D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[iserith]

I would need to know more. There are many types of agreement, and the OP doesn't clarify. For example:

1. Was it a qualified agreement?
2. Was it a reluctant agreement?
3. Was it a coerced agreement?
4. Was it an informed agreement?
5. Was it a tacit agreement?
6. Was it an explicit agreement?
7. Was it an agreement to "give it a try?"
8. Was it an agreement to "see it through to the end?"
9. Was it an enthusiastic agreement?
10. etc.

There are many circumstances where I believe an "agreement" has little validity, so I would like to be more informed.

This seems like overthinking it to me. But anyway you'd have to ask the original poster.

 

[dave2008]

This seems like overthinking it to me. But anyway you'd have to ask the original poster.

You stated: "Some players broke their agreement, willingly. That's all I need to know. " So, you don't think knowing the nature of the agreement is important? Or are you just assuming the OP experience is the same as yours (I assume you know the nature of the agreement in your own groups), in which case this could be overthinking it.

 

[iserith]

You stated: "Some players broke their agreement, willingly. That's all I need to know. " So, you don't think knowing the nature of the agreement is important? Or are you just assuming the OP experience is the same as yours (I assume you know the nature of the agreement in your own groups), in which case this could be overthinking it.

I think whatever clarification you say you need is best sought from the OP. Me, I think a reasonable conclusion is that nobody had a gun to their head when they agreed to play Out of the Abyss or whatever. I stand by my position: Whatever the nature of the agreement, some players broke it.

 

[dave2008]

I stand by my position: Whatever the nature of the agreement, some players broke it.

Actually, we don't even know that. The "agreement" could have been under protest and only agreed to under the understanding that they will: give it a try or play a few sessions. Yes that is based asked to the OP. I just find it odd that you cannot see any circumstance where "breaking" the agreement is justified or warranted. Regardless, you are not interested in this discussion so I will drop it. Sorry for the distraction.

 

[iserith]

Actually, we don't even know that. The "agreement" could have been under protest and only agreed to under the understanding that they will: give it a try or play a few sessions. Yes that is based asked to the OP. I just find it odd that you cannot see any circumstance where "breaking" the agreement is justified or warranted. Regardless, you are not interested in this discussion so I will drop it. Sorry for the distraction.

I've already stated upthread that agreements can be renegotiated so I don't really know what you want here. In any case, that's not what the players in the premise did - half of them unilaterally decided to knife the quest giver and abandon the plot. There was no renegotiation here at all. They chose to break their agreement. I can't believe anyone would think this is even debatable.

 

[EscherEnigma]

This is D&D.

Assuming that everyone is at the table because they want to be at the table shouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.

That said, yes, you can always imagine complicated scenarios where being a disruptive player makes sense. But that's basically assuming that the scenario, as portrayed, is not a good faith representation of the scenario.

But go look at the OP: the GM sure feels betrayed. So regardless of what the "agreement" explictly was, there is a lack of communication going on. You can't fix communication problems with in-game behavior.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.))

You may not have played that way. But if characters suddenly do not act like their characters, then that is a sign of being passive aggressive. For example, anyone playing a character that just hauls off and decides to kill the mayor the first time they meet him because the mayor is imposing a heavy tax. (And here is the important part.) Especially if they have never acted that way before. That is crappy of the player to do so. If they started out by killing people randomly for little things or every time there was a disagreement, okay. You are playing with an insane character that kills randomly. Then the other players have to decide do they want to be a part of that or not. But to force it on the others in-game, especially when your character wasn't doing that before, that is childish.
So it doesn't even matter if the plot is being followed. It can be a hex crawl or sandbox. It's passive aggressive and poor manners to suddenly change course. If you want to change course and be pirates, be an adult and sit down and discuss it with the DM.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would need to know more. There are many types of agreement, and the OP doesn't clarify. For example:

1. Was it a qualified agreement?
2. Was it a reluctant agreement?
3. Was it a coerced agreement?
4. Was it an informed agreement?
5. Was it a tacit agreement?
6. Was it an explicit agreement?
7. Was it an agreement to "give it a try?"
8. Was it an agreement to "see it through to the end?"
9. Was it an enthusiastic agreement?
10. etc.

There are many circumstances where I believe an "agreement" has little validity, so I would like to be more informed.

Wow.
If you sit down with friends and you need to know all that going into a game... wow... just wow.
Every answer you seek is already implied in the fact that you are playing a game.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I have no doubt you do know what you are doing. And no caveat needed. And as I stated earlier, players can change the direction. I have no problem with that. What I said was: if they do, it should be discussed at the table, not through doing random things to spoil the game. The reason - they may be spoiling it for other players, not just the DM.

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!

And you should be good with that. It's awesome! But again, changing direction through your character doing something they normally wouldn't (and if they made it through half the AP, then that character has at least some consistency in behavior), just to change it up is rude. It would have been better and way cooler if the player would have conspired with the DM to have a background of assassin. Then, once the character killed the important NPC, the DM said, "The guards believe you are a part of this assassination attempt. And the assassin that just committed the crime, your companion, is asking you to help him flee. He says he has a smuggling ship waiting at the port. What do you do?"

 

[Scott Christian]

I think you're rather gilding the lily if you're comparing published adventure paths to Shakespeare.

Fair enough. I was being hyperbolic. But I was doing it to prove a point: AP's published by D&D are written with an amount of skill rarely found outside of D&D. Their editing, presentation, playtesting, and most importantly, content is superior to most others. Even PF AP's which I happen to enjoy a lot. I mean Skull & Shackles is awesome. But it has an enormous amount of logic errors compared to most 5e AP's.