Thursday, May 21, 2026

Platonic ideal potions

Alchemists of old used to work with materials. They tried to turn iron into gold and find cures for ailments. These are still valid pursuits, of course, though medicine these days is left to the apothecaries and creating valuables from trash tends to require more magical capability than most are willing to sell their soul for.

Modern alchemy focuses instead on the abstract. Rather than distilling and modifying things, the art has moved on to distilling capital "T" Things. The ideas and concepts of our world rather than mere substances that exist within it. Ask a carpenter if you want a chair. Ask an alchemist if you want the very essence of chairness.

What's in this health potion? Why, health, of course.

A potion is the purified, liquified, and conveniently bottled essence of a concept. Drinking a strength potion simply makes the imbiber become more like the concept of "strength". A love potion makes a person love, and a health potion makes a person healthy. It is that simple. It's not always necessary to drink the potion - a bottle smashed open to quickly coat a substance can have the desired effect. This is a much more practical use for a potion of burning than drinking it. Trust me.

Potions of water breathing are often actually potions of fish. It is imperative not to screw up the dosage on that one.

It is even possible to brew a death potion - a substance which will kill, but will not show any signs of poisoning or any discernible cause of death. The drinker simply becomes dead. Equally possible and significantly more horrifying (or hilarious, depending on your perspective) are the results of drinking a potion of chairness.

The very same mechanism that allows potions to work is also what makes them so dangerous. Typically, ideals will come from a variety of ingredients and must be carefully distilled. Any number of other ontological contaminants can distort the effects, giving the appearance of chaotic unreliability. In reality, the reason your luck potion accidentally melted the person who drank it was because water is a primary ingredient, and wateriness was the concept that ended up being distilled. Honestly, it was an amateur mistake to even attempt to distill luck.

You can use a list of random concepts such as the one I threw together for freeform magic to come up with endless ideas for potions.

The Make Potion spell (DCC RPG p. 223) is one method of distilling concepts into liquid, though as with all magic, many of those casters of the spell do not understand what it is truly doing.

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Making Immortals more DCC-ish

I've written before about my fascination with Immortals from early editions of D&D and a little of my own vision of them. While there is a lot I do enjoy about them, there's also a lot of room to improve. Here are some things about the original versions of Immortals that don't quite fit the DCC vibe, and how I might use some of DCC's design principles for Immortals in my own games and worlds.

All Immortals are the same

When one becomes an Immortal, they gain a bunch of the same powers as the other Immortals all at once and their old life becomes suddenly irrelevant (besides, apparently, the Immortal's personality and some fond memories). Immortals are not all identical, of course, but there is a core set of abilities that they all just have. These abilities are largely unrelated to each other besides being the kinds of things you expect godly figures to be able to do.

What if each ability critical to being an immortal had to be gained independently, and thus not all Immortals have all powers? The first step is, obviously, immortality itself. Bringing yourself to a state in which your death is no longer a guarantee. From there, all the other powers are just a matter of time - after all, you have endless years to achieve them. Characters could undertake multiple quests to gain the powers of divine spellcasting (truly creating their own spells, rather than borrowing them as Clerics and Wizards), various forms including ethereality and mortal avatars, teleportation, planar creation and dominion, and resistance to magical effects. Each and every one of these powers that is simply granted upon ascension could be an entire story of its own. Quest for it.

To be fair, it makes sense for Immortals to be so similar because there is only...

One road to Immortality

You might argue that there are multiple listed paths, but in the end they all amounted to finding an Immortal sponsor and doing some grand test or display of power to get your sponsor to grant you the gift of Immortality. This implies that you could draw a family tree of all Immortals, from the first of all time right down to the player characters. This set of powers is a gift that has been passed down.

This is way too straightforward and structured.

