Minimalist (?) turn undead, plus a reflection on playtesting

Here is my minimalist version of turn undead, which precludes the need for a turn undead table, and uses 1d6 instead of 2d6 plus another 2d6 plus table:

Turn Undead: Clerics can repel or destroy undead. Turning is attempted once per turn, in lieu of an attack. Turned undead flee by any means available and will not harm or contact the cleric. To turn undead, roll 1d6, add the cleric's level, and subtract the target's HD (e.g., 2 for zombies). A result of 5+ succeeds; 10+ simply destroys them permanently. The roll result also indicates the total HD of undead affected (minimum one creature, maximum 20 HD affected). For example, if you roll 11 against zombies, 5 of them are destroyed; against skeletons, 11 are destroyed.

This is the type of rule I want for my game; maps reasonably close to the original B/X (at least to my liking), but a bit simpler, faster, leaner, easier (it also expands to RC levels).

(BTW I can take no credit for it as apparently Delta wrote something similar more than a decade ago; since I take much inspiration from his blog, I might have read it at some point).

In practice, however, I found that this is not enough for even the simplest games. If using this rule (or even the original B/X rules), the players will certainly ask simple questions like "how often can I turn?", "how far", "for how long", etc. It happened in my last campaign.

And the text simply doesn't say. The Rules Cyclopedia adds a much longer text (and table) - but not many answers either. Same in the AD&D PHB.

5e D&D, on the other hand, clearly answers all these questions (30-foot radius, 1 minute or until the creature takes damage, etc).

I'm probably adding such details to my own game since they were obviously needed at my table. So my version might even look a bit longer than B/X, which wasn't my original goal. 

Old school D&D seems to work very well in practice; people often say it is because Gygax etc. had immense wargaming playtesting experience. But I have a feeling that old school GMs often relied on their experience and rulings over having things spelled out in the book, which some people may appreciate but certainly brings endless problems when you don't have much experience with a system and need to learn from the book.

In other words, these games were likely playtested by people who were familiar with wargames, instead of given to newbies to see how understandable they were.

Modern D&D is much more complex (and even verbose and repetitive at times) but often better explained. And, to be honest, I don't think you can get "minimalist points" by omission and incompletion. If the book needs a "good GM" to work, it is not a great book, as most GMs are average by definition (or, at the very least, the book cannot take much credit for the rules if the GM has to create most of them).

Anyway, I keep looking for my ideal D&D - say, something as simple as B/X but as clear as modern D&D. This, I hope, is one step in that direction.

The fireball hand grenade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass combat: broken units

I had a brief mass combat idea that solved most of the issues I had with PCs fighting a few dozen goblins at once.

This assumes there are only a few (say, one to ten) fighters in one side, and several (say, ten to a hundred) in the other.

We already have the usual combat rules for smaller combats, when there is fewer than a dozen foes on either side.

In addition, if you have 60 knights against 150 orcs, you can just treat it almost like a fight of 6 knights against 15 orcs, adapting as needed.

But when you mix everything together, you might have a small issue - still easily fixable.

Say you have four individual PCs, plus 60 knights against 150 orcs. Ten orcs can attack ten knights with a single roll (treat this as one or against one knight); the knights either die or don't.

Ten orcs can attack a single PC instead, with a +10 bonus.

The problem is if the PCs attack a group of ten orcs. Usually, they can only kill one or two (which might break morale and thus the whole unit, but that is another matter). Let's say they are reduced to nine orcs.

Now they can attack the PCs with a +9 instead of +10 bonus—all very intuitive.

But what if nine orcs decide to attack ten knights?

Simply give them a -1 bonus due to the difference between nine and ten, and give the knights a +1 bonus when attacking them.

But let's say we get into a more difficult situation: there are just four orcs, fighting to the death, against ten knights in plate.

They'd attack with -6, making a hit impossible. Instead, they could choose to make an attack against a single knight, now with +4. Now it is more likely that they'd kill at least one before being wiped out by the remaining knights.

Another option, maybe even easier, is saying that the 4 orcs can attack 4 knights - no bonuses or penalties. Treat this as one orc attacking one knight. Either the ten knights are reduced to six, or remain unharmed [this works somewhat similarly to the game Risk].

Conversely, if 7 knights attack 3 orcs, treat this as a single knight, attacking a single orc, with a +4 bonus. If that single orc is slain, it means all three orcs were defeated.

This system looks a bit complicated until I organize it, but it is very intuitive to me, and the results are not terribly far from the what you'd get but making each single attack separately - or at least close enough for my taste.

My goal, here, is never having to keep track of "minor NPC" HP, and never needing another set of rules - just roll 1d20, consider THAC0 and AC, use damage as written, etc. No need to convert to d6s, roll handfuls of d20s, and so on.

[BTW, if you own handfuls of d20 and d10s, you can easily use them as pawns, altering the digits as the units dwindle - for example, a d20 on 7 means 7 knights, and a d10 on 3 means 3 orcs. But you can also use any chips or counters, including the ones from Risk].

Now I want to playtest this. Looks promising.

How minimalist can D&D characters be?

As I've said before, this is the amount of information I'd like D&D characters to have — and that would have to be enough in actual play for something like 80% of the rolls, to minimize the time spent doing math and checking the book:

Nice, huh? Class, level, abilities, a couple of magic items or spells, and you're good to go. Most PCs have a little more than a dozen pieces of information (Name, Alignment, Level, Class, 6 abilities, AC, HP, weapons, and armor), plus spells for some.

