The Dungeon Master's Golden Rule

So... this has been brewing for a while. I'm going to try to keep it short. But it's not gonna be short, so buckle up.

If you know me, you know Dungeons & Dragons is my favorite game of all time; if not, you will be 1% more aware of me as a person by the end of this sentence. And, for almost as long as I've been knowledgeable of D&D, I've been DMing. (Quick aside: if D&D jargon eludes you, I suggest you bail now.) I was DMing, albeit poorly, within the first year of learning about D&D. The idea of telling crazy medieval fantasy stories and having other people experience them was incredibly appealing then, and now, some 15+ years in the future, I have to say it's paid off with some of the best times of my life.

There is often some measure of discussion about tips and tricks for DMs, novice and veteran alike, with some effort made to boil it all down to the finest point. What is the best advice one can give to another DM? A quick search of the entire internet will find you a fair few articles, but if you're reading this, you probably didn't use Google, did you? My advice would differ somewhat from such examples as "Rule 0: the DM's word is law" and "Always say yes". I have heard both of these tidbits and I cannot agree with either.

The relationship between DM and player is a social contract, with both parties having expectations of the other. In all cases, if these expectations are not met, the relationship breaks down. An approach of "The DM's word is law" can hurt the relationship badly if the DM expects that any Deus Ex he executes will be met with a smile and nod, and a DM who is wrong needs to be ready to admit it. Likewise, if the DM always says yes to any players' proposed course of action, this can lead to a feeling of unlimited options. While some players may enjoy this sort of sandbox gameplay, a sandbox with no walls is merely a desert. Rules give structure to open-ended games, and it is my personal philosophy that giving players restrictions actually helps brew creativity, as working within confines requires more consideration than simply grasping at the first idea, however inane, that comes about.

But I digress. As stated, the player-DM relationship is a social contract. The DM expects that the players will work within the boundaries of the game. The players expect that the DM will have their characters' best interests at heart, and I would certainly say that a DM should have their player's best interests at heart. A game in which the DM runs roughshod over the players and actively attempts to kill or arbitrary inhibit them is not fun for the players. Likewise, a game in which a player insists his demands are met or consistently argues with the DM is not fun for the DM. In both of these cases, either party does not trust the other to ensure an enjoyable time is being had by all. This leads me to my golden rule.

Trust your players, and have your players trust you.

A game in which both parties trust one another is a game in which everyone can enjoy themselves, even during the Bad Stuff. Bad stuff happens to PCs. It's a fact. But if the players trust the DM, the bad stuff is enjoyable. It's suspenseful. It's interesting. As a quick example, imagine your character is walking down a hallway when the DM informs you that "the ground swells up around you, trapping you in a dark, stony tomb. No saving throw. There is no escape." If you trust your DM, this is an interesting development. What happens next? What can your character do to escape? Something bad has happened, but you're less concerned about the bad stuff and more concerned about the progression of the story. On the other hand, if you do not trust your DM, your first thoughts are likely in regards to the unfairness of the situation. Why didn't you get a saving throw? Why was there no warning? Hopefully, this illustration helps you understand the possible consequences from both perspectives; the less trust the players have in their DM, the more likely this conflict is to arise.

Of course, this goes both ways. DMs should trust that their players are acting in good faith. A player who has a higher-than-expected attack bonus, for example, should be questioned gently. Where are these bonuses coming from? In my experience, most players do not cheat at Dungeons & Dragons; rather, they simply made an honest mistake. Too much gold, XP, or modifiers are common mistakes. Some players may act with authoritative knowledge, but are simply badly misinformed. It is better to take a forgiving tone than an accusatory one.

