Factory locusts

One of the stranger products of magical tinkering with nature. They devour whole forests and leave nothing but newly made furniture in their wake.

Saw millipede

The saw millipede has dozens of blade-tipped legs. They grip with their mandibles and scrabble furiously to cut lengths of wood. The larger ones have been known to attack and devour other saw millipedes that have made crooked cuts.

AC 6 [13], HD 1 (5 HP), ATT 1 x saw (1d6), THAC0 19 [+0], MV 120' (40'), SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F1), ML 8, AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 1d3 (2d4), TT none
Specials
Undermine: If an opponent is on a wooden surface like a floor, branch or cart, saw millipedes will attempt to cut it out from under them so they will fall.

Truck bug

Pallet-sized and placid, truck bugs have flat shells and bungie-like bristles. They dig and wriggle under items that need moving and work in teams to convoy them.

AC 4 [15], HD 3 (14 HP), ATT -, THAC0 19 [+0], MV 90' (30'), SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F3), ML 7, AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 2d3 (2d4), TT none
Specials
Trip: a truck bug can attempt to knock an opponent prone with its blunt head. Save vs Paralysis negates.

Sandpaper wasp

Sandpaper wasps have nimble mouthparts, capable of nibbling rough surfaces to a sleek and uniform plane. Their stings inject finishing wax.

AC 5 [14], HD 1 (5 HP), ATT 1 x bite (1d4) or 1 x glossy finish (see specials), THAC0 17 [+2], MV 120' (40')/300' (100') flying, SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F1), ML 8 (10 in swarm), AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 2d6 (2d10), TT none
Specials
Glossy finish: On a successful attack, a sandpaper wasp permanently reduces the AC of a random nonmagical piece of an opponent's armour by 1.

Caulk roach

These skittering insects chew sawdust to produce a thick putty that dries hard, flexible and waterproof.

AC 5 [14], HD 1 (5 HP), ATT 1 x bite (1d4) or 1 x waterproof seal (see specials), THAC0 17 [+2], MV 120' (40'), SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F1), ML 8 (10 in swarm), AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 1d6 (2d6), TT none
Specials
Waterproof seal: On a successful attack a swarm of caulk roaches can attempt to gum up the joints of a piece of metal armour with putty, giving -1 to Dex. Lasts until the armour is thoroughly washed.

Varnish fly

The varnish fly can spit a variety of stains, oils and waxes in a range of colours and glosses. There's a docile domestic variety kept by craftsmen, but this is the other sort.

AC 6 [13], HD 1 (5 HP), ATT 1 x bite (1d4) or 1 x shine (see specials), THAC0 18 [+1], MV 120' (40')/300' (100') flying, SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F1), ML 8 (10 in swarm), AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 1d6 (2d6), TT none
Specials
Shine: On a successful attack a varnish fly can attempt to coat an opponent with gloss, giving -2 to Stealth. Lasts until the armour is scrubbed down or thoroughly coated in muck.

Stage beetle

The stage beetle will position furniture to make an attractive tableaux, suitable for marketing any dwelling or lair.

AC 4 [15], HD 3 (14 HP), ATT 1 x swipe (1d6) or 1 x reposition (see specials), THAC0 16 [+3], MV 120' (40'), SV D12 W13 P14 B15 S16 (F3), ML 8, AL Neutral, XP 20, NA 1 (1d6), TT none
Specials
Reposition: On a successful attack a stage beetle can grapple an opponent and use them as an improvised weapon. An attack does 1d4 to both the target and the grappled character. Save vs Paralysis ends the grapple.

Layout advice

I lurk in areas of the internet where first-time game designers will often submit their work to ask for feedback. Mechanically, they're usually safe enough. Presentation-wise, they tend to vary from slapdash all the way up to incomprehensible. So: a little advice on layout for people making their own games.

Disclaimer: I'm about to speak confidently on a subject I don't have a background in. I'm not an expert on layout. I'm a guy who read one book. But I've also had the benefit of people who are experts sharing their knowledge with me. I figure I can pass on the advice I received. I don't think these opinions are controversial. 

And it would have been nice to have all of this in one place when I was starting out. Just like everyone else, I've created books that looked great and were objectively less useful at the table as a result.

Good layout is eye-catching and easy to read. If your game is laid out well, people are more likely to pick it up and use it.

Font

There are two different orders of fonts: serif and sans-serif. You can think of them as lawful and chaotic fonts. I don't know which is which, except that I'm placing Comic Sans squarely in the chaotic camp. 

Also, don't use Comic Sans. Or Papyrus.

Serif fonts are a little more decorated than sans serif. They have curls at the end of some of the letters, changes in line thickness, different angles. These features make them a little easier to read. They make a good choice for the body of your text.

