20:1 mass combat in practice

Here is one huge simplification of old school D&D combat. I’ve written about this before, and I’m sorry if I end up repeating myself.

[Also, I got a bit carried away in this post, so it might sound rambly... you've been warned! ;) ]

Assuming most creatures have 1 HD, deal 1d6 damage, and hit AC 0 only on a 20, each 20 creatures deal 1d6 damage per round against AC 0 on average. So, we could say that unit damage is 1d6 for a unit of 20 creatures.

[In a game like B/X, where you hit AC 0 on a 19–20, the average damage is 2d6 instead of 1d6.]

However, for each point of the target’s AC, 1d6 is added to damage. So, a unit of 20 archers deals 1d6 damage to a unit of 20 bandits, plus 5d6 if the bandits’ AC is 5, or 7d6 if it is 7, etc. Likewise, if your damage is 1d8, then you start with 1d8 and add 1d8 for each point of AC (you can use 1d6+1 if you don’t have many d8s). 

All very intuitive.

You don’t have to roll to hit—just roll damage. Each roll of 4 or more removes one creature from the opposing unit. Rolls of 1–3 can be added together to remove more creatures.

The “remnants” of each wounded unit are immediately added together into new units if they succeed at whatever morale check you deem necessary. This is an abstraction.

So you can easily run, say, a clan of 60 dwarves attacking a lair with 100 bandits with just a few rolls. Shall we try?

Let’s say the bandits have the initiative. The dwarves have AC 4; so each 20 bandits deal 1d6 plus 4d6 damage, a total of 25d6 for 100 bandits. We roll 25d6* and get:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

[Notice that we could roll each unit separately for more detail; for example, maybe one unit breaks and the other does not, etc.].

16 dwarves are killed immediately from the 6s, 5s and 4s, plus four deaths by adding the rest (3+1, 3+1, 2+2, 2+2; the last 2 is discarded].

20 deaths is very convenient, otherwise we'd have to discuss what to do with units of 17 etc.

But for now, 40 dwarves remain. They pass their morale check and attack. Their damage is 1d8 according to B/X, and the bandits AC is 6. This means 1d8+6d8 for each 20 dwarves, for a total of 14d8:

8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Only 10 kills! 90 bandits remain. By this time, it is obvious that the dwarves, having smaller numbers and having lost initiative, are nearly doomed.

If we attack with only 80 bandits next, we'd roll 20d6:

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

Another 16 dwarves are dead. Now we have 24 dwarves against 90 bandits. Let's "put aside" 4 dwarves and 10 bandits and continue with 80x20. Twenty desperate dwarves attack (7d8):

8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2

Six bandits killed. 84 left, 80 will attack again:

6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

16 dwarves killed, only 8 remain.

By this point, you can decide the dwarves are defeated, captured, or routed. You can easy estimate the losses on the bandit's side (about 20%). 

---

And this was not much slower than an usual D&D combat of say, 4 PCs against a dozen goblins. 

This is exactly the goal: you can insert your PCs in this battle, and they could even turn of the tide of the battle.

Assuming the PCs are fighting against bandits, a cleric could cast bless and add 1d8 damage to an unit of 20 dwarves. A mage could fireball 20 bandits in the first turn.

A fighter could kill multiple bandits, although we probably need special rules for that: like in OD&D, maybe give him one attack per level, so a strong level 6 fighter can kill maybe 2-4 bandits per round.

Is this enough to change the tide of battle? Let's try adding a party of three level 6 PCs.

---

The bandits attack first, reducing the dwarves from 60 to 40. A fireball reduces the bandits from 100 to 80, and the fighter reduces them to 77. The 40 dwarves, 20 being blessed, roll 15d8 to attack:

8, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1

68 bandits remain. Since we get 5d6 for each 20 bandits, lets roll 17d6 for the 68. Here the GM is averaging and abstracting a bit.

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2

About 27 dwarves are left. Let's roll 10d8, assuming a few of them are still blessed. Again, the DM is averaging and trying to get to the right ballpark:

8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Bandits are reduced to 61. Fighter kills 3, MU kills other 2 with magic missiles, cleric blesses again. Now there are 56 bandits, but let's add a twist: 20 bandits attack the fighter. The fighter's AC is 2, so he takes 3d6 damage. 36 attack the dwarves: let's roll 8d6.

6, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1

21 dwarves are left. Roll 8d8 since most are blessed:

8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

49 bandits left, soon reduced to 42 by the PCs. Roll 10d6 against dwarves:

6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1

14 dwarves left. Roll 5d8:

8, 7, 6, 4, 2

38 bandits left. 20 bandits attack dwarves (5d6) and 18 attack the AC 2 fighter (3d6 or, let's say, 3d6-1). And AD&D fighter is likely to be severely wounded at this point but alive:

6, 5, 4, 2, 1

Only 11 dwarves left, the fighter is severely wounded and the MU out of good spells (of course, if I gave him TWO fireballs they might have won). 

The battle is nearly lost but I want to see it to the bitter end. Let's go!

Dwarves (8, 7, 5, 3) kill 3 bandits. Fighter and mage kill 4 more. Cleric heals fighter. 

31 bandits are left, but now 20 of them decide to attack the cleric. With AC 3, the cleric takes 4d6 damage. Ouch! 11 bandits (6, 4, 2) kill 2 dwarves.

9 dwarves (8, 6, 5, 2) kill 3 bandits. 28 left, reduced to 24 by the desperate PCs. They attack the remaining dwarves, rolling 6d6 (6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1). 

Only 5 dwarves left, they attack (7, 3) and kill one bandit. the PCs also attack; 19 bandits are left, and they'll finish the dwarves (6, 5, 4, 3, 2). A single dwarf is left.

Now there are 3 PCs and one dwarf against 19 bandits. They manage to reduce them to 15. The fighter, slightly healed by the Cleric, takes 2d6 damage and barely survives. The GM decides the last dwarf falls killing one bandit, and the PCs also attack to reduce the bandits to 10.

The cleric takes 2d6 damage. Bandits are reduced to 7. Fighter takes 1d6 damage, and falls. 5 bandits against cleric and MU. There are two few combatants to keep using 20:1, and at this point I'm guesstimating. Could go either way, but it seems PCs are doomed.

---

So, 3 PCs were not enough to win this battle decisively. An additional warrior (or just another fireball) would certainly change things.

Still, the PCs made a significant difference. Instead of 80 bandits, now only a few will remain. In practice, repeated morale rolls (that I skipped) could win the day for the PCs.

Took me a bit more than an hour to write this and took some abstractions, rulings, etc. Seems that dwarves had little chance, even with better armor and weapons, after losing initiative. Even with the PCs, it was basically 100 HDs against 78, and the loss of initiative was a huge big deal.

