Players making up red herrings

[SilverLeaf167]

My players, if they stumble across this thread, should please stay out.

So, what should the DM do when the players catch on to an irrelevant tidbit or misinterpret something entirely and send themselves on a wild goose chase that can't really lead to anything but disappointment and wasted resources? When, if ever, should the DM step up and tell them they're chasing after shadows, and how should it be handled? Should the plot be modified entirely to suit the player's whims (choice of words might be a little exaggerated)?


To give a more specific example, my players were investigating a so-called Mana Spring that had suddenly started crystallizing the entire island around it in an expanding circle. The Spring was located in a goblin mine next to a small (friendly) goblin village. The only surviving, non-crystallized goblins told the party that a mysterious goblin mage had showed up a few weeks ago and headed into the mines just before the crystallization began. They didn't know what he was doing, but were concerned for his well-being; they had no idea that he was indeed causing the whole thing, and so far the players didn't have any real proof either.
After finding through the mine, full of crystallized beasties, they find the goblin mage (non-crystallized) doing some weird rituals on the Spring and question him. He claims, in an EXTREMELY obviously lying way (the players even remarked on this), that he has the thing under control and the party can - nay, should - leave immediately, while keeping a magic staff pointed at them the whole time. While the party discusses things, he takes his chance to cast a Fireball at them. The party fights and wins, and the goblin ends up as a pile of guts, flesh and bones. The remains are dumped into a bag of holding that already includes the similar remains of a basilisk (don't ask why, for I don't know). The party loots the place, places a magic barrier around the Spring as ordered and leaves.
The remaining goblins express their sorrow over the mage's death but believe that the party made the right choice, with him attacking them and all that.

At this point, for some reason, the party has second thoughts. They are suddenly convinced that the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding, that the goblin mage was indeed on their side and that they should get him resurrected as soon possible in order to perhaps enlist his help in dealing with the mysterious, rampant Springs. Aided by Knowledge checks, they ask me where they might find a Cleric capable of and willing to cast Resurrection on the goblin. I tell them (a week's flight away on the back of a zombie dragon), but also remind them that the Clerics won't resurrect just anyone, and the party would definitely need to gain their favor as well as paying for the material component (three times the party's combined cash). They find this reasonable, even obvious, and head on their way.
The thing is, the goblin mage was indeed hostile and caused the whole thing with the Spring: the party doesn't know it yet, but his allies were currently doing the same thing elsewhere, which admittedly would be useful information. However, there is no reason for the goblin to even accept their resurrection attempt; him dying at the Spring and remaining dead is indeed integral to his plan. Thus, all the party would end up with is a lot of wasted time and even more wasted wealth. What should I do?


A side-question: though initially a joke by me, one of the players has really fallen in love with the idea of the goblin's remains being accidentally combined with the basilisk's indistinguishable remains, creating some sort of hybrid. I know this is probably not the RAW answer, but if the Resurrection ends up happening for some reason, I think I wanna handle it that way. What would the end result be? He is expecting something like "a goblin with a gaze attack", but I think it would be something more like a "magical experiment gone very wrong".



So, thoughts on either the general issue or my particular problem? Sorry about the long-ish story, but I thought it would be better to explain a bit more in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Personally, I would really feel bad for them going through with it and failing, but I also don't really want to switch the whole plot around to accompany their mistakes. The last option would be just telling them they're on the wrong track, which I still don't like but would at least be a lot better than the former two.

[Mutazoia]

Let them go for it. Hell the goblin mage would probably love the fact that they spent all that time and effort to resurrect him (especially when he doesn't accept). If they're having fun now there's little point in attempting to change their minds. If you feel bad about it you can try to drop clues, but other than that it's their choice.

[Asheram]

Hey, whatever to pad the gameplay. I say go for it.
The Mage might even be smart enough to realize what is happening when they (hopefully) try to smooth over any initial hostilities directly after resurrection.

About the Basilisk, well, not too fond about resurrecting things like that, but you might have a 50-50 chance that the cleric accidently resurrects the basilisk instead.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Players somehow create a hivemind that can see beyond time and space and grasp on to plot points from beyond reason, there are three ways of dealing with this:

1. Roll with it; uhhh yes, you are absolutely right the random item you picked up was in fact an essential clue, well done for spotting.

2. let them roll; you present the spoon to the watch captain, he looks at you blankly then tells you to get out (this approach will usually eventually lead to point 1. or 3.)

3. Shoot them down; Look guys, it's just a spoon nothing more, I dunno where you got the idea that it was an artefact from but you've spent two hours discussing what to do with it.


