AD&D ability tests, streamlined

 As I've mentioned in my Hyperborea review (check it pout!), I really liked how the game tries to streamline AD&D ability checks: 

This is a simpler version of the (much more complex) original, which included percentile Strength (see OSRIC, for example):

TRENGTH	BONUS TO HIT	BONUS TO DAMAGE	ENCUMBRANCE ADJUSTMENT (IN LBS)	MINOR TESTS, E.G. FORCING DOORS (CHANCE ON D6)	MAJOR TESTS, E.G. BENDING BARS AND LIFTING PORTCULLIS (CHANCE ON D%)
3	-3	-1	-35	1	0
4-5	-2	-1	-25	1	0
6-7	-1	0	-15	1	0
8-9	0	0	0	1-2	1
10-11	0	0	0	1-2	2
12-13	0	0	+10	1-2	4
14-15	0	0	+20	1-2	7
16	0	+1	+35	1-3	10
17	+1	+1	+50	1-3	13
18	+1	+2	+75	1-3	16
18.01-18.50	+1	+3	+100	1-3	20
18.51-18.75	+2	+3	+125	1-4	25
18.76-18.90	+2	+4	+150	1-4	30
18.91-18.99	+2	+5	+200	1-4 (1 in 6 extraordinary success)	35
19	+3	+6	+300	1-5 (1 in 6 extraordinary success)	40

Although I like the simpler version I think it would be easier to go even simpler - while keeping vaguely similar chances.

Here is a simple formula:

- Ordinary ability checks: roll under ability.

- Extraordinary checks: roll under ability-10 if your ability is remarkable enough (13+, which is where you start getting modifiers), otherwise it is a % roll. 

Alternatively, just make a percentile roll with HALF you ability score if you want to keep things more similar to the original, or your whole ability if truly exceptional (17+).

[You could probably achieve interesting results with 2d20 for extraordinary checks: less than 1% for Strength 3, and about 38% for Strength 18. But this is YET ANOTHER system to try someday...). 

Other tables could be similarly replaced: 

- "Survive" checks (Constitution): roll under ability, you get a +4 bonus.

- Thieves' skills are extraordinary checks, but add level to your ability before rolling.

Of course, the exact numbers do not really matter. It depends on what you're trying to achieve.

This is just another example of ability checks I found interesting (I probably wrote more than a dozen in this blog already, this was probably the most recent, using 1d30).

Anyway, just another skill system for you to play with if you don't like sheets with lots of data or consulting tables during the game.

HYPERBOREA Player's Manual (review)

I'm a fan of sword & sorcery. I read an played several RPGs in the genre, but hadn't read Hyperborea 3e, mostly because it felt to extensive to me (the whole thing is over 600 pages, with the PHB being around 320 pages.

I finally bought the PHB and found that there is much to like about this game, and fact it is not as complex as the page count would seen to indicate.

BTW, I've been reading lots of S&S RPGs to acquire ideas for my own games (I hope to write a new one someday). There might be more reviews of S&S games to come...

So here's my review. I'll tackle it chapter by chapter. Since I'm familiar with the D&Disms and AD&Disms the game uses (I assume my reader is also familiar with those), I glanced over some parts, so let me know if I missed anything.

A brief note about art

This book contains amazing B&W art all over, including pieces by (my favorite!) Russ Nicholson and other OSR luminaires. It looks great!

A brief note about organization

The book's table of contents are pretty terse and not hyperlinked. The index, however, is very good.


Chapter 1: Introduction 

This chapter describes what is an RPG, how to roll a d3, and other things you probably don't need, but also contains a great breakdown of the S&S genre and why this is a S&S game.


Chapter 2: Character Generation

First, a short (and sweet!) primer on the setting, which I'll skip because most of the setting is in the DMG (but I must say it sounds AWESOME), then a summary of the PC creation process.

Chapter 3: Statistics 

Attribute and statistic generation (several methods are presented). System-wise, the books is "streamlined AD&D", which I love. See the Strength and Dexterity tables, for example:

This is clearer than AD&D, although I cannot help but to think that a "test of Strength" could simply be rolling under strength and you wouldn't to check the table/sheet.