It was a fun exercise, but probably would be more fun in an actual table with friends. Definitely deserves a few tweaks. I need to give it a try...

The AD&D burger

I find AD&D better than B/X—arguably twice as good. But it also comes with five times the page count (and weight, price, etc.)

In some ways, it’s like a burger that’s twice as tasty or has twice the protein of a McDonald’s burger, but also five times the calories, five times the cost, or stretches your lunch to two hours instead of twenty minutes.

Maybe there’s a better analogy out there, but you get the idea.

So let’s stretch the analogy a bit further: AD&D also has several parts (bards and monks, weapon versus armor, weapon speed) that people will simply remove from their burger before eating. Meanwhile, B/X might lack enough protein for your diet, so you can just add more meat or a second source of protein.

Which do you prefer?

Most OSR titles, including my own, try to reach a happy medium between the two.

Often, they start with B/X and add races separated from class and a few extra classes and magic items.

I believe my ideal D&D would be AD&D reduced to around 120 pages like B/X—cutting some fat and carbs from the big burger instead of adding more meat to the small one. 

I don’t think this has been done successfully. OSRIC gets close but not quite (still way more than 120 pages compared to B/X, and it doesn’t even include all AD&D parts). The Challenges Game System by Moldvay could be a good start. Every edition of D&D after B/X, including 2e, 3e, and 5e, tries to streamline things without actually simplifying much.

Maybe I should give this a shot before my next campaign. While I don't, you can read my analysis of the AD&D DMG here, including many thoughts on how to use AD&D stuff for your B/X games.

Mass combat: broken units

I had a brief mass combat idea that solved most of the issues I had with PCs fighting a few dozen goblins at once.

This assumes there are only a few (say, one to ten) fighters in one side, and several (say, ten to a hundred) in the other.

We already have the usual combat rules for smaller combats, when there is fewer than a dozen foes on either side.

In addition, if you have 60 knights against 150 orcs, you can just treat it almost like a fight of 6 knights against 15 orcs, adapting as needed.

But when you mix everything together, you might have a small issue - still easily fixable.

Say you have four individual PCs, plus 60 knights against 150 orcs. Ten orcs can attack ten knights with a single roll (treat this as one or against one knight); the knights either die or don't.

Ten orcs can attack a single PC instead, with a +10 bonus.

The problem is if the PCs attack a group of ten orcs. Usually, they can only kill one or two (which might break morale and thus the whole unit, but that is another matter). Let's say they are reduced to nine orcs.

Now they can attack the PCs with a +9 instead of +10 bonus—all very intuitive.

But what if nine orcs decide to attack ten knights?

Simply give them a -1 bonus due to the difference between nine and ten, and give the knights a +1 bonus when attacking them.

But let's say we get into a more difficult situation: there are just four orcs, fighting to the death, against ten knights in plate.

They'd attack with -6, making a hit impossible. Instead, they could choose to make an attack against a single knight, now with +4. Now it is more likely that they'd kill at least one before being wiped out by the remaining knights.

Another option, maybe even easier, is saying that the 4 orcs can attack 4 knights - no bonuses or penalties. Treat this as one orc attacking one knight. Either the ten knights are reduced to six, or remain unharmed [this works somewhat similarly to the game Risk].

Conversely, if 7 knights attack 3 orcs, treat this as a single knight, attacking a single orc, with a +4 bonus. If that single orc is slain, it means all three orcs were defeated.

This system looks a bit complicated until I organize it, but it is very intuitive to me, and the results are not terribly far from the what you'd get but making each single attack separately - or at least close enough for my taste.

My goal, here, is never having to keep track of "minor NPC" HP, and never needing another set of rules - just roll 1d20, consider THAC0 and AC, use damage as written, etc. No need to convert to d6s, roll handfuls of d20s, and so on.

[BTW, if you own handfuls of d20 and d10s, you can easily use them as pawns, altering the digits as the units dwindle - for example, a d20 on 7 means 7 knights, and a d10 on 3 means 3 orcs. But you can also use any chips or counters, including the ones from Risk].

Now I want to playtest this. Looks promising.

The progenitors (Prismatic Planet)

The progenitors are a nearly extinct species, and little is known about them. Humanity’s knowledge comes mostly from the observation of ruins and half-forgotten legends - fragments often twisted by time and error, that few humans know.

Whatever remains of the progenitors that can be found lie deep within damp, shadowed caves. They seemed to shun the scorching sun and suffered greatly from the scarcity of water. They might have been amphibious, or at least partially so, as their lairs contain vast networks of pipes, basins, wet chambers, and pools.

Their minds were far more advanced than those of any amphibian, reaching extremes that not even human intellect can fathom without risking madness. Their tools have often been salvaged for human use, suggesting the presence of hands and feet, though some of these artifacts may have been crafted for their human thralls instead.

The way their bodies are depicted in art and myth reflects this dual humanoid and aquatic nature. A common motif is a powerful human-like body crowned with the head of a water-dwelling creature such as a crab, octopus, or lizard. Others portray them as disembodied heads or brains suspended in liquid, connected to robotic shells or grafted onto decapitated human hosts. Wilder storytellers speak of tentacles, bat-like wings, bioelectronic appendices, claws, or amorphous blobs twisting into unnamable shapes that defy all classification and analogy.

Progenitors were mostly solitary and arrogant beings. They viewed other creatures as mere tools for their purposes and their own kind as little better. Though they seemed to share a common language, they rarely shared common homes. Their lairs were cloaked in secrecy and often protected by cruel locks and traps, their experiments jealously guarded from even their peers.

They possessed powerful, but limited, means of communication across vast distances, aided by strange machines and immense psionic abilities.

They appeared obsessed with experimental science and technology, using humans as guinea and creating incredibly intelligent machines, on the verge of artificial intelligence, to serve their whims. The planet itself, like all other life, was exploited with little regard for the future. The regions surrounding their dwellings remain especially grim and lifeless even by the standards of this already hostile world.

The Progenitors and Humanity

Humans were very likely the progenitors’ favored thralls. Their versatility and aptitude for tool use made them ideal servants. Any inclination toward rebellion or resistance seems to have been suppressed through psionic or technological means, though bloody uprisings and wars certainly occurred.

Humans were likely bred, cloned, and altered to better serve their masters. They were also subjected to endless experimentation, their capabilities tested and catalogued. The abhorrent treatment that lingers in humanity’s collective subconscious would appear as wanton cruelty and sadism, but in the eyes of the progenitors, it may have been explained as scientific curiosity akin to what a human would nurture for an unusually clever group of mice.

