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

[hawkeyefan]

If "villains do stuff" is a plot, then having an active dungeon where monsters react and move around is a plot, and then everything becomes a plot, except for dungeoncrawls where monsters sit around in their rooms passively and wait until things happen.

"Don't prep plots" means "don't prep a series of events that require the PCs to take certain actions", ie a pre-planned adventure that is requiring players to react in a particular way. Those sort of things fall prey to "my precious encounter" and DMs get tempted to railroad.

The villains doing things and events happening are just good worldbuilding.

Don’t you think that casting a character as a villain is already doing a lot of work toward establishing plot?

No one is saying not to have NPCs that do things, or not to have them have goals and work toward those goals.

But having them be a villain… that means the PCs are the heroes. So they’re meant to oppose or defeat the villain. Which is setting up a basic plot: the heroes must thwart the villain.

 

[pemerton]

If "villains do stuff" is a plot, then having an active dungeon where monsters react and move around is a plot, and then everything becomes a plot, except for dungeoncrawls where monsters sit around in their rooms passively and wait until things happen.

Or 4e D&D, at least as I played it. Or Prince Valiant. Or Burning Wheel. Or Apocalypse World.

There are more options in RPGing than static map-and-key dungeon, and GM presentation of a plot for the players to engage with via their PCs.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Don’t you think that casting a character as a villain is already doing a lot of work toward establishing plot?

No one is saying not to have NPCs that do things, or not to have them have goals and work toward those goals.

But having them be a villain… that means the PCs are the heroes. So they’re meant to oppose or defeat the villain. Which is setting up a basic plot: the heroes must thwart the villain.

Ok, let's not call them villains. "Dudes". Dudes do some stuff, independently of the PCs. That's all. If having a living, breathing world is somehow adding horrible "plot" I think you need to reconsider your reaction to "plot".

 

[pemerton]

unless you (or your table) come up with your own adventure and ‘only’ plot out slightly ahead at best, you cannot really avoid limiting the options.

I don't really know what you mean. Which options? Limited by whose decisions?

I guess by your definition all the WotC and Paizo adventure paths are railroads…

Yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, let's not call them villains. "Dudes". Dudes do some stuff, independently of the PCs. That's all. If having a living, breathing world is somehow adding horrible "plot" I think you need to reconsider your reaction to "plot".

Well, I don’t think plot is horrible. My D&D games largely involve a plot. I’m not afraid to say that. I play plenty of other games that don’t involve plots. There are clear differences.

As for the “dudes”… if this is more than just a cosmetic change, then you’re partly there. An NPC does something. It need not be about how the PCs try and stop him. Maybe they work with him? Maybe they capitalize on it on some way? Maybe they use it as an excuse for some other endeavor?

Having NPCs act and then leaving it up to the players what they do about it, if anything, is avoiding plot.

In my experience, based on actual play as both a player and a GM, and based on discussion (including both the Alexandrian blog and this thread), very often what GMs to is create several different plots. They then create hooks to engage the players in some way, and once engaged, the plot unfolds. Often, the players will be free to engage with whichever of these plots strike their fancy. They may even be able to engage with more than one at a time. Though usually, each has a sense of momentum of some sort, and past a certain point, any given plot will demand full attention.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this at all. It’s a perfectly fine way to play, if everyone is on board and enjoys this type of play.

I just don’t see what’s the problem with admitting that there are plots involved.

To revisit the idea of a villain… clearly, when a GM thinks of the character this way, it’s a character that’s meant to be opposed. That’s a basic plot. The GM has decided “the villain has done this” and then introduces a hook, something like “the PCs’ friend tells them that several villagers have been taken captive by goblins” and so the PCs will get involved. That’s a sequence of events. It’s required that these things all occur for “the adventure” to happen.

Sure, there are potentially multiple paths forward… different ways of engaging with a plot. But it’s still a plot.

And that’s fine!

I honestly think saying “don’t prep plots” is bad advice for D&D. It seems what he means is more “don’t dictate what the players must do to resolve problems or overcome obstacles”. Let them engage with the plot in their own way.

Maybe they can track the goblins and kill them. Maybe they can convince the goblins to turn on the cruel villain. Maybe they can buy the prisoners freedom. Whatever. Allowing for different solutions doesn’t mean you’ve not prepped plot, even as loosely as JA defines it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would call a plot a series of events that the GM wants to happen. There can be different (or even unplanned) paths between them, but the key element is that the events are planned out by the GM. An example of this is the scenario I described in post #135 and outlined in post #160.

Yeah, I would call that a scenario, or story outline. It has nothing like enough detail or certitude to qualify as a plot.

