Different Combat Systems for Different Combats

Lately I've been on a bit of an OD&D kick, reading the original booklets that grew into the many games we have today and finding quite a lot of unexpected inspiration. Something that especially intrigued me (and actually the thing that made me decide to dig further) is its inclusion of not just one combat system but four combat systems. It has, with no exaggeration, made me rethink the way I structure combat.

Perhaps "inclusion" isn't the right word when they are literally not included and instead were part of another product you were expected to own. But the core game does tell you you're supposed to use them. Despite poring over the ancient texts for hours on end, I still have no idea how those original games were really played. Even in the middle of writing this and going over the source material, I realized I'd made a critical error in my understanding of how to use the systems in OD&D itself. Nonetheless, the idea still works: handle different types of combat differently.

∗ ∗ ∗

The Four Combat Systems in OD&D

Chainmail's primary system is that of mass combat. It's a game of simulating armies versus armies. It runs at a scale where a single figure represents 20 men. This is not the size of your typical RPG party, so you surely mustn't be expected to use this as-is in your typical "three-to-five dudes versus as many goblins" encounter. However, it might be useful where higher-level characters can mow down hordes of 1HD enemies. It gets complicated when you throw high level creatures into the mix - more on that later.

The Man-to-Man system provides additional rules for scaling combat down such that individual figures represent individual men and can act like a person instead of an army. This appears to be the standard mode for combat.

The Fantasy combat system provides a single table for resolving an attack between two fantastic figures, for instance a hero versus a dragon, or a wraith versus an elemental. This is pretty simple and bolts on to mass combat pretty easily, with the rest of the fantasy supplement detailing special abilities of fantastic creatures. It is weird, though, that a treant and a roc are chosen as two of only nine creatures on these tables - I suppose preempting players' desire to reenact Lord of the Rings was more important than providing some more generally applicable categories. I suppose that actually makes sense as an addition to Chainmail combat, rather than the smaller scale players-versus-monsters games that came from it. A majority of the space taken up is monster-versus-monster, although players were expected to have monstrous companions.

The Alternative Combat System is essentially what became the modern "roll a d20 against an AC" mechanic. What's interesting here is that this is literally the only thing provided, so OD&D still assumes you are using Chainmail for every other rule. Movement can be extrapolated, but crucial things like turn order and how missiles work are left entirely unmentioned. Hell, it's not even entirely clear which of the above systems this is supposed to be an alternative to - man-to-man or fantasy - or whether it's meant to entirely replace something, be used in conjunction with the others, or be used for specific situations.

Maybe we weren't meant to just play one of these. Most people seem to realize that standard combat and mass combat should be handled in different ways, but there are perhaps more suitable methods for handling other situations as well. The jury is still out on exactly when and why to use which parts of which systems.

∗ ∗ ∗

Five Systems in Harmony

Here are not three, not four, but five systems for different kinds of combats. They can all easily coexist within the same game. They need not necessarily be hugely different in mechanics (they're largely based on the same core) but they each provide a way of framing a certain scale of combat. Let's begin with the core and then we'll get to the interesting stuff.

Tactical Combat is the bog-standard combat in your game. If you're reading this, you already know it. It's Man-to-man Combat in Chainmail, it's the one where your party of 3-6 individuals face off against a similar number of similarly-powered individuals. It's the one you either play with minis on a map or just hand-wave spatial reasoning entirely. The important thing is it lets each character play a part and gives an opportunity for players to fight smart.

Mass Combat is another one you probably know, though these days you're a little less likely to actually play it out. According to some grognards out there, it's not something RPG players ever really did much of, because everyone just preferred to keep adventuring instead. It's still an important thing to have, and Errant does something very interesting with it: combines it with your standard combat, alternating turns between the players as a strike force and the larger combat happening around them. This is brilliantly cinematic and I will come back to the idea later.

Fantastic Combat is the boss battle, a showdown with a single powerful foe. You might think it's crazy to reduce that down to one single attack roll, and you'd be right. Think more cinematically. The arrow that brings down the dragon, climbing the colossus and driving your sword into its neck, the bomb into the maw of the worm - these are the final moments of a tense, one-sided battle where the underdog defies all odds. This is where I want to use Fantastic Combat. Much like the 1HP dragon, the players need to figure out how to fight the thing first, then they get their single roll to hit.

It's not so hard once you get up there. Don't screw it up.

