PDA

View Full Version : Player Plans: Do You Wreck Them?



StoryKeeper
2009-12-22, 10:19 PM
Your players have spent hours coming up with a plan. A GOOD plan. They took the information you gave them and came up with a scheme to swipe the artifact, empty the sleezebag's bank account, or generally have their way.

The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans?

On one hand, it's no fun to just nod your head and say "it works. It works again. It still works." On the other, they DID put a lot of thought and effort into the plan, and having a plan succeed is just plain fun.

I'm sure the answer will most likely be somethign to the effect of "Let the plan work, but add complications," but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on teh subject.

pffh
2009-12-22, 10:21 PM
Fun > everything else. If their plan is fun it works.

tahu88810
2009-12-22, 10:24 PM
Yeah, sure it works. But putting the plan into effect still takes some effort. Breaking into the bank, and subsequently getting out, can be planned meticulously but that doesn't stop it from being tedious and difficult. The best plans require legwork, or you're cutting corners and prone to have complications.

Ridureyu
2009-12-22, 10:25 PM
I wreck every one of them, and hopefully kill a few players* in the process. The purpose of D&D is to win against your players.


*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "PCs." I play for keeps.

arguskos
2009-12-22, 10:25 PM
I'm sure the answer will most likely be somethign to the effect of "Let the plan work, but add complications," but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on teh subject.
Dingdingding, we have a winner. I tend to let their plans work, but wrench them when they are in, mostly with things they didn't see coming or didn't account for. I try not to be greatly unfair though, that's no fun at all, for anyone.

Now, to be really fair, if the players do enough research and planning, it is typically possible to form a flawless plan. Pulling off a flawless execution? Not so easy. :smallwink: Possible though. I'm waiting for the day they have actually planned for everything and perform a flawless execution and plan. I'll cry one manly tear at their victory that day.

DabblerWizard
2009-12-22, 10:28 PM
...

On one hand, it's no fun to just nod your head and say "it works. It works again. It still works." On the other, they DID put a lot of thought and effort into the plan, and having a plan succeed is just plain fun.

I'm sure the answer will most likely be somethign to the effect of "Let the plan work, but add complications," but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on teh subject.

On the one hand, I want to reward my players for creative thinking, but on the other, I don't want them to become overly confident in their reasoning. "If we just explain ourselves well enough, the DM will just nod his head and we'll get our way".

I'd want to make sure they work for it, even if what they say makes sense / is a great idea.

erikun
2009-12-22, 10:30 PM
1.) Is their plan seriously good? Loading up a Tenser's Floating Disk with alchemist fire and dropping it on top of the enemy camp may be awesome, but that isn't how the spell works.

2.) Is the plan feasable? Convincing the guard that the party is supposed to be lacing dynamite on the warp drive isn't very believable.

3.) Are there some unknown (to the players) obstacles that would prevent it from happening? Trying to cast Dominate Person on the Mage-King would probably run into a few barriers, even if the players didn't consider them beforehand.

4.) Are the dice going to roll the way the players want?

If the PCs come up with a plan that isn't obviously broken and isn't obviously contradicting a rule, then I let it happen. If there is some kind of risk involved, such as sneaking silently through a guarded hallway, then I let the dice decide. I mean, if they players are aware of the danger, I see no reason to prevent them from taking the risk.

Knaight
2009-12-22, 10:32 PM
Depends. Both on the quality of the plan given their information, and the information that they have access to. Sometimes stuff is unknown, and screws up the plan, sometimes the plan is just bad and fails as a result, sometimes it goes off without a hitch.

Eldariel
2009-12-22, 10:34 PM
There are always plans in place they aren't aware of and events they aren't prepared for. No matter how good a plan, it'll take some thinking on their foots for it to go right.

Now, if they've gathered their information, done so successfully and from reliable sources, have managed to find some weakness in the BBEG's plans that they can abuse to get their way, and time their actions right, sure, they should be rewarded.

But chances are they don't have perfect information, they cannot avoid/neutralize all the defenses swiftly and efficiently and that the BBEG may become aware of what they're trying to do and muddle the mixture.


In other words, I don't wreck them if they're foolproof, but they're never foolproof. I don't react to the plan itself, I just let the events around the plan unfold as they would if no plan was in place. Usually, that's challenge enough. And if not? They deserved it.

Kylarra
2009-12-22, 10:34 PM
Well in free-form sure, I'll let them have their way, but most of the games I play involve dice, so while they get circumstance bonuses for cleverness, ultimately the dice have final say on the success or degrees thereof for their plan.

arguskos
2009-12-22, 10:41 PM
1.) Is their plan seriously good? Loading up a Tenser's Floating Disk with alchemist fire and dropping it on top of the enemy camp may be awesome, but that isn't how the spell works.

2.) Is the plan feasable? Convincing the guard that the party is supposed to be lacing dynamite on the warp drive isn't very believable.

3.) Are there some unknown (to the players) obstacles that would prevent it from happening? Trying to cast Dominate Person on the Mage-King would probably run into a few barriers, even if the players didn't consider them beforehand.

4.) Are the dice going to roll the way the players want?

If the PCs come up with a plan that isn't obviously broken and isn't obviously contradicting a rule, then I let it happen. If there is some kind of risk involved, such as sneaking silently through a guarded hallway, then I let the dice decide. I mean, if they players are aware of the danger, I see no reason to prevent them from taking the risk.
Ok, you know what, my post probably should be a link to this one, cause he said it better than I did. :smallamused:

Akisa
2009-12-22, 10:46 PM
I wreck every one of them, and hopefully kill a few players* in the process. The purpose of D&D is to win against your players.


*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "NPCs." I play for keeps.

Note to self don't join any of your games...

Knaight
2009-12-22, 10:51 PM
I think that was sarcasm.

abandon hope
2009-12-22, 10:51 PM
Play through the plan. Trust me, some degree of something between stupidity and carelessness will rear it's head.

I just had a party sneak through enemy territory to an objective. They were far more cunning than then they realized on the way there. Came down on the roof of the temple. And then they dropped into a fenced off area. With a trough of food and water. And enormous footprints. After squeezing a poor enemy mook for information which included the presence of hydra at their objective. Seriously.

They're really quite intelligent, I promise. But something always comes up that turns into a lot of dice rolling. I've yet to see a gaming group that doesn't follow this pattern.

On the other hand, if you don't play through the plan, and just evaluate it on it's merit, and stamp a success or failure on it, that's never gonna happen. Living through the plan is what introduces the elements of humanity, complication, and fun.

Temet Nosce
2009-12-22, 10:51 PM
The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans?

Assuming they (somehow) managed to find out about absolutely every obstacle to whatever they wanted and work out a plan to succeed... Sure, they succeed. Of course, I have yet to meet a player who actually managed that... The players will often succeed anyways, but it's rare for them to have access to the level of information needed to find every possible problem beforehand (and even when they could most won't put the effort in).

I would never add extra obstacles just because they've managed to overcome the ones I put there in the first place, but generally speaking what I put there in the first place is extremely difficult at best anyways.

R. Shackleford
2009-12-22, 10:53 PM
I tend to let them go unless I can find an equally outlandish way for them to go wrong. As long as the Dice rolls say the stupid plan is at least feasible within some, vague context, I don't mind.

My other two fellow DMs chastise me for 'letting the players do that', but they hate PC plans because they tend to knock them off the rails.

In fact, such plans frequently welcome Rule-0 damage.

