The implied metaphysics of Daggerheart

Roleplaying games have implied settings. Daggerheart's is deliberately kept as sparse as possible, as it offers a plethora of game settings (“campaign frames”) and advice on using them or creating new ones to structure play. The pros and cons of the approach are obvious: maximal flexibility, minimal fallback.

That said, “Daggerheart has established ancestries, communities, classes, abilities, and spells – so some worldbuilding aspects will exist similarly across every campaign” (page 11). I'm setting my sights on what these imply about Daggerheart's metaphysics. What's stated? What can be inferred?

By metaphysics I mean cosmological, structural, and supernatural elements of the game world(s).

 

 

What can we learn?

I'm looking only at the Daggerheart core rulebook here. The “World Overview” in Chapter 1 is particularly informative. I'll give page references in other cases.

The Core Realms

The Mortal Realm is a plane, in the many-dimensions sense, and is where “the majority of material beings and objects” as well as the Faint Divinities are. Allegedly but not definitively, the Mortal Realm was created by the Forgotten Gods during the Earliest Age.

The Hallows Above is another core realm. It formerly belonged to the Forgotten Gods, and is now home to the New Gods.

The Circles Below are also called the “lower realms”. Many of the Forgotten Gods are banished there, becoming Fallen Gods. Allegedly but not definitively (a) “places of corruption, destruction, and violence”, and (b) the home to some of the most dangerous creatures in the core realms.

The Realms Beyond: The book is laid out as if these are the fourth of the core realms. However, the text implies that the Mortal Realm, Hallows Above, and Circles Below are the core realms, and that the Realms Beyond are some of the “many realms” of the overall cosmos.

The Realms Beyond include “the Elemental Lands, the Astral Realm, the Valley of Death, and countless others”. The “Chaos Realm” (page 250), an “otherworldly space where the laws of reality are unstable” is “alien to the Mortal Realm” and likely a Realm Beyond. It features impossible architecture and glimpses of other worlds. 

Gods and such

→ The Earliest Age was a time when immortals from the Hallows Above intermingled with mortals. Of nonspecific duration and distance other than “millennia” ago (pages 11, 235).

→ The Forgotten Gods were the first known gods. No mention of what they were called when they were in control – certainly not “Forgotten Gods”. They fought the New Gods and lost, and “many of” them were imprisoned either in the Mortal Realm or the Circles Below. Presumably the others were killed, but the ones “who fought most passionately” were the ones banished to the Circles Below, so there's room for interpretation that some of the losers were rehabilitated as New Gods.

→ The Fallen Gods are simply those of the Forgotten Gods banished to the Circles Below. Unlike in e.g. Christian mythology, nothing is implied to have changed about them in the process. Fallen Gods are designated (but are not objectively stated to be) “evil practitioners of tainted magic”, and their banished Faint Divinity allies (and their descendants) “demons”; Infernis descend in turn from demons. Temples to the Fallen Gods still exist (page 102), and it is possible to have a “direct channel” to them (page 106). Fallen Gods might also be encountered as an adversary (page 235); interestingly only at the same level of threat as “really muscular zombie” (page 239).

→ The New Gods turned up after the Forgotten Gods as a distinct set of entities, but it's unclear whether or not the war began immediately. They seized and colonised the Hallows Above. They still exist and can intervene in the world in set ways.

→ The Faint Divinities are “lesser deities created by both the Forgotten and the New Gods to oversee the Mortal Realm.” They have narrower spheres of influence but “can greatly influence the lives of mortals.” The main text does not actually say so, but many of the campaign frames place the Faint Divinities as being physically present in the Mortal Realm.

The gods' reach includes (page 44) the ability to “appoint” seraphs who are “imbued with sacred purpose” but whose ethos are only “traditionally” in alignment with their god's domain or goals. Some seraphs (page 236) are tasked with enforcing their god's will. Deities who appoint seraphs are those who exist “within the realms” [plural], which implies that seraphs can serve a Forgotten or Fallen God, or possibly even a Faint Divinity.

Interestingly, Daggerheart definitively has gods but does not seem to have an afterlife. The gods have specific observable qualities, and can be communicated with. There is no mention in the text of a heaven, hell, reincarnation, paradise, judgment, or such.

Aside: Resurrecting a dead character is merely “often” (i.e., not always) difficult and costly (page 106). Page 182 contradicts this, calling death “more permanent in Daggerheart than in other games of the same genre” and the Risk It All roll being “final unless you provide another means of resurrection in your story”; it also contradicts the wording of the Resurrection spell by claiming it can only be used once.

There's a definite impression that the Hallows Above and Circles Below are just places where gods happen to live, and not afterlives. Getting there takes specialist knowledge and an enormous investment while, crucially, being alive. The gods are more like super powerful alien beings than anything that maps well onto the belief patterns we have on Earth, but this is generally true for most fantasy TTRPGs.

Not much is set in stone about Daggerheart's gods, their powers, their domain, or the extent of the human-like qualities (agendas and personality traits) which the text hints at.

We do know that the gods are mortal – confusingly, given that they are several times called ‘immortal’ and juxtaposed to mortals. It is possible (page 250) to “breach the gates” of the Hallows Above or “break the barrier” between it and the Mortal Realm, slay one or more gods, and usurp their powers. The mortality of the gods is emphasised several times by the campaign frames (e.g., page 255).

Planar travel

Communication: The Hallows Above are “closely connected with most other realms” (page 11), and according to the text it's because of that cosmological feature (i.e., not because of some godly power or designed property) that “the gods residing here can see and speak with the creatures of the Mortal Realm without leaving their domain”. Communication with the gods may be obfuscated, although it's unclear if this is an interplanar limitation or a feature of the gods themselves.

Travel: There are specific methods by which the New Gods “can leave the Hallows Above to occupy other realms, but in the current age they must always sacrifice something of personal importance to do so.” According to rumour (not definitively), this was a deliberate choice to help protect the Hallows if the Forgotten Gods return.

There's an implied symmetry for entering the Hallows Above, and the requisite sacrifices have caused “some of the great calamities that have befallen the Mortal Realm in recent millennia.”

Accessing and traversing the Realms Beyond from the Mortal Realm “requires specialised knowledge and hard-learned skills”, possessed by some beings in the core realms.

Security: Other planes typically have “safeguards against Fallen [Gods?] who wish to cross from the Circles Below. Within the Mortal Realm, the use of arcane magic in acts of great evil is said to open a temporary rift between the two planes, allowing Fallen [Gods?] to pass through.”

 

Details of the magic system

Magic is “very powerful and incredibly dangerous” (page 12). It permeates the environment, and there is specifically a “magic of the wilderness” (page 30).

