Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9285829" data-attributes="member: 42582">I can't speak for The Alexandrian. But I would think that, normally, a situation is a problem in the fiction that confronts the PCs, and hence draws the PCs into the play of the game. An encounter would normally mean a situation in which the problem involves people/creatures/monsters.A plot is normally a sequence of events that follow one from the other.In RPGing, the most common way I'm aware of to prepare a plot is to prepare a series of situations/encounters that the PCs are to work their way through. Many module are like this.That sounds like you are preparing a plot: Orcs attack village; PCs fight Orcs; Orcs retreat to cave with prisoners; PCs go to cave to save prisoners from Orcs. In its general outline, this is similar to a lot of published modules/adventures.When you say "it depends on them" or "the PC . . . could also just not want to do any of it", it further sounds like you are anticipating the players declaring actions for their PCs that do not conform to your plot. I'm not sure what you do then, or how this relates to your prep. Maybe it means the prep of the plot ends up being wasted? I'm not sure what your GMing methodology is in respect of this.Here's the contradiction: wanting the PCs to draw a conclusion is preparing a plot (which includes the event of the PCs drawing a certain conclusion). If you are only planning situations, you don't care what inferences the PCs (or the players) draw.In addition: if the intended situation includes that the PCs understand a certain thing to be implied by other things, then include that in the framing of the situation. The "three clue rule" is all about illusionistic GMing, pretending that something is part of play and up to the players, when really it is the GM just feeding the players information.I said nothing about this. The whole notion of a situation that has a solution is about preparing plots - namely, the plot is that the PCs "solve" the situation. I'm well aware that there is a whole school of RPGing that focuses on this sort of play; all I'm saying is that this approach contradicts the notion of preparing situations rather than plots. It is plots through-and-through.I said nothing about "tight plot". The quote I responded to used the term "plot".Nor did I say anything about "sandboxes". Since at least 1989 (Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant RPG) it's been obvious that there are more approaches to GMing than Gygaxian/Blackmoorian "sandbox" and DL-style railroad.You can choose to define "adventure" this way if you want to. In which case, I don't run adventures. As I said, these other techniques have been reasonably well known for some decades now.That's probably true! Because it's really not my thing.But anyway, my point about contradictions stands whether or not one is into The Alexandrian's "node based design" and similar sorts of methodologies. My understanding of your post is that you broadly agree with my diagnosis of contradiction, although you locate the diagnosis within a more thorough account of The Alexandrian's taxonomies, including his "blind spot".</blockquote>

Verification