D&D General How to move a game forward?

[Oofta]

I discuss overall theme options with the group and get an idea of what kind of game we* want to play. Then we toss around a few ideas and off we go. The first session or two is largely decided by me, I've set up a starting location and scenarios that we can run through to get everyone introduced to the starting area and important NPCs, possible plot hooks and adversaries.

After that? At the end of a session or small plot arc I ask the players what they want to do next. I'm regularly planting rumors, possible options, different threads the players could pursue. Or they can tell they'd rather go off in a completely different direction and we're off to the races. At that point I can plan for the next session or so and I ask that we not go too far off into left field, I'm good at improv and reskinning encounters but even I have my limits. So we pursue a particular tangent for a bit and then choose the next direction, all the while adding to the lore of the campaign and building on past threats, potentially including ones they chose not to follow up on. If there's ever a question I'll throw out a ranked choice poll after the session.

So I don't really plan campaigns. I plan locales, NPCs, groups, motivations. I think about how different actors may have different goals and how they go about achieving those goals, whether they will help, oppose or be neutral to the PCs unless things tip things one way or another. I skip over stuff I find boring like detailed exploration so I rarely have detailed location maps and instead will just use TotM for exploring the haunted house and then draw a hallway and rooms when initiative is about to be rolled.

Of course getting input from players sometimes just ends up with "Ah, we don't care just do whatever you want, we know you'll make it interesting."

*I want to have fun with the game as well.

 

[MNblockhead]

My favorite games are when I have players who pull the game forward. As a GM I want to enjoy seeing what story develops as much as the players do. I prefer building the playground more than directing how it is used.

That said, I'm going through an interesting change in campaign styles with a new game I'm preparing. My last campaign was a five year mega dungeon. The campaign I'm prepping is the Enemy Within campaign for Warhammer Fantasy, which is a very good political intrigue game but one that is much more railroady in that the PCs are expected to progress in certain ways and get to certain places and accomplish certain things to keep moving forward in the story. I'll be happy running it as written if the players go along with it, but I do find it much harder to prepare for. Will see how it goes. I'm prepared to tear it up and turn the pieces into a sandbox as much as possible if the players take it in a different direction.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me it all comes down to knowing how the players feel about narrative. Do they want to play the unfolding story "realistically" (from a drama standpoint) or do they want to play the board game most of the time and use the board game rules to determine what happens (even if it makes the narrative nonsensical)?

Case in point as the easiest example: The party is in a town and the town guard come up and wish to arrest them because they think the party has done something illegal (perhaps because some NPCs have planted some evidence to frame the party.) Usually in this narrative situation you get one of two results--

- The party says "Enemies are trying to grab us! Time to fight!" and the players default to the board game and fight a combat because that is what the D&D board game is designed for... even though it makes no narrative sense for the party to kill a bunch of random town guards (which will of course happen because the guards would invariably be like CR 1/2 while the party is 9th level). And the narrative is especially messed up if the players think they can just continue to walk around town afterwards as if nothing happened because that is just the way "games" work.

- The players understand the story that is playing out and they say 'Yes, And' to themselves and each other, and choose to go along with the arrest. They play their characters without acknowledging the meta-knowledge that from a game perspective their 9th level characters could pretty much kill every single person in the town. Rather, they treat themselves and the town guards as equal participants in this narrative and react accordingly. Especially because they know that I as the DM am not going to make ridiculous or stupid events unfold if they do allow themselves to be arrested... the subsequent scenes will play out as they dramatically should. And if a fight is to break out in one of these subsequent scenes, it will be made narratively clear that yeah, the party is good to go to town.

But in terms of the latter... it involves and requires trust. Both from the players and the DM to treat the drama as realistically as possible within the fantasy world they exist in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me it all comes down to knowing how the players feel about narrative. Do they want to play the unfolding story "realistically" (from a drama standpoint) or do they want to play the board game most of the time and use the board game rules to determine what happens (even if it makes the narrative nonsensical)?

