Showing posts with label Beyond This Point Be Dragons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beyond This Point Be Dragons. Show all posts

Secrets of the Not-Dalluhn Manuscript

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: ,

The Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript has had an interesting history in the OSR community, a history marked both with fascinating revelations and, at times senseless posturing.  It has stirred up controversy and continues to generate interesting discussion.

My part in all this began in September of 2010, when I was contacted by Keith Dalluhn, and asked to make heads or tails of his copy, and ascertain whether it had a direct connection to Dave Arneson, as he suspected.  Keith must be credited for being the first to try to bring BTPbD to the attention of the gaming community.  He was also first to study the manuscript and write up his findings.  In turn, I worked off and on on BTPbD for a year before writing up a preliminary report for Keith (that formed the basis of my 2012 blog series).  I came to the conclusion that BTPbD was a dead end fork in the history of D&D drafts, a "cross draft" if you will, and the only record of such a draft I knew of was one Arneson had claimed to have made.  That identification seemed to be corroborated by the apparently similarity of the internal art, to Arneson's sketches, and certain internal references whose only analogs were in the FFC.  At that point, I had really only systematically gone through the section of playing tables for my 'blog posts, but planed to write a similar reports for the remaining text sections.  Work on that was delayed by a project I thought to be of greater importance - Champions of ZED.  It's all well and good to write papers talking about data, but what are you going to do with that data?  The Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript held many intriguing ideas, methods, and assumptions about how to play our favorite game, and these deserved to be brought into the light and promoted.  Thus the idea of Champions of ZED was born as a way to preserve the gaming goodness of BTPbD and ultimately of many such rare bits of gaming goodness from other scattered and obscure places.  Working on CoZ in 2011 didn't leave a lot of time for working on analysis papers.

Early in 2012 Jon Peterson started his Playing at the World blog. We didn't circulate in the same circles and I had never heard of him before then, but it was clear he was some kind of collector with access to a lot of material researchers such as myself didn't have.  So I sent him a collegial email, and eventually a copy of the BTPbD manuscript.  After a little convincing on my part that it was indeed a "real" draft, Jon soon began his own, very detailed study, which pretty much freed me up to concentrate on CoZ and other matters.  Jon's thoughts were often at variance with my own, but ultimately, as often happens, he too was right about some of his conclusions (the editor was not Arneson and he didn't draw the art), and not so right about others (It wasn't a Gygax edited draft).   In any case, Jon decided early to drop the "Beyond This Point be Dragons" moniker and begin calling it the "Dalluhn" manuscript.  His publicly stated reasons for doing so involved a puzzling argument about a paperclip stain.

That winding journey brings us to now.  We have learned that Mark Bufkin, a player in a splinter group run by of one of Dave Arneson's players, was the man responsible for putting together the Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript, and that Beyond This Point be Dragons was indeed the title he intended for the work.  There's no need to be coy about the title anymore and indeed it is disrespectful to the late Mr. Bufkin to change Beyond This Point be Dragons to anything else.  One might reasonably refer to the particular, incomplete photocopy recovered by Keith Dalluhn from M. A. R. Barker as the "Dalluhn" manuscript, but not to the more complete work as we now have it.

So what do we have now?

There are three key items:
- A handwritten outline
- A series of maps
- A typed and illustrated manuscript including a previously missing page.


The outline, we have already discussed HERE, so lets move on to the maps and manuscript starting with the latter first, but it will be useful here at least to again post a picture of it.



According to the outline, the following sections were planned, but were never written or perhaps were lost.

An Introduction
The Spiritual Life
And Other Creatures
For The Referee

Moving  on to the text we do have, one of the first things to note is that we got the whole thing wrong.  Okay, I got the whole thing wrong.  I was the first one to break BTPbD into two "books" based on the page count and the order of the text as it was to be found in the pdf Keith Dalluhn made.

So, per the pdf, Book 1 consists of the Title Page (Beyond this Point be Dragons) followed by the "Playing Tables" on pages 2 - 17, and the "Glossary of Terms, pages 18 - 32.

Next comes "Book II".  The first page is a full illustration labeled "Before Setting out for Fame and Fortune". Pages 2 - 29 consist of the rules of the game  (see identical breakdown below).  Page 29, as discussed way back when, ends in mid sentence within the "Baron and the Lord" section.

