Players: Have You Ever Asked, "Why Don't You Take Care Of It?"

Freakohollik

First Post
OK... so, I don't get it.

Even though you reluctantly went on the quest to help the pixie, your PCs reactions (unspoken or not...) were something along the lines of...

"You stupid blubbering pixie, I don't care that you are distressed and your patron druid is a trapped ghost and needs our help. We own a fort! Saving the wood from decay and madness is below our powerful 10th level selves!"

Why even play D&D if you don't want to go on adventures?

Yeah that is basically what we thought. I go on adventures for myself, not for some whiny patrons. That druid should go and save her own forest. Oh she can't because of MAGIC. Well thats a great reason.

Seems to me if it was so important to get us railroaded up there to fight those giants, the giants should have attacked our fort. That works better. It makes more sense, it's less railroady, it doesn't involve introducing some new characters whose only purpose is to tell the PCs what to do, and it doesn't use MAGIC as a bad plot device.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ProfessorCirno

Banned
Banned
Yeah that is basically what we thought. I go on adventures for myself, not for some whiny patrons. That druid should go and save her own forest. Oh she can't because of MAGIC. Well thats a great reason.

Seems to me if it was so important to get us railroaded up there to fight those giants, the giants should have attacked our fort. That works better. It makes more sense, it's less railroady, it doesn't involve introducing some new characters whose only purpose is to tell the PCs what to do, and it doesn't use MAGIC as a bad plot device.

This sounds really, really familiar.

Oh, hey!

3) It's a plot hook and your party is lazy and/or dumb. This is when the DM says "Ok, the NPC leaves and you and the party just sit in the tavern for a few weeks, doing nothing and boy, isn't this fun? Then another NPC shows up with a quest and potential reward for you. Now do you want to play the damn game or not." I've seen this one happen, when the question really didn't even need to be asked - the NPC can't really solve the problem, they're offering the reward, but the party still just lounges about and expects the DM to make a personal reason for each and every one of them to go on every single adventure. Annoying as all hell.
 

catsclaw227

First Post
Yeah that is basically what we thought. I go on adventures for myself, not for some whiny patrons. That druid should go and save her own forest. Oh she can't because of MAGIC. Well thats a great reason.

Seems to me if it was so important to get us railroaded up there to fight those giants, the giants should have attacked our fort. That works better. It makes more sense, it's less railroady, it doesn't involve introducing some new characters whose only purpose is to tell the PCs what to do, and it doesn't use MAGIC as a bad plot device.
Ghosts trapped somewhere because of something they did while living is not a bad plot device, it's been a trope of fantasy/horror/literature for a long time...

Maybe your DM just failed epically, because the reason wasn't just "IT'S MAGIC!!!!". It seems he failed to properly express what was happening. The set-up was well written and makes a lot of sense. (The pixie was telling you want to do? Wasn't he flustered and distressed because his druid leader had gone mad and was destroying the forest? Sounds like a fine adventure to me!)

Was your group already planning on dealing with what was left of the Ogres? If so, and the DM knew it, then he didn't have to provide that side-trek. But it's a nice side-trek anyway.

And BTW... aren't the reasons why a LOT of things happen in a typical D&D world because it's MAGIC?
 

Freakohollik

First Post
Ghosts trapped somewhere because of something they did while living is not a bad plot device, it's been a trope of fantasy/horror/literature for a long time...

Maybe your DM just failed epically, because the reason wasn't just "IT'S MAGIC!!!!". It seems he failed to properly express what was happening. The set-up was well written and makes a lot of sense. (The pixie was telling you want to do? Wasn't he flustered and distressed because his druid leader had gone mad and was destroying the forest? Sounds like a fine adventure to me!)

Was your group already planning on dealing with what was left of the Ogres? If so, and the DM knew it, then he didn't have to provide that side-trek. But it's a nice side-trek anyway.

And BTW... aren't the reasons why a LOT of things happen in a typical D&D world because it's MAGIC?

I'll try and reply to this, though I think we'll just be retreading what has already been said if this goes on any longer.

It's a bad plot hook. It immediately sets up the "You're a powerful caster. Why don't you do it?" question. The answer is magic. Now if you're willing to accept "Ghost Magic" as an acceptable plot device, then it works. For me, that broke down my suspension of disbelief right there.
 

catsclaw227

First Post
I'll try and reply to this, though I think we'll just be retreading what has already been said if this goes on any longer.

