Adding a new dimension to D&D weapons

D&D weapons have many different traits, depending on the edition. Usually, damage is the most noticeable. If I give my players a list of weapons, they'll usually pick the most damaging weapon they can carry.

But there is also price, weight, and in some editions speed, effectives versus armor, length, size, and different effects due to weapon proficiencies.

There is ONE dimensional that is sorely lacking since OD&D, however: an attack bonus.

In chainmail, weapons cause the same damage, but the to-hit chance is different depending on the weapon and armor. This is NOT simply an effect of armor: some weapons are just better to-hit overall.

For example, giving B/X battleaxes a +2 to hit would be very easy. They'd become better than swords against plate and shield, but still worse in most circumstances. Maybe 2h-swords deserve a +1 to-hit to compensate the "slow" aspect (if you're using that at all). Maybe maces deserve a +1 bonus (and make them weight a bit more than short swords). Etc.

What about unarmed attacks? They could cause 1, 1d2 or 1d3 damage... But it would be just as easy to give them a -2 penalty to-hit. Now attacking a foe in plate with bare hands is very ineffective.

[Notice that, because of how AC works, the bonus would be greater for armor-defeating weapons; these are usually heavy, unbalanced... In short, this is the opposite of speed.]

You could scatter high-quality and low-quality weapons by giving them -1 and +1 to-hit... without altering damage output significantly (probably less than 20%, or a smaller difference than 1d6 to 1d8 damage).

There is almost no effect on game balance.

This is probably the simplest addition you can make to B/X weapons. 

You don't need special rules or subsystems, and you probably can write your attack bonus (if you're using that) with your weapon - which already includes Strength/Dexterity and class bonuses. E.g.: "Dagger +3 [1d4+1], Polearm +6 [1d10+1]".

Unfortunately, the "+1 magic weapon" idea is too strong in D&D; it is expected that weapons only give you bonuses to hit if they are magical (it would be a good idea to mix things up here too: a magical weapon with +2 to-hit and +4 damage, for example, something 5e has embraced).

But giving ordinary weapons discreet bonus/penalties to-hit would already add an entire new dimension to your arsenal.

This is just a random idea for now; but if I ever had to add weapon details to my "minimalist B/X", this is where I would start.

Cyclic history (I) - The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” ― Robert E. Howard

There are two popular conceptions of history that I see everyday: I'll call them "progressive " and "conservative", but feel free to correct me if you know better terms. 

"Progressive history" believes society advances (if irregularly), somewhat like technology. There are ups and downs, but there is also a right path to march forward, and those who fail to see that are barbarians "on the wrong side of History". 

"Conservative history" believes History is not a march forward, but a series movements bringing us closer or farther from some center (usually created by a deity). Tradition should be handled with care, and those who fail to see that are degenerates and heretics.

Another possibility is "Regressive history", the belief that everything was better in ancient times. There is some of that in Hinduism, Taoism and the Garden of Eden, but it is not a common perspective of history nowadays. People often see their youth as the golden years, but the medieval period as "the dark ages".

The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall, found in the writings of Howard, Lovecraft and Moorcock, tells a different story...

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age.”

― H.P. Lovecraft

“Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is the whim of circumstance. And barbarianism must ultimately triumph”

― Robert E. Howard

Within this paradigm, history is cyclical (this is also a theme in Hinduism and Plato, as far as I know.) Cultures go from barbarianism to civilization, but civilization becomes decadent until it destroys itself, returning to barbarianism. 

We could divide this in five stages, as exemplified by Conan characters: savage (e.g., the Picts), barbarian (e.g., Conan and the Cimmerians), civilized (e.g., Aquilonia), decadent (e.g., Stygia) and ruined (extinct societies like Lemuria and Atlantis). I think I read the idea in some old version of RuneQuest first, but it is common in many RPGs.

(Note: it is also possible to have utopia as an alternative to the kinds of societies delineated above - e.g., Satya Yuga, the Garden of Eden, Avalon, etc. This is uncommon in S&S settings; they appears mostly as mythical, distant or extinct places, such as the original home of Yag-Kosha. A PC or even NPC from such origin should be very rare).

