Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

The party was split, the adventure was sent off the rails, and an entire session was wasted--because the drain was irrelevant.

Hrm. I don't know that I accept your conclusion (i.e., that the session was wasted).

Why did the GM become frustrated? Why did he care that the adventure was "sent off the rails"? Weren't the players interested? It seems that they were. Don't the players have some say as to what is relevant? Isn't determining the relevancy of things something that players have to do if the game isn't just a railroad?

How long does it take to investigate a drain, anyway?

That's why GMs care about the path. Because they know, from their position behind the screen, that in one direction the game is fun, and in another direction it isn't.

I agree that GMs who believe that they know what the players should be doing can make the game less fun when the players decide otherwise.

But if there is a path through the forest, and the players decide to leave the path, maybe (just maybe) they are attempting to leave the rails as well?


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Well, that's progress.

If all you were looking for was acceptance of your style of play, I've never denied anyone's style. I've never claimed that my way to play is the instructed way to play a D&D Campaign.

 

[Ariosto]

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If you believe I have, please call me out on it. It's probably just a matter of me not explaining myself well enough or a problem with tone not being carried well over the interweb.

I'd also like to see you explain what a "D&D Campaign per the instructed method in the seminal works" actually means to you instead of quoting 1E text as if it were scripture. And maybe explain why pointing at this "instructed method" isn't a case of One True Wayism?

Even though the seminal works has such advice in it, how does that invalidate other advice given by many other RPG authors over the 30+ years following that original advice?

 

[CharlesRyan]

Why did the GM become frustrated? Why did he care that the adventure was "sent off the rails"? Weren't the players interested? It seems that they were. Don't the players have some say as to what is relevant? Isn't determining the relevancy of things something that players have to do if the game isn't just a railroad?

I think the GM and players were frustrated because they spent hours doing things that did not advance them toward their goals (the players labouring under the apprehension that they were advancing, only to slowly realize they were spinning their wheels). And those hours did not result in interesting or fun encounters as an alternative.

You yourself have pointed out that in any environment--sandbox or plot-driven--characters and players develop goals and interests within the game. When those interests are stymied, the result is often frustration. Regardless of whether the plot was spawned by the GM or the players themselves.

I agree that GMs who believe that they know what the players should be doing can make the game less fun when the players decide otherwise.

But if there is a path through the forest, and the players decide to leave the path, maybe (just maybe) they are attempting to leave the rails as well?

Sure. Like I said, it's a really simplistic example. In my experience, when the path is that clear-cut, players virtually never choose to leave it on a whim--and you're right: If they do, it's an indication that the path isn't sufficiently compelling; the player buy-in is clearly fading.

More often, the "path" is a plot thread that isn't obvious to the players. They head off into the metaphoric "woods" unknowingly. A good GM lets them, then figures out how to deal with the consequences according to the road map that is his story outline.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the GM and players were frustrated because they spent hours doing things that did not advance them toward their goals (the players labouring under the apprehension that they were advancing, only to slowly realize they were spinning their wheels). And those hours did not result in interesting or fun encounters as an alternative.

I bolded the part I think is relevant.

If the GM had been thinking in terms of a sandbox (rather than trying to decide exactly what the players would do, and therefore what he should prep), the drain may well have led to interesting or fun encounters.

Alternatively, the GM could have treated the drain as a single encounter:

GM: "You manage to remove the grating. It smells pretty bad down there."

Player: "That's okay. We think that this is important. We want to fully explore the sewer."

GM: "Fully exploring the drain takes only about an hour, as there are no branching passageways or chambers. The drain leads to a cliff, spilling the water 20 feet down into the sea....possibly farther at low tide. The entire area is filthy, and your clothing and hair are covered with muck. After an hour down there, you all smell pretty bad."

Player: "Hrm. Better try something else....."​

The GM may also have placed a small lair in the drain (when creating the adventure), possibly with some goody that was actually helpful, to reward player initiative. In the event that he didn't even consider what was down the drain in the first place, he might create an encounter on the fly (easier by far in some systems than in others!).

I personally keep a small set of lairs/encounters that can be placed as needed when the players go off somewhere that I haven't fully fleshed out. For example, when I buy a module that I dislike, I still go through it and extract all of the elements that I do like, including individual NPCs and encounters. I highly recommend doing the same.

In conclusion, though, the problem was not that the players thought the drain was important -- the problem is that the GM did nothing interesting or fun with their choices. Nor did he allow the game to move along. The biggest danger with using an AP is not considering the setting as a whole, and thus only devising/rewarding the predetermined track. That is, from what you are saying, clearly what happened in this instance.

(The biggest danger with using a sandbox is not considering the players, and thus not providing enough hooks/information to motivate them/allow them to make meaningful decisions.)


