Black Dogs zine - issue number 8

Gplus is going away today, and my last post on that platform was to advertise issue number 8 of my fanzine, the Black Dogs.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/269308/Black-Dogs-zine--issue-8

Issue 8 contains using dead monsters (instructions for a new alchemy subsystem), removing hit-points and using only HD, a mini-system for Blood Magic, how not to use goblins in your game, and the adventure of the Broken Hill.

What I like about this issue is how each chapter works - at least in my opinion - very well as a stand-alone set of rules. Everything is immediately playable.
The alchemy subsystem takes dead monsters and turns them into something your characters can use; I think it's original and funny (requires combining multiple parts, it's not overpowered, and it could lead to an insteresting journey of discoveries for your players).
The HD-for-HP is a simple enough house-rule to speed up calculations in combat.
The Blood Magic is a set of unique spells easy to insert in your campaign - give it to a magic user, or make it a class by itself, it's your call.
The goblins article contains a list of random tables to replace goblins in your game, and the last is a little, challenging adventure (with more "plot" than what I'm used to... let me know if you like it).

What I like NOT...
Well, for personal reasons my production rate has slowed to a halt.
I do not have plans at the moment for issue number 9 - although there might be a collaboration coming up, and so new content might be published in the near future (stay tuned but news will be slow to come).

Download (POD coming in a month or two) on Drivethrurpg:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/269308/Black-Dogs-zine--issue-8

Here is the link to the POD on Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/daimon-games/the-black-dogs-zine-issue-8/paperback/product-24019923.html

This product is an independent production by Daimon Games and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV.

Skills (part one)

Well, I guess this post should start with a quote of the first line of the first post I'm linking below:
Skills. Mention them in relation to Old School games, and some grognards start to cringe. 

Skills are indeed a controversial topic in OSR but I believe they deserve some attention.
First of all, if you think that your game should NOT have Skills, EVER, then it's easy. Just skip this article.
But if you are interested in adding a skill system or in some inspiration for house-rules, this post is for you.
(And honestly, I believe that even those who say no-skills-ever, have anyway used at least the roll-under-your-ability-score ruling... which is indeed one of the proposed solutions)


So, the first post contains a nice overview of some basic ideas for Skills:
- a d6 system with a 1 in 6 default chance (LotFP style), perhaps with bonus by class and race
- a d20 system with a roll-under the related ability score
- a system derived by Saving Throws (a similar matrix, or perhaps even the same matrix - adapted with a grain of salt - if you want to save time)
- a list of skills, a list of Difficulty Classes (DC), factoring in the ability modifiers... which steers away from the traditional OSR but it's something already done and proved to be working fine... Except for the part where skills are used as a substitute of role-playing

Skills in Old School Games
by AHL
Skills.
Mention them in relation to Old School games, and some grognards start to cringe. However, this is not one of those blog posts discussing skills or no skills. This post is about how to handle in game situations in old school games.
Also, I mention just a few systems here. There are many more, using 2d6, 3d6 and so on (just google “OSR skill system”), and they’re more or less complicated. Here, I will talk about the ones that I have used at some point in time and some ideas I’ve been thinking of.
I’m not sure that Old School games is in need of a skill system per se. However, I’m positive that Old School games is in need  of a solid task resolution system. These days, “Bend Bars”, “Open Doors” and “Find Secret Doors” just feels wonky. [...]

Old School Galore I – the d6 system
This is the bona fide old school way. When something is to be resolved, you have a x in 6 chance to succeed. Most of the time, it’s just a 1 in 6 chance, but some classes and races get bonuses to specific tasks. [...]

Old School Galore II – the Ability Check system
When a situation isn’t covered by the rules, old school systems often suggest an ability check. Basically, you try to beat (i.e. roll under) an appropriate ability on a d20. [...]

Akrasia’s Save system 
For S&W players, there’s a fan made simple system out there (Akrasia’s house rules), which is also used in Crypts & Things. The idea is to use the Saving throw number also as a target number for various tasks. The list of tasks is deliberately kept vague, to empower flexibility, but all PCs can do anything. [...]

5e’s skill system
I think that the new D&D really have nailed the task resolution system. Everyone can do anything, but some are better than their peers at doing said things. Also, as a GM, I appreciate to have a defined task (or skill) list to choose from when deciding what the player should roll in a given situation. [...]
5e has a list of 18 tasks, usable by anyone. Sweet. The GM decides a Difficulty Class (DC) for the roll, which is the target number to beat. The player rolls a d20, adding his ability bonus for the specific task (for example Stealth uses Dex). [...]

Bolting a task resolution system to your OSR game

Another problem if the system you like haven’t got a built in task resolution system is how to define what skills/tasks your characters are extra good at. Of course you could write down a list of “fighters are good at this” and “dwarves are good at that” and pre-define such things. Another way is to grant the players a couple of things (maybe 2) they are good at. For example, your fighter might be good at “Sneaking” and “Obtaining information”. [...]

