The Other Appendix N

Because I know that nobody reading this right now has ever read the D&D 5.0 Dungeon Master's Guide, that also means you almost certainly don't know about one of its best treasures: APPENDIX D: DUNGEON MASTER INSPIRATION (page 316).

This is separate from the "Inspirational Reading" list included in the Player's Handbook, itself based on the classic "Appendix N" from the 1st Edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. While that list consists entirely of works of fantasy fiction, the DMG's list is instead a collection of resources that the 5E development team thought might be helpful for you to hone the skills of dungeon mastering. And I gotta say, I quite like this list.

I've transcribed the full page below, with some thoughts of my own at the end.

Archaeology: Dwarf Class for 5E

I had been playing RPGs for many years before I ever even considered getting into homebrew. Of course, I wasn't against homebrew. I routinely took homemade gameable content from my favorite RPG blogs and put them into the games I was playing. But I just never wanted to make it myself, y'know?

Boy how things change.

It was around 2016 that I started dabbling in game design, but even then it was all confined to 2014 D&D 5E stuff. That's when I came up with my first dungeoncrawling procedure, Advanced Darkness, some rules for 4E-style minions, and started working on my rules for mazes (all of which were essential houserules to bolt onto your 5E game if you ever wanted to run my megadungeon, I assure you).

Around 2019 I was getting into the really retro stuff, especially Greyhawk, and wanted to try making a "race-as-class" hack for 5E. The idea was that Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Gnome would all be made into a full class, levels 1-20. Any PC of a different class would therefore be a human (and should still get the human traits at character creation, obviously). I had lots of notes about how I was planning to create each one, but the only one I made serious progress on was the Dwarf.

You want to take a look together?

Slush Pile

All the cool bloggers are into slushposting. I think it was started by Dan over at Throne of Salt? He occasionally does this thing where he takes all the unfinished posts in his drafts folder and just throws them together into a big messy post as a way of cleaning up. Personally, I hate admitting defeat. Some of my most-viewed posts of all time spent 6+ months in my drafts folder, slowly cultivating a rich and nutritious wordcount like a fine cheese.

But my drafts folder has 70+ unfinished posts in it right now and even I have to admit that a lot of this is garbage. So I'm gritting my teeth and dumping some of those un-ripened thoughts here for the curious to read. Think of it as a low-quality follow-up to my Potpourri post. I doubt many people will be interested in this, but maybe it'll give me peace of mind.

Here are five abandoned ideas that I have deemed unworthy of a blog post, but still worth sharing for my true fans. I'm going to mimic the format recently used by Prismatic Wasteland, where I moreso describe the post rather than actually write some brief version of it. Where I have some text worth salvaging, I'll also quote it.

Ten Years (Part 3)

You've heard the good, the messy, and the annoying. But here in our grand finale? These are the real reasons I haven't run a 5E game in years. The stuff that makes me sometimes not even want to be a player anymore. To the game's credit, none of these things really bothered me for quite a few years. It took a lot of experience with the game before these issues started really getting to me. I'm sure if I played any game long enough, there'd be some aspect of it that would eventually annoy me this much.

All the criticisms I have in this post fall under two umbrellas: magic and combat.

Ten Years (Part 2)

As you know, I quite like D&D 5E. Hopefully I was able to illuminate some of its positive qualities that you may have overlooked. But let's be honest. This is the moment you've all been waiting for. The bad parts. A lot of people bounce off of 5E at first or they fall out of love with it after a while. But you want to know what a person who's spent a full decade playing it has to complain about. What are the most agonizing parts of this game after all this time?

Well, like before, I have to split them up into a few categories. Because "what makes D&D bad" is not just a long list, but a nuanced one.

Ten Years (Part 1)

You've probably noticed me blogging a lot more about 5E lately. And if you've read any of that, you'll know I that I have pretty complicated feelings towards it.

It's still my main group's main game. We've been together since early 2017 and have played multiple 5E campaigns together, including one that went all the way to level 20. But I was also playing it from the day it first released, including a few long-term campaigns and a whole lotta one-shots. I wouldn't even know how to begin calculating a modest estimate of the time I've spent with it. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours.

I myself haven't run a session in 5E in years, though. I've just been too interested in exploring different possibilities. It's how I started in the hobby, and it was inevitable I'd return to that instinct.

I may never end up playing a newer version of D&D ever again. So I thought it might be fitting to write my big retrospective on this game. I hope the amount of experience I have, coupled with my experiences across the rest of the RPG world, gives my perspective some value. At least, more value than 99% of the discourse out there about 5E.

In the Mouth of Madness

"Go on in, it's okay. You can see him."

