Talking about oracle decks over on the Dice Exploder discord, and I really want a deck that’s especially for playing elfgames games and giving elfgame inspirations. So I’m thinking, what information do I want to gain from a draw when I’m playing an elfgame? This is a brainstorm post.

Sam Dunnewold suggested in the chat that the key differentiation between an oracle and something else (like rolling a single dice) is multiple dimensions of interpretation are possible. I like this take: Basically we are after overloaded cards. This means that not only do you want the card to provide certain concrete dimensions like randomisation, but also conceptual as well as literal dimensions. And, for my own aesthetic reasons, I want to layer this in a visually pleasing and cohesive wrapper. This means that, while I might want to pack these with imagery, so that they replace as many dice rolls or tables as possible, it’s probably more interesting to see how they can be incorporated separately.

What literal dimensions would I want in my OSRacle? I don’t think any oracle deck is better at generating numbers than dice, and nobody who uses this wouldn’t have dice anyway. But common B/X probabilities, maybe. The most common are 5%, 16.6%, 33.3%, 50%, 66.6% and more rarely 83.3% — basically the 5 chances on a d6 plus your chance of a critical success on a d20. This means the deck has to be divisible by 6. 6-card suits doesn’t work very well, so 12-card suits it is, but numbered twice, 1-5. The final 2 cards aren’t numbered, except for some of them, the number of which will have to be calculated based on the total number of cards.

6 suits feels right, because obviously the angle in elfgames to take is to link them in some way to ability scores and saving throws, both which in some way match here. Our core ability scores are Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis and Cha. Our core saving throws are Death/Poison, Wands, Paralysis/Petrification, Breath Weapon, Spells/Rods/Staves. Some of these are very obviously linked in my mind: Breath Weapon to Dex, Death/Poison to Con, and Spells/Rods/Staves to Intelligence. The others are not so clear: Wands feels Dex related to me — it’s kind of save vs guns — and Paralysis/Petrification is about willpower, which doesn’t clearly line up with either Wisdom or Charisma. Nothing lines up with Strength, really, but I’d add one, as I did with Advanced Fantasy Dungeons, and make it Steel or Swords. I’m definitely thinking that the suits being tied to saving throws is a good idea, basically because I can think of iconic symbols for them: Skulls, Wands, Snakes, Dragons, Pentagrams and Blades. And they’re associated with Constitution and Death/Poison, Dexterity and Wands, Charisma and Petrification/Paralysis, Wisdom and Breath Weapons, Spells and Intelligence and Violence and Strength. Not sure if I like the double up on lizards there — maybe Gorgons or Stones instead of snakes?

In which case, we have 6 suits of 12 cards each, for a total of 72 cards. 12 of those are empty values. My 5% value is 3.6 cards out of 72. I’ll call that 4 for critical hits, and 3 for critical failures. That means we can fill 7 of those empty cards with critical values, leaving only 5 of them actually empty. Those 5 are just under 7% — I’ll just keep them in mind, I’m not sure if there’s a 7% probability that comes up commonly in elfgames off the top of my head. It’d be nicely symmetrical if I had no empty values, but it’s also nice to have empty values. (Edit: Oh, you know what averages out at 8% probability? The chance of succeeding at 3 consecutive death saving throws in 5th edition. I love a good death save, and I’ll definitely drop that into the empty values.

What other literal dimensions would be nice to include? Our major common conventions are the random encounter table and reaction roll. Both of these are typically on a bell curve, which of course divides very evenly into 72 —2 cards are labelled 2 and 12, 4 are 3 and 11, 6 are 4 and 10, 8 are 5 and 9, 10 are 6 and 8, and 12 are 7. So, I have a second number associated with each card to provide our 2d6 bell curve. I think this is a useful literal dimension, to be honest, and not a difficult addition to the card, but lower priority. But is it the most interesting way to incorporate reaction rolls or random encounters. I think they’re best as conceptual dimensions.

