PDA

View Full Version : DM Help My session -1/0 produced a dumper fire



exelsisxax
2017-02-19, 11:01 PM
So I suggested to my group that I run a pathfinder campaign because we were wrapping other things up, and everyone was interested. A planning session was had at our next meetup.

It went not as I expected. I initially put this forward as a sandbox thing, so I didn't try to manage things too much. This eventually proved to be a poor decision. Some of the problems that developed:

Most of the group creating a setting from scratch(surprisingly playable, really) with another member sitting out, without participation at all.
Two people have become married to their character concepts already. This would be less of an issue if they were not totally at odds with the campaign premise the group sort-of settled upon(with these two players as the primary proponents). A pseudo-pacifist illusionist and a mounted knight.
They want to be pirates/privateers with airships. Some think this is a good idea, because they say they don't like a dungeon crawl. They don't understand when i try to explain that "clear the dungeon airship" is even more locked in considering their stated goals. The people that like old school dungeoning are perfectly fine with differently-themed crawls, of course.
The roleplayers are concerned with the rollplayers being too detatched from the world and gamist, while wanting to finish creating stuff for that setting so the rollplayers "don't feel forced to". The rollplayers have become worried that the roleplayers are going to spend hours navel-gazing about their 3-page backstories with deep connections to setting and forgetting to play the premise that was put forward. I'm troubled because they're all right.

So i've pretty much given up and plan to inform my group that i've screwed up and steered this to an unplayable state. But I still want to make it happen later on.

I think my biggest mistake was allowing a custom setting at all. In addition to leading to a ton of preconceptions that i cannot shake them out of, I do not feel that I can run a sandbox in a world that I need to simultaneously invent.

I feel that I just need to get them into the game without them getting caught up in something they won't let go of. Any advice for how to go about doing this?

ShaneMRoth
2017-02-20, 12:11 AM
"Ah, so in fact this is not a humiliating defeat at all, but a rare species of victory!"

What Cato the Younger (in HBO's Rome) said with searing sarcasm, I say now in all earnestness.

This is an example of why Session Zero is so important.

You could have skipped Session Zero, and dove headlong into a game session with all of these competing and incompatible agendas and expectations, and it would have resulted in disaster.

But you didn't.

You got a sense of what the rest of the players wanted and realized that you couldn't make it work.

I know you are disappointed and that you wish you could have "somehow" made this work. But by performing early due diligence, you discovered otherwise.

Even a dumpster fire generates light.

I think you may need to start from scratch.

The Vanishing Hitchhiker
2017-02-20, 12:25 AM
Are the players focused on the airships more as transport and someplace to keep their loot? They may consider their ship a bridge between places for combat to happen, or a large mobile weapon platform, rather than a recurring mini dungeon. I'm especially not seeing the conflict with the mounted knight, unless they've specifically picked a mount that can't fly.

Thrawn4
2017-02-20, 09:01 AM
I fail to see how you made a mistake. Apparently, your players prefer different styles with is hardly your fault.

Geddy2112
2017-02-20, 09:55 AM
Yeah, you dodged a bullet by figuring out that this was a dumpster fire, rather than learn this 2-3 sessions in and have a dumpster fire of a campaign you are running.

Although it sounds like the group might just be on such different pages that they are unable to play together? At the very minimum, they can't create a setting together. If there is that much of a schism between the rollplayers and roleplayers in the group that is difficult, but you can have sessions include plenty of both. Also, being one does not mean you are bad at being the other.

You can be a pacifist ish support character in a hack and slash(so long as they don't constantly try to stop the other players wanton bloodlust), and give the mounted knight something that flies.

exelsisxax
2017-02-20, 10:29 AM
The problem isn't that my group inherently plays incompatibly, but that i've allowed a situation where there are 2-4 paths they want to go down which aren't really compatible. It's too far gone at this point, and I don't believe at all salvageable into a campaign that will be fun for more than 1/2 people.

I want advice on how to pitch and organize a sandbox that doesn't end up with sewed into a bag with a snake and wolf and thrown into the rubicon. Once the game is going, we're all great. There's just a problem getting there intact.

Jay R
2017-02-20, 10:57 AM
I think my biggest mistake was allowing a custom setting at all.

Not really. Your mistake was not putting limits on them, and not making it clear that they needed to create a custom setting together, that they would all enjoy playing in together.


I feel that I just need to get them into the game without them getting caught up in something they won't let go of. Any advice for how to go about doing this?

Tell them the problem. If they are getting to create the setting, then they have to create the setting so that they will all accept it.

You let them create an unplayable collection of ideas. They need to fix it.

Have session 0.5. Lay out what can't work, and why. Ask them what parts of the inconsistencies can be changed or eliminated. Make it clear that the game cannot run until they fix their work, and come up with a consistent set of ideas.

You gave them campaign-creating power. Now you need to apply the generalize the Spider-Man principle.