With all of that said, it should be noted that this rule is not always an easy one to follow. Trust, you are aware, must be earned. Trusting your players is comparably easy. Be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. That said, do not act naively. Cheaters, though rare, exist. Regardless, earning trust is much more difficult. Players like their characters and will defend them if they think you are being unfair. However, you can demonstrate fairness by being even-handed. In my experience, this is best done by acting gingerly at first. Treat your players well, make their PCs important, and don't put them in overly compromising positions. The goal is to make the players understand that you do have their best interest at heart, even as you slowly introduce greater adversity. There is a fine line here, between challenging the players and punishing them. Consistently overwhelming them with difficulties will damage trust-building, but the right level of difficulty will make them engaged and invested. Once everyone does trust one another, you can then start pulling out unexpected twists, and the outrageous will be accepted, so long as you maintain your PCs' best interests at heart. So go ahead and eat them with a hallway, I'm sure they'd love that.

Patriot Day

Surprise.

Today is Patriot Day. I do not like Patriot Day. It a reminder of how hateful my country has become, and how we let fear; "terror," as it were, take over the country. The catalyst of deciding "safety" was worth any cost. A day when people point to their own government with maddening, absolutely maddening conspiracy theories. Allow me to expound.

There is a low level of consistent irritation I feel at any level of anti-Muslim rhetoric. People have pointed out "radical Islam" as the source of most modern terrorism, and I would be hard-pressed to contest that. However, there seems to be a constant push to mount "radical Islam" on a pedestal of all things evil. Republicans seem to always want Obama to utter the phrase "radical Islam" as though it would be the greatest sound bite of all time. And it is no surprise to anyone that we now fear all of Islam, as though radical Islam comprised the majority belief of Muslims. Has nobody noticed Daesh killing, say, Muslims? Quite the mystery, that one.

I feel that, to some degree, the United States never left the Cold War. For decades, decades, we feared the USSR. Communism was public enemy number one. There was always something for the public to concentrate on, to focus on when the US was threatened. It was the Ruskies! But when that threat faded around the start of the 90s, there was no great evil anymore. No threat against us. For about a decade, we simply stood atop the world... until 9/11. And while I'm not saying it's not justified, we sure to have a proclivity towards hating large groups of people. Now, however, the hate is more visible than before, courtesy of the internet and the speed at which information travels. And there is more resistance to it. I have no doubt that, during the Cold War, plenty of Americans did not view the USSR as a whole group committed to our destruction. But their voices could not be heard the way you hear it now. It is much more clear that there are those who view Muslims, all of them, as a threat to the US. But there are those who do not. And no matter how vile your enemy, hate will only breed hate. If you view Muslims as a danger to the US, how will you resolve that threat? Will you move to wipe a billion people off the planet? There must be a better way, a wiser way. And I think that starts with understanding that radical Islam is in the gross minority.

That, however, is the past. What upsets me in the present are the conspiracy theories. It always comes up, that the events of 9/11 were planned out and executed by Americans. I remember myself believing in them, for a short time, mostly because of building 7. Building 7 still confuses me, and I'll make no attempt to rationalize its destabilization. However, the idea of everything else about that day being orchestrated genuinely fucks with me, for two reasons.

First, Flight 93. By stating 9/11 is a conspiracy, you are either arguing that Flight 93 was (a) completely staged, with all passengers ready and willing to die for the NWO or whatever your theorized end-goal is, (b) downed in an unplanned fashion so as to mess up the plans of the conspirators by a whopping 25%, or (c) planned to fail, making the sacrifices of all onboard meaningless. Now, I'm not saying that option (c) is implausible if the conspiracy is real, but it infuriates me for people to imply it.

Second, the fact that all of the hijackers were trained in the United States. Again, this means that either (a) they were trained by fellow willing conspirators, or (b) the daily regret these men and women live through for lending a hand in the greatest US civilian tragedy in modern history is staged or, worse, nonexistent. Again, not impossible, but incredibly disrespectful.

I will not go so far as to say that conspiracies are impossible. However.

Conspiracy theories represent a known glitch in human reasoning. The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form. They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies. And over and over I've argued helplessly with smart people consumed by theories they were sure were irrefutable, theories that in the end proved complete fictions. Young-Earth Creationists, the Moon Landing people, the Perpetual Motion subculture — can't you see you're falling into the same pattern? - xkcd 258

I do not like Patriot Day.

Expect another post tomorrow.