Howard seems to favor barbarianism, as mentioned above, but maybe this is because he's telling so many stories from the barbarian point of view (even Conan eventually becomes king of Aquilonia, in a way choosing civilization over barbarianism). 

I prefer to look at it in a cyclical manner: barbarianism will often "ascend" to civilization, but civilization plants the seed of its own destruction. 

(The Lovecraft quote also explains why: knowledge is dangerous, and too much progress will bring us back to "dark ages". The idea that knowledge/power brings madness/corruption is also common in S&S and dark fantasy in general.)

This is an important point, because it's easy for us to see civilization as the epitome of society. When we think of it in terms of cycles, we can see any position is relative. Each society judges itself superior to others, and see other societies in comparison with their own. Conan sees civilized folks as degenerate already, while someone from a decadent civilization (say, Moorcock's Melniboné) would see Aquilonians (or "the young kingdoms") as ignorant barbarians.

On the other hand, an individual can see its own culture with critical eyes. For example,  you might belong to a decadent culture and denounce its excesses publically. This might turn you into an outcast or pariah.

In addition, cultures are not monolithic. You could have a culture where the elites are incredibly decadent but the poor still try to maintain some decency, for example, or vice-versa. Different groups could exist in the same nation or city. Rulers can preach morals despite living decadent lives, or conversely they can breed corruption in the population while maintaining civilized lives themselves.

Once you break free of this "barbarian is better" or " civilization is better" paradigm, things becomes much more interesting. Instead of good against evil or Law against Chaos, you get meaningful choices and shades of gray. A PC could come from any kind of society (although PCs from savage and ruined ones will be rarer), with pros and cons. 

And we could reflect on demographics, laws, customs, magic and science in each kind of society, for easy and fun world building... 

Which I plan to do soon.

The minimalist beauty of D&D's "Dragon Quest Game"

First, notice there are several products with similar names; in this post, I'm talking about Dungeons & Dragons: Dragon Quest Game.

Contents: "32 page rule book, 24 page adventure book, 4 page booklet, fold-out game board, 4 sheets of cardstock fold-up figures, 6 plastic minis, 6 metal minis, 7 dice, 180 cards" (source).

This is not a "proper" RPG, but a board game for children 10-12 years old who never played D&D.

Still, I found the game immensely fun - despite being "too old" for it and playing GURPS regularly at the time!

And I introduced quite a few people to RPGs with it. I wish I still had a copy to try with children and newcomers.

Today, after being hit by nostalgia out of nowhere, I went online to take another look at the game.

It is apparently less famous than I thought - I found few reviews and it doesn't seem easy to buy.

Anyway, this games is probably lacking as a board game or RPG - the rules are vague, incomplete, and apparently unbalanced. We probably made it work due to experience with other RPGs. 

But...

I have to admire the sweet minimalism of the game.

source.

The rules book has 32 pages, and is full of beautiful TSR art. 

The actual rules are very lean: almost everything is basically "roll under your ability score" (the usual six abilities).

Dwarves can find secret doors rolling under Wis. Halflings hide and thieves deal with traps rolling under Dex. Elves are just wizards with better fighting.

There are no saving throws - a PC affect by poison must roll under Constitution or die, etc.

THAC0 is replaced by a "fighting score", basically 20-level. So a 3rd level MU has a fighting score of 17 - which is better than most versions of D&D, but he can only use small weapons.

Spells do not have levels. You just pick a number of spells equal to your level plus Int or Wis mod. Magic-users pick before elves. I love this scheme.

No XP either - surviving a dungeon (which isn't easy) gives you a level, period.

There are no HD, just HP (6 per level for clerics, etc.).

source.

Treasure and encumbrance are abstracted - each PC can carry two cards (except backpacks allow you to carry more stuff), some treasure cards can be traded by equipment, etc.

Random encounters are drawn from a deck of cards, prepared beforehand for each dungeon.

The cards might be the best thing about this game - full of (not always appropriate) TSR art, they are much better than the 5e versions!

It also had plastic/metal PCs and paper figures for monsters and doors, and a single board that could be slightly adapted for different dungeons.

While I prefer "theater of the mind" RPGs, all these components were great for introducing people to the hobby, and fun to play with.

Lots of interesting ideas that could be applied to ANY version of D&D are scattered through the game: for example, the reaction table takes into account that lawful creatures are more likely to be helpful (which makes more sense here since PCs are never chaotic).

