WATER & WINESKIN BLUES

[This post is from five years ago--just pushing through now]

With Furthermoor on hiatus, I recently started playing in a game, and the DM is using 2nd edition AD&D. Outside of how long it takes to make a character, it got me thinking a bit more about the differences between B/X and AD&D. First, this post has nothing to do with the AD&D game I was playing in, but something that came to mind while looking through the 2nd edition PDF.

Video Games and AD&D

While I can enjoy a video game like Skyrim for what it is--knowing I will never actually finish it or care that much about the story--it's simply the video game equivalent to AD&D. In other words, while folks playing AD&D when it first came out could enjoy a game of Zork on their Radio Shack computer, Skyrim (I'm using Skyrim as the all-encompassing example here) brings AD&D to the video game console in a modern way that works, though the game is the same for everybody, and let's face it, like many video games today, it looks extremely realistic (versus, say Minecraft, which is also obviously heavily influenced by D&D), even if it's in a fantasy world. Though Skyrim looks realistic, however, a player can technically walk for days without sleep, can walk for days without eating food (even if they have tons of it), etc....

If food and sleep don't matter much to Skyrim, why include them? Perhaps for the budding chef gamer who prefers to play Skyrim to collect food items and cook up interesting stuff? Why not? For me at least, none of these realistic elements really make the game any more fun, in fact, these tend to be the parts of the game that seem most like real life and work (no, I am not a chef, but just sayin'), exactly what one is generally distancing themselves from when playing a game. This is why I prefer B/X (I'm using B/X as the consensus here, despite the fact that on this blog I'm generally focused on a weird mash-up of Holmes/Mentzer) when I'm DM, versus anything too much more complex. From my experience, at least, complex tends to mean more realistic, and while I can love realistic in say a hex-and-counter Mexican War game, it isn't what I enjoy about D&D at all, in fact, I find that the more complex D&D gets, for both the players and the DM, the expense is the fun, and the spontaneous nature that the game originally came from.

Water and Wineskins

Take a look at the wineskin. In Holmes, the equipment list takes up the bottom third of a page in the back of the book. There's a "Water/Wine Skin" that goes for 1 gp. A quart of wine is the same price. Furthermore, standard rations cost 5 gp for one adventurer for a week.

It's only with regard to encumbrance, that wine and water are mentioned elsewhere in Holmes, and it's during discussion of where things are on a character's body, however, this appears to simply highlight editing to Holmes with regard to the imminence of AD&D ("1 quart wine (in pack)... 1 water skin, shoulder slung, right side,"), for the whole of this encumbrance section is missing from Holmes's original manuscript.

This seems telling with regard to various playing styles of D&D. Holmes, an early admirer and passionate player of the game, respected the players themselves to come up with the game that suited them, but then the published rule shift into more complexity, which meant more realism. In Holmes there are no rules for water consumption, ration consumption, etc. It's left up to the DM. One can assume a beginning character will buy a week's worth of rations, but what if they don't? Does it really matter? It could... What if the DM knows the character/group doesn't have water, they've been delving for a while, and they may soon enter a room of pools (B1: In Search of the Unknown came within the initial Holmes boxed set)? If they are thirsty, and told they may die because they have no water, this room of pools could be super interesting, and a highlight, especially given they therefore have a solid reason to test more than one of the pools. Though the rules say nothing of this deeper angle to the puzzle, that is the way of the Basic... This is a wonderful example of how thirst/lack of water, while yes realistic, is interesting simply because of the possible repercussions gamewise.

Take a look at Mentzer, specifically the section of sample characters in the Players Manual which stresses their use in "group adventures": a cleric equipped with 2 full waterskins; a dwarf with 1 full wineskin; a magic-user with 1 waterskin and 1 wineskin, both full; an elf with neither; a thief with neither; and then a halfling with 1 wineskin and 1 waterskin, both full. While it may be assumed that the elf and the thief would be members of a party with a water or wineskin, who knows... Furthermore, similar to Holmes, with no other rules present, the rations and water/wine options end up more for the DM to play on versus the deepening of character realism. It should also be noted that Mentzer suggests the possible use of water and/or wine in disarming some types of traps.

