The Sacrament of Death

[Johann]

Blogger Eero Tuovinen writes some damn good RPG essays and is currently polling readers about what to write next. I have expressed my love for his insights on my old-school blog Out For Blood and will provide one of my favorite nuggets from discussions on the (now defunct) Story Games forums below for context.

In any case, my favored essay option is The Sacrament of Death and because it's narrowly losing out against the Historiography of D&D, I'm kindly asking you to hop over there and vote for the former, if you are so inclined.

From the blog:

The Sacrament of Death is a rpg theory article on [...] the ways that individual games use to prepare the player for the possible death of their character later in the game. The important part is to realize that playing a game with prominent character death without a solid sacrament is foolish; if there’s going to be death, you should prepare the players for it emotionally and socially.

Historiography of D&D is the name for a rpg theory article with a simple and friendly goal: describing the important points of D&D’s cultural history in an educational way. Many people have written about this, but apparently it’s still a bit difficult to find a nice article to link to when you want to get to the same page with people about what “old school” or “modern D&D” or whatever means in practical terms.

The promised Eero quote (emphasis mine):

I am admittedly beyond hardcore on [the matter of low-level lethality]. I entertain myself thinking up ways to make the D&D support even more meaningless lethality. I find that the constant, nihilistic existential pressure focuses minds wonderfully, and makes the occasional streak of success taste all the more sweet. I simply don't have any interest for facilitating the survival of this particular character any further than his choices, talents and luck take him.

I basically just don't take a D&D GM seriously before they've killed a few PCs. We can talk about it all we like, but until I see them do it, it's all insubstantial theory - maybe their characters have just been skilled and lucky, but also maybe the GM is misusing their wide influence to undermine the supposed dangers. (The D&D GM has such a multitude of influences that it's almost impossible to get a legit game if the GM doesn't want one.) Not that I want my character to die when playing, it's just that I want a legit resolution even more. The only difference between a gauntlet by fire and a puppet theater is in whether there actually is a legitimate possibility of failure.

I should say that while it is possible to make things "too difficult", my experience is that GMs generally vastly underestimate the level to which players are willing to rise. The thing is, if you've already decided that the PCs shall, by and large, live and prosper, then you've already made it impossible for the group to find out how high you can go on the difficulty before the players give up. They'll never have the chance to encounter the setting in all of its true brutality if you as GM shirk away from it. You have to be brave first, or the players never get the chance to be.

So, pretty please? It just needs five votes. And maybe you'll find stuff you like at all those links.

 

[Two orcs]

Eero is great and I'm glad that he keeps writing about D&D. His OSR posts on story-games are brilliant and many directly informed the game I currently run (especially how non-human classes function).

 

[Johann]

Same here, Two orcs. I set about running an old school campaign and becoming a 'Killer DM' in 2012 and finally got things up and running in 2014, in part due to insights, examples, and advice provided by Eero. My old blog is defunct and my new one chronicled the campaign in German until early this year. The campaign's still going strong with nearly 150 sessions in total and 80+ deaths (half of that owing to three DCC funnels, granted).

Which approach to handling non-human classes are you refering to?

 

[Two orcs]

Non-humans don't gain experience points, they are temporary companions with a Pokémon like evolution triggered by alien objectives rather than killing and looting. His example is the Elf, a 1st level elf can be gained as a companion (henchman or PC) basically as a courtesy after visiting an elven court. If they participate in an adventure they will gain renown in the homeland and graduate to an Elven Prince (roughly a 4th level elf) but who will only adventure if the adventure directly relates to the interests of the elven kingdom. Elven princes evolve into Elf Kings (roughly 9th level) who only adventure in the direct defense of the realm, or for love. Elves can fall in love with humans and will adventure to protect them, but if their love is slain they die of sorrow.

I don't use elves but a handful of non-human classes that never gain experience but have peculiar agendas and powers and shorter adventuring life-cycles than humans, generally modeled on monsters. One, the badger, is explicitly made to provide replacement characters if a session ends mid adventure with a PC dead, wounded or missing. Since their homeland is under the earth they can turn up anywhere and leave at any time.

 

[squeen]

My players are adventuring with a very sophisticated dimension-hopping Troll. He's basically a tourist. Hanging around while things remain interesting. He was free-loading in a wizard's sanctum while the wizard was gone/missing.

Can't really level up, but of course...he does suck up 1/2 share of XP.

 

[squeen]

I cannot find a link to the essay on his blog.

 

[Johann]

The old poll is closed now, but the essay is up in the next poll, too. Scroll down a bit, then click on the rider "Current Poll" (under "Recent Essays"). A list should come up and you can vote for something you'd like to see. "The Sacrament of Death" is the second-to-last item, I think.

 

[Johann]

I agree with you guys that non-humans work well with limited exposure. Keeps them exotic and, in your examples, underlines their specific agendas. A dimension-hopping troll makes the perfect tourist - mobility and regneration presumably mean he's not too concerned about danger...

 

[squeen]

If you have started posting here with the covert agenda to make me doubt my sanity:

mission accomplished.​

I still don't see it.


You can now start talking to me like I'm your Grandpa learning how to use his new iPhone.

 

[Beoric]

If you have started posting here with the covert agenda to make me doubt my sanity:

mission accomplished.​

I still don't see it.
View attachment 263

You can now start talking to me like I'm your Grandpa learning how to use his new iPhone.

