Summoner Wars

I've been staffing a transition seminar for TCKs since last Monday, which has been awesome, but which also meant very little time for blogging or RPGs (I scheduled the last three posts over a week ago). I did encounter two things which may be of interest to my readers. The first is a strategy board game called Summoner Wars that uses cards as pieces; I realize that CCGs generally get little love in the OSR (with some exceptions, of course), but this game has set decks that you don't have to buy in random packs or organize to your advantage. In fact, in the standard game, there is no "deck-building" whatsoever. Instead of continuing to explain it, though, I'll let them do it much better:

This game struck me as a cross between chess, wargaming and CCGs (mind, I've done very, very little wargaming or CCGing so I may not know what I'm talking about) and was a lot of fun. Each faction has different strategies that work best, from sudden berserk charges to sneaky backstabbing attacks to slow advances or setting up defenses and letting the enemy kill themselves on your walls. If you want to try it out for free, there is an app you can download here (though you have to pay for more factions). It's a very simple, well-designed game with really tight rules.

Plaid Hat Games also has a game called Dungeon Run which I wish they had an introductory video for. The rules are free to download, but I haven't had a chance to read them yet. They say, "If one of your fellow players comes away from Dungeon Run with their feelings a bit hurt, that's how you know you were playing it right." It looks similar to Lego Heroica or Dungeon!, but since I haven't played those either, I could be totally wrong about that.

Plaid Had Games' website is here. As usual for a review, I haven't had any contact with them besides playing Summoner Wars three or four times this last week.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 11: Armor, Armor Class and Weapons

Types of Armor and Encumbrance

Gary lists types of armor, including shields, along with how "bulky" they are (he doesn't explain what significance that has in this section, though a note on shields later on implies that it has something to do with encumbrance separate from weight), their weight (adjusted to take into account weight distribution and the armor's effect on mobility), the base movement rate of an individual wearing the armor and short explanations of each type of armor. Both price and AC are missing; I suspect that AC will probably be in another section of the DMG, but a quick skim of the combat section didn't turn anything up.

More interesting are the notes Gary follows this list up with. For example, if PCs don't wear helmets, 1/6 attacks against him are aimed for his AC 10 head; if the opponent is intelligent, then it's every 1/2. There was some discussion a few years back in the OSR about helmets, but I don't remember that harsh consequence for not wearing a helmet ever come up; on the one hand it makes great sense but on the other hand it's both very harsh, especially to characters who can't wear helmets, and it calls for an extra die roll for every attack against helmet-ed PCs.

Shields are only allowed to improve AC against the front and the left. Gary justifies large and small shields providing the same abstract amount of mechanical benefit because, while large shields protect more area at one time, they also cannot be moved around as easily as small shields and they fatigue the user. Gary does allow for an optional rule: large shields provide a +2 bonus against projectiles, instead of the standard +1.

Dexterity and Armor Class Bonus

Gary explains that any penalties to dexterity from wearing armor are already taken into account, so a high Dexterity always provides a bonus to AC…

Except for attacks from behind that the character can't see coming, large (siege weapon style) projectiles and certain magical attacks.

Weapon Types, "To Hit" Adjustment Note

Gary points out that the optional bonuses to weapons against certain types of armor are against certain types of armor and not against the armor classes themselves; that is, if a weapon is +1 against an armor with AC 7, the armor isn't +1 against a monster not wearing any armor but with a natural AC of 7. By the same token, the DM may give that weapon a +1 bonus against another monster with a natural AC of 5 which has natural armor resembling the type of armor the weapon gets a +1 bonus against.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 10: Money

Player Character Starting Money

Gary doesn't actually spell out how much money characters get during character generation; I assume both that that's in the PHB and that the amount of money characters get is 3d6 x 10 gp. Gary stresses that it is important for characters not to have everything that their players want them to have, for the characters to always need more (at least to keep up their lifestyle; Gary points out that the assumption is that adventurers [except for monks, so apparently including paladins and rangers] are living the high life whenever they aren't risking their lives in the dungeon). Gary argues that this is the way to make sure that players are still interested in adventuring. From what I've heard, that might be necessary for some players of the "YOU-give-my-character-his-motivation" school; I've had the good fortune of never having players who don't provide their own characters with motivation. Actually, most of my players who thought about any motivation past "exploring, fighting and getting rich" found the idea of the Old School endgame very compelling.

I realize that's not every player, though, and this is an easy way to give a PC motivation (here's another).

