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

[Lanefan]

I can only assume Gary had some funny thoughts about players using poison.

Those "funny thoughts" probably revolved around the fact that poison use was specifically called out as Evil in 1e.

 

[James Gasik]

Those "funny thoughts" probably revolved around the fact that poison use was specifically called out as Evil in 1e.

Not that this should be a problem for an Evil class like Assassins!

 

[Mannahnin]

Old school...terror? I'm not sure I follow. What's terrifying about older games?

Lots of monsters, like the Rot Grub, for example, just off the top of my head from the Monster Manual (several examples from Russ Nicholson's amazing Fiend Folio art also leap to mind). Or that image of the character trapped in the room filling with water and the skeleton rising behind him from the DMG. Or the core concept of getting lost in the dungeon and never seeing the light of day again*, which was a major threat in early play according to a lot of the original players. And as you can see in the random dungeon generation tables.

What was the point of this rule? And people say I'm wrong when I say TSR encourage that "DM vs players" thing...

The poison thing? It's one of those things which only makes sense in context, or if you get into the right headspace and think it through. If you were a 70s D&D player and/or have read a bunch of articles and zines from then, you'll know that the idea of player-wielded poisons was an ongoing discussion and recurring attempt at powergaming. Since poison from monsters normally killed the target on a failed save regardless of hit points, it was an obvious thing for players to try to get and use.

Jim Ward had an article from Dragon #13 (and reprinted in Best of The Dragon vol 1, where I first read it as a kid), Notes from a Semi-Successful D&D Player in which he wrote:

Then there is the poison on the dagger trick, which every judge is always trying to stop. I have been told that poisons evaporate, poisons exposed to the air lose their effectiveness, or the most used of all, in your area there is no poison strong enough to kill the things you want. I suggest to all you players and especially the magic users that can use only daggers, that any amount of money and effort spent in the procuring of a really effective poison is worth it. I spent over 90,000 gold and haven't regretted a copper piece of it.

So in this context, you can see that Gary's advice in the DMG was an attempt to slow the proliferation of poison use by not encouraging it, while assuming that OF COURSE smart or experienced players will wind up trying to use it. So he gives the DM rules for it with that expectation.

Similar with his advice about sharing spells in the DMG, where he gives all these instructions about how NPCs will be incredibly stingy and demand exorbitant prices, but that "superior" players will naturally cooperate and share spells, although the DM shouldn't encourage or suggest it. Once again "Gygaxian Skilled Play" in action.

------
*Fun side tangent: In 1987 Games Workshop published a random-tile-based dungeon crawl board game called DungeonQuest, which was a remake of a 1985 Swedish game from Alga AB called Drakborgen. One of the core mechanics of this game is the turn tracker, showing the sun dawning, climbing through the sky, and setting. If you're not out of the dungeon by sunset you're lost forever and die. I've loved the art and aesthetics of this game since I first encountered it in the 80s, and I like how it makes that "get lost forever" aspect of old-school dungeon crawling part of the central conceit.

 

[krillinfan]

What was the point of this rule? And people say I'm wrong when I say TSR encourage that "DM vs players" thing...

Discovering a secret like this would be amazing from a player perspective. Imagine you're just leveling your character as normal and your DM suddenly tells you that you've unlocked this whole side of your character that hadn't expected. For some this would feel bad because they hadn't built around it, but for most it'd feel like a super special thing to them. More games should encourage that style of player advancement to keep the sense of wonder going as long as possible

 

[billd91]

Discovering a secret like this would be amazing from a player perspective. Imagine you're just leveling your character as normal and your DM suddenly tells you that you've unlocked this whole side of your character that hadn't expected. For some this would feel bad because they hadn't built around it, but for most it'd feel like a super special thing to them. More games should encourage that style of player advancement to keep the sense of wonder going as long as possible

Contrast that with the assassin PC player stepping up to the DM's chair at some point who reads that in the DMG and finds out what he missed as an opportunity, moreover, that the game itself recommended keeping it secret.

I think there may be a reasonable place in an RPG for a GM to have surprises for players, particularly as rewards for deeds the PCs perform. But this kind of adversarial recommendation is really irritating.

