Old school dice pools

So, I just had a fast combat/mass combat idea for D&D, probably from  Chainmail or Delta's blog:

Roll 1d6/level for fighters, half as much for clerics, 1/3 for MUs.

1 misses, 2-5 hit/miss depending on AC, 6 always hits. 

Monsters only need one hit per HD and we don't even need d20s. 

The idea is making combat against dozens of opponents a bit quicker.

But come to think of it, it could be pushed into an entire system. Let's see.

Duels

Two 9-HD fighters facing off would each roll 9d6 and cause an average of 3 hits per round (assuming they hit on a 5-6), so combat would be a bit quicker than, say, B/X.

Ranged combat

Both in real life and D&D, ranged combat is not usually as efficient as mêlée combat. Maybe adding 1 or 2 to AC is enough. To avoid treating an archer like a machine gun, you can rule "missed" shots are time spent in aiming, drawing, etc., and only "hits" or 1s waste arrows.

Against a single target, maybe all damage comes from a carefully aimed single arrow; so a very powerful fighter with a magic arrow could kill a dragon immediately, but this is very rare.

Weapons

Certainly there is some nuance lost here. Let's assume everyone is using a single-handed weapon. 2H weapons might add a dice, while maces may remove a point of AC, etc.

Turn Undead

Cleric rolls 2d6/level. 

Rolling 2-5 turns one HD of undead, 6 damages them. You can alter these numbers to make the cleric more or less powerful, or maybe make turn undead a spell (see below).

Spells

Casters have 2d6/level "magic dice" per day. 

When casting a fireball, it works identically as a fighter's attack, but any 6s you roll are removed from your pool until the next rest. 

(I think I got this idea from Necropraxis).

This fixes a number of fireball problems I usually have.

Same works for curing wounds.

But what about spells that deal no damage? Maybe we could still keep the "roll to cast" and "magic dice" aspects. a 4-6 counts as a success; a 1st level spell requires only one success to function, etc.

You can use several dice to cast a 1st level spell, so you can be sure it succeeds in the first try, but that way you'll also roll more 6s and spend more dice.

Skills

Let's use "hear noise" as an example. Non-thieves have 1-in-6 chances, thieves start with 2-in-6.

So let's say a normal PC rolls 1d6, but a thief adds 1d6/level. Rolling a single 6 means success, so the thief start with 30.5% chance. By level 10, he rolls 11d6, with a 85% chance of success. He won't get to 99% until level 19-20 or so, which is nice, so there is always some chance of failure.

Maybe multiple 6s mean extraordinary success, and rolling all 1s means disaster (e.g., falling from a climb or getting caught in a trap).

Backstabbing is easy; a thief simply attacks as a fighter while backstabbing, and maybe lowers the AC by one if you want them to be really deadly.

Saves

Saves can work similarly to skills. Everyone gets 1d6 plus 1d6/level. 

Notice that the progression from 30% to 85% between level 1 and 10 is quite fitting. You can give fighters, dwarves, paladins etc. an extra die or two.

You do not usually "save" against damage; treat this like an attack against AC (see below).

HP

There is no more HP, only "hits". To make things a bit softer, I'd give each PC one hit PLUS level for fighters, level/2 for clerics etc.

Maybe you could do the same for monsters so that a 1 HD monster has 2 hits and so on. 

AC

AC now is 2 (unarmored) to 6 (plate+shield). 

If you want magic armor etc. you could go even higher, but then you'd need special rules. For example, each time you roll a 6 you can roll again and add 5 to get a result from 6 to 11.

In conclusion...

Well, if you like dice pools, you can see that you might was well play old school D&D with them and a little conversion. But you'd lose some nuance in ability scores, weapons, etc. Maybe just sticking to the d20 is easier.

Still, we have some nifty systems for mass combat, and maybe skills, spells and saves, to experiment with.

Create a sandbox map in 7 easy steps (or 10)

I've written several posts on similar subjects; they are mentioned below. This is a compilation of sorts.

You only need a piece of paper and pen to start - I'm not getting into "hex maps" for now.

1 - Place the starting point. This is usually a starting village, city, or stronghold. If you're using a piece of paper, make it near the center. You can put it near the edge if there is something in the edge discouraging the PCs from going off map - for example, sea, tall mountains, or "back to civilization" (if the goal is exploring the unknown lands). See the map below - you can use something similar, and start your game anywhere in the East coast (even Florida, near the edge). You can cut it in half keeping only the East coast and Midwest. 

2 - Separate land from sea - just draw the outline of your main continent, add some islands if you want.

3 - Add "mountain lines", representing the tallest altitudes. Put a big range of tall mountains to a random direction. Add a smaller mountain range, with hills etc., somewhere else., for variety.

4 - Add rivers. They look like trees with lots of "branches" and trunks on the sea. They run to the sea. They do not cross mountain lines.

5 - Add cities. Most cities are near the water (rivers or seas). In D&D-ish worlds, there are probably few cities and lots of areas inhabited by monsters instead. You do not need to map every village.

