Go to Part 1

MAPPING & VTTs

Player mapping doesn’t require running a dungeon strictly in the theater of the mind.

There are a few different ways that you can present players a map on your virtual tabletop (VTT), and each will have its own impact on player mapping.

(Although I’m going to focus on virtual tabletops, a lot of this advice will also apply to dry-erase battlemaps, Dwarven Forge terrain, and similar tabletop techniques. Of course, you could also eschew the mapping capabilities of the VTT entirely and run everything — combat and exploration alike — using the theater of the mind via voice chat.)

First, you might have a dungeon map which remains completely visible as the PCs explore it. If players have access to the entire map, of course, it obviates the need for mapping. (Depending on your platform, and how you have your campaign configured, they may even be able to access the map between sessions.) You’ll obviously lose some of the value of player mapping here, but the arguably primary value of providing navigational information so that the players can make meaningful choices in their exploration obviously remains.

One interesting thing to note, however, is that it’s still possible to treat the VTT map as a physical artifact in the game world. In other words, the players till need to designate a PC as the “mapper” and if something were to happen to the map — stolen, damaged, left behind when the mapper dies — the GM can simply re-establish the fog of war and leave the PCs lost in the middle of the dungeon.

(This will be most effective if you don’t treat it as a “gotcha,” though. Establish who the mapper is and what that means ahead of time.)

Alternatively, you can preserve player mapping by setting up your fog of war so that the players can only see the section of the map that their PCs are currently looking at. If you want anything more than that, then you, just like your character, will need to draw a map.

Another way of keeping player mapping while using a VTT is to only show the map during battles. Effectively you’re “zooming in” on the various battlemaps, but the connections between those battle sites are still something that the mapper will need to keep track of.

For something completely different, you might present no map at all and instead have the player mapper draw their map directly in the VTT as the “official” map that everyone is interacting with. (Your VTT platform might support this, or you might accomplish it by screensharing something like Dungeon Scrawl or Mipui.)

This creates an interesting and collaborative spirit when it comes to the player mapping of the dungeon, since everyone, to at least a certain extent, “owns” the map and is directly interacting with its creation. There is also a unity of experience, with all the players interacting directly with and thinking about the map.

The trick to making this work, however, is that the whole group really has to be onboard with the idea that “the map is not the territory,” particularly when it comes to combat. Remember that, just like other player maps, this player map will not be hyper-precise. So if they draw the room as twenty feet wide, but it’s “actually” thirty feet wide… what happens when you start moving miniatures around that space?

One option is to just accept that the battlemap is always abstracted and as long as the player map isn’t radically wrong, you can just roll with it. Another is for the GM to keep track of what’s “really” going on in terms of spatial relationships, but that can get pretty tripped and dissociated very easily.

An alternative would be to swap to a “zoomed in” battlemap, as described above, whenever combat breaks out. But it’s important to recognize that, although these problems are probably most egregious during combat, they can be omnipresent if the players aren’t onboard with what’s going on.

The common conceit of the VTT is that the map IS the territory: What you’re seeing on the screen, like what you see when playing a video game, is what’s “really” happening in the game. But if we’re using a player map and the player map isn’t necessarily reliable, it can create cognitive dissonance.

For example, what if the players get turned around and start looping through hallways they’ve already been in without realizing they’ve already been there? On this unreliable VTT they’re going to see what their characters THINK they’re seeing, and that can be incredibly immersive! But it can also feel like a cheat or a betrayal or some kind of cheap shot if the players haven’t embraced the unusual conceit.

One of the interesting things about VTTs is that they’re still an incredibly new tool, and we’ve really only scratched the surface of all the things they’re capable of. In particular, most VTTs are still just trying to mimic the tabletop experience as accurately as possible, which means there’s been barely any exploration of the unique styles and modes of play they might make possible.

That’s incredibly exciting! But if you want to take your players with you into uncharted waters, it’s a good idea to make sure they all want to embark on the journey!

