Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion (short review)

I've read the first book a few years ago. This month, I gave it a re-read and delved into the second book. The Hyperion Cantos is comprised of four books; I haven’t read the final two and I'm not sure if I will.

But the first two were cool enough to mention—so here we are.

Hyperion is just great sci-fi. The story is about a group of interstellar pilgrims journeying to the planet Hyperion’s Time Tombs—a mysterious place that seems to move backward through time and is haunted by the metallic horror of the Shrike: an uber-powerful, four-armed monster that feels nearly unbeatable. Fortunately, it seems currently trapped on the planet, dedicating its existence to killing and torturing humans—many of whom are impaled on a metallic tree to suffer forever.

Each pilgrim tells their story and motives as they go, and each tale is captivating in its own way (the two stories about ageing are my favorites). They're written in different sci-fi styles—cyberpunk, military, science-fantasy, horror, and so on. Some stories are better than others, but they all made enjoyable reads, IMO. Even better, they connect in satisfying ways, and sometimes one story gives a previous one an unexpected twist. With this tapestry of tales, Dan Simmons paints a rich setting, full of wonder and pain.

The book deals with various themes, especially religion and technology, but also artificial intelligence, time travel, transhumanism, sentience, ecology, war, the purpose of art and suffering, free will and predestination, sacrifice, and so on. And it does so with amazing depth. The discussions about A.I seem relevant today, and the other themes are timeless.

The first book, therefore, is highly recommended—with the small caveat that it doesn’t have a proper ending, which only comes in Fall of Hyperion (kind of).

Fall of Hyperion is also a fine book—and for me, it was definitely a page-twister, as I was eager to find out how the story ends. It often takes dark turns, resembling a horror movie like Alien or dealing with truly grim themes like genocide and torture. Unfortunately, it's a bit too long, a bit repetitive, and I felt that the horror lost some of its impact due to the wait and the fact that many characters seem able to survive apparent death one way or another (a trend that, I believe, continues in the last two books).

Overall, I found the first one much better, but the second one does live up to most of the promise.

This series feels influential—I feel the second one could have inspired The Matrix, for example—but isn’t quite that famous. I found the first one a better read than Dune (which I haven’t finished), which has several adaptions. Apparently, there’s a book or TV series adaptation of Hyperion in the works, which I’d certainly watch.

For the D&D fans, Hyperion offers cool ideas for monsters, religions, and dungeons. I wonder if Planescape’s “Lady of Pain” was inspired by the “Lord of Pain” moniker given to the Shrike. The Cadaver Collector is also reminiscent. When I first read the book, I was struck by the depiction of a Church of Pain—full of tight corners designed to cut and hurt visitors. And the idea of dungeons that travel through time is just too good to pass up!

In certainly thinking of taking some inspiration for my next RPG setting. But that's probably a subject for another post.

Odysseus, Elric, Epic (the musical!) and tragedy

I had never noticed the similarities between Elric of Melniboné and Odysseus, so I thought it would be a fun idea to share.

This impression came when I was watching Epic: The Musical (E:TM), a reimagining of Homer’s Odyssey that became popular on TikTok (!) and seems to be even more similar to Elric than the original Odyssey.

As far as I can tell, Moorcock hasn’t made any widely known or direct comments specifically about Odysseus, nor did I find anyone else pointing to the similarities. Likewise, Jorge Rivera-Herrans (The author of Epic) apparently has not publicly mentioned Elric of Melniboné or Michael Moorcock.

It is likely that some of the similarities I see are common to many different myths/stories, but I find them meaningful enough to mention. Of course, other works such as The Broken Sword might be even more influential on Moorcock.

Both Elric and Odysseus are reluctant heroes (and kings of their respective islands) that leave their thrones (for different reasons) and go on adventure, bound by fate, defying the gods but also summoning them for help.

Odysseus is a warrior of Athena and Elric a protégée of Arioch (at first), but both relationships become complicated during the stories. Both heroes seem to be  pawn of the gods at times, and divine beings shape their fate as much as their own choices do.

Both spend a long time dreaming of coming back to their loved ones. Both carry the guilty for the loss of their men in the sea and in battle. 

While these themes are widespread in mythology, certain Elric scenes specifically evoke the Odyssey for me.

For example, Odysseus wounds Polyphemus, which angers Poseidon. Elric faces the Sad Giant and decides to spare him... but his companion decides to slay him, to avoid upsetting the lawful gods / thwarting their prophecies. In E:TM, the fact that Odysseus spares Polyphemus angers Athena.

