Elthos RPG overview

Elthos RPG is a game written by my friend Mark Abrams (there is also a leaner Essentials version). It is free, so you can check it out for yourself if you prefer, or read my impressions before. Disclaimer: this brief overview was made at his suggestion. He calls it a "a medium-light weight traditional RPG". It makes sense. The game is not minimalist, but reasonable light - lighter than most versions of D&D, except maybe B/X.

It is one of those games that seems to be able to do much with little, thus punching a bit above its weight class (i.e., lots of possibilities for a reasonable page count).

Elthos has four basic classes, three basic attributes, only uses 1d6, but is in a sense similar to old-school D&D (in its races, classes, AC, skills, etc.).

Notice that this game does not advertise itself as being "compatible with OSR games" or any of that, but since I only play OSR games these days, I couldn't help but to notice that the numbers are apparently in the right ballpark - and I could see myself running old school adventures with this game (using some conversion).

It uses a simple matrix for all activities, which I'll reproduce here. I really like that this reminds me of Tagmar, but simpler and easier:

As you can see, to succeed you must roll 1d6+level against 3+level - thus giving you a 50% chance of beating someone of the same level. 

The "red" and "green" parts allow you to go above your below your level. So, if your attack level (AL) is 4, you'll not only hit every time against AC 1, but also get +1 damage - simple and effective. Conversely, if your AL is 1 and the AC 4, you can still hit, but you need a 6 AND you get -1 damage.

Attributes (Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom) range from 1 to 6, giving you a modifier from -2 to +2 to certain things (similarly to OD&D, but streamlined). The skill list is of a decent size but choosing skills feels too crunchy due to niche protection and balance (e.g., thieves cannot usually learn Heavy Weapons unless they multi-class, some skills costs more points than others, etc.)

Everything is measured in this 1-6 scale (although you can go further with certain races, etc.). Levels are also in the 1-6 range usually - level 10 creatures exist, but they are demigods. It feels pretty close to my ideal level of detail. This is a PC from the book:

This works very well in practice. For example, life points are equal to STRxlevel (plus some optional additions). A STR 5 fighter has about 25 LP at level 5. Not that different from OD&D, but the math is simpler.

Mystic Points (used for spells and powers) work in a very similar way. Magic is very simple and clever - each has a power level that measures learning, cost and effect. For example, a thunderbolt spell that causes 6d6 damage costs 6 MP top cast and 6 learning points to learn. "Mystic damage" is separated from life points (they affect the mind rather than the body) - which both makes mages better against magic and non-mages have good uses for these points as well. It works for spells, miracles, psionic powers, etc. Some spells are immensely powerful but fumbles are deadly.

This might be my favorite aspect of the book. It is both easier and more balanced and flexible than old school D&D. Spells are very potent, but a simple +1 to combat also makes a huge difference, so fighters are equally tough. Warriors are susceptible to magic but mages are also susceptible to swords.

The book also has extensive (and mostly optional) rules for tactical combat, for folks who enjoy that.

This RPG leans heavily on the idea that the GM should create his or her own stuff, up to a point. The monsters, spells, feats, etc., are very few, with minimalist descriptions. The idea seems to be using this in conjunction with your own creations (especially with the Mythos Machine - see below) or other games.

So, overall, would I play this game? Yes! I might be tempted to simplify it even further, doing away with classes and class skills. This is easy to do out of the box: just let everyone be a freeman and pick any skill they want.

Another interesting aspect is this: 

The Rules Book is designed as a stand alone product that can be used independently, but it is intended to be used in conjunction with The Mythos Machine, a web application that fully integrates the Elthos RPG Rules and provides World Building and Character Management Services (among other features). Together they form a powerful combination of fast-play and comprehensive computer support.

I've tried the app briefly (at Mark's suggestion), and it does seem very useful to create and save PCs, NPCs, and entire settings.

Anyway, you can access both the books and the app for free, so if this sounds interesting I'd definitely recommend checking it out.

DTRPG links are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

A glance at Basic D&D, B/X, and some clones (LL, OSE, BFRPG, DFB, BECMI and others)

This is a small post about the history of "Basic D&D", plus some of its greatest versions (including B/X) and clones.

What is "Basic D&D"?

Basic D&D is a line of D&D products that started in 1977 and ended a bit before 2000. The first version (Holmes - see below) was meant as an introduction to D&D, but since 1981 (B/X - see below) it became a separate line of products, with its own rules, settings (most notably Blackmoor and Mystara/Known World), adventures, etc. I won't talk about these settings and adventures here; suffice to say, they were separate from the AD&D line.

