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

Super simple XP system

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain."

- Paraphrased/implied from Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 1: Men & Magic (1974). Explanation below.

"The awarding of experience points is often a matter of discussion, for the referee must make subjective judgments. Rather than the (ridiculous) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below, dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved".

- Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975).

"The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. You must weigh the level of challenge — be it thinking or fighting — versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it [...].

If a 10th level magic-user were to slay 10 kobolds and take their 1,000 gold pieces, the DM should reduce the award by at least 20-fold."

- Dungeon Masters Guide (1979).

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain. If you get XP from two sources, you only get XP from the lesser source times two. Always divide by PC level."

- Suggested rule. Explanation below.

---

The 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain is implied in OD&D in this slightly confusing passage:

Experience Points: Experience points are awarded to players by the referee with appropriate bonuses or penalties for prime requisite scores. As characters meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience".

This adds to their experience point total, gradually moving them upwards through the levels. Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience. Let us assume he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster, as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis thus; 7,000 G.P. + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8 = 962.5 x 7 = 6,037.5.

Experience points are never awarded above a 1 for 1 basis, so even if a character defeats a higher level monster he will not receive experience points above the total of treasure combined with the monster's kill value. It is also recommended that no more experience points be awarded for any single adventure than will suffice to move the character upwards one level. Thus a "veteran" (1st level) gains what would ordinarily be 5,000 experience points; however, as this would move him upwards two levels, the referee should award only sufficient points to bring him to "warrior" (2nd level), say 3,999 if the character began with 0 experience points.

Supplement I: Greyhawk confirms that this was the rule, and then proceeds to call it "ridiculous" and add fiddlier stuff.

Well, turns out the original rules work surprisingly well in play.

Let's analyze it!

First, we'll just use:

- 100 XP per HD for monsters slain.

- Divided by level.

A fighter must (single -handedly) beat 20 orcs gets to level 2. This is no easy feat, but relatively fast.

[I find that single-handedly defeating 100 or 200 orcs to get to level 2 is an obvious exaggeration and makes almost impossible to make to level 2 if you play exactly by the book IMO].

Forty more orcs will get him to level 3.

To get to level 4, he'll have to face 120 additional orcs.

Level 5, 320 more.

Level 6 requires 800 additional orcs slain, and so on.

So there is a quick (but dangerous) ascent to level 3 and things get slower after that.

Taking down a 10 HD monster is even more dangerous than fighting 10 1 HD monster, so there are no shortcuts there either.

I like it, as levels 3-8 are the best levels to play D&D IMO.

I dislike the byzantine rules for taking dungeon level into account; IMO they're fiddly and unnecessary. I'm not sure if/how it applies to wilderness encounters. I'll skip them for now.

Supplement I: Greyhawk significantly reduces the XP gained from monsters slain, so you have to take most of your XP from treasure. But in AD&D we can see that around 10 HD monsters starting giving an average of... 100 XP per HD, or even more!

So the low HP value of weak monsters is intended to slow down the progression of beginning PCs(a bad idea IMO), or to discourage "farming XP" for high-level PCs.

But the combination of these rules seem enough to discourage any type of "XP farming", as it would either take too long or be too dangerous (e.g., taking 100 orcs at once).

The other shortcut to advance quickly is getting lots of treasure without opposition. In the DMG, Gygax admits that it is up to the DM to come up with actual XP values based on circumstances, defined very vaguely. In his example, getting 1.000 gold from 10 kobolds will only give you 50 XP... which is similar to the XP you get by defeating the kobolds in the first place!

Notice how easy it would be to say your XP gains are limited both by the HD and GP - whichever is smaller.

In other words: you get 100 XP per HD for monsters slain/defeated, and 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired, but you limit each amount XP for whichever is worse. You still divide by level.

The idea is that finding treasure without danger or "farming" XP by killing monsters without motive will give you no XP. Well, "NO XP" is probably too harsh, so maybe reduce the XP to 10% of the original value (if the PCs found 10.000 gp lying on the road, there is something wrong with the adventure design...).

Let's try a few examples.

A) You find a troll (700 XP) with 7.000 gold. You get 700 XP for killing the troll, and also 700 XP for the gold (the XP for gold is limited to 7000). Notice the gold is not exactly "wasted"; you got a lot richer!

