Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[innerdude]

So I've been having a bit of an internal struggle recently over some of the challenges I recently introduced to my players.

One of the players has been clearly signaling throughout the campaign that he'd like to set up his character as a sort of power-behind-the-scenes in the criminal underworld, and as such I've been throwing a bunch of challenges and fictional inputs that fall in line with this intent.

And in some ways this has been a great thing, as this player is normally the one completely obsessed with powergaming/character min-maxing, to the exclusion of creating a workable character persona. He's the type of player when we'd play GURPS with a different GM, he'd take 70 or 80 points of disadvantages (which if you're not familiar with GURPS, basically means you take negative character personality traits in exchange for a 1:1 ratio of character generation stat and skill points). So his GURPS character would end up being a hulking monster two-hand wielding a tetsubo, but would have the "Smells Bad," "Beserker," "Callous," "Blood Thirsty," "Hates Children" disadvantages (these may not in fact be actual GURPS disadvantages, so please GURPS-ophiles, spare me the angst ).

So don't get me wrong---the fact that he's actively pursuing a character-driven agenda within the fiction is a massive positive.

The issue I'm having is that I feel like, as a GM, I'm letting him off a bit easy when it comes to consequences. It's not that I don't want him to succeed, it's that I don't want him to have an "easy-peasy" skate-on-by without really dealing with some of the "stuff" that goes along with it. But I'm conflicted, because I don't want to turn the game into a game of escalating consequences, for which the player(s) have no recourse other than to cow-tow to what I'm presenting. I want them to have avenues for success, while still balancing the need to present challenges.

So how do I do this better? How do I introduce consequences/complications that are A) interesting, B) have real dramatic heft within the fiction, and C) don't require the party to start finagling with me as the GM?

For example, his character recently set off a chain of gang-related "reorganization" in a run-down city. And I want to allow him his victory, but still bring back in meaningful consequences that are going to challenge the group.

I'm wondering if some of the problem is not being transparent enough with the group about the fallout/reactions of what will happen based on certain choices they make. (Of course, a lot of times the players don't care about the consequences regardless, but that's another story.)

I'm wondering if it would be enough to start saying things like, "Okay, here's what your characters know about the situation, and here's three or four things that are relevant to what's going on, and here's 3 or 4 opportunities that are in front of you to affect what happens next."

Is this enough? Is this too inflexible? Do I need to be more open to player input? Genuinely I have no interest in pre-determining an outcome; I want the player's choices to matter to their fullest, but I do want there to be consequences.

I feel like I'm talking in circles now, so I'll hold my peace and wait for you, my esteemed colleagues, to respond.

 

[Lanefan]

A few off-the-cuff thoughts:

First, there's nothing inherently wrong with what some (often dismissively) call "mother-may-I" play. No player is ever going to know everything that's possible or not within any given setting and so is going to have to quite reasonably ask. As long as you-as-GM give consistent answers that are true to your setting, you're gold.

Second, I think you might be trying to be a little too nice to your players/PCs. Take a harder line - let 'em do what they do and then be stern enough to let the consequences fall where and how they may, even to the point of hauling out the smackdown hammer now and then until they realize that actions can and sometimes will have not-always-pleasant consequences.

I'm wondering if some of the problem is not being transparent enough with the group about the fallout/reactions of what will happen based on certain choices they make. (Of course, a lot of times the players don't care about the consequences regardless, but that's another story.)

Depends on the consequences. If it's something the PCs might reasonably foresee then bring it up; but if it's something the PCs don't or can't know about then stay mum.

I'm wondering if it would be enough to start saying things like, "Okay, here's what your characters know about the situation, and here's three or four things that are relevant to what's going on, and here's 3 or 4 opportunities that are in front of you to affect what happens next."

As a framework, yes - this is great.

However, I'd give them the "relevant things" information first without outlining the opportunities to affect stuff, and see what they come up with on their own. Then if they get stuck or can't think of what to do next I'd try to find a way to drop some hints about the "3 or 4 opportunities".

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, this is a place you can take a page from PbtA, games. First, set up a danger when the players fail at something or if they're waiting on you for something. Then, if they ignoring it or fail at dealing with it, deliver on the danger or set up another one (keeping the first). When you deliver on the danger, go as hard as you want -- they've had their chance already.

So, as an example, if the party messes up dealing with something in front of them, wet up a bew or worsening situation -- failure to wipe out a rival now has that rival gaining power and threatening to tip the cart. Of the party ignores this to do something else, or fails to successfully deal with it, you can up the threat to tge rival suezing important hostages/stealing allies or ho all the way to gang war with a strong rival. Or, add a new problem like raiding orcs so the party has to prioritize and one danger will get worse. This causes a snowball without much effort on your part, and let's the party set their iwn agenda and live (or die) by it.

