F is for Fire Bats (Well, Fire Keese)

F is also a surprisingly hard letter. Few creatures begin with F except those who do it by virtue of having some modifying word: flesh golems, frost worms, forest drakes, etc. I’ve really only used one F creature, and even then only once, and even then I didn’t use the creature exactly as intended, but it’s the closest I have.

Given that fire is one of the building blocks of the universe, it’s no surprise how many creature have “fire” or “flame” in their name: elementals, giants, mephits, skeletons, snakes, and that’s just off the top of my head. Usually “fire” indicates an escalation from the original creature. Not only does it deal fire damage, usually in addition to its normal attacks, and not only is it resistant to the most popular damage type players have, but a fire creature is often stronger and tougher than their base. This is the case with fire bats, which are basically bats that have a hard time hiding in caves but are a much bigger threat to low-level parties. Bats already have a bit of a reputation among gamers, so hitting them with one that doesn’t go down in one hit is a quick path to a table flip.

But I ran a Zelda campaign, so I had to include their bat equivalent, keese. And since keese were one-hitpoint minions, I could throw them in pretty much at any level as a way to annoy my players whenever they showed up late for game too often. We also had an escalation of that mechanic, which we called super-minions: creatures who became bloodied after one hit and died after a second. It meant they weren’t completely invalidated by any persistent or automatic damage, but never so serious that they were a real threat except in the context of the monsters they accompanied. Fire bats, or here fire keese, were super-minions. If they took damage or hit an opponent, they lost their flame, and almost any damage dealt to a flameless keese killed it. The exception was fire damage, which healed them back up to full hit points (which, to be fair, was 2).

Players usually hate it when enemies heal themselves. Not here. They loved the keese’s mechanic, and they immediately assumed they would have the same problem with cold damage because that’s what happened in the games (“Sure,” I shrugged, “why not?”). The keese themselves were smart enough to hit and run, bonking a player and retreating to the safety of a nearby torch or pool of lava. Even later in the campaign, when they players fought normal keese again, they tried to avoid dealing fire damage to them, and I ran with it. A lot of that campaign was about mimicking the feel of the video games, and you can’t buy that kind of player investment.

The reason I’m reluctant to include fire keese in this month’s festivities is because I made them up whole cloth. They’re not a reskin of anything in D&D, and I don’t even think I looked at the official bat’s statistics when I made mine. They’re just a creature with an interesting concept that challenged the players as much as the characters, especially the party tank who loved setting people and things on fire. The thing that nudged me over the edge is the story of the time two keese were fluttering around, trying to figure out how to attack the party, and one said to the other “let’s set ourselves on fire and double our hit points”. My players and I have a soft spot for that kind of lampshade.

Posted in Events | Tagged , | Comments Off on F is for Fire Bats (Well, Fire Keese)

E is for Earth Elemental, Disguised

So far this month has been all about monsters I created and ran as a DM, and most of the rest of the month will be too. But every once in a while I get the opportunity to develop a creature in somebody else’s campaign, and anybody foolish enough to give me some creative freedom, intentionally or through inaction, soon discovers their mistake. Nothing of this sort has contributed to our gaming meta more than our friend the earth elemental luchador.

Earth elementals are rocks that think and move. I wish I had more to say here, but that’s largely it. Elementals are creatures made of the building blocks of existence, and because actual philosophy is hard, D&D assumes (to varying degrees based on the context, edition, author, and needs of the game) that the building blocks of existence are the classical elements: earth, fire, wind, and water. Elementals are these elements given life, and they don’t want too much more than the elements themselves do. They often have no real personality, and they exist more as things for players to summon and as Inner Plane random encounters than as a deep and entertaining part of the setting.

Some years ago, we started a campaign in which my character in the party was fully convinced he was the hero of a shounen anime. He interpreted the world through episodes and arcs, he called people by their much more awesome shounen names (“Hey, Red Angel!” “My name is Linda.”), and he did the session writeup after each week in his own unnecessarily hyperbolic narrative style. One of my fellow players ran a much more down-to-earth elderly druid. Instead of a typical animal companion he had an elemental companion, a humanoid, human-sized earth elemental. In one of our early combats, the elemental popped out of the ground, did some fighting, and disappeared. My character, I imagine with stars in his eyes, assumed he was a super hero with a mysterious identity.