In other words, what makes dealing with rations/water/wine fun, and somewhat interesting, is not realism. It's because a thoughtful DM perhaps has certain puzzle pieces in their game that could possibly fit in with those factors. Otherwise, it's a pointless wash...

HOLMENTZER WEAPON DAMAGE & ATTACKS

[important rule bits are the table image & the paragraph below it]

OD&D damage was 1d6, no matter what, until Greyhawk introduced variable weapon damage. Holmes uses the classic 1d6 damage die, but refers players to AD&D if they want something more complex:

He then makes another die roll, with one 6-sided die, to see how many points of damage were done by the hit. (The more complex system used for advanced play allows for varying amounts of damage by different weapons and by various sorts of monsters)... The number of damage points scored by a monster's hit is variable and is given in the monster section. In general, humanoid creatures and first level monsters do one six-sided die's worth of damage per "hit" - whether the hit is a sword blow, a bite, a horn gore, a clawing or whatever. - Holmes, pg. 18 & 19.

Mentzer DMR on the other hand, mentions nothing of damage in regard to player characters, though Mentzer's Player's Manual does introduce a simplified variable weapon damage chart, via Moldvay:

Whenever you hit a monster in your adventures so far, your character's weapon inflicted 1-6 (1d6) points of damage. But if we consider the battle realistically, a dagger should do less damage than a sword (for example). - Mentzer Basic Player's Manual, pg. 60.

In Holmes, variable weapon damage is mentioned as advanced, whereas Mentzer presents variable weapon damage as being more realistic. I side w/ Holmes, having trouble w/ Mentzer's realistic bit, as I don't see why, a dagger, if a solid hit, in a vital place, couldn't do just as much damage as any other weapon. Also, given that it's mainly the Mentzer DM Rulebook I'm concerned w/ re: Holmentzer, I'm gonna follow Holmes' lead for more advanced weapon damage rules & use AD&D 1e Players Handbook, which rocks a modified & expanded version of the table from Greyhawk.

Damage By Weapon Type (disregard weight column) - click me

In addition to the above image, I will be using this bit from Holmes, pg. 20, in regard to number of attacks in a round, etc.:

Light weapons such as a dagger allow two blows per round. The heavy two-handed sword, battle axe, halberd, flail, morning star, and most pole arm can be used only once every other round. The light crossbow takes time to cock and load, so it likewise can be fired only once every other round. The heavy crossbow takes twice as long to load and fire.

HOLMENTZER BASIC

While DMing the last few years, I've seen myself spiral from simply using Moldvay Basic & Cook Expert (B/X), to falling down the OD&D rabbit hole (thanks OSR!) & having a stack of LBB/Supplement print-outs, Holmes, B/X, sometimes Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry White Box, various modules, AD&D books, OSR supplements, etc., basically whatever I grab before play @ my side, & when/if something comes up, I just choose which to refer to on-the-fly. While I have no probs w/ this approach, obviously, & it can be fun for me, esp. when I'm itching to use something I've recently read, as of late, I've been feeling the need to simplify.

In retrospect, I could never get into using the LBBs, only. While I dig the idea & openness of OD&D, which in many ways carries into Holmes Basic, it can be a pain in the ass when you're looking for anything specific in a timely manner, even just a monster stat (I've made lots of stuff up on the spot b/c of this (not sayin that's a bad thing, just sayin)). As for the retro-clones, though I've been inspired by them & enjoy looking @, & reading them, I find I always end up reaching for actual TSR stuff during play. So I got to thinking: while I'd settled on Holmes being a choice median between OD&D & Moldvay, what other book could I cross reference w/ Holmes that's 1) fairly well-organized, 2) adds a lot of the stuff I dig in Moldvay, & 3) can fit into Expert if I decide to go that route vs. AD&D as Holmes suggests? Recently reading through its "Procedures and rules" section, I found my answer: Mentzer Basic Dungeon Masters Rulebook.

HOLMENTZER BASIC SET

Holmes Blue Book & Mentzer DMR? At least until I change my mind again. I plan to blog about some of the stuff I come up against during reconciliation. Supposed to rev the Furthermoor Adventure Express back up next week, so I might be posting again more regularly. We'll see.

MAGIC-USERS & SPELL BOOK GENERATION

From Men & Magic:

Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level.

