THE POWER OF THE RETCON

 

Comic books function on their own crazy sorts of internal logic. Explosions and toxic levels of radiation, poisons and energy give you superpowers. Science and magic exist side by side and the cosmos is a never-ending collection of new species, places with Earth itself seemingly full to bursting with secret lands, hidden places and powered people. Even Death itself seems to be mutable and there is always a way out or a twist to it. Much of the magic of comics comes from their emergent storytelling but a lot of it has to do with the almighty retcon.

Retcons have always been used with varying degrees of success in comic books. Often they are used for genuine storytelling reasons while other times they are used purely for production and marketing reasons. Many times this has to do with the ever-changing creative teams assigned to titles and characters. Guy before you kill off a character you really wanted to write or draw? No problem, just pitch  great comeback or a story twist that invalidates what waas written before or rewrites it as something that was believed but untrue. but the use of retcons isn't alway a bad thing. Sometimes it creates truly interesting and memorable moments. 

When running superhero RPGs, the retcon can be a useful tool in a GM's arsenal. moreso than any other genre, the retcon not only seems allowed but even welcome. It can be used to bring back seemingless dead villains, revive lost heroes, or even change the fabric of the campaign should you choose to do so. You can even use the recon to fix mistakes you might have made along your way. Wrote yourself into a corner? Guess what, things never were as the players thought they were. Plot twists can sometimes be retcons though they are not always and the better ones avoid being such. 

The key when using the retcon effectively, is to make it feel as right or appealing as what it is being used to replace. A clumsy retcon will always feel unsatisfactory but a well-orchestrated retcon will feel like a plot twist or plot development. Make your retcon meaningful, even if it's just there to correct a mistake. If the villain you threw at the characters died too easily, then have their death come about in a way that leaves some ambiguity. Even if the death is very obvious and undeniable, you always have the fuzzy logic and weirdness of comics to use to your advantage. A dead villain can come backfro mthe dead, be remade, be copycatted, make a deal with the Devil, be a robot, be a body double, etc, etc. The list goes on forever, but whatever you do, put a little time into the retcon so that when the players figure out what is going on, they get some story with it. 

If your villain comes back as a copycat, figure out why this new person is taking up the mantle of the dead villain. Are they a relative, an admirer, maybe they are that same villain from another dimension or time? Why is the villain suddenly more agile and energetic? Do they look younger? Is the motivation of a relative returning as the villain simply revenge or is there more? 

There is more to retcons than returning characters from the dead. Maybe you've created an organization or team for your game but you really don't like the direction they are going. You can change their nature or character by simply deciding what their new direction will be and writing some logic to explain it. Perhaps you have created an organization that relies on high technology but the campaign really seems to be moving more into magical, supernatural territory. You could shift this organization behind the scenes so that their "tech" is actually magical in nature and simply masquerading as machines in the mundane world of men. Imagine the surprise when the powersuited baddy is destroyed only to reveal that a spirit was housed inside that armored shell. 

The most important thing to remember about retcons is that they aren't there to let you be a lazy GM. Yes, they can clean up messed and they can provide some unplanned changes or developmets in your game, but it is important to always be intentional with your retcons and not use them haphazardly. Retcons should never be used to be mean-spirited. Sure comic book retcons often come in the form of gotchas but you should always strive for "wow" reactions and never groans from your players. 

Anyone Else Tired of Tragic Backstories?

I mean this in the most casual, non-confrontatioal way but I find myself very much tired of tragic backstories.

There is nothing inherently wrong with them but they can get a bit old when every character coming to a tavble has a backstroy that is one tale of woe after another. Such backstories are actually pretty tricky to pull off and still have fun at the table. They require a pretty mature player and a willingness to have the tragic backstroy be the beginning and not the be-all-end-all of the character.

Many people, I feel, make tragic backstories for their characters to lighten the load on both them and their GM or as an attempt to dodge GMs using their backstroy against them. The truth is, however, that neither of these will deter a skilled GM. Even a backstory bereft of any living relatives can be turned into a source of story elements for the GM and that tragedy may not prtotect your PC from their backstory being used against them.

Family killed in a fire? Did you know that there is now a rumor going around that your character, the only survivor, is now suspected of having caused the fire?

Noble family from which you were spawned dead when you were a child? Guess what, one of them survived and is now the BBEG in the game and specifically hates you because they feel like you abandoned them or they were rescued by a rival noble family and raised in that house to be a nemesis for you.

It's pretty easy with just about any tragic backstory.

Some players feel that the tragic backstory is actually the best motivator for their PC to adventure. They have nothing left to lose, no attachments, and every belivable desire or need to accept any old adventure to give their live meaning or purpose but it is here that I like to jump in with an alternative - make your backstory nice or at least not so bad.

Just as it is easy to erase everything from a character's background, it is also a simple thing to just decide to have your character come from something that is still there. It doesn't have to be all sunshine and whispery fields of golden grain but it can be. This is a bit of a personal crusade I have taken upon myself when creating characters for those rare occasions when I, a forever GM (by choice), get to play. Call it leading by example, if you will.

The last three characters i have made have all had backstories where their families were alive, they had varying degrees of good happen in those backstories and they still managed to have motivations to adventure. This is, I think the biggest thing to keep in mind when trying to avoid the tragic backstory - living connections, a life that did not end in tragedy, and a solid reason for adventuring.

While I have always tried to make characters with interesting (but reasonable) backstories, I'll talk about my most recent three for 5E.

