Winning the game by being well-rested

I have long believed that the perfect RPG would reward the PCs for getting a good night's sleep – and penalise them for a bad enough one.

There are many upsides to doing this.

1. It's realistic. In my experience, getting particularly good or bad sleep could have a +/- 50% effect on your baseline competence.
2. It encourages roleplaying. People want to get a good night's sleep. Now characters want to get a good night's sleep.
3. It incentivises investing in comforts and nice-to-haves. Without the carrot and the stick, most players tend to default to only getting functional equipment.
4. It adds more choice to campsite selection. More choice is better. (I think it was Peter D who suggested: concealed, secure, or comfortable; pick one)
5. You can tie it to character injury. In HP-based systems, characters tend to either be fine or dead, resulting in confusion about what HP and damage really "are". Well-restedness is pretty much a score of overall condition, so being wounded can reduce the same score. Now it's actually more difficult to jump around on a stabbed leg.
6. You can tie it to character morale. Generally, telling players how their characters feel is a bad idea. Telling them they must act some way as a result is disastrous. But a hard rule like "a character who sees a friend die loses 1 point of overall condition" is non-intrusive, assuming you don't allow sociopathic PCs.
7. It incentivises problem-solving. To get the best outcomes, you need to acquire and carry around more creature comforts, even through hard terrain. So now you have a to-do list and some logistics to work out.
8. It encourages having a bunch of attendants (lackeys, entertainers, back-scrubbers, cooks, night watchmen, etc). This is in keeping with commonly emulated genres like "low-technology fantasy", and opens up new kinds of gameplay.
9. It makes the weather feel real. Most of us are well insulated from the effects of weather in 2025. Travelling, sleeping, or making a meal in bad weather is really rough going. 

and

10. It's also a soft progression system!

Characters with more resources can spend them to improve their day-to-day efficacy.

Characters who end the first game flush with cash might be able to get good provisions and nice camping gear, and secure a future +1 when there's fine weather and uninterrupted nights. Later, they might hire some camp drudges so they can get more rest per day, porters to carry their extra stuff, and maybe a proper cook. They're looking to get that +2. By the end of the campaign, expect everyone to travel with fine silks and furs, feather mattresses, bevies of personal chefs and butlers, vintage wines, and magical solutions meant to ensure good dreams, chasing that +5.

(Of course, if you want your normal "levelly" game, you can turn it into a treadmill: characters get used to the finer things, and their baseline expectations slowly creep up, so the bonus never gets too big)

I've had worse naps. (Artwork via www.lustigesrollenspiel.de)

How to get a good night's sleep

I think this metric is dependent on six things:

• Being sated (not hungry, thirsty, etc)
• Being comfortable (resting in a quiet, comfortable place, in shelter, at a nice temperature, etc)
• Getting enough sleep and enough down time
• Having creature comforts (indulging in vices, enjoying entertainment, being with friends, etc)
• Being safe
• Being healthy (not injured, cursed, ill, in shock, etc)

Some games have relevant mechanics (like systems for dehydration or sleep deprivation), which this approach could either subsume or integrate with.

Mechanically, how does it work? Is there an individual character roll depending on the factors? GM fiat? Player-facing prescribed requirements for each tier? The implementation will of course differ with the system.

So will the outcome. Games with a single central dice mechanic obviously get a dice bonus or malus. Then it's just a matter of magnitude and deciding which rolls it applies to (I think you could make a very good case for "all of them").

Final thought

You might have noticed I didn't call this "the INSERT_NAME rule". My thesaurus failed me.

Fettle and Invigoration are awkward. Condition or Vigour would be good but tend to be reserved game terms, so might be confusing. Words like Well-Rested and Energised don't cover the negative cases. Restedness is apt, but clunky.

Freshness is pretty good (except for sounding like you're in a supermarket).

'Consume alien': Reviewing Encounter Critical

...You ever hear of Encounter Critical by Riley and Ireland? A long-forgotten piece of amateur RPG design from the 70s, originally published "on a school mimeograph" and sold through hobby stores, and now available only as a scan.

It's one of those early masterpieces in which fantasy and science fiction tropes collide. And yes, that does mean the currency is "gold credits".

Quest into the slaver kingdoms or hurl yourself into the galaxies of space to find wealth and destiny. Your tactics and your character are yours to control as you undertake ENCOUNTER CRITICAL.

...Of course, it's a joke. This "forgotten gem from 1978" was created by S. John Ross in 2004, with flourishes such as advertisements for an official Gazette (a newsletter in four supposed issues), as well as a reference to "a forthcoming line of Encounter Critical miniatures" and a search for a book deal.