This implies that though a first level magic-user can only learn & cast one first level spell per day, they have @ their finger tips all the first level spells in one huge tome. You would not lug this into a dungeon.

With the Greyhawk supplement, Gygax limits this a bit, which is wise. This is the same spell book generation that would later be found in the Holmes Blue Book: percentile dice are rolled for each first level spell to determine whether that spell is in the m-u's spell book or not.

Here's the chart:

INT       % Chance to Know Spell       Minimum       Maximum
3-4          20%                                       2                   3
5-7          30%                                       2                   4
8-9          40%                                       3                   5
10-12      50%                                       4                   6
13-14      65%                                       5                   8
15-16      75%                                       6                  10
17            85%                                       7                  All
18            95%                                       8                  All

Example: Jimmy the Hex Master has an INT of 15. To determine what spells he has in his spell book, I go down the list of first level spells & roll percentiles. Every time I roll a 75 or lower, Jimmy adds that spell to his spell book. Once he has 10 spells, he stops (cuz that's his max on the chart for his INT). If Jimmy makes it through the entire list & has 6, he's done (cuz that's his minimum). But if Jimmy only has 5 after going through the list, he starts again w/ the spells he failed to add the first time, rolling until he can add one more to meet his minimum of 6.

This is the way to do it. Not only does it open up magic-users @ the start of the game, but also, it awards players w/ high intelligence for what we could assume is a lot of time & study done before setting out for fame & fortune.

So how was I doing it before?

From Moldvay Basic:

These spells are stored in large spell books... Each magic-user & elf has a spell book for the spells that he or she has learned. A first level character will only have one spell (a first level spell) in the spell book. A second level character will have two spells (both first level) in the spell book...

I always asked myself, why would a magic-user w/ only one first level spell carry around a mostly empty, massive spell book? My guess was that Moldvay wanted to simplify the spell selection process for an introductory game while also holding on to the classic fantasy image of the magic-user's exhaustive tome. So while Moldvay keeps the description of the "large spell book" within his rules, he doesnt go so far as Holmes to say that Magic-users can not bring their magic books into the dungeon w/ them.

So it's a trade off: OD&D/Holmes equip magic-users w/ exhaustive spell tomes that give them a wide daily spell selection, but the location they can study these tomes is limited. On the other hand, Moldvay severely limits the number of spells a magic-user has access to, but they are free to carry the book about as they wish, even into a dungeon.

There are benefits to both approaches, so I've fused the two: while first level magic-users will start per the Greyhawk rules, I think they should also be able to, down the line, purchase a smaller spell book to copy select spells in for possible overnight dungeon travel. However, if any spell book has more than 5 spells in it, it is only possible to travel into dungeon w/ m-u if they have a STR of 12 or more, & even then, there may be other consequences or limitations.

What about elves?

Elves will not use these same rules. As elves know magic inherently, their magic-use learning is different, @ least starting out. For their spell list, they will choose the Moldvay way (plus additional spell or two for high INT). That is, UNLESS, an elf character decides to be a magic-user only. I/o/w, they will not be a multi-classed elf, they will be an elf magic-user.

ELVES & EXPERIENCE

My initial plan for this game was to treat elves like Moldvay Basic: they function as both magic-users & fighters @ any given time & b/c of this, their experience path reflects this mash up by requiring 4000 XP to reach 2nd Level, i/o/w the m-u & fighter XP paths have been joined together w/ a slight handicap. I think this is also an optional rule in the Swords & Wizardry White Box rules.

But I dont want to do it this way anymore. I wanna do it the old way, w/ a few mods.

The old way is this: elves are multi-classed: you have two XP paths: the magic-user path & the fighter/ranger/thief/whatever-else path. When you are given XP, you can choose where to put that XP: split it up, put it all in fighter XP, put it all in m-u etc. The only guideline I really have is that you put the XP in the appropriate place, i/o/w, if you just gained 500 XP & you havent cast one spell in the game, I would rather you not put 500 XP into the magic-user XP path. I'm not saying that you can't do that, but doing so would probably mean your character isnt getting much sleep since they must be secretly practicing magic in their downtime. Going this route will make it standard for an elf to have different levels in each class, e.g. Willowbrain is a 3rd Level fighter & 2nd Level magic-user.

