No books and no lore for players.

[Reis Tahlen]

Hi folks!

I'm a DM for a group of 5 players, and currently I have some trouble... Well, to be honest, I'm trying a last ditch before giving up DMing, and I need some advice.

Before I continue, please forgive me if I make some mistakes here and there, english is not my native language.

So, my group: 5 players, each of them is a RPG player archetype; the Full Roleplayer ("My character reacts that way and the hell with the story!"), the Fair Gamer With a Ridiculously Weak Character ("Darn, missed again!"), the Munchkin Using Roleplay to Cover Munchkinism ("Yeah, I know everything because I have a library, why?"), the Rebel ("If it is an order, I wont do it. Even if it is to save the kingdom") and finally, the Kind but Silent One ("...").

My first campaign exploded because it was getting nowhere. You can understand why just by reading the group description.

I tried something else for my second campaign: I took a full session to describe all the world's possibilities, and we worked together to determine what will be the campaign mood, goals, and create a working group of character.

It also failed, because the group went the opposite way of what was written, and I'm not the kind of DM who places invisible walls to prevent characters from doing something I don't like. And also, I don't like working for naught, and having to scratch my had half of each session to try to make the players come back on the tracks doesn't appeal me.

So I will try one last thing for my third attempt; as the title says, no books and no lore for the player, with a new game.

I intend to begin a Pathfinder campaign; all the books I own are in english, and my players can be quite good in that language, but not enough to fully understand a book. Therefore, they need me if I want to use that kind of book.

They don't know Pathfinder, they can't read the books without my help, and furthermore they won't be allowed to put their hands on the books during sessions, only during character creations and when leveling. I will ask them ti play something they like, not because it is powerful, but because they have a bonding with the class. (That should take care of Munckin and Weak)

They don't know Golarion, and their character won't either, I'll use the Group Amnesia card, and their character will discover the world at the same pace as them. They will have a NPC mentor whom will help and guide them in Golarion, and without money, knowledge and connections they MUST rely on him, or die. (That should take care of Full Rolpelayer and Rebel).

Finally, I wont work the campaign with them. As I can't trust my group to follow a story, even if we created that story together, I will instead create a story of my own and bring them into that story, wheter they like it or not. It will be all on my abilities as a storyteller and writer to make sure everyone, including me, is entertained, but with MY rules.

Summary after that indigest wordfest

I want to try a campaign where my (difficult) players won't have access to books, no knowledge of the world beforehand, and depends entireley on what I intend to leave them during each session. Is there any advice on that?

Thank you!!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Reis Tahlen
My first campaign exploded because it was getting nowhere. You can understand why just by reading the group description.

Sadly, yes, it's all too evident.


Originally Posted by Reis Tahlen
...I'll use the Group Amnesia card, and their character will discover the world at the same pace as them. They will have a NPC mentor whom will help and guide them in Golarion, and without money, knowledge and connections they MUST rely on him, or die.

You know your group better than I do, but pinning the party's success on their good relations with a single NPC could end up causing more complications than it solves.


Originally Posted by Reis Tahlen
As I can't trust my group to follow a story, even if we created that story together, I will instead create a story of my own and bring them into that story, whet[h]er they like it or not.

Unfortunately, with the group you've outlined and their history so far, this approach may not work any better than the others. Restricting their access to source material may also cause some frustration--I know I'd be extremely peeved if my DM was running a campaign in which I couldn't read the basic rules.

Are you able to discuss this with your players at all? Maybe one or two of the more level-headed ones? That might work out better in the long run than trying to throttle them by way of gameplay restrictions.

[Reis Tahlen]

Are you able to discuss this with your players at all? Maybe one or two of the more level-headed ones? That might work out better in the long run than trying to throttle them by way of gameplay restrictions.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: HELL no!

Munchkin is a pure genius when it comes to excuses to justify all his characters super-powers, and if by miracle is cornered gets offended and leave.

Rebel and Pure Roleplayer say "yes, my bad, sorry", and one hour after do the exact same things.

Weak is fair in game, but is stubborn and has a precise, innamovible and unshakable way of seeing how a game is played.

Silent is cool.

[Amphetryon]

From my understanding of what you've written, I do not expect that your 3rd effort will prove much more successful than the others. This is because it looks from here like you and your Players have different goals in mind for the game.

It reads to me as if your vocal Players want to engage in a Sandbox-type game where the story evolves as a direct result of their particular Characters' choices, be they informed choices or whimsical.

It reads to me as if you're most comfortable running a relatively scripted game, where the Characters' choices are specifically limited to those things directly presented to them by you, the storyteller. It also reads to me as if you have some difficulty keeping up if the Players go far enough off-script (this is not especially uncommon, and is not meant as a criticism of you).

Those two styles of play are not especially compatible. Unless and until you and your Players can reach a better compromise on the type of game they want to play AND the type of game you want to run, I suspect you'll keep having trouble.

[Reis Tahlen]

I can handle initiative from my players, and going off tracks isn't something I'm afraid of.

The trouble comes when my players go off track at every friggin' step of the story.

One good example: the party arrives in a city by boat. There, they're supposed to witness a women being atacked by three guys. As the group is good natured, they help her, she reveals she's the daughter of a local noble and invites them to a ball in her honour.

I admit, not the greatest story hook, but it has the benefit of being simple, right?

What happens in reality:

The group arrives by boat. As soon as they hit the ground, they decide to go the the poorest city district and gives large sums of money to everyone. Which of course attracts the attention of authorities,and the players flee at the slightest hint of a militiaman looking at them. Why? Because they don't lke to attract attention. Then why did you gave indecent amount of money litteraly on the street? Oopsie, he he...

At this point, I must design the encounter with the daughter in another city, which I have NOT prepared, as opposite to the first city I carefully read every detail during several hours. Waste of time.

As soon as they enter the second city, litteraly two meters after the city gates, they split the party. Not the "let's split and meet back in a few hours kind". The "I don't want to sleep in the slum you chose so I'll sleep somewhere else and take care of not meeting you during the day" kind. So I must choose one player for the daughter encounter, instead of the groupe. Which means I must redesign the encounter on the fly, and all the combat preparation was... a waste of time.

