Dealing with agency and retcon (in semi sandbox)

[billd91]

Alas, this is what comes of thinking agency means the freedom to investigate your story. Rather, agency consists of player decisions actually driving play, replacing GM-authored backstory. Instead of what you decribe above, which consists at best of Participationism (ie, a tacit agreement to follow along with what the GM has cooked up), consider not prepping a story in advance in favor of following PC interests and actions to allow a shared experience to emerge that truly builds from what the players want to do/find interesting (ie, agency).

The thing is, the DM has to prep something or there’s no game to play. Whether that something is a collection of scenes, situations, plots, or locations (ideally, a mixture of all of them) doesn’t really matter as long as the players choose how they interact with them (including choosing to not interact directly).
Even agency starts at a point of accepting certain premises for the campaign. And one of those is the DM has material he’s willing to prep. If a player isn’t willing to exert his agency within that boundary, there’s no game.

I don’t see anything particularly wrong with your setup even if the paladin player misread your intentions. Sometimes miscommunications and miscues happen. Maybe you could have telegraphed a little more about the shadiness of the situation. Gatekeeping important information behind mercurial dice can bite you in the ass. The fact that the paladin player didn’t think intervening was an option is a little troubling. Maybe discussing how he got that impression would help diagnose any communication problem.

 

[ZebraDruid]

The thing is, the DM has to prep something or there’s no game to play.

I agree, a few times I've had to quickly whip up very shoddy overlay maps to use, because something unexpected came up. They all acknowledge there are just limitations to what I can actually create in a reasonable amount of time.

The fact that the paladin player didn’t think intervening was an option is a little troubling. Maybe discussing how he got that impression would help diagnose any communication problem.

It is, we had talked about it a bit. I'm not sure I get it still, but.

Early on, the wizard asked to see the ritual happen. The necromancer noble agreed he could after a nat 20 diplo check.

When the group arrived with the body later on, the cleric asked to also see the ritual, he rolled a diplomacy check to see if he could, he passed. The cleric then said ICly that he shouldn't let in the paladin or ranger.

The necromancer noble, seeing the two who looked to be of more noble intentions agreed and told them to wait outside.
This is was all said in IC of course. Naturally in character the necromancer doesn't want his ritual being interfered with. Of course he is not going to want a paladin watching.

Per the paladins words he felt that he didn't have the option to go into the crypt because the cleric and the necromancer said not to. To which the cleric said OOCly,
'it didn't make sense for him not to try to shove his way in, or even attempt a diplomacy or intimidation check to try to get in.'

Instead he did nothing at all, and just waited without making 'any' action whatsoever.

If I can sum it shortly in his words. "I didn't think I could go in because I thought it was pre planned, and the cleric and necromancer said I couldn't"

(It wasn't pre planned of course and I made it clear they were going there only because of the wizards request prior to the session starting.) It does seem to be a miscommunication. I think things move too quickly sometimes. Since I posted last, our discussion ended with the paladin wanting to reroll into a chaotic neutral barbarian, and the cleric into a rogue/pirate.







We're going to do a trial to see if they even go to prison or get a fine or something of the sort. While the Paladin and cleric will disappear in some fashion, potentially to reappear later in the story.

Their classes changed to

Barbarian,
Ranger,
Rogue,
Wizard

Now they have no healing, but I will let them deal with that when they get to it. (They were in this same situation before.)

 

[TheSword]

So firstly I think your NPCs backstory and circumstances are really good and interesting. Ignore folks that say you can’t play gotcha stories on your players. Players are almost going to be suspicious of all but the most banal of things… it’s good… it gets them investigating an questioning things. My personal feeling is that all NPCs should be layered and mysterious - so well done for creating an interesting NPC.

The problem here is that two players have created characters that effectively are incompatible at a fundamental level. An evil PC beholden to a god that intentionally does evil things and a champion of good and justice are not going to play together well. It’s going to cause irreconcilable differences. Particularly for new players.

Rule 1 of TTRPG Character : make a character that has a reason to adventure and also work well with the party.

No matter how good it starts, it will always end in tears.

That said, to keep the campaign going:

• Have the Noble scapegoat them for the crime.
• Have the PCs unfairly sentenced to death because of the noble’s machinations
• Speak separately to the Paladin and make sure the Paladin knows they will be unfairly executed for a false crime that he can’t prevent through legal means.
• Arrange a jailbreak by the paladin and have the party escape. Then get revenge on the evil NPC noble.

 

[pemerton]

• Speak separately to the Paladin and make sure the Paladin knows they will be unfairly executed for a false crime that he can’t prevent through legal means.
  
• Arrange a jailbreak by the paladin and have the party escape.

The solution to railroading is more railroading?

 

[bloodtide]

The solution to railroading is more railroading?

All Aboard......The Crazy Train

 

[ZebraDruid]

So firstly I think your NPCs backstory and circumstances are really good and interesting. Ignore folks that say you can’t play gotcha stories on your players. Players are almost going to be suspicious of all but the most banal of things… it’s good… it gets them investigating an questioning things. My personal feeling is that all NPCs should be layered and mysterious - so well done for creating an interesting NPC.

