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.