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

[Paul Farquhar]

This is the familiar "Texas Two Step" that we see repeated. I've talked about this before when simulation is the term used.

********
The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world or fictional genre. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect our reality, and the closer that they completely reflect reality, they more accurate they are as a simulation. So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.

Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.

Achilles: Well, we all know that is a simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON that someone is playing the game as a simulation of the LoTR genre).

Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.

Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? Heck, I don't even think that Tolkien understood plate tectonics and didn't accurately model how the mountains in his world formed!!!! It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR of simulation).

Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with the more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat. Once you see this pattern happen, you will see it happen over and over and over again, with all sorts of terms.
***********

It's the same thing with plot. Most people use "plot" in the more general sense when it comes to TTRPGs. So, for example, the idea that there is some pre-planned material that adventurers might happen across (such as in a sandbox) is not considered "plot." If you talk to 99 out of 100 gamers, they would not consider a sandbox to be something that has plot.

But then there are some that will deliberately conflate both their own jargon use of the term and others' use of the generally accepted term in order to criticize them. Here, we see this - regardless of what one might think of Jason Alexander, it is obvious that he is using the term "plot" in the generally understood sense of the term, yet people are criticizing him using a specialized and insular meaning that is not generally accepted in order to score points by making it seem as if he is, in fact, not practicing what he is preaching.

Again, it is perfectly fine for people to use a more specific meaning when they are talking among themselves; it is rather bizarre to demand that others (especially those that may not agree with them) agree to use specific jargon definitions in place of generally accepted meanings for words that have general currency in the field.

It’s very common in the English Language for one word to have multiple meanings or shades of meaning, and for a person to use multiple meanings without really being aware of it. That’s why CONTEXT is so important in understanding English. Without context, many English words can mean anything.

And, of course, it makes it easy to deliberately misinterpret English in order to attack someone.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

This is the familiar "Texas Two Step" that we see repeated. I've talked about this before when simulation is the term used.

********
The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world or fictional genre. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect our reality, and the closer that they completely reflect reality, they more accurate they are as a simulation. So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.

Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.

Achilles: Well, we all know that is a simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON that someone is playing the game as a simulation of the LoTR genre).

Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.

Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? Heck, I don't even think that Tolkien understood plate tectonics and didn't accurately model how the mountains in his world formed!!!! It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR of simulation).

Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with the more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat. Once you see this pattern happen, you will see it happen over and over and over again, with all sorts of terms.
***********

It's the same thing with plot. Most people use "plot" in the more general sense when it comes to TTRPGs. So, for example, the idea that there is some pre-planned material that adventurers might happen across (such as in a sandbox) is not considered "plot." If you talk to 99 out of 100 gamers, they would not consider a sandbox to be something that has plot.

But then there are some that will deliberately conflate both their own jargon use of the term and others' use of the generally accepted term in order to criticize them. Here, we see this - regardless of what one might think of Jason Alexander, it is obvious that he is using the term "plot" in the generally understood sense of the term, yet people are criticizing him using a specialized and insular meaning that is not generally accepted in order to score points by making it seem as if he is, in fact, not practicing what he is preaching.

Again, it is perfectly fine for people to use a more specific meaning when they are talking among themselves; it is rather bizarre to demand that others (especially those that may not agree with them) agree to use specific jargon definitions in place of generally accepted meanings for words that have general currency in the field.

I agree with your post, but it's Justin Alexander not Jason.

Buth then again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My granddad used to have a plot. He liked to grow dahlias. When I was little we would often visit him on his plot at weekends.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's just baffling we're having this quibbling over semantics. If all of this is "plot" then Against the Giants was plotted. In fact, even Keep on the Borderlands is plotted! There are no plotless D&D adventures!

Against the Giants absolutely has a plot! We can all easily summarize the plot and it'll be pretty much the same from person to person.

I mean... at the end of each part, the PCs are magically teleported to the start of the next one!

And, of course, it makes it easy to deliberately misinterpret English in order to attack someone.

No one's attacking anyone, Paul.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No one's attacking anyone, Paul.

Well, that's the thing, because English has multiple meanings, it impossible to prove that a misinterpretation is made in bad faith. Or prove that it isn't.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

No matter how many times we explain this, people will keep ignoring it. It's crazy, isn't it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, that's the thing, because English has multiple meanings, it impossible to prove that a misinterpretation is made in bad faith. Or prove that it isn't.

So we have a difference of opinion, and all you can do is imply that I’m arguing in bad faith?

Like you can’t even come right out and say it, you just kind of hint at it to maintain deniability?

And you’re saying that it’s me attacking people?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood any of that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So we have a difference of opinion, and all you can do is imply that I’m arguing in bad faith?

Like you can’t even come right out and say it, you just kind of hint at it to maintain deniability?

And you’re saying that it’s me attacking people?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood any of that.

I haven't accused anyone of attacking anyone. So yes, you must have misunderstood. There is no way to determine if that misunderstanding is intentional or not.

 

[Nikosandros]

My granddad used to have a plot. He liked to grow dahlias. When I was little we would often visit him on his plot at weekends.

I bet that you traveled by railroad.

 

[kenada]

Yeah, I would call that a scenario, or story outline. It has nothing like enough detail or certitude to qualify as a plot.

I’m not concerned about terms so much reaching an agreement on the following. Terms can be hashed out later.

• plot - GM-scripted sequences. PCs play through them with limited/no flexibility.
• story outline - GM-provided story beats. PCs have flexibility on how to get there.
• play type 3 - Neither GM-scripted nor -driven. The PCs determine the course of action, and the GM provides support.

I am intentionally using a generic name for play type 3 to avoid having to litigate over whether other things could also lay claim to that name, which I’ve had to do recently, and it’s exhausting. The point is it’s distinct from the other two.

