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

[Paul Farquhar]

I’m not concerned about terms so much reaching an agreement on the following.

There is no particular reason why people need to agree. It's only a game, it's not important.

I don’t actually agree that a lot of prep is required. I’ve run and played games where a lot of prep isn’t required (such as Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark). That’s why I have been looking to those sorts of games for techniques and ideas I can incorporate and use as inspiration. I’ve posted a number of recaps in the five words commentary thread.

Those are very different games to D&D. Like JA, I don't know much about them, but I do know they rely a lot more on the players to do the heavy lifting. D&D has always been a DM focused game, and it falls on them to be worldbuilder, storyteller and referee in one. Personally, I think it is a lot less effort to play Blades in the Dark than to try and copy-paste stuff from Blades in the Dark into D&D.

Have you heard the expression "the more I polish something, the shinier it gets"? I can, and sometimes do, create content for D&D on the fly. But it isn't going to be as detailed, well thought out, or entertaining as something I have spent hours prepping.

 

[Gradine]

Things associated with RPG railroads that are actually terrible:
*The DM telling the players "No, you can't do that."

Things associate with RPG railroads that are fine, actually:
*Literally everything else.

"Plotting" gets a bad rap in TTRPG circles that it doesn't really deserve. The problem isn't writing a plot; the problem is remaining stubbornly wedded to it to the point where you needlessly restrict player choice. Plotting is fine, and a perfectly valid way to run a RPG, honestly. It's perfectly reasonable to make assumptions about how the PCs are going to act or react to any given situation and plan accordingly. It's better when you can do branching plots, or prepare for multiple outcomes, but it's even honestly fine to heavily signpost things with big "hey, the next scene is this way!" flags. Which, it should be noted, is what every clue actually is, whether there's one, three, or 1,200.

The problematic behavior is preventing players from going off the rails. "But your writing will go to waste if you have to pivot and improvise!" So? Show me a creative writing profession or hobby where a good chunk of your writing doesn't end up going to waste in the end. I end up having to scrap scenes, plots, whole drafts of prose fiction all the time, and I actually get to control the characters in those!

Plotting isn't going to be everybody's cup of tea of course. I find dungeon crawling dull and uninteresting, personally (though I love a good hexcrawl!). Different strokes, and what not.

JA has some really good advice and he also has some really wild takes and he also contradicts himself more than a little bit. That's life, really.

 

[kenada]

There is no particular reason why people need to agree. It's only a game, it's not important.

The point of seeking agreement is because it facilitates communication and understanding. We don’t have to like the same things or play the same way, but if we at least understand what the other means, we can hold a conversation and share our experiences.

Those are very different games to D&D. Like JA, I don't know much about them, but I do know they rely a lot more on the players to do the heavy lifting. D&D has always been a DM focused game, and it falls on them to be worldbuilder, storyteller and referee in one. Personally, I think it is a lot less effort to play Blades in the Dark than to try and copy-paste stuff from Blades in the Dark into D&D.

I started with a hybrid of OSE and WWN, then I iterated on it. I’m not taking mechanics and just pasting them into my homebrew system. I have specific things I want that those games don’t do. I want time and space to be handled concretely (rounds, turns, etc). I want a D&D-ish feel. I want factions to engage not just with the players but also each other. As a GM, I also want to play them as hard as they would if they were real.

The risk, especially if I play adversaries hard, is that I may seem biased or be biased unintentionally. This is not a new problem. Jon Peterson discusses it in The Elusive Shift as something people were seeing from the very beginning of the hobby (see post #86 for a brief quote). Possible solutions to that problem people have identified and do include using ample prep (and staying true to it), using tables instead of just deciding, trusting the GM not to be biased, etc. None are to what I want, which is why I looked to other games for ideas.

(And one of the reasons why I dislike the jargon-taxonomies is that one could make arguments for my homebrew system’s falling into any one of the buckets. However, I’m not designing it to be any particular one of those. I’m designing it to do what I want.)

Have you heard the expression "the more I polish something, the shinier it gets"? I can, and sometimes do, create content for D&D on the fly. But it isn't going to be as detailed, well thought out, or entertaining as something I have spent hours prepping.

Is the implication that what I am doing is resulting in play that is less entertaining than it could be? I’ve posted recaps. My players seem quite entertained. They’re proactive and really get into playing their characters. I quite enjoy seeing what they are going to do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I started with a hybrid of OSE and WWN, then I iterated on it.

Personally, I would rather spend time creating content than tinkering with rules. I'm happy to use them out-the-box. The only ruleset I couldn't make do what I wanted it to was 4e (although 3e/Pathfinder was ever so slow).

The risk, especially if I play adversaries hard, is that I may seem biased or be biased unintentionally.

True, I encountered this myself, back in the 80s. The lich scried on the party with his crystal ball, teleported in, killed one with Finger of Death, then teleported back home. There was nothing they could do to stop it. I learned that sometimes you have to remember that the game is supposed to be fun, not a simulator, and make the baddies occasionally a bit dumb.

Is the implication that what I am doing is resulting in play that is less entertaining than it could be?

Not at all. I am just saying what I do. I mean, sometimes I am spending time on things like illustrations, colouring in tokens and battlemaps, in-game books, or elaborate jokes.