He dubbed the stranger “Señor Risco”, and to be honest I have no idea why. I vaguely recalled that “risco” was Portuguese for “rock”, and earth elementals spoke Portuguese because of some one-off gag from a previous session. A quick check now proves that’s nowhere near the correct translation, but whatever, the name stuck. We got Señor Risco a luchador’s mask, then realized he could not earth glide with the mask on, so he followed the party mostly hidden with only his head sticking out of the ground. From there the jokes kept piling on and he became something like a member of the party, perhaps even more than the cohort who was doing all of our healing. When the campaign ended he was thirty feet tell and he had taken the feats he needed to perform tag team maneuvers, which were mostly picking up the slowest members of the party and throwing them to (at) their enemies.

What I like most about this is that earth elementals are typically slow, lumbering, unimaginative, and phenomenally stupid. We didn’t care. The idea was good enough that we were willing to forget the specifics of what an earth elemental should be and replace them with what we wanted it to be. In combat he was still strong but slow, and he never really had any skills, but narratively he was a nimble, valiant athlete who survived longer than even the character who named him. “Earth elemental” wasn’t the end state of the creature, it was the template on which we built. That’s kind of what all creatures should be.

Señor Risco actually made an appearance in our current campaign settings, so he’s a canonical ally of the Eight Arms. Now he’s an actual luchador, who wrestles in a ring and cuts promos on his opponents and everything. He speaks Ukranian, and his name still makes no sense.

Posted in Events | Tagged , | Comments Off on E is for Earth Elemental, Disguised

D is for Death Slaad, with Sternness Despised

I’m always impressed by how serendipitously these posts come together, like how last year we happened to have two characters from the same campaign, but polar opposites, at adjacent letters. You’d think I planned it that way. Today is one of those times. While yesterday was about a highly mutable creature which a name that calls forth different concepts in a variety of fields, today is about a creature that means one and only one incredibly specific thing.

Slaads are a race of froglike creatures, avatars of chaos who propagate via egg implantation or disease. As they age and gain power, they change color and gain new abilities not unlike a Pokemon. In general, red slaad are the weakest, followed by blue, green, gray, and death, which is technically not a color but sure feels like a capstone, doesn’t it? White and black slaads exist at epic levels but aren’t relevant to this post. If you haven’t played a lot of D&D and you don’t recognize slaad, that’s because they’re propriety creatures of Wizards of the Coast. Like mind flayers and beholders, they’re not in other systems because they can’t be. They’re not taken from an existing mythology, their name doesn’t mean anything interesting, and even autocorrect keeps wanting to change this post to “D is for Death Salad”.

Death slaads in particular love killing, and they come from the days when powerful outsiders had a huge list of spell-like abilities at hand to accomplish whatever they wanted. They rule by fear, and that’s pretty much all we know about their society from the Monster Manual. I get the impression that they’re supposed to be serious threats, a top-tier villain for a mid-level campaign where they players have been fighting other slaads for months. But it’s impressive how much a monster changes when you tweak just one kittle part of their description. So I thought, let’s keep the death slaad as powerful, intelligent, vicious, and capable. Let’s just make it the opposite of serious.

The Portalator was a shopkeeper who managed portals to various other planes and places within them. I think he was in the Abyss, and he came up when the party wanted to work their way to a demon prince who had been harassing them and give him what for. He was forward, personable, and maybe ever so slightly incredibly camp. From the very first word he uttered, he was clearly not a typical slaad and became unique enough for the players to recognize and dread him from them on. He turned against the party for reasons I honestly don’t fully remember, and at the end of the campaign’s second arc he managed to kill the cleric with a save-or-die right after she used one against his team. They got their revenge against him in the third arc…I think. I’m not sure they ever found the body.

Hm.

Anyway, I think this was the first in a long, long line of affably evil characters. D&D has this assumption that monsters should be taken at face value: anything that can kill you probably wants to, it probably doesn’t want anything more, and it probably doesn’t have much personality behind that which it displays in combat (or in encounters and setting design on their way to combat). I reject this impression as a rule, and I try to give a meaningful personality to every meaningful character. If I’m making a villain mustache-twistingly evil, that’s an intentional choice, not the default for everything that rolls initiative. But everything that’s going to get some screen time deserves some sort of character trait, and tweaking just one or two parts of a monster’s description often gives you something fruitful.

Posted in Events | Tagged | Comments Off on D is for Death Slaad, with Sternness Despised

C is for Chimera (Three out of Five)

I think we take certain D&D creatures for granted. We know there are several monsters borrowed from Greek mythology, like minotaurs and sphinxes, and it’s somewhat common knowledge that golems come from Jewish folklore, and so on. But we’re often so caught up in the D&D versions of things that we don’t consider how they work outside the game. It’s rare for gamers to use the word “elfin” for anything that does not directly relate to elves, or “infernal” to relate to a single, very specific inferno. Did you know that to the average person, “aegis” and “paladin” are words used so rarely they might as well be mythical? I know, it’s nuts. And that’s exactly where I went when I started looking at the chimera.

