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

[Paul Farquhar]

even if the fashion in which you hand them out is based on random events

This dependence on random rolls seems weird to me. The party are attacked by an ogre whilst walking down the road. On the ogre is map showing the location of the bandit camp. Sure, sometimes random stuff happens, but more often things happen because something else happened to cause them. Shouldn't clues be hidden in locations where it is logical that they should be? Aside from logic, the players have a better chance of finding them that way.

Why do we want the the players to find the clues? Wouldn't it be more realistic if we just let them fail to find the whatever? The problem is, if the players fail to find the interesting stuff, they aint going to be having fun, and that's the bottom line of why they are playing.

 

[overgeeked]

What a weird thing to get hung up on.

Unless you're scripting exactly what happens, in what order, what the PCs must do at every stage, etc, your prep isn't a plot. Prepping a node-based adventure isn't prepping a plot. Prepping a mystery isn't prepping a plot.

If your prep is "monsters attack the village," that's not a plot.

If your prep is "monsters attack the village, the PCs stop them and take a few prisoners, the PCs interrogate the prisoners, the PCs find clues pointing to the monsters' lair, the PCs follow the clues to the monsters' lair, the PCs attack the gate and win, the PCs...," that's a plot.

"But Justin said..."

Well, add it to the long list of things he was wrong about.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"But Justin said..."

Well, add it to the long list of things he was wrong about.

Whilst I don't have a a high opinion of the egotistical ****, on this occasion, it not his fault a small number of people are interpreting his regurgitated advice over-literally.

 

[mamba]

Hmmm, I think we have utterly different ideas about how RPGs work.

it feels like it

He's not talking about true player freedom to interact with content and PLOT to emerge. He's just saying that specific tactical situations aren't scripted, but all the nodes and clues and such at the next level up, the 'adventure arc' is all totally mapped out, its plot to the max! I mean, it may be "several alternatives might emerge" but all of them were thoroughly envisaged by the GM.

the players can not engage with a clue, or do something unexpected despite having it. I don’t think there is a way to plot out every option, it certainly does not work that way for me.

OTOH an AW game does this top to bottom, there's NEVER any plot, at any level of play. Only what story emerges and the plot which that entails after the fact.

that is a very different concept, so basically you have a bunch of random stuff happening and later make sense of it and call that interpretation of events the plot

I don’t think JA’s advice is applicable in that scenario, it is clearly intended for more traditional games

 

[mamba]

This dependence on random rolls seems weird to me. The party are attacked by an ogre whilst walking down the road. On the ogre is map showing the location of the bandit camp. Sure, sometimes random stuff happens, but more often things happen because something else happened to cause them. Shouldn't clues be hidden in locations where it is logical that they should be? Aside from logic, the players have a better chance of finding them that way.

it doesn’t need to be as on your nose as finding a map, the characters coming across tracks is an option too, as they did in the post I was responding to

Why do we want the the players to find the clues? Wouldn't it be more realistic if we just let them fail to find the whatever? The problem is, if the players fail to find the interesting stuff, they aint going to be having fun, and that's the bottom line of why they are playing.

yes, it might be more realistic, and there certainly is no requirement to find all clues, but not finding any is a problem, as you said

 

[Paul Farquhar]

it doesn’t need to be as on your nose as finding a map, the characters coming across tracks is an option too, as they did in the post I was responding to


yes, it might be more realistic, and there certainly is no requirement to find all clues, but not finding any is a problem, as you said

I feel that most players want to feel like they are progressing due to skill, not luck. Just randomly finding something feels too much like luck to me, or worse, the DM intervening to point them in the direction they want them to go.

So you have multiple clues (doesn't have to be three) pointing to the same place, but each one requires at least a little insight on the players' part in order to find. My players missed a clue (a diary) is a recent session. As it happened the clue was not essential (they did find the tracks!), but they would have had a clearer idea as to what was happening had they found it.

Alternatively, you could have multiple clues pointing to different things. So long as the players find something interesting, it doesn't need to be the same thing (although you are more likely to be wasting prep time that way - but can always recycle for another occasion).

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure why some people have a problem with this (apart from the theme of child endangerment being potentially triggering). Sometimes children get kidnapped. And when that happens its perfectly normal for everyone to drop everything to look for them. Wars, natural disasters, these things happen, and they demand the people react to them. Stuff happens, and people react, the idea that people can have complete freedom to do whatever they want is unrealistic.