Dawnrazor’s Old School Universal Task Resolution System mk I
Here’s what I’ve decided to use for my adventures (unless they’re for a system like B&T or FH&W).
1. Task format (in adventure text): Task at hand (DIFFICULTY: ABILITY). Example: Spot the hobgoblin (HARD: WIS) 
This format excludes the actual skill, but since I suspect that not everyone will use skills, or if they use systems with different skill sets and names, it will get confusing. [...]
https://nerdomancerofdork.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/skills-in-old-school-games/

This second post notes a couple of potential issues with the lack of a skills system in an OSR game. What if instead of skills you have classes (like the thief, or the ranger)? It's easy for GMs to rule that other characters cannot do anything covered by the thief or the ranger skills.
What if you stick with the original cleric-fighter-magic-user but no skills system? Everyone can try everything, but it's hard to adjudicate based only on common sense and GM's rulings.
It introduces a heavy GM-fiat component, and even those GMs with the best intentions would find it hard to be consistent across sessions. And it would always be hard for players to judge what chances do they have to accomplish anything, before actually trying.

So, yes, a skills-system is a good thing to introduce, probably, but it must be easy enough, scalable by level and/or training, and possibly with no DC (no impact on existing old-school adventures which have no DC or ability tests or stuff like that).
The system provided in the link is a bit too complex for my taste, but its guidelines are good and they provide both a system for character vs. character tests, and for which kind of bonus to apply to various kind of other tests.

Skills: The Middle Road

by Benjamin David
Rules for non-combat skills in D&D have spanned a rather broad course over the years. In OD&D, there were no rules for non-combat related skills other than magic until the introduction of the thief--a point that most grognards put in its favor, since it encouraged everyone to try their hand at everything. However, this lack does present problems when trying to determine exactly what a character can do that's better than other characters, and as more classes were created to cover these non-combat niches (first thieves, then rangers) the implication set in that unless your class abilities said you could do a thing, you couldn't except by DM fiat. [...]

The extensive rules for dealing with non-combat skills in other systems, both classic and modern, speaks of the desire of players to be able to know in some quantitative sense what their characters are good at. However, if we are to come up with any such system as a house rule for OD&D, it has to meet several basic parameters:

"Having" a given skill, NWP, or whathaveyou should not, as a rule, be a requirement for attempting any adventure-related action or for having a reasonable chance of success.

The system must be scalable, allowing for characters to improve existing skills by the expenditure of time and wealth or as a reward for a successfully-completed adventure (as described in my previous post),

And yet it must be simple enough that no OD&D product must be significantly altered to employ it (i.e., the referee should not have to go through every adventure and install DCs for every challenge or create a complete set of skills for every goblin) and that any referee can easily ad-hoc it during play. [...]

There are four levels of competancy for any given skill: unskilled, skilled, expert, and master. All characters are assumed to be unskilled at any given task unless it falls under their class (especially in the case of thieves) and/or background. Having a background that encompasses a particular action means that one is skilled only [...]

Of all character classes, only thieves automatically advance in skill levels as they increase in character level, and then only in those areas directly related to thievery [...] In all other cases, advancement or gaining new skills must come as a result of gameplay [...]

Before explaining further, a particular mechanic must be described. The skill die denotes the type of die rolled for a given skill level, to which is added the appropriate ability modifier (using the Moldavy scale) when a skill contest arises between two individuals. For example, a 1st level thief with a 16 dexterity is trying to sneak up on a 1st level cleric with a 15 wisdom. Since the thief is considered skilled at moving silently, he would roll a 1d8+2 (modified for dex) against the cleric's 1d6 (unskilled) +1 (wis) to determine if he succeeds. [...]

In cases where there is no contest between two statted characters--for example, a thief sneaking up on a goblin whose wisdom score is unknown, a character climbing a cliff, or a character with a jeweler background trying to make a gift to impress a noblewoman--the referee should assign an ad-hoc possibility for success. [...]

Unskilled
Skill Die: d6
No bonuses to die rolls
Skilled
Training: 1 month and 100o gp
Skill Die: d8
+1 bonus when making skill-related rolls with a 1d4, 1d6, or 1d8
+2 bonus when making skill-related rolls with a 1d10 or 1d12
+3 bonus when making skill-related rolls with a 1d20
+15% on making skill-related rolls with percentage dice [...]

http://rodoflordlymight.blogspot.com/2009/03/skills-middle-road.html?m=1

The third link proposes an elegant system with a skill die, which increases as you become more trained at a given skill. To succeed you need to roll 5 or more (Paolo Greco has a similar system in his own OSR system... more on this at the link).
The good things about this system is that it's easy to roll and evaluate, that it has a verbal connotation of your skill level (i.e. rookie or novice, etc.), that it slows down in the improvements as you go ahead in the game, so no character becomes easily overpowered.
What it lacks, is a list of skills.