It's a bad plot hook. It immediately sets up the "You're a powerful caster. Why don't you do it?" question. The answer is magic. Now if you're willing to accept "Ghost Magic" as an acceptable plot device, then it works. For me, that broke down my suspension of disbelief right there.
Wait.... maybe I am misunderstanding. :) Who is the powerful caster that you are referring to when you say it sets up the "You're a powerful caster. Why don't you do it?" question? The Pixie or the Ghost Druid the pixie wants to free?

Because..... the pixie can't do it, so that's why he's asking you to help. The druid isn't coming to you for help, it's a flustered, scared pixie that is afraid of what has happened to his master.
 
Last edited:

Freakohollik

First Post
Wait.... maybe I am misunderstanding. :) Who is the powerful caster that you are referring to when you say it sets up the "You're a powerful caster. Why don't you do it?" question? The Pixie or the Ghost Druid the pixie wants to free?

Because..... the pixie can't do it, so that's why he's asking you to help. The druid isn't coming to you for help, it's a flustered, scared pixie that is afraid of what has happened to his master.

The ghost druid is the powerful caster. The one that requires the ghost magic plot device to justify the sending the PCs. Since you're going to nitpick I guess the exact thought would be "Your master is a powerful caster. Why doesn't she do it?". It's the same thing.
 

catsclaw227

First Post
The ghost druid is the powerful caster. The one that requires the ghost magic plot device to justify the sending the PCs. Since you're going to nitpick I guess the exact thought would be "Your master is a powerful caster. Why doesn't she do it?". It's the same thing.
Since when is asking a clarification question a nitpik? I stated that I may have misunderstood your question because your response didn't make sense in light of the side-trek setup.

Clearly, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a valid plot hook and a railroad device. Personally, I trust the adventure writing of Nick Logue.

Again, I think your DM did an injustice to the encounter, because the pixie doesn't provide any indication as to why she is sickening the land and how to stop it. And it's directly tied to one of key NPCs and recent events in the area. And you should have had in your newly acquired fort a lot of information tying the story together. There really was a lot more to the story than just "get the foozle and take it to free the ghost".
 
Last edited:

Never seen it happen, no.

Then again... I've never really been in a position where it would come up. It's all a question of set-up of the game, and if that's even a question that begs itself, that means it's a weak set-up to begin with.

I don't use weak set-ups. It's usually quite obvious when I have a patron relationship why the patron is hiring the PCs instead of just dealing with problems directly himself.

Or herself as the case more often is.
 

I also don't send low level parties on missions to save the world.
That's the real key, isn't it?

First off, as this thread demonstrates amply well, the entire premise is silly anyway. Secondly, why in the world would you spoil the ending like that? You've just given up one of your best tools to make the game interesting.

The last campaign I ran, the patron hired the PCs to chaperone some textiles into a hot market. It later turned out that she was smuggling alchemical weapons in with the textiles. It later turned out that she was doing this so this army of talking gorillas that she was allied with could defeat the City of Naked Amazon Hotties Who Ride Dinosaurs (Into Battle, you pervs!) because they had a god-killing weapon stashed in their treasure stores. It later turned out that the god-killing weapon actually caused one of the signs of the End Times to occur every time it was used. It later turned out that their patron knew this quite well, and was actually going to sacrifice innocent patsies to cause the end of the world, because she would be elevated to the Goddess of the New World that replaced it.

Of course... that was her plan. The PCs kinda got all in the way of that when they saw the gorillas unloading the textiles (and jars of alchemical weapons), found the body of their patrons' brother stuffed in a cabinet, and realized something was wrong.

As the campaign evolved and each successive revelation added to the "Holy crap, we're in way deeper than we thought! Help!" moments kept piling up... I mean, c'mon! That's priceless. Why would I have wanted to tell the PCs up front, "hey, there's this artifact that can cause the end of the world. Go find it. Here's where it is. I'll sit here and wait for you."?

As an aside, the PCs themselves ended up causing the end of the world, paving the way for demonic armies to sweep across the face of it. Fun, huh? I always get the real winners. :)
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top