Derailing the campaign in session one

[Batcathat]

The typical king's vizier can lie to the PCs. The Mayor. The town's cleric. The guard. Whomever NPC BBEG or Lieutenant or minion the party has just met and we don't know yet is the villain for that particular adventure arc. Not the party's Patron who has been the party's ally, friend, and confidant from levels 1 to 12 or whatever high level when the Big Reveal happens.

Are all villains also mandated to twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally at regular intervals? If the above is the unstated rule at your table that's fine, but it's definitely not a universal thing.

[HidesHisEyes]

Don’t know why so many people think the GM was in error. She’s a very good, very experienced GM. It’s just that the party when met with overwhelming force on 3 occasions managed to get out. She did everything possible in game to get us back on the rails. By rights the party should have been captured.



In campaigns I’ve been involved in the PCs capturing a ship leads inevitably to a mercantile campaign.

In my view she was in error for having rails to begin with. But I realise that’s a rather extreme position. If you disagree with it then I guess my response to this is just that she should accept that this will happen sometimes, no harm no foul. You said she had run this campaign successfully so it’s not like the work that went into it was wasted.

If it referred to my case, then the fact that my players ended up unmasking the villain when they weren't supposed to shows it's not the case.

It's less about betraying the pcs, and more about setting up hidden villains. Like, there is this important npc who's apparently a reasonable authority figure, but he's secretly a mastermind with a plan for world domination and he's only waiting for the right opportunity to start. Generally the opportunity is some kind of strife that would weaken the villain's enemies.

I prefer to have a cohesive world with established powerful factions, and have some of them enact evil plans, rather than introduce a new villain out of nowhere and then forgetting his followers the moment they're not relevant anymore. It enables better immersion and better characterization.

Also, the players aren't necessarily supposed to befriend those people. They represent political factions, and the pcs will have dealings with them, and those can go in many ways.
There was only one time i intentionally made a friend (a cohort) of the pcs turn traitor; and i was planning for the pc to win npc loialty over time, so that she would not betray the party and instead help them at the critical time.
Instead, the party did the following
- got her killed in their first fight toghether
- used a lower quality resurrection spell on her, making her lose a level, to save money
- gave her sub-par equipment
- used her as expendable meat shield
So, she went on with the betrayal. It wasn't my original plan.
Since then, the party was much more nice to cohorts

The vast majority of the npcs, though, are never intended as villains and traitors. I don't want to play in a grimdark crapsack world where the pcs have to kill everyone before they are killed. Most allies will be steadfast.
But wouldn't it be boring if every npc was always reliable?

I don’t think my last post was directed at you, no. And I broadly agree here. I try to think of deceptive NPCs the same way I try to think of everything I put in my campaigns: I’m throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. If we reach a point where an NPC might betray the PCs, then maybe they attempt to. If an NPC is deceiving them from the start then I’ll include some kind of clue towards that and at least give the players the opportunity to figure it out. My only real point here is that I don’t like the idea of saying “this NPC WILL successfully deceive the PCs”. And it’s just a specific case of the fact that I don’t like saying that anything at all WILL happen. I don’t want to know what’s going to happen any more than the players do.

Well, sure. Railroading is bad, but that's true regardless of whether it's about making sure the characters are tricked, captured, killed or something else. That said, I don't think the GM having a plan for the narrative in the sense of what's probably going to happen is a problem, as long as they're okay with it going some other way and able to adapt.

Yeah that’s my point, the deception thing is really a particularly sensitive case of the general no railroading rule, for me. And in principle I agree it’s fine to have an idea of likely outcomes, but personally I try to avoid even that since for me it’s a slippery slope from there to railroading. I’ve improved my games so much by adhering to “hold on lightly” and “play to find out” through cast iron discipline, that now I’m paranoid about it. Again, completely idiosyncratic point about my personal style, not a prescription.

[icefractal]

Are all villains also mandated to twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally at regular intervals? If the above is the unstated rule at your table that's fine, but it's definitely not a universal thing.

I think the key thing in that sentence is "from levels 1". I think it's fine for anyone to be potentially deceptive, if it's also fine for the players to refuse any quest and/or refuse to trust any person, including the very first hook that starts the campaign.

Personally, I've played in campaigns like that, and it sucked. We spent multiple sessions just getting most (not all) of the party working together, and even then there was a lot of carefully probing NPCs for information (which mostly wasn't shared with the other PCs) and very little taking any action, because we didn't know who could be trusted or whether any info we had was correct.