Akisa
2009-12-22, 10:54 PM
I think that was sarcasm.

I would think it was sarcasm, but I have played with DMs (yes plural) that do think that way.

taltamir
2009-12-22, 10:59 PM
Play through the plan. Trust me, some degree of something between stupidity and carelessness will rear it's head.

sounds about right... coming up with a perfect plan is one thing (an impossible thing btw), but executing said plan perfectly? I highly doubt it will happen... besides, if they just present the plan and you say "it worked, here is your loot and XP" then you avoided the actual FUN part of the game, the execution...

Frankly you shouldn't even HAVE to know their plan or to react to it... design your setting and defenses, let them come up with a "plan", then let them try to execute it. and actually play out the execution. It will be fun. (And likely have combat).

One of the issues is, you cannot plan without information... how are PCs getting pure perfect information about everything?
Why does the guard at the entrance know about the exact trap configuration at the top secret portion of the lair, or the hidden chamber the master personally excavated and trapped with his spells? (there are fairly low level spells to construct things and make traps)...

The only way I can see a perfect plan forming, is if the DM is way too generous with divination magic.

Tavar
2009-12-22, 11:01 PM
I would think it was sarcasm, but I have played with DMs (yes plural) that do think that way.

You mean they actually killed players? Wow, harsh table...

taltamir
2009-12-22, 11:02 PM
I wreck every one of them, and hopefully kill a few players* in the process. The purpose of D&D is to win against your players.


*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "NPCs." I play for keeps.

are you in prison for it? Normally you should kill player CHARACTERS not actual players :P

Rhiannon87
2009-12-22, 11:05 PM
"Playing through the plan" is usually what I do. My players want to load up a wooden cart with rocks, alchemical fire, and lantern oil to break through a barricade? Fine. They have to obtain all those things without arousing suspicion (in the VERY small town this was taking place, quite a feat), then figure out the logistics of making the cart go, then deal with the fact that they are now fighting their way through a flaming battlefield.

In the game where I'm a player, my plans tend not to survive the first couple encounters with the enemy. I'm always stunned on the rare, rare occasions when a plan goes off as I intended, or even just successfully (with adaptations on the fly). This is partially due to players (including myself) doing dumb things, and partially due to the DM hurling wrenches into said plans. He can be a bit of a Manipulative Bastard sometimes, but he runs a damn good game so we forgive him.

Akisa
2009-12-22, 11:16 PM
You mean they actually killed players? Wow, harsh table...

Yup, custom monsters and traps trying to make a pseudo Tomb of Horrors. Spend more then five minutes roleplaying and suddenly the T rex size monster appears out of no where, and yes a huge monster did appear while in an open field (no spot/listen checks also). Then again why was a rust monster in a room with a metal door? I either quickly dropped out or convince someone else to dm.

arguskos
2009-12-22, 11:24 PM
Yup, custom monsters and traps trying to make a pseudo Tomb of Horrors. Spend more then five minutes roleplaying and suddenly the T rex size monster appears out of no where, and yes a huge monster did appear while in an open field (no spot/listen checks also). Then again why was a rust monster in a room with a metal door? I either quickly dropped out or convince someone else to dm.
...you're missing the joke dude. The guy you quoted said he killed the PLAYER themselves, not their characters. If you played with him, you would be dead. :smalltongue:

Ridureyu
2009-12-22, 11:35 PM
Note to self don't join any of your games...

Well, before you play I have a few questions.

1. Do you carry valuables on your person?

2. Do you haveany gold fillings in your teeth?

3. Are you very trusting and willing to sign a few things?:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:




And yes, I was joking. It's awesome that a few people didn't catch that, though. Hahah!

Akisa
2009-12-22, 11:38 PM
*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "NPCs." I play for keeps.

hmm the NPCs part was misleading, now if he said PC or just plain Characters...

Ridureyu
2009-12-22, 11:40 PM
Yeah, I totally typoed that. Fixed now.

Shadowbane
2009-12-22, 11:43 PM
It depends on the plan. If it would work, sure. If it's insane and dumb, then no, it won't work.

See, my party is a lot like the Order of the Stick.

Skanderberg-9th level Human Generalist Wizard who loves his evocation, True Neutral

Chaka-9th level Dwarf Barbarian, Chaotic Stupid (evil)

Atlas-9th level Human Paladin, the world's worst paladin (he hasn't even figured out Chaka's evil, and I can't bring myself to make him fall)

Aliane-9th level True Neutral Human Rogue who keeps acting Lawful Good

Chaka is the planner, while Skanderberg stands back and laughs while Aliane wrings her hands and Atlas tries unsuccessfully to stop him.

Coidzor
2009-12-23, 12:07 AM
<_< Indy improvisation in the face of some surprise or another is always fun though...

Dracomorph
2009-12-23, 12:32 AM
Your players come up with plans?! I have to work to make mine think ahead of the next ten minutes!

I wish I had this problem...

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-23, 12:43 AM
*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "PCs." I play for keeps.

Spoken like a true DM.

Fulkerin
2009-12-23, 12:55 AM
I usually let them run with the plan, but like said above, throw something they won't expect in there usually.

For example, stealing the tank and blowing down every wall infront of you until you exit the hive does work, but landing after the 20m fall (they were in the lower hive, and almost done the mission... killing them all seemed harsh...) will take a toughness test. Although the look on their faces was priceless :smallamused:

Dark Heresy, not dnd.

Solaris
2009-12-23, 02:39 AM
You mean they actually killed players? Wow, harsh table...

This ain't yo' daddy's D&D, son.

I never deliberately throw a monkey-wrench into a plan. If they were smart enough to figure out a way to pull off their objective with a minimum of fuss, I like to reward that.
They're never that smart. They try, though, and it helps that we're all familiar with most of the Battle Drills from the 7-8. Raiding a temple/castle/ruin/dungeon is surprisingly easy when you do it for a living.
I mostly just play through the plan, and have my NPCs react intelligently. You'd be amazed at how many players expect monsters to not come investigate the sounds of a swordfight (or gunfight!) two rooms over. If they slow down to loot, they're gonna have to fight their way out of a whole mess o' critters. Only one of them was smart enough to realize "Sneaking + Bow = I can loot at leisure".

Draco Ignifer
2009-12-23, 03:08 AM
In my opinion, there's a big difference between smashing their plan and poking holes in it. If there are flaws in it, then Murphy's law is just to be expected - if everything happened without a hitch, what fun would the world be? But don't just create trouble for the sake of creating trouble. For example, if they didn't watch the guards to see what schedule they keep, it's perfectly reasonable to have a guard patrolling right where it's least convenient. If they did, however, it's not fair to just arbitrarily change the schedule. See the difference?

Also? There's nothing unfair about making them roll to see how well they execute the different parts of the plan. That's how RPGs work, after all.

742
2009-12-23, 03:16 AM
IMO any player not skilled in everyones favorite magnificent bastard trope deserves to lose!

really though; how do you get your players to plan? in my group i always play a chaotic neutral/evil character and im always the one who gets stuck trying to cat-herd the lawfuls when stuff happens >< YOU MUST TELL US!

Zaydos
2009-12-23, 03:48 AM
Your players come up with plans?! I have to work to make mine think ahead of the next ten minutes!

I wish I had this problem...

