Sarah Darkmagic

Statue of Perseus, Piazza della Signoria, Florence: From WikipediaEarlier this week, much discussion erupted over the D&D Playtest version of the Medusa. Much of it was either two "sides" arguing for or agains the inclusion of what is being called a "save or die" type effect. For some, a D&D game without some such mechanics just isn't D&D to them. For others, the inclusion of such a mechanic, particularly without any advice on how to handle it as a DM reminds them of previous bad experiences, often at the hands of either a "killer" or inexperienced DM. I've wanted to write this post for a few days now but wanted to distance myself from the original discussion a bit in hopes I could do it better justice that way.

So, how does the medusa work in D&D Next? Well, first, a medusa can turn the gaze attack on or off at will. So, unless one has it turned it, it is possible for a character to look at one and not turn to stone. So, one of the most common complaints, that a PC might be wandering around a dungeon, turn a corner, and wham, turn to stone, isn't technically true or at least depends on DM discretion. My reading of the Caves of Chaos adventure included with the play test documents, suggest that the medusa has the gaze attack turned off when the PCs first meet her.

Second, unless surprised, any character who tries to attack a medusa can decide to avert his or her eyes. If the PCs avert their eyes, they do not need to make a saving throw but they gain a disadvantage on their attacks and enemies gain advantage against them. If they decide to not avert, they have to make a saving throw against petrification. A failed saving throw means they become petrified and that character is effectively out of the game until the condition is reversed.

Let's compare that to a 3/3.5 era gaze attack as written here: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Gaze. In this version, PCs have 2 options: avert their gaze and have to make a percentile check (50%) each round to see whether or not they have to make a saving throw against petrification or they can blindfold themselves, granting every creature total concealment and gaining huge penalties to trying to hit. I believe earlier editions had similar mechanics for gaze as well and the medusa had a snake poison attack that was a save versus poison or die.

In 4e, the petrifying gaze of the medusa is handled in two different ways.

Medusa Spirit Charmer, Medusa Venom Arrow

Stony Glare At-Will
Trigger: An enemy ends its turn within 2 squares of the medusa.
Attack (Immediate Reaction): Close burst 2 (the triggering enemy in the blast); +x vs. Fortitude
Hit: The target is petrified (save ends).
Third Failed Saving Throw: The target is petrified until one of the following conditions is satisfied.
: The use of an appropriate power, such as divine cleansing.
: The willing kiss of the medusa that petrified the creature (a medusa might do this to gain information or to luxuriate in the victim’s fear before returning it to stone).
: The medusa responsible for the petrification is killed and its blood is applied to the stony lips of the victim before a full day passes.

Medusa Shroud of Zehir (Female), Medusa Archer (Female)

Petrifying Gaze (standard, at-will) Gaze, Petrification
Close blast 5; blind creatures are immune; +x vs Fortitude; the target is slowed (save ends). First Failed Save: The target is immobilized instead of slowed (save ends). Second Failed Save: The target is petrified (no save).

In Stony Glare, we have a case similar to a save or die mechanic, combined with 4e's death saves idea and ways to reverse the death. In Petrifying Gaze, we increase the time it takes to petrify, allowing multiple save attempts along the way. It also gives the PC the ability to make the tradeoff between being blinded or risking the effects of the hit.

The D&D Next version puts a lot more in the hands of the players and isn't even a true save or die effect. First, petrification isn't death, it can be reversed. Second, as written, the only time the PC definitely faces that situation is when the character decides to attack without averting eyes. That is within the player's control, not the DM's. It's true that the surprise round complicates things, as the DM could decide the medusa has the gaze on, but I know of groups that enjoy that bit of DM discretion, such as Lair Assault or some of the deadly delve challenges I've heard about in the past.

So what do I think the solution is? As always, player and DM education about how to bring about the play experience the table wants. It means communication. Do you want a game that challenges your player knowledge/skill as much as it challenges the characters? How often do you want surprise to come up in game? What should the thresholds be for it?

For DMs, I'd suggest minimizing the chances of a surprise gaze attack. Consider how common it really it is for a medusa to be walking down the halls of a dungeon with her gaze on and leaving now signs of her presence. Leave hints in many places that one might exist, everything from weird stone statues where the subjects are all caught in awkward positions and with horrified visages to tavern rumors about a medusa's existence. If you're well versed in Greco-Roman legends, remember that not everyone might be, especially newer players who might not be used to asking lots of questions or who might feel intimidated by the rest of the group. Finally, if you decide to use one and your players just weren't expecting or up to the task of dealing with a medusa, figure a story way out or even talk to your group afterward and chat with them about how they want to handle the situation. Also, anytime you use an effect that might remove a character from the game for a bit, think about options for the player who is now without anything to do. Could he or she control some of the monsters or maybe the hirelings or henchmen?

For players, think about why you play the game. If you are really invested in your character, make sure your DM understands that so he or she can keep that in mind when choosing or designing adventures and picking the monsters. If you are interested in reacting to an ongoing story full of twists and turns, try to let go of control a bit and think of something like petrification as a challenge to create an interesting new story instead of as an end of the current one (or as a personal failure). If you're upset, consider stepping away from the table for a moment.

