How should a GM handle refused plots

...I'd suggest not getting overly specific/detailed when first laying out campaign plots. Keep them relatively general, so that they can adapt/evolve over time.

...I'd also suggest offering PC's side treks along the way. Don't limit your adventures to ones that are solely focused on the overarching objective. Variety keeps it interesting.

shidaku said:

If they're here to just run around and do
whatever they want...

Click to expand...

For sandboxing those are the best players!
As long as 'whatever they want' isn't something boring like run a shop. IME 10 year old boys make the best sandboxers, and those with a 10 year old boy in their heart.

S'mon said:

For sandboxing those are the best players!
As long as 'whatever they want' isn't something boring like run a shop. IME 10 year old boys make the best sandboxers, and those with a 10 year old boy in their heart.

Click to expand...

Well sure, but I would imagine the question of the OP is a lot less impactful in a sandbox.

shidaku said:

Well sure, but I would imagine the question of the OP is a lot less impactful in a sandbox.

Click to expand...

Funny, I actually assumed the question referred to a sandbox game. In a linear campaign I would assume metagame buy in to the GM'S plot. In that case my advice would be an out of game discussion with the players to get everyone on the same page.

S'mon said:

Funny, I actually assumed the question referred to a sandbox game. In a linear campaign I would assume metagame buy in to the GM'S plot. In that case my advice would be an out of game discussion with the players to get everyone on the same page.

Click to expand...

But there's a pretty wide berth between a linear campaign book game and a perfect sandbox. Most homebrew games fall somewhere in between I'd wager, having several linearish campaign plots that can be discovered, while having some localized sandboxy areas, aka "quest hubs" and the "open world" consisting of mostly empty zones save for perhaps one or two scripted locations (the sand dragon's lair in the desert). Pre-game buy-in is still the answer no matter which way, even the best of sandboxes aren't infinite and if your players turn down everything in a sandbox, you're going to have to ask a lot harder questions than "Are my quests boring?"

shidaku said:

But there's a pretty wide berth between a linear campaign book game and a perfect sandbox. Most homebrew games fall somewhere in between I'd wager, having several linearish campaign plots that can be discovered, while having some localized sandboxy areas, aka "quest hubs" and the "open world" consisting of mostly empty zones save for perhaps one or two scripted locations (the sand dragon's lair in the desert).

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much sums my game up.

Pre-game buy-in is still the answer no matter which way, even the best of sandboxes aren't infinite and if your players turn down everything in a sandbox, you're going to have to ask a lot harder questions than "Are my quests boring?"

Click to expand...

Almost always true, with the exception being a player group* that intentionally turns down anything that look like a DM hook because they specifically want to do their own thing, whatever that may be, and explore the world in their own way.

* - players and groups can sort-of have alignments too as evidenced by how they play; these would be CG or maybe CN.

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

Almost always true, with the exception being a player group* that intentionally turns down anything that look like a DM hook because they specifically want to do their own thing, whatever that may be, and explore the world in their own way.

* - players and groups can sort-of have alignments too as evidenced by how they play; these would be CG or maybe CN.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

I suppose if it is a cooperative-style DMing, where everyone shares the DMing and worldbuilding and decision making I could see that as being true. I would be hard pressed to comprehend why someone would want to DM for people who inherently reject the concept of a DM though.

shidaku said:

I suppose if it is a cooperative-style DMing, where everyone shares the DMing and worldbuilding and decision making I could see that as being true. I would be hard pressed to comprehend why someone would want to DM for people who inherently reject the concept of a DM though.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's not the case.

They're not rejecting the concept of a DM in the least. They need someone to provide the game world, the backdrop, the history, to referee the game, to provide opposition, and to adjudicate and narrate the results of what they do. And then they just want her to mostly get out of the way while they explore the game world she's provided and - as they go - find and develop (or create) their own adventure hooks leading to adventures leading to stories that become the campaign. The DM here has to be more reactive than proactive; instead of proactively putting out hooks and bait she tells them about their surroundings and then sits back and reacts to what the players and characters do.

And I sort of wonder whether this is somewhat the case in the OP; that the DM might want to step back a bit, take a reactive stance for a while and see what the players and characters do. If they do nothing then he's well within his rights to boot them into action somehow (and at this point the players have no legitimate right to complain if he does), but if they do something then he can run with it and see where it goes.

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

Ah, but that's not the case.

