In praise of Lamentations (LotFP)

I recommended Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP) to someone online and they asked what's so special about it.

I had already compared it to other similar systems here:

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

As you can see, there is a free version; if you prefer, go read the book instead of this little overview! The version with art is also worth it (if you are not discouraged by some blood and gore)

Notice I do not run LotFP, but my own game, Dark Fantasy Basic, with a few updates.

But if you want to know why I like LotFP, here are some my favorite aspects.

The fighter gets +1 "to hit" per level and a few simple combat maneuvers. Other classes do not get any bonus after level 1, which I dislike but at the same time admire for its radical simplicity. 

Clerics and magic-users can use swords, however, which I like.

Clerics get to choose turn undead as a spell; it is not an intrinsic ability anymore. A cleric takes many hours to prepare spells - as many as the highest level spell being prepared. They deserve the nerfing IMO.

The magic-users start with read magic plus three random spells, and gains ONE new random spell per level. This is perfect IMO. Notice the simplicity: the fighter gets +1 to-hit, the MU gets one new spell, etc.

The MU can still get other spells through research, scrolls, etc. Spells like fireball, which I dislike, are simply removed. The summon spell is expanded (to 10 pages!) to generate random creatures that the MU cannot always control - and it can be used from level 1!

The specialist is probably the most interesting class: he has the same 1-in-6 chances that most other classes have to perform certain feats/skills, but he gets skill points each level to distribute as he wishes between stealth, climb, search, etc. Sneak attack is also a skill - having 4 points means you QUADRUPLE damage. There are ten skills, which sounds about right to me.

Overall, the rules of the game are simplified and well organized. I like most of the options the author takes (simplified encumbrance, silver standard, simplified weapons, streamlined attribute modifiers from -3 to +3, a few combat maneuvers, etc.), and they are very adequate to the "dark fantasy" genre I enjoy so much.

There are a few things I'd change, of course (combat feels less deadly than most B/X games for several reasons, I dislike the usual 5 saving throws, would like to give the fighter more tools to play with, or more customization in general - no multi-classing here, etc.), but this is just me.

The rules are both SIMPLE and feel COMPLETE, which is hard to do. The spells go to level 9, characters go to level 20 and beyond. There are innumerable small tweaks that improve the usual B/X rules, too many to analyse.

If I were to run a OSR dark fantasy game I didn't write - and couldn't change a thing - this is one I might use.

So, while I don't run LotFP, I have run several modules - Qelong (awesome), Better Than Any Man (which is very good and FREE!), The god that crawls (review here), etc. 

I don't think it is useful to make generalizations (well, I've made a few here) - some are great, some are bad, look for reviews here or elsewhere. In this post, I just wanted to talk about the basic rules.

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

In praise of Basic Fantasy (BFRPG)

As we've mentioned before, Basic Fantasy RPG (BFRPG) is a clone of Basic D&D, "with small changes, mainly ascending armor class and separation of character race and class."

This post is just a homage to this system that you probably already know... and if you don't, you're missing out!

You can check the SRD and books for free (the SRD has a few "dice rolling" tools embedded... nice!).

Now, while I haven't played BFRPG by-the-book, I've read it multiple times and used many modules and ideas, so I can say I'm a fan.

The Blackapple Brugh is probably the best BFRPG adventure I ran (and probably one of the best free adventures available anywhere). It has social encounters, an interesting take on elves, a coherent dungeon, investigation, exploration... I definitely recommend it. My group had a blast!

But there are others!

F1 Morgansfort is a decent campaign starter, with a base and a few vanilla dungeons (which I usually dislike, but serves well for introductory purposes).

If you need a Castle by the Sea or a Dark Temple, you can check the respective modules... Each has half a dozen options for each, with a single map but different contents, levels, etc.

In addition, you have a couple of monster manuals, some high-level adventures, and entire campaigns you can get for free. There are also free modules with optional rules, such as additional classes and races, weapon proficiencies, backgrounds, skills, "ability rolls", etc..

The production values are very good for free products (probably superior to many classic modules) - the layout and maps are simple and easy-to-use, and many modules contain plenty B&W art ranging from weak to awesome.

I have read a few others but I'll save my impressions until I can actually run them - which should happen during 2024.

As a retroclone, it does its job well - the basic book has few but worthy changes. Classes have 20 levels, but are otherwise similar to B/X. Clerics spells and thief abilities are organized. Races are more or less well-balanced.

