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.

A real encounter with quantum goblins

Here is one experience that might be worth discussing.

I (accidentally?) "quantum ogred" my players this week. I also used some improvising and encounter balancing, two things I usually dislike.

And here is how it happened.

A few weeks before, the PCs had defended a town from goblin attacks. However, when the local lord asked their help to defeat the goblins entirely, the PCs decided the reward was not good enough, so they left.

When they went back, I said "roll a d20 so see how town fared against the goblins". I didn't have a rule for that, but I thought it made sense to ask this question. "Roll a d20 and see what happens" is the kind of vague/free-form rule I usually avoid, but this is what I defaulted too.

They rolled a natural 1.

I decided the town had been burned to the ground, then I remembered this post and decided d100% of the populace had been killed/fled. 

I rolled 89.

Only 11% of the population was left. The city had been razed and sacked.

So the PCs decide to ignore the goblins again and go North, through goblin territory, to find a Tabaxi tribe for their own reasons.

Now, this is LITERALLY goblin territory, and they knew it. Here is the map:

Anyway, when they got to hex 29.20, I rolled a random encounter: an hydra.

And I could (should?) have rolled again, because of the "double dragon" rule.

[This is something I mention in Basic Wilderness Encounters but I didn't invent: when you roll a dragon encounter, roll again ONCE, unless it is a green dragon in the forest, red dragon in the mountains, etc - this is meant to avoid the large number of dragons you find in B/X encounter tables.]

Instead, I suddenly decided the encounter should be with the goblin tribe that attacked the city.

Looking back, this feels a bit like railroading: the PCs had decided they wouldn't fight the goblins. And the goblins didn't appear in the random encounter table.

The thing is, the goblins were in the region. I hadn't assigned a specific hex for them, nor had I added this specific tribe to the encounter table - I had just assumed the PCs would look for them eventually, I'd ask for some tracking rolls, etc.

But I knew the goblins were around there. And I was using goblins from B10: Night's Dark Terror (recommended!), which suggests you "assign" encounters rather than rolling them.

The encounter in B10 had a mounted goblin king and 4 hobgoblins. But the PCs had killed dozens of goblins and are known as "goblin scourge" in the region: this small group just couldn't be that brave (B10 notices the king is ready to flee, IIRC). So I added a goblin encounter (6d10 goblins) on top of that.

It just made sense.

But also, they are level 8 by now (think the usual 4 classes) and most random encounters are just too easy - I needed the extra goblins to make it interesting.

In conclusion... I don't know. 

On one and I hate the idea of forcing the "plot" down the player's throats, or to create "level appropriate" encounters.

OTOH, I didn't stop believing the setting in favor of an expected "plot". They were going through literal goblin territory, after finding out the nearby city (Suykin) had been sacked by goblins. And not all random encounters need to be random? Goblins can plan their own attacks too. I am not sure how "forced" they felt.

And I respected each roll after I asked for them. Natural 1 means the city was defeated. 89% means only 11% were left. 6d10 goblins is the number of goblins in an usual encounter.

Anyway, after they managed to defeat the goblins, I went back to the usual tables. I rolled 12 bugbears. It was uninteresting and felt disconnected to the rest of the game.

I've been playing and running RPGs for 30+ years. Sometimes a game makes me change my beliefs and expectations. This was one of these times, maybe, and I might reconsider how to deal with random encounters in the future.

Well, I guess this is part of the fun of playing RPGS... you're always learning.

The Shadow People (book review)

Thoughts draw them. They are sensitive, they pick up something from us, they can track us by our thoughts as dogs can track by scent. Angry or disturbed or painful thoughts attract them most. That is why, in the old stories, somebody who had been "ill-sained" was particularly liable to capture by Otherworld denizens. And yet, for all their sensitivity, there could scarcely exist beings more primitive, rude, nearer to the archaic clay. They are not all alike.

There are three kinds of them, the gray, the black and the green. Green is the worst, but I have seen some white ones, too. I think that was underneath Merced. I wandered for a long time before I came out.

