Systems You Might Not Need: the Designated Survivor

Image

A weird thought came over me. 

"What if players could keep a character from dying?"

It was an odd thought, especially as I'm specifically designing a game where characters can, and will, die; it might not be some OSR-fever dream, but it certainly is intended to be far more lethal than 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, where I have almost never actually seen a character die. 

And yet the thought didn't go away. It nagged, and nagged. So I tried to describe it. A character who, quite simply, wouldn't die if they were killed. 

Which is to say, if they were in a position where death "could" have occurred--a fall into a chasm, a broadsword from a warrior, buried under an avalanche--they would be assumed to have, somehow, survived. The mechanism is up to the GM: they are taken prisoner, they are swept away by the current and washed up somewhere else; they fall to the ground but later awaken and drag themselves deeper into the swamps...

At first I called it "plot armor," but quickly realized that wasn't what I wanted. Eventually, I realized what I wanted: a designated survivor. 


The Designated Survivor is sort of like the mapper or the quartermaster, the party inventory manager: a character, chosen more or less by the party, to perform a role that makes the game work better even if it is slightly abstract. It might be more abstract, in a sense; the mapper is assumed to mimic a character actually making a map, or at least represent the ability of the human mind to get its bearings in an actual 3D space. The quartermaster is assumed to be able to actually look at the physical possessions the party has.

The designated survivor, on the other hand, is purely abstract. In theory it actually does nothing: any character can face these outcomes. It is always the GM's discretion to decide a character that falls off a cliff doesn't actually die, or that a character is kidnapped rather than butchered after defeat. Even so, death is a real possibility--Snakebite is intended to be a moderately-lethal system, and the GM is not expected to be particularly merciful. If it makes sense for a character to survive, they should--but often it does not. Character generation is intentionally quick, and players always have a pool of characters to draw from. 

Only one character is somewhat protected from this fate: the designated survivor is always assumed to, in some way, survive. This does not mean they return to be playable, at least in the short term! They might be captured; they might turn traitor. They might return later, with a scar and under the enemy's banner. They might be missing an arm. The players may decide this person from their past is of no interest to them and let them return to anonymity. But that is their choice--the character, though lost, was very much still alive. 


Why would I want this? 

It seems an odd mechanic. Snakebite is not meant to protect characters; there are no Fate points or similar mechanisms. Death is real and simply happens; like in Call of Cthulhu, you accept that the moment your character takes form. 

But I have a few reasons I like the idea. 

The first is that, simply, it could be helpful for a GM. Snakebite assumes expeditions can fail, but it also assumes that a campaign will go on. It is a setting meant for long-term, faction-heavy play! The loss of a single party is a setback to the player faction, but it is not game-ending, nor even should it be a huge disaster. In a sense, it should open the way for more adventure, not less.

Having at least one character guaranteed to survive can help with this. They can require rescue or ransom; they can be a vector for returning news of the failed raid to the rest of the faction. They are, in a sense, a guaranteed hook that can keep the game running even after a worst-case scenario. A good GM can, of course, always have a few such tricks up their sleeve, but GMing is hard. Why not add a mechanic that makes sure they need one fewer? 

The second is more subtle but, in my mind, more pressing: some players will really want it. 

"But they chose a death-heavy game?"

I know! And most players are okay with that. But I've looked into the eyes of a lot of nerds and I know sometimes, some characters stand out. And while they might be okay with that character dying, they might genuinely, really prefer they don't. And asking? Some people will. But not everyone; and frankly, I don't want to ask. It could be embarrassing, acting like you care about this fake character. I always, ALWAYS want to let people save face. You, personally, might not need it. But I've known people who I think would; and everyone in the group realized it, and there's simply no way to give them that without it coming off as condescending. 

This could be a helpful little stairway for them. Their character might not be unscathed, but at least they can know they're still out there; and there's a good chance they might see them again. They might even have a few new adventures under their belt. 

In that way, I think it's pretty sweet. 

Alright, some questions

Isn't this blurring GM/Player lines?

Yes, I think it is. But I'm okay with that. It's a group, social game. I don't really like games where players make up a lot of the external world themselves, but this isn't that. This is just them designating a character that will have a greater weight in the narrative. I don't think it's a huge diegetic problem. Obviously the stakes are way different from like, consent cards, but it's the same relational principle: the GM still sets a stage, the players still act on it; the players just also gave a note to the GM about one particular set dressing. 

Would it be better if it's a resource?

No, I don't think so. Not for this. I don't want it to be actually a part of the game strategy! It's not a mechanic meant to preserve characters. They can still be lost! It's purely a narrative tool; the fact the character might return to the party as a playable character afterwards is purely incidental.

If it's a narrative tool, shouldn't the GM have it?

I mean, the GM already does. They can always choose to do this! This is a mechanic that lets the players control it. 

Who even needs this?

I don't know. But I think some people might. And if you're not someone who does, it doesn't really have any effect on the game itself; at least, it shouldn't. And GMs aren't all-seeing; in fact, given how much they already have to do, it might be easy for them to miss that the party seem to have a particular character they want to see survive even a catastrophe; or that a particular player is fond of. 

Shouldn't the player just ask if they really don't want a character to die?

I mean, yes and no. Yes, always make your needs clear! But...no. That's lame behavior, to be honest. This is a game about risk, and without loss risk isn't real. What, you're upset the fake barbarian is dead? What did you expect, nerd?

...But people are all a little lame, sometimes, and we do get attached to certain characters, or at least find them compelling. There is a lame streak in all of us, and I want to accommodate that lameness, just a little. Most characters will die. But once per expedition, one of them won't. 

Do you really think this is a good idea in practice?

I have no idea. But I don't hate it. And to be honest, I like the idea of trying systems that you don't think you need. This one is pretty low-cost and lightweight; it might require you to do a little metagame thinking, but to be honest I think most people already are. If you really don't like it, you don't need it. 

But you never know who else might. 

Against Magic Systems, Volume I

 

Image


I don't really like magic systems. In fact, I'll go further: I don't like the idea of even calling magic a "system." I don't like it having rules, and points, and casts per day, and levels, and ranges. I don't like the idea of witches having a set list of spells with known effects, known causes, known anything. When you know something, control it, quantify it...that's science. 