B) You find a troll with 400 gp of treasure. Now you get 400 XP for the gold but only 400 XP for slaying the troll. 

C) You find 10 orcs (1.000 XP total) and they have 3.000 GP. You only get a total of 2.000 XP; 1.000 for the orcs and 1.000 for the gold.

(In all these examples, you can give the PCs a 10% prize for the amount that surpasses the limit; so 630 XP in example A, 30 XP in example B, and 100 XP in example C. This is a bit fiddly but still easy IMO. The important thing is that PCs advance in a speed that suits your group);

Special powers, abilities, etc. I'd just say they add 50% of the XP value to make things easier. Thus, a 10 HD monsters counts as 15 HD with one special power, 20 HD if it has two special powers and so on. I do not think you need a separate system for 6+1 HD monsters. Creatures of 1-1 or 1+1 HD might deserve special treatment depending on which cleave rules you're using, but I won't get into that here.

Treasure protected by traps. There is no easy way here; the DM has to consider how dangerous the trap is, when compared to a monster.

Averaging it all out. You do not have to do the math for each room or encounter. Just average everything out by the end of the day (or by the end of the expedition - AD&D suggests they must take the gold to town to get the XP). So if the PCs face A, B, and C in the same day, they have 2.400 XP from monsters and also 2.400 XP from the 10.400 GP they've acquired. Interestingly, this would be a reason to discourage frequent resting...

Hopefully, this achieves all I wanted from the XP system:

- Simple enough to calculate on the fly without a table or calculator.

- Requires a little less guess-work by the DM.

- Makes PCs level-up in a speed that is more to my liking.

- Very hard to exploit by acquiring treasure without danger or killing monsters for no reason.

Minimalistic addendum! All this exercise is interesting but I wonder if you could just run the game with 1 GP = 1 XP OR 100 XP per HD, whichever is better, or just divide everything by PC level. To be honest, this is probably easier. Dividing XP from GP by PC level is not something I had considered but will probably achieve the same result I'm looking for.

UPDATE: 

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/super-simple-xp-system-take-2.html

Creating and using random encounters

There are several ways to use random encounters. I've tried many, each with its own pros and cons. That’s what we’ll discuss today.

1. 

First, let's start with the traditional method: during the game, you check for an encounter. If there is one, you roll on the random encounter table, then determine number appearing, distance, surprise, reaction, and other details. If often involves page-flipping to even begin describing how many bears the players see (nowadays, most tables say "1d6 bears" instead of "bears", which is the bare minimum IMO).

The advantage is that the game becomes more unpredictable for the GM, which can be fun. For the players, the game gets a feeling of authenticity: they seem the fictional world unfolding WITHOUT much GM input, like if it existed without the GM or players. It feels more "real".

The downside is that rolling each encounter along with all its characteristics can take a long time as it involves half a dozen rolls plus maybe making sense of it all. The fact that the PCs 

Here is one example from AD&D:

2.

My solution to the traditional method, in order to save time, was creating the encounter tables that contained most of the necessary rolls and also some useful information to minimize page-flipping or consulting other tables (for example, NPCs names or activities).

Notice you can still ask the players to roll a random encounter with similar effects as method 1, and the GM will be equally surprised. My tables use even less input form the GM (for example, the GM doesn't need to come up with a name on the spot, or a reason for the results).

Here is one example from my book:

3.

Method 3 is like method 2... only smaller. You can roll a dozen random encounters beforehand, for example, and ask players to roll 1d12 when they have an encounter.

[You need to replace encounters as they are used, but you can do that between sessions].

The GM will not be as surprised during the game, but the players will still get a bit of that authenticity as they roll the d12.

This also allows the GM to add some details that are pertinent to the campaign beforehand. For example, to decide if brigands would be willing to support or fight the usurper king that sent the PCs on a mission, etc. 

One real example I could have tried is making a d12 table with lots of goblin encounters as the PCs entered goblin territory, but I ended up using method 4.

4.

Method 4 gets rid of some or all of the randomness. You can roll some random encounters and choose your favorites, or you can simply pick the from a table or monster manual (so they are not even "random" anymore).

You can add some of the randomness back by taking the encounters you chose and making a d12 list like method 3. 

In conclusion...

Another way to see this is that, even in a simple game like OD&D or B/X, there are thousands of encounter possibilities - only a few dozens monsters but hundreds of circumstances (reaction, surprise, distance, etc.).