So now I prefer: "You can trust your fellow PCs and you can trust the initial hook, and neither of those will bite you in the ass IC. After that, maybe choose more carefully." Because then at least we build up some momentum and connections before slowing down.

[MoiMagnus]

I think the key thing in that sentence is "from levels 1". I think it's fine for anyone to be potentially deceptive, if it's also fine for the players to refuse any quest and/or refuse to trust any person, including the very first hook that starts the campaign.

Personally, I've played in campaigns like that, and it sucked. We spent multiple sessions just getting most (not all) of the party working together, and even then there was a lot of carefully probing NPCs for information (which mostly wasn't shared with the other PCs) and very little taking any action, because we didn't know who could be trusted or whether any info we had was correct.

So now I prefer: "You can trust your fellow PCs and you can trust the initial hook, and neither of those will bite you in the ass IC. After that, maybe choose more carefully." Because then at least we build up some momentum and connections before slowing down.

That's also why I prefer non-hostile deceptions. Just because you're initially a pawn in a greater game, and that the NPCs are hiding their true motives, doesn't mean that this will bite you eventually. In general, any campaign that includes climbing ranks in a secret society of some sort will start with a currently deceptive NPC which will most likely be a future ally (unless the PCs decide to play double agent for another organisation).

[Pex]

Are all villains also mandated to twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally at regular intervals? If the above is the unstated rule at your table that's fine, but it's definitely not a universal thing.

I never said it had to be universal. I just said I hate DM tricking players campaigns because of its adversarial nature.

[Forum Explorer]

I never said it had to be universal. I just said I hate DM tricking players campaigns because of its adversarial nature.

I like the idea of running that in reverse (might not be the best word for it). Yeah, the villain is the guy giving the quests. But he's not betraying you, he's trying to recruit you. These mission are all about fulfilling his evil plan and yeah, you might be pawns. But you're valuable pawns.

And then the 'reveal' isn't so much a sudden betrayal, but him testing you to see if you are truly loyal and ready to be promoted to evil LT. And you turning against him is the real betrayal here.

Of course the usual caveats of giving the PCs opportunities to figure this all out beforehand, and letting them spring their betrayal early, or even letting them come up with an elaborate plot to overthrow the BBEG at the last second. You know, however they want to play it out.

[King of Nowhere]

Yeah that’s my point, the deception thing is really a particularly sensitive case of the general no railroading rule, for me. And in principle I agree it’s fine to have an idea of likely outcomes, but personally I try to avoid even that since for me it’s a slippery slope from there to railroading.

on the other hand, if i have a good idea of what's likely to happen, i can prepare for that and make better material than i could if i was improvising. i mean, i have a pretty clear idea of how the world is made, which are the powerful factions, what kind of resources they have, and which of them have some nefarious plan secretly going. I am good with the big picture.
but the small scale eludes me. I learned to improvise decently well, and I am lucky to have good players that will help me by asking the right questions, but I'm much better if i can prepare in advance.

Last time, with the party uncovering the final villain too early, I had to call the session to an early stop to prepare. I knew the villain, being discovered, would move up her timetable and attack the main city that served as the pcs base of operation, and steamroll it. But I needed to prepare some good narration, because introducing a major villain must be done properly to make the villain memorable, and I knew there were a lot of details I had to convey and I would forget some if improvising. And I had the villain statted in advance, but i didn't have her minions statted. and finally, i wanted to provide opportunities for the party to run around the invaded city, fighting monsters at the outskirt of the major fights, to save their friends and their stuff. again, a lot of miniquest i had to prepare.
on the plus side, it was a memorable session and everyone was happy with the result.

[Duff]

Your DM made the same mistake that a lot of DM's make. You played through the intro.

The intro is not for playing unless the DM is open to these sorts of things happening. The intro is for introducing things.

Getting press-ganged? That's story.
Getting contacted by spies? That's story.
Getting chipped suicide-suqad-style? That's story.
Getting a ship for your first mission? That's story.
Being sent on your quest? THAT is where her game actually started.

Everything leading up to that? That's introductory story that the DM should give you before turning over the reins and letting the players start rolling dice.

The DM should be absolutely prepared for their game to take an immediate left-turn the moment they let players start rolling. That's not to say it will, luck and chance may conspire to make it work just as planned. The DM may be really good at making the railroad look like an open-world, the players may be really interested in the story laid out before them.

But a lot of DMs and a lot of games make this exact mistake. They let people start playing before they actually should.

