March of Madness: Orcus

Orcus is lord of the undead. He’s a curious sort of demon who resents chaos, preferring a universe in which only dead things thrive. Unlike deities of death who see it as part of the natural order, Orcus bucks the order itself. Hurting living things only somewhat pleases him, a shallow joy that pales against ending life entirely.

I couldn’t find any demon lord connected to more creatures than Orcus, and all of them are undead. In some iterations he tolerates necromancy, but in 5E it’s just a means to an end. He wants his followers to reject existence itself and the merciless gods who imposed life upon it. Unlike most demon lords he doesn’t appear only to the insane or thoroughly evil. Anybody who wants to end their suffering can find their way to him, and he doesn’t hide his solution. Continue reading

Posted in DMing, Gaming Systems | Tagged | Comments Off on March of Madness: Orcus

March of Madness: Introduction

Demons lords are, to be blunt, gods you can punch. They’re top-tier monsters whose tendrils work their way into every part of a campaign. They’re impossibly strong, able to pervert the environment around them for miles just by existing. They’re nearly immortal, with lives long enough to have influenced centuries of history and texts, prompting myriad cultists to huddle in darkened caves and basements appealing to them for power. They’re capstones, the perfect way to end long-running campaigns with a satisfying villain whose shadow has loomed large over the story since the first minute. All stories are about conflict, and conflict with a demon lord guarantees an epic story.

Or, at least, that’s how they’re advertised. It’s a shame they rarely have the impact the designers clearly intended. Continue reading

Posted in DMing, Gaming Systems | Tagged | Comments Off on March of Madness: Introduction

Railroading with Charisma: Grey’s Law

I think a lot of the fear of railroading goes to the stereotype of the antagonistic DM. There’s this archetype in which the DM is the enemy of the players, a vengeful entity who creates fiendish challenges and nail-biting encounters just to watch them suffer. I’m not saying this type of DM doesn’t exist—I’ve been in such a campaign at least once—but I think its prevalence is overblown. Most DMs just want to create a situation in which everybody is having fun. They aren’t villains, even if they do control villains, and they don’t enjoy player suffering, even if they design challenges that cause suffering. The DM-versus-player dynamic is an outlier that shouldn’t really enter into the conversation.

As such, railroading isn’t usually the hallmark of a DM who wants to rip power away from the players and hurt them despite their best attempts. It’s more often used by an inexperienced, underprepared, or focused DM who feels she needs to nudge (or shove) the game in a specific direction to achieve a specific goal. Railroading isn’t actually a problem. Railroading is one solution to several problems DMs face all the time. Continue reading

Posted in DMing | 3 Comments

Railroading with Charisma: Easing the Quantum Ogre

Players can’t have perfect agency. The rules of the game don’t allow it—technically, anything that requires a roll prevents the players from having full knowledge of the results of their actions. But players generally believe that when they make a decision, that decision will have some consequence on the game, whether the consequence is “we have ascended to godhood” or “my turn accomplished nothing but verifying that the monster is, in fact, immune to slashing damage.” They accept some unpredictability for the power to make meaningful decisions.

This is what makes the quantum ogre such a sneaky DM tool. While it’s a useful trick for a DM who wants to give players freedom but limit the effort he needs to put into providing it, it is still, in the end, a type of trick. It removes some of the meaning from their decisions by predetermining some of their consequences. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. By easing the impact the quantum ogre has on the players’ choices, it becomes less of a heavy-handed railroading tool and more an agent of convenience for the DM. Continue reading

Posted in DMing | Comments Off on Railroading with Charisma: Easing the Quantum Ogre

Railroading with Charisma: Macro vs. Micro

As we discussed last time, all campaigns have some sort of railroading and all DMs use it. There’s always some sort of “this is the game we’re playing” restriction. It’s so commonplace, it’s hard to see it as railroading until you think about it, but it is a form of denying agency to the players, specifically the agency to play something other than the game on which they agreed. The difference between that and scene-by-scene or action-by-action railroading isn’t a difference in terms. It’s a difference in scale.

When we talk about scale, we usually differentiate between the macro-level and the micro-level. Macro scale is top-down, looking at the broad picture, and micro scale is bottom-up, looking at specific actors. For example, macroeconomics considers the economy at large, like how the government affects the market or how inflation grows, and microeconomics considers how a specific person or company within the economy manages money, including making purchases as a result of changes in price. A complete picture of anything with scale has to include macro-level, micro-level, and everything in between, and railroading is no exception. Continue reading

Posted in DMing | 1 Comment

Railroading with Charisma

One of the greatest sins a DM can commit is railroading. It’s the hallmark of an inexperienced, controlling, or incompetent DM. It hurts players, hurts characters, and hurts campaigns. It’s a dirty word in gaming and an incendiary accusation, and it flies in the face of the stated principles of every gaming system I can think of.

Or, at least, that’s its common interpretation. While it can be wielded like a bludgeon by an inept DM, it can also be used to enhance a campaign and the game around it. The key is in understanding how much to railroad, when, why, and in what way so it benefits both players and the DM, even when everything is stuck to rails. We have to railroad with Charisma.

