Fellow traveller Connor Nunley has started a new project of reviewing RPGs and books; check his page out:
https://www.instagram.com/the.archivenocturnal?igsh=ZnA1Nm12bGI0bG11
Fellow traveller Connor Nunley has started a new project of reviewing RPGs and books; check his page out:
https://www.instagram.com/the.archivenocturnal?igsh=ZnA1Nm12bGI0bG11
Here is some of my work that I am making available for free. They’re labors of love that I want to share. They aren’t very polished, have little to no art, are only a few pages long, but they are playable games I’ve had a lot of fun with. Here’s what I’m sharing:
(1) The Raid: Rumors and Secrets. A cyberpunk setting where every player has a secret, and so might the employer.
(2) Shadow Dominion: inspired by the game Night’s Black Agents, the setting is a group of Jason-Bourne-type operatives fighting vampires. This game has a specific setting unlike NBA, and is much simpler to learn and run.
(3) Fantastic Secrets: a GMless game that is a dungeon crawl on the surface, but is really about the secret motives each PC has and why.
(4) Cthulhu Darker: Really more house rules than an independent game, these are my modifications to the game Cthulhu Dark, and my notes on how to run a Lovecraftian game.
(5) How to GM: Finally, not a game at all, but a document I’ve written distilling what I understand to be the best practices for GMing an RPG, based on my 40 years of experience doing so.
You can check them all out at this folder:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dhytj0RWw6FVBvSijDIbyQLtDQcZY0P1
All I ask is please come back here and drop me a comment! Tell me what you liked or didn’t like, and especially if you tried a game what your experience playing was. Happy Gaming!
This is my latest creation, a work-in-progress but functional as-is, so I thought I’d share it. After watching the film Sinners and reading through Ken Hite’s interesting game Night’s Black Agents, I found myself wanting to play in that Jason Bourne vs. Vampires kind of genre.
NBA is a great game, but it requires a lot of handling time – and the dice mechanic is not to my taste, frankly, for a couple of reasons. So I looked at Cthulhu Dark, and thought of combining the simplicity of those mechanics with risk from EZD6, and adding in some inspiration from the colorful combat options in NBA. For Chargen, I went for quick, roll-or-choose tables for everything from the name to background events, that I find fun to use. I like chargen that’s a fun part of the game rather than laborious number crunching. And so, Shadow Dominion is born!
I hope to try it out this Friday in a one-shot. If you try it out, please let me know your experience!
In the last three parts of this series, I’ve covered what roleplaying is, why we enjoy roleplaying games, and how to be a good player. Now we turn to part four: how to GM.
There are so many aspects to gamemastering that no single blog post could cover them all. This is simply an introduction to the basic approaches, and I encourage you to explore the many other resources available.
When it comes to gamemastering, in my opinion there are basically three approaches: (1) prepare a railroad for the players; (2) prepare a situation; or (3) improvise on the spot.
The term “railroad” is often seen as pejorative, but I don’t mean it that way. Similar terms include “linear adventure.” What I mean by railroad is that you, as the GM, have prepared specific encounters in particular locations that will occur in sequence, from the opening scene to the final scene of a session (or even a campaign).
Many people react negatively to this approach. A common criticism is that it reduces player agency—the idea that player choices should meaningfully impact the game world. If you have player agency, that means had you made different choices, the shared fiction would have developed differently.
Although there’s some truth to this, I’ve noticed that some people have a limited notion of player agency. For example, some argue that a dungeon with only one entrance is railroading because players must use that entrance, while multiple entrances provide meaningful choice. This view is quite narrow. What significant difference does it make if there are multiple entrances when players have no choice but to enter the dungeon? And what if, regardless of which entrance they choose, they’ll encounter the same group of goblins because that’s what the GM planned as their first encounter?
While railroading isn’t my preferred approach, it can work well for some groups. Players still have choices in how they deal with each encounter, so they still have some agency – their choices matter in terms of what happens in that particular scene. Whether this level of choice is satisfying enough depends on player preferences. So I wouldn’t declare railroading inherently flawed—it’s simply a matter of preference.
