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

[Iosue]

On top of WotC's announced plans for a basic set, the possibility of an RC reprint, and the mysterious test of the D&D page on RPGNow, I've just purchased box sets of Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert (no dice, but B2 and X1 are included!). And I kinda miss the Let's Read OD&D thread. So I thought I'd do a Let's Read of Moldvay Basic, which Mearls has cited as a significant influence on D&DN.


Starting off, the box cover. The cover by Erol Otus is a classic, and while most of my gaming youth was influenced by Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, and Caldwell, it was Erol Otus who first inspired me of the possibilities when I saw this art. It pretty much effectively encapsulates the game: you've got a dungeon, you've got a dragon, you've got magic, you've got treasure, you've got a fighter. And in retrospect it's interesting to note that the fighter wields not the sword of a fantasy hero, but rather the spear of a common footsoldier. I remember being fascinated by the door in the background. Fighting a dragon, of course! Who doesn't want to do that? But for some reason that door in the background of the cover art awoke in me a desire to explore dungeons.


Looking at the rest of the cover, it's notable that the game is called "The Original Fantasy Role Playing Game For 3 or More Adults, Ages 10 and Up". As a player and fan of BECMI, it bugs me when some folks decry it as when D&D began being marketed as a kids game, especially when B/X was noted as "Ages 10 and Up". OTOH, you have the curious construction "Adults, Ages 10 and Up". It is almost as if D&D was saying, you can be 10 years old, but you have to be an adult to play this game. Also, the "3 or More" is telling. That's a dungeon master and two players. My current group cancels the session if only three people can show up (not my call).


The cover of the rulebook has the same art within a red background. No classic dragon-ampersand at this point in time. Inside the cover is the table of contents, in hard to read blue ink. The title page includes this art by Bill Willingham. Another piece favored by fans of Moldvay Basic. I like it; it's evocative. But it's a little cartoony, and frankly, I'm detecting a pattern... The game is credited to Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson, edited by Tom Moldvay. Holmes gets name-checked with "Previous edition edited by J. Eric Holmes". Art by Jeff Dee, Davis S. LaForce, Erol Otus, James Roslof, and Bill Willingham. On to the foreword!


Two things strike me about the foreword. One is that it is bookended by Moldvay describing his character fighting and defeating a dragon. So, you have dragon fight on cover, dragon fight on title page, dragon fight in foreword. Even though 1-3rd level characters probably shouldn't go up against a dragon, and even if they do, they probably don't want to take it head on. So there's a bit of a disconnect between the game and playstyle that Moldvay describes in the rules, and the game and playstyle presented to a new player on their initial contact with the book. It's no wonder that fans in the 80s took game in more heroic, high fantasy directions.


The other thing is that Moldvay writes, "Sometimes I forget that the D&D® Fantasy Adventure Game is a game and not a novel..." There's a lot of this. Anytime "D&D" or "Dungeons & Dragons" appears on the box cover, book cover, forward, or introduction, it's accompanied by a ®. The title page doesn't just say © 1981, it says "© 1974, 1977, 1978, 1981". No disclaimer is spared -- "...are registered trademarks of TSR...", "All rights reserved", "...prohibited without express written consent..." I glossed over it back in the day, but after reading Jon Peterson's "Playing at the World", I can see some of the context. A lot of potted histories of D&D/TSR that I've read recently paint Gygax as the hard working, visionary designer, forced out by the Lorraine Williams and the suits, who then proceeded to sue everyone. But as "Playing at the World" illustrates, already by 1976 C&D letters were flying around, lawsuits were threatened, material was appropriated in shaky ways. Moldvay Basic post-dates the lawsuits between Gygax and Arneson. So it's no surprise to see TSR being absolutely clear and persistent in the declarations of their intellectual property.


Moving on to the acknowledgements, RPG.net's Old Geezer gets name-checked! Also many names I would get to "know" in the coming years: Dave Cook (not yet "Zeb"!), Ernie Gygax, Harold Johnson, Rob Kuntz, Frank Mentzer, and Jim Ward.


Next time -- the Introduction!

 

[LostSoul]

This is the game I started with.

 

[Iosue]

Introduction
What The D&D® Game Is All About - The aforementioned art and foreword aside, rereading the Basic Rules has brought home how very clearly Moldvay laid out the point of the game. Here he refers to D&D as "the Dungeons & Dragons® Fantasy Adventure Game". While the cover refers to D&D as "the original Fantasy Role-Playing Game", the words "role-playing" never appear in the rules. There is no "What is a role-playing game?" section. The closest it gets is when he says, "In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters in a fantasy world..." In fact, that begins Moldvay's succinct description of what D&D is about: "In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters in a fantasy world where magic is real and heroes venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune. Characters gain experience by overcoming perils and recovering treasures. As characters gain experience, they grow in power and ability."


