Watching a Film with Women without Losing My Manhood

Going to take a short break and write another post today. I just finished watching Madame Web. I'd like to talk about it.

Went into it with the attitude, "Well, let's see how bad it really is." Because I had every reason to expect it to be. The internet buzz was vicious, incendiary and unrelenting on this film: it was bad, bad, bad. Some of my sites that I subscribe to deconstructed this film and found it loathsome, irrational, you name it. I was told it was another Marvel misfire, that Dakota Johnson gave an "awkward performance," that it was a "2000s throwback" and a lot of other things that essentially had buried this film for me.

But... was coming off Death By Lightning, which I watched yesterday, and had no more gas to do anything else tonight. Blog post written, other content designed... feeling up for something and found nothing to watch. So, like I said, "Oh what the hell, let's see how bad it is. Bet I don't last ten minutes."

I have to start by saying that cultural commentary just now is on autopilot. People see a cape, a studio logo, a few stills... and the next thing you know they're creating a bunch of "stickers" with words on them, ready made to slap on the product sight unseen. I've been told that Dakota Johnson had an "odd, detached delivery." Nonsense. She spoke like Dakota Johnson. Now it's fine if you don't like her, I don't really care, but anything about the way she delivered lines is just made up. That "2000s vibe." I've seen all those 2000s superhero movies. This isn't like any of them. It's not X-men or Sam Raimi or Constantine, all of which I've seen this compared with. The atmosphere? It doesn't have an "atmosphere," unless for some reason "filmmaking" is now somehow not what it has always been. 

I've seen arguments that if a thing doesn't "fit" with everything else, then it must be a new "species" of film. Like films must have a genealogy, they can't be defined as a moving process of narrative, character discovery, exposition, introspection and resolution. No, films "gestate." They're not deliberately fashioned by hard working individuals who have a vision. They come out of the womb instantly and fully made, and if they don't fit preconceptions, then it's the film that's wrong. 

What a pile of steaming horseshit the critical part of this culture has become.

I'll go into why I think the internet dumping ground didn't like this film. There are some unfortunate special effects choices that happen in the first few minutes. It accepts an invented cultural structure that seems like it's going to strongly influence the plot of the film... except it doesn't, at any point, actually do so. The structure exists to give exposition. But if a person watched the beginning of the film, and did not go on watching... then they would almost certainly extrapolate the wrong expectation from the film's first ten minutes. I think this alone accounts for a least a third of those who "didn't like it." They never saw the film at all.

A shaky CGI spider, an unfamiliar mythos, and they assumed they knew the whole thing.

It takes too long to get started. Most superhero powers of this genre function like a vending machine. Punch button, get powers, kick ass. This doesn't do that. More than half-way through the picture, the character still cannot "just turn her powers on." I think that drove quite a lot of people absolutely fucking nuts. The character is confused; she acts confused; she has every reason to BE confused. Anyone in the same situation would be. And when you're confused, you speak in a "detached, stumbling, slightly fearful manner." This is where the detached shit comes from. All you have to do is ignore the plot and assume it's the actress, and there you are. How do you arrive at that conclusion? You watch the entire film skipping 10 seconds/30 seconds at a time and assume you know everything that's going on. You don't know, but you write and present a youtube video anyway.

This is also where you get the "2000s vibe" shit... because in the same way, Raimi's Peter Parker needed time to "figure it out." Rachel Weiss in Constantine needed time to "figure it out." Wolverine was struggling with "figuring it out." That's not a fucking "2000s vibe." That's how films have been made since Buster Keaton's The General. Characters get information, figure it out, and we figure it out with them. But the vending machine of DC/Marvel cut-scenes have ruined filmmaking and characterisation. That's NOT the fault of a film that decides to pursue it.

Now, let's get down to the so-called real problem of Madame Web. It's not about a man. I don't exactly know when or how it became acceptable or even reasonable to decide that a little better than half the population of the planet were defacto unworthy of respect or conceptual storytelling, but this is where we've gotten, isn't it? Yeah, I know, the fucking gamers give a shit. And the little incels do too, the poor belated pillow humpers that they are. But I am totally unclear on how the rest of us are expected to actually get on board this train. Some of us have women in our lives, whom we love a lot, whom we would happily sacrifice ourselves for should it come to that. Quite a lot of us, actually. And daughters and sisters and mothers... and so I'm not really clear on why I'm supposed to forget things like what it's like to have a daughter, or care about girls or women, or such like, because some diddly-fuck with an internet channel screams about how "boys don't get attention any more." I'm getting pretty tired of that long-playing record (reference from another time, ignore it), and the time it's being given by the not-even-remotely-mainstream television media (also a relic of some 30 years ago). I'm just as happy to sit and watch a movie about a woman character figuring things out as a man character. If others aren't, well... I'm just very glad to say I don't have any males in my life like that. Not a one. I told the last to take a hike coincidentally 30 years ago, because I was tired of carrying him.

Sorry.  I feel somewhat incendiary about this, because I was very much misled by what I heard online, and since everything I heard online was bad, I'm not very keen with that community just now. And though I am 61, I'm fundamentally Bohemian, fundamentally a misanthrope of my own variety, and fundamentally not especially respectful of prudishness. So, when angry, I swear a lot.

Madame Web commits the SIN of having most of its lines spoken by four humans of the female gender. There are two supporting actors in the film that are male, and one villain that is male. The actor playing the villain is Tarim Rahim. He tends to play parts where he has a quiet intensity, an authority that radiates rather than bluster. Obsession, instinct, not high-testosterone coded. He's also pretty. Pretty doesn't sell well with the incels.

One of the supporting males, Mike Epps, gets about six lines and then... well, no spoilers. The other, Adam Scott, is well known for playing the basic sympathetic male he's playing in this film, notably in Severance. Thus — and this is stupidly important — this makes all the males in this woman's film all "pussy-boys." Un-Ak-ceptable!

The men don't drive the plot, the men don't achieve any important success, they don't contribute the hyper-key thing that the women critically need to succeed... they are the Captain Dunsel of film characters and that just is not how films have to be made as per the internet. There are rules we're supposed to follow, dammit (fuck knows why) and this movie didn't even come close to following them.

As such, there's no possible way this could be a good film. It doesn't matter what the women do, or what they believe or what they figure out without needing a man to propel, protect or sacrifice himself for them... the sin of doing it all on their own absolutely violates the first principle of The Protect the Male's Significance code! (Don't blame me if it's the PMS code for short).

I am a man. And weirdly, watching women figure things out without help, and come together to care and protect each other, doesn't make me feel emasculated. I don't know why. Maybe it's because I think with the lump above my shoulders, and not about using my hands to protect the tinier lump below my hips.

Yeah, it's "tinier." It's not bigger than my fucking head, is it?

I'm not going to talk about the plot. I enjoyed the film. It takes its time, it provides rational reasons for action, there are no significant plotholes... I'd watch it again. No, it's not a "great" film. It's not The Graduate. But it is a good film. And if you're an adult, and you haven't tried it yet because you're worried about what's been written about it... and you don't need to have your plot injected at warp speed, I think you'll have a pleasant time with it.

Dungeons & Dragons White Box 21

Continuing with this Demosthenean exercise...

Hold Monster: Same as Hold Person but applicable to Monsters.

On some level one has to admire the restraint here. It's a bit like describing a car as, "same as a bike but for more persons," but I can't actually complain about the accuracy of what's here.

Conjure Elemental: A spell to conjure an Air, Water, Fire or Earth Elemental. Only one of each type can be conjured by a Magic-User during any one day. The Elemental will remain until dispelled, but the Magic-User must concentrate on control or the elemental will turn upon its conjurer and attack him (see CHAINMAIL). Conjured elementals are the strongest, with 16 hit dice as is explained in Vol. Il, MONSTERS & TREASURE. Range: 24"

Chainmail has the following to say about elementals:

Conjuration of an Elemental: Wizards can conjure Elementals, but no more than one of each type can be brought into existence. (Note: This does not apply to Djinn and Efreet.) If the Wizard who conjured the Elemental is disturbed (attacked) while the Elemental is still in existence, he loses control of it, and it will then attack the conjurer. An Elemental created by a Wizard who is subsequently killed will attack the nearest figure. Such Elementals must be dispelled by a Wizard or (killed) by combat.

ELEMENTALS (including Djinn and Efrett): In order to bring these creatures into a game, it is necessary that they be conjured up by a Wizard. There are two classes of Elementals, those subject to fire (Air and Water Elemental) and those subject to electricity (Earth and Fire Elementals). Note that fire breathing Dragons will not affect the latter kind of Elementals.

Air Elemental (including Djinn): Fly 24", attack as four Light Horse, are impervious to normal attacks against them,and add two to their dice roll when combating airborne opponents.

Earth Elementals : Move 6", attack as four Heavy Horse, are impervious to normal attacks against them, and add 1 to their dice score when fighting earthbound opponents.

