Reading Elric

Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné is immensely influential. It not only inspired Dungeons & Dragons—especially its intelligent and cursed swords—but also left its mark on numerous books (The Witcher, the Targaryens in Game of Thrones), comic books (Berserk, and probably many of the "multiverses" form Marvel etc.), and even music (Hawkwind, Blue Öyster Cult, both of which collaborated with Moorcock himself).

In short, Elric is one of the pillars of dark fantasy.

But people often ask how to start reading it. The series can be confusing, since there are so many books and the publication order doesn’t follow the internal chronology at all. The books have been republished rewritten, collected under different names, and so on.

Another complicating factor is Stormbringer—the book that (sort of) concludes the saga. It’s one of the greatest entries in the series (probably my favorite), one of the two Elric works mentioned in the Appendix N, and ironically, one of the earliest to be published.

I’m a big fan of Elric, and part of me wants to just say: Read the whole thing in internal chronological order! But I think it’s easier more helpful to offer a few different starting points.

So, how do we begin with Elric?

Start with Elric of Melniboné (1972).

It’s not the strongest novel in the collection, but it’s a solid introduction to the character, his world, and the themes that define the saga

If you like it, you can go on and read The Fortress of the Pearl, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, and The Weird of the White Wolf, before going to Stormbringer. 

All of them are great.

But I'd say is even easier to just pick any collection of your choice, as long as it contains the first and the last.

For example (from Wikipedia):

In 1977, DAW Books republished Elric's saga in six books that collected the tales according to their internal chronology:

Elric of Melniboné (Hutchinson, 1972, cut vt [variant title] The Dreaming City Lancer, 1972 US; DAW, 1977) ISBN 0-425-08843-X

The Sailor on the Seas of Fate (Quartet, 1976; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-74863-5

The Weird of the White Wolf (collection, DAW, 1977, contains "The Dream of Earl Aubec", "The Dreaming City", "While the Gods Laugh" and "The Singing Citadel"), ISBN 0-441-88805-4

The Sleeping Sorceress (NEL, 1971; Lancer, 1972 as The Vanishing Tower; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-86039-7

The Bane of the Black Sword (DAW, 1977, fixup of "The Stealer of Souls", "Kings in Darkness", "The Flame Bringers" and "To Rescue Tanelorn"), ISBN 0-441-04885-4

Stormbringer (cut, Herbert Jenkins, 1965; restored and revised, DAW, 1977, Berkeley, 1984, fixup of "Dead God's Homecoming", "Black Sword's Brothers", "Sad Giant's Shield" and "Doomed Lord's Passing"), ISBN 0-425-06559-6

Now, if you dislike it... we have a few options.

You could go from Elric to directly Stormbringer to see what all the fuzz is about. If you like the story but dislike the prose, there is another great alternative: reading the comics.

Elric's comics and graphic novels

Elric has been adapted several times into comic book format. My favorites are the ones adapted by  Roy Thomas and illustrated by P. Craig Russell and others—and once again, Stormbringer (by P. Craig Russell) stands out as the best of the bunch, but I'd recommend reading the The Michael Moorcock Library first (Elric volumes 1-5: - Elric of Melniboné, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Dreaming City, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower).

There is also a French version by Julien Blondel in the works, with a few volumes already published. The art (Didier Poli et al) is both dark and really stunning. But the story is much less faithful to the originals, which I'd favor on a first read.

There are other comics that are also worth checking out (The Making of a Sorcerer, Druillet's version, Moorcock's Multiverse, etc.), but I'd start with the "main books" mentioned above.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/odysseus-elric-epic-musical-and-tragedy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-appendix-n-project.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/my-weird-dark-twisted-fantasy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-broken-sword-one-of-best.html

Reconsidering random encounters (again)

I'm reconsidering D&D random encounters... again.

OSE (B/X) says this about the chances of random encounters:

Clear, grasslands: 1-in-6.

Barren lands, hills, mountains, woods: 2-in-6.

Desert, jungle, swamp: 3-in-6.

The idea that mountains and deserts should have lots of encounters feels both unrealistic and unnecessary. 

Forests probably deserve more frequent encounters, but honestly, we could just equalize encounter rates across all terrains without much loss. You’d still end up with more fights in mountains and forests anyway, simply because travel is slower there. 

Again, from OSE:

Some types of terrain modify the speed at which characters can travel:

Broken lands, desert, forest, hills: 33% slower.

Jungle, mountains, swamp: 50% slower.

Maintained roads: 50% faster.

Plains might have fewer beasts, sure—but they tend to have more humans, so the total number of encounters could stay about the same.

Here is one alternative: 2-in-6 chances for every terrain. If you are in terrain that could fall under two categories (forested mountains, a river in a swamp, a settlement in the desert), a 1 means you roll on the first table, a 2 means you roll on the second table.

What else?

Do we really need different tables for each terrain? It makes some sense, but when I started reading the AD&D tables, I noticed something odd. In alphabetical order, there are no giant ants, badgers, beetles, or beavers listed for mountain terrain. That’s not very precise either. In B/X, there are no undead in forests and no insects in mountains. Is there a reason? This probably deserves some revision.

Rivers are trickier. If you’re in a boat, you’re likely to miss or ignore most fish, and even common alligators or snakes. Most rolls end up feeling wasted. So maybe rivers need their own table too—unless you’re swimming, which isn’t all that common in my experience.

Then there are city encounters, which clearly deserve their own separate treatment - the reasoning is completely different (distance, surprise, reaction, numbers found, etc.). Same goes for the sea. 

In the end, we’re left with intricate encounter tables that don’t always mean much.

Well, anyway, I've been looking for the perfect random encounters and I haven't been able to find them. I fixed some things I disliked in Basic Wilderness Encounters, if you want to check it out. I've also made a small app to quickly check for encounters and weather. But I guess I'll keep looking for ways to improve these procedures.

Manic at the Monastery (OSE adventure review)

Disclosure: The author has contacted me to offer a review copy.

From the blurb:

Manic at the Monastery is an old-school adventure for character levels 1-3 that has players exploring the secrets of an ancient monastery wracked with a psychedelic affliction. Rumors are spreading that the enigmatic Veiled Emperor has returned to Glynmoor, and there have been strange happenings near the monastery. Brave the horrors within and uncover the source of the madness before it spreads.

