6 iron spikes

(White Dwarf #32)

Paul Vernon's 'Town Planner' series continues this time looking at the layout of towns and cities.

What’s it about?

Paul looks asks did the town grow from a village or is the town planned? If planned, it’s likely owned by a noble, church, or merchant group, often near a castle, abbey, or river crossing. Like villages, towns need an economic foundation—trade is their lifeblood. Streets are often named after trades (e.g., Pot Row, Fish Row). Fairs occur outside town up to twice a year, with shops closing for the event - all trade occurs at the fair. Water access is crucial for transport and sustenance, and agriculture surrounds the town. Shops cluster at the center or near gates, while wealthier stone buildings, the guild hall, and the court dominate the heart of town. Religion, town walls, and a castle are common features. 

Cities house admin/govt buildings, palaces, a prison, and a larger military presence. In a D&D world, they might also feature magic colleges, monk and bard trainers, adventurers’ guilds, a mint, libraries, theatres, an arena, or even a zoo—depending on the campaign's flavor. A socio-economic breakdown of a medieval town is provided:

• 30% poor
• 30% upper working class (wealth ~50gp)
• 30% lower middle class (wealth 100–500gp)
• 7% middle class (wealth 500–2000gp)
• 3% wealthy (>2000gp)

For a who’s who, start with detailing the government and powerful nobles. Fighters run the military, often with retired adventurers as trainers. Magic colleges have their own staff, temples should note the highest-level priest, and assassins’ guilds exist but require official sanction to be plausible. Thieves’ and Assassins guilds would have “forbidden lists,” and large cities could have multiple competing thieves' guilds. Paul goes into impractical detail with keying the town.

Is this a keeper?

No. The level of minutiae is overwhelming and not gameable. The series is losing me.

(White Dwarf #31)

Paul Vernon kicks off this well-regarded series with a focus on authentic medieval village design.

What’s it about?

Villages need an economic base—usually agriculture, livestock, or resource extraction (mining, fishing, forestry). Strategic locations, like crossroads, a mountain pass or river crossings, may also provide the reason for the village existing. Fresh water is essential. Without an economic base you don’t have a village.

Monsters in the area should have marked lairs, hunting ranges, and encounter chances within that range, but their territory shouldn't overlap with frequented village areas.

Village layouts revolve around key features: a village green, pond, moated manor, mill, guildhall (if a thriving cottage industry is present), bakehouse, or wine/cider press. Instead of taverns, expect ale-wives; inns only appear on trade routes. Other structures might include a toll-house and stocks. A religious edifice is setting optional but typically present.

Paul details villager roles, social structure, trades (weaver, miller, carpenter, smith, etc.), and services. Stone is reserved for churches and manor houses—other buildings are wooden with thatched roofs, spaced apart with their own plots. Markets, fairs, festivals, and seasonal impacts on village life are covered, along with ideas for petty rumors/gossip and village encounters.

Is this a keeper?

Yes. Heavy on medieval realism, with useful insights into village function and design, but also a lot of minutiae keeping it from the 'best of' list.

(White Dwarf #27)

Last in the series. Roger Musson tackles the challenge of filling a dungeon with monsters and treasure.

What’s it about?

Roger sees dungeons as a fallback when inspiration runs dry, offering routine through reconnaissance, mapping, target identification and looting. At the same time dungeons feel productive—yielding XP, treasure, and items—the real work lies in populating rooms, which can be daunting with hundreds to fill.

A fully random approach is quick but unsatisfying, often failing to balance risk and reward. If using randomness, he advises tweaking results and placing treasure deliberately. His preferred method is structured: determine the percentage of occupied rooms, generate encounters and treasure, then assign manually to ensure logical distribution and variety.

For unprepared areas, he suggests an Emergency Room Register—a list of 20 pre-made rooms with monsters, loot, and details. If the players enter an unprepared space, roll a d20 and pull from the list.

Joke dungeons, he warns, can easily derail immersion.

Treasure can go beyond gold and magic items. Maps should reveal parts of the dungeon more often than lead to new sites. False maps can misdirect players into traps. Documents—clues, riddles, or descriptions like “I hid the Widowmaker in the oval room past the Hall of Wights”—are a sort of treasure. Minor magic items, like a Badge of Orc Impressing, serve as flavorful, low-impact rewards. Keep a list of minor loot to reward clever searches.

To make a dungeon feel real, monsters should have lairs and finite populations—30 orcs means 30 orcs, with no replacements. Patrols, guards, and any magic items should be used, and off-duty monsters should roam. Dungeon denizens should interact, and conflicts independent of the players can make the dungeon feel real, where things happen.

Is this a keeper?

Yes. Lots of good actionable advice. This is a ‘best of’.

(White Dwarf #26)

Roger Musson discusses dungeon layout—rooms, corridors, and traps - with an emphasis on disorienting the party.

What’s it about?

Musson favors large dungeons, settling on 200 rooms a level (fewer below 4th level) to provide plenty of treasure for leveling before descending and opportunities to get lost.