I have two prime examples of this happening;

The characters had fought through the dungeon and confronted the evil druid at the end, after killing him his animal companion became just an animal and was scared off by the fighting, the PCs assumes it immediately ran because it was somehow the mastermind behind the entire evil plot and couldn't let it escape to carry on its fiendish plans, they chased it down and slaughtered it.

The characters came upon a puzzle room involving putting the right runes in the right locations according to a riddle, after around half an hour of real time discussion they did it and the door to the next room opened, the fighter then chimed up "no I don't think that's right, I bet that's doors a trap, we should try a different combination". 20 minutes later I told the players that they were indeed correct, stop moving tiles around and go through the damn door.

[SarahV]

Maybe the cleric can tell them that the remains are too intermingled/contaminated and there is a large chance of reviving the basilisk or some kind of horrible hybrid monster. And he'll be very reluctant to do so or maybe even outright refuse. But maybe when he asks them who the mage is and they mention some of what happened, he can steer them back towards the plot: "Oh, that sounds a lot like what happened in Plotsville a few miles down the road!"

[Downzorz]

Maybe the Goblin is a greedy bastard willing to sell out his comrades for a second chance at life, especially having experienced the horrors of Hell?

[JeenLeen]

In this case, I'd recommend somehow having the plot reveal that the goblin mage was indeed evil (such as the cleric they talk to knowing something, as mentioned above) or tie in whatever quest the cleric gives the party to whatever plot point you had planned next. In doing the quest, they find out the goblin is indeed evil.

Or perhaps the cleric does some preliminary divinations and realizes this as well (or the divinations are blocked to avoid spoiling your plot, which he takes as really fishy.)

It sounds to me like the players took the goblin villagers regret (albeit understanding regret) as a clue that the team messed up. That's not necessarily your fault, but I would keep that in mind in the future (lest they go off on similar red herrings.)

---

I do think it's okay to just tell the party sometimes, especially if it's taking up a lot of time and leading nowhere. But this is a salvagable situation, and the characters could grow, let them screw up. But if it'll just waste everyone's time and a lot of resources (and possibly give resentment due to that), I think it's fine to say something.

(In an oWoD Mage game, early on we got this sword which we traded to vampires. It let vamps stay in the sun, and also had some big edge for garou. It was just a plot item to help us ally with either the vamps or garou in the city, but I had it in my head that it was a crucial magic sword we needed. At first, the DM let us plan ways to get it from the Prince, but eventually he told me it really didn't matter for the plot. We could steal it if we wanted, but it wasn't worth the Prince's wraith. He also told me in part because it was leading to inter-party conflict, as my guy wanted to try it and another PC didn't.)

[SilverLeaf167]

Okay, I have an idea regarding how I'm going to handle this.

If they go on with the plan instead of changing their minds partway through (which is very much possible), the Cleric will note that there is a very high chance that he will end up some crime-against-nature-hybrid or not be resurrected at all. If they still want to proceed, and get the materials, he will reluctantly start the ritual. Incidentally, there is actually some precedent for the materials only being consumed at the very end of the casting time (the party Fighter was Raised earlier), so right before finishing, he tries to contact the goblin's soul and gets a negative answer, so he gives up on the spell. Thus, the party has wasted some time, but in exchange they get the gathered materials (how they will obtain them is yet to be seen) and the knowledge that the goblin was probably hiding something. From there, they'll probably return to the clear-cut objectives they were already given, and even if they don't, it shouldn't be too hard for me to work from there.

I agree, the players probably took the villagers' regret as a sign that they had messed up. The villagers said they'd assumed the party was going to rescue the mage, and the players probably interpret that as my opinion. (Does my usual roleplaying really suck that much? )
I did sort of question why the party has suddenly feeling so conscientious about this possibly mistaken death in particular, and not, say, the time they got mixed up in an elf-orc skirmish, slaughtering the orcs and mutilating their bodies for the lulz. Their relatively reasonable answer was "because he might have useful information", so I sort of saw their point and didn't press that issue much further.
This whole incident feels especially weird to me because the players are usually clueless in the entire opposite manner, only following my chain-cuffed lead through the plot and not doing much thinking of their own. I guess I'm sort of happy about this development.

[Jay R]

A. If the goblin refuses to return, the clerics might cast some divination spells on their own, and get the party some useful information.

B. The resurrection spell will either resurrect the goblin, or the basilisk, not combine them. If the goblin refuses to come, are they facing a fresh basilisk?

C. Will they hear about the same thing happening somewhere else on their way to find the clerics?

[Amphetryon]

Ask yourself why the PCs went after the "window dressing," the red herrings. Are they being contrary? Are they bored with the main plot? Are they being influenced by importance you may have accidentally placed on the red herrings in your description, through length or inflection (I call this "failing a Sense Motive check in real life")?