Go to Part 1

DUNGEON MASTER BEST PRACTICES

I gave up on player mapping — particularly player mapping from theater of the mind — in the ‘90s, for all the reasons we’ve discussed: The pace-killing metagame complexity of clearly communicating oddly-shaped rooms and passages, which in turn encourages the design of “standard” floorplans (simple, rectangular rooms and straight corridors aligned to the compass points) which ironically undermine the very type of gameplay that player mapping is supposed to be leveraging.

Around 2009, however, I came back to player mapping. The best practices I describe below are not necessarily a “one true way” for handling player mapping (and you should feel encouraged to experiment and find what works for you and your group), but over the past decade and a half while running games for dozens of different groups, they’re not only what I’ve found makes player mapping work; they’re what I’ve found makes player mapping thrive as a unique and valuable part of the game.

First, if they choose not to map, that’s OK. It’s their choice. You’re not their nanny.

What’s important is that, if they choose not to make map, you don’t help them out. Don’t say stuff like, “Well, you can easily find your way back to the chamber with the giant ankh.” Instead, say, “Okay, you want to go back to the chamber with the giant ankh… which way do you go?”

In other words, if you want navigational information (in the form of the map) to have value, you need to actually let them navigate.

After they get lost trying to backtrack a couple times, they’ll figure it out. Or they’ll come up with some other scheme, like marking the walls with chalk or trying to leave a breadcrumb trail. Or maybe it’ll turn out one of them is a savant who can memorize the whole dungeon without a map at all. That’s all great: The point of player mapping isn’t producing the physical artifact; it’s to have the players engage deeply with a scenario by making interesting navigational choices.

With that being said, there are ways to prompt the idea of mapping to players who may not realize that it’s an option:

• The 1974 edition of D&D does it by including mapping equipment in the equipment list and having mechanical structures for mapping (e.g., a rule that you can’t map when fleeing from combat).
• Put a pad of graph paper on the table next to the pencils and dice as a resource for the players to use.
• Give the players a partial map of the dungeon as a prop. For example, they might find the map in the pack of a dead adventurer, thus (a) establishing that mapping is something adventurers do, (b) showing that the information on the map is useful, and (c) giving them the opportunity to begin mapping by just continuing to draw on the partial map.
• Just tell the new players, “Mapping the dungeon is something a lot of adventurers do.”

Everything else is about how you can clearly and effectively communicate the dungeon environment to the players. (This is, of course, good praxis even if the players aren’t mapping: The players have to be able to understand the game world and what’s happening around their characters if they’re going to roleplay.)

Describe things from the character’s POV. So rather than using compass directions, for example, I’ll say things like, “straight ahead,” “the door on the left,” or “the corridor angles to the right.” In my experience, this is more immersive for the players (since it encourages them to visualize the world from the perspective of their characters instead of some sort of “top-down” GPS signal) and also creates a challenge for the mapper, who will need to maintain proper orientation. (Or invest in a tool like a compass to help them do so.)

Use imprecise measurements when describing the dungeon. Instead of “the hallway is thirty feet long,” I’ll say stuff like:

• “You go twenty or thirty feet down the corridor.”
• “The hall goes for thirty, maybe thirty-five feet before ending in a stairway down.”

The same thing goes for rooms: It’s a chamber a couple dozen feet across or a room that’s about twenty feet wide and a little longer than that.

You might even drop measurements entirely; for example, “You go down the corridor a bit and then…” In my experience, though, this almost always prompts the mapper to ask, “How far is a bit?” and you’ll end up defaulting back to, “Maybe twenty or thirty feet.” This back-and-forth is a time-waster, so you’re probably better off cutting to the chase. (But your mileage may vary.)

By featuring imprecision in your descriptions, the players implicitly get the message that they shouldn’t sweat the details of the map: They don’t need to worry about making the map perfect because they CAN’T make the map perfect… unless they need to make the map perfect.

If the players want something more precise than a rough estimate of distance, then they will need to seek precision in character. If they want to know exactly how long a hallway is, then they need to explain how their character is taking that measurement.

