Do you fall into this trap?

How do you handle the conflicts and resolutions?

  • I never try to predict how players will react. I give them a conflict/problem and step back.

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • I usually try to think how players will handle a problem, so I can at least try to be prepared.

    Votes: 19 48.7%
  • I spend 20%+ of prep time considering what players will do, & tying that into my story.

    Votes: 6 15.4%

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
Let's try something...
[video=youtube;FFCBhs6TSns]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFCBhs6TSns[/video]

Con-ven-ience!

9 times out of 10, the PC solution is: let's kill it!

So, not a lot of extra prep work there. I use the train yard approach - multiple railroads present the illusion of open-worldiness. I will, by the way, watch the video when I have seven extra minutes...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cody C. Lewis

First Post
Let's try something...
[video=youtube;FFCBhs6TSns]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFCBhs6TSns[/video]

Con-ven-ience!

9 times out of 10, the PC solution is: let's kill it!

So, not a lot of extra prep work there. I use the train yard approach - multiple railroads present the illusion of open-worldiness. I will, by the way, watch the video when I have seven extra minutes...


What is this wizardry?
 

I kind of disagree with the opinion expressed in the video. I do prefer to have a good understanding of the conflict, rather than to second guess all the solutions to that conflict, so the story is a completely collaborative effort. I don't want to railroad my players down what ever solutions I came up with.

However, some second guessing is still required to properly prepare for the campaign. If I don't prepare a map of the pirate lord's vessel, then next week when the players decide to board his vessel, I don't have a map ready for them. If they decide to head onto the island instead, I'd better make sure I have some of the island prepared for them.

So while it sounds nice in a video to say that you shouldn't second guess your players... you really should.

For example, in the case of the example that the video provides... what if the players decide to skip the quest? What if the players find the gang's hideout, and end up in a huge fight with them? You should second guess these things, and be prepared for some of the most likely outcomes.

On the other hand, I am a big fan of allowing the choices of the players affect the plot later down the line, even if their choice was to ignore a quest.

For example,

In my pirate campaign the players were attacked by a living ship. They felt outgunned, and instead of fighting it, they fled. As a DM I had prepared all the stats of the living ship, in case it came to combat. But I was also prepared with additional material, in case the players did something unexpected. As the players circled the Island of Chattering Gull, I rolled for random encounters along the coast.

The players stumbled upon a sleeping giant (a rare encounter), resting along the coast of the island. They decided to ask him for help, and they succeeded on their diplomacy. While the giant was too big to understand why a tiny little ship was talking to him, he didn't like the idea of an evil ship chasing them (which is what they told him). With his massive hand he scooped up the living ship, and threw it onto the island. The players had survived the encounter, but they knew that the living ship was still somewhere on the island... and this choice could come back to haunt them.

Hundreds of sessions later, the players return to Chattering Gull Island, and see smoke in the distance near Port Freedom. As they arrive at the town plaza, they realize that a massive battle took place here while they were away. The charred corpse of the living ship, or what was left of it, lies dead on the plaza. Several houses are in ruins, and it seems like everyone in town gathered to fight this beast. Many sailors have been removing bits and pieces of the charred corpse, to hang as decorations above their shops. Their favored weapon smith, Oslo, is now without a place to work. His smithy lies in ruins. The towns people speak of how Oslo stood his ground, and fired every gun and cannon in his store at the creature. After a long battle, the creature finally collapsed on the plaza, and was defeated. Oslo is now the hero of the town... but he is a hero without a home.

And thus, the players decide to offer the brave weapon smith a job... and the story continues.
 
Last edited:

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
Okay. Did some video watching, and I have to say that there are two extremes at play here:

- The GM plans out everything for the PCs, so PCs aren't really playing so much as watching the game.
- The GM plans out nothing, runs everything off the cuff, and players feel purpose only to the extent that the GM can tie story elements together spontaneously.

I think Cody is advocating for something in the middle, except for phrases like "completely unrelated encounters" and "players write the story." So I'm walking away from the video feeling a little confused, and having a strong desire to dive into my AD&D Complete Book of Villains again. (1994. It's basically an Advanced DMG set of chapters on writing adventures. Worth WAY more than the measly $14 some people are charging on Amazon.)
 

Cody C. Lewis

First Post
I kind of disagree with the opinion expressed in the video. I do prefer to have a good understanding of the conflict, rather than to second guess all the solutions to that conflict, so the story is a completely collaborative effort. I don't want to railroad my players down what ever solutions I came up with.

However, some second guessing is still required to properly prepare for the campaign. If I don't prepare a map of the pirate lord's vessel, then next week when the players decide to board his vessel, I don't have a map ready for them. If they decide to head onto the island instead, I'd better make sure I have some of the island prepared for them.


Ok, I see what you are saying here, and I get it. You want to make sure you are prepared, which for some GMs is paramount as the feeling of being unprepared is something that turns their insides.

But perhaps we can look at it this way:
You can still prepare, but have no idea how your players will 'get there'.

Let me elaborate. Conflicts can be what drives your game. In your case, you (very reasonably) worry that players might go off in a different direction than what has been prepared. So in the case of the pirate ship, you absolutely prepared but didn't predict. Which is great. You didn't approach with the idea that once the players encounter the ship they'll kill it and then that will lead to, and then that will lead to...

All you did was PREPARE your encounter, your conflict-- that's fantastic. I would say kudos sir.
 

