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.

AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part XI, p. 174-215 (Appendices C, D, E - Random monsters)

We've been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

Today we discuss random monsters!

APPENDIX C: RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS

This includes extensive tables for random monsters. These are bigger, more detailed, and overall a bit better than the weird B/X / OD&D tables. Whales are not encountered in any kind of "water", but only in "deep water", etc.

"the only monsters which are included are those in MONSTER MANUAL. Two notable exceptions to this are those the mezzodaemon and nycadaemon which are found in the AD&D module D3, VAULT OF THE DROW (TSR Games, Inc.). If you do not have this module, simply ignore results calling for these monsters and roll again." 

A weird choice, but okay; the author found these two creatures important enough to be part of the core.

This section includes encounters in dungeons, outdoors, water, underwater, airborne, astral, ethereal, and also psionic encounters, whatever these are.

I'll admit this looks like it is too much for me. Underwater adventures are maybe 100 times less common than forests, at least in my campaigns.

First, there are random dungeon encounters. I do not think this is a great idea but the tables are detailed enough that they may help you create your own dungeon, with a proper theme and hopefully some coherence. 

There is a big focus on balance here; in theory, players can only find the strongest dangers if they travel deep enough (alike wilderness encounters, where they can suddenly face a couple of dragons). This has indeed some "mythic underworld" vibe, with little regard for naturalism/realism/etc: the deeper you go, the bigger and more numerable the monsters become. You can find a dozen bandits on level 1, but there is 120 of them if you find them on level 10.

You can also find adventurer NPCs, each extremely detailed, including random magic items. It is not clear how - and why - are these tables different from the ones in the appendix P.

The book recommends you prepare several parties/NPCs in advance. Looks like a lot of work, but fortunately we might have some tools like this one to make it automatic.

Underwater encounters are simple enough, but detailed - they are "are divided into those which occur in fresh water and those in salt water (seas and oceans). Each division is further broken down by depth - shallow and deep water encounters". Not much to comment here, and not much use for me as noticed above.

ASTRAL & ETHEREAL ENCOUNTERS are next. These are completely baffling to me. The explanation might be elsewhere; I might have read and forgot about them, or skipped it (probably they are the result of some spell?). The glossary indicates there is an explanation in the PHB, so its my fault for not reading it first. 

After some research, it seems these pertain to a certain spell, so maybe they should be include in that context. Like underwater encounters, I feel these won't be used often.

In any case, these are evocative and very interesting. It makes astral/ethereal travel feel dangerous and exciting.

PSIONIC ENCOUNTERS may happen if PCs are using psionic powers - these apparently can attract demons and other entities, which is sinister. These seem to manifest out of thin air (since the yellow mold doesn't move IIRC), so I'm not sure why the book suggests "Roll until an appropriate encounter occurs, ignoring inappropriate results" for this particular table only.

OUTDOOR RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS is the meat of the chapter. It has tables and subtables for Inhabited areas, Uninhabited areas, Castles, multiple types of terrain in various climates (artic, subartic, temperate, etc.), plus some setting conditions like "faerie", "Pleistocene" and "Prehistoric".

Well, Pleistocene is part of "Prehistoric", but here it means "Age of Dinosaurs", as indicated by the table. The book adds: "Feel free to devise your own encounter matrix for Jurassic, Triassic, or other period with non-aberrant creatures.". 

Why are there no mountains, hills river or seas in the age of dinosaurs? No idea. Probably it is the other way around: in D&D-land, you'll only find dinosaurs in these places.

Pleistocene conditions are somewhat to Sub-Arctic Conditions, without fantasy creatures such as trolls, etc.

I can IMAGINE the Pleistocene/prehistoric tables could be combined for a pulp/S&S campaign, but then you'd also need a river/sea table without nixies, hobgoblins and such. as written, maybe they are meant to apply to certain "lost world" parts of your settings - despite dinosaurs and mammoths being found in the regular tables too.

Putting everything together looks like a bit of a headache, but hopefully this too can be automated (I am sure there is an online roller somewhere, please let me know in the comments!). This one is based on 2e.

AIRBORNE RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS is short and sweet: "simply use the appropriate

OUTDOOR RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS table [...] but an encounter occurs only if the creature indicated is able to fly or is actually flying."

CITY/TOWN ENCOUNTERS are meant for unexplored cities, basically. They seem to happen incredibly often ("every three turns"), probably because you meet people all the time in a city, but many will simply ignore the party. 

