The Anatomy of a Trick

I've been struggling for a while with how to understand and come up with tricks. A lot of that, I think, has to do with how open-ended they are. Courtney's Tricks, Empty Rooms and Basic Trap Design defines tricks as EVERYTHING in a dungeon that isn't an empty room, monster, trap or treasure.

Reading through Appendix H: Tricks in the DMG last night, though, something clicked and I think I have a better grasp of tricks now. As I type this out, it feels like I'm stating the obvious, but if I couldn't figure this out 24 hours ago chances are good that this could be helpful to at least one reader. Obviously, this is a new way of thinking for me so it probably has some holes. Criticism and examples that aren't included in this theorizing are welcome.

Tricks fall into two broad categories:

1. Tricks that are merely an empty room, monster, trap or treasure masquerading as a different one of those options; for example, an animated statue coated in yellow mold waiting for adventurers to come into range. It's a nasty monster masquerading as golden treasure.

2. Tricks that aren't masquerading, that aren't, when boiled down, really just an empty room, monster, trap or treasure. They may include those, but they aren't just that.

These "type two" tricks follow this formula:

1. There is an item. This could be an architectural feature, like an arch or doorway, a fixture, like an altar, fountain or pedestal, or a "free-floating" item, like a ball or futuristic alien device just lying on the floor of a room.

2. There are one or more ways to interact with this item. Personally, I think that it is more fun the more ways there are to interact with the item; one important facet of items with multiple ways to interact with them is that some of the ways to interact with them may be less obvious than others. Examples of ways to interact with items include touching and throwing, talking, casting spells or projectiles at or through them, offering something to them, attacking them and "messing" with toggles, switches, levers and buttons on them. Interacting with the item in multiple ways in a particular order may count as a separate way to interact with the item.

3. There is then a deciding factor that will connect the method of interaction with the result. This deciding factor might be the particular way the item was interacted with, a roll on a die or some mixture of both. For the simplest of tricks, this is just whether the trick is interacted with or not.

4. Finally, there are the results. These might be bad, good or not obviously one or the other. Complex tricks with lots of results (some good, some bad, some hard to nail down) are possible (and fun!) but the simplest tricks have just one result. Here are some categories of results; if you can think of others, please comment about them:

• Changes to Characters: Whether attribute scores, sex, facial hair or size, something changes.
• Access/Transport: Characters may or may not get a choice about this access or transport. Examples include teleportation, trap doors, chutes, slides and plain old secret/locked doors opening.
• Treasure: The characters are rewarded with treasure.
• Monsters: The characters are faced with an encounter.
• Trap: The characters are faced with harm.
• Resources: The characters get something that helps them attain some other goal, whether killing monsters and getting treasure or a plot or exploration-related goal, from information like a clue or treasure map to physical tools like keys or mirrors, to consumables like torches, food or even wishes.
• Changes to the Trick: Interacting with the trick changes it; it may disappear or stop working, become another item, such as treasure, or new ways to interact with it may become possible.

So, what do you think? Is this all so incredibly obvious that it wasn't worth posting? Am I missing something? Is this helpful? Would random tables for each of these components, organized in this specific way, be a helpful addition to the trick resources out there? What other trick resources have you found helpful?

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 20: Spell Explanations – Illusionists

Short post today, just wrapping up Illusionist spells, which in turn wraps up this section on magic in the DMG.

Phantasmal Killer
This is, as I understand it, an incredibly nasty spell. One way to escape it, however, is to go unconscious, "somehow." If I'm ever playing and my PC's buddy is being attacked by one of these, you can bet I'll be knocking my buddy over the head to save him.

Detect Magic
I was really interested to see Gary refer the reader to the Cleric, rather than the Magic-User, version of this spell for commentary. Comparing the Cleric and Magic-User versions of this spell, it seems that the Cleric version only can detect the strength of a magic aura while the Magic-User version includes a chance to detect the particular type of magic involved. By giving Illusionists the Cleric version of the spell, Gary is giving them the weaker, less effective version.

Finally, in a note that seems to cover all spells, Gary points out that, "the reverse of any spell must be separately memorized, and that each requires special components." I've never liked the idea of having to choose between "normal" or reversed versions of spells during spell memorization, but I certainly can understand why Gary would rule this way.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 19: Spell Explanations – Magic-Users

Comprehend Languages
I found it interesting that this can be reversed and cast on a scroll to make it unreadable, though casting the unreversed version of this spell twice on such a scroll will make it readable again.

Enlarge
Apparently Gary's players tried to kill opponents by enlarging them inside their armor, but Gary says that their armor will either come loose (if secured with buckles and straps) or be ruined (in the case of chain mail) rather than kill an enlarged subject of this spell; even clothes are assumed to "split away during growth." I would have thought that Gary would have just had what a subject of this spell was wearing grow with the subject, but leave it to Gary to surprise me, right?

Tenser's Floating Disc
I don't know why Gary's such a kill-joy with this particular spell. First he stipulates clearly that no Magic-User can begin play knowing this spell or Nystul's Magic Aura, and then he bans Magic-Users from riding the Disc. Lame. (Though I think Gary's reasoning for banning these two spells may have been to allow players to choose a spell on a result of 10 on the beginning spell tables. Still.)

Unseen Servant
This is the spell my players have played around with the most, stretching the limits of how much they can communicate with an inanimate force (being able to command it clearly means that some amount of communication is possible, I've ruled). Gary stipulates that this force has no shape and therefore cannot be clothed.

Web
I hadn't ever realized that this spell requires at least two anchor points or the web will collapse in on and get tangled up with itself. I hadn't ever really thought about that, but it makes good sense.

Wizard Lock
I also hadn't realized that casters could freely pass through their own Wizard Locks. This has interesting possibilities if you want to take magic in the direction of different flavors of the same spells. (Brendan, I'm thinking of you here.)

Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer
I hadn't realized that this was in 1e as well as 2e. It came up in a previous discussion on this blog. (I prefer any one of my solutions, for the record, though the existence of this spell does settle what Gary thought about the issue.)

Wall of Force
This spell's commentary is interesting because Gary discusses two specific ways to defeat it, much the same way that prismatic spheres in AD&D and prismatic walls in Arduin are handled. These magical barriers that require specific, sometimes (especially with Arduin) non-sensical, unrelated magical keys fascinate me and seem under-utilized in the D&D I read about and play.

The Grey Elf Exegetes AD&D

I recently ran across another blogger reading through AD&D (all of it, though he's starting with the DMG and hasn't finished it yet) and posting about it, over on The Wasted Lands. If you'd like to see another take on the DMG (and one that's significantly further along than I am), give it a look. Reading up through where I am myself, it's been interesting seeing similarities and differences in what we find interesting and worth the most attention, as well as where we do or don't disagree with Gary, all still from an Old School perspective. At first glance, the DMG's (dis-)organization seems to bother me a lot less, while he seems to object less about Gary's DM style advice.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 18: Spell Explanations – Druids

The truism that often accompanies ridiculous laws is that they are often only laws because people have behaved in the now-outlawed ways. This truism strikes me as applying to a good deal of Gary's comments on spells, and certainly to a number of Druid spells.

Animal Friendship

Animals, Gary says, will always be able to sense "ulterior motives," when subject to this spell. Because Gary's players were apparently shameless enough to run Druids that would take advantage of animals.

Charm Person or Mammal

Gary gives some nice guidelines concerning how to adjudicate this spell; namely, this spell only changes the subject's basic orientation towards the caster into one of friendship and acceptance. This is not, as Gary says, "enslave person or mammal," nor does the subject's attitude towards the caster's associates change significantly (though presumably the caster's associates will not be attacked except in self-defense or if provoked).

Create Water

Hilariously, Gary needs to point out that this spell will not create water in any part of any living thing. Because one of his players clearly tried to do that, most likely with the aim of making said creature explode.

Warp Wood

Held or Wizard Locked doors can only be affected with this spell if the Druid is of higher level than the Magic-User who held or locked the door, and then only with a 20% chance for every level the Druid is higher than the Magic-User.

Call Lightening

This spell is presumably useless within, say, the confines of a dungeon, but, conveniently, a Druid may call half-strength lightening out of a whirlwind created by a djinn or air elemental.

