PDA

View Full Version : DM'ing: flexibility, or When Your Players Blow the Plot Up



WarKitty
2010-08-01, 11:34 PM
Something my players have brought up is that I, as a DM, tend not to be the most flexible. Particularly when my players come up with something off-the-wall that *should* work but completely messes with the plot. Fair criticism, and something I would like to improve upon.

My question to my fellow DM's: how do you handle these situations? When the players do something totally unexpected and you just don't have any material at all to cover what they just did? Is it just something you have to practice at, or are there any tips for expecting the unexpected?

Prodan
2010-08-01, 11:34 PM
Smite them.

tyckspoon
2010-08-01, 11:36 PM
"Oh. Huh. That's pretty cool, but I have to admit I didn't expect you guys to do something like that. Get a drink or something while I figure out how to deal with it, ok?"

It's alright to be flustered sometime, really. Let your players know, take 10 minutes or so to think about what changes you have to make. It's sometimes good for the group to have an official not-playing period where they can back out of character a bit and chat about the latest episode of (X) without worrying about distracting the game anyway.

Jergmo
2010-08-01, 11:47 PM
If I can think of something that their enemy reasonably has that would help them against what my players do, they pull that trick out of their sleeves. However, nothing is really predetermined in my campaign. There are too many plots going on for my players to even experience fully, and there are no predetermined outcomes to anything - they can't really screw the plot up, and I rely on chance a great deal to determine outcomes of situations; I'm also very flexible. Only very rarely do I fudge something - most of the time I just roll with it.

Greymane
2010-08-01, 11:48 PM
I'm with tyckspoon on this one. Take a deep breath, and think out the repercussions. While I would recommend deciding on some that are inherently harmful to the players, that's my spiteful, vengeful side speaking.

One of my players in my Red Hand of Doom game is a Hobgoblin. Who (after learning just what the heck is going on) will be trying to reconvert the hobgoblins back to either Maglubiyet, or the primary hobgoblin deity that I can never recall the name of. His... goals will have me doing some re-writing I wager.

FMArthur
2010-08-01, 11:52 PM
"It doesn't work! There must be some kind of magic blocking you!"

"It's got to be that damned wizard, that rotten bastard! :smallfurious:"

I did this on my first campaign. This first player assumption led me to scapegoat the wizard for railroady moments that I should have prepared better. By the time they killed the wizard it had been an accumulating vendetta and the players seemed to feel really satisfied about it - and the DM experience I gained in the process allowed me to be much less restrictive afterwards, making it into a real accomplishment with actual effects, the players felt.

The Pressman
2010-08-01, 11:56 PM
I'm not a DM, but today, we did something that literally blew up.

The kobolds had strewn flour in the air to obscure our view, but I threw a flame from produce flame in there and blew it up. It killed all 5 kobolds, 8 rats, and all that was left was a pissed-off flaming dire weasel.

He handled it well. He rolled the damage, was nice, I apologized, he said it was ok, life moved on.

Vangor
2010-08-01, 11:58 PM
Unspoken rule to the players is to always progress the campaign. Beyond this, the greatest advice I can give is lose the rigidity by creating a start and playing the antagonist(s). Spend more effort on learning the resources and attitudes of the antagonist(s) and less trying to create actual scenes, because those scenes tend to be where the plots get bent or destroyed. Is the party meant to be captured and brought to a dungeon? No, the BBEG decides the party has become such a thorn in his side he sends a group of his minions to capture.

If you are more specific, maybe I could offer more specific advice, but this has helped me immensely.

Trickywiggy
2010-08-01, 11:58 PM
Make every npc or at least a hodgepodge version, enough to loot or interact with.

I always write 3 positive and negative personality traits for every important npc.

Get really good at roleplay and blocking out your love for the plot, I mean it sucks to have your labor and awesome idea blown, but anger at your pcs ruins the fun. But you have to know when their ideas should fail too, one example was when I was a player my party decided to kill the evil ruler and have our umd rogue pose as the ruler, I mean it would have been cool if it worked but it made sense for the other evil parts of the government to depose their 'maddened' ruler.

Ormur
2010-08-02, 12:40 AM
Hope they'll do it at the end of the session, otherwise just improvise.

Avilan the Grey
2010-08-02, 01:30 AM
"Oh. Huh. That's pretty cool, but I have to admit I didn't expect you guys to do something like that. Get a drink or something while I figure out how to deal with it, ok?"

Yeah, I think this is it. "Now I honestly didn't think about that. Pizza break!".

Besides, personally I have been on both sides of this, and it makes me feel good either way; I take pride in my players actually being clever, and I take pride in surprising the DM.

Some things are easier to fix than others:

If the players kill the Big Bad very early in the game, just make up a new one and pretend that this one was just a miniboss or a chance encounter.

If the players manages to escape the rails by actually escaping (breaking out of prison etc) just send an equal NPC party of bounty hunters after them. Or if they do it at sea, let them experience the consequences (having to find land anywhere for water and food).

One thing that happens almost regularly in our games is that the DM / GM / ST / whatever has to invent a new ending, since we, as players, are smart enough, and work well enough together, that the Dragon, or even The Big Bad, will go down slightly before his or her time (we manage to kill the evil priest just before he summons the final monster, for example). If that is the case, let them, but play out the horrors of what COULD have happened. That way they do not feel cheated of the last fight but instead feel proud and lucky that they managed to avoid said fight.

Grifthin
2010-08-02, 02:36 AM
Throw some dice, Roll on the wild magic table, make up something random and go with that.

Jergmo
2010-08-02, 02:43 AM
Throw some dice, Roll on the wild magic table, make up something random and go with that.

I do so love my Dice of Fate™.

potatocubed
2010-08-02, 02:53 AM
The best advice I can give you is to forget about preconceived plots except in the loosest sense. The plot of your game is not the road the PCs must follow, but the trail they blaze. Your job is to be the wilderness.

Invent a BBEG. Come up with their scheme. Work out how the scheme would progress if the PCs weren't there. Now add the PCs.

Where the PCs and the scheme collide, there is your adventure. You prep it session by session based on what the PCs do - because you know what the scheme is and who the BBEG is, you can calculate likely responses to the PCs' actions.

If the PCs obliterate your planned adventure mid-session, the aforementioned 'take a break' advice is good. Again, because the adventure stems from the motivations and plan of the BBEG - which you know - you can calculate their reaction faster than if you were railroading.

The real trick lies in having stat blocks handy for whatever happens next. I recommend having a folder of pre-generated stat blocks in the right sort of CR range (or playing a system where fast-generating monsters is easier than in 3.x).

Serpentine
2010-08-02, 03:15 AM
I've told this to my group (roughly): "I over-prepare, but am not very good at sponteneity and tend to be thrown if you go off-rails. But that's my problem, I'll deal with it. Just be aware that if you do something I really don't expect, I'll need some time to work it out."
I find, in gaming and in life in general, that I tend to complain and panic when something throws me off, but not long after I've worked out exactly why it's not so bad, because I've figured out a way to deal with it.
I was actually disappointed when my group threw this on me and then changed their mind because I was thrown in a loop. Boring story spoilered.They were meant to follow the road to the conveniently placed plot point (a fort about to be overrun by hoards of ants). However, they had previously acquired a folding boat, and decided to go by river, which would bypass the whole lot. My reaction was something along the lines of "Oh. Uh... Right. Um. Well... That's right out of the way of the next bit... Um..." But even then, I started figuring out that I could have them come across a satellite village wiped out by the ants - something I'd already included anyway - so it wasn't really a problem, but by that time I'd put them off and they changed their mind and decided to just go with the road.

Psyx
2010-08-02, 03:36 AM
Is it just something you have to practice at, or are there any tips for expecting the unexpected?

Think on your feet.

Maybe you need to play more. Players constantly have to think on their feet, and perhaps you're not used to it.

Have a list of names nearby, so you've always got one to hand. It also tricks players into assuming that everyone they meet is 'important' because you have a name for them, so they interact with them better.

Have a few encounters planned 'for emergencies', such as some bandits, town guard, et cetera.

Think not just about your adventure, but the stuff 'around it'. You don't have to write it all down, but just get a feel for the surrounding physical, social and ecological environment.

Write an adventure or two and some NPCs. Now burn them.
You need to stop holding onto your 'plans' and getting emotionally attached. Don't resent it when players go off-piste. Don't get annoyed that they've 'ruined' anything. Embrace it. you can always use those stat-blacks 6 months later, or something.

If all else fails, don't be afraid to say: 'Guys, I didn't expect this. I have nothing prepared for this. I'm not happy winging it here. Can you go eat a pizza for 45 minutes and give me some time to plan for this?'
Or even call the session there and then, dish out XP, and play a card game or something, so that you can prepare over the next week. I've done this on several occasions when my players have shot 6-months of story arc out the window with one cunning plan, or by going in the other direction.

It's also handy in some games to have a folder of floor-plans for 'typical' buildings and things.

Alternatively, if you have enough ranks in bluff, get the group chatting out-of-character for a few minutes about... whatever: What they did at the weekend, the Grand Prix... whatever they like to talk about. And quickly use that time to scribble some stuff down, while still participating in the conversation.

Avilan the Grey
2010-08-02, 03:51 AM
As potatocubed suggested, make "dummies" in a folder. Generic NPCs without a name is always a good help. Naming them after their description can be something like this:

Average Bar / Inn customer,
(set of stats)

Average Bar / Inn customer, short
(set of stats)

Average Bar / Inn customer, tall and muscular
(set of stats)

Dwarven Travelling Merchant
(set of stats)

Half-elven Travelling Merchant
(set of stats)

Human Travelling Merchant
(set of stats)

And so on. And I also repeat the advice for being the wilderness rather than the road. Or if you are unconformable with that, be the train yard and not just one set of rails, so you can lead them back on the track after a session or two.

Morph Bark
2010-08-02, 04:13 AM
Simple. I don't always completely think out complex plotlines, but have basic ideas for several, up to five even, that I make up as I go.

Basically, I'm winging it half the time, and the players still don't suspect it - though sometimes one asks "are we going in the right direction?" as if he wants to be railroaded.

Avilan the Grey
2010-08-02, 04:17 AM
Simple. I don't always completely think out complex plotlines, but have basic ideas for several, up to five even, that I make up as I go.

This is what I meant with the train yard metaphor: Run parallel rails, and when the players think they have escaped they have only landed on a different set of rails.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 04:19 AM
The DM makes the world. The players choose the path through it.

That's the best way IMO. A little more initial setup, but it's easier in the long run. Sketch out the powers in your world, the significant characters and such. Add more as necessary, and outline a few unique encounters that can be used in multiple scenarios. Just roll with whatever the players take as a direction, think about how the world and people in it would react to their actions, and proceed accordingly.

As you get better at it with practice, your prep time will dwindle to almost nothing.

Serpentine
2010-08-02, 04:19 AM
There's something else I've found helpful: If the party bypasses something you had planned, then just save it up for another time.

Emmerask
2010-08-02, 04:39 AM
The DM makes the world. The players choose the path through it.

That's the best way IMO. A little more initial setup, but it's easier in the long run. Sketch out the powers in your world, the significant characters and such. Add more as necessary, and outline a few unique encounters that can be used in multiple scenarios. Just roll with whatever the players take as a direction, think about how the world and people in it would react to their actions, and proceed accordingly.

As you get better at it with practice, your prep time will dwindle to almost nothing.

I disagree very much :smalltongue:
A pc centric world to me is very boring and unrealistic (as a player and a dm).

Drascin
2010-08-02, 04:52 AM
Something my players have brought up is that I, as a DM, tend not to be the most flexible. Particularly when my players come up with something off-the-wall that *should* work but completely messes with the plot. Fair criticism, and something I would like to improve upon.

My question to my fellow DM's: how do you handle these situations? When the players do something totally unexpected and you just don't have any material at all to cover what they just did? Is it just something you have to practice at, or are there any tips for expecting the unexpected?