In a dungeon environment, this should almost always come with a cost, usually either in equipment (e.g., expensive surveying equipment that also chews up encumbrance slots), time (e.g., in the form of additional random encounter checks or a progress clock being ticked), or both. The important dynamic here is that if the players want more precision in their map (for whatever reason), then they need to choose to pay the cost and have their characters actually perform the required actions. It turns a metagame distraction into a meaningful part of the narrative, while also making sure that this additional focus and time is generally only expended when there’s a reason to do it and also heightened player interest in the results.

You will likely find it useful to have a formal procedure for this (e.g., getting precise measurements for a single room or a 60-foot length of corridor requires one dungeon turn; or twice that if they don’t have the proper tools). It might involve a skill check, but that’s probably not necessary. You can, of course, adjust this procedure depending on exactly what resources and methods the PCs bring to bear on the problem.

Note: Just like when you’re running traps, there’ll be situations where there is no meaningful cost (and the PCs know it). For example, maybe the PCs have cleared out all the monsters in the dungeon and now they want to take their time double-checking everything. When that happens, it’s okay to sort of “zoom out” and rapidly resolve their survey at a broad scale. (What you have here is an example of empty time — a period devoid of meaningful choices — and you want to resolve it quickly and move forward to the next set of interesting choices.)

Of course, if the PCs only THINK they’ve cleared out all the monsters, you can just apply the normal cost while they’re blithely whittering their way around the dungeon.

When the players take precise measurements, don’t hesitate to just draw out the area for them. I’ll sometimes keep a pad of graph paper on hand specifically for this. In other cases, I’ll just draw it directly on their map. No need to fuss about here: They put in the work to get precision, so give it to them in whatever way works best.

Even during normal exploration, if the players are struggling with a weird-shaped room or anything of that ilk, you can quickly clarify things with a quick sketch of the room shape and hand it to them. When I was running Dave Arneson’s Castle Blackmoor, for example, the primary entry chamber was so gloriously byzantine in its design that I had a small sketch of the room’s shape paperclipped to my maps:

Whenever a new set of players would venture into the dungeon, I would just hold up the sketch.

On the other hand, don’t feel like every inaccuracy you see on the players’ map is a problem you need to solve for them. My general rule of thumb is that, as long as it’s a mistake that a character standing there could make, I’m not going to intervene. But if they are making an error that their characters definitely wouldn’t make, just use a visual reference to clear it up. The goal here is not some sort of stringent purity test where you adamantly refuse to use any sort of visual reference.

To help avoid confusion in the first place, make room dimensions the first thing you describe. These can be general (“it’s a wide, long hall with a vaulted ceiling” or “beyond the door is a small office”) or numeric (“you see a square room about twenty-five or thirty feet across ”), but by leading with the room dimensions and shape you’re creating a “canvas” that both the mapper and the other players can “paint” the rest of the room description on.

Note: As noted above, if you don’t give numeric dimensions, you may find that the mapper is always going to ask for them. I tend to default to just including them, but this can vary quite a bit on your group and your mapper.

After establishing the “canvas” of the room, make exits/entrances either the first thing or the last thing in the room description. This essential navigational information is the backbone of the dungeon adventure, and by making them essentially the first or last thing in the room description you make it much less likely that the players will lose track of where they can go. (Remember that the structure of a dungeoncrawl ultimately boils down to: Do stuff in a room until you run out of stuff to do, then pick an exit and go through it to find another room.)

Finally, pay attention to common descriptive phrases that confuse your players and then figure out a way to describe those things in a way that ISN’T confusing.

For example, I’ve found that “there’s a thirty-foot hallway with two doors at the end of it” creates confusion, so I make a point of saying either, “There’s a thirty-foot hallway with two doors facing you at the end of it,” or, “There’s a thirty-foot hallway with two doors facing each other at the end of it.”

Which phrases are common will depend on your own descriptive habits, and which ones are confusing (or clear!) will depend on your group. Which is why this ultimately boils down to being aware of when things go awry, and then making a mental note of how you can avoid that friction in the future.