Realistically, however, even the lightest versions of D&D need more information than that. For example, can you recall each saving throw from memory? Unlikely, but this is easily solved by reducing all of them to a single saving throw (say, roll 1d20 + level, target 20, or 16, etc.).

What about THAC0? Same thing. I'm happy with leaving the attack bonus equal to level for fighters, half level for everyone else, which is a huge simplification from D&D. But that's two extra bits of information. And usually, you need ranged and melee values, which rely on more information than just level (so you need to add strength modifier).

And ability scores? You have the six of them, but you need modifiers. You could commit the modifiers to memory, but you use them often enough that is is easier if you write them down. Well, maybe not all of them; since you already have AC, HP, and languages, you can ignore Dex, Con and Int modifiers most of the time (which is, by itself, an interesting idea - why keep these modifiers in the character sheet?). But you need Charisma mods for reaction, at least in theory, and Wisdom for saves.

Strength modifiers are needed to attack and damage - and in AD&D, this can mean two additional numbers. Notice these stats lack weapon damage too, something you'll use all the time.

Notice tat at the very least we could ignore all "+0" modifiers so we'd only need to add two or three digits, not six new ones.

We do not have much equipment here either; it is likely that a real PC has at least half a dozen items or more, not only weapons and armor. I'm counting "sword +2" as a single piece of information, not two.

[On a side note, maybe in a low magic D&D setting, "sword +1" could be a personal trait for a warrior instead of a magic weapon. This could incorporate your strength bonus and make "weapon specialization" a lot easier.]

So maybe we'd have a minimum of 30 pieces of information for each PC... but there is more!

Spellcasters have spells, which is straightforward enough (if not for the fact that they could in theory pick new ones every day, and clerics have access to their whole list - notice that the cleric here has no spells memorized). Thieves have skills - again, a bit hard to memorize, but can be easily replaced by rolling 1d20 and adding level (once you get some customization, more information is needed). Fighters have their weapons specializations and extra attacks - and they need this stuff.

And that is assuming each PC can only have one class.

In the end, we could have more than 100 pieces of information. Look at this AD&D sheet:

Of course, much of it is redundant, or rarely used, but it still muddles the sheet.

Sigh.

In the end, this post ended up doing the opposite of what I intended when I wrote its title...

The answer, I think is that D&D characters could be a lot more minimalist than they are, but it is not an easy task.

We could start by cutting all ability scores in half (only one number, no modifier), reducing all saves to one single save, and streamlining all skills... but I've been to this road before. There is no end to this, other than ending with something that doesn't resemble D&D anymore.

Maybe this much complexity is fine if I let the players handle it. 

I guess I have no easy answers today.

Random stopwatch encounters

This is a small improvement over an old idea.

The DM rolls 1d100 in secret. Then sets a stopwatch for that many minutes.

When the time is over—there IS an encounter.

This will keep players on their toes! And it has several advantages over checking for encounters every 30 or 60 minutes:

- No more useless rolls where nothing happens.
- Encounters can happen almost simultaneously—roll a 1 or 2, and one side might get reinforcements during the fight!
- Or the newcomers might wait to see who wins… and jump in after.

It would work well for dungeon exploration. On average, you get an encounter every 50 minutes of actual play, on average. Sounds good to me, but you can adjust to your liking.

For wilderness exploration, I'm not sure - maybe you could roll 1d100 and count hours, but that would defeat the purpose of using a stopwatch...

On a similar topic...

In Pellucidar, Chapter 2, Edgar Rice Burroughs describes a series of random encounters—but most are hand-waved until a meaningful one (with a cave bear) actually happens.

Maybe D&D deserves a mechanic like that to make wilderness encounters more meaningful. Day one you circumvent some snakes, day 3, you scare wolves with arrows, day 5 you see pterodactyls in the distance, and day 7... BAM! Roll initiative.

But this deserves further reflection. 

For now, you can check my small app (explanation here) and my latest book to make your wilderness encounters easier to generate.

Reading Elric

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do we begin with Elric?

Start with Elric of Melniboné (1972).

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

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

All of them are great.

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

For example (from Wikipedia):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elric's comics and graphic novels

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

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

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

Additional reading:

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

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

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

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

Manic at the Monastery (OSE adventure review)

Disclosure: The author has contacted me to offer a review copy.

From the blurb:

Manic at the Monastery is an old-school adventure for character levels 1-3 that has players exploring the secrets of an ancient monastery wracked with a psychedelic affliction. Rumors are spreading that the enigmatic Veiled Emperor has returned to Glynmoor, and there have been strange happenings near the monastery. Brave the horrors within and uncover the source of the madness before it spreads.

Manic at the Monastery comes with an Old-School Essentials version and a Worlds Without Number version. I've only read the OSE version. I'd suggest level 3 is more appropriate, which becomes obvious with a quick look at the bestiary—there are also several deadly traps that will certainly kill most level 1 (and probably level 2) parties before they explore most of the module.

This adventure has all the traits that are expected in an OSE adventure: random encounters, random events, rooms described in bullet points, good opportunities of exploration, combat and role-playing, a clean layout and terse language. 