Taking the Reins

No big news, but I've decided to start posting some game-related content. Expect a post about Dungeons and Dragons soon. Possibly followed up with other board game and maybe even some video game content.

Your Echo Chamber

A few months ago, I learned the term "echo chamber". I had always understood the concept but I was unaware of the term. And, in case you were much like myself a few months ago and also don't know what an echo chamber is, it is, in my own words, the emphasis of an idea within a closed space. For example, let's say somebody thinks eating other people might be socially acceptable. By finding other people who espouse that idea, the idea becomes more pronounced and justified in the person's mind.

Echo chambers are dangerous. And you can probably see why.

I found myself wondering aloud how certain political stances can even exist. As an example, recent legislation in particular states now has men entering the women's bathroom because they were born women. This is fucking stupid. But, people can rationalize it in part through echo chambers. The idea may be poor, but if everyone is repeating it with no dissent, it becomes plausible.

If you are reading this, you are guilty of embracing an echo chamber, I have no doubt. And that isn't an accusatory statement; I am also guilty. This is because the internet is fucking full of echo chambers. In an ironic twist, and in an era where information can be spread faster than ever, people seem more and more to choose to confine themselves to opinions and biases that inherently match their own. This, in turn, has led to the breakdown of dissent and discourse. How often is it these days that people with opposing views simply cannot engage with one another? They've become so cemented in their opinions that discussion is rendered DOA.

I encourage you, reader, to leave your echo chamber, even if only for a little. Why do people support positions and opinions that you cannot even begin to understand, or have deemed "stupid" or worse? Why are some of the strongest political bases emerging in this country backing a socialist and a plutocrat? Is it possible that there may be some merit, some actual, tangible value in their opinions in perspectives? If you dismiss the opposition, be it in religion, politics, or otherwise, without considering what value their position has or why they have it, then you have fallen into the echo chamber trap, as it seems so many have.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of writing this.

Modern Howl

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the dark halls at dawn looking for an angry byte,

angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,

who stared until eyes were consumed by a sun-fueled void until naught but the cyber and the real remained,

who greeted the yawning sun at the dragging night’s end and never saw it rise,

who sealed the world away, closing iron doors, blinding windows, and electric ears until only the perfect web coma remained,

who bled a red tapestry of learn experience innovate innovate innovate innovate,

who lived in a smoke-filled jungle on the west wing of the bird called Founder until every fag was burned to ash,

who gripped a lonely cock until smoke and flame erupted, revealing a wash of flecked fatigue and misdirected desire,

who watched the American dream die, who mourned it, buried it, left it, visited it, and sealed it away deep in the stone cold tomb, knowingly shaking their head at its passing, but still called it, chased it, sought it out, hunted it down, and found its lifeless corpse no less appealing,

who sprinted across the Baseline in light and dark, gripping their mortal coil in a sea of tires and wretched metal monsters and swimming across a tide of asphalt in the hands of a sleeping clock, who wailed in a lake of fire and the gnashing of teeth as sand turned to glass and the liveliest shriveled into a dry cracked discordant melting harp,

who engaged the regulated norms and patterns, matching circles to circles and squares to squares until all shapes were as one and triangles were deigned the messiah,

who stacked words on words and Jenga was brought to life, spilling bricks as it tread a wanton path of creation and left in its wake a deadly game of Backgammon,

who reduced to dust a corpse and a goat in sacrifice to the gods of traditions only to find they’d killed the brother of a sleeping giant and the wife of a wretched creature,

who marched, five by five, across a river a billion times to end a war whose purpose had long since been erased by those who started it for reasons unknown, unquestioned, and uncontested to the dismay of those who could remember the reasons, even as they themselves began to forget,

who faced regret, embraced it, absorbed it, made it themselves only to be consumed by another,

who flashed through a thousand lives in the search of an expressive meaning for life, passing it by unknowingly from tips to toes, caught in a net just out of reach of a glass half full, struggling, grasping, gasping until the prize was won and then drinking their fill until only a glass half empty remained,

who had nothing promised and left with less,

with the absolute heart of the poem of life crushed under the weight of anxiety of life until there was nothing left to give.