Being granted immortality by a higher being should be but one possible path toward immortality, let alone capital "I" Immortality. Perhaps it's the appropriate path for a Cleric to follow, the ultimate reward from their deity for acting as their Chosen, but here are some alternate ways to become immortal:

  • Lichdom. Sure, this isn't complete immortality, but "immortality, unless..." is more fun anyway. Have players attempt to pull shenanigans like Voldemorting themselves into 7 phylacteries or dropping their phylactery into a black hole to make it inaccessible.
  • Reincarnation. Give your soul some way to move bodies after your death and you even get fun new forms every lifetime.
  • Discovering or creating the Philosopher's Stone.
  • Regenerative immortality. Develop some magic, tech, or mutation which allows you to recover from any injury, given enough time and energy.
  • Rewrite the annals of time such that your death is no longer destined, or that your existence is a universal constant.
  • Pledge your soul to multiple afterlives and they'll use their power to keep you alive so they can avoid going to cosmic court over custody. This will piss your patrons off for sure.
  • De-age yourself every couple decades. Magically, medically, whatever.

Some of these are even almost possible using spells in the core rules.

Immortals totally aren't Gods

To any peasant, even the weakest of Immortals would seem like a god. The original version of Immortals simply doesn't bring up the elephant in the room with this one. Gods presumably exist, as Clerics regularly receive divine intervention. In fact, Clerics will serve Immortals, so the reasonable conclusion seems to be that Immortals are in fact gods. But BECMI simply doesn't bring up gods at all, and the particular lack of any mention of particular aspects of religion appears to be a result of the backlash received by D&D during the Satanic Panic. Can't blame the publishers for not wanting to pour fuel on the fire there.

In DCC, it's not entirely clear what deities are exactly. Among the suggested Clerical deities in DCC RPG are proper gods, a demigod, an Old One, a demon prince and a demon lord. From this I would suppose that a deity in DCC is any being powerful enough to grant a Cleric their power. Any one of those creatures are likely immortal and thus classify as an Immortal.

It's not so much that they are gods necessarily, but they may as well be because who even knows what a god is anyway?

Immortality follows a clear and structured hierarchy

I'm not sure whether it turned out this way for the sake of game mechanics or whether the authors fell into the design traps many of us do while world-building - that old human obsession with labelling things and putting them neatly into a box. Whatever the reason, the Immortals set goes well out of its way to tell you exactly how many Immortals there are at which levels. To reach those levels, you specifically have to compete with and usurp existing Immortals.

A lot of mystery and variety is removed by this structured approach. On top of that, it bakes a lot of cosmic world-building into the mechanics of the game, leaving little (if any) room for the Judge and players to do their own thing. I have my own ideas about what the cosmos looks like with Immortals in it but it's very freeform and would likely be different in a different campaign world. BECMI gives you one version of the cosmos to play with, and it's not a very mysterious one. There's little to explore, which is odd given that exploring the secrets of the universe is supposed to be what Immortals do. I guess the authors thought that meant there needed to be answers.

How this all ties together

If we these things about Immortals, we end up with something that looks a little more appropriate for a DCC campaign. The advice given in the core book includes keeping things mysterious and unknown, having variety, and achieving great power through questing. That's all totally possible at the cosmic hero tier of play too.

I guess the next step is to create that tier of play.

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Using Story Cubes as an Oracle

It was my birthday recently and my wife gifted me a bunch of Story Cubes. Specifically, four sets of them: Classic, Actions, Voyages, and Fantasia.

A version of this concept for those who do not own these dice exists here.

Left to right: Fantasia, Voyages, Actions

Four sets gives me 36 dice in four colors, for a total of 216 possible random pictograms if I draw dice from a bag. Very nice. My immediate thought was that this is effectively a d666 table (see below), but there's more than that. Let's look at what we can do with these.

Spark tables based on the dice

I wrote down what each face of each die looks like to me. Some are a little subjective and there's definitely word-association to be done with the visuals, which makes using the real dice far more effective at providing inspiration. But in lieu of owning the dice, you can use this as a spark table. Some of these are modern and don't necessarily suit all genres, but for a spark table I genuinely don't think that matters. If you roll "airplane" in a fantasy medieval setting, surely that still gives you some idea you can work with!

Result 266 was the rightmost pictogram in the above photo - I found this one particularly hard to interpret. Let me know if you know what that's actually supposed to be.