They dwell in a strange world, one of roaring waters, bitter cold, ice-coated rocks and fox fires glowing in the dark. They call our world the Bright World, the Clear World, or Middle-Earth. Their material culture is of the rudest. They have almost no artifacts except the ones they steal from us. Yet their place is home to them: I suppose that is what Kirk meant, in his Secret Commonwealth, when he spoke of their "happy polity". Their atter-corn is their one great luxury—that, and human flesh.

- "The Shadow People" by Margaret St. Clair

This is a weird book. 

And while it is indeed very much in the weird tradition of mixing horror, fantasy, and sci-fi, what I mean is that it is also a STRANGE book because of a sudden genre twist.

There will be some spoilers below.

----

The plot is about a man living in California, during the 1960s, that has to go to find and brave a surreal underworld after his girlfriend gets kidnapped. 

This "Underearth" is populated by evil elves - somewhat between fairy tales and cryptofauna - that want to rule surface eventually.

When the action shifts to the surface world, we suddenly see the world is living in a weird dystopia, probably caused by the elves machinations - in just three years! This is where dark fantasy gives way to sci-fi conspiracy, and the story seems to change focus completely, without much connection to the first part.

But the surreal tone is kept even in the surface. The world has gone dystopian and crazy. The protagonists find the villain eventually, but things don't really get resolved. Well, at least the protagonist can be protected from this social order... by magic?

Maybe the whole makes sense in the weird mix of Californian culture in the 60s: fantasy, hallucinogenics, conspiracy theories, anti-authoritarianism, computers, social unrest, etc. It feels a bit disjointed, but I have to say it is interesting. 

It is somewhat reminiscent of The Futurological Congress in its hallucinatory tone.

It's inclusion in the Appendix N makes sense because the underworld is very reminiscent of the Underdark: dangerous, surreal, magical, endless, populated by evil elves and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

I find the first few paragraphs, reproduced above, incredibly inspiring. 

This has probably been a big influence in D&D's "mythic underworld", and even the drow probably took inspiration from this novel.

In short, this is a curious read. Definitely idiosyncratic. Probably not as D&Dish as other Appendix N books (except for the Underdark part), and not particularly well written, but reasonably short, and certainly worth checking out if these themes interest you.

Read more about the Appendix N and other fantasy books HERE.

More d20 damage

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

But what if we combine both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects:

- Fighters get stronger.

- A thief's sneak attack gets better.

- Big monsters get scarier.

- Combat get deadlier and less predictable.

I like them all.

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

Simplifying THAC0 (and attack matrices)

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

You don't even need subtraction to use THAC0. 

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

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

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

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

* Roll 1d20+AC+modifiers.

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

* If you roll 20 or more, you hit.

And... that is it, basically. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gygax considered something vaguely similar is Isle of the Ape.

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

Here are a few additional considerations:

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

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

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

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

- What about backstabbing?

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

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

- What about monsters?

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

- But I want THAC0!

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

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

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

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

The campaign spreadsheet

We used to joke about needing a spreadsheet to run certain games, but, come to think of it, this can work WONDERS for your campaigns - especially if you're playing online, of course.

I'm a bit of an Excel nerd. Not that I know much about it - I just use it for everything, especially to manage my calendar, passwords, goals, new year resolutions, links, and so on.

I have been saving my campaign stuff in text format (see here), plus various PDFs, but I'm certainly using excel (or OpenOffice, etc.) for my next campaign.

The first sheet to consider is a campaign timeline. This it's both a schedule (of future events) and a diary. The diary is basically "set in stone"; the players have access to it (you can have a second column of unknown/secret events to yourself). The schedule is basically a list of things you have planned or rolled in advance: an earthquake on November 16, the Dark Lord is planning an invasion on the October 1st, etc. As the players move closer to the events, they can see some signs and even potentially alter it.

The second sheet to consider is your GM screen. Anything you'd put in your "GM screen": random tables, critical hits, a list of random names, THAC0  tables, etc.

I'd keep random encounters in their own sheet. I've been using my own Random Wilderness Encounters PDF, but come to think of it, it might be useful to be able to edit encounters. Maybe discard some used ones (and roll them again) You could even prepare some encounters in advance, make a d10 table, and replace them as you go.