This is basically OD&D, though I'm removing the need for an elf to specify each day (or before each adventure) what class they are playing. Likewise, I am removing total armor restrictions on elves that use magic: they can still cast magic while wearing leather armor, just no metal armor (unless magical, of course).

Leif, I've updated your character sheet w/ this info. You just need to assign your XP. Also, Robert, take note for your new dude.

QUIRKS OF THE DICE: OD&D - AD&D

The first time I ever played D&D was when I was 7. I remember it taking a bit to establish my character, but in the end, I was a fighter, named Kron. I know the module was T1: Village of Hommlet b/c I remember the artwork & the graphed map of the town inside (huge impression), but I dont remember seeing any other books present that day.

So was Kron a hero, or a superhero? Since there were no books involved, did we use D&D or AD&D?

AD&D character generation is when Old School became Old School. First off, I know there are those that will say that 1st edition AD&D is "Old School" & perhaps in some ways they are correct, but in the way I mean Old School, AD&D is actually the first move into modern RPGs or @ least modern D&D. Not that I am an expert in the history of RPGs, but let's take a look @ OD&D Men & Magic, where it is stated that the DM should themselves roll for any players' ability scores, etc.:

Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid them in selecting a role.

In OD&D, a player's role choices are dependent upon the rolls of the dice. After the DM rolls, you are given choices: trade certain abilities, one class over other, race, etc. If you go w/ the highest rolls, you are limited. You know what type of character you are playing quickly.

BASIC (Holmes Blue Book to Mentzer Red Box), DM rolling aside, continues this approach. Though a few more ability trading options, you have the OD&D approach to character generation intact. Roll 3d6 down the list of attributes, adjust where able, if you like, choose class/race, etc.

But ADVANCED D&D is much different. What kind of character do you desire? Let's look @ the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide:

As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race & profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts @ finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify w/. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, & it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for players characters:

Method I:
All scores are recorded & arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, & the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method II:
All scores are recorded & arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times & the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III:
Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order... 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, & the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

Method IV:
3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters. The player then selects the single set of scores which he or she finds most desirable & these scores are noted on the character record sheet.

OD&D/BASIC had already factored in that any adventuring PC is of exceptional something. That's what qualifies them to be a 1st level adventurer vs. any "normal human" on the attack chart, etc. Personally, I find "quirks of the dice" to be a positive to D&D vs. a limitation of the earlier game.

WHO IN THE HELL IS MONTY HALL?

I got to thinking about this recently when I saw someone on G+ comment that they are a bit of a "monty haul" DM. To my knowledge, the first place Monty Hall is mentioned by TSR in writing is in Tim Kask's foreword to OD&D Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (1976): 

Monty Hall DMing his first Gen Con game

This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

What about previous attempts?

First, in light of the above, in OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk, Gary Gygax was quick to change the original XP numbers for monster slaying calling the 100 points per monster level in OD&D "ridiculous" (the XP numbers in Greyhawk would carry through to both Basic & AD&D). Next, consider this from Tim Kask's Foreword to OD&D Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry (1976):

As originally conceived, D&D was limited in scope only by the imagination & devotion of DMs everywhere. The supplements have fulfilled the need for fresh ideas & additional stimulation. But somewhere along the line, D&D lost some of its flavor, & began to become predictable. This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM. When all players has all of the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief. The new concept pioneered within these pages should go a long way towards putting back in some of the mystery, uncertainty & danger that make D&D the unparalleled challenge it was meant to be...

From Kask's words, in addition to running "giveaway" campaigns, it would seem a Monty Hall DM took the mystery, uncertainty & danger out of the game. It isnt hard to see how this term would stick around 1976ish. As the game sold & snowballed they were seeing another type of game appear, a predictable version they didnt like, run by, what one would assume, was a specific type of DM, who among other things, gave out treasure & advancement w/o any true risk to players, i.e. a Monty Hall, now your hosting Let's Make A Deal, the home version.

As it is more commonly seen today, the term has morphed into "monty haul" & when one mashes up the meaning of the British term, "full monty" (likewise could be assumed by some a Monty Python reference, depending) w/ "haul", it sort of makes sense even if you've never heard of Monty Hall.

