a few apprentices to test it for him, and what the PC's are researching is his final product. Much like a person at home following a recipe from a cook book, rather than trying to figure out on their own how to make Oxtail Soup from scratch. Just think, if every time you wanted to cook dinner for your family you had to spend months trying every possible combination of ingredient in every possible measure before you came up with something edible.

EDIT: We can take it as read that at some time in the past some great and powerful "Oz" managed to work out a spell and wrote it down, and what PC wizards researched was simply copies that had been re-copied over and over, passed around from wizard to wizard, like MP3's on the internet.

[Monss Meg]

And let us not forget, that in 1st Ed AD&D, that resurrection, and raise dead, would not work 100% of the time, and you had a limited number of times you could be brought back from the dead

[Thrudd]

Obviously it's taken as read that some wizard somewhere in time researched the spell, probably with a few apprentices to test it for him, and what the PC's are researching is his final product. Much like a person at home following a recipe from a cook book, rather than trying to figure out on their own how to make Oxtail Soup from scratch. Just think, if every time you wanted to cook dinner for your family you had to spend months trying every possible combination of ingredient in every possible measure before you came up with something edible.

EDIT: We can take it as read that at some time in the past some great and powerful "Oz" managed to work out a spell and wrote it down, and what PC wizards researched was simply copies that had been re-copied over and over, passed around from wizard to wizard, like MP3's on the internet.

And just because you know how to do something doesn't mean it's always a good idea to actually do it to yourself repeatedly. So some wizard figured how to move super fast...but it requires that you age unnaturally in order to do so. This doesn't mean you practice casting the spell on yourself repeatedly and end up 100 years old in 5 years. You experiment like a scientist, maybe on mice, or examining magical sub-atomic particles, and magicmath equations, with a lab full of bubbly potions and beakers and bunson burners. You have it all worked out and know the proper incantations and focus required to cause this effect to happen, and why it happens. You can foresee that it might be useful to use in a pinch, but it's side-effects would make you think twice before using it. Also, in game terms, it is a good way to balance the power of some high level spells that could potentially be abused, and also bring ageing effects into the game, which is always fun :smallwink: . If magic users use too much high level magic, there's a good chance bad stuff will end up happening to them. That's the nature of the beast. OD&D and early AD&D are just different types of games than what most people are used to playing nowadays. Not better or worse, just a different game.

[Yogibear41]

Reminds me of Gandalf from LOTR,

Supposedly Gandalf was this superpowered wizard, but how many times did you actually see him use spells? Most of the time he just used hits wits to win fights.


On a side note, I've always wanted to read up on the 1st edition AD&D rules, I don't suppose their is a SRD version of them online somehwere I could peruse?

[hamlet]

Reminds me of Gandalf from LOTR,

Supposedly Gandalf was this superpowered wizard, but how many times did you actually see him use spells? Most of the time he just used hits wits to win fights.


On a side note, I've always wanted to read up on the 1st edition AD&D rules, I don't suppose their is a SRD version of them online somehwere I could peruse?

Gandalf was not a super powered wizard. Gandalf was an angelic figure from the world's pantheon, essentially a lesser deity encapsulated in corporeal form and governed by a set of rules forbidding him from utilizing the full extent of his power to accomplish his task of getting mortals and elves to oppose the evil Sauron, himself of like stature to Gandalf (arguably).

There really is not "SRD version" of AD&D 1e. The closest you get is OSRIC which is a reorganized and recodified version of those rules, though there are a few differences. You really do miss out on Gygax's prose, though, and it's worth tracking down an inexpensive copy of the original books for the experience.

[Yogibear41]

well yeah, I'm a little sketch on the details but supposedly Gandalf should have been more powerful than sauron, because orginally they were equal in power but sauron put a majority of his powers into the rings he made thereby making him weaker.

[hamlet]

well yeah, I'm a little sketch on the details but supposedly Gandalf should have been more powerful than sauron, because orginally they were equal in power but sauron put a majority of his powers into the rings he made thereby making him weaker.

Yes, but it's still more complicated than that.

LOTR presents a simplistic front at times, but if you pay close attention, it's actually very deep and complicated.

[Yogibear41]

Yes, but it's still more complicated than that.

LOTR presents a simplistic front at times, but if you pay close attention, it's actually very deep and complicated.

Agreed, I really need to read the Silmarillion (and not just the cliff notes on wikipedia)