The Jungle Lord character class for your old school games. Made with B/X and Labyrinth Lord in mind, as (nearly) always.
This is pretty simple. This guy can fight with the best of 'em, but doesn't use armor or fancy forged weapons. He can jump around the trees and cliffs like a monkey and summon mighty Tantor among other friends. Eventually. Starts with little Jimmy the lemur.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Sunday, July 16, 2017
BP #3 Coming Soon...
Black Pudding #3 is a mere couple of pages and a few days from being released into the wild. Joyous rapture is upon us!
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Nerdlouvia Character Sheet
I did a border for a big Nerdlouvia random roll table for last year's con. Recently I took that art and turned it into a character sheet suitable specifically for B/X games.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
White Box
Here are the two character sheets I did for Charlie Mason's White Box. White Box is a clone of original D&D. It's a very simple, stripped down game that is probably the easiest version to modify.
Blueholme
I'm doing a series of character sheets for Blueholme Journeymanne rules. Here's the first...
Blueholme is a clone of the 1977 D&D Basic box set edited by J. Eric Holmes. Cool stuff!
Blueholme is a clone of the 1977 D&D Basic box set edited by J. Eric Holmes. Cool stuff!
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Class Alphabet Art
I contributed the Ape Ascendant class to David Coppoletti's Class Alphabet project for use with DCC RPG. Here are two images I also contributed to the upcoming book. These are both digital works.
The Tenacious D-fender class was written by Forrest Aguirre and the Flesh Forged was written by David Baity.
The Tenacious D-fender class was written by Forrest Aguirre and the Flesh Forged was written by David Baity.
![]() |
Tenacious D-fender! |
![]() |
Flesh Forged! |
Saturday, May 13, 2017
To Hit or not To Hit...HIT!

When I was young I just took those
tables as a given and developed quite a fondness for them. Years
later I started thinking about simpler mechanics and I went through a
hardcore anti-table period. I even remember ranting against
descending AC as recently as 2012... just weeks before I dived
headfirst into Labyrinth Lord and rediscovered what I loved about
gaming in the first place.
A lot of my character sheets include an
attack matrix. In my opinion, the only reason you might dislike these
tables is because you have to go to the rulebook to look up your
attack values. And that is a pain the ass, I agree. But when those
values are on your character sheet I just don't see the problem.
YES... it is an extra step between the
attack roll and knowing the outcome. If the target number to roll is
equal to the AC, it's much easier and faster to know if you hit. But
by using that method you have to rely on a lot of modifiers if you
want to model any kind of character progression. Thus we end up with
characters that have a +13 to hit. Which is something that bugs the
snot out of me.
The attack matrix eliminates that
modifier bloat problem. And how god damn hard is it to tilt your head
down and look at a number on your sheet?
Anyway... I was fiddling with the
attack matrix idea in a new game design. The idea is this:
You have three types of dice rolls for
dealing with all possible actions. Each roll is made on a simple
matrix identical to the to-hit table pictured here. But the values on
the table never change. There is no level system, no progression. So
if you start with a 10 at the top slot (roll a 10 to hit AC 9) then
you will always have a 10. Thus no messy pencil marks and erasing and
no need to reference a rulebook. It's on your sheet in black and
white.
(As an aside... the game would
encourage "advancement" organically. That is, finding cool
stuff that gives you an edge. Learning from super secret tomes of
lore. Being blessed or cursed by gods and demons. All of these things
would be represented by modifiers... albeit without the bloat.
Therefore if you do end up having a +2 on an attack roll it's a big
deal. But the only reason you'd ever see +13 is if the group just let
things get out of hand. Or WANTED a superpowered game. Whatever.)

And god dammit... it does NOT slow
things down to glance at your sheet when you make a roll. And since
the numbers on the sheet will not change... you'll have that shit
memorized pretty fast.
Judy: I slice at the animated monkey
with my scimitar! (clatter... Judy glances [GLANCES] at her sheet...
maybe) I hit AC 4!
Judge: Your steel bites deep. The
monkey screeches in pain and begins to vomit fire! But first, roll
some damage.
You get the idea.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Paralyzing Perfection
I have always struggled with this weird
inability to focus on a single thing long enough to see it finished.
It isn't a crippling problem, though. I can finish things. But the
things I finish and show to the world are few compared to the many
things I dream about or even pour my work into. My old folders (both
physical and digital) are filled with partial ideas, even finished
comic book pages that never saw their endings (or even their
middles). When I was in my 20s I did a comic book series called
Anomalic, which I published in the small press arena of the 90s and
traded with many awesome creators. I finished five or six issues of
Anomalic over the course of about two years. It was an epic fantasy
story based on my early D&D campaign ideas and the many
characters I created but never really played.
But even though I cranked out a handful
of issues the story was simply going nowhere. It was supposed to
begin with the meeting of a lost girl and a man with no memory. Then
it would unfold into a huge story about a world wide war and - you
guessed it - a dark lord villain. But I meandered. I indulged in
exploring the setting and lingering on scenes so that by the last
issue the two main characters had barely made their way back to the
city where the story proper was to begin. I think at that point I
just didn't have the spirit to soldier on. And it was because I have
this insane idea about perfection.
When I was in 8th grade I had a teacher
who was very cool. She was kind of hip. In fact, I'm pretty sure she
was a legit hippie of some kind. I don't know. But she was sarcastic
and funny and scathing in her humor and attitude toward students...
especially the ones displaying a lack of depth or understanding. She
once told me that the Greeks had this idea about perfection. She said
they believed that the idea was always perfect and each step in the
process of converting an idea into a thing reduced its perfection.