Quick Combat is one I didn't mention before. It's actually something that's fairly well-hidden within OD&D, although it isn't a system of its own. It is rather a consequence of the Fighting-Man being able to hit multiple 1HD figures at higher levels. A party including several high-level fighters could practically mow down a small army in a single turn. This doesn't exactly translate well to the turn-by-turn, individual-focused nature of modern Tactical Combat. I want to be able to have high-level players hack-and-slashing through low-level dungeons if they so choose, rather than rolling initiative around every bend. Something like Ominosity's single roll combat is perfect for this. The players could choose to play tactically and probably take no damage from these fights, but a quick and dirty option for blasting through dozens of mobs is available.

And finally, Duels bring the scale right down. This is more man-to-man than Man-to-man Combat. It's time to shine the spotlight on exactly how much this guy wants this other guy dead, and he wants to do it himself. I made a DCC minigame for this based around Cavegirl's system. This combines perfectly with the Errant treatment of mass combat, where the bandit chieftain decides to throw down with the party's warrior in the middle of a whole-party tactical combat: alternate turns between the big picture battle and the one-on-one duel.

Duels, but not the Wizard kind

Il Fior di Battaglia (public domain)

A one-on-one showdown should be treated differently than the standard tactical group combat we see most often. Standard RPG combat often suffers the complaint that players and foes alike end up fixed in place, repeatedly chipping away at a pool of hit points until one side eventually and suddenly keels over. Now this isn't always the case, but nowhere is this more true than a single-opponent melee face-off. I mean, what are you supposed to do other than hit each other?

A duel deserves the spotlight and a closer focus. It deserves to feel like a choreographed swordfight rather than just another battle scene. In fact, as part of a combat it can be incredibly satisfying to switch between these two modes of play each turn, the duel occurring within the larger combat.

Here is a system for dueling in DCC based on spell duels and the Feint/Parry/Push system over at Cavegirl's Game Stuff. It's supposed to be pretty intense and swingy, and to snowball after a few rounds. It's also intended to be a little complex and crunchy, like spell duels.

∗ ∗ ∗

Dueling Basics

A duel begins when two combatants agree to one-on-one combat. At the beginning of the duel, each duelist places down a d20 with the 10 face-up. This is the momentum tracker.

In each Round of combat while a duel is active, both duelists act simultaneously on whichever of their initiatives is first. At the beginning of the Round, they each secretly decide and write down (or use a face down card, or some other secret method) whether their tactic for the turn will be Aggressive, Defensive, or Deceptive. These are revealed and compared in a rock-paper-scissors style triangle.

Aggressive > Defensive > Deceptive > Aggressive

If you chose the winning tactic, you gain the following listed bonus and your momentum increases by 1. If you both chose the same tactic, you both gain the bonus and both lose 1 momentum.

• Aggressive grants +1d6 to damage (or just +1d3 for unarmed or improvised attacks)
• Defensive grants +3 to AC.
• Deceptive grants +1d to your attack roll.

Both duelists now attack and deal damage simultaneously, the difference between their momenta modifying each attack roll. It is entirely possible for them both to kill each other if they both strike.

Striking the opponent increases your momentum by 1. Being struck decreases your momentum by 1. 

The duel ends when one duelist accepts the other's yield, a duelist is incapacitated, or the duel is interrupted.

Movement

The combatants are locked within melee range of each other. Whichever combatant wins the first tactic has positional advantage during the round and may move both themselves and their interlocutor up to half of their movement speeds. This may be used to move and rotate the duel at will. Being forced into direct danger can be prevented with a Reflex save, DC equal to the first attack roll.

Multiple Attacks

Skilled combatants are capable of much more tactical complexity. Each attack during a Round is also a chance to change tactic, performing more complex maneuvers such as a deceptive strike followed by an aggressive attack to the opening. Each successful tactic's bonus remains until the end of the Round, applying to all remaining attacks. Bonuses stack.

The pace is set by the character with the most actions, so the slower character must decide (at Round start) which of those attacks to respond to with their own attacks. For instance, in a duel between characters with 3 and 2 attacks respectively, the duelist with 2 attacks must choose which two "sub-Rounds" they make their attacks/tactical changes on. The first tactic always applies from the beginning of the Round.

Clashing

If two duelists roll the exact same result on a simultaneous attack, they Clash. Both attacks miss (unless otherwise specified), but an additional effect occurs. Roll 1d6.

