"Plot Magic"

[mr_odd]

Lately, there have been frustrations about my game and how I use "Plot Magic." Essentially, the frustration is about events of higher or stronger magic than the players have access to. For example, a demon brands the party with tattoos and claims that he will take their souls in a month if they do not complete the objective he's given them. Another instance (this is the latest example) is the party fled from their material plane to another one. The plane they fled to is practically dead and as such, suppresses the ability to plane shift.

My players' argument is that I'm creating situations that they cannot interact with personally (having to find someone with stronger magic to remove the demon's curse or find more people to cast plane shift). Yet the player who has the most frustration with it has stated repeatedly that he loved a situation in which they only had one option because the object they needed to obtain was hindered by "real magic," dimensional anchor and force wall. Basically, he hated a situation in which he had options as to how to get rid of the demon's curse (do what the demon said, recover a holy site from the church of Pelor, or seek out a powerful semi celestial mage of rumor) but loved a situation that has one resolution all because I used magic from the book.

So what are your thoughts? Personally, I hate the term "Plot Magic." Magic is just magic, regardless of whether it's in the rulebook or not. The PCs don't have access to the highest forms of magic, and if they are going to meddle in the affairs of magical beings and deities, then they are going to experience those levels of magic.

[Yorrin]

Sounds like your players are being pansies that can't handle things they don't understand. I make it clear to my players that the spells in the rulebooks are not the sum total of magic in the universe, and many powerful entities and artifacts exist that "modern magic" cannot explain. The spells PCs have access to essentially represent magic as understood by modern Wizards (or as handed down by modern Druids, or as taught by modern Clerics, etc.), but powerful creatures (archdemons, greater fey, deities, ancient lost civilizations, etc) have access to stuff outside of normal mortal parameters.

[mr_odd]

The player had brought up a different situation involving Babous (can't remember if that's how you spell it). I had made an error in dm-ing and I admitted it. These instances of "Plot Magic" (oh how I hate that term) seem different to me though.

[Longcat]

Your examples sound like pretty heavy handed railroading, with "Plot Magic" being used to strong arm them into following your story. Personally, I would not wish to play in a game where the DM resorts to such arbitrary measures, and your players may feel the same way.

[Demonic Spoon]

Your examples sound like pretty heavy handed railroading, with "Plot Magic" being used to strong arm them into following your story. Personally, I would not wish to play in a game where the DM resorts to such arbitrary measures, and your players may feel the same way.


It's perfectly reasonable that occasionally, things will happen to adventurers that are somewhat out of their control. So long as the players have agency on how to confront those things that are out of their control, there isn't a problem.

[pwykersotz]

I love what you've deemed Plot Magic, both as a player and a DM. The chance to explore new power and new interactions is fun to me. However, there's a big caveat here. A lot of Plot Magic isn't solvable by regular magic, sure. That's fine. But regular magic shouldn't usually be completely powerless. For example, if the party encounters a strange new disease, a restoration should probably at least delay or suppress it for a time. If there's an unstoppable reality breaking horror, forcecage might delay it long enough for a plan to be concocted.

Now on occasion, there's probably going to be something that's wild enough to not be interacted with on any level except the plot, but it my opinion those instances should be fewer and further between.

That said, I have a similar player. Eventually I had to cave. If they don't have fun with certain types of gaming, there's three options. Don't run that type of game, kick them, or keep them and the game and let it poison your table with complaints. Since said gamer was one of my best friends, I stopped running those types of magic for him.

In my opinion, the whole things is a frustration at a meta-game they perceive to exist. They can immerse in the storyline, but they want all the pieces in the game to be recognizable from a gamist perspective. When you introduce new magic, you're essentially cheating. My friend described it to me as he felt he just had to guess whatever was going through my mind and not actually play the game.

I don't agree with him, but I can see his side. I hope that helps.

[mr_odd]

Your examples sound like pretty heavy handed railroading, with "Plot Magic" being used to strong arm them into following your story. Personally, I would not wish to play in a game where the DM resorts to such arbitrary measures, and your players may feel the same way.

I would say that I have both a level of agreement and disagreement. I do have a story, and there are elements of the setting or actions taken by NPCs that put the PCs in certain situations. If a demon curses the party, they have to deal with that. I give them options, or allow the party to come up with creative actions. I try to not present one solution or if I do, I allow players to come up with different ones.

If the demon had used a spell from the book, the player wouldn't complain. The end results don't seem to matter, it's about spells in book or magic I create.

[DireSickFish]

I use plot magic all the time. Usually as some sort of magic ritueal that I make up rules for. Like it needs to be the winter solcast to cast or whatever. Especially in 5th edition where I've been DMing without a DMG and have not taken the opportunity to read all or most of the spells. That said, while I totally find your Plot Magic resonable and engaging, the player disagreeing with how you run is a bigger issue.

I'd most likely keep rolling on using Plot Magic and let him know he's been heard but I don't agree with him. After all DMing has to be fun for you to. Most things are maliable in learning on how to be a good DM and a good fit for any group. Requiring you to do research on spells to find a way to do something you want to do is overkill.

I'd make the argument that it would take up to much of your time planning to make sure everything was a rules legit spell or item. You've got a lot to deal with DMing already and don't want to add this to the pile. It sounds like you do a good job including options which is very important. Good job avoiding that pitfal.

[Deathtongue]

If the demon had used a spell from the book, the player wouldn't complain. The end results don't seem to matter, it's about spells in book or magic I create.

I don't quite agree with that. In a game with discrete and meaningful magical effects like D&D, the 'how' is just as important as the 'why'.

Quick storytime: there's a popular card-game anime (Yu-Gi-Oh!) that does a good job recreating the actual mechanics and feel of the collectible card game. People in the show generally have to use the same cards and rules as people in the real-life counterpart. However, there's also a huge element of luck in the game. Sometimes you'll get a crap hand and lose with a good deck, sometimes someone will draw every card they need. And sometimes you'll completely crush an opponent with them having no chance to fight back. And sometimes both players are at a stalemate and the game drags.