Magic can manifest within people (page 12). Some magic is innate and heritable (page 46). This kind of magic can be cultivated and there's a skill component to using it.

Magical power can be acquired and developed through learning, tool use, and taking supplements (page 50). Having knowledge of magic leads to, or correlates with, being able to use it. Secrets can be inherently powerful.

...Other than that, magic is largely left as a mystery. Daggerheart doesn't make commitments about its origin, ground rules, systematisation, relationship to divine powers, etc.

There's not much to glean from the domain cards. Many game powers labelled ‘ability’ rather than ‘spell’ seem nevertheless supernatural. Magic can be used to break the rules in all the classic ways (slow time, transmit information from the future, negate gravity, break space, directly change reality, create and destroy matter, etc). This ‘canonical’ collection of spells is constrained in various ways that would be visible in-world, e.g., in magnitude and locality, which is obviously a TTRPG design consideration.

Notes from the bestiary

Fantastical creatures, undead, and things like “waygates” and “incarnations of fate” exist without any specific metaphysical underpinnings. “Outer Realms” monsters are likely from Realms Beyond. There are also nature spirits that are mentioned repeatedly (pages 183, 230, 283, 338, 339).

Sapients

Where did people come from? According to “stories” the gods created the world (page 12), but that has little epistemic weight. It seems unlikely that people evolved biologically, given that there are eighteen subgroups of people that (a) have enormously varying physical biology (e.g. dragon breath, flight, drastically varying lifespan and size, being made of metal or fungus), (b) are all capable of having children together, and (c) have such similar brains that there is no variance between subgroups in mental characteristics or personality traits.

Aside: There is one exception to the latter. Humans specifically (page 65) “incorporate [sic] both magical and mechanical tools, accessories, and items that assist their daily life and tasks”, and “often dress to clearly display social status, wealth, personal faith, or aesthetics”. These traits are necessarily rare amongst the other seventeen kinds of people, otherwise they would not have been ascribed to humans in particular. Daggerheart separates culture and community from ancestry, so these are inborn traits of humans, not ones developed amongst insular human-dominated societies.

Daggerheart is otherwise very careful about this sort of thing (“individuals from all lineages possess unique characteristics and cultures, as well as personhood”) and notes that all people's minds work indistinguishably, i.e., in a fundamentally human way. I think we should therefore regard these notes on human ancestry as an outright error.

Either way, the ability of e.g. infernis, fungrils, and clanks to mix ancestries seems to preclude a model of biology similar to that of our reality. Of course, Daggerheart has deeply pervasive magic, so although the book doesn't state it, all such cases could be magically induced. This might anyway be a case of “game design considerations” rather than actual metaphysics of the setting.

Campaign frames

Chapter 5 doesn't really talk about modifying the metaphysics for a campaign frame (outside of mentioning unique setting distinctions and special mechanics).

Looking at the details of the cosmos mentioned in the book's campaign frames, we quickly find that (of those that get into it) they are built firmly on the implied metaphysics above, with little deviation.

The Age of Umbra (as laid out on pages 281, 284, 287, 288) and Colossus of the Drylands (as described as “myths” on pages 308–310) for example are each fundamentally compatible with Daggerheart's underlying metaphysics, but develop those basics in different directions.

The Witherwild

This frame reinforces the mortality of the gods, featuring a successful deicide (Shun’Aush) and giving a physicality to their powers (the bodily dust of a dead god gives rise to a plague; the god Nikta's two eyes are individually responsible for ripening and ruination; maiming a god changes their powers).

The Witherwild frame develops the Faint Divinities: “Gods in this land [...] wander the land as incarnate beings, residing in both the natural world as well as within homes and small villages. [...] Many communities, and some larger families, even have their own small god or tutelary spirit who watches over them. […] there is a constant push and pull between the goals of people and their deific neighbors. The gods must curry worship from mortals, often by performing small miracles [...]” Note that this is the only mention in the book of gods having any interest in being worshipped!

The Witherwild frame names six Faint Divinities (Fulg, Hyacynis, Ikla, Oove, Qui’Gar, Rohkin) and says there are hundreds or thousands more. Gods are person-like, with allies, alignments, and special interests. Interestingly, a god's domain is described not as a source of power or set of powers but somewhere that effort is required (Qui’Gar presides over deaths near brambles and the current magical verdancy has “made her job harder”).

 

Motherboard

This is the only canon campaign frame that arguably departs from the base metaphysics. In Motherboard, magic is ancient technology. There's a lot of reskinning necessary, with somewhat vague guidance: “Consider how these would manifest in a world where magic comes from technology, then adapt the flavour of each feature accordingly.”

Faint Divinities are ghosts in the machine. Regarding divine power, players “should determine why their character relates to technology on a spiritual level, rather than simply employing it. They should also consider if and how they offer their devotion to the Motherboard or Faint Divinities.”

The text falls short of saying that gods (and the Hallows Above, etc) don't literally exist in the Motherboard frame. But that's the more plausible and parsimonious reading: the Motherboard is a “master program” left behind by ancient technomancers, whose indistinguishable-from-magic advanced technology gives rise to all supernatural phenomena.

In conclusion

Daggerheart has magic, and lots of it. But it has no deep underlying rules for a GM to fall back on in rulings (or viewed the other way, no constraints that the GM has to work within). 

In Daggerheart, gods exist but at times seem curiously divorced from serving a religious purpose. There are only a few mentions of them being worshipped (e.g. page 313), and this isn't strictly required even for the chosen champions who channel their powers. There's no mention of an afterlife, moral judgment, or belief in gods other than the ones that literally exist. There's also no mention of god-oppositional philosophies, even though the Faint Divinities affect people's lives.

(As I wrote in “Put Flourishes, Fairy Tales, and Folk Beliefs in Your Fantasy World”, these are the kind of details you are definitely going to want to expand upon in your campaign frames.)

The four core realms are “the basis for the worldbuilding elements inherent to many of Daggerheart's mechanics” (page 12). The obvious question to ask now is: do Daggerheart's implied metaphysics constrain campaign frames?

Arguably. The book's frames are all built on those basics or agnostic to them. The game provides very little guidance for tinkering with the metaphysics, even as it weighs in on other analogous matters for creating your own world (in Chapters 3–4 and especially 5). On the other hand, there's lots of customise-it, revise-it, collaborate-on-it, reskin-it, make-it-work-for-your-group sentiment throughout Daggerheart, which could be extended to imply permission.

On edge cases and magic

There's an innate design tension which RPG magic systems must contend with.

Magic must be more powerful than enacting the equivalent effect by mundane means, otherwise it's not fun and not fantastic. But if it's powerful and its uses are limitless (or at least non-rate-limited), then you become committed to an exceptionally high-magic setting.

