Zothique revisited, and more Ashton Smith

I have wondered many times (and even tried to investigate as best I could) why Clark Ashton Smith is not in the Appendix N. Not only because his stories, genre, and era would make him a perfect candidate, but because he would be even MORE fitting than most of the books that are actually listed there.

He is certainly a precursor, considered one of the three giants of the "weird" fiction genre alongside Lovecraft and Howard, both of whom receive prominent placement in the Appendix. Clark Ashton Smith has a touch of Howard's sword and sorcery, a measure of Lovecraftian horror, but blends genres more freely than either (including also a larger dose of humor and imaginative worldbuilding).

His tales, like few others of his era, genuinely feel like D&D adventures, something that would only be matched by the later works of Leiber and Andre Norton (Leiber was influenced by Smith, although Norton's toad-like beings might be an indirect influence). He is one of the most important originators of the Dying Earth genre, which would go on to shape Jack Vance, himself a major influence on Gygax. In the same vein, Smith's ornate and vivid prose likely had an enormous influence on Gygax's writing style, perhaps also filtered through Jack Vance.

The Zothique stories are among Clark Ashton Smith's most impressive work. I recently reread the entire cycle, and truly each one of them could stand on its own as a D&D adventure. Dunsany's stories have a similar effect, but many of them seem to build toward a single climax of maximum strangeness, whereas the Zothique tales are more often defined by a succession of unusual situations, traps, monsters, and obstacles. His protagonists, too, are very D&D-ish: not legendary heroes like Conan or the largely outmatched humans of Lovecraft, but brave, sometimes foolish, often selfish, adventurers that live or die based on skill and sheer luck.

(They are also sometimes found in parties, or with hirelings/servants, which is rare except for Tolkien).

Could it be that Gygax simply did not know Smith? Given his enormous influence, I find that unlikely; several elements of D&D appear to be directly inspired by the author, such as the Geas spell (also adopted by Vance), and the rich vocabulary for the dead and undead: ghouls, liches, necromancers, and more. Another hypothesis, perhaps more plausible, is that Gygax simply was not a great fan (which, again, is odd given his influence and proximity to R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, and H. P. Lovecraft , some of "the most immediate influences upon AD&D"). 

Maybe Smith was simply less popular, which seems to be the case. This is the most likely explanation I have so far.

At least the Zothique stories point to another reason, one that seems rather obvious in hindsight but that I may have overlooked because I am already a dark fantasy reader: many of the stories are too dark, and a significant number involve acts that constitute or suggest necrophilia (though not explicitly) alongside torture, alcoholism, cruelty, decadence, revenge, and so forth, sometimes with no heroic characters to serve as counterweight.

Even so, the Zothique cycle strikes me as particularly grim, and not all of Smith's stories follow the same tendency. It now seems worth revisiting his other tales (equally impressive and equally suited to D&D) to determine whether this explanation is sufficient, or whether another reason might yet be found. For now, the mystery remains.

Snakes & Ladders: The Problem of Linear Progression in D&D

Among games that remain popular to this day, one of the oldest in the world is called Snakes and Ladders, a game that practically everyone knows (see image below). Movement is essentially linear, from start to finish, but there are two types of shortcuts/detours: ladders, which accelerate your progress toward the goal, and snakes, which send you back a few spaces. It is a simple mechanic, but one that creates real tension between advancement and setback.

The Goal of D&D and Its Structural Problem

Without getting into the debate about what exactly the goal of D&D is, certainly one of the central purposes of its characters is to become more powerful, that is, to rise from level one, where they are basically beginners, all the way to becoming legendary heroes. Gygax himself (if I'm not mistaken) has stated that this was the goal of the game: to transform starting characters into heroes like Conan or Elric.

The problem is structural. In game terms, the route from level one to level twenty always moves in the same direction. You only gain XP, you only gain levels, you never lose them. It is a one-way street.

The older designers did not entirely ignore this problem. Hence the mechanic of undead creatures that drain levels, creating an effect similar to the snakes in the original game. The Dungeon Master's Guide also included situations that could temporarily reduce your levels, such as exhaustion after a grueling march, or situations of permanent loss such as aging, which can only be reversed with very powerful spells.

Of course, XP is not the only measure of a character's power. With experience, a character gains abilities and hit points, and some abilities can be lost temporarily (often for no more than a day). HP can also be lost, and in older D&D this could have more lasting consequences (perhaps weeks rather than days) than in modern versions. Finally, one can lose money (whether because raising the dead comes at some cost, or through theft, etc.).

It must be acknowledged that some RPGs, such as Call of Cthulhu, famous for its downward spiral into madness, and other horror RPGs in general (Unknown Armies, certain versions of Kult, etc.), exhibit quite clear and lasting negative effects in their systems.

In any case, aside from the issue of undead creatures draining levels, there are not many truly permanent losses in D&D. The only real loss available is the death of the character, which even then can easily be circumvented by a resurrection spell. In most versions of D&D, there is no universal mechanism for lasting negative consequences: the loss of an attribute, the amputation of a limb, a permanent scar (except as an optional rule in the DMG to save a PC reduced to zero HP, an option I find quite appealing). There are no significant setbacks, save death itself. Using the original metaphor: it would be as if every snake on the board led back to the first square.

There are other tools in the game that attempt to work around this limitation, such as creatures that destroy equipment (even magical weapons), that petrify characters, or that impose curses and other lasting effects. But these are isolated/specific solutions, not structural ones; they only happen with a very small percentage of creatures and situations.

Another problem is that D&D players, accustomed to constant and uninterrupted advancement, tend to dislike losing special items, levels, or anything they have already incorporated as part of their character. They may even come to see this kind of loss as a form of cheating.

In modern D&D, there is debate over whether characters can even die at all, so the line of advancement becomes, in the end, a conveyor belt with no way back: you can only move forward.

Source: Wikipedia.

The Parallel with Video Games

It is worth noting that older video games, also divided into "levels" (or stages), followed a logic quite similar to that of Snakes and Ladders. Reaching the end of a stage meant advancing to the next, but dying at any point sent you back to the beginning of that stage, not to the beginning of the entire game, and never (or almost never) to a previous stage. Alongside this, there was a system of permanent loss: a limited number of "lives" which, once exhausted, forced you back to the very beginning of the game (that is, "level one").

Some more modern and less linear games that generate enthusiasm among RPG players (such as Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Darkest Dungeon) play with this question of real loss in more sophisticated ways. Death in Dark Souls does not send you back to level zero, but it frequently causes the loss of all accumulated XP. In the case of Darkest Dungeon, where you control groups of characters, the death of a hero is a permanent loss for the team, something no spell can undo.

Why This Matters

Even for those who prefer a narrative in which characters never die and always advance, that advancement would be more interesting if it were not purely linear, that is, a little more like Snakes and Ladders. In other words: on the road to heroism, you always lose something.

High-level characters would carry, in their character sheets and their stories, a series of losses, obstacles, and scars. This enriches both narrative and simulation, whatever the goal of the players at the table may be.