The art is a bit sparse, most of it is simple, B&W and not particularly impressive. The maps are straightforward enough and some sections are duplicated for ease of reference.

So, what makes this adventure stand out? First, it is very grounded and setting-agnostic, which I enjoy. There are no orcs or dwarves here, only humans. The monastery is easily adaptable to any setting or even to a real-world-inspired scenario.

It has good thematic coherence, with one single threat being the source of most problems. It doesn't have the successive rooms of skeletons, giant bats and goblins that I usually find tiresome.

I'd call it mostly grounded, with some weird and just a bit of vanilla.

The adventure is a bit gritty; there is real risk here, even for 3rd-level characters. It contains a "ticking clock" of sorts; spending too long in the dungeon is dangerous. I find this very useful. 

It can serve as a good introduction for a campaign as it has some indications of an incoming doom of sorts, although this is not described in detail here (the author is planning on sequels).

I might have used this module in my campaign, come to think of it. Maybe one day I will; right now, the PCs are level 7-8 and it would be too easy.

It reminded me of The God That Crawls at first, mostly because of the religious setting (and because it would apparently kill the level 1-2 PCs that are supposed to enter it), but I think there is one useful comparison to be made with that famous module. While TGTC is full of weirdness and stuff that can affect your entire campaign, MATM is smaller, safer, terser, easier to run and to insert in your setting without much hassle.

If that's is what you're looking for, I'd recommend checking Manic at the Monastery out.

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

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.

AD&D 2e reaction table

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

Compare it to the BECMI reaction table, discussed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2–3. Friendly

4–6. Positive

7–10. Curious

11–13. Indifferent

14–16. Suspicious

17–18. Negative

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

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

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

2–4. Friendly 

5–7. Positive, indifferent

8–12. Cautious curiosity  

13–16. Negative, suspicious, aggressive

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

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

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

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

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

Brief mass combat idea

Here is a brief mass combat idea meant for old school D&D or OSR games. I'm using ascending AC in my examples because that's what I use in my games.

Here is the idea:

10 1st level fighters count as a single fighter with a +10 attack bonus until the end of the round.

They attack as one. They deal one die of damage (say, 1d8 if they're using swords).

They add one point of damage for each point over the AC (if using ascending AC).

By Dean Spencer

Let's say 10 bandits are attacking your 5th-level  PC, who has AC 17. They roll 9. Adding a +10 bonus, this means 19, two points more than needed to hit. They deal 1d8+2 damage.

The best part about this idea is how it vastly simplifies things.

If you decide only 4 or 6 fighters can attack the PC at a time, just reduce the bonus to +4 or +6.

If the PC slays a couple of bandits, reduce the bonus to +8. And so on.

In some cases, you can just add up all HD. If your PC is attacked by a 3rd level fighter and 3 bandits, they can make one single attack with +6.

It also makes goblins, etc., dangerous though all levels. If your PC in magical plate and shield gets attacked by ten goblins, it is VERY LIKELY that ate least one of them will get a good stab!

This will probably be useful when PCs have multiple henchmen too. One roll, period.

Is this similar to actually rolling each attack individually? Well, it varies a lot depending on AC, number of foes, etc. Apparently, the bigger the group, the smaller the damage each individual adds (which might be explained by fewer people being able to attack at the same time). 

Let's try with six goblins attacking a fighter in plate [AC 16], using B/X (or OSE) rules. The usual damage per round (DPR) would be around 5.25. With my proposed rule, it would be about 4.4. 

If the fighter is unarmored, DPR is also similar (11.55 versus 9.78, more or less). Not bad.

And if the fighter has plate, armor, and some magic bonus to AC? Let's say AC 20? An extreme case, but... Then damage doubles from about 1.05 to 2.28. So the rule works as intended!

(These numbers were calculated with the help of AI... let me know if they're wrong!)

I probably wouldn't use such a rule if you're fighting a couple of giants, for example; just for low-level foes. Likewise, allowing 15 goblins to attack you at once sounds unwieldy; I'd keep the limit at 10 for now, and you ever fight 20 goblins at once they cannot attack you as a single unit (treat them as two groups).

I probably COULD use this idea for huge mass battles, just adding a few zeroes when needed.

Say, a force of 90 knights clash with 50 enemy knights. The 90 knights attack with a +9 bonus, etc. They deal 1d8 damage (or whatever) plus the margin of success. Then just multiply damage (or casualties) per 10, and reduce the opposing force equally.

I haven't played-tested this. But I have a good feeling about it...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hd-game.html

I want LESS!

Most of my time playing and reading RPGs has been ruled by the “undisciplined pursuit of more.”

I played several RPGs and took pride in trying new ones. I favored "universal" systems where I could create endlessly detailed PCs and do anything I wanted. I also collected monster manuals for my D&D-ish needs.

This process has been somewhat useful in helping me discover my tastes and needs.

However, there has also been much waste. I read only a fraction of the RPGs I buy and play an even smaller fraction of the RPGs I read. Nowadays, I'm embracing "the disciplined pursuit of less."

In other words, I want less: fewer monsters, fewer spells, fewer magic items, fewer stats, and simpler systems.

This partly reflects my appreciation for minimalism, but it goes beyond that. I believe that having fewer elements makes each one more important and meaningful.