Mark Bufkin, organized his text differently, as one could infer from the handwritten outline shown above.  Beyond this Point be Dragons is actually organized as follows:

Title Page (Beyond this Point be Dragons)
Before Setting Out to Fame and Fortune - pages 1 - 8
The Underworld -pp 9 - 14
The Upper World - pp 15 - 21
Melees and Combat - pp 22 - 25
The Rewards of Success - 26 - 29

Following page 29, BTPbD picks up directly with "The Playing Tables" page 2 - 17, and the "Glossary of Terms, pages 18 - 32.   The document ends with page 32 and this illustration.


For this second section, it's clear that some kind of title page was intended.  I believe it quite likely that this was the "For the Referee" section indicated in the outline.  If this is correct, the missing title page would have said "For the Referee" underneath some illustration, as is the case with the other section pages found in the document.

So rather than being organized into two books, beginning with the tables and ending with the rules, Bufkin actually began with the rules and included a second section, Which I will suggest was intended "For the Referee", consisting of tables and a glossary and ending on the page shown above.

To avoid confusion with earlier references to Book I and Book II, I will simply call the tables and glossary section the "addendum" and all other references will be to the main text.

Mark Bufkin's BTPbD manuscript also contains a page that was missing in the manuscript recovered by Keith Dalluhn.   This is page 22 in the spell description section and it contains the text description for the following spells: Conjure Elemental, Move Earth, Transmute Rock to Mud, Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, Animate Dead, Magic Jar, Contact Higher Plane, and The Glittering Eye.  Here is a sample:


Another page seemingly missing from the BTPbD text is the map,  Mr Bufkin seems to have enjoyed drawing maps - Heather Bufkin sent me one file with nearly a dozen of them in various states of completion.  Several of these maps have places labeled "Cylorn" or "Lalkel" - place names the text in BTPbD mentions in conjunction with the missing map.  However, despite the similarity of place names these maps are usually very different.  One of these maps - shown below - conforms to the text description significantly better than the others, and may well be the map intended for inclusion with BTPbD.  It is unfinished, as can be seen.



In addition to these maps, there are a number of partially keyed (simple descriptions) maps of building and dungeon levels, which include references to people and places mentioned in the BTPbD text, such as the manor house and dungeon of Brysbane the Blue (p2).  That particular document is illustrated with the pencil sketch versions of two of the BTPbD illustrations (Rewards of Success and opening the dungeon door.)  Note that although nearly identical, these are not the same drawings that appear in the manuscript.  Here is one for comparison;




As it stands, we don't have the last few sentences of the "The Baron and the Lord" section of page 29, or those last couple sections in the outline.  It seems likely these were never written, but who knows?  Perhaps something will turn up.  Even though not quite complete, the Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript and related material provides us with a fascinating glimpse into the gaming world evolving around and from the Twin Cities circle of gamers around the time D&D was published, and it illustrates what one gamer with a little creativity could do with a draft copy of the rules.  It is a remarkable work.

A pdf of the Mark Bufkin copy of Beyond this Point be Dragons and other materials is available to subscribers on my Patreon site. (HERE)






More Beyond This Point be Dragon News

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: ,


Long story short: the good news is that at least one other copy of the Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript has turned up - in the possession of Mark Bufkin's daughter Heather.  The bad news is that according to Heather, it is missing the same pages as the Keith Dalluhn copy.  (I can't verify that they are exactly identical, but am hopeful Heather will forward a pdf when she is able to make a copy).

There is more good news however, Heather has a lot of her dad's gaming materials including a key outline of the manuscript I'll share with you below.  Here for your enjoyment are some excerpts from Heather from our ongoing conversation.  

"Dad was a Twin Cities native who moved to Duluth in his senior year of high school. I don't know if he had any gaming history in the Cities prior to college. 


When I was in high school and got into roleplaying, Dad proudly gave me all his old materials, including this manuscript, which yes I still have. I remember him telling me one of his gaming buddies was from Wisconsin and friends with one of the D&D creators, and they playtested an early version of the game, but didn't particularly care for some of the structure so they wrote their own version. I was sure the one in the pink binder, the one you're talking about, was his adaptation, but then a couple years ago I spotted an image of the cover on a display board about early D&D and assumed it was the playtest draft instead. I guess it turns out it was Dad's after all.


