• 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

Worse. As the show developed a large and very earnest following the show-runners began facing questions by the fans who were happily and rabidly engaged in actually TRYING to figure out what the meaning of it all was. They obviously did NOT have answers to give them, much less to attempt to hide from them or misdirect them about. So they LIED. They were faced directly with the growing and fairly common conclusion by fans (myself among them) who said, "They're all dead." To which they were told, "No. That's not it." The response was, "Well, they're obviously in some kind of Limbo then." And they said, "No that's not it either." And then when the show wraps up it turns out that's EXACTLY what the solution was.

Well... except, of course, that the characters weren't all dead until they started doing the flash-sideways in the last season.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A question for you: in a dungeon-crawl, would you place a secret door in the dungeon in response to the Rogue deciding to search for one? Why (not)?
While the question wasn't addressed at me, I'd still like to answer it from my viewpoint:
I might do that in case the following two things are true:
- there is actually a secret door hidden somewhere in the complex which the party (so far) overlooked - or there is an item I'd like them to have which they've overlooked, and a secret room would be a good alternative place for it to be found.
- the rogue has arguably a good reason for suspecting the existence of a secret door in the place she's searching.

I'm not a friend of placing secret doors (or traps) in a random place. Their placement must make sense, because they normally represent a significant expenditure of resources for its builder. So, if the players come up with a better idea for a well-placed secret door (or trap), I might be inclined to move it.
 

While the question wasn't addressed at me, I'd still like to answer it from my viewpoint:

And I'm glad for it. It's an interesting topic, and I'd much rather discuss this than the minutae of optimised builds in 3e, or whatever the latest controversy is. :)

I might do that in case the following two things are true:
- there is actually a secret door hidden somewhere in the complex which the party (so far) overlooked - or there is an item I'd like them to have which they've overlooked, and a secret room would be a good alternative place for it to be found.
- the rogue has arguably a good reason for suspecting the existence of a secret door in the place she's searching.

Interesting. Actually, I like that approach.

I'm not a friend of placing secret doors (or traps) in a random place.

No, I absolutely agree. It's actually something I gave quite a bit of thought to about a year ago, when I concluded that I'd been doing it wrong for 20 years. Basically, I had been in the habit of just placing these things more or less randomly, as one more hazard for the PCs to deal with.

After my rethink, though, I concluded that secret doors (and traps) were better treated as challenges for the players, essentially as mini-puzzles within the adventure. And, since they were puzzles, a better way forward would be to apply the Three Clue Rule, in order to give the players some scope with which to find those secret doors/traps/whatever.

(Of course, that was what I figured was best for me - I'm not claiming at as a One True Way. :) )

(A corollary to this came out of pondering the level design in the Lego Video Games, where I noted that my wife and I had quite different approaches to them - she likes to blaze through the story and then leaves the game, while I prefer to collect all the "True Jedi" marks, the hidden canisters, etc. Which suggested to me that the best adventures should have multiple levels of 'puzzles' - a minimal set of necessary puzzles that must be overcome to complete the adventure, a second set of 'reward' puzzles that aren't required but which give extra treasure or other rewards, and then a third set of 'easter egg' puzzles for those players who are really keen. Of course, actually implementing that is a lot more work than just slapping down a few traps and secret doors!)
 

Well... except, of course, that the characters weren't all dead until they started doing the flash-sideways in the last season.

Other than Lindelhof's say so AFTER the show, what evidence do you have to support that?

The show itself doesn't really give any. The characters arrrive in a magical place by luckily surviving a serious plane crash. They're tormented by their own inner demons and that of the denizens of the island.

Among these flawed people are candidates for the new caretaker of the island. And while we see plenty of people die (or graduate from this level), we never actually see them leave (the oceanic six are just as likely to be continuing to suffer in this nether plane of torment).

the whole show COULD be a lot of things. What it isn't is definitive.
 

Other than Lindelhof's say so AFTER the show, what evidence do you have to support that?

The fact that several of them leave the island - the ones at the end of the show being the most obvious examples, but Sun and Locke also leave mid-way through. Indeed, one of the significant plots involves Sun trying to get back to the island.

the whole show COULD be a lot of things. What it isn't is definitive.

If it's not definitive, then it's also not possible to say the writers lied about the characters not being dead. If they say that it wasn't that, then presumably one of the other interpretations must apply.
 

The fact that several of them leave the island - the ones at the end of the show being the most obvious examples, but Sun and Locke also leave mid-way through. Indeed, one of the significant plots involves Sun trying to get back to the island.



If it's not definitive, then it's also not possible to say the writers lied about the characters not being dead. If they say that it wasn't that, then presumably one of the other interpretations must apply.

If the island represents purgatory or limbo, and the protagonists are dead, then "leaving the island" doesn't necessarily mean you've actually escaped back to the real world. Meaning that once in limbo, you experience what limbo wants you to experience. If that's a "real world" that imposes enough pressure on you to make you choose to return to limbo, then that is part of the trial that limbo represents.

therefore, in the They're all Dead theory, the Oceanic Six may have left the island, but they never left purgatory.