If it takes ten seconds to give yourself a magical boon which lasts for ten minutes, the default player behaviour and the reasonable in-world behaviour will be to cast the spell every ten minutes... Unless they have a specific reason not to. That's almost always 'resource management'. In almost ever fantasy TTRPG, magic (whether spells, items, rituals, innate powers, etc) will be powerful and limited, i.e., a valuable resource; something to be conserved for when it will matter. Therefore, players will want to know the exact effect of some magic they might use, so that they can make an informed choice.

And this creates a design tension. How predictable to players is the magic their characters are harnessing?

The predictability predicament

Assuming you want magic to be able to do a huge range of things (it's magic), to get breadth of coverage, you either end up with these huge, minutely-detailed lists of magic effects and parameters (almost certainly player-facing), or you have a fuzzy system where the GM instantiates vague wordings at runtime (possibly via what amounts to negotiation with the player). These game design choices have different costs in terms of usability and satisfaction.

Most big, popular fantasy TTRPGs like D&D go with the huge, minutely-detailed lists of magic effects option. This arguably results in greater player agency, in the sense of being able to make good and meaningful decisions about resource allocation, but it constrains magic to the big official list (and if it's not exceptionally well-designed, you end up with weird codified corner cases and interactions). You also need to know the system really well to be effective as a player or a GM. Finally, there's a risk that presenting in exhaustive detail what is possible strongly implies that anything else isn't possible. You get cases like D&D 5e, where many destructive spells officially don't damage objects because a small subset of them specify that they do.

The fuzzy system option is attractive because it makes magic more 'mysterious' and wild, and thus fantastical. But it can be hard for a GM, especially one who isn't already operating in a "rulings not rules" tradition. But it can also be hard for players to come to terms with, unless either (a) it's the case in-world that a mage never knows exactly what they're going to get when they do some magic (which is flavourful, but risks a poor play experience), or (b) the GM and player together determine what happens when the magic is used. The latter might sound good (an opportunity for collaborative buy-in) or bad ('Mother May I' gameplay). Some GMs are surprised to find that many players hate 'collaborative storytelling exercises' spilling over into their roleplaying games. Either way, it doesn't actually resolve the tension: it's still in the player's best interests to stop and discuss the possible magical effect before they can make an informed choice whether to use their magic.

Variants of the fuzzy system where e.g. the GM has to follow certain rules to come up with a power-level-appropriate instantiation of a spell at run-time are close to being the worst of both worlds: mechanically fiddly but without giving a player enough information to make decisions with, and you just end up building that minutely-detailed canonical list slowly over time.

Resolving the tension

I consider this an open problem. As I've suggested before, I think the best practises are to

• Pick a path and stick with it, rather than mixing up how rigid and predictable the magic system is in different use-cases within the same game; and
• Have an extremely strong, well-thought out metaphysics which either underpins the mechanical design for the minutely-detailed lists option or informs what 'should be the case' for the fuzzy system option.

Food for thought

Here are some questions your magic system must be robust enough to answer, consistently:

If you turn flour to silver dust and mix it into acid, changing it to silver nitrate and creating heat, what happens to the silver nitrate if the spell wears off? What happens to the heat? If the compound is left over, can you reduce it to get silver? Does the resulting silver still count as being magical?

If you turn a pile of stones into loaves of bread and spend a week eating them, what happens to your tissue, the partially-digested bread, and the waste, if the magic ends? Do you die instantly? Does the energy you got from eating disappear?

If you turn a stone into a cat, and that cat eats and sweats and breathes makes waste, then the magic is dispelled, what happens to the bits of world (food and air and water) that got incorporated into the cat's body? Are they in the stone? Do they turn to stone? Can they be turned back? What happens to the cat's sweat and waste and loose hairs and skin particles out in the world? Do they turn to stone? What if the cat was a kitten, and it grew much bigger and older before the spell ended?

Or if the original subject was a mouse rather than a stone, what happens to the cells that changed in its body? Was there a 'mapping' from one mouse cell to multiple cat cells, so that injuries and shed cells and replaced cells carry back over? Do microbial diseases carry back over? Does cancer?

Are all your answers consistent so far?

What happens if you turn someone into a statue and snap their arm off? What about if you turn someone into steel and then temper or anneal the metal? Or take a mould of their body, turn them into ice, melt them, and then refreeze the water in the mould?

What about if you turn a piece of metal into a piece of wood and burn it inside a big tank of air? Does the carbon dioxide turn into a metal oxide? In general, if you heat something up while it's magically transformed and then turn it back, is it still hot? What if you turned something really small into something really big and then it just got slightly warm by soaking up a million times more sunlight than the tiny thing would have?

If you expand a mouse to be the size of a horse and it eats a bucket of oats, what happens to the oats if it turns back? Does it matter whether they've been digested?

If you expand a mouse to be the size of a horse inside a mouse-sized terrarium that a mouse couldn't possibly break but a horse easily could, does the spell work? Does the answer change if the terrarium is nearly horse-sized? What about if you try it on a mouse that's inside a crack in solid rock? Is this meaningfully different from trapping a mouse under a piece of heavy cloth and then expanding it to the size of a horse?

If you cast a spell on a subject, then another one that seems to have the inverse effect (flesh to rock then rock to flesh), do you get back the exact original? If so, why? If not, what happens if only the first spell ends or is dispelled? What if you cast the first spell, then make some orthogonal change to the subject, then cast the second?

What in-universe mechanism decides whether an object counts as meeting the targeting requirements of a spell? Does a spell that works on chairs work on a one-legged stool if the caster doesn't think a one-legged stool is a chair?

Do any of the answers to these questions change depending on whether it's a temporary effect, a dispelled permanent effect, a magically reversed effect, an intrinsic ability of a magical creature, the effect of an item, etc?

Alternatives to Legendary resistance

Preface

Dungeons & Dragons 5e is a game that is fundamentally about combat. The outright majority of the game's mechanics and systems are geared that way. Of the ~25 pieces of information in a typical 5e monster stat block, 70 percent are combat stats and 20 percent are combat-related.

D&D 5e also offers tools for balancing combats by character level, purportedly with a fine degree of accuracy, and the Game Master's use of these tools is intrinsic to the core gameplay.

As a central, fine-tuned, high-stakes part of the game, combat therefore needs to work well and be satisfying.

Solo monsters

Some of the most archetypal tabletop gaming experiences pit a small group of player characters against one powerful, dangerous, usually large, monster.

But consider the boss and/or solo monster (and to a degree, monsters that appear in pairs or with a group of weak minions). In at least the last twenty years of D&D editions, boss monsters have suffered from a pair of related issues.

