Plot hooks and the player

[Resileaf]

Hello everyone, I come to you with my ramblings and ponderings about plot hooks, and the duty of players to follow them.

For context, in a currently-running Five Rings campaign, the players, of which I am part, have been given the mission to escort a young kid around Rokugan to accomplish some prophecy or other. This prophecy requires him to talk to each daimyo of the Great clans (minus the Mantids, who are not yet a Great Clan due to this campaign taking place in the past) in order to be given tasks by each of them. This pretty much means that technically, our job is just to escort him around and keep him from dying horribly.

But such a road trip is long, and will obviously have the occasional side quest on the road. Doing such side quests is a dangerous thing, and brings risk to us and our charge, but they are there to put some color to the world and give us things to do outside of simply walking around until we're at the daimyo we need to chat with. As I very much play the paladin-type character (Akodo nobleman prodigy with a holy blade), I've taken it upon myself to bite those plot hooks. It is however the opinion of another player that this goes against our original mission, and that we should focus on that mission above other things. Which is fair to say in a vaccuum, but if we did that, we would have a fairly boring game otherwise.

(Let me just mention that the disagreement is very much between characters rather than between players. We're all fine as players with doing side quests, but in-character, the other player thinks it's wrong to involve ourselves into things that aren't our business.)

Which brings me to my question: How much of a duty do players have to follow plot hooks that the GM has prepared for the session? When you are in a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives, how picky can you really be with the side quests you're given to change things around? Is it a failure from the GM himself if the side quest appears like it would be a waste of time from a character perspective?

[kyoryu]

In my opinion: None.

I hate plot hooks. Plot hooks are well named, and horribly designed. A plot hook typically is like a fish hook - it looks innocuous but sort of interesting, but once you bite it, it drags you all over the place and you have no control. We're smarter than fish, so we learn to avoid them.

Now what I do like is a good plot grenade. A plot grenade is something that is compelling to deal with, but doesn't require any particular response. It just requires that you do something besides "nothing".

At a higher level, the group needs to understand and agree on what the game is about. And this needs to happen on the player level. Once you've decided what the game is about, then the GM should give you that. If it's about the episodic situations that this ragtag group gets into on the way to fulfill the prophecy, that's great! And then everyone should happily follow the side plots because it's what they asked for. If it's really about this prophecy, then of course you shouldn't worry about the baker's missing cat because you've got more important fish to fry.

Communication is key. Deciding what hte game is about as players is vital, and for some reason, almost never done.

[Yora]

There needs to be an agreement on what the camapign is about, which limits where the PCs can go and do, and what the GM should be prepared for, and it is reasonable to expect the players to stay within the limits. But beyond that it should be up to the players what to do within the limits. If the agreement is that this campaign is about helping that NPC on his quest, then it's unreasonable to decide to ditch him and start doing something completely unrelated. But if the GM offers things that are optional, then it's entirely acceptible if the players chose to pick up none of them.
I consider it part of the GMs job to work with that. Some of the secondary stuff can be related to their mission and potentially beneficial, but optional and not required. Or the mission runs into delays because the NPC is kept waiting for audiences or curtesy requires him to stay longer and attend festivities, which leave the players with some idle time.

[Darth Ultron]

This is really a game designing question that should come up in Game Zero.

Does everyone really want to just sit around and role play being an escort? If so, you really should not have plot hooks or side quests. Everyone just escorts.

If you, or anyone, wants to have more out of the game other then just escorting a NPC, then you should not do the escort plot in the first place.

Really if you ''must'' do the escort thing...how about just say ''ok, we do the escort thing for a year", and then do something else.

-----

In general, a player does not have a ''duty" to follow plot hooks, even more so during a game, and even more so during a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives.

In a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives you kinda what to do ''just that", it's kind of the point.

Even IF you have side quests as part of a long running game...they should be part of the game.

