TEXT:  
  ADDITIONAL 
  Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames 
  Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil 
  And Miniature Figures 
   
   
  SUPPLEMENT 
  PHILOTOMY’S MUSINGS 
  BY 
  JASON CONE             
   
     NOT Published by 
   
  TSR RULES 
   
     Price $0.00 
  
  1 
   
   
   
   
  PHILOTOMY’S 
   
  Musings 
  A collection of interpretations, house rulings, expansions, and 
  general pontification on the nature of the Original Dungeons & 
  Dragons rules by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson 
  By Jason Cone 
   
   
  
  2 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Writing: Jason Cone 
  Editing/Layout: Jason Vey 
  Artwork culled from various sources around the Internet and used 
  under the Fair Use Doctrine.  No claim to ownership or challenge to the 
  copyright of the artwork’s owners is intended or implied. 
  Dungeons & Dragons® is a registered trademark of Wizards of the 
  Coast, Inc.  No claim or challenge to this copyright is intended or 
  implied.  
  Copyright © 2007 by Jason Cone.   
  Philotomy’s OD&D Musings can be found at: http://www.philotomy.com/ 
   
   
   
  
  3 
   
  CONTENTS 
  Overview ........................................................................................................... 4 
  What This Book Is About ............................................................................... 4 
  What This Is Not About ................................................................................. 5 
  Ability Scores & Bonuses .................................................................................. 5 
  Abstract Combat ................................................................................................ 6 
  Armor Class ....................................................................................................... 8 
  Burning Oil ......................................................................................................... 8 
  Called Shots ...................................................................................................... 9 
  Class & Race ................................................................................................... 10 
  Creating an "Old-School" Dungeon ................................................................. 12 
  Considering OD&D? ........................................................................................ 19 
  Approach it fresh ......................................................................................... 19 
  Play it for what it is ...................................................................................... 19 
  Restrain yourself ......................................................................................... 19 
  Critical Hits ...................................................................................................... 19 
  Damage & Hit Points ....................................................................................... 20 
  The Dungeon as a Mythic Underworld ............................................................ 22 
  Essential & Recommended Material ................................................................ 24 
  Essentials .................................................................................................... 24 
  Highly Recommended ................................................................................. 24 
  Recommended for Inspiration ..................................................................... 24 
  Experience & Advancement ............................................................................ 25 
  Gaze Attacks ................................................................................................... 27 
  Helmets ........................................................................................................... 27 
  Hit Dice ............................................................................................................ 28 
  Initiative & the Combat Sequence ................................................................... 29 
  Detailed Combat Sequence ........................................................................ 29 
  Rules for Missile/Ranged Attacks ........................................................... 30 
  Rules for Spellcasting ............................................................................. 30 
  Rules for Melee & Movement .................................................................. 31 
  Background ............................................................................................. 32 
  Simple Combat Sequence........................................................................... 32 
  Level Scaling ................................................................................................... 32 
  Magic Armor & Shields .................................................................................... 34 
  Magic Swords .................................................................................................. 34 
  Movement in Combat ...................................................................................... 35 
  Movement While Exploring .............................................................................. 36 
  Multiple Attacks ............................................................................................... 37 
  Player Skill vs. PC Skill .................................................................................... 37 
  Rose Colored Glasses ..................................................................................... 38 
  Scrolls .............................................................................................................. 39 
  Spell Special Effects ........................................................................................ 40 
  Surprise ........................................................................................................... 41 
  THAC0? ........................................................................................................... 42 
  Thieves & Thief Skills ...................................................................................... 43 
  Turning Undead ............................................................................................... 45 
  Two-Weapon Fighting ..................................................................................... 47 
  Vancian Magic ................................................................................................. 47 
  
  4 
   
   
  OVERVIEW 
  What This Book Is About 
  This booklet is about OD&D, as it is played when I run the game. When 
  I talk about "OD&D," I'm referring to Original Dungeons & Dragons 
  (published in 1974), which included three booklets: Men & Magic, 
  Monsters & Treasure, and The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. 
  There were multiple rules supplements released for OD&D, including 
  Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardy, and Gods, Demi-gods, & 
  Heroes. There is also Swords & Spells, a set of miniature rules based 
  on D&D and Chainmail. Lastly, I consider the Holmes Basic Set as a 
  close relation of the OD&D family. My personal OD&D game consists of 
  rules from the three brown books, plus house-rules (i.e. I'm not using 
  many rules from the supplements). It also owes a great deal to Meepo's 
  Holmes Companion, which got me started down the OD&D path. I hope 
  the thoughts on this page will be helpful to someone that is thinking 
  about running an OD&D game. There's also a link to my B4 Lost City 
  campaign log on the web, at: 
  http://www.philotomy.com/lost_city.html 
   
  
  5 
   
  What This Is Not About 
  Many people use the term "OD&D" in a much broader sense than I do, 
  including what I would call "Classic D&D" in the definition. This page is 
  NOT about the 1981 B/X sets (Moldvay/ Cook/Marsh), the BECMI sets 
  (starting with 1983's Basic Set by Frank Mentzer), or the Rules 
  Cyclopedia. It is also not about AD&D1 or 3rd edition/d20-based D&D. I 
  have played all of those versions and enjoyed them to one degree or 
  another, but I find the most enjoyment with the OD&D rules. 
  If you find this site useful, please consider a donation to help me cover 
  the hosting costs. Any assistance is appreciated!  
  ABILITY SCORES & BONUSES 
  One of OD&D's most distinctive qualities is its rules for handling ability 
  bonuses, and its philosophy of bonuses, in general. Compared to later 
  versions of the game, OD&D bonuses are uncommon. This means that 
  a +1 bonus in OD&D is a bigger deal than a +1 bonus in B/X, BECM, 
  AD&D, or 3E D&D; you need a truly significant advantage before 
  receiving a +1 bonus (e.g. a magic sword). Consider that Str does not 
  affect attack or damage rolls. Dex does not affect Armor Class. Dex 
  does affect attack rolls with ranged attacks, but the largest bonuses 
  you can receive from high Dex is +1. Et cetera. 
  One effect of this approach is a de-emphasis on the mechanical 
  importance of ability scores. A Fighting Man with a Str of 17 and a 
  Fighting Man with a Str of 10 will be equally effective with their swords; 
  the only mechanical difference is that the high-strength Fighting Man 
  will advance through the levels faster (it just comes easier to him). In 
  game-terms, there isn't a significant difference in getting slashed by a 
  sword-wielding man with 17 Str and a sword-wielding man with 10 Str. 
  Some gamers sneer that this is completely unrealistic, and the stronger 
  man would have a big advantage. But again, you need to look at it from 
  the same scope and scale as the game. Consider that an OD&D ogre 
  does 1d6+2 points of damage, due to its size and strength, and OD&D 
  ogres are bigger and stronger than any man. Even small bonuses like 
  +1 and +2 are big deals, in OD&D. 
  The de-emphasis on the mechanical importance of ability scores does 
  not mean that ability scores are useless, or that it is necessarily 
  superfluous to have a 3-18 range when it really comes down to "low, 
  average, or high." On the contrary, ability scores remain an integral part 
  of describing and defining the PC. However, the OD&D approach 
                                                        
  1 N.B.: When played using most of the rules from the supplements, OD&D is similar to 
  1st edition AD&D, but as I mentioned, I don't use much from the supplements. 
  
  6 
   
  demands creativity and judgment from the players and the referee, 
  apart from defined rules. For example, consider this quotation about 
  the effects of Charisma: "...the charisma score is usable to decide such 
  things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a 
  swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." (Men & Magic p. 11) In other 
  words, your ability scores are still meant to be taken into account, but 
  exactly how they apply is left up to the players and the referee. 
  Another effect of this approach is that bonuses from other sources 
  increase in their relative value. A magical axe +1 is a big deal. Any item 
  which decreases an enemy's chance to hit you (e.g. magic armor) is a 
  big deal, even if it is only a +1 item. Even the +1 benefit from a regular 
  (non-magic) shield is significant. In general, increases of all sorts 
  (including increases in PC level) have greater significance in OD&D, 
  relative to later editions of the game. It also affects things like the 
  signficance of better armor. It's certainly possible for a 1st level Fighting 
  Man to start the game with chain mail, or even plate mail. That's a 
  signficant advantage over most of the foes he'll face; there aren't a lot 
  of modifiers to negate the difference. 
  Also consider how OD&D's philosophy affects rolling for ability scores. 
  The original concept behind ability scores was a 3-18 range with "bell 
  curve probability"; this is easily generated using 3d6. Later versions of 
  the game started making bonuses higher and more common, 
  introducing "bonus inflation." Bonuses became much more important in 
  the game mechanics, and so the importance of ability scores 
  increased. However, the nature of the 3-18 bell curve means very high 
  ability scores are much less likely than average ability scores. 
  Characters that would be perfectly acceptable and viable under the 
  original rules were hopeless characters under the "inflated" systems, so 
  later editions introduced new methods of generating ability scores to 
  address this. Consider this quotation from the AD&D Players 
  Handbook: "It is usually essential to the character's survival to be 
  exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability 
  characteristics." That may be true under AD&D's system of bonuses 
  and penalties, but it is not true under the original OD&D system. Rolling 
  a character using 3d6 is a perfectly suitable approach in OD&D. 
  ABSTRACT COMBAT 
  OD&D combat is highly abstract, which is one of the reasons it moves 
  quickly, even when many combatants are involved. I use a 10-12 
  second combat round in my game.2 A lot can happen in that time. The 
                                                        
  2 OD&D defaults to using 1 minute combat rounds 
  
  7 
   
  combat rules assume that combatants are taking their best shots while 
  fighting, and in standard situations, it does not provide for specific hit 
  locations. Your PC's one attack roll does not represent a single swing 
  or thrust, but rather an entire series of feints, swings, and manuevers. 
  A missed attack roll does not mean that you simply took a swing and 
  missed, but rather that you failed to score any telling blows. You might 
  have missed entirely as your enemy dodged around, or you might have 
  hammered at him as his shield protected him from everything you 
  dished out; this "flavor text" is up largely up to the referee, but in game-
  terms it works out the same: no damage inflicted. A successful attack 
  roll means that one or more of your attempts succeeded in reducing the 
  enemy's 
  fighting 
  capability. 
  This 
  could be because you physically hurt 
  him, or it could mean you're tiring him 
  out, or it could mean that you're 
  pressing his luck and skill to the 
  breaking point, or it could mean that 
  you've dealt a blow to his confidence. 
  Again, this is largely up to the referee 
  and how he describes loss of hit 
  points in combat. 
  Because of the abstract nature of 
  combat, I am generally against more 
  than one melee attack roll per round 
  (although this may not apply to 
  missile fire; q.v. Initiative & the Combat Sequence); after all, the roll 
  doesn't represent a single swing, merely the chance to inflict damage, 
  regardless of the number of swings. Instead of additional rolls, it is 
  almost always better to represent an improved chance to inflict damage 
  by applying a bonus to the attack roll, or a modifier to damage. In my 
  OD&D game, PCs receive a single melee attack roll per round (the only 
  exception being high level fighters facing enemies with less than one 
  hit die, who may attack a number of such foes equal to their level; 
  however, even then, the fighter gets a single melee roll for each 
  opponent he's allowed to attack). Monsters sometimes get multiple 
  attacks (although not as commonly as in later editions), but monsters 
  and PCs do not necessarily need to follow the same rules. (If this 
  seems unfair, consider that you can give more experience points for 
  monsters with large numbers of attacks (e.g. see the Holmes XP rules); 
  the discrepancy between PCs and monsters is accounted for by 
  classifying the ability to make multiple attack rolls as a monster special 
  ability.) 
  