With campaign-creating power comes campaign-creating responsibility.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-20, 11:54 AM
I feel that I just need to get them into the game without them getting caught up in something they won't let go of. Any advice for how to go about doing this?
Let's back up and instead make a list of what the players want and what this world can provide.

Begin with the character concepts. Mounted knight and illusionist pacifist.

First the Mounted Knight. They can work quite well in the game so long as they are not one trick ponies (pardon the pun). Make sure that the character has a sturdy mount, and make a lot of the battling outdoors where a horse can be used. Not ALL of it, you don't want to tailor every battle around the big mount, but make sure the character can just pick up a damn sword and still contribute and you are golden.

Second, the Illusionist Pacifist. Sit down with them and make sure that the illusionist is only a pacifist against sentient living creatures. It makes sense. Make sure they are willing to do violence against mindless creatures, vermin, constructs, and undead since none of those are sentient creatures that live, and the illusionist can have some firepower that is not illusions for things that are immune to illusions. Even if they run out of illusions, they can always use things like tanglefoot bags or grease spells to add support instead. There is no reason this character can't work so long as the player is willing to concede to being useful.

They want to be pirates or privateers with an airship? Well I have a question, why the hell can't they? maybe not PIRATES but they can make an adventuring group that uses an airship. Hell every Final Fantasy before they started sucking gave you an airship at some point.

In fact, their first quest can BE to find and unearth an old and legendary airship. Don't give it to them immediately, make them earn it while you flesh out the world. Have them follow rumors and want to find the clues to the location and how to unearth the airship. Then maybe they need to find all the parts to it or a key to it, and make it a huge deal when they finally have the airship, since now they can go near ANYWHERE.

From there, add new adventures where they journey to different places and the airship is their home away from home, their main base.

The problem here is that you think that you need to say "no", but what you need to say is "Yes BUT..." They want a mounted knight? No problem, BUT they might have to spend some time getting a horse and might not always be able to use it so have a backup plan. Want a pacifist illusionist? Sure, BUT make sure you don't extend your pacifism to mindless things that your illusions won't work on. Want an airship? No problem, BUT you'll have to work and quest for it, and you'll have to use it for questing.

I really honestly don't see a single thing that can't be worked into your world.

LokiRagnarok
2017-02-21, 12:54 AM
You mentioned a lot of different "fractions" in your group. How many players do you have?

Incorrect
2017-02-21, 02:10 AM
You did great. This is workable.

Maybe not pirates, but treasure hunters with an airship.
The knight will fit perfectly if he has a flying mount, like a griffon.

How does the pacifist describe his fighting? Will he oppose anyone trying to hurt another being? Or will he help the others and just not hurt anyone himself?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-02-21, 03:28 PM
Most of the group creating a setting from scratch(surprisingly playable, really) with another member sitting out, without participation at all.
Not everyone's into world-building. That's fine, as long as they're not going to whine about it later.


Two people have become married to their character concepts already. This would be less of an issue if they were not totally at odds with the campaign premise the group sort-of settled upon(with these two players as the primary proponents). A pseudo-pacifist illusionist and a mounted knight.
Works fine for a privateer type thing, if not necessarily a pirate one. As mentioned, flying mounts are a thing both in Pathfinder and in fantasy in general. What's better than a magic airship? A magic airship launching flights of hippogriff cavalry! And given that you said "pseudo-pacifist," I imagine they still have some plans for how to contribute in combat. Direct damage is far from the only thing.


They want to be pirates/privateers with airships. Some think this is a good idea, because they say they don't like a dungeon crawl. They don't understand when i try to explain that "clear the dungeon airship" is even more locked in considering their stated goals. The people that like old school dungeoning are perfectly fine with differently-themed crawls, of course.
Soooo... don't run "clear the airship" dungeons? There are a thousand ways to run the game that don't involve long dungeon crawls.


The roleplayers are concerned with the rollplayers being too detatched from the world and gamist, while wanting to finish creating stuff for that setting so the rollplayers "don't feel forced to". The rollplayers have become worried that the roleplayers are going to spend hours navel-gazing about their 3-page backstories with deep connections to setting and forgetting to play the premise that was put forward. I'm troubled because they're all right.
Sounds like unfounded prejudice on both sides. None of it would change if you'd presented a setting wholesale, and assuming they're normal people rather than internet curmudgeons, you should be fine once play starts.


I think my biggest mistake was allowing a custom setting at all. In addition to leading to a ton of preconceptions that i cannot shake them out of, I do not feel that I can run a sandbox in a world that I need to simultaneously invent.
This one, though, might be a problem. If you don't feel comfortable without an established setting to work in, you should say so. You can work in elements that they've come up with so they don't feel totally lost-- I know Eberron, for instance, has airships and probably airship pirates/privateers, and I imagine the Pathfinder setting has a few somewhere.