Terminal Perfection

 About a year ago, I was informed that I am a perfectionist. This came as a great surprise.

Up to that point, I would have never considered myself a perfectionist, at least not by my traditional standard of success: grades. As a rule of thumb, I never got good grades. Ever. To this day, I am a "C" student. Not average, just "C". Also, I don't do a lot of work in general, and by "work" I mean "projects". I'm even limited in scope regarding some of my favorite hobbies, such as D&D and board games. None of this really seemed like perfectionist behavior to me.

However, it does when I ask why. Why do I do these things? Why am I a C student? Why do I do so little work? Why do a only run one D&D campaign when my friends clearly want me to run more? Why do I only own a few board games despite enjoying playing them so much?

The answer is because, consciously or no, I want to do the best I can at everything I do, and everything that can't be done excellently is not worth doing. Assignments aren't worth doing if they can't be done excellently. Board games aren't worth playing if I can't play them to the best of my ability. And this goes double for D&D. I don't want to run a half-assed campaign. I pour my soul into my D&D games, and I always want my players to have the best experience possible.

This also has huge drawbacks. I spend more time contemplating what I want to do than actually doing it. I'm always, always considering what the best word, phrase, work, or title might be. Even this blog post underwent several mental revisions before I started writing it; I may not mull over every sentence, but I considered the title and content for a few hours before I started writing. Often times, my schoolwork doesn't get completed because it just isn't good enough to pass mental examination. I'll contemplate for hours, even days, what I should write, what I should work on, and what I want the final product to be, but if I deem it too base or beyond my scope, I simply won't be able to get past the planning stage. There is a window that schoolwork needs to fall into for me to bother to get it done. Too simple or tedious, and I can't be bothered. Too complex or involved, and I won't be able to do it excellently.

It's interesting to consider that, a year ago, I would never have really considered this. I never asked "why" I did or did not do particular schoolwork. The answer was just "anxiety". But no, there's so much more to it than that. I want to do work to the best of my ability, the absolute best. But it's tough to give it my all all the time. I often find that my basic motivation of simply getting work done chafes against my instinct to do the best work possible. It kills me. And it's killing my grades.

But it does make for some great games of D&D.

One Small Step For Man

If you're reading this, you are one of two people. Either I know you, and you know me, or you have stumbled quite haphazardly over this blog while searching for who-knows-what. Either way, congratulations. You have stepped into a space that exists solely for myself, where I can type stuff and other people can read said stuff, for better or for worse.

Why does this exist? The introspective answer is as a mental release of sorts. The pragmatic answer is because a good friend of mine recently allowed me to write blogs for his website, and I have no experience using Blogger. So I made my own. A testing ground of blogs, if you will. A place where I can screw around with settings and systems and not worrying about causing obscene errors on a professional blog page.

Here's a short guideline of what you can expect:

• This blog was made for me, not you. As such, you can expect profanity, political opinions, straightforwardness, and all sorts of things you might not like. You haven't seen any of it yet, but if I keep posting, you will. This is your only warning.

• This may shock you, but I will write about whatever I like, which will almost entirely involve what I like. This includes gaming of all varieties with an emphasis on board gaming with an emphasis on Dungeons and Dragons. However, I might NOT do that and instead reserve such articles for the Essence of Zen blog instead, and use this as a personal outlet. Who knows! Stay tuned.

• However I go about it, the quality of the blog will change over time. You'll notice right now it's just text. Over time I may change that. I'm writing this now so that, in two years' time when I change things, my thousands of rabid fans won't have had a warning. Things change.

• My lexicon is erudite. Deal with it.

• If I know you in real life, do me the courtesy of not mentioning this blog to me in passing. At all. That sounds like an insane request, but the purpose of this blog is for me to type and for you to read, and no more. There may come a time when that rule is rescinded. For now, though, let's just keep this between us and the internet, okay?

• Sometimes, typos happen. Please do not harm yourself or other people as a result. I can only proofread myself so much.

Again, congratulations. You have tread into the sanctum of my mind. Enjoy your stay.