Checking that often must be a bit of a hassle in practice; maybe we could just check a few times a day for "memorable" encounters that are likely to approach the party.

Also worth noticing that ordinary people seem to be a small percentage of encounters. I'd assume there are more, but unlikely to make memorable encounters. As written, these tables make cities extremely  dangerous, full of demons, undead, and bandits, maybe even more than the cities of S&S like Lankhmar.

BTW, this is where you can find the infamous "harlot table" that describes encounters with "brazen strumpets or haughty courtesans".

We also get ANOTHER table to generate magic items for NPCs, for reasons I cannot fathom.

APPENDIX D: RANDOM GENERATION OF CREATURES FROM THE LOWER PLANES

This is, basically, a generator of random demons, devils, etc.

I LOVE this chapter. This is a precursor to Teratogenicon and all similar books.

Basically, it makes each creature weird and unique, from head to toe, including stats. Here is one example created by this generator:

Demon #1

---------------------------------------------

Frequency: Uncommon

No. Appearing: 3

Armor Class: 0

Move: 15"

Hit Dice: 9

No. of Attacks: 3

Damage: 3-9 (Mouth), 2-12 (Each Arm), 

Special Attacks: Summon/Gate, Spell-like Abilities, 

Special Defenses: Acid Immunity, Weapon Immunity, Cold Immunity, 

Other Abilities: None

Magic Resistance: 45%

Intelligence: High

Size: L

Psionic Ability: Nil

Strength and To Hit/Damage Bonuses: 18 (00) (+3/+6)

---------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Head: Human-like  / Knobs

Overall Visage: Wrinkled - Seamed

Ears: None

Eye Color: Metallic

Eyes: Huge, Flat; Two-Eyed

Nose (If Necessary): Slits Only

Mouth: Tusked; Tiny

Bipedel Torso: Ape-like

General Characteristics: Short and Broad

Tail: None

Body Odor: Urine

Skin: Leathery/Leprous

Skin Color: Reddish

Back: Normal

Arms: 2Hands: Taloned

Legs and Feet (As Applicable): Suctioned

Pictured by Grok using data above.

This technique is great to keep things fresh and keep players guessing, although all fiends share some traits (e.g., magic resistance).

Teratogenicon extends this reasoning to other creature types: undead, aberrations, monstrosities, etc.

APPENDIX E: ALPHABETICAL MONSTER LISTING

A list of monsters and their stats. Probably based on the Monster Manual. No stats for the mezzodaemon, but more than 20 lines for hydras with varying number of heads.

Overall, these appendixes are good, despite some redundancies, weird choices, and mixing things of dissimilar importance without clear distinction, which seems to be a common trend in the DMG.

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.

Magic Item inflation in AD&D

Modern D&D is sometimes accused of turning PCs' into "superheroes". 

I have been accused of similar transgressions for daring to add feats to my OSR games.

"Hero, not Superhero", from Matt Finch's primer, is a popular motto. 

Of course, you cannot take it at face value - "superhero" PCs were in Chainmail, even BEFORE D&D (they are roughly equivalent to 8th-level fighters).

Likewise, a 8th-level magic-user can fly, cast fireballs, turn himself and other into frogs, etc. Clerics can raise the dead by this point!

Finch says PCs become Batman, but not Superman (he must be referring to fighters - not even Superman can turn people into frogs or raise the dead. Also, Batman is a superhero. But I digress).

Maybe Iron Man might be a better example.

AD&D PCs, even fighters, become spectacularly powerful due to their equipment.

The problem starts on level one. As @ericbabe noticed, in "Lord of Darkness", a classic AD&D module:

For defeating 12 skeletons and a 5-hp crazy woman the first level party earns:

- a ring of invisibility

- a ring of feather falling

- two maces +1

- 800 gp

I noticed a similar (but less extreme) pattern when running classics module in my own campaign. 

[And OSR adventures seem to follow this trend too - I've noticed in in BFRPG, DCC and LotFP modules].

It is difficult to have a precise measure of a high-level PC's power, since so much depends on which modules you run and how well the players do.

The DMG has some guidelines on creating high-level PCs in Appendix P. The rules are generous, albeit not as generous as the example above. For example, a 2nd level PC has only 20% chance of having a +1 magic weapon, plus 30% chance of magic chain armor.