Personally, I have the luck of being pretty good at thinking on my feet. This, plus the fact that I have "event chains" instead of "plots" per se (that is, I have a good idea of what the NPCs intend to do in the future if the PCs don't do something off the wall, but I adjust accordingly), makes it so my players can rarely differentiate between when I'm talking a bit more slowly because I'm just not happy about how badly I'm explaining myself this time (which is usual. I'm just not the best communicator), and when I'm talking a bit more slowly because I'm adjusting the whole event chain in my head due to what they just did :smalltongue:.

As for NPC stats... the question is, do your players insist on total rules faithfulness in your NPCs, or do they not mind a bit more leeway? Because, since mine don't, I find it easy to come up with NPCs and mosnters on the spot. Eyeballing a level, average HP and some appropiate equipment and spells for it, is rather easy and done in five seconds if you don't have to worry about going a bit over or under. I generally only give proper, full rule statblocks to important world characters - this helps a lot with managing a group of players like mine, who if given a building with seven exits that I have all planned for, will find a way to dig a tunnel and go out through there :smallbiggrin:.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 05:08 AM
I disagree very much :smalltongue:
A pc centric world to me is very boring and unrealistic (as a player and a dm).

PC centric? No, no, this is a world in which NPCs actually have goals and such. And which change based on events.

A railroad plot which generally focuses on scenes for the players is no less PC centric.

The thing is, the former feels much more real. And how important the PCs are to the world depends very greatly on what sort of world you build.

potatocubed
2010-08-02, 05:13 AM
Have a list of names nearby, so you've always got one to hand. It also tricks players into assuming that everyone they meet is 'important' because you have a name for them, so they interact with them better.

Or do what I do, and never have names picked out for anyone!

...it's a sub-optimal solution, I admit. :smalltongue:

Ingus
2010-08-02, 05:34 AM
As a player, as well as a DM, I really like to go on the improvisation side.
But i didn't started this way. Some suggestions:
1. Take the BBEG and the other main protagonists and study them. Which one is prudent and manipulative? Which one is careless and hot blooded?
If you have guidelines of the NPC personalities, you can react quicker to the twists and play the character.
2. Give them a plan B. If you have pre-written scenes, your players would easily surprise you. Think in advance "what if..." You have not to over do it, but consider the major screwing possibilities.
3. Rule-of-cool it. If the idea your players have is good, let them have an advantage. If their idea make the main enemy auto-lose, make him negate the effect, but with a major investment and/or a minor handicap.
4. Improvise. This is not an easy task, but learn how to improvise. First time, you're scared as hell (as adequate to a tabletop game :smallbiggrin:), next time you're just scared, next time again you're cautous... Then you go easily and maybe you can like it. As another suggestion, start little by little and, if needed, take a pause and reflect, as suggested. If the players have done something stupidly unpredicted, make them pay; else, compliment with them. I often say: "Well, you've outsmarted the DM. Now let me think how to deal with it a couple of minutes. Congratulations, though."

_Zoot_
2010-08-02, 05:40 AM
The best advice I can give you is to forget about preconceived plots except in the loosest sense. The plot of your game is not the road the PCs must follow, but the trail they blaze. Your job is to be the wilderness.

Invent a BBEG. Come up with their scheme. Work out how the scheme would progress if the PCs weren't there. Now add the PCs.

Where the PCs and the scheme collide, there is your adventure. You prep it session by session based on what the PCs do - because you know what the scheme is and who the BBEG is, you can calculate likely responses to the PCs' actions.

If the PCs obliterate your planned adventure mid-session, the aforementioned 'take a break' advice is good. Again, because the adventure stems from the motivations and plan of the BBEG - which you know - you can calculate their reaction faster than if you were railroading.

The real trick lies in having stat blocks handy for whatever happens next. I recommend having a folder of pre-generated stat blocks in the right sort of CR range (or playing a system where fast-generating monsters is easier than in 3.x).

This is how I work, I think it is fun just to say, "what would the BBEG do now that a bunch of idiots just buggered by his plan?" And go from there.

Also, because I invent worlds and stories and the PC's just happen to live in them, this is the natural method for me! =P

Dragor
2010-08-02, 05:56 AM
I've been having a lot of this in my latest 4th Edition campaign. One of our players is a veteran of online, no-dice roleplaying, and the other is simply new to the game. Used to being able to do what she likes without having to make a roll (and being lucky with the dice) she often screws up what I have written down in front of me.

What do I do? Roll with it, admit that they, as usual, threw a curveball at me and I don't know what to do next. So far I'll have had to throw in a dungeon with a few riddles and monsters and eventually their prize at the end. It's not exactly imaginative or conventional, but hey, I'm not perfect.

Never ever stop the players from doing something they've done. Always ask them if they're sure, but never stop them.

Psyx
2010-08-02, 06:01 AM
Or do what I do, and never have names picked out for anyone!

It's a low trick, but pretending to make up a character name on the spot for a character who *is* important, but is a very low-key person who is *supposed* to be overlooked is very effective. It lulls the players into a false sense of security in a manner that the NPC would. I have several times used it to detract suspicion from spies, assassins and the likes. It's especially effective for 'concealed' bodyguards for NPCs, too. Have an NPC noble and a named henchman masquerading as a butler, and the PCs think he's more than a butler. Look like you've just made a name up for them ('err... John smith'), and they don't look any closer. Silly names are also good for this.

SuperPanda
2010-08-02, 06:04 AM
I tend to only plan as far as the next one or two session, but even then I've almost never had players do something which needed ramifications right there at that moment. I nearly did several times, but the other players usually shouted the one player in question down before he managed to do it.

Example: Human king about to reward the party for completing their last quest. Player: Elven Bard starts insulting the puny, short lived human and asking if he has a daughter the could be ravished as his reward. I was starting to work out what the CR for all present palace guards would be when the other players tied and gagged the Bard for me and appologized. Our party leader managed to negotiate the Bard still getting paid, mostly because I was amused at their reactions.

A few of my players have done things which I did not expect at all and often which I had not prepared for, but since I know my NPCs I just keep going for the moment and take notes. If it comes to a battle I have not statted I come clean and tell everyone to take a short break while I figure out what happens next. Truely plot breaking moves on the PCs parts though usually only start as ripples, the waves of what they've done won't be apparant until the next session or possibly even the next adventure arc.

valadil
2010-08-02, 08:41 AM
I have a simple trick. Don't own plots. Any plots that happen in the game belong to NPCs, not to you.

This is effective for two reasons. First, it prevents flustering. The PCs didn't just blow up your plot, they blew up Bill the Cleric's plot. Why should you get all worked up over it?

Secondly, you simply let your NPC react to the plot change. So the PCs sided with the bad guy. Okay, now Bill the Cleric believes the bad guy has some sort of mind control and is going to send paladins after the PCs. He'll try and remove BBEG's brainwashing if he ever gets a hold of the players.

The reaction plot isn't the most interesting thing you've ever seen, but it's born out of a twist that the players caused. That alone is enough to make it cool in their eyes.

As other players have mentioned, taking a break is always fine. In my first game I stopped scheduling dinner breaks. We just went for food whenever the players threw me something I couldn't handle.

Finally, be prepared to swap out NPCs as needed. If the players decided to kill Bill the Cleric midway through his quest, maybe Bill wasn't the one running that plot after all. Shift it over to some other NPC and let the continue the plot.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 09:40 AM
Unfortunately my worlds tend not to be strongly NPC-centric...like right now they're in a vast swath of the world where all animal life (including humanoids) has been wiped out by a magical disaster that produced ravenous plant life. My challenges tend frequently to be based more on traps, obstacles, and standard monsters. We don't even *have* a BBEG in this game, they're running around collecting a set of artifacts that have been scattered in various inaccessible locations.

valadil
2010-08-02, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately my worlds tend not to be strongly NPC-centric...like right now they're in a vast swath of the world where all animal life (including humanoids) has been wiped out by a magical disaster that produced ravenous plant life. My challenges tend frequently to be based more on traps, obstacles, and standard monsters. We don't even *have* a BBEG in this game, they're running around collecting a set of artifacts that have been scattered in various inaccessible locations.

Then what plot are you afraid of them blowing up? That isn't meant to be patronizing. When my plots blow up, it's because the wrong NPC got murdered. Reacting to it is an NPC's job. How else do you foresee the game being derailed that NPC's can't be tweaked to fix the problem?

-- edit --

Bah, I don't like how I phrased that question. You're asking a question of damage control. What is the damage that you're trying to control? I answered how I deal with problems in NPC centric games because that's the kind of game I run. My bad for assuming that's how everyone else does it too.

What's the single worst thing your players could do to your game world?

jiriku
2010-08-02, 10:01 AM
Unfortunately my worlds tend not to be strongly NPC-centric...like right now they're in a vast swath of the world where all animal life (including humanoids) has been wiped out by a magical disaster that produced ravenous plant life. My challenges tend frequently to be based more on traps, obstacles, and standard monsters. We don't even *have* a BBEG in this game, they're running around collecting a set of artifacts that have been scattered in various inaccessible locations.

Improvising will be even easier for you, then. In a game that is essentially a plotless collection of challenges, your only responsibility as DM is to define the challenges (which you're free to do either ahead of time or off the cuff). It's not even your job to decide how the challenges will be overcome: the players are responsible for finding solutions. In this situation, about the only way the players can derail anything is by choosing to venture into a part of the world you haven't statted up yet.

A trick I use that might be useful to you is to try to manage the player's progress through the game so that they accomplish important objectives at the end of a session (rather than in the middle of one). Then, as they're packing up and getting ready to go home, I ask, "so, where do you guys plan to go during our next session?" About half the time, they have an answer for me, and I can just stat up whatever place they're planning to go to. The other half of the time they don't, and I stat up whatever I want and lay down lots of incentives for their characters to go there.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 10:01 AM
Then what plot are you afraid of them blowing up? That isn't meant to be patronizing. When my plots blow up, it's because the wrong NPC got murdered. Reacting to it is an NPC's job. How else do you foresee the game being derailed that NPC's can't be tweaked to fix the problem?

In this particular occasion, the PC's found a way to bypass almost all the obstacles and fights that I had planned for the next 2 sessions. There's no NPC's involved at this point, so nothing to tweak there...the PC's are the only animal life for a long ways. I did manage to get them "back on track" but I am not particularly fond of how I did it, basically I came up with a fast reason why their particular combo of fly/feather fall wouldn't work.

valadil
2010-08-02, 10:05 AM
In this particular occasion, the PC's found a way to bypass almost all the obstacles and fights that I had planned for the next 2 sessions. There's no NPC's involved at this point, so nothing to tweak there...the PC's are the only animal life for a long ways. I did manage to get them "back on track" but I am not particularly fond of how I did it, basically I came up with a fast reason why their particular combo of fly/feather fall wouldn't work.

Ah. In that case I say let them. They'll feel really awesome about themselves. You can recycle the combats by just shifting them up to the next session (I do this all the time when players skip fights). You'll still have to come up with new obstacles though. And remember to keep flying in mind from now on. Maybe include more flying and/or long range enemies (not that I have any idea what plants qualify as either)?

Serpentine
2010-08-02, 10:09 AM
That's the reason in my game Wind Walk is... not banned, exactly, but the players are asked not to use it. A DM lost several games' worth of material because of it...

Anyway, did they actually see that stuff? If not, just reuse it later. In the meantime, remember what they did, and figure out how to counter it (or, rather, keep it interesting) next time.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 10:12 AM
Ah. In that case I say let them. They'll feel really awesome about themselves. You can recycle the combats by just shifting them up to the next session (I do this all the time when players skip fights). You'll still have to come up with new obstacles though. And remember to keep flying in mind from now on. Maybe include more flying and/or long range enemies (not that I have any idea what plants qualify as either)?

Good point there...in this particular case a good strong perpetual storm would have been justified. What I ended up doing was pointing out that (1) it's a thick swamp, you can't just fly through although you can fly over, and (2) feather fall will not help if you land in quicksand or anything.

