I am currently 8 sessions into running this campaign for some people on the glog server. It's been eye-opening running games again, and I thought I'd do some reflection on how it's going, to get my thoughts in order.
The first thing to say is that I don't consider myself a skilled DM - this is not self-effacement, I've seen really good DMs run games, and I don't have that type of fluency in my own approach. I think of myself as a writer and artist, and have spent more than fifteen years developing those practices professionally and in my private life - I'm confident with them, I can trust them completely, I understand that whatever I'm trying to get at with creative work, those two things can get me closer to it. Not so with running games.
Why am I doing it? I've been asking this question of myself quite a bit (not because it's making me miserable, because I think the question is interesting), and the answer that I keep swirling around has an odd flavour to me - I think it's because I think there is something extremely specific and interesting (and I think really unexplored compared to more straightforward prose writing) about games writing - using writing, dice, procedures, tables, and the other tools of design, to define a space with varying quantities of simulational logic and affective picture-making. This answer feels much truer than, for instance, 'I enjoy it' or 'rules come alive in play' or 'world-building is completed in collaboration' - I hear these a lot from other people, and none have ever resonated with me. Simulational logic to me simply means anything that introduces controlled randomness into the 'space' of the writing - that's the only difference between a game world and a book of prose. You define procedural spaces, and attach images to them in sequences, and you give your players and DMs the tools (dice, procedures) they need to navigate those spaces.
I remember reading ages ago (about ancient prophetic practices) that introducing controlled randomness into decision-making can lead to people making better decisions. The logic is that when you are given unstructured input from a semi-random 'oracle', you are constantly engaging interpretive thinking processes, and potentially approaching problems from positions that you would never have thought to start from.
Introducing simulation into writing feels a bit like this to me. It is fantastic fun to have my naturally controlling tendencies (which are entirely appropriate to writing in isolation, but not very appropriate to running games) scope 'in' and 'out' - from prose description and poetics, out to encounter tables, hex and dungeon maps, stat-blocks - all the artefacts of simulation writing.
In my mainline writing practice I like to keep things under control. I have a working theory that serves me quite well in my own prose (it's almost a trick, I picked it up reading Bolaño) that the more that you work at denying yourself, the crazier the images get when they leak out of you (as they inevitably will) - a sort of edging logic in writing. I like to make use of this method in games writing as well - when I speak about Barony being 'grounded', as I have once or twice, I think what I mean is that I try to write it 'normal'/'down-key'/'grounded', such that when things inevitably do spiral out of control, they hit harder and realer. The more interesting ideas develop inside you as you write the normal stuff, and the normal stuff has its pleasures as well.
While running the games on Brythwin, this training and these impulses have served me less well. You really need a lightness in play with others; if you get too neurotic you start to attach yourself to other peoples' ideas and play experiences in an unhelpful way. When you're writing, the lightness can come and go, and the moments of heavy neuroticism have their place and are actually just as important. In play it's hard to find a good use for the heaviness. In one example that stuck in my mind, one of the PCs asked me if they could have a particular ribbon skill on campaign start - I said no, because their class didn't specify that they got a skill to start with, but it was the wrong call. It would have been easier and better for the health of the game to say yes and let the character breathe in the way that the player wanted them to. In general, my control-processes mean that I am over-present in policing what people can and can't do, and, since I have less experience as a DM than basically all of my (21! lmao) players, I often lack the courage of my convictions when calling on way or another. Not at all an issue when writing - you just sit with it until you know what the correct decision is - but a big issue when running a game with others in real time. I'm certainly better with this stuff than I used to be, but I'm not sure that I want to be worrying about it in the time I put aside for my hobby.
I'm used to treating studio and writing time with a sort of ferocious seriousness (the type that you give up work for, or pour your own money into), and my brain ends up trying to treat everything in the game with that same seriousness. Because it's not practically possible, I end up not being able to put emphasis in any particular place. This has lead to a sort of same-ness or stamped-out quality that I've started to notice in the world I've invited my friends to inhabit. I'm consciously aware of it because the adventure is actually written around that feeling to some degree, but I really notice it (in a negative sense) in play recently. It's also resulted in me running some of the encounters with NPCs and monsters quite poorly - forgetting rules, mucking up stat blocks, etc., because I can't prioritise focus efficiently. One of the things I can genuinely say that I love in myself (it's taken a while!) is that I understand my own speeds and rhythms, and can adjust my life around these such that I can produce creatively. DMing has been a very interesting experiment in stepping way outside those comfort zones.
This is all very maudlin and makes it sound like I'm not enjoying running the game, which is not true - I am having fun, I absolutely love my players, I absolutely love their characters, and I am pleased with myself on a few fronts:
- The Barony classes, by and large, work well in play. No one is more shocked than I am. There are a few bits here and there that need tweaking, but the ones we've used so far are completely functional and, by the sound of it, good fun to play. The animal classes need a buff. I'm particularly pleased with fighters (fucking nasty in a fight, in a delightfully concrete way), bravos, errants, fairies, and academics.
- Lethality is on a knife's edge, which I think is wonderful. I gave everyone top level gear on game start, which has lead to some interesting encounter dynamics - plate armoured characters (we have a lot of them) as very, very tough in melee, while the scattered lighter-armoured characters are significantly endangered even against extremely weak enemies. Even in plate, a single hit slipping through can put someone down instantly. We haven't had a death yet, but three characters could very easily have died in the last few delves. I think I get more scared than the players do lol.
- I tend to have good first instincts, and bad second thoughts. I won't get into the specifics here while the campaign is ongoing, for opsec reasons, but it'll be good to break it all down when
everyone diesthe Swallows emerge from the depths victorious.
- I need to get better at keeping thing like characterisation and information between sessions consistent, and relying less on the murky atmosphere of the adventure to carry me. This is another one of those things that I like and cultivate in my writing, but there is definitely such a thing as an annoying amount of misty strangeness, especially when a group of people are trying to get something done.
- I need to get better at remembering how my own rules work. Normal baby DM problem, but it means that encounters that could have been more dynamic end up feeling rote and boring because interesting and scary abilities get lost in the muddle of rolling and adjudicating turns.
- I need to get better at writing with clarity and usability in mind. Especially the earlier stuff on the blog is written without any contact at all with actual play, and bits of that show through. Some specifics: monsters probably need morale scores, damage needs to be unified under the light/medium/heavy rubric, or always specified as [dice]+[modifier] for finer control, I need to delegate prices to lists that make sense, I need to write up rules for ranged weapons instead of just assuming everyone knows what we're talking about, etc. etc. etc., there's actually lots of these, and I suspect they will take some time to coalesce after the game finishes.