1. Weapons shatter. If one weapon is of a clearly weaker material than the other, it is sundered and the attack passes through it, hitting. If the two weapons are of comparable material, they are both shattered in the hands of the duelists. If a weapon is magic, instead of shattering, a burst of magical energy emanates from it dealing 1d6 damage to anyone within 5' (including both duelists). This may have special effects based on the nature of the magic weapon.
2. Bind. The duelists' weapons interlock and the combatants are forced into a contest, each attempting to manipulate the other's weapons with their own. Roll a contested check, with the ability used depending on the tactic (Aggressive:Strength, Defensive:Stamina, Deceptive:Agility). The winner of the contest rolls 1d3: (1) strike opponent, (2) disarm opponent, (3) knock opponent prone.
3. CLANG. A resonant sound echoes from your weapons as an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. All creatures within 60' must make a DC 15 Will save or be distracted, startled, or awestruck, taking a -1d penalty to any checks for the rest of the Round and having a 50% chance of dropping their weapon. It does not matter what the weapons are made of - even bare fists colliding produces a supernatural sonic blast.
4. Overbalanced and entangled. The combatants collide, both becoming prone and getting stuck in a grapple with each other. A Strength contest determines who has hold of the other.
5. Collateral damage. The momentum of battle forces the combatants to move up to half movement speed, into melee range of a nearby target. One of you hits them. Decide randomly who hits (and who gets hit, if applicable).
6. Swords dance. Your weapons bounce and both parties attempt to take advantage of the opening. In the adrenaline and intense focus of the battle, both combatants get 1d4 (roll once, both use same result) additional dueling attacks.

Clerics as Wizards

Ah, it's been a while since I argued we don't need X or Y class. I've defended the Cleric before and while I stand by what I said about Clerics being a distinct and important class unto their own, today I look at it from a different angle. While I personally like the Cleric in DCC, I'm also a big supporter of having as many different ways to run the game as there are people to play the game. Don't think of this as me pooh-poohing the Cleric, but rather exploring different ways to run them.

In the post linked above, I mention having seen other Judges' discussion of Clerics being replaced by Wizards, but never have I seen a proper how-to. So here's how to do it. Each heading below provides both the Cleric concept being converted and the Wizard concept it maps to. The resulting Cleric is one that is more of a pure caster than the hybrid fighter-caster we usually see - more suitable for a priest than a paladin.

∗ ∗ ∗

Conventions for Clerics as Wizards

The Cleric class is no longer a distinct class of its own. Instead, the Wizard has broader access to spells and patrons which allow for the flavouring of a Wizard as a servant of a divine power. Many of the features given to Clerics have a lot of functional crossover with those of Wizards even if they do not use the exact same mechanics, so much of the conversion here is fairly direct.

Deities / Patrons

Bobugbubilz and Azi Dahaka are already offered as both Cleric deities and Wizard patrons, both of whom seem more like a powerful entity within the universe than a deific entity from beyond. Incidentally, they are also both demonic (hardly relevant, just interesting). A world with Clerics of slightly more grounded powers than literal Gods might make more sense with patron relationships such as these instead of strictly faithful worship.

The rule here is simple: A Cleric is a Wizard who has taken a godly figure as a patron. All godly figures are now potential patrons. If a player plays their Wizard character as a worshiper of a deity in the world, the Judge should allow an opportunity to gain patronage and treat their power as if it comes from that deity (or through faith itself).

Canticles / Patron Spells

The DCC Annual already gets bloody close to patron spells with the inclusion of canticles for deities. If your Cleric-Wizard chooses a deity from this list, most of the work is already done (although higher level spell checks may need to be written, as many canticles are basic single-level effects). Beyond that, it's no harder for the Judge to create these than it is to create regular patron spells.

A godly patron's patron spells should follow the usual format for patron spells and effectively replace any canticles.

Divine Aid / Invoke Patron

Divine Aid is effectively replaced by Invoke Patron. This doesn't really do the same thing, but it is the result of you calling upon your patron for help in a time of need. An Invoke Patron spell can be written that works thematically for divine aid from a particular god. Spellburn can replace the disapproval as a downside.

Disapproval / Patron Taint

Disapproval tables will need to be shrunk down to create a patron taint table and the more permanent options are the ones that should be retained to achieve the patron taint style. Don't keep the one where you have to pray for 10 minutes, do keep the one where Pelagia gives the character bulbous fishy eyes.

Lay on Hands and Turn Unholy / Spells

Treat these two abilities as spells on the spell list. They essentially already have a spell effect table with simpler formatting. And on the note of accessible spells...