6 - Add vegetation. You already have mountains, hills and rivers. Just scatter some big forests, swamps, deserts, plains, etc. I don't usually bother with much realism here. Deserts are usually next to mountains (mountains can stop humidity, so you'll often have desert on one side as humid/lush conditions on the other). Vegetation needs water, especially swamps.

7 - Name some regions (no borders needed): "here be goblins" (or "goblin territory"), and do the same for "giants", "dragons", "drow", "slavers", "franks", etc. These "vaguely known" areas can be different human kingdoms, monster territory, or anything else you want to add to you game (e.g, "poisoned swamps", etc.). Use flavorful titles rather than specific names ("Dark forest" rather than "Hullbeck forest"), unless the name is obviously referring to something mythic or historical (Cimmeria, Albion, etc.).

And there you go! You map is ready! Here is my current example (using hextml, but again, you don't need to). Belarte is the starting city. Mektlan is Tamoachan (recommended!). Ilmare is Illmire (recommended!). Savakir is DCC #66.5 (also recommended!). I wrote down "goblin territory" somewhere up north, but it wasn't included in the beginning.

Now, a map is not ALL you need to run a sandbox campaign. So I'll leave you a couple of extra steps that will get you most of the way there.

8 - Detail the starting area. You need some additional detail on the starting area, since the PCs will be more familiar with it. Keep on the Borderlands is a classic campaign starter, but not one I can recommend as I haven't used it. I used BFRPG's BF1 Morgansfort, and I like it - it is FREE! You just have to assign all the relevant locations to somewhere in your map.

9 - Prepare some random tables. It should be obvious by this point that I do NOT encourage you to randomly generate the map, as I've never seems a randomly generated map that looks better than what anyone can do following these simple steps. Besides, mountains can be seen from  A HUNDRED MILES away or more; it is absurd to suddenly enter an hex and find a mountain. What you need here is random encounter tables, plus some random tables to add villages, lairs, castles, ruins, and landmarks if you want to do so. I am using this for random encounters, but I still have to find or create some table for locations. I also encourage you to use random events.

10 - Ask PCs where they want to go. They find some random stuff on the way, and when they arrive you should have something prepared. I use classic modules: I use B10 - Night's Dark Terror for "goblin territory" - I really like this one! You can use G1-3 for giants, maybe Desert of Desolation for deserts, etc. Or use the BFRPG versions.

In old school D&D, it is assumed the PCs are searching for gold & glory, so there is enough motive to go around the map. If they need further motivation, you might have to prepare some hooks, backstories, etc.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-mythic-underworld-controversy-and.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/08/easy-worldbuilding-with-pareto-price.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/09/random-ticking-clocks-simplified.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/09/amarod-i-creating-sandbox.html

Single attack/damage roll (kubular), but divided in half

I think I discussed that idea at the time, but I didn't write down this exact implementation. Read that post before this one! This method has several advantages over the usual D&D method.

Here is the deal: no more damage rolls.

Just roll 1d20 plus modifiers and subtract AC, then divide by two: this is the total damage (minimum 1).

Modifiers include attack bonus and weapon rating (WR).

WR usually goes from -3 (unarmed) to +3 (heavy 2H-weapon).

A dagger has +0 WR; other weapon are easy to figure out (d6, d8 and d10 become +1, +2, +3).

Improvised weapons, gauntlets, etc, have a WR of -1 or -2.

Lets assume ascending unarmored AC 11 (like BFRPG).

A dagger hit deals an average of 3 damage against unarmored targets, a bit over the original (nice!).

A 2H-sword, OTOH, deals 3.77 damage on a hit, but hits more often than in the original BFRPG; the DPR (damage per round) is about 2.45, a bit HIGHER than the usual 2.25.

What about heavy armor? Say, Plate mail is AC 17 in BFRPG. 

To hurt someone in plate with bare hands, you need a natural 20 (realistically, you'd be more likely to hurt your hand... add some grappling rules to your game!).

A dagger will only deal 1.5 points of damage. 

A 2H sword deals an average of 2.5 damage (originally 4.5), but again the DPR is 0.8, not far form the original (0.9).

I'd definitely combine it with some "armor defeating" rules for maximum effect. E.g., cutting weapons deal 1 point of additional damage if they hit, maces get +2 to-hit against chain or heavier, axes are +1 against everybody, etc.

Random Wilderness is too random

Last post, I briefly mentioned some reasons why I dislike randomly generated dungeons. I think they can be fun, just not my favorite.

I feel random wilderness is a lot worse.

Theoretically, you could run a "no prep"* hexcrawl, deciding randomly upon entering an hex if you're in a forest or desert, and if you see ruins or nothing.

BTW, "no prep" is the idea that you can run adventures with no preparation - by using random tables, improvising on the spot, using other procedures to generate adventures/situations, etc. This issue deserves a post of its own in the future, but I think this "random wilderness" idea illustrates why I think "no prep" is a bad idea if it requires random terrains.

One problem with random terrain is that even the best tables I've seen (the ones who default to a "next hex is similar to this one" rule) cannot create a simple, coherent map like this:

Now, think of how many random hexes you need to run a campaign. Sure, you could set the entire campaign in a single hex, but Outdoor Survival - the original hex map - uses more than a thousand and is representative of an area much smaller than the US.

