(Yet another) critical hit system for B/X, AD&D etc.

 It is quite simple:

A) Natural 20 means maximum damage.

B) Beat AC by 10 or more means double damage.

This has several advantages.

"A" gives you a quick, optimal result that is still within the expected boundaries. You can deal maximum damage at any time, but a natural 20 guarantees it. No "whiff factor". The average damage is not significantly impacted.

And "B" gives you:

- The fighter to get a small boost in damage, especially against weak foes, which is good.

- Armor becomes more important - going unarmored is now a terrible idea.

- The thief gains more damage with backstabbing. This is good for B/X but maybe unnecessary for AD&D. OTOH the B/X thief becomes a bit more frail due to light armor and low HP.

Both give more importance to strength bonuses and magic weapons, and even make two-handed 1d10 weapons a bit stronger (although a shield also becomes more important).

But what if both happen at the same time?

There are several solutions.

- Double maximum damage. This would occasionally allow a B/X fighter that usually deals 1d8+2 damage to deal 20 damage with a single blow.

- Double damage, but ONE of the dice is automatically maximum damage (i.e., 1d8+3 becomes 8+1d8+6). I like this solution because the maximum damage is still impressive, but the average is a bit lower.

- Double damage plus another attack. I like this one because it gives the fighter some cleaving.

A caveat: monsters will get more dangerous too.

This is not a HUGE problem IMO; I like dangerous monsters, and with multiple attacks monsters are likely to spread the damage a bit. But it is something to keep in mind.

A crazy critical hit idea (1% x level chance for damage x1d20)

I like the idea, present in certain gritty RPGs, that a critical hit from a goblin with a rusty knife could kill most PCs, although the chances are minimal. Same for the PCs shooting an arrow against a dragon. Combat is always deadly.

I tried implementing this idea in various ways, and this is the easiest I could think of... but it is still a bit weird.

Here's how it goes: a critical hit (natural 20) that doesn't kill your target has a chance (1% per fighter level) of becoming a deadly blow. A deadly blow multiplies your damage by 1d20.

A 8th level fighter has 8% chance of dealing a deadly blow for each natural 20. It will hardly come up against lowly enemies (they die immediately most of the times), but occasionally, when fighting a dragon or dinosaur, you'll create the scenes you read about in Conan stories (I'm thinking Red Nails) or Tolkien (Bard versus Smaug).

And now even a punch (or improvised weapon) could kill.

Of course, fighting a dragon becomes a lot more dangerous, for PCs of ANY level. No more guarantees...

(If you want armor so give you a bigger chance of survival - which I think is fair - subtract 1 point from the d20 for each point of AC better than unarmored, to a minimum multiplier of x2).

Conversely, there should be a minimal chance of surviving 0 HP. "There is always a chance", as Moldvay says! 1% per fighter level sounds good for that too.

Finally, if you're feeling especially generous and benevolent, you could make a random roll to see where a critical hit lands, potentially turning certain death into something more palatable (e.g., maiming for life).

(A final note: This would be even easier in a d100, system of course. Roll doubles and you multiply your damage by that number: 33 triples your damage, etc. Assuming your fighting ability is around 20% to 99%, it works quite well).

In practice, I don't think I would use such system -  it would be very hard on the PCs and I don't know if my players are ready for this much lethality. But could be interesting in a very gritty/horror system.

The absence of God

This setting idea was was partly inspired by reading Hell Is the Absence of God, although the result is nothing similar.

Lost Gods by Brom is a better source of inspiration for this. Yes, that Brom - did you know he is an impressive writer in addition to being an amazing artist? Check that one out, it has awesome depictions of the afterlife. I'll write a brief review later, I think.

Art by Brom - source.

Anyway, the idea reminds me of sword and sorcery settings... places with demons but no true gods in the modern sense. At least, that is what I feel when reading some stuff by Vance, Robert E. Howard and Clark A. Smith, for example, or settings like Tékumel and Dark Sun. Well, there are not many demons in Dark Sun IIRC, but they FEEL appropriate for some reason.

Here is how I summed it up in Dark Fantasy Settings:

---

The absence of gods

The rapture has come. The gods left, and with them the righteous. The rest of the universe was found wanting, and was abandoned. The problem is, nobody remembers it.

Humankind has a hole in their souls, but they don’t know why. There is no memory of the gods – the whole concept is alien. Altruism is almost unknown. Needless to say, there are no clerics or paladins, only different kinds of sorcerers. Temples are all fallen and desecrated – to most people, they look like ordinary ruins.

Demons are common throughout the land, but have no lower purpose other than gaining power, pleasure and gold. The word “demon” has lost its meaning. Humans treat them like a dangerous different people – the strong ones should be avoided (or worshipped, as they grant gifts), but some can be reasoned with, enslaved and even breed with humans. They also have no memory of the gods.

Bizarre monsters are also common. With no concept of natural order, there is also no separation between animal and monster. They are all bizarre beasts. No one cares to catalogue then, and everyone know you cannot predict what kind of creature you will find in your travels.

The most dangerous creature in these lands, however, are the Nephilim. Nobody knows that they are the angels that failed to save this world from judgement and damnation. These ancient, immensely powerful beings have a few clues and recollections on what happened before… However, none dare see the whole picture. Some gouged their own eyes out to avoid seeing how damned the lands have become. Other chained themselves for fear of destroying everything, or twisted their own limbs into tentacle aberrations. Many disfigure themselves to avoid the pain of remembering they were created in the image of perfection, while other carved their guilty into their own flesh. All became insane.

Maybe, if someone could put all the pieces back together, they could pray for one of the gods to look back on this damned world…

---

As I've said above, this is from my book Dark Fantasy Settings. It contains shorts essays and many tables to generate grim settings. You can find it by clicking on the link above. If you like this, you'll find more stuff like this on my Dark Fantasy line. 

It is also a great way to support this blog!

Hope you enjoy it! Thanks!

The three-strikes rule for FAST COMBAT - or NPCs, mass combat, etc.

While running Curse of Strahd, I had a problem: the PCs would often ally with NPCs to fight multiple monsters at once.

Now, as a DM, to roll dice for both sides of a conflict feels ridiculous and boring, even more so if some of the NPCs are average-level spell-casters, with spells and actions to choose from. And I can only imagine how tiresome it would be for the players to watch the DM rolling for a fight that doesn't involve them directly.

Of course, you could let your players control the NPCs on their side - which generally I recommend. But, TBH, the players are having a hard time with the number of options they already have, and this wouldn't help.

And I didn't want to handwave it, either. It was important to me if the NPC would survive the battle, and it was interesting to see if they would help the PCs or require help themselves.

Fortunately, there is an easy solution.

I call this the three-strikes rule. Works for lots of things.

In 5e, there are two things that encouraged me to use it.

First, death saving throws - they use a "three strikes" methods already.

Second, how damage and HP work in 5e. For many monsters, an attack deals about one third of a monster's HP in damage (I think I read this here; it isn't exact, but it works). This means that, in average... three hits, and you're out.

So, the solution is pretty simple: when a fight breaks, put the allied NPCs against inimical NPCs with comparable power (i.e, similar CCR), and roll a d20. Treat the results similarly to a death saving throw: three failures and the NPC is down, three successes and he is triumphant (and can help the PCs).

[If you want to be fair, a success should happen on 11 or more, but the difference is small]

If an NPC has a few failures but survives, he lost one third of his HP for each failure, and so on.

And if it is really important to save the NPC, well, the PCs can try - when the NPC is down, he starts rolling actual death saving throws.