Call Woodland Being

An interesting list of possible beings that could respond: brownies, centaurs, dryads, pixies, satyrs, sprites, a treant and a unicorn. I almost expected a dragon, a la the Ranger follower charts.

Fire Storm

The reverse of this spell can be used to quench, and strip of its magical properties (!), a flaming sword. On the one hand, this is a seventh level spell; on the other, that seems like an awfully easy way to disenchant a magic sword.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 17: Spell Explanations – Clerics

Gary now embarks upon six and a half pages of explaining spells. A good bit of this is expressly banning certain liberal interpretations that players might attempt to use with spells, much as Gary previously dealt with the abuse of Thief abilities, but a good deal of it is also explaining tactics that can be used with certain spells or just plain explaining how to execute the effects of a spell from behind the DM screen. Today let's hit the Cleric spells I find interesting.

Light & Continual Light
Gary quite helpfully points out that both of these spells can be cast on an enemy's eyes, effectively blinding them (permanently, or until dispelled, in the case of Continual Light), as well as suggesting that Continual Light can be cast on objects and then used in place of torches.

Augury
The idea of allowing any kind of prophecy or means of knowing the future in a sandbox game has always left me feeling uncomfortable and unsure regarding how to handle it, but Gary gives some decent guidelines here: basically, it's OK to just go off of what you guess will happen. The example he gives is if a player asks, "Will we do well if we venture onto the third level?" and a nasty troll guards a great treasure near the entrance to level 3 then an appropriate response is, "All who survive will be rich!"

Dispel Magic
Gary gives some nice mechanics here. Any item this is cast at that fails a saving throw is inoperative for one round; items only get saving throws if they are in a character's possession, and only have to make saving throws if they are specifically targeted. Relics and artifacts (I don't think Gary's discussed the difference between those two categories yet) are immune to this effect.

Atonement
The referee is encouraged to gauge the player/PC's sincerity of repentance and require penance accordingly. If the referee believes the player/PC is truly repentant, a few coins in the money box may suffice to fully restore the PC, while insane, nearly impossible quests, such as capturing and sacrificing rival high priests, may be handed out to players/PCs who don't seem sincere. Personally, I like the help of an actual alignment charting system to help me gauge just how much a PC is in trouble, rather than having to figure this out by ear.

Plane Shift
Planar adventures have never really interested me (I'm certainly open to that changing in the future), but I find Gary's description of each plane having a corresponding musical note, with the potential for an octave of planes, to be intriguing. Not enough for me to build on right now, but if I ever do run planar adventures, I'll be sure to incorporate the "planar scale" into the way plane shifting works. Has anyone seen planes run like this? Do any settings use this at all?

Quest
Counterintuitively, at least for me, characters are more vulnerable or susceptible to this spell the more they agree with the Cleric casting the spell, not even receiving a saving throw if the quest is just and they share religions with the Cleric. Also interestingly, characters who agree to a quest, even if forced to do so, do not receive a saving throw.

Holy/Unholy Word
I wasn't aware that there were any spells that banished beings back to their native planes, but this spell does exactly that. I'm undecided on whether to allow this spell in my game since I had expected to get so much traction out of the Carcosan banishing rituals that require special components. We'll see what happens.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 16: Character Spells – Recovery of Spells, Spell Casting and Tribal Spell Casters

I'm still – slowly – working on the ideas I've got from the last section, but it's high time I resumed this series.

Recovery of Spells

Gary gives a short table for how long you have to sleep to be able to memorize new spells; these range from just four hours, if all you want to memorize are first or second level spells, all the way to a whopping twelve hours if you want to memorize a ninth level spell. The implications for this are interesting: low level Magic-Users, Clerics and other spell casters now have no excuse for not standing watch at night, and there may come times when a high-level character chooses not to rest long enough to memorize their highest level spells. Interrupting a high-level enemy Magic-User's 12 hours sleep certainly becomes an attractive strategy. While I find all of these ideas interesting, though, I just don't expect them to come up that often in gaming, or perhaps to even come up at all.

After a spell caster has rested sufficiently, each spell takes 15 minutes per spell level to memorize. Even more than resting times, I've always had a problem with this approach, for a few reasons. Again, I don't really see the point of the extra math, it doesn't fit my reading of the source material in the Tales of the Dying Earth (specifically in the first few pages of Turjan of Miir), and, least logically but most viscerally, it clashes with my preferred metaphor for Vancian magic: loading bullets into a gun, which is quick and easy.

Insight into how variable rest time and lengthy spell memorization times make the game better is very much appreciated.

Spell Casting

Gary goes into a half page of explanation of how AD&D Vancian magic works, in-game. Basically, each spell brings energy from another plane to the caster's plane and channels it into the spell's effects. In exchange for the energy from the other plane, material components (the caster's breath, when none are listed) are destroyed to provide the energy to send back to the other plane.

Gary also mentions the the first two Dying Earth books (The Eyes of the Overworld and The Dying Earth) and John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost, a book I haven't heard of before or remember reading any reviews of on OSR blogs, as inspiration for the way AD&D magic works. I'm guessing that a good deal of the elements of AD&D magic I don't recognize from Vance are from the latter work, which seems to be highly recommended by Bellairs' fellow fantasy writers. The Face in the Frost is now on my reading list.

On the other hand, even if I thought that Vancian magic needed this level of explanation, I don't like this explanation of how magic works. This isn't making it into my game.

Tribal Spell Casters

Certain humanoids and a few other groups (cavemen, ettins…) have spell casters in their tribes. Shamans are the tribal equivalent of Clerics and may go up to 7th level, depending on species, while Witch Doctors are the tribal equivalent of Magic-Users and may go up to 4th level, depending on species. Both NPC classes have limited spell lists and only Cavemen may have both a Shaman and Witch Doctor in one tribe. Altogether, a helpful but not terribly exciting section.

Extended Random Character Generation

One of the oversimplified differences between playing Old School or New School style D&D as I've seen the issue laid out is that Old School character generation is quick and random because Old School gaming revels in the disposability of characters and the beautiful surprises of the dice while New School character generation is lengthy and almost completely controlled by the player because New School gaming revels in details and preparing the character to fit the game.

These are generalizations of course, but actually pretty helpful ones, so long as we remember the limits of generalizations and don't fall into the trap of a false dichotomy. Most OSR referees, so far as I can tell, emphasize very quick, random character generation, with a few recent posts about using algorithms to determine class and random rolling to determine equipment, and I don't think anyone argues that creating a 3.5 character is a short, choice-less process.

The thing I'd like to point out with this post, though, is that random character generation doesn't have to be a quick affair. One could, instead, significantly lengthen character generation with the use of numerous random tables that can be found in gaming products from the 70's and early 80's.

For example, let's say I'm rolling up a Human Magic-User. Using tables from multiple books, I could determine...

[AD&D DMG (there may be more charts I haven't read yet)]

...that my character is 36 years old (Age Category: Mature) and will live to be 137 years old if allowed to die a natural death.

[Arduin Grimoire I &II]

...that my character is "competent" at Sleep and Charm spells, but vulnerable to dragon's fire, is six feet tall, weighs 172 pounds, has roan-colored hair, hazel-colored eyes, a birthmark that looks like a bird, Caucasian skin pigmentation, is double-jointed, and is obese (-1 to Con and Dex).

[The Monstrous Civilizations of Delos]

...that my character has three siblings and grew up in a rural, inland setting, where he was apprenticed to a Hosler (fine horseman, +3 with all riding beasts) and to a Riverman (excellent swimmer, +1 to Strength, +1 to Constitution).

[Old Guard Gaming Accouterments]

...and that my character carries four yarpick thorn javelins among his possessions (though he probably can't use them).

Like many in the OSR, I enjoy tables to roll on, like these, and I've incorporated many of these into my game. One wrinkle with so many tables to roll on, though, is that character generation is not as trivial and quick as it is in your favorite flavor of D&D, as written, with perhaps some modifications to make it go even more quickly.

I think that actually fits my gaming style, though. I don't run a game where PCs drop like flies in a DCC character funnel (though I've certainly enjoyed playing in such games), so it's OK if players invest a little more into their characters, even if that investment is simply rolling the dice ten more times. On the other hand, PCs absolutely do die in my games, so it's good that each PC isn't the product of a week's worth of free time.

