PDA

View Full Version : What to do when players see clues that dont exist?



Sajiri
2016-12-05, 02:54 AM
This isn't a criticism of my player, but I have a recurring issue that comes up when I try to DM. Im not terribly experienced with DMing games, and Im currently just running one for a single player (who normally DMs with me being the player). Quite often I will have an event happen, and he will read into it far deeper than he should, or he will see clues and conspiracies that just dont exist. Sometimes the event was minor, and is meant to tie into something later, other times whatever he is supposed to be following goes completely unnoticed.

For an example, he once arrived in a village that was being plagued with regular undead attacks at night and the children being kidnapped. The town guard had been going out to try to rescue them and not returning (or if they did, it was as undead), to the point the sheriff had to stop sending out patrols to make sure the few remaining guards could protect the village. Various villagers had been going out to search for the children and not return either. The player was to follow the lich that was behind it all back to her lair (he even saw her during one attack and the direction she disappeared to after), but he instead somehow was convinced that the missing innkeeper was somehow involved in it all when there had been not a thing said about him, and that the sheriff was somehow trying to endanger the town or working with the lich because he was no longer sending out patrols (when it was made clear he only had a handful of guardsmen left to protect the village after the rest had gone missing).

I dont want to railroad the player and tell him what he's supposed to be doing, and sometimes if he sticks to one thing long enough I'll just work it in to the plot (such as, the above innkeeper I decided was now being held prisoner by the lich and was childhood friends with her when she was living). But sometimes, it just drags on for so long he will waste entire sessions following a lead that was never hinted at in the first place, even while I try to make hints via NPCs about what he should be doing, or that what he's currently doing is not relevant. I'm not sure if this is the player overthinking things, or a sign that I make my plots too simplistic. Does anyone else have anything like this happen, and how do you handle it?

Knaight
2016-12-05, 03:12 AM
This is a meta-game concern, at least to some extent. You're running a fairly conventional game where things tend to be what they seem, and the player appears to think they're playing an intrigue game full of lies and deception. Explaining the metagame, and explaining that a lot of what they're finding suspicious isn't (including straight up pointing out the sheriff and innkeeper aren't suspect) is useful. It's a blunt instrument, and one that should really only be used a few times early on to get everyone on the same page (and possibly again if you run a different game with a different focus).

hymer
2016-12-05, 07:14 AM
This is a meta-game concern, at least to some extent. You're running a fairly conventional game where things tend to be what they seem, and the player appears to think they're playing an intrigue game full of lies and deception. Explaining the metagame, and explaining that a lot of what they're finding suspicious isn't (including straight up pointing out the sheriff and innkeeper aren't suspect) is useful. It's a blunt instrument, and one that should really only be used a few times early on to get everyone on the same page (and possibly again if you run a different game with a different focus).

I agree with this.
You can also do something when it looks like they're going off on one of these tangents: Paraphrase what happens rather than play out the whole thing, and show how they find no clue to back up their assumption. I sometimes do this when I feel the players are being clever, and if I had the time I'd change things so they turned out to be right - but they happen to be wrong and are wasting their time.

Darth Ultron
2016-12-05, 07:28 AM
I dont want to railroad the player..... Does anyone else have anything like this happen, and how do you handle it?

This is normal in games, and is a big, good reason why railroading exists. So, you get three options:

1)Railroad the game back on track.
2)Improvise the game right in front of whatever the player does so the player is always on the track.
3)Don't have a plot or story and just have random things happen.

In this case, to ''railroad'' the player is to simply prove the guess they make wrong. Like they follow the innkeeper and find......he is having an affair, and while it makes him stand out a bit, it has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the inn keepers kids are missing too, so he goes out to look for them...but has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the serif is just scared. Just make them a classic red herring, if you have ever seen a mystery you have seen them before.

A lot of people will tell you to just make the inn keeper or sheriff ''suddenly'' part of the plot.....but that is not always a good idea. If the player is going to ''randomly see things that are not there'' all the time, are you willing to change the game to whatever they see? It sounds like fun, but it can lead to a boring game and lots of other problems. It is generally best to stick with a plot, even if the player wants to change it, if you want your world to make sense. Also if you let the player ''run around randomly'' you will never complete a plot. And most people like to complete plots. Maybe worst of all is that you reward the player for ''nothing'': like you leave some clues and the player ignores them and just makes up his own clues that you them make real events in the game. When it is just the player writing a novel as the DM sits back and reads it....you have gone too far.