This is scalable. If a paladin is fighting three goblins (assuming both sides are similar in power), each success means he killed one goblin. You could even use it for mass combat between two forces of similar power level. With a small list of modifiers (+2 for high ground, +4 if your force is twice the size of the other, -2 for each failure you already have, etc.), this is pretty much all you need for huge battles.

It also works for fragile NPCs that do not fight. They probably can not "win", but three failures means they're down. If one NPC is "guarding" another (which happened in my campaign), I might treat the two as a single entity and let the "bodyguard" fall first.

This method has a few advantages:

* You can roll a single die for both sides (success for one side means failure to the other). Inf act, I ask the players to roll for their allies.
* You can abstract all powers, wounds, attacks, etc. in a single roll.

It has a few difficulties, too.

For example, things get a bit complicated if the PCs team up with NPCs against a single powerful NPC. In this case, since you've got only one inimical NPC to manage, you're probably better off defaulting to the original system. And comparing the power of two different sides is not always easy.

But, overall, I find it better than playing each move by the book.

All these elements should be incorporated in the "narrative" of course. This assures the the NPCs power level becomes a bit more explicit. E.g., "when you find the fallen body of your comrade, you notice that there are twenty dead ORCS at his feet", and so on.

Sacrifice (D&D 5e) - are you WILLING to DIE?

Here is an idea I mentioned a few times, in improved form, and in one single post.

In short, it is this: if you want to fight to death, you can fight past 0 HP, but it is dangerous.

The table below is inspired by a similar one in Dark Fantasy Basic.

Here is how it goes: 

When you drop to 0 Hit Points (and are not killed outright, as per the usual rules), you do not necessarily fall unconscious.

Instead, you can choose to fight on if you're willing to fight to the death.

In theory, the player should consider his characters motivations, bonds, etc., but in practice its his choice (with some justification required).

If he choose to fall unconscious, that's all that happens for now.

If he choose to fight on, he immediately makes a death saving throw.

Death Saving Throws
Whenever you start Your Turn with 0 Hit Points, you must make a Special saving throw, called a death saving throw, to determine whether you creep closer to death or hang onto life. Unlike other Saving Throws, this one isn’t tied to any ability score. You are in the hands of fate now, aided only by Spells and features that improve your chances of succeeding on a saving throw.

Roll a d20: If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. A success or failure has no effect by itself. On your third success, you become stable (see below). On your third failure, you die. The successes and failures don’t need to be consecutive; keep track of both until you collect three of a kind. The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any Hit Points or become stable.

Rolling 1 or 20: When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on The D20, roll on the table below. If you roll a 20 on The D20, you regain 1 hit point.

Death's door table:
1 - This counts as two failed death saving throws, instead of one.
2 - Gain one level of exhaustion.
3 - Permanent scar.
4 - Temporary disability.
5 - Permanent disability.
6 - Falls unconscious.
7, 8, 9... - etc... Immediate death should probably be on the table.

You get the idea.

Optional additions:

* While you have 0 HP, once per turn you can ignore one source of damage (up to 10% of your maximum HP), unless it is a critical hit (see this post). [another alternative would be getting temporary HP due to Adrenalin...]

* You do not recover from death saving throw failures until you take a short or long rest. This is meant to avoid abuse such as allowing the paladin to recover a single HP every turn to avoid death.

What's the point?

Letting PCs choose if they remain fighting after mortally wounded is dramatically appropriated... and just plain cool. Sacrifice suits dark fantasy even better than random death, IMO, and it is obviously more suited to epic fantasy too.

Notice they can still die if they choose unconsciousness, but it is a bit less likely. Unless the adversaries go out of their way to kill a fallen character, he might survive anything but a few bad die rolls or a total party kill. An unconscious characters can also be ransomed, etc.

It is cool for the players, too. They get to choose when to put their characters lives on the line. In practice, I've seem players get a bit more mindful of their battles, taking responsibility in their own hands.

The 10% HP rule (just a flesh wound)

It goes like this:

If an attack causes less than 10% of your HP in damage, it has no further detrimental effect on you (besides damage). No concentration checks, no death saving throws, etc. If damage stops spells in your game, damage that is lesser than 10% doesn't, and so on.

Something like massive damage in reverse, I guess (I dislike this rule in 3e, but 5e has an interesting variant in the DMG... that I find a bit unecessary).

The inspiration for my (probably unnecessary too) rule comes from an old game of Marvel Superheroes RPG (FASERIP).

If I remember correctly, I was playing as the Hulk... and, after taking massive damage from some super-villain, my PC got stabbed by a mook... and died!

I really hated that.

To be fair, I have no idea if this was because of the rules, of the game master, or just faulty memory (it was more than 25 years ago).

And, now that I think of it, it reminds me of Achilles... So, it might make sense in some contexts.

Source.

In 5e, it works as an anti-mook rule. This means your 15th-level fighter will not be executed by a kobold with a knife in a few seconds, just after being knocked out by a dragon. Also, the same kobold will not break your 15th-level wizard's concentration.

Again, this kind of grittiness has its uses, but doesn't quite fit the heroic fantasy tone of most official D&D stuff. Remember that the 15th-level fighter will probably survive a fall from any height!

In fact, if you want to make 5e less "bounded" and more "epic", i.e., the 15th-level fighter simply cannot be hurt by a single kobold, you might just ignore damage smaller than 10% altogether.

I have also considered a 50% HP rule as a complement... Say, if you WOULD take more than 100% of your HP in damage, the excess damage applies regardless of immunity.

So, in theory, the Tarrasque CAN hurt a werewolf with a bite, although it isn't easy.

AD&D had something like that IIRC. If you had enough HD, your attacks bypassed the usual "magic weapons" defense.

OTOH, some small creatures could be immune to fire, and swim in magma... So maybe this rule would only work for attacks?

I dunno. Maybe it is a case of rulings, not rules ("of course the Tarrasque killed the werewolf!"), or a matter of taste.

The day the characters killed a baby

I'm currently playing Curse of Strahd. It certainly has its dark moments. However, the most appalling thing that happened in one of my games was in a different campaign. I was always a bit hesitant to tell this story here but... here it goes.

What was it? Well, you've seen the title of this post.

Anyway, during the height of the "Game of Thrones" TV show popularity, I did the whole "Shadows of Westeros" campaign.

The PCs were big players in the seven realms, a few years after Robert Baratheon took the throne (i.e., a decade before the begging of the books/show). The fought in Pike, went to tourneys, met the laughing lion, etc. It was fun!

One of the PCs had his whole family slain by a scheming bannerman (allegedly, for supporting the Targaryens against Bob Baratheon). In the end, they stormed his castle and managed to kill him. But they forgot to ask if he had a wife before storming the castle. Oh well, they finished the job.

Then they heard a baby cry.

The campaign ended immediately after that, in the same, session. Maybe it was partly because I couldn't stomach what the PCs did, they became villains IMO, but also the PCs got sentenced, killed, or sent to the wall (which was EXACTLY the plan of the their "ally", who encouraged then to attack the scheming bannerman by surprise). The whole "season" was ending anyway.

I didn't condemn the players, though; it was probably my own fault for trying to give the game that GoT vibe.

And, well, these things happen in Westeros; even ordinary peasants commit atrocities as you can see in Martin's latest book. But is not a type of campaign I enjoy.

Anyway.

Somebody asked a question about GoT campaigns on reddit, and I told this story. This was the most popular reply:

"So, how much xp for the babe?"