Classic 1 2 3 4 5 6
11 walking cane mobile phone weighing scales expressionless mask diagonal arrow lightning bolt
12 ID card rainbow stone tower pyramid open eye tree
13 planet flashlight apple friendly face modern tower airplane
14 keyhole comedy and tragedy parachuter striped fish chaos symbol sunflower
15 open book bee bridge over water abacus crescent moon magician's wand
16 question mark fountain key sad face shooting star teepee
21 sheep padlock learner plate magnet footprint fire
22 house speech bubble sleeping face light bulb arrow (weapon) clock
23 open hand a six-sided die magnifying glass scarab menacing shadow turtle
Actions 1 2 3 4 5 6
24 push falling object press button steal set alight think
25 listen to music enter door hide falling person play with dolls hit ball
26 sore thumb read book surprise gift turn touch (blindfolded)
31 climb tree thumbs up counting kick ball catch butterfly eat lunch
32 drying laundry reach high point knock build wall awaken to alarm
33 bounce cough walk carry light weights lead the way
34 dance break/snap dig hole shout/call fight fill hole
35 jump down scissors cut paper drop ball cry knock down vase drawing
36 fork in road ask question hang from bars throw ball up rocket collision laughter
Voyages 1 2 3 4 5 6
41 torii gate dino skull coin bag tunnel entrance waves beans
42 backpack monkey goblet cactus sunrise/sunset gauge/meter
43 skull and crossbones six pointed star/sun spotted mushroom submarine raincloud gears
44 cauldron spectacles camera pointing/accusatory pill elephant
45 rice bowl stairway down bandit horned helmet pouring flask bacterium
46 exotic city jewel pendant octopus crab miniature person mirror
51 circus tent angry cracking egg opening chest (facing away) road to mountains puzzle piece
52 "ping" crown treasure map snake whip ray gun
53 crow scared musical note telescope ladder axe

Fantasia 1 2 3 4 5 6
54 frog flute bindle slinky cat shadowy imp old crone
55 Zeus smiting summit temple sailship minotaur giant brute last stand atop high ground
56 maze harp trojan horse hypnotized/entranced sly/convincing/hiding dagger Icarus flying too close
61 monk princess with sword market stall jester cap pig on a spit quill and inkwell
62 trident opening jewelry box (facing away) Charon the ferryman Medusa hermes' winged boots high throne
63 wolf howling at moon robed figure birdcage Gnome miner path into forest baby basket
64 bow and quiver tankard of ale crusader helmet cart of hay morningstar longhouse
65 dragon troll/ogre shackled prisoner castle gate potion wizard
66 tiara hand mirror path to hilltop tower figure inside swirl fairy well

Yes/No Oracle

Draw three story dice from the bag and roll them. If the pictogram is something that would be beneficial to the situation or question, count one "yes". If it is not beneficial or is negative, count one "no". Majority rules.

You can get "yes, and" results if all three are positive rather than just a majority. If you use five dice, you can create a sliding scale including "no, and", "no, but" and "yes, but". Three positives or negatives is a softer yes or no, while a unanimous result is stronger.

You could theoretically play an entire storygame using this and only this. Do the heroes beat the army of orcs? Abacus, lightbulb, morningstar... It looks like superior intellect, strength and a brilliant strategic idea bring the heroes a decisive victory!

Character Generation

In games based around tags, traits, or aspects drawing a few dice and rolling them is all you need to generate a character. In any other game, you could use this to come up with the character concept and then use the usual generation methods to get there.

Four elements

You can also associate the four colors with the four elements and use that as your oracle, an idea that I got from the solo RPG Diedream. The colors of the sets I own are grey, blue, green and pink, which map closely enough to air, water, earth and fire. The tables above are colored as such, but you might as well roll a d4 if you're doing it that way. Sometimes these broader categories might be all you need, or they might color your interpretation of the images.

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

Blog Graveyard vol X: Appendix M

I was inspired by this post to write my own entry to the Blog Graveyard.

The subject of today's eulogy is Appendix M, whose last sighting was the 28th of January, 2020. Appendix M was started by bygrinstow as a way to get back into drawing by publicizing their practice. Art being a worthwhile endeavour on its own, this had the very respectable side effect of providing us all with a ton of creative creatures to steal for our own purposes. Thanks from the future, bygrinstow.

Bygrinstow, by the way, also brought us the brilliant Monster Extractor series, which has inspired me before.

What does Appendix M offer us? Monsters! More than you can swing your sword at! You could choose an article at random from this blog and be almost guaranteed to land on a post containing a monster you'll want to throw at your players. If you didn't, it's because you happened to land on one of the few posts that doesn't contain a monster.