Manic at the Monastery comes with an Old-School Essentials version and a Worlds Without Number version. I've only read the OSE version. I'd suggest level 3 is more appropriate, which becomes obvious with a quick look at the bestiary—there are also several deadly traps that will certainly kill most level 1 (and probably level 2) parties before they explore most of the module.

This adventure has all the traits that are expected in an OSE adventure: random encounters, random events, rooms described in bullet points, good opportunities of exploration, combat and role-playing, a clean layout and terse language. 

The art is a bit sparse, most of it is simple, B&W and not particularly impressive. The maps are straightforward enough and some sections are duplicated for ease of reference.

So, what makes this adventure stand out? First, it is very grounded and setting-agnostic, which I enjoy. There are no orcs or dwarves here, only humans. The monastery is easily adaptable to any setting or even to a real-world-inspired scenario.

It has good thematic coherence, with one single threat being the source of most problems. It doesn't have the successive rooms of skeletons, giant bats and goblins that I usually find tiresome.

I'd call it mostly grounded, with some weird and just a bit of vanilla.

The adventure is a bit gritty; there is real risk here, even for 3rd-level characters. It contains a "ticking clock" of sorts; spending too long in the dungeon is dangerous. I find this very useful. 

It can serve as a good introduction for a campaign as it has some indications of an incoming doom of sorts, although this is not described in detail here (the author is planning on sequels).

I might have used this module in my campaign, come to think of it. Maybe one day I will; right now, the PCs are level 7-8 and it would be too easy.

It reminded me of The God That Crawls at first, mostly because of the religious setting (and because it would apparently kill the level 1-2 PCs that are supposed to enter it), but I think there is one useful comparison to be made with that famous module. While TGTC is full of weirdness and stuff that can affect your entire campaign, MATM is smaller, safer, terser, easier to run and to insert in your setting without much hassle.

If that's is what you're looking for, I'd recommend checking Manic at the Monastery out.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Chainmail magic: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and more oddities

Chainmail* has several interesting ideas that have been "lost" in the transition to D&D. Studying them is fun and can provide many ideas for your D&Dish games. Today, we tackle magic, in three parts: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and other curiosities.

[*affiliate link]

Spell Complexity

Spell Complexity is an optional rule where "each listed spell has a complexity value, and this value indicates how difficult it is to use such spell. [...] In addition, there may be a delay in the effect of the spell, or it may be totally negated due to some minor error or distraction. The table below gives the scores necessary for immediate, deferred (1 turn), and negated spell effects by the various levels of magic-users.".

In other words:

- Roll 2d6. Subtract spell level. Add half your level, round up (this is an approximation, CM units have names instead of levels).

- 8 or more means the spell is cast immediately. 6-7 means it is delayed for one turn. 5 means the spell fails. 

While I have written my own roll-to-cast rule for B/X, I must admit I'm enthralled by this one, simply because of the spell delay aspect. It adds another layer of excitement/tension and choice/tactics to everyone on the battlefield.

Now spell interruption is not only about initiative, but about a series of choices on both sides of the battle.

BTW, the book won't tell you what happens if you roll lower than 5; I first assumed the spell is lost for the day, but it could also be a spell mishap, etc. Look at the post I mentioned for more ideas. But, as mentioned in the comments, the table probably indicates that 5 or less means the spell fails. The notation is horrible but supposedly it is common in wargaming at the time.

Counter spell

"The stronger magician can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength. A counter-spell fully occupies a magician's powers." 

In other words... you could employ a similar dice roll as the one describe above, adding your level and subtracting your opponent's level (half-level would be more precise, but I'd favor simplicity here).

CM does not delve into further detail; I assume the spell that is successfully countered is negated. I'm unsure if only delayed spells can be countered, but it would be fun if your delay allowed another magician to not only counter your spell but also cast a spell against you, etc.

Again, this adds another layer of tension and tactics to the game.

Other curiosities

"Wizards can handle magical weaponry. [...] Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack, they con see in darkness, they affect friendly and enemy morale as do Super Heroes [...]. Wizards are themselves impervious to normal missile fire but if they are struck by a missile from an enemy Wizard they must score 7 or better with two to survive."

They seems very powerful!

Wizards are also artillery. They can throw fireballs and lightning bolts (with effects similar to guns and catapults), which are not spells, so presumably they don't "roll to cast" and never run out. I like this approach and I added an "arcane artillery" feat to my Old School Feats.

A wizard - the highest level a magic-user can get - has only 6-7 spells. If we count fireballs, lighting bolts, and in visibility, we are not very far from one spell per level, which I like.

Also notice the lack of "Vancian" casting. No memorization. You just have a few spells that you can cast over and over until you fail.

Overall, I really like Chainmail magic. It is somewhat simpler and at the same time has more tactical depth than B/X, without getting to AD&D levels of complexity.

It doesn't require memorization, material components or specific casting times; the spells can be cast more often, but also can be delayed and countered. This seems to me as a superior alternative as it is more exciting than a list of requirements.

A B/X conversion?

How about 10+ means immediate casting, 5+ means delayed casting, and less than that you fail or lose the spell? This makes MUs lose some of their speed but not their power. Seems good for starting MUs, but as always they become too powerful at higher levels. As always, some fine-tuning is needed.

Black Amazon of Mars by Leigh Brackett (short review)

Grimly Eric John Stark slogged toward that ancient Martian city-with every step he cursed the talisman of Ban Cruach that flamed in his blood-stained belt. Behind him screamed the hordes of Ciaran, hungering for that magic jewel-ahead lay the dread abode of the Ice Creatures-at his side stalked the whispering spectre of Ban Cruach, urging him on to a battle Stark knew he must lose!

- (From the blurb on Amazon)

This was another read in my Appendix N quest. It is a short story and will get a short review.

The book is strongly reminiscent of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ A Princess of Mars, and also Robert E. Howard’s Conan. The Mars setting feels more like Hyboria than Barsoom—not just because of the Celtic/Gaelic-sounding names, but also because there’s little that feels distinctly alien (not many spaceships or ray guns here). Even the most sinister creatures resemble ghosts more than extraterrestrials.