Stryyke
2017-02-21, 04:02 PM
This actually gives you an excellent look into the minds of your players. Perhaps you can't figure out how to put all the pieces together right now, but spend some time sitting with all the ideas in front of you. I definitely think "incompatible" is the wrong word here. Difficult perhaps.

Maybe your world could be a water world. Maybe you could have floating land masses held together in space by a mystical force. And none of the things they mentioned are necessarily incompatible. Illusionist could be a buffer. Perhaps, if there will be substantial distance between players, something like a vitalist would let him be useful for buffing even at great distances. He could specialize in long distance illusions. Fires on the enemy deck. Scourge from the sea. Whirl-pools. Etc.

As someone else mentioned, maybe the knight could have a flying mount. Or even an underwater mount, allowing him to act in the same manner as a submarine. And there is no reason a Knight cannot have become a pirate. Perhaps the old government was overthrown, and he is a knight of the old guard, questing to take down the usurpers. So perhaps the "piracy" is only against official vessels from the new government.

If the players seem to be invested, take some time to see if you can make it work. Don't throw in the towel too easily. You might need to tell the players that you may need some extra time to put something together, though. Just do a couple one-offs until you have something workable.

That's just my advice. As with anything, you have the final say. If this is beyond your creative ability, that is perfectly valid.

Knaight
2017-02-21, 04:30 PM
This looks entirely functional to me - dungeon crawls can be avoided completely, both of the theoretically incompatible characters should work fine (the knight probably does need a flying mount, the illusionist's pacifism needs to stay to the illusionist and not be put on the whole group). The only problem that I see is that you're saying you can't GM a new setting. Even that might not be a problem - I'd recommend giving it an honest shot and seeing if you can pull it off.

kyoryu
2017-02-21, 05:15 PM
"Ah, so in fact this is not a humiliating defeat at all, but a rare species of victory!"

What Cato the Younger (in HBO's Rome) said with searing sarcasm, I say now in all earnestness.


This. You didn't light a dumpster fire, you realized that a hand grenade was landing in the middle of the group while there's still time to throw it back. This is what we colloquially call "a win".

You've laid bare the competing and apparently contradictory desires and goals that the party has. Better to do it now than to have the campaign implode in three sessions creating more hurt feelings.



Tell them the problem. If they are getting to create the setting, then they have to create the setting so that they will all accept it.

You let them create an unplayable collection of ideas. They need to fix it.

Have session 0.5. Lay out what can't work, and why. Ask them what parts of the inconsistencies can be changed or eliminated. Make it clear that the game cannot run until they fix their work, and come up with a consistent set of ideas.

Exactly. And it doesn't have to be hostile. It's just "hey, guys, from what we've said, it seems like there's some things that people want that aren't really compatible. So we've gotta figure out a version of this game that we can all play together."

And part of that answer might be "not everyone is happy with this game." And that's okay if it's unavoidable. And part might be "not enough people can be happy with it to make critical mass", which is also okay if it's unavoidable.

If you made a mistake, it's in saying "let's play Pathfinder!" Not because of Pathfinder, but because that's way too wide open of a pitch. I always like to pitch something that people can buy into (or not) from the 10,000 foot level to at least get the gross incompatibilities out of the way. "Hey, let's do a game where we're airship pirates!" works.

exelsisxax
2017-02-22, 09:34 AM
Thanks for the input. Mainly due to this thread, i've changed how i'm doing my follow-up to the session. It's totally unworkable as a sandbox campaign, but I'm going to offer a one-shot to get a better feel for how they would do things(they've never not been railroaded before), test houserules, and wrap up the situation. I hope that will clean the slate and give me what information I need in order to successfully do a real sandbox campaign in the future.

Knaight
2017-02-22, 02:04 PM
Thanks for the input. Mainly due to this thread, i've changed how i'm doing my follow-up to the session. It's totally unworkable as a sandbox campaign, but I'm going to offer a one-shot to get a better feel for how they would do things(they've never not been railroaded before), test houserules, and wrap up the situation. I hope that will clean the slate and give me what information I need in order to successfully do a real sandbox campaign in the future.

Have you considered a small scale sandbox? There's a broader world out there, but everyone agrees to stick to a smaller region which is easier to define more thoroughly, at least to start with.

kyoryu
2017-02-22, 04:28 PM
The problem with "sandbox" is that "you can do anything!" is a false promise. It's not achievable, because you play the game with other people who have their own "anything"s they want to do.

Thus, conflict.

Sandboxes are great, from the standpoint of "here's the overall thrust of the campaign that we're all agreeing to, you can do anything you want within this general realm".

Basically, you can say your game is an air pirate adventure and that's cool, and then you can be free within that idea. But you've gotta specify the genre, at least, to get everyone pointed in at least compatible directions. "You can do anything!" doesn't work.

Segev
2017-02-24, 01:16 PM
I strongly suggest you investigate what's called a "Hex Crawl" for ideas how to structure a sandbox.