TSR [Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay

Wangalade said:

They have to pursue options in the fiction/gameworld that will solve their problem; not resorting to an out of character "what are my skills? Or what is the best way to solve this mechanically/through the game rules?"

Click to expand...

The contrast you are drawing is not one that I feel as sharply as you seem to.

For instance, I don't feel that the contrast between "Let the high-CHA guy do the talking" and "Let the high-Diplomacy guy do the talking" is all that great.

Nor do I feel that the contrast between "This is probably the trader we've heard is after ferret skins; let's offer him some to try and improve his reaction" and "This is probably the trader we've heard is after ferret skins; let's offer him some to get a bonus on the Diplomacy check" is all that great.

If what you mean by "solving mechanically/through the game rules" is "I roll Diplomacy - look, a 20 - is he friendly now?" then I agree that there is a contrast. But in my view that's an issue with the particular skill system in question, which allows a check to be made without some action being declared in the fiction. I gather that 3E's Diplomacy mechanics can suffer from this, but it's not a problem I've personally had in the FRPG skill systems I've used.

You're right, there isn't a big contrast between the two methods. The contrast is in the mindset. When I have no explicit abilities on my character sheet that will benefit in a situation, I think less of "what can my character do?" And more of "what are some possible solutions?" I think of "how would this person react to this in real life?" It is about developing a way of thinking as your character, there is no separation between PC and player.

Letting the high cha pc do the talking is an advantage from the players point of view. The high cha PC may be active not because of a mathematically sound advantage, but because they know they have a plus one, which must be good; they feel that that bonus is beneficial. They don't keep record of reactions from low cha PCs vs high cha PCs. They just feel it must be good. From the DM perspective, as Iosue demonstrated, the cha bonus doesn't have a major affect. The DM gets to see the big picture, while the players see the immediate situation. The players want the +1, the DM realizes it is insignificant.

Iosue said:

What player side mechanics are they engaging? I mean, sure, they can always make sure that the high-CHA guy does the talking, but resolution is in the hands of the DM.

<snip>

A character who happens to get a high CHA receives some static bonuses in the game, which are difficult to leverage in substantially greater ways than characters with average CHA.

Edit: To expand further on that, an 18 (and only an 18) gives you a +2 bonus to reaction rolls. That is enough to move the result one level over, but it cannot turn a bad reaction roll into a good one. If you roll a 3, 6, or 9, it has no effect at all. Played RAW, most PCs that have a bonus are going to have a +1 bonus, enough to turn "Immediate Attack" to "Hostile, possible attack", but otherwise only somewhat effective.

Click to expand...

The extent of CHA bonuses is an interesting thing.

If you spread out the 2d6 table into a percentage progression, and look at the bonus that +1 or +2 is worth, the average is +8.8 and +17.2 respectively. For the +1 bonus, the biggest effective bonuses are happening in the middle range, where the effects are less dramatic. In d20 terms I would probably call it a +1.

The +2 bonus is more dramatic in its effect across the board, making a big difference at nearly every point. I think it is probably somewhere between +3 and +4 in d20 terms.

Iosue said:

The distinction is that in a skill-based system, the player chooses what social skills the character will be good at, which are then represented by a mechanic, and generally though no universally, this mechanic is instigated by the player. E.g., by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic (if not outright saying, "I will use Bluff to convince him of X".

To look at it another way, we could conceivably turn the reaction roll into a player side mechanic. Each player can decide when they want a reaction roll, based on their actions, rolling 2d6 and adding their CHA bonus. That's pretty easy and straightforward, and in fact just the kind of thing that gave rise to skill systems in the first place. OTOH, what if we black boxed, say, 5e's skill system? Even just the social skills. Then the DM needs to keep track of Insight, Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and Performance, and the mixes of WIS and CHA bonuses and proficiencies for each character. That's a heck of a lot of work on the DM now. Much easier to just forgo the distinct skills and just use CHA bonuses, if any.

Click to expand...

I agree that the CHA-only approach is simpler, which is important if the GM has sole management of it.

It's the idea of player-instigated vs GM-instigated that I'm trying to get a better handle on, though. (Eg you could play 5e without skills, using CHA-only, and then you'd have the simplification but the player-instigated vs GM-instigated would still be something to think about.)

I want to put to one side the "I use Bluff" case. As I said in my reply to [MENTION=6691437]Wangalade[/MENTION], I think that's something of a degenerate case of a social kill system (in my view it's not really action resolution at all, but when used that way is actually a scene-reframing mechanic disguised as action resolution).

The case I'm interested in is the once you put forward this way: "by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic". Can't a player in Moldvay Basic narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get a bonus on a reaction roll - eg "It's OK; Gary sent us." If the GM thinks the lie will in some fashion resonated with the NPC/monster in question, then a bonus can (perhaps should?) be given.

