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

[Iosue]

MONSTER LIST: Acolyte to Zombie

On to the Monsters of Moldvay Basic!

On the first page we have the Acolyte and the Bandit, essentially monster versions of PC classes. Acolytes have an AC of 2, which seems to suggest they are wearing plate and carry shields. Bandits, in the meantime, have an AC of 6. Leather armor and implicit Dex bonus, perhaps? Both still use the standard d8 monster Hit Die. Also, this page is the first with art in a while! An Erol Otus depiction of an Ape, White. Can't find a pic of it on the Internet, though...

The next page features two kinds of Bat ( Normal and Giant ), four kinds of Bear ( Black, Grizzly, Polar, and Cave), and three kinds of Beetle, Giant (Fire, Oil, and Tiger). IMO, this page demonstrates two things. One is the succinctness of Moldvay's rules. On one page we have essentially nine monsters of various level and abilities. The other is what may now appear to be the curious decision to include monsters far beyond the level of Basic characters. The four bears go from HD 4 to HD 7. The HD 4 Black Bear might appear on the 3rd level of a dungeon, but it seems highly unlikely that the HD 7 Cave Bear, with its vicious 1-8/1-8/2-12 claw/claw/bite routine, would do so. It's certainly one thing that reinforces the idea of challenges that players would not necessarily be expected to defeat by straight combat.

The next page lists the Beserker, Boar, Bugbear, Carrion Crawler, and five kinds of Cat, Great (Mountain Lion, Panther, Lion, Tiger, and Sabre-tooth Tiger). There's a Diesel LaForce pic of the classic Carrion Crawler. This (and the Mentzer DMB's one) is how I always picture them; I never really cared for the green-skinned WotC versions.

Next we have Cave Locust, Centipede, Giant, Doppleganger, and...Dragon! These are, of course, the most powerful monsters in Basic, possibly in Expert, as well, with low ACs, high HD, and dangerous Breath Weapons. But there's something else I want to draw attention to here. Dragons were given a huge upgrade in BECMI and AD&D 2nd Ed, in order to make them more powerful, dangerous foes for the PCs, and this trend has continued in subsequent editions, including 5e. And to be sure, at first glance this does seem somewhat necessary. Even the mighty Gold only has AC -2 (which 10th level fighters can hit with a 14 or better, without any STR bonus or magic weapons), and 11 HD averages out to only 50 HP. Certainly, a dragon is not an epic foe for a party of name-level PCs. But there's one line in the stat block that I think gets really overlooked. No. Appearing! All dragons have a No. Appearing of 1-4, in both dungeon and wilderness! That means you only have a 25% chance of encountering a solo dragon, and a 75% of encounter multiple dragons at a time! To an extent, I think No. Appearing being overlooked is true not just of dragons, but other D&D monsters as well. Most are designed to be encountered in groups, but it seems like only the old standards such as kobolds, goblins, orcs, gnolls, and lower level undead are really thought of being encountered in groups.

Other than the Gold Dragon, none of the other metallic dragons are included in Basic, with the chromatics of White, Black, Green, Blue, and Red making the cut. However, while Golds are of course Lawful alignment, and Blacks, Greens, and Reds are Chaotic, Whites and Blues are Neutral, suggesting that in B/X they may not necessarily be evil. The Dragon entry takes up most of the next page, as well, with sub-sections for Breath Weapon Damage (up to 3 times, randomly decided, damage equal to the dragons current HP), Shape of Breath (includes the iconic pic of breath weapon shapes), Saving Throws (for breath weapons: save for half-damage), Talking (clarifies that only talking dragons can use spells, but the chance of talking only goes up to 50% for Reds, except for Golds who always talk and cast spells), Sleeping Dragons (basically a free attack round, since you only get a +2, and they wake after the first attack; no coup de grace here!), Subduing Dragons (all attacks made with "flat of the sword", no magic or missiles; subdued dragons must be sold at a maximum of 1,000 gp per hit point), Age (younger dragons up to 3 HD lower, older dragons up to 3 HD hire), Treasure (only in lair, and 1/4 to 1/2 less for younger dragons), and Gold Dragons (always talk and use spells, can also change shape, and can use both fire and chlorine gas breath weapons). The page ends with an entry for the surprisingly tough but somewhat anti-climatic Driver Ant. (That said, 6' long and never fails morale when hungry! Yipes!)

The next page has many of the classics: Dwarf, Elf, Ferret, Giant, Gargoyle, Gelatinous Cube, Ghoul, Gnoll, and Gnome. The next page has even more: Goblin, Gray Ooze, Green Slime, Halfling, Harpy, and Hobgoblin. Interestingly, the Elf gets 1+1 HD, while the Halfling gets 1-1, despite PC elves and halflings using the d6 Hit Die.