I have to second this one. The biggest plan my PCs have come up with was "Let's get eaten by the beholder-queen so I can use my beholder crown to finger of death disintegrate it from the inside" (yay having gotten it used), or when given 3 in game days to prepare defenses for a cave rearranging one 10-ft square with Greater Stoneshape, or their normal "Cast Delay Death on the Knight with Die Hard." Also note I hadn't looked at Die Hard since it was 3.0 Remain Conscious.

My next group has been worse. Their best plan thus far was "Shoot the kid with the mask of death" or "Wait inside the building while crazy dude threatens us on the wing? Send out the Bard she can turn into a hydra!"

They don't even plan 10 minutes ahead, maybe they will synchronize what 2 out of 10 people are doing if I'm lucky.

Oslecamo
2009-12-23, 06:38 AM
This is the kinda situation where secret rolls are your best friends.

Players come up with crazy unexpected plan and you don't know what to do? Well, time to roll the dice! I improvise rules for the situation and then let the dices roll.

Odds of sucess go up if the plan is actualy good and/or imaginative.

Odds of sucess go down if they try to rape the english of the rules.

For example, once the players asked if they could extract poison from a freshly killed poisonous monster. I was somewaht suprised, told them that they would need a container of sorts (they emptied a waterskin), then told them to roll some skill rolls, considered the result decent, and then rolled 1d4, giving them 3 monstruous scorpion poison doses, on top of the normal loot for the batle.

The current campaign I'm running had the dragon incarnate player decide to smash up his way trough the dungeon walls, forcing me to improvise some more stuff.

Solaris
2009-12-23, 06:41 AM
I have to second this one. The biggest plan my PCs have come up with was "Let's get eaten by the beholder-queen so I can use my beholder crown to finger of death disintegrate it from the inside" (yay having gotten it used), or when given 3 in game days to prepare defenses for a cave rearranging one 10-ft square with Greater Stoneshape, or their normal "Cast Delay Death on the Knight with Die Hard." Also note I hadn't looked at Die Hard since it was 3.0 Remain Conscious.

My next group has been worse. Their best plan thus far was "Shoot the kid with the mask of death" or "Wait inside the building while crazy dude threatens us on the wing? Send out the Bard she can turn into a hydra!"

They don't even plan 10 minutes ahead, maybe they will synchronize what 2 out of 10 people are doing if I'm lucky.

Nonsense. They panic in sync.

GallóglachMaxim
2009-12-23, 06:46 AM
I haven't usually thought through the future in enough detail to want to wreck player plans, in my games the players get a start and an objective, and can earn more pointers along the way (by the way, there's nothing more fun than having a player become terrified of exposition) but getting from A to B is their job, and if they want to go via C, blow it up, and then try to sell bits of it at F on the way, more fun for everybody.

BobVosh
2009-12-23, 06:59 AM
I have never had my players make a perfect plan. I doubt they ever will. They manage to beat one guy without any hassle, and got his stuff? Props. It was my plan they would eventually get his stuff, I can just hurry them to the next part.

However I have never had a BBEG where this is even remotely possible.

bosssmiley
2009-12-23, 09:18 AM
"Life is what happens while you're making other plans." - John Lennon
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Gen. Helmuth von Moltke

Sure, the players can plan the perfect scam/heist/ambush all they want. But I, the great and powerful DM, have both the oracular power of dice and Murphy's Law on my side. :smalltongue:

Adversity builds (or possibly kills off) character.

Choco
2009-12-23, 09:21 AM
How badly I wreck my players plans is directly proportional to how badly they (knowingly) wreck mine.

If the players are the type that purposely try to destroy the plot for no reason other than to make a jab at me, they can expect the same in return :smallamused:.

I mean damn, if I spend hours/days/weeks preparing something and they destroy it for no reason other than to spite me, I think it's fair enough I totally wreck something it took them mere minutes/hours to come up with :smallwink:.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-23, 09:26 AM
- Sometimes their plans are effective for luck and skill
- Sometimes they are for luck OR skill
- Sometimes their plans fail for unluck and lack of skill
- Sometimes their plans fail for unluck OR lack of skill
- Sometimes they win for their knowledge
- Sometimes they win for their ignorance
- Sometimes they lose for their ignorance
- Sometimes they losefor their knowledge
- Sometimes I put complications because they have a sense in the gameworld
- Sometimes I don't put complications because they don't have a sense in the gameworld
- Sometimes complications are out for luck
- Sometimes complications are in for unluck

All of this, together, makes them have the thrill of the surprise and the pleasure of counter-measure.

Ormagoden
2009-12-23, 09:32 AM
You mean they actually killed players? Wow, harsh table...

If you crit fail I stab you with my glaive.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-23, 09:54 AM
Your players have spent hours coming up with a plan. A GOOD plan. They took the information you gave them and came up with a scheme to swipe the artifact, empty the sleezebag's bank account, or generally have their way.

The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans?
I find that players are more than capable of wrecking their own plans.

Frequently, I find that the PCs forget part of the plan when actually performing it, or that they have different recollections of what the plan was, or have based the plan upon assumption that they could have known was incorrect. I do enforce the rule that they can't have lengthy tactical discussions during action scenes.

AshDesert
2009-12-23, 10:06 AM
Well, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this method, but after I give my players all the information they want (they usually say "alright, that's all we need") or all the information available (hurray for Abjurations!), I leave the room and let them come up with a plan, and then we play it out. Since I don't know what their plan is, I end up reacting like the enemies there would, by trying to counter them (after they've been detected) at every turn. There are times when this doesn't always apply (like when wherever they're attacking has a diviner), but 7 times out of 10 or so, it usually works better if I don't know what they're planning.

Eorran
2009-12-23, 10:19 AM
I just finished a game this weekend that was pretty much all player plotting. In general, I like to let them come up with plans, and I'll complicate their lives by adding obstacles if:
1. There's a logical reason for it
2. It doesn't totally invalidate the players' work.

This particular adventure had the players defeat a monster roughly 10 levels higher than they were (in 4e, a feat that should be close to impossible). They accomplished this without any real combat rolls at all, by a huge amount of cleverness, paranoia, and plotting.

Of course, my players inspiration for this particular part of the campaign was the book The spy who came in from the cold. They've done pranks IRL that took more planning than I imagine most bank robbers do.

Just remember - even if the plan goes off perfectly, there will be other consequences down the road. :smallwink:

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 10:26 AM
I let my players try their plan, but depending on the degree of the award, throw a large amount of wrenches in the works.

Arakune
2009-12-23, 10:33 AM
I wreck every one of them, and hopefully kill a few players* in the process. The purpose of D&D is to win against your players.


*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "PCs." I play for keeps.

Your trolling was a success. Now hide before someone sees you and think you are being serious. This is the internet, you know? Sarcasm died years ago.

valadil
2009-12-23, 10:34 AM
The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans?


There has to be some amount of wrench throwing. I like seeing the players think on their feet. How big of a wrench I throw depends on the plan itself. Some plans are bound to fail. But if the players put time in and actually do some research I'm less likely to mess with them. Ultimately, what I do to the players has to make sense. If they come up with a perfect strategy, I'm not going to throw a random purple wurm at them, just because they needed more of a challenge.

My favorite way to mess up their plans is to use their own ideas against them. I listen while they're plotting and write down any hazards they mention. Then I use the ones that make sense or that they neglected to address in the current iteration of their plan.

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 10:35 AM
Your trolling was a success. Now hide before someone sees you and think you are being serious. This is the internet, you know? Sarcasm died years ago.

Actually, there is something called a "Killer DM". Ever heard of it? That is its goal, kill the players as quick as possible.