What about you? Would you be interested in using these charts in your games, or do they take too much time and create too much background details for your taste, or even perhaps take too much control over the characters from the players?

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 15: Character Spells – Spell Acquisition

This next section is super interesting to me, which, along with real life lately, is why I've taken such a long time to write it up. Expect some non-DMG magic posts in the near future.

Day-to-Day Acquisition of Cleric Spells

The big thing about Cleric spells, that I actually don't think I've heard about in ~3 years of following OSR blogs, is that Clerics don't get their spells directly from one source, but from three:

–1st and 2nd level spells are acquired through the Cleric's training
–3rd, 4th and 5th level spells are granted to the Cleric by supernatural servants of the Cleric's deity
–6th and 7th level spells are granted directly to the Cleric by the Cleric's deity

This is very interesting flavor, first of all, especially since the interaction with the supernatural servants is left very open ended and I think it has a lot of room for roleplaying, but the main practical ramifications of this three-tiered system seems to be that Clerics have trouble getting access to high-level spells if they haven't been acting in accordance with the desires and ethos of their deity. Basically, every time they pray for spells above 2nd level they also get chewed out and told to atone for any bad stuff they've done. DMs are supposed to keep track of concrete actions the Cleric has performed that don't line up with what the deity is all about and lay them out whenever the Cleric prays for spells. The Cleric's deity is even stricter than the supernatural servants, but both will give quests to Clerics that are difficult enough that Gary says that the Cleric will be granted the spells necessary to complete the quest. This all applies to Paladins and Rangers, at least when it comes to spells, as well, which strikes me as interesting, since it seems to be saying that Paladins can greatly displease their deities without breaking the terms of their Paladin-hood.

Gary also outlines the hardships involved in Clerics switching deities (the second time they switch deities, they'll just be struck dead).

Acquisition of Magic-User Spells

In AD&D all 1st level Magic-Users are newly "graduated" apprentices of other Magic-Users of at least 6th level. Their master, as a parting present, gives them a spell book with four spells in it: Read Magic and one defensive, one offensive and one miscellaneous spell, randomly chosen by rolling d10s. It seems that AD&D has exactly thirty 1st level spells, but since every Magic-User gets Read Magic and Nystul's Magic Aura and Tenser's Floating Disc are never given to a Magic-User by a master, a roll of 10 on one of these rolls means that the spell is chosen by the player. This is a really nice system, I think, and it's replicated and slightly tweaked in John's awesome document here. (Thanks, John! I'm planning on using your document as the foundation for spells in my games from now on. I wish you had a blog I could link to.)

Gary also hits on the effect of Intelligence on the Magic-User's ability to learn spells. First of all, Intelligence will limit the number of spells of any one level a Magic-User can know. Secondly, with the important exception of the original four spells in the spell book given to him by his master, a Magic-User has a percentage chance to be able to learn a spell that must be rolled when trying to learn a spell; if the Magic-User fails, apparently he will never be able to learn the spell.

Acquisition of Illusionists' Spells

Illusionists differ from Magic-Users in two important ways: Firstly, they don't use Read Magic, but instead use a secret language that all Illusionists know for their spells; Read Magic, or anything of the sort, is not needed. Secondly, they only have 12 1st level spells, which aren't divided into offensive, defensive and miscellaneous categories; the player simply rolls a d12 three times to determine the 1st level Illusionist's starting spells. There is no mention of whether Intelligence affects the ability of an Illusionist to learn spells, but my guess, from the way the section on Illusionists seems to imply that Illusionists work like Magic-Users in every way except for the exceptions listed, that this works the same way for Illusionists as for Magic-Users. My guess is that this is spelled out in the PHB.

Spells Beyond Those At Start

Each time a Magic-User levels up (not when they gain access to a new spell level, which was news to me) he gains a new spell, presumably of the highest spell level available to him. Gary is silent on how to determine which spell this is or what the in-game justification is (I assume that at least some of this is included in the PHB). This means that unless a Magic-User finds spells in another way, the he will always only have a number of spells equal to his level plus four.

Magic-Users, then, will be constantly seeking to find spells in other ways. The first way Gary discusses is getting spells from other Magic-Users. "Superior players will certainly cooperate; thus, spells will in all probability be exchanged between PC magic-users to some extent," Gary says, and advises the DM neither to suggest nor discourage doing this.

PC Magic-Users obtaining spells from NPC Magic-Users, however, is another matter entirely and Gary expects DMs to play the Vancian-style zero-sum game Magic-User culture to the hilt. Gary advises that PCs buying spells from NPC Magic-Users should "pay so dearly for [spells] in money, magic items, and quests that the game is hardly worth the candle." Gary assumes that the PCs will still pay for these new spells, thereby draining the PCs of excess wealth. Henchmen and hireling Magic-Users will offer only slightly better terms: if an employer proposes a trade of spells, the price will be a spell of equal value plus a bonus; if a PC compatriot of the employer proposes the trade, the price is double the value of the spell and a large bonus (from the example, it sounds like sets of three expendable items or a single magic item is a good guideline for the larger bonus). Gary does allow for the previous nature of the relationship between the PC making the request and the henchman/hireling, as well as the personality of the henchman/hireling, to modify the price of trading spells.

Gary points out that this extreme reluctance to share spells on the part of NPCs will make spells found in dungeons or through research extremely valuable to the PCs Magic-Users. He states that, "Magic-users will haunt dusty libraries and peruse musty tomes in the hopes of gleaning but a single incantation to add to their store of magic." I'm unsure whether that is a direct reference to spell research or a separate, flavorful phenomenon that Gary doesn't flesh out; my guess is that it's the former.

One mechanic I wish Gary would have included is how to handle NPCs coming to the PCs for spells; surely every other Magic-User is just as desperate for spells as the PCs, right? So why wouldn't they be coming to the PCs, willing to make unfair trades for the new spells the PCs found in their last dungeon delve? Mechanically, this would even out the zero-sum game so that the PCs don't always get the short end of the stick. This might ruin the constant leeching of money from Magic-User PCs, but it also doesn't strain my suspension of disbelief.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 14: Time

YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.

Thus, famously, wrote Gary in today's section of the DMG (pg. 37), and I tend to agree, if not with the severity of the statement (the all-caps are his, not mine), then with the general high desirability of keeping "strict time records."

Alas, time is something I've struggled to keep track of, especially in the dungeon, so I was excited when I saw that today's section was on keeping track of time… and disappointed that Gary gives only the smallest bits of advice for keeping time in the campaign and almost no advice for keeping track of time in the dungeon. In fact, Gary spends the vast majority of this section arguing that keeping track of time is important… so let's deal with those arguments first. (Gary says a few other things, but, as with every entry in this series, I'm discussing what I find to be most interesting, not dealing with every last point Gary makes.)

Time in the Campaign

The first reason Gary gives for keeping time is that when the party splits up and one group uses more time than the other group then it becomes possible to encounter weird time-related conundrums; for example, if on Monday group A goes on a week-long journey, returns and kills a dragon on Day 7, game time, and then on Wednesday group B visits the dragon's lair on Day 2, game time, what happens? The DM must realize that group B won't be killing the dragon, as group A has "already" killed the dragon on Day 7. Whether the DM makes sure the dragon isn't at home, leads the encounter away from violent confrontation or just makes sure the dragon is invincible, this is an important point for DMs to keep in mind, especially when running a campaign where different players can play on different days.

Gygax goes on to point out that the loss of time is what makes healing hit points meaningful; otherwise healing full hit points is costless and assumed between each adventure. PCs also spend time away from their bases while adventuring, incurring bills if they rent and risking attack and capture of their homes if they own them. Perhaps even more significant than either of these is the time it takes to craft magic items, which must be uninterrupted and so necessarily cuts into adventuring time. Additionally, though Gary doesn't elaborate, and I wasn't aware of this stricture in AD&D, time is a factor in leveling and training. Keeping track of time also gives an impetus for players to play their PCs' henchmen while their "regular" PCs are otherwise occupied, giving the henchmen character and a chance to level up and possibly set out on their own.

Finally, Gary states that keeping track of time, that is, making time an element of the game, is worthwhile simply because it is the addition of another interesting set of choices to the game. I buy that.

