How should a GM handle refused plots

[Sunseeker]

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.

Lanefan

Unfortunately no, I attempted to "read up" over the last few pages but frankly after 100-someodd pages I have no idea where the discussion is on about.

 

[Jhaelen]

Unfortunately no, I attempted to "read up" over the last few pages but frankly after 100-someodd pages I have no idea where the discussion is on about.

Yeah, I guess we need a kind of summary thread for this monster

Skimming over it, it seems to be partly about 'The Forge', which always tends to generate heated discussions I cannot really follow or contribute to in any meaningful way.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I guess we need a kind of summary thread for this monster

Skimming over it, it seems to be partly about 'The Forge', which always tends to generate heated discussions I cannot really follow or contribute to in any meaningful way.

The Forge stuff only became quasi-central over the last 5-10 pages or so. Hasn't got too heated yet, as of last time I checked (yesterday).

Lanefan

 

[Aenghus]

I would very much rather come up with a few details at a time about a character during play than worry about a whole life's story all at once.

Sure, I will likely have an immediate, 'reason for adventuring.' which may be something like, "can't cope with civilized society." or, "it beats living on the streets." or "it is a way to give back." which may then lead to questions that are answered in play.

This is one of the player taste spectrums that rgfa called Develop at start/ Develop in play back in the day. Some players write long multi-page backgrounds for the new characters, others are reluctant to write a single short sentence, the vast majority being in the middle somewhere.

I find this peripherally relevant to the topic of this thread as low background pcs can make more work for the referee. Character backgrounds/motivations are the primary vehicle for communicating PC hooks and goals to the referee for adoption or integration into the setting. Often there's some negotiation and editing of backgrounds so they fit the particular gameworld the referee intends to run. A player being unwilling or unable to provide a background in a way throws all the initial work on prepared plot production back to the referee, and means they have to monitor the players with less background more closely to figure out what they seem to like and dislike.

Players produce what they produce as regards backgrounds, I place some pressure on most to produce a little more material than they would by default. (I don't ever ask for less, as that can make players clam up entirely, I just don't guarantee reading mini novella length backgrounds). It is generally possible to get a single sentence or character concept from even the most recalcitrant players, possibly in discussion. Most players will volunteer a little more given time and positive encouragement.

One reason for "ophans with no background or links" is when they have been conditioned by bad referees to expect every NPC linked to their background to be taken hostage or slaughtered for plot purposes. A number of hours play with a new player generally make it clear whether they are worried about bad dm calls or just hack and slash merchants (the other main motivation for a blank slate background). Rewinning the trust of players so they can dare to write backgrounds that don't immediately blow up in their face can be difficult, but it is possible.

A character concept that develops in play can be harder for the referee to negotiate about, as it may develop in ways that don't suit the main plot, the gameworld or the referee's tastes, and IMO it's easier to get a player to modify concepts on paper that have never been played rather than modify an emergent unwritten PC personality.

I have to admit I prefer players who can produce a short relevant PC background with a few personal hooks, goals and quirks, as it makes my referee prep easier.

 

[Aenghus]

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).

Most games I've seen have fallen in the middle ground somewhere. My original question was open, as in any game with GM pre-prepared material, its difficult to avoid having some expectations for how the material will play out, expectations that the players may not agree with in practice. This can happen in the most linear of adventures or in the sandboxiest of sandboxes, after all GMs are human too.

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?"

When I've seen "turning everything down and running in the opposite direction" from a group of players, rather than a single troublemaker, its often a signal that the game is in severe trouble. Maybe the referee isn't hooking the players in, maybe his or her creative style doesn't appeal to the audience, maybe the players can't agree among themselves what to do, maybe the players want to pursue their own personal goals etc. Generally it's a sign to pause the game and find out the causes and discuss solutions, as a game like this implodes or explodes in short order.

In one game I was a player in, we figured out that the GM was an absolute PC killer when using prepared material but much more lenient when improvising. So we as players went to great lengths to keep the game away from his prepared material without telling him what we were doing. He didn't notice for ages and it kept the game alive and more fun for that time. When he eventually found out he started heavily railroading us into his prepared deathtraps and the game fell apart shortly afterwards.

 

[Sunseeker]

When I've seen "turning everything down and running in the opposite direction" from a group of players, rather than a single troublemaker, its often a signal that the game is in severe trouble. Maybe the referee isn't hooking the players in, maybe his or her creative style doesn't appeal to the audience, maybe the players can't agree among themselves what to do, maybe the players want to pursue their own personal goals etc. Generally it's a sign to pause the game and find out the causes and discuss solutions, as a game like this implodes or explodes in short order.