It's clear that JA uses a story outline, so that cannot be what he means by "not prepping plot". It may be that like me, he never writes it down. Writing things down can be a dangerous business. Once written, they become a lot less flexible.

Where it falls apart for me is I view the three clue rule as a way of creating what I have been calling a plot, but given the above distinctions, I agree with this take. It’s not doing type 3, but I don’t think that’s the point.

When I have had need to use it, I have found the three clue rule useful. Now that my campaign and homebrew system are trying to do type 3, it wouldn’t do what I want.

So, to explain what I think JA does mean by "not prepping plot", lets look at an example where the rule is broken. From Rime of the Frostmaiden, Chapter 3, page 172:

As the characters begin their ascent read: [Cut scene, you can read it yourself!] The Chardalyn Dragon exits the fortress....

The cut scene plays, and the players arrive just to late to prevent the dragon flying off to attack the Ten Towns, no matter what they do. They arrive at the location and Plot happens.

So, how would you write that as a situation instead? I would do it something like this:

The duergar of Sunblight (see map and key) are busy constructing a Chardalyn Dragon with the intention of using it to attack the Ten Towns. It will take them a further ten days to complete the dragon, at which point they will immediately launch it, preprogramed with the following flightplan...

Personally, I think that's better...

I agree that’s probably an improvement. I say probably because it a group may favor cinematic play, and losing the cutscene and drama would be a worse for them.

I understand where you are coming from with that! However, this is another example of JA taking credit for something he didn't invent. Hexcrawls have worked like that since the very early days of D&D, I was doing it in 1982 (and it wasn't new then). JA is really a very old-school DM!

While I grew up in the ’80s, aside from playing Baldur’s Gate in the late-’90s, I wasn’t exposed to D&D until college. It wasn’t (as far as I know) any Satanic Panic stuff. We were just into video games at the time. Anyway, my exposure was first to 3e. I first ran a hexcrawl when I ran Kingmaker.

I first discovered Justin’s hexcrawl procedure around that time. I’d also discovered old-school sites like Grognardia. I’ve also since run Old-School Essentials, and my homebrew system started out as a hybrid of OSE and Worlds Without Number, so I’m certainly aware he’s not describing something new, though he doesn’t claim that he is.

I mentioned Justin’s hexcrawl procedure because if anyone has made his procedure work, I’d like to hear about it. I certainly had no luck making it work. All those rolls slowed down play in a way I didn’t like.

Frankly, a sandbox takes a lot of prep. No getting round that if you want the players to have plenty of interesting things to do. The only real shortcut is to drop in prewritten content (use sources). Directing the players with a strong narrative might look like a shortcut, but IMO you still need to have lots of sidequests, B plots*, and stuff going on to make the world feel alive.



*I'm assigning a slightly different meaning to the word "plots" in this context. Language is a slippery thing.

I don’t actually agree that a lot of prep is required. I’ve run and played games where a lot of prep isn’t required (such as Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark). That’s why I have been looking to those sorts of games for techniques and ideas I can incorporate and use as inspiration. I’ve posted a number of recaps in the five words commentary thread.

We’ve played 33 sessions since switching to my (then hybrid) homebrew system and 10 prior to that. The first ruins they explored had a story-outline, but nothing has had that since the switch. I’ve run two adventures: Halls of the Blood King and The Incandescent Grottoes. Notably, neither of those adventures are designed around plots or story-outlines.

The primary driver of play is my homebrew system’s goal-oriented structure. At the start of the campaign, the players determine what the campaign’s goal is. For this campaign, it’s to loot the fallen capital. The campaign goal is effectively a stakes question. Can they do it? The players also decides on a group goal. Group goals should take several sessions to complete. The current group goal is to do something about the raiders. At the start of each session, players decide on individual goals.

At the end of each session, we review the goals. If the players’ consensus is they completed their group goal, everyone gets 3 EXP. Each player reviews their individual goals. If they completed any (i.e., at least 1 but also 2), they get 3 EXP (total, not per goal). Any other PC who helped as determined by the players gets 1 EXP for each goal helped (or up two per other player). The GM can give feedback, but the GM does not have say over goal completion.

As a GM, the rules mediate between GM-as-referee and GM-as-opposition. This is do e to avoid issues of bias that can make coming up with things on the fly problematic (as discussed a bit in post #86). When I am playing the opposition, I want to do so as hard as the opposition would play as if I were just a player without the ability to invoke my authority over which situations occur, what content is in play, how those are resolved, and where play will go.

I wish we were having this conversation in a few weeks, so I can link our next session, which will feature a negotiation between a faction of the raiders and the PCs. Unlike some approaches to social situations where this is just an obstacle to be overcome, I will be playing the negotiators to win. From their perspective, the PCs must lose. Of course, the PCs will have to bring their all and push for their interests. From what I have seen, my players are more than capable of that. We had a small preview last session when Eric tried to deceive them (see post #294 in the commentary thread). I’m excited (wearing my designer hat) about how this will play out next session.

That ended up being a bit longer that I expected, but hopefully it shows what I’m doing and want to do. I tried to do the heavy prep approach in our prior campaign, but I couldn’t do all the prep. It was too onerous. That’s not to say it’s bad per se, but it wasn’t something I could do.

Note that I’m also aware of just-in-time techniques like WWN’s sandbox approach, but I’m not looking to do those either because it doesn’t really support exploration, and it still involves quite a bit of work. That first ruins was done using its techniques. I vastly prefer what I’m doing now, which frequently requires little to no prep prior to the session.

(Setting aside the absurdity of designing a system to avoid having to prep. That’s hopefully a one time cost.)