That and straight pointed out that the swamp *was* the dungeon, not the obstacle to getting to the dungeon. Helpfully my players were already itching to fight something.

valadil
2010-08-02, 10:16 AM
Good point there...in this particular case a good strong perpetual storm would have been justified. What I ended up doing was pointing out that (1) it's a thick swamp, you can't just fly through although you can fly over, and (2) feather fall will not help if you land in quicksand or anything.


Actually that reasoning seems pretty legit to me. I wouldn't argue if a DM said that.

jiriku
2010-08-02, 10:52 AM
Ah. In that case I say let them. They'll feel really awesome about themselves. You can recycle the combats by just shifting them up to the next session (I do this all the time when players skip fights). You'll still have to come up with new obstacles though. And remember to keep flying in mind from now on. Maybe include more flying and/or long range enemies (not that I have any idea what plants qualify as either)?

This is an excellent strategy. My motto is, never let a good encounter go to waste. For example, if I stat up an opposing adventuring party and the players skip town to avoid them, those stat blocks will show up later as hired assassins, bugbear thugs, sub-bosses of the BBEG, or soliders in the enemy army. My low-level boss statblocks get recycled five levels later into enemy unit commmanders and recycled again 5 levels later as the horde of elite guardsman mooks that the players wade through to fight the final villain.

When players bypass your prepared material, never worry about losing the chance to use that material; the opportunity to recycle it will come up later.

arrowhen
2010-08-02, 11:35 AM
If they keep bypassing all the obstacles between point A and point B, is there any reason you can't just skip ahead to point B and let them do the thing they're actually interested in doing?

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 11:41 AM
If they keep bypassing all the obstacles between point A and point B, is there any reason you can't just skip ahead to point B and let them do the thing they're actually interested in doing?

The problem here is that "point B" was simply "pick up the artifact." Which really isn't interesting to any of us. There would be no session to go through, no monsters/traps to overcome, etc. Much as it might be smart in-character to do that, I know my players don't want that any more than I as the DM do...what's the point in just waltzing in and picking up what you wanted without any kind of challenge? You'd end up with no session and bored players.

It wasn't a case of "well we don't want to go through this so we find a way around it." It was more the players attempting to bypass roleplaying what they presumed was merely "2 days on the road" with no fights or obstacles, while I as the DM had planned for that "2 days on the road" to be the challenges they had to overcome to earn the artifact.

Emmerask
2010-08-02, 12:17 PM
PC centric? No, no, this is a world in which NPCs actually have goals and such. And which change based on events.

A railroad plot which generally focuses on scenes for the players is no less PC centric.

The thing is, the former feels much more real. And how important the PCs are to the world depends very greatly on what sort of world you build.

Ah, okay your last sentence was giving me the impression you are talking about a pc centric world because those have in general a lot less prep time (only one plot happening at a time) then none pc centric worlds.
Ie even if you are a great improv who only uses a small post.it to write down the plot with "who" "where" "what" in a short sentence, you still have to do this for multiple events and not only one.

Morph Bark
2010-08-02, 01:08 PM
This is what I meant with the train yard metaphor: Run parallel rails, and when the players think they have escaped they have only landed on a different set of rails.

Prettymuch, yeah, though every time the players know they are getting off the rails they're on it would be a smart thing to make sure they don't realize they're just getting on some new rails... unless they intentionally get on those.

Also, not every gaming session needs to be working towards a specific end of a storyline or plot.

Severus
2010-08-02, 01:21 PM
"Oh. Huh. That's pretty cool, but I have to admit I didn't expect you guys to do something like that. Get a drink or something while I figure out how to deal with it, ok?"

It's alright to be flustered sometime, really. Let your players know, take 10 minutes or so to think about what changes you have to make. It's sometimes good for the group to have an official not-playing period where they can back out of character a bit and chat about the latest episode of (X) without worrying about distracting the game anyway.

This. It is perfectly ok to say. "Interesting. 10 minute break, I need to think about this." As a player, I always think I've won a point when this happens. Different people have different perspectives, but I love the problem solving part of the game, so I want to come at things from a new angle. Don't punish your players for being clever. Back up and think for a bit, then let it play out.

jiriku
2010-08-02, 04:43 PM
The problem here is that "point B" was simply "pick up the artifact." Which really isn't interesting to any of us. There would be no session to go through, no monsters/traps to overcome, etc. Much as it might be smart in-character to do that, I know my players don't want that any more than I as the DM do...what's the point in just waltzing in and picking up what you wanted without any kind of challenge? You'd end up with no session and bored players.

It wasn't a case of "well we don't want to go through this so we find a way around it." It was more the players attempting to bypass roleplaying what they presumed was merely "2 days on the road" with no fights or obstacles, while I as the DM had planned for that "2 days on the road" to be the challenges they had to overcome to earn the artifact.

Here's your trouble. Quite simply, you are not creating level-appropriate adventures. Fix that one thing and you'll have a much easier time of it.

You created a challenge, which was "20+ miles of swamp full of monsters". The players were attempting to solve your challenge in the most direct way possible, which in this case was "fly over the swamp at great speed". Which, frankly, is what anybody with the ability to fly and a sense of self-preservation ought to do. You're beginning to learn something that many new DMs struggle with: travel-based adventures and terrain-based obstacles are basically EL 1-4 encounters. An EL 5+ party will find these encounters to be trivial at best. By level 7+ they will have three or four different ways to bypass 20 miles of monster-filled swamp, and you won't be able to intervene without blatant railroading.

Here's a good rule of thumb: journey-based adventures are really only usable at levels 1-4. From levels 5-8 you need to shift to site-based adventures, and at levels 9-12 you'll need to shift again to task-based adventures. Levels 13+ typically require rotating combinations of all three of the above in combination with time limits, limited or false information, and dynamic opponents using divination magic to anticipate and defeat player actions.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 04:48 PM
Here's your trouble. Quite simply, you are not creating level-appropriate adventures. Fix that one thing and you'll have a much easier time of it.

You created a challenge, which was "20+ miles of swamp full of monsters". The players were attempting to solve your challenge in the most direct way possible, which in this case was "fly over the swamp at great speed". Which, frankly, is what anybody with the ability to fly and a sense of self-preservation ought to do. You're beginning to learn something that many new DMs struggle with: travel-based adventures and terrain-based obstacles are basically EL 1-4 encounters. An EL 5+ party will find these encounters to be trivial at best. By level 7+ they will have three or four different ways to bypass 20 miles of monster-filled swamp, and you won't be able to intervene without blatant railroading.

Here's a good rule of thumb: journey-based adventures are really only usable at levels 1-4. From levels 5-8 you need to shift to site-based adventures, and at levels 9-12 you'll need to shift again to task-based adventures. Levels 13+ typically require rotating combinations of all three of the above in combination with time limits, limited or false information, and dynamic opponents using divination magic to anticipate and defeat player actions.

Hmmm...is there any way to incorporate journey-based adventures though in a higher-level campaign? I don't like doing a bunch of dungeon-crawl based adventures, it gets really boring very quickly. Trying to get into the lich's stronghold was fun, but I don't want *every* quest to be like that.

Also I'm not quite sure what you mean by task-based adventures?

potatocubed
2010-08-02, 04:57 PM
You can do exploration-based adventures at higher levels, which will involve travel by their nature, but travel itself becomes ever-more-trivial as level increases.

If the characters know where they're going, they will go there by the most direct route - which may well be flying, teleporting, plane shifting, etc. If they know what they're looking for is 'sort of around here somewhere' then fast travel becomes less useful.

Until they get potent divination spells, and then exploration goes out the window as well.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 05:00 PM
You can do exploration-based adventures at higher levels, which will involve travel by their nature, but travel itself becomes ever-more-trivial as level increases.

If the characters know where they're going, they will go there by the most direct route - which may well be flying, teleporting, plane shifting, etc. If they know what they're looking for is 'sort of around here somewhere' then fast travel becomes less useful.

Until they get potent divination spells, and then exploration goes out the window as well.

Ok now I know what I *should* have done in my last session. The characters had a crude map scratched into a clay tablet that told them roughly what direction to go. No indication specifically where it was, or that it would be visible under the trees.

Frog Dragon
2010-08-02, 05:06 PM
My method is simple. I don't have a plot to begin with. Most things get improvised to begin with and I just prepare areas and stats. I might have a vague idea of the next plot, but you can't really ruin my plot because there wasn't one in the first place. And if it was one of the rare occasions for which I had actually planned something, the newest addition from the depths of my abnormally large virtual hat will cover for it.

jiriku
2010-08-02, 05:14 PM
Hmmm...is there any way to incorporate journey-based adventures though in a higher-level campaign? I don't like doing a bunch of dungeon-crawl based adventures, it gets really boring very quickly. Trying to get into the lich's stronghold was fun, but I don't want *every* quest to be like that.

Also I'm not quite sure what you mean by task-based adventures?

Sure! You can definitely include journey-based adventures at higher levels, either as the main feature of an adventure or a sub-component. The rule of thumb has many exceptions.

In the range of levels 5-8, here are several ways to do it:

Your encounters reach out and find the players regardless of how they travel. For example, flying monsters intercept them as they fly over the swamp. Enemy adventuring parties hit them with scry'n'die tactics while they're camping.
Players must escort something that's inherently incapable of using convenient forms of movement, such as a sailing ship or a column of 200 refugees.
The macguffin is located in an extraplanar stronghold. To even reach the correct plane, players must locate and activate a planar portal to the astral plane, then navigate the astral plane to find the correct color pool to reach their destination.
The macguffin is on an elemental plane. Players must use tunnelling, swimming, or flight to navigate an inherently 3-D environment.


In the range of levels 9-12, it's harder but still possible with extreme measures.

Players must escort something truly massive that's irreplacable and inherently incapable of using teleportation or planar travel, such as an armada of sailing ships, an army of 5,000 soldiers and their baggage train, or a colossal golem that's immune to all magic.
Players must navigate a massive dead-magic zone.
Players must travel through the center of Limbo, where teleportation and planar travel are impossible.


In the range of levels 13+...pft. No. You can try, and sometimes it will work, but don't count on it, because the PCs have access to immense resources and can bypass almost any conceivable complication or obstacle.


A task-based adventure is one where the challenge and difficulty is in the performance of a task. For example, if a journey-based adventure is "travel through the jungle of the Manangbanag and find the lost temple of Ahkmim", and a site-based adventure is "kill the Lurking Horror in the lost temple of Ahkmim, which is somewhere in the jungle of the Manangbanag", a task-based adventure would be "secure the temple of Ahkmim in the Manangbanag jungle so that it is safe for the king's archaelogists" or even "search the temple of Ahkmim in the Manangbanag jungle for any inscriptions that might provide a clue as to the command word for the fabled staff of the hierophant."

In the above examples, the journey-based example can be solved easily with simple mid-level travel magic. The site-based adventure falls apart as soon as the players can teleport; they'll simply scry the Lurking Horror from their comfy room at the local inn, teleport in and kill it, then teleport home to collect their reward. However, to secure the temple or find the inscription requires players to methodically explore the temple complex, and perhaps even perform more involved tasks like building a road from the temple to civilization and clearing the area around the road of any notable monsters.

To express all of this in a different way, when you design your adventures, you should take stock of all the information-gathering and mobility-enhancing powers that the PCs have access to, and ensure that the adventure is still challenging if you assume that the PCs make liberal use of their powers. Does that make sense?

Edit: In other news, Potatocubed is spot on. And again, the most common plotkilling mistake a DM makes is to assume that players won't use their information-gathering and travel-enhancing powers.

Autonomy
2010-08-02, 05:32 PM
Hmmm...is there any way to incorporate journey-based adventures though in a higher-level campaign?