Also, it can't be denied that there's a certain pulpy romance to the PCs constantly making do with less than they want and constantly going into dungeons to get the gold to acquire it. I prefer justifying PCs being less wealthy than they'd like because, well, that's what this game is about rather than because the player's won't play if I don't adversarially inflict poverty upon them.

Player Character Expenses

Characters spend 100 gp per level per month for room, board, equipment maintenance and entertainment. I like this a lot, as it's incredibly simple; I'm not sure I'll use that exact amount, but this is definitely going into my game (my players tend not to be interested in living the high life quite as much as Gary expects). Characters also have to pay henchmen 100 gp per level per month, in addition to their standard treasure shares. Once they have a stronghold, they also need to pay 1% of the total cost of their stronghold per month. Gary also suggests taxes, fees and levies, but he leaves those to the discretion of the DM.

Gems

Gary provides tables for determining what and how valuable gems are. The basic mechanic is to roll on one table, which provides a base value ranging from 10 gp to 5000 gp. Rolling on the next table, that base value is adjusted to its final value. Finally, a roll is made on the appropriate table corresponding to original base value to determine what the gem actually is.

At least I think that's how it works. Gary is less clear than usual in this section, and the fact that most of the "what gem is this" tables have 13 or 14 items makes me wonder whether Gary wanted me to roll on them or not.

Reputed Magical Properties of Gems

Here, Gary gives a long list of gems with the magical properties they are supposed to possess, according to the general culture in the game setting. Which is pretty cool. He then points out that these properties are only what NPCs say these gems have. In actual gameplay, Gary is emphatic that merely possessing, say, a chrysolite, won't ward off spells. Which makes a lot of sense to me, since I don't want my players' first level characters running around with a pocketful of 10 gp gems they found in their first dungeon crawl getting to be invisible and controlling weather and being immune to magic, fire, venom and plague!

Gary does allow for the reputed magical properties to actually be true when gems are incorporated into some magic item, like a potion or ink (or a non-expendable magic item, I say; to craft a ring of invisibility, you should have to have a chrysoprase to set into it). That makes his list a lot like the components list from the Ready Ref sheets, except that it's a lot less dangerous to buy an amethyst than to acquire, say, a displacer beast's tentacle.

Values of Other Rare Commodities

Gary spends maybe a quarter of a column on the prices of other stuff you might find in a treasure hoard, like silk, tapestries, rich furs and spices. That's actually pretty helpful, as I don't recall most other RPGs having prices for those.

Only Ten Hard Copies

Recently, Brendan asked, "If you could only keep 10 of your printed RPG books, what would you pick?"

In no particular order (well, besides generally alternating between TSR-era titles and OSR titles):

1. The Arduin Trilogy: The first three Grimoires bound in one volume. Includes awesome critical hit and critical fumble tables, random tables that make character generation more fun (in both my and my players' opinion, at least), gonzo monsters (Kill Kittens!) and more classes, magic and optional rules than, well, you really need. Which is awesome.
2. Tome of Adventure Design: Matt Finch's giant book of tables. It includes everything from diseases to villainous motivations to randomized dungeon mapping to monster and trap generation to, well, so much more.
3. Ready Ref Sheets: Published by Judges Guild, this is a collection of tables. It includes city encounters, poison rules, an alignment charting system that's spelled out in a much more practical way than in the DMG, a random ruins generator, a well-thought-out, if complex justice system and a material component list for 48 potions, among other awesome things.
4. The Dungeon Alphabet: 26 letters in the alphabet, 26 themes for tables. This is a great book for inspiration and for flipping through when you've hit a block in preparing an adventure.
5. City Book 1: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker: Published by Flying Buffalo, this is a system neutral collection of businesses, the NPCs who run them and adventure hooks related to them for use with any city. I once ran a city adventure completely by the seat of my pants with this, Haldane and Matt Finch's City Encounters. For game prep, I just made sure I was really familiar with these three documents; my players loved it, and so did I.
6. The Wilderness Alphabet: Basically the Dungeon Alphabet for the outdoors. My favorite tables are the domains of the gods and the population factor tables that provide the quickest and easiest way to find out what businesses operate in town that I know of. 
7. 1E DMG: Only twenty-some pages into it, I've already gotten inspiration for Dragon PCs (against Gary's advice, I know) and decided to incorporate the Ranger follower tables, the Age rules and at least some of the disease rules into my game.
8. ACKS: The tightest version of D&D I know of, built to be tinkered with and with extensive end-game rules. If I ever had to choose just one iteration of The Game to play, straight from the book, for the rest of my life, it would probably be ACKS.
9. The Great Pendragon Campaign: Over 400 pages and 100 adventures, plus inspiration for more adventures and a great system for running battles, even for games other than Pendragon.
10. The Majestic Wilderlands: A rules supplement with great classes, multiple simple magic systems, magic items and simple combat rules additions. Enough history and geography to be well-versed in the Wilderlands is included as well.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 9: Alignment

