ten baseline assumptions about how the game is run

7/27/2019 Ten Baseline Assumptions About How the Game is Run

1/123

Ten Baseline Assumptions About How the Game is Run

There is a whole set of assumptions about how a DM runs his gamethat are never really discussed when a new game starts. I think often,these are the very things that lead to a flaming trainwreck a fewsessions later, when the players have been operating under a differentset of guidelines than the DM. I'm not talking about things like thecampaign setting or the theme for a particular campaign; I'm talkingabout the underlying principles of playing in a roleplaying game; thethings that form the foundation for being able to tell a cooperativestory.

1. Whether or not the world conspires to make the PCsheroes. Some people believe the PCs are born heroes, and that the

universe should be constructed in such a way as to make every sessionchallenging but ultimately very beatable. Others believe that the worldis the world, and the PCs are just another group of adventurers. In sucha world, it is the player's responsibility to make sure they don't walk intoa battle that is way too tough for them. The players could stumble intoa red dragon's lair at 1st level, and the DM would decree that they hadbrought it upon themselves. In My Games: I consider my games to fallsomewhere in the middle of these two extremes. There will probably bea fair amount of "happy coincidences" in the level of monsters the PCsfight, but it will always be possible to get in over your head, especiallythrough bad (or no) planning.

2. Whether or not the PCs can make mistakes. This may seemstrange, but I know that in some games, the DM changes the plot tomake whatever the PCs decide to do end up being the right thing. Inother games, the DM will run a combat in the way it was conceived,even if the PCs make the worst tactical mistakes possible. The lattergame is usually more deadly, because it requires the players to predictwhat sort of mistakes would be disastrous and then not commit them.

It is also more realistic. In My Games: Players are responsible if theydo stupid things, and they hopefully learn not to do them again. Or theyget killed.

3. Whether the game is static or active. In a static game,nothing happens except when the PCs are in the room. Lots of earlyD&D dungeons went with this method, and it is simple but wildly


2/123

unrealistic. In an active game, a situation can often occur "off-camera"of which the PCs aren't aware, and may NEVER be aware. Things mayhappen that won't make sense until later, when the secrets arerevealed, or may never make sense. I'll be honest, this type of world is

MUCH harder for the DM to run, because it means keeping track ofthings that are going on in other places, all the time. One of thedrawbacks is that it requires trust on the part of the players that the DMis not just making things up to screw them; if the players are suspiciousof the DM, they are likely to conclude that things are unfair. In MyGames: I use a mostly active world. In my last RL campaign, therewere plots unfolding over the course of a year (real time) thathappened entirely off-camera. Plot threads dangled for months beforemaking sense to the PCs. It is completely unreasonable in my game fora player to expect that they necessarily will have access to all of the

events influencing the present. On the other hand, on the small scale,certain encounters will happen only when the heroes enter the area.There's not much point in having wounded herald stumble into thethrone room when the heroes aren't there to hear his message.

4. How much information the players are given. In somegames, all Spot/Listen/Search/Sense Motive checks are rolled by theplayers, and the information earned through a success if given out loud.Players may even be in charge of determining when to make such a

roll, such as by saying, "I want to make a Spot check," and then rollingit. In other games, the DM rolls checks in secret and passes notes backand forth (or otherwise communicates) with the people who succeeded.In the latter type of game, the players with low Spot and Listen scoreswill probably feel like things are jumping out of the bushes all the timeat them and they have no chance to see them. But, then, that wouldprobably be how the character feels too! This too requires trustbetween the players and DM; if the players don't believe the DM istrustworthy, they will assume he fudged all rolls that led to theirsurprise. In My Games: The only time I don't use the note method is

when it is something that is about to be irrelevant anyway, suchsomeone springing from the bushes in such a way that he can't possiblybe hidden afterwards. It is the responsibility of the players to eithershare or not share information they get from such notes.

5. Whether or not NPCs fight logically and in according withtheir backgrounds and mental ability scores.In some games,


3/123

monsters pretty much charge the PCs and try to just beat them down.Every time. Normal human warriors fight to the death over anysituation. In other games, the monsters use every advantage they haveto ensure their own survival: terrain, cover, concealment, escape,

treachery, deception, flanking, the 5-foot-step, reach, feat selection,even surrender are all part of the NPC's bag of potential tricks,assumingthey are smart enough to figure them out. If a creature has amissile weapon, they will take cover behind something. If they can gethigher ground, they will. If they can run with their lives, they will. And ifthey can get reliable advance notice of the arrival of the PCs, they willuse all of these advantages and more. According to one theory of war,in a standard battle, the defender chooses where and the attackerchooses when. An ambush, however, is when one side accidentallyallows the other side to choose where AND when, and it is usually a

slaughter. In My Games: NPCs do not want to die, and will do whatthey can to prevent it. PCs are encouraged to think the same wayrather than walking into battle after battle. If you're not taking cover,you are saying, "I am OK with being shot at."

6. Whether NPCs are just extensions of the DM's will orspeak for themselves. Often, players assume that if an allied NPCsays something, it must be information that the DM is trying to impartto the players. In more roleplaying-intensive games, however, the NPC

will have his own hopes, dreams, and desires that may even directlycontradict what the DM wants. In My Games: NPCs tend to say whatthey are thinking, not what I am thinking. Often, I have NPCs bring uppoints that are deliberately false (though the NPC doesn't know this) asa way of helping the players "shake out" false leads from a mystery.During my last game, I was blessed to have two NPCs with entirelyconflicting viewpoints: a battle-hungry warrior and a pacifist cleric(later, this conveniently switched to an enchantress and a warrior-cleric). I was able to have them present two opposing viewpoints onany situation that would then have to be judged by the players through

the filter of their personalities and knowledge. Thus, I was helping theplayers by giving them things to think about while still not handingthem the answer.

7. Whether or not the game is fair. For some DMs, beingimpartial is more important than having the story go the way they want.For others, the story is King and they will bend the rules as they see fit


4/123

in order to let their villain escape or to capture the PCs. In MyGames: I divorce myself from the plot when I am making game ruledecisions. Whether or not I want the bad guy to get away, if you comeup with a way to stop him and succeed, he will be stopped. That being

said, it is entirely appropriate for the villain to have means to stop youfrom preventing his escape, and I won't hesitate to give intelligentvillains those means when I am statting them.

8. How much the players talk to each other. This one doesn'tinvolve the DM at all. Some players will turn and share every scrap ofinformation their character gets with the rest of the party, while otherswill hoard their secrets until the perfect dramatic moment. In MyGames: I leave this choice up to my players, but I don't allow oneplayer to get angry with another for keeping secrets.

9. How long players are allowed to argue. In most gamesthere is a point where the DM will no longer allow arguing about therules. Although I have seen games where the players are allowed tocontinue to argue forever: the game falls apart, or the DM caves ineven though he believes he is right. In My Games:A player can argueas long as they continue to present new information. Once they get tothe point where they are restating evidence I have already looked atand rejected, we're moving on.

10. What the intensity level of the game is. What I mean bythis is whether the game is casual or serious. Not that it can't be funnyand serious; what I'm saying is, does the DM expect the players to caredeeply about what is going on, or is the game largely a social activity?Will the players keep track of things that happened last session on theirown? Will they mentally turn the latest ongoing mystery over and overin the shower five days later? Or will they forget the name of the citythey are in five minutes after they are told it? An intense game can be avery rewarding experience, but it is also a lot of work. Not everyone

enjoys putting that much energy into their game. The problem is, thesegames can only come to life when all the players are on board. In MyGames: I only DM intense games. Or rather, I always try to make mygames intense. I want to play the emotions of my players like a fineviolin. I want to spin a tale of such scope that it begins to invade myplayer's dreams. I have had varying degrees of success; I know thereare people reading this who will have immediate visceral reaction to the


5/123

name "Goldblade." And my campaigns definitely invade my life; I keep atape recorder by my bed because I got tired of losing perfect plot twistsI thought up as I fell asleep.

What is Texture?