I would guess reality is much more plentiful for surviving PCs, not only using published modules but also using the random item tables from the same book (the 1e DMG). Gygax himself recommend GMs to limit the number of magic items found, IIRC.

There is an easier way to analyse high-level AD&D PCs, however: using the pre-generated characters from classic modules. There is a great compilation in Dragonsfoot.

Let's look at some examples:

The A series has level 4-6 PCs with +1 or +2 weapons and armor, plus some potions and scrolls. Looks reasonable to me.

In the D series, we have PCs from varied levels (around 7-10). Now each PC has several magic items, usually AT LEAST +2 weapon and +2 armor, and we start to see negative ACs.

In the G series, PCs are around level 10-12. There is a level 14 fighter ("Frush") with 104 HP and -5 AC, and a level 12 cleric with -1 AC. The Level 9 Dwarf Fighter has AC 0, a Dwarven Hammer +3, Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Striding and Springing, among other things.

[There are also a few intelligent swords int here. They allow fighters to cast magic spells.]

These PCs would win against an army of OGRES, and I mean that quite literally: even Frush by himself can easily defeat one hundred of them if only ten can attack at once. 

Now, I have never seem -5 AC in any of my games. That is because, despite using feats, I am not as generous with magic items.

How about other editions?

I think B/X might be slightly better less generous in this regard. You can play with this cool generator to see for yourself. I wont say this is ideal because I think B/X fighters are too weak and you shouldn't nerf them.

I am not sure about others; I remember 4e giving away lots of magic items but in hindsight maybe it is not that different from other editions. 

Old-school players sometimes complain about "HP inflation" which is kinda true, but nobody talks about magic item inflation.

5e has tried to limit magic items in important ways.

This is from Xanathar's (5e):

A party gains one hundred magic items during level 1-20, but most of these are consumables.

While this sounds similar to Appendix P, I think it is likely that some AD&D PCs might get even more using random treasure, and definitely a lot more if they get a few magic items for every dozen skeletons they face (OTOH, if they also get 800 gp, they'll level up quickly...).

One important aspect of 5e is attunement. Some powerful items require a certain "bond" with the user, and you cannot have more than three of those. These include bracers of defense and rings of protection, for example.

On the other hand, 5e PCs have a lot more features than AD&D PCs. There is a some balance there; some of the PCs' powers are intrinsic, other are form items, while in AD&D most special powers come form items (at least for fighters).

I must say I'm not a fan of having that many magic items.

Characters like Conan, Fafhrd or John Carter (Appendix N) are heroic (or even superheroic?) because of their own prowess, not because they carry many magic items.

[One noticeable exception is Moorcock's characters, who do get several].

That's why I prefer feats. And they can be very simple: just give a PC "+1 to swords" instead of a "sword +1", or "+3 block" instead of a "shield +3". Like magic items, feats can be distributed randomly if you want.

In short, even old-school PCs can become superheroes with amazing power. They also have their "builds" and "powers" that they create with magic items. Whether you want these powers to be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, is up to the DM, who will decide what is best for his style.

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

AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part X, p. 169-173 (Appendices A, B - Random dungeons/wilderness)

The project is back after a long hyatus!

We've been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

The meat of the book is finished; now we move on tho the appendices, and these are almost as important as the main text (in fact, there is often no clear reason for why something is in the appendix rather than another chapter).

Today we discuss random dungeons and wilderness!

Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of those; I invite anyone who has more experience with them to share it with us in the comments!

Anyway.

APPENDIX A: RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION

This part contains brief advice on how to make a dungeon and multiple tables to generate one randomly.

I am not a big fan of random dungeons; I find them nonsensical and often cliched.

I wrote about the subject here.

Last time I need a "dungeon" I took a castle map online and populated the rooms in an interesting, coherent manner - according to a theme (haunted castle) - and I was very satisfied with the results.

Can the Appendix A provide something more flavorful?

I'd have to try them in practice. I never actually did; I remember seeing some examples online, but nothing impressed me. Please let me know about any examples you have!

But let's see those tables.

There are 5 "start areas", which seem too weird and not sufficient. With the exception of number 4 (maybe?), they simply do not resemble any actual building, nor do they give an "mythic underworld" vibe (dungeons always start with stairs and they have lots of stairs - maybe they are "created by a mad mage" stuff).

In the same manner, the tables indicate long corridors and lots of 45º degrees passages.