That is so much more elegantly put than I said it!

[Saint-Just]

I like the idea of running that in reverse (might not be the best word for it). Yeah, the villain is the guy giving the quests. But he's not betraying you, he's trying to recruit you. These mission are all about fulfilling his evil plan and yeah, you might be pawns. But you're valuable pawns.

And then the 'reveal' isn't so much a sudden betrayal, but him testing you to see if you are truly loyal and ready to be promoted to evil LT. And you turning against him is the real betrayal here.

Of course the usual caveats of giving the PCs opportunities to figure this all out beforehand, and letting them spring their betrayal early, or even letting them come up with an elaborate plot to overthrow the BBEG at the last second. You know, however they want to play it out.

Sounds like exactly what was supposed to happen in Glorthindel's campaign. The players were supposed to turn on their boss.

[Duff]

I think the key thing in that sentence is "from levels 1". I think it's fine for anyone to be potentially deceptive, if it's also fine for the players to refuse any quest and/or refuse to trust any person, including the very first hook that starts the campaign.

Those are not at all equivalent. If PCs don't accept the hook, the adventure doesn't happen. This isn't a moral or rules thing. This is entirely practical.
Not trusting the first quest giver is entirely appropriate. Even good roleplaying. Take the job, but also, cast detect alignment/do some research/keep the emails

"A well established patron has to deal fairly and honestly with the party" is a table rule you should probably check if you ever join a game at a table you don't know.
Especially if the GM has ever played Shadowrun

[Forum Explorer]

Sounds like exactly what was supposed to happen in Glorthindel's campaign. The players were supposed to turn on their boss.

That was a pretty amazing story. And this is much the same idea, just with the BBEG being more aware of the PCs allegiance

[georgie_leech]

Especially if the GM has ever played Shadowrun

Thank you for succinctly identifying why I never seem to trust anyone acting as a quest giver anymore

[Batcathat]

I think the key thing in that sentence is "from levels 1". I think it's fine for anyone to be potentially deceptive, if it's also fine for the players to refuse any quest and/or refuse to trust any person, including the very first hook that starts the campaign.

Personally, I've played in campaigns like that, and it sucked. We spent multiple sessions just getting most (not all) of the party working together, and even then there was a lot of carefully probing NPCs for information (which mostly wasn't shared with the other PCs) and very little taking any action, because we didn't know who could be trusted or whether any info we had was correct.

So now I prefer: "You can trust your fellow PCs and you can trust the initial hook, and neither of those will bite you in the ass IC. After that, maybe choose more carefully." Because then at least we build up some momentum and connections before slowing down.

I don't really see the point of this sort of meta-reasoning. Yes, the players should be able to trust the GM not to screw them over but that doesn't mean the characters need to be able to trust their patron not to do it. Just look at Glorthindel's story – the characters were probably very upset about their employeer using and tricking them but the players seems to have been completely okay with the situation.

I never said it had to be universal. I just said I hate DM tricking players campaigns because of its adversarial nature.

That's fine, but I still don't understand why the GM having NPCs attack the PCs isn't adversarial but having the NPCs lie to them is.

[Pex]

That's fine, but I still don't understand why the GM having NPCs attack the PCs isn't adversarial but having the NPCs lie to them is.

Not just any NPC. The NPC the DM spent the whole campaign up to that point as the party's friend and mentor only for the Big Reveal to be AHA! he was the BBEG all along and tricked you.

[Lacco]

Not just any NPC. The NPC the DM spent the whole campaign up to that point as the party's friend and mentor only for the Big Reveal to be AHA! he was the BBEG all along and tricked you.

This is actually a good point for many GMs. If you spend time setting up this big goofy good mentor friend and then pull the rug from under the players' collective feet, you are basically inviting them not to trust anyone.

There need to be countless small hints.
Big hints.
Folks that are afraid of the "good mentor".
Allies that will try to warn them not to trust him.
People who actually say something bad will disappear.

Basically, a rugpull is no good unless the players have a solid chance to figure it out before you do it, and unless they trust you, as a GM.

And even then it can backfire. Also, it should not be the end of the campaign: getting revenge should be the end.

[Batcathat]

Not just any NPC. The NPC the DM spent the whole campaign up to that point as the party's friend and mentor only for the Big Reveal to be AHA! he was the BBEG all along and tricked you.

