When good roleplayers rebel...

Would somebody please kick me in the head...?! I've apparently exceeded my ego limit concerning my ability to gently (and frequently not-so-gently) provide my player characters with a likely and perfectly logical direction in which to drive the campaign.

Get this. My players are devoted roleplayers, and one of the best is my good buddy Dark Eternal (who should stop reading this now and go on about his business!). Well, he's currently playing an exiled prince of a small northern kingdom... and the other PC's have been with him since Day One. This was only session 10 of this campaign. It's a homebrew world... ARCANA UNEARTHED ruleset.

Lately, his character, a young magister, has been fairly noncommittal about a number of things... riding the edge of despair, having difficulty coping with the new course his life has taken. Despite the fact that he was raised to rule, and Dark Eternal would eventually like to forge him into something of a leader among his peers, he has been significantly out of his element. Regardless, the other PC's have been somewhat drawn to him... a combination of a well-played high charisma score, and the natural deference in the presence of royalty. And, as his physical stats, and consequentially his hit points, leave something to be desired, they have become protective of him, as well. So I developed a brilliant plan to make them feel trapped into pursuing a particular quest.

Note: I am generally very gentle when it comes to pushing my PC's in a particular direction.... Now I remember why.

Here's the basic sitch: The PC's just escaped an island where a cult of mojh, led by a dark-hearted high-level runethane, were practicing blood-sacrifice rituals in their quest to resurrect an ancient fallen wyrm. While their master was away, the PCs swept into the cultists' lair, slew them to a "man", then fled the island with the cult's intended sacrifices aboard their own ship. Needless to say, the runethane was not pleased. He sent a trusted NPC, under the influence of a rune of dominion, to rejoin the party, and had him slap the young prince with a magical rune which, he explained, would slay the prince outright if he did not retrieve a distant magical artifact and return to the mojh by a certain date. With the magister's recent depression and uncertainty, it seemed very likely that he would feel that he had no choice and would comply, and the others would go along to lend their aid and protection.

This is when my worldview started to crumble. The player character in question, after a period of shock at this tragic course of events, decides to snap out of his vulnerable state and become the leader he was born to be... and intends to lead his small force in a direct assault on said villain... assuming he can find him. That's it... the course is clear. Whatever happens, he fully intends to ascertain that the villain will gain nothing from attempting to coerce him.

It suddenly appears that my next session is going to go considerably differently than I had initially intended. I may find a way to get things back on track, but I refuse to be obvious about it, so it will likely take time. With the recent trend in discussing plans gone awry, I thought I'd seek therapy here on the Boards. I was depending on my own estimate of the PC's reactions, and I had become too confident that I knew what to expect. I frequently build my campaigns around such an understanding of the PC's, but it was obviously too early in this campaign to pull such a stunt. Similar experiences, anyone? Moral support, perhaps?

I may find a way to get things back on track, but I refuse to be obvious about it, so it will likely take time.

Click to expand...

With all due respect*, don't you dare.

Your player's character has emerged from his chrysalis and done something daring and breathtakingly interesting, and you want to put him back on the path of some McGuffin hunt?

Roll my the punches, my friend. For the next session/s, figure out the political structure and kingmakers of the Magister clans or the kingdom or whatever the PC is 'raised to rule' (I don't know AU), 'cos that's where he's gonna turn for support.

I always welcome things like this when they crop up in my campaign. It never fails to make things more interesting, as the players feel a more personal involvement in the plans they came up with rather than ones that are handed to them by the GM.


* By which, I mean "I have no right to tell you what to do with your campaign, but I'm going to do it anyway"

As far as the whole failure to correctly predict the reaction of a player (or players) you thought you had nailed, and thus your plans are going to change drastically thing... I'm right there with you.

But I have to agree with Dirigible. In your case, the out come of this miscalculation is very positive.

Something has been sparked in this character, he is ready to be heroic with his friends around him and become the leader he was born to be.

Let him.

Put the quest you had in mind aside, but just for now.

If you really want them to go on this quest, but not force them away from their newfound goals, you have a few choices, the way I see it.

1. The House that Jack Built - If they go to somebody for help. Have that person/group/country help them with the understanding that, if they survive their assault upon the villain, they will go and get whatever McGuffin it was that the villain wanted for that person/group/country as payment for their help. Once the villain is dead, pump the CRs up on the encounters for your original quest (to account for any leveling that may have happened) or not and continue.

2. A Hero's Work is Never Done - Let them deal with the villain, and when he's dead, they find information in his lair that indicates just how important and/or evil the McGuffin that started the whole mess is, and it MUST be destroyed! Raise the CRs and continue.

3. Bait and switch, they find the villain's other hideout, assault it and fight all the way through... but they find that, well before they had gotten there, he had figured out that they weren't going off to get the McGuffin for him so he left to get it himself, they give chase...

I hope that's helpfull.

I side strongly with Dirgible on this one. Drop the hunt-the-artifact plot and go with the attack on the bad guy. In the long run, you'll get far more mileage out of a nice blood-and-guts revenge story than you will out of a typical dungeon with traps guarding some treasure or other. Even if if is pie.