[Drakevarg]

The players have no duty whatsoever to follow plot hooks, so long as they're doing something. It's the DM's duty to provide plot threads the players will want to follow. Or better yet, provide five, and let them bite whichever they wish. That said, if plot hooks are provided and the players refuse to do anything, even on their own initiative, that's sort of everyone's fault. It's for this reason that I always insist my players come up with a driving motivation. It doesn't need to be much, just a basic explanation as to why their character doesn't just head back home and crawl into bed at the earliest opportunity. This both informs the sort of plot hooks that I should dangle, and means that even if I don't have any, the PC will find their own way forward.

But beyond that, Kyoryu puts it pretty well; a plot grenade works better than a plot hook. As long as the party is reacting to the world and the world is reacting back, the DM is doing their job.

[Nifft]

If the players are on board with side-quests, but they want to stay in-character and stay on-target, then ask the DM to just make any side-quests stuff that directly impacts their main duty.

- Travelers want to join their group, and the caravan leader says okay. Should these people be trusted? Socialization and then combat when the other travelers betray them / are caught by their pursuers.

- Bridge is washed out; must find an alternate route through dangerous wilderness.

- Town on the route is under siege. Must avoid or fight mercenaries while skirting the area.


If the other players are NOT on board with side-quests, maybe you can just time-skip the journey. There's nothing fun about group conflict, so skip over that stuff.

[kyoryu]

The players have no duty whatsoever to follow plot hooks, so long as they're doing something. It's the DM's duty to provide plot threads the players will want to follow. Or better yet, provide five, and let them bite whichever they wish. That said, if plot hooks are provided and the players refuse to do anything, even on their own initiative, that's sort of everyone's fault. It's for this reason that I always insist my players come up with a driving motivation. It doesn't need to be much, just a basic explanation as to why their character doesn't just head back home and crawl into bed at the earliest opportunity. This both informs the sort of plot hooks that I should dangle, and means that even if I don't have any, the PC will find their own way forward.

But beyond that, Kyoryu puts it pretty well; a plot grenade works better than a plot hook. As long as the party is reacting to the world and the world is reacting back, the DM is doing their job.

If the players don't find a plot hook interesting, that's the GM's fault, not the players'.

Figure out what they're interested in, both in terms of things that they want to do and things they're attached to in the world. Put those front and center.

And for the love of god make your plot hooks have stakes. Too many people try to make their plot hooks innocuous. Don't do that! "Oh, I hear that some traders were attacked by goblins" is awful, because the default answer is "so what?". Have goblin forces amassing within striking distance of a town, preferably one hte players care about. Or, at least, intercept communiques about a war gathering of the tribes called by the great goblin leader outside same town. Make it very clear what not doing anything means. Mysteries suck. "OOOOOH, what could this mean? It's so mysterious!!!" Don't do that, because the players won't care. You care, since you KNOW what it means. If you want people to care, put forward some stakes that they actually, you know, care about. Then have your mysteries one step behind that. "Who is the masked man" is lame. "We have to find out who the masked man is, because that's the only way to stop the town from being swallowed in fiery doom" is far, far better.

[Jay R]

Side quests shouldn't be distractions; they should be essential.

Bilbo and the dwarves don't turn away from the quest to get Smaug's treasure to face trolls, goblins, or spiders. Those hazards are in their way.

Gandalf didn't divert from the quest to a side quest through Moria. He tried to avoid it through the Caradhras pass, and failed.

Indiana Jones didn't turn aside from the quest for the lost Ark to go to Nepal; Marian was in Nepal and had the clue he needed.

The Grinch didn't turn away from stealing Christmas to get Cindy Lou Who some water; he had to do that to allay her suspicions.

Kirk didn't turn away from the search for Spock to go to the Genesis planet; that's where Spock's body was.

Dorothy didn't turn away from her quest to go home, just to fight a wicked witch. She needed the witch's broom to get the Wizard's cooperation.

