I’m going to be DMing a campaign of Curse of Strahd, the classic D&D module, using the Daggerheart system. Starting a campaign, re-starting this newsletter and a project to write about said campaign, naturally has me reflecting on beginnings.
I’m a huge devotee of a strong session zero, especially because my earliest TTRPG experiences were in a community that just... didn’t do them. So it took me ages to realise that all the conflicts people face in campaign—mismatched tonal expectations, characters who won’t cooperate, attitudes towards in-character conflict and PvP—could just be... discussed in advance. And thus would usually go away.
I’m not completely sure where this aversion to a strong, clear session zero comes from. I think part of it is that people just get swept up in the fun bits, the worldbuilding and the character creation, and don’t want to raise topics that they fear will start the campaign on a sour note. “Who am I to say that I don’t want to be in a party with a morally gray warlock whose patron commands them to kill civilians and punishes them when they refuse?”
I think it also comes from a fear of ruining the surprise in some way, wanting things to feel free and organic and story-focused. Deciding on a tone feels limiting—what if we’re just rolling along and a different tone emerges? Maybe I will turn out to be okay with the civilian-murdering warlock, why should I risk deciding that now? I want a serious, character-driven story, but I want my silly banter, too! I don’t want to have to decide if my character’s relationship with their estranged parents is going to feature parental loss or not, I just want the GM to surprise me.
But I’ve come to realise that setting these expectations doesn’t cut off avenues of fun, it enables them. Even players who know each other extremely well can end up on the wrong page, or propose a character concept that rubs someone the wrong way, and just ignoring these problems or hoping they work themselves out is what ruins experiences and sinks campaigns.
A strong session zero does mean closing off potential stories We decided that our Curse of Strahd campaign is not going to be light-hearted or parodic. Maybe there will be moments when that potential, rejected campaign will feel tempting, but that’s okay. Not every possibility can happen. And maybe there will even be story arcs or sessions where we all decide, actually, this is the moment.
Because that’s the other thing: session zero isn’t actually a one and done. It’s a way of beginning the conversation that will continue alongside the campaign for its entirety: are we having fun? Is this what we wanted it to be? How do we make sure we’re all happy with the story we’re telling, and how we’re telling it? We’ve all been in campaigns where raising these questions feels impossibly difficult, where I’m not having fun seems like something you could never bring yourself to say. My number one goal for this campaign, and always, is for that not to be the case. If the session zero conversation never stops, hopefully a player will never need to say they aren’t having fun—and if they do, then the space, language, and shared premise (”I know we said we want a serious tone, but I could use some levity now and again” or “At first I wanted everyone to treat my character like they’re really naive, but I’m actually getting tired of that now, let’s find a new dynamic”) are already right there.
I’m thinking of this post as session zero of this project: to document what will probably be at least a year of running a campaign of Curse of Strahd using the Daggerheart system. I’m treating this as a place for me to reflect on what I learn about the system, the module (and the heavy adaptations we’re making to it—more on that next time), and GMing generally. I hope it can also be an interesting and fun peek behind the screen for forever-players or people interested in learning to GM. Please feel free to ask questions and share your thoughts, too! I’m looking forward to venturing into Barovia together.