In my experience, Tiny Dungeon is actually a game where being outnumbered can turn things south in a hurry for the PCs -- even against fodder, if you're using them "striaght" / as-written. Each one having two actions they can use for attacks, and rolling 2d6? Rough stuff.

Unless I'm going for a grittier feel, I prefer to limit the fodder in a couple of ways -- first, they attack at Disadvantage (1d6), and while I give them two actions, they can only attack once.

Such a great system to tinker with in this way... though I'd admit I think it loses something once too many changes are made. The minimalist part of it is what initially attracted me.

0:00 Intro
1:35 You're rolling too much!
1:57 What do the books say?
2:59 My handy-dandy flowchart
5:00 Is it even possible?
6:10 Is failure plausible?
9:22 What are the consequences?
10:32 Are you ready to do that, though?
12:03 ...but make sure it's fun.
13:11 The Flowchart

It may seem counterintuitive, considering that Dungeons & Dragons is a dice game, but... you're rolling too much! Today we talk about how Dungeon Masters calling for fewer dice rolls can result in a better D&D game. DMs, what do you think? Are you calling for too many ability checks in your tabletop roleplaying games?

3 types of damage:
Slashing/cutting
piercing
bludgeoning

Weapons that pierce (dagger to long sword) do same damage.
Damage should depend more on attack roll. Makes no sense to have a big attack roll that does 1 damage.
So maybe base damage plus amount of attack roll above AC.

Clever idea for solo game. I like the simplicity, flexibility, cleverness.

I'm planning to run this one in 5e and the conversion is more painful than I expected.