I have to admit, it made me laugh.

Moral of the story: The PCs will often surprise you... and you won't necessarily like it! ;)

(d)20 Reasons to start at level 3

Well, not that you should start at level 3. It's your game, do what you want. But 3rd level should be the norm in my opinion. 1st level is good for rookie PCs, character funnels, learning the game or practicing detachment from your character. In most old school editions, simply surviving a dungeon in level one should be viewed as a challenge, not something assumed as ordinary. Sure, everyone should face that challenge - just don't get attached or write a backstory until you get to 3.

Want to start on level 1? Okay, but make it level ONE: 3d6 in order, no special abilities, and keep a blank character sheet just in case. No half measures. You either die a victim or survive long enough to become an hero. And then die.

Want to start with a competent character? Start at level 3.

Well, anyway, it works for me. Here is why.

1. 1st level are victims. They are likely to die if they fight a couple of house cats or fall from a tree.

2. Everybody wants to be a hero. But what if we don't? If first level characters are heroes, we cannot play weaker characters because they barely exist.

3. Normal humans (Moldvay) have 1d4 HP. A blacksmith may have 4 HP and a young child, 1. They still fight like 1st level Fighters, and half a dozen children may kill the fighter in a couple rounds if they attack first.

4. HP inflation. Every gets one HD per level, right? But almost EVERY VERSION of D&D has some different rule why this shouldn't apply to level 1. Maximum HP at level 1, double hit dice at the beginning, starting HP equal to Constitution score, etc. Well, why not start on level 3 instead!

5. 1st level characters become too complex when you want them to be heroes. Take 5e, for example: you start with a background, two or three features from race or class, maybe a feat if you're a human, etc. Where do we go if we want to start simpler?

6. 5e wants you to get to level 3 soon, that is why so little XP is needed in the beginning. Well, if that is the case, why not let 1st level cahrachters be simpler so you make choices later on?

7. In fact, 5e DOES leave some choices to level 3. You cannot choose to be an assassin or thief until level 3, for example. So if you want to start as a thief, start on level 3.

8. Dark Sun did it. Or something like that, I think... And Dark Sun is awesome.

9. Gygax did it. 'Nuff said.

10. You cannot have meaningful single-digit characters and fractional skill unless you start on level 3.

11. If everyone starts on level 1 the Deprived Class loses its meaning.

12. I was reading the 5e Volo's guide the other day... An apprentice wizard has 2d8 HP. And he is a first level spell-caster. So your wizard is not even an apprentice on level 1.

13. Have you written a background? If you took the time to write one, maybe you should have a few extra HP so you don't die in the first round of combat.

14. Start on level 3 and now you level 10 character is only three or four times tougher, instead of ten times. Everything makes more sense, not only falling damage and the amount of arrows you can take before dying.

15. Most "modern" methods of rolling abilities (4d6 drop lowest, etc.) create heroic, strong, competent cahrachters... with about half a dozen HP. How come?

16. Granularity. If most heroes are level three, you can have a level 2 squire, a level 1 peasant, and a level 0 child, for example. A veteran would be level 4 instead of level 1. You could face a few - A FEW - goblins or kobolds at the beginning of the campaign and survive to tell the tale.

17. Arneson suggests HP are meant preserve characters because people get attached to them. If I must spend more than 10 minutes creating a character, he should have a few extra HP and probably some skill to go with it.

18. Also, first level characters were meant for Chainmail. Once we zoom in on the PCs instead of looking at the battlefield, more HP is obviously useful.

19. A first level wizard in Basic may have the same amount of HP as a young child if the GM isn't using optional rules. First level thieves are really bad at skills. First level clerics don't even have cleric spells.

20. In fact, the Basic fighter doesn't even get an attack bonus until level 4. Maybe we should start on level 4 instead? Nah, that is obviously too much!

Yes, some of them emphasize or contradict the others. This is "roll 1d20" table, not "read my arguments carefully and make an informed decision"!

Next post: why you should start at level 0 and why level 1 characters are for self-entitled weaklings! Or something.

(note: I had to republish this to make LinkWithin work as intended; hope it does the trick).

Actual play report: Krevborna retrospective 2016

Happy new year!

Let us start it with a retrospective, before I get to the goals and whatnot...

Well, I've decided to write a bit about some of the games I've played, so that they don't disappear into oblivion (BTW I just remembered I did this at least once before, although that was more advice than recollection). But, as things often go, I want to start this backwards, which means I'll start with the last campaign I played, Jack Shear's Krevborna (check here for campaign logs, etc). So I'll have to choose another day to tell you about the campaign we had to stop because the player characters killed a baby, or the time when my character had his head cut off with a katana and then rolled perception to notice; today I'm writing about my latest, best campaign of 2016.

First of all, it might sound premature to write about Krevborna, since I sincerely hope to continue playing it in 2017. The campaign isn't dead, although it has plenty of dead in it (undead, undead, undead!). But the end of the year seemed like a good time to write this.

Now, I'm not going into the whole Krevborna setting here, since you can just read Jack's posts for that (in short: it is a Gothic, Ravenloft-y D&D 5e campaign play over hangouts, with a rotating cast of characters / players, a sandbox feel, and a great balance between 5e's "three pillars"). Instead, I will write about my impressions about using Google Hangouts for the first time, meeting new people and playing my character.

Jack's recruiting poster.

The first session

I had never even used Google Hangouts before, and I was a bit doubtful about playing over the computer, as most of my games were played with old friends or in gaming conventions. I'm also a bit shy when talking to people over the phone or computer (face to face is easier for some reason). AND I was going to play with some people I had never met, but had been playing with each other for a while already; I was the only new character in my first session - even if it was a rotating cast. So you can see why I felt slightly anxious.

Things went better than expected. Hangouts works well for RPGs, but what really made the game work was the people I played with. Jack and the other players (Jez Gordon and Andrew Shields) were amazingly welcoming;  they went out of their way to get me into the game and give me way more than a fair share of the spotlight (you can see it in the adventure description). At the risk of sounding awkward, I must say that the first session was a lesson on how introducing new players to an ongoing campaign - and probably contained some good ideas on how to introduce new people to the hobby.

(BTW, you may know the people I mention here from their amazing work - Jack, Trey, and Andrew from their blogs and writings, and Jez for his art and design in multiple RPGs).

Sandbox play

One of the things I enjoy the most in Krevborna is the sandbox aspect; characters choose what plots to pursue, there is no predefined story line (as far as I can tell!), parties are formed according to availability, and the rotating cast can completely change the way a session goes.

Let me give you one example: in one adventure, we decided to investigate some information about a creature trapped in some kind of dungeon. Our NPC contact suggested using enslaving the fiend to fight our enemies, which might have seemed like a good idea... but... The PCs were my paladin of vengeance, Andrew's fighter (an acolyte of St. Othric), and Jez's Luka (described as a "trigger-happy urban ranger" that was going through serious soul-searching and in a quest for redemption).

As a result, we spend a big part of the session discussing if it was morally right to use the forces of evil against itself. In the end, Luka shot the trapped demon in the head. Is is likely that tone of those things would have happened with different characters.

In one of the most intense sessions, only two players showed up. We ended up biting more than we could chew, and one of Andrew's (awesome) characters died. This left me alone against an enemy that I wasn't sure I could deal with, but I decided my character was more likely to die than to run. In the end, Tristan survived, thanks to a dagger he got from... a random encounter in that same session! It seems like chaos and randomness create better stories than the ones we plan in advance.

