AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part X, p. 169-173 (Appendices A, B - Random dungeons/wilderness)

The project is back after a long hyatus!

We've been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

The meat of the book is finished; now we move on tho the appendices, and these are almost as important as the main text (in fact, sin some cases the motives for sometihng 

Today we discuss random dungeons and wilderness!

Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of those; I invite anyone who has more experience with them to share it with us in the comments!

Anyway.

APPENDIX A: RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION

This part contains brief advice on how to make a dungeon and multiple tables to generate one randomly.

I am not a big fan of random dungeons; I find them nonsensical and often cliched.

I wrote about the subject here.

Last time I need a "dungeon" I took a castle map online and populated the rooms in an interesting, coherent manner - according to a theme (haunted castle) - and I was very satisfied with the results.

Can the Appendix A provide something more flavorful?

I'd have to try them in practice. I never actually did; I remember seeing some examples online, but nothing impressed me. Please let me know about any examples you have!

But let's see those tables.

There are 5 "start areas", which seem too weird and not sufficient. With the exception of number 4 (maybe?), they simply do not resemble any actual building, nor do they give an "mythic underworld" vibe (dungeons always start with stairs and they have lots of stairs - maybe they are "created by a mad mage" stuff).

In the same manner, the tables indicate long corridors and lots of 45º degrees passages.

In short, this produces a very specific type of dungeon, ideal for mapping on a square grid, but not much else. Your result will look like a "vanilla D&D dungeon", but not like a cave, castle, ruin or spaceship.

The tables that fill these rooms are a bit better; basically, they add monsters, treasures and traps. Enough variation to make things interesting.

Appendix I adds more interesting stuff to dungeons. Why not put it closer? No idea. But we'll get there!

(BTW: my own book Dark Fantasy Places has some ideas on these topics).

Curiously, the book indicates that "the random dungeon generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play", which is a play-style that became much more popular in recent years.

In short, maybe a cool mini-game, but doesn't seem to create great dungeons, unless the DM adds a lot of input.

EDIT: as waywardwayfarer note in the comments, there is an app inspired by the appendix A. Try it for yourself to see if this is the kind of game you want: https://www.blogofholding.com/dungeonrobber/

APPENDIX B: RANDOM WILDERNESS TERRAIN

This is similar to dungeon generation, but shorter. The first paragraph explains that:

If a wilderness expedition moves into an area where no detailed map has been prepared in advance, the random terrain determination system below can be utilized with relative ease for a 1 space = 1 mile, or larger, scale. In using it, however, common sense must prevail. For example, if the expedition is in the north country the forest will be pine or possibly scrub, while in tropical regions it will be jungle. Similarly, if a pond is indicated in two successive spaces, the two should be treated as one larger body of water. The Dungeon Master must also feel free to add to the random terrain as he sees fit in order to develop a reasonable configuration. In any event, the DM must draw in rivers, large lakes, seas, oceans, and islands as these features cannot easily be generated by a random method.

I don't think random wilderness is a good idea, for several reasons: first, it often produces incoherent maps. It would also take a HUGE time and effort unless you automate it - even a small area requires hundreds of rolls. In addition, mountains can be seem from many miles away and it'd be absurd for the PCs to suddenly find one.

You'd be better off just drawing your own map in advance without any help - which is FAST and EASY. 

It wrote extensively about this here.

The DMG seems to recognize these limitations and only suggest you use this "where no detailed map has been prepared in advance".

There is only a couple of tables here: terrains and inhabitation. Only 10% of hills (and ZERO percent of mountains) contain forests, which seems weird. The DM probably has too choose those, or he'll get hills with forest in the middle of the desert.

Again, my Dark Fantasy Places has some additional tables that might be useful.

If you use 1 hex = 1 mile, the map seems a bit crowded (one hex out of six has something, from single dwellings to cities of 10,000 people). 

Still, it does a decent job of balancing small hamlets, cities, castles and ruins. This is evocative stuff. Unlike mountains, you COULD conceivable find a small castle/ruins in the woods by accident, and it could be the beginning of a great adventure.

BTW, if you want LOTS of tables about the subject, you can check this post in Knights & Knaves Alehouse. Again, it looks like too much to tackle without automation but it is FULL of cool ideas!

Coming next... RANDOM ENCOUNTERS AND MONSTERS!

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!

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!