Skill Systems: Tweaking "The Middle Road"
by ktrey parker
[...] The “Ratings” are expanded a little bit, success is still on a 5 or more (making UNABLE impossible for the player without circumstantial modifiers...which are generally kept low/stingy). The bell-curve comes into play with MASTER which really increases the chance of success, but with a cost.

Skill Rating	Skill Die/Dice
UNABLE	1d4
ROOKIE	1d6
NOVICE	1d8
VERSED	1d10

[...]
I don't tie skill improvement to level in any meaningful way most of the time. This is mostly to mitigate the “20 HD MASTER Blacksmith NPC” and “I gained a level and am suddenly an EXPERT at Tracking” issues, although Thief classes and formal training-as-cash/time-siphon can open up some additional improvement avenues during downtime with some good fictional explanations. Instead I like to tie Skill Rating improvement to actual play.
Any successful Skill Roll (5+) prompts for another skill roll immediately, and on a maximum die/dice result, the first letter of the next Rating is written down. Once you spell it out, you've achieved the next Rating (this is why all Ratings have 6 letters).
This has diminishing returns: It becomes more difficult to improve/master a skill as you get better as the chances of success increase, the chances of rolling the maximum also decrease. I also like that improvement is actually tied to “Doing the thing,” so players are encouraged to attempt it, even if the odds may not be great (Practice makes perfect!). [...]

http://blog.d4caltrops.com/2016/05/skill-systems-tweaking-middle-road.html

I have to admit my preferences for the d6 skills system provided by LotFP, as you've seen already when I proposed to change even Saving Throws to d6-skills, here: d6 Saving Throws for LotFP.
But while I like the default skill system of LotFP, I am less in love with dice pools, and therefore this link is less interesting for me. Still, it is definitely worth mentioning also because James Raggi is doing something similar (but for Saving Throws, not Skills) in the beta document of the next version of the rules (which who knows when and if it will ever be published).

Game Mechanics: Dice, Doors, and Decimal Points
by Dan Domme
So I have a skill system hack I am working on and I want to share it with you.
Start with Lamentations of the Flame Princess [...] One of the nice things about it is that skills are based on d6 rolls. Virtually everything is a 1-in-6 chance, and specialists (read: thieves, but a less pigeonholed concept) get to invest points into expanding these skills. E.g., put two points in Sleight of Hand and your chance to execute such a task goes from 1-in-6 to 3-in-6. [...]
I am hacking that d6 system a bit. Mostly because I love dice pools, but there is also a logic behind it. 
First off, rather than expanding the range of success, I expand the number of dice you roll, while keeping 6 the target number. Note that statistically this is more difficult. [...]
A solution to the increased difficulty is that the GM should be more generous with the bonus dice. We already add dice based on invested Specialist skill points, but let's also add Ability Score bonuses. A +1 to Strength is easily added to your pool if you want to Open Doors, for example. Have a crowbar? Add another die. And so on. [...]
The problem that we have already come across thus far in my Megadungon game is that opening doors is still fairly likely to result in failure. Even with crowbars, people helping, and strength bonuses, you are pretty likely to not open the door.
This is where I got the idea to go straight into story game territory and offer the players a narrative choice. In the first option, the players could choose to let the door be. The door is swollen shut, just like St. Gary said it probably would be. The other option is to note your margin of failure. (E.g., was your highest result a 4? Then your margin of failure is 6-4 = 2.)  I'll let your character(s) persist at opening the door until they succeed, but I get to roll the margin of failure in Wandering Monster checks. (A dice pool of 2 in this example.) Again, each of these is a simple 1-in-6 chance.  The logical basis is that the worse your initial check result, the more noisy your success is going to be and the more likely you are to attract attention to yourself. [...]

http://failedmysave.blogspot.com/2017/07/game-mechanics-dice-doors-and-decimal.html

Design notes
- Without skills but with classes (i.e. the thief, but also the ranger), it's too easy to rule that other characters cannot attempt actions as the thief
- Without skills but with just the original three classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user) it's all related to the GM's fiat
- It's hard to have consistency and to judge your chances, as a player
- Skill systems in the OSR must be simple, scalable by level/training, with no or very simple rules for difficulties (to remain compabile with old modules)
- a d6 system with a 1 in 6 default chance (LotFP style), perhaps with bonus by class and race
- if using a d6 system, consider also to use d6 dice pools and 6 as target number
- a d20 system with a roll-under the related ability score
- a system derived by Saving Throws (a similar matrix, or perhaps even the same matrix - adapted with a grain of salt - if you want to save time)
- a list of skills, a list of Difficulty Classes (DC), factoring in the ability modifiers... which steers away from the traditional OSR but it's something already done and proved to be working fine... Except for the part where skills are used as a substitute of role-playing


Will continue here.

d6 Saving Throws for LotFP

I love the simplicity of the Skills in LotFP which are presented graphically with a d6 with black and white pips. When improving your skill, you color one pip more and the roll is quite simple: roll with a d6 equal or under the score presented by the d6 drawn on your sheet.
Using something similar for Saving Throws is something that I was considering for a while, so here it is. This thing is long and boring, though, so here is the final rule.

