Reading Elric

Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné is immensely influential. It not only inspired Dungeons & Dragons—especially its intelligent and cursed swords—but also left its mark on numerous books (The Witcher, the Targaryens in Game of Thrones), comic books (Berserk, and probably many of the "multiverses" form Marvel etc.), and even music (Hawkwind, Blue Öyster Cult, both of which collaborated with Moorcock himself).

In short, Elric is one of the pillars of dark fantasy.

But people often ask how to start reading it. The series can be confusing, since there are so many books and the publication order doesn’t follow the internal chronology at all. The books have been republished rewritten, collected under different names, and so on.

Another complicating factor is Stormbringer—the book that (sort of) concludes the saga. It’s one of the greatest entries in the series (probably my favorite), one of the two Elric works mentioned in the Appendix N, and ironically, one of the earliest to be published.

I’m a big fan of Elric, and part of me wants to just say: Read the whole thing in internal chronological order! But I think it’s easier more helpful to offer a few different starting points.

So, how do we begin with Elric?

Start with Elric of Melniboné (1972).

It’s not the strongest novel in the collection, but it’s a solid introduction to the character, his world, and the themes that define the saga

If you like it, you can go on and read The Fortress of the Pearl, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, and The Weird of the White Wolf, before going to Stormbringer. 

All of them are great.

But I'd say is even easier to just pick any collection of your choice, as long as it contains the first and the last.

For example (from Wikipedia):

In 1977, DAW Books republished Elric's saga in six books that collected the tales according to their internal chronology:

Elric of Melniboné (Hutchinson, 1972, cut vt [variant title] The Dreaming City Lancer, 1972 US; DAW, 1977) ISBN 0-425-08843-X

The Sailor on the Seas of Fate (Quartet, 1976; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-74863-5

The Weird of the White Wolf (collection, DAW, 1977, contains "The Dream of Earl Aubec", "The Dreaming City", "While the Gods Laugh" and "The Singing Citadel"), ISBN 0-441-88805-4

The Sleeping Sorceress (NEL, 1971; Lancer, 1972 as The Vanishing Tower; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-86039-7

The Bane of the Black Sword (DAW, 1977, fixup of "The Stealer of Souls", "Kings in Darkness", "The Flame Bringers" and "To Rescue Tanelorn"), ISBN 0-441-04885-4

Stormbringer (cut, Herbert Jenkins, 1965; restored and revised, DAW, 1977, Berkeley, 1984, fixup of "Dead God's Homecoming", "Black Sword's Brothers", "Sad Giant's Shield" and "Doomed Lord's Passing"), ISBN 0-425-06559-6

Now, if you dislike it... we have a few options.

You could go from Elric to directly Stormbringer to see what all the fuzz is about. If you like the story but dislike the prose, there is another great alternative: reading the comics.

Elric's comics and graphic novels

Elric has been adapted several times into comic book format. My favorites are the ones adapted by  Roy Thomas and illustrated by P. Craig Russell and others—and once again, Stormbringer (by P. Craig Russell) stands out as the best of the bunch, but I'd recommend reading the The Michael Moorcock Library first (Elric volumes 1-5: - Elric of Melniboné, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Dreaming City, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower).

There is also a French version by Julien Blondel in the works, with a few volumes already published. The art (Didier Poli et al) is both dark and really stunning. But the story is much less faithful to the originals, which I'd favor on a first read.

There are other comics that are also worth checking out (The Making of a Sorcerer, Druillet's version, Moorcock's Multiverse, etc.), but I'd start with the "main books" mentioned above.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/odysseus-elric-epic-musical-and-tragedy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-appendix-n-project.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/my-weird-dark-twisted-fantasy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-broken-sword-one-of-best.html

NOTE: Tales of Argosa is the deal of the day, only $9.98 - 60% off ! I'm a big fan of LFG, so I recommend checking this one out! (affiliate link).

Curiously, this might be a decent system to run an Elric game, due to its "dark" undertones and dangerous magic. I have to read it more carefully before I can say for sure!

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

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

Weapons vs. monster

We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.

It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.

But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.

So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?

Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some  OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).

Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?

I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.

- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.

- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.

- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.

- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.

- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.

- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.

Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.

How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.

If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).

And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?

Reflections on RAW, RTFM and game design

It is common knowledge that several rules are simply ignored in many RPG systems.

Instead of playing RAW (rules as written), people often play the game with several changes they have invented or found elsewhere.

