Let's Read...Everything D&D!

[Shiroiken]

Dungeons & Dragons 3-Volume Set

Originally published January, 1974

Version being read and reviewed: Original Dungeons & Dragons RPG - Original Edition Premium Reprint (November 2013)

Book 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures

"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames: Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" by Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson

This one starts off a little odd, at least in comparison to later guides for DM's designing their own adventures. Dungeon building is handled first by means of an example, along with anecdotes from Castle Greyhawk (it apparently had a bowling alley for 20' tall giants). The example dungeon has a lot of what we might call "gotcha" tricks nowadays, with a lot of shifting walls and changing rooms designed to challenge (or frustrate) the group's mapper.

Yes, what is today derided as "gotcha" tricks were the norm for most of D&D until about 3E or so. It was part of the mindset that you the player had to figure out how to get around the problems, not just the character. A high Int or Wis might get you a hint, but that was pretty much it. During this era, exploration was the primary pillar of D&D, not combat or role-playing.

It seems that the assumption back then was that players would delve into the same dungeon numerous times. The booklet gives advice about revising and restocking dungeon levels between excursions to keep things from getting boring. Another interesting tidbit - the wandering monster tables include level titles from the character classes. So, a superhero (the title for a Level 8 Fighter) appears with trolls, minotaurs, and wyverns on the 5th level dungeon wandering monster table.

Most campaigns were based around a single dungeon, which the players spent many, many sessions exploring. The titles seemed like a carry over from Chainmail to quickly determine the power of the character/unit.

The example of play makes me twitch as it seems the caller (the player designated to make decisions for the group and inform the DM), seems to be running the show with nary a peep from the other players, even dictating the actions of their characters. Was the game really played like that back then? I've never seen or heard of such a thing.

I played this way for almost a decade, until I met a different group in college that was more... chaotic in nature. Remember, the primary pillar was exploration, and the easiest way to speed this up was for the party to elect a caller. This role nowadays might be referred to as "party leader" or "captain." A player could always disagree with the caller, especially about having their character take an action, but it didn't happen too often.

The rules for wilderness adventuring consist of discussions of the types of castles and stronghold members of each character class are likely to possess and wandering monsters found in the wilderness. The world outside the dungeon is a very unforgiving place it seems since the tables don't make any distinction based on level. Your 1st level characters are just as likely to run into a dragon as your 10th level characters. There's another offhand reference to the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs with the wandering monsters table for deserts indicating that it can also be used for Mars.

The assumption was that the world was not built for the PCs, but the PCs for the world. My own concern was for the inconsistency of this philosophy regarding dungeons (which had monsters only appear on appropriate levels). It was also, IME, a reason to keep the players from wanting to push beyond the original dungeon, because it was much harder to prepare for.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing to realize folks is that the "caller" is not the boss. Our nickname for the caller in our campaigns was menial decision maker. For decisions that are pretty much random and have no basis the caller just decides. Turn left or turn right, caller decision without more info. Now if a PC provides a reason and he can do so at any time then the group could overrule the caller. It really wasn't a dictatorship. It was a concession to the fact that we didn't need a zillion menial decision makers.

I loved the old school playstyle and I'm still a lover of it. The only thing I'd add is that my games had a lot of history and flavor to go along with the style. They had enemies they really hated. They had allies and connections. All the roleplaying stuff that many talk about was there for us. It's just that the dungeon itself in many cases was designed to be hard for the players as well as the characters and thats how we wanted it.

 

[Emerikol]

The assumption was that the world was not built for the PCs, but the PCs for the world. My own concern was for the inconsistency of this philosophy regarding dungeons (which had monsters only appear on appropriate levels). It was also, IME, a reason to keep the players from wanting to push beyond the original dungeon, because it was much harder to prepare for.

Perhaps the multilevel dungeon is not a perfect trope. I do believe though that a sandbox encounter where the more threatening monsters are generally further out from civilization very much makes sense. You travel out from your homebase only a short distance in the early levels and much farther as you gain experience.

I never though as DM shielded my players from the reality of the world. I absolutely insist on PCs created for the world and not the opposite. If one of you major goals is not the exploration of the campaign setting then you likely aren't a great fit. If the group is stupid and attracts two many monsters all at once they will be attacked by encounters far beyond what they can handle. This is a trope of old school too. Yes areas tend to have particular challenges but thats not guaranteed. Being ready to run is always a good idea.