Inigo didn't stop looking for the six-fingered man to work for Vizzini. He just needed to pay the bills; there's not a lot of money in revenge.

"Side quests" are misnamed. Most of them aren't time-outs from the main task. They are first base, second base and third base, needed to complete the home run.

The ones that are actual distractions should fall into one of three categories:
1. Unexpected complications, as when the princess you are escorting is kidnapped, or falls down into the local dungeon complex.
2. Unexpected opportunities, as when you hear of a haunted tomb with a Mace of Disruption, while on your way to face a lich.
3. A problem less important than the main quest, but more urgent, as when you hear a child screaming from inside a burning house, or come upon a village currently being raided by ogres.

[Drakevarg]

If the players don't find a plot hook interesting, that's the GM's fault, not the players'.

Pretty much exactly what I said. The only caveat I gave is that if the players simply refuse to do anything, be it follow plot hooks or simply follow their own initiative, then it becomes everyone's failing. The DM is at fault for not providing engaging plot hooks, and the players are at fault for either being too choosy or lacking their own drive. TTRPGs are collaborative affairs, and if no one collaborates then you're just sitting around a table pretending to bum around town. It is the DM's job to engage the players, but the player has more responsibilities than "listen to the DM talk and occasionally roll dice."

If nothing else it becomes a failing of communication, the onus of which does not sit solely with the DM. Unhappy players should tell the DM their grievances, not just sit like a bump on a log until the DM psychically detects the issue or is driven out. And a DM should be attentive enough of their players to see to any that don't seem to be having fun.

[kyoryu]

Pretty much exactly what I said.

I was agreeing and expanding :)


The only caveat I gave is that if the players simply refuse to do anything, be it follow plot hooks or simply follow their own initiative, then it becomes everyone's failing.

Yes. If the players don't want to do anything, don't have their own initiative, and won't even tell the GM what kind of things they would find interesting, then they should just watch a movie instead. That's not even snark.

Just as it's not the players' job to follow the hooks, it's not really the GM's job to find something for the players to do. Both need to collaborate and work together to find what will be fun for everyone.

The game should not be the couple's situation of "what do you want to eat tonight?"

"What do you want to eat?"
"Anything"
"Okay, how about Thai?"
"No, that doesn't sound good."
"Italian?"
"No, not that."
"How about a burger?"
"Ew, no."
"So what do you want?"
"I told you, anything is fine."

To be clear, the other failure mode, which the OP really talked about, was more like:

"We're having Mexican food."
"I really don't feel like that. I could go for something Asian, though."
"No, Mexican. Isn't that good?"
"Uh, no."
"So do you want enchiladas?"
"I said no."
"But they're delicious enchiladas. What's wrong with you?"
"I don't want enchiladas!"
"Okay, I tell you what. I'll come up with something delicious for you, but won't tell you what it is. I'll give you an ingredient, and you can tell me if you're interested, okay?"
"Oh, God, no. Fine. Whatever."
"The ingredient is.... CHEESE!"
"It's enchiladas, isn't it."
"I won't tell you! So are you interested in the CHEESE food?"
"No."
"WHY NOT WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU I WENT THROUGH ALL THIS EFFORT!"

Ideally, you want something like this:

"Hey, you know, I'm in the mood for something kind of Asian-y, maybe a little spicy."
"Oh, cool, I know a great place!"
"WOW! This Thai place is delicious! I wouldn't have thought of it, but it's exactly in line with what I asked for!"

[Drakevarg]

I was agreeing and expanding :)

Fair enough. Sometimes it can be difficult to discern between "quoted for agreement" and "quoted to counter."

[Beneath]

I think some of the original problem is that you have different conceptions of who your characters are in the world.