The story isn’t nearly as imaginative as Burroughs’ Barsoom, nor as gritty as Conan, or as weird as The Shadow People. In that sense, the book was a bit of a disappointment.

However, it’s still a fun read. Brackett’s prose is leaner and faster than Burroughs or Howard, maintaining a pace of nonstop action that never lets you get bored. The alien villains have compelling motives and backstories, and while the setting is somewhat sparse, it still has its cool moments (and can provide some inspiration for your D&D games, especially if you like Dark Sun). The main character is a bit underdeveloped, but the supporting cast shows more personality than most pulp coadjutants.

To me, Burroughs + Howard + Lovecraft/Merrit monsters sounds like a winning formula, and Brackett’s action-driven style could have made this a standout. But in the end, it felt a bit derivative and predictable. Then again, it’s a short book—which explains both its strengths (tight pacing) and its weaknesses (underdeveloped elements).

Overall, it’s worth the read—especially if you enjoy pulp, sword and planet, Burroughs or Howard. Maybe I'll look further into her work in the future.

B/X random encounter/travel generator

So I've made a small dice roller / random encounter/ travel generator for B/X, OSE and other "Basic" games.

Here you go.

This is a tool I wanted to have for my own games; I realized it takes too long to roll during the game. Now I can do most of the work with a click (or a few clicks; see below).

I've tried several solutions, including rolling 1000 (!) encounters for my games, many of which I used with great success - they are in the Basic Wilderness Encounters book.

But I also wanted an automated tool for weather (I often forget to roll/describe it) and encounter checks. The weather checks are just descriptive unless they roll terrible weather. I created them inspired by the reaction table.

This isn't as complete as Basic Wilderness Encounters (which also includes NPC names, number and type of monsters appearing, etc.). It is more agnostic, however; you can combine it with your favorite random encounter table, table of random names, etc.

Here are some fine tools for OSE. I've seen some other tools out there in the format of apps and spreadsheets, but I prefer having one link, that I can "roll" with one click.

And it is very transparent, you can ignore any roll you want, add Charisma to the reaction check, let PCs roll for surprise, etc.

I might fix some stuff if I had similar tools formatted for perchance. I especially wish I had a generator that also gave me the number appearing immediately; the rest is often not as important, because the PCs can sometimes choose to ignore the encounter, for example.

I hope this tool helps you experiment running B/X or OSE encounters as originally written, taking distance, surprise, reaction, etc., into account.

This has LOTS of room for improvement, but it takes work. Anyone can edit it (give me credit if you find it appropriate), and I hope there are other generators out there which we can use, add, remix, etc. 

Please let me know! I'd love to have a good perchance generator for B/X or AD&D encounters that I can incorporate to this one!

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-painful-procedure-of-random.html

Old school dice pools

So, I just had a fast combat/mass combat idea for D&D, probably from  Chainmail or Delta's blog:

Roll 1d6/level for fighters, half as much for clerics, 1/3 for MUs.

1 misses, 2-5 hit/miss depending on AC, 6 always hits. 

Monsters only need one hit per HD and we don't even need d20s. 

The idea is making combat against dozens of opponents a bit quicker.

But come to think of it, it could be pushed into an entire system. Let's see.

Duels

Two 9-HD fighters facing off would each roll 9d6 and cause an average of 3 hits per round (assuming they hit on a 5-6), so combat would be a bit quicker than, say, B/X.

Ranged combat

Both in real life and D&D, ranged combat is not usually as efficient as mêlée combat. Maybe adding 1 or 2 to AC is enough. To avoid treating an archer like a machine gun, you can rule "missed" shots are time spent in aiming, drawing, etc., and only "hits" or 1s waste arrows.

Against a single target, maybe all damage comes from a carefully aimed single arrow; so a very powerful fighter with a magic arrow could kill a dragon immediately, but this is very rare.

Weapons

Certainly there is some nuance lost here. Let's assume everyone is using a single-handed weapon. 2H weapons might add a dice, while maces may remove a point of AC, etc.

Turn Undead

Cleric rolls 2d6/level. 

Rolling 2-5 turns one HD of undead, 6 damages them. You can alter these numbers to make the cleric more or less powerful, or maybe make turn undead a spell (see below).

Spells

Casters have 2d6/level "magic dice" per day. 

When casting a fireball, it works identically as a fighter's attack, but any 6s you roll are removed from your pool until the next rest. 

(I think I got this idea from Necropraxis).

This fixes a number of fireball problems I usually have.

Same works for curing wounds.

But what about spells that deal no damage? Maybe we could still keep the "roll to cast" and "magic dice" aspects. a 4-6 counts as a success; a 1st level spell requires only one success to function, etc.

You can use several dice to cast a 1st level spell, so you can be sure it succeeds in the first try, but that way you'll also roll more 6s and spend more dice.

Skills

Let's use "hear noise" as an example. Non-thieves have 1-in-6 chances, thieves start with 2-in-6.

So let's say a normal PC rolls 1d6, but a thief adds 1d6/level. Rolling a single 6 means success, so the thief start with 30.5% chance. By level 10, he rolls 11d6, with a 85% chance of success. He won't get to 99% until level 19-20 or so, which is nice, so there is always some chance of failure.

Maybe multiple 6s mean extraordinary success, and rolling all 1s means disaster (e.g., falling from a climb or getting caught in a trap).

Backstabbing is easy; a thief simply attacks as a fighter while backstabbing, and maybe lowers the AC by one if you want them to be really deadly.

Saves

Saves can work similarly to skills. Everyone gets 1d6 plus 1d6/level. 

Notice that the progression from 30% to 85% between level 1 and 10 is quite fitting. You can give fighters, dwarves, paladins etc. an extra die or two.

You do not usually "save" against damage; treat this like an attack against AC (see below).

HP

There is no more HP, only "hits". To make things a bit softer, I'd give each PC one hit PLUS level for fighters, level/2 for clerics etc.

Maybe you could do the same for monsters so that a 1 HD monster has 2 hits and so on. 

AC

AC now is 2 (unarmored) to 6 (plate+shield). 

If you want magic armor etc. you could go even higher, but then you'd need special rules. For example, each time you roll a 6 you can roll again and add 5 to get a result from 6 to 11.