Originally it was cast back in time 26 years from the true 2004 publication. Now 21 years have passed in turn.

How does the hoax hold up?

🛸 The aesthetic is perfectly on point: typewritten; amateur; hand-crafted and hand-drawn; retro; photocopied

🛸 The prose is breathlessly earnest, and preoccupied with its own relationship to conventions of war gaming

🛸 The game is full of sci-fi plagiarism and the kind of dated sexism obsessed with 'seduction' and 'doxies'

🛸 It's the classic nine-stat system we all know and love: Adaptation, Dexterity, ESP, Intellect, Leadership, Luck, Magic Power, Robot Nature, and Strength.

Um

The insane retro creativity of Encounter Critical

You roll for character race. Possibilities include, on the fantasy side, 'Amazons', 'Frankensteins', and Hobbits I mean 'Hoblings'. The purloined sci fi IP includes 'Klengons', 'Planetary Apes', and 'Vulkins'.

You can also play as a 'Wooky' and be penalised for wearing armour, although of course 'a Wooky will seek out magical rings or energy armor when it is available'.

You also have a chance to end up as...

You also may be a mutant, and therefore suffer from character traits such as Cannibal Urges, Allergy to laser, Unusual Sexual Gifts, or Self-Consuming Brain.

The writing mostly serves the "lost 70s indie game" in-joke, but also has its genuine funny moments:

 

Amateur indie design 

The mechanics, while harking back to OD&D, very much like they're just being felt out.

🛸 Warriors get followers and/or animal companions, and an underdetermined number of multiattacks.

🛸 Hit points, damage, and number of monsters appearing, are given as ranges instead of the underlying dice codes.

🛸 The nine stats barely interact at all with the (percentage-based) class abilities, only underpinning the general character abilities.

🛸 Instead, a class's key stats give xp bonuses or penalties. So does Intellect, which means it'll stack for the classes with Intellect as a qualifying stat (pioneer or warlock). If they roll maximum Int they will get +20% experience as well as "a 10% chance at experience bonus", i.e., 10% chance of doubling.

🛸 The terminology is slightly inconsistent.

🛸 The game is stuffed with percentage tables.

In these ways and others, it's all deeply connected to OD&D (while taking sniping pot shots at that game).

The book is laid out as if you pull out the middle pages to use at the table. Pages 23 and 27 are ("mistakenly"?) transposed, breaking the table of monsters.

Which includes extremely compelling types such as: Asteroid Worm, Bee Girl, Dragon of Wisdom, Rogue Robodroid, Sky Piranha, and:

(The entry for the Phasic Wolf helpfully notes that it is "phasic in nature".)

The intended 70s style rings true, IMO

An incautiously designed disease table gives you a chance of getting a brain disorder from sex work. Or you could get the "Pestilence of Dark Withering" or "Curse of Seven Hundred Minds" from a rusty nail.

There is a combat system which somehow combines simplicity, percentage rolls, underspecification, and assuming an understanding of how OD&D did things.

Does the ranged weapon table have "sling", "musket", "tommy gun", and "phasic sniper rifle" on it? Yes. Is it possible to do more damage with the sling than said rifle? Yes.

The text is very persnickety and period-appropriate, with pot shots at house rules and gaming styles, etc. It describes its spells as "correctly balanced", snubs spell levels, and says the authors prefer "a more science fiction approach where a spell is a spell".

(Speaking of spells, I love that a science fiction game has a spell that lets you travel... 500 miles.)

The inscrutably-named abilities are pretty great. Consume alien, Ensorcel, Illicit, Machine friend, and See the future all on one character sheet!

...And Seduce, of course. I've draw a veil over all the gendered stuff, but it's there – doxies, amazons, succubuses, etc. While it's clearly intended as a send-up of the 70s trappings, and works as such, the benefit of another 20 years makes it feels awkward and unnecessary. Rather than making a lot of content actually hinge on it, it could have been presented as a one-note joke.

 

The world of Encounter Critical

In the accompanying adventure, goblins are stealing the brainwaves of abducted girls to fuel up a spaceship in a warlock's lair.

This takes place in the game's setting: "Vanth, a fantasy world of adventure". (Is Vanth just Xanth, but different?)

It comes, of course, with a map:

 

It feels delightfully like the kind of thing I would have been making as an early teen.

My copy of Encounter Critical is from almost twenty years ago. These days you can find it for free on DriveThruRPG. Apparently there's an updated version.

