Archive for the ‘D&D’ Category


Dungeons Part Three: Running a Dungeon

July 18, 2014

So, now we’ve covered some basic theory about the design, and laid out the fact different groups want very different kinds of challenge from a dungeon delving game… let’s go into more specific applications to play.  (if this looks like a lot… well, it is. Like I said, dungeon design is level design is game design.  Doing it well requires a lot of forethought and there is a reason the videogame industry PAYS people, full time to do this kind of stuff…)

On the Grid, To the Table

Depth vs. Novelty

Aside from constructing your dungeons to meet your players’ particulars about Exploration/Logistics/Tactics, you also need to think realistically about whether your group wants a longer, megadungeon or a short dungeon they can clear quickly, and, how long that should go.  People really like having benchmarks to go by and a sense of accomplishment.

One of the problems is that a lot of old school dungeon building advice assumes weekly games, long sessions, over years of play… and ends up teaching people to “put the cool stuff” deeper in the dungeon.  (It’s also why I think the modules aimed at higher level play were generally pretty popular – the cool stuff kicks in at the beginning much more often).

Prep only what you need so you don’t end up wasting a ton of time on something that’s not going to show up in play.

Engagement Density

How fast will the players encounter challenges, puzzles, or rewards in the dungeon?  This isn’t so much how far apart are they spaced physically, as much as it’s a question of action time at the game table – “Oh, they should get through this room and into the next with 10 minutes of play.  That fight should take 30 minutes.”

This is a highly variable thing, but you can see that density is much higher if the dungeon is laid out simply, if the challenges/puzzles/rewards are tightly clustered, if there’s not a lot of obstacles from point A to point B, if there’s not a lot of traps or secret doors or other obstacles slowing movement or forcing the players to be extra cautious.

One of the old school pieces of advice is “Most rooms should be empty” which, may be more realistic, but it’s not particularly fun to have most of the rooms empty – it means a lot of wandering around to find the fun, and also, if the game features traps, ambushes, or cool rewards hidden away, a lot of time spent searching and cautiously entering every room.  Empty rooms are generally not fun.  It also means you have to either spend more time coming up with creative descriptions of non-interesting areas, OR give it a barebones boring description as well…And, you’re competing with every other kind of game your players could be playing right now – so you want pretty high engagement density.  (Check out Spacing The Threats below for a bit on the strategic issues with this, too.)

Obvious Exits and Highlighted Secrets

When a videogame is doing it’s job, you have a good idea of where to go, or what to do next.   When a videogame is doing poor design, you’re lost, you’re stuck, your not even sure what you should be trying to do.  Videogames have quickly recognized that players need adequate information to make meaningful choices, and poorly communicating that makes it feel like you’re being cheated rather than challenged.

This is “obvious exits” – big colorful paths pointing the way, a giant gate, a glowing door, or more subtle, lights right at the entrance, etc.  In roleplaying, be sure to point out the things that are obvious and important to the characters – make “obvious exits”, whether that’s literal exits or things worth interacting with.

The other trick videogames do is for many games, there’s often tiny clues or giveaways that something is a secret area worth poking at.  A statue out of place among similar statues, a place where all the flowers are colored differently for no apparent reason, etc.

Why prep a bunch of secret things if no one ever finds it?  Unlike a videogame, you’re not going to have thousands of players running through your dungeon, nor will people be able to play alone and poke at the dungeon, so you actually want to give better odds of finding stuff for your group just to make it worthwhile.  These highlights do not have to tell the group HOW to get into/at the secret, just that it’s worth investigating.

Dungeon Pitfalls: Red Herrings

Lots of dungeons and dungeon advice seems to have Red Herrings – things that look important, but turn out to have no secret at all.   This is a terrible thing to do.  You end up wasting your players’ time, and it teaches them NOT to look or investigate on things that seem weird, but to pass them up for things they KNOW are worth their time.    It’s like the Empty Room of features.

From the Grid to the Players


While it’s easy to see the dungeon as mazes + monsters, it’s also fun to consider how the dungeon can be a piece of world building for your game.  As the players wander through an area, give them descriptions based on their characters’ understanding of what they’re seeing.  Fill your dungeons with history – the Dwarf recognizes the carvings of a lost Dwarven Kingdom, a human sees old shields with insignias from an army that was defeated in her mother’s lifetime, etc.  Give more details to players whose characters have history or knowledge skills as would be appropriate.

