Abandon Quest!

[Fauchard1520]

When the PCs refuse to pick up the quest hook, what do you do? Forcing it seems like a bad idea, but do you abandon your prepared storyline entirely? Do you circle back to it a few sessions later? And if you do decide to abandon the quest, when do the consequences for doing so start to feel punitive rather than a natural consequence of the game world?

Relevant comic.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Generally, players are pretty good about seeing the Big Bright Shiny Quest hook and taking it, but not always. I think it’s important to assess the PCs and come up with things that would cater to their interests. But again, sometimes the PCs can surprise the DM.

In those instances, I think there should be a melding of what both sides want. Much of the time, what a DM had planned can be rejiggered to fit with the direction the PCs want, if this happens at the beginning of an adventure. That way, the DM isn’t caught entirely flat-footed. That fight with the undead in the cemetery could easily become a battle at the nobles’ party when some of the masked guests aren’t what they seem. If it’s at the end of the adventure when people are planning what to do next, then yes, let the PCs decide. If they go far-off track, then yes, there will be consequences for ignoring that demon army at the gate. But whatever happens, it should be fun and interesting.

Now, if the PCs are just being contrary, and don’t have a clear direction, then that’s infringing on the social contract of gaming, and is an out-of-game discussion.

 

[Nagol]

When the PCs refuse to pick up the quest hook, what do you do? Forcing it seems like a bad idea, but do you abandon your prepared storyline entirely? Do you circle back to it a few sessions later? And if you do decide to abandon the quest, when do the consequences for doing so start to feel punitive rather than a natural consequence of the game world?

Relevant comic.

Forcing it (as in making the players interact with it) is generally a bad idea. If something is introduced, I won't abandon it. By the time I introduce something, I have a basic idea of how the situation will play out if the PCs don't get involved. That way, the situation can evolve in a plausible way and may create new situations and afford the PCs new opportunities to react.

Consequences start to deal punitive rather than natural when the consequences are not obvious outgrowths of the original situation and/or don't come with forewarning. Compare the following two conversations:

"Ha! Since you failed to stop the lich rising, he's killed your fiancé and dog!" "Why? We never met and I offered no resistance to his rise?" "Because he's bad and you should have stopped him!!!"

"Ha! As you crest the hill, you see the town of Glinder is... gone: pulverized. Some small sections of lower wall stand upright, the largest is about 2 feet high. Corpses are strewn about as if dolls thrown by a giant. The body of your fiancé is among them." "Man I knew letting the lich-king march on Glinder was a bad idea. But no.. we had to go and run a 'quick' errand for your friend! Now look at the mess we're in!"

 

[Yaztromo]

Now, if the PCs are just being contrary, and don’t have a clear direction, then that’s infringing on the social contract of gaming, and is an out-of-game discussion.

Yep, sometimes they have more than one reasonable option open in front of them and they may pick one that you didn't expect for some meaningful reason and it's fine, but if they don't want to go adventuring following the only glaring hook you propose them, just go for some pizza!

 

[Sunseeker]

I try to prepare 3-4 plot hooks, ranging from simple yet vague "go fetch" quests to "The King Demands YOU!" (equally vague). Typically I prepare 2 distinct "plots" that these quests will lead into, so, any number of these quests could tie back into it. "Starter quests" are always generic and vague for the exact reason that A: I don't want to tip my hand, and B: I don't want players to be able to "count cards" with where a certain quest may lead.

If the players don't pick up on any of my quest hooks I'll pause the game and ask them if they're actually interested in playing.

I run a "hybrid living world". The plots don't move until the players start interacting with them and I draw down the detail of the day-to-day of any given area the further players are from it. IE: While the players are in Townsville, everything is moving and breathing around them. When the players leave, I stop tracking if Farmer Bob is in the fields today or not.

Whatever "plots" the players set in motion by accepting their quests continue with or without the players though. It would be silly if the Evil Lich just stopped trying to raise and army of the dead because the players weren't interested in stopping him right now. I do sometimes slow them down as is my preference since the bad guy is no longer operating "under pressure". But that can mean more time to prepare.

 

[GMMichael]

If the players don't pick up on any of my quest hooks I'll pause the game and ask them if they're actually interested in playing.

Or you just have a bad case of Dense Players. It also helps to make sure your hooks have a pointy end.

I'd say that a good 50% of players respond positively to shiny things. If they're not taking your bait, add gold or items to it. This is, obviously, a last resort method.

By all means, recycle your quests! It's much easier to alter your quest into something in which the PCs are interested than it is to write a new quest.