Cleric Spells / Wizard Spells

There is no longer any delineation between Cleric and Wizard spells. Any and all spells of the appropriate levels can be selected from in the usual ways (randomly on advancement, discovered through adventuring, granted by a patron, research).

∗ ∗ ∗

And that's it. You know, I didn't expect it to be quite that simple. It's fairly easy to make the argument against Clerics after having written down how each of their mechanics map to each other, one-to-one. Clerics start to feel like alt-Wizards, and it's entirely possible using the conventions above to run them as exactly that.

I'll Run It One Day - [blog100] pt. 9, q. 82

This post is part of a series where I put forth a challenge for bloggers to answer all 100 questions on this table by d4 Caltrops. This week I rolled an 82.

∗ ∗ ∗

82. What Idea or Concept are you "Saving" for a Future Game/Campaign?

It's common advice to use your ideas now rather than saving them for later. Here's the problem: I have more ideas than time to play. I think many of us do. I can't use them all, some things are going to have to wait. Some will be saved for later and some will be saved for never. It's just how it is.

Furthermore, not all things fit into the campaign I'm currently running. This blog is 90% about DCC because that's the campaign I actually do run, but there are a lot of other games I want to run too. Here are three campaigns I want to run that don't gel with my current campaign world, each one totally different.

Guild of Dragonologists (5e)

That's right, a 5e game. I'm not a big 5e fan and I've made that no secret, but it's good at one thing: being the current standard for high-fantasy. You want to run a world that has every fantastical thing you can think of splattered everywhere you can look? 5e can handle it perfectly. I'm talking about wizard high-school shit. Nary a human to be found in the nearest tavern and nobody bats an eye at people casting spells and flying past on broomsticks.

The original concept came from a joke among friends that rarely in D&D do we ever go into dungeons, let alone encounter dragons. I thought I'd lean right into that and make it all about dragons from the very first level. Enter, The Guild of Dragonologists.

The Guild is, as it says right in the name, dedicated to the study of dragons, which in 5e are very categorized and classified. They're territorial and the chromatics are at odds with the metallics. The Guild began early on as cartographers, mapping the territories of the dragons. They found that if one overlays a map of chromatic territories on a map of metallic territories, the lands of 4 chromatic and 4 metallic dragons converge at a single point. This is where the Guildhall was built, with immediate access to 8 common varieties to study, and plenty of chromatic/metallic crossover to observe.

The players play as new recruits who've joined the Guild as Hunters - think Monster Hunter style, where the Hunters are sent on missions to "control the population" for conservation efforts or whatever. You're not there to eradicate dragonkind, just keep them in check and protect the Guild. There's also some mystery going on with the convergence of territories and probably the Platinum Dragon.

As It Was Written (OD&D with Chainmail)

I've been diving into the Little Brown Books recently and I'm finding myself fascinated. There is so much in here that appears bizarre and arcane from a modern perspective but actually makes a lot of sense when you consider what they were doing and what they were trying to do. I've found myself wanting to give OD&D a go on its own terms, right down as close to RAW as I can do.

Those of you who are familiar with the original edition know that this isn't exactly a straightforward task - I've found myself comparing and rewriting parts of the various books to organize it in a way that works better for me. There are rewrites out there, but none of them do it my way while simultaneously remaining purely vanilla (which, to be fair, is a big ask).

What's become even more fascinating to me is the implied setting of OD&D. Reading through the encounter tables alone I noticed that the world it expects you to play in is absolute bizarre - by standards both modern and contemporary. It is a pseudo-Arthurian post-civilization frontier centered upon a megadungeon that defies the laws of physics simply to spite the adventurers who are propping up the economy around it. This frontier is horribly infested with lycanthropes (for some reason) and peppered with lost-world swamps and alien deserts (the little green man kind of alien - seriously!).

On top of that, the use of Chainmail's multiple combat systems (rather than the "alternate" that became the default) to resolve different kinds of battles with varying tactical depth is very cool and a topic I'll be revisiting.

I don't know what it was like to play in Gygax's games but it sure as hell sounds like a blast to try and recreate it from his writings. What'll be hard is stopping myself from houseruling!

Paleolithic Campaign (DCC Homebrew)

And we're back to DCC - kind of. This one is a Dinosaur Crawl Classics inspired stone-age campaign featuring low tech, less magic, and prehistoric monsters. Thieves, Wizards and Clerics won't be present, at least in the same form - magic will be the domain of an animist Shaman class with ancestral patrons. Hunters might take a combined warrior-thief role for a third class. All classes will get wilderness skills, hailing from tribal communities that live off the land.