Right, I understand what's happening, just not why it'd be such a big no-no. Granted, pulling off such a reveal takes some skill and probably planning (compare the ending of the Sixth Sense to some of Shyamalan's later mandatory big twists, for example) but I suspect that's not what you're referring to. Again, I agree that the GM must absolutely play fair, the NPCs can lie to the PCs, but GM can't lie about what they are experiencing.

[Glorthindel]

Just look at Glorthindel's story – the characters were probably very upset about their employeer using and tricking them but the players seems to have been completely okay with the situation.

Oh absolutely, the session when it all came out is possibly the best session I have ever been involved in, and is probably the only time I've had absolutely no idea how something was going to play out. At one point the party were in a full mexican standoff with each other, and the players were checking with each other that there would be no hard feelings if they just started shooting.

I will admit, the session could have definitely gone the wrong way with a different group of players, but our group is about 20 years old at this point, have been close friends away from the table for as long, and we don't carry grudges away from the table with us. With a less solid group of friends, it might have gone differently.

This is actually a good point for many GMs. If you spend time setting up this big goofy good mentor friend and then pull the rug from under the players' collective feet, you are basically inviting them not to trust anyone.

There need to be countless small hints.
Big hints.
Folks that are afraid of the "good mentor".
Allies that will try to warn them not to trust him.
People who actually say something bad will disappear.

Basically, a rugpull is no good unless the players have a solid chance to figure it out before you do it, and unless they trust you, as a GM.

And even then it can backfire. Also, it should not be the end of the campaign: getting revenge should be the end.

Agreed. I made sure to never have my Inquisitor be the parties friend. He was always a looming presence who was focussed on "his mission", and treated the party like expendable underlings who should be treated like mushrooms. In hindsight, my big mistake was doing this in the Warhammer 40k setting, as the players interpreted this as normal good guy behavoir for that setting (and I suppose they aren't wrong there...).

[Batcathat]

Oh absolutely, the session when it all came out is possibly the best session I have ever been involved in, and is probably the only time I've had absolutely no idea how something was going to play out. At one point the party were in a full mexican standoff with each other, and the players were checking with each other that there would be no hard feelings if they just started shooting.

Sounds like fun. One of my own more memorable RPG experiences also involve the party in a Mexican stand-off. We had some disagreements over whether to kill a prisoner or not, if I remember correctly it ended with the prisoner dead and one party member (non-fatally) shot. That was a fun party, my PC was the self-appointed party leader and it was like herding cats. Murderous, impulsive cats with no regard for their own or anyone else's safety... If the GM did have a plan for that campaign, it was probably derailed within the first ten minutes.

[Lucas Yew]

A minor case in my (as of now) only 5E campaign ever played, though not a Session 1 scenario.

1. My DM unleashed a solo devil combat encounter (late T2).
2. My GOO Warlock fires a banish spell as the very first action.
3. It's super effective! The supposedly impressive devil popped away...

While I, the DM and everyone in the group were (most probably) reasonable adults so let the mess-up pass for that time, the shell shock was clear enough that for all other banishable future encounters, the DM had pointed out excuses in form of hints why this was not repeatable and I obliged for the group's shared fun...

----

Edit: Not the 1st session, actually, but I think this would have been a minor derail if either me or the DM were not a polite person...

[HidesHisEyes]

on the other hand, if i have a good idea of what's likely to happen, i can prepare for that and make better material than i could if i was improvising. i mean, i have a pretty clear idea of how the world is made, which are the powerful factions, what kind of resources they have, and which of them have some nefarious plan secretly going. I am good with the big picture.
but the small scale eludes me. I learned to improvise decently well, and I am lucky to have good players that will help me by asking the right questions, but I'm much better if i can prepare in advance.

Last time, with the party uncovering the final villain too early, I had to call the session to an early stop to prepare. I knew the villain, being discovered, would move up her timetable and attack the main city that served as the pcs base of operation, and steamroll it. But I needed to prepare some good narration, because introducing a major villain must be done properly to make the villain memorable, and I knew there were a lot of details I had to convey and I would forget some if improvising. And I had the villain statted in advance, but i didn't have her minions statted. and finally, i wanted to provide opportunities for the party to run around the invaded city, fighting monsters at the outskirt of the major fights, to save their friends and their stuff. again, a lot of miniquest i had to prepare.
on the plus side, it was a memorable session and everyone was happy with the result.