Now this is not to say you should never add in something the player thought of, just that you should not make a habit.

OldTrees1
2016-12-05, 08:05 AM
How does a player learn if a clue is a false positive/red herring?:

If any answer they can guess ends up being correct then they know nothing about the world or story. So you will want some possible guesses to end as false positives/red herrings. Typically each of these "clues" is the result of the Players seeing unanswered questions. If you know the answer to the question then it is merely a matter of the Players investigating and learning the answer. So have all red herrings neatly wrapped up (whether before or after the player learns of their existence). Although be careful to not do this to unexpected but valid clues.

Your examples:
1) The Sheriff is unwilling to send more men to their deaths in a manner that only bolsters the Lich's forces. They came to this conclusion for reasons. The PCs are suspicious of the Sheriff and likely will uncover some of the information the Sheriff knows. Afterwards they are likely to conclude that the Sheriff was on the up and up. Although a crafty Player might gain some valuable intel that the Sheriff missed from the data the Sheriff has on his lost men (such as some likely places for the Lich's lair).

2) The Innkeeper is missing. Why are they missing? I expect you knew why they were missing before the PCs learned they were missing. When the PCs learn why the Innkeeper is missing, then they will move on from that false lead.

Remember an NPC saying "That issue is unrelated to the matter at hand." will not answer the PC's question of "What is up with that issue?". Answering the question will have the Player switch to another lead.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-05, 08:07 AM
Have the other players attacked while he or she is off on a while goose chase and thus unable to help the party. Make sure it is in such a way that if they were with the party, they would have been useful, and the rest of the party will wonder where they were, and the other players will make the case for logic and party cohesion for you.

Jay R
2016-12-05, 10:35 AM
Don't play out boring sequences.

You need to ask one crucial question: Can I make pursuing this red herring fun?

If you can make it fun, do it. Have the innkeeper's friends start a fight with the PCs, or somebody tries to rob them while they're on watch. Double points if pursuing the innkeeper is both fun and leads to the real clue.

But if the red herring won't be fun, then don't play out the boring sequence. They decide to follow the innkeeper? OK, the PCs are wasting their time, but you don't have to waste player time. "You've all agreed that you'll spend the next day or two watching the innkeeper? OK, after a day or two it's clear he has nothing to do with it. But while watching him, you notice that ..."

But in either case, give them a lead to the real plot. Trust me - they're as bored as you are.

Over 90% of the games I've seen would be improved if the DM just decided not to play out boring sequences.

:haley::Ahem. "Later that evening..." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0155.html)

Lord Torath
2016-12-05, 11:14 AM
I was going to suggest the Three Clue Rule (make certain to provide at least three clues for your players to find for any conclusion you want them to make), but what Jay R says above is also really important.

Segev
2016-12-05, 12:02 PM
In this case, to ''railroad'' the player is to simply prove the guess they make wrong. Like they follow the innkeeper and find......he is having an affair, and while it makes him stand out a bit, it has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the inn keepers kids are missing too, so he goes out to look for them...but has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the serif is just scared. Just make them a classic red herring, if you have ever seen a mystery you have seen them before. None of that is railroading. It's quite the opposite. It's having knowledge, as GM, of what is really happening, and, as the player(s) investigate, letting their PCs discover what they would discover through their investigations.

Railroading would be any mechanism which, without the player exploring it beyond declaring he's going to try, gives him incontrovertible proof that the innkeeper is innocent, even if it doesn't make sense. Or shoving clues that amount to neon signs pointing the "right" way in the player's path, obstructing his efforts to investigate the innkeeper. Or shoving the lich under his nose again and again, and not letting him get anywhere except when he follows the lich.

Note that "discovering the innkeeper's disappearing like that because he's having an affair" or the like is not failing to get anywhere. It IS getting new knowledge that can be used later, but isn't relevant to this case other than "nope, he can't be doing X because he's doing Y instead, and they're mutually exclusive."


