The Chronicles of Amber (1-5), Norwegian Wood, The Stranger, Ultralearning

I hesitated a little before writing a review of these books, mainly because I don't have many positive things to say about them, and to be honest I was a bit cautious to criticize books that are so widely loved. 

That said, a negative ou neutral review can be just as useful as a positive one, so I decided to share my impressions anyway. Also, I din't quite regret reading any of these books, even if the experience was not as valuable to me as reading Kafka, Wolfe, Borges or Moorcock, to name a few authors that might share some themes.

The Chronicles of Amber (1-5), by Roger Zelazny

This is a well-known series, listed in Appendix N of D&D. I read the first pentalogy, which, curiously, wasn't even finished when AD&D was published in 1977. It is a middling adventure fantasy: a mix of predictable ideas and genuinely interesting ones, quite reminiscent of Michael Moorcock's Elric and its concept of the multiverse. Its influence on D&D is obvious, particularly in the conception of demigods and the planes of existence.

The books are full of adventure, epic battles, knights and unicorns. The fantasy, however, is somewhat generic, and the naming conventions are curious (there are references to Avalon and Merlin entirely outside of an Arthurian context, for example). The characters, with the possible exception of the narrator, feel a bit shallow and hard to tell apart. The intrigue tends to rely on the same repetitive devices: someone pretends not to know what they know, or pretends to be someone else, or forges someone's death etc. This happens repeatedly across different books, and sometimes the scheming characters feel incredibly naive after many lifetimes in a court of intrigues.

Overall, it is an enjoyable, light and fun read, with something of a Young Adult feel, though there are a few darker scenes (some very good) and some interesting ideas around the multiverse. There are also cool, interesting twists that finish each separate book, although the ending of the pentalogy is somewhat confusing, and I felt no urge to continue to the remaining volumes, except maybe to reach a more satisfying conclusion, if there is one.

Unfortunately, the series falls a bit short of the works that likely inspired it, such as Anderson, Moorcock, and others. It does, however, surpass a good deal of modern fantasy, and remains a fun read that can certainly provide inspiration for your D&D games, especially at higher levels of play.

Norwegian Wood, by Haruki Murakami

I have to admit that some parts of this book are beautifully written, and that I read it almost compulsively, trying to figure out where the story was headed. Some passages are really quite good. Even so, the hype surrounding the book remains somewhat mysterious to me.

The novel follows a university student who is thoroughly disengaged from his own life, surrounded by deeply depressed people. The exception, perhaps, is the protagonist and his friend, who seems to attract an endless stream of interested women for reasons the text never makes entirely clear, given that neither of them displays any particularly positive qualities.

The protagonist is a hornier version of Holden Caulfield with considerably better luck with women, and seems to have a surprisingly easy time with them despite an apparent lack of ambition, social graces, or redeeming qualities in general. When he does choose to show restraint, he does so without any apparent moral conviction, and surrenders it again without much of a struggle. The other characters, for their part, are profoundly depressed, some to the point of suicide, others struggling with serious hardships such as cancer and poverty (with the exception of one friend that seems to be devoid of empathy and even more successful with women).

Although the protagonist mentions his interest in Western literature, the atmosphere of inexplicable gloom surrounding some of the characters reminded me more of Osamu Dazai than of any European influence. Though perhaps there is also some Camus at work here (and also The Catcher in the Rye, which the author mentions IIRC), as the next book suggests.

The depressing, existential tone is probably the whole point of the book. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable or enriching, but it may be an interesting experience if that sounds like something you'd like.

The Stranger, by Albert Camus

The Stranger is a classic of absurdism with an enormous cultural influence. Much like the previous book, it features a protagonist who is thoroughly disengaged from his own life and fate, but in an even more radical and unsettling way, and without the excuse of being a teenager. It is almost impossible not to wonder whether the protagonist has some serious neurological condition, though his emotional detachment does not make him any less irrational than the other characters, who are guided by their own equally misguided emotions, such as the romantic interest who insists on pursuing him despite his obvious indifference.