Both Odysseus and Elric sleep with sorceresses and other women despite their great love for  their beloved (Penelope and Cymoril; in defense of Elric this happens after the demise of Cymoril).

Is it a stretch to say both travel to the Underworld, be it in Hades or the Realm of Chaos where Elric finds Stormbringer? Maybe.

Both Odysseus and Elric cause a bloodbath on their respective kingdoms when they do manage to come back.

After the Raid on Imrryr (from The Dreaming City), the Dragon Masters of Melniboné awaken the ancient dragons that will obliterate Elric's entire fleet. Knowing he cannot save everyone, Elric summons wind elementals to carry his own ship away from the carnage. Afterwards, he swims away alone.

Odysseus's fleet gets destroyed by Poseidon  - especially the Laestrygonians giants, with the last ship being destroyed by a storm and leaving Odysseus alone on as island. In E:TM, Odysseus uses a bag of wind given by the wind god Aeolus to save his ship.

[Elric also has to deal with beings such as Straasha, Lord of the Sea, reminiscent of Poseidon, and Grome, Lord of Earth].

Finally in Elric of Melniboné, the first novel in the saga, during Elric’s assault on the Mirror of Memory (a magical trap that steals the minds of those who look into it), Elric recruits blind warriors to fight by his side, but nearly goes mad himself.

Odysseus has a similar predicament when passing near sirens: he orders his crew to plug their ears with beeswax so they won’t hear the song, but he almost succumbs to their enticing songs, as he chooses to be tied to the ship's mast instead of covering his ears.

[BTW, Elric also gets tied to a ship's mast in different circumstances, suffering hallucinations due to his albinism].

In short...

The Odyssey is so important to western culture that its influence is everywhere, and some of it might as well be unintended, subtle nods or subversions (as Elric is often more tragic dark fantasy than epic).

Elric seems to owe a lot to Greek tragedy - or, in this case, one of the most popular Greek epics ever. As we've said, some themes are nearly universal, being present since the Epic of Gilgamesh and other works. But some similarities are remarkable enough that I felt like sharing them here.

What do you say? Could Odysseus be a direct inspiration to Elric's stories?

AD&D 2e reaction table

The AD&D 2e reaction table is... interesting:

Compare it to the BECMI reaction table, discussed here.

The tables are different for several reasons, but the main distinction is that the AD&D 2e table requires you to check the player characters' attitude before finding out how the monster behaves, while every other D&D table I can remember goes the opposite way: first consider the die roll, then check how the monsters behave.

Of course, in practice you can always ask how the PC's react first (or ignore the rection roll altogether, etc.). But I think it would be better to rely on initiative here - if the PC's have the initiative, they can choose to show they're friendly before the monsters decide how to react, which would certainly give them some advantage in the reaction roll.

If they LOSE initiative, the monsters "react" first - but if they are uncertain, this gives the PC's another chance to make a peaceful gesture, etc.

Another interesting aspect of the 2e table is that it can result in flight. This makes some sense as the table is affected by morale modifiers. A curious idea! Should scared monsters be friendlier? It makes some sense if they are intelligent, otherwise they should just run away if they can (which is the case if PCs are hostile).

Unfortunately, the actual morale score is irrelevant here; a monster with morale 18 and other with morale 10 are both as likely to flight or be hostile. 

Curiously, since chaotic creatures have -1 to morale checks for some reason (they are probably more cowardly and less organized), they are also more likely to be friendly, which is a mistake IMO.

Overall, the 2e table is not any clearer or better than other tables, but it has several advantages we can use - and a few disadvantages I'd like to change.

It feels too friendly to "indifferent" PCs, do not contain immediate attacks, and is organized in a 4x19 grid instead of the usual 5 entries. It also seems to lack a "cautious" column that should be the default for PCs, with equal chances of friendliness and hostility.

Maybe my ideal 2d10 table would be smaller, containing a single column instead of a grid. Give the PCs a -1 if they manage to show they're friendly before you roll (e.g., if they win initiative); let he "speaker" or "leader" make any kind of Charisma "check" you feel appropriate to change this to -2 [simply including the charisma modifier feels too extreme, IMO; it would make everyone your friend]. 

If they are hostile or attack, roll with +1 to +2 (it is unlikely you need to roll after the PCs attack).

2–3. Friendly

4–6. Positive

7–10. Curious

11–13. Indifferent

14–16. Suspicious

17–18. Negative

19–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check)

As you can see, I added morale only to the last entry. But you can also use it whenever intelligent NPCs feel threatened or unable to escape, to see if they negotiate or surrender.