In one game I was a player in, we figured out that the GM was an absolute PC killer when using prepared material but much more lenient when improvising. So we as players went to great lengths to keep the game away from his prepared material without telling him what we were doing. He didn't notice for ages and it kept the game alive and more fun for that time. When he eventually found out he started heavily railroading us into his prepared deathtraps and the game fell apart shortly afterwards.

Yeah, I had this DM who had a very, very detailed world and he didn't mind us blowing parts of it up or hazing to move things around because of our actions, but he had a tendency to take the results of player action or inaction to the most absurd extreme. EX: We encountered a strange wizard in an underground forge, he asked us to deliver a coin to a temple of monks. The wizard and the party only fought because we found ourselves in his forge after being trapped in some catacombs when some giants we were barely involved with brought a castle down on our heads. We accepted his quest because ya know, we didn't know anything at all out this guy and we were the ones in the wrong, and walked away. We got to the monks and they just went nuts that we had this coin so we said hey good deal you're happy, the wizard's happy, we're paid, good for us. We walk a little ways from the monstary to find that the wizard just nuked the place.

And this was not a-typical of what happened when the party tried to be helpful or move the story forward, whole cities would blow up, parts of continents would be sucked into alternate realities. And there was no rhyme or reason to why these things happened, and attempting to figure them out was just as likely to blow up something else.

 

[Brandegoris]

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.

Honestly,
I think the best way to handle it is OUTSIDE of game.
Just be honest and tell the players that you put a lot of work in and you would like them to try it, BUT if they REALLY are against it for Roleplaying reasons ( Like they think there Character simply wouldn't go down that road), then say " Well That's okay, Lets play a nice rousing game of RISK tonight. Let me know what you think your PC's would like to do and I will work on a plot for that for next week".
I am crazy so I would just start DMing off the cuff and se what happens and where it takes me! That's possible because I have been a Game master for 30 years so I have a huge amount of old adventures in my head more or less!
Good luck my friend!

 

[Ratskinner]

So, if they don't get on your train, put a station at every intersection with the same train waiting for them?

Thought I replied to this days ago, but that seems to have vanished into the ether.

The point is that it isn't the same train. If you don't take up the first "lead", then whatever nefarious force was causing it moves to phase 2 then 3, etc. Its only when you get to the end that you can really consider yourself to have "failed" to attract the attention of the party. Of course (echoing the advice of others in the thread), you should be "running" a few of these at the same time. Some folks recommend running about one more than the party seems capable of handling. Of course, that is rather dependent on being able to get your party to "bite" on the lines you have out there already. I suppose that leaves a DM in the position of just putting one after the other out there to see which ones attract the party's attention.

 

[Sunseeker]

Thought I replied to this days ago, but that seems to have vanished into the ether.

The point is that it isn't the same train. If you don't take up the first "lead", then whatever nefarious force was causing it moves to phase 2 then 3, etc. Its only when you get to the end that you can really consider yourself to have "failed" to attract the attention of the party. Of course (echoing the advice of others in the thread), you should be "running" a few of these at the same time. Some folks recommend running about one more than the party seems capable of handling. Of course, that is rather dependent on being able to get your party to "bite" on the lines you have out there already. I suppose that leaves a DM in the position of just putting one after the other out there to see which ones attract the party's attention.

Right, "Station 1" is "intercept the cultists before they summon The Doomlord". "Station 2" is (assuming you skipped stage 1 or failed) "Stop The Doomlord from acquiring the McGuffin of Power". "Station 3" is (assuming you skipped or failed stage 2) "Stop the Demon Minions from capturing the Royal Person." "Station 4" is (again, assuming you have thus far failed or avoided this quest chain) "Stop The Doomlord from sacrificing the Royal Person to gain unleash The Ultimate Evil." And so on and so forth until the bad guy achieves their goals, which doesn't need to be total worldly conquest or total annihilation of course.

I do generally encourage DMs to have a "living" world, where the bad guys mostly move forward with their evil plots with or without the input of the players. I do certainly feel a certain level of cinematic narrative is needed that the good guys and the bad-guys play off each other, with the more the players push to defeat the bad guy, the harder the bad guy pushes to complete their evil plots. But the downside is that having a "living world" means knowing that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and having at least a general map of how, when and where that happens, instead of only creating it or fleshing it out after the players bite. It also means having a "larger" mindset towards the game. The players may never find out about several of your villainous plots which may lead to some serious ramifications to your game world.

 

[Poisonthorns Duelist]

When my players have no interest in following a specific plot, I take all the main elements that took me a lot of time to make, and I move them into a new plot that they could find interesting. I might have to change a couple cosmetic things like names, but it is a good alternative to completely starting over. Many times, you can easily just slip them into 'the same thing' without them even noticing.