Roll Saving Throws with a d6, as Skills. Roll equal or under for a successful Save.
Add one point to a Save score of your choice at level-up, up to level 13 (17 for Clerics). The highest score cannot be more than 2 points above the lowest.
The starting scores would be:

	Paralyze	Poison	Breath	Device	Magic	Up to level
Cleric	2	3	2	3	2	up to 17
Fighter	2	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Magic-User	3	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Specialist	2	2	2	2	2	up to 13

For a cooler, stronger Specialist you may allow a progression up to level 17 (as the Cleric) or at least grant one or two points more at level 1 (player's choice).


Read more just if you're interested in the process of getting to the above rule.
Let's start by looking for the basic save chances compared with the d6 probabilities, and the d20 probabilities of regular Saving Throws.

d6 probabilities (roll equal or under):

pips	prob.
1	16.7%
2	33.3%
3	50.0%
4	66.7%
5	83.3%
6	100.0%

d20 probabilities (roll equal or higher) with specific attention to scores close to the d6 probabilities (note that in some cases the d6 probability is close enough to two different d20 scores):

save	prob.	as d6
1	100.0%	as 6 pips
2	95.0%
3	90.0%
4	85.0%	as 5 pips
5	80.0%	as 5 pips
6	75.0%
7	70.0%
8	65.0%	as 4 pips
9	60.0%
10	55.0%
11	50.0%	as 3 pips
12	45.0%
13	40.0%
14	35.0%	as 2 pips
15	30.0%	as 2 pips
16	25.0%
17	20.0%
18	15.0%	as 1 pip
19	10.0%
20	5.0%

It is clear, comparing the two tables, that the d20 allows for more granularity in the percentage of success. With the d20 each increment counts as making 5% more likely your success in a Saving Throw, while with the d6 chances step up over 16,7% (somewhere between 3 and 4 points on a d20 scale).
This means that of course also the improvements at level-up should increase proportionally slower. Consider also that in the progression tables provided by LotFP, the Saving Throw scores increase not every level, but every four or so... and increments are not by one point only, but two, three, sometimes four points each time (thus favoring the implementation of the d6).

Below are the tables with the proposed d6 scores (roll equal or under), for the four human classes.
The column with (d6) are with the new scores. When in doubt, I tried to favor a little the lower levels, and less the higher levels (thus increasing a bit survivability at the start, and keeping the game dangerous at higher levels).
Also note that when the score reaches 6, the success is not granted. LotFP, for skills, requires that with a score of 6 you roll 2d6 and fail if both come up with a result of 6. In the tables, it is presented as 6*.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)
5	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
9	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)
13	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (90%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)
17	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	2 (95%)	6* (94,7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)

Fighter
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
0*	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	18 (15%)	1 (16.7%)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)
4	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
7	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
10	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)
13	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
0* NPCs only

Magic-user
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
6	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
11	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
16	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)
19	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)

Specialist
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
5	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
9	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)
13	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
17	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)

For better use, here are the tables only with the d6 scores.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
9	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
13	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)
17	5 (83.7%)	6* (94,7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)

Fighter
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
0*	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
4	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
7	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)
10	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)
13	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)
0* NPCs only

Magic-user
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
6	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
11	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
16	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)
19	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)

Specialist
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
9	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
13	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
17	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)

I am not a big fan of this sort of tables, so the next step would be to determine a starting line for each class, with Save scores at level 1, and assign a number of points to add every level (not every few levels like LotFP). This way, the player gets a little freedom in which score to increase, and gain a little more chances of surviving every level.
A Cleric for example starts with 2-3-2-3-2 and with 4 levels (1 to 5) gains 3 points, 1-1-0-0-1.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

To favor lower levels, we could grant one point per level. To keep the balance, we could also rule that the highest Save score cannot be more than 2 points higher than the lowest. This would ensure a progression across all Saves.
If we compare what we have at the start and what we would have at the highest level presented by the original tables, we would get:
- Up to level 17, one point too much for the Cleric (I could live with that)
- Up to level 13, ok for the Fighter
- Up to level 19, too many points for the Magic-User. Either we accept this power-up, or we stop the MU at level 13 as the Fighter, which I prefer (not exact math, but having the same level helps you to memorize the rule. This makes the progression in Saves faster, though, but again I am ok with this)
- Up to level 17, three points too much for the Specialist. The temptation is to stop it at level 13 as Fighter and Magic-User, but I also like the idea of a Specialist who can survive better (as a Cleric) at higher levels


So the final rule would be this.
Roll Saving Throws with a d6, as Skills. Roll equal or under for a successful Save.
Add one point to a Save score of your choice at level-up, up to level 13 (17 for Clerics). The highest score cannot be more than 2 points above the lowest.
The starting scores would be:

	Paralyze	Poison	Breath	Device	Magic	Up to level
Cleric	2	3	2	3	2	up to 17
Fighter	2	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Magic-User	3	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Specialist	2	2	2	2	2	up to 13

For a cooler, stronger Specialist you may allow a progression up to level 17 (as the Cleric) or at least grant one or two points more at level 1 (player's choice).
I like this.