If you draw a big mountain range, and maybe add another small mountain range, and decide for yourself which way is the ocean... you have created a map that looks more believable and saved yourself more than a thousand rolls.

There are other reasons to set the mountains and the ocean before the PCs start travelling:

- Mountains can usually be seem from several hexes away. It would be absurd to walk from a plain to a "sudden" mountain in a clear day.

- Most people in history have at least a vague idea to which way is the sea.

- Mountains and seas function as natural barriers to your sandbox - crossing them requires more preparation than walking over plains.

- Once you have mountains and seas, rivers are very easy to figure out. Draw rivers like trees, with a trunk that ends in the ocean and several branches (tributaries) towards mountains.

The red lines represent the tallest mountains: rivers do not cross them.

Notice that the presence of a second, significantly smaller mountain range to the east makes the map more interesting.

You might say that US topography is too simple, but it is like that over most of the world. 

South America is similar. Russia has basically sea to the north, mountains to the south and east. Asia has many mountains but the Himalayas can be used as the primary delimitation between various regions (and the source of many rivers). 

Etc.

I'm not saying you need to establish every hill and every trade route. Maybe you can even generate vegetation randomly as you go (although forests and deserts are related to rivers and mountains). I'm just saying having a good outline is incredibly useful - and easy.

Letting PCs wander around with no preexisting terrain has other problems. For example, why there are no map in this land - and what happens when the PCs find a map in random treasure? How can there be significant rumors of goblins "in the North" if the DM doesn't know what lies in the north?

But anyway, this is about drawing maps - and I reckon the easiest way to do that is simply:

- Separate land from sea.

- Put a big range of tall mountains to a random direction.

- Add a smaller mountain range, with hills etc.

- Rivers are easy to draw once you have that.

- Most cities are near the water (rivers or seas).

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-mythic-underworld-controversy-and.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/08/easy-worldbuilding-with-pareto-price.html

The Mythic Underworld "controversy" and other X/Twitter debates

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong, THAT FITS IN A TWEET.

- Eric Diaz, paraphrasing H. L. Mencken and probably repeating someone else.

If you don't use Twitter/X, you might have missed this (count yourself lucky), but there has been a Mythic Underworld "controversy" lately, with people pointing out that whoever doesn't understand the concept is a fool, lacks imagination or worse.

Conversely, there might have been people who claimed the opposite - dungeons that make no sense are dumb and people are dumb to use them - although I haven't seem many.

Obliviously, I disagree with both viewpoints.

But what is "The Mythic Underworld"?

I talked briefly about this when I was discussing Darkest Dungeon:

Since the beginning of RPGs, dungeons have been built in two different (and somewhat antagonistic) structures. 

In the first, the dungeon is a dreamlike and almost inexplicable place, containing dragons bigger than the tunnels would allow and creatures that have no obvious ways to feed themselves - as if they came from a nightmare. [This is what people call "The Mythic Underworld"] 

In the second structure, the dungeon was created for a reason, and the creatures that live there are part of a (somewhat) coherent ecosystem ("Gygaxian naturalism").

In DD, the dungeons fit into the first model, but the game makes some concessions to the second, with aquatic creatures in the most flooded environments and mushroom-men living in the caverns. 

The lesson here is that even in the unexplained environments of a nightmare, having some thread of rationality is useful in giving players some chance to prepare themselves adequately to face the challenges that lie ahead. If there was no predictability, a huge part of the "preparation of resources" phase would be lost, since there is no way to choose the best tools if there is no clue as to what is to come.

As you can see, despite the tension between two ideas, both can be used in most campaigns, and there is even some middle ground to be found (maybe we could call this "thematic dungeons").

The problem with some of these X posts is people tend to repeat talking points without explanation, reflection or nuance. Sometimes I see the same user say the same thing (with different phrasing, memes, etc.) ten times in the same day rather than addressing any issues, questions or nuance.

The same reasoning applies to other twitter "controversies", BTW: Tolkien x Howard, Overprep x Zero prep, Homebrew x RAW, 1:1 time, etc. I might address some in the future, but "you can have both" or "it has pros and cons" would suit most "debates".

I believe the algorithm encourages this behavior. 

In addition, X is sub-optimal for long conversations. Any blog, forum or chat allows for more back and forth with fewer clicks.

The Mythic Underworld is not a black and white issue. It is an interesting concept/tool to build your dungeons.

One big problem nobody addresses is that many people in X use the "mythic underworld" as a justification for nonsensical dungeons that are randomly generated.

And, while there is nothing wrong with that, in my own experience I have found that random rooms with skeletons then goblins then giant bats are not "mythic" but boring and cliched. It is fine if you like them, but I don't think my preference for things a that make a little more sense - ecologically, architecturally, or at least thematically - signifies a lack of imagination.

In fact, randomly generated dungeons are a SEPARATE issue. You can certainly have "mythic underworld" dungeons that aren't generate randomly. 