---
Back to the table of contents.

As always, all feedback is appreciated!

The shelters (Prismatic Planet)

The Fallout setting has the best rationale for wacky dungeons being scattered all around. Each "vault" was designed with a unique, often disturbing social experiment. This means every underground facility can have wildly different themes: psychological horror, body horror, mutated monsters, utopian simulations, illusions, traps, advanced technology, and so on.

Here are a few examples compiled by A.I.:

Vault 11: Residents had to sacrifice one person annually or face annihilation.
Vault 108: Filled with clones of a man named Gary. All they say is “Gary.”
Vault 12: Deliberately left unsealed to expose residents to radiation—birthplace of ghouls.
Vault 22: Botany experiment gone wrong—plants infected and consumed the inhabitants.
Vault 75: Children were taken for genetic enhancement; adults were exterminated.
Vault 81: Secret medical experiments conducted behind a facade of normalcy.
Vault 95: Rehab center for addicts—later flooded with drugs to test relapse.
Vault-Tec University: Training ground for Vault Overseers, filled with simulation chambers.

Here are other examples.

I find this much more satisfying than "crazy wizard did it because he is crazy" of some D&D modules.

My Prismatic Planet setting has something similar, with a few twists of my own.

---

Most Prismatic Planet "dungeons" were created by the progenitors. These are inhuman creatures that view humans as little better than common beasts. Before being driven to the brink of extinction, they not only enslaved humans but also ran various twisted experiments on them to test their physical, mental, and moral limits.

[Other dungeons are created primarily by gigantic prismatic worms and later repurposed by humans or other beasts]

The progenitors knew they were a dying breed even before the scorching of the planet, so they used the much more numerous and expendable humans for various tasks.

This means that their "shelters" often contained actual labyrinths, tricks, and traps to test or even mutate humans in various ways, treating them like lab rats. Some of them might have included small prizes to encourage people to complete random tasks, while others were deathtraps designed to cull the herd and leave only the most apt humans for breeding purposes.

Each trap can contain information of various bygone ages, humans (different, crazy, or unharmed) and even surviving progenitors. Some are found intact, while other have been invaded, robbed, or overtaken by monsters or bandits.

They can also work as a great campaign starter, similarly to a Fallout game: the shelter is all the PCs ever know, until the systems stop functioning for unknown reasons, forcing them to venture out into the wider world.

It would probably be a good idea to list a few examples in the book. Here are a few of my own. I think I can also use some from Dark Fantasy Places.

1d6.

1. Controlled by an AI with an [helpful, hostile, erratic, suffocating, jealous, mischievous, dishonest, bargaining] personality.

2. Clone factory, has several humans with little to no memories or understanding and [helpless, aggressive, childish, curious, submissive, rebel] personality, or preserved in cryogenic chambers.

3. Mutation lab, including mutated humans, beasts or plants of various kinds.

4. Arena, created for entertainment and selection purposes, with various systems prepared to pit humans against [each other, robots, clones, beasts]. 

5. Mazes, sometimes resembling escape rooms, created to test the subject's [intelligence, morality, courage, resistance].

6. Experimental science labs, dedicated to the research and improvement of [weaponry, armor, transportation, communication, medicine, psychotropics, psychic powers, robots].

---
Back to the table of contents.

As always, all feedback is appreciated!

More minimalist weapons, armor and some numbers

Another random idea for B/X D&D weapons.

I've tried this before, but I like this version better.

Since maces/axes deal 1d6 damage and swords deal 1d8, we could use:

--

Maces get +2 against armor.

Axes get +1 against armor, and +1 damage against unarmored.

Swords don't need it but can get +1 to-hit against unarmored. Still best weapon unless foe is heavily armored.

[Hard/brittle foes made of rock or bone count as armored, soft foes such as oozes and maybe snakes, tentacles etc. count as unarmored].

Of course, maces and axes are always more useful to break down a door.

---

That is it, that is all we need. Or not - maybe the sword is just better because it is heavier and more expensive.

But while we're here let's crunch some numbers.

In B/X, the best nonmagical armor you could get would be plate + shield, which a first level character (any class) hits on a 17 or more - i.e., 20% of the time.

This is a DPR of 0.9 (20%*1d8) for swords. Maces hit more often, for a DPR of 1.05 (30%*1d6). A nice small improvement.

[Notice that our change adds 50% to the mace's DPR under these circumstances].

If you put the target in chain, no shield, the sword is identical to mace on average (1.575); against lighter armor, sword is better again.

The axe is never quite optimal but it works well enough against armored and unarmored foes, and it is just slightly worse than the sword against unarmored opponents.

The thing is, once you get ability score bonuses and magic weapons, the whole distinction becomes almost meaningless. 

For example, under the usual rules, if your fighter deals 1d6+5 damage with a mace, getting a 1d8+5 sword is only an 11% improvement in DPR, instead of almost 30%. 

And if you're hitting on a roll of 6 or more (75% of the time), for example, getting a +1 bonus is only a 7% increase in DPR. And you're unlikely to face a foe with negative armor unless it is a dragon or something.

So, while the distinctions will lose importance to powerful heroes, they are relevant enough for low-level PCs and armies in general.

Note that, in AD&D, these small rules could partially replace the complicated weapon versus armor table; they'd be a bit more significant against plate+shield, which requires 18 or more to hit for a 1st level PC. 

Also since you need a 20 to hit AC 0 in AD&D, and monster AC is usually the same as B/X,  the differences are more notable and relevant for a bit longer.

---

Addendum (10 Nov 2025): Another issue I had are specialized weapons, such as flails and picks. In this case, I'd give them -1 against unarmored, and otherwise treat them as maces, with and additional +1 against shields (for flails) and +1 against plate (for picks). 

For polearms with multiple heads, I'd be inclined to give them just bonuses, since the fighter will be able to use the best method available.

On alignment, part III: the Dungeon Master and his emissary

One thing I found difficult in Part II was understanding why we even need “Law” in the first place. Why not just aim for the Good, if that’s the obvious goal?

I think the reason is that we cannot grasp the Good directly, so we need law to guide us. Until, like we discussed before, the law stops serving the Good and starts serving itself.

I’ve been reading about The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist (I haven’t read the book), and one of the main ideas seems to be the two ways the brain—divided into left and right hemispheres—sees the world. Basically (and please forgive me if I’m mangling this), the right side sees a diffuse “whole picture”, while the left has laser-like focus on one thing at a time.

[Or, as McGilchrist says in a Jordan Peterson interview, in many animals the right side is looking for predators while the left one is looking for prey].