In conclusion...

Well, if you like dice pools, you can see that you might was well play old school D&D with them and a little conversion. But you'd lose some nuance in ability scores, weapons, etc. Maybe just sticking to the d20 is easier.

Still, we have some nifty systems for mass combat, and maybe skills, spells and saves, to experiment with.

Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion (short review)

I've read the first book a few years ago. This month, I gave it a re-read and delved into the second book. The Hyperion Cantos is comprised of four books; I haven’t read the final two and I'm not sure if I will.

But the first two were cool enough to mention—so here we are.

Hyperion is just great sci-fi. The story is about a group of interstellar pilgrims journeying to the planet Hyperion’s Time Tombs—a mysterious place that seems to move backward through time and is haunted by the metallic horror of the Shrike: an uber-powerful, four-armed monster that feels nearly unbeatable. Fortunately, it seems currently trapped on the planet, dedicating its existence to killing and torturing humans—many of whom are impaled on a metallic tree to suffer forever.

Each pilgrim tells their story and motives as they go, and each tale is captivating in its own way (the two stories about ageing are my favorites). They're written in different sci-fi styles—cyberpunk, military, science-fantasy, horror, and so on. Some stories are better than others, but they all made enjoyable reads, IMO. Even better, they connect in satisfying ways, and sometimes one story gives a previous one an unexpected twist. With this tapestry of tales, Dan Simmons paints a rich setting, full of wonder and pain.

The book deals with various themes, especially religion and technology, but also artificial intelligence, time travel, transhumanism, sentience, ecology, war, the purpose of art and suffering, free will and predestination, sacrifice, and so on. And it does so with amazing depth. The discussions about A.I seem relevant today, and the other themes are timeless.

The first book, therefore, is highly recommended—with the small caveat that it doesn’t have a proper ending, which only comes in Fall of Hyperion (kind of).

Fall of Hyperion is also a fine book—and for me, it was definitely a page-twister, as I was eager to find out how the story ends. It often takes dark turns, resembling a horror movie like Alien or dealing with truly grim themes like genocide and torture. Unfortunately, it's a bit too long, a bit repetitive, and I felt that the horror lost some of its impact due to the wait and the fact that many characters seem able to survive apparent death one way or another (a trend that, I believe, continues in the last two books).

Overall, I found the first one much better, but the second one does live up to most of the promise.

This series feels influential—I feel the second one could have inspired The Matrix, for example—but isn’t quite that famous. I found the first one a better read than Dune (which I haven’t finished), which has several adaptions. Apparently, there’s a book or TV series adaptation of Hyperion in the works, which I’d certainly watch.

For the D&D fans, Hyperion offers cool ideas for monsters, religions, and dungeons. I wonder if Planescape’s “Lady of Pain” was inspired by the “Lord of Pain” moniker given to the Shrike. The Cadaver Collector is also reminiscent. When I first read the book, I was struck by the depiction of a Church of Pain—full of tight corners designed to cut and hurt visitors. And the idea of dungeons that travel through time is just too good to pass up!

In certainly thinking of taking some inspiration for my next RPG setting. But that's probably a subject for another post.

Odysseus, Elric, Epic (the musical!) and tragedy

I had never noticed the similarities between Elric of Melniboné and Odysseus, so I thought it would be a fun idea to share.

This impression came when I was watching Epic: The Musical (E:TM), a reimagining of Homer’s Odyssey that became popular on TikTok (!) and seems to be even more similar to Elric than the original Odyssey.

As far as I can tell, Moorcock hasn’t made any widely known or direct comments specifically about Odysseus, nor did I find anyone else pointing to the similarities. Likewise, Jorge Rivera-Herrans (The author of Epic) apparently has not publicly mentioned Elric of Melniboné or Michael Moorcock.

It is likely that some of the similarities I see are common to many different myths/stories, but I find them meaningful enough to mention. Of course, other works such as The Broken Sword might be even more influential on Moorcock.

Both Elric and Odysseus are reluctant heroes (and kings of their respective islands) that leave their thrones (for different reasons) and go on adventure, bound by fate, defying the gods but also summoning them for help.

Odysseus is a warrior of Athena and Elric a protégée of Arioch (at first), but both relationships become complicated during the stories. Both heroes seem to be  pawn of the gods at times, and divine beings shape their fate as much as their own choices do.

Both spend a long time dreaming of coming back to their loved ones. Both carry the guilty for the loss of their men in the sea and in battle. 

While these themes are widespread in mythology, certain Elric scenes specifically evoke the Odyssey for me.

For example, Odysseus wounds Polyphemus, which angers Poseidon. Elric faces the Sad Giant and decides to spare him... but his companion decides to slay him, to avoid upsetting the lawful gods / thwarting their prophecies. In E:TM, the fact that Odysseus spares Polyphemus angers Athena.

Both Odysseus and Elric sleep with sorceresses and other women despite their great love for  their beloved (Penelope and Cymoril; in defense of Elric this happens after the demise of Cymoril).

Is it a stretch to say both travel to the Underworld, be it in Hades or the Realm of Chaos where Elric finds Stormbringer? Maybe.

Both Odysseus and Elric cause a bloodbath on their respective kingdoms when they do manage to come back.

After the Raid on Imrryr (from The Dreaming City), the Dragon Masters of Melniboné awaken the ancient dragons that will obliterate Elric's entire fleet. Knowing he cannot save everyone, Elric summons wind elementals to carry his own ship away from the carnage. Afterwards, he swims away alone.

Odysseus's fleet gets destroyed by Poseidon  - especially the Laestrygonians giants, with the last ship being destroyed by a storm and leaving Odysseus alone on as island. In E:TM, Odysseus uses a bag of wind given by the wind god Aeolus to save his ship.

[Elric also has to deal with beings such as Straasha, Lord of the Sea, reminiscent of Poseidon, and Grome, Lord of Earth].

Finally in Elric of Melniboné, the first novel in the saga, during Elric’s assault on the Mirror of Memory (a magical trap that steals the minds of those who look into it), Elric recruits blind warriors to fight by his side, but nearly goes mad himself.