Like AD&D, I find Hyperborea relies unnecessarily on tables, but the system is straightforward enough that you might as well choose to ignore half of them - which is good.

Other statistics are similarly streamlined: you have fighting ability, casting ability, a single saving throw (with some exceptions)... AWESOME stuff, since it is a lot simpler than matrices, THAC0, saving throw tables, etc.

Chapter 4: Classes 

This is where the book really shines. "Four principal classes (fighter, magician, cleric, thief) and 22 subclasses are available for play". Impressive.

Each class is described in 2-4 pages, so while there is a lot of overlap, the classes themselves are not complex.

Fighters are AD&D-ish - d10 HP, extra attack on level 7, weapon mastery, cleave, etc. Magicians get familiars and the usual spell slots. Clerics get a turn undead table, and thieves a d12 skills table. Needless to say, this could be simplified further, at the cost of becoming less AD&Dish. 

Each class and subclass has starting equipment, which is love.

The subclasses are an interesting set of options. The books contains different (but similar) classes for barbarians and berserkers, rangers and hunters, etc.

There is lots of redundancy here, but the book is very complete - you have all the usual suspects (paladins, assassins, druids, etc.) plus plenty of alternate archetypes.

Chapter 5: Background

This chapter describes hyperborean "races", deities and languages. Races include vikings, greeks, "half-blood picts", etc., each with a different weight, height, skin color, and culture, but not really different statistically. 

Obviously, "viking" is not a "race" in the real world, but this kind of language is very common in S&S books.

I have to say it is refreshing to see a fantasy game without elves and dwarves!

Deities are a mixture of Greek, Lovecraftian, pulpy and D&Dish - pretty good and very appropriate to the S&S genre.

Chapter 6: Equipment

This chapter contains an EXTENSIVE list of equipment with detailed description. There are some oddities - the falcata, short sword, and short scimitar are described as separate weapons despite being identical, and AFAICT the horseman’s pick is better than ANY of them (it is cheaper AND  better against plate, with no downsides).

I'm probably nitpicking because I'm obsessed with medieval weapons; this chapter is very complete, describing both equipment and some services (but not hirelings).

I love the way Hyperborea treats armor, giving medium and heavy armor some damage resistance, and adding two types of shields instead of one - overall, making armor more important. I'm extremely tempted to use this in my games!

Chapter 7: Sorcery 

I skimmed over this one. It is the longest chapter in the book by far (except classes/subclasses). But I can say it is very complete/detailed and seems genre appropriate. Here is an example of both things at once:

Chapter 8: Adventure

Adventuring rules: time, movement, light, hirelings, etc. Encumbrance is left to referee discretion, except for armor. There is a d6 task resolution that boils down to referee fiat, if you don't want to use attribute checks.

Chapter 9: Combat

This chapter includes not only combat but also encounter reaction. It contains several special combat situations and combat maneuvers. It is more detailed than your average D&D game without becoming cumbersome, which I appreciate. Unarmed combat has plenty of detail in jsut one page - and is a vast simplification over AD&D. There is a combat matrix, but it could be easily replaced by Target20 if you don't want to check it (AC is descending).

Appendix

The appendices describe names for each "race", armies and strongholds for each class and subclass when they reach level 9, and a small note explaining that RPGs are cooperative efforts.

Conclusion

I really enjoyed reading this book. 

It has great looks, great rules and is simpler than I imagined, even tough it could be reduced to 100 pages or less if you prefer something more minimalist. Still, it is simpler and clearer than AD&D RAW and has tons of additional options in the subclasses - while maintaining perfect compatibility to AD&D modules, monsters, etc.

The S&S vibe is on point, the author really seems to know the genre. I'm curious about the setting and might get the setting book someday.

If you like AD&D and S&S, this book is a must have! Buy it here.

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

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

Same subject, different take. 

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

The problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another possible uses of weapon weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special weapon maneuvers

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

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

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

Here are some maneuvers.