Remember that you aren't just this child's bodyguards. The fact that the kid needs bodyguards rather than babysitters implies that the world is a dangerous place. When you're on the road, you might well be the only representatives of imperial authority within a day's ride (assuming your orders came from the top), beyond perhaps a single low-ranking samurai. When you're in another clan's territory, you represent your clan, your house, and the crown. So when local solutions don't exist for a problem, you might be the only opportunity people have to appeal anything from a dispute between peasants over grazing rights to a threat of bandit raids.

The advice to your DM to make side quests be things that you have to do to complete your main goal is good, but it's not actionable for you as a player (another option would be to leave you stuck. Maybe a river or pass is unusable until the next season, maybe you need to wait a week to fix your wagon or riverboat, maybe the kid needs to stay with a monk until a lesson sticks). Optional side-quests are a chance to carry the colors and exemplify what you're supposed to stand for to the commoners and lower nobility.

What "we don't have time to solve these villages' petty problems" says is that your group are too good for the common people's problems; he's expressing what might be at best a singleminded focus on his objective, and at worst comes across as elitist apathy. Beyond that, it's rude. If someone's hosting you and feeding you and in return all you do is go "we're on a sacred mission from which we cannot deviate" despite their having a problem which is fully within your power to solve, that says something about your group's values and will affect the reputation of the people who raised you (especially if you're the only member of your family they've seen recently) and who sent you.

Which, like, if you negotiate it out of game and everyone's cool, then putting this dispute in in-world terms of honor, obligation, keeping one's word, duty to hosts vs duty to keep promises vs duty to show the flag, turns it into an opportunity for character development. and two comrades each being "honor demands I do this" about opposite courses of action is a staple conflict. Or you could get clarified orders, maybe next leg of your journey, as to how to prioritize your mission vs expressing imperial authority more generally

That's before you get omens and gifts from spirits and your ancestors (EXP) for doing these sidequests. This is blatantly true for any shugenja present, and possibly for samurai as well depending on what rules you're using. Especially if you need the level ups involved to complete your main goal, that may clinch it. "Can you not see the blessings your ancestors have given you as you complete these errands? Trust in their wisdom and do as they would have you do"

[Thrudd]

Usually, it is the player's role to choose actions in accordance with their character's goals and motives. Ideally there should be no conflict between your player and character decision making. It is the GM's duty to ensure everyone has characters with appropriate goals and motives for the activities they will be expected to engage in.

When two characters disagree about what should be done, that's fine. That's a part of role playing. However, if characters have such divergent goals that they never agree on anything, or if the characters would never believably engage in the activities the GM puts before them, there was a problem in the conception of the game and/or communicating what the game is about.

Some people think that absolute freedom in conceiving of characters is rule #1 for players- but this is wrong. There need to be constraints to ensure characters are appropriate for the game.

[Psikerlord]

#HooksNotPlots

[Nifft]

#HooksNotPlots

Is this some kind of pirate vs. ninja thing?

[hymer]

Which brings me to my question: How much of a duty do players have to follow plot hooks that the GM has prepared for the session? When you are in a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives, how picky can you really be with the side quests you're given to change things around? Is it a failure from the GM himself if the side quest appears like it would be a waste of time from a character perspective?

It is as much of a duty as the table agrees on for that particular campaign. I'd say that the hook should be something you can take or leave as a general rule.

As for whether the GM has failed, in this case it would seem not. After all, one thinks the side quests can be worthwhile, and another doesn't. That seems to show that the GM has hit a good note, where it's possible IC to go for a hook or leave it. But I get the point that side quests in a race to stop the end of the world can seem rather silly. The main quest becomes so important and so time sensitive that it seems wrong to focus on anything else.
The GM can fail in this regard. If every hook is ignored or every hook is gone into (or something close to that), then it seems sensible to ask yourself (and the rest of the table) whether these side quests are doing the job they are supposed to.

[Jay R]

Which brings me to my question: How much of a duty do players have to follow plot hooks that the GM has prepared for the session? When you are in a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives, how picky can you really be with the side quests you're given to change things around? Is it a failure from the GM himself if the side quest appears like it would be a waste of time from a character perspective?