The Dungeon Master was frozen at the door. He was nervous for what he'd find on the other side. But that was his player in there. His friend. After a moment's hesitation, he stepped inside. Just ahead, there were the bars of a secure cell visible. He could hear the Rogue's voice. He was saying something, something unclear. The nurse saw that the Dungeon Master was unsure, and so she stepped inside with him.

"Rogue, you have a visitor. Your Dungeon Master has come to see you."

The Dungeon Master crept further and saw through the cell bars. On the other side was the Rogue. He was pale and trembling. His arms were bound and his surroundings were padded. Their eyes met, but there was no recognition in the Rogue's gaze. He just continued muttering.

"It doesn't even give the length. Not in feet, not in meters, not in squares, nothing."

"The length of what, Rogue?" asked the Dungeon Master.

"Why are those words capitalized? Why are so many words capitalized?"

It was no use. He wasn't talking to them at all. He wasn't in the same room as them, in the same world as them. The Dungeon Master choked. It was too difficult for him to see. His friend of so many years, now a total stranger. The Rogue had changed.

Rules Aren't Knots

[This post exists for Josh to be able to cite. Feel free to do likewise.]

This is actually one of my favorite passages in a 5E text and I want to explain why:

Like, first of all, this is kind of a cute rule, right? Like oh hey that's clever, instead of a binary pass/fail, the result of your check becomes the DC to untie the knot. That's smart. You can think of it like a "delayed contest," not unlike how Stealth vs Perception typically works. And you reassign Sleight of Hand to the Intelligence attribute instead of Dexterity because it makes more sense. That's a nifty bit of design.

But more importantly, it's not actually included because 5E thought you needed a mechanic for this. It's an illustrative moment to remind you that 5E was intended to be a game that thrives on "rulings over rules," that you should be thinking of creative ways to apply the core mechanic on a case-by-case basis. This idea is stated outright in the PHB and the DMG both, but then also again right here in Xanathar's Guide. They felt the need to include a reminder doubling down on it, by way of a good example.

Rules aren't knots. Rules are rope. A good DM should know how to use rope, because DMing is an adventure in itself.

-Dwiz

Crunch Criteria

I'm gunna be a little self-indulgent and quote myself.

Every piece of crunch you add has a cost. A cost in how much brainpower it takes to learn, to teach, to remember, to use. The essential tradeoff is to make sure that crunch is able to add something really valuable to the game in spite of that cost. I try to only add crunch in the parts of the experience that I think have the most potential for interesting decision-making.

This isn't just talk. I actually have a set of standards I apply when it comes to "justifying crunch" in a system. It's a hierarchy of three levels.

Not All Balance is the Same

Artist Credit: Wayne Reynolds

This is a spiritual sequel to a previous post about crunch. Everyone uses the word "balance" in reference to something in RPGs but they frequently use it to refer to different things. Sometimes completely unrelated things. And yet it's become intensely emotionally-charged despite being, essentially, a non-word.

So while you very likely have strong opinions about this word, it might be useful to take a closer look. In this article, I'm going to examine six ways that the word "balance" commonly comes up when discussing RPGs, and why it's important to recognize that they are indeed distinct.

As usual, I will mostly be making reference to ol' D&D as my primary example, but don't mistake that for meaning that this only carries relevance to D&D alone. All kinds of gaming philosophies might benefit from a little bit of thought about these six different meanings for the word "balance," even if there are some that you can safely dismiss. So yeah, balance matters to other crunchy games like GURPS and Lancer and Genesys-system stuff of course, but it can also come up in your rules-lite games, story games, FKR games, lyric games, and so on. If you want to design a Star Wars game and you aren't sure about how to handle the Force, or if you're going to be running a Call and/or Trail of Cthulhu and are crafting a mystery for your investigators, or you're making a random mutation table for a Mothership adventure you're writing, then there's likely something in this post that you should be thinking about. It just might never have occurred to you before because you're only ever thinking of one possible definition out of many.

Enough Dweeb Adventures

I have a hypothesis: Wizards of the Coast's 5E adventures are for fucking weenies.

I know, it's a tall claim to make. Let's prove this through rigorous scientific analysis.

[Okay, in all seriousness, I recognize that I'm really preaching to the choir here. But use this article for 1) knowing how not to write dope adventures, and 2) explaining to your friends who are squares what the difference is between dope adventures and mayonnaise adventures.]

The principal variables I want to examine are villains and conflict. They reveal a lot about a designer's sensibilities towards what's cool. Because as we all know, the bad guys are always cooler than the good guys.