Welcome to the first in a series of articles about improving yourroleplaying experience by adding texture to your game. What do I meanwhen I use the term "texture"? I'm talking about all of the little detailsthat add up to create a complete description. Texture is the color of asword's hilt, the sound of distant thunder, or the smell of baked pies asone passes through a village. It's knowing the reason why the villain isso villainous, and hinting at secrets that are never revealed. Everythingthat makes the world feel like a place where people live, rather than

just an exercise in problem-solving.

Chances are you already have some texture in your game. If youare running a pre-published adventure or world, there are almostcertainly many little details that you normally don't see in your self-generated adventures. And that is really the point of these articles: toallow you to add enough texture into your game so that your playerswon't notice the difference between a store-bought adventure and ahomebrew.

I use the word "texture" for these details because for me, they arethe difference between a flat, predictable description and one that isalive and vibrant. When adding details to your game, your goal shouldbe to have enough volume so that the descriptions blur together into apatina of verbal imagery. Texture cannot exist in a vacuum; if one partof an image has texture and the remainder does not, it will be obvious.Players should not be able to pick out what is important to their plotbased on the level of detail in your description. For example, pretendyour gamemaster gave you the following description:

You enter the wizard's study. There are some bookcases, a desk, and achair. There are books all over the place, and a single red quill pen, eight

inches in length, stands in a brass pot of ink on the desk.Nine out of ten players will go immediately for the pen. Why?

Because it was the only item in the room truly given texture. The rest of


6/123

the area was painted in only in the broadest of strokes. If thegamemaster was trying to set that quill up as a clue of some kind, hehas now robbed the players of the opportunity to discover that on theirown. Now, consider the following alternative:

You enter the wizard's study. A musty smell fills the air, and swirls of dust

follow you as you move. A pair of oak bookcases sit on opposite sides of theroom, each filled with leather-bound tomes of assorted shades of brown. On the

left bookcase, one shelf has broken, spilling its contents over the shelf below

and the floor. A massive desk, at least seven feet in length, fills the center of theroom, with dozens of tiny brass-handled drawers. A large book lies open on the

desk, near a single red quill pen, eight inches in length, standing in a brass pot

of ink.The gamemaster has given the exact same description of the pen,

but has instead hidden its importance by giving detailed accounts of theroom's furnishings. He knows that the only important clue in the roomis the pen, but the players do not. Their actions will thus deal with theentirety of the room rather than the metagame thinking that would leadthem to the pen. One might decide to check out the broken bookshelf,another might want to check the desk drawers. If they eventually lookat the pen and discover its relevance, they will feel that much more of asense of accomplishment.

This example also illustrates one of the key features of texture: it ismost often irrelevant. In other words, if the players have a mission toaccomplish, most of the texture you put into your descriptions will haveno direct bearing on that mission. But that's the point; if I go to mail myphone bill, the fact that I pass a parked police car on the way to themailbox isn't important. It does, however, tell me something about theimmediate area and what might be going on there. This is why addingtexture to your game creates the illusion of reality; you are basicallygiving players proof that the world is turning with or without them.

Here are 5 simple ways you can add texture to a room or characterdescription:

1. Color: People spend a lot of energy making sure the things theyown are a pleasing color. Anywhere intelligent beings live, there isthe opportunity for changing the color of the walls, the doors, the


7/123

furniture, the upholstery, the curtains, etc. Of course, naturalsettings can also have a bewildering variety of unexpected color.Why talk about a tree when you can talk about a grey-barked treewith yellowish-green leaves?

2.Brokenness: Things break, often. Whether they have beenrepaired or not is a good indicator to the players about the level ofattention a room receives. How well they are fixed might also be aclue; if the bookshelf was propped up with another book butgenerally left broken, it says that the owner doesn't care too much.

3. Juryrigging: Spaces are often not used in the manner for whichthey were designed. People tend to adapt a room or object to thepurpose they require, rather than the crafter's intent. This isespecially true of dungeons, where the current inhabitants almostcertainly did not build the place. Think about how they may have

altered the room's purpose, and what changes they might havemade as a result.

4. Bodily Functions: Living creatures need to eat, sleep, eliminate,and possibly mate. If you set up a monster's lair in a location wherethe occupant cannot realistically achieve all of these needs, it will befar less believable. Likewise, NPCs also need to fulfill thesefunctions, and often at the worst possible time.

5. Scars: Creatures who fight regularly should be scarred, especially ifthey do not have access to healing magic. Scars hint at a story that

the player's don't know; they imply that the creature has lived anentire life up to the point when it appears "on screen". An owlbearwith a jagged scar across its beak is more memorable, and perhapsmore fearsome, than one without.

Those are just my opening thoughts on the subject. Next time, I'lldiscuss breathing life into NPCs by giving them illogical emotionalresponses. In the meantime, why not head to the message board andtell everyone about a bit of description of which you are particularlyproud?

Damn it, Spock!

Last time, I talked about how adding detail to your description canenhance the believability of your game world. Now I'll focus on a veryspecific type of detail: emotional responses.


8/123

If you've played a lot of D&D, you know that most of the time, thesolution to a problem is based in logic. Whether it is the best way tofight a monster or the answer to a riddle, the answers will often fit intoa fairly understandable pattern. Even the process of creating and

advancing a character is a sort of logic problem: How can I make theserules reflect what I want to play? This deeply-rooted foundation of logicis a good thing, but it can lead to one unfortunate tendency: theassumption that the people players meet within the game world operateon a similarly logical level. But in the real world, people often actillogically, driven more by their emotions than any understanding of"how the game works." The goal of this article is to show how you canintroduce seemingly pointless emotional responses in your NPC that cannonetheless be predicted and incorporated into the play experience as aform of texture.

Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I hadintroduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer theworld, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other acentury earlier. When the players discovered that they were workingtogether, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" theyasked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping theother up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that thismust be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to"warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery.This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but itwas completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed toconsider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grownup together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having everylogical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that thevillains were letting their emotional attachment to each other overridestrict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world,

and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the"lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that theyknew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up anambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logicalone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.


9/123

So, how does one create realistic emotional responses? First,remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket. Not even forNPCs. Evil characters can love, good characters can hate. This alone willhelp you add some emotional interest; think of an NPC in your game

and name three things he or she loves enough to die for (or hatesenough to kill for). How about three rules they will never break, orthree laws they feel aren't that important?

Next, realize that NPCs can't read the rulebooks. They don't knowwhat manner of fighting is more efficient (except maybe in the broadestof strokes). They don't know that fighting monsters will gain them XP,which will make them more powerful. They don't know what CR amonster has. They only know their immediate visceral reaction tosomething: Combat is deadly. Magic is strange. Monsters are scary.

Things that feel good aregood, things that feel bad are bad. Ninety-nine percent of the people hope to live their life comfortably enough topass something on to their children.

As a corollary, do not assume that NPCs with PC classes arenecessarily different. In the real world, people with extensive combattraining generally hope they never have to put it to use. In fact, it's notthat much of a stretch to say that to the average 1st level fighter, theexperience and skill that might be gained from battle is not worth thevery real possibility of dying. Remember, the PCs and certain NPCadventurers are the exceptions precisely because they seek out thiskind of thing.

Consider a character's level of comfort. People are far less likely todo something that goes beyond their comfort zone. This doesn'tnecessarily mean that every character is going to balk at getting dirty,for example; for a barbarian, dirt is well within his comfort zone. Publicspeaking, however, may not be. When creating an NPC, you shoulddecide in advance what sorts of things are outside of his comfort zone,

and stick to it during play. Don't allow Diplomacy checks or charmspellsto push someone outside of their zone; the proper result would be tohave the person be very polite and friendly while declining. Intimidatechecks or suggestionmagic may do the trick, but usually carries apenalty to the check involved, and the character in question will resistas much as he is able.


10/123

Also, keep in mind that a character's comfort zone may not makesense to anyone else. A wizard may be uncomfortable summoningcreatures from other planes, despite the fact that he is in no moredanger from summon monster Ithan he is from any of his other spells.

Be careful, though, because players can perceive this sort of thing as ahamfisted attempt at railroading them, even when it isn't. If the playersmeet said wizard, they may well shift into metagame thinking anddecide that the DM must not want them to summon a monster. Like lastlesson's quill example, the players may make an assumption based onthe fact that texture exists in a vacuum.

