Both don’t-prep-plots, the three clue rule, and node based design all seem to have the same goal to my mind… to avoid brick walls that leave the players stumped or force the players down a single course of action.
I don’t know. I think that even having multiple paths that eventually lead to the same destination is at least partially having a plot.
But I don’t think having a plot is necessarily a bad thing. I think the vast majority of RPGing functions that way.
I think plot and “railroad” often get conflated, and then people wind up claiming not to use plot while simultaneously providing examples that display plot.
There are perfectly fine and acceptable ways to use plot. And some advice will work for that. The three clue rule and node based design are examples.
I think folks saying they are contradictory are reading too much into it. DMs are allowed to plan situations in advance. You can expect the players to engage with with the broader adventure. To try and find the 500,000 gold dragons for instance.
Just don’t make it conditional on players identifying the single clue that leads them to to do X Y Z in the manner and order you expect.
Engaging with the broader adventure is largely engaging with the plot. It’s okay, though.
Look at the most dominant form of play in the hobby… the adventure path. This is undoubtedly plot based play. I don’t think that makes it a railroad where there is only one way to move along the path, so to speak. There are branches and forks and so on that may allow for quite different series of events from one instance of play to another.
But still, the overall thrust of the game will likely be similar. One group of players may spend all their resources and efforts recovering the Sunsword, while another group focuses on the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind and rallying Strahd’s enemies against him. That’s great! Doesn’t change that the plot of the game is to destroy Strahd, freeing the land of his tyranny and then escaping Barovia.
If I’m going to run such a game, the last thing I want as advice is “don’t prep plot”.
This may be a product of poor word choice. It would probably be more accurate to say something like, “if you give players information about something fewer than three times, they probably won’t remember it.”
Perhaps. I think a lot of JA’s advice is repurposed from that of others, but always filtered through his more trad-minded approach. I think the result can at times bit a bit of a mixed message.
I also think your phrasing is more generally applicable, while the three clue rule as described is intentionally more specific. It is about keeping things moving based on expectation. It’s about including enough information so that the way forward does not remain invisible for too long.
No it doesn't. Players are perfectly capable of missing all three clues. I would suggest three is the absolute minimum if you don't want the players to miss something. And players are still free to ignore the interesting adventure and go and do something else instead if they so wish. It just means they won't be stuck doing boring stuff because they failed a skill check.
The point of the three clue rule is so that they do not miss the next step. Saying they can miss all three clues misses the point of the advice.
And what does “stuck doing boring stuff” mean?
It's no different to "the village is plagued by monsters" in your worldbuilding. You are just making the players do a little bit of work to find out where the monsters are rather than handing it to them on a plate.
Why bother with that, though? If you want them to deal with the monsters, why not just give them the information? Why tease it out and make them “work” for it?
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?
Not that I know of, but I’m not familiar with his entire blog, so it’s certainly possible. I think he’d likely be better served by doing so… but I don’t think that he approaches play in any other way than a pretty traditional way.
Again, I don’t think the advice he puts forth… or repurposes, in many cases… is bad advice. I just don’t think it presents as coherent a whole as many do when taken in its entirety.
Okay, let’s try an explain another way. I run story-driven adventures. Not sandboxes, not Story Now. And most of my prep involves describing situations, not writing out plot. Because that is what works. And I generally have multiple hints, because players miss stuff. So I have 43 years of experience of not finding any incompatibility between prepping situations and the “three clue rule”, or the multiple hint recommendation, as I would prefer to call it.
Got any examples you can share?
That's the point of nonsensical in-group jargon.
Ha as if there’s not a plethora of jargon from trad gaming.
Given that JA’s articles largely revolve around examining such jargon, and often establishing new bits… it seems odd to criticize use of jargon in this context.
