Scene Framing and "Surprising the GM" -- An Innerdudian Case Study

[innerdude]

We're coming up on the sixth full session for my recently started Savage Worlds fantasy campaign. And interestingly, something happened in the last session that seems to relate directly to the whole "scene framing" and "surprising the GM" discussions currently happening.

And I'm interested in hearing from everyone what they think about the way the situation played out, mostly to gain some perspective on how they would have handled it, changed the scene "frame," etc. to better fit the group and situation.

(I'm not saying the way I handled it was outright "bad," but I'm genuinely curious to see alternative viewpoints.)

I'll get to the situation in just a second, but I figure I should at least give you a brief (VERY brief) background on the campaign and group "style" that will hopefully be informative for your responses.

First, in terms of "style" the campaign itself is designed to be a fairly straightforward, "classic" fantasy campaign, using the Savage Worlds rules within a homebrew world I've created. There's a few minor house rules, but nothing even close to being a huge departure from baseline Savage Worlds. For those of you who know the rules system, assume RAW across the board.

For this particular world, it's fairly low-magic, and the only playable PC race is human (mostly because at the start of the campaign, the only known civilizations are human). The main "themes" I wanted to incorporate into play was a sense of discovery, of lost knowledge, lost civilizations, etc., as a way of exploring current human conditions (though in very light-handed way). I want the themes to be present, but the purpose is to help the players simply enjoy themselves. =)

There are four players:

Player 1 - My "best friend" from high school, who's still my best friend 20 years later. He has TONS of experience with computer RPGs, has played all of the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter games on PC, Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, etc., but very little actual experience with pen and paper. But he totally "gets" all of the tropes, understands all of the terminology, etc. of traditional roleplaying.

Player 2 - A good friend of Player 1, who I had never met before starting the group. Totally new to tabletop RPGs, had never played one before sitting down this past January to build his first Savage Worlds character.

Player 3 - A friend from work with quite a bit of RPG experience. Has played both 4e and Pathfinder extensively, dabbled in a little Shadowrun.

Player 4 - A second friend from work who had played maybe a handful of sessions of 3e as a teenager, but never played a tabletop RPG since then. However, he loves the old Super Nintendo / Playstation "Japanime" RPGs (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy), and had played Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance on XBox. He "gets" RPGs, but hasn't totally absorbed many "D&D-isms" we often take for granted.

In terms of group dynamics, the overall "vibe" when we play maintains an excellent balance between "loose and casual" and just there to have fun, yet getting serious when plot hooks and group decisions are made. This is easily one of the most fun groups I've ever had the pleasure of playing with. Truthfully, I wouldn't mind nudging the gameplay towards a mildly more "actor stance," "High concept sim" direction, but I'm certainly not complaining because overall we're having a great time.

Okay, now the scenario---

Two of the PCs (Player 1 and Player 2's characters) belong to a pseudo-scholastic, pseudo-political order that takes an active part in politics in the game world. The premise of the group getting together is that Player 3's character owes a debt to the order, and Players 1 and 2 have been sent to ensure that the debt is repaid to the order's satisfaction. Player 4 is basically a sidekick of Player 3, begged to come along to "help him out."

So the party makeup is: A hand-to-hand fighter / mage (Player 1) who is a member of the order, a longbow-wielding mage (Player 2) of the order, a thief from one of the world's notable guilds (Player 3), and Player 3's sidekick, your classic big, dumb brute who hits things really hard, armored up and wielding a two-handed axe (Player 4).

Two sessions ago, they completed a major "quest" by rescuing an archaeologist from the clutches of a rival crime syndicate. The session following had less action, as it mostly revolved around getting back to town, piecing together what was happening around them, and deciding on their next move.

In short, I ended up framing three basic "hooks," or "scenes," with which they could interact with, to help them decide where to go next:

1. The archaeologist had a map to a dig site from which fragments and pieces had already been unearthed and shown to the PCs. Player 1's character is INTENSELY interested in this kind of thing, and this became his primary focus for the session --- getting the group out to the dig site.
2. The PCs' primary contact within the order was MIA, which was very, very unusual for this NPC, based on their previous interactions with him. Player 4 was very concerned about this, and wanted to get the party to explore what was going on.
3. Player 3 belongs to a thieves guild, and was approached by an informant in the city that his guild head had a mission for him in a distant city to the north. It was made clear to the character that failure to perform this mission would carry potentially severe consequences.

