Should you PAY your GM?

Let's start with the conclusion: GM-for-pay is okay.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with paying someone to run a game for you, or charging people for a game you're running.

I say that with some certainty but little experience: I always GM for free. 

I GM for my friends, on my schedule, using the system and adventures of my choice (always with some player input). I buy the books I want, and everyone in my group helps me as needed. 

On the other hand, a GM-for-pay typically runs games for strangers, often using the most popular system (like D&D 5e) and well-known settings. A group of friends can often negotiate a situation in which they can all play together with a stranger DM.

I think GM-for-pay makes sense for several reasons. 

Preparing a module like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd takes considerable effort. There is an important distinction here: I think learning settings and modules takes work. It can be fun, but the real fun as a GM, at least for me, is running the game with the players.

[And I found running ToA way more fun that just generating a dungeon randomly or whatever. It was worth the effort. But there was an effort].

Once a GM learns the material, they can run it countless times. While it remains exciting for new players every time, the GM might lose some of the fun because there is no sense of discovery that comes with experiencing it for the first time.

And, in a way, I feel bad that some of this effort is wasted: all the unexplored rooms, all the things that could have gone differently, etc. Running the same thing multiple times is interesting, It is just not as fun as doing something new. And, since you can't usually run the same module to the same people twice, you have the additional effort of finding new people if you want to do that.

There are also practical matters, such as buying setting books, paying for subscription apps, etc. These responsibilities usually fall on the shoulders of the GM. At the very least, it is fair to expect the players to contribute.

In short, given the effort involved, it’s completely fair for someone to charge for GM services if there's demand.

I see this as a win-win. More players can experience various systems, settings, and adventures without needing to invest heavily in preparation. You could do the same without touching money: a group interested in trying multiple systems could take turns GMing for each other. Being able to do it for money just makes the process easier in some circumstances. It also allows people who really like to GM to be able to get some money so can dedicate more time to this, do this a lot, and get better at it.

Another aspect that is probably overlooked is the idea of "Player systems" and "GM systems". I ran a  D&D 5e campaign a while ago. It was fun, but I'm unlikely to do that again; I find 5e to be too much work for the GM. OSR games are much more fun for me to run.

When you look at GMs-for-pay, D&D 5e is the most common system offered. Of course, "official D&D" is always very popular, but I think the fact OSR games are easier to run also explains why paid GMs are less common (and the whole idea is less popular in OSR circles).

I have never actually paid a GM. But I started playing RPGs in a game store. It was free, but they encouraged me to buy a book; so it was not completely without interest on their part. And it was awesome.

Then I wanted to learn more and more systems. I went to conventions and signed up for tables without considering what the GMs got out of it. Later, I invited strangers to learn RPGs with me. It was fun, but not as fun as learning when I was a novice (and probably not as fun as playing with my friends). And it took time and effort.

I also played several games where the GM was testing his own system or setting. I didn't pay for that, but the GM obviously had an "ulterior motive". Some of these games were awesome, and some even became awesome books eventually.

[I have done the same thing as an author; in fact, nowadays most of the things I publish are specifically made because I want to play then. I play-test stuff with my friends].

In short... one day, I might pay to play a game. I think having the option is good, but it is not necessary. If you have time to spare (maybe a clear schedule or enough time to search for a perfect game in several places), and maybe some social skill, you can play free games endlessly. You can make new friends and rotate the GM role if you want. 

When I was younger I had more time and less money, so the thought of paying for a game would never occur, but maybe I'd have played even more if I knew that existed (at a fair price!).

Paying for a game does not make it better or worse. It is like any other business. 

I have friends who are great professional cooks; they enjoy making food, and cooking to their friends for free, but they also sell food, and it is equally tasty. I enjoy food even more when cooked by someone I like, but not every meal has to be like that.

I think a similar reasoning will apply to most fun activities: boxing, running, playing the guitar, chess, and so on. Sure, you can do it for free, and you can do it for fun; but there is still a place for professionals, experts, teachers, and tutors.

---

P.S.1: On a final note, some people say GM-for-pay is intrinsically good because commerce is intrinsically good, as both the buyer and the seller can hope to be satisfied by the end of a transaction they freely agreed to. While I do see the merit in this argument, one could make a counter-argument talking about cigarettes, alcohol or whatever, which would be beside the point IMO.

P.S.2: There is also the "Critical Role experience" aspect I hadn't considered. Maybe some GMs-for-pay can "put on a show" of sorts, maybe some are even amateur actors. I don't do "voices" in my games often, maybe I'd pay to try that once? Not sure, for me this is not the best part of RPGs, but it can be fun too.

A Farewell to Arms, VALIS, And the Truth Shall Make You Flee, Braving the Wilderness, Psycho-Cybernetics

Here are some very short reviews of some books I've read lately. The one-sentence summaries (in italics) are not entirely mine, but copy-pasted from AI (and edited by me) to save you a few clicks.

I gave each book a rating, but to each might have been influenced by my expectations - so my judgement of Dostoevsky (one of my favorite authors) is probably a lot harsher than an author I haven't read before., and so on. Highly subjective, of course.

I avoided the number 7 because it is too easy to choose 7 when you're unsure, so I forced myself to choose between 6.5 and 7.5 when that was the case.

A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway (rating 8/10): Set during World War I, this novel follows the love story between Frederic Henry, an American ambulance driver in the Italian army, and Catherine Barkley, a British nurse. The story explores themes of love, war, loss, and existential struggles, as Frederic grapples with the chaos of war and the fragility of human connections.

This is a good book, but I found it depressing and soul-crushing, so maybe you should avoid it if this kind of narrative bothers you.