Some examples would be gathering a number of individuals from various locations (good version: "Gather the 12 inheritors of the Shattered Soul here" evil version: "We're doing a Job, and we need these guys...") or directing the game to a planar setting with some travel limitations. At extremely high levels, even these type of adventures become trivial but at that point they should be heading off planetary invasions, storming Hell and curing plagues anyway :smallwink:

But I think it'd be of more benefit if you considered that there are still more options outside the quest paradigm - by which I mean "go here, do this" plotlines - give the players complex tasks which don't involve simply overcoming a linear progression of monsters to be slain and traps to be defused. Or put them in a situation where the incorrect application of the frightening amounts of force the average adventurer wields can spell disastrous consequences - a bug hunt inside a city or town (I'm thinking invisible monsters in every home). Throw mysteries at them that can't be solved with obvious applications (e.g. poison them at the feast celebrating their recent success against the Lich).

Essentially, if you're bored of 'dungeon crawling it's probably a good idea if you stop running it :smallbiggrin: Remember the DM is supposed to have fun too.

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 05:36 PM
Some examples would be gathering a number of individuals from various locations (good version: "Gather the 12 inheritors of the Shattered Soul here" evil version: "We're doing a Job, and we need these guys...") or directing the game to a planar setting with some travel limitations. At extremely high levels, even these type of adventures become trivial but at that point they should be heading off planetary invasions, storming Hell and curing plagues anyway :smallwink:

But I think it'd be of more benefit if you considered that there are still more options outside the quest paradigm - by which I mean "go here, do this" plotlines - give the players complex tasks which don't involve simply overcoming a linear progression of monsters to be slain and traps to be defused. Or put them in a situation where the incorrect application of the frightening amounts of force the average adventurer wields can spell disastrous consequences - a bug hunt inside a city or town (I'm thinking invisible monsters in every home). Throw mysteries at them that can't be solved with obvious applications (e.g. poison them at the feast celebrating their recent success against the Lich).

Essentially, if you're bored of 'dungeon crawling it's probably a good idea if you stop running it :smallbiggrin: Remember the DM is supposed to have fun too.

Haha...well this current adventure is fairly close to over, I'm soliciting advice for my next adventure which won't be till spring semester. Next one is going to be much more sandbox-y though.

Safety Sword
2010-08-02, 05:44 PM
That's the reason in my game Wind Walk is... not banned, exactly, but the players are asked not to use it. A DM lost several games' worth of material because of it...

Anyway, did they actually see that stuff? If not, just reuse it later. In the meantime, remember what they did, and figure out how to counter it (or, rather, keep it interesting) next time.

Pyroblastius, dragon of the great desert, doesn't like people overflying his territory. Several adventuring bands have walked on the wind to their doom.

Edit: You shouldn't need to ask players not to use their abilities and spells, they feel cheated (rightfully so?). You just need to make sure they understand that just because they are able to do something special that they can't rely on it to win in every situation. I usually let parties fly around for a little while, then the BBEGs start to clue onto it and bring ways to deal with it.

Premier
2010-08-02, 05:56 PM
Probably not too tangential:

If your problem is that the PCs rapidly become too high-level (high enough to fly, teleport, etc.) for your preferred adventuring style (where overland travel is an important challenge), then maybe your current choice of system is not the right one for you. D&D 3.5 (and as far as I can tell, 4) are pretty much superhero games under a thin veneer of fantasy. It's implicity assumed by the system that the adventures will be high-power affairs.

Play Original or Basic D&D. Or try a different game altogether and play, say, RuneQuest - or any one of uncountable possibilities. If your game system makes your PC too powerful for this sort of adventuring after X sessions of play, then use a system where they only acquire those sorts of abilities after 3X sessions. Or never.

Serpentine
2010-08-03, 01:22 AM
Edit: You shouldn't need to ask players not to use their abilities and spells, they feel cheated (rightfully so?). You just need to make sure they understand that just because they are able to do something special that they can't rely on it to win in every situation. I usually let parties fly around for a little while, then the BBEGs start to clue onto it and bring ways to deal with it.This has been brought up before. No, it's not an issue in my group. They don't feel cheated. It was more "Oh. Uh... That was the whole game. Because you use Wind Walk. Um... Would you mind preparing a different spell, next time?" "Fair enough." Hell, I don't think it was even that explicit. It was ages ago, but it may have been more of a general group agreement that Wind Walk probably should be avoided.
As an aside, that same character eventually did get to benefit from Wind Walk, via a Djinn after an... experience with the Rod of Wonder.

Safety Sword
2010-08-03, 01:43 AM
This has been brought up before. No, it's not an issue in my group. They don't feel cheated. It was more "Oh. Uh... That was the whole game. Because you use Wind Walk. Um... Would you mind preparing a different spell, next time?" "Fair enough." Hell, I don't think it was even that explicit. It was ages ago, but it may have been more of a general group agreement that Wind Walk probably should be avoided.
As an aside, that same character eventually did get to benefit from Wind Walk, via a Djinn after an... experience with the Rod of Wonder.

I guess I just prefer my players to feel a little less safe. I prefer to make them take a risk when they do... well, anything. If Wind Walk breaks your game, then disallow it by all means.

I prefer to just make it possible that Wind Walk doesn't automatically win at travel. Just knowing that it's not safe to Wind Walk in certain places actually makes PCs want to know why (read: plot hooks).

Serpentine
2010-08-03, 01:56 AM
It's just not a big deal for a character to choose a different spell, instead, and they know it's generally in their own favour to do so *shrug*

Safety Sword
2010-08-03, 02:00 AM
It's just not a big deal for a character to choose a different spell, instead, and they know it's generally in their own favour to do so *shrug*

As a player I prefer not to have my spell choices dictated by the person running the game. That's personal opinion. If your players don't mind you telling them which spells they can choose, it's a non-issue.

My players would mind.

Serpentine
2010-08-03, 02:09 AM
Seriously? A single spell, out of a choice of dozens, solely to benefit both the players' fun and the DM's ability to plan? If it would really be that much of a big deal... Well, I'll just say it definitely isn't a big deal, at all, among my players, and I'm glad. We work together to craft a story and fun. To that end, this is... it's not even a tiny sacrifice, it's just a different choice. This spell isn't fun, so the player chooses a different spell, and it makes things easier and better. It hasn't even come up since that event, several years ago. If they really wanted it for some reason, well, first I'd want to know why, and then my actions would depend on that reason. Honestly, I can't think of any reason why it would mean so much to someone.

pingcode20
2010-08-03, 02:16 AM
Eh, it's not so much the 'don't use this spell' as it is a bit of a missed opportunity to explore why wind walk won't solve this particular problem.

On the other hand, for a journey-centric campaign, it's quite reasonable to tell your players outright: 'This is a campaign about journeys. The destination is merely an end, and the reward is in the path taken there. Travel spells are not on the table for this campaign/These mobility spells are increased in level as follows.'

As a premise of the campaign, there's no reason why you can't restrict travel spells due to them compromising the spirit of the adventure. It is one of those things best used in the pre-game pitch, though.

WarKitty
2010-08-03, 08:48 AM
So on further analysis:

I don't think it's merely a "players versus DM" problem here. If the players want to skip over a challenge and find a good way to do so, that's fine. However, in the situations that come up, the players come up with an in-character logical action that, out of character, means that something both the players and the DM wanted to happen gets skipped. Like with the swamp, I knew my players had been itching for some combat, they just didn't realize that skipping over the swamp meant they'd skip the combat challenges.

Serpentine
2010-08-03, 08:51 AM
I just asked my housemate, the player in question, if he had any feelings of resentment or anything whatsoever. I had to explain what I was talking about. He remembers the incident, but the restriction evidently means very, very little to him.
It brought up that players are similarly discouraged from using scrying spells, largely for the practical reason that I've generally not prepared far enough ahead. He just said then "I think it's generally really more of an NPC thing, anyway".
I think I'm fine :smallcool:

jiriku
2010-08-03, 09:11 AM
So on further analysis:

I don't think it's merely a "players versus DM" problem here. If the players want to skip over a challenge and find a good way to do so, that's fine. However, in the situations that come up, the players come up with an in-character logical action that, out of character, means that something both the players and the DM wanted to happen gets skipped. Like with the swamp, I knew my players had been itching for some combat, they just didn't realize that skipping over the swamp meant they'd skip the combat challenges.

It sounds like you have a good handle on it. If it's useful, here's a list of the game-changing spells that I'm always considering when I design adventures, if the players have access to them either directly or via NPCs:

Information-Gathering
clairaudience/clairvoyance
commune
commune with nature
contact other plane
detect chaos/evil/good/law
detect thoughts
discern location
divination
find the path
lay of the land
scrying

Travel:
air walk
animate dead (on a flying creature)
alter self (into a flying or burrowing creature)
fly
polymorph (into a flying or burrowing creature)
plane shift
summon monster (can summon a flying mount or burrowing creature)
teleport
wind walk

Other:
dimensional anchor (stops BBEG from teleporting away)
haste (stops the BBEG from running away on foot)
invisibility sphere + silence (can bypass encounters if used cleverly)
raise dead (when used to raise NPCs that I might want to kill for plot purposes)

Safety Sword
2010-08-03, 04:49 PM
Eh, it's not so much the 'don't use this spell' as it is a bit of a missed opportunity to explore why wind walk won't solve this particular problem.

On the other hand, for a journey-centric campaign, it's quite reasonable to tell your players outright: 'This is a campaign about journeys. The destination is merely an end, and the reward is in the path taken there. Travel spells are not on the table for this campaign/These mobility spells are increased in level as follows.'

As a premise of the campaign, there's no reason why you can't restrict travel spells due to them compromising the spirit of the adventure. It is one of those things best used in the pre-game pitch, though.

Exactly. If your game requires travel and divinations to be restricted, that should be something that PCs know about before hand. Then they have a decent reason that disallows choosing those spells. My players would probably be able to be talked around to choosing spells too, but I don't find it fun for them to be told that my poor planning means they can't take spells they like to use.

I'm reminded of a sign I have at work: "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"

Raum
2010-08-03, 06:33 PM
My question to my fellow DM's: how do you handle these situations? When the players do something totally unexpected and you just don't have any material at all to cover what they just did? Is it just something you have to practice at, or are there any tips for expecting the unexpected?I seldom plan events involving the PCs. Instead I plan NPC goals and desires then figure out what the NPCs are trying to do to reach those goals. When the PCs knock an NPC's plans off track (and they almost certainly will) it's relatively easy to figure out what the NPC will try next. After all, the villains' goals haven't changed - just one event / attempt.

As long as you know why the NPCs were doing X, it's easy to come up with a plan B after having plan A run through the woodchipper. :smallcool: Interestingly, planning 'why' also tends to make the NPCs more believable.

Alternatively, just tell the players a broad outline of what 'must happen' in your campaign. Most will be willing to play along...they aren't there to intentionally disrupt things. In my experience, scripting choices ahead of time is less of a problem than invalidating them after the fact.

Serpentine
2010-08-04, 12:13 AM
:sigh:
There's only so many ways I can say "it's nothing but a tiny request that has absolutely no impact on anything except to make things easier and more fun and absolutely noone, especially the person in question, has any problem with it at all, and if they did we would come to some arrangement."
So I'll just say that: it's nothing but a tiny request that has absolutely no impact on anything except to make things easier and more fun and absolutely noone, especially the person in question, has any problem with it at all, and if they did we would come to some arrangement.

Safety Sword
2010-08-04, 01:44 AM
If your players don't mind you telling them which spells they can choose, it's a non-issue.

......

Yes?

Serpentine
2010-08-04, 04:45 AM
I'm not telling them which spells they can choose, only requesting that they avoid that one. And you follow up that with things like "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" and other things that at least imply criticism of this absolutely teensy tiny insignificant agreement! Argh! It's just annoying because it happens every time.

arrowhen
2010-08-04, 05:02 AM
I'm not telling them which spells they can choose, only requesting that they avoid that one. And you follow up that with things like "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" and other things that at least imply criticism of this absolutely teensy tiny insignificant agreement! Argh! It's just annoying because it happens every time.

In every game I run, there are 30+ classes I ask my players to avoid. I don't see the problem with one lousy little spell.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-04, 05:30 AM
One banned spell? In advance? No problem. There are LOTS of good spells I can learn instead.

If this banning happens after I've learned it, wasted spell slots preparing it, and now am in a situation where I need to use it, Im pissed.