Time in the Dungeon

Keeping track of time in the dungeon is important because the DM must know when to check for wandering monsters, when spells with certain durations cease their effects and when the party must stop for a rest (every 50 minutes and after every strenuous activity). Gary also lays out that a round is one minute and a turn is ten minutes and explains that time records should be kept on a separate sheet of paper.

OK, so that, in my mind, pretty satisfactorily settles the question of the desirability of keeping time records, but my personal question is not "why?" but "how?" especially for inside the dungeon.

I suppose this is actually pretty simple, on paper. As a referee, I just need to figure out the slowest member of the party's movement rate and count out the party's movement on my map as the PCs move through it. In practice, though, I find this really difficult. Maybe it's just me, but all the times I've tried to count spaces and calculate time while providing description of the dungeon to my players, listening to them describe their characters actions, figuring out the immediate consequences of those actions, answering their questions and keeping the greater workings and context of the dungeon in mind… I've ended up giving up on keeping track of time within the first five or ten minutes, real time.

What I have been doing is using Faster Monkey Games' Turn Tracker (they seem to have a new print version here) and advancing a turn whenever it felt like a turn had past, in game. Hardly exact, but also better than nothing. I have a feeling that many in the OSR would approve of that sort of time tracking by "feel" (or find even that too confining), and maybe I just have too strict a definition of "STRICT." On the one hand, using the Turn Tracker has been working for me, so it can't be all that bad; on the other, both for my own satisfaction and to keep the fairness to my players as high as possible (I probably track time by "feel" too quickly or too slowly… or both), I'd like to be more exact. Any advice on this would be appreciated.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 13: Henchmen

This section is taken up with two main topics: acquiring henchmen and the loyalty of henchmen (and hirelings) once acquired.

Before we get into that, though, I want to point out something that comes up a few times in this section: why henchmen sign on with PCs. Gary is clear that henchmen sign on with the PCs because they aren't doing well on their own; henchmen are professional adventurers who are unsuccessful, for whatever reason. This explains why the PCs must provide equipment for henchmen and why only first level henchmen will be attracted to PCs of fifth level or below; if they were doing well enough to have advanced in levels or even well enough to keep or provide their own equipment, they wouldn't be desperate enough to apply to be another adventurer's follower.

Gary first outlines the steps that must be taken to acquire a henchmen. Basically, the DM must first determine how many henchmen are available wherever the PCs look, and of what race. Gary is extremely vague here, throwing out some rough numbers (one prospective henchman per 1000 people), but then advising that they should be adjusted situationally… without providing guidelines on how to do that. (ACKS, which it's basically impossible not to compare these sections of the DMG to, is immensely more helpful, detailed and streamlined here.)

After the DM has done this, the PCs must advertise, spending their money posting notices in public, hiring criers, hiring agents or going around to taverns and inns, buying rounds for the house and paying barkeeps to send potential henchmen their way. Each of these methods cost different amounts of money and have different rates of effectiveness – that is, the percentage of actually available henchmen that will hear and actually be attracted to apply to join up with the PCs. Using more than one method decreases the over-all effectiveness of all methods used (du to "overlap"), but not by enough that it isn't theoretically worth doing if you want to have a wide choice of henchmen.

Once that number of potential henchmen who will respond and apply has been determined, they begin to show up at whatever location the PCs indicated they would take applicants over a period of 2-8 days. The PCs interview them, but must be careful not to ask questions about religion or alignment or to frisk or search them or cast any magic upon them except for Know Alignment or Detect Good/Evil, as these will probably offend the potential henchman and make him unwilling to join the PCs. There doesn't seem to be much justification for this, especially in a world where crazy evil/chaotic characters are likely to be infiltrating parties for their own or a master's nefarious ends; this possibility actually strikes me as exactly the reason why Gary banned inquiries in this direction. The personality and other characteristics of the prospective henchmen should be rolled up on the NPC traits generator further on in the DMG.

If the PCs want to hire the prospective henchman, they make an offer and the DM rolls percentile dice; if the roll is at or under a percentage determined by how good of a deal the PC is offering and the PC's charisma modifier, the prospective henchman accepts the offer and is now a henchman. (It was interesting to me that ACKS leaves the specifics of this up to the judge, but LotFP:WFRP actually has a short, simple list of modifiers that are quicker to tabulate than AD&D's. I'm unfamiliar enough with Basic D&D not to know whether that's something LotFP inherited or if that's just another of Raggi's mechanical innovations that is overlooked because of the atmosphere of LotFP.)

Gary then moves on to the loyalty of henchmen and provides a good page or more of variables that affect henchman loyalty. Unlike D&D systems for morale and loyalty that I've seen that use a d12 or 3d6 system, AD&D uses a percentile system; henchmen begin at 50% loyalty and that score is adjusted as situations arise and conditions are met. For example, on the extreme, if a PC kills a faithful henchman in front of witnesses, that's -40% to the loyalty score of any henchmen from that point on. If a henchman has known or been a follower of a PC for more than five years, that's +25% to loyalty. If the PC is Lawful Good in alignment, that's +15%, but if the henchman differs from the PC in alignment by two places, that's -15%, and so forth.

Finally, I find it interesting that Gary allows for the PCs to recruit NPCs they've captured as henchmen. This is a rule I don't think I've ever heard about. It's the once exception to the rule that henchmen come unequipped and also seems to be the only way to get henchmen that are higher than third level – henchmen (or associates as Gary calls them, presumably because they will rank and be compensated on a comparable level to that of the PCs) acquired this way may be up to two levels above the PC recruiting them, though they will only stick around for one or two adventures. If prisoners are forced to join the PCs, they will have very low loyalty, but if the prisoners are offered very good terms and given a genuine choice, they may sign on as permanent henchmen with a good loyalty level.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 12: Hirelings

Standard Hirelings

Most hirelings will be employed after a PC has reached name level and established a stronghold, as Gary envisions it. Pre-name-level PCs, however, will still likely hire:

• Bearer/Porters
• Carpenters
• Leather Workers
• Limners (paintings, heraldic devices, etc.)
• Linkboys (lantern/torch-bearers)
• Masons
• Pack Handlers
• Tailors
• Teamsters
• Valet/Lackeys

Gary gives the daily and monthly costs of retaining these hirelings, as well as short explanations of what they do.

Gary also includes a great mechanic for commissioning something from a hireling: for a retained hireling to create something specific, it costs, on top of the cost of retaining the hireling, 10% of the standard cost of an item. This is a neat way of working through the problem of, "there are no longswords for sale in this town," a way that certainly costs money, but cuts down on paperwork and hassle. I don't remember this (or an analog) being in ACKS, but it's such a short mechanic to write down that it's quite possible that I just missed it. The only problem with this that I see is that it's important to know how long it will take to make whatever is being commissioned.

Expert Hirelings

Beginning this section, Gary spells out the difference between henchmen and hirelings: henchmen are the PCs' followers while hirelings are the PCs' employees. This is a great, succinct way of phrasing the difference that I'll probably use.

Gary lists fifteen types of expert hireling, with one entry– mercenary soldier– distilled into 19 types, along with their monthly upkeep cost; only non-officer soldiers are available for daily hire, and they charge a month's pay for hazardous work, no matter the length of time.

Gary goes on to describe these hirelings. One thing of particular note is that certain hirelings will be outright necessary to retain once a PC goes about establishing a stronghold. Obviously, men-at-arms will be needed, though for most classes a certain number of these show up at the stronghold without effort on the PC's part (but do need to be paid). In addition, however, each group of 40 soldiers needs an armorer to maintain them, each group of 40/160 men need a blacksmith to maintain them (only the first blacksmith is limited to maintaining 40 men for some reason) and every 80 men need a weapon maker to maintain them (and Gary suggests dividing weapon makers into those dealing with archery, those dealing with swords and daggers and those dealing with everything else, potentially doubling or tripling the number of weapon makers needed to maintain 80 men). These hirelings would work full-time on maintaining their men, not having any time for commissions from their PC employer; for commissions, the PC will need to retain a hireling caring for less than the full number of men they can maintain. In addition, the wise PC will retain an engineer-architect for any serious building, or risk the building falling over in 1d% months. A PC will likely also want to employ a steward/castellan, who will not actually do the work of establishing a stronghold for the PC but will maintain, run and defend the stronghold, even in the absence of the PC.

