Mephits & Magmin is the introductory scenario included in So You Want To Be a Game Master.

By page 45 of the book, if you’re a first-time GM, you’ll have learned everything you need to know for your first session. Then I recommend that you actually do that: Put my book down, get some friends together, and run your adventure adventure. Mephits & Magmin provides the scenario you need to get the ball rolling.

The cartography for the scenario, as you can see above, was done by Fernando Salvaterra.

Four versions of the map can be found below:

• Standard provides a print-able copy of the map for easy use.
• Large is the same map, but at the maximum resolution possible.
• Player is a text-free and secret-free version of the map.
• Player Secrets is the same map, but with the secret Area 06 depicted on the map.

MEPHITS & MAGMIN – MAPS
Standard
Large
Player
Player – Secrets

Most RPGs have a specialized combat system, and most of those have a formal method of transitioning into the combat system. This usually means triggering some form of initiative system:

• In D&D 5^th Edition, everyone makes an initiative check that determines the sequence in which they take turns declaring and resolving their actions.
• In older editions of D&D, side-based initiative determines whether the PCs go before or after the bad guys. (And, during their side’s initiative, the PCs and bad guys can take their turns in any order they want.)
• Infinity and other 2d20 Systems always have the PCs go first (in an order of their choosing), but the GM can spend Heat to have an NPC jump their initiative and take their turn before the PCs’ finish resolving their actions.
• Feng Shui features an initiative check which places each combatant on the shot clock. The clock is then counted down, with characters taking action each time their shot is reached. The action taken reduces their position by a specific number of shots, determining a new position on the shot clock where they’ll take their next action.
• Games like Technoir and Apocalypse World, on the other hand, don’t have a system for determining character order. But when a confrontation occurs (to use a term from Technoir), we enter a formal scene in which a character can’t take a second action until all other characters in the scene have taken an action.

And so forth. Regardless of the particular details, the simple “trigger initiative, start combat” procedure tends to very quickly run into a conundrum during actual play: What about an ambush?

Whether it’s the PCs wanting to ambush some bad guys or the GM wanting to have the bad guys ambush the PCs, this is both a pretty basic strategic consideration and a very common dramatic trope, so it’ll usually pop up pretty quick in the combat-drenched pulp adventures of a typical RPG campaign.

As a result, it’s pretty common for RPGs to also feature a system for surprise, which will determine (a) whether or not a group has achieved surprise and (b) what effect that surprise has.

Once again, there can be a lot of variation in the specific mechanics here, but a pretty typical combination is:

• Making a surprise check (e.g., an opposed Hiding vs. Spot Hidden check).
• Surprised characters being unable to take action during the first round and/or suffering a penalty to their actions or defense during the first round.

Depending on the system (and sometimes circumstance), surprise might be determined for either the individual or the side, but regardless, these two systems – initiative and surprise – are where most RPGs stop.

And, therefore, also where most GMs stop.

STANDOFFS

But it’s not where we’re going to stop.

Let’s consider the classic standoff from cinema: Everyone has drawn their guns. Everyone has their gun pointed at someone else. But no one’s pulling the trigger yet. Tension hangs thick in the air. Maybe there’s a hostage. Maybe one of them is trying to convince the other to join their side.

And then somebody decides enough is enough and they pull the trigger.

Chaos erupts.

But how should we resolve this in the game?

A couple bad solutions that I recommend you avoid:

• “Everybody can see everybody else, so no one is surprised. Therefore we just roll initiative normally.” …and somehow the guy who literally took the initiative by firing first ends up going last.
• “The guy who shot first took initiative, so we should ignore the mechanics and he just makes an attack roll.” Is that fair, though? Everyone was literally watching everybody else with a hair trigger.

The truth is that we already have the structure for resolving this action, because the person breaking the standoff trying to get the drop on everyone else: By taking the first shot they are trying to surprise them.

Therefore, we can use the surprise, then initiative structure that our chosen RPG has probably already given us. The only difference is the nature of the surprise: The shot-taker has already been seen by their opponents; they aren’t trying to physically sneak past them, but rather to surprise them in a different way, so we’ll probably want to use a different skill or ability or when making the surprise check.

In D&D 5^th Edition, for example, I’d recommend using Insight as the key detection skill (since you’re checking to see if they realize the shot-taker is about to pull the trigger), probably opposed by the shot-taker’s attack proficiency.