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

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

---

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

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

For example, you could have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weapon speed, size and force: simplifying AD&D

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

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

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

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

Take the two handed sword, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

* It is a great weapon against large opponents.

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

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

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

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

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

The columns are:

- Weights.

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

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

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

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

The colors help us visualize some patterns. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, the last column deserves further explanation. 

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

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

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

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

- Sticks/staves are terrible against heavy armor.

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

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

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

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

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

Where AD&D is better than 3d6 in order

Being a fan of basic D&D, I always thought that rolling 3d6 in order was the cleanest, fastest way to generate PCs. Also the most fair, so PCs start, on average, as a normal person.

In addition, the -3/+3 modifier spread is beautiful and intuitive, while in AD&D you need to consult lots of tables to fill your character sheet.

In comparison, the AD&D methods were not only more complex - involving more dice rolling, sometimes to ridiculous lengths - but also made starting PCs stronger than average humans (but they could still be knocked out and maybe dying from a 10-foot fall).

In addition, this added complexity, redundantly, often got you to the same modifiers you'd get in B/X. 

For example, in B/X you get abilities of 10.5 on average, while you needed 13 Strength to get a +1 bonus to damage. 

In AD&D the average is 13... But you still get +0 to damage! 

So what is the point?

Well, the point is that despite these things, AD&D got a few things better than B/X here.

- The default modifier is +0, like in B/X, despite higher abilities.
- However, the bell curve in 4d6 is "higher" - averages (13) are more likely and negative results are a lot rarer, which makes the game a bit faster since subtraction is uncommon (addition is quicker).
- Maybe PCs should be a bit stronger than the average human? And, specially, avoid PCs that are extremely weak in any area (e.g., PCs that can barely speak).

In short, this 4d6 methods was adopted in subsequent editions for good reasons - and there are plenty of B/X players using it too.

However, in B/X this makes PCs a bit too strong for my taste.

There are several methods to combine the advantages of both systems. In B/X, these are some of my favorites:

A) Roll 2d6+4 to each ability score. This avoids extreme results and gives you an average of 11.

B) 3d6 in order, but replace one result of your choosing by 15.

C) Some standard array to make things even faster (for 3d6, it could be 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8; add 1 point to each to get an average of 11.5). 

I'd let the players swap two attributes to play the PCs they want (or assign to taste in "C").

[One thing to note is that I use feats and ability scores improvement, so that eventually you can raise your ability scores. If I didn't, I'd probably use "B" - leaving the possibility of 3s and 18s and also allowing you to play basically any class you want].

Notice that this is quite close to the averages in the D&D B-series pregens - who have average ability scores around 11-12 or a bit higher, as explained here.

This range looks satisfying to me.

Of course, it is ultimately a matter of taste - do you want PCs to be ordinary, a bit better, or heroic form the start? 

But for my B/X(ish) games, this average of 11.5 - just a bit above a normal human - is what I like.

A wizard of Earthsea

A wizard of Earthsea is an old favorite of mine. I've read it in more than two decades ago. Seeing a new edition illustrated by Charles Vess and in hardcover, I thought it was a good idea to revisit it, especially in the context of the Appendix N (the book is not on Gygax's list, but in Moldvay's).

Well, the illustrations were a bit sparse and not particularly awesome, but the story is still worth reading again.

The book was written for "young adults", but it does not feel juvenile. It is a good "coming-of-age story" that portrays the upbringing of a wizard, from childhood to maturity - and what that entails. Still, a good book for young teenagers - easy, short, no sex and little violence, but carrying a deep message.

The main character is Sparrowhawk, a child who discovers magical powers and then starts an apprenticeship before going to "wizard school". While trying to prove his worth to his peers (and, maybe, trying to impress a girl - but that's subtle), he foolish unleashes a being that will haunt him for years. While re-reading the book, this was my favorite part, because it subtly shows the character's immaturity and insecurity against offenses that might be small or partly imaginary.