The next page contains Insect Swarms, Killer Bee, Kobold, and Living Statue, with the last being unique to B/X and BECMI. Living Statues come in Crystal, Iron, and Rock. This page also has an Erol Otus kobold picture.

The next page contains four kinds of Lizards, Giant (Gecko, Draco, Horned Chameleon, and Tuatara), Lizard Man, and five kinds of Lycanthropes (Wererat, Werewolf, Wereboar, Weretiger, and Werebear). While werebears were Chaotic Good in AD&D, their D&D counterparts were the decidedly more uncertain Neutral. However, their description notes them as intelligent even in animal form, and possibly friendly if peacably approached. I suspect this reflects the vagaries of the single-axis D&D alignment. Werebears are obviously inspired by the perilous, grumpy, but ultimately good Beorn of the Hobbit. In AD&D, this could be relatively easily mapped to Chaotic Good, but since in D&D Chaotic often maps to "evil", Neutral was used to better express Beorn's ambiguity.

The next page contains another PC-class monster with the Medium, followed by the Medusa, Minotaur, Mule, Neanderthal (Caveman), and Noble.

The following page has Normal Human (weaker than PC-class characters), NPC Party, Ochre Jelly, Ogre, Orc, and Owl Bear. Interesting the owl bear is two words instead of a compound! The orc gets four paragraphs of description, much more than goblins, kobolds, and the like. It also notes that they may often be hired as low cost soldiers!

The next page has the Pixie, two kinds of Rat (Normal and Giant), Robber Fly, Rock Baboon, Rust Monster, and Shadow. A Bill Willingham pic does double-duty for both the pixie and the rust monster.

Next come Shrew, Giant, Shrieker, Skeleton, and five kinds of Snake (Spitting Cobra, Pit Viper, Sea Snake, Giant Rattler, and Rock Python). The snakes are rough. Relatively easy to kill, but four of them are poisonous (pit viper, sea snake, and giant rattler are lethal; the spitting cobra's poison only blinds), and on a successful hit, the Rock Python does bite damage and immediately begins doing 2d4 squeezing damage per round. Thanks to the lack of damage types in D&D, swords suffer no damage penalty vs. skeletons. However, with 3-12 appearing, immunity to sleep and charm, and with perfect morale, skeletons are relentless and scary.

The next page offers three kinds of Spider, Giant (Crab Spider, Black Widow, and Tarantella), Sprite, Stirge, Thoul, and Trader. That's actually "tarantella", not "tarantula". These are huge, hairy magical spiders, whose poison causes a painful, but non-damaging, non-lethal spasmodic "dance". Here's a pic. The thoul is another D&D original, not found in AD&D or WotC D&D. It's a magical combination of ghoul, hobgoblin, and troll. Apparently, they look like hobgoblins, paralyze like ghouls, and regenerate like trolls. I'm definitely statting these bad boys up for 5e once the DMG drops!

Our last page of monsters contains Troglodyte, the final PC-class NPC with the Veteran, Wight, two kinds of Wolf (Normal Wolf and Dire Wolf), Yellow Mold, and the Zombie wraps everything up. The troglodyte has a Bill Willingham pic that I've always remembered. Unlike the other PC-class NPCs, the Veteran gets variable HD: 1-3, to represent sergeants and the like.

Coming up next, Treasure!

 

[Iosue]

Bumping this for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], it's good to see this thread resurrected!

I remember the Thoul and the Living Statute as Moldvay monsters with no AD&D counterpart. (But some of the invertebrates also, I think - driver ants, tarantella spiders, some of the beetles maybe? But they're less memorable.)

I think I faced a blue dragon at the end of the first dungeon I played as a beginning Basic player. My memory is that it killed my PCs! I agree with you that there was a degree of mis-match between some of the monsters, and the PC power levels. If that was meant to suggest non-combat alternatives to resolution, I think it would hav been helpful to have a bit more designer commentary/guidance on that.

On alignment - I like the neutral elves, werebears and dragons. A bit like 4e's "unaligned", I think it makes for better encounter design and adjudication than "chaotic good" or "..... evil", which tend to prefigure too much of the resolution in advance.

On number appearing - I think we'll see this revisited when we get to the DMing chapter. The figures in the monster chapter en up, I think, mostly being used to determine how much treasure the monsters should have when encountered in a dungeon.

On saving throws - do you know the beginning of the tradition of doppelgangers having such good saves?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I remember the Thoul and the Living Statute as Moldvay monsters with no AD&D counterpart. (But some of the invertebrates also, I think - driver ants, tarantella spiders, some of the beetles maybe? But they're less memorable.)

I

Don't forget the Robber Flies!!!

 

[Iosue]

I remember the Thoul and the Living Statute as Moldvay monsters with no AD&D counterpart. (But some of the invertebrates also, I think - driver ants, tarantella spiders, some of the beetles maybe? But they're less memorable.)