How To Use This Book - Here Moldvay summarizes the structure of the rule book, which Cook's Expert Set would follow. An Expert Set is promised to cover 4th to 14th levels, and a Companion Set for 15th to 36th level. He notes the use of the punched holes for combining the sets in a binder. Another interesting thing is that he tells the player to read the whole book, except for Dungeon Master Information. Dungeon Master Information only includes the rules for making up a dungeon, and a sample dungeon. The non-DM Information sections includes combat, monsters, and treasure. So Moldvay seemingly intended for players to have a grasp for how the rules worked (he writes, "It is more important that you understand the ideas in the rules, than that you know every detail about the game.") This seems to jive with the article in Dragon he wrote that Shannon brought up earlier. He says there:

Many players feel that becoming a DM is difficult. I tried to make it as easy to become a DM as possible. After all, DMs like to play too, but if there is only one DM per group, that person never gets the chance to play.

Personally, I think this is part of the easy "buy-in" that is one of the strengths of Basic D&D.


Here he also notes,

While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee things should be changed. This is not to say that everything in this booklet should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them.

Moldvay expanded on this in the article:

One important point to keep in mind when reading the D&D Basic rules is that they are not hard-and-fast rules, they are rule suggestions. The system is complete and highly playable, but it is flexible enough that Dungeon Masters and players need not fear experimenting with the rules. DMs and players, by mutual consent, are always welcome to change any rule they wish, or to add new rules when necessary. Because of this rule flexibility, individuals who learned to play using the original D&D Collectors Edition rules, or the earlier edition of the D&D Basic rules, can use the new edition without changing their campaign.

For myself, this being my first interaction with RPGs, this forever imprinted this conception of RPGs on me. Every edition of D&D (perhaps with the exception of 1e?) has included the basic disclaimer of "Feel free to make changes or add rules to fit your group and playstyle." But I don't think any other edition's gone that extra-step of putting "rules" in quotes and guidelines in bold, except for OD&D, which really hit the "don't call us, make it up yourself" angle hard.


Definitions of Standard D&D® Terms - Here Moldvay gives a quick rundown of Dungeon Master, player, player character, non-player character, party, dungeon, dungeon module, class, adventure, campaign, mapper, caller, monster, encounter, melee, and experience points. "Adventure" is defined as a game session, beginning when the party entered the dungeon, and ending when the party left the dungeon and divided up treasure. a "campaign" is then defined as "several related adventures (one adventure leading to another, often with the same player characters)". Some in the OSR have suggested that "campaign" originally simply referred to sandbox worlds independent of particular characters. If that is true, the sense of it was already changing by 1981.


Regarding the caller, I think the definition here is perhaps different from the popular conception:

To avoid confusion, the players should select one player to speak for the entire group or party. That player is named the caller. When unusual situations occur, each player may want to say what his or her character is doing. The caller should make sure that he or she is accurately representing all the player characters' wishes. The caller is a mediator between the players and the DM, and should not judge what the player characters do.

It's interesting that fighting monsters is underplayed in this section. Moldvay says that in the course of adventuring, PCs will meet monsters, "which they will have to avoid, talk to, or fight." Interesting that avoid comes first, talk to comes next, and fight comes last. Further, he says,

During an adventure the player characters will also discover treasure and try to avoid dangerous traps as well as encounter monsters. Sometimes, of course, the player characters will have to fight the monsters.

Use of the World "Level" - Of course, there's a dedicated section for all the uses of the world "level".


How To Use The Dice - Always useful. Gives advice on how to "roll" a d4. This section is accompanied by this picture, which brings back memories of dice, notebooks, and graph paper.


Finally, How To "Win" - Here Moldvay downplays adversarial DMing, saying "The DM and players do not play against each other" and "the DM must not take sides." It ends with a statement that might actually be controversial today: "A good D&D campaign is similar to the creation of a fantasy novel, written by the DM and the players."

 

[MortalPlague]

I picked up this set at a church garage sale. It was my introduction to D&D. And my, what an introduction it was!

Nice write-up so far, it definitely brings back fond memories.

 

[pemerton]

I started with this game.

I owned Black Box Traveller before I owned this, but never worked out how to play Traveller (it is very opaque if you don't already know how to play an RPG). Whereas Moldvay Basic is very clear.

the foreword <snip> is bookended by Moldvay describing his character fighting and defeating a dragon. So, you have dragon fight on cover, dragon fight on title page, dragon fight in foreword. Even though 1-3rd level characters probably shouldn't go up against a dragon, and even if they do, they probably don't want to take it head on. So there's a bit of a disconnect between the game and playstyle that Moldvay describes in the rules, and the game and playstyle presented to a new player on their initial contact with the book. It's no wonder that fans in the 80s took game in more heroic, high fantasy directions.