The Earthsea books are famous in D&D fandom for its magic system, which focus on learning the true names of things and maintaining balance. There are a few suggestions of spell mishaps that are very interesting - for example, the book mentions that many dolphins are wizards that forgot they had to shape-shift back to human form!

The archipelago setting looks decent for adventuring. There are dragons of varying size and power and a shadow monsters, both of which might have been used as inspiration in D&D. Other than that, the book does not have many monsters or magic items, but still feels like decent inspiration for D&D games - including an interesting mysterious castle...

While I am usually a fan of dark fantasy, this is "light fantasy" at its best. It is not pulp action in the vein of Burroughs and Howard, nor Lovecraftian horror (although it contains nameless things and being older than humanity) or the dark fairy tales of Dunsany. It is somewhat reminiscent of "The Hobbit" but for older readers, or Piranesi for younger ones - but not quite. The author deliberately tried to subvert some fantasy tropes, avoiding war almost entirely. It contains little parody or humor, and the horror is almost entirely metaphysical. It is reminiscent of fairy tales, in a way, but also more "serious".

It is, in some ways, a melancholic, sensitive book (and setting). 

There are no epic battles (except one brief encounter with dragons) and few great heroes. The people  of the archipelago are mostly peasants and fishermen, some having little knowledge of anything except their own island (in the saddest part of the book, this is a very small island, and almost no knowledge at all). Beyond the archipelago, there seems to be a vast expanse of sea and nothingness. The protagonist also spends a lot of time wounded, sleeping, or escaping, which reinforces this feeling. But it is not a sad book, necessarily - on the contrary, it has a hopeful bend, a light tone, and a mythic/archetypal truth to it that mimics the hero's journey without being clichéd. 

In any case, it is a classic and a short read. Definitely recommended to anyone with interest in fantasy and D&D.

[BTW, after finishing this one I immediately started re-reading The Tombs of Atuan, who centers around a labyrinthine dungeon and the cult of  the "Nameless Ones"... I don't remember the details of ths one, but should be fun!]

How big is an (6-mile) hex?

I've been thinking of hexes in abstract terms, but I think something more complete would be useful.

I default to the proverbial "6-mile hex" describe here.

Apparently, the area is about 31 square miles (correct me if I'm wrong).

This is bigger than Manhattan (23 square miles).

The Isle of Wight would cover about 2 hexes.

Siena - plus about 20 towns and monasteries - would cover one hex.

The City of London, within the walls, is HALF a square mile - so it covers about 1/60 of the hex.

Notice how thin the Thames would look in a six-mile hex map! It is about 0,16 miles wide near London.

Rivers such as the Danube, Rhine, and Mississippi have an average width of less than one mile.

In short, this means that crossing an hex will not necessarily allow you to see every relevant site. In the 

plains you are likely to see the entire hex in a clear day, so a village is not difficult to find - especially because there are roads etc. But the village is not hard to AVOID, either.

Anyway, there is no way you can picture every village in a six-mile hex (which I used to do - I marked the hex with a small house).

At this level of detail, it would be better to use 3-mile hexes, which are four times smaller than the original hex - and have their own advantages. 

A 3-mile hex is enough for a village with countryside, or maybe a very large city surrounded by 4-6 hexes of countryside and villages.

In a 1-mile hex, river thickness may start to vary in the map (and maybe even change from season to season). 

Traveling becomes less abstract - you do not cross "the mountains", but choose specific paths.

This is probably too much detail for me. Too much choice with little consequence. I'll stick to 6-mile hexes for now.

---

Additional reading:

http://steamtunnel.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-praise-of-6-mile-hex.html

http://steamtunnel.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-ergonomic-3-mile-hex.html

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2019/06/osr-sienas-6-mile-hex.html?m=1

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/07/osr-fast-mapping-part-3-barony-terrain.html

https://silverarmpress.com/down-with-the-6-mile-hex-a-modest-proposal/

https://ruprechtsrpg.blogspot.com/2020/01/6-mile-hexes.html

https://the-robgoblin.blogspot.com/2024/04/it-takes-village-to-stock-hex.html

Character death in RPGs, war-games, and storygames

I've tried to differentiate the three perspectives here.

