D&D General The Alexandrian’s Insights In a Nutshell [+]

[Jahydin]

Talking about Justin as a person is off topic for this thread, so if there’s something good from his book, I see no reason not to share it (especially if it builds or expands upon what he’s posted on his site).

Awesome! I certainly will.
I'm only half way done, but picked it up again, so will update as I go.

One of the first things I picked up on that he teaches (that took me a long time to realize) was the best games are ran somewhere between the "completely neutral arbiter" and "obnoxious cheerleader" DM style. That is, when players ask for something, always try to discern intent and help them out when it makes sense. Also, be generous with information if it makes for more interesting decisions.

A quick made up example of mine:
PCs come to a magically locked door...

PC: "I pick the lock on the door."
*DM lets player roll even though it doesn't matter. Begins talking as soon as the die is rolled though..."
DM: "You quickly realize the craftsmanship is beyond your capabilities. You can only guess some sort of magic is at play here."
Brief pause to see if the group remembers the riddle that was given out earlier.
DM: "As you discuss the situation, you seem to recall that riddle you paid the drunk to hear might be a clue..."
PC: "Oh yeah, the stars and moon one... I drew it out here somewhere...

Anyways, quick example to show a couple times the DM could just have said, "You fail.", or just stared at them waiting for them to come up with the solution. Getting the players to the part where they solve your cool puzzle is the "fun part", so nudging them in the right direction to get them there is fine. Also, if they figured it out before your hint, even better, reward them!

Alexander seems to get what makes D&D (especially 5E) fun and I think it's great it's all packed in this one book.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I might have to get around to getting his book. I do tend to enjoy his essays, when I hold my nose when it comes to his ego.

As far as defining "plot" goes, my previous comments on it was only to illustrate that when JA says "design situations, not plots" he doesn't mean "do not create any framework for the story to move forward". He means "don't define the details on how it moves forward".

Yes, it will arrive eventually at something that resembles "a plot".

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I might have to get around to getting his book. I do tend to enjoy his essays, when I hold my nose when it comes to his ego.

As far as defining "plot" goes, my previous comments on it was only to illustrate that when JA says "design situations, not plots" he doesn't mean "do not create any framework for the story to move forward". He means "don't define the details on how it moves forward".

Yes, it will arrive eventually at something that resembles "a plot".

Of course it will any game with events happening is effectively "plot" in that sense.

 

[hawkeyefan]

He means "don't define the details on how it moves forward"

Except three clues!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The point of the three clue rule is so that they do not miss the next step

The point is to make it hard for them to miss. But never underestimate the obtuseness of players.

And what does “stuck doing boring stuff” mean?

Stuff the DM hasn't prepped in advance with interesting characters, narratives, lore dumps, pretty pictures etc.

Why bother with that, though? If you want them to deal with the monsters, why not just give them the information? Why tease it out and make them “work” for it?

Why not just have the monsters keel over dead the moment they spot the PCs? Finding the monsters, just like fighting the monsters, is part of the fun of the game. Of course, if the players are only interested in combat, I would suggest keeping the detective work to a minimum.

Got any examples you can share?

If you like. The current adventure. I start with the basic set up. In this case, the PCs have been hired to find the archaeologist husband of an NPC friend they met in a previous adventure, who's expedition has been missing for four years. The players do not know that he has been transformed into a lycanthrope-like monster after eating some strange herbs he found on the dig (the movie The Relic was a vague inspiration). I also know the setting is Ravenloft and the PCs are level 7. But none of this is written down (until now). What I actually write down is I started by creating a hex map of the swamp-like Ravenloft domain where the expedition disappeared. I seed the map with stuff related to the plot, such as a couple of dig sites, and ancient ruin, along with locations that are either interesting, useful or rewarding, such as an inn run by lizard-folk, a dragon lair, a strange colony of mycanoids living on a dragon-turtle spore servant, etc. I also create a random encounter table, some of the encounters are "creepy swamp" generic but others are related to the story, such as hunters who are also after the monster, or previous adventures, such as zombie pirate assassins hunting the PCs because they betrayed them in a previous adventure. I place the missing arachnologist along with clues to help the players find him, as well as clues and items that could lead to the PCs either curing or killing him (this being Ravenloft he is almost unkillable otherwise). There are about three different ways the players could cure him, although one would involve someone else becoming the monster, and another requires a trip to Barovia. So, having placed the pieces, I let the story unfold as the players interact with them.

 

[mamba]

Except three clues!

the clues do not move the game forward on their own, so no…

 

[Paul Farquhar]

the clues do not move the game forward on their own, so no…

That would depend upon what you mean by "moving the narrative forward". Clearly, the players are not required to act on any of the clues. However, in a story, simply obtaining more information could be considered an advancement of the narrative.

 

[pemerton]

The following is a quote from the Alexandrian's essay on the "three clue rule":

Whenever you’re designing a mystery scenario, you should invariably follow the Three Clue Rule:

For any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three clues.

Why three? Because the PCs will probably miss the first; ignore the second; and misinterpret the third before making some incredible leap of logic that gets them where you wanted them to go all along.

I’m kidding, of course. But if you think of each clue as a plan (the PCs will find A, conclude B, and go to C), then when you have three clues you’ve not only got a plan — you’ve also got two backup plans. And when you realize that your plans never survive contact with the players, the need for those backup plans becomes clear.

In a best case scenario, of course, the players will find all three clues. There’s nothing wrong with that. They can use those clues to confirm their suspicions and reinforce their conclusions (just like Sherlock Holmes).

In a worst case scenario, they should be able to use at least one of these clues to reach the right conclusion and keep the adventure moving.​

Manifestly, this is advice on how to prepare a plot. There is a "scenario", and "adventure" that one "keep(s) moving". There is a plan on the part of the GM - the PCs find A, conclude B and therefore go to C - which is facilitated by the backup plans of redundant clues. In order to make this plan happen, the GM, "all along", "wants" the players (as their PCs) to reach certain conclusions.

As @kenada has already noted upthread, The Alexandrian offers this structure for mystery scenarios as an alternative to what he calls the "breadcrumb" approach, which he associates with GUMSHOE, of the GM foregrounding a single clue for each A to C via B transition. These alternatives differ in terms of transition technique: GUMSHOE relies on overt, GM-initiated revelation; while "three clues" relies on players declaring and succeeding at actions that then prompt the GM to reveal a clue. But the two alternatives clearly do not differ in terms of plotting.

 

[Shardstone]

17 pages...I was away from this thread for a day...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Whenever you’re designing a mystery scenario

Manifestly, this is advice on how to prepare a plot.

Indeed, as he states in his opening sentence that you quoted, it's advice on how to prepare A MYSTERY SCENARIO (which one would expect to have a plot of some sort). It is explicitly NOT advice on how to prepare a sandbox, a Story Now game, or how to convert a tractor to run on biofuel.