Vol. 1 - Introducing Gameplay - Revision history

Bennettj: /* Attributes */

2026-04-22T16:33:44Z

Attributes

Tao alexis: /* Move Silently */

2026-01-20T22:00:20Z

Move Silently

Tao alexis: /* Setting Traps */

2026-01-20T21:23:29Z

Setting Traps

Tao alexis: /* Setting Traps */

2026-01-20T21:09:29Z

Setting Traps

Tao alexis: /* Find/Remove Traps */

2026-01-20T21:05:33Z

Find/Remove Traps

Tao alexis: /* Picking Pockets */

2026-01-20T20:21:54Z

Picking Pockets

Tao alexis: /* Open Locks */

2026-01-20T20:21:17Z

Open Locks

Tao alexis: /* Open Locks */

2026-01-20T00:37:47Z

Open Locks

Tao alexis: /* Open Locks */

2026-01-20T00:37:24Z

Open Locks

Tao alexis: /* Open Locks */

2026-01-20T00:31:34Z

Open Locks

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 === Attributes ===
-We begin by establishing the character's physical and mental capacities. These are managed through six "attributes," which are also sometimes described as "ability stats" or even simply "stats." The multiplicity of terms indicates their importance in D&D. We should take a moment to remember that for our purposes, these attributes exist as game terms — over the years, all have accumulated cultural interpretations, but these must be directly set aside as they are irrelevant to understanding game play.
+We begin by establishing the character's physical and mental capacities. These are managed through six "attributes," which are also sometimes described as "[[Ability Stats|ability stats]]" or even simply "stats." The multiplicity of terms indicates their importance in D&D. We should take a moment to remember that for our purposes, these attributes exist as game terms — over the years, all have accumulated cultural interpretations, but these must be directly set aside as they are irrelevant to understanding game play.
 Four of these stats describe physical characteristics: strength, constitution, dexterity and charisma. '''Strength''' is best described as prowess, boldness or spirit, as well as being physically brawny or muscular. '''Constitution''' describes health and, loosely, endurance — though parts of the latter are better attributed to strength. '''Dexterity''' best describes agility or nimbleness; the word's relationship to craft, skill or common sense should be discounted in this context. '''Charisma''' describes attractiveness and magnetism; in context, it can relate to the loyalty engendered in others, but that should be treated as secondary to the attribute's direct meaning.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 20 January 2026
Line 932:		Line 932:

	=== Move Silently ===		=== Move Silently ===
		+	The skill expresses an ability to move with little sound and disturbance, even as an example across a squeaky wooden floor, thus enabling the thief to approach an area where an enemy is expected, increasing chances for surprise or as a means to approach in order to back stab; the ability calls out specifically the ability to bypass a guard or member of the watch. It's assumed that most characters, when moving, tend to make a sufficient amount of noise to alert an enemy, but that the chance given is for the character to be "absolutely silent."
		+
		+	With respect to "surprise" as it's explained in the Players Handbook (p.103), following a statement that normally surprise occurs on a 1 or 2 on a d6, the text reads, "Assume the party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster. They have 4 of 6 chances to surprise..." The text does not precisely explain this rule; we do not know if the 4 in 6 refers to moving silently or to "moving silently AND being invisible." The choice of "invisible" as a word here is unfortunate; in context, it clearly does not mean actually being ''transparent'', which is possible through magic in D&D, but is more probably a reference to "hide in shadows" which is discussed immediately after this section. In that case, is it "3 in 6" if only ''move silently'' is achieved, and the same if only hide in shadows is, and then 4 in 6 if both are, or is this actually a misreading of the text. This uncertainty is not addressed at all in the Dungeon Masters Guide.
		+
		+	We know from the elven ability to move silently, aforementioned, provides that people the ability to surprise 3 in 6 — however, that mechanic is not described as "absolute" silence, so even this does not provide a certain answer. It is a therefore a ruling only the DM can make.
		+
		+	There is a stipulation in the Dungeon Masters Guide that silent movement is the same as ordinary movement. It's also stated that the DM should not inform the thief that the die failed — this follows a rule that directive in AD&D that the DM, not the player, should be the one making these die rolls, though the language throughout the books repeately is framed in a language style that conveys the idea of the character trying or attempting or saving themselves. Though in practice, in most games that are played, this rule that the DM should be rolling such dice is simply ignored.
		+
		+	In any case, the supposition here — that only the DM knows whether or not the player's character has succeeded in moving silently — is used to support yet another gotcha example. In this case, it is supposed that while the character ''thinks'' they're being silent, it permits a monster or would-be victim to cleverly wait for the oncoming character to come unknowingly closer. Of course, the monster or victim need make no roll to do this — and in any case, the idea that a thief, trained to move silently from a young age, cannot somehow tell when they've failed using their own ears, is a trifle ridiculous.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 20 January 2026
Line 930:		Line 930:

	Further, failure of success in setting up the trap is expressly described in AD&D as a way for the DM to arbitrarily adjudicate a chance for the thief character being injured, and the amount of injury damage. By our definition of "game rule," this cannot be condoned. And should the player dare to employ poison in the making of the trap — again, an extremely common sort of trap to be found in game — then the character must risk being poisoned also. And it is specifically stipulated that the thief cannot wear gloves or protective handwear, in case a player should think of an obvious solution to this. Finally, the rules do allow generously that more than one attempt can be made to set a trap, if failure occurs.		Further, failure of success in setting up the trap is expressly described in AD&D as a way for the DM to arbitrarily adjudicate a chance for the thief character being injured, and the amount of injury damage. By our definition of "game rule," this cannot be condoned. And should the player dare to employ poison in the making of the trap — again, an extremely common sort of trap to be found in game — then the character must risk being poisoned also. And it is specifically stipulated that the thief cannot wear gloves or protective handwear, in case a player should think of an obvious solution to this. Finally, the rules do allow generously that more than one attempt can be made to set a trap, if failure occurs.
		+
		+	=== Move Silently ===

@@ Line 927: / Line 927: @@
 AD&D also supplies rules for setting traps, though this option is expressly not included or even referred to in the Players Handbook. The percentage chance of success in setting a trap is the same as finding or removing them. There is a section on setting traps to be found on page 20 of the Dungeon Masters Guide that isn't very helpful. Poison needles and scything blades, both common in areas created by the dungeon master, are described here as "special," along with "similar traps," which is in no way definitive, that likely require "special mechanical components," not defined, needing "specialists," also not defined, to manufacture them (at a cost that is also not defined nor is there a time element that's explained).
-The player wishing their thief to create a trap is told to provide the DM "a simple drawing to illustrate how the trap will function," which the DM will then evaluate in terms of its capacity to injure while the trap is set up and modifications to the chance of success; obviously, the more "simple" the drawing, the wider the latitude of the DM in interpreting it. In any case, it is a breach of the game's logic: the ''player'' is not a thief, the ''character'' is the thief. It should in no way be relevant whether or not the player knows anything about trap-setting or need to explain the process; there is simply no rationale for demanding the player produce an out-of-game engineering competence.
+The player wishing their thief to create a trap is told to provide the DM "a simple drawing to illustrate how the trap will function," which the DM will then evaluate in terms of its capacity to injure while the trap is set up and modifications to the chance of success; obviously, the more "simple" the drawing, the wider the latitude of the DM in interpreting it. In any case, it is a breach of the game's logic: the ''player'' is not a thief, the ''character'' is the thief. It should in no way be relevant whether or not the player knows anything about trap-setting, nor should there be any need to explain the process; a player should never be required to produce any out-of-game demonstration for an existing character ability plainly stated as such in the rules.
 Further, failure of success in setting up the trap is expressly described in AD&D as a way for the DM to arbitrarily adjudicate a chance for the thief character being injured, and the amount of injury damage. By our definition of "game rule," this cannot be condoned. And should the player dare to employ poison in the making of the trap — again, an extremely common sort of trap to be found in game — then the character must risk being poisoned also. And it is specifically stipulated that the thief cannot wear gloves or protective handwear, in case a player should think of an obvious solution to this. Finally, the rules do allow generously that more than one attempt can be made to set a trap, if failure occurs.

@@ Line 918: / Line 918: @@
 === Find/Remove Traps ===
-A "trap" is defined by AD&D as a mechanical or magical device that can bge triggered, usually causing damage but potentially enclosing victims within a contained area. Examples include pits, pits with spikes, poison needles, falling blogs, triggered arrows or spears, broken vials that release gas and so on. Finding a trap requires 1-10 rounds
+A "trap" is defined by AD&D as a mechanical or magical device that can bge triggered, usually causing damage but potentially enclosing victims within a contained area. Examples include pits, pits with spikes, poison needles, falling blogs, triggered arrows or spears, broken vials that release gas and so on. The presence or logic of traps as an existing thing, particularly surrounding lairs where presumably residents must come and go without setting the traps off, is not discussed.
-Both finding and removing traps are treated as two actions,
+'''Finding a trap''' requires 1-10 rounds, with the absence of a trap apparently requiring the full ten rounds to ensure, though the rules do not state this and the percentage to find traps expressing the probability that a trap exists that was not found. AD&D also states that only one "try" per thief is allowed, though it is not expressly clear this refers to both finding a trap and removing it. The time cost exists to create tension over the possible appearance of a creature randomly occurring (a "wandering monster"), the time torches must be kept burning, the depletion of how long a spell might last (as many spells continue for a period of time before lapsing) and the imposition of table boredom, which encourages players to become rash and rush ahead without checking for traps (and thus falling prey to them).