There is one aspect or issue that I´d like to emphasize: the death of a player character.

The  RPG experience requires first person perspective.

But in this perspective, the death of a character is THE END.

No one sees himself as disposable or easily replaceable.

(This is even more of a problem in a TPK. If you send waves after waves of PCs to fight the Tomb of Horrors, you've playing a puzzle, not necessarily an RPG).

The wargame solution is replacing the PC for an NPC or hireling. Easy. The storygame solution could be simply saving the PC or letting death be a relevant plot point.

But, from the perspective of the PC, death means it is over.

So PC death might be a bigger problem in RPGs than even in storygaming (in wargaming, it is not even a problem). 

A story with many characters can easily continue after one death (think Game of Thrones, etc.)

Let's think videogames for a minute. 

In videogames with a single character, death usually requires a "do over". Go back to your most recent level (or saving point) and go from there, otherwise the game has to end.

In Warcraft, on the other hand, nothing happens if an "unit" is destroyed, as long as you have other pieces. This is the wargaming perspective (Darkest Dungeon is another great example - it really feel like an old-school RPG due to its proximity to wargames).

I felt more "character immersion" in Resident Evil than Darkest Dungeon or Warcraft (although FUN can be found anywhere). This is part of the reason I think a wargaming perspective is not ideal for RPGs.

Are there computer storygames? I am not sure. My first instinct is compare storygaming to cutscenes - certain things just happen because they are important to the plot, including the death of a player character. But storygames have mechanics that are difficult to translate to videogames - shared narratives, story tokens, etc.

There is a tension in there I cannot quite resolve right now: if there is no risk of PC death, immersion/simulation is ruined. But if you can simply replace a dead PC, his life has little value and therefore there is no real risk.

My instinct says the death of a PC should be possible but meaningful. This requires balancing RPGs with some wargaming and maybe storygaming perspectives.

But this certainly requires more reflection.

Fudging, lying and cheating

[D&D] is a game, and outcomes shouldn’t always be predictable! Removing the risk of failure also removes most of the fun. (From an upcoming random encounter book).

"Fudging" is a very contentious topic; most people reading this might have an strong opinion before reaching my conclusion. But before we discuss it, we need some definitions. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as to avoid a direct answer or "to cheat about something slightly, esp. by not reporting facts accurately or not telling the exact truth".

In the context of RPGs, most of the fudging discussion refers to the moment when the GM secretly changes the results of the dice (or other statistics of the game, such as monster HP) - usually in combat - in order to save players characters (PCs) - or even NPCs - from a fate that the GM deems inappropriate, anti-climatic, etc.

There could be other definitions (and I'll discuss some), but this is the most common.

The debate has two vocal sides: the ones that say fudging is cheating, as per the dictionary, and the ones who think fudging is necessary to avoid anti-climax or to save the PCs from fates they do not deserve. Curiously, the first camp is full of "old school" gamers like myself, despite the fact that the 1e DMG suggests saving "undeserving" PCs from death.

I believe both sides are too extreme and there is some nuance to be considered.

First, a small caveat - this is NOT a moral judgment

In the past, I've seem people get offended by discussing this topic. I'm not calling anyone a cheat for fudging - it is your table, not mine.

I think every GM has fudged in some circumstances, and I certainly did. 

But I also think this is usually a mistake, should be almost always be avoided, and it can ruin games. I'm not saying it is "evil", but I think it is fair to say it is "bad form".

This discussion is akin to asking "is sugar bad for your health?". It probably is, but I'm not calling you unhealthy or forbidding you to eat a cake when I say that. I eat too much sugar myself...

Please skip this post if you don't like the idea of criticizing fudging.

Is fudging cheating?

The dictionary seem to indicate so, although some seem to think it is "cheating with good intent", and therefore shouldn't be considered cheating. 

RPGs are a cooperative game; between a GM and a player, there are no winners and losers, which is why the "cheating" term feels inadequate. 

