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

[hawkeyefan]

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

Generally I think most D&D play these days involves a plot. I think dungeoncrawls are generally a thing of the past as far as being the focus of an entire adventure. Hexcrawls are also a bit more niche than I think they used to be.

These days, most D&D adventures that I’ve seen and run are more story focused. Usually, they involve a villain who’s got some kind of agenda and the expectation is that the PCs will oppose that villain.

So I think if this is the kind of game one is running, then it makes sense to prep accordingly.

 

[GuardianLurker]

In fact the Alexandrian has a post lamenting the death of the dungeoncrawl (and 'crawls in general). His point being that 'crawls are a great structure for beginning GMs to learn from/in, and that -as teaching experiences - the hobby probably needs a few more of them. If only to learn the pitfalls of too rigid structures, and how to cope with player inventiveness. (And also the basics of gameplay.)

On a different note - the horse has been dead quite sometime; can we please leave the discussion of plot and prep behind?

 

[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 am replying twice because I failed to address your second question. I apologize for that. I am doing this in a separate post instead of editing post #220 in case there are replies in the meantime.

Justin defines what he means by plot in his “Don’t Prep Plots” essay as the following:

First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.​

​

And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you’re attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story — it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.​

He describes using the three clue rule as a possible solution, but all the three clue rule provides (per the “Three Clue Rule” essay) is redundancy (more clues for each wanted conclusion) and a failsafe (in case the clues are missed or misunderstood).

I think Justin would distinguish that the play is different because how the players arrive at each event will vary based on their decisions, which would thus not constitute a plot, but the wanted events are still there. That’s my issue. I don’t want them. I want situations leading to situations and so on.

To put it more succinctly, if a plot is a series of events telling a story, and I don’t want to prep a plot, then a technique that only changes how the players navigate the events while still retaining them doesn’t do what I want.

I think the core disagreement I am having with others here is that they are fine with the change in play. It gives the players flexibility in how they navigate the scenario while not changing the overall structure of play, which I assume is something they want. I see that structure (of events that tell a story) as a “plot” while they don’t.

 

[kenada]

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".

He defines it as a “sequence of events that tell a story”. If even with the absence of the PCs’ involvement, it still tells a story, then I’d agree it’s a plot. (So now I see how the distinction of PC involvement I made in post #213 does not hold up.)

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.

That’s the bit of work it needs. The events need to be rewritten as proper grim portents. However, see above for otherwise.

 

[billd91]

Generally I think most D&D play these days involves a plot. I think dungeoncrawls are generally a thing of the past as far as being the focus of an entire adventure. Hexcrawls are also a bit more niche than I think they used to be.

These days, most D&D adventures that I’ve seen and run are more story focused. Usually, they involve a villain who’s got some kind of agenda and the expectation is that the PCs will oppose that villain.

So I think if this is the kind of game one is running, then it makes sense to prep accordingly.

I think it's largely true that most D&D games involve some kind of plot, mainly some villain or group with an agenda that invites PC opposition. And I think it's an important aspect of why D&D is as popular and mainstream as it is. The addition of some degree of villainy turns D&D characters from being just grave robbers and home invaders into heroes.

 

[mamba]

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.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the last paragraph is what JA sees as a scenario while the one before it is a plot, and that is the distinction he wants to make here.

The difference between the two is that the plot contains things the characters (have to) do, while the ‘no plot’ paragraph only mentions what everyone else is doing, assuming the events unfold that way / no one interferes.

The player actions are no longer prescribed, they are free to do whatever and if their actions intersect with those of the villains, then how that gets resolved and what happens after is open ended.

The only difference really is that the player actions are no longer railroaded for the plot to happen, which also means what is described might not happen at all, depending on what the players do. It does still say what the villains plan and unless they are being opposed that also is what they will be doing.

So the real difference is that the players are not being railroaded, not that there is no plot.

 

[kenada]

On a different note - the horse has been dead quite sometime; can we please leave the discussion of plot and prep behind?

I mentioned a few other things in post #147. @AbdulAlhazred also mentioned one in post #134. They seem to have gotten lost in the discussion.

• Campaign Status Documents
• Universal NPC Roleplaying Templates

I use an according file for my status ‘document’ and a binder for my setting stuff. My tracking sheets are tucked into the front in order of session, but I stopped keeping separate ones by session a while back. I currently have my trackers the Notes app, but I should eventually move them into my status document (along with updating my NPC roster).

