What is the minimum viable D&D?

From this post: B/X is close to a "minimum viable D&D", where every mechanic has a clear purpose. It still has some redundant parts (and some missing parts, IMO; I think every D&D should have a ranger or other way to meaningfully raise your chances at exploring the wilderness), but it does a great job overall. 

So, the "minimum viable D&D" is a form of D&D that includes every mechanic D&D to play a D&D game, and little else. In theory, you could play a D&D module using Risus and a few d6, but that is not what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to identify is the very essence of D&D - things that must be included in the core books of every edition to give you a D&D feel. Things that people came to expect from D&D. For example:

- Six ability scores.

- Three or four races.

- Three or four classes.

- Saving throws.

- AC and HP.

- XP and levels.

- Spells.

- Encumbrance.

- Equipment, including multiple weapons with differences.

- Treasure, including magic items.

- Rules for combat, interaction (reaction, morale, languages, etc.), dungeon exploration, and wilderness exploration.

- Monsters and HD.

Another thing to consider is how these things relate to one another. For example, your ability scores and your class affect your HP and saving throws. Let's call them "ties"; there are direct ties between abilities and AC. A mechanic that is tied to no other mechanic can be called "untied".

This is the PHB stuff. You also need monsters, GM advice, etc. I'll focus on PHB stuff that allows you to play existing OSR adventures.

Notice that there are some parts in B/X that I think are NOT strictly needed. They are add-ons to the essential parts. For example:

- Multiple specific saving throws.

- Multiple XP tables.

- Spell slots.

Let's tackle these and other issues to see what else is MVD&D.

This is how AI sees D&D covers.

Ability scores

It is certainly possible to play D&D without them (see The Searchers of the Unknown RPG). Conversely, you could play using mostly ability scores with the exclusion of other aspects (see Knave, The Black Hack, etc.).

However, they have been in every edition, and I think they are now part of the D&D experience.

Thieves

Thieves fall into a gray area. Their skills are deeply tied to the dungeon setting, but they are mostly add-ons, with the exception of hear noise and find trap (that create a connection between class and those actives... that would otherwise be affected by race). Open locks is not necessary since other ways to deal with doors (force doors, knock) already exist. Move silently and hide in shadow do not tie directly to existing mechanics such as surprise. Etc.

Overall, I think thieves are MVD&D at least in feel. They've been in every edition since Holmes. Notice that thief and paladin were officially born simultaneously in OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk (0e), but the paladin is somewhat of an hybrid class, while the thief is very much its own thing.

Skills (and rangers)

Non-thief skills are not strictly necessary either. However, they are immensely useful to tie existing mechanics. 

For example, in B/X, there are rules for hunting and foraging, but no way to be better at either. Same for surprise and initiative, which become "missing ties" if there is no other mechanic to interact with them.

You could add this missing ties by allowing your Wisdom bonus to affect some of these rolls, for example, without needing skills. Skills are there to make these things a lot easier, IMO.

At minimum, we'd have thief skills, plus maybe nature and persuasion (to affect hirelings, morale, reactions, etc.) - and also make a decent/obvious tie between these three things:

- Hide/move silently.

- Surprise.

- Backstab.

And, if we are looking for the minimum, one single skill mechanic (percentages, x-in-6, 1d20, etc.) will suffice.

Clerics and paladins

These are hybrid classes; fighters that cast spells, especially for the paladin. There is also turn undead, which is a curious thing. Some undead are usually not tied to morale rules, making them especially dangerous. So, this might be a nice addition, but definitely an add-on.

There is a good case to be made for the cleric, but also against it. Overall, I'd say it gets the MVD&D status for being in every edition. Not so for the paladin.

Bards and other classes

I feel that a class that is especially adept at social interaction (the "face" of the party) would be useful, although Charisma can play that part independently. The thing is, the cleric is not necessarily filling this niche either - instead, it becomes a mix of thief, MU, and sometimes fighter. I am not a fan of the bard in general and I think a warlord would be more appropriate - with ties to morale, loyalty, hirelings, etc. 

Likewise, I don't find druids, barbarians, and monks strictly necessary either. They are cool, but not the minimum. Every B/X player is doing fine without them.

Multiple specific saving throws

Every edition has multiple saving throws, but they work differently. You have the original categories (wands, spells, death, etc.), the 3e/4e division (reflex/fortitude/will), the 5e model (tied to each ability score), etc. 