Verticality: With 40' between levels, he suggests pits, galleries, sloping floors, and high passages starting near the ceiling. Including large multi-level features (e.g., a vast circular hall with galleries) adds verticality while giving access to new levels. Thieves should have chances to climb.

Fast Access: He suggests teleportation for quick lower-level access. The teleportation system should be accessible from the dungeon entrance.

Traps, Corridors & Water: Corridor traps should be suspicious but mostly harmless. Consider water like rivers and subterranean lakes - make some rooms only accessible via waterways. Corridors should feel as rich as rooms, with statues, alcoves, and interesting debris. They can be barricaded and held by various factions.

Getting Lost: Irregular layouts with varied passage widths, curves, and odd angled junctions complicate mapping.  Trapdoors, one-way doors, portcullises, and teleport traps can disorient players, forcing them to explore unfamiliar territory. Shifting dungeon layouts, with rooms moving/rotating as the players explore, can heighten confusion but risk frustrating players unless they can disable the mechanism.

Is this a keeper?

The advice on room count, verticality, water, and corridors is solid, but the heavy focus on disorienting players feels excessive. Shifting the adventure's goal to "getting out" works occasionally but shouldn't define the dungeon. Is a difficult to map dungeon that desirable? Not a "best of."

(White Dwarf #25)

Roger Musson argues that NPCs and their plots are the key to creating an interesting and fun dungeon.

What’s it about?

Musson critiques the “randomly generated dungeon,” where encounters are assembled without thought or flavor, resulting in a dull, procedural experience. While this might seem like a straw-man argument, I’ve played in dungeons like this, so the criticism holds weight.

 

He compares D&D not to a game but to a pastime like fishing: while the objective may be to catch fish—or gain treasure—the true goal is to enjoy the experience. Rules, treasure, and dice alone aren’t enough; creative play is essential.

For time-pressed DMs, Musson presents the dungeon as a reliable fallback but insists it should be treated like a novel, with characters and plots driving the experience. A compelling dungeon starts with a strong cast of NPCs who are as dynamic and active as the players. Their plans and actions generate interest, and the interplay between NPC goals and player decisions creates the best moments of gameplay.

Musson categorizes NPCs into four groups: the creators of, or reason for, the dungeon, its inhabitants - why are they there, how do they survive, notable figures in nearby areas - how do they tie to the dungeon, and rival adventurers. Each group is given a series of questions to help tease out dungeon related content. These characters provide context, drive plots, and make the dungeon feel alive. The success of a dungeon, he argues, is how many interesting characters it has, it's all about plans and plots.

Is this a keeper?

Yes, though it’s not making my “best of” list yet. The focus on NPC-driven design offers a fresh perspective when contrasted with procedural dungeons. While I’ve played plenty of adventures where NPCs weren’t central and enjoyed them, I see Musson’s point. I’ll need to reflect more on how this fits into my own approach.

(Dragon #75)

How do you DM—not the mechanics, but the approach? Lew Pulsipher offers 20 tips in what may be his magnum opus for Dragon or White Dwarf.

What’s it about?

Lew stresses consistency, logical application of rules, and establishing clear boundaries - don’t let players push you around. Not all published rules are good, so apply them sensibly. Avoid mid-session rule changes, share house rules beforehand, and revisit rulings if players make strong arguments. Prepare enough to keep the game flowing—i.e. pre-rolling treasure to eyeball its appropriateness—but don’t overprepare. Let players face consequences of reckless actions, even character death, and address disruptive players directly. If needed, remove them.

Balance levity by allowing players to joke, don’t be that DM that treats every joke as an in-game action. Lew supports mild fudging to keep characters alive should the dice turn against them (I disagree). He emphasizes building a group that aligns with your DM style, as blending theater-focused role-players and war-gamers often leads to mismatched expectations.

Lew suggests advancement be as slow as possible while maintaining player interest and criticizes double-digit level play as unbalanced (I disagree). He advises erring on the side of stinginess, halving the treasure you’d normally give—another point where I differ. Stick to the rules, even if they stomp an encounter, and avoid making major changes like letting magic-users wield swords or introducing anachronisms like gunpowder. Don’t remove the fear of death—it keeps the game exciting. If players devise clever solutions, let them succeed, and write flexible scenarios that can handle player creativity.

Is this a keeper?

Yes. Despite some minor disagreements, the article offers valuable advice. It’s one of Lew’s best and deserves a spot on my “best of” list.

(Dragon #61)

Gnomes are polarizing. This article starts strong but introduces incongruous elements that fuel the trope of "annoying gnomes just playing their character."

What’s it about?

Roger begins by describing gnomes as a happy medium between dwarves (focused on mining) and elves (nature-loving). They live in underground complexes near the surface, mingling with woodland creatures. Then, things take a turn with humor: gnomes feel unjustly persecuted by all and start with a suspicious attitude (cue the poor race relations table). Their response? Practical jokes—because clearly, pranks win people over. When enemies are killed through practical jokes, the perpetrator is celebrated.

Even if you're friendly with the local gnome community you aren't spared their pranks, so everyone has to "practice humility."  This chaotic portrayal contrasts awkwardly with their supposed lawful good alignment. Gnomes are also described as happy drunks who joyfully insult everyone bigger than them, giving them a Napoleon complex.