[SilverLeaf167]

A. If the goblin refuses to return, the clerics might cast some divination spells on their own, and get the party some useful information.

B. The resurrection spell will either resurrect the goblin, or the basilisk, not combine them. If the goblin refuses to come, are they facing a fresh basilisk?

C. Will they hear about the same thing happening somewhere else on their way to find the clerics?

A. Might happen. The party actually includes a level 9 Cleric with a lot of Divination spells in store, if they're confused enough he might actually give them some use. If that happens, I'll try to give them as much information as I can without either ruining the plot (sort of railroad-ish, but c'mon, Divinations are notorious for this) while also trying to not be too stingy.

B. Well, even if they faced a basilisk, they could probably take it down rather easily (it took literally two rounds last time, and that was two levels ago), and I really don't feel like "cheating" them out of 10,000 gp anyway.

C. They were originally sent to secure the Springs so that they couldn't be manipulated later. This one acting up was a total surprise (well, probably not for the players, but for the characters), but the party agreed both IC and OOC that it's very likely that other Springs might be in danger as well. They already know the location of another (which is, indeed, stirring up a magic maelstrom), and their allies are working on finding the others. Giving them some vague rumors about weird occurrences around the continent wouldn't hurt though.

Ask yourself why the PCs went after the "window dressing," the red herrings. Are they being contrary? Are they bored with the main plot? Are they being influenced by importance you may have accidentally placed on the red herrings in your description, through length or inflection (I call this "failing a Sense Motive check in real life")?

I honestly think it's about me, a relatively inexperienced DM, sort of trying to expand the rather tight boundaries of Conservation of Detail our group typically has. It's somewhat unusual for me to actually describe the goblins mourning the mage's fate; thus, the players thought I was implying they did something wrong when they killed him, when in fact what I meant to do was show that the goblins were totally unaware of his participation in the disaster and never suspected him in the least.

[Crazyfailure13]

Can't say to much about the problem with the player misconception, except to drop hints, like depending on their route of travel have them run into crystallizing land,maybe.

As for resurrection, the firs thalf of this Comic suggests a possible solution.

[Nerd-o-rama]

At least if they end up not using the diamonds for the material component, gems are still a liquid currency by default in D&D. I say go this route: let them get all ready for the ritual and have the departed soul give the cleric the middle finger. Said cleric gives the diamonds back and, sensing something suspicious, does some gratis divining for the party (assuming he's a Good cleric) and gently points them in the direction of the plot.

[Karoht]

Let them res him.

Have the Goblin mage be slightly surprised at all this.
When the party apologizes and everything, the Goblin mage should ham it up a bit, totally "forgive them" and then take their free ride back to the spring in question.

And then get the drop on them and try to kill them.

The party will be pissed. Perfect.


When the Cleric tries to resurrect him, the target gets to know the alignment of the caster trying to res him. Thats all the info he gets really. So the Goblin wouldn't really know who is trying to res him in the first place. Also, is the Goblin selfish? He'd probably take the res because living is better than dying in most respects. Especially if he's spent any time in any negative afterlife for his nefarious misdeeds. Hell? Or take a res from a stranger? Hmmm. Res = Accept.


However, for investing resources to res him, maybe give the party a bit more exposition opportunity. The goblin accompanies them for a few days (it's 7 days back right?), they can try and get more info out of him regarding the phenomena. Maybe have a few encounters where the Goblin plays a minor role (the reward being some easy extra XP, but not much else, maybe half the res cost in various loot from say... 4 encounters). The party will then think he's a DMPC or something. You can also show off what spells he has, which will give the party a better idea on how to counter him, making that encounter a bit more fair.


So to sum up, you get to put the party back on the rails without too much nudging, give them some roleplaying opportunities, give them some sleuthing opportunities, a few easier encounters with a temporary support, and possibly an epic boss fight with the goblin.
That sounds like a fun time to me.

[Sebastrd]

Have you read the Three Clue Rule?

[Amphetryon]

Have you read the Three Clue Rule?

I've read it; when I've used it, on more than one occasion with more than one Player (who did not know the other Players involved), the response was to the effect of "OMG, we get it already! Stop railroading us, Engineer [Amphetryon]!"

In other words, it's not a panacea.

[kyoryu]

I've read it; when I've used it, on more than one occasion with more than one Player (who did not know the other Players involved), the response was to the effect of "OMG, we get it already! Stop railroading us, Engineer [Amphetryon]!"

In other words, it's not a panacea.

It works best for obstacles that actually exist and that the players care about bypassing.

When it's "you go this way, or I will keep beating you over the head with clues", it can feel a little railroady.

[Amphetryon]

It works best for obstacles that actually exist and that the players care about bypassing.

When it's "you go this way, or I will keep beating you over the head with clues", it can feel a little railroady.