In any case, I have bad memories of GMs protecting my character from bad decisions. It has been a while since I lost a character, and the risk made everything more fun. Also, losing Andrew's character was bad, but doing the eulogy and seeing the town he saved named after him was awesome. I felt a bit bad for not using all my powers correctly, though - I was still learning some nuances of the 5e paladin and I thought he could have survived if I had been smarter, but I guess it is all in the game.

This aspect of the campaign made itself more apparent as we played on (here is one extreme example of Luka's behavior completely changing a session). But even from the first session, it was easier for me to get in this kind of campaign, because not for one moment I felt like my character was intruding on an ongoing "story" that I could derail.

Art by Jez Gordon.

The players and their characters

Now let me tell you about my character...

I am playing Tristan, a paladin of vengeance. which I found to be a fun class to play in 5e. Tristan is a good guy, but the whole "vengeance" angle is fun to toy with. He is in many ways the typical "do good" paladin, eager to die fighting evil if necessary, but he also occasionally lies, cheats, backstabs and uses evil weapons and allies to punish the wicked. Also, I'm playing him straight; when we first found signs that the church could be hiding some nasty secrets, my first comment was "well, we all have our secrets" (to Trey Causey's character, who, I figure, has lots of secrets of his own). Tristan is not above hypocrisy.

Now, one of the cool aspects with playing with Andrew, Jez and Trey (the ones I played most sessions with, although I did have a couple of sessions with other awesome players) is that they play characters full of flavor - interesting backstories, shades of gray, etc. - and in a similar uncompromising fashion. Nobody fears derailing the plot while being true to their characters - and they often do (see above).

This is only possible, I think, because Jack doesn't try to control the PCs actions and choices. He provides an awesome setting, plenty of interesting plot hooks, and he is cool with letting us talk among ourselves (often for long times....) to figure out things and decide what to do - even when we reach a stalemate. Adventures are fair and balanced, but two characters died already. The stakes seem more real this way - in a different adventure where only two players showed up, we avoided combat altogether because we weren't sure that we could get out of there alive.

Also, even though nobody has time for anything these days, its cool to see people that are dedicated and excited about their characters. Jez, in addition to providing great drawing of the characters, wrote a long, in-character letter to my character revealing his past (I wrote back, of course!), and Andrew often writes posts with thoughts from his most recent character, the fabulous Kylic.

Every one of these characters feel alive, with story and personality - not a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

The bloody Verdict on Krevborna

This is a meaningful campaign, so I've decided to keep records. I hope they're useful to you - it might be interesting to see a campaign through a player's perspective. Mostly, I wanted to record the best campaign I played in 2016, and one that I'm really looking forward to playing in 2017.

12 ways to recover your dead character's XP

Sometimes I play with the idea of creating a system where PLAYERS, not characters, gain XP for their adventures. Character death would not only be expected, but an important source of XP. The point is that there is continuity to the campaign even if not for all the characters. Or play around with multiple characters, POVs. Anyway, I didn't go too far with it, but this table might useful for somebody.

12 ways to recover the XP of a fallen character

When a character dies, his XP can be recovered automatically or though different actions, at the percentages described below. If more than one person receives the XP, it is divided equally or according to GM's decision. For example, if 10% of the XP is distributed to immediate family, the GM might decide everyone gets an equal share, or that a smaller share goes to a bastard brother that lives somewhere else, if he qualifies.

The total isn't important - maybe only 30% of the XP is recovered, or maybe 110%; it doesn't matter, as long as the death doesn't create more than 100% XP without any effort. Also, you might limit the XP to avoid the deceased's allies get more than half the XP his enemies get for killing him.

Or just roll a d12 instead.

By the way, inheritance rules from OD&D still apply.

1. He died so we could live. If the deceased risked his life for the purpose of saving someone, whoever was saved get 20% of the XP.
2. Survivor. If 1 doesn't apply, 10% of the XP automatically goes to anyone who survived the same event (peril, battle, creature, etc) that destroyed the deceased;
3. For Gondor! 10% of the XP automatically goes to one single organization (realm, criminal gang, guild, etc) the PC was part of, preferably one that was involved in the affair; if the PC screamed the name of the organization ("For Gondor!") right before dying, make it 20% of the XP.
4. Blood is thicker than water. 10% of the XP automatically goes to immediate family.
5. Political history. 10% of the XP automatically goes to anyone who is aligned to any historical movement the deceased was somehow part of; the fall of an empire, the rise of a great family, etc.
6. Cosmic Forces. 10% of the XP goes to people or gods of the same alignment than the deceased.
7. Requiescat in pace. 10% of the XP goes to the ones who take responsibility for retrieving the body and giving it a decent burial.
8. In memoriam. 2 to 20% of the XP is distributed among those who build a decent memorial for the deceased - a tombstone, a statue, plaque, naming something after him, etc.
9. Speak of the dead. 1 to 10% is distributed among those who first mention the deceased in casual conversation not related to the death itself.
10. Revenge shall be mine! 10% of the XP is distributed among those who try avenge the deceased the moment they make a vow of vengeance. Breaking this vow has dire consequences...
11. The spirit lives on. The GM can give 10% XP to someone he deems an spiritual sucessor to the deceased.
12. Deathbed promise. 10% of the XP is distributed among those who vow to fulfill the most important wish of the deceased, and succeed in doing so.

Lingering Injuries in D&D 5th Edition

The rules for lingering injuries are on page 272 of the DMG; they are not particularly good or bad, just a bit fiddly for my taste.

Here a quick, dangerous and straightforward, alternative, that requires no extra bookkeeping in addition to what is already in the character sheet. 

If a character fails any death saving throws and still survives, one failed save (even if two were failed) is not immediately erased after stabilizing or regaining HP. To make things even more dangerous, make the characters roll a death saving throws immediately upon reaching 0 HP.

This means that the character is very likely to die the next time he gets to 0 HP if he doesn't get immediate help, as has 5% of dying immediately when this happens.

To heal from this, a character must do something more significant that resting for one night. This is up to the GM and also depends on the tone of the campaign: maybe resting for 1d6 days in a safe environment, reaching a safe haven such as Rivendell (if you're playing something closer to The One Ring RPG), getting some medical attention / chirurgery (Pendragon, anyone?), a DC 20 Wisdom (medicine) check (one try per day!), casting a heal or regenerate spell , etc.

What is the point?

Getting to 0 HP in 5e is too forgiving. In fact, since there are no negative HP, it often pays off to let an ally get to 0 HP BEFORE healing him, since the excess damage is discarded! It seems too counter-intuitive and creates absurd tactics and situations. For grittier games, and specially if you want your characters to have a good reason to return to civilization from time to time, this idea might be helpful.

Torture: should it have a game mechanic?

DISCLAIMER: Please understand that I am talking about torture in fictional narratives, not in real life. If you stumbled upon into this blog by accident, notice that this is about literature, movies, TV (think Game of Thrones), make-believe games, and so on. This has nothing to do with politics, human rights, or moral philosophy. If you cannot understand that, or just don't like to read about the subject or find it distasteful, please ignore this post.

"Interrogating goblins by torture seems to be creepily prevalent in D&D games. Anyway, it’s not necessary, because goblins will always tell you everything when threatened with torture, no Intimidate check necessary. They’ll mix in 20% malicious lies, but they’d do that under torture as well." - source

I don't like player characters torturing people in my games (I don't allow torture against them, too, but that is not what this post is about). It's not that I have a weak stomach for the suffering of fictional characters; I enjoy splatter films as much as the next guy (and FWIW I even think there might be a good argument of gory violence being more responsible to put on film than some kind of sanitized PG-13 violence when bad guys get shot and die without bleeding or suffering, as if violence was a nice, clean thing to do).

