Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Alexandrian’s Insights In a Nutshell [+]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9288154" data-attributes="member: 70468"><p>I’m not concerned about terms so much reaching an agreement on the following. Terms can be hashed out later.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">plot - GM-scripted sequences. PCs play through them with limited/no flexibility.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">story outline - GM-provided story beats. PCs have flexibility on how to get there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">play type 3 - Neither GM-scripted nor -driven. The PCs determine the course of action, and the GM provides support.</li> </ul><p>I am intentionally using a generic name for play type 3 to avoid having to litigate over whether other things could also lay claim to that name, which I’ve had to do recently, and it’s exhausting. The point is it’s distinct from the other two.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Where it falls apart for me is I view the three clue rule as a way of creating what I have been calling a plot, but given the above distinctions, I agree with this take. It’s not doing type 3, but I don’t think that’s the point.</p><p></p><p>When I have had need to use it, I have found the three clue rule useful. Now that my campaign and homebrew system are trying to do type 3, it wouldn’t do what I want.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that’s probably an improvement. I say probably because it a group may favor cinematic play, and losing the cutscene and drama would be a worse for them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>While I grew up in the ’80s, aside from playing <em>Baldur’s Gate</em> in the late-’90s, I wasn’t exposed to D&D until college. It wasn’t (as far as I know) any Satanic Panic stuff. We were just into video games at the time. Anyway, my exposure was first to 3e. I first ran a hexcrawl when I ran <em>Kingmaker</em>.</p><p></p><p>I first discovered Justin’s hexcrawl procedure around that time. I’d also discovered old-school sites like <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Grognardia</a>. I’ve also since run Old-School Essentials, and my homebrew system started out as a hybrid of OSE and Worlds Without Number, so I’m certainly aware he’s not describing something new, though he doesn’t claim that he is.</p><p></p><p>I mentioned Justin’s hexcrawl procedure because if anyone has made his procedure work, I’d like to hear about it. I certainly had no luck making it work. All those rolls slowed down play in a way I didn’t like.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.enworld.org/search/2751026/?c%5Busers%5D=kenada&o=date" target="_blank">recaps</a> in the five words commentary thread.</p><p></p><p>We’ve played 33 sessions since switching to my (then hybrid) homebrew system and 10 prior to that. The first ruins they explored had a story-outline, but nothing has had that since the switch. I’ve run two adventures: <em><a href="https://necroticgnome.com/products/halls-of-the-blood-king" target="_blank">Halls of the Blood King</a></em> and <a href="https://necroticgnome.com/products/the-incandescent-grottoes" target="_blank"><em>The Incandescent Grottoes</em></a>. Notably, neither of those adventures are designed around plots or story-outlines.</p><p></p><p>The primary driver of play is my homebrew system’s goal-oriented structure. At the start of the campaign, the players determine what the campaign’s goal is. For this campaign, it’s to loot the fallen capital. The campaign goal is effectively a stakes question. Can they do it? The players also decides on a group goal. Group goals should take several sessions to complete. The current group goal is to do something about the raiders. At the start of each session, players decide on individual goals.</p><p></p><p>At the end of each session, we review the goals. If the players’ consensus is they completed their group goal, everyone gets 3 EXP. Each player reviews their individual goals. If they completed any (i.e., at least 1 but also 2), they get 3 EXP (total, not per goal). Any other PC who helped as determined by the players gets 1 EXP for each goal helped (or up two per other player). The GM can give feedback, but the GM does not have say over goal completion.</p><p></p><p>As a GM, the rules mediate between GM-as-referee and GM-as-opposition. This is do e to avoid issues of bias that can make coming up with things on the fly problematic (as discussed a bit in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-alexandrian%E2%80%99s-insights-in-a-nutshell.703060/post-9285951" target="_blank">post #86</a>). When I am playing the opposition, I want to do so as hard as the opposition would play as if I were just a player without the ability to invoke my authority over which situations occur, what content is in play, how those are resolved, and where play will go.</p><p></p><p>I wish we were having this conversation in a few weeks, so I can link our next session, which will feature a negotiation between a faction of the raiders and the PCs. Unlike some approaches to social situations where this is just an obstacle to be overcome, I will be playing the negotiators to win. From their perspective, the PCs must lose. Of course, the PCs will have to bring their all and push for <em>their</em> interests. From what I have seen, my players are more than capable of that. We had a small preview last session when Eric tried to deceive them (see <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-%E2%80%9Cdescribe-your-game-in-five-words%E2%80%9D-thread.682741/post-9285689" target="_blank">post #294</a> in the commentary thread). I’m excited (wearing my designer hat) about how this will play out next session.</p><p></p><p>That ended up being a bit longer that I expected, but hopefully it shows what I’m doing and want to do. I tried to do the heavy prep approach in our prior campaign, but I couldn’t do all the prep. It was too onerous. That’s not to say it’s bad per se, but it wasn’t something I could do.</p><p></p><p>Note that I’m also aware of just-in-time techniques like WWN’s sandbox approach, but I’m not looking to do those either because it doesn’t really support exploration, and it still involves quite a bit of work. That first ruins was done using its techniques. I vastly prefer what I’m doing now, which frequently requires little to no prep prior to the session.