I suppose I just value the organic, flexible quality that comes from being as improvisational as possible over the detail, consistency etc that comes from planning for a specific eventuality. When I used to do the latter I often found that the cool moments I had planned fell flat, and I’ve had that experience as a player with other people’s cool moments too. I think it’s because, for me, what makes an RPG moment truly cool is precisely that it wasn’t planned, that we all just ended up there together.

I’m not saying I don’t prep at all, btw. I just stick to prepping modular elements that I can wheel out or combine with what the players give me as needed.

[Easy e]

Thank you for succinctly identifying why I never seem to trust anyone acting as a quest giver anymore

+1 to this!

[Pex]

A minor case in my (as of now) only 5E campaign ever played, though not a Session 1 scenario.

1. My DM unleashed a solo devil combat encounter (late T2).
2. My GOO Warlock fires a banish spell as the very first action.
3. It's super effective! The supposedly impressive devil popped away...

While I, the DM and everyone in the group were (most probably) reasonable adults so let the mess-up pass for that time, the shell shock was clear enough that for all other banishable future encounters, the DM had pointed out excuses in form of hints why this was not repeatable and I obliged for the group's shared fun...

----

Edit: Not the 1st session, actually, but I think this would have been a minor derail if either me or the DM were not a polite person...

Instead of banning the spell by proxy the better solution was for the DM to learn the lesson of not having a solo devil encounter and instead have multiple foes encounters and let everyone feel good when you banish one of the stronger enemies to make the combat easier for everyone. That's why the iconic UberBBEG monsters have Legendary Resistance. It's to allow them to be solo fights without one spell ending the fight on Round One. Lair actions and Legendary actions are so the players don't defeat them in Round Two due to action economy.

[Quertus]

Only time I remember ever intending something, I intended a character to act as the BBEG. Party took them as an ally / quest-giver.

Building a complex plot that requires a session to go a particular way is a rookie mistake.

Even if that way is "oppose (rather than join) the BBEG".

[HidesHisEyes]

Only time I remember ever intending something, I intended a character to act as the BBEG. Party took them as an ally / quest-giver.

Building a complex plot that requires a session to go a particular way is a rookie mistake.

Even if that way is "oppose (rather than join) the BBEG".

Yep yep yep.

[Telok]

Building a complex plot that requires a session to go a particular way is a rookie mistake.

Even if that way is "oppose (rather than join) the BBEG".

Building a simple plot that requires the PCs to just not be suicidal anarchist psycho-murderers has also failed several times for me.

[Pex]

Building a simple plot that requires the PCs to just not be suicidal anarchist psycho-murderers has also failed several times for me.

The only time that happened to me was at a gaming convention, but I was inexperienced to know what was happening at the time and they were doing it on purpose. It was a group of friends who arrived. One would leave without me realizing it until 30 minutes into the game. The rest just started a combat for the sake of having one. They fought until their characters' died then congratulated themselves on ruining the game and left the table. The game wasn't ruined because what they fought wasn't important, and I continued the game fine with everyone else who were there to play and weren't even in the fight. I would learn later they did the same thing to another DM at a miniatures wargaming table. The DM went to the bathroom, and when he returned half his players were gone preventing the game from being played. Nothing was stolen.

Sometimes people are just donkey cavities.

[Altheus]

....She’d spent 2 months building the campaign and we were so deep in the weeds she had no prepared material suitable to follow on from where we had ended session one. And that’s where the campaign ended.

And that's why you don't plan more than a session or two ahead.

[gijoemike]

And that's why you don't plan more than a session or two ahead.

I good GM should always outline the campaign and various major NPCs. That could easily take a group of PCs 10 or 12 sessions to encounter. This isn't every single detail corridor and piece of loot, but just the high level stuff.

[Easy e]

I good GM should always outline the campaign and various major NPCs. That could easily take a group of PCs 10 or 12 sessions to encounter. This isn't every single detail corridor and piece of loot, but just the high level stuff.

I think you will find strong disagreement about what makes a "Good GM".

[False God]

And that's why you don't plan more than a session or two ahead.

The GM's issue wasn't one of overplanning.

I'd argue, it was in fact, a lack of planning.

Session 1, above all others, will contain the highest number of probable outcomes. From there on out, planning far ahead is fairly simple. You've got an idea of what hooks the characters, what hooks the players, and where they're going. Since they're interested in these elements, they're more likely to see them to completion, rather than just bounce all over the board. So you can plan out what they're interested in, instead of guessing at what might catch their attention.

Once you know where the party wants to go, planning far ahead is easy, and you won't even have to railroad, because the party WANTS to do this thing.