I posted an example of my NPC template in post #154, but I’ll repost it here. I think for something like this, you beed to iterate until you find a format that works for you.

Eric the Dangerous [male yuma] — ambitious, deceitful, manipulative​

Tall (1.8m) and handsome (conventionally so). Blond hair (long, pulled back) and gray eyes. Buff coat (clean) and black boots (also clean). Dagger (tucked into boot).​

• Impulse: to get what he wants without working for it
• Adventurer who joined up with the raiders. Still leads his crew. Wants to keep more of the loot and would risk open conflict with Finland. Sona [female mao — dim, gregarious] and Urf [male yuma — bold, disobedient] are vying for his affection. Eric indulges both, but he is using them to further his goals.
• He’s the one who encouraged the other group to cause trouble for the PCs.

I also posted a few small maps I Jaquaysed (or tried to). They are hidden in post #147 under the “Map Crimes” spoiler.

 

[pemerton]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the last paragraph is what JA sees as a scenario while the one before it is a plot, and that is the distinction he wants to make here.

The difference between the two is that the plot contains things the characters (have to) do, while the ‘no plot’ paragraph only mentions what everyone else is doing, assuming the events unfold that way / no one interferes.

The player actions are no longer prescribed, they are free to do whatever and if their actions intersect with those of the villains, then how that gets resolved and what happens after is open ended.

The only difference really is that the player actions are no longer railroaded for the plot to happen, which also means what is described might not happen at all, depending on what the players do. It does still say what the villains plan and unless they are being opposed that also is what they will be doing.

So the real difference is that the players are not being railroaded, not that there is no plot.

The issue of railroading seems like a further matter.

If the GM writes down, as part of their prep, stuff that the players will have their PCs will do, is that railroading or simply prediction?

If the GM doesn't write down, as part of their prep, stuff that the players will have their PCs do, are they nevertheless anticipating certain action declarations by the players?

As an example of the latter, the GM might write down:

*At evening on the outskirts of the village, a portal opens up.

*Raider come through the portal.

*On the other side of the portal is visible a fortress, with a golden roof and the sun high in the sky reflecting off it.

*The portal closes as the raiders retreat back through, two hours later.

<The GM then writes down stats for the raiders, a map and key of the fortress on the other side of the portal, and some notes about the relationship between the magic realm of the golden-roofed fortress and the mundane world, including a ritual that will re-open the portal from the other side.>​

There is no mention, in those notes, of the players having their PCs do stuff. Yet those notes suggest that the GM is anticipating the players having their PCs perhaps confront the raiders, and definitely having their PCs go through the portal to assault the fortress. Otherwise there will be no game to play.

Anyway, from my perspective, and as I've often posted before, the "three clue rule" and "node based design" are techniques for railroading, not alternatives to it. And this is for precisely the reasons that @kenada has been carefully setting out in this thread.

 

[mamba]

The issue of railroading seems like a further matter.

If the GM writes down, as part of their prep, stuff that the players will have their PCs will do, is that railroading or simply prediction?

if they need to do things in a linear fashion to ‘solve’ the adventure then it is a railroad, whether you write their expected actions down or not.

If they can take other actions and those branch off, then it is not, even if they end up in the same destination by some other ‘path’.

The latter to me is kinda unavoidable as this all to me is in the context of a published adventure. If the DM creates their own, then there is no need to ever get back on track, they can just go wherever the players take it

To me all JA is saying is don’t make it a railroad, allow for several options and paths that get you to the next ‘must have’ event

Anyway, from my perspective, and as I've often posted before, the "three clue rule" and "node based design" are techniques for railroading, not alternatives to it.

that is all fine, but unless you (or your table) come up with your own adventure and ‘only’ plot out slightly ahead at best, you cannot really avoid limiting the options. Any published adventure has to. So I guess by your definition all the WotC and Paizo adventure paths are railroads…

I see JA talking about those kind of adventures more than whatever freeform you can do in the moment at the table

 

[QuentinGeorge]

If "villains do stuff" is a plot, then having an active dungeon where monsters react and move around is a plot, and then everything becomes a plot, except for dungeoncrawls where monsters sit around in their rooms passively and wait until things happen.

"Don't prep plots" means "don't prep a series of events that require the PCs to take certain actions", ie a pre-planned adventure that is requiring players to react in a particular way. Those sort of things fall prey to "my precious encounter" and DMs get tempted to railroad.

The villains doing things and events happening are just good worldbuilding.