If it's an entire category of spells, that make up the core focus of a school, I might be annoyed. Especially if I have to swap character concepts as a result.

Serpentine
2010-08-04, 05:36 AM
Well, it only happened after it messed up the game, but he didn't lose a spell slot or anything, just replaced it. And the one time it was really needed, it was, by pure luck, available (that was a helluva run with the Rod of Wonder...).

KiltedGrappler
2010-08-04, 09:45 AM
My suggestion would be to play one or two one-of games where you force yourself to not plot and plan. Just set the scene, add some NPCs who might help or hinder and a few adventure hooks that they have to stumble upon and/or interact with the NPCs and enviroment to discover, then let the players run amok.

It'll teach you how to adapt and think on your feet as a DM, and after you do it a couple or times and get the hang of it go back to your regular game and use what you learned about DMing on the fly.

ClockShock
2010-08-04, 11:24 AM
So the advice is to say "Hang on guys, i didn't think of that, let's take a break and work something out"
But if that 'working something out' means "you know what? this is going to be better for all of us if we leave out spells like wind walk from now on" it's suddenly a problem?

I'm with Serpentine here, she got caught out and then adapted to improve the future game for everyone. That's the point.

Caphi
2010-08-04, 11:31 AM
So the advice is to say "Hang on guys, i didn't think of that, let's take a break and work something out"
But if that 'working something out' means "you know what? this is going to be better for all of us if we leave out spells like wind walk from now on" it's suddenly a problem?

I'm with Serpentine here, she got caught out and then adapted to improve the future game for everyone. That's the point.

I think it's just bad form to shut down player ideas like that. I would have thrown in a workaround, like the enemy caster has earthbind or the bad guys call in air reinforcements who arrive in a couple turns and bring some scrolls of mass fly. Something that saves the encounter but doesn't just tell the player "no, I don't want you to do that," and yet rewards that idea without making the scene just end immediately.

jiriku
2010-08-04, 11:34 AM
Meh. One of you has one way of resolving a situation. Another of you prefers another method. Both ways work in the context of the group that you play with. Neither of you is inclined to try the other person's method. Neither of you is universally right or universally wrong. Reasonable people can disagree on this.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-04, 02:28 PM
So the advice is to say "Hang on guys, i didn't think of that, let's take a break and work something out"
But if that 'working something out' means "you know what? this is going to be better for all of us if we leave out spells like wind walk from now on" it's suddenly a problem?
Actually yes, it is a problem for me at least, if you didn't tell me that up front (like, before I picked my character class). Travel spells are a big deal for me. If I'm told up front that travel spells aren't acceptable that's one thing, I can take it into account when I decide what my character is going to be like, but if I'm just playing D&D with no such information given to me ahead of time, I'm not going to be happy if, after using abilities my class has, I'm told not to use them anymore.

So personally, I would be extremely upset if a DM told me something like that long after my character is already high enough level to use the spells in question. It works for some groups and some people, and if the player and DM are fine with that, great, it's a solution that works for that particular group.

But I think that in general a DM who is confronted with these issues should not be asking the players not to use these spells, they should be rethinking their adventure strategy and making 'travel' less of a focus, as others have commented, as well as introducing the occasional (not constant) danger to what seems like a safe method of travel, just to make people think about what's safer in each particular situation.

Safety Sword
2010-08-04, 07:20 PM
Actually yes, it is a problem for me at least, if you didn't tell me that up front (like, before I picked my character class). Travel spells are a big deal for me. If I'm told up front that travel spells aren't acceptable that's one thing, I can take it into account when I decide what my character is going to be like, but if I'm just playing D&D with no such information given to me ahead of time, I'm not going to be happy if, after using abilities my class has, I'm told not to use them anymore.

So personally, I would be extremely upset if a DM told me something like that long after my character is already high enough level to use the spells in question. It works for some groups and some people, and if the player and DM are fine with that, great, it's a solution that works for that particular group.

But I think that in general a DM who is confronted with these issues should not be asking the players not to use these spells, they should be rethinking their adventure strategy and making 'travel' less of a focus, as others have commented, as well as introducing the occasional (not constant) danger to what seems like a safe method of travel, just to make people think about what's safer in each particular situation.

This.

That is all.

Serpentine
2010-08-05, 02:57 AM
I'm with Serpentine here, she got caught out and then adapted to improve the future game for everyone. That's the point.It wasn't even my call, it was when my ex was DMing :smalltongue:

I think it's just bad form to shut down player ideas like that. I would have thrown in a workaround, like the enemy caster has earthbind or the bad guys call in air reinforcements who arrive in a couple turns and bring some scrolls of mass fly. Something that saves the encounter but doesn't just tell the player "no, I don't want you to do that," and yet rewards that idea without making the scene just end immediately.He wasn't "shut down". Okay, here was the situation:We were sent on a mission to find out what was going on in a city a long walk away. We were given some sort of a time limit, I can't remember why or how long. The Gnome Illusionist-Sorcerer/Cleric of Garl Glittergold (note: no Travel focus. Also, we'd started at the high level) went, "well hey, if we've got a long way to go, I'll just use Wind Walk on all of us!" Took the DM by surprise (this was his first serious try at DMing, by the way), but eh, it's fair enough. So we went floating in the air, sailed clear over the heads of a bunch of giants who were meant to be that whole game's encounter and who didn't even see us, then got to the city where we found a kobold Ranger picking off the zombies trapped inside. Good guy, had a nice pile of corpses going. We confused him with the whole "talking cloud" thing, and then sailed on into the centre where there were apparently a bunch of actual living people. We got in there, and then... we stalled, because we didn't know if they were bad guys, or trapped people, or what. We sort of wandered around for a while, still in cloud form, then one of us snuck up behind the main dude and started a conversation which ended in a battle (turns out they were the bad guys, who'da thunk it?). It was over much quicker than it should've been, and they escaped to continue their plot. Then we Wind Walked aaaaaalll the way back again.
At the end, the whole group sort of went "huh. That was boring and frustrating for the DM. Maybe we should avoid using that spell in future."
We hadn't even discussed it again until the other day when I mentioned it to the player in question, and he had never even considered, so far as I know, taking the spell again because it wrecked the game and there were plenty of others for him to choose.If the character in question had been "travel-oriented", it may have been a very different matter. The DM either would've had a very different plan, or once we'd realised how much of a problem it could be the player would, if he was willing, have been more than welcome to redo his character. Seeing as she's a trickster-illusionist-gem hunter character, it was no big deal whatsoever.
It is MUCH easier, and MUCH less of a big deal to ask a player to not select ONE SINGLE SPELL, than it is for a DM to rethink his entire campaign.

edit: Tell you what, stuff like this really makes me realise how gloriously laid-back my players are.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 05:50 AM
Stuff the whole group decides on is entirely different than something the DM forces on players. For instance, the five minute caster workday? Yeah, my groups have never worked like that, because the players didn't want to play that way. Seems to be mostly a theoretical problem. If the players don't like the results of wind walk, and opt to not use it, no worries at all.

But yeah, players inevitibly will screw up your plans at some point. Even if they don't try to. Backup plans are always wise.

Serpentine
2010-08-05, 06:08 AM
I most like to set up a problem or situation, try to think of all the ways they could try to overcome it, give them the resources to do so... and then watch them come up with something I never would have thought of completely ignoring all the ways I tried to help them :smallamused:

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 10:08 AM
It sounds like some of the problem here is that the DM is in fact human. :smallyuk: I.e., no matter how carefully the DM plans things out, the players can find some way out that completely blows the plan out of the water. And frankly DM's do make mistakes, plan adventures that aren't optimal, etc.

So perhaps a rephrasing: when you've messed up and forgotten to account for something the PC's can do, how do you handle it?

jiriku
2010-08-05, 10:29 AM
I once made a passing reference to a dwarven kingdom on the other side a continent, and my players suddenly got a bee in their collective bonnets and decided that they had to go there RIGHT AWAY and seek adventure and allies, instead of exploring the dungeon behind door #1 that I'd worked on for weeks. Naturally I had no plans for this.

I brought in a mystic NPC character that the players knew, he gave them a strange mcguffin whose purpose they couldn't figure out right away, saying, "someone asked me to give this to you; I can't tell you who it's from or what it's for, but you will need it" and asked them to explore the dungeon behind door #1. He followed up by saying, "the person who gave me this item also asked me to tell you these things" and he proceeded to prophesy over the players and essentially predicted that each one would be granted his wildest wishes and dreams.

It was...not the most elegant of solutions, but it was the best I could come up with on a moment's notice. They bit the hook and explored the dungeon. And what a relief! If they hadn't, I would have probably called the game off for an hour while I prepped enough to last for the rest of the session, and then worked furiously over the next week to prepare a new campaign arc.

potatocubed
2010-08-05, 10:31 AM
That's more to do with flexible adventure design. When you're coming up with an obstacle to place in the path of the PCs, don't worry too much about how they're going to get past it, worry about what happens when they do.

For example, your adventure can be something like 'find the temple, cross the jungle, get into the temple, defeat the undead'.

You know what comes next, so if the PCs bypass one of your challenges you can just be like "You wind walk to the temple? Okay, swoosh, you're there. How are you going to get in?" and you quietly shuffle away your jungle encounters for another time (possibly later this adventure, if they only have one wind walk spell).

Umael
2010-08-05, 02:57 PM
Forbidding certain spells or "railroading" the players into going into the dungeon might not be the most elegant of solutions, but if the GM has a limited time to prepare for game-breaking contingencies, then those might be the answer.

"Lack of planning," you say?

Fine.

No game tonight, folks. Thanks for coming over.


Before I get an uproar of people complaining and/or criticizing this gaming technique, please consider this first. From personal experience, I have only so much free time, and I'm only going to put this much of that free time into game-planning. If I spent five hours working on a dungeon and I have nothing else planned, and the players avoid the dungeon, despite hints and comments otherwise, then I reserve the right not to run the game because I don't have anything else planned that applies. Furthermore, I reserve the right to feel offended that I wasted five or so hours of my time.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 03:32 PM
Forbidding certain spells or "railroading" the players into going into the dungeon might not be the most elegant of solutions, but if the GM has a limited time to prepare for game-breaking contingencies, then those might be the answer.

"Lack of planning," you say?

Fine.

No game tonight, folks. Thanks for coming over.


Before I get an uproar of people complaining and/or criticizing this gaming technique, please consider this first. From personal experience, I have only so much free time, and I'm only going to put this much of that free time into game-planning. If I spent five hours working on a dungeon and I have nothing else planned, and the players avoid the dungeon, despite hints and comments otherwise, then I reserve the right not to run the game because I don't have anything else planned that applies. Furthermore, I reserve the right to feel offended that I wasted five or so hours of my time.

This. Yes. I'm a full-time student during the year and a full-time worker over the summer. There is only so much time I have to develop the world.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 03:53 PM
Forbidding certain spells or "railroading" the players into going into the dungeon might not be the most elegant of solutions, but if the GM has a limited time to prepare for game-breaking contingencies, then those might be the answer.

"Lack of planning," you say?

Fine.

No game tonight, folks. Thanks for coming over.


Before I get an uproar of people complaining and/or criticizing this gaming technique, please consider this first. From personal experience, I have only so much free time, and I'm only going to put this much of that free time into game-planning. If I spent five hours working on a dungeon and I have nothing else planned, and the players avoid the dungeon, despite hints and comments otherwise, then I reserve the right not to run the game because I don't have anything else planned that applies. Furthermore, I reserve the right to feel offended that I wasted five or so hours of my time.

This seems a bit childish. The players are almost certainly not out specifically to waste your time.

Keep the dungeon on hand. You'll probably need to use a dungeon again at some point in the future. Oh look, your time is no longer wasted.

The fact that you have absolutely nothing else prepared is in fact your fault. If an event occurs that you didn't forsee, you can break for a few minutes to figure out what to do next. "no game tonight" seems petty and spiteful.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 04:08 PM
This seems a bit childish. The players are almost certainly not out specifically to waste your time.