Iosue said:

It might not involve CHA at all, in Moldvay Basic. The reaction table is a tool, and certainly in my personal games I make heavy use of it for almost all interactions. But Moldvay explicitly calls it out as optional (with the possible exception of Retainer Reactions to initial offers):

Quote Moldvay said:

The DM can always choose the monster's reactions to fit the dungeon, but if he decides not to do this, a DM may use the reaction table below to determine the monster's reactions.

Click to expand...

So again, a DM side tool, rather than a player side mechanic for interaction with the game.

Click to expand...

In your view, is the choosing to take place at the time of writing the dungeon, or when the PCs and NPCs/monsters actually meet?

I would have thought the former - so that the monster/NPC's reputation or habits is something that the players can learn and act on as part of their overall exploration endeavours.

In which case, it becomes a bit like the Duke who can't be Inimidated in the 4e skill challenge example.

It seems to me that if the players don't have in-principle access to NPC/monster reactions, either via exploration (to learn monster descriptions, reputations, rumours etc) or via knowledge that reactions are rolled, then the game has moved away from the general vibe that I get from it.

(If you're curious about where I'm coming from: I feel that - despite obvious differences - the spirit of Moldvay Basic is much closer to something like Burning Wheel, or 4e as I play it, than any of those games is to GM-driven play of the 90s 2nd ed AD&D style, or to player-side scene-reframing of the "I roll Diplomacy/Bluff - look, I got a 20!" which I've heard of as a feature of 3E social skills. In particular, I think the "need to make a move in the fiction" aspect is analytically quite separate from the "who rolls the dice and works out the total" aspect.)

Wangalade said:

From the DM perspective, as Iosue demonstrated, the cha bonus doesn't have a major affect. The DM gets to see the big picture, while the players see the immediate situation. The players want the +1, the DM realizes it is insignificant.

Click to expand...

I think the +2 does make a big difference. The +1 not so much, I agree.

Wangalade said:

You're right, there isn't a big contrast between the two methods. The contrast is in the mindset.

Click to expand...

See my reply to [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] above this one. The last paragraph in parantheses says a bit more about where I'm coming from, mindset-wise.

Vincent Baker made this good comment, a while ago now, about having to make moves in the fiction as part of action declaration and resolution:


I think there's an argument that D&D combat rules have, and have always had, the issue that Baker describes - there is no need to describe moves in the fiction in order to find out who won the combat! More complicated manoeuvre rules are an attempt to compensate for this, but can lead to all the resolution happening at a purely mechanical level with no sense of the fiction at all (some people make this complaint about 4e); I think more complicated positioning and movement rules in post-TSR D&D are one part of an attempt to make D&D combat resolution have to engage (at least aspects of) the fiction.

On the skill side, especially the social skill side, I think that the way 3E's social skill system is presented (Bluff: opposed roll vs Sense Motive; Diplomacy: DCs to change attitude) can absolutely fall into the problem Baker describes, of checks being made without any actual move in the fiction having to be made.

That's what I meant when I said to Iosue that, used that way, the skills aren't action resolution at all but rather scene re-framing ("Now we're in a situation where the high priest believes my lie" or "Now we're in a situation where that guy is friendly rather than hostile" - but nothing in the play of the game explained how the characters got into that situation.)

Just a reminder, folks, that while this is an interesting discussion, I did just put up a whole new post about Treasure.

pemerton said:

The extent of CHA bonuses is an interesting thing.

If you spread out the 2d6 table into a percentage progression, and look at the bonus that +1 or +2 is worth, the average is +8.8 and +17.2 respectively. For the +1 bonus, the biggest effective bonuses are happening in the middle range, where the effects are less dramatic. In d20 terms I would probably call it a +1.

The +2 bonus is more dramatic in its effect across the board, making a big difference at nearly every point. I think it is probably somewhere between +3 and +4 in d20 terms.

Click to expand...

The +2 is much better relative to the +1. But it's pretty rare. By RAW, you need to roll an 18 to get it; you can't boost CHA during chargen. And frankly, even with 3d6 and 4d6-drop lowest scores arranged to taste, I doubt many folks playing that way put a rare 18 in CHA.

Again going back to the game as presented RAW, another consideration is that even a guy with a CHA bonus is not going to be the point guy for negotiation all the time. Languages play a part, as well. If you meet a party of Hobgoblins, and your high CHA guy doesn't speak Hobgoblin, there might not be a bonus at all.

I agree that the CHA-only approach is simpler, which is important if the GM has sole management of it.

