D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[billd91]

Every single AP I've played in more than a couple sessions, I've at best disliked. The play becomes about finishing the story of the AP, not the characters, and any attempt to actually get ahead of the BBEG short-circuits the AP and/or causes a TPK. The only way I can not be a disruptive player is to be a disengaged player, which is no fun at all.

If that's your experience then you have my sympathies. But my experiences in playing and running APs is that finishing the plot vs fully expressing the character is a false dichotomy. And yes, initial buy-in of the premise is key. If the players have done so, it's usually pretty easy to develop a character who would naturally want to see the issues posed by the AP/modules resolved in a favorable way. That may constrain some player choices at the outset - such as don't bring a paladin to a pirate AP or don't bring a PC who wants desperately to leave town in his rear-view mirror when the premise is to save the town from a tyrant. But that's all bound up in buying in to the premise.

 

[MGibster]

I think we've all run into players who don't want to engage with the adventure in front of them for one reason or another. For the most part, I haven't found it to be "bad faith" on the part of the players so much as it's been different expectations.

In the last Deadlands Hell on Earth (post apocalyptic future) campaign I ran, the PCs were citizens of Junkyard (Salt Lake City), and were in Vegas where they discovered evidence that their two biggest enemies, the mutants of Vegas and the Black Hats of Denver, were collaborating. This news is of vital importance to Junktown as it has serious implications for the viability of their continued survival, also, the PCs could clearly see the Black Hats were collecting prisoners likely for slave labor. Their response? "That's not what we're here for," and ignored it.

What I learned? I learned that I have a reputation as a PC killer in Deadlands (I'll cop to that), which makes some of the players hesitant to risk their characters when they don't see any concrete chance of material gain for them. I also learned that when given a mission, my players will make a beeline towards that objective and ignore anything else unless it's going to interfere. This happens in other game I run for them as well. And finally, I realized that most of my players have no interest in running heroic characters. They're motivated by more mercenary concerns.

As a GM I needed to change some of my assumptions. I assume PCs are going to be somewhat heroic in that they'll help people who are in trouble even if they don't see any immediate tangible benefit for doing so. I had to meet them halfway and give them reasons to be invested in the adventure.

 

[Fauchard1520]

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.

I remember Chris Perkins talking about "the invisible railroad" as a relevant concept on this point. Check out the illustration on page 76:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DM_Experience_2011.pdf

 

[Umbran]

I'll reach whatever conclusion I wish, thanks.

Sure. You do you. If you really want to jump to negative conclusions about people, that's your risk to take.

But remember that the Golden Rule applies whether you like it or not. You doing that basically authorizes others to do it... about you.

If we opened it up and said, "Hey, folks, how about you list all the poorly-founded conclusions you've reached about iserith," I think it a reasonable guess that you'd not like it. So, maybe doing it to others isn't really a consistent position to take.

 

[iserith]

Sure. You do you. If you really want to jump to negative conclusions about people, that's your risk to take.

But remember that the Golden Rule applies whether you like it or not. You doing that basically authorizes others to do it... about you.

If we opened it up and said, "Hey, folks, how about you list all the poorly-founded conclusions you've reached about iserith," I think it a reasonable guess that you'd not like it.

I wouldn't care. It doesn't affect me. Sticks and stones.

The premise is clear. Some players broke their agreement, willingly. That's all I need to know.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Suppose your group is playing a module. You all agreed to play a module. Halfway through that module, half of the group decides to knife the primary quest giver and head off for Saltmarsh to become a pirates or whatever. They've rejected the premise and substituted their own.

At what point should player agency take a backseat to campaign style? Does the answer change if you're playing a homebrew sandbox game vs. a published adventure?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I think it is fair game for players to kill an important NPC, or try to. I would just see this as changing the trajectory of the module. I suppose depending on the details, it could end the adventure, but nothing says the players have to finish an adventure. It is a game, and part of it being a game means things could end unexpectedly for a variety of reasons (everything from players choose a path that leads them far from the module's core concept, to crucial party members being killed, etc). And getting halfway through something still isn't that bad. Obviously if they are just doing it to spread chaos, and the killing of the NPC didn't arise organically, then that might be a play style issue if you don't want your players going around smashing things.

 

[amethal]

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.

I think we must have very different play-styles, or possibly I'm misunderstanding you.

I've never played in a game where the default assumption was that the Plot would be followed, and anyone whose character didn't act as decreed by the Plot was being passive aggressive and/or childish.

(I'm not talking about a situation where a player sets out to sabotage everybody else's fun, although I've never played in a game like that. I'm also not talking about organised play, where expectations are different (or I assume they are - never done that either.))

 

[iserith]

I think we must have very different play-styles, or possibly I'm misunderstanding you.

I've never played in a game where the default assumption was that the Plot would be followed, and anyone whose character didn't act as decreed by the Plot was being passive aggressive and/or childish.

(I'm not talking about a situation where a player sets out to sabotage everybody else's fun, although I've never played in a game like that. I'm also not talking about organised play, where expectations are different (or I assume they are - never done that either.))

It looks like you're not addressing the premise of the original post though in which everyone agreed to play a certain module and half the party decided they didn't want to do that anymore and went in a new direction without discussing it with the group. If there was no prior agreement, then yeah the main problem here is a logistical one in which the DM has to decide what do on the spot, improvising what content follows accordingly. But that's not the premise as originally presented.

 

[amethal]

The premise is clear. Some players broke their agreement, willingly. That's all I need to know.

I'm curious if this situation has arisen in your games, and if so how the other players felt about it.

Did the other players also feel like they had willingly broken an agreement with you? Or were they surprised to learn that you had expectations which had not been met?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we must have very different play-styles, or possibly I'm misunderstanding you.

I've never played in a game where the default assumption was that the Plot would be followed, and anyone whose character didn't act as decreed by the Plot was being passive aggressive and/or childish.

(I'm not talking about a situation where a player sets out to sabotage everybody else's fun, although I've never played in a game like that. I'm also not talking about organised play, where expectations are different (or I assume they are - never done that either.))

Keep in mind, the premise of the thread is that half way through a module that everyone agreed to play, half the group just up and decides to merk the primary quest giver. This isn’t just a matter of PCs “not acting as the plot decrees,” this is half the players deciding, partway through an ongoing quest line, to completely reject the quest and actively sabotage the other half’s ability to engage with the quest.