"Three pillars" as distances and 3P monsters

The three pillars of D&D are exploration, social interaction, and combat (there is also character development but that's another issue). Here is an UA that shows you how to give XP for each pillar (a decent idea IMO), and a quote from that document: 

Back when we were designing fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons, we talked about the game’s three pillars: exploration, social interaction, and combat. By thinking about social interaction and exploration as foundational aspects of D&D, we made sure we were always looking beyond combat when designing the game. Fighting easily draws the most attention in terms of rules and game balance, but the other two elements are just as important in making each game session exciting and unique.

In old school D&D, most XP came from gold; gold came from exploration; social interaction and combat were ways to get to the gold. Avoiding social interaction (through stealth) or combat (through interaction, also stealth, etc.) were valid methods. Getting XP through combat was riskier.

Since "XP for killing monsters" became the norm, D&D has been accused of being "only about combat", for obvious reasons (interaction and avoidance get discouraged if you must fight to earn XP). But XP is not the only issue. 

Combat has been somewhat improved in modern D&D, but social mechanics such as reaction rolls have been downplayed. Morale and retreat - two ways getting away from combat - also have been partly forgotten. Exploration become a bit less obvious, with rules for finding traps and hidden doors, for example, being more variable and opaque (i.e., the players do not necessarily know difficult is finding a secret door). Likewise, hexcrawls and navigation ("overland travel") have been a bit de-emphasized or relegated to supplements.

Anyway, back to monsters and combat.

One things that occurred me is seeing the three pillars as distances (or phases). 

Exploration tells you where, when and how you will find the monster. These includes habitats, cycles, number of monsters found (also devalued in modern stat-blocks), etc.

Interaction tells you how the monster reacts to other creatures. Is it friendly, aggressive, curious, territorial, etc. What are its goals? How does it look? What about alignment? If the creature wants food, for example, it might be easy to distract or placate.

Combat is the last phase - how does the creature acts when attacked or cornered, etc. Adding a paragraph on tactics would be immensely useful for Dungeon Masters. Instead of going through the entire stat-block, game masters would instantly know what spell or attack to pick when the fight starts. In addition, here we should discuss morale and courage (is the creature willing to fight to the death? Not often), reminding the DM to avoid running every monsters like a Spartan at Thermopylae.

Now, if monsters were organized in these three topics (i.e., "three pillar monsters"), I feel they'd be easier to use. You might skip the exploration bit if running a published adventure, for example, and even the interaction bit if the adventure contains information such as "a hungry owlbear is hiding in this cave and attacks any creature on sight".

On the other hand, if the PCs want to find a green dragon and don't know where to look, just go to the "exploration" part of the text. If the GM wants to write its own material with a certain monster, "exploration" is the first section to read. 

If a monster appears on a random encounter, go to "interaction" first, and so on.

That's all for today. I'll leave you with a couple of quick examples. In practice, I might separate stats/numbers from flavor text.

GRIFFON 

(large monstrosity)

* Exploration: 

Uncommon, found in temperate hills/mountains; pride of 2d6; 25% in lair, treasure C/S. Griffons are large creatures with the hindquarters of a lion, etc.

* Interaction: 

Neutral (feral), semi-intelligent, will attack creatures when hungry or defending lair. Some griffons can be tamed by..., etc.

* Combat:

Griffons prefer to fly by, attack, and fly away when possible. If a creature seems helpless and small enough to carry, they'll grab it and fly away to their nests, preferring mules and cattle to armed humanoids.

---

Move: 12 (fly 30)

Attack (13): claw (1d4x2) and bite (2d8).

Defenses: AC 3, 7 HD, ML 11.

GROANING SPIRIT 

(medium undead)

* Exploration: Very rare, found anywhere (usually haunted ruins), solitary, 70% in lair (any), treasure D. 

Groaning spirits are cursed humanoids etc...

* Interaction: Chaotic evil, exceptional Int..

Torments and attacks living creatures for sport. Might talk to victims and play games (lead to traps, etc.) before attacking. They do not remember details of their past lives but might hold a grudge against their killers, etc.

* Combat: 

The spirit starts a fight with a horrendous wail, and then proceeds to attack survivors with its chilling touch. It fights and pursues the living until it is destroyed, but is usually bound to a certain area (a house, corridor, etc.).

