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

[niklinna]

I’m sure it is a legitimate thing I it’s own right and it’s fans are clearly very convinced by it. However discussion often uses in game jargon which if you don’t play them is frustrating. Particularly in a ‘D&D General’ thread topic where most people are going to be D&D players. I see the subject brought up a lot on other threads and it almost always ends in folks getting drawn into long grass.

The term "jargon" does not mean "words I personally do not know". Trad gaming has every bit as much jargon as story-now gaming, if not more, merely by having been around longer. And, it just so happens that most story-now gamers have been through trad gaming culture and so they can speak both languages.

Most of the story-now folks I've seen post have been very (perhaps too) willing to explain their jargon, but it might be better for all involved if the trad-only folks just said "We're not interested in that play style and do not care to discuss this topic in those terms" rather than engaging and arguing with the story-now folks about terminology.

Now here I am engaging a digression to the thread myself, so I'll leave it at that!

 

[kenada]

yes, the three clues provide redundancy so the players can learn about events / facts in the world the GM wants them to know about somewhat reliably. What they then do with that information is still up to the players however

I guess I am not seeing the difference between this and what you do that you consider this plot, but not yours. You gave the players several clues to the bandit hideout, JA is placing several clues to much the same thing. Is the difference only that yours originated from random events while his are placed? That still makes either clues to ‘follow’ a ‘plot’.


sounds fine, but that is not what JA is describing. The events in ‘don’t prep plots’ only happen if the characters do not get involved. The guys board the ship, run into some other vessel two days later and so on, if the players do nothing. If they do, they can potentially intercept them before they meet the other ship, or affect the events in some other way, instead of them just playing out

What I’m considering a “plot” is when the GM has events they want to happen and uses techniques to make sure they happen (or it’s highly likely they do). In node-based design, these events are the funnel points. There is a good diagram in the essay I linked (“Node-Based Scenario Design — Alternative Node Design”). You start at the red node, then various things happen to take you to node D, then more things happen to take you to the (final) blue node. The red node would be the hook. It’s where you have to be to start the adventure. D is one beat, and the red node is another. The rest will play out depending on how the players proceed through the scenario.

Where things start to lose the plot is with some other techniques like layer cake design and including loops. I’ve not used those techniques. I’m curious how well they actually work in practice for people, and if they have any examples of play using them. It seems like a lot of work to prep something with a wide scope like that (versus relying on techniques to defer until when you actually need to say something). Scope of prep is one of the other issues I had with Justin’s hexcrawl procedure. Try as hard as I might, I just could not fully key a hex map. That is one of the things that motivated me to do my homebrew system and approach it the way I am.

If no one opposes a front you create, what happens? They accomplish their goal, don’t they? This is no different to me

I haven’t mentioned fronts. I don’t particularly like them (or Dungeon World). I have a global event mechanic and ways to track progress towards them. The global event has to be something the PCs can observe, but it doesn’t have to be related to them directly. If one group in the raiders tries to seize control, that would be handled as a global event, but the affect on the PCs is indirect (in how the raiders’ behavior changes in the world). The difference would be that I won’t be using a technique like the three clue rule to ensure any particular things happen, and it would probably be a misplay to do so. I feel like this is getting too far afield of the discussion though.

doesn’t that just change the way the clues are obtained?


well, in case of a mystery I guess I agree. A mystery is something with one solution the players either uncover, or they do not. At least to me the solution does not change based on the character’s actions, that only determines their success in uncovering it

Clues can be used for all kinds of things however, not just to solve a mystery. Maybe we are too hung up on the word ‘clue’

I think where we’re differing is the extent to which it matters how the clues are obtained. I (and Justin) think it matters quite a bit. Others seemingly do too. Look at how people react when it’s suggested to use mechanics to generate clues or even the nature of the mystery (like Gumshoe or Brindlewood Bay do). Also, in a way, many common adventure structures are effectively mysteries (e.g., the PCs are sent to investigate some problem and deal with it).

