Rewards in OD&D and AD&D

In OD&D and AD&D, treasure also meant experience, and in fact a lot more experience than you would get for killing monsters. This made for a much different incentive, encouraging players to have their PCs find clever ways to avoid the monsters and steal the treasure. 

Experience

The additions to the XP award system came from the experience of DMing for a considerable period. [11]

In my AD&D campaign I watched monetary treasure pretty closely, so that the party didn't get too much in the way of XPs. I also handed them out for success in special abilities associated with a class that were meaningful to the party's activity--tracking, detecting evil, thief activities, spell casting, a clever or life-saving action. the base was 100 points, and that applied to spell level. Unless spell-casters used weapons, that was their share of monster-kill points, the spell level XPs they got [11]

We always gave XPs for treasure value, monsters killed or eliminated, and for meaningful thieving skill use and spells cast, the latter at 100 XPs per level. that was why the escalation in the number of XPs needed to increase a level was so dramatic as one progressed. Keeping an item means it isn't sold to an NPC, is used by a member of the party. Selling an item brings in more XPs as the gold paid counts on a 1 GP to 1 XP ratio. the additional XPs for selling an item are one of a number of means for the DM to get magic items out of play. [11]

The GP value given for a magic item equaled what XPs I gave for it if they sold it. Half the amount in XPs if it was retained bu anyone in the party. #7277

I'm not clear how that works -- if you then later decide to sell it, you only get the differnence in XP?

If they keep the item they get the 10K XPs for it--the one gaining the item gets that award, not the party. If the item is sold by the party's agreement, they divide the sale value of 25K as XPs. If it goes to one person, and that PC sells it, the 25K XPs go to that PC alone. [35]

I value traveling spell books using the same base as regular ones. All such works are miniaturized and made of very sturdy materials so as to withstand the wear and tear of being caried about on adventures. Of course the number of spells in such smaller volumes will typically be less than the main spell books, so their XP value will be lower. #4119

I always allowed XPs for freeing captives, receiving rewards. The former count as their level in classed NPC, or as their estimated level in their occupation. A sage, for example, would count as a cleric of anywhere from 5th to 12th level, I opine. Rewards gained for doing the right thing also count as XPs on a gp for XP basis, magical ones included. #6403

As I mentioned, freeing captves is at least as beneficial as killing adversaries, so that is the justification for an XP award. The logic is in the same vein as awarding them for the casting of a spell that aids the party even though it doesn't necessarily harm any of its opponents or gain treasure. #6405

It seemed like a good idea at the time, this substitution enabling the 10% XP bonus to PCs with high abilities associated with but not their prime one, such as the cleric using 3 Str to equal 1 Wis.

DMs didn't think it was a particularly useful rule, so it was dropped. #8139

I did make ther players PCs train whenever they hit a rich encounter that brought in a lot of wealth and commensurate XP gain. That took away much of the money even as the PCs had to locate places to be trained--a sort of adventure in itself. [35]

Where adventuring was such that progress in XPs was moderate, I generally ignored training reqyuirements, telling the players that their PCs activity in adventuring brought sufficient "on the job" training to enable them to increase in level without schooling. [35]

As for the thieves XP gain, I actually don't much care for the suggested expedient, but as a matter of fact a clever thief shouldn't fight much but should get a lot of loot. However, if the GM awards proper XPs for use of Thief Abilities, then regular 1:1 gp:XP can be used just fne. [35]

If the elf PC acted in one class only, then all XPs went to that class, if both were employed, then the XPs are divided between the two classes. when a level is gained, the die is rolled and half of its total is gained, because having two classes does not mean two HD per level gained in each, rather one-half of one for each level in a class, one for a level gain in both. [11]

That isn't a bad way of managing XP awards...if you keep treasure down toa reasonable amount for low-level PCs, increase it as they rise in level. [11]

Hirelings of any sort usually work for a daily fee plus a share of loot. In that regard they do detract from XPs by lowering the amount of gps gained, but not otherwise. [11]

If the henchmen are ordinary, not classed NPC I never bothered to allot actual XPS to them, They simply were laid, and the money, plus the appropriate fraction for kills was deducted from the party's total for the adventure before it was shared out however the group had decided to do before the adventure began. [35]

Treasure

What do most adventurers risk life and limb for if not the gold and jewels?! they are part and parcel of the measurement of the mission's success. Who really cares how many critters are slain? It's the treasure that counts. It is virtually the ONLY reasonable meansure for thieves success. [11]

To cut to the chase, I decide upon the treasure found in an encounter as I write it. Nothing more random involved than my mental processes. #2026

At times I skimp on that part of things because my attention is centered on description of the area, the creatures or traps therein, what will happen to PCs when they interact with those things. In many cases, though, I'll go back and polish an important encounter area, and at that point detail things such as, "There is a small coffer of tortoise shell hidden in the secret compartment. The box is bound in gold and set with carved red coral clasped in a center mounting of that metal. this carving depicting a curled Oriental dragon, the pearl it holds in its five-taloned claw an actual black seed pearl." #2026

The cruel DM might make each of the "gems" a large piece of lapis lazuli, malachite, or jade. The weight of such "gems" would be a base 100 pounds, moving upwards is the value increased. #6130

Large amounts of portable wealth--coins, jewelry, and gems are likely only where the surrounding society, or passing merchants, have such things, robber barons and pirates spring to mind as examples of encounters where portable wealth in quantity would be the norm. [11]

As a DM I had to learn the hard way about giving out too much treasure and not loading the NPCs with magical things that the PCs could pick up when they trashed my encounters [11]

Weapons & Armor

Actual warriors would strip the captured and dead foemen of armor so as to improve their own. The Vikings were well-armored thus. Hovever, it is logical that the "upgrading" would be as complete as possible, discarding lesser protection for greater. So mixed sorts of armor would be rather rare I should think, save for hill bandits and their ilk. #4033

At close range the heavy crossbow is deadly. It's penetration falls off sooner than that of the longbow, and the later had a longer effective range and a much greater rate of fire than does any but a repeating (Chinese) crossbow. The repeating crossbow has poor penetration and short range at best, however. [11]

You are spot on. In folklore, silver is indeed valued for its proctetive qualities against evil. The use of silver against were-creatures is an example of how it an an inimical metal to creatures of evil, just as cold iron is reputed to be inimical to denizens of the Fairy realm. #8605

Cold iron is that hammered into shape on the forge without heating. Cold wrought iron. #8615

The materials mentioned are all inimical to cerious sorts of evil creatures according to myth and legend. Silver is supposedly a poison to were creatures and evil spirits, iron to many demons and enchanted creatures (including evil elves), and wood to some demons and to vampires, of course. That, coupled with the power of good imbued into a holy symbol make them potent in two ways. [11]

As for metallic armor, the Spanish wore them quite readily in hotter places, so I would not penalize those that use them--beyond slowing movement and preventing swimming [11]

Pole-arms are not meant for PCs. they are meant for men-at-arms, soldiers, humanoids such as orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, and bugbears. I have had had such NPC figures so armed any number of times--and think of the scenes showing them in Return of the King! [11]

Magic Items

That's the sprit. make those lazy PC go out and risk life and limb to gain magical goodies. None of that namby-pamby purchasing or forging such items on their own. That's for sissy new D&D players [11]

As a general rule I select the magic items to be discovered in a set encounter, use random table determination for all treasure in a random encounter.

On occasion I will have a real magic item for sale, or available as a gift if a PC or PCs do the prescribed things correctly. Any item that can be purchased is of very minimal magic--mostly some minor healing or a +1 arrow for example.

Dealers in "magic" in my campaign settings are generally swindlers, and that makes it doubly hard for players when they come across an NPC that is offering something not a fake. #8016

Whatever is logical for the NPC, and would be most useful in attacking foes, defending against their attacks, is how I select spells and magic items--keeping in mind that the PCs might well end up with the spell books and/or items. [11]

I also do indeed allow petty things such as you note, faux items, and sometimes even something that heals a bit of damage to be rooted out by dilligent scouring of all the odd shops in town.

No potions were sold, but I was liberal in distributing them in dungeon chaches and the like. Many a clerical scroll with various healing spells on them as well. #1957

Certainly there are no magic shops selling any form of real items. You ignore completely magic scrolls. In my campaign the majority of new spells gained were those copied from a scroll, thus destroying it and losing any XPs that might have been gained from its possession. #7897

PCs create magic items before they achieve high level and retire? Never! What on earth is adventurous about manufacturing? If they sought a special magic item they quested for it. [11]

As for creating items, that was basically what retired PCs of magical persuation were allowed to do in my campaign. I left that to other DMs to decide for themselves, but the clear message is that such things should be discovered by adventues and quests, not created in the magical lab. Never could much in the way of magical gear be found for purchase either--maybe +1 arrows or a few healing potions if I were in a most generous mood. #3346

There were no items that had more than a restricted, tactical impact on the campaign.

Mages of over 20th level can create their own magic items, as they are not going to be adventuring in the campaign, nor handing them out to PC that are doing so. Mordenkainen and Bigby stay home and forge and concoct such things. they will sometmes trade their work for one or more other magic items that are more valuable.