If railroading appeals to you, plenty of resources are available online. Most mainstream GM advice, particularly for Dungeons & Dragons, focuses on this approach. Check popular YouTube channels about being a good Dungeon Master, and you’ll find they’re primarily discussing railroading techniques.
But a word of caution: ask yourself: do you enjoy GMing this way?
Here’s where railroading often encounters problems: you’ve planned a series of encounters based on your own logic, but your players may think differently. Typically, players draw unexpected conclusions from encounters and head in directions you haven’t prepared for. This creates pressure to get them “back on track,” forcing them toward encounters you’ve prepared rather than where they want to go. This can frustrate players and diminish their enjoyment.
This is why I personally don’t recommend railroading.
Another approach is what I call “preparing a situation.” This means creating a fictional scenario with inherent, dynamic tension that engages players with something meaningful to their characters. Essential elements of a situation usually include several NPCs with conflicting motivations and goals, that create friction with each other and with the player characters. It’s also a good idea to include a few interesting locations, items or objects, innocents who need saving, or other people or things the players are likely to care about.
With this style of gamemastering, the next essential element is to prepare an opening scene that informs players about the situation—just enough to get them started and see what’s at stake for them. After establishing this opening, you simply have your NPCs and the world respond naturally to player actions. Players will react to these responses, and the NPCs and other elements will respond to this reaction, and so on, creating a cycle of action and reaction. There’s no preplanned climax or encounters beyond the opening scene; outcomes are determined organically through play. Eventually a climax emerges naturally, rather than being planned in advance.
In this style, you focus on playing your NPCs and the setting rather than trying to manage the actions of players. I’ve written in detail about this approach (including with fleshed-out examples) in a document you can download for free:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf–HTDeQ7o2SgNuiSeQazuH-eRKd-Bq/view?usp=drivesdk
Finally, there’s on-the-spot improvisation, where you prepare nothing and make everything up as you go. This might seem entirely different from the other approaches, but I’m not entirely convinced. Even when improvising, our ideas come from somewhere—setting concepts, NPCs, etc.
We may think we’re creating everything spontaneously, but if we have a specific endpoint in mind—like a climactic confrontation with a villain at a particular location—then it’s still a kind of railroad, just without predetermined steps. Conversely, if we’re simply playing NPCs responding to events and player actions without a planned endpoint, that’s essentially the “situation” approach described earlier. Is pure improvisation truly its own method?
Regardless, if you do want to GM improvisationally without preparation, having some resources for inspiration helps tremendously. Random tables, computer-generated settings, NPCs with motivations, random taverns, towns, dungeons, treasures, and monsters can all provide elements to riff off of.
These are my brief thoughts on the basic approaches to gamemastering. There’s much more to say about running specific encounters, making combat exciting, and other topics—much of which depends on your specific game system. Many people have already written extensively on these subjects.
So, what do you think? Are there other basic approaches to gamemastering I’ve missed? What approach do you use? What tools or resources have you found helpful? Are there other topics worth covering in this basic series? I welcome your comments.
In the first part of this series, I examined what roleplaying games are by exploring what people actually do in them. In the second part, I outlined the different reasons people enjoy participating in these games. Now I want to focus on how to play roleplaying games well—specifically, how to be a good player.
When playing, we often need to balance our own enjoyment with contributing to—or at least not hindering—other people’s fun. Fortunately, good roleplaying tends to emerge naturally when we’re doing what we enjoy while remaining curious about what other players find enjoyable.
Be curious about:
And there you have it—my current thoughts on being a good roleplaying game player. How does this list compare with your own experience? Did I miss anything important? Is there anything I should have left out? I welcome your comments!
In the first part of this series, I described to the best of my ability what roleplaying is, specifically in the context of game-mastered roleplaying games, by describing what people tend to do during a game. Now I want to explore why we do it—what is it about roleplaying games that keeps enthusiasts coming back for more?