Grifthin
2009-12-23, 10:37 AM
I have to second this one. The biggest plan my PCs have come up with was "Let's get eaten by the beholder-queen so I can use my beholder crown to finger of death disintegrate it from the inside" (yay having gotten it used), or when given 3 in game days to prepare defenses for a cave rearranging one 10-ft square with Greater Stoneshape, or their normal "Cast Delay Death on the Knight with Die Hard." Also note I hadn't looked at Die Hard since it was 3.0 Remain Conscious.

My next group has been worse. Their best plan thus far was "Shoot the kid with the mask of death" or "Wait inside the building while crazy dude threatens us on the wing? Send out the Bard she can turn into a hydra!"

They don't even plan 10 minutes ahead, maybe they will synchronize what 2 out of 10 people are doing if I'm lucky.

Sounds like my pc's with less screaming and bleeding.

Ridureyu
2009-12-23, 03:14 PM
Your trolling was a success. Now hide before someone sees you and think you are being serious. This is the internet, you know? Sarcasm died years ago.

It's not trolling, it's performance art!


But seriously, I agree with the majority - let them try their plan. Don't go especially out of the way to wreck it, but there's no guarantee that it will work, either.

taltamir
2009-12-23, 04:29 PM
I have to second this one. The biggest plan my PCs have come up with was "Let's get eaten by the beholder-queen so I can use my beholder crown to finger of death disintegrate it from the inside" (yay having gotten it used), or when given 3 in game days to prepare defenses for a cave rearranging one 10-ft square with Greater Stoneshape, or their normal "Cast Delay Death on the Knight with Die Hard." Also note I hadn't looked at Die Hard since it was 3.0 Remain Conscious.

My next group has been worse. Their best plan thus far was "Shoot the kid with the mask of death" or "Wait inside the building while crazy dude threatens us on the wing? Send out the Bard she can turn into a hydra!"

They don't even plan 10 minutes ahead, maybe they will synchronize what 2 out of 10 people are doing if I'm lucky.

The explanation is simple:


"Life is what happens while you're making other plans." - John Lennon
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Gen. Helmuth von Moltke

Sure, the players can plan the perfect scam/heist/ambush all they want. But I, the great and powerful DM, have both the oracular power of dice and Murphy's Law on my side. :smalltongue:

Adversity builds (or possibly kills off) character.

You see, as a player, you are conditioned that no matter what plan you make, the DM will throw a wrench into it. And if you make no plans at all, the DM will throw the answers at you... so why bother? really?
Making plans is a waste of your time, you invest all that effort only to be punished for it...

If you want your players to plan more, then you need to explain to them that they will design an encounter, and if they make a plan on how to deal with it, you will not modify it on the fly to throw wrenches into their plans...
Suddenly planning becomes wise.

It also helps if you do not have a built in answer you plan on giving to them... so failure is entirely possible, especially if they do not come up with a plan.

I have made perfect plans for CRPGs, because I know exactly what is where and what is what. But in P&P I find that impossible to make a perfect plan unless the DM is overly generous with divination (aka, ok, you cast scry, here is the dungeon plan and DM notes for said dungeon). You don't have enough information to make a perfect plan, but you sometimes have enough to make A plan.

taltamir
2009-12-23, 04:32 PM
How badly I wreck my players plans is directly proportional to how badly they (knowingly) wreck mine.

If the players are the type that purposely try to destroy the plot for no reason other than to make a jab at me, they can expect the same in return :smallamused:.

I mean damn, if I spend hours/days/weeks preparing something and they destroy it for no reason other than to spite me, I think it's fair enough I totally wreck something it took them mere minutes/hours to come up with :smallwink:.

that is fair... some players / DMs are downright inconsiderate... yea, it might be "what your character would do", it is also a **** move to your friend who spend weeks building up the plot.



Originally Posted by Ridureyu
I wreck every one of them, and hopefully kill a few players* in the process. The purpose of D&D is to win against your players.


*Yes, I said killing "Players," not "PCs." I play for keeps.
Your trolling was a success. Now hide before someone sees you and think you are being serious. This is the internet, you know? Sarcasm died years ago.
Not died, murdered... he shouldn't have played with him...

Raum
2009-12-23, 08:08 PM
Your players have spent hours coming up with a plan. A GOOD plan. They took the information you gave them and came up with a scheme to swipe the artifact, empty the sleezebag's bank account, or generally have their way.

The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans? As you've stated the question, I'd let them have their fun. I try to never act 'against' the players' plans. Doing so for no reason is simply being a @#$%.

That said, NPCs are not static nor are they purely reactionary. If they are aware of PC plans, capabilities, or goals, they may act to preempt them. Even when they're not aware of PC agendas, the NPCs are still attempting to further their own. Remember, the NPCs are just as 'alive' and able to act as the PCs. They don't have to sit in a 10' x 10' room waiting for someone to kick in the door. :smallwink:


On one hand, it's no fun to just nod your head and say "it works. It works again. It still works." On the other, they DID put a lot of thought and effort into the plan, and having a plan succeed is just plain fun. Good plans should succeed on a regular basis! That's what differentiates the good plans from the 'pie-in-the-sky' dreams. :) Besides, isn't coming up with a good plan to resolve some issue the core of RP gaming? Traditional games such as D&D in particular - they're commonly set up with the GM saying "Here's the problem, what do you do?" What's the point if you start throwing out the solutions?


I'm sure the answer will most likely be somethign to the effect of "Let the plan work, but add complications," but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on teh subject.Functionally, there isn't a large difference between this and what I've said regading NPCs' actions. However, there is a subtly important difference in focus. It's all too easy to get caught up a 'GM vs player' game if your attitude and planning are all 'vs player'.

Zeta Kai
2009-12-23, 08:57 PM
1.) Is their plan seriously good? Loading up a Tenser's Floating Disk with alchemist fire and dropping it on top of the enemy camp may be awesome, but that isn't how the spell works.

2.) Is the plan feasable? Convincing the guard that the party is supposed to be lacing dynamite on the warp drive isn't very believable.

3.) Are there some unknown (to the players) obstacles that would prevent it from happening? Trying to cast Dominate Person on the Mage-King would probably run into a few barriers, even if the players didn't consider them beforehand.

4.) Are the dice going to roll the way the players want?

If the PCs come up with a plan that isn't obviously broken and isn't obviously contradicting a rule, then I let it happen. If there is some kind of risk involved, such as sneaking silently through a guarded hallway, then I let the dice decide. I mean, if they players are aware of the danger, I see no reason to prevent them from taking the risk.

I was gonna type up some long treatise on my DMing philosophy, but this pretty much nails it. I agree 100% with this process. My players have learned that I'm not their enemy, the game world is. I'm just the messenger.

DigoDragon
2009-12-26, 01:38 PM
I find that players are more than capable of wrecking their own plans.

Haha, I've made the same observation with my group. I don't try to find holes in the players planning. If they have a reasonable plan, I let them go for it. I let the gears in their plan wrench themselves.

Ernir
2009-12-27, 05:11 AM
I don't care what they plan. I just react to what they do.

jmbrown
2009-12-27, 05:33 AM
I don't care what they plan. I just react to what they do.

I submit to this school as well. If the PCs come up with the good plan and it works, thumbs up. Here's some experience.

Meanwhile your murder of the merchant lord has created a power vacuum in the guild. Civil war has broken out in the streets and the price of goods has quadrupled in value. Don't bother hawking your ring of protection +1 because you won't get crap for it until this war dies down.