Bortino Dal Orendo - This character was a Human Fighter. He was the fifth son of a noble family and stood to inherit nothing more than a room at the family estates and a small allowance. He was loved by his parents, though often overlooked due to his late birth order and allowed to pretty much live as he would. Fortunately, he had a sister with which he was particularly close, who kept him from sliding into debauchery and carousing as so many other "unneeeded" noble sons might. He also had a grandfather whom he loved very much and who returned that love by guidng him to be a good man. To this end, Bortino was enrolled in the finest sword schools and educated as a master swordsman. Bortino, knowing that any fame and fortune and a life of anything but a "spare son" would be made by himself took to the world, seeking adventure and a life of his own.

Dougan of Moorwatch - Born into a peasant family, Dougan grew up with a strong back and arm made for swinging heavy tools. As he grew older, he turned these natural talents toward fighting, joining a mercenary regiment, learning and becoming a leader of men, even if they were sellswords. Success led to some small fortune which led to marriage and children and as family grew, his desire to fight waned. Eventually he became resentful of years of rich men throwing away the blood of men like him on senseless was. Dougan and a small band of men from his unit deserted from a battlefield and took to the land. Now an outlaw, he took up a contract with an expedition company travelling to another land to forge the way for colonization (the campaign). His only requirement in hi contract was that half his wages be sent to his wife and children through a trusted fiend.

Randalmar - Born into a family that had enough to make life comfortable but not enough to make it grand, Randalmar was an intelligent young man who sought knowledge and showed and early interest and aptitude for arcane magic. He was sent to apprentice with a local wizard and was an excellent student until one day he returned, from an errand, to the wizard's tower to find that his master had disappeared without a trace. No note, no message left with servants. Not a single one of the wizard's minions knew of his whereabouts or what had happened to him. Randalmar carried on for some time, maintaining his studies and his tasks, assuming the wizard would return. When he didn't, the young wizard took his faithful familiar Hamwise (a small pig) and ventured forth into the world in hopes that he might discover what had happened to his master.

I have made other characters with non-tragic backstories but all of them seek to create a character who has something to go back to but also has reason to adventure in the current campaign.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this and I would love to hear others' thoughts on the topic of tragic backstories and especially any other ideas for non-tragic, even happy backstories.

THE APE CAT - A NEW MOSNTER IDEA FROM A LOCAL LEGEND

 

The Pacific Northwest is known for some pretty famous cryptis, most notably the Sasquatch or Bigfoot. There are others such as the giant octopi of the Tacoma Narrows, Tree Octopi, even several lake monsters but there is one that I only recently learned about that seems like the right sort of critter to include as one of D&D's weirdo monsters - The Ape Cat

Known as the Klickitat Ape Cat, the creatures is said to be a large, panther-like cat with a six-foot long tail and the face of an ape, with hair that sticks out. It's said to haunt the area around The Columbia River Gorge where it stalks the waters and bluffs. It is said to mess with electrical devices and compasses. 

In old school D&D terms this gives us an interesting monster that seems like it might carry some sort of electric charge. The disruption of electronics is unlikley to be a thing in a fantasy setting, so we can make this into it carrying and active electrical ability and being resistent to or immune to things like lightning and such. We can even extapolate on the purpose of the long tail. Like the illustration below, it may simply be a swimming tool but we can also make it into an attack, with the Ape Cat using it's tail to lash at or even snare enemies and zapping them with its electricity. 

APE CAT (B/X)

No. Encountered: 1 (or maated pair)
Alignment: Neutral
Move: 150' (50'), 100' (30') swimming
Armor Class: 6
Hit Dice: 4+4
No. of Attacks: 2 claws or tail*
Damage/Attack: 1d4/1d4 or *save vs dragon breath or 2d10 damage from shocking tail.
Save: F2
Morale: 10
Treasure Type: U

The ape cat is a magical creature of unknown origin, Some say, like the owlbear, that the creature is the magical melding of two creatures though others believe it to be a relative of the displacer beast, though there is little to substnatiate either. Ape cats prefer rocky areas near bodies of water such as river gorges or alpine lakes. They are not found on oceans coastlines though and seem to prefer inland haunts where they can retreat to the brush and trees when not stalking prey or fishing in the waters. 

These creatures have the ability to generate an electric charge and use their 6ft-long tails as a lash with which to attack and stun prey. In water, they can discharge their electicity around them, stunning small prey but not enough to damage anything larger than fish or small animals. When threatened, the air around the hums and their fur stands on end, showing they are charged and ready to strike. 

Ape cats are solitary except during mating seasons, when they pair up, often with the same makte year to year. Ape cats prefer to make their dens in the sides of the cliffs and bluffs they hunt from, digging shallow holeso r using natural cave where they will raise broods of 2-5 kittens. While ape cats are of only animal intelligence, they can mimic humanoid-sounding noises, often giving the illusion of speach without actually saying anything. 

PLAYING BAD CHARACTERS IN A GOOD WAY

There are a small number of character concepts/tropes that are generally bad ideas for the gaming table, not because they are inherrantly bad characters but because players tend to play them poorly. These character types often appeal to players because in media they are often very interesting characters but what is often lost on potential player. 

The key to playing these characters is to understand what they are actually about. Most of the unpopular character concepts are designed as starting points and/or vehicles for character growth. As the character is written (played), they are supposed to develop and change. The lone wolf learns the value of friends. The edgelord learns to share the weight of his emotons with others and gain strength from them. The brash lout learns that there is room in his life for caring and sensitivity. Even the villainous character learns the mistakes in the assumptions they have made that led to their villainy. The key to all of these is that the character, as written explores these changes.