Next: Mapping and VTTs

A player scratching out a map of the dungeon on graph paper as their DM describes the winding corridors and strange labyrinths their character is exploring is a tradition which predates Dungeons & Dragons itself. It’s become almost habitual; passed down from one generation of gamer to the next: We’re entering the dungeon, so who’s going to be the mapper?

But like a lot of unexamined traditions, there comes a point where you stop and say, “Wait a minute. Why am I doing this?!”

Theater of the mind was supplemented by Chessex battlemaps and Dwarven Forge terrain, and now we live in an era of shiny virtual tabletops with infinite scrolling maps. Player mapping used to be fairly ubiquitous in video games, too, but it’s been almost entirely eliminated there: replaced with mini-maps, quest markers, and fast travel. Why not get rid of it in tabletop gaming, too?

There are can definitely be costs to player-mapping. In some campaigns, in fact, the cost can be quite substantial: The GM repeating room dimensions. The group waiting for the mapper to finish. Confused Q&A sessions between the GM and the mapper as they try to clarify exactly what an odd-shaped room looks like or the precise angle of a hallway. All of this drags down the pace of play and distracts the group from all the other cool stuff — combat, exploration, roleplaying — that’s happening in the dungeon.

So what are we doing here, exactly?

WHY PLAYER MAPPING?

The first thing to understand is that player mapping is only worthwhile if navigational knowledge has value.

In many modern D&D scenarios, it doesn’t: The dungeon isn’t dynamic, it’s overly linear, and/or the goal of the adventure is “kill all the bad guys.” Plus, the adventure is often balanced so that the PCs can wrap up the whole dungeon in a single long rest. So the PCs’ navigational choices don’t actually matter: Even if there are multiple meaningful paths through the dungeon, the choice of path is essentially irrelevant because the PCs ultimately need to kick down every door and clear every room.

Since their navigational choices don’t actually matter, why would the players waste time on making a map?

Maybe there’s some marginal value in “detecting a secret door leading to a bunch of a treasure we otherwise would have missed” (which is why this is so often discussed these days as the reason for player mapping), but it’s an extremely marginal value. Hard to justify all the rigamarole for that one time in twenty that you manage to suss out a secret room you otherwise would have missed.

(And, frankly, a lot of DMs are just going to fudge the Search check to find the secret door anyway. We wouldn’t want the players to miss any of our carefully crafted content, right?)

So when players say that mapping is pointless, that’s not really surprising. It’s quite possible they’ve literally never played a scenario where mapping provided a benefit.

Somewhere towards the other extreme, however, is the Arnesonian megadungeon: The PCs are going to be going down into the dungeon repeatedly and the layout of the dungeon is heavily xandered, so the navigational information from previous expeditions lets you plan your next expedition. The dungeon is also extremely dynamic, with monsters being restocked and aggressive, even punitive random encounter pacing. In that environment, navigational efficiency is of paramount importance: A good map is literally the difference between success and a failure; a big payday and abject failure; life and death.

(This is not to say that you need a megadungeon for mapping to be relevant. It’s just one example of a dungeon scenario in which the PCs will profit from having a good map.)

Furthermore, when mapping is motivated and rewarded, it turns out there are a few other benefits to player mapping.

First, it ensures a clarity of communication. While it’s possible for mapping to bog down play because the player is seeking an unnecessary amount of persnickety detail (more on that later), it’s much more likely in my experience for the map to become problematic because the player fundamentally doesn’t understand the GM’s description of the game world.

The key thing to understand here is that this needs to be fixed whether the player is mapping or not: If they can’t even figure out where the exits from a room are, for example, then there’s a fundamental mismatch between the GM’s understanding of the game world and the players’ understanding of the game world, and that’s going to cause problems no matter what. When this is happening, the player’s map actually provides valuable verification that the GM’s descriptions are being clearly understood and can help quickly clear up misunderstanding when they do arise.

Second, map-making is a form of note-taking, and like all note-taking it aids memory and understanding. It locks in the events of a session and provides a reference that the whole group can look back on in future sessions to remind themselves of what happened.