I strongly agree abut this disconnect. I certainly felt it in my early play of D&D, and in my early GMing.

 

[Iosue]

Part 2: Player Character Information


Here we have a single page describing the character generation process in 14 steps. 1. Write down ability scores in SIWDCoCh order. 2. Roll 3d6 in order for ability scores. 3. Choose class. 4. Write down special abilites. 5. Adjust ability scores if desired. 6. Note bonuses and penalties. 7. Put in a line for XP. 8. Determine hp. 9. Choose alignment. 10. Roll 3d6 and multiply by 10 for starting gp. 11. Buy equipment. 12. Note AC. 13. Write down character attacks and saving throws. 14. Name character. Each section lists the relevant pages to explain these steps.


At the bottom there's a 7 point summary: 1. Roll for ability scores; 2. Choose a class, note special abilities and spells; 3. Adjust scores as desired, note bonuses for high scores; 4. Roll hit points; 5. Roll for money, equip character; 6. Find Armor Class, attack, and saving throw numbers; 7. Name the character.


The next page explains ability scores, adjustments, and hp/HD. The abilities are pretty straightforward. Of particular interest are the possible adjustments. Lower two points to gain 1 in a prime requisite, no ability can be lowered below 9. Only magic-users and clerics can lower strength. Strength is a prime req of the fighter, dwarf, elf, and halfling, so that makes sense; but thieves are unable to lower it, despite it not being a prime req. Dex can be raised, but not lowered, and Con and Cha can't be adjusted.


Hit points are described as "the number of 'points' of damage a character or monster can take during battle before dying." Huge debates have had over whether hp represent meat, or some combination of luck and skill. Given that all editions of the AD&D line, including 3e and 4e have clearly stated that hp represent more than just meat, I've sometimes wondered if people who prefer to see them as representing wounds were influenced by Classic D&D, which doesn't appear to have any such conception of hp. Also of note is that Moldvay includes an optional rule of rolling again if a 1st level character rolls a 1 or 2.


This page includes a pic I've always liked. TSR gets not unjustifiably rapped for sexist imagery, but one nice thing about Moldvay's rules is that he always uses "he or she" for the third person, and the art and examples includes women players and characters as a matter of course.


Bonuses are quite uniform. -3 to +3, except for Cha which goes from -2 to +2 for reactions, probably because of the range of results on the 2d6 reaction table. Prime reqs also give a -20% to +10% of earned experience, which tends to discourage playing too far from type. Str bonus applies to to-hit, damage, and opening doors. Int provides 1 to 3 extra languages. Wis gives a bonus to magic-based saving throws (Turn to Stone, Wands, Rod/Staff/Spell, and Death Ray/Poison if the attack is magical). Dex gives a bonus to missile fire, AC, and initiative if individual initiative is used. Con gives a bonus to hp. In addition to reaction adjustment, Cha sets the number of maximum retainers and their attendant morale.


Finally the character class tables. Thieves advance the quickest, followed by clerics, fighters/halflings, dwarves, magic-users, and elves. Here we still see the level titles. Acolyte, Adept, and Priest for clerics; Veteran, Warrior, and Swordmaster for fighters, dwarves, halflings for elves; Medium, Seer, and Conjurer for magic-users and elves, and Apprentice, Footpad, and Robber for thieves. Personally, I've never felt D&D was necessarily about zero-to-hero, given the level titles. It always seemed like 1st level characters were supposed to be experienced, if not powerful. Thieves' Abilities use percentile dice, except for Hear Noise, which is a 1-2 on d6 at 1st and 2nd level, and 1-3 at 3rd level. Open Locks and Find/Remove traps can tried once per lock/trap per level. Rolling twice the chance of success on Pick Pockets mean the character is seen, after which follows a reaction roll. Move Silently will always seem successful to the thief, but are there any groups out there who haven't role-played a bad Move Silently roll as the thief making an amusing amount of ruckus? "Climb Walls" is here called "Climb Sheer Surfaces", although it seems there's a typo in the description, where it's called "Climb Steep Surfaces". This roll should only be made every 100', with failure meaning a fall halfway up. Interestingly, Hide in Shadows cannot be attempted unless the thief remains absolutely still. This isn't true in Mentzer, and neither OD&D nor Holmes are clear one way or the other. It does appear that way in AD&D 1e. The Hear Noise skill applies not just to doors, but also things coming from any direction, such as wandering monsters. They must tell the DM they are being quiet and trying to hear noise. Re-reading this, it really gives me the flavor of a thief as a silent scout.

