I want LESS!

Most of my time playing and reading RPGs has been ruled by the “undisciplined pursuit of more.”

I played several RPGs and took pride in trying new ones. I favored "universal" systems where I could create endlessly detailed PCs and do anything I wanted. I also collected monster manuals for my D&D-ish needs.

This process has been somewhat useful in helping me discover my tastes and needs.

However, there has also been much waste. I read only a fraction of the RPGs I buy and play an even smaller fraction of the RPGs I read. Nowadays, I'm embracing "the disciplined pursuit of less."

In other words, I want less: fewer monsters, fewer spells, fewer magic items, fewer stats, and simpler systems.

This partly reflects my appreciation for minimalism, but it goes beyond that. I believe that having fewer elements makes each one more important and meaningful.

While having a multitude of monsters is fun, each Monster Manual contains more creatures than entire worlds like Middle-earth, Barsoom, Lankhmar, or the Hyborian Age (not to mention most horror and sci-fi settings). It becomes virtually impossible for PCs to understand each individual monster with any depth.

Take dragons, for example. The dragons of mythology and literature are often unique individuals, like Smaug, Fafnir, Tiamat, Drogon. Each is distinct and memorable. But the 2e MM (my favorite!) has about more than a dozen dragon types. If a D&D party sees Smaug, it is just another red dragon (they don't even need to interact to know that he is chaotic, since he is red; but this is another issue).

[Another thing I've been considering is how adding more monsters to a game doesn't make it any different from "standard" D&D, but replacing existing monsters creates a completely new kind of setting. Take Curse of Strahd, for example: it includes few "demihumans," and even the elves are distinct from the familiar elves we're used to. This seems to hold true for most of my favorite settings and modules, and I think I might never run an adventure containing orcs again.]

Magic items are the same: Excalibur or Stormbringer are memorable, and so is Sting. In D&D, a first-level party often has dozens of magic items. Eventually, they discard some of them as they reach higher levels. This abundance devalues magic items and magic in general.

I feel the same way about rules.

I’ve run a few 5e campaigns. 5e is a more "complete" game than B/X. However, it requires ten times the page count to achieve this. So, I’ve been asking myself: is 5e ten times more complete than B/X? And the answer is no. Same goes for AD&D.

[Sure, I could use a one-page RPG. In the end, this ultimately comes down to a matter of taste.]

Spell selection has also been a headache, leading to imbalance and analysis paralysis.

I like customizing characters, but I don’t need dozens of classes and races. I really enjoy the simplicity of being able to say the bandit leader is a "fighter 5" and leaving it at that.

When you have fewer elements, you can connect them more meaningfully. For example, elves resist ghouls. The undead are raised by demons. All aberrations come from other dimensions, while monsters are created by mages. Etc.

And to be honest, this would make way more likely that my players would even REMEMBER most of this stuff.

In short, many of my current issues with D&D could be solved by just having less.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/05/unlimited-d-x-limited-d.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-illustrated-war-of-earth-and-sky.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/01/magic-item-inflation-in-ad.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/10/skeleton-with-bow.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/01/minimalism-elegance-and-multipurpose.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?

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!

Single attack/damage roll (kubular), but divided in half

I think I discussed that idea at the time, but I didn't write down this exact implementation. Read that post before this one! This method has several advantages over the usual D&D method.

Here is the deal: no more damage rolls.

Just roll 1d20 plus modifiers and subtract AC, then divide by two: this is the total damage (minimum 1).

Modifiers include attack bonus and weapon rating (WR).

WR usually goes from -3 (unarmed) to +3 (heavy 2H-weapon).

A dagger has +0 WR; other weapon are easy to figure out (d6, d8 and d10 become +1, +2, +3).

Improvised weapons, gauntlets, etc, have a WR of -1 or -2.

Lets assume ascending unarmored AC 11 (like BFRPG).

A dagger hit deals an average of 3 damage against unarmored targets, a bit over the original (nice!).

A 2H-sword, OTOH, deals 3.77 damage on a hit, but hits more often than in the original BFRPG; the DPR (damage per round) is about 2.45, a bit HIGHER than the usual 2.25.

What about heavy armor? Say, Plate mail is AC 17 in BFRPG. 

To hurt someone in plate with bare hands, you need a natural 20 (realistically, you'd be more likely to hurt your hand... add some grappling rules to your game!).

A dagger will only deal 1.5 points of damage. 

A 2H sword deals an average of 2.5 damage (originally 4.5), but again the DPR is 0.8, not far form the original (0.9).

I'd definitely combine it with some "armor defeating" rules for maximum effect. E.g., cutting weapons deal 1 point of additional damage if they hit, maces get +2 to-hit against chain or heavier, axes are +1 against everybody, etc.

Black Sword Hack

Somebody recently created an SRD of this game. You can see it here.

There is no need to review it since you can see it for yourself, so I'll be brief.

The system is a very simple "roll under ability, only players roll". There is a "doom die" system that is interesting but looks like it could be replaced by fatigue/stress.

I suspect any of my readers will take interest in this game, since it related to some of the most frequent topics here: dark fantasy, minimalism, sword and sorcery, D&D.