(As a side note, Player 2, being his first RPG experience ever, has been content to generally follow the lead of other players in terms of affecting "the story," though he's slowly becoming more comfortable with his character, and is really enjoying the combat aspects. I have several potential hooks in place that involve his character, which directly tie to the backstory he created, but it may be some time before we use any of them.)

Ultimately, after much deliberation, the group settled on immediately heading out to the wilderness in search of the dig site---without any other considerations. This was primarily driven by Player 1, who tends to have the most "investment" in the fiction, and in his character.

Now, here's the thing---once this decision was made, I immediately "fast forwarded" from their current situation, to them stepping on the beach in an uncharted bay, some 500 miles from their originating port city, in preparation to approach the dig site. I skipped hiring the boat, skipped any potential encounters / complications during the trip, skipped them stopping off at two separate port cities along the way with potential encounters with port authorities, pirates, etc.

I did this since Player 1 was most strongly advocating that's what he, and his character wanted to do. Though both Players 3 and 4 advocated for their positions, ultimately both acquiesced to Player 1's motivations, and made for the dig site post-haste.

So my question is, was this the correct approach? Should I have attempted to engage Player 3 and Player 4's motivations by introducing "complications" along the way to the dig site? Or should I assume that since both Player 3 and 4 ultimately agreed to the course of action, that the group's decision was as a "united front," even if it wasn't everyone's first choice?

(I'll follow up with some additional thoughts I had while this was happening, but I want to hear what everyone has to say first.)

 

[Nagol]

Was it a mistake to handle it this way? That's impossible for us to say. There is no objectively correct way to handle this form of transition – just what the table expects and what suits the table dynamic.

Part of the table dynamic is based on the rules engine and the base expectations it drives. Savage Worlds is different from many editions of D&D in that random encounters aren't part of the base expectation.

Part of the table dynamic is based on player interaction. It appears you're trying for a united party. To that end introducing multiple potentially time sensitive goals in diverse regions places the party in conflict with itself. This can be a complicating factor and can be a mistake at some tables. At other tables, its not an issue because the players have confidence the situations faced will either prove linked or the situations will not resolve themselves in unpleasant manners in the absence of the PCs.

Should you have used the trip to introduce complications that would engage the other players? Again that depends. Do the other players appear disaffected or need further engagement? Will further complications overwhelm the players' ability to track what is going on and what is important? Would the complications work to speed or retard the resolution of the ongoing plot? Would a further complication work to heighten party conflict by adding delay for investigation/side trek?

 

[innerdude]

Was it a mistake to handle it this way? That's impossible for us to say. There is no objectively correct way to handle this form of transition – just what the table expects and what suits the table dynamic.

Part of the table dynamic is based on the rules engine and the base expectations it drives. Savage Worlds is different from many editions of D&D in that random encounters aren't part of the base expectation.

Part of the table dynamic is based on player interaction. It appears you're trying for a united party. To that end introducing multiple potentially time sensitive goals in diverse regions places the party in conflict with itself. This can be a complicating factor and can be a mistake at some tables. At other tables, its not an issue because the players have confidence the situations faced will either prove linked or the situations will not resolve themselves in unpleasant manners in the absence of the PCs.

Should you have used the trip to introduce complications that would engage the other players? Again that depends. Do the other players appear disaffected or need further engagement? Will further complications overwhelm the players' ability to track what is going on and what is important? Would the complications work to speed or retard the resolution of the ongoing plot? Would a further complication work to heighten party conflict by adding delay for investigation/side trek?

All good questions. In truth, I went along with Player 1's desires in large part because he's been the one most interested in "driving" the action. I read a blog recently somewhere addressing this--not all players are interested in "pushing" the action equally. Most everyone wants to be involved and feel useful, but not everyone needs their character to have as much "spotlight" on their story. Player 1 regularly pushes for this, and seeks for this. He clearly expresses that things of interest to him as a player, and to his character, are the things he will pursue, and will generally only "play along" engaging with other players' "plot material" for so long.