The problem is that torture quickly becomes a pointless, gruesome exercise.

A player character can torture another character for three main reasons: sadism, punishment/revenge, or information gathering. I have never seem the first one in my games; the second one is rare, and usually ends quickly; the third one is the problem.

In any brutal, lawless setting, medieval or otherwise, there will be plenty of PCs that are willing to resort to torture to get information, specially against foes that have attacked or murdered other people in the past, or might do so in the future.

The justifications are not that important; once the line is crossed, torture becomes just another tool for the PCs.

After that, every time a prisoners is captured, you go through the same process: torture is described until the GM thinks it is enough and then the NPC talks (true or not) or clearly demonstrates he will die before talking. Where is the fun in that? There is little creativity, no excitement, no risk, no surprises.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons for the characters to avoid torture:

A) Someone in the group (player or GM) is uncomfortable with it, or it goes against the tone of the campaign; so it is just forbidden (maybe not even villains can torture, or player characters must all be people that would never do that).
B) A character has some kind of alignment or personal code of honor (or, I don't know, basic human decency) that prevents it.
C) Torture is a crime and has legal consequences even when murder is not (during wartime, for example).
D) Many NPCs are immune to torture, and they prefer to die than to tell any secrets about the guy they work for.
E) Torture brings some kind of mystical corruption or the wrath of the gods against those who perpetrate it.
F) Torture causes mental problems to the torturer.
G) There are other social consequences for torture - you will lose face (and allies), and now your enemies now will be more willing to torture your loved ones if they get captured.
H) Torture is useless because after a while most victims will say almost anything to avoid suffering, even if they have to lie or invent things they know nothing about.
I) Torture may kill the victim, making information impossible to recover (or maim the victim in unintended ways, making the crime very easy to prove).

Not all of those work for my group.

"A" is a very personal matter; in my "Game of Thrones"-like setting, villains are not above torture, for example, and everybody in the group is okay with most fictional violence (of course, you should be SURE that everybody on the table is on board before messing with such themes). "B" depends on the characters; it may work for most of the group, but not necessarily for all the characters all the time, and specially not for all the character concepts one might be willing to try. "C" depends on how willing characters are to obey the law - and, in most of my campaigns, the answer usually is "not very much". "D" is a bit ridiculous (unless used for special cases) - where does anyone finds thieves and villains that are so loyal and courageous?

"E" may be a bit of a cop-out - does humanity need some outside force to learn the obvious fact that torture is evil? - but the idea could still be interesting as horror; maybe the tortured souls come back as undead, or awaken demons that lie below. The players should be aware of the possibility beforehand, though, or it will fell like you're trying to teach them some lesson.

"F" is potentially more interesting, specially in character-driven campaigns where violence and madness play a significant part, like Call of Cthulhu and other games with sanity mechanics (check this for D&D - it is meant for the victim, but torture would surely affet the torturer somehow...). The best game about the subject that comes to mind is Unknown Armies, where perpetrating any kind of violence will make you more resistant to it, but also more callous (and, eventually, psychopathic). Still, these kind of mechanics are not for every game, and not for every setting.

"G" works quite well for my games. Even though it is also an "external" force to the individual character (but not to humanity itself), it makes players consider other aspects of the setting - NPCs, reputation, honor, and so on. Torture becomes a reason for shame, as it should be: it now must be kept secret, and torturers will be shunned. Villains get a tool the heroes cannot use without becoming villains themselves in the process (on the other hand, allies may turn a blind-eye if the tortures have other uses). And even foe may now claim the moral high ground over the PCs.

In short, resorting to torture makes the character less self-confident; it becomes a power other people may have over them.

"H" is also interesting to consider. If the victim is highly motivated to tell exactly what the torturer wants to hear, how can the PCs know the victim is telling the truth (or even knows it) at all? Most NPCs should quickly tell anything a torturer wants to hear to avoid further harm (in many books and movies, the character will allow himself to suffer significantly before lying, in order to make the lie more believable).

The only situation where torturing a character could yield useful results is when the truth can be checked before the prisoner is released ("Where is the treasure? If we don't find it, you'll suffer more!"). But this is not much different than intimidation; the pain only makes the threat more imediate and credible.

There are another, more interesting ways of making threats, specially by knowing the person being threatened. For a self-righteous man, blackmail could be worse than physical torture, for example. Or, if you captured an exotic monster, showing it to a captive might make him talk in no time - even if the creature is actually harmless. Deception may work well too. An example that comes to mind is what Jaime Lannister does to Edmure Tully in the book A Feast for Crows (or in the Game of Thrones TV show).

Again, this makes the characters engage with the characters and setting instead of just randomly cutting body parts until everyone is bored or sickened.

This way, torture becomes a tool of intimidation - so you don't necessarily need a specific game mechanic for it. This is how torture is handled in the Book of Vile Darkness, for example.

"I" is where game mechanics might becomes useful.

Now, you certainly don't need to have torture in your games, but if you do allow it, it seems to me it should include the possibility of real harm. This reminds the players that torture is gruesome and dangerous, but also includes a risk-reward mechanism to it: the more violent the torture, the more effective the intimation, but the higher the chance of death (or permanent injury, if the victim is someone who must be kept alive).

It also opens the possibility of having villain NPCs specialized in torture (which is to say, specialized in causing pain WITHOUT harming the victim), torture devices, or smart PCs that can threaten effectively WITHOUT using torture by resorting to creativity, deception, etc.

If you want to resort to die rolls, here are some mechanics to go with it.

Old-school D&D (or any other version):

There is a very easy method for this: the "subduing dragons" rules in AD&D. Decide the damage you want to inflict - say, 3d6 - and roll for it. If you take 50% of the victims HP, he has 50% chance of talking. If you roll too high, the victim dies before taking. Repeated attempts, if allowed, should be progressively harder.

Or just bypass HP completely: choose a number form 1% to 99%, and roll twice: the first to see if the victim survives, and the second to see if the victim talks.

In any case, even in failure the victim still gets a death saving throw to avoid death, and a spell saving throw to avoid talking.

D&D 5e:

From the torturer's point of view, you may gain advantage in the Intimidation roll, but roll Medicine to avoid killing the victim in the process.

From the victim's point of view, you may make a Constitution saving throw to avoid a failed death save (or permanent damage, etc), and a Wisdom saving throw to avoid compliance (succeeding three times means you will never break in the present situation).

Combining these two ideas: make the saving throws as described above, and BOTH the DCs is defined but how violent the torture is (i.e., it is the same DC). The Constitution save gets a bonus equal to the torturer's Medicine skill, and the Wisdom save gets a penalty equal to the torturer's Intimidation skill (or Deception, if using lies instead of pain).

Give advantage or disadvantage according to the nature of the secret being kept (and loyalty, etc) and the "creativity" of the torturer (for example, showing snakes to someone with ophidiophobia will be very efficient).

Should you roll or describe?

Making it a simple die roll allows you to use this without describing it (and thus making it happen on the background); I personally prefer to be gory and make clear that this is an ugly thing than to pretend it is a clean, efficient thing to do. If this problem comes up, I would use both descriptions and dice rolls (to add danger and unpredictability), but you mileage may vary.

What do you think?