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

After the release of the AD&D game, the Basic Set saw a major revision in 1981 by editor Tom Moldvay.^[2] The game was not brought in line with AD&D but instead further away from that ruleset, and thus the basic D&D game became a separate and distinct product line from AD&D. The former was promoted as a continuation of the tone of original D&D, while AD&D was an advancement of the mechanics.

[...]

With the revision of the Basic Set, discrete rulesets for higher character levels were introduced as expansions for the basic game. The Moldvay Basic Set was immediately followed by the accompanying release of an Expert Set edited by Dave Cook with Steve Marsh that supported character levels four through fourteen, with the intent that players would continue with the Expert Set.

Basic D&D has some idiosyncrasies when compared to other editions of D&D, most notably "race as class": you can choose to be an elf OR a fighter, but not both. In addition, there are many small differences (different classes, races, spells, monsters, settings, deities, etc.) that can be considered boons or banes, depending on your taste. I think it is fair to say that both AD&D and BD&D have their own unique and awesome bits.

This graph from Wikipedia is accurate, but remember Holmes is still part of the "original edition" (the separate line starting with B/X).

What is B/X, and why so popular?

B/X is an abbreviation of Basic/Expert D&D - the two books picture below, published in 1981.

This edition is noteworthy because, for many people, it is the best/easiest iteration of D&D, ever.

Moldvay's Basic might the best D&D ever written, indeed. Only 64-pages, and contains answers to questions that have been discussed for ages - before and after this book. I've written multiple posts on the subject, calling it an oracle and a minimum viable D&D. Cook/Marsh's Expert completes the game with wilderness stuff, domain management, and more tools for adventuring.

Some of its qualities:

- Much simpler and leaner than AD&D or BECMI (see below).

- Still, a complete game, with dungeons, wilderness, domain building, etc.

- Clearer and better organized than the original D&D (1974) and Holmes Basic.

- Streamlined ability scores, with bonuses going from -3 to +3 across every ability.

B/X is the basis of my current game, despite heavy house-ruling. I think it is a great game but not with its flaws (also, some idiosyncrasies that are not to everyone's liking - for example, dwarves and elves are classes). There are LOTS of room for improvement and even corrections to be made, IMO. 

Still - probably the best, as explained in the links above.

Other official "Basic D&D" products

B/X should not be confused with Holmes' Basic (1977) or BECMI (1983+).

Holmes' Basic (1977) was written as an introduction to D&D (the original 1974 game). While a good game in itself, it feels incomplete because of that (it has only three levels). It also has some quirks: it lacks some very popular innovations such as different weapon damage, while simultaneously having strange/broken rules such as a dagger attacking twice, for example.

BECMI (1983-1985) is a later revision that adds lots of stuff compared to B/X. BECMI stands for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal - each a separate book, like B/X. They are also known as "Mentzer's Basic", "Mentzer's Expert", etc. It has a "tutorial" format, good for introducing beginners to the D&D rules. Many changes are positive (e.g., the cleric), and it has tons of cool options, but it eventually adds too much IMO, including adventuring beyond the 36th level. The first two books (BE) are very similar to B/X.

The Rules Cyclopedia (1991) compiles most of the BECMI rules, and it might be the most complete D&D book ever, including 36 levels, immortals, monsters, and DM advice in a single book. Again, great for inspiration, but too much to use at once IMO.

The basic line ended a few years before 2000, when the "basic" and "advanced" versions were merged into a single game (D&D 3e). There were other products called "Basic D&D" after this time, but these were not usually meant as a distinct line of products,

All these products are more or less compatible, but B/X and its clones remain the most popular.

The three main clones: LL, BFRPG and OSE

There has been several "clones" of B/X, and they are some of the most popular OSR products. These are the three most important ones (due to popularity, sales, and being very close to B/X). They all have free versions, both in PDF and online format (or both), linked below. 

Labyrinth Lord (LL) - A version of B/X with very small changes (adds more levels to some classes, streamlines the cleric's weird spell progression and gives them spells on level 1). It was a pioneer in many aspects. 

The main draw: Goblinoid Games was the first retro-clone publisher to both make most content open under the OGL and create a free trademark license [...]. The material contained in the LL rules is available to others with few restrictions, allowing fans and other publishers alike to create their own derivative material for use with the system.^[2] (Wikipedia). OSE is a derivative of the LL text IIRC, and I considered using it for one of my own games - it is really good.