</p><p></p><p>(Setting aside the absurdity of designing a system to avoid having to prep. That’s hopefully a one time cost.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kenada, post: 9288154, member: 70468"] I’m not concerned about terms so much reaching an agreement on the following. Terms can be hashed out later. [LIST] [*]plot - GM-scripted sequences. PCs play through them with limited/no flexibility. [*]story outline - GM-provided story beats. PCs have flexibility on how to get there. [*]play type 3 - Neither GM-scripted nor -driven. The PCs determine the course of action, and the GM provides support. [/LIST] I am intentionally using a generic name for play type 3 to avoid having to litigate over whether other things could also lay claim to that name, which I’ve had to do recently, and it’s exhausting. The point is it’s distinct from the other two. Where it falls apart for me is I view the three clue rule as a way of creating what I have been calling a plot, but given the above distinctions, I agree with this take. It’s not doing type 3, but I don’t think that’s the point. When I have had need to use it, I have found the three clue rule useful. Now that my campaign and homebrew system are trying to do type 3, it wouldn’t do what I want. I agree that’s probably an improvement. I say probably because it a group may favor cinematic play, and losing the cutscene and drama would be a worse for them. While I grew up in the ’80s, aside from playing [I]Baldur’s Gate[/I] in the late-’90s, I wasn’t exposed to D&D until college. It wasn’t (as far as I know) any Satanic Panic stuff. We were just into video games at the time. Anyway, my exposure was first to 3e. I first ran a hexcrawl when I ran [I]Kingmaker[/I]. I first discovered Justin’s hexcrawl procedure around that time. I’d also discovered old-school sites like [URL='https://grognardia.blogspot.com']Grognardia[/URL]. I’ve also since run Old-School Essentials, and my homebrew system started out as a hybrid of OSE and Worlds Without Number, so I’m certainly aware he’s not describing something new, though he doesn’t claim that he is. I mentioned Justin’s hexcrawl procedure because if anyone has made his procedure work, I’d like to hear about it. I certainly had no luck making it work. All those rolls slowed down play in a way I didn’t like. 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 [URL='https://www.enworld.org/search/2751026/?c%5Busers%5D=kenada&o=date']recaps[/URL] in the five words commentary thread. We’ve played 33 sessions since switching to my (then hybrid) homebrew system and 10 prior to that. The first ruins they explored had a story-outline, but nothing has had that since the switch. I’ve run two adventures: [I][URL='https://necroticgnome.com/products/halls-of-the-blood-king']Halls of the Blood King[/URL][/I] and [URL='https://necroticgnome.com/products/the-incandescent-grottoes'][I]The Incandescent Grottoes[/I][/URL]. Notably, neither of those adventures are designed around plots or story-outlines. The primary driver of play is my homebrew system’s goal-oriented structure. At the start of the campaign, the players determine what the campaign’s goal is. For this campaign, it’s to loot the fallen capital. The campaign goal is effectively a stakes question. Can they do it? The players also decides on a group goal. Group goals should take several sessions to complete. The current group goal is to do something about the raiders. At the start of each session, players decide on individual goals. At the end of each session, we review the goals. If the players’ consensus is they completed their group goal, everyone gets 3 EXP. Each player reviews their individual goals. If they completed any (i.e., at least 1 but also 2), they get 3 EXP (total, not per goal). Any other PC who helped as determined by the players gets 1 EXP for each goal helped (or up two per other player). The GM can give feedback, but the GM does not have say over goal completion. As a GM, the rules mediate between GM-as-referee and GM-as-opposition. This is do e to avoid issues of bias that can make coming up with things on the fly problematic (as discussed a bit in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-alexandrian%E2%80%99s-insights-in-a-nutshell.703060/post-9285951']post #86[/URL]). When I am playing the opposition, I want to do so as hard as the opposition would play as if I were just a player without the ability to invoke my authority over which situations occur, what content is in play, how those are resolved, and where play will go. I wish we were having this conversation in a few weeks, so I can link our next session, which will feature a negotiation between a faction of the raiders and the PCs. Unlike some approaches to social situations where this is just an obstacle to be overcome, I will be playing the negotiators to win. From their perspective, the PCs must lose. Of course, the PCs will have to bring their all and push for [I]their[/I] interests. From what I have seen, my players are more than capable of that. We had a small preview last session when Eric tried to deceive them (see [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-%E2%80%9Cdescribe-your-game-in-five-words%E2%80%9D-thread.682741/post-9285689']post #294[/URL] in the commentary thread). I’m excited (wearing my designer hat) about how this will play out next session. That ended up being a bit longer that I expected, but hopefully it shows what I’m doing and want to do. I tried to do the heavy prep approach in our prior campaign, but I couldn’t do all the prep. It was too onerous. That’s not to say it’s bad per se, but it wasn’t something I could do. Note that I’m also aware of just-in-time techniques like WWN’s sandbox approach, but I’m not looking to do those either because it doesn’t really support exploration, and it still involves quite a bit of work. That first ruins was done using its techniques. I vastly prefer what I’m doing now, which frequently requires little to no prep prior to the session. (Setting aside the absurdity of designing a system to avoid having to prep. That’s hopefully a one time cost.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Alexandrian’s Insights In a Nutshell [+]
Top