Fire Elementals (including Efreet): Move 12", attack as four Medium Horse, are impervious to normal attacks against them, and add two to their dice score when combating opponents who normally employ fire (Dragons and Wizards who cast fire balls).

Water Elementals: Move 6" outside water, 18" in water (must remain within 6" of water at all times), attack as four Light Horse on land and as four Heavy Horse in water. Water Elementals are impervious to normal attacks against them, and they add 2 to their dice score when fighting within or in 3" of a large body of water (river or lake).

Only one Elemental of each kind may be brought into any game in play at the time. If an Elemental is uncontrolled by the Wizard who summoned it, it will attack the Wizard who conjured it, moving towards him in a straight path, attacking any figures in its path.

Add to this a note from page 40 that says the earth elemental causes 6 points to wooden structures.

The amount given to these creatures, compared with other more common features of D&D, verges on fetishism. It's clear from the Chainmail rules that elementals were a major part of the game. The writers clearly thought these beings central to the idea of fantasy combat, that they should pop up all the time, despite their incredible, overarching amount of power.

According to the way the spell is worded, four elementals per day can be dredged up, so long as we don't exceed one of each.  That's rather fantastic, since it amounts to 64 hit dice. Teleportation is so strong we have to impose a "chance of death" for just using it, but this spell is fine. It's fine! It's not overpowered in any way. After all, the mage must cease personally fighting and do nothing... except allow a marauding hulk to go around smashing everything. Until dispelled. That's more than enough balancing of the mage's power.

I'd like to argue that they were trying to say, "You can pick just one of four possible choices each day..." but that's not what the language in fact does. The problem is later fixed by assigning one elemental per spell of specifically that name, but here, we have a ridiculously overpowered spell. No doubt there are readers saying right now, "YEAH? SO WHAT?"

True enough. I clearly remember how such overpowered elements were seen as "just reward for waiting until reaching the level that would let us wreck all purposeful game play." Even a whiff of, "That's stupid, I'm rolling that back," would get blasted with outrage, demands to let it stand — so long as the DM doesn't use it. There were a lot of players in those days who wanted to be "One Lone Dutchman" as per the joke.

They forget that it was always possible for the DM to be two of them, or four, or ten. Then it's just a bunch of stupid elementals fighting every session and it's boring... for nearly everyone except the dumbass that never gets tired of it.

This is the entropy of early D&D design... which still plagues those who cannot understand how "end game" sessions function. They're caught in the loop of players-vs.-orcs at first level and they think that translates into players-vs.-gods are 28th level. But this expansion doesn't make the game "better" or more "epic," it just makes it longer to run the combats, what with all the bells and whistles now attached. Omnipotence is a slog of mutual annihilation... of game structure and meaning. The higher you climb, the thinner the air gets, until the game suffocates under its own mechanics. The problem is that power breaks tension. The orc encounter works because the players can fail. Once that risk disappears, so does the meaning. High-level D&D becomes an actuarial exercise — mathematically determining how many rounds it takes for omnipotent beings to slowly whittle each other down. No wonder so many tables eventually "reset to factory settings," back to first-level danger, where swords can still miss and death still matters.

And yet, designers chase the horizon, promising an endgame that — this time, makes omipotence compelling. But omnipotence is, by definition, static. The demonstration we have of that is in how the Marvel universe has lost any and all sense of how to make any of the battles mean anything. For a brief period, they made it about people in suits. Now it's just the suits. And the suits, though pretty, don't feel anything. I could say a lot about that, but I won't. Let's just move on.

Telekinesis: By means of this spell, objects may be moved by mental force. Weight limits are calculated by multiplying the level of the Magic-User by 200 Gold Pieces weight. Thus, a "Necromancer" is able to move a weight equal to 2,000 Gold Pieces. Duration: 6 turns. Range 12".

20 pounds. Multiply the level of the necromancer by 20 lbs. Isn't that clearer?

Going through these spells one by one, I can't help noticing that the "speed" at which the items are moved does not appear here. And we know, if we compare this spell to "levitate," "fly" or "wizard eye," we're talking literal inches (not game inches) per second. 10 minutes to send it 120 yards away. That is, about the distance across the street. Piano movers go faster than this. Mind you, there is no speed indicated, like I said. So what are we talking about? I have no idea.

Without velocity, there's no spell, and all velocity measures provided for other like spells are for shit. The spell can't be played as written... and if the writers had a sense of shame, they should certainly be red-faced over this one. Where's Steve Urkel when you need him?

Transmute Rock to Mud: The spell takes effect in one turn, turning earth, sand, and, of course, rock to mud. The area affected is up to 30 square inches. Creatures moving into the mud will become mired, possibly sinking if heavy enough or losing 90% of movement otherwise, unless able to fly or levitate. The spell can only be countered by reversing the incantation (requiring a Transmute Rock to Mud spell) or by normal process of evaporation (3-18 days as determined by rolling three six-sided dice). Range: 12".

I love how the mechanics of evaporation are random. Is there a hydrologist in the house?

Too, can't let that "use this spell to reverse this spell... what spell? Why, the Transmute Rock to Mud spell, in case you didn't know. You readers can't be trusted with anything.

That extra effort, that real push to make sure this spell is clear as day... could have been spent on telekinesis. Once again, I argue that these two spells were written by the same person, and that the latter, while having the number-infatuation of Gygax, has that easy-going "...and, of course..." followed by the "30 square inches" physically written out (which Gygax would NEVER do), and the clarification "...by the normal process..." which is also too conversational to be Gygax. That makes three writers of this thing. The reader could argue that telekinesis was written by Gygax, but I'm sure that if it was, there'd be another three lines in it about why the spell can't be used as a weapon. Since that's missing, NOT Gygax.

Side note. I don't know if it really means 30 ten-foot by ten-foot squares. If so, that's 3000 actual square feet, which is a stunning amount of area to transform. Just saying. About the size of a suburban home lot, and more than enough to literally wreck a giant 30 by 30 foot tower, which covers less than 900 feet. The amount of curtain wall this would just wipe away would be... catastrophic in a siege. You don't need to siege, you just need a bored mage with an afternoon free. No one would ever build castles again.

The author knows that earth and sand are, like, little rocks... right? Or maybe the author thinks maybe we don't know that. I love that monsters just "walk into mud" utterly unaware that they'll get mired by it. Usually things that walk into environments, even if non-intelligent, know whether or not they'll get mired in it. A spider, by the way, even a big one, would just cross the top of it, if it's thick enough to mire things. Most stuff will just walk around it. I admire the two D&D characters saying of the giant, "Cast rock to mud, and when the giant just walks into it..."

Don't talk about the obvious, practical uses of it. Getting rid of a wall, or a pillar, causing a building to collapse, or obliterating a rock bridge, or creating a bomb by transforming lava (burst of 140 degree celsius steam), or causing a cliff overhang to just melt away... no, no, that's just nonsense. This is all about whether or not the creature so transformed can "fly" or "levitate"... because all creatures that do either immediately walk into mud first. It's their thing.

In Chainmail, numbers are given, as per the elemental above, for how much point damage is done to fortifications. That book does not mention rock-to-mud as an attack mode. Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd included that information here?

Wall of Stone: The creation of a stone wall two feet thick with a maximum length and height equalling 10 square inches. The wall will last until dispelled, broken down or battered through as a usual stone wall. Range: 6".

I just love it. There's rock to mud literally on the page above this, and not one reference to it in this spell description.  Not even, "...dispelled, broken down, melted or battered..." The rock-to-mud spell would get rid of three of these. Despite that both spells are the same level.

If the range is 60 feet, and the length of the wall is 100 ft., then I assume that since at least some of the all can occur outside the spell's range, you only need the last foot of the wall to actually be inside that range. So that, when I cast this right down the middle of an ordinary street in a town, I can be 59 ft. away, perhaps standing in a doorway. That's right, isn't it?

Imagine tormenting a town with this, knowing they have to physically take the wall apart each day, while you can just produce another one tomorrow. This is why spells have to have durations. Or at least some kind of actual in-person engagement. Permanence is a plague.

And before you point out "dispel magic," it's your level vs. the caster's... so, yes, thankfully, a town usually has a lot of casters, but if they form a union and they want compensation... then the whole wall appearing, wall coming down thing begins to look suspiciously like this isn't just chance... it’s protection racketeering in ritual form: "Nice thoroughfare you’ve got here, shame if a wall appeared across it overnight." The wizards get a steady income, the mayor gets plausible deniability, and the citizens get to feel both grateful and powerless while they queue up for the morning dispelling.

Wall of Iron: Like a Wall of Stone, but the thickness of the wall is three inches and it's maximum area 5 square inches. Duration: 12 turns. Range: 6".

This one has a duration. However, given the technological development of the time, iron is significantly better than stone. Neither can be removed easily, so that in terms of a spell slot, this one offers really nothing the other one doesn't do better. And with more coverage. Though it will resist rock-to-mud.

Obviously, the real reason for the duration is that iron, compared to stone, is valuable. A permanent iron wall could be frozen, broken up and then melted into more useful things. Also, while I'm on that, this is wrought iron, right? Not steel.