The player helps the girl, but before, he masks himself. I asked him why, and he tells me that if the aggressors wear rich clothes, they must be nobility so he doesn't want to be recognized. Ok, fair enough. He helps the girl, and before she could even say "Thank you", he bolts away and run. That's right. He managed to OBLITERATE the opportunity for the invitation. And as he was masked, there was no way for the girl to search for the guy who saved her and thanks him.

I found a solution, but at that point I was exhausted: the story wasn't even started, and I had to twist everything I worked so far. And come on, look at the story hook, it's BASIC! The three lines which were supposed to start the real story took a friggin' whole session, and everything I prepared was throwed in the bin.

[Maginomicon]

You might have to take the Diablo 2 approach:

Only specific character options are known (i.e. only allow 4-5 classes, only allow a very small limited number of feats, particularly feat chains, etc.).
The area's natural terrain makes it impossible to deviate from the storyline (i.e. mountain pass syndrome).

[Anxe]

Use fewer cities would be a small bit of advice i can give. Your players might perform better in villages or small towns.

[Amphetryon]

I can handle initiative from my players, and going off tracks isn't something I'm afraid of.

The trouble comes when my players go off track at every friggin' step of the story.

One good example: the party arrives in a city by boat. There, they're supposed to witness a women being atacked by three guys. As the group is good natured, they help her, she reveals she's the daughter of a local noble and invites them to a ball in her honour.

I admit, not the greatest story hook, but it has the benefit of being simple, right?

What happens in reality:

The group arrives by boat. As soon as they hit the ground, they decide to go the the poorest city district and gives large sums of money to everyone. Which of course attracts the attention of authorities,and the players flee at the slightest hint of a militiaman looking at them. Why? Because they don't lke to attract attention. Then why did you gave indecent amount of money litteraly on the street? Oopsie, he he...

At this point, I must design the encounter with the daughter in another city, which I have NOT prepared, as opposite to the first city I carefully read every detail during several hours. Waste of time.

As soon as they enter the second city, litteraly two meters after the city gates, they split the party. Not the "let's split and meet back in a few hours kind". The "I don't want to sleep in the slum you chose so I'll sleep somewhere else and take care of not meeting you during the day" kind. So I must choose one player for the daughter encounter, instead of the groupe. Which means I must redesign the encounter on the fly, and all the combat preparation was... a waste of time.

The player helps the girl, but before, he masks himself. I asked him why, and he tells me that if the aggressors wear rich clothes, they must be nobility so he doesn't want to be recognized. Ok, fair enough. He helps the girl, and before she could even say "Thank you", he bolts away and run. That's right. He managed to OBLITERATE the opportunity for the invitation. And as he was masked, there was no way for the girl to search for the guy who saved her and thanks him.

I found a solution, but at that point I was exhausted: the story wasn't even started, and I had to twist everything I worked so far. And come on, look at the story hook, it's BASIC! The three lines which were supposed to start the real story took a friggin' whole session, and everything I prepared was throwed in the bin.
I am just asking, here, OP: Do you see the above as contradicting my observations, supporting them, or neither?

[Reis Tahlen]

I am just asking, here, OP: Do you see the above as contradicting my observations, supporting them, or neither?

Your observations were correct. I just wanted to stress that even though I'm good when it's about going off trail, I have my limits. And I find the little story funny, if I forget the fact they blew several hours worth of work.

[jedipotter]

I want to try a campaign where my (difficult) players won't have access to books, no knowledge of the world beforehand, and depends entireley on what I intend to leave them during each session. Is there any advice on that?


Just about all my games are like this. I don't allow any book/computer use during the game.


But more so, I go for the unknown world. I just hate the standard LotR Smallville setting where everyone knows everyone and everything. I find that so boring and annoying. So I have them know nothing. The end result is much more fun for everyone.

[12owlbears]

one thing that works for me is to have multiple hooks leading to the same plot.

[Firechanter]

You really need to talk to your players about disruptive behaviour.
Make it clear to them that you are not a computer game, but session preparation takes hours of real time.
If they want to pull shenanigans like those, they can play Skyrim.

If all else fails, ditch them as players and find others; if you want to spend time with them as friends you can find other activities.
Or rotate the DM position so they can walk a mile in your shoes.

[Kioras]

Sounds like an issue of a group of players that refuse to be led on a story and due to there own actions take explosives to the story itself if it shows up.

My suggestion, is to play off there tendency to go off track. It requires a bit more setup time, but in the long run might leave a more stable game.

It requires quite a bit more setup however.

1. Create a bunch of starter encounters, that can lead into the 'larger' plot hooks. These would be like finding someone being mugged, leading to a confrontation with the muggers and then leading to another hook of your choice. Having the characters pick pocked(something cheap) by a bunch of street urchins who are controlled by a brute who uses them to steal items. Whenever they solve these 1-2 encounter items, they would then get a lead into one or several of the larger plot hooks.

2. Create a list of plot hooks that you can use, 6 or more ideally. These would be a more complex driving force for the rest of the session or several.

3. You want to have a stock of NPC's, these NPC's should be varied look, stats and personalities. Once they encounter a NPC make sure to mark on his sheet what he did and how he interacted with the players in the session. These would be story and background NPC's, and would not really be antagonists, just people they encounter to nudge them along.

4. Create a more then a handful of pre built encounters, that you can refluff into whatever they are doing. One encounter might be some militia, the next same one might be a redressed, group of bandits, with almost the same encounter, just different weapons. These encounters can be of varied CR, to fit the needs, not all of them should be violent of course, or even monsters.

5. Finally, create a small grouping of locations. They can be used as your dungeons, and re-used as needed. I would suggest avoid creating a single huge dungeon, instead creating a group of rooms, that you can string together as needed for the dungeon. Each room should have 2-4 different sets of things that can be in there, more as you go on.