PS: I remember Let's Make A Deal, as well as Monty Hall's hosting it; however, I never knew his name, like Bob Barker. Perhaps Bob Barker DMs will be the new thing...

WHAT ABOUT MY BOOK ON COSMETICS?

Know what annoys me most when playing a fantasy "RPG" video game? The story element of the game & the huge learning curve that comes w/ its plethora of lore... Coincidentally, it seems that the most successful video games of the day are those that allow players to wander away from the story for long stretches @ a time: Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, etc. These games lean more on the strengths of modern video game technology, but are also limited by the trappings of the robot's mind: whether you or I enter Riverdale when we turn on the game, the NPCs will say the same things & act the same ways & all of the items are in the same places, etc.

When it comes to old school pen-and-paper D&D though, my views on story are quite the opposite as it's actually one of my favorite elements of the game. It's an organic & creative process that develops as multiple human brains play off of one another. You never know what will happen, or what someone may decide to do or create. That, to me, is the strength of a true role playing game & it cannot be duplicated by a computer.

That said, it bums me out when my character finds a book in a video game & I am expected to actually sit there & READ THROUGH six pages of generic fantasy fiction to obtain some nugget of player knowledge about the game world, etc. Why cant my act of opening it just tell me what my character now knows? Or what I need to know? Or how my character is better @ carpentry now?

So, what about that book your character found on cosmetics? The character can read it when they have time. A high intelligence will speed up their reading/comprehension. If what they are reading is a specific history topic, the character will be given the specific information they learn from reading the book. If the book is a general topic, like cosmetics, or say, taxidermy, then reading the book would be noted on the character's sheet for future negotiation leverage w/ the DM, e.g. the character is trying to work up a disguise ("also, remember a week ago I read that book on cosmetics?"), or perhaps trying to embalm a slain creature. Their having read each book respectively will aid them in the appropriate task. In a way, this adds skills to the game w/o adding a skill mechanic.

OLD SCHOOL MAPPING IN THE ONLINE AGE

Been thinking about mapping a lot as I began a G+ campaign using an old school module where the task of mapping is a lot of the challenge & though at first I felt some responsibility in aiding the players in finding an "online" mapping solution, I finally had to step away... Mapping should be the players' responsibility, not the DM's.

As the players started getting dazed & confused in the dungeon & mapping became of ultimate importance (we've been walkin past this same freakin doorway for three hours now, wait, is that the same door? is that the iron spike i left?), it became clear: if one provides instant mapping for players (reveal-as-you-move mapping, etc.), a key element of the game is being nixed. All of those old school dungeon tricks to confuse the mapper(s)? Out the window. You're now holding your players' hands through the dungeon.

You may be using reveal mapping if you do not consider this bit from Mike Carr to be sage advice:

"...allow them to draw their maps from your descriptions as they wish - but make certain that your verbal descriptions of the areas they explore are accurate... avoid the considerable temptation to correct their maps once they have drawn them. It will not be uncommon for players to show you their map (especially if they're confused) & ask you, 'Is this right?' In most such instances, you should avoid correcting any mistakes there, unless it would be obvious through the eyes of the adventuring characters. Encourage good mapping skills & an attention to detail rather than falling into the rut of continual player map questions."

P.S. We do use Twiddla, though not for actual mapping (was initially a disaster for the players). We use it for situations like battles, deeper explanations of a room, etc.

YOUR MAGIC-USER IS A WANNABE RANGER

So I wanna speak a bit more in depth about Magic Missile...

