Hyper-Gratuitousness in Fiction and TTRPGs

I like Berserk and I liken my interest in its gratuitous violent imagery and dark themes as the literary horror-enthusiasts equivalent to adrenaline seeking behavior. Adrenaline junkies do not want to be in real danger because they can get hurt, but they want the sensation of it. They seek the sensation of it in a safe way. Similarly, I as a Berserk reader don't want to be a butcher. I have a passing interest in the macabre, but I don't want to work in a museum of horrors.

In case you don't know, Berserk is a long running manga (comic) that has been adapted into an anime multiple times. It's a dark fantasy about a man who kills demons with a massive sword. It is firmly in the seinen genre. Seinen means "young men", not boys. Its target audience is adults with male interests. It has mature themes; it has some nudity and lots of violence. It's horror. Some of the horror is very mundane; for example, the evil deeds of regular men include torture and various cruelties. Some of the horror is more cosmic. For example, the setting has a generic western religion like Christianity, but the religion is false within the setting. The god in Berserk is indifferent to human suffering, and there is no heaven. Further, God is responsible for the presence and empowerment of man-eating demons who's physical might far exceeds ordinary men. This is dark stuff.

One of my favorite parts is when they introduce Farnese. She's a young noble woman who was assigned to this symbolic position as a leader in an army that answers directly to the setting's equivalent of the Vatican. The story slowly reveals that she's a pyromaniac because they used to burn witches alive outside her bedroom window when she was a little girl and so now, she has a cruelty-streak because of it. As an adult, she thinks she understands God's divine order for the world - then she meets the hero who's perpetually stalked by things that should be an abomination to that divine order. This is tantamount to forbidden knowledge, and encountering demons causes her to go temporarily mad and lose her faith. I consider loss of faith a form of cosmic horror in a way that loss of a hand is body horror. It's interesting. There also may or may not also be a scene where she grinds her groin on the hero's sword which is neither here nor there. Don't worry about it.

The point is there's a lot of complex and inappropriate stuff in this series. Before you judge me, let me explain. Given all this wild stuff, it's done artistically. That is to say, there's artistry in the choices made for when and where and how to depict this stuff. It doesn't show nudity for its own sake. It's not used to please the audience. It doesn't show gore for the sake of it. It shows these things with an intent of evoking a sensation in the audience. Some scenes are intended to be disturbing or sickening. If doesn't show blood and gore insipidly, it's precise. There's a scene for instance where the hero stabs a very attractive, naked villainess though the stomach and she derives sexual pleasure from this. It mixes the sensations of horror and sexual thrill. The result is a weird sickening sensation that you feel in your gut. This is why I liken the horror of Berserk to adrenaline seeking behavior. Berserk does the sensation of horror like skydiving does the sensation of adrenaline.

Like I said, the series does this with precision. It picks its moments. It does not indulge. If every panel had something horrifying, you would become desensitized and it would lose its effectiveness. There are quiet contemplative moments where characters sit around a fire and talk about their dreams. Real life years and years of content later, some of those characters get eaten alive and it's shocking. So, in summary, I read Berserk for this artistic use of this subject matter, not the (over) indulgence of it.

Now, would I put this subject matter explicitly in my TTRPGs like Dungeons & Dragons? The answer is a firm no. Why? Because I know that it's not for everyone. Also, even I would probably be uncomfortable. That said, I refuse to overly sterilize or over sanitize my setting as I believe this is infantilization and kitsch. I would be happy to say that some of these darker things exist in my setting, because their absence would be conspicuous. By conspicuously absent, I mean it would be distracting and immersion breaking if something wasn't present. In other words, how can you believe there is danger in the world if the world is too nice and safe? Therefore, some of it exists implicitly in the setting. Let me use a very safe metaphor to illustrate my point. Puppies die. When I say puppies die, this is code (or a euphemism) for any horrible thing you might imagine. Implicit means yes, there are puppies that die in the setting, but we don't need to show puppies die. Sometimes, it's good enough to hint that puppies die off-screen. We don't need to indulge in puppies dying, but they do. 

Even Star Wars, a franchise considered to be intended for children, has torture, sexy dancers, war, slavery, murder, dismemberment, brother-on-sister kisses, use of deadly poisons, no bras in space, and off-screen youngling slaying. In conclusion, we're not doing gore-fest, but you do need to pick moments in fiction to absolutely splatter someone.

Story Structure in TTRPGs

TL;DR, never call Act I an introduction. That's massively underexplaining what Act I is. Also, I worked out a really good reason not to play 5e D&D.

In story structure, Act I is the set up, Act II is the execution, and Act III is the resolution. 

In Act I, you set up the story. By the end of Act I, the themes, major characters, setting, conflict, stakes, and the goal should be established for the audience (or participants in TTRPGs). Act I ends when an event or action forces the hero (or by choice of the hero, but usually it's not their choice) to put their normal life on hold to engage with that conflict and pursue that goal. The number of choices available to the hero are greatest in Act I.

