• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

5 Lessons for DMs from the LOST Series Bible

JJ Abrams made TV history with his groundbreaking series LOST -- and, love it or hate it, it's hard to argue that the show wasn't a significant accomplishment on Network TV, a landscape dominated by reality programming and multi-camera, laugh-track powered sitcoms.

Just this past Thursday, BoingBoing.com noted the appearance online of a PDF of the original LOST series bible[ ]. It's a 27 page document addressed to the folks who will be supporting and working on the show, and as interesting as it is on it's own, there are some really important messages to take away for Dungeon Masters of all stripes.


View attachment 59036
So here goes:

1. Be Bold

When you're planning your campaign, or planning an adventure within an existing campaign, don't hold back. Imagine stories that you would tell if there were no limitations.

Abrams faced serious limitations -- budget, for one thing. Studios want shows that can be produced on a soundstage, where expenses can be controlled. And you can see some of Abrams' efforts to convince the studio folks that he was going to try to manage those costs:

Our idea is to build a jungle inside a soundstage. And in this patch of jungle, our characters will begin to build their own "mini" sets. Call it a primitive "Melrose Place.

And, if you watched the series, you remember that a lot of the interaction took place within their home camp, especially during that first season, but it never felt like a soundstage, and as the season went on, more and more of the show took place in a wide variety of locations.

For your own games, don't worry about things like how you'll manage to handle encounters as you imagine them -- if you can imagine a scene where the PCs wind up riding dragons into battle, and it makes sense, run with it, and trust yourself to come up with a way to stage the encounter.

Your only limitation should be your imagination -- and that should be no limitation at all.

2. Your Characters are the story

From the PDF:

At the end of the day,. LOST will sink or swim purely on the merit of its characters…and taking a page from the successful playbook of Reality Television, we've stocked our island with the ingredients for limitless conflict. No Conflict, No Drama.

Your campaign -- and your adventures -- should be an expression of your characters -- PCs and NPCs. Players that give you strong backgrounds are asking you to include those backgrounds in your campaign -- and you're absolutely required to do so. By the same token, your important NPCs should have a bit of backstory that informs who they are and what they're going to be looking for in your story.

But more importantly, think about how you can build conflicts into PCs and NPCs for your game -- and turn those conflicts into stories. If you've got a barbarian who loves to drink beer, you're going to need an NPC teetotaler cleric -- either as a PC or an NPC.

At the same time, your PCs may have stories which are not completely revealed at first. Using Jack as a model, here's what the show bible says about him: "…much of Jack's past is shrouded in mystery. Simply put, out's not something he likes to talk about -- but if he did, it would certainly explain his tattoos."

As a DM, given that in a PC background, aren't your wheels spinning already?

3. Mystery is engaging

Few shows have excited so much speculation about the inherent mysteries that LOST did.

Which brings us to what may be the key ingredient for LOST --

Mystery

The hope is that every episode will be anchored by some type of MYSTERY -- an event or task that gives each episode a driving investigative thread, even if that mystery is as simple as figuring out why there is seemingly no fresh water on the island, why everyone is getting sick, or where one of our characters has disappeared to.

For an RPG -- at least, for most RPGs before Gumshoe -- mysteries were a tough thing to include -- and games like 4e that excelled at combat and encounter design tended to sideline mystery as a compelling game element.

But the mysteries that LOST spun for it's audience were a critical part of what kept the show in people's minds from one week to the next. Watercooler debates about the nature of the island, the polar bear, the Dharma institute, and Locke's apparent mystical connection to the island -- those rivaled Facebook as a productivity sink at most workplaces.

What if your home game could keep your players just as engaged between sessions -- just as intrigued by the mysteries they're caught within.


4. Don't limit yourself to one type of story

The third part of the show bible includes a discussion of the sorts of stories that they could tell -- basically thumbnails for a wide variety of episodes they might shoot. Some sound like the seeds of episodes we saw -- others obviously didn't make it out of the writer's room, but the collection is a great example of the creative range that's possible, even within what could be a limited setting.

The key to many of them, goes back to my second point - character. Check out a couple of excerpts:

Vincent
In an attempt to find common ground with Walt, Michael ventures into the jungle to find his son's pet Labrador. Upon locating Vincent, Michael is surprised to see that not only has the fog's ear been bitten off, but the bite marks appear to be human.