A lot of people will tell you to just make the inn keeper or sheriff ''suddenly'' part of the plot.....but that is not always a good idea.While it can work, Darth_Ultron's right, here: you don't want to over-use this. Just because the PCs look at something shouldn't make that "something" the right way to go. If you genuinely think their suspicions are more interesting than what you had planned, edit them in, by all means, provided it won't ruin the verisimilitude of your world. But again, don't over-use it.




Ultimately, you have to ask yourself if failure is an option at any stage. I mean, if you let him investigate what he wants, and he pursues red herrings of his own invention, let the lich's plans progress according to the time he is distracted. Eventually, he'll run smack into it, unless the lich plans to vanish into the aether without doing anything more than disappearing some people. Feel free to have her monologue her scheme when that happens, so he knows what was going on. It may also help him figure out what kinds of things to look for in the future.

barna10
2016-12-05, 12:58 PM
There is always the option that he simply fails. If all he ever does is succeed, the game will become boring. Let him fail to notice the clues and have some other group come in and solve the problem (an NPC group). Sooner or later he'll learn your style and get better at picking up on the clues. Plus, this method is a great way to introduce a rival group for later use.

Thinker
2016-12-05, 01:00 PM
This is normal in games, and is a big, good reason why railroading exists. So, you get three options:

1)Railroad the game back on track.
2)Improvise the game right in front of whatever the player does so the player is always on the track.
3)Don't have a plot or story and just have random things happen.

In this case, to ''railroad'' the player is to simply prove the guess they make wrong. Like they follow the innkeeper and find......he is having an affair, and while it makes him stand out a bit, it has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the inn keepers kids are missing too, so he goes out to look for them...but has nothing to do with the undead. Or maybe the serif is just scared. Just make them a classic red herring, if you have ever seen a mystery you have seen them before.
That's not railroading. Railroading would be the GM saying that the player cannot investigate the innkeeper or the sheriff OR saying that the player must investigate the innkeeper and/or the sheriff. Conversely, the GM could use the game's mechanics to force the player to investigate those things. Railroading is the removal of player agency about how to interact with the world. The player not finding anything is just fine and could also result in some fun shenanigans.

GungHo
2016-12-05, 02:54 PM
Improvise so that they don't bring the game to a halt, but pull them (subtly) toward the content you prepared. So, maybe the sheriff (or one of his deputies) really is working with the lich (perhaps because they were charmed/dominated) or the innkeeper really is doing something shady (but not directly because of the lich... maybe taking an opportunity presented by the lich creating power vacuums). However, at some point, you're going to have to break them of the Scooby Doo/NCIS habit of determining "whodunnit" by virtue of the caliber/screen time provided to a guest star, and you may have to directly tell them that during a pause in the action.


That's not railroading. Railroading would be the GM saying that the player cannot investigate the innkeeper or the sheriff OR saying that the player must investigate the innkeeper and/or the sheriff. Conversely, the GM could use the game's mechanics to force the player to investigate those things. Railroading is the removal of player agency about how to interact with the world. The player not finding anything is just fine and could also result in some fun shenanigans.
You'd be amazed at how broadly railroading is defined. Rest assured, we've all had this conversation, quite recently. It doesn't go well.

DigoDragon
2016-12-05, 03:25 PM
But in either case, give them a lead to the real plot. Trust me - they're as bored as you are.

I remember one exception... a campaign where the BBEG was supposed to be an elder red dragon, but the PCs were so enamored and attached to this one red-herring clue to a gnome wizard side character that I just tossed out my original dragon plan and made the red herring the real BBEG. PCs happily followed the changes back to the plot rails without knowing it and everyone had fun. That red dragon ended up being a side quest that the PCs oddly befriended and helped overthrow a corrupt government, so it got used anyway.



Over 90% of the games I've seen would be improved if the DM just decided not to play out boring sequences.

Amen to that. I cannot understand GMs that demand I RP every single transaction with merchants. The price tag of the item is right there in his public notes and I have the funds! Just let me mark it on my sheet and move on! :smalltongue:

barna10
2016-12-05, 04:00 PM
Amen to that. I cannot understand GMs that demand I RP every single transaction with merchants. The price tag of the item is right there in his public notes and I have the funds! Just let me mark it on my sheet and move on! :smalltongue:

Absolutely! I always leave it up to my players. If they want to RP, I indulge them, otherwise we move on.

