A quantum world?

[DarknessLord]

Okay, so your players decide that, rescuing the heir to the throne of the kingdom isn't worth their time, that would be okay and all, except for the fact that it's a key part of the BBEG's plan to break reality and rebuild it to his liking or whatever, and you've dropped a few small, but possibly unnoticed hints relating to that, and so by rejecting the quest they doomed the world to damnation.
What are your options?

1. Have the REALLY AWESOME NPC that's been adventuring with the party INSIST that they take the quest, and not give any of the PCs a chance to speak.
2. Let the big bad go through with his plan, with every logical consequence that would ensue.
3. Another party of Adventures go on the mission the PCs rejected, and save the princess and stop the big bad's dastardly schemes.
4. Maybe, it wasn't the big bad after all, maybe it was just some smocks from the empire, and the whole kidnapping situation was resolved, one way or another. The PCs will cross paths with the big bad's ritual later. Or not. Maybe.

While the first option is just an example of bad DMing only put up their for completeness of the list, the other options raise an interesting question, how much of your world is influenced by what the PCs do, if the PCs never head west to Villagevale, will the dragon never come to there? Or will the dragon burn Villagevale to the ground by the third full moon if the PCs are there or not. Are your worlds much more solid and fixed, or more in a quantum state, with things changing from time to time to fit your needs?

[AstralFire]

I generally decide things as they need to happen. When I do plan, so far I've been able to plan for every possible major consequence, so it hasn't been an issue.

[TheCountAlucard]

Me, I just use a little of everything. Because the PCs weren't in Immia at the time, Slimph Landarin stole the Book of Vile Darkness. They never even found out about it. However, they encountered Slimph Landarin at a later date and defeated him.

My suggestion? Don't pull any of that "fate of the world" trash. Nobody should ever be in a position to threaten existence, and nobody should have to deal with someone who does.

[EvilElitest]

my head will hurt if played this game sadly
from
EE

[DarknessLord]

Me, I just use a little of everything. Because the PCs weren't in Immia at the time, Slimph Landarin stole the Book of Vile Darkness. They never even found out about it. However, they encountered Slimph Landarin at a later date and defeated him.

My suggestion? Don't pull any of that "fate of the world" trash. Nobody should ever be in a position to threaten existence, and nobody should have to deal with someone who does.

I see, I suppose if the PCs had been in Immia at the time, they might have had an opportunity to stop Slimph? Or was that part of his/her back story because it was a place they hadn't been?

And the "fate of the world" is a pretty common trope, but I can understand your reason for not liking it, it was chosen as the example, because of how extreme it is.

[Dr Bwaa]

I am not too quantum when it comes to DMing. Certain world events will happen at certain times, barring intervention (direct or indirect) from PCs. I have a tendency to think everything out altogether too much, so PC intervention can be as much as going off and traveling 500 miles to become the princess' bodyguards so she doesn't get kidnapped, or as little as mentioning something to the princess' servants that cause her to change plans and go to a different town because they sell better pie (made by the PC's mom or something), and therefore accidentally thwart the BBEG's plans while he searches for wherever she went. I pay very strict attention to details between sessions and make sure to have this sort of thing worked out impartially.

Of course, occasionally things will be "quantum" for simplicity's sake or to give the PCs something to do. (A large) part of being a DM is coming up with stuff that "has been happening" for weeks or months and introducing some bit of it to the PCs as news. So yes, of course the princess was taking this route through the town where the PCs are. She only stays for a day, but if they interact, they may change things. If not, she'll still go on to be kidnapped and so on.

End result:
My games are very much solid-state. I know how things will turn out in any given situation, and then apply the PCs' actions to that system.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And the "fate of the world" is a pretty common trope, but I can understand your reason for not liking it, it was chosen as the example, because of how extreme it is.

On "Fate of the World"

Spoiler

Show

The real problem with using that trope in a tabletop RPG is - what if the PCs fail? I don't mean die, but what if they can't stop the ritual in time?

You have two options at that point:
a) the ritual won't be completed, ever - the PCs can't lose
b) the ritual is completed and the world ends - goodbye campaign setting

(a) removes the risk from the adventure, but (b) kills off your characters and the world. That's just a nasty set of options for a DM, IMHO.