One thing I should point out that I liked is that Gary has the DM roll for the skill level of a few of the hirelings, like the jeweler, armorer and sage. Skill levels for armorers and sages are known to players, but skill levels of jewelers (and thus the chances of wonderful success and utter failure) are not.

Finally, Gary spends by far the most space in this section on sages, the walking, talking, "encyclopedias, computers, expert opinions and sort of demi-oracles of the milieu all rolled into one." Sages have a major field of study, of which they specialize in two or more special categories, and one or two minor fields of study. For the most part, PCs will retain sages to answer questions. Gary provides charts to determine the chance that the sage will be able to find the answer to the question based on how general or specific it is and whether it is in one of the sage's areas of special study or not, as well as the cost of the research and the costs of maintaining the sage, which include providing for up to 100,000 gp worth of material relating to the sage's areas of study, research grants and even more expenditure if the PC commissions the sage to master new areas of study. Sages, unlike other expert hirelings, may be consulted before a PC reaches name level and establishes a stronghold. My speculation is that Gary put so much work into sages because his players were always asking questions about things in his game; since Gary included the sage as a mechanism for them to have their questions answered, he could get them to stop asking him all their questions out of character and point them to the sages. I like these sages a lot; my players aren't so persistant as I'm guessing that Gary's were, but I like having a way to give my players information when they really want it without having to mess with what the characters in the game world should be able to know.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 11: Armor, Armor Class and Weapons

Types of Armor and Encumbrance

Gary lists types of armor, including shields, along with how "bulky" they are (he doesn't explain what significance that has in this section, though a note on shields later on implies that it has something to do with encumbrance separate from weight), their weight (adjusted to take into account weight distribution and the armor's effect on mobility), the base movement rate of an individual wearing the armor and short explanations of each type of armor. Both price and AC are missing; I suspect that AC will probably be in another section of the DMG, but a quick skim of the combat section didn't turn anything up.

More interesting are the notes Gary follows this list up with. For example, if PCs don't wear helmets, 1/6 attacks against him are aimed for his AC 10 head; if the opponent is intelligent, then it's every 1/2. There was some discussion a few years back in the OSR about helmets, but I don't remember that harsh consequence for not wearing a helmet ever come up; on the one hand it makes great sense but on the other hand it's both very harsh, especially to characters who can't wear helmets, and it calls for an extra die roll for every attack against helmet-ed PCs.

Shields are only allowed to improve AC against the front and the left. Gary justifies large and small shields providing the same abstract amount of mechanical benefit because, while large shields protect more area at one time, they also cannot be moved around as easily as small shields and they fatigue the user. Gary does allow for an optional rule: large shields provide a +2 bonus against projectiles, instead of the standard +1.

Dexterity and Armor Class Bonus

Gary explains that any penalties to dexterity from wearing armor are already taken into account, so a high Dexterity always provides a bonus to AC…

Except for attacks from behind that the character can't see coming, large (siege weapon style) projectiles and certain magical attacks.

Weapon Types, "To Hit" Adjustment Note

Gary points out that the optional bonuses to weapons against certain types of armor are against certain types of armor and not against the armor classes themselves; that is, if a weapon is +1 against an armor with AC 7, the armor isn't +1 against a monster not wearing any armor but with a natural AC of 7. By the same token, the DM may give that weapon a +1 bonus against another monster with a natural AC of 5 which has natural armor resembling the type of armor the weapon gets a +1 bonus against.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 10: Money

Player Character Starting Money

Gary doesn't actually spell out how much money characters get during character generation; I assume both that that's in the PHB and that the amount of money characters get is 3d6 x 10 gp. Gary stresses that it is important for characters not to have everything that their players want them to have, for the characters to always need more (at least to keep up their lifestyle; Gary points out that the assumption is that adventurers [except for monks, so apparently including paladins and rangers] are living the high life whenever they aren't risking their lives in the dungeon). Gary argues that this is the way to make sure that players are still interested in adventuring. From what I've heard, that might be necessary for some players of the "YOU-give-my-character-his-motivation" school; I've had the good fortune of never having players who don't provide their own characters with motivation. Actually, most of my players who thought about any motivation past "exploring, fighting and getting rich" found the idea of the Old School endgame very compelling.

I realize that's not every player, though, and this is an easy way to give a PC motivation (here's another).

Also, it can't be denied that there's a certain pulpy romance to the PCs constantly making do with less than they want and constantly going into dungeons to get the gold to acquire it. I prefer justifying PCs being less wealthy than they'd like because, well, that's what this game is about rather than because the player's won't play if I don't adversarially inflict poverty upon them.

Player Character Expenses

Characters spend 100 gp per level per month for room, board, equipment maintenance and entertainment. I like this a lot, as it's incredibly simple; I'm not sure I'll use that exact amount, but this is definitely going into my game (my players tend not to be interested in living the high life quite as much as Gary expects). Characters also have to pay henchmen 100 gp per level per month, in addition to their standard treasure shares. Once they have a stronghold, they also need to pay 1% of the total cost of their stronghold per month. Gary also suggests taxes, fees and levies, but he leaves those to the discretion of the DM.

Gems

Gary provides tables for determining what and how valuable gems are. The basic mechanic is to roll on one table, which provides a base value ranging from 10 gp to 5000 gp. Rolling on the next table, that base value is adjusted to its final value. Finally, a roll is made on the appropriate table corresponding to original base value to determine what the gem actually is.

At least I think that's how it works. Gary is less clear than usual in this section, and the fact that most of the "what gem is this" tables have 13 or 14 items makes me wonder whether Gary wanted me to roll on them or not.

Reputed Magical Properties of Gems

Here, Gary gives a long list of gems with the magical properties they are supposed to possess, according to the general culture in the game setting. Which is pretty cool. He then points out that these properties are only what NPCs say these gems have. In actual gameplay, Gary is emphatic that merely possessing, say, a chrysolite, won't ward off spells. Which makes a lot of sense to me, since I don't want my players' first level characters running around with a pocketful of 10 gp gems they found in their first dungeon crawl getting to be invisible and controlling weather and being immune to magic, fire, venom and plague!

Gary does allow for the reputed magical properties to actually be true when gems are incorporated into some magic item, like a potion or ink (or a non-expendable magic item, I say; to craft a ring of invisibility, you should have to have a chrysoprase to set into it). That makes his list a lot like the components list from the Ready Ref sheets, except that it's a lot less dangerous to buy an amethyst than to acquire, say, a displacer beast's tentacle.

Values of Other Rare Commodities

Gary spends maybe a quarter of a column on the prices of other stuff you might find in a treasure hoard, like silk, tapestries, rich furs and spices. That's actually pretty helpful, as I don't recall most other RPGs having prices for those.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 9: Alignment

I've gone through numerous understandings, tinkerings and levels of enthusiasm concerning alignment, and read plenty of other bloggers do the same. It was interesting to see Gary's own take on alignment, at least as he sets it out in the DMG.

Gary begins by explaining what alignment is and some basics about how it works: it is the general "ethos," of a character. It doesn't determine religious views, though it may be determined by religious views, and it doesn't prevent characters with the same alignment from fighting with each other, though similarly aligned opponents are likely to cease hostilities and team up with each other against opponents of different alignment.

In AD&D, Gary differs from the single-axis, "allegiance in a grand cosmic struggle," D&D definition of alignment so common in the OSR and instead sets out alignment as a roleplaying aid, a compass to help players run their characters well and in such a way that they do more than just ask, "what would I do in that situation," and go with that. In Gary's own words, "alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions and purpose will be. It likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae."

In AD&D, there are now two axes for alignment, Law-Chaos and Good-Evil. Gary casts Law as being about the group over the individual; the group needs order and organization to survive and function. Spock was being supremely Lawful when he said, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." Chaos in AD&D, far from being the existential threat to the cosmos it is in D&D, is merely promoting the individual over the group. Good is basically about valuing the rights of others, while Evil is about accomplishing one's goals without regard to the rights of others.

