Campaign Mastery helps tabletop RPG GMs knock their players' socks off through tips, how-to articles, and GMing tricks that build memorable campaigns from start to finish.

The Best Of 2014 Pt 2: July-December

Photo Credit: / Alex Bramwell

Photo Credit: / Alex Bramwell

This is Campaign Mastery’s

800th post!

But it didn’t feel right to make a big celebration out of that milestone after touting the 750th-post anniversary so prominently last year. Instead, it’s business as usual – except that this particular article is, of course, a celebration of the achievements that helped get the blog to this point!

So, here are the stats worth knowing: 1.11 million page views, 36% visitor loyalty, 406,000 visitors.

Let’s put those numbers into perspective by dividing them by 800: An average of 1,387.5 views of each article, 499.5 by loyal readers and 888 by first-time visitors – 320 of whom will come back at some future point to read another article.

And yet. those numbers are misleading. Compared to this time last year, Campaign Mastery has 6.4% more readers every day, every article, every week, every month.

Here’s another perspective: Up through November 2013, the pattern of readers was a gradually-rising sine wave, rising and falling over a period of about 7 months. This had been the pattern following the euphoric Ennie nomination a year earlier. Something happened in December of 2014, some threshold was crossed; what it was, I don’t know, but it had a profound impact on the readership. What used to be the cycle peak value in readers suddenly became the reliable minimum, with occasional articles – four of them in 2014 – attracting an extra two or three thousand readers in those months when they were published. The 750th celebrations represented another milestone, another threshold: the new minimums each month is the average of those four exceptional months last year, and at least two of the last six months have shown a significant increase over even that bottom line.

What’s more, It’s my (admittedly prejudiced) opinion that the articles that have been published here in the last year have been better than those published the year before, which in turn were better than those the year before, and so on. Certainly, the feedback I have received has given that impression!

So there’s an awful lot to celebrate!

During the period with which this article is concerned, there were 66,201 articles read by 25,137 readers, 37% of whom had been to the site at least once before. Year-on-year, this was pretty much unchanged from the previous year in terms of number of visits but slightly down in other metrics. That’s actually pretty good, because that 2013 period included the 500th post and a couple of others that received greater than usual attention.

There’s some pretty good stuff here….


The Best Of 2014 Pt 2: July-December

As always, this list is very subjective, and you may not agree with my choices, but I have selected – with great care, and reviewing each contender individually – 28 for your reading pleasure.

Scoring 10/10:

These are the best of the best from this 6-month period. And there’s rather a lot of them.

Scoring 9/10:

Almost as good, but these aren’t going to suit everyone.

Honorable Mentions 8/10:

It might have escaped your attention, but in part one of this presentation of “The Best of 2014” a rating of 8/10 was enough to make the main list. That’s a measure of how many really good articles I was able to put up during this six-month period! As usual, I’ve included comments on just where these fell short of the standard:

So we’re almost half-way through 2016. According to my original schedule, this article should have been published about a year ago, and I should be publishing “The Best Of 2015” about now. But plans change; my current intention is for the next in this series to be published in January 2017, again splitting the year in two, with the second half appearing mid-year. “The Best of 2016, Part 1” should follow in early 2018, and so on.

Leave a Comment

He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Servomech: User-friendly Encumbrance in RPGs

Photo by Ferdinand Reus - Flickr [1], CC BY-SA 2.0,

Photo by Ferdinand Reus – Flickr [1], CC BY-SA 2.0,

This article was inspired by a Facebook post by Toolmaster way back in July 2015 on Dungeons & Dragons Memes, a facebook community run by The d20 Collective who offer various gaming-related clothing (and some cups) for sale.

This post was then shared by GM’s Day, which is another Facebook community, this one run by Creative Mountain Games, which is the game publisher run by a twitter acquaintance of mine, Mark Clover, who is extremely active in the gaming community, posting links to material of interest to gamers daily on both Twitter and Facebook, running a trio of online gaming communities, both in his own name and in the name of Creative Mountain.

The post asked the question,

GMs: Are you strict with encumberance rules? An oddly important rule set that most people disregard.

Various GMs and players responded. I wasn’t one of them because I knew that I wanted to make a more substantial response. In fact, I’ve been convinced for a long time that there’s got to be a better way of handling the whole question of encumberance, something that is more abstract and less intrusive, without sacrificing too much of the realism that these systems provide when they are used.

The suspicion that just such a system has been bouncing around the back of my head, off and on, for the entire almost-a-year since the original Facebook post got me to thinking about it. In large part, I was inspired by the system described in response to the question by Emily Rachel Falder, an expat Brit living in Canada. Emily explicitly states in her response that her group (No indication as to whether she is a player or the GM) found the system that her group uses online somewhere but doesn’t know or remember where or whom:

We enforce a different system than the usual rules, in which the GM assigns each item as either “significant weight” or “insignificant weight”. Players can carry as many insig items as they can fit on their sheets, but each signif item has a number, the total of which is compared against their STR score to see how encumbered they are. We found this system online but I don’t have the original source handy.

Now, this is an interesting idea, but I think it goes a little too far into the abstract in one sense and a little too far into the game-mechanical in another. As I said to myself at the time, “interesting, on the right track, but there has to be a better way.”

At last, I think I’ve found that “better way”, inspired by a number of sources. What’s more, with a little tweaking of the interface, this system should be something close to Universal, applicable to any RPG.

Character Strength Scale

There are a couple of things that the GM needs to know in order to use this encumberance system. The first is the basic die roll used for strength and stat checks. If that’s a d6, then there is a x4 scale – don’t worry about what that means, I’ll explain in a minute. If it’s 2d6, there is a x3 scale. A d10 or d12 is a x2 scale. 3d6, 4d6, d20, and d30 are all the x1 scale. d% is a x1/4 scale.

Each character needs to know their Scaled Strength. This is simply the character’s Strength score multiplied by the scale and rounded up.


  • a character with a strength of 4 on the 1d6 scale multiplies his strength by the scaling factor to get his scaled strength – 4 x4 =16;
  • A character with a strength of 8 on the d10 scale has a scaled strength of 8 x2 =16;
  • A character with a strength of 17 on the 3d6 – 4d6 – d20 – d30 scale has a scaled strength of 17;
  • A character with a strength of 67 on the d% scale has a scaled strength of 16.75 which rounds to 17;

…and so on.

Total Lifting Capacity

The second number that will be required is the total weight that the character can dead-lift. Some rules, like the Hero System, define this explicitly, others don’t.

How about DnD 3.x / Pathfinder? They list a “heavy load” range – is that the same thing?

Actually, no, because the implication is that the character can still move while carrying that load. To convert this, we need to know define how much more the character can lift while immobile relative to the maximum that they can lift and remain mobile.

This means getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. In essence, the highest weight listed for the character’s STR value in the heavy load column is the maximum they can carry and move, so that load is the equivalent of the highest load that confers an encumberance level permitting Greater-than-zero movement.

If you examine the carrying capacity tables (Table 9-1 on page 162 in the 3.x PHB, Table 7-4 on page 171 in the Pathfinder Core Rules), you can determine that these are defining a three-interval system with the final column (0% movement, 100% encumbered) not shown. That means there are 2 intermediate values in between no encumberance (light load) and total encumberance, and I show below that this is the equivalent of values of 100%, 2/3, 1/3, and 0%. So the highest Heavy-Load weight is 2/3 of the character’s ultimate total lifting capability.

  • For a character of STR 10, that’s 100 lbs, so the character’s total lift capacity is 100 x 3 / 2 = 150 lbs.
  • For a character of STR 20, that’s 400 lbs, so the character’s total lift capacity is 400 x 3 / 2 = 600 lbs.
  • For a character of STR 30, that’s 1600 lbs, so the character’s total lift capacity is 1600 x 3 / 2 = 2400 lbs.

The too-clever-by-half might notice that these are the values that are three places higher on the respective tables. If you look up STR 13 on the tables, you get a highest number in the heavy load column of 150 lbs; if you look up STR 23, you get 600 lbs; and if you look up (and work out, because the tables don’t go that high) STR 33, you get 2400 lbs. THIS DOESN’T WORK FOR OTHER VALUES ON THE TABLE, so don’t get used to using it as a shortcut.

Unencumbered Movement

The third thing that you will need to know is the Unencumbered Movement rate, also known as the base movement rate, of the typical character. This could be measured in feet, or in scaled inches, or in meters – it doesn’t matter.

Stages of Encumberance

The first thing that the GM needs to decide are the stages of Encumberance. There are three ways to define this – as a fixed reduction in movement rate, as a percentage of the movement rate, or as a fraction of the movement rate. These describe the effects of encumbrance on movement and index any other consequences that the GM wants to apply.

Fixed reduction

If the typical movement rate is 30ft (or less), there are some obvious choices: -5′, -6′, and -10′. If the typical movement rate is 25m (probably over a different time interval), -5 is the obvious choice. If the typical movement rate is 10″ of scale movement or 10 hexes of scale movement, the choice that leaps out is also -5 – but if the typical rate is 12″, -4 and -3 are also viable contenders.

What is required is the ability to list a range of movement, from maximum to 0 based on these reductions.

Maximum is “unencumbered”, by definition. Zero is “fully encumbered”, again by definition – the character can’t do anything but lift the load; if he wants to move, he will have to let go. There has to be at least one intermediate stage (which is why -5 at a 10″ scale doesn’t work).

Let’s say 24″ is the typical maximum, and -6 is the fixed reduction. You would then get a range of 24, 18, 12, 6. and 0. What the system requires, going forward, is the Interval Count. In this case, 24-18 is one, 18-12 is two, 12-6 is three, and 6-0 is four. The Interval Count is always one less than the number of entries in the range – so, we had five entries (starting with 24 and ending with 0), and there four intervals as a result.

I recommend using 4 or 5 intervals; 3 is generally the minimum acceptable.

It’s actually important later in the system to convert the results into a percentage of the maximum – so 24 becomes 100% (24), and the other values in the example offered are 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0%.

Percentage Movement

This starts with 100% and reduces the movement rate by a fixed percentage that adds up to zero. You might use 25% (four intervals) or 20% (five intervals). You then multiply the resulting series of percentages by the initial movement rate. If the game system always gives movement as a simple number, like D&D, the fixed interval approach is usually simpler. Where they are more variable or wide-ranging, such as the hero system, the fixed percentage change of Fractional Movement gets around this diversity. It doesn’t matter if some characters run at 500 miles an hour and others fly at Mach 2.4 (as is the case with the Hero System, if you build your characters appropriately); you simply apply the percentage to the rate of movement and calculate what that reduction in percentage means to that particular character.

Let’s set an interval of 25% for example. The range is 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0%. If a character has a movement rate of 34 hexes, the intervals translate for that character as 34, 75% x34 = 25.5, which rounds in the characters favor to 26, 17, 8.5 (which rounds in the character’s favor to 9), and 0.

Again, the key number needed going forward is the number of intervals, which is one less than the number of entries in the scale, and the recommendation is 3-5.

Fractional Movement

This system starts by defining the number of intervals the GM wants and then converting that first into percentages and then into movement rates. From trying it the other way around, I can state that this should seem fairly clear to readers at this point, but was very difficult to describe without the examples of the previous methods.

To get the % of movement lost, divide 100 by one more than the number of intervals, or by 1 more than the number of intermediate encumberance levels that the GM wants.


  • to get 2 intermediate encumberance levels, you calculate 100 / (2+1) =33.3% steps: 100%, 2/3, 1/3, and 0%.
  • to get 3 intermediate encumberance levels, you calculate 100 / (3+1) =25% steps: 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0%.
  • to get 4 intermediate encumberance levels, you calculate 100 / (4+1) =20% steps: 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0%.
  • to get 5 intermediate encumberance levels, you calculate 100 / (5+1) =16.67% steps: 100%, 5/6, 2/3, 1/2, 1/3, 1/6, and 0%.

Casual Strength

A concept that comes from the Hero System is the notion of Casual Strength. This is the strength that the character can use without exerting himself – it’s everything from the firmness of handshake (ignoring psychological effects) to how firmly the character opens doors to the amount of force the character exerts on the floor when walking/running, to how firmly he grips his coffee mug in the morning. A character of immense strength tends to break things around them purely by accident.

This notion is so useful that it is applied to the encumberance system to represent the amount an item has to weigh before it becomes significant and needs to be assessed as a load by the GM.

The Hero System calculates casual strength as half of the character’s normal strength score – but that’s a very problematic approach to quantify, because the Hero system uses a geometric scale for it’s stats, each +5 being twice as much as the previous score. The normal character has strength of 10, so a character with strength 15 is twice as strong as one of Strength 10, a character of Strength 20 is four times as strong, a character of Strength 25 is eight times as strong, strength 30 is 16 times, and so on.

A character of Strength 60 is therefore 1,024 times as strong as the “average” or “normal” character.

Let’s look at what that means for Casual Strength as a percentage of the character’s full strength:

  • Str 60: 1/2 of 60 is 30, so casual strength is 100% x 8/1024 = approx 0.8% of the character’s Strength.
  • Str 30: 1/2 of 30 is 15, so casual strength is 100% x 2/16 = 12.5% of the character’s Strength.
  • Str 20: 1/2 of 20 is 10, so casual strength is 100% x 1/4 = 25% of the character’s Strength.
  • Str 10: 1/2 of 10 is 5, so casual strength is 100% x 0.5/1 = 50% of the character’s Strength.
  • Str 0: 1/2 of 0 is 0, so casual strength is 100% x 0.25/0.25 = 100% of the character’s Strength.
  • Str -10: 1/2 of -10 is -5, so casual strength is 100% x 0.125/0.065 = 200% of the character’s Strength.

It was that last result that convinced me, when working on the Zenith-3 rules, that the official casual strength system was good in theory but broken in implementation.


There were a couple of errors in the math originally presented above. Blame it on the panic of trying to finish this off at the last moment. These have now been corrected, and thanks to Pierre Parent for noticing them and bringing them to my attention!

Instead, I defined it as 10% of the character’s Carry, which is itself 1/2 of the character’s Lift. Let’s compare the results:

  • Str 60: Lift is 1024x25kg = 25,600 kg. Carry is 12,800 kg. One tenth of 12,800 is 1280 kg. A character of STR 34 can carry this load with a small margin left over, while a character of STR 33 can’t – so the Casual Strength of the character is 34.
  • Str 30: Lift is 1600kg. Carry is 800kg. One tenth of 800kg is 80kg. A Character of STR 14 can carry a little more than this load, one of STR 13 can’t – so the character has a casual STR of 14.
  • Str 20: Lift is 400kg. Carry is 200kg. One-tenth of 200kg is 20kg. A character of STR 4 can carry 22kg, so the Casual Strength of the character is 4.
  • Str 10: Lift is 25kg. Carry is 12.5 kg. One tenth of 12.5 is 1.25kg. A character of STR -16 can carry 1.36 kg, so the Casual Strength of the normal human is -16.

But I was never completely happy with this approach, either. It’s clunky and complicated, especially the conversion back to a STR score.

In this encumberance system, I embrace the notion of casual strength while offering a completely new mechanism for it’s calculation. I’ll get back to that, shortly. Suffice it to say that Casual Str is defined as the STR required to carry the minimum amount that is considered “significant” by the system.

The Hierarchy Of Lists

The encumberance system I am describing in this article works by creating lists of the objects carried based on the load that those objects represent. There are as many entries on a list as the character’s scaled strength, and lists are arranged in a hierarchical system by which the entire contents of the preceding list (from light to heavy) consumes slots in the next equal to the number of intervals. If you run out of room in a list, you can start a new one of the same size, consuming a second second set of slots in the next list up.

The Number Of Lists In The Hierarchy

Obviously, there are as many lists as there are intervals in the encumberance effects settings chosen by the GM, and the Casual Strength defines the minimum load that a single line on the lowest-weight list contains. This is why I don’t recommend more than 5 intervals – it becomes impractical.

This example diagram (Scaled STR 20 with Four intervals = four lists, each lower list filling four slots of the next higher list) illustrates the central concepts of the system.

This example diagram (Scaled STR 20 with Four intervals = four lists, each lower list filling four slots of the next higher list) illustrates the central concepts of the system.

List Character- istics

If a low interval number has been chosen, it means that there won’t be very many lists of equipment for the player to keep track of, but it also means that each slot will represent a larger load, so finesse can be lost. Two items should be recorded at the top of each list: the total load that the list will represent when it is filled, and the load that each line of the list represents.

While it’s possible to compress the calculations into single formulas, a recursive procedure tends to be clearer and easier. So, start by working out how many lists there will be – this is the same as the interval number. Once you know that, and the total lifting capacity of the character, and the scaled strength, you are ready to calculate the parameters of each of the lists.

  1. By definition, the list equal to the Interval number will total the lifting capacity of the character.
  2. Divide the total by the scaled Strength to get the load capacity of each slot in the highest-number list.
  3. Multiply that by the interval number to determine the total load represented by the next lighter list.
  4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until you have identified the characteristics of all the lists.

Okay, so let’s do a practical example – and, rather than the nice, neat STR 20 used in the diagram, I’m going to pick a more realistic STR 17 on the D&D / Pathfinder scale, and 4 intervals (just to be different to the usual D&D scale).

  • List 4:
    • Total lift is 3/2 of the maximum “heavy load” shown, or 3/2 of 260 lbs = 390 lbs (Side-note: this is one example of the “three Str higher” cheat not working, which is why it shouldn’t be relied on).
    • 390 / 17 (scaled STR) = 22.94 lb, round to 23 lb. So each of the 17 lines in list 4 represents 23 lb of load.
  • List 3:
    • The top 4 slots of list 4 represent 23×4= 92 lb of load, so that is the total load capacity of list 3.
    • Dividing that 92 lb by the scaled strength (17) gives 5.4 lb, which rounds in the character’s favor to 6 lb. So each slot in list 3 represents 6 lbs.
  • List 2:
    • The top 4 slots of list 3 represent 6×4= 24 lb of load, so that is the total load capacity of list 2.
    • Dividing that 24 lb by the scaled strength (17) gives 1.4 lb, which rounds in the character’s favor to 2 lb. So each slot in list 2 represents 2 lbs.
  • List 1:
    • The top 4 slots of list 2 represent 2×4= 8 lb of load, so that is the total load capacity of list 1.
    • Dividing that 8 lb by the scaled strength (17) gives 0.47 lb, or 7.52 oz, which rounds in the character’s favor to 8 ounces. So each slot in list 1 represents 8 ounces.
    • The top 4 slots of list 1 represent 8×4= 32 oz of load, so that is the amount of load reserved for trivial items.

Notice that even though there’s some difficult division in the calculations (dividing by 17 is never fun), the “round in the character’s favor” at the end simplifies the calculation tremendously. “24 divided by 17” is a 1 plus a long string of decimal places; but you don’t need to actually work out what they are, you simply round up to 2 and move on to the next step.

The Weight Factor

When the player indicates that he is adding an item to his inventory, the GM has to determine what list it should go onto and how many slots on that list it should consume. This is actually very straightforward because the system does most of the work for him. It only takes a glance of the character’s lists to spot the two key values at the top of each list – the total load that the list represents and the load per slot. That means that the GM doesn’t need the exact weight of anything, just a rough estimate; he simply locates the lowest-numbered list in which the item is less than the total load allowed of the list, and then guesstimates how many of the slots are required.

Distributed Weight

You may have noticed that I keep referring to “load” instead of weight. That’s because they aren’t at all the same thing.

You can carry a weight that is distributed across your body far more easily than you could if it were a dead weight that you had to pick up. In effect, the load is less than the weight. The question is always, “how much less?”

There’s no one simple answer, but we have so much fuzziness built into the system already that we can manufacture one. If the weight is not on the arms, the load is 1/4 of the weight. If the arms are carrying some of the burden, the load is 1/2 of the weight.


Some weight burdens carry a disproportionate load by being concentrated on the extremities. For lack of any other terminology, I have dubbed this effect “Constriction”. Gloves, Helmets, Boots, etc, are all affected by Constriction, which has the opposite effect to Distribution of weight. The Load of such items is doubled, or – if they are concentrated at the very extremities – quadrupled.

Unbalanced Loads

The other factor that can impact the loading of a weight is how balanced it is. Weight concentrated in any given direction increases the load that the weight presents, doubling it. This can combine with any of the other weight adjustment considerations.

Three intervals and STR 13, List #3, two ways - showing what happens when you add a second List #2, and illustrating how you can see at a glance what the Encumberance levels are. On the first version of the list, the character is 1/3 encumbered (2/3 normal movement), while on the second version, the addition of a second page of list #2 (shown as '2nd list') has pushed the character into the 2/3 encumbered bracket (1/3 movement).

Three intervals and STR 13, List #3, two ways – showing what happens when you add a second List #2, and illustrating how you can see at a glance what the Encumberance levels are. On the first version of the list, the character is 1/3 encumbered (2/3 normal movement), while on the second version, the addition of a second page of list #2 (shown as ‘2nd list’) has pushed the character into the 2/3 encumbered bracket (1/3 movement).

The Encumberance Outcome

Ultimately, the most important list is the heaviest weight list, because it incorporates the weight of all the others. That means that you can simply read the effective encumberance off the list simply by looking at how much of the list is filled. If half the list is filled, the character is half-encumbered and moves at half their normal movement rate. On top of that, there may be other encumberance effects – penalties to Dexterity, for example.

All of these get indexed against the scale defined at the very start – the first decision made by the GM. This defines the brackets or categories of effect from encumberance.

As with the “divide by 17” example earlier, these categories also simplify the determination of the encumberance levels. You don’t need exact calculations; as the example shows, you can see at a glance what the encumberance levels are, completely customized for that specific character.

User-friendliness is the key

When you boil it all down, there’s a little bit of fiddling that may be required to determine total lift capacity and in some cases a scaled STR score; there’s one decision about how granular the GM wants his record-keeping to be; there’s a single set of calculations that have to be done once per character but that can be done in advance for all the Scaled STR values that might be required; and the rest of the system is simply players keeping a list of what they are carrying.

Things don’t get much more user-friendly than that. With this system, there is absolutely no need for encumberance to be the “oddly important rule set that most people disregard”.

Comments (2)

Ask The GMs: A Target With Warp Drive: Maps and Minis for Sci-Fi

This is the third of these Ask-The-GMs that I’m tackling without recourse to my usual allies and fellow-GMs.

Battlemats, maps, and tiles all have a valuable role to play in creating game atmosphere and letting people get on with play. The old adage states that a picture is worth a thousand words; an appropriate terrain tile and figures can save the GM that thousand words, and save the players (and GM) from constructing an elaborate and error-prone visualization of where everything is and how big it is.

Which only makes it double frustrating when you can’t find something you need.

Ask the gamemasters

Krystian, a Cyberpunk GM, contacted Campaign Mastery to report this very problem and ask for help.

Krystian wrote:
“I’m using OpenRPG to play Cyberpunk with my friends. and I have many problems with this. Digital tiles and minis for maps for sci-fi game are almost non existent on the internet and I would like to know where to find them so I can provide better quality visuals for my players. right now I’m scribbling in whiteboard mode and this does not look too exciting.”

Unfortunately, I’ not sure how much help I can offer. I don’t use OpenRPG so I have no idea of the file format required. I can only assume that a standard image format can be converted into the right type of file. What’s more, the situation is certain to have changed markedly since the time the question was asked.

Finally, to answer the question for the broadest possible group of readers, I need to step away from OpenRPG, and in fact from purely digital resources entirely, and offer a range of solutions for a variety of readers. Some of what follows will be digital images, some may be physical tiles and maps.

Unfinished Planetary Station Map by Michael Tumey, reproduced with permission. For this and more, follow the links near the bottom of the list.

Unfinished Planetary Station Map by Michael Tumey, reproduced with permission. For this and more, follow the links near the bottom of the list.

27+ Unsorted Sources:

Various Google Searches led me to the following:

  • The Tile Collection at Open Game Art [link] – 69 categories; some are tilesets, others are full maps. There is an entry, “Scifi Interior Tiles” near the bottom.
  • Resources archived/indexed at RPG Virtual Tabletop [link]. A mixture of free and commercial maps. The green background indicates free maps, but it’s not as easy as perhaps it should be to distinguish from the blue-background used to denote commercial maps. Some are explicitly sci-fi.
  • Make your own with RPG Maker [link] – The page linked to contains a sci-fi resource pack for making sci-fi maps. There is a free trial version of the software accessible from “Download” on the menu at the top right of the page.
  • Answers to a similar request at Pinnacle Entertainment Group [link].
  • More resources are listed in this thread at Paizo [link] including links to Sci-Fi Minis.
  • Lots of stuff available in this category at Pinterest [link].
  • The more general RPG Tiles board at Pinterest [link] is also worth a look.
  • A still-more-general Pinterest Search Results (some redundant results given the above links) [link]
  • Star Tiles from Fat Dragon Games (PDF) [link] – Another not-free set, but they look fantastic.
  • Other Fat Dragon Sci-Fi accessories [link]
  • Sci-Fi Floor Tiles from DramaScape via Wargame Vault [link] – A PDF to print yourself, or print-on-demand physical tiles, all 6×6 in size and designed to be interconnectable. The latter is not cheap, but should guarantee the quality of result – and printer ink isn’t cheap, either.
  • Cityscape Vol 1 from DramaScape via Wargame Vault [link] – a set of 35 unique modular 6×6 tiles that can be used to form a city. Not free.
  • Lunar Battlemap from DramaScape via Wargame Vault [link] – a set of 18 double-sided 8×10″ tiles that combine to form two 48×30″ maps. Not free.
  • Planet tiles by Joseph Knight [link] – Planet images for use on orbital & star-charts. Possibly a little large for the latter application.
  • Sci-Fi Cargo Tiles by Maps Of Mastery [link] – This set of 14 terrain cards includes 167 different pieces of terrain designed to be cut out and placed on existing (physical) maps to add new features or alter the layout. The price is good in comparison with other similar products.
  • Sci-Fi Maps from Maps Of Mastery [link] – The first of three pages of tile products in this category.
  • Other maps & tiles from Maps Of Mastery [link] – Scroll past the large advert and you will find cover-links to featured products, and below that, a drop-down box that lets you browse by category.
  • Tabletop Terrain sets from Worldworks Games [link] – 84 products on 6 pages. Prices are comparable to other products. And note the menu on the right-hand-side which includes “Miniatures” as an option.
  • Star Wars Edge Of The Empire maps by Thompson Peters [link] – A bunch of free resources. Some are obviously Star Wars in nature, some are more universally applicable.
  • Star Wars Cantina blueprints (free) [link] – And, speaking of Star Wars….
  • Star Wars Galaxy Tiles from Amazon [link] – I use these myself.
  • Modern & Near-Future Street Tiles from En World [link] – Lots of free resources here :)
  • Dyson’s Dodecahedron – mostly fantasy maps but explore and look to adapt [link] – Dyson makes it look easy. He usually posts a new map every week. Don’t miss the “Downloads” and “Maps” sections in the menu at the top of the screen.
  • The Traveller-RPG Facebook Group [link] – note that this is a closed group by invite of one of the Group Admins only, so either you already know about it or you may be out of luck. That said, there are currently 2368 members, including 9 Admins, so it can’t be that difficult!
  • Michael Tumey posts some free materials on Facebook, notably within the above group (but not restricted to it) [link] (Disclaimer – he’s been a friend ever since he, Johnn and I collaborated on Assassin’s Amulet. He did the maps and some of the illustrations.
  • …and sells some through DriveThru RPG [link] – 56 items and Michael tends to sell at Bargain Prices.
  • And, last but not least, a search for Sci-Fi Maps on Drive-Thru RPG [link] (1870 items, will include some of the above).