There is a third way, of course: the world "ends" as we know it, but life goes on. After the End is a fine way to deal with the problems shown above, except that you'll still have to kill your campaign setting. Sure, it can be done, but gosh that's a lot of work for the off-chance the PCs lose.

On Topic:
You really just need to let the campaign keep on chugging, and throw more hooks at the PCs. Don't let another adventurer band rescue the Princess unless you're going to do something with the band (maybe they hold her hostage until the king gives them a greater reward, for example), but do find some alternative way to hook the PCs into what you have planned.

If the matter was minor, then it's easy to let it just pass up, but you should put some consequences out there so that the PCs see what happens when they're not on the ball. Maybe the King is forced to pay the huge ransom for his daughter's release, and has to find a way to fill the hole in his treasury; perhaps a conscript army to raid a known dragon lair? Let's see how the PCs feel about being "dragooned" (*snerk*) into an apparent suicide mission with a bunch of commoners with crossbows. No, don't punish your PCs, but do show them that inaction has consequences.

If the matter was more important (like the start of a campaign), then find another way to get the PCs interested. Perhaps old rivals of theirs take up the quest instead, and badmouth the cowardly PCs for refusing the mission, or the party wizard discovers that the BBEG is holed up in the ruins of an ancient temple which is said to hold a powerful magic, or something of the like. If you went through the trouble of writing a campaign, there's no harm in encouraging the PCs to keep on trucking, or enabling them to get back on track if they failed a quest.

[DoomedPaladin]

In my games, "all roads lead to Rome" even if "Rome" is under a different alias. Events occur wether or not the PC's influence them. If they "drop the ball" and BBEG wins, something godawfull happens and either the PC's, or their orginization, or maybe "adventurers" are blamed until they fix their problem. One way or another.

[monty]

I don't like railroading, so if you screw up, you screw up. If players know they can't fail, it's not as fun.

[BobVosh]

Rocks fall, everyone dies!

Let them go save the world from some other threat, and have them learn the world was doomed before anyway.

[Shazzbaa]

Re: If a tree falls and the PC's aren't there to hear it, does it make a sound?

While the best way to run this is highly dependent on the group (some people want a sandbox, I personally don't like sandboxes, etc), I still feel like there's a nice happy medium that is usually optimal, where the Big Bad has his scheme, his scheme will continue if the PCs don't stop him, but as his machinations continue they will become increasingly hindering to the PCs. I don't consider this railroading; if the BigBad is ending the world, then it's going to start messing with your ability to go on casual adventures eventually. I also like this method because I am one of those people who's a bit slow and probably missed all the DM's nice hints that I should be saving the kingdom, and I like having a chance for it to be shoved pointedly through my thick skull before the world is doomed.

Re: Fate of the world

It depends on how it's done. I think "You are the fated ones! Please save us!" is fine if you have PCs who aren't afraid of being the Mary Sues of your world (an aside: I think roleplaying is one of the few storytelling exercises where you're allowed to be a Mary Sue if you want, and it can still be awesome), but some people are bothered by this, so, yaknow, know your group. However, something that turns into But Thou Must is always railroading.

Though Oracle_hunter makes good points regarding that one.

Tangential anecdote:

Spoiler

Show

I had one GM who gave us dreams that were usually prophetic, but vague enough that we didn't see them coming until the moment they were relevant. One session, two of the players got dreams hinting that Conall, the speed-tank, was going to stop some kind of tree. When we started fighting the ents, he made the connection, but decided "forget that!" as soon as he saw them, and attacked an enemy spell-caster instead. So, instead of him taking out the ents, I did, but without me focusing on the enemy spell-caster, that caster managed to kill Conall. At least four of our dreams ended up not "coming true" because of this change-up.
I loved the fact that it could be interpreted two different ways: You could either look at it and say there is no destiny, and nothing is written in stone, and you can fight your fate if you want and change the way things will be... or you could look at it as an example of the futility of fighting fate, as Conall's actions may have changed the future, but also made the battle end much more fatally than the dreams had prescribed; essentially, he had "messed it up."

The best thing? The GM had not planned that. He'd expected everything to go according to his prophetic dreams, and when it didn't, pure chance took over... but it created a positively beautiful ambiguity.

[Dervag]

I think "fate of the world" is OK, but only if the players consent to it by playing towards such an end. You don't want to trap them on a plot that guarantees only they can save the world starting from level one; what happens if they get killed in a random skirmish?