The bestiary is a bit more expansive (and, maybe, flavorful) than B/X, and the encounter tables are more sensible and coherent (but unfortunately too short for my tastes - 15 entries are not enough for me).

Magic items - which are a bit limited in B/X - are considerably expanded here. There is also an amazing supplement expanding all kinds of items (The Equipment Emporium).

Overall, as a basic retroclone, BFRPG stands somewhere between OSE (which has rules that are nearly identical to B/X) and DCC (which has lots of cool innovations). The system is Basic with some Advanced additions. Likewise, the flavor is somewhere between vanilla and weird. It has a good balance, usually choosing "classic" solutions over novelty.

The best thing about BFRPG, however, could be its open/free philosophy, encouraging people to participate and create their own stuff, which fosters an amazing community with lots of free tools, in addition to cheap physical books and good rules.

FWIW, most of my books (written with B/X in mind) are perfectly compatible to BFRPG, including Old School Feats and Alternate Magic. My OSR adventure adventure could be a good addition to a BFRPG campaign - I think the flavor fits perfectly!

BFRPG has a CC-BY-SA version too, which I appreciate; after the OGL debacle, I'm thinking of using it for my own games in the future.

After all, these are some of my favorite aspects of the OSR: the ability to build on top of each other's creations, combining rules and adventures from different sources, and creating a community with a shared language even if each table is using its own preferred rules.

EDIT: I created a small list of things I like about "core" BFRPG. Most of these are already mentioned above.

- CC license.

- Race separated from class.

- Cleric spells are "fixed".

- All thief abilities use percentages.

- PCs go to level 20.

- The weapon list is more sensible than B/X, and magic item tables are more expansive.

- Contains some new, interesting monsters.

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 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.

Russ Nicholson (R.I.P.)

Apparently, Russ Nicholson has passed away.

He was my favorite old school D&D artist.

His art in the FF books was a huge influence. The Citadel of Chaos was my gateway into RPGs. This darker/British/satirical shade of fantasy still influences my games and writings. You might know him from D&D (Fiend Folio, etc.), Warhammer, or OSR games.

He managed to combine fantasy, detail, grittiness, weirdness, and action into his work. This guy was a legend, the the epitome of "old school dark fantasy".

Thanks to social media, I managed to let him know and send him a "thank you for everything", which he responded kindly.

R.I.P. 

And thank you for everything.

Of Dice and Men (book review)

Of Dice and Men: The Story of Dungeons & Dragons and The People Who Play It was suggested by my good friend Jens, who wrote his take on it here. We are planning and reviewing four books simultaneously this year, and this is the first of the bunch. I haven't read his review yet (from a glance, it looks a lot deeper and more detailed than mine!), so let's see how it goes...

The book covers the story of D&D from its predecessors (like Little Wars and Kriegsspiel) through its birth with Gygax and Arneson, until D&D Next (Fifth Edition).

Being familiar with the subject, I thought the book provides a good overview of D&D's history. It is told from the point of view of the author's own feelings and relationship to gaming and D&D, which is often distracting.

For example, the book includes "fiction" excerpts of a homebrew campaign the author participated in, trying to draw parallels between his party's adventures and adventures the rise and fall of D&D. While the campaign does seem interesting, it is not really relevant to the history of D&D. Later on, the campaign excerpts is abandoned in favor of fictional excepts of LARPing and his own campaign setting (which also sounds cool enough).

While I do understand that the goal was probably to make the book a bit less "dry" and not a simple succession of historical facts, I was more interested in D&D's history than the author's feelings. He does spend too long talking about the campaign, dice rolls, feeling "nerdy", and various 3rd edition rules.

In any case, I do appreciate the author taking the time to get up close and personal; he plays wargames, goes LARPing, and describes several RPG experiences. 

In addition to his own experiences, the author talks about people who were playing D&D in 2010, or people who had a big influence of D&D in their lives, work, etc. It is, indeed, not only a story about D&D, but also about the people who play it - even those that have no influence on the development of the game.

While I'm somewhat familiar with D&D's history, I couldn't spot anything inaccurate or any novelty. The book is meant to be understood by people with no D&D experience, so there is lots of explaining of basic concepts. I do think the book glances over Basic D&D and 2nd Edition, and  barely talks about other RPGs, but overall it is comprehensive.