In D&D a chimera is half-goat, half-lion, with three heads: a great cat, a goat, and a chromatic dragon of some persuasion. It has wings, it breathes fire or something, and it’s generally a mishmash of a bunch of other monsters. Various books modify this formula by switching out some of the heads for other animals, and there’s even a chimeric template in the 3E Monster Manual 2 or, as I like to call it, the Book of Bad Decisions. That template is basically “add a goat head, a dragon head, and wings to a natural animal”, so it’s pretty safe to say the base chimera is pretty canonical as far as D&D is concerned.

But try Googling “chimera”, right now. Even though our first thought is the chimera creature, the first link is about a genetic chimerism. But that’s actually the third type of chimera you find in the definition:

  1. The monster, which isn’t even the version D&D uses
  2. Any combination of creatures
  3. A fantasy
  4. The genetic chimera
  5. A very specific fish

When I was working on the second Zelda campaign, I decided one of the themes was going to be animals, not least because I had found a series of really neat pictures of pseudo-magical creatures I could leverage. The players met spirits, each of which took the form of an animal, and allied with them to gain magical powers. When it came time to design the actual plot of the campaign, I decided they should have a leader the players could help. I didn’t want something simple like “lion, king of beasts”, I wanted something that represented as many animals as possible. I remembered chimera, the word more than the actual creature, and I found a picture that looked like a regal somebody with a motley combination of animal parts so we could have our version of Princess Zelda.

But along the way, I also took inspiration from the D&D chimera in that it was the spirit the final boss was using. Properly, he had gotten the power of the chimera spirit and given it to his allies, so his lieutenants were a lion, a ram, and a lizard/snake thing. When he failed to get the spirit leader’s power, he took the chimera power back, and the final boss was a standard D&D chimera, but a huge one with a snake tail and epic-level abilities.

Of course, this was a video game campaign, so he was always going to lose and his plan was always going to fail. The plan itself was a chimera, meaning a fantasy, born of his delusions of grandeur and his insistence that he deserved to succeed. So we had a villain whose plan to use the power of a chimera (definition 1) to gain the power of a chimera (definition 2) was a chimera (definition 3), all a twist on a stock D&D creature born out of a little research into what its name actually represented

I could have tried this all over the place, and I imagine I know an etymologist or two who are already thinking about it. For example, think of a draconian society ostensibly ruled by dragons but actually managed by a vampire (Dracula). Or consider the lamia, which has four different versions in mythology, none of which are the lamia in D&D. What if there are different types of lamia, all looking like different monsters with different agendas, but they’re actually working together to advance lamia-kind? Most monsters have a basis somewhere, in some mythology or fiction, and it’s surprisingly fruitful to look at one and ask “what is this creature, really, and how can I make it interesting?”

Posted in Events | Tagged , | Comments Off on C is for Chimera (Three out of Five)

B is for Brains, Who Walk, Still Alive

When I started on the list of monsters for this month, I expected to hit snags on certain letters. I had ideas for Q and X, but J? Y? I anticipating having trouble with the smaller sets of monsters. I did not expect to have trouble with B. It is with some regret that I admit I have never had my players fight a baleen whale. I ended up going through several monster manuals before I realized I was thinking too specifically. My players have never dealt with a brain ooze or a brain golem specifically, but they have fought a lot of brains.

Brains appear a surprisingly high amount as D&D monsters. I’ve never seen a heart crawling around on tendrils, or a monster who eats hands, or a spell that swaps hair, but brains can do all this and more. I think it’s all about impressions. If you don’t know anything about biology, you might believe a brain could remain functional outside of a body, and it makes some sense that such a brain might still have a will the way other organs can’t. A brain in a jar is an immobile but probably brilliant and crafty enemy. A hand in a jar is a science project that gets you on a watch list.

In that context, my players actually have encountered several brains, and some of them occurred outside their enemies. The first birthday session I ever celebrated involved pitting the players against video game villains, and the role of Mother Brain was played by a brain in a jar on the top of a clockwork giant of some type (take a drink). In the Great Tower of Oldechi, the players spent an entire level inside a body, and at one point they tapped into its central nervous system to speak with the brain directly. I once had a campaign villain planned who gained psychic powers because her brain had been replaced by something else, though the players managed to dodge it.