Finally, drawing a map can be a very immersive way of interacting with the game world. It’s like how a good horror movie will force the audience to engage in an act of closure by imagining the horrific things which the movie only suggests to them. Because the audience is creatively filling in the gaps for themselves, the result can be more vivid, personal, and emotionally engaging than if you just showed them the monster.

Getting the player to engage in a similar act of closure at the game table — where they, themselves, are ultimately completing the picture of the game world in their own mind — will similarly immerse them into the setting. Player mapping achieves this because it implicitly involves them thinking about what lies beyond the edge of their current map as they try to figure out where they should go next and how the different pieces of the dungeon might link together.

The excitement that generates is one part puzzle-solving, one part reward, and one part being drawn into the fictional reality of the game world. The example of realizing that there must be a secret chamber right here is just one very specific example of what this looks like.

PLAYER BEST PRACTICES

First: Do you need a map?

If you’re a dungeon delver, only make a map if you feel like you’re getting value from it. There are plenty of smaller dungeons and dungeon-like environments where you won’t need a map. (On the other hand, if you’re having fun making the map, then have fun! That’s reason enough.)

Second: Focus on functionality over trying to capture the precise measurements and angles of the dungeon.

In fact, in many cases, you don’t need measurements at all. You can get most or all of the benefits of mapping from a simple network map: Just draw a circle for each room and then draw lines showing how it connects to other rooms.

This doesn’t mean you need to give up on the graph paper entirely, of course. It just means recognizing that most of the time the difference between a hallway that’s twenty-five feet long and a hallway that’s thirty feet long just isn’t important.

Of course, there may be times when you actually need that type of precision. (For example, you might suspect that there’s a secret room hidden somewhere in the haunted house and you want to figure out where it might be.) When that happens, make a point of seeking that precision in character: What is your character actually doing to get the precise measurement that you want?

Third: Map in pencil.

You’re going to make mistakes. As you explore and revisit sections of the dungeon, your knowledge of how everything fits together will grow over time. You’ll want to be able to easily adjust your maps to make all the pieces fit together.

Fourth: Let the GM see your map.

If the GM can easily see your map — e.g., it’s sitting on the table in front of you — it will let them quickly notice errors and give you the necessary corrections.

Don’t expect the GM to fix all of your mistakes, of course. Just the ones that you wouldn’t have made if you were actually standing in the dungeon instead of just listening to a description of it.

Fifth: Make sure to actually USE the map.

This might seem obvious, but your goal is to not to produce an immaculate cartographical masterpiece. Take notes directly on the map, and make sure you’re sharing the map with the rest of the group as a reference and resource for decision-making: Where have we been? Where should we be going? What do we know? What do we want to find out?

Sixth: The map is an artifact that actually exists in the game world.

You’re mapping in the real world just like your character is mapping in the game world. Make sure your character has the supplies they need to actually make the map. Think about where and how the map is being stored.

These are small details, but you’ll find they make a big difference in letting the map literally draw you into your character.

Seventh: Try not to let your mapping disrupt or distract from the rest of the game.

Mapping is important, but you should be able to do most or all of it in the background while play continues to flow normally. If you find that you’re constantly having to interrupt the action to get the information you need to make the map, then something has probably gone wrong.

Most likely, you’re seeking a level of precision greater than you need. Try to figure out how to make your map from the details your DM is normally giving you. If you need more detail than that, as noted above, try to seek it out in character (so that it becomes part of what’s happening in the game world rather than a distraction from it).

Eighth: To wrap things up here are three practical tips.

• Learn and use some simple map key symbols. (These are easy to find online, and there’s also a set in So You Want To Be a Game Master.)
• You’re not making a battlemap. Mapping at a 10-foot scale (as opposed to a 5-foot scale) will let you get a lot more of a dungeon level on a single page, which will make understanding, using, and updating your map a lot easier.
• Be aware of elevation changes. Not every elevation change is a level change, but passages passing above or below other passages are an easy source of confusion that can either ruin or over-complicate your map.