Gary goes on to describe each of the possible nine alignments. Nothing is particularly surprising when one realizes that each alignment is just a synthesization of two points on the two axes, except that I found it interesting to read Gary's descriptions of Evil alignments. Gary describes Neutral Evil characters as basically social Darwinists, believing in the success and survival of the fittest and the failure and extinction of the weak; Lawful Evil sees Law as a mechanism for subjugating those who are weaker, the epitome of classism and racism; Chaotic Evil values individual desires and volition… so long as the individuals who have them are strong enough to bring them into reality and defend them. Ultimately, "might makes right," seems to be the unifying theme of Gary's understanding of Evil.

Gary stresses that it is important to chart the alignment of characters' behavior, using a chart in the PHB. He doesn't go into much detail on this point and I'm unclear on whether that chart is this chart that I've seen multiple times before:

or something else. If it's this chart that Gary is talking about, I'm not sure how he expects "small shifts" to be kept track of. Charting character behavior on the alignment chart is important because some classes require certain alignments and because there are serious consequences to actually changing alignment.

Gary takes alignment so seriously that he states, "failure to demand strict adherence to alignment behavior is to allow a game abuse." Gary offers as an example of such game abuse a Paladin who is conveniently led away from the party while the rest of the party schemes to poison a monster; the Paladin isn't stupid and, if played according to alignment, would not turn a blind eye to that sort of behavior, but the players play their characters that way because it is convenient. Gary argues that the Paladin's player should be told that turning a blind eye towards obviously non-Lawful behavior will cost him his Paladinhood and if the player continues to act against alignment then the DM should follow through and strip the Paladin of his Paladinhood.

Gary goes on to discuss alignment languages. He draws parallels with Thief's Cant and the Catholic Church's Latin, but it's clear that there are no strict real-world parallels with what he is describing. Alignment languages are not complete languages; their vocabularies are well-developed concerning the main topics of the alignment, but very bare in all other areas. Thieves can discuss casing and stealing to no end, but a discussion of literature is out of the question; Druids can discuss plants and weather, but not politics. Gary's examples of Thieves and Druids discussing things with their alignment tongues makes me wonder just how many alignment tongues there are; are there nine, one for each alignment? More? Less? Nine seems to generally fit what Gary is saying, as it seems that any intelligent creature, even Gold Dragons, isolated from humanity, can speak the tongue of their alignement. It is taboo to speak in an alignment tongue in the presence of anyone not positively known to share that alignment.

One aspect Gary doesn't address with alignment tongues is how they play out in a game. Do characters ensure that they are not overheard by enemies who don't share their alignment by using it? Do characters prove to monsters that share their alignment that they, too, are of that alignment (for example, a Lawful Good party approaching a Gold Dragon)? Of what real use is alignment language?

Consequences for alignment change include: losing spells or spell-casting ability (particularly for druids), losing a level and loss of alignment tongue while beginning to learn the new alignment tongue. If alignment change is the result of magic against the character's will, magically reversing the alignment change can restore the lost level, but at a hefty monetary cost.

Gary suggests not informing players that there are consequences for changing alignment, letting players cross into other alignments and then penalizing them. I've read and heard complaints about alignment from the players' side that make much more sense to me now that I've read this. I mean, how would you react if you were playing your character according to how you understood your character's alignment, all the while moving closer and closer to alignment change because the DM interpreted your actions differently but wasn't telling you that, and then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, the DM tells you, "you just changed your alignment; congratulations, you lose a level!"? I actually argue for keeping alignment secret from players in this post, but with less drastic consequences, especially for players who play classes that aren't aware of alignment; I think it's important for players of classes that depend on alignment to have at least an in-game understanding of how things work if they are going to suffer consequences for their actions. Gary's approach, as far as I can tell, is "gotcha-ism," pure and simple; I understand that Gary apparently DMed with unrepentant, shameless power-gamers, but this, I think, crosses the line into dysfunctional adversarial gaming advice.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 8: Character Classes - The Use of Poison by Assassins, Monsters as PCs and Lycanthropy

The Use of Poisons by Assassins

Up until 9th level, Assassins use poison pretty much like everyone else. Once they hit 9th level, however, Assassins can choose to make a study of four aspects of poisons:

• injected/blood poison
• ingested poison
• contact poison and poisons that work both ingested and injected
• creating poisons and antidotes. 

In order to study poisons, the Assassin must find another Assassin of at least 12th level to study under, paying 2000-8000 gold a week; altogether, these four courses of study may take up to 32 weeks! This course of study allows the Assassin to use instantaneous poisons, poisons that take 1-4 hours to kill a victim and poisons that are administered in multiple doses so that they are undetectable, as well as create blade poisons, which evaporate completely in two days and are only effective for the first two hits. Victims of poison administered by Assassins who have completed this course of study also lose the +1 to their saving throw against poisons that they usually get when poisoned by Assassins (those poisoned by non-Assassins get a +2 to their saves).

If you think that's a lot of payout for little benefit, listen to this: the DM isn't allowed to tell the player about the availability of these options, or even hint at them! I'm extremely curious how often a player came up with the idea of having their name-level Assassin study poisons all on their own (and how often their DMs would accuse them of reading the DMG if they did ask about it!).

Altogether, I'm ambivalent about these extra poison rules; they seem pretty complicated and I partly think Gary may have been doing players a favor by instructing the DM not to tell players about them… on the other hand, why shouldn't an Assassin get to study the advanced levels of his craft, just like Magic Users?

The Monster as a Player Character

I was really disappointed with this section, in which Gary addresses what was apparently a not-uncommon request: running monsters as PCs. Gary declares a few times that, "in most cases [running monsters as PCs] was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination." His antidote for this power-gaming motive for running monsters is to explain the in-game limits monster PCs would face. Monsters would be hunted down if they wondered into a tavern to join an adventuring party, and, besides, "Men are the worst monsters." By that, Gary means that high-level characters are able to challenge even demon princes and demi-gods; high-enough level characters, with no limit to the number of magic items they can possess, leave all monsters behind in terms of the danger they pose to their enemies.

For the DM, Gary also points out that it is difficult enough to create a campaign world that is humanocentric, with the aid of humanocentric literature and science; he states that attempts to create a campaign setting which revolves around, or even is partially based on, a monster's perspective, "is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?"

To be fair, Gary does allow that some players will want to run monsters out of curiosity and an honest desire to experiment. He suggests letting them do so, confident that they will quickly lose interest in running those monster PCs; he states that monster PCs whose players have lost interest in them make interesting NPCs and can contribute positively to the campaign setting.

I wish Gary hadn't taken this position; I've expressed elsewhere my desire to try running a dragon character from its first age category into maturity, so I won't repeat that here. Who knows? Gary might be right and I might lose interest after trying this out for a bit; I just won't know until I've given it a shot.

Finally, Gary does partially redeem this section in my eyes in a short section in which he specifically addresses the true unattractiveness of dragons as PCs. He states that, "only time and accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age)." This both provides a mechanism for leveling for dragon PCs - retaining, not spending treasure - and provides an incentive for young dragons to adventure. I will have to give this further thought…

Lycanthropy

Gary stresses that lycanthropy is supposed to be undesirable in AD&D, something to be cured of rather than some sort of bonus. Lycanthropy in AD&D consists mostly of loss of control; characters have chances to change into their were-form six times a month (full, half, quarter, new, quarter and half moon - I'm not sure if 3/4 moons were left out intentionally or not) with varying chances of being able to have any control over those changes or not. Were-PCs are apt to change if they are hurt badly in combat, arguing with other party members, proximity to creature-summoning magic, etc. Lycanthropy can also cause serious mental anguish in those whose alignments are different from their were-form (which is usually the case, since they usually contracted lycanthropy fighting those of different alignment) as their alignment slowly changes to that of their were-forms. Lycanthropy is especially bad for Paladins, who lose their Paladinhood and are considered, "no longer pure enough for that honored state;" Gary even advises against allowing a redemptive quest for the ex-Paladin! Finally, no XP is gained while in lycanthrope form and there is no such thing as "leveling up:" it is impossible to be a "2nd level Werewolf," for example.

In short, lycanthropy is supposed to be incredibly inconvenient.