Testing this theory myself, I got the Dirt Diver, the House Beetle, the Forgotten Soldier, and Nearly People. Surely one of those names makes you want to go check it out for yourself. In amongst these original creations are well-trodden monsters such as Kobolds, Mermaids, and rival adventuring parties, but these sit between the more unusual beasts like whatever a "SCARLSNIPE" is, and gelatinous shapes that aren't cubes.

The absolute highlight for me personally is DRYAD, TRUE, which helped me to ease my players (and myself, as a new Judge) from module content to homebrew sandbox-style content by being the subject of the hook at the end of Portal Under the Stars. According to Appendix M, the dryad is like the forest's immune system. She comes into existence to protect it from evil, and attacks intruders with the remembered mental anguish of victims of evil. The sister monster to this is the DRYAD, FALSE - something the locals might think is a dryad but truly is just a monster.

If it's not monsters you're looking for though, there is a handful of other content such as the MURDER HOBO class - a class that manages to capture the flavour of the murderhobo concept while actually being something I'd potentially allow at my table. It might even be fun to run a whole party of these guys as a chaotic one-shot or campaign.

Whether you're looking for stats for a monster so you don't have to do them yourself, an interesting twist on a known monster, or something entirely new and bizarre to throw at your players, it's worth casting Consult Spirit to commune with this dead blog and retrieve some of its wisdom.

Thursday, April 23, 2026

12 months in

Wow. It's been a year.

Twelve months ago now I posted my first post to 19 Sided Die. It was a reddit post I put together more or less on a whim, and once I posted that it just kept flowing. I couldn't stop writing. After the first post I jotted down a list of all the ideas that came to me and I still have some of those original ideas left.

But it's slowed down in recent months. At least one person has asked me why - that person being Toast over at Scrolls from the Toaster, who recently celebrated his 100th post and shouted me out. The feeling is mutual, Toast. Our side-by-side growth has been very encouraging for me.

As for why: nothing is wrong, I've just been writing less. I reached a point where I had to tell myself that was okay, after I missed my first weekly post in over nine months. Since mere weeks after I started this blog, I've had a son to look after. That means he's almost 1 and my spare time has only been shrinking as he's increased in both mobility and appetite. Because of this, I've had to be choosy with my hobbies - especially those involving sitting in front of a screen.

I don't always get a couple of hours spare time in a week to write a post, and my backlog ran out a while ago. I still have plenty of material to work with though, so if anyone else is out there waiting for me to post each Wednesday, stick around.

∗ ∗ ∗

In December I started what I called the blog100 challenge. Out of the series of 100 questions by d4 caltrops I completed 9 before falling off the wagon. Along the way, at least 3 others started their own blog100's. I'll consider that a success - although I really should get back to it!

I'm still struggling to answer that tenth question. It's one of the few that doesn't feel relevant to me, but I'll find a way to do it. These posts may move from the Sunday slot to the Wednesday slot in order to keep a weekly pace if that works out better for me. We'll see.

I also recently came to learn that Throne of Salt did something similar in January, independent of the challenge, by answering all 100 questions across four posts. Very cool!

∗ ∗ ∗

Six months ago I talked about the goals I set when starting this blog and how it felt to stick to those goals. In as much time again, I had double the readers with far less effort. I'm not sure what the lesson is there, if there is one. I'm happy to be taking it more casually than I was, but at the same time I miss the schedule and the regular discourse. I'm glad people are still around, reading my stuff. In fact, within just the last few months I began to hear back from players who had actually used some of my classes - in particular the Ranger (whose skills have received some reworking) and the Dragon. On that note, the Dragon might be the most polished thing I've put out there, so it's nice to see it continuing to get some attention.

∗ ∗ ∗

What's next for 19 Sided Die? I dunno. There's a lot on the backburner. Tell me if any of this sounds neat.

