Excerpt: the quest's the thing

[The Little Raven]

You wouldn't know if you were exposed to it, though . The beauty of Mourn's way of DMing is that since the players don't know about it, they don't feel railroaded. If the players get to know it, you have to change it.

[Fonzie] Exactomundo! [/Fonzie]

I used to not do this, and run as close to pure-sandbox as I could. I ended up spending a lot more time doing prep for events/plots that never played out, and my players became dissatisfied with the GTA-feel of it, where they could drift around doing insignificant crap instead of cool heroics, while missing out on some of the coolest storylines. I fell into a funk about my DMing style and stopped running things for a while, until I read The Paradox of Choice. That book opened my eyes to the idea that I was giving them too many choices, as opposed to reducing the amount of choices and making individual ones even better.

 

[med stud]

Yeah, well it just wouldn't work with my players. They're thorough. "There was a door back there we didn't check out - let's hit it."

"Uhh... You find an exact copy of that room with the kobolds, you know! Just that this time, it's... hmm... A chest in the corner! Yeah, that's it!"

Option nr 2 would be that you add something that you had planned or that you just make it a combat encounter 101 with some interesting terrain and some opponents.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yeah, well it just wouldn't work with my players. They're thorough.

I doubt your players would notice what I'm doing. The only time a player has ever known it happened was by asking the right questions at the campaign-end Q&A I always do, because I prep more than I ever present in game, and my players like to know about the roads less traveled.

"There was a door back there we didn't check out - let's hit it."

My players do the same thing.

Hitting the back door you passed up on your first pass through the place doesn't mean you get the event that was waiting behind it, because time doesn't stand still. If the back door was there for them to run into a street gang having a meeting, when they show up hours later, they've already missed the meeting.

 

[LostSoul]

Please explain, or I'll simply dismiss this as "One True Way" nonsense.

Sure.

I don't think it's a problem if you told them, "Look - your choices don't matter. Let's just pretend that they do, and enjoy the ride." If they agreed to it, cool, no problem.

But if you didn't tell them that, and you can't tell them that or else they'd be pissed off, then you have some issues.

If people agree to play the game one way ("your choices matter") and actually you decide to play another, totally different way ("your choices don't matter"), I think its dishonest and patronizing.

 

[The Little Raven]

But if you didn't tell them that, and you can't tell them that or else they'd be pissed off, then you have some issues.

Well, it seems that they don't pissed off, because I have no issues at all. I get more compliments about my campaigns than I did when I was sandboxing, reminiscing about sessions and cool encounters is far more frequent, and I'm enjoying myself more than when I made more content than I could conceivably use.

If people agree to play the game one way ("your choices matter") and actually you decide to play another, totally different way ("your choices don't matter"), I think its dishonest and patronizing.

Well, I can see how that would be a problem if you have such a contrived social contract that spells out the exact limits of the game. I don't do that. I say "I'm running a campaign about <X>. Plan accordingly." I do the same with Con games, pick-up games, and anything else I run, and have had no complaints about it (since it's invisible).

 

[Rex Blunder]

Most DMs railroad a little (prepares more for certain events than others, encourage players to do the adventure the DM planned). However, the current D&D political climate is such that "railroading" is a dirty word.

Extreme railroading is bad. But "All railroading is bad" is an extreme, and one I think we'll grow out of. I don't see anything unusual about what Mourn is doing.

 

[Cirex]

Sure.

I don't think it's a problem if you told them, "Look - your choices don't matter. Let's just pretend that they do, and enjoy the ride." If they agreed to it, cool, no problem.

But if you didn't tell them that, and you can't tell them that or else they'd be pissed off, then you have some issues.

If people agree to play the game one way ("your choices matter") and actually you decide to play another, totally different way ("your choices don't matter"), I think its dishonest and patronizing.

I strongly disagree with you. Why does he have issues? The door thingy is a metaphore, an example. It's a technique that I have used myself in the past. Sometimes, due a matter of time, lack of ideas or anything, you can't plan two different ways of doing something, however, you can give players the illusion of a choice. Since it's an illusion, they have no clue what is going on, they just know that they made a choice that is important.

The door is an example, because you can go back. But, there are infinite ways of doing this without a chance going back. In example, the PCs need a complex job done and need the help of powerful NPCs. They got two to choice from, an Elven necromancer, supposed to be good aligned, or a cruel and greedy Lich. No matter which one they pick, the job will be done. However, they will feel that they made the right choice.

That example is what I'm using right now. The players need to contact with a trapped soul, so they got two potential choices, an Elven cleric from Aerenal living at Sharn or Gath, the lich that lives at the Necropolis. The trapped soul thingy is a quest that could last 5-6 sessions (it's quite long) and they will choose whoever fits them better. In the end, they will be doing the same stuff, be it steal something or kill someone. The choice is an illusion, but they will feel good about theirs. It's just that Gath will ask for gold and maybe a sacrifice, while the Elven cleric will ask for a favour, but both will be requiring the same things in order to perform a ritual.

 

[Rechan]

One concern I have, though: How is offering quests supposed to work with active players who make up their own goals? I'm sure I can make that work but having it spelled out would have been reasonable.

When a player states a desired goal, you then make that a major quest.

Seriously, if right out of the gate the player says, "I want to one day lead an army," then I say "Okay" and help him draft up some minor and major quests that will allow him to achieve that.

If the PCs say "We want to go dismantle the evil Tiefling Council's grip on the City State of Agboth, because they sound like some nasty dudes and we want to liberate the people there," bam. I help the PCs brainstorm on some quests that they can do to achieve that goal and get some xp for it.

I'm currently running a "wandering con-men" game. My PCs have decided to pull of a really big heist. So, I would give them a minor quest to "Complete this heist successfully". The over-arching plot is to "Reunite with the rest of our caravan", so I would draft quests to finding clues pertinent to this goal.

 

[Family]

"All railroading is bad" is an extreme, and one I think we'll grow out of. /QUOTE]

I have to say that when my DM notices it's game night he locks the door only to find that I've been waiting in his workshop for an hour. I'm what you call chaotic freaking me.

Cohort: Sir I think enemies doth approach!
PC: Sorry I can't here you over how AWESOME I am.
Minion: Master...{dies via arrow to neck}..gurgle...
PC: Okay, suit up. It's time to hero!

There's only one railroad 'round these parts...the "Family Express".

(For example; bags of holding, flight, and cabers make for quite the ariel support). And no I didn't tell the DM I was packing those. An entire night of prep into xp and loot in less than 10 minutes.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, it seems that they don't pissed off, because I have no issues at all. I get more compliments about my campaigns than I did when I was sandboxing, reminiscing about sessions and cool encounters is far more frequent, and I'm enjoying myself more than when I made more content than I could conceivably use.

(I didn't mean to infer that you had "issues"; I meant to say that the players might take offense if they find out the choices they are making don't matter.)

Would the games still be as good if the players knew what you were doing? Maybe so. Maybe not, though.

Well, I can see how that would be a problem if you have such a contrived social contract that spells out the exact limits of the game. I don't do that. I say "I'm running a campaign about <X>. Plan accordingly." I do the same with Con games, pick-up games, and anything else I run, and have had no complaints about it (since it's invisible).

The only social contract I'm assuming is that the choices the players make will matter. Assuming that's part of the social contract, if you're breaking that, I think it's dishonest.

If the social contract is "I only have so much prep time, so let's go with what I have prepped", that's open, honest communication and cool.