How should a GM handle refused plots

[Aenghus]

Sometimes players refuse a plot the referee is significantly invested in. I've seen this happen many times over my years in the hobby both as a GM and a player. The referee comes up with a plot that excites her or him and is invested in presenting it to the players and running them through it, and for whatever reason the players aren't hooked by it and avoid it, ignore it or sabotage it instead.

I'm wondering what people's opinion here is on how referees should handle this sort of situation once it's happened - e.g. figuring out why the players rejected the plot, dealing with feelings of rejection, resentment of the players for not appreciating their work, finding alternative activities in the game that interest both the GM and the players

The second question is if a referee notices this starting to happen, but the situation is possibly retrievable, how much they are willing to compromise their original plans to avert such a reaction from the players.

The third question is the positives and negatives in forcing the players through a refused plot against their will, whether through railroading, obfuscation or reskinning etc. There's a potential case to be made for players suffering the consequences of their actions in-campaign, but there are dangers of being seen as or actually punishing the players for disagreeing with the referee's creative choices.

I would prefer replies to address the problems above rather than reject the premise. I find comments like "my players never ever reject my plots, I'm just that good" to be both unhelpful and unbelievable.

 

[Nagol]

For D&D, I run a sandbox. Opportunities get rejected all the time. Maybe 1 in 3 get picked up.

My first strategy is to not get invested at the opportunity stage. I save my emotional energy for those things the players have expressed an interest in pursuing. So now I only feel the wound you're referencing when the players decide to abandon the situation after starting to pursue it which still happens frequently enough. As an open situation in the world, I look at the plausible trajectory of the situation. Will it fade back into the background until someone else deciphers the ancient tablet? Are the active players that will cause the situation to roll along without the players' input? If there are, I add milestones to my campaign timeline and entries in my loose end pile for inspiration and development ofr future opportunities.

If something is rejected, I'll listen to the players table talk and strategize. I'll take a look at the situation and see if there are natural opportunities to re-introduce the opportunity and assess the realistic chance the players will respond differently. Here are the primary underlying rationales for most refusals in rough order of likelihood of successful reintroduction.

• Sometimes things are refused because the players are focused on something with a higher priority and don't want the distraction.
• Other times its because the NPC / clue didn't do a good job catching their attention.
• Other times it's because the perceived risk/reward ratio seems too high.
• It can be because the player do not feel the opportunity fits their strengths.
• Finally, the group might be experiencing some form of intra-party conflict and the opportunity has become a combat point.

If I can't figure out why they refused, I ask them as part of an after-session debrief. I make sure the players understand I'm just trying to understand what they were thinking and turning the opportunity down is perfectly fine (some players often get the idea I want them to do something when I'm really just presenting the world so its a tendency I struggle to discourage).

If the opportunity has other natural introduction points and I think it is likely to receive a better reception, I'll add likely points to the future timeline and hope for the best later. If not, c'est la vie.

I never try to "force" the PCs through a refused plot -- though future developments without their presence may come back and bite them in the butt; but that's typically well-telegraphed "Gee, perhaps we shouldn't have ignored the ambitious necromancer as he went to open that portal thingy. Now that the town is on fire and surrounded by the demonic horde where are we going to get free drinks? I know! Let's head to Freeton! I'm sure this mess will be cleaned up by the authorities in no time!" Reskinning can work if you want to salvage a few situations and can plausibly introduce them elsewhere. Normally, I just write them off and save my notes for future inspiration, or not.

 

[MarkB]

Trying to push players into a storyline you like and they don't is much the same as trying to sit a friend down to watch a show you really like and he doesn't - it's liable to fall flat because the person is predisposed to dislike it.

Generally, you're going to be much better off resolving this out-of-game through discussion rather than in-game through railroading or in-character arm-twisting. Talk to them at the end of the session and find out why they didn't pick up that hook. The answer may surprise you - in some cases it may be simply because they didn't think their characters would do such a thing, or because of the way it was presented, rather than to any aversion to the actual expected content of that plotline. Once you know why it was rejected, you'll have a better idea of whether it can be worked in later in a different form, and if so, how to change your approach to make it more appealing.

 

[Quickleaf]

Sometimes players refuse a plot the referee is significantly invested in. I've seen this happen many times over my years in the hobby both as a GM and a player. The referee comes up with a plot that excites her or him and is invested in presenting it to the players and running them through it, and for whatever reason the players aren't hooked by it and avoid it, ignore it or sabotage it instead.

This happens to all of us. You're far from alone. Like most of my thinking about games, this sort of stuff really depends on the group. I'm assuming you're talking about a home game with a steady single GM, for example. Whereas if you were running an Adventurer's League game at a store, my advice might be different.