In order to realistically portray such a comfort zone, then, trycreating a reason why the character has whatever emotional responseyou are giving him. The single best way to do this is through childhood

experience. Following through on the example, if the wizard's father,also a powerful wizard, once lost control of a demon that trashed halftheir home, it makes perfect sense that the character is queasy whendealing with fiends. Of course, he has inflated this event into amoratorium on all summoning spells, but in real life we often go theroute of "better safe than sorry" when dealing with our fears.

OK, list time. I'm going to try to end each article with a list of point-by-point ideas. I think people can digest and use information moreeasily in that format. Now I'll discuss specific emotions and how to addthem into your game:

1. Laziness: For players, it takes just as much energy to say, "I sleepfor 8 hours," as it does to say, "I climb to the top of the hill." ForNPCs, this isn't the case. While truly lazy characters are apossibility, keep in mind that most people are going to be interestedin minimizing the amount of energy expended. A villain, particularlya small-time crook, might abandon the most efficient plan as beingtoo labor-intensive. Instead, he cuts corners; perhaps this laziness

is the only factor that allows the PCs to learn of his plot. And thisisn't alignment-specific; a knight may not be lazy by any stretch,but he may still balk at the resources and time required to enactwhatever elaborate plan is on the table. Just because there are norules on getting tired doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

2. Overconfidence: This is a big one with the villains, and in manycases is key to the concept of a long-term uberpowerful baddie.


11/123

Think about it; if the villain is 25th level, and the players screw uphis minor plan at 3rd level, why not just squash them, then andthere? The reason is often a combination of laziness (above) andoverconfidence. The villain believes that the PCs are incapable of

stopping him, so why expend the effort? Again, remember that thebad guy can't read the rules, doesn't know that the good guys arenecessarily gaining XP and getting stronger with every fight, anddoesn't know that the villains always lose in the end.

3. Family Relations: Consider how your NPC feels about theirparents, siblings, spouses, and children. They may feel a bond oflove that supercedes their alignment, or they may have uttercontempt for them. Any emotional response tends to multiplied byfactor of 100 when dealing with family. Perhaps a villain wants todestroy the world, but needs to find a way to save his family first.

Maybe a good fighter is being manipulated into doing evil becausehis children are being threatened. A villain's entire evil plan may bethe result of nothing more than a burning need to disappoint hisparents!

4. Spontaneous: Players can always think about their actions; evenin the middle of combat, they have the entire time it takes to getback their initiative to decide what the best thing to do is. NPCsdon't have that luxury; play them as if they were being run by aplayer who doesn't get to say, "Wait, no, I do this instead." Their

first decision is usually going to be what thy stick with, even if it isfoolish or inefficient. This should never be more obvious than whena character is in a rage. No, I'm not talking about the barbarianclass ability, I'm referring to a level of anger where we lash outwithout thinking. If you've ever punched a wall, you know what I'mtalking about.

5. Irrational Likes/Fears: This is much like the comfort zone issue(above), but I'm expanding it here to include personal quirks thatcan become interesting traits for even minor characters. Ashopkeeper who collects swords might pay more for a unique bladethan a orc double-axe, even though the axe has the higher bookvalue. A fighter who is afraid of spiders is going to run away from amonstrous one, even if he could kill it in one round. Remember,fear knows no Challenge Rating. Likewise, characters may enjoy aparticular activity even if they know it is dangerous or unhealthy; Idon't think anyone in this nation is under the impression that


12/123

smoking isn't bad for you, but that doesn't stop people from doingit.

6. Stupidity: Sometimes, it's just this simple. People with lowIntelligence scores are incapable of coming up with efficient plans,

and people with low Wisdom scores are incapable of determiningwhether a plan is efficient or not. When players are trying to puzzleout a villain's plan, they will often overthink things, discarding thebad guy's actual plot as being too stupid to be the truth.

Hopefully, this has helped you think about giving your NPCsreactions that are independent of their function in the campaign. Thesepeople are supposed to be living, breathing characters with an internallife that the players can't know about, and your world will be morevibrant if they act as if they do.

Next time: I'll put some of these tips to use in a step-by-steptutorial on making a three-dimensional villain for your game.

Villain Workshop

Today we're going to talk about villains. When I say the word"villain," I mean a very specific kind of antagonist. Generally, I'm talkingabout character that not only serves an adversary, but also does sorepeatedly, either in person or through his or her secondary influence.

Villains usually have an ongoing agenda beyond, "I want to survive mynext fight with the heroes." In other words, the ogre in the cave thatyou fight is not a villain, but the ogre who swears revenge on theheroes for killing his brother in the cave is.

Creating villains is easy; we've all seen enough movies to be able towhip up a threatening guy in a black cloak who wants to conquer theworld. This article is about creating villains that go beyond stereotypesand clichs, and who are fully realized characters with their own internal

logic and emotional depth. It also deals with ways to keep every villainyou make from accidentally having the same modus operandi; you canonly throw your players against so many evil clerics of evil gods whohate everything good and pure before it starts to get stale!

In the interest of making this easy for anyone to use, I'm going togo through a step-by-step procedure for creating a villain for your own


13/123

campaign. Along the way, I will use a single example from my owncampaign: the Fire King, a half-devil elf sorcerer/fighter.

Step X: What is the villain's race or class? I am putting this firstnot because I think it should necessarily be the first thing determined,but because there is no "right" time to make this choice. Sometimes,the villain will flow out of the choice of creature, other times thecreature type will flow out of the villainous plot you have created.Often, you will determine bits and pieces of this as you go through theother steps.

The Fire King began as a half-fiend of some kind, but other thanthat, I had no preconceptions when I began working on him as to hiseventual stats.

Step 1: Start with two emotions. I really believe all great charactersbegin with one emotion that drives them. By choosing this first, youmake sure your villain will stay true to the very reason he became avillain in the first place. It's kind of a cop out after a while to havevillains who are just evil for evil's sake; somethinghad to drive them tobe evil in the first place. Options for their primary driving emotion mightinclude Anger, Angst, Greed, Jealousy, Lust, Hatred, Regret, Revenge,Shame, and Sorrow. Feel free to narrow these down as much aspossible to get to the core of the villain's persona: Anger is fairly broad;Resentment is a much more specific emotion. Don't forget that"positive" emotions (such as Love or Honor) might lead to villainy aswell, if taken too far.

But I did say TWO emotions. So what's the second one? Theemotion you intend to inspire in your players when they encounter thevillain. Not all villains need to be universally loathed by the heroes, andeven those that are often have that loathing colored by anotheremotion.

The Fire King began with the driving emotion of Shame, with agood mix of Insecurity and Revenge. He was created from thebeginning to inspire stark raving Terror in the players.

Step 2: What events in the villain's past brought about thisemotion? Whatever emotion you picked, there must be a reason thevillain feels that way. It does not need to be necessarily logical, and it


14/123

certainly does not need to be something you personally agree with. Infact, often the villains I create will personify an emotional response thatI specifically find inappropriate. Part of the fun for me is creatingcharacters with a "twist" away from the expected reaction to the events

in their past. Still, it needs to at least be consistent with responses thatmight be natural for someone, somewhere. The goal is to create ahistory that sounds reasonable when you read it, but might not becompletely obvious when bits and pieces are uncovered over the courseof the campaign.

I decided that the Fire King was ashamed of his half-breed status.The twist was that rather than being embarrassed for being half-fiend,he was embarrassed because he was half-something else. In his eyes,he didn't live up to the legacy of his father, a powerful fiend of some

kind, because he was half-mortal. Without getting into specifics, Idecided that he had been through at least one traumatic childhoodmeeting with other full-blooded fiends, where he was ridiculed or evenattacked for his hybrid nature. I also decided that both of his parentswere deceased, since it made it easier to give him that "alienated"status.

