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

[Voadam]

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:





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.

I see no exception for fellow DMs in that advice.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Again, what's the point of creating a class feature you're supposed to not know about?

 

[Voadam]

Again, what's the point of creating a class feature you're supposed to not know about?

So select NPCs can do it.

In my 1e Campaign an NPC assassin was a poison supplier offering for sale the poisons from the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

Again, what's the point of creating a class feature you're supposed to not know about?

Basically, if your DM decides they don't want to deal with it, they can simply not use it, and you'd never know otherwise. What we'd call an "optional rule" now, like how Oathbreaker Paladins were in the 2014 DMG, except with an extra layer of Gygaxian opaqueness so not only would a player not feel entitled to the feature, but they'd never even know to complain about it.

Is it a good way to go about it? Not in my opinion!

 

[Zeromaru X]

Basically, if your DM decides they don't want to deal with it, they can simply not use it, and you'd never know otherwise. What we'd call an "optional rule" now, like how Oathbreaker Paladins were in the 2014 DMG, except with an extra layer of Gygaxian opaqueness so not only would a player not feel entitled to the feature, but they'd never even know to complain about it.

Is it a good way to go about it? Not in my opinion!

But there is a big difference between giving you something as an optional feature (your character is still complete if you don't take this option), and making you play an incomplete character just because Gygax wanted to bully players.

 

[James Gasik]

But there is a big difference between giving you something as an optional feature (your character is still complete if you don't take this option), and making you play an incomplete character just because Gygax wanted to bully players.

Is there? I think it's really the same thing- if you only have the PHB, Assassin's don't even have this ability. If you chose to play an Assassin, based on the writeup in the PHB, you are missing nothing, nor do you expect anything more. It only becomes available if the DMG is also owned. Sure, technically, it's not listed as an optional ability, but it effectively is one.

Now letting a player waste time and gold pursuing an ability they cannot acquire, that's completely unfair. And as I said, I don't care for the whole "guessing game" a player might need to undertake to divine that they even had an additional ability they could gain!

It reminds me of how early MMO's tried to keep mechanics secret from their players. Of course, the reactions to this can vary wildly- from a sense of wonder when you realize you've unlocked an ability to no one else has, to annoyance, to uncontrollable rage.

 

[Zeromaru X]

to uncontrollable rage

Completely understandable. A DM makes this to me, I'm going to believe he was personally mocking me the whole time, my trust in his fairness and integrity as a person will be completely deteriorated, and I would abandon that game entirely, lol. Depending on how this ends, this can be a friendship ender.

 

[Orius]

I see no exception for fellow DMs in that advice.

That's how I interpret the "any non-DM player" phrase at the beginning of the passage. I doubt Gary was so obtuse as to not take into account that some groups had DMs taking turns, especially as he co-DMed with Rob Kuntz.

Anyway, I'm okay with saying things like PCs can share spells, but they have to do so on their own initiative without any input from the DM. I'm less in agreement with keeping players in the dark for its own sake. But given the whole stream of consciousness style the 1e DMG was written in, I have to wonder if Gary was really thinking along the lines that some of us notice when we analyze it.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

No, I don't think so.

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.
.....
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.

The logical assumption, at the time, was that the player would naturally be trying to get and use poison. As an Assassin especially, being the only class where using poison was called out as a "yes" on the armor and weapons permitted chart (PH page 19). So Gary expected that Assassin PCs would be trying to get their hands on and using poisons whenever they got the opportunity, and would naturally ask at higher levels about making their own.

Again, what's the point of creating a class feature you're supposed to not know about?

That "superior" players get rewarded by unlocking cool new abilities at higher levels, through cleverness and persistence. At least that was the idea. The design wasn't always good.

That's how I interpret the "any non-DM player" phrase at the beginning of the passage. I doubt Gary was so obtuse as to not take into account that some groups had DMs taking turns, especially as he co-DMed with Ron Kuntz.

Absolutely. Rare miss by Voadam, who's usually super reliable on these kinds of details. [tips hat]

Anyway, I'm okay with saying things like PCs can share spells, but they have to do so on their own initiative without any input from the DM. I'm less in agreement with keeping players in the dark for its own sake. But given the whole stream of consciousness style the 1e DMG was written in, I have to wonder if Gary was really thinking along the lines that some of us notice when we analyze it.

Yes, the 1E DMG is badly edited and a lot of it is written assuming context that later players missed. There are lots of examples. I remember Delta writing about how crappy and awkward the disease rules, the naval rules and the basic overland travel rules in the DMG are, and writing about what a revelation it was when he finally read OD&D. Because the simpler, more playable and gameable original versions of those rules are THERE. And the AD&D versions are much more properly read as EXPANSIONS of and additional detail for those original systems. It was Gary's and TSR's failure to properly organize and write the AD&D 1E books which led to so many lacunae and wonky systems.

I don't think that the idea of restricting poison-making to high level and keeping it secret was a TERRIBLE idea. I think the implementation was maybe a bit off. 9th (Name) level IS a logical point to do it from the perspective of OD&D and AD&D. Name level is when a lot of the classes fully come into their powers and unlock capstone-type abilities, like making a stronghold, attracting followers, or being able to make magic items. But I imagine if I was running 1E by the books I might give the player at least SOME hint if they attempted study at a lower level- "Your skills are not sufficient to attempt this study". Or I might make a house rule that they could grasp the course of studies with an investment of the specified money and time and a 5% per character level chance of success (but guaranteed at 9th).

 

[Voadam]

That's how I interpret the "any non-DM player" phrase at the beginning of the passage. I doubt Gary was so obtuse as to not take into account that some groups had DMs taking turns, especially as he co-DMed with Rob Kuntz.

Absolutely. Rare miss by Voadam, who's usually super reliable on these kinds of details. [tips hat]

"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."

I agree that a DM player is not to be viewed as something less than worthy of honorable death.

I still read the second half though as Gygax's advice being the use of any DMG only information not gathered in play should be assessed sage consultation fees so as to discourage such out of game information actions.