Animate Dead: The creation of animated skeletons or zombies. It in no way brings a creature back to life. For the number of dead animated simply roll one die for every level above the 8th the Magic-User is, thus a "Sorcerer" gets one die or from 1-6 animated dead. Note that the skeletons or dead bodies must be available in order to animate them. The spell lasts until dispelled or the animated dead are done away with.

The dissonance with this one is truly stunning. This fifth level spell produces 1d6 skeletons at 8th level, one time only, which can be hit by normal weapons and are essentially the same combat value as orcs, at a time in the game when same-level clerics can destroy 2d6 skeletons per round without needing to roll. There's a brilliant spell economy at work. Well done, morons!

Not only that, we can't even conjure them out of thin air. I can't even be bothered with the idiocy of this.

Still, kudos. Every sentence is, amazingly, clear.

Magic Jar: By means of this device the Magic-User houses his life force in some inanimate object (even a rock) and attempts to possess the body of any other creature within 12" of his Magic Jar. The container for his life force must be within 3" of his body at the time the spell is pronounced. Possession of another body takes place when the creature in question fails to make its saving throw against magic. If the possessed body is destroyed, the spirit of the Magic-User returns to the Magic Jar, and from thence it may attempt another possession or return to the Magic-User's body. The spirit of the Magic-User can return to the Magic Jar at any time he so desires. Note that if the body of the Magic-User is destroyed the life force must remain in a possessed body or the Magic Jar. If the Magic Jar is destroyed, the Magic-User is totally annihilated.

That is actually not a bad description either. The explanation of the jar, the manner in how the possession takes place, the consequence of the possessed body being destroyed, even the consequence of the jar's destruction, all clear. The compulsion to capitalise "Magic" over and over for two different things IS headache inducing. Five of these sentences includes both "magic user" and "magic jar" in the sentence... and there are only seven sentences altogether. But language is a trainwreck sometimes.

One of my favourite instances occurs in Heinlein's novel, Time Enough for Love. The character is parsing out the probability of two "twin" clones, derived from the same genetic material rather than from sexual reproduction, having a healthy offspring. It gets into the fertilisation of the ova, or egg, which the paragraph then produces in such abundance that if you hold the book at arm's length, you can see "egg" repeated like someone scattershot a hundred "g"s onto the page. Just a little trivia. Not relevant here.

As a spell, a player character would have to be nuts to use it. It's well enough to trust the DM to invent a magic jar the characters must find to kill the dangerous mage villain, what with the characters NOT being omnipotent. But trust a DM to leave my mage's jar alone? You must be joking. The moment you separate your soul from your body, you've essentially handed the DM a note that says, "Please make my continued existence contingent on your mood."

You know it's going to end up with the jar being held hostage and the party being put through hell to get it back. There's just no way I'm doing that. I'd rather give car keys to a 13-year-old and tell him/her to "Go on, have a good time."

Dungeons & Dragons White Box 20

These are going slow because they are brutal to write. I keep thinking I'm just going to "skip the rest, you get the idea," and then I think that would be cheating, so I start in. But I don't know how much left I've got for spells. I'd like to get past them.

Charm Monster: The counterpart of a Charm Person spell which is employable against all creatures. If animals or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved determine how many are affected by the spell by rolling three six-sided dice. It is otherwise identical to the Charm Person spell.

By definition, a "creature" is a living, animate thing. It's ontological, not categorical. By not using the word monster in the definition of the spell, it winds up admitting humanoids into it's effect halo. If it didn't want to include humans, it should have retained "monster" throughout and not assumed that "creature" and "monster" are effectively the same word.  The problems with charm person have been earlier discussed. Since the effects of this spell are the same, it needn't be addressed further. One has to appreciate the doubled underline of the Charm Person spell, as the editor hits you over the head with it.

Growth of Plants: This spell causes normal brush or woods to become thickly overgrown and entangled with creepers, vines, thorns, briars and so on, so as to make the area virtually impassable. It will affect an area of up to 30 square inches, the dimensions decided by the caster of the spell. Duration: until the spell is negated by a Dispel Magic. Range: 12".

Interesting, it is not, that this spell gets renamed "plant growth" later. A shame no one noticed before hand that the spells are not named "Location of Object" or "Charming of Person" or "Dispelling of Magic."  It's a quirk and no, not letting it slide. It's merely the continuing autopsy of a game text that never knew what "editorial coherence" meant.

"Brush or woods" are not distinct singular plants that are being affected, they are ad hoc descriptions of a kind of vegetative pattern... so the question must be asked, what of areas of plants (grasses, gardens, scattered shrub that would not be called "brush," a single tree as opposed to "woods") that do not fall into these specific "growths"? Are they not affected by the spell? And if they are, why make the distinction. Why not just say, "This spell cuases plants to become..."  The baffling approach to language in all of these descriptions surpasses the ordinary mistakes a high school student might make. It appears that an effort was made to be more obscure, to appear "richer and more specific" in ways that were in no way helpful to the game. It's a bit tiresome when seen over and over, as has been pointed out.

Why make any distinction at all? Why name "creepers, vines, et al" at all. Point in fact, "thorns" are not plants, they're the spike of a plant, and briars have thorns, so... thorns can't be made to "overgrow" in the sense of plants. Just saying. It's a foot in a bucket is all.

Then we have this "30 square inches" thing. Is it really so HARD to say "30 ten-foot square areas." Even if we are playing the war game, the "inch" is what we use the ruler to measure, but we understand it to mean "10 feet." So why don't we just say that? We have the time to nitpick about what kind of plants we can grow, but we can't replace two ticks with "ft."? The space on the page is available for that, the space-saving of " offers us really nothing! It just aggravates me so.

Incidentally, and I haven't mentioned it before... to this point in the book, " = 10 ft. hasn't actually been explained. You're just supposed to know. Secretly, I think we have to argue that D&D was invented by freemasons.

Hand up, Mr. Teach: when dispel magic is cast, what happens, exactly? Does the plant retreat? If so, doesn't that mean that a state of magic must still remain in the plants after they've been affected? If not, how does "dispel magic" affect them? And if magic remains, that doesn't correspond to any other spell I know of. Can this magic in the plants be detected with that spell? Are the magically affected plants useful in any form of magical research? Inquiring minds want to know.

Dimension Door: A limited Teleport spell which allows the object to be instantaneously transported up to 36" in any direction (including up or down]. There is no chance of misjudging when using a Dimension Door, so the user always arrives exactly where he calls, i.e. 12" upwards, 32" east, etc. Range: 1".

This messes me up a little. Is it a "door" or is it a "teleport"? If it's a door... and it seems to be, since that's the title of the damn spell, then why does the spell description make it sound like the transition "just occurs"? If it isn't a door, since it states specifically "the object", not "the object or person," why isn't it "dimension object"? But then it states "the user always arrives," so that now sounds like a PERSON. And it sounds like teleportation. What dimension is actually involved? Any?

And if it is a door, how long does it last? Can more than one person go through it? Can it be "held" or "wizard locked" or "knocked"? What exactly is going on here?

No matter how the spell is interpreted, it can be seen that another interpretation is just as legitimately sound and reasonable. That is just bad rule writing. Again, let me just stop the reader: don't tell me how YOU interpret it, or how your old game world DM used to. That's irrelevant, and not the point of the inquiry here.

Wizard Eye: A spell which allows the user to send a visual sensor up to 24" away in order to observe the scene without himself moving. The "eye" is invisible. It moves 12" /turn. Duration: 6 turns.

Once again, as per the fly spell, the speed given is 7.6 inches per second in AD&D (that's actual inches, not game inches), and 1.2 yards per second in basic. Unless you're underground, and then it's 2.533 inches per second (AD&D) and 1.2 ft. per second (basic). That means it takes 20 minutes to get to the spell range in AD&D and 3 minutes, 20 seconds to get way out there in basic. More than enough time to run out there and just have a look. But hey, it's a 4th level spell. You have to be 7th level to have this kind of power in your hands.

I like to think of it as a floating Roomba.

Further, while you might think that the "eye" (sorry, sensor?) that's magic can pass through walls or something, but that not actually stated; there's no reason at all to think that it does. Since the eye is "invisible" — which seems to stipulate it has mass and substance — would suggest that it's not ethereal. It could be both, of course; though an ethereal eye could be assumed to be invisible more easily than the reverse. In any case, it doesn't state any sort of ethereality... which means we have to wait for the Roomba to go around corners, rather than a straight line. We could end up with time to make dinner by the time it gets there. 

Since teleportation gets use there instantly, dimension door and all that, can't this be applied to wizard eyes? Why does there have to be a speed setting on this thing? It too is a 4th level spell. Incidentally, "clairvoyance," which this spell duplicates, is not a Roomba and it's 3rd level. But then, clairvoyance doesn't have an actual spell description, does it? We discussed that already.