First, let me spray some thoughts about magic in general regarding Wild Earth, i.e. Furthermoor, Kush & beyond...  As I've mentioned before, the Hooded Periscope blog game I have been running for over 1.5 years now has been a Moldvay/Cook/Labyrinth Lord (B/X) game from the outset.  I have a binder w/ Moldvay Basic & Cook Expert inside & that is basically what I have used exclusively (plus a few LL additions here & there, like 1st level clerics having spellcasting abilities, plus I have introduced NPCs of various classes/races not found in B/X, etc).  The text on that blog in the ruley reference sections for players - Items, Magic, Spell Descriptions, Monsters, etc. - is generally straight from Moldvay, or Cook in some instances.  When I started this blog for our Google+ game, I basically just copied & pasted the Spell Descriptions & Magic Items sections from HP into this blog.  In other words, what you are seeing
in those sections @ right, due to time-saving reasons on my part, are descriptions from Moldvay (there are a few descripts from AD&D & possibly Holmes, but basically right now what's there is Moldvay by majority).  Also, the Magical Items descriptions section only has descriptions for items that have come into play during the HP game, in other words, I was adding that stuff to the blog as the game went along, so these sections are incomplete.  Likewise, the spell lists are not complete either.  And though they are not straight from Moldvay - I'm about to get to this so please bear w/ me - they currently only include low level spells b/c right now in the game everyone is playing a low level character.  So in other words, I just havent gotten to the higher level spell selection yet.  All of that said, when the HP game began, back in April of 2010, I was using the Moldvay spell lists as they are printed in that book.  It actually was not until we had an elf character join the party that I started fiddling w/ the spell lists, & here is why:

I didnt like the fact that magic-users & elves use the same spell list.  In my mind, I felt that the two races would have encountered magic in different ways, or more succinctly, would each have a different relationship to magic.  Whether humans existed before elves, or vice versa, wasnt really the issue.  In the most basic explanation possible, I just felt that elf magic should be more tied to nature & possibly more inherent in some ways as the elf grows in experience, while human magic was more of a learned, "tapping into something"...  I/o/w, there is a reason any ole elf can cast magic, but humans knowing magic are limited to those that dedicate their lives to it.

W/ these thoughts, I began playing w/ the spell list just as the new elf was wrapping up their character.  For timeliness, since he would only be choosing two spells for his spell book, I just referred him to the Moldvay MU/elf spell list to get acquainted, while telling him I was working on a separate elf spell list & would give him a few more choices specific to elves.  Around this time I saw a discussion taking place in the OSR blogosphere regarding the use of Magic Missile.  It began with this enlightening post (which has some sweet ideas for using Enlargement, btw) that came to my attention through this post [I would highly suggest reading through these if you get the time].  And then, of course, I got an email from the elf saying he wants Magic Missile...  Though I'd never really liked the idea or image of the Magic Missile, the above posts had me thinking.  I never really thought to just remove it from the list altogether!  Keep in mind, we're talking about the Moldvay Magic Missile here, the one that is basically a magic, "glowing arrow".  The spell that Bargle, in Mentzer Basic, casts on you, or your lady cleric friend, as you go through the tutorial.  The hovering, glowing arrow.  It just seemed a little hokey then, & still seems sorta silly now.  Why an actual arrow?  A good discussion of the genesis & evolution of the spell can be found here.  I was glad to learn in the comments of these posts that most players abhor the Moldvay image of the "glowing arrow".  But now I had even deeper issues w/ it in regard to my elf vs. magic-user.  Not to stereotype the elf class, but since in B/X they are fighter/magic-users (they do not have any other class distinctions outside of that), many of them are known to carry a bow-and-arrow.  Unless they spend all their starting cash on a two-handed weapon, or whatever, they usually will go for a decent missile weapon.  So I couldnt help but ask myself, if your player has a short bow w/ arrows, & you have spellcasting abilities, why would you fill one of those valuable spell slots w/ what is basically just a bow & arrow but flashier?  I answered my own question.  Magic Missile is flashy.  Esp. to a new player when asked to "pick one of these".  So anyway, I was in a bit of a quandary.  I didnt plan to include Magic Missile on the elf list, but that was the spell from the Moldvay list that the elf wanted.  I knew also that to deny its use, now, would surely have adverse effects on the elf player's view of the game I was presenting.  So first, I tried trickery!  Rolling out the elf spell list, I explained my view of elf magic in the world & then tried to sell him on trading in his Magic Missile for the elfy version, Elvish Spears (a spell I made up, & actually like the idea of, that is modeled after MM).  This was a version of MM I could live w/, esp. for an elf.  But the elf didnt buy it.  He didnt like that to cast it, he would have to be around a tree or trees.  So in the end, I let him go w/ Magic Missile.  Since it wasnt on the elf list, the conclusion was that the elf was raised by a human magic-user & therefore one of the first spells he learned was Magic Missile.  It fit well as he joined the party while they traveled through a hollow hill wizard strondhold called Sunhillow.  FWIW, the second spell he chose was Dancing Lights, which was on the new elf list.