If you can, make these relevant to actual conflicts/characters they meet now, not just random filler.  Maybe they find out the friendly wizard in town, his family used to live in this keep before it fell into ruins.  Maybe the Cult of the Red Savior is actually a terrible misunderstanding of an Elvish mural from a famous play…

Groups that love lore and history will eat this up.  This pushes on some players’ love of Exploration, but it bores people who don’t really go for setting and world building stuff.

Dungeon Politics

Not all of the monsters are working together.  They might even be in the same army/cult/whatever but have internal rivalries.  Where there are intelligent creatures in the dungeon, you can assume many of them either have alliances, rivalries, or out and out hatred for each other, and when the PCs enter the mix, all these groups will respond to what happens.   Smart players can make allies or get monsters to take each other out.    There might be creatures who need to be rescued or protected – in which case you have a heroic situation int he making.  You can set up all the usual issues of politics, needs, and pressure among the monsters and just make sure it gets communicated to the players as you play.

Groups that love social roleplaying and deception schemes love this kind of thing.   Players who don’t care and simply want to kick in doors won’t care.

Leaving a Mark

Dungeon delving is disruptive… things get damaged, destroyed, entire monster groups get driven out or wiped out.    If this dungeon is going to be a focus of play for many sessions, take notes of this.  Note how the players change the setting and how the creatures react.  Be sure to remind the players as they return through areas, all the little (or not so little) marks they’ve left:

“You still see the arrow shaft near the top of the door where you fought the Ghost Knight.”

“The stench of the rotting giant lizard is nearly completely gone, scavengers have picked it over pretty well.”

“It’s easy to find the secret door again, you just look for the charred blast marks on the stone from the fireball fight a few weeks ago…”

While it’s easy to just have superficial things, also make and expect objects for the players to break or use to change the possible ways to MOVE in the dungeon itself.  Maybe the players used magic to form a tunnel between two rooms that didn’t exist before, or they toppled a giant statue over a chasm to serve as a bridge.

These little things are just FUN, and it gives the players something they don’t get from videogames – a chance to realize the dungeon isn’t an unchanging, automated area to run through.

Adapting Threats

This is a dial – on one end, the creatures in the dungeon do not change or adapt in response to the players.  This is pretty much like a videogame at this end.  On the other end, the dungeon dwellers set up traps, move, cave in areas or build barricades, set up complex ambushes, etc.    Now, the dial doesn’t just affect how dangerous the dungeon is, but it also affects the engagement density…

See, one of the benefits to a longer dungeon delve is familiarity with areas you’ve already gone through and relative safety to run in or out of those areas.  If the areas are repopulating with new creatures, or the other dungeon dwellers are already moving in and changing things, it means previous “cleared” areas are not actually cleared at all.  (I’ll go into some options of what this can look like in the next post.)

It’s realistic and dynamic, and that part is fun, but it also means the players might feel like they’re getting nowhere in beating the dungeon.   The time it takes to get through areas you’ve run through before stops being fun and becomes a chore if the threats are too dense or it happens all the time.

Talk to your group!  Some folks really like the idea of a living world and having to adapt to meet it, other folks feel like it makes play feel like an unrewarding struggle.


Logic Puzzles vs. Context Puzzles

Puzzles are hard to do in tabletop play for two reasons – puzzle games are normally a solitary activity.  You can take all the time you want to mull over it, put down the videogame or walk away from the puzzle book and think about it while you go about your day and come back and then solve a puzzle.   When you’ve got a group of people at the table, everyone’s time is on the line and you can’t quite do this the same way.   This is the reason most puzzles in tabletop games are side options – they open an extra area, or give you some extra bonus, but they’re not the core of play.

You end up with two types of puzzles – logic vs. context puzzles.  A logic puzzle focuses on elimination or procedure to create the puzzle – things like the fox, the hen, and the corn across the river kind of things.  You know what your end goal is, you’re just not sure what order to do things in.  Or process of elimination type puzzles, which again, you know there’s one correct answer, you just have to figure out all the ones that aren’t it.