Then you might have a glossary of sorts: places, people, monsters, and so on. You might list them alphabetically (adding a column to specify "type": location/NPC/ etc) or create different sheets for each.

Characters could have their own sheet too, especially in systems that require math for character building (for example, to figure out skill points for the 2e thief).

You can probably add a sheet of random ideas in the end: links, modules you might want to check, tables you don't use often, and so on.

Now, one might wonder: why not use a .doc or wiki instead?

Well, you can. But spreadsheets may have at least two additional perks.

First, spreadsheets can do math. For example, I can quickly add a formula to know how many HP each PC will have on each level (if I'm playing 5e, for example).

Second, they can roll dice. 

I'm not an expert at all; I know that "=RANDBETWEEN(1,20)" automatically rolls a d20, and so on. You could create an entire line of formulas to make all the six or seven rolls you need for a random encounter in just a click or two (I could have saved so much time!).

Well, this is just a brainstorming post. Unfortunately, I have little actual practice with campaign spreadsheets.

Hopefully, I can just give you my spreadsheet when I start my next campaign. But if there is one like that out there... let me know! It will save me some work!

Create a sandbox map in 7 easy steps (or 10)

I've written several posts on similar subjects; they are mentioned below. This is a compilation of sorts.

You only need a piece of paper and pen to start - I'm not getting into "hex maps" for now.

1 - Place the starting point. This is usually a starting village, city, or stronghold. If you're using a piece of paper, make it near the center. You can put it near the edge if there is something in the edge discouraging the PCs from going off map - for example, sea, tall mountains, or "back to civilization" (if the goal is exploring the unknown lands). See the map below - you can use something similar, and start your game anywhere in the East coast (even Florida, near the edge). You can cut it in half keeping only the East coast and Midwest. 

2 - Separate land from sea - just draw the outline of your main continent, add some islands if you want.

3 - Add "mountain lines", representing the tallest altitudes. Put a big range of tall mountains to a random direction. Add a smaller mountain range, with hills etc., somewhere else., for variety.

4 - Add rivers. They look like trees with lots of "branches" and trunks on the sea. They run to the sea. They do not cross mountain lines.

5 - Add cities. Most cities are near the water (rivers or seas). In D&D-ish worlds, there are probably few cities and lots of areas inhabited by monsters instead. You do not need to map every village.

6 - Add vegetation. You already have mountains, hills and rivers. Just scatter some big forests, swamps, deserts, plains, etc. I don't usually bother with much realism here. Deserts are usually next to mountains (mountains can stop humidity, so you'll often have desert on one side as humid/lush conditions on the other). Vegetation needs water, especially swamps.

7 - Name some regions (no borders needed): "here be goblins" (or "goblin territory"), and do the same for "giants", "dragons", "drow", "slavers", "franks", etc. These "vaguely known" areas can be different human kingdoms, monster territory, or anything else you want to add to you game (e.g, "poisoned swamps", etc.). Use flavorful titles rather than specific names ("Dark forest" rather than "Hullbeck forest"), unless the name is obviously referring to something mythic or historical (Cimmeria, Albion, etc.).

And there you go! You map is ready! Here is my current example (using hextml, but again, you don't need to). Belarte is the starting city. Mektlan is Tamoachan (recommended!). Ilmare is Illmire (recommended!). Savakir is DCC #66.5 (also recommended!). I wrote down "goblin territory" somewhere up north, but it wasn't included in the beginning.

Now, a map is not ALL you need to run a sandbox campaign. So I'll leave you a couple of extra steps that will get you most of the way there.

8 - Detail the starting area. You need some additional detail on the starting area, since the PCs will be more familiar with it. Keep on the Borderlands is a classic campaign starter, but not one I can recommend as I haven't used it. I used BFRPG's BF1 Morgansfort, and I like it - it is FREE! You just have to assign all the relevant locations to somewhere in your map.

9 - Prepare some random tables. It should be obvious by this point that I do NOT encourage you to randomly generate the map, as I've never seems a randomly generated map that looks better than what anyone can do following these simple steps. Besides, mountains can be seen from  A HUNDRED MILES away or more; it is absurd to suddenly enter an hex and find a mountain. What you need here is random encounter tables, plus some random tables to add villages, lairs, castles, ruins, and landmarks if you want to do so. I am using this for random encounters, but I still have to find or create some table for locations. I also encourage you to use random events.