One of those conceptual dimensions are, of course, having monsters, hazards or iconic characters on the card images. Seeing the “Forest Lich” image as the 5 of Skulls is going to give you a random encounter. Combined with the bell curve secondary numbering, there’s heaps of both literal and conceptual range here for random encounters.

The reaction element is harder, because it’s pretty specific. I think it should either remain attributable to the percentages — maybe we can have the border be related to the original list, directly related to the five reactions remembering so long as the numbers add up to match the bell curves, we can attach those borders to specific cards by theme. That means 2 cards have Attack! or Eager/Friendly borders, 18 cards each have Hostile/May Attack or Indifferent/May Negotiate, and 32 cards have uncertain/confused. This has almost no additional load on the card — cards need borders anyway — and adds a literal dimension.

This means that I don’t have to tailor my overall card concept to reactions, which is excellent. What other concepts do I want folded into the art of the card, though? There are two elements, basically. I need to be able to wing an NPC, and I need a general title.

An NPC sketch for me needs a distinguishing trait, an asset the PCs need, and an agenda. Assets can be physical, or information, but are best thought of as an item that is also on the card. So: Each card has an item on it. Agendas are always more complex: These can be tied into the core concept of the card. Spindlewheel and Tarot do a great job with these core concepts, and I need to lean into that combination between classic creature and core concept. For example, I might title the 5 of Dragons Greed, and the 5 of Skulls the Forest Lich. But I want the Forest Lich to have implicit meaning, in the same way that Death has other meanings in Tarot. So perhaps the approach is we have a card Title, and then we have a 1-sentence description or abstract of the card as well. “Calcified Dragon: Greed, stillness, indecision.”

Ok, that’s a pretty dense card. What does every card have:

• A chance number, marked with a dice symbol, 1-5 twice within each suit, with 5 empty values, 4 critical hits, and 3 critical misses spread 2 in each suit.
• A bell number, marked with a bell symbol.
• A suit, from Skulls, Wands, Snakes, Dragons, Pentagrams and Blades. Associated with Constitution and Death/Poison, Dexterity and Wands, Charisma and Petrification/Paralysis, Wisdom and Breath Weapons, Spells and Intelligence and Violence and Strength.
• A border associated with reaction. 2 cards have Attack! or Eager/Friendly borders, 18 cards each have Hostile/May Attack or Indifferent/May Negotiate, and 32 cards have uncertain/confused.
• A title which describes the monster or NPC, and a 1 sentence description.
• And in terms of artwork, we have a distinguishing trait (like Big Nose or Broad Shoulders or Rat-like Whiskers), which is reflected by the monster or NPC on the card and an object or asset.

I think actually starting to figure out the individual cards and the symbolism in them is probably outside of the scope of this post, I’ll tinker with that in my spare time.

My gut feeling is that lower numbers are minions, higher numbers are bosses, and empty values are hazards or traps, and that the suits are associated with broad types: Skulls with undead, Wands with wizards, hags and constructs, Snakes with underworld creatures, oozes and aberrations, Dragons with apex predators, Pentagrams with fiends, fae and curses and Blades with mundane beasts and warriors. But I think adhering to these types isn’t as important as making them thematically cohesive. Just a rough guide.

But I’d love my smart friends’ input: Are there any obvious elfgame literal or conceptual gaps in my framework that I should consider including if I do pursue this further? Any prototypical things that need to make their way into the deck? Do you think the idea of an OSRacle is an absolute waste of time, and why? Oh, and obviously OSRacle is a terrible name, any suggestions?

Idle Cartulary

Playful Void is a production of Idle Cartulary. If you liked this article, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing to the Idle Digest Newsletter. If you want to support Idle Cartulary continuing to provide Bathtub Reviews, I Read Reviews, and Dungeon Regular, please consider a one-off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Idle Cartulary on Ko-fi.