I was not the only one of course to come up with something similar, so here are a few links which I collected after I made my own rule:
- In Alternate Saving Throw by DeathKnight4044 there is a draft of a system connected to the level of the characters and of the opponent
- In Some Thoughts on Saving Throws by KYLYNSMALL there is a system similar to mine
- In Saving Throws as d6 Skills by Red Flanagan there is another system similar to mine, with a nicer layout and presentation and with slightly lower Save scores at low levels
- In A suggested alternate saving throw system to go along with LotFP by CaptainAhash Saving Throws are rolled with 2d6 (presenting the chances for success if both or either die are equal or lower than the save level
- In Skills revisited: Dice pools and the LotFP playtest rules by Dan Domme there is a short review of the new Saving Throws system presented by James Raggi in his playtest document for new rules for LotFP.


Alternate Saving Throw
by DeathKnight4044
[...] Thanks for all the replies everyone. This is mostly what im leaning towards at the moment:
- Saving throw is recorded along with all other skills at a base of 2 in 6 chance of success.
- A 13+ in a relevant attribute will increase this rank by 1
- At levels 3 and 6 the saving throws skill rank increases by 1. (so a 6th level character has a 4 in 6 saving throw)
- Saving vs an enemy or spell casters magic that is higher level/HD than you lowers your skill rank by 1. Saving vs an enemy or spell casters magic whos lower level/HD than you grants a +1 to your saving throw skill rank.  
- A 6 is always a fail [...]
http://test.lotfp.com/RPG/discussion/post/5696/#p5696


Some Thoughts on Saving Throws
by KYLYNSMALL
My house rule for saving throws integrates alongside this skill system. In the same way that the thief skills were taken from a table of automatic progression and their own distinct mechanic, it takes the saving throws off of preset tables and gives them the same level of player choice as the specialist has in its skills.
As of now, I suggest using the same “classic” saving throw categories (Paralyze, Poison, Breath, Device, and Magic), but simply starting each one at a 1 in 6 chance on a d6 of success. Maybe providing class based starting levels, such as starting fighters with a 2 in 6 chance of Poison and Breath saves, to reflect their greater resilience and reaction time. All classes would get a single “Save Point” per level that they could apply to any of the saving throws, moving from a 1 in 6 to a 2 in 6 chance for example. Specialists, on the other hand, would move from getting 2 Skill Points per level to 3 Skill Points per level. The Specialist can use these points on either skills or saving throws. This gives the opportunity, for example, for a specialist that is extremely resilient and dexterous rather than extremely skilled if most points are applied into saving throw categories. Or even a Specialist that is particularly weak in terms of saving throws but is extra skilled compared to others. [...]
https://coosempiricalgazette.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/some-thoughts-on-saving-throws/


A suggested alternate saving throw system to go along with LotFP
by CaptainAhash
[...] Roll 2 dice to save. If either are equal to or less than your save level, you succeed.
save level 0 (only snake eyes succeeds): 1/36 (2.8%)
save level 1: 11/36 (30.6%)
save level 2: 20/36 (55.6%) [...]
Roll 2 dice to save. Both must be equal to or less than your save level to succeed.
save level 0: automatic fail
save level 1: 1/36 (2.8%)
save level 2: 4/36 (11.1%) [...]
https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/6bza7j/a_suggested_alternate_saving_throw_system_to_go/


Skills revisited: Dice pools and the LotFP playtest rules
by Dan Domme
[...] Just a few days ago, I grabbed a copy of LotFP's Free RPG Day supplement for the year, Eldritch Cock.  It has a whole bunch of spells in it, but also what I think is the first unrestricted release of the LotFP playtest rules, a set of backwards-compatible rules changes for the game.
One of the coolest things, in my opinion, is the update of Saving Throws. They are now based on a d6 dice pool. Number of successes determines the result (2+ = full save, 1 = partial save, 0=fail). The only variable is, are you saving against a magical effect or not? I am a bit biased since I love dice pools inherently, but I think that this is a great improvement, at least on paper. Saving throws have always been a high hurdle to clear for lower-level characters. I want to see exactly how this plays out at the table.
Meanwhile, of all the great things in LotFP, the skill checks were the one thing that I never really liked. you have an n-in-6 chance, a single d6 roll. So (a) you want to roll low, and (b) you could end up with a 6-in-6 chance to do something if you buy enough of a single skill as a Specialist. [...]