As players, it can be tricky to explore these without coming across as disruptive or annoying but it can be done through effort and an attempt to exposit the reasons and rationale behind their actions and how there character is processing things. This can sometimes seem awkward at the table, expressing a characters' internal processes outloud, but it is what makes these characters work in print and on the screen, though in the latter case we see this acted out and don't read it, but it was written down somewhere. Doing so, however, cuts through any perceptions that the player is doing this to be a problem for the rest of the party.

Next, the player of such characters should make an effort to express that changes and character growth are occurring. In moments of role-play it only takes a few little expressions to reflect this. Perhaps the shutdown, closed-up character shares a rare and new moment of openess. The evil character might give pause before committing and act that once came so esily to him. The pilfering thief puts the thing back. these moments don't even have to be made in the form of dialog or moments shared with PCs. they can be narrated as downtime activities or in interactions with NPCs and even monsters. A violent, "kill 'em all" sort of character who has spent the adventure launching into needless combat might show mercy or restraint at the start of combat, but this becomes clear when the reason is given.

Lastly, embrace the changes. Accept that you have made this character to explore the growth and make a conscious choice of when the character finally reaches that point of transformation from who they wre to who they have become. Much in the same way that players absolutely must make a conscious decision to play and adventurer and find the reasons for their character to embrace the aventures put before them, so to must a potentially problematic character archetype make a choice to eventually change. Such changes are not even the end of that character's cool concept and archetype for now the character's concept changes to one of acceptance, redemption, correction, or even mentoring. The player now gets to embrace the changed character and all the new role-playing opportunities that come with their new self taking the rest of the players and their characters along for the ride.

Problem characters are only problems because people play them poorly. Now, some of this comes down to bad players choosing them for the wrong reasons but, if you are a good player who truly wants to play one of these character archetypes then by all means go for it. Just remember to make it fun, embrace the story that those archetypes are meant to tell and accept that at some point for it to work, the character needs to tramsform.

HOW PLAYER-FACING THINKING CAN RUIN THE GM'S FUN

 

It can be difficult to have discussions about the things modern gaming has brought into the hobby that may not be all their cracked up to be. I have long been the sort of grognard that isn't the groggy-est or...um..nardy'est (maybe the wrong way to put that), but even I sometimes run into issues with the new fangled gaming thinking. While I am okay saying some of these new ideas are good and, often, not as new as a lot people thing they are, sometimes there are new concepts that can either be misunderstood or even misused. One such concept is the player-facing or players first sort of game.

As I understand it, these sorts of game place an emphasis on collaboration both in terms of a game's plot, story, themes, even worldbuilding with the goal being greater player buy-in and an increased sense of belonging and participation. this can be great and, to a certain extent, I do enjoy and encourage GMs and players to embrace this. However, this is often overplayed or pushed too far. While the intent may be to give players some say in shaping the game and making sure the game is something they want to play, it is possible for the game's balance between players and GM to fail.

Over the years, I have seen a tendency for players to take this to the extreme - considering themselves in charge of the game and religating the GM to a simple adjudicator of rules and not an active participant in the game. This is a terrible place to put a GM an ultimately will result in the failure of a campaign as much, maybe even more so than a group of poorly invested players. A GM's character really is the game world and creating an running that world is where the joy comes from, for most GMs. 

How this manifests can vary greatly but often takes the form of players expecting that they can just go off and do anything they want in the game as if their agency trumps any consideration for the plot or adventures at hand. If this is the sort of open, ultimate sandbox campaign you have all agreed to play, that's fine, but if everyone has come to the table to play in a world either created by or presented by the GM along with the adventures and plots they wish to run there, then players really do we it to the GM to play along. Chosing not to do so, with the players insisting on doing their own thing regardless of any plans by the GM is inconsiderate and rude.

The GM is often the player putting the most amount of actual work into the game. Players need only show up and play along. Players who want to express their characters selves should find ways to do so that work within the construct of the game world and not disrupt it. Most GMs are going to be very collaborative and considerate of player's desires and generally find it quite easy to find a way to fit it in or figure out a way to let a player player a character they want, in some manner or another.

At the end of the day, players are in charge of their characters but just as they expect the GM to be responsible for presenting a game that is fun for them, so should they also respect the work, time, and the world the GM is putting before t hem.

WHY DO CHARACTERS ADVENTURE?

Let me begin by saying the following is in no way a condemnation of anyone's character back story or chosen motivations for their characters. The intention here is to speak to those earliest reasons for adventure in the core of early editions and how a simple concession explains so much. 

The simplest explanation is that early edition adventurers were generally supposed to represent commoners or folks early in their professions who turned to adventure as a means to advance those careers and make their way in the world. With this in mind, the question of "why would my character go into a dangerous dungeon?" or, in other words, "What's my motivation?" becomes a simple matter of economics. 

Working any trade in the game world is not likely to earn a person more than a few gold pieces a a year, let alone the hundreds or thousands they would need to purchase proper arms and equipment for any advanced career. In old games, PCs started out with barely enough money to get them out the door and on the road and the only way they would afford the things they needed would be to delve into dungeons where ancient forgotten wealth was theirs for the finding and taking. 

Sure they could have stayed on the farm and toiled a way for some lord, or lived in the shadow of the old mage that instructed them. Soldiering is a profession but few men live long enough to make a life of it. Clerics who stayed in their cloisters, while serving their gods in the most mundane and functional ways, would never expand the reach of their gods and the power of their church. While thieves might be one of the easiest character classes to find motivation for, paladins and rangers need somethin to pit themselves against.