Massmorph: This spell is used to conceal up to 100 men (or creatures of near man size] as a woods or orchards. The concealed figures may be moved through without being detected as anything other than trees, and it will not affect the spell. It will be negated by a command for the caster or by means of a Dispel Magic spell. Range: 24".

Language time. I'm quoting this exactly: you can refer to "the woods" as a single object, but you wouldn't say "as woods" in this context, as that would seem to suggest that every man becomes a forest. As evidence, we would never say "the orchards" to refer to a single object; that would always mean a bunch of different orchards. So why take the time to make sure both words are plural? That's not a typo, that's a stubborn grade three error. (Sorry, I mean, a grade three errors).

If we mean "creatures of near-man size" anyway, why not just SAY that? We're using the space to say it. We could have just written, "...conceal up to 100 creatures of near-man size..." Sorry, I felt compelled to include the hyphen. But then again, what exactly is "near," precisely. I know a man who weighs about 112 lb. and is four-foot-eleven, and I know a fellow who is six-nine and weighs above 280. I assume, too, that women are included here, since the text is in that lovely time when "man" referred to the whole human race, regardless of the number of your ovaries (usually, above zero is enough not to be a man; I was born in 1964 and much of this shit was going out the door by the time I graduated high school — though with much gnashing of teeth by some).

That whole thing about "...without being detected as anything other than trees..." has game troubles. Presumbly, "detect magic" will reveal these as not quite normal, right? And if I take an axe to one of these trees, how long will it be before the "man" ceases to function as a tree? There's no spell duration listed. Can I use the spell on enemies and then make tables of them?  (evil wizard laugh) "Ah, Horatio, he made such a fine set of end tables..."

Are there forests of rooted victims who were never freed from the spell because the mage happened to get an arrow in the throat after casting? How long do they last? Do the trees age? Grow? Do the victims inside age and die in a normal time frame, or are they driven mad by the centuries passing?

Over centuries, their bodies might obey the physics of their new form — cell walls thickening, bark replacing skin, the slow petrification of nerve into xylem. Their minds might persist, half-aware, stretching across seasons, dreaming in sapflow and root pressure.

Maybe this is how treants are made. By botched massmorphs, their consciousness leaking into vegetal eternity. And not just once, either. Can the spell be cast every day? Are there wizard forests that extend over many square miles. A hundred trees covers about one-third of an acre. That one Pooh-forest (this is D&D, so we're not allowed to say "hundred acres of wood") per year, assuming holidays and a square mile every six-years. Three or four such woods are more than enough to cloak a wizard's tower.

Point in fact, since the spell can be dispelled by the mage's word, every forest accumulated over forty years can be made alive instantly. There's a game moment. About 1.08 million trees-into-soldiers. Though that would require a pretty diligent seizure of passersby on the roads to get your hundred trees each day.

I know the D&D mind... and a lot of you are going, "cool." Only, remember, because it's a spell that any mage of 7th can take, there's no reason to think all of them aren't going to do this. One off, it's cool. Every mage, including your own players, just ignoring the rest of what makes this silly, creating a horticultural apocalypse, where monarchs insist you show up for your "tree time," for the good of the kingdom? As a DM, you don't want a piece of that.

Hallucinatory Terrain: By means of this spell, terrain features can either be hidden or created — an illusion which affects a large area. Thus a swamp, hill, ridge, woods, or the like can be concealed or made to appear. The spell is broken when the magicked area is contacted by an opponent. Range: 24".

First off, this is window dressing, not power. You can make your castle appear to be the forest, true enough. But a first level spell, detect magic, disarms it, as does your walking at it. Plus, funny thing about most landscapes — they get passed by many intelligent creatures, who tend to notice, "Hey, didn't that used to be a hill?"  True enough, it can be used to make your castle on the hill look like the hill without your castle... but um, what about all those people who built your castle?

Okay, forget about that; you just want your campsite not to look like a campsite. Fair enough. We're here, we're hanging around, we've set up tents and poof, not visible to outsiders. Is it visible to us? Doesn't say. If the dog chases a rabbit, does the dog know where we are? If I get wood, and I don't happen to be the mage... or my servant gets wood...

Okay, I'll fall back again. A certain number of people and attached animals can still see the camp (though it's not written specifically in the rules how the spell is in fact applied at all), if my follower gets mad at me and decides to engage in fisticuffs (people are people, after all), or if I yell at the mage for again putting green wood on the fire, though we've told him about that a hundred times... does that dispel the spell? Says "opponent," not "enemy." How exactly is "opponent" defined. I don't know that definition in D&D.

Arguably, it's made for a wargame board. "You can't see what my mage is doing behind this screen until you intrude on this space." And in-combat, I can see that working... the mage hiding in a tiny area that's "terrained," being invisible while able to cast spells, or an archer nearby firing out of it. As that kind of screen, it's great.  But as a means to hide a swamp? I don't see it.

Also, if I have a castle, don't I need people to deliver to it? And live there? And if not everyone especially likes their jobs, don't they likewise "oppose" the place? I've certainly worked in places I didn't consciously support.

I'm going to get comments for this where people give advice and tell me to think about it this way and that... and that's fine. I'd like some acknowledgement here, though, that as a 4th level spell, it's awfully fragile as written.  It's sole purpose, hide an ambush, presumes the DM's going to keep setting up ambush opportunities for the players to exploit. Otherwise, the DM is going to be the primary user, no?

5th Level:

Teleport: Instantaneous transportation from place to place, regardless of the distance involved, provided the user knows where he is going (the topography of the arrival area). Without certain knowledge of the destination teleportation is 75% uncertain, so a score of less than 75% of the percentile dice results in death. If the user is aware of the general topography of his destination, but has not carefully studied it, there is an uncertainty factor of 10% low and 10% high. A low score (1-10%) means death if solid material is contacted. A high score (91-100%) indicates a fall of from 10 to 100 feet, also possibly resulting in death. If a careful study of the destination has been previously made, then the Magic-User has only a 1% chance of teleporting low and a 4% chance of coming in high (10-40 feet).

Jeez.

Again, this is one of those Gygaxian descriptions that employs creative grammar designed to explain a thing in the most convoluted manner possible. Rewritten:

If you don't know the destination terrain, chance of death is 3 in 4. If you so-so know the terrain, there's a 20% of one of the following happening (50/50): appear below the plane of intended arrival (death if solid material present, no rules provided otherwise) OR a fall of 10 to 100 feet. If you know the destination very well, there's a 5% chance of the above happening (20/80).

All three states are ill-defined an arbitrary — and all three feature a common aspect of Gygaxian thinking: "It is fair for the game to dick-fuck you if you take this spell. You may think you're entitled to this spell, having earned it through game play, but you're wrong; in fact, the DM is entitled to do so because it's a very powerful spell and we're not going to rewrite it or design it more considerately or reasonably." Signed, "Fuck you... the management."

Is it any wonder this bred a lasting culture of morally entitled shit-eating assholes who felt empowered by their DM badge? The game's rules enshrined that behaviour, granted carte blanche, while Gygax himself was the gawd-king to these people. We've never gutted them from the populace... the best we've done is try to hamstring every DM with X-cards and other cultural apparati that assume every DM is guilty... while never naming what we're supposed to be guilty of. For a game that invented the "DM as Function," it did it so badly right from the start that we're still breathing the after-toxicity of it.

It's a sanctification of sadistic cruelty. The DM wasn’t merely "empowered"; they were licensed to inflict. The texts equated suffering with authenticity, as if misery proved devotion to the game's imagined realism. "It’s fair if it hurts" became the creed. Every impossible saving throw, every random death table, every untelegraphed trap whispered the same thing: the Dungeon Master’s job is to make you bleed for your fun.

And then, if that's not enough vitriol for the fire, this: 

I've been working though page 27; teleport is at the top of page 28.  And I'm going to be careful about the above. I'm no Mrs. Grundy.

[fun fact: the name long pre-dates Archie comics. Mrs. Grundy first appeared not in comics but in a late 18th-century play: Thomas Morton’s Speed the Plough (1798). Interestingly, she never actually appears on stage. She’s merely talked about by the characters, particularly by one Mrs. Ashfield, who constantly frets over "What will Mrs. Grundy say?" That single line was enough to turn her into a symbol. By the 19th century, "Mrs. Grundy" had come to represent the spirit of prudish social conformity—the meddling, easily scandalised neighbour who polices everyone’s morals. The term passed into common speech in Britain and America to describe excessive propriety or moral censorship]

I quit discussing the images because they were getting worse and because of the whole "they ripped it off a comic" thing. I am not qualified to comment on comic-book art; when I cared about Marvel comic-books, I was twelve at the outside, that was 49 years ago and I was not studying them for their artistic quality. But this above is worth a note or two.

In 1974, it's not even unusual. It's poor taste, it's predictably prurient and suitable for teenage boys, it would be better if the nipples had not been included. But Amazons, amirite? Fits right into that mid-20th century iconography when a whole host of things had an assigned cultural "truth" that in fact was invented way after the fact by, um, "scholars": Pocahontas, Columbus, Amazons, Johnny Appleseed... I grew up in a world that really did think Amazons were naked from the waist up, despite zero evidence from classical history to show Amazons existed outside of Homer. But heck, if it was good enough for 3rd century Greek sculptors, by damn it's good enough for the White Box set.