And it has some great ideas and tables you can basically incorporate in any D&D game.

BSH feels a bit vague and incomplete at times; I'm not sure I'd use it as written without adding a few parts (say, a random encounter table and more traveling rules). But since the game is under a CC license, anyone can add their own twists and even publish it, BTW. Congrats to the authors for doing that!

Overall, it is a great game that I definitely recommend checking out. 

If you want to buy the full game with art, etc., you can get it here:

https://www.themerrymushmen.com/product/black-sword-hack-ultimate-chaos-edition/

More minimalist classes (OSR) - Thieves

In my endless quest for minimalist OSR systems, I've been thinking of minimalist classes lately. At the risk of repeating myself, here is how it goes:

- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.

- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.

- Thieves get ONE new skill per level.

The LotFP method of using "skill points" works well, but this is even more minimalist and simple. I think I got the idea from a Brazilian YouTuber, DM Quiral.

Now, you either have a skill or you don't. If you do, you will occasionally succeed automatically. If numbers are necessary, you get a +10 bonus. But, mostly, you don't roll: you can simply be able to do ventriloquism, juggling, appraising, etc.

E.g., B/X suggests an ability check for climbing a rope (which RAW indicates the thief has better chance climbing sheer walls...). If you have "climbing", you get a +10 bonus, which often means automatic success.

If you prefer X-in-6 chances, +10 translates to +3. E.g., the thief has 4-in-6 instead of 1-in-6 chances of hearing noises.

For challenging stuff (climb "sheer walls"), the GM may require a skill check... Other PCs get a -10 penalty, but you roll your ability as usual, since your +10 bonus compensates that.

This simple system addresses some of the common problems I have with skills:

- How can a 1st-level PC be really good in a given skill.

- How non-thief characters can try to do thief stuff.

- You do not have to write a bunch of skills into every thieves' sheet, let alone other PCs.

HOWEVER it loses some of the compatibility with the original thief.

One alternative is, instead of giving ONE +10 skill, you give the thief TEN +1 skills. The usual ones: hear, climb, hide, traps, read languages, scrolls, back-stab, etc. By level 2, you get a +2 bonus and so on, until level 10.

This still leaves the thief behind the mage. Remember, the mage gets:

- More spells (i.e., variety).

- New spells that ARE BETTER.

- Old spells GET BETTER.

So, maybe the thief deserves some equivalent to "critical hits". Not only he is more likely to succeed, he succeeds BETTER than an untrained PC.

Meaning: if you succeed by 10 or more, your results are particularly impressive. Maybe you can "climb silently" or help your allies. Maybe you sneak so proficiently that you get a bonus on top of your back-stab. Etc.

Still, the thief should maybe get both more skills and better chances - especially if using the same XP table. 

Anyway, its a start.

(Yet another) critical hit system for B/X, AD&D etc.

 It is quite simple:

A) Natural 20 means maximum damage.

B) Beat AC by 10 or more means double damage.

This has several advantages.

"A" gives you a quick, optimal result that is still within the expected boundaries. You can deal maximum damage at any time, but a natural 20 guarantees it. No "whiff factor". The average damage is not significantly impacted.

And "B" gives you:

- The fighter to get a small boost in damage, especially against weak foes, which is good.

- Armor becomes more important - going unarmored is now a terrible idea.

- The thief gains more damage with backstabbing. This is good for B/X but maybe unnecessary for AD&D. OTOH the B/X thief becomes a bit more frail due to light armor and low HP.

Both give more importance to strength bonuses and magic weapons, and even make two-handed 1d10 weapons a bit stronger (although a shield also becomes more important).

But what if both happen at the same time?

There are several solutions.

- Double maximum damage. This would occasionally allow a B/X fighter that usually deals 1d8+2 damage to deal 20 damage with a single blow.

- Double damage, but ONE of the dice is automatically maximum damage (i.e., 1d8+3 becomes 8+1d8+6). I like this solution because the maximum damage is still impressive, but the average is a bit lower.

- Double damage plus another attack. I like this one because it gives the fighter some cleaving.

A caveat: monsters will get more dangerous too.

This is not a HUGE problem IMO; I like dangerous monsters, and with multiple attacks monsters are likely to spread the damage a bit. But it is something to keep in mind.

Some MMA-Melee reflections

I was talking about "medieval MMA" on twitter the other day and another user (@D20Gary) made a good point about how every attack "hits", and we could just roll damage instead of "to-hit" like Cairn does.

Gary makes a good point - in melee, almost every attack "hits" - even if only "hits" shield, armor or weapon. 

It is very rare that someone would hit air.

However, I disagree with the solution (and don't use a Cairn-like system), because not every attack DAMAGES.

Look at the video below, for example. Several attacks "hit" armor but not necessarily HURT.

It is often said that a "miss" in D&D could be a glancing/weak hit.

Although practice might vary from table to table, it is obvious that it must be so - just think about the numbers and what AC means.

E.g.: say your fighter "hits" by rolling 8 or more against an unarmored foe.