Cody C. Lewis

First Post
Okay. Did some video watching, and I have to say that there are two extremes at play here:

- The GM plans out everything for the PCs, so PCs aren't really playing so much as watching the game.
- The GM plans out nothing, runs everything off the cuff, and players feel purpose only to the extent that the GM can tie story elements together spontaneously.

I would say that the way of prep I am encouraging isn't quite that extreme. Let's consider a campaign module, SKT. Without spoiling anything, the campaign has a story. The campaign has hooks for the players (whatever your group's motivators are). The campaign has conflicts, that occur regardless of what happened with the resolution of the other conflicts.

Specifically the book (again no real spoilers) gives a conflict in a certain town. The book informs the GMs of the scene's ANTAGONIST's motivation. It then let's GMs know that the players may try to do all kinds of things, but the antagonist will try X. The players might fight, flee, compromise, betray, use a wish, call for divine help, hide etc. The resolution of the conflict is unimportant. What's important is creating a great conflict, not telling a story.

And this conflict happens whether the players are here, there or elsewhere. It happens if they've already died, or become amazing heroes up and down the coast. That still absolutely gives you the ability to 'drive' to your story, to create a campaign with purpose, but without railroading your players into "ok they'll go here and then here and then fight this guy here, and then they'll get this artifact which they'll use here etc."-- which is a trap that I think is easy to fall into even for experienced GMs sometime.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
The campaign has conflicts, that occur regardless of what happened with the resolution of the other conflicts.

Specifically the book (again no real spoilers) gives a conflict in a certain town. The book informs the GMs of the scene's ANTAGONIST's motivation. It then let's GMs know that the players may try to do all kinds of things, but the antagonist will try X. The players might fight, flee, compromise, betray, use a wish, call for divine help, hide etc. The resolution of the conflict is unimportant. What's important is creating a great conflict, not telling a story.

And this conflict happens whether the players are here, there or elsewhere. It happens if they've already died, or become amazing heroes up and down the coast. That still absolutely gives you the ability to 'drive' to your story, to create a campaign with purpose, but without railroading your players into "ok they'll go here and then here and then fight this guy here, and then they'll get this artifact which they'll use here etc."-- which is a trap that I think is easy to fall into even for experienced GMs sometime.
Yeah...no?

You don't have conflict if the PCs walk away from it. If the PCs are elsewhere, there's no conflict. So I'm either not understanding how that works, or I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If the PCs resolved the previous conflict of encountering dozens of poor peasants, whose tools had been stolen, by giving up their weapons and gold to the peasants, well, the next encounter (conflict?) involving finding the thieves in question and demanding the peasants' tools back won't go so well without weapons to fight them or gold to bribe them.

So I'd say there's a certain amount of tying together that has to be done. Should GMs designing their own adventures create adventures that play like published adventures? Oh heck no. I do not want to wait for a GM to turn through pages, just to read me some text that doesn't fully match the current situation, and expects me to take X action. But I do want the interesting story twists that can occur in a Published, as well as the fleshing out of details that some GMs just can't produce when left to their own devices.
 

Cody C. Lewis

First Post
Yeah...no?

You don't have conflict if the PCs walk away from it. If the PCs are elsewhere, there's no conflict. So I'm either not understanding how that works, or I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If the PCs resolved the previous conflict of encountering dozens of poor peasants, whose tools had been stolen, by giving up their weapons and gold to the peasants, well, the next encounter (conflict?) involving finding the thieves in question and demanding the peasants' tools back won't go so well without weapons to fight them or gold to bribe them.

Two points here,

1. conflict does not just equate to an encounter. Plenty of conflicts are not resolved through combat. Additionally, as an aside, antagonists are not always villains or evil.

2. "You don't have conflict if the PCs walk away from it." - Absolutely you can. Conflict is everywhere all the time, whether or not it involves you or not. IE, I am not personally affected by the Yankees and Red Sox battle for the AL East Title. But that is absolutely a conflict 'going on in our world". The players might or might not involve themselves in a lot of conflicts. Some they may flee from, and others they may turn their backs on.

Consider the middle east. Are we affected by what's going on as Americans? Not really. Kinda. Maybe. But ISIS hasn't done anything to affect my personal life. Could we get involved? Sure.
 

2. "You don't have conflict if the PCs walk away from it." - Absolutely you can. Conflict is everywhere all the time, whether or not it involves you or not. IE, I am not personally affected by the Yankees and Red Sox battle for the AL East Title. But that is absolutely a conflict 'going on in our world". The players might or might not involve themselves in a lot of conflicts. Some they may flee from, and others they may turn their backs on.

Exactly. In fact, I just gave an example upthread of a battle on an island where the players were responsible, but not directly involved. In their absence, a huge creature had destroyed a sizeable chunk of a harbor town, because of a choice the players made very early in the campaign.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
Fair enough. Looks like I was being lazy with my terminology.

What I meant was that you don't have a story if the PCs walk away from it. It's obvious to anyone who uses antagonist-driven campaign planning that your bad guy is going to be off in the world causing havoc. That does not immediately translate into a good story, though.

Take this straw man:;)
The PC party is dominated by two or three thief types. They routinely ignore the consequences of antagonist actions, no matter how many great conflicts you set up, because every time they ask "is there another rich house to rob?" the answer is "yes." So the non-thieves get dragged along on a treasure hunt that never really develops into anything, because it's not tied to the antagonist.
 

Remove ads

Top