All of this leads to dungeons (and dragons) where a lowly adventurer can find the chance to transcend beyond a life of labor and obscurity. In this we have the most basic, yet very satisfying motivation for adventure - desire and objective. Why the character continues to adventure can build off of this or transform, based on their adventures. 

A fighter who seeks his future through adventure for mere money, may discover greater evils that call him to further action. what was just a search for gold and goods can easily change into what is, if not a higher calling, at least a slightly more elevated one. Discovering the mysteries of the world through dungeon crawling is bound to open an adventurer's eyes and either call or force them to rise to the task. 

Going forward, I hope you will perhaps consider taking a deep breath and relaxing some before you plunge into the chore of coming up with complex motivations. Let your fighter be a soldier returned from a recent war who wants for more. Allow you cleric to be a person devoted to their gods and taking up the simple charge of going out into the world and confronting the evil there and spreading the good of religion. Rangers wander and seek the evils of the world and form a outlying bulwark against the monsters of the world. Wizards need stuff and knowledge, bards need stories, and thieves need to improve their skills and steal stuff. 

It doesn't have to be epic or involved to be good.

BE THE ADVENTURER WHO WANTS TO ADVENTURE - BILBO MUST LEAVE THE SHIRE

There is nothing more frustrating than adventuring to a dungeon or being presented with an adventure hook only to have one of the players utter those words that all good players dread, "Why would my character do that?" 

The problem of unwilling players is a pretty common one and can seriously affect the fun and enjoyment of the other players and the DM at the table. Lack of adventuring spirit seems anathema to playing a fantasy adventure RPG and should be avoided at all costs. Keeping this in mind, it is okay to have a character with motivations, concerns, apprehensions and even anxieties regarding the safety of the adventuring lifestyle. So, how do you do this? 

The simplest way goes without saying. Just make an adventurer who is willing to open doors, delve mysterious caves and seek the adventure that is out there. This, however, does not necessary fit all character concepts and if you wish to pursue such concepts, it is important to really give some consideration to why and how your character will still be a useful adventurer that will not hinder the rest of the party and the game. 

When making the reluctant hero, always remember that, in the end, you are a hero, or at least an adventurer. Make sure you build a reason to do so into your concept and come up with a few standard go-to reasons. These can even be catch phrases your character says to themselves or out loud when the situation arises where they are given pause.

These motivations can be as simple as loyalty to your fellow adventurers, duty to your family back home or the kingdom you serve. It could be that your motivations are purely mercenary and while you recognize that the danger to life and limb is great, delving dungeons is how you get paid. As long as you have some reason to motivate your character to proceed with the adventure and contribute in a meaningful way, you have succeeded. 

What's more, your PC doesn't have to always be completely willing. You can still role-play hesitation or a fleeting morale. Your character may run away, or prefer to "keep watch" when the party goes into the dark spooky house. The key to these choices is to make sure that, when it counts, your character rises to the occasion. Even at his most reluctant, Bilbo Baggins still managed to come through for his companions. 

Successfully creating an adventurer who will adventure will greatly improve the enjoyment and success of yours TTRPG fun. You fellow players and your DM will thank you and you should also thank yourself for allowing yourself to have more fun.

ELFQUEST - AN EXAMPLE OF BREAKING THE TRADITIONAL FANTASY TROPES

 

If you have followed comics and fantasy for the last 30+ years, you likely know of "Elfquest". Whether you were a fan of the comic or not and whether or not you played the TTRPG, you are likely at least partly aware of it. If nothing else, you know the look and the stylings of the characters in the comic. This will not be a deep dive into the comic, it's characters, stories or themes, but I will be using Elfquest as and example of a setting that tinkers with, quite successfully, in playing with the common tropes and themes of the fantasy genre.

At it's core, Elfquest is both an example of paleo-fantasy and a fantasy setting that turns the usual mix of fantasy races on it its side (not quite on its head). In The World of Two Moons, there are only humans, and three fantasy races - elves, trolls, and preservers (faeries). Of these three fantasy races, the elves are the only ones that would be considered "core" races for use by players as characters. The official TTRPG for the game did offer rules for playing humans and trolls as well, but the comics very much focus on the perspective of the elves (it is called Elfquest).

In this setting we are presented with elves who are both familiar and new. Wild elves, civilized elves, warlike elves, peaceful elves, even elves of widely varying degrees of magical and natural ability. If we look at the 5E races for D&D, the Elfquest elves might be achieved by using the existing elves but also some of the non-elven races. While the High Ones would easily fit with the high elf sub-race, the Wolfriders might better be portrayed by the the Wood Gnome as they are small in size and have an affinity for their wolf companions. Still other elves of the World of Two Moons elves might be represented by halflings. Certainly, the comfort-seeking, peaceful and warm Sun Folk fit the bill. The trolls of Elfquest are very much more akin to dwarves, being grumpy, industrious, bearded subterranean folk known for their greed and crafting of fine metal goods. Still other elves of the World of Two Moons elves might be represented by halflings. Certainly, the comfort-seeking, peaceful and warm Sun Folk fit the bill. The trolls of Elfquest are very much more akin to dwarves, being grumpy, industrious, bearded subterranean folk known for their greed and crafting of fine metal goods. 

While none of these simple reskins of existing D&D races truly do the Elfquest characters justice, they do serve as an example of how the common tropes of fantasy can be skewed into something new and interesting. In this World of Two Moons, we only have the three fantasy races, but they come in such a wide range of cultures, shapes and character that they really are very different races. As the accompanying image shows, there is a noticeable distinction between the physical statures of High Ones and Sunfolk.

WHY DO WE USE THE SAME OLD FANTASY RACES?