To me, this game reads like a how-it-could have been of the original D&D, like an alternate history Dalluhn Manuscript. The game that resulted from Arneson watching some slightly different films.

Well done.

Out now: Monsters! Horrors & Abominations

 
My new book, Monsters! Horrors & Abominations, is now published!

It's a 215 page bestiary crammed full of weird and flavourful monsters for D&D 5e/2025, like the...
👹 Endlessphant (wrinkled grey elephant's leg with a million knees)
👹 Big scaly one (gormless rubbery hound-god of trolls)
👹 Void oyster (beautiful nacre-petrifying abomination from beyond the stars)
👹 Stillness mage (undead weather-worker and master of doldrums)

Streamlined for combat encounters and delivered with tactics information, modern design innovations, great illustrations, and a touch of humour! Between the base creatures and tons of variants, there are 240 monsters from Challenge Rating 0 to 20.

All focused on the unsettling, underground, unspeakable, unholy, and undead!

Now available here as a PDF or a neat hardcover book!

And as a blog reader, feel free to use this code for 10% off the PDF, or if you would like the hardcover, this code for 10% off the physical book!

Review: Secret Party House of the Hill Giant Playboy

It's Reviewn June! Revebrewary! Octobereview! Janreviewary!

It's August, and here is a quick review.

The adventure 

Secret Party House of the Hill Giant Playboy (hereafter SPHotHGP) is a location-based adventure for Swords & Wizardry, BX, OD&D, etc, released by Jason Sholtis in 2013.

You may know Sholtis from adventures like Operation Unfathomable, as well as blog The Dungeon Dozen. From the latter, years of incomparably high-density weird ideas got fleshed out into a book and then into a sequel. I consider those two of the best books in the entire TTRPG space when it comes to inspiration.

SPHotHGP is 20 pages, released for free. To an extent, it's a pastiche of the classic 1978 module, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Some of the set-up is the same, and there are several little nods. For example, in the 1978 module, the hill giant's name is Nosnra (that is, almost Arneson backwards), whereas in SPHotHGP it's Sadrox... who crudely disguises his identity by calling himself Lord Xordas.

Sadrox/Xordas is the Hill Giant Playboy of the title, and his party pad is a den of iniquity and a hoard of much treasure.

As well as giving adventure hooks, Sholtis writes a great background story about how the evil Xordas acquired his huge wealth and party house, although it's not clear how this would become known to the players.

The content 

SPHotHGP is absolutely full of tables. Find the type, nature, extent, and progress of the party. Determine how the PCs are received. Roll to see what kinds of brawl break out, and what giant-sized and gruesome banquet foods are being served: Megatherium done 5 ways. Sweagledactyl, a swan stuffed in a giant eagle inside a pterodactyl.

There's a fascinating array of evil VIP guests and regulars:

• Raver Ylyach the Swamp Hag and her putrescent servitors
• Zogorion, the surprisingly scheming Lord of the Hippogriffs
• Zhemorna, caterpillar-headed high priestess of the Worm Sultan
• Glurt “Beef” Wellington, possibly the world's handsomest hill giant
• The Piper from Beyond Comprehension
• etc 

And Xordas has a very weird treasure hoard indeed.

The presentation 

SPHotHGP is semi-professionally put together. There's a keyed map, and this being for an oldschool game, inline stat blocks for each key being.

I noticed one unfinished page reference, some stray punctuation, and Glok the ogre captain seems to be incorrectly statted. Content-wise, I liked everything except that the characters and complex are largely reactive, with only a few VIPs having guidance for active agendas. I certainly can't complain about getting a good adventure for the low low price of free.

Sholtis's description is terse but evocative. You can practically hear and smell the place.

A few illustrations by Sholtis also help to really tie it together.

 

Normally I'd leave a link for you to take a look yourself. I found SPHotHGP a while ago on Sholtis's blog, but the download has sadly succumbed to bit-rot. I hope the author will repost it some time, because this is great stuff!

Playing Scrabble for keeps

So I've been hooked on Word Play, the Scrabble-based roguelite.

I play some video games here and there, and when I find one I really enjoy, I try to squeeze out all of its challenge juice (technical term). That usually means at least getting all the achievements.

As a result, when it comes to Word Play I have been putting far too many hours into beating Ultramarathon mode specifically: 20 rounds at the most difficult scoring.

Here's how I finally beat it.

(Roguelite players will be completely unsurprised to hear that this did not involve me being particularly good at Scrabble.)

