D&D 1E Favorite Obscure Rules from TSR-era D&D

[Lanefan]

This is all true, but I'll add that stealing from the PCs (or, alternatively, having someone destroy their stuff instead of just taking it) is quite often greeted with similar levels of indignation (especially if it's the wizard's spellbook).

As DM there's times I don't have to worry about stealing much from them - they're too busy stealing from each other.

As for the spellbook: one would think a wise (and perhaps wealthy) Mage would keep a backup at home base in case the travelling book gets lost, thrashed, or taken.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can you give a concrete example?

My first real inkling of this were the countless RAW vs RAI discussions, which echo lawyers debating over textual originalism vs legislative intent.

The key difference is that, while both analyses start with plain-text readings, it’s generally a lot harder to discern what the actual rationale and intentions of a particular game rule as opposed to a lot of laws. The legislators, committees and organizations responsible for drafting laws typically take copious notes on the whys and wherefores of a law’s drafting- sometimes the notes are much more voluminous than the final assembled codes. Some areas of law even have books of “model codes” (with footnotes, citations, etc.) that might be adopted by legislative bodies in parts or in whole; as-is or with key modifications. All very handy for fixing things if a law generates unintended consequences. (Laws often generate unintended consequences.)

You simply don’t get stuff like that released to the public on a regular basis.

Or consider the nature of some of the jargon that has cropped up in game analysis vs legalese. Both can be quite opaque, but law schools teach you the meaning, use and avoidance of the jargon as a formal, fundamental process. I don’t know that anyone has set up similar schools on The Forge. There’s a Black’s Law Dictionary. Is there an analog for RPGs?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for the spellbook: one would think a wise (and perhaps wealthy) Mage would keep a backup at home base in case the travelling book gets lost, thrashed, or taken.

In my DMing history, I’ve only taken away a Wizard’s traveling spellbook away once, and it was unavoidable: the entire party had been captured and were released- naked- on an island as prey for a royal “canned hunt”, sort of like the punishment given to the protagonist in The Naked Prey or Ice-T’s character in Surviving the Game.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

My first real inkling of this were the countless RAW vs RAI discussions, which echo lawyers debating over textual originalism vs legislative intent.

The key difference is that, while both analyses start with plain-text readings, it’s generally a lot harder to discern what the actual rationale and intentions of a particular game rule as opposed to a lot of laws. The legislators, committees and organizations responsible for drafting laws typically take copious notes on the whys and wherefores of a law’s drafting- sometimes the notes are much more voluminous than the final assembled codes. Some areas of law even have books of “model codes” (with footnotes, citations, etc.) that might be adopted by legislative bodies in parts or in whole; as-is or with key modifications. All very handy for fixing things if a law generates unintended consequences. (Laws often generate unintended consequences.)

You simply don’t get stuff like that released to the public on a regular basis.

I think that's because rule book writers don't want to have to explain the background of each rule and the rules are the work. Sometimes it's simply less clear what the intent is for various reasons. It would be pretty nice if they did, though.

Or consider the nature of some of the jargon that has cropped up in game analysis vs legalese. Both can be quite opaque, but law schools teach you the meaning, use and avoidance of the jargon as a formal, fundamental process. I don’t know that anyone has set up similar schools on The Forge. There’s a Black’s Law Dictionary. Is there an analog for RPGs?

Regarding Forge, I think it's natural that there is going to be jargon and I think it's very fair that they decided that you have to educate yourself ("you" in the sense "everyone"). I think it's impossible to avoid jargon,

 

[Shardstone]

Long healing times exist for the same reason as long training times when you level up (what Frank Mentzer called "being stuck in training jail"). In combination with 1:1 time, they sideline your characters at various times, so that you have to roll up extra PCs and expand your personal character stable.

Character stables go hand in hand with the relative ease of character death and the fact of demihuman level limits. It spreads out your emotional investment, so that if you lose a character in such a way that they can't be raised, or your favorite elf PC hits their level ceiling and should probably become semi-retired, you still have other active PCs in whom you can remain invested.

(Moreover, in keeping with the sword & sorcery vibe of early D&D, player characters could very well be more like autonomous agents who do comic book team ups only for specific adventures than a continuous, static party. In a situation like that, PC clerics aren't "party clerics" whose duty it is to heal up their permanent allies between adventures. They're servants of their deities who have their own agendas, their own goals and projects between adventures, and there aren't even any guarantees that they're being granted spells between adventures in the first place.)

All these years of being told that long healing times were for MUH REALISM and HIGH DIFFICULTY but really it was just to give you an excuse to play your other PCs...bro...the OSR is all propaganda, isn't it?

 

[Shardstone]

@Snarf Zagyg

Since getting my JD, my perspective on RPG rules has changed quite a bit. My current take is that game designers have gotten into the bad habit of drafting rules in a wonderland-esque mirror to legalese…and rules discussions have followed an analogous path.

But without the formal training lawyers get in how laws get drafted & reading legalese, that leads to almost as much confusion as clarity.

Someone with skills like that could have a lucrative side hustle as a rules-language consultant for RPGs...

 

[Maxperson]

Now, I have to admit, this is a strange restriction (luckily, the prohibition on "oil" is briefly, but further, explained in the Monk class as "and not even flaming oil is usable by them.").

Which leaves them in the odd position of being able to fill a lantern, but not light it!

 

[Maxperson]

Ultimately, it didn’t matter. The DM didn’t put our times at risk, but I had to retire the Diviner due to the loss of 2 other players creating a near complete void in divine casters.

I find it amusing that you had to retire the diviner due to a void in divine casters.

 

[Maxperson]

To cover this admittedly rare situation, I invented a new spell "Renouncement" (7th Cleric) that, when cast on a willing target, completely and harmlessly removes a class - along with any and all associated benefits, penalties, etc. - from someone who doesn't want it any more. If single-class, the target becomes a 0th-level commoner; if double-class*, the character becomes single-class in the one that isn't Renounced. It fails outright if cast on an unwilling, compelled, or charmed target.

This came about due to a PC in an old campaign of mine who, after a non-forced change of heart and ethos, wanted to completely give up Thieving and become a Cleric; yet the game mechanics held no means for him to completely drop the old class before starting over.

* - I don't allow triple-classing.

How do you reconcile that with your stance that xp=memories? That spell would cause permanent amnesia of everything that happened from the moment the PC began training for his original class to the moment the Renouncement spell is cast on him.

Then presumably, because he can't remember why he wanted to change classes, he'd start learning his old class again!

 

[Maxperson]

Unearthed Arcana, man.

It's why I like to differentiate 1e pre- and post-UA. There are a few gems buried in that book, along with a whole avalanche of unplayable and terrible rules that will completely destroy the game's balance if used.

It's almost like it was a cash grab of Dragon articles that was put together in haste, with little thought as to how it would affect play.

As I like to say, there are only two good things about UA-

The polearms, Appendix T. That was cool
The fact that the binding in it was so bad that all copies of it disintegrated within two years.

Mine lasted a lot longer than that! Though that might because after I read through it the first time, I almost never opened it again.