But the most fun I had with them was in the improvisational sessions I ran recently, where the players stumbled upon a group of parasites who took over the brains of other creatures. The parasites themselves weren’t that interesting, but the second stage of their lifecycle involved becoming a sort of cytoplasm that carried the victim’s brain, and only their brain, around and used it to provide a tentative sort of will. Unusually for me, I came up with the monster concept and searched for pictures, then used that picture to decide what the creature actually did. The final battle was in the creatures’ mindscape, where they controlled every aspect of it but weren’t really creative enough to leverage that into a guaranteed victory. The short version of the battle is that I made a series of attacks at the players from a creature whose name in our gaming program was “Everything”, and we leveraged a lot of the language from the Giygas fight at the end of Earthbound. We used a combination of “the enemies are brains” and “the players have brains” to do something D&D in general doesn’t have room for, and it was pretty stellar.

I think I’ve about hit peak brain, and I probably won’t use them for a while unless it’s this specific parasite we invented. I mean, a brain is just a smaller, creepier version of a person, so most of them already have meaningful personalities. They don’t need to be elevated to something interesting. If anything, I tried to make them interesting by taking away the parts that make them brains, and it ended up being surprisingly functional. If I’d had my way I would have saved this for later in the month so we had more examples of adding character to monsters, but I didn’t design the alphabet.

Posted in Events | Tagged , | Comments Off on B is for Brains, Who Walk, Still Alive

A is for Angels, Virtuous Jerks

Remember last year, when I said I had more characters who began with A than any other letter? It turns out A is also a competitive letter for “highest number of interesting monsters”. I’m starting to think we’re all just lazy and we don’t bother making it to the rest of the alphabet.

Angels in D&D aren’t too different from what one might expect, except that as a race they don’t adhere to any specific god. They’re ancient, they’re powerful, they’re imperatively good, and they have wings. Their magic tends toward destroying evil, bolstering allies, and healing. I think they’re formed from souls who die, go to angelic planes as petitioners, and are eventually formed into tangible goodness by the stuff of the universe, but that may only be in Pathfinder. And, as creatures of virtue and purity, they are of course stupidly attractive.

I like angels, but not as angels. I like them more as bundles of generic stats. They’re a pretty good total package for their CR, decent at magic, defense, combat, interaction, and most other things that go into a character. If you trade out a spell or two and convert their protective aura into something more befitting a specific character (like the avatar of a metallic dragon with a bonus against chromatic dragons) you can use them to represent any number of creatures in any number of situations. They’re especially handy if you’re in a bind where your players have something unexpected and you need the stats for a monster right now. Really, the thing most holding back angels is the word “angel”.

In fact, just like last year, let’s play a game. Every time I say a monster functions better after reskinning than it does before, take a drink.

Though I think my favorite use of angels was actually as angels. See, angels want to do good, and often they want to do the most good. But they don’t have any sort of flashing warning light that happens in their heads when they’re doing something wrong, and they’re not omniscient. An angel could be tricked into doing something evil when they think they’re doing something good. I think this is one reason for their excellent interaction skills: lying to an angel to get them to do something wrong is hard. If, however, the angel looks at a situation and comes to their own incorrect conclusions, that’s more interesting.

The villain of the first Eight Arms campaign, the Eight Arms and the Shadow Invasion, was an angel who had already make two serious mistakes regarding her role as an emissary of goodness. She needed to do something good and big to get her back in the literal graces of celestial management. After some investigation and consultation with scholars, she recognized that while the universe has a Plane of Shadow, it has no corresponding Plane of Light. Light, of course, is good, so this represented a cosmic imbalance in favor of evil. To correct this she gathered an army of like-minded races and individuals, found an absurdly powerful artifact of light, and started creating the plane.

Through the campaign the players performed more strenuous math and found this would actually unbalance things even harder, but the angel was already too committed to her plans and in too desperate a situation to consider whether she was wrong. To her it was obvious: she was an angel, and thus everything she did was good; the players fighting her included a cad, a pirate, a necromancer, so they were evil; and various races of shadow, who knew the truth, were trying to stop her, which meant they were the trials she had to overcome to win. She was a full-fledged campaign villain, but she remained an angel in every way.