10 - Ask PCs where they want to go. They find some random stuff on the way, and when they arrive you should have something prepared. I use classic modules: I use B10 - Night's Dark Terror for "goblin territory" - I really like this one! You can use G1-3 for giants, maybe Desert of Desolation for deserts, etc. Or use the BFRPG versions.

In old school D&D, it is assumed the PCs are searching for gold & glory, so there is enough motive to go around the map. If they need further motivation, you might have to prepare some hooks, backstories, etc.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-mythic-underworld-controversy-and.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/08/easy-worldbuilding-with-pareto-price.html

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

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/09/amarod-i-creating-sandbox.html

Unused parts - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?

Lately, I've been reconsidering the amount of work I put in my campaigns.

As an example, let's talk dungeons. No matter if you create your own, use a published module or random tables, I expect you to have a minimum knowledge of the thing you're running.

The problem is an interesting dungeon has lots of content - and, while the players will probably never see half of it, the GM has to at least give it some consideration.

It is not just the ignored rooms and secret doors that were never found - it is also the NPC with relevant information that the PCs immediately attack, the writings in languages no one speaks*, random encounters/events that do not happen, maybe even the villain monologue that gets interrupted, etc. 

[*For example, I ran Tamoachan the other day and it has SEVERAL writings and dialogues in "Olman" or whatever. Nowhere in the adventure summary I found any warning for the GM about that. I might have missed it. I used both the 1e and the 5e version].

This is what I call this "unused parts".

It seems that the DM will always have a lot more work than the players - the fun part, for me, is that during the actual game (my favorite part) I can sit back and see what the PCs do, as a neutral referee, without having to author anything.

While I love the sandbox format, I think it encourages "unused parts". A sandbox needs huge unexplored parts, and the freedom to allow PCs to go where they want. I takes the GM a lot of work to create or get acquainted with an entire setting.

Here is an example from X I've seen today (from @ericbabe3):

The PCs decide to follow the main corridor, found the treasure behind a secret door, and left. All the work the GM had choosing this module and reading it beforehand was wasted. 

I definitely LIKE the fact that the PCs can do that.

But how to deal with all those unused parts?

Let's see.

- Force them on the PCs (quantum ogre). This is just putting each encounter/trap/room you want to have in your game in front of the PCs, no matter which door they choose. I dislike this - it makes PC's choices meaningless and ruins any sense of surprise for me, the GM, as I know exactly what will happen.

- Randomize everything (random ogre). Roll 1d6 to put a random trap in front of the PCs, no matter which door they choose. Like the example above, it makes PC's choices mostly meaningless, and you still have a few traps/encounters that will simply not happen.

- Talk to the players beforehand. In my sandbox, the PCs can go anywhere, but I need at least a vague idea on where they are going. I've scattered several dungeons around the map, but I can't read - let alone remember - each one. So I just ask before the next session about where the PCs intend to go.

This is harder to do with dungeons. Depending on the size of your dungeon and your sessions, maybe you can read only a few levels beforehand.

- Minimum prep. Just do the bare minimum:  give a quick glance to the module and read the entirety of the room IF the PCs get there. This is what I've been doing, but it has led to some confusion on occasion, when the module is not clear enough and I'd need more time to understand. For example, I was once running a module that gave the PCs an "Amulet of the Phoenix" that was simply not described anywhere. I had to improvise in a case of life or death (that deserves a post in the future). Later I found out there was a "Talisman of the Phoenix" or something in the magic item list.

Another example: There are huge unmapped areas in my sandbox that are simply called "giant territory", "goblin territory", and "undead territory". No dungeons in most of these areas - I'll detail them when the PCs get closer, but they at least have a vague idea on what to expect and can make meaningful choices.

- Zooming in an out. Another way to think of this is "zooming in and out". Ideally, modules should be prepared in such a manner. You should be able to get the clear picture from a sentence or two, preferentially in bold, and the have other paragraphs describing what may happen if the players do X or Y.