Keep the dungeon on hand. You'll probably need to use a dungeon again at some point in the future. Oh look, your time is no longer wasted.

The fact that you have absolutely nothing else prepared is in fact your fault. If an event occurs that you didn't forsee, you can break for a few minutes to figure out what to do next. "no game tonight" seems petty and spiteful.

The thing is, "no game tonight" isn't intended to be spiteful. It's simply a case of "I don't have anything prepared." Even if I do have old material, I don't always have anything on hand that can be worked into the plot right there. And this may not go for all DM's, but I tend to need some sort of pre-statted stuff available if we don't want to spend the entire session looking up stats and encounters and whatnot.

Edit: yes I try to prepare, but I only have so much free time in a week.

MightyTim
2010-08-05, 04:12 PM
It sounds like some of the problem here is that the DM is in fact human. :smallyuk: I.e., no matter how carefully the DM plans things out, the players can find some way out that completely blows the plan out of the water. And frankly DM's do make mistakes, plan adventures that aren't optimal, etc.

So perhaps a rephrasing: when you've messed up and forgotten to account for something the PC's can do, how do you handle it?

It sounds like the nature of your solution is going to depend almost entirely on the scale that your PCs throw a wrench into your universe.

My PCs have a habit of trying to sneak into bandit camps, rather than just fight them head on. This poses a problem for me since I still seem to have trouble judging encounter difficulty, and I like to have a little leeway to add or subtract monsters depending on whether they're plowing through the encounters or on the verge of death. So when they have the rogue sneak into the bandit camp and look inside all the tents to see exactly how many bandits there are... you can imagine a bit of my frustration.

In this scenario, I ended up erring on the side of caution and figured that since they figured out a way around my system, they earned an easier battle. A relatively easy fix, and I didn't need to stop play.

If it's something a couple orders of magnitude more major...I'm inclined to say that the PCs won't know the precise nature of the story you'd laid out. Perhaps they direction they take could just 'happen' to be remarkably similar to the direction you'd wanted them to go. They'll never know until they decide to go back there, at which point you'd have time to rework the initial scenes. Not the best on-the-fly decision, but I'm probably not the best DM :P

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 04:17 PM
Do you have a monster manual? It's typically not a lengthy amount of time to find an appropriate monster of about the right CR. So, they head off to dwarfland. Think about what sorta stuff is in between for a few seconds. Random encounters are a possibility. Encounters with other travelers are possible. No doubt they'll happen across villages and such on the way.

It's not unlikely that you could put another hook leading to a dungeon along the way, resulting in them doing the exact same material(change mcguffin descriptions as appropriate). However, since they have no idea that it IS the exact same material, it won't feel railroadish. And if they end up doing a coupla random encounters, meeting a bunch of people and having minor RP events along the way, it wont feel railroadish either. And none of that requires hours of preparation. Ten minutes, tops.

Saying "well, either you go into the dungeon or we don't play tonight", that does feel a lot like railroading.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 04:22 PM
Do you have a monster manual? It's typically not a lengthy amount of time to find an appropriate monster of about the right CR. So, they head off to dwarfland. Think about what sorta stuff is in between for a few seconds. Random encounters are a possibility. Encounters with other travelers are possible. No doubt they'll happen across villages and such on the way.

It's not unlikely that you could put another hook leading to a dungeon along the way, resulting in them doing the exact same material(change mcguffin descriptions as appropriate). However, since they have no idea that it IS the exact same material, it won't feel railroadish. And if they end up doing a coupla random encounters, meeting a bunch of people and having minor RP events along the way, it wont feel railroadish either. And none of that requires hours of preparation. Ten minutes, tops.

Saying "well, either you go into the dungeon or we don't play tonight", that does feel a lot like railroading.

The problem in this particular scenario wasn't that they were off however. It's that they found a way to skip ahead in the plot to a point that I didn't have prepared.

Also I've found that prep time is highly variable depending on the specific abilities of the DM, so please keep in mind what's easy for you might not be easy for someone else?

Umael
2010-08-05, 04:26 PM
This seems a bit childish. The players are almost certainly not out specifically to waste your time.

You missed a few key words in my explanation, such as: "despite hints and comments otherwise".

Let's do a little imaging how this scenario will play with me:

Me: Okay, the mountains are incredibly high, so you have extreme cold and lack of oxygen if you try to cross. However, there is a pass...
PC 1: No, not going to take the pass.
Me: *blink* What?
PC 1: Yeah, this is obviously a railroad. You probably have an ambush or something set up there, so we're going to just avoid it.
Me: ...okay. How do you intend to get across?
PC 2: Well, I've got a teleport scroll.
Me: You've never been there, so it's a blind teleport.
PC 1: But I have, and I have UMD maxed out.
Me: ...okay. Well, I don't have anything else planned for tonight, so if you want to carry this one through, we'll have to end the session right here. Give me until next session and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, what shall we do now?

Now, given that, you call that childish??



Keep the dungeon on hand. You'll probably need to use a dungeon again at some point in the future. Oh look, your time is no longer wasted.

Please drop the attitude.

Also, you don't know me and you don't know my playing style OR my gaming group's playing style. There might be a very good reason why I CAN'T use that particular dungeon again. You are using YOUR basis for how YOU would do things.

So, yes. My time is wasted.



The fact that you have absolutely nothing else prepared is in fact your fault.

...Really.

I am over-worked and under a lot of stress, so I can only put in five or so hours... and I have nothing else prepared... so this is my fault.

Well, excuse me for having my priorities straight.



If an event occurs that you didn't forsee, you can break for a few minutes to figure out what to do next.

I invite you to look very closely at what I said before you make such knee-jerk remarks.

Yes, I can take a break. Yes, I can improvise. But if I am not up to doing so for whatever reason, or if doing so will make things worse (a situational judgement call based on my current mental state, my players, and where we are at in the campaign), I will not.

Saying, "Sorry, no game tonight," is a valid thing to say, especially if your players are being difficult and/or you just aren't up to it.



"no game tonight" seems petty and spiteful.

I think you tainted that comment with your own preconceptions and projected emotions.

iDM
2010-08-05, 04:30 PM
Read a lot. There's no such thing as an original idea- everything has been done before (sad, but true). If you've read about a similar situation, you can use that to help you decide what to do next. It may sound lame, but if you've made up your own plot (and especially your own world), you've probably plagiarized wholesale anyway. I know I do.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 04:34 PM
Read a lot. There's no such thing as an original idea- everything has been done before (sad, but true). If you've read about a similar situation, you can use that to help you decide what to do next. It may sound lame, but if you've made up your own plot (and especially your own world), you've probably plagiarized wholesale anyway. I know I do.

I am going to send you my english major players just out of spite.

Umael
2010-08-05, 04:42 PM
Saying "well, either you go into the dungeon or we don't play tonight", that does feel a lot like railroading.

You have a very broad and unforgiving definition of "railroading".

I gather that you are a high-maintenance player.

iDM
2010-08-05, 04:48 PM
Aaaaaah! I hope they aren't ones who've gone to writing school. Stephenie meyer says she has, and if they're all like her, I would destroy them. Out of sheer hate.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 04:54 PM
You missed a few key words in my explanation, such as: "despite hints and comments otherwise".

Let's do a little imaging how this scenario will play with me:

Me: Okay, the mountains are incredibly high, so you have extreme cold and lack of oxygen if you try to cross. However, there is a pass...
PC 1: No, not going to take the pass.
Me: *blink* What?
PC 1: Yeah, this is obviously a railroad. You probably have an ambush or something set up there, so we're going to just avoid it.

See, here's the fail. You obviously set up only a single way in which to go. That's what causes accusations of railroading.

A better method would be to say "well, how do you get there?", and proceed from there. Does the player seek out maps to find the best way? Do they just start blindly walking in a direction without preparation?

If they happen to have readily accessible teleporation, they're almost certain to use that. So...they teleport there. Great. Roll on the mishap table, and giggle fiendishly if they roll poorly. Place them wherever you will. If they land successfully, just go with the reactions.



See, your apparent problem with this is that they skipped ahead further in the plot than they should have. By your standards. To use a detective analogy, what you expect from them is to keep gathering clues, even though they already know who the murderer is and where he lives. To a player, this is frustrating and annoying.


Umael, I wouldn't know. I've never been kicked from a game and have more games that want me to play in them or DM them than I can reasonably handle. I believe that your approach of blaming players who disagree with you as being "difficult" is not one that is likely to result in a fun time for everyone.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 05:33 PM
Aaaaaah! I hope they aren't ones who've gone to writing school. Stephenie meyer says she has, and if they're all like her, I would destroy them. Out of sheer hate.

What exactly is "writing school" anyway? Mine just make it harder to make plots because they've read all the books that I'd want to steal from.

Umael
2010-08-05, 05:46 PM
See, here's the fail. You obviously set up only a single way in which to go. That's what causes accusations of railroading.

It causes you to accuse me of railroading.

To me, the PCs start at point A and I want them to go to point B. I set up reasonable parameters to encourage them towards it. I don't care how they get to point B, I don't know what point C is, and I don't direct them anymore than is reasonable (i.e., NPC reactions, real-life conditions, etc.). I do not consider this railroading, because I am not following a set plan or schedule, nor am I limiting the players in anyway beyond those two points.

To turn this back on you, if you were in Boston right now at the start of the game, and I wanted you in Detroit, I would plant the various clues that say "Go to Detroit". Your sister calls, she's having visions. Your boss wants to investigate the zombie-sightings. Your astrological signs give dire portents if something isn't done.

At this point, I sit back and let you react. Is that railroading?



A better method would be to say "well, how do you get there?", and proceed from there. Does the player seek out maps to find the best way? Do they just start blindly walking in a direction without preparation?

You are operating on a few assumptions, the first being that the dungeon and everything in it can be avoided. Point A is on one side of the pass - point B is NOT the other side of the pass, but the dungeon in the pass.

I might have a MacGuffin in there. Or a vital clue to the BBEG's evil plan. Or maybe I'm going to throw them for a loop and transport them to another world entirely.

Whatever the reason, I have plot reasons for the PCs to go there, reasons that make sense. Maybe I can remove the MacGuffin so that "it was right in front of them all along!" - but that's true railroading, giving the players the illusion of choice.


If they happen to have readily accessible teleporation, they're almost certain to use that. So...they teleport there. Great. Roll on the mishap table, and giggle fiendishly if they roll poorly. Place them wherever you will. If they land successfully, just go with the reactions.

Except you forgot - as I mentioned, in this scenario, I'm short on planning. And I happen to be short on creativity at the time, due to outside pressure. So they roll and... then what? They go somewhere completely random? I'll put them in the dungeon - and get accused of railroading for sure. End up on the far side of the moon? Well, that was the last teleport scroll, no way of getting home in time, the BBEG's plans are unopposed, you lose? The merchant merman kingdom? Yeah, I'm going to need another week to prepare...



See, your apparent problem with this is that they skipped ahead further in the plot than they should have. By your standards. To use a detective analogy, what you expect from them is to keep gathering clues, even though they already know who the murderer is and where he lives. To a player, this is frustrating and annoying.

*buzz!*

Wrong!

My PROBLEM is that I don't have a game prepared and I don't feel comfortable winging it - for whatever reason.

There is no detective analogy here. One very successful game I did was where I planned the next game session solely on the actions of the session before. The players start at A, they should be at B at the end of the game. How they get to B will determine C, the end point of the next game session. What is C? I don't know.

This isn't a detective analogy; it's a detective story, only the players put down the book and picked up a new one.



Umael, I wouldn't know. I've never been kicked from a game and have more games that want me to play in them or DM them than I can reasonably handle. I believe that your approach of blaming players who disagree with you as being "difficult" is not one that is likely to result in a fun time for everyone.

I didn't blame anyone - and I resent your accusation thereof, especially since you imply that the players are being blameless.

I said I would be annoyed if I had wasted five hours or so of my time. I implied that in this situation I am not up to improvising, a consequence of being under a lot of stress. If the players insist on doing things in a "difficult" manner, than I have to concede that I am not up to running the game session at that point in time.