In other words: why it's such a hotly debated topic lately? Only because people like to debate over X. 

My opinion? 

There are no "sides" of this issue, one can have either or both, and it is ultimately a matter of taste.

There are lot of other interesting aspects BOTH to mythic underworld and dungeon ecologies (probably deserving a much longer post in each case), and most D&D campaigns need both the explained and the unexplained to function.

(Yet another) critical hit system for B/X, AD&D etc.

 It is quite simple:

A) Natural 20 means maximum damage.

B) Beat AC by 10 or more means double damage.

This has several advantages.

"A" gives you a quick, optimal result that is still within the expected boundaries. You can deal maximum damage at any time, but a natural 20 guarantees it. No "whiff factor". The average damage is not significantly impacted.

And "B" gives you:

- The fighter to get a small boost in damage, especially against weak foes, which is good.

- Armor becomes more important - going unarmored is now a terrible idea.

- The thief gains more damage with backstabbing. This is good for B/X but maybe unnecessary for AD&D. OTOH the B/X thief becomes a bit more frail due to light armor and low HP.

Both give more importance to strength bonuses and magic weapons, and even make two-handed 1d10 weapons a bit stronger (although a shield also becomes more important).

But what if both happen at the same time?

There are several solutions.

- Double maximum damage. This would occasionally allow a B/X fighter that usually deals 1d8+2 damage to deal 20 damage with a single blow.

- Double damage, but ONE of the dice is automatically maximum damage (i.e., 1d8+3 becomes 8+1d8+6). I like this solution because the maximum damage is still impressive, but the average is a bit lower.

- Double damage plus another attack. I like this one because it gives the fighter some cleaving.

A caveat: monsters will get more dangerous too.

This is not a HUGE problem IMO; I like dangerous monsters, and with multiple attacks monsters are likely to spread the damage a bit. But it is something to keep in mind.

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.

Some MMA-Melee reflections

I was talking about "medieval MMA" on twitter the other day and another user (@D20Gary) made a good point about how every attack "hits", and we could just roll damage instead of "to-hit" like Cairn does.

Gary makes a good point - in melee, almost every attack "hits" - even if only "hits" shield, armor or weapon. 

It is very rare that someone would hit air.

However, I disagree with the solution (and don't use a Cairn-like system), because not every attack DAMAGES.

Look at the video below, for example. Several attacks "hit" armor but not necessarily HURT.

It is often said that a "miss" in D&D could be a glancing/weak hit.

Although practice might vary from table to table, it is obvious that it must be so - just think about the numbers and what AC means.

E.g.: say your fighter "hits" by rolling 8 or more against an unarmored foe.

If the foe is using plate, a 8 or more obviously mean you still "hit" the target, but with not enough skill to bypass/defeat armor.

This can be seen in the video, over and over.

Another problem is that each fight like the video takes dozens of "hits" or more to  finish. 

Even with an average of 1d6 damage per round, every fighter would need 60+ HP, leading to HP bloat.

(This could be avoided by adjusting damage - apparently, Cairn does this by subtracting armor from damage, which is good).

So, even in the context of the MMA-melee video, a D&D-like system seems to make more sense - decent level fighters constantly "hit" but not always "damage".

HOWEVER...

I agree that needing TWO rolls for attack AND damage is redundant, ESPECIALLY if you consider "misses" are not necessarily MISSING the target.

The hit/miss binary is just too "low resolution" - doesn't measure quality or even separate "misses" from actual misses (i.e., "hitting air").

My favorite solution would involved a single d20 roll with some nuance. This has been attempted in several ways in here (see links below), and by many before me.

Anyway.

On a related topic.

What we said above is true for "MMA melee", but not so for actual MMA or boxing - it is not unusualk to "hit air". Same for shooting bows, etc.

Now think of the various forms of combat:

- Unarmed, which includes striking AND grappling.

- Melee with armor. 

- Melee without armor (e.g., fencing). 

- Bows. 

- Firearms.  

These are so incredibly DIFFERENT in reality that a single system is unlikely to work well for ALL types.

A dagger fight ends in minutes without armor, but can last HOURS in plate.

Add a knife to a boxing (or wrestling) fight and it changes EVERYTHING.

Just change the surroundings - from forests to tight dungeons - and the whole dynamic is different.

Lethality, speed, distance, % of hits landed, lasting wounds, etc. are just too diverse.

So, you either have SEVERAL combat systems or accept that these things will be mostly abstract.

It is difficult (maybe impossible) to have a system that is both realistic AND simple - not to mention FUN to use at the table.

Still, we keep trying...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/single-attackdamage-roll.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/hitting-armor-in-d-glancing-blows.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/minimum-combat-detail-deadly-daggers.html

https://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/07/d-combat.html

Sandbox detour

Yesterday, something happened in my game... that might be worth discussing briefly.

The PCs in my sandbox were hunting a few goblin tribes. I had the entire area (hexes) and a couple of goblins caves prepared in advance (adapted from a published module).

But when the game started (right after they had slain one of the goblin tribes - there were two more to go), the PCs suddenly decided to abandon the quest and traveled to the nearby haunted ruins, which they thought would be more profitable.