Before diving in, I want to clarify that I won’t be delving into complex roleplaying game theory, as some others have done. Some people have developed elaborate models and theories about player preferences, compatibility between different play styles, and so on. I’m not convinced this theoretical approach makes much practical difference for most players or designers. The academic terminology often becomes ambiguous or exclusionary—take the term “narrativism,” which is an ambiguous term. You can have a narrative about anything. This term can be interpreted in numerous ways, and has created its own circle of theorists who deride those who use it improperly, and claim superior understanding and requisite status for themselves.
Whether RPG theory has any validity is something I’ll leave for others to judge, but I think it’s simply fact that it rarely impacts or influences those who play or design games, with very few exceptions.
Instead, I want to discuss the general elements that people find appealing about roleplaying games. Understanding what you enjoy can help game masters prepare better sessions, or assist designers in creating more enjoyable experiences for themselves and their target audience.
To start, I’ll begin with what I just mentioned, what some might call “narrativism”. I don’t care what other people might mean by it in other contexts, but what I mean by it here is simply focus on the character, who they are and how they change. One thing many players enjoy is focusing on a character: their motivations, goals, moral center, and how these aspects evolve or change when the character faces difficult or extreme situations. Some players are essentially playing to discover who their character truly is and how (and if) they change through various challenges.
This is just one element that some players enjoy—it’s no better or worse than any other preference, and all such preferences are legitimate.
At a fundamental level, many people enjoy roleplaying games because they are games with uncertain outcomes. There’s excitement in caring about your character, playing them striving toward their goals, and seeing whether or not they succeed. This uncertainty is what makes roleplaying games actual games—your character might not get what they want, creating a sense of stakes and potential loss.
Some players particularly enjoy creative or technical problem-solving. You see this in certain fiction, especially science fiction stories that emphasize clever technical solutions over character development. In roleplaying games, this might involve using magic in unexpected ways to escape a trap, spying on enemies through ingenious means, or combining tactics to defeat opponents. Rather than inventing some pretentious, ambiguous term for this preference, I’ll simply call it problem-solving.
Related to but distinct from problem-solving is the focus on combat. Some players greatly enjoy games with significant combat elements, similar to why people enjoy wargames. In fact, a common origin story for roleplaying games traces them to wargamers who wanted more detail about individual characters in their battles. Some players appreciate the technical specifications, tactics, and strategy involved in confronting enemies in a shared imaginary world.
Another appeal is setting immersion. Players enjoy embodying characters because the setting itself is compelling—many science fiction fans have dreamed of serving as an officer on a Federation starship, or fighting orcs in Middle-Earth. The opportunity to experience a beloved fictional setting firsthand is a powerful draw.
Whether you consider this separate from “character focus” or not, some players specifically enjoy the experience of embodying someone who isn’t themselves—stepping into another perspective and doing things they wouldn’t or couldn’t do in the real world.
Some players seek specific atmospheres or emotional content in their games. Horror roleplaying games create fear, while games like Ten Candles generate feelings of sorrow and nostalgia. These emotional experiences can be valuable and enjoyable in the right context.
Though less common, some players prefer games focused on political maneuvering and social dynamics, such as Vampire: The Masquerade. The enjoyment comes from navigating complex social situations, increasing your character’s status, and outmaneuvering rivals.
These are the primary elements that I believe people enjoy about roleplaying games. There’s nothing particularly profound about this analysis, and I’m not interested in theorizing why people like these aspects—I’m only concerned with identifying what they actually enjoy. I also see no reason to think that these aspects are incompatible with each other, or that a game cannot or should not do more than one of them – such pronouncements are way too theoretical. The only way to test whether or not a game does more than one of these well is to have many people try it and see.
But that’s neither here nor there. In my next blog post, I’ll discuss some best practices for basic roleplaying based on what we’ve covered so far.
Until then, your thoughts and comments on this post are very much welcomed. Did I leave anything out? What is it you enjoy about tabletop roleplaying games?
Footnote: For those who want to know what I mean about the kind of RPG theory I was alluding to earlier (and the big mess it can be), here is an example: https://www.arkenstonepublishing.net/isabout/2020/05/14/observations-on-gns-simulationism/
Note that I mean no disrespect to the author, who does a great job with the various concepts he mentions. I’m just not sure any of it is worth spending any time on.