The one problem with logic puzzles is that your group is either skilled with them or not.  If they are, they solve these in short order and the puzzle becomes a minor chore rather than a fun thing.  If they aren’t it requires more work, and then comes the question of how much work is still fun vs. crossing over the line where they just decide to ignore it.

Context puzzles depend on context outside of the game – stuff like riddles, knowledge of greek mythology, etc.  These never work that well because not only does it depend on the players having that context, it also depends on the players thinking in a completely different context than the world the game is taking place in – so they might know the answer but not think of it from that alone.  I see people post about “the players didn’t get it! It was SO OBVIOUS.” and it’s like… no, actually, context puzzles are never really obvious.

Spacing The Threats

One point of Engagement Density is monsters.  How tightly packed are the monsters?  If there’s a fight in one room, why don’t they all run and mob the party right away?  This is the issue of spacing threats, and I believe, one of the reasons old school dungeon advice often recommends a lot of empty rooms – to give the party a better chance at survival.  That said, I still think the empty room technique is bad for game play.

If the monsters are not cooperative with each other, many will probably stick to certain safe areas, or only come out some time after things have quieted down, looking for carrion or things to scavenge.  Intelligent monsters might hear the commotion and decide the best thing to do is hide or fortify defenses until they know what’s going on.

If the monsters are cooperating with each other, that’s a much harder set up.  You can have them with lax and poorly considered communication situations (outposts far out in the dungeon outside of hearing distance), drunk or lazy or absent guards, or perhaps other problems preventing them from reaching each other (like other monsters between them).   Even well organized groups may have internal rivalries that get in the way – “Intruders are attacking the east tunnels?  Let them!  If Captain Grimfanger dies, I get command!”

If you are dealing with an organized group of monsters, who do work together well, your threat is multiplied GREATLY.  Assume any encounters will be with many of the nearby groups as well, and figure out how long it will take for them to figure out there is danger, grab their gear, and get down there.  In older D&D, where a round was 1 full minute, that was usually only a few rounds at best.  In newer D&D and many other games, a round of combat is 10 seconds, 6 seconds, or even less.  It’s quite probable that a combat will be over before the reinforcements arrive… buying the party a little bit of time to set up.

Strategic Space: Chokepoints and Flanking

When you design your dungeon, if your players like tactical challenges, you have to consider a variety of space in which to move and fight.  Realistically… dungeons were cramped, small and not particularly great spaces to have fights in.   Realistically, you don’t get wizards or dragons either, so screw realism.  Whereas overall dungeon design benefits from learning from Metroidvania videogame design, most Tactical play design benefits specifically from looking at the level design philosophies in First Person Shooters.

Usually, two types of set ups work well for interesting tactical play, along with gearing fight sets specifically to whatever stunting/tactical bits your particular game system supports:

Open space plus obstacles

A larger room where the whole party can fight.  This is usually going to be 30-40 feet on the smallest end, and up to 100 feet on the large end (with anything bigger than that being so large as to being a “open field” as far as tactics are concerned.

This space will do well with a few obstacles in it that can be used as cover, things to get around, climb on, etc.   This can be support pillars, furniture, book shelves, fallen debris and supports, pits and cave ins, etc.  All of the junk serves to provide places of defense, choke points and things to flank around.  Ranged attackers must deal with cover, melee attackers need to move around these things.  Clever use of powers and magic might alter the terrain some, and monsters may be able to ignore or easily deal with some of these barriers – a swarm of bugs just flows through/over it, a giant monster might casually topple anything while coming after you…

Tunnels and Flank positions

The small cramped areas are fine, as long as there is plenty of paths to flank each other.  It gives the party multiple avenues from which to protect from attacks, and avenues in which to launch them.  It rewards cautious players for covering the sides or rear areas, and it rewards the clever players for finding ways to attack the enemy from the side or behind.  Don’t forget this can include vertical movement – climbing up onto something and jumping down is also a flanking move.

You can adjust a lot of difficulty based on how well the monsters make use of this.  Things that can climb on walls, burrow through the dungeon, are amorphous or outright ethereal are absolutely terrifying threats in tunnel fights.  Think of the xenomorph from Alien and you’ve got a good idea of how bad it can get.  This becomes worse if the creatures not only are good at setting up flanking and ambushes, but regularly use retreating tactics to wear a party down.