In Kafka's The Trial, the accused desperately tries to prove his innocence before a completely surreal judicial system. Here, the accused is indifferent to proving his own innocence, which is questionable to begin with, even when faced with a system that, while unhinged, seems to follow some internal logic and might perhaps have responded to a coherent defense.

The absurdity of the protagonist's thinking and the circumstances surrounding him are, in all likelihood, precisely the point of the book. But, as with the previous entry, that does not make it a particularly enjoyable read.

Ultralearning, by Scott H. Young

This is a book about intense, self-directed learning, and I found it quite useful. I reviewed and summarized it, and added a few study tips for 2026, over on my other blog, which focuses on self-development. If that interests you, check out that post and the others in the same blog:

https://allinspiringideas.blogspot.com/2026/02/ultralearning-by-scott-h-young-review.html

https://allinspiringideas.blogspot.com/

Smash the ability scores

The "Smash" maneuver from the Rules Cyclopedia has always intrigued me, not only because it's one of those small idiosyncrasies of that book absent from other versions of D&D, but also because it's one of the rare cases outside roll-under situations where the attribute is used in full, point by point, rather than just a modifier.

It goes like this:

Smash
This is a Fighter Combat Option maneuver, first available at 9th level to fighters and mystics, and at other experience point totals to demihumans (see their experience tables). With this hand-to-hand maneuver, the character automatically loses initiative and takes a - 5 penalty to the attack roll (he still gets his Strength and magic adjustments to his attack roll). 
If attack hits, the character adds his Strength bonus, magic bonuses, and his entire Strength score to his weapon's normal damage. 
For example, a Strength 17 fighter ( + 2 to attack and damage) using a sword +2 ( + 2 to attack, 1d8 + 2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of -1 ( + 2 + 2-5). If he hits, he rolls ld8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

The smash maneuver is also a solution to various combat situations, but I'll set that aside to focus on the matter of ability checks.

A persistent problem in D&D is that there are few mechanics that interact directly with the full attribute score instead of just the modifier. 

The obvious answer to this dilemma is, well, ability checks. The problem is that good examples of them are nearly absent from published D&D modules. Most are simply Dexterity tests used as if they were saving throws — which, in my view, only adds confusion. The example in Moldvay is climbing a rope, which has the odd consequence of making the thief better at climbing sheer walls than ropes. 

AD&D offers some inspiration for broader uses: though it never says so explicitly, the attribute tables include chances to learn spells and resurrection survival odds — both of which could reasonably be framed as ability checks. Strength checks have a few obvious uses — for example, open doors, which unfortunately is treated under a different mechanics, with similar results.

None of this helps much with the harder problem: finding situations that naturally call for a Wisdom or Charisma check.

Using ability checks with skills, non-weapon proficiencies, etc. seems to be a good solution. In a game like AD&D, where abilities average 12.2, it might be as simple as giving a −10 penalty to anyone untrained (minimum 1), and adding level if trained. 

So a thief with Dex 14 might start with a skill of 5, so 25% chance of success (14+1−10), reaching 90% by level 14. A warrior with the same Dex might have only 4 for all his career - and the GM might decide certain tasks are impossible for the untrained.

It doesn't matter whether you prefer roll-high or roll-low. You simply add this to a 1d20 and try to meet or beat 20 (gaining an extra 5% chance in the process, which is a good tradeoff in my opinion). So our thief would go from 30% to 95% over the course of his career.

[I'm more inclined to go roll low, but since the math is the same I'll probably ask around to see what people prefer.]

That's probably what I'll go with, because it's a lot simpler than the idea that got me writing this in the first place.

I was thinking of keeping the modifier as the standard for skills, but allowing certain situations to let you add the entire ability score instead. What would be the equivalent of Smash for other abilities? Anything done slowly could fit... maybe it could be the old-school equivalent of "taking 10":

Taking Your Time

When the character is not in a rush and is not being threatened or distracted, they may add their entire ability score — rather than just the modifier — to the check.

