D&D (2024) DMG adventure design advice - a bit contradictory?

[Umbran]

Well, if this is what they're hinting at (i) I think they could be clearer, and (ii) I think it's bad advice. I mean, why would you prepare a sequence of events if you're not intending to follow that sequence of events?

Having thought about the material enough to have the plan, you likely understand the material well enough to cogently respond to changes.

 

[pemerton]

Most of the time a DM will probably use the ending they had in mind. Especially if they are playing with newer players, or players less inclined to ignore the narratives the DM puts forth.

If the DM sets the adventure premise as "The farmer arrives in the tavern and asks the PCs to find out where his horses disappeared to"... most of the time the players will do exactly what was asked of them (especially if there is reward involved.) So the game helps those DMs with their prep by having them determine prior to the game start what are the probable expected actions the players will take to solve this adventure, and what could happen at the end of the adventure should the players take the most likely and logical paths to get there.

I really think this idea that players don't follow breadcrumbs to finish adventures and instead do anything and everything in their power to ignore things the DM puts in front of them is a bit overblown.

This may be true.

Suppose it is true, that doesn't make the advice not contradictory.

And suppose what you have posted is true, and is a sound basis for planning D&D adventures. Then rather than being told not to predetermine the events of the story, it would make more sense to be told that, after you have come up with the beginning and the end and the encounters in between, come up with ways - "breadcrumbs" - to lead the players through the sequence of events that you have predetermined.

The Alexandrian's stuff about "three clues" and "nodes" would be an example of this sort of advice, for instance.

 

[Umbran]

Wouldn't it be better to make a different plan that, everything else being equal, I do intend to stick to?

It sounds like you are making the most common error folks make when thinking about plans.

The plan is an artifact we can use for reference. But the plan, itself, is not valuable. The real value was in the act of planning. The act of planning generates understanding of the material, which is used to consider how to proceed.

They have laid out what is perhaps the most bog-standard, easy to grasp ways of going about it, which also happens to align well with how published adventures are traditionally presented.

You may prefer other methods of preparing material. That's fine. You do you.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is why we Enworlders should take new DMs as apprentices si we can teach them how it's really done!

 

[Iosue]

Let’s look at Lost Mine of Phandelver.

It’s got a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The dwarf Gundren has arranged for the PCs to come to Phandalin. Along the way they are ambushed by goblins. They follow the goblins to their hideout, defeat the bugbear there, and save Gundren’s friend Sildar. Arriving in Phandalin, they run afoul of the Red Brand gang, and investigate their hideout in Tresendar Manor. There they learn the location of Cragmaw Castle, where Gundren is being held. They go to Castle, save Gundren, learn about the Black Spider, and get the location of Wave Echo Cave. Going there, they find the lost mine and defeat the Black Spider. End of campaign.

Now, of course, in the course of play, it probably won’t go just that way. There are multiple ways to learn the location of Cragmaw Castle. And plenty of side quests, some tied in with the pregen PCs’ backstories. The PCs may join a faction. They may decide on some unique course of action that the DM has to accommodate. But the structure on which all this stands is the through line described above.

The way I see it, the advice is merely suggesting to make an adventure in that mode. Have a beginning, an inciting incident (goblin ambush), a middle (search for Gundren and/or find Cragmaw Castle), and an end (find Wave Echo Cave, defeat the Black Spider).

But within that, there’s plenty of leeway. So a DM has to be prepared for players to deviate.

 

[Lanefan]

I was looking at the preview page from the DMG on adventure design, on this website - The new D&D core books feature nearly 400 spells and over 500 monsters, but disappointingly few new ideas - and to me it seemed a bit contradictory.

Here's what I mean:

Follow these steps to create an adventure: . . .​

​

Step 3. Plan Encounters. How does the adventure play out? Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end.​

​

Step 4. Bring It to an End. How do you expect the adventure will end? Think about possible endings as well as rewards for the characters. . . . .​

​

[W]hile it's worthwhile to compare an adventure to these other forms of storytelling [novels, movies, comics, TV], remember that an adventure isn't a complete story until you play. . . . the events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined: the actions of the players' characters have to matter. For example, if a major villain shows up before the end of the adventure, the adventure should allow for the possibility that the heroes defeat that villain. Otherwise, players can feel as if they've been railroaded - set onto a course that has only one destination, no matter how hard they try to change it.​

​

You might find it helpful to think about an adventure not as a narrative that arcs from beginning to end with little chance for deviation, but more in terms of situations that you are presenting to the characters. The adventure unfolds organically from the players' responses to the situations you present.​

The stuff about not railroading, and about presenting situations (to the players, really, even though they say "characters"), seems at odds with the advice to plan how the adventure will play out and end, and what the encounters/events will be that take the characters from the beginning to the end.