One example (not sure if it’s from the book) is how we can be in a room full of people talking, and we’re completely unable to follow each conversation, but somehow we can hear our name get mentioned. This is the "right brain", perceiving nothing and everything at the same time.

So there’s an analogy here between Law and Good. Law gives us guidance: for example, “if someone commits adultery, stone them to death,” or “you cannot eat meat, shellfish,” etc. It’s simple, easy to understand, clear-cut—a job for the "left brain". But the Good transcends this: “he who hath no sin, cast the first stone,” “the Sabbath was made for man.” And this is not a binary “break the law” moment either—it transcends the mere yes/no. “I do not condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Another example—one I’ll mention just because of sheer coincidence*—comes from a TV show I was watching after pausing to write this very post. It was about a university student who missed his midterm exam by just a few minutes, and his teacher, principal, etc., insisted on enforcing the rule to show its importance. In the end, the student humbly asks the teacher to reconsider, showing that he’s learned his lesson but now needs just one person to say “F— it.” And the teacher does, giving the student another shot. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, but in that moment, the rules would have prevented the main goal—graduating an exceptional student—for no apparent gain.

[*BTW, these kinds of "coincidences" are the right brain's domain. I started reading about The Master and His Emissary because "coincidentally" two different courses I was watching pointed me to it somehow].

One final analogy came to mind while thinking about D&D. When going into dungeons, you can carry a torch—or, in later editions, even a "bullseye lantern". Now think of a modern small lantern: it’s much better than a torch, but it only points one way, while the torch lights all around you.

But, when walking in the dark (and we are all walking in the dark—from Plato to Scripture to Maya, etc.), you need a source of light to make all your surroundings clearer—lest you be jumped by monsters or fall down a hole you didn't see because you were looking straight ahead. Still, the lantern allows you to see farther ahead, and in greater detail.

One thing that bothers me about D&D torches is that, in real life, they’d be horrible to use in dungeons. Carrying fire near your eyes ruins your vision. You’d have to hold it behind you, or maybe mount a candle over your helmet. Looking directly into the light would blind you, not to mention the smoke.

That’s why we cannot look at the Good directly.

I like this metaphor because light is a symbol for the Good—but it can also be blinding. “For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” So while Law, when twisted into Lawful Evil, can be defied by pure Good (which might resemble Chaotic Good), it can also be defied by Chaotic Evil—pure evil disguised as Chaotic Good.

I’m not sure how much of this applies in D&D, since deities like Bahamut are Lawful Good, period. I’m not sure how D&D handles the Euthyphro dilemma, or whether Bahamut could ever do evil. I think these things are more or less set in stone—although maybe there’s a module or novel somewhere about Lawful Evil cultists of a Lawful Good deity. 

If there is, I’d bet the adventure would play out in a way similar to what I’ve been describing: the Good  (or Chaotic Good) heroes having to break the letter of the law to uphold its spirit, while the true Chaotic Evil characters remain unseen, lingering at the edges of the zealots’ vision, because the zealots are using lanterns to search for motes in front of them and ignoring the Light above them, and the full picture all around them.

UPDATE: just found out there is a great video with the same name as this post, so here you go:

On alignment, part II: religion and philosophy

"The more laws and commands there are, The more thieves and robbers there will be." - Tao Te Ching.

I was reading about the history of philosophy and had a brief thought on alignment that I wanted to share.

As you know, in OD&D the "cosmic conflict" is framed as Law vs. Chaos, which is really about Good and Evil. 

AD&D makes things more complex by introducing nine alignments in two axis: Good-Evil and Law-Chaos (see below). 

Still, the "Good vs. Evil" axis seems more relevant than the Law vs. Chaos one; the difference between, say, Saintly and Beatific or between Devilish and Demonic (which would be nearly synonyms in some dictionaries...) is not as significant as the difference between Saintly and Devilish or Beatific and Demonic. 

In addition, rangers must always be good, and paladins not only must be Lawful Good but also cannot associate with non-Good people, although they can freely associate with non-lawful.

You could see Lawful Good as the "best" alignment, in the sense of "summum bonum", while Chaotic Evil are obviously the bad guys.

Orcs, for example, were portrayed as chaotic, lawful, neutral, and evil during the TSR era—but never good. notice that OD&D orcs are chaotic or neutral, but AD&D orcs are lawful evil, despite being the same creatures.

Another example I like is CE gnolls being led by LE flinds, which are very similar creatures.

But Lawful Good versus Chaotic Evil, or Heaven versus Hell, is a simplistic conflict; we can clearly see who is in the right. Maybe if we could see angels and demons, we wouldn’t need philosophy—we would just side with the angels.

Once you start looking into the history of philosophy (and religion—although this post is NOT a comment on real-world religions, but on D&D), you begin to notice a certain pattern.

We have a concept of "Good" and certain laws that are meant to help us achieve that good; this is Lawful Good. Over time, the laws—perhaps because they are simpler, easier, or more explicit than Good itself—start to become more important than Good. In other words, the letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law. So Lawful Good begins to slide toward Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil.

Then a new doctrine or figure appears. In a way, it is Lawful Good because it offers a better path (a better law) to achieve Good. It denounces the current regime as Lawful Neutral or Evil, and is often considered Chaotic or Evil by the existing doctrine, as it appears to defy the letter of the law.

The current status quo is often denounced as a perversion of the old ideals, and the new doctrine is at times revolutionary and at times reactionary, going "back to the source", back to the TRUE Law, which is Good.

If the new doctrine succeeds, a new and improved Lawful Good becomes the norm—but it is always at risk of sliding back toward Neutral or Evil, as pure Good is elusive for mere mortals.

This seems especially evident in Taoism, Christianity (particularly in its critique of Phariseeism), Protestantism, and Buddhism, but it’s also present in other philosophies. For example, Confucianism is very heavy on obedience and ritual, but Confucius also emphasizes sincerity in performing such rituals.

I have a feeling that every revolution is also started like this: "the letter of law is now a tool of evil, it must be discarded entirely in favor of good, no matter the chaos we cause in the process".

This is not to say that the battle of Good versus Evil is uninteresting; but this cycle of LG becoming LE and then being corrected by an idea that looks CG until it becomes the new LG seems especially relevant in the history of philosophy and religion, and also in D&D.

In addition, the theme of “adherence to laws originally meant to protect good, but which have grown stale and now protect evil” is a common one in fiction as well; from Antigone to Les Miserables and Game of Thrones.

Of course, there are many other compelling alignment conflicts to explore in D&D: a Lawful Good society growing lax in its adherence to law and falling prey to evil and chaos; two LG factions clashing over fundamentally different interpretations of "good"; or a neutral or good-aligned character living in—or even ruling—a chaotic or evil society. But I’ll save those for another post.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/11/on-alignment-part-iii-dungeon-master.html

How minimalist can D&D characters be?