I don't need to "blame" anyone.

Do you?

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 05:49 PM
Key point here for all our DM's:

Are your players frustrated with what you are doing? If they are you can try to change. If they're not don't worry about it. Not all groups like the same thing.

iDM
2010-08-05, 05:58 PM
What exactly is "writing school" anyway? Mine just make it harder to make plots because they've read all the books that I'd want to steal from.
No clue what 'writing school' is. Ask Stephenie Meyer.

And incidentally, that's why I don't reccomend books to my friends. They read all my material and assume that I will follow the plot of the book through to the end. And if that's not bad enough, once my players got mad at ME for stealing part of a book's plot but not the whole thing- which set their predictions for the game off, like it's my fault.

Safety Sword
2010-08-05, 06:00 PM
No clue what 'writing school' is. Ask Stephenie Meyer.

And incidentally, that's why I don't reccomend books to my friends. They read all my material and assume that I will follow the plot of the book through to the end. And if that's not bad enough, once my players got mad at ME for stealing part of a book's plot but not the whole thing- which set their predictions for the game off, like it's my fault.

Unless their character read the book, I would just cackle maniacally and continue on.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 06:04 PM
Unless their character read the book, I would just cackle maniacally and continue on.

If their character read the book, I would cackle even louder when the plot doesn't match up.

Safety Sword
2010-08-05, 06:06 PM
If their character read the book, I would cackle even louder when the plot doesn't match up.
It's an infinite loop of cackling evilness.

iDM
2010-08-05, 06:35 PM
It's an infinite loop of cackling evilness.

*sigh* Doesn't anyone snicker or chuckle anymore? I remember when villians would chuckle to themselves quietly and unobtrusively. Except Akar Kessel, but he was a terrible villian anyway.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 06:48 PM
Umael, I think you're taking this all way too personally. Railroading is the act of saying "you have to do this". By insisting that they do a specific thing, you are railroading. How important this is to your plot is not relevant.

On to a more fun topic, cackling evilly. I too occasionally draw inspiration from books. Players who have read the books are even more fun. I love to see their reaction when they consider what characters they are roughly equivalent to, then make the connection to what horrible fate awaits them. Or watch them as the plot takes a merry turn away from what the book did.

Evil snickering and chuckling are good, but maniacal laughter is a prerequisite for true villainy. The more insane, over the top, and prolonged, the better. Bonus points for doing it after the most innocent of actions, just to watch the fear.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 06:51 PM
On to a more fun topic, cackling evilly. I too occasionally draw inspiration from books. Players who have read the books are even more fun. I love to see their reaction when they consider what characters they are roughly equivalent to, then make the connection to what horrible fate awaits them. Or watch them as the plot takes a merry turn away from what the book did.

Evil snickering and chuckling are good, but maniacal laughter is a prerequisite for true villainy. The more insane, over the top, and prolonged, the better. Bonus points for doing it after the most innocent of actions, just to watch the fear.

Although a good little-girl laugh can also be quite effective.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 07:01 PM
Well, that's because little children are inherently evil. I know my horror. When the little girl laughs merrily and asks to play, you run screaming, and pray she isn't around the corner ahead of you.

WarKitty
2010-08-05, 07:05 PM
Well, that's because little children are inherently evil. I know my horror. When the little girl laughs merrily and asks to play, you run screaming, and pray she isn't around the corner ahead of you.

Being a petite female who typically appears to be in the mid-teens...I have learned to take full advantage of this.

Platinum_Mongoose
2010-08-05, 07:07 PM
"Oh. Huh. That's pretty cool, but I have to admit I didn't expect you guys to do something like that. Get a drink or something while I figure out how to deal with it, ok?"

It's alright to be flustered sometime, really. Let your players know, take 10 minutes or so to think about what changes you have to make. It's sometimes good for the group to have an official not-playing period where they can back out of character a bit and chat about the latest episode of (X) without worrying about distracting the game anyway.

What he said.

So I'm running Deadlands: Reloaded and we're using the Savage Worlds Adventure Deck. For those unfamiliar, it's a deck (didn't see that coming, did ya?) of cards with random events/bonuses/tweaks that make the narrative of the game a bit more interactive on the players' end. The campaign takes the party from California to London. Long story short, they end up at the British Museum, and BAM, one of my players tosses down an Adventure Card. It reads as follows (paraphrased):

Windfall
The party stumbles across a large quantity of treasure, and, if randomized, gain the maximum amount.

I call a short recess to a) change my pants and b) figure out what to do. Fun game.

iDM
2010-08-05, 07:11 PM
Well, children and teenage girls are, for some unexplored reason, predisposed toward being evil, or being possessed by demons. I'm not sure why this is, but it's like that in all the movies.

Umael
2010-08-05, 07:54 PM
Umael, I think you're taking this all way too personally. Railroading is the act of saying "you have to do this". By insisting that they do a specific thing, you are railroading. How important this is to your plot is not relevant.

...

I reject your definition of railroading.

I'm through talking with you about this.

iDM
2010-08-05, 08:05 PM
...

I reject your definition of railroading.

I'm through talking with you about this.

But that's the true definition. How do you reject something's definition simply because it doesn't fit your current needs?

Umael
2010-08-05, 08:31 PM
But that's the true definition. How do you reject something's definition simply because it doesn't fit your current needs?

...do you have any idea how limited it is to call it the "true" definition?

Professional dictionaries disagree about words used in the comman parlance. How is a gaming term going to have one "true" definition?

Tyndmyr implied that I railroad. My definition of "railroad" is a lot more precise than his. Look:
Railroading is the act of saying "you have to do this". By insisting that they do a specific thing, you are railroading.

Okay, let's look at that definition...

"You got to be at work at 8:00." Railroading!
"You got to report to court for a speeding ticket." Railroading!
"You got to save the world!" Railroading!

At best, it is sloppy definition.

Mine:
A railroad plot is where the DM exherts such control over the events in the game that the PCs have no choices and no way to impact the game, save as how the DM allows.

Telling any GM that they railroad is incredibly insulting.

(Point of fact: I discussed my style of gaming to my players. They have never ONCE considered it railroading. They have enjoyed my games and have always had plenty of choices.)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 08:37 PM
Okay, let's look at that definition...

"You got to be at work at 8:00." Railroading!
"You got to report to court for a speeding ticket." Railroading!
"You got to save the world!" Railroading!

You forgot "driving a train".

Silly me, assuming that people knew this was a roleplaying forum.

iDM
2010-08-05, 08:38 PM
Well, then, I'm sorry. I have never played in one of your games, so I would'nt know.

Umael
2010-08-05, 08:43 PM
Well, then, I'm sorry. I have never played in one of your games, so I would'nt know.

...

Sorry for barking at you, iDM.

I apologize. Tyndmyr irritating me does not warrant me taking it out on you.

iDM
2010-08-05, 08:45 PM
that's OK, I'm sorry for misplacing my apostrophe in "wouldn't".

And then for being anal retentive about it.

Kiroth6
2010-08-06, 12:15 AM
I have a similar question. How do you handle a single PC that you don't know how to account for? I had a situation where I was running a game and a PC kept on threatening to genocide most other things that were less powerful than him. I had trouble figuring out something give him a motivation to work with the rest of the party or at least stop threatening random people long enough so the socially inclined PC's would be able to get some investigation done.

Volos
2010-08-06, 12:20 AM
As a DM, I have encountered this problem time and time again. My solution? I created my own campain world. It took a while, but now my players can do anything they can think of, as long as they don't have to go off-planet to do so. Even then, I have a decent understanding of the planes, so they could even do that if they so desired. Now my players are making the plot without even realizing it. They keep telling me, week after week, "You're the best DM! How do you come up with these stories?" And honestly I haven't come up with a single idea in the past month of roleplay. All of my players have detailed backstories and all of them have their little dramas. All I have to do is see who or what it is they want to kill or defeat, and drop clues as to where they/that might be. They take care of the rest.

MightyTim
2010-08-06, 12:23 AM
I have a similar question. How do you handle a single PC that you don't know how to account for? I had a situation where I was running a game and a PC kept on threatening to genocide most other things that were less powerful than him. I had trouble figuring out something give him a motivation to work with the rest of the party or at least stop threatening random people long enough so the socially inclined PC's would be able to get some investigation done.

Probably the best way to tackle something like this would have been to get him to give you a logical reason why he was even adventuring with them in the first place. You want to play a Barbarian? Sure, but why would you have teamed up with these other guys in the first place? At the very least, this gives you some backstory with which to hook him in.

Serpentine
2010-08-06, 12:33 AM
A note that might help clear up some discrepancy in point of view: From previous discussions, I believe that Tyndmyr considers anything less than a pure sandbox game to involve railroading - and therefore is, by association, bad. I disagree, and no doubt so does Umael, and consider it a very unrealistic ideal that doesn't take into account the practical and personal limitations of the individual DM, but I think that's where they're coming from.

Safety Sword
2010-08-06, 12:44 AM
A note that might help clear up some discrepancy in point of view: From previous discussions, I believe that Tyndmyr considers anything less than a pure sandbox game to involve railroading - and therefore is, by association, bad. I disagree, and no doubt so does Umael, and consider it a very unrealistic ideal that doesn't take into account the practical and personal limitations of the individual DM, but I think that's where they're coming from.

You believe that they think...

Well I believe that you think...

Constructive, no. Fun to watch, no.

Why don't we just all go back to our own games and run them the way that works for us. Delete spells you need to to make your planning easier or players happy or whatever it is that floats your particular boat on your particular ocean.

This discussion has just turned into a spite contest, and frankly I'm starting to cringe every time I see that little tick turn green.

In closing, white text is like a ninja... waiting to strike

Serpentine
2010-08-06, 12:59 AM
I'm just trying to clear up an entanglement I think is based on different backgrounds of opinion *shrug* I think it's about a 50/50 chance that she'll come and tell me my understanding of her point of view is wrong, but I think I'm close enough to give Umael an idea of where the differences are coming from. I wasn't intending to insult or assault Tyn in any way, just get out my understanding of her point of view in an attempt to be helpful. I explained why I disagreed with her opinion, but didn't (I think) make any other judgement of it. It's moved on from my spell-preferences to another topic, and I find your tone there frankly insulting.
I'll wait for Tyn to say how close I am and if she detected any... actually, I did detect a note or two of snark rereading it again just now. 'specially how heated this is getting, it's a bad idea. Sorry 'bout that. I'll redo it here:

A note that might help clear up some discrepancy in point of view: From previous discussions, I believe that Tyndmyr considers anything other than a sandbox game to involve railroading - and therefore is, by association, in her opinion, bad. Sandboxes are thus her preferred type of game.
Personally, I disagree with this opinion, and I believe so does Umael. I consider it an unrealistic ideal that, while desirable, doesn't take into account the practical and personal limitations of the individual DM.
That's where I think they're coming from.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-06, 02:17 AM
Oddly enough, I'm still male. Mmm, might have to change the avatar eventually I guess. Or find the appropriate belt.

Sandbox does have a number of advantages, and I personally prefer it, but it's not the only way to DM. You can have a plotline, yet still avoid telling your players they have to do x, y and z. As mentioned before, there's a huge difference between everyone deciding to do x, and the dm telling the players they must do x.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-06, 03:59 AM
Okay, let's look at that definition...

"You got to be at work at 8:00." Railroading!
"You got to report to court for a speeding ticket." Railroading!
"You got to save the world!" Railroading!
Whether that's railroading or not depends on whether they have to do those things in order to continue the game or not. If they refuse to do these things and the response is 'then we don't play' then it's railroading. If they refuse to do those things and appropriate consequences befall them (being fired, fined further or arrested for failure to appear, or whatever they needed to save the world from happening) then it's not, it's an event which they can do, or not do, but there are consequences for not doing it.

Requiring the players to go exactly where you want them to fits the definition of railroading. Indeed, it fits even your own definition, as the DM is not permitting them to affect the game except as he allows: he allows them to affect what they do between points A and B, but doesn't allow them to determine where they want to go (or try to go) in the first place.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-06, 04:58 AM
Right. Consequences are not railroading.