AD&D is a good example - apparently, not even Gygax used all the rules that it proposed (most famously the weapon versus armor tables, maybe weapon speed). But this is true for a number RPGs, and it definitely includes the current version of D&D.

Some rules are ignored simply because they are BAD. But that's not what I'll discuss here.

Let's assume we have some GOOD rules that are ignored by many (maybe most) tables. We could even imagine that ignoring them will make a worse/more unbalanced game.

If your game breaks because of that... who is to blame?

Well, most people would say you are at fault. Especially if you are a "RAW purist" - someone who believes RPGs should be played exactly as written.

You should "Read The Fucking Manual" (RTFM), as people say.

I'm not so sure this is the case.

Let's try an analogy. 

A doctor orders you to take a medicine daily.

Many people will automatically say it is obvious that taking it is your responsibility.

But I can BET that if this is a pill to treat an advanced case of dementia, or it is a medicine in form of a big suppository for a mild disease, many people will simply skip the medicine.

And this is a DESIGN PROBLEM.

Likewise, if your games have rules that work in theory, but often get house-ruled in practice, maybe this could be a design issue.

Maybe the rules are too burdensome, fiddly, for anyone to actually use.

And yes, sometimes popularity is about quality - especially in this case. 

You already bought the book, and decide to play the game, so if a particular rule is often ignored, it probably means it is bad or too cumbersome, obscure, etc.

Maybe they tried the rule and didn't like it.

Maybe they didn't even try - partly because the designer hasn't been able to sell it in the manual. 

If people ignore an IMPORTANT rule, maybe part of the reason is that the designer failed to emphasize it enough.

Another example that occurred to me is buying my grandma a new air fryer.

At first, she was not sure how to use it. She does sometime struggle with the remote.

Fortunately, the manual is about 2-pages long, and buttons have been reduced to the minimum.

Good design is also about ease of use.

Maybe calling grandma stupid for not being able to use the remote and telling her to "RTFM" accomplishes nothing.

Maybe the remote COULD have a simpler design.

If you write a game, you should at least consider it.

Magic Item inflation in AD&D

Modern D&D is sometimes accused of turning PCs' into "superheroes". 

I have been accused of similar transgressions for daring to add feats to my OSR games.

"Hero, not Superhero", from Matt Finch's primer, is a popular motto. 

Of course, you cannot take it at face value - "superhero" PCs were in Chainmail, even BEFORE D&D (they are roughly equivalent to 8th-level fighters).

Likewise, a 8th-level magic-user can fly, cast fireballs, turn himself and other into frogs, etc. Clerics can raise the dead by this point!

Finch says PCs become Batman, but not Superman (he must be referring to fighters - not even Superman can turn people into frogs or raise the dead. Also, Batman is a superhero. But I digress).

Maybe Iron Man might be a better example.

AD&D PCs, even fighters, become spectacularly powerful due to their equipment.

The problem starts on level one. As @ericbabe noticed, in "Lord of Darkness", a classic AD&D module:

For defeating 12 skeletons and a 5-hp crazy woman the first level party earns:

- a ring of invisibility

- a ring of feather falling

- two maces +1

- 800 gp

I noticed a similar (but less extreme) pattern when running classics module in my own campaign. 

[And OSR adventures seem to follow this trend too - I've noticed in in BFRPG, DCC and LotFP modules].

It is difficult to have a precise measure of a high-level PC's power, since so much depends on which modules you run and how well the players do.

The DMG has some guidelines on creating high-level PCs in Appendix P. The rules are generous, albeit not as generous as the example above. For example, a 2nd level PC has only 20% chance of having a +1 magic weapon, plus 30% chance of magic chain armor.

I would guess reality is much more plentiful for surviving PCs, not only using published modules but also using the random item tables from the same book (the 1e DMG). Gygax himself recommend GMs to limit the number of magic items found, IIRC.

There is an easier way to analyse high-level AD&D PCs, however: using the pre-generated characters from classic modules. There is a great compilation in Dragonsfoot.

Let's look at some examples:

The A series has level 4-6 PCs with +1 or +2 weapons and armor, plus some potions and scrolls. Looks reasonable to me.

In the D series, we have PCs from varied levels (around 7-10). Now each PC has several magic items, usually AT LEAST +2 weapon and +2 armor, and we start to see negative ACs.

In the G series, PCs are around level 10-12. There is a level 14 fighter ("Frush") with 104 HP and -5 AC, and a level 12 cleric with -1 AC. The Level 9 Dwarf Fighter has AC 0, a Dwarven Hammer +3, Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Striding and Springing, among other things.