Also remember that winning the fight can be separate from beating the opposition.

Fun Traps vs. Crap Traps

The “game” part of any roleplaying game depends on this: what choices do you have to make, and why is it fun to make those choices?

In many dungeon crawls, traps are shit.   The choices you make are not really choices.   It’s either “woops, roll a random die to see how badly you get maimed” or it’s a choice of “Spend a tedious amount of time, searching everything, for traps, all the time, or suffer.”  Those aren’t fun choices.  (Now mind you, if you were playing very old school D&D where everyone gets 10-20 PCs, what happens is a trap takes out 1-2 of your guys, THEN you have a choice about dealing with it with the remaining party.)

Fun traps are mostly puzzle traps.  They’re elaborate deals that take several turns to kick off, and you have to figure out how to get out or disable them while they’re in action.  This requires a lot of forethought into making sure the goals/options are obvious, but the procedures in doing so are more complicated.  For the usual “dangerous dungeon feel”, I prefer Hazards…


A rickety bridge, a partially collapsed wall, a room half flooded…  Hazards aren’t traps in the sense that someone set them up and hid them, they’re obvious things that are a pain in the rear to navigate, or things that are obviously dangerous.   The fun in hazards isn’t information scarcity – you see them, you see they’re trouble, but it’s in the Logistics of getting past them, and how you can use them as choke points or ways of hurting the monsters.

Hazards also require less justification.  You don’t need to explain things like “Why the hell would someone build this falling block trap HERE?  How the hell do they reset it?” etc.  Hazards are just the natural ruin of the place and it makes rather mundane skills like climbing, jumping, balancing, repairing/jury rigging things, using poles, hammers, spikes, ropes, etc. a fun thing to add into your game.

Next: How to build your dungeon starting with Threat Structure as your theme.

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Dungeons Part Two: What Players Want

July 17, 2014

One of the strengths of dungeon or map-based tabletop games is that it provides you with a nice set of prepared material to run play with.  The players go somewhere, and stuff happens based on that – you’re never having to consider issues like story pacing or scene cutting in the same way for games that are not location based.

As I said in Dungeons Part One, just because everyone wants a “dungeon crawl” still doesn’t mean they want the same kind of game.  The focus or balance of Exploration, Logistics and Tactics means you not only need to run a dungeon differently, but the kind of material you should prep vs. leave out is also very different.  And the answer is not just “prep as much as possible”, because you have to also make the information something you can navigate and use easily – plus the reality is why spend hours prepping material you’re not going to use?

Start from the goal: find out what your players want from this game, then figure out what information you’ll need in play based on that.

What the Players Want


  • Fights should be: balanced to meet the player characters / might be unmatched to the party
  • Fights should be: avoided / sought out
  • Fights are: rare / regular


  • Threats are well balanced to the party
  • Threats might be too powerful for the party to deal with right away
  • Some threats may be too dangerous, overall


  • Supplies are not really an issue, they’re background color to play
  • Supplies are a minor issue, as long as you bought enough food, that’s fine
  • Supplies are a significant issue – track food and torches, etc.


  • Player characters should try to explore everything / prioritize and pick what to explore
  • Secret doors, treasure, and traps will be: obvious / depending on dice rolls/ require explicit declarations of inspecting/investigating/searching
  • Players are expected to draw a detailed map / the GM will provide/show a map as play goes on / players do not need to worry about making specific navigation choices during play


  • Assumed competence – the GM assumes the characters are cautious, searching, etc.
  • General narration – if the players say their searching a room, the GM assumes it is a good and relatively through job
  • Specific narration – the players must describe exactly how they’re searching/interacting with any object for it to be true.


  • There will/will not be anything that can kill/incapacitate you instantly, by surprise
  • There will/will not be any poisoned/cursed/trapped objects
  • Traps/hazards will be absent / rare / common and/or absolutely lethal
  • No mercy: the walls, floor, ceiling, doors and treasure chests all might want to eat you.