The fate of the world should only be at stake when it is dramatically appropriate- when the Ultimate Villain, who has been harassing the players on and off for years, reveals his Fiendish Plan. At which point the heroes should want to stop him even if they don't care about saving the world.

Keep in mind, if the fate of the world is at stake, that a Rorschach moment can make one heck of an ending.

[Zen Master]

Players or characters uninterested in the story and the plot are a recurring problem. The worst I've had is a player/character who will only ever work for promised rewards. He has no interest in heroics, and is unwilling to risk combat with anything to get the rewards inherent in that - loot and xp.

Basically I'm lucky that's the worst I've had to GM for.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Players or characters uninterested in the story and the plot are a recurring problem. The worst I've had is a player/character who will only ever work for promised rewards. He has no interest in heroics, and is unwilling to risk combat with anything to get the rewards inherent in that - loot and xp.

Basically I'm lucky that's the worst I've had to GM for.

Meh, my PCs are usually pretty happy to follow my plot hooks. I don't know if it's because I make unique, exciting and delicious hooks, or if it's because they'd rather go on an adventure I planned instead of having me wing it for 6 hours

But I've always found that D&D works best if you align your adventures with what the PCs want to do. If you don't know, throw a couple of generic adventures at them and see what they get most excited about... and then use more of that.

[Thrud]

I think "fate of the world" is OK, but only if the players consent to it by playing towards such an end. You don't want to trap them on a plot that guarantees only they can save the world starting from level one; what happens if they get killed in a random skirmish?

The fate of the world should only be at stake when it is dramatically appropriate- when the Ultimate Villain, who has been harassing the players on and off for years, reveals his Fiendish Plan. At which point the heroes should want to stop him even if they don't care about saving the world.

Keep in mind, if the fate of the world is at stake, that a Rorschach moment can make one heck of an ending.

Yeah, I have to agree there. Fate of the world stuff is a good way to end a campaign, but othereise shouldn't necessarily come into play. HOWEVER, if you are intending to end the campaign, and the players completely fail to get themselves involved in the fate of the world crumbs you sprinkled in front of them, then by all means feel free to make everything crash around their ears as you bring the final game session to an end.

And then maybe start your next campaign in the ruins of that first campaign, perhaps 100 years later, where the names of the PCs are now universally reviled as the ones who had the potential to save the world from evil badness, and totally failed to do so.

But then maybe I'm just a little vindictive.

[Zen Master]

Meh, my PCs are usually pretty happy to follow my plot hooks. I don't know if it's because I make unique, exciting and delicious hooks, or if it's because they'd rather go on an adventure I planned instead of having me wing it for 6 hours

But I've always found that D&D works best if you align your adventures with what the PCs want to do. If you don't know, throw a couple of generic adventures at them and see what they get most excited about... and then use more of that.

On general principle, I dislike the characters in my campaign being mercenaries and nothing else. Now, *roleplaying* a mercenary is one thing - but even the most hardened mercenary cares for something. This particular player of mine is motivated by nothing - except the promise of a reward.

And it has nothing to do with the hooks, or the plots, or anything like that.

[Tsotha-lanti]

If the players don't realize they have to act or the world is doomed, you've built a pretty shoddy plot. If the world is actually sliding toward doom, they'd be sure to catch on eventually - just in the nick of time to save it, naturally. If your apocalyptic plot only has one point of entry for the PCs - and it's so early the seriousness of the situation is not apparent - it's a bad plot.

If the players realize they have to act or the world is doomed, and don't act, you've got shoddy players who'd probably be happier doing something else.

I don't think I've had a plot in ten years where my players either missed the hook or didn't grab on to it and pull.

[Yakk]

"Players Pick The Correct Choice":
If a player has multiple choices, where there isn't strong evidence that one path or the other is the correct one, the one the player picks will be the right one.

This isn't merely what happens when you have to choose one tunnel or another: if a player chooses to go after a thief, rescue the maiden, or doesn't trust the guards, the act that the player makes the character do implies the kind of game that the player wants to play.

A good DM creates a world that is in line with the game that the player wants to play. If the player wants to play a game where avoiding guards is a good idea, then... give it to them.

This naturally takes some doing with multiple PCs.

On the other hand, picking which route at random in a maze results in a world in which you are lost in a maze. :-)