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

[hawkeyefan]

the clues do not move the game forward on their own, so no…

What other purpose do they serve?

I think this is a big part of the problem with some of JA's advice. He makes a declaration like "Don't prep plots" which implies plots are bad... but then he can't get away from describing his game as if there is a plot.

Some games should have a plot of some sort. By plot, I don't mean only one exact sequence of steps, but rather the general thrust of play. Look at almost any Call of Cthulhu scenario. Look at Paizo's Adventure Paths. Look at the 5e adventures... which JA covers quite extensively!

I don't understand how someone can advocate for playing through Descent Into Avernus or any of the other adventures that he attempts to improve while simultaneously saying "don't prep plots".

 

[Malmuria]

Some games should have a plot of some sort. By plot, I don't mean only one exact sequence of steps, but rather the general thrust of play.

Well, JA does define plots as "sequence of events in a story." I think the "general thrust of play" would be considered as a "situation." So maybe it's just semantics at that point

 

[GuardianLurker]

I get this in concept, but are hung up thinking if I do this or what the difference is with situations and encounters and plots. I might have a tribe or orcs planning to attack the village. I plan out an encounter where they attack and their size and tactics. I plan on the PCs fighting, but guess it depends on them. I also plan on the orcs taking some prisoners and going back to a cave. I plan on the PCs going to save the villagers.

The plot of the adventure is to survive the attack and rescue the villagers before they are sacrificed. I have a few situations that the PCs walk into but they could also just not want to do any of it.

I guess I'm thinking that all of these words might just be the same.

Not quite. For the Alexandrian's analysis (and one I generally agree with):
Plot - in this sense - includes a sense of MUST; as in this MUST happen. At really extreme levels, this boils down to the kind of cut-scenes in some video games, where you fight the BBEG, but the outcome is preordained no matter how you perform.

Encounters - differs from a Situation in that NPCs are going to be involved as opponents or obstacles.

Situations - includes Encounters, but also the results of impersonal forces. "A storm has stranded you on this tropical island." Is a situation. "You see in the treeline 7 humans, one a fat man wearing blue, another a skinny man wearing red, ..." is an encounter.

 

[Campbell]

The sense I get from The Alexandrian is that he's actually talking about prepping adventures with hooks players can opt into or not, but once you have that binary other than peacing out it's going to follow a fairly routine structure whether node based or purely linear in nature. Sure, side treks might happen, but the players mostly take on the agenda the GM has set for them in the adventure design. It's not entirely unlike theme park MMO designs.

Don't prep plots - prep situations implies something else to me where the 3-clue rule does not really have any work to do. If you are really prepping situations and not plots, then it should not matter whether or not player characters solve the mystery or not. The game should move forward, and the scenario should evolve even when the player characters fail to notice "important" details. There should be no need to get back on track. The killer kills another victim. More stigmata appear. Whatever. The game goes on and there is more stuff that happens.

This is generally how my home group approaches our Vampire and Exalted games. If you fail to find out everything that's going on you just operate based on what you know because there is no adventure to solve. Scenarios just progress through fallout and mutate into new scenarios.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I usually consider “plot” a things that have already happened, or happen outside the player’s control. Story is what happens when the PC encounter the plot. Nothing MUST happen - after all the PCs could all be killed, in which case they cannot encounter the plot.

Doctor Black has already been murdered, the PCs will most probably identify the killer and bring them to justice, other outcomes are always possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point is to make it hard for them to miss. But never underestimate the obtuseness of players.

No, the three clue rule makes it impossible to miss the clues. It means that no matter what, you give them the clue. The reason you have three clues set up is so that if they don't know what the clue leads to, then they have two other clues to lean on. Hopefully three clues are enough.

There is no way to fail to get the clues. You're misunderstanding the three clue rule, or else swapping in your own version of it rather than Laws's version or JA's version.

Stuff the DM hasn't prepped in advance with interesting characters, narratives, lore dumps, pretty pictures etc.

But based on all the below that you provided, with all the different things going on, how does that happen?

Why not just have the monsters keel over dead the moment they spot the PCs? Finding the monsters, just like fighting the monsters, is part of the fun of the game. Of course, if the players are only interested in combat, I would suggest keeping the detective work to a minimum.

This isn't about only being interested in combat... I don't know what gave you that idea. I suppose the misinterpretation of the three clue rule? The three clue rule is exactly about giving them the clue no matter what. If they go to the hotel room, they find the clue. If they interrogate the witness, they get another clue. If they open the safety deposit box, they get a third clue. All three clues point to the same thing... the next step in "the adventure" or "the story" or "the plot".

I think that the spirit of the three clue rule is a good one... and that's "provide an abundance of information". Don't skimp on info. Give them more than you think they need. Don't gate all information behind rolls.

I think that general advice like that would fit much better with "don't prep plots". The three clue rule is specifically for games with plots, despite what Laws says.