  • OD&D has been a fixation of mine for a while. I want to talk about a lot of OD&D related stuff.
  • That list of ideas from the beginning still has a dozen topics remaining, and I've jotted down about three dozen since. Each of these is at least a post's worth of content, some of them have expanded beyond that.
    • One of those topics, I could fill a book. This isn't a promise - if anything, it's the opposite. Scope creep may just kill this one.
    • Another one of those topics feels like it should be in zine format. This one is more likely to see the light of day.
  • Anybody interested in Obsidian related content? I've used it to prep and keep session notes since before beginning this blog, but I've really only just recently taken the deep dive into what it can truly do. For here I'll most likely keep it to the TTRPG space, but Obsidian for TTRPGs is a whole beast of its own.
    • Send help, Obsidian is taking over my life.
  • A ton of old posts that need to be revisited.
  • Downloadable PDF versions of my content.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Variable Rate of Advancement

Something OD&D did that doesn't fly with most groups today was variable rates of advancement. It did this in two ways: not only did different classes use different advancement tables, but characters earned experience at varying rates depending mostly on their "Prime Requisite".

Don't even get me started on the limits for demihumans.
In modern games, it quickly becomes unbalanced if players aren't all on the same level. Furthermore, balance is held on a pedestal. To be fair, in some cases that lack of balance is a legitimate problem. I've played in a campaign where one player character constantly far outshone the rest and it kind of sucked for everyone else. I think it's very much worth noting though: that party was all of the same level and it still happened.

Despite the title, the table continues with other bonuses not related to advancement.

The Prime Requisite system appears to me to be oft misunderstood. Modern players see this as restricting certain classes to only the players who rolled high enough ability scores. When combined with the way scores were rolled randomly and no choice was given to adjust them, it feels like someone is locked out of playing, for instance, a Fighting-Man if their Strength roll wasn't very high. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's perfectly viable in OD&D to play away from a character's natural aptitudes and simply be one level behind the party most of the time.

Dial it back there Gary, you're not helping my point.
A point is made here that a player does not need to choose the "optimal" choice if it does not suit the character they want to play. This is a tricky thing. People are natural optimizers, so it feels bad to throw away a potential 10% experience bonus permanently. And the 20% penalty? Well that just feels awful in comparison. There's one more thing to take into account here though.

Because of experience gains varying depending on the character's level, a party operating together will cluster toward a similar level. Higher-level characters will slow down in advancement while the lower end of the party shoots upward rapidly to meet them. What mathematically looks like (and more importantly, intuitively feels like) a permanent penalty is, in reality, a stipulation that your character will sit slightly behind their expected level for a short time before catching up with the party. That actually isn't so bad (though it still feels bad).

We can do something interesting with this concept. Let's look at pros and cons of this system and create a new mechanic, trying to squeeze out the pros while mitigating the cons.

∗ ∗ ∗

The upside of this system is that is encourages players to work with what they've got. Those of us who enjoy DCC's funnel system will agree that this is the best way to play. You don't choose what position you are born into, and the fun is making something great out of it.

This goes hand in hand with reduced player agency, as it punishes players for choosing to play against those randomly decided characteristics. Major player decisions, such as a character's entire class, can feel forced.

How am I going to mitigate this? Aside from just making the bonuses smaller and more granular, I'm going to make them a player option. Here's how the concept works: The player rolls their random features. Ability scores are an easy example; let's use the traditional 3d6 down the line. The player then decides whether they want to stick with those characteristics. They may swap ability scores around, but for each one that remains unchanged they get an additive +2% bonus to all XP gains.

You can take it a further than this. Other randomly chosen attributes (such as occupation or birth augur in DCC) can be kept random for an additive +2%, with the option to choose one instead for no bonus. Race and class can be determined randomly, for a much more significant +5% bonus each - all players should roll randomly and then decide whether they want to take that race/class with the bonus, or choose any other. Some players will be lucky and get what they wanted and the bonus. That's fine.

If you are doing this in DCC however, you might need to start using more granular numbers for XP - otherwise those 1-4 points per encounter are going to start requiring decimals.

Odd Goblin, a GLoG hack, does this but with one-time flat experience gains. That's where I got the idea - sort of combining that with OD&D's Prime Requisite bonuses. It is my hope that implementing a system like this will provide both the reward for rolling with what you get given, but also allow for full player agency as there are no explicit penalties for playing against your rolls and only minor bonuses for taking the random option.

I realize this is essentially the opposite of my previously posted progression mechanic, but as always I like a lot of game mechanics and different things have their place at different tables.

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Hiding your Plans

This post is an analysis of a player behaviour I've noticed: scheming behind the referee's back. I don't mean this to sound like a pejorative, but I do believe it's a net negative for the table even though I understand why it happens and have even participated.