  8 
   
  ARMOR CLASS 
  In OD&D, Armor Class is much more of a fixed value than in other 
  editions. As it applies to PCs (and to most humanoid monsters), it is 
  more like "armor type." The main reason this is true is because there 
  are not many modifiers to AC. Dex doesn't modify it. Magic armor and 
  shields don't modify it (they modify the opponent's attack roll). Rings of 
  protection don't modify it (they work like magic armor). Et cetera. 
  Additionally, there is no "overlap" in the armor classes. That is, plate 
  armor is AC3, and there is no other combination that makes up AC3 
  (e.g. no splint mail + shield). The fact that OD&D AC is so closely 
  related to armor type makes using the weapon vs. AC rules from 
  Supplement I easier to use, if one is so inclined. 
  BURNING OIL 
  Using flaming oil to cover a retreat or attack an enemy is a time-
  honored technique in D&D. The typical approach is to prepare flasks of 
  oil as firebombs, lighting the rags and hurling the flasks at the enemy. 
  Another common technique to is simply hurl the flask and coat the 
  enemy or area with oil, and then follow this up with a hurled torch or 
  other source of ignition. Oil is also simply poured on the ground in a 
  strategic location and subsequently lit, either as a trap or as a deterrent 
  to pursuit. 
  Flaming oil is a potent weapon in most editions of D&D. In fact, it offers 
  low-level PCs one of their best damage-dealing tactics. Oil is cheap, 
  readily available, and very effective. It's so effective that some referees 
  frown on its use, ruling that common lamp oil is not adequate fuel for a 
  firebomb. Sometimes, these referees will allow "greek fire" variants that 
  are designed and intended for combat use. Obviouly, "greek fire" 
  variants cost more than a vial of common lamp oil. 
  I like the use of oil as a weapon. I think it adds all sorts of opportunties 
  for interesting tactics and terrible screw-ups. Consequently, I don't 
  worry about the quality or effectiveness of "common lamp oil" 
  (especially real-world medieval lamp oil) as a factor in the use of 
  flaming oil. In a campaign world full of fantastic flora and fauna, I think 
  it's possible that the common lamp oil might be dervived from a source 
  that produces potent fuel. I think that if the circumstances of its use are 
  considered, the employment of flaming oil as a weapon does not 
  disrupt or unbalance the game. Here's how I handle burning oil in my 
  game: 
  • 
  A flask of oil will create a pool of oil 5-6 feet in diameter that will 
  burn for approximately 1 turn. 
  
  9 
   
  • 
  A thrown flask has a 90% chance of shattering (roll 1d10, with a 
  roll of 1 indicating a failure to shatter) 
  • 
  Anyone within 5 ft. of the impact point must save vs. Death Ray 
  or be splashed. An ignited splash does 1-3 points of damage. 
  • 
  A direct hit with ignited oil does 1d6 damage for 2 rounds. (This 
  assumes the victim and/or his friends are actively trying to wipe 
  off the oil and douse the flames.) 
  • 
  A missed throw will miss by 1-10 feet. The direction of the miss 
  will be determined by rolling 1d8. 
   
  Considerations in the use of flaming oil: 
  • 
  Storage (bulk and weight) of multiple flasks 
  • 
  Relative fragility of flasks in dungeoneering situations (e.g. falls, 
  et cetera) 
  • 
  Time required to retrieve stored flasks 
  • 
  Time required to preprare a flask (unstopper, insert a rag, et 
  cetera) 
  • 
  Source of ignition 
  • 
  Smell/smoke/wandering monsters 
  • 
  Enemies who learn and adapt to the PCs tactics 
  CALLED SHOTS 
  I think the concept of the called shot is a poor fit for D&D because of 
  the abstract nature of 
  the 
  combat 
  system. 
  Unless there is a special 
  reason for targeting a 
  specific 
  area, 
  D&D 
  combat assumes that 
  combatants will take the 
  best shots they can get. 
  For example, consider 
  the situation of a PC 
  fighter facing off against 
  an orc warrior wearing 
  chainmail and a helm. 
  The player might say "I 
  swing at his head with 
  my sword." Since this 
  combat is a completely normal situation, it follows the standard 
  assumptions of the rules, and the PC should not receive any special 
  modifiers to his attack roll, or to damage if his attack succeeds. Rather, 
  I would treat his statement as flavor. I might respond, "Okay, make a 
  
  10 
   
  standard attack roll..." If the attack succeeds, but only does a single 
  point of damage, I might say "You step forward, raining blows down 
  around the orc's head and shoulders; he manages to fend off most of 
  your strikes, but one glances off his helm, drawing a thin trickle of blood 
  from his temple. He grunts and snarls at you." If the attack hits and 
  does six points of damage, I might say "You step forward, raining blows 
  down around the orc's head and shoulders; he parries wildly, grimacing 
  as you nearly knock his weapon from his hand, then a vicious 
  backswing connects solidly, ringing his cloven helm like a gong. Gore 
  splatters across your sword-arm, and his falling body almost pulls the 
  hilt from your grasp, but you hold on and jerk the weapon free." If the 
  attack missed, I might say "You step forward, raining blows down 
  around the orc's head and shoulders; he parries easily, guiding your 
  attacks to the side while sneering at you with yellowed tusks..." 
  Nevertheless, there may be special situations that fall outside of 
  standard combat assumptions. For example, an arrow shot to pin 
  clothing to the wall, an attack intended to shatter the potion bottle in an 
  enemy's hand, et cetera. There is also precendent in D&D for striking a 
  specific spot on certain creatures (e.g. a beholder's eye); typically, the 
  monster description assigns a separate AC for this location, as 
  appropriate. I think this approach is superior to an approach that 
  applies a standard modifier for called shots (e.g. -4). Rather than a 
  "one-size-fits-all" modifier for such actions, each called shot should be 
  handled separately, with the referee determining difficulty and 
  assigning a target AC or die roll modifier that he believes appropriate. 
  CLASS & RACE 
  In original OD&D, there are three classes: Fighting Man, Magic User, 
  and Cleric. In addition to humans, PCs can also be Elves, Dwarves, 
  and Hobbits (Halflings). Humans may be any class. PC Elves are a 
  combination of Fighting Man and Magic User. PC Dwarves are Fighting 
  Men. PC Hobbits are also Fighting Men. I like the three-class scheme, 
  and in particular I think that having no Thief class has a positive effect 
  on the game, eliminating the special skills and making all the PCs 
  active participants in searching, stealthy-movement, et cetera. As time 
  goes by, I'm less and less fond of the demi-human races, though. I 
  don't restrict players from choosing a non-human race, but I tend to 
  prefer human PCs in my games (and thus approve of the level 
  limitations placed on non-human PCs). 
  A few brief notes on specific classes and races in my OD&D games: 
  CLERICS: In my game, all priests are not members of the Cleric class. 
  Instead, Clerics are rare and devoted holy men that can perform 
  
  11 
   
  miracles (i.e. Cleric spells) and are usually militants of one sort or 
  another. Clerics are rarely found in common shrines and temples; they 
  tend to be action-oriented, smiting evil foes and performing holy 
  missions. Successful and famous Clerics often form their own temples 
  and orders, so they can also be found in the upper ranks of the church 
  hierarchies. (Note that only humans may be Clerics. This doesn't mean 
  that demi-humans don't have priests or holy men, but only that these 
  demi-human priests are not members of the Cleric class.) 
  ELVES: The OD&D rules on the Elf leave a great deal of room for 
  interpretation, and individual referees handle elves in different ways. In 
  my game, Elves start as both Fighting Man and Magic User (i.e. 
  Veteran and Medium). For starting hit points, the Elf rolls 1d6+1 (i.e. 
  Veteran hit dice) and 1d6 (Medium hit dice), taking the higher of the 
  two rolls. He tracks experience for each class separately. At the 
  beginning of each adventure session (loosely defined as the from the 
  start of an adventure until XP is awarded in a safe place), the Elf's 
  player declares whether he is adventuring as a Fighter or as a Magic 
  User. During that session, the Elf's earned XP goes to the declared 
  class, and he fights and saves as the declared class. Regardless of 
  declared class, the Elf can use any weapon, and may cast spells if he 
  is not wearing armor, or if he is wearing magical armor. The Elf 
  maintains a single hit point total. When the Elf advances a level, he 
  rolls the total hit dice for his new level (e.g. if he advanced to Hero, he 
  rolls 4d6), and takes the greater of his roll or his current hit point total). 
  Elves are, of course, limited to 4th level Fighting Man (Hero) and 8th 
  level Magic User (Warlock). The Elf abilities from Chainmail are 
  translated as +1 to hit against kobolds, goblins, and hobgoblins, and 
  orcs (the greater bonuses in Chainmail are interpreted as coming from 
  magical weapons and from mass-combat tactics against certain foes). 
  Elves possess infravision and can see in the dark (however, this 
  special vision may not work in supernatural or mythic underworld 
  settings). Note that while Chainmail mentions elvish invisibility, this is 
  not translated as an individual ability, but as the use of magical elven 
  cloaks or invisibility spells. 
  DWARVES: Dwarven PCs are Fighting Men, limited to 6th level 
  (Myrmidon). In addition to the abilities listed in Men & Magic, dwarves 
  only take 1/2 damage from ogres, trolls, and giants (this is an 
  adaptation of the Chainmail bonus). Dwarves possess infravision and 
  can see in the dark (however, this special vision may not work in 
  supernatural or mythic underworld settings). 
  HOBBITS: Hobbit PCs are Fighting Men, limited to 4th level (Hero). 
  Their "deadly accuracy with missiles" is translated from Chainmail as a 
  
  12 
   
  +1 to hit with slings. They are extremely good at hiding in brush or 
  woods (adjudicated by the referee based on the circumstances). 
  CREATING AN "OLD-SCHOOL" DUNGEON 
  You're all excited about the idea of running a traditional, old-school 
  dungeon. You sit down with some graph paper and pencils. You spend 
  some time drawing a nice map of the first level, and start keying. Hours 
  go by. Your wife asks when you're coming to bed. Suddenly the weight 
  and enormity of the task descends on you, stopping you in your tracks. 
  How can you finish? How can you get the whole thing done? How do 
  you keep things fresh and interesting for the players going through it? 
  How do you even begin to go about designing this thing?  
  I don't have a one-true-way, guaranteed method to offer, but I do have 
  some advice that might help. Most of this is nothing I've dreamed up on 
  my own, but rather bits of wisdom I've gathered from various sources.  
  Gary Gygax's words in the original D&D rule books are a primary 
  source, but I also gleaned much from online sources, including the 
  ideas of T. Foster (Trent Foster), Evreaux, Melan (Gabor Lux), Wheggi, 
  Stormgiant, grodog, and many others. This is also a very broad look at 
  the subject, not delving down into the details of the task. 
  
  13 
   
  One thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to create the whole the 
  right off the bat, before you start playing. In fact, attempting that is 
  probably setting yourself up to fail. You can sketch out a "Skull-
  mountain"-style elevation or side-view of the dungeon, including some 
  deeper levels, but you needn't draw and key the entire thing. Instead, 
  start off with the first three levels, and start running it. You can certainly 
  have a framework or general idea of what you'll be placing in the 
  deeper areas, but you don't need to finish (or even map) those areas, 
  yet. You'll develop the deeper levels (as well as continuing to develop 
  and modify the upper levels) as the game continues. 
  This is a very cool, and very "old school" approach. Your dungeon will 
  evolve in a very organic manner. During play, the players are going to 
  ask questions and take actions that make you think and give you ideas 
  that never occurred to you. Actual play is going to shape the direction 
  and design of your dungeon, often in unexpected fashion. You and the 
  players will be in a sort of creativity feedback loop, and your dungeon 
  will be all the better for it. 
  When creating your first three (or so) levels, there are a few general 
  concepts that you should keep in mind. First, remember to offer the 
  players plenty of choices. Even at the entrance to the place, don't give 
  them one path to follow, give them four or five choices to make, right off 
  the bat. For that matter, there needn't be only a single entrance. Have 
  several ways in, with a few of the entrances going directly to deeper 
  areas. Maybe new entrances open up or are discovered as play 
  continues. Another important way to give players choices is to offer 
  them many opportunities to move up and down through the levels. You 
  want the players to decide when they want to go deeper. This isn't a 
  video game where you play through the level to the end with the boss 
  monster, then find the stairs. If they're a group of 1st level PCs, but 
  they want to try their luck and skill on the 4th level of the dungeon, 
  that's their decision. 
  Also, remember that stairs needn't go up or down a single level, and 
  that's it. Give the players ways to go down multiple levels. Some paths 
  up or down may skip one or more levels. You may be leery of including 
  a stair, shaft, or elevator that spans multiple levels, fearing that your 
  players will go down into undeveloped areas of the dungeon. That's 
  true; they might. However, it's more likely that they will be fearful of 
  going too deep, and even if they do descend to a level you haven't 
  developed, they'll be very jumpy and very likely to stick close to their 
  line of retreat. You can wing a hall or a room, or even an encounter 
  from the appropriate wandering monster table. Usually a group dipping 
  down below their comfort-zone will retreat after a quick look around and 
  
