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

[Campbell]

we are talking about JA here, I am sure Vincent Baker has a different take on a lot of things

The first quote from AW is basically saying the same, I am sure Vince and you take that to more of an extreme than JA does however

Don’t Prep Plots

If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada

thealexandrian.net

"A plot is a sequence of events: A happens, then B happens, then C happens.

A situation, on the other hand, is merely a set of circumstances. The events that happen as a result of that situation will depend on the actions the PCs take."

For example, a plot might look like this: “Pursuing the villains who escaped during last week’s session, the PCs will get on a ship bound for the port city of Tharsis. On their voyage they will spot a derelict. They will board the derelict and discover that one of the villains has transformed into a monster and killed the entire crew… except for one lone survivor. They will fight the monster and rescue the survivor. While they’re fighting the monster, the derelict will have floated into the territorial waters of Tharsis. They will be intercepted by a fleet of Tharsian ships. Once their tale is told, they will be greeted in Tharsis as heroes for their daring rescue of the derelict. Following a clue given by the survivor of the derelict, they will climb Mt. Tharsis and reach the Temple of Olympus. They can then wander around the temple asking questions. This will accomplish nothing, but when they reach the central sanctuary of the temple the villains will attempt to assassinate them. The assassination attempt goes awry, and the magical idol at the center of the temple is destroyed. Unfortunately, this idol is the only thing holding the temple to the side of the mountain — without it the entire temple begins sliding down the mountain as the battle continues to rage between the PCs and villains!”"

A situation, on the other hand, looks like this: “The villains have escaped on two ships heading towards Tarsis. One of the villains transforms during the voyage into a terrible monster and kills the crew, leaving the ship floating as a derelict outside the coastal waters of Tharsis. At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy. The other villains have reached the Temple of Olympus atop Mt. Tharsis and assumed cover identities.”"

I assume you consider his situation (last paragraph) to still be a plot

It smells a bit like a plot to me.

I would have to know more about how the scenario is presented and the structure that surrounds it, but at the very least the language used (villain) presupposes how players are meant to address the scenario. It also does not seem like the sort of scenario that would evolve in a way that is not catastrophic.

 

[Campbell]

Here's how I view situation rather than adventure based play:

There should be conflicting parties who want different things.
There should be no obvious this is what a good little PC should do path.
It should be fully up to the players how they choose to have their characters address and not just in a tactical/operational way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would not go by the headline alone... he is talking about not prescribing solutions that the player have to 'find' to advance to the next situation.

I just quoted the relevant part in my previous post

Yes. That's partially why the two bits of advice... don't prep plots and three clue rule... conflict.

The clues absolutely are prescribed means of advancing to the next situation.

Now, if he made the distinction of "this rule works for mystery scenarios, and that rule works for play of another sort" then it'd be less problematic. But instead, he presents both as something that you should always do.

of course it does, that is my point

Right. And all his work to improve Descent is basically him prepping plot.

I think this is my problem with a lot of his advice. He doesn't apply them to different styles of play, or different games. He insists that they all apply to his mode of gaming, and do so at all times.

It's a flawed view of gaming.

The individual bits of advice may be perfectly fine in and of themselves... I'd feel perfectly fine suggesting either don't prep plots OR the three clue rule, but it would depend on the game and the circumstances, and I don't really see how they can both apply to the same game.

 

[MerricB]

One of the things I think Hoard of the Dragon Queen does quite well is have an overall linear plot, but each chapter typically describes a situation where the players have a lot of agency as to how they approach and resolve it.

Castle Naerytar is a good example. Do the party aid a rebellion, sneak by the faction, or go in all spells blazing?

There's a beginning point and and end point. What happens in between is all up to the players and the parameters of the situation.

The players have agency as to how their characters approach the situation. They do not have agency regarding the larger campaign storyline. The assumption is that if you're playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen is that you're wanting that experience. That you want that structure of a campaign.

This is a big departure from Keep on the Borderlands where you have a set-up of a Keep and a nearby set of Caves. From that point on, there's no assumed structure to events. (But given that the Giants/Drow series came out in 1978, the idea of a overall linear path for a series of adventures is not new by any means).

But then you compare it to several other adventures - Descent into Avernus is a good example - where there's very little agency as to what the players do with each encounter. It's just one encounter after another, following a winged elephant with more-and-more desperation as little makes sense. (I really don't like the adventure. The weird thing is that there's stuff in it that assumes it isn't that linear).

So, when you look at Justin's work, I don't think he's absolutely opposed to overall structured (linear) storylines, but he would like them to be a lot more open than they often are. And there are some adventures - and Descent into Avernus is certainly one of them - that would be much better as an open playbook rather than a linear adventure. (It'd be interesting as a hybrid, in fact - linear to get the players down to Hell, but very open after that).

The thing with investigations is that almost by definition they should have a "correct" answer. And the Three Clue Rule idea exists so that players have a good chance of getting to that answer. Far too many adventures devolve into a guessing game of the players searching for the One True Clue the DM has put in a non-obvious spot.

But what happens after the investigation is solved doesn't have to be linear. It has a beginning and an end, but there are more aspects to adventure design than that.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At a certain point in our experiences, we all learn the simple truth about rules in anything-- you are an expert in a thing when you know when and how you can break the rules.