[There are also a few intelligent swords int here. They allow fighters to cast magic spells.]

These PCs would win against an army of OGRES, and I mean that quite literally: even Frush by himself can easily defeat one hundred of them if only ten can attack at once. 

Now, I have never seem -5 AC in any of my games. That is because, despite using feats, I am not as generous with magic items.

How about other editions?

I think B/X might be slightly better less generous in this regard. You can play with this cool generator to see for yourself. I wont say this is ideal because I think B/X fighters are too weak and you shouldn't nerf them.

I am not sure about others; I remember 4e giving away lots of magic items but in hindsight maybe it is not that different from other editions. 

Old-school players sometimes complain about "HP inflation" which is kinda true, but nobody talks about magic item inflation.

5e has tried to limit magic items in important ways.

This is from Xanathar's (5e):

A party gains one hundred magic items during level 1-20, but most of these are consumables.

While this sounds similar to Appendix P, I think it is likely that some AD&D PCs might get even more using random treasure, and definitely a lot more if they get a few magic items for every dozen skeletons they face (OTOH, if they also get 800 gp, they'll level up quickly...).

One important aspect of 5e is attunement. Some powerful items require a certain "bond" with the user, and you cannot have more than three of those. These include bracers of defense and rings of protection, for example.

On the other hand, 5e PCs have a lot more features than AD&D PCs. There is a some balance there; some of the PCs' powers are intrinsic, other are form items, while in AD&D most special powers come form items (at least for fighters).

I must say I'm not a fan of having that many magic items.

Characters like Conan, Fafhrd or John Carter (Appendix N) are heroic (or even superheroic?) because of their own prowess, not because they carry many magic items.

[One noticeable exception is Moorcock's characters, who do get several].

That's why I prefer feats. And they can be very simple: just give a PC "+1 to swords" instead of a "sword +1", or "+3 block" instead of a "shield +3". Like magic items, feats can be distributed randomly if you want.

In short, even old-school PCs can become superheroes with amazing power. They also have their "builds" and "powers" that they create with magic items. Whether you want these powers to be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, is up to the DM, who will decide what is best for his style.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Dead-end mechanics

When I was analyzing the 1e DMG - a project I plan to complete in 2025 - I noticed it has several interesting sub-systems. 

While I prefer simpler games, I can see the value of having interesting detail to your games, no matter how idiosyncratic (for example, AD&D seems obsessed with polearms, while swords do not seem to get the same attention).

There was something bothering me about AD&D and it was not the bits that felt unnecessarily complex. The system felt a bit disjointed and I couldn't quite explain it until I gave it a name: dead-end mechanics.

This is not something specific to AD&D - it can potentially happen in any RPG, and it might be closely related to what makes RPGs unique.

AD&D is a good example only because it has so many moving parts.

Let's try a definition: dead-end mechanics are parts of an RPG system that do not meaningfully interact with other important parts, especially when those other parts are thematically related.

This definition can be improved, but let's give some examples.

Example 1. Disease, ears and hearing

There is a curious idea in AD&D that you can check monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease. While this feels un-heroic and not particularly exciting, I can see that it would give a campaign a gritty/realistic feels and a sense of urgency (TIME must always have a COST).

[It can also add some gravitas to fights against giant bats, rats and even wolves].

However, the effects of such diseases on usual dungeon activities are not always described. There would be some obvious solutions - for example, diminished chance of listening to doors or greater chance of being surprised - but the book simply does not address this.

If you lose hearing in BOTH ears, the results on "listening to doors" are obvious, even if not described - we'll get to that later. In any case, the results on surprise are not clear.

Similarly, there is no exact consequences to the loss of an eye for ranged attacks, for example.

(Another curious example here is venereal disease. Since the game includes no benefits to intercourse, this just feels disjointed from everything else. Pendragon, for example, has rules for lust and descendants, which might suggest a bigger focus on such issues. Also, the game mentions herbs/gems that ward off disease, but not how they actually affect disease rolls).

Example 2. Time - initiative, segments, weapon speed

My main frustration here is how complicated and disjointed the initiative/segments rules feel.

There is simply a lack of obvious connection between surprise, weapon speed and thief skills. They don't seem to communicate... but they obviously should!

Can a thief surprise a foe with his silent movement? Should a fast weapon be ideal for this job? Can you get more attacks with a fast weapon if your foe is surprised? I'd say "yes" to all of those, but the book either doesn't make it clear or indicates that the answer is negative.

There is also also no clear connection between the speed of melee weapons and ranged weapons, and they seem to work differently in the surprise segments for no apparent reason.

