Player Events

[jedipotter]

So, other then have generic quests, the other type of adventure you can have in a RPG is a personal one for the character. The classic is a paladin falling from grace, to find another good path. There are countless others: a necromancer learning the dangers of dark magic, a character going insane or a character having a moral question or such.

But how do you do it?

I see three ways:

3.The player, and only the player, can do things that effect their character. So everything, if not started and created by them, must be approved by them. So the player will tell the DM what to do, in some detail. ''I want my character to break the Sword of Truth after he lies, and then go on a quest to reforge it into a greater sword of True Truth. Here is what I want to happen...''

2.The player makes only a vague statement, and leaves the details up to the DM. ''How about I have an evil family member that I must stop...''

1.The DM makes up the event on there own, using what they know about what the player might like or want.


I go for number one myself, but will do a number two once in a while. I think number three is down right crazy and makes no sense. If the player knows ''they will loose their spellbook at 7:30, but then find a better one at 8:00 why even waste the time to play it out? Player-''Oh, no! My spellbook! I'm so, like, sad.... player looks over at the cloak and waits and then at eight ''wow, a new spellbook, I'm so excited!''

[BrokenChord]

I'll do 1 sometimes to throw a curveball at them, but mostly I do something in between 2 and 3. Major events and general resolution can be decided, but I take care of most of what actually happens and toss in some twists.

Like, the player will decide, "I think it'd be cool if the Holy Sword of Prophecy got broken and I went on a quest to find the god who can reforge it." M'kay, I can make that work.

Except the sword was formed at the dawn of the current pantheon, as the prophecy states, infused with the energies of Heironeous and Hextor... Neither of whom had taken a side on the Good/Evil axis yet and were fairly agreeable about working together on the sword at the time. Heironeous will be glad to help if you lay the sword on his main shrine and speak the sacred elderchant, but you may have to get your hands a lot dirtier to convince Hextor to help the world... Is it worth it?

Either way, I've fulfilled the requirements; the sword is reborn by Heironeous' hands, and you gone did the quest to reforge it. But it won't re-awaken into a better weapon than it was before it broke unless you're willing to sink into some Evil activities with potentially long-lasting consequences. Game on.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I go for number one myself, but will do a number two once in a while. I think number three is down right crazy and makes no sense. If the player knows ''they will loose their spellbook at 7:30, but then find a better one at 8:00 why even waste the time to play it out? Player-''Oh, no! My spellbook! I'm so, like, sad.... player looks over at the cloak and waits and then at eight ''wow, a new spellbook, I'm so excited!''
You're strawman-ing here. In practice, there isn't really a line between options 2 and 3-- it just depends on how much detail the player puts into his request. As a DM, I prefer more rather than less. It makes my job easier when the player says "I want to run afoul of my brother Killblood McStabber, an evil warlord with an army of orcs, who wants my blood for an eldrich ritual" instead of "I dunno, something with an evil relative?"

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

This is going to be another thread about so-called problem players. I can feel it in that bit of my ankle that aches when it's cold and about to rain.

[jedipotter]

You're strawman-ing here. In practice, there isn't really a line between options 2 and 3--

2.Two is just a suggestion, with a bit of detail.

3.Is the player making the plans. For more of the ''DM is a player'' type games. Where the DM only does exactly what the players tell them to do. The player here knows the full details, and then just 'acts them out' in the game....(kinda), pretending the character does not know.

[AMFV]

This is going to be another thread about so-called problem players. I can feel it in that bit of my ankle that aches when it's cold and about to rain.

As a courtesy I'll not that bringing prior baggage from previous threads is not permitted in the forum rules. Furthermore, regardless of whether you like or don't like Jedipotter's gaming style, this does not foster a good or productive discussion.


So, other then have generic quests, the other type of adventure you can have in a RPG is a personal one for the character. The classic is a paladin falling from grace, to find another good path. There are countless others: a necromancer learning the dangers of dark magic, a character going insane or a character having a moral question or such.

But how do you do it?


It depends on the quest involved.



3.The player, and only the player, can do things that effect their character. So everything, if not started and created by them, must be approved by them. So the player will tell the DM what to do, in some detail. ''I want my character to break the Sword of Truth after he lies, and then go on a quest to reforge it into a greater sword of True Truth. Here is what I want to happen...''

This can certainly work, at the very least this can provide the DM with the direction the player wants things to go and then the DM can move in that direction or provide obstacles. Basically the player is putting a hook through their nose and allowing the DM to lead them about, because now you know exactly what they want.



2.The player makes only a vague statement, and leaves the details up to the DM. ''How about I have an evil family member that I must stop...''

Well this is slightly less easy to use, since it requires more work on the part of the DM. I would put this as my least favorite out of the three. Since it is lazy on the part of the player, and not necessarily requested by the DM. Although if the player is not very good at coming up with things, but has an idea that is pretty good or well-founded, this is certainly a direction things can move.



1.The DM makes up the event on there own, using what they know about what the player might like or want.

This is common, although the DM must be sure that it is in fact what they like or want.



I go for number one myself, but will do a number two once in a while. I think number three is down right crazy and makes no sense. If the player knows ''they will loose their spellbook at 7:30, but then find a better one at 8:00 why even waste the time to play it out? Player-''Oh, no! My spellbook! I'm so, like, sad.... player looks over at the cloak and waits and then at eight ''wow, a new spellbook, I'm so excited!''

