1
General Discussion / Re: Dungeons & Dragons / PNP games thread: COBRA!!!
« on: December 23, 2023, 11:09:10 am »
I'm a staunch member of the "a given piece of content should take less time to prep than it does to run" but that can take a while to get into. It's mandatory for sanity though. I know the critical role guy says the opposite but DMing is his job so his situation is entirely different.
I'm kind of variable on giving players freedom. On one hand yes you have to that's what D&D is, but I think there's an unwritten social contract here and one end of it is not making the DM's job impossible. I will occasionally tell my players "okay I don't have anything prepped for that avenue so put a pin in it for the moment and we can come back to that later."
At the same time, you usually have a good feel for what the players are going to do in a given situation. Some more than others. If your adventure starts with orcs attacking the local puppy orphanage, for most groups you don't need to prep anything for the players joining up with the orcs because most groups won't even think of doing that. You can compare it to like Baldur's Gate 3 (and why I think it's a bad idea to look at video games as an example of how to structure an adventure). If you were prepping BG3 for a tabletop campaign it'd be perfectly reasonable to spend zero time on the "players join minthara and attack the refugees" storyline because they're almost certainly not going to take that path. And if they do intend to take it, you'll probably have advance warning that they're that kind of group and can start prepping it after it's clear they're going to.
Though that can also be a problem. I've played with a lot of people who, for various reasons, take the DM's presentation of the world as a coded message on what they're supposed to do. And will never do things out of the ordinary. Or will even openly discuss my description of the situation like they're trying to figure out what I want them to do. Or even ask me! Very few things get me as salty/discouraged as a player just openly saying "so we're supposed to do X right?" Last game I actually explicitly forbid my players from asking me that and wouldn't even reply.
That got kind of meandering. What it boils down to is I think ideally players have freedom to solve situations however they feel is appropriate within the bounds of the adventure. It's not against the rules to say "don't do that yet please" if they ask to do something completely outside what you're prepared to run.
As far as designing what you are prepared to run goes I like to design a sort of toolbox rather than a story. Defining all the characters, their goals and resources for achieving those goals, the important locations, etc. And a rough timeline of what will happen if the players never get involved (which should always be one of the worst possible outcomes, because otherwise there's no need for heroic intervention). Then it's like...
1. Trigger inciting event/situation that hooks the players.
2. Players respond to the inciting event and then go about interacting with your situation.
3. Consider how this affects your timeline, how the major NPCs' goals are advanced/hindered
4. Decide their response to this. Do they seek the PCs' help? Do they try to manipulate them, or try to neutralize them?
5. If the NPCs' have new goals, figure out how they go about achieving them using the resources they have
6. Adjust your timeline accordingly (I did say rough right? Keep the timeline rough because every player action will alter it)
I always recommend this. Adventure writing is a complicated balance between giving the players freedom to chart their own path while at the same time not driving yourself insane or making the game aimless. Those articles all give a lot of good advice on balancing it properly.
I'm kind of variable on giving players freedom. On one hand yes you have to that's what D&D is, but I think there's an unwritten social contract here and one end of it is not making the DM's job impossible. I will occasionally tell my players "okay I don't have anything prepped for that avenue so put a pin in it for the moment and we can come back to that later."
At the same time, you usually have a good feel for what the players are going to do in a given situation. Some more than others. If your adventure starts with orcs attacking the local puppy orphanage, for most groups you don't need to prep anything for the players joining up with the orcs because most groups won't even think of doing that. You can compare it to like Baldur's Gate 3 (and why I think it's a bad idea to look at video games as an example of how to structure an adventure). If you were prepping BG3 for a tabletop campaign it'd be perfectly reasonable to spend zero time on the "players join minthara and attack the refugees" storyline because they're almost certainly not going to take that path. And if they do intend to take it, you'll probably have advance warning that they're that kind of group and can start prepping it after it's clear they're going to.
Though that can also be a problem. I've played with a lot of people who, for various reasons, take the DM's presentation of the world as a coded message on what they're supposed to do. And will never do things out of the ordinary. Or will even openly discuss my description of the situation like they're trying to figure out what I want them to do. Or even ask me! Very few things get me as salty/discouraged as a player just openly saying "so we're supposed to do X right?" Last game I actually explicitly forbid my players from asking me that and wouldn't even reply.
That got kind of meandering. What it boils down to is I think ideally players have freedom to solve situations however they feel is appropriate within the bounds of the adventure. It's not against the rules to say "don't do that yet please" if they ask to do something completely outside what you're prepared to run.
As far as designing what you are prepared to run goes I like to design a sort of toolbox rather than a story. Defining all the characters, their goals and resources for achieving those goals, the important locations, etc. And a rough timeline of what will happen if the players never get involved (which should always be one of the worst possible outcomes, because otherwise there's no need for heroic intervention). Then it's like...
1. Trigger inciting event/situation that hooks the players.
2. Players respond to the inciting event and then go about interacting with your situation.
3. Consider how this affects your timeline, how the major NPCs' goals are advanced/hindered
4. Decide their response to this. Do they seek the PCs' help? Do they try to manipulate them, or try to neutralize them?
5. If the NPCs' have new goals, figure out how they go about achieving them using the resources they have
6. Adjust your timeline accordingly (I did say rough right? Keep the timeline rough because every player action will alter it)
I always recommend this. Adventure writing is a complicated balance between giving the players freedom to chart their own path while at the same time not driving yourself insane or making the game aimless. Those articles all give a lot of good advice on balancing it properly.