You must have saving throws, but which saves are a matter of choice. 

Again, since we are looking for the minimum, one single save will suffice.

I'll admit having Mind/Body STs is incredibly alluring to me for some reason.

Multiple XP tables

You could have a D&D game without XP - I'm playing such a campaign right now - but XP is in every edition and has ties to class, level, treasure, etc. Part of the minimum, IMO. And, again, there is no reason to have more than one table if we are looking for the minimum.

Spell slots

This is a curious mechanic that doesn't really interact with ability scores (except that in some versions you get more slots). 

I'd say that spells are very much mandatory in D&D, but spell slots are not (4e didn't have them IIRC; 3e and 5e has optional spell points and other methods).

You could tie them to existing mechanics (such as saving throws or hit points) instead.

That might be a personal preference - see below.

Different Hit Dice

I used to dislike different HD because I thought it was somewhat redundant with Constitution. Now, I'm a bit on the fence - the fighter has few features and we should be very careful when taking them away. In any case, HD is needed, even if all classes have the same HD (and some have more HP due to Constitution).

In addition, I really like giving bigger hit dice to big monsters (such as giants etc.), which is something common in modern D&D and even considered by Gygax IIRC (if he had been responsible for 2e).

In conclusion....

As you know, Dark Fantasy Basic was my first attempt at re-writing B/X to my liking. I'm still playing it with a few modifications (currently running a sandbox campaign). But DFB is not exactly minimalist. It contains lots stuff that I find cool and not strictly necessary. 

I might write a minimalist D&D one day - the beta version is here. This is only half-baked ATM; I'm having a hard time choosing a single mechanic for combat, spells and skills. 

Spells are the main problem, since everything else can use Target 20. 

And I haven't been a fan of Vancian casting for a while - I especially dislike spell level that do not correspond with character level!

But I'm very close to simply ignoring the existing spell system and creating something entirely new (and NOT necessarily compatible, unlike my earlier attempts) - maybe DCC-based, and much simpler than spell levels, slots, etc. 

Stay tuned for that!

Teratogenicon is the DEAL OF THE DAY - 50% off!

Dear friends,

Teratogenicon, our most impressive book, is the DEAL OF THE DAY on DTRPG. - 50% off!

The books is a collection of tables and essays on how to create your own monsters.

It contains one chapter for each of the fourteen most famous monster types (aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, and so on). Each chapter examines specific habits, appearance, goals, traits, powers, origins, and many other topics.

In addition, the appendixes will help you to create stats (for both old school and contemporary games), to roleplay monsters, and to include all monster types into a coherent whole, among other things.

If you haven't got it yet, this is your chance. It is compatible both with OSR and modern RPGs. 

If you buy it - or if you already got it - you can also buy my "everything bundle" for a discounted price, after you buy Teratogenicon.

Just check the previews to see if it piques your interest!

And please share, like, upvote and retweet if you can!

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

In a small outburst of nostalgia,  I have spent most of my day playing Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (SotN).

Seems like a good topic for All Hallows' Eve month...

In the unlikely possibility that you don't know this game, "Symphony of the Night is considered one of the greatest and most influential video games ever made". 

You can get it in PS4 and probably other platforms - the graphics and mechanics might be a bit outdated compared to modern games, but I still had fun with it today.

It has several similarities to other stuff we discussed in this blog -  mostly Ravenloft and Dark Souls.

Cool monsters, gothic vistas, limited items, non-linear maps, living furniture... all the fun stuff. 

There are also a few ideas that would be fun addition to my games...

Playing with different characters/weapons

SotN starts with a boss battle that takes place a few years before the beginning of the actual plot - a repetition of the last fight of the previous game. You play with a different character (different weapons and all) against the main villain! 

This is a battle you cannot lose due to a little help from an ally, but it foreshadows things you'll see later on (also, you can get several perks if you defeat the monster without help).

[Notice that the first character you play is an heir to the Belmont clan - the heroes of previous installments - so there is a continuity here too].

Then you get to play with Alucard (Dracula's son, also introduced as a "supporting character" in a  previous game). 

The game is very easy at first - enemies barely hurt you, and one hit of your heirloom sword is enough to destroy them. And right after that... you get all your equipment stolen!

Eventually, you can play with other characters - an aspect that I always enjoyed in Castlevania games.

