D&D 5E (2014) 2 year campaign down the drain?

[Guest 6801328]

...if the information is in a book, I know where that book is, and there are several ways for the PCs to find out where the book is and what they'll find in it. If the information is vital to whatever the PCs are pursuing, it'll probably be available at least one other way. I try not to have anything gated behind a single check or other roll.

What if none of those other ways work, and they miss all your hints, and misinterpret another hint, and end up in TOTALLY THE WRONG PLACE looking for a gnome, who doesn't exist, that they think has the information?

Do you try to steer them back to the book, or do you adjust "truth"?

 

[prabe]

What if none of those other ways work, and they miss all your hints, and misinterpret another hint, and end up in TOTALLY THE WRONG PLACE looking for a gnome, who doesn't exist, that they think has the information?

Do you try to steer them back to the book, or do you adjust "truth"?

I suppose it kinda depends on which would feel more like re-writing reality (from the characters' POV), and whether they're after the book itself (as an object) or the information inside it. Also probably on a read of the table--if they're digging running down could-be-red-herrings, I'll let them keep doing so; if not, I'll adjust something.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

This would be in contrast to other more narrative systems where the players can author methods in which their characters could have multiple paths forward. Blades in the Dark seems to be the most popular game currently for describing that method of play.

Part of the problem is that D&D doesn't really model player control of the fiction well, nor does it support success with consequences. Both of those are key elements of Blades and lot of other games.

The point I'm getting at is that what follows from a successufl check is itself all under the GM's control.

The players, in 5e D&D, have no canonical way of making the stakes of resolution be do we find the widget at place X or does the widget do what we want it to at place Z. All they can do is look to the GM and ask. The fact that the GM's response might be to call for a die roll doesn't change that.

For a clear contrast, look at how combat works in 5e D&D. It's not like that.

Again, this is not a criticism of 5e. It's just something I'm pointing out about it, which I think is then relevant to discussing what responsibilities different participants have when it comes to introducing content such as lethal violence.

The players can make the stakes of the resolution "would we find the widget if it was here?" The players can make the stakes of the resolution "Can we figure out if the widget will do the thing?" Both of those have canonical ways to decide (yes, the DM gets to decide how hard either is to resolve, but it's not implausible for the players or characters to know the difficulty) and seem reasonably close to me. Given that I'm not in love with the idea of the players deciding where the widget is or what it does, I'm fine with that.

I run my games with a lot of flexibility. To use an example similar to the one @Elfcrusher did, if the information is in a book, I know where that book is, and there are several ways for the PCs to find out where the book is and what they'll find in it. If the information is vital to whatever the PCs are pursuing, it'll probably be available at least one other way. I try not to have anything gated behind a single check or other roll.

I know what the DM's role is in 5E. At my tables at least, there's a feedback loop between the players and me, and I'm somewhere between willing and eager to take a player's idea and run with it and turn it into the heart of an adventure (something I picked up from running Fate, to be honest). The players surprise me, and I surprise them; it's the circle of life.

I've already given my humble advice but I thought I'd comment on the quotes above.

I'm lumping a bunch of quotes together because they are all along the same line of thought:

To me, the only thing that separates D&D and 'Narrative-type' games like FATE is the narrative games tend to weave narrative into the mechanics which encourages and depends on narrative and collaborative story-telling.

Besides that, collaborative story-telling is a style of running a game. I'm not sure why D&D shies a way from that style. I'd say 90% of the DMs I've had who have exclusively played D&D run their games as a 'Creator of the World' and the players are actors in the events the DM has imagined.

In a typical D&D game, a player asks, "Is there a torch that I can grab to better search the room?" And the DM decides if there is or not.

In FATE, a player declares, "I grab the nearest torch and explore the room"

There's no reason why D&D can't be played like the latter example. In fact the DMs I know who have ventured into other gaming styles, such as FATE, tend come back to D&D with a more cooperative way of running the game.

Maybe my experience is anomalous (but I've played since '92) but I'm not sure what it is about the culture of D&D that makes it default to the former example. Maybe it's how the PHB describes the mechanics of the game? I know 5e took a lot from FATE as far as 'approaches' and inspiration are concerned but I'm not sure it's changed in philosophy much.

EDIT: just to be clear, I"m not saying D&D is an DM vs Player game (although, some DMs run it that way) but more that the DM controls the events of the plot while the players are in it trying to figure out what is going on and trying to navigate the events the DM sets. You'd rarely have a player say, "I think it would be cool if this NPC is actually my long-lost brother" Chances are, the DM already has an idea of what role the NPC plays and/or who the PCs long-lost brother actually is in the plot.

 

[skotothalamos]

There's a lot of good ideas here, but I want to share with you my current favorite house rule:

Named NPCs (Especially ones important to the plot) do not die at 0 hit points like your average kobold. Instead, they go unconscious and start making death saves like a PC. You could rule that something like that happened and now there's a disfigured Lord who wants revenge. You could also decide that he has Raise Dead insurance and some church brought him back.