While at first glance the steps 3 and 4 you quoted seem to suggest the DM should over-script it all (and thus make your point quite valid), I also read into them a sense that the real advice being given is "Always think about what happens next, and be ready for it".

That said, step 3 in particular is badly worded (unless there's more to it, unquoted) in that IMO there needs to be something in there to the effect of "Plan the encounters, sure; but don't expect or insist that the characters meet all of them, as a key part of creative play may involve avoiding or bypassing those very encounters you have planned." A further piece along the lines of "Be ready to adapt if-when the players have their characters do the unexpected" and it's good.

Step 4 is good advice I think. "Think about possible endings..." implies the ending doesn't have to be hard-coded and thus serves merely as a reminder to think about what comes next; and some DMs do need reminding when it comes to considering treasure and-or other in-game rewards.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, if this is what they're hinting at (i) I think they could be clearer, and (ii) I think it's bad advice. I mean, why would you prepare a sequence of events if you're not intending to follow that sequence of events?

Yuo prepare a sequence of events for the (sometimes unlikely) situation where they'll actually follow the sequence; and if-when they don't you've still got those events prepped that they do manage to hit. The more important thing IMO (and unmentioned in the snippets quoted) is to not be a slave to your prep and be ready to abandon it at any time. Which means, yes, sometimes you intentionally have to prep more than you're likely going to use; so be it.

And in the end, having things prepped is still better for most of us than having to make it all up on the fly.

 

[Parmandur]

While at first glance the steps 3 and 4 you quoted seem to suggest the DM should over-script it all (and thus make your point quite valid), I also read into them a sense that the real advice being given is "Always think about what happens next, and be ready for it".

That said, step 3 in particular is badly worded (unless there's more to it, unquoted) in that IMO there needs to be something in there to the effect of "Plan the encounters, sure; but don't expect or insist that the characters meet all of them, as a key part of creative play may involve avoiding or bypassing those very encounters you have planned." A further piece along the lines of "Be ready to adapt if-when the players have their characters do the unexpected" and it's good.

Step 4 is good advice I think. "Think about possible endings..." implies the ending doesn't have to be hard-coded and thus serves merely as a reminder to think about what comes next; and some DMs do need reminding when it comes to considering treasure and-or other in-game rewards.

Part of it is that we just have the first page, one assumes the points get elaborated in the following pages. And then there are multiple examples for use.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the time a DM will probably use the ending they had in mind. Especially if they are playing with newer players, or players less inclined to ignore the narratives the DM puts forth.

If the DM sets the adventure premise as "The farmer arrives in the tavern and asks the PCs to find out where his horses disappeared to"... most of the time the players will do exactly what was asked of them (especially if there is reward involved.) So the game helps those DMs with their prep by having them determine prior to the game start what are the probable expected actions the players will take to solve this adventure, and what could happen at the end of the adventure should the players take the most likely and logical paths to get there.

As in, for this scenario the DM should at least prep where the horses actually are, how-why they got there, and-or what has become of them.

Prepping "the horses were stolen by goblins who are even now roasting the first one over a great big fire" will probably lead to a vastly different series of scenarios than would prepping "the horses were rustled by Farmer Bob nextdoor as revenge for two stolen cattle (that Farmer Joe, the plaintiff here, didn't steal)" or prepping "the horses had been mistreated and were taken to the spirit realm by Ehlonna out of sympathy".

 

[Lanefan]

I think there's a pretty basic distinction between "preparing a site" and "preparing a plot".

If you're doing map-and-key site exploration, then ideally you'll have some stuff mapped out. But planning stuff like "The game is starting at 3rd, and at level 11 you'll be fighting the archdevil behind destroying the city" is no bueno.

Oh, I don't know - long-range planning e.g. "by 11th level you'll be fighting the arch-devil" can IMO and IME be a useful tool, in that a) it gives you an overarching plot to fall back on if-when other plots dry up and b) it allows you to sprinkle fore-shadowy and seemingly-disconnected (but in hindsight logical) clues in to earlier adventures.