If you add your own twist to an encounter (NPC's names, what they were doing, etc.), you have millions of possibilities.

But when the encounter happens, this must be reduced to ONE scenario. 

This process of reducing a million to one involves die rolls (from the GM or players) and GM input. Players usually only participate in choosing the monster indirectly (by rolling dice or by choosing terrain etc., unless they are tracking a monster or something similar).

So there are three aspects to consider here: randomness, GM's fiat and player participation.

Now I notice this reasoning applies to the entire game: you have a set of almost infinite options (which creatures can the DM include in his setting?) and it eventually must be reduced to one ("six goblins attack!"). 

This process always includes GM's fiat, must include player participation (in order for it to be a game and not a monologue) and may include some randomness.

also, in short:

Maximum prep gives you familiarity, coherence and ease of use, but no surprises/excitement* for the GM.

(*Except for PC's actions, and not even this if you railroad.)

Maximum randomness gives surprises but also incoherence and long pauses.

There is a balance to be found IMO.

Which is not much of a conclusion I guess... but that's what I got for today.

The sandbox railroad part 2 (plus ULTRA-LINEAR encounters)

Another take on this post.

---

Important caveat before we begin 

"Railroad" has a negative connotation for some readers. If you dislike my use of this term, I offer an alternative by the end of this post.

I love random encounters and I think they are an important part of the game. No matter if I roll them at the table or half an hour before that, or if I already rolled 100 examples for each terrain. I've tried all of them and each has its pros and cons.

I don't think you can understand this post if you assume I'm criticizing the way you play, which is not my point. I'm just describing how random encounters might work in theory, not how you use them in practice. 

I'm not saying there is a problem, necessarily. If you seems random encounters rolls as simple suggestions, this is definitely not what I'm discussing here. I'm assuming you're using a table and sticking to the rules and the results you rolled].

---

I called "random wilderness encounters" a railroad because if the PCs are in the middle of a forest and the next encounter is an ogre, there is no choice but to see the ogre - no matter if they go North, South, etc.

[Assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter].

Usually, it doesn't even matter if they stop and rest, because then the next random encounter (ogre) will happen as they make camp.

Think of a dungeon where you have 4 doors and the module says "the ogre is behind whatever door the PCs choose first; if PCs decide to rest here, the ogre will enter the room they are in".

It would be obvious to everyone this is a railroad/"quantum ogre" situation.

Of course, while the encounter is presented in a linear fashion (you WILL see the ogre), they way you choose to deal with it is not linear.

You could even have the possibility of AVOIDING the encounter altogether.

But the same is true of the dungeon described above.

And, no matter what you do, you face the next encounter.

[Again, assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter: 2d6 goblins].

The ORDER of encounters remains linear - or even "ULTRA-LINEAR".

In a dungeon with 3 linear rooms (say, ogre-goblin-skeleton), you can avoid the next room by turning back or simply not opening the next door.

In the middle of the forest, turning back or stopping usually leads to next encounter!

This is not necessarily a PROBLEM; this is how random wilderness encounters work.

To add CHOICE to the next encounter, you'd need PCs to have some knowledge in advance.

For example, they'd have to be able to look for tracks or see foes at a distance.

This is not impossible to do, but requires you to MARK some hexes. 

For example, if they avoided the ogre, now they know that they are likely to meet him again if they enter that same hex (instead of just rolling the next encounter).

Filling all hexes is tiresome. 

In practice, you can use your memory; if the PCs avoided an encounter yesterday, going back might trigger the encounter.

If they go back there after a week the ogre is probably gone and forgotten.

This entire thread is descriptive and not prescriptive.

I'm not complaining or giving advice, other than, maybe: if you want to avoid railroads, give the players some options BEFORE the encounter begins.

But the PC's entered the forest and put themselves in this situation!

I agree. Although they might not have an option (if the starting point is surrounded by forests for example).

But I don't roll my random encounters in advance!

I don't think rolling in advance makes any difference here.

Because the roll is not affected by the PC's decisions.

If I rolled 39 before the game begins or if I roll 39 when the PCs say "we go North", the result is the same, not any more or less organic IMO.

I still don't see why this is railroading, or this is not what I call railroading, because the PCs can talk to the ogre etc.