There is a tendency for players to cook up clever plans that the referee has not foreseen and spring them at the last moment. Sometimes this is purely narrative. Sometimes this involves exploiting chains of game mechanics and in these cases the players will execute their actions one by one in the required order, letting the referee resolve them piece by piece. It's almost as if the intent is to trap the referee in the logical conclusion of their own rulings up until that point.

This is potentially problematic for two reasons. The lesser problem is that the referee isn't prepared. This is already part of being a referee anyway. The referee should expect to have to handle this from time to time, though it's slightly unfair and potentially embarrassing to put your referee on the spot on purpose.

The greater problem is that you don't afford the referee the opportunity to help you do what you are trying to do. That is the referee's job. You're not there to thwart each other. You are collaborators. If you came up with a good plan, a good referee will want your plan to succeed (or at least sensibly play out). Instead, when the referee does not know your plan, it may fall flat when something does not work as the player intended. I have had this happen in my own game, after a player refused to answer, "What are you trying to do, exactly?"

It's possible that this is a symptom of adversarial thinking, but there's another cause. This cause is a problem that I'm not sure how to solve. It persists through any amount of player-referee collaboration.

∗ ∗ ∗

There is a common trope that is so crucial to storytelling* of all kinds that calling it a "common trope" is frankly insulting. I'm talking about The Reveal. These are often the pivotal moments in a story, the most memorable scenes and the most impactful beats.

In a TTRPG, the players are the story. The referee is too, and the degree to which each is true depends on the campaign. But no matter the table, thanks to the structure of play (the basic procedure), only the referee ever gets to do The Reveal. The master plan, the twist, and the flashback origin story - these are all forms of The Reveal that players attempt to execute while explicitly avoiding stating their intent to the referee, and they are all things that can fall flat on their face without the referee's support. They want the referee to enjoy The Reveal as much as the players do when one is sprung on them. Unfortunately, it's often a lot of work to make these work, and that work is best worked out together.

I wonder if it subconsciously creeps in that in movies, if the audience knows the plan they know it will fail - that's where the drama comes from. Conversely, if the audience does not know the plan, everything goes according to plan - that's The Reveal. The opposite is true in TTRPGs however, where the player requires the referee to make it work. There are any number of things that the player doesn't know, but the referee could weave into the narrative if they were just given some warning. Rules may need to be bent or particular judgements made. In extreme cases, established lore and prepared events may need to be thrown out to avoid messing with the player's master plans.

In those cases, the referee is stuck with a choice: change what is established or tell the player they failed. That sucks. Better to collaborate rather than try and pull a fast one. The referee is there to make the game work for you, after all. The players actually enforce an adversarial relationship here by expecting the referee to attempt to thwart them, and preemptively thwarting them in return.

*I don't think it's correct to call TTRPGs "storytelling". However, storytelling is the piece of TTRPGs within which this problem resides.

∗ ∗ ∗

I don't know how to solve the problem of players not getting to do The Reveal. In a sense, everything that the players do is The Reveal to the referee. I get that feeling constantly when I run games. It's all about seeing what my players are going to do and incorporating their ideas and I am always surprised. Changing the way players think doesn't seem like a viable solution though - I can only change the way I run the game. It's something I'll be ruminating on.

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

The Vacuum Swamp

A while back I was talking about meaningful choices and referred to uninformed decisions as vacuum swamps, in that they are the perfect habitat for a quantum ogre. Here is that idea made manifest.

Vacuum Swamp

The vacuum swamp exists along whichever path the players choose. Their choice never mattered, you were always going to use this. You spent all that time preparing it and your players will love it.

When your players pick a path to travel or a door to enter, there is a 1% chance that it leads to the vacuum swamp instead of its natural destination. The vacuum swamp is a small demiplane consisting of an oozy swamp with a rickety wooden shack. If you entered the swamp through a door, you exit from the shack and the door is your only way back. If you entered along a path, this shack's door can lead to any other door (Judge's choice).

The ooze is green and bubbling. The bubbles float a few feet up into the air before imploding with a loud crack. Will o' wisps and other creatures which lead travelers off the path are common here. Straying too far from the path will lead to the edge of the demiplanar boundary - whether this leads to an empty space, a magical barrier, or the astral plane depends on established cosmology and is up to the Judge's discretion. The Judge may always roll a d3 to decide: (1) vacuum, (2) magical barrier, (3) astral plane.

