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!

TIME must always have a COST - no 5-minute workdays

I've written a longer post here; this is the short version, more or less.

(I really like that post; I encourage you to read it).

Time must always have a cost.

Resting for one hour in the dungeon is dangerous. But so is resting for one day in the wild.

Resting for a month in a peaceful city should ALSO have a cost.

The cost is usually DANGER. 

It can also be money, until the PCs are too rich to care. Or anything else the PCs might lose.

In any case, there must be a risk that the cost lasts longer than the time spent. 

I.e., if the cost of resting for a day is an encounter that does nothing except take a few HP, they'll just rest another day or two.

If there is no cost, the PCs will ALWAYS fall back to the free/safe state after they have spent some resources, thus creating the "5-minute work day": the PCs enter the dungeon, spend all their spells, and get out of the dungeon to recover them.

Same can be said of HP. It does not matter if the PCs fully recover in one day, one week, or one month if there is no cost to that.

Even after a month, it is unlikely that the monsters will "re-spawn" (although I love to add certain undead that rise again every night until the source of the curse is destroyed).

But maybe they should just leave (with all the treasure) or call for reinforcements. 

Otherwise, the PCs can always "reset" their losses with no costs for the opposition.

It is like they are playing chess, and they can always reset their clock arbitrarily - and even replenish lost pieces - but their foes can't.

Until, of course, they suffer a check-mate (or TPK). 

This is hard to happen if the PCs can just choose to leave at any time, but it can still happen against opposition that is much stronger.

I'm tempted to say the game ends whenever the PCs reach safety (or, again, in a TPK). You can start the game again with the same PCs after a day of after after a season, but then it will be a different game. If they go back to the dungeon, the dungeon will have changed.

Having a game without any risk feels a bit boring.  The only way to have a meaningful campaign that never really "stops" is to keep that in mind.

Note: the New Year, New Game sale is on. I'm thinking of getting Crypts and Things Remastered - let me know if you have read it! But there are tons of other games on sale.

(affiliate links)

Happy new year! 2024 recap + 2025 aspirations

Happy new year!

2024 has had its ups and downs, like always. About 90 posts in this blog, which is nice.

Here are some of my favorites:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/12/nothing-to-lose-but-their-lives-stakes.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-real-encounter-with-quantum-goblins.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/11/create-sandbox-map-in-7-easy-steps-or-10.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/09/random-ticking-clocks-simplified.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/06/author-x-referee-gms.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/03/minimalist-roll-to-cast-take-2.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/03/fudging-lying-and-cheating.html

I didn't finish my DMG series. Will try again in 2025, then maybe tackle some other book (I've been thinking of Chainmail lately).

I've read a few appendix N books, and reviewed them in the blog.

I published Basic Wilderness Encounters, which did okay. I've been using it a lot in my current campaign.

I have a feeling - and that goes for ALL of my books, basically - that it might deserve further polishing. This is a consequence of actually using my own stuff in my games, in addition to a certain fondness for tinkering and house rules. There is always room for improvement!

This is one of my aspirations for 2025, of course: updating some of my old books, starting with Dark Fantasy Basic. Ideally, I'd compile that with my other books to create a "Dark Fantasy Cyclopedia" or "Advanced Dark Fantasy". I tried it in 2024 and might try again in 2025.

Well, at least 2024 counts as one more year of play-testing this stuff.

I have a small book of monster that I hope to finish in 2025. It's taking ages.

That, or publishing a setting. I have a couple of options, but both are far from finished. I am way more likely to publish something if I actually get to play-test it, but my current campaign hasn't finished yet.

What is far more likely is that you'll see lots of reflections, reviews, actual plays, brainstorming, and so on in this blog.

Anyway, we will see how it goes.

As always, you can get in touch, but the best way to know is to follow the blog.

I wish you and all your families an awesome 2025!

Nothing to lose but their lives (stakes)

D&D characters usually have nothing to lose but their lives.

They lose HP, yes, but if they don't die, they can usually recover most of it in a day (in old-school D&D requires a cleric for that, but they are still good to go in a day or two).

And HP loss doesn't mean anything except death. You do not get slower, weaker or poorer because you lost HP. As long as you don't die, you're good to go.

So either they lose NOTHING, or they lose EVERYTHING.

The stakes are ALWAYS at a maximum, with no room for maneuvering.

In most games, taking a hit means you have to DEAL WITH YOUR LOSSES, something D&D PCs rarely do.

Think of a game of chess; when you lose a piece, even a pawn, you're hindered for the rest of the game. What about a soccer match? A goal leaves you behind, but you can  recover from that and even turn the tide in your favor. 

Fighting is even more interesting: you win/lose rounds while also managing stamina, wounds, etc., AND you always have the chance of a sudden reversal of fortune, no matter how many rounds you already won or lost.

The system (kinda) works in DUNGEONS, since you have limited resources, limited time, and to restart you'd have to leave the dungeon. 

But it doesn't seem to work in wilderness play, where there is only one encounter or two per day. Even if you're playing only dungeons, they become a bit boring if the only two results from delving deeper is a binary "get richer or die".