It ends overly optimistic about 5e, which is understandable - at the time, we hadn't seem the 2023 OGL  debacle... [I jest, I jest! Well, kinda.]

I should mention I read "Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons" in 2022. In comparison, Empire is much more focused on Gygax and D&D's history than the author and D&D players. Both are interesting reads. I found neither thrilling, but I got what I was looking for.

In short... a decent read, good if you know D&D history, great introduction if you don't.

(Now go read Jens' take if you haven't yet!)

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

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

What is "Basic D&D"?

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

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

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

[...]

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

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

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

What is B/X, and why so popular?

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

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

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

Some of its qualities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other official "Basic D&D" products

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three main clones: LL, BFRPG and OSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced versions

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

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

Other "clones": LotFP, DCC and DFB

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

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

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

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

In conclusion...

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

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

Chainmail Print-on-Demand; Teratogenicon coming soon

The original Chainmail rules - the wargame that preceded Dungeons & Dragons - are now available in Print-on-Demand on DTRPG*. You can get them in physical format for $6.99.

Chainmail is not exactly a complete game IIRC, and I'd only buy it for curiosity (and study; there are a lot of "missing links" to be found in there). The gaps in the game, however, have been filled by clones, some available for free. Delving Deeper is really cool, although not 100% faithful to the original IIRC.

I wish they had OD&D (or my favorite, Moldvay's Basic), but this probably indicates that others are coming soon (both OD&D and Basic are included in the sale - see below!)

Well, I shouldn't complain. I'm having a hard time turning my own Teratogenicon into a POD version. Layout, formatting, and print choices are a lot to handle.

(BTW, Teratogenicon is currently part of the Christmas in July Sale - thousands of titles, up to 25% off, including all of my titles!)

The good news is: it's coming soon. We've decided to start with a softcover, standard color book. B&W probably wouldn't do it justice (although I do have some good-looking B&W POD books). If there is enough interest we might try other versions too... and hopefully other books in the future (I hope you like monsters ;) ).

*These are all affiliate links - by purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Tasha (and D&D 5e?) is for experts... and beginners. Is 5e OSRish anymore?

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is the latest D&D 5e book.

I'm probably skipping this one. And maybe a few more. Here is why.

Hint: it is not the reprinting of material I already own (like the Artificer class, which I kinda like).

By the way, this is a bit of a rant. 

You've been warned...

Tasha's is mostly a book of players options, from what I've seen. And some new DM toys - magic items, group patrons, etc.

Well, certainly. WotC is selling well, and 5e is popular. 

But does anyone NEED more character options?

How? 

There are more than 30 subclasses in the PHB, more than a dozen races and subraces*, and other customization options (feats, spells, items, fighting styles, backgrounds, etc.). My players haven't tried nearly half of that, nor are they willing to change class and race at every game. Books like Xanathar's and Volo's expanded their options significantly, and, to be honest, I let them use whatever race they find on the internet with some adaptations.

(* If you're not familiar with 5e, it is worth mentioning that decent class/race combinations are a lot more numerable nowadays - which I like).

In fact, I have the opposite problem - the amount of choice feels overwhelming for me as a DM, and the players get lost.

Well, more choice is always good. But to require more choice at this point you'd have to be some kind of expert 5e player, haven played dozens of campaigns so far, to at have at least TRIED some of these options for half a dozen levels. None of my players have... nor have I.

The alternative would be someone deep into character optimization and theory-crafting... People who have fun creating mechanically cool characters. 

And that's is fine, but not our cup of tea. 

It is also not role-playing. Role-playing begins when the game starts.

On the other hand... Tasha contains some REALLY basic-level stuff. 

Things like "what is session zero", "you can actually TALK to monsters before killing them", or "you know, if your elf character was raised by dwarves, you could give him proficiency with battleaxes instead of longswords (two nearly identical weapons, BTW)". 

I'm paraphrasing here, of course.

Do you notice something strange?

How can people play through dozens of campaigns without knowing what a "session zero" is... or realizing they can make their own rules and create their own stuff? 

It is in the DMG, after all!

When 5e was released, I thought it had a decent amount of crunch... too much for my taste, but not enough to overwhelm me. I got excited with the idea of having an "OSR inspired" D&D being the most popular RPG around!

But mainstream D&D seems to be going in a strange direction... where people are familiar with dozens of "official" builds but are shy to change the rules.