Any important secrets or details must also be emphasized/ marked to make sure the GM will not miss them.

Likewise, for a overland map, with hexes or otherwise, you could have brief descriptions of each are and then a more detailed description - with a corresponding map - later on.

I know there are several attempts to do that in OSR games. I never read a module that really stands out in this manner, but I'm always searching! Have you? 

- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. This is especially important if you're creating your own stuff.

Reduce: make it terse, keep prep to a minimum. Don't fill all the details, just create whatever you want to inspire you. "This room has two sleeping ogres, Torg and Gurps, not aggressive but starting to get hungry".  If the PCs kill them while they sleep, you haven't wasted much details.

Reuse: have recurring NPCs and factions, and let they repeat their tactics/traps/behavior sometimes. Let the PCs go back and forth in your wilderness maps. PCs usually need a home base that will be more detailed than other cities. 

Some times, the PCs will enter the same dungeon multiple times (although it is useful to consider how the dungeon changes as they come and go). In my latest "haunted castle" adventure, the undead simply rose again every night.

Recycle. Traps/rooms/encounters that are cool and unused can be kept for later. This is not a "quantum ogre" thing. The PCs must have the option of ignoring it again. You have to deliberately change where the thing is placed, and you have to do it carefully -  the new place must make a last some sense.

Let me know in the comments if you have any other methods to deal with unused parts!

Spell points revisited

When I wrote Alternate Magic, I tried to keep it very compatible to BX / OSE. 

Here is what I've been using. A spell costs 1 SP per spell level.

As I've mentioned there, the goal was: "At low levels, this is nearly identical to the existing rules. At high levels, casters gain some versatility (they can cast the same spells more often) but they can memorize and cast fewer spells."

Lately, I'm finding this system makes high-level casters even more powerful in some aspects. In my defense, I still think they are OP to begin with, as I've said many times in this blog.

Am I overthinking this? Maybe SP are just not compatible with fireballs. Maybe LotFP was right in simply removing it.

Anyway, here is where I am now:

My PCs are about level 7-8 currently.

A 7d6 fireball destroys pretty much any random wilderness encounter. If you're checking once a day, the MU can always have TWO of them. But I'm using spell points, which makes things much worse.

Likewise, Cure Light Wounds (the baseline Lvl 8 cleric has 3 every day, plus 2 CSW - about 7d6+7 healing) can cure most non-lethal wounds. Using SP gives the cleric even more healing power.

Fortunately, I nerfed the cleric in other ways (a level 7 BX cleric should have raise dead; I use the BECMI progression instead).

(And boosted fighter/thieves. The B/X fighter and thief would have about +5 to hit, plus a magic sword, while the cleric gets raise dead, better saves, and also beats the thief at AC and HD).

Anyway, I still LIKE spell points, but in my next campaign I'm probably limiting them to 2 SP per level for MUs and 1 SP for clerics. Both learn one new spell per level.

So, a 8th-level cleric can still cure a lot of wounds (8d8+8 HP), but he can do nothing else that day. 

A 7th-level MU has four fireballs - still a lot, but after that there is not much else he can do.

(I allow MUs to use swords, they might need it).

What is more, they don't recover all SP overnight. Like wounded fighters they need a few days of rest. 

I've been using "you recover one fourth of maximum HP per day, round up", something I got from SotDL, so maybe use that for SP too.

Anyway, this is not perfectly compatible to B/X (or OSE), as it makes casters a lot weaker. But I think this is necessary to make the game grittier and more balanced.

If you prefer the original feel (MUs start weak and get incredibly powerful), you can keep the original table. For a dark fantasy or S&S feel, this is probably better.

30-mile hexes

I've considered several hex sizes before. Today I will think about 30-mile hexes.

Look at this map (source):

The hexes are about 31-miles each (31 miles across, with sides about 17.32 miles).

Good enough so they can fit all major cities and the shape of Italy is still recognizable.

You'd need to add several random villages and things (ruins, caves, castles, lairs, etc.) to each "empty" hex.

The whole country could be described in 150 hexes or so - sounds reasonable to run an entire campaign., maybe giving at least one page to each hex. And EVERY hex could have one or two interesting features.