The players may have liked the concept a little too much. It was fresh and interesting, and it contributed to the setting in ways even I didn’t realize until recently, but “punch an angel” may had been too enticing to forget. I’m worried fighting angels set the stage for later campaigns where the players tortured an enemy for information, killed a surrendering prisoner of war, and made friends with a known terrorist in the middle of launching a war. Those aren’t the actions of one maladjusted player, either. They occurred in three different campaigns with zero player overlap among them. The tagline of the Eight Arms seems to be “we do bad stuff, but it’s often against people doing worse stuff, so, you know, whatever.”

Still, I’m not sorry. Players should fight good enemies more, and we should have good monsters. Nothing is an ally to everyone.

Posted in Events | Tagged , | 1 Comment

A to Z Challenge: Monsters with Quirks

It’s nearly April again, and that means it’s almost time for the A-to-Z Blogging Challenge. Last year I talked about the characters my players have brought to the table and what made them memorable, for better or worse. This year I want to talk about things from the other side.

When you think about a fantasy world, certain tropes come to mind. Generally you think about a very specific magical version of medieval Europe. But D&D can exist even if you twist that; the game stills work if you make magic rare and mysterious, or move the setting to feudal Japan, or drop in an extraterrestrial weapon. There are very few constants to the setting, and even if you change it drastically the play experience remains mostly the same. I would say there’s really only one thing that’s a fundamental part of every D&D world, regardless of style or tone or location: monsters.

The designers know this. Since the roots of D&D as a wargaming system, it’s been designed as a system to stab funny-looking creatures and steal their stuff. There’s a reason the three Core rulebooks are a guide for players, a guide for DMs, and a list of monsters: all three are necessary, and without any one you aren’t really playing D&D. Monsters are designed to exist at every levels of play, at every power level, in every location, in every role, to challenge or support or annoy every group of players. “Can I play as [monster]?” is probably the third-most common question I’ve heard in my career* and there’s nothing that gets players worked up quite like a new creature to, often literally, sink their teeth into.

This is why I’m frustrated by 5E’s limited and, frankly, backward way of looking at monsters and race. In a fantasy setting where literally anything can exist, doesn’t it seem strange that all goblins are savage, unevolved, evil versions of real people? Is there no place for an especially smart goblin, or one who decided to hone her skills with weapons to become a more effective hunter, or one who decides to lead a tribe to do great things? Why is it that all dragons are dangerous campaign-ending threats with ludicrous power? Why are all golems unintelligent? Why are all liches solitary? Why is everything stuck in the tiny box it’s given in its tiny monster entry? Why can’t we make the monster’s role as interesting and varied as the monster itself?

Why can’t we treat monsters like characters?

For each non-Sunday in April I’ve chosen a monster. Some of them are common, but you’ve probably never heard of several, so I’ll give a brief non-copyright-infringing description of what the monster is intended to do. Then I’ll talk about what I did in my campaigns to instead make the monster interesting. In some cases I took the monster’s abilities and turned them up to eleven, and in others I subverted the monster’s intended role. Often I looked at the monster’s place in its setting and logically extended it to see what would happen, but sometimes I flipped it right on its head. I’ll also talk about how the players reacted to it and which changes were better-received then others. My goal is to show that almost any monster, even the most intentionally drab, can become fun if it’s treated as a mutable tool for gameplay instead of as a strict, canonical creature who can only exist in the exact place the designers envisioned.

I’ll be starting on Saturday with the letter A and ending 30 April with Z. If you want a quick and easy way to see every post, I’ll be updating the links in the header about as sporadically as I did last year.

* — After “Oh, it’s my turn?” and “What bonuses apply here?”. The most common type of question I hear is along the vein of “What happened in a previous session?”, but as far as specific questions go I think these win.

Posted in Events | Tagged | Comments Off on A to Z Challenge: Monsters with Quirks

Death by Cliché

I used to be a voracious reader. In the days before I got into tabletop gaming, when I was much shorter, I read pretty much everything I could get my hands on. I preferred science fiction, but I spent a lot of time in fantasy, mysteries, and classics of the type most kids my age only read for school projects. This love of consuming stories is probably what led to my interest in producing stories, which segued nicely into creating and running campaigns, but that’s probably a long story.

I’ve fallen out of reading over the years; my time spent in books has generally been inversely proportionate to my time spend online, and I telecommute. These days the books I get are mostly nonfiction and mostly gifts. The last time I read a fiction book not written by somebody I know was long enough ago that the author has since died, so draw conclusions accordingly. I don’t go looking for books any more, which means I don’t find out about books that are ostensibly in my wheelhouse until somebody brings them to my attention.