The easiest answer to the question is that it's just easier that way. Whether it is ease of design (the work is already done) or easy recognition and understanding by players and GMs, by using existing, well known fantasy races the designer of a setting cuts down on the amount of work they have to do to get their game to the table and player engaged with it. But does a game setting need the standard races to be enjoyable, accessible, and playable? The answer to this question is a resounding and firm, "maybe".

The major problem with filling a fantasy world with new and exotic life is that it can become murky and mired down in detail that detracts from the game. This is not necessarily the case, but it is always a danger. Having fantasy races in your game that are too weird or too numerous can create a sense of wonder and imagination, but it can also leave players (including the GM) nothing to anchor too. If everything is new and alien then the barrier to understanding and engagement is that much greater. For many players this is enjoyable and desirable as the act of playing the game becomes a true exploration of something wholly new and wonderous. However, for many players this will just end up being a frustrating struggle to figure out who and what they are and where they fit into a world they do not understand.

The TTRPG "Talislanta", first published in 1987 and with several editions following up to the present, is a great example to use when examining the effect of trying to build a world where none of the typical fantasy races exist. Bringing hundreds of unique races and cultures to the players, right up front, Talislanta was championed by its pitch of "No Elves!", a motto that was not entirely true in practice even if it was mostly true in theory. 

I remember pouring over all of the insane, imaginative, fantastic races presented in the the rules and feeling an immense sense of wonder and possibility both as a GM and as a potential player. I read through all the races and the monsters, which are also mostly unique and unusual, and coming away feeling that initial sense of wonder withering under a shadow of something else - confusion. 

The problem with Talislanta is that there is just too much going on to make setting into the game easy. the best I could come up with was to pick a place in the world to start the game and limit options to what was common there. As imaginative and evocative as Talislanta was, it was just too much. The races there were a mix of strange and exotic and subtle variation on tropes and themes used elsewhere. While the "No Elves!" claim was mostly true, there were plenty of races in the game that were elves in everything but name.

If we do want to use new races in our games, we need to do so with a bit of restraint, something Talislanta lost sight of. D&D as a game, has always presented itself with a few core races and then expanded from there. Considering this design choice has been repeated across countless TTRPGs from dozens of genres, there is clearly something to it and it is worth taking note of when designing our own weird worlds of fantasy. 

When laying out your assortment of new fantasy species, it helps to have at least one that is potentially more accessible and less alien than the others. This will give your players a reference point by which they can gauge the weirdness and newness of the other species. Even Talislanta had familiar tropes even if it called them something else and there were "humans". Assigning familiar tropes, even just as GM notes, to your new races can go a long way in making them more playable and understandable to your players. A simple "like wood elves" or "like dwarves" or even "Klingon/Vulcan mashup" can go a long way in providing a useful shorthand for your new fantasy (or scifi) races. The main lesson here, is to keep the pallet simple and limited to a handful of starter races. 

All TTRPGS ultimately introduce more and more unique races over time, providing new options for players and GMs alike. Often these are added as the game world expands and new territories are explored. This keeps the game interesting and provides new ways to play but can lead to a loss of theme and overall feel if you are not careful but it does avoid the mire of options that I believe hampered Talislanta.

On a final note, it is important to consider that you do not need to completely reinvent the wheel when it comes to your fantasy races. A simple reskinning of existing races is often all that is needed to make a fantasy world that seems different even if it present the same options. An example of this, in my mind, is the classic TSR TTRPG "Star Frontiers" where we have four core races that have always seemed like analogs for common fantasy races, just given a nice scifi overhaul. While they didn't demonstrate the same appearances or abilities as D&D races, the Vrusk, Dralasite, and Yazirian of Star Frontiers did present family racial profiles and overviews. 

It is an easy exercise to create a world where the common D&D races have new identities. You could make them all into anthropomorphic animal races if that was the campaign you wanted or perhaps you want a world where there are no gnomes but you still want their abilities in the game and so they become some new fantasy race. It would be entirely possible to create a world of elves where every classic D&D race was now some form of elf, living in new and interesting ways. Races handled in this manner are less work for the DM, in terms of game design, and really need as little or as much background work as you want.

BUILD YOUR WORLD THROUGH YOUR MONSTERS

 

Over the decades, D&D and other fantasy games have seen the creation of countless monsters for use in games. While there are many monster that are made with specific worlds or settings in mind, most of these are designed with very broad strokes and generally fill the need for an everflowing wellspring of opponents for DMs to throw at their players. Such a generalized approach to monster design certainly succeeds in keeping players on their toes and indulging GMs in their desire to constantly surprise and vex their players, however, this also leads to many game worlds lacking definition and identity. 

I have often heard that players grow tired of fighting the same monsters over and over again but I often wonder if this is a projection of GMs put upon their players based on perceived or even wholly imagined concerns. Many classic fantasy worlds are carefully curated with monsters and other foes becoming integral parts of those settings and providing a ready shorthand for the themes and character of those worlds. Tolkien's world is distinct from C.S. Lewis' and much of this has to do with the monsters that populate them. While Tolkien's world has some familiar denizens such as dragons and giants, many of them are very much unique or at least different rom others. Lewis, instead, chooses to populate his world almost exclusively and quite purposefully with classic creatures of myth and legend (including Santa Claus) and this makes both these classic fantasy realms feel distinct from one another even though they are both recognizeable as defined fantasy worlds. 

It would be easy to argue that these worlds are the products of authors crafting stories and that they are thus very different from gaming worlds. Game worlds are, afterall, made for gaming in and it makes sense that there be a desire, perhaps even a need for a steady supply of new monsters to populate adventures. True as this may be, it is also possible to regulate the flow of new monsters while maintaining a consistent caste of creature that sets the tone and feel of your world. Maintaining a steady but restrained pace when introducing new monsters will go far in establishing the character of your game world and will aid in your storytelling. 