To that I often reply that GMs who defend fudging in never had to deal with a fudging player. I have, and it is exhausting. I also noticed a GM was fudging and it almost ruined that game for me (but there are exceptions - read on).

[I didn't expel the player or quit the campaign, FWIW; but I avoided these situations in future games]

Or put it in another way: fudging is NOT cheating if you are honest about it. "So, I rolled a natural 20 here, and that would probably kill your PC... but you know what, that goblin encounter shouldn't be that hard, my bad, let say the goblin missed".

On the other hand, if you're fudging and constantly lying about it, then it is probably cheating, even if "cheating with good intent". 

After, why would you lie is what you're doing is good and expected?

Maybe you can START the campaign by saying that "look, I want to provide a good time to everyone, so I will occasionally change the result of the dice to avoid that any PCs die by accident. I'll try to use it sparingly and you guys try to avoid abusing the system".

I'm not sure I'd play in such a game (I probably would!), but I'd like it one hundred times better than being duped into that.

PC death is a problem

The death of a PC is a problem. That is why HP were created - people get attached to their PCs. 

A TPK (total party kill, i.e., the death of ALL PCs at once) is a big hurdle in a campaign unless you already have other PCs/NPCs involved in the campaign to avoid starting from scratch.

Fudging is one solution, but not the only one. You can also:

- Create a new PC.

- Turn hirelings or NPCs into PCs.

- Use some form of resurrection.

- Make 0 HP mean unconsciousness/maiming as suggested in the 1e DMG.

- Have immortal PCs (examples: Toon RPG, Dark Souls).

I wrote an (unpublished) RPG (with some story-game influence) that actually required the player to DECLARE his PC is willing to die for this fight. If the answer is negative, the worst that can happen is capture, failure, unconsciousness, etc. If positive, you get some temporary bonus but risk death, let the dice fall where they may.

This solution is as good as any of the above, depending on the kind of game you're playing.

The best way to address this is make it explicit. Talk to your players in the beginning of the campaign. What do we do if a PC dies? Or in the event of a TPK?

Do PCs ever "deserve" death?

Many GMs fudge to save PCs from an "unfair" death. Maybe two or three enemies hit in the same round, all with near maximum damage, not giving the player option of running away.

What is more, maybe it was a surprise attack and not a battle the players chose. Maybe the PC lost initiative and didn't even get to act or parlay.

I find that most of these cases enhance the fun of the game by adding risk and unpredictability. But if you believe otherwise, the best policy is, again, discussing this with your players beforehand and even changing the rules in advance to match your play-style.

In addition, judging if a PC "deserves" death is an extra burden to the GM. The GM is not there to morally judge the PC's choices, but to present a coherent setting. In any case, a brave PC might be more "deserving" of an heroic death than an NPC who decided to be a farmer instead.

In short, let the PCs decide what risk they are willing to take. Sometimes, simply traversing the wilderness can be deadly. If you don't find that fun, let your players know that they will always have the option of running before the battle starts (which is NOT the case for most D&D systems; surprise and initiative can kill you before you can act).

What about "unfair" challenges?

Fudging is sometimes related to the idea that encounter difficulty should match the PCs level. I usually advise against that, because:

- It makes the setting feel “fake”, as if it was built around the PCs.

- It robs the players of the satisfaction of finally facing stronger creatures that were once too powerful for them.

- It misrepresents the (RAW) danger of wilderness travel.

The last point is especially relevant here. If you keep fudging the dice, the players will never learn how dangerous a group of orcs really is.

Fudge now, and you'll fudge forever

This brings us to another problem? if you misrepresent the danger of these orcs once, it is unfair to expect your players are more careful next time. Then, you`ll need to fudge again.

Also, if you save ONE PC from death, it is unfair to not save ANOTHER PC under different circumstances - no matter how you justify it, it might feel like you're playing favorites.

Honesty is the best policy

My PC was recently on the receiving end of a critical hit by a zombie that "should" be easily defeated. The DM was a bit apologetic, but for me it was the first time in the game that I felt my PC was in danger (he lost an eye). It made he game more interesting to me.