Example 3. Levels, abilities and dungeon/wilderness skills

This is not an AD&D thing, but something common to most versions of TSR D&D. 

As the PCs level up, they get better at fighting and surviving, but they do not seem to improve in any other dungeon activity: listening to doors (or breaking them down), find their way in the wilderness, hunting, etc.

The thief is the main exception here, since most of his skills are dungeon related and get better with level. 

Curiously, the ranger does not have many special skills in the wilderness: he is not better than any other PC when finding his way in the forest. He can cause upraise and avoid being surprise in any environment, but it is unclear how this fits with the vaguely similar abilities of thieves and even halflings.

Example 4. Drowning

I don't remember the source of this; could be some version of Labyrinth Lord. 

But the rule was something like "if you try to cross a river in plate armor, you have 90% chance of drowning".

Just flat 90% (or whatever). Your strength, level or class do not matter. HP? Save versus death? No. You just drown.

Are dead end mechanics even possible?

While I find these mechanics undesirable, I do think there is a natural limit to dead end mechanics.

As I mentioned above, it is obvious that if you lose hearing in BOTH ears you cannot "listen to doors", although the game does not say that, nor does it describe what happens if you lose hearing in ONE ear, which is much more statically probable.

This has something to do with the uniqueness of RPGs.

RPGs give fluff and crunch a peculiar bond, to the point that fluff IS crunch and vice-versa.

This is a long discussion, but in short, in RPGs a spear will NEVER be identical to an axe, even if both deal have the same damage, weight and cost. An axe will ALWAYS be more useful to take down a door even if the game doesn't say so.

My point is: if taking down doors is a frequent activity, the game should address this difference explicitly.

How to write better mechanics

My ideal game would have a big level of integration between the different rules. In the most frequent cases, this should be explicit to make the GM's job easier.

Modern D&D sometimes does a better job at connecting various mechanics. For example, a Constitution saving throw relies on ability AND level AND class. But, sometimes, it creates MORE problems of this kind, like the fact that 5e D&D has at least TWO unrelated ways of disarming opponents (one of them optional), with no clear relation. 

I must mention Quidditch as a negative example (despite not being a big fan of Harry Potter). While there is some nuance, it often feels like two guys are playing an entire different game that has a flimsy relation to the rest of the players and a huge possibility to make all other efforts void.

["A Seeker catching the Snitch ends the game and scores the successful Seeker's team an additional 150 points (15 goals). As the team with the most points wins, this often guarantees victory for the successful Seeker's team." - source].

But maybe I can express this point visually, using the two images in this post.

The spheres represent game mechanics. The biggest ones are the most important/common. They are connected by lines; e.g., Constitution and level should both have direct lines to HP, but Constitution does not necessarily have a direct line to level or saving throws.

The first image in this post represents a disjointed game: no clear center, with some important mechanics disconnected from others.

The second image is closer to my idea: the most important spheres are near the center and strongly connected; disconnected mechanics are few and unimportant.

I think there is more to be said about the subject, but I'll leave it here for now.

As a suggestion, I'll say we must consider what are the central mechanics of a game (maybe abilities,  levels, classes, maybe also time, money, XP, encumbrance, etc.) and how they related to each other. Dead-end mechanics should be rare.

Two uses for each ability score

One thing that bothers me about D&D - most editions share the same problem - is that it feels like I need at least TWO different uses of each ability score.

For example, if I have Charisma 15 (+1), I feel I need to have a use for the score (15) AND also for the modifier (+1).

Otherwise, why would I need the two? ESPECIALLY when I'm trying to keep things minimalist - starting by the character sheet.

[Of course, you could just get rid of the score, which I'm also tempted to do, although I like having compatibility with other D&D games, etc.]

Fortunately, I don't use Strength 18/77 +2 +4 +1500 1-4 30% 

As you can see above, it is not difficult to find several uses for Strength.

Other abilities are trickier, UNLESS you use ability checks. 

And, fair enough, this is a decent solution. 

My issue with ability checks is that they don't take level into account.

So, a 10th-level fighter is as likely to avoid a pit trap (an early example of Dexterity check) as a first level one.

[This is also a terrible use of Dexterity because it feels like a saving throw but has a completely different method and rationale].

One compromise that could work is what I suggested here ("Minimalist OSR"):

Roll under skills (optional): this is an alternate method to deal with skills that makes PCs more

competent and their ability scores more relevant. To accomplish anything:

- If you are trained in a skill, roll under half your ability (round up) plus your level.

