Dead Simple 4th Edition Release

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am pleased to announce the first release of the Fourth Edition of the Dead Simple Medieval Fantasy rules. These are now available on the rules downloads page.

There have been many minor improvements, but the most important is the change to the skill check method. Whereas previously you previously tried to roll less than your skill level (aptitude+ training+ modifiers), now you must roll 15 or more and you add your skill level and other modifier to the roll.

This method has worked well for Blaster! in playtesting and is now the official core mechanic for Dead Simple.

More of the supplement files shall be converted and made available over the coming weeks, along with new ones.

Note that I have also left the 3rd edition files there for those who prefer the old system.

I would be grateful for any feedback you care to give, both positive and negative. it all helps in the future improvement of this game system.


About Craig

For those who need to know these things: - I'll never see 50 again. - I'm tall enough to see well in crowds and fat enough to leave a wake. - I'm well married to a woman with twice my smarts, three delightful and challenging children (er-hem), and one cat overlord. - I am Welsh. - I have to work for a living, but do nothing that makes me perspire.
This entry was posted in Announcements, Dead Simple RPG. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Dead Simple 4th Edition Release

  1. Sean Jensen says:

    Craig, Thank you for all of the hard work. Excellent stuff here. Edit point: Rules page, Skill Check, “A roll of 1 is an automatic success and a roll of 20 is an automatic failure.” Should this be reversed?

  2. Sean Jensen says:

    Edit point: I noted several references, in create descriptions, of the Shrive spell, but I could not find a description of this spell.

  3. Matt says:

    I, too, had the question about shouldn’t it be now in keeping with the new method that a roll of 20 is an auto success and a 1 an auto failure? Also it mentions that damage reduces the skill level for the check to see if the character is wounded. Can the damage reduce the Skill level for the character into negative numbers? For example, if a character’s Toughness skill is 4 and he is hit by an attack by 5 points is his Toughness 0 for the check for wounding, or is his Toughness -1? I guess what I am asking is do you want it to be possible to have a negatives Skill value or is that not a mechanic you want in the rules? I like these rules a lot, Craig, thanks for making them. When I used the old 3rd edition we added a new skill called Manhandle,which was STR by itself. Seemed only fair since STR was the only stat that didn’t have a skill by itself. I know we are not the only ones who do this but I wanted to let you know there were several people doing that,if you wanted to put it in the 5th edition .

  4. Jon says:

    I like the update. I’ve been working on my own version with some advanced rules (Priest Powers, Mana points, simple experience point system, Talents, Master abilities, etc. I had the new skill Muscle instead of Manhandle). I have a question about KOing enemies. I can understand not automatically killing off player characters, but is it necessary for players to stipulate they are dispatching every single ‘unconscious’ skeleton or giant spider after a fight? Wouldn’t it be easier to assume KO’d monsters are dead at two wounds unless it’s stated by the player they are wanted for capture? It’s difficult in a life or death struggle to avoid delivering a killing blow.
    On another note, instead of subtracting from players skills why not just add to the Target. So instead of reducing Toughness from 4 to -1, just increase the Target required from 15 to 20. Easier to just add numbers instead of subtracting them.

    • Craig says:

      You should write up your advanced rules and share them Jon. I’m sure people would love to see them.
      As for incapacitated monsters all you have to say at the end of a fight is we mop up the survivors m’lud, and job’s a good ‘un 🙂
      The adding to the target is an interesting idea I shall have a little think about.
      Thanks for all that,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s