  • Players should/should not try to negotiate with intelligent monsters, creatures, or NPCs.
  • The party of PCs should always work together/sometimes/might betray each other utterly.
  • Players are/are not expected to roleplay the lives of characters outside of adventuring

As a Group

Now, you could sit down with this full list and run your whole group through it, though I suspect unless they’re theory-heads and excited to do a long haul dungeon crawl, it’s not going to actually get them excited but rather kill some of their enthusiasm and not provide enough value for the amount of time it takes.  The important thing to do is to start by sussing out what excites people from the Exploration/Logistics/Tactics side and then try to narrow down with some of these ideas.

When it comes down to “Ok, everyone, let’s play a dungeon crawl” conversation as a commitment, then lay out some of these ideas as you plan on going with (with some room for modification) but primarily as a way of communicating the expectations of this to folks.

“Hey, talking to everyone, no one really likes traps in games, so in this game, they’re only going to show up as big puzzle ‘death traps’ to solve when they do.  I know Quinn likes tactical combat, and Jono likes the strategy of sneaking around, so we’ll have a bit of both – there’ll be fights but there’s also going to be fights to run from or avoid.” etc.

You may notice that some games or adventure modules are designed in certain ways or modules set up that hits specific combinations on that Exploration/Logistics/Tactics ratio, and these serve as ways to get players on the same page quickly and easily – “Tomb of Horrors” already preps everyone to be in a deathtrap dungeon mentality, while Torchbearer is a game about Logistics management.  You can also see people make manifestos or movements as ways to formalize these preferences – Fourthcore, E6, “Rulings not Rules” etc.

Wants -> Play Estimates -> Prep Needs

If you know what your players want in their game, you can start making good estimates on how much play will come from what kind of preparation.   A combat focused game might simply require 3 combat encounters to prep and then you’ve got a full session from that.  Another game might involve 2-4 traps spread across 8 rooms and some interesting descriptions and you know the players will spend t a lot of time searching, poking and prodding things.

Part of that will also be you figuring out how much of your prep work deals with mechanics (writing down monster stats, drawing maps for detailed positioning, etc.) and how much of the prep is more about creative spark and inspiration (memorable descriptions, personalities, etc.)

All of this means you can become very efficient with your prep – prepping just the right kind of material when you create a dungeon, knowing how much you need to prepare in advance vs. deal with later vs. improvise on the spot, and what kind of resources you can use as inspiration/places to steal ideas from.   This also means if your game falls apart or goes on hiatus, you lost 1 session of prep, and not a month of prep work languishing in a notebook to probably be forgotten when you next run the game.

You’re not just designing the dungeon for the players to play, you’re also designing the dungeon for you to run, and these are both important.

Next up: Running a Dungeon

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Dungeons Part One: Theory and Design

July 16, 2014

As folks gear up for the new D&D and the resurgence of roguelike games, the flood of questions about how to design dungeons has arisen again.  Luckily, in the last 10 years there’s been some great discussion about dungeon design , which comes straight out of a larger population having better language to talk about game design in general, and videogame levels as a common experience.

What does a dungeon do?

Dungeons where you draw out maps, and prepare challenges, aren’t just scenery – they’re effectively level design in the same sense a videogame level design matters.  Dungeons structure your gameplay in three ways:

Information Scarcity

“What’s behind the door?”  “What’s down the dark hallway?”   “What’s that weird sound?”

Dungeons often rely upon hidden information – where treasure is hidden, where the worst threats are, and ways to get around them.  So you can find in many games a fair amount of play revolves around trying to suss out these things and spell lists and valued magic items reflect this.  This also means part of the value of a dungeon for multiple sessions of play is that one of the “rewards” the players pick up is familiarity with the dungeon itself – knowledge of how it is laid out allows them to make better strategic choices and use their resources better.  This sort of “dungeon mastery” goes hand in hand with system mastery of how the rules work for strategy in play and expertise of the players.

Constraining Resources

“What don’t the heroes just call for help?”  “I just go to a store and buy the right kind of tool” etc.

The dungeon separates the characters from a lot of potential resources, including allies or supplies.  At the very minimum, some things that wouldn’t be problems normally become problems (“Well, we could get across if we had our rowboat.  But we don’t.”).  More in-depth, you can start exploring the strategies of using limited resources to get by and improvise solutions.  You can also see this is where things like magic items or spells exist to solve these particular problems.