http://failedmysave.blogspot.com/2018/06/skills-revisited-dice-pools-and-lotfp.html

Black Dogs zine - issue number 7

Less than a month ago it was an adventure, The Village and the Witch...
Now it's a new issue of my fanzine, the Black Dogs - issue number 7.
(Don't get used to this, it has been a coincidence and I expect 2019 to be different, with a much slower publishing rate)

It has been a year of publishing the Black Dogs, and although there are a few things that I would like to have done differently (read: better), I am quite proud of the result. I also would love to go back to the previous issues and fix a few things, improve some others, etc., but life always gets in the way. Perhaps in 2019...

Issue VII contains: creatures that are not elves, some words about dwarfs, quick-start adventuring gear, an adventure in Balthergar and some swamp monsters.

Download and POD on Drivethrurpg:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/257183/Black-Dogs-zine--issue-7

Print on Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/daimon-games/the-black-dogs-zine-issue-7/paperback/product-23848481.html

This product is an independent production by Daimon Games and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV.

The Village and the Witch is now available on DriveThruRpg and in print on Lulu

The Village and the Witch is an OSR MOdule compatible with Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the Black Dogs, and other OSR adventuring games.
Editing by Sándor Gebei.

This adventure is designed for low-level characters and is intended as an encounter to run in one or two sessions, between other adventures.
This module is designed to generate a Village, a Witch, and some additional weirdness: two pages with die-drop tables to outline the village (map and content), and two pages with a series of random tables to generate a Witch and its connection to the village.
The rest of the module contains some instructions, random or less random NPCs and other weirdness, some digression about alignment and so forth.

Download:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/251586/The-Village-And-The-Witch
Print on Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/daimon-games/the-village-and-the-witch/paperback/product-23823218.html

A review can be found here: http://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2018/12/review-village-and-witch.html

This product is an independent production by Daimon Games and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV.

Some thoughts on Alignments

Some thoughts on Alignments, somehow as an expansion on the LotFP approach (a re-post from Gplus).
I apologize for the wall of text.

All humans are born Neutral: there is a certain degree of selfishness in a Neutral alignment, there is a natural amount of cowardice and common sense, a willingness to be somehow a part of the current order of things. Neutrality allows also a fair degree of sentiments and love, of empathy and piety even. Loving a partner or a family member is Neutral, and so is hating their guts. Most humans are Neutral, and so is the human society at large.

Law is mostly a philosophical stance: when humans are concerned with more than themselves, they tend to a Lawful alignment. Someone in the hierarchy of the church is reasonably Lawful, as much as someone part of a cult, or of a secret society (assuming they believe in those organizations). Lawful is anyone who strives for some sort of order or purpose larger than themselves, either in a solitary endeavor or as part of a group with a common intent. Someone rebelling against nobility not for their own gain, but for their fellow commoners, is Lawful. And Lawful are probably the officers or nobles that fight to crush the rebellion, and strive to maintain the current order. Low-ranking rebels and common soldiers, on both sides, are probably Neutral, though. Lawful is an alignment for some, not for most humans.
It is clear, then, that Lawful has no Good or Evil connotation: it is the belief in something larger, in a purpose, in some sort of order, that makes the Lawful alignment be so.

Chaos, on the other hand, is the mark of everything non-human on a human soul. Using sorcery is chaotic and living according to the most simple rules of nature is chaotic (especially when the rest of the society does not). Chaotic is by no mean Evil. Chaos instead is in touch with the mystic energy of sorcery that subverts the rational laws, Chaos is a manifestation of a force (nature) larger than the single human life. But where Law brings order and has a purpose (regardless of what it is), Chaos simply is. It is capricious, it is fundamentally alien for humans, although some humans may indeed be touched and marked by it.

There is an order in Alignments; one must strive with consistency to bring themselves from Neutral to Lawful. Therefore, lack of such commitment resolves in a default declaration of Neutrality. The Referee may insist that a Lawful character change to Neutral, if they fail to prove their commitment with enough effort. Sacrifice (and often self-sacrifice) is required to maintain a Lawful alignment.
But as much as Neutral overrides Lawful for lack of commitment, Chaotic may override both Neutral and Lawful. Technically speaking, the usage of any form of sorcery is Chaotic. A lot of Lawful organizations maintain their lawful orientation and purpose, but any of their members that make use of sorcery are Chaotic (Magic-Users, yes, but I would say this includes Clerics too).