Hi everyone! I thought I’d spend the next few posts exploring the fundamentals of roleplaying games (RPGs). Not because I claim any special expertise, but simply because I enjoy thinking and talking about them. I’m also hoping this sparks a conversation, inviting you to share your own thoughts and perspectives.
Part of my motivation is personal: I’m working to articulate my understanding in my own words, moving away from the specific jargon of a group I was previously involved with (AdeptPlay). This series is part of that process.
What Roleplaying Isn’t: Storytelling
First, let’s tackle what in my opinion is a common misconception. Despite what many books and articles suggest, roleplaying is not storytelling, at least not in the conventional sense. I believe framing it that way is misleading.
Think about traditional storytelling: the storyteller typically arrives with a fully formed narrative – beginning, middle, end, plot points, the works. They then recount this pre-existing story to the audience.
Roleplaying doesn’t work like that. While a story certainly emerges from a roleplaying session after it’s over, the act of playing isn’t about reciting or playing to a pre-written script.
Crucially, the quality of the story that emerges after the session often has little correlation with how much fun the participants had during the session. You can have an incredible, engaging time playing, yet the resulting story, viewed objectively, might lack classic story structure or polish. Conversely, you might endure a dull or frustrating session where your contributions felt ignored, but the sequence of events, when looked back upon, coincidentally forms a structurally “good” story.
Because the process isn’t storytelling, and because the quality of the resulting narrative doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of the play experience, I find using “storytelling” as the primary lens for understanding RPGs to be unhelpful, even misleading.
So, What Is Roleplaying? (Focusing on Game-mastered Games)
Okay, if it’s not storytelling, what is happening during a roleplaying game?
There’s a vast spectrum of RPGs. One major distinction is between games with a designated Game Master (GM) and those without (often called GM-less games). For this post, I’ll focus on games with a GM, simply because they are very common, though GM-less games are a fascinating topic for another time. (Note: It’s difficult to make sweeping generalizations about GM-less games due to their huge variety.)
At its core, a GM’d roleplaying session is a conversation. Participants talk about what’s happening within a shared setting.
For example, in a Star Trek Adventures game, the setting is the familiar sci-fi universe of the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, etc. Concepts like starships, phasers, transporters, and tractor beams are part of the assumed background shared by everyone playing.
Most participants are Players, each typically controlling one or more specific characters within that setting. One participant is the Game Master (GM).
Players assume the roles of their characters, describing their actions, words, and sometimes thoughts. They might also ask the GM questions to clarify the situation or environment (“What else do I see in this room?”).
The Game Master has the power and responsibility to describe the setting, determine how the environment and its inhabitants react to the player characters (PCs), and portray all the other characters in the world, known as Non-Player Characters (NPCs). From a player’s perspective, NPCs are part of the setting managed by the GM.
The Flow of Play
The way play proceeds is, the GM presents a context, the players describe how their characters react, and the GM describes the outcome or the world’s response. The conversation flows back and forth between one or more players talking, the GM responding, and the players responding in turn.
At certain points, most RPGs introduce an element of chance. Players, and sometimes the GM, might roll dice or use another randomizer (like drawing cards). The outcome of this randomization influences what happens next in the shared setting. Did the character succeed at their risky action? Did something unexpected occur? The result is incorporated into the ongoing conversation.
This cycle—conversation, action, occasional randomization and determination of the outcome, followed by more conversation—repeats until the session reaches an endpoint. This might be due to external factors (like running out of scheduled time) or internal narrative developments (reaching a satisfying conclusion, achieving a goal or failing to). Occasionally, a session might end because players decide they aren’t enjoying the game anymore, which can happen for a myriad of reasons.
Essential Elements of Gamemastered Roleplaying
If that describes the process, what are the core components that make it work? Based on the flow described above (and please comment if you think I’ve missed something crucial!), here are what I see as the essential elements:
Shared Setting: The group agrees to play within a specific fictional world (Middle-earth, the Star Trek universe, World War II, a post-apocalyptic wasteland, etc.) with common background assumptions about how that world works.