Death by Cliché is one such book. It’s a story of the “modern person injected into fantasy world” ilk, but with the twist that the world is probably a roleplaying game run by a DM so deep in tabletop clichés he needs a diving bell. The main character, a gamer himself, snarks his way through an adventure while trying to find a way back to the real world, all the while dealing with the other players through their characters, the NPCs incapable of understanding his plight, and the DM himself who may or may not be actively aware that he’s trying to leave the game.

This is, first and foremost, a comedy. It’s not a story about a fantasy world or gaming, it’s a way to make the reader laugh within the context of fantasy and gaming. In that respect it’s certainly dedicated. The book is relentless with its jokes, focusing more on quantity than quality, but I can’t pretend it wasn’t effective. The way it approached its premise was genuinely clever, and like an actor good enough to believably act badly, it takes a sharp mind to write a book that lampshades itself but still makes you care about what happens. In the sense that it’s a narrative designed to make me laugh, it did what it set out to do.

But throughout the book I was never quite sure if the author was laughing at me or with me, and given its other reviews I don’t think I’m alone there. The main character lampoons everything he can get his hands on, from the storyline to the setting to the other characters to their players to the DM himself. By extension, he mocks just about every gamer who’s ever picked up dice, especially those still finding their footing. I get the impression that it’s all supposed to be in good fun, but I saw a lot of the same reactions and behaviors I see in the worst of us, the types who belittle and disparage anybody who doesn’t play the same way they do. Read less graciously, the entire book is a diatribe against beginning players and DMs, but one that tries to forgive itself by saying it’s all in jest. It’s basically 240 pages of “I’m not racist, but…”, attacking its target audience.

I can mostly forgive that; even if it’s not agreeable satire, at least an attempt was made. Rather, the biggest issue I have with the book is its deliberate failure to be well-written. There are times when the author forgets about a character and calls himself out on it, or overuses words under the guise of losing his thesaurus, and he’s constantly snarking at himself in his own chapter quotes. This is cute for about four seconds, and from then on it’s a constant distraction. It’s as though the author wants to to know he doesn’t think you should be reading the book, and that’s supposed to be endearing enough to make you want to read it more. It’s really not. At best it’s distracting, and at worst it’s a subtle jab at anybody who does try to write well. It’s like a professional wrestling match where the commentators can’t talk about anything but how fake it is. Or, for a more accessible example, it’s like a modern B-movie, where you can see the boom mikes in every shot and it’s clear some characters had their voices dubbed during post-production, and you know it’s all intentional and that’s part of its charm. I get that some people like that sort of thing, but I’m not interested in something that actively tries not to be worthwhile.

I have a hard time recommending this book because it’s good per se. I’m more inclined to recommend it for what it is, a send-up of bad or inexperienced DMing in the context of an adventure story. So I guess if you want more comedy about gaming, go for it. It’s kind of the book version of marshmallow breakfast cereal. It’s not haute cuisine, it’s not for everyone, in certain cases it may actively hurt you, and you won’t find it in my cart, but if you’re part of its target audience it will probably make you happy.

Posted in Book Reviews | Tagged | Comments Off on Death by Cliché

Serious Stories and Emotional Taxes

It takes a lot for me to drop a story early. I’ve struggled enough with pacing and storytelling to know how important a good beginning, middle, and end are to any narrative, and I feel like I can’t effectively judge a story unless I see how it wraps up. It’s why I tend not to lose interest in something midway through; if the beginning is enough to grab me, I’ll probably stick with it until the end. Depending on the media, this can be either the sign of a dedicated fan and critic or a form of Stockholm Syndrome combined with a sunk-cost fallacy, and your opinion on that may differ by how much you like the story in question. Regardless, unless something truly heinous occurs I’m probably going to follow a work for the long haul.

Which is why I’m a bit unsettled that within a month I’ve dropped two television shows from my viewing habits while they’re still airing. For similar but different reasons, I’ve opted to stop watching a series midway through its second season and I’ve left another show during its mid-season break. There are a couple of lessons to take away from the latter, but today I want to talk about the former.

Blindspot is a show about a woman, who wakes up naked in central park with total amnesia and a body covered in tattoos, and the FBI team who tries to figure out the first part of this sentence. The tattoos are coded messages about current or future crimes, usually involving government corruption or malfeasance. Our heroes puzzle out the meanings of the tattoos off-camera so they can spend most of the episode fighting bad guys, dealing with interpersonal drama, and trying to bring down the organization who gave them all their leads and intel. Also Jaimie Alexander is the main character, which is important because I feel like “watch Sif fight people while looking vaguely panicked and confused” was a huge selling point when the show started.