 

[Voadam]

Discovering a secret like this would be amazing from a player perspective. Imagine you're just leveling your character as normal and your DM suddenly tells you that you've unlocked this whole side of your character that hadn't expected. For some this would feel bad because they hadn't built around it, but for most it'd feel like a super special thing to them. More games should encourage that style of player advancement to keep the sense of wonder going as long as possible

Except that the 1e DMG explicitly says for the DM not to tell a 9th level assassin they can do so.

"Assassins use poison just as any other character does, according to the dictates of the DM. That is, they use the normal tables for poison types (q.v.). When an assassin reaches 9th level (assassin), he or she may opt to make a study of poisons. This decision should come from the player in the case of a player character, i.e. do not suggest it or even intimate that such a study can be undertaken."

 

[James Gasik]

Except that the 1e DMG explicitly says for the DM not to tell a 9th level assassin they can do so.

"Assassins use poison just as any other character does, according to the dictates of the DM. That is, they use the normal tables for poison types (q.v.). When an assassin reaches 9th level (assassin), he or she may opt to make a study of poisons. This decision should come from the player in the case of a player character, i.e. do not suggest it or even intimate that such a study can be undertaken."

Indeed, if you decide before 9th level to try and learn how to use poisons, you can spend all the money and time needed to do so, and automatically fail for not knowing you haven't met the prerequisites!

 

[Zeromaru X]

So in this context, you can see that Gary's advice in the DMG was an attempt to slow the proliferation of poison use by not encouraging it, while assuming that OF COURSE smart or experienced players will wind up trying to use it. So he gives the DM rules for it with that expectation.

So, his fix for power gamers was to ask the DM to hide class features and expect the players to divine them somehow or play an incomplete character unless they develop psychic powers or stole the DM's books?

Great advice (sarcasm)

 

[James Gasik]

It seems strange to us, but you have to remember, a lot of concepts we take for granted now hadn't been worked out yet, and Gary was only human (even if he came off as a tyrannical curmudgeon at times in his writing).

Imagine if the Assassin as a class existed today. You'd expect some things to be different, and one thing that I would expect would be an optional rule for "Poison Mastery".

<gygax>

It may occur to some Dungeon Masters that, being a master of the silent, lethal arts, an Assassin, of all classes, should be adept at the brewing and application of toxic substances to leave nothing to chance when attempting to dispatch their victims.

Of course, monstrous venoms, as are often encountered in the field, tend to be quite lethal, and the impact upon the campaign as a whole if employed against foes, is far from inconsiderable! Thus, one should assume that poison is only employed in controlled circumstances- certainly, when attempting assassinations, it should naturally be assumed that poisons are employed. But in the heat of melee, the idea of coating a blade with a noxious substance without accidentally poisoning oneself or one's allies is almost a certainty!

All that having been said, if the Dungeon Master wishes to allow poison creation and use into their campaigns, here are some suggestions:

Firstly, the character should be no less than the ninth level of experience, lest the Dungeon Master completely lose control of the campaign! It should be stressed that this undertaking is not only a tedious and exacting affair, but must also be done under the strictest of secrecy- creating and selling poisons, let alone using them, is a criminal act in any Lawful society, and even one's allies cannot be fully trusted! Recall that the Assassin is an evil character, and would not trust anyone with such a secret!

I can only further stress that you should not offer this option to the player outright- let them come to you, and then you can decide if you wish to allow such activities to occur in game. Following are the suggested costs, time required, and rules for using poison during adventuring- these may seem to be harsh to some, but you can be assured that much research went into these rules to ensure their accuracy to real-world practices, and to further prevent a party of Assassins from slaying every opponent in the Monster Manual!

</gygax>

 

[Orius]

Ah, but it gets better! Players not knowing about assassins being able to research poison is in the book that comes with this little gem from its intro:

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting “sages” and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment — insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

So not only are these players not supposed to know about one of their class's abilities but if they ask about out of the blue, the logical assumption is that they looked at the "forbidden" DM-only material! At which point they need to be singled out to be screwed, unless they also take turns as a DM.