Yeah, as far as animals go I imagine there are a few sub-types that don't quite have an AD&D counterpart, but AFAIK Thoul and Living Statue are a bit more iconic. Also in Expert we have the Caecilia, the Rhagodessa, and the Sea Dragon. In BECMI, there were the Gem Dragons, and probably others I can't recall.

I think I faced a blue dragon at the end of the first dungeon I played as a beginning Basic player. My memory is that it killed my PCs! I agree with you that there was a degree of mis-match between some of the monsters, and the PC power levels. If that was meant to suggest non-combat alternatives to resolution, I think it would hav been helpful to have a bit more designer commentary/guidance on that.

It's one of the drawbacks to Moldvaian Succinctness. There's a bit of DM advice there; he urges DM's not to throw full dragons at the Basic-level players. But nothing for the player. Certainly nothing like Gygax's in-depth section in the AD&D PHB. I'm not exactly sure why. To save space? To provide players with the freedom to figure things out for themselves? It's also, IMO, one of the few failings of the ruleset in that the examples of play only ever show the players using combat to resolve encounters. For the Example of Combat, sure. But the Example of Play opens with the end of one combat and ends with the beginning of another. Between that there's one example of the players retreating from approaching monsters, but there's nothing representing a non-combat method of engaging in encounters.

On number appearing - I think we'll see this revisited when we get to the DMing chapter. The figures in the monster chapter en up, I think, mostly being used to determine how much treasure the monsters should have when encountered in a dungeon.

It's very much a function of level, and the effect on treasure is, I think, more of a by-product. Similar to what 5e does (but with less transperancy as to design calculations, if any), difficulty is very much determined by No. Appearing. If you have a Level 1 monster, and you encounter it on Level 2, you encounter more of it. Likewise, if you meet a Level 5 monster on Level 3, you meet fewer, or even just one. Treasure is then adjusted to account for the change in difficulty, in keeping with Moldvay's injunction for DM's to balance risk with reward.

On saving throws - do you know the beginning of the tradition of doppelgangers having such good saves?

I don't know why it's necessarily a thing in terms of the fiction! The B/X doppelganger is very similar to the OD&D doppelganger, which is also immune to charm and sleep and saves as a 10th level Fighter. I think it comes from early OD&D, and thus B/X, not having anything like Magic Resistance or Anti-Magic (apart from the highly limited 6th level spell Anti-Magic Shell). How do you emulate magic resistance? Blanket immunity to certain spells and jack up the Saves.

 

[Alcamtar]

Moldvay was my first game, but it didn't have any dragons. The center page was missing in the book, maybe a loose staple or something, but it came out of the box like that. I did not notice and played happily without them, figured the dragons were in the Expert set. But I bought Expert and still no dragons!

The kids at school played AD&D in the library and used dragons a lot; I peeked at their monster manual to see what the breath weapon types were, and then used the stats in BX's dungeon monster tables for combat and stuff. Eventually I upgraded to AD&D, in part because I thought I had to buy the advanced game to get the dragon rules!

It wasn't until years later when I bought a used copy of Moldvay and it had the dragons in it, as well as a couple of other monsters I'd never seen before that were also on those pages. To this day I rarely use dragons, perhaps in part because they weren't part of my early experience.

 

[D'karr]

Moldvay was my first game, but it didn't have any dragons. The center page was missing in the book, maybe a loose staple or something, but it came out of the box like that. I did not notice and played happily without them, figured the dragons were in the Expert set. But I bought Expert and still no dragons!

The kids at school played AD&D in the library and used dragons a lot; I peeked at their monster manual to see what the breath weapon types were, and then used the stats in BX's dungeon monster tables for combat and stuff. Eventually I upgraded to AD&D, in part because I thought I had to buy the advanced game to get the dragon rules!

It wasn't until years later when I bought a used copy of Moldvay and it had the dragons in it, as well as a couple of other monsters I'd never seen before that were also on those pages. To this day I rarely use dragons, perhaps in part because they weren't part of my early experience.

That is hilarious. I love the Moldvay set, I got my start with that one too. However, I would have been so disappointed if it didn't have dragons, particularly after the very inspirational foreword. You would have missed out on one of my other favorite monsters too, the carrion crawler.

 

[Greyline]

Great thread!

This is a great thread! Iosue, you do a wonderful job capturing the items the "magenta box" does well and not-so-well.

One question for you: Do you think folks' willingness to play fast and loose with the rules is a feature of the game, or a feature of the age folks were when they got the set?

I received the box set for my 8th birthday, and except for the very first time I played (with a teenage friend of the family and my dad), I don't believe there was one time in those first few heady years when my friends and I even picked up a die. Straight 18s? Yup, we got 'em. Your 1st-level fighter wrestled the tarrasque? Cool. My castle has a drawbridge made of solid platinum.