---

Move: 15.

Attack (13): 1d8 chill touch, wail (3”, save versus magic or die).

Defenses: AC13, 7 HD, +1 or better weapon to hit, 50% MR.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/05/monster-statblocks-how-good-is-ad.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-to-run-npcs-in-combat-days-of.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/09/should-monsters-know-what-theyre-doing.html

---

Support this blog! 

As you might know, Teratogenicon, my biggest book so far, is about generating random monsters, with goals, origins, and powers. And the art looks amazing - check the previews to see for yourself!

Kings of the Wyld by Nicholas Eames (quick review)

Kings of the Wyld is an epic/satire book about a famous "band" (as in "rock band") of middle-aged mercenaries that goes back into action, decades after their break, to save the daughter of their "band leader", who is inside a city under siege from a monstrous horde.

Bands are basically a comedy version (or parody) of D&D adventurers. Each band has its own pompous name, past success stories, and groupies. 

I've bought this book based on a recommendation and read it slowly, taking several months to finish. The pace starts and finishes strong, but it drags a bit in the middle. Even toughs the story goes on for too long, the books is very well written.

Sometimes the author doesn't seem to be able to decide between comedy and epic narrative. As a comedy, the book has several references to fantasy stories, bands and musicians from the real world, which made me smile but never laugh out loud. There are puns and jokes in every chapter, mostly good. If you need some familiarity with D&D and (classic) rock bands to "get" all the jokes.

As an epic, the book works relatively well, although it has a bit of exaggeration at the climax - which basically brings together all the monsters and heroes in the universe, which is still exciting - and it is immensely derivative of D&D, including orcs, owlbears and others for no apparent reason. The characters have sturdy plot armor, but the book manages to paint some dark corners and dramatic moments in this epic narrative. The book descriptions are quite cinematic and it looks like it would make a good movie. 

I almost feel like there is a missed opportunity of creating a great epic, although the comedy part is also enjoyable.

This is the first of a series of book but the ending is satisfying by itself. I might read other books by Eames to see where it goes. This is his first; an impressive debut.

In short: this is high-level vanilla/comic D&D. Witty, well written, and skillfully balancing parody and homage. The writing is better than the first Black Company but it is also more derivative. A bit reminiscent of Fritz Lieber but not as funny or evocative. Still, above average for fantasy books.

Is this relevant for RPGs?

Yes, obviously. The "band" organization seems like a great fit for D&D, and it is something I'd be willing to try in my games. It is in many ways superior to a group of "Witchers", since in the band formation each character class has its own niche and its own place in the spotlight.

Quick D&D/OSR thought: comparative rolls

Old school D&D uses few opposed rolls (with the exception of attack versus AC and damage versus HP). A spell saving throw, for example, requires the same roll if you're the target of a first-level elf or a 14th level magic-user. As I've noticed before:

But, basically, any roll in which the possibility of success relies on both your skill/power and your opponents' skill/power can be considered an opposed rolls. Which is very common today, but NOT usually the case with old school D&D. Saving throws, moving silently, hear noise, etc., were often used without any regard for the opposition's capabilities. Traditionally, there is no "contest" between move silently and hear noise, for example; these abilities are "self referential", relying solely on the character attempting them.

There are some opposed rolls in old school D&D, but they are often disguised and made complicated for no apparent reason. For example, giving the thief a 5% penalty to pick pocket for each level of the victim beyond level 5 is identical to just adding +1 per level on a d20 roll after level 5. Turn Undead is also a opposed roll between the cleric's level and the undead's HD.

The lesson here, I think, is that because D&D is a "class & level" game, opposed rolls should always take level into consideration. Used in this way, opposed rolls reinforce the "class and level" aspect of the game in a way that "rolling under ability score" does not.

Dispel magic is another good example. Some creatures work similarly (e.g., the phase spider, which I use as an example below, imposes a -4 penalty to poison save in the RC, unlike an "ordinary" giant spider).

This bothers me, since I happen to like opposed rolls. AND I enjoy aspects from both old school and contemporary D&D. So when I wrote Dark Fantasy Basic, I used opposed rolls, despite fearing it would make the game harder to use with OS/OSR modules.