If the foe is using plate, a 8 or more obviously mean you still "hit" the target, but with not enough skill to bypass/defeat armor.

This can be seen in the video, over and over.

Another problem is that each fight like the video takes dozens of "hits" or more to  finish. 

Even with an average of 1d6 damage per round, every fighter would need 60+ HP, leading to HP bloat.

(This could be avoided by adjusting damage - apparently, Cairn does this by subtracting armor from damage, which is good).

So, even in the context of the MMA-melee video, a D&D-like system seems to make more sense - decent level fighters constantly "hit" but not always "damage".

HOWEVER...

I agree that needing TWO rolls for attack AND damage is redundant, ESPECIALLY if you consider "misses" are not necessarily MISSING the target.

The hit/miss binary is just too "low resolution" - doesn't measure quality or even separate "misses" from actual misses (i.e., "hitting air").

My favorite solution would involved a single d20 roll with some nuance. This has been attempted in several ways in here (see links below), and by many before me.

Anyway.

On a related topic.

What we said above is true for "MMA melee", but not so for actual MMA or boxing - it is not unusualk to "hit air". Same for shooting bows, etc.

Now think of the various forms of combat:

- Unarmed, which includes striking AND grappling.

- Melee with armor. 

- Melee without armor (e.g., fencing). 

- Bows. 

- Firearms.  

These are so incredibly DIFFERENT in reality that a single system is unlikely to work well for ALL types.

A dagger fight ends in minutes without armor, but can last HOURS in plate.

Add a knife to a boxing (or wrestling) fight and it changes EVERYTHING.

Just change the surroundings - from forests to tight dungeons - and the whole dynamic is different.

Lethality, speed, distance, % of hits landed, lasting wounds, etc. are just too diverse.

So, you either have SEVERAL combat systems or accept that these things will be mostly abstract.

It is difficult (maybe impossible) to have a system that is both realistic AND simple - not to mention FUN to use at the table.

Still, we keep trying...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/single-attackdamage-roll.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/hitting-armor-in-d-glancing-blows.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/minimum-combat-detail-deadly-daggers.html

https://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/07/d-combat.html

10:1 combat (B/X, Chainmail, and OD&D)

There are innumerable ways to do mass combat in D&D (I even tried to write my own). 

In old school editions, however, I am not sure it is even necessary to have a mass combat system.

On the contrary, I've been thinking a separate mass combat system might become a problem.

Take Chainmail, for example. Many people that play OD&D or AD&D like the idea of using CM for mass battlers, but I find this a bad idea.

In Chainmail, the mace is FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2. In AD&D, since you can hit even negative AC with a 20, the mace is only slightly better than a sword.

This is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are many other differences - IIRC, a 4th-level fighter is much stronger in CM, for example, and using 2d6 will necessarily produce different results from a  d20.

My problem with this is that switching systems like that changes the assumptions about the game, to the point of changing the results of a fight depending oh the system you're using.

But what if you just use the same system with a different scale?

For example, say 100 knights are battling 150 berserkers. You could just run 10 knight "units" against 15 berserkers "units", as if they were individuals, and assume the results would be similar. 

I.e., a "10:1 scale"; one knight represents 10.

The rules would be exactly the same... with a few exceptions.

Morale

An unit tests morale upon losing one HP and again when losing half HP.

Notice that usually morale is checked when one combatant dies. If taken literally, this would indicate hat an army of 100 might flee is attacked by an army of 100 inflicting a single causality. I dislike that, and I only check morale when 10% of an army/unit is lost.

Interaction between scales

What happens when a unit of 10 knights attacks an ogre or even an exceptional PC?

Reverting back to the usual system is not a bad idea - it is easy enough to roll 10d20, etc.

Although I do think you should decide beforehand how many people can attack a single target at once (I like four, maybe twice as much for spears).

Likewise, the number of units attacking other units is limited and depends on geography.

When combat is resolved (because the ogre is slain or inflicts a causality and the knights fail a morale test), you can stay in 10:1 or 1:1 scale as appropriate.

Other scales/my experiences with mass battles

Of course, you can use other scales as appropriate. You could use 5:1, 100:1 or 1,000:1... The idea is finding a number of units that makes you comfortable. 

I have little experience running mass battles like that. But my PCs recently fought about 50 goblins in two or three waves, with the help of half a dozen NPCs, and it went very well. 

I once ran a 5e combat against 100 skeletons or so, which was also very easy as they came in groups of 4-5 thru the windows and the fighters would only miss them on natural 1s.

I think it would be hard to run more than 10 or 20 units at once, but within that limit I'd want to have as many unis as possible.

In addition, I'd have to consider unit types; if I have 1000 identical knights, I can use 100:1, but if I also had 50 archers, I'd definitely prefer 50:1. 

In any case, you can "zoom" back and forth as needed.

Well, for now, this is just brainstorming. Let's see if I can out it in practice.

Minimalist magic resistance (B/X)

As much as I love B/X, I often miss something from AD&D. I tried playing AD&D but found it too complex. What I often do, instead, is simplifying AD&D ideas to use in my B/X(ish) games.