I said absolutely nothing that disagreed with or contradicted this. Using the 3-clue rule for actually extant obstacles the PCs actually wanted to bypass (but didn't HAVE to bypass in order to continue) got me the above responses.

[Mr Beer]

So, what should the DM do when the players catch on to an irrelevant tidbit or misinterpret something entirely and send themselves on a wild goose chase that can't really lead to anything but disappointment and wasted resources?

If their wild goose chase is not obviously ridiculous and is merely something I hadn't considered, I might allow it to be useful and part of the plot.

Another alternative is to have clues directing them back to the main plot while they're on the goose chase. It's better to have these in the form of incentives to change direction rather than barriers preventing them going forward, which they will simply attempt to overcome.

Finally you can just tell them to stop pissing around. I prefer not to do this if possible.

[Amphetryon]

Another alternative is to have clues directing them back to the main plot while they're on the goose chase. It's better to have these in the form of incentives to change direction rather than barriers preventing them going forward, which they will simply attempt to overcome

When all roads lead to Rome, then the choice of which road to take is merely illusory. Some groups will chafe under this style, should they make the same realization.

[Spuddles]

Basilisk is resurrected but with knowledge of the goblin's plot and a fragment of the goblins magic.

The party gains a useful new ally, the plot progresses, and their time spent trying to raise the goblin isnt wasted.

[Hamste]

Eh, let them go down the redherring path. Have the cleric rework it though so that instead of requiring diamonds they would instead do it for a rare ingredient for a rare spell so that if the adventurers get it for them instead of paying for the diamond. Sure the side quest will be absolutely pointless but at least they are not spending all their gold on it and they have actually gained gold and exp from the side quest.

[kyoryu]

I said absolutely nothing that disagreed with or contradicted this. Using the 3-clue rule for actually extant obstacles the PCs actually wanted to bypass (but didn't HAVE to bypass in order to continue) got me the above responses.

Then apparently they felt that there was only one solution, and they disliked having it dictated to them? I dunno. They responded that way for *some* reason.

When all roads lead to Rome, then the choice of which road to take is merely illusory. Some groups will chafe under this style, should they make the same realization.

Yeah, which is why I generally avoid it. If you're gonna railroad, just be upfront and honest about it. Lying is bad.

[Jay R]

It's time to invent more of this goblin-mage's history, and figure out what they can learn from him if they subdue him after they resurrect him and he attacks.

Or possibly he flees and they follow him to the next part of the adventure.

They successfully left the rails. Don't try to get them back on; Figure out what happens to them now.

Edit: One more consideration: If nothing good comes out of this resurrection, they will never try to resurrect, raise, or even heal an NPC again.

[nedz]

Yeah, which is why I generally avoid it. If you're gonna railroad, just be upfront and honest about it. Lying is bad.

No, no, no ! Getting caught lying is bad

It's time to invent more of this goblin-mage's history, and figure out what they can learn from him if they subdue him after they resurrect him and he attacks.

Or possibly he flees and they follow him to the next part of the adventure.

They successfully left the rails. Don't try to get them back on; Figure out what happens to them now.

this really; unless your plot is really that important ?

Worst case: they come back in a couple of years and discover that the island is covered in crystal or something. Do they care ?

[shadow_archmagi]

I'd do one of two things in this situation:

1. Go ahead and rewrite some of the plot. Maybe *this* particular goblin was actually just being duped by the real big bad, and he'll become an ally to the party once they clear up the whole misunderstanding.

2. Use the plot. Goblin gets a free resurrection, thanks the party for their help, moves on with his scheme. It'll be HILARIOUS when they realize they just helped out the big bad.

[valadil]

Red herrings are subjective. They don't have to be wild goose chases or dead ends, but could be part of another plot than the one that's on screen right now. Let them run off in another direction and put something there for them to find. You don't have to alter your plot at all, just make room for a second plot.

[Deathkeeper]

I fully support the goblin coming back attached to the basilisk's body as a tauric creature or something but since he didn't get the head and basilisks have bad speed didn't really get anything out of the deal, and being rather upset about the whole thing.

[Mr Beer]

When all roads lead to Rome, then the choice of which road to take is merely illusory. Some groups will chafe under this style, should they make the same realization.

Well no doubt, that's why I presented this as an option, instead of saying "you should railroad them back onto your designated linear path because there must be no escape".

[KillianHawkeye]

When the Cleric tries to resurrect him, the target gets to know the alignment of the caster trying to res him. Thats all the info he gets really. So the Goblin wouldn't really know who is trying to res him in the first place.

Close. In 3.5, at least, they get to know the name of the person, their alignment, and what deity they worship (if any) before deciding whether or not to accept the raise.