As far as "time-sensitive" constraints for the plot hooks, the only one that had any kind of "time bomb" attached is the link to Player 3's thieves' guild. Yes, the missing NPC COULD be time sensitive, but in the context of this story, this NPC also regularly has good reasons for being gone, handing off assignments to underlings, etc. If anything, Players 1 and 2 knowingly took on themselves the "complication" of not reporting directly to someone within their organization before leaving to parts unknown.

This was also CLEARLY, however, a concession to Player 1's character "theme." Player 1 made it clear both during character generation, and at several times during actual play, that his character had an intense interest in history, ancient cultures, rumors of artifacts, etc. Fast forwarding in this way was an attempt to let Player 1 explore his character in the ways he clearly indicated.

(As a side note, both Players 3 and 4 were fairly hesitant to follow along from the get go. Player 3's character had a clear incentive to follow his time-sensitive "marching orders," such as threat of violence, imprisonment, etc.).

 

[Quickleaf]

So my question is, was this the correct approach? Should I have attempted to engage Player 3 and Player 4's motivations by introducing "complications" along the way to the dig site? Or should I assume that since both Player 3 and 4 ultimately agreed to the course of action, that the group's decision was as a "united front," even if it wasn't everyone's first choice?

If everyone's having fun and no one's complaining, then it worked right?

At the dig site I'd incorporate Player 3's thieves guild into the next adventure (maybe a rival group of thieves). For Player 4 I don't get the sense there's much character to hook onto there, but maybe it could make sense to drop a clue or two about the missing NPC during the dig site adventure?

I'm also curious about how you might hook Player 2 more into the dig site adventure, but generally my opinion is to hook as many of the PCs as possible all the time.

 

[Nagol]

The lack of incident on the trip is in itself not a bad thing unless this type of trip is normally fraught with difficulty. The fast-forward prevented the group from making second guesses and potentially coming into conflict. It also ate a fair portion of time for the trip I would expect and the group has to assume the return will eat at least as much ignoring the time cost for the further exploration and investigation/control of the dig site.

The group's triage and prioritization techniques is likely to harm the less forceful players if their goals and player 1's goals remain in conflict. Whether this is a bad thing depends on the group and how you as GM operate. In my case. I allow player choice to be meaningful -- in other words, players choose actions consciously with the understanding that those choices can involve trade off and consequence and those consequences will be allowed to play out. In a environment like my preferred table style, player 3 will likely end up in trouble. That can become be a problem if player 3 doesn't like trouble and player 3 does not understand their choices have consequences OR if player 3 feels unable to stand up to player 1. Player 2 is in a similar boat -- the PC is concerned an important NPC is MIA. This time there isn't time pressure, but there is no indication from the player perspective that it doesn't. Player 1 dominance may be entirely acceptable to the group. It may not be. If it isn't, it is likely to breed disaffection over time.

Do you think you did the right thing? Do you plan on enforcing time constraints and consequence of inaction -- either this time or in the future? Does the group have that same expectation? Is the dynamic between the PCs going to be tolerable or will divergent goals drive a wedge?

 

[JamesonCourage]

So far, I don't have anything add that Nagol hasn't. It depends a lot on context. While you've given us a lot, I'd need to know player expectations, player wants, etc. before saying if what you did was "right" for your group. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I was going to post this, but Quickleaf saved me the trouble:

At the dig site I'd incorporate Player 3's thieves guild into the next adventure (maybe a rival group of thieves

<snip>

my opinion is to hook as many of the PCs as possible all the time.

If the dig site investigation is only going to take a session or two, and the PCs will then be sailing back to home base and/or trying to sell or display the wares they dug up, another option is to have pirates attack their boat - this could be the big deal that PC 3's guild was concerned about, and gives the player a chance to work out that he has inadvertantly completed his PC's mission. Or it could somehow be tied into their commercial dealing with the stuff they dig up (archaelogical treasure attract thieves).