There are a few missed opportunities for balance and fun. Some treasure cards could have different effects (e.g., trade for TWO equipment cards), plate armor (or additional items) could affect movement, etc. The special cards are just random luck (nothing the player or PC can do except hope for a good result), and Charisma apparently serves no function in the game.

This game is introductory and always errs on the side of simplicity.

The adventure book has three dungeons and advice to build your own - and even blank cards for the DM to fill!

It also contains some horrible DM advice (e.g., fudge your rolls, ignore random encounters occasionally, and so on).

All things considered, this was a fun introductory game. 

It was released in 1992, but contained ideas that would come back in 3e, 4e and 5e (e.g., everyone has a similar fighting bonus, saves rely on abilities) and even OSR games such as TAAC and The Black Hack (almost everything is "roll under ability").

It makes me wonder if someone could have started with this game and then moved to D&D... only to realize THAC0 charts, percentile thief skills and saving throws did little to improve the game!

Despite being incomplete and not that balanced, I think this is a fun little game - and a bit ahead of its time in many aspects.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Old School "Tiers of play"

The idea of "tiers of play" is popular in 5th edition circles. The 5e DMG describes the following tiers:

* Levels 1-4 - Local heroes.

* Levels 5-10 - Heroes of the Realm. 

* Levels 11-17 - Masters of the Realm. 

* Levels 17-20 - Masters of the World.

The main criteria is spells; level 3, 6, and 9 spells are acquired in each tier beyond the first. These are significant steps, as the difference between levels 2 and 3 is smaller than level 3 and 4 (or at least that is the idea). Fighters get extra attacks at similar points, which is a good idea.

In old school play, there are multiple distinctions: "basic", "expert", "name level", "master", immortal", etc. There are differences between OD&D, Basic and AD&D. But overall, I think you could say that:

* Levels 1-3 are for "basic" heroes (1-3 is included in Holmes, B/X). They explore dungeons. Wilderness is too dangerous for now...

* Levels 4-8 are for "expert" heroes - wilderness explorers. Everyone has enough HP to be almost impervious to a single-hit kill from a soldier with a sword. Mages get fireball on level 5. AD&D gives extra attacks for Fighters/Warriors by this tier. Thieves get read languages.

* Levels 9-14 are for "conquerors" - domain management. Most classes gets baronies, followers, build towers, etc., at this point. Epic spells are acquired (raise dead in BECMI, teleport). Fewer HP per level (but more HP per XP). B/X stops at 14th.

Levels 15 + - are for "advanced" heroes (or "companion" rules). These guys are legends. You eventually get 9th-level earth-shattering spells such as "Wish". You can go up to 36 and beyond with BECMI but I find this unnecessary and redundant. In any case, the sky is the limit - you might become a demi-god.

As I mentioned in the link above, the maximum number of levels is purely arbitrary.

My own games usually stop at level 10 and I don't go into domain management often anyway. Dark Fantasy Basic stops at level 10, for example (avoiding the wonky HP progression mentioned above), but has some notes on going to level 36.

However, using 20 levels fits very well with the d20. And counting in fives is intuitive, so I like to think of levels 5, 10, and 15 for each tier "advancement".

Point-buy D&D (OSR)

I have played point-buy systems for decades. 

In some of these systems, you choose your abilities scores, powers, perks, etc. by spending a limited amount of points - instead of rolling dice and picking a class.

Point-buy mechanics are not uncommon in D&D; even in OD&D (IIRC) you could reduce one ability score to improve another. Later on, you had proficiencies to choose. 

In modern D&D, you get to pick your ability scores (and sometimes skills) with points too.

The best thing about this is that you can customize your character however you like. 

Do you want a spell-less ranger, nature paladin, witcher, white mage, etc.? Easy to do without multiclassing rules.

In systems like Runequest or Savage Worlds, you don't even need classes; you just create the character you imagine.

The main problem, of course, is analysis paralysis.

[Another downside is that all PCs of the same class become "optimal" and "samey" if you don't introduce some randomness].

Too much choice becomes burdensome. At the very least, you'd need a few examples or templates to help players out, unless they are familiar with the system (with that said, I played such systems for decades without much issue).