I've gone through numerous understandings, tinkerings and levels of enthusiasm concerning alignment, and read plenty of other bloggers do the same. It was interesting to see Gary's own take on alignment, at least as he sets it out in the DMG.

Gary begins by explaining what alignment is and some basics about how it works: it is the general "ethos," of a character. It doesn't determine religious views, though it may be determined by religious views, and it doesn't prevent characters with the same alignment from fighting with each other, though similarly aligned opponents are likely to cease hostilities and team up with each other against opponents of different alignment.

In AD&D, Gary differs from the single-axis, "allegiance in a grand cosmic struggle," D&D definition of alignment so common in the OSR and instead sets out alignment as a roleplaying aid, a compass to help players run their characters well and in such a way that they do more than just ask, "what would I do in that situation," and go with that. In Gary's own words, "alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions and purpose will be. It likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae."

In AD&D, there are now two axes for alignment, Law-Chaos and Good-Evil. Gary casts Law as being about the group over the individual; the group needs order and organization to survive and function. Spock was being supremely Lawful when he said, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." Chaos in AD&D, far from being the existential threat to the cosmos it is in D&D, is merely promoting the individual over the group. Good is basically about valuing the rights of others, while Evil is about accomplishing one's goals without regard to the rights of others.

Gary goes on to describe each of the possible nine alignments. Nothing is particularly surprising when one realizes that each alignment is just a synthesization of two points on the two axes, except that I found it interesting to read Gary's descriptions of Evil alignments. Gary describes Neutral Evil characters as basically social Darwinists, believing in the success and survival of the fittest and the failure and extinction of the weak; Lawful Evil sees Law as a mechanism for subjugating those who are weaker, the epitome of classism and racism; Chaotic Evil values individual desires and volition… so long as the individuals who have them are strong enough to bring them into reality and defend them. Ultimately, "might makes right," seems to be the unifying theme of Gary's understanding of Evil.

Gary stresses that it is important to chart the alignment of characters' behavior, using a chart in the PHB. He doesn't go into much detail on this point and I'm unclear on whether that chart is this chart that I've seen multiple times before:

or something else. If it's this chart that Gary is talking about, I'm not sure how he expects "small shifts" to be kept track of. Charting character behavior on the alignment chart is important because some classes require certain alignments and because there are serious consequences to actually changing alignment.

Gary takes alignment so seriously that he states, "failure to demand strict adherence to alignment behavior is to allow a game abuse." Gary offers as an example of such game abuse a Paladin who is conveniently led away from the party while the rest of the party schemes to poison a monster; the Paladin isn't stupid and, if played according to alignment, would not turn a blind eye to that sort of behavior, but the players play their characters that way because it is convenient. Gary argues that the Paladin's player should be told that turning a blind eye towards obviously non-Lawful behavior will cost him his Paladinhood and if the player continues to act against alignment then the DM should follow through and strip the Paladin of his Paladinhood.

Gary goes on to discuss alignment languages. He draws parallels with Thief's Cant and the Catholic Church's Latin, but it's clear that there are no strict real-world parallels with what he is describing. Alignment languages are not complete languages; their vocabularies are well-developed concerning the main topics of the alignment, but very bare in all other areas. Thieves can discuss casing and stealing to no end, but a discussion of literature is out of the question; Druids can discuss plants and weather, but not politics. Gary's examples of Thieves and Druids discussing things with their alignment tongues makes me wonder just how many alignment tongues there are; are there nine, one for each alignment? More? Less? Nine seems to generally fit what Gary is saying, as it seems that any intelligent creature, even Gold Dragons, isolated from humanity, can speak the tongue of their alignement. It is taboo to speak in an alignment tongue in the presence of anyone not positively known to share that alignment.

One aspect Gary doesn't address with alignment tongues is how they play out in a game. Do characters ensure that they are not overheard by enemies who don't share their alignment by using it? Do characters prove to monsters that share their alignment that they, too, are of that alignment (for example, a Lawful Good party approaching a Gold Dragon)? Of what real use is alignment language?