Case in point, I find that magic-users in B/X are just too powerful (and Fighters are too weak, but let's leave that for another day). 

AD&D got things right by adding spell components and magic resistance (MR) to the game - now so you cannot defeat EVERY enemy with a good fireball or two (except for a couple of golems that are immune to fire).

What AD&D gets wrong is adding a MR to EVERY creature (and about 80% of the time, the MR is "standard", which means it can just be ignored).

Here's a simpler version (or two...)

Method 1.

Only a few special creatures have MR.

To "defeat" the MR, a magic-user must roll 1d20+level and beat the target's MR.

For demons, the MR is 12+HD.

For devils, either use the same or 8+HD.

(This is, assuming your B/X games have demons and devils).

For faeries, the MR is 20 regardless of HD.

For golems, AD&D has special rules, but they are mostly impervious to magic. Either use 12+HD like demons, or AD&D rules as written.

If you don't want to calculate for every creature, just make it 20 to everyone - which is similar to giving 50% in AD&D.

Method 2.

Method 1 is already a huge simplification over AD&D. But here is something even simpler:

Demons, devils, faeries and golems have a +10 bonus to saving throws against spells (if the spell doesn't have a saving throw, they get the chance to roll a save with no bonus).

If they succeed by 10 or more, they completely ignore any effects (e.g., instead of taking 50% damage from a fireball, they take none).

If you want to take MU level into account, the target gets a penalty equal to half the MU level.

Notice that in AD&D 2e, the caster's level is ignored. 

So you could just, say, give 50% MR to every monster that has MR, or use 2e monsters as written (which is probably the easiest way of them all...).

Sword&Sorcery I: Introduction

I don't know when I'll finish this book but here is the introduction. Let me know if there is anything missing.

I'll add the following chapters as I write them.

---

Introduction

Old School Sword & Sorcery (OSSS) is exactly what it says on the tin: an old school RPG in the Sword & Sorcery (S&S) genre. We assume you are familiar with RPGs, especially of the OSR type. If you are not, you can easily find explanations online. [add link to "what is OSR"]. This book will not teach you to play RPGs, since it is better to try it in practice or watch videos of other people playing.

If you are not entirely familiar with S&S, this book will discuss several aspects of the genre: characters, magic, monsters, treasure, and so on. The most famous S&S character is Conan the Barbarian, created by Robert E. Howard. Elric of Melniboné (created by Michael Moorcock) and the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (by Fritz Leiber) are other quintessential S&S heroes. These examples are particularly important because the term “sword and sorcery” was coined by Leiber while discussing Howard’s stile with Moorcock.

Howard (especially due to the Conan stories) is the quintessential S&S author. This book will reference Conan stories multiple times. If you are not familiar, I recommend reading a few short stories to get the idea. Red Nails, The Tower of the Elephant, Queen of the Black Coast, and The People of the Black Circle are some of my favorites. If you want to expand your knowledge of S&S literature, there is a list of authors on page xxx to keep you entertained for years.

There are multiple ways to use this book: as a complete game (with characters, monsters, tools and rules) contained in a single book, or as toolbox to create your own S&S campaign or adapt existing adventures and modules to the S&S genre (see " Compatibility ", below).

No matter how you decide to use this book, we hope you enjoy it!

 

Sword & Sorcery tropes

Sword & Sorcery has its own tropes, somewhat different from the most famous fantasy games. This section explains some of them. Each of these tropes are reflected in the rules (sometimes clearly, sometimes subtly): the heroes are a bit stronger and more competent, alignment is not always clear-cut, magic is dangerous, and so on. Understanding S&S tropes will help you understand some of the rules choices we have made.

Tough protagonists

S&S protagonists are very tough but often amoral, and sometimes true anti-heroes, unlike the noble heroes of epic fantasy. They are driven by their own interest and passions for wealth, romance, revenge or simple survival, instead of honor and compassion.

The protagonists are often competent from the beginning of their stories, instead of going “zero to hero”. They excel in multiple fields: warriors that can climb and move silently, thieves that fight with sword and spell, and sorcerers who are also skilled swordsmen.

Peril everywhere

S&S settings are dangerous and unstable. They contain pure Evil, but pure Good is harder to find. The opposition is rarely a single “Dark Lord” that threatens the realm with his goblin minions. Instead, the world is full of callous humans, prehistoric beasts, fallen civilizations, and cosmic entities that are unknown to most people.

Limited scope

S&S narratives often focus on characters and small locations rather than big armies and the fate of entire nations. Sometimes the world and the characters appear remarkably unchanged from one story to the other.

Many S&S authors choose to tell stories in episodic fashion rather than part of a big narrative. Unlike epic fantasy sagas such as The Lord of The Rings or The Wheel of Time, the stories take shorter format and uncertain chronology. You can enjoy Conan’s stories in any order (and the same can be said of Fafhrd, Gray Mouser and even Elric to some extent). 

Dark magic

Magic is seldom a superpower or a universal solution to your problems; instead, it is dangerous and costly. Most sorcerers are antagonists, but magic is a sinister tool even when wielded by the protagonists.