Strategic Play

The two issues above, along with very limited ways in which you can travel, sets up strategic options.  Choke points, areas good for fallback positions, flanking, etc. come out of these limited movement options.   “Knowing the Terrain” was a key point of warfare since forever, and you can even see things like MOBA style videogames using map design to encourage strategy in this same way, as well.

Different kinds of fun

To put it roughly, these three elements give players fun in three different categories – Exploration, Logistics, and Tactics, though they don’t map exactly one to one.  For example, traps rely on information scarcity, but usually the part players have fun with traps is figuring out how to outwit them, bypass the trap, or use it to their advantage – Logistics.

These three aren’t entirely incompatible, but depending on the group of players, they may want very different kinds of ratios – and those desires for different ratios might BE incompatible.  Some people love exploring and drawing maps and making inferences (“Oh, wait, see how these two hallways line up?  I bet there’s a secret door here.”), while other people are bored out of their minds.  Some people love figuring out how to efficiently use their torches and supplies and not end up stranded – other folks look on in horror at, what is to them, tedium.  Others like a good old fashioned fight – and others rather play a heist game where you avoid as many fights as possible.

In other words, even if everyone wants a “dungeon crawl” and everyone wants a Gamist experience to “beat the dungeon” what they may want can be very, very different.  I’ll go into more on this in Part Two.

Layout and Flow

Well, I’m just going to link to a pretty great analysis of some iconic D&D dungeons as flowcharts to read.  You’ll notice that a key value the author talks about is giving players choices and multiple paths in a dungeon, along with circular loops at points.  This is actually something noted as a positive in some of the older MMO dungeon designs as well.  Currently, most of the good theory on game design about the kind of layout and flow that applies most to dungeoncrawls can be found in “Metroidvania” style games.

Branching Options

All the above links talk about the value of branching options of which way to go.  Initially, the players will only have what scarce information there is to decide which way to go – it might be sounds, the idea that going up or down is a better choice, a faint breeze and scent, etc.  It’s useful to provide information of SOME kind at branching directions, otherwise for the players it’s completely a meaningless choice the first time through.   After they’ve seen what’s further ahead, the branch becomes a tactical/navigational choice – especially if they’re being chased or otherwise need to hurry somewhere.


Gating/Blocking is a key part of Metroidvania design, though it shows up in older tabletop dungeons too – it’s where there is a door, gateway, or obstacle that cannot be passed without some kind of special action or tool.  It might be the magical door that has a riddle or the area you can’t reach without a rope.   Gating/Blocking gives players a reason to come back to an area and sits as a question in the back of their minds as they play.  The obstacle should be for a branching path, and not block play altogether.

Although this is generally a great thing to throw in any dungeon design, it’s important to also remember in many games, players will find ways past some of these gates.  Maybe a character is strong enough to simply break one down, or uses some kind of magic to get past it.   This is why dungeons become harder to design as characters get more powerful and magical – characters who can teleport, dig, or phase through solid matter aren’t really constrained…


Previews are ways of showing players things they can’t get to… just yet.  Most of the time this is good things – like a treasure chest that is on the other side of a chasm, but it can also be dangerous things, like a monster on the other side of a gate…   Previews are good because they give the players incentive to push ahead, forewarning of danger, and basically help the area feel whole and connected.   If you are using circular or looped level design, this also helps connect areas – so when the players get around to the other side of the chasm, they can point back: “OH, this is the other side, we came in over there!”.

Videogames do this all the time, though tabletop dungeoncrawls usually don’t do it enough.


What makes a shortcut different than just a normal branching option?  It either has to be secret or something you earn.  “Earn” may include going all the way to the end of a path to find a secret door back to where you started… “earn” could also mean something like having to find a rope to lower to an area you’ve been before.  Shortcuts can either give you a quick way back, or a way around a dangerous hazard or threat.

Just like branching paths, shortcuts become tactical choices – players know where it leads and it gives them an extra option to get around.

One Way Paths

One way paths (doors, slides, pitfalls, bridges that crumble, teleporters, etc.) do one of two things.  Either it forces the players into a new area and the danger of having to find their way back through unexplored territory, OR, it forces them back to somewhere they’ve been before, forcing them to go through it all again.