Consequences for alignment change include: losing spells or spell-casting ability (particularly for druids), losing a level and loss of alignment tongue while beginning to learn the new alignment tongue. If alignment change is the result of magic against the character's will, magically reversing the alignment change can restore the lost level, but at a hefty monetary cost.

Gary suggests not informing players that there are consequences for changing alignment, letting players cross into other alignments and then penalizing them. I've read and heard complaints about alignment from the players' side that make much more sense to me now that I've read this. I mean, how would you react if you were playing your character according to how you understood your character's alignment, all the while moving closer and closer to alignment change because the DM interpreted your actions differently but wasn't telling you that, and then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, the DM tells you, "you just changed your alignment; congratulations, you lose a level!"? I actually argue for keeping alignment secret from players in this post, but with less drastic consequences, especially for players who play classes that aren't aware of alignment; I think it's important for players of classes that depend on alignment to have at least an in-game understanding of how things work if they are going to suffer consequences for their actions. Gary's approach, as far as I can tell, is "gotcha-ism," pure and simple; I understand that Gary apparently DMed with unrepentant, shameless power-gamers, but this, I think, crosses the line into dysfunctional adversarial gaming advice.

Brainstorming about Dragon PCs

Yesterday's DMG reading got me thinking, so I'm going to take a break from my DMG series for today and throw out some half-formed ideas for your review, specifically about running Dragons as PCs. At some point, I'd like to work them into a playable… something, but that's probably not going to happen soon. Reflections appreciated!

First off, playing a Dragon should be more challenging than playing a conventional, standard race. This should be something that a player chooses because s/he wants to make the game harder, not because s/he wants to make it easier.

Also, while I'd like to eventually figure out how to make any Dragon playable, it seems to me that the Gold Dragon is the most playable, largely because of its Polymorph ability, but because of its alignment (Lawful/Lawful Good in most sources I have access to) and its interest in humanity as well.

I really like Gary's idea to require treasure accumulation and retention, not just age, in order to level.

Motivation: Gary, in the section of the DMG I discussed yesterday, questions why a Dragon would join an adventuring party, given the difficulties involved and Dragons' tendency to be solitary and not interested in interacting with other races. I've got a few ideas about this. The first is that Dragons need treasure to level up and, especially for Lawful/Lawful Good Dragons, what better way for a young, weak Dragon to accumulate wealth than by adventuring? In addition, if we take inspiration from Pellatarrum, one path a young, weak Dragon, just starting out and without any network, might take would be disguising itself as a human and living among them for a while, building up power and a network for later in life. Finally, according to OSRIC, Gold Dragons are naturally interested in man, so it would make sense for a Gold Dragon to live among men for a time, especially since their interest in man dovetails with the other advantages of adventuring.

This is not to say that most NPC Dragons, or even most NPC Gold Dragons should spend a significant amount of time adventuring during their youth; if everyone did it, older Dragons would be more on the lookout for young Dragon adventurers! These reasons, though, I think are sufficient to justify the very occasional Dragon PC.

Dragon PCs should also have to constantly worry about detection by other Dragons. If a Dragon notices the party, there should be some chance of detection, in which case the PC's life would be sought by the NPC Dragon.

The end-game for the Dragon should have to do not so much with the creation of a stronghold (the Dragon should establish multiple lairs without many attendants) but with the creation of the Dragon's personal network and (un)diplomatic dealings with Dragons (favors, territory disputes, etc.). As the Dragon ages, perhaps other PC adventuring parties will catch its attention and it can decide whether to attempt to eradicate them or incorporate them into its network…

Most sources I've looked at have each type of dragon ranging between three different numbers of hit dice (so, 8-10 HD, for expample), as well as having a set number of hit points per hit die, that number being determined by age. Synthesizing these could result in something analogous to levels for Dragons: a Dragon starts out with the lowest number of HD available (so, 8HD for this example), with 1 hit point per die, then moves up to 9 HD, but still 1 hit point per die, then 10 HD, but only one hit point per die, then moves up to 2 hit points per die, but drops back down to 8 HD. This makes growing up as a Dragon less jumpy and more gradual.