Wicked cities

Civilization is not merely threatened by outside forces: it is often rotting from the inside and a threat unto itself. Cities and realms are not always safe harbors in S&S settings, but places full of intrigue and backstabbing in dark alleys. Sometimes barbarism is preferable – at least it is more honest.

Weird worlds

The S&S genre flourished in pulp magazines that also featured horror and sci-fi stories, in addition to fantasy. “Weird Tales”, the most important pulp magazine in this context, featured works by Howard, Lovecraft and Ashton Smith. Sometimes, the genres (and settings) were combined to generate dark fantasy, sword and planet and others subgenres. Even within S&S, horror and sci-fi elements are present, and the protagonists often have to face aliens and demons, magic and technology, without being able to tell them apart. One example is “The Tale of Satampra Zeiros”, by Smith, that seamlessly mixes influences by Howard, Lovecraft and Dunsany.

Unique creatures

In S&S, unique monsters are more common than evil hordes of orcs or various dragons. Each monster is shrouded in mystery. This includes “nonhuman humanoids” – elves and dwarves are rare, and, if they are present, they often have a dark twist. Protagonists are almost always humans from various backgrounds, usually from a strong or mythic lineage (e.g., from fallen Atlantis or Lemuria).

Unreliable deities

Deities in S&S settings are often unreliable or simply absent. Demons, monsters, monarchs and even gigantic beasts can be worshiped in lieu of actual deities. If deities exist, they are often capricious and mysterious, sometimes having their own hidden agendas and dark appetites.

Blood and passion

Some S&S stories are famously for its violent aspects, including bloody descriptions of combat. Sexuality and romance is portrayed in a more realistic and cynical manner – or leading to tragic consequences. S&S art often contain bare-naked bodies of muscular men and voluptuous women. A few stories include (more or less obvious) references to murder, torture, sexual assault, and so on. Needless to say, you do not have to include any of these aspects in your games.

 

 

The rules

My favorite kind of rules are easy to use and remember, while also providing players enough variety for their characters.

In addition, I like them to be compatible with my favorite modules - usually, those using the OSR label or the classic ones written before the year 2000. The goal is being able to use these modules whenever I need, with minimal or no conversion.

At the same time, I enjoy the simplifications and the additions that often come with modern (post-2000s) games: a single unified mechanic for multiple tasks, skills and feats to customize PCs, and so on.

Basic Fantasy RPG (BFRPG) by Chris Gonnerman was one of my greatest inspirations for writing this game – not only for being a great set of rules but also for adopting a Creative Commons license that allows others to use their material.

The rules contained in this book attempt to fulfill the requirements described above and enforce some of the S&S tropes mentioned above. You might notice that PCs are tougher than usual, magic is more dangerous, magic items are a bit scarcer, etc.

The rules contained herein are “advanced” in the sense that we assume you are familiar with other RPGs. Still, they should be clear enough that no important question is left unanswered.

 

A note about Dark Fantasy Basic

Sword & Sorcery tropes, as explained above, shares some tropes with dark fantasy. This book is, in some ways, a sequel to my first RPG, Dark Fantasy Basic. While some ideas are similar, the rules have been almost completely rewritten not only to make them better fitted to S&S but also to take advantage of all the years of experience I had with that system since then.

 

The basic mechanic

Before delving into PC creation, it is useful to understand the basic mechanic of the game.

When a character tries to do anything that carries a risk of failure, roll 1d20, plus modifiers (usually due to ability and class/level), with 20 or more signifying success. A “hard” difficulty is assumed; the GM may set other difficulty number (DC) for particularly easy or hard tasks, as described in the following chapters.

This process is called a “check”. When the books call for a check, assume it means rolling 1d20, adding the relevant modifiers, and succeeding on a 20 or more, unless otherwise specified.

Combat, spellcasting, skills, all work in a similar way.

Now let’s create some characters!

A new terminology for D&D weapons (and using WEIGHT for speed, length, and armor)

Same subject, different take. 

I thank to Roy Fizzbin for the comment in that post, which inspired the bit about weapon weight.

The problem

Weapon terminology is confusing, both in D&D and in history.

In AD&D, a footman's mace is apparently longer than a horseman's, while history (and common sense) would say the opposite; you need longer weapons to fight on horseback.

You might assume you need 2h to use footman's (since it deals more damage), but that is unclear too.

Is a battle axe in D&D two-handed? Probably, but we can't tell. In B/X, if the battle-axe is two-handed it would make it strictly worse than the (one-handed) sword. No one would ever carry an axe (not even dwarves) - except that it is a bit less expensive and lighter.

Why is the one-handed sword heavier than a 2H-axe? Again, history and common sense would say otherwise.

I tried learning historically accurate names for weapons, but that is hard too. Distinguishing a "sword" from a "large sword" is much easier than defining what a broadsword actually means.

One thing I learned from historical swords is that D&D weights, if converted to pounds, are exaggerated, especially for swords, especially 2H-swords when compared to heavy axes and long polearms.

The solution

Here's my terminology for medieval weapons; the first time I used something similar was in Dark Fantasy Basic, but of course I can't be the first to think about this.