I don't know the adventure, but if this guy's evil (or you want to make him evil), he could easily just be impressed with the PCs, but still upset with them for killing his guards, and force them to do a job for him to even the score.

Or they're just on the run for a while. Find ways for them to pursue the Giant adventures without dealing with legit human society. I'm sure there are plenty of monster communities or criminal organizations that also don't like having the Giants around.

 

[Lanefan]

Thats the last straw after session zero (explaining alignment and my interpretation to them, and gaining consensus), and warnings pre evil acts in game.

I mean, for me to pack up and quit as a DM it takes blatant undermining or wilful disregard of the social contract established at session zero (this campaign is intended to be a heroic campaign), followed by ignoring the not so subtle hint when the DM pauses the game and explains to you that 'murdering these townsfolk is an evil act' (as if such a thing needed to be explained).

If I've gotten to that point with the players and they're still whining and wanting to act like murder-hobos, then yeah. The campaign should end. There are wildly different expectations at the gable that even a session zero didnt seem to fix.

The problem (and IMO mistake) with all of this lies in trying to pre-set the tone ("heroic campaign") yourself as DM at session 0 rather than just dropping the puck and letting the players take it wherever it goes.

Nothing wrong with the DM setting up some sort of storyline or plot in advance, if only to get things going and give the PCs a reason (or excuse!) to get out in the field.

But after that I see it as the DM's job to run with whatever the players/PCs throw at him-her, and to be able to hit curveballs such as the one in the OP. If they want to go heroic, let them. If they want to go murderhobo, let them. If they decide to switch sides and throw in with the enemy, let them. And (and this is why hard-line APs are always a risky choice) if they decide to chuck the prepared adventure and-or plot and-or path in favour of something else, let them.

 

[prabe]

In a typical D&D game, a player asks, "Is there a torch that I can grab to better search the room?" And the DM decides if there is or not.

In FATE, a player declares, "I grab the nearest torch and explore the room"

There's no reason why D&D can't be played like the latter example. In fact the DMs I know who have ventured into other gaming styles, such as FATE, tend come back to D&D with a more cooperative way of running the game.

The whole thing is nice, just pulling it out to react to it, specifically.

First, I've said, and I'll keep saying, that GMing Fate made me a better DM, but I'll never GM Fate again.

I think the reason D&D defaults to "The DM Decides" in instances like the above is a heritage of the old heavily-keyed modules, where if a room said something like "the torch sconces are empty" or "the sconces have fallen off the walls" the DM knew there weren't torches for the PCs to grab. I run homebrew exclusively (because my brain won't parse published adventures--it's as much a matter of need as one of taste) and I don't necessarily note whether there are torches in a given space, but I'll try to decide that based on what I do know about the space and who built it and who's living there now. Sticking to this example: For the most part, if there's no reason for there not to be a torch, there's a torch.

 

[prabe]

The problem (and IMO mistake) with all of this lies in trying to pre-set the tone ("heroic campaign") yourself as DM at session 0 rather than just dropping the puck and letting the players take it wherever it goes.

Nothing wrong with the DM setting up some sort of storyline or plot in advance, if only to get things going and give the PCs a reason (or excuse!) to get out in the field.

But after that I see it as the DM's job to run with whatever the players/PCs throw at him-her, and to be able to hit curveballs such as the one in the OP. If they want to go heroic, let them. If they want to go murderhobo, let them. If they decide to switch sides and throw in with the enemy, let them. And (and this is why hard-line APs are always a risky choice) if they decide to chuck the prepared adventure and-or plot and-or path in favour of something else, let them.

I don't know if it's necessarily a mistake. If you have players that you know will quit an evil campaign there's a good reason not to run one (especially if one of those players is your wife). For me, it's as much an aesthetic preference as anything else: I find it suits me better to come up with evils to right, as opposed to good works to undo. Horses for courses, of course, and people deciding to do evil campaigns aren't doing it wrong or anything.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

The whole thing is nice, just pulling it out to react to it, specifically.

First, I've said, and I'll keep saying, that GMing Fate made me a better DM, but I'll never GM Fate again.

I think the reason D&D defaults to "The DM Decides" in instances like the above is a heritage of the old heavily-keyed modules, where if a room said something like "the torch sconces are empty" or "the sconces have fallen off the walls" the DM knew there weren't torches for the PCs to grab.

And relevance to the OP, he did say he's running Storm King's Thunder, ie a module - so there's definitely not as much room for collaboration there.

 

[prabe]

And relevance to the OP, he did say he's running Storm King's Thunder, ie a module - so there's definitely not as much room for collaboration there.

True, though clearly players, being players, can and will go widely agley.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know if it's necessarily a mistake. If you have players that you know will quit an evil campaign there's a good reason not to run one (especially if one of those players is your wife).

Yeah, that could be a problem.

For me, it's as much an aesthetic preference as anything else: I find it suits me better to come up with evils to right, as opposed to good works to undo.

Oh, same here.

The difference, perhaps, is that I don't much care how they go about righting those evils (as in, if they want to fight evil with evil, so what) or even whether they choose to do something else in the setting instead and leave the evils to go on their merry way.