 

Cracking open this game like an egg

It's all about synergies, of course, which means you need luck plus strategy. This run had the 'more rare and legendary modifiers' modifier, and I just doubled down on the first synergy I saw, which revolved around Upgrades.

My engine is made of modifiers:

➡️ I get a random common Upgrade when I play a word with 8+ tiles.

➡️ Each Upgrade gets +1 use.

➡️ +1 bonus point each time an Upgrade is used.

➡️ I gain a refresh when an Upgrade is used up completely. (This was switched out near the end of the run)

So if I play exclusively long words, I get a bunch of Upgrades, and I get more bonus points on every subsequent word. I also get refreshes (to help me get long words), but I don't use them, because so many of the common Upgrades let you refresh selectively. I quickly build up 40 refreshes and a hundred bonus points per play.

Not crucial to the engine, but I also get a modifier for x2 score with 3+ unplayed special tiles. All the Upgrades are turning my entire bag into a mess of special tiles, so this doubles all my scores without effort.

Finally, I get my first potion tile, an 'M' worth 3 points. Potion tiles give you plays equal to their score, but break, when played. I hoarded this until I lucked out and got my final modifier: if you play a four tile word, add a copy of the first tile to the letter bag.

So now, with my huge numbers of refreshes, I can in principle just refresh until I get my potion M, play it at the start of a four letter word, and have it break but add a copy to the tile bag, for a net +2 plays. This is huge when you start the run with 20 plays and only get a few more per round. So: rinse and repeat, interspersing with long words (to get more Upgrades (to get more refreshes)).

In practise, though, that's slow and unreliable. I didn't end up spending many refreshes getting the potion M out there. Instead, I was careful to have an Upgrade slot open at the end of each round, and at about round 12 I got exactly what I was hoping for: the uncommon Upgrade which adds your refresh count to a tile's score.

You can see where this is going. I used it on my potion M three times, discovering in the process that a tile's score maxes out at 99. Now I gain 99 plays each time I put the potion M at the start of a four-letter word. Over the course of a round I gain more plays than I will ever need.

That's why the little number in the bottom right of the screenshot says "1538", not the "15" or so that you would normally expect.

 

Descent into absurdism

At this point the run is essentially won, so I rejoice, but it will clearly be a slog. Even with most of my tiles turned emerald or golden with the bounty of Upgrades, I only get something like 800 points per play with a long word, so I'm going to need to play 100 good words in the final couple of rounds.

Aware of this, I have been burning my essentially-limitless plays rerolling modifiers, and it pays off at the end of round 17. I get the 'multiply final score by number of special tiles' modifier, one of a couple that would reliably boost my scores even further.

So I wave goodbye to 'gain a refresh when an Upgrade is used up', you made all this possible. Now if I spell a word like LAVENDERS, it scores 5936 points. I can and do cruise to the finish in a handful of plays per round.

And that is how I got the hardest achievement in this damn spelling game.

 

Your mileage may vary

None of this strategy is reliably reproducible, of course, due to randomness. But I think it's interesting that it worked, because it was the first Upgrades-based build which I had tried. Part of that is luck in the early rounds, naturally.

Builds that I tried and failed with, for the record:

➡️ All gold tiles

➡️ Fast-growing diamond tiles

➡️ All the emerald synergies

➡️ Double length points, board expanders, and lots of plus tiles

➡️ Dozens of attempts that never got the smallest synergy.

 

So that's most of the challenge juice squeezed out of Word Play! I recommend this game if you're a Scrabblehead. It's on Steam.

—

Update a few days later: I translated my run into "whoops, all wildcards". 300+ tiles of golden and dotted 99-point wildcards took me to round 50.

 

I spent scores, maybe hundreds of rerolls trying to get the "dotted tiles multiplier increases with each play" modifier which would have given me desperately-needed multiplier scaling, and which could have taken me even further. I never got it, though, so I called it at round 50, where winning just meant typing "******************" over and over again and waiting for the scoring to finish.

 

Trying not to be a Gell-Mann Amnesiac

I sometimes wonder how much Gell-Mann Amnesia people experience. Paraphrasing Crichton, when you're a domain expert, you'll sometimes read an article that gets every aspect of your field completely and absurdly wrong, have a little laugh about it... then keep on reading and trusting articles that are about other fields, even from the same publication or writer.

As if they're some pure spring of wisdom which only coughed out a lump of mud when it came to the thing you happen to know about.