For me, opening that box brings back a wave of nostalgia. Both to the game itself, and the hours I spent thinking about it, and flipping through the rulebook with my childhood friends, and to child I was--who could imagine without needing to rationalize.

 

[D'karr]

One question for you: Do you think folks' willingness to play fast and loose with the rules is a feature of the game, or a feature of the age folks were when they got the set?

I think it's a bit of both. The Magenta Box set was very upfront about the rules being subservient to the fun at the table. The foreword contains one of the most succinct quotes to that effect - "The game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination."

So I think that the game was designed to be "broken" by the players whenever they wanted, and some of the rules really made it so that you had to "break" it to fix it to your taste.

Age is also a big factor in this. I see a willingness to break with the rules a lot more out of my younger players, than from my older players.

 

[Iosue]

This is a great thread! Iosue, you do a wonderful job capturing the items the "magenta box" does well and not-so-well.

Thank you! I do my best.

One question for you: Do you think folks' willingness to play fast and loose with the rules is a feature of the game, or a feature of the age folks were when they got the set?

Mostly the former, but certainly I think the latter plays a part. The game says up front that the rules are just guidelines, you should feel comfortable changing things if you want. I think kids are more apt to take that at face value, and have the time and boundless creativity to do that. Adults, OTOH, probably have more constraints on their time and mental bandwidth, and perhaps are more likely to play closer to the rules.

But one reason why I think Moldvay Basic in particular promotes that kind of willingness is that the rules footprint is very light, and almost entirely DM-sided. There aren't a whole lot of moving parts. As a player, you roll your stats and buy your equipment. Beyond that, your interaction with the mechanics of the game are very limited, essentially being rolling for initiative and making to-hit rolls. Maybe rolling for Open Locks and Climb Walls if you're a thief. (Probably also rolling for damage, although this technically isn't RAW.)

The rest of the rules in the book are essentially just heuristic structures to help the DM resolve things. The characters listen at a door? The DM can decide what they hear, or roll. The thief hides? The DM can decide he's well enough hidden, or roll. And so on. And most of these systems have to do with exploration, so virtually anything that didn't have to do with exploration depended on the DM to either adjudicate or create their own resolution system for. Further, while some bemoan old D&D's reliance on a number of different resolution systems, this actually gave DMs a toolkit of different kinds of resolutions: percentile dice, segmented percentage rolls (e.g., 2 in 6 chance), bell curves, etc. And Moldvay Basic also makes heavy use of the d6 as a "when in doubt" resolution system. So as you play you get a feel for how these different systems work, and then you can recycle them for your own systems if there's a rule you as DM want but the game doesn't provide.

 

[Greyline]

Rolling all the dice

But one reason why I think Moldvay Basic in particular promotes that kind of willingness is that the rules footprint is very light, and almost entirely DM-sided. There aren't a whole lot of moving parts. As a player, you roll your stats and buy your equipment. Beyond that, your interaction with the mechanics of the game are very limited, essentially being rolling for initiative and making to-hit rolls. Maybe rolling for Open Locks and Climb Walls if you're a thief. (Probably also rolling for damage, although this technically isn't RAW.)

This reminds me of the beginning of the Guardians of the Flame series, when Karl Cullinane is musing about how when they played [D&D], the gamemaster rolled all the dice, and he could just focus on imagining himself being there. Maybe hiding the crunch behind the DM screen lets players imagine more and game the system less.

Of course, Karl's DM turned out to be an evil wizard, but the point stands?

 

[Iosue]

So, we've entered Golden Week in Japan, so I thought I'd try catching up on all of my various unfinished "Let's Read" threads. First up, Moldvay Basic and...

Treasure

I must confess, having imprinted on B/X when I hatched from my RPG egg, that I will always have a soft spot for lettered Treasure Types. It's certainly not to everyone's taste, probably not even most people's, and D&D's never going back to it, but I like 'em. They're part of my mental landscape of D&D.

The section starts with a simple explanation of treasure (coins, gems, jewelry, and magic items), and how it is used to both determine experience points and allow players to pay for better equipment, hire retainers, and purchase special services. Moldvay notes that treasure is normally found in lairs, but might also be rewarded to characters for performing missions. Treasures can be determined randomly or chosen by the DM. Moldvay suggests that large treasures be determined before play so the DM can "determine how best to hide and protect the treasure from theft, and if magic items are present, the DM may want to allow the monsters to use such items."

Four steps are listed for determining random treasure: find the treasure type; roll percentage dice for each type of treasure listed in the treasure type; roll to determine the amount of treasure present; and finally roll on the magic item subtables if such items are present.