Hope that helps anyone facing a similar problem!

The Broader Solution

“I don’t care what anything was designed to do, I care about what it can do.” – Gene Krantz (Ed Harris), Apollo 13.

I use a lot of Fantasy tiles for my superhero campaign. “That’s not a hut, that’s…
…a Troop Transport.”
…a Freight Container.”
…an Orbital Lander.”
…a Parked Jet.”
…a City Bus.”
…an electrical substation.”

Forest is forest, rocks are rocks.

If you need to get more creative, wrap a tile of the right dimensions in Aluminum Foil.

Cut a shape out of cardboard. Or tear one out of scrap paper by hand, if you have to (I’ve done both).

There are lots of things that can be done to get you half-way to the battlemap you want. I listed a boat-load of them in 52+ Miniature Miracles: Taking Battlemaps the extra mile. These and similar techniques can extend the range of your battlemaps enormously.

Most of them are not suitable solutions for a digital game, but still, as I said, Forest is Forest. And there’s nothing to stop you making your own maps with digital photo-editing software.

For a Cyberpunk campaign, most maps for a modern setting will work; you simply need to describe the “distress” that isn’t visible. A number of Western-setting maps would also be appropriate.

It may be too late (one way or the other) to help Krystian with his campaign, but I’m sure that there’s something here of use to someone :)


I was reflecting on this article prior to publication and realized that the real heart of the question is about resources being limited.

Of course, you can expand your repertoire by using things for purposes beyond their original intent. This is something reminiscent of classic Star Trek and, more recently, Stargate SG-1, about that process of ‘recycling’; you watch those sci-fi dramas, and this week they are somewhere that looks like ancient Greece, or the Roman Empire, or a medieval castle. Of course, Doctor Who has used this technique throughout its televised existence.

Gaming can be examined in terms of the longevity of the resources it consumes, yielding an insight that you can’t reach any other way. You have one layer of resources that will last even beyond the one campaign; another that will be a consistent part of the campaign throughout its life; some that will recur a number of times within the campaign; but by far the majority are “disposable”, lasting for a single adventure or even less.

The story resources, every GM is expected to supply on their own (even if they are interpreting material that has been written by someone else); but everything else can be a problem. And the one piece of ‘everywhere else’ that will recur consistently is maps, especially if you are restricted by your ‘gaming vector’ – and anything other than sitting around a table will impose one restriction or another.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many resources there are for your particular campaign out there, or how clever you are at turning resources intended for one particular genre to the needs of another; eventually, you will run out – unless there are more being created. And that’s the story that this article is, in the final analysis, telling: what was scarce now appears to be widespread. But that doesn’t mean unlimited.

While new materials are being added to the array of possible choices all the time, other resources are lost. Websites go dark, software becomes outdated and won’t run on the newer operating systems, and with that software goes any file created using it… you get the idea. There is a perpetual race between the expanding event horizon that is the cutting edge of what’s available, and the fading from existence of what has been lost. So long as the hobby overall is healthy and growing, the wave front outpaces the growing void; if, as is normal from time to time, there is a contraction of the hobby, the void begins catching up.

From that perspective, this whole question is an examination of the health of the RPG community and the hobby that unites it. And the report card is very good indeed, based on a situation in which nothing could be found to the more than 2000 items that can be accessed through the compiled links that I’ve offered.

But nothing happens without the efforts of creative people. So this is dedicated to the creators who have provided the products to which I have linked in this article; the games we play would be much poorer without you.

Next in this series: Debating Resurrection Penalties! Should be be fun…

And, while I have your attention…

A brief announcement: There have been times when I have struggled to get an article finished in time for the usual Monday & Thursday deadlines – which doesn’t make a lot of sense, since I generally have nothing major to do on Tuesdays and Fridays save resting up after my exertions of the day before. So, effective immediately, I’m making two policy changes here at Campaign Mastery: Longer articles will be preferenced at the start of the week, while “shorter” (in theory) articles will be preferenced for later in the week; and, while the intent will be to publish as usual, if an article’s not going to be finished in time, I won’t beat myself up trying, but will finish and post it (or a last-minute filler) the next day.

Leave a Comment

If I Could Save Magic In A Bottle: Spell Storage Solutions Pt 1

Cauldron by Alessandro Paiva

Photo Credit: / Alessandro Paiva
Additional effects added by Mike

Sometimes it’s hard to think of topics for Campaign Mastery, mostly because I need to accommodate real-world deadlines and time windows as much as possible), and whatever article is scheduled to come up next looks like taking more time than I have up my sleeve. The tighter the window, the harder it can be. At other times, though, an idea comes to you at once, or close to it, and today’s article represents one of those times.

This is going to be a very intermittent series that will examine alternatives and possible implications to the standard spell storage solutions built into D&D, Pathfinder, and, in fact, most fantasy games.

The totality of the subject is going to be broken into smaller differentials based on the “permanence” and “re-usability” of the spell storage solution in question. There are a number of assumptions that will be made based on metagame interpretations of the official rules as the manifest from the game-world perspective, and those assumptions may or may not be relevant to any given campaign; that’s fine, simply use the article as a guideline to the sort of questions that you should ask (and be able to answer).

Here’s the proposed series outline for future reference:

Part 1: One-time solutions (potions, scrolls, etc)
Part 2: Rechargeable one-charge solutions
Part 3: Charged Power Packs (wands, etc)
Part 4: The Energizer Bunny (permanent items)
Part 5: The Holy Grail (artifacts)

So that’s the plan – to dedicate one or more individual article to each of these topics of discussion, kicking off with those most transitory of magical items, Potions and Scrolls and their analogues.

Key Characteristics

There are three common characteristics that identify the magical devices falling into this category. The magic is contained in something that is fragile and must be destroyed, consumed, or otherwise ‘used up’ in order to activate the power within. That makes these inherently one-use items (though some GMs play a little fast-and-loose on this trait). And finally, they can contain only limited power or complexity, though the exact limits are also prone to tinkering now and then.


This is probably the most defining trait of this class of magical item. Some of the proposed variants will toy with this property in various respects, but only within limits, and those essentially are that once the magic has been ‘activated’ it can never be activated again using that item; the variations are all related to effect duration.


This means that they are essentially one-shot items that deliver their effect on a single occasion and no longer exist to do so a second time. From time to time, DMs permit larger bottles containing multiple ‘doses’; this doesn’t actually violate this trait in practice, because each ‘dose’ is still a one-shot deal, but may violate it in spirit; that’s a question each GM must answer for themselves.

Limited Power/Complexity

While the exact nature of the magical effects will vary depending on the GMs answer to the question “What is magic?”, there is nevertheless some constraint on the power levels that can be contained in this form of magic. It’s rare to actually have the limits defined with any certainty by game system; quite often, there will be a little fuzziness about the matter, because it’s often seen by designers as behind-the-scenes and of little practical value to players and GMs. Nevertheless, there is an underpinning schema that structures the use of magic in any game in which it is ‘real’, however poorly defined, and that schema is used to limit the effectiveness of potions.

In the most popular games, D&D & Pathfinder, that schema is based on the classification of magical effects into two values: spell level and caster level. Spell Level defines the window within which the effectiveness of a spell varies, while caster level can be viewed as the magical skill and ‘muscle’, the “oomph” that the spell can deliver. In most respects, the spell level will dictate maxima to the magic-handling variables within the system into various ‘quantum states’, with excess caster levels beyond the minimum being bled off into just one or two of those variables. This constrains low-level mages to casting low-level spells and permits a graduated increase in effectiveness as the mage grows in power and ability.

I have seen several attempts to codify the progression for the purposes of spell design and construction by PCs and they all flounder at one point in particular, and that is the relative difficulty and power of one spell level relative to another. There have been attempts to use simply geometric progression – so that the base effectiveness of a third level spell is defined as 9 or 27 times that of a first level spell. I have seen attempts that use exponential progression. None of them work consistently, across the board, and the reason for that is simple: the spells weren’t designed using any such system, and are usually tweaked as a result of playtesting without regard to any underlying principles, which means that it is impossible to work backwards from spells to creating such a system retrospectively. But it can be fun to try, now and then :)

In any event, there is Some method of differentiating spell base effectiveness and applied effectiveness when cast by a given individual, and that is then used to restrict the power level of the magical effects that can be encapsulated in this type of arcane device.

The Illuminating Scroll Variations

Scrolls represent an interesting variation on this principle, because they serve two separate functions simultaneously. They preserve or encapsulate a magical effect which is suspended immediately prior to activation. That means that a scroll can be used to cast the magical effect, consuming the scroll in line with the principles described above, or the spell can be ‘unpacked’ by an appropriately-skilled character to enable the spell to be permanently inscribed in an appropriate resource like a ‘spell book’. This function as a means of publication/transmission of spell designs means that spells of any power level can be ‘encoded’ into a scroll, violating the ‘limited power’ characteristic in at least one respect.

Some GMs balance this by imposing a different restriction: casting a spell from a scroll uses the caster level of the character reading the scroll, not that of the character who created the scroll. This is consistent with the scroll’s contents already being (effectively) part of the caster’s spell-book or equivalent resource. Scrolls that are designed to be cast by anyone, in effect having embedded caster levels, are many times more difficult and expensive to create.

Some (more philosophical) GMs even suggest, or state outright, that it is the presence of the embedded caster levels of the creator in potions and selected scroll examples that prevents the translation of such effects into castable spells to be placed in a spell book. This theoretical ‘explanation’ for the observed rules fact implies that the violation of the limited power principle comes at a cost, maintaining a ‘balance’ of sorts within the entirety of the spell system.

When such a GM encounters a player who is just as interested in the ‘natural philosophy of magic’, i.e. arcane theory as applied to the constructs within an RPG that the rules are simulating, is the point at which things begin to get more sticky, because the first thing they do is point out that this logic undermines the very principle that restricts the power of potions; by stating that scrolls can contain any power level of spell because they don’t have embedded caster levels, they proceed to define a new class of potion which is also free of embedded caster levels, offering a means of encapsulating spells into potions of greater level than is normally permitted. If the GM hasn’t carried his logic through to this point and also enabled NPC spellcasters to do so – worsening an already-existing game balance issue – or devising some other explanation for the power level restrictions of potions – their entire campaign can fall apart as mid-to-high level mages run roughshod over everything in the game.

That additional explanation usually rests on the properties of the material in question, fudging a solution on the premise that the components of a potion are inherently only capable of encapsulating a limited amount of power for some reason that does not affect scrolls. The most entertaining solution that I have seen was based on the toxicity of potions increasing with spell level, in effect stating “If you want to put a seventh-level spell into a potion by not embedding caster levels, go right ahead – but only characters who are completely immune to poisoning can ever take the resulting potion and survive long enough to complete the spell”.

Personally, I simplify the entire question back to the original premise: there are limits to the power that can be embedded in magical devices, and those limits are either in the form of restrictions to effect power level or limitations to function. Under this model, spells aren’t meant to be castable from scrolls, which exist purely as a means of disseminating spells from one mage to another; but some enterprising mage a long time ago figured out a way of jerry-rigging the system to get around that restriction by means of supplying the missing spell-launching ‘element’ from within themselves, and this was too useful not to then become a standard practice. This explains the existing set of restrictions without scope for violations – without the loose ends.

For the purposes of this article, I am not going to pick and choose between these or any other theories of magic; I simply state as a principle the implied trait, that in one fashion or another the magic that can be contained within these items is restricted, and leave it at that.

Key Interpretations

Not all “underlying theory” can be so lightly dismissed however. We need some understanding of what it is that potions and scrolls actually are, at a conceptual level, before we can set about creating variations and analogues and playing around with those concepts.

Complex Structures

Spells, no matter the game system, are inevitably described as things of complexity. The exact nature of the “thing” that is complex can vary, but the “mechanism” that translates raw “oomph” into “unnatural effect” is a complex structure or pattern, a machine or ‘computer program’ or biochemical process analogue that can be configured this way or that to produce a fireball or a meal of exquisite perfection.

Some of this perception derives from the use of the same game-mechanical terminology to describe what priests do and what mages do. Since priestly spells derive from the purity of spiritual energy and connection to the divine of the priest, reason suggests that the others also have some analogous power source that is equally ‘pure’ in its own way. The variety and sophistication of possible outcomes from spells then suggests a degree of complexity in shaping that power source’s manifestations, and every game mechanics construct that has appeared since D&D first enunciated these founding principles (however vaguely) has only deepened the perception of the instrument of translation of cause into effect as a complexity of some sort.

There are several real-world phenomena that various GMs and sourcebooks have employed as analogies to describe this complexity. DNA manipulates a complex array of simple chemical processes to cause the production of outcomes as diverse as eyeballs and nerve cells, arranged into such complex diversities as amoebas and elephants, turtles and birds, giraffes and humans. DNA itself contains only four simple ingredients, usually identified as the code letters C, G, A, and T; what matters is the complexity of arrangement of these codes.

There are only 26 letters in the alphabet, but implicit within them is the potential for every book that ever has been or will be written.

The fundamentals of elementary subatomic structures are very simple, but the arrangement produces every element within the period table and their properties, which in turn implicitly manifest in every substance and chemical reaction in the universe.

Computer programming languages are (in general) simple instructions that when arranged in the correct way, yield everything from Space Invaders to Excel to iTunes.

One of my favorites actually derives from a science-fiction source, the writings of Robert A. Heinlein – I forget in which story – or perhaps it was E. E. ‘Doc’ Smith (my memory is playing tricks on me at the moment), or even Isaac Asimov. In a nutshell, “A television is just a power supply that is manipulated in various ways by the circuits and coils to manifest an image; the physical components don’t matter in and of themselves, what matters is the forces that they exert on and the effect that they have on the energies. With a pattern of force of the correct properties, the mechanical components are no more necessary to the delivery of a transmitted image than an outboard motor”.

There are many more, but these spell out the basic principle: we are used to complex outcomes being an emergent phenomena of simple principles arranged in complex patterns, and in fact everything in the known universe is described or defined by that principle. It is only to be expected that a similar logic would be applied to spellcasting.

It follows that magic can be broken into two discrete components: the power source and the complex structure of effects that translate that power from cause into effect when the magic is activated. Crafting spells, and potions, and scrolls, and any other form of magical device for that matter, is all about what empowers the spell and the encapsulation or codification of those complexities.

In light of the previous section, this provides a framework for understanding the differences and similarities between potions and scrolls. Scrolls function without an embedded power source, deriving the ‘fuel’ for their ‘fire’ from the caster; potions are self-contained. What they have in common is the embedded complexity that somehow transforms that oomph from potential into effect.

Patterns of energy

Quite often, the complexity is described in terms of the complex arrangement of patterns of energy, often through the principle of the “law of similarity”. A complex pattern or writing that symbolizes and encodes a pattern of energy on the page or in the compounding of the potion is the same thing as that pattern of energy; connect it to an energy source of the right type (embedded or not), and hey presto! instant (and inevitable) effect.

Chemical Encodings

Potions are usually described in terms of encoding the complexity in a chemical or biochemical compound. Because the number of processes involved is relatively few, this requires a greater variety of encodable elements and these must be present in just the right varieties and quantities. Furthermore, many of the ingredients are considered inimical to each other, and most be moderated by the addition of still more components. The creation of potions is thus a complicated and lengthy process that must be carried out with precision and great care. The complexity of pattern is thus represented by a complexity of preparation and process.

The Standard Components

All magic, at least in the D&D / Pathfinder system, is based around three standard components – the verbal, somatic, and material. Most other game systems also use this foundation, with the occasional variation in the detail.

In terms of the creation of magical items, there are three interpretations: (1) These three standard components are presumed to be replaced by representative substitutes within the magic ‘encoding’, or (2) the three standard components don’t matter in and of themselves, what matters is the effect they have on the magical ‘force’; or (3) the standard components are employed during the preparation of the magic item, and hence this effect is what is encoded into the ‘preserved’ spell.

I’ve employed both interpretations in different campaigns. The major consequence of interpretation (1) is the implication that material components are not specific but are instead abstract representatives of some quality, for which an analogue can be substituted during spellcasting. A spell may call for sulfur, because it burns; anything else could be substituted so long is it also has the quality “burns”. Another spell may call for ‘ice’ but the quality that is actually required is ‘cold’, and anything else that carries that quality is an acceptable substitute.

At a deeper level, the presumption is that the effect of all three standard components induce a state of altered mental reality in the spell caster, which is where the transformation of power source into effect takes place. This premise is implicit in both (1) and (2).

Personally, my thinking about the standard components is forevermore contaminated by Steve Ditko’s mind-bending work on early Dr Strange comics. I can never think about gestures without picturing someone interacting with a virtual-reality representation of reality as depicted in the 90s and early 2000s, effectively drawing symbols in the air while populating and refining the force structures with the material and verbal components. In other words, magic is exactly the way it is depicted in various pieces of fantasy art, with glowing symbols in the air etc!

I feel this is worth mentioning because these visualizations of ‘the way magic works’ enables me to craft spontaneous narrative description of the process that helps ‘sell’ the fantasy and sense of reality to the players. Simply treating magic as game mechanics takes too much away from the game, in my opinion.

It follows that I can never handle the use of potions and scrolls without thinking about the visual description of what it looks like to the characters witnessing the process, and can’t create an analogue for potions and scrolls without considering the visual drama that is to accompany them. That’s something else to bear in mind.


A potion encapsulates a spell or magical effect in a chemical compound that must be ingested or applied as a cream or some equivalent action. One of the standards of the RPG, they have various appearances – one of the first expansions to the rules that came to my attention through Dragon Magazine was a random potion description table, which irritated me immediately because it seemed so incomplete, not in content, but in application. I immediately started taking some of the randomness out of the table, codifying potions with specific types spell effects with dominant colors. In particular, I wanted to be sure that no two types of potion had the same appearance. It took quite some time before the players realized that healing, regeneration, and polymorphing potions were always green, for example – in fact anything that caused a physical transformation. The details from that foundation would vary, but ‘detect magic’ would show a sparkling ‘glitter’ effect within the potion and a blue-white glow, with the intensity rising with spell level.

When consumed, potions tend to have a visible effect, even if only for a second or two. If the spell description doesn’t provide an appropriate description – something that modern rules system tend to do better and more frequently than older ones – I create one (usually original to that campaign). An invisibility potion might cause a fading effect from the outermost edges of the image (thinking in terms of a photograph or piece of art and not a body with internal organs), or the image might vanish leaving only a momentary outline, or it might vanish as though it were being erased in swathes for a second before returning only to be erased again. I always want some description of the process that is consistent with, but distinct from, the description of the effect.

I also like to create an impact on the perspective of the character experiencing this effect which may be different again – seeing the world as splashes of watercolor, for example. I often draw inspiration for these from the different artistic effects in my image editor – just so that I can convey to the player the sense that the character is in a different state than he was while subject to the effects of the spell.


I’ve always done scrolls in one of three ways: either a visually-abstract symbolism drawn on the page, or handwritten words, or a combination of the two. Handwritten words introduces the question of language – is a scroll prepared by a Drow different in content to one prepared by a Human, for example, or is there some common language that all magic is written in, or does in fact the language not matter because the meaning of the word manifest within the mind of the reader regardless of the language in which it is written?

When the copying or casting process begins, there is a visual effect in that one by one, the words or lines become illuminated, again glowing a bright blue-white or yellow-white color. From time to time, in different campaigns, I will vary this a little in details, but the overall premise remains consistent – sometimes they will all light up at once and then go out one by one, or they will light up and then vanish one at a time, or whatever.

When casting is complete and the spell takes effect, there is a visible effect, usually in the form of a colored energy erupting from the face of the page and swirling through the air towards the target. The coloration is normally consistent with the dominant color applied to potions of the same type. And the spell visual effects themselves are the same as for potions.


And so to the variations, starting with seals made from wax or clay. These have the complexity embedded in the complexity of the shape, and the material from which the seal is made – there are, after all, a great many varieties of candle-wax, especially once scents and colors are taken into account. With wax seals, the color of the wax is the same as the color of a potion. With clay seals, I describe an embossing pattern around the rim of the seal – it might be floral or snakelike or burred or crescents or whatever – but it has to be associated with an object of the right color. So floral or cloverleaf or anything like that equals green, snakes are brown or black, a fire pattern is red, crescents are yellow, and so on.

To use the spell contained within a seal, you have to break it, that’s fairly obvious – so that’s the ‘destruction/consumption’ element (As an aside, I have also used metal-based seals as permanent minor magic items that you attach to a weapon or armor).

Seals are great because they can be put on so many different things. You can seal a scroll, an envelope, a door, a chest, a sculpture, a jar, a peace-bond…

As always, I pay attention to the effects that accompany this form of magic device. Where the spell affects one or more distant targets, the halves of the seal have to be pointed at the targets; where they affect the caster, they have to be held overhead. There’s often an audible effect instead of a visual one to seals – it’s very attention getting when breaking a wax seal produces the sound of rending sails, or of the crack of a piece of wood being broken, or the shattering of glass.


There are two ways to use chalk: the first is to draw arcane patterns and symbols onto a surface, and the second is to carve figures of some sort out of a stick of chalk. The latter function just like Seals, so that’s easily sorted – just refer to the description above. The former is more interesting, because there are two ways that chalk drawings can operate: The first is for the symbols to vanish when the spell duration expires, the second is for the spell to remain in effect until pattern is broken or disturbed.

Glowing light shows, spires of sparkling light, swirling energies, electrical displays grounding themselves around the rim of the pattern – I really go to town when describing chalk-based spells. I quite often have a chain-casting element to such spells, simply in compensation for the fact that chalk-based spells take a lot longer to inscribe. The alternative is to greatly simplify them, far beyond the usual depictions in fantasy illustration, to something that can be drawn in about the same time as it takes to open and quaff a potion.

Still another option that I have often exploited is to permit chalk spells to exceed the power limits that apply to potions as a way of compensating for the extra time required to draw them. Where potions might only be able to contain first, second, and third level spells, chalk patterns could contain fourth, fifth, sixth, or even higher spells.

In order to maintain the destruction/consumption element, the chalk used is bound to the pattern drawn with it; the final step in activating the spell is to break the chalk or crush it underfoot.


A lot of people are unfamiliar with origami, and this only really works if you are sufficiently well-skilled in the practice to demonstrate how quickly you can turn a square of colored paper into a complex shape. If you aren’t familiar with the art, check out this Wikipedia Page, especially the examples throughout the article, and these youTube videos:

More complex shapes can be created if you take longer – roses, dragons, frogs, elephants, peacocks, and golems. Nor can most people fold at the speed shown in these videos – a factor of 5-10 is more reasonable, if not longer.

Like potions, origami spells are created in advance. To cast the spell, the paper creations must be torn (sometimes difficult to do; try folding a page length-ways four times, rotating the page 90 degrees each time, to create a panel sixteen pages thick and then try to tear it!) or burned.

Origami magic can seem like a gimmick, but it can also enable the GM to get deeply into symbology and animal avatars. I’ve never actually used it in a campaign, but have considered creating a character class who can shape-change into different animals and objects using Origami magic, probably based on colored rice paper or panels of silk, because that would nicely fit the oriental theme.


This idea came to me from the comics character Johnny Quick, who acquires a temporary ‘charge’ of super-speed by reciting the formula “3X2(9YZ)4A”. That seems a little quick and simplistic, but it started the conceptual ball rolling. Mathematical formulas are used to describe physical phenomena all the time, and if the magical principle of “the law of similarity” has any meaning, such formulas are indistinguishable from the thing they describe. Remember the ‘television set’ analogy earlier in the article? Put that concept together with this, and you have a situation in which reciting the applicable formulas casts a spell!

Of course, the spell needs something to fuel it or it’s simply too unbalancing, and that something needs to be comparable in value to a potion, and needs to be consumed in the process of casting the spell. It took me a while to think up something appropriate, but eventually the notion of “focusing” the potential spell led me to the idea of glass lenses, assuming that they are blown/molded instead of being ground. In real life, that would create too many imperfections for the resulting lenses to have any optical value, but for our purposes they don’t have to be exact; their symbolic value is far more important.


Intriguingly, most Bardic spells are not far removed from the conceptual realm that is under discussion. Like potions and scrolls, they encode in the melody, chord, and lyric, the complexities that describe the magical effect. I was deeply involved in developing a unique set of “visual and aural effects” to describe the effects of bardic magic when the player of the last Bard in any of my campaigns passed away unexpectedly, so I never finished the work. Amongst other effects, depending on the spell being cast, the lute or harp being used could continue to play the tune until commanded to stop or the battle ended. Another idea was for the sound to continue even though the instrument was no longer in use. Where those notes have gone now, I don’t know; they are packed away somewhere, though.


This is a notion being explored in the Zenith-3 campaign at the current time. Although the mechanics of spells and spellcasting are quite different, the central concept of power source and complex translation mechanism remain the same, so in principle, there’s nothing wrong with the idea of using them in a fantasy campaign under different rules.

There are two approaches, and both are available; the first is that the runestone must be crushed or broken in the same manner as a seal, described earlier. The second is that the runestone glows from inside, with the rune traced in lines of light or fire, until the spell has run its course, and is then destroyed, blackening and crumbling.

Crushable Gems/breakable crystals

While we’re at it, a very similar idea is the use of crushable gems or breakable crystals.

Dance Moves

I’ve never been a fan of shows like “So You Think You Can Dance” – they simply aren’t my cup of tea – but I know enough about modern dance and the like to recognize that symbolism of complex ideas in human bodily motion is central to the art of choreography. Under the principles offered, there is nothing to prohibit the notion of “dance moves” being the foundation of a type of magical effect. I was creating a branch of magical effect for the “bladedancer” character class based on this idea when the campaign in which it was to appear was put on hiatus.


Some fantasy novels explore the concept of casting spells by reciting invented-on-the-spot poetry – The Incompleat Enchanter, for one, which also features translation between different planes of existence by reciting logical formulae that comprise a Polysyllogism.

Again, I think that limits would need be placed on this treatment in the same manner as Formulas in the name of game balance. And, depending on the personalities of your players, certain types of verse might need to be excluded!


Of course, the granddaddy of fantasy games is The Lord Of The Rings, and that is the source that demonstrates that food-based magic is perfectly acceptable, at least in principle. I speak, of course, of Lembas.

One of the most intriguing notions about food-based magic storage is that most foods remain edible for only a limited period of time. Magic with a ‘use-by’ date is a new way of managing game balance, but one that holds a lot of appeal. It would certainly alter the dynamics of a campaign if this was the only type of “consumable” magic – no potions, in other words – characters would leave town magic-rich after resupplying, and become increasingly magic-bereft as they traveled. Food for thought, isn’t it (pun intended)?


Finally (in terms of the standard model of consumable magic storage), we come to the notion of enchanted ammunition that gives up its benefits after being used once, or a finite number of times. While the ammunition itself might not be consumed, it might then become magic-depleted, another whole-new concept for GMs to explore.