Step 3: What is the villain's scale? Decide on what level you wantthe villain's actions to have repercussions. Is this a villain that will onlyharass the heroes and their immediate friends? Is this a villain thatthreatens a nation? Is it a villain that threatens all of existence? Theanswer will depend on how often you want this villain's actions tointerject into the campaign. If the entire campaign is an epic struggleagainst this villain, chances are he's going to need to have a scalegreater than just one village. On the other hand, the greater the scale,the more likely powerful NPCs will take notice of the villain, and itbecomes more difficult to justify them not swooping in to aid theheroes. This question will also help decide what Challenge Rating youshould assign to the villain.

The Fire King was intended as the primary villain for the entirecampaign (which ended up lasting 38 sessions). I decided he worked ona scale that threatened the entire world, but not every other plane ofexistence.


15/123

Step 4: What is the villain's goal? Every villain needs a final goal,no matter how grand or insignificant. Keeping in mind the villain's scale,determine what he wants to see happen. It can be as simple as wantingto be very wealthy, wanting to kill a specific person, or wanting to seize

as much power as possible. Many goals are completely unattainable,such as winning a specific person's admiration or being the mostpowerful wizard anywhere. The villain can still cause a lot of heartachefor the heroes on the path towards that goal, though. Remember thatthe villain only needs to believetheir goal is attainable; it is necessarythat it actually be so.

I determined that the Fire King ultimately wanted to live up to hisfather's expectations, as well as come to dominate the full-bloodedfiends who mocked him. Therefore, his final goal was to seize control of

his home plane, Hell.

Step 5: What does the villain need in order to be able toachieve this goal? In order to devise an appropriate plan, it is crucialto understand what the villain thinks he needs in order to pull off the"end stage" of the plot. If the villain wants to destroy the multiverse, heneeds to have some source of power that allows this. If the villainwants to drive the gnomes out of Sunlight Valley, she needs somethingthat will make the gnomes want to leave. By visualizing what resourcesthe villain needs in order to make the goal a reality, you firm up whatsteps the villain will need to take along the way. Note there will almostcertainly be multiple paths to accomplish the goal, so your villain haschosen either a.) only one, or b.) to enact multiple simultaneous plansas a failsafe.

Often, the means to accomplish the goal will be fairly esoteric; feelfree to make up whatever powerful artifact, lost magic, or obscure ritualyou need to give the villain the tools he needs. These are the thingsthat the players will need to stop, or delay, or what have you, and fromthere, adventures will be easily derived. You can also break the goal

into several "subgoals," each with its own requirements.

The Fire King determined that he needed virtually unlimited magicalpower to accomplish his goal; at least as much power as that of thecurrent rulers of Hell combined. To that end, he learned of a ritual toabsorb all of the world's magical energy. The ritual had very stringentrequirements: it could only be undertaken by a sorcerer who was


16/123

genetically unique in the world and a native to that plane, but a mortalcould not survive the inherent energies involved. As a native outsider,however, the Fire King was uniquely suited to the task. I would laterdecide, due to the high level of coincidence that this created, that his

father had spawned him specifically to serve as the focus for this ritualas part of an older, failed domination plot.

Step 6: What obstacles must the villain overcome? The easyanswer here is, "the heroes," but it isn't the right answer. The fact is,the heroes won't even know to oppose the villain until they encountersome other part of the plan. There needs to be something (anything)standing between the villain and his goals, or else they will be achievedwith no chance for interference on the part of the heroes. Since yourgoal is to create opportunities for conflict, that won't fly.

Once you establish the obstacle, you can then go back to Step 5and determine what steps need to be taken to overcome that obstacle.Then back to Step 6 for what obstacles are in the way of those steps.And so on and so forth, until you have enough steps to flesh out a fullyrealized plan of action.

The big stumbling block for the Fire King was the line in his ritualabout being "unique." I decided being a half-fiend wasn't sufficient; heneeded for his base creature type to be the only one in existence.Obviously, that was not the case currently. His solution, then, wassomewhat grandiose but befitting the scale I had chosen for him: slayall creatures of the same base type, everywhere.

It was at this point that I decided he would be half elf, half devil.The elves in my campaign world are somewhat unpleasant, and I likedthe idea of one villain trying to wipe out a race that others would findinherently villainous in the first place. Plus, it set up another automaticobstacle: there were certainly plenty of high-level elven wizards walkingaround the world, meaning that the Fire King could not simply start

slaughtering elves left and right without attracting their attention.

Step 7: What is the villain's primary means of projectinginfluence? The final step before setting down the villain's ultimate planis to decide what sort of actions he or she prefers to take to set thingsin motion. Is the villain a manipulator, turning others to his end withouttheir knowledge? Is he a leader, convincing others to side with him


17/123

through strength of personality? Does she use her own personal powerto accomplish her ends or does she rely on others to do her dirty work?Does he move openly or in secret?

The Fire King was primarily a manipulator. While I decided he wouldbe a very powerful sorcerer by this point, he was aware that if hemoved openly with his plan for genocide, the heroes who would actagainst him would number in the dozens (or hundreds). He could notstand against that kind of power, so he worked to turn those who wouldinterfere with his plan against one another, whittling down their poweruntil it was safe to reveal himself.

Step 8: What are the villain's resources? This step's importancecannot be underestimated. If the villain has infinite resources available,

they are essentially omnipotent. Limiting the people, places, and thingsthe villain can successfully use to enact his will leads directly toadventures, because the villain must then use these resources in such away that allows him or her to acquire more. Don't forget to includeabstract resources, such as "genius-level intelligence" or "knowledge ofthe future."

I decided quickly that I would differentiate the Fire King from otherstereotypical villains by sharply limiting his starting resources. This wasnot to be a villain with an entire organization fanatically backing him;this was a guy with the equivalent of the shirt on his back. I listed hisresources as the following:

Genius-level intelligence and a fine strategic mind Superb leadership and deception skills The power of a 12th level Red Sorcerer (that is, mostly fire-oriented

spells), including appropriate magic items. The ability to pass in elven society without being detected as

anything other than an elf, even via magic.

The inherent tension between the human and elven civilizations, aresult of centuries of enslavement in the distant past. Also, thenatural dissatisfaction of the elves with the state of the world.

A handful of minor devils who had owed loyalty to his father andwere willing to throw their lot in with the son as well.

His sister, another half-devil elf, with the skills of a 9th level rogueand a knack for seduction.


18/123

As the campaign began, he also reestablished the loyalty of anotherpowerful villain, with his own elaborate backstory, that had worked withhis father. While he later came to manipulate large armies of elves, Ididn't count these as true resources because the elves were not part of

his plot; they were the victims of his plot.Step 9: If no heroes were to interfere, what would the villain'splan to achieve this goal be? Now that you know all of the goalsthat need to be accomplished and the primary means by which thevillain intends to do exactly that, you can set down the villain's plan inloose terms. Try to not take into account the specific actions of theplayers; even if the villain hatches his plot with full knowledge of theheroes, he is unlikely to assume that they will defeat him. It is entirelylikely, however, that he might take general steps to limit their

interference.This step is likely to produce the most work, because in effect it is

an outline of the way in which the villain will interact with the heroesand the campaign world. The villain's plan might have dozens of stepsto it, and each may turn into one or more adventures for the players. Ifyou find the plot has more steps than the number of times you wouldlike this villain to show up, simply decide that the villain has alreadyaccomplished one or more steps before the heroes are even in play.Alternately, you could have some steps occur "off-camera," but you run

the risk of the heroes deciding to take steps to stop them when youreally haven't planned to run that particular adventure.

The Fire King's plan began years before the heroes beganadventuring. Finding his greatest asset to be his ability to work withinthe very society he was attempting to wipe out, the Fire King spent 20years infiltrating the house of an elven noble, until such time as hequietly seized control of the elf's noble title. With this title, he was ableto attend gatherings of the elven emperor's court, where he quicklymade a name for himself with several outspoken opinions that he used

his other resources to make happen exactly as he had predicted. TheFire King further endeared himself to the boy-emperor by introducinghim to his half-fiend sister, who easily seduced the young elf. Soon, theemperor began listening to the Fire King's advice almost exclusively,and then the plan moved into high gear.


