Last Wills & Testaments in AD&D

In the AD&D Character Sheets published by TSR as product code 9029, a section exists allowing the PC to write a will. As I drafted the campaign rules for my current game of Arden Vul, I mentioned this to a player who was considering transferring his GP from session 1 to a new character, since the character he had been playing was imported from a B/X game with worse ability scores than could have been rolled at the AV table. The player thought I was referring to the culture of the campaign milieu - after all, we are primarily relying on OSRIC where this is not in the character sheets or to my recollection the rulebook. In order to defend my reference, I jumped into the original first editions books to support what, to me, was the obvious implication of an old Character Sheet I had seen.

To my surprise, the concept was mentioned in passing in the 1st Edition Players Handbook and given no actual rules. I expected something in the Dungeon Master's Guide, where simulationist mechanics choke the word count, but again I came up empty. This part of character generation seems to have simply been mentioned in passing without any reason. 

Further research turned up something really surprising: there is a mechanical, character-generation level impact to Last Wills in OD&D and Moldvay (it is also mentioned in Holmes, though with the same lack of depth as in AD&D). In OD&D the rules are fleshed out as follows:

"The referee may allow players to designate one relative of his character to inherit his possessions if for any reason the participant unexpectedly disappears, with or without “death” being positively established, for a period of one game month, let us say. At this time the relative would inherit the estate of the character, paying a 10% tax on all goods and monies. The relative must start at the lowest level of the class he opts for, but he will have the advantage of the inheritance." - Vol. 1, pg 13

Interestingly, the focus here is on the transfer of goods, specifically arms, armor, equipment, and sundry magical items recovered from the underworld. Thus the money is reduced and not applied to the new character's level, but his possessions pass unaffected. Seeing a level 1 hobbit cleric with a +2 Intelligent Broadsword of the Great Old One must have been hilarious. 

In Moldvay, the rules are:

"If the DM wishes, a player may name an heir to inherit his or her worldly possessions upon the death of the character. The local authorities will, of course, take 10% in taxes before giving the inheritance to the heir. The heir must always be a newly rolled-up first level character. This "inheritance" should occur only once per player." - Basic Rulebook, pg B13

Both on page 13, how amusing.

Anyways, the same issue with the OD&D rules is present in the Moldvay Basic set. I see the wisdom in this - advancement in the game is much more about what magical items a character has and verisimilitude is not served if a hobbit who has never crossed a single dungeon threshold inherits his cousin's fortune and suddenly his battlefield prowess as well. But there is a significant shortcoming as well - what a freshly rolled hobbit would find useful is not necessarily what magic items their fighter cousin died with. Far more consistently useful across games would be the ability to play at a roughly equal level with the rest of the party. This is not essential - open tables in the 1970s were apparently regularly filled with a random selection of levels as new characters dropped in to ongoing campaigns - but it seems to serve the makeup of a party better than the original rules as written.

Given that AD&D has no rules-as-written on this, I am experimenting with the reverse: gold may flow to a relative but not necessarily the possessions they died with, which may be looted by the party. What a new character gives up in magical weapons, he compensates for in parity with his fellow dungeoneers. We'll see how it goes, but this has served as an interesting example of how AD&D, as much as I love the scale of its simulationism, can still be a real mess.