For placed treasure, Moldvay provides some guidelines. He suggests that 3/4 or more of the characters' experience will come from treasure, so choices for placed treasure should be made carefully. He suggests first determining the amount of XP the DM wants to give out, placing the treasure to give the result, and then include monsters tough enough to make the characters earn the treasure.

There are 22 Treasure Types, listed by letter. Types A-O are for "large numbers or fairly difficult monsters are encountered," while P-V are for what individual monsters are carrying. Lairs of human-type monsters should contain at least the number given for the wilderness No. Appearing value in the monster stat block. If less than a full lair is encountered, the amount of treasure should be adjusted. There is not much in terms of advice or guidelines for adjusting treasure, though. There is a table with average values of Treasure Types A-M, for DMs to use as a baseline. (Type N contains only a 40% chance of 2-8 potions, and Type O contains only a 50% chance of 1-4 scrolls.)

The richest lair type by far is Type H, with a 25% chance of 3-24 1000s of copper, a 50% chance of 1-100 1000s of silver, 50% for 10-40 1000s of electrum, 50% of 10-60 1000s of gold, and 25% of 5-20 1000s of platinum. There is also a 50% chance each for 1-100 gems or jewelry, and a 15% chance of four magic items, plus 1 potion and 1 scroll. The listed average value is 50,000 gp. G, A, and M follow with 25,000, 17,000, and 15,000 gp respectively. Only Dragons have Type H. Dwarves have G, Bandits and Troglodytes have A, and no Basic monster has M.

The richest individual treasure type is V, followed by U, which as noted earlier are the most common individual treasure types after "Nil". These are also the only ones that allow a (small) chance of gems, jewelry, and magic times.

In terms of magic items, the most common (= have the highest chance of being found) are Potions with a 25% chance, followed by Swords, Weapons/Armor, and Scrolls at 20%. Rings, Wands/Staves/Rods, and Miscellaneous Magic all have a 5% chance. Swords, Weapons/Armor, Potions, and Scrolls have 8 slot tables, while Rings and Wands/Staves/Rods have 6 slot tables, and Miscellaneous Magic has a 10 slot table.

It is at this point in the game where Moldvay explains coins. All coins are about equal in size and weight, about the size of an American half-dollar piece. For our non-American readers, the half-dollar c. 1981 was about 30.6 mm in diameter and weighed about 12.5 grams.

For gems, they have values of 10 gp, 50 gp, 100 gp, 500 gp, and 1000 gp. The most common are the 100 gp ones, with a 30% chance. The 1000 gp ones only have a 5% chance. Everything else has a 20% chance. Jewelry is where the real money is. If it's found, the value is determined by rolling 3d6 and multiplying the result by 100. Unlike gems, though, jewelry can be damaged by "very hot fire, lightning bolts, crushing, and other rough treatment," halving its value.

Getting into the nitty gritty of magic items, magic items can only be identified by testing. If retainers are made to test an item, they can be expected to keep it. NPC magic-users can identify items, but will expect money or services paid in advance, and may take several game weeks to do it.

Interestingly, Moldvay says that characters must concentrate on an item in order to use it, with the exception of weapons, armor, and protection items. Items can only be used once per round, and the character concentrating on them can't do anything else. I totally missed this rule throughout my B/X games.

Items with charges cannot be recharged, and its impossible to know exactly how many charges it has (determined by rolling a 1d10 when found). Moldvay says "many items" will have limited charges, but in fact in Basic this only applies to Wands, Staves, and Rods.

[sblock=At this point, this classic Erol Otus pic takes up the bottom third of the page.]

[/sblock]

Magic weapons apply their adjustments to both to-hit and damage rolls. Cursed weapons cannot be willingly disposed of without the help of a high-level NPC cleric or magic-user (undoubtedly using the Remove Curse spell to be found in the Expert rules). Moldvay clearly notes that armor and shield bonuses are subtracted from AC, and an example is included to make this clear.

Swords - The sword table contains one +1 sword, one +1 sword that casts Light on command, one +2 sword, one -1 cursed sword, and four +1, +x swords (+2 vs lycanthropes, +2 vs spell users, +3 vs undead, and +3 vs dragons).

Weapons/Armor - The Weapon/Armor table includes arrows +1, axe +1, dagger +1, mace +1, armor +1, shield +1, armor and shield +1 each, and cursed AC 9 armor. If armor is rolled, the DM can decide what kind it is, or roll a d8 to determine it. In this case, a 1-2 gets leather, 3-6 gets chain, and 7-8 gets plate. Magical armor weighs less than regular armor. Cursed armor will appear to all tests as armor +1 until actual deadly combat is entered. The implications are scary! You could put on the armor and spar with your party members, finding it provides a +1. But then when you enter deadly combat, it turns to AC 9 and can't be removed without a remove curse spell!