Science is cool and good. Science built nearly everything good in my life. But I don't really "like" science. I respect it, I bow to it. But I don't read about hydrology for fun. 

I like magic. I like the numinous, the fleeting, the wondrous; the fear and awe and loathing and trembling; the sublime. A person standing before a sorcereress should be like a person standing before a tsunami, or a quaking volcano. He shouldn't be thinking "what level spell can she use?" or "How many mana points does she have left?" If you see a the rules of reality bending before you, you shouldn't immediately start thinking about math. 

Magic should be magical. 

And of course, there should also be charlatans and hucksters, selling snake oils and meaningless invocations to the gullible. There should be fears of witchcraft; there should be mysterious old ladies living in the woods who the villagers go to for help but shun in the daylight. 

****

I recognize how this is a problem for a game system. Unknowable, "soft" magic may be well and numinous, but that's not exactly something you can put in a rulebook. Almost by definition, my idea of magic is unplayable.

Which is why I generally don't want players playing magicians, and in my more recent D&D game outright forbid it. (Don't act scandalized; my players are very familiar with my odd campaign restrictions. It works! I wouldn't do it if they weren't on board. Instead they were all barbarians and it worked *beautifully.* Sometime I must say more about "unbalanced parties" and how fun they can be.)

At some point, though you want to play magician, and I don't want to say it simply can't be done. To that end I've been looking at other people's approaches and trying to come up with my own. 

I started with Prismatic Wasteland's, explained here: https://www.prismaticwasteland.com/blog/spell-lists-are-not-magical His complaints are pretty much identical to mine, and he has a lot to say I agree with! He also identifies some helpful directions to explore. 

From there I jumped over to Elmcat's, https://elmc.at/rub-my-body-in-goose-fat-daddy-i-want-to-fly/ ; who writes up the system I'm most inspired by, Wolves Upon the Coast. (Luke Gearing himself told me about it, because every time I have an idea that I think is cool, it turns out he's already done it. Luke Gearing, if you're reading this: bruh stop.)

And of course I always refer back to my first love, Call of Cthulhu; where learning a spell takes weeks to months and tends to mark the beginning of the end for your character. I like that too. 

I'm still playing with ideas. I like the idea of a magic system driven by bizarre fetch quests, a la Wolves. I like the idea of magic being chaotic and risky, and even taking tolls on the magicians. I also like it being ritualistic; in the sense that a magician is only ever a conduit for alien intelligences, whether gods or demons or something entirely alien, more negotiating for a desired outcome than casting a spell. (DnD Warlocks are, in theory, this, though in practice it doesn't come up all that much mechanically. It's incumbent on the DM to make the patron particularly relevant and, I suspect, most really don't; as the warlock is a set of mechanics more than an RP choice.) (I hate Warlocks.)

I'm sure I'll come up with my final ideas just after Luke Gearing does. 

You don't need slavery. But you don't need anything.

Image

Summer is over. I don't really like summer as a season; I don't do well in heat and leaving the protective confines of the Bay can lead me to immediately perish. (Scotland is, it seems, just a very large version of the same thing, where the warmest day I experienced was maybe 82?) 

But I do like summer as a social thing; perhaps this is inherited from reading Jane Austen. I'm much more willing to go out and do things--like trek across Europe--in bright light.  

But it's nearly September now, which means I'm returning to my hole. It's hazy and gray outside. I have added another pair of Chuck Taylor's to my wall. I nearly have a rainbow and it would be the only rainbow I've any interest in seeing for the next 6 months. It's time to leave the sensuous real world and return to the hallucinated realm of letters and symbols. 

Let's discuss something I'm utterly unqualified to speak of: 

The New Dark Sun Might Not Have Slavery

I've seen a lot people I respect writing about this in detail. I've seen people defend it, but mostly argue against it, saying that Hasbro is motivated purely by what's easiest to market; trying to widen the appeal of this inherently-niche setting as much as it can allow for. I get why this might bug people. I've never played Dark Sun but I gather that its themes are inherently opposed to the general idea of soulless, extractive corporate dominance over a long-beloved IP. 

I entirely get any particular person having their own comfort level and tastes and I will never say any combination of those things is wrong, especially for a game, and especially for a *social* game. So if people want a high fantasy game where there's no racism, sexism, whatever-ism, good! They should do that. I do! Everyone does. Find what you find interesting and fun and stick with it, sure. 

But there's one behvior I've observed that I admit I don't really understand. Almost without exception, when people argue that Dark Sun should probably keep slavery, they start by saying it's important to the setting. This makes sense; it is extremely counterintuitive to create a premodern dystopian setting that doesn't include some form of slavery--a system that existed in various forms in essentially every civilization in human history. 

But that isn't what interesting to me. It's a world with wizards; I can accept that it's also based on a system of free labor. There's nothing particularly hard to swallow about that; it's surprising and nothing more. 

What catches my interest is how many people then go on to say some variation of "I want slavery in my game so my players have something to fight against." This is sometimes elaborated on; it almost aways contains stories about players fighting against slave lords, coming up from slavery, or some combination of the two. I've never seen someone just say, "I want slavery because I think it adds an interesting texture to the world."

I want slavery because I think it adds an interesting texture to the world. 

Let's qualify that

I don't "want" slavery. Obviously, I hope it's needless to say. And I don't want any form that looks too similar to the chattel-style slavery that continues to haunt American culture. I am not trying to roleplay Django Unchained. But yes, if I was writing a game in a dystopian bronze-age world, of course I'd want slavery. Along with god kings, sacred bulls, holy virgins, blood rituals, priests wearing flayed skin, statues of conquerers built from the bones of men who dared to stand up to them. 

And no, it wouldn't be so the players could overthrow it. Maybe they would--maybe they could, if they managed to acquire the power. But that wouldn't be the inherent goal of the world; much in the same way the goal of a traditional fantasy adventure isn't the overthrow of the monarchies and creation of democratic elven republics. 

The expectation is not, in my experience, that a party of heroes ever banishes all the demons from the material world, or strikes down and eliminates every necromancer, or teaches every barbarian raider about emotional regulation and the importance of restorative justice. Nearly all stories center around a series of minor crises leading towards a single great conclusion; it might save a town or a kingdom or a god from elimination but they only rarely create some kind of great cultural, moral revolution. I've never even seen that discussed other than the occasional tongue-in-cheek joke about how traditional fantasy favors aristocratic governance.