You want a particular magic item PC, you can not buy it or make it! Go out and quest to find it. That is a part of the RPG form now isn't it? #7899

In a magic active world having many enchanted items around is no more remarkable than having many jewels and objects d'art in a wealthy society. Most of the better items in my campaign were assumed to be forged by reclusive or retired mages; the most potent of them being of the relic and artifact sort or placed on the planet by a deity. #7359

In my mind only the more powerful of GM-run NPCs are able to craft magic items. I hate to have to tell PCs that they should be out adventuring to gain magical goodies, not sitting cooped up somewhere trying to create their own. #6713

[1 non scroll/potion magic item per 2 levels per pc] That seems to be a good rule of thumb, although after 10th level I would expect it to rise to 1 per level for magic-users. [11]

Many a monster's treasure was indeed something inimical to him. why? what else would a dungeon denized do but hoard such items so as to prevent them from falling into the hands of potential foes? Of course they might destroy the items, but that might be difficult, and it would surely not be an incentive for adventurers to risk their lives... After considerable experience, the number of magic-items given to monsters for regular use was sharply reduced in my campaign, as such things ended up in PC hands far too often #2653

There shouldn't be much mystery about a sword being enchanted. What its particular magical powers are, though, is another matter entirely. [11]

Indeed, it is logical to assume that most magic items are of fine construction, so when a magic sword is discovered I generally describe it as a beautifully crafted blade. As to the potency of such an item, if the PC examining and testing it has experience with magic weapons of the same sort, the bonus will be realtively easy to determine. Special properties will not be so likely to be discovered by trial and error. For such questions, as well as for examination by those unfamiliar with the class of magic item, I do require that a magical examination of the item be made in order to know exactly what it is. #8191

Have runes or like inscriptions in a most arcane language engraved somewhere on the sword. If the party takes it to some NPC that can decipher that writing and they are willing to pay, and pay plenty, for his services, they learn the secret. Otherwise, it remains a weapon of normal sort that has a magical aura...perhaps as iof someone had cast a low-level spell on it to dupe others [35]

Command word requirement is virtually immutable in all but Monty Haul play [35]

Potions and scrolls as appropriate, those mainly of the healing sort. When magic items of greater value are in order, keep them low initially, and only as the PCs eise in level should the power of such objects rise--say at 4th level, 8th level, 12th level, etc. Watch out giving potent magic items to NPCs and monsters to use, for the PCs usually end up with them. #6970

Actually, the idea for the healing potion was simply based on a game need. Quick healing was featured in many fantasy stories, so creating a potion to restore lost hit points for characters seemed logical. It provided a good magic item to award, one that was a one-shot deal but allowed protracted adventuring #1489

Yes, only magic weapons (and cold-wrought iron ones) affect demons. That includes steel ones and wooden weapons, unless one is a rakshasa, they being subject to wod as other demonic types are to iron. #3314

I believe they are from existing sources, mostly elemental or elementary. A truly evil sword might be possessed of the spirit of a demon or devil...surely Stormbringer was. On the opposite side, a truly good one might have some upper planar spirit entity imbued within it. #3739

The GM should not worry about limiting PCs' equippage of magical sort, merely manage it through "adjusted" encounters... #6240

The value of magical weapons might remain unchanged, increase, or decrease on different planes. that is a comples matter and depends on the nature of the magic used to enchant each particular sort of weapon. fortunately, it is no longer something I need concern myself with, or I'd have a difficult task of classification and table-making on my plate [35]

Individual Magic Items

As for the invisible sword that Gellor had, it was not in play in my campaign--not to say I hadn't maybe placed one somewhere;) Aside from its plusses to hit and damage, the weapon allowed its wielder to see any otherwise invisible foe and to attack first in any normal exchange. Of course there was a command word for it to come to hand--pretty hard to locate your invisible sword without that... If it was within range of the possessor's voice it would fly instantly to that own's hand. #375

Daern's Instant Fortress, was meant as a multi-use object, and upon command it would contract after being activated. #419

The strange wands that Murlynd used made a loud noise and delivered a damaging missile, but neither effect was due to gunpowder. These were very rare magic items devised by Murlynds arcane understanding of technology and how to make it function magically #1699

Bucknard was an NPC I created out of whole cloth. He was based on a neighbor of mine when I was a lad, a Mr. Bucknall. He had a great garden, an apple tree with five different kinds of apples, and he knew astronomy well, assisted me with my 100 power telescope. He did use a small change purse, and from it he would extract a small coin to give to me now and again #2175

Right about the cululative additions for the hammer, girdle, and gauntlets. They make a fighter almost as lethal as a mage #2219

[Most entertaining magic items]

Ring of Contrariness

Wand of Wonder

Any talking magic sword #7899

In regards a Rope of Entanglement, when a subject is touching it the enchantment works. A to hit might be needed for that of course. [11]

Ah, and how grand it is to recall conceiving the bag of devouring [11]

As best I can recall, I used the strictures given for the Onyx (?) Dog for all enchanted anumal stauettes that had no definate limitations of their own. [11]

Artifacts

Brian Blume made up the artifacts with the name "Vecna." All after that was devised by who knows which persons. In any event, as the term "lich" is found in dictionaries, Vecna could not be the first of that sort. #2353

I must admit I love the recent tales about the "Head of Vecna," though. your thought regarding the use of Vecna as a "boogy man" is excellent...providing the PCs have gained his eye and/or hand. Perhaps he's want to add a few of their appendages and organs to his own repertorie in the process of gaining his own back. #1705

All I can say other than that is that some clever DM included the "Head of Vecna" in his adventure material, and at least two players instigated the demise of their characters attempting to take advantage of this marvelous opportnity to gain the greatest of powers. ROTFLMAO! #248

When Brian BLume was bent on devising a load of artifacts he made up such items as that of Kas and Gax for Tim and me. Inspired thus, I created the Iron Flask of Tourney the Merciless in honor of son Ernie and his evil PC, Erac's Cousin. #7856

To furnish potent magical things for the use of unbeatable NPCs. Because of demand by Monty Hall DMs to supply their power-gaming munchkins. Do note that Brian Blume was the main creator od many of the latter sort of artifacts. [11]

I did create an Artifact for son Luke's PC after that worthy had gone through severe tests. I told him to that if he found a needle in a haystack in an hour's time thet Zagyg would reward him with a special weapon. Durned if the lad didn't burn the hay and find the "needle" easily. Thus that PC came into possession of the Spear of Zagyg. It is a needle until drawn forth from fabric and commanded to become a weapon. A d8 is rolled and the weapon size and plus is determined thus. Somehow. though, a +8 pike is not the favored result [11]

What would that be? +1 Dagger, +2 Short Sword, +3 Rapier, +4 Javelin, +5 Spear, +6 Fork, +7 Lance, +8 Pike? In effect, this was not stronger than the best normal + Weapons, like the +5 Holy Avenger, which had other benefits too. In 5e, this would translate to maybe a 1-5 ladder of +1 dagger, +2 shortword, +3 Rapier, +4 spear, +5 pike, again, averaging around the highest normal + to be had. 

That's a unique item, and Melf has it. He had to find it in a haystack, of course... When he unlimbers it it might be a dagger or a pike, and piercing weapon in between those lengths, even though he's facing a huge opponent or a small one close in. However, the plusses to hit and damage are good overall. the size and pluses are discovered by randon d8 roll. I was actualy surprised at how quickly Alex was able to realize that fire was the way to discover the whereabouts of the item, his burning the haystack after only a relatively short time of fruitless hand-searching. [11] With Alex he very likely means Luke.

As I recall only one minor artifact was introduced to in my campaign. Son Luke's PC discovered it when he met a deadline for finding a needle in a haystack by burning the latter. He thus gained the Spear of Zagig. When the pin was held and commanded to become a weapon a d8 was rolled, the result determining the weapon and its attack bous, with 1 being a +1 dagger, 2 a +2 short sword, all the way to a +8 pike. This was a most humerous artifact from the DM perspective, and I never regretted adding it to the campaign. #7899

According to Luke, and this does match Zagyg's write up, Zagyg would occasionally interact with his followers and judge them. At one point Zagyg took an artifact off of Melf, who converted to Zagyg, because he didn't think he was acting Chaotic enough, so Melf went back to following Celestian. [42.1]

As there was no parallel to mythical Finland in the campaigns I played in, nor on the continent presented in the World of Greyhawk setting, the best I could manage was to have a few outstanding persons (such as Louhi) and objects brought into play. I did have a Sampo, but it was not the same as that that Ilmarinen made that ground out grain, gold, and salt. I have forgotten what it actually produced, but IIRR it milled small quantities of alcohol, porridge, and copper once per day, not continually. #5544

Spells

We didn't have training needed in the original D&D game, and if new spells were wanted, the character had better get out and about and find some, contacting a friendly m-u of higher level or gaining spells on scrolls or spell books as treasure. [11]

"At will" refers to the fact that the creature in question can use the power whenever it chooses, unlimited times unless otherwise stated, with no need for memorization or a spell book or the like. It does not mean the user is able to do anything else save to will the power to take effect.

The same does apply to magic items that enable the weilder to use them at will. but willing the power to work requires the full attention of the one so doing. [11]

I do believe that 10th level spells, even 11th and 12th, are appropriate in high-level campaigns. such should be available only to mages of 19 or greater Intelligence at 20th, 22nd, and 24th level perhsps. #5085

The cleric spells were all made up from my imagination as things fitting for that class. #6362

[Did you make up named spells like Melf's Acid Arrow, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere and Mordenkainen's Disjunction] All of those spells I made up, usually to honor a PC in my campaign, or for the person who suggested the basis (Tasha was a little girl who sent me letters in crayon, Nystul an actual stage magician I met through Len Lakofka.) Melf was a PC of son Luke, and "Otiluke" was a combination of a couple of his other PCs. He suggested the bases of both spells. No need to go into Mordenkainen and Bigby, I trust 

Inidividual Spells

The Animate Dead spell is as written, the cleric can animate and control only one per level, casting another Animate Dead spell would not change the fact that only one Dead could be animated and controlled. OTOH, using a Permanent spell on a controlled corpse(s) would make another Animate Dead meaningful. [11]

My opinion is that a cleric creating zombies and then leaving, casting another Animate Dead spell elsewhere, would, at the DM's option, either return the animated corpses to their former state or else leave them as uncontrolled zombies. I rather prefer the idea of the latter happening with clerics above say 8th or 9th level. [11]The original purpose of the Death's Door spell was to enable the battered PC to be ambulatory and escape from the dungeon or other dire locale in which he was brought low. [11]

Detect Evil The spell was written with the capacity to detect any evilly cursed item, from minor sorts to major ones. If it is played as written then it detects the whole gamut of such items [35].