In short, this produces a very specific type of dungeon, ideal for mapping on a square grid, but not much else. Your result will look like a "vanilla D&D dungeon", but not like a cave, castle, ruin or spaceship.

The tables that fill these rooms are a bit better; basically, they add monsters, treasures and traps. Enough variation to make things interesting.

Appendix I adds more interesting stuff to dungeons. Why not put it closer? No idea. But we'll get there!

(BTW: my own book Dark Fantasy Places has some ideas on these topics).

Curiously, the book indicates that "the random dungeon generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play", which is a play-style that became much more popular in recent years.

In short, maybe a cool mini-game, but doesn't seem to create great dungeons, unless the DM adds a lot of input.

EDIT: as waywardwayfarer note in the comments, there is an app inspired by the appendix A. Try it for yourself to see if this is the kind of game you want: https://www.blogofholding.com/dungeonrobber/

APPENDIX B: RANDOM WILDERNESS TERRAIN

This is similar to dungeon generation, but shorter. The first paragraph explains that:

If a wilderness expedition moves into an area where no detailed map has been prepared in advance, the random terrain determination system below can be utilized with relative ease for a 1 space = 1 mile, or larger, scale. In using it, however, common sense must prevail. For example, if the expedition is in the north country the forest will be pine or possibly scrub, while in tropical regions it will be jungle. Similarly, if a pond is indicated in two successive spaces, the two should be treated as one larger body of water. The Dungeon Master must also feel free to add to the random terrain as he sees fit in order to develop a reasonable configuration. In any event, the DM must draw in rivers, large lakes, seas, oceans, and islands as these features cannot easily be generated by a random method.

I don't think random wilderness is a good idea, for several reasons: first, it often produces incoherent maps. It would also take a HUGE time and effort unless you automate it - even a small area requires hundreds of rolls. In addition, mountains can be seem from many miles away and it'd be absurd for the PCs to suddenly find one.

You'd be better off just drawing your own map in advance without any help - which is FAST and EASY. 

It wrote extensively about this here.

The DMG seems to recognize these limitations and only suggest you use this "where no detailed map has been prepared in advance".

There is only a couple of tables here: terrains and inhabitation. Only 10% of hills (and ZERO percent of mountains) contain forests, which seems weird. The DM probably has too choose those, or he'll get hills with forest in the middle of the desert.

Again, my Dark Fantasy Places has some additional tables that might be useful.

If you use 1 hex = 1 mile, the map seems a bit crowded (one hex out of six has something, from single dwellings to cities of 10,000 people). 

Still, it does a decent job of balancing small hamlets, cities, castles and ruins. This is evocative stuff. Unlike mountains, you COULD conceivable find a small castle/ruins in the woods by accident, and it could be the beginning of a great adventure.

BTW, if you want LOTS of tables about the subject, you can check this post in Knights & Knaves Alehouse. Again, it looks like too much to tackle without automation but it is FULL of cool ideas!

Coming next... RANDOM ENCOUNTERS AND MONSTERS!

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

Dead-end mechanics

When I was analyzing the 1e DMG - a project I plan to complete in 2025 - I noticed it has several interesting sub-systems. 

While I prefer simpler games, I can see the value of having interesting detail to your games, no matter how idiosyncratic (for example, AD&D seems obsessed with polearms, while swords do not seem to get the same attention).

There was something bothering me about AD&D and it was not the bits that felt unnecessarily complex. The system felt a bit disjointed and I couldn't quite explain it until I gave it a name: dead-end mechanics.

This is not something specific to AD&D - it can potentially happen in any RPG, and it might be closely related to what makes RPGs unique.

AD&D is a good example only because it has so many moving parts.

Let's try a definition: dead-end mechanics are parts of an RPG system that do not meaningfully interact with other important parts, especially when those other parts are thematically related.

This definition can be improved, but let's give some examples.

Example 1. Disease, ears and hearing

There is a curious idea in AD&D that you can check monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease. While this feels un-heroic and not particularly exciting, I can see that it would give a campaign a gritty/realistic feels and a sense of urgency (TIME must always have a COST).

[It can also add some gravitas to fights against giant bats, rats and even wolves].

However, the effects of such diseases on usual dungeon activities are not always described. There would be some obvious solutions - for example, diminished chance of listening to doors or greater chance of being surprised - but the book simply does not address this.