This brings to mind Siegfried using his prodigious strength to forge a sword despite little blacksmithing training. And it still leaves some chance of success and failure.

Another idea: allow a natural 20 to trigger a "roll again, adding the entire ability score" — letting PCs accomplish nearly impossible tasks if they're talented enough.

I may develop these further down the line, but for now I think I've found my next skill system.

BTW, I'm working on my "Old School Minimalist" again, and this time I think I'll go all the way and publish a 20-30 page PDF, after I share the whole thing here.

GMs day sale (2026) - OSR, classic D&D and others

So, it’s that time of year again...

The GM Day's sale has arrived, so here are my picks (same as last years with some additions).

Notice that the usual discount this year is 40%, which is the best sale of the year IIRC.

First, let me remind you that all of my books are included in the sale! 

If your tastes are similar to mine, take a look! They are mostly compatible with OSR games (except for a couple of 5e books - "Manual of Arms").

Here are some big discounts. 

The Dolmenwood Campaign Book looks really cool and it is 50% off! Maybe I'll get it to take a look.

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is also 40% off again - or $45.00 off. Sounds reasonable for 1.100 pages (!) although it is probably too much material for me to digest.

Now, let's see the old favorites...

Big discounts!

These products seem to be about 40% off and I find each of them interesting. The first two are my own. Some are also mentioned (and further explained) below:

OSR

* Teratogenicon, my monster maker (check the previews!).

* Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X neoclone.

* Hyperborea (my impressions).

* Monkey Business.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG);

* How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck; 

* The Monster Alphabet; 

* Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome; 

* Silent Legions; 

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

* Tales of Argosa.

Classic D&D

This are some of my favorites, also 40% off. Explanation here.

* D&D Basic Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) (Basic).

* D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Basic)

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1e)

* Monstrous Manual (2e).

* Dark Sun boxed set.

* B10 Night's Dark Terror - one of my favorite classic adventures.

Goodman Games

In addition to the amazing Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG), I really like The Dungeon Alphabet, The Monster Alphabet and The Cthulhu Alphabet. They are near system-less and full of awesome stuff to inspire your games. I still haven't read How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck but it is also on sale. All of them 40% off.

They also publish awesome adventures; alas, few are on sale, but fortunately Doom of the Savage King, the one I am currently running, is 40% off! Recommended! Same for Jewels of the Carnifex, which I reviewed here.

Necrotic Gnome

Several Old School Essentials titles are also on sale in addition to Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome. I really like Old-School Essentials. It is basically a concise, well-organized version of my favorite D&D (B/X). The SRD is great. the version that interests me the most is the advanced version - it is NOT an AD&D clone, but B/X with many new options taken from AD&D, dragon magazine, etc. For players and DMs.

Sine Nomine Publishing

Worlds Without Number is 40% off. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles from the same author, including Scarlet Heroes and Silent Legions (maybe my favorite OSR take on horror and Lovecraft).

I think that's it for now. If you know any other books on sale that you'd recommend (especially if it is 40% off), let me know in the comments and I'll add it to my list. Feel free to promote your own products!

These are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

The critical hit "checklist"

As you might have noticed, I really like critical hits, but I dislike complexity. Playing systems such as Rolemaster with extensive crit and fumble tables, where a bad roll could mean your character trips over an invisible turtle (really!), was fun but also slow and frustrating.

This is another idea for critical hits. 

My aim is to pile all weapon complexity onto critical hits, so we don't have to write it down in every character sheet. It makes critical hits lengthy and detailed, but something you can easily change or ignore if you dislike it.

Maybe critical hits activate on a natural 20 (maybe 19-20 for certain fighters), or maybe on a margin of success of 10 or more. Whatever method you use, I think this table would simplify things. Each line can represent an idea that applies to lots of weapons, and you can just skip the lines you don't use.

You start with the idea that a critical hit not only gives you maximum damage, but — if it doesn't outright kill your target — gives you a percentage chance of doubling it.