Similarly, in Call of Cthulhu, you might use a Psychology or Spot Hidden roll vs. the shot-taker’s weapon skill.

If you wanted to flesh this out a bit, you could also do stuff like:

• Encourage characters to get into standoff situations by giving characters who DON’T have a weapon drawn during a standoff disadvantage on their initiative check if hostilities break out.
• If one character has another character at weapon-point, the unarmed character can attempt to draw their weapon by making a Stealth or weapons-skill check. On a failure, the character who has them at weapon-point can initiate combat while automatically gaining surprise. On a success, they now both have their weapons drawn and the standoff continues.
• In a standoff with multiple characters, you must indicate which opponent you’re training your weapon on. You are at disadvantage for noticing anyone else trying to take the first shot. (This encourages the “swapping your gun from target to target” thing you see in the movies.)

But the core point is the simple shift in the known action resolution structure that allows us to accommodate a completely different situation.

Extra Tip: A common complaint about standoffs in D&D is that, unlike a gunshot in real life, a single attack usually doesn’t carry lethal implications. This is true, but is mostly a question of genre. There are films where a standoff has lethal implications, but also plenty of action films and superhero comics where no one in the audience thinks the direct outcome of “guns bared” will be instant death. (And then one step further to the point where the characters are aware themselves that no fight is likely to end in a single shot/blow.) Depending on edition and level, D&D tends to slide along this scale. And that’s OK.

THE LONG KNIVES

We can find another variant by considering a scene in which the PCs are engaged in tense negotiations… but the negotiations are a trap! In the middle of the scene, the NPCs suddenly draw their weapons and launch a surprise attack!

(Or vice versa. PCs can be a wily and untrustworthy bunch.)

Once again, everyone in the scene is aware of everyone else in the scene. They may even be aware that the other side is bearing arms. But they’re not necessarily aware of the imminent threat.

What I’d recommend here would be an Insight vs. Deception check.

If hidden weapons are involved, we could easily prelude this resolution with Spot Hidden vs. Conceal checks to notice that our scene partners are unexpectedly armed. (Perhaps allowing us to take preventative action and/or gaining advantage on our Insight checks.)

By altering the scene a little bit, we can also consider a situation in which we might use multiple action resolution structures simultaneously: For example, if the NPCs have agents sneaking into position on the shadowy balcony above the negotiations so that, when the moment to attack comes, they will draw their hidden weapons at the same time the archers attack from above, then we might test both Insight vs. Deception (against the negotiators) and Perception vs. Stealth (against the archers) to determine surprise.

DUEL

Yet another variation might be the classic duel: Two gunfighters facing off from opposite ends of a dusty road. A pair of fencers formally squaring off. Two aristocrats firing at ten paces.

Surprise, obviously, is not a factor here, so we can discard that structure.

But what about initiative?

We certainly could use a generic initiative check (e.g., opposed Dexterity checks), but is that the best fit for this specific situation?

For example, might it not make more sense for the gunfighters to make a Shooting vs. Shooting check to determine who gets to take the first shot (i.e., wins initiative)?

We could even use this variant in systems that don’t typically use initiative checks. For example, I mentioned that in Infinity the PCs always go first, although the GM can spend a point of Heat to seize initiative. That might not be satisfying in the case of a duel (since it largely boils down to GM fiat), but there’s absolutely no reason we couldn’t use a face-to-face Ballistics test for this.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The central GM tip here is the alternative structures for resolving:

• Standoffs
• Long Knives
• Duels

But there’s also a deeper truth to be explored here in the universal nature of this advice: That the tip isn’t the specific mechanics, but rather the structures for resolving these actions. These are more universal techniques and skills that allow you to apply your skills as a GM across many different systems.

Not every technique will be useful or applicable to every system, of course. But the reverse is also true: Every system gives you an opportunity to learn new mechanics, and then look for the opportunities to vary and leverage these mechanisms to accomplish even more. (Including, often, more in completely different games.)

Once you start thinking in these terms, you can take it one step further by creating a multitude of sub-variants that reflect the specific actions and intentions of the PCs. For example, I suggested that we could use Insight vs. weapons proficiency to determine surprise in a standoff. But:

• “I’m going to take my finger off the trigger and start putting my gun down, but as soon as they relax, I’ll take the shot!” That could be Insight vs. Deception instead.
• “I’m going to create a distraction so that Sasha can take the shot.” That could be Perception vs. weapons proficiency.
• “While everyone’s focused on the gun I have pointed at James, I’m going to pull my hidden pistol and shoot Jason!” Perception vs. Sleight of Hand.