But the moment people bring up slavery morality becomes by far the most discussed point. And I think that's interesting. 

I'm not saying it's wrong. I must repeat: play the world you like! Play the world you feel comfortable playing in! This is a game and one with a group dynamic, so there's a very real need to make sure that nobody is being asked to stress themselves out with themes they don't find compelling.

But there's nothing morally dubious about having immoral systems in your world. In fact, it's almost necessary. Slavery has a strong moral valence in modern politics, but that's an artifact of society, not some divine mandate. People accept that depiction is not endorsement in nearly all other forms of art: it remains true in this one. 

You don't even need to fight it. Sometimes it's okay to just have it be there, part of the world. Your party can see slavers and the enslaved; they don't need to act as if they live in the year 2026. I would be careful and follow the same caveats you find in any "playing an Evil PC" discussion: some players are weird as hell and you might not want to include them in your game. If a guy really, really wants to own slaves, that's kind of weird. But if you're playing a game where you kill people with swords regularly, often over property disputes, you've already left the realm of modern morality. It's okay to sometimes see slave girls dancing for a warlord and have your barbarian character enjoy it. They probably would! That was the world they lived in!

(Aside: people often talk about their role in a post-apocalyptic society and I can assure you if I were to survive at all, it would almost certainly require someone with a bit of muscle to murder my enemies for me, so it's important we keep the Slave Dancer concept alive in the popular imagination. There are worse fates.)

You Don't Need Anything


Slavery is a thing. It can be fought against, ignored, it can lurk in the background or be brought very much to the foreground. Your world doesn't need it and if you don't want it, don't include it. But don't feel like you have to cut it out or make fighting it the "point" of including it. 

You don't need violence. You don't need liches or spellplagues. You don't need to ever depict any immorality or unkindness in your world. It's always a choice. 

Keeping slavery is a choice. It isn't inherently immoral to make it and you don't need to defend it. People who don't want to play around in that world won't; those who think it could be interesting will. That's how fiction operates, how it has always operated, and how it will continue to operate. A world without evil, without cruelty, and without inequality can be great for a cozy game about cats baking cakes. I've played one, and it was fun! We had a nice time and it left fond memories. 

But I would also enjoy a world with bleached bones, blood-spattered ziggurats, and masked god-kings being carried by a column of muscular slave-warriors; men who feast on the flesh of sanctified virgins. Maybe we'll kill him after a year of grinding guerilla warfare. Maybe we'll merely watch his army process past us at a distance, grateful they are not headed towards our humble village. Maybe we'll be forced to buy from him an ancient scroll that his fathers have kept locked away, the only copy of the incantation that will open the gates of a forbidden and best-forgotten tomb. 

We don't need to. We could play checkers or just scroll our phones. But we might want to, and see what happens. And I think any of those could be great. 

Respecting the Longbow

 

Image


On the 26th of August, 1346, the forces of Edward III, king of England, stood in a series of columns between the villages of Crecy and Wadicourt, peering down the hills towards Fontaine, where a vast French army was massing to drive the English invaders back to the sea. 

The French army was enormous; even ignoring the improbable estimates of ancient chroniclers it is plausible the French outnumbered the English by more than two to one. And while many of the French soldiers were hastily-assembled levies of peasants, the core of their army were professionals: the armored men-at-arms that form the iconic centerpiece of modern medieval warfare. These knights were supported by thousands of professional crossbowmen from Genoa: highly trained experts who carried the iconic pavise shields in addition to their deadly mechanical weapons. 

It was, on paper, one of the finest medieval armies one could amass. It was led not only by King Philip, but his royal ally King John of Bohemia, supported by Prince Charles and a host of other notable dukes and counts. Transported into a fantasy realm, it would be an army well-suited to fighting a demon king or vampire tyrant.

But they did not face a demonic army. Instead, they faced the English, wielding something more lethal than hellfire: the English longbow. The French knights made numerous tactical errors, but nothing saw to their destruction more than the longbow. 

The Genoese crossbowmen could not compete; they were almost immediately outshot and forced to withdraw. The French men at arms charged repeatedly up the hill, each time leaving hundreds of bodies in the mud. Over and over again, they were repulsed, at extravagant cost.


Image


King John of Bohemia was shot in the head and killed. Along with him "died 9 princes, 10 counts, a duke, an archbishop, and a bishop," according to Wikipedia. The battle was a slaughter; the English suffered few losses, while the French lost the greater bulk of their chivalry. And this was not a rare victory: nearly the same events would replay at Agincourt and repeatedly for the better part of the next two centuries. The longbow was the dominant weapon in the English arsenal and, well used, was the most weapon lethal in medieval Europe.


Now let's look at longbows in Dungeons and Dragons: 1d8, 150 foot range, Heavy. Slow with mastery.

It's not hard to see the problem. The longsword, carried in two hands, is a d10 weapon, a d8 with a shield. Both attack, presumably, once every six seconds. One has range while the other doesn't, though range rarely comes up in most D&D modules I've played or read.  

This is absurd. Not only because of some nebulous complaint about realism, though that's a valid point in this case--longbows are clearly not well portrayed here--but because as a game mechanic, longbows are boring. 

This is a problem. As written, a longbow is slightly less dangerous than a longsword; the only advantage is can fire at range, and quickly. This is not as helpful as it sounds, especially since ranges generally shrink rapidly in D&D combat. When the enemy has a longbow, you should probably just race towards them and deal with it. They present little to otherwise react to; they're just another weapon. 

Meanwhile, there is no good reason to use them as an archer!

Instead of the slow, expensive, heavy longbow you have the much lighter, cheaper shortbow, which also allows you Vex, which is objectively better in nearly all cases than Slow! And since most damage with ranged weapons comes from class abilities, a d6 and a d8 are essentially no different. (A massive EV change of 1 damage per hit, lol). If you're carrying a longbow in 5E, you're doing it for RP purposes, which I respect, but I don't think it's good game design when a longbow was such an incredible medieval weapon. 