In more narrative games influenced by story games, setbacks make the narrative more interesting (and there are books and RPGs at least partially built around this concept of gain and loss, such as Hamlet's Hit Points, Fate, etc.). In games that aim to reproduce cinema, literature, or the hero's journey, an advancement without setbacks makes little sense either.

In games focused on challenge, obstacles become more complex and dangerous when there are real chances of loss. Likewise, in games that seek simulation or immersion, such dangers make the game more believable and realistic.

In short: from any angle, questioning (and perhaps overcoming) the unidirectionality that governs character advancement in D&D may be an experience not only valid, but necessary for the evolution of the hobby.

(Solutions? Probably the subject of a future post. However, I will say permanent wounds are a great idea, IMO, as they could happen in any combat not just against very specific monsters. This could take the form of scars, diminished abilities, etc. Alternatively, expand level loss to include other situations besides undead and marching, maybe as a general fatigue mechanic, so that wounded/tired MUs cannot cast their best spells and tried fighters attack a bit slower).

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/12/nothing-to-lose-but-their-lives-stakes.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ix-pages-100.html

Single roll combat (and more minimalist mass combat)

I nearly finished a document of about ten pages on mass combat in OSR systems. 

My idea, as I had already discussed a few times, was not to introduce a new/alternate system (Chainmail, Warmachine, etc.) new types of data, replace the d20 with a d6, or rewrite a troop list, but to simply to use the rules/stats as they are written in systems like B/X or AD&D, and extrapolate those rules to cover a much larger group of creatures at once, or to cover a longer period of time. In other words, to try to summarize several rolls into a single one.

I approached this issue through four paths: one versus one, which I thought could simply be ignored; one versus many, allowing powerful characters to attack many weak enemies at once; many versus one, which allows the opposite; and many versus many, which are rules for battles between groups of different sizes against each other.

In the end, I decided to add a small idea about how to resolve any combat with just a single roll. Ultimately, I am concerned that this idea may have made all my other ideas obsolete, since it solves almost any situation. The only caveat is that the combats must be between creatures of approximate power. If you avoid absurd situations like a thousand versus one, it should work in situations up to fifty versus twenty, one versus ten, and so on.

Here are some ideas that might give you the gist of it. And maybe this is already enough that the doc is not needed... But let me know if it sounds interesting.

---

The margin of success

When you make an attack roll, subtract the target number from your result. That difference — positive or negative — is your margin, and it is added directly to damage on a hit. Optionally, a miss works the same way in reverse: a near-miss deals reduced damage rather than nothing, meaning every roll moves the fight forward.

A fighter needs a 10 to hit and rolls a 14. Margin: +4. His sword deals 1d8 — say he rolls a 5 — for a total of 9 damage. If he had rolled a 7 instead, missing by 3, the optional rule gives him 1d8 minus 3 — perhaps 2 damage — a glancing blow that still counts.

The group attack bonus

Ten bandits attacking a single knight roll once, with a +10 bonus, and deal one die of damage plus the margin. No rolling ten separate attacks. One roll, one result.

Conversely, the knight can attack all ten in a single attack with a -10 penalty. If he hits, he damages ALL ten bandits at once (10 is the hard limit; the knight cannot attack 100 at once).

The bandits need a 12 to hit the knight and roll a 9, adjusted to 19 with their +10 bonus. Margin: +7. They deal 1d8+7. The knight is not struck ten times; he is overwhelmed by a sustained press whose worst moment is captured in that single roll.

The knight strikes back. He needs an 8 to hit a bandit and rolls a 14, but with a -10 penalty that becomes a 4. A miss. The bandits' formation holds for now. Next round he rolls an 18, adjusted to 8. He hits, margin 0, deals 1d8 damage with his sword. If the bandits only had 4 HP each and he rolls 5 damage, he might have cut down all ten at once.

Groups of different sizes

When two groups of different sizes fight each other, the larger group gets a bonus and the smaller group gets a penalty, equal to the difference in size. Seven bandits against five knights: the bandits attack with +2, the knights with -2.

In some cases the groups can be reduced to a common denominator. Six bandits against four knights can be treated as three bandits against two knights, keeping the same proportions with fewer units to track. Twelve against eight becomes three against two. This is purely a matter of convenience — the math is identical either way.

The single roll method (optional)

Both sides roll one attack each, simultaneously. Apply the margin to average damage. Compare remaining HP. The side with more left wins; the loser drops to zero; the winner keeps only their remainder. Two rolls, a subtraction, a comparison, done.

Two ogres, 19 HP each, average damage 6, needing a 10 to hit. Ogre A rolls 16, margin +6, deals 12 damage, leaving Ogre B with 7 HP. Ogre B rolls 9, margin -1, deals 5 damage, leaving Ogre A with 14 HP. Ogre A wins. Subtract: 14 minus 7 = 7 HP remaining. Bloodied but standing.

---

Obviously this is intended for NPC fights and mass combat, mostly. Most players do not want their PCs to be killed in a single roll, and that can absolutely happen here. But it can be used in a limited way even for PCs: if your fighter is attacked by a mob of goblins that could never realistically kill him, a single roll quickly tells you how much damage he sustains before cutting through them, and everyone moves on.

The Chronicles of Amber (1-5), Norwegian Wood, The Stranger, Ultralearning

I hesitated a little before writing a review of these books, mainly because I don't have many positive things to say about them, and to be honest I was a bit cautious to criticize books that are so widely loved. 

That said, a negative ou neutral review can be just as useful as a positive one, so I decided to share my impressions anyway. Also, I din't quite regret reading any of these books, even if the experience was not as valuable to me as reading Kafka, Wolfe, Borges or Moorcock, to name a few authors that might share some themes.

The Chronicles of Amber (1-5), by Roger Zelazny

This is a well-known series, listed in Appendix N of D&D. I read the first pentalogy, which, curiously, wasn't even finished when AD&D was published in 1977. It is a middling adventure fantasy: a mix of predictable ideas and genuinely interesting ones, quite reminiscent of Michael Moorcock's Elric and its concept of the multiverse. Its influence on D&D is obvious, particularly in the conception of demigods and the planes of existence.

The books are full of adventure, epic battles, knights and unicorns. The fantasy, however, is somewhat generic, and the naming conventions are curious (there are references to Avalon and Merlin entirely outside of an Arthurian context, for example). The characters, with the possible exception of the narrator, feel a bit shallow and hard to tell apart. The intrigue tends to rely on the same repetitive devices: someone pretends not to know what they know, or pretends to be someone else, or forges someone's death etc. This happens repeatedly across different books, and sometimes the scheming characters feel incredibly naive after many lifetimes in a court of intrigues.

Overall, it is an enjoyable, light and fun read, with something of a Young Adult feel, though there are a few darker scenes (some very good) and some interesting ideas around the multiverse. There are also cool, interesting twists that finish each separate book, although the ending of the pentalogy is somewhat confusing, and I felt no urge to continue to the remaining volumes, except maybe to reach a more satisfying conclusion, if there is one.