This flexibility within the structure encourages creativity and specificity from the players as they engage with the game world; it makes the mechanics more accurately reflect the game state; and it creates fun variations in how different scenarios play out.

Are there other ways that combat could start? What ruling would you make? How would you resolve it?

FURTHER READING
Random GM Tip: Collecting Initiative
GM Don’t List: Not Writing Down Initiative
Miss-Initiative

Matthew Perkins and I chat about prepping a Shattered Obelisk campaign using the techniques from So You Want To Be a Game Master. It was really cool to have a practical example of using the book to prep content that’s going straight to the table!

YES I’m working on a series about Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk! But first, I need to run it myself. So I’m using Justin Alexander’s new book So You Want to be a Game Master to challenge myself.

WATCH NOW!

Like the dungeon running sheet we showcased a couple weeks ago, the hexcrawl running sheet is another tool presented in So You Want To Be a Game Master. I’ve been using some variation of this sheet for the past decade or so while running hexcrawls, and it greatly streamlines your essential bookkeeping for a hexcrawl campaign.

If you’re not familiar with using hexcrawls for running wilderness exploration scenarios, I have a series of articles here on the Alexandrian that provide a modular system for building a customized hexcrawl system for 5th Edition D&D. If you’d rather have something that’s ready to pick-up-and-play, So You Want To Be a Game Master presents a streamlined version of the hexcrawl structure. It’s also quite easy to adapt the hexcrawl campaign structure to other game systems like Eclipse Phase or Numenera.

For more details on how to use the hexcrawl running sheet to best effect, see p. 396 of So You Want to Be a Game Master.

This version of the sheet has been expanded to enhance its utility and for easy printing. It’s also form-fillable so you can also easily use it on a tablet or computer.

DOWNLOAD NOW

OTHER VERSIONS

This version was created by Erichs, who very kindly granted me permission to share it here. You can find cheat sheets, DM screens, and other resources they’ve created here.

Erichs’ Hexcrawl Running Sheet

The Harmon Story Circle is a character-focused storytelling formula created by Dan Harmon, who’s also the creator or co-creator of TV shows like Community and Rick & Morty:

It’s a very effective structure for episodic storytelling, because it makes the events of each episode meaningful, easily incrementing character growth and changes to the status quo, which creates a constant forward momentum throughout, for example, a season of television.

It’s also a very common story structure to see played out at the table during a roleplaying game (with one notable exception, which we’ll get to in a moment), because these beats emerge naturally from the “scenario hook + adventure site” concepts that we commonly use. For example, consider a stereotypical dungeon scenario:

• The PCs are in the local village. (A place of safety / comfort / familiarity.)
• A hooded stranger hires them to retrieve an item from a nearby dungeon. (They now have a desire to complete the job.)
• They enter an unfamiliar situation (i.e., the dungeon).
• They adapt to the dungeon, learning its geography and figuring out how to overcome its challenges.
• They retrieve the item they were sent to find.
• They return to the familiar situation (i.e., the village).
• They have earned XP and perhaps gained new magical items, being changed as a result of their journey.

The PCs begin in their home base, a scenario hook prompts them with a desire, the adventure site (whether dungeon, raid, or the like) provides a challenging situation, and the mechanical rewards of your system of choice level the character up (literally or metaphorically), changing them over time. Repeat.

Similarly, consider a typical run in Shadowrun, Technoir, or Cyberpunk Red: Relaxing between jobs gives a safe status quo, but then the PCs are hired to breach a megacorp’s servers and retrieve sensitive data. The heist takes them into an unfamiliar situation where they have to learn and adapt (i.e., plan the job). Once they’ve retrieved the data, they get paid and go back to lurking in the seedy bar or digital hacker enclave or private island where they got the job in the first place.

It’s a satisfying loop that can be effectively run in perpetuity.

But you may have noticed that we skipped a step:

PAY A HEAVY PRICE.

In too many RPG scenarios, the PCs just kind of skim over the surface of the scenario: It’s a thing they’re doing, but not really a thing that’s affecting them. This partly indicates a lack of investment – the PCs don’t have any skin the game! – but it’s also a lack of consequences: Whether they succeed or fail, the effect of the scenario is ephemeral. Within a couple sessions you could imagine having skipped the scenario entirely and nothing in the campaign would be different.

