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.)