Anyway, I have often wondered if old school D&D could be easily reduced to a point buy system - probably after playing Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which uses a similar system for skills.

by James West.

Ideally, we'd have a number of things to "buy" with a similar cost. 

Let's start with 3 points per level (maybe 5 on level 1). You can assign them to (no more than one point per level to the same ability/skill/etc.):

- Attack bonus.
- Saves (bonus apply to all saves).
- Ability scores improvements
- Skills (1-in-6 otherwise).
- Spells (1 point per spell).
- Spell-casting.
- Turn undead.
- Feats/features.

Some entries deserve special consideration.

Attack bonus probably requires at least 1/3 of your current level, to keep in line with old-school mages.

Saves are the same (no matter if using a single save or more than one).

Ability scores improvements enhance your abilities, no matter how you define them in the first place (3d6 in order, standard array, etc.). To balance things out, I'd probably use WotC modifiers, i.e., +1 for 12-13, +2 for 14-15, +3 for 16-17, etc.

Skills replace thief skills but also ranger stuff (forage, hunt, directions). Everyone starts with a 1-in-6 chance, it becomes 2-in-6 by spending a point etc. 6-in-6 means you roll 2d6 and only fail if both dice get 6 (which means about 97% chance of success).

I'd reduce thief skills to five or six (see below).

Spell-casting means your MU level. Spellcasting 3 means you cast as a 3rd level MU. You still have to learn the spells, and you probably need at least the same number as you spellcasting (e.g., at least 3 spells for spellcasting 3).

To Turn Undead you roll 1d6 and must beat the target's HD by 4 or more. TU 2 means you roll 1d6+2, etc. A margin of 8 or more means destruction.

Feats are various perks, including all existing features. Some of them could cost more than 1 point (e.g., multiple attacks) and they might be limited (e.g., one for every three levels) to reduce complexity. You can find many examples in Old School Feats - they'd cost 2 points each.

Let's try to create a character - say, a 6th level thief, with 20 points - that will feel similar to the original version.

- Attack bonus: +3.

- Saves: +3.

- Skills: +12 (3-in-6 for six skills).

- Feats: +2 (backstab or read languages).

This is pretty close to B/X. 

What about a fighter?

- Attack bonus: +6.

- Saves: +6.

- Ability scores: +4 CON (for the extra HP).

- 4 extra points to spend as needed - probably a feat giving him an extra attack.

Eh, not perfect. The attack bonus is closer to AD&D than B/X, but I like the AD&D progression better anyway.

Cleric:

- Attack bonus: +3.

- Saves: +3.

- TU: +6.

- Spell-casting: 4.

- Spells: 4.

Close enough (I prefer the BECMI progression for cleric spells). 

If the cleric has some taboos, he might get an extra point or two, but his budget is pretty tight.

Magic-user:

- Attack bonus: +2.

- Saves: +2.

- Spell-casting: 6.

- Spells: 6.

- 4 extra points to spend as needed.

I like it. Maybe the MU can get some Lore skill, etc. 

The fact that the MU becomes stronger at lower levels and weaker at higher levels (fewer spells) is a fortunate consequence of this system.

Notice that this assumes no classes - so, same XP for everybody. Also, same HP - unless you get a CON bonus, etc.

This means the MU needs some nerfing.

The fighter loses some unique skills (wearing all weapons and armor - unless you want to count those as feats or, conversely, taboos), but gains more points to spend on abilities and features.

The cleric will be fine. It is powerful enough already.

The thief will probably need to specialize in three or four skills (and maybe they can be reduced to find, notice, climb, tinker, and stealth; with other skills such as lore, healing and nature added to other classes).

Overall... I think this is doable. 

This allows you to create a paladin or ranger (just add a nature skill) with relative ease, and to customize your own character/class.

"Racial" features can be bought by level 1, with humans getting extra points to spend.

Come to think of it, this could be the basis for an updated version of Old School Feats someday. Or an entirely new thing...

EDIT: Just found out this is a thing in AD&D 2e. The 2e DMG has a class-creation system, which is not quite I'm doing here, but  Skills and Powers contains an actual point buy system that is much harder, but still very cool. This from that books description:

About Point-Based Characters. The idea of point-based RPG characters dates back to at least Melee (1977), the predecessor to The Fantasy Trip (1980). It was popularized by Champions (1981) and has since become a mainstay of the roleplaying industry.