Agreed-Upon Rules (The Game System): The group uses a specific set of rules (Dungeons & Dragons, Star Trek Adventures, Alien RPG, Call of Cthulhu, Apocalypse World, or one of the countless others). This system defines:
GM Preparation: For most GM’d games, the GM does some preparation beforehand. The extent varies wildly by game system and GM style, but it generally involves creating or selecting fictional elements to drive the action and create conflict. This often includes:
Scene Framing: Someone (usually, but not always the GM) needs to kick off the action by describing the initial context: where the PCs are, what time it is, and what’s immediately happening. Examples: “You’re walking through the forest under a bright sun when a small dragon crashes through the trees into a clearing ahead.” or “You’re aboard your freighter, the Beowolf, en route to Hypatia Station when you pick up a distress signal.”
Player Character Embodiment: Players respond to the framed scene by describing what their characters do, think, or say, guided by their character’s established goals, personality, and motivations.
Active Listening and Building: Participants listen to each other. When a player describes their character’s action, it’s generally accepted as having happened in the shared world unless the rules or the GM intervenes (often by saying something like, “Okay, let’s see if you succeed at that,” and calling for a dice roll). Other players and the GM then react and build upon that contribution.
GM Adjudication and Setting Response: The GM uses the rules and their prepared material (or improvisation) to describe how the world and NPCs react to the players’ actions. If a player character threatens a goblin, the GM portrays the goblin’s response based on what they know about its nature. If the outcome is uncertain (Just how intimidating was the threat? How tough is the goblin?), the GM might call for a dice roll based on the game’s rules. Similarly, if a character tries to scale a slippery wall, the GM might determine the difficulty and ask for a roll to see if they manage it.
Player Response and Iteration: Players react to the outcomes and the GM’s descriptions, deciding on their characters’ next actions, continuing the cycle.
Change and Consequence: As play progresses, the shared imagined world is dynamic. NPCs might change their goals, allegiances, abilities, or leave or die. Player characters can also change – gaining new abilities and powers, gaining or losing resources, changing their motivations, facing injuries and setbacks including death. Locations, organizations, and the overall setting will evolve based on the actions taken.
Play continues cyclically and iteratively until a natural endpoint is reached for the session.
Wrapping Up (For Now)
So, that’s my initial take on describing what basic GM’d roleplaying is, focusing on the process rather than trying to define it by the story it might produce after the fact. I haven’t touched on what makes it good or effective yet – just the mechanics of what happens at the table.
Over to You!
What’s your perspective? Did I miss anything crucial in this description? Is there anything you think I’m off the mark on? I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
Having heard from some people, such as Ron Edwards, that T&T was the quintessential dungeon-crawling game, I wanted to give the game a spin to see how I liked it and what I could learn from it. The 5th edition of the game is what got the most praise, so that’s the one I tried. My bottom line: the game as a whole is clever and worthy of play, but the text is vague enough that it requires interpretation; such interpretation can differ dramatically from table to table. I’ll include what I came up with below in a comment; for Ron Edwards’ (substantially different, but also perfectly functional) way of playing, please see his website, http://adeptplay.com.
Here’s what happened during the actual game:
So the setting of the game is my own. The evil queen Aletheia, recently released from centuries of imprisonment, and her right hand mage Judore, took over the realm of Varhold, enslaving its inhabitants. From there, she called all the remnants of the Elven diaspora to her. Together, they continued enslaving and conscripting humans and other races into her army, and began a campaign of imperial conquest. None seem to be able to stand against her forces. Desperate for any chance, any hint of weapons or items to fight against the evil queen, rulers of the surrounding territories are willing to pay high prices. So, brave adventures roam the land, exploring caverns and ancient ruins in search of such treasure.
In the dwarven town of Boltheim, refugees fleeing from the depredations of the elven forces have found that their trials are only just beginning. The locals tell of how strange creatures are coming into town and abducting people, who are never seen again. Recently, a teenage abductee successfully escaped, and told how she was held captive in some sort of cave, where she could see chests full of crystals glowing with strange magic. Pleading for someone to help rescue her family, she gave directions to the location from which she escaped.