Once the players have bitten on a plot hook, you can then pull out you prepared items and lead them from there. You can even have things go as a series of unrelated events and leave it up to the players to mash together a big conspiracy, where there is none.

I would also suggest even after they grabbed on hook, leaving rumors of other things around town that they might get interested in later.

As you go on, you will steadily expand your collection of events, NPC's, encounters, dungeons and plot hooks, and you can always re-use them if you properly reskin/refluff them.

I only suggest this way that is more work for you, because it sounds like your players will instinctively rebel on any signs of rail roading, real or fake.

[Honest Tiefling]

You really need to talk to your players about disruptive behaviour.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, even if you shove its head in there.

Also, if your players figure out it is Golarion, what is preventing them from getting the information? I mean, I would assume that Pathfinder has been translated into many languages by now, and I assume you're from Europe, so the chances of a translation they can read is high.

[Flickerdart]

I can handle initiative from my players, and going off tracks isn't something I'm afraid of.

The trouble comes when my players go off track at every friggin' step of the story.

Well that's kind of the point, isn't it? All actions have consequences. If they chose to let the princess rot in the dragon's cave and topple the king instead, then trying to continue with your dragon-less king-based storyline is going to be pointless. Decisions, meaningful decisions, are not like pulling over into a rest stop to have a snack before getting back on the same highway. They are like turning off the highway and ramping off a cliff in your giant robot car. If you are concerned with the players completing predefined "checkpoints" in your story then you're going to have a bad time.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Summary after that indigest wordfest

I want to try a campaign where my (difficult) players won't have access to books, no knowledge of the world beforehand, and depends entireley on what I intend to leave them during each session. Is there any advice on that?
I don't think that'll work. Leaving aside that Pathfinder is all online, and that an "only I'm allowed to use the books" line smacks of DM tyranny... it sounds like your real problem is players actively avoiding the rails, not anything to do with character creation.

[Slipperychicken]

They don't know Golarion, and their character won't either, I'll use the Group Amnesia card, and their character will discover the world at the same pace as them. They will have a NPC mentor whom will help and guide them in Golarion, and without money, knowledge and connections they MUST rely on him, or die. (That should take care of Full Rolpelayer and Rebel).


This seems to be a red flag. Have you ever considered that you're being a bit inflexible?

[Namfuak]

I have to wonder if maybe you need to rethink how to put encounters in front of your players. You said that they don't like being in the eyes of the authorities in any capacity, and yet you wanted them to save a girl who then invites them to a noble ball. What if instead of that, the you planned on the girl telling them that there had been a bunch of reports of missing girls, and she was afraid she would be next? Then, when they split, the ones who weren't near the girl heard rumors in the tavern they went into or from shopkeepers about abductions, and when they came back together and heard about the guy stopping one they would think to investigate? Obviously you know your players better than I do, but based on what you said this seems like a workable hook.

[Dawgmoah]

I have to wonder if maybe you need to rethink how to put encounters in front of your players. You said that they don't like being in the eyes of the authorities in any capacity, and yet you wanted them to save a girl who then invites them to a noble ball. What if instead of that, the you planned on the girl telling them that there had been a bunch of reports of missing girls, and she was afraid she would be next? Then, when they split, the ones who weren't near the girl heard rumors in the tavern they went into or from shopkeepers about abductions, and when they came back together and heard about the guy stopping one they would think to investigate? Obviously you know your players better than I do, but based on what you said this seems like a workable hook.

Don't use a published campaign world; that's one way to keep information from the players. Or start them off in some small village out in the middle or nowhere, a place where their options are limited.

Namfuak here is on it; just lower the scope of the options. If they don't "bite" on this plot hook have them use Gather Information in the local tavern to hear people either conversing about missing girls or trying to soothe a grieving parent.

Of course if you don't use a published setting you get to work up a lot of things. Then there is the old rename trick. Don't use the names from the published material.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This reeks of in-character solution to out-of-character problem. Except the "problem" is the player group and the one implementing the "solution" is the DM, who is not seeking the assistance or the permission of any of the players for what he is going to do.

Sounds like they're going to quit the campaign because it won't be fun for them.

[Vhaidara]

Or, be mean and is names from a different published setting (run an eberron campaign but use names from forgotten realms)

[Amphetryon]

I have to wonder if maybe you need to rethink how to put encounters in front of your players. You said that they don't like being in the eyes of the authorities in any capacity, and yet you wanted them to save a girl who then invites them to a noble ball. What if instead of that, the you planned on the girl telling them that there had been a bunch of reports of missing girls, and she was afraid she would be next? Then, when they split, the ones who weren't near the girl heard rumors in the tavern they went into or from shopkeepers about abductions, and when they came back together and heard about the guy stopping one they would think to investigate? Obviously you know your players better than I do, but based on what you said this seems like a workable hook.

That reads as an 'all roads lead to Rome' approach, where all of the information the DM feeds them loops back on the one storyline the DM wants to run, regardless of whether the Players are showing interest in it or not. Given what the OP has said about his Players, that seems like it's likely to cause a revolt.

[Reis Tahlen]

Thanks everyone for all your advices!

About the fact I could be tyrannical and/or inflexible, if you read my original post and the little story I wrote, surely you must understand I NEED to be inflexible on certain topics. If I'm not, it will be the first campaign all over again. You must understand that my player are the kind of people that if you let them free, they will do whatever the hell they want without thinking of the consequences... even if it means the end of the campaign.

And when I work something with them, it doesn't go well either. We took a whole session, to agree to do, on THEIR demand, a treasure hunting indiana jones/pirates of the caribean style campaign. First session they encounter a pirate who intends to use an empty chest to recover the fabled treasure of the Pirate King, who manipulates them and leave them to fight the governement by themselves. They survive, I give them the opportunity to track the pirate... and they won't. Long story short, a traitor pirate using a mysterious chest to find the biggest treasure of all time, and they don't bite the hook.. enen though they ASKED for something like that.