The fact that a PC is a Dragon should be witheld from the rest of the party for as long as possible, just as a Dragon would want if adventuring with humans. This would mean staying polymorphed and refraining from using breath weapons. Depending on what class the Dragon masquerades as, the Dragon will have to hide spell-casting or fighting ability. This will add some dramatic fun and also make the Dragon harder to play. In order to facilitate this, it may be helpful to have special classes and character backgrounds that are secrets from other players (lycanthropy, or being hunted by this or that group, or secret political or religious society membership, for example) be somewhat common in the game.

Speaking of magic, Dragons should have access to Dragon magic, powerful spells that are seldom or never shared with humans and which are difficult for them to master when they are exposed to them. These spells should be rare and difficult to find, but well worth it. In addition, Dragons should not have to study spellbooks (though they may certainly pretend to), instead memorizing their spells. Possible models include the Order of the Trehaen in the Majestic Wilderlands and the spell point system at the end of Green Devil Face 4. (I'd lean towards using the Order of the Trehean model, as the GDF model feels more suited to classes for whom magic comes so naturally that it is not studied at all, like my Dryads.)

One troublesome issue is that a Dragon's strength has always been connected to the Dragon's age, and Dragons have considerable lifespans: how can a Dragon keep up with the other members of the party, or even grow/"level up" more than perhaps once during a campaign? There are a few possible ways to address the issue.

One is to have Dragon strength and growth dependent not upon both age and wealth, as Gary suggests, but instead solely upon wealth. Most Dragons take decades or even centuries to acquire enough treasure to grow to the next level, but most Dragons don't adventure, so a PC Dragon will grow more quickly than other Dragons as its hoard grows more quickly than the other Dragons' hoards.

Another possibility is to run decade-long campaigns in which time moves more quickly than in real time. The Dragon PC will slowly age and come into its own as its adventuring companions die and leave their legacy to their heirs. A variant of this option would be to take one's Dragon PC from game to game, though getting referees to allow it, especially at higher levels, might be difficult.

Another possibility is to provide some sort of time-warping mechanism for the Dragon to use. Perhaps whenever growing, the Dragon leaves for an inter-dimensional pocket where its hoard is to sleep, molt and grow and perhaps time passes much more quickly in the inter-dimensional pocket than in the normal game world; while the Dragon sleeps and grows for a few centuries, the Dragon is only absent from the game for no more than a year of game-time.

Finally, if Dragons level as they accumulate their hoards, it becomes important to figure out at what wealth levels they level up. Most OSR games I've referenced don't seem to vary hoard sizes by age, which strikes me as odd; does anyone with access to TSR editions know whether D&D or 1E or 2E varied hoard sizes by age? I know that they started doing that in 3E, because treasure depended upon Challenge Ratings, which varied with age. ACKS also varies treasure with age, so that's likely where I'll start in figuring out how much treasure must be accumulated to "level."

What are your thoughts? Would you allow something like this in your game, and if so, would you have any conditions that accompanied its inclusion? Would you be interested in playing something like this? Am I missing something? How would you improve these rudimentary building blocks for a Dragon PC?

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 8: Character Classes - The Use of Poison by Assassins, Monsters as PCs and Lycanthropy

The Use of Poisons by Assassins

Up until 9th level, Assassins use poison pretty much like everyone else. Once they hit 9th level, however, Assassins can choose to make a study of four aspects of poisons:

• injected/blood poison
• ingested poison
• contact poison and poisons that work both ingested and injected
• creating poisons and antidotes. 

In order to study poisons, the Assassin must find another Assassin of at least 12th level to study under, paying 2000-8000 gold a week; altogether, these four courses of study may take up to 32 weeks! This course of study allows the Assassin to use instantaneous poisons, poisons that take 1-4 hours to kill a victim and poisons that are administered in multiple doses so that they are undetectable, as well as create blade poisons, which evaporate completely in two days and are only effective for the first two hits. Victims of poison administered by Assassins who have completed this course of study also lose the +1 to their saving throw against poisons that they usually get when poisoned by Assassins (those poisoned by non-Assassins get a +2 to their saves).

If you think that's a lot of payout for little benefit, listen to this: the DM isn't allowed to tell the player about the availability of these options, or even hint at them! I'm extremely curious how often a player came up with the idea of having their name-level Assassin study poisons all on their own (and how often their DMs would accuse them of reading the DMG if they did ask about it!).

Altogether, I'm ambivalent about these extra poison rules; they seem pretty complicated and I partly think Gary may have been doing players a favor by instructing the DM not to tell players about them… on the other hand, why shouldn't an Assassin get to study the advanced levels of his craft, just like Magic Users?