Sawyer's Deal
Having cornered the market on alcohol by liberating all the booze from the fuselage, Sawyer refuses to turn over some of his booty to Jack, who needs it for his makeshift infirmary…but when Sawyer finds himself in that same infirmary after a run-in with a wild boar, the 'negotiations' take on a whole new tack. "

These -- like a great many of the 30 sample stories in the bible -- are examples of different potential story lines that come directly out of the characters and the drama they bring to the show. The same thing can be true of your PCs and NPCs if you take the time to develop the conflicts and tensions that exist between them.

If you're looking for ideas for building that sort of conflict between your players, take a look at an old column of mine that details using Fiasco as a tool for building those connections between characters [http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?574-Gamehackery ]


5. You Don't Need to have it all figured out at the start

One of the most fascinating things, reading this document, is that even though they're clearly holding some of their ideas back from the reader, they did not have the whole thing figured out when they started out.

Sure, there are things in the document that would not play out until several seasons into the show. But there are clearly details -- big, important things - that were left to figure out as they went along.

In other cases, there are signs here of things that changed by the time the show aired. Take Hurley, for example. The bio for him in the bible describes him as "born into a vast Puerto Rican family" who had "parlayed his skills into a career in asset recovery -- a Repo Man able to talk anyone out of anything." That's a lot different from the character who had been in a mental hospital and used the island's secret sequence of numbers to win the lottery.

In your own games, anything that is not nailed down already in the player's information is entirely free to change -- and anything they know already could also change, for a variety of reasons. Don't allow yourself to be trapped by past ideas -- if you come up with a better one, find a way to make it work, even if it means putting Hurley in the nuthouse.

###

So. That's what I'm getting out of it. What do YOU think are the most important lessons to be learned from LOST?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nr 5 is completely and utterly wrong. This is exactly what killed LOST. That the writers themselves had no idea whats going on which made the series more absurd with every season to the point were the viewers stopped to care after they realized that there is no hidden truth to be discovered and instead just random events mashed together by the writers which can never be resolved in a plausible way. Thats why when you ask people about LOST, most will not remember the mystery filled first few seasons but how bad the last few seasons and the ending was.

I disagree with you in some other things, too, including the importance of Lost, but that is my biggest grief with that article.

The most important lesson from LOST is to not make the same mistakes as LOST did, namely have no idea what happens in your story.

I think the concept of #5 isn't bad, but the execution of it leads to risking an convoluted or contradictory plot.

Battlestar Galactica suffered from this as well, where they admitted to making up what happens next and what it means as they went along.

For Lost (which I'm rewatching now after several years), it suffers from hyper-symbolism and Giant Onionism. There's so much material put in there that it begins to feel like nothing means anything, they just grabbed every trick they learned in English Literature class. Then wrapped it with too many layers of negating onion skin. The island isn't weird because of the Dharma Initiative, it's because of the Others. No, it's not them, it's Jacob and his brother Johnny Cash (that's symbolism). No, they're not seeing an alternate reality, this is the afterlife, which really means the whole series was just Purgatory. No, that's not what Lindelhof meant, it was just a nice way to decompress the audience.

There were plenty of great characters and great ideas. But some ideas needed to be decided on early, locked in, and balanced with plausibility and over complexity.

I think part of the problem is these shows are written as seasons, and often without an end in sight. The writers finish the season cliff hanger, go on vacation, and then come back to figure what to do next.

JMS's Babylon 5 shows a better approach.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



You should have a solid answer all the time, so no matter when you have to make the final reveal, you have something cool to show for it.

Now, that doesn't preclude having multiple possible answers (all of which can be reconciled with the facts) or even changing answers in mid-stream. But, whatever happens, you don't want to get to the end of your run and have people realize the mysteries were a sham, that you were just throwing noise up at them to trick them into thinking there was a pattern.
Absolutely!
One of the things that made Castle Ravenloft such a great adventure module, imho, was the idea that there was no single true answer to the question what was actually going on. But instead of determining plot, motivation, and the location of important relics beforehand using a random method (as advocated by the module), you could just as easily leave it open until the pcs actually arrive at their own answers or at a location that might potentially hold something they're looking for. Depending on how the adventure progresses, their first idea doesn't have to be the correct one, but it might.

It's most important that the players' choices aren't meaningless: It should be their actions that dictate what happens next. So you cannot just leave everything open indefinitely. Just make the decision on the 'correct' version as late as possible.
 

I think the concept of #5 isn't bad, but the execution of it leads to risking an convoluted or contradictory plot.