[notice that the OGL is going through a ruckus caused by WotC at the time of this post, so I wouldn't advise using it at this moment].

Basic Fantasy RPG (BFRPG) - Another early clone with small changes, mainly ascending armor class and separation of character race and class. Also streamlines the cleric in addition to the thief (skills always use percentages). Here is the free SRD.

The main draw: BFRPG has an open/free philosophy, encouraging people to participate and create their own stuff, which fosters an amazing community with lots of free tools, in addition to cheap physical books and good rules (the basic book has few but worthy innovations). It has a CC-BY-SA version too. Check it here.

Old-School Essentials (OSE) - This is a newer clone (c. 2019). It is a strict B/X clone - as close to B/X as possible. Doesn't fix, add or change almost anything, but makes the rules clearer, has a clean layout and wonderful presentation: indexed, organization, great art, etc. It is the best looking of the three IMO. Rules-wise, it lacks the additions/corrections of the other two. Here is the free SRD.

The main draw: The presentation, amazing looks and faithfulness to the original rules. The SRD is also amazing.

Advanced versions

Both LL and OSE have "advanced" versions, bringing ideas from AD&D (race separated from class, more races, classes, monsters, items, etc.).

BFRPG has no advanced version "per se", but you can find rules for more classes, races etc., here.

Other "clones": LotFP, DCC and DFB

These are not exact clones, but clearly inspired by Basic D&D. The OSR clones are endless, but many are inspired by other editions of D&D instead of Basic (or no specific edition). Maybe one day I'll try to tackle at least a few dozen... but I chose three "clones" for this post.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP) - Famous for its gory, mature, bloody art and themes, and some interesting adventures, but for me the rules are the best part: well organized, streamlined, and even somewhat rebalanced. Seems inspired by Mentzer's B/E. It strays a bit further from Basic than any of the ones mentioned above, but still roughly compatible. I find most of the changes (cleric, turn undead, 1d6 thief skills, encumbrance, the summon spell, etc.) very positive and preferable to the original rules and other clones. The basic rules do not contain anything explicit or gory except for one spell (summon) that might cause sexual violence. Free version here.

Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC RPG) - this one is ALSO famous for its cool art (but funny/retro instead of gory) and great adventures. System-wise, it uses a 3.5e basis but turns it into an OSR game. It is barely a "B/X clone", renaming attributes, creating new mechanic's and using lots of fun random tables (for spells, creating monsters, critical hits and so on). I think it deserves mention due to its popularity, gonzo coolness, and keeping of some B/X idiosyncrasies (race-as-class, fewer levels, etc.) while innovating in various ways. You can find it here (free quickstart here).

Dark Fantasy Basic (DFB) - My own clone! Instead of copying mechanics from B/X, I took Moldvay's Basic and rewrote it page by page, adding some stuff from 3e and 5e (also some DCC and Target 20 inspiration). I am still using it to this day, but with some revisions, since I published in 2017. It still roughly compatible with B/X and I use it with published adventures from other clones, but it has a few bits of its own. You can find it here (alas, no free version available yet; I'll probably make a free version of the next update, but for now here is a discount coupon).

In conclusion...

As said above, Basic D&D, in its many forms (including clones), is considered by many as the best version of D&D. If you haven't tried it, you're missing out!

DTRPG links are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

The Disoriented Ranger talks: Musings about DMing

"Randomize everything. You'll never be more concrete in your ideas than you are after letting go of the illusion of control. DM tools are there to help you and free you." - Jens Durke.

The third book in the series is out; here are my posts on parts one and two. Part three is probably my favorite so far.

This is a compilation of GM advice and reflections from my friend Jens. I have read most of it - in fact, I had read most of it in his blog, and I even responded and referenced some of it with my own blog posts - here is one example. His post about GM styles is great, and it is included here.

Jens goes deep into this stuff. This is not "DM's tips for beginners"*, but reflections on the very nature of DMing. Jens discusses "elf games"  with Daoism, morality and free will. The book format is a plus if you have a hard time reading long posts in blog format, like I do.

(*although his version of the "12 things..." contains good, straightforward advice in addition to the philosophical stuff - like the quote in the beginning of this post).

As before, only one dollar - click here to get it, it is certainly worth the read!

Here is the blurb:

What's this about, now?

Nothing is older than yesterday's blog ... or so they say. After 10 years of exploring "all things D&D and role-playing" on The Disoriented Ranger blog, most of it during the Golden Age of the so-called OSR (and some of it in the Silver Age, I presume), it is time to look back and see what I deem worthy of conserving.