Tiny weapons (T): 1d4 damage. 1 pound. Basically, daggers and knives.

Small weapons (S): 1d6 damage. Weight 2-3 pounds. They always include an adjective indicating its diminished size/mass: short sword, hand axe, light spear, light mace, smallsword, etc.

Medium weapons (M). 1d8 damage. One-handed weapons, weighting 3-5 pounds. No adjectives needed: sword, mace, axe.

Large weapons (L). 1d8 damage - thus very similar to medium weapons, but add 1 or 2 pounds, and +1 damage if held with both hands. They always include an adjective indicating its increased size/mass: long sword, broad sword, heavy spear, long spear, battle axe, heavy mace.

Great weapons (G). 1d10 damage, weighting 6-10 pounds. Greatsword, great axe, great mace, great spear, etc., plus all polearms.

Cheap wooden weapons: clubs, staves, etc. Any size from S to L., but reduce damage by one step. A greatclub deals 1d8 damage, for example.

Another possible uses of weapon weight

Weight is a good indicator of size, speed, effectiveness against armor and large opponents, even if not perfect.

The fact that 1-10 pounds is a reasonable range for weapon weights is perfect for our decimal-oriented minds (there are heavier weapons, specially long polearms, probably more suitable for war than small duels).

For example, we might use weight as a speed factor, giving a -4 penalty if you want to attack twice with your 4-pound sword. When fighting someone with a 3-pound sword, we already know which weapon is longer, etc.

We could even allow the player to choose a weapon's weight (within reason), knowing that heavy weapons have pros and cons (AD&D hints at this whit spears).

To find a weapon's weight, use the order: spear, sword, axe, mace. Length is the opposite. This means a large sword weight 3-5 pounds, and a greatsword weights 6-7. A greatmace weights 10 pounds.

I'm tempted to use the same reasoning for defeating armor and large opponents; heavy weapons are better at both. 

There is still room for more detail; a mace is better against armor, and a sword against large foes, if the weight is the same. But a heavy mace is better than a light mace in BOTH situations. Likewise, a 5-pound spear probably has more reach than a 10-pound mace.

The problem is that the exceptions start to be so numerous that we start to wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just use extensive tables such as the ones found in AD&D.

Anyway, I've considered that possibility too; here is what I've got so far.

One day I might write a PDF about that... I certainly spent enough time thinking bout it. I could probably write 100 weapons in this format.

I'd love to hear some feedback on the table - or these ideas in general!

Special weapon maneuvers

Another quick idea on how to differentiate weapons. in old-school D&D - somewhat simpler than AD&D, but potentially more varied than B/X:

Give each weapon a Speed Factor (SF) or a Defeat Armor (DA) rating, maybe both.

This is entirely optional for players; it is only relevant when they decide to use a special maneuver.

Here are some maneuvers.

---
Quick attack.
Make two attacks instead of one, each with a penalty equal to SF. If attacking with a different weapon in each hand, you can add +2 to your main hand. This replaces the usual two-weapon fighting rules from AD&D.

Armor bash.
Make an attack with a +4 bonus against an opponent wearing armor (chain or better), but the damage gets reduced (this can be expressed in a percentage; not sure yet).

---

Other maneuvers can be added as needed: forceful attack (-4 to-hit, +4 damage), defensive attack (-4 to-hit, +4 AC against one single opponent), ignore shield (+1 to attack but -2 damage unless using a flail, etc.) etc.

Maybe all numbers default to 4, leaving other stats optional.

For example, you could have:

Mace, 1d6, SF 6, DA 80%, Parry 2.

Long-sword, 1d8, SF 6, DA 30%, Parry 5.

Battle-axe, 1d8, SF 7, DA 50%, Parry 4.

And either use each stat as appropriate, or ignore all stats and use +4/-4 to all maneuvers.

So the mace is good against armor, but only when you choose to use it this way (+4 to-hit, 80% damage).

Alternatively, just remove all weapon details (except damage) and leave this to the (optional) maneuvers section. 

These would give fighters more options both when picking weapons and during combat, but also allow you to ignore weapon stats whenever desired.

Weapon speed, size and force: simplifying AD&D

"Forget weapon speed factors. I must have been under the influence of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules." - attributed to Gary Gygax.

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you might know I'm a bit obsessed with this stuff.

So, I was taking YES another look at AD&D weapons... and, again, I'm torn.

On one hand, I love the idea of certain weapons being awesome when dealing with heavy armor, or large opponents, or tight spaces... OTOH I think the tables as written are almost unsalvageable.

Take the two handed sword, for example.

* It makes attacking someone in leather armor easier to hit than someone who is unarmored. 

* It ignores your shield if you are unarmored, but NOT if you are in leather armor.

* It weights 250 coins. The awl pike (length: 18’+) weights 80 coins.

There is nothing here I want to use. But it also has a few interesting aspects I like:

* It is a decent weapon against MOST  types of armor and shields.

* It is a great weapon against large opponents.