I don't find anything very contentious in skipping over the stuff that you did, though. In and of itself it doesn't seem to have actually undermined any players' conception of, or goals for, his PC.

 

[Celebrim]

I immediately "fast forwarded" from their current situation, to them stepping on the beach in an uncharted bay, some 500 miles from their originating port city, in preparation to approach the dig site. I skipped hiring the boat, skipped any potential encounters / complications during the trip, skipped them stopping off at two separate port cities along the way with potential encounters with port authorities, pirates, etc.

As with Nagol, I don't think that there is an objectively correct way to handle this. For me, to wave a 500 mile (5-10 day?) ocean journey implies: a) the DM didn't really think he could make such a journey interesting to the players, b) the DM knew that the dig site investigation would already consume a lot of play time and wanted to speed it up, c) there is no particular need to foreshadow any locations along the way because you don't anticipate them being relevant, and d) the journey is normally just an ordinary hardship regularly undertaken by non-heroes and usually only featuring the normal obstacles associated with sea journeys. The latter is important only in so much as it prevents you from later changing the character of this part of the world easily. You can't handwave passage through part of your world and then later easily establish that the ocean between City A and City D is so notorious for dragon turtles that no sailor dares travel it. I say 'easily' because you could always establish that dragon turtles are migratory and only during a certain season of the year is ocean travel impossible, though you'd probably want to foreshadow that complication if you were wanting to introduce it.

What would make me think you hadn't handled the journey well? Well, obviously the opposite situation.

a) One of the characters has something in their backstory related to ocean travel - descended from a selkie, mother was a mermaid, Nauti the Storm Lord hates them, true love was murdered by pirates, etc. - and this is a good opportunity to bring that aspect of the character into play.
b) One of the characters has exploration as a schtick, and this is an opportunity to spot light a character that is usually out of the spot light.
c) One of the players has strongly signaled that they have Exploration as an agenda.
d) One of the ports of call between City A and City D is Important to the campaign and likely to be reoccuring, and this is a good oppurtunity to introduce Ptolus, Waterdeep, Greyhawk, Sigal or whatever by having a minor complication related to one of the story lines occur while in port.
e) The journey between City A and City D has some important heroic color and must be undertaken therefore heroicly in full knowledge of the legendary hazards thereof.

In general though, I don't think there is an issue of 'surprising the DM' here unless you had never anticipated that they'd stop everything to do something that you hadn't thought particularly important for 3 in game week. Since your other two plot hooks appear to have time pressure, that could be what you mean by 'surprising the DM'.

Your bigger problem doesn't to me look like it relates to scene framing or surprising the DM at all. It sounds to me like you have a table bully, where one of the player's with a forceful personality is using his OOC personality to make the game revolve around his needs. This is going to be very hard to deal with, especially if some of the other players are shy or have a personality prone to conflict avoidance. Some of the things I'm concerned about:

a) PC's most obvious conflict is with his missing friend and colleague. Instead of following this up, he decides to take a 3 week trip 500 miles away. This is potentially wildly out of character if the PC has any sort of tags signalling loyalty or valuing life. Basically the character has just signalled the personality - things of academic interest or more important than people. That might be correct for the character, but I feel it demands a serious complication. Further, by overruling the rest of the parties concerns, the player has potentially created a serious complication for any other member of the party that is described as 'loyal' or 'valuing people over things'. If this conflict wasn't highlighted IC, something is wrong.
b) This is doubly true because player #3 has just recieved a complication and has been signaled that he has recieved a quest with time pressure. If PC #1 knows IC that PC #3 is being actually endangered by his plans to travel 500 miles away to go to a dig site, that's a major conflict. If this conflict wasn't highlighted IC, something is seriously wrong.

You mention, 'much deliberation'. Was that deliberation IC or OOC? Because if the deliberation was OOC, then you are dealing with a serious problem of table bullying. I don't see any evidence that Player #3 acquiesed because he believed 'that is what my character would do'. I believe this was done to avoid OOC conflict with Player #1, and not to avoid IC conflict with Character #1. Putting myself in the head of Character #3, I can't imagine agreeing to go with Character #1. "Have fun. I've got more important things to do than make mud pies somewhere. I've got you know, adult responcibilities.", seems like the natural response. Character #3 needs to have something in his character that makes him think the dig site is Important, or this is probably wildly out of line with his character's stated beliefs and goals.