The image's presence here reflects that "boys club" mystique... which really was becoming very, very bad even in 1974. Private clubs were being smashed in the courts, the future failed 1977 Houston meeting for the ERA was generating heat everywhere, mainstream publishers were backing off from this kind of story because BOTH the feminist left AND the conservative right were screaming about why pictures like the above were "offensive" (for different reasons)... and here these blind-minded college boys were cheerfully dropping nipple-porn into their rule set. 

At least we can say from the start that the game never had been written for children, right? It was written by and for men who were old enough to drink, smoke, and still believe that cheesecake illustrations were harmless fun. The tone of the art, the language of the rules, the smirking references to “beautiful witches” and “amazons” — all of it was coded for a very specific demographic: wargamers steeped in pulp adventure, sword-and-sorcery paperbacks, and postwar hobby culture. The game only became "for kids" later, when commercial success required sanitising it.

So to be clear, I'm not offended. I draw a line through a level of porn I'll download but I'm not "offended" by imagery. I don't even understand that concept. BUT... the world is very offended by that imagery, and if you're going to publish something in the world, you can bet that not paying attention is going to have consequences. And it did. You all call it the "Satanic Panic."

Arguably, we could also call it "They were asking for it." Because I'm quite sure, when the panty-knotted Mrs. Grundys of the 1980s decided to "look into this thing their children were playing," they found this exact picture. And went nuts.

Wave your tiny red flag in front of a lot of overanxious freaks and see what happens.

Dungeons & Dragons White Box 19

The version of the White Box set that I'm using is available from the Internet Archive, at this link. I have every reason to believe that it's an original copy of the original version. It looks like the version that I owned once, that I sold in aid of my travelling to Toronto in 2014 to sell my book, How to Run, at the Toronto Expo.

I thought I should just toss that out there, in case someone should wonder if their version isn't matching mine.

Slow Spell: A broad-area spell which affects up to 24 creatures in a maximum area of 6" x 12". Duration: 3 turns. Range: 24".

Hilarious, isn't it? Not one clue what the spell does. I mean, at all. Sure, of course, we know what it means, because someone in another publication told us. But seriously... how is this "run as written"? And if other writings can be invoked, then what's the rule on what other writings are allowed to support this writing according to RAW philosophy? And no, by this link, the spell isn't listed in Chainmail (I refuse to use all caps, there being no precedent other than Disney for writing a title that way).

Haste: This is exactly the opposite of a Slow Spell in effect, but otherwise like it. Note that it will counter its opposite and vice-versa.

And this, in these rules, is a remarkable example of a rare consistency occurring. Slow applause, please.

Protection from Normal Missiles: The recipient of this charm becomes impervious to normal missiles. This implies only those missiles projected by normal (not above normal) men and/or weapons. Duration: 12 turns. Range: 3".

It's kind of awe inspiring, really. No definition of "normal." No definition of "above normal." Exactly how is a missile projected by a weapon by not by a man? Also, does the spell protect against missiles fired by elves, orcs, ogres, whatnot? None of which are "normal (not above normal) men", even if they're non-magical. Though, to be sure, we have no reason from the description to believe that "magical" is in any way less "normal" than, I don't know, a camel that spits... which it doesn't do like a normal man, trust me.  Range 3" from what, exactly? The missile? The man projecting? Etymologically, to "project," as in "to throw out or forward," is from the 1590s... but I still had to look it up because, well, what a weird word choice.

If "protection from" mean "impervious to," why wasn't the spell called Impervious to Normal Missiles? I suppose because then it would be defined as "The recipient of this charm becomes protected from normal missiles." Duh.

Water Breathing: A spell whereby it is possible to breathe underwater without harm or difficulty. Duration: 12 turns. Range 3".

I suppose that's fair. I'm just getting a little punch drunk at this. Imagine if the definition of fly were to say, "the user is able to fly without harm or difficulty." Or maybe if read languages read, "by which directions and the like are read without getting a headache." It seems a trifle specific to this spell, like it's saying, "really, we wouldn't kid you." But at least we know what the spell does. Win! For once, we can breathe easy.

4th Level:

Polymorph Self: A spell allowing the user to take the shape of anything he desires, but he will not thereby acquire the combat abilities of the thing he has polymorphed himself to resemble. That is, while the user may turn himself into a dragon of some type, he will not gain the ability to fight and breathe, but he will be able to fly. Duration: 6 turns + the level of the Magic-User employing it.

See, this is clearly written by someone other than whomever wrote the previous four spells. The spell is directly and clearly defined without caveats, we don't get the four things we can't polymorph into, the details are dense and seem to know something about game play. Semiotically, it's not the same. It sounds like someone who actually plays the game.

But... polymorph itself, as a concept. This one has always had it's troubles. Here, compare this defintion from Chainmail:

Polymorph: This allows the user to change himself into the semblance of anything of from his own size to something as large as even a giant. It lasts until the user changes himself back or it is countered.

(again, sounds like someone else again, someone whose read Fowler's English Usage, who picks a way through Emersonian speech patterns; but skipping that).

Something has gone very wrong with the Chainmail version. The spell, as written there, is just too damn powerful. It needs a limit. You can't fire breathe just because you can shape yourself like a fire-breathing dragon. Why? Well, doesn't say. Presumably, if you polymorph into a cow, you'll have the organs that will permit the translation of grass to milk... and therefore, if you're a dragon, presumably you'll have the organs that allow you to breathe fire. But no, nix, not, absolutely, drawing a line there! We don't need a good reason, just a reason.

Look, if the spell is so powerful, why is it 4th level and not 5th? If it can't be rated at 5th, why does it exist at all? And if we have to limit it to dragons that can't fire-breathe, can't we argue that it takes a couple years of practice for actual young dragons to do it, without framing it as a failure of the spell? Because by the definition here, "he will not thereby acquire the combat abilities of the thing he has polymorphed himself to resemble," it also means I can't swing my limbs as a treant, or set things on fire as an elemental (even though I'm actually ON FIRE), or presumably gallop as a horse or kick with my hooves. Seriously? If this is taken to the obvious grammatical definition, what's the use of the spell at all?

It's not that the designers meant this, it's that they panicked, realising that their worst fears needed some kind of pullback; but the example of dragons does not cover even the minamalistic set of monster options that exist in the second volume. Do I polymorph into a medusa or don't I? Am I less ugly? If I mutate into a wight, am I undead or not? And if not, than what does this fourth level spell slot give me? The chance to be an orc? I guess so, but that's a pretty expensive spell slot so I can weave my way among the other orcs... whom I can't punch with my orc arms, by the way, because combat ability limitations.

When I had to come around to rewriting the spells for my wiki, polymorph other and polymorph self, I got a very good idea of how very, very difficult this spell is to provide as an option without seriously risking the game's logic. Let's say I turn into a basilisk. I'm not a basilisk, but I turn into one. Am I immune to the look of my own eyes? Well? Am I?

Anytime I think of polymorph in game terms, I come back to the quintessential example of it in film and literature (extra music for obvious concealment from youtube necessities). I don't condone allowing the same spell to be used multiple times per day, or ignoring of casting times, but we should at least try to produce the sort of drama displayed here.

Polymorph Others: Unlike the spell to Polymorph Self, this spell lasts until it is dispelled. The spell gives all characteristics of the form of the creature, so a creature polymorphed into a dragon acquires all of the dragon’s ability — not necessarily mentality, however. Likewise, a troll polymorphed into a snail would have innate resistance to being stepped on and crushed by a normal man. Range: 6".

Better. And because it doesn't involve strengthening the players, but rather the non-players, whom the DM runs, the gloves are allowed to come off. We have to ask if snails have an "innate resistance" of that kind... I know of no way to test it. Certainly, whatever their innate abilities are, they suck at it. However, most of the time, you have to really work to squish a snail. They're quite rubbery. Why not pick an earthworm? Way easier to crush. Don't know if they have innate abilities or not.

If, on the other hand, it's a wry joke, that "trolls turned into snails" can't be crushed because they're still actually trolls... well, that opens a WHOLE can of worms... er, snails.  Can dragons turn into snails still breath fire? Can you turn a wraith into an undead snail, leave it on a pillow of an enemy and wait for it to drain an experience level? Does a basilisk-snail still turn things to stone? Maybe just little tiny things; might be hard for us to actually pick out its eyes on that scale. Perhaps we can find basilisk-snails by the ant-shaped pebbles they leave behind.

Either you keep the nature of the thing being the transformed thing, or the spell is meaningless. Which are we playing at? A game or metaphysics?

Remove Curse: A spell to remove any one curse or evil sending. Note that using this spell on a "cursed sword," for example, would make the weapon an ordinary sword, not some form of enchanted blade. Range: Adjacent to the object.