At the moment, bows have a weak vibe. They're essentially just melee weapons, but with range, and suited almost exclusively for the Ranger class. They're comparable to cantrips; just a weak source of reliable distance damage. When you see them, they don't evoke any particular thought; they're just a generic thing to defeat using the same toolkit you use to defeat any generic threat. Boring. Lame.  


So what am I looking for? What's the vibe I'm going for?

Seeing a longbow should (like any weapon tbh) immediately provoke a weapon-specific reaction. This is a dangerous threat! It must be taken seriously! This isn't like a video game with health bars; it's a life-threatening weapon that could in a matter of seconds drive a 12-inch spike all the way through your skull. Players should look for cover, fetch their shields, fall prone! Racing towards longbows in an open field should be insane. You should get cut to pieces, like the knights at Crecy learned. Find another way! Take cover, withdraw--do anything other than barge forwards, convinced by video games you can just "tank the damage" and hit them with a sword.

(Honestly I can think of nothing more boring. When you start bringing MOBA/video game stuff into TTRPGs, I want to fight you. How dare you? "Tanking?" Are you unwell? King Philip was shot in the jaw! )

So what should be done?

1. Longbows should do much, much more damage.

Longbows should be terrifying. They were essentially as lethal as a firearm, able to pierce through most armor and firing faster than early gunpowder weapons. A direct hit was nearly always fatal because they fired with incredible force; draw weights of at least 80 pounds! These are not normal weapons; they should make players react as if seeing very light artillery--because that's what they are! 


2. Longbows should be hard to use.

These were highly-specialized weapons that required years of training. The reason they were replaced by firearms was not that early firearms were better weapons, but that they were easier to learn. A peasant could in a few days learn to use a firearm effectively; similar training for an archer required years. 

Similarly, these were fragile weapons that didn't travel well and wore down with use. They have great power, and great cost. 


3. They should be easier to counter.  

Cover is too weak in D&D, and shields are mostly pointless, granting a tiny generic AC bonus. Going prone and crawling puts attacks at disadvantage, though even that is probably too small a defense. I'm not sure how to implement it in D&D as is; the game just isn't designed for that kind of tactics. But there should be ways of getting around these weapons that are effective, such that "run towards it and hit it with a sword" will always seem like the reckless (though possible!) decision that it is.


4. Arrows should matter. 

Ammunition should be tracked. This is immutable for the style of gameplay I'm going for: you bring supplies with you when you venture into the world! You make calculations, you protect your baggage train, you use the tools available. So yes, you need to track those arrows. (This is a way of countering archery, incidentally! Burn, steal, or simply drain their ammunition!)

Incidentally, this allows for more gameplay, not less! Resources, like any constraint, give your story texture. They force you to make considerations, to have losses, to consider actions! Otherwise you're going to be in mindless videogame automatic mode: see enemy, shoot enemy. Everything should have *some* kind of cost! 


5. Stop making archery abilities

This is a personal taste thing, but every archery ability is stupid, video-game stuff. Fire 3 arrows at once! Fire 5 arrows at once! Fire an arrow at every enemy in a 10-foot square! Go full General Radahn and fill 1/3 of the map with glowing arrows! Look, I just don't like this. I don't want a simulation but I also don't want to feel like we're in an anime. Archery abilities, if you have them, should be very specific and easy to justify: shooting when someone starts casting a spell or something, I guess? Specializing in knocking weapons out of people's hands? Stuff like that. But nothing that starts to defy physics please, or to carry out would need to look like some kind of AI video of a guy shooting 15 arrows a second. 

Image

Where does this all lead?

I'm not sure any of this is possible in D&D as is, which is why I'm writing my own game system to try and put this into practice!


Hey, if you read all this, thank you! I really would love to know what you think! 


Limit your players

 

Image

I love Call of Cthulhu. I'll gush about it some other time; for now it's enough to begin with the fact that it is my favorite game system I've ever played and I've played more than anyone I know IRL. (Granted, online I am basically an infant. I don't know how you people are able to play so many games; I don't even know how you're able to find them.)

There are many reasons to love Call of Cthulhu, and few of them really make sense to me. The typical setting of the 1920s is fun but hardly a cultural juggernaut; I don't know anyone who's particularly interested in the 20s other than in the context of the occasional Halloween party themed around Gatsby. The combat system isn't particularly good; it's fine but it's mostly just a way to die, especially as combat only rarely advances the investigators towards success. 

But perhaps the most confusing element of the game's fun is that it's generally pretty formulaic. 


Please don't panic. I know about Horror on the Orient Express and I know about Masks. I know there are probably thousands of surprising, interesting investigations, written by hundreds of talented writers who should in a better world be producing movies. I know that a well-written investigation played by clever and creative players can go in a dizzying number of directions and be full of memorable characters, near-deaths, actual-deaths. 

But I've read a lot of people talking about the game, played it a lot, read dozens of investigations, and I'm pretty confident for *average* Cthulhu players, an investigation boils down to:

1. Learn the premise.

2. Hit the library, archives, widow's house, etc

3. Visit a weird location

4. (optional) Use new leads to do a little supplementary research/acquisition; go mad. 

5. Do a ritual, stop a ritual, or find a Thing. One of you will probably die, a sacrifice the keeper is willing to make. 

At its core Cthulhu is usually a haunted location simulator with a puzzle. Where D&D has dungeons with combat, Cthulhu has Locations with a Puzzle, and if you solve the puzzle wrong, or slowly, or without the right information, a big leathery mosquito from a distant galaxy sucks your juices out. 


This is not a complaint. It's a great formula! Cthulhu is, I stress, my favorite game to play. But there is definitely a stock formula that most new players will fall into. The problem is then: how do you get your players to play it differently, if you ever want to?

This is where I return to my Thing, if I can be said to have one: take away options. Limit your players. 


This is my least OSR-friendly advice, and it obviously doesn't apply to that world. A sandbox adventure in that style, a hexcrawl or whatever; a simulation--these games probably thrive on giving a decent amount of freedom. But there are still plenty of games that are more or less adventure stories that follow a prewritten plot. Cthulhu is generally one of these! Each investigation might evolve differently, but the overall flow of events is predetermined (Until the investigators do something to derail it, which in my experience is pretty much guaranteed!). And for this style of story, I think freedom is a bit of a curse. 