Next: Dungeon Master Best Practices

Mephits & Magmin is the introductory scenario from So You Want To Be a Game Master. It’s designed specifically for first-time GMs, but can provide an evening of eerie, magical fun for any group!

Now it’s easier than ever to run the adventure on a virtual tabletop! Tessa Morecroft of Tessa’s Maps has created an all-new version of the adventure map specifically customized for online play.

In addition to multiple variations of Tessa’s beautiful, full-color rendition of the volcanic caverns, the zip file below also contains a DD2VTT file you can use to import the map with dynamic lighting and line-of-sight to a variety of virtual tabletops, including Roll20 and Foundry.

DOWNLOAD VTT MAPS
(zip file)

Go to Part 1

Sakurai: It was a good campaign, but I was surprised Seffi never showed up.

GM: Who?

Sakurai: Seffi. You know, the guy who betrayed my best friend and commanding officer, killing him right in front of my eyes and sending Kuradao into a fugue state?

GM: Oh. Yeah. I think I remember that. Kinda.

Whether on their own initiative or as part of a group effort to create campaign characters, your players will craft backstories for their characters. These backstories might be only a few sentences long or they might be ten-thousand-word epics, but either way they’re the foundation that the players’ characters will be built on.

And the PCs, of course, are going to be the main characters in your game. The action, the drama, the passion, the hopes, and the dreams of the entire campaign are all going to be focused on these protagonists!

Despite this, it’s shockingly common for GMs to go through all the rigamarole of creating elaborate backstories – often even encouraging the players to do so and collaborating with them! – only to immediately turn around, effectively throw those backstories into a paper shredder, and get down to the business of running the campaign they’ve prepared (and which has nothing to do with who the PCs are or what they want).

I think the influence of published adventures certainly plays a role here: The writers of these campaigns obviously can’t know anything about the specific characters that will be playing it, and so everything from the scenario hooks to the antagonists to the individual scenes must be, to at least some extent, comfortably generic.

So whether a GM is running a published campaign or simply following their example, it’s easy for them to unconsciously erect a firewall: The characters (and their backstories) are over there; the adventure is over here.

What you end up with are campaigns driven primarily, overwhelmingly, and even exclusively by a plot: By the simple sequence of what happens. It’s less than a plot, really, because even a plot in a novel or screenplay is generally understood to be the sequence of events driven forward by the actions of the protagonists. So what we’re left with here is just the shell or simulacrum of a plot; the most simplistic procedural elements of a story.

Note: What we mean by “plot” here is more expansive than simply the prepped plots discussed in Don’t Prep Plots, although prepped plots are probably even more susceptible to the problems we’re discussing here.

The problem, of course, is that our stories are not purely about plot. Arguably, the greatest stories are about the protagonists, and the plot is only a reflection of those characters (or an opportunity for those characters to be revealed and/or to develop and change).

Keeping our focus primarily on the PCs’ backstories for the moment, consider how much less interesting:

• Star Wars would be if Luke wasn’t Anakin Skywalker’s son and Obi-Wan wasn’t his former master.
• Die Hard if John McClane’s wife wasn’t one of the hostages.
• Inception if Cobb wasn’t fighting to return to his kids and if his wife wasn’t haunting his dreams.
• The Hobbit if Thurin was not the rightful heir of the Lonely Mountain.
• The Lord of the Rings if Frodo had not inherited the Ring from Bilbo.

And so forth.

USING THE BACKSTORY

There are, broadly speaking, two ways to use your players’ backstories and incorporate them into the campaign: You can either build the campaign from their backstories or you can adapt the campaign you have planned to include their backstories.

When it comes to adapting a campaign, I’ve previously discussed a technique called the campaign stitch that you can use to link multiple published adventures together into a single, seamless campaign. (The quick version is that you look for elements which can be unified:  Can the village in Adventure A be the same village as the one in Adventure B? Can you replace the dwarf who hires the PCs in Adventure B with the sorceress who hired them in Adventure A?) You can simply extend the campaign stitch, but this time using the characters’ backstories as one of your source texts. For example, instead of either the dwarf or the sorceress, what if the PC is working for their uncle?