Sajiri
2016-12-05, 04:57 PM
A little more information. Firstly, the innkeeper and sheriff example is old and resolved already, I just didnt want to use current plot events in case the player somehow stumbles across this thread and sees any potential suggestions or thoughts on it. Secondly, the player is very good at working with me, he knows Im not so experienced so if I ever back myself into a corner he's fine with me telling him ooc he's not following the right leads, or sometimes even retconning. It's just I don't want to have to do that each time.

My style of DMing has pretty much entirely been influenced by him as I've never played in any games he hasn't been the DM for, and he does tend to do quite indepth plots and plan ahead far while also giving the player/s freedom to do what they want, so when I DM for him I try to do similar, but I don't think Im really as good as him at it. He's never actually complained about any of this and seems to have fun when he gets to be the player, I just want to be able to provide the same quality of games that he does when he DM's, and that involves not saying 'you're overthinking this' 'you're following the wrong leads' 'I need you to do this.' Being that we do one player, one DM games, we have a lot of roleplay in them as the main focus, so usually if he wants to follow something I try to let him, while giving hints on what he should be doing or not having what he's currently doing succeed sometimes. Often if his ideas dont work out, he tells me I didnt make it clear what he should be doing, when I cant think of how I could have made it clearer without outright telling him what he has to do, so perhaps I will try the three clue idea.

I appreciate all the advice so far though, its given me a lot to think about

Segev
2016-12-05, 05:11 PM
If you're trying hard not to tell him what he "should" be doing, a key step would be not having something he "should" be doing. Instead, have the scenario planned out such that you know what's going on, who the major actors are, and why they're doing what they're doing. While you can have some thoughts as to who may be an ally and who may be an enemy, don't outright plan on it.

Make sure you know enough that, should he think to ask a question you didn't consider, you can reason out an answer that fits with what you've established. Then just let him do whatever he likes. Don't have a "goal" that he must achieve.

The other key thing with this approach is to make sure there is a lot to grab his attention, and that events move forward with or without him (changing if it's "with him" based on what he chooses to do). Not a lot to grab his attention and point it the wrong way, mind. A lot of entry points into the goals of various NPCs, and what they're up to.

Knaight
2016-12-05, 05:20 PM
Getting people on the right track about what kind of game you're running isn't a sign that a game isn't good - it's a step taken to insure that it is. On top of that, imitating someone else's GMing style only takes you so far; what works for him might not be what works for you and there are a lot of ways to achieve depth. As is you're having red herring problems; finding a specific solution to that and incorporating it into your GMing style will fix this. It doesn't have to be the same solution as the player uses when he GMs. Bluntly getting people on the same page is one solution, quickly skimming over red herrings as Jay R suggested is another (and that's one I'd also recommend using throughout the game).

MarkVIIIMarc
2016-12-05, 05:43 PM
Dead ends in investigations is very realistic. Ask you local police.

As DM, just keep the game fun and moving along. If the PC's go investigate Mary So&So who had nothing to do with the crime you can blow a minute or two of conversation with them interrogating her, let them blow some detect truth or magic type spells on her and move along.

If something entertaining pops in your head or if the PC's go crazy and drag her to law enforcement work it in the story. Heck, in this case have a thug come by trying to collect his weekly extortion from her and the PC's intervene. Then when they are searching the body of the thug for clues have them find some clue which drives them back to the main story line.

Maybe later you can even have the thug's boss pursue them.

Darth Ultron
2016-12-05, 05:48 PM
That's not railroading.

I'm amazed so many don't think it's railroading....but guess that should be it's own thread...

jayem
2016-12-05, 07:01 PM
Note that "discovering the innkeeper's disappearing like that because he's having an affair" or the like is not failing to get anywhere. It IS getting new knowledge that can be used later, but isn't relevant to this case other than "nope, he can't be doing X because he's doing Y instead, and they're mutually exclusive."

While it can work, Darth_Ultron's right, here: you don't want to over-use this. Just because the PCs look at something shouldn't make that "something" the right way to go. If you genuinely think their suspicions are more interesting than what you had planned, edit them in, by all means, provided it won't ruin the verisimilitude of your world. But again, don't over-use it.