Battlestar Galactica suffered from this as well, where they admitted to making up what happens next and what it means as they went along.

While in theory I would agree, I'm not convinced I've seen any examples of it being done well. Lost, BSG, and the X-Files all fell into the same traps - because they hadn't mapped out the big reveals, but gave the impression that they had, they were left trying to put together a resolution that made sense, without introducing inconsistencies with what was already seen... and inevitably either forgot something important or, more likely, just became absurd.

JMS's Babylon 5 shows a better approach.

Absolutely... though not a flawless one. I've been rewatching the show over the past few months, and am now in the middle of the final season. And while much of the story is still solid, in retrospect it's quite obvious that certain changes in cast must have dramatically changed the story (mostly the replacement of Sinclair, but also Ivanova's departure). I would very much know how the original story was supposed to play out.

(Incidentally, I did once run a Vampire campaign that was heavily influenced by B5, including some big reveals that were set up in the second session but didn't pay off until 5 years (real-time) later. I don't recommend it - that one required a massive amount of work, and by the time we got there the campaign had lost so much steam that we were all just trying to see it through to the end.)
 

When it comes to mysteries, I'm a great believer in the utility of the Three Clue Rule. In order to place clues to the answer to a puzzle, though, you really need to know what the answer is.

My most recent campaign contained several mysteries, all leading up to a couple of big reveals, and with clues scattered liberally throughout. By the time the PCs were heading towards the climax of the campaign, they engaged in a fairly detailed discussion of "why are we doing this?" During the course of that discussion, the players laid out about 90% of the secrets of the campaign, and got them 90% accurate throughout - all of it leading to a good, solid reason for them to be on their way. (Or, conversely, a good reason for them to not do so. But that would have been fine too; it just would have been a different campaign.)

That was one of the most satisfying moments in 25 years of gaming for me, because it was a plot that I'd made, and it was one that I'd presented well enough that the players were able to figure it out. Of course, it also helped enormously that I had a fantastic group of players for that campaign.
 

While in theory I would agree, I'm not convinced I've seen any examples of it being done well. Lost, BSG, and the X-Files all fell into the same traps - because they hadn't mapped out the big reveals, but gave the impression that they had, they were left trying to put together a resolution that made sense, without introducing inconsistencies with what was already seen... and inevitably either forgot something important or, more likely, just became absurd.
All of that makes sense in terms of pure storytelling, but I think in D&D (and to a lesser extent, TV), it's important to not know everything ahead of time, both so the experience of playing the game/telling the story can mean something, but also so that other people can be allowed to influence the outcome.

I find the balance between dictating in advance and not dictating story points and narrative flow is perhaps the most significant challenge in DMing.
 

All of that makes sense in terms of pure storytelling, but I think in D&D (and to a lesser extent, TV), it's important to not know everything ahead of time, both so the experience of playing the game/telling the story can mean something, but also so that other people can be allowed to influence the outcome.

I find the balance between dictating in advance and not dictating story points and narrative flow is perhaps the most significant challenge in DMing.

I'd agree with this -- it's the difference between taking the players on a great roller coaster ride and joining them on a road trip. Both can be fun, but the road trip is more collaborative -- but I think it can be more challenging.

-j
 

Inconsistencies...

Yes, if you are in "the making it up as you go along" approach -- which I am -- you DO have to take into account what has been decided/revealed/generated over the course of play. Which does mean certain decisions DO have to be made along the way, it's just that you don't have to know everything in the beginning.

In my current campaign, one of the major plot elements (a demonic conspiracy) started as a red herring. The players got into it, so I kept on picking at it, and two years later, now I know it's a real thing. That likely could not have happened without actually playing the game.
 

Inconsistencies...

Yes, if you are in "the making it up as you go along" approach -- which I am -- you DO have to take into account what has been decided/revealed/generated over the course of play. Which does mean certain decisions DO have to be made along the way, it's just that you don't have to know everything in the beginning.

In my current campaign, one of the major plot elements (a demonic conspiracy) started as a red herring. The players got into it, so I kept on picking at it, and two years later, now I know it's a real thing. That likely could not have happened without actually playing the game.

That might be the key to where Lost went wrong.

In their effort to be sneaky, they would show enough info to form one view of what's going on, but then they'd pull the rug out and negate all that investment that the viewers built up.

What it sounds like you've done is after a bit of congealing process, you've decided to stick with a "truth" and leave it there.

I think that's a decent way to use "make it up as you go" without letting it spoil the final product.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top