Weird rules interpretations you've encountered?

[John Dallman]

When I started playing in fall 1979, one of the groups I played with was still using an evolved version of OD&D. A couple of people in it had started in 1974, when TTRPGs were very new, especially in the UK, and had perpetuated some strange interpretations.

Copy-pasted from Men & Magic:

Hold Person: A spell similar to a Charm Person, but which is of both limited dura-​

tion and greater effect. It will affect from 1–4 persons. If it is cast at only a single​

person it has the effect of reducing the target’s saving throw against magic by –2.​

Duration: 6 turns + level of the caster. Range: 12”.​

The meaning of the wording is pretty clear: this is something close to "Control Person." That's not what it says in AD&D1e or BECMI, though, and I'm inclined towards this being an early mistake by TSR.

Also from Men & Magic, in the list of rings:

Protection: A ring which serves as +1 armor would, giving this bonus to defensive​

capabilities and to saving throws.​

Now, this had a weird interpretation. Their conclusion was that it gave you the same protection as wearing +1 armour ("what kind of armour?" "platemail!") giving you the same armour class as wearing +1 platemail, and +1 to saving throws. To be fair, Bracers of Defence were not introduced until Greyhawk, so three-booklets OD&D had no way for magicians to improve their armour class, but it's still a very creative interpretation.

Have you encountered weird interpretations, in D&D or any other game?

 

[The Soloist]

Fireball. Our English wasn't very good at the time and we relied on an older player who was more proficient. He claimed that a Fireball was active along its trajectory and could damage everyone in its path. It was overpowered and made no sense to me (the DM). At home, I took out our English dictionary and translated the spell. He was kicked out of the group not long after because he always reinterpreted the rules to favour his character.

 

[Nikosandros]

My first AD&D DM applied the weapons AC adjustments to the AC of the wielder and based on the wielder's armor. So, my ranger - IIRC - used a broadsword and he wore splint mail and shield, thus improving his AC by 2 points!

 

[The Soloist]

My first AD&D DM applied the weapons AC adjustments to the AC of the wielder and based on the wielder's armor. So, my ranger - IIRC - used a broadsword and he wore splint mail and shield, thus improving his AC by 2 points!

Interesting. The weapon gave you an AC parry bonus.

 

[uzirath]

When my brother and I first start playing in 1980, we didn't understand that the dungeon map was meant to be a secret. We played with the map out on the table. Whenever the party walked by a secret door, everyone would roll their d6s until they spotted it.

 

[The Soloist]

When my brother and I first start playing in 1980, we didn't understand that the dungeon map was meant to be a secret. We played with the map out on the table. Whenever the party walked by a secret door, everyone would roll their d6s until they spotted it.

Awesome! That is how you play a board game. It makes sense to me that you would do that.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

When my brother and I first start playing in 1980, we didn't understand that the dungeon map was meant to be a secret.

Perfectly reasonable. I mean, the 1975 Dungeon! board game didn't hide the map, and Dungeons & Dragons is just some kind of spinoff game from it, right?

 

[Voadam]

My brother's assassin got a cloak of the bat in my 1e game and the magic user identified it for him.

Cloak of the Bat: Fashioned of dark brown or black cloth, a cloak of this type is not readily noticeable as unusual. It will radiate both enchantment and alteration in equal proportions. The cloak bestows upon its wearer a 90% probability of being invisible when the wearer is stationary within a shadowy or dark place. The wearer is able to hang upside down from the ceiling just as does a bat and maintain this same chance of invisibility. By holding the edges of the garment, the wearer is able to fly at 15” speed (MC: B). If so desired, the wearer can actually transform into an ordinary bat - all possessions worn or carried will be likewise part of the transformation - and fly accordingly. Flying, either with the cloak or as an ordinary bat, can only be accomplished in darkness (either under the night sky or in a lightless or near-lightless environment underground). Either of the flying powers is usable for up to one hour at a time, but after a flight (either type) of any duration, the cloak will not bestow any flying power for a like period of time. The cloak also provides protection, just as a robe of protection (qv), at + 2, and this benefit extends to the wearer even when he or she is in bat form.

He loved it but was a bit worried that when transformed as an ordinary bat he would get all the stats of an ordinary bat, including hit points. This made him quite cautious in his bat scouting.

 

[James Gasik]

Played (very shortly) with a 2e group where it seemed like everyone (even the DM!?) were power gamers who used very liberal interpretations of the rules. The one that sticks with me was their belief that when fighting with two weapons, you doubled your attacks per round, thus:

1 guy with two swords: 2 attacks per melee.

1st level Fighter specialized in two swords: 2 attacks on the first turn, then 4 on the second.

11th level Fighter specialized in two swords: 4 attacks on the first turn, 6 attacks on the second.

Same Fighter using dual Scimitars of Speed: 6 attacks per round.

Scimitars of Speed + Haste: 12 attacks per round.

And they all saw nothing wrong with this! When I dug up the rule that limits off-hand attacks to 1 additional attack per round to the DM, he just said off-handedly "Well, we don't play it that way."

I quickly got out of that group.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Gen Con in the 80s DM told us "Light" was a magical sphere of light that penetrated solid objects. Doors, walls, roofs, floors if the radius was greater the light carries to the other side. It was to force us to use torches.