  14 
   
  a maybe a scare (even hearing a threatening sound can be enough to 
  send them scurrying back to safer ground). Once you know that the 
  PCs are dipping down into those areas, you'll also have the motivation 
  to work on and develop them. There's no goad like regular play to 
  break dungeon-writers' block. 
  When drawing your maps, include multiple paths and choices, but also 
  keep in mind that you want your players to be able to embark in 
  meaningful exploration. You want them to be able to use their minds 
  and their skill to make real discoveries. Include some dead ends, and 
  leave some space on the map where you might later add stairs, shafts, 
  and secret areas, as your dungeon continues to develop through play. 
  Other desirable features include things like long, twisty passages, 
  where they can't see the end. These will play on their fear (i.e. the 
  unknown), and offer opportunities for interesting pursuit and evasion. A 
  similar desirable feature are "pinch points" on the map. These are 
  locations where access to a larger area or section is controlled by one 
  or two points. Knowledge of and control of these pinch points can be an 
  important factor if the PCs are being pursed and need a place to mount 
  a defense. 
  Related to pinch points is the concept of a sublevel. A dungeon 
  sublevel is an area that is isolated from the main level, usually by some 
  sort of secret pinch point. In many old school dungeons, sublevels are 
  a kind of reward in and of themselves. They tend to be smaller than full 
  levels, and are often themed, although neither of these is a rule that 
  cannot be broken. Sublevels often contain fantastic elements and large 
  treasures, but they can also be more dangerous than normal. One of 
  the great things about sublevels is that they can easily be added to an 
  existing dungeon layout. This is a good way to incorporate third-party 
  modules into your dungeon, as well. 
  A large consideration when drawing your maps is how to lay them out. 
  One common choice is graph paper with 6 squares per inch, but that 
  varies by taste, and by the size of the level. I've also seen dungeon 
  maps (especially cavern maps) drawn on hex-paper (e.g. Isle of the 
  Ape uses this approach). However, there is something to be said for 
  eschewing graph paper, entirely, and drawing your maps on plain white 
  paper. This frees you from the contstraints of the grid, and you might 
  be surprised to find that your mapping takes on an entirely fresh 
  character, with levels stretching out or sprawling in a much more 
  organic and natural manner. Varying your approach from level to level 
  is another good technique for keeping things fresh. One level might be 
  very maze and grid-like, with relatively thin walls and not much rock, 
  stone or earth between areas. Another might use large chambers, 
  
  15 
   
  widely spaced, with curving tunnels through thick areas of stone. Trying 
  different approaches to the act of mapping will naturally result in 
  different styles of map, in many cases. 
  How big to make your levels is another question that will come up 
  almost immediately. There is no one correct answer, but the 
  considerations I've already listed will have an impact. Another important 
  consideration is the "density" of your dungeon, defined by the 
  distribution of monsters. The traditional approach is to create a 
  dungeon with about a third of encounter areas (e.g. rooms) containing 
  monsters. That may seem to be a very "empty" dungeon. However, that 
  empty space serves multiple purposes. It acts as a buffer between 
  dangerous areas. It presents a measure of uncertainty to the players, 
  and they need to balance their desire to search everything and 
  everywhere with the danger of wandering monsters. It offers the benefit 
  of repeat play, since they are unlikely to be able to explore everything 
  on a level before continuing to the next. It offers room to run, allowing 
  for meaningful evasion and pursuit, where the PCs can use the space 
  and multiple paths along with techniques like hold portal and dropping 
  food or treasure in order to extricate themselves from situations beyond 
  their capabilities. It also offers the referee the ability to naturally re-
  stock, change, and add features (a secret stair to the newly completed 
  sixth level could be penciled into the dusty and unvisited area of the 
  first level, for example). 
  The question which naturally follows the distribution of monsters is the 
  distribution of treasure. The traditional guideline is that half of the 
  encounter areas with monsters will have treasure. Additionally, one-
  sixth of the "empty" encounter areas will have treasure, although such 
  unguarded treasure will, no doubt, be craftily hidden and perhaps long-
  forgotten or guarded by ancient traps or magic. Treasure guarded by 
  monsters may or may not be hidden or trapped. If it includes magic 
  items, those will often be carried or used by the creatures, of course. 
  A very important consideration, and one that impacts the size of the 
  levels, is just how much treasure should be placed. In the vast majority 
  of old-school D&D games, treasure is the main goal (i.e. the PCs are 
  seeking fortune and glory), and will provide the bulk of the XP. A typical 
  old school campaign might have 80% of the XP coming from treasure, 
  and the remaining 20% coming from defeating monsters. So the 
  amount of treasure you stock your dungeon with will impact how many 
  experience points the PCs earn. You need to provide enough XP to 
  allow them to progress. 
  
  16 
   
  For the first level, especially, keep in mind that it's likely that the PCs 
  will "lose" XP through attrition. That is, PCs will loot treasure (and thus 
  XP) from the dungeon, but then die in a later encounter. They'll also 
  overlook some treasure, simply not finding it. They may acquire XP 
  from unexpected sources or side-adventures outside the dungeon, as 
  well, and they may also acquire XP from dipping down into the lower 
  levels, so judging the "correct" amount of treasure (i.e. XP) to place is 
  more of a loose art than a science. 
  I suggest taking the average XP required to advance for a party of 
  around 5 PCs and using that as a guideline for the amount of treasure 
  you should place. For example, if a first level party needs around 
  10,000 XP for everyone to advance to second level, you need at least 
  8,000 XP worth of treasure (i.e. 80% of the 10,000, with the balance 
  coming from monsters). However, taking attrition and missed treasure 
  into consideration, you probably need to at least double that amount. 
  There are several approaches you can take, given this guideline. You 
  can use the treasure tables from the rule books or from various 
  collections of monster and treasure assortments to assist with the 
  process. The exact distribution will vary, of course. If you have a first 
  level of 100 rooms or encounter areas, you might end up with 
  something like this: 
  20 areas with monsters and treasure  
  15 areas with monsters (no treasure)  
  15 areas with treasure (no monster)  
  50 areas without monsters or treasure  
  That would mean 35 treasures, 
  varying in value from hoard-to-
  hoard, and with the more valuable 
  caches well-hidden and possibly 
  defended by tougher monsters or 
  more dangerous traps. These would 
  be the major encounter areas that 
  most PCs will be seeking. 
  With some idea of the required 
  treasure out of the way, attention 
  must turn to the monsters that will 
  be placed on the level. As with 
  treasure, the rule book tables and 
  additional monster and treasure 
  assortments that are organized by 
  level provide an extremely valuable 
  tool for the referee. I don't suggest 
  
  17 
   
  simply rolling everything randomly, but rather using the tables as a 
  springboard for your creativity. Also, examination of the traditional table 
  will show that not all monsters on the first level of the dungeon are "first 
  level" monsters. (Part of skillful old-school play being the ability to 
  evaluate an encounter and know when to run.) The tables indicate a 
  chance for more powerful and dangerous encounters, as well. The 
  referee should choose a handful of monsters he wants to use, or a 
  theme, and then perhaps use random rolls to "fill in" the gaps. When 
  using random rolls, don't be afraid to discard results that don't work. 
  However, one of the benefits of random rolls is their utility as a spur to 
  your creativity. If you get a result that seems odd, don't immediately 
  reject it; instead, give it some thought to see if you can imagine a way 
  that such-and-such combination or situation would make some sense. 
  You might be surprised to that this results is cool ideas and encounters 
  that you might not have considered, otherwise. Lastly, don't feel bound 
  by the monsters on the tables. The tables provide a useful measure for 
  an "appropriate" encounter difficulty for a given level, but you can 
  certainly swap-out monsters of similar difficulty and number. Another 
  useful technique is "re-skinning" well known monsters, giving them a 
  different appearance while using the same stats as the original. 
  In addition to the difficulty of the monsters, the referee should consider 
  how forgiving to make their exact placement. For example, on the first 
  level, it's likely that any given fight may serious deplete a party of 
  adventurers. Therefore, encounters on the first level of the dungeon 
  might be fairly widely spaced, with small enclaves of monsters, rather 
  than large lairs of closely-placed and coordinated groups. The larger 
  and more coordinated groups are more properly placed on the lower 
  levels. That's not to say that you can't have a well-coordinated lair on 
  the first level, but if all the encounter areas on the level are well-
  coordinated and closely placed, it will be extremely difficult for a first 
  level party. 
  When choosing monsters to populate a level, do not overlook the 
  opportunity to introduce opposed factions, tension, and NPCs that 
  might offer the chance for smart play, dialogue, and "politics" within the 
  dungeon. A common criticism of dungeon-based play is that it lacks the 
  sophistication and opportunities for interesting interaction and role-play 
  that are present in cities and such. This doesn't have to be the case. 
  There's no reason a dungeon, even a mythic underworld that operates 
  according to its own rules, must be a random, non-sensical place of 
  simplistic and one-dimensional play. The dungeon can be filled with 
  just as much intrigue and opportunity for dialogue as the King's court; 
  it's up to the players (and the referee, of course), to take advantages of 
  those opportunities. 
  
  18 
   
  When considering the second, and deeper, levels, the referee can 
  follow a similar approach for determining the number of monsters and 
  the total value of the treasure. However, keep in mind that you will have 
  less PC attrition as the characters increase in hit points and power, so 
  you won't need to double the treasure, like you might on the upper 
  levels. The first few levels will probably be fairly large, but deeper levels 
  can often be smaller and less sprawling, although this is not a hard-
  and-fast rule. 
  I mentioned wandering monsters, earlier, in passing. In an old-school 
  dungeon, the purpose of wandering monsters is to provide a challenge 
  that helps encourage good play. Wandering monsters present a danger 
  that drains resources (e.g. hit points, spells, magic items) from a party 
  for very little or no reward (i.e. treasure). Since monsters are not worth 
  much XP, compared to treasure, wandering monsters are something to 
  be avoided. Smart players will try to avoid, evade, distract, or otherwise 
  bypass wandering monsters. They don't want to spend their resources 
  on wandering monsters, but rather on areas and encounters that will 
  provide a larger reward. They will try to stay focused and avoid wasting 
  time in the dungeon, since wandering monsters encountered are a 
  function of time.  
  Wandering monsters are typically rolled from a table, by level. Often, 
  the table will include a chance of a roll on a deeper-level's table, as 
  well. I typically include the following elements in my wandering monster 
  tables: 
  1. Strange or unexplained noises, smells, or events  
  2. Encounters with monsters from keyed areas on the level. 
  Killing these monsters reduces the total number of monsters 
  from that area.  
  3. Encounters with truly wandering monsters that are not from 
  keyed areas. Killing these monsters does not reduce the total 
  from keyed areas.  
  4. A chance for a roll on a harder table.  
  I also like to set up my wandering monster tables with a bell-shaped 
  probability curve, so that I can divide them into results that are 
  common, uncommon, rare, and very rare. 
  This brief treatment of old school dungeon creation barely scratches 
  the surface. I have not mentioned anything about tricks, barely touched 
  on traps, environmental hazards, puzzles, teleporters, light and 
  darkness, air, water, fungus, factions, red herrings, sublevels, and a 
  myriad of similar topics. However, I'm hopeful that this musing might 
  
  19 
   
  assist a referee contemplating the task of megadungeon creation, and 
  help him on his way. For more advice and details, I highly recommend 
  checking out the various old-school forums, which hold a great wealth 
  of wisdom and experience on creating and running interesting and fun 
  dungeons. 
  CONSIDERING OD&D? 
  So you're thinking about trying OD&D? That's great! If you're 
  experienced with other versions, I have some suggestions that might 
  help you get the most of the system: 
  Approach it fresh  
  Read the rules, and don't assume that you know how things work. 
  There are differences that may surprise you.  
  Play it for what it is  
  Don't try to make it into 3E (or whatever), approach it as its own game. 
  If you find yourself saying "that's broken," consider that you may be 
  looking at it from a completely different perspective than the original 
  designers. Try to see how the rule could be interpreted in a way that 
  doesn't seem broken. You might be surprised to find that it isn't broken, 
  it's just operating under a different set of assumptions than you're used 
  to. Embrace the design assumptions, and you'll enjoy the game more.  
  Restrain yourself  
  This is related to "play it for what it is." First, let me state up front that 
  part of what makes OD&D great is its openness and the ease with 
  which it can be house-ruled and tweaked (in fact, some might argue 
  that it demands house-rules). However, in the beginning you should try 
  and keep your house rules to a minimum. Where you do house-rule 
  (and you will), try to keep the changes small (q.v. Ability Scores & 
  Bonuses). Develop understanding of the basics of the game and its 
  "spirit" before making major changes or additions.  
  CRITICAL HITS 
  I am not a huge fan of critical hit systems in D&D; I don't think they're a 
  good fit, given the abstract nature of combat and damage. Also, since 
  the referee gets to make many more rolls than the players, critical hit 
  systems tend to favor the monsters/enemies, in the long run. 
  Nevertheless, players enjoy a game-mechanic that rewards lucky and 
  high rolls, so I do use critical hits in my OD&D game. (See the update, 
  below.) 
  In deciding how to incorporate critical hits, I knew that I didn't want to 
  add any additional rolls to combat. I also didn't want to start down the 
  