Obviously, the show can't (or rather, doesn't want to) recreate those instances even if they're highly desirable in actual games. People don't want to see a show where the hero regularly gets creamed in the opening round before they can even draw their key card, especially if it was just due to luck. So the writers cheat by having the hero draw cards that would be dramatically appropriate rather than what the laws of probability would state. And while the writers have a lot of tricks at their disposal to hide the fact that the game portion of the card game is mostly a sham, viewers pretty much have to accept the fact that the progression of matches run on narrative logic.

However. One of the shows introduced a mechanic called the 'Shining Draw' which allowed heroes to create new cards that weren't in their deck instead of drawing them -- something that obviously wouldn't be allowed in the actual game the show was based off of. Now, these aren't overpowered cards that you wouldn't see in the actual game and/or a fair match, but it does pretty much allow the characters to in-universe tell the laws of probability to take a hike. As you can imagine, a lot of fans HATED this even though from a metafictional perspective this wasn't anything different than what they were doing all along. Before the Shining Draw, protagonists always managed to draw just the right cards (and contrariwise, managed to evade the opponents' cards) to get them out of whatever obstacles the plot threw at them. Even when characters couldn't Shining Draw, they still managed to draw the exact same Get Out of Jail Free cards that they always did. Nonetheless, the Shining Draw broke that layer of WSoD by admitting that the mechanics of the card game no real bearing as to what was going to happen in the story and pissed a lot of people off.

Plot magic in D&D runs the same risk. D&D will always have magical effects that can't be readily replicated with PC spellcasting or actions. However, they should be used sparingly because leaning on them too heavily reminds people that the gameplay mechanics are ultimately pointless before the needs of the plot and breaks the fourth wall.

[mr_odd]

I don't quite agree with that. In a game with discrete and meaningful magical effects like D&D, the 'how' is just as important as the 'why'.

Quick storytime: there's a popular card-game anime (Yu-Gi-Oh!) that does a good job recreating the actual mechanics and feel of the collectible card game. People in the show generally have to use the same cards and rules as people in the real-life counterpart. However, there's also a huge element of luck in the game. Sometimes you'll get a crap hand and lose with a good deck, sometimes someone will draw every card they need. And sometimes you'll completely crush an opponent with them having no chance to fight back. And sometimes both players are at a stalemate and the game drags.

Obviously, the show can't (or rather, doesn't want to) recreate those instances even if they're highly desirable in actual games. People don't want to see a show where the hero regularly gets creamed in the opening round before they can even draw their key card, especially if it was just due to luck. So the writers cheat by having the hero draw cards that would be dramatically appropriate rather than what the laws of probability would state. And while the writers have a lot of tricks at their disposal to hide the fact that the game portion of the card game is mostly a sham, viewers pretty much have to accept the fact that the progression of matches run on narrative logic.

However. One of the shows introduced a mechanic called the 'Shining Draw' which allowed heroes to create new cards that weren't in their deck instead of drawing them -- something that obviously wouldn't be allowed in the actual game the show was based off of. Now, these aren't overpowered cards that you wouldn't see in the actual game and/or a fair match, but it does pretty much allow the characters to in-universe tell the laws of probability to take a hike. As you can imagine, a lot of fans HATED this even though from a metafictional perspective this wasn't anything different than what they were doing all along. Before the Shining Draw, protagonists always managed to draw just the right cards (and contrariwise, managed to evade the opponents' cards) to get them out of whatever obstacles the plot threw at them. Even when characters couldn't Shining Draw, they still managed to draw the exact same Get Out of Jail Free cards that they always did. Nonetheless, the Shining Draw broke that layer of WSoD by admitting that the mechanics of the card game no real bearing as to what was going to happen in the story and pissed a lot of people off.

Plot magic in D&D runs the same risk. D&D will always have magical effects that can't be readily replicated with PC spellcasting or actions. However, they should be used sparingly because leaning on them too heavily reminds people that the gameplay mechanics are ultimately pointless before the needs of the plot and breaks the fourth wall.

Hmm, this was pretty insightful. Thank you for your comment!

[Starsinger]

If the demon had used a spell from the book, the player wouldn't complain. The end results don't seem to matter, it's about spells in book or magic I create.

It seems to me that this particular player's actual problem is he knows the rules and is upset that you're introducing "additional" rules, which is your right as the DM.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quick storytime: there's a popular card-game anime (Yu-Gi-Oh!) that does a good job recreating the actual mechanics and feel of the collectible card game. People in the show generally have to use the same cards and rules as people in the real-life counterpart. However, there's also a huge element of luck in the game. Sometimes you'll get a crap hand and lose with a good deck, sometimes someone will draw every card they need. And sometimes you'll completely crush an opponent with them having no chance to fight back. And sometimes both players are at a stalemate and the game drags.

...


I don't think that applies. It was potentially problematic because the world of Yu-Gi-Oh was initially presented to have a particular kind of internal consistency - you only have cards you came in with. That new mechanic breaks internal consistency of an established world.

The Player's Handbook's spells are never presented as the complete list of all magic possible in the D&D universe ever - it's a list of options for the player. Nothing about new spells or magical creatures breaks internal consistency.

[Deathtongue]

I don't think that applies. It was potentially problematic because the world of Yu-Gi-Oh was initially presented to have a particular kind of internal consistency - you only have cards you came in with. That new mechanic breaks internal consistency of an established world.

The Player's Handbook's spells are never presented as the complete list of all magic possible in the D&D universe ever - it's a list of options for the player. Nothing about new spells or magical creatures breaks internal consistency.

But that's how it worked in YGO, too. If someone says that a duelist can't draw seven cards in the opening hand or attack on the first turn, someone can say that they have a previously unintroduced card in their hand or extra deck that lets them do so. If someone says that cards can't steal the soul of the loser after they're played or that they couldn't be played if both participants were on motorbikes, the opponent sneers and says that they're just using a card or variant rules that never heard of before and it's their fault if they can't anticipate the curveballs. People in the series did use previously unintroduced magic in their matches that influenced the flow of the duel before, such as a fortuneteller being able to predict coin-tosses that activated certain effects of cards or certain card spirits preventing opponents from cheating. Nonetheless, the Shining Draw mechanic was a bridge too far for most people and was probably the most hated idea of the show.