Binary Compounds

But I had one more idea (hence the caveat in the paragraph above) to share. While writing up the section describing the complexity embedded within potions and the like, a stray notion occurred to me: what if the spells were actually cast on the target in advance, but required the potion to activate them, with the potential eventually wearing off if not triggered? This would make magical storage something akin to a Binary Compound, two inert components that have to be brought together to initiate reaction.

I have to admit that I’ve never seen potions described in this way. But the idea is intriguing. At this point, it probably needs further development.


I’m not for one minute suggesting that all these diverse forms of magical storage exist as common items within a single campaign. Rather, if the resulting flavor was appropriate, I would look at replacing the notion of “potions” with one of the alternatives. Hopefully I’ve given you enough options to expand your horizons beyond the standard potion described in the rulebooks!

Leave a Comment

A Palpable Difference: 14 Points of Adventure Distinctiveness

Photo credit: / Andrzej Pobiedzi?ski

Photo credit: / Andrzej Pobiedzi?ski

I spent most of the weekend working on the next adventure in the Zenith-3 campaign. While this adventure mines territory that will be familiar to my players, it should not feel at all repetitive to them except in the very broad conceptual strokes, and that’s because I make an effort to make each plot different and original in its execution and presentation (you’ll understand that since several of my players read Campaign Mastery, I can’t get too specific about this particular example). In fact, most of what I was working on was in service to this principle, and that prompted me to explore the subject of “how to make it different” in today’s article.

I presume that there is no need to actually justify making each variation different. The advantages and necessity should be obvious.

So, what makes a plot different?

There are all sorts of ways in which one manifestation of a broad overarching plotline can differ from the next. The problem is that it’s all too easy to assume that these differences will do the work for the GM. They won’t; in fact, in most of the ways that count, the players won’t even notice unless you ensure that your point or points of distinction have some palpable impact. There are a number of different categories of distinction, and it’s worth taking a look at them. To guide you in this exploration, I’m going to use a classic plotline (that has absolutely nothing to do with the plotline in question for Zenith-3), ‘the bank heist’.

I’m not sure that my list is comprehensive, but it’s enough to be getting on with.

1. Different antagonist(s)

A gang of four attempt to rob a bank, but run up against the PCs. The last time this happened, it was Dusky Springhoarder and two sidekicks, this time it’s Lurker Marony and three flunkies. Is that a big enough point of distinction?

Treated superficially, no. So you use a different voice and say different things – but these are cosmetic changes only, making no difference to the overall plot.

With a little more effort, however, these differences in personality can manifest in a different group dynamic, which in turn manifests in different development of the plot from a superficially-similar starting point. Dusky liked live hostages, Lurker dislikes live witnesses – those differences alone would manifest in a completely different modus operandi, with a completely different approach to handling customers and personnel who happen to be present at the time. The different group dynamic means that the other NPCs will have different relationships within the group, and different ways of doing the same things. One blacks out all the security cameras, the other leaves one camera running and showing the hostages to the outside world – and communicates with that world as necessary via texta-written notes held up to camera. Perhaps one is clever and the other bullish and violent, solving problems with intimidation.

Sure, a lot of this stuff can be applied off-the-cuff – but it’s always more effective if you take some prep time to explore and codify the differences, so that the plotline will develop in very different ways from the common theme.

The differences in personality should manifest not only in doing things in different ways, but in doing different things in the first place.

2. Different motivations

This doesn’t make as much difference in terms of a bank robbery as it does on other forms of plot, like power grabs or oppressive local regimes, except insofar as a difference in motivation should manifest from differences in personality, discussed above. In reality, of course, this cause-and-effect relationship is back to front – it’s the implied differences in personality that lead to different motivations – but you can reason your way from the cart back to the horse.

Once again, though, having a different motivation is the kind of thing that doesn’t show, doesn’t make any tangible difference unless you find ways to manifest the difference in more concrete ways.

3. Different objectives

Ah, now we’re getting into more interesting manifestations. Group one are robbing the bank for the money (although that’s not a motivation in and of itself – the motivation is the need/desire for whatever they want to spend the money on, not the money itself), while group two are using the robbery as a means to gain access to the banks computers in search of evidence of a global conspiracy. Or perhaps the bank vault doesn’t interest you half as much as the evidence of another criminal activity that is being kept in one of the safety-deposit boxes?

The simplest approach is not again backtrack from the difference in objective to the differences in personality that could lead to them, and then expand outward. But even without that, the objective and the plan need to be in sync; it’s no good focusing on the bank vault if it’s the bank servers that are your objective, except as necessary for purposes of camouflaging that objective, or paying off the muscle that have been recruited to make the operation possible.

The differences in objective needs to make a fundamental difference to what happens or it is just a paper tiger to which you are paying lip service.

4. Different circumstances

If the PCs used to be “unofficial” but are now Deputized, or vice-versa, a great way to bring home to the players the difference is to deliberately re-run a plotline that they had encountered in the “old days” simply to showcase how differently things would have worked out because of the authorization. Where they were blocked and forced to circumvent authority, acting covertly, now they have the power to demand assistance from authority and can act overtly. Or vice-versa, as appropriate.

Or perhaps the circumstances are environmental. In the elemental plane of fire, combustible materials might be the legal tender – the more flammable, the more valuable. Changing the nature of what a “bank” is fundamentally alters the plotline – well, it should, anyway; sometimes, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same, and that might be exactly the overall theme of the plotline!

Of course, it’s not necessary for the difference to be so radical. An “ordinary” bank robbery occurring in the domain of a repressive and violent regime would proceed very differently from one set against a far more just background. The reactions of the authorities to the crime-in-progress would be different, and would be expected to be different, and the plans would evolve accordingly.

5. Different resources

In the plotline that is about to wrap up in the Adventurer’s Club campaign, a criminal mastermind got his hands on a super-solvent which he used to dig tunnels most of the way across Manhattan in a bid to execute the biggest heist in history. Twelve targets – two Hotels, four banks, four Jewelers (one of which was a target of opportunity that would not otherwise have been targeted), a Museum/Art Gallery, and the International Currency Exchange, yielding a grand (estimated) total of 5.675 Million US$ – 1930s currency (multiply by 10 to get modern dollars) in one simultaneous strike. The presence of this super-solvent had a profound impact on most of the execution planning – in several cases, the gang were planning to simply slather the stuff on the vault hinges, wait, and pull the doors down. But not all of the gang were trusted with the solvent (it was too easily mishandled), and some didn’t trust it; the rest simply used it to bypass security. Since we didn’t know in which of the robberies the PCs would intervene, my co-GM and I spent several weeks of our planning time detailing each of the locations and each of the plans for dealing with those locations. In some cases, the gang scored a lucky break, in others they got unlucky; in some, they were smart and well-prepared, in others, flawed assumptions came back to bite them.

In every single case, the existence and use of the super-solvent made a concrete difference to how the gang was to execute this brazen robbery, to how long it would take, etc. But when we first outlined the adventure, none of these was taken into consideration; the solvent was simply a means of rapid-tunneling from point to point and getting into the basements of the various establishments. In fact, we thought we were more-or-less done with plotting the adventure, and started detailing the locations simply to work out some color commentary. Once we started adding details such as how many gang members it was going to take, and expected takes, and the reasons for targeting each of the establishments in question. it became clear that if you had such a resource as the super-solvent, you would look to use it in the commissioning of the crimes, and not just as a stealth mode inspired by the criminal plot in a classic Sherlock Holmes short story, The Red-headed League.

Having different resources on the antagonist side changes what they can do, which should in turn change what they will at least try and do. Having different resources on the protagonist side changes how they can respond to events (or even know about them), which should in turn change how they will respond and what they will respond to. As a result, essentially the same premise can lead to completely different plotlines – but it won’t happen if you don’t put time and thought into assessing the impact and preparing to take advantage of it.

6. Different protagonists

Group A (a strong man, a fast man, a spell-caster, and a priest) will experience a different unfolding series of events to Group B (a tough man, an acrobat, a spy, and a brainy guy) even when faced with the same identical situation. This is one of the central realities that is my primary take-way from limited exposure to convention gaming (anecdotal reports, some playtest, adapting some published convention adventures, and discussions with GMs who run convention games).

Fundamentally, this results from the PCs having different resources to bring to bear. Even if the GM seeks to limit the variables by providing pre-generated characters (and most do), differences in the players still qualify.

The same principle can be applied to the circumstances of a non-convention game. Even changing a single member of a group can be enough to make a fundamental difference to a situation because of the change in resources that they bring. This is dependent, to some extent, on each member of the party receiving a full share of the screen time, however; the more central they are to the plot, the bigger their potential impact. Some characters can made a difference regardless – adjusting Zenith-3 plots to accommodate the presence of a high-powered telepath, for example, is now a matter of routine (I’m sure it must sometimes seem like I’m picking on the character or singling her out for special mistreatment, when I’m only trying to prevent excessive short-cutting of the plot).

But you don’t even have to go that far. You could employ a plot device as simple and subtle as the PCs being sent undercover to investigate allegations of bank fraud – only for the bank to be robbed. Do they blow their cover? Do they let the robbery happen? This situation is fundamentally different to what would be the case if the PCs were on the outside when the robbery took place!

7. Different challenge

Changing the PCs objectives is also another great way of breathing new life into a stale plot. For example, putting the players into the GM’s usual shoes by requiring them to let the bank robbers escape while making it look like they are doing so, for some reason. This makes the bank robbery simply a stepping-stone to a larger plotline. Doing so covertly, and without damaging their reputation, and without putting anyone at risk, only makes it more challenging.

This works by changing the PC objective, which means that they will need a new plan in order to achieve that objective.

When I was much younger and more naive, I thought that plea bargaining and snitches were the only tools in the law-enforcement arsenal for getting to bigger fish by means of small fry. An excellent 1992 Australian crime drama, Phoenix – the Wikipedia page to which i have linked is rather short on plot description, I’m afraid – this page at Australian Screen Online gives rather more information – added awareness of undercover police operations to my repertoire, and shows like NCIS – especially NCIS LA and, more recently, NCIS New Orleans – have subsequently added to my awareness, so I now have a lot more tools at my disposal in this regard.

8. Different plan

If differences in resources lead to different plans in order to take advantage of the resource, why not skip the middle-man and simply have the antagonists behind the bank job come up with a different plan? There were a couple of very entertaining episodes of Numb3rs that started from this premise, and likewise CSI: Cyber. Heck, even Thunderbirds (the original puppet TV show) had a novel idea or two in this regard!

The big trick to this difference is that you have to think of the plan. It’s much easier in a novel, where responses are exactly what you want them to be; things get a little trickier when free will (in the form of the players) enters the equation. It’s often easier to proceed from a resource-oriented premise and simply work out how the change impacts a standard approach.

9. Different solution required

One of the simplest approaches is to look at how the situation was handled the last time it came up, and devise a stumbling block that prevents that solution from working, this time around. I tend to think of this approach as “the smart copy-cat” – doing the same thing that someone else tried without making the same mistakes as they did.

10. The Other side of the coin

Another way in which this iteration of the same basic plot can be to reverse the usual roles. Requiring the PCs to commit a bank robbery instead of stopping it, for example.

11. Different mood/tone

I’ve touched on this earlier, when discussing “Different antagonists,” but it’s worth highlighting in it’s own right. The same basic situation develops very differently if there is a different mood or tone to the adventure – comparing a relatively sanitized bank robbery from the comic books with one with a high (and mounting) body count, for example.

There is a perception in some parts of Hollywood at the moment that “Grim and Gritty” sells (thanks to success movies such as The Dark Knight trilogy), but recent developments have thrown that conclusion into doubt, raising suggestions that the “grim and gritty” cycle might be coming to an end, at least for now. The contrasts that are being highlighted in this respect are the success of Ant-man and Guardians Of The Galaxy and Deadpool vs. the comparative failure of Batman vs. Superman and the fading of the ‘grim and gritty’ reboot of the Star Trek franchise – once was an interesting experiment, but with the second movie the tolerance seemed to be wearing thin.

But I digress. In my experience, a different mood and/or tone is insufficient in and of itself to distinguish one example of a plot from another; but if that tone is then reflected in the planning of the bank robbery, it can be a springboard to a different experience from the adventure.

12. Different location

I sign-posted this item of potential difference under different circumstances. Sometimes, the plot is just a delivery vehicle for highlighting the uniqueness and diversity of a particular location by virtue of the differences in culture. This presupposes that there is a significant social or cultural difference from the location that the PCs are used to, and – to be really successful – that difference has to permeate the entire adventure in the form of different personalities, different expectations, different limitations, and different reactions on the part of the locals.

For example, think about a bank robbery in Venice. The means of reaching the bank, the bank security, the means of breaching the bank security, the means of escape, and the means by which the police attempt to prevent the escape, should all be affected. The location’s differences become the star.

13. Conceptually different

You can take the original “core” plotline as just a metaphor, analogy, or abstract description of something completely different. A “bank heist” is completely transformed if the “bank” is the well of unborn souls, for example. Or if you are stealing the radioactivity from a store of uranium.

Take a Rave – you can certainly consider such an event as a “bank” of youth. Steal that unlived lifespan from them, leaving the survivors as 90-year-old geriatrics…

14. A clever twist

Finally, you might have a clever twist in mind. I offered eleven different types of RPG plot twist in a two-part article in late 2014 (Part 1, ‘Pretzel Thinking”and Part 2, “Lets Twist Again’) to consider, after finding that the documented types of plot twist from TV and fiction don’t usually work in an RPG environment.

A plot twist plays on the similarity of the current occasion relative to expectations – until the moment of revelation, when the entire situation is transfigured, and what seemed to be ‘exactly the same’ is revealed to be something completely different.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all

To be effective, a difference has to infuse every possible aspect of an adventure, mission, crisis, or situation. It doesn’t matter if it’s a crime caper, a doomsday plot, a terrorist attack, a revolution, or whatever; find the point or points of difference and soak it up like a sponge.

Comments (2)

Looking into The Dark Eye, a guest article by Lena Richter

Viking Ship by Ben Maier

Illustration by Ben Maier, from The Dark Eye (English Version). Click the image to go to the Kickstarter campaign.

In the course of the 750th-post anniversary article here at Campaign Mastery (almost 50 posts ago, how time flies!), I became aware of The Dark Eye, an RPG that was more popular than D&D in Germany and had been around for over 30 years!

The fact that I didn’t know about the game greatly surprised Lena, aka Catrinity, and she immediately offered to write a brief introduction to the game. In fact, she wanted to use her Christmas Holidays to do so (now that’s enthusiasm!) I gratefully accepted the offer but insisted that she enjoy her holidays first.

As a result, it’s taken longer to arrive than she expected when the offer was made, but it’s here now, and the timing is fortuitous as there is currently a kickstarter campaign underway to raise funds for an English-language version of the game. Since they have already raised $80,000 against a $10,000 target, it is going to happen, and it’s only a question of how many stretch goals the campaign achieves in the next week or so.

So, without further delay, let me turn this page over to Lena:

“So you make haste through the Reichforst, hoping you will reach Empress Rohaja in time to warn her.”

“No, he is not one of the mages from the Shadowlands who sell their souls to demons for power. He is far more dangerous: He serves the Nameless One.”

Maybe some of you have already noticed the recent kickstarter campaign in the USA for the translation of a German RPG called “The Dark Eye”. It was made known to me by the lovely Mike who runs Campaign Mastery that almost nobody outside of Germany knows of this game – so this is my attempt to introduce you to the RPG I’ve been playing for 13 years and why I like it so much.

If I had to describe TDE really briefly, I would say it is a medieval fantasy world with lots of different settings, accompanied by rather complex rules and a TON of material to play and read – which is true, but I see nobody dropping their Pathfinder books and running to back the kickstarter yet.

When you tell most people about an unknown RPG, the crucial question is: “What has this game no other game has?”, which is kind of hard to answer for TDE on the one hand and very easy on the other.

The reason I like the game so much is that the setting it offers is no special-superfreaky-place that stands out from all the other RPGs, but a big choice of various fantasy settings the characters can easily travel between. In addition to that, I don’t know any other game that offers this amount of background lore, source books and modules.

The thing that really stands out for me is the living history of the world that you and your characters can become part of, and which makes your average adventure more than just a random story.

That’s the very, very short version. But let’s dive in a little deeper, shall we?

A small part of Lena's "Dark Eye" collection

A small part of Lena’s “Dark Eye” collection

Once upon a time there was a place called Aventuria

To keep the history lesson short: TDE was developed in Germany in 1984, as a German version of those surprisingly well-selling games like D&D, published by a large game company called Schmidt Spiele, who actually had the power to force stores to sell the game alongside the more traditional Schmidt products like board games and puzzles.

Yes, at that time you could find RPGs in classic warehouses, sitting right next to Monopoly and 1000-parts-puzzles of some 80’s airbrush motive. Those were the times!

Anyhoo: TDE was developed by Ulrich Kiesow, Werner Fuchs and Hans-Joachim Alpers, and started off with very simple rules and dungeon crawls, which basically every RPG in that stage of gaming did, right?

It was a big success, and so more products were developed, like a lot of modules, setting descriptions, an early attempt to item cards and also some rather strange things like board games (which had basically nothing to do with the game, but made the name TDE known to children – so, clever move, Schmidt Spiele!) and, as cherry on top of the “weird RPG stuff” cake, a bat-shaped mask the gamemaster should wear during sessions to create a sense of mystery.

Unfortunately I did not start to play early enough to see one of my friends put on that ridiculous thing!

The first edition of the rules was followed by a second, third and fourth one over the next 30 years, each adding more details to the rules and the world. During that time, the license was sold twice; the current publisher Ulisses Spiele has been in charge since 2007.

After Aventuria, the original continent, was known to players for years, other continents were described and made available to discover. There was, as I mentioned before, a ton of material that was published over the years. Like over 200 modules, more than 2 dozen books of background material (describing a region of the continent or special places like wizard academies, warrior schools or the wonders of the seas) and a lot of rule expansions (like a whole book on different kinds of zombies and undead – known to my group as “the book that will one day accidentally fall into a fireplace before it kills all our characters”).

While I have only mentioned four editions so far, a fifth one was released about a year ago, and that is the version that will be translated if the kickstarter campaign is a success.

This edition is the first that tries not to further expand the rules but instead attempts to make the game simpler and more playable. It is also the first one printed completely in colour.

The Dark Eye Setting

The TDE world is called “Dere” (an anagram of “Erde”, the German word for earth – yeah, innovation was running wild in the 80s. And nope, that is not the only anagram in the game! Actually, there are whole websites collecting them and other fun references! Ahem).

The most important continent on Dere is Aventuria, which is the one most groups use a setting, and for which the most books are written. Aventuria is basically a whole lot of settings stuffed in a rather small area. You can play in a Viking setting as well a Renaissance Italy one, or in a decadent slave-owning ancient Rome-like one. Or, if you feel more like classic Medieval, or oriental fairytales, or Pirates of the Caribbean, you’ll find that, too – within just a few days or weeks journey for the characters.

The other continents provide different settings, like the much more high-fantasy Myranor, which has a lot of inspiration by ancient Greece; Tharun, a high-level hollow earth setting with some really freaky stuff going on; Uthuria, which offers a place to explore and have some colony wars; and Rakshazar or “Giant’s land”, a very barbaric and grim place (which is published by a fan project).

Aventuria Map by Markus Holzum

The map of Aventuria by Markus Holzum, from The Dark Eye (English Version). Click the image to go to the Kickstarter campaign.


Aventuria offers, as mentioned, different types of medieval fantasy settings. Some of them are rather exotic, but most of them are classic fantasy. You have the typical human + EDO (Elves, Dwarves, Orcs) populations (accompanied by some lizardmen and goblins, which are playable characters as well). You have your knights in shining armor, evil mages, old ruins with treasures and dragons.

You can play a warrior; a mage; a thief; or the priest of a Deity. Like Praios, the God of Light, Truth, and Justice,? or Phex, the God of Thiefs, merchants and tricksters.

There is, however, some other stuff you can do. Like:

  • Preventing a demi-god from destroying the continent;
  • Playing a desert enchanter who works his spells by drumming;
  • Winning the right to rule a city for a year in the lottery;
  • Playing a really curious baker who wants to see the world;
  • Or, if that’s not your thing, a mage whose father was a djinn and who wants to learn how to travel in time;
  • Getting sucked into a deadly theater play; Or
  • Or selling your soul to a demon.

And lots of other everyday hero stuff.

To be fair – most of the modules are meant for rather good-hearted PCs and not all of them are great, but there is a lot to choose from and with the really detailed setting descriptions it’s easy to make up your own stories.

And if you ever get bored by present Aventuria (did I mention that there’s a 2000-page strong box that enables you to go 1000 years in the past and deal with all the cool sh*t that happened back then?), there are other places to go.


Myranor, or the “golden land”, is a different setting (published by a third-party publisher, Uhrwerk Verlag/Clockwork Publishing that has some connections with Aventuria – the latter being a former colony of Myranor), which offers a more high-fantasy approach to TDE.

If you want flying ships and submarines and huge cities ruled by an upper class of mages, or if you really want to play a winged human, anthropomorphic cat/lion/bear, or a party of five different kinds of underwater species – here you go, have fun!

The continent consists of a slowly decaying empire (with a lot of Greek/Roman inspiration), surrounded by some very different and somewhat exotic settings. Myranor is not described in the same amount of detail as Aventuria, so there is a lot of space for adventures and GM creativity. There are some modules available as well as a Monster manual and some background books.


Still not satisfied with the amount of freaky stuff? Okay, let’s take a trip to Tharun: A gigantic realm consisting of 9 island kingdoms, which is situated either inside of Dere or within another sphere (you can choose what explanation suits you best).

In any case: there is a strange colour-changing sun in the sky, which never changes its position. Ruled by some really nasty gods and their not-much-less-nasty servants, this is a setting where PCs can fight oppression and evil priests – or ally with them and try to rise to power. While using magic runes and riding on a giant dragonfly. Uh, yeah!


Uthuria is a setting that was created to use as some kind of exploring/Indiana Jones/colony war ?thing, a continent of fierce nature and strange jungle tribes, but it’s been a while since anything was published for it.


Rakshazar or “Giant’s land” was created as a fan project who wanted to provide a Grim & Gritty-setting for TDE.

Which they did, so if you want to dress in a fur skirt and swing a giant axe and sound your barbaric yawp over the rooftops – this is the place to go. Although it is not officially published, there are printed books available, but all of the material is also free for downloading.


There are some ground rules that apply to all the continents, which are: There is magic and there are gods. As well as demons and ghosts and unicorns and a whole lot of other supernatural stuff. But there are a lot of different approaches to all of it.

In TDE, magic is something you are born with. You cannot reach the ability to do magic later in your life. If you have magic potential, you have to be trained to use it – if you don’t, you may be able to work a few spells intuitively, but you will never be really good at it (in most cases – there can be exceptions).

If you do find someone to train you, there are a lot of different options, from the traditional mage academy, to the witch or druid who takes you as a pupil, to becoming a charlatan, a magic dancer, a magic-using alchemist, or a shaman.

There are even more possibilities – carving magic runes, gaining abilities of an animal by eating his heart or the before mentioned magic drum solo.

And that’s just Aventuria I’m talking about! In each of the continents, magic is just a little different, and you can do different things with it. In Myranor, for example, you can join your mind with a machine, summon spirits into your body and other fun stuff.

There are rules to magic, of course, which are different depending on the kind of magic tradition you have learned. Every one of them has its secret rituals and objects – like the staff of the mages, the magic bowl of the alchemists, the obsidian daggers of the druids and so on. Some of this knowledge is shared between the traditions, some of it is kept secret, like a witches ability to fly on wooden objects or bind familiars.

There is also a lot of unknown stuff to discover – lost spells, ancient rituals, newly discovered recipes for potions and so on.


While you can never become a mage (or Witch, or Druid – You know what I mean) unless you are born with the ability, you can always become priest to one of the gods. This provides you with some power, some respect, a lot of free meals/drinks, and a bunch of people who want you to solve their problems, woohoo!

There are quite a lot of gods in the different continents and cultures, most of them known to more than one species/culture under different names. The classic and best-known faith is that of the Twelve Gods, a greco-roman-inspired pantheon of said 12 Deities who stand for different virtues and crafts.

Some examples that are often chosen by players:

  • Rondra, Goddess of Fighting, Honor and Thunder;
  • Phex, God of Thiefs and merchants;
  • Hesinde, Goddess of Wisdom and Magic;
  • and Praios, god of Justice, Light and Truth.

This pantheon is accompanied by some demi-gods (like Aves, the god of adventure – after whom the continent Aventuria was named (write that down and gain some nerd credibility if you ever play the game!)), saints, holy entities, heavenly dragons… it’s really too much to name them all.

One who should, no, must be mentioned is the Nameless One, the classic bad guy.

He is the Fallen God who wanted to overpower and rule the other gods, and, because these plans never seem to succeed, was brought down by the other Gods, chained between the world and the sphere of demons, and robbed of his name.

So of course he has a few cults that try to free him, recover his name and bring the heavenly pantheon down. Usually, those are the really evil guys, and the most dangerous ones, because they often work in great secrecy and plan their actions over decades.

Mages vs Priests

I’m going to finish this section with a quick word about the powers of mages and priests.

They used to be very different, because the mages had a lot more spells that they could use, which were quicker and often more useful than the godly powers, so priests were first and foremost characters of big influence and social power who generally used their powers only if it really mattered.

However, the changed rules of the fifth edition provide more and faster working “spells” for priests, which makes the difference much smaller now.

Dark Eye character by Luisa Preißler

A character illustration by Luisa Preißler, from The Dark Eye (English Version). Click the image to go to the Kickstarter campaign.

There has to be something about that in the rules!

Okay, so let’s talk about the rules. They are often described as too complicated – and maybe they are, compared to other games, but I’ll try to explain them anyway.

Characters are created (and leveled up) by spending XP. Each character is defined by a species, a culture and a profession. Like Human / Desert Folk / Drumenchanter guy (damn, I did not know I would ever use that as an example as often as I have). Or Dwarf / Special Dwarven culture / Blacksmith.

So of course there are restrictions to how you can combine and mix those up – not all species offer all professions etc. – but, basically, you can create whatever you want as long as you can pay for it.

You also have to pay for your basic 8 attributes (like courage, strength, charisma etc.), and you can add advantages (which cost you XP) and disadvantages (which get you XP) to the mix.

There are abilities (like swimming, sword fighting, magic knowledge, stealth, empathy, survival, history, dancing… – so quite a lot, you get the point) which are also bought and raised with your XP, as well as spells or priestly abilities.

And you can buy special abilities – stuff like fighting maneuvers, special knowledge of an area or landscape, magic rituals and so on.

Die Rolls

Of course there are dice rolls, usually done with three d20s. Each ability is connected to three attributes and you roll on each of them, with the skill or ability points making up for shortfalls on the attributes.

The higher the attributes and abilities are, the better, because you have roll equal or less to the value.

A quick example: Let’s go swim. Swimming is connected to the attributes Agility, Constitution and Strength. Let’s assume each of those attributes has a value of 12 (which is quite average) and the ability value is 7.

So, we roll! First die: 10. Which is less than 12, so everything is fine. Second roll: 15. 3 points too high for the value of 12, but we still have the 7 ability points to make up for that – still not drowning, yay!