Before we get too into how to make railroads interesting enough that players want to stay on the train, we need to define our terms. What is railroading, and if it’s so bad, why is it a thing at all? Continue reading

Posted in DMing | Comments Off on Railroading with Charisma

House Rule: Alternate Fear Mechanics

It’s time to fulfill a promise I made more than a year ago:

Concept: Alternate fear mechanics
Tested in: The Worldwound campaign

What it is: Fear is, appropriately, the scariest affliction in 3E and Pathfinder. Being shaken isn’t so bad, just a -2 penalty on d20 rolls (and weapon damage rolls, which is a weird addition), but being frightened or panicked is devastating. A frightened or panicked character must flee from the source of his fear if fleeing is at all possible. While it’s not as obvious as being paralyzed or petrified or knocked unconscious, this takes the character’s action away from the player just as these rarer ailments do. In fact, it takes away even more actions; a character who is paralyzed for three rounds gets to act on turn four (if he survives), but a frightened character flees for three rounds and has to spend rounds four through six just returning to the fight (again, if he survives—there’s nothing stopping enemies from taking potshots at a running character who can’t retaliate). At higher levels, a character can expend consumable effects, like item powers or spells, to flee, and they remain expended when the fear ends. A moderate-level fear effect that lasts a single round can irreversibly take a teleporting character out of a fight. But unlike paralysis or petrification, moderate-level fear effects are available to PCs and monsters as early as L1. That’s too early to put save-or-dies in everybody’s hands.

We do like the narrative effects of fear, so we haven’t tossed them out entirely. Instead, with our house rules a frightened character can take either the normal effects of the status ailment or a -4 penalty to d20 rolls (and weapon damage rolls). A panicked character can optionally take a -6 penalty to the same rolls. A character must make this choice when they first suffer the effect; they cannot flee for two rounds then convert the effects to a d20 penalty or vice versa. This means a player remains in full control of a frightened or panicked character, but the fear still imposes a significant consequence. Continue reading

Posted in DMing, House Rules | Tagged | Comments Off on House Rule: Alternate Fear Mechanics

A Note About Stories

I’ve been telling a lot of gaming stories here lately. Especially dedicated readers may recall some of these stories from my guest appearances on a local podcast, and especially pedantic readers may note that my retellings here do not exactly match the stories as I told them before. I’m aware. The problem with telling stories years after they’ve occurred is that I don’t fully recall what happened. That’s how we get discrepancies like this:

Those of you with encyclopedic knowledge of D&D 3.5E may recall that gray slaads do not have dimension door at will. But this character was definitely a slaad, and he definitely teleported at will. I don’t know how to reconcile this.

Sometimes the story changes in the telling, so it becomes a more dramatic version of itself. Sometimes I forget a key element and I have to fill it in with guesswork or estimation. Though I can’t think of a specific situation in which I’ve made something up entirely, I can’t be one hundred percent certain I haven’t. My memory is faulty and mostly occupied by encyclopedic knowledge of 16-bit video games. So I think it’s worth noting that any given part of these stories, like any part of any story, may occur on any of the following levels of reality:

(a) what happened
(b) what I believe happened
(c) what I would like to have happened
(d) what I want others to believe happened
(e) what I want others to believe that I believed happened.

I understand this list comes from Yes, Prime Minister, though I came across it by way of a professional wrestling Q&A blog because I am a bard and I only acquire knowledge esoterically. I try to tell stories that exist on level (a), but I can only guarantee level (b). If my stories conflict with something else I’ve said, please feel free to believe whichever version you find most entertaining.

Posted in Campaigns | Tagged | Comments Off on A Note About Stories

The Theft of the Magical Wall

It’s hard to keep secrets from players. They have a tendency to wheedle key information out of the most unreasonable places, bullying NPCs or casting high-level divinations to get plot details far before they should. In my experience, most of my plots are spoiled by blind stupid guessing, where the players hear an NPC’s name mentioned in passing and somehow immediately assume he’s going to be key to a plot they don’t even know about yet. It’s like every one of my sessions is a terribly-written murder mystery. But by sheer accident, I once stumbled upon the perfect way to keep players from predicting a crucial plot twist: make sure I don’t know about it myself.

Let me tell you about the theft of the magical wall. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns, DMing | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Theft of the Magical Wall

Group Checks

Most rolls in D&D are made by a single character. Only the cleric makes a saving throw when she looks at a medusa. Only the rogue tries to disarm a trap. Only the fighter swings his sword at the goblin. The party isn’t Voltron (note to self: make rules for a Voltron session). But sometimes there are opportunities for a check from the entire group because everybody is engaged in the same activity, like making Constitution checks as the party travels across the desert or dodging the same cone of cold. It’s a moment of camaraderie as everybody faces one challenge together, and it’s a chance for the most skilled party members to shine as they shrug off effects that would destroy a normal person and/or bard.

The group skill check, however, is a special sort of problem. It either goes very well or very poorly, almost every time, and that’s because the rules have been doing it wrong. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns, DMing, Game Design, Gaming Systems | Tagged , | Comments Off on Group Checks