Gary also provides multiple cures for lycanthropy; the cheapest and easiest are only efficacious very soon after contracting lycanthropy. The most expensive option is to go to a holy/unholy place and drink holy/unholy water prepared by the clergy there and laced with wolfsbane and belladonna out of a silver chalice for a month or more. I found it puzzling that unholy sites would assist in curing lycanthropy until I realized that some lycanthropes are, I believe, lawful and good-aligned.

Finally Gary gives short profiles of lycanthrope behavior. Werebears fight evil creatures until one or the other is dead, and are likely to attack evil creatures immediately upon encountering them. Wereboars are argumentative and want to be in charge. Wererats are the only type of lycanthrope that can use weapons while in were-form; they volunteer to be at the back of the party marching order if they are in a party. Weretigers are supremely self-interested and have a fondness for cats. Werewolves seldom join adventuring parties, but when they do and are discovered, they tend to wait until the party is in combat and then turn on their comrades.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 7: Character Classes - Spying, Thief Abilities, Setting Traps and Assassination Experience Points

Spying

In contrast to ACKS, in which spying and other hijinks are usually carried out by the followers of a PC, in AD&D they are carried out by NPCs that are hired, if the PCs don't want to do it on their own in the first place. Gary provides a table for determining the success of a mission, modified by whether the mission is simple, difficult or extraordinary. There is always a chance of discovery, modified by the length of the mission and how well guarded the target is against spying. If the spy is unsuccessful, or if the spy is discovered, you roll on the Spy Failure Table, which determines the fate of the spy. Altogether, I prefer the simplicity of the ACKS system, which takes care of all of these issues with a single die roll (up to capture, when some more rolls are required).

Thief Abilities

Gary expounds on Thief abilities for the purpose of preventing abuse, which mainly means that he lists the limits and time consequences of Thief abilities - Thieves cannot backstab opponents who are aware of their presence, opening locks takes 1-10 rounds (though usually 1-4), and so on. Gary emphasizes rolling all the dice to determine success or failure in secret so that the player will not know whether his character has successfully hid in shadows or moved silently or whatever. The two abilities he singles out as the most abused are hide in shadows and climbing walls. Hide in shadows is not possible if a character is already being observed, and a hiding character is still susceptible to being detected as if he were invisible. Gary provides a matrix that lays out how quickly a Thief can climb, from non-slippery to slippery surfaces and from smooth to very rough surfaces. Gary states that most dungeon walls are on the rougher side but are also slippery from dampness and slime growth.

Thieves and Assassins Setting Traps

Thieves and Assassins get a chance to set traps that is based off of the Thief's chance to detect traps (Assassins get a chance as if they were Thieves of two levels higher than their actual level). They must have access to the components of the traps, having to hire a specialist to provide special components, and the player has to provide the DM with a drawing of the trap. Even if the PC sets the trap successfully, there is a chance (the inverse of the chance to set the trap correctly) that the trap will accidentally go off and hurt the PC while he is setting it. This all seems over-complicated to me; I imagine that this level of work for setting one trap will discourage players from setting any traps at all, which is the exact opposite of what I'd like in my games. I do like the idea of PCs setting traps, though, so I'll probably try to inform players of that possibility in my games in the future, but I'll probably just require a verbal description of the trap similar to, but with fewer requirements than, the ones I use for my Tuesday Traps series and handwave the chances of failure, at least unless the trap is being set up in a hurry.

Assassination Experience Points

On top of the normal XP gained for killing the target of an assassination, an Assassin gets XP for having assassinated the target, based on the level of the target and modified the Assassin's level and the difficulty of the job. The Assassin also receives XP for the fee he is paid, meaning that an Assassin gets XP in three different ways every time he assassinates someone! This seems to incentivize assassination to a degree I'm not sure I want in my game; I do suppose that if Assassins don't make up the majority of the party, the rest of the party probably won't go for assassination missions every session, and if the majority of the party is made up of Assassins then it's already basically an assassination campaign, so I needn't worry too much. Still, what feels to me like disproportionately rewarding assassination rubs me the wrong way.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 6: Character Classes - Followers for Upper Level Player Characters

Gary provides tables for generating followers for PCs who have reached "certain levels" and done "certain things." The closest thing I've ever seen to these tables and rules, which take up about two pages (and Gary fits a LOT on one page), is the ACKS rules, but the ACKS rules are much, much more streamlined than these tables; the way I see it, ACKS creates a much easier-to-use framework, but the DMG provides more variety and, in some cases, more detail, and I'll probably incorporate large portions of it into an ACKS framework if I ever run games where PCs begin establishing strongholds.

Let's talk about Rangers first because, frankly, while the other tables are very cool, they pale in comparison to the tables for generating a Ranger's followers. Rangers get 2d12 followers, and the fewer followers they get, they cooler they'll be, as each result on the 2d12 comes with a modifier for the d% table you roll on next; for example, if you rolled a 3, you'd adjust your rolls on the d% table by 15%, increasing your chances of getting the really awesome results that are higher up on the table.

You roll for each of your followers on this d% table, which directs you to one of six sub-tables. Let's talk about each of these:

Table I is the Human Followers subtable. While Clerics can only have 0-level Fighters as followers, and Fighters get 0-level Fighters and one leveled "leader type" of 5-7th level, and Thieves and Assassins get Thieves or Assassins who might be multi-classing if they are demi-humans, a Ranger's human followers might be Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Rangers or Magic-Users. And we're just getting started…

Table II is for demi-human followers. The only demi-human not available as a follower is the Half-Orc.

Table III starts to get interesting. Rangers might have a black or brown bear as a follower, or two giant lynx, or a pair of giant owls… or two blink dogs! Table IV lists possible mounts that follow the Ranger. the options are 1-3 centaurs, a hippogriff or a pegasus! Table V lists creatures, which are all fey or fey-ish: 1-2 brownies, 1-4 pixies, a pseudo-dragon, a satyr or 2-4 sprites.

Finally, Table VI lists "special creatures." The possibilities include 1-2 weretigers, 1-2 werebears, 2-5 treants, a storm giant and… a copper dragon of age category d4+1!

Seriously, Rangers get the best followers - this is the only way I've ever heard of, in any incarnation of D&D, to get a dragon to serve you without having to worry every second about whether it will turn on you or not; granted, the chances are small, but they exist! And consolation prizes include centaurs (that, since they are listed in the "mounts" subtable, will apparently let you ride them), blink dogs, storm giants and pseudo-dragons!

Rangers get the best followers. And if anyone ever mocks AD&D in my presence, pages 16 and 17 of the DMG will be exhibit A as I demonstrate to them just how wrong they are.

While Clerics, Fighters and Thieves mostly get one, two or four short tables for determining followers (and magic-users, illusionists, druids and monks don't seem to get any followers at all), Assassins and Paladins get some commentary that I think is worth commenting on here.

What I find really interesting about the Assassins section is that Gary provides a schedule for the Assassin's followers to show up (which seems to only be for the new followers that a Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins will attract once they've achieved that title). The first follower(s) (Gary doesn't specify how to determine how many show up as the first to arrive) show up 1d30 days after, "the conditions for obtaining such followers have been met," with the next assassin showing up 1-8 days later, the third one 1-8 days after that and so on. Interestingly, Gary says that if there isn't anyone around to receive the new follower then the follower will wait 1-4 days and then leave forever. I've never seen any kind of schedule like this, but I like it and would consider using it for the followers of all classes.

Moving on to Paladins, who only get a warhorse for for a follower, albeit a very special one, I was surprised to read that, instead of the warhorse just showing up at 4th level, the Paladin instead has a vision of where the warhorse is and must go and get the warhorse, usually having to perform some task, such as taming the warhorse or defeating an enemy of opposite alignment. Gary is kind and stipulates that this, "will not be an impossible task," but should be, "of some small difficulty," that, "will certainly test the mettle of the paladin," and take no longer than two weeks.