As the undead are animated by negative energy from the lower planes, the dispel magic used by magic-users is absolutely ineffective against it. Only clerics can affect that energy. [11]

Enlarge affects only size. It isn't a superspell, after all;) I could have sworn I mentioned the enlarged subject did not gain any added benefits from size... [11]

The very short casting time for feather fall spell is to allow the M-U to cast it when plummeting downwards from mischance--into a pit trap or otherwise deadly depression, or in escaping by precipitating himself from some high place. [11]

The Haste spell, along with Speed potion consumption, was the subject of considerable abuse in not only my campaign but in many others. Thus the strictures added to the spell. Most persons getting hasted were fighters with good constitution scores, so the system shock was not all that tough a challenge. Elf and dwarf fighters didn't care about the aging effect either. so the added demands didn't do more than cut the abuse by around 90% #1412

Invisibility 10' The said spell creates a "shell" around the caster, and it moves with him. Any individuals within it are made invisible, that state being broken if they take offensive action, but the spell itself is brioken only if the caster does that. So if nine persons were made invisible, the eight others affected could take offensive actions at various tmes and leave the caster invisible. [11]

I covered all the invisibility stuff over on the EN world boards thread, and in general I agree that any offfensive action, including casting a spell or picking a pocket breaks the spell. Len could have simplified the "gear" question by simply saying that invisibility covers the person upon whom it is cast as well as all normally worn and carried by the individual. [11]

Magic missile was inspired by a film, THE RAVEN, as was the shield spell;) #1211

Magic missiles always hit, and that's a rule i have never varied from. [11]

The envisaged effect for a magic missile when impacting a non-living (other than undead), energiless target was a fizzle. Sort of like a spark that sizzles a bit and dies out leaving only a bit of scorched surface behing to mark its passing. I got the idea of the spell from the film The Raven with Boris Karloff, vincent Price, and Peter Laurie. So too the shield spell. #5047

There is one magic missile per two levels above 1st, no limit to the total number, and that they always hit. The missiles spring from the caster's finger and dart unerringly to strike the target subjetc(s) regardless of any evasive attempts on the part of said target(s). #5054

Phantasmal Force was an old Chainmail Fantasy Suplement spell, as a matter of fact;) The illusionary force can be of any sort, but it must be a force--anything from a great swarm of insects to a herd of animals, a company of knights or a battle of pikemen, a tribe of bugbears or a flock of wyverns.

The use of the spell does demand an able DM and a player able to articulate the exact nature of the Phantasmal Force brought forth, what it looks like and what it will do. Of course the caster will need to concentrate on the latter aspect unless the action is simple and straightforward. #2565

Prismatic Sphere Absolutely intended as a a defensive spell. If any player suggested his PC was sticking a hand or head outside the sphere, regardless of the direction, I'd allow any spell cast against the sphere to penetrate it where flesh replaced its surface;) #5176

The Protection Circle can be permanently dropped by the caster at anytime. forcing an evil opponent to have no place to go but into the circle involuntarily breaks the spell. [35]

The protection from evil spell keeps said foes away from the protected. If the latter chooses to move into range to assail the evil opponents, there goes the hedge. simple as that. It is a protective spell, not one of offense. [11]

Reincarnation I wrote the spell explanation vaguely so as to allow as much leeway as the DM wished in regard to how the resulting new character would be in regards to memories, abilities, and level. [11]

My personal take on it is that the new character has the memories of the former one, and thus after a time (weeks or months, likely) of recollection of the past life has some degree of capacity in the class or classes of the former (perhaps half of the level) incarnation. Meantime, if the new form is capable, a new class could be selected, and the former classes would in time be added as fixed in level. [11]

That depends on the sort of creature the reincarnated character happens to be. In most cases that will affect all of the stats, INT, WIS, and CHA included. A pixie, for example, will get plusses on a new DEX and CHA score, and minuses on the remainder. The DM will need to decide all that, taking into account that form affects the nature of the reincarnated individual in many ways. [11]

There is some inconsistancy in regards characters being Reincarnated as a race that is soul-less:( Now I think of it, eh? #1275

I would rule that the newly incarnated ogre mage was strictly that, an orge mage. However, as time progressed, that individual would begin to feel conflicted with past memories of being a human bard being recalled. I would periodically make checks to see if the orge mage would bury those memories or manage to develop them sufficiently to actually add some portion of bardic abilities to his repertorie of ogre mage capacities. #7686

[Casting Rock to Mud to bring down a castle or fortification]

My players know better than to try something sure to incur wrath :]

Such tactics are a matter for the DM to manage, and as one here is how I would handle an attempt of this sort.

"Sorry, Flubspell, but your Rock to Mud casting seems to fizzle out when it contacts the stonework of the temple. golly, I guess the builders must have imbued it with some sort of protection from this sort of assault on its integrity..."

"Oh, by the by, it seems that you are now turning a ghastly gray color. It seems as if yout attempt has invoked a curse of some sort, as you feel quite weak and not at all well..."

I'd use the same sort of response if someone tried that with any important campaign setting. To stop the rules lawyers from their shrill protests I'd write up a few spells to cover constructions--anti-disintigration, anti-rock to mud, etc. Also a few retributive spells to be activated and aimed unerringly at any spell caster attempting to bring down a stricture by that sort or obvious and predicatble tactic. Just because such spells are not included in the standard roster doesn't mean they don't exist. #4868

Stone to flesh spell (cast by Merlin): "After Medusa turns the disbelieving shrew to stone, Lao calls an end to the proceedings and Merlin restores the now-reformed woman." from the Movie 7 Faces of Dr. Lao  [41]

Summon Monster What we always did was make the summoning random, with some weak ones in the mixes possible. Also, if the monster(s) summoned survived and there were no other opponents around, it or they would attack party members. #1603

Tenser's Floating Disk. Ernie Gygax's PC was always fathoming more ways of bringing larger and larger treasure amounts out of Castle Greyhawk. We used to have some huge piles of copper and silver, which were usually left behind. Ernie actually created the spell, IIRC, for this purpose. [41] Incorrect, Ernie relates in a dead games interview, that Gary created it for him.

some of the others were named for a PC who would have loved to have such a spell but didn't think of creating it, so I did in the name of the PC. Tenser's Transformation, for instance, was simply the magical expression of what son Ernie would do with his PC when Tenser had cast his last spell and still wanted to be in on the action [11]

Ernie got the nickname of "Barbarian" because of his play style. Even as a mage his character would go full bore to defeat the foe without regard to danger. That was indeed the inspiration for the spell "Tenser's Transformation," as Ernie would risk all thus. #1250He never used Tenser's Transformation, just went hell for breakfast into battle. however, he did use Tenser's Floating Disk on every occassion it would enable the party to haul out more loot [11]

I did not allow a wall of iron to be cast unless it was anchored on at least three sides.

Thus a damage question never arose. [11]

I did not allow a wall spell to be cast save if there was some surface the bottom edge it could rest upon. 

If you allow them to be cast into the blue, then MR will not affect one in falling, as it is not a spell. MR does not affect blows from magic weapons, eh? The same goes for rock turned to mud. [11]

I can say that a wish spell is hardly "all-powerful." Rather it is a likely disaster when employed by an over-weening PC. When I DMed I loved to have a wish used by the PCs,, and any error in its phrasing, including trying two wishes in one, made its intent go awry. All able DMs saw to that.  #5016

Illusions 

I can say that the typical illusion is just that, and IMO if it is penetrated all portions of it are dispelled. Only in advanced illusion magic where a percentage of actuality is included in the magical effect generated would portions of the spell remain in effect to the viewer otherwise penetrating the illusion. / Illusions are particularly difficult to manage in game play because they are based totally on make-believe from make-believe magic. they have no basis in reality as "normal" imagined magic generally does. [11]

Any illusory harm surely harms the individual so believing, and if it is such that the affected character is convinced the damage is lethal, that is sufficient to kill him. [11]

The illusion can be as complex as the Illusionist desires, but a check for disbelief can be allowed for each special circumstance. For instance the spikes in the pit. Adding them means the subject of the illusory trap must "see" them as he "falls" into the "pit." Thus a check against the subject's Int or Wis might be allowed. [11]

In any event a victim believing he is done to death by an illusion is dead. The heart stops beating. [11]

As I have said before, illusions are most difficult to deal with because they are shades of unreality, magic. [11]

The magic used for illusions is considered to be of a different sort that the other kinds. That is why there is a separate sub-class for Illusionists. [11]

Henchmen and Hirelings

There is a considerable difference between hirelings--mercenary soldier types--and those that serve as henchmen. Loyalty and morale are the main considerations, assuming that the followers are well-treated. Of course henchmen do increase in capacity to perform while hirelings do not, leave as soon as they are not paid. [11]

It is how you play the character that matters. The same is true for all the characters thay you play, henchmen included. This matter is totally in a player's hands [11]

Having men-at-arms in an expedition is quite acceptable. If course their guild requires booty normal pay and a share of all booty taken in the course of the adventure. Dead members' shares go to the guild for distribution to next of kin. Failing to live up to the agreement is an offense that can be prosecuted in court. This allows low-level PCs to have a greater chance of success, while higher-level ones will generally not want to give out any shares of loot gained. [11]

[References: see Greyhawk References]

Characters in OD&D and AD&D

There are always questions about the rules as written, or the intent of rules. No usable rules can be written comprehensively enough to not give raise to such questions. Here are some answers from Gary's blog posts on the various, classes races and on alignment. You can see the problem areas easily -- there are few about fighters, but lots and lots about Paladins and Alignment.

Classes

The broad range of fantasy encompassed by the D&D game was no accident, I assure you. Just consider the names for the class levels...a device to take arrows from the quivers of would-be competitors #6032

I did the Thief, Assassin, Monk, Cavalier, Barbarian all by myself, as I'd done the three basic ones in OD&D. Same for the demi-humans. Tim Kask had a hand in creating the Bard class. Most of the new material was introduced into my campaign first, then done in DRAGON as articles, then appeared in the PHB or UA. #1214

Yes, we had a cavalier character in the Greyhawk Campaign, just about every one of the classes in the rules, and the same for demi-human characters. I once played a half-orc cleric-assassin, as a matter of fact. Indeed, we played weapon specialization even before I wrote it up in Dragon Magazine. By the time that article hit a couple of PCs in the campaign were doubly-specialized... #1737

I did the level increase steps based on a lot of intense play over about four years. The variations you note were determined for purposes of game balance. Druids, for example, have a limit on their ultimate progress. [11]

Fighter

IMO the other classes needed no strengthening. The fighter was played a lot, and the class had turned out to be the weakest of the lot, lacking anything potent to make it unique. So weapons specialization came into the rules. #1749

As for Strength in OAD&D, I did indeed use reasoning along the lines you suggest, and exceptional strength was reserved to the fighter class for exactly the reason you note--training. [11]

Because the PCs are assumed to be superior, the maximum strength being had by 1 in 216 is more like 1 in 21,600. Then apply the percentages, but assume that about 90% of those with 18 strength will be Fighters. [11]

Magic-User

In OD&D only the lack of armor and slow gain in chance to hit were factors. The magic-user with a dagger did as much damage as a fighter with a battle axe. [11]