And you want ME to be LESS inflexible? :smallconfused:

[HammeredWharf]

And when I work something with them, it doesn't go well either. We took a whole session, to agree to do, on THEIR demand, a treasure hunting indiana jones/pirates of the caribean style campaign. First session they encounter a pirate who intends to use an empty chest to recover the fabled treasure of the Pirate King, who manipulates them and leave them to fight the governement by themselves. They survive, I give them the opportunity to track the pirate... and they won't. Long story short, a traitor pirate using a mysterious chest to find the biggest treasure of all time, and they don't bite the hook.. enen though they ASKED for something like that.

And you want ME to be LESS inflexible? :smallconfused:

Yes.

You had one plot hook and expected the players to bite. That's inflexible. You should always have a backup plan. I always have several.

It looks like you plan too much. You waste a lot of time on little details the players don't care about instead of making stuff up on the spot. You should focus on the big picture, instead. Think of some interesting things that are happening in the world, all related to the main story somehow. In the case of an Indiana Jones -like campaign, they could be ancient ruins, explorer parties, military expeditions, mysterious organizations, etc. If the pirate king's treasure is such a big deal, surely that one guy isn't the only one looking for it?

Also, never, ever rely on your players following an NPC.

[Kafros]

How about adding some recent events in their character's storyline before the game starts. eg.

The vilian had wronged their family, has something they want, stole from them, humiliated them or killed a love one.
eg my group: barbarian from frostburn went to buy Coal in the city, evil slavetrader raided his village and killed his wife. wizard from the desert of al hacim is looking for the spellbook of that slavetrader, rogue heard that all the money in the town are in his safe along with a diamond worth a few gazilions, Priest is a pious slave trader hater. There if they dont want to kill him its bad rp.
with that instead of a group of diverse idividuals with nothing common... you at least got something to work with, or a starting meeting place.
That failing give them a summary of the story before hand and let them make characters that want to participate in the campaign. EG I made a dungeon of an evil necromacer you read a poster that says
Wanted the son of the b ... for... doing that and that ... reward 9gazilion gp feel free to ignore it but those that do dont participate in that campaign.
If they dont realising that spitting up puts the dm in a bind explain to them kindly: "I can be in only one place at one time if you split up half of you are not going to play till you meet up again" if they keep doing that then they are purposely trying to prevent each other from having fun meaning that they might have a bone to pick outside the game in which case its not your problem.

[Seffbasilisk]

It's essentially how flexible you can be with the story that defines a good DM.

Cooperative storytelling is the gist of what you're after, not 'Here's the script. Options A and B lead to Death. Take C.'

I normally start sessions by drawing a vague map, and having notes on the stats of six encounters. Everything else grows from there.

[Amphetryon]

It's essentially how flexible you can be with the story that defines a good DM.

Cooperative storytelling is the gist of what you're after, not 'Here's the script. Options A and B lead to Death. Take C.'

I normally start sessions by drawing a vague map, and having notes on the stats of six encounters. Everything else grows from there.

You can be a good DM and run a scripted, inflexible campaign. . . if that's what your Players want and expect. The issue I see here is that the OP's Players don't want that.

[Asheram]

Thanks everyone for all your advices!

About the fact I could be tyrannical and/or inflexible, if you read my original post and the little story I wrote, surely you must understand I NEED to be inflexible on certain topics. If I'm not, it will be the first campaign all over again. You must understand that my player are the kind of people that if you let them free, they will do whatever the hell they want without thinking of the consequences... even if it means the end of the campaign.

And when I work something with them, it doesn't go well either. We took a whole session, to agree to do, on THEIR demand, a treasure hunting indiana jones/pirates of the caribean style campaign. First session they encounter a pirate who intends to use an empty chest to recover the fabled treasure of the Pirate King, who manipulates them and leave them to fight the governement by themselves. They survive, I give them the opportunity to track the pirate... and they won't. Long story short, a traitor pirate using a mysterious chest to find the biggest treasure of all time, and they don't bite the hook.. enen though they ASKED for something like that.

And you want ME to be LESS inflexible? :smallconfused:

I think "No plan survives contact with the enemy." is correct to reference in this situation.

If you realize that your players won't follow the red thread then don't expect that they will, nor force them to.

I'm a horrible planner, I know that the situation never will end up as I hope it would so I more or less wing it. If they don't want to make it a bigger plot, make it a smaller one. Make the world more lived in by, say, a broken down carriage in the middle of the road with loose chickens all over it. Make small mini-quests to entertain your players instead of one big one which hinges on them taking interest in it, and if they Do take interest in one thing, you grab on to that thing and build as much as you can around it!

If you Definitely want them to have an encounter, don't force them on the path to the encounter but instead move the encounter.
Don't force them on the path to Rome instead ensure that all paths already lead to Rome.

Also an fun thing is to make them stumble over things and remind them constantly that the world isn't constant. If they stumble over a plot point and don't react to it then that will affect the world. Not necessarily for the Bad but it will change things. (Important! Don't do this to punish players for inaction, it's just to let them know that the world isn't an MMO and is mutable.)

A final point. You are worried that they will end the campaign. Why not let them? They are the players and it's their choice in that case, they won't learn if you hold them by hand.

(This was sort of a stream of consciousness so forgive things being jumbled together)

[Nooblet]

Let me preface this by saying: I do not think you are a DM with bad intentions, I think honestly you are trying to accomplish a game that is fun for everyone.

However that being said, I honestly believe you are running into group rebellion. Why they are acting this way? We do not know, and can only speculate.

Some questions for you as a DM (Checking if you have a "player revolt"):

Have you pulled rule 0 many (and by many I mean a lot) times in the past? (DM Fiat)
Have you told them "no" multiple times when they come up with an idea they want to execute? (Understand, I am not suggesting this is bad in certain situations, just overly using it will backfire)
Have you trivialized PCs skills and checks simply because they don't go along with your plot? (For example, (terrible example on the fly) some character is taking the time to train an animal companion simply in character, and you have roughly ignored it since it is irrelevant to your plot).

*Again, forgive me for my bad example. Something of that nature.