If the players enter a vacuum swamp, they are guaranteed to encounter a quantum ogre.

Quantum Ogre

The quantum ogre occupies any number of spaces in the world at once, becoming tangible and real the moment it is observed. Until such a time, it is impossible to determine the true state or position of the quantum ogre.

Its natural habitat is the vacuum swamp. In a vacuum swamp, quantum ogres can materialize spontaneously.

Initiative: +2;
Attack: slam +5 melee (1d6+6) or great mace +5 melee (1d8+6);
AC: 17; HD: 6d8+4 (32 HP);
Movement: 20', Action Dice: 1d20 per duplicate (see quantum superposition);
Special: quantum entanglement, quantum superposition;
Alignment: Chaotic;
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +1;

Quantum superposition: There is one duplicate ogre for each creature the quantum ogre is fighting, all sharing the same HP pool. They make their moves on the same initiative rank in any order they choose but no two can attack the same target in the same round. If any duplicate ogre successfully lands an attack or performs some other interaction with the world, the waveform collapses and that ogre becomes real while other duplicates become unreal. The real ogre is the one that must be attacked in order for the quantum ogre to take damage.

Attacks and spells against an unreal ogre are ineffective but make it become the real ogre.

Quantum entanglement: If the quantum ogre deals damage to a creature, it can automatically deal the same amount of damage to another creature that one of its duplicates is within striking range of. This duplicate does not become the real ogre.

Thursday, March 5, 2026

Balancing Spells is Futile

This post was going to be a reference sheet for spell effects in DCC. It was intended for use with Freeform Magic to make rulings about power on the fly without entirely making things up as you go, but it would also have made a useful reference when creating new spells. It would also provide the player some reasonable expectations if they wish to research and create their own spell as a Wizard.

That didn't happen, and now this post is about why I stopped instead.

∗ ∗ ∗

Let's start with showing, rather than telling. Here is a chart I began to develop. It's a simple chart, all it shows is the average damage of damaging spells by level and spell check result. I started here because damage is something that is straightforward to quantify and therefore easy to theoretically balance.

Result1st level2nd level
1st1, 2, 3.5-3511.5-20.5
2nd3.5, 3.5-12.512.5-21.5
3rd4.5-13.5, 3.5-12.5(x2.5)13.5-22.5(x2)
4th4.5-13.5(x3), 4.5-13.5(x4.5)14.5-23.5(x3)
5th8-17(x3), 27-3614.5-23.5(1,600ft²)
6th11.5-20.5(300ft²), 5.5-14.5(x6.5)18.5-27.5(x12)+6.5(1,257ft²)
7th11.5-20.5(600ft²), 5.5-14.5(x8)20.5-29.5(x12)+10.5(2,827ft²)
8th23-32(5,027ft²), 6.5-15.5(x7)71-80, 50-59(x5), 27.5-36.5(x10), 18.5-27.5(x30), 14.5-23.5(x50), 11.5(x100), 10.5(314,159ft²)

What the hell is all that?

You might notice I only made it to second-level spells, and there aren't even many damaging spells to get through. Despite that, I ended up with a chart that looks like an excerpt from a math textbook and needed five bullet points of explanation to interpret. Even if you look at just the first result of first-level spells you find a wildly unhelpful range of numbers: 1 damage at range, 1d3 damage melee, or 1d6 damage per Caster Level with a range that also increases per CL (Force Manipulation is a bloody good spell).

If you want to interpret the chart, here are those bullet points (feel free to skip):

  • Results from different spells (or different options for the same spell) are separated by commas.
  • Results showing a range are spells that scale with Caster Level. The range shows level 1 to level 10. These are NOT random variation; randomness is all averaged.
  • Number of targets is shown in brackets rather than simply multiplied into one damage value because the difference between dealing 500 damage to one target and 5 damage to two targets is significant.
  • Number of targets is also represented as an average, since some of these also use dice.
  • Fire is assumed to deal its damage twice (usually equal to 7). Real numbers vary based on enemy Ref saves, among practical considerations such as length of battle and enemies putting themselves out.