Odysseus has a similar predicament when passing near sirens: he orders his crew to plug their ears with beeswax so they won’t hear the song, but he almost succumbs to their enticing songs, as he chooses to be tied to the ship's mast instead of covering his ears.

[BTW, Elric also gets tied to a ship's mast in different circumstances, suffering hallucinations due to his albinism].

In short...

The Odyssey is so important to western culture that its influence is everywhere, and some of it might as well be unintended, subtle nods or subversions (as Elric is often more tragic dark fantasy than epic).

Elric seems to owe a lot to Greek tragedy - or, in this case, one of the most popular Greek epics ever. As we've said, some themes are nearly universal, being present since the Epic of Gilgamesh and other works. But some similarities are remarkable enough that I felt like sharing them here.

What do you say? Could Odysseus be a direct inspiration to Elric's stories?

AD&D 2e reaction table

The AD&D 2e reaction table is... interesting:

Compare it to the BECMI reaction table, discussed here.

The tables are different for several reasons, but the main distinction is that the AD&D 2e table requires you to check the player characters' attitude before finding out how the monster behaves, while every other D&D table I can remember goes the opposite way: first consider the die roll, then check how the monsters behave.

Of course, in practice you can always ask how the PC's react first (or ignore the rection roll altogether, etc.). But I think it would be better to rely on initiative here - if the PC's have the initiative, they can choose to show they're friendly before the monsters decide how to react, which would certainly give them some advantage in the reaction roll.

If they LOSE initiative, the monsters "react" first - but if they are uncertain, this gives the PC's another chance to make a peaceful gesture, etc.

Another interesting aspect of the 2e table is that it can result in flight. This makes some sense as the table is affected by morale modifiers. A curious idea! Should scared monsters be friendlier? It makes some sense if they are intelligent, otherwise they should just run away if they can (which is the case if PCs are hostile).

Unfortunately, the actual morale score is irrelevant here; a monster with morale 18 and other with morale 10 are both as likely to flight or be hostile. 

Curiously, since chaotic creatures have -1 to morale checks for some reason (they are probably more cowardly and less organized), they are also more likely to be friendly, which is a mistake IMO.

Overall, the 2e table is not any clearer or better than other tables, but it has several advantages we can use - and a few disadvantages I'd like to change.

It feels too friendly to "indifferent" PCs, do not contain immediate attacks, and is organized in a 4x19 grid instead of the usual 5 entries. It also seems to lack a "cautious" column that should be the default for PCs, with equal chances of friendliness and hostility.

Maybe my ideal 2d10 table would be smaller, containing a single column instead of a grid. Give the PCs a -1 if they manage to show they're friendly before you roll (e.g., if they win initiative); let he "speaker" or "leader" make any kind of Charisma "check" you feel appropriate to change this to -2 [simply including the charisma modifier feels too extreme, IMO; it would make everyone your friend]. 

If they are hostile or attack, roll with +1 to +2 (it is unlikely you need to roll after the PCs attack).

2–3. Friendly

4–6. Positive

7–10. Curious

11–13. Indifferent

14–16. Suspicious

17–18. Negative

19–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check)

As you can see, I added morale only to the last entry. But you can also use it whenever intelligent NPCs feel threatened or unable to escape, to see if they negotiate or surrender.

This is not much better than the original 2d6 table. Except that 2d10 allows you some extra room to give +2 and -2 modifiers. Maybe a simpler version would be better:

2–4. Friendly 

5–7. Positive, indifferent

8–12. Cautious curiosity  

13–16. Negative, suspicious, aggressive

17–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check if needed)

But then again, I've written about this before... more than once! 

So I'll leave this as a small post about 2e reaction, and point you to some older posts about reaction rolls in general:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/reaction-rolls-in-practice-osr.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html

Christmas in July (2025) picks

Christmas on July sale over DTRPG is on! Here are my usual picks, with some additions.

It includes many of my titles!

This includes my latest work, Basic Wilderness Encounters - which recently got a couple of 5-star ratings!

Most products have a 30% discount.

There are 75% discounts here. 

I notice some interesting stuff in there, but nothing I've played before. Swords of the Serpentine is good S&S, or so I'm told; Blue Rose is a classic setting from the early 2000s (IIRC) that I might check.

This time I'm a bit curious about Adventure Anthology for Shadowdark, although I might have some of his adventures in some other compilation... usually good stuff.

HYPERBOREA - which I reviewed here - is also included.

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is 30% off. 

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

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. 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.

They also publish awesome adventures; Doom of the Savage King is highly 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 on sale. 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 30% 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!

RPGs vs. Wargames - Zooming in and out

I have written about this before. Today I'm not discussing if RPGs are wargames or not. I'll just notice that there's a tension between the wargame and RPG perspectives, and will discuss how it manifests in Chainmail (wargame) and D&D (RPG).

The main difference is one of scope:

- Wargames are (traditionally, although there are exceptions) focused on battles between dozens to thousands of people; each player controls many people.

- In RPGs (traditionally, although there are exceptions), each player (except the GM) plays a single character/"role".

D&D was spawned from Chainmail (in OD&D, Chainmail appears as required material), among other games, and we can see the shift in focus as the game progresses. There is a "zooming in" of sorts.

Here are a few examples.

Alignment

Originally, alignment was about factions/teams. In modern D&D it is linked to personal philosophy, outlook, and behaviors. This shift creates some confusion and is discussed here.

Weapons

Chainmail had very important weapon versus armor rules that couldn't be ignored. Maces are better against plate, and daggers are a lot better against unarmored people. There are magic weapons, but not many details, you can get a bonus due to a generic "magic sword" or "magic arrow", for example.

When you get to D&D, the focus starts shifting to individual weapons. Magic weapons get more detailed (flaming swords, then vorpal swords, mace of disruption, etc.) and swords get deeper personalities and stats of their own. This tendency will continue through editions, with an ever-growing number of singular magic weapons.

The weapon versus armor table, on the other hand, is included in AD&D but often ignored in actual play (even by Gygax). In 2e, it gets simplified, and from 3e onward is nearly forgotten. The individual weapon is more important than weapon type. 