If you can look back and answer yes to these questions you may simply have a case of "rebellion". Rebellion in the player's realm is the player's deciding that you are not going to allow them any fun. Since you are not, they are going to create their own fun at the expense of your campaign.

If the above is honestly true, then you need to talk to your players. When you talk to them tell them you really want to have a fun game, and you are willing to change things in order for that to happen. After that show them with actions not words. Do things that will create trust in your ability to DM. Some "possibilities" on earning PC trust:
- Make your die rolls open (This is usually not the best idea, but when your players have decided you abuse DM Fiat, show them that you aren't bsing rolls.

- Pay attention to what their characters are doing. If one person is really taking his time doing something you find "stupid", instead of ignoring it build a new plot on it. He will (hopefully) begin to trust you as a DM who wants everyone to have fun, not to direct his version of "LOTR".

- Make it apparent that their choices matter. When players decide that what they do is irrelevant in your world, they tend to rebel. Guide your story in a manner that respectfully acknowledges things the PCs are doing. They need acknowledgment that the way they interact with the world changes the world. If not, they may feel like they are wasting their time.

These are some examples to earn some trust back, I am sure you can think of other ways if the ones suggested seem absolutely terrible to you.


If that ISN'T the case, then the issue probably boils down to your "style of DMing". As others have said thus far your "campaigns" have relied on your PCs to take the plot hook EXACTLY as you imagine. You need to craft your campaign giving the PCs multiple ways to progress. It can be the same story or "plot hook", but give them more options so they will likely take your plot hook. This can include a fail safe (if the PCs refuse to take my specific scenarios in order to open the plot, I will just have the NPC townsfolk start spreading rumors (that can direct your PCs to the plot hook)). Sometimes the PCs need an obvious plot hook anyways.

I am trying not to be terribly vague, but I have a feeling your ability to improvise and act off your players isn't the best (which isn't meant to be offensive). Try not to get caught up with the specifics, your game is not a Hollywood movie, don't try to make it like that.

If the above isn't the case either, and you have done all you can to try and adapt to your players, you may simply have incompatible players. At that point there isn't much you can do. Railroading them will not get you the result you want, it will simply make a bad gaming session for everyone involved.

[Psyren]

I think a more tightly controllable system would work better for a group like this. Have you considered 4th edition, or Legend?

[Larkas]

The best advice I can give you (and one that I've yet to fully grasp) is this: as a DM, it's best to have several shallow hooks than a few deep ones. The reason for this is two-fold. First, you don't grow attached to the plot hooks. Second, players, even at their best, have a way to ignore most of what you write beforehand.

This can be a hard pill to swallow if you, like me, draw pleasure from fleshing out stuff for your world. But try to keep things separate. Write your fic any way you want it, but don't expect your characters to interact with it. You can even write a simple metaplot: organization A will do this, organization B will do that, kingdom 1 will try to stop A but will fail if nothing's done, etc. It might strike the point home when your players understand that the world isn't about them, only their story is. They can coast along, never doing anything of note, or they can dive in and get their hands dirty. Maybe help 1 stop A, maybe join A, maybe overthrow both A and 1 and reign uncontested, or maybe mess with B and have nothing to do with the previous conflict.

Taking your story, for example. Gossip about the "masked heroes" might start to surface. One city, more autocratic, might decide to arrest any masked person on sight. The poor, however, look up to the heroes and hope for deliverance. A few hopeful youth decide to take the mantle and impersonate the vigilantes. The princess, meanwhile, longs for her masked savior, and cries every night due to the fact that her father wants him dead. The players might dive in. Or they might not. Something will happen in that city, and even if they don't take part in it, it might affect them: if the king succeeds in crushing the masked youth, nearby kingdoms might decide that hunting masked people is the right thing to do, and your players might decide that it's better to show their faces than risk persecution - even without knowing that this predicament is all their fault.

Being a DM, unfortunately, is a somewhat solitary pursuit. It means that you don't have to depend on your players to draw fun from the game, however.

[Red Fel]

About the fact I could be tyrannical and/or inflexible, if you read my original post and the little story I wrote, surely you must understand I NEED to be inflexible on certain topics.

First of all, don't call me Shirley.

Here's what I read, if I understand your original post and subsequent replies correctly.

1. You have a group of difficult players - one who is determined to act on his character to the exclusion of all else, one who is ineffectual, one who is a munchkin, one who actively disobeys, and another who is ineffectual.

2. Your first campaign fell apart because the party didn't go anywhere, either metaphorically or literally.

3. Your second campaign, in which you collaborated with the players, failed because the players did not comply with the campaign.

4. Now you want to start a campaign with the express goal of limiting the players' information and exercising sole control over creating the campaign, in hopes that the players will comply.

I believe that covers the basics. Now for my responses.

1. I can't help but wonder if your description of the players is telling. You don't seem to have a good thing to say about them. The first one is a good roleplayer, but, as you put it, "the hell with the story!" The second you describe as being weak. The third is a munchkin, the fourth is needlessly contradictory. Even the one you describe as "kind" doesn't exactly get glowing praise.

Is it possible you have an issue with the players? Other than the fact that they don't comply with the campaign, I mean. Is it possible you're burnt out on DMing, and this is making you a bit angry?

2&3. I don't know about your first campaign, so I have to take your word. But let's look at what we do know. First, in regard to your second campaign, the players helped you design the campaign and then ran in the other direction. That's understandably frustrating. It's also something players do. Was it a jerk move by them to help build this whole world and then ignore it? Sure. But it's what players do from time to time.

When you design an encounter with one outcome, you're setting yourself up for disaster - the players almost never get it, even if it seems obvious to you. It's why a popular piece of advice is to design any puzzle or encounter with at least three possible outcomes, and to allow any additional ones the players come up with. (That's an example of "being flexible" that the other posters are mentioning.)

4. When your players deviate from the script, you really have two options. You can either railroad them back onto the tracks, or you can run with them and see where they go. You seem to be taking a third option. You're clearly frustrated and don't want to follow your players out into the wilderness; understandable. But instead of playing a straightforward railroad, which would be honest, if a bit tyrannical, you're trying to play some sort of secret railroad, removing the players' options and not letting them realize they're on the tracks.

