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

[Mannahnin]

Essential character info? Players initially weren't supposed to know these mechanical details - that's why they were left DM-side - and that's how I still view it today.

They're on your frickin' character sheet!

I literally bought the DMG BECAUSE I needed it to make a character.

If Gary really didn't want the players to have that info he shouldn't have made it something we needed to input on the only document we 100% needed to have.

 

[Zeromaru X]

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.

This sounds like a really bad excuse for a really bad rule, lol

As written, the rule is more about to punish new players for being new players.

 

[Lanefan]

They're on your frickin' character sheet!

Only on later-era character sheets, as I recall. Early ones didn't have those slots (or else I just ignored them), and I know our homebrew ones never did because we-as-players weren't supposed to know that stuff.

 

[Mannahnin]

This sounds like a really bad excuse for a really bad rule, lol

As written, the rule is more about to punish new players for being new players.

Is it punishing new players in 5E if the DM doesn't automatically give all their human PCs Goggles of Night, but waits for the players to seek them out if they want to have darkvision? Is it punishing new players in 1E if and when their Cleric or Magic-User character gets high enough level to make magic items, the DM doesn't immediately hand them instructions on how to make the most powerful items in the game, but rather lets the player take the initiative on what items they want to make?

I'm not sure whether "new" is the best word to describe someone who's put in the work and time to get an AD&D character up to 9th level, either. Usually that would be a year or more of dedicated weekly play. Often longer.

Only on later-era character sheets, as I recall. Early ones didn't have those slots (or else I just ignored them), and I know our homebrew ones never did because we-as-players weren't supposed to know that stuff.

What do you mean by "later-era"? Which specific sheets are you thinking of? The official ones for AD&D always had both combat matrices and saving throws on them.

 

[James Gasik]

These are the oldest 1e sheets I have laying around:

 

[Zeromaru X]

Is it punishing new players in 5E if the DM doesn't automatically give all their human PCs Goggles of Night,

But the goggles of night aren't part of the features gained through class advancement. They are supposed to be gained by purchasing them or finding them as loot. Denying them to a human character is way different to deny a wizard to get his School of Magic feature at level 3 (in 5e rules, I mean).

the DM doesn't immediately hand them instructions on how to make the most powerful items in the game, but rather lets the player take the initiative on what items they want to make?

Again, that is different than to know something in a book directed at DMs (so, normally the players don't have access to it), and that explicitly states that "if you read this book and are not the DM, you are cheating".

I'm not sure whether "new" is the best word to describe someone...

Well, I meant new as in is this is their first campaign, and they don't have any previous knowledge of the rules to knowing stuff thanks to interaction with other players, or that they need to develop psychic powers to divine they have a secret class feature the DM is instructed to not giving them unless the ask.

 

[Mannahnin]

But the goggles of night aren't part of the features gained through class advancement. They are supposed to be gained by purchasing them or finding them as loot. Denying them to a human character is way different to deny a wizard to get his School of Magic feature at level 3 (in 5e rules, I mean).

Magic items are a thing gained as you advance, as a default expectation of D&D. I don't think the fact that you find them as loot is as big a difference as you're implying. Traditionally they've been a huge part of the character power of non-casters, in particular. I take issue with your use of the term "punish" for not automatically mitigating a limitation of the chosen character which the player is able to proactively address in play.

A lot of the Name Level capstone features in AD&D require additional effort and initiative on the part of the player to get and utilize, whether that's making magic items (the details of which are also in that off-limits DMG) or building strongholds (likewise). The Cleric and Druid class write-ups in the PH also don't mention the ability to make magic items, BTW.

I think you're carrying over some design assumptions from later editions which didn't necessarily apply to the earlier ones. Sometimes I do find things in the older editions which I consider genuinely BAD design. Sometimes those still make some sense in context and I can see the designers' rationale. And I don't think they were acting maliciously in limiting access to certain powerful tools and abilities, even if I don't 100% agree with their solutions.

Again, that is different than to know something in a book directed at DMs (so, normally the players don't have access to it), and that explicitly states that "if you read this book and are not the DM, you are cheating".

Lots of details about how the game worked were in that book. Almost all the rules for combat, for example. And expanded details on how many of the spells worked. And how to make magic items. It was a different design philosophy, where mystery was valued, and learning how the game and world worked was understood to be part of the process of discovery and excitement and becoming skilled as a player.