So, wiping the slate clean, w/ the Google+ game, I decided to start w/ the same spell list as the HP game, but just remove MM altogether, then add a few spells found in Holmes & AD&D, but not Moldvay.  Interestingly, the rule set I decided to reference to you all, Swords & Wizardry: White Box, does not include MM in its lists either.  That is b/c MM was not in the first OD&D books.  You can read about that here. 

That said, since you all are experienced players, & we have already had the conversation about using spells creatively (keep in mind that doing so will earn you XP), while I dont plan to add MM to the 1st level M-U spell list, I am open for discussion in regard to its inclusion in the 2nd level M-U list.  It seems clear to me that Amadi is concerned that the power of certain high level monsters may be difficult for the party to overcome if the M-U does not have access to MM & this seems like a valid argument.  While I dont totally agree, hopefully my initial exclusion of MM has caused you all to think about other spells in ways you may not have previously.  Anyways, as of now, I am sort of leaning toward the Holmes version that requires a "to-hit" roll (thanks for the heads up, Zenopus Archives), & if your magic-user can cast off more than one MM, they would roll a to-hit for each.  We can talk about it.  But please, oh please, can we lose the glowing arrow?

MISSILE WEAPONS IN MELEE COMBAT + FRIENDLY FIRE

In discussion of rules surrounding "Can I or Can't I fire off an arrow, etc," I flipped through various books & pdfs & here's what I came up with:

CHAINMAIL (combat rules used for OD&D)
-------------------------------------------------------
"Missiles cannot be fired into a melee...  Missile troops interspaced w/ other footmen forming a defensive line may refuse combat & move back 3" out of melee range."

HOLMES BASIC
----------------------
"Once the party is engaged in melee, arrows can not be fired into the fight b/c of the probability of hitting friendly characters."

AD&D DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE
-------------------------------------------------
"discharge of missiles into an existing melee is easily handled.  It is permissible, of course, & the results might not be too incompatible w/ the desires of the discharging party.  Assign probabilities to each participant in the melee or target group according to sheer numbers.  In the case of participants of varying size use half value for size "S", normal value for size "M", and one & one-half value for size "L" creatures which are not too much larger than man-size.  Total the values for each group & ratio one over the other.  [Seriously? ed.]  If side A has 4 man-sized participants, & side B has 3 smaller than man-sized participants & 1 size "L" bugbear, the ratio is 4:3.  Then, according to the direction of the missile discharge, determine hits by using the same ratio.  If 7 missiles were loosed, 4 would have a chance to hit side A, 3 side B...  [there's a bit more of the same, then] You may assign a minor chance of the missile striking a friend if you wish, but this writer [Gygax], for instance, always allows archery hits to hit a giant or a similar creature engaged against a human or smaller opponent."

MOLDVAY BASIC
------------------------
"Missile fire is a type of combat used when the enemy is too far away to fight hand-to-hand (more than 5 feet away)...  is fought @ a range beyond 5 feet but still within sight...  The DM must check for surprise (or initiative) to see which side fires first...  If the distance between enemies is reduced to 5' or less as a result of movement, hand-to-hand combat may take place."

MENTZER BASIC
------------------------
"Devices cannot be used in hand-to-hand combat, or against targets within 5 feet."

Interestingly, there seems to be an actual evolution of thought here.  First, it's no missiles where there's melee then no missiles once melee begins b/c then there seems to be a bit of a sea change on the topic when Gygax works up AD&D strangely stating "it is permissible, of course..." & then goes on to spell out how to do it which proves to be a royal pain in the ass to execute in any decently sized battle...  He then refers to the older rules about friendly fire, but tries to simplify the thought by saying, basically, make it easy on yourself, if the monsters you are firing at are much larger than the bowman, dont sweat it...  THEN, w/ the following editions of Basic, unless I missed something, you dont see "you can't fire into melee" anymore...  Now, it appears permissible, but you must be at least 5 feet away from the target to do so, & also, you must have the initiative*, not be surprised, etc.