However, even in 1995, the idea still hadn't been officially incorporated into AD&D, which instead focused on random rolls to generate characteristics, linked with rigid class and level structures that didn't give players any room for variance in their characters. The closest that AD&D came to point-based characters was in Unearthed Arcana (1985), which offered some alternative methods for rolling lots of characteristic dice to try and generate a specific character class that the player was seeking. AD&D second edition (1989) similarly provided some methods to let players add extra dice to certain characteristics during character generation.

Skills & Powers dramatically changed this by offering a point-buy system that let players not only purchase characteristic points and proficiencies, but also allowed them to choose which class abilities that they wanted to buy. It allowed considerable variation, and thus players could have characters with "out-of-class" weapons, or even a Conan-esque fighter who could both fight and move silently. Skills & Powers even included traits (advantages) and disadvantages - two notable elements of point-based character systems that help to add detail and depth to characters.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Minimalist encumbrance/slots (B/X)

Encumbrance must be one of the most popular subjects in OSR circles. I've written at least half a dozens posts myself, and I hope I'm not repeating myself too much, although this is a simplification of an earlier post.

Anyway, here is what I've been using lately. Works well for B/X, OSE, BFRPG, etc. I haven't read the OSE rules for slots, but I imagine they are similar.

A PC can carry a number of "slots" equal to STR.

[Alternative: If you want all PCs to have similar capacity, start with 10+STR mod, or use 10 and ignore STR].

One "slot" is approximately 3-5 pounds (30-50 coins); basically one weapon or item of similar weight.

2H swords, lances and polearms take 3 slots (you might as well use 2; these weapons are not that great in the game, and not that heavy in real life).

Armor/shield take 2 slots per point of AC.

Light items (potions, torches, etc.) are ignored unless you're carrying more than pounds of them. You can bundle 6 torches, 3 days of rations, 3-5 daggers/wands/potions, etc. 

You must use some common sense here, but most things in the equipment list should take one slot (except things with negligible weight like garlic, etc.). In the original game, the weight is closer to 2 slots.

Coins are 50 per slot.

(I use 100 per slot and silver standard because I find it more sensible).

Movement rate (adapted from OSE):

Encumbrance	Movement Rate
Up to STR	120’ (40’)
Up to STRx2	90’ (30’)
Up to STRx3	60’ (20’)
Up to STRx4	30’ (10’)

This is a bit more lenient than the usual rules. 

If you want something closer to the original, try this:

Encumbrance	Movement Rate
Up to STR	120’ (40’)
Up to STRx1,5	90’ (30’)
Up to STRx2	60’ (20’)
Up to STRx3	30’ (10’)

And that's it! Easy, right?

AD&D DMG cover to cover - part VIII, pages 100-114 (NPCs, CONSTRUCTIONS and CONDUCTING THE GAME)

We´ve been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here. 

Today we discuss EXPERIENCE and THE CAMPAIGN!

NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS 100

— PERSONAE OF NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS 100

— FACTS 101

— TRAITS 101

— LANGUAGE DETERMINATION 102

— SPECIAL ROLES OF THE DUNGEON MASTER 102

— HIRING NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS TO CAST SPELLS OR USE DEVICES 103

— MONSTERS AND ORGANIZATION 104

— USE OF NON-HUMAN TROOPS 105

CONSTRUCTION AND SIEGE 106

— UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION 106

— CONSTRUCTION TIME 106

— SIEGE ENGINES AND DEVICES OF WAR 108

— Additional Attack Forms 109

CONDUCTING THE GAME 110

— ROLLING THE DICE AND CONTROL OF THE GAME 110

— HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS 110

— INTEGRATION OF EXPERIENCED OR NEW PLAYERS INTO AN EXISTING CAMPAIGN 110

— MULTIPLE CHARACTERS FOR A SINGLE PLAYER 111

— INTERVENTION BY DEITIES 111

— Demi-Gods And Gods 112

— THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN 112

— Sixguns & Sorcery 112

— Mutants & Magic 113

NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS

The first section is mostly a collection of random tables for creating your own NPCs, and tips on how to run them. 