 

[diaglo]

One thing to realize folks is that the "caller" is not the boss. Our nickname for the caller in our campaigns was menial decision maker. For decisions that are pretty much random and have no basis the caller just decides. Turn left or turn right, caller decision without more info. Now if a PC provides a reason and he can do so at any time then the group could overrule the caller. It really wasn't a dictatorship. It was a concession to the fact that we didn't need a zillion menial decision makers.

I loved the old school playstyle and I'm still a lover of it. The only thing I'd add is that my games had a lot of history and flavor to go along with the style. They had enemies they really hated. They had allies and connections. All the roleplaying stuff that many talk about was there for us. It's just that the dungeon itself in many cases was designed to be hard for the players as well as the characters and thats how we wanted it.

a caller was your CAPTAIN. think wargamers and having sides.
CAPT, my CAPT

edit: but more like a ship's captain... aka ... Colonel for the other services.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Dungeons & Dragons Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes

Originally published July, 1976

Version being read and reviewed: Original Dungeons & Dragons RPG - Original Edition Premium Reprint (November 2013)

"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames: Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" by Rob Kuntz & James Ward

This supplement is notable for being the first without Gary Gygax's name on it somewhere (he co-authored all of the booklets up to this point except Blackmoor, which he wrote the forward to). The forward here is by Timothy J. Kask, Publications Editor. I'm not sure what that title meant at the time, but it sounds as though TSR had already started to expand fairly significantly by D&D's second year. The forward states that Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes is the last D&D supplement and that further material will be coming in the periodicals. Hindsight shows us just how far from the truth that is. The forward also talks about "Monty Hall" campaigns and how the stats for gods are meant to demonstrate how absurd characters above 40th level or so are. This seems to imply that gods are meant to be the ultimate challenge to be overcome.

The book is divided up by pantheons rather than the standard format in the previous supplements.

Egyptian Mythology

The first thing of note is that most gods throughout the book have an AC of -2, with a few notable exceptions here and there having lower AC. From my experience with the Mentzer "Red Box" and the Rules Cyclopedia, AC -2 doesn't seem too overwhelming. Nothing terribly surprising in the Egyptian section, though Ptah is noteworthy if only because I remember him coming to prominence in Spelljammer as a deity accessible throughout the spheres.

Indian Mythology

Another notable trend is that the ruler of each pantheon has 300 hit points while the others have some lower amount, usually in the 200s. The Indian gods are interesting due to many of them having multiple heads and limbs, though the book doesn't provide illustrations of the gods so one is left to come up with deity anatomy on one's own (or look it up). This section also introduces us to several monsters that would later come into more prominence in D&D: maruts, rakshasas, and nagas.

Greek Mythology

No big surprises here either except... The Erinnyes (two n's) Furies are much different from the creatures that borrowed their name in later editions. These erinnyes are three whip-wielding crones, not fallen angel-looking devils. Also of note is the tendency among these gods to take a liking to mortals and gift them with something if the mortal does something particularly noteworthy.

Celtic Mythology

Here we see the first of several deities that were later commandeered by the Forgotten Realms, specifically Oghma and Silvanus. We also meet Balor (not a balor demon, but a disembodied head with eyes that kill and no other abilities).

Norse Mythology

This is the longest and most extensive section in the book, apparently the favorite of the authors. Odin, himself, gets a page and a half (compared to the paragraph devoted to the other heads of pantheons). Tyr makes his debut here, another god that would find himself rubbing elbows with Elminster later on. Hel is noteworthy for having the most detailed "how do you get to her lair" description. Given the prevalence of elves and dwarves in norse mythology, as noted in this book and in norse folklore itself, it could be argued that D&D's fantasy roots lie more with the Norse than they do with Tolkien (though, of course, D&D borrows heavily from multiple sources of inspiration).

Finnish Mythology

This section bears an introduction that notes that folk heroes and mortals tend to feature more prominently than gods. Thus, unlike other sections, we are introduced to a selection of heroes first, though they are just as powerful as most of the gods throughout the book. Each of these heroes bears a variety of magic items, however, which tip the scales a bit in their favor. Oddly, Mothers get their own monster entry and are quite formidable.