It's the idea of player-instigated vs GM-instigated that I'm trying to get a better handle on, though. (Eg you could play 5e without skills, using CHA-only, and then you'd have the simplification but the player-instigated vs GM-instigated would still be something to think about.)

I want to put to one side the "I use Bluff" case. As I said in my reply to [MENTION=6691437]Wangalade[/MENTION], I think that's something of a degenerate case of a social kill system (in my view it's not really action resolution at all, but when used that way is actually a scene-reframing mechanic disguised as action resolution).

The case I'm interested in is the once you put forward this way: "by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic". Can't a player in Moldvay Basic narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get a bonus on a reaction roll - eg "It's OK; Gary sent us." If the GM thinks the lie will in some fashion resonated with the NPC/monster in question, then a bonus can (perhaps should?) be given.

Click to expand...

I think the essence of DM-instigated versus player-instigated is that a player can certainly narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get, say, a positive outcome to the situation, but they have no guarantee that the DM will use the system, let alone to what degree their narration/roleplay might have an effect. Maybe the DM likes the roleplay and rolls with it with no reaction roll. Maybe they give a +1 to the result, maybe a +2. They may never see the result of the roll if there is one. The reaction roll is a tool for the DM to use at they discretion. Incidentally, I think this is why the reaction roll was phased out as the game moved to more mechanical mediators for the player to interact with game.

In your view, is the choosing to take place at the time of writing the dungeon, or when the PCs and NPCs/monsters actually meet?

I would have thought the former - so that the monster/NPC's reputation or habits is something that the players can learn and act on as part of their overall exploration endeavours.

In which case, it becomes a bit like the Duke who can't be Intimidated in the 4e skill challenge example.

Click to expand...

My feeling is, ideally, that it is both. It's a tool to aid the DM. If the DM in the course of prepping his dungeon plans ahead and gives his monsters planned reactions, then probably he has no need for reactions rolls. The prototypical example is goblin's on patrol, with orders or SOP to raise the alarm and attack upon coming across any intruders. OTOH, maybe the players do something so surprising to the DM that he feels compelled to use the table. Or maybe he plans to use the reaction table for the meeting with the Duke, but the actions taken by the players inspire him to take some other response -- for good or ill.

Ultimately, the players can learn reputations, habits, etc., and use such knowledge to their benefit. They simply have no mechanical handle for that.

It seems to me that if the players don't have in-principle access to NPC/monster reactions, either via exploration (to learn monster descriptions, reputations, rumours etc) or via knowledge that reactions are rolled, then the game has moved away from the general vibe that I get from it.

(If you're curious about where I'm coming from: I feel that - despite obvious differences - the spirit of Moldvay Basic is much closer to something like Burning Wheel, or 4e as I play it, than any of those games is to GM-driven play of the 90s 2nd ed AD&D style, or to player-side scene-reframing of the "I roll Diplomacy/Bluff - look, I got a 20!" which I've heard of as a feature of 3E social skills. In particular, I think the "need to make a move in the fiction" aspect is analytically quite separate from the "who rolls the dice and works out the total" aspect.)

Click to expand...

Well, I think the game can be drifted that way, if one wants. Moldvay Basic has a light rule footprint, while at the same time providing a number of tools for a DM to use as they see fit. So if someone likes resolving everything through the fiction, they can do that. If they want to use reaction rolls faithfully at every turn in order to give players a mechanical handle to the game, that can be done, too.

But as written, I think Moldvay Basic is very different many RPGs out there, including all recent editions of D&D. It's practically a black box, when played by the rules as written. Players roll initiative, attack rolls, and saving throws. Everything else is rolled by the DM, including reactions, morale, searches, thieves tools, spell effects, and damage. Many of the rules in the game are not mechanics, per se, but static guides for the the DM to conduct the game -- movement, time, calling, mapping, encumbrance, light sources, etc. A lot of others just involve rolling a 1 or 2 in 6 chances. Damage is a universal 1d6, meaning weapon selection is largely cosmetic. Character generation is 99% random. The distinction between player and character is extremely fuzzy. As much as it is a game where players take on "roles", much of the gameplay involves engaging the players in problem and puzzle solving. One might even say that to a certain extent, "characters" are less representations of denizens of the fantasy world, with history, background, and personality than they are another set of objectives for the player to achieve in the game, although of course it's human nature to anthropomorphize and emotionally invest in them.

So I'm not sure how that fits into the vibe you got from it. Of course as soon as it came into contact with the world, it shifted and morphed as people started changing it to fit how they wanted to play. So, while the game as written is nearly a black box for the players, I suspect that for the vast majority of players, chargen was much more malleable, player and characters were made much more distinct, and players were rolling for damage, search and listen checks, spell effects, and most thieves skills (with the exception of perhaps Move Silently and Hide in Shadows).