Unfortunately, the series falls a bit short of the works that likely inspired it, such as Anderson, Moorcock, and others. It does, however, surpass a good deal of modern fantasy, and remains a fun read that can certainly provide inspiration for your D&D games, especially at higher levels of play.

Norwegian Wood, by Haruki Murakami

I have to admit that some parts of this book are beautifully written, and that I read it almost compulsively, trying to figure out where the story was headed. Some passages are really quite good. Even so, the hype surrounding the book remains somewhat mysterious to me.

The novel follows a university student who is thoroughly disengaged from his own life, surrounded by deeply depressed people. The exception, perhaps, is the protagonist and his friend, who seems to attract an endless stream of interested women for reasons the text never makes entirely clear, given that neither of them displays any particularly positive qualities.

The protagonist is a hornier version of Holden Caulfield with considerably better luck with women, and seems to have a surprisingly easy time with them despite an apparent lack of ambition, social graces, or redeeming qualities in general. When he does choose to show restraint, he does so without any apparent moral conviction, and surrenders it again without much of a struggle. The other characters, for their part, are profoundly depressed, some to the point of suicide, others struggling with serious hardships such as cancer and poverty (with the exception of one friend that seems to be devoid of empathy and even more successful with women).

Although the protagonist mentions his interest in Western literature, the atmosphere of inexplicable gloom surrounding some of the characters reminded me more of Osamu Dazai than of any European influence. Though perhaps there is also some Camus at work here (and also The Catcher in the Rye, which the author mentions IIRC), as the next book suggests.

The depressing, existential tone is probably the whole point of the book. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable or enriching, but it may be an interesting experience if that sounds like something you'd like.

The Stranger, by Albert Camus

The Stranger is a classic of absurdism with an enormous cultural influence. Much like the previous book, it features a protagonist who is thoroughly disengaged from his own life and fate, but in an even more radical and unsettling way, and without the excuse of being a teenager. It is almost impossible not to wonder whether the protagonist has some serious neurological condition, though his emotional detachment does not make him any less irrational than the other characters, who are guided by their own equally misguided emotions, such as the romantic interest who insists on pursuing him despite his obvious indifference.

In Kafka's The Trial, the accused desperately tries to prove his innocence before a completely surreal judicial system. Here, the accused is indifferent to proving his own innocence, which is questionable to begin with, even when faced with a system that, while unhinged, seems to follow some internal logic and might perhaps have responded to a coherent defense.

The absurdity of the protagonist's thinking and the circumstances surrounding him are, in all likelihood, precisely the point of the book. But, as with the previous entry, that does not make it a particularly enjoyable read.

Ultralearning, by Scott H. Young

This is a book about intense, self-directed learning, and I found it quite useful. I reviewed and summarized it, and added a few study tips for 2026, over on my other blog, which focuses on self-development. If that interests you, check out that post and the others in the same blog:

https://allinspiringideas.blogspot.com/2026/02/ultralearning-by-scott-h-young-review.html

https://allinspiringideas.blogspot.com/

Smash the ability scores

The "Smash" maneuver from the Rules Cyclopedia has always intrigued me, not only because it's one of those small idiosyncrasies of that book absent from other versions of D&D, but also because it's one of the rare cases outside roll-under situations where the attribute is used in full, point by point, rather than just a modifier.

It goes like this:

Smash
This is a Fighter Combat Option maneuver, first available at 9th level to fighters and mystics, and at other experience point totals to demihumans (see their experience tables). With this hand-to-hand maneuver, the character automatically loses initiative and takes a - 5 penalty to the attack roll (he still gets his Strength and magic adjustments to his attack roll). 
If attack hits, the character adds his Strength bonus, magic bonuses, and his entire Strength score to his weapon's normal damage. 
For example, a Strength 17 fighter ( + 2 to attack and damage) using a sword +2 ( + 2 to attack, 1d8 + 2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of -1 ( + 2 + 2-5). If he hits, he rolls ld8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

The smash maneuver is also a solution to various combat situations, but I'll set that aside to focus on the matter of ability checks.

A persistent problem in D&D is that there are few mechanics that interact directly with the full attribute score instead of just the modifier. 

The obvious answer to this dilemma is, well, ability checks. The problem is that good examples of them are nearly absent from published D&D modules. Most are simply Dexterity tests used as if they were saving throws — which, in my view, only adds confusion. The example in Moldvay is climbing a rope, which has the odd consequence of making the thief better at climbing sheer walls than ropes. 

AD&D offers some inspiration for broader uses: though it never says so explicitly, the attribute tables include chances to learn spells and resurrection survival odds — both of which could reasonably be framed as ability checks. Strength checks have a few obvious uses — for example, open doors, which unfortunately is treated under a different mechanics, with similar results.

None of this helps much with the harder problem: finding situations that naturally call for a Wisdom or Charisma check.

Using ability checks with skills, non-weapon proficiencies, etc. seems to be a good solution. In a game like AD&D, where abilities average 12.2, it might be as simple as giving a −10 penalty to anyone untrained (minimum 1), and adding level if trained. 

So a thief with Dex 14 might start with a skill of 5, so 25% chance of success (14+1−10), reaching 90% by level 14. A warrior with the same Dex might have only 4 for all his career - and the GM might decide certain tasks are impossible for the untrained.

It doesn't matter whether you prefer roll-high or roll-low. You simply add this to a 1d20 and try to meet or beat 20 (gaining an extra 5% chance in the process, which is a good tradeoff in my opinion). So our thief would go from 30% to 95% over the course of his career.

[I'm more inclined to go roll low, but since the math is the same I'll probably ask around to see what people prefer.]

That's probably what I'll go with, because it's a lot simpler than the idea that got me writing this in the first place.

I was thinking of keeping the modifier as the standard for skills, but allowing certain situations to let you add the entire ability score instead. What would be the equivalent of Smash for other abilities? Anything done slowly could fit... maybe it could be the old-school equivalent of "taking 10":

Taking Your Time

When the character is not in a rush and is not being threatened or distracted, they may add their entire ability score — rather than just the modifier — to the check.

This brings to mind Siegfried using his prodigious strength to forge a sword despite little blacksmithing training. And it still leaves some chance of success and failure.

Another idea: allow a natural 20 to trigger a "roll again, adding the entire ability score" — letting PCs accomplish nearly impossible tasks if they're talented enough.

I may develop these further down the line, but for now I think I've found my next skill system.

BTW, I'm working on my "Old School Minimalist" again, and this time I think I'll go all the way and publish a 20-30 page PDF, after I share the whole thing here.

The fireball hand grenade

You might have heard me complain about fireballs a couple of times, so I hope you'll forgive me for trying a new fix to a problem some of you might share. The fix is really simple and does not significantly nerf MUs (in fact, I'm not sure it is enough).

Usually, when an MU throws a fireball at a group of goblins, things like saves and damage rarely matter - goblins within blast radius are toast. Which is fine, but it gets weirder and weirder to me when the MU can instantly kill a group of orcs, lizard men or even bugbears.