This is not much better than the original 2d6 table. Except that 2d10 allows you some extra room to give +2 and -2 modifiers. Maybe a simpler version would be better:

2–4. Friendly 

5–7. Positive, indifferent

8–12. Cautious curiosity  

13–16. Negative, suspicious, aggressive

17–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check if needed)

But then again, I've written about this before... more than once! 

So I'll leave this as a small post about 2e reaction, and point you to some older posts about reaction rolls in general:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/reaction-rolls-in-practice-osr.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html

Christmas in July (2025) picks

Christmas on July sale over DTRPG is on! Here are my usual picks, with some additions.

It includes many of my titles!

This includes my latest work, Basic Wilderness Encounters - which recently got a couple of 5-star ratings!

Most products have a 30% discount.

There are 75% discounts here. 

I notice some interesting stuff in there, but nothing I've played before. Swords of the Serpentine is good S&S, or so I'm told; Blue Rose is a classic setting from the early 2000s (IIRC) that I might check.

This time I'm a bit curious about Adventure Anthology for Shadowdark, although I might have some of his adventures in some other compilation... usually good stuff.

HYPERBOREA - which I reviewed here - is also included.

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is 30% off. 

Now, let's see the old favorites...

OSR

* Teratogenicon, my monster maker (check the previews!).

* Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X neoclone.

* Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe Edition (review of the original version);

* Monkey Business.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG);

* How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck; 

* The Monster Alphabet; 

* Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome; 

* Silent Legions; 

* The Nameless Grimoire.

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Adventurer Conqueror King System.

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

Classic D&D

This are some of my favorites. Explanation here.

* D&D Basic Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) (Basic).

* D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Basic)

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1e)

* Monstrous Manual (2e) - the current price is RIDICULOUSLY LOW for such a a great book.

* Dark Sun boxed set.

Goodman Games

In addition to the amazing Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG), I really like The Dungeon Alphabet, The Monster Alphabet and The Cthulhu Alphabet. They are near system-less and full of awesome stuff to inspire your games. I still haven't read How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck but it is also on sale.

They also publish awesome adventures; Doom of the Savage King is highly recommended! Same for Jewels of the Carnifex, which I reviewed here.

Necrotic Gnome

Several Old School Essentials titles are also on sale in addition to Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome. I really like Old-School Essentials. It is basically a concise, well-organized version of my favorite D&D (B/X). The SRD is great. the version that interests me the most is the advanced version - it is NOT an AD&D clone, but B/X with many new options taken from AD&D, dragon magazine, etc. For players and DMs.

Sine Nomine Publishing

Worlds Without Number is on sale. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles form the same author, including Scarlet Heroes and Silent Legions (maybe my favorite OSR take on horror and Lovecraft).

I think that's it for now. If you know any other books on sale that you'd recommend (especially if it is 30% off), let me know in the comments and I'll add it to my list. Feel free to promote your own products!

These are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

RPGs vs. Wargames - Zooming in and out

I have written about this before. Today I'm not discussing if RPGs are wargames or not. I'll just notice that there's a tension between the wargame and RPG perspectives, and will discuss how it manifests in Chainmail (wargame) and D&D (RPG).

The main difference is one of scope:

- Wargames are (traditionally, although there are exceptions) focused on battles between dozens to thousands of people; each player controls many people.

- In RPGs (traditionally, although there are exceptions), each player (except the GM) plays a single character/"role".

D&D was spawned from Chainmail (in OD&D, Chainmail appears as required material), among other games, and we can see the shift in focus as the game progresses. There is a "zooming in" of sorts.

Here are a few examples.

Alignment

Originally, alignment was about factions/teams. In modern D&D it is linked to personal philosophy, outlook, and behaviors. This shift creates some confusion and is discussed here.

Weapons

Chainmail had very important weapon versus armor rules that couldn't be ignored. Maces are better against plate, and daggers are a lot better against unarmored people. There are magic weapons, but not many details, you can get a bonus due to a generic "magic sword" or "magic arrow", for example.

When you get to D&D, the focus starts shifting to individual weapons. Magic weapons get more detailed (flaming swords, then vorpal swords, mace of disruption, etc.) and swords get deeper personalities and stats of their own. This tendency will continue through editions, with an ever-growing number of singular magic weapons.

The weapon versus armor table, on the other hand, is included in AD&D but often ignored in actual play (even by Gygax). In 2e, it gets simplified, and from 3e onward is nearly forgotten. The individual weapon is more important than weapon type. 

