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

[kenada]

I'm running L1: The Secret of Bone Hill in about 45 minutes, and it uses rosters rather than specific placements of adversaries in the titular ruin. I often design adventures with a mix- a roster at the start of a level and then rooms with, for example, "1d6+2 goblins" in them.

The adventures I’ve run by Necrotic Gnome also use a mix. If it’s only in the key, that monster’s not going anywhere except under exceptional circumstances. If it’s on the map, then the stats will be in the key for that room, but the monster might leave its room to investigate/fight/etc if the PCs do something to draw attention to themselves.

That’s generally the style I like, especially if the key includes an excerpt of the map with surrounding areas. Let me see visually where things are in relation to the PCs. If it’s on a chart, I’m apt to miss it.

Edit: Looking at Halls of the Blood King, I don’t think Necrotic Gnome is as consistent in using a mix as I’d like. There’s no way the monstrous doors in area 11 are coming after the PCs in another area. I still prefer the visual format for the reasons indicated above.

 

[kenada]

Skimming through his notes I would say his concept is pretty tactical, which would be fairly in line with DW's Adventure Front concept. There's not so well-developed an idea of 'impulse' or 'portent', but it is kind of latent in there. Given the PbtA architecture of DW there's little need for the text to explicitly talk about dynamism, the idea of moves which precipitate the appearance or at least effects of dangers in play kind of takes care of that.

I don’t think it’s really comparable to fronts. What he’s doing is trying to solve the problem where the monsters are keyed to a room and just sit in there until the PCs arrive to beat them up. Moving that information out of the key makes it easier for the GM to have the monsters respond from other areas.

If one is going to be using a map and key, which is something I like to do for certain kinds of play, then there’s a lot one can do to make them more practical tools for the GM. Adversary rosters are one way to do that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

yes, he says to have several clues. I said he does not give advice to set up a situation in a way that has only one solution

Any adventure has clues that point towards other situations, even an open sandbox does that

I think it’s clear that the advice “don’t prep plots” and how it talks about not caring what the PCs do is certainly contradictory with the way he presents the “three clue rule” as being “for any conclusion you want the players to make, include three clues”.

Bolded emphasis mine. If there are conclusions you want the players to make, then you care what they do. You want them to proceed in a certain way… along some predetermined path.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I think it’s clear that the advice “don’t prep plots” and how it talks about not caring what the PCs do is certainly contradictory with the way he presents the “three clue rule” as being “for any conclusion you want the players to make, include three clues”.

Bolded emphasis mine. If there are conclusions you want the players to make, then you care what they do. You want them to proceed in a certain way… along some predetermined path.

They refer to completely different things.

 

[mamba]

Not when you only prep the explosive situations and stop there. For example, in the session I described today in post #294, I prepped quite a bit of information on the raiders. There are some potential conflicts, but I don’t leave clues to make them happen.

a clue is just information, it is not an order for the players to do anything.

In your post the chars come across some tracks, that is / can be a clue about where the bandits are located.

The same with the guy stealing their rations during the night, the information Roy gives the party after they capture him are clues.

You cannot really run a game and not give any clues, it then is up to the players to decide what to do with them

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Basically "clues" refer to players working out the state of the world (ie, who killed the king, who stole the pies, etc) rather than what you want them to do (investigate the murder of the king, investigate the theft of the pies).

 

[kenada]

They refer to completely different things.

The “Don’t Prep Plots” essay literally has a section on using the three clue rule. The problem is that what the three clue rule has you do is a prep a plot. That’s the contradiction. Obviously, it’s avoidable if you don’t do that as one’s solution.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The “Don’t Prep Plots” essay literally has a section on using the three clue rule. The problem is that what the three clue rule has you do is a prep a plot. That’s the contradiction. Obviously, it’s avoidable if you don’t do that as one’s solution.

A plot is this: The adventurers come to the town, they decide to investigate a missing child, they find the kidnapper, the kidnapper monologues and runs away. End of adventure.

What you should be preparing is the following: In this town, a girl has been kidnapped by (kidnapper name). (Notice here nothing requires action on the part of the PCs) The "three clue" process would be ensuring the PCs can work out who the kidnapper is and where the girl is being hidden by leaving at least 3 clues that will give you the answer.

None of that requires the DM to assume any action on the part of the PCs. The clues are clues to the setting, not to the plot.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, it IS a plus thread, and honestly I'm not sure he ever laid claim to inventing this 'insight'. Certainly if you think about it for a minute or two Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are, to a high degree, all about doing exactly this. Fronts in DW basically epitomize this kind of idea, though I have no idea whether The Alexandrian or Vincent Baker originated the idea, or neither of them. I'd say Baker's game(s) have certainly taken it from advice to actual practice though.

This is not a plus thread.

 

[Umbran]

This is not a plus thread.

Mod Note:
There is one line in the OP that claims it was supposed to be a (+) thread, but they failed to put the expected (+) in the thread title. If you missed that one line in the OP, you'd not realize the intent. We aren't going to hold that against anyone.

So, @TheSword - if you want this to be a (+) thread, please edit the title to make it obvious. Thanks.