Ability scores and other stats

Chainmail does not use ability scores or many individual stats. Most creatures are defined by type/HD, AC, and attacks. In  OD&D, ability scores are present but not as important, and there are cases when Dexterity 7 is equal to Dexterity 14 in most circumstances; class and level are way more important. But soon "ability checks" become popular, and ability tables gain more detail; there is an effort to make each single point important. In modern (post-2000) D&D, ability scores are almost as important as class and level.

One interesting anecdote is how some classic D&D characters get names that are jokes/puns, simple anagrams of their player's names, or derived from class and level - the famous "Melf" is a "Male elf" abbreviation. Compare this to Drizzt, for example; a rebel drow that is opposite to whatever drow originally represented.

Hit points and level

In Chainmail, creatures are defeated or not with one or a few "hits". Hit points are created precisely because players get attached to their characters. This causes a "hit point inflation" eventually. Individual advancement, which doesn't quite exist in Chainmail, becomes an important focus of the game.

Dungeons and the battlefield

Wargames are often set in open spaces. Tight dungeons require a tighter focus. In old school D&D, this tension is often resolved by giving weapon range and movement different meaning indoors and outdoors (from feet to yards IIRC), which I find to be an elegant solution, but it later editions simplify things to make them equal despite the environment - often assuming that you're in tight environments anyway and even focusing on "grids" and "squares", especially in 4e.

Large battles

Large battles are assumed in Chainmail. In early D&D, the fighter gets some tools to fight hordes of weak creatures; this is expected. In modern D&D, this becomes somewhat of an special case. By 4e, you get "minion" rules to facilitate large battles. 

Individual monsters

In modern D&D, even lowly monster get endless variations, so that these creatures can also be individuals. The stat-block get bigger. By 3e, creatures have ability scores of their own. You also get more detailed rules on how to interact with them on an individual basis, maybe negotiating and so on. Most intelligent monster will have names, personalities and particular interests, which were not as relevant in old school D&D.

In conclusion

Wargames and RPGs are not necessarily incompatible, and some believe that RPGs are a subset of wargames. 

I do believe some "hybrid forms" or tools that allow you to "zoom in and out" are fun and will give you that "Appendix N" feel; Conan is sometimes in dungeons and single combat, and sometimes fighting or ruling over hordes and kingdoms.

Realizing there is a tension between the two perspectives may be useful to choose what rules to apply to your own games.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/wargames-storygames-and-rpgs.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/character-death-in-rpgs-war-games-and.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/weapon-versus-armor-from-ad-to-bx.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/does-d-require-miniatures-3e-versus-4e.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/03/brief-mass-combat-idea.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

GP instead of XP?

This is another crazy D&D idea I've heard while researching for the last post: ditch XP entirely, just pay the GP (for training, carousing or whatever) and you level up.

For example, any fighter that has acquired 2.000 gp can simply "buy" a level. There is no need for XP anymore.

The usual limits apply: only one level per "adventure", and maybe there needs to be some risk involved.

Some possible implications that I like:

- First, you eliminate the entire XP subsystem, thus making the game a bit simpler and ditching things  that take some math like monster XP.

- A level 5 party loses a magic-user they probably have enough funds to hire a new level 5 MU, but it will COST them. This doesn't mean they are getting someone off the street and training him to be a magician, but maybe they are paying someone's debt to their tutor, or money to take care of family while they travel, or passage from a distant land, or bribe to their former employer/patron/etc., or even specialized information on where to find someone experienced and brave enough for your expedition.

- This assumes the new MU is a PC and that the amount paid guarantees at least an honest attempt at loyalty, but the new PC is now part of the group and will share treasure equally. Hiring someone for work that is temporary or less risky would be a lot cheaper. Notice that the money is gone, not in the pockets of the new PC!

- Come to think of it, starting an adventure because you need to pay a debt is very pulpy. Or having someone pay to free you from slavery, etc.

- A rich baron may train one or more sons to become level 2 fighters, but after that they probably need some adventuring. Maybe the investment has only an 50% chance of actually working. Some sons will never become warriors/priests/wizards despite the training! It is a risky investment, but it may buy you loyalty!

- Multi-classing? Nope, now you just pay for training in your new class... but you ALSO get a 50% chance of failure. Not all fighters are meant to become wizards! Maybe its better to hire a new wizard...

- Come to think of it, this would be a cool way of getting retainers (not hirelings).

- This also explains why high-level PCs have followers and titles. They spent much gold and probably are owned many favors.

- Adventurers are no longer assumed to own large amounts of gold; instead, they acquire treasure and spend it. High-level adventurers will still be rich but not necessarily as rich as before. 

- If they have a regular non-adventuring job, maybe they get paid 1% of their "worth" per month or 10% per year. Without adventuring (or a good patron), it would takes years for someone to level up. But if you only need a few additional GP to level up, you could just get a job in the city watch for a short time!

- If that is too harsh, just let semi-retired adventurers to gain a level each year if they have no other business to attend to. This must be combined with ageing rules...

-  Could treasure lost allow you to level up? For example, if you have to let a treasure chest sink to save a damsel in distress. The idea sounds a bit absurd but very pulpy.

It seems to me that it would work very well. But at the same time it hurts our simulationist sensibilities; it feels like getting XP for fighting monsters, for example, makes more sense. Maybe we must keep an alternative method of leveling, such as defeating monsters above your level.

Or maybe the simplest, earliest method is still the best.

In any case, let's finish with a random table!

Where did the money go? 

1. Debts owed to dangerous loan sharks

2. Bribing city officials to erase a criminal record

3. Paying off a bounty quietly to avoid capture

4. Covering apprenticeship fees for magical or martial training

5. Paying a mentor for ongoing instruction

6. Funding room and board during training or travel

7. Purchasing expensive spell components or reagents

8. Repairing or upgrading weapons and armor

9. Securing travel—wagon, ship, teleportation

10. Buying you out of indented servitude

11. Helping a severely ill, homeless or troubled family member

12. Donating to a temple or guild

13. Expensive sacrifice to the character's deity

14. Compensating your former group for a previous commitment

15. Buying a nobility title, citizenship or license to carry weapons and travel freely

16. Settling family debts or obligations back home

17. Covering a party’s group expenses to earn trust

18. Making offerings to spirits, demons, or patrons

19. Hiring informants or spies for local intel

20. Investing in a personal business or long-term goal

Super simple XP system, take 2

My "super simple" system ended up sounding a lot more complicated than I intended. 

