I think the hardest part of anything is the ending, but the second hardest part is the beginning. The first episode of a TV show, the first chapter of a book, and the first issue of a comic are what’s supposed to hook the viewer or reader and make them want to keep going.
The beginning of a campaign isn’t very different. A lot of campaigns have a reasonably stable player base, but I’ve left enough campaigns (and had enough players leave my campaigns) in the first few sessions to know how important it is to hook people, set the stage for the plot, and let the players know what they can expect for the rest of the campaign. A great Session One can go a long way toward a great overall campaign.
I think I’ve come up with a solution for problematic Sessions One: have a Session Zero. Before a campaign starts, I have a session with no plot, no role-playing, no actual dice hitting the table unless it’s to roll character abilities. The whole point is to have everybody gather and get a feel for each other, their characters, and the setting.
There are a couple of things I like to go over:
- Character Generation – I prefer to roll character abilities, build characters, and discuss the party dynamic as part of Session Zero. It turns out a lot of players don’t like this, preferring to build character by themselves rather than by committee, but I still think it’s important to have everybody somewhat aware of what roles they’re filling in the party. It also lets players ask me or each other questions about things they’re having trouble with, like picking languages or figuring out how to spend their starting equipment budget.
- Setting Discussion – Session Zero is a great chance for players to ask questions about the setting of the campaign and add their own notes to it. “I figure I was in a war ten years ago. Who would it have been with?” “Is there a problem with me playing a goblin?” “Are Eastern weapons or firearms available?” And so forth.
- Survey Results – I have a campaign survey that I like to send out to players while I’m designing the campaign, and Session Zero is a good time to go over the results. I’ll go over my survey in a future post, but I’ve also tried the Same Page Tool that Left Oblique gushed over a while back.
- Player Meeting – It’s nice to have everybody meet face-to-face before the campaign starts. I’m not worried (any more) that two players are actually mortal enemies that I won’t learn until they see each other across the table, but it makes everybody a little more familiar with each other.
One of the most important things I’ve learned about Session Zero is that the players have to treat it like a real session. My first Session Zero was optional, and half the party didn’t show, which sort of defeated the point. My second had players come in and out at different times, so while I was there for five hours, I never had more than three players there at once, and I ended up explaining things three or four times. When I started making it as mandatory as a real session, it finally had the impact I’d always wanted. The Session Zero for my current campaign was almost perfect.
The whole point of a Session Zero is to get the players interested, unified, and ready to dive right in for Session One. A good one can all but eliminate the mechanical, table-based problems with a first session (which leaves the DM with only the in-character, story-based problems, but every little bit helps). It’s kind of like giving your campaign a trailer, letting everybody know what they can expect coming in far better than you can by giving the same campaign pitch four or five times.
On Undead (and also, I Suppose, Reskinning)
An article today on Wizards’ website got me thinking. Let’s try a little experiment. Take a look at this creature and this creature. Assuming that you only have the pictures to go on (and, I guess, the names since they’re right there on the webpage), think about their similarities and differences. Consider where one would make more sense than the other, how players would react to seeing each, and what strategies they might take against each in a fight. We’ll come back to this example later.
As Jon Schindehette very correctly said in his article on undead, the visual aspect of a monster is a very powerful element in what a creature is and how they exist in the game world. It helps players picture what’s happening, it gives them information they can use even if they don’t recognize the exact creature, and it helps differentiate monsters that might otherwise be very similar. For example, if I said “savage humanoids, low level, tends to appear in groups”, that could be orc, gnolls, goblins, certain kobold tribes, or any number of scary beasties. But if I say “hyena-headed guy”, that’s all you need to think “aha, that’s probably a gnoll, and he probably thinks I’m delicious.”
Following from this, changing some visual aspect of a monster or character can change players’ idea of them even without a single mechanical change. Wielding a “greatclub” is not the same as wielding a “four-foot long metal club inlaid with a relief of fire-breathing dragons”. “The wizard casts magic missile” is not the same as “The wizard gestures nonchalantly, and five magical hands appear and punch you in the stomach.” The former is a clear and complete, if lazy, description, but the latter is far more descriptive and memorable.
I said this way back when I wrote about Law #3:
So what’s the difference between the earthquake dragon and the nightwalker? Not a darned thing. At least, not when you switch their stat blocks, which you can do with barely a change to either of them. Either monster can serve as a stand-in for the other, and they can both be any number of other monsters and vice versa. The stats are neat and they make the game run, but the real impact is in how you choose to represent these stats to the players.
I’ve made a second career of this, by deciding what creatures I want the players to fight, then checking the Monster Manuals for something of equivalent CR or level that does roughly what I want. It’s worlds faster than making monsters from scratch, fast enough that I can do it mid-session if the players do something unexpected, which means the story is driven by them rather than by the monsters I’ve prepared. In the Tower campaign alone, I used dragon mechanics for everything from elementals to devils to Japanese cyborgs. Part of this is necessity, because 4th Edition seems to think that all dragons should be solos and most solos should be dragons, but it’s mostly because it’s a lot of fun to take something old and present it as something wholly new with just a bit of reskinning.
So I kind of like this idea of “different monsters should look different” even if it does make reskinning harder. If ghosts, wraiths, and shadows are all that different, one can’t substitute for the other, but I think that’s a good thing. It shows that Wizards might be getting past the numbers-first design of 4th Edition and back to an aesthetic of telling a story in a coherent world.
Or it could just be one writer with a good idea. I don’t know.