Now, look, see... this is written by someone else again. It's not the examples of polymorph above, and it's not the first four spells. This one feels that, in a spell list, it needs to mention that this is a spell... twice, in case the first sentence didn't make it clear. It actually tells you what it does, then goes out of its way to say what it doesn't do, lest you think that "remove curse" does what it does not say on the tin. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest the spell's "secret name" is "make magic swords", but it has to be said anyway. Presumably, if the curse is taken off a man, he doesn't become an "above normal" man (maybe that's what protection from normal missiles meant); and a house doesn't become a magic house, either. Why would anyone think it would? Because this specific writer apparently has had someone he plays with try this gambit. And he wants to protect you from doing it also. Too, it's a small thing, but none of the other spells have used words next to the Range.

I've read a lot of Gygax. He's a doof, but this really doesn't read like him to me. Gygax would include at least two extra lines using MATH about how a "-1" sword can't be turned into a "+1" sword, and then he'd include a formula for the DM to prove it. And he either would have listed a range of 1" or 0". The words are really not his style.

Anyway, again... we can see what the spell does. Two for seven. We're way above average!

Wall of Fire: The spell will create a wall of fire which lasts until the Magic-User no longer concentrates to maintain it. The fire wall is opaque. It prevents creatures with under four hit dice from entering/passing through. Undead will take two dice of damage (2-12) and other creatures one die (1-6) when breaking through the fire. The shape of the wall can be either a plane of up to 6" width and 2" in height, or it can be cast in a circle of 3" diameter and 2" in height. Range: 6".

There, that's Gygax. Punchy sentences, numbers numbers numbers, really detailed necessity to give the exact shape of the wall in two different ways (because you can't measure a circle as a 6" perimeter ring, that's mathematically impossible). Also, note the lack of the "length" of the thing though we know it's "width." That is so Gygax. Any human person looks at a wall that's 60' feet from one end to the other and says, "that wall is 60 feet long." Not Gygax! Oh no. The orientation to HIM is what defines how "wide" it is. Go ahead. Find me a reference to the width of a wall that isn't about its thickness.

It's a little hilarious that an ochre jelly (5 HD) can go through this thing but a grey ooze (3 HD) cannot. I don't know, I've always thought of the first as having a consistency like a raw egg, while the latter was more like liquid playdough, but who am I to argue the physics of something that everyday trainee fire fighters go ahead and walk through?  I know, I know, D&D fire doesn’t burn oxygen or require combustion; it’s a solid, opaque, moral entity. It decides who is worthy to pass based on hit dice, not thermal conductivity. But since "fire" isn't defined or explained anywhere in these books, it looks like just fire on the page.

But we know what the spell does. 3 for 8. Almost 50%.

Wall of Ice: A spell to create a wall of ice six inches thick, in dimensions like that of a Wall of Fire. It negates the effects of creatures employing fire and/or fire spells. It may be broken through by creatures with four or more hit dice, with damage equal to one die (1-6) for non-fire employing creatures and double that for fire-users. Range: 12"

How much damage can the wall sustain, Mr. Gygax? Hm? Thank you for telling me how much damage to the ice wall the soft-bodied ochre jelly can do to your wall, but without something to measure the damage against, you're bleating again, aren't you? I know, I know... years and years later you'll do it again. Thank gawd I can count on you.

Seriously. An incorporeal wraith  (4 HD) can bash its way through this thing (though it would just waft through, I'm sure), but a heavy war horse (3 HD) cannot. Uh huh. But pray, tell me... did it ever occur to you to define how much anything in your game system actually weighed? That seems like an important statistic to add to your monsters. Oh well, I'm sure you'll get there someday.

4 for 9. Stunning.

Confusion: This spell will immediately affect creatures with two or fewer hit-dice. For creatures above two hit dice the following formula is used to determine when the spell takes effect: score of a twelve-sided die roll less the level of the Magic-User casting the spell = delay in effect, i.e. a positive difference means a turn delay, while a zero or negative difference means immediate effect. Creatures with four or more hit dice will have saving throws against magic, and on those turns they make their saving throws they are not confused; but this check must be made each turn the spell lasts, and failure means they are confused. The spell will affect as many creatures as indicated by the score rolled on two six-sided dice with the addition of +1 for each level above the 8th that the Magic-User casting the spell has attained. Confused creatures will attack the Magic-User's party (dice score 2-5), stand around doing nothing (6-8), or attack each other (9-12). Roll each turn. Duration: 12 turns. Range: 12".

Hold on. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Could this thing be more of a nightmare for a DM to run in the middle of a mass combat involving more than 12 combatants on a side, with creatures that had 1-2 HD, 3 HD and 4 or more HD? You have three different rules for three different levels of creature, for... reasons apparently. We couldn't just have everyone roll save, no, that would limit this mass effect spell unnecessarily. I'll see if I can write this a little better.

Creatures with less than 4 HD don't get a saving throw. Creatures with 3 HD roll a 12-sided and subtract the level of the mage; the end sum describes how many turns pass before the spell takes effect (0-5, since the mage must be 7th level to possess the spell). Creatures with more than 3 HD get a saving throw — if they do not succeed, they're affected as any 3 HD creature, determining how many turns pass. However, every turn they still have to make saving throw again, even if they would not normally be affected that round.

Or, you know, instead of using the d12 minus the caster's level, which is always the same for any given combat, we could just start by having every character effected roll a die between 12 minus the present mages level. The mage is 7th level? Roll 1d6 ignoring sixes (because 1d5 is way too complicated for 1974), and that's how many turns.

Or, alternately, we could just tell Gygax to FUCK OFF, because this is an extremely insipid, needlessly complicated piece of crap that ought to be inscribed on his fucking tombstone.

Hm? Too soon?

Ah, I get it. The spell is supposed to cause confusion to the enemy, but in fact it recursively confuses the DM. I see the light now. I was so wrong about you Mr. Gygax. You are a genius!

Gygax, in his eldritch cunning, conjured the first meta-spell: a charm that doesn’t just bewilder orcs — it radiates outward, entangling the referee’s executive function in a shimmering haze of contradictory subclauses. The goblins stand around drooling, the DM cross-eyed over a table of hit dice and the players stare into the abyss of the 12-sided die, wondering why it hates them.

After all that, how the creatures are affected is its own headache, but at least it's clear. Still, I'm not going to give the spell half points.

Score? 40% comprehensibly written spells. Unheard of.

That's enough for today.

Dungeons & Dragons White Box 18

I think it must be said, and this goes to the decision in Basic to specify the fly spell at 120 ft. per round, and the round at 10 seconds, that most probably the White Box set is using "rounds" and "turns" interchangably throughout, having not yet decided that there are a set number of "rounds per turn." It's the only rational way that the fly spell works, and the levitation before it. "Turn" was thinking in "combat turns," as nearly every war game calls the game metric, and "rounds" just happened because Gygax & crew were incapable of being disciplined. Then later, Gygax, probably in one of his delusional fever dreams of "brilliant" game design, thought "Hey, we can't have people counting things in number with more than one digit... that would make this way to hard for them.  Let's insert "turns" as separate from "rounds" so that they'll have to learn two measurements where only one would make this easier!  It's genius!

I don't know this is the case, but it feels it probably is, so going forward lets just assume rounds and turns are the same thing. There's nothing in the White Box that defines either one, nor distinguishes one from the other, so this is a reasonable assumption. And it only took me 18 posts to get there.

Hold Person: A spell similar to a Charm Person, but which is of both limited duration and greater effect. It will affect from 1-4 persons. If it is cast at only a single person it has the effect of reducing the target's saving throw against magic by -2. Duration: 6 turns + level of the caster. Range: 12".

Charm person was poorly defined. It also said that those influenced would "come completely under the influence" of the mage. So, if this is just a "charm person" with a limited duration, then it's played very, very differently from the later version of the spell, which assumed "hold" means exactly that, a person held in place and rendered helpless. As far as "greater effect," since charm person has no listed limits of any kind except that it excluded monsters and undead, are those limits now off the table? Or are we saying that it will let the mage charm 4 persons at a time, enabling complete influence over them (a player could absolutely, from this, argue as much). Since we're saying "persons," I assume monsters and undead are still exempt, but it doesn't say so here. Since "hold", in the sense of, "hold others under our sway" can mean charm, the way is open to assume this is a mass domination spell.

Dispel Magic: Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds (referee’s option), except those on magical items and the like. This is modified by the following formula. The success of a Dispel Magic spell is a ratio of the dispeller over the original spell caster, so if a 5th-level Magic-User attempts to dispel the spell of a 10th-level Magic-User there is a 50% chance of success. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 12".

So much to unpack. Why is the duration 1 turn/round? I assume, because the spell already has dispelled the magic it intends to dispel, the duration assumes the spell is active and can be applied to other things after it's initial use. The language does say "enchantments," though that's probably a reference to it being able to dispel different kinds of things in general, not different enchantments the moment it's cast. But does it sweep the area like a vacuum cleaner, dispelling every persistent effect that it touches?