Anyway, I have the impression this is the opposite of a war book, not only because it is anti-war, but also because it subverts many of the usual tropes. There is no heroism, no epic victories, not even dramatic defeats - people are wounded and killed by error or accident, often by their own troops, and most soldiers are uncertain why they're even fighting. In any case, it is still an interesting portrayal of World War I.

Maybe Frederic can leave this war behind one day, but no one can escape the realities of life and death.

VALIS by Philip K. Dick (rating 7.5/10): A semi-autobiographical, philosophical science-fiction work, this novel delves into the mind of Horselover Fat, a character based on the author himself. It explores themes of reality, divinity, and madness as Fat tries to understand the visions of a mysterious entity called VALIS.

If you like PKD, this is probably a must-read. In a way, it ties together many of the author's ideas about religion, reality (and alternate realities), conscience, and so on. I don't find it as interesting as his short stories but it is still an enjoyable read. 

I started reading without knowing how autobiographical it was. But apparently PKD has been through things that could actually fit some of his outlandish stories.

And the Truth Shall Make You Flee by Daniel C. Jones (rating 8/10): This book examines the psychological and social barriers that prevent people from seeking and accepting truth. It challenges readers to confront their biases and fears, offering insights into how we justify our beliefs rather than genuinely exploring evidence.

I've been obsessed with cognitive biases lately, especially confirmation bias. I've started a new blog discussing some of these ideas, but I'm unsure if I can add much to the discussion.

Anyway, this book was recommended to me by the author, who happens to be connected with me on X - a happy coincidence, since I only use X for RPG talk.

The book is about confirmation bias. I think understanding this bias is an extremely important tool if we hope to have any understanding of reality at all. I think the author manages to explain this bias while giving a fair shake to both theists and atheists, for example.

Braving the Wilderness by Brené Brown (rating 5/10): This non-fiction work examines the concepts of belonging and authenticity. Brené Brown argues that true belonging requires embracing one's vulnerability and individuality, even in moments of solitude. The book inspires readers to find strength in their uniqueness and connect more meaningfully with others.

This reads to me like standard self-help. The core concept is interesting and helped me reflect on being myself while still trying to be belong to something bigger. In short, you can never feel like you belong if you're just pretending to be someone else in order to adapt.

A fairly interesting and useful idea but could probably be explained in a much shorter format.

Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz (rating 8/10): A self-help classic, this book focuses on the power of self-image and how it shapes our behaviors and outcomes. Dr. Maltz combines principles from psychology and cybernetics to teach readers techniques for improving confidence, overcoming negative thought patterns, and achieving personal goals.

This also reads like standard self-help. However, it not only has a better "ideas-per-page" ratio but it was also written in 1960, and I guess it must have inspired several more famous self-help books. 

It could also be shorter, but I found myself writing down at least one central idea from each chapter. If you like self-help stuff, you should read this one.

The most memorable idea for me was that the author, a plastic surgeon, realized that several people traumatized by their own looks (with or without a reason) would still find themselves very ugly after being "fixed" by surgery. I've heard about some experiments with (fake) facial scarring that could confirm these impressions; I think the subject deserves further study.

It makes you think about how much of self-perception - and, well, reality - is just in our minds. Maybe this is a common theme in several books mentioned here.

Minimum viable setting

How to make the "minimum viable setting"? 

What I want to do is create something that leaves almost NO work for the GM.

But writing down every detail of the setting is not only nearly impossible but also mostly useless; the GM will only use a fraction of it, and facing a 1000-page book might be fearsome even in PDF format.

One alternative is creating the entire thing randomly as you go - e.g., using appendix B. 

As you can see in the link, I find it a bad idea. You should know where mountains are, and see them from a long distance. The same goes for the sea, major cities, countries, but... what about small villages, etc?

Well, these could be randomly generated. Maybe you start with a more detailed map of your surroundings, but after a few hexes you're in uncharted territory.

When I think of it, I find that this is exactly what my favorite setting, Dark Sun, is missing. You have a good hex map and a setting description that is detailed enough, but it definitely needs its own appendix B (and C!).

Notice that you cannot just use the existing appendices; you must create new ones that take into account the setting's unique ecology, climate and demography.

Once you have these two (big map plus generator of smaller features and encounters), you are almost good to go.

You'd still need a few random tables of relevant details, so you don't need to keep coming up with new ones on the fly. For example:

- Names.

- Special features (i.e., things that make each village memorable; there are good example in Dark Fantasy Places).

- Relation with existing factions.

The third one deserves further explanation. In some settings, there are important conflicts (e.g., Law vs. Chaos, Magic vs. Religion or Technology, Good vs. Evil, Guelphs vs. Ghibellines) that will affect settlements and NPCs. 

Sometimes they are obvious and generalized: all dwarves hate orcs, etc. You don't even need a table for that. But if you have something more nuanced, you could use a table with results like "strong support for the king", "this village is divided between Guelphs and Ghibellines", or "this town hates elves/magicians/knights/etc.". 

As you can see, even without an overarching conflict, these tables can add flavor to otherwise boring villages.

If your setting has dungeons, you probably need those too. Maybe we can reach a similar compromise here: a few big dungeons (or even a megadungeon) written in advance and a few randomly generated dungeons if you find one by accident. 

Suffice to say, I'm not a big fan of dungeons generated with the appendix A. But maybe you could make different tables (with fewer 45º corridors and more coherent layouts) to create something worthwhile.

Other than Dark Sun, here is how some of my favorite settings deal with this stuff:

Carcosa. The setting is incredibly interesting and detailed. Every time I read it, I want to run a campaign (and it might be my next one). Still, I think it is not quite ready for use.