A Primer on Star Wars RPGs

If you've received a link to this article, you may have just asked the question, "what's the deal with Star Wars RPGs?" The first part of this post is a succinct overview of all the major (and some minor) options out there which cover this need.

I decided to write this because in the last two weeks, I've seen at least 4 Reddit posts and a couple Discord messages where people asked that very question, and I get tired of explaining it. So if you see someone asking that question, link them to this article.

As far as I know, there isn't an "RPG Circlejerk" subreddit, so I have to post this image here instead. Yes, I know this is probably just bait, but...

 -Dwiz

Hidden Grove of the Deep Druids: an adventure I drew for

Longtime reader Harald Maassen just released a really tight dungeon adventure called "Hidden Grove of the Deep Druids," which I contributed artwork for!

It's available as a Pay What You Want download on the Dungeon Master's Guild. Worry not though. It's a decently system-flexible adventure good for all medieval-ish fantasy dungeoncrawlers. If you are a 5E player, it provides some lite mechanical support to run the adventure in a more old-school way.

The premise? "Evil druid cult." An ever-elusive archetype but one that I think Harald has nailed here. If you've never used druids as villains, you should really give it a whirl.

It's a medium-sized dungeon that's non-linear, has lots and lots of dangers (especially weird fungi), and has clean and helpful formatting. It'll make a fine addition to anyone's collection of solid, vanilla-yet-tasty dungeons to slot into their game.

Potpourri

Artist Credit: Kieran Yanner

My blog output has been slow this year. Partially this is because I've started several very long posts that are each taking a while to finish, but mostly it's because I spend most of my time working now and have very little time left each day to do anything. I wanted to come up with something a bit smaller that could work as a good blog post to get out before the end of the month that isn't one of those huge posts, but I struggled. Everything I came up with was too small. So why not just offer all of them at once?

In this post you'll find seven really small RPG-related things I'd like to share which are all completely unrelated to one another. I hope the comments are chaos. They include:

1. An idea I had for a particular take on the "Grit vs Flesh" mechanic
2. A weird experimental PC I recently tried
3. Possibly the most famous example of the power of tactical infinity in RPGs
4. A world map I've slowly been working on
5. An idea I have for a new monster type to fit into the traditional D&D schema
6. How I would run a sandbox in a superhero game
7. Doppelgängers

A Thorough Look at Skill Challenges (Part 2: Analysis)

After my last face-meltingly long post compiling every variation on Skill Challenges (SC) out there, it's time to do a critical analysis of this concept. When I started this project, I was just imagining that I'd be making a simple pros and cons list. But after all that research, I have a lot of things to say.

So, this post will sorta have three main sections. Firstly, we can talk about Skill Challenges just, like, as a concept. Then, we can start reviewing each of the little variations on rules and deciding which ones are good and which ones are bad. Lastly, the results of this thinking, which ideally should be "the best version of how to do Skill Challenges for a D&D 5E game, at least in the style that Dwiz enjoys," but which is also the part where I note some things I feel like stealing for my OSR game Brave.

Gritty Realism: Adventuring in Weeks, Not Days

Because apparently this is a 5E blog now, I'm going to talk about the Gritty Realism variant rule suggested in the DMG on page 267. But wait! Don't go! You know me better than that. Of course I'll find a way to make it relevant to you and your rules-lite artpunk post apocalyptic furry heartbreaker as well, since I know you don't play D&D 5E.

So there's a type of adventure scenario I like to call a "Die Hard plot." It's not a good name, but it's what I always think of. In the movie Die Hard, the whole ordeal takes place within a single evening. The movie almost happens in real time! It's a really jam-packed day. See also:

1. The Warriors
2. The Avengers (well, like 90% of it)
3. Night of the Living Dead
4. Clue
5. Dredd
6. The Goonies
7. Escape From New York
8. 24 (the TV show)

...and plenty of others. Now of course, lots of movies take place entirely within 1 day. But these ones here are specifically all movies that are a great model for D&D ADVENTURE! Sure, My Dinner With Andre takes place in one day, but that's because it's just a dinner conversation. These movies are set within a single day in spite of how much crazy shit happens within them.

Every movie on that list is great (and 24 is okay I guess), and you should steal from them occasionally. But the main appeal of Gritty Realism is that it affirms a simple truth: you can't run an entire campaign of just Die Hard plots. Or rather, I think you probably shouldn't.

I'd like to talk about this at length and help us all to appreciate this better.