If the player says "I want to burn the village down without provocation and kill all the people", and guards show up shortly therafter and treat him harshly...well, such is life. Expect pain if you play stupid evil.

If the player says I want to burn the village down without provocation and kill all the people", and you tell him "No. You can't. Go do the quest you were given.", then you're railroading.

Avilan the Grey
2010-08-06, 05:08 AM
Right. Consequences are not railroading.

If the player says "I want to burn the village down without provocation and kill all the people", and guards show up shortly therafter and treat him harshly...well, such is life. Expect pain if you play stupid evil.

If the player says I want to burn the village down without provocation and kill all the people", and you tell him "No. You can't. Go do the quest you were given.", then you're railroading.

Of course.

Now I can fully understand a DM that gets frustrated and doesn't even play beyond this part, and just says "Roll a new character"*. I cannot understand a DM that says "you can't do that".

In this particular scenario I also hope that the rest of the group will act against this PC.

*Because this character will be caught and executed.

potatocubed
2010-08-06, 05:43 AM
Edit: yes I try to prepare, but I only have so much free time in a week.

Just as an aside, you can avoid the 'prep time' problem by switching game systems. I gave up GMing 3.x when I discovered that I was spending more time on prep than I was on the session - it's not the easiest system in the world to improvise in, either.

Another thought might be to acquire a selection of published modules in the appropriate level range for your PCs. That way you've always got a fallback in the case of unexpected derailment. You might need to refluff some things on the fly ("They're, uh... jungle kobolds. They like the bacon of civilised races.") but it's easier than creation ex nihilo.

WarKitty
2010-08-06, 07:52 AM
Just as an aside, you can avoid the 'prep time' problem by switching game systems. I gave up GMing 3.x when I discovered that I was spending more time on prep than I was on the session - it's not the easiest system in the world to improvise in, either.

Another thought might be to acquire a selection of published modules in the appropriate level range for your PCs. That way you've always got a fallback in the case of unexpected derailment. You might need to refluff some things on the fly ("They're, uh... jungle kobolds. They like the bacon of civilised races.") but it's easier than creation ex nihilo.

I'm slowly learning to re-fluff things (I believe my latest gem was refluffing a hydra into a ranged attacking plant creature). Keep in mind I'm a fairly new DM here.

@Kiroth6: I try to deal with that during character creation. The game starts with a rule that all characters must be created with a reason to be adventuring and must be able to work with the party.

Umael
2010-08-06, 08:51 AM
@Mnemosyne:

Don't have time for a lengthy reply.

The original accusation of railroading came from "My plan was for you guys to go to the dungeon. You didn't go to the dungeon, so I have to cancel tonight's game because your actions exceed any of my plans." That accusation was followed by a judgment call that this scenario would therefore be my fault. Neither of which pleased me, as I consider neither my plan "railroading" nor my fault (citing outside influences on my gaming life).


Indeed, it fits even your own definition, as the DM is not permitting them to affect the game except as he allows: he allows them to affect what they do between points A and B, but doesn't allow them to determine where they want to go (or try to go) in the first place.

Technically, your fireball will only affect the game because the DM allows it.

Look, let me use a math analogy. Railroading is making the plot follow a given function. What I am doing is requiring the function that the players elect to use pass through two points, one of which is 0,0. Is that better?

valadil
2010-08-06, 09:39 AM
Oddly enough, I'm still male. Mmm, might have to change the avatar eventually I guess. Or find the appropriate belt.


I've misread your avatar too. Here's a boobless, bearded version. (http://files.sagotsky.com/WhiteWizardTranny.gif)

I think the difficulty with this part of the thread is that there are degrees of railroading. There's also the assumption that railroading is always bad and an accusation of railroading is an affront on one's DMing prowess. Sometimes a little bit of a railroad is necessary to get the game moving. Railroads are just another tool in the GM's toolbox. Unfortunately they're a tool that are easy to overuse to the detriment of the game.


@Mnemosyne:

Don't have time for a lengthy reply.

The original accusation of railroading came from "My plan was for you guys to go to the dungeon. You didn't go to the dungeon, so I have to cancel tonight's game because your actions exceed any of my plans." That accusation was followed by a judgment call that this scenario would therefore be my fault. Neither of which pleased me, as I consider neither my plan "railroading" nor my fault (citing outside influences on my gaming life).


FWIW I don't think you were railroading. If your players give you reason to think they'll go in a certain direction, you plan for that direction. You wrote a session around what you thought they'd do and then they went elsewhere.

My players do this all the time. If they didn't I'd conclude that they were boring and replace them with more interesting players. But I have the luxury of being in a low stress place right now, so I'm able to improvise around whatever they do and spend more time planning different locales.

MightyTim
2010-08-06, 09:56 AM
It sounds like everyone's gotten worked up about something which should really be inconsequential.

Umael's Signature pretty much covers what I was going to say. It's just a game. The point is that the players are having fun. If they are, no one cares what's going on behind your DM screen.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-06, 11:28 AM
Oddly enough, I'm still male. Mmm, might have to change the avatar eventually I guess. Or find the appropriate belt.


Or just enter it on the forum, then it shows that little mystery removing-symbol? I thought, anyway.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-06, 11:38 AM
Getting to the thread a bit late, but:

In general, my method for dealing with this is to keep a spare everything. Spare villains, spare plot artifact, and spare plot. If one is removed, insert another.

In general, for the spare plot, I try something else related if it's a persistent world. If it's a one shot I usually start with something like "As the enemy falls, you find yourselves surrounded by thick and enduring mists. As they begin to part, you see a strange a dark world." Ravenloft is always a good filler.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-06, 02:01 PM
@Mnemosyne:

Don't have time for a lengthy reply.

The original accusation of railroading came from "My plan was for you guys to go to the dungeon. You didn't go to the dungeon, so I have to cancel tonight's game because your actions exceed any of my plans." That accusation was followed by a judgment call that this scenario would therefore be my fault. Neither of which pleased me, as I consider neither my plan "railroading" nor my fault (citing outside influences on my gaming life).
I actually have no idea what that math analogy was about (not much of a math person) but I will concede that at times it's appropriate to use a limited level of railroading. I still contend that doing so is railroading, but it's not necessarily a universally bad thing. So long as such a reaction is rare, it can certainly be excused once in a while.

Oh, and that Ravenloft suggestion is actually bloody brilliant, Ozy. Great suggestion for all DM's. Have a Ravenloft adventure in reserve at all times. If the players go so far beyond your plans that you have no idea what the hell to do with them, toss them into the Domains of Dread for a bit. Since the mists can take you anytime, anywhere, in any world, it's a universally perfect response to complete 'oh **** I have no idea what to do' situations.

WarKitty
2010-08-06, 02:05 PM
I actually have no idea what that math analogy was about (not much of a math person) but I will concede that at times it's appropriate to use a limited level of railroading. I still contend that doing so is railroading, but it's not necessarily a universally bad thing. So long as such a reaction is rare, it can certainly be excused once in a while.

Oh, and that Ravenloft suggestion is actually bloody brilliant, Ozy. Great suggestion for all DM's. Have a Ravenloft adventure in reserve at all times. If the players go so far beyond your plans that you have no idea what the hell to do with them, toss them into the Domains of Dread for a bit. Since the mists can take you anytime, anywhere, in any world, it's a universally perfect response to complete 'oh **** I have no idea what to do' situations.

Depending on your players yes. Mine would probably find Ravenloft too serious for their tastes. Although I have had good luck throwing mine into random silliness and letting them bounce of each other. Or just giving them lots of beer (in-game) and watching the results.

valadil
2010-08-06, 02:07 PM
I actually have no idea what that math analogy was about (not much of a math person) but I will concede that at times it's appropriate to use a limited level of railroading. I still contend that doing so is railroading, but it's not necessarily a universally bad thing. So long as such a reaction is rare, it can certainly be excused once in a while.


The math analogy was like saying that the players have to go somewhere between Cormyr and Sembia for events to trigger. It doesn't matter how they get there or what motivates the trip, but when they get to that area of the game, stuff happens. It's okay to tell the players "plot will trigger when you set foot in the following city" and then letting them decide to trigger the plot or not. This is a very low grade type of railroading, that is perfectly acceptable in most games.

Raum
2010-08-06, 04:36 PM
I think the difficulty with this part of the thread is that there are degrees of railroading. There's also the assumption that railroading is always bad and an accusation of railroading is an affront on one's DMing prowess. Agreed. I recommend using 'scripted' in place of railroaded when you want to avoid the negative connotations.

Even sandboxes have walls...there only real question is, 'how big is the box?' At some point you need to accept the assumptions inherent to the game / campaign / world. Problems usually only occur when players and GM haven't agreed on just how big (or narrow) the box is. That said, it is worth pointing out that game play is only possible within the box...the smaller it is, the less room for game play.

That brings us back to the OP - you should sit down with your players and discuss the game. Not the plot specifics, but the type of game you want to play and any assumptions.

WarKitty
2010-08-06, 05:06 PM
Agreed. I recommend using 'scripted' in place of railroaded when you want to avoid the negative connotations.

Even sandboxes have walls...there only real question is, 'how big is the box?' At some point you need to accept the assumptions inherent to the game / campaign / world. Problems usually only occur when players and GM haven't agreed on just how big (or narrow) the box is. That said, it is worth pointing out that game play is only possible within the box...the smaller it is, the less room for game play.

That brings us back to the OP - you should sit down with your players and discuss the game. Not the plot specifics, but the type of game you want to play and any assumptions.

I actually got the original issue worked out with a little bit of OOC talk. Not the way I preferred to handle it, but it got resolved with no hurt feelings. And then promptly forgotten by some rather strong accidental innuendo on my part. (Hint: when gaming with anime fans avoid anything with tentacles and a grapple attack.)

Galdor
2010-08-06, 06:23 PM
I generally try to make the plot depend on character actions; the characters influence the turn of events.

If you've already started a linear plot, then I suggest thinking through the adventures, finding all of the flaws beforehand. Then, if they still find one, I let the players solve problems any way they want, as long as they're not breaking the plot just to be annoying.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-06, 10:11 PM
Even sandboxes have walls...there only real question is, 'how big is the box?' At some point you need to accept the assumptions inherent to the game / campaign / world. Problems usually only occur when players and GM haven't agreed on just how big (or narrow) the box is. That said, it is worth pointing out that game play is only possible within the box...the smaller it is, the less room for game play.s.

My box incorporates a multiverse of every official setting ever created, plus a number of custom ones. Yup, even spelljammer. That's probably an extreme, as using only a single setting certainly wouldn't be railroading.

Saying "you have to do x, but you can do x in a number of ways" is railroading...but it's far less railroading than saying "you have to do x, and you must do it in this way". Basically, railroading is not allowing your players choices. Not allowing them to rename their character "luke skywalker" is reasonable. Not allowing their fireball to have any effect on the world(to use an earlier reference) would not generally be reasonable.

Of course, with a good group, the first issue shouldn't come up.

Mikeavelli
2010-08-07, 02:09 AM
I'm slowly learning to re-fluff things (I believe my latest gem was refluffing a hydra into a ranged attacking plant creature). Keep in mind I'm a fairly new DM here.


This!

This!

A thousand times this!

In my games, I usually prepare a number of NPC's or CR-appropriate traps\monsters, and the Players face those stat blocks.

If I have to redo things so that they didn't go off to thwart the fiend-summoner who was terrorizing the southlands, and instead decided they wanted to turn around and kill the quest-giver who also happened to be a slave-trading **** (this happened last session), the slave-trading **** suddenly has a ton of followers with the exact same stat blocks as they were going to face down south, his stronghold is trapped with the same traps, and his secret underground base has the same layout as the fiend-summoners.

The players don't know the difference, it takes a certain amount of improvisation that I'm still not completely good at, but it's the way things run. Once you get used to the idea, you can seamlessly integrate whatever obstacles you had planned into pretty much any fluff.