A funny thing happened on the way to the Dungeon

fuindordm said:
Testify! I feel your pain. Usually though it's just one out of the group that's like that, but I'd welcome advice on dealing with that sort of person too.

Ben

Well, my policy is "Let 'em. They'll be in for a nasty surprise when they reach Demogorgon's Lair and haven't levelled up enough yet." But I do at least mention to them when the scenario's over, "You know, there was some really cool loot/plot info/experience you guys left behind back there."

-The Gneech :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Okay, maybe I'm the only one who saw this thread title and thought of Zero Mostel singing...

"Everybody ought to have a Mage,
Everybody ought to have a spellcaster..."
 

Umbran said:
Okay, maybe I'm the only one who saw this thread title and thought of Zero Mostel singing...

"Everybody ought to have a Mage,
Everybody ought to have a spellcaster..."
LOL. when I was thinking of how to introduce this thread the occurance came to mind of a bunch of players who being frustrated by the number of traps in dungeons (I was one of a rotating group of DMs) decided to gather up a bunch of domestic animal to herd ahead of them in the dungeon. They started trying to purchase them in the town market but they wanted lots of animal. I didn't have many traps as the previous DM did, but I didn't want to come out and say don't waste your time and then have the players say WTF when they did indeed fall into a pit trap. So they decided to head out into the wilderness and capture some cattle (cows, goats and sheep mostly). So I random roled from the 1st edition herd animals and got a bunch of wld-Bison like animals that were common in the area. The PCs were delighted because they had already had a fight with one farmer for trespassing and these ones wouldn't be missed. Well the lead Bull had different plans and proceeded to ploy through the party. They could get organized against a charging Bull because they were trying to capture it (to avoid stampeding the herd). Well it killed a PC and then the fireballs came out. And then the local Druid started casting summon animals to drive off the PCs. They retreated and then started plotting against the Druid which lead to about 3 more adventures before they finally got him. They did level up, but half the party lost the level from alignment shift from good to neutral.
 

A couple times, After doing the moathouse they jumped on a boat to go to greyhawk and the wild coast instead of checking out those rumors about the fallen temple of evil.
I just rolled with it and did some greyhawk and slaver series modules.
 

Umbran said:
Okay, maybe I'm the only one who saw this thread title and thought of Zero Mostel singing...

"Everybody ought to have a Mage,
Everybody ought to have a spellcaster..."

Heh. No, I thought of that movie/musical too.

"Don't go in there! That's where I keep my collection of erotic pottery!"


Ben
 

The_Gneech said:
Well, my policy is "Let 'em. They'll be in for a nasty surprise when they reach Demogorgon's Lair and haven't levelled up enough yet." But I do at least mention to them when the scenario's over, "You know, there was some really cool loot/plot info/experience you guys left behind back there."

-The Gneech :cool:


The first couple of times I let them... then they were kind of falling behind the power curve because of missed opportunities.

For the last adventure, a kind of haunted mansion affair, they barely defeated the big bad (thanks to incredible luck with their saving throws) and got out of there as quickly as they could. It turned out noone owned the mansion anymore, so the thief cut a deal with the local guild to tip them off and get a percentage of the cut from selling furniture, tapestries, and other bulky stuff.

"Don't you want to finish exploring the mansion, now that the threat is gone? "

"No, we did what we came to do."

(DM dumbfounded)

"You know, the thieves' guild will probably not bother to tell you about any cash or small-but-valuable items they find in that wealthy old lady's estate."

"That's OK, as long as we get a bit of cash"

(DM tries another tack)

"Wow, that must have been a really SCARY adventure, that the party of 9th level PCs is afraid to go back in to see if there's anything worth carrying off."

"OK, fine, we'll go back in! Geez!"

In the end they found the magical items and big cash reward that I had placed as a reward for their altruism in tracking down and defeating the big bad, and they were happy to get them... the past two adventures had been nearly profitless.

Ben
 

The trouble that the DM in the original post is having is a problem with adventure design, not with whimsical players. :)

You have to become more familiar with the "No Myth" DMing style. As a DM, you should always avoid giving out specific and concrete information about the setting until you absolutely have to. This allows you to change the setting on the fly in response to player actions without tipping off the players about your actions. It takes a lot of its flavor from quantum physics, in that the state of the setting isn't fixed until the PCs actually need to know about it.

For example, you've set up an adventure in the traditional mold. I refer to this as "making a pre-published scenario when you don't have to." All DMs have bought published scenarios and mistakenly assume that the format of a published scenario is how they should format their own scenarios. This is utterly wrong. The format of published scenarios is meant to be helpful to a broad range of different groups of players. Published scenarios are sterile.

So DMs unconsciously adopt the published scenario format. There will be a story in place, NPCs will be planned in advance and statted out, there are locations with particular descriptions that contain particular items, etc.. This format is too rigid. It's too tightly woven together. In a way, it has a kind of threshold. It all works together provided that the PCs reach a certain point in the scenario where they become committed to the entire package. I guess that's an elaborate way of saying that they are all predicated on the PCs taking the hook.