What if we just roll damage as usual (say, 7d6 for a 7th-level MU), but that is the TOTAL damage dealt. So, against a group of goblins, a weak damage roll (say, 20 points) and a successful save would reduce the number of goblin casualties to only two or three.

The damage is distributed as the GM sees appropriate - think of the fireball like a hand grenade! Most of the damage hits the center, shrapnel spreads outward.

This logic seems to work for groups. Against a single creature, the fireball remains equally effective. If you want to change that, you can just decide that, like a grenade, the main target gets most of the damage but a part of it (say, half of the damage, round down) is spread around.

Lightning bolt could function similarly, but maybe I'd let the MU concentrate all damage into a single creature or create a "line" of damage that diminishes as each creature is hit in a straight line. This spells has not been as common in my games, however. I'm even tempted to treat dragon breath in similar way (well, as a flamethrower) and let fighters jump with their shields in front of wizards when needed.

Anyway, I like this idea because it makes a 10d6 fireball very different from a 5d6 fireball against a group of lesser foes, which gives the wizard a real sense of progression without making him overpowered in comparison to fighters. Thinking of them as grenades makes them feel more grounded and tactically interesting, giving MUs interesting choices of where to aim - and it is also reminiscent of the original Chainmail origins that treated wizards like artillery.

Maximum Damage

We've been playing with a lot of ideas using D&D weapons and margins of success. Yesterday, a new one occurred to me: maximum damage.

Let's say weapon damage is determined by margin of success, but the maximum damage is unchanged from the original game. So a d4 becomes 4, a d8 becomes 8, etc.

This has several benefits before we get any deeper:

• You don't need a damage roll.
• Damage raises steadily with level, especially for fighters.
• Armor becomes even more significant.
• Armored duels
•  feel a bit slower and more realistic, with lots of wounds.
• Magic users could use swords etc. but it would usually not be worth the effort.
• We'd get more granular weapons (e.g., maximum damage 5, 7, or 9).
• Even a goblin can potentially survive a hit of a +3 sword, although this is very rare.

If we rule that a natural 20 doubles or triples maximum damage (or just raises it by 10 points or whatever), even a dagger can be deadly in the hands of a very skilled fighter against an unarmored foe.

Conversely, we can introduce laser guns with 15 or 20 maximum damage, and he stormtroopers would still have a hard time actually killing someone with it in a single shot.

I'm tempted to add your attack bonus to maximum damage too, so Conan can occasionally kill a sorcerer with a punch.

We'd have to consider how backstab works. Maybe a flat +4 bonus to attack and maximum damage.

Also, how do exact hits work? Maybe 0 damage, maybe 1, maybe some special effect, not sure.

One downside I can see is that average damage is a bit higher than usual even for low-HD creatures, although this is somewhat countered by the fact that in my games, PCs don't die at 0 HP. The fact that high-level warriors deal lots of damage is a plus for me, especially because I don't like having many magic weapons.

The fact that people get used to thinking about margins of success could also be useful if you use this for skills and other checks, which I like.

Another problem is that big foes such as giants and dragons could have their damage significantly diminished if we use this system exactly as written, never being able to actually reach their "maximum damage". Maybe that's a problem for another day, but I can imagine we could have a size multiplier of ×2 to ×4 (maybe "3x6" instead of "6d6"), which could create an interesting effect: a giant will not often hit the fighter, but when he does the damage is massive — one mistake might cost him dearly!

I think I originally had this idea years ago, when playing bell-curve systems, which might have different, but interesting, effects.

There are probably another issues I'm missing, but so far I really like this idea... let me know what you think in the comments!

Note: the GM Day's sale* is on, and most of my books are included! 40% off many titles! Here are some of my picks from past sales. Some deep discounts here, including the Dolmenwood Campaign Book looks really cool and it is 50% off! Maybe I"ll get it to take a look...

* Affiliate link.

More d100 D&D

I've been playing with this idea again.

Basically, you have percentile values for each ability. 

Each level gets you at least 2% better at (basically) everything, with each ability point giving you 3% as a starting rule.

A level 8 PC (example above) might have Strength 13/55% and Intelligence 10/46%.

We'd basically use that 55% for skills, attacks, and magic.

Probably thieves get 20% extra on their skills, fighters on their attacks, and mages on their spellcasting.

Limit PCs to level 10 or so, and leveling bonus will not surpass differences in abilities., although the system does still work up to level 20 and more.

Saving throws use the same number. The 30–80 range is quite perfect for that.

[Strength 10 gives you 32% on level one; with Strength 20, you'd get 80% on level 10, or 100% if you're an specialist; maybe you could do ability x4 plus level x2 for slightly more competent PCs].

Combat wouldn't be hard to do; you probably need some defense stat in lieu of AC, maybe even some dodge chance, parry, etc. One reason I like d100, BTW, is because they can produce crits on doubles, and use the "tens" digit as damage, to make combat quicker and more exciting.

HP are trickier. You can't really get the same range as old-school D&D without a completely different formula.

Spells would be a lot weaker unless you spend some of your magic for additional effects.

But at this point I'm not even sure you'd need the ability scores; the percentiles would be enough. I can hardly think of a task a PC should be able to attempt without getting better through leveling. Breaking down doors, for example, could certainly improve with practice.

"But why not just roll under every ability, like in The Black Hack, etc.?" This is doable too, but I like the small increments from level instead of raising attributes directly. And the curve from my method, going from around 30% to 80%, feels more akin to D&D’s zero-to-hero style than starting at a 40–50% chance of success.

And, well, I just like the d100.

Old school swarms/minions (B/X, OSE, AD&D, etc.)

I started playing with these tables in the context of mass combat ideas, but it might be a good way to avoid handfuls of dice when your 8th-level party is fighting a horde of goblins or orcs (or any 1HD creatures that deal 1d6 damage, basically, but see special cases below) - a situation that happened several times in my current campaign.

Instead of rolling each attack separately, just roll damage, using the table below. 

It’s up to the GM to decide (or check the book to see) how many creatures can attack a single PC at once — in melee, this number might be limited to 6 or 8, but archers could potentially be much worse.

I originally wrote this for B/X (unarmored AC = 9 means you have 55% chance to-hit), but see special cases below

The averages are very close to the original, with few outliers. This is most useful and precise when you are fighting many creatures - if there are only 2 or 3 foes, go back to the original D&D system of rolling 1d20 to-hit, then maybe damage, etc.

Example: five goblins attack your AC 3 fighter - just roll 1d6+1 damage. If they attack your AC 6 thief in the next round, the damage is 2d6 instead. 

If 15 goblin archers aim at your AC 6 mage, they deal 6d6 damage!

Special cases

AD&D. Use the AD&D line.

Ascending AC [for B/X, OSE]. Use the AAC line.

Other systems. If your system is similar but the AC numbers are different (e.g. LotFP, BFRPG), you can use the AAC line as "number needed on the d20". For example, if you need 15 or more to hit, check the 15 on the table.