The tricky part here is figuring out any kind of long-term story. This is one setting where I don't want to have advanced tech showing up from aliens or ancient civilizations. From a stone age perspective, even a castle is advanced. Dungeons will probably be lairs rather than old human structures (a perfect excuse to use another thing I've been saving - a humanoid ant race in an ant-mound dungeon). I can only take a campaign so far with a big bad being a particularly disruptive T-Rex.

A possible theme to wrestle with in this campaign is the discovery of agriculture, with a nearby developing civilization threatening to permanently disrupt the PCs' way of life. But again, I can only take that arc so far before it simply runs its course and there is no more story left to tell. I'd still like to give this setting a go for a short campaign run at least.

∗ ∗ ∗

Here is where I'll link your blog if you join me on this 100-post journey through 100 questions.

Arbitrary Half-Races

This has been on my list of mechanics to work out for quite a while now. Recently, I realized I essentially already did the legwork when I split race and class. The whole idea there was to use races as a sort of half-class and mix-and-match. This post builds on that. Using that as a baseline, you can create half-races of any playable races by allowing a race/race combination instead of a race/class one.

∗ ∗ ∗

Skip my rambling and get to the rules.

∗ ∗ ∗

Why do this?

In short: it's just like, my opinion, man.

The way half-races are handled in fantasy has always bothered me a little bit. Half-elves and half-orcs are the common ones, almost to the point of being an iconic inclusion in and of themselves. As far as I can tell, half-elves grew out of a misunderstanding of Tolkein and half-orcs came out of a desire to play as orcs in a setting where orcs were a monster or always evil - the latter has implications that I'd personally like to avoid discussing over the gaming table. Either way, these two half-races have stuck around and one of the first questions that comes to my mind is why aren't there elf-orcs? Is it just humans who can interbreed, and for some reason the races they can interbreed with can't also interbreed among themselves?

Furthermore, given it's a fantasy setting, why aren't there half-dwarves, half-gnomes and half-halflings? If cross-species procreation is something you're going to say is possible in your world, there's suddenly a lot of variation you have to account for. In a game with distinct, discrete races (or even more problematically, race-as-class) you have a lot of work to do. Unless you're going to say these specific half-human hybrids are possible but not other combinations. You can do that, I just always find myself wondering - why just elves? Even then, if elves and half-elves are distinct races/classes... what happens to their offspring? Is it a spectrum, or are they all half-elves from that point onward? Why haven't half-elves taken over?

You can, of course, handwave this by saying "genetic similarity" but that just doesn't quite jive with me. Most worlds seem to have things like chimeras which are made up of combined creatures dramatically different from each other. There are probably half-demons or half-elementals of some kind - they're not even from the same universe! In a fantasy setting where interspecies stuff clearly exists I find it more believable that it'd happen in all sorts of combinations. Especially if you consider your world "gonzo". Why does genetics suddenly matter now? Don't even ask about centaurs.

All in all it's just kind of weird to allow some specific half-races but not any others. Either humans and demihumans can interbreed or they can't. Go all or nothing.

Half-races from core races

Lineage	Human	Dwarf	Elf	Halfling
Human	Human	Half-dwarf	Half-elf	Quarterling*
Dwarf	Half-dwarf	Dwarf	Dwelf	Dwarfling
Elf	Half-elf	Dwelf	Elf	Elfling
Halfling	Quarterling*	Dwarfling	Elfling	Halfling

*Quarterling may sound incorrect, but it comes from the Halfling culture where your Halfling-half is the important half.

Rules for Mixed Ancestries

This is fairly straightforward if you are already using my split race and class rules. The process is as follows:

1. Choose (or rather, roll: 1-in-10 demihumans have a random second ancestry*) your two races. You get all abilities and bonuses from each, including both Ability Score re-rolls.
2. You do not choose a class. Your mixed ancestry is your class (for now).
3. When determining Hit Dice, use the largest-die race for odd levels and the smallest-die race for even levels. In the case of half-humans, this means always using your other race's Hit Die.
4. When determining saving throws, use the race with the largest Hit Die. In the case of half-humans, this means simply using the other race's saving throws.
5. It is recommended to allow multi-classing rules to give mixed ancestry characters the option to gain a true class, but be aware this means only reaching 1st-level in a class at character level 3. This lack of specialization is the trade-off to having multiple racial advantages.