(1) I'm wondering what people's opinion here is on how referees should handle this sort of situation once it's happened - e.g. figuring out why the players rejected the plot, dealing with feelings of rejection, resentment of the players for not appreciating their work, finding alternative activities in the game that interest both the GM and the players

OK. The situation has happened already. That's your premise.

In that case, I'd maintain as upright and positive a mindset as possible, roll with whatever crazy scheme the players do come up with, and improvise. I'd also avoid thinking in terms of "the players don't appreciate my work" because that's probably false. At a suitable break point, such as ordering in dinner or ending the evening, I'd openly ask: "Hey, so I totally thought you all would go after Plot Hook X, but instead you went in a completely different direction. I wasn't expecting that! And honestly I was so excited to share what I'd prepped for tonight's game. What led you to make the decisions you did? Let's talk about it a little? Maybe I'll need to jettison my work, but maybe talking it out, I can figure out what I can salvageable or repurpose."

(2) The second question is if a referee notices this starting to happen, but the situation is possibly retrievable, how much they are willing to compromise their original plans to avert such a reaction from the players.

I hesitate to answer this question, because your language (e.g. "retrievable") makes it sound like the players are being disruptive. This is why a more specific example from actual play would be helpful, rather than speaking in the theoretical. Here's my theory in a nutshell: Of course we're going to compromise, D&D is a group game with the DM creating half the story, and the players creating the other half of the story.

My cautionary advice would be that if you start to notice yourself as GM feeling resentment for preparations you made that you don't see being utilized in the session (because the players choose a different direction), maybe with your group you need to prepare less and embrace a more improvisational style of GMing? Alternatively, maybe you can shift your perspective to the long-term and trust that your prepped material will see use SOMEWHERE and SOMETIME during your campaign?

(3) The third question is the positives and negatives in forcing the players through a refused plot against their will, whether through railroading, obfuscation or reskinning etc. There's a potential case to be made for players suffering the consequences of their actions in-campaign, but there are dangers of being seen as or actually punishing the players for disagreeing with the referee's creative choices.

Impossible to answer without specific context.

IME, "forcing the players" is always always always a bad stance for a GM to adopt, and will lead to unpleasant outcomes. Now, "manipulating the players" is entirely different (e.g. reskinning/repurposing), but it needs to be done artfully. As for "consequences of PC actions", there should always be consequences – and the GM should be mindful that they follow the narrative logic and are not punitive or retaliatory (and when in doubt about his or her own motives, the GM shouldn't yet implement those consequences).

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes players refuse a plot the referee is significantly invested in. I've seen this happen many times over my years in the hobby both as a GM and a player. The referee comes up with a plot that excites her or him and is invested in presenting it to the players and running them through it, and for whatever reason the players aren't hooked by it and avoid it, ignore it or sabotage it instead.

Happens for various reasons.

If it's because the players have come up with a different plot to follow, or a vastly different take on your original plot, then just run with it and see where it goes. There's a chance you might be able to work your plot back in later, or not.

If it's because the players just don't seem interested in your plot then step back and look at your plot carefully. Maybe it's good but not the right fit for the players (you've got a wonderful spy-and-intrigue plot in mind but your players want to hack and slash) or the characters (your spy-and-intrigue plot won't fly with the bunch of raving barbarians they just rolled up). Maybe your players sense your enthusiasm for it and are concerned that if they don't push back now they'll never get the chance, and be railroaded all the way along. Or, maybe the plot simply isn't as good as you think it is.

If it's because the players are simply being jerks because they can...well, tough to help you there unless you have some replacement players available.

I'm wondering what people's opinion here is on how referees should handle this sort of situation once it's happened - e.g. figuring out why the players rejected the plot, dealing with feelings of rejection, resentment of the players for not appreciating their work, finding alternative activities in the game that interest both the GM and the players

See above. My only further advice is don't take it too seriously. They rejected your plot - so what? You've got ten more...right?

The second question is if a referee notices this starting to happen, but the situation is possibly retrievable, how much they are willing to compromise their original plans to avert such a reaction from the players.

Completely situational-dependent to the point that there really is no hard and fast answer. A lot depends on why it's slipping. Could it be the right plot but the wrong game system? Could it just be dragging on too long (in which case, speed up the pace of play)? Could it be too complicated (i.e. overwhelming) or not complicated enough (i.e. disappointing) for your players? Did you give away the end point or the reveal or whatever too soon, making everything that follows somewhat lame-duck and anticlimactic?

The third question is the positives and negatives in forcing the players through a refused plot against their will, whether through railroading, obfuscation or reskinning etc. There's a potential case to be made for players suffering the consequences of their actions in-campaign, but there are dangers of being seen as or actually punishing the players for disagreeing with the referee's creative choices.