Imagine it like this: a good story needs a consistent tone and it needs a consistent voice. If you're telling, for example, a gothic horror story, you need to have characters and plot events that fit that vibe. Your main character can (should!) be a trembling young girl; your villain can be a lecherous castle owner, a jealous and wealthy lady, a jilted lover--but probably not a slick Fortune 500 CEO. Similarly, if you're trying to run a serious investigation in a smoky 1920s Chicago waterfront, you want player characters that fit that vibe: detectives, gin runners, lounge singers, a beat cop. If a player wanted to be Red Sonja it would kill the vibe. 

So don't let them be Red Sonja. 


Don't dare think I'm going to say you need to just forbid characters. What, are you dumb? This is group activity! It's not your story, it's everyone's. The keeper tells it, so you have the most vital say, but you're not  some kind of boss. 

Instead, work them into the process. These are your friends, right? Tell them beforehand what the tone of the game is and how the characters should *feel.* Tell them how they definitely shouldn't feel! If they insist on bringing a Kenku to a pulp murder investigation, explain why that doesn't work. Show them Spider Noir, if you must. 

In my favorite Call of Cthulhu game, I explained the investigators were all kidnapped teenage girls. They generated characters like normal but didn't start with any assets; they were already in the dungeon of a cult. They had pretty limited options for character generation. They all had more or less the same backgrounds, and the same limited EDU score. On paper they were a poorly-balanced party with a lot of overlapping strengths and nearly all the same weaknesses. 

And it was one of the best, most coherent parties I've ever had. 

The game was a huge hit. We actually finished it and it remains one of my most consistently-fun investigations. Friends still joke about it. I lowkey wanna make it into a novel.  And while we have fun with more orthodox Cthulhu games, none quite capture that particular narrative for intensity. I give credit to the fact the characters were made with limits, and those limits, while they removed player freedom, forced them to really invest in the character they made and think of them from the start as part of the game world. They meshed with the vibe! Normally, you make the character separately and stitch them in; you try to merge them with the vibe, but they're always just a little alien. They weren't born in the game, they were born in the infinite white space of the player's mind.

Limits and rules can be suffocating, but they also give context to make decisions. Walls can be a prison. But walls also give structure. Don't be afraid to put them up. Let there be doors and windows, make the walls pretty and think them through. But you should probably have them, or you'll end up with the same sorts of parties, their feet always floating just an inch above your world. 

Just Asking Questions

I have a tendency to start fights. I really don't know why; I have some strong opinions, but most people do, too, and I think I'm much more mild than most. I hate arguing; I always concede to people; I'm pretty damn nice. I really try! I don't think I've ever, EVER picked a fight! 

And yet, I do somehow seem to start them. Usually I don't really even know why. 

Image

I saw a post online. Someone wrote a single sentence: 

Lore that is not actionable is excessive.

I paused, unsure if I agreed. It had been reposted by someone I liked enormously! It was agreed to by others! But something was gnawing at me. It's probably the same impulse that causes all the other fight: I wanted to know more and I wasn't sure I agreed. 

The minutiae aren't important, really. It started a wide-ranging discussion and I think other people started their own threads and soon I saw some of the people who had initially agreed with the post I was questioning make their own defenses. None of them answered in my thread; probably assuming it was hostile territory. And, after a few hours, people stopped talking and that was that. 

****

Perhaps "fight" isn't the right word. Nobody got too upset or anything; I don't think any feelings were hurt. It wasn't really a fight at all. But there did seem to be "sides." I had people telling me to ignore the advice of anyone who says such; I had people start talking about the virtue of worldbuilding vs GMing. But I really didn't intend for their to be sides; I didn't even think I disagreed so much as I just didn't know if I agreed. 

And yet it felt like an argument had sprung up. I've been chewing on it since, and I'm worried that maybe that's the only way it could have gone. I asked a question, people answered; an answer is always going to take a side, in some sense. Maybe I didn't intend to take a side by asking a question--so what? In asking a question, you are calling for an answer. And in doing so, yeah, people might argue. Asking questions appears neutral; but in practice, the nebula in which you're hiding must draw in answers, and all that those bring with them.

So now I'm wondering if I'm a bit of a hypocrite. "Don't fight!" I saw, tossing chum into the waters. "I'm an innocent!" I declare, watching smarter, more experienced people than I tear at each other while I nod and take notes. 

I've done this all my life. I like asking questions. Nearly all the time it's easy and uncontroversial. Ask a teacher about homework. Ask my dad about taxes. Ask my mom about black oxalis. 

But sometimes, and I sort of wonder if part of me knows, it's not to easy. Ask a group of veteran gamers about whether they need lore? And then act like you just wanted some lofty, philosophical answer? On the internet? What, are you dumb? 

****

Actually most of the answers were helpful. I really did take a lot from reading what people had to say. Most everyone who commented praised lore and agreed that in general you should have a well-written world. But the truth is, I wasn't sure I agreed with them either; when everyone starts to take one side on something where I know there IS a valid alternative I start to wonder what we're missing. 

So I went looking. 

Image

Turns out I actually liked the article it came from. It answered my questions, which were sincere: What is actionable (things the players can in any way interact with) and what is excessive (things the GM finds fun to write but is simply not going to come up in play and should be left out of the actual game session; nobody wants to listen to your encyclopedia article.) 

Had I actually looked I could probably have found this article and found my answers. Instead, though, I posted a question and waited for people to give me answers. I learned a lot about lore, and people's playstyles, and how people define lore, or struggle to; I learned a lot.

But now I'm also learning a little about myself, maybe. Why do I ask questions when I could actively seek the answer? I know how to search the internet. I can read. I can click around or even just ask "Does anyone know where this is from?"

But instead I asked for reactions, didn't I? What was I expecting? 

I probably learned more this way. But I do fear I caused a lot of other people to have to get kinda worked up over something trivial. Is that messed up of me? 

History Article: The Material History of Tikka Masala

 Listen, admit it: You want to read someone else's homework. I get it. You're super curious about the history of tikka masala. Well, bruh, today is your SECOND luckiest day. 