It's clear that JA uses a story outline, so that cannot be what he means by "not prepping plot". It may be that like me, he never writes it down. Writing things down can be a dangerous business. Once written, they become a lot less flexible.

So, to explain what I think JA does mean by "not prepping plot", lets look at an example where the rule is broken. From Rime of the Frostmaiden, Chapter 3, page 172:

As the characters begin their ascent read: [Cut scene, you can read it yourself!] The Chardalyn Dragon exits the fortress....

The cut scene plays, and the players arrive just to late to prevent the dragon flying off to attack the Ten Towns, no matter what they do. They arrive at the location and Plot happens.

So, how would you write that as a situation instead? I would do it something like this:

The duergar of Sunblight (see map and key) are busy constructing a Chardalyn Dragon with the intention of using it to attack the Ten Towns. It will take them a further ten days to complete the dragon, at which point they will immediately launch it, preprogramed with the following flightplan...

Personally, I think that's better...

I tried for years to use Justin’s hexcrawl procedure, but I could not make it work. It requires too many rolls every day of play, which slowed down exploration at the table, and the amount of prep (every hex!) was oppressive. I want to run a sandbox exploration game, but I don’t want to have to do a lot of prep.

I understand where you are coming from with that! However, this is another example of JA taking credit for something he didn't invent. Hexcrawls have worked like that since the very early days of D&D, I was doing it in 1982 (and it wasn't new then). JA is really a very old-school DM!

Frankly, a sandbox takes a lot of prep. No getting round that if you want the players to have plenty of interesting things to do. The only real shortcut is to drop in prewritten content (use sources). Directing the players with a strong narrative might look like a shortcut, but IMO you still need to have lots of sidequests, B plots*, and stuff going on to make the world feel alive.



*I'm assigning a slightly different meaning to the word "plots" in this context. Language is a slippery thing.

 

[mamba]

I honestly think saying “don’t prep plots” is bad advice for D&D. It seems what he means is more “don’t dictate what the players must do to resolve problems or overcome obstacles”. Let them engage with the plot in their own way.

Maybe they can track the goblins and kill them. Maybe they can convince the goblins to turn on the cruel villain. Maybe they can buy the prisoners freedom. Whatever. Allowing for different solutions doesn’t mean you’ve not prepped plot, even as loosely as JA defines it.

well, at least we are in agreement about what JA means when he says “don’t prep plots”, even if whatever you then prep is still a plot for you

 

[QuentinGeorge]

well, at least we are in agreement about what JA means when he says “don’t prep plots”, even if whatever you then prep is still a plot for you

It's just baffling we're having this quibbling over semantics. If all of this is "plot" then Against the Giants was plotted. In fact, even Keep on the Borderlands is plotted! There are no plotless D&D adventures!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's just baffling we're having this quibbling over semantics. If all of this is "plot" then Against the Giants was plotted. In fact, even Keep on the Borderlands is plotted! There are no plotless D&D adventures!

Indeed. All written adventures are an Abomination Unto Nuggen. Everyone knows that the One True Way to play D&D is in a world where absolutely nothing happens unless it is instigated by the players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Indeed. All written adventures are an Abomination Unto Nuggen. Everyone knows that the One True Way to play D&D is in a world where absolutely nothing happens unless it is instigated by the players.

This is the familiar "Texas Two Step" that we see repeated. I've talked about this before when simulation is the term used.

********
The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world or fictional genre. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect our reality, and the closer that they completely reflect reality, they more accurate they are as a simulation. So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.

Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.

Achilles: Well, we all know that is a simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON that someone is playing the game as a simulation of the LoTR genre).

Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.

Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? Heck, I don't even think that Tolkien understood plate tectonics and didn't accurately model how the mountains in his world formed!!!! It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR of simulation).

Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with the more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat. Once you see this pattern happen, you will see it happen over and over and over again, with all sorts of terms.
***********

It's the same thing with plot. Most people use "plot" in the more general sense when it comes to TTRPGs. So, for example, the idea that there is some pre-planned material that adventurers might happen across (such as in a sandbox) is not considered "plot." If you talk to 99 out of 100 gamers, they would not consider a sandbox to be something that has plot.

But then there are some that will deliberately conflate both their own jargon use of the term and others' use of the generally accepted term in order to criticize them. Here, we see this - regardless of what one might think of Jason Alexander, it is obvious that he is using the term "plot" in the generally understood sense of the term, yet people are criticizing him using a specialized and insular meaning that is not generally accepted in order to score points by making it seem as if he is, in fact, not practicing what he is preaching.

Again, it is perfectly fine for people to use a more specific meaning when they are talking among themselves; it is rather bizarre to demand that others (especially those that may not agree with them) agree to use specific jargon definitions in place of generally accepted meanings for words that have general currency in the field.