After trying to create a formula to match monster XP with gold XP, I realized that just using the formula below might be enough for my goals.

- 1 XP = 1 GP.

- 1 HD = 100 XP.

- PERIOD.

That is all. Forget PC level, forget dungeon level, just use the original formula in its simplest form.

But why?

In old school D&D, most of the treasure comes from gold. But, as noticed in Delta's blog, if you exclude/change a few outliers (dragons, medusae, men), the amount of XP you get from gold is not that far from the amount you get from fighting monsters.

Delta's numbers, check the link

I have some reservations about the analysis; it seems to ignore wilderness encounters, for example, which happen quite a lot in my games and AFAICR do not give random treasure. But he certainly went I lot deeper than I'll go here.

I am happy with the idea that monsters should have no more than 100 GP for each HD. If the gold is much bigger or smaller than that, well, just adjust the gold to something more reasonable.

Dragons with their hoards and breath weapons are a fair exception. Maybe medusaes are a fair exception too; they have two ways to kill you immediately!

But why are men outliers in Moldvay? 

Maybe I'd just rule that they just do not have underground lairs. For example, a bandit's treasure is in their camp, with an average of 80 bandits, and maybe a few leaders. That would be easily 8.000 XP at least, and their treasure type (Type A) is worth 18.000 GP on average, so maybe just halve it. A brigand's lair is a lot stronger and might justify the full Type A treasure. Likewise, merchants have type A treasure but their caravans are almost as large as a bandit's lair, and so on.

This is also a great rule of thumb to create your own dungeons - place 100 GP for each monster HD, and more if you have traps etc. Most "official" adventures I've run have too much gold IMO.

This means that PCs rely much less on GP to level up, which also means they'll level up faster and get stronger before they are too rich. 

I'm not sure if this is perfect for you but it suits my preference for grittier, pulpier adventures, where even mighty heroes are not necessarily swimming in gold.

Will that make PCs fight anything that moves to get XP? I doubt it. As you see, simply avoiding the monster will still give the PCs the treasure XP with none of the danger. 

But if there is an incentive problem, just give a few XP for monsters avoided and limit XP gained by unnecessary fights. No XP should be awarded for slaying random peasants!

Finally, the fact we are not dividing XP by current level makes leveling up a bit faster (which is compensated by reducing the treasure). I don't mind. A level 5 fighter that single-handedly defeats a bandit camp deserves to get to level 6, and so on.

I love minimalism. The simplest solutions often end up being the best ones.

Recommended reading:

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-expected-treasure-and-xp.html

https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Treasure_Types

Super simple XP system

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain."

- Paraphrased/implied from Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 1: Men & Magic (1974). Explanation below.

"The awarding of experience points is often a matter of discussion, for the referee must make subjective judgments. Rather than the (ridiculous) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below, dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved".

- Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975).

"The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. You must weigh the level of challenge — be it thinking or fighting — versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it [...].

If a 10th level magic-user were to slay 10 kobolds and take their 1,000 gold pieces, the DM should reduce the award by at least 20-fold."

- Dungeon Masters Guide (1979).

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain. If you get XP from two sources, you only get XP from the lesser source times two. Always divide by PC level."

- Suggested rule. Explanation below.

---

The 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain is implied in OD&D in this slightly confusing passage:

Experience Points: Experience points are awarded to players by the referee with appropriate bonuses or penalties for prime requisite scores. As characters meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience".

This adds to their experience point total, gradually moving them upwards through the levels. Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience. Let us assume he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster, as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis thus; 7,000 G.P. + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8 = 962.5 x 7 = 6,037.5.

Experience points are never awarded above a 1 for 1 basis, so even if a character defeats a higher level monster he will not receive experience points above the total of treasure combined with the monster's kill value. It is also recommended that no more experience points be awarded for any single adventure than will suffice to move the character upwards one level. Thus a "veteran" (1st level) gains what would ordinarily be 5,000 experience points; however, as this would move him upwards two levels, the referee should award only sufficient points to bring him to "warrior" (2nd level), say 3,999 if the character began with 0 experience points.

Supplement I: Greyhawk confirms that this was the rule, and then proceeds to call it "ridiculous" and add fiddlier stuff.

Well, turns out the original rules work surprisingly well in play.

Let's analyze it!

First, we'll just use:

- 100 XP per HD for monsters slain.

- Divided by level.

A fighter must (single -handedly) beat 20 orcs gets to level 2. This is no easy feat, but relatively fast.

[I find that single-handedly defeating 100 or 200 orcs to get to level 2 is an obvious exaggeration and makes almost impossible to make to level 2 if you play exactly by the book IMO].

Forty more orcs will get him to level 3.

To get to level 4, he'll have to face 120 additional orcs.

Level 5, 320 more.

Level 6 requires 800 additional orcs slain, and so on.

So there is a quick (but dangerous) ascent to level 3 and things get slower after that.

Taking down a 10 HD monster is even more dangerous than fighting 10 1 HD monster, so there are no shortcuts there either.

I like it, as levels 3-8 are the best levels to play D&D IMO.

I dislike the byzantine rules for taking dungeon level into account; IMO they're fiddly and unnecessary. I'm not sure if/how it applies to wilderness encounters. I'll skip them for now.

Supplement I: Greyhawk significantly reduces the XP gained from monsters slain, so you have to take most of your XP from treasure. But in AD&D we can see that around 10 HD monsters starting giving an average of... 100 XP per HD, or even more!

So the low HP value of weak monsters is intended to slow down the progression of beginning PCs(a bad idea IMO), or to discourage "farming XP" for high-level PCs.

But the combination of these rules seem enough to discourage any type of "XP farming", as it would either take too long or be too dangerous (e.g., taking 100 orcs at once).

The other shortcut to advance quickly is getting lots of treasure without opposition. In the DMG, Gygax admits that it is up to the DM to come up with actual XP values based on circumstances, defined very vaguely. In his example, getting 1.000 gold from 10 kobolds will only give you 50 XP... which is similar to the XP you get by defeating the kobolds in the first place!

Notice how easy it would be to say your XP gains are limited both by the HD and GP - whichever is smaller.