Thank you. I don't always create dynamic NPCs, but I try to imagine that not everyone in the world is immediately open and genuine about their intentions in the world. In this case the older brother didn't want to tell the party about the curse/pact because it would sully the name of his noble family, and since his father died and refused to be resurrected just to maintain it. It would sully his fathers name/wishes. Hence why he refused to divulge that information to random strangers poking around his home.

The problem here is that two players have created characters that effectively are incompatible at a fundamental level. An evil PC beholden to a god that intentionally does evil things and a champion of good and justice are not going to play together well. It’s going to cause irreconcilable differences. Particularly for new players.

I agree, but I didn't think it would blow up OOC.

That said, to keep the campaign going:

• Have the Noble scapegoat them for the crime.
• Have the PCs unfairly sentenced to death because of the noble’s machinations
• Speak separately to the Paladin and make sure the Paladin knows they will be unfairly executed for a false crime that he can’t prevent through legal means.
• Arrange a jailbreak by the paladin and have the party escape. Then get revenge on the evil NPC noble.

I don't think I'll go that far, but I do like that level of intrigue. A couple of them wanted to do a jailbreak.

I've talked with the paladin a bit and he wants his character to disappear on a mission to find the necromancer cult, and put a stop to it. Basically put on a mission by the church to redeem himself (Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption after all) Then potentially return sometime later.

 

[chaochou]

The overall party story is a struggle between good and evil characters trying to convert each other.

If that's the foundational premise of the game - and it's not a bad one, per se - then you want a game in which the players themselves are able to make such conversions happen without the GM as an intermediary.

Complex character build, combat and magic systems are complete red herrings. You've got absolutely no resolution mechanics for 'trying to convert each other' to good or evil. Just freeform roleplay and GM fiat to decide the winner.

For the proposed game you'd be better off downloading The Pool RPG as a free 4-page system and using that.

 

[Emberashh]

Work on prepping situations rather than stories.

An addendum to this advice is that you can still capture the feel of a more linear storyline while not actually giving them one.

Essentially, roleplay as your villains. They have some plan, and they're going to follow it one way or another. Whether or not the party gets involved is on them, and you roleplaying as the villain will react and change plans accordingly if they do.

What you'd then need to worry about is making sure that your party has the means and opportunity to get involved. How this looks really depends on what you're going for, but the best way is to simply have the consequences of not acting come in stages, some of which might occur regardless simply because the party wasn't a party yet.

The evil wizard is kidnapping children -> this affects the townspeople -> the party does nothing -> adults start disappearing -> the party does nothing -> the entire town is sacrificed in a ritual to summon Bob the Demon Lord to the mortal realm.

Sometimes you might just have a party that, even when Bob begins wrecking the countryside, will just leave. And thats fine. Its their story after all.

 

[TheSword]

The solution to railroading is more railroading?

Well firstly I don’t think the the initial issue was railroading. Secondly my suggestion is about putting consequences on the players actions.

I was thinking about this in relation to Game of Thrones and trying to work out why the characters are so satisfying to read about. Partly I think it’s because the bad things that happen to them usually come about as a result of their own actions. Marrying the wrong person, trusting the wrong person, killing the wrong person.

The paladin’s decision to rat out the party should have consequences that drive the greater story - for me that is most important part of agency. They chose the actions - they don’t chose the consequences of those actions.

 

[ZebraDruid]

An addendum to this advice is that you can still capture the feel of a more linear storyline while not actually giving them one.

I agree, that's sort of my goal. And not just because it's often fun, but because making intricate stories takes a lot of time. Although I don't think they realize that fully, which is why they thought everything was pre-determined. Even the situation they brought themselves into (the ritual was supposed to be off screen entirely, and just in theory visit-able)

Well firstly I don’t think the the initial issue was railroading. Secondly my suggestion is about putting consequences on the players actions.

I was thinking about this in relation to Game of Thrones and trying to work out why the characters are so satisfying to read about. Partly I think it’s because the bad things that happen to them usually come about as a result of their own actions. Marrying the wrong person, trusting the wrong person, killing the wrong person.

The paladin’s decision to rat out the party should have consequences that drive the greater story - for me that is most important part of agency. They chose the actions - they don’t chose the consequences of those actions.

To add a little context to the Paladins actions, he first went to his church to have a confession. The high priest became curious and asked more questions. But was going to keep it confidential to protect the churches interest, and investigate it himself.

The paladin then went to the local garrison, who were investigating the murder at the home, but had no means to tie him to the crime specifically.

Afterwards he went to the wizards who were there in town still investigating the gnomish contraption incident, and showed them the ritual scene. Until then, they could have probably all skated by undetected, but he wanted to fully involve as many powerful NPCs as possible. The access to the ritual site let them know it was necromancy, and being diviner investigators were able to determine more potent details from the fresh casting of the ritual.

He essentially ratted them out 3 times in ramping up severity.

One issue with the cleric is he feels he didn't have much agency in him ratting, as he did it behind his back with no way of knowing.