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

[Paul Farquhar]

The problematic behavior is preventing players from going off the rails. "But your writing will go to waste if you have to pivot and improvise!" So? Show me a creative writing profession or hobby where a good chunk of your writing doesn't end up going to waste in the end

I file stuff that doesn’t get used. It can always be recycled for another game at a future date.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yep. And they've been getting buried on the now-decaying horse. Too much noise.

For myself, I've generally found his points worth thinking about, even if I don't fully agree with them. For instance, his series on Node Based (scenario) Design, and Game Structures (which you've also pointed out) I found very educational. A lot of his other posts, especially with regards to prep and record-keeping, I find less useful, as he is very obviously a high-prep GM, and I am not. (However, one of his comments - that I might have been prepping the wrong things, or in the wrong way, has stuck with me. I'm currently re-evaluating that.)

That's actually something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. A lot of GM advice - The Alexandrian, Sly Flourish, etc. - seems to be aimed at less-experienced GMs. But re-visiting the fundamentals is important. If you don't have the basics down, the advanced techniques aren't going to work right.

And on a semi-related note - experiment. With new approaches, new ways of design, etc. For example, I have a very strong tendency towards top-down design. In this campaign I am forcing myself to do bottom-up, I-don't-need-that-yet, design. It's getting easier, and I like how it's letting me adapt future scenarios, but I'm still having to restrain myself. It's been, is being, a good experience.

My previous campaign, I worked against my tendency to house rule; I tried very hard to run a pure vanilla 5e game. I (mostly) succeeded. I also won't do that again, as it wasn't very enjoyable for me. Not to my taste. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised - I once ran a supers game that was a blend of DC Heroes/MEGS, Champions, and Shadowrun. And that did NOT cure me of my rules tinkering tendencies.

Or put another way - Always Be Learning.

Here is why I don't think we're in "Dead Horse Territory." I agree very much with you that developing good fundamentals/platform/base + stacking technically sound "reps" = the best way to develop at anything. But that assumes that the fundamentals/platform/base that you're developing are good in the first place. And good assumes "well-understood at the core concepts level."

Upthread, I wrote a post that distinguishes core concepts in an applicable to TTRPG content generation way. This has basically been my understanding of these concepts since I've been in contact with each of them. Its extremely useful because it doesn't smear/blur lines or mash them all together in to some kind of incoherent or difficult-to-disentangle gruel. If I'm communicating with someone who is struggling with the text of Moldvay Basic (to prep a dungeon map/key and theme/stock it) vs someone who is struggling with the text of Dogs in the Vineyard or Agon (to prep a Town or Island) vs someone who is struggling with the various forms of Trad D&D (to devise a Hook-rich sandbox or an interesting setting metaplot or mash those two together), I'm going to give them very different advice and that advice is going to index those core concepts. If they've misunderstood or misapplied core concepts and then "stacked reps" that employ that misunderstanding and misapplication, they're probably in a place they don't want to be; habituated, internalized technique not fit-for-particular-purpose and causing them hardship during prep/play or both.

Which is why this, what looks to me to be Pea & Thimble shenigans over "plot" (intended or unintended), is absolutely counterproductive. People talk about jargon a lot? Borrowing from the literary or cinema version of "plot" when Trad D&D play (or whatever) has no Edit/Cutting Room Floor phase? That is the absolute worst sort of usage and completely distorts what is actually happening under the hood. Plot Point A, B, and D being broken up by auxiliary content (a side quest, marketplace reprovisioning, tavern freeplay, muffin-baking...whatever) C (which would either (a) not remotely perturb the trajectory of the plot's throughline in any meaningful way or (b) be outright cut in the edit phase of book/cinema generation) doesn't suddenly yield an honest and meaningful appraisal of "there is no plot because sequence broken." I can't imagine trying to put that contention forward and want to have it persist within the greater TTRPG sphere. That sort of distorted idea will absolutely misguide everyone as to what is happening under the hood; (a) participants at the table, (b) designers trying to design a game fit-for-particular-purpose, (c) GMs trying to hone their craft, (d) new TTRPGers wanting to learn the basics of their craft (that base/platform and those fundamentals) as it pertains to the particular game they're interested in and then stack "quality reps."

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

My take on the supposed contradiction between Don't Prep Plots and Three Clue Rule, is that Three Clue Rule is arguably value neutral in regards to Don't Prep Plots.

There's an obvious throughline where you could bludgeon the players with the three clues to ensure they get at least one of them and can solve a mystery in an adventure that is that mystery in a traditional plot structured fashion, and the article even alludes to doing so, but the article also works well outside that context.