Some villages/castles are too lean and a bit simplistic/boring. You could easily replace most villages with a random generator that gave you not only color, numbers and alignment, but also some distinctive features.

Or just add such a random table or one line to each village: "this village hates sorcerers", "this village loves fighters and centers around an arena", "this village is built underground", etc. [I'm sorry to sell it gain, but: Dark Fantasy Places is PWYW!]

The map is not great either; I find the positioning of mountainous and rivers a little weird and random. Not a big problem but I'm tempted to create my own.

Qelong: I find this a great example of a setting that is both small and complete. It has hex descriptions, coherent random encounters and a satisfying meta-narrative.

Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation: say what you will about 5e, these are both awesome, well made settings, with detailed places, good encounter tables, and clear factions/conflicts.

What they lack is more organization (as described here) and a few additional random tables. Both have HUGE hex maps but very sparse; most hexes are empty.

Fortunately, there are several 3rd-party product detailing additional dungeons, features, etc.

And I must acknowledge that they got the map almost exactly right:

This means everyone knows the coast, and the mountains are obvious from afar, but the inner area is not known by adventures.

In short, maybe that is all you need to start:

- A good, incomplete map, plus some random tables to add villages, ruins, lairs (geography).

- Random encounter tables (ecology).

- Random villages (demography).

- A few factions/conflicts (history).

What else I'm missing?

DTRPG print costs will increase on April 1

DriveThruRPG is set to significantly raise the cost of print-on-demand products, with an increase ranging from 20% to 80%, as mentioned on Reddit (see below).

This is a good opportunity to get Teratogenicon if you're interested.

This book has impressive art - take a look at the previews to see for yourself! It is a book I enjoy having in print.

I have no idea how much it will it cost after the change.

I will get a few books for myself too, although I'm still not sure what to get. These are all book I already have and recommend:

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1st Edition)

* Monster Manual (1st and 2nd Edition, with 2e being my favorite)

* Fiend Folio

* Rules Cyclopedia

* Dark Sun Boxed Set

These are books I enjoy browsing and referencing. The Dark Sun Boxed Set is probably my favorite to sit down and read, study, etc. 

I don’t want to have any modules because I run games mostly online nowadays, so I’m exploring other settings. (If I were to buy a module, I'd probably get B10, which I'm running now). I don't think I need any more monsters either.

Unfortunately, many books I'd like to own have no POD available, so I must get them elsewhere. This includes Moldvay's Basic and 0D&D, the original D&D.

But I might pick some classics such as: 

* Chainmail: Rules for Medieval Miniatures (0e)

* D&D Expert Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) 

* Hollow World Campaign Setting (Basic)

* Ravenloft Domains of Dread (2e)

* Dark Sun Campaign Setting (4e)

BTW: if you don't want to give money to WotC, I think this is perfectly reasonable. I avoid it nowadays too. There are several good reasons that I won't discuss here.

Other games I might get, based on impressions and recommendations from others, are:

* Tales of Argosa (and you get the PDF for free). 

* ORWELL – Role-Playing in a Dystopian Future (you also get the PDF for free). My impressions here.

* ... and that is what I've got so far.

Do you have any other recommendations? 

Things with good art, price, etc., are preferable, but mainly I just want stuff I can sit down and read.

Anyway, here is the text from DTRPG:

Upcoming Print-on-Demand Book Price Changes – Effective April 1, 2025

We always want to keep print costs as low as possible, and it has been years since we passed any price increases through to our publishing partners.

However, our print supplier, Lightning Source/Ingram, has announced a price adjustment starting April 1, 2025, that will be reflected on DriveThru sites.

Key Changes

Due to increasing supply costs in the US, Black & White print costs in the US will increase significantly, from around 20% for low-pagecount hardcover titles up to about 50% or slightly more for large hardcover books, and with softcover titles seeing an even greater increase.

UK print costs for Black & White books will also increase, but generally only by 3-4%.

Standard Color print costs will increase, by roughly 12-13% for US printing but only around 3% for UK printing.

On the whole, Premium Color print costs will decrease slightly for US printing but increase slightly for UK printing.

Example 1: A 180-page large premium hardcover currently costs $32.10 to print in the US; after April 1, that same title will drop to $27.80.

Example 2: In the UK, the same 180-page book currently costs £20.23, which will increase to £20.93 starting in April.

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

Brief mass combat idea

Here is a brief mass combat idea meant for old school D&D or OSR games. I'm using ascending AC in my examples because that's what I use in my games.

Here is the idea:

10 1st level fighters count as a single fighter with a +10 attack bonus until the end of the round.

They attack as one. They deal one die of damage (say, 1d8 if they're using swords).

They add one point of damage for each point over the AC (if using ascending AC).

By Dean Spencer

Let's say 10 bandits are attacking your 5th-level  PC, who has AC 17. They roll 9. Adding a +10 bonus, this means 19, two points more than needed to hit. They deal 1d8+2 damage.

The best part about this idea is how it vastly simplifies things.

If you decide only 4 or 6 fighters can attack the PC at a time, just reduce the bonus to +4 or +6.

If the PC slays a couple of bandits, reduce the bonus to +8. And so on.

In some cases, you can just add up all HD. If your PC is attacked by a 3rd level fighter and 3 bandits, they can make one single attack with +6.

It also makes goblins, etc., dangerous though all levels. If your PC in magical plate and shield gets attacked by ten goblins, it is VERY LIKELY that ate least one of them will get a good stab!

This will probably be useful when PCs have multiple henchmen too. One roll, period.