Potions - Each potion has a different smell and taste, even two of the same effect. Despite this, potions can be sipped to determine their type, and no special knowledge or hoops-jumping are required for this. Durations are 1d6+6 turns, which the DM determines secretly. If a potion is drunk while another is still in effect, the character is sick and unable to do anything for 3 turns. Healing potions, though, have no duration. The types of potions included are Diminution, ESP, Gaseous Form, Growth, Healing, Invisibility, Levitation, and Poison.

Scrolls - The first 3 slots on the table are taken up with Spell Scrolls with one, two, and three spells respectively. These spells are magic-user/elf spells, but have a 25% of being clerical spells. Next comes a cursed scroll. There are two protection scrolls, one for lycanthropes and one for undead. The last two slots are treasure maps; one to a location of 1,000-4,000 gp value treasure, and one to a hidden magic-item.

Spell scrolls can only be read by magic-users, elves, or clerics. Spell scrolls can only be used by the appropriate classes. Now there's an interesting wrinkle here that's unique to B/X. In OD&D, magic-users apparently act like clerics, with all spells available for levels they can cast. With the Greyhawk Supplement, they were given minimum and maximum spells, which were included in Holmes Basic and of course AD&D. In Mentzer's BECMI (and Rules Cyclopedia), magic-users started out knowing Read Magic, and could learn other spells so that their spellbooks could outpace the number of spells they could cast per day. And the upshot is that a magic-user could always learn Read Magic, but never need to prepare it on adventures. Any scrolls they found could be taken back home, where Read Magic could be cast at their leisure. But in B/X, magic-users only know as many spells as they can cast. And Moldvay notes in this section that magic-user/elf spells can only be read by using a Read Magic spell. This means that if a magic-user wants to use scrolls, they have to use up one of their 1st level slots learning this spell. Even with Expert Rules, they only get 4 first level spells! So magic-user and elf players have to make a choice: use one of their precious, limited 1st level slots to get access to scrolls, or use that slot on another spell they want to cast more frequently. And even if they choose to go with Read Magic, when do they choose it? First level? Second? Seventh? Eleventh? In Moldvay, it seems, magic-users weren't expected to be fountains of powerful magic, but rather hoarders of scrolls (and the ultra-rare wands/staves/rods). Certainly, this explains why scrolls have a relatively high chance of being found. I like this. It gives B/X magic-users a slightly different flavor from AD&D magic-users, who scrounge for scrolls and spellbooks to increase their own personal power. B/X magic-users get their power from resource management, combining their limited personal spells with scrolls and limited charge magic-items.

On the other hand, clerics get access to their scrolls with no problem. The scrolls are even written in Common! Only clerics have the "spiritual contacts" necessary to release their power, though. Protection scrolls and treasure maps can be read by anyone. For cursed scrolls, it's up to the DM to make up the curse, although Moldvay helpfully adds a few suggestions (reader turns into a frog or other harmless animal; wandering monster appears and attacks reader with surprise; one magic item disappears; the reader's prime requisite is rerolled; and wounds take twice as long to heal).

Rings - In Moldvay, only one ring can be worn on each hand, keeping with Moldvay's tendency to limit resources. The available rings are Animal Control, Fire Resistance, Invisibility, Protection +1, Water Walking, and Weakness (natch).

Wands, Staves, and Rods - In Moldvay, wands are thin, smooth sticks 1 1/2 feet long. Rods are thin like wands, but 3 feet long. Staves are 2 inches thick and 6 feet long. It says that in the Basic Rules only magic-users and elves can use wands and only clerics can use staves. But this is only because the two staves (Staff of Healing and Snake Staff) included in the Basic rules are cleric items. In Expert, staves for magic-users would be included. Rods can be used by anyone. The available wands are Enemy Detection, Magic Detection, and Paralyzation. The staves are mentioned above. There is only one rod, the Rod of Cancellation, which will only work once (it drains a magic item of its magic). Rods, staves, and wands are the only class of magic-item in Moldvay Basic not to have a cursed item.

Miscellaneous Magic Items - Some classics here. Bag of Devouring, Bag of Holding, Broom of Flying, Crystal Ball, Elven Cloak and Boots, Gauntlets of Ogre Power (gives STR 18, and an additional 1,000 coins of weight that can be carried before being encumbered), Helm of Alignment Change, Helm of Telepathy, Medallion of ESP, and Rope of Climbing.

The chapter ends with Moldvay giving an example of randomly determining treasure for a lair of 30 goblins. The result is 2,000 sp, 3 gems worth 50 gp each, a potion of healing, and a sword +1, which Moldvay decides the goblin leader will wield. He does note that 30 goblins is pretty much an average amount of goblins for a lair (No. Appearing 6-60), and if the lair only contained 10 goblins (1/3 the average), he'd have reduced the treasure value by 1/3 as well: 600 sp, 1 gem, and 1 magic-item -- probably the potion.