All in all, while the internal consistency of the show could and did change at a moment's notice, it strove to eschew 'you've just never seen this card or game mechanic effect before, suck it up' as an excuse for new rules. New card categories get introduced at the beginning of a new series (which take place some time in the future with a brand new cast for added versimilitude insurance), theme decks that worked significantly differently from the norm got sufficient foreshadowing and were made important to the plot, etc.. Because introducing plot magic egregiously or carelessly breaks peoples' WSoD even if the actual effect on the (fictional representation of the) game or story is minor. The lesson for using D&D plot magic is similar.

[silveralen]

I don't think that applies. It was potentially problematic because the world of Yu-Gi-Oh was initially presented to have a particular kind of internal consistency - you only have cards you came in with. That new mechanic breaks internal consistency of an established world.

The Player's Handbook's spells are never presented as the complete list of all magic possible in the D&D universe ever - it's a list of options for the player. Nothing about new spells or magical creatures breaks internal consistency.

When those new spells seem to break the established rules of magic it might. For example, the demon basically stole the souls from the party without, I assume, a save. That's pretty inconsistent with the magic spells and abilities shown in 5e.

So the new spells can break internal consistency if they obviously don't fit the established pattern, and one of them in 5e is that offensive/antagonistic magic always has a chance for failure.

[Demonic Spoon]

When those new spells seem to break the established rules of magic it might. For example, the demon basically stole the souls from the party without, I assume, a save. That's pretty inconsistent with the magic spells and abilities shown in 5e.

So the new spells can break internal consistency if they obviously don't fit the established pattern, and one of them in 5e is that offensive/antagonistic magic always has a chance for failure.


We don't have details, but (aside from the lack of save), it kind of sounds more like a Geas and less like stealing a soul.


But that's how it worked in YGO, too. If someone says that a duelist can't draw seven cards in the opening hand or attack on the first turn, someone can say that they have a previously unintroduced card in their hand or extra deck that lets them do so. If someone says that cards can't steal the soul of the loser after they're played or that they couldn't be played if both participants were on motorbikes, the opponent sneers and says that they're just using a card or variant rules that never heard of before and it's their fault if they can't anticipate the curveballs. People in the series did use previously unintroduced magic in their matches that influenced the flow of the duel before, such as a fortuneteller being able to predict coin-tosses that activated certain effects of cards or certain card spirits preventing opponents from cheating. Nonetheless, the Shining Draw mechanic was a bridge too far for most people and was probably the most hated idea of the show.

All in all, while the internal consistency of the show could and did change at a moment's notice, it strove to eschew 'you've just never seen this card or game mechanic effect before, suck it up' as an excuse for new rules. New card categories get introduced at the beginning of a new series (which take place some time in the future with a brand new cast for added versimilitude insurance), theme decks that worked significantly differently from the norm got sufficient foreshadowing and were made important to the plot, etc.. Because introducing plot magic egregiously or carelessly breaks peoples' WSoD even if the actual effect on the (fictional representation of the) game or story is minor. The lesson for using D&D plot magic is similar.


But "you've never seen this before, but it always existed" is perfectly reasonable in D&D - that doesn't break internal consistency. Internal consistency is broken when you introduce something new and there's no sufficient explanation as to why it wasn't there before

[Person_Man]

Sounds like your problem is railroading, not plot magic.

I don't think players would have trouble if you established that in the cosmology of your game world, the evil demon Mephistopheles has the power to create unbreakable magical pacts, and the players make such a pact, and then have to deal with the consequences. They hate it when a demon just shows up and magically brands them, and then they can't use the magical spells their characters have using the descriptions as written.

Similarly, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you establishing that in the cosmology of your game world the Plane of the Dead is easy to get to (you die and your soul is transported there for holding until it is judged, or you can use magic to Plane Shift there) but you cannot leave except through a single portal guarded by the God of the Dead. They just hate when they Plane Shift and then you announce they can't leave.

There's nothing wrong with magic that PCs can't access. But you need to introduce it to them first as an organic part of the game world, and allow their choices to determine how they interact with it. D

[silveralen]

We don't have details, but (aside from the lack of save), it kind of sounds more like a Geas and less like stealing a soul.

But "you've never seen this before, but it always existed" is perfectly reasonable in D&D - that doesn't break internal consistency. Internal consistency is broken when you introduce something new and there's no sufficient explanation as to why it wasn't there before

Okay, he laid a Geas on them without a saving throw. That is also got a nastier downside and is much harder to overcome (because spamming dispel magic eventually fixes Geas). So this guy is tossing around magic that makes level 9 (or 8?) spells look pathetic in comparison.

Unless the demon in question is more correctly a god of hell, this would break my immersion to hell and back because it isn't just rail roading, it's obvious and heavy handed rail roading. Which seems to be the player's issue, he doesn't mind being led along he just dislikes it being super obvious and over the top.

[Deathtongue]

But "you've never seen this before, but it always existed" is perfectly reasonable in D&D - that doesn't break internal consistency.

1.) But that's true for most any fiction that doesn't explicitly close its circle of special effects. If Marvel Comics introduced the powerset of Hamon and Stands from JJBA, they could always say that it's just something that was recently invented/was always there -- most people (including the reader presumably) just never noticed. That's, after all, the excuse they used for actual mutants. Same for Star Wars introducing Final Fantasy-style magic (some mages outside of known space practiced this!) or the MegaMan universe having psionics (interacting with EM beings unlocked humans' latent mental powers blah de blah). Saying that people should overlook a new effect because it doesn't break an incompletely-specified internal consistency is ultimately an unconvincing excuse. There will always be parts of the fictional universe that are unexamined or misunderstood and the author can always make them relevant.

2.) Internal consistency is a means, not an end. Internal consistency is a(n arguably) necessary but not sufficient condition of upholding the actual end of Willing Suspension of Disbelief. If you say that my curry tasted awful, it is not a convincing excuse for me to proclaim that I used the finest cut of beef -- even if I say that bad cuts of meat are the #1 thing that can ruin a curry.

[Slipperychicken]

Sounds like your problem is railroading, not plot magic.

Came in mostly to say this. The OP's scenarios reek of very obvious railroading.

[DireSickFish]

Came in mostly to say this. The OP's scenarios reek of very obvious railroading.