So, bad news. The copy I have is exactly as incomplete as yours.... From some of the other materials I found, it seems possible BTPbD was never finished.


I remember asking him about the artwork and he said one of his friends did it. He did draw the maps, however. A LOT of maps. I have all the originals and they're very detailed, Tolkien-esque work. He was a big LOTR fan as well as C.S. Lewis; he read the Narnia books to me as I was growing up and they were indeed one of his favorite series.


Actually now I'm second-guessing myself. He might have done some of the art; it might only be one particular piece that he didn't (or did) do. 


I saw some speculation on linked pages that there might have been another typist, but Dad was a newspaperman, news editor of the Statesman at one point, and made a lot of his own posters and things, so I'm certain he typed and put it together himself. It's some of those posters that's making me hesitate to say he didn't draw any of the art, although he might have asked his artist friend to do those as well for all I know.


This is incredibly awesome and I'm happy to share what I can with the community. Dad would never have imagined there'd be so much interest in something he threw together in college.

Thanks again for contacting me."

I think it is very important to note what Heather said about "not caring for the structure" of the D&D game as he knew it.  It is evident from what has been revealed about Gygax's "Guidon D&D" draft, that it was structurally a bit of a mess (a characteristic, not coincidentally, the printed version of D&D is also much criticized for).  Mark Bufkin, being a journalist, evidently chaffed at the poor organization of the text to the extent that he was motivated to reorganize it himself, and in the process, rework any dependencies on polyhedral dice to standard six siders - as Chuck Monson had explained.  The bulk of the text of BTPbD is otherwise unchanged from that of GD&D (with a number of interesting exceptions to be sure).

In fact I think it has always been clear that BTPbD is distinctively well organized and appeared to be a distinct and deliberate branch of development, as I've said from the start.  While it was argued by some that the structural and textual improvements in BTPbD could be explained away as part of the normal "churn" of an intermediary draft prepped by Gygax, that conclusion seemed more wishfully than factually based.   It seems Heather's comments cement what we already know about the manuscript, that its creation involved a strong motivation for reorganization.

To this end Heather has been kind enough to send along something else - a picture of Mark Bufkin's working outline of "Book II" of the text:



There's several things to note here.  Let's start with the heading titles and page numbers - they match exactly those of the manuscript, including the missing illustration on page 22.  Another thing sure to be noted is the fact that we now know what sections were intended to follow "The Baron and the Lord", which is the last section in our existing copy of BTPbD.  This included a section for the endgame of Clerics, a discussion of "other creatures" and more notes for the referee.  It seems likely these were never actually written, but perhaps a bit more digging will let us know for sure.  One clue is that these sections were added to the outline with an orange pen, and probably indicate the plan of a work in progress, as if the outline had been made just prior to the completion of Page 28 - The Rewards of Success illustration.

In any case this new information helps us really nail down the intended scope and purpose of Mark Bufkin's revision. 

BEYOND THIS POINT BE DRAGONS: Mystery Solved, Mystery Deepens

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: , ,

It was a nice story and a pretty slick bit of deductive reasoning, the series of posts I wrote introducing the existence of Beyond This Point be Dragons back in late April of 2012.  I concluded that Dave Arneson had been the creative force behind the production of the Beyond This Point be Dragons Manuscript.  The conclusion rested primarily on four lines of evidence:

1) The art looked a lot like the drawings in the FFC

2) The language of the text was significantly less "Gygaxian" than that of the 3lbb's and contained words most characteristic of Arneson (chops especially)

3) There were trace rules only found in the BTPbD and in the FFC.

4) Gygax claimed to have edited two drafts of D&D, and Arneson mentioned only creating a single unused "final draft".  Since BTPbD did not reasonably appear to be either of the Gygax drafts, Arneson's draft alone remained as the best fit explanation for BTPbD. 

The first of these arguments simply fell apart under scrutiny, because I choose to compare handwriting found on the various pieces of art and in the FFC that turned out to be a mix and match of hands.  Nevertheless a weaker case could still be made on stylistic grounds, but it just wasn't clear who drew the pictures.