• First, they are often outplayed in the 'action economy'.
• Second, they are particularly vulnerable to 'save-or-suck' abilities, such that only one success is needed to trivialise the combat encounter.

5e does fairly well on the action economy stakes – at least, for legendary monsters which can enhance their multiattack or once-per-turn spell with lair actions and legendary actions. A GM who uses a non-legendary high-CR creature as a boss monster may find it falls behind in its ability to act (unless they pick something like the marilith or hydra, which have large numbers of attacks and extra reactions).

But 5e's approach to proofing bosses against save-or-suck is a blunt instrument.

Legendary resistance

D&D 5e is stuffed with status effects and such – banishment, restraint, incapacitation, sleep, save-or-die, paralysis, blindness, mind control, etc – which can be useful when levelled against a group of adversaries, but which risk trivialising a boss fight if pulled off.

The 5e designers were aware of this:

• Some ongoing status effects offer a saving throw repeated each turn to escape. (But there is little overall consistency on this.)
• Boss monsters tend to get improved saving throws.
• Boss monsters also fairly often have advantage on saves via Magic resistance.

This does help bosses resist neutralisation by save-or-suck. But because of the amount and flatness of a d20's variance, this risks turning the meta-game into action economy optimisation with a hint of roulette wheel.

So the designers also came up with the blunt instrument of 'Legendary resistance', to discourage players even trying save-or-suck spells in a boss fight. Three times a day, when a boss monster fails its save, it can choose to succeed instead.

And this basically works. It creates incentives to use alternative abilities (straight damage, buffing or summoning allies, no-save spells like Forcecage, Heat Metal, and Maze, etc).

Players can still try to double down on incapacitation if they really want to, but have to use attrition to penetrate the boss's saves and its uses of Legendary resistance. It becomes a hit points analogue, with high randomness and low granularity.

 

The problem is that just no-selling a player character ability isn't very fun at the table, and doesn't align well with other aspects of 5e's design.

It can also have unintended consequences. Player characters are incentivised in the meta-game to 'use up' the boss monster's Legendary resistance with their weakest, longest-range, and cheapest or most easily replenished abilities, while trying to disguise which ability they are using, to foil their adversary's ability to choose whether to no-sell something. This 'optimal tactic' can really throw you out of the game if you were expecting to be simulating a thrilling high-stakes encounter against a powerful monster.

Simple alternatives

Here are some ways you can change Legendary resistance to make it more fun and subtle, in order of least noticeable to most substantial change.

1. Make it have a cost. When Legendary resistance kicks in, the monster loses hit points, or a spell slot, or has disadvantage on saving throws until its next turn. This makes it more of an emergency measure but isn't always easy to justify in-universe.

2. Make it use up the creature's reaction. This at least means that the monster must be more selective about its use of Legendary resistance. If it has access to a special reaction like Parry or casting Shield, it also needs to balance against the possibility that it will want to use its reaction for that this round.

3. Make it a legendary action. One which can't be used on the same turn the saving throw was failed. The PCs get to capitalise on the status effect for at least one turn, and get to witness the monster actually do something to end the effect (e.g., giving a monstrous howl, straining its muscles, spitting up blood, clawing at itself). There's also the opportunity cost of legendary action selection.

4. Make it a bonus action. This is the same thing but more so: the creature must wait until its next turn to end the effect. If the boss monster has special bonus actions, now it must forego one to shrug off a status effect.

You could then give Legendary resistance variants to various not-necessarily-boss monsters that are "meant" to stick in a fight longer, replacing the unreliable high save bonuses + Magic resistance combination.

 

Complex alternatives

Finally, if you have the time and inclination, you could fully overhaul 5e's framework of status conditions.

One modern design paradigm is to stack worsening status effects / spell effects. For example, Pathfinder uses variable status penalties: clumsy, doomed, drained, enfeebled, frightened, sickened, slowed, stunned, and stupefied incrementally penalise checks and task DCs.

Once you have gradated rather than binary conditions, more powerful 'boss' monsters can be given a greater initial resistance to those effects, or a greater capacity to suffer them, or substantially higher values in all the numbers that will be penalised, or a special ability to reduce them over the course of combat.

How I think about story games

What follows isn't an attempt at a codification or taxonomy or definition. In fact, it deviates from some of the language people use to describe TTRPGs and story(-telling) games.

It's a way of looking at the design space that I've personally found useful, and a sketch of some of the ways people end up arguing at cross-purposes about story.

 

Story  ∈  TTRPG

First, the process of playing a tabletop role-playing game does inevitably create stories: whether you think that's the point of playing or not; whether you think the GM should try to steer it or plan it or not; whether you think there's story from start to finish or only after the fact.

Back in 1987, Gary Gygax advised that

When the principal characters in a story (the campaign) are free-willed and have a multitude of choices regarding how to proceed, it is counterproductive – and, in fact, impossible – to preordain just how the events in the campaign will unfold.

In 2009, the Alexandrian made the firm case most of us are familiar with: don't prep plots.

A plot is the sequence of events in a story.

And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you’re attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story — it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.

In 2021, the Angry GM noted that

the story—the narrative—is an emergent thing. Your game’s going to have a narrative when it’s done. Like it or not. And people are going to interpret it based on how they think stories work. Players won’t experience the game as it was. They’ll experience it based on their warped perception of it. [...]

Once your game’s done, it’s going to have had a plot. It’s going to have followed a single sequence of events. There’s going to have been a climax. People—even you—will remember that s$&%. You can either use what power you have to steer the game toward the best narrative possible. One that does the things that thirty millenniums of storytelling have taught us make for good stories. Or you can hope and pray that the emergent narrative is accidentally a good one. It’s your call.

And just recently in 2024, Tom van Winkle wrote a superb article about the nuances of all this. If you only have time to read one blog post today, go read that one instead of this.

The assumption seems to be that to create a story, you need a plot in advance. It's important for the entire entry here to understand that that is not true. [...]

What all the "anti-story" gamers have in common today is that they allowed other people to define the term "story" for them as "pre-designed plot," even though that's not what story means.

He analyses "anti-story" gamers, who

have, apparently unwittingly, accepted the false idea that RPGs would need plots designed in advance to have stories in a story-telling game. Their objections are therefore confusing for many people who are aware that they experience stories arising spontaneously in RPGs.

The underlying claim is: playing a tabletop role-playing game is intrinsically a process of telling a story. And yes, in a technical sense, this is absolutely true. In a TTRPG session, real-world people are making deliberate decisions that lead to the details of a fictional universe and events within it being filled in. Therefore, definitionally speaking, the players and GM have collaborated to tell a story.