Ultimately, you have to ask yourself if failure is an option at any stage. I mean, if you let him investigate what he wants, and he pursues red herrings of his own invention, let the lich's plans progress according to the time he is distracted. Eventually, he'll run smack into it, unless the lich plans to vanish into the aether without doing anything more than disappearing some people. Feel free to have her monologue her scheme when that happens, so he knows what was going on. It may also help him figure out what kinds of things to look for in the future.

(using the scene as an example, but noting ...)

But also (even in the mystery scene), you aren't writing an Encyclopedia Brown story (probably) with one true set of clues.
If the innkeepers been kidnapped, there are bound to be clues, they may not be the ones that you intended them to find.
If the innkeepers been 'playing away' at nights, he may have heard something, it may not be perfect witness the lunatic was (it may even only be a pointer to interrogate the lunatic, and find what turned his head, or it may replace it totally). And he is an innkeeper, he knows the gossip, he may blow someone else's alibi apart.

So the innkeeper can be written into the plot, without changing the world around the actions.

And of course [as mentioned] you have the lich still doing stuff, who may react to your investigations, even if they are off course.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-05, 08:13 PM
(using the scene as an example, but noting ...)

But also (even in the mystery scene), you aren't writing an Encyclopedia Brown story (probably) with one true set of clues.
If the innkeepers been kidnapped, there are bound to be clues, they may not be the ones that you intended them to find.
If the innkeepers been 'playing away' at nights, he may have heard something, it may not be perfect witness the lunatic was (it may even only be a pointer to interrogate the lunatic, and find what turned his head, or it may replace it totally). And he is an innkeeper, he knows the gossip, he may blow someone else's alibi apart.

So the innkeeper can be written into the plot, without changing the world around the actions.

And of course [as mentioned] you have the lich still doing stuff, who may react to your investigations, even if they are off course.


Investigation method -- poke around obviously and randomly until you start to make the people involved nervous enough that they give themselves away by coming after you or trying too hard to cover up.

awa
2016-12-05, 08:57 PM
If I have players who get a wrong idea in their head sometimes the easiest way is just to say "okay why do you think that". Invariably they misheard, misremembered, or misunderstood something because while it might have been 10 minutes ago for their character it was two weeks for them. As a general statement my experience is that when players do something really stupid it is usually a matter of miscommunication.

Jay R
2016-12-05, 09:09 PM
I'm amazed so many don't think it's railroading....but guess that should be it's own thread...

It has been. Many times.

And the conclusion is that people don't all use that word the same way.

barna10
2016-12-05, 10:51 PM
Another important thing to remember is that ONLY YOU know what's going on behind the scenes. All that matters to the players is that they have fun. Just because you think you wrote the most amazing adventure ever doesn't mean you actually did. Be open to adapting to suit the needs of your players, or the "mistakes" they will inevitably make.

As long as you and the players are having fun, you aren't doing anything wrong.

Kami2awa
2016-12-06, 03:07 AM
[please delete]

Lorsa
2016-12-06, 03:37 AM
This isn't a criticism of my player, but I have a recurring issue that comes up when I try to DM. Im not terribly experienced with DMing games, and Im currently just running one for a single player (who normally DMs with me being the player). Quite often I will have an event happen, and he will read into it far deeper than he should, or he will see clues and conspiracies that just dont exist. Sometimes the event was minor, and is meant to tie into something later, other times whatever he is supposed to be following goes completely unnoticed.

For an example, he once arrived in a village that was being plagued with regular undead attacks at night and the children being kidnapped. The town guard had been going out to try to rescue them and not returning (or if they did, it was as undead), to the point the sheriff had to stop sending out patrols to make sure the few remaining guards could protect the village. Various villagers had been going out to search for the children and not return either. The player was to follow the lich that was behind it all back to her lair (he even saw her during one attack and the direction she disappeared to after), but he instead somehow was convinced that the missing innkeeper was somehow involved in it all when there had been not a thing said about him, and that the sheriff was somehow trying to endanger the town or working with the lich because he was no longer sending out patrols (when it was made clear he only had a handful of guardsmen left to protect the village after the rest had gone missing).