I think the best way to understand my point is comparing the wilderness encounter to the dungeon with four doors, described above. 

Or think of it this way: "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they'll find an ogre tomorrow because I rolled it".

This is not a problem, necessarily: most people would be fine if I said  "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they see rain tomorrow because I rolled it", or "they'll see the ghost that is haunting them".

But if you don't want to call it "railroading" maybe "ultra-linear" would be a better description.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36982/roleplaying-games/railroading-manifesto-addendum-random-railroads

NOTE: The Alexandrian has a good definition of railroading in the second post above. Random encounters do not seem to fit, at first. HOWEVER the last post above indicates that the CAN be railroading, in the exact same way I discussed today:

The core distinction here is whether or not the players are making a meaningful choice. In this hypothetical hexcrawl scenario, the choice of direction has been rendered meaningless (since you’ll have the same experience regardless of which direction you go). [...] This taught me a really important lesson as a GM: In order for an exploration scenario to work, there has to actually be something to explore. If all choices are equally likely to get you to your goal (because your discoveries are being randomly generated or because the GM has predetermined their sequence), then your choices become meaningless. And meaningless choices are boring and frustrating.

Undead types and NPCs

I recently remembered the similarities between death knights and skeleton warriors. Both are powerful undead creatures, clad in decayed flesh and ruined armor, big swords, with ominous red dots for eyes.

[Wraiths also have red dots for eyes in their descriptions. And decaying flesh. Wights are similar].

One major distinction is that skeleton warriors are typically enslaved by a wizard, compelled to serve without autonomy. Death knights retain their will and intelligence—although, theoretically, they could be bound by a powerful spellcaster, like ANY undead could.

[I'm remined of "The Empire of the Necromancers" by Clark Ashton Smit. Go read it, it is awesome. Some undead retain some memories by accident, not because a wizard decided to create a specific "type" of undead].

So they look similar and serve similar purposes. It is unlikely that PCs would be able to tell them apart.

This speaks to a broader Dungeons & Dragons trend: the proliferation of nearly identical monsters.

Personally, I’d prefer a “powerful undead” template with variations instead of dozens of creatures that mostly feel the same. Imagine, for example, a system where magical users become liches, warriors evolve into death knights, and thieves fade into shadows or something similar.

Maybe they can keep (some of) their levels, so you'd have undead of all levels of power. These can be individuals, not simply monster types. Whether they are enslaved or not, or if they lead other undead, or if they wear armor or carry a sword, depends on their circumstances.

Not all liches must be super powerful! Some minor wizards could take a chance and botch the process a bit. Same goes for other types of undead.

In my book, Teratogenicon, I describe three fundamental types of undead:

• Mindless – Purely animated bodies, like zombies and skeletons. These do not need personalities or many details.

• Bodyless – Entities of mind and soul, but no physical form (ghosts, wraiths). Some will have interesting personalities and traits.

• Soulless – Powerful creatures like vampires, liches, and death knights. While they retain their physical and mental abilities, they are somehow estranged from their souls. Maybe it is stored somewhere safe, maybe it is lost, or maybe just forgotten and they could be redeemed (but that'd probably cause their physical/mental demise). "Soulless" is a more poetic than practical description. They definitely deserve some history, personality an and traits!

This categorization offers a simple and effective way classify undead though a body/mind/soul divide. Undeath creates a fissure—some beings lose their autonomy, some exist only in spirit, and some are something else entirely.

Of course, there could still be liminal undead: creatures that keep some of their mental faculties, like ghouls, or protoplasmic shapes that are just echoes of souls and no actual souls, poltergeists that can affect the physical world up to a point, or dead bodies inhabited by spirits that belong somewhere else.

As you can see, I have nothing against undead types; in fact, I wrote a PDF with one hundred of them and ideas on how to create even more ("glowing red eyes" are there, but there are more than 100 traits to choose from!) . 

But I think some types of undead, specially the most powerful ones, should be seen as individuals (NPCs) rather than monster types.

Should you PAY your GM?

Let's start with the conclusion: GM-for-pay is okay.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with paying someone to run a game for you, or charging people for a game you're running.

I say that with some certainty but little experience: I always GM for free. 

I GM for my friends, on my schedule, using the system and adventures of my choice (always with some player input). I buy the books I want, and everyone in my group helps me as needed. 

