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

[kenada]

Lets try and discuss the specific issues raised now (+), shall we, with a bit of The Farquian (if my head will fit through the door)?

[Initial assumption: we are talking about traditional narrative gaming, not sandboxes or Story Now. Don't ask me about Story Now, I know nothing]

On writing plot:

You tend to see a fair bit of this in WotC adventures, and usually it's bad. However, there are occasions when the Adventure Path format requires it. That is, in the transition between chapters. If we consider each individual chapter is written as a situation (not always true, but it usually should be), then the next chapter is a new situation, with a certain start position (i.e. node). To get from the end of one chapter to the beginning of the next there is usually written down plot. I sometimes do this myself. For example, in the adventure I mentioned earlier, the previous adventure ended with them fleeing the ghost pirate ship (Pietra van Riese) aboard their submarine, heading into the mist, and arriving at the riverside dig site. This was basically a cut scene with nothing mechanical for the players to do. I.e, writing plot. Now one of the things I can do, because I'm basically only prepping one chapter in advance, rather than eight or so, is I can have alternative end and start points (or completely different chapters sometimes) depending on the players' actions. On this occasion, I wrote the previous adventure ending two ways, one where they handed over the McGuffin to Pietra the ghost pirate captain, and another where they stole it. It turned out the PCs were less honest than the ghost pirate. You see a lot of this kind of thing in BG3.

On writing situations:

This too can have drawbacks, particularly if the intention is that someone else will run the adventure. It can be unclear to the DM as to how the author intended things to progress. Again, you sometimes see this in WotC adventures. This is a reason for making the clues that lead onto the next Chapter/node clear and obvious. Not so much for the benefit of the players, but for the DM who will end up running the adventure. The DM reads the obvious clue and therefore knows how the author intends things to progress.

I wanted to thank you for writing this. It helps clarify the differences between us and answer the question I poses in post #151 without needing to do a bunch of tedious back and forths. (That is: We have different conceptions of “plot”, but I can understand your meaning.)

 

[kenada]

100% the second paragraph is a plot. The villains do this thing. Then they do this other thing. Then the navy does this thing. The the villains arrive at this place and do this other thing. What is that, if not a plot? I mean, it is obviously a sequence of events, with each one succeeding - and causally resulting from - a prior event.

The distinction I would make is whether and how the PCs are expected to get involved. If I structure the adventure such that the PCs will go to the Temple to confront the villains, then I feel I’d have made a plot. Otherwise, the sequence seems similar to the grim portents format used by dangers in Dungeon World’s fronts (though it requires a bit of work to fully follow the format).

 

[Manbearcat]

Somewhat off topic: The way clues are handled in The Between/BB is very clever. At the same time, these games have a lot of structure to them, to the point that it seems that the way that players find clues don't really matter. I've run both, and found this to be...not a problem per se, but sort of not very interesting. For example, what do you make of passages like these in the book:

Attaching an image of what you linked and asked about as it won't carry through, otherwise.

I agree that it is quite off topic. I'm going to try to connect my answer to the thread and a point about "plot."

* I think The Between is a game that (a) is unabashed that it is "a game and its meant to be played as such", (b) the game's PC-centered protagonism is shared by care for the protagonism of Hargrave House, haunted Victorian London at-large, the Threats and the Mastermind, and (c) the structure injects the game with a very particular pulse, motif, and thematic arc. In many ways, it reminds me very much of My Life With Master; the deeply structured play, the sharing of protagonism with the setting and the Master as you try to fully wrest that protagonism from The Master.

* I think there is a conflation of concepts happening in this thread and probably at-large. "Clues" (as JA is using it), "Hooks," "Plot Points," and "Situations" are not the same thing...or, if they are in individual's minds or in the collective, work needs to be done to remove that redundancy. They need to be distinguished from one another and a big problem is that they're just kind of being mashed together as some kind of "GM technique (or constituent of system) gruel." I'm going to attempt to nail down how I see each of these in a way where they are usefully individuated:

Clue (as in JA's Three Clue Rule): Pulling directly from his essay, a device used to prevent bottlenecks and rudderless exploration that "slams into a wall," thereby funneling subsequent play "to the correct conclusion" (mysteries) or "for the adventure to continue" (general scenario).

Hook: A device used by GMs or module/AP authors to "hook" players into having their PC involve themselves in setting content when the PC in question has nothing native to their character at stake (goals, ethos, duties, relationships). This italicized bit is important because it provides contrast with Situation (later). While a well-done "hook" should be interesting, it has an inherently benign nature with respect to the PC's inherent interests/motivations and is more about (a) "bringing the setting’s vitality to the fore" and (b) giving players interesting content to engage with as it intersects with (a).

