The Minnesota Fringe Festival started last night and will be running through August 15th. I have an UltraPass this year, which means that over the 10 days of the festival I’ll be seeing 40+ shows. So things are going to slow down a bit here at the Alexandrian for the duration.

On the other hand, I’m planning to be an active Fringe reviewer. You’ll be able to check out my reviews on the Fringe Festival website, and I may play around with reposting some of them here as well. Here are a few samples.

ALEXANDER AT DELPHI – A SQUANDERING OF GOOD MATERIAL

Many of the actors in Alexander at Delphi spent the majority of the show with their gazes locked on the lone conductor stationed offstage left. Despite disrupting any real chance the show had for chemistry, pace, or immersion, I found I couldn’t really blame them: There wasn’t anything on the stage worth looking at.

The music itself is intriguingly possessed of Greekish overtones, but is largely undistinguished. (Literally. You can’t distinguish one song from the next as they blend together into a kind of sub-symphonic mush.) In addition, the music and the lyrics appear to be locked in some sort of blood feud from which they both emerge as losers. (You can’t really make up for a lack of syllables in a lyric by trying to make one syllable do the work of four.)

I have a passing, but not particularly detailed knowledge of Alexander the Great and the accuracy of the history depicted is impressive. Unfortunately, it often takes the form of historical bullet points serving as dialogue and characters narrating their own biographies.

And although faithful, the script also manages a fair degree of incoherency. For example, Alexander and Hephaestion are first introduced to us as they are roleplaying Achilles and Patroclus during the Trojan War. But this is never actually explained, leaving the audience at least momentarily confused as to which characters these actors are actually depicting. The play also has a habit of jumping backwards and forwards through time, but frequently doesn’t give the audience any meaningful clue where or when they are.

And please stop stabbing the floor with your bendy, plastic swords.

What should be singled out for praise, however, are the many actors who struggle mightily to entertain. Particularly notable is the performance of Brandon Osero, who frequently brings a breath of fresh energy to the otherwise weary proceedings.

1 KITTY

COMMUNOPOLY – INCESSANTLY CLEVER SATIRE

Communopoly succeeds at being much more than the polemic it could have easily become in less talented hands: Instead, it presents itself in a series of complex and multifaceted (and funny!) layers, peeling them back one at a time for our enjoyment.

First, the show makes the game of Monopoly comes alive. And it’s funny. It’s like the movie Clue, except it’s Monopoly and it was written by Monty Python.

Second, it puts up a mirror and forces us to really look at the ideological underpinnings of the game through the lens of communism. And somehow it’s still funny.

And finally they turn the mirror back on themselves for one last bit of self-deconstruction.

And it’s still funny.

The show’s not perfect: It can be a little rough around the edges. But it’s entertaining, clever, and rewarding.

4 KITTIES

RACHEL TEAGLE BELIEVES IN GHOSTS

Watching Rachel Teagle Believes in Ghosts was like sitting around a campfire listening to ghost stories. Except instead of your goofy friends, the tales are being told by a talented and gifted storyteller.

Mixing “real” ghost stories with a collection of original tales, Teagle succeeds brilliantly at exploring the full range of spectral tale-telling: Haunting. Scary. Nostalgic. Painful. Funny.

Unfortunately, the show does occasionally fall down. In particular, the interpretive dance portions of the evening were complete failures for me. And while Teagle is to be commended for the innovation of including guest storytellers at each of her performances, the timing of the guest performer was mystifying to me: Coming immediately after what was, arguably, the high point of the performance, the guest performer (despite his quality) nevertheless seemed to turn the last portion of the show into an anticlimax.

In a perfectly calibrated world, I would probably give this show 3.5 or 3.75 kitties. But since it succeeds far more often than it fails, I’m quite happy to round that figure up to 4 entertaining kitties.

4 KITTIES

An Oxford comma (or serial comma) refers to a comma placed before a conjunction (such as or, and, or but) in a list of three or more items.

“apples, oranges, and pears” (Oxford comma)

vs.

“apples, oranges and pears” (no Oxford comma)

When I was in elementary school we were taught that you should never use an Oxford comma. (Although we weren’t told that was the term for it.) At the time I didn’t think that made much sense because it’s far too trivial to come up with scenarios in which the lack of an Oxford comma would render a construction illogical:

“apples and oranges, left and right, and up and down”

vs,

“apples and oranges, left and right and up and down”

This is often taught as the “exception that proves the rule”. But here’s an example from Contested Will:

“Louis Benezet, an English professor at Dartmouth College, published the first of many Oxfordian volumes, Shakspere, Shakespeare and de Vere.”

Should the be understood as Shakspere, Shakespeare, and de Vere? (Implying an equality between the three names.) Or should it be understood as Shakspere: Shakespeare and de Vere? (In other words, with the latter clause being a subtitle.) Or could it be Shakspere; Shakespeare and de Vere? (With “Shakespeare and de Vere” being joined as a single unit vs. Shakspere.)