Without the art, the second and third points still indicated a strong Arneson connection, but without any other, or earlier D&D drafts there was really no way to know if the "Arnesonianisms" and other mystery items were additions by Arneson to BTPbD or carryovers from some earlier draft that eventually got cut or changed before D&D was published.  

The last point teetered on what may have been oversimplified remarks by Gygax, a single unspecific remark by Arneson, and a lack of some of Arneson's D&D material.  What actually went on regarding the editing and typing of manuscripts wasn't perhaps as clear as the two men had let on.

There was another possibility that I acknowledged in the May 3rd 2012 'blog article "... we would need to find something unique, some quirky word or turn of phrase, or pattern of speech that really stands out as characteristically his.  Without such a marker, there would always remain the possibility that BPTBD could have been prepared by some other associate of Gygax and Arneson or some one of the couple of dozen members of the IFW who had an early script."

Zenopus (the ever clever Zac) picked up up on this very thought and in a post on ODD74  where he asked "Can it be excluded that this was prepared/edited/revised at a later date from Dave's notes by someone other than him?"  Cadriel (of the excellent Semper Initiativus Unum 'blog expressed much the same skepticism, "It's clear that this is a document out of the Minneapolis "scene" in Dungeons & Dragons, and clearly bears the mark of Arneson's play in large part. (There are things I think need more research, such as the "instant kill" rule - no Arneson player has ever reported that, and it should be confirmed.) However, given the presentation, I'm not sure it's a draft intended to be sent to TSR for publication. The other possibility is that it's a document emerging out of Arneson's large play group, possibly with a separate editor, that put forward his rules for play by other groups in 1973." source

Clever fellows, all three.

In response I wrote "The idea that BTPBD might somehow have been produced by someone in Arneson's gaming circle is the hardest to rule out. Unlike the other ideas, there's no direct contrary evidence in the text, particularly if you assume Arneson or notes from Arneson were involved.

We have to wonder who that might have been though and why they would have bothered.  Those whom I have been in touch with (J snider, G Svenson, S. Rocheford, M. Mornard) know nothing about BTPBD, and that's a big problem for your theory.  There's also the fact that Arneson only shared notes with a very few of his players (mostly the ones I just mentioned along with Ross Maker) - he didn't want rules arguments.  However, once the Minnesota group recieved Manuscript B from Gygax, they did begin playtesting it, so one of them could theoretically have created BTPBD.  Maker or maybe some other alternate DM in one of the splinter groups, such as that Ken Fletcher played in, could possibly have found Mss B inadequate and tried to expand it, but, as I mentioned, none of the other Blackmoor folks know of anyone working on D&D Mss. except Dave, and its hard to see what a splinter group not associated with Dave would be doing with some of his material and, apparently not much of their own."

In short, there seemed to me to be no credible reason and no credible candidate in the Twin Cities to explain a secret production of Beyond This Point be Dragons.  Turns out I was right about that.  There was no secret editor  in the Twin Cities.  There was however in Duluth....

The first clues came a few weeks ago when Jon Peterson, author of Playing at the World and an avid collector, turned up and published here, a flyer from a group in Duluth Minnesota that had a picture of a wizard that was part of one of the full page illustrations found in BTPbD.  The group was called Contax, and one of the people instrumental in starting that group had been Chuck Monson.


That's the same Chuck Monson, interviewed in our previous post, who played in Blackmoor and is mentioned in the FFC.   In the course of our dialog he told me about a manuscript he used to run games in Duluth  He said, (questions from me in italics)


"David allowed me to copy his notes in those days and that copy was my source to continue gaming back in Duluth for a couple of years during my college days.  I wore the ink off the pages running my own campaign. This was before any formal publication of D&D.   


I also remember that my copy of David's notes was from another copy.  The graphics were in background on graph paper and the lines were clearer than in the OD&D publication, but those marks were still evident there. My copy was on a heat-transfer ink copier so the ink sat on top of the heavy paper.  


Hard to recall the drawings. They included at least one sketch of a map and a monster certainly as an example and the graph paper it was drawn on was much clearer than as later appeared in the D&D booklets.  


Was this a "clean" copy or did it have scribbled hand written corrections or additions into the margins or anything like that.  I realize that may be something too difficult to recall.


Certainly difficult to recall, and, no, no marginalia that I can image.  Unlike Harry Potter, no magical notations to casting ."



