Do you prefer your character to be connected or unconnected to the adventure hook?

I read it as "if we're doing something long term where you'll have choices and the ability to interact with NPCs and the like, it would be nice if your character had some motivations and reasons to investigate the world and be involved so I can make it interesting for you and make it feel like we're building a world together" on the other hand if it's a dungeon crawl "make sure you're character is the kind that's set to do a dungeon crawl to the end, that's what we're doing!" doesn't need or use much.
Not sure. Maybe I'm just hinging on the term adventure path. Hussar specifically states "adventure path" which are printed adventures that have NPC's, roleplaying opportunities, choices with meaning, etc. Maybe he did just mean dungeon crawl, which if that is the case, then that makes a lot more sense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Hussar

Legend
Not sure. Maybe I'm just hinging on the term adventure path. Hussar specifically states "adventure path" which are printed adventures that have NPC's, roleplaying opportunities, choices with meaning, etc. Maybe he did just mean dungeon crawl, which if that is the case, then that makes a lot more sense.

I guess it depends on the AP. Some AP's are pretty linear - start at A, proceed through B, C and D until you get to the end of the AP. The Giants adventure, for example, isn't exactly open world. So, so long as you have a character in hand, you can pretty much proceed through the adventure, and everything is good to go. And, there's nothing wrong with that kind of play. It can be very engaging.

OTOH, if the world is more open, and there's room for side bars and whatnot, or if you're going whole hog sandbox, it's pretty incumbent on the players to actually be engaged with the setting and the campaign.

Proactive vs reactive would be my characterization here. Proactive players take whatever the DM places in front of them and run with it (sometimes into some really, really bizarre directions :D ). Reactive players more or less passively wait for the DM to roll up the plot wagon and dole out the adventure du jure.

I'm rather fortunate right now to have a group of really, really pro-active players. It's actually hard to keep up to be honest.
 

Well, yeah, up to a point, but also no. The players need to work to invest themselves and be active participants in the game. Passive players give me the pip. The GM provides openings and scenarios, but its up to the players to breath life into them.
Part of that is also clearly setting the expectations for the campaign...which is part of the DM's job. DM's should also know what their players want to play. Some players want to just play a nice dungeon crawl and don't want to worry too much about things like backgrounds or trying to tie their characters to a campaign. And that's fine. That's why I have a conversation before every campaign I run and let everyone know what to expect and how much involvement each player should expect. I ran a Dragonlance campaign a few years ago that had quite a bit of involvement, and it also required the players to be engaged because each character had a part of the story that focused on them. Even my players who are usually less involved and who normally like hack/slash/loot really enjoyed this game. Because I helped keep them engaged.

Yes, the players need to be active participants, but if the GM doesn't make it engaging, or if the DM doesn't use what the players who are engaged are giving, then why should the players be active participants?
 

On the whole, I prefer adventure hooks that appeal to the characters' motives, rather than being nailed onto their backgrounds. Curiosity is a powerful motive, as are duty, money, fame, and the desire to make the world a better place.

Yeah this is it. Backgrounds and motives are often deeply interwoven, of course, the Darkstryder campaign for SWD6 has a lot of pregen characters whose motives stem from their backgrounds, as an example.

But keying off the actual motive rather than simple background facts is important. If you have a character and their uncle was murdered, you have to know the personality and relationship to guage what the motivation would be. I've seen a few adventures, and also computer games where without establishing any emotional connection or real reasoning, they simply tell you you're "seeking vengeance" or whatever, and it just kind of falls flat.

This is obviously a particular issue with pre-written adventures but which don't have specific characters associated with them. If you have pre-gens, it usually solves that problem, so long as they're clearly written.

It doesn't do anything to rule out the premise of "There are goblins in a nearby cave"; or any other adventure along that line. The most probable explanation for that event is simply that there are a lot of caves full of goblins.

It also doesn't rule out most adventure premises that don't involve the PCs specifically. If someone's brother was kidnapped by ninjas, and the PCs are the only ones nearby who are capable of dealing with it, then that isn't particularly unlikely; while ninja kidnappings aren't exactly common, there are a lot of potential targets for them in the world, and the PCs are often the most capable people in any region they travel. If the ranger's brother is kidnapped by ninjas, then the most likely explanation is that the GM is messing with you.

That's a kind of weird meta-gaming approach that implies an actively anti-cooperative attitude towards the DM, and does in fact rule out a lot of adventure premises, particularly in non-D&D RPGs. But my main issue with it is that it's verging on the adversarial, as you're basically attempting to test every scenario, and if you feel like it is "unlikely", rejecting it as "the DM messing with you". If you, for example, had Buffy campaign that mirrored the plot of the actual Buffy TV show, you'd presumably reject about 1/3 to 1/2 the episodes/adventures as "the DM is messing with me".