No way to know.

Which is why I maintain you should always use an Oxford comma in order to maximize the clarity of your text.

Go to Part 1

We started with a linear dungeon:

But after xandering the Keep, the result is this:

Note that we haven’t changed the actual key to the adventure: We’ve just restructured the environment in which those encounters are placed.

I’ve also prepped some detail-light maps to make the changes a little clearer. You’ll want to cross-reference with the maps from the original module. (The original Level 2, which is now Level 3, is unchanged, so I didn’t re-map it.)

I’ll take a moment to note that this isn’t the only way we could have done this. Other things we could have done:

• Put a secret door at the bottom of the pit trap in area 1 (leading to one of several possibilities on the second level).
• Have the kruthiks tunnel from area 10 down to area 15.
• Put a teleport in Sir Keegan’s tomb keyed to a matching crypt on the second level.
• One of the prisoners in the torture chamber dug a hidden escape tunnel leading to area 6 (where he was killed by zombies, the poor bastard).
• Could there be a connection between the pool in area 11 and the water-based trap in area 16?
• Could the access to area 15 north of area 16 be a secret door, with a more obvious entrance leading from area 17 (allowing meticulous PCs to potentially bypass the trap)?

The particular revisions I’ve made simply struck me as either the most interesting or the most appropriate or both.

But the point of performing this revision on Keep of the Shadowfell is not only to salvage another aspect of this adventure. My primary goal is to demonstrate how easy it is to implement these techniques in your own dungeons. If we can take an existing, linear dungeon and fundamentally transform it in just a couple of minutes using a handful of xandering techniques, then the effect can be even more dramatic if we were to design a dungeon from the ground-up using those techniques.

Here’s a quote from a recent interview with Jennell Jaquays over on Grognardia:

The core inspirations for Caverns of Thracia were threefold. The first was to ally the various “beast” races of AD&D as a unified force. The second was to build encounters that took place in multiple levels of a cave, where the open upper areas were situated above open lower areas. The final inspiration (that I remember) was the rather primitive, but unique plate armor used by Mycenaean soldiers. These became the human guards of the upper reaches of the Caverns.

Of particular interest here is Jaquay’s second inspiration: I can personally testify to the effectiveness of these open caverns in transforming the typical dungeoncrawling experience. They immediately force the players to think in three dimensions, while their ubiquity significantly contributes to the memorable layout of the dungeon.

But the important revelation to be had here, in my opinion, is the effectiveness of clearly delineating a small list of concrete creative goals before beginning your dungeon design.

Building on that point, notice that Jaquays only specifies a single non-linear design technique in her list of creative goals. (And it’s actually a very specific variation of a generalized technique.) And although that is not the only non-linear technique employed in the Caverns of Thracia, Jaquays’ riffs on that theme are a definitive aspect of the module.

Here’s my point: Earlier in this series, I listed a dozen xandering techniques. Next time you’re designing a dungeon, don’t feel like you need to cram ‘em all in there. Instead, pick one of them and try to explore it in as many ways as possible while you’re designing the dungeon. (If you want a more focused experience, follow Jaquays’ example and try to narrow your design theme down to a specific variant of one technique – just like multi-level caverns are a specific form of unusual level connectors.)

Xandering your dungeon is easy. It’s also fun. And this applies to both the designing of the dungeon and the playing of the dungeon. Nothing is more exciting for me as a GM than to sit down at the table and know that I’m going to be just as surprised by my players as I hope that my players will be by me.

And when it comes to dungeon design, that’s the unique and exciting experience that xandering unlocks.

ADDITIONAL READING
Addendum: Dungeon Level Connections
Addendum: Xandering on the Small Scale
Addendum: How to Use a Melan Diagram
Dark Tower: Level Connections

Go to Part 1

This is the complete map of the Keep of the Shadowfell, taken from the adventure of the same name. (The red arrow indicates the dungeon’s entrance. The black arrow indicates the connection between Level 1 and Level 2 of the dungeon.) At first glance, this dungeon may appear quite complex and interesting: There are lots of twisting corridors, and the PCs appear to be given an immediate and meaningful choice of three separate corridors upon entering the dungeon.

But as I mentioned earlier, when you straighten out all of those twisting corridors the overwhelmingly linear structure of the dungeon becomes quite clear:

The only legitimately interesting feature of this dungeon, from a cartographical standpoint, is the loop of encounters in areas 1 thru 4. Everything else in the dungeon has been designed to proceed in an essentially predetermined fashion: The DM sets up the encounters, the PCs knock them down, and then the DM sets up the next encounter.

What I’m going to do is take a few simple xandering techniques and use them to tweak the Keep of the Shadowfell in order to make it a more dynamic and interesting dungeon. By changing the macro-structure of the dungeon, we’ll be able to unlock the full potential of the “local interest” in the map (all those twisting corridors and mini-loops) and the encounters themselves.

To do this, I’m going to suggest making four slight adjustments to the dungeon’s design.