This has been a problem for me in practice.

How to fix it? 

Let's consider some alternatives.

TIME - Unless there is some kind of ticking clock, players do not give enough importance to time. As noticed above, they can only lose a day or two. Maybe if we slow down everything - recovering spells, wounds, etc. - we'd have more meaningful consequences. E.g., "you can recover all your resources after a few weeks, but now it is winter...". I've noticed that even without a ticking clocks some players automatically give a week's rest more gravitas than a day's rest. Adding random events can also help things immensely.

LEVELS - A few monsters do this, but it has been widely criticized and largely abandoned. It could work for some monsters, but what would we do with the rest?

HIRELINGS - Not only can they hire more, but they can even save their salary if they perish. You'd need to make PCs care about NPCs, or at least limit the number of hirelings, force the PCs to provide some kind of insurance, etc.

NPCs - Maybe the PCs already care about other NPCs (family, allies, etc.). But it is unlikely that they travel with the PCs, and feels unfair to just kill them off-screen - unless there is a previously known ticking-clock attached to the event.

LIMBS/WOUNDS - Lasting wounds could make a difference. Healing them might require weeks or a quest. In some cases, the PC would just have to deal with an impairment forever.

GOLD - In my experience, PCs get rich soon, and accounting is just not that fun. I don't want to deal with taxes and fines in my games. That is boring enough in real life. At most, I might require a monthly upkeep for food and housing, but this unlikely to make a dent in the PC's finances. Maybe the PCs will buy/build castles, but they have to decide that for themselves - and if I burn those castles, they are unlikely to ever build new ones.

ITEMS - Monsters that destroy weapons, spoil magic items, etc., feel a bit forced, but could work. Even better, we could have magic items of limited uses more often, which would force some strategic thinking.

REPUTATION - I think this would be a good solution, but it requires some deep reflection/preparation on the wider world - or use some reputation MECHANIC (i.e., IIRC there are some in Pendragon, Oriental Adventures, etc.)

SANITY/STRESS/ETC. - You could have different mechanics to represent other kinds of losses. Call of Cthulhu has sanity - this is hard to recover. Darkest Dungeon has stress. Adding other gauges in addition to HP grants the game some tactical depth. Exhaustion from 5e is an interesting one, since it bypasses HP and has other consequences (affects speed, skills, etc.).

Come to think of it, exhaustion and stress could be a great solution to this "you get better in a day" problem. But that also deserve a post of its own.

DEATH - In some versions of D&D, death is nothing but a "lasting wound". If raise dead is widely available, death might represent a new goal or quest to save the dead PC (maybe with a ticking clock), a cost in gold, a few weeks of downtime (e.g., in B/X it takes at least two weeks to recover). 

[Come to think of it, just considering 0 HP to be "grievous wounds" and replacing raise death for some kind of "cure grievous wounds spell", with a small chance of failure, could make the game significantly grittier and less magical without significantly altering the rules].

NOTHING - What if death is really off the table and the PCs really have nothing to lose? This seems to be a common trend in modern games. I can't quite see the point in a game with no real stakes. Of course, PC death is an issue to be dealt with - you can have raise dead (maybe at a cost), automatic resurrections a la Dark Souls (which also has a cost), on mere unconsciousness. 

If even death is inconsequential, you probably need to find consequences elsewhere.

A proposal

I think I'd like my games to have multiple lasting stakes at the same time. Instead of just dead/alive or even zero to full HP, I want consequences to affect characters thought time. 

As I've often insisted, spell shouldn't just renew everyday. Maybe some spells can only be performed once a year, or once in a lifetime, requiring the blood of a nearly-extinct beat.

A character could lose an eye, gain a few levels, so that he is a better fighter but a worse archer, and in any case much more powerful because of his new allies, while still threatened by stronger enemies.

This is the kind of games RPGs are supposed to be, IMO. Every decision can be relevant for ages to come. 

There is victory and defeat, but trade-offs are much more common.

A conclusion (?)

RPGs are games. Game should have stakes, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. At the very least, be mindful and honest about these.

When creating adventures, running games, describing scenes, etc., consider the stakes.

In addition, let your players know the stakes.

Sometimes, they PCs will be surprised by a monster or trap they couldn't have anticipated. This should be RARE, and even then there will always be SOME choice involved - sure, they got surprised, lost initiative and were slain by a dragon before they could draw their swords, but they did wander into the haunted forest after all!

Most importantly, let them know what kind of game they are playing, from the beginning.

If you will fudge the die and the PCs can't die, let your players know beforehand (or right after it happens). If they need to be captured because you "planned" the next "scene", let them know. And if you want to ban, or introduce, fudging, maiming and death to your stories, talk to the players before you do.

Playing a game without knowing the stakes is just unfair for all involved.

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas!

Hope you have a great day!

Until the end of the year, my first book, Dark Fantasy Basic, is on sale for a single dollar.

Check it out if you haven't already!

I hope I can make a 2nd edition of sorts during 2025, but not sure. Still planning my new year's resolutions!

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.