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

[pemerton]

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.

So it turns out that you agree with me that one cannot follow the advice of the "three clue rule" and the advice to prepare situations, not plots, at the same time.

Upthread @mamba, @overgeeked, and (I thought) you had asserted that the two bits of advice can be employed together.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So it turns out that you agree with me that one cannot follow the advice of the "three clue rule" and the advice to prepare situations, not plots, at the same time.

No I do not agree. Because as I stated earlier, I play a story driven game, and I prepare the situation, not the plot. If you are running a story driven game, you prepare the situation. The author may have some vague idea of the story in their mind, but they do not write a script for the players to follow. This is a complete misunderstanding on the part of people who have no experience of narrative gaming. Set up the situation, and the story emerges through play.

This is what JA is saying - if you want to run a story driven game, do not write out the plot. Write out the locations, the characters, the clues, the red herrings, the interesting digressions, and the plot writes itself through play.

 

[Shardstone]

So it turns out that you agree with me that one cannot follow the advice of the "three clue rule" and the advice to prepare situations, not plots, at the same time.

Upthread @mamba, @overgeeked, and (I thought) you had asserted that the two bits of advice can be employed together.

It's not that deep.

When he says prep a scenario, not a plot, that means don't treat the PCs like they are novel characters and try to anticipate every exact move while creating material that hinges on those moves. Leave things a little open for sideways play and for unexpected decisions, then use your prep to inform what happens next based off those unexpected decisions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One time I prepped a scenario that was a whole bunch of different situations. I hadn’t (or didn’t think I had) prescribed any particular path through the scenario. There were various groups trying to do things, and if the PCs wanted to leave, there was an exit from the area they could take. (It was underground in the Darklands, so they needed passage up to the surface.) One of the players commented towards the end how he felt like they were being railroaded. At the time, I took it as a compliment — I was doing such a good job of preparing situations that it looked like a plot to the players even though I hadn’t prepped it that way. Now, in retrospect? I don’t know.

In a situation you describe here... my initial impulse is to assume that the players just made incredibly logical and smart decisions, leading to a straightforward "solving" of their issues. Which might make someone think they were being "railroaded" because everything worked. So all their "choices" would seem like they were the ONLY choice being given because all the other choices would be just too dumb for them to make.

I don't know if this is how your situation actually played out... but I can certainly see how someone could reach that kind of conclusion, even if 's misguided. If something just works out for the best, some people are incredibly reticent to give themselves the credit for what they did, and instead just have to think they were "helped along". Which is unfortunate if there are people who find themselves getting into this trap of their own making where any success seems undeserved.

The fact is... sometimes we just all do something really, really well... and we would hope that we could just accept our own compliment for a job well done, rather than immediately assume nefarious deeds on the part of others to "give us the win" and that we didn't deserve or earn it. Because sometimes we do. We do deserve the win, and we should be proud of ourselves for getting it.

 

[kenada]

In a situation you describe here... my initial impulse is to assume that the players just made incredibly logical and smart decisions, leading to a straightforward "solving" of their issues. Which might make someone think they were being "railroaded" because everything worked. So all their "choices" would seem like they were the ONLY choice being given because all the other choices would be just too dumb for them to make.

I don't know if this is how your situation actually played out... but I can certainly see how someone could reach that kind of conclusion, even if 's misguided. If something just works out for the best, some people are incredibly reticent to give themselves the credit for what they did, and instead just have to think they were "helped along". Which is unfortunate if there are people who find themselves getting into this trap of their own making where any success seems undeserved.

The fact is... sometimes we just all do something really, really well... and we would hope that we could just accept our own compliment for a job well done, rather than immediately assume nefarious deeds on the part of others to "give us the win" and that we didn't deserve or earn it. Because sometimes we do. We do deserve the win, and we should be proud of ourselves for getting it.

It’s been six or seven years, so my memory is a bit fuzzy of the exact specifics. I tried pinging him about it on our group’s Discord, but he doesn’t remember either. All I remember is he was doing stuff in town, one thing lead to another, and he ended up talking with town leadership about some issue. Maybe it seemed too convenient or easy, but we’re too far removed to say for sure.

 

[Schmoe]

I apologize if this has already been stated elsewhere, but after 8 pages of discussing "What is a plot?" and "Should this be a + thread or can we criticize JA?", I skipped ahead

But what I want to add is that I have absolutely loved The Alexandrian and gotten a ton of excellent ideas from the blog. I find it's one of the most useful blogs I've read. In particular, its advice on Running the City was transformative for me. I fleshed out two major cities in my campaign using this advice, and it brought them to life in a way that I've never been able to do before.

Other things that were mentioned that I've found incredibly useful are Node-based design, the Three clue rule, Adversary Rosters, and articles on dungeon design with multiple levels and inter-connectivity.

 

[LordEntrails]

What this is missing is an important "what happens if the PCs don't get involved?"

It is significantly easier to run an adventure like this knowing the answer to that question even though we all assume they will.

Sorry if I missed similar replies to mine. A lot of pages in just a day

This is, imo, a very important question. To me it's why it's important to give factions motivations (i.e. not prepping a plot). If the players don't get involved, directly or indirectly (i.e. affecting another faction in the setting that then impacts the first faction) then whatever it is that first faction is trying to do (probably) succeeds. The first faction finds the gold, kills the Queen, or bring a plague into Waterdeep causing tens of thousands of deaths and the city being quarantined.

But yes, in general each factions motivations and plans should come to fruition if the players do not intervene. The world evolves. And this because an even better setting if the party find leads to two events but may only engage with one; the Cult of Talona trying to bring a plague to Waterdeep, and the Cult of the Dragon trying to bring Ebondeath back to life. And the world changes based upon what the party gets involved with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Eh... Clues are potentially useful, show where the secret door is, or the death trap, but you probably don't want to have 3 clues. One clue, skilled guy better find it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It does strike me that the issue is not so much with the three clue rule as much as it is how you design the nodes. If the nodes all funnel to the same 'ending' then I would agree that they are in contradiction with don't prep plots. However, if the nodes just lead to other nodes in an open-ended way via clues, then the two techniques are not in contradiction.

For example, say you have a sandbox with 5 "fronts." Let's say each is centered in one location (though this wouldn't have to be the case). You could have clues/information at each location that might express the relationships between the fronts and lead the PCs to another location/situation. Combine this with a timer--the fronts act on their own accord even if the PCs don't interact with them--and you have a dynamic situation using both the three clue rule and don't prep plots.

Yeah, that is basically how BitD works.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Eh... Clues are potentially useful, show where the secret door is, or the death trap, but you probably don't want to have 3 clues. One clue, skilled guy better find it.

That’s not the sort of clues JA is talking about. They mean narrative clues (e.g. the secret bandit leader always wears a purple ring on their left hand). If they are missed the players don’t know where the interesting stuff the DM spent hours prepping is. You are talking about mechanical clues, the only consequence of missing them is someone takes trap damage.