I disagree, it sounds like he actually left the players multiple solutions to solve the problems. Either complying with the gease or finding a way to remove it. A variety of ways to remove it, and seems willing ot listen to players for ideas on what to do about it.

He's also said that the player has no problem when there -is- only one solution because it provides a clear objective for the next thing to do. As long as everything is presented to him with mechanics in the book.

I really don't think railroading is the specific problem in this instance.

[MaxWilson]

I hate the idea of "plot magic" as described in the OP in the same way I hate the Harry Potter magic system: the only laws it obeys are dramatic laws, not physical laws. My guess is that your player is a simulationist who derives much of his enjoyment of D&D from interacting with and exploring the mechanics of the game system and its subsystems and its implications for the world. If he could be persuaded that there is actually a subsystem which the demon is using to steal his soul with no save or range limit (e.g. it's doable once per century, requires 5000 dead souls and the PC's truename which the demon learned by capturing the dead soul of the midwife who birthed the PC) a lot of the unpleasantness would dissipate for him... But he doesn't believe that, he thinks you just pulled this trick out of thin air because it was dramatically convenient. Basically, you're messing with the Exploration pillar of the game from his perspective and sucking the meaning out of his interactions with it.

That is my perception based on what had been written. If your game is going to continue having Plot Magic he should probably find another game/table. Let him know that not everybody runs games this way, and maybe point him to a DM with a more simulationist style.

[Person_Man]

I disagree, it sounds like he actually left the players multiple solutions to solve the problems. Either complying with the gease or finding a way to remove it. A variety of ways to remove it, and seems willing ot listen to players for ideas on what to do about it.

He's also said that the player has no problem when there -is- only one solution because it provides a clear objective for the next thing to do. As long as everything is presented to him with mechanics in the book.

I really don't think railroading is the specific problem in this instance.

In both of the situations presented by mr_odd, the players are incapable of refusing the call to adventure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefusalOfTheCall). They can't pursue their own agendas. They can't seek out some other adventure. In the second example, they can't even decide to go to a different location, because he's basically thrown up invisible walls that prevent the normal functioning of their spells.

Which is perfectly ok if you're playing a module and everyone knows it, or you just tell the players before the campaign starts that its going to be a railroaded adventure where X and Y spells don't function normally and they agree to it. But to start a normal campaign and then prevent the players from using the game tools that are normally at their disposal in order to force their participation in a per-ordained plot is, to me, the very definition of railroading.

[DireSickFish]

In both of the situations presented by mr_odd, the players are incapable of refusing the call to adventure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefusalOfTheCall). They can't pursue their own agendas. They can't seek out some other adventure. In the second example, they can't even decide to go to a different location, because he's basically thrown up invisible walls that prevent the normal functioning of their spells.

True once they are on this plane or tattooed by the demon it is a thing they have to deal with. We don't know what led up to them being trapped, it could have come as a consequence to something they initiated. But that is splitting hairs.

I guess I'm okay with this sort of railroading if you are only railroading them to deal with whatever problem you have cooked up. I have always thought that limiting solutions was the wort part of railroading. When I DM it is very frustrating when the players walk away from an adventure mid adventure. That means I've failed to make it interesting enough to continue. But I suppose it is better than forcing them down it against there will.

[Xetheral]

An added advantage to using "plot magic" extremely sparingly (particularly when it comes to countering player abilities) is that it can become it's own plot hook. When a spell unexpectedly fizzles or has an odd result, the players will want to know why and will investigate, but only if they don't think their DM is railroading or arbitrarily restricting them.

When you DO use "plot magic", have an in-game explanation available if the players try to dig in their spare time--it will make your world seem more immersive. (And if they don't dig, you can re-use the same explanation next time.) This works when you make a mistake with the rules too... I've had entire delightful plot threads arise spontaneously from misremembering a rule and choosing to weave the mistake into the narrative rather than cop to it. (Obviously, don't overuse this either.)

[mr_odd]

Okay, he laid a Geas on them without a saving throw. That is also got a nastier downside and is much harder to overcome (because spamming dispel magic eventually fixes Geas). So this guy is tossing around magic that makes level 9 (or 8?) spells look pathetic in comparison.

Unless the demon in question is more correctly a god of hell, this would break my immersion to hell and back because it isn't just rail roading, it's obvious and heavy handed rail roading. Which seems to be the player's issue, he doesn't mind being led along he just dislikes it being super obvious and over the top.

The demon was the second most powerful creature in the nine hells.


Came in mostly to say this. The OP's scenarios reek of very obvious railroading.


In both of the situations presented by mr_odd, the players are incapable of refusing the call to adventure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefusalOfTheCall). They can't pursue their own agendas. They can't seek out some other adventure. In the second example, they can't even decide to go to a different location, because he's basically thrown up invisible walls that prevent the normal functioning of their spells.

Which is perfectly ok if you're playing a module and everyone knows it, or you just tell the players before the campaign starts that its going to be a railroaded adventure where X and Y spells don't function normally and they agree to it. But to start a normal campaign and then prevent the players from using the game tools that are normally at their disposal in order to force their participation in a per-ordained plot is, to me, the very definition of railroading.

This was to start off the campaign next semester. People had the options of making new characters or playing with preexisting ones. I told the events that lead up to them being on the new plane. It isn't an issue now, because we both thought he would be getting level 7 spells (everyone was auto-advancing to level 12), assuming he continued to play his wizard. Since it was null and void, I decided that the suppression wouldn't exist. Regardless, this spell wasn't something he already had to begin with.


I hate the idea of "plot magic" as described in the OP in the same way I hate the Harry Potter magic system: the only laws it obeys are dramatic laws, not physical laws. My guess is that your player is a simulationist who derives much of his enjoyment of D&D from interacting with and exploring the mechanics of the game system and its subsystems and its implications for the world. If he could be persuaded that there is actually a subsystem which the demon is using to steal his soul with no save or range limit (e.g. it's doable once per century, requires 5000 dead souls and the PC's truename which the demon learned by capturing the dead soul of the midwife who birthed the PC) a lot of the unpleasantness would dissipate for him... But he doesn't believe that, he thinks you just pulled this trick out of thin air because it was dramatically convenient. Basically, you're messing with the Exploration pillar of the game from his perspective and sucking the meaning out of his interactions with it.