I talked several subjects over the years, many of them about game design, but some of it was also about what it takes to "DM" a role-playing game. What kind of DMs are there, how to DM a game, what players are like, and can be like, and how to handle that ...

I shared my takes about these over the last 10 years and they make a good third anthology. So here they are: 15 posts on roughly 97 pages with thoughts and musings about how to approach this hobby as a DM. All edited and prettied up for this pdf.

Also check out Part 1 about Gaming Culture here and Part 2 about D&D and the OSR here!

What's to come?

There are three more anthologies to follow in the next couple of months, so look out for:

• Part 4: Storytelling Advice
• Part 5: DIY & Gamedesign
• Part 6: Theories in Action

Parts 1 to 3 as well as Parts 4 to 6 will also be compiled for a PoD option!

This is not a trip down memory lane, the topics presented here are still as important as they had been when I addressed them. My sincere hope is that sharing them here will encourage and inspire new readers (or fans of the blog, but with fresh eyes) to see the wealth of potential our hobby has, as well as its pitfalls.

Other than that: I can just provide the map, and even I get lost ...

Cheers,

The Disoriented Ranger

----------

What qualifies me, you ask?

Just so you know: "Obscurity and competence - that is the life that is best worth living." (Mark Twain)

The Broken Sword - one of the best!

When I reviewed Three Hearts and Three Lions, by the same author (Poul Anderson), I half-jokingly mentioned that it was "the very first book in the Appendix N - for alphabetical reasons, but still..."

Well, The Broken sword is the third book on the list, but it sits on the top of the Appendix N for a different reason – it is one of the best book the list has to offer, ate least from the ones I’ve read so far.

The book tells the saga of two men switched at birth: the heroic human Skafloc, kidnapped and raised by the king of the elves, and his changeling doppelganger Valgarad, raised among human Vikings converted to Christianity (with little enthusiasm). Both will grow up to be great warriors with very different personalities, and will face various difficulties and tragedies until they can meet each other in battle. 

The “broken sword” of the title is a cursed blade that will become important in the latter half of the book. Moorcock has mentioned it as an influence to his own cursed sword, Stormbringer, and it really shows (there are likely other influences too - the elves, Skafloc himself, etc.). If you like Moorcock as much as I do, The Broken Sword is a must-read.

The book was published in 1954, the same year as The Fellowship of the Ring, and Anderson might be at least as influential as Tolkien in D&D terms. This might sound odd given the huge impact of Tolkien’s work, but Gygax famously wasn’t a fan (and Moorcock finds Anderson’s work to be superior). 

The D&D references are fewer here than in “Three Hearths…”, however – but I find this a much better book.

It might be because of the tone. The Broken Sword is dark, violent, full of tragedy and war. It is reminiscent of the Nibelungenlied and Beowulf. The language is purposely old-fashioned, which demands some attention but gives the book a mythic feel that is hard to find. It has some of the best prose I’ve read in fantasy books.

TBS also has all the trappings I’d expect in a good dark fantasy novel – great characters, action, grittiness, humor, tragedy, passion, revenge, and many shades of gray. This is not plain “Law versus Chaos” – it is nature versus nurture, paganism versus Christianity, elves versus trolls versus humans, deities against mortals, fate against all. The elves, especially, receive an awesome treatment as something very different from humans – not only in looks and customs, but also morality and behavior. And it has the stuff you might use in your D&D games – monsters, factions, magic items, spells, and so on.

This book is a masterpiece. Definitely worth the read from anyone interested in fantasy, and already one of my favorites.

Note: the author made a revision in 1971, apparently toning down the violence and flowery language. I only read the 1954 version.

Happy 2023! + Projects + Reflections + Let me know!

Happy new year, folks!

Projects (2022 and 2023)

My projects for 2022 remain unfinished. I published a couple of books I hadn't planed - Alternate Magic and Old School Feats - but not the ones I intended. So, while I might write stuff that is not in my yearly plans, I won't make more plans until I finish some old projects. Just some loose ideas for now: updating some of my books, creating an actual monster manual for DFB, publishing some setting, and writing more B/X-compatible OSR material. I'd also like to make print versions of some books, since people have been asking me (some have created their own print versions, which I find awesome).