The issue isn't save or die mechanics or ones that seem like them. It's about communication, understanding what each other is looking for, and setting reasonable and fair boundaries.

If you haven’t read Jon Schindehette's article about Sexism in Fantasy, I suggest you go read it. I will reference it a fair bit in this post.

The portrayal of female characters in fantasy art, including how sexism affects the art process, is an important subject to me. When I read Jon’s article, I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I know and am friends with many people at Wizards of the Coast. I have had chats with Jon on this subject among others. We even had him on a Tome Show episode. I write a column for the website celebrating the company. Yet the words I read on the screen left a mark.

You might ask why. For one, the “poll” set up to show that sexism isn’t well defined is a bit flawed as was the definition used. Like many academic terms, it’s easily misunderstood or misapplied. It is full of nuance. Whether or not something is sexist depends on lots of things, including context. While his test might have proved that the term is misunderstood by people in the community, it doesn’t mean we should stop trying to understand it, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable and perhaps even triggers guilt. It’s those feelings that cause some to feel that the term is “convenient, inflammatory, and polarizing,” a phrasing that itself is often used as a derailing and silencing technique.

Photography: © Zhang Jingna; Model: Natalia Bonifacci/Ford LASo, let’s talk about those two images quickly. One of the issues faced by women is that they are seen as being present mostly for decoration. If most images of women looked like that first image, our artwork would play into that expectation and gender-based constraint of women. Another issue is that women are often put into the role of nurturer. So while a woman in that role is not automatically sexist, if the only times we depict women are when they are in that role, that can be. Finally, a third issue is what is commonly called the virgin/whore dichotomy, something that is illustrated when the two pieces are presented together. In one, we have the nurturing woman in modest dress, devoid of most if not all sexuality. In the second, it seems that if she uncrossed her arms, we would see her breasts. That hint of sexuality that goes beyond the normal bounds of our society is part of what makes that picture exciting.

Now that we’ve addressed the “sexism poll” Jon constructed, I’d like to discuss the issues of the portrayal of women in D&D. I don’t want to limit it just to the art because to be honest, both the art and the text often amplify each other in ways we might not intend. Beauty comes up often in the article, implying that women are beautiful objects and that artists are drawn to creating that sort of art. This, to me, points out some of the problems present due to latent sexism in our society. Why isn’t an older woman considered beautiful? When it comes to female characters, why is beautiful so often correlated to cheesecake and fan service rather than compelling stories and other aspects of the character? How does the descriptions of what the artists like to create explain the relative diversity of male representations? Wait, doesn't some of his statements assume a male artist?

Also, when I and other people often discuss sexism in D&D art, we’re talking about the art as a whole, across the product and across the entire game. We’re talking about the lack of variety in age, body styles, clothing options, composition, content, and the like when it comes to female characters. We’re talking about how much more often you are to find a character with an exposed midriff or cleavage than someone above the age of 25 and why it is that so many of the images with multiple characters perhaps one or two token women in them, if any at all. If you haven’t looked at which images are chosen for the covers and the half-page vertical images for the classes (and races), I suggest taking a look. William O’Conner appears to be used for just about every class image and he, almost without fail, shows off the female character’s breasts and adds elements like garters.

People often step in at this point and ask why I’m bringing “real world” issues into the game. I’d like to turn the question around and ask why they are insisting on bringing “real world” discrimination into the game. Whether they like it or not, the game world of D&D has a world full of women over the age of 25. The Forgotten Realms is supposed to be a game world where women are equal to men. In a world with magic and healing, there’s no reason why women would have to be relegated to a subservient role in the world.

But the thing that really got me about the article is that Jon goes out of his way to talk about and even demonstrate why he believes that “sexism” is such a loaded term. Ok, fine, but if you honestly believe that, why use it to frame the entire discussion, especially one as important as the role of women in the D&D world? Why feed the trolls who believe that discussions that myself and other people have often, almost every day at times, are just some attempt at political correctness run amok.

That’s what bothered me the most about the post and what led me to feel the most betrayed. I spend many, many hours talking to people about how awesome D&D is, about how much I love being part of this community, and how to get more women to play. Then the very real feelings myself and others have about how women are presented in the game world, in both the art and text, feel dismissed because we dared to use the correct term to discuss them.

As for the circle of finger pointing, the “it’s not our fault because it’s what the customers want or what the artists turn over to us,” well, that’s the reason I started the Prismatic Art Collection. Are there limitations on what people like Jon can do? Sure. But there are many things that they could still do within the constraints.