I had already decided on a module for those ruins... but I hadn't read it.

They had two or three nearby places to go (in addition to goblin territory). The thing is, I'm unable to memorize them all.

[Also, notice, it is USELESS to memorize them; now, the goblin "plotline" became partially obsolete because they will NOT be able to rescue certain hostages anymore, which changes the whole thing... there is little use in preparing too much for things you'll never face].

Sometimes I just need a dungeon that I can read while I'm running it. Or, even better, a complete sandbox like Qelong or Curse of Strahd - it allows me to familiarize with the whole setting at once.

The ideal sandbox would have a significant number of "IFs" so I didn't have to come up with my own. "If the PCs refuse, the hostages die", etc.

[Notice Qelong is surrounded by mountains and Ravenloft by mists; an island would work too. It seems the ideal sandbox is somewhat limited: "we are playing in this area, if the PCs leave the adventure will turn into something else, which requires some time to prepare"].

The game turned out well, although it felt clunky reading and refereeing at the same time. I made a few mistakes (e.g., said a door was open when it was locked) and it took a bit longer to describe each room.

Fortunately, it was a short session, and I had my Basic Wilderness Encounters with encounters for EVERY biome in the setting, which made the wilderness part a breeze.

I will familiarize with the dungeon better for next week, since they are unlikely to change course soon, so things will be smoother.

What I DIDN'T want to do is "improvise" in any way.

I had two goblin lairs ready to go. Should I have used THAT maps for the ruins? 

NO! I want my setting to be a real place, not a Schrödinger's simulation.

Could I have rolled a new map randomly?

No, that would be equally bad. 

See, they had two nearby dungeons to go, each with its own "backstory". If I generated them randomly as they explore it, their choice would simply not matter.

Anyway, it is fun to have a sandbox and allow them to go anywhere. One of the players started asking, "wait, why don't we BUILD something?".

I have no plans for this type of campaign. Might be fun, I don't know.

One thing I do know is that the players can surprise me - and this makes running the game way more fun for me.

Additional reading:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/06/author-x-referee-gms.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

Author x Referee GMs

The GM is BOTH an author AND a referee.

The author creates a setting, adventures, NPCs, etc. - even rules.

The referee enforces the setting and rules.

As you can see, GMs do both - but these roles are somewhat incompatible.

How can you be expected to be the impartial judge with rules you create yourself?

One method many GMs use to deal with this is separating the functions in two distinct moments:

- I'm an author during "prep", when I create worlds, dungeons, NPCs, or even random tables to sue during play.

- I'm a referee during play. I stick to the rules, respect the rolls, and do not changing the HP of an important NPC during a combat.

But, since you are expected to play both roles, some GMs prefer do to BOTH AT ONCE.

This is what "improv" is about. You cannot improv as a referee - when you do that, you are in author stance.

To each their own - but I find that confusing.

For example, an author can definitely "fudge" the dice. If he can create a dragon (or nation) out of nowhere, deciding a single hit missed is well within his powers.

This solves a lot of problems.

For example, the classic "quantum ogre". There are two doors. The PCs choose the door on the right. Can the GM decide there is an ogre behind it AFTER the PCs choose?

Well, author-GM can, but referee-GM cannot.

Likewise, is changing the result of a random encounter roll adequate? It is for the author-GM, but not for the referee-GM.

And what about "balancing" encounters to suit the level of the PCs? Same thing.

Come to think of it, this separation is the reason why I avoid "improv". 

I want to use the author stance as little as possible during the game.

Maybe that is also why I feel the need to write (and sometimes publish) my own material, despite my constant urge to tinker and house-rule.

[Basic Wilderness Encounters was created precisely because of this reason. I didn't want to "author' encounters during the game. I wrote it is an author, and I use it as a referee].

And why I prefer to run other peoples' modules - and even campaigns - rather than creating my own.

To be clear, I LIKE to be an author-GM, just not during the game.

Anyway, I cannot be the first to have this thought, but I think the distinction should be more popular, and probably more discussed in game master's books.

There are probably more things to tackle around this subject. 

For example, I am thinking players have a specific stance during the game (they are almost NEVER authors in my games), but it is fine to give players author role between sessions, while writing a backstory, or when scheduling a game (e.g., agreeing in advance WHICH dungeon the PCs will tackle next).

But I think this is enough for today.

Related posts:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/12/railroading-paradoxes-plus-diegetic-rr.html

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

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

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

Unlimited D&D x Limited D&D

These are two different perspectives for playing D&D, or, more specifically, running/DMing D&D. 

One is that your options are somewhat limited whatever is included in the game rules (I'll call this "Limited D&D" or LD&D). 

The other is that there is no such limit, and the DM can come up with whatever he deems necessary for his campaign ("Unlimited D&D" or UD&D).

This is not about "House Rules x RAW", however. 

It is about the number of pieces you get to build your setting: for example, how many monsters, races, classes, magic items or spells you can use in your creations.