So the adventure begins with the player characters in front of an iron door leading further into the caverns. I was GMing for two players, each of who controlled two characters, who included warriors Hayoshiko, Atticus, and Enneada, and Sezerain the rogue. The characters were able to enter the door, forcing it open with a combined strength roll. One rules point here: the fifth edition rules talk about saving rolls, but these are really attribute checks. The easiest way for me to understand them was that the player rolls two dice (doubles explode), and adds the relevant attribute value to the total. They need to equal or exceed the difficulty number, which is five times the difficult level +15. The level of difficulty is determined by the GM. So 2d6+attribute >= 15 + (difficulty level X 5). This is mathematically equivalent to what the text describes, but it is more intuitive for me.
The characters quickly found themselves in a room with a fancy rug on the floor, and three doors to choose from. They noticed the rug was clean and looked pristine, so they were quite suspicious of it and avoided stepping on it. I asked for some IQ checks here as basically perception rolls; for those who didn’t roll a 20 or above, I just gave very basic information. One character rolled above 20, and I mentioned how they could hear people screaming faintly in the distance, and that the doors to the east and south were closest to the sound.
The players open the door to the east, and see nothing inside, except a chest and another door. They are suspicious, and don’t go in. They then proceed to the door to the south. One character opens it, and because they didn’t use the key, it triggers a trap. Three giant, hungry spiders are released from above them, and proceed to attack.
Now, when creating the spiders, I gave them the following features. I thought I would give them a monster rating of 20 – but that would mean they’d roll three dice each, and add 15. This seemed too harsh, so I gave them three dice and an add of just five. I was then worried this would make them too easy, so I thought that I would make it so that they didn’t get weaker (roll fewer dice) until they were down to a 5 constitution. In other words, instead of them taking damage to their monster rating they’d take damage to their Constitution of 20. In addition, I gave them a web spinning attack: they can spit out webs, forcing the targeted character to make a dexterity save of 20 or be trapped; once entangled, a character would have to make a Strength roll of 25 or above to escape.
Unfortunately, I didn’t realize just how challenging the spiders would be. A giant spider managed to corner one of the characters, Hayoshiko, into a one-on-one battle. This became a bit of a grind, as the character was a warrior with 12 points of armor. After several rounds where no one did any damage to each other, we quickly instituted the spite damage rule: if you roll a six, then someone on the opposing side takes one point of damage, regardless of armor. Slowly, they were each getting hurt. Hayoshiko tried to retreat to join the other characters so they could fight together. I interpreted this to be a dexterity roll. Unfortunately the character failed (they rolled less than 20). Now here is the first rules question: when someone does a stunt like this, how to adjudicate the attack from the opponent? Normally, you compare the total of weapon rolls from each side, but when one side isn’t using a weapon roll, how to determine the result of the opposing attack? In this particular case, I rolled for the spider as usual, and compared this total to the player’s total for their dexterity roll, basically substituting it for the weapon roll. The spider’s total was less than the player’s. So I interpreted this to mean that the character was not able to reach his companions, but also the spider was not able to damage him. But I’m not clear on how this works in general.
Meanwhile, Enneada, Sezerain, and Atticus were fighting together against two spiders. The first round goes well for them, and they’re able to do 20 points above the spiders’ total, so do 10 points of damage to each spider. The spiders then unleash their web attacks. Atticus and Enneada fail their dexterity saving throws, and are entangled. Facing two giant spiders, Sezerain backs into the room with the chest, hoping to use the doorway to keep both spiders from attacking him at once. I winced inwardly as the player told me this, because I knew there was a pit trap just inside the door to the chest room! The pit trap opens. However, the player makes their saving throw – they needed a 25, and they got a 26. So I say they’re able to roll to the side, their lantern rolling onto the floor beside them.
So now we have three separate fights going on. Hayoshiko is fighting one spider to the west side of the room, one spider is attacking the entangled characters, while another spider is trying to get at Sezerain, who is in the room with the chest, balanced on the edge of the pit trap.
