DMs: Are you a "plot-nazi"?

[GenLang]

Plotlines, lines set in stone and lines marked with rubber bands...

I'm a year into my sunday game, with another 2 years anticipated, and I won't deny that there are some major plot elements that'll happen regardless of player actions. My PCs are the Fated heros to deal with some severely bad juju that's headed this way.

In the meantime and other than that, they can do what they like how they like. Deeds become available to accomplish, and the group is happy to stride forth and do heroic things. They're having fun, so I feel safe guessing all is well

Once they accomplish The Great Heroic Deed (which'll move them into epic levels, about a year from now), all plot elements will have been satisfied, and I'll keep the game running until their own goals have been met and they feel satisfied ending that particular campaign.

I don't think I qualify for plot-Nazi, because I don't fudge things to get specific predetermined results (usual goal is to rescue item or destroy Evil Creature which they happily want to do anyway) and I don't care HOW they achieve the goal, just that they do. They've surprised me a few times in how they accomplish the goal at hand, but I'm happy to be surprised.

 

[mirzabah]

I've given up on plots.

Schemes are much more fun...

 

[SableWyvern]

The ultimate example of this in action was from a thread in the RttToEE section of Monte Cook's message boards.

The DM bought Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil intending for the party to go through. After throwing out a multitude of plot hooks, the party got to Hommlet, investigated the Moathouse, found out about the cult of Thurizdun.....

Then promptly decided they did not what to be heroes to save the world, so they brushed off any other plot hooks and resisted all attempts for by the DM to encourage them or steer them back on track.

The DM (who paid out alot of coin for the adventure) was so peeved by the players absolute refusal to take up the adventure that he made up an several other adventures for them to do. Allowed the party to advance 4 or 5 levels.....

Then in mid-battle in the home-brew adventure, he announced that they were all dead. Since they refused to take up the adventure in RttToEE, the DM furthered the agenda of the Cult, decided on the likely outcome of possible events and ruled that the cult succeeded in freeing Thurzidun and in the ritual, Thurzidun (who is about destroying all the world) destroyed their part of the world....and the characters along with it.

The ultimate example of being a Plot-Nazi? Or a POed DM who paid good money for a fine adventure and got rebuked by the players?

If the PCs had enough information to realise that this cult was truly a threat to the world, then this is no more than a realistic consequence of PC actions. That's the power of PC freedom.

In any case, I would consider it a valid DM vent, as long as the players were aware that the DM had spent a large amount of hard-earned cash that he couldn't afford to see go to waste.

 

[Celebrim]

I think it is a matter of whether the players are 'lawful' or 'chaotic'. D&D players seem to divide generally into two groups. The 'lawful' group believes that their characters (of any alignment) are motivated strongly for some reason to adventure, and thus, if you provide any reasonable hook, the party or player willingly goes along with it. Rescue the damsel in distress. Slay the maruading dragon. Liberate the slaves. Find the lost keen sword of brutal slaying in the catacombs of doom. Whatever. Sometimes I think they take this to a silly degree, but I don't mind too much if they bite my lame retread hook when I can't think of a better one. And it doesn't really matter whether you are dealing with roleplayers or power gamers. With roleplayers you just have to provide more 'emotional' and 'personal' hooks, and they are fine with it and happy to be 'rail roaded' (so long as you role play back).

On the other hand, there are 'chaotic' gamers who feel strongly motivated to resist whatever the DM desires because whatever the DM desires is probably dangerous and bad for thier character. Thus, which ever way the DM hooks, run the other way. Never ever ever take a job or involve yourself in someone else's affairs. Instead, look around at the environment for whatever looks like it might be the easiest thing to roll and loot it. They do this whatever the alignment of the character (and sometimes manage to concoct elaborate motivations for why thier character does whatever). The reason that anything (I gather) that anything you do on the fly is going to be easier than anything that you are well prepared for. Oddly, this is also true no matter whether you are dealing with roleplayers or powergamers. Role players simply claim that they are excercizing thier personel freedom or acting in a chaotic fashion that matches thier alignment. 'Chaotic' gamers detest anything that remotely resembles rail roading, including I find, the logical results of thier own often ludricrous activity and generally have an adversarial relationship with the DM and sometimes with the other players.

Most of my players have been of the lawful sort, and are just happy to adventure and be a part of a story. Eventually, potent characters get more and more freedom to create the story and often by this point PC actions are driving the story and altering the local campaign setting.

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

Players falling into the 'chaotic' mold should all be dragged out into the street and forced to play Diablo 2.

I certainly don't want them anywhere near my gaming table.

-F

 

[Undead Pete]

I always have multiple plots going on at once, but I let the players choose where to go. While they're off on one quest, the others always develop without them.

Of course, sometimes they surprise me, so I have to wing it.....but I've gotten some cool ideas from those occasions as well.

 

[Agback]

I agree with Ray Winninger (and also create the "situations" he speaks of), but disagree with Gary (sorry Colonel), I think that D&D should be a story.