While having a multitude of monsters is fun, each Monster Manual contains more creatures than entire worlds like Middle-earth, Barsoom, Lankhmar, or the Hyborian Age (not to mention most horror and sci-fi settings). It becomes virtually impossible for PCs to understand each individual monster with any depth.

Take dragons, for example. The dragons of mythology and literature are often unique individuals, like Smaug, Fafnir, Tiamat, Drogon. Each is distinct and memorable. But the 2e MM (my favorite!) has about more than a dozen dragon types. If a D&D party sees Smaug, it is just another red dragon (they don't even need to interact to know that he is chaotic, since he is red; but this is another issue).

[Another thing I've been considering is how adding more monsters to a game doesn't make it any different from "standard" D&D, but replacing existing monsters creates a completely new kind of setting. Take Curse of Strahd, for example: it includes few "demihumans," and even the elves are distinct from the familiar elves we're used to. This seems to hold true for most of my favorite settings and modules, and I think I might never run an adventure containing orcs again.]

Magic items are the same: Excalibur or Stormbringer are memorable, and so is Sting. In D&D, a first-level party often has dozens of magic items. Eventually, they discard some of them as they reach higher levels. This abundance devalues magic items and magic in general.

I feel the same way about rules.

I’ve run a few 5e campaigns. 5e is a more "complete" game than B/X. However, it requires ten times the page count to achieve this. So, I’ve been asking myself: is 5e ten times more complete than B/X? And the answer is no. Same goes for AD&D.

[Sure, I could use a one-page RPG. In the end, this ultimately comes down to a matter of taste.]

Spell selection has also been a headache, leading to imbalance and analysis paralysis.

I like customizing characters, but I don’t need dozens of classes and races. I really enjoy the simplicity of being able to say the bandit leader is a "fighter 5" and leaving it at that.

When you have fewer elements, you can connect them more meaningfully. For example, elves resist ghouls. The undead are raised by demons. All aberrations come from other dimensions, while monsters are created by mages. Etc.

And to be honest, this would make way more likely that my players would even REMEMBER most of this stuff.

In short, many of my current issues with D&D could be solved by just having less.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/05/unlimited-d-x-limited-d.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-illustrated-war-of-earth-and-sky.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/01/magic-item-inflation-in-ad.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/10/skeleton-with-bow.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/01/minimalism-elegance-and-multipurpose.html

AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part XI, p. 174-215 (Appendices C, D, E - Random monsters)

We've been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

Today we discuss random monsters!

APPENDIX C: RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS

This includes extensive tables for random monsters. These are bigger, more detailed, and overall a bit better than the weird B/X / OD&D tables. Whales are not encountered in any kind of "water", but only in "deep water", etc.

"the only monsters which are included are those in MONSTER MANUAL. Two notable exceptions to this are those the mezzodaemon and nycadaemon which are found in the AD&D module D3, VAULT OF THE DROW (TSR Games, Inc.). If you do not have this module, simply ignore results calling for these monsters and roll again." 

A weird choice, but okay; the author found these two creatures important enough to be part of the core.

This section includes encounters in dungeons, outdoors, water, underwater, airborne, astral, ethereal, and also psionic encounters, whatever these are.

I'll admit this looks like it is too much for me. Underwater adventures are maybe 100 times less common than forests, at least in my campaigns.

First, there are random dungeon encounters. I do not think this is a great idea but the tables are detailed enough that they may help you create your own dungeon, with a proper theme and hopefully some coherence. 

There is a big focus on balance here; in theory, players can only find the strongest dangers if they travel deep enough (alike wilderness encounters, where they can suddenly face a couple of dragons). This has indeed some "mythic underworld" vibe, with little regard for naturalism/realism/etc: the deeper you go, the bigger and more numerable the monsters become. You can find a dozen bandits on level 1, but there is 120 of them if you find them on level 10.

You can also find adventurer NPCs, each extremely detailed, including random magic items. It is not clear how - and why - are these tables different from the ones in the appendix P.

The book recommends you prepare several parties/NPCs in advance. Looks like a lot of work, but fortunately we might have some tools like this one to make it automatic.

Underwater encounters are simple enough, but detailed - they are "are divided into those which occur in fresh water and those in salt water (seas and oceans). Each division is further broken down by depth - shallow and deep water encounters". Not much to comment here, and not much use for me as noticed above.

ASTRAL & ETHEREAL ENCOUNTERS are next. These are completely baffling to me. The explanation might be elsewhere; I might have read and forgot about them, or skipped it (probably they are the result of some spell?). The glossary indicates there is an explanation in the PHB, so its my fault for not reading it first. 

After some research, it seems these pertain to a certain spell, so maybe they should be include in that context. Like underwater encounters, I feel these won't be used often.

In any case, these are evocative and very interesting. It makes astral/ethereal travel feel dangerous and exciting.

PSIONIC ENCOUNTERS may happen if PCs are using psionic powers - these apparently can attract demons and other entities, which is sinister. These seem to manifest out of thin air (since the yellow mold doesn't move IIRC), so I'm not sure why the book suggests "Roll until an appropriate encounter occurs, ignoring inappropriate results" for this particular table only.

OUTDOOR RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS is the meat of the chapter. It has tables and subtables for Inhabited areas, Uninhabited areas, Castles, multiple types of terrain in various climates (artic, subartic, temperate, etc.), plus some setting conditions like "faerie", "Pleistocene" and "Prehistoric".