 

[Iosue]

All right folks, if you've been the dark so far, spring for a Moldvay Basic PDF for 5 bucks! 'Cause now we're going to...


Character Classes!
First off, Moldvay notes from the outset that humans are the most wide-spread race, due to their "courage, curiosity, and resourcefulness." Elves, dwarves, and halflings are of course classes, and grouped under "demi-humans", one of those D&D turns of phrase that have vanished from the lexicon. While Holmes distinguished race from class, Moldvay seems to simplify the conceits of the original Little Brown Books, where dwarves and hobbits could only be fighting-men, and elves were both fighting-men and magic-users.


Clerics - Unlike Mentzer, who attributed clerical powers to their "beliefs", Moldvay says from the outset: "Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess." Prime req is Wisdom, Hit Dice are d6, can wear any armor, and only use weapons without edges. Turning Undead is explained here - the Clerics versus Undead table lists either "no effect", a number, or a "T". No effect means they can't be turned, a number indicates the number to be rolled over with 2d6, and a T means automatic Turning. Successful Turning means the DM rolls 2d6 to see how many HD are turned.


Dwarves - An interesting descriptor here is that dwarves' skin is "earth-colored", giving dwarves something of an ethnic feel. Dwarves get favorable saves vs. magical attacks, due to innate resistance. Con must be 9 to be a dwarf. Prime req is Strength, they use d8 for HD and can use any armor or weapon, except for longbows and two-handed swords. Special abilities are good saves, infravision for 60', and able to find slanting passages, traps, shifting walls, and new construction on a 1 or 2 on a d6, if they are looking for them. They automatically speak Common, Dwarvish, alignment tongue, and the gnome, kobold, and goblin languages. Moldvay already notes that they can only advance to the 10th level, which is nice so players don't get trapped before they buy the Expert Set.


Interestingly, one of Holmes' gripes about the Moldvay revision was infravision! He wrote:

Infravision: Saying that infravision is the ability to “see” heat patterns is putting a magical ability into terms of mundane universe physics. I think it would have been better to leave it as pure magic. I know this “heat seeing” explanation is the one favored by Gygax, but it embraces too many inconsistencies.
Living creatures give off heat. Okay, but how about the undead? Do they appear as spots of cold? If so, a dwarf or elf can always identify a vampire by looking at him in the dark. What about inanimate objects? If a monster (all monsters have infravision) charges into a room, can he see the furniture before he runs into it? How about a rope stretched across the corridor? It would have been better just to say, “It’s magic.”

Elves - Elves are 5 to 5 1/2 feet tall, and like feasting and frolicking. They have two Prime reqs: Strength and Intelligence. 13 or better in both gets +5% XP, and a 16 in Int gets the +10%. Hit dice are d6, can use any weapon or armor, and cast magic spells. Int must be 9 to be an elf. Special abilities include infravision to 60', they find secret and hidden doors on a 1 or 2 on a d6, if they are looking for them, and are immune to ghoul paralysis. They automatically speak Common, Elvish, alignment tongue, and the languages of orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls. They can only advance to the 10th level.


Commenting on the classes in Moldvay, Holmes wrote:

Character classes: Player characters are restricted to being a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User, Elf, Halfling or Dwarf. This probably covers the roles most beginning players want to try, but I am personally sorry to see the range of possibilities so restricted. The original rules (the three little brown books) specifically stated that a player could be a dragon if he wanted to be, and if he started at first level. For several years there was a dragon player character in my own game. At first level he could puff a little fire and do one die of damage. He could, of course, fly, even at first level. He was one of the most unpopular characters in the game, but this was because of the way he was played, not because he was a dragon. I enjoyed having dragons, centaurs, samurai and witch doctors in the game. My own most successful player character was a Dreenoi, an insectoid creature borrowed from McEwan’s Starguard. He reached fourth level (as high as any of my personal characters ever got), made an unfortunate decision, and was turned into a pool of green slime.

 

[Iosue]

double post

 

[rogueattorney]

I love the Moldvay Basic rules. One of the few places I think it could have been better is basically encapsulated by Holmes' quote. I wish the rules had been written more to make it clear that the 7 classes presented therein were "a good start" and that the DM and players could and/or should create their own classes from time to time as needed.

That's something that I, an experience player of 30+ years, certainly understand. But I think it would have been helpful to me as a kid to get me thinking about being more creative.

 

[TerraDave]

It is now available (legally again) as a pdf here

http://www.dndclassics.com

I was going to give a direct link, but there servers are down...

One of my top all time D&D products, and still probably one of the easiest versions to just pick up and start playing. Standardized ability mods are of course one of its innovations, beyond the super clear style.

And this picture:

has one of the earliest hot elvish chicks I know of.