D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[TaranTheWanderer]

IDK...

@Fauchard1520


As a Player

When I'm told by a DM that they want to run an adventure, I usually ask what kind of character would fit. Then I try to stay on the rails for the DM as much as possible but will often look for different approaches to problems. it gets frustrating when all ideas just lead back to how the adventure wants you to solve it. I see the DM sweating, "Oh, naughty word, but if they do that now, they'll be too low level!!!" And it's frustrating for me and I often second guess my decisions, "Oh naughty word, if I do this now, will I be too low level?"

It's weird. As a player, I want to make decisions and I want them to have an impact on the adventure. When I have clever ideas, that might bypass whole parts of the adventure, I should be rewarded for clever ideas and not shoehorned back to the programmed path. When I feel my decisions no longer matter, I lose interest or I might start testing the waters to see if my choices have consequences.. This might be 'the problem player' some people are talking about. But if I do it, it's only to see if my actions do actually affect anything. If not, I might drop out of the game or I might approach the DM and let them know how I feel. What's the point of playing if your decisions are meaningless?

As a DM

I use the Adventure Path as back drop and not as a road map. I try my best to hook the players in and help them with character creation to make sure they are playing the types of characters that would be invested in the plot. If they do unexpected things, I roll with it. If they go off track, I just keep NPC plans and goals in mind and ad lib. The story will still progress, even without the characters. They may even choose to join the enemy that the path had intended for them to stop. Whatever. naughty word happens. There's so much in a module to use and a good module will usually have a variety of antagonists fighting against each other behind the scenes so if the PCs choose to join one side, it's easy to pin them against the other.

If they choose to just up and leave the whole Adventure Path? I've never had that happen. I guess I'd just have to make stuff up and keep in mind what was going on in the module and decide the bad guy's plans come to fruition and see where it goes. Or randomly decide another group took care of the problem and let their heroic deeds be told to the player characters. Rival adventurers make for a great nemesis.

In the end, any content not explored, I can just throw in to homebrew adventures.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Sounds fine to me, if most of the players are into that. One of our best adventures, we ditched on the first session. The players are playing a game with free will. As long as it's not just one dude going renegade but is instead a group decision to go in that direction, I think it's fine.

 

[R_J_K75]

IDK...

As a Player

When I'm told by a DM that they want to run an adventure, I usually ask what kind of character would fit. Then I try to stay on the rails for the DM as much as possible but will often look for different approaches to problems. it gets frustrating when all ideas just lead back to how the adventure wants you to solve it. I see the DM sweating, "Oh, naughty word, but if they do that now, they'll be too low level!!!" And it's frustrating for me and I often second guess my decisions, "Oh naughty word, if I do this now, will I be too low level?"

It's weird. As a player, I want to make decisions and I want them to have an impact on the adventure. When I have clever ideas, that might bypass whole parts of the adventure, I should be rewarded for clever ideas and not horseshoed back to the programmed path. When I feel my decisions no longer matter, I lose interest or I might start testing the waters to see if my choices have consequences.. This might be 'the problem player' some people are talking about. But if I do it, it's only to see if my actions do actually affect anything. If not, I might drop out of the game or I might approach the DM and let them know how I feel. What's the point of playing if your decisions are meaningless?

As a DM

I use the Adventure Path as back drop and not as a road map. I try my best to hook the players in and help them with character creation to make sure they are playing the types of characters that would be invested in the plot. If they do unexpected things, I roll with it. If they go off track, I just keep NPC plans and goals in mind and ad lib. The story will still progress, even without the characters. They may even choose to join the enemy that the path had intended for them to stop. Whatever. naughty word happens. There's so much in a module to use and a good module will usually have a variety of antagonists fighting against each other behind the scenes so if the PCs choose to join one side, it's easy to pin them against the other.

If they choose to just up and leave the whole campaign? I've never had that happen. I guess I'd just have to make stuff up and keep in mind what was going on in the module and decide the bad guy's plans come to fruition and see where it goes. Or randomly decide another group took care of the problem and let their heroic deeds be told to the players. Rival adventurers make for a great nemisis.

I believe a good DM will let their players go off track, side step some parts of an adventure so the players feel their choices matter but reign them back into the adventure without them even noticing thats what the DM did. Or conversely, let them run wild and do whatever they want and roll with it.

 

[Stormdale]

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

Excellent, so they'll learn that actions have consequences and that will build up the sense of versmillitude and depth to the world.

 

[Stormdale]

t's weird. As a player, I want to make decisions and I want them to have an impact on the adventure. When I have clever ideas, that might bypass whole parts of the adventure, I should be rewarded for clever ideas and not shoehorned back to the programmed path. When I feel my decisions no longer matter, I lose interest or I might start testing the waters to see if my choices have consequences..

Couldn't agree more. Too many adventure paths (both Pathfinder and 5e) are full of filler designed to do nothing but waste your time. I was playing in a curse of Stradh game a while back, a prime example of how not to run an adventure path IMO- BBEG is in castle on top of hill only way out of this helhole is to kill him but no we can't go straight up there are deal with Strahdy Von Stadh Pants as we called him, we need to be led round and round in circles so we go to C,D,E and F (with a semblace of choice in the order we deal with them)- got frustrated as hell not being able to get on with what we were there for- killing the BBEG so if i were to ever run it it would be with 8+ level PCs and run it closer to the original version with them arriving and trying to get out of dodge ASAP and get stright to the meat of the advenure with the castle.

I aso played in a Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords a year or so again too, oh my god so much waste of time filler that bored me to tears, lucikly the game ended as the DM burnt out with trying to run the system.