Act II is where you execute that story set up in Act I. If you set up a mystery, you execute the mystery, etc.  Act II is the longest act. Act II is about the hero engaging with escalating obstacles and risks in the setting as he pursues his goal. Obstacles (AKA trials) prepare the hero for their goal, first by testing the hero's skills and revealing his weaknesses or flaws, then by taking away his resources or nullifying his strengths, and by giving him lessons that make him stronger or wiser. Obstacles force heroes to confront failure; they force heroes to change or grow. Throughout Act II, minor characters and subplots may be expanded on or introduced, and are resolved before the end of Act II. During Act II, the hero's choices are narrowed down. By the end, the hero commits to one path. Act II ends when the tested and tried hero has overcome the obstacles and has learned from them, and is finally ready to confront the main antagonist.

Act III is where you resolve the story set up in Act I. It begins with a final confrontation with the primary antagonist that shows the hero's growth and how that growth made them worthy of their goal. Act III ends showing the audience the consequences of the hero's choices on the world; the world is not reset.

In good TTRPGs, Act I looks a bit like this: You ask the players what they want, give them some opportunities to get it, establish the obstacles that each choice will force on them, let them choose their preferred opportunity, then set them loose. I might even suggest working this into the ending of the previous adventure so that you start the next adventure with momentum. In D&D 5e, you pick one pre-written campaign book with a preset path and story.

In TTRPGS, Act II depends on the game you're playing. In 5e, you smash things, level up, gain powers, smash bigger things, level and gain more powers, and smash bigger things. Repeat until the second biggest thing is smashed and the players get some McGuffin. All while following a story that's already been written and is intended for general audiences.

In TTRPGs, 5e specifically, Act III is an obligatory fight with a damage sponge and a whole lot of cheap powers. Then you win the D&D. Seriously, why are you playing 5e? Stories are fundamentally about showing a character growing from a state of immaturity to maturity and imparting a lesson (a theme). Ever wonder why they call the moral of the story a theme? Stories are satisfying when a need for the growth is established in Act I, when the growth is earned through struggle in Act II, and when Act III reveals the results of that growth in a way that reinforces the lesson of the story. This character growth themes the story.

Managing Expectations in TTRPGs

Every time I've ever ran a TTRPG or been invited to play TTRPG, I have been disappointed by something, and I've dropped out of a few groups when it was bad enough. Managing expectations was a concern of mine from the very beginning. I think I've found the vocabulary that I need to describe concepts that GMs can and should use when inviting players to their game. These five items below should help you no matter what kind of game you're running. Explain these ideas to your players as early as possible.

1. Fiction Doesn't Mean Anything Goes

Have you ever told someone that their idea didn't make sense, and their response was something like "but it's [fiction / fantasy / sci-fi]" and the implications was that because something (the game) is fiction, anything should be permissible? Here's the counter argument. Just because something is [fiction / fantasy / sci-fi], that doesn't mean anything goes. Fantasy is fiction with fantastic stuff. In fiction, the limitations of the fantastic elements are established, and then the rest of the setting is assumed to be based in realism which we can all relate to. Note that realism here is not the same as trying to create a game or setting that simulates what is realistic. Note that the core rules do not say "disregard realism" or "default to realism", this is a ruling made by the GM; however, defaulting to realism as a rule of thumb is useful because it gives us a common understanding of how the world works where the rules of the game do not cover, and common understanding allows the GM to be fair and consistent in their rulings and helps the players to understand the limitations of what they can do and cannot do. This also has the benefit of simplifying the game.

2. Forget Everything You Know About X

Tell your players to forget everything they know about fantasy, sci-fi, horror, 5e, Faerun, Eberron, World of Warcraft, etc. Do not let them bring their knowledge or expectations about goblins or vampires or were-creatures or magic to your game. Tell them that in your setting, these things might work differently, and that by relying on their knowledge of other settings or pop culture can spoil the experience of your game for themselves. Tell them you expect them to figure things out through exploration, social interaction, and experience in play. Alternatively, this common knowledge can give us a starting point to understand a setting, and so you would want to provide them with a list of other fiction that has inspired your game like D&D's famous Appendix N. I personally do not like Tolkien's interpretation on elves, dwarves, and hobbits (halflings). 

3. Generic Setting vs Curated Setting

Tell your players that the GM is the curator of the setting. As curator, you decide what is appropriate for the setting and what is not. Tell your players whether you are running a generic fantasy setting that is a hodgepodge of fantasy's most popular ideas intended for mass appeal, or if you are running a game in a curated setting with select fantasy ideas intended for a niche audience. Even a kitchen sink setting can have a few restrictions for the sake of keeping the game simple to prep and run for the GM, and to create a more focused or cohesive experience for the players.