 Where everyone knows who Volo is, but the idea of a pointcrawl is a complete mystery, hexcrawls are misunderstood, and lots of railroading is acceptable. 

Where beholders are common but the ideas on spells are still catching up to DCC RPG.

I'm not sure how to put that... but 5e has become too "official". It feels like it is written for people who only know and play D&D 5e and nothing else. Something very specialized... maybe comparable to a cofee-afficionado that loves Strabucks but tries nothing else. Or a good boxer calling himself a MMA fighter with no grappling training. Bear in mind that the boxer could beat some actual MMA fighters. But I'm getting lost in the analogy...

There is enough 5e homebrew stuff online for me to know 5e players can be very creative, BTW. Maybe it is a matter of focus. Should we focus on creating new spells, or making magic more interesting? 

And so on.

And I know this sounds like a criticism of 5e, but it is not. D&D 5e is one of my favorite RPGs EVER. Certainly in the top 10. 

Maybe it is just this book that is not for me.

Or maybe it is me - I like lighter systems, rulings over rules, "minimalism", etc. Perhaps I'm a minority among 5e players. I... I have more books than time by this point. Maybe that's just my age speaking.

On the other hand... maybe I should have seen this coming, as many people might have noticed before me.

Anyway, I'm not giving up on 5e yet.

I would buy a new campaign (maybe Icewind Dale...), but please, make it easier to run and less railroad-y. I am tired of having to go to The Alexandrian or to the DM's Guild to fix things.

By the way, that's is WHY I still play a lot of 5e: I know that if I find something I disliked, it is very easy to find someone who "fixed" it online, usually for free. It is just the amount of information I have to deal with that is overwhelming.

Oh, and apparently they fixed the beastmaster ranger. Yay!

Post scriptum (29/11/2020). Someone reminded me that "player's options" books are not that common in 5e, and this is the first one we have since Xanathar's in 2017. Fair enough. If you like creating new characters, I'm happy for you. Maybe it's just my playstyle that is different. 

I'm just saying - if you haven't read Moldvay's Basic, Rules Cyclopedia, DCC, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu... you don't know what you're missing. These are some of the best RPGs ever, and if you like RPGs chances are you'll have a great time.

The tarrasque is now a weakling [5e]

You know the tarrasque, right? D&Ds famous version of the Godzilla? Or something like that.

The legendary tarrasque, for there is fortunately only one known to exist, is the most dreaded monster native to the Prime Material plane.

The text is from the Monstrous Manual (2e). The one in the 5e MM is similar, although a bit less flavorful:

The legendary tarrasque is possibly the most dreaded monster of the Material Plane. It is widely believed that only one of these creatures exists, though no one can predict where and when it will strike.

The text is not the only thing that is weaker.

Of course, the tarrasque is still impressive in 5e. 676 HP, immunity to non-magical weapons, legendary resistance and legendary actions, challenge 30... But it pales in comparison to older editions.

I'll use 2e as an example because I like the Monstrous Manual, but it is basically the same as 1e. In 3e, the tarrasque is still VERY strong, maybe even more than 2e.

For example:

[2e] The mere sight of the tarrasque causes creatures with less than 3 levels or Hit Dice to be paralyzed with fright (no saving throw) until it is out of their vision. Creatures of 3 or more levels or Hit Dice flee in panic, although those of 7 or more levels or Hit Dice that manage to succeed with a saving throw vs. paralyzation are not affected (though they often still decide to run away).
[5e] Frightful Presence: Each creature of the tarrasque’s choice within 120 feet of it and aware of it must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, with disadvantage if the tarrasque is within line of sight, ending the effect on itself on a success. If a creature’s saving throw is successful or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to the tarrasque’s Frightful Presence for the next 24 hours.

As you can see, creatures with less than 7 HD had NO CHANCE against the tarrasque's MERE SIGHT... Now, 2 out of 10 peasants will be immune to its fear from 24 hours, and the rest will recover quickly...

[2e] a savage bite (5d10 points of damage plus acts as a sword of sharpness, severing a limb on a natural attack roll of 18 or better)
[5e] Swallow: The tarrasque makes one bite attack against a Large or smaller creature it is grappling. If the attack hits, the target takes the bite’s damage, the target is swallowed, and the grapple ends. While swallowed, the creature is blinded and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the tarrasque, and it takes 56 (16d6) acid damage at the start of each of the tarrasque’s turns. If the tarrasque takes 60 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, the tarrasque must succeed on a DC 20 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, which fall prone in a space within 10 feet of the tarrasque. If the tarrasque dies, a swallowed creature is no longer restrained by it and can escape from the corpse by using 30 feet of movement, exiting prone.