- If you are untrained, roll under your ability (round down).

This has lots of advantages, but it is slightly more complicated than simply rolling under ability. Also, if your rolling for easy stuff (which I don't recommend), it will make PCs look bad.

Even with ability checks, what do you "check" Charisma for, if there is already a (undue, IMO) influence on reactions, retainers, etc.?

If you don't like ability checks, things get even more difficult. Ideally, I'd want EVERY point of EVERY ability to serve SOME purpose to EVERY character. 

So, just saying that abilities give extra XP for certain classes (one of the main purposes originally) is not enough for me.

Let me give some quick examples:

Strength

Score = encumbrance (one item per point).

Modifier = bonus to hit and damage.

Constitution

Score = you lose Con when you have 0 HP, 0 Con means death.

Modifier = bonus to HP.

Dexterity

Score = No idea. Maybe unarmored AC when you're unencumbered? Too many "ifs" here.

Modifier = bonus to AC, maybe ranged.

Wisdom

Score = Could serve as sanity points (e.g., in Crypts and Things) or be "drained".

Modifier = bonus to saves versus spells.

Charisma

Score = Maybe some kind of "Luck points", but this require a new mechanic. I thought of giving a 12% discount in all equipment for PCs with Charisma 12 and so on, but that is a bit niche.

Modifier = bonus to social interactions.

Intelligence

Score = No idea here either.

Modifier = bonus to languages (seems weak, but okay - maybe you can trade some languages for skills or spells).

Well, there are hundreds of old school games out there. Surely there are more uses for ability scores?

Let me know in the comments!

Stretching the d20

The d20 is granular enough for me.

Each number in the d20 represents a 5% chance.

I really don't feel the need to distinguish "stealth 46%" from "stealth 48%", for example.

I could even use smaller dice, but I play D&Dish games and I like the d20.

However, there are a few situations in which the d20 is not enough: when you want to assign chances that are extremely high (over 95%) or low (below 5%) instead of saying "automatic success/failure".

Now, you might say you don't really need that; some situations are just impossible.

But D&D/AD&D has many such cases - thief skills (and system shock) going to 99%, 1% of low-Strength folks bending bars, and optional rules to allow someone with THAC0 20 to hit negative AC.

In other words, the d20 is only insufficient in extreme cases; I'd be happy to use it in every other circumstance (which is about 90% of the time).

Like Moldvay says, "there is always a chance". Before this section, he mentions another example: "Looking down into the chasm, your character can estimate that he has a 98% chance of dying, no saving throw, if he jumps."

I can imagine many other circumstances where 1% chances would be better than either 0 or 5%. 

For example, if you want fumbles in your game, it is ludicrous that you fail ridiculously 5% of the time, especially if you're a experienced fighter. 

Even for spell mishaps, 5% chance is just too much. A powerful mage casts several spells a day and shouldn't be dealing with fumbles every other day. 

I also love critical hits; 5% of the time seems fine for having "maximum damage", for example, but I'd love having the occasional "super crit" with double or triple damage (or maybe permanent damage, etc.)

There are several ways to "stretch" the d20 at the edges if you want more than 20 possibilities. I've discussed a d100 conversion in the last post, now I'll present an alternative:

Whenever you roll a natural 20, you can try again with a +10 bonus, picking the best result.

Conversely, a natural 1 forces you to roll again with a -10 penalty and pick the worst result.

This way, a d20 can easily generate results form -10 to 30, and beyond (you'd need several 20s in a row, but you get get to 100 once every 500 billion rolls...).

This would give you a small chance to hit even -10 AC.

If using crits, you could easy say that a margin of 30, for example, will give you triple maximum damage. Awesome, but rare.

Notice this can work for ANY kind of dice. 

For example, I hate the idea that you add your Charisma bonus to a reaction roll, making an "immediate attack" impossible (although this is not how I use the table). 

But you could re-roll a natural 1 or 6 with a -3/+3 bonus, which will allow an immediate attack by anyone, if rarely.

This also allows you to assign bonuses and penalties to enemies' reactions without taking some possibilities out of the picture.

This is similar to "exploding dice", but for me it has the advantage of not taking any result off the table. Rolling a 21 is possible, but less likely than rolling 20. Rolling a 22 is even less likely, and so on.

AD&D and ability checks - from d20 to d100

I have often wondered if people playing AD&D RAW use ability checks, and how often.

From a quick look at the rules, it would seem that if you don't, having Dexterity 7 and Dexterity 14 is identical. Same for Wisdom 8 and 14.