Its simple enough to create a scenario, notice that there's an implicit mystery, and then prep some clues so that there's information pointing at the truth of the matter, without having counting on a sequence of events ending in that mystery being solved. But, in a scenario, a mystery can play multiple roles:

For example, I might prep a town with a local lord who isn't very popular, and things have been particularly tense because there's been a rash of mysterious murders, and a local firebrand is using it to criticize the local lord, which is creating unrest-- there's a detective hired by the lord to look around town to try and solve the mystery too. Looking at that scenario, I also add elements that could point toward a culprit following the three clue rule as a best practice.

At runtime the players find some of the clues, and realize they could solve the mystery, but instead destroy the clues so that the lord can't use the success politically to avert what appears to be a coup on the horizon, they don't care that there's a serial killer on the loose, just about taking down a tyrant.

At runtime the players ignore the clues and offer to the lord to take care of this pest for him, they don't care about the mystery, they just go for an obvious pay day by assassinating the firebrand (or kidnapping him, or whatever).

At runtime the players find the clues and choose to solve the mystery, but do so claiming to be working for that local firebrand to give them credibility when they take down the culprit.

At runtime the players find the clues and choose to solve the mystery, but they trade the information to the local lord in exchange for a favor.

At runtime the players don't find the clues and skip town, the situation resolves however I'd have decided it would if they do nothing, they might hear about it later, and it might have consequences for something else.

At runtime the players don't find the clues but they hang around for a while doing other stuff, perhaps just using the settlement for downtime, the serial killer eventually targets one of them because I think the serial killer would, or because I'm bored and want to spice things up, or because a player has requested that their character die so they can introduce a new one.

At runtime the players don't find the clues but they hang around for a while doing other stuff, perhaps just using the settlement for downtime, I describe the political fallout accordingly as they hang around and witness it happen.

At runtime the players realize its a serial killer, but become copy cat killers, which results in them and the original culprit trying to one up each other as the law tries to close in.

At runtime the players solve the mystery but decide to work with the killer, becoming accomplices.

At runtime the players give the detective information because they decide they like the guy, and want to see him succeed, making him a kind of pet NPC, especially if he's a cute kobold or something.

At runtime the players give the detective deliberately bad information, making him look like a fool when the killings don't stop.

At runtime the players give the detective accidentally bad information because they misinterpreted the clues, making him look like a fool when the killings don't stop.

 

[tomBitonti]

Indeed, as he states in his opening sentence that you quoted, it's advice on how to prepare A MYSTERY SCENARIO (which one would expect to have a plot of some sort). It is explicitly NOT advice on how to prepare a sandbox, a Story Now game, or how to convert a tractor to run on biofuel.

(Looking in dismay at a recently dismantled tractor.)
Wait, what?
TomB

 

[Malmuria]

I honestly think saying “don’t prep plots” is bad advice for D&D. It seems what he means is more “don’t dictate what the players must do to resolve problems or overcome obstacles”. Let them engage with the plot in their own way.

The complete phrase is "don't prep plots, prep situations." It does feel that your view is that what JA would call a "situation," however, still falls under the purview of "plot"

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.

These are good case studies, because they are avowedly old school location-based adventures. That is, they are not adventure-path style modules, nor are they for a narrative game. Halls of the Blood King, IIRC, starts with a castle popping into existence from another plane of existence, and the PCs go there because [choose hook]. The rooms/NPCs definitely have clues that key the PCs in to the various subfactions and to what dangers/treasures might be in other rooms (though there aren't chokepoints). There's a lot of environmental storytelling and faction interplay, and there's a whole backstory that describes why the various NPCs like or dislike each other.

I consider that a situation, not a plot, because it's a non-linear and open-ended scenario that's open to choice and exploitation by the players. However, I do get the feeling that some in this thread would consider the classic OS dungeon to still be plot because of the way it involves progressively acquiring information from the GM.

 

[Shardstone]

Is @TheSword even still in this thread lol

 

[kenada]

These are good case studies, because they are avowedly old school location-based adventures. That is, they are not adventure-path style modules, nor are they for a narrative game. Halls of the Blood King, IIRC, starts with a castle popping into existence from another plane of existence, and the PCs go there because [choose hook]. The rooms/NPCs definitely have clues that key the PCs in to the various subfactions and to what dangers/treasures might be in other rooms (though there aren't chokepoints).

I think you have the hook basically right. The PCs in my game had found a deed to a ruined manor in random treasure, which eventually became the settlement they’re developing. The first time they went there, there was a black portal, which they naturally couldn’t resist entering.