Going full OSR

This blog is going full OSR for 2023. I'm running a big OSR campaign (using Dark Fantasy Basic with a few updates) and going through lots of OSR (and TSR) material. You 'll see some reviews (including some old classics), lists, actual plays, etc. D&D 5.5 (or whatever it is called) does not look interesting to me at this time. I'm dissatisfied with the 1.1 OGL and I won't use it. My 5e projects are left aside for the time being.

I'll probably learn a bit about this stuff - and various RPG systems - out of curiosity, and I'll share the news with you. And I'll always write about RPG design, literature, fantasy, etc. System-wise, however, my focus is the OSR.

Mostly, I want to give some credit to existing OSR products, some of then a few years old - at least once a month, hopefully. Not only adventures, but also comparing different systems, bestiaries, etc. As I've said before, nowadays organizing is as important as creating, and recognizing other people's products is important to keep an OSR community going. Also, feels good. :)

Reflections

I published a few reflections (about OSR, OGL, AI) in my last post of 2022. It might be worth reading if you want to know what I expected from 2023.

What do you want to see?

With that said, let me know in the comments what you'd like to see in this blog - or in PDF, print, etc. Reviews, actual plays, monsters, weapons, house rules... anything you've read in this blog (TV shows, design, comic books, literature, etc.) and anything else you want to see.

Thank you for your support and I hope you have a great 2023!

Condensed information in an ocean of trash (and some thoughts about AI)

“I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.” ― paraphrased from Blaise Pascal.

One of the nice things about good books is that they are (usually) condensed and filtered information. I don't mean that they summarize information  - although they often do that too - but that they give proper importance/attention to the most relevant information.

If this is not intuitive, let me give you an example (we'll get to RPGs eventually).

I've read The Brothers Karamazov recently. How does that compare to this year's best seller? I have no idea, haven't read it (nor heard Colleen Hoover before last week). However, it has been filtered by space and time. Of all the books of all times and places, someone decided to translate it from Russian, and keep it available in 2022, more than a century after publication. And it is still available because people are still buying, reading, and discussing book. Each one of these people has cast a vote so that the book can be in my hands (also, see Lindy effect).

It is a very good book, obviously, but it is long and also takes some effort (despite not being particularly hard to read). Reading it takes more time than casting a vote to choose a president, even if you have to cross an entire city to vote. People that read that book have more skin in the game, since they've invested a lot of their valuable time to read it.

Sturgeon's law - "ninety percent of everything is trash"

Writing a book isn't hard - writing a book with the same quality of The Brothers Karamazov is very hard. It is not necessary, however, to make money as a writer. You can sell trash, and with good marketing and presentation you can sell lots of trash.

And, according to Sturgeon's law, ninety percent of everything is trash. Certainly, at least 90% of all books published in the last year.

This law talks about quality - but I'm currently more concerned with redundancy.

As far as RPGs are concerned, even the best are 90% repetition of old formulas, old editions, or simply old text - often copied and pasted from the SRD. 

D&D 5e, for example, far from being the worst offender, repeats the same text (e.g., darkvision) though the book. The same features are repeated verbatim in different races/classes. And most lore is copied from old editions, sometimes adapted to modern sensibilities. There are still some original parts: advantage/disadvantage, proficiency bonus, etc. But many rules (e.g., falling damage) are just copied from old editions without reflection.

The OSR is sometimes worse. Huge swaths of text copied from old editions or directly from the SRD with no reflection at all. I often mention the B/X cleric and the fact that plate armor costs the same as 12 garlic as examples. There are troves of B/X clones out there (I have my own) - do they bring anything to the table, or are just 90% trash/repetition with one or two new ideas?

The SRD

A brief aside: I think the SRD is a great idea and a net positive for the hobby. I dislike pasting text without reflection, but rewriting text and mechanics just because you cannot paste them is a complete waste of time.

The 1.1 SRD sounds like bad news for the hobby and probably means that Kobold Press and others that produce great third-party content for 5e will be hindered in their efforts. Most people will stick to 1.0, which is bad news for 5.5e/6e (remember the 4e GSL?).

I was able to publish 5e stuff only because of the SRD. I will not publish under 1.1 (or GSL, or DM's Guild) at this time, and I'm unsure if I'll write more 5e stuff in the future (or play 5e at all), for various reasons.

Condensed information in RPGs

When I started writing Dark Fantasy Basic, I went trough every page of Moldvay's Basic to see if I had anything to change or add. In some cases, I re-wrote the same page twice, posted online, tried to get more people to discuss it - or even add their own pages. 