I failed to see how to have both within the same system; either the roll is self-referential ("roll 12+ to save versus poison - any poison") or the difficulty is defined by your foe ("roll 12+ to resist giant spider poison, but you need 16+ if the spider is huge like Shelob the great"). 

And this changes the game fundamentally, since it affects the very essence of how saving throws work.

Maybe you already realized that I missed an obvious solution...

Size matters!

Here it is: use the old school method, but, as an optional rule, add the difference in HD to the roll.

Lets say you're a 3rd level fighter, and your poison save is 14. When facing a 2 HD snake, you get a +1 bonus, needing only 13 or more to succeed. But when facing a 8 HD phase spider, you get a -5 penalty.

If you're using target 20, this is even easier; just add your level to your roll and try to roll 20+, or , if using the optional rule, add TWICE your level to your roll and try to roll 20+monster HD.

Use this if you want high HD monsters and heroes to be significantly stronger against low-level creatures. Which I like; the 5e purple worm causing 3d6+9 damage plus 12d6 poison on a failed save seems more reasonable to me than 1d8 plus save versus death.

There are a few problems with this approach. It's too fiddly, and not strictly necessary; it requires one additional step; it makes the poison of a purple worm deadly 100% of the times against that 3rd level fighter (fighting a purple worms at level 3 is a bad idea anyway... and the same would happen in 5e); and we have to consider how to count PC's HD after level 9 (especially if you're going all the way to 36).

Also... I like how Dark Fantasy Basic turned out. 1d20+stat+skill, versus 1d20+HD, and that's it. Works well, and you could hardly make it simpler. Maybe I should do the opposite then: use the DFB method and leave the fixed target as an optional rule (say, roll 20+ to succeed against anything).

Anyway... its a start!

Recommended reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/05/of-opposed-rolls-and-fixing-5e-saving.html

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-best-combat-algorithm.html

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/02/target-20-system-accuracy.html

The strange clerics of original D&D (and B/X, OSR, etc.)

In the original D&D, the cleric is a very peculiar class. Not only thematically (see "additional reading", below), but mechanically too.

At a first glance, the cleric casts spells exactly as a magic-user or elf - only starting a level later than both, and having a lower cap (5th level spells) when compared to the magic-user (6th level).

Once you dig a bit deeper, however, you will realize the clerics are completely different from other casters – most importantly because they can choose any spell to memorize, not being limited by a grimoire. However, there are other relevant details.

First, the cleric’s spell progression is very peculiar when compared to the magic-user and the elf. For example, a level 6 cleric gets access to spells of level 3 and 4 simultaneously for no obvious reason. Compare this to the magic-user: despite requiring a lot more XP to level up, the MU does not have access to level 4 spells until level 7. 

And by level 7 (50,000 XP), the cleric can raise the dead! And, unlike the magic-user, he does so automatically, without needing to choose a spell to add to a grimoire.

From the OSE SRD:

This progression is in Moldvay's Basic (1981), identical to the one is OD&D. However, it is "fixed" for something more streamlined in both BECMI and AD&D.

Second, spell levels few almost arbitrary. Cure Light Wounds (healing 1d6+1 HP) is a 1st level spells, while Cure Serious Wounds (2d6+2 HP) is a fourth level spell. With a 5th level spell, you can raise the dead... or create lots of food.

Then there are deities, which will punish clerics that stray away from their path – or that cast reversed spells, making these kinds of spells a bit less versatile than they appear.

In practice, these things combine to make a more or less coherent whole. Spell levels are all over, but it does not really matter because the cleric can choose any spells every day. The cleric is very useful and versatile, but never a better fighter than the fighter, nor reaching the same destructive powers of a magic-user or elf.

However, there are some downsides. 

For example, the game allows clerics to research their own spells, but there seems to be no obvious parameters on how to do so, since their spells vary so much in power. It also makes creating new classes who have access to both spell lists a lot harder, for the same reason.