Is this similar to actually rolling each attack individually? Well, it varies a lot depending on AC, number of foes, etc. Apparently, the bigger the group, the smaller the damage each individual adds (which might be explained by fewer people being able to attack at the same time). 

Let's try with six goblins attacking a fighter in plate [AC 16], using B/X (or OSE) rules. The usual damage per round (DPR) would be around 5.25. With my proposed rule, it would be about 4.4. 

If the fighter is unarmored, DPR is also similar (11.55 versus 9.78, more or less). Not bad.

And if the fighter has plate, armor, and some magic bonus to AC? Let's say AC 20? An extreme case, but... Then damage doubles from about 1.05 to 2.28. So the rule works as intended!

(These numbers were calculated with the help of AI... let me know if they're wrong!)

I probably wouldn't use such a rule if you're fighting a couple of giants, for example; just for low-level foes. Likewise, allowing 15 goblins to attack you at once sounds unwieldy; I'd keep the limit at 10 for now, and you ever fight 20 goblins at once they cannot attack you as a single unit (treat them as two groups).

I probably COULD use this idea for huge mass battles, just adding a few zeroes when needed.

Say, a force of 90 knights clash with 50 enemy knights. The 90 knights attack with a +9 bonus, etc. They deal 1d8 damage (or whatever) plus the margin of success. Then just multiply damage (or casualties) per 10, and reduce the opposing force equally.

I haven't played-tested this. But I have a good feeling about it...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hd-game.html

I want LESS!

Most of my time playing and reading RPGs has been ruled by the “undisciplined pursuit of more.”

I played several RPGs and took pride in trying new ones. I favored "universal" systems where I could create endlessly detailed PCs and do anything I wanted. I also collected monster manuals for my D&D-ish needs.

This process has been somewhat useful in helping me discover my tastes and needs.

However, there has also been much waste. I read only a fraction of the RPGs I buy and play an even smaller fraction of the RPGs I read. Nowadays, I'm embracing "the disciplined pursuit of less."

In other words, I want less: fewer monsters, fewer spells, fewer magic items, fewer stats, and simpler systems.

This partly reflects my appreciation for minimalism, but it goes beyond that. I believe that having fewer elements makes each one more important and meaningful.

While having a multitude of monsters is fun, each Monster Manual contains more creatures than entire worlds like Middle-earth, Barsoom, Lankhmar, or the Hyborian Age (not to mention most horror and sci-fi settings). It becomes virtually impossible for PCs to understand each individual monster with any depth.

Take dragons, for example. The dragons of mythology and literature are often unique individuals, like Smaug, Fafnir, Tiamat, Drogon. Each is distinct and memorable. But the 2e MM (my favorite!) has about more than a dozen dragon types. If a D&D party sees Smaug, it is just another red dragon (they don't even need to interact to know that he is chaotic, since he is red; but this is another issue).

[Another thing I've been considering is how adding more monsters to a game doesn't make it any different from "standard" D&D, but replacing existing monsters creates a completely new kind of setting. Take Curse of Strahd, for example: it includes few "demihumans," and even the elves are distinct from the familiar elves we're used to. This seems to hold true for most of my favorite settings and modules, and I think I might never run an adventure containing orcs again.]

Magic items are the same: Excalibur or Stormbringer are memorable, and so is Sting. In D&D, a first-level party often has dozens of magic items. Eventually, they discard some of them as they reach higher levels. This abundance devalues magic items and magic in general.

I feel the same way about rules.

I’ve run a few 5e campaigns. 5e is a more "complete" game than B/X. However, it requires ten times the page count to achieve this. So, I’ve been asking myself: is 5e ten times more complete than B/X? And the answer is no. Same goes for AD&D.

[Sure, I could use a one-page RPG. In the end, this ultimately comes down to a matter of taste.]

Spell selection has also been a headache, leading to imbalance and analysis paralysis.

I like customizing characters, but I don’t need dozens of classes and races. I really enjoy the simplicity of being able to say the bandit leader is a "fighter 5" and leaving it at that.

When you have fewer elements, you can connect them more meaningfully. For example, elves resist ghouls. The undead are raised by demons. All aberrations come from other dimensions, while monsters are created by mages. Etc.

And to be honest, this would make way more likely that my players would even REMEMBER most of this stuff.

In short, many of my current issues with D&D could be solved by just having less.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/05/unlimited-d-x-limited-d.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-illustrated-war-of-earth-and-sky.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/01/magic-item-inflation-in-ad.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/10/skeleton-with-bow.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/01/minimalism-elegance-and-multipurpose.html

GMs day sale (2025) - 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%.

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

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

Here are some big discounts. Knave 2e is 50% off.

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

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

Big discounts!

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

OSR

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

* Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X neoclone.

* Hyperborea (my impressions).

* Monkey Business.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG);

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

* The Monster Alphabet; 

* Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome; 

* Silent Legions; 

* The Nameless Grimoire.

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

* Tales of Argosa is 20% off.

Classic D&D

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

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

* D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Basic)

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1e)

* Monstrous Manual (2e).

* Dark Sun boxed set.

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

Goodman Games

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

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

Necrotic Gnome

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

Sine Nomine Publishing

Worlds Without Number is 40% off. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles 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!

Monster taxonomy and organization

It seems that the new 2025 Monster Manual organizes EACH  monster alphabetically. This means a "Green Dragon" is found under "G". In the 2014 Monster Manual (and most MMs before that), all dragons were found under "D", for dragon. The same happens with giants, demons, etc.

I think this is an awful decision.