  20 
   
  "damage/bonus inflation" path that other versions of D&D have 
  followed; I wanted to stay with the basic concept behind damage in 
  OD&D (i.e. 6 points is enough to kill the average man). This led me 
  directly to my house rule: on a natural 20 that hits, the attack does 
  maximum damage. Thus, if you do 1-6 points of damage, and you roll a 
  natural 20 that hits, you do a full 6 points of damage. This represents 
  your "best shot." No additional rolls are required (in fact, you need one 
  less roll than normal), and the results fit the idea of a critical hit while 
  respecting the underlying philosophies of the game. Of course, critical 
  successes imply that critical failures are possible, too, so on a natural 1 
  that misses, your enemy gets a free attack on you, or a referee-
  mandated mishap occurs (e.g. you drop your weapon, slip and fall, et 
  cetera). 
  Another system I considered (but 
  rejected due to the additional 
  rolling, 
  potential 
  for 
  excessive 
  damage, and possible complexity), 
  is "exploding" damage dice. The 
  idea is that critical hits should be 
  based on the damage roll, not the 
  "to hit" roll, because the damage 
  roll is what really determines how 
  well you did. Thus, a maximum 
  result on your damage roll would 
  indicate a critical hit, and you get to 
  roll an extra damage die. If that one is maximum, too, you get to add 
  another die roll, and so on. However, with a 1d6 damage die, that 
  means roughly one in six damaging attacks will be a critical hit. That 
  may be a bit high. If you were to use exploding dice, you might want to 
  switch both damage dice and the basic hit die to 1d12 instead of 1d6; 
  then only 8% of damaging attacks would be critical hits. Another variant 
  is to halve the exploded die: thus, if you're rolling a 1d12 and get a 12, 
  then you add a 1d6, then a 1d3, and then 1 point. While I think 
  exploding dice are an interesting approach, I prefer the "max damage" 
  approach, overall. 
  Addendum: After being on the receiving end of critical hits, the players 
  in my OD&D game have voted to dispense with a critical hit system. I'm 
  pleased with this development. My game no longer uses critical hits; it 
  uses standard rolled damage. 
  DAMAGE & HIT POINTS 
  In OD&D, hit points are an abstract measure of a PC's well-being and 
  fitness for combat. Hit points include factors like physical well-being, 
  
  21 
   
  mental well-being or morale, how tired the PC is, how lucky he is, and 
  even skill. As a PC takes damage, the declining hit points represent his 
  resources being used up in combat. Not only is it physical damage, but 
  it's also his muscles getting tired, sweat getting in his eyes, his breath 
  running short, his resolve weakening, his reactions slowing, and his 
  reserves of skill and luck being used. This means that the referee's 
  description of combat should take these factors into account. Consider 
  a 10th level Fighting Man with 50 hit points and a 1st level Fighting 
  Man with 5 hit points. Each of these Fighting Men enters combat and 
  each receives 6 points of damage from an enemy swordsman. This 
  damage runs the 1st level Fighting Man through, killing him. However, 
  the 10th level Fighting Man is still up, fighting, and not even terribly 
  diminished. He's not really ten times as tough, physically, it's just that 
  his superior luck and skill allowed him to evade or deflect the blow 
  which would've killed a 1st level fighter. Instead of killing him, it just 
  used up some of his resources. 
  In OD&D, a normal man has 1-6 hit points, and all weapons do 1-6 hit 
  points of damage. In other words, the average man can be slain with a 
  single damage roll from any weapon. This makes perfect sense given 
  D&D's abstract system: a dagger thrust can kill you just as readily as a 
  chop from a greataxe. When describing OD&D combat, I only describe 
  severe or mortal wounds when the last 6 hit points are reached. Prior to 
  that, damage is described as near-misses, parried blows that would've 
  slain a lesser warrior, scratches, bruises, et cetera. This means that 
  players can get a sense of how tough and skilled an enemy is by the 
  effect their damage rolls have. If the PCs have dished out 14 points of 
  damage, and I'm describing how the bad guy just got nicked on his 
  forearm and is starting to sweat, they know that this guy has some 
  serious hit points. On the other hand, if the first four points of damage 
  they inflict opens a gaping, bleeding wound and their foe cries out in 
  anguish, they know this probably isn't an 8th level superhero they're 
  fighting. 
  (A common criticism of this view is that monsters do not seem to 
  adhere to this concept, with monster hit points usually seeming to be a 
  more direct reflection of physical capability to withstand damage. This 
  never bothered me; I don't think monsters and PCs need to be built on 
  or abide by exactly the same rules and concepts. As in many other 
  areas, the referee should use his judgment on exactly what hit points 
  represent for a given creature or situation.) 
  In my OD&D game, two-handed weapons roll two dice for damage, 
  taking the larger of the two values as the actual damage inflicted. This 
  gives some benefit to those PCs who choose to use a two-handed 
  
  22 
   
  weapon instead of carrying a shield. A similar rule applies to PCs 
  fighting with a weapon in each hand. 
  Most monsters also do 1-6 points of damage, with exceptions being 
  made for exceptionally large or strong creatures (using the damage 
  values from Monsters & Treasure as a guide). 
  THE DUNGEON AS A MYTHIC UNDERWORLD 
  There are many interpretations of "the dungeon" in D&D. OD&D, in 
  particular, lends itself to a certain type of dungeon that is often called a 
  "megadungeon" and that I usually refer to as "the underworld." There is 
  a school of thought on dungeons that says they should have been built 
  with a distinct purpose, should "make sense" as far as the inhabitants 
  and their ecology, and shouldn't necessarily be the centerpiece of the 
  game (after all, the Mines of Moria were just a place to get through). 
  None of that need be true for a megadungeon underworld. There might 
  be a reason the dungeon exists, but there might not; it might simply be. 
  It certainly can, and perhaps should, be the centerpiece of the game. 
  As for ecology, a megadungeon should have a certain amount of 
  verisimilitude and internal consistency, but it is an underworld: a place 
  where the normal laws of reality may not apply, and may be bent, 
  warped, or broken. Not merely an underground site or a lair, not sane, 
  the underworld gnaws on the physical world like some chaotic cancer. 
  It is inimical to men; the dungeon, itself, opposes and obstructs the 
  adventurers brave enough to explore it. For example, consider the 
  OD&D approach to doors and to vision in the underworld: 
  Generally, doors will not open by turning the handle or by a push. 
  Doors must be forced open by strength...Most doors will automatically 
  close, despite the difficulty in opening them. Doors will automatically 
  open for monsters, unless they are held shut against them by 
  characters. Doors can be wedged open by means of spikes, but there 
  is a one-third chance (die 5-6) that the spike will slip and the door will 
  shut...In the underworld some light source or an infravision spell must 
  be used. Torches, lanterns, and magic swords will illuminate the way, 
  but they also allow monsters to "see" the users so that monsters will 
  never be surprised unless coming through a door. Also, torches can be 
  blown out by a strong gust of wind. Monsters are assumed to have 
  permanent infravision as long as they are not serving some character. 
  (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, pg 9) 
  Special Ability functions are generally as indicated in CHAINMAIL 
  where not contradictory to the information stated hereinafter, and it is 
  generally true that any monster or man can see in total darkness as far 
  
  23 
   
  as the dungeons are concerned except player characters. (Monsters & 
  Treasure, pg 5) 
  Notice that all characters, including 
  those which can see in normal 
  darkness (e.g. elves, dwarves)3, 
  require a light source in the 
  underworld, while all denizens of 
  the place possess infravision or the 
  ability to see in total darkness. Even 
  more telling, a monster that enters 
  the service of a character loses this 
  special vision. Similarly, characters 
  must force their way through doors 
  and have difficulty keeping them 
  open; however, these same doors 
  automatically open for monsters. 
  This is a clear example of how the 
  normal rules do not apply to the 
  underworld, 
  and 
  how 
  the 
  underworld, itself, works against the 
  characters exploring it. 
  Of course, none of this demands that every dungeon need be a mythic 
  underworld; there could be natural caves and delved dungeon sites 
  that are not in the "underworld" category, and follow more natural laws. 
  Nevertheless, the central dungeon of the campaign benefits from the 
  strange other-worldliness that characterizes a mythic underworld. 
  A mythic underworld should not be confused with the concept of the 
  "underdark." The underdark concept is that of an underground 
  wilderness composed of miles of caves, tunnels, delved sites, and even 
  whole underground cities. This is a cool fantasy concept, but is distinct 
  from the concept of a mythic underworld that obeys its own laws and is 
  weird, otherworldly, and apart from the natural order of things. (There is 
  no reason a referee couldn't join the two concepts of underworld and 
  underdark, though.) 
  Some common characteristics and philosophies for a mythic 
  underworld or megadungeon (keep these in mind when creating your 
  dungeon): 
  1. It's big, and has many levels; in fact, it may be endless  
                                                        
  3 This ability is not specified in the three brown books, but is found in Chainmail. 
  
  24 
   
  2. It follows its own ecological and physical rules  
  3. It is not static; the inhabitants and even the layout may grow or 
  change over time  
  4. It is not linear; there are many possible paths and 
  interconnections  
  5. There are many ways to move up and down through the levels  
  6. Its purpose is mysterious or shrouded in legend  
  7. It's inimical to those exploring it  
  8. Deeper or farther levels are more dangerous  
  9. It's a (the?) central feature of the campaign  
  If you embrace these concepts, you'll be playing OD&D according to 
  some of the original assumptions of the game. And boy, is it fun. 
  ESSENTIAL & RECOMMENDED MATERIAL 
  Essentials 
  OD&D Rules (the three little/brown books)  
  Dice  
  Highly Recommended 
  Chainmail  
  Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, Volume I  
  Monster & Treasure Assortment Sets One-Three  
  Best of Dragon Magazine Volume I  
  Fight On! Magazine  
  Recommended for Inspiration 
  Supplement I: Greyhawk  
  Supplement II: Blackmoor  
  Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardy  
  Supplement IV: Gods, Demigods, & Heroes  
  Judges Guild First Fantasy Campaign  
  Judges Guild Dungeoneer Compendium  
  Empire of the Petal Throne 
  Obviously, the only real essential is the OD&D rules. However, 
  Chainmail is valuable for filling in gaps in the combat rules, including 
  things like missile ranges, rates of fire, initiative, et cetera (and some 
  OD&D referees even use Chainmail's man-to-man system instead of 
  the OD&D "alternate" combat system). Early issues of Dragon 
  magazine are also filled with a wealth of information and inspiration, 
  and give you a window into how the game was played and developed. 
  Best of the Dragon, Volume I collects some of the choice articles. If you 
  can find a copy of the Dragon CD-ROM archive, that's even better. The 
  
  25 
   
  Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, Volume I are a fantastic resource, 
  filled with charts and tables similar to the appendices in the 1E 
  Dungeon Masters Guide. Another incredibly useful resource is the 
  Monster & Treasure Assortments; these are tables of dungeon 
  encounters and dungeon treasures for levels 1 through 9. They offer 
  referees a handy guide for stocking dungeons. And don't forget about 
  Fight On! magazine, which is a currently in print periodical that focuses 
  on OD&D and old-school gaming. I'm very impressed by the first issue; 
  you can really tell it's a labor of love that is being put together by people 
  who are enthusiastic about the game. 
  Supplements I-IV are, of course, interesting and potentially useful as a 
  source of inspiration and house-rules. If you use them, I suggest 
  picking and choosing, rather than simply adopting everything in them. 
  Much of the material in them were additions and house-rules from 
  various individual campaigns. The Judges Guild First Fantasy 
  Campaign is similar; it's a book which details Dave Arneson's 
  Blackmoor campaign, including dungeon maps and a rough key for the 
  Blackmoor dungeon. Tita's House of Games offers a reprint of the 
  original Empire of the Petal Throne, which is a game with rules derived 
  from OD&D, as a starting point (also, a PDF, and world and Jakálla city 
  maps are available from RPGNow). Empire of the Petal Throne is 
  another excellent example of how individuals adapted OD&D for their 
  own games. (It also includes some interesting rules additions or 
  interpretations that could be applied directly to OD&D (e.g. the 'roll all 
  your hit dice when you advance a level' rule). Lastly, The Dungeoneer 
  was a magazine put out by Judges Guild. They published a 
  Compendium of the first six issues which has some interesting 
  inspirational material (e.g. I love the article on magic which describes 
  how spellcasting works, calls Supplement I "almost canon," and ends 
  by saying that you may have worked out your own system for handling 
  spellcasting, so feel free to ignore the article...), but especially the great 
  adventure, "Night of the Walking Wet." 
  EXPERIENCE & ADVANCEMENT 
  The OD&D rules specify two ways characters acquire experience 
  points: defeating monsters and obtaining treasure. Experience awards 
  are adjusted by modifiers from the PC's prime requisite scores and by 
  relative levels (e.g. an 6th level PC facing a 3rd level threat will only 
  gain 1/2 of the normal experience award), although never above a 1:1 
  ratio (e.g. a 1st level PC facing a 3rd level threat does not gain three 
  times the normal experience). Treasure awards 1 XP for every 1 GP 
  value. Defeated monsters award 100 XP per hit die. Note that this is a 
  big difference from the way later editions award experience for 
  monsters. OD&D Supplement I offered a new system (adopted by later 
  