My general ruling on this will always have a lot to do w/ what exactly a player tells me they do, how the initiative falls, & if there is any question as to whether there can be success of actually getting an arrow or missile fire off...  If so, a Dexterity check may come into play...  HOWEVER, if a player gives me solid info to go on beforehand, e.g. I move a bit away from the party, toward the monsters' rear & jump on a table, etc.  Generally there will be no questions asked.  But when assumed melee combat begins, initiative starts being rolled & a player just says, "I fire my bow" when it gets to them, there are just too many variables that cannot be determined, therefore, it cannot even be an option, especially when the player does not have initiative*.  It is mainly just a role-playing thing.  If a player has thought out their attack then I should hear about it, but if they havent, it becomes obvious, & therefore their character shouldnt be able to suddenly do so.

So anyway, what if a player is able to fire their missile into melee combat per above? What about "friendly fire"?  As the threat should be real, any miss where the to-hit roll (w/ modifiers) is lower than the discharger's DEX score subtracted from 20, has a 10% (1 on 1d10) chance of hitting a friendly PC or NPC; generally the closest to the missed target. Here's an example:  Legolas in an impressive feat of dexterity, skirts the melee & lofts himself into the air from a treetrunk, firing off an arrow @ an Orc that is surrounded by 2 friendly fighters.  Legolas rolls a 5 to-hit (rolls a 3, but gets +2 for DEX bonus; NOTE: in this instance, missile fire does not get a to-hit bonus for close range - only so when discharger is stationary when firing).  Legolas has missed the Orc, therefore you take his DEX score of 16 & subtract it from 20.  That tells you that if Legolas' to-hit was below a 4, then there is a chance he has hit one of the friendly fighters.  As his to-hit is a 5, he hits no one & battle resumes to the next w/ initiative.  That said, no matter what one's DEX or modifiers, if the discharger rolls a natural "1" to-hit, they will always hit a friendly unit (no 1d10 roll necessary), though in some situations a GM may devise another situation they find more appropriate.



*as for Initiative, I do it a bit differently than most I'm sure, perhaps it's my experience w/ other games, but the closest D&D "option" would be Moldvay's "Pair Combat" rule.  In that variant, instead of each "side" rolling for initiative & one "side" attacking after the other, you pair off one member from each party attacking another member of the opposite party & then each "pair" rolls for initiative against one another.  The way I do it, however, is w/o the pairing.  Instead, every character & monster rolls for initiative, adds any modifiers, & then the combat executes from 6 down to 1.  Personally, I feel this gives a more visual flow to combat.  Someone may get a jump that usually doesnt, etc.  (However, two-handed weapon wielders always go off @ 1, unless they have DEX modifier - that is, if using variable weapon damage)

DEMERIT TABLE

Roll a 1d20.  If description does not specify time, it is for remainder of current day.  Feel the pain, or slight pleasure.

1. Weird rash on face for 2 days, -2 reactions, -2 CHA
2. Door slammed in face, bloodied nose, -2 CHA
3. Caught w/ farmer's daughter, took -1 HP whip blow before escape
4. Bit by strange dog, 30% chance for disease, ask DM
5. Bit your tongue badly; cant eat or speak well for day (-1 CON, -1 CHA)
6. You were mistakenly seen as someone else, watch out...
7. Unknown berry eaten causes 1d10 hour erection (female reroll)
8. Just realized you have crabs, it's killin you, -1 initiative until cured
9. You've developed a heal spur, -30 per turn/round & it sucks (1 whole week!)
10. Food poisoning, cant eat for a day, -1 HP + -2 CON
11. Hangover from hell, dont remember shit, -1 on all rolls, all day
12. Common cold sets in, -2 CON for 2 days
13. Hit by random arrow on street for 2 damage, taken to local house.
14. Hand slammed in door, cant use melee weapon for day
15. Raging hemorrhoid, -30 per turn/round for 2 days
16. Reality sucks, you've been freaking out about it, -1 INT & WIS for day
17. Your fire recently burnt your hair off, you are charred on dome
18. Fit of diarrhea, ev 2 hrs, 1d6 chance (1 or 6) you shit yrself, must pause for 30 mn.
19. In travels, may have taken on a parasite, seek doctor, etc.
20. Slept the day away, somehow, lucky bastard, +1 HP even if above max.