I think there's an argument that D&D combat rules have, and have always had, the issue that Baker describes - there is no need to describe moves in the fiction in order to find out who won the combat! More complicated manoeuvre rules are an attempt to compensate for this, but can lead to all the resolution happening at a purely mechanical level with no sense of the fiction at all (some people make this complaint about 4e); I think more complicated positioning and movement rules in post-TSR D&D are one part of an attempt to make D&D combat resolution have to engage (at least aspects of) the fiction.

Click to expand...

I may have mentioned before that I think a feature of early D&D, in particular OD&D and B/X, was that combat wasn't played, it was resolved. Have you ever played, or perhaps seen, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, or the Total War series? I think that's the POV of combat in early D&D. You set your forces, apply strategy and tactics at a remove, and then roll dice until a unit is either destroyed or routed. It's not meant to be involved or especially interesting in and of itself. It's just a more complex iteration of the roll to open stuck doors. But again, a lot of people would play it so that each attack was a swing of the sword, and I think AD&D (and of course WotC D&D) has spent the last 35 years making more and more granular, more and more simulationist, more and more an integral part of the play experience.

Iosue said:

I think the essence of DM-instigated versus player-instigated is that a player can certainly narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get, say, a positive outcome to the situation, but they have no guarantee that the DM will use the system, let alone to what degree their narration/roleplay might have an effect. Maybe the DM likes the roleplay and rolls with it with no reaction roll. Maybe they give a +1 to the result, maybe a +2. They may never see the result of the roll if there is one. The reaction roll is a tool for the DM to use at they discretion.

<snip>

It's a tool to aid the DM. If the DM in the course of prepping his dungeon plans ahead and gives his monsters planned reactions, then probably he has no need for reactions rolls.

<snip>

Ultimately, the players can learn reputations, habits, etc., and use such knowledge to their benefit. They simply have no mechanical handle for that.

<snip>

I think Moldvay Basic is very different many RPGs out there, including all recent editions of D&D. It's practically a black box, when played by the rules as written.

<snip>

As much as it is a game where players take on "roles", much of the gameplay involves engaging the players in problem and puzzle solving.

Click to expand...

The last sentence makes sense to me. It's the interface between problem/puzzle solving and GM discretion that I'm interested in. If the GM's choices around how to resolve interactions are completely opaque to the players, then that part of the game becomes less of a puzzle and more of a lottery. My sense is that the GM's choices shouldn't be opaque.

I think it would be obviously wrong to say that the reaction system anticipates "say yes, or roll the dice". But I think that it has some sort of connection or resemblance to that approach. So if the players come up with their strategy (promises, lies, whatever) and the GM just goes along with it rather than rolling the dice with some sort of bonus, that's fine. And rewards the players' problem-solving.

If the players come up with their strategy and the GM tells them it fails because there is some prior relevant backstory (say, the ogre hates elves and always attacks them on sight) then that's fine. The players should have done better exploration (via ESP detection magic, rumours, etc), to learn about the ogre's elf-hatred.

If the players come up with their strategy and the GM factors it in as a bonus on the reaction roll, that's also fine and I would think is pretty close to a system default.

But if the players come up with their strategy and the GM decides, on the spot, that it fails and that the ogre therefore attacks, I think that's a bit problematic. How were the players supposed to solve that puzzle? It's fine to have a spontaneous elf-hating ogre, but shouldn't that be a possible narration to make sense, in the fiction, of a hostile reaction roll, rather than a bit of spontaneously inserted backstory that straight-out hoses the players, and which (in virtue of its spontaneity) they couldn't have protected themselves against via exploration?

Iosue said:

I did just put up a whole new post about Treasure

Click to expand...

Some comments on that, then!

Swords +2 are very strong (given the Moldvay combat maths). In a system without weapon proficiencies, this doesn't hose anyone too badly, though (it's a class penalty for clerics and MUs), unlike the preponderance of magical longswords in AD&D, which heavily punishes non-longsword using fighters.

The wand of enemy detection, medallion/potion of ESP and crystal ball are all important parts of the exploration focus. Though they want their friends back (Treasure Finding, Metal and Mineral Detection, intelligent swords etc)! - I think these were all in Expert.

On the issue of proportionality between loot and numbers, in addition to the example on p 50 that you mentioned, there is one on p 56:


Whereas in the example you quoted, the reduction is based on averages (30 being typical for a goblin lair, with a number appearing of 6-60), here is it is based on maximums.

Iosue said:

combat wasn't played, it was resolved.