19/123

Whispering lies into the emperor's ears, the Fire King convinced himthat the empire needed to recover past glories or die out. He begangathering and training a new elven army, which he then used to lashout at the neighboring humans, destroying border towns and killing

hundreds. The emperor was easily impressed by these early victories,and ordered the invasion of a nearby human nation. The Fire Kingmanipulated events so that only "soft" targets were attacked, lulling theelven court into believing that a full-scale war against humans could bewon when he knew that the human nations were more powerful. Hetook control of the invading armies personally, urging elvencommanders to commit horrible atrocities that would incense othernations. In this way, the Fire King hoped to provoke the humans intoslaughtering the elves for him, thus achieving his goal.

Meanwhile, he began personally seeking out and eliminating threatsto the plan. While the drums of war began to beat between the humansand the elves, he struck at various power centers on either side thatmight be able to bring the rush to war to a halt. It was through thesestrikes that the heroes learned of him and his plans. Had nothing goneawry, the Fire King would have struck down or manipulated those withan interest in stopping the war, allowing the humans and elves to fightit out in a bloody war to the end. Eventually, the Fire King would havebeen able to simply mop up the surviving elves and enact the ritual that

allowed him to seize all magical power in the world. With this power athis command, he could transform the planet into a training ground foran army of billions with which he could conquer Hell.

Step 10: What are the villain's boundaries? There should be atleast one thing the villain is not willing to do to achieve his goals. Theymay have a code of honor, or simply have a strong distaste for somekind of act. This detail will give your villain a realistic feel, as well ascrossing off certain options that might be difficult for the heroes toeliminate through their actions. For example, the villain may be

unwilling to traffic with demons, which helps you explain why he doesn'tjust summon a bunch of balors to do his dirty work.

The Fire King was intensely loyal to his friends. Growing up asbasically an outcast wherever he went, he was not about to throw awayfriendships over something as minor as world domination. Thus, he was


20/123

not ever going to betray anyone who was within his inner circle ofconfidence, and he did not consider any of them expendable.

Step 11: What is the villain's personal threat level? In otherwords, is the villain a danger to the heroes if encountered personally?How much of a danger? Some villains might be just puppeteers, capableof influencing the world but unable to stand up in a fight; think of thisas the "Lex Luthor" model. Others might be equal in power to the party,while still others may be so much more powerful than the party that adirect confrontation would be suicide. This last option is ideal if youwant the players to become aware of the villain long before you expectthem to defeat him.

The Fire King was a serious physical threat by any standard. When

first encountered, he wreaked such destruction on a village that furtherencounters with him prompted the heroes to simply run away. As thecampaign progressed, he gained in power but at a slower rate than theheroes, so that by about the time the heroes were 12th level, he was abeatable (but still very difficult) challenge. Often, I put their encountersin the context not of direct combat, but of achieving goals. The heroesonce managed to rescue an NPC that was about to rat out the FireKing's plans by being able to outrun him, for example.

Step 12: How does the villain treat his minions? How do theminions feel about the villain? Not all villains inspire loyalty to thedeath. Giving the villain servants who are less than blindly obedient canincrease the opportunity for roleplaying, as heroes try to convincehenchmen to abandon their evil ways (or at least accept a healthybribe). Whether or not the villain treats them well will influence thisdecision heavily. A villain who sends his servants on suicide missionstime after time had better be powerful or charismatic enough to ensuretheir absolute obedience, or else he will find himself on the wrong endof a mutiny.

I had already determine that the Fire King had a good relationshipwith his true allies, so this step was kind of redundant for him. AlthoughI did clarify that he was willing (in fact, eager) to send as many of theelven soldiers serving in his army to their horrible deaths as he could.


21/123

Step 13: What are the villain's visual quirks? A good villain has alook that will be remembered long after the campaign is over. Once theplayers are aware of the villain, further direct encounters should berecognizable solely based on his look. Try finding things that distinguish

him from others of his race and class. Also, methods of fighting andpreferred tactics can add to the villain's style. Using a unique weapon ora favorite spell not only flesh out the character, it gives the players theopportunity to plan a countermeasure for their next meeting with thevillain. The character thus becomes a part of their world in afundamental way.

The Fire King, as his name implies, always used fire-basedevocations when attacking. Because he was immune to fire himself, heenjoyed casting fireballas a melee spell. He also wore black adamantine

full plate armor while doing so, which terrified the more metagaming-prone players. They spent a lot of energy figuring out how he was ableto cast arcane spells in armor, which kept him alive in their thoughtseven when he was not "on-screen".

Step 13a: What would the villain's theme music sound like? OK,this one really isn't a necessary step, but it's one that helps me imaginethe villain properly. Whether you intend to actually play it during thegame or not, come up with a song or orchestral piece that evokes theemotional impact of the villain. I've found that playing the song formyself before I DM a game where the villain makes an appearancehelps me roleplay him.

If you've ever played Final Fantasy 8, you have heard the FireKing's theme music. I chose the theme from one of that game's earlyvillains (Edea, who later becomes a friend) as the Fire King's themebecause I felt it represented the right mixture of cunning manipulationand raw personal power. As the driving force behind a massive elvenarmy that was marching to its untimely end, the piece's chanting helped

convey to me a sense of impending doom. To this day, I think of theFire King when I hear it, not Final Fantasy 8.

Step 14: What is the villain's escape plan? This is semi-optionaltoo, but if you intend to have the players encounter a villain repeatedlywithout a decisive victory, you need to think about it. I cannotemphasize, however, that such a plan needs to be keeping within the


22/123

rules of the game AND within the villain's reasonable expectations forthe future, or else your player's will cry foul. Just having the villain runaway and not letting the players follow feels cheap. On the other hand,if your villain is a powerful wizard, making sure he prepares at least

one teleportfor those sticky situations is not only helpful; anything lesswould be foolhardy. Even then, it is usually helpful to have such anemergency plan come with a price: the villain must abandon his goal orone of resources to save his own skin. Thus, even when he escapes, theheroes have earned a victory.

Early in the game, the Fire King was so much more powerful thanthe heroes that he didn't run from them, they ran from him. As timewent on, he learned to teleport away once he could no longeraccomplish his goal.

Step 15: What is the villain's name? Trickier said than done,coming up with a good name can make or break a villain. Anything thatcan be easily mocked will lessen his impact. Anything too complex willlower the chance that the players can remember it, and they can't fearwhat they can't remember. Ideally, a good name should inspire respect.Also, give some thought as to when you will reveal the villain's name;during their first meeting, or at some later point?

I decided at this point that this character didn't need a name asmuch as he needed a title; a self-proclaimed station to attempt to liveup to. With his inherent embarrassment over his elven blood, he wouldseek to escape from whatever name he had been given by his mortalmother and forge a new identity for himself. Hence, I named him theFire King, which I thought had the right sense of dominance withoutactually being a real title. Of course, this was his name for himself, andhe used a different title when among the elves. Early on, the heroeshad no idea what his name was at all, and referred to him simply as theRed Wizard (they didn't know he was a sorcerer) for months.

By this point, you should have a very good idea of who your villainis and what he needs to do in your game. With all of the plotting youhave done so far, you should have created the rough framework fromwhich you can build a series of adventures without having any foregoneconclusions or railroading. By understanding the villain and his aims,you can have him or her organically alter their plans based on how the


23/123

heroes manage to thwart sections of it, all without pre-ordaining theoutcome.

As a way of working further on these issues, I'm going to go andcreate a completely new villain over on the message board, using thischecklist as a guide. If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you toenter the Villain Design Contest I am going to hold on the messageboard; feel free to use either these guidelines or your own methods tocome up with the most badass bad guy ever.

Next time, I'll talk about texture for players (rather than DMs), alsoknown as "How to Have Seven Classes and Have Each of Them MakeSense."

Making the Tough Decisions

Since this series was originally conceived as a series for DMs, I wasthinking "Texture for Players" would be a one-article subject. But as Igot into it, I started to see more and more ways that a little extrathought about your character can improve the game. So I'm going tostart here with a few thoughts about making decisions. Really, that's90% of what a player does in a roleplaying game; he or she makesdecisions. But too often, players fall into the mistaken belief that certaindecisions are not really theirs to make, or are foregone conclusions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two ways in whichyou can always choose for your character to act differently, which willadd an extra level of realism and fun to your game.