Sans serif fonts are simple and bold. Eye-catching. They make good headings.

For this blog post I'm using the Verdana font for headings and the Georgia font for the text. Which is just about as basic as you can get, but it's readable — I bet you didn't even think about my font choices until I mentioned them.

Crimson Text is designed to display well on screens. Georgia is the common font most easily read by older people whose sight is beginning to degrade. I'm part of that demographic myself, and so will you be someday.

Columns

Whether or not you should use columns depends on how you have the page set up. If you're designing for A4/Letter sized paper in portrait orientation, use 'em. Each column should be wide enough to type out the alphabet 1 ½ times with no spaces between letters.

Having text split into columns is less eye-fatiguing to read and makes it easier to scan back and find text you've already read. That's beneficial when you're reading a sourcebook to learn new mechanics.

Don't justify your text. Having consistent spacing between words is helpful to readers, even if it leaves a ragged right-edge.

And use paragraphs.

Colours

Black on white is always going to be the most readable combination. If you go with a different combo, steer away from vivid background colours. Text is much easier to read on desaturated colours than vivid ones.

If you have to choose between a cool, stylish colour scheme and a readable one - please, choose readability. A sourcebook can be an art object, but it has to be a functional one.

If you're using colour art in your game, consider pieces that look good when printed in black and white. 

Art

Art should serve a purpose. Illustrating a concept is a purpose. So is filling empty space on the page. The images you use should be somehow related to the text on that page and not just there. I don't like full-page images on the inside of sourcebooks, but maybe that's just me. Art is subjective, so I'm just going to say I personally never want to see AI art, Poser art or bad scans of pencil sketches. If you can't afford an artist, look somewhere like Pixabay for Public Domain and Creative Commons pieces. 

If you're planning to sell your work on DrivethruRPG, make sure every image is 150 dpi or better. If your art is lower than that, you can raise the dpi in image editing software like Photoshop, GIMP or Krita.

Please don't put art in the middle of a paragraph so that lines split around it and the reader's eyes have to jump back and forth like a cartoon character watching a tennis match. And don't ever put art behind text. Never, never, never do that.

If your game is art-heavy, consider having an art-light version for printing. Printer ink and Horseshoe Crab blood are some of the most expensive liquids on Earth.

Misc

If your game is longer than about ten pages, please add page numbers and a table of contents.

And when all else fails, steal the style of your favourite gamebook.

Spell personalities

Image by KannyL on DeviantArt.

Players will occasionally try to use magic in a way it wasn't written to function. I think that's great! GMs should definitely reward those players by introducing some uncertainty into the activity.

If we go back to Jack Vance, most magic users use spells written by a few great and brilliant wizards. I like to think the spells form families that way and each has something of the creator's personality about them. Spells can be Gentle, Strict, Playful, Malicious, Eager or Erratic.

Gentle spells only want to be used to help, never harm. That doesn't affect their primary function, a gentle fireball is still a fireball. But maybe if you use that fireball to create an updraft to lift a hot air balloon, it's a bit more controllable, a bit less explodey.

Strict spells only want to be used for the purpose they were created for and may refuse to function for creative uses. You could imagine that a lot of divine spells work this way. Bless might work in combat, but not for archery contests.

Playful spells love to be used in creative and experimental ways. They pack a bit more punch when that's the case, and follow the caster's expectations as much as possible.

Malicious spells want to harm. You, them, everyone. Even the caster. When used in a creative way they perform their function in the worst practical way and may affect the caster as well as the target.

Eager spells want to go big. Using Create Light to blind an opponent with darkvision? It's like a damn spotlight on their face, directed at their eyes.

Erratic spells get confused when used outside their primary function. Some aspect of the spell changes. Using Create Food to summon jelly desserts to make a fake ooze? You might get custard instead.

For example: can I use Create Water to fill someone's lungs with water?

• Gentle: Only if it won't harm them. For example, if they're cursed to breathe only water.
• Strict: No. Lungs are not a suitable container for water.
• Playful: Yes! Awesome lateral thinking, player!
• Malicious: Yes, but there's a chance you fill your own lungs as well.
• Eager: Yes, but there's a chance you fill their lungs with water at the pressure of the sea floor and they rupture in a horrific fashion.
• Erratic: Yes, but it might not be their lungs or it might not be water.

The first time a player gets creative with a spell, the GM should roll a D6 to see what the spell's nature is. This can be done for each individual spells, or it can be assumed that spells which fit together (Create Food/Create Water) were created by the same wizard and share a nature.

If the spell's nature makes it awkward for the player's purpose, the GM should roll D6 again to see if there are consequences. 1-in-6 seems like fair odds.