<snip>

It's not meant to be involved or especially interesting in and of itself. It's just a more complex iteration of the roll to open stuck doors. But again, a lot of people would play it so that each attack was a swing of the sword

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the combat example on p 28 fully bears this out, though. Clearly that is involved, and is meant to be interesting. And at least shots from bows seems to be treated on a "one attack roll = one shot of an arrow" basis; likewise the throwing of an axe. I agree that melee combat is not differentiated in the same way, although positioning is being tracked in a fairly fine-grained manner. Also, there are no blind declarations of intent: for instance, Silverleaf's player is able to decide not to cast a spell after initiative is rolled and the PCs lose.

In other words, some of the narrative pressures resulting from the scaling down of "unit" combat to "individual" combat are pretty evident, I think.

Sorry for the late reply, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]!

pemerton said:

The last sentence makes sense to me. It's the interface between problem/puzzle solving and GM discretion that I'm interested in. If the GM's choices around how to resolve interactions are completely opaque to the players, then that part of the game becomes less of a puzzle and more of a lottery. My sense is that the GM's choices shouldn't be opaque.

I think it would be obviously wrong to say that the reaction system anticipates "say yes, or roll the dice". But I think that it has some sort of connection or resemblance to that approach. So if the players come up with their strategy (promises, lies, whatever) and the GM just goes along with it rather than rolling the dice with some sort of bonus, that's fine. And rewards the players' problem-solving.

If the players come up with their strategy and the GM tells them it fails because there is some prior relevant backstory (say, the ogre hates elves and always attacks them on sight) then that's fine. The players should have done better exploration (via ESP detection magic, rumours, etc), to learn about the ogre's elf-hatred.

If the players come up with their strategy and the GM factors it in as a bonus on the reaction roll, that's also fine and I would think is pretty close to a system default.

But if the players come up with their strategy and the GM decides, on the spot, that it fails and that the ogre therefore attacks, I think that's a bit problematic. How were the players supposed to solve that puzzle? It's fine to have a spontaneous elf-hating ogre, but shouldn't that be a possible narration to make sense, in the fiction, of a hostile reaction roll, rather than a bit of spontaneously inserted backstory that straight-out hoses the players, and which (in virtue of its spontaneity) they couldn't have protected themselves against via exploration?

Click to expand...

I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view here. All that you describe above strikes me as being good DMing making use of the tools Moldvay provides. The last example strikes me as, if not bad, certainly less-than-optimal DMing. That said, though, as near as I can see there is nothing in the game that prevents or explicitly advises against that. The closest being the DM advice at the end about being fair, impartial, making adventure fun and interesting, not a contest, etc, etc.

My purpose with this thread is in part to examine what the game looks like when you follow all the rules by the book. Which in this case would mean either rolling reactions for the ogre or deciding ahead of time what the ogre will do and adjusting according to what the players do. But in the end, the ruleset is not a system that must be followed to play the game -- it is, as Moldvay notes in the introduction, a set of guidelines. A rule toolset to help DMs conduct their own games. As such, Moldvay appears to assume the good faith and intentions of the DM. If, say, the DM rolls the ogre's reaction, scores enthusiastic friendship, but feels that the players are getting bored, or has no idea how to interpret the result, or any other reason, and so has the ogre attack the PCs, he's not doing it wrong, as long as the players find that fun and interesting. And by "not wrong", I'm not talking about badwrongfun or anything like that, I'm saying he's not playing B/X in a manner other than that in which it was meant to be played. The game explicitly puts monster actions in the hands of the DM -- reactions are but an optional tool. An extremely useful tool that I, personally, value highly, but ultimately no more than that.

Swords +2 are very strong (given the Moldvay combat maths). In a system without weapon proficiencies, this doesn't hose anyone too badly, though (it's a class penalty for clerics and MUs), unlike the preponderance of magical longswords in AD&D, which heavily punishes non-longsword using fighters.

Click to expand...

Yup. Straight +2 swords are also hard to get. You need to hit the 20% chance to find a sword, and then the 12.5% to get the +2 sword. If my math is correct (and it probably isn't), that's a 2.5% chance for every magic item found. Most of the time, you'll find a +1 sword with a specialized +2 or +3. The chance goes down even further in Expert. The expanded tables give you a 20% chance to find a magic sword, and then a 6% chance to get a straight +2 or +3 bonus.

The wand of enemy detection, medallion/potion of ESP and crystal ball are all important parts of the exploration focus. Though they want their friends back (Treasure Finding, Metal and Mineral Detection, intelligent swords etc)! - I think these were all in Expert.

Click to expand...

Indeed. No treasure finding magic items (other than treasure maps), but the wand of metal detection and intelligent swords all make their appearance there.