If you’re using the Alexandrian techniques for collaboratively creating campaign characters, this stitch can go both ways: If there’s not a convenient uncle to serve as the party’s patron, see if there’s a way that you can work with one of the players (or all of the players!) to incorporate the sorceress from Adventure A into their backstories.

Do this for NPCs, locations, McGuffins, and literally anything else you can glean from your PCs’ backstories. It’s virtually impossible for a PC to be too connected to the campaign.

On a similar note, if you’re building your campaign from the PCs’ backstories, you’re basically going to loot anything that’s not bolted down. (And nothing is bolted down.)

Start by identifying the goals of the PCs. Each goal is at least one scenario, and likely more than one: They want a valuable item (a stolen heirloom, the cure for their mother’s disease)? Put it some place secure and you’ve got a raid. They’re trying to discover something (the identity of their brother’s killer, the local of the Lost City of Shandrala)? That’s a mystery, so start building your revelation list. (You can spread the clues around the entire campaign and/or throw it into a 5-node mystery or anything between.)

As part of this, identify the antagonists. It’s not unusual for the PCs’ backstories to be filled with people who have wronged them; people who they hate; people who stand opposed to everything they want to accomplish in life. Grab some or all of them and start setting them up as obstacles the PCs have to overcome to achieve their goals.

Once you’ve got this material lightly sketched in, simply link the scenarios together using whatever campaign structure makes the most sense. (When in doubt, use a 5 x 5 campaign.) Or, alternatively, arrange them into multiple campaign structures, each acting as a separate arc within the greater campaign (running either concurrently or sequentially).

Advanced Tip: These scenarios are easy to hook because the PCs are already motivated to do the thing or find the thing. But mix things up a bit with some surprising scenario hooks, where the PCs think they’re doing one thing only to discover halfway through the adventure that this is actually about the ONE THING THEY’VE ALWAYS WANTED. You can also heighten the dramatic tension by using a dilemma hook as a surprising twist: Someone the PCs’ care about tells them where they can find the McGuffin from their backstory… but only because they want them to do something completely different with the McGuffin than what the PC wanted.

Continue your work by harvesting setting material (locations, factions, etc.) and pulling your supporting cast. Not every single character and location from the PCs’ backstories needs to show up in the campaign, of course, so think about which ones are the most interesting to you. And which ones do the players’ seem most invested in?

While you’re doing this, do some stitching and look for opportunities to link the PCs’ backstories: Could an NPC from Character A’s backstory be marrying Character B’s sister? Can characters be from the same place or belong to the same organizations or work for one another? Can Obi-Wan’s former apprentice and Luke’s father be the same person?

(And, as I already mentioned, you can also collaborate with the players to take two different characters and make them the same person. For example, one of the PCs’ is friends with the druid Allanon and another PC has a very similar wizard named Gandalf who was friends with their adopted father Bilbo. Couldn’t these both be the same guy? If so, it could be a cool link between these PCs that explains why they’re adventuring together at the beginning or the campaign; or an easter egg that they only discover after journeying together for many moons.)

As you’re doing this, regardless of which approach you take to incorporating character backstories, make sure to balance spotlight time. (Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you should lay the groundwork that will ensure a future balance in spotlight time.) In other words, don’t build a whole campaign around just Frodo’s uncle and his magic ring, include some stuff about the kingdom Aragorn and Boromir have connections to; the lost dwarf kingdom Gimli apparently yearns for; and maybe toss in some elf havens since both Aragorn and Legolas talk about those in their backstories.

Similarly, don’t feel like you shouldn’t create your own stuff while doing this. In fact, you obviously should. Not everything in the campaign needs to be incestuously born from the PCs’ backstories.