I dont want to railroad the player and tell him what he's supposed to be doing, and sometimes if he sticks to one thing long enough I'll just work it in to the plot (such as, the above innkeeper I decided was now being held prisoner by the lich and was childhood friends with her when she was living). But sometimes, it just drags on for so long he will waste entire sessions following a lead that was never hinted at in the first place, even while I try to make hints via NPCs about what he should be doing, or that what he's currently doing is not relevant. I'm not sure if this is the player overthinking things, or a sign that I make my plots too simplistic. Does anyone else have anything like this happen, and how do you handle it?

This happens sometimes, especially with players who themselves run adventures which are very deep in hidden meanings (read illogical overly complex plots nobody understands but them). I am not saying your friend runs adventures like that, but probably his mind works different than yours. For one reason or another, he likes to over interpret everything.

Most times, this is something that solves itself after playing for a while. He will see that your adventures are not quite as complex as he imagined and will adapt accordingly.

However, that doesn't solve your immediate problem of what to do.

I think the answer has been stated by others above; let the player follow whatever leads he wants, but make sure to narrate things quickly when nothing happens. Don't be too quick though, or refuse to play out a NPC conversation he requests. Reading your text, it appears as though your player might be a bit paranoid, so when various NPCs (or in the players' mind, the GM) hints at a lead not being relevant, that only strengthens the players' belief in it. So try to behave as though his idea is really great, and that he is onto something, but make sure not to drag out scenes unnecessarily. Could be you might avoid triggering his inner paranoia that way.

Segev
2016-12-06, 11:03 AM
I'm amazed so many don't think it's railroading....but guess that should be it's own thread...

It's not railroading because it isn't forcing the players to follow your pre-determined plot and progression of events. Rails are about forcing PC behavior and choices, not about what is possible to achieve. The two can conflate if a GM who thinks he's clever is trying to JUSTIFY forcing PC behavior and choices by closing off all other avenues, but you can generally tell this is happening when the world is distorted beyond the point of verisimilitude.

Look to a lot of "moral quandary" threads around here for examples of deliberately-railroading set-ups. The designer will refine his set-up to specifically shut down any "third options" he can think of, and to shut down any additional ones anybody might come up with. Note how contrived those scenarios become, and how painfully obvious their purpose (to railroad only the allowed choices) is.

Contrast that to a murder mystery, where there is only one true way the crime went down, but the PCs can investigate it however they like. Dead ends aren't rails. They're just the freedom to be wrong. Rails are about constraining the players' options. "If you drink the bottle of poison, you will suffer its effects based on the mechanics of the game" is not railroading. "You will drink the bottle of poison and suffer its effects," is railroading.

"If you investigate the innkeeper, you will discover he has nothing to do with the kidnappings" is not railroading. "You WILL go into the woods and you WILL notice the lich and you WILL follow her back to her lair to discover what's going on" is railroading.

barna10
2016-12-06, 11:22 AM
It's not railroading because it isn't forcing the players to follow your pre-determined plot and progression of events. Rails are about forcing PC behavior and choices, not about what is possible to achieve. The two can conflate if a GM who thinks he's clever is trying to JUSTIFY forcing PC behavior and choices by closing off all other avenues, but you can generally tell this is happening when the world is distorted beyond the point of verisimilitude.

Look to a lot of "moral quandary" threads around here for examples of deliberately-railroading set-ups. The designer will refine his set-up to specifically shut down any "third options" he can think of, and to shut down any additional ones anybody might come up with. Note how contrived those scenarios become, and how painfully obvious their purpose (to railroad only the allowed choices) is.

Contrast that to a murder mystery, where there is only one true way the crime went down, but the PCs can investigate it however they like. Dead ends aren't rails. They're just the freedom to be wrong. Rails are about constraining the players' options. "If you drink the bottle of poison, you will suffer its effects based on the mechanics of the game" is not railroading. "You will drink the bottle of poison and suffer its effects," is railroading.

"If you investigate the innkeeper, you will discover he has nothing to do with the kidnappings" is not railroading. "You WILL go into the woods and you WILL notice the lich and you WILL follow her back to her lair to discover what's going on" is railroading.

Agree 100%

barna10
2016-12-06, 11:28 AM
This happens sometimes, especially with players who themselves run adventures which are very deep in hidden meanings (read illogical overly complex plots nobody understands but them). I am not saying your friend runs adventures like that, but probably his mind works different than yours. For one reason or another, he likes to over interpret everything.