I'm not sure the combat example on p 28 fully bears this out, though. Clearly that is involved, and is meant to be interesting. And at least shots from bows seems to be treated on a "one attack roll = one shot of an arrow" basis; likewise the throwing of an axe. I agree that melee combat is not differentiated in the same way, although positioning is being tracked in a fairly fine-grained manner. Also, there are no blind declarations of intent: for instance, Silverleaf's player is able to decide not to cast a spell after initiative is rolled and the PCs lose.

In other words, some of the narrative pressures resulting from the scaling down of "unit" combat to "individual" combat are pretty evident, I think.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I entirely agree as far as the example goes. To me it comes off as quite perfunctory -- described in highly abstract terms. So-and-so attacks, the spell effects X HD of creatures, so and so takes HP of damage. Contrast it with the example of play on pp. B59-B60. There the entire example is given as dialogue (the players interacting with the game through the fiction). When a combat comes up, it's dealt with with a paranthetical "Combat is now resolved, morale checks taken, etc." Despite the example of combat starting and ending with character dialogue and interaction, that all stops once the battle is joined -- no one even cries "No, Fredrik!" when he goes down. It's all just, "The DM rolls..." "Morgan misses..." "The hobgoblin rolls a 17..." Distance is tracked, but notice that while the goblins move forward and engage, the PCs don't move at all. Sure, combat is interesting...as one part of the game. As I said, it's not interesting in and of itself. I mean, that's a pretty common complaint. IMO, I don't believe this was a case of Moldvay attempting to design interesting combat and failing, but that he meant combat to be quickly and straightforwardly resolved.

As far as blind declarations of intent, in B/X (unlike Mentzer), there are two: Defensive movement (p. B24), and later in Expert, Spellcasting (p. X11). Mentzer adds a "declarations" phase to the order of events in combat in the Basic DM's Rulebook, but I suspect a late revision to add that, since it's no where in the Player's Book.

Rather than B/X, I think the narrative pressures on individual combat are much more evident in the new melee options in the Mentzer Companion Set and brought to full fruition in the Weapon Mastery rules of the Master Set. AD&D wouldn't see combat that granular and detailed until late 2e.

We now move on to Part 8: Dungeon Master Information. This takes up the remainder of the book, so I'm going to split it up into 3 posts: adventure design/NPCs and wandering monsters, the sample dungeon and example of play, and finally, Dungeonmastering as a Fine Art.

After a brief introduction explaining that DMs will need to either create their own dungeons or use on of "TSR's dungeon modules" (in that order), Moldvay provides a step-by-step method for dungeon creation. The steps are: A. Choose a Scenario, B. Decide on a Setting, C. Decide on Special Monsters to be Used, D. Draw the Map of the Dungeon, E. Stock the Dungeon, and F. Filling in Fine Details. Let's look over each step one-by-one.

A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO - The opening here is so succinct and excellent, I'm just going to quote it wholesale:

Moldvay said:

A scenario is a background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together. A scenario will help keep a dungeon from becoming a boring repetition of "open the door, kill the monster, take the treasure". A good scenario always gives the players a reason for adventuring. The DM should also design a dungeon for the levels of characters who will be playing in it. A good scenario will also give the DM a reason for choosing specific monsters and treasures to put in the dungeon.

Click to expand...

Of note is the complete lack of explanation of "sandbox" play. This will come in the Expert Rules. But for right now, Moldvay and the Basic Set focus on getting the PCs into the dungeon, and giving them a reason to be there. Moldvay provides 10 sample scenarios to help new DMs (a number that also helpfully allows DMs to roll randomly). They are:

1. Exploring the Unknown - B1 and B3 are noted as being examples of straightforward exploration scenarios.

2. Investigating a Chaotic Outpost - Characters must enter an enemy outpost and stop an imminent Chaotic invasion. B2 is cited as an example.

3. Recovering Ruins - While not cited specifically, this scenario calls back to T1 - The Village of Hommlet.

4. Destroying an Ancient Evil - Again, not cited specifically, but calls back to The Temple of Elemental Evil.

5. Visiting a Lost Shrine - Players travel to a shrine to remove a curse or recover a sacred item. Perhaps a callback to the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan?

6. Fulfilling a Quest - A king or other NPC provides a reason for adventuring, often the recovery of a sacred object or powerful magic item.

7. Escaping from Enemies - Players begin as prisoners who must escape. Definite shout out to A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, which was being developed concurrently with the Basic Set.

8. Rescuing Prisoners - Moldvay notes that this is the scenario of the sample dungeon, The Haunted Keep.

9. Using a Magic Portal - The characters must either find, guard, or reopen a particular magic portal.

10. Finding a Lost Race - The players find a once human race that has been underground for so long they have changed.

Moldvay also suggests mixing and combining different scenarios. For example, Recovering Ruins leading to Destroying an Ancient Evil.