The tribe of hill giants you killed allows their natural prey, gnolls, to move in. The gnolls become larger and more organized than they ever were and even employ wizards who begin binding demons to their will.

Yukitsu
2009-12-27, 12:59 PM
In the first one, a protective item would go up in value, and as such, could be sold to a mercenary for a higher than average value. In the second case, you're simply being arbitrary.

Reacting to player plans as appropriate should not mean finding flimsy IC justifications to punish the players.

jmbrown
2009-12-27, 01:03 PM
In the first one, a protective item would go up in value, and as such, could be sold to a mercenary for a higher than average value. In the second case, you're simply being arbitrary.

Reacting to player plans as appropriate should not mean finding flimsy IC justifications to punish the players.

In the first case, nobody has the money to buy a powerful magic item because they're feeding armies, paying spies, and buying actual equipment that's useful to someone other than a single person. The cost for a ring of protection could supply an entire army. No merchant is going to buy it.

How is the second example arbitrary? It's a natural conclusion to an adventure. The hill giants kept the lesser races at bay. By killing the hill giants the players created a power vacuum and allows a slightly more powerful bullish leader like a demon or wizard to assume command.

A level 7-9 NPC probably couldn't boss around a bunch of giants but he could definitely boss an entire tribe of gnolls.

If those are flimsy arguments then I'd love to hear examples of how you react to player's actions.

Thatguyoverther
2009-12-27, 01:47 PM
Your players have spent hours coming up with a plan. A GOOD plan. They took the information you gave them and came up with a scheme to swipe the artifact, empty the sleezebag's bank account, or generally have their way.

The question is, do you let them have their fun, or do you throw a wrench in their plans?

On one hand, it's no fun to just nod your head and say "it works. It works again. It still works." On the other, they DID put a lot of thought and effort into the plan, and having a plan succeed is just plain fun.

I'm sure the answer will most likely be somethign to the effect of "Let the plan work, but add complications," but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on teh subject.

If the plan should work then the plan should work. If the bad guys are smart enough to foul it up then they will. But again the best laid plans of mice and men, and whatnot. If you want to make things interesting, have a guard take a bathroom break at an inopportune time or have a surprise inspection or inclement weather.

If your going to add a complication do it in a way that's reasonable, just because the DM is priviy to something doesn't mean that the bad guys are.

Dienekes
2009-12-27, 02:10 PM
Generally before they even come up with a plan I jot down everything. Some of the information they know, some of the information they don't know. If their plan works and surpasses all that they know or don't know then it works. Well done.

If the plan doesn't work, it doesn't work. Surprise round, roll initiative.

I try to have my players actually try and think through plans rather than just breaking down walls though.

Of the big plans (not simple battle tactics) I think I have wrecked 4 and they have succeeded in 5. So fairly even.

Yukitsu
2009-12-27, 03:06 PM
In the first case, nobody has the money to buy a powerful magic item because they're feeding armies, paying spies, and buying actual equipment that's useful to someone other than a single person. The cost for a ring of protection could supply an entire army. No merchant is going to buy it.

Mercenaries are different. They earn money in these times, and don't have to worry about feeding armies. That's their employers problem. If the paymaster takes a few grand to better protect the leader of the mercenary band, he may very well do so, especially if the leader is charismatic enough that his presence guarantees better contracts.


How is the second example arbitrary? It's a natural conclusion to an adventure. The hill giants kept the lesser races at bay. By killing the hill giants the players created a power vacuum and allows a slightly more powerful bullish leader like a demon or wizard to assume command.

A level 7-9 NPC probably couldn't boss around a bunch of giants but he could definitely boss an entire tribe of gnolls.

If those are flimsy arguments then I'd love to hear examples of how you react to player's actions.

I dislike it because the conclusion of an adventure should be rewarding, not frustrating. Killing giants isn't so much a plan in and of itself anyway, but if that's the plot hook/direction they want to go, the result shouldn't be "And now something replaces them, and you get to do the same thing again, slightly different monsters." I mean, what happens when the players kill the gnolls? The kobolds step in? And after them?

A better resolution is it's now occupied by gnolls or something, who are weaker than the giants, and as such, can be held off by pitchfork wielding peasants, and without having to pay massive tribute to the giants, the common folk can be a bit better off. Not, it's filled by gnolls + what is generally considered to be an abusive wizard build which makes life unilateraly harder for the peasants.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 03:36 PM
The explanation is simple:

You see, as a player, you are conditioned that no matter what plan you make, the DM will throw a wrench into it. And if you make no plans at all, the DM will throw the answers at you... so why bother? really?
Making plans is a waste of your time, you invest all that effort only to be punished for it...

If you want your players to plan more, then you need to explain to them that they will design an encounter, and if they make a plan on how to deal with it, you will not modify it on the fly to throw wrenches into their plans...
Suddenly planning becomes wise.

This. Definitely this. I've had players look a situation for 15-30 seconds, pronounce it unsolvable, and start pushing buttons randomly to see what happened.

Every wrong button push resulted in electrocution. Turns out, he got lucky, and pushed the right button before he died. He got damn close though, and I was rolling damage in the open. Afterward, I took a few seconds to explain exactly how he could have known for certain which button to push. Laziness should not entitle you to easy success.

On the flip side, if you do plan wonderfully, many objectives are much, much easier to accomplish. I tend to design problems without a specific solution in mind, but even when I do, it's not unusual for clever plans to solve it in a different way.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 03:51 PM
How is the second example arbitrary? It's a natural conclusion to an adventure. The hill giants kept the lesser races at bay. By killing the hill giants the players created a power vacuum and allows a slightly more powerful bullish leader like a demon or wizard to assume command.


So, the giants are keeping "lesser" races at bay...

But when the giants are gone, suddenly those "lesser" races are "slightly more powerful?

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 04:05 PM
So, the giants are keeping "lesser" races at bay...

But when the giants are gone, suddenly those "lesser" races are "slightly more powerful?

That's why I added in a wizard or other powerful source assumes control. Look at it like this:

-A tribe of hill giants rules an area and keeps lesser races as slaves
-PCs kill hill giants
-Slaves are freed. A powerful lord/monster/wizard musters the lesser races and combines their strength into a force more powerful than the giants collectively.

There's strength in numbers. Evil races are usually weak because they're disorganized. A common fantasy joke is "The only reason goblins don't rule the world is because they kill each other more than their enemies."


Mercenaries are different. They earn money in these times, and don't have to worry about feeding armies. That's their employers problem. If the paymaster takes a few grand to better protect the leader of the mercenary band, he may very well do so, especially if the leader is charismatic enough that his presence guarantees better contracts.

I don't see how this has to do with the exchange of goods during a time of economic troubles. For 2,000gp you can give a single person a +1 deflection bonus or you could buy 1,000 men-at-arms for a month. Which will someone trying to form an army choose?


I dislike it because the conclusion of an adventure should be rewarding, not frustrating.

The players are rewarded with whatever they earned from the giants. All I've done was introduce a possible plot hook. "BTW, the giants you killed last week? Turns out their slaves have banded together under a mysterious and powerful leader. Just thought you should know."

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 04:08 PM
That's why I added in a wizard or other powerful source assumes control. Look at it like this:

-A tribe of hill giants rules an area and keeps lesser races as slaves
-PCs kill hill giants
-Slaves are freed. A powerful lord/monster/wizard musters the lesser races and combines their strength into a force more powerful than the giants collectively.