With 3 of our 7 ability points spent, the last roll cannot be higher than 12 (attribute) + 4 (rest of ability points) = 16, or we’re in trouble. So if you roll a 16 or less, happy times, but if you roll 17 or higher, something nasty makes your swimming attempt unsuccessful, perhaps a nasty cramp in the calf. I hope your party members rescue you, because you are going down toward the bottom!


When it comes to fighting you use only one d20 – again, rolling less or equal to your attacking or defending value is good, higher is bad. Yes, there is an active defense. And armor and stuff, so don’t expect to knock your enemy’s socks off with just one hit.

To be honest, fights can take a while in this game, although this also depends on which edition you play and what amount of optional rules you use.

Rules In Perspective

I could go on for ages about all the rules and possibilities there are, but that’s the basic stuff. In my opinion it is not too hard to understand the basics, but it can get really complicated when it comes to the detailed rules like special fighting skills or summoning demons or creating artifacts.

I guess it’s not to everyone’s taste to have so many and so detailed rules. On the other hand they provide a lot of options to make your character special.

And you don’t have to master any that aren’t in use at the time – so there’s always another combination to explore and master. This makes characters different from each other and keeps the game fresh, no matter how often you have played it.

Living history – the so-called Metaplot

One thing that distinguishes TDE from almost every other RPG is the fact that the world is not static, but the course of history goes on and is made available to the players through modules, magazines and novels. So if you read about the guys who saved the world from the evil demi-god, brought back the holy light of Praios or defeated the undead dragon? Those were probably your characters. Pretty cool, huh?

This concept means two things: The world is changing, history is written and you can be a part of it. And: Since there are so many modules, most groups play at least a few of them to catch up on the ongoing development of the setting, so you can chat about the same story, the same villain, the same epic battle, even with players you have never met before.

This whole idea is called the “meta-plot”, meaning that there is something like an official timeline to the setting that you can experience through the different modules. (Of course there are also smaller stories and modules that don’t add to this timeline and can be played at a place and/or time of your choice, and this timeline is only established for Aventuria, not the other continents.)

You can witness reoccurring NPCs grow up, rise to power or fall from grace, you can experience the war between an empire and its enemies and have your characters play a crucial role to its outcome.

Of course there is a downside to this: Some NPCs have “metaplot armor”, meaning you can’t kill them off whenever you like (if you want to follow the official timeline in which they still are alive and do important things later). Or you cannot save an NPC no matter what you do, if he is supposed to die at a certain point. When you play a module and your characters march to battle, the outcome of said battle is probably already written in the timeline.

And yes, of course that also means there are spoilers for the timeline you may want to avoid. (You should see me on conventions. I start every conversation with “okay, listen, my group is still stuck 15 years behind the recent timeline, so please don’t tell me anything about what’s going on later!!” – I should get that printed on a T-Shirt!)

There’s also the problem of not being able to play for a few years and coming back to the game to find the world changed a little (or a lot).

So the whole metaplot thing has its pros and cons and every group has to decide to which amount they want to follow that official timeline. You can of course ignore it completely and create your own Aventuria. Or you can choose a specific part of the timeline that sounds most interesting to you and play the modules that a written for this chapter of history. And whether you like it or not – the “metaplot” is something that makes TDE really unique.

The German love-hate relationship with the game

There is hardly a German gamer who has never played TDE at least once (I think), making it the German equivalent to Dungeons and Dragons (which is played much less than TDE here, actually). But if you mention the game, some will admit to loving it while a lot of players will instantly tell you that the game sucks, that they used to play it but found something better now, or that you’re not a real gamer if you play TDE. There really is virtually no middle ground.

TDE is often called “a game for players who just want to be read a story instead of making decisions” – this, of course, is a complaint about the meta-plot that determines the outcome of many of the modules to some extent.

You may have come across the term “railroading”, which means the characters can only follow the tracks of an already written story.

But there are other things TDE-haters despise about the game: The rules are often described as “way too complicated”, the background lore describes the world in “far too much detail”, the 3d20 rule mechanism makes it “too hard to calculate the success rate of a roll”, the number of NPCs who often play an vital role in the modules that “should be given to the player characters”, the fights that “can take hours”, the fact you can play rather unheroic characters like bakers and farmers (there even is a term for that called “Bauerngaming”, farmer gaming, as the opposite of “Power gaming”), and the setting itself, often being described as too fairytale-like, too nice, too clean (hence, the fan creation of Rakshazar).

Answering The Critics

To respond to all those accusations – because there are already some German players pointing out how bad the game is in the English-speaking forums (and because I really like the game, I would not have played it for so long if I did not): Yes, some of them are true – up to a point. But I think some of them also arise from a time when the whole RPG world was much less about player empowerment, sandboxing, and fate points, than it is today. I think many players remember TDE as “that crappy old system we used to play before we discovered modern gaming” don’t take into account that you can also bring that modern approach to TDE.

Farmer Gaming

“Farmer Gaming” – yes, you can play a character who is a farmer or a scribe or just a beggar, you can play a whole group of those characters or throw one in with all the mages and warriors. I like that. It’s fun, and challenging, and believable. And well, a lot of XP later, that farmer could be the priest of a powerful Deity, fighting epic battles against unspeakably evil forces. It just takes him a little longer to get there, so – more time to play your character before he becomes too strong for most challenges!

Too Light and Fluffy

The setting used to be rather nice and fairytale-like, indeed, but that has changed over the last few decades. With the biggest TDE campaign ever published (the return of the bad demi-god I mentioned before), a part of Aventuria fell to the shadows and in the hands of undead dragons, dark mages and cruel warlords.

There have been some darker places added into the setting, and even if the course of history takes away some of the most evil parts of it, there still are the so-called Shadowlands where you can confront your party with horror, undercover operations and hard moral decisions.

And of course a medieval setting itself offers a lot of space to swipe in some darker aspects of the time – poverty, cruel nobles not caring for their people, the horror of a war raging through a country… it’s really up to the group and the gamemaster to make the setting as dark or as filled with fluffy unicorns as they want.

Last but not least – the fourth edition of the game offers about 20 pages on “selling your soul to a demon and all the cool powers you get from that – and why it still is a BAD IDEA”. How much more can you ask?

Too Complicated

Concerning the “the rules are way too complicated” criticism: I can’t really argue that. The fourth edition consists of no less than 5 core books you need for playing, each of them containing 200-400 pages.

This is no problem if you can start with some experienced players who explain everything to you (like I did) and get to know the rules over time, but it might scare you off if you want to get started and don’t know where to begin, with all the many books and opportunities.

Speaking of opportunities: There is an up-side to these very complex (and, in some areas, admittedly too complicated) rules. You really can make every character unique. There are so many abilities to learn and special stuff to buy for your XP, you can play most of the PC for years without getting anywhere near to the point of asking “what else could I learn?”

The Edition War

With the fifth edition only being published for about a year and many rule expansions yet to come, there is also some kind of edition war going on right now.

Many players of the fourth edition (including me) are very fond of the complex rules and endless possibilities it offers, while other players stopped playing TDE years ago (for finding it too complicated and the rules way too much to comprehend) and are giving it another try.

While the discussion about which edition you should play might be useful in German – (no orcs or lizardmen or drumming enchanter guys (hi again!) in the fifth edition yet, How can you play such a game??) – it is rather pointless for this article, since the upcoming English version will be the fifth edition, which is probably the easiest one to use to get into the system anyway, at least if you don’t have an experienced player to explain it to you.\

Fandom and other media

Since The Dark Eye still is the most known RPG in Germany, and it is been around for so long, there are a lot of cool projects and fan stuff:

  • An online encyclopedia called Wiki Aventurica for the game, which is incredibly useful for research, and strongly needed to find things in the thousands of published pages. It contains almost 54.000 articles.
  • Dere Globus allows you to install the maps of Dere to Google Earth and so create an interactive atlas of the setting.
  • Avespfade is an online route planner for Aventuria, allowing you to calculate the time your party needs to get to their next adventure.
  • There are a few software tools that help you create characters and spend your experience points.
  • And there is Nandurion, a site only consisting of news about the game, reviews of most of the products published during the last years and free modules, stories and other stuff to download. (I’ve been a member of this site for over 4 years, but I think you can hardly call it advertising to mention a site only written in German, amIright?)

You can also find a ton of unofficial modules, stories and background descriptions in the various fanzines (off- and online) that have been published over the years. TDE even got an entry in The Guiness Book of World Records? for the biggest collection of books and memorabilia brought together by a single fan in his own museum.

The Dark Eye Logo

The Dark Eye has always been a game with a lot of involvement by the players – a lot of authors started by publishing unofficial modules or participating in writing competitions. There are some German-speaking forums to review books, discuss character ideas, solve problems with your ongoing campaign or just share funny stories. (Not saying those are a perfect realm of helpfulness and polite people, they’re still internet forums).

Computer Games

While The Dark Eye is still mostly happening as a pen-and-paper, there have been some PC games published over the years. Some of them were published in English as well, like the very classic Realms of Arkania (1993), a point-and-click adventure; Chains of Satinav (2012), another point-and-click adventure; or the rather dark RPG Demonicon (2013), which takes the player into the Shadowlands.

There were a few browser games and mobile games as well. Rumours about a movie have been going on for more than five years now, but that does not seem likely to happen anytime soon. There is, however, a long and elaborate fan-made movie called “Leuenklinge” on YouTube, where you also can find a lot of Let’s Plays, video reviews and interviews.

Why I like this game

When I started Pen-and-Paper gaming 13 years ago, I did so in one of those German groups who hardly knew any RPGs besides The Dark Eye. The fourth edition had just been published, I had just finished school, so there was a lot of time to dive right into the books and read.

I started with a simple character (a thief) and learned the more complex parts of the game (like high-end fighting and creating magic characters) later.

So as much I can understand the argument of the game being too complicated if you are working full time and just want to enjoy a few hours of gaming on the weekend without spending too much time reading rule books, that never applied to me. At the time I started working full time I had already been playing for so long I knew the important rules by heart.

What I also like are the many possibilities TDE offers, both in the rules and in the setting. As I said earlier, the character choices, and the ways to develop your character, are endless. And the setting offers so many cool places to visit without even leaving one continent, while the big variety of modules also offer a lot of different adventures in one and the same game. You can go dungeon crawling or get caught up in nobility schemes, fight against the evil forces or discover ancient mysteries, all without having to change the game system (or even the character).

But the main reason I still play TDE and love it so much is the way you can get caught up in this world.

There is this quote saying “no man is an island” and for The Dark Eye, when you play it during a long time and with the right people, this applies to every one of your characters and every story they experience. Most of the modules and important NPCs are part of a bigger story, so your characters can visit people and places more than once and really become attached to them, which serves to keep the players immersed in the story.

When the enemy attacks the city your character was born in, when the person your character idolizes as a hero commits treason and turns to the dark side, when your characters finally manage to kill an enemy who has brought pain and death to their allies for years, this means so much more than some random dungeon crawl in some random district that could be set in any universe.

You don’t have to play the way that my group does, puzzling out the perfect set of modules and campaigns for our various groups of characters, planning ahead the next years of playing. You can always take one of the smaller modules and just have fun for one or two sessions, but TDE really is a game where investing time rewards you with more fun while gaming, because things matter to you. And while I enjoy playing other games from time to time I always love to come back to Aventuria. It’s like coming home.

Random Fact Time!

The end is near! So here are some facts I could not squeeze in the previous paragraphs:

  • One of the distinctive features of the setting is a total gender equality in almost every part of the world. You don’t have to write a complicated back story of how your female warrior dressed as a boy during all her years of training or explain why your big strong male character became a healer or a cook instead of learning how to fight. You just grab your sword – or your frying pan – and you are good to go.
  • Because we Germans never had much of a problem with showing naked people in game illustrations (or commercials, or prime time TV), there are actually pictures in the rule book that will be changed for the US version of the game, covering up some skin.
  • Why is the game named The Dark Eye? Time for more nerd credibility points: The founder Ulrich Kiesow wanted the game to be called Aventuria, but the publisher wanted a more mysterious and fancy name – so they asked for it to be named for the most powerful artifact in the game, which are the Dark Eyes, highly magic orbs who allow you to see into the future, the past or faraway places (imagine Sarumans Palantir from Lord of the Rings and you get the right image). (Also, said founder Ulrich hated it when his name was pronounced in English, sounding like “Aaalrik” – so as a result of that “Alrik” ended up as the Aventuria equivalent to “John Doe” in the game).

In the end: What you might expect

After going on and on about much material is published for the German version of TDE, there is definitely an attempt to make this experience known to English-speaking players as well. When you scroll to the very bottom of the kickstarter campaign site you find the plan for publishing more books in the future, including setting descriptions, modules (adventures), sourcebooks like the bestiary and even short stories.

If you want to stay informed, you may visit the English facebook page or the English homepage, where you also can find more articles about the artwork, the different areas of the continent and other things.

There’s also an English Let’s Play on YouTube.

The kickstarter campaign will be going on till 3rd June.

PDF Icon

If you want to try a simpler version of the rules, you can do so with the quickstart rules PDF with pre-generated characters and a short module.

Whether I have interested you in giving Aventuria and The Dark Eye a shot, or just amused you with my rambling about this way too complicated monster of lore and rules, I hope you have enjoyed this article. Big thanks to Mike for giving me the opportunity to tell you all about my favorite game!

Lena by Lena

About the author

Lena, known to the internet mostly as Curima or Catrinity, is a 31 years old female gamer (yes, we exist!) living in Hamburg, Germany. She works at a boring office job and escapes regularly to the worlds of gaming (PnP and PC games), reading, watching a ton of TV shows, and taking care of her cat (of course I have a cat, what were you expecting?). She writes for Nandurion, Germany’s biggest “The Dark Eye” fanpage, and has written a few unofficial TDE short stories, scenarios and reviews, as well as one official module published in December 2015.

You’re welcome, Lena, and thanks for the great article – your enthusiasm really shines through. If anything, I have toned it down a little in the course of my editing! Lena also advises that she is very happy to answer questions about the game or setting (unless it’s metaplot that happens later than her gaming group is up to, lol) in the comments below.

Comments (9)

Engagement vs Involvement: The forgotten balance

street in Vilnius photo by Herman Brinkman

Image credit: / Herman Brinkman
If you only look at the buildings, you miss the street in between that ties them both together

Every player, and more importantly, every PC, who is participating in an RPG is a member of a team. That team can be constructed to form an idealized “machine” if the players collaborate on their character designs, but more normally, things are looser.

At best, you have the GM constructing a team model in which no one character treads on the toes of another PC – that’s what I did when setting up the Zenith-3 campaign. Importantly, I made sure that there were more archetype “slots” than there were PCs, so that there was room for the dynamic between team members to grow and evolve, as one member left and another joined. The team model was flexible. Within those archetypes, the characters that were created were entirely up to the players, and so was the archetype they were slotting into – the only requirement was that archetype selection was first come, first serve.

In most campaigns, there is not even this level of management. I have once GM’d a game in which everyone turned up with a Cleric – all worshiping different, and oft-times hostile, deities.

And so this disparate and diverse motley crew come together and work as a team to solve the problems that confront them in the course of the campaign. There are times when each takes the spotlight, and there are times when they yield the spotlight to another PC, and there are times when they are a team player and not an individual.

There is clearly a balance in every character of team participant and star, and that’s something that I talked about in Ensemble or Star Vehicle – Which is Your RPG Campaign? almost 4 years ago.

In retrospect, though, that article doesn’t go far enough. It takes the two hallmark positions – member of an Ensemble or featured player in a Star Vehicle with a rotating spotlight – and assumes that there is nothing in-between. And that’s a problem, because – as I’ve shown above – every character occupies some middle ground between the extremes from the very moment of character conception, through character creation, into all aspects of play – roleplaying, combat, and problem solving – and into GM’s encounter design, adventure design, and even campaign design.

What brought this train of thought on? An exchange between my brother Paul and myself, about the departure of Michael Weatherly from NCIS after 13 years. We were talking about what impact this would have on the show, and I pointed out that Sean Murray’s character of Timothy McGee had grown over the course of the 13 seasons (12 as a regular and 8 guest appearances in Season 1) and was now positioned to take up the lead agent role; in a way, this would bring the show full circle back to where it was in the beginning, or close to it.

I’ve been mulling over McGee’s career within the show and realized that this growth in utility has come at a price – unless they specifically write in a scene to show off his technological expertise, which they do once or twice a season, he has, by and large, shed his former role within the series as a Geek (see the “reception” section of the Wikipedia page linked to above).

I wasn’t entirely sure where the train of thought was going until I reached that point of revelation, and suddenly extrapolated the change of role outwards and propagated it into the realm of RPGs. I mention this just to provide some context to the article.

Every character has to have duel roles (if not more) on the metagame scale within a campaign: the team player and the character in the spotlight. At times, he needs to occupy a midway point – not the character standing within the spotlight of the current scene, but the dominant presence for the adventure as a whole.

And characters have to be designed for that – and they aren’t, generally. No-one really gives that even the slightest bit of thought. The focus is always on the individual spotlight, and when the character will qualify for it, and the team aspect of the design is at best incidental – even though the ‘supporting role” will overwhelmingly dominate in actual play.

Impact On Character Concept

There are three different imperatives in operation here – the capacity of the character to demand an equal share of the spotlight, the capacity of the character to link with the other PCs in a supporting capacity, and the way the character will mesh with those others in full collaboration towards a common end.

A good character (in a group environment – solo play is a slightly different story) will be able to tick all of these boxes. They will have a singular area of expertise in which they can take the lead; they will have areas of lesser expertise (probably thematically related to the first) which will permit them to assist, support, and contribute to the spotlight time of others, and at the same time will contain the capacity to be the focal point of an entire adventure; and they will be capable of meshing with the other PCs as a unified force, especially in combat.

When first thinking about what sort of character a player wants to create, all these aspects of the proposed character bear contemplation. Articulating how the character will function in each of these roles permits other players to build their characters around the interaction and dynamic necessary for success.

It’s my experience that players spend a lot of time thinking about the first (area of expertise), and might spend a bit of time on the last (function within a team), and generally assume that the middle one will develop naturally as a consequence of the others. And, to a certain extent, this is a valid assumption; but occasionally it will misfire. Never trust to chance what can happen by design with minimal investment in thought and effort.

Here’s another way of thinking about these three functions that can be useful, but oversimplifies and neglects a number of alternative solutions: The first can be described as non-combat things the character knows how to do, the second can be things the character knows about but has no practical experience in, and the third on the style of combat and how that can be employed tactically within the group.

Batman, for example, ticks all three boxes: He’s a driven detective with a depth of information in a wide variety of fields. Where the mystery dominates the plotline, so does the character. When the mystery is not the central aspect of the plot, but is a bridge connecting one scene to another, or where another character has an important decision to make that will be a more informed choice with information from Batman, the character takes a supporting role; and in combat, he can either identify an enemy’s weakness, employ surprise and athleticism (and weaponry) to take enemies by surprise, can provide cover where some specialized expertise (magic, super-science, whatever) is needed to win the central confrontation, or simply function as a distraction to buy time for others. In fact, in combat is where the character is weakest, though he is certainly versatile; he could almost be designed to function in a team environment, at least in terms of capabilities. Balancing these strengths are his personality (loner), obsessiveness, and – to some extent – paranoia and secrecy. Triggering these can either force him to fade back into the shadows, yielding the spotlight to someone else, or push him firmly into the spotlight to become the driving force in an adventure. It’s this particular assemblage of strengths and weaknesses that makes the character so flexible, a flexibility that is key to his ubiquity – and the sheer variety of plotlines that this opens up for the character has been a major contributing factor to his popularity over the last 77 years.

Impact On Character Creation

Choosing not only what a character can do, but what they can’t do, is far easier with a character concept to serve as road-map. I view character construction as more than simply assigning game mechanics numbers to various details; it is a defining of a personality, and selection of abilities, such that the personality influences and shapes not only what capabilities the character seeks out but how those capabilities will be employed, all held together and explained by a personal history.

The three functions of the character inform every choice that I make when designing a PC, but especially skill and ability selection.

Skills: behind-the-curtains theory

To understand the role of skill selection and choices about skill improvement requires a slight shift in awareness by the owner/operator of the character and the GM who interprets the game mechanics.

Let’s say that a character has a skill such that they succeed on 12 or less on a d20. The usual way of looking at this is to say that there is a 60% chance of the character being successful at any using the skill. I suggest that this is an abbreviated shorthand for the correct interpretation, which is both more interesting and more complicated: that the character knows 60% of whatever there is to know about that subject and is ignorant of the other 40%. In a perfect simulation of reality, once a subtopic is rolled, the results (success or failure) would be documented and the character would never need to roll for that specific knowledge again; this avoids the illogical anomalies of a character being an expert in some aspect of the knowledge one week and completely ignorant of it the week after. The more broadly the skills system defines its parameters, the more likely it is that such anomalies will arise. “I knew about the gang territories in Los Angeles last week, why don’t I know about it now?”

In reality, this is impractical, and the explanations that are usually offered to permit the ignoring of the occasional anomaly are that either the subject, or contemporary understanding of it, are dynamic and continually changing, or that there are always gaps in knowledge or its application, or that the character has simply forgotten or not absorbed the information when they were studying the subject. Systems that offer “eidetic memory” as a purchasable option stretch credibility by voiding the last and weakening the first (especially if coupled with “Speed reading” or equivalent). Nevertheless, we simply hide behind the euphemism “the character has a 60% chance” and ignore the actual significance of that statement.

This becomes more interesting when we consider two characters of equal ability discussing the subject. If they had exactly the same knowledge, there would logically be no reason for any improvement in their chances of accessing any given fact. In fact, the subject matter can be reduced to a common core that they both posses and a fringe that may have some overlap but is not required to do so.

If there were no central core, then simple probability based on the chance of failure would give the chances of success of the pair collaborating on a problem: 8/20 x 8/20 = 64/400ths = 6400/400% = 64/4% = 16% chance of failure, and therefore a 84% chance of success; the sum of their knowledge is 24% greater than either of them alone. Or, to put it another way, a second character with 12/- has 24% of knowledge that the first lacks, and vice-versa. Which could be expressed as a Venn diagram in which the area outside the overlap is 24% of the combined area and there is, therefore, a 76% overlap.

Things get more complicated when you factor in the concept of a “common core” of knowledge or ability that is central to the skill. Instead of having the entire breadth of the subject in which differences can emerge, there is only the “fringe”. In essence, this increases the likelihood of differences in knowledge within the two fringes – a lot of the “overlap” is consumed by the “common core”. How much, it’s impossible to say without defining this “Central Core”.

Most skill systems go a step further, defining layers or “shells” of knowledge, and decreeing some of them to be “more exotic” than others. This is frequently represented by increased difficulty levels for more obscure information. Although the mechanics are completely different, both my Zenith-3 game system and D&D / Pathfinder employ this construct behind their respective curtains.

Practical Application

These concepts enable the GM to “interpret” a skill level relative to a character’s experience and background; what might be a “fringe knowledge” question for one character can be an “inner layer” question for the one standing next to them; even though, in terms of mechanics, they have the same level of ability within the skill,

The clever player can anticipate or even mandate this differentiation by balancing specialist bonuses against broader ignorances, regardless of whether or not this is an official part of the game mechanics (if not, GM approval will be required). For example, a character with 12/- in “Knowledge: Underworld”, or equivalent, might suggest that due to his background he should have +2 or +3 in “Gangs of Los Angeles” in return for -1 in all other areas covered by the skill. So the character is effectively at 11/- to identify something about a gang in New York City, but is at 16/- to know that the leader of the LA Commancheros (to invent a gang from whole cloth) eats lunch at Willard’s Sandwich Joint every Friday.

This works by defining what is the “fringe” of random assorted factoids for the character and what is not.

If you want to institute such a mechanics subsystem for yourself, you should apply the following principles:

  • The more narrow a specialty is, the greater the bonus a character should get in return for a -1 in “everything else”;
  • Characters should be permitted only one specialty, or the penalty should be cumulative and possibly even larger for subsequent specialties, because the scope of the “everything else” of the first specialty is being reduced in scope by the second specialty.

A less formal approach is simply for the GM to apply ad-hoc modifiers based on the character’s background and experience; if the player can cite a valid reason for gaining an increased chance of success, grant it. This rewards players who put greater effort into their characters.

Getting back to design and the functional roles

By not taking a specialization within a sphere of knowledge or practical skill that is central to the character, the player is defining this as an area of spotlight expertise proportional to their skill in the subject. In the Adventurer’s Club campaign, because the Club organization is based in New York City, all the characters have spent time there, and consequently have some “Area Knowledge: New York City”. However, as a long-term resident of the city, the Priest character, Father O’Malley, has a far higher skill than the others.

Therefore, any time a knowledge of the city, or establishments and significant locations within the city, becomes important to the plotline, Father O’Malley has a spotlight moment. If he fails, or is not present, the others may resort to their “fringe knowledge” of the subject to see if this is one of the random factoids that they have picked up from their time there.

If one of the others were to look at significantly increasing their “skill” in the subject, we (the GMs) would probably discuss “capping” the increase or requiring them to take a specialty of the type discussed above – so as not to steal Father O’Malley’s “spotlight time”.

Although planning these was not something we had in mind during character creation for the campaign, it is something that we would consider in future. It’s a combination of blind luck and, once again, an application of the conceptual archetype approach, that each of the characters is developing their own niches of knowledge. We’re unlikely to leave such things to chance in future, and in the future development of the existing characters.


Abilities benefit from a similar mindset. A diverse application of an ability to different situations for spotlight time while not treading on other character’s toes comes relatively easily if they are all of different character classes, and with greater difficulty if this is not the case or the classes are too similar.

Again, the general observation is that considerable effort is placed on the spotlight abilities, passing consideration may be given to the character meshing into an effective unit in combat situations, and virtually no thought is given to the middle “supporting” role. There are more exceptions to this rule of thumb when it comes to abilities, however.

It is generally left to the GM to think of ways in which one PC can support or contribute to another character who is having a spotlight moment, and the general solution is the temporary yielding of the spotlight mentioned earlier, as a second character steps forward with a key contribution.

If the player were to give this question some thought during character construction, he might be able to choose an ability that is effective in supporting another rather than trying to be second-best in someone else’s area of expertise.

There is a PC in the Zenith-3 campaign who is relatively physically vulnerable. There is also an NPC that I have created whose primary abilities are supportive, protective, and secondary in nature; his ideal tactical role is normally to protect the PC. However, his personality is such that he has to continually resist the temptation to join in the front-lines, even though he is far less effective (most of the time) than the front-line specialist within the team. The PCs are slowly putting together prepared tactics for those occasions when he either goes “off the reservation” or is thrust into the front-lines by virtue of specific circumstances, involving one of the other characters falling back to protect the vulnerable PC.

Impact On Roleplay

Roleplay is often as much about the personality of the player as it is that of the character they are playing. Some people are naturally pushed into the spotlight under certain circumstances simply because they are better in certain situations.

In the Pulp Campaign, Father O’Malley is the most diplomatic and the best at speaking with higher authority, and is usually front-and-center when religion or the supernatural manifest; Captain Ferguson shines at organizing direct action and response; Doctor Hawke is the best at speaking to technical experts, Steffan is good at connecting with ordinary working men and women but is still evolving as a character, as is the last PC in the campaign, Eliza Black, who is most adept at dealing with law enforcement.

Some of these choices derive from character experience and expertise, some from player ability, and – most commonly – as a function of a combination of the two.