Early in the developmental stage of OD&D I allowed non-mages to use wands, needing to rolll their Intelligence or less on 3d6 to make the device function. I dropped the concept as being incoingruous with the class-base of the game. #1890

The M-U going up a level is assumed to do so through training with a mage of higher level, or at worst the study of arcane lore. In this process the character gains knowledge of one new spell of the highest level he is able to cast. If by advancement the character is also able to cast one or more lower level spells, he will have to make do with those he has in his spell books. He does not gain any new ones in those lower levels, only the capacity to memorize more of them. Thus the M-U character should always to be seeking the acquisition of spell books (likely with new and different spells recorded therein) or else scrolls with spells on them that he can record into his library. #1904

If you see a gaggle of young, fresh-faces chaps in pointy hats it is also a good idea to beat feet immediately, as one is sure to fail at least one saving throw against charm person #8294

A fledgling m-u will likely be a good deal older than a 1st level fighter. So for beginning PCs I suggest age 18 or so for a fighter or thief, age 21 or so for a cleric, and age 25 or thereabouts for a magic-user. #8273

However, added spells upon level gain as given in the OAD&D PHB are reasonable. A magic-user doesn't just spring up full-blown. One must be an apprentice, so there are plenty of higher level mages around. The m-u's former master, or an associate of his or hers, will assuredly train and provide the fledgling wizard with one or more new spells for a service and perhaps some added payment in magic items. Also there might well be a m-u's guild in many of the larger cities. At such place the PC spell-caster can petition for membership, pay initiation fee and regular dues, and be entitled to use the guild library. #7897

Powerless magic-users at first level? Ha! That's an old question, and one I can deal with easily using the OAD&D rules, the main origination of the m-u in most play. Questioner, you be an ogre, a big strong 4th-level monster. I am a poor weak magic-user. We are at 30-foot distance. You move to attack, I cast my Sleep spell. You loose. So, now I'll be any other sort of PC, and you remain the ogre. You win...unless my character succeeds in running away.

The low-level magic-user is mainly a one- or two-shot weapon, but the "artillery" is potent. This fits well with a balanced party of low-level PCs, none of whom are really very strong singly.  #100

I chose to use a system of magic inspired by the worls of Jack Vance because it fit the whole of the game I devised. For example, think of an archer with a quiver of arrows. When one is shot, it is gone. Magic spells, more potent than arrows, are much the same. So archers need to select their arrows before going forth to battle, so too the m-us in the game. #100

In seeking clear class distinctions I did indeed proscribe m-us from the use of the sword, and clerics too. This made the archetypes distinct, balanced the character classes, and worked well enough for game purposes, methinks. #127

What do more cautious and retired mages do? Why they make magic items to earn a handsome living, of course. So indeed thate are perhaps 100 each of various sorts of +1 swords--easy to enchant for a moderately able caster. As those blades don't wear out or get destroyed easily, many are likely to be several decades old, some older, some newer. And those +1 swords are scattered over several kingdoms with many millions of inhabitants. [11]

This of course does not at all fit with his guidance that no magic items can be bought in town, they have to be earned by adventuring and risking your live. If that is the case, whom are those retired magic users selling their creations to? And why would they not sell them to adventurers with hands full of hard cash and jewelry?

Specifically to the point, magic-users are not allowed to wear any form of armor or use any form of weapon other than daggers. We have amended our treatment to allow them to use staves as weapons as well. Characters able to operate in two or more classes at once do not fall under the injunction against armor and weapons. [46]

Cleric 

The original reason for allowing clerics blunt weapons only was one of game balance, and I used Bishop Odo of Normandy as the exemplar--no shedding of blood. [11]

Actually the cleric was based losely on Bishop Odo, brother of Duke William of Normandy, the fictitional Friar Tuck, and a religious proscription against the shedding of blood.

The paladin was likewise loosely drawn from the Paladins of Charlemagne and the Code of Chivalry.

Changes in both archetypes were mandated by the game system for which they were designed. As they two are quite different archetypes, criticism of these classes on grounds of similarity is fatuous. The purpose of each class in the campaign milieu is quite different. #8285

As far as I am concerned the terms cleric and priest are interchangable for the AD&D class. Consider many of the spells available to the cleric--clearly meant to provide for the general population. #8295

I usdually allowed most PCs and all important NPCs to be versed to some extent in teir alignment tongue. All Clerics know it backwards and forwards. #7538

Generally its assumed by most, as clerics are adventuring, they sleep through the night, say their morning prayers before the new day's action commences, and thus have their spells renewed, even as magic-users are cracking open their spell books to memorize their new ones for the day. [11]

I always envisaged the power of turning Undead to be restricted to clerics, not held by shamans and witchdoctors. The latter would have spells that proscribed Undead from areas, but not the capacity to turn/destroy them by their very presence. [11]

As the AD&D game developed, the cleric became less of a spell-casting fighter, and so by the time UA was published there was no reason for concern about balance between classes if clerics could use edged weapons. [11]

Thief

In the original D&D game there was no thief class, and the traps were not as frequent or complex. A 10' pole in cautious hands and a dward PC were usualy sufficient to spot most of them. #3629

My campaign players were the testers of all the new ideas, so the thief and assassin were played by me as NPCs in the middle of the year, 1974, as I began to compile material for a supplement to the D&D game. The thief was immediately popular, so quite a number were played before GREYHAWK hit in 1975. One or two assassin PCs were played also, but the party was always charry about them. Minor pilfering of party treasure was tolerated, but having a PC offed by an assassin was most annoying. That happened once, maybe twice, with the offending PC then leaving the game, the player returning as a different character. #288

The Thief was based on Jack of Shadows (Zelazny) and Cugel (Vance) with a touch of REH's Conan, rather than solely on the Gray Mouser. Mouser was too good a swordsman to serve as the pure model. #1814

The thief is a strong archetype in fantasy and adventure stories in general. The main drawback to having one in the party was...theft! Otherwise, we always appreciated a thief PC being able to scout ahead, check for and remove traps, pick locks, climb up where the rest of the PCs couldn't reach easily, and even pop out of shadows to strike a dangerous opponent for added damage.

As encounters became more complex and dangerous, the party's thief became a lot more in demand. Just being able to have a member go ahead, see what was awaiting, and return to warn the other PCs was often the difference between success and failure.

Thief characters that prospered understood that their purloining had to be kept to a reasonably modest "extra share," or else the other PC would grab them, turn them upside hown, and shake them :D Of course when I was DMing I did my best to encoutrage thieves to be greedy, so as to give the party problems from within, that seeming logical when they had a sneaky stealer of wealth along. #1979

If the thieves expect to be protected by the other party members, healed by clerics, given a share of party treasure, their pilfering from their comrades should be greatly limited. It is up to the other PCs to lay it on the line to the rampant thieves. The majority of the party might well dictate death for theft from any party member, and carry out an execution of a guilty party without loss of any Good and/or Lawful alignment [11].

Of course, as a DM I encourage thieves who risk thier lives scouting and opening possibly trapped containers and all to filch a bit--say a few gems or a piece of jewelry. Reasonable PCs in a party can not seriously take offense at such relatively petty theft. [11]

On the other hand, my PCS have attacked and killed a PC thief stealing party treasure for his own gain at the expense of the remainder of the party [11]

Thieves can use nothing better than leather armor, and they may never use a shield. They may use only daggers and/or swords, magical or not. I would allow them to use a garrot or sling in some cases. Likewise, I would allow the use of a fine chainmail short of magical nature. [46]

AD&D: Paladin

As far as I am concerned, the Paladin is Lawful Good--period. The class takes vows, swears an oath, and then follows it. The concept is drawn from some legend--Authurian--and some quasi-legend--the paladins of Charlemaine plus the code of chivalry as it was written, more honored in the breach than the keeping. As described in the game system, any characyer that was of paladin class would cease being so immediately his vows were broken. #403

A Paladin played by someone that does not understand the basis of the Code of Chivalry taken to the extreme and attached to religion is likely unplayable, but that's the fault of the player, not the class.

Yes, I have played a Paladin character, but not for long, as I don't enjoy Lawful Good characters much--too restrictive for a Chaotic sort of person such as I am #1882

Following the Law. First, many a Paladin PC has been played, and that done successfully generally following the rules for the class as written. Lawful Good does not equate to stupid or foolish, It means the PC must follow the Law as determined by the deity the Paladin acknowledges, and thus promote Good according to that Law.  #1882

Killing Prisoners. Playing a proper paladin is often mishandled also. They are not stupid per se, only bound by oaths. For example I did allow paladins to slay dangerous prisoners if those individuals renounced Evil. In such a state of grace, killing them is actually a Good act, for they will then go on to a better life in another world instead of being sent to some dark and dismal plane to suffer for their ways after death. While a paladin will fight to the death if necessary, they are not usually bound to suicidal valor for no pirpose. #403

A paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide  [11]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.  #1882

Note that the "converted" evil humanoid" is quite unlikely to remain so, will return to its evil ways, so thus the mercy killing by the paladin to assure that doesn't happen. It is all for the good of the subject of course. The same surely holds true of evil dragons. A permanent conversion from the malign is most unlikely, the best outcome likely being a neutral creature with evil tendencies. Thus I hold that a paladin will attack on sight any evil monster of that sort...assuming he believes there is a reasonable chance of prevailing. Otherwise, the paladin will mark the location to return with a stronger force. #6706

Fleeing. A Paladin will not normally sacrifice himself, fight needlessly, unless it is a situation where honor and duty demand that. Such sacrifice would have to be demonstrably for the betterment of his deity, or else based on an oath the character made prior to the dire situation. #1882

I can't understand your problem with a rule that calls for a thinking character to retreat post-haste when in imminent danger of dying. Being brave and chivalrous does not equate to being stupid and throwing away one's life. It isn't heroic to die for no reason, and that applies to all including paladins. [11]

Speaking Truth. While in general a Paladin can not lie, that does not mean he must say anything, or can not answer evasively or mislead--if that is according to the tenets of his avowed LG deity.  #1882

Detect Evil. Well, as the Paladin is supposed to be the virtuous warrior wholly dedicated to being upright and doing good, the Detect Evil capacity seemed natural. I envisaged it as being one that the Paladin must use with active thought, that meaning when he is thus engaged he can be doing nothing else. (It was not meant as an automatic sensing device akin to a Geiger counter detecting radiation level.) The Evil needs to be an active force such as in a character or a spirit entity or at worst a semi-intelligent monster able to contemplate doing wicked things, or an active magical effect that has a sentient quality that triggers it malign effect. #1315

Protection from Evil. The paladin's Protection from Evil is no different from the spell of that name in such case, so I would treat it as if it were a spell, and if the paladin purposfully broke it, the circle would cease functioning until the adversary concerned was destroyed. [11]

I do not believe that a Protection from Evil generated by a paladin will break an existing Charm spell, as it is meant primarily to assist the Paladin against the malign. As a Charm might well be cast by a non-evil person for non-evil purposes, any temporary breaking of such a spell needs be considered carefully by the DM. [11]

AD&D: Ranger

I wrote 99% of the material in OA/D&D, so those questions are easy. Most of the classes, spells, and monsters are of my creation. Some exceptions are: Ranger based on Joe Fischer's work, the druid inspired as a class by Dennis Sustarre.