4. Don't Ruin the Mood

People go to see movies for the kind of movie it promises to be. An action movie that's just sad and doesn't have very much action would be disappointing. Now imagine going to see a horror move that has 15 minutes of good, uninterrupted comedy that breaks all the tension. Imagine going to comedy that has 15 minutes of uninterrupted violence and gore that leaves you feeling too disgusted to enjoy the rest of the humor. Some people think a TTRPG has room for everything, but for me, these are examples of ruining the mood. Tell your players to be considerate of the mood of a scene or situation, especially when the focus is on another player character. Tell your players the kind of mood or overall tone you want for your game. Do you want a game with a more serious tone like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, or do you want a game with a whacky fun tone like a Marvels movie or even some cartoon. Tell your players to make a character who suits the tone of the game.

5. Compatible Playstyles

This is a response to the famous excuse "I'm just playing my character TM". Every player plays differently. Your playstyle describes more than what your fantastic race / background / class is, but also how you play it. Define how you want your players to play the game from the beginning. I want the players to have cooperative playstyles, but I find too often that there are players who have made characters who not cooperative. They make crazy, loner, mischievous, selfish, greedy, or violent characters. The intent may be innocent, but the effect is that their playstyle is incompatible with others' if not antagonistic. They inevitably complicate or ruin a scene or goal for another player and spoil the fun for them. The offending player provides the famous excuse TM, and they avoid taking responsibility or making changes to their playstyle. Don't give your players the opportunity to even make that character. At character creation, tell your players they need to make a character who can work as part of a team and play collaboratively. Suggest that the players all make characters who are morally compatible or who share the same beliefs, values, or goals.

There you go. These five rules should stop your players from making that chaotic neutral cyborg ninja turtle-kin from the future who multiclassed into batman and power rangers and who worships the god of math and speaks in the third person using a Jersey accent and he loves eating mustard by itself. As a bonus sixth tip, tell your players they need to make a likable character, and that is a concept itself that will have to be defined, but most importantly it means don't make an asshole or a dick.

Monsters in Fiction

What is a monster? Monsters are the personifications of things we fear and the unknown. They are not people. They are not intended to be or represent people. Monsters are placed into stories that try to describe things that go bump in the night and to evoke some macabre thrill, fear, or disgust in the audience. Monsters are dangerous and opposed to mankind. Either they're malevolent or simply indifferent to our suffering. They are characterized by extreme vices, strange powers, and mysterious weaknesses. They are meant as obstacles for the brave or wise to overcome, avoid, or flee from. Sometimes, the innate inhumanity they represent reinforces our humanity.

In the context of literature, a foil is a type of character who is used to contrast another character, and the effect of using a foil is to emphasize specific characteristics of one or the other character. Simply put, a good character's goodness is emphasized when compared to a bad character's badness. Monsters are the foil of humanity, and so it is inappropriate to humanize them. To humanize the monster is to make it into a new variety of a human with a variation on human morality and human thinking and human feeling. It suggests that on some level, every thinking thing is similar or the same. To do this is reductive to the purpose of monsters. Humanizing monsters takes away from their potential for mysteriousness and alienness, and it minimizes the horror of the unknown that they represent. The audience is meant to hear the pitter patter of its nails in the dark or its grim laugh, and to see the signs it left behind, not to learn about its complex social order and psychology. For some audiences or gamers, this is the premise of monsters that we desire. If you want to treat monsters as people, you ruin this premise of monsters for the rest of us, and you are a spoil sport. 

Were I to write my own TTRPG with a monster book, this is the text that would precede the rest of the book. I would elaborate with this. The lore of a monster is what is known about it, or thought to be known, by people in the setting. Lore is therefore incomplete and not guaranteed to be true. The Game Master or GM, being the curator of their game and setting, may change lore to suit it. The characters in the setting may be assumed to have no knowledge of the lore, and so they have to consult with experts. The characters must seek out and arm themselves with knowledge in preparation for their confrontation with danger. Lore is therefore earned by a process of discovery, and may require significant effort or cost or sacrifice. The stat block is a way of mechanizing the monster for play. Monster stat blocks remove the abstraction and mystery, and so they are metaknowledge, and not to be used as knowledge known by any ordinary character. In general, it is not within the spirit of the game to play your character using knowledge that you have that your character doesn't have, and is in effect cheating or spoiling the game as one might spoil the ending of a film for yourself or others. Players fear what they don't know. If fear and discovery would enhance a portion of your game, then the GM is encouraged to create their own monsters and to never use monsters as they are purely presented in the rules.

The reason why I would write a monster book for a TTRPG is so that I could write it with my desired premise built in. When you play a TTRPG such as D&D 5e for instance, it's fair to say that you can modify it however you want, but it's also fair to say that people have expectations for individual games, and when they're invited to play 5e, their expectation is to play with the 5e material as it is presented, and so they might be averse to any changes. The introduction to my monster book would be intended to prime my readers for my concept of monsters rather than theirs. If they agree to play their game using my monster book, they are agreeing to my premise, not theirs. I would explicitly address that my conception of monsters might be incompatible yours. If you try to seduce the dragon, it will automatically fail and for that turn, you will be vulnerable to the dragon meaning you don't benefit from your armor or saving throws.