The chances start at 5% for each point of difference between your d20 roll and your target number (e.g., with ascending AC, if you have a total of 23 against AC 13, you start with a 50% chance).

Then you go through a small checklist, skipping the items that do not apply:

• Using two hands gives you +10%.
• Armor (or tough/brittle bodies) gives swords and axes -10%.
• Shields give swords, spears and arrows -10%.
• No armor (or soft/flexible bodies) gives swords +20% and axes +10%.
• Lack of blood and functioning organs gives swords and spears -20%.
• Spears give you +10% otherwise (i.e., if there are blood/organs).
• Oozes give blunt and small weapons and missiles -20%.
• Large foes give blunt and small weapons and missiles -20%.
• Polearms are combinations of weapons, so it depends. Other weapons might fall somewhere in the sword (slashing) spear (piercing) or mace (blunt) categories. 

You get the idea. You can tweak the numbers, but potentially the entire "weapon versus armor" and "weapon versus large" tables could be included here — and since critical hits are rare, all this complexity only comes up occasionally, keeping the game fast the rest of the time.

When you get the percentage (if positive), you roll the chances of doubling your damage. If you roll doubles, you triple damage. Such a critical hit should always be described in detail, and someone killed in this manner will often suffer a gruesome death (decapitation, disembowelment, etc). If you miss the percentage roll, you still add +2 damage if you roll doubles.

If you like to use fumbles, a natural 1 could give you a fumbling chance. At least here they wouldn't apply to 5% of all attacks. Fumbling chances could be affected by circumstances such as:

Using a flail.

Shooting into melee.

Fighting with large weapons in small spaces or using bows indoors.

Uneven or unsafe ground.

Either way, the goal is the same: keep the complexity tucked away where it rarely surfaces, but it exists and always stays somewhere in the back of the players' heads, making weapons feel more grounded and detailed without slowing your game down.

The fireball hand grenade

You might have heard me complain about fireballs a couple of times, so I hope you'll forgive me for trying a new fix to a problem some of you might share. The fix is really simple and does not significantly nerf MUs (in fact, I'm not sure it is enough).

Usually, when an MU throws a fireball at a group of goblins, things like saves and damage rarely matter - goblins within blast radius are toast. Which is fine, but it gets weirder and weirder to me when the MU can instantly kill a group of orcs, lizard men or even bugbears.

What if we just roll damage as usual (say, 7d6 for a 7th-level MU), but that is the TOTAL damage dealt. So, against a group of goblins, a weak damage roll (say, 20 points) and a successful save would reduce the number of goblin casualties to only two or three.

The damage is distributed as the GM sees appropriate - think of the fireball like a hand grenade! Most of the damage hits the center, shrapnel spreads outward.

This logic seems to work for groups. Against a single creature, the fireball remains equally effective. If you want to change that, you can just decide that, like a grenade, the main target gets most of the damage but a part of it (say, half of the damage, round down) is spread around.

Lightning bolt could function similarly, but maybe I'd let the MU concentrate all damage into a single creature or create a "line" of damage that diminishes as each creature is hit in a straight line. This spells has not been as common in my games, however. I'm even tempted to treat dragon breath in similar way (well, as a flamethrower) and let fighters jump with their shields in front of wizards when needed.

Anyway, I like this idea because it makes a 10d6 fireball very different from a 5d6 fireball against a group of lesser foes, which gives the wizard a real sense of progression without making him overpowered in comparison to fighters. Thinking of them as grenades makes them feel more grounded and tactically interesting, giving MUs interesting choices of where to aim - and it is also reminiscent of the original Chainmail origins that treated wizards like artillery.

Maximum Damage

We've been playing with a lot of ideas using D&D weapons and margins of success. Yesterday, a new one occurred to me: maximum damage.

Let's say weapon damage is determined by margin of success, but the maximum damage is unchanged from the original game. So a d4 becomes 4, a d8 becomes 8, etc.