The former is more scary, as the players don’t know what they’re dealing with or how far they may need to go before they can get to safety.  The latter usually makes folks angry, as it pushes them back to the beginning and any lasting hazards will need to be avoided or handled once more.

One way paths are tricky to use in tabletop games.  Being pushed forward, it increase lethality for the characters… and unlike a videogame, you can’t simply go back to a save point.  Being pushed back to previous areas, usually just wastes time, as most hazards the players dealt with are not going to be regenerated or replaced in that short of a notice.  If your game relies on specific party balance, one-way paths, more than anything else, are great at splitting up parties… which usually throws play out of wack for most dungeon crawlers.

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


D&D 5E and OGL Hints

June 30, 2014

Learning from mistakes

It sounds like D&D 5 is going to at least try to avoid some of the pitfalls of 3rd Edition/D20 OGL, which is a good thing.

The first issue, which the link addresses, is that WOTC held onto the design principles and didn’t share them with the public (at least until the end of the lifecycle…).  This contributed greatly to the amount of crappy D20 material that came out – part of the reason you’d buy a book of monsters, feats, or classes is that you’d want to put it into your existing game – but if they’re all mechanically unbalanced, it doesn’t make a good fit.  By making the DMG a “hood pulled back” look at the mechanics, you help people not just hack the rules for themselves, but develop rules that others can use as well – they get a common language on what’s going on.

The second issue was the fact that open source development works because a lot of people can see how something works and at least SOME of those folks will have an idea of how to improve it.  D20 fell down because most of the material was hidden – you’d have to pay for a full product to see the OGL material AND very often due to the licensing, people would keep the best bits for themselves and only put the weakest, blandest parts up for OGL.

Indie rpg scene, the OSR scene

Meanwhile, the indie rpg scene and later the OSR scene effectively DID use open sourcing as open sourcing.  A lot of development for games was done publicly, a lot of playtest drafts were free to download.  Games like The Shadow of Yesterday used the Creative Commons License to simply open the whole game up for reuse, and many other designers put it out there, “If you want to do a variant/supplement for my game, just email me and ask.”  So we saw a lot of fast development there.

The OSR scene first used the OGL to reproduce a lot of clones of their favorite versions of D&D, but quickly started spinning off into their own games and development from that.  Again, often a lot of these were free or accessible for folks to build on ideas and cross develop.  Even things like E6 variant D&D developed under the same kind of logic.

The WOTC Challenge

Probably the easiest path for them would be to create a version of the Creative Commons License – let fans make stuff, but not charge money for it.  It fulfills the original goal of the D20 OGL – get people making material that feeds back to D&D, but it also avoids a lot of the pitfalls about paywalls.  There’s probably also something to be said about competition, especially in the post-Pathfinder era, though I don’t think that’s actually a real issue in the long run.

I know there’s the usual cry of “but if no one can charge money, no one professional will ever do this and quality will suffer!” but we can look at a lot of the OSR stuff being works of love rather than profit, and being successful despite lowered production quality.  Likewise, one can look at the amount of fanfiction which apparently has been decent enough to become transformed into professional bestsellers with the names scraped off, so there’s plenty of examples of “good enough to people to love it” from fan work.

The less easy path, if they wanted to take closer to the D20 OGL route, where people could create products and charge money, would be to have a central database or wiki of all the open source material so anyone could see it and work with it.  That said, you still have to figure out how to make sure it’s the best stuff coming in and not the dregs of any product, as well as dealing with the issue of maintenance. (Any platform the public can have input on, must be constantly handheld or it fills with violent racist, misogynist, homophobes and penis pictures as a basic law of the internet…)

The 4E route of “pay to license” is not going to work and we can see how much of 4E kinda sat on the edge with fan creations.  To be sure, there was hacks and stuff posted, but we can probably say that a lot of 2nd tier publishers who were putting out solid material for D20 decided to stick with what was working for them rather than deal with the hot mess of confusion and restriction the 4E license provided.