And what stopped this:

-A tribe of hill giants rules an area and keeps lesser races as slaves
-A powerful lord/monster/wizard kills or enslaves the giants.
-Slaves are freed. A powerful lord/monster/wizard musters the lesser races and combines their strength into a force more powerful than the giants collectively.

Hm? There's where the arbitrary comes in. If the creature usurping the slaves formerly owned by giants is more powerful than giants, why did it not kill/enslave the giants?

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 04:16 PM
And what stopped this:

-A tribe of hill giants rules an area and keeps lesser races as slaves
-A powerful lord/monster/wizard kills or enslaves the giants.
-Slaves are freed. A powerful lord/monster/wizard musters the lesser races and combines their strength into a force more powerful than the giants collectively.

Hm? There's where the arbitrary comes in. If the creature usurping the slaves formerly owned by giants is more powerful than giants, why did it not kill/enslave the giants?

Because it's easier to bully weaker races than stronger ones. Giants tend towards chaotic evil and aren't willing to follow some puny spell caster. Goblinoids and the like can easily be bullied into submission more than a giant.

What's a giant going to do with slaves? Eat them and put them to simple tasks like hunting. What does a cuning, intelligent leader do with slaves? Create an army.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-30, 04:30 PM
Because it's easier to bully weaker races than stronger ones. Giants tend towards chaotic evil and aren't willing to follow some puny spell caster. Goblinoids and the like can easily be bullied into submission more than a giant.

One to two will, after the remainder of their group is killed via "Make a will save".


What's a giant going to do with slaves? Eat them and put them to simple tasks like hunting. What does a cuning, intelligent leader do with slaves? Create an army.
And what does a cunning, intelligent leader do with slaves AND a couple giants?

Answer: Destroy your argument.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 05:11 PM
One to two will, after the remainder of their group is killed via "Make a will save".


And what does a cunning, intelligent leader do with slaves AND a couple giants?

Answer: Destroy your argument.

No, he's no better than if the giants had been eradicated because now he only has a fraction of the original force. I'll break it down to mechanics for you.

A tribe of hill giants (30) subjugates a band of orcs (100). There are more orcs (maybe another 100) but they're fearful of the giants and move to another location. The orcs are rounded up in small bands and kept in poor living conditions to keep their morale low so they don't revolt. Because the hill giants are simple, they delegate the orcs to doing simple tasks like raiding travelers or straight up eating them.

A level 9 wizard watches the giants from afar and thinks about amassing an army. He could make constant hit and run tactics on the giants from afar to scare them into service but it would simply take too long and waste too many of his personal resources to dominate them himself. He hires the PCs to slay the giants because orcs are simpler, easier to kill, and make less demands.

The PCs manage to kill all the giants. Let's say it's an adventure suitable for level 7-8 PCs. The orcs in the hill giant caves pose absolutely no threat because they're not armed (some of them even aid the PCs in slaying the giants) and the rest manage to escape during the PC slaughter fest.

The giants are dead or escape and the PCs are good guys so they let the unarmed and helpless orcs go free. They round up the giant's treasure and leave.

A month later the level 9 wizard who hired the PCs begins rounding up the orcs (the original 100 plus a few dozen more). He's waaaay more powerful than an orc so, unlike a giant, he can subjugate more of them using fewer resources. He tasks them with simple missions like raiding travelers. This escalates to raiding towns. Eventually the orcs who fled in the first place return after hearing news of the giants being chased away and the wizard's forces grow even more powerful.

The PCs decide to take on the orcs. The orcs are generally CR 1/2-3 creatures depending on their training; pitiful compared to the giants however because there is a cunning leader backed behind them they're capable of dealing more damage. The PCs fought the hill giants in packs of 4-8 but they're fighting the orcs in bands of 15 or so plus wargs and other nasties. The challenge rating is still there but there are more condensed forces who employ deadlier tactics (setting traps, ambushes, etc.).

Now what if the players decided to never pursue the giants and turned down the wizard? I would have ruled that the wizard went with his original plan to subjugate the giants. He would have had to kill a good majority of them (let's say at least half) before they decided to bend to "a puny wizard" and he would have amassed a force regardless. By the time this happened the PCs would have leveled up and been ready for the challenge of an army of orcs + a handful of giants.

What would have happened if the PCs weren't good and slaughtered the defenseless orcs? I would have changed the scenario entirely. Perhaps the wizard contacts a cabal of necromancers and drops the location of some fresh and powerful dead bodies. Perhaps a covey of hags takes interest in a party capable of such slaughter.

Regardless, the actions of the PCs can create infinite scenarios. It's not like the PCs are even bound to follow every plot hook. I don't expect the players to jump on top of every rumor they hear, I just make them up in the off chance they want to. I don't see how it's arbitrary in any respect.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:18 PM
The tribe of hill giants you killed allows their natural prey, gnolls, to move in. The gnolls become larger and more organized than they ever were and even employ wizards who begin binding demons to their will.

that is just terrible...
A proper and reward response is:
"and now that the giants are dead, the local villagers enjoy prosperity and peace and live happily ever after... while you travel into the sunset in search of new adventure"...

You don't want to make the PC's actions meaningless, or punish their success by making the "replacement" even MORE powerful then what was somehow keeping them at bay.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 05:24 PM
that is just terrible...
A proper and reward response is:
"and now that the giants are dead, the local villagers enjoy prosperity and peace and live happily ever after... while you travel into the sunset in search of new adventure"...

You don't want to make the PC's actions meaningless, or punish their success by making the "replacement" even MORE powerful then what was somehow keeping them at bay.

That's an even more terrible and cheap response. Nothing in life is permanent. You kill one tyrant and he's replaced by another; just cross your fingers the new one is better than the first. You could topple the entire regime but that would lead to a land without order which creates an entirely new adventure or scenario in itself. Maybe the PCs topple the tyrant and replace him with a just ruler but loyalists to the original leader commit terrorist acts in the name of their old king.

Nothing lasts forever.

The player's actions aren't meaningless, they just create new possibilities. The PCs still get treasure + experience. I get to create a new adventure based on what they've done. They don't have to follow it. It's not like there's an embargo on potential plot hooks or ideas.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:25 PM
fine... "and now they are safe for a few years.. while a new threat grows in the darkness". The happily ever after bit was more of a joke... in all seriousness, while not "forever", it will be safe for "a while"
it should still be at least 5 years before another threat surfaces in that region. and even then, the new threat should start smaller then the old one, and slowly grow in power...
Instant replacing any defeated opponent with a more powerful opponent that was being "kept in check" makes no sense...

And giants are tyrants. they are a tribe of monsters pestering the non tyrannical local settlement. by removing them you have given a chance for the local settlement, gnolls, and whatever to grow... so 5 years from now the local human town is more powerful then before (the giants are gone), but so are the gnolls, etc...

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 05:31 PM
fine... "and now they are safe for a few years.. while a new threat grows in the darkness"
it should still be at least 5 years before another threat surfaces in that region. and even then, the new threat should start smaller then the old one, and slowly grow in power...
Instant replacing any defeated opponent with a more powerful opponent that was being "kept in check" makes no sense...

And if you read my above example I note how it takes time for the new threat to grow. It's a process based on the size of the task at hand. I think a 10th level spellcaster can feasibly raise an army several hundred CR 1/2 creatures within 1-3 months.