There's a lot of environmental storytelling and faction interplay, and there's a whole backstory that describes why the various NPCs like or dislike each other.

I use Hall of the Blood King as my example of doing horror in a D&D-like game. My players were worried about everything. They wouldn’t even go into the hat room. They were convinced it must be dangerous somehow.

Spoiler: Halls of the Blood King (outcome plus campaign stuff)

The PCs ended up aligning with the Princess of Blood, but they also wanted to help Seleana. They ended up destroying the Blood King by accident. They found his heart and destroyed it without realizing it would cause the house to implode. Whoops.

As the house was imploding (and the dimension itself collapsing), the PCs ran into the Princess as they fled the house. She shanked weepy emo guy then gave them the weapon for doing their part. The PCs also wanted the other treasure in the house, but they were too slow to get it. The Princess told them she’d get it if they carried her coffin out of the portal, which they surprisingly agreed to do.

The Princess of Blood ended up moving into the shack on the back part of the manor property, taking the name Natalia (as mentioned occasionally in my recaps). Seleana went for a journey to see what the world was like.

Natalia’s relationship with the PCs has been fun. They can’t decide whether they like her or hate her for being a vampire. It’s an interesting point of friction, especially with Deirdre (the barbarian). Surprisingly, Tama (the cleric) seems to be cooler with the situation. (Though Natalia finds Tama’s attempts to feed her blood patronizing.)

Seleana ended up working for the PCs after she concluded her journey (and was disappointed by how things had regressed from her time, which is in the future of our time). She has a rifle that uses caseless ammunition, but the capability to make it just doesn’t exist in the setting. Much to her annoyance, she has to use a rifled musket.

(There may also have been drunken rants about having to make paper cartridges and melt lead for Minié balls.)

I consider that a situation, not a plot, because it's a non-linear and open-ended scenario that's open to choice and exploitation by the players. However, I do get the feeling that some in this thread would consider the classic OS dungeon to still be plot because of the way it involves progressively acquiring information from the GM.

That’s how I feel about it too. It doesn’t try to lead you to any particular conclusion. There are a bunch of different ways it can resolve, though I think some are pretty unlikely like saving the Blood King.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am replying twice because I failed to address your second question. I apologize for that. I am doing this in a separate post instead of editing post #220 in case there are replies in the meantime.

Justin defines what he means by plot in his “Don’t Prep Plots” essay as the following:

First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.​

​

And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you’re attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story — it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.​

He describes using the three clue rule as a possible solution, but all the three clue rule provides (per the “Three Clue Rule” essay) is redundancy (more clues for each wanted conclusion) and a failsafe (in case the clues are missed or misunderstood).

I think Justin would distinguish that the play is different because how the players arrive at each event will vary based on their decisions, which would thus not constitute a plot, but the wanted events are still there. That’s my issue. I don’t want them. I want situations leading to situations and so on.

To put it more succinctly, if a plot is a series of events telling a story, and I don’t want to prep a plot, then a technique that only changes how the players navigate the events while still retaining them doesn’t do what I want.

I think the core disagreement I am having with others here is that they are fine with the change in play. It gives the players flexibility in how they navigate the scenario while not changing the overall structure of play, which I assume is something they want. I see that structure (of events that tell a story) as a “plot” while they don’t.

I feel like this is ultimately an almost unbridgeable difference in approach more than anything. In terms of the trad play JA is giving advice for, 'not a plot' amounts to just not completely linear play. As long as the players can hit all the nodes, or maybe skip some, in various orders he's not plotting in his mind. IMHO though what you're doing is much closer to a type of Narrativist play. Maybe not to a VB level, but there's that true lack of ANY level of plotting, and thus JA type definitions just don't apply. For purely trad GMs these distinctions basically don't matter..

 

[Umbran]

But I can’t tell if you’re being passive aggressive or if you just lack the stones to say what you mean, so I’ll just make these implications and when called on it, I’ll deny it!

Mod Note:
Oh, you're going to deny it, are you? You think that's going to help you here?

You and @Paul Farquhar can rest assured that we don't need court level of "proof" for things - if you are being disruptive, or acting like jerks, we will simply remove you from the discussion.

So, both of you, cut it out. Now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!

The G series does have a plot, though the giants are so passive by default it's barely emergent. Gygax expected GMs to handle that themselves. KotB OTOH is ALMOST totally static map and key play. So no plot there, though the GM could impose one, or extemporize, and there are some notes that allow for plot development, like the evil priest can do a few things.