Joe Fischer played in my group, and he did an article in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW introducing the Ranger Class for the D&D game. From that I built the AD&D version. #1214

The answer is easy;) OAD&D got it right in regards to the Ranger class. #1261

The Ranger class was originally devised by Joe Fischer, then a regular in my D&D game group. I published his initial treatment of the class in The Strategic Review, thereafter revised it and included it in the core game rules. Of course it is apparent that Joe based the class on JRRT's work and Aragorn. Likely a forester of some sort would have been created at some point, but it would have been quite different from the Ranger as it appeared. certainly. #1814

The ranger's bonus of +1 damage per level was very annoying to me as the DM, but that encouraged the logical addition of damage for the big old giant class members, so that a couple of solid hits from a member of same could flatten the cheeky little ranger attacking him. #2646

As for broading the ranger and druid classes to include elves, it is logical that the memebrs of the demi-human race in question would assume such roles because of their association with humans. Of course that assumes a human-dominated world--which is the case in the vast majority of campaign worlds I know of. [11]

Rangers are plenty potent without double weapons specialization [11]

Not druidical spells, no. Only magic-user spells demand spell books. [11]

AD&D: Druid

Dennis Sustarre was not a member, but he corresponded with me, and did a DRAGON Magazine piece on the Druid Class. (I had them as NPC "Monsters" in D&D before that.) From his material I crafted the new PC class.

It is because the scimitar is as close a sword weapon I could come up with to match the druids' mistletoe-harvesting sickle. #6792

The implication in regards "The Old Faith" is that it was a shamanistic religion that had no formal pantheon of deities. The original inhabitants, the Flan, were indeed those that were the principle adherants to that belief system. It wasn't explored because it was not particularly meaningful to the module or the setting. 

Pretty much the same as happened in actuality in ancient times here on earth. Adonis and Isus, for example, were made a part of a pantheon previously foreign to them, In AD&D terms that would simply make the deity in question that much more potent.

IMO druids do not serve any deity other than Nature and its manifestations. #6543

AD&D: Monk

All of the titles for the Monk Class were taken unabashedly from mah jjong, one of my favorite games. As flowers are honors tiles, delicate and beautiful, I thought it fitted well with an Eastern aesthetic martial artist, the object belying his actual prowess. #1940

What I was contemplating was a non-Oriental sort of Monk character to replace the clearly Eastern martial artist one featured. The class would likely have been a sort of dedicated warrior-spy with a few elements of the original Monk class, new abilities of more European sort to round it out. that way the Scarlet Brotherhood would not have had to lost its warrior-monk component. #1978

Anyway, as to the original Monk class, I envisaged them mainly as wanderers from afar, some few being established in monestaries in the non-Oriental (or whatever nomer one might choose to describe a place of like cultures, states and societies). If you ever saw the TV series Kung Fu, that was rather the model I used for the monk PC as far as general interaction in the campaign--sans the racism.

So yes, the cultures and societies that produced Monk characters were quite different from the usual Western/Northern/Southern European models, but actually covered in the World of Greyhawk setting, for the far western states therein could well house some small number of such monastic warrior societies. #2229

The intent there was to empower the Monk character to speak as indicated [with Animals] sans use of a spell. #8673

A DM not allowing monks in their campaign world is fine, but it shows a narrow perspective. Why not an enclave of immigrants of Oriental sort producing a few such individuals? Or even why not wandering monks from far off. Of course either approach will require some considerable adjustment in regards gaing levels after 8th, but that's an easy quest to set up. #7673

AD&D: Illusionist

Peter, you did disappear from the mainstream D&D print vehicles, so I erroneously assumed that you had dropped out of FRPGing as so many did after a period of active participation. your contribution of the basis for the Illusionist class influenced the AD&D game considerably... [11]

AD&D: Assassin

I used historical fact and a whole lot of authored fistion on the subject to devise what I deemed to be an appropriate archetypical class for OAD&D, the Assassin. assassination as a means of livelihood being inherantly evil is correct. An assassin is likely Neutral Evil, but never not evil. [11]

AD&D (special): Bard

Historically, bards were a class of druid. We don't know much at all about what the druids did in their religious practices, but we know their organization into three branches--the priests, lawyers (ovates), and bards. #2762

UA: Cavalier

The cavalier class was created mainly because all noble warriors were not in the same stamp as Sir Galahad and Roland. #4070

The short answer is that I consider well-trained, aristocratic warriors such as knights and samurai as having been very deadly fighting machines. The Cavalier class was aimed at depicting a knightly warrior of most able sort...and they were very tough indeed. #1732

Unreleased: Mystic, Mountebank, Jester, Savant, Witch / Warlock, Shamans / Primitive Spellcasters

Mountebank--a skilled liar/slight of hand trickster/minor illusionist/thief

Savant--a learned character also knowing arcane things and having minor magic-use

Mystic--an augur-clairvoyant with minor monk and cleric abilities

Jester--a gymnast-tumbler with some special spells for attention, laughter, anger, etc. #5868

I have been pestered for information on the Mountebank, Mystic, and Savant for many a year. There is no way I am ever going to publish the material, as the game they were meant to be used in became the exclusive property of TSR, and is now the property of WotC. Maybe after I have shuffled off this mortal coil my rough notes will be found and whomever acquires them will share whetever information about the proposed classes is therein. [11]

The savant and mystic were meant to deal with critters from other planes as well. The mountebank could use disguise, impersonate, and with his patter or oration affect an audience of one or many more. The jester could use several hurled missile weapons such as daggers, clubs, knives, throwing stars, etc. with speed and accuraccy. #5889

The mystic was a marginal archetype based on what is termed Oriental Mystery and Eastern mythology.  [11]

Witches really have nothing do do with modern Wiccan beliefs, something that was formulated in the last century supposedly based on Druidical paratices. As the Romans absolutely wipes out every vestage of Druidism, there is nothing of that old pagan religion to use in forming a new one save a few names.

Anyway, witches in the meddle ages were definately Satanists bent on doing the malign. That is my model for witches and warlocks in the RPG. I would certainly make it a separate class. The background for it is detailed and complex, so I again suggest regerencing the Mythus game treatment of them or else the LA game system's optional sourcebook, Shamanism & Witchery, the latter being more easily translated into AD&D mechanics. #6421

To be exact, a witch is properly one that serves evil, and a male witch is a warlock, not a wizard. There is ample evidence that during the middle ages there was indeed a cult of Satanists calling themselves witches that sought to do malign works in service of the Devil. This sort of confusion extends elsewhere to the term sorcerer, that belonging properly to one that calls up demons to perform services for him. [11]

The limited spells for primitive spell casters is both logical and something that I personally stuck to when DMing. however... [11]

In special circumstances I would create new magic items for them--such as a ferish, mask, rattle, drum. bone whistle, skin painting, or medicine bag that had either protective or offensive capacity, or perhaps both. Thus the special primitive spell caster(s) encountered were a definite challenge for strong PC parties. [11]

Races

A human centered world

I think Gary's arguments are true -- demihumans in play end up being played as caricatures of humans, often quite one-dimensional. However, there is so much that does not work in inner-game logic like  castles in a world with flight, that it would have been easy enough to suspend disbelief in this regard, too. As he did, he had to endlessly defend limiting the level of demihumans, instead of just giving humans some other extra perk, as players wanted to play elves and halflings and not be limited artificially.

The whole of the AD&D game was designed so as to center around humans. All players are human, as am I. [11]

I definitely assumed a fantasy world dominated by humans. A good reason for this is that creating a non-human culture and societies based on it is far more than I care to attempt for a game. If demi-humans had no limits to their potential, then as depicted, they would surely rise to dominate the world...and invention of their cultures and societies would be an absolute necessity. Game balance is also a factor. Demi-humans have advantages over humans, so their maximum power needs limitation for the reason noted above. [11]

Making up the origins, religions, history, mythology, legends, philosophies cultures, and societies of a non-human race, let alone races, that truly differs from that of of mankind, is an undertaking for a genius that wishes to dedicate a lifetime to that, and from which a game world might or might not eventuate. [11]

The effort needed to devise the evolution, biology, cultural history, and society of non-human races, make them truly different from humans and yet appealing to players, is well beyond my capacity. [11]

The answer is related to what I said regarding the virtual impossibility of creating a completely exotic milieu for a human-like, or even an intelligent, non-human species. There is no frame of reference from which to work.

As for the demi-human, and humanoid as well, states in the Flanaess, they are relatively few because it is assumed that humans are the dominant species on the world. Were it otherwise, then one would have to deal with the creation of one or more exotic cultures and societies that I addressed previously. the locigal level limits on non-human races is also directly related to this problem.

Personally, I do not find a cobbled-up "non-human" history, culture, and society that is plainly based on humanity particularly attractive in a fantasy world setting...even if a special language is created to give the contrived work verisimilitude. #8308

Of course all well-considered fantasy world settings are homocentric. The authors are human, and all of the actual historical information available deals only with human culture, society, and history, save for mytholoigy and folklore. Even those latter sources are homocentric in perspective.

I for one do not care to spend years of time and effort imagining and creating an exotic universe for a non-human race or races, complete with all that pertains to such a group. Just think of all the information we know and have recorded regarding humanity, and the effort needed to create a tenth of that lore for an imaginary race.