Note: There are many RPGs that will help bring backstory elements into play by mechanizing them or incorporating them into core gameplay loops. For example, Trail of Cthulhu and Night’s Black Agents both use Sources of Stability – major NPCs who the PCs have to interact with in order to regain Stability through a human connection in the face of a horrific universe.

TABULA RASA CHARACTERS

In order to use a backstory, of course, you first need to have a backstory. While some players will give you paragraphs or pages full of information, others might only give you a couple sentences or even nothing at all.

And that’s just fine.

You may feel like these players don’t care about the game, but that’s usually not the case. Most of these players just have a preference for sketching in a few broad concepts and then discovering and developing who the character is through actual play.

Such characters aren’t exactly uncommon in other mediums, either. Consider Neo in The Matrix or Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit. At the beginning of their stories, both are tabula rasas serving as everymen that the viewer or reader can readily step into as a POV character. In an RPG, the tabula rasa character similarly serves as an easy role for the player to assume and begin exploring your world.

As you’re integrating or building from backstories, however, there are a few things you can do with tabula rasa characters. (After all, just because these characters are being developed during play, you don’t want them to be slighted when it comes to spotlight time.)

First, if you’re using the campaign character creation methods I’ve mentioned before, you can usually add a little flesh to the bones of these characters. Don’t feel like you need to dump a whole bunch of unwanted detail on the player — again, the tabula rasa approach is perfectly legitimate — but you can use this to plant a few seeds.

One particularly useful technique is to link them to some lore. Bilbo Baggins, for example, lives in the Shire. Bilbo’s background details can remain pretty sketchy, while the meatier lore of the Shire (and, for example, Gandalf’s long-standing relationships with the hobbits of the Shire) can do a bunch of heavy lifting.

Another approach is to link them to another PC. For example, consider Merry and Pippin from The Lord of the Rings. We know virtually nothing about them, but they’re friends with Sam and Frodo, which gives them a link to all the stuff in Frodo’s backstory that we’re building our campaign around.

GM DON’T #19.1: UNDERMINING THE BACKSTORY

Another major mistake you can make is undermining a PC’s backstory. The classic example is targeting characters from the PCs’ backstory and killing them off.

Part of the problem here is turning the backstory into an endless liability instead of a boon. It’s also about taking something that the player felt was fundamental to their character’s identity or that they wanted to be something fun to play with during the game and, instead, destroying it.

Players will respond to this by either creating tabula rasa characters (“if I don’t give the GM anything to destroy, then I’m safe”) or character backgrounds filled with endless tragedy (“if my character has already lost everything and everyone they ever cared about before the GM destroys them, then at least it’s on my terms and it’s the core identity of my character”).

The trick, though, is that the line between building on a character’s backstory and undermining it can be razor thin and very dependent on context.

Start by understanding the character’s goals and how those flow from the backstory. If you can understand the core concept of the character and how the player intends to run their character, you can make plans that harmonize with those intentions instead of harming them.

You can help yourself out here by, when the campaign is young, not leaping directly to destructive uses of the PCs’ backstories. Even if a player isn’t entirely happy about how you used their teddy bear, it’ll be a lot easier to course correct if you haven’t ripped off the teddy bear’s head.

I’m not saying that you should never burn down the PC’s hometown. I’m just saying that you’ll probably be more successful if that’s not the FIRST thing you do with their hometown: First, because after spending some time with the character (and possibly their hometown) you’ll have a much better understanding of where the players’ lines are. Second, because if the hometown has been in play for a while, then the player may have done the stuff they dreamed of doing with the hometown when they created their character and won’t feel cheated by the development. Third, because it’s more likely that such events will have grown naturally out of the narrative and the PC may even bear responsibility for what happened. (“I’m sorry your hometown got burned to the ground, but maybe you shouldn’t have told the Bloodtyrant where you lived before pissing her off.”)

Finally, when in doubt, you can just talk to the players and ask them. “What role do you see your hometown playing in the campaign? Are there any lines you don’t want me to cross?” With a little care, these are conversations you can have without spoiling anything. For more details on this, you can also check out RPG Flags: Wants vs. Warnings.