  26 
   
  editions) with much smaller awards, and even called the original award 
  scheme "ridiculous." However, I don't find it ridiculous. The original XP 
  award scheme tends to advance PCs through the low levels more 
  rapidly than the Greyhawk method, but slows down in the higher levels. 
  I like that effect. The original XP award scheme also has the benefit of 
  being drop-dead simple. 
  My first OD&D campaign used the Greyhawk awards, when it began. 
  However, I've switched all my OD&D games to the original method. 
  PCs tend to advance at a faster rate, but so far that's working out fine; 
  we don't play as often as the Lake Geneva groups back in the 70s, so 
  the faster advancement hasn't been a problem. Also, I treat the 100xp 
  per hit die formula as a guideline which can be varied, not a rule set in 
  stone. 
  Many gamers sneer at the notion of awarding XP for treasure, 
  preferring goal or story-based awards and similar schemes. I see their 
  point, but I don't find XP awards for treasure objectionable. On the 
  contrary, I see it as a story award. I also see it as a convenient 
  abstraction, much like hit points. Does it make sense that a magic user 
  gains experience by hauling loot out of the ground? Nope. Does it work 
  well in the context of the game? Absolutely. If a given adventure 
  doesn't include much (or any) treasure, then I'll substitute some other 
  form of "story award," instead, but in most cases using treasure works 
  just fine. 
  Like all the older editions, OD&D uses different XP advancement tables 
  for the various classes. That is, fighting men require 2000 XP to 
  advance to second level, while magic users require 2500 XP, and 
  clerics only need 1500 XP. This is one way that OD&D addresses class 
  balance, rather than using a universal advancement table and 
  attempting to make the power-level of each class equal at every level. 
  Some gamers object to this approach, but I like having a different 
  dynamic for different classes (q.v. my comments about magic users 
  and vancian magic). I object to the idea that a "universal advancement / 
  equal power-level" approach works better (a claim I often hear). In 
  practice, I think that approach is difficult to pull off, especially if the 
  powers are variable (e.g. feats or powers that are chosen by the 
  player); you inevitably end up with this-or-that combination being 
  unbalanced, or this class being too powerful, or this power being 
  "broken," or whatever. Perfect balance is a questing beast that forever 
  eludes those who pursue it. Both approaches have drawbacks, and 
  both approaches can achieve a sort of "ballpark balance." While either 
  approach works, I prefer the unhomogenized flavor the OD&D 
  
  27 
   
  approach offers; I think it's okay — even interesting — for the classes 
  to have different power curves. 
  When advancing a level, I do not require that a PC train, but I do 
  require the PC to return to a safe area before leveling up; you can't 
  advance a level while in the dungeon, for example. 
  GAZE ATTACKS 
  OD&D referees vary in their approach to gaze attacks. I prefer to think 
  of these as gaze effects, rather than attacks, since they fall outside the 
  scope of normal attacks. Indeed, no attack roll is needed; all that is 
  required is that victim look into the eyes of the medusa, basilisk, 
  vampire, or other monster with one of these deadly abilities. Instead of 
  an attack roll, the mechanic for handling gaze effects is the saving 
  throw. I look on saving throws as a "last chance" or a "disaster 
  avoidance." That is, your character is in a disastrous situation, but he 
  gets a chance to slip out of circumstances which would spell doom for 
  most men. Consequently, I look on the save vs. gaze effects as "gaze 
  avoidance" rather than "gaze resistance." Meeting the gaze means 
  certain doom; the saving throw determines whether the character met 
  the gaze at all. If he did, he suffers its effects; if not, then he is safe. 
  A monster with a gaze effect forces characters facing it to roll a saving 
  throw each round, as follows: 
  • 
  Complete Surprise -2 penalty  
  • 
  Surprise -1 penalty  
  • 
  Viewing Monster No modifier  
  • 
  Attacking Normally +3 bonus  
  • 
  Avoiding Gaze +6 bonus  
  • 
  Blindfold/Eyes Closed No save required, but combat penalties 
  apply (e.g. -4 to hit/+4 to be hit)  
  The referee should adjust these modifiers to suit the exact monster and 
  circumstances under consideration. 
  HELMETS 
  OD&D lists helmets among the items your PC can purchase, but no 
  game mechanic benefit is mentioned. This implies that helmets are 
  assumed, and would thus just be part of your overall AC. However, this 
  raises the question, "what about when you don't wear a helmet?" 
  Obviously, an enemy facing an armored man with a bare head will try 
  to hit the bare head, but also wouldn't pass up any opportunities to hit 
  armored parts of the body, as well. On the other hand, the bare-headed 
  warrior would obviously know his head was vulnerable, and would try to 
  
  28 
   
  protect it. In keeping with D&D's abstract system of combat, I apply the 
  following house rule to this situation: 
  Wearing a suit of armor (i.e. doesn't include "shield only") without a 
  helmet grants attackers a +1 bonus to the attack roll. (I followed the 
  OD&D practice where an armor bonus/penalty applies to the enemy's 
  attack roll rather than to the PC's armor class.)4 
  Wearing a helmet while otherwise unarmored grants no mechanical 
  benefit to AC, and no penalty to an attackers "to hit" roll. (To grant such 
  a benefit would be to equate the protective value of a helmet with that 
  of a shield, and I don't think that's the case. In a melee, I'd want a 
  helmet and a shield, but if I had to pick just one, I'd take the shield.) 
  Even though an otherwise unarmored man gains no normal benefit 
  from a helmet, it still might be worthwhile in some situations. For 
  example, if kobolds are dumping baskets of stones down from a 
  clifftop, the referee might rule that a helmet will halve any damage the 
  PC takes. If green slime falls on the PC's head, wearing a helm would 
  offer some benefit. Et cetera. 
  HIT DICE 
  In OD&D, six points of damage is enough to kill an average man (q.v. 
  Damage & Hit Points). The original rules use a d6 as the basic hit die 
  for all PCs and monsters, granting modifiers (e.g. +1) or additional hit 
  dice (e.g. 2d6) as levels increased. In my first OD&D campaign, I used 
  the system introduced in the Greyhawk supplement (and the Holmes 
  rules), where each class gets its own hit die type (e.g. d8 for Fighting 
  Men, d6 for Clerics, d4 for Magic Users, etc.), and monsters use 1d8 as 
  their base hit die. 
  Addendum: My current OD&D campaigns do not not use these values, 
  above. Instead, they use the original hit die progression from the Three 
  Little Books, for both PCs and monsters. PCs roll all of their hit dice 
  each time they advance a level; if the new hit point total is less than the 
  old total, the old total will be retained. If they lose a level, they roll all 
  their hit dice for the lower level; if the new total is greater than the old 
  total, the old total is retained. Thus, a Fighting Man who has advanced 
  to 2nd level rolls 2d6, and takes whichever is greater: his current total 
  or his new roll. When he advances to 3rd level, he rolls 3d6 and takes 
  the higher of his current total or his roll, and so on. This is quite 
  different from the way hit points accrue in later editions, but it works 
  well with the unique hit die values of OD&D. 
                                                        
  4 This practice helps to preserve the concept of AC as armor type, which can be 
  significant if you use the weapon vs. AC adjustments from the Greyhawk Supplement. 
  
  29 
   
  INITIATIVE & THE COMBAT SEQUENCE 
  OD&D does not define rules for initiative (or a combat round sequence, 
  for that matter), leaving the matter for the referee to resolve. Common 
  solutions include importing the rules from 
  Chainmail or from later versions of D&D. 
  Using the turn sequence from Swords & 
  Spells is another possibility (more on this, 
  below). 
  I've often kept initiative and the combat 
  sequence nebulous and flexible. First, 
  intentions are declared. Next, the referee 
  adjudicates the action. It is often obvious 
  that certain actions will be faster/go first. 
  Where there is some question, the referee 
  can use relative Dex values or weapons 
  used to make a judgment call, or he can 
  request initiative checks. Often, a combat 
  will begin without using initiative rolls, but 
  once the general chaos of melee begins, 
  initiative rolls will begin to be more 
  common. (Also see Robert Fisher's thoughts on dynamic combat in 
  classic D&D.) 
  Lately, however, I've desired a more defined approach. I wanted a 
  sequence that made use of miniatures and tactical positioning, 
  accounted for different spell-casting times (similar to the use of 
  segments in AD&D), and accounted for the traditional rates-of-fire D&D 
  lists for some missile weapons. I found a possible answer in a Knights 
  & Knaves Alehouse forum post by T. Foster, who suggested using the 
  combat sequence from Swords & Spells with OD&D. I found this 
  appealing. The system provided the elements I sought, worked well 
  with other traditional D&D elements like weapon reach and 
  disengaging/retreat, and springs directly from the Chainmail roots of 
  the game. While designed with the use of miniatures in mind, the 
  system is easily modified for use without minis (see the Knights & 
  Knaves discussion). 
  Detailed Combat Sequence 
  1. Initiative: Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.  
  2. Missile/spell: In initiative order, both sides fire missiles, cast 
  spells, etc.  
  3. Movement: Side with initiative moves up to half move  
  4. Movement: Side without initiative moves up to half move  
  
  30 
   
  5. Missile/spell: In initiative order, both sides fire missiles, cast 
  spells, etc.  
  6. Movement: Side without initiative moves the remaining half 
  move  
  7. Movement: Side with initiative moves the remaining half move  
  8. Missile/Spell: Unengaged combatants fire missile, cast spells, 
  etc.  
  9. Melee: Engaged combatants fight one round of melee.  
  Rules for Missile/Ranged Attacks 
  • 
  Archers standing still may fire twice (in phase 2 or 5, and phase 
  8)  
  • 
  Archers taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 8). 
  However, archers with split-move-and-fire ability (e.g. elves, 
  mounted archers) that take a half-move may fire once in a 
  missile phase of their choice (2, 5, or 8).  
  • 
  Archers taking a full-move may not fire. However, archers with 
  split-move-and-fire ability (e.g. elves, mounted archers), may 
  take a full-move and fire once in phase 5, only.  
  • 
  Slingers standing still may fire once (in phase 2, 5, or 8)  
  • 
  Slingers taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 8).  
  • 
  Slingers taking a full-move may not fire.  
  • 
  Crossbowmen standing still may fire once (in phase 2 or 5) and 
  reload5  
  • 
  Crossbowmen standing still may reload* and fire once (in 
  phase 5 or 8).  
  • 
  Crossbowmen taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 
  8) or reload*  
  • 
  Crossbowmen taking a full-move may reload*, but may not fire  
  • 
  Combatants hurling spears, axes, or hammers may fire once 
  (in phase 2, 5, or 8) and take a full-move, including charge, if 
  desired.  
  • 
  Combatants hurling daggers or javelins may fire once (in phase 
  2, 5, or 8) and take a full-move with charge.  
  • 
  Combatants hurling daggers or javelins may fire twice (in 
  phase 2 or 5, and phase 8) and take a full-move without 
  charge.  
  Rules for Spellcasting 
  • 
  A spell caster cannot move and cast a spell in the same round.  
                                                        
  5 Heavy crossbowmen require a full round (with no movement) to reload. 
  
  31 
   
  • 
  A spell caster may not cast a spell while engaged in melee. If 
  the caster becomes engaged while casting, but before the spell 
  is finished, the spell is interrupted and lost.  
  • 
  A spell caster may cast a maximum of one spell per round.  
  • 
  Casting time for spells depends on the level and type of spell  
  1st-2nd 
  level 
  spells, 
  Power 
  Words, Holy Words, Word of 
  Recall, Devices, Innate Abilities 
   
   IMMEDIATE/NO DELAY  
  3rd-6th level spells, 1st-2nd level 
  scrolls 
   +1 SPELL PHASE   
   
  7th-9th level spells, 3rd-6th level 
  scrolls 
   
   FULL ROUND  
  7th-9th level scrolls 
   FULL ROUND + 1 SPELL PHASE  
  Rules for Melee & Movement 
  (Also see Movement in Combat and the Table of Movement Rates) 
  • 
  Combatants who take a full-move may not engage in melee 
  unless they charge.  
  • 
  Combatants are considered engaged in melee when the 
  distance between them is equal to or less than the longest 
  reach (e.g. weapon reach, et cetera). Alternatively, this may be 
  simplified to 10 ft.  
  • 
  A moving combatant who becomes engaged may not leave 
  engagement or continue movement to the flanks or rear of his 
  opponent during the initial round of engagement. A combatant 
  not already engaged in melee may move a maximum of 5' right 
  or left in order to confront and contact an enemy attempting to 
  bypass or move into a flanking position.  
  • 
  If one combatant in a melee has allies to his immediate left or 
  right which are not engaged with other enemies, these allies 
  may move into flanking positions against their common enemy 
  after the first round of melee.  
  • 
  Flanking position grants a +1 bonus to hit and negates any 
  benefit from the target's shield.  
  • 
  Rear positioning grants a +2 bonus to hit, and negates any 
  benefit from the target's shield.  
  • 
  Disengage: a combatant with a clear path (i.e. through an area 
  out of enemy reach) may attempt to disengage with up to a 
  half-move.  
  