Well, Pleistocene is part of "Prehistoric", but here it means "Age of Dinosaurs", as indicated by the table. The book adds: "Feel free to devise your own encounter matrix for Jurassic, Triassic, or other period with non-aberrant creatures.". 

Why are there no mountains, hills river or seas in the age of dinosaurs? No idea. Probably it is the other way around: in D&D-land, you'll only find dinosaurs in these places.

Pleistocene conditions are somewhat to Sub-Arctic Conditions, without fantasy creatures such as trolls, etc.

I can IMAGINE the Pleistocene/prehistoric tables could be combined for a pulp/S&S campaign, but then you'd also need a river/sea table without nixies, hobgoblins and such. as written, maybe they are meant to apply to certain "lost world" parts of your settings - despite dinosaurs and mammoths being found in the regular tables too.

Putting everything together looks like a bit of a headache, but hopefully this too can be automated (I am sure there is an online roller somewhere, please let me know in the comments!). This one is based on 2e.

AIRBORNE RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS is short and sweet: "simply use the appropriate

OUTDOOR RANDOM MONSTER ENCOUNTERS table [...] but an encounter occurs only if the creature indicated is able to fly or is actually flying."

CITY/TOWN ENCOUNTERS are meant for unexplored cities, basically. They seem to happen incredibly often ("every three turns"), probably because you meet people all the time in a city, but many will simply ignore the party. 

Checking that often must be a bit of a hassle in practice; maybe we could just check a few times a day for "memorable" encounters that are likely to approach the party.

Also worth noticing that ordinary people seem to be a small percentage of encounters. I'd assume there are more, but unlikely to make memorable encounters. As written, these tables make cities extremely  dangerous, full of demons, undead, and bandits, maybe even more than the cities of S&S like Lankhmar.

BTW, this is where you can find the infamous "harlot table" that describes encounters with "brazen strumpets or haughty courtesans".

We also get ANOTHER table to generate magic items for NPCs, for reasons I cannot fathom.

APPENDIX D: RANDOM GENERATION OF CREATURES FROM THE LOWER PLANES

This is, basically, a generator of random demons, devils, etc.

I LOVE this chapter. This is a precursor to Teratogenicon and all similar books.

Basically, it makes each creature weird and unique, from head to toe, including stats. Here is one example created by this generator:

Demon #1

---------------------------------------------

Frequency: Uncommon

No. Appearing: 3

Armor Class: 0

Move: 15"

Hit Dice: 9

No. of Attacks: 3

Damage: 3-9 (Mouth), 2-12 (Each Arm), 

Special Attacks: Summon/Gate, Spell-like Abilities, 

Special Defenses: Acid Immunity, Weapon Immunity, Cold Immunity, 

Other Abilities: None

Magic Resistance: 45%

Intelligence: High

Size: L

Psionic Ability: Nil

Strength and To Hit/Damage Bonuses: 18 (00) (+3/+6)

---------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Head: Human-like  / Knobs

Overall Visage: Wrinkled - Seamed

Ears: None

Eye Color: Metallic

Eyes: Huge, Flat; Two-Eyed

Nose (If Necessary): Slits Only

Mouth: Tusked; Tiny

Bipedel Torso: Ape-like

General Characteristics: Short and Broad

Tail: None

Body Odor: Urine

Skin: Leathery/Leprous

Skin Color: Reddish

Back: Normal

Arms: 2Hands: Taloned

Legs and Feet (As Applicable): Suctioned

Pictured by Grok using data above.

This technique is great to keep things fresh and keep players guessing, although all fiends share some traits (e.g., magic resistance).

Teratogenicon extends this reasoning to other creature types: undead, aberrations, monstrosities, etc.

APPENDIX E: ALPHABETICAL MONSTER LISTING

A list of monsters and their stats. Probably based on the Monster Manual. No stats for the mezzodaemon, but more than 20 lines for hydras with varying number of heads.

Overall, these appendixes are good, despite some redundancies, weird choices, and mixing things of dissimilar importance without clear distinction, which seems to be a common trend in the DMG.

NOTE: there is a California Wildfire Relief Bundle on DTRPG. It has lots of Savage Worlds (including Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and a couple of OSR games. "By This Axe I Hack!" and "There and Hack Again" are the most interesting to me.

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

Magic Item inflation in AD&D

Modern D&D is sometimes accused of turning PCs' into "superheroes". 

I have been accused of similar transgressions for daring to add feats to my OSR games.

"Hero, not Superhero", from Matt Finch's primer, is a popular motto. 

Of course, you cannot take it at face value - "superhero" PCs were in Chainmail, even BEFORE D&D (they are roughly equivalent to 8th-level fighters).

Likewise, a 8th-level magic-user can fly, cast fireballs, turn himself and other into frogs, etc. Clerics can raise the dead by this point!

Finch says PCs become Batman, but not Superman (he must be referring to fighters - not even Superman can turn people into frogs or raise the dead. Also, Batman is a superhero. But I digress).

Maybe Iron Man might be a better example.

AD&D PCs, even fighters, become spectacularly powerful due to their equipment.

The problem starts on level one. As @ericbabe noticed, in "Lord of Darkness", a classic AD&D module:

For defeating 12 skeletons and a 5-hp crazy woman the first level party earns:

- a ring of invisibility

- a ring of feather falling

- two maces +1

- 800 gp

I noticed a similar (but less extreme) pattern when running classics module in my own campaign. 