Tom van Winkle in particular discusses the literature, and what scholars of story and narrative have agreed on, and how that applies.

The problem, though, is that in everyday, natural English for the layperson, the phrase "tell a story" comes with all sorts of baggage that doesn't necessarily apply to TTRPGs.

The phrase is laden with subtle implications in common English:

1. Telling a story means the storytellers are doing so with the primary goal of producing a 'good story', or at least are telling a story intentionally
2. Telling a story means the storytellers have equal parts, or at least similar amounts of creative control
3. Telling a story means the process is done selectively, without random elements
4. Telling a story means that core elements of the narrative are planned (at least a little in advance), not suddenly discovered
5. Telling a story means that people are making choices in order to further the narrative in a satisfying way, which might not be the 'optimal' or even plausible choices for a particular character
6. Telling a story is unregulated by formal mechanics, or at least largely so

None of these are true of TTRPGs in general. They're not even all true simultaneously for most story-telling games!

So telling a novice who's interested in entering the hobby that a TTRPG is necessarily 'about telling a story' is frankly just misleading that person, unless you stop and break down why 'telling a story' doesn't mean most of what they think it means. (And it may lead to further misunderstandings, like when they hear the term 'player agency' and think it means creative agency over the fictive world, and so on...)

...We still have this phrase, 'story game'.

Two axes

When I think about 'story games' and TTRPGs, I envisage two parallel tracks running left to right.

On the first axis, we have 'rules' to the left and 'freeform' to the right. This axis mostly has to do with the GM, if the game has one.

• A game can be towards the left, 'rules', with lots of rules and processes for decision-making. A game here encourages system mastery for both the GM and the players. It doesn't necessarily imply more control or omniscience for the GM: the game could be heavily reliant on random tables, for instance, or there could be lots of codified rules for how the players get to mess around with the game world directly rather than through their characters.
• A game can be towards the right, 'freeform', taking an open-ended and freeform approach to actual gameplay. In this case the GM is making up a lot as they go along, relying more on the characteristics of the world that have so far been determined than on rules and frameworks provided by the game.
• A game can be somewhere in the middle, with moderate rule support.

On the second axis, we have 'decisions' to the left and 'insertions' to the right. This axis has more to do with the players than the GM.

• A game can be towards the left, 'decisions', where players control their character's mind – the decisions they make – and nothing else. The GM determines what is in the world, controls events and NPCs, and adjudicates PC decision outcomes. (But even the most leftward TTRPGs usually have a carve-out here for character generation, where players get to pick things about their character which the character realistically couldn't have chosen within the world.)
• A game can be towards the right, 'insertions', where players have power over aspects of the game that isn't through their characters. In some situations characters can create, choose, affect, invent, or veto, but in games like this the players have an ability to create, choose, affect, invent, or veto.
• A game can be somewhere in the middle, mixing approaches.
  

The reason I picture the tracks as parallel is that many games, if you map them onto the axes, make a line that's close to vertical. That is,

• Most, though not all, 'traddish TTRPGs' (games with few to no overt player-available story-telling elements) are also mechanically rigorous. They are towards the left on both axes. In general, the GM has lots of power and mechanical support, and the players will know that most things they choose to do will be covered by rules. Whether those rules are good or bad, players may be uneasy with situations where the GM has to go with their gut over having an 'official' answer. It will be unusual (troubling, even) for a GM to invite a player to fill in gaps in the world or determine action outcomes.
• Most, though not all, 'collaborative story-telling games' (in which players are permitted to insert content directly into the world rather than being restricted to attempts to alter the world with their characters) have relatively few rules and processes. They are towards the right on both axes. In general, there isn't anywhere near as much of an authority disparity between the GM and the players, or there might not be a GM at all. The game rules tend to be 'softer' or 'fuzzier', the players are given more overt license to override or ignore them, and the mechanical framework is usually designed more towards 'crafting a satisfying narrative' than towards 'playing a skill-requiring game' or 'simulating a fictional world'.

I'm personally most interested in the leftward side of both scales. I've designed at least one little game that wanders around the middle of the axes, and have a few others sitting on the project pile, but as a designer and player I mostly lean left, towards 'traddish TTRPGs'.

But I'm also interested, from a design point of view, in the rare oddballs. The really open-ended, rules-light TTRPGs with high GM authority, perhaps like this idea. And the highly constrained, rules-heavy, almost formulaic, versions of story-telling games, with no referee.

 

Ways of playing

We can map the way people actually play games onto these two tracks, too. As opposed to how games were designed to be played.

The big example here is (as it often is) D&D 5e. The system is to the centre-left on the rules/freeform track: it's crunchy and extensive compared to a lot of indie games, but not as much as previous editions of the same game, or GURPS, or whatever). And it's quite far left on the decisions/insertions track: the official rules only contain (outside character generation) a few optional and tacked-on suggestions about direct player control over the world.

Interestingly, this isn't always borne out in play. It's possibly due to the rise of people entering the hobby via watching televised 'actual play' by actors, or possibly a trend that's always been there but is just more visible now. A lot of people these days play D&D as if it was further right on the decisions/insertions scale. Players in a lot of games end up with a certain amount of creative control over the world.

To put it in fuzzier terms, they inject elements of a collaborative story-telling exercise into a relatively traddish TTRPG when they play. And that's fine. I suspect they might be better served by playing an actual story-telling game with design elements supporting that, but ultimately, let people have their own fun.

To sum up

This is just how I think about things. It's not a formal system or a position on how things ought to be done.

I think it's fair to say that all TTRPG involves the creation of story – and again, go read van Winkle's article for a really well-considered take – and that some people have the creation of that story as a more primary concern than others. I think that the phrase 'telling a story' has misleading implications when it comes to TTRPGs, which is why I personally avoid saying that TTRPGs deeply involve it, even if (getting into the weeds) it's true. And I find it interesting that when it comes to story, we can try to pin games onto two axes which quite often correlate with one another.

The 'Four Humors' Theory of TTRPG Players

The Angry GM recently published an article about the distinct ways in which players play RPGs, with the specific example of D&D.

He mentioned in particular the rise, or increase, of an attitude towards the game as an intrinsically theatrical activity, adding that to the old GNS classification:

Some players see D&D as a Game. They think it’s about overcoming obstacles, winning adventures, accomplishing goals, and advancing characters.

Some players see D&D as a Narrative. They think it’s about telling a story of fantasy adventure and they want to share the most interesting story possible.

Some players see D&D as a Simulation. They think it’s about entering a world as a character and dealing with it as it is. Whatever happens happens.