Not that this is simple. One reason there's so much debate over monster classification (and issues like orcs being inherently evil) is that taxonomy itself is complex. In the real world, we classify living beings into categories like Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Can a green dragon interbreed with a red dragon? There is no "right" answer, but I'd guess they can. What about a gold dragon? Applying real taxonomy to fantasy creatures is not easy or ideal.

But let's look at this from a practical standpoint

Should we have one single entry for each species? That is impossible because we need many entries for humans (bandits, clerics, druids, etc.).

Besides real taxonomy, how can we organize monsters?

One alternative I really like is monster type. This is one of the main points of my Teratogenicon. Undead have LOTS in common to each other, and if you ever want to create your won, looking at existing undead is more useful than calculating CR.

There are other practical reasons to use monster type.

First, let's assume you are new to D&D, and you don't really know the difference between demons and devils. Or maybe you vaguely remember playing 2e and you don't even KNOW there are monsters called either of these things.

You go looking for an explanation in the MM. You turn to "D" and... there is nothing.

Can you see the problem?

On the other hand, let's say you're an experienced DM and you want to build your own dungeon! This is going to be a hellish cave, full of demons... Now let's find some o populate it! Where do you look for them? Again, you've got nothing. At best, the MM has a list of "fiends" that include demons, devils and others.

And what if - unimaginable though it is - you forget the name of a particular demon you once saw and want to use as the villain?

The only way this is useful is if you use strictly for reference. You never create your own adventures, but maybe you're running a module that lists "1d4 green dragons" on the encounter table and you have to check it in the MM (that is not great either; most adventures should provide you with the relevant stats to avoid page-flipping and book-flipping, but modern D&D is so crunchy that this is nearly impossible).

This might be a radical, but I think a good MM could be divided in 20ish chapters, including the 14 monster types with a few subdivisions. For example:

Aberration

Beast

(Giant beasts)

Celestial

Construct

(Golems)

Dragon

(True dragons)

Elemental

(True elementals)

Fey

Fiend

(Explaining differences between demons, devils, etc.)

Giant

(True giants)

Humanoid

(maybe separate species from professions)

Monstrosity

Ooze

Plant

Undead

(maybe corporeal/incorporeal)

To clarify, "true" dragons, elementals and giants have that word in their names: e.g., Green Dragon, Hill Giant. To make things even clearer, D&D could use different names for wyverns and trolls. For example, "draconians", "dragon-like", "draconic creatures", "gigantic humanoids" (notice that troll is a "giant" but "giant bat" is not).

Calling a wyvern a "dragon" makes the idea of "natural language" impossible, since you'd have to explain (or assume) the meaning of the word "dragon" every time you find a "dragon-slaying sword", etc.

There are a few obvious problems to this approach.

First, the monstrosities are so numerous that the alphabetical approach just feels easier. In addition, they are not always easy to separate from aberrations (gricks and grells - what are they?). In fact, when I wrote Teratogenicon I had to go back to 3e to find a good definition of aberrations.

Some subdivisions would need further reflection. Should dragons be listed alphabetically, or should chromatic dragons be separated from metallic? Not sure.

But, from a learning or world-building approach, this would be nearly perfect. 

It also gives the MM a more "in universe" feel. When an average peasant sees a "dragon", "green" is not the first thing that comes to mind. Similarly, a "death knight" is an undead first, and for the untrained eyes it is not that different than other ghosts or apparitions. People will just run and call this place "cursed"!

The "monster type" division, therefore, is also teleological.

In addition, you could easily create an alphabetical index of each creature for easy referencing (with page numbers, of course), and this list could include both "dragons" and "green dragons", under D and G. You could add page numbers to modules and encounter tables too, but maybe that'd be too much to ask...

In conclusion, I dislike the new organization. It makes it more difficult to find some monsters and put them into proper context. It makes the game less coherent and more difficult to learn. I will not say I have the perfect answer, but I can say I find the former approach preferable to the current mess.

Yam-Shaped Campaigns

This is not my idea; the term may have been created by Sly Flourish but I couldn't find the exact source. In any case, I think it is a concept worth discussing and spreading.

Many people discuss "railroad" campaigns and "sandbox" campaigns as if they are opposite choices. I don't think this is entirely accurate. In any case, there is a third alternative that is probably my favorite: the "Yam-Shaped Campaign."

A "Yam-Shaped Campaign" is "narrow at the beginning and end but wide in the middle". In other words, it has a clear beginning (possibly with clear goals) and one (or preferably, a few) explicit endings. However,  HOW and IF you'll get there is up to the PCs.

In 5e D&D, Tomb of Annihilation (ToA) and Curse of Strahd (CoS) are good examples. In B/X, my favorite is probably B10 Night's Dark Terror.

Instead of adding a picture of a yam to this post, let's try this.

The PCs start the game at point A, in an exact place and time. Although this might seem to be the case for all campaigns, it is not. For example, if you're running a random wilderness, the PCs might be in a world of quantum randomness.

Points B and C are two possible "endings": let's call them the good ending and the bad ending.

In this kind of campaign, the PCs will usually have, at the very least, a vague idea of B or C. Conversely, they might have a vague idea (or a few options) on where to go NEXT and they eventually find out about B or C as the campaign progresses.

The black lines represent the multiple paths the PCs can take. The grey lines represent possible paths that lead the PCs away from the proposed ending.

Let's try some concrete examples.

In Curse of Strahd, the PCs begin near the village of Barovia. They know one possible "bad ending": they get stuck in there forever. This is unlikely to actually happen, because both the PCs and the villain are unlikely to sit and wait. So they have a clear goal instead: get out of there.