And, with respect to the earlier discussion of turns/rounds, then this is one action that can be taken in one round, so another action can't be taken, since there isn't another turn/round to take it in. But then, why list the duration at all? Why not just say, "it can only dispel one magical effect"? 

Then, if the spell can be used in one turn/round, we assume I've taken my turn and then my enemy takes theirs. How, then, is dispel magic "countered"? Says plainly, "unless countered." Countered by what? A dispel magic on my dispel magic spell? But then, hasn't my spell already passed... but then, is that what's meant by the 1-turn duration? So that the actual dispelling happens over a sufficient period of time that someone can step in and say, "Oh no, dispelling your dispelling... sorry!"

And why leave it up to the DM what kinds of magic it can dispel? Doesn't that introduce plot armour into the DM's more favoured features and persons, that can't just be dispelled because it "ruins" the adventure? And what does "and the like" mean with respect to magic items? What things in the game are "like" magic items but in fact are not magic items. I've been playing for 46 years and I can't think of an example. Seems like text space that could have been used for something else.

The formula is... fine I guess. If you're a higher level than the caster, then your success is guaranteed. Still, there's something in it not just dispelling, regardless of the caster, that rubs me the wrong way. The concept works, so far as it goes. But it does mean, a lot of the time, if you take this spell at 3rd level, it's going to be Hail Mary pass compared to just grabbing a mook and tossing him into the space, letting him take the heat. I mean, it's just one time a day. And presumably, if you're entering a dungeon or a designed lair, that won't get you far. It'd be nice if the one time you wanted to use it, it worked.

Clairvoyance: Same as ESP spell except the spell user can visualize rather than merely pick up thoughts.

Visualise what, exactly? The opponent standing right in front of me, that I've decided to cast ESP upon? Oh, right... the one whom I know about, in advance, before casting the spell, behind something. Can I hear conversation, or only thoughts? That is, unless we assume it doesn't work like "ESP," which requires a mind to read; that, in fact, I can just see behind the wall, whether there's a person there or not. Which, in fact, is what "clairvoyance" actually means, which allows the entire extremely short description tell you nothing about the spell that the actual name of the spell tells. The could have used that space to, you know, tell us how far it reaches. There's actual space on the page (the second line is only about 1 quarter used of the white space available) to tell us range, duration... even how much mass I can see through. You know, the stuff that's been said to define other spells. If you're on the next continent, can I see you?

Heck, we are in 3rd level spell territory, right? I mean, your slot can include "fireball." I assume we'd like this one to have a little gravitas.

Clairaudience: Same as Clairvoyance except it allows hearing rather than visualization. This is one of the few spells which can be cast through a Crystal Ball (see Vol. II).

Point-in-fact, not all crystal balls include the ability to hear or read the minds of what you're seeing. However, other than a carnival mindreader's tent, I've never seen such a ball depicted in a film or a story where the user couldn't both see and hear. But then, there are very few examples of this that I can name occurring in films prior to 1973, so perhaps the geniuses of the White Box had seen more Hammer Films than I have. In either case, it suggests that the clairvoyance spell doesn't work like ESP, since that's also a characteristic that only some crystal balls have, but not all.

Does it not seem a little strange that a magic item is being used to define how a spell works? For the record, though, the crystal ball appears on page 36 of Monsters and Treasure, volume 2 as stated... and what it does or how it works isn't explained there, either... except a bunch of stuff to explain what spells can be cast through it, and how it relies on "attempts" to succeed... a thing that isn't actually defined. But we'll get there eventually. But heck, we know how a crystal ball works, right? It's not like we need a game rule to tell us.

There's a lot of this throughout the books. The reader is trusted to come to this thing preloaded with enough pop-mythology to fill in behaviour, ecology, morality, diet, tactics, whatnot, regardless of a lack of range increments, time constraints, the meaning of "attempts"... it's game design by dangling participle. "Go on, you'll figure it out. You don't need us."

Fire Ball: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th-level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on. (Note that Fire Balls from Scrolls (see Vol. Il) and Wand are 6-die missiles and those from Staves are 8-die missiles. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 24".

To start, "proportion" here is not the word the writers think it is. "Quantified" would have been more accurate. It's a malaproprism. "Elongate" is wrong also, since we must assume the writers did not intend it to exceed the spell's radius. "Narrowed" would have been more accurate. Language. It's like words mean things.

Since the rule about wands and staves occur, I presume, in the section that describes wands and staves, why is space taken here to repeat it? And, if not repeated, why is this information not included under wands and staves? It's one of those things that obliterates the argument, "There was no space available to better describe this spell... they did the best they could with the limited space they had." Right here are two whole lines on the page, one of which could have been given to "clairvoyance" and one to "clairaudience." There is no excuse.

So, the "fireball" (at some point we stopped using two words and I'll embrace that) is a "missile." For readers who have lately recognised that they've grafted rules written at a later time upon this system, this is a glaring reveal. The text plainly states that the spell travels from the mage's finger to the target. If that's the case, can the spell be obstructed? And if not, then what's the point in describing it as a "missile." In fact, since the spell happens entirely in the caster's turn, and an obstruction can't be interposed while the spell is being cast, then why specify that this spell — unlike, say, any other spell, since magic missile hasn't been invented yet — is a "missile"? For the glitz? How come my dispel magic has no glitz? Huh?

Since line-of-sight is assumed for most spells (even clairvoyance, which doesn't dictate in the rules that it can be cast behind things), that can't be the reason. And if it is, then why not say, "it needs line of sight"? Though the spell does reveal the earlier argument I made about spells being bullets in the mage's gun. Here, the fireball is actually using the language we'd use for a tank shell. Fire, BANG!

Again, why is the duration 1 turn/round? How slow does this missile move? Fireball has a duration and clairvoyance/clairaudience don't? Huh?

Once again... this was written by different people and then slapped together. One writer would not have worked down this page, in order that the spells were written, and produced work this disjointed. These things were handed to a person that compiled the page, who had no say in the text, who set the type for the printing from the things he/she was given, squeezing them in however they fit (which is why the spells are NOT listed alphabetically, for reasons that surpass all understanding), probably without the least idea of what was being typeset or why. Typesetters very rarely question or even care what the work was. In that day and age, they sat morning 'til night, setting selected work in order, compiling their way through page after page that was given them, sorting it, fitting it into shape on the page, willy nilly, like a modern day film editor hired by a studio who does not care what the director's vision was. And most likely, the creators of the White Box had no say in this, given that they likely, with their skimpy $2,000 ($12,000 thereabouts in modern money), had to rely on the skill of other people.

When I made a zine in the 1990s, I knew how to design and I knew how to phyical lay out pages because I learned that at the University of Calgary Gauntlet, where every Thursday meant thirty students digging in, for free, without pay, until midnight, to get the thing ready for the printer, who did not need to do any of the work for us. Because that's what the business had become in 1988, when I joined the Guantlet's staff. But in 1973, this crew, plainly, had zero control over how things looked on the page, and zero ability to sit and establish templates for what each spell would include, in what order, in the rational way it was done later, when they had money to hire someone competent, who they could control. It's very clear that when these books were assembled, when this sausage was made, the writers were not in the room.

It is, incidentally, one of the reasons I feel I'm uniquely in a position to criticise this thing. I'm not just another D&D writer. I've spent 30+ years in the business, I've designed my own products (which is why The Lantern does not look like a mess) and I know the amount of work it takes after writing to make it look both efficient and pretty. And sorry, it does aggrieve me to see these amateurs succeed when so many people in this business — the far more competent J. Eric Holmes, say — did not become the sun around which this game spun, instead of the gas giant we got.

Those two Gs can't be coincidental.

Lightning Bolt: Utterance of this spell generates a lightning bolt 6" long and up to 3/4" wide. If the space is not long enough to allow its full extension, the missile will double back to attain 6", possibly striking its creator. It is otherwise similar to a Fire Ball, but as stated in CHAINMAIL the head of the missile may never extend beyond the 24" range.

Generates a lightning bolt from where? And why, precisely, is there a "double back" effect? Is this a characteristic of lightning bolts? I know it's not, because a Tesla coil will make "lightning" in a very tiny, tiny space. Moreover, lightning doesn't "travel" towards an object, it's electricity ionising in tiny branching feelers, sniffing for a path of least resistance, then erupting with incredible speed along a conductive path that suddenly exists, like a newly-formed channel in space. It has no physical quality. Even if "magical lightning" is distinct from "natural lightning" (ideas that did not exist at the time of this set's writing), it would make no sense to ascribe substance or mass to lightning that would allow it to "double back" or "rebound" against a fixed object.

Thus, it's clearly a jerk move, a design intended to make the caster favour the fireball over the lightning bolt. There are no other effects of magic that "bounce," or act anything like this in a constrained space. Only lightning bolt demands spatial accommodation like a petulant yardstick, and only lightning bolt punishes the caster for daring to operate in three-dimensional space.