Adventures typically precede PC down time. I've had players who sit on their mountains of cash for an entire year. I allow PCs to play the game at their pace. If they want to pursue an adventure I make one up based on recent events or past events. If they want to laze about with their money I let them. I'll mention stuff like "You hear more and more rumors about farms being razed. A few refugees a month ago; this month you almost see double that."

If the PCs decide "Hey, let's go investigate" then they begin to follow the plot hook. If not then there'll be an army of orcs knocking on their door. If the PCs ignore that then the king's army steps in to battle the orcs. They might win or they might not which can lead to an entirely new set of events (the army is severely weakened fighting the orcs thus allowing a neighboring kingdom to take over). I don't believe in static worlds where nothing happens unless the PCs had a direct hand in it.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:32 PM
Heroes of Horror puts a heavy emphasis on "threat vanquished triggers bigger threat emerging" but then a "horror campaign" is a bit outside mainstream D&D.

Which is not to say a bit of "Nice Job Breaking It Hero" isn't a good thing once in a while- but maybe not all the time.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 05:37 PM
Why wreck their plans when you can crush their dreams instead?

Let them plan whatever they want. It won't help.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 05:41 PM
Heroes of Horror puts a heavy emphasis on "threat vanquished triggers bigger threat emerging" but then a "horror campaign" is a bit outside mainstream D&D.

Which is not to say a bit of "Nice Job Breaking It Hero" isn't a good thing once in a while- but maybe not all the time.

It's not that they're breaking anything, it's just that the PCs are heroes and should be aware of what they're doing.

Admittedly, my playing style is hugely inspired by Greek myths. The entirety of Greek mythology follows this intricate web of Event - Result - Bigger Event - Bigger Result. The Iliad, for example, is a perfectly woven spiderweb of small events and minor heroes who go on to do great things or influence incrementally larger events. Nearly every single character involved in the story has an intricate back story and those that survive the war go on to have further adventure or influence greater events.

The Greeks were the ultimate story tellers IMO.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:50 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero

It doesn't necessarily involve breaking things- the main point is, by acting like heroes, the characters have in some way made things worse, and need to go out and fix that, as well.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 05:54 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero

It doesn't necessarily involve breaking things- the main point is, by acting like heroes, the characters have in some way made things worse, and need to go out and fix that, as well.

Considering Greek storytellers were famous for this, then I wholly admit to submitting to the idea and I absolutely love it as a literary device. Every action has a reaction. By being PCs capable of tearing holes in the fabric of the universe, your reaction happens to be more potent than everything else.


* Nice Job Opening the Box, Pandora.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:57 PM
And if you read my above example I note how it takes time for the new threat to grow. It's a process based on the size of the task at hand. I think a 10th level spellcaster can feasibly raise an army several hundred CR 1/2 creatures within 1-3 months.

and such a threat will be in no way inconvenienced by giants... or "held in check"...

if you want to make it more valid, you should have the grateful town suddenly give reports of undead giants... when investigating the PCs find that someone has raised the corpses of the giant... and that someone is a powerful necromancer who already had a big army of undead, and simply used said giants to expand...

not a wizard that was somehow "held in check" by the giants and now that the PCs vanquished them they are punished with bad results.

there should also be a limit on how far it goes, or you end up going the DBZ route... not every enemy can have a "more powerful BBEG" behind them... its completely possible to say you defeated this string of enemies and have to actually move to another part of the world or multiverse to find an opponent.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 05:58 PM
Tropes Are Not Bad, after all :smallamused:

But it is a trope that should be used carefully- and not overused to the point the players decide "Adventuring is evil because it endangers the world"- because that isn't really conducive to an adventuring game.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 05:58 PM
This. Definitely this. I've had players look a situation for 15-30 seconds, pronounce it unsolvable, and start pushing buttons randomly to see what happened.

Every wrong button push resulted in electrocution. Turns out, he got lucky, and pushed the right button before he died. He got damn close though, and I was rolling damage in the open. Afterward, I took a few seconds to explain exactly how he could have known for certain which button to push. Laziness should not entitle you to easy success.

On the flip side, if you do plan wonderfully, many objectives are much, much easier to accomplish. I tend to design problems without a specific solution in mind, but even when I do, it's not unusual for clever plans to solve it in a different way.

wow... I'd love to play in one of your campaigns :)

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 06:13 PM
and such a threat will be in no way inconvenienced by giants... or "held in check"...

if you want to make it more valid, you should have the grateful town suddenly give reports of undead giants... when investigating the PCs find that someone has raised the corpses of the giant... and that someone is a powerful necromancer who already had a big army of undead, and simply used said giants to expand...

not a wizard that was somehow "held in check" by the giants and now that the PCs vanquished them they are punished with bad results.

there should also be a limit on how far it goes, or you end up going the DBZ route... not every enemy can have a "more powerful BBEG" behind them... its completely possible to say you defeated this string of enemies and have to actually move to another part of the world or multiverse to find an opponent.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make. In my example the wizard didn't act against the giants because he didn't want to waste the resources. The PCs could do the job cheaper and easier. The wizard wanted an army and he got an army regardless if the PCs intervened or not.

Now if the PCs said "screw this" and moved on then I would have created a new plot hook. That doesn't mean I would have ignored what went on halfway across the world. The PCs could return to their old home a year later to find it turned into a dictatorship led by orcs with the wizard (who gained even more levels while the PCs were away) at the throne.


But it is a trope that should be used carefully- and not overused to the point the players decide "Adventuring is evil because it endangers the world"- because that isn't really conducive to an adventuring game.

But is this not true of real life? To get anywhere in the world you have to climb over the body of someone else. Have you ever stopped to imagine how many people were denied the job that you currently hold because you're better at it than them? Have you ever thought about what happens to the guy you cut off on the road? Does he go home in a blind range and take that anger out on his wife who, in return, leaves him causing him to spiral further into depression?

It's this butterfly effect/ripples-in-a-pond that I find make the best adventures. Nothing should be permanent. Success should be fleeting. I'm not saying this is the 100% correct way to do things, only the way I find most satisfying to good story telling.

The PCs could decide to stop adventuring but their inaction could very well lead to even worse results. In the end, all you can hope for is that you do what you think is right and damn everything else.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 06:36 PM
But is this not true of real life? To get anywhere in the world you have to climb over the body of someone else. Have you ever stopped to imagine how many people were denied the job that you currently hold because you're better at it than them? Have you ever thought about what happens to the guy you cut off on the road? Does he go home in a blind range and take that anger out on his wife who, in return, leaves him causing him to spiral further into depression?

The person who didn't get the job because you are better at it found another job, statistically one that pays a little less... (some might get lucky and find a better job, but overall they are most likely to find a job that meets their qualifications). He has less money to waste, so he buys less plastic crap he doesn't need.

The person you cut off cusses for a moment, then continues driving.
Nobody beats their spouse because "someone cut them off" while driving. Now, if he regularly beats his wife anyways, this might trigger yet another black eye to add to her collection... but so could something benign... and for all you know, maybe he got so pissed at you his wife became more afraid, shut her mouth, and DIDN'T get an extra punch which she would otherwise have gotten.

And besides, a woman leaving her abusive spouse is a good thing, a happy ending. not a bad one.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 06:43 PM
wow... I'd love to play in one of your campaigns :)

Heh, much appreciated.

I might DM a pathfinder campaign(with essentially all 3.5 allowed) sometime...if you happen to be in the DM/Baltimore area, ping me.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 06:46 PM
The person who didn't get the job because you are better at it found another job, statistically one that pays a little less... (some might get lucky and find a better job, but overall they are most likely to find a job that meets their qualifications). He has less money to waste, so he buys less plastic crap he doesn't need.