With that in mind, they can wander around looking for an exit, and they'll eventually realize that the only way to do that is to face Strahd. This is "point B". When they face Strahd, they can defeat him, join him, replace him, etc. 

The book even contains a page describing what may happen next, but this is beyond the scope of the campaign. Having this is very common and useful, because you might want to continue playing after Strahd has been "resolved".

In the diagram above, I used "time" as an axis. This can be some type of "STRICT TIME RECORD" or something more abstract. Strahd has no clear timeline, but the confrontation gets closer and closer. Tomb of Annihilation has a strict time limit: if enough time is passed, the PCs simply fail and everyone is doomed (IIRC).

Both approaches are possible, but I think SOME time pressure is needed in this type of campaign or the PCs might wander around aimlessly.

In any case, there is at least two possible endings; probably more. I think of point B as some kind of "final showdown" that can result in victory or tragedy (C).

Even if the "endings" are clear, the GM might have to choose what to do if they are skipped. What happens if there is a TPK, for example (all PCs die?). Do they start again with new PCs? Turn back time? Find a new campaign? Or maybe advance the time line a few years, and create PCs that must serve/oppose the (now victorious) antagonist?

What if the PCs leave the continent or ignore the villain? Same thing. Most decent campaigns will at least give you an idea on what to do next, but you're mostly on your own.

When I wrote my own adventure, I didn't know this "Yam-Shaped Campaign" terminology. But I did include an "aftermath" section that I'll add here as an example, as it includes:

- Two possible "boss" endings.

- What happens if the adventurers just fail or leave.

- Ideas for more adventurers if they succeed.

These three possibilities are the bare minimum, I think, to include in a yam-shaped campaign. Here is how it looks:

Aftermath

Here is what happens after the end (or in the middle, in some cases) of the adventure.

If Malavor is slain, the bee-people will immediately destroy the remaining demons. The Queen (now free from mental slavery) will telepathically ask the adventures for death, but she will resurrect from its own carcass (as an ordinary bee) in less than one minute and fly away. The fortress will collapse within 1d6+6 days. The demons in the underground will be buried alive. Some might survive.

If the Queen dies, bee-people will disperse immediately. It will take Malavor 3d6 days to summon another avatar or come up with a new use for his fortress. His success is not guaranteed. He might try a different plan. In any case, the hive will still be a menace as long as Malavor lives.

If both the Queen and Malavor are still alive, the hive expands. In 2d4 weeks, the number of demons and bee-soldiers is doubled, and the hive’s defenses are reinforced. In another 1d6 weeks, Malavor manages to mutate himself into a bee-demon, half-insane, but with full control of the bee-people. The bloated and sick avatar dies after a while, but this no longer affects the bee-soldiers, that can now be cloned in the underground. Three months after the characters left, Malavor unleashes his army against the nearest village.

The underground is a different matter. The underground is currently running its own schemes. It supports Malavor but only because he lets them do their own stuff. If Malavor leaves the hive, they will quickly take it. They will seal all doors to the outside, leaving a couple of secret passages. They might demolish the towers to avoid getting attention from the outside, and cover the whole fortress in dirt to transform it into a mound. They are digging their own underground tunnels, leading to somewhere miles away… or miles below. There are more demons in the Abyss that spawned Malavor and the biomancers.

In addition, unless Zothaq and more than half the biomancers working underground are killed, the underground keeps expanding until it becomes some kind of megadungeon, full of demons and hybrid life forms. The forest around the ruins of the hive becomes progressively weirder, with mutant beasts prowling around. Fortunately, they have no plans of conquering neighboring towns right away (the idea here is that the characters find this out and come back after a while, hopefully when they are a bit stronger).

In conclusion, I have run multiple campaigns. Some could be described as "Railroads," others as "sandboxes," but lately, I have realized that Yam-Shaped Campaigns are my favorites. 

In my sandbox campaigns, I have noticed that the PCs (Player Characters) often get lost easily and have no clear direction. As a DM, I then have to decide abruptly where the game should end, or I let it fizzle out. Conversely, railroad campaigns feel terrible: it is like the PCs have no choice and I have the sole responsibility of taking the game to the end.

Yam-Shaped Campaigns give me the best of both worlds: the PCs are free to wander around and surprise me, but I always have an idea about what is going to happen next and we can even have an epic  - or tragic! - ending before moving on.

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

Tehanu, A Maze of Death, Fouché, White Nights, Sacculina (micro reviews)

Here are some very short reviews of some books I've read lately. The one-sentence summaries (in italics) are not mine, but copy-pasted from AI to save you a few clicks.

I gave each book a rating, but to each might have been influenced by my expectations - so my judgement of Dostoevsky (one of my favorite authors) is probably a lot harsher than Fracassi, which I haven't read before. Highly subjective, of course.

I avoided the number 7 because it is too easy to choose 7 when you're unsure, so I forced myself to choose between 6.5 and 7.5 when that was the case.

Tehanu by Ursula K. Le Guin (rating 5/10): This fourth book in the Earthsea series follows the story of Tenar, now a middle-aged widow, and her journey of self-discovery and empowerment. 

I really like LeGuin and I'd recommend everyone to read A Wizard of Earthsea. However, Tehanu almost bored me to tears. There is little to no action. By the end of the book the protagonist meets failure because... she cannot get the lord of the land to help with the dishes.

It's curious because "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie", another text I really like by the same author, seem to point in the exact opposite direction: making fantasy fantastic, not mundane.

Anyway. Read A Wizard of Earthsea and keep reading until you stop liking it. Books 2 and 3 are decent, but the first is my favorite. This fourth book is probably for hardcore Earthsea fans only, and it will not please them all.