And now, some players see D&D as a Performance. They think it’s about putting on a show. They have a role to play and they’ve got to play it to the hilt. In the most interesting and engaging way possible.

It's a good article, worth checking out. While reading, it occurred to me that we could treat GNS Theory as just a way to describe some of the emergent properties of a simple pair of dichotomies, along the lines of another well-respected and evidence-based organisational schema, that of the humoral theory of human health.

Take all of this very seriously please.

A simple pair of dichotomies

Somebody is playing a tabletop role-playing game. They are engaging with an activity, making decisions, thinking about what they are doing. The act of play is, ultimately, a realisation of the act of thought. What is the player spending most of their brainpower thinking about?

There are two dichotomies here.

1. Is the player thinking mostly about their real world environment (the people they are playing with, the game rules, the miniatures, the side conversations)? Or are they thinking mostly about the fictive setting? Or something in between?
2. Is the player thinking mostly in an inward-looking away, about themself and what is theirs or squarely within their purview? Or are they thinking mostly in an outward-looking way, about things around them and outside of their control? Or something in between?

We can put this on a pair of axes, as in this professionally-drawn image.

And now a picture emerges, of what GNS+P is describing, but defined in terms of these innate characteristics of human thought: wet, dry, hot, and cold fictive, reality, inward-looking, and outward-looking.

 

These of course are what modern medicine ludology teaches us are the fundamental building blocks of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile different ways to engage with a role-playing game.

GNS+P Theory doesn't map precisely to the four resulting quadrants, of course. There's some interplay and outliers. We have debatable blobs, not square pigeonholes.

Let's break this exciting new bit of science down.

Yellow bile 'TTRPG as Game'

Temperament: choleric (ambitious, driven, aggressive)

What is a Gamist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be INWARD-LOOKING: upon their own (and usually necessarily, the group's) ability to win; to this end they channel attention into their own player skill, their own knowledge of the rules, and making decisions about their own character's capabilities.

Their thoughts typically tend towards REALITY: the nature of the game and how to win it, the rules and mechanics, win and lose conditions, and how to get other players to go along with their plans. But they do still focus some of their attention on parts of the fictive environment: the obstacles to winning that their character encounters, and the mechanical ways they can get advantages with their character (in particular, advancement). The yellow blob in the diagram therefore stretches away towards the left.

To put it another way, Gamists have an excess of yellow bile.

Black bile 'TTRPG as Narrative'

Temperament: melancholic (sad, delusional, deep in fantasy)

What is a Narrativist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be OUTWARD-LOOKING: towards the group having a satisfying play experience and how the game's play will become a story after the fact. At times, they may care more about their own enjoyment of the game-as-story, thus leaning towards the inwards-looking position.

Their thoughts tend towards REALITY: making decisions for the good of the players' play experience, the emergent story, and what will be 'interesting'. If they care about the game rules, it is in case those become an impediment to higher-order goals. (The Narrativist's thoughts may also drive towards a story with verisimilitude and/or immersion, creeping towards engagement with the fictive environment.)

To put it terms we can all understand, Narrativists may have an excess of black bile.

Phlegm 'TTRPG as Simulation'

Temperament: phlegmatic (calm, reserved, analytical)

What is a Simulationist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be OUTWARD-LOOKING: at the world around their character, and at things they don't already know. They want to discover things about the fictive world and see how they mesh together, and inwards things like their knowledge of the rules and their character are mostly ancillary to that. But the act of engagement still requires making plausible decisions about the character, and the Simulationist does typically spend some attention on their character's place within the world (thus, the blue blob on the chart reaches upward).

The Simulationist's thoughts are almost strictly FICTIVE: They care most about the world they are playing in. The game's rules are meant to simulate a world, the GM is the arbiter of those rules, and the outcome of those rules is to be accepted and examined, never challenged or overruled for the sake of higher-order player/GM goals.

So of course, Simulationists have an excess of phlegm.

Blood 'TTRPG as Performance'

Temperament: sanguine (passionate, mirthful, self-indulgent)

The Angry GM suggested 'Performance' as a new and increasingly popular playstyle category, characterised by (amongst other things) creating

characters with clearly defined motivations, personalities, beliefs, goals, and fears right from the get-go. Their character’s character doesn’t emerge from gameplay and it doesn’t change as the game plays out.

What is a Performer player thinking about?

 

Their thoughts are ultimately INWARD-LOOKING: Most of all, they care about their own character, deciding its intrinsic properties, and then getting across those preselected properties.

Their thoughts are largely on the FICTIVE: How to affect the fictive world by determining a tiny part of it; looking for opportunities in the world to accomplish their secondary goal of expression. External things like 'the game rules' and 'the other players' don't impact this very much for trad RPGs.

Or as we normal, modern people would definitely say in normal, modern terms, "Performers have an excess of blood".

I put something weird on that chart, though.

 Entertainer island

I think there's a little outcrop of the Performative playstyle occupying the diametrically opposite position.

A player can start with a solid foundation of hot, wet inward, fictive humors. That is, they have a firmly imagined static character with predetermined characteristics and sometimes even an intention to pursue a 'character arc', whatever on earth that means when you're (a) playing a game that (b) involves, at its most fundamental level, making decisions about situations that you have no foreknowledge of.

But with those humors as a firm foundation, most of the player's attention is freed up to focus on the actual performative act, which is ultimately outward-looking in reality (given that it is a process of interaction with an audience). With this inversion of the expression of their bodily gameplay humors, the Performer is now thinking primarily about the theatrical entertainment of the other players / the GM / their Twitch audience / passersby in the real world. When taken to excess, to the game's detriment.

Balancing the humors

So it seems likely that people can have a predisposition towards certain humors, and we might or might not regard this as an imbalance of humors.

What are the implications? Let's sketch just a few, presupposing (naturally) that two thousand years of high-quality humoral medicine can be extended to the modern environment of the game table.

• A player who is desirous of a more neutral or 'balanced' playstyle may examine the degrees to which they are inward- or outward-looking, in the fictive world or reality, and deliberately change their behaviours accordingly.
• If the players and the GM at a table all have a similar humoral temperament, then we would expect their games to run well if they indulge in that temperament, although players of a different style would scarcely recognise the game they were playing!
• In rare circumstances where the group dynamics are just right, players of completely opposite humoral temperaments may 'cancel out' at the table due to the ways they use and express those temperaments, resulting in (against the odds) a harmonious, near-maximally-enjoyable game.
• Obviously, players may be able to select the right foods and drinks to modulate any excess of humors. By careful review of TTRPG play I have discerned some of the modern-day nostrums: pizza (hot + dry); coffee (hot + wet); soda (cold + wet); chips (cold + dry).

Science marches ever onwards.