Is this useful? Is the subject too heavy for RPGs, or for my blog? Would you ever allow PCs as tortures or victims in your games? Do you have any interesting stories to tell? Let me hear from you in the comments.

Images from "Berserk" by Kentaro Miura.

The Suicide Squad in Hell! A campaign pitch of Orphean Rescue

I'm pretty sure I read this idea (or something similar) in some old school blog or rpg thread recently. Let me know so I can give due credit. Lots of repeated themes coming from nowhere (and everywhere) in the last few days; see the end of the post for some references that may or may not have anything to do with this post.

BTW I haven't even watched the movie. But the trailers look cool, and I used some lines.

"This is blasphemy! Madness! Break into Hell, to steal from it! Why would one even try it? And for what? A soul which is exactly where Divine Law demands it to be!", said the old man.

"I know", the young man answered.

"How would you do such a thing? Enter the Abyss without permission! Fight layers upon layers of bloodthirsty demons! Hordes of damned things whose names even the foulest grimoires dare not mention! Go through rivers of fire, clouds of acid, halls of living flesh! Endless deserts of ash and glass with skies of blood!"

"I have a map. And I wouldn't be alone."

"Who would follow you in such lunacy?"

"I found some people. A mercenary. A barbarian. An assassin and a thief. A diabolist. A witch. A... lunatic, I guess."

"Bad people, then". 

"The worst of the worst." 

"And the price? Eternal damnation! Do you think the gods will ever forgive the attempted rescue of someone they put in Hell? Foiling of Divine Justice?".

"As you might have guessed, these people know they are not going to see Elysium anytime soon".

"Never mind Elysium! When you die, your souls will be trapped for eternity! The Abyss will punish you harshly for your arrogance!"

"We are aware of the risks".

"You will be on your own! The blessings..."

"Yes", the younger man interrupted. "I must do what I can with what I've got."

The two sat in silence for a few minutes, looking down. The elder man got closer to the fireplace, and shivered. Finally, he spoke again.

"I... I cannot help you. The price is too high. May the gods forgive me for even hearing you".

The younger man rose.

"I understand. Still, I had to let you know".

"Wait! You are not like this people! You spent your whole life in service! Your soul is meant for heaven!"

"Not anymore", the paladin replied, before leaving the room. "Pray for me, father".

Some random thoughts about the scenario:

- You thought the Paladin in Hell was doomed enough? Well, now he is also forsaken by the gods. Body sacrifice is nothing when compared to soul sacrifice.

- Here is a chance to use all those demons in the Monster Manual! And probably some Petty Gods too! What about deceased PCs and NPCs?

- This is certainly high-level and better suited for dark grey characters that already have committed their share of sin.

- Why would anyone do this? A tiefling, born cursed, rejoicing at the opportunity of offending the Abyss. A rogue looking for the ultimate heist. All kinds of people looking for power or wanting to defy the divine status quo. Obvious, a pious man who damns his own soul to save another.

- There is strict hierarchy in hell, and they want to keep their prisoners... but certainly not everyone is happy with the current arrangement. In fact, the whole idea is so blasphemous that only demons will be willing to help the group, and for the worse reasons one can think of. Even angels may descend to hell to stop the characters from foiling justice. Fallen angels, though, may be another story... Damned souls would be willing to cooperate, maybe. Or would they sell the group for a chance of redemption? And what about outsiders, elementals, etc?

- First idea that comes to mind is someone damning his own soul for a loved one... But what if the group needs to rescue someone with no redeeming qualities at all - and actually let him get away with his sins - in order to achieve a different objective? All the more dramatic.

- Don't pull any punches! The price for this mission is damnation. Even the most merciful gods will not help the PCs after this. They will be hated through heaven and hell. Better find a house in some forgotten corner of Limbo for the afterlife. Or try to convince some neutral or extra-planar divinity to take you in. Maybe the PCs can save themselves if they give up on the original mission and repent. When the campaign ends, at least one of three things (the mission, the PC's souls, or the whole universal order) will be destroyed.

Things on my mind in the last few days: Orpheus, Suicide Squad, the classic picture above (David Sutherland), Perdition, Hell is the Absence of God, Jurgen, True Story, and the Scorn trailer. I'm not necessarily recommending any of them or saying they fit the idea above, but they probably inspired this post. I am also writing an adventure on a similar subject, without the whole "spiritual" angle.

And TV Tropes, but I'm not linking it - you can thank me later!

Hit Points: What are they good for? Absolutely nothing! Except war.

Another quick brainstorming session.

Hit points and their progression are so important to (what I view as) traditional D&D that sometimes it seems that changing them would mess everything up.

The more I think of it, thought, it seems like HP are good for combat, and little else. Note that I'm taking the "in character" or "in fiction" view of HP here; of course you can use HP as character resource, pacing mechanic, narrative control or whatever.

HP and combat ability are very closely related; the relation is obvious in OD&D, but even in other editions you usually have characters with the most HP having the best attack bonuses, monster HD translating directly to attack bonus and HP, and so on. There are a few exceptions (old school dwarves come to mind), of course, but in general I would say HP reflects "fighting ability" better than "wounds" or anything similar.

And HPs ARE a great mechanic for D&D combat, in my opinion. Starting characters and mooks are always in danger of immediate death, while more experienced ones always have a chance of running away. HP is a good measure of your character's ability to know how far he is from death/serious harm, as I heard someone say.

But for (mostly) everything else, HP seems like a difficult fit, which is why there is all this silly talk about falling damage, etc. The main reason that makes HP a good mechanic for combat (training and adventuring increases survivability quickly) is a hindrance when you use to portray dangers that would affect any character (almost) regardless of experience.

In short, I am starting to wonder if HPs are really a good multipurpose mechanic or if they should mostly be limited to combat (and only indirectly for other purposes).

Let's see some examples.

Dehydration, starvation, etc: there are often better and simpler solutions than HP loss, unless you want a level 1 Fighter to risk death after one day without water and a level 10 fighter to be able to spend one week without drinking. Some systems that use alternatives to HP loss are 3e, 5e and LotFP; my favorite are the ones I wrote here.

Poison, Disease: each poison or disease should have unique effects, but if I were to make a generalization I would say saving throws and Constitution damage work better than HP loss. For poisoned weapons, for example, I find it quite redundant to deal damage, than deal more damage due to poison. Worse, lose HP, than make a saving throw to avoid losing more HP - but this saving throw is highly correlated to how many HP you have.

Assassination: even the mightiest human hero should be susceptible to a blade to the back while sleeping or distracted. In AD&D, assassination is based on level, not HP. Again, saving throws and Constitution damage might work better than HP.

Magic: I like the idea of spell points, and HP as spell points may work fine for some people, but creates all kinds of problems: wizards being afraid to cast spells (and not for fear of mutations and corruption, but for hoarding HP, which is a lot less fun), healing spell short-circuiting it all unless you add special rules for that, etc. It would be better to give all characters 1d10 hp per level and let wizards transform half of it in spell points, and then keep pools separated forever - or a similar solution.

Falling damage: not much to add to all known complaints. A level 1 thief is likely to die after falling 10 feet, a level 10 fighter is likely to survive after falling 70 feet. Again, easily solved with saving throw + Constitution damage.

Temporary HP, Subdual damage, etc: I think adding more uses to HP makes things more confusing rather than simpler. Here is a random rule for Berserkergang: all HP damage dealt to you is halved, after it ends you lose 1d4 Constitution (salve halves). I am sure there are other, simpler ways of dealing with this stuff than different pools of HP.