DFB is the most condensed version of B/X I could write at the time - and, still, it has lots of rooms for improvement. I didn't add monsters or even races to the book. I had nothing to add at the time (although eventually I published the Teratogenicon, my treatise on monsters), and I didn't want to simply copy existing rules. 

This is one form of condensing information - through reflection, rewriting, etc. Another important methods is playtesting. A playtested rule is superior in quality to an untested rule. Repeated used is a filter, somewhat similar to an old book surviving rough centuries.

Proofreading, revision, good alpha readers and consultants, etc., are different tools to add quality to your text. Prior experience (with writing or playing different games) is also helpful.

It is possible that you are a genius and can write the best RPG supplement from scratch, in a stream of consciousness. But it is unlikely.

Presentation is extremely important. The same information can be presented in different ways, some much more efficient than others (I've ranted about how 90% of the monsters from de 2e MM have three lines describing "Special Defenses: Nil" and "Magic Resistance: Nil", for example). THAC0 is an example, and Target 20 is even better, to the point that I think most of our discussions about OSR should use Target 20 rather then B/X as a starting point.

My perfect RPG would be extremely condensed, play tested, etc. If there is a rule for falling damage, an effort has been made to make it sensible. If the glaive and halberd are different weapons, there NEEDS to be something to differentiate them. And so on. Every rule in the books should have a clear motive to be there.

Condensed information in blogs

A "condensed" blog would include some rewriting, revision, updates, hyperlinks and so on. You could also remove references to sales that are already finished and other obsolete information. A great blog could contain posts that are 10 years old and are still relevant. I'm doing my best to create get as close as I can to that ideal. Realistically, however, I think most people do not read or discuss old blog posts. So maybe I should do something like my friend Jens and write a compilation of selected/revised blog posts.

AI, filler, and the big picture

When current AI tools became available for art, I thought artists that create decorative art would soon be obsolete. And most my books (Teratogenicon being the exception) use decorative art - stock art, PD art, etc. It is there to make the book look good, not to illustrated a particular idea. This is sometimes called "filler" - it is there to fill space.

Protest on Artstation.

Now, AI is writing text. Random tables, adventure seeds, etc. The results are equally "filler" - for now, AI cannot write creative stuff by itself.

The problem is that, as explained above, most RPG text is filler. You could easily create an AI-RPG with 10% cool ideas and 90% AI-generated trash and it would be somewhat similar in innovation to many OSR products.

(Another aside: I would NEVER add pure AI text to my books, but maybe one day use it as a tool? Not sure. For now, I also prefer using art form actual artists rather than AI, while I understand that AI art might make it easier for indie publishers to create some cool covers, etc.).

This is not only about RPGs. I've seen posts on social media and even received a couple of e-mails written by AI (not merely "bots" or "spammers"; these LOOKED like the real thing at a first glance). I've seem social media posts from actual people that were apparently written by AI - long texts with lots of "it is understandable", "it is important to consider", etc. And, since social media relies on likes/dislikes (or, worse, VIEWS) instead of true/false, there is an endless torrent of trash information coming for us - now with the help of AI that doesn't mind creating useless/incorrect stuff.

In short, the thing that worries me the most at this moment (let's worry about Skynet in a couple of years) is the amazing pile of trash that AI will bring into existence. PKD predicted something analogous in Autofac.

I think one example from Reddit would be useful:

Explain the key features of 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons.

3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons was released in 2003 and is an update to the 3rd edition rules. The key features of this edition include minor rules changes, the addition of prestige classes, and the inclusion of the Monster Manual.

Explain the key features of 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons.

4th edition Dungeons & Dragons was released in 2008 and is the fourth edition of the game. The key features of this edition include a focus on tactical combat, the use of encounter levels to measure a party's progress, and the use of miniatures.

Explain the key features of 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons.

5th edition Dungeons & Dragons was released in 2014 and is the fifth edition of the game. The key features of this edition include a simplified ruleset, the return of character levels, and the use of polyhedral dice.

See what I mean? Some parts even make sense (4e, tactical combat and minis), but they are mixed with nonsense with no clear distinction.

One could write an entire blog with this trash. It would never become a reliable source, but might just attract enough views to make the (negligible) effort worth it.

News, encyclopedic information, book reviews... creating misinformation has never been easier.

Chronological irrelevance

A brief aside. 

We are currently flooded with media that are better described as "quickly obsolete" rather than "bad" or "useless". I don't have the data, but I've heard that 80-90% of the videos being watched on YT were created in the last 24 hours. They will probably be forgotten with similar brevity. They do not matter.