Hear! Hear!

The story is not before the game. The story is not after the game. The story is during the game. Which is why I don't prep much. How can you know what the story is until you know what the major characters do? So I devise a situation redolent of possibility, and extemporise a story in collaboration with my character-players.

Some of them are re-tellable, but few are re-told. Which goes to show that the important thing is not the re-telling of the events of the game, but their original creation, during the game.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Uller]

So here is a follow up question:

A few of you mentioned that your players _want_ direction. They seem to blindly follow any hooks you throw at them. I'm sometimes guilty of this when I play. Usually because I'm frustrated or confused and don't know what to do next.

I _WANT_ to follow the DM's adventure because even though it will be tough, it will usually be fun. However, this has been known to leave a bad taste in my mouth on occasion. Sometimes the DM uses this to us into a trap.

I've done this too. A group a recently DMed seemed to completely lack any sort of free will. At the end of each session, I'd say something like:

"Okay...you killed the Goblin Boss and drove off the raiders. You have a map that tells you where the Goblin Warchief lives. You know the name of one of the human traders they were selling slaves and loot too (that could be where some of the missing villagers went). You know that the Mayor's daughter's lover is a werewolf and is bent on killing the mayor. What are you going to do?" At this point, I would hope they would tell me what they want to do...they could trapse off after the Goblin Warchief. They could try to hunt down these slave traders and bring them to justice and rescue any villagers they haven't shipped off to unknown lands. They could go after the werewolf, or they could do something I haven't thought of...it is all up to them. But I'd just get a bunch of blank stares and shurgs...very frustrating. So I'd through out an obvious hook and use it to lure them into a trap.

It is mean, I know. But maybe if they would express a little free will, they would not walk into such obvious traps (sometimes one of them would even guess the trap before falling into it, but still they would press on following the most obvious trail).

So here is the question(s):

Do you as a player blindly follow plot hooks (sort of "metagaming" since you know that the obvious plot hooks will lead to the most interesting adventure)?

Do you as a DM ever use this tendency against the PCs and lure them into obvious traps and impossible situations?

Is that wrong (either one)?

 

[jasper]

two examples of necessary railroading
everyone but the person who came in late are already playing.
person gets their character ready.
Dm a rift opens in front of you see a strange city.
player,"but my character is protector of my village I would have no reason to go through the opening"

other players,"just go through the door. over the opening is sign saying dramatic entrance"

Player,"but"

the rest of group just stare and wait.


Second example
Small orc stronghold which players can take easy

Problem Player, "Orcs Orcs will kill us"
He could wipe out 3 orcs for every one who manage to hit him.
PP"I go north"
You see a sign saying adventure point back to the strong hold.
PP"I go north"
fine.And just A or E him.
PP "what do I see"
You see three women. A thin good looking blonde, a fat burnette, and really ugly red hair. They see you. And the Blonde starts signing .
Roll vs charm.
The palading goes glassy eye and wanders forward.

The group gets the clue and tackles the Paladin and flee. Except for PP.

PP," I wait for 5 minutes then go and knock on the door."
He then makes a deal to sleep the party and turn the paladin over to them.

He was surprise when the ugly red hair decide an elf in the pot is better than a paladin in the bush. Player as me why I threw 15th plus witches against a 3rd level party.

I did neither either you an ADVENTURER and follow the clues or railroad or your an EXTRA in someone elses adventure and will wind up in the soup pot.

Now I generally don't railroad. But when the players start twiddle thumb for more than an hour.

 

[Uller]

I did neither either you an ADVENTURER and follow the clues or railroad or your an EXTRA in someone elses adventure and will wind up in the soup pot.

Now I generally don't railroad. But when the players start twiddle thumb for more than an hour.

Like I said...some railroading is necessary in some games. The players need to metagame to the extent that D&D is an _adventure_ game and if they avoid the planned adventure (for DMs like me who are at the top of their game when they prepare), then they are avoiding the fun and ruining everyone's day.

If the players fail to follow the hooks to the planned adventure, then the DM needs to do things to "encourage" them to take the hooks or he needs to find out why they don't want to do so (maybe they don't like the adventure...maybe they feel it is too tough or too easy or not what their character would want to do...a good DM needs to address these problems).

As I said..."bad" railroading is purposely fudging the rules or manipulating events in an illogical way in order to force the action within an adventure to proceed a certain way. Forcing the players to follow the day's planned adventure isn't always a bad thing...(I spend about 10 hours preparing for a 4-6 hour session...I'll be damned if that is all going to go to waste).

My solution has always been to allow the players to choose their path as freely as they want, but once they decide to go on an adventure, I prepare it so I ask them OoG to stick to that chosen path (unless I throw something in their way that obviously prevents that). So if at the end of one adventure, they say "We go after the slave traders." Then I prepare an adventure around the slave traders. Next session I expect them to follow that path.