Most D&D games go "from zero to hero", making you progressively more powerful (sometimes, to redundantly give you more powerful enemies). 

Allowing you to play with different PCs (or a completely different arsenal) might give you a nice taste of things to come... as suggested in the DMG.

Limited access to equipment

Like Dark Souls, the game gives you limited access to equipment at first (after you get your stuff stolen!). You can gather some money, but it will take a while until you can find someone that can sell you stuff.

This is an aspect of Cruse of Strahd I should have highlighted a bit more - there is treasure to be found, but not much to buy with it.

But in most D&D games you get so much money that you can get any ordinary weapon or armor by level 3 or before; after that, only magic weapons make a difference.

Making PCs suffer a bit for for their gear might make items more valuable and appreciated.

Monster variations

I might have mentioned this before, but I think monster variations are underused in D&D.

I used to like having hundreds of monsters, but it makes the world too random. That is why I focused on monster types when writing Teratogenicon.

You can make a much more coherent setting/dungeon using fewer monsters and many variations. A group of skeletons in chain, shooting bows from afar, are a different challenge from your usual skeleton mob - even if the stats are similar.

A more interesting setup is pairs of different monsters, with different abilities - one of he first boss battles in SotN includes a flying demon carrying a skeleton creature (picture above), and later on you had to fight a minotaur and a werewolf at the same time.

Another variation is monster phases. When the skeleton-thing (above) loses his weapon, he attacks with his beak. Dracula will eventually transform into a big demon when wounded, etc.

If you want to use various monsters, at least give them a theme. Plant monsters, various types of undead, mutant/leader/boss versions of common monsters, etc.

Having a dungeon with adjacent rooms of skeletons, then goblins, then giant bats, with no explanation is baffling and irritating.

Revisiting places

One of the fun things about SotN is that after you "finish" the castle, you have to face it again... this time, upside down!

(This might be where I got the idea of suggesting The Wretched Hive can be turned upside down if you need an underground dungeon).

You get to see things (literally) from a different angle. Places that were unreachable are not available, and vice-versa. The challenges are new, yet familiar.

A similar thing happens when you can turn into a bat, mist, etc. - now you can get to places you had seen but couldn't reach.

In most D&D games there is not much to do with a dungeon after you "clear" it (except, maybe, for some mega dungeons). 

It might be fun to do the same with dungeons. They don't need to be turned upside down - they can be flooded, invaded by a different faction, remodeled, or changed by an earthquake. Maybe certain areas require high level spells to access - an unlockable door or unreachable platform.

Again, it is something I attempt in The Wretched Hive - some high-level areas are hard to reach without flying, a key, or specific spells, although most of the "main level" can be faced by beginning PCs. I also included some notes on repopulating/revisiting the dungeon, but they are brief.

(Needless to say, dungeons should also be non-linear and Jaquayed in many ways. BTW, Jennel Jaquays is going through severe illness ATM and needs help).

Recurring places, characters, names (Belmont), monsters... these things give coherence to the game, and I should probably use them more often.

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

The Pendragon campaign of my dreams

I don't remember playing The Great Pendragon Campaign. 

I played a few Pendragon campaigns decades ago, but I don't recall what they were about and I do not know if the Game Master used this book.

Anyway, this night I had a dream about a campaign which seemed to come from Pendragon or Game of Thrones (I ran a GoT campaign that ended horribly a few years ago).

I'll write the main ideas down so I don't forget... Adding some thoughts I had a while ago. If you know where I'm getting this from (maybe Pendragon, GoT, history or elsewhere), let me know in the comments!

[I'm sorry if you came here looking for an actual Pendragon campaign - I think it is a great system and setting but this is just a vague idea for now!]

I think this doesn't take place in Britain; I was thinking of a fantasy setting and not as island (when I woke up I though of Portugal and Spain).

However, using Britain or Westeros has a huge advantage: the players are familiar with some of the lands and characters.

Act I

The kingdom is a bit chaotic. The king is weak, but fortunately some of the local lords are strong enough to protect their lands. Still, there are bandits, barbarians (saxons/vikings/etc.) and robber barons to deal with. The PCs are low nobility at first, but with the turmoil they have significant chances of gaining glory and titles as many people perish in the struggles.