Improving Swarms for D&D 5e

As part of a creature project, I'm taking a look at improving the 'swarm of creatures' mechanics in Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons.

The problem is one of verisimilitude balanced against the quirks of the 5e combat system, and a desire to make swarms uniquely vulnerable to the things they should be vulnerable to while dangerous if you're fighting them without those things. Only fun solutions are allowed!

What are the essential characteristics of a swarm?

A swarm of creatures is a notable opponent because each of its diminutive components is, almost by definition, (a) mostly harmless and (b) trivially defeated. Only en mass are they dangerous and require effort to destroy.

Characteristic 1: Weapons shouldn't matter, but strategies might

A lot of TTRPGs massively undersell the killing power of a bladed weapon compared to a blunt strike in almost all situations. One exception is fighting a swarm.

Typical swarms are made from creatures so small that the more effective approach to fighting them would be to hit them with something broad, in order to crush as many as possible at a time. If you have six seconds to spend and you're fighting a homogenous area of a thousand flying bugs in the space in front and to the sides of you, then we can imagine shooting an arrow might kill ~0.5% of the swarm if you're lucky, swinging a razor-sharp blade could kill ~1%, and swinging an ordinary dining chair could kill ~5%. If they're ground-based creatures, stamping on them or rolling around on them are likely to be far better strategies than swinging a weapon.

So if a player character wants to fight a swarm, then we only have to consider whether they're in melee or shooting at range; to simplify we might generously allow melee weapons to be as effective as unarmed or improvised attacks, so that players don't feel silly just having their characters stamp up and down every turn. Ranged attacks should be much worse, though.

As the swarm's component creatures become larger and more dangerous, the martial skill and physical power of the person fighting them might begin to matter. But for heroic fantasy like D&D 5e, I think we would generalise 'fighting skill and power' to 'character level': CR 18 swarms should be made up of individual creatures of a kind that any 18th level character can destroy trivially and in quick succession in a fight; the same creatures might individually pose a small challenge to 1st level characters, but the 5e design parameter of bounded accuracy limits the degree to which this can be true.

Characteristic 2: Big, flowing, and diffuse

A swarm is made of tiny little freely-moving elements, and therefore behaves something like a fluid: it can get into small spaces, surround creatures, and so on. Healing, strengthening, or weakening an individual creature shouldn't have any impact on the swarm.

How large and dense is a swarm of animals? Dense enough to see it clearly, as a bare minimum. In practise, I think it would be more viscerally horrible if it's really dense, with creatures crawling all over each other.

• As a bare minimum density, I think we should imagine at least one flying bug in every 4×4×4 cm cube. Then we would have more than 15,500 bugs in a cubic metre, which is about the space you could swing a chair through.
• Alternatively, we can imagine one larger flying creature like a small bird or bat in each 25×25×25 cm cube. There would be 64 such creatures in a cubic metre.
• For a dense mass of beetles crawling over each other on the ground, we need at least one beetle every 2×2 cm. Then we would have at least 2500 bugs in a square metre.
• Likewise, for rats or tarantulas or other larger creatures, I would expect at least one animal every 10×10 cm, for at least a hundred critters in a square metre.

I envisage swarms as having a big dangerous centre part and a much less dense 'periphery' of creatures that continually enter and leave the centre, but are mostly harmless. We can think of the swarm as being all the creature in it, but it's mostly the ones in the core attacking and grouped up in ways that makes it possible to kill them at any reasonable rate.

When I sit back and imagine a swarm, the whole thing must be at least five square metres on the ground, or at least ten cubic metres if flying – preferably much larger. Anything smaller seems pitifully small. Of that, the dangerous core is maybe a fifth to a half of its area (or volume).

This back-of-the-napkin maths implies you're fighting ~150,000 wasps or ~640 bats or ~12,500 centipedes or ~500 rats.

It's a good place for a reality check. Here on Earth...

• A bat colony has several hundred bats
• A honeybee swarm has 5,000 to 40,000 bees
• A murmuration of starlings has 5,000 to 50,000 birds
• Army ants form swarms or columns of between 200,000 and 20 million ants
• A desert locust swarm is pretty diffuse, with 'only' 50 to 70 locusts per square metre but covering hundreds of square kilometres in total

Real-world swarms are probably much less dense than the ravenous fantasy swarms we imagine. But whether they are or aren't, the numbers don't seem off by multiple orders of magnitude.

Characteristic 3: Time required for attrition

Assuming a swarm is only dangerous because it is a very large group of marginally dangerous creatures, it should take a long time to destroy in melee combat.

If you have a six-second turn, maybe you can completely destroy half a cubic metre of flying creatures by swinging a chair through them, or annihilate a quarter of a square metre of ground-based creatures by jumping up and down on them. I actually think that's generous even for characters in a heroic fantasy genre.

Then with the parameters we've established it should take a minimum of 20 character turns to kill a swarm in melee (as a level-appropriate moderate challenge, 5 rounds for a party of four characters). For the kind of bigger, more dense swarms that we'd prefer, it 'should' take much longer to destroy a swarm without something that takes out a huge chunk out of it at once (see Characteristic 8, below).

Characteristic 4: Easy to hit

It shouldn't really be possible to try to harm a swarm and fail.

It doesn't matter if you're swinging an axe at bats or stamping on centipedes, we're talking about a packed area of low-intelligence creatures with little situational awareness, a flocking instinct, possibly driven into a frenzy, and surrounding their enemies on all sides. They're not getting out of the way.

In D&D terms, it shouldn't require an attack roll to take a swing at a swarm, and they should at least have disadvantage on most saving throws.

Characteristic 5: Dangerous in numbers

A swarm should be able to attack almost indiscriminately. Ideally, anything inside it should get hit; we might limit this to a 'multiattack' to make it faster.

As a swarm gets smaller, the amount of harm it can do should fall.

• If a swarm takes up less volume as it suffers attrition, keeping the same density, then the number of targets it can attack simultaneously goes down.
• If a swarm takes up the same volume as it is attrited, its density falling instead, then the amount of harm it does to each target goes down.
• If a swarm's volume and density are both reduced, then you could justify either option.

Characteristic 6: A reason for cohesion

The main reason (on Earth) that animals band together in swarm is to defend against predators. There's both 'safety in numbers' in the sense of an individual becoming statistically less likely to be predated, but also, the movements of the group can confuse or in some cases intimidate predators. There are rare exceptions, like army ants, which seem dangerous because they group up to hunt. I think it's safe to say that fantasy swarms are more like the latter.

A swarm sticks together, but clearly doesn't have to – its individual components aren't physically connected. It's a matter of taste as to whether parts that get separated can rejoin the swarm to continue acting in unison; I would rule that they can.

