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

[MonsterEnvy]

two preliminary pages from the DMG are shown on Beyond

 

[Malmuria]

We are working with fragmentary information here, because the longer text of what they mean by Step 3 plan encounters is missing from the preview. By planning encounters they might simply mean prep locations. For example, say the premise of an adventure is that bandits are attacking travelers along a road. Prep for this type of adventure might including mapping out the bandit hideout or preparing a regional encounter table. That kind of prep would not contradict with the idea that players actions determine how the adventure plays out. For example, if the players defeat a group of bandits (via random encounter perhaps), then the roster at the hideout should change to reflect the new gamestate.

 

[Clint_L]

So, from what I read on this forum, I seem to run unusually open-ended games, to the extent that players will often contribute plot points while we are playing (i.e. adding details about the world that I had no prior knowledge of). But I still have a plan. In fact, very detailed ones, in the sense that I always have a whole bunch of story arcs bread-crumbed, but how they pan out depends on what the players follow up on, how they pursue it (which can result in me having to prep something unexpected for next session) and how their luck goes. I mean, there's so many variables.

And yet, I can usually predict what is happening in the next game to the extent that I can prep complicated terrain builds for likely encounters, and most of them wind up getting used, albeit not always as expected. But this is because I've done my homework. That's how I read the DMG advice: be prepared. Know your material. Think about where this is likely headed.

All stories have beginnings, middles, and endings. That's really all the advice boils down to: think in terms of three act structure.

 

[pemerton]

Yet that ia how Adventure books are laid out. It is hardly an unusual approach to game prep, even though the end result will likely go off-rails.

To me, there seem to be (at least) two issues here.

First, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style a good model for a GM's prep? Or do they have some other purposes too, that are less relevant for prepping GMs? (Eg it seems that part of the commercial publishing model of adventure books is to sell them to people who like to read them but don't use them for play. This is not something that a GM prepping an adventure needs to worry about.)

Second, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style consistent with an instruction that "he events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined"? My impression is that they're not. They seem to involve a very large amount of pre-determination of events. That seems to be their whole point.

We are working with fragmentary information here, because the longer text of what they mean by Step 3 plan encounters is missing from the preview. By planning encounters they might simply mean prep locations.

To quote (again):

Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end.​

This is not a reference to locations. It's a reference to events.

They could have written, "Prepare some locations in which interesting things are likely to happen." But they didn't. They could have written that, and added, "Make sure there are ways for the characters to move between the locations, so that the players can experience the interesting things." But they didn't.

For example, say the premise of an adventure is that bandits are attacking travelers along a road. Prep for this type of adventure might including mapping out the bandit hideout or preparing a regional encounter table. That kind of prep would not contradict with the idea that players actions determine how the adventure plays out.

But it would also not be prep that follows the instruction to "Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end."

I am not, in this thread, arguing that prep should take one form or another. I am simply pointing out that it is contradictory to both tell people to "Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end" and to tell them that "the events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined".

 

[Parmandur]

First, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style a good model for a GM's prep?

Yes, at least for many DMs. It is how Perkins himself preps, and one imagines the subsequent pages will discuss details in more depth, including the 5 fleshed out examples that we know about.

Second, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style consistent with an instruction that "he events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined"? My impression is that they're not. They seem to involve a very large amount of pre-determination of events. That seems to be their whole point.

Yes, they are a series of locations, characters, etc. with some proposed sequence of events. However, as with this advice, these are acknowledged within the text of the Adventures as something that can cone apart, usually with some duggested alternate plan.

I think it is fairly clear from this thread alone that this is not an abnormal approach?

 

[Lanefan]

So, from what I read on this forum, I seem to run unusually open-ended games, to the extent that players will often contribute plot points while we are playing (i.e. adding details about the world that I had no prior knowledge of). But I still have a plan. In fact, very detailed ones, in the sense that I always have a whole bunch of story arcs bread-crumbed, but how they pan out depends on what the players follow up on, how they pursue it (which can result in me having to prep something unexpected for next session) and how their luck goes. I mean, there's so many variables.

And yet, I can usually predict what is happening in the next game to the extent that I can prep complicated terrain builds for likely encounters, and most of them wind up getting used, albeit not always as expected. But this is because I've done my homework. That's how I read the DMG advice: be prepared. Know your material. Think about where this is likely headed.

I'm with you up to here.

All stories have beginnings, middles, and endings. That's really all the advice boils down to: think in terms of three act structure.

But here we part ways, in that IMO the underlying assumption that the DM is specifically trying to author/tell/develop a structured story (as opposed to just letting play drift where it will) is misguided.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, at least for many DMs. It is how Perkins himself preps, and one imagines the subsequent pages will discuss details in more depth, including the 5 fleshed out examples that we know about.

Yes, they are a series of locations, characters, etc. with some proposed sequence of events. However, as with this advice, these are acknowledged within the text of the Adventures as something that can cone apart, usually with some duggested alternate plan.