Eh... 5e is good enough, but has lots of extra words and a bit less flavor.

Anyway, there are a few things that bother me about the 5e tarrasque... for example, it seems like a decent number of archers with +1 bows and the Sharpshooter feat could take down "possibly the most dreaded monster of the Material Plane". They just have to keep the distance.

I blame bounded accuracy...

But anyway, the thing I miss the most is this:

[2e] ... it regenerates lost hit points at a rate of 1 hit point per round... Slaying of the tarrasque is said to be possible only if the monster is reduced to -30 or fewer hit points and a wish is then used. Otherwise, even the slightest piece of the tarrasque can regenerate and restore the monster completely. Legend says that a great treasure can be extracted from the tarrasque’s carapace. The upper portion, treated with acid and then heated in a furnace, is thought to yield gems (10d10 diamonds of 1,000 gp base value each). The underbelly material, mixed with the creature’s blood and adamantite, is said to produce a metal that can be forged by master dwarven blacksmiths into 1d4 shields of +5 enchantment.

The tarrasque lost its regeneration in 4e.

Anyway, this spawned the concept of "The city built around the tarrasque", the best thing that came out of RPGNet as far as I can remember.

The concept has been expanded further in reddit, etc.:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2rtwn3/the_city_built_around_the_tarrasque/

So basically you the a city built around an imprisoned tarrasque*, using its regenerating parts for all kinds of stuff.

(*Or, as I prefer it, the semi-dead, hallucinating carcass of the tarrasque).

Source.

So many good ideas spawned from this awesome concept.

Imagine the Tarrasque buried under a castle ... Maybe not everyone knows it is there, except some cultist, butchers... The city has small eathquakes from time to time, the nobles have discreet mutations, there are too many trolls in the area etc.

And PCs enter the picture without knowing what's going on. They may be invited to some of the nobility's peculiar banquets, where they serve the traditional meat dishes... Maybe they can take part in the invasion of this evil city (perhaps an expanding empire that has suddenly become too big to rule), unaware of the tarrasque's presence.

Picture the PCs discovering the monster AFTER they have defeated the city. How can they they maintain the shackles after the gaolers and butchers are gone?

Or maybe the other way around - the characters are hired to defend a city that will be attacked by bandits and savages (who, supposedly, covet the riches within).

[BTW, I wrote a one page adventure with a similar premise a while ago, maybe you can use it as inspiration].

In short, the saddest thing about the 5e tarrasque is not its diminished power, but the fact that it became a bit blander, and ignored one of the best monster stories created by D&D famdom.

As always... I really like 5e, but old school D&D is hard to beat.

Moldvay's ORACLE (Basic D&D is the best, and it contains multitudes)

Here is another great post from Trollsmyth:

http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2019/08/why-bx-is-best.html

The title, appropriately enough, is "Why BX is the Best!", but it talks about the Charm Person spell. Go read it, I'll wait.

Awesome, right?

Moldvay's Basic* might the best RPG ever written, indeed. Only 64-pages, and contains answers to questions that have been discussed for ages - before and after this book.

What modern D&D book (full of useless complexity and repetition) could do something similar with this page count?

I don't have a ton of examples to give you, and some might be from OD&D or other sources. But every time I read it, I learn something new.

Take open locks, for example:

Open Locks may only be tried once per lock. The thief may not "try again" on a difficult lock until he or she has gained another level of experience.

Compare this to the 5e DMG, page 237, which doesn't actually address picking locks (and suggests taking ten times longer to attempt any given task to automatically succeed... but with no mention of how long it takes to pick a lock, and using the "Fast Hands" thief feature as reference, one could assume that ANYONE can pick any lock in one minute - even with no proficiency - provided it is possible at all).

[BTW, want another option for 5e? If you fail, it means the lock cannot be picked by you or anyone less experienced than you. Someone more experienced can try but the DC is raised with every attempt. Or try this.]

Here are a few other things that come to mind right now:

- Moldvay's encumbrance system is better than it looks. It makes the choice between armor/gold/movement explicit, something that is lacking in modern versions. In 5e, encumbrance is either too lenient or too strict (depending on whether you use optional rules).