Someone might argue that magic, when blessed by the church for example, in the form of the clerical spells, is not Chaotic.
This is up to the Referee or the group to decide: if the Referee and the group can demonstrate that the higher source of power for clerical spells is god, then Clerics may be Lawful instead of Chaotic. This has a powerful implication: god itself must be Lawful if its magic does not bring the taint of Chaos with it. But if so, why is the world such a mess, why does not Law prevail on every aspect of our lives? What is the limit of the power of god, then? And is Chaos, and its sorcery, an enemy of a Lawful god, or are these simply two different entities, or even two different faces of the same divinity?

If the Referee and the group decide instead that clerical spells receive their power from the same source as sorcery, then Clerics must be Chaotic. Magic-users, of course, are always Chaotic.
(If you use demi-humans, stick to the default: Elves are Chaotic, Dwarfs and Halflings may also be Lawful, or more likely Neutral.)
Fighters and Specialist are usually Neutral and may strive to be Lawful, but how can they obtain the taint of Chaos if they wish to be Chaotic? May a simple curse do it? A mutation?
So, Neutral is the default state for humans; Lawful is an alignment which can be obtained through proper actions and a higher goal, while Chaos is a mark, an alignment brought by the power of sorcery.

Good and Evil perhaps exist, perhaps not. In gaming terms, Good should be treated as Lawful, and Evil as Chaotic. But this association is made by the human mind only. In truth, Good and Evil exist in these terms: they are strictly a consequence of the character’s actions.
Anything that causes harm that cannot be undone, is Evil. The scope of this definition is to be argued by the Referee and the group; is eating meat enough to be defined evil? Or is murder the line not to cross? What about murder with the intent of defending oneself, or even to defend one or more other persons? And where Evil is the harm that cannot be undone, it is therefore an Alignment that may very well be placed upon a character as a consequence of their action, even if the player is unwilling.
Again, there is room for argument here, and for house-rules: once the Evil Alignment is obtained, is there room for atonement and change? Or is this mark for life? Also, may the Evil alignment be associated with another, such as Lawful-Evil (not hard to imagine), Neutral-Evil and Chaotic-Evil? I do believe so. How to treat it in game terms? To me, Evil is predominant and therefore the character should be treated as Chaotic. But if the character for example is Lawful-Evil, they should be able to enjoy the benefit of the Lawful Alignment as well.
Good, on the other hand, has the simplest definition: it fights Evil.
It does not fight Chaotic or Neutral, and if it does, it will cause harm that cannot be undone and therefore become Evil. But as long as it fights Evil, Good may be treated as Lawful Alignment.
It is clear also that without Evil, Good cannot exist. It would simply revert to Lawful or Neutral or Chaotic.

Also, I stated previously that Good should be treated as Lawful, and Evil as Chaotic, and that this association is made by the human mind only. This is true: if the game inserts for example the idea of sin - in religious terms - as what defines Chaos and Evil, and religion as Lawful and Good, another character may argue that Good can be found only in the freedom of Chaos, and that any form of Lawful order is an imposition, and therefore Evil.
I do believe characters should be treated as they believe that they should be treated. You may have a character who claims to be Good fighting another who also claims to be Good; they both are, since they fight Evil in the form of the other. And both would reasonably end up being Evil, for the damage they'll cause.
Also, if a character claims they believe in the Good freedom of Chaos, so they want to be Chaotic-Good, the Referee may test them. If the Referee finds them hesitant, or catches a glimpse of guilt, perhaps the roots of the original sin have found their way into this character's heart, and they should instead just be Neutral, or simply Chaotic if they use sorcery.

The witch about to be burned at the stake is Chaotic because she uses sorcery, most of the crowd is Neutral, even those perverted enough to enjoy such a show. The witch-hunter is probably Lawful, but as soon as he burns the first witch, he becomes Evil, or better yet, Lawful-Evil. The one who betrayed the witch, and did it for a compensation in gold, not for a higher purpose, is simply Evil - this had nothing to do with Lawful.
The party of adventurers walking into the village right now are of different Alignments: there is a Magic-User who is Chaotic, there is a Specialist who is clearly Neutral, there is a Fighter who is Lawful and fights so that no one is burned at the stake, ever. This Fighter is not Good - too many deads behind - but is actually Lawful-Evil, same as the witch-hunter; just following a different path.
There is also a Cleric, level one, first time at the table, who believes to be Good (technically, Lawful-Good). At sunset, the Cleric will probably be Lawful-Evil or dead.
The Cleric might remain Lawful-Good, yes, as long as the corpses on the square, at the end of the day, are only the ones of those who are Evil.