  32 
   
  • 
  Retreat: a combatant may retreat from melee with movement in 
  excess of a half-move. However, he loses the benefit of his 
  shield, and his opponent gets a free attack with a +2 bonus to 
  hit.  
  Background 
  This combat sequence is a slightly modified version of the combat rules 
  in Swords & Spells (which is based on the original Chainmail medieval 
  miniature combat rules). I find these rules satisfying for a number of 
  reasons. First, they use precise positioning and miniatures to give a 
  tactical feel to combat. Second, they provide a simple way to include 
  spell casting times into the combat. Third, they provide rules for firing 
  multiple missiles in a combat round. Fourth, I like the way movement is 
  divided up so that opposing forces "meet in the middle" rather than one 
  side closing all the distance on their turn. Lastly, I like the way these 
  rules pull together and work with concepts from D&D (rate of fire, 
  weapon reach, facing, spell-casting time, et cetera), and that they are 
  firmly rooted in the traditional sources of the game. Special thanks to T. 
  Foster (and his posts on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse forums) for 
  the suggestion to use this sequence with OD&D, and for his assistance 
  and advice in compiling and adapting these rules for man-to-man 
  combat. 
  For those who prefer a lighter set of rules to govern combat, or who do 
  not use miniatures, a simplified version of these rules may suffice. 
  Simple Combat Sequence 
  1. Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.  
  2. Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of 
  level 1-2)  
  3. Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of 
  level 1-2)  
  4. Both sides move  
  5. Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect; archers who didn't 
  move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again  
  6. Melee  
  Obviously, this simplified version of the full combat sequence may 
  require some interpretation and adjudication by the referee. I suggest 
  using the details of the full sequence to inform and assist in making 
  such judgments. 
  LEVEL SCALING 
  By default, OD&D does not have any upper-boundary on PC levels, 
  and this is how I currently run my games (see the Addendum, below). 
  
  33 
   
  However, when I first started running OD&D, I applied de facto level 
  limits for all PCs, as a "soft boundary." Under this scheme, an average 
  "normal" man is a 0-level character with 1d6 hit points. A 1st level PC 
  has more skill and experience than average. A 4th to 7th level PC is a 
  heroic figure with a reputation. An 8th to 10th level PC is a superheroic 
  and legendary figure like Conan or John Carter. Thus, 10th level is the 
  de facto level limit in my game, and all PCs and NPCs can be gauged 
  against the scale. Note that I called 10th level a de facto limit, rather 
  than a de jure limit. Levels above 10th are possible under this scheme, 
  but extraordinary circumstances are required for this type of 
  advancement. 
  Individuals who advance beyond 10th level are always driven and 
  focused, and they may be obsessed or insane in one way or another. 
  Attaining such power always requires sacrifices of some sort, and 
  usually requires magical aid (e.g. longevity, lichdom, etc.) or 
  supernatural aid from divine or infernal powers. Thus, 10th level 
  defines a "mortal limit," and those who force their way past this barrier 
  are risking much to do so (perhaps even their humanity). It is no 
  accident that there are so many stories of insane arch-mages or 
  demon-ridden anti-heroes that find their power has been bought at 
  terrible cost. 
  Setting a scale like this can help the referee put his campaign world 
  into perspective, and helps in setting the power-level of any NPC or 
  creature he devises. Also, this scale has some history behind it. OD&D 
  grew out of the Chainmail miniatures combat game, and a "Hero" had 
  the fighting capability of four men (i.e. fourth level), while a "Superhero" 
  had the fighting capability of eight men (i.e. eighth level). The 1-10 
  scale also makes demihuman level limits more palatable for players, 
  since the demihuman limits top-out at the low-end of "high level." Under 
  this scheme, demihumans have the following level limits: 
  Dwarf: 7th lvl. Fighting Man  
  Elf: 4th lvl. Fighting Man / 6th level Magic User  
  Hobbit: 4th lvl. Fighting Man / 6th level Thief  
  Addendum: I've been giving additional thought to level scales, and am 
  wondering if even the "soft boundary" of a de facto level cap is 
  necessary. I still think 10th level or so should be a peak/stopping point 
  of sorts, but realized that the standard approach to levels alreday does 
  this with its concept of "name level," where hit dice stop accruing. 
  Name level is a sort of "soft boundary," already, it's just up to the 
  referee to model his campaign with that level scale in mind. 
  
  34 
   
  MAGIC ARMOR & SHIELDS 
  OD&D has distinctive rules for handling magical armor and shields. 
  Unlike later editions (with the exception of Holmes), the magical bonus 
  is not added to the PC's armor class, but is subtracted from the 
  enemy's "hit dice" (usually interpreted as meaning the enemy's "to hit" 
  roll, when using the "alternate" combat system). This is a distinction 
  which helps to preserve the concept of armor class as a "class" or 
  "type," rather than merely an indication of how hard it is to hit the PC. 
  Also, the magical bonuses from armor and shield do not stack. Instead, 
  the rules stipulate that if the shield's bonus is superior, there is a one in 
  three chance that the shield's bonus should be used against a given 
  attack roll. 
  I like the concept of magical bonuses from armor and shield not 
  stacking, as it assists in moderating the tendency towards bonus 
  inflation in the system. However, I dislike the 1/3 chance for the shield's 
  bonus to apply; I think that introduces an unnecessary complication. In 
  my OD&D games, I've house-ruled this aspect of magical armor and 
  shields, such that the PC simply enjoys the higher of the two bonuses 
  in any situation where the shield could reasonably be applied (e.g. 
  face-to-face melee). 
  Lastly, note that elves can cast spells while wearing magic armor, but 
  not while wearing non-magical armor. 
  MAGIC SWORDS 
  The OD&D rules for magical swords are 
  different from those in later versions of 
  the game. In OD&D, magic swords 
  grant their bonus as a bonus "to hit," but 
  they do not grant a bonus to damage 
  unless they have a bonus against a 
  special 
  category 
  of 
  enemy. 
  For 
  example, a sword +1 grants a +1 to all 
  attack rolls, but nothing to damage rolls. 
  A sword +1, +3 vs. dragons grants a +3 
  to attack and damage rolls against 
  dragons, but +1 to attack and +0 to 
  damage against other foes. Note that 
  this is not true for other kinds of magic 
  weapons. A war hammer +1, for 
  example, grants a +1 to hit and +1 
  damage against all enemies. 
  
  35 
   
  The OD&D rules assume that magical swords are truly special items; 
  for whatever reason (up to the referee), there is something unique 
  about them that sets them apart from other magical weapons. ALL 
  magical swords possess intelligence and alignment. Many magical 
  swords will be able to communicate, and some will possess personality 
  and ego. Some with possess potent magical powers that they will pass 
  on to their wielder. Some will have specific purposes they will attempt 
  to fulfill. In OD&D, a magical sword can be both boon and bane, and 
  every magical sword the PCs find will be viewed cautiously, at first. 
  Even picking up a magical sword can be dangerous, as touching a 
  weapon of the "wrong" alignment will cause damage. Even like-aligned 
  swords can be perilous, as a high-ego weapon can overwhelm and 
  dominate its wielder, in certain situations. In my OD&D game, magic 
  swords tend to prefer Fighting Men over Thieves, so while Thieves can 
  technically wield a magic sword, the thief is likely to have "difficulties" 
  with his weapon. 
  I love these rules. First, they make magic swords remarkable; there is 
  no "run of the mill +1 sword" in my OD&D game. Second, they model 
  the way magic swords are described in fiction, and I like bringing that 
  kind of outlook to the game. Who could forget blades like Stormbringer, 
  Excalibur, Andúril, or Terminus Est? What warrior of mettle would pass 
  up the chance to carry a dwarf-forged blade, even at the risk of coming 
  under its fey inflence? Also, the special status of magical swords 
  suggests all sorts of plot elements and questions. Why do all magical 
  swords possess intelligence? Why swords, only? Perhaps the answer 
  to these questions are a mystery, even to those who forge and enchant 
  the blades. Perhaps "sword cults" have grown up, driven not just by a 
  warrior ethos, but also by the fact that there is something unique about 
  magical swords. The whole thing puts a new spin on the "riddle of 
  steel." 
  MOVEMENT IN COMBAT 
  The default OD&D rules assume a one minute combat round, but leave 
  movement rules ambiguous (probably assuming referees would adapt 
  rules from Chainmail). The encumbrance rules give leather armor (light) 
  a move of 12", chainmail (heavy) a move of 9", and plate mail 
  (armored) a move of 6". However, the OD&D rules don't follow these 
  rates for dwarves and elves (with dwarves in chain + shield moving at 
  6" and elves in chain moving at 12"), suggesting these races have 
  lower and higher base movement rates, respectively. I've adopted the 
  following rates (light/heavy/armored): 
  • 
  Humans 12" 9" 6"  
  • 
  Elves 15" 12" 6"  
  
  36 
   
  • 
  Dwarves 9" 6" 3"  
  • 
  Hobbits 9" 6" 3"  
  Note that the movement rates I'm using for elves would probably be 
  considered non-standard, by most. I like the idea of fleet-footed elves, 
  so I grant them an unencumbered rate of 15" (quite fast) and a rate of 
  12" when wearing chain. However, I don't like the idea of an armored 
  elf (i.e. wearing plate mail) being faster than a human, so I make them 
  equal, there. This is just my interpretation. It would probably be more 
  "by-the-book" to give elves the same movement rates as humans (i.e. 
  12"/9"/6"), assuming that the elves' movement rate in chain reflected 
  the use of unencumbering elven chain, which would be considered 
  "light" instead of "heavy." 
  My OD&D games use a 10-12 second combat round, so I needed to 
  convert the movement rates, above, into distances at that 
  tactical/encounter scale. After making calculations based on 4.5 feet-
  per-second average walking pace, I came to the conclusion that the 
  B/X rule of encounter speed equalling movement rate divided by three 
  is a reasonable (and convenient) approximation. Thus: 
  • 
  24" 80' per round (160' per round charge)  
  • 
  21" 70' per round (140' per round charge)  
  • 
  18" 60' per round (120' per round charge)  
  • 
  15" 50' per round (100' per round charge)  
  • 
  12" 40' per round (80' per round charge)  
  • 
  9" 30' per round (60' per round charge)  
  • 
  6" 20' per round (40' per round charge)  
  • 
  3" 10' per round (20' per round charge)  
  MOVEMENT WHILE EXPLORING 
  OD&D handles movement while exploring the dungeon in ten minute 
  turns. A character gets two moves (calculated in feet) during a ten 
  minute turn. (Note that this is different from some later editions, which 
  give a single move during a ten minute turn.) Thus, a man in plate mail 
  (move of 6"), would move 60 ft. x 2, or 120 ft. This assumes cautious, 
  exploratory movement and mapping; flight or pursuit situations allow 
  faster movement (i.e. double), but no mapping.  
  The Holmes Basic rulebook offers an interesting variation. It uses the 
  OD&D rates (e.g. a man in plate mail moves 120 ft. in a turn, while 
  exploring), but gives a double movement rate to "normal movement" 
  (i.e not cautious/no mapping), and a triple movement rate to flight or 
  pursuit. It also stipulates that a "heavy load" halves the movement rate. 
  