B. DECIDE ON A SETTING - A short section recommending having an idea of what the dungeon will look like. A six-item table is included: 1. Castle or Tower, 2. Caves or caverns, 3. Abandoned mine, 4. Crypt or tomb, 5. Ancient temple, 6. Stronghold or town.

C. DECIDE ON SPECIAL MONSTERS TO BE USED - Because much of the dungeon is stocked using Wandering Monster tables, Moldvay suggests that the DM choose some special monsters that fit the dungeon.

D. DRAW THE MAP OF THE DUNGEON - Moldvay suggests the map be made in pencil to allow for changes that might need to be made. He also suggests that the DM choose a scale for the map, typically 10 feet per square, but adjusted to 5' or 20' feet per square depending on the setting.

E. STOCK THE DUNGEON - Now we get into the meat of the section. Moldvay says that special monsters and special treasures should be placed first, and then the rest of the dungeon filled out as the DM wishes. If he or she has no preference, then a random system is provided. This is based on two rolls, one for Contents and one for Treasure.

For contents, a roll of 1-2 means a monster, 3 means a trap, 4 means Special, and 5-6 means empty. So this provides an idea of what kind of proportion of rooms Moldvay sees a typical dungeon as having: only 1/3 filled with monsters, 1/3 Empty, and 1/3 with traps or special characteristics. You can see the emphasis on exploration here: only 1/3 of a party's time in the dungeon holds even the threat of combat. (Actually a little more counting specially placed monsters, but even then, not even a thin majority of the time.)

For treasure rolls, a Monster room has a 66% chance of treasure, a Trap room has a 50% chance of treasure, and an Empty room only a 33% chance of treasure. Special rooms generally don't have treasure, unless placed there by the DM. We see two things here: 1) the idea of treasure commensurate with risk, and 2) as a whole, a little over 1/3 of dungeon rooms have treasure.

Moldvay provides some examples of room traps (save or die poison gas; harmless poison-like fog; pit traps; falling ceiling blocks; pendulum blades; and chutes to the next level down) and treasure traps (save or die poison needles; spring-fired darts; blinding flashes of light; poison snakes; liquid sprays that attract wandering monsters; and illusions). The examples of Special rooms scream B/X D&D to me -- these seem to have largely fallen away from the game as the exploration side of the game has become more and more de-emphasized. I don't know about 3e, but they're gone from 2e and 4e. They make a return in 5e, but there's only a 4% chance of showing up in a dungeon. (Incidentally, the random tables in 5e suggest 50% monster room, 32% traps and hazards, and 14% empty rooms.)

Here are the examples of Special Rooms
Moaning room or corridor
Room turns or sinks while the door locks
Illusionary stairs or corridor
Shifting block to close off corridor
Trap door to tunnels
Alarm that summons special monster
Talking statue
Magic pools whose waters have a strange effect
Magic gate to another part of the dungeon
Flying weapons which attack only if disturbed

Regarding treasure, Moldvay says to use the monster's treasure type for monster's room, and the Unguarded Treasure table for trap and empty rooms. This is pretty juicy! It always has 100-600 sp at level one, and 100-1,200 at levels 2-3. That's an automatic 10-60 gp or 10-120 gp, before you even roll for gp (50%), gems (5-10%), jewelry (2-5%), or magic items (2-8%). Few monsters in the Basic Rules carry that much treasure in a non-lair situation. So here's a tip if you're ever playing Moldvay Basic: about 17% of the total rooms in the dungeon will hold a pretty decent haul without requiring a fight. 9% won't even require dealing with a trap!

F. FILLING IN FINAL DETAILS - Once the dungeon has been stocked in these broad strokes, the DM can go back in fill in details such as patrols, or the mundane contents and funishings of the various rooms. Moldvay also suggests using smells and sounds to bring the dungeon to life.

Wrapping up, we have a series of random tables for Creating an NPC Party. This is a 1d4+4 to determine number, a 1d8 roll to determine classes (fighter is listed twice), a 1d6 roll to determine levels (1-3), a 1d6 roll to determine alignment (by character or for the whole party, at DM's desire). Cleric and magic-user/elf spells are then determined randomly (1d8 for 1st level cleric spells, and 1d12 for magic-user/elf spells). Party treasure is chosen by DM or determined randomly using U + V treasure types (the two best individual treasure types together). The DM then decides on a marching order, and rolls NPC ability scores if desired.