At this size, I think you could just give the map to your players. If your setting is anything like medieval Italy, it wouldn't be hard to know the general direction of Verona or Genova. 

Rome fits in an hex, but does not FILL it.

You lose some interesting detail; the map doesn't show you Venezia (Venice) as an island, nor the Lago di Garda (the largest lake in Italy - with an area of 143 square miles, it would fill one or two 6-mile hexes).

According to google maps, you can cross the entire country (from Bova Marina to to Milano, for example) on foot in 302 hours (1310 km, 814 miles).

Apparently, "Google Maps uses average walking speed of 5km/h to calculate walking times" - which is 3.1 MPH.

This is NOT a straight line, and while there are many more roads in modern days, ancient Rome had several, as you can see in this interesting site:

https://orbis.stanford.edu/

OSE says "the number of miles a character can travel in a day is determined by dividing their base movement rate by five. For example, a character whose base movement rate is 120’ could travel up to 24 miles in a day."

Of course, if you travel 24 miles a day, you might as well use 24-mile hexes (although maintained roads will increase travel speed by 50%).

Anyway, that is 34 days to cross Italy on foot.

This will probably result in around a dozen encounters - most of them avoidable or uneventful.

Most expeditions will NOT require you to cross the entire country, of course.

What I'm thinking is that hex travel requires a huge map to be meaningful.

And MAYBE it requires RE-USING hexes. Getting lost, searching several hexes for a landmark, etc.

In my current campaign, the hex map only made sense when the PCs went exploring beyond the limits of the know regions, where there are no more cities or roads.

Herein lies an important distinction others have mentioned: do you want a map for EXPLORATION or TRAVEL? 

Maybe these should be distinct procedures.

Another thing to consider is "Medieval Europe x Old West USA", and which influenced D&D hexcrawling the most. 

I reckon Europe is too dense for most D&D settings. Mapping the USA would require more than 120,000 6-mile hexes, or around 5,000 30-mile hexes (Europe is of a similar size, but in the 1400s-1500s the population of Europe was more than 10-20 times bigger).

Maybe you should consider this BEFORE choosing hex size...

For now, I'll say that big hexes look better for travelling, and you can always sub-divide them as needed when PCs go exploring (or settling in) a particular area.

Additional reading:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/how-big-is-6-mile-hex.html
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2019/06/osr-sienas-6-mile-hex.html

Make your own D&D skill system!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- It is quite instinctive and easy to grasp.

- Every ability point and every level matters.

- Heroes get better at EVERYTHING, if only slightly.

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

- Adds no complexity to the character sheet.

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

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

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

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

Additional reading:

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

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

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

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

- Nature.

- Arcana.

- History.

- Medicine.

- Sleight of Hand.

- Perception? (mentioned here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martian Community Hexcrawl

As you might know, I've been a bit obsessed with Barsoom lately. 

While I haven't managed to write my own version of the setting so far, I've been invited to an interesting project, the Martian Community Hexcrawl. Here is part of the blurb:

This is a game jam for us to all to contribute hexes to an OSR-compatible hexcrawl  set on a science-fantasy, sword-and-planet style-”Mars”. After the game jam ends, a compilation of everyone’s work – with the caveat that I will edit it and may reject some submissions for not meeting the criteria – will go on sale. All accepted contributors will get 1 share of the 1st month’s sales profits for each 1 hex that they contribute. After that point, any further sales will go to me as the editor. Everyone retains the rights to do whatever they want – including republishing – with their own work, as well as rights to use the other contributor’s work IF AND ONLY IF they are doing so in the context of releasing their own version of the Martian Community Hexcrawl with at least 50% of the word count of their version being specific to their version. 

Anyone can participate, and there are already a few very cool hexes for you to check out.

It's been a while since I participated in community projects, but I really like the idea. I'll see if I can come up with something to add to this project... in any case, check it out and see if you can contribute too!

Three-dimensional growth and thieves

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

- They get more spells.

- They get better spells.

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

To do something similar, the fighters need:

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

- More attacks.

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

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

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

But what about thieves? I guess they should get:

- More skills.

- Better skills.

- Improve the skills they already have.

This is a bit harder to do. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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.