That is my perception based on what had been written. If your game is going to continue having Plot Magic he should probably find another game/table. Let him know that not everybody runs games this way, and maybe point him to a DM with a more simulationist style.

This explains the situation pretty well.

[Shining Wrath]

I agree with the general consensus: yes, there's magic not in the PHB; and yes, a DM can be too heavy-handed in forcing the characters to follow the story as he or she envisaged it.

[Kyutaru]

For example, a demon brands the party with tattoos and claims that he will take their souls in a month if they do not complete the objective he's given them.
Geas spell with soul entrapment as the punishment.


Another instance (this is the latest example) is the party fled from their material plane to another one. The plane they fled to is practically dead and as such, suppresses the ability to plane shift.
Null magic zones or disconnection to the Weave. One-way trip for plane-shifters.



You're using real magic. The player's handbook describes fireball as a Fire-based AOE burst. However, you're entitled to create Acidball as an Acid-based AOE burst. Just expect your players to begin hunting for any magic they see used against them.

[Nargrakhan]

I agree with the general consensus: yes, there's magic not in the PHB; and yes, a DM can be too heavy-handed in forcing the characters to follow the story as he or she envisaged it.

IMHO the secret to successful GM railroading, is the same as winning a heated argument: let the other guy think your way is his idea/choice. Railroading is fine... as long as the players aren't aware it's happening. You can't be too overt. Too forceful. Too much for the players to willingly accept as an appropriate effect to whatever their causing.

Easier said than done of course, but magnificent when properly pulled. Plus that epic feeling you get, when your players are constantly wondering why that smug grin keeps crossing your face every so often...

[Naanomi]

I generally make a point of mentioning there is 'high ritual magic' requiring multiple casters, extreme material componants, substantial risk to use, multi-day+ casting times, and/or specific location/time requirements to use (say to make magic items or threaten the world) that players can learn and use but no class learns as they level up.

5e seems to imply the same: the ritual to summon Tiamat certainly isn't on a spell list but is happening in module plot.

[Kyutaru]

The player's handbook also has only a small sample of the types of magic spells you are permitted to have in your campaign. Players and DMs can and will research and create their own.

[MaxWilson]

Lately, there have been frustrations about my game and how I use "Plot Magic." Essentially, the frustration is about events of higher or stronger magic than the players have access to. For example, a demon brands the party with tattoos and claims that he will take their souls in a month if they do not complete the objective he's given them.

I just thought of another hilarious way this could go down. The demon could be lying.

DM: The demon brands you with tattoos and evilly informs you that, unless you do his bidding, the tattoos will take your souls in a month.
Player: Wait. What? With no save? Even 9th level spells can't do that! Even a Geas only inflicts 5d10 damage per day!
DM: So, are you going to cooperate, or are you going to call his bluff and just walk away?
Player: ...

[pwykersotz]

I just thought of another hilarious way this could go down. The demon could be lying.

DM: The demon brands you with tattoos and evilly informs you that, unless you do his bidding, the tattoos will take your souls in a month.
Player: Wait. What? With no save? Even 9th level spells can't do that! Even a Geas only inflicts 5d10 damage per day!
DM: So, are you going to cooperate, or are you going to call his bluff and just walk away?
Player: ...

I thought the same thing. The NPC can CLAIM anything he wants. But is it just a ruse? :smallbiggrin:

[toapat]

*snip*

actually, the TV show basically threw out the rules after season 2. If you actually play any TCG though you know its actually pretty accurate in that your shuffle will probably be the most dramatic or disappointing it can be. I have 1 Gissela in my deck. and i seem to almost always draw her despite doing at minimum of 7 shuffles per deck search, and typically right at 6 mana.

[Dalebert]

It seems to me that this particular player's actual problem is he knows the rules and is upset that you're introducing "additional" rules, which is your right as the DM.

True, and I'm well-known for introducing a lot of non-book material and occasional house rules. However, it does call for a certain tactfulness. Players come to the table with certain rules in mind. They've made their characters based on that and make a lot of choices based on that. If you pull a fast one on them in the middle of the game, it can be really frustrating. I do think a certain amount of transparency is called for. Whenever I fail to bring something up like that, and it affects a decision a player has made, I always try to make some sort of allowance for that, possibly even letting them retcon something. Ideally you present most of that up front if at all possible.

[MaxWilson]

IMHO the secret to successful GM railroading, is the same as winning a heated argument: let the other guy think your way is his idea/choice. Railroading is fine... as long as the players aren't aware it's happening. You can't be too overt. Too forceful. Too much for the players to willingly accept as an appropriate effect to whatever their causing.

Easier said than done of course, but magnificent when properly pulled. Plus that epic feeling you get, when your players are constantly wondering why that smug grin keeps crossing your face every so often...

Is this like the story of the DM who gives the party a T-intersection in a dungeon, with an arrow pointing left and a sign that says, "Go Right!" and then watches them argue for an hour over which way to go... but has only one room planned no matter which direction they pick?

[Nargrakhan]

Is this like the story of the DM who gives the party a T-intersection in a dungeon, with an arrow pointing left and a sign that says, "Go Right!" and then watches them argue for an hour over which way to go... but has only one room planned no matter which direction they pick?

Exactly stuff like that. :smallcool:

[Angelalex242]

Plot Magic is a fine idea.

In Video Games, they're called 'Cutscenes.' Specifically 'Cutscene Power to the Max'

If your game is going to have cutscenes, that's cool, though such a videogame attitude is not for everyone.

[JAL_1138]

Plot Magic is a fine idea.

In Video Games, they're called 'Cutscenes.' Specifically 'Cutscene Power to the Max'

If your game is going to have cutscenes, that's cool, though such a videogame attitude is not for everyone.