Iterative Design

If you work in any form of engineering then this is probably a familiar idea. I just want to talk about how valuable I find it to be when it comes to RPG design. I've always really liked that the standard in RPGs is to have new "editions", rather than straight-up sequels. And because it is, to greatly generalize, a fairly scrappy and accessible hobby, we get to do lots of communal collaboration. We build on each others' work. We actively encourage the theft of good ideas (within the bounds of intellectual property rights). Most RPGs list their "Rule 0" as being something along the lines of "the GM can and should ignore or change any part of the game they want to if they judge it best for their group." It's like you have a game designer at every table.

The problem is that a lot of folks are pretty amateur as game designers. The single biggest failing, I think, comes from this very gap: not enough would-be designers are engaging with iterative design.

You look at what's come before and you use it as a basis for what you'll create anew. You examine the previous version to understand its design, paying attention to the context which created it and asking yourself whether or not those same factors remain relevant. And at the very least, the common corollary to that rule 0 is this: "a good GM will first make an effort to understand the original rule's purpose before deciding to change it." All-too-often ignored wisdom.

I especially find this to be common in two cases: 1) people complaining about design they don't understand, and 2) people making poorly thought-out houserules. Let's talk about some examples.

The New School, the Old School, and 5th Edition D&D

This was easily the funniest picture I found for "Edition Wars"

People have short memories.

Actually, that's only part of it. People also need tribalism, and tribalism needs enemies. Also, lots of people are new to the hobby, so maybe they genuinely don't know.

I frequent a lot of OSR spaces online, and while it's far from a consensus, one of the most pervasive sentiments among this community is that 5E D&D is the devil. It's representative of all things we old schoolers hate in gaming, and is the ultimate metric to contrast one's own game against if you want to appeal to this crowd. At this point, "5E" has literally become shorthand for "new school" in, seemingly, most old schoolers' vocabularies.

Which is funny, because I was there when 5E came out in 2014, and at the time it was being called "old school." It was a "return to form" for the franchise. "The legacy edition." A victory for the OSR, who had finally conquered the mainstream. It pulled back many of the trends of 3rd and 4th edition D&D and abandoned the way of the new school in favor of trends that had been started by the grognards years before. It openly embraced many of the specific Zen moments from Matt Finch's A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. Zak S, who got credited in the book as a consultant, went parading around GenCon with his entourage wearing shirts saying "Zak S saved D&D."

Don't believe me? Behold, some archaeology:

Associates vs Parties

Art Credit: Dan Scott
Side story: so I was just gunna use some generic art
of "an adventuring party" here but then I thought to
share this piece, which was the first D&D art I ever
remembering firing up my imagination. I stared at
this picture for hours when I was introduced to 4E D&D
back in 6th grade. I especially love that wizard-y dude
in the front.

I have just discovered an unconscious assumption I've been making in my design work. I discovered it while reading Matt Colville's Strongholds & Followers and then his follow-up book, Kingdoms & Warfare. It's a major philosophical difference between those two works than I'm having trouble mentally reconciling, but I also think it's one of the many general differences between the Old School and the New School. And it's a fracture I think I've already unintentionally baked into Brave.

Are the PCs a true party or are they just adventurers who associate?

Obviously that depends on the players, but game structures can have one of those two assumptions built in and won't really work that well if you disagree with the assumption.

The difference I'm imagining is, I think, easiest to describe by painting a picture of two different campaigns.

1. A true party is united by a purpose. They either all have the same patron or they operate a single enterprise together. A party that's also a thieves' guild or a pirate crew or an order of knights or something would be an example of this version. A victory for one is a victory for all, and they are frequently attacked, aided, and rewarded as a group. They probably share a single headquarters. Some games go so far as to create a "party sheet" that's like a character sheet but for elements that only exist as a feature of your unity, and aren't an element of any one single member alone (e.g. reputation or turf).
2. Adventurers who merely associate may still go out on adventures every week, delving into dungeons together and saving each other's bacon. But they each have separate goals and will break off from everyone else if they have good cause to. The wizard owns his own tower from which he performs magical research. The rogue owns her own tavern where she smuggles contraband. The cleric has built a temple in order to better serve their personal deity and the fighter has raised an army to conquer a fortress in order to better protect the peasantry. Especially if you're playing an open table game, then you may not even have a consistent party makeup from session to session. There is no "party," there's just instances of adventurers in a shared world choosing to work together temporarily, and the stories we play out are following different combinations of adventurers each time. You'll also almost certainly not all be the same level, and there may even arise competition between you! An old party member may grow powerful and corrupt and become a villain for everyone else!

In the rest of this post, I'll spell out more thoughts arising from this, how I see this affecting my own RPG, and my thoughts on those Matt Colville books as they relate to this concept (for anyone interested in his work since I'm sure I got some 5E players reading my blog).