As I've said before, this is the amount of information I'd like D&D characters to have — and that would have to be enough in actual play for something like 80% of the rolls, to minimize the time spent doing math and checking the book:

Nice, huh? Class, level, abilities, a couple of magic items or spells, and you're good to go. Most PCs have a little more than a dozen pieces of information (Name, Alignment, Level, Class, 6 abilities, AC, HP, weapons, and armor), plus spells for some.

Realistically, however, even the lightest versions of D&D need more information than that. For example, can you recall each saving throw from memory? Unlikely, but this is easily solved by reducing all of them to a single saving throw (say, roll 1d20 + level, target 20, or 16, etc.).

What about THAC0? Same thing. I'm happy with leaving the attack bonus equal to level for fighters, half level for everyone else, which is a huge simplification from D&D. But that's two extra bits of information. And usually, you need ranged and melee values, which rely on more information than just level (so you need to add strength modifier).

And ability scores? You have the six of them, but you need modifiers. You could commit the modifiers to memory, but you use them often enough that is is easier if you write them down. Well, maybe not all of them; since you already have AC, HP, and languages, you can ignore Dex, Con and Int modifiers most of the time (which is, by itself, an interesting idea - why keep these modifiers in the character sheet?). But you need Charisma mods for reaction, at least in theory, and Wisdom for saves.

Strength modifiers are needed to attack and damage - and in AD&D, this can mean two additional numbers. Notice these stats lack weapon damage too, something you'll use all the time.

Notice tat at the very least we could ignore all "+0" modifiers so we'd only need to add two or three digits, not six new ones.

We do not have much equipment here either; it is likely that a real PC has at least half a dozen items or more, not only weapons and armor. I'm counting "sword +2" as a single piece of information, not two.

[On a side note, maybe in a low magic D&D setting, "sword +1" could be a personal trait for a warrior instead of a magic weapon. This could incorporate your strength bonus and make "weapon specialization" a lot easier.]

So maybe we'd have a minimum of 30 pieces of information for each PC... but there is more!

Spellcasters have spells, which is straightforward enough (if not for the fact that they could in theory pick new ones every day, and clerics have access to their whole list - notice that the cleric here has no spells memorized). Thieves have skills - again, a bit hard to memorize, but can be easily replaced by rolling 1d20 and adding level (once you get some customization, more information is needed). Fighters have their weapons specializations and extra attacks - and they need this stuff.

And that is assuming each PC can only have one class.

In the end, we could have more than 100 pieces of information. Look at this AD&D sheet:

Of course, much of it is redundant, or rarely used, but it still muddles the sheet.

Sigh.

In the end, this post ended up doing the opposite of what I intended when I wrote its title...

The answer, I think is that D&D characters could be a lot more minimalist than they are, but it is not an easy task.

We could start by cutting all ability scores in half (only one number, no modifier), reducing all saves to one single save, and streamlining all skills... but I've been to this road before. There is no end to this, other than ending with something that doesn't resemble D&D anymore.

Maybe this much complexity is fine if I let the players handle it. 

I guess I have no easy answers today.

At the Earth's Core and Pellucidar

It was a huge tiger—such as hunted the great Bos through the jungles primeval when the world was young. In contour and markings it was not unlike the noblest of the Bengals of our own world, but as its dimensions were exaggerated to colossal proportions so too were its colorings exaggerated. Its vivid yellows fairly screamed aloud; its whites were as eider down; its blacks glossy as the finest anthracite coal, and its coat long and shaggy as a mountain goat. That it is a beautiful animal there is no gainsaying, but if its size and colors are magnified here within Pellucidar, so is the ferocity of its disposition. It is not the occasional member of its species that is a man hunter—all are man hunters; but they do not confine their foraging to man alone, for there is no flesh or fish within Pellucidar that they will not eat with relish in the constant efforts which they make to furnish their huge carcasses with sufficient sustenance to maintain their mighty thews.

- At the Earth's Core

This is another chapter in my Appendix N quest. In a previous one, I heartily recommended another book by the same author (Edgar Rice Burroughs), A Princess of Mars. If you enjoyed that one, you'll likely enjoy this one too.

At the Earth's Core and Pellucidar (the first and second books in the series, respectively) are very close in spirit to A Princess of Mars: the story of a man from Earth who travels to another place by accident (in this case, the Earth's core instead of another planet), discovers savage, weird civilizations, falls in love with a princess, fights tyrants, and becomes ruler of the world.

The protagonist, David Innes, is maybe just a tad less superheroic and self-confident than John Carter, and has a bit more humorous. Maybe the writing in these books is even a bit superior to the Barsoom series; the pace feels somewhat faster. Another advantage is that these two books form a coherent whole, with a satisfying ending (which I didn’t quite get in the case of Barsoom, having stopped on book two). There are other books in the series, but they were written a take place many years after the end of Pellucidar (even Tarzan will visit Pellucidar in book 4!).

But the pulp action and naïveté are still there, sometimes amplified. When Innes is chained to a random group of people, there’s a princess behind him and a king of another tribe ahead of him. The princess gets kidnapped several times, and the hero is imprisoned often. "Random encounters" often with important characters and fell unlikely to have happened by chance. The protagonists rules over others for no apparent reasons and staunchly believes he can create utopia with enough guns, factories and banning commerce.

Personally, I find Barsoom—with its weird aliens and monsters—a bit more interesting than Pellucidar with its dinosaurs, cave people and Smilodons (which probably influenced the appearance of such creatures in D&D and AD&D, and the how Hollow World setting from Mystara). Curiously, John Eric Holmes wrote a couple of sequels authorized by the Burroughs estate.

Still, Pellucidar has its cool features such as areas of permanent light and permanent shadow and mind-controlling pterodactyl-people (the scene where they hypnotize their meal is particularly creepy and cool).

In any case, both books are enjoyable reads and will probably influence my current project.

Read more about the Appendix N and other fantasy books HERE.

---

Some of my books like Teratogenicon and Dark Fantasy Basic are included in the Halloween sale!

You can find more OSR and D&D picks from other sales here (affiliate links).

Prismatic Worms (Prismatic Planet)

Did you ever notice how purple worms are listed under “P” in the D&D monster manuals, but red dragons are under “D”? Not sure where I’ll file my entries.

Purple worms are such a cool creature, I decided to add some variations. If purple is the biggest, red could be the smallest—maybe with a touch of Paranoia-style inspiration. The rest basically wrote itself.