Once you have established the "normal" monsters for your world, you can focus your GMing work on how to use them and build stories including and focused around them. What's more, your players will be able to use this consistency to help engage with the world. When you send your players to a swampy region and it is established, through lore and previous encounters, that swamps are places where lizardmen can be found, the wheels will begin to turn when your players are required to go there. This doesn't mean that you should add in other swamp dwellers or that every visit to the swamps means lizardmen, but it does mean there should be an expectation that such an encounter is very likely.

Setting expectations and maintaining them as a matter of course does not mean creating a boring fantasy world. It means creating a world that lives and breathes and plays by rules and a degree of verisimilitude which you can then use to truly hightlight those things that stand out. If swamps are places where lizardment are found (to use the previous example) and the players start to find swamps devoid of lizardmen, having established the lizardmen's ubiquity should make their absence obvious to your players without you having to specifically highlight that absence. Furthermore, the lizardmen allow you a foundation to build on to the lore of your swamps and they become a vehicle for you to introduce new, but thematic enemies. When the lizardmen go to war with their neighbors, what monsters do they bring with them? Do they ride giant lizards and besiege settlements atop massive war turtles? Are they led to this conflict by a swamp hag who has it in for a local baron who has vexed her? 

The use and resuse of monsters is important to creating a world and while the constant flow of new monsters may be tempting, their inclusions should be done purposefully and with restraint so as not to erode the work you have done in crafting a world that players feel their characters truly live in.

INTO THE CELLAR AND OTHER TIRED OLD 1ST-LEVEL ADVENTURES

Considering other ways to give low-level adventurers interesting adventures 

The stereotypical, almost memish next step after "you meet in an inn," seems to be the ubiquitous kills some giant rats in a cellar adventure. While there are many other first, "training" adventures out there, this is the (in)famous one. What I would like to do here is to present some alternatives to this. These can be added to DMs' collections of ready to go campaign starters or peppered in as filler on a slow night.

The important thing to remember when trying to come up with these first steps adventures is scale and completability. These sorts of adventures are designed to be simple, to the point and able to be completed by beginning adventures but that is not to say they cannot be interesting and challenging. One of the best ways to achieve these goals is to think of what non-combat aspects can be added to the adventure. Consider role-playing encounters, puzzles, tricks and traps that can be figured out by the players as well as their characters. These will ad texture and complexity to the adventure that does not necessarily put the characters in harms way.

If you are going to include traps or hazards, make sure they are not too lethal or perhaps not harmful but only add obstacles to the scenario. A hzard with a rickety ceiling, precariously balanced on some worm-eaten supports needn't fall and hurt characters but could demonstrate the potential for harm while blocking one route to an objective, necessitating the need to come up with a Plan B. Obstacles which can be circumvented through creative means are also a great way to add interesting elements. How do the characters get through that iron grate that keeps them from the room they ned to get to? Is there a way around or oever that bubbling pool of filthy muck?

So what might a few such adventure ideas look like?

THE MERCHANT'S GOLD

The party is approached by a merchant who has need of their aid. He explains that, fearful that he was being followed by robbers, her snuck out to a nearby wood, where he his a chest of coins. Worried that the robbers may still be watching him, he is looking to hire some relative uknowns to fetsh the chest for him, hoping that if he leaves the village on his own, the robbers will follow him and ignore the adventurers as they fetch his chest.

The party (and DM) will need to decide if the merchant is being honest and if they trust him enough to do the job. Of course the merchant may have a contingency. In this adventure, the party mayface a few bandits or perhaps the bandits are fooled and the DM decides that the encounter in this adventure might be another monster who has found the treasure chest. If the DM wanted to make a bit more of a mystery and substantial adventure of it, they could decide to have the treasure be gone when the party arrives, having been taken by some other party. Perhaps a local band of goblins has taken it? Maybe, a local farmer found the gold and, thinking it a stroke of good fortune has taken it home. Now the adventure expands to locating the gold and recovering it from whoever has it.

HERBAL REMEDIES

The party is called upon to venture into the wilderness to recover a supply of a medicinal herb. This can be done in the face of an actual illness or perhaps just to resupply a tapped out herbalist. In either case ,the adventure sets the party into the nearby wilderness in search of the needed medicine. They may be given its location or perhaps are left to locate it as well as recover it. This adventure could be set at different times of the years ot adjust the theming and inherent danger, though as it is an herbal harvest, it would have to be an herb that i available at that season. 

Along the way, the party may encounter various wilderness dangers such as environmental hazards/obstacles or animal encounters. The location of the herb should also be a challenge itself, whether through some of "guardian" or simply being dangerous to get to.

OLD BONES 

Approached by a strange person dressed in robes and a cowl, the party is recruited to go to a local burial site (tomb, graveyard, barrow, etc.) to fetsh a particular set of bones. The DM can decide whether or not the quest-giver is upfront with their motives or not but the goal is just the same. The party may be given specific instructions or they may be more vague depending on how much complexity the DM wishes to insert into the adventure. the chosen location will also determine a portion of the complexity with a graveyard being inherently less complex than a barrow or a tomb. If a very simple location is needed, it could be an isolated burial site, perhaps under an old tree or some such. 