A similar effect happens with the 24-hour news cycle, but the current situation seems much worse.

I don't know wether this is some kind of "planned obsolescence" or some unintended side effect of the algorithm, but I'm quite sure we are wasting a huge amount of time, with no positive results (except for people in Meta, Google, etc. filling their pockets).

Using AI and SRD to condense information

It doesn't have to be this way. Both AI and the SRD can be used to IMPROVE the average quality of stuff. AI could be a great tool for proofreading, for example, and computer algorithm might help play testing immensely. There will soon be specialist AI-artists that will do wonders with AI plus Photoshop (remember when Photoshop was created? a similar revolution is coming).

Similarly, instead of just pasting from the SRD, we can have multiple iterations of the same rules, endlessly refined and corrected. We can create a commented SRD, with criticism from multiple authors. We can use likes/dislikes to make a "popular vote" D&D, or cut down useless rules to create a minimalist D&D. The Black Hack, Knave, and Dungeon World are some examples on how to build creative stuff over existing games.

Separating the wheat from the chaff will always be a challenge - and THIS is what we should be thinking about, IMO.

AI, ethics, and legality

Not exactly a conclusion, but a few random thoughts.

I dislike the idea of using art from other people without giving them due credit and compensation on principle. AI art uses existing art in their algorithms in this precise manner. I do not think, however, that this is (or should be) illegal - at worst, it is tantamount to tracing, and it creates results that are often more original than tracing.

I also think that the advance of this technology is inevitable. And, because of this, I think we should make sure that everyone has equal access to these tools. Instead of creating hurdles, I say let's spread this far and wide. Instead of letting a few mega-corps benefit from the technology, we could make it available for small artists, creators, etc. Also, make it transparent o we know which artists are being used by AI... whenever possible.

(Also: things will move a lot faster than you think. I would bet that the majority of new RPGs published in December 2023 will be created with some AI assistance. In some cases, we might not even notice).  

Intellectual property, wether you like it or not, benefits mega-corps more than it benefits artists. Disney has lobbyists to make IP last forever, and lawyers to enforce IP. I have about a dozen books... if there was no such thing as IP, I think I would still have some readers supporting me - AND I might be publishing D&D stuff, even a "corrected" version of 5e if I could. I would hire an actual artist to make the cover.

I don't make a living on IP, and I understand the concern of those who do. I do not think we can regulated ourselves out of this mess. Instead, I think more regulation might make things worse - Disney might no longer need as many artists but will always use lots of lawyers.

There is much more to discuss about this topic. For now, I'll just say that I feel that we are jumping into a hole without bothering to measure its depth.

Related posts:

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

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/monster-stats-minimalism-x-efficiency.html

Railroading paradoxes (plus: diegetic RR, meta-RR, ticking bombs, good and bad RR, deus ex machina, etc.)

Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (Justin Alexander).

The first railroading paradox is this: if you negate a player's choice to go into a dead end, you're railroading. But once you reach the dead end, there is no more choice.

And that's okay. In order to make choices, the possibility of making a bad choice must be on the table. Enough bad choices and there are no more choices to make. If necessary, make a new character. In short, past choices can negate future choices.

(I'll use RR as an abbreviation for railroading from now on)

Allowing players to put themselves into bad situations is one of the most important protections against RR. Anyone can see how unfair and frustrating is to save your beloved villain from the PCs with dice-fudging and "deus ex machina" only to have him reappear later. But there are lots of GMs who think it is fine to save the PCs from the villain in a similar way. It is not. It is equally RR. You're negating player’s (bad) choices.

Choice for the players usually means they are able to risk and even sacrifice their characters.

[Notice: I do not mean random TPKs are mandatory. I mean the players get to choose. It is okay if you all agree beforehand that PCs can never die, or that they can only die when willingly risking their lives for something they believe in. As long as everyone knows what kind of game they are playing - see the next section about "social contracts"].

What is "player choice"?

Player choice is role-playing their PCs however they see fit. This usually includes risking and even sacrificing their characters when they find adequate. Taking this choice away is RR.

It does not necessarily include choosing elements that are extraneous to their character's actions. HOWEVER, before the game begins, or when there is no role-playing occurring, it is often a good idea (sometimes even necessary) to allow  players to choose elements that are extrinsic to their characters: for example, "what about playing a campaign in the northern wastes next month"?