 

[Andvari]

No, it is not. Prepping a situation is very much TRADITIONAL. "Here is a dungeon, it is full of monsters" is a prepped situation, and as traditional as it gets (See: B2 The Caves of Chaos). It has nothing to do with "Story Now", which Jason Alexander is quite clearly not talking about at any point.

"Prep the situation" predates plot driven adventures, which didn't really appear until Dragonlance.

 

[pemerton]

Clearly, Alexandrian is giving his advice in the context of traditional gaming.

Sure, but not all traditional gaming involves hooking players or deciding ahead of time how they should approach things or pulling them back on track.

This advice does not seem to have much applicability to preparation for a classic dungeon-crawl. Nor does it have any applicability to preparation for (say) Burning Wheel, or Prince Valiant. As you say, it probably has quite a bit of relevance for prepping for something CoC-ish.

I mean, if I'm writing up a dungeon in readiness for a bit of Moldvay Basic, prep situations not plots seems like reasonable advice - and speaking generally, each room is a situation.

But the "three clue rule" is not applicable at all. If I'm even thinking about "clues" in that fashion, I'm departing from the neutral refereeing that is at the heart of Moldvay Basic.

 

[pemerton]

Prepping/pre-authoring plot or running an AP (someone elses pre-authorship) is fine. I think that is most of the hobby, right? But the deal here is that its reveals the inherent contradiction between JA's (cribbed from other sources) "Don't Prep Plot, Prep Situation" and "The Three Clue Rule." Which is the interesting part of the conversation to me. Both of these pieces of advice are useful for very different types of play experiences. But they are not useful in concert precisely because they work against each other.

Right. As I said way upthread, they are contradictory bits of advice. To follow one is, necessarily, to set aside the other.

 

[pemerton]

The three-clue rule is basically node-based design.

Yes. This is well-known.

Start at A, give clues that point to B, C, and D. Each of those point to the next layer of nodes, E, F, and G. Let the PCs progress through as they desire.

Prepping a plot is fundamentally different. Start at A, give only one option, B. After B, give only one option, C. Force the PCs to progress through as you desire.

The only way you could confuse node-based design for prepping a plot is if you change the definition of plot.

Well, by this definition a choose-your-own adventure book is not plotted. Which is, perhaps, tenable from the perspective of a marketer of choose-your-own adventures ("You write the story!"). But doesn't seem true from the perspective of RPGing.

 

[kenada]

Irrespective of who came up with it first, building dungeons with multiple exits, entrances, routes through them, with loops back to earlier areas is definitely a good piece of advice.

Xandering the Dungeon

I believe that dungeons should always be heavily xandered....Okay, it's true. I'm just making words up now. When it comes to xandering the dungeon, though, what I wanted was a word that coul

thealexandrian.net

I’m adding it to the OP list.

I can’t believe I forgot about that one. I’m a big fan of Jacquaysing the dungeon. Even if his other advice isn’t really applicable to what I’m doing in my campaign with my homebrew system, I still make sure I have nicely Jaquaysed dungeon maps. (Though they aren’t always nice looking.)

The first is a map I used recently for when the PCs assaulted the stirge nest at the northern side of their hex. I wanted there to be differences in terrain, and you couldn’t just navigate straightforwardly around the swamp. I also applied a similar approach when I mapped out the ruins for the PCs to explore in the early sessions (the one described in post #83). For that map, I made there were different ways into and through the ruins. I don’t have my original, but I uploaded a copy of the map my players created while navigating it.

Spoiler: Map Crimes

I would also suggest two other essays/series worth including in the OP:

• Campaign Status Documents
• Universal NPC Roleplaying Templates

Even if you don’t include the exact same structures in your documents or templates, they’re good starting points for figuring out the kind of structures that work for you. (My NPC format has evolved quite a bit. I need to do a better job of updating my according file of campaign documents. I tend to keep things in my head, which is not a good practice.)