Over the course of several rounds, Hayoshiko tries a number of maneuvers, retreating and trying to get back out the main entrance, trying to get the spider to flee using his torch, and again trying to reach the other characters. Unfortunately, each maneuver fails. I interpreted them as dexterity rolls, with maybe one luck roll in there. Now, the way that I read the rules, when someone does a stunt like this I should give them the difficulty level, consequences for failure, and the benefit of success. The benefits of success were easy to determine each time, but I wound up being continually confused about what failure would mean, in particular how to adjudicate the spider’s attack after the player failed. What I wound up doing was just applying the spider attack to the total of the players dexterity roll. The result was a slow grind, with spite damage slowly wearing away at each combatant.
Sezerain fought the giant spider with his spear, and the results were similar to Hayoshiko’s battle: they were slowly grinding each other down. Meanwhile, the third giant spider made free attacks on the entangled Atticus, eventually killing him. Enneada tried several strength rolls to get free, failing several times, helpless to prevent the spider from savaging the poor Atticus.
The battle continues, Enneada fails to escape, and gets bit for some damage; Sezerain keeps fighting the spider and finally kills it. Enneada finally breaks free of her web, and attacks the spider. Sezerain throws his spear at the spider, so I interpreted that as a combined melee attack. This attack is able to take that spider out.
At this point, after several failed rolls, Hayoshiko is fighting a giant spider in the dark, armed only with a rock. Sezerain and Enneada want to quickly join him, so I gave them a choice: Enneada can help Sezerain across the pit trap quickly with a combined strength roll; if successful, they’ll be able to reach Hayoshiko in time to make a combined attack against the remaining spider this round. Or, they can play it safe, Sezerain can cross automatically without a roll required, but they won’t be able to reach Hayoshiko until the next round.
Here’s where another rules question comes in. They each made a strength roll, Enneada succeeding, but Sezerain failed by rolling a 4. Now their combined total was more than enough to beat the level of difficulty of 25 – but because one of them failed their roll, how to interpret the results? In this case, I erred on the side of harshness, saying that Sezerain almost slips but he manages to get across, but not in time to help Hayoshiko this round.
Regardless, Hayoshiko and the spider do only a slight bit of damage to each other from spite damage. The next round, the characters join up, and are able to take the spider out with their combined attack.
I felt a little bit embarrassed, because I hadn’t meant the spiders to be that much of a challenge. They were powerful enough to almost take out the entire party. But I suppose that’s just my inexperience with the system. I felt sorry for the characters, and wanted to change the spider stats on the spot to help them out, but the players saw what I was doing and spoke up, refusing to let me go easy on them, which of course was the right call.
The rest of the game went smoothly in my opinion. The characters cleverly disarmed a trap in the chest by pushing it into the pit trap so that it broke open. The sleeping gas it contained was released, but it dispersed sufficiently that it didn’t get anyone. The party proceeded further into the caverns, and found where the screams were coming from. They observed humans tied onto stone slabs, their blood being slowly drained and dripping into containers which glowed, gradually getting brighter the more blood dripped into them. In addition, they found a humanoid mushroom tied onto the one of the slabs, with a battle hardened Elven veteran and a pair of orcs experimenting on it, trying to get it to bleed. They also saw a couple of human slaves, with iron collars on their necks. One of the slaves noticed Enneada, but turned their head, not acknowledging her presence.
After a brief discussion, the party decided they were too wounded to attempt a rescue, and took the treasure they found and ran back to town. And that’s where that session ended.
Overall I had a lot of fun, but I admit that, during prep, I had a very hard time understanding this text of Tunnels and Trolls. I’m speaking of the fifth edition here. To me, some of the most important parts of play were completely left out. It’s like, the game text makes perfect sense if you already know how to play the game – but if you don’t, it’s very difficult to know how to play from reading the text. I often find this problem; the authors are so familiar with their game that some of the most important practices or rules are so obvious to them that they don’t even think of writing them down. However, these are not obvious to most other people. Without exception, when I’ve heard a game designer say, “it’s obvious that you’re supposed to do such-and-such in that situation,” or the like, they’ve been completely wrong. Certainly their point was not obvious to me at all.
One caveat: considering the time this game was written – 1979, I believe – it’s better than most comparable texts, and remarkably innovative. Despite the issues I had with it, I don’t want to forget this point.