Likewise, turn undead uses a strange progression that ALMOST makes sense if you take into account the creature's HD, as OSE does:

As you can see, there is almost a very easy formula to be found ("roll 7+ or more to turn undead of the same HD as yours, 9+ if higher", etc.) that gets "broken" because of the addition of "HD 2*" monsters (which are ghouls, BTW; they seem to be important for some reason, giving the elf an special ability that looks almost pointless to me). OSE suggests adding higher HD monsters if desire; this is really easy to do if you follow a simple formula.

You might think that there is some unseen balance behind this reasoning. But this is not necessarily true. As someone else mentioned, in The Keep on the Borderlands - reviewed as "a good introduction to D&D" (source) - there are dozens of undead with amulets that prevent turning!

So, what can we do with this?

If you're playing B/X, OD&D, BECMI or OSE, you don't need to do anything, if you don't want to. In practice, as we've said, the cleric is not necessarily overpowered (especially if there are few undead in the campaign), and doesn't even heal that many HP (relying basically on CLW; which is good if you're healing 1d3 per day otherwise), despite being able to raise dead quite soon.

However, if you are writing your own house rules or OSR game and want to create a cleric more to your liking, you might consider:

- Streamlining spell progression and spell levels.

- Streamlining turn undead, especially if you don't need a column to accommodate ghouls.

- Giving more healing options if you want the cleric to be a healer.

- Change "raise dead" if you want it to be less common.

This is what I did in Dark Fantasy Basic (making the cleric a weaker spell-caster than the MU and making turn undead a skill) and what I'm working on for my next supplement (an "Alternate Magic" book for OSE - let me know in the comments if you like the idea!).

UPDATE: Alternate Magic is out, with an alternate cleric, ready to use!

Recommended reading:

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/05/giants-in-earth-index.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/08/d-osr-and-anticlericarism.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html

Piranesi by Susanna Clarke (quick review)

I bought this book literally by its cover (and back cover), not knowing the author had written at least one fantasy classic before (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, which I haven't read yet). I'm trying to stick to the classics but this one got me curious. Anyway, the name of the artist Piranesi and the theme interested me.

I was positively surprised by the book. At first, it seems like a relatively simple and purely dreamlike fantasy, but as we get closer to the more mundane explanations for the bizarre world the narrator lives in, we realize that the book deals with deeper themes, such as the human capacity to create and to get lost in other people's creation, childlike innocence, trauma, Stockholm syndrome, identity, the meaning of learning and memory, the contagious character of madness, and ultimately the beauty of the world and other possible worlds - and how dangerous beauty can be.

The plot - a man exploring a surrealistic, labyrinthine and nearly infinite world, almost devoid of people - is reminiscent of Jorge Luis Borges (The Library of Babel, Funes, The House of Asterion etc.) and also of my own Planet Asterion (because it is also inspired by JLB, of course).

The writing is great. The book starts a bit slowly but never ceases to hold you attention. I could hardly stopped reading and finished in a day or two. The conclusion might not live up to the mystery (does it ever?), but I found it very satisfactory. It makes me wonder how much of our world - which we accept without question - is arbitrary or purely the whim of other people we barely know.

In brief: a short, excellent book that I really enjoyed. 

Highly recommended.

Is this relevant for RPGs? 

This is definitely a good source of inspiration, especially if you're into Lovecraft, Borges, surrealism, dreams (and dreamlands), mind-warping, postmodern magic, and so on. It doesn't contain big heroes, monsters, or fights. The setting, while relatively simple, is interesting and evocative.

Improvisation, railroading, illusionism and the man behind the curtain

I tried to make this point a while ago, without much success. I'll try again from a different angle.

Here is the idea: sometimes, improvisation (i.e., coming up with things on the fly) leads to railroading (or quantum ogres, illusionism and similar things), and sticking to pre-written material (settings, mechanics, etc.) is a good defense against this.

Let's define some terms before we begin. This is the best/oldest definitions I could find, and they seem decent enough:

1. Improvisation: the art or act of improvising, or of composing, uttering, executing, or arranging anything without previous preparation (source).
2. Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (source).
3. Illusionism: A term for styles where the GM has control over the storyline, by a variety of means, and the players do not recognize this control (adapted from this source).

It is easy to see how closely related railroading and illusionism are. 