Now, in real play that may well not be how you behave (indeed I doubt it is), but that's the behaviour you're outlining. Essentially rejecting events in the fantasy world because they fail to match up to what is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary and subjective to test of "is this contrived by the DM?". Two similar people could have the same thing happen and come out with completely different results for that. With your "brother kidnapped by ninjas" example, a lot of players will simply just go "Hot damn, I better rescue him!", but apparently you will go "Blast that DM and his cheap tawdry unimmersive storylines!" or something. Which highlights the subjectivity and arbitrary-ness of the test.

Well, yeah, up to a point, but also no. The players need to work to invest themselves and be active participants in the game. Passive players give me the pip. The GM provides openings and scenarios, but its up to the players to breath life into them.

Yup, though experience with quite a number of groups over the last few decades suggests that the game is also in the mix here. Some games make it incredibly easy for players do this and really encourage them to, others actively make it tricky. PtbA for example is incredibly reliable in getting players involved, in my experience, but D&D 5E can actually encourage passivity a bit. Obviously DMs can work to improve the situation, of course.

Adventures/APs can be the same way. I've seen ones which really pulled the players in by immediately giving them stuff to engage with, people to talk to, things to think about, and I've seen others, especially those obsessed with an aura of mystery, where the players almost slide off it like some sort of frictionless surface, because there's nothing to really engage with, just a sequence of events or rooms in a dungeon or whatever.
 
Last edited:

That's a kind of weird meta-gaming approach that implies an actively anti-cooperative attitude towards the DM, and does in fact rule out a lot of adventure premises, particularly in non-D&D RPGs. But my main issue with it is that it's verging on the adversarial, as you're basically attempting to test every scenario, and if you feel like it is "unlikely", rejecting it as "the DM messing with you".
Based on the answers in this thread (which matches up to prior discussion on the topic), I can't trust any DM by default. There are enough DMs out there who freely admit to meta-gaming in this way, that they have collectively lost the benefit of the doubt. Too many people have poisoned the well. So if a DM wants to earn my trust, then they'd better go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of meta-gaming.
If you, for example, had Buffy campaign that mirrored the plot of the actual Buffy TV show, you'd presumably reject about 1/3 to 1/2 the episodes/adventures as "the DM is messing with me".
Possibly. It is just a TV show, after all. The remainder of the campaign is a good example of how adventure can flow naturally from a premise, though. Buffy really is a unique person within that universe, so it makes sense that a lot of people would seek her out specifically, because she's the Slayer. Much of the rest grows out of her personal life, which is established "over the course of play" as it were; and since we were there to watch it happen as an outgrowth of in-character choices, it doesn't seem contrived at all.
Now, in real play that may well not be how you behave (indeed I doubt it is), but that's the behaviour you're outlining. Essentially rejecting events in the fantasy world because they fail to match up to what is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary and subjective to test of "is this contrived by the DM?". Two similar people could have the same thing happen and come out with completely different results for that. With your "brother kidnapped by ninjas" example, a lot of players will simply just go "Hot damn, I better rescue him!", but apparently you will go "Blast that DM and his cheap tawdry unimmersive storylines!" or something. Which highlights the subjectivity and arbitrary-ness of the test.
In real life, I'm going to roll my eyes heavily to show the DM that I'm not having fun, and then follow the plot cookie anyway to try and salvage the night. I may or may not choose to talk with them about it after the game, but if it keeps happening over the course of multiple sessions, then I'm probably not going to stick around very long.
 

MGibster

Legend
Based on the answers in this thread (which matches up to prior discussion on the topic), I can't trust any DM by default. There are enough DMs out there who freely admit to meta-gaming in this way, that they have collectively lost the benefit of the doubt. Too many people have poisoned the well. So if a DM wants to earn my trust, then they'd better go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of meta-gaming.

Wow. That is a rather rough and jaded outlook on gaming you've got there. I don't consider all meta-gaming to be a bad thing, and as a GM I will alter NPCs and campaign plans based on out-of-game knowledge on what the players would like or what seems more fun. (I make it a point not to make things more difficult when the PCs successfully circumvent obstacles because they're clever though. Cleverness should be rewarded.)

In real life, I'm going to roll my eyes heavily to show the DM that I'm not having fun, and then follow the plot cookie anyway to try and salvage the night. I may or may not choose to talk with them about it after the game, but if it keeps happening over the course of multiple sessions, then I'm probably not going to stick around very long.

How long do you typically stick around with a group?
 


Remove ads

Top