Is that part of the reason why Dexterity and Wisdom would become some of the most common saving throws in 2024 D&D? I'm not sure. 

Certainly rolling under Dexterity was used as a saving throw in some old school modules (to avoid falling into a trap, slipping, etc.).

For all other stats, however, there is some consequences to having a few extra points. The exact number are all over: Strength 18/33 gives you +1 to hit, +3 damage, +100 encumbrance, 50% chance of forcing doors and  20% of bending bars. Strength 18/53 will give you almost entirely different numbers.

[The table below if from 2e; the numbers are similar, but notice how they almost turned open doors into "roll under"].

I have a feeling that Gygax got enamored of the d100 some time between OD&D and AD&D. While AD&D uses multiple types of die, the d100 appears often, and it seems to be useful especially when the d20 is not granular enough.

I've tried streamlining theses numbers before, and maybe replacing some of them for ability checks.

One issue with using a d20 is that you lose the finer detail of chances that are lower than 5% (e.g., bend bars) of greater than 95% (e.g., system shock).

But this is not impossible to fix either.

Just revert to the d100 when (and only when) the d20 is not granular enough to give you chance of success/failure.

We could just use ability checks with a bonus/penalty; usually, usually from -4 to +4, but -10 for extreme tasks (e.g., bend bars). If something is impossible to roll on a d20 (e.g, you need to roll under 3 but you have a -4 penalty), we could give the PC an extra chance by rolling a d100 - your chances decrease by 1% instead of 5% or each point.

[Notice we sometimes say "roll under" when we really mean "roll equal or under"; for example, rolling under Dexterity 7 means you have to roll 7 or less on the d20].

For example, you'd need Strength 11 to even try to bend bars (similarly to AD&D). This requires rolling a 1, which means 5% chance. Strength 10 could reduce that to 4%, and Strength 6 to 1%. Strength 5 makes it impossible. Strength 19 gives you a 45% chance.

[I'd probably get rid of percentile Strength, BTW].

Same reasoning for system shock: say you roll with a +4 bonus. Constitution 3 gives you a 35% chance (exactly like AD&D), since you have to roll 7 or less. Constitution 15 gives you 95%. Since there is always a small chance of failure, Constitution 16 will give you 96%, Constitution 17 will give you 97%, up to 99% if you have 19.

This also works for thief skills, which follow a similar progression (move quickly to 95% then slow down). Say you need to roll under thief level +3 to hide or move quietly; this gives you 20% chance on level one, 95% on level 15, up to 99% on level 19. Of course, you could use ability checks instead (with a -10 penalty, for these are exceptional tasks, but adding thief level).

Another use for this: hitting negative AC. If your THAC0 is 20, you have 5% chance to hit AC 0. In AD&D, you ALSO have 5% chance to hit AC -2, but... wouldn't it be smoother if your just apply the negative AC to that 5% chance? So, AC -2 gives you 3% chance of success instead of 5%. AC -4 gives you 1%, AC -5 is impossible to hit. Easy!]

Anyway, I've been thinking about these concept of "stretching the d20" for years. Now that I think of it, it probably deserves a post of its own. But this "d20 to d100" stretching is enough for AD&D, I think.

More d20 damage

I have spent several posts considering making a single roll for attack and damage, and even more posts considering Critical Hits.

But what if we combine both?

Here's what I am thinking: if you beat AC by 10 or more, you deal maximum damage.

But if you beat AC by 11 or more, you add the excess damage (e.g., +4 damage at if you beat AC by 14 and so on).

Beating AC by 10 or more is something that RARELY comes up, EXCEPT for strong fighters against weak/unarmored foes.

So Conan could maybe defeat a horse with a single punch - although it is unlikely. 

(Or defeat a sorcerer with a chair, if you want an example from the books).

But your average magic-user is unlikely to get much out of this (on the contrary, if he has no armor, this puts him in more danger!)

What if you get a natural 20? I dunno, maybe you get maximum damage regardless of margin, or double damage, or add five points to damage, or count it as 25, etc.

Effects:

- Fighters get stronger.

- A thief's sneak attack gets better.

- Big monsters get scarier.

- Combat get deadlier and less predictable.

I like them all.

Maybe something else I'm missing? Let me know, Anyway, just a random thought for now.

Simplifying THAC0 (and attack matrices)

I usually prefer ascending AC to descending AC, but I never thought THAC0 was particularly complicated.

You don't even need subtraction to use THAC0. 

Just roll 1d20, add AC and modifiers, and beat THAC0. Done. 