They will realize it, and they won't like it; they'll like even less that you're pulling a stunt to keep them there.

It worries me when I hear quotes like this:

You must understand that my player are the kind of people that if you let them free, they will do whatever the hell they want without thinking of the consequences... even if it means the end of the campaign.
I understand the mentality, mind you. Players can be crazy. Players can do stupid or obnoxious things that ruin the campaign. And that stinks on ice, particularly when you've put a lot of work and thought into a campaign.

But I see a difference between when one player does something stupid and suicidal that ends the campaign, and when the entire party, knowing the outcome, chooses to do so. In the former case, it's wrongful of one player to ruin everyone's fun; in the latter case, all of the players are bringing the campaign to a close. To me, that sends a fairly clear message of wanting to be done. Unless you're willing to tie the players to their chairs and give their characters death-proof plot armor, you let them end the campaign in that scenario. (Also, don't tie players to their chairs. And especially don't give them plot armor.)

My advice, as has been expressed by others in this thread, is to sit down and talk with your players. Explain that you put a lot of work into your campaigns, and it's hurtful and frustrating that they discard them so readily.

Clearly, you are the type of DM who likes having fairly fixed campaigns that go in one direction at a defined pace. That's fine; that's a style. But if that's not what the players are looking for, or not what they expect, or not what their comfort is, then a problem exists between DM screen and table, because that's what you run.

Either the players have to understand that this is the type of game you run, and be willing to engage in it, or you have to step down as DM. Because it sounds like you and your players do not share expectations of gameplay, or at least do not communicate it clearly.

If you intend to continue to DM for these players, and they are not willing to change, then you will have to change. And yes, that means being more flexible. It means that if they want to spend the entire campaign traveling from one city to another and spending every waking hour in taverns, you will describe every barkeep, every ale, every creaky bench and every ornery patron.

This is the compromise between DMs and players, and it doesn't work if they're playing two different games.

Short version:

1. Talk to your players. Figure out where the crossed wires are.

2. Don't do this thing you propose. If you want to railroad, just railroad; don't pull this stunt.

3. Talk to your players.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Short version:

1. Talk to your players. Figure out where the crossed wires are.

2. Don't do this thing you propose. If you want to railroad, just railroad; don't pull this stunt.

3. Talk to your players.
This man is wise, and you should listen to his words.

[Red Fel]

This man is wise, and you should listen to his words.

I'm going to have to start sigging people who tell me how awesome I am. :smallcool:

[jedipotter]

About the fact I could be tyrannical and/or inflexible, if you read my original post and the little story I wrote, surely you must understand I NEED to be inflexible on certain topics. If I'm not, it will be the first campaign all over again. You must understand that my player are the kind of people that if you let them free, they will do whatever the hell they want without thinking of the consequences... even if it means the end of the campaign.


I understand and have gone through this often. Group says ''we just want to game'', ok, then as DM I come up with a simple ''save the cursed kingdom'' plot. And they don't want to do it....six hours of game time are wasted on this. So then they are asked what do you want, and they say ''an epic pirate game''. So you create a plot all about ''the treasure galley of gold'', and they just don't bite...and again time is wasted.

Now I'm not a big fan of talking to the players. It would be nice if this worked, but it only works if your players are saints. Sadly, talking to normal people just does not work. Most players will answer with the sad ''I don't know'' or ''I don't care''. And even when they do answer they will say sad stuff like ''I want to have fun'' or ''Lets fight a dragon". And even if you do pry something out of them, it is often doomed to fail.

The Secret Railroad really works best. But it is important to never tell the players. Just let them ''wander the wilderness'' and never realize they are on the tracks.

1. Secret Railroad Trick One--Make lots of half plots and mini story ideas, but leave big holes. Dorn the dwarf smuggles cargo for ____, for example. As the characters ''wander'', just puzzle together everything.

2. Secret Railroad Trick Two--Demons! Dragons! Invasion! This is simple enough. Should the group start to go off track....toss in random combat! Nothing keeps a group together like combat. And demons can come out of a portal anywhere. Often combat makes players forget their wacky ideas, or at least change them. And you can always do the ''oh the dragon destroyed the Deer Inn, so sorry you guys can't sit around and pretend to drink''.

3. Secret Railroad Trick Three--set up fake railroads. Make a fake ''plot to save a queen''. Make it look good on the outside, but be empty. And then pretend to care when the players screw it up and go off the rails....as you laugh and lay the secret track right in front of them.

[Kafros]

Just keep in mind they might be deliberatly subotaging you.
so even if you somehow lead them to a railroad without them wanting to they start attacking each other and infighting, run away and get those that want to play the senario killed just to be... annoying. If their behaviour is imature like that (especially since you talked to them then they broke a gentleman's agreement) well just tell them to find another dm. If not dump the group completly.

[TheDarkSaint]

I think there is a way to have your cake and eat it too.

You like to build rich, complex worlds. That's a bonus. I too like complex worlds and my 'on the fly' skills are lacking. I would often run into the same problems as you did. Until I tried something.


Villan A is a corrupt town guard who extorts the following buisnesses (all likely to be used by PC's at one point or another.) If the PC's disrupt his extortion buisness, he is liable to react in the following ways, A, B and C.

Villain B is a demon who has possessed a brothel owner and is attempting to turn the prostitutes to demon worship. It causes the following problems in lower parts of town (increased murders, people afraid to come out, people disappearing that the PC's might know). Villain B will respond in the following ways if she is crossed, X, Y and Z.

Villain C is a gladiatorial slave owner looking for new talent. Should the PC's thwart Villain A or B's plans in a spectacular fashion, he will go after them. If they are quiet about it, he ignores them.

What I was doing was creating a tapestry of stuff they COULD run into, not what they had to run into. So, they could wander around a city all day doing odd stuff and sooner or later, they would start tripping over the plots of bad people. Often they do the heroic thing and take down the bad guy which will trip more plot lines into action.