It is harder to see how railroading  ("preconceived outcome") can coexist with improvisation ("without previous preparation"). But, as I'll try to show, the GM often has preconceived outcomes ("in the end, the PCs find the villain and beat him") that goes AGAINST previous preparation ("the villain is Lord Sanydun, he has 50 HP").

One of the main problems of railroading and illusionism is removing agency from players. Not only do their choices cease to matter, but also they are tricked into believing that they do. To use someone else's analogy, it is like letting your little brother play Street Fighter with you, but giving him a joystick that is not connected to the console.

I decided to write this after watching a video from a popular creator (whom I like) with these kinds of GM advice:

1. "If the players mention they suspect an innocent person, maybe you can decide that now HE is the culprit!"

2. "Fudge your die rolls or HP if the encounter proves too difficult".

3. "If a player rolls very well when searching for something that isn't there, maybe it is!"

4. "If the players are talking too much, throw an encounter at them".

Also, to sum it up, something to the effect of "never let the players see the man behind the curtain" - which sounds very close to illusionism.

Now, if that is what rocks your boat, fine. I just want to add that this is not the only style of play and is, in fact, anathema to another style which sees illusionism and railroading as things to avoid.

Let's analyze the advice above.

Advice 1 is the classic example of "improv". But it completely devalues any mystery, any clues you throw at the PCs. You may argue that this is not railroading because the GM hadn't conceived an outcome beforehand - the DM thought the culprit was A, but when the PCs accused B he changed. However, in this case, the outcome enforced by the GM is the PCs find the right culprit; he is negating the player's choice of accusing the wrong person!

Come to think of it, as long as the culprit gets caught, the fact that he was NPC A or NPC B is inconsequential - you cannot claim that changing the culprit is not a "preconceived outcome" because, again, the outcome you are forcing is that the PCs get the bad guy.

Advice 2 will make the players believe they can win any encounter, or worse, they can win any encounter if you let them. It removes player agency. Again, the outcome the GM is forcing is "the PCs win the next battle".

Maybe the only caveat here is if you throw a random encounter at the PCs, through no choice of their own... but even then, I'd prefer letting the Pcs run away or negotiate than fudging the mechanics. For one, it will make they have a better grasp of how powerful a dragon or ogre is.

Advices 3 and 4, again, make the setting feel artificial - as if responding to what players, not PCs, do. Notice that number 3 is a thing that could happen in Dungeon World, for example (IIRC), but DW at least assign consequences for failing your search roll - otherwise, everyone would be searching for treasure everywhere.

Number 4 deserves a caveat: IF the PCs are in a dungeon where you roll for random encounters every 30 minutes, and the players talk for 30 minutes in-character, you should obviously ROLL for random encounters. Likewise, if someone would hear them, etc.

It is not illusionism if the players know

It is not illusionism if there is no illusion. If your players know that fudging dice and HP is the DM's prerogative in this campaign, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go, or that a good dice roll will let you find treasure where anywhere, this is not illusionism, it is a style of play.

This is a very important distinction because, as we'll see, DMs must make things up as they go in both styles.

Some different advice

Let me try some alternative advice to the "man behind the curtain" method described above.

- The GM must present an internally coherent setting for the PCs to interact and explore.

- The GM must believe in the authenticity of the setting as much as the players.

- The GM should not alter the realities of the setting (at least not DURING PLAY) to accommodate, entertain, defy, reward or punish players, but only because of things that happen WITHIN the setting. In other words, the setting is defined by PCs and NPCs and not about GM and players.

Another tips I mentioned before that might be related:

- Let the dice push you out of your comfort zone. Your PCs all failed their saving throws - now what? Your important NPC was killed before he could start his plan - what happens now?

- Expect the unexpected from your players. Do not expect them to follow a predictable path, or always find the right culprit, or only pick fights they can win, etc.

How to AVOID illusionism?

Let's say you and I prefer the same style of play - how to avoid illusionism, railroading, etc.?

Well, one idea is use a published adventure, or write your own.

If you follow it to the letter, without improvising, you cannot execute any of the four advices mentioned above.

(BTW, having a plot telling you what happens if the PCs fail or do nothing will help you tremendously. It will relieve you of the temptation of enforcing the preconceived notion that the must win).

Of course, if your PCs stray from the course, you must improvise. However, do NOT improvise a reason to force than back into the adventure. That is exactly what railroading is. Just think of the logical consequences of their choices. 