I also sent him a copy of the BTPbD manuscript and mentioned that one of the images had also been found in a Flyer from Contax.  I asked if the manuscript rang any bells.  Here is his response (questions from me in italics):


"I know something of this.


Contax:  hearing that again caused me to remember vaguely using that group name for about one hour, then forgetting it.   One of those vain moments in college gaming days.   It referenced my Duluth gaming friends in that day with hopes of contacting other players.  


Among them was Mark Bufkin whose enthusiasm produced  Beyond This Point Be Dragons.   Mark's effort was to reduce the die rolling to d6's, not the polygonal version.  I do not believe he ever ran a game with those rules.


At some time I mentioned this to Prof. Barker and later delivered the only copy I had ever seen (actually unread until the car trip to the Twin Cities) .  Barker remarked right away that it looked like a copy of Arneson's work.  That made me uncomfortable, but it was after all not mine to defend.  Barker gave me a copy of his Wizard's War game at the time.  Barker was engaged with serious discussions of his intellectual property rights with TSR, but I think this was prior to the link to David Arneson's share holding interest in TSR. 


Mark was more engaged in his fantasy baseball league at the time.  His team in the 1970's was the Texas Rangers.  That puts my contact time with Mark around 1971 to 1975. "  


In your earlier email you mentioned "David allowed me to copy his notes in those days and that copy was my source to continue gaming back in Duluth for a couple of years during my college days."  Were those notes  what Mark Bufkin used to create his copy or was he working off of something else?


"I have to think that Mark worked from my copy but perhaps this was after the very first three book set was published and of course in his own style on a typewriter.  


Mark never ventured to the Twin Cities nor did he play with David Arneson during the time of our gaming friendship. "


Do you know if he drew the art in BTPbD? 

"I did presume at the time that he did draw that artwork himself.  There were no other common sources for us to work with that I recall. " 

There is a reference to Narnia as one of several fantasy world examples.  Was Narnia an inspirational setting in your gaming group?

"Mark would definitely be the most likely party to refer to Narnia.  No one else in my gaming group in those days had read the CS Lewis works.   This gave Mark a lot of story material which we would enjoy.  

My gaming story backgrounds were from reading the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series and then R. E. Howard's various tales."  

There are instructions in the manuscript for using playing cards to randomly generate percentiles.  Was using playing cards like that something you guys used to do?
"No, the playing card randomizers were only in Mark's game play.  I don't recall much more than that. " 


Although Mr. Monson was able to clear away much of the mystery surrounding BTPbD, there are still a number of questions remaining.  I wish my next statements were about learning more from Mr Bufkin, but I have to sadly report that he passed away in 2012 at just 57 years of age, and less than 2 months after my initial post on BTPbD.  He was only 18 in 1973.

What was Chuck Monson's copy of the rules that Mark Bufkin used to produce BTPbD?   Was it a straight copy of Gygax's "Guidon D&D" draft - the one used to produce the Mornard fargments?  Or was it a draft Arneson had prepared with his notes and changes?  Did Bufkin inject a "Twin Cities" vibe into BTPbD through being a participant in Chuck Monson's games, or did that come directly from the source materials he used?

For example, Jon Peterson has made the interesting argument on ODD74 that certain features, the "SETTING THE STAGE" section (bk II:16)  in particular, strike him as deriving from some campaign other than Greyhawk or Blackmoor.  The names are unique to BTPbD, but I felt they are fairly easily explainable as simply being generic examples from a generic sample map, but maybe they meant something more to Mark Bufkin.  One thing about that "SETTING THE STAGE" section that always seemed particularly odd to me was the mention of Narnia.  I'd say references to the works of C. S. Lewis are at least very rare if not completely absent in any of the contemporary material from either Gygax or Arneson.  Maybe this is an example of a section Bufkin wrote or edited, or maybe it's not.

So, while we can say the mystery of who created the Beyond This Point Be Dragons manuscript is resolved, there remains much work to be done and more mysteries to be solved with this fascinating little set of rules.



Svenny's Notes and Equipment Costs

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: , ,

So, we've talked a bit about it before, but to refresh your memory, Greg Svenson, the "Great Svenny" of Blackmoor, several years ago on Havards excelent Blackmoor forum, shared notes he penciled in to the back cover of his 2nd editon CHAINMAIL(TM) booklet.  I think I'll spend a few posts talking about them, but first I want to take a closer look at the equipment he lists and do some price comparisons.