She even put numbers to it, probably in an effort to get my young
mind to grasp the concept. She said the idea of a statue is 100%
perfect but the statue itself probably cant' be more than 80%
perfect, if that.
I understood. Each time you translate
something from one form into another it loses a bit of its original
self. Or it gets changed. Like the old analogy of a person calling on
the phone to tell a rumor and the rumor being repeated by a dozen
people until it makes it way back to the original source. By then the
rumor might not be recognizable. Of course, the teacher was referring
to ideas such as Plato's forms and probably the cave of shadows, but
I didn't know any of that stuff and she didn't elaborate.
Yet the idea drilled into my head and
stayed there forever. It was at this time that I discovered D&D
and RPGs. I was drawn like a thirsty dog to a bowl of beer. And I
believe the thing reason RPGs resonated so completely with me is that
they represent potential. They are perfect. When you concoct an
adventure to run, that adventure feels perfect. It isn't until you
actually run it that the adventure loses that sense of perfection. It
gets translated from a potential thing into a real thing. It becomes
defined, and in becoming defined it loses most of its potential
elements and gains new actualities that are imperfect. It's still a
beautiful thing, of course. Or at least it can be.
So I suspect a big part of my frequent
inability to finish things is because of this notion of ruining the
perfection of an idea. I dislike choosing. Back in the days of video
rental, I could spend more than an hour browsing the racks for a
movie. I genuinely felt pains at having to pick something. The "but
what if" question loomed large. What if that other movie is
better? I'll miss out. What if this movie really sucks? I'll waste my
time.
And its the same with projects. I have
this idea about a sort of quasi-space fantasy realm composed of many
worlds. It's really just a fantasy realm, albeit with empty space (or
weird space ichors) separating individual cities and forests. So
instead of traveling by foot between two points you would travel by
boat or ship or magic. Anyway, the idea turns me off at some point
because infinite worlds are unappealing. If they are infinite, it
seems like a cheap trick. Like you are saying "my setting has
everything". But at the same time, a finite and defined realm
feels limiting and small. So I bounce between the two concepts, never
quite happy with any of it.
Over the years my good friend Cyd and I
have discussed these ideas over and over and we have this sort of
artistic battle cry: FINISH IT. This bumper stick philosophy comes
from the mouth of Neil Gaiman who told Cyd (at a comic con) that the
best advice he could offer an aspiring writer is to "finish it,
cringe later".
That advice feels like a silver bullet.
To reduce indecision, you get in elbows deep and do the work while
the work is dominating your mind. Another way of saying it is to
"strike while the iron is hot". Do the thing while the
thing is alive. Put pen to paper while the idea is still bursting
forth. Don't wait too long. Don't wring your hands and worry that it
isn't quite right. It'll never be quite right. If you want to do
things, finishing them so that others can see, then you have to DO
THE THINGS.
Maybe some of you are gifted with great
patience and endurance and can work on the project for years at a
stretch without losing it. To you I say huzzah. But I'm not like
that. If I don't get in there and knock it out fast, it will likely
never get knocked out.
I'm pretty sure it was Pablo Picaso who
said that to finish a work is to kill it. I hope to slay a lot more
ideas before I'm dead.
![]() |
A page from Zoa Space Fantasy, a comic I never quite finished. |
Saturday, April 22, 2017
SLUG!
In
the mid-90s I got a subscription to Shadis Magazine. From there I
ordered FUDGE, and from FUDGE I got SLUG. Looking back on my notes
and scribblings from that era, it is very clear that FUDGE and SLUG
were huge influences on how I thought about game design. My designs
prior to that were hacked up riffs on D&D, Star Frontiers, and
perhaps a bit of Bushido. I think it was probably seeing SLUG that
planted the seed in my mind that an RPG system can be uber simple and
still work.
I
never ran SLUG and I kind of didn't love it. The reason was that I
craved some kind of metric for deciding just how awesome a PC is. Not
just having the player declare it, but having a way of measuring it
or giving it a nudge in game. SLUG can do that, of course. The GM can
assign modifiers. But there's no inherent way for a SLUG character to
have a modifier. Clearly O'Sullivan intended for the characters'
descriptions to provide that element. But I've got just enough
crunchy bits in my blood that I need a little more.
The
Pool is influenced by O'Sullivan's games. He even uses the term
"traits", which I tended to use all the time from that
point forward.
As an
aside, I never ran FUDGE. But owning that game and reading it and
understanding that it was open source (I'm not sure what the term was
in 1994, but it opened new doors for me) made me want to create
content for it. I took my older game idea for a fantasy world called
Midaka - up to that point being ran via GURPS - and started fudging
it up. But alas I never managed go get a game together.
But
by 1995 or so I was running games (infrequently, randomly) using a
personal system not unlike SLUG (in spirit). I called it the "ROC
System" for a while. This was based on my comic publishing
imprint Random Order Creations. The system was this:
1.
Describe your character. Use an image if possible. I suggested using
art cards, which were all the rage at the time.
2.
Write down some traits based on the description and/or image.
3.
Distribute 20 points between the traits as you like. All traits need
at least 1 point. Each point is expressed as a +1.
4. In
play, when a conflict arises you roll 1d20 + your trait vs. some
target.
That
was the entire system, start to finish. I never developed any sort of
crunchy bits from it. No damage or death system. I think I gave
players 1-3 points after a solid adventure and they could add them as
+1s however they liked. That notions probably came from playing Star
Frontiers.
The
new game I'm working on uses this rudimentary system as its basic
unit, but with some important differences. But I'll get into that
later.
Meanwhile,
FUDGE or SLUG it up!
![]() |
SLUG! |
![]() |
SLUG Character Sheet |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)