[And OSR adventures seem to follow this trend too - I've noticed in in BFRPG, DCC and LotFP modules].

It is difficult to have a precise measure of a high-level PC's power, since so much depends on which modules you run and how well the players do.

The DMG has some guidelines on creating high-level PCs in Appendix P. The rules are generous, albeit not as generous as the example above. For example, a 2nd level PC has only 20% chance of having a +1 magic weapon, plus 30% chance of magic chain armor.

I would guess reality is much more plentiful for surviving PCs, not only using published modules but also using the random item tables from the same book (the 1e DMG). Gygax himself recommend GMs to limit the number of magic items found, IIRC.

There is an easier way to analyse high-level AD&D PCs, however: using the pre-generated characters from classic modules. There is a great compilation in Dragonsfoot.

Let's look at some examples:

The A series has level 4-6 PCs with +1 or +2 weapons and armor, plus some potions and scrolls. Looks reasonable to me.

In the D series, we have PCs from varied levels (around 7-10). Now each PC has several magic items, usually AT LEAST +2 weapon and +2 armor, and we start to see negative ACs.

In the G series, PCs are around level 10-12. There is a level 14 fighter ("Frush") with 104 HP and -5 AC, and a level 12 cleric with -1 AC. The Level 9 Dwarf Fighter has AC 0, a Dwarven Hammer +3, Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Striding and Springing, among other things.

[There are also a few intelligent swords int here. They allow fighters to cast magic spells.]

These PCs would win against an army of OGRES, and I mean that quite literally: even Frush by himself can easily defeat one hundred of them if only ten can attack at once. 

Now, I have never seem -5 AC in any of my games. That is because, despite using feats, I am not as generous with magic items.

How about other editions?

I think B/X might be slightly better less generous in this regard. You can play with this cool generator to see for yourself. I wont say this is ideal because I think B/X fighters are too weak and you shouldn't nerf them.

I am not sure about others; I remember 4e giving away lots of magic items but in hindsight maybe it is not that different from other editions. 

Old-school players sometimes complain about "HP inflation" which is kinda true, but nobody talks about magic item inflation.

5e has tried to limit magic items in important ways.

This is from Xanathar's (5e):

A party gains one hundred magic items during level 1-20, but most of these are consumables.

While this sounds similar to Appendix P, I think it is likely that some AD&D PCs might get even more using random treasure, and definitely a lot more if they get a few magic items for every dozen skeletons they face (OTOH, if they also get 800 gp, they'll level up quickly...).

One important aspect of 5e is attunement. Some powerful items require a certain "bond" with the user, and you cannot have more than three of those. These include bracers of defense and rings of protection, for example.

On the other hand, 5e PCs have a lot more features than AD&D PCs. There is a some balance there; some of the PCs' powers are intrinsic, other are form items, while in AD&D most special powers come form items (at least for fighters).

I must say I'm not a fan of having that many magic items.

Characters like Conan, Fafhrd or John Carter (Appendix N) are heroic (or even superheroic?) because of their own prowess, not because they carry many magic items.

[One noticeable exception is Moorcock's characters, who do get several].

That's why I prefer feats. And they can be very simple: just give a PC "+1 to swords" instead of a "sword +1", or "+3 block" instead of a "shield +3". Like magic items, feats can be distributed randomly if you want.

In short, even old-school PCs can become superheroes with amazing power. They also have their "builds" and "powers" that they create with magic items. Whether you want these powers to be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, is up to the DM, who will decide what is best for his style.

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

AD&D DMG cover to cover - Part X, p. 169-173 (Appendices A, B - Random dungeons/wilderness)

The project is back after a long hyatus!

We've been reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view.

Check the other parts of this series here.

The meat of the book is finished; now we move on tho the appendices, and these are almost as important as the main text (in fact, there is often no clear reason for why something is in the appendix rather than another chapter).

Today we discuss random dungeons and wilderness!

Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of those; I invite anyone who has more experience with them to share it with us in the comments!

Anyway.

APPENDIX A: RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION

This part contains brief advice on how to make a dungeon and multiple tables to generate one randomly.

I am not a big fan of random dungeons; I find them nonsensical and often cliched.

I wrote about the subject here.

Last time I need a "dungeon" I took a castle map online and populated the rooms in an interesting, coherent manner - according to a theme (haunted castle) - and I was very satisfied with the results.

Can the Appendix A provide something more flavorful?

I'd have to try them in practice. I never actually did; I remember seeing some examples online, but nothing impressed me. Please let me know about any examples you have!

But let's see those tables.

There are 5 "start areas", which seem too weird and not sufficient. With the exception of number 4 (maybe?), they simply do not resemble any actual building, nor do they give an "mythic underworld" vibe (dungeons always start with stairs and they have lots of stairs - maybe they are "created by a mad mage" stuff).

In the same manner, the tables indicate long corridors and lots of 45º degrees passages.

In short, this produces a very specific type of dungeon, ideal for mapping on a square grid, but not much else. Your result will look like a "vanilla D&D dungeon", but not like a cave, castle, ruin or spaceship.

The tables that fill these rooms are a bit better; basically, they add monsters, treasures and traps. Enough variation to make things interesting.