Also worth remembering that pre-written adventures should NOT dictate what the PCs do, but should only describe NPCs, places, events, and possible ramifications. "In game railroading" is also terrible advice IMO - for example, "if the PCs refuse the mission, the king arrests them until they accept". Here is a good post about the subject.

And what if they enter a random town, far from the original adventure site? Well, then you improvise, but it is ALSO okay to say "I hadn't prepared this, let's take a small break". Remember, it is NOT illusionism when they know you're making things up on the fly.

When to "railroad"

It is okay to talk to your players before the game about a specific premise or even adventure. I recommend GMs that dislike improvising too much do exactly that.

This is NOT exactly railroading, because the players are aware of their choices (or lack of choices) - although the PCs will have no choice in the matter. For example, "hey folks, I have this cool dungeon we can play, what about we run that on Thursday?".

Giving SOME choice to the players is even better. "Okay, I imagine the PCs can go to places A, B or C next Thursday... What do you think? Maybe somewhere else?". If you're mid-campaign, a simple "what you think you're doing next?" will often suffice.

Of course, if you give them just one choice, the players can respond with "why would my PC go into this dangerous place", etc. But after the thing has been settled, it would be rude for the players to just go off-grid without a reason, forcing the GM to improvise on the spot (unless, I guess, the GM is cool with that too!).

As general advice, I'd say that this "railroading" is expected at the very beginning of a campaign - even implicitly. Are we playing Tomb of Annihilation? Yeah, I do not expect the PCs to be disinterested in Chult in the very first session.

Is it okay to "railroad" beginner players so they can learn the game? Well, I can see not wanting to kill every PC in the first fight. "Training wheels" could be useful. But how will they learn that a dragon is dangerous if they beat it at first level? How will they learn their choices matter... if they don't? Why would they play attention to clues if there is no "right" answer to the mystery?

I'm undecided, but I'm inclined to say "no railroads for beginners". In my first Demon Lord adventure, a couple of random thugs almost caused a total party kill. I thought the adventure was too hard - but it did set the tone for the whole campaign.

Should we improvise, then?

Of course. You need at least some improv to run RPGs. What I'm saying is: do it carefully.

For example, you often need to improvise to find out how the NPCs reacts to the PCs. How the events unfold. Etc. 

You also need to improvise to find out things about the setting you hadn't established before. But when you do so, answer your own questions using the setting's internal logic, not the necessities of the players, the moment or the "plot". 

For example, if the player asks "can I full plate armor in this town?", ask yourself "how big is this town?", not "how bad does the PC need this for the next adventure".

You do not change inanimate things and past events because the PCs had an idea, desire, or particular die roll (unless, again, the PC could change the world in such way with his or her actions).

You also improvise anything that players expect you to improvise, of course - what is the blacksmith's name? 

But you do not improvise freely when the answer should be found in the setting - "is there a blacksmith in this town"? When the players ask you that, they do not expect you to be creative, but to give your honest assessment of what you be expected in the setting. Here, you are not looking to be creative, but genuine.

You can also improvise (or, at least, create) anything when your players expect you to do so. For example, between sessions. Or when you ask for a 5 minute break. Or when they break into a random house. Etc.

Its often good to improvise "HOW" but not "IF" (the monster dies, the castle breaks, the NPC escapes, etc.). This is probably worth an entire post.

Oracles and random tables

These are not improvisation. They require previous preparation. If you have a table for random encounters, and you get a dragon encounter, throwing a dragon against your players from nowhere is not improvisation.

But what if these tables are more like oracles? "17 - an ally is revealed as a traitor". Still not improvisation while you roll, but you'll have to interpret the result to the best of your ability - which does require some improvisation. Again, just let the players know that this is the kind of game you're playing - an ally can betray them at random. If there is a transparent mechanic for that (e.g., morale rules), the outcome is not improvisation (although you might have to improvise motives, etc.).

Creation x discovery

Actual improvisation usually trains actors, musicians, etc., to come up with unexpected responses. They are still constrained by other factors - the beat, harmony, or previously established facts. Which is a fine way of playing RPGs*.