This. Advice is, by its nature, general, not specific. No matter how good the advice is, there are always occasions when the right thing to do is ignore it. That doesn’t mean the advice isn’t good. Famously, Tolkien’s elves hedge when giving advice, because they (i.e. Tolkien) know this.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think this is my problem with a lot of his advice. He doesn't apply them to different styles of play, or different games. He insists that they all apply to his mode of gaming, and do so at all times

There is an element of truth in this, but I also think the author’s reputation for ego colours people’s judgements. He does actually start out by outlining the specific circumstances when his advice applies “when writing a mystery”. He does not say “under all circumstances for all modes of play.” It’s fair to say he doesn’t discuss different ways of playing, but this is simply down to not knowing much about them (and perhaps having too big an ego to admit ignorance).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lets try and discuss the specific issues raised now (+), shall we, with a bit of The Farquian (if my head will fit through the door)?

[Initial assumption: we are talking about traditional narrative gaming, not sandboxes or Story Now. Don't ask me about Story Now, I know nothing]

On writing plot:

You tend to see a fair bit of this in WotC adventures, and usually it's bad. However, there are occasions when the Adventure Path format requires it. That is, in the transition between chapters. If we consider each individual chapter is written as a situation (not always true, but it usually should be), then the next chapter is a new situation, with a certain start position (i.e. node). To get from the end of one chapter to the beginning of the next there is usually written down plot. I sometimes do this myself. For example, in the adventure I mentioned earlier, the previous adventure ended with them fleeing the ghost pirate ship (Pietra van Riese) aboard their submarine, heading into the mist, and arriving at the riverside dig site. This was basically a cut scene with nothing mechanical for the players to do. I.e, writing plot. Now one of the things I can do, because I'm basically only prepping one chapter in advance, rather than eight or so, is I can have alternative end and start points (or completely different chapters sometimes) depending on the players' actions. On this occasion, I wrote the previous adventure ending two ways, one where they handed over the McGuffin to Pietra the ghost pirate captain, and another where they stole it. It turned out the PCs were less honest than the ghost pirate. You see a lot of this kind of thing in BG3.

On writing situations:

This too can have drawbacks, particularly if the intention is that someone else will run the adventure. It can be unclear to the DM as to how the author intended things to progress. Again, you sometimes see this in WotC adventures. This is a reason for making the clues that lead onto the next Chapter/node clear and obvious. Not so much for the benefit of the players, but for the DM who will end up running the adventure. The DM reads the obvious clue and therefore knows how the author intends things to progress.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here's how I view situation rather adventure based play:

There should be conflicting parties who want different things.
There should be no obvious this is what a good little PC should do path.
It should be fully up to the players how they choose to have their characters address and not just in a tactical/operational way.

That might be what works for you, but like everything else, it's not universal. Some players don't want that level of freedom, they want their next step to be clear and obvious. They are playing to relax, so they don't want to be made to think too hard. "Just show me to the monsters".

Humans have been telling each other stories since before they were human. It would be foolish to disregard D&D's role as a modern storytelling medium.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm an experienced DM and GM. I don't have a plot for my players to follow. I use a different set of techniques. One way to describe them would be "prep situation, not plot!"

Yes, yes... very good. You don't fall into the category of people I was talking about in my long statement. So glad you let us know that. If I make the statement "An experienced DM plays a lot of games" would you like to let us know whether you fall into that category as well?

 

[pemerton]

we are talking about JA here, I am sure Vincent Baker has a different take on a lot of things

The first quote from AW is basically saying the same, I am sure Vince and you take that to more of an extreme than JA does however

Don’t Prep Plots

If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada

thealexandrian.net

"A plot is a sequence of events: A happens, then B happens, then C happens.

A situation, on the other hand, is merely a set of circumstances. The events that happen as a result of that situation will depend on the actions the PCs take."

For example, a plot might look like this: “Pursuing the villains who escaped during last week’s session, the PCs will get on a ship bound for the port city of Tharsis. On their voyage they will spot a derelict. They will board the derelict and discover that one of the villains has transformed into a monster and killed the entire crew… except for one lone survivor. They will fight the monster and rescue the survivor. While they’re fighting the monster, the derelict will have floated into the territorial waters of Tharsis. They will be intercepted by a fleet of Tharsian ships. Once their tale is told, they will be greeted in Tharsis as heroes for their daring rescue of the derelict. Following a clue given by the survivor of the derelict, they will climb Mt. Tharsis and reach the Temple of Olympus. They can then wander around the temple asking questions. This will accomplish nothing, but when they reach the central sanctuary of the temple the villains will attempt to assassinate them. The assassination attempt goes awry, and the magical idol at the center of the temple is destroyed. Unfortunately, this idol is the only thing holding the temple to the side of the mountain — without it the entire temple begins sliding down the mountain as the battle continues to rage between the PCs and villains!”"

A situation, on the other hand, looks like this: “The villains have escaped on two ships heading towards Tarsis. One of the villains transforms during the voyage into a terrible monster and kills the crew, leaving the ship floating as a derelict outside the coastal waters of Tharsis. At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy. The other villains have reached the Temple of Olympus atop Mt. Tharsis and assumed cover identities.”"

I assume you consider his situation (last paragraph) to still be a plot

100% the second paragraph is a plot. The villains do this thing. Then they do this other thing. Then the navy does this thing. The the villains arrive at this place and do this other thing. What is that, if not a plot? I mean, it is obviously a sequence of events, with each one succeeding - and causally resulting from - a prior event.