Appendix I adds more interesting stuff to dungeons. Why not put it closer? No idea. But we'll get there!

(BTW: my own book Dark Fantasy Places has some ideas on these topics).

Curiously, the book indicates that "the random dungeon generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play", which is a play-style that became much more popular in recent years.

In short, maybe a cool mini-game, but doesn't seem to create great dungeons, unless the DM adds a lot of input.

EDIT: as waywardwayfarer note in the comments, there is an app inspired by the appendix A. Try it for yourself to see if this is the kind of game you want: https://www.blogofholding.com/dungeonrobber/

APPENDIX B: RANDOM WILDERNESS TERRAIN

This is similar to dungeon generation, but shorter. The first paragraph explains that:

If a wilderness expedition moves into an area where no detailed map has been prepared in advance, the random terrain determination system below can be utilized with relative ease for a 1 space = 1 mile, or larger, scale. In using it, however, common sense must prevail. For example, if the expedition is in the north country the forest will be pine or possibly scrub, while in tropical regions it will be jungle. Similarly, if a pond is indicated in two successive spaces, the two should be treated as one larger body of water. The Dungeon Master must also feel free to add to the random terrain as he sees fit in order to develop a reasonable configuration. In any event, the DM must draw in rivers, large lakes, seas, oceans, and islands as these features cannot easily be generated by a random method.

I don't think random wilderness is a good idea, for several reasons: first, it often produces incoherent maps. It would also take a HUGE time and effort unless you automate it - even a small area requires hundreds of rolls. In addition, mountains can be seem from many miles away and it'd be absurd for the PCs to suddenly find one.

You'd be better off just drawing your own map in advance without any help - which is FAST and EASY. 

It wrote extensively about this here.

The DMG seems to recognize these limitations and only suggest you use this "where no detailed map has been prepared in advance".

There is only a couple of tables here: terrains and inhabitation. Only 10% of hills (and ZERO percent of mountains) contain forests, which seems weird. The DM probably has too choose those, or he'll get hills with forest in the middle of the desert.

Again, my Dark Fantasy Places has some additional tables that might be useful.

If you use 1 hex = 1 mile, the map seems a bit crowded (one hex out of six has something, from single dwellings to cities of 10,000 people). 

Still, it does a decent job of balancing small hamlets, cities, castles and ruins. This is evocative stuff. Unlike mountains, you COULD conceivable find a small castle/ruins in the woods by accident, and it could be the beginning of a great adventure.

BTW, if you want LOTS of tables about the subject, you can check this post in Knights & Knaves Alehouse. Again, it looks like too much to tackle without automation but it is FULL of cool ideas!

Coming next... RANDOM ENCOUNTERS AND MONSTERS!

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

TIME must always have a COST - no 5-minute workdays

I've written a longer post here; this is the short version, more or less.

(I really like that post; I encourage you to read it).

Time must always have a cost.

Resting for one hour in the dungeon is dangerous. But so is resting for one day in the wild.

Resting for a month in a peaceful city should ALSO have a cost.

The cost is usually DANGER. 

It can also be money, until the PCs are too rich to care. Or anything else the PCs might lose.

In any case, there must be a risk that the cost lasts longer than the time spent. 

I.e., if the cost of resting for a day is an encounter that does nothing except take a few HP, they'll just rest another day or two.

If there is no cost, the PCs will ALWAYS fall back to the free/safe state after they have spent some resources, thus creating the "5-minute work day": the PCs enter the dungeon, spend all their spells, and get out of the dungeon to recover them.

Same can be said of HP. It does not matter if the PCs fully recover in one day, one week, or one month if there is no cost to that.

Even after a month, it is unlikely that the monsters will "re-spawn" (although I love to add certain undead that rise again every night until the source of the curse is destroyed).

But maybe they should just leave (with all the treasure) or call for reinforcements. 

Otherwise, the PCs can always "reset" their losses with no costs for the opposition.

It is like they are playing chess, and they can always reset their clock arbitrarily - and even replenish lost pieces - but their foes can't.

Until, of course, they suffer a check-mate (or TPK). 

This is hard to happen if the PCs can just choose to leave at any time, but it can still happen against opposition that is much stronger.

I'm tempted to say the game ends whenever the PCs reach safety (or, again, in a TPK). You can start the game again with the same PCs after a day of after after a season, but then it will be a different game. If they go back to the dungeon, the dungeon will have changed.

Having a game without any risk feels a bit boring.  The only way to have a meaningful campaign that never really "stops" is to keep that in mind.

Note: the New Year, New Game sale is on. I'm thinking of getting Crypts and Things Remastered - let me know if you have read it! But there are tons of other games on sale.

(affiliate links)

Nothing to lose but their lives (stakes)

D&D characters usually have nothing to lose but their lives.

They lose HP, yes, but if they don't die, they can usually recover most of it in a day (in old-school D&D requires a cleric for that, but they are still good to go in a day or two).

And HP loss doesn't mean anything except death. You do not get slower, weaker or poorer because you lost HP. As long as you don't die, you're good to go.

So either they lose NOTHING, or they lose EVERYTHING.

The stakes are ALWAYS at a maximum, with no room for maneuvering.

In most games, taking a hit means you have to DEAL WITH YOUR LOSSES, something D&D PCs rarely do.