The article explores the source of gnome-kobold enmity and introduces the idea that gnomes can form platonic, lifelong bonds with humans, demi-humans, or animals (think Han and Chewie). Roger cites Three Hearts and Three Lions and Enchanted Pilgrimage as inspirations, but I don’t recall this sort of stuff appearing in Poul Anderson’s work, I haven’t read Enchanted Pilgrimage.

Anything insightful?

• Gnomes were criticized for lacking uniqueness. This article rebrands them as pranksters, and later editions make them tinkerers. I’ve yet to read a gnome version I like.

Should I share this with my players?  

Probably not, as this take on gnomes doesn’t sit well with me. The beginning, where gnomes are framed as forest dwarves—a balance between dwarves and elves—works better. Skip the jokes. This one doesn’t make the "best of" list.

(Dragon #78)

While Sage Advice isn’t official canon it was as close as it got. This installment addresses psionic questions, though most involve things that will never come up. Some clarifications, however, are useful.

Anything insightful?

• If your CHA, WIS or INT increase, you get another chance to become psionic. Alternatively, a wish can make your character psionic if you meet the required 16 INT, WIS, or CHA.
• Elves and half-elves can now be psionic.
• You can always mount a psionic defense, even if surprised.
• Thought shield is the only defense mode you can use while casting a spell.
• You cannot make a physical attack nor cast a spell and make a psionic attack in the same round.
• Thought shield is the only defence you can use if you are doing anything other than psychic combat.
• Psionic use, within the last 10 minutes, can be tracked by other psionics.

Should I share this with my players? 

No, but it’s a handy reference for DMs adjudicating psionics.  The important bits are summarised in ‘Anything insightful’ above. The majority of the questions are too obscure meaning there’s not enough in the article to make the ‘best of’ list.

(White Dwarf #25)

The third installment of Lew’s five-part series provides an overview of playing spellcasters in Dungeons & Dragons. Articles like this, offering advice on gameplay, always catch my interest.

What’s it about?

Lew emphasizes that magic-users (M-Us) are entirely reliant on their spells, suggesting they should make up 25% of a party, ideally with plenty of elves. He stresses the importance of protecting them—useful advice for beginners, though something they’d quickly figure out on their own. The article describes various roles for M-Us, such as the commando who uses flight and invisibility to infiltrate, or the information gatherer who employs ESP and charm spells to get the lay of the land. While the strategies are sound, they don’t go beyond what a player might deduce by reading the spell descriptions—something I wish one of my players in particular would do! For players who don’t bother reading through all their classes spell descriptions, this article is a helpful starting point.

On clerics, Lew notes they’re less popular than M-Us or fighters, possibly because they’re seen as weaker spellcasters. He suggests clerics should make up 20% of a party and outlines less roles than the m-u, reflecting the clerics protective focus spell list. Druids receive only brief mention, focusing on the animal friendship spell and a favourable comparison of dogs versus first-level characters.

Anything insightful?

• Lew’s suggested class distribution percentages for a balanced party are intriguing, though his reasoning isn’t clear.

Should I share this with my players? 

For new players, maybe.  Experienced players, no - they will know all this already. The article is too broad in scope and would be stronger if it focused on early-level gameplay rather than an overview of spellcaster roles and spells across the levels. It doesn’t make my “best of” list.

(White Dwarf #65)

More weapons, finally a two-handed axe, a pavise, a flaming oil alternative and soft-soap?

What’s it about?

M J Bourne introduces new weapons and unconventional tools, including the misericorde and poniard—grappling daggers with favorable WvAC outcomes in surprise situations or grapples. Since the two are nearly identical, only one feels necessary.  We finally get a two-handed axe, though it underperforms compared to the two-handed sword, making it a suboptimal choice. The sword-breaker, a one-handed weapon with a spring mechanism, is more suited to a Renaissance setting and offers a harder disarm attempt than the ranseur (requiring you hit AC 6 instead of 8). Other additions, like blowguns, boomerangs, and the Gallic angon spear, are thematic but mechanically weak.

Then things turn interesting as the article introduces chemical warfare with Quicklime. Similar to an oil flask, those hit must save vs. poison or be stunned for 2–5 rounds. Splash damage is unclear, but I’d rule it out. Soft-Soap, a historical tool used to repel boarders, creates a slippery area where foes must save vs. dragon breath (with modifiers) or fall prone. It’s not clear how Soft-Soap is deployed - are we carrying buckets into the dungeon? Both Quicklime and Soft-Soap feel overpowered; the saves should be easier, and Quicklime’s duration should be reduced. Finally we get the Pavise which counts as a shield when firing from behind it - so just +1 AC. Missed opportunity. 

Anything insightful?

• I like the misericorde/poniard as weapons useful in grapples. I’d apply their superior WvAC to attacks verse prone targets as well. I think Trent has a better handle on this with his take on daggers in Heroic Legendarium.

Should I share this with my players? 

No, not unless you want Quicklime bombs and buckets(?) of Soft-Soap in your game. The poniard is worth borrowing, but overall, Armed to the Teeth doesn’t make the “best of” list.