  37 
   
  Thus, a fully armored man with a heavy load of gear/treasure will move 
  60 ft. per turn while exploring. 
  MULTIPLE ATTACKS 
  Multiple attacks by a single PC occur infrequently in OD&D; normally, a 
  PC will only get a single melee attack roll per round.6 A major exception 
  to this rule is Fighting Men in melee with opponents of 1HD or less. A 
  Fighting Man who is in a melee where all his engaged foes are 1HD or 
  less may make a number of melee attacks equal to his level. Thus, a 
  Hero (4th level) battling a group of goblins may attack four times in a 
  single round. A Superhero (8th level) facing the same goblins would 
  attack eight times each round! I see this as OD&D's "mow down the 
  mooks" rule; a higher level Fighting Man is a force that normal men 
  rightly fear. 
  Note that even a single higher HD opponent in the melee will negate 
  this ability, being a more skilled or dangerous threat that demands the 
  high-level Fighting Man's attention. This is a great boon for PC 
  henchmen and hirelings, since it allows even a Veteran (i.e. a 1st level 
  Fighting Man has 1+1 HD) to prevent the massacre of weaker party 
  members when confronted by a dangerous foe (such as an evil Hero). 
  This rule has its origin in Chainmail's concept of fantastic vs. non-
  fantastic melee (and its use is illustrated in the OD&D FAQ originally 
  published in the Strategic Review). Since monsters in Chainmail's non-
  fantastic melee get multiple attacks, I extend the multiple attacks to 
  monsters in OD&D, as well. That is, an Ogre attacking a group of 
  normal men will attack four times. However, if there's a Veteran guard 
  amongst those men, the combat is considered fantastic, and the Ogre 
  is limited to a single attack. 
  (This rule also exists for Fighters in AD&D, but was modified to only 
  work against enemies of less than 1HD. I speculate that this may have 
  been done because a 1st level Fighter in AD&D is considered a 1HD 
  foe, where a 1st level Fighting Man in OD&D is considered a 1+1HD 
  foe.) 
  PLAYER SKILL VS. PC SKILL 
  The original OD&D rules do not include a defined skill system. As a 
  result, OD&D sometimes calls on the player to use his own skills and 
                                                        
  6 This is also true of monsters. In the three brown books, most monsters get a single 
  attack in fantastic combat, rather than an attack routine (e.g. claw/claw/bite). The single 
  attack roll represents their entire attack routine. This includes monsters like ghouls and 
  trolls, which get multiple attacks in later supplements and editions. In three brown book 
  OD&D, only very special monsters like multi-headed hydras get more than one attack in 
  fantastic combat. 
  
  38 
   
  creativity when adventuring. This is a different approach than many 
  gamers are used to, and running with it can take some adjustment if 
  you're in the habit of handling all PC actions with some sort of skill 
  system that models that PC's capabilities. Some players don't like the 
  idea at all, arguing that the game should be testing their PC's 
  capabilities, not their own: relying on player skill goes against the idea 
  of the character. They have a point, but I think there is room for a 
  different approach in role-playing. It boils down to the fact that relying 
  on player skill for some situations is fun. I think it also encourages 
  thinking outside the box, and immersion in the situation the character is 
  in. 
  Consider the following observation from Mike Mearls (a lead developer 
  for 4E D&D): 
  I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more 
  likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, 
  rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by 
  thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" 
  rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the 
  rules?" 
  OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to 
  very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, 
  and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to 
  accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning 
  (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that 
  activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding 
  the lever then making a skill check). 
  I think Mike nails it when he says OD&D's approach caters to a 
  different need than the skill-based approach used in some other 
  editions. If you've never tried running D&D without skills, I encourage 
  you to give it a shot. It might be different from what you're used to, but 
  it's fun. 
  ROSE COLORED GLASSES 
  For some reason, when I tell other gamers I'm playing OD&D (or 
  AD&D, or B/X, et cetera), I often hear comments about my "nostalgia" 
  or my "rose colored glasses." I find this both odd and annoying. The 
  idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being 
  altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're 
  "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not 
  seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, 
  making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the 
  
  39 
   
  good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of 
  phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like 
  OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and 
  my enthusiam for OD&D. 
  Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an 
  experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the 
  glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on 
  its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, 
  I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored 
  glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the 
  experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope. 
  SCROLLS 
  My OD&D game had its roots in a game using the Holmes Basic rules, 
  and consequently includes an uncommon rule for handling scroll 
  creation. Typical old-school D&D campaigns don't allow characters to 
  create scrolls until around 7th level. However, the Holmes Basic rules 
  allow magic users of all levels to create scrolls, provided that the magic 
  user pays the cost (100gp per level of spell), takes the time (1 week per 
  level of spell), and can cast the spell to begin with (i.e. it's in his spell-
  book). The Holmes rules do not explicitly cover the creation of clerical 
  scrolls (although they do mention the existence of clerical scrolls); 
  nevertheless, I extend the same capability to clerics. The ability to 
  create scrolls gives low-level casters some additional power, which can 
  be desirable or not, depending on your view. However, in practice, the 
  ability to create scrolls can still be regulated by the referee, thus 
  avoiding "scroll proliferation" in the campaign. As referee, I keep scrolls 
  from getting out of hand by: 
  Enforcing the relative inconvenience of scrolls. That is, they're delicate 
  to transport, you have to get them out when you need them, you can't 
  get them wet, you need light to use them, et cetera.  
  Having scroll-spells take longer to cast (q.v. Initiative and the Combat 
  Sequence)  
  Strictly enforcing the time required to create them. While the PCs are 
  making scrolls, events in the campaign continue to march on and 
  develop.  
  Controlling the abstraction-level of the material requirements. The 
  100gp per level cost is an abstraction that represents the rare and 
  costly materials that go into making a scroll: for example, the highest 
  quality media, giant squid ink, powdered gems, a quill from the feathers 
  
  40 
   
  of a fantastic creature, components from various monsters, et cetera. 
  The referee can add detail to this abstract requirement, at his option. 
  An easy way to do this is to rule that a required component is 
  unavailable for purchase, and must be obtained through some other 
  method (typically an adventure). For clerical scrolls, this might mean a 
  special pilgrimage, or an adventure to acquire the materials for a 
  special offering.  
  Clerical scrolls possess some unique characteristics. In my OD&D 
  game, clerical scrolls are prayers associated with a certain alignment or 
  deity. They are not written in "magical language" like magic user 
  scrolls, but rather in a "normal" language which could be the vernacular 
  or perhaps a church-specific variant of an alignment tongue. Anyone 
  who is capable of reading the language can glean the function of a 
  clerical scroll, but only clerics can invoke the spells therein. Even then, 
  a cleric may not wish to invoke the prayers if the scroll is oriented 
  towards and alignment, deity, or ethos which is antithetical to his own. 
  He may do so, but should be prepared to face any consequences that 
  might arise (within the church hierarchy or in his relationship with his 
  deity, et cetera). 
  SPELL SPECIAL EFFECTS 
  In my OD&D game, spell-casters enjoy the capability to produce minor 
  magical effects related to the spells they have currently memorized. For 
  example, a magic user who has fireball memorized might be able to 
  light his pipe with a small flame from his 
  thumb, or make smoke come from his 
  ears when annoyed. A sorceress with 
  gust of wind memorized might have her 
  hair constantly blowing in an otherwise 
  non-existent breeze. Using a special 
  effect does not cast or use up the spell it 
  is related to; they're not so much "spells" 
  as they are tangible evidence that the 
  magic user has a spell memorized. I do 
  not codify these effects, but rather rely 
  on the players to suggest or request an 
  effect, which I then approve or deny. 
  While I do not have a hard-and-fast rule 
  against special effects that have a 
  mechanical game effect, special effects 
  are always minor, cantrip-like effects. 
  I like this house-rule for several reasons. First, it adds to the weird 
  otherworldliness of magic users, and I love weird and fantastic 
  
  41 
   
  elements in my D&D game. Second, it gives low-level magic users 
  something arcane and archetype-supporting to do without using up 
  their memorized spells or abandoning the concept of Vancian magic. 
  Third, it's just cool to play a wizard that can make his eyes glow, or 
  make his smoke rings come out different colors, or whatever. I know 
  that players enjoy the special effects, and also enjoy trying to figure out 
  what spells an NPC caster has based upon what his special effects 
  reveal. The only real danger is allowing effects which are too potent, 
  which could erode the feel of the Vancian magic system. It's up to the 
  referee to make that call on a case-by-case basis. 
  SURPRISE 
  My OD&D game uses a house-ruled system of surprise that draws on 
  the wyvern surprise example on pages 8-9 of The Underworld & 
  Wilderness Adventures, the additional combat rules in Eldritch 
  Wizardry, and the AD&D surprise rules. There are two categories of 
  surprise: normal surprise and complete surprise. Normal surprise 
  allows unsurprised enemies a single action. Complete surprise allows 
  unsurprised enemies two actions (or a surprised enemy one action). 
  Die Roll  
  Result  
  1  
   
  Surprise (1 action)  
  2  
   
  Complete Surprise (2 actions)  
  3-6 
   
  No Surprise  
  Examples of an action include closing to striking range (if necessary), 
  making a melee attack, nocking and firing an arrow from a bow, firing a 
  loaded crossbow, et cetera. Spells may be started as a surprise action. 
  Whether they take effect prior to the start of the normal round depends 
  on the circumstances. Spells of 1st-2nd level, Power Words, Holy 
  Words, Word of Recall, Devices, and innate abilities take effect 
  immediately. Other spells take effect in their normal place within the 
  round. As always, the caster may cast only one spell during the round, 
  regardless of surprise. 
  The table, above, gives the results for the standard surprise situation. 
  Circumstances may modify this. For example, some monsters surprise 
  on 3 in 6, rather than 2 in 6. In this case, a roll of 3 would indicate the 
  monsters are allowed three surprise actions. Similarly, some monsters 
  or characters might only be surprised on a 1 in 6. In this case, a roll of 
  1 would indicate normal surprise, and a roll of 2 would indicate no 
  surprise. 
  
  42 
   
   
  THAC0? 
  Just about everyone who has played TSR versions of D&D is familiar 
  with the concept of THAC0, even if they didn't use it. Even many "new 
  school" D&D players know what THAC0 is. For those who aren't 
  familiar with it, it means "To Hit Armor Class 0." It's a number than 
  indicates what roll on a d20 your PC would need to hit an enemy with 
  AC0. To figure out what you need to hit other armor classes, you 
  subtract the enemy's AC from your THAC0 (e.g. if your THAC0 is 17, 
  and you're attacking an enemy with in chainmail (AC5), you need to roll 
  a 17-5=12). 
  Opinions on THAC0 and its utility vary within the D&D community. 
  Some find it easier to eschew any formulas at all, continuing to use the 
  "to hit" attack tables rather than perform a calculation (this is especially 
  easy for players, since they only need to write down a single line from 
  the appropriate chart onto their character sheet, and it's very fast and 
  simple to reference). Players of original AD&D (i.e. first edition) also 
  have the "repeating 20s" issue to consider, which complicates the 
  THAC0 concept, although it's something of an edge case. Many prefer 
  the "higher AC is better" and "base attack bonus" approach of the d20 
  system. In that system, you add an attack bonus to your die roll, and 
  the result indicates what AC you hit (e.g. your bonus is +3, and you roll 
  a 12, meaning you'd hit an AC of 15 or less). All the math is addition, 
  which many find easier. 
  To my mind, this issue is not critical. The formulas are different 
  methods of arriving at the same end result (generally). Nevertheless, I 
  tend to prefer the traditional "lower is better" AC values. Part of the 
  reason is habit; I've used those values for a long time, and it seems 
  natural that platemail and shield is AC2, or chainmail is AC5. Part of it 
  is that most of the gaming material I use is statted for the traditional AC 
  approach. Lastly, I also like the implied model where AC0 is a "balance 
  point," and negative AC values represent a sort of "supernatural" 
  defensive ability. (In fact, some OD&D referees require magic weapons 
  to hit negative ACs.) I think this gives armor class a sense of scale (and 
  implied limits). I prefer that over a more open-ended feel. 
  I'm adopting a slightly different formula from THAC0. It keeps the 
  traditional AC system (i.e. AC2 is platemail and shield), but uses an 
  attack bonus with addition, like the formula of the d20 system. PCs and 
  monsters have an attack bonus (calculated from 20 - THAC0, although 
  I'm using a "smoothed" progression). When rolling to hit, add your die 
  