So, this was a personal take on the LotFP alignements system, but if you want to read some more about alignments, you can check this post of mine: Alignments.
https://daimon-games.blogspot.com/2018/11/alignments.html

Summon spell

The Summon spell (LotFP) is simply great. It's a powerful, dangerous tool potentially available for any level-1 Magic User. It's bound to cause confusion and disaster, or save the day when everything seems to be lost. It might unleash a powerful entity that will serve the Magic User character (or at least, cause enough distraction or destruction to allow the Magic User and their companions to escape, or go unnoticed, or steal the treasure, or do whatever they were here to do...), or it might summon a pitiful creature. It might even end the world.
Yes, it is available to level-1 characters, and as Ramanan puts it: "Who thought letting first level characters cast this spell was a good idea?" James, of course, did.
The spell actually tells us also something about the world of LotFP: this is a world where a powerful entity might be evoked by a careless and clueless Magic User or cultist, and escape their control. So for any nightmarish creature that you encounter, the answer to the question:
"Where the fu** does this come from?"
is probably: "A Summon spell gone wrong."


The only thing about the spell is that it's quite long (several pages) and it involves a complex procedure to generate the summoned entity and verify if it's under control, etc.
So, if you are online, use the Summon online tool by Ramanan.

Summon
by Ramanan Sivaranjan
For use in the summoning of demon and hell spawn in the role playing game Lamentations of the Flame Princess. You can use this page to go through the motions of casting the first level Magic-User's spell Summon, as outlined on page 142 of the Rules and Magic book of the role-playing game Lamentations of the Flame Princess. [...]
http://summon.totalpartykill.ca/

There is also an excel version of the tool mentioned, but I didn't find it.
If anyone has a link to share, for the excel, please do (convenient if you have no connectivity).


In my attempt to work on a new magic system, which has all spells potentially available at level one, I did a rewriting of the Summon spell, as in the image below.
It loses a lot of the most weird combinations but makes the process much faster. The spell should be usable even without the rest of the draft of the magic system; just consider that a caster has a number of "levels" to spend on the spell which are equal to their actual level. And in the spell itself, everything is done by "spending" levels.
In other words, a level 2 Magic User could spend 2 levels, in this spell, for example to select the following effects:
- 1 level for an HD 3 demon,
- 1 level to get a +1 to the domination roll.
A level 3 Magic user could spend all 3 levels to evoke up to an HD 5 demon.
(in the draft, not presented here, here are an additional 2 pages to summon more powerful demons)

While as I said the spell loses some of its charm (and its potential to destroy the planet), it provides a nice, two pages and fast procedure to replace the more complex original Summon.
(and it gives a simple and nice overview of the "spend-levels" magic system)


In a similar way (but way before I did, in 2012), Mike Evans also wrote a shorter, faster version of the Summon spell. Go to the linked page and you will also find a version of this spell in PDF to download.

The Summoning Spell From Lamentations of the Flame Princess Vornheim Style
By Mike Evans
[...] One of my favorite parts LotFP is (and I’ve seen much praise for this) the Summon spell.  It is an interesting, dark, and unique take on what has normally been a “poof here is a griffon, eagle, blink dog, etc fighting for you” kind of spell.
The one criticism of it is that it weighs in at 6 pages (or 10 pages if you count the special summoned beings).  That is a hefty thing to sift through when you’re trying to keep the action on the game table.
I’ve seen people ask for or about a more simplified version of it out there.  Zak threw out a comment about doing in in the same vein as Vornheim.  I pondered this for a bit and was thinking of doing a die drop chart (since I love those things so fucking much), but in the end I thought, for this particular situation, it would become too convoluted…  However I did decide to still use one aspect of the die drop chart.  Roll a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and a d20 and consult the table and you now have you Summons.
I tried to keep this extremely simple, but still offer a wide variety of “what the fuck is that?!” type creatures and abilities.  Obviously the spell itself is inspired and hacked from LotFP.  Many of the powers are listed in the book itself, some are just my own grab from any old D&D style OSR book or my own idea. [...]
https://wrathofzombie.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/the-summoning-spell-from-lamentations-of-the-flame-princess-vornheim-style/


Curious about yet another take on the Summon spell? What if a caster at 9th level, with enough sacrifice and money and power could control in part of the spell, to determine the sort of creature to evoke?

Advanced Summon Spell for LotFP
by Justin Stewart
Arguably, one of the most popular and beloved aspects of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Rules & Magic book is the Summon spell. I mean, come on, you've got to love a first-level spell that lets you summon a randomized monster, often vastly overpowered, that can either eat you, serve you, or straight up end the world if you screw up badly enough.
However, sometimes you want to summon something a little more specific. Sometimes, you don't just want any demon, but specifically Headsosoth the Headsucking Monstrosity from Mars. Sometimes you want to summon a demon that can possess a pet bird and use its body to spy on the local mayor, as was the case in our game last Saturday.
Here's my house rule for handling that situation.
"Advanced Summon" is not technically a separate spell. When a Magic-User reaches a high enough experience level to cast ninth-level spells, the Magic-User can choose to memorize Summon as a ninth-level spell instead of a first-level spell. This version of the spell is considered Advanced Summon. [...]
http://dragonsgonnadrag.blogspot.com/2016/04/advanced-summon-spell-for-lotfp.html