@@ Line 900: / Line 900: @@
 === Picking Pockets ===
-This describes the pilfering or filching of small items from another person, with a successful roll indicating they haven't realised that it's happened. Because the game rule includes "sleight of hand," this can be interpreted as the chance to cheat without being noticed at games like cards, casting lots or chuck-a-luck. The ability does not apply to meta-game examples of the player rolling game dice for the character's activities. Rolls that are above the percentage needed by not more than 20 percentage points fall into the range of "not noticed" and "attempt failed." Thus, if I have a 34% chance of cutting a stranger's purse, any roll between 35 and 54 indicates I did not get the purse, but also that I was not noticed in attempting to do so. Any roll of 55 or more (+21% above) indicates that I've both failed and been noticed doing it. The rules allow repeated attempts; the game also notes that a victim might notice and allow the thief to operate anyway, in order to track him or her back to the place that he or she uses as a headquarters. Up to two attempts at picking a pocket can be made during a minute's time (designated a "round" in combat).
+This describes the pilfering or filching of small items from another person, with a successful roll indicating they haven't realised that it's happened. Because the game rule includes "sleight of hand," this can be interpreted as the chance to cheat without being noticed at games like cards, casting lots or chuck-a-luck. The ability does not apply to meta-game examples of the player rolling game dice for the character's activities. Rolls that are above the percentage needed by not more than 20 percentage points fall into the range of "not noticed" and "attempt failed." Thus, if I have a 34% chance of cutting a stranger's purse, any roll between 35 and 54 indicates I did not get the purse, but also that I was not noticed in attempting to do so. Any roll of 55 or more (+21% above) indicates that I've both failed and been noticed doing it. The rules allow repeated attempts; the game also notes that a victim might notice and allow the thief to operate anyway, in order to track him or her back to the place that he or she uses as a headquarters. Up to two attempts at picking a pocket can be made during a "round" (a unit of game time equalling 1 minute).
 AD&D imposes a further penalty upon success of -5% per level of the target above 3rd level; thus, -5% at 4th level, -10% at 5th level and so on, regardless of the thief character's level. On the surface, this seems fair, but because there's no way in game to identify the level of a given person, nor any guideline that states a person of such-and-such a level must be a person who appears to be of importance, this greatly increases the chance of a "gotcha" moment for a high level thief when the DM suddenly identifies the target as a 7th or 8th level person. As the thief's level improves, and the percentage chance also, this adjustment becomes less important — but two separate problems still exist regarding the ability.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 20 January 2026
Line 916:		Line 916:

	The rule exists as written as a choke-point for the player's access to spaces or treasure. If the players must bash the door in because it can't be unlocked, or smash the chest to get at the treasure, then the ensuing noise can be used to bring more enemies as yet another "gotcha," allowing the DM to force the players to earn the treasure again, for no reason except that the thief rolled badly. Such tropes became game standards in early D&D as designers cleverly fit them into standard game modules and examples, allowing them to be reused again and again as adventure nostalgia.		The rule exists as written as a choke-point for the player's access to spaces or treasure. If the players must bash the door in because it can't be unlocked, or smash the chest to get at the treasure, then the ensuing noise can be used to bring more enemies as yet another "gotcha," allowing the DM to force the players to earn the treasure again, for no reason except that the thief rolled badly. Such tropes became game standards in early D&D as designers cleverly fit them into standard game modules and examples, allowing them to be reused again and again as adventure nostalgia.
		+
		+	=== Find/Remove Traps ===
		+	A "trap" is defined by AD&D as a mechanical or magical device that can bge triggered, usually causing damage but potentially enclosing victims within a contained area. Examples include pits, pits with spikes, poison needles, falling blogs, triggered arrows or spears, broken vials that release gas and so on. Finding a trap requires 1-10 rounds
		+
		+	Both finding and removing traps are treated as two actions,

@@ Line 913: / Line 913: @@
 Historically, medieval locks weren't very complex... and further, anyone who has any skill in picking a lock knows that it isn't a question of "will I?" but "how long will this take?" Thieves are typically under a time constraint, as the owners or some other witness might appear at any time, and therefore can be foiled by modern locks that can't be picked in less than a minute. In D&D, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Most locks in the game do not arise from public doorways, but with locked treasures in chests after all the owners have been killed. Occasionally, a lock in a deserted hall or upon a gate in a wilderness is found, but then the thief ought to have as long as they need to open it. In short, with what we actually know about locks, the percentage application with this ability shouldn't be here.
 AD&D does impose a time frame for attempting the opening of a lock: 1 to 10 rounds, which as has been said are equal to minutes. Modern locks, such as a standard residential door lock, made with precise engineered tools, takes nothing like this long. A medieval lock, made of wrought iron or brass, is far from this level of difficulty. In any case, it should be assumed that the thief will eventually crack the lock regardless.
 The rule exists as written as a choke-point for the player's access to spaces or treasure. If the players must bash the door in because it can't be unlocked, or smash the chest to get at the treasure, then the ensuing noise can be used to bring more enemies as yet another "gotcha," allowing the DM to force the players to earn the treasure again, for no reason except that the thief rolled badly. Such tropes became game standards in early D&D as designers cleverly fit them into standard game modules and examples, allowing them to be reused again and again as adventure nostalgia.