RC


EDIT: The players might have thought that the drain would connect to a guardrobe (bathroom) inside the castle, and thus allow a secret entrance. If this was the case, and if it was possible to run with this idea, the GM should seriously have considered it.

In any event, the players were showing serious thought and investment in the setting, and the GM response shot down that thought and investment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my experience, when the path is that clear-cut, players virtually never choose to leave it on a whim--and you're right: If they do, it's an indication that the path isn't sufficiently compelling; the player buy-in is clearly fading.

There is also the possibility that they wish to see if they can leave the path (i.e., if they are actually able to make meaningful choices). I have seen this many times, and I have done this as a player where the Hand of the GM was all-too-evident.


RC

 

[underthumb]

If the GM had been thinking in terms of a sandbox (rather than trying to decide exactly what the players would do, and therefore what he should prep), the drain may well have led to interesting or fun encounters.

I don't entirely agree. One thing that is always stressed in these sandbox discussions is the notion of meaningful choices and meaningful consequences. The GM knew that there was nothing in that drain. This was a pre-written adventure. Thus, the players could choose to go there, but the "meaningful consequence" was an opportunity cost and an unfun session. If the GM decided, in that moment, that the architecture of the fortress had changed to accommodate player whim, that sounds like illusionism to me, which IMHO is less compatible with sandbox assumptions.

In fact, I'm rather surprised to hear you say that you would place lairs and encounters where the players feel like going, rather than by some more abstract logic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't entirely agree. One thing that is always stressed in these sandbox discussions is the notion of meaningful choices and meaningful consequences. The GM knew that there was nothing in that drain. This was a pre-written adventure.

In which case, I would let that stand.

Go back and read my post. I suggested the following:

1. The GM thought more about it beforehand.
2. The GM made it a single encounter (the same as not having to play through, say, chewing your food at the inn).
3. If the GM did not know what was down the drain, he could consider what might be there on the fly.

From what I can tell, it seems to me that the GM did not know what was down the drain in the example, but mentioned it as something that should be there.

Thus, the players could choose to go there, but the "meaningful consequence" was perhaps an opportunity cost, but not an unfun session.

If the GM decided, in that moment, that the architecture of the fortress had changed to accommodate player whim, that sounds like illusionism to me, which IMHO is less compatible with sandbox assumptions.

I would agree. But, consider that the GM might have marked the guardrobe and the drain without any more thought. This is not dissimilar to, in a wilderness scenario, telling the players that they can find an oak tree even though you haven't detailed every tree in the forest.

In fact, I'm rather surprised to hear you say that you would place lairs and encounters where the players feel like going, rather than by some more abstract logic.

Again, note "if the players go somewhere that I haven't fully fleshed out". I don't change work that has been "set" (whether the players have visited it or not), unless it changes as a consequence of the world itself (some orcs move in, an NPC party goes through the area, etc.). But there is nothing wrong, IMHO, with having materials ready to help in fleshing out areas on the fly (if needed). In addition, if one uses wandering encounters (and I do), there is no problem whatsoever in including minor lairs within the framework of those encounters, especially if these lairs are of a temporary nature (orcs with a campfire, say).

Obviously, the more prep work done, the less one has to rely upon "winging it", but one should always be prepared to "wing it" if one has to.

EDIT: Just re-read that post, and I can see how it might imply change during play. That was not my intention at all. My intention is:

1. A GM thinking in sandbox-mode while creating an adventure is more likely to think in terms of total environment, and therefore less likely to make the drain dull to begin with. This is while game prep is taking place.

2. A GM who made the drain dull, and knows there is nothing there, can treat it as a single encounter that takes no more than 5-10 minutes (on average) at the game table.

3. A GM who has not even considered what is down the drain should be prepared to "wing it" and do what he would have done while prepping, had he thought about it: either put something there, or do not put something there and make it a single encounter. If the players exhibit sound reasoning as to what is there, and the GM has no reasoning of his own, he should consider stealing their reasoning.


RC

 

[underthumb]

Okay, I think I understand your intent now, and I can see how most of your points are still consistent with your stated preferences. However, I still have a few quibbles:

2. A GM who made the drain dull, and knows there is nothing there, can treat it as a single encounter that takes no more than 5-10 minutes (on average) at the game table.

For players, how does this feel any different than the aforesaid example of walking off a railroaded path into a forest and being told that there's essentially nothing there? The very perfunctory treatment of the area by the GM begs for metagaming on the part of the players and can feel like active restriction. It might even inspire player stubbornness. IIRC, that is what happened in the famous drain example: the drain was objectively difficult to bypass, and this just resulted in more player effort.

I would suggest that the option that is most consistent with the sandbox philosophy, given situation #2, is to allow the experience to occur in real time, allow for the various strength and search checks, and have the players experience their repeated failures. This might lead to a lengthy, boring session, but such is the price of consistency.