The person you cut off cusses for a moment, then continues driving.
Nobody beats their spouse because "someone cut them off" while driving. Now, if he regularly beats his wife anyways, this might trigger yet another black eye to add to her collection... but so could something benign... and for all you know, maybe he got so pissed at you his wife became more afraid, shut her mouth, and DIDN'T get an extra punch which she would otherwise have gotten.

And besides, a woman leaving her abusive spouse is a good thing, a happy ending. not a bad one.

All of those are equally logical conclusions to a minor problem.

However, D&D is a fantasy storytelling game and a story can't happen without events. Events are exaggerated for drama. If this weren't the case then the greatest stories written would have never existed. Macbeth wouldn't have taken the musings of witches seriously. Brutus could have defeated Mark Antony's army after assassinating Caesar or Caesar could have overpowered his killers and won the day.

My point is that a story can't continue without drama to build up on it. If the PCs want to pursue a particular plot hook, I let them. If they want to ignore a plot hook, I let them. I do not let everything perfectly fall into place because nothing in life perfectly falls into place.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 06:52 PM
there is no requirement for an exaggerated backlash for purposes of drama...
"you kill him, he is dead, gone and done for; now lets find new adventure"

there is no need for there to always be a "real power behind him" or a "new threat that was kept in check by the old one" in order to find new adventure...
You can kill one threat only to find a completely unrelated threat that was in the area the entire time, but you just never noticed... you can move to another town, you can "pass time" (say, a teleport gone wrong bumps you 10 years into the future)...

there are a million and one ways to do so without resorting to something that is not only cliche, but demoralizes the players as it seems that their efforts yield negative results.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 06:57 PM
there is no requirement for an exaggerated backlash for purposes of drama...
"you kill him, he is dead, gone and done for; now lets find new adventure"

there is no need for there to always be a "real power behind him" or a "new threat that was kept in check by the old one" in order to find new adventure...
You can kill one threat only to find a completely unrelated threat that was in the area the entire time, but you just never noticed... you can move to another town, you can "pass time" (say, a teleport gone wrong bumps you 10 years into the future)...

there are a million and one ways to do so without resorting to something that is not only cliche, but demoralizes the players as it seems that their efforts yield negative results.

Now you're exaggerating the result of the threat. You claim it's completely unrelated when I showed you in my example how everything worked together. The man who lost his job and now works a crappier one invests the money and becomes the boss of the position he wanted in the first place. The man who succumbs to road rage takes anger management classes and decides to become a cop eventually giving a ticket the person who cut him off so many months ago for another petty crime.

All of these things are logical conclusions. If you deny the fact that something couldn't happen then you're just as wrong for me saying it should. It's just as cliche to say "and everyone lives happily ever after" than to say "Everyone dies of malaria which you released fighting the zombies."

taltamir
2009-12-30, 07:00 PM
I already conceded that "everyone lives happily ever after" is extreme and was a bad idea... no less cliche and bad than "everyone dies of malaria because you killed the zombies"

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 07:06 PM
This conversation isn't going anywhere so I'll just concede by saying I prefer an extreme ending to a tame one. I'd rather have something happen than nothing. Whether that something is large enough to threaten the players is debatable, but in an action packed story I feel cheated when "All is well that ends well."

This is just where our personal opinions split.

RandomNPC
2009-12-30, 09:00 PM
here's the plan: assassin hides near the tribute payment to the lich. the lich has to pick it up himself because the party has utterly destroyed his minions. Lich goes for the loot, assassin pops out and death attacks the lich.

Plan went off without anything going wrong, hide checks were made, attacks hit, everything was good, and it took the party two hours to agree on the plan. Then I open the book and read the part about how death attacks work on the lich, out loud, with a big grin on my face, after all I sat through two hours of planning and didn't even have to try thinking of a way to foil the plan, it foiled itself.

Jayngfet
2009-12-31, 05:27 AM
My philosophy is "If you make a plan, make sure it's well thought out. Because if you screw up at one point the DM will throw you to the lions. Nah just kidding, you wish I was nice enough to use lions, you get a pack of cosmic horrors."

I adopted this after my players come up with plans that have glaring flaws("I throw lightning at it!""You sure, the robotic PC is kind of holding on and your suspended mid air.""...yes?" I'm hoping one day they'll think their actions through and not doom mankind on sheer stupidity, a vain hope.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-31, 09:54 AM
If it is a well thought plan, all around, and could work, I usually allows, requiring adjusts (from the players) as it goes along. Simply going and screwing it just because is pure railroading.

Choco
2009-12-31, 01:34 PM
But again the best laid plans of mice and men, and whatnot. If you want to make things interesting, have a guard take a bathroom break at an inopportune time or have a surprise inspection or inclement weather.

Yeah, I love doing that. Once the PC's were going to sneak into an enemy castle and assassinate an evil priest. They watched the place for like a week, paid commoners for info, did the usual info gathering like they were supposed to to figure out guard schedules, weak spots and such. Then they went to the inn for the rest of the day and spent the next day gathering some magic items/components to help them sneak in, without leaving anyone on watch at the castle. Little did they know that while they were gone an entire platoon of evil knights lead by a bunch of Paladins of Tyrany were stopping by for supplies on their way to the front lines of a war their nation was waging. I even tried to tell them multiple times via NPC conversations they overhear but they flat out didn't care to listen cause they were in a hurry. One of their contacts even tried to set up a meeting with them to inform them, but they don't have the time to waste on unimportant NPC's when they got an epic plan to set in motion :smallamused:

Sure enough, the PC's plan works PERFECTLY up until they enter the cathedral to kill the priest and catch him in the middle of a sermon, for the newly arrived platoon before they head back out. Unfortunately for them the paladins had Detect Good constantly on and one of em noticed the PC's. Hilarity ensued as they then had to escape from the heart of the evil castle while being chased by an entire platoon of knights and paladins.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 01:39 PM
My philosophy is "If you make a plan, make sure it's well thought out. Because if you screw up at one point the DM will throw you to the lions. Nah just kidding, you wish I was nice enough to use lions, you get a pack of cosmic horrors."

I adopted this after my players come up with plans that have glaring flaws("I throw lightning at it!""You sure, the robotic PC is kind of holding on and your suspended mid air.""...yes?" I'm hoping one day they'll think their actions through and not doom mankind on sheer stupidity, a vain hope.

Man, you got lions? I have to make do with ill-tempered sea bass. I tried laughing manically as I threw the players in the pit, but they just complained about soggy pizza. What's a DM to do?

Aedilred
2010-01-03, 08:18 AM
It really depends on the circumstances. There have been occasions where my players have spontaneously come up with something right out of left field that I never saw coming, and these I've generally allowed unless there's an obvious flaw in the plan. In fact, generally I'll rule in their favour in such instances should there be a rule conflict, grey area or whatever, because it rewards ingenuity and encourages them to be imaginative in future.

However, when it's obvious that they (or more usually, one of them) have come up with something through extensive metagaming, using OOC knowledge to extremes, abusing grey areas in the rules, and so forth, I'll shut it down.

In general, I'm much more amenable to dubious plans if the player starts the plan off with "is it alright if I do x?" rather than "I'm going to do x, which I think you'll find if you examine page 34, paragraph b, subsection theta, is technically legal..."