One of the reasons I try to enforce IC talk at the table is players and characters can have such radically different roles. I have a player with major self-confidence issues. Thier character on the other hand has by far the highest social standing of anyone in the party and is the in game official leader of the group, being at this point both a Captain and a Knight with several of the other characters being perceived socially as being that character's henchmen. Yet, out of character, some of the player's of those characters can be rather forceful in their personality. Making the players be IC reminds the generally self-doubting PLAYER, that in game his opinion really does matter and is important and therefore he should feel free to speak up and be heard.

One other concern is that while I've no concerns with handwaving the trip, by handwaving the process of preparing for the trip, you've basically ruled in Player #1's favor. If the process of preparing for the trip involved hours or days of time to find a boat going the right way at the right time, then you had oppurtunity to start playing out some of the other threads and see if the party _really_ had agreed that plot #1 was all important and plot #2 and plot #3 could be happily ignored.

 

[innerdude]

... snip of an incredibly relevant comment ...

I can't XP you Celebrim, but this is a FANTASTIC analysis of the situation as I'm seeing it develop at the table, particularly this part:

Your bigger problem doesn't to me look like it relates to scene framing or surprising the DM at all. It sounds to me like you have a table bully, where one of the player's with a forceful personality is using his OOC personality to make the game revolve around his needs. This is going to be very hard to deal with, especially if some of the other players are shy or have a personality prone to conflict avoidance. Some of the things I'm concerned about:

a) PC's most obvious conflict is with his missing friend and colleague. Instead of following this up, he decides to take a 3 week trip 500 miles away. This is potentially wildly out of character if the PC has any sort of tags signalling loyalty or valuing life. Basically the character has just signalled the personality - things of academic interest or more important than people. That might be correct for the character, but I feel it demands a serious complication. Further, by overruling the rest of the parties concerns, the player has potentially created a serious complication for any other member of the party that is described as 'loyal' or 'valuing people over things'. If this conflict wasn't highlighted IC, something is wrong.

b) This is doubly true because player #3 has just recieved a complication and has been signaled that he has recieved a quest with time pressure. If PC #1 knows IC that PC #3 is being actually endangered by his plans to travel 500 miles away to go to a dig site, that's a major conflict. If this conflict wasn't highlighted IC, something is seriously wrong.

THIS is ABSOLUTELY the problem. And I think this is really what I felt as being the "surprising the GM" part of it all--the willingness to abandon, or disregard two potentially serious complications simply to continue pursuing the character / player's agenda. Now in retrospect, this isn't entirely unreasonable. In several ways, across several different sessions, I had emphasized that there's something "big" and "important" going on at this dig site, to the point that major guild organizations, rulers, and others were taking an interest in it.

That said, I was troubled that Player 1 was so willing to ignore all of the other clues / hooks, especially as they related to Player 3's character. The discussion was primarily done out-of-character, rather than in-character, which would definitely have changed the complexion of the end decision, I think. Part of the problem was I don't think I was clear enough in establishing

a) The fact that the NPC was missing was, in fact, an extraordinary circumstance that may be a serious cause for concern.

b) That Player 3's circumstances warranted his character handling his "duties" first and foremost, regardless of other party concerns.

Some of that lack of force was purposeful, however, because I didn't want it feel like I was "railroading." I did, however, want to present three potentially interesting "frames," with consequences for each that needed to be negotiated at the table.

If the party DOESN'T go immediately to the dig, does the rival crime syndicate get there first? Are they endangering additional NPCs they've previously encountered (two assistants of the archaeologist)?

If the party DOESN'T address Player 3's guild request, will there be consequences? Retribution?

If the party DOESN'T explore the missing NPC of their order, will they be missing important future information? Are they being disloyal, or negligent toward their obligations toward the order?