 

[pemerton]

In BECMI, there were the Gem Dragons

Don't these originate in Dragon? I can't remember which issue number, but they were reprinted in Best of Dragon 3.

the rules footprint is very light, and almost entirely DM-sided. There aren't a whole lot of moving parts. As a player, you roll your stats and buy your equipment. Beyond that, your interaction with the mechanics of the game are very limited, essentially being rolling for initiative and making to-hit rolls. Maybe rolling for Open Locks and Climb Walls if you're a thief. (Probably also rolling for damage, although this technically isn't RAW.)

The rest of the rules in the book are essentially just heuristic structures to help the DM resolve things. The characters listen at a door? The DM can decide what they hear, or roll. The thief hides? The DM can decide he's well enough hidden, or roll. And so on. And most of these systems have to do with exploration

How do you see the reaction roll fitting into this framework?

 

[Iosue]

Don't these originate in Dragon? I can't remember which issue number, but they were reprinted in Best of Dragon 3.

Yes and no. Per this Wikipedia article, and checking my Monstrous Manual, the AD&D Gem Dragons first appeared in Dragon #37 in May 1980. But the AD&D Gem Dragons are quite different from the BECMI ones. The AD&D ones are Amethyst (N), Crystal (CN), Emerald (LN), Sapphire (LN), and Topaz (CN). Their deity is Sardior the Ruby Dragon. The BECMI gem dragons are Crystal (L), Onyx (N), Jade (N), Sapphire (L), Ruby (L), and Brown (C). BECMI also includes the Dragon Rulers - Pearl the Moon Dragon, ruler of Chaotic dragons, Opal the Sun Dragon, ruler of Neutral dragons, and Diamond the Star Dragon, ruler of Lawful dragons. Their breath weapons are completely different, as well. For example, AD&D Crystal dragons breathe a line of blinding light. BECMI Crystal dragons breath cold and crystal.

How do you see the reaction roll fitting into this framework?

I think it's pretty emblematic. Rather than social skills such as Bluff, Intimidation, or Persuasion, which players can improve and choose to use as the situation dictates, it's an entirely DM side system. Rather than a success/fail system, it provides a spectrum of reactions to what the players do. The only way players can engage the system is to do something "in the fiction". It's much more of a DM tool than a mechanical handle for players to play the game with.

 

[pemerton]

Rather than social skills such as Bluff, Intimidation, or Persuasion, which players can improve and choose to use as the situation dictates, it's an entirely DM side system.

<snip>

The only way players can engage the system is to do something "in the fiction". It's much more of a DM tool than a mechanical handle for players to play the game with.

But if the players know the GM is using the reaction system, they can do things to gain bonuses (or penalties!), can't they. Or choose to build high-CHA PCs?

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

I started with AD&D 2nd edition, and only recently picked up a few of the Basic D&D books. I have to say it is a nice change of pace, and I am really digging the simpler rule set.

 

[Wangalade]

But if the players know the GM is using the reaction system, they can do things to gain bonuses (or penalties!), can't they. Or choose to build high-CHA PCs?

That's not how it works. The things they do to gain bonuses are, as already stated, things that make sense "in the fiction." A player may try to convince an NPC to buy a pie, but if the NPC doesn't like pies, then no matter how good of a salesperson the player is, the DM may never give a bonus because it just doesn't apply to that NPC in that situation. The DM can apply or not apply bonuses as they see fit, and the reaction types are guidelines, not every bad reaction roll will result in immediate combat just because the chart says "attack."

In regard to "building" high cha PCs, you can't. You don't get to "build" a PC. Your PC either has a good cha or doesn't, there's nothing you can do to change that. The PC with the highest cha tends to be the talker, not because that player is good at that stuff, but because his PC happens to be guaranteed a bonus(which tends not to make a big difference). The other players will demand his character take the lead, its not his choice.

 

[pemerton]

The things they do to gain bonuses are, as already stated, things that make sense "in the fiction."

That doesn't really mark a distinction from a skill-based system, either, or at least a good one. In a good social-skill system, you can only make a skill check by declaring some action that makes sense in the fiction.

A player may try to convince an NPC to buy a pie, but if the NPC doesn't like pies, then no matter how good of a salesperson the player is, the DM may never give a bonus because it just doesn't apply to that NPC in that situation.

I'm not really sure I entirely follow the example.

In Moldvay Basic, as in real life, it has to be possible to persuade someone to buy something they don't like. In a system like 4e, the Bluff skill might be relevant. In Moldvay Basic, it's raw CHA (no social skills).