Creatures with different damage. Creatures that cause 1d6-1 or 1d6+1 damage add a bonus/penalty per dice. So 6d6 becomes 6d6+6, for example. Treat 1d4 as 1d6-1 and 1d8 as 1d6+1.

Creatures with different HD. You can use the AAC line with the number needed to hit. For example, a 2+1 HD creature in B/X hits AC 0 on a 17 or more. The easiest way to do that without THAC0 or other tables is just adding 1 to AC for each HD after the first one (remember that 1+1 HD counts as 2 etc.). In other words, a creature with 3 HD attacks AC 0 as if it was AC 3, and AC 6 as if it was 9.

Damaging hordes. This system only deals with the damage that hordes deal, not what they take; we'll leave that for another day, but the fighters would at the very least deserve some kind of "cleaving" power.

HOWEVER. If you give fighters one attack per level against 1 HD creatures (like OD&D), you could use this table for them too! Just substitute the number of creatures for the fighter's level. So a 8th-level fighter attacking AC 6 goblins deals 3d6+1 damage if using an 1d6 weapon; if his damage is 1d8+1, it becomes 3d8+4 instead. No d20 needed.

Creatures with more than 3 HD, 2d8 damage, special powers, etc. This system is for simple creatures that can be treated as swarms. Anything more complex than that defeats the purpose. While in theory you can run swarms of ogres with a similar method, I prefer to keep this system for goblins, orcs, kobolds, cave man, ordinary humans, wolves, and similar creatures.

Memorizing this table. Is easy to memorize that a  group of twenty 1 HD creatures, with 1d6 damage each, deal 2d6 damage per round against AC 0. Just add 1d6 for AC 1, 2d6 for AC 2, 3d6 for AC 3, etc. If there are fewer than twenty creatures, I can usually do a rough estimation on my head without a table - try it and see which method you prefer. 

For example, AC 5 results in 7d6 (2d6+5d6) for 20 creatures, so 6 creatures would deal a little less than one third of that (I'd guess 2d6 or 2d6+1).

20:1 mass combat in practice

Here is one huge simplification of old school D&D combat. I’ve written about this before, and I’m sorry if I end up repeating myself.

[Also, I got a bit carried away in this post, so it might sound rambly... you've been warned! ;) ]

Assuming most creatures have 1 HD, deal 1d6 damage, and hit AC 0 only on a 20, each 20 creatures deal 1d6 damage per round against AC 0 on average. So, we could say that unit damage is 1d6 for a unit of 20 creatures.

[In a game like B/X, where you hit AC 0 on a 19–20, the average damage is 2d6 instead of 1d6.]

However, for each point of the target’s AC, 1d6 is added to damage. So, a unit of 20 archers deals 1d6 damage to a unit of 20 bandits, plus 5d6 if the bandits’ AC is 5, or 7d6 if it is 7, etc. Likewise, if your damage is 1d8, then you start with 1d8 and add 1d8 for each point of AC (you can use 1d6+1 if you don’t have many d8s). 

All very intuitive.

You don’t have to roll to hit—just roll damage. Each roll of 4 or more removes one creature from the opposing unit. Rolls of 1–3 can be added together to remove more creatures.

The “remnants” of each wounded unit are immediately added together into new units if they succeed at whatever morale check you deem necessary. This is an abstraction.

So you can easily run, say, a clan of 60 dwarves attacking a lair with 100 bandits with just a few rolls. Shall we try?

Let’s say the bandits have the initiative. The dwarves have AC 4; so each 20 bandits deal 1d6 plus 4d6 damage, a total of 25d6 for 100 bandits. We roll 25d6* and get:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

[Notice that we could roll each unit separately for more detail; for example, maybe one unit breaks and the other does not, etc.].

16 dwarves are killed immediately from the 6s, 5s and 4s, plus four deaths by adding the rest (3+1, 3+1, 2+2, 2+2; the last 2 is discarded].

20 deaths is very convenient, otherwise we'd have to discuss what to do with units of 17 etc.

But for now, 40 dwarves remain. They pass their morale check and attack. Their damage is 1d8 according to B/X, and the bandits AC is 6. This means 1d8+6d8 for each 20 dwarves, for a total of 14d8:

8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Only 10 kills! 90 bandits remain. By this time, it is obvious that the dwarves, having smaller numbers and having lost initiative, are nearly doomed.

If we attack with only 80 bandits next, we'd roll 20d6:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Another 16 dwarves are dead. Now we have 24 dwarves against 90 bandits. Let's "put aside" 4 dwarves and 10 bandits and continue with 80x20. Twenty desperate dwarves attack (7d8):

8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2

Six bandits killed. 84 left, 80 will attack again:

6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

16 dwarves killed, only 8 remain.

By this point, you can decide the dwarves are defeated, captured, or routed. You can easy estimate the losses on the bandit's side (about 20%). 

---

And this was not much slower than an usual D&D combat of say, 4 PCs against a dozen goblins. 

This is exactly the goal: you can insert your PCs in this battle, and they could even turn of the tide of the battle.

Assuming the PCs are fighting against bandits, a cleric could cast bless and add 1d8 damage to an unit of 20 dwarves. A mage could fireball 20 bandits in the first turn.

A fighter could kill multiple bandits, although we probably need special rules for that: like in OD&D, maybe give him one attack per level, so a strong level 6 fighter can kill maybe 2-4 bandits per round.

Is this enough to change the tide of battle? Let's try adding a party of three level 6 PCs.

---

The bandits attack first, reducing the dwarves from 60 to 40. A fireball reduces the bandits from 100 to 80, and the fighter reduces them to 77. The 40 dwarves, 20 being blessed, roll 15d8 to attack:

8, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

68 bandits remain. Since we get 5d6 for each 20 bandits, lets roll 17d6 for the 68. Here the GM is averaging and abstracting a bit.

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2

About 27 dwarves are left. Let's roll 10d8, assuming a few of them are still blessed. Again, the DM is averaging and trying to get to the right ballpark:

8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Bandits are reduced to 61. Fighter kills 3, MU kills other 2 with magic missiles, cleric blesses again. Now there are 56 bandits, but let's add a twist: 20 bandits attack the fighter. The fighter's AC is 2, so he takes 3d6 damage. 36 attack the dwarves: let's roll 8d6.

6, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1

21 dwarves are left. Roll 8d8 since most are blessed:

8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

49 bandits left, soon reduced to 42 by the PCs. Roll 10d6 against dwarves:

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1

14 dwarves left. Roll 5d8:

8, 7, 6, 4, 2

38 bandits left. 20 bandits attack dwarves (5d6) and 18 attack the AC 2 fighter (3d6 or, let's say, 3d6-1). And AD&D fighter is likely to be severely wounded at this point but alive:

6, 5, 4, 2, 1

Only 11 dwarves left, the fighter is severely wounded and the MU out of good spells (of course, if I gave him TWO fireballs they might have won). 

The battle is nearly lost but I want to see it to the bitter end. Let's go!

Dwarves (8, 7, 5, 3) kill 3 bandits. Fighter and mage kill 4 more. Cleric heals fighter. 