AD&D doesn't tell you this, but it shows this is true with many tables and more than a dozen digits. Here is a radical simplification that would still give me everything I want from 2H-sword:

- The 2H-sword has +2 to hit against any armor, and double damage dice (2d10) against large opponents.

Now, instead of analyzing several tables, the player can choose this weapon for clear reasons. 

We could extrapolate this further; maybe ALL swords deal double damage against large foes, and ALL two-handed weapons get +2 to hit (thus balancing the loss of a shield).

In order to create these extrapolations/generalizations, I compiled this table (right click to open in a new tab):

The columns are:

- Weights.

- Damage (minimum plus maximum, so "1-4" becomes 5).

- Speed factor (the lower/red, the faster).

- Attack (the sum of all attack bonuses, from AC 9 to AC 2), meaning the weapon hits more often.

- Armor spread (which is the AC 2 bonus minus the AC 9 bonus), meaning the weapon is particularly bad against heavy armor if the number is low/red. Ignore this last column for now.

The colors help us visualize some patterns. 

There is a clear tendency of lighter weapons being faster, but weaker against armor and dealing lower damage. 

When there is a visible shift in color, we can notice outliers. For example:

- The awl pike is much slower than other weapons of a similar weight, while the lance (heavy warhorse) is significantly faster.

- The bastard sword is very good against large opponents, even in its weight class.

- The short sword is fast for its weight class; in fact, all swords are kinda fast for their weights.

- Some weapons (2H sword, heavy lance, flail, morningstar) hit more often, while others (sticks, fauchard, guisarme) have a harder time hitting ("attack" column).

- The "bec de corbin" and "axe, battle" are both bad against large opponents.

Now, the last column deserves further explanation. 

A positive/green number means the weapon gets to partially ignore armor, while a negative/red number means the weapon is particularly weak against heavier armor.

This column has a bit less correlation to "weight class". But there are some rules that seem easy to generalize:

- Picks, flails, maces and heavy lances/2h-swords are good against heavy armor.

- Axes, daggers and swords are bad against heavy armor.

- Sticks/staves are terrible against heavy armor.

So... I still don't know what to make of this. I guess my desire is to make a series of small affirmations that could be easier understood and applied ("picks, flails and 2h-swords get +2 against armor", etc.).

An earlier effort resulted in this, which was good but still not quite what I'm looking for.

My next guess is that we could play with the idea of "combat maneuvers" or "special attacks", with some weapons being better doing a "ignore armor" maneuvers, others with a "fast attack", etc.

Another idea is making clear certain weapons are better against giants, other against undead, oozes, etc.

But I'll leave that to another day. This exercise was interesting but a bit frustrating; it almost seems like any effort to streamline this stuff is in vain, and we'd be better off consulting tables.

Minimus Ludus

MINIMUS LUDUS* is a new minimalist game by my friends Mark van Vlack with Jens Durke (the disoriented ranger).

This post has additional information.

All I can add is that I've read it and really enjoyed the idea.

As you know, I love minimalist systems, and this one fits is a couple of pages. 

It is also very freeform and flexible, usable in any setting or genre - the book contains 8 micro-settings to begin with, and it seems very easy to create your own.

The layout is simple and good looking - check the previews.

If you like games such as Risus, you might enjoy this one. I'd definitely be interested in playing or maybe even running it, as both things seem very easy.

Check it out on DTRPG!

Affiliate links - by using this, you're helping to support this blog!

Minimalist sword & sorcery I - The concept

I've been thinking about this idea for a while. I started writing a minimalist D&D but I got stuck, maybe my hearth is not in elves and orcs anymore. 

But what about a minimalist sword and sorcery game? That sounds cool. There are a few good ones out there (I really like LFG for example, but it is a bit crunchy for my tastes), but maybe I can add something of my own.

Here is how I would (will?) do it:

S&S Tropes

- Tough protagonists - Starting at level 3 is recommended, everyone has many talents: a fighter can climb and hide, a sorcerer can use swords and some armor, etc.
- Dark, Dangerous Sorcery - Must recreate the entire spell system.
- Perilous world - well, we already expect that from D&D. But add easy rules for starvation, dehydration, etc.
- Decadent civilization - even resting in town is a challenge.
- Some dark fantasy tropes apply here: nonhumans are mysterious, alignment is complex, etc.

The system

- The basis: BFRPG because it is an awesome game with CC license.

- Convert everything to a Target20-like system.

- Take some hints from AD&D.

Player Characters

- Ability scores: 3d6 in order or maybe something a bit stronger.
- Classes: Fighter, Sorcerer, Expert. Optional feats and skills to differentiate them.

- Races: none, but you can add some cultures or backgrounds (barbarian, civilized, decadent, etc.).

Adventure and combat

- As usual, with my own tweaks, including cleave and other power-ups for the fighters.
- Most challenges are simply Target20 or similar.

- Lots of optional rules for weapons and armor because I like them.

Magic

- I have to rewrite it completely to make it more dark and dangerous.

- Sorcery probably requires bounding spirits to your will, but also includes some alchemy, mesmerism and summoning.

- Add some rituals, corruption and blood magic from Alternate Magic.