In other words: you get 100 XP per HD for monsters slain/defeated, and 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired, but you limit each amount XP for whichever is worse. You still divide by level.

The idea is that finding treasure without danger or "farming" XP by killing monsters without motive will give you no XP. Well, "NO XP" is probably too harsh, so maybe reduce the XP to 10% of the original value (if the PCs found 10.000 gp lying on the road, there is something wrong with the adventure design...).

Let's try a few examples.

A) You find a troll (700 XP) with 7.000 gold. You get 700 XP for killing the troll, and also 700 XP for the gold (the XP for gold is limited to 7000). Notice the gold is not exactly "wasted"; you got a lot richer!

B) You find a troll with 400 gp of treasure. Now you get 400 XP for the gold but only 400 XP for slaying the troll. 

C) You find 10 orcs (1.000 XP total) and they have 3.000 GP. You only get a total of 2.000 XP; 1.000 for the orcs and 1.000 for the gold.

(In all these examples, you can give the PCs a 10% prize for the amount that surpasses the limit; so 630 XP in example A, 30 XP in example B, and 100 XP in example C. This is a bit fiddly but still easy IMO. The important thing is that PCs advance in a speed that suits your group);

Special powers, abilities, etc. I'd just say they add 50% of the XP value to make things easier. Thus, a 10 HD monsters counts as 15 HD with one special power, 20 HD if it has two special powers and so on. I do not think you need a separate system for 6+1 HD monsters. Creatures of 1-1 or 1+1 HD might deserve special treatment depending on which cleave rules you're using, but I won't get into that here.

Treasure protected by traps. There is no easy way here; the DM has to consider how dangerous the trap is, when compared to a monster.

Averaging it all out. You do not have to do the math for each room or encounter. Just average everything out by the end of the day (or by the end of the expedition - AD&D suggests they must take the gold to town to get the XP). So if the PCs face A, B, and C in the same day, they have 2.400 XP from monsters and also 2.400 XP from the 10.400 GP they've acquired. Interestingly, this would be a reason to discourage frequent resting...

Hopefully, this achieves all I wanted from the XP system:

- Simple enough to calculate on the fly without a table or calculator.

- Requires a little less guess-work by the DM.

- Makes PCs level-up in a speed that is more to my liking.

- Very hard to exploit by acquiring treasure without danger or killing monsters for no reason.

Minimalistic addendum! All this exercise is interesting but I wonder if you could just run the game with 1 GP = 1 XP OR 100 XP per HD, whichever is better, or just divide everything by PC level. To be honest, this is probably easier. Dividing XP from GP by PC level is not something I had considered but will probably achieve the same result I'm looking for.

UPDATE: 

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/super-simple-xp-system-take-2.html

Creating and using random encounters

There are several ways to use random encounters. I've tried many, each with its own pros and cons. That’s what we’ll discuss today.

1. 

First, let's start with the traditional method: during the game, you check for an encounter. If there is one, you roll on the random encounter table, then determine number appearing, distance, surprise, reaction, and other details. If often involves page-flipping to even begin describing how many bears the players see (nowadays, most tables say "1d6 bears" instead of "bears", which is the bare minimum IMO).

The advantage is that the game becomes more unpredictable for the GM, which can be fun. For the players, the game gets a feeling of authenticity: they seem the fictional world unfolding WITHOUT much GM input, like if it existed without the GM or players. It feels more "real".

The downside is that rolling each encounter along with all its characteristics can take a long time as it involves half a dozen rolls plus maybe making sense of it all. The fact that the PCs have to wait and do nothing as you roll makes things even worse IMO.

Here is one example from AD&D:

2.

My solution to the traditional method, in order to save time, was creating the encounter tables that contained most of the necessary rolls and also some useful information to minimize page-flipping or consulting other tables (for example, NPCs names or activities).

Notice you can still ask the players to roll a random encounter with similar effects as method 1, and the GM will be equally surprised. My tables use even less input form the GM (for example, the GM doesn't need to come up with a name on the spot, or a reason for the results).

Here is one example from my book:

3.

Method 3 is like method 2... only smaller. You can roll a dozen random encounters beforehand, for example, and ask players to roll 1d12 when they have an encounter.

[You need to replace encounters as they are used, but you can do that between sessions].

The GM will not be as surprised during the game, but the players will still get a bit of that authenticity as they roll the d12.

This also allows the GM to add some details that are pertinent to the campaign beforehand. For example, to decide if brigands would be willing to support or fight the usurper king that sent the PCs on a mission, etc. 

One real example I could have tried is making a d12 table with lots of goblin encounters as the PCs entered goblin territory, but I ended up using method 4 (I simply chose a goblin encounter for the next random encounter).

4.

Method 4 gets rid of some or all of the randomness. You can roll some random encounters and choose your favorites, or you can simply pick the from a table or monster manual (so they are not even "random" anymore).

You can add some of the randomness back by taking the encounters you chose and making a d12 list like method 3. 

In conclusion...

Another way to see this is that, even in a simple game like OD&D or B/X, there are thousands of encounter possibilities - only a few dozens monsters but hundreds of circumstances (reaction, surprise, distance, etc.).

If you add your own twist to an encounter (NPC's names, what they were doing, etc.), you have millions of possibilities.

But when the encounter happens, this must be reduced to ONE scenario. 

This process of reducing a million to one involves die rolls (from the GM or players) and GM input. Players usually only participate in choosing the monster indirectly (by rolling dice or by choosing terrain etc., unless they are tracking a monster or something similar).

So there are three aspects to consider here: randomness, GM's fiat and player participation.

Now I notice this reasoning applies to the entire game: you have a set of almost infinite options (which creatures can the DM include in his setting?) and it eventually must be reduced to one ("six goblins attack!"). 

This process always includes GM's fiat, must include player participation (in order for it to be a game and not a monologue) and may include some randomness.

also, in short:

Maximum prep gives you familiarity, coherence and ease of use, but no surprises/excitement* for the GM.

(*Except for PC's actions, and not even this if you railroad.)

Maximum randomness gives surprises but also incoherence and long pauses.

There is a balance to be found IMO.

Which is not much of a conclusion I guess... but that's what I got for today.