Case in point as the easiest example: The party is in a town and the town guard come up and wish to arrest them because they think the party has done something illegal (perhaps because some NPCs have planted some evidence to frame the party.) Usually in this narrative situation you get one of two results--

- The party says "Enemies are trying to grab us! Time to fight!" and the players default to the board game and fight a combat because that is what the D&D board game is designed for... even though it makes no narrative sense for the party to kill a bunch of random town guards (which will of course happen because the guards would invariably be like CR 1/2 while the party is 9th level). And the narrative is especially messed up if the players think they can just continue to walk around town afterwards as if nothing happened because that is just the way "games" work.

- The players understand the story that is playing out and they say 'Yes, And' to themselves and each other, and choose to go along with the arrest. They play their characters without acknowledging the meta-knowledge that from a game perspective their 9th level characters could pretty much kill every single person in the town. Rather, they treat themselves and the town guards as equal participants in this narrative and react accordingly. Especially because they know that I as the DM am not going to make ridiculous or stupid events unfold if they do allow themselves to be arrested... the subsequent scenes will play out as they dramatically should. And if a fight is to break out in one of these subsequent scenes, it will be made narratively clear that yeah, the party is good to go to town.

But in terms of the latter... it involves and requires trust. Both from the players and the DM to treat the drama as realistically as possible within the fantasy world they exist in.

See, that's very interesting to me. In such a scenario, I would prefer the players choose option 2, but I would never figure that said option is being chosen because, "that's the way the story is playing out". Instead, it's simply the most reasonable course for the players to take if they are playing their characters realistically (assuming said PCs are not psychopaths). And in fact, if somehow it made sense for the PCs to attack the cops trying to arrest them instead of going quietly, I would want that to do that. Whatever choice makes sense with the setting and the circumstances of the PCs within it.

Of course, since I don't control the PCs, they can make whatever choice they want, for any reason they want, and I'll roll with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

See, that's very interesting to me. In such a scenario, I would prefer the players choose option 2, but I would never figure that said option is being chosen because, "that's the way the story is playing out". Instead, it's simply the most reasonable course for the players to take if they are playing their characters realistically (assuming said PCs are not psychopaths). And in fact, if somehow it made sense for the PCs to attack the cops trying to arrest them instead of going quietly, I would want that to do that. Whatever choice makes sense with the setting and the circumstances of the PCs within it.

Of course, since I don't control the PCs, they can make whatever choice they want, for any reason they want, and I'll roll with it.

When I say "that's the way the story is playing out", I mean it in exactly the way you describe-- it's the most reasonable course of action to take in that particular situation, as you say. And my hope was to try to make the example as generic as possible for illustration sake-- because you are absolutely correct that there could easily be a scenario where the party should "fight the law" as it were (and I wouldn't stop them should they make that choice.) But the reason for that fight would be because of narrative indicators and not just the idea of "Our PCs are high enough level that the guards can't stop us using the game rules, so we don't have to listen to any of the NPCs!"

Thus my main point was just to illustrate the differences between those certain types of players. Because I have absolutely seen and played with players who just default to any scenario from a metagame perspective-- "I'm a 12th level Fighter, I don't have to be arrested because I can kill any guard here in town!" where they ignore even the most basic narrative realism just due to the board game rules "allowing" them to. And while I don't fault those players for enjoying the game in that way, nor do I think they shouldn't be allowed to play in that fashion... I personally just choose not to play with those types of players because that is a game style I do not enjoy.

And whether any particular set of players thinks a game is awesome or sucks probably comes down to how they see the game and whether the DM plays into or against those ideas.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When I say "that's the way the story is playing out", I mean it in exactly the way you describe-- it's the most reasonable course of action to take in that particular situation, as you say. And my hope was to try to make the example as generic as possible for illustration sake-- because you are absolutely correct that there could easily be a scenario where the party should "fight the law" as it were (and I wouldn't stop them should they make that choice.) But the reason for that fight would be because of narrative indicators and not just the idea of "Our PCs are high enough level that the guards can't stop us using the game rules, so we don't have to listen to any of the NPCs!"