They're not rejecting the concept of a DM in the least. They need someone to provide the game world, the backdrop, the history, to referee the game, to provide opposition, and to adjudicate and narrate the results of what they do. And then they just want her to mostly get out of the way while they explore the game world she's provided and - as they go - find and develop (or create) their own adventure hooks leading to adventures leading to stories that become the campaign. The DM here has to be more reactive than proactive; instead of proactively putting out hooks and bait she tells them about their surroundings and then sits back and reacts to what the players and characters do.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I question how possible this is. We saw the horrible flop that was No Mans Sky precisely because the "DM" has provided a vast, theoretically endless world to explore, but filled it with nothing but random wandering monsters. And that is a multi-million-dollar computer game developed over several years by multiple people. DMs have to put something in their world and there's no guarantee that any of it will entice the players. So, unless the players themselves are adding things to the world, I don't see how a DM can actually do what you are suggesting. Eventually "reactive" must become proactive because a series of events must lead to some kind of conclusion. You find a Prince lost in the woods (who must by nature of being a Prince, belong to or be related to a King, a Queen, a country, it's people, and so forth, and all of those things must exist in order for the Prince to exist.) Right here is the defining moment where a DM cannot be reactive. Sure, they can say "oh yeah, Princeling has a quest for you."

But, and this is speaking from experience, "on the fly" DMing can only get you so far. It only goes so deep (and usually only just past your ankles). But the more the players go down that rabbit hole, the more the DM must become proactive instead of reactive. That Prince means the DM must now create a King, a Queen, a nation (past, present or future or even otherworldly!) but now it must exist. That means names, places, descriptions, inhabitants that must be created. We're well past "reactive" DMing here and deep into the territory of proactive DMing.

And I sort of wonder whether this is somewhat the case in the OP; that the DM might want to step back a bit, take a reactive stance for a while and see what the players and characters do. If they do nothing then he's well within his rights to boot them into action somehow (and at this point the players have no legitimate right to complain if he does), but if they do something then he can run with it and see where it goes.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Speaking from personal experience, every time I have veered off from the "interesting things I have created" into the "random whatevers the players want to do" my games have wholly collapsed. Which is why I don't do this anymore, and I wouldn't advise it to anyone who didn't have a fairly massive sandbox world to play with (even if it's someone else's world they're running). Inevitably the players chew through content faster than the DM can create it and the content gets inevitably shallower as this goes on.

Being reactive takes an entirely different skillset than being proactive. An entirely different way of thinking. It's not something a lot of people can simply "switch" over to.

shidaku said:

Frankly, I question how possible this is. We saw the horrible flop that was No Mans Sky precisely because the "DM" has provided a vast, theoretically endless world to explore, but filled it with nothing but random wandering monsters. And that is a multi-million-dollar computer game developed over several years by multiple people. DMs have to put something in their world and there's no guarantee that any of it will entice the players. So, unless the players themselves are adding things to the world, I don't see how a DM can actually do what you are suggesting. Eventually "reactive" must become proactive because a series of events must lead to some kind of conclusion. You find a Prince lost in the woods (who must by nature of being a Prince, belong to or be related to a King, a Queen, a country, it's people, and so forth, and all of those things must exist in order for the Prince to exist.) Right here is the defining moment where a DM cannot be reactive. Sure, they can say "oh yeah, Princeling has a quest for you."

Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you here - one thing from the players can lead to loads of stuff for and from the DM; but the advantage is that as it originated from the players in theory there's a built-in buy in that hooks provided by the DM alone weren't getting.

But, and this is speaking from experience, "on the fly" DMing can only get you so far. It only goes so deep (and usually only just past your ankles). But the more the players go down that rabbit hole, the more the DM must become proactive instead of reactive. That Prince means the DM must now create a King, a Queen, a nation (past, present or future or even otherworldly!) but now it must exist. That means names, places, descriptions, inhabitants that must be created. We're well past "reactive" DMing here and deep into the territory of proactive DMing.

Click to expand...

Definition semantics, I suppose: to me that whole lot of creating you speak of is a reactive move. That said, I agree with your assessment of on-the-fly DMing - it can work for a short time (e.g. the rest of the session after the players throw a curveball at you) but not long-term.

Just out of curiousity, have you been following that massive thread "Judgement Calls vs. Railroading"? In there are a number of people (of whom I am not one!) advocating for game systems where the DM is pretty much supposed to make up quite a bit of it as things go along, based on what the players / characters do or try to do.

Speaking from personal experience, every time I have veered off from the "interesting things I have created" into the "random whatevers the players want to do" my games have wholly collapsed. Which is why I don't do this anymore, and I wouldn't advise it to anyone who didn't have a fairly massive sandbox world to play with (even if it's someone else's world they're running). Inevitably the players chew through content faster than the DM can create it and the content gets inevitably shallower as this goes on.

Click to expand...

Mostly agreed; a good DM can pull it off for a while but eventually ends up forced to concede.

Being reactive takes an entirely different skillset than being proactive. An entirely different way of thinking. It's not something a lot of people can simply "switch" over to.

Click to expand...

Not full-time, no; but it's still another trick a DM can pull out of the hat now and then if needed; particularly for sandbox-style games.

Lanefan