Delta has already done most of the work. I also found this post by @contrarian, which inspired most of what I'm writing here - and provided most of the images.

One thing I dislike are attack matrices, because I feel there is no need to check a table for that. If you need a "to hit" number, a single digit will do.

With that said, there ARE some interesting aspects of the AD&D matrices. But they could easily be reduced to this:

* Roll 1d20+AC+modifiers.

* Add your level if you're a fighter-type, half your level if you aren't.

* If you roll 20 or more, you hit.

And... that is it, basically. 

We still have to deal with negative AC, but we'll get there.

Let's see. This is the original DMG table:

Notice that 20s are repeated SIX TIMES, making many kinds of armor practically identical. 

This six-point spread is huge; in OD&D and B/X, for example, it is as big as the difference between UNARMORED and PLATE!

Here is an optional rule that allows you to roll higher than 20 on the d20, but requires a natural 20.

I dislike this table because it makes negative AC too powerful against a fighter of amazing strength and magic weapons. And STILL treats AC -2 identically to AC -7 in some cases.

However, the idea that you ALWAYS have a small chance to hit - even negative AC - is nice.

How often do your 1st-level PCs fight monsters with negative AC? Not often. 

BUT: I'm guessing the multiple 20s are there to allow, say, an army of NPC archers to fight a dragon, which makes sense.

How can we achieve the same effect without the tables? Well, you could simply add +5 to your roll if you hit AC 0 BEFORE considering the negative AC. 

But, again, this makes many types of different armor identical in practice.

So, my idea is that negative AC is not added to your roll (count it as zero), but subtracted from your damage. 

Maybe a powerful attacker can CHOOSE between subtracting AC from the roll or from the damage (sometimes, you NEED to take the "less damage" option).

Now AC 0 is different from -1 or -2, etc.

Gygax considered something vaguely similar is Isle of the Ape.

(Of course, we could go even further. Since you need 20 or more to hit, each point over 20 could be translated to damage (something that AD&D also suggests for fighter that hit automatically). But now we are getting further away from the original. Anyway...)

Here are a few additional considerations:

- Should clerics, thieves, and MUs use the same table? 

Yes. Clerics are too tough and thieves too weak already. For MUs, if really doesn't make a difference - your level 10th MU will use its 10d6 fireball rather than 1d4 dagger.

- But shouldn't a MU keep the same attacking capabilities until level 6? 

Not really. Gygax indicates a smoother curve for Fighters - why not do the same for other classes?

- What about backstabbing?

Since this is mentioned in the matrix, I will suggest thieves/assassins simply add their level to backstabbing damage (maybe a minimum if +4). This encourages them to attack with small weapons, and gives them a little boost every level. The books indicate that the only part of the damage that is multiplied is the weapon dice, not Str or magical bonuses. 

So, a thief with a magical shortsword (say, 1d6+2) dealing quintuple damage would roll 5d6+2. This is about 19.5 on average. 1d6+19 is just slightly higher than that, and the thief deserves the boost.

- What about monsters?

Treat them as fighters. Much easier but not that much different.

- But I want THAC0!

Here you go. Expand to level 20 or whatever you want.

- But I want something EVEN CLOSER to the original matrices!

In that case, check the original post by @contrarian. Great stuff!

Also, let me know about any other objections to my solutions!

Make your own D&D skill system!

The various D&D skill/ability systems vary in how much they rely on ability scores and level; some abilities (e.g., forage in B/X) are unrelated to both things.

We could discuss endlessly about which way is better. I like a mix of both. Should a 15th level fighter be equal or better at foraging or knocking down doors than a 1st-level fighter?

Well, you can decide for yourself. Here is how.

Give a rating, from 0 to 5, to assess how important you think ability scores are. Do the same for levels - the sum should be 5 most of the time. For example, if you think ability scores are much more important than levels, you can rate abilities 4 and levels 1.

Simply multiply your ability score and your level for the number you chose, sum it up, and you have your percentile of exceeding.

For example, if you have Strength 12, Level 5, your chance to knock down a door would be 53% (12x4+5x1).

Note that you could choose in a case-by-case basis, e.g.:

- Open doors is mostly strength, but pick locks requires more levels/skills.

- Picking locks could be Dexterity improved by only 1% per level for all classes except thieves, that get 5% per level. Same for forage and rangers.

- For tasks that are too easy or too difficult, just double or halve the percentages.

This requires some adjudicating and math, but it is overall a decent solution because:

- It is quite instinctive and easy to grasp.

- Every ability point and every level matters.