The Monster as a Player Character

I was really disappointed with this section, in which Gary addresses what was apparently a not-uncommon request: running monsters as PCs. Gary declares a few times that, "in most cases [running monsters as PCs] was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination." His antidote for this power-gaming motive for running monsters is to explain the in-game limits monster PCs would face. Monsters would be hunted down if they wondered into a tavern to join an adventuring party, and, besides, "Men are the worst monsters." By that, Gary means that high-level characters are able to challenge even demon princes and demi-gods; high-enough level characters, with no limit to the number of magic items they can possess, leave all monsters behind in terms of the danger they pose to their enemies.

For the DM, Gary also points out that it is difficult enough to create a campaign world that is humanocentric, with the aid of humanocentric literature and science; he states that attempts to create a campaign setting which revolves around, or even is partially based on, a monster's perspective, "is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?"

To be fair, Gary does allow that some players will want to run monsters out of curiosity and an honest desire to experiment. He suggests letting them do so, confident that they will quickly lose interest in running those monster PCs; he states that monster PCs whose players have lost interest in them make interesting NPCs and can contribute positively to the campaign setting.

I wish Gary hadn't taken this position; I've expressed elsewhere my desire to try running a dragon character from its first age category into maturity, so I won't repeat that here. Who knows? Gary might be right and I might lose interest after trying this out for a bit; I just won't know until I've given it a shot.

Finally, Gary does partially redeem this section in my eyes in a short section in which he specifically addresses the true unattractiveness of dragons as PCs. He states that, "only time and accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age)." This both provides a mechanism for leveling for dragon PCs - retaining, not spending treasure - and provides an incentive for young dragons to adventure. I will have to give this further thought…

Lycanthropy

Gary stresses that lycanthropy is supposed to be undesirable in AD&D, something to be cured of rather than some sort of bonus. Lycanthropy in AD&D consists mostly of loss of control; characters have chances to change into their were-form six times a month (full, half, quarter, new, quarter and half moon - I'm not sure if 3/4 moons were left out intentionally or not) with varying chances of being able to have any control over those changes or not. Were-PCs are apt to change if they are hurt badly in combat, arguing with other party members, proximity to creature-summoning magic, etc. Lycanthropy can also cause serious mental anguish in those whose alignments are different from their were-form (which is usually the case, since they usually contracted lycanthropy fighting those of different alignment) as their alignment slowly changes to that of their were-forms. Lycanthropy is especially bad for Paladins, who lose their Paladinhood and are considered, "no longer pure enough for that honored state;" Gary even advises against allowing a redemptive quest for the ex-Paladin! Finally, no XP is gained while in lycanthrope form and there is no such thing as "leveling up:" it is impossible to be a "2nd level Werewolf," for example.

In short, lycanthropy is supposed to be incredibly inconvenient.

Gary also provides multiple cures for lycanthropy; the cheapest and easiest are only efficacious very soon after contracting lycanthropy. The most expensive option is to go to a holy/unholy place and drink holy/unholy water prepared by the clergy there and laced with wolfsbane and belladonna out of a silver chalice for a month or more. I found it puzzling that unholy sites would assist in curing lycanthropy until I realized that some lycanthropes are, I believe, lawful and good-aligned.

Finally Gary gives short profiles of lycanthrope behavior. Werebears fight evil creatures until one or the other is dead, and are likely to attack evil creatures immediately upon encountering them. Wereboars are argumentative and want to be in charge. Wererats are the only type of lycanthrope that can use weapons while in were-form; they volunteer to be at the back of the party marching order if they are in a party. Weretigers are supremely self-interested and have a fondness for cats. Werewolves seldom join adventuring parties, but when they do and are discovered, they tend to wait until the party is in combat and then turn on their comrades.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 7: Character Classes - Spying, Thief Abilities, Setting Traps and Assassination Experience Points

Spying

In contrast to ACKS, in which spying and other hijinks are usually carried out by the followers of a PC, in AD&D they are carried out by NPCs that are hired, if the PCs don't want to do it on their own in the first place. Gary provides a table for determining the success of a mission, modified by whether the mission is simple, difficult or extraordinary. There is always a chance of discovery, modified by the length of the mission and how well guarded the target is against spying. If the spy is unsuccessful, or if the spy is discovered, you roll on the Spy Failure Table, which determines the fate of the spy. Altogether, I prefer the simplicity of the ACKS system, which takes care of all of these issues with a single die roll (up to capture, when some more rolls are required).