Again, a lot of this is the result of a confluence of the deliberate differentiation of archetypes in the concept phase, coupled with trying to get each character to play to the player’s strengths during that phase. These days, we would be even more aware of the significance of these attributes and how they operate within the three functions – individual, ally, and member of collective.

Impact On Problem Solving & Puzzles

Because the parameters of puzzles and problems are defined by the GM, it can seem that the player has no role to play in this area. I would beg to differ. Like roleplay, this should be a combination of player strengths and deliberate selection of capabilities on the part of the character during the design and construction process. The result is that situations that might have to be “forced” by the GM can occur naturally within play.

Consider the different types of puzzles and problems that might confront a character, and then determine which of these (a) the character should be good at, and (b) which of them the player is good at. The first is spotlight time for the character, but if the player is not successful at that particular type of problem/puzzle, it is an uncomfortable spotlight that can only be resolved by resorting to die rolls. This is less than satisfactory to all involved, but it is sometimes unavoidable.

Contriving a justification during character creation for the character to be gifted in those areas where the player is skilled yields a far better gaming experience. Even better is avoiding situations in which the character excels at something the player is, or feels, deficient in.

Word puzzles, Logic puzzles, interpersonal puzzles, solving mysteries, tactical problems, riddles, finger puzzles, social and political puzzles, quizzes and trivia games – the list goes on. In part, this all depends on how the GM is going to simulate the puzzle within the game – if the player can design a process that employs one of their personal strengths to simulate a strength that the character has but he doesn’t, it will go a long way towards replacing die rolls with interaction.

For example, I’m not great at word puzzles, though I can sometimes solve riddles. I’m not brilliant at Crossword puzzles, either, but I’m better at those – so if I were to create a PC who would be brilliant at word puzzles, I would either insert a reason for the character to be less effective at them, or simulate the word-game process by having the DM create a simple crossword puzzle for me to solve. Each success is effectively a riddle; so long as I get more right than I get wrong, I win the riddle contest or word game. By adjusting the difficulty of the crossword puzzle, or biasing the results (I need “X” more than half), the GM could simulate the relative strength of an opponent or difficulty of a problem.

One of the major benefits to these approaches is that any other player’s spotlight expertise can then become a source of supportive contribution to the problem. The Cleric or priest might have an answer to a theological crossword clue; the mage might know the name of a spell that is the solution to another; and so on. In this way, solitary activities can be transformed into group activities even as something that would normally be just a solitary die roll becomes an interactive group experience.

Impact On Combat

When it comes to combat, the normal (flawed) order of priority is reversed to some extent; players spend most of their effort assuming that they will be fighting in the company of others, give passing consideration to the idea of fighting on their own, and virtually none on how they could make others a more effective combatant and whether or not that potential contribution outstrips a more direct form of hostility – unless the specifics of the character class push the character in that direction whether the player likes it or not. And, as a rule of thumb, they don’t; there is a pleasure that derives from the visceral “crunch” for all that it’s soundless, virtual and imaginary.

Because of this, during character design, there is a tendency to neglect the supporting role simple because players find it unsatisfying. This is an incorrect mindset, because it is viewed in the wrong context; you don’t want a purely supportive role when everyone’s in battle, but that doesn’t mean that you should not plan for the times when you aren’t in an all-in fight.

I would point people at the Classic Star Trek episode, “Amok Time“, and the role of Dr McCoy. He was the one who decided the outcome of the fight, even though he was not one of the participants.

While a player cannot control when or under what circumstances his or her character will be reduced to a supporting role in a conflict, he can rest assured that at some point it will happen, simply because it is a way for the GM to make a combat different and challenging. For example, in a D&D campaign, I might create a monster that “eats” clerical magic, evolving new combat capabilities as it does so. It would attempt to engage the PC cleric, but as soon as its nature is appreciated, he would need to disengage from the fight; the character is forced into a supporting role when he successfully does so. Whether he is then helpless, or can participate by indirect means, is down to his design and how much preparatory thought the player has given to a situation resembling this one.

Similar tactics in innumerable variations can reduce any character into a supporting role. A monster that becomes intangible after it strikes can mean that anyone with a naturally high initiative score, like most fighters, become ineffective in terms of direct action. Certainly, the fighter can refocus (in D&D and, presumably, Pathfinder) to lower his initiative – but so can the monster.

As a GM, I try never to put characters into this position without designing something into the encounter that gives the sidelined character something positive to do. But that would be made a lot easier if the player had considered the possibilities during character construction, giving me the ability to make combats more interesting for everyone.

At the same time, while a character’s role in a group combat situation is considered during character construction, it is almost completely forgotten during subsequent character advancement, which almost exclusively focuses on the individual’s capabilities. To some extent, this is the fault of the game designs, in that very rarely are multi-character maneuvers explicitly handled by game systems, but players need to accept some of the responsibility as well.

The GM’s Responsibility

Nor is it fair to put the entirety of the blame on the players. It’s up to the GM to provide opportunities for the players to explore these alternatives, and to ensure that a character can contribute something to the game even when they aren’t in the spotlight, and to exploit the options that players do provide.

For every ability that a PC acquires, the GM should ask themselves “How can I build an encounter, or an adventure, around this? How can I make it matter to the game even when it’s not the ability on center stage?”

To put it bluntly – if the GM doesn’t use it, the players won’t bother creating it.

  • Every encounter should be planned so that every player can make a contribution to its resolution, or the advancement of the plot, if not every character.
  • Every adventure should give every character the spotlight at least once, even if another character is the central focus of the adventure. And every character should get his fair share of adventures in which he is the central focus.

The Impact On Campaign Planning

To some extent, this is a function of campaign planning. Ideally, each character has his own plotline, his own development arc, all taking place simultaneously or nearly so. This is a lot easier if the player is an active collaborator in the planning. Ideally, all of these plot threads will then come together at the climax of the campaign.

Every campaign plan should therefore be regarded as preliminary, needing customization to the capabilities, skills, and personalities of the characters who are going to participate. The best campaign plans are robust enough that this involves minimal alteration, but I don’t know of any that don’t require some attention in this respect.

The ultimate art form of GMing might be considered the eschewing of campaign planning completely, making the content of each adventure purely derivative of the unplanned but continuing growth of the PCs. Personally, I find that this leaves too much to chance and the wild hope of inspiration taking place at the right time, but not everyone agrees with that position.

Every GM gives some thought to the optimum balance between planning and spontaneity. In a perfect world, the preferences of the participants would be the only determining factor; but – as this article has shown – the way each character is to function within the campaign is a major determining factor in limiting the flexibility that the GM has available to him. It follows that everyone benefits from both sides giving a little more consideration to the functional roles of the characters, and especially the oft-neglected balance between those roles: individual, supporting player, and member of a collective group.

No character can ever strike a perfect balance between the three, and the needs may well evolve as the campaign develops. But a huge amount of improvement is achieved through simple awareness of the issue. The perfect PC strikes some sort of planned balance between all three, and the GM then exploits that balance to ensure that everyone participates equally, producing greater enjoyment for all concerned.

Comments (3)

Fun in all the right places

Rollercoaster at Port Aventura by Yarik Mishin

Image credit: / Yarik Mishin

This article was inspired by a question raised on twitter by Kevin Mason @jackmonkeygames, or more specifically, my response to the question:

Q: What’s Your Best Tip for creating a memorable character?
A: Enjoy the process of creating the character.

That touched on a thought that’s been tickling around the back of my head for a while now that I was sure would make a good article, about whether or not ditching the sense of whimsy that characterized a lot of old-school gaming back when it was contemporary has also killed a lot of the fun value of gaming.

When you first start generating characters for RPGs, the mechanics tend to be overwhelming, and so those are what you focus on. It’s often only once you have a handle on the mechanical essentials of your game mechanics that characters itself stops being a mechanical act that can be done by a game roller or spreadsheet and becomes a source of entertainment in its own right.

Because most really good characters come about not because of a brilliant insight into the workings of a game system, or the ability to min-max, but because they become a story in their own right, scratching the creative itch that’s inside all – or at least most – of us. It’s a story in two parts: the creation of the character and his backstory, or how he got to where he (or she) is when they enter the game, and the story of what happens to them once they are in that more dynamic environment.

‘Book’ One: Character Creation

“Book” one of the character’s story is created by the player as a mostly solo effort based on the game world, societies, etc, supplied by the GM. In theory, once those parameters are known to the player, he is then challenged by the GM to create an interesting character who has emerged from the different experiences that this premise provides.

Almost immediately, it becomes clear that the GM either hasn’t created everything that the player needs, or isn’t telling the players everything that he has created. So the player invents things to plug that gap in creating his vision of what the character will be, sometimes called the character concept. When he submits the character concept for GM review, the GM considers whether or not these additions supplement or conflict with the conceptual twists that he intends to offer as adventures and plot developments and in-game discoveries – all the things that he has decided and hasn’t said.

If the character offers an opportunity to highlight and explore some of those unsaid elements, especially some that no other character will focus on, and doesn’t conflict with any, it gets approved; this may or may not be before the character is generated in terms of game mechanics.

If the character’s concept conflicts in its assumptions with what the GM has in mind, then there are two options: negotiate some edits to resolve the conflict, perhaps tantalizing the player with part of the hidden story, or simply tell the player “this part doesn’t fit my campaign plans”, rejecting the proposed character in whole or in part.

Some players are prone to take this as personal criticism of their creative skills, but they should not feel that way; it’s often the case that they have been too successful at creating a character that ‘locks into’ their view of the campaign world.

Personally, as a GM, I try to find a way in which the player’s misapprehension of the game world can become a flawed understanding of that world on the part of the character. While there may still be the odd item that needs negotiated revision, this permits an awful lot of what would otherwise be rejected to pass, giving the character (and through him or her, the player) a stake in the revelations to come. It stops being just an intellectual exercise when you have an emotional investment in the world, and one of the big tricks is getting players to make such an emotional investment. The best conduit is for the player to have an emotional investment in the character and his life – for it to matter to them.

Through The Looking Glass

Once you make a character as a ‘simulated person of interest’ within a game for the first time, you never create characters the same way again. Even when creating characters using game mechanics for which you are unfamiliar, your first goal will be to make a ‘simulated person’ who is going to be interesting and entertaining to play. You have ‘leveled up’ as a player.

It’s also at this point that things can go horribly wrong. The player has one view of the sort of things that their character will be doing, and the GM has another, and if those things don’t mostly match, the character will NOT be as much fun to play as intended. I sometimes think that there should be a space on the character sheet for the player to articulate what they want to get out of playing the character in terms of entertainment.

If the player is looking forward to the character skulking down darkened alleys to clandestine meetings, the GM needs to know this – because he might be focusing on entirely different story opportunities for the character. But, all too often, the player himself can’t articulate this information, so it would frequently be a waste, or worse, would miscommunicate to the GM what sort of activities the player wants to roleplay.

There’s nothing worse for a player than for what he perceived as his big ‘character moments’ to be perpetually handwaved. It makes you feel as though all the effort put into creating the character in the first place is under-appreciated, and hence you are being under-appreciated as well.

For that reason, there needs to be an ongoing dialogue between player and GM about what was fun, and what wasn’t, and an effort on the part of both parties to try and understand why this reaction has occurred. It may be the GM’s responsibility to create an environment in which the player can have fun, but that’s hard to do if you don’t know what entertains them.

A broader life-lesson

One of my greatest assets in life has been the capacity to find something to enjoy in everything that I did – whether that was the camaraderie of workmates or the sense of satisfaction at seeing the work I had done each day, or the joy of playing with numbers. Even tasks for which I was not best suited let me enjoy the challenge of doing the job better than I thought I could. This has enabled me to put 100% into everything that I do, every position that I held.

I wish I could pass on that secret, I’m sure a lot of readers would want it, but I don’t know how I do it, or not completely. I can tell you that part of it is actively looking for such an enjoyment vector from day one.

I apply the same approach to my GMing, but with slightly modified targets. Instead of “the best that I can do”, the goal is “the best that I can achieve in the time available that will satisfy the need” – I’ve talked about how I prioritize prep tasks in past articles, most recently in Game Prep and the +N to Game Longevity.

Not only does this approach help you do your best for each element of your game prep, and improve efficiency leaving more time to both relax and smell the roses AND improve your game prep that little bit over the minimum that will do the job, providing some all-important polish, but it helps immensely in guarding against burnout.

When people read the “About” text that I’ve provided, many ask how I can stand to run the same campaign for what will be 35 years in September. I have three answers: first, I take time off as necessary to recharge; second, it may be a continuous history but it’s not the same campaign (not one of the players I now have were at the table when I started. Several of them weren’t even at school yet); and third, because I enjoy what I do, and the setting that I have created is vast enough to contain enough plotlines to endure for that period of time.

A related question is how I can plan a campaign to run for a decade or longer. The answers are the same. Or how I keep players for that long – ditto, plus I make it fun for them, month-in-and-month-out, to the best of my ability – and that has to be to a reasonable standard, because they keep coming back. Or how I can write two articles, usually containing a lot of substance and not much fluff, every week.

The Collaborative Approach To PC Creation & Maintenance

The collaborative approach to PC creation and Maintenance goes even further than the baseline that I described earlier. In this technique, players – with the encouragement of the GM – supply him with resources and game materials related to their character and the other people in their character’s lives. Once the player has submitted something, the GM is free to twist or spin it however he sees fit, and to use or not use it as seems appropriate. But GM prep time is always in short supply – so the odds are that if you supply something, it will get used eventually.

If you want your character to learn a particular skill, players, find a way to make it interesting (and fun) for the GM to enable you to do so. Create an NPC to do the teaching, offer a couple of plot hooks for how this education can be used to tie the character’s education into adventures, even toss in a line or two about what else the character might be doing with this time but won’t be if the GM lets the character learn/improve the chosen skill – you have no idea which shot will hit the bullseye.

But don’t overwhelm the GM, don’t bombard them with material – and the bigger your submission in terms of game world, the longer you should expect a response to take. Assuming monthly play:

  • An NPC artist with some fun quirks and some unlikely personal connections might see action in a game session or two.
  • A new arch-enemy, six months or more.
  • A new magic item, somewhere in between – or not at all, depending on how over-the-top it is.
  • A new character class could conceivably sit on the shelf for more than a year, depending on how much the GM wants to fiddle with it. I’ve also had situations in which a proposed character class was inappropriate for the campaign world as it was, but would fit in just fine with the campaign world as it was going to be in two or three years (monthly play, remember).
  • If you enjoy digging out maps or making maps, create a shared space in dropbox and every time you make something new, add it to the collection for the GM to draw upon as resources.

The more you, as a player, contribute, (1) the more fun you will have when something you’ve created gets used, (2) the more fun you will have when discovering whatever twists the GM has put on your creation, and (3) the more time the GM has for putting prep time into other things that will be fun and/or interesting in the campaign.

It’s CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that these be presented in a format the GM can use. If he doesn’t have the facility to print out maps, give him hardcopies. If he works electronically, as I do, DON’T give him handwritten material – it will simply sit on the shelf because he may NEVER find the time to type it up for you. Take the GM’s preferences into account, and – if in doubt – talk to him about it!

A lot of players think it’s enough for them to spend time tweaking their character, planning what feats and abilities the character is going to obtain next, and so on. But if you really want to take your character’s participation – and the fun you get from it – to the max, look beyond your character sheet. Make the GM’s job more fun for them, and they will have more capacity to make your job as a player more fun for you.

It’s not uncommon for players to do this sort of thing when creating their characters. Why not make character creation an ongoing process?

Comments (2)

When Genres Collide: Using Non-Genre Sources

planets colliding

Click on the thumbnail for a larger image

Some of the most fun that I’ve ever had as a GM was creating that down-elevator sensation in the stomach-pits of my players by taking an idea derived from one genre and importing it into another.

It’s not easy to do well, but I’ve figured out at least some of the ground rules to success, and today I’m going to share them with my readers.

There are eight steps to the process that I use:

  1. Reduce the inspiration to its core
  2. Reinterpret the inspiration core into a third genre
  3. Connect the reinterpretation with your primary genre
  4. Rebuild the rest of the source around the primary genre version
  5. Challenge the players conceptually
  6. Challenge the characters actually
  7. Connect the dots.

Following these steps may not guarantee that your combination works, but not doing so greatly increases the risk that your two big ideas – the campaign and the imported content – will collide and fly apart in disarray.

So let’s go through them in detail:

1. Reduce the inspiration to its core

So you’ve got this adventure module or game sourcebook or whatever that’s written for an entirely different game system, in an entirely different genre, that you think would be a fun fit for your campaign if you can just manage to pull it off.

There are two things that I can guarantee: You’re going to have to throw a lot of it away and you’re going to have to change a lot of what’s left to a greater or lesser extent.

To make a cross-genre infusion work, you need to strip away all the trimmings that have been built up around the idea to leave only the core, and then put them back, changed as necessary, one bit at a time, around an interpretation of that core that sits comfortably in your existing genre.

Take a D&D Module. You have the central premise – sometimes expressed in the cover blurb or introduction, sometimes not stated explicitly at all. You have a plot that is supposed to be an expression of that central idea, and that plot is enfolded into a series of encounters and challenges. There is also a whole heap of incidental content that wraps that plot and its constituent encounters and challenges in game mechanics and the trappings that come with the genre of the game that it is designed to plug into. You will probably have a map, and you will have slabs of color text and a number of hopefully interesting locations in which those encounters and challenges can take place.

If you’re running a game using a different set of mechanics but within the same genre, you only need to translate explicit mechanics and perhaps tweak some of the environmental assumptions to fit. Running a D&D adventure module using Pathfinder, or any other fantasy game, is not all that difficult.

But if I want to take that adventure and run it in a superhero campaign, as I did years ago with The Ghost Tower of Inverness and Danger at Dunwater, it’s not going to be so easy. Most of the encounters make no sense out of a fantasy context. Ditto most of the challenges. Certainly the rewards are irrelevant. The gamy dynamics are also different; there is an urgency in a superhero situation that doesn’t apply to most D&D modules – this adventure needed to be concluded in two or three game sessions of about 5 hours playing time. The campaign setting is also in a relatively modern-day time period; between that and the superheroes abilities (radically different and far more powerful than those of the typical D&D character) would mandate a hunk of reinvention, as well.

So the first thing you need to do is to identify the content that you have to incorporate. That might be the plot, it might be an encounter, it might be some color text, but it’s most likely to be the core premise or concept of the adventure. But whatever it is, the first step is to identify it and set everything else aside.

Its’ essential to be as ruthless as possible in this culling of content. Every component, every paragraph that gets retained at this point adds to the workload and the danger of later complications, though it’s not easy to explain why, though it’s clear to me. The clearest explanation that I can offer is by analogy.

The process of incorporating non-genre material into is akin to taking a jigsaw puzzle and rearranging the pieces to form a different picture by re-cutting the existing pieces and replacing some of them, building the new picture around a single “piece” that is virtually unchanged from the original image (which may in fact be several inter-related pieces). While you can trim a little bit around the edges, the actual image content has to remain unchanged.

The more complicated the shape of that ‘central piece’, the harder the task of creating the new image seamlessly becomes. This is the single most important piece of the new image; everything that is not critically vital must be trimmed away.

I’m afraid that’s about as clearly as I can explain it.

2. Reinterpret the inspiration core into a third genre

So here’s the first curve-ball, one that most people won’t have been expecting. What I’ve learned the hard way is that placing the core material into a new context that is neither the original genre nor the ultimate destination genre brings a number of unexpected benefits.

Perhaps the biggest is that it translates the core idea into a form that is more malleable. Consider that if you were to translate your retained content directly into your target genre and encountered a problem of internal logic, or a contradiction between adventure assumptions and established campaign “reality”, having trimmed and reshaped the puzzle piece that you’re keeping as your starting point – you would have no choice but to either throw away everything you’ve done already, or to abandon the idea entirely – or try and wallpaper over the hole and hope none of your players put their foot through the weak spot!

None of those options are particular attractive or conducive to success or efficiency, and GMs have to work efficiently because there is never enough time to do everything that we would like. The old woodworking adage applies, if only as a proverb: “Measure twice and cut once”.

Having made a big song-and-dance about keeping the central premise unchanged, it might appear that I’m now contradicting myself, but that “song-and-dance” is only valid within the analogy explaining why you should trim the idea down to its barest, most essential, minimum. In fact, I didn’t want to include the analogy – the first draft of this article didn’t include it – but it was the only way I could find to explain that principle. The alternative would have been to issue blanket directives – do this, do that, don’t do this third thing – without explanation, and I consider that unacceptable. If I don’t explain why I’m doing something, you can’t modify the process to suit your own needs.

By translating the core of what you’re adapting into a third genre, you are shedding any remaining assumptions that might trip you up and placing the core into a new context as an intermediate stage. “Danger At Dunwater”, for example, I translated into the genre of a political/spy thriller, with the Lizardmen recast as Russians who felt they had been attacked and were debating how to respond. There were multiple factions, each with their own agendas, and none of them were quite who they seemed to be. That was the core premise, post- translation into the interim genre.

The other big gain from this step of the process is that a fragmented concept – which you may be working with, if there is no explicit statement provided – becomes unified in the process. This makes it much easier to work with in subsequent steps.

There are other benefits as well, relating to mindset and how you perceive that central core. By defining – actually, redefining – the central idea, you are thinking about how it will eventually translate into your target genre from this intermediate stage. This works by distancing the concept from the source material, and ultimately makes it easier to import and translate the rest of the content that’s salvageable from that source material.

Selection of intermediate genre

To be successful, the genre that you use has to be one that fits reasonably comfortably within the confines of your ultimate target genre. If I were translating a science fiction adventure such as the Star Frontiers adventure Bugs In The System (available as a free PDF if you click the link) into a superheroic space opera – which I did for the Warcry campaign – I would not use Fantasy as an intermediate genre, because Fantasy is not an easy fit. Instead, did something a little more complicated, dividing the adventure up into three parts and then interpreting one part based on the movie “Alien”, one part based on Babylon-5, and one part based on Star Wars. But I could only be that specific because the genres were already a close match.

It’s essential that the intermediate genre be one that fits comfortably within your primary genre, while also not being too far removed from the original genre.

That can be quite a challenging prescription to fill. Sometimes you have no choice but to treat another source as though it were a genre unto itself, a medium for which you are adapting the source material, just as I did Bugs In The System.

As a long-time viewer of Dr Who, I can add that the TV series (which I have watched since the late 1960s/early 1970s) is a masterclass in this sort of adaption. Study it :)

3. Connect the reinterpretation with your primary genre

Having translated the core concept into a genre that will fit reasonably comfortably within our target genre, the next step is to do just that. That essentially involves applying any genre conventions that might be necessary, adapting the concept to fit the game world, etc. This should not take very long, but it’s important that it be done with care and thought, and with the intention that your PCs will be the ones trying to resolve the situation (whatever it is). Complications should come from who they are, problems and road blocks may need to be inserted to prevent an immediate solution, etc. In particular, it means creating any supporting material/content that is not going to come from the original.

In order to fulfill that last item of the brief, it is necessary to actually plan – at least in general terms – the next step. It might even seem that step 4 should precede step 3. There are good reasons why that’s not the case.

The next stage will translate the source material so that it connects with the revised core in the context of the campaign. Doing so now would leave holes to be filled, and it’s a lot harder creating content with a very specific “shape” to fit in those holes. It’s a lot easier if you do the new work first, making sure that IT is a snug “fit”, and use that to define the specifics of the next step.

In fact, that’s a general principle that’s worth highlighting even if it’s the only take-away from this article: It’s almost always easier to do whatever you need to do now if you’ve already given thought to what you need to do next.

Let’s look at Danger At Dunwater (and how I adapted it) once again, in order to illustrate what I mean and explain the process a little more clearly.

While the society of the enemy was to be loosely modeled on Cold-war Stalinist Russia (and I had made some notes on what that specific modeling would look like), and the core of the plotline was to derive from the D&D module, I didn’t know that much more about the situation. While I could start trying to translate more bits from the source material ad-hoc and off the top of my head, at the moment I didn’t have any specifications on what to translate that content to within the adapted adventure. So the right approach is to plan that, and then fill in anything necessary before actually doing that translation.

Lizardmen don’t make sense within the campaign world; I needed to give the population a reason to have stayed hidden all this time, especially since I needed a human community nearby. So they will need adaption. Most of the encounters would be trivially simple for the PCs to overcome by force – so they need to be either beefed up, which would undercut the need for secrecy, or I would need to scrap most if not all of them. It’s not the threat to the PCs that matters in a superhero adventure, it’s the threat posed to ordinary people. The trigger condition that sets events in motion described within the module also falls apart if the hidden population are to have been a hidden threat for a long time, so I will need a different justification for the situation – one that I will need to create. Most of the encounters through which the plot unfolds are also inappropriate and more like a dungeon crawl; since I need to accelerate the plotline three or four-fold (maybe more), scrapping those encounters would also help achieve this goal. And finally, I would need to work out who the factions were, what they really wanted, what attitude they were pretending to have, and why.

That’s got the basic outline of the next step planned – adapting what of the original source still fits – and in the process, it has defined what I need to do in this stage: a replacement for the Lizardmen, a replacement for the trigger that causes the plot to start, and a replacement plot to reveal the situation to the PCs. Finally, I always make sure that for any problem (especially one on this scale, i.e. a diplomatic problem that poses a significant threat that the PCs will feel the need to address) has at least one solution, on the principle that where there’s one solution there will be more than one – how the PCs actually solve the problem, and what the consequences will be, is up to them. Once I know that there’s at least one way out of whatever mess I’m putting them into, I can be an unbiased umpire, dealing with PC plans and situations on their merits. It’s one of my ways of avoiding railroading within my campaigns.


  • Lizardmen: In the superhero genre, its perfectly plausible for Atlantis to have been real (both DC and Marvel have at least one version of it, each). The PCs even found some underwater ruins at one point that they thought might have been it, but there were absolutely no bodily remains, and the ruins had been stripped of anything even semi-portable (a high-tech weapon had been overlooked that was found by a bad guy and used to create a brief spell of havoc for the PCs to deal with). This had been left as an unsolved mystery for years, waiting until I found a good solution. If the Atlanteans had used their science to become lizard-like water-breathers, and abandoned the ruins for fear of a repeat performance by the earthquake/volcanic eruption that had already done them in, ultimately settling in a deep lake somewhere (so that there was a human community nearby to be threatened by them), that would supply replacements. This also means that anything magical would need to be translated into higher technology, another item to add to the plans for Stage 4.
  • The Lizardmen described are primitives, almost barbarian tribesmen; that doesn’t jibe with the high-tech. Unless of course, the loss of so many citizens in the disaster and subsequent migration had devastated their civilization – so they had the tech, and used the tech, but didn’t know how or why it worked, just that it did.
  • That gave me the potential solution to the whole problem that I was looking for: if the PCs can demonstrate that they DO understand the technology, at least in broad principle, they would automatically be elevated in the eyes of the Atlanteans and could negotiate a peace in return for educational assistance and eventual alliance.
  • The shortage of numbers works for explaining why they need to stay hidden. But why haven’t their numbers grown, since? Perhaps they suffer from radiation damage as a legacy of the accident that greatly increases the rate of infertility? The PCs had access to medical technology that could mitigate or even undo that – another reasonable foundation for a peace treaty.
  • The factions:
    • the Priests would be directly threatened by either of these bargaining chips, but be bound by religious dogma that accepts the PCs as agents of The Gods in the eyes of the populace (and especially the throne). Base them on the KGB. That’s faction #1.
    • Faction #2 would be the military, who would demand retribution for whatever sparks the whole mess off, or reparations at the very least – but who are both proud and honorable, so this appearance of hostility is not fully heartfelt, or at least can be overcome.
    • For faction #3, we have the “Noble Rulers” of the Atlanteans, who would welcome the PCs with open arms (because the populace demand it) but be very stiff-necked when it came to sovereignty, almost xenophobic about the Atlantean culture being overwhelmed by these strangers from the surface world, and paranoid about their existence being revealed. To spice things up, let’s also state that they are chafing under the influence of the Priests.
    • Finally, as a fourth faction, some group of lesser nobles who see this as an opportunity to assassinate the King and cast blame on the PCs; they have wanted to make such a move for a long time, but so obviously would be the only ones to gain that they would immediately be suspect. Using the PCs as cats-paws finally gives them the opportunity to make their move. Again to make things interesting, lets’ suggest that they are young, ambitious, impatient – and far more progressive than the current rulers.