Most times, this is something that solves itself after playing for a while. He will see that your adventures are not quite as complex as he imagined and will adapt accordingly.

However, that doesn't solve your immediate problem of what to do.

I think the answer has been stated by others above; let the player follow whatever leads he wants, but make sure to narrate things quickly when nothing happens. Don't be too quick though, or refuse to play out a NPC conversation he requests. Reading your text, it appears as though your player might be a bit paranoid, so when various NPCs (or in the players' mind, the GM) hints at a lead not being relevant, that only strengthens the players' belief in it. So try to behave as though his idea is really great, and that he is onto something, but make sure not to drag out scenes unnecessarily. Could be you might avoid triggering his inner paranoia that way.

This also leads into using EVERY situation to your advantage. There's nothing wrong with using the false lead to drop hints.

For instance, when your player insists on investigating the innkeeper route, have NPCs drop hints about strange goings-on in the forest, about seeing the innkeeper somewhere where and when he couldn't have been if he were involved, or even have a Bard recounting some tale about the lich in the inn when the PC goes there to look for the innkeeper.

You might not have planned to deliver these hints in this way, but your player doesn't know this anymore than you could have anticipated him not following your original plan.

Being a good DM isn't about being the best planner, it's about running the best game. This often means doing things on the fly that you never anticipated having to do.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-06, 11:46 AM
Being a good DM isn't about being the best planner, it's about running the best game. This often means doing things on the fly that you never anticipated having to do.

This.

Good advice for any DM, starting or otherwise. Improvisation is important.

In fact I try to make a point that people need to NOT overplan, which a lot of DMs often do.

Improvisation is a skill though, one you have to practice.

Honest Tiefling
2016-12-08, 01:55 PM
Gonna repeat what others said. Incorporating player theories into the plot should only be done for three reasons: 1) You think the player will get considerably more enjoyment from that plot 2) It covers up a plot hole you missed 3) YOU enjoy that plot more then the one planned.

I am going to point out, if he LIKES being crafty and cunning and uncovering plots...Start seeding them in, but go slowly and start small if you are not comfortable with them yet. But what's the fun of being smart if the answer is handed to you? Do you think the player will enjoy being right because you hand him the answer? If the answer is yes, then by all means, proceed, but I rarely see that happen.

If you are having troubles with your NPCs having hidden agendas, one way to start is to have them be stupid. People, even smart people, make stupid decisions all the time! Lashing out from anger or jealously or being consumed by an obsession give pretty simplistic, but often enjoyable goals for an NPC. Their plans don't even have to be involved, even. Timing counts for a lot, and maybe your NPCs just got unlucky/lucky, either one leads to results. For instance, some guard swiped the sword from another because he lost a bet and was angry, but that meant that during the attack he didn't have a sword and got killed. Having events snowball out of control is hilarious as a DM.

There is also the point that perhaps these NPCs do have secrets that was brought up earlier. But you can make it so the investigation does lead somewhere. For instance, if the Innkeeper was having an affair, perhaps the other party was in an unhappy marriage and couldn't secure a divorce. By not revealing the illegal affair, the Innkeeper is more willing to both help and listen to the character, gaining a minor ally. Or, if the other party was married to a prominent citizen, revealing it would gain the mayor's help. So while it was a red herring, it wasn't completely worthless either.

Stryyke
2016-12-08, 02:56 PM
This is actually quite common. For me, I just do what you've done thusfar; work it into the plot. Unless you are just tragically awful at improv, I say just roll with it. Each player is looking for something different in a game, and will see things through different eyes. When you only have 1, and no one is around to vote on a path, your improv skills just have to be better. DMing is always a delicate balance between railroading, and giving your pcs freedom. You have a story to tell, but if the player just wanted a story, they would read a book. Just my personal thoughts on the issue.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-08, 03:16 PM
Gonna repeat what others said. Incorporating player theories into the plot should only be done for three reasons: 1) You think the player will get considerably more enjoyment from that plot 2) It covers up a plot hole you missed 3) YOU enjoy that plot more then the one planned.


Player: "Oh great, I bet it's going to be a half fiend in disguise."

DM: "...well is WASN'T a minute ago but..."

Rest of the party: "YOU FOOL!"