31 bandits are left, but now 20 of them decide to attack the cleric. With AC 3, the cleric takes 4d6 damage. Ouch! 11 bandits (6, 4, 2) kill 2 dwarves.

9 dwarves (8, 6, 5, 2) kill 3 bandits. 28 left, reduced to 24 by the desperate PCs. They attack the remaining dwarves, rolling 6d6 (6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1). 

Only 5 dwarves left, they attack (7, 3) and kill one bandit. the PCs also attack; 19 bandits are left, and they'll finish the dwarves (6, 5, 4, 3, 2). A single dwarf is left.

Now there are 3 PCs and one dwarf against 19 bandits. They manage to reduce them to 15. The fighter, slightly healed by the Cleric, takes 2d6 damage and barely survives. The GM decides the last dwarf falls killing one bandit, and the PCs also attack to reduce the bandits to 10.

The cleric takes 2d6 damage. Bandits are reduced to 7. Fighter takes 1d6 damage, and falls. 5 bandits against cleric and MU. There are two few combatants to keep using 20:1, and at this point I'm guesstimating. Could go either way, but it seems PCs are doomed.

---

So, 3 PCs were not enough to win this battle decisively. An additional warrior (or just another fireball) would certainly change things.

Still, the PCs made a significant difference. Instead of 80 bandits, now only a few will remain. In practice, repeated morale rolls (that I skipped) could win the day for the PCs.

Took me a bit more than an hour to write this and took some abstractions, rulings, etc. Seems that dwarves had little chance, even with better armor and weapons, after losing initiative. Even with the PCs, it was basically 100 HDs against 78, and the loss of initiative was a huge big deal.

It was a fun exercise, but probably would be more fun in an actual table with friends. Definitely deserves a few tweaks. I need to give it a try...

The AD&D burger

I find AD&D better than B/X—arguably twice as good. But it also comes with five times the page count (and weight, price, etc.)

In some ways, it’s like a burger that’s twice as tasty or has twice the protein of a McDonald’s burger, but also five times the calories, five times the cost, or stretches your lunch to two hours instead of twenty minutes.

Maybe there’s a better analogy out there, but you get the idea.

So let’s stretch the analogy a bit further: AD&D also has several parts (bards and monks, weapon versus armor, weapon speed) that people will simply remove from their burger before eating. Meanwhile, B/X might lack enough protein for your diet, so you can just add more meat or a second source of protein.

Which do you prefer?

Most OSR titles, including my own, try to reach a happy medium between the two.

Often, they start with B/X and add races separated from class and a few extra classes and magic items.

I believe my ideal D&D would be AD&D reduced to around 120 pages like B/X—cutting some fat and carbs from the big burger instead of adding more meat to the small one. 

I don’t think this has been done successfully. OSRIC gets close but not quite (still way more than 120 pages compared to B/X, and it doesn’t even include all AD&D parts). The Challenges Game System by Moldvay could be a good start. Every edition of D&D after B/X, including 2e, 3e, and 5e, tries to streamline things without actually simplifying much.

Maybe I should give this a shot before my next campaign. While I don't, you can read my analysis of the AD&D DMG here, including many thoughts on how to use AD&D stuff for your B/X games.

More minimalist weapons, armor and some numbers

Another random idea for B/X D&D weapons.

I've tried this before, but I like this version better.

Since maces/axes deal 1d6 damage and swords deal 1d8, we could use:

--

Maces get +2 against armor.

Axes get +1 against armor, and +1 damage against unarmored.

Swords don't need it but can get +1 to-hit against unarmored. Still best weapon unless foe is heavily armored.

[Hard/brittle foes made of rock or bone count as armored, soft foes such as oozes and maybe snakes, tentacles etc. count as unarmored].

Of course, maces and axes are always more useful to break down a door.

---

That is it, that is all we need. Or not - maybe the sword is just better because it is heavier and more expensive.

But while we're here let's crunch some numbers.

In B/X, the best nonmagical armor you could get would be plate + shield, which a first level character (any class) hits on a 17 or more - i.e., 20% of the time.

This is a DPR of 0.9 (20%*1d8) for swords. Maces hit more often, for a DPR of 1.05 (30%*1d6). A nice small improvement.

[Notice that our change adds 50% to the mace's DPR under these circumstances].

If you put the target in chain, no shield, the sword is identical to mace on average (1.575); against lighter armor, sword is better again.

The axe is never quite optimal but it works well enough against armored and unarmored foes, and it is just slightly worse than the sword against unarmored opponents.

The thing is, once you get ability score bonuses and magic weapons, the whole distinction becomes almost meaningless. 

For example, under the usual rules, if your fighter deals 1d6+5 damage with a mace, getting a 1d8+5 sword is only an 11% improvement in DPR, instead of almost 30%. 

And if you're hitting on a roll of 6 or more (75% of the time), for example, getting a +1 bonus is only a 7% increase in DPR. And you're unlikely to face a foe with negative armor unless it is a dragon or something.

So, while the distinctions will lose importance to powerful heroes, they are relevant enough for low-level PCs and armies in general.

Note that, in AD&D, these small rules could partially replace the complicated weapon versus armor table; they'd be a bit more significant against plate+shield, which requires 18 or more to hit for a 1st level PC. 

Also since you need a 20 to hit AC 0 in AD&D, and monster AC is usually the same as B/X,  the differences are more notable and relevant for a bit longer.

---

Addendum (10 Nov 2025): Another issue I had are specialized weapons, such as flails and picks. In this case, I'd give them -1 against unarmored, and otherwise treat them as maces, with and additional +1 against shields (for flails) and +1 against plate (for picks). 

For polearms with multiple heads, I'd be inclined to give them just bonuses, since the fighter will be able to use the best method available.

Reading Elric

Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné is immensely influential. It not only inspired Dungeons & Dragons—especially its intelligent and cursed swords—but also left its mark on numerous books (The Witcher, the Targaryens in Game of Thrones), comic books (Berserk, and probably many of the "multiverses" form Marvel etc.), and even music (Hawkwind, Blue Öyster Cult, both of which collaborated with Moorcock himself).

In short, Elric is one of the pillars of dark fantasy.

But people often ask how to start reading it. The series can be confusing, since there are so many books and the publication order doesn’t follow the internal chronology at all. The books have been republished rewritten, collected under different names, and so on.

Another complicating factor is Stormbringer—the book that (sort of) concludes the saga. It’s one of the greatest entries in the series (probably my favorite), one of the two Elric works mentioned in the Appendix N, and ironically, one of the earliest to be published.

I’m a big fan of Elric, and part of me wants to just say: Read the whole thing in internal chronological order! But I think it’s easier more helpful to offer a few different starting points.

So, how do we begin with Elric?

Start with Elric of Melniboné (1972).

It’s not the strongest novel in the collection, but it’s a solid introduction to the character, his world, and the themes that define the saga

If you like it, you can go on and read The Fortress of the Pearl, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, and The Weird of the White Wolf, before going to Stormbringer. 

All of them are great.