Each decision carries with it consequences, and I want to be "realistic" in the way those consequences are resolved. I don't think the world should remain "static" as the party goes off to explore the dig sit.

I try not to EVER have pre-planned resolutions to scene frames; the characters' actions should determine the ultimate success or failure. The party was likewise free to pursue different agendas entirely, if they felt so motivated, but the world WILL react to whatever choice they make.

In terms of "bullying," Player 1 isn't a bully. He's actually a very smart, intelligent, witty guy who actively pursues his agenda. It never felt like bullying at the table, but I did feel like perhaps there was a disconnect between Player 1's pursuit of his agenda, versus the potential consequences implied by the "framing." And that's why I'm trying to improve in this aspect, in determining how to present potential "frames" and their underlying "substance" as they apply to the PCs.

One other concern is that while I've no concerns with handwaving the trip, by handwaving the process of preparing for the trip, you've basically ruled in Player #1's favor. If the process of preparing for the trip involved hours or days of time to find a boat going the right way at the right time, then you had oppurtunity to start playing out some of the other threads and see if the party _really_ had agreed that plot #1 was all important and plot #2 and plot #3 could be happily ignored.

This is also an excellent point--would forcing the players to play through the acquisition of travel resources lead to more consideration of what they were actually pursuing? Or would it have appeared to be, in the vein of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's complaints in the "Surprising the GM" thread, forcing them to engage with "stuff" they're not really interested in, since the dig site is the "goal"?

 

[Celebrim]

In terms of "bullying," Player 1 isn't a bully. He's actually a very smart, intelligent, witty guy who actively pursues his agenda.

Yeah, thought so. Natural leader type? Possibly has a real life job with some authority?

It never felt like bullying at the table...

A lot of times, it probably won't especially if the bully is charismatic. And many times, it isn't actually motivated by arrogance or some other lack of virtue in the player. It's just that people IRL have all sorts of personalities, and at RPG tables in particular you tend to be getting at least some players who aren't very socially adept (various sorts of autism spectrum issues are common in the nerd population, to say nothing of the classic discontent between pursuing social skills and pursuing intellectual skills). If you have one player who in real life is socially gregarious, charismatic, and used to getting his way, and he's playing at a table with players that aren't like that or who - for whatever real world issues - tend to avoid conflict and argument and are prone to concession you can quickly end up with an unhappy group. It doesn't sound like its a problem with this group yet if everyone is having a good time, but I've seen it be a problem.

That's the reason I suggest IC actor stance has more utility than just encouraging Thespianism or emmersion into the story. People are often more free to display their true feelings on a subject if they can use the pretense of acting out a character, and this is especially true of the players afflicted with shyness. (Of course, this can be a problem to, if the player doesn't realize how much of a jerk they are coming across as. Fortunately, it doesn't sound like you have that problem.) In fact, as a DM I'm often better able to gauge what a player really is thinking when they are acting in character than when they are OOC, because the truth is people also act when they are OOC and they do it more naturally.

but I did feel like perhaps there was a disconnect between Player 1's pursuit of his agenda, versus the potential consequences implied by the "framing." And that's why I'm trying to improve in this aspect, in determining how to present potential "frames" and their underlying "substance" as they apply to the PCs.

I don't think all of your issues can be addressed by scene framing techniques, although I think that this example shows one of the reasons for slowing down the pace. Often when as a DM you are focused on picking up the pace and avoiding 'dead air', you just end up making mistakes. It's a mistake to think that only players want the game to 'go fast' and 'get to the good stuff'. DMs are under that pressure too, but sometimes when you give in to it players don't pick up on what you are trying to say. Players don't understand the environment they are in and have a widely wrong mental picture. Players don't actually understand the consequences of the action they are proposing - did everyone really realize that they were proposing being gone for 'three weeks' or more at the dig site? You forget to drop an important clue or take into account an important aspect of the environment. You skip over an important aspect of the game rules. You risk steam rolling a player who had input but was hesitant to add it. Lots of bad things can happen rushing the pace. It's not an easy trade off where you get all positives and have no risks.