If the NPC really doesn't like pies, that would impose a penalty. If the GM is roleplaying the NPC well, then the players might work out the NPC doesn't like pies and have their sales efforts switch to (say) apples instead.

Presumably, the PCs can also learn information about NPCs and deploy it. For instance, NPC X in the dungeon might have gossip that a trader down the corridor is interested in good-quality giant ferret skins. If the players approach the trader offering giant ferret skins for sale at a good price, then that should give them a bonus (just as, if they learn in advance that your NPC doesn't like pies, they can avoid offering pies for sale and thereby avoid the pie-hatred-induced penalty).

The DM can apply or not apply bonuses as they see fit

I'm not sure what you mean by "as they see fit". The GM shouldn't be arbitrary. If the NPC description says "The trader is keen to buy giant ferret skins" and the players, having learned of this, approach the NPC offering skins for sale, it would not be proper GMing for the GM to impose a penalty just because s/he suddenly "sees fit". The GM should also be adjudicating things in a way that makes sense, given the fiction. (Including the pre-established fiction which the players are gradually unearthing through their explorative efforts.)

In regard to "building" high cha PCs, you can't. You don't get to "build" a PC. Your PC either has a good cha or doesn't, there's nothing you can do to change that.

In practice, not every group who plays Moldvay Basic uses the written rules for stat generation. Or even if they do, there might be a stable of characters and a player can choose to take the high-CHA one out for a spin.

It might also be possible to learn of a magic item or magic pool or similar that raises CHA.

It seems to me that, in the same way that players can take steps to increase their chance to hear noises (eg play thieves or demihumans), they can take steps to increase their chances at good reactions.

In the post that I was replying to, [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] says of the hear noise example "The characters listen at a door? The DM can decide what they hear, or roll." What I don't think the GM is free to do is to declare that the PCs hear nothing, even if - according to the dungeon key - there is in fact potentially audible noise in the room. Nothing in the Moldvay Basic GMing advice gives that GM that sort of authority, to block the players' exploratory efforts without regard to the fictional positioning.

 

[Wangalade]

Presumably, the PCs can also learn information about NPCs and deploy it. For instance, NPC X in the dungeon might have gossip that a trader down the corridor is interested in good-quality giant ferret skins. If the players approach the trader offering giant ferret skins for sale at a good price, then that should give them a bonus (just as, if they learn in advance that your NPC doesn't like pies, they can avoid offering pies for sale and thereby avoid the pie-hatred-induced penalty).

That is exactly what I meant. 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?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "as they see fit". The GM shouldn't be arbitrary.

What I mean is, given the above example, a slight word change. In the phrase "should give them a bonus," in the stead of "should," place "might." It is up to the DM to decide if the sale price is good enough to give a bonus, or whether the trader wants the skins badly enough that a bonus is warranted.

My point is: it is the dm's decision whether to give a bonus based on the situation, that bonus is never guaranteed to the players.

 

[Iosue]

But if the players know the GM is using the reaction system, they can do things to gain bonuses (or penalties!), can't they.

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.

That doesn't really mark a distinction from a skill-based system, either, or at least a good one. In a good social-skill system, you can only make a skill check by declaring some action that makes sense in the fiction.

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.

In Moldvay Basic, as in real life, it has to be possible to persuade someone to buy something they don't like. In a system like 4e, the Bluff skill might be relevant. In Moldvay Basic, it's raw CHA (no social skills).

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):

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.

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "as they see fit". The GM shouldn't be arbitrary. If the NPC description says "The trader is keen to buy giant ferret skins" and the players, having learned of this, approach the NPC offering skins for sale, it would not be proper GMing for the GM to impose a penalty just because s/he suddenly "sees fit". The GM should also be adjudicating things in a way that makes sense, given the fiction. (Including the pre-established fiction which the players are gradually unearthing through their explorative efforts.)

"As they see fit," implies to me a lack of arbitrariness, and in fact points to "adjudicating things in a way that makes sense, given the fiction." So I suspect you and Wangalade are probably closer together on this than it might appear at first glance. "At their whim," OTOH, would imply an arbitrariness that would lead to bad experiences, but "as they see fit" and "at their whim" are two distinct attitudes, IMO.

In practice, not every group who plays Moldvay Basic uses the written rules for stat generation. Or even if they do, there might be a stable of characters and a player can choose to take the high-CHA one out for a spin.

It might also be possible to learn of a magic item or magic pool or similar that raises CHA.

Yes, but this thread, or at least my posts in it, is about the written rules, and exploring the kind of game they describe, not the variations that people played throughout the 80s. And in those rules, it is impossible to "build" for high-CHA unless you happen to roll high on your last ability score roll. CHA cannot be adjusted during character generation because it is not a prime requisite. There are no magic items in either Moldvay Basic or Cook Expert that increase CHA. 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.