The thing is, if your DMing style is anything like mine (and it sounds like it is), your players have been pretty good-natured about following up on plot hooks and getting dragged around. Heck, there was a large segment of my last campaign where the gods simply transported the party from one adventure to the next. And they went without fuss (well, without too much, anyhow).

But this sort of thing has to work both ways. After being nice for so long, they're going to want to do some of their own stuff too- it's to be expected. With something the players want bad enough to pursue on their own, something they just have to do, then go with the flow. They've toed the line, and now it's their turn for some direct action. As far as I can tell, the worst complaints of campaign railroading come from players whose DMs knew the characters, and knew what they wanted, but forced them into a situation anyway.

Now, I'm not saying that you should just hand the villain over to the players- but by all means, have them take him down another notch or two. There's another thread here about supposedly "recurring" villains getting killed before they have a chance to recurr. It was pointed out that the main problem was the PCs didn't know the guy was supposed to be the villain. Here, they definately know- the best recurring villains are the ones that the PCs really want to kill.

So, either your magister gets some support to do his thing (drawing the plot out a bit, and giving you a chance for side-quests) or he and the party go after the BBEG immediately. Either way, you should have plenty of material even after ditching the artifact plot. Or, if you really want to run it eventually, turn it into a chase- when the BBEG gets away, he goes after the artifact himself, because he's realized that his gambit failed and he needs it to survive.

You'll have to find a way of dealing with whatever was done to the magister, the geas. He should feel some sort of penalty from it, but it shouldn't stop him from stalking the villain. And he should definately find a way out from it eventually- a captured henchman can give a clue in exchange for freedom, or a recruited NPC ally can find a way to break the spell. I'd say about 2-3 sessions is enough for him to suffer.

So, it doesn't look like your'e getting much moral support from people, but at least you're getting plenty of unsolicited advice!

Orryn Emrys said:

It suddenly appears that my next session is going to go considerably differently than I had initially intended. I may find a way to get things back on track, but I refuse to be obvious about it, so it will likely take time.

Click to expand...

Don't even try! The protagonist has developed by character growth, and to try to stuff him back into his pupa is doomed to failure.

Besides which, now that the players have taken the initiative you get to kick back and adopt Lazy GM Style. The players are going to do at least half the work from now on, and you get to relax, be reactive, and go with the flow from now on.

And besides that, it is a very, very big mistake to teach your players that no matter what they do, they still have to tread the path laid out for them. Destroys their interest and immersion in the game.

Orryn Emrys said:

Moral support, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Moral support my foot! You're getting pure green-eyed envy. You have:

1) players who are prepared to take a strategic initiative;

2) players who are really into your set-up, feel strongly about your world and your NPCs, and really identify with their characters;

3) a protagonist spontaneously developing in accordance with storytelling norms; and

4) a campaign that is about to take off like a rocket.

So hold tight, enjoy the ride, and don't screw up.

Regards,


Agback

If you absolutely want to do the artfiact hunt you can subtly hint to your players that the best possible moment to take down the NPC is at the time when they are expected to hand over the artifact to the villain. At least they don´t have to search for him.

I must agree most vehemently with Dirigible. Its these kind of twists that make for a great campaign! Good story-telling in roleplaying is ultimately a cooperative process, this is why it's called "plot-weaving". Not to be too harsh mate, but you sound alot like one of our group's recent DMs whose game tanked because his game was to DM-story driven (DM wanting to tell his story and his alone with PCs contributing little). You shouldn't have to urge or herd PCs even if its gentle. Games see some of the best play when they are equally player-driven as well as NPC-driven.

If you don't want to tank the artifact plot, have a Mage Advisor research the rune on the PC first, seeing if there is a way to counteract it, but unlikely. The advisor also knows some lore of the artifact and it could be used against the BBEG. (It would be even better if the advisor was secretly in the employ of the BBEG for another twist).

But be more than prepared for your band of heroes to rally around the battle cry of their would-be king with an army and attack the BBEG. The battle would be glorious and the PCs right in the middle of the epic tale, all the while the PC with the rune knowing that he will likely not live he still triumphantly strides, sword in hand onto the island to meet the evil runelord but in the process the dragon is woken....

Orryn Emrys said:

With the magister's recent depression and uncertainty, it seemed very likely that he would feel that he had no choice and would comply, and the others would go along to lend their aid and protection.

Click to expand...

"PCs always run the wrong way!"

Dirigible said:

With all due respect*, don't you dare.

Your player's character has emerged from his chrysalis and done something daring and breathtakingly interesting, and you want to put him back on the path of some McGuffin hunt?

Roll my the punches, my friend

Click to expand...

I do appreciate all the advice, but, now that my period of self-recrimination has winded to a close, I feel I should qualify the single comment that seemed to get the most attention from my previous narration. Interestingly enough, I find it very revealing that my fellow players and DMs will respond quickly and strongly to any hint of "railroading", if you will. Well... count me as no exception here.