A Maze of Death by Philip K. Dick (rating 6.5/10): A complex and thought-provoking sci-fi novel where a group of colonists on a distant planet must unravel the mysteries of their existence. 

Far from my favorite PKD novel, still interesting in the exploration of themes like religion and shared realities and fantasies. As it often happens with this author, his vision still looks relevant decades later. The ending is... very peculiar to say the least, but maybe not great.

If you like PKD, you'll probably enjoy it.

Fouché: The Unprincipled Patriot by Stefan Zweig (rating 9/10): This biography of Joseph Fouché delves into the life of the cunning and enigmatic French politician who navigated through the turbulent times of the French Revolution and Napoleonic era. 

Such an awesome book! A short, fun read for anyone, and it is also full of ideas you can use for your role-playing games. His story is full of war, intrigue, violence, and backstabbing. Fouché is an amazing character - he would make an amazing villain or patron - maybe both!

Of course, if you are interested in the French Revolution, this is a must read.

(Sidenote: Zweig also wrote a Dostoevsky's biography that I didn't enjoy as much and will not review).

White Nights by Fyodor Dostoevsky (rating 6.5/10): A melancholic yet hopeful tale of a lonely dreamer who falls in love with a mysterious woman over the course of four nights.

This is one of Dostoevsky's earliest works. I have never read anything bad by Dostoevsky. This is not his best, but already shows some signs of an author who would soon become one of the greatest (if noyt the best). It reads like a silly love story at first but manages to get deeper as you go.

Overall, a short, enjoyable read.

Sacculina by Philip Fracassi (rating 7.5/10): A gripping horror novella about a group of friends who encounter a terrifying and parasitic creature while on a fishing trip. 

A pleasant surprise! This is a decent horror novella by an author I didn't know. Reads like an exciting good script for an one-hour movie. A quick, exciting read.

It has echoes of H. P. Lovecraft and Algernon Blackwood ("The Willows"). If that is what you like, you'll probably enjoy this one.

More glancing blows (and near-saves)

 A quick rule for any D&D game. I'm certainly not the first one to suggest the "half damage" part.

---

Glancing blows

When you roll the exact number needed to hit the target's AC, this is a glancing blow.

You damage is halved.

If the target has more than 1 HP before the hit, the glancing blow can reduce it to 1 HP, but no less.

---

This is the gist of it, but we could change the specifics. 

Instead of half damage, for example, I might do "one third of your maximum damage" to save myself a roll (and further differentiate 1d6+1 from 1d8 damage). 

Likewise, the "1 HP" part probably needs a few exceptions, but it would be fun if even a peasant has a 5% chance to survive being hit by a powerful monster and live to tell the tale (even if unconscious, maimed, etc.  -the idea is that a glancing blow doesn't kill).

You could extend the same reasoning to saving throws. This is somewhat similar to what I've been doing in my games. When the MU casts an 8d6 fireball, I make a roll even if the target is a group of goblins, allowing a natural 20 to save some of them. I might call this rule "there is always a save".

D&D 4e had minions rules that worked in a similar way: "minions" had only 1 HP but wouldn't be killed if they made a successful save. 

I think my version feels a bit less artificial. No goblin should resist TWO 8d6 fireballs! Also, REDUCING a foe to 1 HP is a great opportunity of surrender, retreat, parlay, etc.

I also like making glancing blows a common concept so my players can finally accept I'll eventually tell them the monster's AC, so they might as well stop asking if they hit!

Anyway, for now this is just a random thought.

Weapons vs. monster

We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.

It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.

But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.

So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?

Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some  OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).

Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?

I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.

- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.

- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.

- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.

- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.

- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.

- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.

Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.

How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.

If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).

And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?

D&D 2024 monster stats

Here is an example of monster stats in 2024 D&D:

This is... not bad.

Of course, we could reduce it by half while keeping the information we need 90% of the time. How often do you need to know this monster's Charisma score?

But it has a few advantages over the D&D 2014 stat block: it abbreviates AC, HP and CR, it includes saves right next to abilities, and it removes the armor type since it rarely does anything.

It adds Initiative to monsters, which I don't get. 

Here, it is "+5 (15)". I'm assuming that 15 means that:

- You can use that instead of rolling.

- They found it useful to save you the trouble of simply checking Dex modifier.

- They found it useful to save you the trouble of simply adding 10.

- They made a mistake (it was supposed to be 13, due to Dex) and I'm spending more time thinking about this stuff than they did.

But it wouldn't be D&D without some errors and redundancies, right?

It also has a few weird things. 

For example, it mentions "Gear Daggers (10)". This is somewhat useful, but it almost creates more questions than it answer:

Are these ordinary daggers or whatever "umbral daggers" are? Does this creature (that has claws) has any unarmed attacked when it runs out of throwing daggers? Assuming it does, can it attack twice when unarmed?

(There is also an apparently baffling concept: this is a dagger that cannot kill you according to its description, but only poison and paralyze you. I'm assuming vampire's prefer warm blood...)

Some creatures that have attacks with swords and bows ALSO have these listed as gear, which looks redundant.

And the "Vampiric Connection" part is a bit baffling, since it seems to be a power particular to the MASTER and not the creature.

Now, about he ability scores... They LOOK fine, but I'm wonder if this wouldn't be more useful:

It LOOKS horrible in comparison, but at least it emphasizes what needs emphasizing: the fact that THIS monsters, contrary to most, has saves that are different form modifiers. And I'd guess that is the reason why they botched the "initiative" bit, BTW.