I would guess most groups would quickly accept that the DM can include new monsters to the setting as desired, but this is an assumption that often gets ignored when discussing old school D&D. 

For example, I always found that "immunity to ghoul paralysis" was a silly trait to give a class or creature because it is so specific. But if you are only using Moldvay's Basic - and not even expert - it could be an interesting advantage, since the total number of monsters is low. Still, people keep using it even when playing some form of UD&D.

Same for the cleric "turn undead" tables that include the NAMES of the creatures turned instead of their HD. If the number of undead are limited, this makes perfect sense; otherwise, it looks strange and impractical.

(A more extreme example is the blink dog and its hatred of displacer beasts. B/X tell us almost nothing about these creatures, but they attack each other on sight. How often will that happen? If you're playing UD&D, almost never).

There are other aspects of old school D&D that seem to be remnants of this limited mindset. For example, clerics and mages cannot use sword, which is important if most magic weapons are swords, but becomes less important if you have several magic maces or daggers.

Another example I've been struggling with lately is spells. I've been running a game slightly based on B/X, which does not contain "counter spell", exactly. But now I'm introducing an NPC for another system that has this spell. Is it fair to my caster that he didn't get to choose it?

(My solution for this is: if my player shows interest in Dispel Magic, I'll let it function as a counterspell. Fortunately, he hasn't got it so far).

Personally, I was always attracted to this "Unlimited" take on RPGs in general. I'm willing to add new monsters, spells and even the ocasional laser guns to my games, and always tried to accommodate every character concept the players suggest (although now I'm tempted to go mall-human for the next campaign).

But there are advantages of the "limited" perspective - it allows players to get more familiar with existing monsters, spells, etc., for example.

And, in general, I want to expand the boundaries rather than destroying them. I would definitely not limit the number of monsters I can use in my games, but I'm perfectly satisfied with running a limited number of monster types: undead, giants, humanoids, beasts, etc.

In fact, having fewer monster types reinforces their significance rather than diluting it.

(This is partly what Teratogenicon is about, BTW).

If every single monster, spell or item the PCs find is completely new, they can never learn anything except trough direct contact. There is no room for extrapolation, generalization, etc.

I have a similar feeling on classes. Yes, I like paladins, assassins, warlords, druids, avengers, and monks. But rather than having a dozen classes, I prefer having FOUR: fighter, mage, thief, cleric, each with a few variations. And I think the AD&D bard - a class that works in a completely different way from other classes - is an unnecessary mess.

(Maybe I'll reduce it to THREE classes for my Sword and Sorcery game, ditching the cleric).
Even 5e seems to have problems with this (correct me if I'm wrong; I don't play 5e anymore). For example, the "Staff of Charming" requires attunement by "a bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard". But what if I'm using a 3rd-party class, or even the very popular artificer? Are they automatically excluded? Or do including a class requires rewriting all magic items like that?

As you can see, seeing classes through a limited scope simplifies some aspects of the game.

(This is partly what Old School Feats is about, BTW - no extra classes but many additional options. You can look at the free previews to see how I treat fighters, for example: a framework to create warriors, paladins, rangers and warlords).

In short, my favorite approached to D&D is having unlimited choices within a limited framework that works as a common language between players and DM.

Diluting the dichotomy

Another random thought about races/species (such as elves, dwarves, etc.). Continued from my last post (see also "additional reading"). 

(I might get a bit repetitive, sorry.)

I have a feeling that having innumerable races (elves + hobbits +tabaxi + tieflings) just dilutes the whole concept on "demi-humans".

All demi-humans are created in comparison (and opposition) to humans.

Human/faerie is a strong dichotomy (e.g., in The Broken Sword).

A trichotomy becomes weaker, and again with each new element.

Of course, in TBS there is also an elf/troll dichotomy, but both are contrasted to humans as "aliens". They are, in a way, equidistant to humans, but closer to one another.

Notice that TBS is about characters that are right in the middle of this human/faerie dichotomy.

Likewise, in A Princess of Mars, the dichotomy is between the red and green Martians. The red are unmistakably more human, but in the end, our (human) protagonist is caught between the two.

[In the subsequent books, we get humans of different colors: white, black, yellow, but each with a different culture (cannibalistic, pirates, domed cities, primitive, etc.). This is an interesting distinction, but cultural differences do not a different species make. We also get a few additional interesting humanoids, but I don’t find them as interesting as green Martians. You can check them here].

What about Tolkien? He was able to create great stories with humans, hobbits, elves, orcs, dwarves, ents... Still, there is an obvious dichotomy here too: good and evil. Humans can align with both, but most orcs align with Sauron, and Elves against him.

In Moorcock's Elric, the dichotomy is between Law and Chaos, and Elric gets caught up in the middle. The "races" are not as important here, except for the fact that Melniboneans are traditionally aligned to Chaos.

[This Law/Chaos dichotomy would separate the many species of original D&D in a strong dichotomy, but it is worth noticing that Moorcock contains some additional nuance, as mentioned in the link; Law/Chaos are not exactly Good/Evil].