Frankly, by "it will likely take time" (to get things back on track), I was referring to the fact that my primary concern is that the player characters should have every opportunity to pursue the course that is most relevant to their own intentions, and that I will reward their efforts accordingly. Eventually, however, although the "McGuffin hunt" may not turn out to be the vehicle I use, there are campaign developments tied to the journey I intend the PC's take across the sea to the west. Of course, the key, as suggested by a couple of the fine respondants who posted above, is to give the PC's appropriate cause to follow such a course.

I realize that I didn't explain this well in my initial post above, but I was wallowing in self-pity at the time.... I have since come to my senses.

Bloodsparrow said:

3. Bait and switch, they find the villain's other hideout, assault it and fight all the way through... but they find that, well before they had gotten there, he had figured out that they weren't going off to get the McGuffin for him so he left to get it himself, they give chase...

Click to expand...

This, by the way, is a direction I hadn't considered. If the artifact hunt turns out to be the best way to get the events of the campaign to fall into place, this might be the way to get things started.

Byrons_Ghost said:

The thing is, if your DMing style is anything like mine (and it sounds like it is), your players have been pretty good-natured about following up on plot hooks and getting dragged around.

Click to expand...

Well... I think good-natured would be a stretch. Allow me to explain.

The players in my game tend to avoid meta-game thinking like the plague. If their characters aren't tuned in to the "big picture", then they will similarly avoid any serious consideration of events on their own part. Or, more specifically, they never let it affect play. Consequentially, "railroading" tactics generally fail to deter them from following the trail laid by the events of the campaign. Events beyond their control are the meat and drink of the experience to them, as it provides ample opportunity for angst and strife and other factors that promote bonding with their characters.

That doesn't keep them from calling me names... but they do keep coming back.

In any case, I construct my campaign to take advantage of this devotion to their characters' perspectives and philosophies. Events are frequently designed to elicit a realistic emotional response in a character or characters, and thus generate a will to proceed... or a need to, depending on the level of exploitation.

In fact, this has been the direction of development for my gamers for a long enough period that I am loathe to reward a player for complex roleplaying activity... as this is now the standard. The young prince mentioned in my first post will have to deal with the consequences of his actions, his choices, without any fateful favoritism... as a realized depth of character is its own reward. If his decision to attack the villain directly turns out to be a foolhardy one, he will hopefully live to learn from the experience. And that learning experience is, in itself, what the player will cherish the most.

I do wonder whether there are other groups out there that operate in this fashion. I don't necessarily feel that it is the "ultimate" expression of the roleplaying experience, but I do feel that it is a direction that requires a great deal of effort on the part of everyone involved, and would thus likely be a fairly rare application of the roleplaying experience.

Agback said:

Besides which, now that the players have taken the initiative you get to kick back and adopt Lazy GM Style. The players are going to do at least half the work from now on, and you get to relax, be reactive, and go with the flow from now on.

And besides that, it is a very, very big mistake to teach your players that no matter what they do, they still have to tread the path laid out for them. Destroys their interest and immersion in the game.

Click to expand...

And, finally, as you can probably tell from my previous comments, Lazy GMing never works with this group. The characters' well-being is so important to these players that, anytime I give them time and/or opportunity to truly decide their own path, they'll take the time to seek less stressful distractions... often for the mental and emotional well-being of their characters. And this tends to be a liability for the flow of the game in the long run, since I will then be assaulted with constant requests to roleplay every little thing. The players know how this affects the pace of play, but are regretful of any lost opportunity to explore characterization. For day-to-day details, I can generally manage to provide just enough interaction to keep them satisfied... but a group that wants to rest for a week should seriously consider allowing me to glance over the week and move on....

Which they do... ... they just grumble a bit... and schedule time amongst themselves to roleplay conversations between characters outside of game time.

So... perhaps there is a balance after all.... But I would have to do a lot of damage to "destroy their interest and immersion in the game", if you follow my meaning.

Orryn Emrys said:

The players in my game tend to avoid meta-game thinking like the plague. If their characters aren't tuned in to the "big picture", then they will similarly avoid any serious consideration of events on their own part. Or, more specifically, they never let it affect play. Consequentially, "railroading" tactics generally fail to deter them from following the trail laid by the events of the campaign. Events beyond their control are the meat and drink of the experience to them, as it provides ample opportunity for angst and strife and other factors that promote bonding with their characters.

That doesn't keep them from calling me names... but they do keep coming back.

In any case, I construct my campaign to take advantage of this devotion to their characters' perspectives and philosophies. Events are frequently designed to elicit a realistic emotional response in a character or characters, and thus generate a will to proceed... or a need to, depending on the level of exploitation.

In fact, this has been the direction of development for my gamers for a long enough period that I am loathe to reward a player for complex roleplaying activity... as this is now the standard. The young prince mentioned in my first post will have to deal with the consequences of his actions, his choices, without any fateful favoritism... as a realized depth of character is its own reward. If his decision to attack the villain directly turns out to be a foolhardy one, he will hopefully live to learn from the experience. And that learning experience is, in itself, what the player will cherish the most.

Click to expand...

You need to work the word "milieu" into there somewhere.


Hong "not to mention dweomer" Ooi