Finally, Wandering Monsters. This section contains one of those pictures that really stuck in my head and informed my image and conception of what a dungeon was like:


Again, personal preference based on what D&D I imprinted on, but I much prefer "Wandering Monster" to "Random Encounter". The former is evocative, while the latter is technical and precise. Per Moldvay, wandering monsters are rolled at the end of every 2 turns, with a 1 on a 1d6 indicating a wandering monster the next turn, 2d6 x 10' feet away, and heading towards the party. They can be selected by the DM or rolled randomly, and some areas of dungeons may have a greater chance of encountering one. Moldvay suggests making them appear more often if the party is making a lot of noise and light, but less frequent if they party is spending a long time in one out-of-the-way place. He also suggests that DMs create special wandering monster tables for specific areas or dungeons. He says that "most Wandering Monsters are the same level (HD) as the level of the dungeon." "Most" is the key word here, and it can be a killer!

Looking at the wandering monster tables provided, on the Level 1 table there are 20 monsters. 3 have 1/2 HD (killer bees, kobolds, and sprites), 2 have 1-1 HD (goblins and halflings), 9 have 1 HD, 1 has 1+2 HD (fire beetle), three have 2 HD (green slime, giant shrew, and crab spider), 1 has 2+2 HD (wolf), and 1 has 3+1 HD (Gecko Lizard).

On Level 2, again there are 20 monsters, with 1 with 1 HD (robber fly), 3 with 1+1 HD (beserker, elf, and hobgoblin), 9 with 2 HD, 1 with 2+1 HD (lizard man), 2 with 3 HD (gray ooze and black widow spider), 1 with 3+2 HD (mountain lion), and one with 4+2 (Draco Lizard). The noble and veteran can both have any of 1-3 HD, while pixies can be either 2 or 3 HD.

On Level 3, out of 20 monsters, 1 has 1 HD (medium), 1 has 2+2 HD (shadow), 5 have 3 HD (harpy, living statue, wererat, thoul, and wight), 3 have 3+1 HD (tiger beetle, bugbear, carrion crawler), 6 have 4 HD, the ogre has 4+1 HD, the gargoyle has 4+4, and the ochre jelly has 5 HD. 14 out of the 20 entries have stars by their name, indicating special abilities that might actually knock their relative level up a bit.

While "monster level = dungeon level" is a rule of thumb, obviously from these tables there's room for wide variation. One thing to be noted about these tables, though, is that no monster is repeated. There are 20 distinct entries for each level. Also, the No. Appearing has been adjusted for each level.

Iosue said:

We now move on to Part 8: Dungeon Master Information. This takes up the remainder of the book, so I'm going to split it up into 3 posts: adventure design/NPCs and wandering monsters, the sample dungeon and example of play, and finally, Dungeonmastering as a Fine Art.

After a brief introduction explaining that DMs will need to either create their own dungeons or use on of "TSR's dungeon modules" (in that order), Moldvay provides a step-by-step method for dungeon creation.

Click to expand...

I think chapter 8 is the best chapter in the book, and that the dungeon-design section is probably the best part of the chapter. (Though DMing as a fine art is also good, and I've used the sample dungeon more than once.)

As a practical advice on how to build the core play element for a system, and thus get ready to run a session of the game, I think Moldvay Basic still remains one of the best ever written. Luke Crane's Adventure Burner (written for a quite different system, Burning Wheel) is pretty good but still not as clear, terse and step-by-step. If we look at other D&D examples, whether Gygax's DMG or the 4e DMG 30 years later, they're terrible in comparison! (Though the 4e DMG's advice for combat encounter design is pretty good.)

pemerton said:

I think chapter 8 is the best chapter in the book, and that the dungeon-design section is probably the best part of the chapter. (Though DMing as a fine art is also good, and I've used the sample dungeon more than once.)

As a practical advice on how to build the core play element for a system, and thus get ready to run a session of the game, I think Moldvay Basic still remains one of the best ever written. Luke Crane's Adventure Burner (written for a quite different system, Burning Wheel) is pretty good but still not as clear, terse and step-by-step. If we look at other D&D examples, whether Gygax's DMG or the 4e DMG 30 years later, they're terrible in comparison! (Though the 4e DMG's advice for combat encounter design is pretty good.)

Click to expand...

I was just reading over Moldvay again on vacation last week - I have to agree, it's amazingly well written all the way through, but the Dungeon Design section stands out as the best of its kind ever written.
I also looked at Cook/Marsh Expert, very pedestrian by comparison - eg it describes hexcrawling but unlike Moldvay it never says *why* the PCs should be going hexcrawling.
One thing though about Moldvay design - it is clearly 'dungeon of the week' oriented, and marks the continuing move away from the OD&D Underworld/Campaign Dungeon that started with 1e DMG. Moldvay doesn't really describe or support full megadungeon play, even though the Rodemus dungeon side-map is evocative of such.