If you lose hearing in BOTH ears, the results on "listening to doors" are obvious, even if not described - we'll get to that later. In any case, the results on surprise are not clear.

Similarly, there is no exact consequences to the loss of an eye for ranged attacks, for example.

(Another curious example here is venereal disease. Since the game includes no benefits to intercourse, this just feels disjointed from everything else. Pendragon, for example, has rules for lust and descendants, which might suggest a bigger focus on such issues. Also, the game mentions herbs/gems that ward off disease, but not how they actually affect disease rolls).

Example 2. Time - initiative, segments, weapon speed

My main frustration here is how complicated and disjointed the initiative/segments rules feel.

There is simply a lack of obvious connection between surprise, weapon speed and thief skills. They don't seem to communicate... but they obviously should!

Can a thief surprise a foe with his silent movement? Should a fast weapon be ideal for this job? Can you get more attacks with a fast weapon if your foe is surprised? I'd say "yes" to all of those, but the book either doesn't make it clear or indicates that the answer is negative.

There is also also no clear connection between the speed of melee weapons and ranged weapons, and they seem to work differently in the surprise segments for no apparent reason.

Example 3. Levels, abilities and dungeon/wilderness skills

This is not an AD&D thing, but something common to most versions of TSR D&D. 

As the PCs level up, they get better at fighting and surviving, but they do not seem to improve in any other dungeon activity: listening to doors (or breaking them down), find their way in the wilderness, hunting, etc.

The thief is the main exception here, since most of his skills are dungeon related and get better with level. 

Curiously, the ranger does not have many special skills in the wilderness: he is not better than any other PC when finding his way in the forest. He can cause upraise and avoid being surprise in any environment, but it is unclear how this fits with the vaguely similar abilities of thieves and even halflings.

Example 4. Drowning

I don't remember the source of this; could be some version of Labyrinth Lord. 

But the rule was something like "if you try to cross a river in plate armor, you have 90% chance of drowning".

Just flat 90% (or whatever). Your strength, level or class do not matter. HP? Save versus death? No. You just drown.

Are dead end mechanics even possible?

While I find these mechanics undesirable, I do think there is a natural limit to dead end mechanics.

As I mentioned above, it is obvious that if you lose hearing in BOTH ears you cannot "listen to doors", although the game does not say that, nor does it describe what happens if you lose hearing in ONE ear, which is much more statically probable.

This has something to do with the uniqueness of RPGs.

RPGs give fluff and crunch a peculiar bond, to the point that fluff IS crunch and vice-versa.

This is a long discussion, but in short, in RPGs a spear will NEVER be identical to an axe, even if both deal have the same damage, weight and cost. An axe will ALWAYS be more useful to take down a door even if the game doesn't say so.

My point is: if taking down doors is a frequent activity, the game should address this difference explicitly.

How to write better mechanics

My ideal game would have a big level of integration between the different rules. In the most frequent cases, this should be explicit to make the GM's job easier.

Modern D&D sometimes does a better job at connecting various mechanics. For example, a Constitution saving throw relies on ability AND level AND class. But, sometimes, it creates MORE problems of this kind, like the fact that 5e D&D has at least TWO unrelated ways of disarming opponents (one of them optional), with no clear relation. 

I must mention Quidditch as a negative example (despite not being a big fan of Harry Potter). While there is some nuance, it often feels like two guys are playing an entire different game that has a flimsy relation to the rest of the players and a huge possibility to make all other efforts void.

["A Seeker catching the Snitch ends the game and scores the successful Seeker's team an additional 150 points (15 goals). As the team with the most points wins, this often guarantees victory for the successful Seeker's team." - source].

But maybe I can express this point visually, using the two images in this post.

The spheres represent game mechanics. The biggest ones are the most important/common. They are connected by lines; e.g., Constitution and level should both have direct lines to HP, but Constitution does not necessarily have a direct line to level or saving throws.

The first image in this post represents a disjointed game: no clear center, with some important mechanics disconnected from others.

The second image is closer to my idea: the most important spheres are near the center and strongly connected; disconnected mechanics are few and unimportant.

I think there is more to be said about the subject, but I'll leave it here for now.

As a suggestion, I'll say we must consider what are the central mechanics of a game (maybe abilities,  levels, classes, maybe also time, money, XP, encumbrance, etc.) and how they related to each other. Dead-end mechanics should be rare.