Thus my main point was just to illustrate the differences between those certain types of players. Because I have absolutely seen and played with players who just default to any scenario from a metagame perspective-- "I'm a 12th level Fighter, I don't have to be arrested because I can kill any guard here in town!" where they ignore even the most basic narrative realism just due to the board game rules "allowing" them to. And while I don't fault those players for enjoying the game in that way, nor do I think they shouldn't be allowed to play in that fashion... I personally just choose not to play with those types of players because that is a game style I do not enjoy.

And whether any particular set of players things a game is awesome or sucks probably comes down to how they see the game and whether the DM plays into or against those ideas.

Can't argue with that. I would also prefer metagame considerations not affect PC actions. That way leads to PCs hurling themselves off of tall buildings because they know they can survive the damage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Can't argue with that. I would also prefer metagame considerations not affect PC actions. That way leads to PCs hurling themselves off of tall buildings because they know they can survive the damage.

Bingo.

The rules might allow for it... doesn't mean I have to play at a table that considers it worthwhile.

 

[payn]

*The non game acting way: The DM and players all sit down and write a script. What each character will do and when and how. Just like a movie/tv show/play. Then everyone just acts out the script. This is not really a "game" , as it is just following a script. "Ok, on round one your cleric will swing and miss, but both orcs will hit your cleric. When your cleric take the damage say "grrr...I hate orcs!" "

I have heard of scripting as in, the PCs storm castles until they find the one with the princess in it, but I have never heard combat scripted by round before. You have had some very interesting encounters with gamers, or just a vivid imagination.

 

[toucanbuzz]

So, many players coming from my game rave about having a great adventure. The DMs hearing many such stories then asked me my "secret" to a good game...

There might be no secret. They may just get along with your personality, regardless of whether your map is a single trail with impassable sides or your bad guy is a work of art. Personally, I think DMs need to be disabused of the idea there's a "right" way to a good game, or if you want to call it "moving a game forward." It's going to move based on the personalities of people at the table.

I've seen, or met gamers from groups, or run games wherein:

• The DM was a sexist jerk. I'd never play at his table. Yet, he played with like-minded folk. He told a female gamer (who later joined my table) her character got pushed into an airlock and sucked into outer space, dead, with no rolls, no checks. His games were full of females pushed into slave roles, demeaning roles. Their games moved forward (albeit very soon without her) each week. Those guys kept coming back. They're having fun, the game is moving forward. Are they doing it the right way?
• No one did anything. It was a f**k-around campaign. I sat in for an evening. Tons of talk, very little adventuring. Everyone seemed to enjoy the company of one another and had known each other for years. It seemed less about the game and more about an excuse to see one another for hours. Their games moved forward, albeit at a glacier pace.
• "Railroad" campaign. I just finished one lasting over a year in the Dragonlance setting, original modules. My gamers loved it. They've specifically said they didn't want a f**k-around campaign. They also happen to like each other. We hang out outside the game room.
• "Focused sandbox" campaign. I've run Kingmaker in 5E and Curse of Strahd, where you have a big map, freedom to move all over that map exploring, with an overarching goal. My gamers also raved about how much fun they had, albeit I altered about 75% of the original material to improve it. Same as above.

Anyways, point is, depending on your gamers, this is the Way, and this is not the Way.

Except that scripted stuff. Is that for real? Has someone actually played a script? Wouldn't that just be acting and not roleplaying?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Except that scripted stuff. Is that for real? Has someone actually played a script? Wouldn't that just be acting and not roleplaying?

Heh... it probably depends on who you ask. Some people's immediate reaction to any statement regarding working together towards narrative goals, or the Quantum Ogre problem, or occasionally fudging a number or die roll is "Why don't you just write a novel then?!?" For them it might as well be scripted and treat it as such, LOL.