There's another way of doing things, however. Many writers describe their processes not as creation, but discovery; i.e., there is a deeper truth about their settings and even characters that they must respect. The goal is not to come up with something unexpected, but to be faithful to the "true nature" of setting in character. 

This is an equally valid approach.

(*One good comparison I got from my friend Jens is jazz - because in jazz you can go "off-key" and even play around with rhythm. But, still, you do not do it alone - you take cues from the band, from the harmony, from the existing beat, etc. You do not set the tone and rhythm for the whole band).

But I LIKE fudging dice!

Again, if that's your preference, that's fine. I'd advice you be transparent about this - let your players know that fudging dice and HP is your prerogative, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go. If everyone is on the same page, that's okay (just not my preferred style).

I'd argue, however, that it is useful to let people know both styles exist - at least so people can try both ways and see what they prefer.

Recommended reading:

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/46297/roleplaying-games/how-a-railroad-works

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/44221/roleplaying-games/remixing-avernus-part-1-the-beginning

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-how-illusion-can-rob-your-game-of.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2020/01/its-like-jazz-isnt-it-attempt-of-post.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-to-manipulate-narratives-when.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-random-narrative-generator.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-world-of-23-engineered-social.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/12-things-i-wish-i-would-had-known.html

Useful reviews are comparisons (book hierarchies)

When I review books, I try to focus on their own merits. Let's say, for example, that Lieber is a fun read despite being better or worse than Tolkien. 

In my latest review, however, I compared The Black Company (unfavorably) to Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell and George RR Martin. As I've mentioned, this might be an unfair comparison, since these three are some of the greats, and it adds a negative note to a book I enjoyed (kinda).

However, I think these kinds of comparisons can be useful in at least four ways: 

- If you liked book A, you might like book B.

- Conversely, if you didn't like book A, you'll probably dislike book B.

- If you have many books to choose from (let's face it, we will never read everything we want), choose book A over book B. 

- It establishes a (subjective) hierarchy of book preference that is clearer than giving a book "four stars" (or, even worse, "seven out of ten", which means basically nothing), etc. 

This last point makes me intensely curious about creating a hierarchy of ALL fantasy books I've read... and my RPGs! Anyway...

There are also some downsides:

- It creates imaginary "feuds" between books, authors or fans (I enjoy both Tolkien and Moorcock greatly, despite Moorcock's unfounded criticism of Tolkien; I also enjoy The Witcher despite Sapkowski, AFAICT, never gave Moorcock due praise since it's such an obvious influence). 

- It forces you to say something (slightly) negative about each book, even the ones you enjoyed ("this is decent but not to the level of GRRM", etc.). 

The first point is easy avoidable by being an adult. 

The second point might be a plus: it is easy to only make reviews of things you enjoy, and say everything is cool and fun; but this is not useful at all. Making reviews of things you didn't like to balance it out feels like a bad idea to me; life is too short to waste time with a book I already disliked.

What about RPGs? Well, the same reasoning applies - and even more so. After all, you could read 20 books or more in a year, but read, learn and play more than three or four RPGs will be hard to do. And when I look to an RPG, I am usually looking for an alternative to my current game, and not an addition to my library.

Let's think of Star Wars, for example. A fan of the Star War franchise might be interested in the movies AND the series AND the books AND the comics... But if you want to PLAY a Star Wars campaign, you'll probably want ONE system to run with - either d6 OR d20 OR Genesys, etc.

(This applies to RPG systems and maybe tools - adventures can be read like other books, i.e., useful additions, not alternatives; it is easier to combine adventures than RPG systems. It is still useful to have an hierarchy if you're looking for a new adventure).

I remember that at least one blog did exactly that - comparing, I think, Mutant Crawl Classics to Mutant Year Zero in the same review, for example (if you remember which one, let me know!).

There is a huge downside to this, however; the RPG niche is small, and many people talk directly to each other through social media. Most of us want to support, and not compete, with each other; and saying A is better than B is likely to leave a bad impression in both. So, it is something I feel I'm not as likely to do with indie publishers (although I'll never publish a review if I cannot be honest about it).

Other than that, however, I think I'll try to incorporate more comparisons in my RPG reviews; it might be useful.

Further reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/information-overload-organizing-creating.html