I like the idea of monsters with common origins. Not just “it’s magic,” but something with vaguely scientific explanations, which fits the sci-fi setting. You can put aboleths, snakes, rot grubs and all kinds of creatures as mutated worms.

And the best part is... they create dungeons as they burrow!

The Great Grey Worm concept is an old one—I might’ve borrowed it from Dune, Lovecraft’s dholes/bholes, Bahamuth, etc. It is also discussed in my Teratogenicon.

For more ideas on worm cults, check Obscene Serpent Religion.

Anyway, here are the prismatic worms!

---

The prismatic worms are strange annelid creatures that can reach enormous sizes, changing colors and shapes as they grow. The smallest ones, rarely seen, resemble large earthworms and are almost featureless. They might be obsidian, white, or grey soon after hatching, but they are rarely—if ever—observed in such colors. Typically, the smallest are blood red, the most common are orange or yellow and about the size of snakes, and the largest grow to green, blue, and eventually purple—reaching nearly 100 feet in length and six feet in diameter.

They lay eggs beneath the earth and sand, where they can hatch and wait for an unsuspecting victim. Sometimes, a previous victim or carcass serves as a host. People attacked by mature worms may find themselves infected with their eggs, which hatch and produce larvae that consume the victim from within after a few days of hallucinatory fever. One such also be careful to avoid eating the meat of infected animals.

The worms are highly susceptible to mutation. Some individuals develop wings, small arms, or amphibious traits. Others are blind or covered in innumerable eyes. There are scorpion-like, eel-like, and bat-like variants, but the biggest specimens seem to lose these features as they grow. All of them share a round mouth with sharp teeth and typically a poisonous stinger. They suck blood and burrow into living or dead creatures while young, but once large enough, they devour their victims whole and regurgitate unused materials.

Most prismatic worms live underground or underwater. There are burrowing versions that prefer deserts or any kind of softer soil, although some seem powerful enough to leave stable tunnels beneath the earth and even through solid rock.

Their bodies are harvested as ingredients. Each color yields a different rare substance. Eating them may cause sickness, mutation, or death. The venom is deadly but also has calming and hallucinogenic properties.

An alternative theory about the existence of the worms suggests that each type belongs to a distinct species, possibly sharing a common ancestor. Intermediary forms—with underdeveloped wings or multiple colors—are rarely seen, which could indicate that they are separate creatures.

Many cults worship prismatic worms. Some sacrifice people to the great worms, while others seek to mutate themselves or others in pursuit of creating superior races. One heinous ritual involves human sacrifice—willing or not—alongside either a cluster of eggs or a single mature worm, roughly the size of a person’s throat.

Legends tell of a great grey worm living far underground (or deep in the oceans, or frozen in some glacial nation) that one day might eat the core of the planet until it collapses unto itself. While few claim to have seen such an aberration, some tunnels are greater than any worm in known memory.

---
Back to the table of contents.

As always, all feedback is appreciated!

Prismatic Planet - Table of Contents

This is a Table of Contents for the Prismatic Planet setting. It’s unfinished—just a rough draft based on what I have in mind so far. I’ll update it as we go.

---

Intro

1. Short intro and explanation
2. Introduction to the Setting 

Creatures

1. Humanoids
2. Insect people
3. Beasts (incl. dinosaurs)
4. Robots
5. Prismatic Worms
6. Oozes
7. The Progenitors
8. Great Ones

Places

1. The City of Evil (draft)
2. The Black Hexagon
3. The Shelters
4. The Underworm

Religion

Mythology

Tech & Treasure

Sources of Inspiration 

Random tables (draft 1)

Prismatic Planet

Okay, I'm giving this a try. 

I've wanted to write this setting for a long time, and now I've finally found a name I really like.

I'd prefer to have a full product to offer you, but instead I'll start a series of posts under the Prismatic Planet tag. Maybe one day I'll compile the whole thing and publish it. 

For now, I hope you enjoy these posts!

This is a sword and planet setting, inspired by my love of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom and its spiritual successors like Dark Sun and Carcosa. It also draws from Lovecraft, H.G. Wells, other pulp and weird fiction, traditional D&D, and various other works.

The planet itself is roughly the size of Mars and inhabited by savage humans of different colors—chalk white, obsidian, red, blue, green, and yellow, at least for now. Water scarce but there are a few huge lakes, forests and frozen regions.

The world is populated with strange creatures, including dinosaurs, banths, morlocks, and nightgaunts, and a few ideas discussed in my Teratogenicon. 

There is no centralized government or kingdoms, only a few large cities that rule over nearby villages. While there are no lizard or snake people for now, a few insect colonies do exist. Religion is present but remains materialistic, with no active demons or deities introduced yet.

Psionics are common across all creatures. Advanced technology exists, but few understand or know how to use it. The beings who created it—the progenitors—might be Rykors, Mahars, brains in vats, or something else entirely. They won’t appear soon.

I do not have an specific system for that, but if one is needed I'll certainly use some flavor of OSR. But hopefully it can be used across several systems.

Leave any questions in the comments and I'll answer them to the best of my ability!

---

Back to the table of contents.

Random stopwatch encounters

This is a small improvement over an old idea.

The DM rolls 1d100 in secret. Then sets a stopwatch for that many minutes.

When the time is over—there IS an encounter.

This will keep players on their toes! And it has several advantages over checking for encounters every 30 or 60 minutes:

- No more useless rolls where nothing happens.
- Encounters can happen almost simultaneously—roll a 1 or 2, and one side might get reinforcements during the fight!
- Or the newcomers might wait to see who wins… and jump in after.

It would work well for dungeon exploration. On average, you get an encounter every 50 minutes of actual play, on average. Sounds good to me, but you can adjust to your liking.

For wilderness exploration, I'm not sure - maybe you could roll 1d100 and count hours, but that would defeat the purpose of using a stopwatch...

On a similar topic...

In Pellucidar, Chapter 2, Edgar Rice Burroughs describes a series of random encounters—but most are hand-waved until a meaningful one (with a cave bear) actually happens.

Maybe D&D deserves a mechanic like that to make wilderness encounters more meaningful. Day one you circumvent some snakes, day 3, you scare wolves with arrows, day 5 you see pterodactyls in the distance, and day 7... BAM! Roll initiative.

But this deserves further reflection. 

For now, you can check my small app (explanation here) and my latest book to make your wilderness encounters easier to generate.

Reading Elric

Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné is immensely influential. It not only inspired Dungeons & Dragons—especially its intelligent and cursed swords—but also left its mark on numerous books (The Witcher, the Targaryens in Game of Thrones), comic books (Berserk, and probably many of the "multiverses" form Marvel etc.), and even music (Hawkwind, Blue Öyster Cult, both of which collaborated with Moorcock himself).