- Loyalty rules are succinct and precise:

LOYALTY: The loyalty of a retainer is a measure of the retainer's morale and willingness to take risks for the PC and not run away in the face of danger. A retainer's loyalty or morale is based on the charisma of the player character employer (see page B7). The loyalty of retainers should be checked whenever extraordinary danger is met during an adventure. Loyalty should also be checked after each adventure. The DM may wish to adjust a retainer's loyalty due to actions of the player character, such as if the PC pays the retainer more than agreed upon, or rescues the retainer from danger and vice versa.

- You get XP for defeating monsters (in addition to treasure). Does that mean you must defeat every monster? Not quite:

ADJUSTMENTS TO XP: The DM may treat an unusually "tough" situation or monster as one category better (use the next line down). Situations might also allow the DM to give partial experience if the characters learned from the encounter without actually defeating the monster. The DM may also award extra XP to characters who deserve them (fighting a dangerous monster alone, or saving the party with a great idea), and less XP to characters who did less than their fair share ("do-nothing" characters). The DM should consider the character's alignment and class carefully, and should remember that guarding the rear is an important role in any party

- What about this rule, that grant you more XP if your allies died in the process, but reduces total XP (I assume) if you take many NPCs with you:

DIVIDING XP: Treasure is divided by the party, but the DM handles all the XP awards. At the end of an adventure, the DM totals the XP from all treasures recovered plus all monsters defeated and then divides the total by the number of surviving characters (both player characters and NPCs) in the party. EXAMPLE: A party of 7 (5 player characters and 2 NPCs) goes on an adventure but only 6 come back alive. They killed monsters for a total of 800 XP and also collected 5800 gp in treasure, for a total of 6600 XP. Each character receives 1100 XP at the end of the adventure. (The DM may give each NPC 1/2 normal experience — 550 XP in this case — since the NPCs were "directed" and thus benefit less from the adventure.)

- Well, but what if a single weakling survives an expedition where true heroes have fallen? Does he suddenly become a demi-god? Nope:

MAXIMUM XP: A character should never be given enough XP in a single adventure to advance more than one level of experience. For example, if a beginning (0 XP) 1st level fighter earns 5000 XP (a rare and outstanding achievement), he or she should only be given 3999 XP, enough to place the character 1 XP short of 3rd level.

And, of course, there is this bit (a rule that Moldvay certainly didn't invent, but inspired many later versions):

"There's always a chance." The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth). To perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on ld20. The DM may give a bonus or penalty to the roll, depending on the difficulty of the action (-4 for a simple task to + 4 for a difficult one). A roll of 1 should always succeed, and a roll of 20 should always fail.

The whole "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art" section is great.... well, the entire book.

Moldvay's Basic is far from perfect, mind you. Mostly because it keeps things that I didn't like much in OD&D in the first place... For example, it seems that climbing a rope RAW is harder than climbing sheer walls for a thief... There are some things that are obscure, others are convoluted (I'm not a fan of all those tables, for example).

As you know, I wrote an entire book trying to improve D&D Basic.

But that's only because I really love it.

There is hardly any better material to start from.

EDIT: In addition, Moldvay mentions Clark Ashton Smith as an inspiration, unlike AD&D. I rest my case.

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

Dark Sun - 10 house rules for 5e (part II)

Here is part I.

Last part was easy. Here come the hard choices. But hey, that is what role-playing is about!

No gods! No healing!

The fluff: the burned world of Athas is, quite literally, a godforsaken place. Did the gods abandon the people of Athas, or was it the other way around? Doesn't matter anymore. There is no one to hear your prayers, no one to bind your wounds, and no one save your soul.

The crunch: there are no active deities in Athas, but, traditionally, Dark Sun allows the sorcerer-kings and the elements to be worshiped instead of actual gods, so you still have cleric-like classes. The main difference is that healing magic is uncommon in Athas. The easiest way to do that is to ban healing magic from the spell lists (trade them for something appropriate), and disallow some features that restores hit points ("lay on hands", etc.). Using the "healing surges" option in the DMG (page 266) is a good idea to balance things out. Any optional rule to raise an stabilized characters to 1 HP after combat would also be useful (just make a DC 10 medicine check or use a healing kit, as long as you're not in combat).

No class!

The fluff: as you might have guessed, some classes don't make much sense in Dark Sun. Traditional clerics and paladins do not fit. Sorcerers, warlocks, and druids must also be adapted to the setting. Some races simply do not exist.