Throw Caution to the Wind: One of the most common problemsI see is when a player thinks of "roleplaying" as what you do during adiplomacy scene, completely separated from what you do duringcombat. Bzzz! Wrong answer. Everything you do, when talking or whenswinging your sword, is roleplaying. A well-developed character will

have a fighting style that extends beyond his selection of feats, and willhave a consistent and believable response to any obstacle theyencounter. If you turn off your character's personality just because thedice come out, you are missing out on a whole range of roleplayingpossibilities that would add depth to your character.


24/123

A good place to start when thinking about your character's combatroleplaying style is to consider what your character thinks of as an"acceptable loss." Does your character balk at the thought of beingwounded, running to the cleric whenever he's hit, or does he stand in

melee long after he probably should have withdrawn? Is his focus onstaying alive at all costs, or defeating the enemy no matter what? Thiscould partly be determined by alignment, but a particularly stubborncharacter might fight to the bitter end despite being Neutral.

Another choice concerns how willing he is to use renewable (ornonrenewable) resources, such as spells, potions, scrolls, wand charges,rage uses, etc. He may have a cavalier attitude, feeling the party willalways be able to rest or restock, or he might never use any resource ifhe can win a fight without it. A barbarian, for example, might rage as

soon as he sees a tough band of foes, or he might wait until he iswounded and could use the extra hit points. The choice reflects hispersonality: if he saves his rage, he might be a cautious pessimist whoknows that things always get worse, but if he rages right away, he maybe saying that he is confident that the heroes will win quickly. If he's aspellcaster, does he liberally burn a spell every round, even in an easybattle, or does he miserly save his spells for desperate situations? Asorcerer who revels in his magic and flaunts it at every opportunityprobably falls into the former category, while a greedy wizard who

covets all magical knowledge might be the latter.

What these issues boil down to is how cautious the character is.Caution is at once very important and entirely overrated. It is importantfor players to be interested in the imaginary world and be invested intheir characters' lives. But at the same time, too often players letcaution overwhelm them, spending hours carefully proceeding in acalculated manner that may well belay their characters' statedpersonalities. The key, then, is to forget about succeeding. Your goal asa player in a roleplaying game is not to succeed; your goal is to have

fun. An entertaining defeat is better than a boring victory, so let go ofthe need to always take the most effective route every time, and trytaking the route your character would, even at great cost to thatcharacter.

Obviously, that's hard to do. There's a natural desire to do well, andreally, your character doeswant to succeed every time. The key is to


25/123

separate in your mind what your character thinks from what you think.That's how you add texture, by giving your character views on how toproceed in battle that are different than your views. Your character willtake every advantage that he or she perceives, but you, as the player,

have the benefit of determining what sort of advantages are within yourcharacter's perception.

Some examples might help. I recently finished a year-longcampaign playing a samurai. On the very first adventure, the child thesamurai was supposed to guard was kidnapped, and as one mightexpect, Isawa Shojo was willing to sacrifice anything to get him back.Now, the DM had set up this long series of tunnels that were trappedrepeatedly. I ran right into the first trap, because we didn't know anybetter. Once we knew the tunnel was trapped, the prevailing opinion

was to slow down and have the party rogue search for traps. At thispoint, though, I made a decision that would more or less define mycharacter's reaction to danger: I kept running down thehall, knowingthat there were more traps. As a player, I knew this wasprobably a Bad Idea, but I decided that my honorable samurai felt thatgetting hit with the trap was acceptable when weighed against the needto hurry. He reasoned that even if the traps killed him, he would havesprung the traps and allowed his allies to get to the end safely. Byhaving him react without caution, I was able to show that he was a

man who was willing to sacrifice his life for his duty. As the campaigncontinued, Isawa often ran headfirst into danger, not because he wasfoolish, but because he was willing to die if it meant success for histeam.

A caveat, however: if you decide to play a character who takes risksor acts rashly, you should let yourself get talked out of it from time totime by the more level-headed characters. Isawa, for example, oftensuggested wildly inappropriate courses of action, which the far morecautious paladin Adhemar would convince me to not enact. Throwing

caution to the wind is fun once in a while, but if done during everyencounter, it gets annoying to the other players.

Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party breakdown into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has acharacter ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often,intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my


26/123

character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's acommon reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to backdown. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently.You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entitywith reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many timesI've heard a player state that their character's actions are not undertheir control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first.It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that isconsistent but also accommodating of the characters the other playerswish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way

my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Tryto refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflictwith your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc.This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession toyour fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bardlifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Goodmonk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallenknights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, thebard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed;it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle,and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attackedhim (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolenthe sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, anddeclared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bardhad to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument betweencharacters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk didnot have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be

angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had alreadysuffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghostrepeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture thebard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose tocreate player conflict when it was just as easy to not.


27/123

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin classcreated the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictatethe morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, playerswho select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to

them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the partylets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tellanother player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be,and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other playerswhether they want them or not.

Another useful application of this concept involves accepting storyhooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn'tinterested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for goodroleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality.

Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screechinghalt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why yourcharacter wouldbe interested in a plot. After all, your personality isentirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why theadventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esotericor roundabout the reasoning.

If the paladin is to blame for the last problem, this one belongs tothe druid. Druids have such a specific set of principles that players oftenmistake them for being a free pass to demand that each adventurerevolve around their goals. Raiding a dungeon for gold doesn't appealto the druid mindset, so what are you to do if you play one and arepresented with that goal? You improvise. Maybe the gold will enableyou to purchase magic items that will let you protect the wilderness.Maybe the ruins contain unnatural monsters that need to be killedregardless of the treasure. Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are yourfriends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often thatlast part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spentthe night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked.

So if you're really paying attention, you may be thinking, "Hey,don't those two points contradict one another? First he says to separatewhat your character thinks from what you think, but then he says yourcharacter doesn't have its own reactions." Well, no. Separate yourcharacter's thoughts from your own thoughts, but don't forget who is incontrol of both personalities. The division between your personality and


28/123

that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once itbegins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter hisor her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end,your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living

room with are more important than your character's internalconsistency.

OK, so I originally said this article would be about backgrounds, butit ended up about something else. Next time, I promise.

The New World, Part 1: Purpose and Style

This is the start of a new project to create a campaign setting, fromscratch, in full view of you, my loyal readers. The idea is not only to

craft a complete setting that can be used by others but to also show thedecisions and processes that go into a final product. This will essentiallybe a sort of "design diary" of my thoughts and choices, written in a sortof semi-stream-of-consciousness format; you will get to see meconsider and discard each idea, and I will talk about my reasoning aswe go.

So, where to start when building a world? That's a big question, onethat I can think be answered by looking at what my goals are. As I seeit, there are two main reasons to create a new fantasy RPG world:

either to use with your local gaming group, or to publish (howeverlimited that publication ends up being). They are not mutually exclusive;publishing a product does not in any way keep you from running it foryour group, for example. But they do tend to suggest differentapproaches to the problem.

If you are focused primarily on running a good campaign with youractual players, you will be more concerned with the small scale than thelarge. It will be more important to have one city or nation well defined

than it will be to have an overriding theme to the world. Local rumors,individual characters, and adventure hooks will take precedence overother considerations, You can also use a build-as-you-go method,developing a region only as your players move into it.

Building a world for publication, on the other hand, is a wholedifferent thing. You need to look at the large-scale issues early on,


29/123

because they will define the nature of the world and how it differs fromother products. Cosmology, geography, and history are important facetsof a published world, even if the players who actually adventure in thatworld are only going to be tangentially aware of them. You will need to

also consider how much you can borrow from other worlds, as well ashow close your world is to those already published by companies with alot more resources than to which you have access. Creating a worlddefined by the struggle between good and evil dragons is fine for yourlocal group, but a stranger may look at it and think, "Oh, it's a knock-offof Dragonlance."