@@ Line 911: / Line 911: @@
 AD&D describes this as figuring out how to open "puzzle locks" or foiling magical closures, though at no time are these things defined in game terms. Usually, when a puzzle is met in game, this skill is not employable as the DM wishes for the players to figure it out, not make a die roll. "Thieves picks & tools" are presumed to be necessary for, and can be purchased in game at a dear cost. The rules dictate that only one attempt may be made per lock — and that, upon failing, "no amount of trying will ever enable" success with that lock — except that the next sentence states the thief can make another attempt, after gaining an experience level.
-Historically, medieval locks weren't very complex... and further, anyone who has any skill in picking a lock knows that it isn't a question of "will I?" but "how long will this take?" Thieves are typically under a time constraint, as the owners or some other witness might appear at any time, and therefore can be foiled by modern locks that can't be picked in less than a minute. In D&D, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Most locks in the game do not arise from public doorways, but with locked treasures in chests after all the owners have been killed. Occasionally, a lock in a deserted hall or upon a gate in a wilderness is found, but then the thief ought to have as long as they need to open it. In short, with what we actually know about locks, the percentage application with this ability shouldn't be here. Locks should have a time feature with the assumption that the thief must always eventually crack them.
+Historically, medieval locks weren't very complex... and further, anyone who has any skill in picking a lock knows that it isn't a question of "will I?" but "how long will this take?" Thieves are typically under a time constraint, as the owners or some other witness might appear at any time, and therefore can be foiled by modern locks that can't be picked in less than a minute. In D&D, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Most locks in the game do not arise from public doorways, but with locked treasures in chests after all the owners have been killed. Occasionally, a lock in a deserted hall or upon a gate in a wilderness is found, but then the thief ought to have as long as they need to open it. In short, with what we actually know about locks, the percentage application with this ability shouldn't be here.
 The rule exists as written as a choke-point for the player's access to spaces or treasure. If the players must bash the door in because it can't be unlocked, or smash the chest to get at the treasure, then the ensuing noise can be used to bring more enemies as yet another "gotcha," allowing the DM to force the players to earn the treasure again, for no reason except that the thief rolled badly. Such tropes became game standards in early D&D as designers cleverly fit them into standard game modules and examples, allowing them to be reused again and again as adventure nostalgia.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 20 January 2026
Line 912:		Line 912:

	Historically, medieval locks weren't very complex... and further, anyone who has any skill in picking a lock knows that it isn't a question of "will I?" but "how long will this take?" Thieves are typically under a time constraint, as the owners or some other witness might appear at any time, and therefore can be foiled by modern locks that can't be picked in less than a minute. In D&D, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Most locks in the game do not arise from public doorways, but with locked treasures in chests after all the owners have been killed. Occasionally, a lock in a deserted hall or upon a gate in a wilderness is found, but then the thief ought to have as long as they need to open it. In short, with what we actually know about locks, the percentage application with this ability shouldn't be here. Locks should have a time feature with the assumption that the thief must always eventually crack them.		Historically, medieval locks weren't very complex... and further, anyone who has any skill in picking a lock knows that it isn't a question of "will I?" but "how long will this take?" Thieves are typically under a time constraint, as the owners or some other witness might appear at any time, and therefore can be foiled by modern locks that can't be picked in less than a minute. In D&D, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Most locks in the game do not arise from public doorways, but with locked treasures in chests after all the owners have been killed. Occasionally, a lock in a deserted hall or upon a gate in a wilderness is found, but then the thief ought to have as long as they need to open it. In short, with what we actually know about locks, the percentage application with this ability shouldn't be here. Locks should have a time feature with the assumption that the thief must always eventually crack them.
		+
		+	The rule exists as written as a choke-point for the player's access to spaces or treasure. If the players must bash the door in because it can't be unlocked, or smash the chest to get at the treasure, then the ensuing noise can be used to bring more enemies as yet another "gotcha," allowing the DM to force the players to earn the treasure again, for no reason except that the thief rolled badly. Such tropes became game standards in early D&D as designers cleverly fit them into standard game modules and examples, allowing them to be reused again and again as adventure nostalgia.