Not all plot magic, i.e., "the PCs don't have it," has to be videogame cutscene style. The Lady of Pain, for example. Her stats are "YOU LOSE." Even if you're literally playing as Pelor or Bahamut, "YOU LOSE." But players don't seem to mind when the Lady does it...because it's been established in lore that she can. They may hate her, they may fear her, but if the DM says "she just kills you, no save, because Lady of Pain" no one can really argue she can't do that after she killed a god (Aoskar, god of portals) with zero apparent effort, and it's widely known she did that. It's known she can kill gods with a thought, known that she can flay you alive with her shadow, and known that she can Maze you (in a way completely different from the Maze spell PCs get), from the very moment you set foot in Sigil. Not what I'd call a cutscene--a cutscene is when the player's agency (usually in a situation they really ought to have it) is taken away or something is pulled out of thin air in a contrived way to make a planned scene stay on the rails. Setup is the key.

If the demon is known to be only a step below Tharizdun and chief general of the Blood War, who is reputed to have soul-stealing abilities beyond mortal magic, and the players know that, it more than likely won't feel contrived even to someone who values the exploration side of things. If there's some reason for said demon to show up, not just pop in and go "lol noob im in ur adventure stealin ur soles," anyway.

[MaxWilson]

If the demon is known to be only a step below Tharizdun and chief general of the Blood War, who is reputed to have soul-stealing abilities beyond mortal magic, and the players know that, it more than likely won't feel contrived even to someone who values the exploration side of things. If there's some reason for said demon to show up, not just pop in and go "lol noob im in ur adventure stealin ur soles," anyway.

The player would still want to know "why doesn't he do this to everybody/can he do this to everybody?" Or at least he would want to feel that the DM had a satisfactory answer to this question in mind, even if the player didn't know what it was.

[Feldarove]

I love what you've deemed Plot Magic, both as a player and a DM. The chance to explore new power and new interactions is fun to me. However, there's a big caveat here. A lot of Plot Magic isn't solvable by regular magic, sure. That's fine. But regular magic shouldn't usually be completely powerless. For example, if the party encounters a strange new disease, a restoration should probably at least delay or suppress it for a time. If there's an unstoppable reality breaking horror, forcecage might delay it long enough for a plan to be concocted.

Now on occasion, there's probably going to be something that's wild enough to not be interacted with on any level except the plot, but it my opinion those instances should be fewer and further between.

That said, I have a similar player. Eventually I had to cave. If they don't have fun with certain types of gaming, there's three options. Don't run that type of game, kick them, or keep them and the game and let it poison your table with complaints. Since said gamer was one of my best friends, I stopped running those types of magic for him.

In my opinion, the whole things is a frustration at a meta-game they perceive to exist. They can immerse in the storyline, but they want all the pieces in the game to be recognizable from a gamist perspective. When you introduce new magic, you're essentially cheating. My friend described it to me as he felt he just had to guess whatever was going through my mind and not actually play the game.

I don't agree with him, but I can see his side. I hope that helps.


I agree fully with this. Its a good idea of how to handle the situation.

Like one person stated, it sounds like they are being pansies, but hey, they are your players. If they aren't in to a certain thing, try and change. If you find you don't like running games without "Plot Magic" (For reasons other than being bitter), then reevaluate everything.

I like plot magic, but also, my player's love to shout out "deus ex machina" whenever it comes up (regardless if its entirely accurate). But we all generally agree that having a neato story is better than being muddled in rules lawyering (least I think we agree....wait we must agree, dammit I am the DM agree with me!)

Related but not, I tell all of my player's that they are playing Adventurer's. They can make whatever adventurer they want, however they want, with the only rule being....when given the choice to Adventure or something else, you always choose adventure. Because I hate when your player decides he'd rather farm then go save the princess.

[silveralen]

The demon was the second most powerful creature in the nine hells.

Which still begs numerous questions: how did they come to his attention, can he simply do this to anyone, if so why doesn't he? In fact, why does he need the adventurers to do stuff for him?

If all this was answered adequately, then yeah I'd side on the side of not breaking immersion.

[Naanomi]

Which still begs numerous questions: how did they come to his attention, can he simply do this to anyone, if so why doesn't he? In fact, why does he need the adventurers to do stuff for him
I can imagine adequate answers to them... let's say the demon can do it to anyone, but it is a significant expenditure of his power. However the artifact he needs stolen for (demon reasons, maybe under orders from a demon prince to exploit his tattoo powers) is specifically warded against fiends.

The party coming to his attention was happenstance: he needs someone close to the artifact who can get past the wards, strong enough to get out once the job is done, but with a good enough reputation to be let in to begin with. The party was the closest group to meet those requirements without also being so strong as to threaten him directly.

Of course, realistically the plot line could play out without the players ever knowing any of that, especially if they don't investigate.

[mr_odd]

Which still begs numerous questions: how did they come to his attention, can he simply do this to anyone, if so why doesn't he? In fact, why does he need the adventurers to do stuff for him?

If all this was answered adequately, then yeah I'd side on the side of not breaking immersion.


I can imagine adequate answers to them... let's say the demon can do it to anyone, but it is a significant expenditure of his power. However the artifact he needs stolen for (demon reasons, maybe under orders from a demon prince to exploit his tattoo powers) is specifically warded against fiends.

The party coming to his attention was happenstance: he needs someone close to the artifact who can get past the wards, strong enough to get out once the job is done, but with a good enough reputation to be let in to begin with. The party was the closest group to meet those requirements without also being so strong as to threaten him directly.

Of course, realistically the plot line could play out without the players ever knowing any of that, especially if they don't investigate.

A powerful sorceress was "stealing" demons from under his rule, some through magic and others through politics. Disguised as an old man, he gave the PCs coins that shifted them to his home world where he would be able to brand them. He needed adventurers to hunt down the sorceress so that he would not ignite a demon war and lose the majority of his minions. The adventurers were already hunting her (hired by a third party, many people were hunting her down), so the demon took advantage of the situation.

The party did not seek to find any answers, and took the route that would reveal the least information. Had they gone through Pelor or following the demon's orders, they would have learned more.

[Tiber]

One thing I haven't seen brought up: how clearly is your plot magic laid out? Does it have specific limitations? If the player comes up with a solution you didn't anticipate, do you decide if this solution will work based on said rules, or based on how it fits the story?

It's one thing to homebrew a spell that a powerful demon knows that players can't ever learn. It's another thing if the spell's true capabilities are made up on the spot and subject to change. And of course, what really matters is whether the player believes it's the former or the latter.