As a GM, I don't like the burden of having to lie about dice results. I always roll in the open and never use a DM screen in order to avoid temptation (as someone else commented, would you like your players bringing "player screens" to hide heir rolls?). 

[In fact, if you use a DM screen when you make attack rolls I will assume you are fudging. I might even agree that your players should know you're fudging, although I'd prefer if you said it out loud. Online play brings a number of related issues that we will have to face soon - will there be "fudging tools" for the GM in RPG apps such as roll20? I wouldn't know, but I find the idea interesting.]

I let the players choose the risk they are willing to take, and the dice decide if the risk materializes.

If I am "saving" the PCs whenever I want, I am to blame whenever I don't.

Fudging and story-gaming

I have said before that "fudging" in D&D is the result of a misconception, since the role of the GM is not to protect the plot or the pacing of the story". 

Fudging seems more common in people that want to play D&D as a story-game, using it as a tool to provide a "satisfactory narrative".

Again, if that is how you like to play, it doesn't matter what other people say, have fun.

I will just remind you that actual story-games usually do not encourage fudging either. You don't get to choose your rolls in Fiasco or with Rory's Story Cubes AFAICT.

In fact, these games often have no DM, or at least include multiple tools to allow the players to meaningfully participate in the creation of the setting without directly controlling their PCs.

Fudging in D&D seems to create a weird, asymmetric situation in which the DM is playing one kind of the game and the players are  doing something different; as if the DM could change the dice at will, but PCs will be seems as cheaters if they do the same thing.

Fudging players seems to be an ignored point in this topic. Can players "fudge" too or they always cheat? How come DMs get to "save" PCs and NPCs, while the player cannot simply decided that letting his barbarian die against a lowly goblin would not be appropriate to his "character arc"?

If changing the result of the dice is cool for GMs, it should occasional be permissible to players - unless they agreed beforehand only one person gets to change results.

Fudging and random tables

There is at least one example of "recommended fudging" in the 1e DMG: ignoring random encounters rolls to spare the PCs who are "undeserving" of more danger.

Curiously, many people do not see that as fudging. Even GMs that are vehemently against changing an attack roll to save a PC can feel comfortable by planning encounters beforehand and ignoring results that feel "too hard".

In any case, you can see the method and results are very similar: changing dice rolls to save PCs from danger.

I do not like this idea, for the reasons described above ("What about "unfair" challenges?"), but I don't think it is exactly the same situation.

There is an oracular quality to random tables - which could be an interesting discussion, but this post is too long already. For now, I'll just say I'd happily "fudge" the results of a random table when creating a dungeon, for example.

For random encounters, I'd prefer to have better tables then to fudge results. I'm working on that...

"Acceptable fudging" - or "not-fudging"

There are cases in which the GM is expected to be able to change the dice or mechanics as he sees fit.

I use quotation marks because, as my friend Jens pointed out, this might deserve a different name altogether.

I often change stats from monsters in published modules. I think it is important to say I change the monsters when I do that - these are not super-strong goblins, but morlocks, etc.. 

I ignore encounters I don't like and even erase entire sessions of dungeons.

I am not sure I'd call this "fudging", but I don't mind if you do - in any case, this is not what people usually refer to when they say fudging (instead, it is a part of "prep"), so I see no reason to make things more confusing. 

There are other examples, as pointed in Jens post. Changing the rules, even during the game, can be more or less expected when play-testing, or getting to know a system. As he suggests, "don't call it fudging".

But I'd be careful with that too. I often think of my Shadow of the Demon Lord campaign, in which the PCs almost suffered a TPK in the FIRST adventure by fighting A SINGLE GHOUL. It was certainly "unfair" - nobody had played this game before and they were coming from an "heroic D&D" background.

But it DID set the tone for the rest of the campaign. They immediately realized SotDL is a hard, gritty game. If I had changed the dice (or HP etc.) at that moment, I would ruin the player's understating of the system - unless I explained what I had done.

I still think the first adventure in Tales of the Demon Lord is too hard, and I'd change it if I were to run it again - but I'd avoid misdirecting the players or they'd never really get to experience the system.