On the other hand, a GM-for-pay typically runs games for strangers, often using the most popular system (like D&D 5e) and well-known settings. A group of friends can often negotiate a situation in which they can all play together with a stranger DM.

I think GM-for-pay makes sense for several reasons. 

Preparing a module like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd takes considerable effort. There is an important distinction here: I think learning settings and modules takes work. It can be fun, but the real fun as a GM, at least for me, is running the game with the players.

[And I found running ToA way more fun that just generating a dungeon randomly or whatever. It was worth the effort. But there was an effort].

Once a GM learns the material, they can run it countless times. While it remains exciting for new players every time, the GM might lose some of the fun because there is no sense of discovery that comes with experiencing it for the first time.

And, in a way, I feel bad that some of this effort is wasted: all the unexplored rooms, all the things that could have gone differently, etc. Running the same thing multiple times is interesting, It is just not as fun as doing something new. And, since you can't usually run the same module to the same people twice, you have the additional effort of finding new people if you want to do that.

There are also practical matters, such as buying setting books, paying for subscription apps, etc. These responsibilities usually fall on the shoulders of the GM. At the very least, it is fair to expect the players to contribute.

In short, given the effort involved, it’s completely fair for someone to charge for GM services if there's demand.

I see this as a win-win. More players can experience various systems, settings, and adventures without needing to invest heavily in preparation. You could do the same without touching money: a group interested in trying multiple systems could take turns GMing for each other. Being able to do it for money just makes the process easier in some circumstances. It also allows people who really like to GM to be able to get some money so can dedicate more time to this, do this a lot, and get better at it.

Another aspect that is probably overlooked is the idea of "Player systems" and "GM systems". I ran a  D&D 5e campaign a while ago. It was fun, but I'm unlikely to do that again; I find 5e to be too much work for the GM. OSR games are much more fun for me to run.

When you look at GMs-for-pay, D&D 5e is the most common system offered. Of course, "official D&D" is always very popular, but I think the fact OSR games are easier to run also explains why paid GMs are less common (and the whole idea is less popular in OSR circles).

I have never actually paid a GM. But I started playing RPGs in a game store. It was free, but they encouraged me to buy a book; so it was not completely without interest on their part. And it was awesome.

Then I wanted to learn more and more systems. I went to conventions and signed up for tables without considering what the GMs got out of it. Later, I invited strangers to learn RPGs with me. It was fun, but not as fun as learning when I was a novice (and probably not as fun as playing with my friends). And it took time and effort.

I also played several games where the GM was testing his own system or setting. I didn't pay for that, but the GM obviously had an "ulterior motive". Some of these games were awesome, and some even became awesome books eventually.

[I have done the same thing as an author; in fact, nowadays most of the things I publish are specifically made because I want to play then. I play-test stuff with my friends].

In short... one day, I might pay to play a game. I think having the option is good, but it is not necessary. If you have time to spare (maybe a clear schedule or enough time to search for a perfect game in several places), and maybe some social skill, you can play free games endlessly. You can make new friends and rotate the GM role if you want. 

When I was younger I had more time and less money, so the thought of paying for a game would never occur, but maybe I'd have played even more if I knew that existed (at a fair price!).

Paying for a game does not make it better or worse. It is like any other business. 

I have friends who are great professional cooks; they enjoy making food, and cooking to their friends for free, but they also sell food, and it is equally tasty. I enjoy food even more when cooked by someone I like, but not every meal has to be like that.

I think a similar reasoning will apply to most fun activities: boxing, running, playing the guitar, chess, and so on. Sure, you can do it for free, and you can do it for fun; but there is still a place for professionals, experts, teachers, and tutors.

---

P.S.1: On a final note, some people say GM-for-pay is intrinsically good because commerce is intrinsically good, as both the buyer and the seller can hope to be satisfied by the end of a transaction they freely agreed to. While I do see the merit in this argument, one could make a counter-argument talking about cigarettes, alcohol or whatever, which would be beside the point IMO.

P.S.2: There is also the "Critical Role experience" aspect I hadn't considered. Maybe some GMs-for-pay can "put on a show" of sorts, maybe some are even amateur actors. I don't do "voices" in my games often, maybe I'd pay to try that once? Not sure, for me this is not the best part of RPGs, but it can be fun too.