This is just another of my academic articles. I'm pretty proud of it, to be honest. The footnotes are broken; sorry about that. I had some good jokes in them, too. You are missing out gems like:

Image


Aheheh. Ahem.

Anyhow: 


The Material World of Tikka Masala


Empire is one of the oldest forms of human polity. Almost immediately after humans first settled into agricultural societies, the first empires were born; transient little glories built on bronze, stone, and blood. Humanity seemed to have a taste for empire and refined the concept, one generation after another. By the 1800s the great spider of the British Empire managed to cast nearly the whole of the world under the shadow of its web; great strands carried steamships and railcars to the dustiest edges of humanity. Traditional historiography tells of this as the story of the spider squatting in London; its various imperial hungers, its abuses, its wars. But empires are not ideas, they are processes; more, they are great collections of things that make possible combinations of yet more things. Things brought together unintentionally; brought together by great chained accidents of history. And when these things combine they tell stories that quietly reveal the vast and overpowering scope of the colonial empire. And no colonial product combines so many disparate chains as chicken tikka masala, the now-iconic British dish.

0. What is the object under study?


Chicken tikka masala is a chicken dish. Hailed as a “national dish” of Britain in 2001, it remains the most popular dish ordered in British curry houses and has successfully spread to other western countries. The dish itself consists of tikka--roasted chunks of spiced and marinated chicken, immersed in a curry--a rich, thick sauce traditionally made with premixed curry powder, though many variants exist. According to tradition, tikka masala was invented in a Glasgow curry house called Shish Mahal by British-Pakistani chef Ali Ahmed Aslam sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. According to Aslam’s account, he created the dish after a customer complained the tikka was too dry. Combining curry powder with a can of Campbell’s condensed tomato soup, he created the first chicken tikka masala.

There is reason to doubt Aslam’s story, but its veracity is not particularly important for an examination of the material history of this dish. There are many stories lurking beneath Aslam’s, hidden in the material objects themselves; stories that speak to the history of a global empire.

What we learn in Glasgow


It is not an accident that tikka masala was, allegedly, born in Scotland. An examination of any Scottish high street from the middle of the 19th century on would find not only the half-timber pubs and shops beloved by tourists, but another iconic British institution: the curry house. These curry houses offer a range of Indian and South-Asian-inspired dishes with varying degrees of authenticity. As one would expect, these restaurants were historically opened and maintained by South Asian immigrants and their descendants, who came to Scotland in great numbers in the 19th century; according to the 2022 census, British Asians make up almost 4% of the Scottish population. Material reality brought many of them to Scotland, one that once served as a vital pillar of the empire: the jute trade.


Jute is a long, herbaceous plant that thrives in the hot, humid conditions in and around Bengal and Bangladesh. It has been cultivated for use as a textile for 5,000 years, producing a durable, pliable fiber suited to a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. Though somewhat too rough for clothing, jute fibers are exceptionally strong, making them excel as cordage or for use as bags, mats, and similar heavier-duty uses. Recognizing jute’s potential to be of great utility to a maritime mercantile power, the British East India Company entered the jute trade in 1790. Initially, the tropical plant existed as a minor supplement to flax. Despite its ease of cultivation and the vast labor pools that lived in its warm, humid homeland, jute required a great deal of hand-powered processing that severely limited its utility in comparison to traditional European fibers that could nearly all be spun or otherwise processed mechanically by the late 18th century.


But as was often the case, a Scottish entrepreneur ultimately resolved the problem. Jute was revolutionized in 1833 when Dundee merchant Thomas Neigh discovered a process to mechanize jute spinning. It was labor alone that had prohibited jute from overtaking flax or other traditional European fibers from mass production; now that it could be mechanized, the easily-grown fiber could go from a craft to an industry. Jute production soared; with enterprising Scots opening vast factories in the industrial cities of Scotland. In Dundee, sometimes hailed “juteopolis,” half the population is recorded as having been employed in the jute mills. Gaps in domestic labor were soon filled by immigrants arriving on the same ships as the raw jute. However, the difference in labor pools between Scotland and southeast Asia were yawning; as British control over Asia increased, it became easier to move capital than labor. By 1858, Scottish machinery was flowing to vast new mills in the jute-growing regions themselves.


Industrialization was rapid. By 1895, more jute was processed and spun in Bengal than in Scotland. Numerous Scots traveled to plan, construct, and manage these new industrial facilities. As was often the case, many returned with an interest in the “oriental” cultures they had experienced abroad and sought ways to recreate the experience at home.


One such method was visiting the local curry house. Even in 1895, these were not novel: the first, the Hindoostane Dinner and Hooka Smoking Club, had opened its doors in 1810. Its proprietor, Dean Mahomed, had been born in Bengal, the epicenter of Asia’s original hand-woven jute industry. In addition to Indian cuisine, Mahomed also introduced the then-exotic Indian practice of shampooing hair to Britain; if a modern person would think it rude to be seen at a curry house with greasy, unwashed hair, the work of one man in particular hangs over their head. The material exchange between these two distant locations provided the necessary portal allowing the cultural exchange visible in the diversity of Scottish industrial cities today; it is unlikely tikka masala would exist without the hardy herb.


But jute did more than provide a corridor between northern Europe and southern Asia. The fiber served both colonial empire and commercial curry in the capacity of capacity itself--its ability to create materials storage. British colonialism was focused not on the extraction of gold or silver, but resources, which in south Asia meant largely the spice trade. It is impossible to understate the importance of the spice trade to world history; it would be fair to say the trade was the catalyst for much of modern history. But moving spices in bulk was always a difficult, costly affair. Jute provided an answer: jute, woven into the iconic burlap sack, came to contain the majority of British break bulk cargo. Burlap sacks were the red blood cells of British colonialism; over a billion sacks made by over 64,000 looms in Calcutta alone may have been exported from Bengal to the empire, carrying spices, coffee, teas, and countless other commodities that fueled the great commercial engine of the British empire.


Among their countless cargo would have been the spices requisite in any tikka masala recipe. The transport of sensitive spices was always challenging. Jute bags were strong but highly breathable, preventing the moisture buildup that could lead to fungal infestations that could ruin entire cargos. Jute thus allowed, in a very literal fashion, for the material existence of tikka masala. And modern jute is a child of Scottish industry: the literal thread metaphorically binding two worlds.