In The Witcher books, there are humans and "Elder Races" (dwarves, elves, etc.). Geralt is a human turned mutant, and he often finds himself in the middle of this dichotomy.

In addition to this dichotomy idea, the fact that other species are interesting in comparison to humans makes them more interesting if they are rare. 

A Green Martian is a strange sight for John Carter, but wouldn't stand out walking in Ravnica between the elephant-people, minotaurs, blue elves and goblins with jetpacks.

In Ravnica, these "demihumans" aren't strange. Instead, the world is strange.

Another (counter) example is the D&D Honor Among Thieves movie. Simon is a half-elf. What difference does it make? None. Doric is a tiefling, and this explain some of her motivations (she was shunned by humans and accepted by elves). She was shunned because of her “demonic heritage”. But that heritage does nothing. She has no business with demons or demonic powers and traits, and the only difference in her appearance are small horns. She might as well have been rejected for being a red-head or left-handed.

How does Star Wars movies manage to get a few non-humans to work? First, they are individuals. The “wookie” race is an afterthought for Chewbacca. Second, they are non-human every time they appear. Chewbacca and R2-D2 do not utter one word the audience can understand. C-3PO’s reminds us every minute he is an android with his actions, tone, etc.

Too create "my own Barsoom", I still have to decide:

- Can different peoples create viable offspring? Or at least have diverse communities?

- If positive, how are they different?

- Does your species affect your stats? Or customs?

- Is it common for different peoples to adventure together?

- How does appearance affect reaction rolls?

- Can the PCs discover "secret communities", like Carter often does, if they are part of the same people?

Once again, I have no solutions for now, just random thoughts.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-many-racesspecies.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/01/too-many-races-my-carcosa.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-princess-of-mars.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/all-elves-are-half-elves.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

https://rpg.charliecapp.com/2020/07/24/carcosa-2020/#

How many races/species?

I've been obsessing over Barsoom and thinking of "my own Carcosa" setting again...

I dislike there are so many colors of men with so little detail about each one - they are "suspicious" of each other for no apparent reason. Well, maybe that is the point - similarly to John Carter, the PCs are destined to unify different people under a single banner.

I recently wrote a post about some "clans", which I might use as inspiration to distinguish different communities.

But how many races should I have in my own setting? I'm certainly tired of elves, dwarves, orcs and hobbits, but maybe we can replace them...

Let's try to get at least seven different concepts.

First, we have:

- Humans.

- Superior/magical/advanced humans (e.g., Atlantes, X-men, Witchers, John Carter in Barsoom, some Elves, etc.)

- Strong/big humans (e.g., dwarves or goliaths)

- Small/weak humans (e.g., hobbits).

So, humans, elves, dwarves, basically. We could add "evil" axis: orcs are strong and evil, goblins are short and evil, etc. But I don't think inherently evil creatures to be suited for PCs. And, if they aren't inherently evil, the difference is usually only cultural/aesthetic.

"Superior humans" are a problem for games where the PCs should be balanced. OD&D solves this by requiring elves more XP to level up, etc. Likewise, "inferior humans" (e.g., gully dwarves, kobolds) can be a problem for the same reason.

These four basic groups represent most common PC races. But there are also:

- Hybrids (including human-beast hybrids).

- Aliens.

- Artificial humans.

I wrote about hybrids here. One problem is that they are either so common as to feel human, or so uncommon to make role-playing harder. Usually, they behave like humans, or as "divided" people looking for their place.

Of course, for this "divided" angle to work, there must be a clear distinction between the two "halves".

Human-beast hybrids (e.g., Tabaxi) make me a bit uneasy in world that have actual beasts. Is a tiger-man a cross between a tiger and a human, or something else entirely? What are their relation to tigers? The more feline characteristics you add, the stranger it becomes. Which is why I might prefer blue tiger-people and wingless bird-people (e.g., kenku).

Alien PCs are doable. We often fall on the hybrid problem, but at least their physiology can be different enough to provide some role-playing challenges. For example, being unable to speak or use human weapons/armor.

Likewise for artificial humans (including robots, golems, clones, etc.). Like hybrids, they might have an interesting "find myself" quest, to prove they have souls and maybe can find a way to reproduce. Or just display some challenging non-human characteristics (e.g., no sense of self-preservation).

Finally, there are near humans: red martians, zabrak, etc. Except for the visuals, it is hard to make them interesting. Some cultural differences might help, but even non-"medieval european" customs feel unmistakably  human (e.g., Spartan or Aztec cultures).

I wonder if there are ever only three races: human-like, half-human, and mostly alien. In Barsoom, most humanoids races are indistinguishable from humans, and John Carter repeatedly disguises as one of them. The exception are the four-armed Green Martians. The only "inhuman" beings are apes, plant people, and similar creatures of lesser intelligence.

In "The Witcher", there are humans, elves (dwarves are of the same origin IIRC), Witchers and monsters. 

In Fallout, humans, mutants and androids. 

The Broken Sword has humans on one side, and elves/trolls in "fairyland". Howard and Lieber barely mention non-human humanoids (even Cimmerians are rare in Howard's stories).