Maybe the kingdom is still to scattered and the roads are in a state of disrepair. Papers are not reliable enough to tell rightful owners from usurpers. And usurpers will occasionally be nicer to peasants! I imagine PCs going to abandoned castles and lands to put things in order as they can.

During this time, PCs must make allies and get to know all nobles. These alliances are not friendships, they are meaningful - PCs have brothers and sisters marrying NPCs (they could marry and have children in order to gain more titles, etc.). They might fight side by side with good and bad NPCs against obvious threats. 

There could be fun tournaments and banquets as things get better.

Ideally, players would occasionally play some scenes as the NPCs so they can understand their perspectives a little.

There are no obvious "sides" yet, but there are some guys that seem decent, others that seem to be pricks. 

Act II

The kingdom is pacified, the roads are repaired.

A new, strong king rises. I don't know how - maybe trough marriage, or by showing extreme valor against invaders. Eventually, the kingdom becomes divided, because the southern portion opposes the new king.

War is close - and the PCs allies are on both sides! The PCs themselves are right in the middle, and they must either choose a side or try to de-escalate the conflict somehow. Of course, they are those who are willing to fight regardless of consequences!

Again, there is no "right" versus "wrong". Both the king and the separatists have valid claims. Maybe lawyers should be consulted (and bribed, threatened, kidnapped, etc.). 

Maybe the PCs are older now, and there are young knights that want to take advantage of the turmoil as the PCs did in the past. They want their glory too, and they won't find it in peace!

Act III

An uneasy truce is achieved somehow. Just then, the (now unified) invaders take the opportunity to make an attack. People who were enemies a few minutes ago must now unite or perish. Some will side with the enemy.

This is not about glory or even land anymore - it is about survival. The PCs are probably older now and will not "level up" anymore - on the contrary, they suffer the effects of aging, maybe death (so they play as heirs, etc.).

This is the "Excalibur" phase, or the Fall of Constantinople. Dark, heroic and tragic - especially because the players now care about the world and its characters.

---

Other loose ideas [will add as they come]:

- In tourneys, it is expect that opponents yield before serious injury. Some opponents will fight to the death. Sometimes, the PCs must choose if they'll spare an opponent. There WILL be accidents. There will be people looking for vengeance even when the rules were followed.

- These would need tracking dozens of NPCs, multiple fiefs, several years. Not sure me and my players are up to the task.

- Religion, family, friends, oaths, debts, can all add layers of "Mixed Allegiances".

- To keep PCs close, they might be all from a similar region that is specially ruined on act I, so they can grow and conquer it from usurpers etc. 

- Castle of Dread: a haunted castle, created by a mad king/baron, mostly abandoned. The home of gothic horror, but not necessarily supernatural: could be a haunted, swampy land with no intrinsic value except as a "safe" haven in time of great need. think Harrenhal, Gormenghast, etc. gothic themes that do not involve monsters are: "cursed" families, oppressive nature, insanity, etc.

- I'm a bit tired of fantasy, but maybe I could check Cthulhu Dark Ages (currently on sale) for a twist on act III? These guys are the real invaders...

- I like House of the Dragon (even if I'm not a fan of the book), so maybe set Act III there would be nice. This is pretty good as all my players are fans of GoT and would immediately recognize names such as "Lannister", "Stark", etc. Of course, messing with "canon" has its own difficulties. Aeny's reign is interesting too. Let me know if you know other good settings/periods!

Anyway... could be fun.

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

Adding a new dimension to D&D weapons

D&D weapons have many different traits, depending on the edition. Usually, damage is the most noticeable. If I give my players a list of weapons, they'll usually pick the most damaging weapon they can carry.

But there is also price, weight, and in some editions speed, effectives versus armor, length, size, and different effects due to weapon proficiencies.

There is ONE dimensional that is sorely lacking since OD&D, however: an attack bonus.

In chainmail, weapons cause the same damage, but the to-hit chance is different depending on the weapon and armor. This is NOT simply an effect of armor: some weapons are just better to-hit overall.

For example, giving B/X battleaxes a +2 to hit would be very easy. They'd become better than swords against plate and shield, but still worse in most circumstances. Maybe 2h-swords deserve a +1 to-hit to compensate the "slow" aspect (if you're using that at all). Maybe maces deserve a +1 bonus (and make them weight a bit more than short swords). Etc.