II. What we learn at a glance



Tikka Masala is vibrantly red. Or vibrantly orange. There are many recipes; but in most commercial settings, the titular tikka is far from the color of ordinary charred chicken or undyed tomato paste. In traditional Punjabi cooking, the vibrant reds and oranges of tandoori chicken are created with turmeric and paprika; often in quantities unpopular with the mainstream 20th-century British tongue. Enterprising British curry house chefs found a solution. The secret is not the spices: it is dye; specifically Red 40, one of the most common food colorings used in the western world. This color is another marker of the globalized, industrial ancestry of the dish; and in particular, made possible by the Empire’s desperate search for a weapon against disease.


Red 40 is a child of the UK. While dyes have an ancient provenance, they were born as an industry in the 19th century. The Scottish firm of J. Pullar and Sons pioneered the first industrial-scale dye manufacturing; founded in 1824, they operated 30 locations across Britain and had received royal patronage from Queen Victoria by 1856. This was a momentous year for their industry: 1856 was the year the chemical dye industry was born, when 18-year-old English chemist William Henry Perkin synthesized an apparently-harmless, inexpensive mauve dye he called “aniline purple” but was popularized as “mauveine.”


Mauveine caused something of a sensation across Europe. “Mauve was everywhere: streaming on hair ribbons, waving from carriages, jamming up railway stations on the newly fashionable crinolines;” Punch magazine declared London infected with “mauve measles.” Chemists raced to discover new formulae; the age of modern color had begun. It is somewhat ironic that he revolutionized the look of the modern world when young Perkin had made his great discovery entirely by accident: Mauveine was a failed experiment, born of an effort to artificially synthesize the then-lifesaving chemical quinine.


Quinine was in demand because of its use as a treatment for malaria. Malaria, a lethal infection caused by bloodborne parasites easily transmitted by mosquitoes, was perhaps the British empire’s greatest enemy in India. British medical officer Desmond Whyte expressly recalled: “Our first number one enemy was malaria. Everybody, one hundred per cent got malaria.” These microscopic pathogens sickened and killed countless soldiers and administrators over their centuries of colonial venture; in 1939 the British army reported two-thirds of its soldiers being treated for malaria. William Perkin never found his malaria treatment, but he created the precursor to tikka masala’s most iconically visible, if technically flavorless, feature.


III. What we learn Inside the House of Curry


Next we must examine the space where chicken tikka masala was invented and popularized: the curry house. What we find is that like tikka masala itself, the curry house is a British fantasy, built to British tastes, emulating a foreign look never found in the country being emulated.


The classic curry house was built in a particular, iconic form, with the features of the “curry house look” being recognizable enough to attract significant parody and comment in British media. Despite being generally working-class businesses operating with minor margins, the interiors were meant to evoke decadent fantasies of Raj. Perhaps the most defining feature of the curry house was flock wallpaper: red and gold, in sensuous “oriental” patterns that conjured an exotic fantasy of India. Ironically and perhaps predictably, flock wallpaper is a deeply English material.


Flock wallpaper was originally invented in France, but the technique was perfected in England. By the 1700s England produced it in great quantity, recycling waste products (“flock”) from England’s wool industry into wallpaper that became as prestigious as the damask it was meant to imitate; by the late 19th century flock wallpaper in intricate Victorian patterns graced country homes and the Palace of Westminster. Nearly a century later, that same material lined the interiors of the curry house, surrounding diners with red and gold Arts and Crafts or Gothic Revival patterns meant to evoke sumptuous, orientalist fantasies--at an affordable price.


The timing, however, is critical. By the second half of the 20th century, flock was becoming declassé. Flock had once been a symbol of luxury, but its appearance in working-class curry houses was a sign of the material’s decline. British commentators took note, with the Victoria and Albert Museum itself declaring that flock wallpaper had “declined into a cliche, most familiar (at least in Britain) as nothing more than a commonplace decoration in Indian restaurants where it is intended to evoke an atmosphere of colonial grandeur.” By the approach of the 21st century, flock was in complete retreat--not only with the little still in use now a synthetic, rather than woollen, material, but industry communiques specifically admonishing restaurateurs to avoid flock wallpaper and opt for a clean, modern look instead.


It is unclear why tikka masala was able to survive the arc of the wallpaper that once served as the womb of its popularity. The same articles encouraging chefs to abandon flock specifically encourage abandoning tikka masala; the symbolic link between the two was clear even at the time.


IV. What we learn from a can


One of the most compelling parts of the tikka masala story is the claim that it was born from a tin of tomato soup, added to tikka (boneless, spiced chicken chunks) a British patron found too dry after its time in the tandoor. This may be a myth; but a canned, creamy sauce forms a critical element of most tikka masala recipes--another useful material object. The material existence of canned, condensed tomato soup is a byproduct of European military necessity and the modern world’s drive for non-perishable, storable, cheap stores of food.


Tradition ascribes to Napoleon the maxim “An army marches on its stomach.” Though apocryphal, it captures both a military truth as well as an implication that Napoleon’s government well understood: a strong military requires a reliable food supply. To that end, in 1795 the French government offered 12,000 francs as a reward for a method to preserve food. Nicolas Appert won this challenge by heating food sealed in glass jars, though bulky, fragile glassware was hardly useful for an army on the march. It was an Englishman, Peter Durand, who instead patented the use of the modern tin can as a lighter, stronger alternative.


But Durand sold his patent to the self-taught inventor Bryan Donkin, who had already achieved some success with his improvements to the Fourdrinier machine that forms the basis for modern-day papermaking. Along with his partner John Hall, it was Donkin who can be best considered the father of modern canned food. The classic Campbell's canned soup referenced in the tikka masala origin story consists of a metal can wrapped in a paper label. As such, the story unwittingly assigns Donkin particular prominence in the history of the dish.