This adventure is best used to introduce players to undead as the site of the bones is perfectly suited for it. Keeping with the goal of making this a low-level experience, the undead should be things like skeletons, a single zombie, maybe even a single ghoul or, if the DM is seeking a more challenging encounter, then select one of the many low-power, less lethal incorporeal undead types. There is still room along the way to place encounters with other creatures but, much like the rats in the cellar, you do not want to have too many additional monster encounters as this will clutter what is meant to be a sort of test-drive adventure. 

For DMs looking to add more complexity to this, consider a barrow or tomb or placing the burial site beyond some hazards/obstacles. These could bae as simple as a stream that must be cross, a swamp that must be navigated or perhaps even being partially up or down a cliff or something as basic as under a rock.

WANT YOUR 5E CAMPAIGNS TO MOVE SLOWER?

One of the main complaints about modern D&D is that character zip through levels too fast. This often creates a game where the players never really have a chance to get to know their characters and their abilities or, in some extreme cases, even get to use a new ability before another is piled on, thus resetting the process. There are all manner of fixes and tricks and tips that have been suggested and created to address this but it seems to me that one of the easiest ways to do so is to take a note from another RPG, Call of Cthulhu. 

To begin with, I am not suggesting the adoption of sanity rules or even Lovecraftian horror to fix your games. Neither of these is really a fit for all campaigns and so does not really work well as a generic solution that can be applied to any campaign. Instead, what I am suggesting is that the game shift from slaughtering hordes of lesser monsters while delving endless dungeons to something more akin to the investigative style of the Call of Cthulhu RPG and increasing the threat of individual enemies so that they each become meaningful and pit your players against opponents that require more nuance and forethought to confront. For a more direct fantasy example, think The Witcher.

Because 5E, as written, only provides for X.P. for the slaying of monsters, simply reducing the number of monsters the party encounters will naturally slow their characters progression through the levels. This, however, is an overly simplistic way to approach this and must be considered only a piece of the puzzle and not the complete answer. Once we reduced the number of monstrous encounters we then need to consider the power level and complexity of the monsters the party will encounter. Of course, more potent monsters will come with greater experience rewards, but since they will also pose a greater threat to the party at any given level, the players will hopefully be encouraged to spend time role-playing and seeking out help or lore that will aid them in defeating these more potent threats. 

The goal here should never be to punish the players by denying them chances to fight for their X.P. but to make each fight become central to a plot and amount to something more than an a never-ending spree of slain humanoids, wild animals and bandits. That's not to say that these sorts of encounters can't fit into this new model, but you can now do away with the need to pad out an adventure with encounters to keep the action going and use role-playing, NPCs and mysteries to pull the players toward these, in my opinion, more rewarding encounters.

The mechanics of this shift in play style is pretty straight forward. Target your encounters to be at least dangerous or greater difficulty level in nearly every instance with the exception being those lesser encounters that push the plot along such as scuffles with NPCs, minions or the freak environmental encounter (wolves, dangerous plants, lesser undead) that build the theme and tone of the adventure. Choose your featured creatures from those that are complex and powerful, looking for those who have multiple resistances and vulnerabilities that the PCs can learn to counter and exploit. Monsters with lair, legendary and even epic actions are most suitable to this style of play. If needed, I fully encourage beefing up existing monsters to suit your needs through simple tweaks such as increased AC, additional resistances and new abilities that fit their theme. I highly suggest that you avoid adding more HP to these modified monsters as this will not add much in the way of interest to the creatures but will certainly turn fights against them into slogs. What we should always be looking for is creatures that can be defeated if only the party knew how. 

Once you have established the central encounter of the plot, you must then spin a web of motivations, secrets, lore, clues, and useful items the party can find to use against these potent foes. This is the meat of this style of play and I cannot overstate the importance of making the majority of such adventures as much, if not more, about the preparation to confront the foe as it is about the confrontation itself. Items that will aid the party in their fight can be normal magical items that one might find in other D&D games or they can be things that resemble lesser artifacts, full of risk and danger themselves. It is also easy to make these key items into single-use items.

So, you have your plot, it's main encounter and a web of investigative clues, tricks and tricks. Why would your players ever want to play this style of play? 

First of all, any use of this method is going to require buy-in by your players but it is important that your frame it to them in a way that assures them you aren't trying to rob them of X.P. or the chance to see their characters improve and truthfully, this is absolutely not the intention of this method. The real goal here is to provide the players with a chance to act less like cartoon action heroes and more like their favorite investigative, problem-solving characters in fiction, movies and TV. Police procedurals, detective stories, true crime podcasts, even YouTube lore videos are what this style of play feeds into. As mentioned earlier, The Witcher is a great source to reference what you are going for. 

You can assure your players that their characters will grow and develop but they will spend more time getting to know their characters. It is also worth noting that their accumulations of lore, secrets, tricks and items that let them combat these more powerful foes will add texture to their characters while they spend a greater span of time at any given level, much like in older editions. The end goal should always be adventure but adventure with more nourishment of the imagination and the player's abilities. Fights will be tough but rewarding and the pre-work of the players and their characters should pay off every time.

ON THE BENEFITS OF REUSING MONSTERS

With the vast variety of monsters available to DMs, it is tempting to try to use new monsters all the time. The temptation of the next challenge or the fear of encounters becoming boring is a difficult impulse to resist, but there is merit in resisting the call toward ever-new and differing monstrous encounters. It has been said that limitless options is almost as bad as no options and this is demonstrated easily in the use of monsters in your campaigns. If every encounter is something new and unique then no encounter really means much of anything. Reusing monsters helps establish a consistency and believability to your game world. This helps establish a sense of place and thematic consistency. 