Thief Abilities

Gary expounds on Thief abilities for the purpose of preventing abuse, which mainly means that he lists the limits and time consequences of Thief abilities - Thieves cannot backstab opponents who are aware of their presence, opening locks takes 1-10 rounds (though usually 1-4), and so on. Gary emphasizes rolling all the dice to determine success or failure in secret so that the player will not know whether his character has successfully hid in shadows or moved silently or whatever. The two abilities he singles out as the most abused are hide in shadows and climbing walls. Hide in shadows is not possible if a character is already being observed, and a hiding character is still susceptible to being detected as if he were invisible. Gary provides a matrix that lays out how quickly a Thief can climb, from non-slippery to slippery surfaces and from smooth to very rough surfaces. Gary states that most dungeon walls are on the rougher side but are also slippery from dampness and slime growth.

Thieves and Assassins Setting Traps

Thieves and Assassins get a chance to set traps that is based off of the Thief's chance to detect traps (Assassins get a chance as if they were Thieves of two levels higher than their actual level). They must have access to the components of the traps, having to hire a specialist to provide special components, and the player has to provide the DM with a drawing of the trap. Even if the PC sets the trap successfully, there is a chance (the inverse of the chance to set the trap correctly) that the trap will accidentally go off and hurt the PC while he is setting it. This all seems over-complicated to me; I imagine that this level of work for setting one trap will discourage players from setting any traps at all, which is the exact opposite of what I'd like in my games. I do like the idea of PCs setting traps, though, so I'll probably try to inform players of that possibility in my games in the future, but I'll probably just require a verbal description of the trap similar to, but with fewer requirements than, the ones I use for my Tuesday Traps series and handwave the chances of failure, at least unless the trap is being set up in a hurry.

Assassination Experience Points

On top of the normal XP gained for killing the target of an assassination, an Assassin gets XP for having assassinated the target, based on the level of the target and modified the Assassin's level and the difficulty of the job. The Assassin also receives XP for the fee he is paid, meaning that an Assassin gets XP in three different ways every time he assassinates someone! This seems to incentivize assassination to a degree I'm not sure I want in my game; I do suppose that if Assassins don't make up the majority of the party, the rest of the party probably won't go for assassination missions every session, and if the majority of the party is made up of Assassins then it's already basically an assassination campaign, so I needn't worry too much. Still, what feels to me like disproportionately rewarding assassination rubs me the wrong way.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 6: Character Classes - Followers for Upper Level Player Characters

Gary provides tables for generating followers for PCs who have reached "certain levels" and done "certain things." The closest thing I've ever seen to these tables and rules, which take up about two pages (and Gary fits a LOT on one page), is the ACKS rules, but the ACKS rules are much, much more streamlined than these tables; the way I see it, ACKS creates a much easier-to-use framework, but the DMG provides more variety and, in some cases, more detail, and I'll probably incorporate large portions of it into an ACKS framework if I ever run games where PCs begin establishing strongholds.

Let's talk about Rangers first because, frankly, while the other tables are very cool, they pale in comparison to the tables for generating a Ranger's followers. Rangers get 2d12 followers, and the fewer followers they get, they cooler they'll be, as each result on the 2d12 comes with a modifier for the d% table you roll on next; for example, if you rolled a 3, you'd adjust your rolls on the d% table by 15%, increasing your chances of getting the really awesome results that are higher up on the table.

You roll for each of your followers on this d% table, which directs you to one of six sub-tables. Let's talk about each of these:

Table I is the Human Followers subtable. While Clerics can only have 0-level Fighters as followers, and Fighters get 0-level Fighters and one leveled "leader type" of 5-7th level, and Thieves and Assassins get Thieves or Assassins who might be multi-classing if they are demi-humans, a Ranger's human followers might be Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Rangers or Magic-Users. And we're just getting started…

Table II is for demi-human followers. The only demi-human not available as a follower is the Half-Orc.

Table III starts to get interesting. Rangers might have a black or brown bear as a follower, or two giant lynx, or a pair of giant owls… or two blink dogs! Table IV lists possible mounts that follow the Ranger. the options are 1-3 centaurs, a hippogriff or a pegasus! Table V lists creatures, which are all fey or fey-ish: 1-2 brownies, 1-4 pixies, a pseudo-dragon, a satyr or 2-4 sprites.

Finally, Table VI lists "special creatures." The possibilities include 1-2 weretigers, 1-2 werebears, 2-5 treants, a storm giant and… a copper dragon of age category d4+1!