Click on "Current Poll". Check the box next to the Sacrament of Death.

 

[squeen]

Click on "Current Poll". Check the box next to the Sacrament of Death.

That much I can do...but some nagging sense of responsibility says I should actually read it before voting!

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

That much I can do...but some nagging sense of responsibility says I should actually read it before voting!

It's a poll about what essay he should write next, so it's impossible to read it before voting.

Eero generally strikes me as one of the least stupid of the Forge guys, partially because he's actually played a fairly broad cross-section of games successfully, unlike a lot of them. He still believes in "coherence" which IMHO is the critical flaw in GNS that causes most of it to fall apart, but pobody's nerfect.

 

[Two orcs]

Eero also made a super-heroic attempt at running D&D 4E on its own merits getting a lengthy campaign which he didn't finish chronicling before story-games shut down.

The Sacrament of Death would in my mind be tangentally related to Courtney of Hack & Slash's idea of D&D as a sort of shaman lead vision quest, and the reason many D&D campaigns fail is because the DM lacks shamanistic talent or training. http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2017/12/on-dungeons-dragons-problem.html

 

[squeen]

It's a poll about what essay he should write next, so it's impossible to read it before voting.

I'm an idiot.

 

[Beoric]

Eero also made a super-heroic attempt at running D&D 4E on its own merits getting a lengthy campaign which he didn't finish chronicling before story-games shut down.

The Sacrament of Death would in my mind be tangentally related to Courtney of Hack & Slash's idea of D&D as a sort of shaman lead vision quest, and the reason many D&D campaigns fail is because the DM lacks shamanistic talent or training. http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2017/12/on-dungeons-dragons-problem.html

Hmm, that's an interesting article by Courtney. I wonder how much of that can be fixed by using teaching modules that don't teach simply mechanics, but also content creation and refereeing? I'm thinking of B1 and the Bargle dungeon in the BECMI set. Not to mention examples of actual play in various of the earlier books. Later editions had teaching modules, but I don't think they taught skills relating to exercising judgment or creating content.

I also wonder if there is a place for more linearity during the learning phase while DMs build their skills. It would be interesting to compare the linearity of Adventurer's League modules with that of TSR Tournament Modules. My first thought is that the Tournament Modules were linear in a physical sense (there was only one path through the dungeon) but the rooms were unscripted, thereby encouraging creative play. This creates a structure for DMs and players to learn their skills, without having to manage something as complex and open ended as a town.

Nonlinear dungeons would be a similar teaching tool, because they are still dungeons with constraints that everyone accepts. So is hexcrawling in a sense. Urban adventures have less constraints and are more taxing and should probably be left for more advanced DMs.

So it would make sense to start a new group with something like B1, at the entrance of the dungeon without having to deal with a village. Then at the end of that tell them they need to go to a population centre to cash in the gems and jewelry, and that the nearest one is Hommlet or Nulb or the Keep on the Borderlands, for somewhat less contrained play with the beginning of social elements. Then you can gradually expand the world as the DM and players get more proficiency with running/playing the game.

So perhaps, beginner dungeon (level 1) >> village and low level dungeons connected to village, introduce small scale regional exploration (level 2-4) >> larger region including mid level dungeons and larger population centres, develop larger scale wilderness exploration (level 4-6) >> urban play/social or political intrigue/heists (level 6-8) >> clear area and build a stronghold (level 9-11) >> domain play and high level modules (level 10+).

 

[squeen]

@Beroic: Quite right! DMing is a difficult task, and not something that can be bitten off all at once. There should be some appreciation of that. Hence the very tone of the 1e DMG.

 

[Johann]

That's a neat essay by Courney - thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

TBH, one of his worst essays. It's microwaved Mircea Eliade pulled out of a old vending machine called "Jordan Peterson". It mostly works because neither Courtney nor most of his audience know much about either shamanism or Eliade.

 

[Beoric]

It doesn't matter whether his definition of "shamanism" is clinically accurate. Since he defined the word, it only matters if the definition works for the purposes of the essay. Try replacing "shaman" with "referee" or "facilitator" every time it appears in the essay, and see if it works. You can call it "Bob" as long as the definition works.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

It doesn't matter whether his definition of "shamanism" is clinically accurate. Since he defined the word, it only matters if the definition works for the purposes of the essay. Try replacing "shaman" with "referee" or "facilitator" every time it appears in the essay, and see if it works. You can call it "Bob" as long as the definition works.

He doesn't define the word in the essay. He at one point lists a bunch of skills he thinks "shamans" should have, but that's as close as he comes. He also doesn't define what "ritual" or "social tribal ritual" means in a way that applies to games but not other sorts of regular or habitual activities.

When you strip out all the pseudo-intellectual crap, the core idea of the essay is OK but unremarkable - referees must be able to deal with the possibility of interpersonal conflict in order to set stakes and resolve situations fairly, since to bend too much for the players undermines the link between effort and reward. Most referees are deficient in the skills that would allow them to confidently handle these conflicts and so make the choice to bend rather than risk conflict. They would be better refs if they did not.

I don't disagree with those statements, but the whole shamanism woo crap really obscures that and even sort of implies that it's an innate knack some people have or don't have (emphasised by Courtney mentioning IQ in the essay). This is just factually incorrect - social skills are complex dispositions, not innate knacks like a slightly faster reflex speed or something.