Well, what you are saying is that you don't know why some RPGers aren't interested in dealing with GM-driven scenarios. The answer, for my part, is fairly straightforward - I think player-driven RPGing is more engaging and more interesting, both for the players and for the GM.

In other words,

When one doesn’t want to play through a GM-authored scenario at all, then either approach can seem like the same thing regardless of any differences between the processes used to play it. From that perspective, you’re solving a problem the GM provided either way. The sort of play where that’s not desired is when the GM tends to function more as a facilitator in support of what the PCs need from the game.

My preferences align to this perspective/desire: I prefer play where the GM's role is to follow player leads in framing situations and establishing consequences.

If to you the plot is ‘events that happen in the world if the players do nothing’, then I do not really know how run a game without having that… are you randomly rolling everything that happens to the players with zero preparation? That seems to be the only possible option

that is a very different concept, so basically you have a bunch of random stuff happening and later make sense of it and call that interpretation of events the plot

I don’t think JA’s advice is applicable in that scenario, it is clearly intended for more traditional games

Well, the thing is, Apocalypse World is a published game, with clear advice on how to prep and what that prep is for. It doesn't involve any random rolling for anything that happens, and nor does it involve zero prep. So obviously those are not the only possible options!

It is certainly not "a bunch of random stuff happening".

Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel are different from AW, but likewise falsify your conjectures. Dogs in the Vineyard is another counter-example.

We seem to be meandering all over the place and losing the...errr...plot.

The topic of conversation is "Three Clue Rule" is or is not at tension with "Don't Prep Plots." Not "does any prep at all or particular iterations of prep = plot?"

So the question is:

What are the Three Clues in service to?

The Alexandrian tells you:

* To remove the dead ends or "chokepoints" of rudderless exploration and incorrect player-side inference and extrapolation which...

* ...prevent the pre-authored mystery from being revealed/materializing (plot) in the course of play.

If those two in concert aren't one version of the systemization of plot driving the experience and trajectory of TTRPG, then I'm not sure what is?

Right, this. It is only because (i) there is a GM expectation of the PCs dealing with a <whatever> and (ii) it is taken for granted that the GM won't just tell the players about the <whatever>that (iii) we are said to need 3 clues to point to the <whatever>.

Take away (i) (eg AW) or (ii) (eg DitV, Prince Valiant) and then (iii) becomes irrelevant.

 

[TheSword]

Can we move on to some other ideas. What constitutes a plot, plotting or plots isn’t really the point.

The elements of advice discussed are sound and are only contradictory if you imagine plot as ‘any kind of DM planning’ which most of us don’t.

I get that @pemerton and a few others prefer to have events proceed from player choice there are lots of examples in his threads of that kind of play. But it isn’t typical and not what Alexandrian is driving at - which is to support a more typical gaming experience.

Maybe we can agree that JA’s advice moves us in the direction of @pemerton ‘s play style, but stops short of adopting it.

 

[kenada]

You could always start another thread for that discussion.

One could, but the question is whether it would be a fruitful discussion. I’m skeptical about that, but I stepped in it here with my initial replies. Anyway, it has been clarified in post #52 that critical discussion is within the scope of the [+], so I’ll continue to stay engaged with those who reply to me. I just want to stay focused on what Justin is saying and avoid introducing any unnecessary or custom jargon (e.g., let’s be careful about how we use “clue” to avoid stretching it beyond its plain language meaning).

 

[kenada]

But anyway, my point about contradictions stands whether or not one is into The Alexandrian's "node based design" and similar sorts of methodologies. My understanding of your post is that you broadly agree with my diagnosis of contradiction, although you locate the diagnosis within a more thorough account of The Alexandrian's taxonomies, including his "blind spot".

I agree with your diagnosis. What I’m trying to do dig into is how techniques that have players arrive at the same destination (through admittedly different means) because that’s what the GM wants can be viewed so differently. Even Justin does this. The three clue rule is positioned as a robust alternative to traditional adventure design (particularly in mystery scenarios), but it still has the players going through what the GM planned. In my view, the difference is in its robustness rather than in the overall arc of play it creates.

He’s obviously aware of other solutions to implement a mystery. He discusses Gumshoe in his “Three Clue Rule” essay, but he rejects its solution. In his view, a mystery requires having established facts the PCs discover and interpret. If you are creating them as you go, you are superficially following the structure of a mystery story while failing to create the experience of playing a mystery. He doesn’t mention any other games, but the essay is sixteen years old, so they probably didn’t exist at the time. I suspect he’d feel about them the same as he does Gumshoe.