If you like. The current adventure. I start with the basic set up. In this case, the PCs have been hired to find the archaeologist husband of an NPC friend they met in a previous adventure, who's expedition has been missing for four years. The players do not know that he has been transformed into a lycanthrope-like monster after eating some strange herbs he found on the dig (the movie The Relic was a vague inspiration). I also know the setting is Ravenloft and the PCs are level 7. But none of this is written down (until now). What I actually write down is I started by creating a hex map of the swamp-like Ravenloft domain where the expedition disappeared. I seed the map with stuff related to the plot, such as a couple of dig sites, and ancient ruin, along with locations that are either interesting, useful or rewarding, such as an inn run by lizard-folk, a dragon lair, a strange colony of mycanoids living on a dragon-turtle spore servant, etc. I also create a random encounter table, some of the encounters are "creepy swamp" generic but others are related to the story, such as hunters who are also after the monster, or previous adventures, such as zombie pirate assassins hunting the PCs because they betrayed them in a previous adventure. I place the missing arachnologist along with clues to help the players find him, as well as clues and items that could lead to the PCs either curing or killing him (this being Ravenloft he is almost unkillable otherwise). There are about three different ways the players could cure him, although one would involve someone else becoming the monster, and another requires a trip to Barovia. So, having placed the pieces, I let the story unfold as the players interact with them.

The PCs were hired how? Is that how the game began? With the assumption they'd taken that job? Or that they would?

 

[mamba]

What other purpose do they serve?

to inform the players of things that they can then base their decisions on. The clue itself changes nothing except for the amount of information the players are aware of, similar to me reading an article

If you consider that moving the plot forward, feel free. I was arguing about this not railroading the players (telling them how to do something)

I think this is a big part of the problem with some of JA's advice. He makes a declaration like "Don't prep plots" which implies plots are bad... but then he can't get away from describing his game as if there is a plot.

don’t prep plot means ‘do not prescribe a specific way in which the players have to solve a problem’, no more, no less.

Some games should have a plot of some sort. By plot, I don't mean only one exact sequence of steps, but rather the general thrust of play. Look at almost any Call of Cthulhu scenario. Look at Paizo's Adventure Paths. Look at the 5e adventures... which JA covers quite extensively!

I am not disagreeing, I’d say all should have a plot. JA is only saying ‘don’t make it a railroad’, not ‘don’t have a plot’

I don't understand how someone can advocate for playing through Descent Into Avernus or any of the other adventures that he attempts to improve while simultaneously saying "don't prep plots".

I don’t think anyone is saying what you think that means

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, JA does define plots as "sequence of events in a story." I think the "general thrust of play" would be considered as a "situation." So maybe it's just semantics at that point

Perhaps. I don't think a plot has to be an exact sequence of events. Like, the plot of Die Hard is "A NYC cop visits his estranged wife in LA for her office Christmas party in a skyscraper, only to find it is the target of a possible terrorist scheme. He's left to deal with the threat on his own."

Do we need to know that he has to walk across broken glass or climb through ventilation ducts or swing on firehoses to know the plot? No.

A game with a plot still has some freedom for the players. Again, look at any Adventure Path or 5e Adventure from WotC. They all have plots. Many also allow for different ways to be navigated within that overall plot, different decisions for players to make.

 

[mamba]

Don't prep plots - prep situations implies something else to me where the 3-clue rule does not really have any work to do. If you are really prepping situations and not plots, then it should not matter whether or not player characters solve the mystery or not. The game should move forward, and the scenario should evolve even when the player characters fail to notice "important" details. There should be no need to get back on track. The killer kills another victim. More stigmata appear. Whatever. The game goes on and there is more stuff that happens

the two are not mutually exclusive, clues help the players to uncover the killer from your example, if they miss them, are not fast enough or misinterpret them, the killer strikes again, or escapes, based on the killer’s agenda

The clues are not there to ensure the players catch the killer now, before the killer does anything else, so the story can move forward to the next ‘cutscene’

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, the three clue rule makes it impossible to miss the clues. It means that no matter what, you give them the clue. The reason you have three clues set up is so that if they don't know what the clue leads to, then they have two other clues to lean on. Hopefully three clues are enough.

As you say “hopefully”. You can give the players all the clues you like, but you cannot guarantee that they will interpret them as intended and follow them.

There is no way to fail to get the clues. You're misunderstanding the three clue rule, or else swapping in your own version of it rather than Laws's version or JA's version.

Or maybe JA is failing to take into account the possibility that the players may misinterpret the clues?

But based on all the below that you provided, with all the different things going on, how does that happen?

I don’t know, it’s a mystery.

This isn't about only being interested in combat... I don't know what gave you that idea. I suppose the misinterpretation of the three clue rule? The three clue rule is exactly about giving them the clue no matter what. If they go to the hotel room, they find the clue. If they interrogate the witness, they get another clue. If they open the safety deposit box, they get a third clue. All three clues point to the same thing... the next step in "the adventure" or "the story" or "the plot".

I think that the spirit of the three clue rule is a good one... and that's "provide an abundance of information". Don't skimp on info. Give them more than you think they need. Don't gate all information behind rolls.

I think that general advice like that would fit much better with "don't prep plots". The three clue rule is specifically for games with plots, despite what Laws says.

The PCs were hired how? Is that how the game began? With the assumption they'd taken that job? Or that they would?

That occurred in a previous adventure, this is just a story in an ongoing campaign.

You should remember that I don’t use JAs approach, I use my approach, developed from many years of experience. It is similar to the approach suggested by JA, but as you would expect, not completely identical. In particular, I am more comfortable with leaving some things uncertain - perhaps because I am not writing adventures for other people to run. Someone other than me would have a hard time running my adventures, based on what I put on paper!