Ability scores and other stats

Chainmail does not use ability scores or many individual stats. Most creatures are defined by type/HD, AC, and attacks. In  OD&D, ability scores are present but not as important, and there are cases when Dexterity 7 is equal to Dexterity 14 in most circumstances; class and level are way more important. But soon "ability checks" become popular, and ability tables gain more detail; there is an effort to make each single point important. In modern (post-2000) D&D, ability scores are almost as important as class and level.

One interesting anecdote is how some classic D&D characters get names that are jokes/puns, simple anagrams of their player's names, or derived from class and level - the famous "Melf" is a "Male elf" abbreviation. Compare this to Drizzt, for example; a rebel drow that is opposite to whatever drow originally represented.

Hit points and level

In Chainmail, creatures are defeated or not with one or a few "hits". Hit points are created precisely because players get attached to their characters. This causes a "hit point inflation" eventually. Individual advancement, which doesn't quite exist in Chainmail, becomes an important focus of the game.

Dungeons and the battlefield

Wargames are often set in open spaces. Tight dungeons require a tighter focus. In old school D&D, this tension is often resolved by giving weapon range and movement different meaning indoors and outdoors (from feet to yards IIRC), which I find to be an elegant solution, but it later editions simplify things to make them equal despite the environment - often assuming that you're in tight environments anyway and even focusing on "grids" and "squares", especially in 4e.

Large battles

Large battles are assumed in Chainmail. In early D&D, the fighter gets some tools to fight hordes of weak creatures; this is expected. In modern D&D, this becomes somewhat of an special case. By 4e, you get "minion" rules to facilitate large battles. 

Individual monsters

In modern D&D, even lowly monster get endless variations, so that these creatures can also be individuals. The stat-block get bigger. By 3e, creatures have ability scores of their own. You also get more detailed rules on how to interact with them on an individual basis, maybe negotiating and so on. Most intelligent monster will have names, personalities and particular interests, which were not as relevant in old school D&D.

In conclusion

Wargames and RPGs are not necessarily incompatible, and some believe that RPGs are a subset of wargames. 

I do believe some "hybrid forms" or tools that allow you to "zoom in and out" are fun and will give you that "Appendix N" feel; Conan is sometimes in dungeons and single combat, and sometimes fighting or ruling over hordes and kingdoms.

Realizing there is a tension between the two perspectives may be useful to choose what rules to apply to your own games.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/wargames-storygames-and-rpgs.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/character-death-in-rpgs-war-games-and.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/weapon-versus-armor-from-ad-to-bx.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/does-d-require-miniatures-3e-versus-4e.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/03/brief-mass-combat-idea.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

GP instead of XP?

This is another crazy D&D idea I've heard while researching for the last post: ditch XP entirely, just pay the GP (for training, carousing or whatever) and you level up.

For example, any fighter that has acquired 2.000 gp can simply "buy" a level. There is no need for XP anymore.

The usual limits apply: only one level per "adventure", and maybe there needs to be some risk involved.

Some possible implications that I like:

- First, you eliminate the entire XP subsystem, thus making the game a bit simpler and ditching things  that take some math like monster XP.

- A level 5 party loses a magic-user they probably have enough funds to hire a new level 5 MU, but it will COST them. This doesn't mean they are getting someone off the street and training him to be a magician, but maybe they are paying someone's debt to their tutor, or money to take care of family while they travel, or passage from a distant land, or bribe to their former employer/patron/etc., or even specialized information on where to find someone experienced and brave enough for your expedition.

- This assumes the new MU is a PC and that the amount paid guarantees at least an honest attempt at loyalty, but the new PC is now part of the group and will share treasure equally. Hiring someone for work that is temporary or less risky would be a lot cheaper. Notice that the money is gone, not in the pockets of the new PC!

- Come to think of it, starting an adventure because you need to pay a debt is very pulpy. Or having someone pay to free you from slavery, etc.

- A rich baron may train one or more sons to become level 2 fighters, but after that they probably need some adventuring. Maybe the investment has only an 50% chance of actually working. Some sons will never become warriors/priests/wizards despite the training! It is a risky investment, but it may buy you loyalty!

- Multi-classing? Nope, now you just pay for training in your new class... but you ALSO get a 50% chance of failure. Not all fighters are meant to become wizards! Maybe its better to hire a new wizard...

- Come to think of it, this would be a cool way of getting retainers (not hirelings).

- This also explains why high-level PCs have followers and titles. They spent much gold and probably are owned many favors.