Here is the raw list:

Costs:
Ground soldier 10  GP
Slave male 10 GP
Bow 25 GP
Slave female 25 GP
Shield & Helm 4 GP
Lantern 10 GP
Sword 1 GP
Silver Crux. 10 GP
Chainmail 24 GP
Holy water
Leather Armor 2 GP
10 gal barrel 25 GP
Full plate armor 40 GP
Magic Chainmail 1300 GP
Pike 45 GP
Magic rope 5GP/foot
Magic plate armor 2000 GP
Rope 50' 1 GP
Magic sword 1200 GP
Magic shield 250 GP
Magic cloak 1500 GP A
Magic boots 150 GP -> make no noise or tracks, if fall land on feet

Magic helm 250 GP

Below I've rearranged this list into related things and assigned a column for the price of the item found in First Fantasy Campaign (FFC), the Dalluhn manuscript/Beyond This Point be Dragons 1973 draft of D&D (BTPbD) and the origninal boxed set of D&D 1974 (OD&D):
.  
People
Item
Svenson
FFC
BTPbD D&D
OD&D
Ground soldier
10  GP
10 GP (LF)
1 GP
2 GP/LF or 3GP/HF
Slave male
10  GP
15 GP
200- 400 GP

Slave female
25 GP
25 GP
100-600 GP



Arms
Item
Svenson
FFC
BTPbD D&D
OD&D
Bow
25 GP
25GP
25 GP
25 GP
Sword
1 GP
10
10 GP
10 GP
Pike
45 GP
10 (Pikeman costs 45)
5 GP
5 GP
Shield & Helm

4 GP
2 + 2 GP
5 + 5 GP
10 + 10 GP
Full plate armor
40 GP

40 GP
50 GP
50 GP
Chainmail
24 GP
24 GP
25 GP
30 GP
Leather Armor
2 GP

22 GP
15 GP
15 GP


Gear
Item
Svenson
FFC
BTPbD D&D
OD&D





Holy water
(10 gal barrel)
25 GP


10 GP
Silver Crux.
10 GP


25 GP
Rope 50'
1 GP

½ GP
1  GP
Lantern
10 GP

10 GP
10 GP

Magical Accoutrements
Item
Svenson
FFC
BTPbD D&D
OD&D
Magic helm
250 GP



Magic plate armor
2000 GP

1000 GP

Magic Chainmail
1300 GP



Magic sword
1200 GP
1000 GP (2700 for two handed)


Magic shield
250 GP



Magic cloak
1500 GP



Magic boots
150 GP



Magic rope
5GP/foot





Interesting yes?  I don't think I need to do a lot of analysis here, and I expect different people will be drawn to different details.  I find it interesting to note those prices which remain the same and those which change a good bit. I find shield and helmet especially interesting, for example.  Svenson's prices for magic items are also particularly intriguing and potentially useful given the lack of any prices given in OD&D.

Cleric Magic

Author: DHBoggs / Labels: , , , ,


The “Vancian” magic of the OD&D magic user is a hot topic for discussion.  Funnily enough, cleric magic hardly gets a mention, but then, it hardly gets a mention in the 3lbb’s either.  Many Dungeon Masters seem to assume it’s just the same memorize, fire, forget as Magic-user spells, with the possible exception – as revealed in Supplement I: Greyhawk – that the "memory" of the spell comes from a deity rather than a spellbook.
One of the very first Cleric player characters was played by Mike Carr in Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign.  Mike had this to say about his character;