Mexican and Central American Indian Mythology

This section is the smallest and the introduction notes that this is mainly due to space reasons and because information on these gods was hard to find at the time. My main point of interest here involves a personal anecdote from my second ever D&D campaign as a DM. One of my players was quite the fan of Incan, Aztec, and Mayan lore and named her wizard Mictlan Tecuhtli, after the god of death.

Chinese Mythology

The introduction here notes that the concepts of Yin and Yang should take precedence over traditional D&D alignment, though it is very sparse on the details of those concepts. The section ends with a note about Chinese dragons, offering us our first glimpse at the Lung dragons that would be fully detailed in later editions.

So, the idea of gods as monsters to be fought originates here, something that would be expanded and more detailed in Deities & Demigods later on. Hardly any information is given on worshipping these entities, their mortal followers, religions, and so forth. By providing stats for gods, the authors were unintentionally fueling the "Monty Hall" style of play they sought to thwart.

Next up: Swords and Spells

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Swords & Spells

Originally published August, 1976

Version being read and reviewed: Swords & Spells (PDF added to www.drivethrurpg.com April, 2017)

Fantastic Miniatures Rules on a 1:10/1:1 Scale by Gary Gygax

The red-headed step-child of the original version of Dungeons & Dragons, Swords & Spells is essentially Supplement V. Its also called the grandson of Chainmail in the foreword by Timothy Kask. The thing is, the foreword starts us off on a rather off-putting note as he informs the reader to trust the author because he knows better than you when it comes to rules for miniatures. The foreword also reminds the reader that this is fantasy and therefore anything that doesn't make sense should be explained away with that notion.

In the introduction, Gygax explains the rationale for mixing model scales in a mass battle fantasy context - a need to account for exceptional critters and characters fighting alongside and against armies of lesser creatures. Gygax then contradicts Kask by saying that referees will likely need to modify and expand the rules presented.

As an aside, I have rarely used miniatures in my D&D games - a couple of times with 3.5 and most of the few sessions I played of 4E. And I always used the pre-painted plastic minis or cardboard counters available at the time So, the detail with which this supplement goes into mounting figures on bases is a bit beyond me. The intent here appears to be to have the mini's base represent the creature's reach more than its size as human sized creatures get bigger bases if they are wielding larger weapons.

The turn sequence for combat is reminiscent of what appears in later Basic D&D core rules, including the Rules Cyclopedia. I find that rather intriguing given how maligned and/or ignored this supplement has become over the decades. There are some similarities between this and its descendant, the D&D Minis game based on 3.5 (and later 4E) as well. As is often the case with these older books, Gygax made me look up an obscure word because I'd never seen it before, in this "abatis."

Unlike the skirmish level combat of more modern games, these rules are, well, complicated. Missile fire rules alone make my head spin more than the psionics rules in Eldritch Wizardry. Magic and melee and morale are all likewise quite complicated. I'm sure this stuff makes sense to miniatures enthusiasts but its all gobbledygook to me.

The latter portion of the book is tables, of course, and appendices which start a little after halfway through the book. Appendix B is notable for introducing a point-buy army selection system not unlike that used in the 3.5 era D&D Minis game. Appendix C provides an example of play...or tries to anyway. It mostly seems like a muddle mess.

Next up: Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1977 Holmes)

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1977 Holmes)

Originally published July, 1977

This post is a placeholder as I do not have access to this book. When I do get my hands on a copy, I'll come back and edit my review into this post.

Next up: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (1st Edition)

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Side note...

At my current pace, I'll be caught up to the date I started this thread in about 60 years or so. Hopefully EN World is still around by then.

 

[DaveyJones]

Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1977 Holmes)

Originally published July, 1977

This post is a placeholder as I do not have access to this book. When I do get my hands on a copy, I'll come back and edit my review into this post.

don't forget the geomorphs and the monster & treasure book also included.
later versions had B1 and even later ones had B2 and dice/ or chits with a promise of dice in place of the geomorphs or m&t book

this was 2edD&D. at least if you read the copyright page...

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I'll be reading and reviewing the adventures separately and skipping stuff like the geomorphs and such since there's not really anything to read there.