Plot Point: A seminal component of a throughline of a plot. In TTRPGs where the throughline of play features pre-authored plot, its a way station where players interact with or trigger or pick up some necessary encounter or reveal or exposition/lore dump to give context or texture to previous or subsequent Plot Points and The Plot at-large. Its often not necessary that Plot Points are ordered in some rigid sequence and games typically feature some breaking up of Plot Point interaction with various diversions; an auxiliary side quest, market haggling for provisions/gear (which typically features someone staring at a book in meat space and play is virtually full meta), casual and conflict-free freeform like tavern hijinx or strudel-baking or imagining and describing a wedding and your fancy dress/hat. Nonetheless, the reality that sequence of Plot Points can be reordered and play isn't relentlessly Plot Point > Plot Point > Plot Point (because its broken up by items that would almost surely be left on the "cutting room floor" if this was a movie) doesn't change the meta-reality and the gameplay experience of (a) the concepts of Plot Points and (b) the nature of The (throughline-governing) Plot.

Situation: In contrast with "Hook," a situation should interact with, and put at stake, something native to one or more characters (goals, ethos, duties, relationships). Put another way, premise or theme of character should be challenged...hopefully provocatively & directly, but even tenuously will suffice. Tenuously to provocatively & directly is a continuum here, and the better the situation the more provocative and direct its challenge will be.

EDIT: I'm sure those will find all the disagreement because for some reason or another, commenters/TTRPGers seem to either want the ability (or are content with the baggage) of conflating all 4 of those into one incomprehensible, incoherent definition gruel. Whereas, they're_very_freaking_different concepts in service to_very_different play. Distinguishing them aggressively is as important to communication as it is to honing particular skills as it is to actual play of games at the table.

---

Alright, to connect this back to your question about The Between @Malmuria and your subsequent reply to me regarding construction of JA's "Clues" & "Nodes," The Between is either (a) Situation (probably 90+ % of play) or (b) player-authored, in-situ vignette (answering questions/prompts about their PC's past, composing a clue, Janus Mask, Hargrave House, The Unscene, or a GM-directed question about the Situation before them). There are no Clues (JA-style), nor Hooks, nor Plot Points. Everything from the playbook stuff, to the Vulnerable Move, to Side Characters, to Threats, to Paint the Scene (Hargrave House), to The Unscene is Situation (90+ %) or in-situ, brief, player-authored vignette (>10 %).

I think one of the big problems in these discussions is that we don't talk frankly about concepts or candidly about what we're doing at the table (or during prep) because we're afraid of judgement. That is a huge net loss for our combo discipline/artform (running and playing these various games). Like, if you're going to run a railroad or a game that is clearly GM/module/AP plot-driven (it doesn't matter whether the sequence of plot points can be irrelevantly reordered or that the sequence of plot points is broken up by auxiliary content), so what? Do_it_well. Be good at that. You can be very good at that...you can be terrible at that...you can be everywhere in between. But be transparent about what you're doing (and that transparency goes for both yourself and your table) so everyone can (a) know what they're supposed to be doing and (b) what they're NOT supposed to be doing (like if you're running an AP/railroad or whatever AND its been clearly conveyed to the table that this is what you're doing...AND a player is opting out/actively trying to stay off the rails and/or disengage with Plot Points? That is poor play by that player. And I don't just mean social contract-wise. They're playing badly, as in not observing best practices of their participant role, as in unskillful play, and they should be called out for that kind of misplay and it should be corrected). And (c) they can improve their craft (what they're supposed to be doing) in a goal-directed, focused effort.

GMs and players of various games can't get better at that particular game if they aren't transparent about what they're doing and/or don't know what their best practices are (if players don't know what their best practices are because they're confused about what kind of game they're playing...how can they be held accountable for their poor play?).

Finally, while I don't run plot-driven games of any kind (I imagine you know my history of running games at this point), that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy playing a railroad or a plot-driven game by an extremely skillful GM. I've played 3 times in my life. 2 of those were railroads with unskillful GMs who weren't honest about what we were doing. It was awful. The other time I played under an extremely skillful GM and it was transparent that we were playing a railroad and our "say" was very limited in scope and magnitude (but when we had it, we should press the accelerator to the floor). It was totally rad. I would gladly play in that person's railroads now and again...but at the same time I know it is a_very_different_game than other games are. And so did the GM who ran it (and I'm sure he was really good at it in no small part because he was up front about it to both himself and to the table he was GMing).

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is an element of truth in this, but I also think the author’s reputation for ego colours people’s judgements. He does actually start out by outlining the specific circumstances when his advice applies “when writing a mystery”. He does not say “under all circumstances for all modes of play.” It’s fair to say he doesn’t discuss different ways of playing, but this is simply down to not knowing much about them (and perhaps having too big an ego to admit ignorance).