The point is that there are lots of smaller hooks for them to trip when they want to, to follow up if they like or to ignore.If ignored, bad guys tend to get bolder and they can see the consequences of their actions.

If they want to hide who they are, play to that. Rumors start to spread of masked hero's who save people, causing the BBEG to start hunting vigilantes...it could be an interesting domino effect.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Remember this: the world the game is in does not exist outside of your head. Even if you believe the world might exist in another dimension, this particular version doesn't. The world is there for you to change. They completely miss a plot hook in one city and go to another? Put the plot hook in the second city, put all the stuff you planned in that city, they're back on the rails and they don't even realize it, they might think you're a really good DM! And you will be, because you used the DM's secret technique: getting the players back on the rails without them realizing it.

The munchkin problem will need to be dealt with, out of character. If it ends up with you guys having a four-player group, so be it. Or maybe play a game like FATE, which has a pretty foolproof system where if you take only positive aspects, you won't have as much fate points as the others because there won't be chances for compels which give you them.

[Firechanter]

You can give your players incentive to do things, but if it’s not the incentive they’re looking for they will probably demonstrate it by their in game actions. Some examples of player incentives include:
1.Loot
2.Treasure
3.Money
4.Riches
5.Gold
6.Lucre
7.Boodle
8.Booty
9.Dough
10.Graft
11.Goods
12.Items
13.Moolah
14.Pillage
15.Plunder
16.Prizes
17.Spoils
18.Swag
19.Bling

[Reis Tahlen]

First of all, a BIG thank you for all your axcellent advices, and for the time you all took to help me solve my problem. Please excuse me if I don't reply to each of you, but be assured I read and pondered every reply.

I do realize that my idea wasn't very good. I think that, in some way, I intended to punish them for... well, being themselves, which is unfair.

The best course of action now will be to sit, talk and be upright honest.

I think the best compromise would be this: I will create a zone (which will be a great city, a country, heck I don't know yet) where they can do everything they want. In that zone I will create a lot of subplots with various factions; instead of having a rich world with one story, I will have a very rich smaller zone with a lot of stories. But the compromise will be that outside of this zone, there is nothing. Yes, there are landscapes, people, animals, but I will prepare nothing. It will be my way of making sure they stay in what I've created, and surely I think it will be appreciated if I'm honest about that.

That way, everyone is happy: they can have their way of having fun, and I will not see my work destroyed. Hell, they could even improve my work with their errands.

My only concern now is with Munckin and Weak; I'm afraid if I use Pathfinder or 3.5 they could disrupt the flow of sessions by using broken (in both ways) characters. Perhaps I should do the same as with my zone: carefully remove what I think could be broken and letting them have fun with what's left.

Just one question: what does "don't call me Shirley" mean? :smalleek:

[Asheram]

Just one question: what does "don't call me Shirley" mean? :smalleek:

It's a quote from Airplane. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA)

[Amphetryon]

You can give your players incentive to do things, but if it’s not the incentive they’re looking for they will probably demonstrate it by their in game actions. Some examples of player incentives include:
1.Loot
2.Treasure
3.Money
4.Riches
5.Gold
6.Lucre
7.Boodle
8.Booty
9.Dough
10.Graft
11.Goods
12.Items
13.Moolah
14.Pillage
15.Plunder
16.Prizes
17.Spoils
18.Swag
19.Bling

Good list. "Kewl Stuff" is another incentive.

[Mootsmcboots]

I'm amazed how many people's solution here is to take what the players consider fun, put an end to it, and force them to play differently. It's a bit unfair to craft this huge detailed world and then punish them or be upset with them when they run rampant in it in a way you don't like.

There is however, nothing wrong with not wanting to DM a game if you don't like they player's play styles. It might just not be a good fit.

If you want to salvage the game though, a little bit of creativity is all it takes to keep a party on track.

I'd just come up with random events to get players on track as they stray. Don't want to follow that pirate? If I'm that Pirate, the last thing I want is to have a legendary treasure in my sights with a party of people who know who I am and what I am doing. I don't want that word spread. So maybe I send a boat after them, or a party on to land to hunt them down, to silence them.

Won't go fight guy in this tower? Party is wandering? Oh look mysterious cave. RANDOM OGRE, party knocked out, delivered tied up to the tower, or they wake up en route. Providing good incentive to go mess up whoever is responsible for this.

The whole party doesn't help the girl? And guy runs before she can say anything? She could approach the group later. A group of new exceptional people in town? Mysterious stranger helped me and ran? It's fairly reasonable to assume they may know each other, or arrived together. Or could help her hunt down the man who helped her.

The plus side to this is if on the fly is not your forte, this will help you improve in that area. It will make you an even better DM.

I'm a thinks outside the box typle player. I will rarely take the clear path/solution. My DM is encouraging about it. I think he knows, in his wisdom, that all the details, all the storyline, cities etc don't mean anything if the world doesn't feel alive because you are boxed in when it comes to your path or actions. I tie carts to dragons, I leap of bridges, I inadvertently murder old men. Because anything I want to do, my PC does it.

Maybe your players are just testing boundries. Maybe a player death, not malicious, just a reminder that a group is safer, team work usually works best. A player wanders off to often? Good chance for bad guy number 1 to pop up, offer him something mysterious and trap his soul, or kill him as a message to the rest of the party. Stay outa my way or else kinda thing. Give them a reason to stick together and make their dynamic work. Fear, revenge, etc. If I have little investment in my fellow characters, why would I stick around when there is adventure around every corner!

You could also reward the type of play you'd like to encourage with experience bonuses/items. My DM hands out bonuses here and there for great RP, or for doing something creative/exceptional.

When the party does complete something as a unit, a little XP bonus reinforces that behavior. A guy leaves the party for a while? Maybe the others do something and BAM they find a weapon stash! Items for all, except the guy who left. Maybe give him a small item of insignificant value. He won't be empty handed but he'll have wished he was around when I just got a sweet +2 Anarchic Greataxe.

Just don't give bonuses everytime the group splits, as it can be percieved as being punished.