To be fair there isn't always a clear deliniation. I've had to use elements of all three in the same game. Some players have a very good idea of how they want their character arc to go, and will discuss this with you, this is convenient both because it allows you to have less work, but also because you'll know what they consider important or meaningful. The reason people play it out is that the actual event itself is significant, also there's no reason you have to follow exactly what the player says. Maybe they get a new spellbook they can't yet use. Maybe taking the spellbook involves going to another plane, who knows? Just because the ending is known doesn't mean something can't be dramatic or narratively worthwhile.

[Milodiah]

If 2 includes the category of "players providing in-depth backstories, from which the DM can/is expected to draw on whichever and however many parts he wants", then yes, I do that.

[BrokenChord]

If 2 includes the category of "players providing in-depth backstories, from which the DM can/is expected to draw on whichever and however many parts he wants", then yes, I do that.

I'm pretty sure that's number 1 if the player isn't putting direct input on the course of events.

[Jeff the Green]

1 and 2 I would do were it not for the fact that I'm running Expedition to Castle Ravenloft in PbP, in which the PCs are struggling just to survive and find a way home and a series of one-shots across the tabletop for my brothers and cousins, which isn't conducive to side quests anyway.

Number 3 I'm a bit confused about. As you write it it sounds like there exists no potential for deviation from the pre-written plot whether because of dice or interference of PCs and NPCs. If that's what you mean, no, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But then, I've never heard of a DM that would and I've never encountered a player who'd even want such a thing, much less request it.

On the other hand, if you mean the player says he wants his PC to reforge a magic sword and in detail lists all necessary steps in detail as well as likely antagonists in the quest and asks that the other players agree OOC to not steal the glory or work against that PC for this one quest, I'd be fine with it. I'd probably throw in additional complications and antagonists, but I'd make sure the quest is possible and the steps actually do what they're supposed to. (Well, maybe not necessarily the last bit, but I'd consider whether to deviate from the stipulated background very carefully and would make sure that there's an avenue to success even if I make it a bit more circuitous.)

[Mr Beer]

3.The player, and only the player, can do things that effect their character. So everything, if not started and created by them, must be approved by them. So the player will tell the DM what to do, in some detail. ''I want my character to break the Sword of Truth after he lies, and then go on a quest to reforge it into a greater sword of True Truth. Here is what I want to happen...''

<snip>

I think number three is down right crazy and makes no sense. If the player knows ''they will loose their spellbook at 7:30, but then find a better one at 8:00 why even waste the time to play it out? Player-''Oh, no! My spellbook! I'm so, like, sad.... player looks over at the cloak and waits and then at eight ''wow, a new spellbook, I'm so excited!''

Yep that's crazy as described, as in "this is what I get and when I get it, no I can't be thwarted", because then the player is assuming the mantle of player and DM. It doesn't sound like a common scenario to me, but I guess if it happens I'm sure you can discuss it like adults and decide what the ground rules are before agreeing to proceed, or not.

[Ionbound]

I prefer taking a fourth option. Sitting down with your player and talking out how they want the arc to happen, if they want it to happen at all. Some people find it fun to play a staunchly moral paladin, or a necromancer, who, while thoroughly and unrepentantly evil, value their party members (look at Tarquin and Malack for how this would work).

Admittedly, people aren't always mature about their character concepts, particularly on the extreme ends of the good/evil axis, but the point is this; It is not up to the DM to make a paladin fall, or cause a necromancer to 'Learn the error of his ways'. Doing so alienates your player, and creates resentment, which is, I feel the need to explain, a very bad thing.

[bjoern]

I wouldn't like it if something significant happened to my character that I wasn't involved in designing myself.

If I'm playing a playing a paladin and the DMwants the ccampaign to be about my guy falling from grace so he makes me fall and I spend the rest of the campaign trying to get back to where I started I'd be upset.

If I'm a wizard and the DM presents me with a plot hook like
" after talking with your great aunt she tells you of a family heirloom that **some cousin or something** had that was able to grant **some kind of carrot on a stick type power** but was also rumored to be cursed. No one has heard from this cousin for many years. He lives over at **somewhere**."

At this point my fate is in my hands. I can ignore the whole thing, or take the bait and ifiI get cursed then I was warned beforehandso its my own fault.

[One Step Two]

The three given scenarios from the OP aside, I like to generally ask the players, what do they want to achieve in a game for their characters, and then challenge that.

This might come in the form of events taking place in the world around them, such as border skirmishes and the threat of war for example, they need to modify their plans around the troubles that this is causing, or try and solve it, depending on what they intend to do. At the same time there will be other people seeking to challenge, stop or even race them for their objectives. Some players even create rivals in their back-stories, which I will take and flesh out, making them a worthwhile adversary.

The outcomes aren't always clear cut, and never a definite thing as there is always the chance for failure. As an in play example, a player desired to find information about Truenames, because of their power when used on other people. He decided to go rumor hunting, and only made a single check, learning of a wizard who had found a fragment of truespeak, and kept it in his private Museum. Heedless of less than perfect information, he gathered his party, and led them to the Wizards' tower. A short adventure later they found a fragment of carved basalt with an intricate relief. He investigated it and with a fairly good intelligence check, read it aloud which hit everyone with a word of chaos leaving them all defend for a few rounds. It hardly soured him on the idea of finding more about Truespeak, but he was certainly far more cautious about it. As an aside, the player in question was a Sorcerer, and when he read the word, I told him it had burned into his psyche, despite being a cleric spell, he could chose to add the spell to his spells known list when he reached the appropriate level.