This is made worse because, in practice, success is predetermined: The possibility of the PCs not killing the raiders or retrieving the data-package is a completely alien idea to many GMs, and considered anathema by wide swaths of modern scenario design.

One reason for this is that RPG mechanics and scenarios often frame everything as life-or-death stakes: Failure isn’t paying a heavy price; it’s everybody dying and the end of the campaign. Since that’s not a desirable outcome for many groups, the GM has little choice but to ensure the PCs succeed.

Even when death isn’t on the line, GMs can also fall into the trap of framing binary outcomes: You either kill all the raiders or you don’t. You either steal the data-packet or you don’t. Paying a heavy price, on the other hand, usually means some form of non-binary, either in the primary objective or in ancillary consequences. For example:

• You steal the data-packet, but get identified by the megacorp. Now there’s a huge bounty on your heads.
• You hunt down the raiders, but not before they start killing hostages.
• You can stop the Red Hand from claiming the Sword of Fatherfall by taking it from its resting place, but only if one of you is willing to take up the sword and suffer its curse.

Next time you’re designing a scenario, think about the stakes: Is success defined as restoring an unaltered status quo? Is the only possible failure state a TPK? See if you can break out of simple binaries and add the complexity you need for the scenario to have meaningful fallout.

You can root these possible outcomes in meaningful choices made by the players – e.g., which faction do they give the Ruby to? – but it becomes even more powerful when a complex and nuanced scenario gives the opportunity for the players to invent their own meaningful choices! Either way, these choices are significant because they’re how the characters take ownership of the price they pay: You could have used the cure to save your beloved sister, but instead you gave it to the Alchemist’s Guild so that they could synthesize it and save hundreds or thousands of lives.

(Or vice versa.)

These are the crucibles through which PCs change and grow over time, becoming deeper and richer characters as the campaign plays out.

Tip: Another thing to think about is using scenario hooks that matter to the PCs. Due to the influence of published adventures, there’s a tendency for scenario goals to be externalized: The PCs have to do something because someone else wants them to do it. If the PCs are instead pursuing a goal because THEY want it to happen, it’s a lot easier to have meaningful outcomes that matter to them. See GM Don’t List #12: Mail Carrier Scenario Hooks.

SYSTEMIC RESPONSE

Some RPGs also address this gap systemically.

For example, what set Call of Cthulhu apart from the competition when it premiered in 1981 and why has it gained such a reputation for powerful roleplaying?

In part, it’s because the Sanity system hard codes a heavy price into the standard gameplay loop: It’s basically impossible for a PC to engage with a Call of Cthulhu scenario and come away unscathed.

Technoir achieves a similar effect through its locked adjectives: A character can recover from a fleeting or sticky adjective, but an adjective that becomes locked – whether it’s physical injury, mental trauma, or a shift in belief or personality – signifies a permanent change in the character.

Another great example is Blades in the Dark, which weaves a complex web of Stress, Trauma, Heat, and Vice and then bakes those costs/consequences into every die roll.

CHALLENGE TO THE PLAYERS

Regardless of scenario or system, understanding the heavy price of the Harmon Story Circle can also be both a challenge and an opportunity for you as a player. It is not, after all, the GM’s responsibility to roleplay your character for you. Quite the opposite, in fact. So you can make the conscious choice not to skim past an adventure.

If your GM is pitching you big, juicy stakes, of course, that’s fantastic: Take what they’re offering you and run with it. But even when the GM or scenario isn’t framing up these opportunities, you can still proactively think about how a scenario is affecting your character:

• Is there anything that might cause them to change their values or goals?
• Is their desire for something so strong that it might make them sacrifice something or compromise their own values? What impact will that have on them in the long run?
• Why is the group’s current agenda important to your character?
• If it’s not important, can you look for a moment when it becomes important to them? (Don’t be afraid to go big for the, “Well now it’s personal!” moment.)
• Or, if it’s already important to them, is there a moment where the character questions that?

And so forth.

If you’re looking for inspiration, think about your favorite characters from films or books: How and why and when are Frodo or Paul Atreides or George Bailey or Commander Adama or Rick Blaine or Ilsa Lund or Laura Roslin or Elizabeth Bennet transformed by their stories?