At the end of the series, we don't see the escapees actually arrive home from the island. the plane takes off. then we're back to flash sideways which is really the rest-state for limbo before they enter the pearly gates.

So, outside of the writers claiming otherwise, within the medium of just the TV episodes, is there anything to contradict the "They're all dead" theory?

It's possible there's a detail that proves something one way or another (I am in the middle of re-watching the series, and I haven't seen it).

but the problem with Lost (or as some folks perceive a problem) is that the process they used of making it up as they go along left the viewer with very little concrete definition as to what the whole thing was about.

Now its possible the writers intended it to be vague, so the audience could decide for themselves. I don't think as many people like that style of writing. I'd rather a writer tell me what their idea is, and then I'll decide if I like the idea.

Rather than witness a lot of uncertainty and argue with strangers on the internet about whether everybody was dead the whole time or not. I'd rather be wrong because I missed a detail and have you point it out to me, than this "it's what you make of it" wishy-washiness that we got.
 

If the island represents purgatory or limbo, and the protagonists are dead, then "leaving the island" doesn't necessarily mean you've actually escaped back to the real world. Meaning that once in limbo, you experience what limbo wants you to experience. If that's a "real world" that imposes enough pressure on you to make you choose to return to limbo, then that is part of the trial that limbo represents.

You realise, of course, that under the same logic absolutely anything that doesn't fit the theory can likewise be discarded. After all, the theory hinges on us accepting that what we are seeing (the real world) is in fact not what we're seeing.

As such, it's not a falsifiable theory.

But there's also not enough evidence to definitively prove that it is the case. And, as such, it's not really fair to conclude that the writers lied when they said it wasn't the case.
 

You realise, of course, that under the same logic absolutely anything that doesn't fit the theory can likewise be discarded. After all, the theory hinges on us accepting that what we are seeing (the real world) is in fact not what we're seeing.

As such, it's not a falsifiable theory.

But there's also not enough evidence to definitively prove that it is the case. And, as such, it's not really fair to conclude that the writers lied when they said it wasn't the case.

As others had posted earlier, there's indicators that the writers lied when they said they had a plan and weren't making it up as they went along. I can't prove it, but there's reason to believe the writers are liars with regards to the show.

And if you watch the show and ending without external information (ex. the writers' blog posts), then you may very well come away with the "they're all dead" conclusion. I know that's what I thought when I saw the ending with the plane on the beach.

As to disproving the "they're all dead" theory, once the island has been established as wierd and magical, all bets on what we see afterwards are potentially off. Thus, if it really was purgatory, I can buy the Oceanic Six being show their life as escapees from the island. And it would indeed be a test to see if they could be convinced to CHOOSE to come back.

However, along that line of logic, any "facts" that predate the crash that define the island as a real place would contradict the "they're all dead" theory. So Hurley learning about the numbers from a radio operator who heard them come from the island. The Black Rock crashed up on the island and its asssociation to the Whidmore family through the years (Charles Whidmore knew about the island through multiple vectors, not just the Dharma Initiative). Alpert recruiting the baby research doctor whose name I forget. These things appear to have happened before the Flight 815 crash and don't appear death or purgatory related.

Now it's also possible that the Purgatory faked all this information or memory, but that gets further into the argument you're making.

Suffice it to say, I don't believe They're All Dead, but I do see how the show did not help make that obvious.
 

As others had posted earlier, there's indicators that the writers lied when they said they had a plan and weren't making it up as they went along. I can't prove it, but there's reason to believe the writers are liars with regards to the show.

Ah, now that I can readily believe. The show is too much of a mess for me to believe it was all planned out from the outset. Indeed, I recall a colleague saying that he'd read somewhere one of the writers said they knew where they were going but had no idea how they were going to get there!

(Of course, as with all half-remembered conversations about half-remembered internet articles, and all of it from years ago... it may be utterly wrong. :) )
 

Ah, now that I can readily believe. The show is too much of a mess for me to believe it was all planned out from the outset. Indeed, I recall a colleague saying that he'd read somewhere one of the writers said they knew where they were going but had no idea how they were going to get there!

(Of course, as with all half-remembered conversations about half-remembered internet articles, and all of it from years ago... it may be utterly wrong. :) )

I wonder if RG imagined the rathole this thread would take when he wrote about using writing ideas from Lost for GMing. :)

I liked Lost. But I don't like the muddled mess parts where the writer part of my brain says they should have capped it off and made a cleaner story.

So rule #9 (or whatever we're at:

Know when to wrap it up.
Don't keep turning the current clues into red-herrings as new clues contradict the old ones. Don't force players to keep investigating the same mystery, at some point, give them solid clues, let them figure it out, and be done with it. Don't drag out a quest for too long. We know a farm boy can buy some droids and eventually destroy a major Imperial base in 2 hours of screen time. We don't need to drag out escaping an island over 6 seasons.*

*that's the flaw I see with any TV show with a singular task premise. Escape from a prison, kill the dictator, find out who burned you. these things should not take more than a season to resolve, in which case, your series is basically over. Trying to extend its life past that is where sharks get jumped, plausibility is lost, and audiences get fed up.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top