No, I’m not commenting on his ego. I don’t care about his ego, and haven’t made any comments on it so far.

He literally says that these techniques should ALWAYS be used. He does not talk about different styles of game… he assumes one style, with perhaps some slightly different implementations within that style, such as his reference to “mystery”, though he doesn’t elaborate on other kinds besides vague words like “adventure” or “story” and the like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

He literally says that these techniques should ALWAYS be used.

Not true. Try rereading.

He does not talk about different styles of game…

True. Nor does he claim to be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wanted to thank you for writing this. It helps clarify the differences between us and answer the question I poses in post #151 without needing to do a bunch of tedious back and forths. (That is: We have different conceptions of “plot”, but I can understand your meaning.)

What do you understand by "prepping plot"? More relevantly, what do you think JA means? I took his meaning to be more "don't write a film script", rather than "don't have anything going on". I would call stuff going on situation, not plot. I would still have stuff going on if I was creating a pure sandbox, otherwise the world would be dull and lifeless.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not true. Try rereading.

Here’s the opening of Don’t Prep Plots:

“If you’re GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.

“Everyone’s tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won’t necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.

“But, seriously, don’t prep plots.”

Here’s the relevant bit from the Three Clue Rule:

“And here’s an important tip: There are no exceptions to the Three Clue Rule.”

And:

“If you think about it in a broader sense, the Three Clue Rule is actually a good idea to keep in mind when you’re designing any scenario.”

True. Nor does he claim to be.

Sure, but that’s my point… some of the advice he offers is better suited to different types of games. And some is ill-suited for others.

 

[pemerton]

The distinction I would make is whether and how the PCs are expected to get involved. If I structure the adventure such that the PCs will go to the Temple to confront the villains, then I feel I’d have made a plot. Otherwise, the sequence seems similar to the grim portents format used by dangers in Dungeon World’s fronts (though it requires a bit of work to fully follow the format).

A danger in a DW front isn't a situation.

This sort of danger is an incipient plot, with a particular method - a clock - used to determine how it unfolds or is held at bay or even wound back. If the advice "don't prep plots" is really something closer to "prepare a DW-esque front with a threat clock", then just for starters it's not helpful to define "plot" as "a sequence of events".

Also, I think a DW-esque threat clock would not have "At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy". At least on the face of it, that is not the threat/front unfolding; that's a prediction of an interaction between two fronts. The navy should be on its own clock, which the players can also influence.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here’s the opening of Don’t Prep Plots:

“If you’re GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.

“Everyone’s tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won’t necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.

“But, seriously, don’t prep plots.”

So tell me, when do you think you should prep plots?

 

[kenada]

What do you understand by "prepping plot"? More relevantly, what do you think JA means? I took his meaning to be more "don't write a film script", rather than "don't have anything going on". I would call stuff going on situation, not plot. I would still have stuff going on if I was creating a pure sandbox, otherwise the world would be dull and lifeless.

I would call a plot a series of events that the GM wants to happen. There can be different (or even unplanned) paths between them, but the key element is that the events are planned out by the GM. An example of this is the scenario I described in post #135 and outlined in post #160.

When I ran it, we used a map of Pitax and the surrounding region. The PCs were free proceed with their investigation as they pleased, but the clues they discovered were set up to lead them to the eventual conclusion (that the tigers had been taken out of the city, located in a particular cave, and the PCs would need to fight a boss to free them).

I find this distinction important because I am not planning things out that way in my current campaign (as discussed in post #86 with some recaps posted here). I do not want that the raiders or bandits or dragon situations should play out a particular way. I do not have any particular plans for how the meeting with the fake-Maria (as mentioned in post #154) should go.

When I am playing GM-as-opposition, there are mechanics to avoid imposing my wants on play. The dragon situation is put to a tracker. When it completes, the dragon is arrived. Should fake-Maria want to make a move against the PCs (e.g., coerce them), she would make a skill check (per the system’s procedure), and the result would be binding on both her and her target (a PC, likely).

I tried for years to use Justin’s hexcrawl procedure, but I could not make it work. It requires too many rolls every day of play, which slowed down exploration at the table, and the amount of prep (every hex!) was oppressive. I want to run a sandbox exploration game, but I don’t want to have to do a lot of prep. If I am just making things up, there is a risk of bias (as discussed in post #86). My use of narrativist techniques is meant to be a solution to that bias, though I would not describe it as that kind of game.

(The fact that my homebrew system does not fit neatly in a taxonomical bucket is one of several reasons why I dislike their use in RPG discourse, but digging into that is way outside the scope of this thread.)