Monsters: they make things a little trickier. On one hand, there is no reason a cow would be much better at surviving a fall than cat (because physics, etc), and disease, starvation, dehydration, etc, will depend on the particular animal more than it's toughness or size. On the other hand, monsters with lots HP are often big, which should provide some defense against poison and assassination. Also, old school monsters need little but HD in their stats, so I would be careful about making the use of Constitution mandatory.

Should we get rid of D&D-like HP? I don't think so. It is still too useful for combat, and ditching it might cause more problems than it solves. I like the idea that a common soldier can die in a moment of fighting, while an experienced adventurer might have her fate defined by choice, more than chance. And most of the problems people seem to have with starting HP can be fixed by beginning on level 3 (more about that later).

There are plenty of systems that deal with HP differently, but the way HP works is one of the defining characteristics of every edition of D&D, and if you like D&D, you are probably fond of that, like me.

Old School Ramblings #2 - Your character isn't special

Read part I to see where I'm coming from, and some sources. Also, see this post  by James Maliszewski, and Matt Finch's Primer. In any case, keep in mind that "old school gaming" is hard to define, and a lot of it is in in the eye of the (metaphorical) beholder.

Behold! The old school beholder.

This week, I'm discussing another trait of (what I see as) old school D&D: your character isn't special. At least at the start.

Take the original D&D (1974), for example. Starting characters are very frail in OD&D. They have little HP and can be easily killed in one minute of fighting, no matter the weapons being used. Falling from a height of 10 feet can be a death sentence. In fact, even a house cat is a worthy adversary in some versions (although this is probably unintended). 1st level characters, sometimes, look more like victims or paws than heroes.

As far as abilities are concerned, characters are average people; their stats are defined by rolling 3d6 in order, which seems to be what you would expect from a random “commoner”, and they don't get any better with level. Fighters, specially, are sometimes defined as “normal men” (see this post from Delta). By switching this system by “4d6 pick highest”, for example, you make the characters inherently better than average, specially if abilities have greater bonuses than they do in OD&D.

Characters are mechanically similar to others in the same class, with differences depending on equipment and tactics more than personal characteristics. A fighter is almost identical to another fighter of the same level, all thieves share the same skill progression, and so on. Characters can be almost interchangeable, with hirelings taking the place of a slain PC. A common complaint against old school games is the lack of customization, but that is very in line with the rest of the rules.

Character's motivations are somewhat simplistic to non-existent. Everybody seems to be trying to make a buck, and alignment is simply a choice of faction, not a behavioral guide. They don't need ideals, bonds or personality traits, or, some would say, even a name at first. “Male Elf”, an anagram of your name, or some random pun will do.

It's easy to see how this characteristics play well with one another. For many people, losing a character can be very frustrating in any circumstances, but losing a character that you have spent a few hours creating is ten times worse, so is better to make character creation a quick affair.

One could even argue that by taking lots of options you're already investing too much in the character while you should be playing with it, instead, which is why random character generation might work better for such games (and sometimes char-gen is a mini-game unto itslef, with death being on the table - like in some editions of Traveller. This seem a bit extreme for me, but it would be cool for generating random stories of families, groups, etc).

By Jim Holloway, from the DCC RPG

Likewise, is hard to lose a character you played for a while. In fact, this seems to be the whole point of hit points (pardon the pun), as Dave Arneson explained:

" Combat in Chainmail is simply rolling two six-sided dice, and you either defeated the monster and killed it … or it killed you. It didn't take too long for players to get attached to their characters, and they wanted something detailed which Chainmail didn't have.
[...]
I adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army. They didn't care if they could kill a monster in one blow, but they didn't want the monster to kill them in one blow."

Of course, this is quite cleverly implemented in D&D, since the more attached you get to the character the less chance she has of dying quickly or without warning.

That's why characters are harder to kill at higher levels, and resurrecting them becomes more viable. Surviving makes the characters stronger.

Background and advancement are one and the same.

Characters can BECOME special by the things they DO during the game. They certainly don't START special or have any RIGHTS to grandeur.

This is, in fact, one possible goal of the game (from the character perspective), according to Gygax:

"The ultimate aim of the game is to gain sufficient esteem as a good player to retire your character--he becomes a kind of mythical, historical figure, someone for others to look up to and admire."

A popular catchphrase among old school enthusiasts is that "character background is what happens in the first 3 levels" (I couldn't find the original source). Or as Mike Mornard puts it:

"The cool thing about your character was what you did in the game"

As you can see, this is obviously connect to the idea of "Story Later" I mentioned in the first post of this series. Starting the game with an elaborate background encourages you to see the game in terms of "stories" and "character arcs".

This kind of old school gaming where starting characters can die like flies is quite rare even in D&D. The desire to customize characters and make them though heroes from the beginning became common early on, and was fully adopted in most editions. Gygax himself allegedly used quite a few house rules that would make the game less lethal for starting characters.

Ultimately, the idea of fragile characters isn't too popular out of the "old school gaming" circles, and even in D&D it fell out of favor. WotC-era D&D characters have lots of HP, powers, details and options, from the very start.

These look like heroes...

Fourth edition, for example, has powerful characters, with lots of HP, from the very begging - they won't be dying in a single round anytime soon, and many people thought 4e combat was meant more as a balanced sport than a messy and bloody affair. Fifth edition, being somewhat of a compromise edition, takes a step back, but not really: death saving throws still make a character with 0 HP a bit more likely to wake up than to die.

Some games inspired by D&D make the distinction even more clearly. To mention just a few games I like:

13th Age: all characters start with “One Unique Thing”. They are very special from the very beginning. They also have relations with the Icons of the setting (creatures like Tiamat, Elminster or Bahamut) or attitudes towards them, and start with about 20 or more HP. Their skills are defined by customized, flavorful backgrounds, often invented by the players themselves.

Dungeon World: in this game, even character classes are special.  If you're a fighter, you're THE fighter, and there are no other fighters in the group (or the world, for that matter). As you create your character, you choose bonds and alignment (which is an unique “moral outlook”). Again, abilities are higher than average and you start with a fair amount of HP. You don't get much more powerful as the game progresses.

Dungeon Crawl Classics: DCC, unlike 13th Age and Dungeon World, goes through great lengths to maintain (or even improve) this old school style. It's right there in the blurb of the game (“You’re no hero”), but also in the rules: 3d6 in order, 1d4 HP, characters start at level 0, traits are selected by chance, etc. More famously, the game starts with a “character funnel”, in which each player controls various characters, most of whom will die early on. You're not supposed to get attached.

...these don't (art by Stefan Poag - DCC RPG).

No style is better or worse, of course, and there is subjectivity involved in the classification. Some games are in the middle of the road, and a game can conceivably do both at different stages, as every edition of D&D does to some extent.

Personally, I like both, and sometimes enjoy a middle ground. My own "new school" game, Days of the Damned, gives some "unique" stuff to every character, but keeps character generation somewhat simple, since it can be quite deadly. I played a few "old school" adventures with B/X inspired games, and had a GREAT time, but most of my current group seems to be more comfortable with more character customization and less random death.

The cool thing about old school lethality is that it sometimes feel like playing in hardcore mode, like some Nintendo game or Dark Souls - you might even have multiple lives in the form of new characters, but challenges seem more significant when the PCS lives are on the line, and great stories can be told - after the fact, remember - about their random misfortunes and demises.