The tables are mostly good, not great. They provide much (maybe too much) detail, and not always interesting. The author uses 1d10 in places where 2d6 or 1d100 might work better, but this is a minor issue. 

In short, they became obsolete in face of more interesting and automatized tables (this version seems almost faithful to the original except for lacking alignment, but I think this one is somewhat better. Here is my version, FWIW).

Here is one example from the first link:

Appearance: youthful, unkempt
Sanity: neurotic
Traits: violent, obsessive, kindly, studious
Personality: rash
Bravery: brave
Disposition: haughty
Intellect: ponderous
Interests: collector of fauna

Other curiosities include ability adjustments due to class (which is a sound idea IMO and could be used for PCs) and the fact that every laborer and mercenary is kinda tough. Giving a minimum of 4 HP, +1 STR and +3 CON suggests starting PCs could be a bit stronger.

Details include average age and height, which seems redundant with corresponding PC tables. 

There is also this table appearing out of the blue with no further explanation.

After the tables, we get some DMing advice,  including a distinction between henchmen, hirelings and monsters. 

Overall, it is decent advice with the occasional INSANITY such as "Dealing with all such NPCs should be expensive and irritating." [referring to "merchants, shopkeepers, guardsmen, soldiers, clerics, magic-users, fighters, thieves, assassins, etc."]

After all, we all like expensive and irritating! Right?

Then we have a table for the costs of various spells, which varies immensely (which seems better than just "100 gp per level", if more complex). At least the prices are negotiable.

Attack spells are not shown in order to discourage hiring of spell casters for such purposes. As a general rule, no specially hired spell caster will ever accompany a party on an adventure of any sort, except in circumstances planned and directed by the Dungeon Master.

Fair enough, wizards will not act as mercenaries.

The there is this:

It is also worth mentioning that NPC spell casters are NOT going to take continual interruptions too kindly, even if the party so doing is of the same faith and alignment and pays well. At some point the spell caster will get fed up with it and begin raising rates. (The players should not rely upon those outside their group to keep their members viable. They must learn self-reliance or else pay the price one way or another.)

It seems that NPCs are an anti-social bunch and do not appreciate people of similar alignment that pay them well. How dare they?

MONSTERS AND ORGANIZATION has some advice on roleplaying NPCs and adjusting their actions when the PCs are not around.

The intelligence and wisdom of concerned monsters are principal determinants of their actions and/or reactions. Consider also cunning and instinct. It is also important to remember that lawful indicates an organized and ordered approach [...]

Good stuff, and similar to my own approach, that I might have inherited from here somehow.

A lengthy list of examples comes next, showing you how and when to re-stock dungeons/places depending on the type of monsters that inhabit it. If the PCs come back to a place one week later: skeletons will not have been replaced (unless commanded by an evil cleric or similar), giant ants might have breed and repaired some tunnels, attacked towns might have sought reinforcements, bandits will probably be gone if the PCs are strong, etc.

All things considered, this is sound advice, carefully explained for beginners.

USE OF NON-HUMAN TROOPS basically tells you what happens when you try to command goblins, orcs, trolls, etc. - even at the same time. This is not a thing that happens in my games but sounds useful if you're running a campaign with wargaming aspects (such as Chainmail or Warhammer).

CONSTRUCTION AND SIEGE

This section describes construction of dungeons and buildings in great detail.

It starts with a table calculating the "CUBIC VOLUME OF ROCK PER 8 HOURS LABOR PER MINER". Curiously, when I played GURPS people would make fun of the system for having rules for digging holes, and this seems even more complex.

The REASONS for building a dungeon in the first place are sorely lacking.

Next, you've got tables for building castles, including doors, towers, arrow slits, etc. Each part is described in detail. It sounds like a fun exercise to build your castle bit by bit, but for me a general table like this with costs would be even better:

Then we get various siege engines like catapults, ballistae, etc. They require a regular attack roll (and do NOT use the table on page 108 to determine “to hit” probabilities, despite what the text says), which might give fighters a chance to shine here. Spellcasters, on the other hand, can use various spells against structures, as described in this section.

Each structure has its own "defensive points". What are these? well, simply not described here. Probably akin to hit points.