    So, a hidden enemy who is overtly friendly, a hidden potential ally who is overtly hostile, a second hidden enemy that are overtly neutral but open, and some ambitious types who are secretly hostile to everyone but who the PCs would be able to befriend despite that hostility.

  • The main points of the plot are also beginning to take shape: Incident, Reprisal, PCs Make Contact, Begin Diplomacy, Establish Factions, Attempted Assassination of a PC, Attempted Assassination of the Rulers, PCs blamed, Prove their innocence (getting the Military and Nobility on side but making the priests overtly hostile, Conclude Diplomatic Negotiations, sign Treaty.
  • That leaves only the triggering incident, which was where the one moment of genuine out-of-the-blue inspiration in this particular project arrived. Why not make the body of water Loch Ness, why not make Nessie a pseudo-biological submarine used by the Atlanteans as a diversion when humans came too close to their hidden habitat? I had an impression (vague now, in terms of source) that sightings were clustered around one end of the Loch, and also remembered hearing something about a controversial American plan to “force” Nessie to the surface by systematically dropping small “depth charges” starting at the end of the Loch where sightings were infrequent and working back. From what i recall, the proposal was quite rightly blocked by the Scottish, but what if (in my game world) he had gone ahead without getting permission? The Atlanteans would not be seriously hurt, but would have to wonder if they had been discovered, and could quite legitimately view this as an attack directed against them. The fact that this would be an illegal act by the monster-hunter would not reduce the fact that it could also be viewed as a diplomatic incident at best and an act of war at worst…

Notice how one piece of the adventure after another seems to fall into place? Those seven pieces of the plot provide the framework around which components of the original source material can now be fitted into place – key NPCs, personalities, bits of flavor text, capabilities, maps, etc.

4. Rebuild the rest of the source around the primary genre version

So that’s the next step – fitting as much “existing content” as possible into the new context, and then completing a more detailed writeup of the plot outlines. In fact, only one thing was missing – a hook to bring the PCs into the plot, something that was overlooked when listing the work to be done. On the basis of what had been decided, though, that’s not too difficult: The Military Faction take it on themselves to mount a raid in response. A remote Scottish township being attacked by lizard-like mermen, prisoners being taken for interrogation and intelligence-gathering purposes, more than enough reason to call for help, and more than exotic enough to get the PCs involved.

I’ve actually already described what happens in this stage in earlier sections, simply to place those earlier sections in context, so there’s no real need to go into it again. So let’s move on.

5. Challenge the players conceptually

No adaption is ever perfect. Stages 5 and 6 have two goals: first, they serve as defenses against the flaws being exploited, and second, with stage 7, they justify the effort of adapting the out-of-genre material to your own needs rather than creating your own adventure from scratch (in-genre source materials need rather less justification).

By incorporating a conceptual challenge, something that’s difficult to grasp, into the translated material, you leave open the question of whether or not a flaw in the translation and integration into the campaign is your mistake or simply a part of this intellectual challenge that the players aren’t quite “getting”. This encourages the players to come up with their own solutions to explain the flaw, which the GM can then appropriate, complimenting them on their success at grasping a subtle nuance of “what he had planned” (and rewarding them appropriately).

There is a secondary effect, which yields the second benefit listed above: by definition, a conceptual challenge makes the game world a broader and richer. In effect, the incorporation of the non-genre resource as a part of the campaign enlarges the campaign to fit.

For the “Danger At Dunwater” adaption, I was never completely happy with the destruction of Atlantis; while plausible, it simply seemed more catastrophic than any other event in the Mediterranean region this side of Pompeii. What’s more, making the Atlanteans high-tech raises the question of how they could be so totally taken unawares, and why they were unable to rescue the populace – why had they needed to take the drastic step of re-engineering themselves?

‘Well,’ I thought, ‘if that’s an conceptual challenge for me, it should work equally well for the players!’ – so that’s what I used to fulfill this part of the recipe.

There have been a few times where I have adapted material and neglected to include a conceptual challenge. The results have always been lukewarm rather than exciting, and predictable instead of challenging, and always left me with the feeling that the effort of the adaption was not justified by the results.

That brings up another general truism:
“Game Prep expands to fill the time available, plus 20%.”

As a general principle, this is gospel. Don’t expect to spend any less time because you’re basing things on a third=party resource; just expect to spend that time doing things differently to your usual practices.

I took a closer look at the differences between creating a bespoke adventure and using a published adventure in an article published in January 2014 here at Campaign Mastery, To Module Or Not?. It’s relatively short (for a Campaign Mastery article). so take a look if you want more of my thoughts on the subject.

6. Challenge the characters actually

Whatever the PCs have to overcome in order to navigate the incorporated material, it has to challenge more than their players’ ability to talk in character. The difficulties to be overcome have to be difficult enough to pose some sort of challenge to the characters.

Sometimes that’s easy – even too easy. Sometimes it’s difficult. It’s a near-certainty that an imported resource will either pitch too hard or too soft for your campaign – the likelihood of being “exactly right” is vanishingly small. Either way, this can pose significant challenges to the GM doing the translation from one game system / genre to another.

Pitched too soft

This is the case with which I am most familiar, because a lot of my adaption has been for my superhero campaign, and superheroes tend to be the most personally capable of PCs compared to any other genre. Take Iron Man – can you picture him popping up in just about any non-superhero movie and not being a match for the biggest bad, if not overwhelming?

  • Iron Man in “Alien” – no contest.
  • Iron Man in “Pirates Of The Caribbean” – no contest. Okay, maybe Davey Jones and the Kraken. But the East India Company? Rescuing Elizabeth from the Black Pearl?
  • Iron Man in “The Lord Of The Rings” – Sauron, and the Balrog, might be fair fights. No-one else stands a chance.
  • Iron Man in “Star Wars” – Darth Vader is hopelessly outmatched. Iron Man might not be able to defeat the entire Empire simply because it’s so large and has so many potential hostages.
  • Iron Man in “Independence Day” – if Stark can’t get through the force fields of the enemy ships, he is quite capable of devising the computer virus and uploading it. Once that happens, he becomes a one-man air force, more than a match for the big saucers, never mind the small ones.
  • Iron Man in “Armageddon” – the asteroid is toast, all they need to do is get him into orbit. The same goes for just about any disaster movie you can think of.
  • Iron Man in “The Hunger Games” – who needs a partner? Oh, all right, just don’t get in the way…

…the list goes on and on. Sure, some of these fights might be very exciting to watch, but the outcome of most is pretty much inevitable. It’s the human challenges that would pose the most difficulty, simply because Tony Stark is only human; if superior armament won’t solve the problem, the challenge is just as great.

The problem is that scaling up the enemy capabilities to match can create insurmountable logical problems. It won’t always happen, but it’s something you need to be wary of. There aren’t many James Bond adventures that a party of competent D&D adventurers wouldn’t breeze through relatively easily simply because they have capabilities that the opposition can’t match.

A concrete example arises in the “Danger at Dunwater” adaption – the Atlanteans can’t pose a significant threat to the PCs, because if they were that powerful there would be no reason for them to have stayed hidden; they would have conquered Scotland, if not all of the UK, long ago. They need to be just powerful enough to pose a threat to ordinary people, and just vulnerable enough for ordinary people to pose a threat to them – and that means that they pose no significant challenge to most of the PCs in terms of outright combat capabilities. To ensure that there is sufficient challenge, then, I needed to set up a situation in which the PCs superior combat abilities were not going to solve the problem. This was achieved by having the targets of the violence be people other than the PCs – either the town, the citizens of Scotland, or other Atlanteans. Challenges needed to be skill based and strategic.

“Danger At Dunwater”, as adapted by me back in the late 1990s, assumes that the PCs are superior, and that this fact won’t actually help them solve the problem. That means that it could be dropped into a Star Trek campaign, or a Star Wars campaign, or a Dr Who campaign, with mostly cosmetic changes. The problems are human ones.

Pitched too hard

It can be just as tricky to manage challenges that are pitched too high for your PCs to hope to succeed, because there are only two solutions: giving the PCs an advantage to compensate, or making the challenges easier.

The first is another step on the path that leads to Monty Haul syndrome; something to be avoided at all costs. Which leaves only the second, but that can raise problems of logical inconsistency if that means that the NPCs no longer have the capabilities to do what they have (historically) done or pose the threat that they are supposed to represent. Weakening the challenge by making the NPCs more vulnerable risks undermining the whole premise of the source material.

The best solution that I’ve found is to monkey with the capabilities of the NPCs so that they have an advantage that can be made unusable by anyone if the PCs do the right thing. This transforms the problem into a challenge that the PCs can solve. Sometimes this means incorporating a vulnerability that the NPCs don’t know about because the PCs have come from a different environment or background; sometimes it means basing their advantage on a piece of external technology that can be damaged or sabotaged; sometimes it means finding a way for the NPCs to be bluffing about their true capabilities, something that may or may not be the case historically. And sometimes it means that they had capabilities and lost them. Or perhaps there is some transient effect that will eventually wear off, and the solution is for the PCs to learn this fact – and then stall, for all they are worth.

The most difficult challenge

Quite often, adapting the challenges to an appropriate standard is the single most-difficult challenge in adapting an idea from one genre to another. You can mitigate against that to some extent by choosing source material of reasonably appropriate difficulty – level-based games, as source material, make this relatively easy. James Bond and Sherlock Holmes power levels? Around 3rd-to-5th level on the D&D / Pathfinder scale. Steampunk and Cthulhu? 5th-8th level. Relatively weak superheros, 8th-to-10th level. Experienced superheros, 10th-14th level. “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes”? Anything from 14th up to, and including, 20th level. As a general rule of thumb, the higher up the scale, the more difficult a challenge it will pose – so an adventure for characters around 14th level will pose a serious challenge for experienced superheroes.

These are only guidelines, of course; there will be exceptions. “Danger At Dunwater” posed a reasonable challenge for experienced superheroes because I was able to make it not about combat capabilities but about the internal politics of the Atlanteans – a human problem that transcends character levels. Even so, I was forced to boost the Atlanteans capabilities beyond those of their apparent technological expertise; fortunately, that was always the intention, because I had seen this problem coming. Another example of the general principle I enunciated earlier!

The bigger picture

But the combat capabilities situation is only the most obvious representation of a bigger problem. Whatever the challenges are that have to be overcome in order to complete an adventure, they have to be hard enough to challenge your PCs, and not so hard that your PCs can’t solve them, eventually. While you can sometimes incorporate the challenges from the original source material, perhaps after some tweaking, more often than not, you will have to completely replace them. This is so important that it’s been placed in a separate stage of the process.

7. Connect the dots

One of the hallmarks of most imported source material is that it tends to stand alone in glorious isolation from the rest of your campaign. The more poorly it has been adapted and incorporated, the more superficial it feels.

I’ve always been especially sensitive to this because of my background as a comics reader; whenever you got a “fill-in” issue, the only thing you could be fairly sure of is that it wouldn’t do anything significant to the continuity. There was a period when this was a defining characteristic of Marvel’s team up books in particular, something that was thrown into sharp relief by the Chris Claremont / John Byrne stint on Marvel Team-up (which united Spider-man and a different guest hero each month), because the creative team (starting with Issue #59) were not afraid to make substantial continuity-impacting changes, starting with a big power-up to The Wasp, which started the character down a development path that eventually led to her gaining so much credibility as a member of the Avengers that she became the team’s leader for a substantial period.

My response to that is to impose this seventh stage on the procedure for adapting an out-of-genre “fill-in” source: connecting the adapted work to the main campaign continuity at all possible points.

Let’s continue looking at the adaption of “Danger at Dunwater” by way of illustration of the principle. A little while back, I made mention of my dissatisfaction with the notion of a high-tech Atlantean civilization being wiped out by a natural disaster that seemed out of scale with just about everything else that had ever happened in the region. Even Pompeii – if the Romans had known enough about vulcanology, they would have recognized the danger posed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and they had enough time to evacuate the town. So it makes no sense for a natural disaster to have wiped out Atlantis so dramatically.

The keyword there is Natural Disaster. In my campaign continuity, though this wasn’t known to the players at the time, the Greek Gods had become the Roman gods when the latter civilization arose. They then succumbed to the same vices as the Roman Emperors. If the Atlanteans had succumbed to Hubris and challenged the Greek Gods with the intention of supplanting them and seizing Ultimate Power (a very supervillain-ish thing to do), the Gods could have smacked them down, Hard. This adventure was my first opportunity to make the players realize that the Greco-Roman deities were “real” – groundwork for their eventual appearance in the campaign as Villains, seeking to meddle in Ragnerok for their own “gain” (they wanted to harness its power to end their own existences, destroying earth as an incidental byproduct). Ultimately, this got into the big questions of who Deities are within the campaign cosmology and other such existential issues. Furthermore, knowing that Ragnerok was coming within the campaign, I planned to sink a substantial landmass (I had three choices: Japan, California, and Indonesia. Ultimately, I went with Japan) but wanted the majority of inhabitants to be saved by transformation into mermen; this adventure allowed me to lay the groundwork for that transformation. Finally, in the form of “lost Atlantean technology”, it gave me another mechanism for future threats and allies to arise – I haven’t used that particular one yet, but it’s still up my sleeve for when I need it.

That’s easily as great a level of campaign significance as any other adventure, and amply justifies the effort of adapting this particular source material.

Your effort to “connect the dots” has to be comprehensive.

  • If the source material has a backstory, that backstory has to connect with established campaign history. The bare minimum is compatibility. Ideally, you want to expand the background to incorporate something new.
  • The source material should add to the richness and diversity of the contemporary campaign. There should always be some consequence going forward as a milestone to say “this happened”.
  • The source material should provide some potential for future plotlines within the campaign, either as complications that weren’t there previously, or as springboards for new adventures.

That’s past, present, and future. Your adaption needs to connect in all three.

The bottom line

Done well, an adaption justifies itself, representing a collaboration between the original authors and the adapter. Done poorly, it can be a creative millstone. Most of the time, though, it’s just done passably-well, injected into the campaign because it looks like being fun. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that as a motivation; but it’s also not an excuse for not doing it as capably as you can. I’ve shown you how I do it; the rest is up to you.

Comments (3)

Not Like My Tribe – Sophisticated Primitives, Part 2

Map of the languages of Aboriginal Australia

Click this thumbnail to reach the full-sized map, © Aboriginal Studies Press, AIATSIS and Auslig/Sinclair, Knight, Merz, 1996.

In Part 1 (make sure you have read it before continuing) I made reference to a map of Australian Aboriginal Languages which contrasted so strongly with the media stereotyping of these peoples as a single collective population that it was revelatory and inspirational.

I meant to provide a link to that map, but ran out of time. But it’s just as relevant to this half of the article, so I have provided such a link below. The map was sourced from the Museums & Galleries Of NSW website. The map was created by David R Horton and is © Aboriginal Studies Press, AIATSIS and Auslig/Sinclair, Knight, Merz, 1996.

The first part of this two-part article told the reader how to construct the building blocks of a tribal “collective” view from known sources of information, and from your own creativity. Specifically, we have a list of “tribal elements” that collectively describe the “generic” member of the population; we have a very brief overview of the history of that population, and have used that to create a list of cultural contaminants and influences that have either operated directly on the population or that have caused a reaction in that population’s development.

Carved Boab Nut by Lin Courtney

Image Credit: / lin courtney

Extending the Tribal Elements List +

The contaminants and influences now have to be added to the tribal elements. Once again, this is to be more than just a list of things that have affected the population, it needs to explicitly state effect as well as cause.

If the race was once conquered and enslaved by Giants, or Bugbears, or Drow, or whatever, how has that experience influenced the population as they are today? What traces of the experience remain?

Encoding The Tribal Elements List =

The final step before we’re ready to begin using what we’ve developed is to encode the tribal elements list. This simply means preceding each with an alphabetic code so that we can refer to it easily. So the first one is “A”, the second is “B”, and so on.

If you run out of letters of the alphabet, start using 2-letter codes – AA, AB, AC, and so on, all the way through to ZZ. That’s capacity for 702, which should be vastly more than enough.

In terms of the number of Tribal Elements, there are two separate influences at play: you have variety of source material tending to inflate the list, but the practice of conflating cause and effect, and filtering out anything that doesn’t have a practical, observable, manifestation, both operate to condense the list. So, while I would hope that you would have more than ten or twelve items on your list of tribal elements, it would be rare to have more than 20-25. So I would not expect the “two letter” provisions to be required very often.

“I don’t have enough items. Now what do I do?” +

Game sources provide quite a lot of material on some races, especially those available for PCs. In other cases, there can be a pronounced dearth of source content. If you don’t have AT LEAST EIGHT entries on your tribal elements list, it can only mean that the race is insufficiently distinctive at present, and you need to supplement the source material with content of your own creation.

There are two directions from which you can work: You can go from “invented cause” to “logical effect”, or you can go from “invented effect” to “logical cause”. In practice, I would use both.

From “Invented Cause” to “Logical Effect”

This means adding something fundamental and original to the racial profile. It could be an ability that the race didn’t previously have, but that seems to make sense (given everything that you do know about them, or it could be a skill that they weren’t previously noted for, or it could be made from broader conceptual strokes.

The treatment of Ogres in my Fumanor campaign stands out as an example. I described these in detail in Inventing and Reinventing Races in DnD: An Introduction to the Orcs and Elves series, part 2, so I won’t go into too much detail here. In a nutshell: Ogres were quite intelligent, and naturally good civil and military engineers. Drow hand-picked some of the brightest, and taught them things, and twisted their worldview, creating Ogre Magi to rule over the rest of the populace. The Ogre Magi distributed an addictive Drow creation, Bluevein, which made the population docile, and much larger and stronger, giving the Drow the biological equivalent of a tank corps. The occasional resistant individual was taken away by the Ogre Magi and made one of their number. All this came to light when a tribe’s Ogre Magi was killed and they were cut off from Bluevein; most died from Withdrawal, but the rest got their higher faculties back and began figuring out the story. This adds a number of new ideas to the Ogre concept, largely inspired by the Jem’Hadar in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – with Drow in place of the Founders (aka Changelings), Ogre Magi in place of the Vorta, and Ogres for Jem’Hadar.

From “Invented Effect” to “Logical Cause”

Going in the other direction means adding some behavioral or social trait that fills an empty niche in the societal description and then inventing (through as long a chain as necessary) a cause for that trait, by continually asking “why is it so?”. Once you have reached whatever you judge as the “fundamental” why, you then start from that and look for more consequences. Better yet, you can start with some aspect of the racial profile that isn’t explained, or whose explanation seems inadequate, and fill in the blanks from that starting point.

I illustrated this process in inventing the extra sense “Commune With Earth” for Dwarves. This was a spiritual connection with Earth and the spaces beneath the surface which manifested in all the things Dwarves were supposed to be able to do from the Player’s Handbook / Fantasy Literature, linking them together. You can read about this sense and the profound impact that the concept has on Dwarfish society, in Creating Alien Characters: Expanding the ‘Create A Character Clinic’ To Non-Humans, which I revisited in Part One of this article.

The Other Reason: Uniqueness

The other reason for doing this is to make each race distinctive within your campaign. I’m not going to go into this in any detail here, having done so on many other occasions in great depth; but some mention is warranted. There are three basic principles: first, you might have a theme or central concept for the campaign that is not currently represented within the makeup of the race; it is therefore necessary to either add a connection to the theme or concept to the race’s makeup, if necessary replacing some established fact with a variant that suits your thematic needs; secondly, you might simply have an original idea that you want to explore just because it feels original or fun; or thirdly, you might want to make the race more reflective of a certain non-standard source. These are all good reasons to customize a race. The process is the same, except that you might be replacing, instead of adding, a tribal element.

The Common Core =

For any given collective population, there will be some Tribal Elements that are definitive and fundamental; if a population group has these Elements, then they are part of the collective population, no matter how significantly other tribal elements might vary. These are the things that define the population as a whole.

Before you can begin ringing in variations within the collective structure that you’ve defined, you need to know what you aren’t going to change, in other words.

There are two approaches to doing this, and once again I would employ both. The first is to define one or more Elements that you consider “conceptually central” to the racial profile, i.e. definitive; and the second is to generate the variations, and to select one or more elements with the fewest number of variants. As a general principle, I would recommend using the first, with ruthless self-restraint, and then using the second to pad out the list to the required number.

How Many Tribal Elements in the Common Core?

There should be a base number of three tribal elements in the common core. I increase this by one if the race still occupies its homeland. I also increase it by one each if any two or more of the overall geography, climate, and ecology match that of the homeland even if the race doesn’t occupy that homeland or it has changed since the population group came into existence.

The term ‘population group’ has been used because we could be talking about a race, or a civilization, or any other way of collectively defining a population.

So that’s 3-5 tribal elements that need to be considered ‘definitive’ for that population group.

Selecting the ‘Common Core’ Tribal Elements

As a general rule of thumb, the three ‘base’ items should be “fundamental” or “definitive” to the way you think of the population group; any additional items can be either definitive or can be chosen because they don’t lend themselves to easy variation. If part of the Common Core exists only because of similarities in environment, I would also try very hard to choose a Tribal Element for that part of the Common Core that derives from an appropriate environmental factor. But sometimes there simply isn’t one that’s appropriate.

Tribal Element Variations +

With the “core identity” of the population group identified, it’s time to create as many variations as you can think of for everything else on your Tribal Elements list.

For example, one of the differences between the 3.x description of Centaurs and that in Pathfinder is that Pathfinder describes their habitat as Temperate Forests and Plains, while 3.x only lists the Forests. D&D also emphasizes but doesn’t explicitly state that Centaur tribes have a central lair that is the hub around which all their activities orbit, abandoning these central lairs only in the event of a threat to the tribe as a whole, such as a Dragon or a Giant. Pathfinder provides for more variety, and explicitly states that there are “vast regional variations – from lean plains-runners to burly mountain hunters” – while also stating that they prefer to occupy the fringes of forests. Both emphasize the territoriality of the race but only Pathfinder explicitly uses the term.

That suggests to me that there are already three major variations predefined for the GM: D&D 3.x centaurs (Population A) for deep within forests, a Pathfinder variant (Population B) which occupies the forest fringes in mountainous regions (because those are where the forests are) and another Pathfinder variant (Population C) who live on the plains.

None of these yet meet the criterion of a tangible manifestation. For that, we need to look at what these groups do.

  • Group A strikes a balance between hunting and agriculture, with the suggestion that they are very good at the latter. The males hunt while the females control the central nest and the crops. The impression is left that the tribal populations are centralized because the females prefer stability, and dominate the males; if the females were less rigid about their nesting places, the males would range far more widely than they do. Because staying in the one location makes you vulnerable to that location being attacked by enemies and predators, the males have become far more territorial in defense of the females.
  • Group B: Pathfinder makes no mention of agriculture or tribal culture, but places greater emphasis on their hunting skills. Hunt-dominated tribal behavior is generally oriented around the food supply – the hunters follow the game – because you can’t count on game to come to you. Territoriality results from and is defined by a tribe’s hunting range. This is exactly the effect you would expect to see if the males dominated the females, and there was no agriculture to pin the tribe down to a singly location.
  • Group C is barely mentioned except as “lean plains-runners”. The only way to populate this group with any information at all is to take the differences between groups A and B and extend them. Group B are more mobile than group A, less centralized; extending that trend gives us a highly mobile population with virtually no reliance on agriculture. They have a far wider range – plains tend to be fairly open spaces relative to mountains – and that also favors a more nomadic lifestyle. What unifies tribes of this type? Generally, they centralize around a semi-domesticated herd of animals – less ala-carte hunting of whatever is available, more consistency of diet. They follow their herd, which is not penned up. We also have hints that they are leaner and probably fleeter of foot therefore, and that suggests that their herd animals also tend to be fairly fast. So, instead of animals that are fairly solitary, like deer, we’re looking for a herd animal that moves quickly. Impala meet that requirement, or I could get creative and look at smaller dinosaurs – it’s a fantasy world, after all!

Beyond that, I would think about the environments that aren’t mentioned. A smaller, slighter Centaur that climbs like (and hunts) mountain goats to live at the tops of the world. A camel-like centaur with a hump for more arid environments. Another small variety with long white fur that wears furred skins and hides on the human torso and copes well in cold and snowy areas. And for wastelands, perhaps a centaur that is half giant lizard instead of half-horse – but that retains the central core that we have defined as “Centaur”. Again, why not? It’s fantasy.

The Principle Of Variation

For each item that you have not selected for your Common Core, there are inherently a number of variations possible. These are:

  • Dominant trait
  • Significant trait
  • Marginal trait
  • Suppressed trait

…and that’s before you even begin thinking about changing the trait itself, as I did in the Centaur example above.

A Dominant Trait is one where the tribal element in question is the most important non-core characteristic of the group and is strengthened sufficiently to justify that prominence. Everything that is not a dominant trait else is secondary, and may even have to be adapted to serve a role in the dominant tribal element. Society and religion and the rituals of daily life all revolve around the dominant trait(s). Common core traits are only dominant to the extent that every sub-group of the overall population has those traits in common to some degree at least – they keep your centaurs being centaurs by defining what it means to be a centaur, or whatever, but nothing beyond that. That makes a dominant trait the central theme that pulls the one sub-group together as an identifiable characteristic, the thing that subgroup all has in common.

A Significant Trait is one that is stronger than in the average representative of the whole population, but not strong enough to dominate. It’s a point of similarity between two tribes or sub-groups, like a common language or shared heritage or attitude, but it’s not a point of tribal identification.

An Average Trait is a typical part of the makeup of a group, but not significantly stronger or weaker a constituent of that group than it is in the overall populace. Except in the limited circumstances described above, Common Core traits are always of “Average” strength, because that lets tribal diversity be prominent. This is the default strength unless defined otherwise within the trait.

A Marginal Trait is one that is weaker in a specific subgroup, while still having an influence.

And, finally, a Suppressed Trait is one that is virtually non-existent within this subgroup.