Think of a game of chess; when you lose a piece, even a pawn, you're hindered for the rest of the game. What about a soccer match? A goal leaves you behind, but you can  recover from that and even turn the tide in your favor. 

Fighting is even more interesting: you win/lose rounds while also managing stamina, wounds, etc., AND you always have the chance of a sudden reversal of fortune, no matter how many rounds you already won or lost.

The system (kinda) works in DUNGEONS, since you have limited resources, limited time, and to restart you'd have to leave the dungeon. 

But it doesn't seem to work in wilderness play, where there is only one encounter or two per day. Even if you're playing only dungeons, they become a bit boring if the only two results from delving deeper is a binary "get richer or die".

This has been a problem for me in practice.

How to fix it? 

Let's consider some alternatives.

TIME - Unless there is some kind of ticking clock, players do not give enough importance to time. As noticed above, they can only lose a day or two. Maybe if we slow down everything - recovering spells, wounds, etc. - we'd have more meaningful consequences. E.g., "you can recover all your resources after a few weeks, but now it is winter...". I've noticed that even without a ticking clocks some players automatically give a week's rest more gravitas than a day's rest. Adding random events can also help things immensely.

LEVELS - A few monsters do this, but it has been widely criticized and largely abandoned. It could work for some monsters, but what would we do with the rest?

HIRELINGS - Not only can they hire more, but they can even save their salary if they perish. You'd need to make PCs care about NPCs, or at least limit the number of hirelings, force the PCs to provide some kind of insurance, etc.

NPCs - Maybe the PCs already care about other NPCs (family, allies, etc.). But it is unlikely that they travel with the PCs, and feels unfair to just kill them off-screen - unless there is a previously known ticking-clock attached to the event.

LIMBS/WOUNDS - Lasting wounds could make a difference. Healing them might require weeks or a quest. In some cases, the PC would just have to deal with an impairment forever.

GOLD - In my experience, PCs get rich soon, and accounting is just not that fun. I don't want to deal with taxes and fines in my games. That is boring enough in real life. At most, I might require a monthly upkeep for food and housing, but this unlikely to make a dent in the PC's finances. Maybe the PCs will buy/build castles, but they have to decide that for themselves - and if I burn those castles, they are unlikely to ever build new ones.

ITEMS - Monsters that destroy weapons, spoil magic items, etc., feel a bit forced, but could work. Even better, we could have magic items of limited uses more often, which would force some strategic thinking.

REPUTATION - I think this would be a good solution, but it requires some deep reflection/preparation on the wider world - or use some reputation MECHANIC (i.e., IIRC there are some in Pendragon, Oriental Adventures, etc.)

SANITY/STRESS/ETC. - You could have different mechanics to represent other kinds of losses. Call of Cthulhu has sanity - this is hard to recover. Darkest Dungeon has stress. Adding other gauges in addition to HP grants the game some tactical depth. Exhaustion from 5e is an interesting one, since it bypasses HP and has other consequences (affects speed, skills, etc.).

Come to think of it, exhaustion and stress could be a great solution to this "you get better in a day" problem. But that also deserve a post of its own.

DEATH - In some versions of D&D, death is nothing but a "lasting wound". If raise dead is widely available, death might represent a new goal or quest to save the dead PC (maybe with a ticking clock), a cost in gold, a few weeks of downtime (e.g., in B/X it takes at least two weeks to recover). 

[Come to think of it, just considering 0 HP to be "grievous wounds" and replacing raise death for some kind of "cure grievous wounds spell", with a small chance of failure, could make the game significantly grittier and less magical without significantly altering the rules].

NOTHING - What if death is really off the table and the PCs really have nothing to lose? This seems to be a common trend in modern games. I can't quite see the point in a game with no real stakes. Of course, PC death is an issue to be dealt with - you can have raise dead (maybe at a cost), automatic resurrections a la Dark Souls (which also has a cost), on mere unconsciousness. 

If even death is inconsequential, you probably need to find consequences elsewhere.

A proposal

I think I'd like my games to have multiple lasting stakes at the same time. Instead of just dead/alive or even zero to full HP, I want consequences to affect characters thought time. 

As I've often insisted, spell shouldn't just renew everyday. Maybe some spells can only be performed once a year, or once in a lifetime, requiring the blood of a nearly-extinct beat.

A character could lose an eye, gain a few levels, so that he is a better fighter but a worse archer, and in any case much more powerful because of his new allies, while still threatened by stronger enemies.

This is the kind of games RPGs are supposed to be, IMO. Every decision can be relevant for ages to come. 

There is victory and defeat, but trade-offs are much more common.

A conclusion (?)

RPGs are games. Game should have stakes, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. At the very least, be mindful and honest about these.

When creating adventures, running games, describing scenes, etc., consider the stakes.

In addition, let your players know the stakes.

Sometimes, they PCs will be surprised by a monster or trap they couldn't have anticipated. This should be RARE, and even then there will always be SOME choice involved - sure, they got surprised, lost initiative and were slain by a dragon before they could draw their swords, but they did wander into the haunted forest after all!

Most importantly, let them know what kind of game they are playing, from the beginning.

If you will fudge the die and the PCs can't die, let your players know beforehand (or right after it happens). If they need to be captured because you "planned" the next "scene", let them know. And if you want to ban, or introduce, fudging, maiming and death to your stories, talk to the players before you do.

Playing a game without knowing the stakes is just unfair for all involved.