What about unarmed attacks? They could cause 1, 1d2 or 1d3 damage... But it would be just as easy to give them a -2 penalty to-hit. Now attacking a foe in plate with bare hands is very ineffective.

[Notice that, because of how AC works, the bonus would be greater for armor-defeating weapons; these are usually heavy, unbalanced... In short, this is the opposite of speed.]

You could scatter high-quality and low-quality weapons by giving them -1 and +1 to-hit... without altering damage output significantly (probably less than 20%, or a smaller difference than 1d6 to 1d8 damage).

There is almost no effect on game balance.

This is probably the simplest addition you can make to B/X weapons. 

You don't need special rules or subsystems, and you probably can write your attack bonus (if you're using that) with your weapon - which already includes Strength/Dexterity and class bonuses. E.g.: "Dagger +3 [1d4+1], Polearm +6 [1d10+1]".

Unfortunately, the "+1 magic weapon" idea is too strong in D&D; it is expected that weapons only give you bonuses to hit if they are magical (it would be a good idea to mix things up here too: a magical weapon with +2 to-hit and +4 damage, for example, something 5e has embraced).

But giving ordinary weapons discreet bonus/penalties to-hit would already add an entire new dimension to your arsenal.

This is just a random idea for now; but if I ever had to add weapon details to my "minimalist B/X", this is where I would start.

Cyclic history (I) - The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” ― Robert E. Howard

There are two popular conceptions of history that I see everyday: I'll call them "progressive " and "conservative", but feel free to correct me if you know better terms. 

"Progressive history" believes society advances (if irregularly), somewhat like technology. There are ups and downs, but there is also a right path to march forward, and those who fail to see that are barbarians "on the wrong side of History". 

"Conservative history" believes History is not a march forward, but a series movements bringing us closer or farther from some center (usually created by a deity). Tradition should be handled with care, and those who fail to see that are degenerates and heretics.

Another possibility is "Regressive history", the belief that everything was better in ancient times. There is some of that in Hinduism, Taoism and the Garden of Eden, but it is not a common perspective of history nowadays. People often see their youth as the golden years, but the medieval period as "the dark ages".

The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall, found in the writings of Howard, Lovecraft and Moorcock, tells a different story...

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age.”

― H.P. Lovecraft

“Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is the whim of circumstance. And barbarianism must ultimately triumph”

― Robert E. Howard

Within this paradigm, history is cyclical (this is also a theme in Hinduism and Plato, as far as I know.) Cultures go from barbarianism to civilization, but civilization becomes decadent until it destroys itself, returning to barbarianism. 

We could divide this in five stages, as exemplified by Conan characters: savage (e.g., the Picts), barbarian (e.g., Conan and the Cimmerians), civilized (e.g., Aquilonia), decadent (e.g., Stygia) and ruined (extinct societies like Lemuria and Atlantis). I think I read the idea in some old version of RuneQuest first, but it is common in many RPGs.

(Note: it is also possible to have utopia as an alternative to the kinds of societies delineated above - e.g., Satya Yuga, the Garden of Eden, Avalon, etc. This is uncommon in S&S settings; they appears mostly as mythical, distant or extinct places, such as the original home of Yag-Kosha. A PC or even NPC from such origin should be very rare).

Howard seems to favor barbarianism, as mentioned above, but maybe this is because he's telling so many stories from the barbarian point of view (even Conan eventually becomes king of Aquilonia, in a way choosing civilization over barbarianism). 

I prefer to look at it in a cyclical manner: barbarianism will often "ascend" to civilization, but civilization plants the seed of its own destruction. 

(The Lovecraft quote also explains why: knowledge is dangerous, and too much progress will bring us back to "dark ages". The idea that knowledge/power brings madness/corruption is also common in S&S and dark fantasy in general.)

This is an important point, because it's easy for us to see civilization as the epitome of society. When we think of it in terms of cycles, we can see any position is relative. Each society judges itself superior to others, and see other societies in comparison with their own. Conan sees civilized folks as degenerate already, while someone from a decadent civilization (say, Moorcock's Melniboné) would see Aquilonians (or "the young kingdoms") as ignorant barbarians.

On the other hand, an individual can see its own culture with critical eyes. For example,  you might belong to a decadent culture and denounce its excesses publically. This might turn you into an outcast or pariah.