A Farewell to Arms, VALIS, And the Truth Shall Make You Flee, Braving the Wilderness, Psycho-Cybernetics

Here are some very short reviews of some books I've read lately. The one-sentence summaries (in italics) are not entirely mine, but copy-pasted from AI (and edited by me) to save you a few clicks.

I gave each book a rating, but to each might have been influenced by my expectations - so my judgement of Dostoevsky (one of my favorite authors) is probably a lot harsher than an author I haven't read before., and so on. Highly subjective, of course.

I avoided the number 7 because it is too easy to choose 7 when you're unsure, so I forced myself to choose between 6.5 and 7.5 when that was the case.

A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway (rating 8/10): Set during World War I, this novel follows the love story between Frederic Henry, an American ambulance driver in the Italian army, and Catherine Barkley, a British nurse. The story explores themes of love, war, loss, and existential struggles, as Frederic grapples with the chaos of war and the fragility of human connections.

This is a good book, but I found it depressing and soul-crushing, so maybe you should avoid it if this kind of narrative bothers you.

Anyway, I have the impression this is the opposite of a war book, not only because it is anti-war, but also because it subverts many of the usual tropes. There is no heroism, no epic victories, not even dramatic defeats - people are wounded and killed by error or accident, often by their own troops, and most soldiers are uncertain why they're even fighting. In any case, it is still an interesting portrayal of World War I.

Maybe Frederic can leave this war behind one day, but no one can escape the realities of life and death.

VALIS by Philip K. Dick (rating 7.5/10): A semi-autobiographical, philosophical science-fiction work, this novel delves into the mind of Horselover Fat, a character based on the author himself. It explores themes of reality, divinity, and madness as Fat tries to understand the visions of a mysterious entity called VALIS.

If you like PKD, this is probably a must-read. In a way, it ties together many of the author's ideas about religion, reality (and alternate realities), conscience, and so on. I don't find it as interesting as his short stories but it is still an enjoyable read. 

I started reading without knowing how autobiographical it was. But apparently PKD has been through things that could actually fit some of his outlandish stories.

And the Truth Shall Make You Flee by Daniel C. Jones (rating 8/10): This book examines the psychological and social barriers that prevent people from seeking and accepting truth. It challenges readers to confront their biases and fears, offering insights into how we justify our beliefs rather than genuinely exploring evidence.

I've been obsessed with cognitive biases lately, especially confirmation bias. I've started a new blog discussing some of these ideas, but I'm unsure if I can add much to the discussion.

Anyway, this book was recommended to me by the author, who happens to be connected with me on X - a happy coincidence, since I only use X for RPG talk.

The book is about confirmation bias. I think understanding this bias is an extremely important tool if we hope to have any understanding of reality at all. I think the author manages to explain this bias while giving a fair shake to both theists and atheists, for example.

Braving the Wilderness by Brené Brown (rating 5/10): This non-fiction work examines the concepts of belonging and authenticity. Brené Brown argues that true belonging requires embracing one's vulnerability and individuality, even in moments of solitude. The book inspires readers to find strength in their uniqueness and connect more meaningfully with others.

This reads to me like standard self-help. The core concept is interesting and helped me reflect on being myself while still trying to be belong to something bigger. In short, you can never feel like you belong if you're just pretending to be someone else in order to adapt.

A fairly interesting and useful idea but could probably be explained in a much shorter format.

Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz (rating 8/10): A self-help classic, this book focuses on the power of self-image and how it shapes our behaviors and outcomes. Dr. Maltz combines principles from psychology and cybernetics to teach readers techniques for improving confidence, overcoming negative thought patterns, and achieving personal goals.

This also reads like standard self-help. However, it not only has a better "ideas-per-page" ratio but it was also written in 1960, and I guess it must have inspired several more famous self-help books. 

It could also be shorter, but I found myself writing down at least one central idea from each chapter. If you like self-help stuff, you should read this one.

The most memorable idea for me was that the author, a plastic surgeon, realized that several people traumatized by their own looks (with or without a reason) would still find themselves very ugly after being "fixed" by surgery. I've heard about some experiments with (fake) facial scarring that could confirm these impressions; I think the subject deserves further study.

It makes you think about how much of self-perception - and, well, reality - is just in our minds. Maybe this is a common theme in several books mentioned here.