 

[ccs]

When the PCs refuse to pick up the quest hook, what do you do? Forcing it seems like a bad idea, but do you abandon your prepared storyline entirely?[/QUOTE ]

For the most part, yes. It's called taking the hint. But then I'm also not one of the DMs who's ever planned out & prepped entire storylines far in advance of what I'll need in the next few sessions. So me shelving an idea isn't that big a thing.

Do you circle back to it a few sessions later? [/QUOTE ]

Maybe. Depends on what the declined quest was, what's going on in the game, & if I think it'll be relevant or fun. Remember, the players sent me a very clear hint that they weren't interested in x by declining it in the first place. So pressing it will probably just be a waste of time.

QUOTE=Fauchard1520;7224719]And if you do decide to abandon the quest, when do the consequences for doing so start to feel punitive rather than a natural consequence of the game world?

I imagine it'd feel punitive if I had those consequences negatively affecting the fun of the game we're actually playing.
But see, that's completely under my control. And as such I don't have to waste time prepping/detailing/re-presenting things I know the group has said "No thanks" to.

 

[Imaculata]

In my campaigns, quests are not isolated bits of story that rely purely on the interaction of the players. They are usually part of a larger plot line, and ignoring them does have consequences. If the players ignore an infestation of undead underneath the local church, it will spread and get worse, potentially leading to more deaths. If the players decline a request to steal an important artefact, the quest giver will find someone else to do it for him, and the players will have to deal with the aftermath of that decission later on.

Further more, I may reuse bits of ignored quests in a different quest later on. I simply recyle an unused dungeon map, or move some events around, so that my preparation isn't entirely wasted.

Quests in my campaigns also rarely have just one hook. Multiple quest lines will tie into each other, so that the outcome of one quest may lead the players back to that other quest they ignored earlier. That funny side quest about a drunk with a good heart being challenged to a duel to the death by a noble? Well that noble reappears in another quest regarding an important gathering of nobles to pick the new ruler of the city, and he is applying for the position. And that mysterious wife of one of the noblemen at that meeting, well she is actually the leader of the local thieves guild, in disguise. And that seemingly innocent invitation to the new opera house that the players got? Well the local thieves guild is actually in charge of the opera house, and are using it to listen in on the nobles. It all comes full circle, and quests lead back to each other in one way or another.

 

[Lanefan]

Quests in my campaigns also rarely have just one hook. Multiple quest lines will tie into each other, so that the outcome of one quest may lead the players back to that other quest they ignored earlier. That funny side quest about a drunk with a good heart being challenged to a duel to the death by a noble? Well that noble reappears in another quest regarding an important gathering of nobles to pick the new ruler of the city, and he is applying for the position. And that mysterious wife of one of the noblemen at that meeting, well she is actually the leader of the local thieves guild, in disguise. And that seemingly innocent invitation to the new opera house that the players got? Well the local thieves guild is actually in charge of the opera house, and are using it to listen in on the nobles. It all comes full circle, and quests lead back to each other in one way or another.

I'd sure like it to work this way, but all too often the breadcrumbs get forgotten along the way and the seemingly-loose threads never get tied together.

Natural hazard of a long campaign with a slow pace of play - real-world years can go by between significant connected events in the game world, and not every player reads over the old logs to find that some seemingly-irrelevant things that happened in some adventures aren't irrelevant at all when looked at in hindsight.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

I'd sure like it to work this way, but all too often the breadcrumbs get forgotten along the way and the seemingly-loose threads never get tied together.

Natural hazard of a long campaign with a slow pace of play - real-world years can go by between significant connected events in the game world, and not every player reads over the old logs to find that some seemingly-irrelevant things that happened in some adventures aren't irrelevant at all when looked at in hindsight.

Lanefan

This is why in my campaigns most of the quests are directly tied to the location the players are currently at. What ever ties the quests have to the overarching plot, they are either resolved within the span of a few sessions, or the connections aren't all that important.

For example, I had a quest line in my campaign regarding a dwarven protest/riot that got out of control, which lead to the imprisonment of a local dwarven captain. The players tried to get him out of jail (a mini quest), but in the process of doing so, they learned his ship had been sold to a shady individual. This individual turned out to be an evil wizard, and a prominent member of a dangerous cult. Taking down the wizard, by assaulting the old shipyard that served as his base of operations was a main quest, ending in a boss battle. Now, the dwarven captain side-quest wasn't the only quest that hinted to the main quest. I dropped various links in the various mini quests, that would ensure the players would eventually investigate the shipyard-main-quest.

Because all of these questlines related to one location, the city the players were in, they were easy to remember across multiple sessions. But the cult-plot also had ties to the larger overarching plotline, which would become really important much later.

I only ever require my players to understand the plot that is currently important. But I keep reminding my players of the main plot, by adding links to it in the various quests. This helps to remind the players what goal they are eventually working towards.