 

[Odysseus]

I had to do something similar a couple of years ago. The player in question kept alot of his actions , to inbetween game stuff. So it didn't impact the game. The player even did a whole power point presentation. Anyhow it changed when he got a little ambitious. And as a consequence, I had his rivals try and burn down the parties Inn(while the party was sleeping.) Which led the party to helping the player with his underworld domination plans for a little while.
My thinking through out the process was that I didn't worry about meaningful consequences or challenges etc. I just tried to do things that would happen to what the player did. Part of what I did for that campaign was before every session I do a recap. But I would include rumors and newspaper articles. Which might include what the party and player were doing , as seen through other peoples eyes. This enabled them to see certain consequences to their action.
I think most DMs , including myself, can be more transparent. I think gauging the consequences depends on your players , and you know them better.

 

[5ekyu]

I think this can help... but am not quite sure where you see the problem is.

I often have key NPCs that are not power movers and shakers but are good "face of the people" or "guy Friday" types who are great for presenting a voice of consequences and impact. They can keep bringing up what is going on "on the streets" or "the scuttlebutt and root the PCs info flow at the ground level even while they move and shake on larger scales.

Perhaps these are actual number twos or perhaps its a locsl bartender at a dive the PCs frequent or anything else that ties to those complications.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] - I'm not 100% clear what the details are of the game you're describing. Eg what actions are being declared by this player for his PC? How are stakes/what's at risk being established? Etc.

But here's a more general comment that might be relevant or might not: you know how sometimes genre fiction suffers from the eking out of one more series, or one more issue? The same thing can happen in a RPG. At a certain point, the story of the character is done because s/he has achieved his/her goals, and framing more challenges/complications is just dragging things out and basically forcing a shark-jump.

If neither you nor the player knows what is still at stake for the PC given his/her situation, then maybe the PC's story is done.

 

[MarkB]

My recommendation would be to personify the opposition. Come up with an NPC who's trying to do the same thing this PC is doing in regard to the criminal underworld. The NPC is less competent than the PC, but has the advantage of being 100% committed to their plans and not having to deal with whatever everyday adventures the group as a whole are pursuing.

Introduce that NPC in a non-confrontational setting, such as having them be a useful potential ally or informant. Let the party get to know them, even like them. Then, once they're safely off-stage again, have the PC find out about this NPC's ambitions.

After that, you don't need to worry about the player feeling like you're blocking their moves or making their life difficult, because they'll just focus on it being this NPC who's causing them trouble. Rather than being frustrated with you, they'll be furious with their rival and even further motivated to out-do them.

 

[pemerton]

I'm wondering if some of the problem is not being transparent enough with the group about the fallout/reactions of what will happen based on certain choices they make.

My recommendation would be to personify the opposition. Come up with an NPC who's trying to do the same thing this PC is doing in regard to the criminal underworld. The NPC is less competent than the PC, but has the advantage of being 100% committed to their plans and not having to deal with whatever everyday adventures the group as a whole are pursuing.

Introduce that NPC in a non-confrontational setting, such as having them be a useful potential ally or informant. Let the party get to know them, even like them. Then, once they're safely off-stage again, have the PC find out about this NPC's ambitions.

After that, you don't need to worry about the player feeling like you're blocking their moves or making their life difficult, because they'll just focus on it being this NPC who's causing them trouble. Rather than being frustrated with you, they'll be furious with their rival and even further motivated to out-do them.

If innerdude's conjecture - that part of the problem is a lack of clarity about the consequences of choices the players make in the play of their PCs - is correct, then I don't think it will help things to introduce further obscurity in that respect.

 

[Sadras]

My advice is a combination of what others have said on a single cheat sheet.

1. Define Obstacles and Opposition (goals/motives, relationships, influence, might, history if you have time)
2. Establish possible Avenues of Success with Identified Checks Points as well as Risks/Degrees of Failure (gang war, coerced into partnership or ongoing extortion, loss of influence, supplier sabotaged, customer base threatened, exposure and arrest...etc). Some will be known others not, whatever makes sense in the narrative.
3. List Possible Complications that might realistically arise (new threat, shortage of inventory, betrayal, child/ward...etc)
4. Draft a Loose Timeline (how many levels, how much downtime required)
5. Use the above as a Guideline and Inspiration only.

EDIT: As the character climbs the checkpoints of Success and the rewards of those successes start delivering so should the possible result of the Complications, Risks and Degrees of Failure increase.

So at checkpoint 1 say, a Gang War is contained and the loss is some street muscle (minor setback).
At checkpoint 2, the Gang War escalates in duration and violence resulting in innocents being injured and killed in the crossfire, resulting in a severe loss in street muscle (major setback) as well as a Complication (the party is called to investigate, not knowing one of their own is responsible for the event).

 

[MarkB]

If innerdude's conjecture - that part of the problem is a lack of clarity about the consequences of choices the players make in the play of their PCs - is correct, then I don't think it will help things to introduce further obscurity in that respect.

Adding an NPC doesn't have to introduce obscurity, though. They can become a useful conduit to convey information.