With the help of those notes you might be able to make sense of the results of the chart. Don't bother. The chart's only there because otherwise I wasted all that time making it. Don't get me wrong, this was still an exercise that was worth doing; the lesson was just something other than "here's how to balance spells".

∗ ∗ ∗

After having tackled the most straightforwardly quantifiable type of spell and failing, I then had to face the reality that most spells are not quantifiable and not directly comparable with other spells. This was something I already knew, of course, but I thought I could categorize these things and use them to provide rough reference points. Buffs and debuffs are somewhat measurable, and incapacitating spells like Sleep and Paralysis can be compared.

First-level spells at the lowest successful spell check allow you to, among other things, create a simple visual effect, become 10% larger, read a language for 10 minutes, or temporarily fix something. The differences only get starker as spell effects become more complex and varied, through both level and check result. When the reference table for damaging spells - the ones that are literally just numbers - totally fell apart, I decided it wasn't worth it to go further. It honestly should have been clear before I started, but balancing spells in DCC is genuinely not that important. It actually does not matter. Writing the numbers down helped me to see that. The core game's spells are far from balanced and I have not seen one person complain about it.

Instead of those charts I wanted to make, I'm going to leave you with something else right out of a math textbook: Balancing spells is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader.

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

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.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

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.

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

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.

Sunday, February 1, 2026

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.

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

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

LineageHumanDwarfElfHalfling
HumanHumanHalf-dwarfHalf-elfQuarterling*
DwarfHalf-dwarfDwarfDwelfDwarfling
ElfHalf-elfDwelfElfElfling
HalflingQuarterling*DwarflingElflingHalfling

*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.

Monday, January 26, 2026

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.

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

Saturday, January 24, 2026

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.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Extended Dice Chain

d3 – d4 – d5 – d6 – d7 – d8 – d10 – d12 – d14 – d16 – d20 – d24 – d30

I've been thinking a lot about Mercurial Magic lately (and there's certainly more where this post came from - watch this space) and something struck me about a handful of the results, namely 96 and 98 which improve the die used to cast the spell. The Dice Chain is an awesome way to give DCC's equivalent of "advantage" and "disadvantage" and can theoretically stack bonuses, but there is an explicit limit of d30, "the largest die that can be used" -p. 17.

Well, that's kind of a bummer for those with Mercurial Magic result 98 who are already using a d30. Why would they bother using extra spell components, ritual casting, or some other method of improving their cast? This inadvertently locks out (or at least makes less meaningful) some roleplay options for Wizards in the games of those Judges who like to give out +1d bonuses for this sort of extra creativity and preparation. It even stunts Arcane Affinity, which also works on the Dice Chain.

Here's an extended version, and you don't need additional dice beyond the DCC funky dice. The math shouldn't come up frequently enough to significantly slow down your game. Note that I've also included additions to the lower end for stacking penalties - I can't see either extreme coming up often if ever, but hey, that's perfectly on brand here.

0 – 1 – d2 – d3 – d4 – d5 – d6 – d7 – d8 – d10 – d12 – d14 – d16 – d20 – d24 – d30 – d36 – d42 – d50 – d60 – d70 – d80 – d100 – d120

How to roll the other dice:

0, 1: Flat results with no roll. Modifiers still apply.

d2: Three methods, pick your favourite.
1. Coin flip: tails is 1 and heads is 2.
2. Any even-sided die: odds are 1 and evens are 2.
3. Any even-sided die: lower half is 1 and upper half is 2.

d36: Two methods, pick your favourite. It's also worth noting that this die really exists and that inspired this extension.

1. Two d6, what some call the "d66" roll. Acts kind of like a percentile roll, in that the first die counts for multiples of six instead of multiples of ten. 1=0, 2=6, 3=12, 4=18, 5=24, 6=30.
2. A d3 and a d12, where the d3 counts for multiples of 12. 1=0, 2=12, 3=24

d42: A d7 and a d6, where the d7 counts for multiples of six. See the first d36 method, except 7=36.

d50: Two methods, pick your favourite.
1. d100 but subtract 50 if the result is in the upper half.
2. d100 divided by two, round down.

d60 - d80 and d120: A d6/d7/d8/d12 and a d10, the same way you'd roll percentile but with the lower die being the tens digit. It's also worth noting that this die really exists and that's actually the only reason I extended the chain past d100 (but you don't need it).