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

[Paul Farquhar]

* "Don't Prep Plots, Prep Situation" = Story Now.

No, it is not. Prepping a situation is very much TRADITIONAL. "Here is a dungeon, it is full of monsters" is a prepped situation, and as traditional as it gets (See: B2 The Caves of Chaos). It has nothing to do with "Story Now", which Jason Alexander is quite clearly not talking about at any point.

"Prep the situation" predates plot driven adventures, which didn't really appear until Dragonlance.

 

[Manbearcat]

So why are you so desperate to try and prove your point, that you resort to spurious arguments, misinterpretation, and corkscrew logic to try and prove your point if there nothing wrong?

I mean, I know Justin Alexander isn't a nice guy, but you know what they say: "attack the person, not the argument".

What in the world are you even on about here?

I'm not desperate for anything.

There are no spurious arguments or misinterpretation or corkscrew logic (at least not on my end). I've laid out my case both pithily and in pretty excruciating detail. Comment on that if you'd like.

And again, I have no idea what you're on about with that last sentence. I'm not attaking JA. I'm saying (again), "Don't Prep Plot, Prep Situation" is at tension with "The Three Clue Rule."

If I'm creating a Traditional Murder Mystery in like Call of Cthulu or whatever? You better be damn sure I'm prepping plot and I'm ensuring exposition dumps and clues and McGuffins mainline that plot onto play. If I'm creating a Dogs in the Vineyard Town or a Between Threat? I'm Prepping Situation, Not Plot and The Three Clue Rule becomes radioactive for play.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm not so sure, to be honest with you. JA's "Don't Prep Plots, Prep Situation" was a 2009 blog post (if I recall) that basically repurposed Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard GMing advice from 2004. That is as Story Now as it gets.

So I think what you have here is a pair of divergent techniques:

* "Don't Prep Plots, Prep Situation" = Story Now.

* "Three Clue Rule" = Traditional.

The problem is (as I see it and have born it out through a whole lot of running of games, including a metric eff-ton of Trad games and Pawn Stance dungeoncrawling and hexcrawling; both of which include profound prep) that those two techniques don't work in concert. They're at profound tension.

You know, you might have a point here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Storm King’s Remix – Part 5D: Making Alliances

Go to Table of ContentsBroadly speaking, there are three different types of factions that the PCs could become allied with: the organizations (which the book refers to as factions), the giants, an

thealexandrian.net

Here he has a discussion of clocks, particularly in the context of relationships, ala the Crew relationships in BitD. Sounds like he's discussed them in other places as well. For whatever reason he distinguishes between 2 versions of these clocks, though it isn't really clear why they're all that different (one is separate opposed clocks for positive and negative, the other is a single clock, which is more like the BitD version). He doesn't, here at least, talk about the other obvious possible uses of clocks, but there are some links. I also note that the opposed clock model is effectively a 4e Skill Challenge, almost (he uses symmetrical 4 tick clocks, 4e uses assymetrical clocks).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I hear these statements a lot--that PbtA is inherently and necessarily "no myth." They do not square with the descriptions given in the rules themselves. For example, with "Exploit your prep":


You cannot know that there is a demon two floors down, which can thus be the attention that falls upon a character, unless you actually have a demon two floors down. That's myth. It isn't much myth; and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of actual "plot." But it's nonzero.

I don't want to derail the thread here, it isn't really about 'how much myth', but certainly GM prep is ALWAYS a form of 'myth', but there could be a profound difference between TA's sort of myth and the looser form that might exist in DW where things could have locations, there are some maps, and dangers have 'impulses', and there are 'portents', but there isn't a notion of 'pathways' to follow between 'nodes'.

 

[overgeeked]

The three-clue rule is basically node-based design. Start at A, give clues that point to B, C, and D. Each of those point to the next layer of nodes, E, F, and G. Let the PCs progress through as they desire.

Prepping a plot is fundamentally different. Start at A, give only one option, B. After B, give only one option, C. Force the PCs to progress through as you desire.

The only way you could confuse node-based design for prepping a plot is if you change the definition of plot.