*A character can (and realistically, probably does, somewhere in their long ancestry) have more than just two lineages but only the two majority lines are significant enough to grant class abilities. If you want to play a human-dwarf-elf-halfling that is fine, but your parents only passed down their dominant features.

Blog100 Master Post

This post is for keeping my blog100 posts organized and navigable. The challenge is based on this table of 100 topics to inspire burgeoning blogs.

Here's how the challenge works:

1. Roll a d100 on the table linked above.
2. Blog about that question.
3. Set your own schedule. Post once a week, once a month, whatever. Don't fret if this slows down later either.
4. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until you've written 100 posts about all 100 topics. Reroll repeated results, you may want to use smaller dice toward the tail end of the challenge.
5. Tell me about it! I'll link to your post at the bottom of the next one.

∗ ∗ ∗

All my posts, in chronological order:

To search for a specific question on the table, ctrl-F "q. X" where X is the question number.

Post	Question
The d4 Caltrops Blog Challenge - [blog100] pt. 1, q. 92	What was one Major Conflict/War that has occurred within Recent Memory?
What happens to you when you die? - [blog100] pt. 2, q. 80	What Happens when a Character Dies in your Setting?
The Cost of Living - [blog100] pt. 3, q. 40	How much are Lifestyle Expenses for your PCs "Between Adventures?"
Gaming Snacks - [blog100] pt. 4, q. 73	What are the best Snacks you've found that work during a Game?
Are Clerical Holy Symbols Required? - [blog100] pt. 5, q. 77	What do your Cleric's Holy Symbols Look like? Are they needed for Turning?
The Lantern Tree - [blog100] pt. 6, q. 95	Where does Lamp Oil come from/how is it made?
Types of Undead and How they Work - [blog100] pt. 7, q. 23	How are Skeletons Made? Ghouls? Why haven't Wraiths/Vampires taken over?
It's okay to be underprepared - [blog100] pt. 8, q. 84	What is a Ruling you Regret or wish you would have handled differently?
I'll Run It One Day - [blog100] pt. 9, q. 82	What Idea or Concept are you "Saving" for a Future Game/Campaign?

It's okay to be underprepared - [blog100] pt. 8, q. 84

This post is part of a series where I put forth a challenge for bloggers to answer all 100 questions on this table by d4 Caltrops. This week I rolled an 84.

∗ ∗ ∗

84. What is a Ruling you Regret or wish you would have handled differently?

The first game I ran was The Portal Under the Stars. I don't just mean the first game of DCC, I mean the first I ever ran at all. I was incredibly nervous (not just for running the game, but I only really knew one of the players!), but I thought hey, I've gone over the module twice and re-written it as my own notes - surely by this point I could just run the module as is and it'll be fine. I did have one question though: what will the players do when they figure out that the solution to the entrance puzzle is to wait?

Well, I predicted they'd want to go to town for a couple of hours to kill time... and yet I did not prepare for that. The end result was me deciding, on the fly, that the town was just slightly too far away from the dungeon location for them to get there and back in time. I admitted to them that I wasn't prepared to run the town, but now I wish I'd let them do it.

What stopped me from prepping a town, if I had predicted they'd try to go there? You'd be right to think that was pretty foolish of me. To be honest, the prep just felt like too big of a task.

That's where I went wrong. Perhaps now that I've got experience under my belt I'm looking at this in a way that is unrealistic to expect of my first-time-Judge self, but it would have been totally fine to just wing it. Even the stuff that I later prepared for the town, I really could have just handwaved in the moment and fleshed the details out as necessary later.

Prepping a town wasn't too big of a task - I was expecting too much of myself. I could have done minimal prep. One tavern. That's probably the only place that's open at night anyway. Player characters' homes? They're all peasants, they're already carrying their best gear anyway. Your home has like, a straw bed and one chair. You brought all the good gear with you. Just answer the questions the players ask, there was no need to build the entire town.

All the prep I did later for the town? I made that up too. I could've done it at the table. Instead, I said no.

Saying yes can be nerve-wracking when the question was something you weren't prepared for, and yet I've found Judging to be a much easier task since I committed to doing that. That's not to say I don't still prep, I don't still feel underprepared, and I don't still feel the compulsive need to over-prep. I do. I just know now that it'll be fine if I wing it. The goal is a fun night, not a perfect game.

You'll be fine.

∗ ∗ ∗

Here is where I'll link your blog if you join me on this 100-post journey through 100 questions.