But I'd say is even easier to just pick any collection of your choice, as long as it contains the first and the last.

For example (from Wikipedia):

In 1977, DAW Books republished Elric's saga in six books that collected the tales according to their internal chronology:

Elric of Melniboné (Hutchinson, 1972, cut vt [variant title] The Dreaming City Lancer, 1972 US; DAW, 1977) ISBN 0-425-08843-X

The Sailor on the Seas of Fate (Quartet, 1976; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-74863-5

The Weird of the White Wolf (collection, DAW, 1977, contains "The Dream of Earl Aubec", "The Dreaming City", "While the Gods Laugh" and "The Singing Citadel"), ISBN 0-441-88805-4

The Sleeping Sorceress (NEL, 1971; Lancer, 1972 as The Vanishing Tower; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-86039-7

The Bane of the Black Sword (DAW, 1977, fixup of "The Stealer of Souls", "Kings in Darkness", "The Flame Bringers" and "To Rescue Tanelorn"), ISBN 0-441-04885-4

Stormbringer (cut, Herbert Jenkins, 1965; restored and revised, DAW, 1977, Berkeley, 1984, fixup of "Dead God's Homecoming", "Black Sword's Brothers", "Sad Giant's Shield" and "Doomed Lord's Passing"), ISBN 0-425-06559-6

Now, if you dislike it... we have a few options.

You could go from Elric to directly Stormbringer to see what all the fuzz is about. If you like the story but dislike the prose, there is another great alternative: reading the comics.

Elric's comics and graphic novels

Elric has been adapted several times into comic book format. My favorites are the ones adapted by  Roy Thomas and illustrated by P. Craig Russell and others—and once again, Stormbringer (by P. Craig Russell) stands out as the best of the bunch, but I'd recommend reading the The Michael Moorcock Library first (Elric volumes 1-5: - Elric of Melniboné, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Dreaming City, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower).

There is also a French version by Julien Blondel in the works, with a few volumes already published. The art (Didier Poli et al) is both dark and really stunning. But the story is much less faithful to the originals, which I'd favor on a first read.

There are other comics that are also worth checking out (The Making of a Sorcerer, Druillet's version, Moorcock's Multiverse, etc.), but I'd start with the "main books" mentioned above.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/odysseus-elric-epic-musical-and-tragedy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-appendix-n-project.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/my-weird-dark-twisted-fantasy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-broken-sword-one-of-best.html

AD&D 2e reaction table

The AD&D 2e reaction table is... interesting:

Compare it to the BECMI reaction table, discussed here.

The tables are different for several reasons, but the main distinction is that the AD&D 2e table requires you to check the player characters' attitude before finding out how the monster behaves, while every other D&D table I can remember goes the opposite way: first consider the die roll, then check how the monsters behave.

Of course, in practice you can always ask how the PC's react first (or ignore the rection roll altogether, etc.). But I think it would be better to rely on initiative here - if the PC's have the initiative, they can choose to show they're friendly before the monsters decide how to react, which would certainly give them some advantage in the reaction roll.

If they LOSE initiative, the monsters "react" first - but if they are uncertain, this gives the PC's another chance to make a peaceful gesture, etc.

Another interesting aspect of the 2e table is that it can result in flight. This makes some sense as the table is affected by morale modifiers. A curious idea! Should scared monsters be friendlier? It makes some sense if they are intelligent, otherwise they should just run away if they can (which is the case if PCs are hostile).

Unfortunately, the actual morale score is irrelevant here; a monster with morale 18 and other with morale 10 are both as likely to flight or be hostile. 

Curiously, since chaotic creatures have -1 to morale checks for some reason (they are probably more cowardly and less organized), they are also more likely to be friendly, which is a mistake IMO.

Overall, the 2e table is not any clearer or better than other tables, but it has several advantages we can use - and a few disadvantages I'd like to change.

It feels too friendly to "indifferent" PCs, do not contain immediate attacks, and is organized in a 4x19 grid instead of the usual 5 entries. It also seems to lack a "cautious" column that should be the default for PCs, with equal chances of friendliness and hostility.

Maybe my ideal 2d10 table would be smaller, containing a single column instead of a grid. Give the PCs a -1 if they manage to show they're friendly before you roll (e.g., if they win initiative); let he "speaker" or "leader" make any kind of Charisma "check" you feel appropriate to change this to -2 [simply including the charisma modifier feels too extreme, IMO; it would make everyone your friend]. 

If they are hostile or attack, roll with +1 to +2 (it is unlikely you need to roll after the PCs attack).

2–3. Friendly

4–6. Positive

7–10. Curious

11–13. Indifferent

14–16. Suspicious

17–18. Negative

19–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check)

As you can see, I added morale only to the last entry. But you can also use it whenever intelligent NPCs feel threatened or unable to escape, to see if they negotiate or surrender.

This is not much better than the original 2d6 table. Except that 2d10 allows you some extra room to give +2 and -2 modifiers. Maybe a simpler version would be better:

2–4. Friendly 

5–7. Positive, indifferent

8–12. Cautious curiosity  

13–16. Negative, suspicious, aggressive

17–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check if needed)

But then again, I've written about this before... more than once! 

So I'll leave this as a small post about 2e reaction, and point you to some older posts about reaction rolls in general:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/reaction-rolls-in-practice-osr.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html

Super simple XP system

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain."

- Paraphrased/implied from Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 1: Men & Magic (1974). Explanation below.

"The awarding of experience points is often a matter of discussion, for the referee must make subjective judgments. Rather than the (ridiculous) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below, dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved".

- Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975).

"The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. You must weigh the level of challenge — be it thinking or fighting — versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it [...].

If a 10th level magic-user were to slay 10 kobolds and take their 1,000 gold pieces, the DM should reduce the award by at least 20-fold."

- Dungeon Masters Guide (1979).

 "1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain. If you get XP from two sources, you only get XP from the lesser source times two. Always divide by PC level."

- Suggested rule. Explanation below.

---

The 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired. 100 XP per HD for monsters slain is implied in OD&D in this slightly confusing passage:

Experience Points: Experience points are awarded to players by the referee with appropriate bonuses or penalties for prime requisite scores. As characters meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience".

This adds to their experience point total, gradually moving them upwards through the levels. Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience. Let us assume he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster, as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis thus; 7,000 G.P. + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8 = 962.5 x 7 = 6,037.5.

Experience points are never awarded above a 1 for 1 basis, so even if a character defeats a higher level monster he will not receive experience points above the total of treasure combined with the monster's kill value. It is also recommended that no more experience points be awarded for any single adventure than will suffice to move the character upwards one level. Thus a "veteran" (1st level) gains what would ordinarily be 5,000 experience points; however, as this would move him upwards two levels, the referee should award only sufficient points to bring him to "warrior" (2nd level), say 3,999 if the character began with 0 experience points.

Supplement I: Greyhawk confirms that this was the rule, and then proceeds to call it "ridiculous" and add fiddlier stuff.

Well, turns out the original rules work surprisingly well in play.

Let's analyze it!