It's just an idea from a novelist, not the kind of cognitive bias that's supported by real-world studies that I know of, but you have to admit that it has a kind of... truthiness to it.

Stack this up with Dunning-Kruger and it's easy to become cynical. You might decide that actually, all the loudest voices are talking complete nonsense, all of the time. That might be too far. But I do think it pays to put deliberate hard effort into distinguishing domain experts from overconfident bullshitting pundits.

Now, anyone with their ear to the ground and a weather eye out for Gell-Mann Amnesia should have arrived at the obvious conclusion about generative AI. To wit, that the current state of the technology is that it is an overconfident bullshitter.

On being a piece of software and being confidently wrong

The case studies are easy to find, and the ones from domain experts sound pretty different from the ones from the tech industry and the reporters too busy and/or demoralised to do more than repackage their press releases as articles.

➡️ I am not a historian. The historians I've read say genAI gets softball history questions mostly right and deep ones mostly wrong. Sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. It just makes things up when the evidence is scarce. It makes errors of commission and omission as well as having misplaced focus and drawing weird conclusions from premises.

➡️ I am not an artist. The artists I listen to say genAI art looks bland and awful and organic because it doesn't understand composition or anatomy or separate objects (because it doesn't 'understand' anything). It can't make an image that isn't well-represented in the training data, like a camel and a steampunk automaton jousting from the backs of sumo wrestlers. Same in other kinds of media: filmmakers say genAI can't do film because it can't take direction or keep track of characters or have a consistent shot.

➡️ I am not a Wikipedia editor (except incidentally). Earlier this year there was a wretched moment when the Wikipedia editors were going to have genAI article summaries foisted on them, although I think that's turned around now. The skilled editors pointed out that the LLM summaries generally ranged from 'bad' to 'worthless' by Wiki standards: they didn't meet the tone requirements, left out key details or included incidental ones, injected "information" that wasn't in the article, and so on.

➡️ I am not a manager. The managers say genAI can't even collate timesheets reliably.

➡️ I am not a novelist. The novelists say a genAI book reads like a statistical summary of all creative writing anyone has ever done, including all the embarrassing teenage fanfiction. It sucks at originality. And because it doesn't have an internal model or understanding of its outputs, it can't keep track of things and make a coherent satisfying story. Things are vague, tropey, or contradictory.

➡️ I am not a lawyer. The lawyers are, um, well, by the sound of it a lot of them are being sanctioned for using generative AI to cite completely nonexistent caselaw. (☉__☉”)

➡️ I am not a public policy wonk. The bureaucratic wonks note that genAI can't summarise text. It shortens it and fills in the gaps with median seems-plausible-to-me pablum. The kind you get when you average out everything anyone has ever written on the internet. If you try to have an LLM summarise or draw conclusions from a study, it will usually do a bad job, fabricating statements more along the lines of what an average person would guess if they'd only read the study's title.

➡️ I am not a software engineer. The software engineers seem to have mixed opinions. They say that genAI works as code autocomplete (something that has existed for fifty years, but this new kind has pretty sophisticated lookahead, neat). At least some are saying it can't do principled software engineering, it introduces security flaws, its performance drops off for obscure languages, it overconfidently generates bad code, it plagiarises from code repositories that it doesn't have the rights to...

I could go on.

I'm no longer a domain expert in anything, this many years after my stint in academia. I think I'm halfway to being an expert in a few different areas, though. I deliberately concocted some thoughtful questions at the intersection of those areas, just to see.

For example, I asked about the (obvious) mapping of choose-your-path text adventure books onto mathematical graph structures, which the LLM chatbot identified. I followed up with technical questions about the features of those graphs in context: what would the game be like if they weren't digraphs, would you expect cyclic vs acyclic, would a finite state machine be more appropriate and if so why, etc.

And lo, the generative AI output was absurdly, hopelessly, and confidently wrong when given questions that needed expertise.

A lot of people with a lot of money would like you to think that genAI chatbots are going to fundamentally change the world by being brilliant at everything. From the sidelines, it doesn't feel like that's going to work out.

Sometimes I read posts from experts along the lines of

"I've noticed it's almost worthless at [my field], but it sounds like it's pretty useful for [other thing]."

But less so lately, maybe?

So I'm left wondering: are people experiencing massive Gell-Mann Amnesia about these chatbots? Or does everybody know that the emperor has no clothes?

(But oh no, we've invested so, so, so very much money into the emperor's finery, and all the wealthiest people at the imperial court agree: pleeeease could you keep squinting to see this amazing new clothing?)