I was expecting something like a crime-based mystery show, where we’d spend more time working through the tattoos and how they linked with each other. Instead it’s a lot more about action, and I’m sort of fine with that. The show linked its individual escapades with a myth arc about the main character’s ontological mystery, but they didn’t continually answer questions with more questions. It felt like we were making progress, and the characters’ goals and language changed to reflect that. I didn’t know where the story was going to end but I got the impression there was an end in mind and we would reach it one day. I wanted to see what happened.

But as the show went on, I found it wore on me. Each episode focused on the ways things are broken, but in a “we’ll never solve things” way instead of a “we can make the world a better place” way. The bad guys regularly walked several steps ahead of the heroes, except when they were tripped by even worse bad guys. Likable characters died so other characters could suffer. Allies lied to and betrayed each other constantly. Every small step toward happiness was met with two frustrating steps toward malaise. Even the set design and wardrobe enhanced the hopelessness. Nobody was happy, they were clearly never going to be happy, and I wasn’t happy watching them be unhappy. So I left.

I don’t want to give the impression that I can’t stand any form of suffering (in fact, my players would say exactly the opposite). I know what drama is, and I know there have to be failures and setbacks to make success meaningful. But I don’t understand media whose goal is to portray the suffering of characters and impart that suffering on viewers. I need a light at the end of the tunnel to keep me walking, and grimdark media either intentionally lacks that or mitigates it to the point of irrelevancy. I use my recreation time to recreate, and anything that relentlessly drains me isn’t good leisure.

This is kind of the point behind Law 0: the point of the game is to have fun. Winning a battle by the skin of your teeth through luck, clever tactics, or a good build is fun. Winning every battle by the skin of your teeth, remaining constantly on edge because you don’t know when something’s going to come along and broadside you, never taking a breath because it’s a sign of weakness, that’s just bad pacing. It’s also not fun when the players outpace you from beginning to end, or when the villains ignore your efforts to subvert them, or when you meander without direction from set piece to set piece. From a DM’s perspective, fun is actually a lot of work.

It’s a problem I’ve felt acutely in my current campaign. Every encounter seems to follow a similar formula: the players are incredibly, almost suspiciously powerful and walk all over their opponents, but if they in any way fail to ace the encounter the results will be narratively catastrophic. I expect if resent this from combat, where the stakes and power level are high, but it seems this also applies to every other conversation the players have, where any given skill check could get them killed. In between those encounters we have long stretches of planning and investigation with an unhealthy dose of “what do we do now?”. I tried to run a high-level campaign with an overarching story while giving the players freedom to make choices, and instead I find myself unable to prepare, guessing vaguely at what an appropriate challenge will be and scrambling to put something to further the plot everywhere in the universe because there is absolutely no reason for anybody to go to the Elemental Plane of Smoke ever. Each session is stressful in a way a hobby shouldn’t be, and it exerts an unsustainable emotional tax.

But unlike a television show, I can fix the direction of a campaign. I’ve already started by giving my players a slightly more insistent direction so we spend less time wondering where to go and more time going there. They get to make decisions with consequences beyond which type of random encounter they might get, and I get to spend less time coming up with filler, so everybody wins. I’m also trying to put some more light-hearted segments into the story so we’re not always in dour emergency situations. There’s a reason we’re calling the next dungeon “the Untasty Place”, and why nobody tried to accost the players during their last shopping trip on Abyss. I’m still working on how I want to deal with combat balance, but it’s a start.

I’m starting to figure out that the more light-hearted and tightly-paced my campaigns are, the more fun I have with them, which is a bit bothersome. I do want to run serious stories where the players can dictate the action, but it’s not working as well as I’d hoped. It might just be that I need to control their length. I’m able to handle a short weighty campaign better than a long weighty one, the same way a movie doesn’t wear me down as much as Blindspot has, and I’ve found players are more tolerant of directed play in smaller stories. It does mean campaign scope will be smaller, but I think we might appreciate a campaign that determines the fate of only a few thousand people instead of a few countries.

My main goal is to not burn out and end the campaign before we’re done with it. I’ve had the good fortune to only prematurely end two campaigns in my career, both due to extenuating circumstances, and I want to keep that record going. But my secondary goal is to recognize when the ship is sinking and know whether to correct course or man the lifeboats. I don’t want to get into a state where I or the players are coasting along, suffering but resigned to the state of things. Like a TV show, I need to be able to recognize when something deserves my attention to the end and when it doesn’t.