- Magic items are not as common and not as useful.

Monsters

- Probably just curate the list a bit, giving more emphasis to S&S foes.

- Also emphasize unique monsters and monster variations (using Teratogenicon as inspiration).

Treasure

- Must be significantly reduced (see this post).

Minimalism

- Single save, single XP table, single mechanic for skills, etc.
- Lots of optional rules left to appendices.

Sounds interesting?

Single attack/damage roll

Last year, I've read a Reddit user (Kubular) talking about a single attack/damage roll, and ever since I cannot stop thinking about this.

Just roll 1d20, add your attack bonus, a "weapon rating" (WR) and subtract AC: this is the total damage (minimum 0). 

(I'm assuming ascending AC here; if you're using THAC0, add AC and subtract THAC0, etc.)

Example: if you roll 15, your attack bonus is +4, and your WR is +3, your total is 21. Against AC 17, this means 4 points of damage. But against AC 10, you deal 11 damage!

This has innumerable benefits. 

- One fewer roll, for starters. Faster combat.

- It prevents the disappointment of "I rolled a 19 in my attack - perfect! Roll damage... 1 point... sigh...".

- Armor becomes immediately vital. When unarmored, being hit by a dagger (held by a capable fighter) is DEADLY even at mid-levels.

- At the same time, weapon choice becomes more important against armored foes, beyond a simple +1 damage.

- Bigger weapons are better, but even MORE relevant against armored targets - going back to CHAINMAIL days.

- Fighters become more deadly as they progress WITHOUT the need of multi-attacks. Conan can now kill an unarmored sorcerer with a chair, or with a single blow of his sword.

- Lines up perfectly to the AD&D advice (IIRC) that excess bonuses after you "always hit" go to damage (e.g., if you had +15 to hit against AC 11, you immediately add +4 to damage).

- It is also perfect for B/X, where a fighter will rarely have an attack bonus much greater than +10, so things never get out of hand.

- This lines up well with the idea that monster damage raises on average one point per HD, something Gygax suggested and I have discussed in this blog before. 

- It can also reduce monster stats; their damage is derived from their attack bonus/HD, no need to list damage for most monster attacks (and two attacks could just get -2 each, thus reducing to-hit AND damage and sometimes creating an interesting choice - attack more often if your opponent has weak armor, etc.).

- Now the bonus to attack/damage is a single number. Str gives you +1 to attack/damage, and a magic weapon might give you an additional +2 attack/damage. B/X already does this; now, weapon damage follows the same pattern.

- There is always a small chance of near failure. Even a lowly goblin can survive a blow from a +5 sword if the attacker rolls badly.

Source: stupidcircus on Facebook.

Calculating damage is a bit tricky. 

Basically, if you hit on a 11+, you have 50% chance to hit, and your average damage when you do is 4.5 (the average of all possibilities, from 0 damage on a natural 11 to 9 on a natural 20) - so average DPR is 2.25 (see table below).

If you ALWAYS hit, average damage AND DPR is 9.5. 

If you need a nat 20 to hit, since the difference is ZERO, you can cause no damage - of course, you could rule that the MINIMUM damage is 1, so the DPR would be 0.02.

As you can see, average damage is nothing absurd - even if maximum damage varies wildly. 

DPR is lowered against heavy armor, and augmented against  unarmored foes.

For example, a d4 dagger usually has a DPR of 1.25 if you need to roll 11+, but if you use this system and consider the dagger a +1 weapon, the DPR goes to 2.75 (since you hit on a 10+).

Roll needed	1	2	3	4	5
Dmg	9.5	9	8.5	8	7.5
DPR	9.5	8.55	7.65	6.8	6
Roll needed	6	7	8	9	10
Dmg	7	6.5	6	5.5	5
DPR	5.25	4.55	3.9	3.3	2.75
Roll needed	11	12	13	14	15
Dmg	4.5	4	3.5	3	2.5
DPR	2.25	1.8	1.4	1.05	0.75
Roll needed	16	17	18	19	20
Dmg	2	1.5	1	0.5	0
DPR	0.5	0.3	0.15	0.05	0

There are also potential shortcomings. 

- Punches could become too deadly, even if you rate them as -4.

- Likewise, unarmored targets are very frail. Barbarians, monks, or maybe EVERYONE might need a small AC boost at higher levels.

And some ways to spice/fix things up.

- Maybe weapons are +1/+2/+3/+4, with swords giving you +1 damage and maces giving you +1 attack and -2 damage (so they are better against armor), etc.

- Maybe there is a soft limit to damage (e.g., 5/10/15/20), so strong fighters benefit more from bigger weapons.

- Instead of assigning bonuses to weapons, just roll a d4/d6/d8 etc. So, d20+d4+attack bonus for a dagger, and so on, making things even more swingy and deadly. Maybe use unarmored AC 12 to balance things out.

Would I use this in my B/X games? I'm not sure. 

I think it would be a great fit for a "Song of Ice and Fire" type of campaign, or maybe some gritty Sword & Sorcery. 

I'm not sure my players would buy the idea for traditional D&D games - they are just too used to rolling damage.