A flat, simplistic, absolute answer to these questions, in either direction, is wrong.

The players can of course prevent the game from occurring, simply by refusing to adventure. But if they came to the table for an adventure, then clearly they should not refuse all adventures.

However, any choices offered to them should be actual choices. There can be optional side adventures, but if there are, they should be, well, optional.

If there are mandatory complications, then they need to be mandatory.

I have a general rule: Never have a player roll a die for an action unless you are willing for the action to succeed, and willing for the action to fail.

Similarly, never provide the players an option unless you are ready for whichever way they opt.

If you are insistent that the players must explore the catacombs, don't present them the entrance to the catacombs; have the child they are escorting fall through a hole into the catacombs.

Choices should be actual choices. Not every encounter is a choice. But if it isn't a choice, don't present it as a choice.

[Florian]

Which brings me to my question: How much of a duty do players have to follow plot hooks that the GM has prepared for the session? When you are in a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives, how picky can you really be with the side quests you're given to change things around? Is it a failure from the GM himself if the side quest appears like it would be a waste of time from a character perspective?

This is why we have this quaint little thing that is generally called "Session Zero", to talk about the game, expectations, campaign format and outline and what actual role(s) a character is going to have in it.

In your example, consider this: the "Grand Tour" is a very common campaign format. The escort mission itself is just a narrative framing device to provide a reason for the characters to be constantly on the road, the actual game is engaging in the various "side quests" that will pop up at each session.

[Psikerlord]

Is this some kind of pirate vs. ninja thing?

It SHOULD be

[LibraryOgre]

Which brings me to my question: How much of a duty do players have to follow plot hooks that the GM has prepared for the session? When you are in a long-running campaign with several long-term objectives, how picky can you really be with the side quests you're given to change things around? Is it a failure from the GM himself if the side quest appears like it would be a waste of time from a character perspective?

None, but they should communicate what their thinking is, and your party sounds like its going to have some tension there... the paladin v. the pragmatist, though in a different way than you usually encounter in D&D.

If the party is going to adamantly ignore plot hooks that don't relate to their mission (a very samurai position to take), then they can let the GM know so he doesn't put too much effort into them. As a GM, I'd still PRESENT those plot hooks, but I might make them a bit more like Skyrim's radiant quests. An [antagonist] has taken a [item/NPC] to [location]. This is important because [reason]. If you bite at this hook, I use the map I prepared months ago for such a hook, and then prepare another for when you guys get to it.

If the party is going to bite at a lot of side quests, as the GM, I'd like to know that so I can spread them out, geographically, so it's not a slog to get through the Lion lands because you're stopping to save every village you come across.

To an extent, though, it also comes down to GM motivation... does he want to tell a story, or does he want to play L5R? If he has a specific story he wants to tell, he should make sure that the side quests usually support that story. If he wants sidequests, but wants to tell a story, then they should be ones samurai CANNOT ignore. Slurs on your honor? Kidnapped charge? Even "family member who is right here right now and needs help" can be harder to ignore in-character than "Somethin' in them there hills is stealing our sheep." If the GM just wants to play L5R, then the sidequests don't necessarily have to develop the main story as much, but the GM should also be prepared for them to be ignored.

[Resileaf]

Well to give some context, the side quest was "This samurai from a different clan failed at his duty of keeping watch on the person he was supposed to protect and now she's gone, and he's just drugging himself on opium while waiting for his daimyo's permission to commit seppuku."
My character's reasoning was "Just because he lost his honor doesn't mean he can just keep making things worse. I'll shape him into kicking his own ass into gear, even if I have to find his charge for him so he can get back to his duty."

Then one of the players was captured and the samurai who failed died protecting us from an assassin, so now it's personal.

Also this takes place in Scorpion territory, and the GM was really excited to do Scorpion intrigue quests, so I was more than happy to jump head first into it so that he would have fun doing it.