I think it is fairly clear from this thread alone that this is not an abnormal approach?

I think what @pemerton is getting at - and with which I agree* - is merely that the text as written is in fact contradictory, and thus confusing. It says to prep the encounters and events that take the characters from the start to end (singular) of the adventure but doesn't give any parameters; and then the next bullet suggests there may and perhaps should be multiple possible endings (plural). Hard to have it both ways.

As for parameters and expectations: for a given adventure do you prep 8 events with the expectation that the characters will hit all 8 every time, or do you prep 14 events on the expectation that the characters might bypass or miss half of them? There's a big difference: the former will lead to DM disappointment (if not worse) when, not if, the players miss some of those events and is thus a huge encouragement to railroad; while the latter makes more work for the DM but the expectations are also different and railroading - though always possible - is less likely.

Without seeing the rest of the text we can't yet determine if this contradiction and lack of clarity is accidental or deliberate.

* - which might fill our quota of one agreement per year, hm?

 

[Hussar]

First, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style a good model for a GM's prep? Or do they have some other purposes too, that are less relevant for prepping GMs? (Eg it seems that part of the commercial publishing model of adventure books is to sell them to people who like to read them but don't use them for play. This is not something that a GM prepping an adventure needs to worry about.)

Second, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style consistent with an instruction that "he events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined"? My impression is that they're not. They seem to involve a very large amount of pre-determination of events. That seems to be their whole point.

@pemerton, considering you don't actually play 5e, AFAIK, haven'T actually READ any contemporary adventure books, and frankly, don't know what you're talking about, I would say that your concerns are largely unfounded.

"Contemporary" adventure design hasn't actually changed all that much since 1e. You could read something like, Lost Mines of Phandelver, and not really see any difference between it and, say, Cult of the Reptile God. So, if old modlues were the gateway for DM's to learn how to run games, it's not really any different today.

 

[Malmuria]

To me, there seem to be (at least) two issues here.

First, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style a good model for a GM's prep? Or do they have some other purposes too, that are less relevant for prepping GMs? (Eg it seems that part of the commercial publishing model of adventure books is to sell them to people who like to read them but don't use them for play. This is not something that a GM prepping an adventure needs to worry about.)

Second, are adventure books of the contemporary D&D style consistent with an instruction that "he events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined"? My impression is that they're not. They seem to involve a very large amount of pre-determination of events. That seems to be their whole point.

To quote (again):

Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end.​

This is not a reference to locations. It's a reference to events.

They could have written, "Prepare some locations in which interesting things are likely to happen." But they didn't. They could have written that, and added, "Make sure there are ways for the characters to move between the locations, so that the players can experience the interesting things." But they didn't.

But it would also not be prep that follows the instruction to "Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end."

I am not, in this thread, arguing that prep should take one form or another. I am simply pointing out that it is contradictory to both tell people to "Determine the encounters or events that take the characters from the beginning of the adventure to the end" and to tell them that "the events of the story shouldn't be pre-determined".

Encounter: the players encounter the bandits at their camp. Their confrontation will possibly take the story to its end
Event: If the PCs don't intervene, the bandits will attack the town in 1 week's time.

Those are both things that the GM could prep for that are still situations responsive to the PCs actions.

I agree that if by "events" they mean "[A] happens then happens then [C] happens" no matter what the PCs do, that that sounds like more of a railroad. That sounds like the GM is just putting scenes in front of the players rather than allowing them agency and choice.

I'm not familiar with all or most of the published modules, but several of them are heavily location-based, without requiring that the PCs visit any particular location to start with (e.g. dragons of icespire peak, which could be more sandboxy, per this review).

 

[pemerton]

I think what @pemerton is getting at - and with which I agree* - is merely that the text as written is in fact contradictory, and thus confusing. It says to prep the encounters and events that take the characters from the start to end (singular) of the adventure but doesn't give any parameters; and then the next bullet suggests there may and perhaps should be multiple possible endings (plural). Hard to have it both ways.

Correct.

@pemerton, considering you don't actually play 5e, AFAIK, haven'T actually READ any contemporary adventure books, and frankly, don't know what you're talking about, I would say that your concerns are largely unfounded.

See above. My "concerns" are a singular concern: the text is contradictory, because it says to determine some stuff and then it says to not determine that same stuff.

As for whether the adventures, as published, are a good guide for GMs - it seems that WotC has doubts about that, given that - at least according to Perkins in this preview <Dungeons & Dragons' New Core Rulebooks Want to Show, Not Tell>

We actually give you example adventures, several of them, and these are not in the style of our big published adventure books— they’re written in a way that we hope DMs will want to emulate for their home games . . . It is a more streamlined version of adventure design, and the reason why we’re doing that is to be mindful of the of the DM’s time, to help them prepare adventures quickly—you don’t have to write an adventure out in the way we publish adventures. When you’re running your own adventures and designing your own adventures, there’s kind of a shorthand way that you can do it, and we show you how, and then we give you several examples.​