Again this depends on too many variables to give a good answer. In general, though, you will probably lose more than you gain by forcing them through it unless you can put them into something else while you tart the original up enough that they don't recognize it the second time around.

Lanefan

 

[cmad1977]

1st answer: DMS need to learn to kill their babies.
And that really applies to all your questions.
2nd answer:don't try too hard.
3rd answer: there are no positives to forcing players through something they aren't interested into


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cmad1977]

One thing I've learned(the hard way) is this:
Nobody cares. Our plots and ideas are usually not as awesome as we think they are. Most of the time they are 'improved' by the poop throwing monkeys we call 'players'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue]

Sometimes players refuse a plot the referee is significantly invested in. I've seen this happen many times over my years in the hobby both as a GM and a player. The referee comes up with a plot that excites her or him and is invested in presenting it to the players and running them through it, and for whatever reason the players aren't hooked by it and avoid it, ignore it or sabotage it instead.

...

The third question is the positives and negatives in forcing the players through a refused plot against their will, whether through railroading, obfuscation or reskinning etc. There's a potential case to be made for players suffering the consequences of their actions in-campaign, but there are dangers of being seen as or actually punishing the players for disagreeing with the referee's creative choices.

I would prefer replies to address the problems above rather than reject the premise. I find comments like "my players never ever reject my plots, I'm just that good" to be both unhelpful and unbelievable.

Embrace it. They have just handed you an opportunity.

I throw many more plots at the PCs then they can handle. This gives the players the choice to get involved in what plots interest them, and also guide how they want to effect the world. Lots of player empowerment thought their choices they guide everything.

On the flip side, a plot that the players don't follow (at this point) is dynamic. If it's something that the players are interested in I'll use that as an opportunity to have others deal with it - often advancing goals not aligned with the PCs. This gets it off the table because there is nothing worse for a DM to do to his table then forcing players to go through a plot they are not interested in and have rejected.

On the other hand, if it's a choice of other plots that have caught their attention first (maybe time sensitive, or character arc, or nearer-and-dearer to the PCs hearts or coin purses), then just have it grow. When they get back to it, plans have advanced (which is good, because PCs may have advanced as well) and not its in a later stage. Go for it from there. Maybe it won't even be on the PCs radar for a while and then will rear it's ugly head in a nastier configuration because it was allowed to grow.

This keeps the world dynamic - things happening outside the scope of the PCs breathes life into your setting.

Your third question comes back to your very first line: "Sometimes players refuse a plot the referee is significantly invested in.". The DM should absolutely also have fun. But it's a group game - so should everyone else. There was a recent thread about retaining women gamers that had a part along the lines of "I saw she liked intrigue games, but I switched to dungeon crawl and she was bored and left". In that case, it wasn't about retaining a player because she was a woman, it was about retaining a player because the DM wanted to run things that didn't interest them. Take this to heart.

Not to say you can't mine it for ideas, tie it in differently, or what have you. But forcing it on the players will mean a bad time for everyone. Trust me, forcing players to run on an adventure they actively don't want to be on is not a fun experience for the DM as well.

 

[redrick]

I hear your concerns. As a GM needing to cook up content for every session, it really helps to be excited about the content you are creating, and sometimes it's a bummer to not have that excitement matched by the players. I think all of the advice here is really good.

Generally, the more you can do at the early stages of adventure planning to ask, "how does this idea hook the players and player characters in this group?" the better. It will help you avoid heartache from getting heavily invested in an idea that won't fly. Of course, sometimes we think we know what the players want and are wrong.

Don't railroad players into a hook that they have rejected. Keep coming up with new hooks until you find one that you all like. If the players bail on the only content you had planned at the beginning of the session, throw something simple and crowd-pleasing at them that you know you can run on the fly. Maybe just plagiarize the plot of the last book your read or tv episode you watched. Sort of like the DJ putting Michael Jackson on at a wedding. Come back next time with several loosely fleshed out ideas and see which one they take, and figure out the long-term details later.

I think it's great to let players see the consequences of adventure hooks they declined to take (that village they refused to help was overrun by monsters, that caravan they chose not to escort was attacked by cannibals and only one person survived to tell about it), but it should be narrative and not punitive. Nobody should feel like they are being punished for choosing to explore a different part of the world.

Good luck staying engaged!

 

[S'mon]

1. Run the rejected plot with a different group (or even the same group with different PCs). Pitch the plot as the campaign premise. That way you already have buy-in before the game starts.

2. Loot the rejected plot for parts you can recycle (often most of it!). Think about how the rejected plot's non-PC'd progress impacts the campaign world. Run with it.