Let’s say, for example, that Goblins have a trait, Hatred Of Bugbears, due to some incident in the past of the race. In some Goblin Tribes, this trait is dominant, it’s the most central fact of their lives. In some, it’s a significant part of the tribal makeup, but only to a limited extent. In some, it’s no stronger than it is in the population as a whole. In some, it’s marginal and has little impact on that particular tribe; and in others, it’s ancient history and has virtually no bearing on the tribe’s activities. A member of the latter group might even speak Bugbear, or at least have adopted some Bugbear terminology, and might be accused by the first group of having been collaborators in the past – depending on the reasons for this particular trait, and on how the trait manifests at a cultural level. In this case, because I always equate Bugbears with bullies and bullying, I keep thinking of the cycle of domestic violence and how that form of bullying can be a learned behavior – so, because the Goblins were historically mistreated by Bugbears, some have learned the lesson that this is the right way for the strong to treat those weaker than them, while others have rejected that fundamental premise. This would manifest in how the different tribes treated the weaker members of their own society, assuming that there is no other race that the Goblins have managed to subjugate. This in turn would influence the roles of the genders, and the treatment of the young, and – to some extent – the treatment of those who are simply different.

What’s more, each of the content variations should also have it’s own set of intensity variations.

Differences Plus Consequences

In short, then, each variation is a “difference from the mean” plus the practical consequences of that difference. This is the most important thing to bear in mind: because a Tribal Element must have some overt manifestation, must have some practical expression within the culture or society or abilities of the population, each of these variations makes a practical and tangible difference from one tribe to the next.

Variations within the Elements List

Each tribal element is followed on the list with its variations. These may be variations of content or of intensity or even of manifestation. And each should be encoded with the alphabetic code of the tribal element from which it derives, plus a sequential numeral – so you have Tribal Element A, and then variations A1, A2, A3, and so on, and then Tribal Element B, and variations B1, B2, B3, and so on.

At least, that’s the theory

In practice, things don’t work out quite as neatly. It doesn’t much matter if there’s a difference in content or manifestation if the tribal element is very low in intensity. What we’re looking for are meaty, substantial differences that we can get our roleplaying ‘teeth’ into; “bland” is not an acceptable flavor option except when it leaves space on the palate for some other strong flavor to take center stage.

It’s also possible for some of the alternatives to lead to internal contradictions; if any of these occur, that particular combination has to be rejected. More importantly, if there is a contradiction between a variant and one of the Common Core elements, that variation has to be scrapped on the spot.

As a result, and as a general rule of thumb, no matter how many variations in content and manifestation you have, don’t expect any but the base set to have all four variations plus ‘average’ available. Sometimes you will have only the three most intense, and sometimes you might be able to squeeze a fourth.

In the final analysis, you might have some tribal elements with only 2, 3, or 4 variations, more with 5, 6, or 7, and only a few with more.

A Tribal Element Index: Organizing Your Variations =

Once you have all your variations, the hard work is done, well almost. There’s one step left before we can start using everything that we’ve created, and that’s creating a tribal element index.

This is nothing more complicated than a list of your tribal element codes across the page and, underneath, a list of the variant codes for each. It also makes life simpler if your selected Common Core traits are grouped separately to the rest. So it would look something like the image below:
Tribal Element Index

It’s easiest if you use a sheet of square-grid mapping paper or graph paper for this – half-inch or 1cm squares would be about right, turned so that the longer axis of the page runs across the top – or a spreadsheet. What you can see here is an example with four Common Core elements across the top, 15 non-Core elements, the first of which has 12 variations, the next 7, and so on.

What this is for:

As a variation gets used, it gets crossed off in pencil or some other temporary format change is made, so that the next tribe to have a variation in this respect – I’ll get into details of usage shortly – has a variation that hasn’t yet been used.

The Heartland Population =

In theory, the population of the heartland is the standard against which all others are measured. In practice, as discussed last time, it’s not necessarily that simple. Just because most Lizardfolk have a spiny crest doesn’t mean that those in the homeland do. It just means that in MOST characteristics they will fit the general pattern.

As a general rule of thumb, the more variations you have for a given tribal element, the more likely it is that one of those variations will apply to the heartland population.

If you have no variation pools that are larger than eight or nine entries, the expectation would be that the heartland would conform to the “standard model” described in the rule books, plus whatever content and internal logic you may have added.

Starting with a base of 5%, and doubling for every variation pool with 9 or more entries, you can – in sequence of smaller to larger – determine just how likely it is that the heartland has “drifted.” If the heartland is not also the original homeland, use pools of 8 and above and a base of 6% – which may not sound like a lot of difference, but it will add up.

In the index illustrated above, there are three variation pools with 9 or more members: A, Q, and S. A has 12, S has 11, and Q has 9. That means that there is a 5%$ chance of a heartland variation in Q (the smallest pool), a 10% chance of a variation in S (the second smallest), and a 20% chance of a variation in A (the largest). All told, that’s a 35% chance that there has been a drift somewhere in the heartland population.

If this particular example belonged to a civilization or race that had been driven out of their homeland (which, technically, would include most versions of the Drow), it makes a big difference. R gets added to the mix, with a pool of 8 variations, and – as the smallest applicable pool – is awarded a 6% chance of a variation in whatever the heartland now is. Q, as second largest, gets double that, or 12%. S is now third largest, so we double the 12 to get 24%; and A, the largest, gets double that again, or 48%. Add those up and you get 90% – so there is a virtual certainty of a variation.

If, for the reasons described in part 1, you want to make it a complete certainty, use a base of 7%. In this case, that would add up to a total of 109% chance of a variation.

The Neighboring Tribes +

Each tribe that neighbors the heartland will be somewhat different from the heartland population. How different? To determine that, we use something called the Similarity Rating.

Similarity Rating

The similarity Rating has a base value equal to 1/3rd of the total number of Primary Tribal Elements or the number of Core Elements, whichever is higher.

There are additions to that number for a number of factors, described below. The total that you end up with are the number of tribal elements that this neighboring tribe have in common with the population of the heartland, NOT COUNTING the Core Elements.

The Similarity Rating has an absolute maximum of 1 less than the total number of Tribal Elements – EVERY tribe needs to have at least ONE point of distinctiveness to it! It also has an absolute minimum of 1 – so there will always be at least ONE respect in which the neighbors are the same (in addition to the core elements).

Loss Of Homelands

Most of the time, each factor will add 1 or more to the total if there is a point of similarity between the environments of the two tribes. However, if the homeland has been lost a historically-significant period of time in the past, each point of dissimilarity will subtract one from the total instead. In this case, the base Similarity Rating should be increased 50%, i,e, to one-and-a-half times whatever it was.

Geography: Similarities and Differences

For each respect in which the geography of the two realms is similar, add 1 to the total, or for each respect in which they are dissimilar, subtract one, depending on whether or not the homeland has been lost.

Geography II: connections vs isolations

If there is a means of connecting the two tribes, i.e. a road, or a waterway, or a passable border, add an additional +1 to the Similarity Rating.

If they are geographically separated – a lake, a mountain range, a desert in between them, or whatever – subtract +1 from the total, even if you have already subtracted one for a point of dissimilarity. This includes otherwise passable terrain that is occupied by a hostile force – so two tribes of Orcs might both neighbor an Elven Forest but not be connected by it.


If the climates are similar, add +2 to the Similarity Rating. If they resemble each other but are still different, add +1. This applies regardless of any effect of Homeland Loss.

Cultural Infusions

If one of them has a neighboring race other than the tribal collective and the other does not, subtract two from the Similarity Rating. If the homeland has been lost, increase this change from a two to a three.

This adjustment can occur multiple times, but subsequent occurrences count for 1 less – so if both have odd neighbors but these are of different races, there is a 2 or 3 reduction in similarity from the first, and a 1 or 2 reduction in similarity from the second.

GM Intuition

Finally, the GM can adjust the total by 1 or 2 in either direction according to his intuition, provided that he doesn’t violate the maximum or minimum value.

Selecting A Variation

So, you now know the number of ways in which the neighbors are the same. That makes it easy to determine the number of ways in which they are NOT the same.

I use a simply random roll to select trait columns across the index. Whether or not I’m marking off points of similarity or points of variation depends on which one is going to be the least work. If I end up with only 4 points of variation, it’s a lot easier to roll dice four times than it is to make 12 or 16 or whatever-the-similarity-rating-is rolls. If I wind up with only 4 points of similarity, that’s the easier set of results to determine.

Next, I locate the variation on the column that describes the “known neighbor” – in this case, the heartland, but the same process can be used to go further out – on the index. Let’s say that we have a variation in Tribal Element F, and that the heartland has a value of F. Skipping over any that have already been crossed out as used, I count either one step up or down, or (if the homeland has been lost) two steps. That identifies either one or two possible variations for the new tribe. You must pick the one that provides the least contrast to the reference tribe – this is again a matter of judgment for the GM. Note this variation on the description code of the tribe – I’ll get to that in a moment – and cross it off the index.

If there are no uncrossed-out entries in the column, use one of your vertical steps to move left or right instead (again, ignoring crossed-out entries), overriding the random selection of column.

Put all the selected variations together with the selected similarities and the results describe the new tribe.

Only when every entry on the index has been crossed out can you erase those crossing-outs and start all over again.
progression of neighbours

The image to the left illustrates the process. First, the central population, i.e. the homeland or heartland, are defined. Then you generate tribe #2, ensuring that it has a mixture of commonalities and differences that are appropriate to their circumstances relative to home tribe. You then move on to Tribe #2, again using the home tribe as reference, but making sure of reasonable levels of similarity and distinctiveness to both the home tribe and tribe #2. Repeat with appropriate corrects for tribes #3, #4, #5, and #6.
progression of neighbours 2

Outer Tiers +

You can populate new rings of tribes in exactly the same way. This graphic illustrates a seventh tribe that is neighbors to both tribes #2 and #3. You can base the tribe on either but once again the comparison should be to both. Just keep adding tribes – of varying size – until you are satisfied that the entire area in which the collective population resides has been covered.

The Tribal Code

Every tribe that you generate can be defined by the codes that constitute it. If you look again at the sample tribal index, one valid tribe would be A3BC2DEF4GHI2JKL5MNO2P3QRS9. Which just looks like alphabet soup until you put dashes or fullstops in to separate the different components: A3.B.C2.D.E.F4.G.H.I2.J.K.L5.M.N.O2.P3.Q.R.S9 or A3-B-C2-D-E-F4-G-H-I2-J-K-L5-M-N-O2-P3-Q-R-S9.

But why go to so much trouble? Institute a policy that anything that’s not an explicit variation is presumed to be the core, and you can simplify the code to A3.C2.F4.I2.L5.O2.P3.S9 or A3-C2-F4-I2-L5-O2-P3-S9. If you keep a list of the variation combinations that you’ve used, you can make sure that you never repeat a tribal combination unless you want to – in other words, that every tribe is unique while still being definitively a part of community X.

Who Is This Tribe?

That’s all well and good if you’re creating a game world. What if you aren’t, or don’t want to do the whole lot in one go? What if you need a tribe – just one – right now?

Easy! All you have to decide is how many tribal “steps” away from the homeland the tribe that you need to create are. In the illustrations above, tribes 1 through 6 are all one step removed, tribe 7 is two steps removed.

Then adjust the Similarity rating accordingly:

  • One Step: determine the base Similarity rating. Adjust it half-way in the direction that would normally apply – so if the homeland is still viable, that would be be (1/3 + 1)/2 similarity, or 2/3 similar, and if it’s not you start with 2/3 and adjust back to 1/3 similarity. If there are 15 variable Tribal Elements, as there are in the Index Example above, that gives similarities of 10 and 5, respectively.
  • Two Steps: Every subsequent step reduces the similarity, but by a decreasing amount each time that allows for the possibility that a subsequent variation will occur within a Tribal Element that has already been modified. This is achieved by multiplying the adjustment (half the similarity) by the similarity and dividing by the total number of Tribal Elements that aren’t part of the common core. So: Half of 10 would be 5; 5 multiplied by 10 is 50; 50 divided by 15 is 3.333, which rounds off to 3. So the similarity drops by 3 to 7. Or, of the homeland has been lost, the similarity starts at 5, half that is 2.5, multiplied by 5 is 12.5, divided by 15 is 0.833 which rounds to 1 – so the similarity is now 4.
  • Three steps: perform the same trick. Similarity with a homeland is now 7, half of that is 3.5, multiply by the 7 to get 24.5, divide by 15 and you get 1.63 which rounds to 2. So the similarity is drops to 5. If the homeland had been lost, the similarity was 4; half of 4 is 2; 2 times 4 is 8; 8/15 is 0.53, which rounds to another loss of 1 point of similarity. The similarity rating is now 3.
  • Four steps: do it again. Similarity with a homeland is now 5, and we have already calculated that that results in the loss of 1 point of similarity rating, giving a result of 4. Similarity without a homeland is now 3, half of which is 1.5; multiplied by 3 is 4.5; and divided by 15 is 0.3. That rounds to zero, so the Similarity rating stays at 3, but we save the 0.3 to add to the next result.
  • Four steps: The similarity with a homeland at three steps was 4, and we’ve already calculated that this produces another loss of 1 point of similarity rating. The similarity without a homeland is 3, still, but with a 0.3 divergence carried forward from the previous step – so that will become 0.6 change this time around, which rounds to a further point of similarity loss, giving a rating of 2.

Just keep going as often as you want. Once you know how far removed from the base description (ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRS) the tribe that you’re creating are, it’s just a matter of selecting the variations and compiling the description of this particular tribe.

These calculations aren’t statistically rigorous; this is a relatively simple approximation that is “good enough” for game purposes.

Who Is This Tribe? =

I can’t speak for everyone, but a lengthy list of variations from which particular items has to be extracted each time in order to get a description of a tribe is both impractical and error-prone. If I were using this system (and I will be, in future), I would open my list of variations and “save as” [Tribename], or even just “Tribe #6” or whatever. That lets me delete from the text everything but the variations that are actually in force for this tribe.

I would then highlight the overt manifestations, either by making them bold or changing the font color, and sort them using copy and paste into six categories. When I had finished that, I would look at any of those that don’t fall naturally into that particular category and add a relevant manifestation if I could think of one. One of my early articles (actually, it’s a multi-part series, but the first one has links to the rest) can help: Distilled Cultural Essence – Part 1 of 4: Creating a different society.

The categories are detailed below.

1. Questions Of Culture

Culture is how the people live their social lives – their entertainment, their modes of artistic expression, etc, their languages, and their traditions.

2. Practices Of Society

Society is about who’s in charge, why them, and what their priorities are.

3. Issues Of Architecture & Domesticity

This is about the everyday lives of the members of the tribe.

4. Curiosities Of Ideology

This covers the tribe’s beliefs and how and when they worship.

5. Matters of Capability

This covers any unusual abilities that the tribe’s members have, and any usual abilities that they don’t have. It also asks why and why not, respectively.

6. Cohesion And Collision

Finally, there’s the diplomatic side of the tribe – who they get along with, who they don’t, who their neighbors are, and so on.

The Strength Of The System

This system works because it constructs diversity from generalization in a very structured and managed way. It’s extendable – you can add more variations whenever you think of them – but it also ensures that the “core” of each sub-population contains those elements that are definitive for the race or civilization. That means that you can invest whatever time you can spare in prep and supplement it at your leisure, making it very efficient.

It doesn’t waste a lot of time on things that make no difference, by deliberately focusing only on those things that have an overt manifestation, that make a tangible distinction between this tribe and the next. It goes beyond simple re-skinning but doesn’t involve much more work, and the dividends that can result are enormous.

While the entire article has been written from a D&D/Pathfinder perspective, it is systemless, and can be used with ANY game requiring primitive cultures – whether that’s pulp, or space opera, or whatever. And every time that you use it, the forces of xenophobia are reviled and mocked. That’s a bonus, but a good one!

Leave a Comment

Not Like My Tribe – Sophisticated Primitives, Part 1

Totem Poles by Elinor Gavin

Image Credit: / Elinor Gavin

A lot of people seem to have the opinion that Primitive is the same thing as Simple.

While I would hope that most GMs are better educated than this, that knowledge doesn’t seem to translate into their depictions of primitive societies within their games. Most Orcs, for example, are treated as being cookie-cutter representatives of a single society with unified belief systems, common social practices, and identical behavior given the circumstances.

Exactly why this is the case, I don’t know, but not only is it not good enough, it’s missing an opportunity to inject drama, realism, and adventure into a campaign. Those things don’t often come gift-wrapped in one package, so ignoring the opportunities they represent is almost criminal.

Perhaps there’s a conceptual problem insofar as the creation of all these variations would seem to be a lot of work for insufficient reward – after all, how much of the results would the players realistically get to see? The mere tip of an iceberg, at best.

Or perhaps it just seems too difficult.

I don’t think those reasons are sufficient, and it’s my mission with this 2-part article to take them off the table, in the most direct way possible: by offering a technique by which generating these variations becomes so easy that you won’t hesitate in creating a tribe or three every time that race appears in the game – and will never reuse one unless that constancy is necessary for plot reasons, and as a deliberate choice by the GM.

A note about Scale

It takes a lot more space and time to explain something than it does to just do it, so this article contains the barest minimum needed to demonstrate the principles and processes under discussion. This doesn’t impact depth in this particular case so much as it does breadth; where I might have one, two, or three of something in this article, if you were to apply these principles and processes in a real life situation, you might have eight, or ten, or twelve.

But that’s not true of everything in this article, so I needed some way to indicate at a glance “You need to scale this up in number” or “This part of the process does not need to scale.” I’ll be stating it explicitly within the text as often as necessary, but I think an “At A Glance” mnemonic is also necessary.

What I have chosen is to append either a “+” or an “=” at the end of each section where scaling is definitive. What does that mean?

If there is a ‘+’:

…it means that whatever I’ve described in the section needs to be done repeatedly.

If there is a ‘=’:

…it means that whatever I’ve described in the section only needs to be done as often as I have demonstrated.

If there is neither:

…then it means one of three things: either

  1. the question of scaling is not applicable to the subject; or
  2. the topic has subheadings which have different scaling parameters; or
  3. the heading relates to a sub-topic or stage within a broader subject which is where the scaling is specified.

All that might not be completely clear yet, but it will make more sense as we roll along and you see it in action.

The basic premise is this: sophistication comes from complexity, and complexity is best represented by, and generated using, iterations and variations on simplicity that, when viewed in aggregate, portray the primitive as a simple subset of a more complex social collective.

Sounds complicated, doesn’t it? It’s not that bad, trust me.

This system was inspired by a map of the native Australian aboriginal tribal dialects that I came across a month or so back when I started thinking about the way much of the media and even many Australians portray the entire racial population as a homogeneous whole. I realized that I also saw the same thing in American media when discussing Native Americans, and that some politicians (both Australian, American, and elsewhere) used exactly the same broad brush to describe Muslims or “Boat People” or Syrian Refugees – and there are many other examples. By labeling and collectivizing smaller groups as one larger group, it becomes easier to marginalize individuals within that group, dehumanizing them.

It was while contemplating this that I realized that by collecting these smaller groups and individuals under one monolithic label, what these people were inadvertently doing was creating and defining diversity under that collective umbrella.

In terms of application to RPGs, the broad strokes that most use to collectively describe any given race is effectively a racial profile, and most GMs realize that at best these racial descriptions have only a limited applicability to any given individual. What I realized was that there was an intermediate possibility, and that the process could be reversed to divide a monolithic group definition into smaller groups. I thought it would be ironic to use the weapons of prejudice to create, explore, and celebrate diversity within a collectivized population, and so here we are.

Tribal Elements +

The core instrument that we will use to generate different tribal groups within the one racial collective description is something that I am terming “tribal elements”. A tribal element is a single idea and all the ramifications and baggage that derive from it, but not just any concept nexus is suitable; only conceptual elements that have an overt manifestation, that make a clear and tangible difference in culture or behavior or society that the players will perceive or experience when they meet a tribe who exhibit that tribal element.

That’s what separates a list of tribal elements from a simple bullet-point summary of a racial profile. Not only must each time have a tangible manifestation, but each entry is a cluster of cause-and-effects, a compilation of related pieces of information.

That’s also what makes the results that I might achieve using the processes I’ll be describing in this article different from those that you might come up with, and from those that the GM down the road will achieve – very few racial descriptions connect cause with effect, and most don’t even state cause in the first place. Each GM will come up with their own concepts of how known piece of information “A” connects with known piece of information “B” by way of invented and inserted piece of information “C” – with the whole ABC package being a single Tribal Element.

The more tribal elements that you can identify for any given umbrella (usually, in fantasy terms, a single race), the better off you are. This article will be quite parsimonious in the number I will present as examples, but you should be as generous in creating them as you can be, based on the information you are provided by the game reference materials that you have available.

Fair warning: these might seem easy to create until you actually go to process a race, but they are not as easy as they seem when you go to do them for real. They aren’t hard, but they can be harder than they seem.

How To Generate Your Tribal Elements

There are a few tricks to generating tribal elements that will be useful in overcoming that difficulty. In general, the operational principle is to pair like with unlike. If the central component of your tribal element is a racial ability, find a way for that ability to manifest in a social behavior, for example.

Some pairings tend to “go together” more naturally most of the time, so I thought it might be useful to talk about the different element components that are most naturally derived from the most obvious sources.

Racial Abilities

Racial Abilities are the easiest to work with in many respects; all that’s necessary is to ask how having that ability would affect the lives of the possessors. The ability to resist poisons not only makes a character better able to cope with tainted or off meat, it means that this can become a food preparation technique. What other cultures might put into a stew, or salt, can be roasted or baked. Richer and Gamier meat would form a larger part of the diet. Further, the tendency would be toward weak sauces constructed from flavorsome herbs, flowers, roots, and fruits because the race have no need for strong flavors to disguise meat that’s past its best. Thus, Orcs, Half-orcs, and Dwarves might well make the best sous-chefs in the better kitchens – with appropriate training and ignoring other social factors, of course!

Racial Characteristics

Racial characteristics would be reflected in terms of the things that a race is naturally good at. A low stat could either mean that the race devalues skills based on that characteristic or that the occasional exception is praised and prized all the more highly. Elves, for example, are generally considered to have better reflexes and be more nimble overall because of their higher DEX scores; they are also keen-eyed. This combination means that they would not fish with nets, they would spear-fish: more challenging, more fun, better exercise, and their natural abilities mean that they can do just as well that way as a less-endowed race who uses nets. What’s more, that would make it relatively unlikely that they would kill any fish that were not intended; with a net, you get interlopers, and fish that are too small, all the time.

Racial Skills

Skills are a little harder, because not only do you need to understand why a race is better at a particular skill, you also need to appreciate how that betterment impacts on the society. The first might relegate this whole question to an ability- or characteristic-based tribal element that already exists, or you might get to create a cause all to yourself.

I have often gotten good value from considering all the different applications of a skill and selecting one at which the tribe are especially adept, in compensation for being ordinary (at best) in all the others.

Bugbears, with their natural strength, might well have a heightened climb skill. Why not restrict that skill to climbing rocks, swarming up cliffs, etc, and balance that by making them ordinary at climbing unnatural surfaces (like buildings and roofs) and worse than ordinary at climbing organic surfaces like trees? From that start you could get into the shape of their hands and the strength of their claw-like nails, which then leads you into thinking about their ability to grip things. Applying the basic principles from Ergonomics and the Non-human then manifests this in terms of their ability to use tools, which influences everything from food preparation to architecture/habitat construction – and those meet our criteria of a tangible manifestation.

Create A Character Workshop cover

Racial Flavor Text

Probably the richest source of tribal elements, though, is the flavor text that accompanies the racial description; you can practically break this up into bullet points paragraph-by-paragraph if not sentence-by-sentence, and each can then form the heart of another tribal element; all you need do is find practical implications or tangible expressions of each. I offered an example of how to do just that in the example that accompanied my article Creating Alien Characters: Expanding the ‘Create A Character Clinic’ To Non-Humans which looks at expanding the principles in Holly Lisle’s excellent “Create A Character Clinic” to non-humans. You can get the book from How To Think Sideways (it’s on the bottom row) or by going directly to the product page by clicking on the cover thumbnail, US$9.95.

Thumbnail History Of The Collective =

You need a couple of other tools to make full use of the system. Most of these can be summed up as “a thumbnail history of the collective”, where the collective is the grouping together of all the tribes to be created. Where did they come from? What is their shared cultural heritage? You need to know these (and similar) things, even if the race in question has lost the knowledge. This anthropology has a profound impact on the social morphology, i.e. the context that translates tribal element concept into practical manifestation.

It should be obvious that you can’t tell the story of the race except in the broadest possible strokes until after you have created the tribes; at present, you are missing at least half of the basis of the history. But you need everything that you can determine in order to create those tribes and ensure that the detail is consistent with the bigger picture.

There are a couple of things to specifically look for / decide at this point. Each of these is discussed in its own section below.

The Tribal Heart

Where did the race originally call home? What was the climate and the geography? What effects have those had on the foundations of the collective society, and what might linger as tradition from that time?

I am perpetually astounded at the myriad of subtle influences that these two factors exert on any given society, both directly and indirectly. Agriculture, Diet, Politics, Race and international relations, arts and crafts, capacity and willingness to explore, social practices – and those just scratch the surface.

I wish there was a single reasonably non-technical reference that I could point at for readers to fully assimilate the principles at play; unfortunately, all I’ve ever come across is an isolated reference here and another there, relating only to specific applications of the sociology.

Here’s a list of promising websites and articles, none of which I’ve had time to read (yet) that should at least get you started:

Homeland Or Resettlement?

One of the most profound questions to be answered as part of the history is whether or not the modern heartland is the homeland of the collective of tribes, or is the modern heartland the result of resettlement or diaspora.

Proposition one, the traditional homeland, provides a cultural touchstone that tends to keep diversity reigned in, similar to the Imperial model. Diverge too far from the acceptable standards and you are not only considered to be a less-than-“true” representative of the collective, but you may well think of yourself as being less than a “real” member of the collective, a phenomenon of Fringe Marginalization that can be embodied in social practices, religious beliefs and practices, evaluations of cultural value, economics, and isolationism. Distance from the central homeland defines how “civilized” you are perceived to be. A greater emphasis is placed on adapting an environment to permit traditional approaches and values, even if this is less efficient than adapting those approaches and values to the dictates and opportunities of the new environment.

Proposition two removes that central touchstone, stating that for one reason or another, the original homeland has been lost to the collective. This could be environmental (a forest, swamp, or otherwise fertile land becoming a desert, a terrible volcanic eruption, or whatever), disease, population pressure leading to over-farming and loss of soil fertility, invasion, religious schism, or conquest. Even if the details of these events are lost to tribal history, the effects of the cause will linger within the society, mythology, and theology of the populace, though they might manifest in different ways. There is no longer a point of central reference to dictate “civilization” to the collective, so there will be far greater diversification over time.

top row '.', 2nd row 1.1, 3rd row 21.12, 4th row ???-???, 5th row 21.1-2345, bottom row 542.2-3579

This illustrates the effect described in the text to the right. Rows 1, 2 and 3 show growth and diversification from one step to the next. Row 4 shows growth and the catastrophic loss of the homeland as a unifying force. Row 5 shows the new cultural “center” of the collective, the yellow square. Those tribes that were very similar to the original homeland remain closely related to the new center, and those that were moderately divergent are now either very divergent or much closer to the common community. But without a homeland, drift and divergence accelerate, the more removed from that center the more severely; the last row shows the situation a generation or two later. The heart of the culture is unchanged, and even those on it’s “side” (i.e. had drifted in a similar direction prior to the cataclysm) are no more divergent than they would have been anyway. Those that had drifted in the other social direction are almost unrecognizable in comparison, and their divergence is accelerating. In fact, unless something happens to bring them all back together again, the right-hand tribes are about ready to form a new common culture of their own, or engage the left-hand side in a Civil War.