 

[kenada]

I've only read a few of JA's blog posts, and I don't intend to go back, but did he at any point say, "for this style of play, don't prep plots, but for that style of play, use the three-clue rule", or was all his advice (or the particuar bits being critiqued here) free of any context regard play style?

The baseline assumption seems to be that the GM will be preparing a scenario, and the players will play through it. His advice typically focuses on how to improve your prep and do a better job at it (according to his particular tastes).

 

[TheSword]

The baseline assumption seems to be that the GM will be preparing a scenario, and the players will play through it. His advice typically focuses on how to improve your prep and do a better job at it (according to his particular tastes).

Definitely. A lot is also consideration of published adventures which is where I think he puts a lot of these methods into practice into a way that is understandable to everyone with access to that adventure.

 

[Malmuria]

If the GM has pre-authored a “state of the world” and is using one, two, three (whatever number) clues to strategically mainline that pre-authored “state of the world” onto play, then the GM has prepped plot, not just situation.

I’m running The Between right now for @Campbell , @hawkeyefan , and a third player. There have been 5 Threats (mysteries) resolved, there are 3 more presently in play (including one of the PCs playbook enemy, The Coven, and The Mastermind Threat), another PC playbook will have their enemy Threat come online next loop (The Beast), and pending on how the final PC's thematic trappings resolve, there might be another Threat (The Orphan) that hits play. Consequentially different than Alexander's Three Clue rule:

* There is no GM or system pre-authored "state of the world"; plot. The players explore situations via a structured play loop, clues accrue (more on that below), and the players perform the Answer a Question move (possibly more than once if the Threat is a multi-Question Threat) where (a) they posit a "working theory" for the answer to the question based upon the accretion of preceding play/clues and (b) roll 2d6 + Clues - Question Complexity (so 6 Clues - 4 Complexity = 2d6 +2) to resolve their "working theory." On a "hit," the players "working theory" is correct and I frame an "endgame (for the Threat)" scene presenting them an opportunity to put it down/resolve it.

* As there is no GM or system pre-authored "state of the world" (plot), the Clues don't strategically mainline that pre-authored “state of the world” onto play. Clues come from a variety of means; scenario-devised, off the GM's head or subtly manipulated the scenario clues for the framed scene and PC move made at hand (and or off the motiff of The Unscene which is a thematic device to pace the dangerous and feral Night Phase), the GM Disclaims Decision-making (about a Clue) to the table-at-large or a specific player, a player authors a Clue directly from The Vulnerable move (once per play loop), a player authors a Clue directly because one of their playbook moves facilitates that in-situ player authorship.

Net, the above is a very different play paradigm and play experience than what JA is putting forth in his "Three Clue Rule" and the evidence that it contradicts "Don't Prep Plots" (hat tip Dogs in the Vineyard) is embedded in the contrast of the play paradigm of The Between and the experience of both GMing it and being a player in it.

Somewhat off topic: The way clues are handled in The Between/BB is very clever. At the same time, these games have a lot of structure to them, to the point that it seems that the way that players find clues don't really matter. I've run both, and found this to be...not a problem per se, but sort of not very interesting. For example, what do you make of passages like these in the book:

As a player, you must always try to avoid speaking about your character’s past—in character or out of character—unless a specific mechanic in the game demands it. If a side character asks your character about their past, you must always demur or change the subject; if a player asks about your character’s past, you must remind them that you’re not allowed to say, but they are welcome to trigger The Vulnerable Move in order to get you to talk.

it does not matter if the hunters have the Threat cornered or otherwise are in a strong—even logical—position to defeat the Threat if an Opportunity to do so has not been unlocked by answering a Question; the Threat will always escape. It might seem weird or unrealistic for that to be the case, but The Between is a game and games have rules. Furthermore, the Threat can only be resolved in the manner indicated by the unlocked Opportunity.