In short, Elric is one of the pillars of dark fantasy.

But people often ask how to start reading it. The series can be confusing, since there are so many books and the publication order doesn’t follow the internal chronology at all. The books have been republished rewritten, collected under different names, and so on.

Another complicating factor is Stormbringer—the book that (sort of) concludes the saga. It’s one of the greatest entries in the series (probably my favorite), one of the two Elric works mentioned in the Appendix N, and ironically, one of the earliest to be published.

I’m a big fan of Elric, and part of me wants to just say: Read the whole thing in internal chronological order! But I think it’s easier more helpful to offer a few different starting points.

So, how do we begin with Elric?

Start with Elric of Melniboné (1972).

It’s not the strongest novel in the collection, but it’s a solid introduction to the character, his world, and the themes that define the saga

If you like it, you can go on and read The Fortress of the Pearl, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, and The Weird of the White Wolf, before going to Stormbringer. 

All of them are great.

But I'd say is even easier to just pick any collection of your choice, as long as it contains the first and the last.

For example (from Wikipedia):

In 1977, DAW Books republished Elric's saga in six books that collected the tales according to their internal chronology:

Elric of Melniboné (Hutchinson, 1972, cut vt [variant title] The Dreaming City Lancer, 1972 US; DAW, 1977) ISBN 0-425-08843-X

The Sailor on the Seas of Fate (Quartet, 1976; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-74863-5

The Weird of the White Wolf (collection, DAW, 1977, contains "The Dream of Earl Aubec", "The Dreaming City", "While the Gods Laugh" and "The Singing Citadel"), ISBN 0-441-88805-4

The Sleeping Sorceress (NEL, 1971; Lancer, 1972 as The Vanishing Tower; DAW 1977), ISBN 0-441-86039-7

The Bane of the Black Sword (DAW, 1977, fixup of "The Stealer of Souls", "Kings in Darkness", "The Flame Bringers" and "To Rescue Tanelorn"), ISBN 0-441-04885-4

Stormbringer (cut, Herbert Jenkins, 1965; restored and revised, DAW, 1977, Berkeley, 1984, fixup of "Dead God's Homecoming", "Black Sword's Brothers", "Sad Giant's Shield" and "Doomed Lord's Passing"), ISBN 0-425-06559-6

Now, if you dislike it... we have a few options.

You could go from Elric to directly Stormbringer to see what all the fuzz is about. If you like the story but dislike the prose, there is another great alternative: reading the comics.

Elric's comics and graphic novels

Elric has been adapted several times into comic book format. My favorites are the ones adapted by  Roy Thomas and illustrated by P. Craig Russell and others—and once again, Stormbringer (by P. Craig Russell) stands out as the best of the bunch, but I'd recommend reading the The Michael Moorcock Library first (Elric volumes 1-5: - Elric of Melniboné, The Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Dreaming City, The Weird of the White Wolf, The Vanishing Tower).

There is also a French version by Julien Blondel in the works, with a few volumes already published. The art (Didier Poli et al) is both dark and really stunning. But the story is much less faithful to the originals, which I'd favor on a first read.

There are other comics that are also worth checking out (The Making of a Sorcerer, Druillet's version, Moorcock's Multiverse, etc.), but I'd start with the "main books" mentioned above.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2025/07/odysseus-elric-epic-musical-and-tragedy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-appendix-n-project.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/my-weird-dark-twisted-fantasy.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-broken-sword-one-of-best.html

Reconsidering random encounters (again)

I'm reconsidering D&D random encounters... again.

OSE (B/X) says this about the chances of random encounters:

Clear, grasslands: 1-in-6.

Barren lands, hills, mountains, woods: 2-in-6.

Desert, jungle, swamp: 3-in-6.

The idea that mountains and deserts should have lots of encounters feels both unrealistic and unnecessary. 

Forests probably deserve more frequent encounters, but honestly, we could just equalize encounter rates across all terrains without much loss. You’d still end up with more fights in mountains and forests anyway, simply because travel is slower there. 

Again, from OSE:

Some types of terrain modify the speed at which characters can travel:

Broken lands, desert, forest, hills: 33% slower.

Jungle, mountains, swamp: 50% slower.

Maintained roads: 50% faster.

Plains might have fewer beasts, sure—but they tend to have more humans, so the total number of encounters could stay about the same.

Here is one alternative: 2-in-6 chances for every terrain. If you are in terrain that could fall under two categories (forested mountains, a river in a swamp, a settlement in the desert), a 1 means you roll on the first table, a 2 means you roll on the second table.

What else?

Do we really need different tables for each terrain? It makes some sense, but when I started reading the AD&D tables, I noticed something odd. In alphabetical order, there are no giant ants, badgers, beetles, or beavers listed for mountain terrain. That’s not very precise either. In B/X, there are no undead in forests and no insects in mountains. Is there a reason? This probably deserves some revision.

Rivers are trickier. If you’re in a boat, you’re likely to miss or ignore most fish, and even common alligators or snakes. Most rolls end up feeling wasted. So maybe rivers need their own table too—unless you’re swimming, which isn’t all that common in my experience.

Then there are city encounters, which clearly deserve their own separate treatment - the reasoning is completely different (distance, surprise, reaction, numbers found, etc.). Same goes for the sea. 

In the end, we’re left with intricate encounter tables that don’t always mean much.

Well, anyway, I've been looking for the perfect random encounters and I haven't been able to find them. I fixed some things I disliked in Basic Wilderness Encounters, if you want to check it out. I've also made a small app to quickly check for encounters and weather. But I guess I'll keep looking for ways to improve these procedures.

Manic at the Monastery (OSE adventure review)

Disclosure: The author has contacted me to offer a review copy.

From the blurb:

Manic at the Monastery is an old-school adventure for character levels 1-3 that has players exploring the secrets of an ancient monastery wracked with a psychedelic affliction. Rumors are spreading that the enigmatic Veiled Emperor has returned to Glynmoor, and there have been strange happenings near the monastery. Brave the horrors within and uncover the source of the madness before it spreads.

Manic at the Monastery comes with an Old-School Essentials version and a Worlds Without Number version. I've only read the OSE version. I'd suggest level 3 is more appropriate, which becomes obvious with a quick look at the bestiary—there are also several deadly traps that will certainly kill most level 1 (and probably level 2) parties before they explore most of the module.

This adventure has all the traits that are expected in an OSE adventure: random encounters, random events, rooms described in bullet points, good opportunities of exploration, combat and role-playing, a clean layout and terse language. 