The downside is that it may get a little addictive. Nowadays, I must confess that I don't enjoy playing a game as much if I see that the game master is focusing on some story rather than play, and I find non-lethal combat somewhat boring (although you can always have something else at stake).

As long as you're having fun, any style you do, but if you have never tried old school gaming, I would strongly recommend that you do. Even if you don't stick with it, it might make you see D&D (and RPGs in general) in a whole new way.

Welcome to the Negaworld - A review of Black Sun Deathcrawl

You are the cursed - remnants of life in a universe of decay. 
Cannibalistic parasites, you suck a meager existence from the corpse of a long-dead reality.
Once you had nations, races, goals.
Now you are one, united at last in the unending struggle for survival in a reality that abhors you.
Once you had love and happiness and light
Now there is only the crawl
- Black Sun Deathcrawl

Black Sun Deathcrawl is a setting for DCC RPG, written by James MacGeorge. You can get it here. It is also probably the most bleak, depressing, and desperate setting ever written in the OSR, maybe for RPGs in general.

And it's awesome.

In BSD, you play The Cursed - the last survivors of a dying (dead?) world. The Black Sun ascended and basically killed everything. The only (temporary) respite can be found by digging deep into the ground, but the unholy light of this sun will creep in there too after a while, along with the unrelenting monsters. As The Cursed dig, they unknowingly weaken the structure of the planet. bringing the end closer.

There is no hope, no purpose, no end game. The only way out for the characters is losing all hope and committing suicide - even death is temporary and only makes you worse.

There is no dark humor to soften the blow, too. The tone is dead serious. The art (basically Gustave Dore's illustrations for Dante's Inferno) and layout (with big, black letter and ominous sentences) really manage to reinforce the themes.

Although the setting is very reminiscent of Dark Souls in many aspects (the dialogue with the avatar of a dead god could have been pulled from any of the games), while other remind me of The Isle of the Torturers or other somber tales by Clark Ashton Smith, the hopeless tone is more like The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, mentioned in the books appendix, or The Day After, The Dying of the Light, etc.

Amazingly, the author has succeeded in creating an actual short adventure in this bleak setting. It is very railroady, as it should be, because characters have little options in this world. While the characters are digging for their lives, they find an underground dwarven city yet untouched by the Black Sun. The curse follows the characters and [SPOILERS] eventually destroys everything [/SPOILERS].

Sounds fun, right?

To be honest, I am not sure I would ever play or run an adventure in such setting with my regular group, but I enjoyed reading it. This is what I would call "RPG poetry" in its finest form. Not something most people would actually use as written, but it might be mined for ideas and certainly makes you stuck to your seat. Or make you reevaluate your life if you're in a somber mood (no, just kidding... but it is quite depressing).

The choice of DCC (or any other "old school" minded game) is perfect for this game. Using some "modern" or custom engine to move "hope tokens", "character arcs" or something similar would detract from the experience and make the point harder to see. Destroying familiar things such as hit points and character classes is way more hurtful. The tweaks to the system - hope instead of luck, the player-vs-player method of hurting other characters to survive, etc - also enhance the experience.

We have seem plenty of cool negadungeons (basically, dungeons with no treasure, experience, or anything positive for the characters) already, most written for Lamentations of the Flame Princess really. BSD is the first Negaworld I have seen in RPGs. It's depressing, it's pointless, it's well-written and it's the most creative thing I have read in RPGs in a while.

In summary: go read it. You will not regret it.

Or maybe you will. But only because it might ruin your mood.

The Rule of Three - Easy outdoor survival rules for 5e, BD&D and DotD

A while ago, I explained why I dislike 5e’s rules for starvation and dehydration, and proposed something close to the original rules, while advocating using the same rules for both scenarios.

This time, I'll explain how I use the same rules for starvation, dehydration, suffocation, exposure, sleep deprivation and all kinds of hazards in my own game (Days of the Damned), and how you can use it in D&D to deal with this hazards without having to check your books.

The rule of three is a mnemonic device for outdoor survival that says one usually cannot live for more than 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food. It is a very rough estimate and it varies from person to person in real life, but works well for gaming

purposes.

In Days of the Damned, where damage means physical stress, this is quite easy to do: damage from this situations is 5 for the first third of this period, 10 for the second and 15 for the whole period - enough to kill most characters. If the character somehow survives, this keeps going: 20 for the fourth day without water, then 25, and so on.

In D&D, it gets a little trickier. To implement this, you must decide what levels and HPs mean in you game, and if the 20th level wizard should survive starvation better than the 2nd level fighter, among other things. 

Or you can just use the method I describe below.

If you assume (like I do in my games), that most 1st level characters should survive a day or two without water, but even a level 12 fighter cannot survive for more than 10 days without drinking, using HPs for this purpose (as Delta suggests for OD&D) might not be the optimal solution, specially in 5e, in which most high level characters are little better than ordinary people in most situations they aren't specialized in, but get lots of HP all the same.

Fortunately, 5e has a system that bypasses HP altogether: exhaustion, which is perfect for our purposes. It also has a different system to deal with skills that improve with level, but less dramatically than HPs: saving throws. Here is the simple rule for 5e:

Characters who spend more than one week without food. one day without water, one hour under extreme weather (heat or cold) without adequate clothing, or one minute without air suffer the effects of exhaustion (see appendix A). After each of this periods, she suffers two levels of exhaustion (but a DC 15 Constitution saving throw will halve this effect).

Exhaustion caused by lack of food or water can’t be removed until the character spends a day eating (or drinking) the full required amount.

This way, every character has a good chance of surviving a bit more than one would expect, specially the ones proficient in Constitutions saves, keeping the "heroic" tone of the game.

BD&D has no "exhaustion" system by default, but you can use something similar: Constitution damage. It affects total hit points and can cause death regardless of level. I would allow a save for half damage in order to let high level characters have a better chance of survival. 1d6 per period works well, but if you want to make it progressively harder to survive, start with 1d4, then 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 and 1d20. You can use this pattern if you prefer hit point loss to Constitution loss, too: it will spare most characters in the first period, but even high level characters are unlikely to survive after a while. And you only need one set of dice.

In any case, the recovery rate should depend of the situation. In my games (unlike real life), lack of air causes no lasting effects if it doesn’t kill the character, so he could recover in a few minutes, while other kinds of damage could be cured in about one day per level of exhaustion or per period.

But why stop there? As you know, I like using the same rule for multiple purposes, and this is a good example. Here are some additional ways to use it.

Falling damage. Not the rule of three, but just picking up more damage dice for every 10 feet: 1d4 first, than add 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 and 1d20. Falling from 50 feet would cause 1d4 + 1d6 + 1d8 +, 1d10 + 1d12 damage. You can cap the damage if you want to give better chances of survival on great falls; maybe 1d4 + 1d6 + 1d8 +, 1d10 + 1d12 plus 1d12 per additional 10 feet, save for half damage. Of course, iy you want to keep 1d6 per 10 feet fallen you can go directly to Con damage... few characters will survive a great fall.

Sleep deprivation. You can use a 3-day pattern for sleep deprivation, but six levels of exhaustion may cause fainting instead of death.

Poison and disease. The "running against time" sensation caused by growing danger can be simulated by this rules, with one difference: if a character survives three periods (minutes, hours, days, weeks, depends on the poison or disease), he starts to heal and gets no further damage. The best part, of course, is watching the characters run desperately for a cure!

So, there you have it. This is the rule I use for antibodies in D&D, if you ever need one!

Update: want to download this rule in PDF form for using in your game? Check this out.