This has several benefits before we get any deeper:

• You don't need a damage roll.
• Damage raises steadily with level, especially for fighters.
• Armor becomes even more significant.
• Armored duels
•  feel a bit slower and more realistic, with lots of wounds.
• Magic users could use swords etc. but it would usually not be worth the effort.
• We'd get more granular weapons (e.g., maximum damage 5, 7, or 9).
• Even a goblin can potentially survive a hit of a +3 sword, although this is very rare.

If we rule that a natural 20 doubles or triples maximum damage (or just raises it by 10 points or whatever), even a dagger can be deadly in the hands of a very skilled fighter against an unarmored foe.

Conversely, we can introduce laser guns with 15 or 20 maximum damage, and he stormtroopers would still have a hard time actually killing someone with it in a single shot.

I'm tempted to add your attack bonus to maximum damage too, so Conan can occasionally kill a sorcerer with a punch.

We'd have to consider how backstab works. Maybe a flat +4 bonus to attack and maximum damage.

Also, how do exact hits work? Maybe 0 damage, maybe 1, maybe some special effect, not sure.

One downside I can see is that average damage is a bit higher than usual even for low-HD creatures, although this is somewhat countered by the fact that in my games, PCs don't die at 0 HP. The fact that high-level warriors deal lots of damage is a plus for me, especially because I don't like having many magic weapons.

The fact that people get used to thinking about margins of success could also be useful if you use this for skills and other checks, which I like.

Another problem is that big foes such as giants and dragons could have their damage significantly diminished if we use this system exactly as written, never being able to actually reach their "maximum damage". Maybe that's a problem for another day, but I can imagine we could have a size multiplier of ×2 to ×4 (maybe "3x6" instead of "6d6"), which could create an interesting effect: a giant will not often hit the fighter, but when he does the damage is massive — one mistake might cost him dearly!

I think I originally had this idea years ago, when playing bell-curve systems, which might have different, but interesting, effects.

There are probably another issues I'm missing, but so far I really like this idea... let me know what you think in the comments!

Note: the GM Day's sale* is on, and most of my books are included! 40% off many titles! Here are some of my picks from past sales. Some deep discounts here, including the Dolmenwood Campaign Book looks really cool and it is 50% off! Maybe I"ll get it to take a look...

* Affiliate link.

A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms (TV series, 2026)

 A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is the best current TV series in the fantasy genre, as far as I can tell, and one of the best I've ever seen.

If you like anything Game of Thrones related, you're very likely to love this one.

It has the right amount of humor, idealism, grittiness, and violence.

Unfortunately, it's not one for younger viewers without some caveats. About half the episodes contain one or two crude (and completely unnecessary) scenes, and there is plenty of realistic blood and violence throughout. So while I'd otherwise recommend it even for 12 year old boys, parents should be aware of both before letting teenagers watch.

About the violence, I have to say this is some of the best medieval combat I've seen in recent memory. In many movies, armored combat is full of quick maiming and even decapitations. Here, an armored knight can survive several sword and dagger blows for quite a long time before falling or dying. Well, there is one quick decapitation that feels somewhat out of place, and some people might bleed a bit more than would be believable and keep fighting, but overall the melee is very impressive.

Why is this so good? I'd guess it has many shades of gray, like most of GRRM's work - and good or bad people are not necessarily fighting on opposing sides - but at the same time the main characters are likeable and moral (although far from perfect, one having limite size and other limited smarts) so you're always cheering for them. It is fun in a way House of the Dragon doesn't always manage.

The realistic combat always plays a part. The most skilled fighters often win, using power, brutality, and skill, which is a breath of fresh air after watching so many fantasy battles of petite warriors doing useless backflips. People are self-serving but rarely amoral or straight up evil, with a few exceptions.

In short, a great balance between chivalry and realism. And that balance turns out to be more than just a stylistic choice - it goes to the heart of what the show is actually about.

Why is Dunk a knight, or a good knight? Because of his weapons and armor? Because he was knighted? Because of his size and courage in battle, yet to be fully tested? Or because he follows the code of chivalry?

Watch it, and form your own opinion.

(BTW, the book is very good too!)