Notice that this "social contract" limits future choice even in character actions: if a player agrees to play a campaign in the northern wastes and the first action his PC takes is going south, he is either trying to make a new character, or a certified a-hole (and maybe you should find a new player).

This is another example of how past choices can negate future choices.

Deus ex machina

Deus ex machina [...] is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence. (source)

I think this is an important aspect of RR - especially the unlikely part. In this context, a potential TPK is a "seemingly unsolvable problem" that the GM can solve with RR.

Diegetic railroading and meta railroading; explicit railroading

Diegetic RR happens "in-fiction": help suddenly arrives out of nowhere, etc. Related to "deus ex machina".

Meta RR happens in the game mechanic - you fudge the dice, alter AC or HP, etc., to save the PCs or to let a villain escape.

Both are similar in that "the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". I find diegetic RR preferable because at least is obvious and honest, while meta-RR is closer to cheating.

And explicit, direct RR is better than covert RR, in general. Maybe "a green dragon attacks you on your way to town" is barely even RR, but "a green dragon attacks a neighboring town and you must go there to fight it or the king will throw you into prison..." is. In both cases, the PCs have no choice but to face the dragon, but the first one at least removes the illusion of choice (see here).

Good and bad railroading

RR is usually a bad thing IMO, but not all RR is created equal. The worst forms of railroading are the most unlikely and also the most independent from player's choices. "Rock falls, everyone dies" is a good example.

On the other hand, if help suddenly appears, right after the PCs have just made an ally in the last scene, it barely strains credulity. And a rock that falls because the PCs failed to disarm a dangerous trap is not RR.

Notice that I'm NOT saying that RR is okay if the players do not notice it (it is quite the opposite, as seem above). It is not. I'm saying that might be some gray zone that deserves to be considered.

There is some aspect of unfairness in railroading. This might deserve a post of its own.

Consequences are not railroading

"If you don't take the quest, the king throws you in prison until you comply" is probably one of the lowest form of railroading that can be found in old adventures (and Descent Into Avernus).

However, having the king throw the PCs in prison because they committed a crime is not RR, it is the consequence - not the denial - of player choice.

Acts of God and Force Majeure are not RR

Earthquakes and tsunamis are not RR. They generate preconceived outcomes and are immune to player choice, but are not made "in order to" negate player choice. Same applies to plagues, riots, revolutions, and ancient red dragons destroying entire cities.

Ticking bombs, the end of the world, an another RR paradox

To avoid a "schrodinger's dungeon" or  "schrodinger's sandbox" (e.g., a place that is frozen in time until the PCs enter, which I call "railroading in time"), it is often using to have "ticking bombs". "The villagers were captured and might be killed in a week if not rescued".

This feels a bit like a RR, but noticed the PCs usually still have a choice. Let the villagers perish, etc. But what if they know the villagers will be used in a ritual to summon the demon lord and end the world?

"If you don't take this quest, the world will end" sounds even more extreme than being thrown in prison. However, if somehow feels less RR to have a lich planning to destroy the world than to have a king throw the PCs in prison until the perform a service.

(BTW: I have recently played a Shadow of the Demon Lord campaign that did exactly that in its finale - either the PCs act in X hours, or the world ends).

Why is that? I think it might have something to do with affecting the PCs directly and specifically. Also, in D&D worlds it feels more likely to have a world-shattering peril than to have a king that can easily overpower the PCs but also needs them for a random task.

The "end of the world" scenario is an extreme case and should be used with great care IMO. Still, it is NOT RR if the PCs still have choices.... and the possibility of failure.

Affecting the PCs directly is dangerously close to RR

A heart attack cannot be controlled by the PC's actions. But you can easily see how giving a random heart attack to a PC can become a tool for the worst forms of railroading. 

Likewise, being thrown in prison for a crime you didn't commit is iffy unless you've made some enemies before.

Every time the PCs are affected directly by seemingly random events, the GM must be extra careful to avoid railroading.

In any case, the GM can avoid direct RR by using tools such as social contracts and random tables ("we are playing a realistic Pendragon campaign, after 40 y.o. your knights have 1% chance of sudden death every year").

In conclusion: sometimes, the GM must negate player choice

In conclusion:

- RR is anti-RPG since it limits the possibilities of role-playing (literally, it limits the capabilities of players playing their roles).

- Player choice can (and often should) be negated because of past choices, including previous actions and social contracts.

- As a rule of thumb, the GM should not negate player choice without their knowledge.

Related posts:

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

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-random-quantum-ogre.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html

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