D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Scott Christian]

DM creates and runs the world, players play the characters.

Players don't tell the DM how to build or run the world. the DM doesn't tell the players how to player their characters.

Just because the characters start an adventure, doesn't mean they are bound to finish it.

Notice you say "players" as if they are monolithic and all want the same thing. One table. One DM. Many players. That removes part of the equation unless they are all in agreement. And if they are, my guess is the DM is already in agreement too.

And the DM runs the world, but the world needs to be generated in order to contain some sense of storytelling logic. So, it is a courtesy extended to discuss any radical changes of course. Much like a drummer doesn't just start playing a new song in the middle of another song and then force the others to have to change songs.

 

[Scott Christian]

And remember, not all players want "near-infinite possibilities", that would require decision making, and decision making is hard work. Some would rather simply know where they have to go next to find out what happens next in the story.

This. Right. Here.
It has been my experience, most do not want an overwhelming number of choices. They want a couple of destinations and a couple of paths for each destination. And when they choose the destination, they generally want to stay on course, not flip-flop. They do like deciding on the pretty trail versus the gritty trail to reach the destination, but that is about it.

 

[R_J_K75]

I've read and prepped adventures that the PCs just weren't into, they didn't take the hook or whatever. On the other hand I very rarely discussed with the group which modules I was going to run, so they generally went along with whatever I had prepared but not always. I've always been a let the dice fall where they may DM. I've had players kill important NPCs and villains, way before I ever thought they would, or a key NPC ends up indisposed at an inopportune time. I had a player kill and NPCs familiar forcing a systems shock roll they failed, and another time and NPC Bard failed her swim check as the party was trying to cross the River Sargauth and was swept down stream and drowned, both within 5 minutes of the session. I stopped doing a whole lot of prep for games anymore and I always expect the players to do something I didn't expect so I don't get upset if they go off script as I want to give them the ability to do what they want so they dont feel obligated to go in one direction or the other. Generally at the end of a session I'll ask them for a general idea of what they plan to do next so I can create a loose outline for the next game. If I had a player or group of players who constantly sabotaged the game though I wouldn't bother playing or boot them, just not worth the time or aggravation.

 

[MGibster]

Going off script is fine. I expect players to do the unexpected though I don't always know when that will happen. Otherwise it wouldn't be unexpected, would it? I don't get upset at clever players who easily overcome obstacles I expected to be more challenging and sometimes it can be absolutely delightful when they come up with a solution I never anticipated. Just so long as they're engaged I'm usually happy. (I'll admit to be disappointed at times when they bypass challenges I put a lot of work into.)

But I do not appreciate it when players refuse to engage with the material. When the DM puts up the Adventure This Way sign and the players decide to go the opposite direction that is what's known classically as a "dick move."

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Going off script is fine. I expect players to do the unexpected though I don't always know when that will happen. Otherwise it wouldn't be unexpected, would it? I don't get upset at clever players who easily overcome obstacles I expected to be more challenging and sometimes it can be absolutely delightful when they come up with a solution I never anticipated. Just so long as they're engaged I'm usually happy. (I'll admit to be disappointed at times when they bypass challenges I put a lot of work into.)

But I do not appreciate it when players refuse to engage with the material. When the DM puts up the Adventure This Way sign and the players decide to go the opposite direction that is what's known classically as a "dick move."

Isn't expecting players to follow the DM's signs also a dick move - especially if there is only one sign in sight.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From the tone of the OP, the players ARE enjoying the game. If they weren't, one assumes they'd have packed it in and shut 'er down rather than - as it appears they did - coming up with their own what's-next and following up on it.

They may well not be enjoying the particular module, however, and so they've proactively decided to do something else within the game's setting; which IMO is their right. That they're engaged enough to go this route is nothing but good news, and sitting them down for a 'group chat' will only serve as a great big discouragement to large-scale creative play (i.e. not following the DM's lead) in the future.

The only real headache here comes if the DM is unwilling and-or unprepared to run whatever the players/PCs get up to next. That's on the DM, who by dropping the puck and starting the game has implied s/he's at least vaguely ready to handle whatever the players may do within said game even if it's completely off-script.

I don't think that's fair to the DM. Especially in a published adventure, it is not the DM's job to roll over on whatever story the PCs feel like doing. If it gets to the point where it's no longer fun for the DM, I guarantee it won't be fun for the players either (provided they're not jerks, of course).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, I had a player plan and carry out a straight-up murder of the 1st mate of the ship they were in because he heard he was a jerk, but it wasn't the first time.

 

[Stormdale]

Yeah, I had a player plan and carry out a straight-up murder of the 1st mate of the ship they were in because he heard he was a jerk, but it wasn't the first time.

I would call that players interacting with the environment. Maybe not what you'd planned but I 'd roll with it and depending how well they planned it and disposed of the evidence would determine the consequences of their actions.
Adventures (and story) happen when the characters interact with the set up. My #1 rule of dming is that it's the players story not mine so let go of the reigns and enjoy the ride. I am there to adjudicate the outcomes of their actions not limit or predetermine them and as long as they entertain me with their antics I am happy.

 

[MGibster]

Isn't expecting players to follow the DM's signs also a dick move - especially if there is only one sign in sight.

We're talking about players who deliberately disengage from the scenario so what difference does it make how many signs there are? But no matter how many signs, the answer is no. It's not the same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would call that players interacting with the environment. Maybe not what you'd planned but I 'd roll with it and depending how well they planned it and disposed of the evidence would determine the consequences of their actions.
Adventures (and story) happen when the characters interact with the set up. My #1 rule of dming is that it's the players story not mine so let go of the reigns and enjoy the ride. I am there to adjudicate the outcomes of their actions not limit or predetermine them and as long as they entertain me with their antics I am happy.

I did indeed roll with it. They snuck off the boat, but the situation won't be unaddressed, trust me.