IMO the answer is to go back to the 1e model of shorter, tighter adventure arcs (eg the Slavers series) which can be dropped into ongoing campaigns, several of which can be mix and matched to create a longer campaign arc if required. The only thing the adventure paths have been good for IMO has been pulling them apart fo adventure locales.

The only one we've managed to complete (though I removed a good bunch of the final dungeon as it was becoming a boring slog to my group) was tomb of Anniliation and it was sequed into an ongoing campaign which ironcially enough started out based on the 1e Hommlet combined with elements of Princes and of Apocalypse (and a smattering of the 3E Temple of Elemental Evil too) but somehow wandered into parts of Storm King's Thunder and then ended up in the Amedio jungle and the tomb. Took a couple of years and again was directed by player engagement with the materials not my wishes.

My only real failure as a DM has been scarring my players for life with the original (3E) verison of Rappan Athuk, I've bought two versions since and as soon as they get a wiff of Rappan Athuk, they pack up sticks and high tail it to safer climes. One day though...

 

[Lanefan]

My only real failure as a DM has been scarring my players for life with the original (3E) verison of Rappan Athuk, I've bought two versions since and as soon as they get a wiff of Rappan Athuk, they pack up sticks and high tail it to safer climes. One day though...

Failure?

Sounds to me like a thunderous success!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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 keep DM'ing without indicating anything...I guess?

Um...is this a trick question or something? Players should never be 'expected' to make certain choices or even to stick with an "adventure premise" regardless of what anyone 'wants' (Players or DM). I mean...the adventure is there. It's happening. Stuff is going down. If the player characters get involved or not, how much involvement they want, what kind of involvement they give, and if they decide to just "Nope!" the dingle out...how should that, in any meaningful way, affect the DM's "job" of doing his, uh, "job"? It shouldn't.

As per the adventure in the OP's original link...the PC's just up and leave just when...

DM: “Alright guys. The Duke’s body lies dead on the floor. The nobles eye one another distrustfully. Everyone knows that someone in that room is a cold-blooded killer. What do you do?”

Player: “I go back to town and see if there are any other quests on the bulletin board.”


While this may be a bit of a dangleybit move for a player to do 'for no reason', especially if they knew the DM had spent time getting that module/adventure all read, noted, adjusted, etc, it's not like the DM gets to decide what the PC "want to" get involved in.

For me...I'd just keep playing. The other NPC's there are going to instantly suspect the PC's, and chances are, if the murderer/assassin is even remotely intelligent, the actual culprit will back that up...placing the seeds of "HE must have done it! (pointing to PC trying to sneak out the door)". I mean, just because the PC's have decided to 'quit' trying to fight the "Evil Worshippers of Tiamat" doesn't mean that said worshippers just "quit" as well.

In short...the world does not revolve around the PC's; it will keep on doing it's thing, monsters will keep rampaging and killing, and NPC's will still keep trying to obtain their goals.

Unless, of course, a DM has foolishly decided that the only reason for anything in his game world...indeed, the world itself...exists is to be a playground for the PC's and provide them 'safe' adventuring stories.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Rdm]

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.

I've rarely found an AP whose story I couldn’t personalize enough to make it ‘about my player’ to a good degree.

 

[Rdm]

I think the longer APs are inherently a problem. They take 6 months to a year to complete IRL and there's not much sense of achievement until the end vs say a smaller adventure.

Eh. Most of the longer AP I’ve gone through have sort of ‘mini sections’ with plenty of accomplishments possible.

 

[Rdm]

IDK...

@Fauchard1520


As a Player

When I'm told by a DM that they want to run an adventure, I usually ask what kind of character would fit. Then I try to stay on the rails for the DM as much as possible but will often look for different approaches to problems. it gets frustrating when all ideas just lead back to how the adventure wants you to solve it. I see the DM sweating, "Oh, naughty word, but if they do that now, they'll be too low level!!!" And it's frustrating for me and I often second guess my decisions, "Oh naughty word, if I do this now, will I be too low level?"

It's weird. As a player, I want to make decisions and I want them to have an impact on the adventure. When I have clever ideas, that might bypass whole parts of the adventure, I should be rewarded for clever ideas and not shoehorned back to the programmed path. When I feel my decisions no longer matter, I lose interest or I might start testing the waters to see if my choices have consequences.. This might be 'the problem player' some people are talking about. But if I do it, it's only to see if my actions do actually affect anything. If not, I might drop out of the game or I might approach the DM and let them know how I feel. What's the point of playing if your decisions are meaningless?

As a DM

I use the Adventure Path as back drop and not as a road map. I try my best to hook the players in and help them with character creation to make sure they are playing the types of characters that would be invested in the plot. If they do unexpected things, I roll with it. If they go off track, I just keep NPC plans and goals in mind and ad lib. The story will still progress, even without the characters. They may even choose to join the enemy that the path had intended for them to stop. Whatever. naughty word happens. There's so much in a module to use and a good module will usually have a variety of antagonists fighting against each other behind the scenes so if the PCs choose to join one side, it's easy to pin them against the other.

If they choose to just up and leave the whole Adventure Path? I've never had that happen. I guess I'd just have to make stuff up and keep in mind what was going on in the module and decide the bad guy's plans come to fruition and see where it goes. Or randomly decide another group took care of the problem and let their heroic deeds be told to the player characters. Rival adventurers make for a great nemesis.

In the end, any content not explored, I can just throw in to homebrew adventures.

Does every clever idea have to work or be appropriate for you to ‘have an influence’?