  43 
   
  roll + your attack bonus + your enemy's AC. If the total is 20 or higher, 
  you hit. 
  Following are the (smoothed) attack bonuses that I'm using: 
  Level 
  Fighting Men 
  Magic Users 
  Clerics 
  F1 
  +1 
  +1 
  +1 
  F2 
  +2 
  +1 
  +1 
  F3 
  +2 
  +1 
  +2 
  F4 
  +3 
  +2 
  +2 
  F5 
  +4 
  +2 
  +3 
  F6 
  +5 
  +3 
  +3 
  F7 
  +6 
  +3 
  +4 
  F8 
  +7 
  +4 
  +5 
  F9 
  +7 
  +4 
  +6 
  F10 
  +8 
  +5 
  +6 
  F11 
  +8 
  +6 
  +7 
  F12 
  +9 
  +6 
  +7 
  F13 
  +10 
  +6 
  +8 
  F14 
  +11 
  +7 
  +8 
  F15 
  +12 
  +7 
  +9 
  F16 
  +13 
  +8 
  +9 
  Monster HD 
  Bonus 
  Up to 1 
  +1 
  1+1 
  +2 
  2 to 3 
  +3 
  3+1 to 4 
  +5 
  4+1 to 6 
  +6 
  6+1 to 8+x 
  +7 
  9 to 10+x 
  +9 
  11+ 
  +11 
   
  THIEVES & THIEF SKILLS 
  The Thief class is not part of the original three OD&D books, but was 
  added in Supplement I. Weak in combat and casting no spells, the 
  main feature of the class is its special skills like climbing sheer walls, 
  disarming small mechanical traps, moving without making a sound, 
  hiding in shadows, executing surprise backstabs, et cetera. Over time, 
  I've come to prefer the game without the Thief class (i.e. using only the 
  original three classes). The role the thief usually plays (scout/sneaky-
  guy) is easily filled by the other classes; everyone can attempt to be 
  stealthy, search for traps, et cetera. Also, without the Thief and his 
  special abilities, these activities are often performed by the player 
  
  44 
   
  describing how he goes about it, rather than rolling against a skill, 
  which I think is a lot of fun. 
  The following quote from Mike Mearls (a lead developer for 4E D&D) 
  sums it up, for me: 
  I've thought a lot about this for my OD&D game, and I 
  decided to stick to the original three [classes] without the 
  thief. 
  As others have mentioned, the thief is a self-justifying class. 
  More importantly, I'd rather the players use critical thinking 
  and deduction to figure out traps, unlock doors, and so on. I'd 
  prefer to allow any player of sufficient creativity and wits to 
  figure a way past an obstacle. To me, that's the appeal of 
  original D&D. (link to original post) 
  While I prefer to run without the Thief class, there are campaigns where 
  I've allowed them. When I allow Thieves, their class skills are treated 
  as extraordinary capabilities. That is, anyone can hide, but a Thief can 
  hide in shadows. Anyone can move quietly, but a Thief can move 
  silently, without even making a sound. Anyone can climb, but a Thief 
  can climb sheer walls. Et cetera. 
  As an example, consider the act of sneaking up behind a human 
  sentry. The Fighting Man takes of his mail and hard boots, and makes 
  an effort to be quiet on his approach. I'd probably give him an 
  increased chance of surprising the sentry: maybe 3 or 4 in 6, 
  depending on the exact circumstances. If a Thief were trying the same 
  thing, he'd use his move silently ability. If the Thief makes his roll, he's 
  moving without making any audible noise, and since he's out of the 
  sentry's line of sight (i.e. behind him), I'd give him automatic surprise. If 
  the Thief failed his move silently roll, he made some noise, but he's still 
  moving quietly; I'd give him the same chance to surprise as the stealthy 
  Fighting Man (i.e. 3 or 4 in 6). 
  I posted a few ideas on an alternate OD&D Thief class here and here. 
  The main difference is that the mechanics use a more OD&D-ish 
  approach, and the descriptions make it clear how the abilities relate to 
  similar, but less extraordinary actions by other classes. 
  Level/HD/Attacks as Supplement I Thief 
  Stealth - When actively sneaking or hiding, the Thief gets +1 to 
  surprise (e.g. instead of a standard 2:6 chance of surprise, the Thief 
  gets a 3:6 chance of surprise). At level 9, this increases to +2 to 
  
  45 
   
  surprise. (Note that a group uses the surprise chance of the least 
  stealthy group member.) 
  Perceptive - The Thief is only surprised on a 1:6, rather than the 
  standard 2:6. He can detect secret doors on a roll of 1-3. When 
  listening, he hears noises on a roll of 1-2. At level 6, his ability to hear 
  noises improves to 3-6. 
  Mechanical Manipulation - With proper tools, the Thief has a chance 
  of opening mechanical locks without damaging them, or of removing or 
  disabling small mechanical traps, like spring-loaded poison needles 
  and the like. (Note that traps can also be disabled or bypassed with 
  other precautions, described in-play.) His chances to do so are as 
  follows: 
  Level 1-4 = 2:6 (roll 1-2 on 1d6)  
  Level 5-8 = 3:6 (roll 1-3 on 1d6)  
  Leve 9+ = 4:6 (roll 1-4 on 1d6)  
  Sneak Attack - When making a melee attack on an enemy who is 
  unaware of the PC, a successful attack deals maximum damage. At 
  level 5, this improves to maximum damage + 1d6. At level 9, this 
  improves to maximum damage + 2d6. 
  Amazing Climber - The Thief can climb sheer surfaces that most 
  would find impossible without ropes and climbing gear. His chances to 
  climb such surfaces are as follows: 
  Lvl 1-4 = 17:20 (roll 4-20 on a d20)  
  Lvl 5-8 = 18:20 (roll 3-20 on a d20)  
  Lvl 9+ = 19:20 (roll 2-20 on a d20)  
  TURNING UNDEAD 
  The Cleric's ability to turn undead is one of those areas of the D&D 
  rules that leaves much open to referee interpretation. Common 
  questions on the subject includes things like: 
  • 
  What, exactly, happens when he succeeds? 
  • 
  Can the cleric make multiple attempts? 
  • 
  How long do the effects of a successful turn attempt last? 
  • 
  Is there a range limit? 
  The rules do not provide comprehensive answers to all of these 
  questions, but here's how I handle it. I view turning as an ability that 
  stems from the Cleric's faith, allowing him to channel divine power 
  
  46 
   
  against the undead. A successful turning attempt causes affected 
  undead to flee from the Cleric. As the OD&D rules state, a successful 
  turn attempt affects 2d6 of undead. I allow one turning attempt per 
  round. In the case of mixed groups of undead, the least powerful are 
  affected first. I allow the Cleric to continue making attempts to turn 
  more undead on subsequent rounds, until he fails a turning attempt. At 
  that point, his faith is shaken, and he may not make further attempts. 
  I borrow a rule from a later edition (i.e. AD&D) to cover the duration of 
  the turn effect: 3d4 rounds. If the duration expires, the cleric may 
  attempt to turn the undead, again (he can continue doing this as long 
  as his turn attempts continue to succeed). However, the cleric must 
  maintain the effect for the duration; that is, he must continue to actively 
  exert his influence, and may not take other actions like casting spells or 
  attacking. I do not impose a strict range limit, preferring to handle this 
  based on the situation. 
  Other than the cleric ceasing to maintain the effect, I do not use the 
  concept of "breaking the turn." Instead, I consider the undead as being 
  under a strong compulsion to flee the cleric. They act accordingly. This 
  helps when adjudicating situations like undead being cornered or 
  trapped. Say there are a group of ghouls in a 30x30 room with one 
  door. The cleric is standing in the doorway, turning them. These ghouls 
  would move away from the cleric, probably clustering in the corner or 
  against the far wall, clawing at the stones of while hissing and moaning. 
  If further pressure is put on them, they will react, but their actions will 
  also be affected by the turn compulsion. 
  For example, if the cleric starts approaching them, the ghouls will shy 
  away and will probably make for the door, giving the cleric a wide berth. 
  If the cleric moves to block one, that one will attack him, but only in 
  passing as it tries to break past and flee. 
  Another common example might be the cleric maintaining his position 
  in the doorway, while his comrades fire missile weapons into the 
  ghouls. The ghouls are intelligent; they know that this is an intolerable 
  situation, and they won't just sit there. However, they remain under 
  compulsion to flee the cleric. There might be a round or so of 
  confusion, but I'd rule that the pressure would cause the ghouls to rush 
  the door in an attempt to escape, attacking or overbearing anyone 
  (including the cleric) in their way. Their main goal wouldn't be to kill -- 
  just to escape and get farther away from the cleric. 
  I handle animated undead like skeletons or zombies in a similar 
  fashion, keeping their lack of intelligence in mind. They would tend to 
  
  47 
   
  react as individuals, not as a group, and would be slower to react to 
  other pressures (like attacks). For example, replace the ghouls in the 
  earlier example with zombies. If the cleric stood in the doorway while 
  the fighting man fired arrows into a zombie, only that zombie would 
  react to the attack. I see created undead as possessing a limited 'self 
  preservation' instinct that is part of their animating magic. The zombie 
  would try to end the immediate threat by escaping the intolerable 
  situation -- probably by trying to kill the archer. A mindless undead that 
  finds itself close to the cleric, for some reason, might try to escape past 
  him (especially if it saw a long passage beyond), although it's more 
  likely the mindless undead would simply retreat, again. 
  In other words, situational pressures won't break the turn, but they 
  might influence the turned undead such that they'll get close to (or even 
  attack) the cleric, temporarily, in order to get farther away. 
  TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING 
  In my OD&D game, PCs typically receive a single melee attack roll per 
  round (q.v. Abstract Combat), so I needed a rule to handle PCs that 
  fought with a weapon in each hand. I reasoned that two weapons 
  would likely do more damage, assuming they were used competently, 
  but that it would be harder to use two weapons effectively. My house 
  rule states that Fighting Men, Thieves, Elves, and Halflings can use a 
  weapon in each hand, making a single attack roll each round. If they hit 
  and they have a Dex of 13+, they roll 2 damage dice (i.e. 2d6) and take 
  the highest of the two rolls as the damage. Those with Dex of 12 or 
  less inflict standard damage (they lack the dexterity to gain a significant 
  benefit from wielding two weapons). 
  Addendum: I'm also kicking around a different idea for two-wepon 
  fighting. Instead of altering the way damage is rolled, wielding two 
  weapons could result in an increased chance to hit (i.e. +1). Going this 
  route gives you three basic options: weapon + shield (increased 
  defense), weapon + weapon (increased chance to hit), or two-handed 
  weapon (increased average damage), which is nice, mechanically. 
  VANCIAN MAGIC 
  The system of Vancian magic (i.e. spells which are memorized and 
  then "forgotten" when cast) is one of the essential elements of D&D. I 
  concede that you can play the game using a different system for 
  handling magic (spell points, or whatever), but to my way of thinking, 
  doing so casts aside a huge portion of the feel that makes D&D what it 
  is. I love Vancian magic. I love grandiose names for the spells; in fact, 
  the more grandiose and fantastic they are, the better I like them (and I 
  encourage my players to use those kinds of names for their spells). I 
  
  48 
   
  love the idea of magic users scheming to obtain a certain enchantment 
  or charm. I love the concept of a magic user "equipping" himself with a 
  certain set of spells when he sets out in the morning. For a sample of 
  the original "Vancian" flavor, check out "Just so you know, THIS is 
  Vancian magic." 
  My OD&D game will always use Vancian magic. Complaints that it is 
  too constraining for low level magic users fail to impress me. There is 
  no doubt that playing a low-level magic user is a challenge. However, 
  the rewards for success are great, as higher level magic users are 
  incredibly potent and powerful characters. Suck it up and pay your 
  dues, and such power might be yours. I'm unwilling to cast aside the 
  rich atmosphere and feel of Vancian magic to make things easier on 
  low-level magic users. Besides, my current game allows low-level 
  magic users to create magical scrolls (a rule which is has its source in 
  my game's Holmes Basic roots), and I also allow minor "special effects" 
  based on the spells you currently have memorized, so even with the 
  Vancian system, magic users (and clerics) still have some options that 
  don't require them to "take their one shot and wait for the next day." 
  You just can't have D&D without Vancian magic. 
   
   
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/_GM Books/World Building & Game Design/ Misc D, E, F/D&D Musings.pdf