The crunch: personally, I don't like banning classes outright. Warlocks make decent templars, and clerics can worship the elements with the appropriate domains. Sorcerers feel a bit redundant to me, and wild magic is certainly too much if you're using random defilement rules (although you can certainly consolidate one single table and create a new "pure defiler" class from there). Monks make some sense thematically (unless you're using the mystic), although there were banned in 2e Dark Sun. Even paladins can be refluffed as templars, ascended champions of the sorcerers kings (I love the idea of a paladin of vengeance gaining dragon wings or causing necrotic damage whit lay on hands!), or even inspired zealots of forgotten gods. Druids must choose appropriate animals; bards might be assassins with an adequate background. There are enough choices an options to fill a whole book on the subject. Fortunately, there are already some good ideas online. Here is one example.

No races!

The fluff: the original version of Dark Sun forbids some of the traditional races and introduces new ones - some of which aren't available in 5e.

The crunch: you can always re-fluff the the races like you did with the classes, but some options will be inadequate, especially the ones that can cast spells by default. You have enough races in 5e to cover most of the races that are characteristic of Athas: Aarakocra are already oficial, you can use goliaths for half-giants, some variations of dwarf (or orcs!) for muls, etc. The Thri-kreen are trickier, but not much: natural armor, claws, reduced sleep, etc. already exist in the official races. As for the extra arms, my favorite option is saying they can do whatever they want with the extra armas, but no extra actions! A two-handed weapon with a shield and a crossbow? Sword and board AND torch AND knife? Sure, why not!

No metal!

The fluff: Dark Sun is the most metal of all D&D settings, but actual metal is scarce in Athas. This means most weapons are made of obsidian, bone and flint. It also means the may break.

The crunch: coming up with an elegant solution that doesn't penalize fighters with multiple attacks is not easy, but there are a few options. My favorite is that some weapons (slashing and piercing) can break if you roll a natural 20 AND deal maximum damage in the first two dice. This makes breakage rare, but creates some tension when you roll a natural 20.
For example, if you're attacking with a 1d8 weapon, a critical hit would let you roll 2d8; if you roll 8 on both dice (16 damage), the weapon breaks from the impact. Greatswords break if you roll 6 in the first two dice (ordinarily, you roll 4d6 when you crit with a greatsword).
Making metal coins 50 to 100 scarcer also creates interesting situations; now the "price" column in the weapons section finally means something, and you have good reason to use a greataxe or maul.
I also did "no armor" in the first post, but if you want armor just make it heavier and more expensive. Encumbrance becomes relevant again - specially when you notice you will die of thirst before reaching the next city.
High level warriors should get their hands on magical or iron weapons, but there should be other ways of fixing weapons (the mending cantrip, artisan’s tools, etc).

Metal!

No psionics! No psionics?!?

The fluff: psionics are extremely common in Dark Sun, across all races and classes.... and even in animals and plants! On the other hand, psionics are extremely uncommon in 5e.

The crunch: this is the toughest one. 5e's psionics system is unfinished; all we have are a few classes in the Unearthed Arcana (i.e., playtest material). Which isn't nearly enough for a setting where everybody can have psionic powers. The simplest solution here is spells. Not the most elegant or creative way out, but it is the one the Monster Manual officially uses. And 5e is full of magic by default. So, psionics is (mechanically) just magic with no components and no possibility of defiling. There are other subtle differences: psionics are probably invisible, for example. The "spell list" for psionics should be significantly shorter, and "full caster" classes should be reserved for actual magic. All characters start with a random (psionic) cantrip. Again, not the fanciest solution - but it will do until WotC releases official material for 5e.

No rules!

I admit - this is rule #11 in a top ten list, and feels out of place in a list of, well... rules. But it might be the most important one. I do not treat anything in Dark Sun as canon, mostly because not all Dark Sun canon is good. Back in the day, I used to think the characters in the books did all the cool stuff, so there was little left for the PCs to do. 4e did a decent reboot, but I am not a fan of eladrin in Athas, among other things.
Another reasons is that I like to add stuff from other sources: Tékumel, Carcosa, Zothique, etc. Talislanta is a cool source that I failed to mention (the thralls, pictured above, are more interesting than the muls in some aspects), but any source that works for you is fair game.
In short, my favorite version of 5e is the one I fix - and my favorite version of Dark Sun is the one I make.