This also allows a complicating factor, in that Campbell’s soup is not only from the United States, but is perhaps one of the most iconically American brands. Its prominent place in the tikka masala mythology bears analysis. According to restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab, the entire story is a fiction, created by himself with the stated intent to “entertain journalists.” If his claim is true, his selection of Campbell’s as the selected soup is curious. Campbell’s soup is not particularly prominent in Scotland, where the soup market has been dominated by Heinz and native son Baxter’s for generations. If Wahhab was just being frivolous, and his mind landed on Campbell’s as pleasingly absurd, it is reasonable to assume that Andy Warhol lurks in the background of the dish. Perhaps, by the late 20th century, a different commercial empire had begun to supersede that of the British even in the imagination of the empire’s own people.


V. What we learn from the powder


A principal element of tikka masala is the curry powder used to flavor the sauce; the mixture was so associated with tikka masala that high end Indian restaurants more than capable of mixing their own fresh spices use curry powder specifically to evoke the nostalgic flavors of the 20th century. And yet, like the curry house, and like tikka masala itself, curry powder is a British creation; a signifier pointing the opposite direction of the signified.


High end Indian restaurants do not use curry powder. In India, there is simply no such thing as curry powder. Indian chefs sometimes sneer at the phrase; Indian cuisine uses a wide variety of spices in an even wider variety of blends, and the creation of a homogenized “curry powder” is sometimes seen as an insulting oversimplification of an intricate culinary culture.


And yet curry powder remains available in grocers across the western world--for curry powder is a western invention, meant to simulate “India” for a population that had little access to, or interest in, authentic South Asian cuisine. Even in the UK, there is no definitive “curry powder,” nearly all contain a few core ingredients: turmeric, chili powder, peppers, coriander, cumin; other common ingredients include ginger, cardamom, salt, garlic powder, cloves, and nearly any other aromatic. Though these spices do appear in traditional Indian and South Asian cooking, the specific flavor that manufactured “curry powder” creates is relatively uncommon in India proper. Like the larger dish itself, this is a fundamentally British flavor; a beloved national simulacrum.


This is not to suggest curry powder is particularly modern. There are advertisements for curry powder in British newspapers as early 1784; in the form of a Morning Post advertisement claiming the powder will, among other things, “promote good digestion, good circulation,” and even “a strong libido.”


VI. What we have learned


Chicken tikka masala, in its material reality, is a quintessential product of the British Empire, demonstrating how empires are not just ideas but great collections of things brought together by accident. The dish is a synthesis of Scottish industrial ingenuity, chemical science, military necessity, and cultural invention. It is a meal composed of simulacra; a British fantasy of an oriental taste, one that simplifies and commodifies intricate South Asian culinary culture. Ultimately, the status of chicken tikka masala serves as an icon of a global, colonial process that synthesized disparate materials and traditions into a uniquely British creation.


Bibliography



Official Publications

National Records of Scotland. “Scotland’s Census 2022 - Ethnic group, national identity, language and religion.” Published May 21, 2024.


National Center for Biotechnology Information, "E129 (Compound)," PubChem, last modified April 4, 2026, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/33258.


Office of the Jute Commissioner, "History: The Story of Jute—Past, Present and Future," Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, last modified December 24, 2025, https://jutecomm.gov.in/about-jute/history.

Royal British Legion. "How Soldiers Coped with Malaria." https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/remembrance/stories/how-soldiers-coped-with-malaria.

Articles

BBC News. "Curry house founder is honoured." September 29, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4290124.stm.

Buettner, Elizabeth. "Chicken Tikka Masala, Flock Wallpaper, and ‘Real’ Home Cooking: Assessing Britain’s ‘Indian’ Restaurant Traditions." Food & History 7, no. 2 (2009): 203–30. https://www.brepolsonline.net/content/journals/10.1484/J.FOOD.1.100656/read

Davies, John McG. "Pullar, Sir Robert (1828–1912), dyer." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 23 Sep. 2004; Accessed 7 Apr. 2026. https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-61313.

de Naoum, Kat. "A History of Food Dyes." Reviewed by Audrey Altmann. Thomasnet Insights, July 7, 2025. https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/food-dyes-history/.

Garfield, Simon. "Mauve with the Times." The Guardian, September 20, 2000. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/sep/21/fiction.simongarfield.

Health of the Army in India. Nature 148, 47–48 (1941). https://doi.org/10.1038/148047c0

“Hessian Fabrics in Landscaping and Agriculture: Uses, Benefits, and Applications,” Hessian Fabric, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.hessianfabric.co.uk/page/index/landscaping-and-agriculture/.

Isabel E. P. Menzies and Dennis Chapman, “The Jute Industry,” in Studies in Industrial Organization, ed. H. A. Silverman (London: Routledge, 1946), 235–237.

“Jute’s Hidden Histories Explored at V&A Dundee,” V&A Dundee, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.vam.ac.uk/dundee/info/jutes-hidden-histories-explored-at-va-dundee.


Laura Kelley, "The Origins of Curry Powder," Silk Road Gourmet, September 30, 2013, https://silkroadgourmet.com/the-origins-of-curry-powder/.

Mark Hay, "Who Owns Chicken Tikka Masala?" Roads & Kingdoms, May 5, 2014, https://roadsandkingdoms.com/2014/who-owns-chicken-tikka-masala/.




Md. Mahbubul Islam, Md. Saheb Ali. “Economic Importance of Jute in Bangladesh: Production, Research Achievements and Diversification.” International Journal of Economic Theory and Application. Vol. 4, No. 6, 2017, pp. 45-57.


Singh, R.P., Desrosier, N.W. "food preservation." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 14, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/topic/food-preservation.


Syed Ali Hamid, "The London Curry Scene In The 1930s," The Friday Times, May 11, 2022, https://www.thefridaytimes.com/11-May-2022/the-london-curry-scene-in-the-1930s.

World of Steel, “Evolution of the Tin Can,” accessed April 1, 2026, https://www.worldofsteel.com/pages/evolution-of-the-tin-can/.

Books

Jaffrey, Madhur. The Essential Madhur Jaffrey. London: Ebury, 1996.



Hills, Richard, Papermaking in Britain 1488–1988. Athlone Press, London, 1988.



Saunders, Gill. Wallpaper in Interior Decoration. V and A Publications, London, 2002.




Systems You Might Not Need: the Designated Survivor

A weird thought came over me.  "What if players could keep a character from dying?" It was an odd thought, especially as I'm s...

Image