DM to do a _subtle_ railroad? Or alter plot entirely?

[Wednesday Boy]

2) Do I let them do what they've planned on doing, and let them deal with the consequences of not finding the other layers? (oh that will would be evil and fun to deal with in it's own right ! and my prep-work is then easily recycled in to further plot and story with minimal effort)

I like Option #2. It lets the players choose their path with no railroading (although as a player I think a railroading is not necessarily a bad thing) and as Spiral Cat mentioned can serve as a major clue to getting them into your major plot.

As a player I love intrigue plots and it would be very interesting to come across the fallout of some evil plan that happened because the party didn't pick up on clues. I'd find it very rewarding if our party could CSI it up to figure out what happened and then do some deductive reasoning to connect it to what we'd already over looked in previous sessions. And it would hopefully give you the chance to get your plans back on track!

 

[Schmoe]

Personally, I think I'm a lot like Joshua Randall - I want the players to make the decisions on where the campaign goes, but I can't help but think up grand schemes in the background. I tend to alter my schemes based on what the players do, and I only prepare a few sessions in advance, so I'm not sure I've been in your situation. I have a couple questions for you to ponder, though.

1. Why do layers 2&3 (which the players haven't really encountered yet) have to be so disconnected from the followup of layer 1? Can you just tweak layers 2&3 slightly to connect them a little more?

2. Why do you assume the player's plans won't change as new information comes to light?

3. Why is it so important that the deeper layers become revealed early in the campaign?

The way I see it, exposition of plot information is your key to pacing and guiding the adventure. I would try to tie things together a little more tightly, so that as the PCs pursue the first layer, they reveal more and more about some of the hidden layers. In addition, I'd continue the plans of the hidden layers in the campaign background, and let the players see indication of the progressing plans at an appropriate point. This way the players don't feel rail-roaded, and they can continue to ignore the deeper layers if they wish. But if they do decide to pursue the deeper layers, they'll have to live with the thought of "What if we hadn't ignored those clues we found earlier." They'll be able to see the genuine consequences of their decisions.

So my advice would be, use your plot as a guideline for the plans of the adversaries, but let the player's decisions impact how those plans play out. Use piecemeal information from interrogated NPCs, helpful allies, journals, symbols, ancient texts, and whatever else you can think of to influence player decisions. Recycle what you can, and change what you must. Remember, the adversaries should react the the PCs' plans just as the PCs will react to the adversaries' plans.

 

[Mallus]

But, after just starting the campaign, the players have basically taken the first layer of the plot and are now making plans to follow that to an extreme. The plans they are making would basically take this first layer as the core focus of the majority of the campaign.

Great, you have players engaged!

Also, partly my fault for making the first layer have so much interest that both the players and characters have become fascinated with it.

You are never at fault for doing this. You simply need to be flexible. When your players are interested in something, run with it.

Should I alter one of the other layers of the plot, so that they will stumble on it while doing what they planned on, thus tie them back to everything I already planned out?

Absolutely. Good DM's do this all the time. My friend shilsen calls this "Schrodinger's DM'ing", while I prefer the term "retroactive integrity".

4) Tell them flat out, via in-game methods, how more stuff is connected?

What would you gain by this, other than giving the players the sense that the game is playing itself and their contributions aren't really required?

But I worry that this method will feel heavy handed and forced and less "about the PCs finding stuff and more about know-it-all-NPCs")

Exactly. The trick is letting the players be "mostly right" and still throw them an interesting curve or two.

It's just a matter of how much of the original story and prep-work I should sacrifice?

You can always repurpose prep-work. It's far easier than un-discouraging or un-alienating players. Which tends to happen when the game starts playing itself.

At what point should I just give up what I envisioned and put in hours of planning for the story and just go with what the PCs are doing?

You should give up on your vision about an hour before the first session of the campaign starts... more seriously though, the key is flexibility. If the players are engaged and enjoying themselves, go with it. That's the only outcome a DM should be envisioning, not a particular story arc and a particular resolution.