Also, find your players motivations. You have a rebel in a group? Build a RP encounter with a figure of authority, a chance to RP and lash out but in an event you control. If it turns into a fight after he rebels, it's a good time to have the party band together and fight their way out.

Just some ideas.

[Psyren]

My only concern now is with Munckin and Weak; I'm afraid if I use Pathfinder or 3.5 they could disrupt the flow of sessions by using broken (in both ways) characters. Perhaps I should do the same as with my zone: carefully remove what I think could be broken and letting them have fun with what's left.

If you can't get them to change their classes or play differently then this won't be easy to fix; it will be an ongoing process whereby you nerf Munchkin's worst exploits and patch Weak (possibly via windfall items or benevolent possession) to be stronger. 3.5 and PF are simply not well suited to having a low-op and high-op player play at the same table if neither is willing to budge.

[Merellis]

Could always hop onto the other side of the screen and just let one of them DM instead.

Think about it, just need to make a single character and run that. Don't need to worry about what you're going to have to do a ruling on or if any of the players will follow a plot hook.

And you get to sit back and watch one of them try to do it.

[HammeredWharf]

My only concern now is with Munckin and Weak; I'm afraid if I use Pathfinder or 3.5 they could disrupt the flow of sessions by using broken (in both ways) characters. Perhaps I should do the same as with my zone: carefully remove what I think could be broken and letting them have fun with what's left.

You could carefully steer poor optimizers towards classes that are very hard to screw up. In 3.5, that would be druid, beguiler, ToB classes and some others I can't come up with right away.

[dascarletm]

OP: to your idea where the players know nothing, I have an example of this that might suit you.

I have a long time friend, who DMs. We usually roll with different groups, but I heard about this one campaign he made. The characters started knowing nothing. Nothing at all. The just woke up in some space-station. Turns out the DM made their characters, and when they tried to use an ability he'd guide them to abilities they actually had. Similarly, since they didn't know their HP, they only knew if they were mildly wounded, moderatly wounded, or whatever. It added tension, and worked out quite well. Whenever players wanted to do something the DM just had them roll dice, and he'd modify it accordingly all behind the DM screen. This sort of thing worked out quite well and my work out for you too.

[NichG]

My advice would be to do zero prep, make up everything on the fly, at need, filling in the blanks with guesswork if it would take more than 10 seconds to look something up.

The other thing I would add to this is - let the players DM the game for you. If one of them says 'I'm worried about being recognized' start having someone tailing them. Don't bother figuring out why, it just happens, the why will be whatever is convenient - or whatever someone posits as a hypothesis. Someone says 'I refuse to sleep in the slum you chose!', have the first slum burn down during the night. A PC says 'I know everything because I own a library', remember that and have a rare book collector show up asking the PC if he has Tome of Ungodly Powerful Magic That Should Never Have Been Vol. 3, because that's the one volume he's missing.

[Zirconia]

I think the best compromise would be this: I will create a zone (which will be a great city, a country, heck I don't know yet) where they can do everything they want. In that zone I will create a lot of subplots with various factions; instead of having a rich world with one story, I will have a very rich smaller zone with a lot of stories. But the compromise will be that outside of this zone, there is nothing. Yes, there are landscapes, people, animals, but I will prepare nothing. It will be my way of making sure they stay in what I've created, and surely I think it will be appreciated if I'm honest about that.

I agree, I think having both a variety of subplots you can insert where ever/whenever you want, and being flexible with how you insert them will work best for your group.

Example; in city 1 in your original story, as soon as the characters got off the boat, and decided to go give away money, they have to find out where in the city the "poor district" is. Unless someone is familiar with the city, it takes a bit of time and roleplaying. They start heading there, and witness the mugging of the girl. Have it ready to stick in any random set of streets/district, in any city, at any time. And, if they don't seem to want to dive in, maybe one of the muggers jostles the Rebel on the way by and snarls at him to "Stay out of this if you know whats good for you!" Use the tendencies of the players to get them involved.

And if the one player by himself stops the mugging, masked, and runs away, have someone show up later with a message from the princess. Surprise, the girl's guard, who didn't quite arrive in time to save her, DID arrive in time to follow the masked guy and find out where the PCs stay for the night. You can still use that plot, make a few rolls behind the screen to pretend he had to follow the PC.

You can insert and subtract things off stage this way, to make plots work, and if you have a variety of small plots, some in cities, some it villages, some in wilderness, whichever way they go they use some.

And if they immediately want to leave the city you had the girl plot in, and you don't want to transplant it for some reason, maybe there isn't a ship going the way they want for two days. Its not like a modern airline going out of New York City where you can catch a ride every couple hours, make them work when they want to do random stuff.

Starting them in an unknown land might work well, though, as what it allows you to do is when they immediately leave your detailed city to go spend a month in another random one, the random one becomes the city you designed. Keep a fairly blank map and insert things as you use them, and you may only need 2 detailed cities instead of populating 20. Save the details for the ones they use, or just HAVE a couple of cities and a lot of small towns and villages. If they want to go to a city, it is one of the two you designed. Ships to other "countries" are a few a year, and dangerous to sail on, buying you much time to design other countries if they go there.

One way to do this is start them as slaves on a galley, their first adventure is to escape. This simplifies equipment generation as well. :) Their country was overrun by barbarians/undead/demons, survivors had to flee and are now scattered, so there is NOWHERE they know well.

For the munchkin/underpowered folks, I've found the best solution is to work one-on-one with the munchkin on the side when designing/advancing their character to keep them in line, and give out specialized loot to bring up the underpowered characters. I've actually helped my DM design loot for some underpowered players in my game which is much more powerful than I'd allow myself. . .

[Seffbasilisk]

Let Munchkin help Weak in character creation, and give Munchkin a handicap. The better the twink (which I think you mean, like Powergamer rather than a munchkin [odious obnoxious cheating twit]) the more he'll be able to make Tier 3 look awesome.

I suffered three DM nerf-attacks while playing a Rogue/Warmage, who ended up being the party's everything.