 

[kenada]

JA has some really good advice and he also has some really wild takes and he also contradicts himself more than a little bit. That's life, really.

I’ve shared a number of examples where I’ve found his advice useful (see posts #135, #147, #154, and #160). It’d be great if people could share even more of stuff like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I haven't accused anyone of attacking anyone. So yes, you must have misunderstood. There is no way to determine if that misunderstanding is intentional or not.

Ah okay. You must have brought up how people use words to attack others for some other reason. But I can’t tell if you’re being passive aggressive or if you just lack the stones to say what you mean, so I’ll just make these implications and when called on it, I’ll deny it!

 

[kenada]

Personally, I would rather spend time creating content than tinkering with rules. I'm happy to use them out-the-box. The only ruleset I couldn't make do what I wanted it to was 4e (although 3e/Pathfinder was ever so slow).

That’s the absurd part. I’ve probably put more into working on the system instead of prep. On the other hand, I like it, and I probably would have burnt myself on the prep, which was becoming a problem in our previous campaign. Because the system is always playable (yay, MVP), we can (usually) play when the group is able to get together.

True, I encountered this myself, back in the 80s. The lich scried on the party with his crystal ball, teleported in, killed one with Finger of Death, then teleported back home. There was nothing they could do to stop it. I learned that sometimes you have to remember that the game is supposed to be fun, not a simulator, and make the baddies occasionally a bit dumb.

That would (probably) be a valid play by the GM in my homebrew system. Certain things have to go to global events (like the fire dragon that is coming to the PCs’ settlement), but without context for why the lich is doing this, let’s assume it can just do it.

Monsters use MP just like PCs. There is a natural limit how many times the lich can cast Teleport twice and Finger of Death once for this tactic. Once MP is exhausted, it takes a week to recover without using items.

When the PC is targeted, they can resist the effect. The PC can decide the approach (attribute), but the defense would be Magic Resistance. If they don’t want to risk death, the PC can choose to take success at the cost of gaining stress (an attrition resource).

Of course, given the cost and risks, the lich has to decide if this is a good idea. Maybe it wears the PCs down faster, or a player chooses to risk a chance of death instead of gaining stress. However, if the lich OOMs itself, that provides a window of opportunity for the PCs to counterattack.

Another possible issue for the lich is monsters have to equip abilities to use them, so equipping its casting ability would immediately trigger equip phase and rest of the combat procedure. The players would see the wind up, equip (for any who weren’t surprised), and then (re)act accordingly.

Basically, the system is designed so everyone can play hard. In situations where the GM would have an advantage, it steps in to mediate or provide control back to the players (e.g., see resisting above).

Not at all. I am just saying what I do. I mean, sometimes I am spending time on things like illustrations, colouring in tokens and battlemaps, in-game books, or elaborate jokes.

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure. We’ve been having a good time so far. PCs are 6th level (cap is 15th). I don’t really know when it’s going to end. If they do complete the campaign goal, the question would be whether to set a new one and start a new campaign with those PCs or create all new characters for a new campaign. That’ll be up to the players.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I’ve shared a number of examples where I’ve found his advice useful (see posts #135, #147, #154, and #160). It’d be great if people could share even more of stuff like that.

Yep. And they've been getting buried on the now-decaying horse. Too much noise.

For myself, I've generally found his points worth thinking about, even if I don't fully agree with them. For instance, his series on Node Based (scenario) Design, and Game Structures (which you've also pointed out) I found very educational. A lot of his other posts, especially with regards to prep and record-keeping, I find less useful, as he is very obviously a high-prep GM, and I am not. (However, one of his comments - that I might have been prepping the wrong things, or in the wrong way, has stuck with me. I'm currently re-evaluating that.)

That's actually something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. A lot of GM advice - The Alexandrian, Sly Flourish, etc. - seems to be aimed at less-experienced GMs. But re-visiting the fundamentals is important. If you don't have the basics down, the advanced techniques aren't going to work right.

And on a semi-related note - experiment. With new approaches, new ways of design, etc. For example, I have a very strong tendency towards top-down design. In this campaign I am forcing myself to do bottom-up, I-don't-need-that-yet, design. It's getting easier, and I like how it's letting me adapt future scenarios, but I'm still having to restrain myself. It's been, is being, a good experience.

My previous campaign, I worked against my tendency to house rule; I tried very hard to run a pure vanilla 5e game. I (mostly) succeeded. I also won't do that again, as it wasn't very enjoyable for me. Not to my taste. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised - I once ran a supers game that was a blend of DC Heroes/MEGS, Champions, and Shadowrun. And that did NOT cure me of my rules tinkering tendencies.

Or put another way - Always Be Learning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That’s the absurd part. I’ve probably put more into working on the system instead of prep.

I might have been prepping the wrong things

Sometime you do stuff because you are enjoying it, not because it’s essential. It is a game after all, even the prep should be fun.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Sometime you do stuff because you are enjoying it, not because it’s essential. It is a game after all, even the prep should be fun.

And if you're not enjoying it, then you're probably doing it wrong. There's also the issue of enjoying it, and not doing what I need to as a GM, but I had more problems with the other way around.