In short, that's why all the non-human races in imaginative writings such as books and games are not really very different from humans, just variants of them with some qualities exaggerated to give apparent differentiation--Klingons are fiercely warlike, Vulcans are coldly mental, Ferengi are completely crass and venal, etc. So dwarves are stout and love ale, elves are slender and nature-oriented, orcs are ugly and brutal...but have essentially human culture and societies. #8303

Creating distinct, basicaly non-human cultures and the societies that would logicaly develop therefrom is a creative endevor I have shied away from because of the demands it will make on knowledge, innovation, creativity...and time and effort to establish and rework the lot until all is suitably exoticly non-human. #6304

Novels are not truly suitable bases from which to create games. The two are basicaly opposites. [11]

Demihuman Limitations

Indeed, I do not believe that having unlimited levels for demi-humans can support a humanocentric campaign. without humanocentrism, there are no sources availabel to the GM to create his world setting. #2504

There were many players that were not happy thus, however, so that was why I tinkered with the demi-human racial level maximums. There was no way I would ever remove them entirely across the board, certainly, as the world setting was always assumed to be human dominated for the reason I have expressed many times in the past: I have never felt competant to design a world with the dominant cultures and societies being non-human. #6618

About half of the players had demi-human PCs, and that's when I saw the need to allow multi-classing more broadly, and not limit the thief level. Also some of the sub-types were created and the level limits bumped up to accommodate those who insisted on playing non-human races in a human-dominated game and world setting. Actually, I always allowed a Wish spell to bump up a level too... 

It is worth noting, that most players never got PCs above around 12th level, so even an elf fighter/m-u of 5/8 was a viable member of a typical party. #1056

The expansion of non-human PC level limits covered in Unearthed Arcana was to facilitate their play in higher-level campaigns. For example, an elven fighter/magic-user/thief of 5/9/12 level equates to around 19th level. #6613

Almost all of the material in the UA book was mine, picked up from articles I wrote in Dragon magazine. As to the increase in types of demi-humans and their level limits, yes. That was of my doing. As human PCs were getting to higher levels then it seemed a good idea to allow for more potent non-human characters, while at the same time maintaining the human race as predominant. #1876

Dwarves and Elves not from Tolkien

Indeed, the number of JRRT fans who were potential D&D gamers encouraged me to include races like those in his works in the game. Dwarves, of course, are common in a lot of myth, German and Schadanavian. The elves in D&D were not those of the Rings Trilogy, but hobbits/halflings were that. As a reader of fables, fairy tales, fantasy, and myth for a long time before the work of JRRT was in print, adding another choice, the gnome, seemed a good thing, as in fantasy the former elemental had become more an archetypical "fairy" race. Inspiration came from extensive reading, and of course designing the race to fit the D&D model was not a great challenge #348

I did indeed use names that Tolkien used in his LotR books in order to attract potential players to the D&D game. When it was being written, was published, early in the 70s the Rings Triology was surely the best known fantasy work around. That said, compare the elves of the D&D game with those that JRRT extoled. Quite a difference between the two, eh? #5942

Inspiration for the D&D dwarves came from the Norse mythology, legends, and fairy tales. Elves came mainly from folklore and fairy tales.

I have read all the Andrew Lang (various colors in the titles) save the Yellow Book of Fairy Tales, Andersen, and Brothers Grimm fairy tales as well as many a book on folklore and legends.

Halflings were mainly drawn from JRRT's fiction, of course. #1799

Humans

Only humans humans have souls. All living things might have spirits. Deal with such metaphysical questions as the differences between soul and spirit as you see fit. [11]

Dwarves

The Norse dwarves were like giants in their powers, and the French fey were as potent as fairies in some fairy tales. Neither is suitable for inclusion as a character race in a FRPG. #2528

After all is said and done, dwarves are so unbelievable as to be completely irrational. They live underground in caves and drink ale and eat meat. Where do their supplies come from? Where, outside of my assertion if D&D that they have a strong constitution, does that "logical" assumption come from. After all, they might be as frail as vampires when it comes to sunlight, and that's why they live underground. Many a fairy tale portrays dwarves as wholly evil, as are the svartalves of Norse mythology. #2568

Elves

I determined to have elvish PCs play a regular role in the D&D game because of JRRT's writing, that's a fact. As to the inspiration for D&D elves, no, it didn't really come from his version of elves. although I did make them foes of orcs, and shoot bows well so as to not disapoint the fans of the rings Trilogy too much. After all, in D&D elves are inferior to humans in all respects save longevity. #5993

As for the depiction of elves, I am not one who looks to Tolkien. D&D elves are not super beings, not taller or generally more powerful than humans. I used myth, legend, folklore, fairy tales, and authored fantasy such as Poul Anderson's works for inspiration in regards the paramaters of elves. Of course, the varieties develped do reflect the Professor's work. after all, I desired to have the game to appeal to his fans. #2504

From where did I get my take on elves? Mainly from fairy tales such as the one in which the 12 princesses went through a secret door into Elfland every night, dancd with elven princes so as to have holes in their slippers. Also, the folklore about etering the world of elves through a secret way under a stone that depicts elves as human-like in many respects. Much authored fantasy also treats elves in like manner, including their being soul-les. #5942

I read literally thousands of SF, fantasy, folklore, and mythology books beginning in 1950. I can not recall exact references after so many years have passed, but I can assure all that Tolkien was not the first autor to consider elves as something other than tiny little fairy folk. In point of fact, fairies in fairy tales, and the French Lutin fair folk, are usually more like JRRT's version of elves than any other sort of folklore "race" other than perhaps the Norse lysoalfar, the "light elves." Of course, as Tolkien borrowed much from Norse mythology, it is likely that both his dwarves and elves came from there. I know my dwarves surely did.

#5942

Also I believe it was Margaret St. Claire who wrote The Secret People in which elves were very much like humans. Of course, the early English folklore had elves akin to small humans, likely based on the Picts, and called stone arrowheads they found "elf bolts". #5946

I found a fair amount of information on the Seelie and unseelie courts back in the 1970s by using the local library here to tap into the Wisconsin interlibrary loan system to get old books--mostly from the U of WI. I contemplated a campaign using the information, but decided it would need a considerable amount of effort--a completely non-human environment, that of the World of Fairie. With not a vast amount of resource material to work from, I decided against spendng a couple of years developing the setting and new creature information... [11]

The Seelie and Unseelie courts share the same world, certainly. It is a sphere like earth. The highest of the Seelie court are likely the Feys...or the Sidhe, some of the latter are of unseelie nature, of course. [11]

Indeed, I believe it was in the Renaissance that elves moved from the folklore model of wild and rude, or basically tiny creatures such as in Shakespeare's A Midsummer's Night's Dream, to something more akin to the French version of fairies, tall, courtly, refined, and as civilized as humanind, if not more so. As you note, it might well have been Spenser that brought about the change. [11]

In folklore elves are soulless, so it isnt merely a game device. As a matter of fact, I would question that they have spirits. [11]

[Elves able to cast in magic armor] That rule was to stifle complaints from Tolkienists about elves in the D&D game not being super-human. Half-elves were not given such a break. [11]

The fact is that only elven chain was allowed for casting of magic-user spells in my campaign. A multi-classed elf could manage to get away with wearing even plate armor and casting, but not thieving, but not a half-elf, or gnome. [11]

Actually the booklet is quite clear in this regard. An elf can act as a Fighter and use armor, gain XPs in that class, or one can act as a Magic-User and likewise gain XPs. What isn't clear is the HD. When an advance in level is indicated, the elf gains one-half a HD whether the advance is in the Fighter or M-U class. Thus the elf is operating at a disadvantage, not an advantage, in regards HPs. [11]

As the Faerie Knights were reputedly of great puissance, you might want to go further that two levels above the indicated maximum. after all, the stats required for a cavalier are very stringent. Perhaps three levels, with one added for each 18 in Con and Dex, Str level addition also. Hey wait! that isn't in the rules... Of course I have been known to ignore them fairly often P.S. To all rule lawyers: :P :P :P [11]

Attacks and saves are at the most favorable level of the elf PC. [11]

The basic racial adjustments apply to varieties of that race, so as you note, the Wood Elf character would get +1 strength, -1 intelligence, +1 dexterity, -1 constitution. [11]

AD&D: Gnomes 

Later on I added gnomes to D&D to broaden the choices for non-human PCs, as I did in AD&D. This was done because a number of players, myself included, were tired of having so many dwarves, elves, and halflings in the group of adventurers. In my campaign a party of 12 would have three front rank halflings, a second rank of dwarves, elves in the third rank, and the fourth rank the humans--mainly magic-users and clerics. #1775

Gnomes in myth were created as one of the four elementals, that of earth. I took what I recalled from fairy tales and folklore about mine spirits to create a unique race for the D&D game. Yes, there were already halflings and dwarves, but I made the gnomes sufficiently different so as to allow another choice for character race. I have used it in a PC, he being a gnome illusionist-thief.  #1799

The original gnomes were earth elementals of considerable potency as well, but i modeled the D&D race after those in fable and fairy tale. #2528

As you undoubtedly know, gnomes were originally the name for small earth elementals, as salamanders were of fire, sylphs of air, and undines (I think, it's been a long time since I read on this subject) water.

Despite the origination of the gnome, I meant to make the race more attuned to nature than are dwarves. The deep gnomes, Svirfneblin, are meant to be exceptional. The balance of their cousins deal well with both nature and the subterranean.

Dwarves are miners, forgers, and somewhat mechanical.

Gnomes are miners, botanists, and highly mechanical.

Dwarves love gold and gems.

Gnomes appreciate objects d'art more than gold, although those of Zurich love to keep the wealth of dwarves and others secure. #3270

Monster PCs

Never happened in any campaign I ever ran, and none of the DMs I knew allowed such stuff either. #3859

Frankly, I find the concept of dragons as player characters of occassional human-like appearance to be absolutely out of place. No more need be said on this topic #6293

Alignment

Gary spent endless hours of discussion defending his views on alignment against all kinds of valid arguments. If it was intended as a role-play aid as he claims, making it relevant for game mechanics undermined this immediately. We back in the day found the concept comically immature, simplistic and black-and-white, compared to what is really motivating people. 