If you look at the other thread, notice how long it took for me to fully grasp what was going on in the example Hussar presented and all of its implications. One of the reasons I'd try to respond initally to Hussar's proposition with 'go slow', is Hussar is proposing something with profound impact and I really need to think about and understand what he is proposing to understand its implications. Hense, the focus on at least initially handling the round by round and moment complications of summoning and mounting on a centipede. One of the most profound issues with Hussar's proposition was completely missed at the table - Hussar can't communicate his desires to the centipede and the spell he's casting prevents the centipede from taking any action but attacking Hussar's enemies unless he can communicate with it. I don't know how many times I've missed equally important aspects of the rules or environment because I'm trying to bring the excitement, and ended up going 'Doh!' later on. I may ultimately be saying 'yes', but I don't want to rush something potentially momentus, and hense the focus on the small scale while I'm working out the big scale in my head.

And as DM and player, I have witnessed players who are consciously aware of this and who try to bully the GM into making quick decisions as a means of power gaming. After all, 'throw the dice' is risky no matter how many pluses you have. Most serious power gamers are also very good at getting GMs to just say 'yes', and they know all the tricks - outcome as proposition, selective rules lawyering, selective arguing from 'reality', bargaining techniques, protesting ignorance and demanding retcons, etc. - for getting a GM to do so.

This is also an excellent point--would forcing the players to play through the acquisition of travel resources lead to more consideration of what they were actually pursuing? Or would it have appeared to be, in the vein of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's complaints in the "Surprising the GM" thread, forcing them to engage with "stuff" they're not really interested in, since the dig site is the "goal"?

I'm of the inclination to ignore any OOC table discussion that appears to be ignoring in game reality, and I'd definately while listening to this conversation develop be encouraging them to play it IC. It's one of the hardest jobs of the DM, because you don't want to be a bully either and not everyone is equally comfortable with IC play (which again, can create problems). I try to continually remind my players that nothing that they say OOC is necessarily treated as OOC by the game. If they start talking OOC about whether or not to kill a captured NPC, while in game the NPC is right there, he can and will overhear the discussion IC. If they start discussing secrets OOC while in the middle of a scene with NPC's, the NPCs will probably hear them. I try to break in to those discussions early with an NPC to remind them of this fact. And I try to remind them that propositions like, "I introduce myself to the NPC", are invalid by saying things like, "Ok, introduce yourself to the NPC." But intra-party discussions are really even harder to regulate without risking seeming like a jerk. "This is an important topic. Please try to stay IC.", is about the best you can do. Some groups are better about this than others, and it really has nothing to do with experience, because players are trained by their DMs to have certain expectations and habits and if that DM ran a very different table (well or not) that can be an even bigger hinderance than lack of experience.

Anyway, if you'd slowed down here and had them take a few in game hours or at least a day to find a ship that would give them passage, what it might have done is allowed you to frame scenes that highlighted the conflict the players were creating. You could have had a colleague hunt down PC #1 and say in so many words, "Why haven't we seen you? What are you doing? Have you seen NPC #1? No one seems to know where he is! I think he may be in trouble." or even "Why are you abandoning your friend, you jerk!". Try to force the OOC choice "I'm really into archeology", into an explicit IC choice, "I'm really in to archeology. The Nazi's can't be allowed to recover the dingus. NPC can take care of himself." and highlight that potential conflict using NPC #2. Or you could have a friend in the guild come and talk to PC #3 and pass on some additional information. You could throw some action scenes into this as well. Maybe the problem responcible for NPC #1's disappearance also wants to make PC #1 disappear, and thwarting that plan gives the party a clue. It's not the wrong choice to commit to the dig site, but I'm not convinced it was made IC and as such I'm not convinced that a) everyone is really happy with it and b) that it consequences are going to be engaged with IC rather than OOC and c) that it is really serving the story well and that players are being thoughtful about the issue here. Does player #1 consciously realize he's potentially sacrificing the life of his friend NPC #1 and putting the life his friend PC #3 in danger to pursue his hobby? That might still be a valid choice - "We can't risk the dingus falling into the hands of the Nazi's!" - but still.