One of the debates about the nature of RPGs in the 1970s was whether players should know the rules AT ALL, or whether that inherently damaged immersion and ruined the illusion of experiencing a secondary world (see The Elusive Shift, if you haven't read it already).

Well, I meant new as in is this is their first campaign, and they don't have any previous knowledge of the rules to knowing stuff thanks to interaction with other players, or that they need to develop psychic powers to divine they have a secret class feature the DM is instructed to not giving them unless the ask.

Deduction is not a psychic power. Exploring and trying things in a sandbox world is not a psychic power.

"Hey, the PH tells me that I'm the only class expected to be regularly using poisons (one of the most powerful weapons in the game), and gives me multiple paragraphs of explanation about the dangers and risks of doing so. Poison isn't on the equipment charts as something I can buy. I guess I should be asking the DM and exploring the game world to figure out how I get my hands on some and whether I can make my own" is a pretty reasonable line of thinking to assume people playing 1E Assassins will naturally have.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you're carrying over some design assumptions from later editions which didn't necessarily apply to the earlier ones. Sometimes I do find things in the older editions which I consider genuinely BAD design. Sometimes those still make some sense in context and I can see the designers' rationale. And I don't think they were acting maliciously in limiting access to certain powerful tools and abilities, even if I don't 100% agree with their solutions.

One of the biggest problems people have, not just about D&D, but in general, is evaluating things from the past from the lens of the present. As you correctly note, the design assumptions were completely different. Heck, if you think that a single "hidden" ability is bad, how about these two feature... that aren't hidden?

For druids to advance from 11th level to 12th, they must seek out and DEFEAT IN COMBAT at 12th level druid. Same with going to 13th level. Same with going to 14th level. As for 15th level?

Assassins? To advance from 13th level to 14th, and 14th to 15th, you have to go to the heavily fortified headquarters of the assassin of the higher level and kill them. 16th level?

But that's nothing compared to the Monk. The 1e Monk was basically Gygax saying, "How about we make a class that I will both make totes OP like a Paladin, while at the same time hitting it harder with my nerf bat that any other class. Yeah, thief, hold the monk's beer."

The Monk had to seek out and defeat a higher level monk to advance ... FOR EVERY LEVEL UP TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF 17, starting at the transition from 7 to 8. That's right- TEN MORTAL KOMBATS!

Of course, the conception of rules was looser back then, so a lot of table didn't actually require this. But it's just different conceptions- first, tighter lore/crunch construction, and second the idea that tables viewed rules more "a la carte."

One of the debates about the nature of RPGs in the 1970s was whether players should know the rules AT ALL, or whether that inherently damaged immersion and ruined the illusion of experiencing a secondary world (see The Elusive Shift, if you haven't read it already).

Good to see someone else is banging the drum while I am mostly absent! Protip- get a macro for that.

Also? You need to start the bard hatin'.

The Elusive Shift is the path to the Snarf side.
The Elusive Shift leads to anger at soulless, dead-eyed elves.
Anger at soulless, dead-eyed elves leads to hatred of bards
Hatred of bards leads to making other people suffer through long and pointless essays.

 

[Lanefan]

It was a different design philosophy, where mystery was valued...

This.

And it saddens me greatly that since then, at the design level, that sense of mystery has been tossed aside.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the biggest problems people have, not just about D&D, but in general, is evaluating things from the past from the lens of the present. As you correctly note, the design assumptions were completely different. Heck, if you think that a single "hidden" ability is bad, how about these two feature... that aren't hidden?

For druids to advance from 11th level to 12th, they must seek out and DEFEAT IN COMBAT at 12th level druid. Same with going to 13th level. Same with going to 14th level.

The gaping hole in this design was that there were prescribed numbers at x-level (I forget the exact numbers, might have been there could only be one 14th-level and seven 13th-levels or something), and as you had to kill one of those placeholders to advance, what happens if the placeholder - particularly the single 14th-level holder - is already dead by some other means?

It also meant that the number of lower-tier placeholders could only diminish; as every time one of them died (or, I suppose, retired) to something other than a lower-level replacement that position would by default cease to exist as nobody could kill the position's holder.

Simply adding the words "...or prove a vacancy exists" gets around all these issues, but those words ain't there in the original rules.