In Star Wars, again, characters are mostly human, while different species are portrayed by single individuals (e.g., Chewbacca, Yoda, Darth Maul). There are no distinct "races".

Tolkien might be the only one who was able to create actual distinct "peoples" that are not human, and I am not sure this works in other settings (but it might - I am enticed by Ravnica, for example, although - again - most important characters are human).

Anyway, just a few random thoughts for now, will continue working on it.

Single attack/damage roll

Last year, I've read a Reddit user (Kubular) talking about a single attack/damage roll, and ever since I cannot stop thinking about this.

Just roll 1d20, add your attack bonus, a "weapon rating" (WR) and subtract AC: this is the total damage (minimum 0). 

(I'm assuming ascending AC here; if you're using THAC0, add AC and subtract THAC0, etc.)

Example: if you roll 15, your attack bonus is +4, and your WR is +3, your total is 21. Against AC 17, this means 4 points of damage. But against AC 10, you deal 11 damage!

This has innumerable benefits. 

- One fewer roll, for starters. Faster combat.

- It prevents the disappointment of "I rolled a 19 in my attack - perfect! Roll damage... 1 point... sigh...".

- Armor becomes immediately vital. When unarmored, being hit by a dagger (held by a capable fighter) is DEADLY even at mid-levels.

- At the same time, weapon choice becomes more important against armored foes, beyond a simple +1 damage.

- Bigger weapons are better, but even MORE relevant against armored targets - going back to CHAINMAIL days.

- Fighters become more deadly as they progress WITHOUT the need of multi-attacks. Conan can now kill an unarmored sorcerer with a chair, or with a single blow of his sword.

- Lines up perfectly to the AD&D advice (IIRC) that excess bonuses after you "always hit" go to damage (e.g., if you had +15 to hit against AC 11, you immediately add +4 to damage).

- It is also perfect for B/X, where a fighter will rarely have an attack bonus much greater than +10, so things never get out of hand.

- This lines up well with the idea that monster damage raises on average one point per HD, something Gygax suggested and I have discussed in this blog before. 

- It can also reduce monster stats; their damage is derived from their attack bonus/HD, no need to list damage for most monster attacks (and two attacks could just get -2 each, thus reducing to-hit AND damage and sometimes creating an interesting choice - attack more often if your opponent has weak armor, etc.).

- Now the bonus to attack/damage is a single number. Str gives you +1 to attack/damage, and a magic weapon might give you an additional +2 attack/damage. B/X already does this; now, weapon damage follows the same pattern.

- There is always a small chance of near failure. Even a lowly goblin can survive a blow from a +5 sword if the attacker rolls badly.

Source: stupidcircus on Facebook.

Calculating damage is a bit tricky. 

Basically, if you hit on a 11+, you have 50% chance to hit, and your average damage when you do is 4.5 (the average of all possibilities, from 0 damage on a natural 11 to 9 on a natural 20) - so average DPR is 2.25 (see table below).

If you ALWAYS hit, average damage AND DPR is 9.5. 

If you need a nat 20 to hit, since the difference is ZERO, you can cause no damage - of course, you could rule that the MINIMUM damage is 1, so the DPR would be 0.02.

As you can see, average damage is nothing absurd - even if maximum damage varies wildly. 

DPR is lowered against heavy armor, and augmented against  unarmored foes.

For example, a d4 dagger usually has a DPR of 1.25 if you need to roll 11+, but if you use this system and consider the dagger a +1 weapon, the DPR goes to 2.75 (since you hit on a 10+).

Roll needed	1	2	3	4	5
Dmg	9.5	9	8.5	8	7.5
DPR	9.5	8.55	7.65	6.8	6
Roll needed	6	7	8	9	10
Dmg	7	6.5	6	5.5	5
DPR	5.25	4.55	3.9	3.3	2.75
Roll needed	11	12	13	14	15
Dmg	4.5	4	3.5	3	2.5
DPR	2.25	1.8	1.4	1.05	0.75
Roll needed	16	17	18	19	20
Dmg	2	1.5	1	0.5	0
DPR	0.5	0.3	0.15	0.05	0

There are also potential shortcomings. 

- Punches could become too deadly, even if you rate them as -4.

- Likewise, unarmored targets are very frail. Barbarians, monks, or maybe EVERYONE might need a small AC boost at higher levels.

And some ways to spice/fix things up.

- Maybe weapons are +1/+2/+3/+4, with swords giving you +1 damage and maces giving you +1 attack and -2 damage (so they are better against armor), etc.

- Maybe there is a soft limit to damage (e.g., 5/10/15/20), so strong fighters benefit more from bigger weapons.

- Instead of assigning bonuses to weapons, just roll a d4/d6/d8 etc. So, d20+d4+attack bonus for a dagger, and so on, making things even more swingy and deadly. Maybe use unarmored AC 12 to balance things out.

Would I use this in my B/X games? I'm not sure. 

I think it would be a great fit for a "Song of Ice and Fire" type of campaign, or maybe some gritty Sword & Sorcery. 

I'm not sure my players would buy the idea for traditional D&D games - they are just too used to rolling damage.