Plus there's the "similar to a Fire Ball" note. It's not an area spell, this may mean it comes from the caster's finger... but yes, like most readers here, I take this to mean only that it causes 1d6 per level of the caster. Unlike the fireball, there's no clear reference to the area of effect, not to how many persons are affected. Does the lightning fork? No idea. Can it be made to arc in an unstraight line, as lightning often does naturally?  No idea. Does it prioritise metal armour and wet surfaces, like lightning also does? Does it cause more damage if it interacts with conductive material? Can the spell reach further if it touches water? If you're in water and the water is hit, and you're in that deadly circle lightning affects, are you absolutely dead? No idea.

And being a DM who has had these questions disrupt a session, as players who are educated enough to know how lightning works, only to find the spell called "lightning" doesn't work that way, want answers that I'm not willing to shut down as a dick because, well, I respect my players. I want to know too. Why doesn't lightning work like the actual physical phenomenon, and if not, why is the spell called "lightning"?  I suppose "light burst" had less chutzpah.

Protection from Evil, 10' Radius: A Protection from Evil spell which extends to include a circle around the Magic-User and also lasts for 12 rather than 6 turns.

I think we can leave this alone. We don't have to go through protection from evil all over again. Point in fact, briefly. Spell doesn't say the radius moves, or what it's wrapped around if it does move. I'd run it like AD&D, but that's only because I've seen AD&D. Who knows what it was run like among strangers who knew none of the makers, lived nowhere near them and had never seen the game played.

Invisibility, 10' Radius: an Invisibility spell with an extended projection but otherwise no different from the former spell.

So, makes everything, objects, people, the ground, other living things, invisible as well? Since the original (forgot the underline under the referred-to spell here) transformed whatever. That's quite the effect. Useful. Lean against the wall of a tower, building, whatever... cast, make a 10-foot visible window in the side of the edifice and then get out of the way. The physical wall is still there, of course, but if you can see, a charm person will work fine. Pick a corner in a dungeon and poof, the walls are bubble-glass. While the monsters freak out, as they can see you, they can't reach you, because the wall's still there. And you and you're party are invisible anyway.

Infravision: This spell allows the recipient to see infrared light waves, thus enabling him to see in total darkness. Duration: 1 day. Range of infravision: 40-60'.

Sorry, am I reading that right? Is that a single tic after 40-60?  Did they just use actual feet instead of writing 4-6"? Wow, who knew it could be written that way.

Get ready: this is the only instance in the rules that explains what infravision is. This is it. Not under The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, where it's referenced. Here. Interesting choice, don't you think? As such, the spell description here becomes the de facto definition for every creature in the game that has infravision, even though most of them gained it through anatomy, not magic.

The issue, of course, is that "infra-red" is understood by most persons, today as well as then (though the average person was less informed about science, which I've discussed), as merely a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. At the time, engineers were building early heat-seeking missiles using IR signatures. Astronomers were mapping stars using IR telescopes because IR penetrated cosmic dust differently. Meanwhile, popular media talked about “infrared goggles” as though they worked like flashlights or night-vision binoculars. An article in Popular Science from the era might describe "heat seeing" in a single paragraph that glossed over the physics entirely and emphasized the effect as "seeing shapes in darkness." Spy fiction when to town with this, pointing light cameras at objects at night in James Bond films with an overlay that dubbed it, "night vision," giving the impression that this is what it looked like when using infrared goggles. D&D seized it, slapped it on various monsters and humanoids as "perfect night vision," and sparked off a hundred thousand arguments around game tables about "if this is ice cold, how does 'infravision' see it?"

But we don't need to talk about it's presence in the game. That's another subject for another day, and I think this blog has already done that. I know the wiki has. And no, it doesn't make everyone happy. That's impossible.

The above is a screen-shot of page 25. Tell me if you notice anything odd about it.

I'd lay money the typesetter looked at what was provided, shrugged, then typeset this exactly as provided. Given how sparse the White Box is, there's a whole chunk of available real estate on the same page to give clairvoyance and clairaudience a range.

Yes, gawdammit, I am gonna dance on the laurels of this sacred relic. Get used to it.

Dungeons & Dragons White Box 17

Sadly, there are 11 pages left of spells to do. And I have done... two.

Sigh.

Continual Light: This spell creates a light wherever the caster desires. It sheds a circle of illumination 24" in diameter, but does not equal full daylight. It continues to shed light until dispelled. Range: 12".

This is almost, but not quite the "light" spell. Now, instead of "a spell to cast light" this "creates a light." This one "sheds a circle."  The stumble here is that while a lamp (or the moon, or a fire) sheds light, it does so in the sense of "to radiate or fall from," as from a place of origin. The spell is an act, it's performed, and once created, it doesn't continue to fall. But still, this is a quibble.

The larger problem is, again, the unrestricted, unending presence of the light. While mages are busy using dispel magic getting rid of all the wizard locks in the world (see previous post), there are third level and better mages littering the world with eternal glowing spheres, obviating the need for torches in towns, villages and large structures throughout the world, while two or three shifts are ongoing in guild houses who now are able to conduct business around the clock. Large cities can be seen ten or twenty miles away, while residents find it difficult to sleep and stress/insomnia is killing people as it was in the 70s and 80s, before most cities began replacing mercury streetlights with sodium. Groups of 30+ mages are touring the continent, light-bombing granary and garner outposts with light, or literally spreading lights along the roads, from end to end. The gods in space can identify Paris, London and Venice just as astronomers can today. It's not the D&D world you thought it was.

"That farmer's field over there? It's been lit up since 1127, when Nathan the Proud thought he was being funny. We've asked and asked for someone to come dispel it, but still no one's available."

And still, what does "not equal" to full daylight mean?

Knock: A spell which opens secret doors, held portals, doors locked by magic, barred or otherwise secured gates, etc. Range: 6".

This is not so bad. The "etc." is more or less the same lack as found in hold portal, but in fact there are a few more examples here, and it lacks the word "like" these things. One word makes an enormous difference.

There really isn't a need to mock these spells for the time period. In most cases, the duration counted only the single combat or one-session attitude that the game held for the majority of the participants. The issue arises where the White Box itself tries to be the other thing, talking about a campaign as though this set of rules could also be applied to that, when it's self-evident that this is the designers writing cheques their rule system couldn't cash.

It's also worth the mockery for that present day set who, like wannabe hipsters, portray themselves as the smug players of "real" D&D, "as written." When, obviously, they're not playing it that way. They're making up their own boundaries and "it actually meant this" mechanics, to cover up the failings that are obviously here.

Fly: By means of this spell the user is able to fly at a speed of up to 12"/turn. The spell lasts for the number of turns equal to the level of the Magic-User plus the number of pips on a six-sided die which is secretly determined by the referee.

Okay... sigh.  12" = 120 feet underground, but 120 yards in the wilderness...

(How the spell knows, don't ask me. If I'm in a huge cavern, does that count as the outdoors; and at which point does the cavern become large enough that the spell knows to propel me forward... oh, never mind)

You've cast the spell and you're travelling 120 yards per turn in the outdoors, which is 12 yards per round, which is 10 seconds in basic, so you're travelling at 1.2 yards per second if you use that system. But if you're using AD&D, you're travelling at 0.6 feet per second... which is 7.6 inches per second, or just double the speed you're levitating upward.  And this is funny: AD&D did not fix this. The spell description on p.73 says: "12" per move," the last word not being defined at all in the book. Just a minute, I've got a wall for my head right here.

Meanwhile, the average airspeed velocity of a European swallow is 32.3 feet per second, which is pretty close to that of a falling rock (for the first second).  Since there is no such thing as an African swallow, we just don't know.

By the time the mage has crossed a distance of, say, the length of a tennis pitch (we'll use the 15th century number of 78 feet), which would take 2 minutes, 10 seconds, the swallow would have circled the entire pitch (perimeter 216 ft.), allowing for a 5 foot buffer around the outside to be sure no corners were cut, 17.8 times. That's not flying. To put this another way, if I'm walking, just loafing along, 2½ miles per hour, I'm moving at 3.67 ft. per second. It only takes me 21.25 seconds to walk the pitch. Anybody besides me see the problem here?

I suggest changing the name of the spell to "Hover."

The secret die roll?  The early dungeon master was encouraged to be a fucking dick. It's right there in the rules.  If Gygax wrote this, and I think he did, this alone justifies any ill feeling I have ever had toward the man for my entire life time and the rest of his.  

Any person capable of codifying a rule like this in a game set is, by definition, the kind of person who would take advantage of someone in real life if the opportunity arose. This is ungentlemanly behaviour, which is the reason when it used to be revealed that you could portray this sort of behaviour, you were banned for life from decent culture. This is the person I conceive Gygax to be.  You want to know why this past-time is thick with assholes? There. There it is. A mentality that believes it's acceptable, even fun, to build a system where the players are constantly at the mercy of an arbitrary power, cannot be one I ever respect, no matter what other accomplishments he may have achieved.

I am not a fool.

That's not even half a page from the book, but I'm going to have to stop now.