- Adventurers are no longer assumed to own large amounts of gold; instead, they acquire treasure and spend it. High-level adventurers will still be rich but not necessarily as rich as before. 

- If they have a regular non-adventuring job, maybe they get paid 1% of their "worth" per month or 10% per year. Without adventuring (or a good patron), it would takes years for someone to level up. But if you only need a few additional GP to level up, you could just get a job in the city watch for a short time!

- If that is too harsh, just let semi-retired adventurers to gain a level each year if they have no other business to attend to. This must be combined with ageing rules...

-  Could treasure lost allow you to level up? For example, if you have to let a treasure chest sink to save a damsel in distress. The idea sounds a bit absurd but very pulpy.

It seems to me that it would work very well. But at the same time it hurts our simulationist sensibilities; it feels like getting XP for fighting monsters, for example, makes more sense. Maybe we must keep an alternative method of leveling, such as defeating monsters above your level.

Or maybe the simplest, earliest method is still the best.

In any case, let's finish with a random table!

Where did the money go? 

1. Debts owed to dangerous loan sharks

2. Bribing city officials to erase a criminal record

3. Paying off a bounty quietly to avoid capture

4. Covering apprenticeship fees for magical or martial training

5. Paying a mentor for ongoing instruction

6. Funding room and board during training or travel

7. Purchasing expensive spell components or reagents

8. Repairing or upgrading weapons and armor

9. Securing travel—wagon, ship, teleportation

10. Buying you out of indented servitude

11. Helping a severely ill, homeless or troubled family member

12. Donating to a temple or guild

13. Expensive sacrifice to the character's deity

14. Compensating your former group for a previous commitment

15. Buying a nobility title, citizenship or license to carry weapons and travel freely

16. Settling family debts or obligations back home

17. Covering a party’s group expenses to earn trust

18. Making offerings to spirits, demons, or patrons

19. Hiring informants or spies for local intel

20. Investing in a personal business or long-term goal

Super simple XP system, take 2

My "super simple" system ended up sounding a lot more complicated than I intended. 

After trying to create a formula to match monster XP with gold XP, I realized that just using the formula below might be enough for my goals.

- 1 XP = 1 GP.

- 1 HD = 100 XP.

- PERIOD.

That is all. Forget PC level, forget dungeon level, just use the original formula in its simplest form.

But why?

In old school D&D, most of the treasure comes from gold. But, as noticed in Delta's blog, if you exclude/change a few outliers (dragons, medusae, men), the amount of XP you get from gold is not that far from the amount you get from fighting monsters.

Delta's numbers, check the link

I have some reservations about the analysis; it seems to ignore wilderness encounters, for example, which happen quite a lot in my games and AFAICR do not give random treasure. But he certainly went I lot deeper than I'll go here.

I am happy with the idea that monsters should have no more than 100 GP for each HD. If the gold is much bigger or smaller than that, well, just adjust the gold to something more reasonable.

Dragons with their hoards and breath weapons are a fair exception. Maybe medusaes are a fair exception too; they have two ways to kill you immediately!

But why are men outliers in Moldvay? 

Maybe I'd just rule that they just do not have underground lairs. For example, a bandit's treasure is in their camp, with an average of 80 bandits, and maybe a few leaders. That would be easily 8.000 XP at least, and their treasure type (Type A) is worth 18.000 GP on average, so maybe just halve it. A brigand's lair is a lot stronger and might justify the full Type A treasure. Likewise, merchants have type A treasure but their caravans are almost as large as a bandit's lair, and so on.

This is also a great rule of thumb to create your own dungeons - place 100 GP for each monster HD, and more if you have traps etc. Most "official" adventures I've run have too much gold IMO.

This means that PCs rely much less on GP to level up, which also means they'll level up faster and get stronger before they are too rich. 

I'm not sure if this is perfect for you but it suits my preference for grittier, pulpier adventures, where even mighty heroes are not necessarily swimming in gold.

Will that make PCs fight anything that moves to get XP? I doubt it. As you see, simply avoiding the monster will still give the PCs the treasure XP with none of the danger. 

But if there is an incentive problem, just give a few XP for monsters avoided and limit XP gained by unnecessary fights. No XP should be awarded for slaying random peasants!

Finally, the fact we are not dividing XP by current level makes leveling up a bit faster (which is compensated by reducing the treasure). I don't mind. A level 5 fighter that single-handedly defeats a bandit camp deserves to get to level 6, and so on.

I love minimalism. The simplest solutions often end up being the best ones.

Recommended reading:

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-expected-treasure-and-xp.html

https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Treasure_Types