SECOND ENTRANCE: As described in my original remix of Keep on the Shadowfell, add a second entrance to the dungeon. About a half mile to the west of the keep, up in the foothills of the Cairngorms, there’s a natural cave that leads, more or less directly, to area 10 of the Keep.

(This is how the kruthiks and rats got into areas 9 and 10. As described in the remix PDF, the PCs can discover this entrance either by scouting the area around the Keep or by researching it in Lord Padraig’s library in Winterhaven. If this entrance is found before the PCs enter the Keep, it’s a nice reward for their cleverness and preparation. If it’s found during their explorations of the Keep, it can provide a valuable avenue of escape or allow them to sneak back into the complex after a guard has been raised at the primary entrance.)

ADDING A STAIRCASE: Add a staircase leading from the Torture Room (area 2) to the antechamber of Sir Keegan’s tomb (area 7).

(My primary motivation here is to remove some of the dead ends from the dungeon. By linking two of the dead ends together, I’m creating a dynamic loop. Note, however, that I’m actually linking the loop in just before the actual dead end of Sir Keegan’s tomb in area 8. This is partly due to the internal logic of the adventure – it doesn’t make any sense for a hallway to pass straight through Keegan’s tomb – but it’s also practical in terms of design: By leaving the branch into area 8 intact, we’re providing a flavorful navigational choice to PCs entering area 7.)

ADDING A SECRET PASSAGE: Add a secret passage leading from area 6 to area 15.

(This provides a second connection to the lower level, providing the dungeon with important multiple connections between levels. By properly positioning these connections, we can turn entire dungeon levels into looping structures.)

MOVING A STAIRCASE: Move the staircase leading to area 12 from area 5 to area 3.

(The primary reason for this shift is to open up some real estate between the primary and secondary routes leading to the lower level. Admittedly, this is a problem that only exists because of where I chose to put the secret passage. But this also allows the goblins to reach the lower levels without passing through undead-infested halls, thus correcting a problem with the original dungeon’s design. And by hooking a level connector into the far end of the adventure’s original loop we’re layering the complexity of the dungeon’s cartography.)

Finally, in order to make these changes fit into a natural, logical geography, I’ve simply inverted the entirety of areas 6 thru 8. With this change, these areas, which were originally a minor elevation shift requiring the PCs to descend a staircase from area 1, become a true “second level” to the complex, passing directly beneath areas of the first level:

(Level 1 is highlighted in red. The “new” Level 2 is highlighted in blue. And Level 3, the original second level, is now highlighted in green.)

Next: Xandering for Fun and Profit

You’ll frequently hear authors and IP companies bitching and moaning about the fact that they don’t see a penny when their copyrighted material is sold on the used market. Even otherwise fairly intelligent folks like Isaac Asimov have irrationally believed that people buying used paperbacks were sticking daggers in their backs.

Even if we ignore the ethically tenuous position of people who want to sell you a toaster and then prohibit you from ever selling that toaster to somebody else (which a few weeks ago I would have considered hyperbole, but then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided it would be a good idea to gut consumer protection and ship American jobs overseas all in one fell swoop), the claim being espoused here is fundamentally nonsensical.

What they’re overlooking (either willfully or ignorantly), is the actual effect that being able to sell used books has on the original customer’s buying habits:

First, it influences their decision to buy. (“I’m willing to pay $50 for this textbook, but only because I know I can sell it back for $15 at the end of the semester.”) If they weren’t able to recoup a portion of their investment, they might never buy it in the first place.

Second, it amortizes risk. (“I dunno if this DVD is worth $20. But I guess if I don’t like it, I’ll be able to sell it for at least $8. $12 isn’t that much of a risk.”) Customers who can amortize their risk are more likely to buy. And if the product turns out to be good, they may not resell at all.

Finally, it injects fresh capital: The $10 you get from GameStop for your video game is often going right back into purchasing a brand new game at GameStop.

This effect is somewhat diffused and may, therefore, not be clear when it comes to books or DVDs or video games. But it’s crystal clear when you look at the auto industry: X buys a $30,000 car from Ford. X sells it a couple years later to Y for $10,000 and uses that money to buy another $30,000 car. A couple years later X sells his new $30,000 car to Y for $10,000, while Y sells the original car to Z for $2,000.

Holy shit! Ford has lost all that money spent by Y and Z! X is ripping Ford off! … right?

Nope. Because (a) X couldn’t afford to buy a $30,000 car every two years if he wasn’t selling to Y; and neither Y nor Z can afford $30,000 new cars. The money from Y and Z is, in fact, funneling right up the system and into Ford’s pocket. And everybody wins: Ford makes more money. X gets fancy new cars on a more frequent basis. Y and Z get cars they otherwise couldn’t afford.

This is why nobody in the auto industry makes a new car that they can sell for $5,000 despite the obvious market for $5,000 vehicles.. They’re already getting the money from the $5,000 market.