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

[KYRON45]

Not really. And it's not as if the writing is coy: "How do you expect the adventure will end? Think about possible endings as well as rewards for the characters."

It's hardly James Joyce.

I do tend to read instructional texts literally. I mean, there are some exceptions in the RPG world - some instructional texts that are also written with flair and allusion - but I don't think WotC is writing those!

And I'm not "searching for problems". I saw a link to this preview, I had a read of it, and I was struck by the contradiction.

This isn't true, if the map has multiple paths. (Which you seem to recognise.)

In the even more classic mega-dungeon, the players are also expected to scout out and choose their goal - so, in effect, it is the players who choose which scenes are framed (from a "menu" provided by the GM's dungeon building).



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?

There are other ways of preparing and planning content for a RPG session than planning a sequence of events with a beginning and an end that you don't intend to use.

I "the DM" can plan for anything i want.
You "the player" can DO anything you want.
For every ending I plan for...there are (random number here) 3 potential endings each player might want to engage in.
If you are capable of planning for X to the Nth degree of potential eventualities (i am not a mathamegician).....I applaud you and would be happy to build you a shrine.

Not every PC is just the numbers on their sheet. Not every player is looking to "win D&D".
D&D isn't an engineering project where the designers can list and package everything with precision like the owners manual to your car. You're never going to get a manual that gives you scientific explanations for how to have fun.

Roll high = good. Roll low = bad. After that it's up to us to create opportunities to have fun with the material in the manuals.

 

[pemerton]

I "the DM" can plan for anything i want.
You "the player" can DO anything you want.
For every ending I plan for...there are (random number here) 3 potential endings each player might want to engage in.
If you are capable of planning for X to the Nth degree of potential eventualities (i am not a mathamegician).....I applaud you and would be happy to build you a shrine.

Not every PC is just the numbers on their sheet. Not every player is looking to "win D&D".
D&D isn't an engineering project where the designers can list and package everything with precision like the owners manual to your car. You're never going to get a manual that gives you scientific explanations for how to have fun.

Roll high = good. Roll low = bad. After that it's up to us to create opportunities to have fun with the material in the manuals.

I don't understand how any of this relates to my observation that the preview DMG text appears to give contradictory advice.

 

[KYRON45]

I don't understand how any of this relates to my observation that the preview DMG text appears to give contradictory advice.

There lies what may or may not be the problem. I was just adding to the conversation. I can not determine how you interpret my comments.

 

[TwoSix]

On the other hand, to directly address your point. A classic dungeon, pre-stocked with rooms with traps and monsters is a completely pre-determined adventure.
The order in which the characters tackle the job of clearing it out is not so predetermined, even if the dungeon is particularly linear as they have non-combat options (or as long as the DM is willing to accommodate alternative ways of tackling the encounter).

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

It isn't at odds.
Having a plan is usually a good thing, even if you know quite well that reality will not stick to the plan. Having a plan means you have a basis for rational thought around the repercussions when reality deviates from the plan.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Not really. And it's not as if the writing is coy: "How do you expect the adventure will end? Think about possible endings as well as rewards for the characters."

It's hardly James Joyce.

I do tend to read instructional texts literally. I mean, there are some exceptions in the RPG world - some instructional texts that are also written with flair and allusion - but I don't think WotC is writing those!

And I'm not "searching for problems". I saw a link to this preview, I had a read of it, and I was struck by the contradiction.

This isn't true, if the map has multiple paths. (Which you seem to recognise.)

In the even more classic mega-dungeon, the players are also expected to scout out and choose their goal - so, in effect, it is the players who choose which scenes are framed (from a "menu" provided by the GM's dungeon building).



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?

There are other ways of preparing and planning content for a RPG session than planning a sequence of events with a beginning and an end that you don't intend to use.

You and I are interpreting that piece of advice differently and while there is some legitimacy to your reading, I personally think that castigating the writer for poor advice before reading the rest of the chapter is uncalled for. I am happy to wait until I see the complete text.
In the absence of other evidence, I think you position is ungenerous.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

Yes, I am aware of that, thank you. I was just offering an example to support my basic contention that it is premature to hang the DMG writer for crimes against DM'ing on the basis of this excerpt without seeing what is written in the rest of the chapter where these bullet points are expanded upon.

 

[GMMichael]

Contradiction? Well, Matt Mercer did contribute to the DMG...

What's more interesting to me is that we're seeing a review of a D&D product that calls it "disappointing!" Wow! That's in sharp contrast to the usual PR articles WotC ("news outlets") put out about how D&D is actually a thing, and people actually play it, and how it's really cool and the Greatest Role-Playing Game in the World!

It is probavly worth waiting to see the full template amd the examples they set up to see what is up with that.

"There’s plenty more ready-to-use content in the new DMG, including several example adventures. These are presented in a streamlined notation format compared to published DnD adventures, to give new DMs an example that’s easier for them to use when creating their own homebrew content."

The thumbnail (?) makes it look like the DMG should be consumed with a chalice of wine. I approve.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, if this is what they're hinting at

That's the thing, I don't think they are hinting at anything, this is a fairly clear statement in the text: plan, but be prepared to abandon the plan.

 

[pemerton]

Having a plan is usually a good thing, even if you know quite well that reality will not stick to the plan. Having a plan means you have a basis for rational thought around the repercussions when reality deviates from the plan.

Why would having a plan for what I'm going to do, as GM, mean having a plan for how the events of the adventure will unfold, including a beginning and an end?

And why would I make a plan with the intention not to stick to it? Wouldn't it be better to make a different plan that, everything else being equal, I do intend to stick to?