“I also recall having the ability to cast one or two spells and having the ability to help heal minor wounds, but in retrospect it's obvious my character was low level and not particularly impressive.” (Carr interview, http://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5550)
So from that we basically know that clerics had spell like abilities from the start, and while that might not seem like much, it does tell us something.  Remember, that in early Blackmoor, wizardly magic was alchemical, typically involving balls of Superberries.  Clerical magic in Blackmoor was apparently not alchemical but neither would it have been Vancian, as that was something Gygax introduced during playtesting - long after the debut of the Cleric.  The first Clerics could apparently simply cast the spells they knew, and if Mike is correct they could expect to acquire more spells as they advanced.
In fact, 3lbb magic for both Clerics and Magic-users can be read almost the same way.  We are really only told that each class level gets a number of spells they can “remember” for an adventure  and that no spell may be cast twice in 24 hrs (M&M:18).  So a 3rd level Cleric can cast two spells “in an adventure”, but they can’t be the same spell in a 24 hour period.  How or when the Cleric or Magic user renews spells is vague, but would seem to have to take place between adventures.
We are also told that spells are kept in spell books, (although Gygax later explained spell books were only meant for Magic-users), so this could be presumed to be the source from which spells were “remembered”.  
Beyond This Point Be Dragons says nothing at all about remembering spells and alters the 24 hr rule by telling us the number of spells a Magic-user or Cleric is given on the Spells/Level table indicates the total number of spells that can be cast in 24hrs.  So a 3rd level priest could cast 2 First level spells every 24 hrs.  That would seem to allow a more freeform renewal of spells than the 3lbb’s and add the possibility of casting more spells in an adventure that lasts more than a day.
Even so, in both BTPBD and 3lbbs, Magic-user spells and Cleric spells would seem to work in an identical fashion, until we look at spell reversal.  Anti-Clerics (evil) are given the power to cast reversed Cleric spells.  “Evil” magic users aren’t given a similar option.  There seems to be no such thing as reversing a MU spell.  Yes, MU spells can be countered by a second casting while chanting the same spell backwards, according to the Rock to Mud and Stone to Flesh spells, but If you have “Slow” memorized you can’t simply decide to cast “Haste” instead.  These are separate spells for Magic-users.
So Cleric magic and MU magic is somewhat different after all, but is it a difference of just reversal, or of how they are acquired and renewed also?
While Gygax’s Supplement I Greyhawk is predominantly a game changer for OD&D, it also contains some clarifications of meaning that are meant to clarify, not alter the original.  “All cleric spells are considered as "divinely" given.”, (page 8) seems to be one such clarification.  
This is further explained in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide.  "It is well known by all experienced players that clerics, unlike magic-users, have their spells bestowed upon them by their respective deities. By meditation and prayer the clerics receive the specially empowered words which form the various spells...." Gygax, DMG:38.  Very, very rarely will I look to anything in AD&D for clarification of OD&D, but this quote seems to be a reasonable exception, given that the “experienced players” Gary refers to could only have been experienced OD&D players at the time it was written.

This divine granting of spells explains something else about the 3lbb's.  There's no Read Magic spell for Clerics.  Magic-user spells can only be understood with the use of a Read Magic spell.  If Clerics were expected to memorize thier spells from spell books and scrolls as magic users do, and if their magic is basically the same, then Clerics would need a Read Magic spell too.
So we do see an intended difference in 3lbb spell acquisition even from the start.  Magic-users memorize (remember) spells, whereas Clerics simply know them via divine inspiration.  Clerics therefore can simply pray and renew any spells they cast every 24 hours, and this could possibly be true even during the course of an adventure if you stretch the 3lbb rule.  Magic-users must however study a spellbook to remember the spell and, according to the 3lbb’s, can only memorize spells between adventures.
This, by the way, is exactly how John Erich Holmes interpreted the rules for his “blue book” introductory D&D rulebook.  Apparently to rationalize the "during an adventure" rule, he added the detail that spell books are giant tomes that can’t be carried on adventures, thus necessitating the MU to return to his study to renew spells.  But for Clerics, Holmes says “Since clerical spells are divinely given, they do not have to be studied to master them. A second level cleric can call on any first level spell he wants to use, thus the entire gamut of spells is available to him for selection prior to the adventure.  However, only that spell or spells selected can be used during the course of the adventure.” Holmes D&D:17.
This difference in Cleric and Magic-user magic is interesting in another way also.  OD&D Cleric magic, being non-vancian, looks very much like it preserves a simpler spellcasting system from Blackmoor.  Cleric spells are essentially an inherent ability of Clerics; they are just limited by how often they can be cast, and which spells can be cast by Cleric level.

About Me

My photo
Game Archaeologist/Anthropologist, Scholar, Historic Preservation Analyst, and a rural American father of three.
Powered by Blogger.

My Blog List

Followers