A swarm also can't react quickly or precisely or perform complex tasks, and its individual creatures attack pretty much blindly. In D&D terms, I wouldn't let it make attacks of opportunity: if you're in the swarm, you're being constantly bitten (with lots of miniscule harm adding up to HP worth of damage), and if you're not, you're not. If anything, a creature should suffer less harm for leaving the swarm's area sooner, but that's difficult to reconcile with D&D mechanics for only a small payoff.

Something is motivating the swarm to act as if it were a single creature. Maybe...

• A true hive-mind has emerged from the swarm, or
  
• A foreign overmind is controlling it, or
• There's some spell or fantastical natural force in play, or
• The individual creatures have a psychic bond

It seems likely that forcibly disrupting the swarm's cohesion would be particularly harmful to it. Depending on the nature of the outside motivator, the swarm might be particularly vulnerable to psychic damage, or it might shrug it off completely. I personally favour the former.

Things that affect a creature's physical body (conditions like paralysis, poison, and petrification) probably only affect one or a small number of bodies within the swarm, for negligible effect. We could model this as the minimum unit of harm in D&D, 1 hit point loss.

Characteristic 7: Extreme susceptibility to area damage

A little creatures which is individually below notice can be killed instantly by almost any attack. Some attacks are indiscriminate, hitting everything in an area. Even a really dense swarm probably has some room between creatures for such effects to penetrate.

It follows that effects like fire, force waves, toxic or corrosive clouds, rough weather, etc should do massive damage to a swarm. A swarm caught entirely within such an effect might struggle to survive at all! In D&D terms, it is not sufficient to model these kinds of things as different damage types. "6d6 poison damage to any creature in the cloud of poison" should kill a swarm; "6d6 poison damage to a creature hit by the arrow" should barely inconvenience it.

So does 5e capture these essential characteristics?

Not sufficiently, although the writers made an effort in that direction. Consider the six swarms in the D&D 5e System Reference Document (SRD).

Characteristic 1: Weapons shouldn't matter, but strategies might
Characteristic 7: Extreme susceptibility to area damage

✅ SRD swarms do resist the kind of damage usually associated with weapons.

❌ ...But on average a longbow will still do more damage than a club, which will still do more damage than fists and feet, i.e., the opposite of what we'd expect.

❌ More martially skilled characters deal substantially more damage than less martially skilled characters when smacking at a SRD swarm in their space. We wouldn't expect this, especially at low levels (where flailing around with something broad and heavy to crush dozens or hundreds will always be a good strategy).

✅ SRD swarms don't resist any of the classic area spell damage types, making damage spells a good choice against them.

❌ ...But nor do they resist single-target spell damage. And if an area spell does deal weapon-like damage, an SRD swarm takes half damage from it (which it really shouldn't).

Characteristic 2: Big, flowing, and diffuse

✅ The SRD absolutely nails the 'Swarm' trait. I don't think it needs to change at all.

❌ The SRD swarms are Medium in size. Even if we imagine this as the most dense centre part of the swarm, this still feels too small for any but the absolute weakest of swarms (admittedly all the SRD swarms have a low CR).

Characteristic 3: Time required for attrition
Characteristic 4: Easy to hit 

❌ The SRD swarms have similar HP to comparable SRD monsters, but their resistances effectively double it. However, their HP is unremarkable per the DMG monster creation rules, even factoring in resistances. They should be harder to destroy using single-target attacks.

❌ Likewise, their AC is typical for their Challenge Ratings, so a fair number of attacks (at least a third) will just miss them, even though that makes no sense.

Characteristic 5: Dangerous in numbers

✅ The SRD swarms lose half their damage output when reduced below half health, calling to mind 4e's Bloodied condition. I think only changing it one time at half HP is reasonable. It means a swarm's current number of component creatures is directly reflected in its damage, but doesn't create more mental load for the GM with a more complex way of doing that.

❌ To have a SRD swarm attack lots of creatures at once, the GM has to fake it by using multiple swarms together. Really a swarm should be larger and dangerous to anything inside it. Think about the verb form of the word 'swarm'.

Characteristic 6: A reason for cohesion

✅ SRD swarms are immune to most conditions, as we would expect. There are some edge cases like blinded, deafened, and poisoned which the designers let affect them (the first one possibly due to how light and obscuration are defined).

❌ Swarms probably shouldn't distinguish 'attacks of opportunity' from just continually attacking. Also, SRD swarms are affected normally by psychic damage despite being made up of hundreds or thousands of minds.

 

Evolution of solutions

When I initially wrote a more plausible 5e swarm based on that analysis, playtesting showed that I'd gone too far in the direction of realism. The fun was being lost.

Swarms could be blown up by quite low level spells, and a combat run strictly with melee attacks was a grind: arduous but not very dangerous.

In 5e, combats that go beyond three rounds are uncommon, ones that go beyond four rounds are rare, and so on. When the four PCs took six rounds to destroy just one of three lower-CR swarms I knew I'd miscalculated. Out of a sense of morbid curiosity, I gamed out eleven(!) more rounds before the fight was over.

Fortunately, I found some tweaks that solved this:

• Harmful area effects should do a lot of extra damage to a swarm (especially if all of it is in the area) without completely trivialising an encounter.
  
• A melee attacker can't waste every turn inflicting really trivial damage on a swarm. (It's fine to make single-target ranged attacks useless, because 5e has no strictly ranged glass cannons, and the character types that come near that all have access to area damage.)
• Swarms can have middling damage that drops when they hit half HP, as long as they deal some small damage on a miss, for an effect akin to a damaging aura.

With these changes, fights using just one or two spells last a good number of rounds. Multiple spellcasters willing to expend their best spell slot in their first turn can destroy swarms easily if they want to pay that cost. Fights with mostly mundane combat go longer than normal, but not outrageously so. More importantly, damage-on-miss makes swarms feel dangerous; between that and 'you can't fail to hit a swarm', the two sides are continually wearing each other down.

The final stat block isn't as completely verisimilitudinous as my initial vision, but overall it's a fun challenge to fight with a reward for thoughtful play, which is important. And the other changes to the SRD 'swarm' type monster implied by this article's analysis all worked well, so they'll be included in the final write-up.

Of course, to make this all hang together, the modified swarm needs a large number of traits (as well as some slightly unusual stat block entries like damage-on-miss and broad spectrum condition immunities). That's a no-no; it imposes substantial cognitive load on the GM, especially a GM trying to use it on the fly.

The next step, then, will be a challenge: Edit the text into a shorter form which presents the most important information in a way that's easy to find while keeping the writing crisp and clear. But isn't that always the case?