[mr_odd]

One thing I haven't seen brought up: how clearly is your plot magic laid out? Does it have specific limitations? If the player comes up with a solution you didn't anticipate, do you decide if this solution will work based on said rules, or based on how it fits the story?

It's one thing to homebrew a spell that a powerful demon knows that players can't ever learn. It's another thing if the spell's true capabilities are made up on the spot and subject to change. And of course, what really matters is whether the player believes it's the former or the latter.

I usually lay out in my mind what exactly the magic does and what would work to counteract it. If players actively want to learn more about it and are capable of doing so, then I make my thought of the magic more concrete so that I can give accurate and solid information to the player. The problem is, the players will try things that do not work, get frustrated and say they are incapable of interacting with it, and then not learn more about it.

For instance, (since the demons seems to be a popular example) I knew what the magic would do, it held a lock on their souls, it could only be cast in the homeworld, and would take a celestial or demon of strong strong strong magic to release the lock.

[Rallicus]

Players are always going to prefer stuff grabbed from the books. Even if you're railroading them. To take an example from 3.5, forcing your players to drink oathbeer would probably be preferred over the demon mark.

A gate to a room hovering in the clouds with an anti-magic field would probably be preferred to a plane with no magic casting. It's essentially the same.

Why is this? I think it's because the rules for such things are written down and defined, so even if it's a low blow to the players, it feels less like "I'm making stuff up to challenge you" and more like "I'm implementing a feature from the books to challenge you."

Either way, as a DM you're always going to have complaints about being out to get the players when trying to challenge them. For instance, I had a player in my last session throw a fit because the party was attacked while bathing. This was considered "punishment for role-playing" even though they'd been attacked in this very same inn before, had been given a recently identified wand of alarm, and had just found out the head guard was corrupt and working against them.

I mean, could I have dropped any MORE hints?

[JAL_1138]

For instance, I had a player in my last session throw a fit because the party was attacked while bathing. This was considered "punishment for role-playing" even though they'd been attacked in this very same inn before, had been given a recently identified wand of alarm, and had just found out the head guard was corrupt and working against them.

I mean, could I have dropped any MORE hints?

Now that's just being silly. If you have a wand of alarm, that goes up every time you take your armor off, end of discussion. And you still post at least two people in full gear on watch anyway. Also, move the furniture in front of the door and rig the window to ring a bell (or dislodge something that lands very loudly) if opened. (And never stay another night in the same inn if you've been attacked there once, if you can help it, but sometimes it's your only option besides rope trick or tiny hut)

[Person_Man]

I guess I'm okay with this sort of railroading if you are only railroading them to deal with whatever problem you have cooked up. I have always thought that limiting solutions was the wort part of railroading. When I DM it is very frustrating when the players walk away from an adventure mid adventure. That means I've failed to make it interesting enough to continue. But I suppose it is better than forcing them down it against there will.

DM Protip: Never plan more then one game session ahead. There is a very, very high chance that players will screw up whatever plot you plan, regardless of how carefully you plan it or however many alternative solutions you think up. And if they feel like you are railroading them, many players will resent it.

Instead, just come up with (or buy) an interesting setting, fill it with interesting NPCs with nefarious agendas, adventure locations filled with monsters and cool stuff, throw out several plot hooks to give them some place to start, and let the PCs decide what to do. Then at the end of each game session, have the world progress a bit in whatever way seems most organic/logical/fun. Did the players refuse to investigate the Dread Demon? Oh well, I guess the Demon is starting to take over the world and start an Evil Empire. Did the players decide they wanted to rob the MagicMart instead of listening taking the storekeeper's quest to protect it from the Thieves' Guild? Well now they've got a pissed storekeeper and a pissed Thieves' Guild coming after them?

And so on.

If I want to play a game with a predetermined plot, I prefer to play a video game. The whole point of tabletop games is that you can create a new story together.

[MaxWilson]

Now that's just being silly. If you have a wand of alarm, that goes up every time you take your armor off, end of discussion. And you still post at least two people in full gear on watch anyway. Also, move the furniture in front of the door and rig the window to ring a bell (or dislodge something that lands very loudly) if opened. (And never stay another night in the same inn if you've been attacked there once, if you can help it, but sometimes it's your only option besides rope trick or tiny hut)

Not in an inn, because it's useless there. Unless these are private baths where no one else is supposed to enter?

[Dalebert]

I remember when my players thought I was railroading them. The sheriff of a city had a mission for them and they were super suspicious of it being a trap. For some reason, my players are really paranoid and think everyone is scheming to get them even though I really don't run my game that way. I'm assuming it's a carryover from other DM's being super cliche.

Anyway, so an NPC did something ever so slightly weird (he was weird and had a secret but he wasn't out to get them) and they bailed on the mission suddenly. Then they traveled out of town to the baroness of the region to seek out an adventure. Well... she was very glad to see them because the sheriff back in Chesswick had a task that required some unique skills.

One of them said "God wants us to go on this mission", God meaning me of course, implying I was railroading them. But what did they expect? Who did they think the sheriff gets his orders from? They bailed on one guy and went straight to his boss. *shrug*

[Xetheral]

DM Protip: Never plan more then one game session ahead. There is a very, very high chance that players will screw up whatever plot you plan, regardless of how carefully you plan it or however many alternative solutions you think up. And if they feel like you are railroading them, many players will resent it.

This is very good advice. Additionally, one can have several ideas in mind for future sessions, but be extremely flexible on how you arrive there. If the players' choices lead you towards one of your planned ideas, great! If not, then improvise, and save your planned sessions for another occasion (or even campaign). In the meantime, occasional foreshadowing about those future sessions will give your game a more cohesive (and epic) feel once those sessions arrive even when the actual progression from one session to another is spontaneous and unplanned.

[pwykersotz]

DM Protip: Never plan more then one game session ahead. There is a very, very high chance that players will screw up whatever plot you plan, regardless of how carefully you plan it or however many alternative solutions you think up. And if they feel like you are railroading them, many players will resent it.

