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

[pemerton]

There is an inherit tension between improvisation and preparation. Unless someone goes completely to one side or other of the pendulum, any framework will contain some contradiction.

This claim isn't true in general. See, for instance, the rulebook for Apocalypse World.

Perhaps there are features of D&D 5e that make it impossible to give non-contradictory advice for how to prep for this particular game?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why read and reply to the thread if you aren't even kinda open to hearing that the answer to the question in the title might be, "yep"?

These kind of reversal responses don’t…mean anything…you know that, right?

Like it’s a lot of words to say, “nu-uh”

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps there are features of D&D 5e that make it impossible to give non-contradictory advice for how to prep for this particular game?

Nothing more so than any other version of D&D. There's certainly tension in that one of the core product lines of 5e are in-depth modules that are generally heavy on pre-scripting. (I'm aware there are exceptions, don't @ me). I imagine giving instructions that would contradict one of their main products would be slightly awkward.

 

[Lanefan]

If one pre-determined encounter/event (A) [always] takes the characters to another pre-determined encounter/event (B0, then there must be very significant limits on the outcome of (A). Any outcome that would not lead to (B) is precluded.

I took the liberty of inserting a key word - "always" - in there, in order to make this statement true.

But if it's phrased as "... is intended to take ..." instead, then the door is left open for other outcomes and-or unexpected results that might lead to (D) or (F) or somewhere else entirely, even though most of the time it'll probably go (A) to (B) anyway.

There are techniques for establishing what happens next, including framing techniques, that do not depend upon pre-determination and that are not random. They're well-known RPGing techniques these days. In the world of D&D, some 4e D&D books at least gesture towards them.

Even then, however, I know I'd be thinking ahead in terms of (or would want to have prior knowledge of) what comes after "what comes next" if what comes next produces any or several obvious possible results. Example: they're trying to gain uninvited entry to the palace to negotiate with the Duke. Were I DMing this I'd want an idea of the flowchart of likely upcoming events:

They fail to get in but are able to escape - what next
They fail to get in and get arrested - what next
They get in but are unable to find/speak with the Duke - what next
They get in but their negotiations fail - what next
They get in and their negotiations succeed - what next

Yes this means thinking about (or, for adventure writing, writing out) numerous possible paths and ultimately only using one, but that's the point of being prepared: most of the time, unless something really wacko happens, you're not left winging it if they don't follow the script.

 

[John Lloyd1]

This claim isn't true in general. See, for instance, the rulebook for Apocalypse World.

Perhaps there are features of D&D 5e that make it impossible to give non-contradictory advice for how to prep for this particular game?

I'm not getting what you are trying to say. Any you saying that Apocalypse World does not contain any form on contradiction?

I haven't read Apocalypse World, so I can't comment on that.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not getting what you are trying to say. Any you saying that Apocalypse World does not contain any form on contradiction?

I'm saying that AW integrates preparation and improvisation without contradiction. It gives very clear advice on what to prep, and on how to use that prep to support improvised, spontaneous decision-making about both framing and consequences of action resolution.

Thus, in general there is not an inherent tension between preparation and improvisation.

Nothing more so than any other version of D&D. There's certainly tension in that one of the core product lines of 5e are in-depth modules that are generally heavy on pre-scripting. (I'm aware there are exceptions, don't @ me). I imagine giving instructions that would contradict one of their main products would be slightly awkward.

This is why I'm a bit surprised that they don't give instructions that fit with their main products - give good advice on how to make sure that, once you've prepped you beginning, middle and end, the players (and their PCs) progress through those planned events as smoothly as possible.

An early version of this I know of is the "obscure death" rule in the DL modules, but surely there is better tech than that available after 40 years of RPG development. The Alexandrian's 3-clue and associated stuff also fits in here.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I'm saying that AW integrates preparation and improvisation without contradiction. It gives very clear advice on what to prep, and on how to use that prep to support improvised, spontaneous decision-making about both framing and consequences of action resolution.

Thus, in general there is not an inherent tension between preparation and improvisation.

I certainly see that tension in the writings of Sly Flourish. In particular, the balance between what and how much is prepared compared to what is improvised. And, it changes depending on the circumstances. How the DMG addresses this we have yet to truly see since we can only see the first page of the chapter.

 

[Clint_L]

Pre-written adventures are generally very narrow, since the idea is to be able to play them as written without doing a ton of prep. So the BBEG typically has a very specific plan for the players to foil, and each step on the way is closely prescribed because the adventure needs to be of a digestible scope.

I find that leaving room for player improvisation takes more prep from the GM, not less. To use Lanefan's example from above, in order to be prepared for the different options, I have to know what the Duke wants, as well as his key flunkies and their motivations, plus any other interested parties. I have to be prepared for a number of possible locations and encounters. And so on.

So I always have a lot more material prepared than ever comes up in game. But that's okay - maybe I'll get to use it some other time. At the same time, if you set it up right, players generally want to follow the main plot thread that you had in mind. So while players could make random choices, in general they want to figure out the mystery, stop the BBEG, or whatever.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Pre-written adventures are generally very narrow, since the idea is to be able to play them as written without doing a ton of prep.

Honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with WotC and how they present these ideas. It’s not easier to run one of the big adventure books than it is to run something a GM makes themselves. This is the lie that sells all those books.

Smaller and simpler is what saves time and makes things easier to run. Not labyrinthine plots and motivations spread out across 15 levels of adventuring.

There’s a lot about WotC and their presentation that’s contradictory.

 

[MerricB]

Honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with WotC and how they present these ideas. It’s not easier to run one of the big adventure books than it is to run something a GM makes themselves. This is the lie that sells all those books.

It's not easier for you.

I'm having a lot of fun running Eve of Ruin (much to my surprise), and I do minimal preparation for each session.

(Apparently a LOT of experience running adventures helps me run these).

Cheers,
Merric