There is a special case in which the civilization of the original homeland withers due to one or more of the causes listed above without being completely annihilated. It can thus still exist within the collective without being able to sustain a role as the central point of reference.

This encourages diversification in most areas of society whilst preserving through folklore an increasingly-distorted perception of the commonality and traditions of the past – with the nature of that distortion being another point of variation from one tribe to the next. One would retain “this” from the original, while another retains “that” – and neither are completely correct, depending on how far back in time divergences began.

Quite often, what will happen is that the strongest military or economic tribe will define themselves as the spiritual successors to the original culture, defining a new “normal” that – by definition – further defines other branches of the original society as more substantially divergent, and hence less “pure”.

Cultural Connections

Another critical component to note are any cultural connections or contaminations that have taken place, especially if the degree of impact over a number of the tribes differs. Simply being neighbors with someone is enough for at least a segment of the population to be influenced by those neighbors.

There are two more substantial forms of cultural connection that merit special mention. The first is trade, which is often a logical outgrowth of being next to someone – even if that trade is clandestine.

Imagine we have three tribes, A, B, and C. The first tribe trades freely with their Elvish Neighbors. The second tribe is rather more cautious about the Elves, and while they will also trade with them, they will also refuse any deal that doesn’t clearly benefit them without risk. Tribe C are even more paranoid toward Elves, almost Xenophobic. They will treat tribe A with suspicion because their thinking has been “contaminated” by Elvish attitudes, and would prefer to trade with Orcs simply because Orcs are enemies of the Elves. As a result, while tribe A is exposed to Elvish cultural influence, and tribe B accepts goods and techniques that are clearly of practical value, tribe C is exposed to Orcish influence purely as a reaction to what is happening with tribe A.

The other cultural contaminant is war. This can manifest in two quite separate ways.

During World War II, Australia provided R&R for Americans on their way to various wars in the Pacific, and while some Australian culture rubbed off on them, far more American culture found its way into the Australian Society of the time, especially in terms of the entertainment and fashion arenas. We were allies, and the American culture was the dominant member of that alliance. To those areas which were not directly exposed to this influence, it was only an assimilated and appropriated second-generation form of the influence that impacted locally; and in areas that were remote even to this, a very dilute counter-cultural movement arose in response.

The history of England provides examples of the alternative mechanism by which War can influence a culture. Conquest by the Romans had a profound impact, one that outlasted the actual presence of the Romans. Over time, most of the more overt impacts were lost, but others such as road building and social organization, were assimilated and absorbed. The principles remained and were retained, but the execution was replaced with a British way of doing those things. More recently, when the English struggled to resist the Nazis in World War II, the very act of resistance, and the necessities that it conferred on the society, had a profound impact on the society for the duration of the emergency. As usual, a generation or two later, this impact became opposed by counter-cultural movements; whereas during the war, subservience of the individual over the needs of the collective society was the driving principle of society, post-war generations elevated individual independence over all but the most demonstrably urgent needs, and British interests over those of Continental Europe as a whole began to take a stronger role in the politics. Even today, those two opposed movements – pro- and anti- EU entanglement – continue to play out in English politics.

I’m only about half-way through, and I’ve completely run out of time. I’ll bring this article to a conclusion later in the week in part 2! Oh, and it the title doesn’t seem to make much sense, that’s because it’s only relevant to the process as a whole. Be patient….

Comments (2)

All Wounds Are Not Alike IV – Accelerated Healing

Elixir by Alexandre Jaeger Vendruscolo, color-shifted green

Photo Credit: Alexandre Jaeger Vendruscolo, color modification by Mike

When I first started gaming, one of the hot topics of conversation was always Clerical Healing and how to stop Clerics being nothing more than “holy drip bottles”. Over the next 30-odd years, not much changed. At the heart of the problem are the “Cure” spells.

Over the years, there have been many proposed cures for the problem. But all of them come with baggage attached, ripple effects that can be more profound than the change to healing itself. The most commonly proposed solution is to make the “cure” spells more inconvenient and slower to cast and replace them with healing potions that anyone can use and administer.

This immediately presents the problem that healing becomes even more accessible than it was before. Clerics might not have had many limits on the number of healing spells they could cast, but they still weren’t an unlimited fountain of health. Those restrictions went away with this change, and the impact was usually more profound than GMs expected. And so it was with every other proposed cure for the problem; in every case, there was some complication that the GM needed to take into account.

In mid-2012, I wrote up a series of articles [links at the end of this article] outlining three alternatives to the normal damage-handling and recovery systems and the impact that the changes would have on the game. There are at least two more to describe, of which this is the first. It’s also the most obvious, the one that people tend to think of when first considering the subject – and that ubiquity is the reason I didn’t write about it at the time. Since then, a few people have pointed out that just because the idea is one that commonly occurs to DMs, that doesn’t mean that everyone grasps all the implications equally, and since I have a knack for in-depth analysis of such things, I should do this one as well. GMs, ready your best fiendish Hackles…

There is the popular impression of Healing Potions that they do their work instantly. Certainly having them do so is a boon to bookkeeping. Early healing potion descriptions didn’t actually specify, they just said “Heals #d8 HP” – at least that’s what my memory tells me. So: what if it were to take longer? What if you were guaranteed the healing promised, but it was going to take a week? Or a day? Or just an hour? And only if you didn’t get yourself killed in the meantime? What would that do to the dynamic of the game, be it D&D or Pathfinder?

Context: Why does HP go up by a dice plus bonus, each level?

Before we can get into that, there are some nuts and bolts of the game system that should be understood (which were also the subject of much debate back in the day, so your understanding might well be different to mine). The most important piece of housekeeping is understanding exactly what hit points represent, and why they go up when a character gains a level. After all, if a character only ever had their starting hit points (CON changes notwithstanding), you rarely need more than one or two “Cure” spells to restore full health.

If it was merely a matter of physical capacity, the differences would be relatively small – once adulthood is achieved, and ignoring infirmity, there are not many physical changes to take into account. You might, perhaps, earn +1 HP per level, or something. This might be increased a little if you had a high CON, but the changes would be minimal. Instead, going from 1st to 2nd level, your HP (on average) double (100% increase); from 2nd to 3rd, it increases by 50%; 3rd to 4th, there is a 33 1/3% gain, and so on. The variability that comes with the die rolls masks the regularity of the progression, but don’t fundamentally change it.

All the explanations that I have seen describe the hit point increase as an aggregate representation of four different contributing factors: Physical Capacity, Mental Capacity, Legendary Capacity, and (most important of all), Combat Capacity.

Physical Capacity

Characters should get a little tougher as they become accustomed to the hardships of the adventuring life. Part of the increase represents this increased resilience. In a purely Simulationist approach, this contribution to HP would be tracked separately, would also be a function of CON, and would certainly not occur at every character level; that none of this happens (except possibly adjustment for CON) indicates that this is a compromised reality for the sake of gameplay.

Mental Capacity

I have seen it suggested that the reason Physical Capacity increases do not phase out with increasing levels is because they are replaced by another form of enhanced combat expertise – Mental Capacity, the ability to keep better track of multiple combatants at the same time. Logically, this would also increase with time and with expertise (which is what gaining a level represents), but initial gains would be relatively small; only when the character achieved his physical peak would he be able to stay in a fight long enough to begin improving this aspect of his prowess. As a result, the combination of the two would be enough to make overall improvements more-or-less linear with character levels, and certainly not worth tracking the minor variations that might take place.

Legendary Capacity

It was quite a number of years before I heard this argument, but it immediately made sense to me. As characters advance in levels, it proposes, they become more famous, more legendary. In a realistic world, this would be a matter of reputation alone, but in a fantasy game where the perils become more and more epic, an increase in capability to “live up” to these demands should take place – and, in part, this is simulated through an increased capacity for combat damage.

Combat Capacity

By far the most common explanation, however, is simply that characters get better at combat with training and experience, and (in part) this is reflected in a reduction in the relative damage done by weapons, i.e. the damage done by a single typical blow as a percentage of total capacity for receiving such blows.

This could have been represented by an improvement in Armour Class, or by a penalty to attacker’s “to hit” values, or even by varying the damage done (low-level characters only doing a percentage of a larger potential damage total) but none of these offer the granularity or simplicity of a substantial change in Hit Point Capacity. From the point of view of game mechanics, a hit point change is the better solution.

Alternative 1: Bonus Only

That doesn’t make it the only approach, though, and I have seen several in my time. One of the most common is simply to cut out the increase in the number of Hit Dice that occurs when a level is gained. Instead, the character simply receives whatever bonus HP they are awarded as a result of their CON bonus.

I have also seen some very vitriolic rebuttals of the proposal, most of them couched in terms of “fighter vs wizard game balance”.

As I have remarked before, that’s the problem with House Rules: one necessitates another, and then another, and so on. In this case, the damage that magical spells can inflict is predicated on the existing HP progression, and needs to be altered if Wizards – above, say, 3rd level – are not going to be the most powerful characters in the game. If anything, goes the argument, there needs to be a change in the other direction in most editions of the game!

If you are willing to put in the hard work required, AND can convince your players to accept the change, by all means implement this change and all the ancillary changes that are needed in consequence – but don’t call it D&D / pathfinder any more, because (in several of its fundamental parameters and assumptions), it isn’t.

Alternative 2: dice to max

“…if anything, there needs to be a change in the other direction.” That usually gets House-Rule-minded GMs thinking, and it isn’t long thereafter that this simple change suggests itself to them. “Spellcasters get smaller hit dice than your up-front-and-brutal types, so if I do away with the variability and simply state that all the dice results are maximized, every time, all the time, it makes those combat characters just that little bit more effective, ironing out the inequities of the game system at least a little bit.

Everyone that I know of who has actually tried this has subsequently reported that the change over-compensates. That leads to consideration of various ways to cut back on the effect – perhaps it only kicks in at a certain level, or the ability has to be bought for X levels of advancement with a Feat, or they use average die results as a minimum gain, or whatever.

Once again, if you’re prepared to put in the hard work, and can sell your players on the proposition, good luck to you. There will certainly be more effort than you are expecting.

The Cleric Question

Having laid the groundwork, there’s a meta-philosophical question to answer: Are clerical healing spells as effective as potions?

In most forms of D&D, there are potions that are as effective as low level clerical healing, but for more serious wounds, the higher-level cleric is the better choice. Some GMs even reinforce this on the assumption that it makes clerics more indispensably part of the game by restricting the number of Healing Potions to X-per-day.

You often gain insights into difficult problems by turning them on their heads, and this is one occasion when that’s definitely the case. Rephrase the question: Should Clerical Healing Spells be as effective as Potions?

If yes, then you need to add potion forms of the other “Cure” spells to the list of magic items available, and start thinking about availability, manufacture, and treasure occurrence. But, if “no”, there are a couple of alternatives…

Clerical Healing less effective than potions

This is a cure for the problem of Clerics being nothing more than a source of healing, there’s no mistake about that! By making cure potions more effective than clerical spells, potions become the first resort. Immediately, though, there will be an effect: as soon as combat is over, everyone will be chugging from flasks. At the start of any combat, you will be able to assume that the PCs are at or near full health. For beginning players and kids, this “soft option” might be the ideal solution.

On the other hand, are beginners and kids more likely than more experienced players, or less, to complain that “all I ever get to do is cast Healing spells?” Or will any chance to act, to get involved in the storyline, and make a difference to it, be a positive? Will the effect of this change be “I never get to do anything any more!”, or worse still, “Nothing I do matters so just tell me what happens”?

‘Lying around recovering is boring’ – I’m sure that was the thinking of the designers when they first began introducing healing spells and potions. ‘Dying from a trivial encounter on the way to the adventure is both frustrating and boring’ would not have been far removed from the top of their minds, either. From virtually the moment that they did, however, games were locked into a standard configuration: trivial encounters to ‘soak up’ excess spells and healing potions and consume other vital resources on the way to the adventure became an integral part of the game, and an essential element of dungeon design, and the game began to devolve into an exercise in bookkeeping: gold for healing potions, consume potions, gain gold, repeat indefinitely.

Heck, I’ve even seen people quaff a healing potion before going into combat in the hopes that if they got wounded immediately it would still help!

Going into combat knowing you’re not at your best increases the drama and heroism considerably, and that gets lost if healing through potions becomes ubiquitous.

Clerical Healing more effective than potions

There are many arguments for taking things in the other direction, then. But that puts us squarely back on the path to the “Holy Drip Bottle”. And there are several questions about exactly how to increase the effectiveness of clerical healing relative to healing potions. Ultimately, these seem to come down to either limiting healing potions in some way, or boosting the effectiveness of Clerical Healing – while still retaining limits on what can be done.

healing table 1

One of the most effective techniques that I’ve seen is for characters to build up a tolerance to healing potions if over-used. Essentially, players keep track of the number of times they have been healed in the course of an in-game day’s play. Each one after the first imposes a -1 on the benefits received from a healing potion, to a minimum of zero healing. Clerical healing doesn’t count towards this limit. Moreover, this limit doesn’t reset to zero at the end of the day, but only improves by 1.

So the first healing potion of the day is at full strength, but the second is at -1 to the amount of healing done, and the second is at -2, and the third is at -3, and so on, placing ever-greater reliance on the party cleric. What’s more, if your penalty reaches -2 or worse, it won’t go away overnight, only diminish. Whatever the total penalty reaches is also a count of the number of days rest and recuperation the character needs to overcome the penalty.

The tables to the left show the effect this has. “I’ve lost 100 hit points, and a healing potion heals an average of 4.5 hit points plus one for caster level for 5.5, so I take 18 of them.” Not anymore, Binky!

In fact, you very quickly reach the point where taking another potion does minimal or even no healing, and only delays the interval until healing potions are returned to full effectiveness.

Now, I’m not actually recommending this approach, I present it here merely as food for thought.

The Paladin Issue

The second issue of metagame philosophy that deserves consideration is the healing ability of Paladins, the “Laying On Of Hands”. I’ve never been completely happy with this; it seems to serve no function other than to turn the Paladin into a second-rate cleric; there needs to be something about this ability that distinguishes it from both healing by clerics and by potions.

One option that I’ve explored now and then is for the Laying On Of Hands to cure things Clerical Healing and Potions can’t. This notion introduces the concept of Taint, which simply states that wound from certain weapons and/or enemies are “Tainted with Evil” and cannot be healed except by a Paladin’s Gift – and even then, it is quite difficult.

I freely admit that the concept is lifted directly from the Lord Of The Rings, where it was an effect of Nazgul Morgol-blades. Every 6 hours that a tainted wound remains untreated, it increases in severity by 1d6; this can be halved by a skilled healer applying an appropriate compress, and the 6 hour interval can be increased to a day by bed rest in a suitably blessed location. Clerical and Potion healing can do nothing for such wounds other than hide them and present the superficial appearance of healing. And that’s a problem, because nasty things happen should the Taint ever exceed the total hit points of the character – his soul’s purity is consumed and he will become a Taint-wraith, a fell spirit with loyalty to no-one and nothing, whose very touch inflicts Taint upon others.

When the Paladin reaches out his hands to cure the afflicted, he is engaging in spiritual combat with the Taint itself. The Paladin and the Taint make opposed die rolls; the Paladin adds his total remaining capacity for laying-on-of-hands healing AND his character level in Paladin AND his Wisdom bonus, the Taint adds the total damage that it has afflicted so far.

If the Paladin succeeds, the taint is held at bay for a day, and for every point by which he succeeds, one point of Tainted damage is healed, up to the maximum of his Healing ability – so it will become progressively easier to heal the Tainted wound. Nor can a succession of Paladins lay on hands; healing done by others counts as having already being done by the next Paladin to attempt it. Finally, battling Taint is spiritually exhausting; for every point of damage healed by the laying on of hands, the Paladin himself suffers 1d6 shock damage, and for every 6 points healed or part thereof, he also takes a point of Taint which he can only expunge after 2 hours of prayer and meditation per point of secondary Taint inflicted.

That quickly means that it becomes a choice between ridding oneself of the secondary taint or continuing to heal the character afflicted with the Tainted wound. If the Paladin is too generous with his efforts on behalf of others, he can succumb himself.

Again, this is not necessarily something that I am recommending, unless it fits your campaign; for example, it’s entirely too grim for my Fumanor campaign, though it was going to be part of my Shards Of Divinity campaign eventually; the players were lucky in that they never encountered a foe with Taint as an ability, because they had made enemies of the Paladin Orders!

The Skill Significance?

Finally, one consequence of the ubiquity of supernatural healing (via Clerics, potions, and Paladins) is that healing skills and medical knowledge are devalued within the game system, to the point where they are represented by a single skill that is often ignored, and whose benefits do not reflect the effort involved in becoming proficient. In reality, herbalism and surgery (including bone-setting) and medicine should be separate skills, and each should offer tangible benefits with expertise. But there’s no need for that, because healing is so ubiquitously available.

Picture a character discovering a rare tome on medicine in a treasure hoard, one with cures to previously-lethal illnesses. If this were to happen in any real-life situation, it would be cause for great celebration and rejoicing; healer who had studied the work would be very greatly in demand, and – in general – it would be a Big Deal. Now place the same reward in your typical D&D treasure haul, and the players will feel like they’ve been gypped, so devalued is medical knowledge in a D&D / Pathfinder game environment.

One desirable consequence of any changes to the healing subsystem would be a reversal of this situation, even if it were only partial. Any improvement would be a positive benefit.

Healing as an acceleration of time

With those issues all tucked away in the back of our minds, let’s look at what it actually means if one or more forms of magical healing are reinterpreted as an acceleration of time for the purposes of recovery from sickness and injury rather than an instantaneous “healing” of illness and injury.

What won’t heal naturally

The first impact should be immediately obvious but will have major repercussions, which I’ll be spending most of the remainder of this article discussing. Any healing that falls into the “accelerated time” category can’t heal anything that would not heal of it’s own accord, given an appropriate period of rest. If broken bones are misaligned, they will heal crooked. If wounds are not closed properly, they will leave a scar. If surgical intervention or medical treatment are required, the character may not heal at all. Worst-case scenario: death may be accelerated instead.

Healing Skills

That puts a premium on correct examination and diagnosis, as well as providing appropriate medical intervention prior to the healing. Recovery periods may be shortened, perhaps dramatically, but “healing” or “cure wounds” are actually misnomers. Having a character who has invested heavily in medical expertise is suddenly essential – so much so that the broadening into the three distinct skills mentioned (herbalism, surgery (including bone-setting), and medicine, is more than amply justified. The state of the medical art would need to be very carefully defined by the GM in all three categories to prevent characters bringing modern knowledge into play.

This sort of healing won’t prevent a character losing a limb if it is infected; it will speed the recovery after an appropriate amputation.

Better spells = greater acceleration

It can be argued, under this paradigm, that higher orders of healing spell represent a greater acceleration of the healing process, and that this is what is being simulated by the greater HP recovery. This simply means that the time for the healing effect to run its course remains fixed across all levels of spell, or perhaps is a function of caster level.

Let’s say, for example, that the time for the spell effect to run its course is 12 divided by the caster level in hours, and that Cure Light Wounds grants 1 extra day’s recovery in that time, Cure Moderate Wounds grants 2 extra days in that time, Cure Serious Wounds grants 4 extra days, and Cure Critical Wounds grants 8 extra days of recovery. Heal grants as many days as are needed in a one-hour time frame.

Or perhaps it’s one day’s worth per die of healing, and only the duration over which this healing takes place changes. Four options present themselves: a minute, 10 minutes, an hour, or a day. That means that a 3d8 Cure Light Wounds (caster level 3) gives 3 day’s worth of recuperation in a minute, in 10 minutes, in an hour, or in a day (respectively).

But it’s simplest to compare apples with apples – you can normally regain 1 HP with a night’s rest. So every point of healing rolled is one day’s recovery. The same time options present themselves – a minute, 10 minutes, an hour, a day. If you are getting 50 HP of recovery from the spell, that’s 50 days of recuperation in that interval.

If you are getting 60 days healing in one minute, let’s say, that means that every second that passes is one day of rest. If it’s 60 days worth in ten minutes, that’s a day’s worth every 10 seconds. If it’s 60 days worth in an hour, that’s an accelerated rate of one day per minute. And if it’s in a day, that’s simply a 60-fold increase in healing rate.

No matter how you work this, you end up with the same general principle: the higher the spell, the faster the acceleration of time. Whether that’s because some spells are capped, (Cure Light Wounds is capped at 5d8+Caster Level, for example) or because you have explicitly defined a specific healing rate, the result is the same – only the numbers vary.

But, and it’s a big but, those numbers matter, as you’ll see.

Potential re-injury

Anyone who’s ever injured themselves knows that you have to be careful while recovering or you can re-injure yourself, or even do fresh damage. The shorter the operational duration of the spell effect, the less likely this is to happen. When healing is instantaneous, it’s impossible; one instant you’re injured and the next, you’re healed.

That has a profound impact when you think about healing in the field. You’ve beaten the monster, and chugged a healing potion, or had the Cleric pray over your wounds, or whatever; if you only have to wait a minute, that’s not too severe. If ten minutes, you would want to post a sentry or two – restricting the number of characters who can be healed simultaneously. If an hour, you definitely need to post sentries, and there’s a fair-to-high chance that something will come looking for carrion (or real estate) unless you’ve completely cleared the entire Dungeon at least once in that period of time. If you’re going to be laid up for a day, or for 12 hours, or whatever, at the very least you would need to establish a fortified position before commencing the healing.

If you’re one of the front-line fighters and are getting healed when the party comes under attack, do you grab a weapon and try to help out (running the risk of re-injury) or do you leave the party at low ammo in dealing with the situation?

The entire dynamic of the game is affected. And the tension level definitely goes up a notch or two.

The Danger Of Infection

Some infections can be fought off, given rest. Others are far more serious. Medicine can help somewhat. Dungeons are rarely the cleanest of environments; Gangrene and Tetanus would pose serious threats. The longer the duration over which the recovery is spread, the more likely it is that you will be affected by a serious infection.

It might be that by increasing the natural healing rate in this way that the body can actually dedicate more of its resources to fighting off infection. so immediate healing might still offer a benefit. Or it might be that diverting those resources makes the body more vulnerable. Again, “mundane” medical preparations taken prior to the healing and inactivity in as clean and wholesome an environment as you can manage becomes absolutely essential.

When and How to heal become serious decisions of risk vs benefit.

Clerics or Potions or Both?

By now, it should be clear that if Clerical healing works this way and healing potions don’t, then Healing Potions are the way to go. If the opposite, then Clerical Healing becomes preferred. If both work this way, then neither would be preferred over the other. Healing spells are still seriously beneficial, but those benefits now come with price tags. There are many more variations possible: perhaps both are subject to this rules tweak, but Healing Potions are slower, and hence less effective. Other aspects of the risk/reward balance can be tweaked to make swallowing a potion neither better nor worse, but still different, to healing magic.

Laying Of Hands

What of the Laying On Of Hands by a Paladin? Perhaps this represents “old style” healing – purging the body of infections and toxins, aligning bones, etc. Rather than supplanting any of the other healing mechanisms, this now supplements them – even without introducing Taint.


If you can’t heal everybody at once of everything that’s potentially wrong with them – and that’s what this set of House Rules achieves, by implication if not explicit statement – then Triage becomes important. Who is most seriously wounded? Who can be helped? For whom is a potion the better answer, and who requires the personal attention of a Cleric?

Injuries and wounds become more than simply a loss of Hit Points.

The Advantage Of Regeneration

What’s the difference between healing that’s available on demand and Regeneration? Well, since Regeneration is capable of regrowing lost limbs, the implication is that it can heal things that – under this paradigm – Healing can’t. Trolls and appropriate magic items become a LOT more dangerous and valuable, respectively, and the surgical removal of a damaged limb becomes a viable treatment.

But this also brings up the potential for combination therapy – does this sort of healing also increase the effect of regeneration? Why not? It’s hardly game-unbalancing. Or perhaps this poses a new risk, akin to a combination of medications that are dangerous or even deadly. “Contraindicated” is the usual term of the medical community.

Heal vs Wish

One annoyance has been that Heal, from memory a sixth level spell, does it all. That’s always seemed too powerful to me. By explicitly placing it as “the ultimate Cure Wounds spell” and subject to the same restrictions and effects as we have been discussing here, it is no longer perfection in a single spell. It would still have a benefit yield appropriate to a 6th level (or whatever) spell, but for perfect healing, you need to unlimber the ultimate weapon against injury: a Wish.

Nutritional Needs and Pain

If people go more than about a week without food, they die. If they go more than about 3 days without water, they die. If they don’t inhale enough clean air, they either pass out, or die, depending on how deprived of oxygen they are. Are these needs increased proportionately to the acceleration of time? Or even part-way?

Picture it: you swallow a healing potion, and for the next hour you’re perpetually gasping for breath, choking down food as fast as you can get it into your mouth, and drinking like a fish – plus dealing with the resulting waste products. Nor have we suggested that the process is painless; you might be getting a week’s worth of pain in only a few minutes, making it agonizingly painful. Combat is out of the question! Even walking would be difficult, if not impossible. You’re at least partially incapacitated.

Or perhaps these are not accelerated, and the magic is drawing its power from some other source. That means that you can avoid starvation and death from dehydration or from lack of air by quaffing a healing potion. You might even be able to avoid drowning long enough to get back onto dry land and have your lungs cleared. Sneak attacks and infiltration might become possible that would require scuba gear in the real world.

Clearly, either option brings consequences – you get to decide which set of consequences you want to exploit in your campaign. And of course, it might be quite a while before your PCs figure out the latter one…

The world is more dangerous

Anything that makes injury and damage more significant increases the danger level that the game world poses. This doesn’t alter magical healing much, but the implications are profound, and represent a significant impact on those danger levels. You’re taking away one of the major safety blankets.

Arguably, you achieve a more “realistic” and “gritty” game. It’s less sanitized, less comic-book. If those traits match what you are trying to achieve in your campaign, this is an alternative worth considering; if it conflicts with the style that you want to adopt, don’t do it, but make that a conscious choice.

Going Further

It’s possible to go even further. This option is compatible with every other variant on offer in this series, and substantially enhances some of them, and is in turn enhanced by them. Wound Severity, and having some wounds that can only be healed by certain levels of Cure/Healing spell, for example, have an obvious impact on this rules variation, because those mandated minimum spells have consequential impacts through the accelerated healing process that they create within this concept.

Be careful not to go too far. Remember that if RPGs were completely realistic, you would never be able to defeat a Dragon and many people would not be capable of wielding a tool, never mind a weapon. You want the PCs to remain larger-than-life and heroic in their capabilities; don’t take away too much of their capacity to be exceptional.

Used appropriately, in its’ rightful place, this option can enhance a game. Used incorrectly, it can kill one. Have fun….

And now for something completely different – I’ve just been interviewed by Matt over at DiceGeeks, you can read the interview at this link! Stop by and learn something new about what I’ve been up to and what I expect to be doing in the future :)

Meanwhile, I have one more of the “All Wounds Are Not Alike” series but I won’t be presenting it for a little while – it promises to be a little on the involved and lengthy side…

Leave a Comment