Your problem isn't that the PCs aren't taking the hook, but rather that you're falling into the published scenario trap of building the entire dungeon/scenario around that hook. If the PCs aren't hooked, the rest of the scenario is built on that hook and is useless. You need to stop doing this. :)

My first instinct when trying to answer this question was to suggest that you move the dungeon. Arrange it so that the players travel a hundred miles but end up in the same dungeon anyway. The difference would be that you would have to change the details of the dungeon sufficiently so that the players won't notice. This is crucial. The players have never been to the dungeon, so they don't know what is in it or what it looks like. As long as you change the information that the PCs do know, they'll never know that they ended up in the dungeon you wanted them to end up in!. Maybe an example is in order.

In the scenario described in the initial post, the PCs are on a tangent of some kind. This occurs for one of two reasons (that I can immediately think of): (1) the PCs think they are on the right track for a particular storyline but are in fact going off on an inadvertent wild goose chase and (2) the PCs are just going "where adventure takes them" and are following an obscure rumor of adventure (or something similar).

In the first situation, the DM must simply move the dungeon. If the PCs think that the clues leading to the Lich-King's lair point to Waterdeep (to use Realms geography) when the DM has intended the lair to be in Shadowdale, then just move the lair to Waterdeep! Here's the trick. The DM has laid out clues that he believes will build a chain that leads to the conclusion that the lair is in Shadowdale. The players, however, have used the same chain of clues to (perhaps mistakenly) deduce that the lair is in Waterdeep. From the DM's point of view, the players are "off-track". But from the players' point of view, they're right on track. The DM has two choices. First, he can break the flow of his campaign by forcing the players to return to Shadowdale. The DM has invested a lot of energy in designing the lair and doesn't want to have to improvise a dungeon, which is hideously difficult. But the players are likely going to recognize that the DM is railroading them back to Shadowdale.

The better option is for the DM to abandon his version of the "clue chain" and instantly decide that he's going to go with the players' version of the clue chain that leads to Waterdeep. So he moves the dungeon from Shadowdale to Waterdeep and into the path of the players. The DM has saved his carefully prepared dungeon and the players maintain the illusion of free will. From the DM's point of view, the players were going to go to the Lich-King's lair one way or the other. This second alternative, however, preserves the all-important illusion that the players are driving the game. The game reamins seamless from the players' point of view, which is what matters. :)

If the PCs are following the second option ("wander the world and stumble across adventure"), then the DM should have a selection of "stock" dungeons ready to go. They should be flavor-free but contain all the mechanics, layout, and monsters that he needs. When the players make it clear that they're looking to stumble across a dungeon, the DM just drops the stock dungeon into place and merely has to improvise the superficial details of the dungeon, like what it looks like and where exactly it's located.
 

Dave Turner said:
So DMs unconsciously adopt the published scenario format. There will be a story in place, NPCs will be planned in advance and statted out, there are locations with particular descriptions that contain particular items, etc.. This format is too rigid.

You're on the right track, but you take it a bit too far - most of the format is just fine. With exceptions I outline below, the particular descriptions and particular items don't cause any difficulty. All that needs to be flexible is the entry point.

When the players make it clear that they're looking to stumble across a dungeon, the DM just drops the stock dungeon into place and merely has to improvise the superficial details of the dungeon, like what it looks like and where exactly it's located.

This is predicated on the idea that there are superficial details. In an "episodic" campaign, where a dungeon is just a dungeon crawl, and not really causally connected to events before it, and without strolng connections to events after it, you are fine. This falls apart, though, if you're following a strong story arc. If past events strongly influence current ones, the details are no longer superficial, and it can be difficult to shift things around.

In essence - it becomes a question of continuity. When you don't need continuity to make the thing make sense, you can move stuff around. But when continuity matters, you can be stuck in place.
 

Umbran said:
This falls apart, though, if you're following a strong story arc. If past events strongly influence current ones, the details are no longer superficial, and it can be difficult to shift things around.

In essence - it becomes a question of continuity. When you don't need continuity to make the thing make sense, you can move stuff around. But when continuity matters, you can be stuck in place.
It's difficult to argue this specifically since it is somewhat dependent on the specific situaion. But the first example I gave detailed how to handle a situation that, I thought, was dependent on context and story. The players aren't looking for a random Lich-King's lair, but *the* Lich-King's lair. They expect it will contain the Lich-King and any other elements that they've been conditioned to expect.

I think that your worry might crop in theory, but rarely would in practice. The trick is twofold. First, as the DM, you need to put yourself in the shoes and minds of the players. If they players would never see the switch, then you've got no problem. Second, you need to be ready to sacrifice the story as planned by the DM in favor of the story as played out by the players.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a strong story arc that my approach might not be able to handle and I could take a stab at handling it using the methods I have in mind? :)
 

Dave Turner said:
My first instinct when trying to answer this question was to suggest that you move the dungeon. Arrange it so that the players travel a hundred miles but end up in the same dungeon anyway.

I'd call that railroading. The players can't make any meaningful choices. No matter what they do or where they go, they end up where the DM decides.

Eh, but if it works...
 

Remove ads

Top