For my purposes, I'm going to assume this world will be forpublication, even if that eventually only means a PDF you can downloadfrom my site. Basically, I'm going to start from the top and move down

from there. This is how I generally prefer to work anyway, because Ihave always found that once you have made the big decisions, thesmall decisions trickle into place themselves. I imagine the informationto be like a tree, where the twigs need to grow from the largerbranches, the branches need to grow from the boughs, and the boughsneed to grow from the trunk of the tree. If you have a solid concept atthe outset, you can make sure that all your details flow organically fromthat original idea, rather than trying to shoehorn odd ideas in at a laterpoint.

The question is, what is that core concept? There are a couple oldstandbys, chief among them the idea of the "Overriding Story;" in otherwords, an ongoing conflict that sets the tone and defines the entireworld. There is one Big Evil out there that is the source of all theproblems. Personally, I don't care for this method for an RPG setting.Invariably, you end up with a situation where the players either achievevictory and thus alter the entire setting, or can never achieve victoryand thus are superfluous. I believe that in order to be a compellingsetting for an ongoing game, the setting has to support multiple villains

with varied goals and unrelated plots. If you create a setting with onevillain, you are really making a campaign, not a campaign setting. As acorollary, there aren't going to be any novels set in this world, so I donot need to create any iconic adventurers that might serve toaccidentally eclipse the player characters-this would be the "ElminsterProblem," which I hope to nip in the bud right now.


30/123

Having rejected the Overarching Story, I still need a general sort ofplan to proceed. Looking at some of the other successful campaignsettings in existence, it's easy to see that those without a strong plotlineusually have a compellingly different style. They have significantly

altered the core fantasy roleplaying experience in some manner todifferentiate themselves from the same old, same old. Some have wildlydifferent climates, levels of technology, magic systems, cosmologies,etc. Without such a stylistic difference, a setting is just different for thesake of being different. If you are working on the theory that a settingis going to be published, you have to accept that attempting to breakinto the market with "Established Setting X, Only Better" is a sucker'sbet. Just adding a few idiosyncratic preferences will not move yourworld, because any DM could do the same thing. A medieval high-magicfantasy setting with active gods and all of the default races and classes

is a sure path to obscurity, because it is the same thing as ForgottenRealms. Make your world a different choice; make sure that no one whoflips through it will ever mistake it for another setting.

So I'm looking for style now. And don't confuse "style" with"gimmick." Making your world "Greyhawk, but on a giant tree" is kind ofsilly. Better to consider what sort of world might really evolve on a gianttree.

Sorry, got sidetracked. Style. Well, I know I don't want to increasethe basic technology level; I'm a little tired of steampunk. Not only hasIron Kingdoms done it so well, but Wizard's new Eberron setting has aRenaissance-level of technology anyway. For that matter, so doesIllumination, my existing home campaign setting. In fact, I may want toregress the technology a bit-go with Dark Ages instead of highmedieval. Cut out the full plate armor and crossbows in favor of chainmail and bows. It's a thought, but not enough to hang the world on. I'llcome back to it later.

How about the physical nature of the world? This one is a bit of atrap, because it may lead to the gimmick I mentioned above. When Icreated my world of Illumination way back, it was a cube. I thoughtthat was unbelievably clever when I was 15. Now, I look at it andwonder how I could confuse a cheap flashy quirk for real substance. Sowhile it may end up that the physical world is not a standard planet, Ithink I'll let that flow from the core concept later, if necessary.


31/123

There's climate, but there have been multiple desert-worldspublished already. I already have a world I created, called SteelDreams, that takes place during an Ice Age, so I don't want to duplicatethat work. I've seen at least one third party world (or was it just a

website?) detailing a world that was one giant forest. I could do an all-underwater world; it would be unique, but I think ultimately tooconstraining. Both as a writer and as a DM; committing to 30+ gamesunderwater for a full campaign does not seem like that much fun.Frankly, those are the only climate-based ideas I can come up with, so Iguess I'll discard climate.

How about a setting that breaks some of the underlyingassumptions of the D&D system? This is another tricky idea because itpotentially creates some problems with the players themselves. If you

eliminate too many of the things players expect to see when they sitdown to play the game, you make the learning curve for your settingmuch higher. Still, there are so many assumptions made in D&D that itis probably safe to trash a few of them. I'll make a list of, say, 10assumptions that are usually true if you follow the core rules.

1. Humans dominate the world.2. Gods are real and active.3. Magic is real and can be used by anyone who learns it.4. Opposite alignments fight each other.5.Arcane and divine magic are inherently separate.6. The wilderness is separate enough from the cities to justify 3

wilderness-oriented classes.7. There are hundreds of intelligent species of creatures, but 99% of

them are considered "monsters".8.Arcane magic is impersonal and requires no "deal" with a

supernatural being.9. Beings from other planes of existence try to influence the mortal

world, usually on behalf of gods/alignments.

10. Magic items are assumed to be available, and game balanceproceeds from that assumption.

11. Magic is consequence-free.OK, looks like I got 11; hey, it's an experimental process. Looking at

these, I like some right away, while others are less certain. I think mostplayers need humans as a baseline from which to proceed when


32/123

creating characters, even nonhuman ones. I'll keep humans as thedominant (or a dominant) race. The wilderness issue has alwaysbugged me, but I'm not about to cut the barbarian, ranger, and druidfrom the lineup without compelling reason. Unless I'm creating

"Cityworld," where the entire universe is one big urban sprawl, there'snot much reason to drop those classes.

Looking at my list, I notice that #5, #8, and #11 are really similar,or at least related. As I think about it, I realize that wizards making darkdeals with a supernatural force is a deeply-ingrained part of real-worldmythology, but exists nowhere in the D&D game. That might be inorder to deflect claims of devil-worshipping by certain fundamentalistgroups, but there's no reason to limit arcane deal-making to evildemons. Perhaps in this world, all magic must come from an external

source, and it always comes with strings attached. I like that, itcertainly is a departure from the "magic as technology" feel that isprevalent in certain worlds.

I also like the idea of removing the Good vs. Evil aspect of thegame, or at least blurring the lines. What if there was still aphilosophical clash, but the sides were not so clear cut? What if insteadof Good vs. Evil, or Law vs. Chaos, the world has Blue vs. Red? Aconflict that is not inherently determined by morality, where either sidecould be right? It might not even be a violent conflict, just one wherethe two sides are mutually exclusive and players support either one orthe other.

This has my creative juices flowing. I have always like the idea ofZoroasterism, the ancient Persian religion that defined reality as adualistic struggle between a god of Good and one of Evil. It is a type ofreligion that really doesn't exist anymore, because their version of Evilwas an equal to Good; neither was the creator or chief of the other.Their eternal struggle gave rise to everything, according to Zoroaster.

Now, I don't want to base things around Good vs. Evil, but the idea of adualistic religion is appealing. Further, I don't want either side to be"right." I don't want one god to be the Good Guy and the other to bethe Bad Guy; I want there to logically be people of both good and evilalignments following each of the two deities. So I am going to list ideasthat are polar opposites without either one being morally superior. (Yes,I like to make lists; it helps me organize my thoughts.)


33/123

1. Male and Female2. Light and Darkness3. Fire and Ice4. Life and Death5.

Left and Right6. Land and Sea

7. Sword and Sorcery8. Truth and Deception9.Yin and Yang10. Active and Passive11. Mental and Physical12. Offense and Defense13. Sun and Moon

I'm starting to get a good idea here: two gods, the Sun and theMoon. The Sun is aggressive, formal, and slightly lawful; the Moon isdefensive, more chaotic, less straightforward. The Sun God is all aboutbeing direct and open, while the Moon God is about guile and trickery.The entire world knows and acknowledges these two gods; they are theonly choices in town. They are also apparently uncaring; there is nodivine interventions or steering the course of mortal events. As a result,the followers of each side are not in some great clash of ideologies;there is no holy war between the Sun and the Moon, they both just are.

In fact, the dualistic nature could apply to the entire setting.Everything falls under the influence of the Sun or the Moon; for players,it is as much astrology as religion. Everyone born during the day is aSun, everyone born at night is a Moon. The player gets to choosewhich, of course, but it is as defining a characteristic as race or class. Ofcourse, neither one can be inherently more powerful than the other; wecan't have, for example, Sun clerics channeling positive energy andMoon clerics channeling negative energy, because positive energy is asuperior choice for a player character.