• Create a safe space for female fans to provide feedback. It feels so strange to me that I have to point out that many women don’t feel comfortable commenting publicly, either as comments on a post or in forums. There are many reasons for that. Give them a space to leave comments and listen to what they say.
• For D&D Next, create a less restrictive license, even if it’s only for certain groups. I want to create D&D content that is more socially aware for the current version of the game since past versions aren’t always conducive to that sort of content. It’s also easier for the people I want to reach with it to get the newer books than the older ones and for them to get support from the community.
• Create groups (not races) within the D&D world that hold a variety of beliefs about gender, sexuality, and the like. Then divide the characters presented in the artwork among those groups. Then the artwork and the game text will more often align with each other. Cheesecake art will be presented in a context where it makes sense instead of feeling like it’s fanservice to a presumed heterosexual male audience who wants that sort of artwork.

I think those would at least make a good start. I’ll have more to add once we get to the commissioning stage of the Prismatic Art Collection project.

Or at least make me create one. Paul Hughes, the person behind the Random Dungeon Generator as a Dungeon Map Kickstarter asked me if I'd be willing to design a dungeon if his project hit $20,000. It's close, but only a few days are left.

Many of you know how I feel about dungeons but I promise if it makes $20k, I'll give this project my all and create a dungeon I would love to play in. Who knows, maybe after I'll start singing the praises of Dungeons & Dungeons instead of Dragons & Dragons.

The $20k mark will also unlock dungeons by Mike Shea of SlyFlourish.com fame and Mike Mornard. Paul has a few interviews with Mornard on the Blog of Holding site and I've linked to a few of them in Joining the Party articles.

One thing I’ve learned over the last three years is that people play Dungeons & Dragons many different ways. Some like sandboxes. Others like rails. Some like meat grinders. Some like tons of story. A few like a little of everything in every game. There really is no one way to rule them all.

Since I love designing adventures, this has led me to thinking a lot about adventure design across editions. In particular, I’ve been thinking about the different ways we produce a dynamic world around the player characters. In general, I see one of three options used:

• Random - The dungeon master uses random tables or percentiles to determine most of the world around the player characters. A common example of this is a random encounter table or a weather percentile table.
• Planned Stages - The dungeon master writes ahead of time what will happen when, such as “the town will riot on the third day unless the player characters capture the rebel leaders.”
• Improvisation - The dungeon master comes up with things on the fly, in reaction to the decisions of the player characters. If she thinks rain would make the atmosphere more appropriate for the scene, it rains.

Each of these has pros and cons associated with them and aren’t appropriate for all groups. For instance, randomness helps ensure the impartiality of the dungeon master, at least to a degree (nothing stops her from including items that aren’t level appropriate) but may make it harder to tell a smooth story. Planned stages risk railroading the players or cause wasted time spent in planning. Improv requires a fair degree of skill on the part of the dungeon master and, if there isn’t enough trust in the group or the group prefers certain play styles, may be interpreted as unfair by the players.

Given that there’s no clear winner, it might be awesome to find a way to serve them all about 80% of the way. In the adventure, Blood Money, Logan Bonner lays the groundwork for such a tactic. The adventure involves the player characters running a caper to steal the treasury of a local tyrant, ensuring that he cannot pay his mercenaries and, thus, freeing the town of Elderwood from his iron grip. Capers can be a bit difficult to run in D&D, satisfying caper stories often have a lot of twist and turns with an ever increasing tension beat. Pure randomness makes maintaining that upward track of tension difficult and the twists make it hard for a DM to plan for all the contingencies. Improv sounds like the best option but many of the guidelines for the DM presuppose planning time; they can be difficult to employ during a fast and furious session.

To aid the DM in responding in a fair manner to player character actions, the adventure gives the DM plot points, currency she can then spend on various defenses or changes to the adventure’s default settings. She spends some before the adventure starts, giving both her and the players enough details to begin play. After play starts, she spends her remaining plot points in response to player character actions and gains additional ones the more they plan. This last point is particularly important. If the PCs decide to do a surprise raid, things will be harder for them overall because the adventure defaults that way, but the reactive defenses will be lower because the DM doesn’t have as many resources to counter the PCs assault. If they take their time, the basic part of the adventure gets easier, sometimes even lowering the DCs, but the reactive defenses increase.

What interests me is that we can do something more general, providing DMs with a plot point currency that she can use in a variety of instances. It’s not for everyone for sure, but might help with those groups where either the DM is newer or the players tend to prefer a more structured or impartial approach to choices in the adventure or among groups that lack trust. Essentially, I see it as a point buy or point array system for the DM.

Here’s my pitch: Have random tables just like in older edition adventures but also provide either plot point costs for the DM in the table or a conversion chart in the adventure. Also provide the rate at which plot points for the DM refresh. In my mind, this does a few things:

• If the plot point refresh is tied to time, as it is in Blood Money, this makes time important without necessarily making time keeping onerous or overly subject to DM fiat.
• Groups that prefer random tables still have them while still providing support to other groups as well, including improv DMs who can use the random tables as inspiration for their own decisions.
• Gives the DM tools for planning things beyond combat.
• Reactive defense capabilities can make the world seem richer and make the PCs a stronger part of the story since their actions have consequences in the game world.
• Planning in points where the adventure can differ, whether randomly or in response to character actions, makes it easier to reuse the adventure.

So what do you think?