As your players learn the world, they will learn its denizens and there is a profound sense of achievement for players as they begin to learn the workings of the campaign setting. Not only does this help the players feel they are getting to know the world, this familiarity will start to take monstrous encounters in new directions. The squeaking and fluttering from a dark cave begins to take on a new meaning with your players after their third encounter with bat swarms or stirges and their recognition of this queue will send them thinking and planning how they can avoid another round of blood loss and/or disease. When they encounters orcs again and again, the will start to find out that sometimes orcs can be bribed and that some orcs maybe aren't so keen on other monsters in the party's path.

There is a strange tradition in D&D of withholding monster identities from players and their characters. This often takes the form of a somewhat tedious, cat and mouse game of selective description that seems to serve no other purpose than to gaslight the players. While I recognize that this is generally intended to instill la sense of in-world wonder and mystery I also have to wonder if it is really all that necessary or even realistic. 

D&D is ostensibly based on the model of a medieval world in which the monsters of myth, legend, and fiction actually exist. The people of those worlds live and interact with, war against, and generally fear those monsters. So, if this is the case, why would any adventurer need to stumble through some one-sides 20 questions description of every monster they encounter? 

This is not to say that there aren't monsters worthy of or where a descriptive encounter is not needed and/or proper, but there are a good number of monsters that people would know from their day to day lives. Other creatures would be known through stories, song, family histories, teachings, and other methods of conveyed knowledge. It is for this reason that I feel the creators of the game really did a great disservice to players and the Monster Manual by removing the "Frequency" (and the number appearing for that matter) entries from the monster listings.

Even when using the frequency mechanic, DM's can still free to choose "show" rather than "tell" when the party encounters a new monster. This is especially true when they are travelling a good ways away from their home territory or when they are encountering creatures that are truly mysterious and unusual. Even when encountering common creatures, the DM can still play it close to the cuff. Would a party of beginning adventurers be able to tell the difference between an ogre and a hill giant? Perhaps locally, as in Tolkien's world, terms like orc and goblin are interchangeable? Just like in real-world folklore and legends, creatures often blur together or are even treated as individuals. When the party encounters fey creatures will they be able to distinguish between a sprite, a pixie, a brownie and a leprechaun? 

In the end, there is room for both descriptive monster identification and explicitly stated identification. Character lore skills, background, and even races can also be used as a guide for determining who knows what or filling in the blanks of any description provided by the DM.

SOLO HEROES - THE THING SUPERHERO RPGS DO BETTER

I have talked a lot about superhero teams and how they facilitate TTRPGs but there is one place that these games do better and easier than most other TTRPGs is solo games. 

When it comes to solo play (one player & one GM), superhero games shine. Superhero characters are generally quite powerful and capable on their own and do not suffer from systems requiring sinergy between a number of characters to function in play. This is further surpported by a vast collection fo inspirational materials showcasing countless heroes operating primarily on their own. Solo characters are also great for GMs as they often face a revolving door of enemies they face one-on-one, allowing creative GMs to constantly cycle through ideas and inspirations. Such characters can easily adapt to small groups of villains or even mobs of henchmen without needing much adjustment or forethought. 

Logistically speaking, these sorts of characters are great for players who may be isolated by real world availability, unable to coodinate with other players. A willing GM can run a solo character on the side and when the gaming stars align, set up a team-up for that solo hero to set out with - the regular group - or even other solo heroes. 

So, if you have a single player you can still run a very satisfying and meaningful campaign in a superhero RPG.

MEGA TEAMS - THE SECRET TO FLEXIBLE GAMES

Tired of not being able to play when players don't show up? Worried that your campaign won't progress because of so much missed time? Do you have a player who's character dies all the time or who is fickle and never wants to play the same character? 

No problem, play a mega team! 

Mega teams are those teams that seem to have an endless membership. Justice League, Legion of Superheroes, Avengers, Defenders, or even The Green Lantern Corps. These teams usually have extensive memberships made up of an ever-changing, ever-growing roster of primary members, secondary and even back-up members. New members come, go and are and are not available as other missions take up their time or their own private lives keep them out of action. 

These sorts of teams allow for a nearly infinite flexibility in both individual adventures as well as campaign progression. They ccomplish this in a number of ways but it all comes down to allowing play to continue no matter who shows up. Three of the most common and useful to gamers are as follows - 

1) Guest Appearances: These are sessions where character who were not originally involved in the main campaign appear in one or more sessions. This can be done for a number of rreasons such as a new player joining the game or an occasional player being available on a given night. They are also useful for when a regular player has a character taken out of action. The popular Marvel Team-Up series is a great example of this but guest appearances are very common even in the main continuity of comics. 

2) Crossovers: Similar to guest appearances, crossovers have a bit more intent to them. These are best used when a GM know he's not going to have all of one or more of his regular players available for the game for a period of time allowing him to plan a crossover event that includes the characters that will be available. 

3) Spin-Offs: These games are most often played with completely new characters and are best used as palate-clensers, fill-in games, or ways to accomodate an influx of new players. Spin-offs can include characters from the main campaign but should not do so unless they take place at some other point in continuity or those characters are not involved in the main game anymore. They are also a good place to reintroduce returning regular players who may have been left behind by the main campaign. Good examples of this are Justice League International, The New Mutants, or West Coast Avengers. 

The main benefit to keeping campaigns going and enriching the overall campaign experience is that the game and thus the players' comic book universe is perpetually growing as each adventure and character comes with its own NPCs, settings, plots and world-building that grows the whole and creates feedback loop. It is also important to not get overly wound up on ironclad continuities. Comic book continuity has always been a bit loose at times using flawed logic, handwavium and retconning to explain things.