First, we'll just use:

- 100 XP per HD for monsters slain.

- Divided by level.

A fighter must (single -handedly) beat 20 orcs gets to level 2. This is no easy feat, but relatively fast.

[I find that single-handedly defeating 100 or 200 orcs to get to level 2 is an obvious exaggeration and makes almost impossible to make to level 2 if you play exactly by the book IMO].

Forty more orcs will get him to level 3.

To get to level 4, he'll have to face 120 additional orcs.

Level 5, 320 more.

Level 6 requires 800 additional orcs slain, and so on.

So there is a quick (but dangerous) ascent to level 3 and things get slower after that.

Taking down a 10 HD monster is even more dangerous than fighting 10 1 HD monster, so there are no shortcuts there either.

I like it, as levels 3-8 are the best levels to play D&D IMO.

I dislike the byzantine rules for taking dungeon level into account; IMO they're fiddly and unnecessary. I'm not sure if/how it applies to wilderness encounters. I'll skip them for now.

Supplement I: Greyhawk significantly reduces the XP gained from monsters slain, so you have to take most of your XP from treasure. But in AD&D we can see that around 10 HD monsters starting giving an average of... 100 XP per HD, or even more!

So the low HP value of weak monsters is intended to slow down the progression of beginning PCs(a bad idea IMO), or to discourage "farming XP" for high-level PCs.

But the combination of these rules seem enough to discourage any type of "XP farming", as it would either take too long or be too dangerous (e.g., taking 100 orcs at once).

The other shortcut to advance quickly is getting lots of treasure without opposition. In the DMG, Gygax admits that it is up to the DM to come up with actual XP values based on circumstances, defined very vaguely. In his example, getting 1.000 gold from 10 kobolds will only give you 50 XP... which is similar to the XP you get by defeating the kobolds in the first place!

Notice how easy it would be to say your XP gains are limited both by the HD and GP - whichever is smaller.

In other words: you get 100 XP per HD for monsters slain/defeated, and 1 XP per GP of treasure acquired, but you limit each amount XP for whichever is worse. You still divide by level.

The idea is that finding treasure without danger or "farming" XP by killing monsters without motive will give you no XP. Well, "NO XP" is probably too harsh, so maybe reduce the XP to 10% of the original value (if the PCs found 10.000 gp lying on the road, there is something wrong with the adventure design...).

Let's try a few examples.

A) You find a troll (700 XP) with 7.000 gold. You get 700 XP for killing the troll, and also 700 XP for the gold (the XP for gold is limited to 7000). Notice the gold is not exactly "wasted"; you got a lot richer!

B) You find a troll with 400 gp of treasure. Now you get 400 XP for the gold but only 400 XP for slaying the troll. 

C) You find 10 orcs (1.000 XP total) and they have 3.000 GP. You only get a total of 2.000 XP; 1.000 for the orcs and 1.000 for the gold.

(In all these examples, you can give the PCs a 10% prize for the amount that surpasses the limit; so 630 XP in example A, 30 XP in example B, and 100 XP in example C. This is a bit fiddly but still easy IMO. The important thing is that PCs advance in a speed that suits your group);

Special powers, abilities, etc. I'd just say they add 50% of the XP value to make things easier. Thus, a 10 HD monsters counts as 15 HD with one special power, 20 HD if it has two special powers and so on. I do not think you need a separate system for 6+1 HD monsters. Creatures of 1-1 or 1+1 HD might deserve special treatment depending on which cleave rules you're using, but I won't get into that here.

Treasure protected by traps. There is no easy way here; the DM has to consider how dangerous the trap is, when compared to a monster.

Averaging it all out. You do not have to do the math for each room or encounter. Just average everything out by the end of the day (or by the end of the expedition - AD&D suggests they must take the gold to town to get the XP). So if the PCs face A, B, and C in the same day, they have 2.400 XP from monsters and also 2.400 XP from the 10.400 GP they've acquired. Interestingly, this would be a reason to discourage frequent resting...

Hopefully, this achieves all I wanted from the XP system:

- Simple enough to calculate on the fly without a table or calculator.

- Requires a little less guess-work by the DM.

- Makes PCs level-up in a speed that is more to my liking.

- Very hard to exploit by acquiring treasure without danger or killing monsters for no reason.

Minimalistic addendum! All this exercise is interesting but I wonder if you could just run the game with 1 GP = 1 XP OR 100 XP per HD, whichever is better, or just divide everything by PC level. To be honest, this is probably easier. Dividing XP from GP by PC level is not something I had considered but will probably achieve the same result I'm looking for.

UPDATE: 

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/super-simple-xp-system-take-2.html

Weapons vs. monster

We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.

It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.

But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.

So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?

Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some  OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).

Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?

I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.

- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.

- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.

- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.

- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.

- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.

- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.

Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.

How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.

If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).

And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?

Reflections on RAW, RTFM and game design

It is common knowledge that several rules are simply ignored in many RPG systems.

Instead of playing RAW (rules as written), people often play the game with several changes they have invented or found elsewhere.

AD&D is a good example - apparently, not even Gygax used all the rules that it proposed (most famously the weapon versus armor tables, maybe weapon speed). But this is true for a number RPGs, and it definitely includes the current version of D&D.

Some rules are ignored simply because they are BAD. But that's not what I'll discuss here.

Let's assume we have some GOOD rules that are ignored by many (maybe most) tables. We could even imagine that ignoring them will make a worse/more unbalanced game.

If your game breaks because of that... who is to blame?

Well, most people would say you are at fault. Especially if you are a "RAW purist" - someone who believes RPGs should be played exactly as written.

You should "Read The Fucking Manual" (RTFM), as people say.

I'm not so sure this is the case.

Let's try an analogy. 

A doctor orders you to take a medicine daily.

Many people will automatically say it is obvious that taking it is your responsibility.

But I can BET that if this is a pill to treat an advanced case of dementia, or it is a medicine in form of a big suppository for a mild disease, many people will simply skip the medicine.

And this is a DESIGN PROBLEM.

Likewise, if your games have rules that work in theory, but often get house-ruled in practice, maybe this could be a design issue.

Maybe the rules are too burdensome, fiddly, for anyone to actually use.

And yes, sometimes popularity is about quality - especially in this case. 

You already bought the book, and decide to play the game, so if a particular rule is often ignored, it probably means it is bad or too cumbersome, obscure, etc.

Maybe they tried the rule and didn't like it.

Maybe they didn't even try - partly because the designer hasn't been able to sell it in the manual. 

If people ignore an IMPORTANT rule, maybe part of the reason is that the designer failed to emphasize it enough.

Another example that occurred to me is buying my grandma a new air fryer.

At first, she was not sure how to use it. She does sometime struggle with the remote.

Fortunately, the manual is about 2-pages long, and buttons have been reduced to the minimum.

Good design is also about ease of use.

Maybe calling grandma stupid for not being able to use the remote and telling her to "RTFM" accomplishes nothing.

Maybe the remote COULD have a simpler design.

If you write a game, you should at least consider it.