In addition, cultures are not monolithic. You could have a culture where the elites are incredibly decadent but the poor still try to maintain some decency, for example, or vice-versa. Different groups could exist in the same nation or city. Rulers can preach morals despite living decadent lives, or conversely they can breed corruption in the population while maintaining civilized lives themselves.

Once you break free of this "barbarian is better" or " civilization is better" paradigm, things becomes much more interesting. Instead of good against evil or Law against Chaos, you get meaningful choices and shades of gray. A PC could come from any kind of society (although PCs from savage and ruined ones will be rarer), with pros and cons. 

And we could reflect on demographics, laws, customs, magic and science in each kind of society, for easy and fun world building... 

Which I plan to do soon.

The minimalist beauty of D&D's "Dragon Quest Game"

First, notice there are several products with similar names; in this post, I'm talking about Dungeons & Dragons: Dragon Quest Game.

Contents: "32 page rule book, 24 page adventure book, 4 page booklet, fold-out game board, 4 sheets of cardstock fold-up figures, 6 plastic minis, 6 metal minis, 7 dice, 180 cards" (source).

This is not a "proper" RPG, but a board game for children 10-12 years old who never played D&D.

Still, I found the game immensely fun - despite being "too old" for it and playing GURPS regularly at the time!

And I introduced quite a few people to RPGs with it. I wish I still had a copy to try with children and newcomers.

Today, after being hit by nostalgia out of nowhere, I went online to take another look at the game.

It is apparently less famous than I thought - I found few reviews and it doesn't seem easy to buy.

Anyway, this games is probably lacking as a board game or RPG - the rules are vague, incomplete, and apparently unbalanced. We probably made it work due to experience with other RPGs. 

But...

I have to admire the sweet minimalism of the game.

source.

The rules book has 32 pages, and is full of beautiful TSR art. 

The actual rules are very lean: almost everything is basically "roll under your ability score" (the usual six abilities).

Dwarves can find secret doors rolling under Wis. Halflings hide and thieves deal with traps rolling under Dex. Elves are just wizards with better fighting.

There are no saving throws - a PC affect by poison must roll under Constitution or die, etc.

THAC0 is replaced by a "fighting score", basically 20-level. So a 3rd level MU has a fighting score of 17 - which is better than most versions of D&D, but he can only use small weapons.

Spells do not have levels. You just pick a number of spells equal to your level plus Int or Wis mod. Magic-users pick before elves. I love this scheme.

No XP either - surviving a dungeon (which isn't easy) gives you a level, period.

There are no HD, just HP (6 per level for clerics, etc.).

source.

Treasure and encumbrance are abstracted - each PC can carry two cards (except backpacks allow you to carry more stuff), some treasure cards can be traded by equipment, etc.

Random encounters are drawn from a deck of cards, prepared beforehand for each dungeon.

The cards might be the best thing about this game - full of (not always appropriate) TSR art, they are much better than the 5e versions!

It also had plastic/metal PCs and paper figures for monsters and doors, and a single board that could be slightly adapted for different dungeons.

While I prefer "theater of the mind" RPGs, all these components were great for introducing people to the hobby, and fun to play with.

Lots of interesting ideas that could be applied to ANY version of D&D are scattered through the game: for example, the reaction table takes into account that lawful creatures are more likely to be helpful (which makes more sense here since PCs are never chaotic).

There are a few missed opportunities for balance and fun. Some treasure cards could have different effects (e.g., trade for TWO equipment cards), plate armor (or additional items) could affect movement, etc. The special cards are just random luck (nothing the player or PC can do except hope for a good result), and Charisma apparently serves no function in the game.

This game is introductory and always errs on the side of simplicity.

The adventure book has three dungeons and advice to build your own - and even blank cards for the DM to fill!

It also contains some horrible DM advice (e.g., fudge your rolls, ignore random encounters occasionally, and so on).

All things considered, this was a fun introductory game. 

It was released in 1992, but contained ideas that would come back in 3e, 4e and 5e (e.g., everyone has a similar fighting bonus, saves rely on abilities) and even OSR games such as TAAC and The Black Hack (almost everything is "roll under ability").

It makes me wonder if someone could have started with this game and then moved to D&D... only to realize THAC0 charts, percentile thief skills and saving throws did little to improve the game!

Despite being incomplete and not that balanced, I think this is a fun little game - and a bit ahead of its time in many aspects.

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