Instead, just come up with (or buy) an interesting setting, fill it with interesting NPCs with nefarious agendas, adventure locations filled with monsters and cool stuff, throw out several plot hooks to give them some place to start, and let the PCs decide what to do. Then at the end of each game session, have the world progress a bit in whatever way seems most organic/logical/fun. Did the players refuse to investigate the Dread Demon? Oh well, I guess the Demon is starting to take over the world and start an Evil Empire. Did the players decide they wanted to rob the MagicMart instead of listening taking the storekeeper's quest to protect it from the Thieves' Guild? Well now they've got a pissed storekeeper and a pissed Thieves' Guild coming after them?

And so on.

If I want to play a game with a predetermined plot, I prefer to play a video game. The whole point of tabletop games is that you can create a new story together.

The exception that I make to this is when I design dungeons. I never plan reactions because I can't predict what the players will do. But I can plan out the environment to glorious detail. Usually I get 2-3 sessions out of a good dungeon. More than that and there's too much work and the party gets bored.

[MaxWilson]

I second/third/fourth/whatever the advice about planning out what's going on in your campaign world but not necessarily planning out which threads the players are going to get involved in. E.g. maybe you know the king's advisor is a Rakshasa, there's a crashed spelljamming ship in the mountains and the mind flayer who came with it (with their ex-IEN elven bodyguards) are gradually expanding their power by sucking the goblin villages dry, the Lord Wizard Mordenkainen and his army just got wiped out by hobgoblins, the Grand Duke Corwin is in love with a peasant woman, the crown prince is desperate to prove himself in battle as something more than just a pale shadow of his deceased older brother Edwin, and Cthulhu's cult is growing in strength.

Then you can infer pretty easily that the Rakshasa is probably manipulating the crown prince and blackmailing Corwin, and if they're talking to the prince you have some idea of what's on his mind (probably wants to charge off to war) but if you've uncovered some mysterious cult activities he will probably jump at the chance to join you on a raid, during the course of which you may get jumped by an intellect devourer (if the cultists are loosely allied with the illithids), etc., etc. The more you've got going on, the more chances you have to leave connections between plot threads for the players to discover and hopefully get excited about... and if they don't, well, the world keeps on turning. If the players are more interested in building their economic empire of Fabricate-sourced plate armor, they may soon find that the new hobgoblin empire is their biggest customer, but he doesn't pay quite as well as the old human kingdom did...

[comk59]

Oh, this is definetely an optimal strategy for running a game. Having the world progress without the players direct interference helps solidify a setting.

I'm just starting to DM a new campaign TODAY, and one lf the things that's going to happen is that over the next few months, iron and steel will start getting more and more expensive. Eventually, players will notice, and try to find why.

Or, at least I hope they do. Otherwise that variant subterranean Rust Monster I homebrewed is going to waste.

[silveralen]

A powerful sorceress was "stealing" demons from under his rule, some through magic and others through politics. Disguised as an old man, he gave the PCs coins that shifted them to his home world where he would be able to brand them. He needed adventurers to hunt down the sorceress so that he would not ignite a demon war and lose the majority of his minions. The adventurers were already hunting her (hired by a third party, many people were hunting her down), so the demon took advantage of the situation.

The party did not seek to find any answers, and took the route that would reveal the least information. Had they gone through Pelor or following the demon's orders, they would have learned more.

Yeah, now I'm unsure what the issue could be. It seems.... pretty reasonable. Maybe he just disliked the potential to have his soul stolen? Or assumed there wasn't any justification? The more this thread goes on the more clear it wasn't even railroading, and I feel to see what breaks immersion.

Maybe... A really gameist player who feels anything not explcitly in one of the books is cheating? That's a mentality he might hopefully grow out of, though occasionally I think everyone descends into it a bit.

[Mellack]

I am going to pitch in my 2 cents of what might be his feelings, based of course on my own. When thing totally outside the rules such as this "plot magic" happen, they take away the ability to make reasoned choices. As someone suggested in an earlier post, they might reasonably say it is all a lie since not even a 9th level spell can have such power. When events happen that have no known basis (to them) it means they have nothing to base their course of action on. Instead they are left just asking the DM what they can do, leaving them feeling less in control of their character and the adventure. I think this is why some people are feeling it is railroady. There are options offered, but they essentially have to be given by the DM since there is nothing in the books that they can work from.

[Scirocco]

I've run into this myself; the players couldn't parse the idea that the world's movers and shakers were on an entirely different level than they were (for example trying to diplomance an experienced and well connected merchant into basically give them free money). In another game I've been told by another player that my insane PC can't be immune to Insanity and MUST have an alignment (the ref already approved this).

Some people just can't think beyond the instructions. It's a roleplaying game, there's more to it than rules. Story is also a component.

[Tzi]

Lately, there have been frustrations about my game and how I use "Plot Magic." Essentially, the frustration is about events of higher or stronger magic than the players have access to. For example, a demon brands the party with tattoos and claims that he will take their souls in a month if they do not complete the objective he's given them. Another instance (this is the latest example) is the party fled from their material plane to another one. The plane they fled to is practically dead and as such, suppresses the ability to plane shift.

My players' argument is that I'm creating situations that they cannot interact with personally (having to find someone with stronger magic to remove the demon's curse or find more people to cast plane shift). Yet the player who has the most frustration with it has stated repeatedly that he loved a situation in which they only had one option because the object they needed to obtain was hindered by "real magic," dimensional anchor and force wall. Basically, he hated a situation in which he had options as to how to get rid of the demon's curse (do what the demon said, recover a holy site from the church of Pelor, or seek out a powerful semi celestial mage of rumor) but loved a situation that has one resolution all because I used magic from the book.

So what are your thoughts? Personally, I hate the term "Plot Magic." Magic is just magic, regardless of whether it's in the rulebook or not. The PCs don't have access to the highest forms of magic, and if they are going to meddle in the affairs of magical beings and deities, then they are going to experience those levels of magic.

It reminds me of a player who after I described an execution that happened, (A person was shot in the back of the head by a pistol) he asked if he could insta-kill things at that range..... it became a huge argument and I find that the players who go for that are usually just trying to find a way to break the game with rule manipulation.

In this case it was an instance of "DM as adversary," were my player just was looking for ways to one up me in some imagined duel of wits were me and him were mortal enemies clashing for some imagined victory.