- Heroes get better at EVERYTHING, if only slightly.

- It replaces thieve's skills quite well and also gives a clear answer to "what if you're not a thief"?

- Adds no complexity to the character sheet.

I'm tempted to say each level gets you at least 2% better at (basically) everything, with each ability point giving you 3% as a starting rule.

(Even better, for some old school flavor, each score could be paired with a percentile; Figgen, pictured above, has Strength 13/55%, but we'd probably need to write down some skill percentages. Or just allow "trained" PCs to "flip" the dice, so they can count a 73 as a 37, for example, which gives the thief spectacular odds, or use some kind of "advantage" system, or just add 25% chance if trained, etc).

I'm also tempted to create a whole system out of this, with fighters improving their attacks 5% per level, plus percentile magic and saving throws... but I probably won't.

So, anyway, if you needed a new skill system (we have a few dozens, and we only needed one...), you've got it.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/10/you-cant-solve-bx-skills-and-checks.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/10/skills-another-thing-that-old-d-got.html

Skills - another thing that old D&D got (mostly) right?

When I was still interested in contemporary D&D, I noticed that there are only a few skills that are not necessarily equivalent to ability scores. 

- Nature.

- Arcana.

- History.

- Medicine.

- Sleight of Hand.

- Perception? (mentioned here).

Forget Sleight of Hand for now; an agile PC picking pockets or opening locks is a strong archetype, despite the fact these are completely different skills in reality.

An indeed, in AD&D a thief with high Dex gets some bonuses to both picking pockets and locks.

Nature would include things like foraging, hunting, orienting, and tracking. In old school D&D, the first three are just X-in-chances, unrelated to ability scores (or class, level, etc.). AD&D adds tracking to rangers, but not much else.

Perception would include things like hear noise and finding traps. Modern D&D ties this to Wisdom, but there is no reason to think a wise cleric is more perceptive than a quick-thinking warrior or a sly thief.

The AD&D thief gets no Dex (or Wis) bonus to hear noise, but curiously gets a Dex bonus to find traps... A mistake, IMO.

Then there is Arcana and Medicine. These are not skills in B/X or AD&D - they are just things the mage and cleric are supposed to do (although using spells instead of skills).

Finally, there is no skill for lore - players discover that by themselves, not characters.

I don't have much of a conclusion here. Except that, maybe, some skills work nicely with ability scores, while others could simply IGNORE ability scores. 

In a modern game, having two types of skills would look strange - in contemporary D&D, for example, basically ALL d20 rolls include some ability score (attacks, saves, checks/skills). I'm not sure I'd do it myself. But it is something to consider, as it seems to work quite well in old-school D&D.

Three-dimensional growth and thieves

 As I've mentioned before, mages gets better in three "dimensions" as they level up.

- They get more spells.

- They get better spells.

- The spells they already have (e. g., magic missile) become more powerful.

To do something similar, the fighters need:

- Better attacks (i.e., bigger "to-hit" bonus).

- More attacks.

- The attacks get better (i.e., more damage per attack).

Not hard to do at all, especially if they get magic swords and other weapons.

(Although these things are not exactly the same - spells can attack and open doors and deceive and carry stuff, while attacks can only attack. OTOH spells are limited by spell slots while attacks are not, although the MU gets more slots as he levels).

But what about thieves? I guess they should get:

- More skills.

- Better skills.

- Improve the skills they already have.

This is a bit harder to do. 

The B/X thief gets better at their skills. They do get a couple of extra skills as they level up (reading languages and casting from scrolls - which don't get better), but these are rare (the MU gets new spells every level).

Giving thieves "skill points" like LotFP is helpful - now they can distribute them freely between "new skill" and "get better at skills you have" (well, to be precise, they don't really get new skills, since every skill starts with a 1-in-6 chance, but... it could be done if you add new skills to the game that you can only access through "points").

Still, while you get better chances of success, your successes are always the same. 

So, you get better chances of hiding or climbing - but you don't usually get to hide more people nor do you climb faster as you level up. You open locks more often, but not any faster, etc.

This is "fixed" in modern versions of D&D, but not B/X or AD&D.

One easy way to change that is adding "critical successes" of some kind for thieves' talents.

For example:

If you're using 1d100, "doubles" are now criticals. For example, if you can climb twice the distance or at twice the usual speed, and if you hide you can attack once and remain undetected.

Conversely, you could just add modifiers to these skills. "Attack and hide" imposes a -30% penalty, for example.

Even better, you could use some kind of synergy for thief skills, allowing some skills to affect others.