D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[dave2008]

While I understand the sentiment of this, I have rarely found it to be true for any GM who knows what they are doing.

Well I disagree. I feel like I know what I am doing after DMing for 30+ years. Now, the caveat is that I don't run published adventures. We run an open campaign world were I've built the overall structure, but the group is free to choose what they do and how they do it. If they decide to change directions midway an adventure - that works just fine for me.

Meaning, I have never seen an entire group of players want to leave the adventure at the drop of a hat. I have never seen an entire group suddenly sabotage a plot line. I have seen one or two influential players force their influence on others that went along with it. But never really willingly.

I don't see changing directions as sabotaging a plot line, but as I mentioned I don't run published adventures either, so my view of a "plot line" may be different than what you mean.

FYI, the OP said half the group wanted to change the directions. I missed that part, but my response is still basically the same. I go where the players want. I basically leave it to them to decided and mediate where needed. It has worked for 30 years so I'm good with that!

 

[jasper]

As Adventure League DM I have just shut down a module (DDAL09-02) and grabbed a new module. But depending on how nice the players handled it, I would give full rewards or just gold for hours played and close the session.

As a homebrew DM, depends on how scummy the players are. Yes! I had some scummy players who wanted to TICK OFF the DM. I would break out the UNO cards for those or shut the game down. If I didn’t have scummy players, then time out would be called. Find out what the problem is. Then called a 10 to 20 minutes smoke break, and grab my notes and let them TRY to become pirates. (TOO BAD the Pirates only allow new crew members who are born on Feb 29 and must serve for at least 4 birthdays.)

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure I've ever played in or run a campaign where there was an agreement to be "re-negotiated" or "shirked". We just sit down and have some fun playing RPGs. What adventure we do is a secondary consideration.

If I'm GMing and the players get bored with the module I'm running and/ or have their own ideas as to what the characters want to do, then I'll go with it. I've got literally hundreds of other modules I can run, or I can make something up. I just need a bit of advance warning.

The premise is that the group agreed to play a module. Half the group then broke their agreement mid-game without discussing the matter. That's a problem of people not acting in good faith to stick to the agreement they willingly made.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A mismatch in expectations, a shirking of one's agreement, or a desire to renegotiate is in evidence here. It just takes some hashing out. But if someone is just shirking an agreement, they can go in my opinion.

I agree with iserith here. If the adventure is not working for you as a player, act like a freaking adult and bring it up with the DM. Don’t act all passive aggressive and start ignoring the plot.

 

[prabe]

I agree with iserith here. If the adventure is not working for you as a player, act like a freaking adult and bring it up with the DM. Don’t act all passive aggressive and start ignoring the plot.

Absolutely. Let the people who are enjoying the adventure enjoy the adventure, and enjoy the company (especially if you're playing with actual friends, which I realize isn't how @iserith rolls at this point).

 

[Retreater]

This happens in most published mega-adventures I run, actually. To go through 200+ pages of an adventure can get tiresome to a player, I get it. Sometimes the adventure as originally described doesn't match what the players want to do. Sometimes the desires of the players change over the course of months.

My recommendation is to throw in a side quest or run a one-shot in a different adventure to let them stretch their legs and enjoy a different gameplay style. Then come back to Saltmarsh in a few sessions once they've gotten it out of their system.

 

[Umbran]

That's a problem of people not acting in good faith to stick to the agreement they willingly made.

People throw around that "not in good faith" a lot recently, and I think they are making a whole lot of assumptions in doing so.

If one is not acting in good faith, that implies knowing dishonesty or intent. How about we leave room for mistakes and poor judgement and just plain not realizing how to better handle a situation, before we leap to deciding the person's actively being a jackhole, hm?

 

[iserith]

People throw around that "not in good faith" a lot recently, and I think they are making a whole lot of assumptions in doing so.

If one is not acting in good faith, that implies knowing dishonesty or intent. How about we leave room for mistakes and poor judgement and just plain not realizing how to better handle a situation, before we leap to deciding the person's actively being a jackhole, hm?

I'll reach whatever conclusion I wish, thanks.

 

[iserith]

Absolutely. Let the people who are enjoying the adventure enjoy the adventure, and enjoy the company (especially if you're playing with actual friends, which I realize isn't how @iserith rolls at this point).

I play with both "actual friends" and strangers. All of them, so far, have stuck to their agreements. But then I've never run an adventure, module or otherwise, that people didn't enjoy.

 

[prabe]

I play with both "actual friends" and strangers. All of them, so far, have stuck to their agreements. But then I've never run an adventure, module or otherwise, that people didn't enjoy.

I apologize. I thought I remembered you saying that at least one of your in-person gaming groups had ceased to be a gaming group, but were still friends; and that for you gaming was less of an opportunity to hang out with friends than it is for many others; and I jumped to the unsupported conclusion that your gaming-friends and your friend-friends didn't overlap. That's entirely on me (and wasn't intended as a value-judgment in any event).