In conclusion...

I find fudging a dangerous tool.

Letting the dice fall where they may takes a heavy burden of my back when I GM.

Ignoring this tool has a cost, but it creates new and interesting opportunities.

In any case, you should always talk to your players about which kind of campaign you're planning to run. Don't assume they expect this or that.

This feels like an endless topic, and don't feel like I considered every angle. I only hope this post has helped to make my opinion on the subject clearer.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/06/escape-truman-show-escape-matrix-god-dm.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/03/what-if-you-dont-fudge-your-rolls.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ix-pages-100.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/12/wotc-is-recommends-fudging-peril-in.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2024/03/protect-your-gamemasters-and-dont-call.html

Minimalist roll-to-cast, take 2

My previous attempt was not minimalist enough, as pointed in the comments. So let's try this again.

The MU gets one spell per level.

Maximum spell level is equal to half your level.

To cast, make a spell saving throw - adding your Int modifier, but subtracting spell level.

Failure means one of the following (PC's choice):

- You lose 1 HP per spell level, AND the spell fails.

- You cannot cast the same spell until tomorrow.

A natural 1 means BOTH happen, or one plus spells mishap (spell goes wild, Earthsea style).

A natural 20 means the spell was particularly powerful.

Yes, I like this version even better!

Clerics get half as many spells (starting on level 2). Is this too much of a nerf? Consider they have more HP to cast spells, more levels (per XP), and a potentially lots of healing powers with this one. Probably deserves further reflection.

Update on the wilderness encounter book

I spent most of last weekend working on my wilderness encounter book for B/X.

The first part is a simplification of the random encounter procedure. I like how that turned out; I'll publish most of it in this post blog soon.

The third part describes 366 days in the wilderness. Basically, weather, encounters and a few details for variety.

These parts are mostly finished by now.

The second part is the hardest. It describes, very succinctly, ONE THOUSAND random encounters, with most necessary rolls (number appearing, surprise, reaction). This is how it looks right now:

This was a bit harder than I thought. Rolling dice thousands of times was easy with the help of apps and AI. Same for adding names to NPCs. 

The hardest part right now is "confused wolves". 

I had a hard time thinking of hundreds of variations for what's the monsters are doing. 

I could certainly take some inspiration from this amazing blog d4 caltrops, but I still feel it will get somewhat repetitive anyway. Most aggressive animals and beasts are just hungry or territorial - I can think of a few alternatives, but not hundreds of them.

At least intelligent NPCs, dragons, etc. are looking pretty good IMO.

B/X descriptions are very terse, so I have to add a few details from other sources.

Anyway, it's lots of work, but maybe it is worth it if other people find the book useful. 

Well, at least I've been using it in my own sandbox campaign.

And I've been learning a lot about B/X monsters and encounter tables (mountains are VERY dangerous, and troglodytes are SCARY - 5d8 appearing, 2HD, camouflaged, attack everyone).

So for now what I ask you to do, is let me know if that looks interesting/useful, or if you'd change anything.

If this looks interesting and you and want to provide even more feedback, consider joining my discord channel to discuss it.

The book will take a couple of moths or more to complete, but at this point I am pretty confident that it WILL be completed.

BTW: let me know if you have any reservations about the use of apps and AI for dice rolls, random names, etc.

GMs day sale (2024) - OSR, classic D&D and others

GMs day 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 even better than last 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").

There are some big discounts if you use VTT, which I don't. Dragonbane looks good so... maybe?

New stuff I'm getting this year: 

- I've been curious about AS&SH for a while, and might finally check it out.

- I've been running some classic modules and I might get Night Below and others (recommend some in the comments!).

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is also 40% off - or $45.00 off. Soudns 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.

* Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe Edition (review of the original version);

* 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; 

* The Nameless Grimoire.

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Adventurer Conqueror King System.

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

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) - the current price is RIDICULOUSLY LOW for such a a great book.

* Dark Sun boxed set.

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 probably the hottest "new" (released in April/2021) OSR title on sale with 40% off. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles form 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!