Posted in Campaigns, DMing | Comments Off on Serious Stories and Emotional Taxes

An Attempt at Truly Improvisational DMing

Over the course of my DMing career, I’ve slowly moved from a rigid style to something looser. When I started off, I was one of those DMs who had to have every beat of the story planned, every NPC statted out with motivations, every monster unique and meaningful, and every map complete and detailed down to each five-foot square. The more I dealt with actual play, the more I realized I couldn’t work that way, and I adopted a looser policy, where I’m comfortable enough making things up on the fly but I do have some idea of where we’ve going. Lately I’ve been thinking I could handle full-on improvisational play, so this past week I put it to the test.

I like food and I like television, so unsurprisingly I’m a fan of the Food Network. It has a long-running game show, Chopped, where contestants are asked to make dishes with a limited time frame so judges can determine whose dishes were best. The quirk is that at the beginning of each round the contestants are given four ingredients, which they have not seen until immediately before the round begins, and they must use those ingredients in their dish in some way. A typical round might begin with the host asking “Can you make a delicious appetizer using ground lamb, napa cabbage, pomegranate jam, and boxed macaroni and cheese? You have twenty minutes, time starts now.” It’s basically improvisational cooking, and it’s a concept I’ve been mulling over applying to D&D for a while.

On Saturday my opportunity arose, as we’re in a lull for our normal campaign and I had three players who were up for shenanigans (one specifically requested something, and I quote, “crazypants”). I told them to create characters in Pathfinder, the system we know the best. That was literally all the advice I gave them. In fact, I told them specifically not to tell me their character concept or even level until we got to the session, and I deliberately planned absolutely nothing. When game started, I had them provide me with some Mad Libs-style adventure seeds. Here’s what I asked them for and their responses:

  • Place: A giant ship traveling between continents
  • Thing: Map
  • Creature: Hill giants named Fred

They all sent their answers over chat at once so none of them knew what the others had chosen, for maximum chaos. Since building an adventure off that seemed too easy, I asked for another round:

While they built macros for their characters in MapTool, I started building an adventure that involved all six of those seeds, appropriate for their level and party composition, complete with monster tokens and adventure maps. I ended up with a cult of Pazuzu who wanted to summon their lord to the Material Plane. Two of his initiates, hill giant monks with a combat style based around jumping around the battlefield, gained passage on the same giant ship as the party. When the ship passed by their island, they stole the ship’s maps and gave it to a belker acting as their accomplice. The party followed the belker to the island, where another initiate tried to talk them into joining the cult of slavering devotion to and domination by an evil extraplanar overlord friendship with a helpful, powerful god. In true D&D fashion they instead killed everybody.

The players, of course, had their own agenda. They conferred with each other on their characters, and they selected a theme they opted to keep secret. I was to induce what the theme was based on their character descriptions and actions. I only figured out shortly before the final battle that they were all playing Jedi as a bloodrager, a bard, and a swashbuckler/paladin, though I contend I would have figured it out earlier if I hadn’t spent so much time trying to figure out how the bard worked into things. They had a good time bantering about their secret theme, and I got my revenge by telling them their Jedi expies were now canon in a campaign setting based on Edwardian Europe, so we all had a laugh.

My goal was to test myself, to see whether I could pull a session out of thin air with zero prep time, and I think I succeeded. I’m certain I could have done it even faster than I did if I hadn’t had to deal with finding enemy portraits, writing their attack macros, and creating combat maps out of our tile resources. If I’d done it at a table, with my miniatures handy and a battlemat, I probably could have built the session in half the time. I will deduct points because I legitimately thought the Rock of Gibraltar was an island instead of peninsula, but the players were gracious enough not to call me on it. All told it worked out fairly well. I haven’t asked the players for a detailed grade but I’m giving myself a tentative B+.

Designing and running this session was a ton of fun, enough that I’m trying to again next week with the bonus seventh adventure seed “A sort of Pathfinder version of pre-Empire Star Wars”. I do think this concept for session design requires a really light mood. Everything was already a bit wacky, so nobody batted an eye when the cultists started talking about becoming one of Pazuzu’s friends by welcoming him into your life and mind. It also helped that I had resources available to me, like the NPC information on the Pathfinder SRD or the tokens and macros from previous campaigns where I’d already solved a lot of my output formatting problems. But that’s largely what I’ve said all along, where improvisational DMing works best when you have some way to fall back on numbers when you need them. As I’d thought, I wouldn’t be able to do it all the time, but as a one-shot or a breather session it’s a great break from normalcy.

Posted in DMing | Tagged | 1 Comment