Similarly, it wouldn't be hard to rewrite the attacks to something simpler:

Umbral Dagger (x2), +5. Melee (5 ft) or Ranged (20/60 ft). 

Damage 5+7 (1d4+3 piercing +3d4 necrotic). If reduced to 0 HP by this attack, the target becomes Stable but has the Poisoned condition for 1 hour. While it has the Poisoned condition, the target has the Paralyzed condition.

Anyway, the whole thing feels a bit cumbersome but has a few advantages over AD&D, since it lacks the several "none" and "nil" lines found there.

I do miss some of that 2e information (morale, terrain, etc.) but maybe "number appearing" should be included in the random encounter tables instead (does 2024 have those?).

Apparently the MM indicates that D&D 2024 is what we expected: a small improvement over 2014 in some areas, a bit worse in a few, and still maintaining a vague compatibility and lots of redundancies and inconsistencies.

Reflections on RAW, RTFM and game design

It is common knowledge that several rules are simply ignored in many RPG systems.

Instead of playing RAW (rules as written), people often play the game with several changes they have invented or found elsewhere.

AD&D is a good example - apparently, not even Gygax used all the rules that it proposed (most famously the weapon versus armor tables, maybe weapon speed). But this is true for a number RPGs, and it definitely includes the current version of D&D.

Some rules are ignored simply because they are BAD. But that's not what I'll discuss here.

Let's assume we have some GOOD rules that are ignored by many (maybe most) tables. We could even imagine that ignoring them will make a worse/more unbalanced game.

If your game breaks because of that... who is to blame?

Well, most people would say you are at fault. Especially if you are a "RAW purist" - someone who believes RPGs should be played exactly as written.

You should "Read The Fucking Manual" (RTFM), as people say.

I'm not so sure this is the case.

Let's try an analogy. 

A doctor orders you to take a medicine daily.

Many people will automatically say it is obvious that taking it is your responsibility.

But I can BET that if this is a pill to treat an advanced case of dementia, or it is a medicine in form of a big suppository for a mild disease, many people will simply skip the medicine.

And this is a DESIGN PROBLEM.

Likewise, if your games have rules that work in theory, but often get house-ruled in practice, maybe this could be a design issue.

Maybe the rules are too burdensome, fiddly, for anyone to actually use.

And yes, sometimes popularity is about quality - especially in this case. 

You already bought the book, and decide to play the game, so if a particular rule is often ignored, it probably means it is bad or too cumbersome, obscure, etc.

Maybe they tried the rule and didn't like it.

Maybe they didn't even try - partly because the designer hasn't been able to sell it in the manual. 

If people ignore an IMPORTANT rule, maybe part of the reason is that the designer failed to emphasize it enough.

Another example that occurred to me is buying my grandma a new air fryer.

At first, she was not sure how to use it. She does sometime struggle with the remote.

Fortunately, the manual is about 2-pages long, and buttons have been reduced to the minimum.

Good design is also about ease of use.

Maybe calling grandma stupid for not being able to use the remote and telling her to "RTFM" accomplishes nothing.

Maybe the remote COULD have a simpler design.

If you write a game, you should at least consider it.

Your D&D character doesn't have scars, and I think this is a problem

Your D&D character doesn't have scars, and I think this is a problem.

I'm not talking about your level 1 PC - before adventuring starts, his scars are just cosmetic. 

Some RPG systems have mechanics for hindrances/disadvantages, and that is cool too, but I don't think it is strictly necessary. What happens BEFORE the game begins is not as important ad the actual game.

I'm not talking about healing spells either, although maybe they ARE part of the problem.

I'm talking about your high-level warrior, who has been trough dozens of battles, got stabbed, bitten, knocked out, and almost died several times.

He might have acquired many treasures, gained famed and riches, defeated several monsters, he might even rule a castle, but, by the way it looks, there was no simply no cost.

I'm not talking about appearance only.

Instead, I'm wondering if there should be a place in your character's sheet for old wounds. Maybe a missing finger, or even an eye (that will give you disadvantage when shooting bows). Maybe -1 Charisma from a hideous facial scar, or -1 Dexterity due to a ruined knee.

They don't need to be permanent, but some might be.

It doesn't need to happen often, nor does it need to happen to every PC.

I guess what I want is to at least have a possibility of actual wounds after dozens of dangerous battles.

These might not be to everyone's tastes. 

As doesn't fit every genre. You could even say that Conan, Elric and John Carter rarely get significantly wounded. Add healing magic to it, and you have every reason to believe your setting is full of veteran warriors without a single old wound.

But I really feel this makes the game less interesting. 

Scars and wounds give PCs history, even more than their stats and weapons do.

You are unlikely to remember how you got to level 5 and even where you got that +2 sword, since you get so many.

But you'll probably remember why, where and how you lost a finger...

Anyway, getting this to work in the table isn't easy. Nobody likes playing a severely wounded PC that doesn't heal.

Critical hits come to mind, but this is not an ideal solution; it is likely that they'll cause TOO MANY WOUNDS because PCs fight so often. Fighting and horde of goblins will surely cause several critical hits, for example, even for the experienced fighter, and even heavy armor will not protect you from crits if they are caused by a natural 20.

Wounds probably need to come from being reduced to zero HP (the 1e DMG subtly suggests this as an alternative to death). 

This way, your wounds will not be as terrible - they will remind you of that time when your nearly escaped death!

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/12/nothing-to-lose-but-their-lives-stakes.html

NOTE: there is a California Wildfire Relief Bundle on DTRPG. It has lots of Savage Worlds (including Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and a couple of OSR games. "By This Axe I Hack!" and "There and Hack Again" are the most interesting to me.

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