Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Disasters

Intrinsic to being a DM is the self-knowledge that we're making stuff up intentionally to mess with the players.  For example, the decision to implement a flood, or catch the party in the open with a blizzard.  It seems difficult to justify the random occurrence of an earthquake, without a pre-created table that allows the DM to say, "See, I rolled it!"

However, we don't hesitate to make something intrinsic to the world that's harmless.  No one says, "How dare that DM arbitrarily place a house here, by the side of the road?  The bastard!"  We expect houses.  They happen every day, unlike scenery-wrecking earthquakes.  And yet arguably, we have much evidence to show that earthquakes are inevitable.  In many parts of the world, a mild earthquake does occur with such frequency that a small one is treated blithely.

It isn't the earthquake itself that produces that sense of unfair use of godlike malevolence, is it?  If the setting takes place where earthquakes can happen (or floods, or forest fires, or whatever disruption you like), then we must assume the event depends on the DM's word, eventually.  Nyet?  The real contention is not with existence, but with timing.  This earthquake seems to have occurred awfully conveniently.  Wasn't it thoughtful of the DM to impose this flood just at the time we have to get across this particular river to reach this particular castle.  Hm ...

Even if we do build a table, to get around this timing issue by perhaps rolling on the table everyday (in game), the chance of something occurring is still arbitrary, isn't it?  And just how small should that chance be?  What is the chance of a 7.5 earthquake in downtown Los Angeles, as opposed to Memphis?  [yes, Memphis]  Is it the same?  What is the chance of a spring flood on the Mississippi, in a time before there were levees?  What about Holland?  No doubt, very high.  But how high?  Are you able to judge?  And what if you say there's a 2 in 3 chance ... is that fair to your players, just because you made the determination ahead of time?  That is still arbitrary.

We can go crazy trying to make sure that floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, famines and other catastrophic events only occur when they're not a part of the narrative; but in game, when would that be?  Never, I should think.  Which I'm guessing is close to what you've decided, particularly if you've ever tried implementing any of these moments.  A second, or a third big event like this is going to seem, well, a bit coincidental, don't you think?

Personally, if it suits the campaign, I say fuck it.  Have an earthquake.  Wreck the city.  Drown a countryside.  You could start every session by selecting two twenty sided dice, like a big ritual, rolling them both in front of the players and saying, "If they both come up 1s, some pretty bad shit is going to come down."

That's fair, isn't it?

1 comment:

  1. The old Frank Mentzer Companion rules (for Basic D&D) provided a big list of "disasters" along with its domain rules. These included a whole list of things (from fires, floods, and earthquakes, to invading armies, assassinations, and peasant revolts) that were supposed to be checked on an annual basis: just roll the % chance for each to see what awful things a PC ruler would have to deal with this particular year. All the percentages were fairly low, but given enough time and enough rolls, bad shit was bound to happen eventually.

    While I grok the point of your post, I'd guess some random-y DMs might take it into their heads to craft a similar table of monthly "events" that might happen to a player party...heck, it might even include positive events (the PCs encounter a wealthy love interest, the PCs encounter a tinker with especially useful or well-priced equipment, the PCs encounter a friendly roadside inn, etc.)...or not.

    Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. I've written, erased, and re-written (multiple times) the next sentence. It starts with the word "But" ...and I don't know what I want to say. Simply adding important events - positive or negative - via arbitrary (fiat) narration is a part of adventure design: you come to a town with a bandit problem. The local druids have cursed the land. The Queen's son has gone missing. Whatever. A flood or forest fire or earthquake suddenly "happening" isn't any different from that.

    But then neither is a "quantum ogre" really...and everyone hates the quantum ogre.

    *sigh* D&D is hard sometimes.

    ReplyDelete

If you wish to leave a comment on this blog, contact alexiss1@telus.net with a direct message. Comments, agreed upon by reader and author, are published every Saturday.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.