Alignment was meant primarily as a role-playing tool. (Despite what some of the "mature" and "sophisticated" gamers assert, roleplay was indeed a central feature of the AD&D game from the proverbial get-go.) The player was to be guided by it when role-playing his character, and the DM had the same benchmarks to use in judging the PC's actions. The debates now make me regret that I ever included the system feature, as it is being taken beyond the pale. Better to have the character's actions speak for their ethics and morality than some letter set. #1570

The alignments presented in the DMG are not meant to be psychologically correct not a guideline for comparative ethics. they are meant only to assist the player in assuming the role of the make-believe character playing in a fantasy game. [11]

As compared to the reasons for which I created them, alignments are generally misused by DMs and I am sorry that I did not originally stress their principal meaning and uses. [11]

Alignments are for the use of the DM in the development of the nations and the peoples that inhabit them, principally the dramatis personae that will interact with the group of player characters. It is meant to serve the DM as a measuring stick against the performance of the PCs in the campaign, after each has elected an alignment as a general template for the ethical and moral views of their game persona. In the same secondary role, they are meant to be useful in regards use of magical spells and magic items that require the imbuing of some spirit (force) in their making. [11]

When I enlarged the alignment system from the three used in D&D because chaoric does not necassarily mean evil nor lawful equate to good, I worked up the nine alignments found in OAD&D as I began work in the MM in 1976. A five-alignment system was not used by me, as the various NX slots were integral to the system I devised. #2087

A W.C. Fields line is a working axiom for evil: "Never give a sucker an even break." #1776

I would rate Elric as Lawful Evil indeed, as he knows that his sword steals souls, uses it to keep himslef alive. [11]

[References: see Greyhawk References]

Deadliness of play in OD&D

Some believe that Gary was an adversarial DM who reveled in killing PCs. This is not the case. Not only did he play as a player as much as he DMed, and hence knew how it felt on the other side of the screen. He also wanted his players to succeed. He did however believe that rewards earned by overcoming difficulty and real danger were much more meaningful, and not all encounters should be calibrated to be overcome. He also had no patience with players who were not cautious and did not think. 

Oh all right: Do I enjoy killing PCs when I GM? A The answer is definitely not in the least, especially if they belong to regular players. There I do all I can to prevent such loss without directly intervening in players' actions for their characters. #2009

RPGs with long term viability do not generally contain rules that are meant to kill the characters. that should be a function of poor play, not the game. [37]

Many a PC has been killed in my campaign, but all those losses were because of very bad luck or like play. I have never set out to eliminate a PC in my campaign, only for special events at cons where the participants expect to have that happen. When a player is distraught about such a loss, I empathise strongly... #7842

Characters died all the time. That’s why Gary Gygax’s characters got names like Xagyg the wizard and Yrag the fighter, and other players contributed Melf the Elf, or (if I remember Mike’s anecdote correctly) Bellus of Telefono. It was the sixties and seventies. Life was cheap, and heroes died. [29]

I have indeed also devised very difficult challenges, singular or modular, for expert players, but never with the purpose of "killing" PCs. [11]

Simply put the GM is there to amuse and entertain the player group. Failure to do so is the worst thing a GM can do, If in so failing he also causes them to reject the game form, that is about as egregious a thing as can happen. That typically occurs when the GM becomes the antagonist of the players.  [11]

A poor adventure is one that doesn't challenge the party of PCs, rather bores them or just is not enjoyable for the group. Totally silly material is also bad news. [11]

Tom Champeny's PC died at least 3 times; Ernie's NPC Sertan died once; we wiped out 17 of 20 adventurers in a debacle of indecision and bad planning all around when EGG and I co-Dmed an ill-fated adventure for as many visitors one day; James Ward's and Skip William's PCs "died the Death" (one of Jim's fave sayings, in fact) in my Dark Druids outdoor/beneath ground addie (1975), Robilar came close to death 4 times, I lost my Djinn and Efreet during those singular scrapes; Bob Burman died, Eric Shook lost 6 or 7 PCs in a row (mostly due to rashness, etc. as he was young), and there might be more. Lots of close calls, really close calls in a lot of cases. OH! And Ernie's 2nd PC, ERAC, died of starvation in the castle... [RJK, 42.3]

Adversarial DMing

From trying to make life hard on the players for their increased enjoyment it is only a small step to become adversarial, and that is a BAD THING, as it tends to kill the enjoyment of the game for the players, who also play this game to be heroes and triumph, not just to cower and run all the time. Even Gary fell into this trap, as can be seen by these comments: 

As a designer and as a GM I have grown tired of having weak monsters and lavish treasure where the intent was to have potent monsters and skimpy loot. I assume that the GM using the published material will alter the fixed numbers given to suit his campaign style and his preferences as well as those of his players. #6277

By careful play--using thought, consideration, caution and daring in the proper mixture--they will solve the various problems and challenges posed by the dungeon. This, and cooperation among themselves, will assure them of successfully competing against the Dungeonmaster during their first adventure, although there are bound to be casualties... [19] (emphasis mine).

Real Danger and Challenge

Adventures lacking the sense of danger brought on by actual risk of character loss are not worthy of playing. Those that enjoy them are true munchkins regardless of time spent RPGing. Rather than bawl about my DMing they should be playing a children's boardgame...and cheating so as to assure a win. #8570

No challenge often meant no enjoyment, loss of interest in the campaign. That is why option 3 is the best, assuming the new material is created so as to make the adventures following very challenging, perilous, and filled with hair's-breadth successes. [11]

How I detest namby-pamby whiners that expect to play a real RPG without threat of character death or loss of a level, stat points, or even choice magic items! Without such possibilities, what it the purpose of play, a race to see which character can have the greatest level, highest stats, and largest horde [sic] of treasure? That is just too flaccid for words. #2300

Of course the lazy, greedy, and cowardly lot of PCs will do their best to make their adventure a cakewalk, but the GM is there to see the matter is dangerous and demanding [11]

Perhaps also a result of the developing contest between the GM and his players, the former devising more demanding encounters for his more sophisticated and experienced players whose PCs are more capable, eager to loot and pillage [11]

In his later home campaign and con sessions he ran in the orginal dungeon, he tried to help with the high mortality rate of first level characters by starting them on second and third level.

When I play OD&D I prefer to use the original little booklets, altering them with whatever seems right at the time, but not including thieves, I do give clerics a spell at 1st level usually, or else start that as 2nd level PCs. #892

Don't expect free wins

That isn't all bad...as is the current notion amongst players that every encounter they meet is defeatable, that their PCs won't meet an untimely end unless they are ready to think carefully...or have their team flee in haste #4680

I do indeed find over-powered and badly played PCs annoying, so if the player with such a character foolishly allows his PC to get into a situation where loss of potent magic itesm, levels, and/or life can occur, the dice are rolled in the open; whatever occurs from the result syands without and "judge fudge" to prevent it. #6586

Chance and Competence

If mere chance is the cause of the impending failure, I modify the situation to have the adversarial side be likewise blighted by ill fortune. If I over-powered the NPCs/monsters I do indeed reduce these capacities in some way so as to enable the party to succeed.  [11]

In the case of sheer foolish play on the part of the players, I let the chips fall where they may [11]

Only the poor players or the exceptionally unlucky ones lose their PCs in my campaign games. Indeed, "poor" refers to the rash and/or unthinking. [11]

I am usually prone to giving regular players in a campaign I am running a break in regards to loss of their character, or a severe diminishment of that game persona due to level drain or similar loss. That does not apply to players with characters that I judge to have uwarranted levels, cocky ones that ignore warnings, those that play foolishly, or the magic items of any character whatsoever [11]

With my regular group there was seldom a PC loss...after they became veterans. (That applies to my own PCs as well, although a rew raise dead and wish spells were needed to maintain the major characters I played; as it true of the players' PCs in my campaign). Players that took foolish chances, ignored warnings, lacked the proper wherewithal to take on a problem or fight an opponent were likely to suffer PC loss. #6855

The whiners claiming my dungeons are "killer" are likely not very clever in their play. Perhaps they prefer play-acting to thinking and assuming an heroic persona bent on action and adventure. That all of the dungeons I designed were play-tested, and the play-test groups had a high survival rate gives the lie to assertions to the contrary. The only dungeon I designed to be nearly impossible to defeat was the Tomb of Horrors. Failure to survive the others stems from bad luck, or more probably, bad dungeoneering skills. #6764

I really hate to see players that are doing things well, thinking, having their PCs interact as a group, with the environment, lost their characters because of bad luck, sheer chance. I will do my best as the DM to see that does not happen, save to a PC that is better off eliminated, a new and better one then created to take his place. That is rare... #6576

What were some of the tactics that constituted "doing things well"?

Run from Danger

Groups not used to my DM style tend to lose many, if not all, their PCs because they don't have their characters flee when things are looking grim. "He who runs away lives to fight another day." #1250

Well, my regulars learned to say "Run away!" pretty quickly. Even the best came to a fatal situation with their main PCs now and again. That's what high level clerics and wish spells are for, of course. The compliment was returned when I played. Most of the regulars had several OCs, and the secondary and below ones were more expendable. Some were allowed to end their careers just to allow the creation of new low-level PCs for fresh approaches to like adventures. Seldom did I allow non-regulars to start above 2nd level. Regulars could start new PCs at 3rd or 4th level, as they clearly had experience to manage such characters. Personally, unless the group demanded a "jump-started character," I enjoyed playing a new PC from 1st level on. #254

Most of the players in my campaign, all of my own PCs, were never too proud to take to their heels when the opposition was clearly overwhelming. In fact, a good bit of thrilling adventure went into some of the ensuing chases. When Mordenkainen and Bigby met their fate at the hands of Rob's super iron golem, it was because they hadn't the means to escape quickly, not that they didn't wish to beat feet #5706

All of the sensible players in my campaign knew well the strategic retreat, and my own PCs were often winging their way away from danger. Quoting Monty Python was usual: "Run away! Run away!" #3887

Hire Help

In OD&D the 1st level PCs did do several things to help extend their chances--hire men-at-arms, use missile weapons (including flaming lamp oil, that is kerosene), and run away when things appeared to be too dangerous to stay and fight. #8048

My own PCs and those of a couple of others I DMed for were often followed by a train of henchmen, typically when the session involved only one or two players and the situation at hand was demanding. [11]

In another thread someone was wondering how 1st level PCs in the original game survived. Some responses mentioned the "run away" tactic--the one we commonly used. None I read, though, considered the hiring of mercenaries to assist in the encounters. All the early play groups I knew of, those in 1972 and on through 1974 surely did that so as to give their low-level PCs a better survival chance. It worked very well.  #996