A paladin's mount will grow old and need to be replaced every 10 years, which I found surprising, mostly because I just hadn't thought about it before. Gary really does seem to intend AD&D campaigns to last for decades, at least in game time; the aging and death tables weren't for show! Paladin mount hit points are determined not by rolling dice but by halving the Paladin's level and multiplying that by their hit dice (5). I've only seen this kind of hit point calculation done with dragons before. Finally, if the Paladin ever falls, the mount will become an "immutable enemy," apparently not forgiving the Paladin even if he is able to make atonement and redeem himself. And I thought Paladins were uptight…

Also, Rangers get the best followers. Seriously.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 5: Character Abilities and Character Races

Character Abilities

Gary explains what each of the ability scores really means, plus an extra paragraph about exceptional strength. Each ability score, much like hit points, is an abstraction of different things that would be difficult to quantify and would complicate things a lot if dealt with separately. Let's hit what ability scores really mean first:

Strength: physical power, endurance, stamina
Intelligence: mnemonic, reasoning and learning ability, plus book learning
Wisdom: willpower, judgment, wile, enlightenment and intuitiveness
Dexterity: hand-eye coordination, agility, reflex speed, precision, balance and running speed
Constitution: physique, health, resistance (I'm not sure what that means, really) and fitness
Charisma: physical appearance, persuasiveness and personal magnetism

I'll certainly be using Gary's summations the next time I try to explain ability scores!

Gary also discusses real-world correspondences with Intelligence and Strength. He states that Intelligence scores are roughly analogous to IQ scores (presumably multiplied by 10) and that someone with a Strength score of 18 can lift his weight (or 180 pounds, whichever is heavier) above his head.

Gary goes on to state that no human/humanoid (and, presumably, demi-human) can lift more than twice its body weight above its head. He then lays out how many additional pounds characters with percentage points above 18 can lift above their heads: one pound for each of the first fifty points, four pounds for the next forty and eight for the last ten. Added all together, the most strength that a character could begin play with, it seems, is enough to lift their body weight plus 290 pounds or twice their body weight, whichever is greater.

Character Races

Gary writes that while players should get to control their characters and determine their personalities, alignment will definitely be a factor they use in this task, and racial characteristics can also be a factor. He goes on to describe the general temperaments of dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings and half-orcs. Each conforms to what, thirty-some years later, is pretty much the standard treatment of these races, difficult to get away from even if you try. Dwarves are "dour and taciturn," half-orcs "are boors," etc. I think the only information that was really new to me was the idea that elves are fascinated by magic to the degree that "if they have a weakness it lies in this desire."

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 4: Character Age, Aging, Disease, and Death

Character Age

As part of character generation, a character's age is rolled for. Age ranges are determined by class and race. Age ranges vary from 13+1d4 for a Half-Orc Fighter to 500+10d10 for an Elven Cleric. Fighters have the lowest age ranges, followed by thieves, magic-users and finally clerics. For humans, sub-classes (druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, assassin and monk, which doesn't seem to be a sub-class, but is maybe only available to humans in AD&D?) get their own ranges, but demi-human sub-classes get their ranges from their base class, it seems (based on no sub-classes being on the demi-human Age table). This is pretty straightforward, but gets interesting when compared with the age categories in the next section. It's also something I like and will probably add to my games in the future.

Aging

In AD&D, there are five age categories: Young Adult, Mature, Middle-Aged, Old and Venerable. Lifespans range from a maximum of 99 years for a Half-Orc to a maximum of 2419 years for a Gray Elf. (For those following along, these numbers are derived from calculating maximum age in the Death section later on; in this section, the Venerable brackets end for a Half-Orc at 80 and for a Gray Elf at 2000.)

These brackets are important because ability scores are modified based on which bracket a character is currently in. For example, a Young Adult character loses one point of Wisdom but gains one point of Constitution. As characters age, they lose Constitution, Strength and Dexterity while gaining Wisdom and Intelligence; Charisma is the only ability untouched by aging, which makes sense when remembering the Old School dogma that Charisma is more about leadership ability than about physical beauty (and assuming an pre-Modern culture in which age is respected instead of derided and mocked).

What I find really interesting is that, combined with the Character Age tables, this means that characters of different races but the same class will begin their careers in different age brackets. I first noticed this for Clerics, where a Human may begin their career while a Young Adult or Mature, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves begin while Mature (perhaps because of their Human blood?), Gnomes and Elves start their careers as Middle Aged and Dwarves may only begin their careers as clerics once they've reached the Old bracket! I link the Cleric class with Dwarves in my mind, so this surprises me, but that flouting of expectations is something I love about Old School games. I'm also interested in the consequences to play of starting a character out that is Old; will this change player behavior, and, if so, how?

Finally, the Aging section has a short table for the number of years a character ages when engaging in certain magics, ranging from aging one year for casting Limited Wish, imbibing a Speed potion or being the subject of a Haste spell to a whopping five years for casting a Gate spell. I'm curious as to the implications of this; if I was running a Human Magic-User, I would certainly hesitate to have him engage in these kinds of magic, but I'm just not sure I'd care if I ran an Elf Magic-User. Perhaps those are exactly the in-game play style ramifications that are intended. I'm on the fence about penalizing these kinds of magic by including magical aging as a consequence for using them; I'm alternately afraid that it won't matter at all to the players if I include it and afraid that it will discourage using these magics so badly that they will avoid them all-together.

Interestingly, casting one of the spells that includes magical aging as a consequence from a scroll, ring or other device does not cause magical aging; rather, placing a spell on the scroll (or device, presumably) in the first place causes magical aging. I can imagine plots revolving around getting another Magic-User to place one of these spells onto a scroll or into an item so my character (or, as the DM, an NPC) doesn't have to age to use one of these spells.

Disease

Diseases (and parasites - there are tables for parasites that parallel the disease tables) are described in the abstract; using these tables, a character does not contract TB or the measles or bubonic plague; instead, one might contract [roll, roll, roll] a mild, acute respiratory disease lasting 1-3 weeks unless treated or [roll, roll, roll] a chronic, severe gastro-intestinal disease which permanently robs a character of a point of Strength and Constitution each time it strikes. The one thing missing from the tables, in my opinion, is how much time elapses between attacks in the case of chronic diseases (d6 or d12 months sounds reasonable to me).

I really like the abstract nature of these disease tables; they add a flavor of uncertainty to the player's experience when their character gets sick. Instead of saying, "your character is down with the measles," this approach has me say, "your character is really sick and has a horrible rash; you're not sure what it is." If they consult a physician, I can roll on the excellent and complementary disease tables in Matt Finch's Tome of Adventure Design, which include Medieval-sounding diagnoses ("Irrationality of the Liver" or "Stiffness of the Kidneys") and Medieval treatments (bleeding, leeches, poultices, baths, drinking noxious liquids, scourging and prayer, and so on). The only thing I need to determine for myself is whether the suggested cure will actually work (I'm waffling between a 50% chance and a 75% chance).

Gygax suggests checking each month if each character has contracted a disease, each week if conditions are "favorable." This sounds cruel until you realize that the base chance of contracting a disease is 2%. There are modifiers which can boost the chances of contraction, but even if the character is Venerable (+5%), currently diseased or infected with parasites (+1%) and exposed to a carrier of communicable diseases (10%) in a crowded (+1%), filthy (+1%) city in the middle of a hot and moist (+2%) marsh, swamp or jungle (+2%), the chances of contracting a disease are, at the very most, 24%. Of course, in conditions like that, Gygax suggests rolling weekly instead of monthly…

Death

Gygax begins his discussion of death by asserting that death in combat is, "no great matter in most cases," because of the myriad magical ways to bring a character back to life. The number of times Gygax has mentioned Wishes so far (we're only on page 15!) has got me wondering if there should be a lot more Wishes available in my games, and why they just don't seem to be super-common in today's roleplaying, even among the OSR. Reflections on that point are especially welcome in the comments. Other bloggers in the OSR (who, like me, tend to play D&D instead of AD&D) have already voiced their opposition to a "revolving door" approach to death and coming back to life, so I won't go into that beyond saying that, yeah, I don't enjoy playing so that the death of a character is, "no great matter," unless by that you mean that it's easy and quick to roll up a new character.

Gygax goes on to point out that death due to old age or (later on in this section) disease poses a greater problem; characters who die of old age and are brought back to life will soon die again, and those who died of disease and are brought back to life will still carry the effects of the disease, like ability score loss, and are 90% likely to still have the disease.

Gygax also provides tables for determining the maximum age for a character; that is, at what age the character will die of old age. The youngest that a character might die of old age is 62, for a Half-Orc, while, as previously mentioned, the longest that a Gray Elf may live is 2419 years.