The art is a bit sparse, most of it is simple, B&W and not particularly impressive. The maps are straightforward enough and some sections are duplicated for ease of reference.

So, what makes this adventure stand out? First, it is very grounded and setting-agnostic, which I enjoy. There are no orcs or dwarves here, only humans. The monastery is easily adaptable to any setting or even to a real-world-inspired scenario.

It has good thematic coherence, with one single threat being the source of most problems. It doesn't have the successive rooms of skeletons, giant bats and goblins that I usually find tiresome.

I'd call it mostly grounded, with some weird and just a bit of vanilla.

The adventure is a bit gritty; there is real risk here, even for 3rd-level characters. It contains a "ticking clock" of sorts; spending too long in the dungeon is dangerous. I find this very useful. 

It can serve as a good introduction for a campaign as it has some indications of an incoming doom of sorts, although this is not described in detail here (the author is planning on sequels).

I might have used this module in my campaign, come to think of it. Maybe one day I will; right now, the PCs are level 7-8 and it would be too easy.

It reminded me of The God That Crawls at first, mostly because of the religious setting (and because it would apparently kill the level 1-2 PCs that are supposed to enter it), but I think there is one useful comparison to be made with that famous module. While TGTC is full of weirdness and stuff that can affect your entire campaign, MATM is smaller, safer, terser, easier to run and to insert in your setting without much hassle.

If that's is what you're looking for, I'd recommend checking Manic at the Monastery out.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Chainmail magic: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and more oddities

Chainmail* has several interesting ideas that have been "lost" in the transition to D&D. Studying them is fun and can provide many ideas for your D&Dish games. Today, we tackle magic, in three parts: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and other curiosities.

[*affiliate link]

Spell Complexity

Spell Complexity is an optional rule where "each listed spell has a complexity value, and this value indicates how difficult it is to use such spell. [...] In addition, there may be a delay in the effect of the spell, or it may be totally negated due to some minor error or distraction. The table below gives the scores necessary for immediate, deferred (1 turn), and negated spell effects by the various levels of magic-users.".

In other words:

- Roll 2d6. Subtract spell level. Add half your level, round up (this is an approximation, CM units have names instead of levels).

- 8 or more means the spell is cast immediately. 6-7 means it is delayed for one turn. 5 means the spell fails. 

While I have written my own roll-to-cast rule for B/X, I must admit I'm enthralled by this one, simply because of the spell delay aspect. It adds another layer of excitement/tension and choice/tactics to everyone on the battlefield.

Now spell interruption is not only about initiative, but about a series of choices on both sides of the battle.

BTW, the book won't tell you what happens if you roll lower than 5; I first assumed the spell is lost for the day, but it could also be a spell mishap, etc. Look at the post I mentioned for more ideas. But, as mentioned in the comments, the table probably indicates that 5 or less means the spell fails. The notation is horrible but supposedly it is common in wargaming at the time.

Counter spell

"The stronger magician can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength. A counter-spell fully occupies a magician's powers." 

In other words... you could employ a similar dice roll as the one describe above, adding your level and subtracting your opponent's level (half-level would be more precise, but I'd favor simplicity here).

CM does not delve into further detail; I assume the spell that is successfully countered is negated. I'm unsure if only delayed spells can be countered, but it would be fun if your delay allowed another magician to not only counter your spell but also cast a spell against you, etc.

Again, this adds another layer of tension and tactics to the game.

Other curiosities

"Wizards can handle magical weaponry. [...] Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack, they con see in darkness, they affect friendly and enemy morale as do Super Heroes [...]. Wizards are themselves impervious to normal missile fire but if they are struck by a missile from an enemy Wizard they must score 7 or better with two to survive."

They seems very powerful!

Wizards are also artillery. They can throw fireballs and lightning bolts (with effects similar to guns and catapults), which are not spells, so presumably they don't "roll to cast" and never run out. I like this approach and I added an "arcane artillery" feat to my Old School Feats.

A wizard - the highest level a magic-user can get - has only 6-7 spells. If we count fireballs, lighting bolts, and in visibility, we are not very far from one spell per level, which I like.

Also notice the lack of "Vancian" casting. No memorization. You just have a few spells that you can cast over and over until you fail.

Overall, I really like Chainmail magic. It is somewhat simpler and at the same time has more tactical depth than B/X, without getting to AD&D levels of complexity.

It doesn't require memorization, material components or specific casting times; the spells can be cast more often, but also can be delayed and countered. This seems to me as a superior alternative as it is more exciting than a list of requirements.

A B/X conversion?

How about 10+ means immediate casting, 5+ means delayed casting, and less than that you fail or lose the spell? This makes MUs lose some of their speed but not their power. Seems good for starting MUs, but as always they become too powerful at higher levels. As always, some fine-tuning is needed.

Black Amazon of Mars by Leigh Brackett (short review)

Grimly Eric John Stark slogged toward that ancient Martian city-with every step he cursed the talisman of Ban Cruach that flamed in his blood-stained belt. Behind him screamed the hordes of Ciaran, hungering for that magic jewel-ahead lay the dread abode of the Ice Creatures-at his side stalked the whispering spectre of Ban Cruach, urging him on to a battle Stark knew he must lose!

- (From the blurb on Amazon)

This was another read in my Appendix N quest. It is a short story and will get a short review.

The book is strongly reminiscent of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ A Princess of Mars, and also Robert E. Howard’s Conan. The Mars setting feels more like Hyboria than Barsoom—not just because of the Celtic/Gaelic-sounding names, but also because there’s little that feels distinctly alien (not many spaceships or ray guns here). Even the most sinister creatures resemble ghosts more than extraterrestrials.

The story isn’t nearly as imaginative as Burroughs’ Barsoom, nor as gritty as Conan, or as weird as The Shadow People. In that sense, the book was a bit of a disappointment.

However, it’s still a fun read. Brackett’s prose is leaner and faster than Burroughs or Howard, maintaining a pace of nonstop action that never lets you get bored. The alien villains have compelling motives and backstories, and while the setting is somewhat sparse, it still has its cool moments (and can provide some inspiration for your D&D games, especially if you like Dark Sun). The main character is a bit underdeveloped, but the supporting cast shows more personality than most pulp coadjutants.

To me, Burroughs + Howard + Lovecraft/Merrit monsters sounds like a winning formula, and Brackett’s action-driven style could have made this a standout. But in the end, it felt a bit derivative and predictable. Then again, it’s a short book—which explains both its strengths (tight pacing) and its weaknesses (underdeveloped elements).

Overall, it’s worth the read—especially if you enjoy pulp, sword and planet, Burroughs or Howard. Maybe I'll look further into her work in the future.