Hired men-at-arms or like follwers can be relatively inconsequential in loss, but never henchmen or associated NPCs. To a PC of strong Good alignment, any such loss should be lamentable. #4481

...especially when the number of actual PCs involved in the adventure is limited and the perils involved are great. In point of fact, having "flunkies" along in such missions is only common sense. The PCs involved pay for that by gaining fewer XPs in the adventure. #4461

Let me go back a bit to the approach of original D&D players. Most such initial players came from military miniatures gaming where commanding a force of warriors was the norm. It was a natural thing for a PC group to hire men-at-arms, form a mercenary company and adventure thus. As the background experience of the players became less wargame oriented, the focus of play shifted from the compamy to the core party of PCs. this was in a sense an evolution, the realization of the uniqueness of the RPG form apart from the military miniaturtes one. Designing adventure material for a party of PC is certainly easier than doing the same for a party plus mercenary forces. Thus modules assumed the former, and the concept of the adventuring company was further removed from the game. #1074

Be Cautious

Any non-chaotic PC party should exercise a good deal of caution, investigate and prepare, before setting forth to assail any potential foe, provided they are not in service to a leige lord that directs them to venture out immediately. Prudence is not an ethical trait, rather one of general understanding--intelligence and wisdom. #6168

In regards to the merits of difficult dungeons. Even if one loses one's PC therein, the enjoyment of relating the circumstances of that demise to a group of gamers that had similar experiences is well worth the loss IMO. I managed to get Yrag and several of his cohorts through a dungeon similar to Tsojcanth, one that Rob Kuntz created and DMed. I foolishly had the party seek out an orange area of the map I glimpsed, and the lot were nearly incinerated when I finally managed to stumble upon the sole means of ingress to the chamber. I quit that sort of fudging after that. Those that claim using various means of discovering deadly areas, flunkies, animals, even a 10' pole, is not "thinking" are certainly not themselves rational. It requires planning and thought to do that... #5661

Surely those that whine about my killer dungeons--other that Tomb of Horrors which is supposed to be just that--are inept players that failed to use caution and forethought when playing and this looked foolish as they lost their PCs. #8570

Be stealthy

When I DMed NPCs and monsters tended to stay where they were unless something drew their attention and brought them out. Thus, and of the options you note above might come into play. It was up to the PC team to manage. If they crept about and attacked with relative stealth, the adversaries would not act in concert. Likewise, they could bypass most of the opposition. The groups I DMed through the module tended to seek bypassing, although one very strong party made a point of wiping out all the enemy that they could find. #832

Keep moving

Fie upon the girlie-men that are averse to having encounters with random monsters! No wonder the current generation of RPGers die in droves when faced with real challenges in adventure scenarios :eek: A bunnch of coddled PC wimps expecting to power-game over everything. #3695

Whenever time passed, players were dilatory in acting for their PCs, or they persisted in doing something both time-wasting and pointless we would check for a wandering monster encounter. That at least gave something interesting for the DM to do and entertained the less sedentary PCs of players desiring something active to do;) The short answer is indeed we always employed random encounters, and I still do. #3695

Work together

If the group is playing cooperatively, the others protect the low-level m-u most assiduously knowing that later on he will be the one that will carry the day for them #7980

Raise the Dead

With the campaign set as it was in the vicinity of the city of Greyhawk, getting brought back to the land of the living wasn't much of a problem, only costly, very costly. All of the major PCs bit the dust one way or another--petrified as was Mordenkainen, poisoned as was Bigby, etc. Wish items were greatly prized and carefully hoarded, reserved for use in such extremis. On the rarest of occassions a particularly ill-fated adventure would be chalked up to a collective bad dream. Exactly two: Rob got one, and Rob allowed one other. [11]

I allow any Good alignment cleric to cast resurection/raise dead on a like N/PC, with the "donation" varying from reasonable to quite otherwise depending on regree of alignment difference--and the relationship of the two deities served, if different. [11]

PC death was pretty common. Lower level ones were generally written off. Higher level ones able to pay the cost, or with a Wish spell were brought back. Yrag died several times, and the same is true with most of the "famous" PCs from my campaign. Thus magic items enabling use of a Wish or Wishes were highly prized and generally reserved for bringing back a beloved character. The rule about being brought back no more than a number of times equal to the character's constitution was not fluff, but meant to restrain the more foolhearty players in risking their PCs. #1238

Very few of the regulars in my campaigns have lost their characters ater the initial stages of building them. Those that did have them slain had either vary bad luck or else played foolishly. I am very generous in regards to mitigating a run of bad luck when play has been solid. I must point out that I have lost several of my better PCs, used wishes and spells to have them restored to life, and I have not boo-hooed about the DM that was managing the adventures in which that occurred. #8570

Level Draining

I still am wholly behind loss of levels from undead and certain magic items. As you note there are sufficient counters to such loss as to mitigate the worst effects if the PC party is played well.

In my experience most of the players that whine about level draining are either not truly skillful ones or pure power gamers. #8313

You pegged the reason for my adding that to the system. The threat is potent, yet does not actually kill the PC. There is even a clerical restoration possible, that costing much in the way of monetary and magical items likely, thus getting them out of play and giving more reason to PC to keep adventuring.

That said, when I was playing I dreaded seeing level-draining undead monsters, and thus they added as much excitement to the situation as might a death-dealing dragon #2300

No I don't agree with those wimpy whiners who are afraid of a few living dead :p There were always plenty of them in the adventures I ran, and likewise in those that I was playing in. For example, in one Jim Ward scenario, the first monsters we encountered were liches attacking us with rods of cancellation. This was likely in revenge for some of the perils Jim had to face with me as DM, such as when a vampire had his PC trapped. Darned if Jim didn't roll well enough to force the vampire to dust-mote form while I couldn't hit his PC no matter what. #1920

First, a cleric or two with a party means the threat is lessened dramatically. Second, m-us have plenty of long-range spells to deal with undead. Third, most other PC types have enough armor to make hitting them pretty difficult. In general the alert and wary party will not be surprised by undead, be able to stay at a distance to make touch by the undead difficult. Wise players know when to have their PCs run away. In extremis, lost levels can be restored by use of wishes and clerical spells, Next those cry babies will be moaning about being turned to stone. #1920

Of course magical and clerical means of restoring lost levels were provided--excellent ways for DMs to be rid of wishes and to drain treasure from PCs hoards and into clerical coffers. The last special group of gamers to visit me from a distant place, summer before last, so as to go on a wild adventure across the Flanaess of Oerth had a run-in with some super-wights that drained one of their PCs. Luckily for them they were near Veluna, visited a temple there, and for only about 90% of the wealth they had acquired along the way, those lost levels were restored. If they'd have had a cleric in their party they would have been much richer at adventure's end... #1936

Convention games

Things were different at convention games, where there should have been no investment into the one-off characters used. It is interesting that Gary thought if you bring your PC to such a convention game, and it dies, then you need someone to revive him in another game. That is, the PC is not seen just as a stat block to be used in the game, there is an assumed continuity, where the PC lives (or dies) independent of the groups and games they enter into, a reality of that PCs experiences as an ongoing thing. The same idea he holds for dungeons, where several groups of PCs over the course of multiple conventions met his Old Guard Kobolds in Greyhawk Castle, and led to incrementally strengthening them. The dungeon has a reality that survives the individual play sessions and groups that explore it. 

Oh yah! I forgot you said it was a con adventue. Those are quite different, and offing PCs is de rigeur for most participants. Otherwise they seem to feel they didn't receive the GMs full attention #7574

For gaming conventions I have created scenarios where elimination of the PCs is most probable, and players know that, get a signed character sheet stating that their PC was slain or survived the trials. [11]

It is absurd for a player to be upset of a pre-generated or just-created PC is lost in a tournament adventure. If it is that person's longest-lived PC, then it should not be risked, or some provision for return made before agreeing to play is. Munchkins do relate far too closely with their usually-over-powered PCs, but that is generally forgivable because they are immature youngsters. A mature person what has a munchkin mentality is actually to be pitied...although offing their PC might bring a dark delight to the GM. In all cases I urge gamers to have many PCs, and remember at all times they are just make-believe personas. This typically falls upon deaf ears if the one being lectured is immature. #7582

It never happened with my regular group, but running tournaments and special games I have racked up a few TPKs. Let me rephrase that: The players have managed to get all their PCs killed;)

In the ToH those of my players who dared enter did it mainly with their PCs being alone save for hirelings. Robilar's use of his orcs is pretty well known, with all slain in the initial entrance, and he then going on alone to find the demi-lich's lair, grab the treasure and run away without any combat #1247

Some hundreds of thousands of PCs have adventured in the ToH, and not many have made it successfully, so it is most demanding of real skill. You can quote me from this post, if you like, for we ran the module as a tournament at a Spring or Autumn Revel, or a Winter Fantasy con here back in the day. There were, IIRR, eight teams, and one of them absolutely obliterated the demi-lich by using the crown, putting it on his head, and touching the "wrong end" of the scepter to it. Russ Stambaugh was the DM for that team, and he asked me if that would work. I was astounded at how clever the players had been, said so, and gave them the top spot for their innovation. Again, as I recall, several of the other eight teams made the cut, destroyed Acecerak. those were veteran dungeoneers, of curse. #4422

I have run a party of local gamers through the ToH, and they made it with the loss of a couple of the PCs. It was many years ago, so I do not recall player names and details--way too many gaming sessions under my belt in the 33 years I have been a GM for such recollections... #4422

It has since sent a large number of adventurers to their doom when rolled on behalf of my OD&D game "Old Guard Kobolds." The ninth party of six or more 2nd level characters fell to them at JanCon last month. Lest some reader think I always seek to kill PCs, rest assured that it is only at cons, and mainly to prove the point that running away is often a good idea. A second group playing in the original AOD&D dungeons bypassed the kobolds, went down to the third level, slew many a monster in the process, and didn't lost a single member #1890

However, rather like playing "giveaway checkers," such a session can be fun and challenging as a convention game where arbitrary means of having characters meet their demise are out of the question. The last session I played like that was at GenCon 2002, and darned if one of the nine PCS didn't manage to save her PC from death, so the team beat me as the GM. #2009

When running a tournement we always used prepared material so as to have as much continuity as possible between GMs managing the competing groups. Only in a final round was any innovation allowable...and used #4675

[References: see Greyhawk References]