I notice we are again in wargaming territory. Different types of doors, for example, do not seem to change the chances of a PC forcing them. Individual AC makes no difference against siege engines.

So, although individual PCs can be target and participate in some ways, the focus here is in bigger battles, armies against armies.

In short, an interesting section that I am not sure I can use.

CONDUCTING THE GAME

Finally we get to the DM advice!

This chapter starts with a curious authorization for fudging die rolls - with some parsimony. 

I'll just paste the entire ROLLING THE DICE AND CONTROL OF THE GAME section here. 

Emphasis mine:

In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. “ALWAYS GIVE A

MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!”

Examples of dice rolls which should always be made secretly are: listening, hiding in shadows, detecting traps, moving silently, finding secret doors, monster saving throws, and attacks made upon the party without their possible knowledge.

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning a reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the nonplayer character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitution-based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!

I got to admit I was a bit surprised to read this (although another part already recommended a similar thing regarding encounters). 

The DM stops being an impartial referee and becomes someone who can occasionally protect good players from bad die rolls. A PC who should be dead can be simply knocked unconscious!

Suffice to say, I do not like fudging in general, and I think things like death, losing an eye etc. should be part of the rules and not DM's fiat. 

But I'll admit fudging is quite popular nowadays, especially in the modern/5e crowd, and deserves a lengthy post of its own.

(Another curiosity you might have noticed is that players are not necessarily assumed to roll their own attacks - notice that matrices are included in the DMG and not the PHB - although I'd bet players both knew and rolled their attacks most of the times).

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS has advice on this topic, ranging from common sense ("ask them to leave") to “blue bolts from the heavens” striking the offender’s head (the PC's head, I'd assume).

INTEGRATION OF EXPERIENCED OR NEW PLAYERS INTO AN EXISTING CAMPAIGN has decent advice on the topic, but again it boils down to common sense (PCs should not be too weak nor too strong, check magic items, etc.).

Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters.

So, you do not necessarily start on level 1. From context, it feels like the first few levels are training wheels of sorts (as also indicated by Gygax house rules).

I'd agree with that. First level PCs are just too frail (compare them to 0-level mercenaries, for example). Starting at level 3-4 allows you to have an heroic campaign from the beginning while still being threatened by a dozen mercenaries.

MULTIPLE CHARACTERS FOR A SINGLE PLAYER is also possible. 

Each must have its own personalities, goals, etc., and not serve as mere paws for the player.

In campaigns where there are only a few players, or where only a few of the many players are really good players, it is likely that each (good) player will have several characters.

In short, several PCs are EXPECTED; if there are few players, each should control multiple PCs.

INTERVENTION BY DEITIES is rare but possible in the direst of circumstances:

If the character beseeching help has been exemplary in faithfulness, then allow a straight 10% chance that some creature will be sent to his or her aid if this is the first time the character has asked for help. If 00 is rolled, there is a percentage chance equal to the character’s level of experience that the deity itself will come [...] 

Good enough for me. Reminds me of Elric, of course.

THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN deals with metaplot; i.e., campaigns are not entirely random or picaresque.

Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement.

This is interesting advice and something that I like using in my own campaigns. The PCs do not see the entire forest for the trees at first, but it becomes obvious as they go, possibly culminating in a final battle.

Again, it is curious to see such advice in the DMG, as these "story arcs" are usually a mark of modern play.

Occasional humor, silliness and side-quests are recommended to give some spice and levity to this epic struggle.

This section ends with conversion notes and ideas for BOOT HILL (western) and GAMMA WORLD  (sci-fi) games.

The book discuss not only the mechanics but also gates between worlds, the usefulness of spells and artifacts in different settings, and mixing genres.

What have we learned today?

 

While there is not much here I can use in my B/X games, it was a very interesting read from an historical perspective. 

The long section about conducting the game was a surprise to me, as it goes counter to most OSR advice I've read. Same for the "epic struggle" that should emerge after a long campaign.

Multiple PCs per player is an idea I like, but still didn't manage to convince my players.

And mixing genres is something I certainly enjoy, despite never having played Booth Hill (or Gamma World, except maybe for one or two sessions decades ago).

Coming next... MAGICAL RESEARCH! MAGIC ITEMS! TREASURE!

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.