In many ways, I wonder how much of Pathfinder came out of a love of d20 as opposed to Paizo seeing 4E’s license as being unworkable.  It’s sort of like how Windows puts out a crap version every other time and no one upgrades because it’s easier to stick with what you’ve got than to deal with the hassle. (mind you, I’m talking about the license, not the game itself.  I think 4E had a lot of great design choices in it, and, would have been one of the better systems for 3rd party support/hacking, because of the modular nature of powers…)

The Indie Lesson of Fan base

One of the better things that came out of the 2000’s Indie rpg scene was the understanding of how to better engage with your game fan base.  People were playing games that were long out of print, with nothing new coming out and nothing in the news, but having a passionate community still playing and pushing it.  Ron Edwards pointed out that play communities mattered more to rpgs than regular publishing cycles.   We can see that is true with ever re-release Kickstarter of an old RPG which does exceedingly well because the fan base is still present.

So how do you best engage with that fan base?

Allow creativity

Roleplaying games are a creative activity, so it’s no surprise that gamers want to share their ideas as well.  This doesn’t mean anything has to become officially part of your game, but it does mean you need to allow spaces for it and to some level, encourage it.  To a great deal, we can see this is what Enworld and some of the blog spaces on the WOTC site have become.  Getting that to flourish in more spaces becomes more ‘free advertising’ for your core game.

Cross promote

The other one which is still relatively underutilized is cross promoting other games that you also think are good.  Tabletop rpgs are too small of a hobby to act as if you gain some competitive edge by pretending no other games exist.  Not only does cross promoting help grow/maintain the hobby by making sure people can find a game that does what they want (even if it’s not your game), it also sets up a reciprocal space of gaming promotion.  Not everyone is going to promote your game in return, but enough will and it makes a big difference.  “One True Way” logic has hurt roleplaying significantly as a hobby, and remains one of the big roadblocks to D&D groups forming and continuing with play.  If D&D gobbled up every other tabletop RPG company’s profits from actual games?  It’d be nothing to them.  What you want is more gamers overall, and it makes more sense to promote tabletop roleplaying as a whole, rather than fighting for crumbs.


D&D and the size of the party

June 2, 2013

I had a conversation with a friend of my roommate who’s from another country after finding out he was into D&D. We ended up talking about the game, and the game design of it, and I brought up the fact that most of the issues D&D has wrestled with mostly come out of the shift from very early D&D where each player had multiple characters to the idea of each player controlling just one.

I remember really considering this idea first after reading “Races of War”

In its origins, D&D was a wargame like Warmachine or Warhammer. You had a field filled with tiny men, and they fought each other with swords and bows. Eventually, someone got really lazy, and wanted to replace a large number of fighting men with heroic fighting men who would be easier to paint because there were much less of them. And that, right there, is the origins of DnD. The smaller number of better Fighting Men would be your “army” and eventually people started playing magical teaparty with their fighting men, and it turned into a roleplaying game. So it isn’t surprising that at first you “roleplayed” a small group of heroic fighting men.

When the new classes (such as “Magic User” and eventually “Thief” and “Cleric”) were introduced, they were intended to be better than the Fighting Men. And, well, they totally were. Indeed, players still controlled lots of characters, and it was deemed impractical for more than one or two of those characters to be any good or in any fashion important. So you rolled up stats for each guy, and if you rolled well enough on a guy he could be something other than a Fighting Man, and the rest of your guys were basically just speed bumps whose lot in life was to stand between the monsters and the Magic Users so that the real characters could survive to another day.

What you’ll notice happens when players have multiple characters the problems that people often have talked about with D&D over the years disappears instantly:

– High lethality? If you’ve got 10-20 characters, you can lose some and you’re not left out of play
– Class balancing? Every player is going to have a few of most types – so it’s not like one player is going to overshadow the others with their awesome wizard at high levels – everyone is going to have their own awesome wizard or two.
– Charisma as a dump stat? You’ve got a war band of several folks and you can also get hirelings to help. Those extra hands are going to be real useful because someone’s got to carry the food and torches…
– Random stats? – Everyone is going to have a good selection of character stats by averages – no one is going to be stuck only playing the character with low wack stats for the whole campaign.
– Out of spells? You’ve got several other characters who aren’t spell casters, so you’re not left being useless and not able to do anything in play.

You’ll also start to see other artifacts like the random number of monsters encountered and the pretty high numbers or the vast treasure pulls you get sometimes. All of this makes perfect sense when you have basically a company of adventurers going into the dungeon and not a band of 4-6.

Anyway, I figured I’d toss this here for later referral for folks on D&D stuff.