Stereotypes would dictate that the "passive" Moon God be femaleand the aggressive Sun God be male. Which is as good a reason as anyfor that to NOT be the case; I think my Sun Goddess will be a strongvalkyrie-type, while my Moon God will be a sneaky trickster. ThinkAthena vs. Hermes instead of Ares vs. Aphrodite.


34/123

That seems like a good start for a world. The dualistic aspect canbe played up as much as I want, and the lower technology andpotential nature of arcane magic are already giving it a very true-medieval feeling. In fact, the dualistic religion is only a short hop from

monotheism, so this world is shaping up to hew closer to real-worldhistory than most others. Whether that will stay true as I proceedremains to be seen.

The New World, Part 2: Class Decisions

I left off last time after coming up with some of the major themes Iwant to inject into the world. To recap, so far I have a world with adualistic religion that influences all aspects of the world, based on a SunGoddess and a Moon God. I have some ideas about arcane magic not

being so different from divine magic as well.

Looking at the last article again, I think clearly the "supernaturalagent" I discussed as a source for arcane powers needs to stay tied into the Sun/Moon theme. Perhaps all magic of any kind flows from theSun or Moon, though that turns wizards and sorcerers into clerics,thematically. Unless, as I suggested, the Sun and Moon are indifferentto their worshippers; they simply exist as a source of power, to betapped in whatever way the caster can. If every mortal is born underthe sign of one of the two, the power of arcane magic may flow asmuch from the caster as the Sun or Moon. But then, that slips back intoarcane magic being impersonal.

OK, let's look at this from a game point of view. There are threetypes of casters: Intelligence-based preparatory, Wisdom-basedpreparatory, and Charisma-based spontaneous. Traditionally, Wisdom-based preparatory is the only type of spellcasting that requires an in-game relationship with a god. One type allows armor to be worn, theother two do not. Now, I'm thinking of eliminating the concepts of

arcane and divine magic; the obvious replacement would be Sun Magicand Moon Magic. That sounds nice, but it already doesn't fit exactly;divine magic allows armor, and there are two primary arcane castermethods (Intelligence and Charisma) but only one divine caster method(Wisdom). Plus, it severely hampers the creativity of players. Noteveryone who plays a cleric is going to want to be Sun, for example, ifeach deity has the kind of connotations that I briefly touched on earlier.


35/123

So rather than having Sun Magic be a cipher for divine and Moon acipher for arcane, what if both Sun and Moon Magic contained castersof all three kinds: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma-based? Thatstarts to sound better; that would give us six possible primary

spellcaster types. It also begins to suggest some ideas for alteringclasses; removing wizard specialists in favor of Sun Wizards and MoonWizards, for starters. But I am still hung up on how to differentiate, in-game, between Sun Clerics and Sun Wizards. If the power all flowsfrom the same source, why can one class wear armor and one can't?Why can one class heal and the other can't?

One solution would be to alter the classes so significantly that youhave wizards who can heal and clerics who can cast fireball, but I don'tthink that's a good idea here. This is a setting, not a new RPG, and the

more fundamentally I change the classes, the less usable material fromother sources will be in a campaign run in this world. So I want to keepthe classes similar to their existing nature, but just tweak the storybehind their powers.

I'm thinking now of the wizardry being more of a secret cult ratherthan a science. Wizardry involves the summoning and binding of spiritsassociated with the Sun and Moon, and then using words of power toextract magic. It's not as harsh as it first sounds, though, because theSun and Moon ultimately created the spirits for that purpose. Thewizards may worship their benefactor, but ultimately their spellcasting isessentially a craft, not a religious experience. In fact, what if thefamiliar was replaced with a Sun or Moon spirit made flesh, that was aliteral sign of the wizard's bargain? I kind of like that, it has an oldmedieval feel to it. Since most citizens of the world worship the Sun orMoon, the idea of binding their servants is unpalatable, resulting in aneed for secrecy about the wizards' means and identities. Wizardrymight even be a capital offense in some nations, depending on localcustoms.

That leaves us with divine magic as more or less unchanged fromthe standard model: servants of a god that draw magic from theirworship. Sun Clerics and Moon Clerics can basically divide up all theexisting domains, and the idea of Sun Druids and Moon Druids is a verycool one. Moon Druids might only take on nocturnal animal companions,


36/123

for example, and be more into shapeshifting. Heck, that might lead to awhole variant druid class for the Sun Druid.

Now what about the sorcerer? I don't want to leave him as thewizard's poor cousin; I think he needs a major overhaul, conceptually.Forget dragon heritage, or the idea that the sorcerers just have a"knack" for arcane casting; I want their magic to have a unique powersource. Let's look at this logically: wizards take their power from thegods, clerics ask for their power from the gods. What does that leavefor the sorcerer? How about they are given their powers by the gods-without being asked first? A sorcerer is someone who has been"blessed" with magic that they cannot necessarily control. As the godsdo not reveal their intention, the sorcerer is left to figure out whatpurpose he is expected to fulfill. They are always respected, even

revered, by the populace as holy men, but they don't really know howto react. I like this idea because it is an about-face from the "sorcerersare hated and feared" stance of the standard rules.

Ultimately, this take on the sorcerer may require a completeredesign of the class. I wouldn't mind giving them their own spell lists,with a mixture of arcane and divine spells, to emphasize the dissolutionof the old division.

What about the rest of the classes? Well, fighter and rogue are sogeneric I can't imagine altering them significantly. I imagine there willbe barbarians and monks as well; I like that there may be Sun Monksand Moon Monks, too, so maybe I will look into adding a bit ofcustomization to that class. Rangers are a bit tricky, but if there are Sunand Moon Druids, I can apply the same logic to rangers. Maybe I canuse the Combat Style as a dividing point between the two.

Then there is the paladin and the bard. As I have defined it, thepaladin is soooo Sun and the bard is completely Moon. Maybe that's OK;

make both classes only available to followers of the appropriate deity.Then toss the alignment restrictions on both; turn them each into idealsof their particular deity, a kind of personification of that god's priorities.If I do that, though, I'll tweak each class a bit. Probably give them avery specific place in the cultures of each nation.


37/123

Well, the class choices for players are shaping up pretty well, as isthe definition of magic in this world: magic is the way you access anduse the power of the Sun and Moon. There can be no magic without theSun or the Moon, which makes the choice of which to serve very

important. Players will not be able to multiclass between Sun and Moonclasses, so if you are a Moon Wizard, and want to multiclass to cleric,you must be a Moon Cleric too. Of course, while the two camps aremutually exclusive, they are not violently opposed. An adventuring partymight include a Moon Wizard, a Sun Cleric, a Sun Monk, a fighterwithout any strong affiliation, and a rogue/Moon Bard.

Looking back at this, I realize I am making some strong changes tothe class system that goes a bit beyond the level of mere campaignsetting. But if I'm careful, I won't completely invalidate existing material

while creating a class system where there is a lot of room forcustomization.

Also, notice how I used the needs of the game experience to helpme define the fictional reality of the world. This is an important conceptthat I can't stress enough when creating a world: don't fall into the trapof making a decision for your world that hampers actual gameplay. Firstand foremost, your world needs to be usable in a real game with realplayers, all of whom want different characters and have different ideasabout what they like about D&D. Every time you change a rule toconform to your setting, you run the risk of alienating a player, socarefully consider each alteration.

The New World, Part 3: Race Decisions

Let's look at what races might inhabit this new world I am creating.As always, I'll start from the point of view of the player and look at thechoices for player characters. I've already decided that humans aren'tgoing anywhere, so I'll skip them for now and examine the remainder of

the PC races.

First up, elves. Immediately, I think of how sick I am of elves. Everyworld has their different elven subraces so that you can play exactly thetype of elf you want. Even my own campaign world, Illumination, hasfive varieties. Considering that I am really happy wit

ten baseline assumptions about how the game is run

Documents