Seriously, Rangers get the best followers - this is the only way I've ever heard of, in any incarnation of D&D, to get a dragon to serve you without having to worry every second about whether it will turn on you or not; granted, the chances are small, but they exist! And consolation prizes include centaurs (that, since they are listed in the "mounts" subtable, will apparently let you ride them), blink dogs, storm giants and pseudo-dragons!

Rangers get the best followers. And if anyone ever mocks AD&D in my presence, pages 16 and 17 of the DMG will be exhibit A as I demonstrate to them just how wrong they are.

While Clerics, Fighters and Thieves mostly get one, two or four short tables for determining followers (and magic-users, illusionists, druids and monks don't seem to get any followers at all), Assassins and Paladins get some commentary that I think is worth commenting on here.

What I find really interesting about the Assassins section is that Gary provides a schedule for the Assassin's followers to show up (which seems to only be for the new followers that a Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins will attract once they've achieved that title). The first follower(s) (Gary doesn't specify how to determine how many show up as the first to arrive) show up 1d30 days after, "the conditions for obtaining such followers have been met," with the next assassin showing up 1-8 days later, the third one 1-8 days after that and so on. Interestingly, Gary says that if there isn't anyone around to receive the new follower then the follower will wait 1-4 days and then leave forever. I've never seen any kind of schedule like this, but I like it and would consider using it for the followers of all classes.

Moving on to Paladins, who only get a warhorse for for a follower, albeit a very special one, I was surprised to read that, instead of the warhorse just showing up at 4th level, the Paladin instead has a vision of where the warhorse is and must go and get the warhorse, usually having to perform some task, such as taming the warhorse or defeating an enemy of opposite alignment. Gary is kind and stipulates that this, "will not be an impossible task," but should be, "of some small difficulty," that, "will certainly test the mettle of the paladin," and take no longer than two weeks.

A paladin's mount will grow old and need to be replaced every 10 years, which I found surprising, mostly because I just hadn't thought about it before. Gary really does seem to intend AD&D campaigns to last for decades, at least in game time; the aging and death tables weren't for show! Paladin mount hit points are determined not by rolling dice but by halving the Paladin's level and multiplying that by their hit dice (5). I've only seen this kind of hit point calculation done with dragons before. Finally, if the Paladin ever falls, the mount will become an "immutable enemy," apparently not forgiving the Paladin even if he is able to make atonement and redeem himself. And I thought Paladins were uptight…

Also, Rangers get the best followers. Seriously.

The DMG, Section by Section, Part 5: Character Abilities and Character Races

Character Abilities

Gary explains what each of the ability scores really means, plus an extra paragraph about exceptional strength. Each ability score, much like hit points, is an abstraction of different things that would be difficult to quantify and would complicate things a lot if dealt with separately. Let's hit what ability scores really mean first:

Strength: physical power, endurance, stamina
Intelligence: mnemonic, reasoning and learning ability, plus book learning
Wisdom: willpower, judgment, wile, enlightenment and intuitiveness
Dexterity: hand-eye coordination, agility, reflex speed, precision, balance and running speed
Constitution: physique, health, resistance (I'm not sure what that means, really) and fitness
Charisma: physical appearance, persuasiveness and personal magnetism

I'll certainly be using Gary's summations the next time I try to explain ability scores!

Gary also discusses real-world correspondences with Intelligence and Strength. He states that Intelligence scores are roughly analogous to IQ scores (presumably multiplied by 10) and that someone with a Strength score of 18 can lift his weight (or 180 pounds, whichever is heavier) above his head.

Gary goes on to state that no human/humanoid (and, presumably, demi-human) can lift more than twice its body weight above its head. He then lays out how many additional pounds characters with percentage points above 18 can lift above their heads: one pound for each of the first fifty points, four pounds for the next forty and eight for the last ten. Added all together, the most strength that a character could begin play with, it seems, is enough to lift their body weight plus 290 pounds or twice their body weight, whichever is greater.

Character Races

Gary writes that while players should get to control their characters and determine their personalities, alignment will definitely be a factor they use in this task, and racial characteristics can also be a factor. He goes on to describe the general temperaments of dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings and half-orcs. Each conforms to what, thirty-some years later, is pretty much the standard treatment of these races, difficult to get away from even if you try. Dwarves are "dour and taciturn," half-orcs "are boors," etc. I think the only information that was really new to me was the idea that elves are fascinated by magic to the degree that "if they have a weakness it lies in this desire."