 

[billd91]

The problem I’m seeing in this discussion is that people are conflating what JA describes as a situation with a plot rather than accepting his distinction between plot and a situation. A situation, as JA sees it, might very well be complex and require multiple steps/stages to interact with and resolve and can thus benefit from node design and the three clue rule while still not being a plot that requires the PCs to interact with it in and do so in a particular sequence or way.

 

[mamba]

(6) There needs to be a way for the PCs to know the villains are hiding out in the Temple of Olympus. (In the plot-based design, this is one of the failure points: They either question the survivor or they have no way of knowing where to go next. In situation-based design, you would use the Three Clue Rule and figure out two additional methods by which the PCs could reach this conclusion. This can be as simple as making a Gather Information check in Tharsis and/or questioning the captain/crew of the ship the villains took.)
Note the commentary in number six. The problem is not that that GM has decided the PCs have to go to the central sanctuary of the temple. It’s that the techniques used to accomplish that goal are vulnerable to failure (unless the GM acts overtly to ensure the required event happens). If the PCs don’t question the survivor, they have no way of knowing where to go next. Justin suggests using the three clue rule to remove this failure point by providing redundancy.

yes, the three clues provide redundancy so the players can learn about events / facts in the world the GM wants them to know about somewhat reliably. What they then do with that information is still up to the players however

I guess I am not seeing the difference between this and what you do that you consider this plot, but not yours. You gave the players several clues to the bandit hideout, JA is placing several clues to much the same thing. Is the difference only that yours originated from random events while his are placed? That still makes either clues to ‘follow’ a ‘plot’.

What I am referring to “plot” is predetermined events that have to happen.

sounds fine, but that is not what JA is describing. The events in ‘don’t prep plots’ only happen if the characters do not get involved. The guys board the ship, run into some other vessel two days later and so on, if the players do nothing. If they do, they can potentially intercept them before they meet the other ship, or affect the events in some other way, instead of them just playing out

If no one opposes a front you create, what happens? They accomplish their goal, don’t they? This is no different to me

Random events or in response to actions the PCs undertake. If the PCs undertook some action (such as consorting with contacts, performing research, etc) with the goal of finding out where the bandits are, and they rolled a success, I would be obligated to tell them where the bandits are (in a way that respects both the state of the world and follows from how the information was required).

doesn’t that just change the way the clues are obtained?

For Justin, the difference matters. He views having the clues be placed, discovering them, and interpreting them as necessary to play a mystery scenario.

well, in case of a mystery I guess I agree. A mystery is something with one solution the players either uncover, or they do not. At least to me the solution does not change based on the character’s actions, that only determines their success in uncovering it

Clues can be used for all kinds of things however, not just to solve a mystery. Maybe we are too hung up on the word ‘clue’

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I don't really disagree. I was just pointing out that it IS a plot when it was put in place at the start of play with the intent that it would provide structure, plot is structure. In @EzekielRaiden 's "demon two floors down" case it is just a danger that exists, it probably has an impulse which can be used to guide how it might come into play, etc. When the wizard blows his spell and 'attracts attention' the GM is likely to "use his prep" to invoke the attention of that demon, which also probably comports with its impulse (just guessing). This stuff came into existence AFTER the PCs were created, and was probably prompted by discussions between the GM and players. It might manifest in some way, at some point, regardless of the Wizard blowing a casting check, but there's no particular way for that to happen which is set up ahead of time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really disagree. I was just pointing out that it IS a plot when it was put in place at the start of play with the intent that it would provide structure, plot is structure. In @EzekielRaiden 's "demon two floors down" case it is just a danger that exists, it probably has an impulse which can be used to guide how it might come into play, etc. When the wizard blows his spell and 'attracts attention' the GM is likely to "use his prep" to invoke the attention of that demon, which also probably comports with its impulse (just guessing). This stuff came into existence AFTER the PCs were created, and was probably prompted by discussions between the GM and players. It might manifest in some way, at some point, regardless of the Wizard blowing a casting check, but there's no particular way for that to happen which is set up ahead of time.

I will note that that example isn't mine. It comes straight from the Dungeon World text itself.