Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7138868" data-attributes="member: 7006">When you say your group didn't have any fun... is that because their PCs are used to &quot;succeeding&quot; without any major difficulties and this time they didn't succeed; or is it because they just didn't find the actions of the chieftain, tribe, and cultists interesting?&nbsp; There's a big difference between the two, and the answer to which would lead me (as the DM) into two very different directions.If the group just didn't find the encounter interesting... like because there was no change in the status quo, or no one made a move to have a fight, or because their actions were kept separate from what the chieftain and cultists were doing and thus their actions had no influence and it almost felt like they were watching a cut-scene to which they couldn't effect one way or the other... then in that regard I could see and agree with what you came away with to a certain extent.&nbsp; In that instance, you quite possibly didn't expect such a direct confrontation and thus were put back on your heels having to improvise some sort of reaction that you didn't have any plans expecting to make-- and oftentimes those improvs can be less than compelling.&nbsp; We often will devolve to what &quot;makes the most sense&quot; in the situation rather than &quot;what will be the most interesting&quot; for the scene.&nbsp; If they are in alignment with each other, then Yay!&nbsp; It's going to end up being an awesome and unexpected improvised resulting encounter.&nbsp; But if they aren't... then it could easily fall flat (which is what you appear to have felt.)So in this instance you are absolutely right that *if* we can think &quot;outside the box&quot; when it comes to having to quickly improvise an idea and not just default to &quot;what makes sense&quot;... then the scenes have a better chance to being memorable.&nbsp; But then again... the downside of course being that there's just as likely a chance of the scenes being &quot;silly&quot; or &quot;unrealistic&quot; or &quot;non-sensical&quot; as we try to improvise &quot;interesting&quot; results.&nbsp; There's never going to be a catch-all method.&nbsp; Sometimes improvising off the beaten path in reaction to unexpected PC action will work like gangbusters and be awesome, and sometimes it'll just end up being stupid because their unexpected PC action just *was* stupid.&nbsp; &quot;You can't always make chicken salad out of chicken crap&quot; as they say.Now of course if it was the former point, and your group just didn't have fun because they didn't get what they wanted... then you are well within your rights to tell them &quot;Hey dudes, F-U.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; &quot;&nbsp; If they make ridiculous decisions that by rights SHOULD blow up in their faces (like walking into an armed camp and completely thumb their nose at the chieftain of said camp)... and they get annoyed because it didn't work like they thought it should because &quot;Hey!&nbsp; We're the PCs!&nbsp; We get what we want!&quot;... then they as players need to have a little dose of reality slapped across their faces.&nbsp; And you are well within your right to tell them (or show them via play) &quot;You don't always get what you want just because you want it to and are the PCs.&nbsp; You are still just a small part of this living, breathing world that doesn't just revolve around you.&quot;&nbsp; And the sooner they learn that there are always consequences to their actions and that they can't just run roughshod over your game... the better off they will be and the more interesting the campaign as a whole will end up being.&nbsp; A game with no challenges will inevitably end up flopping much more than one where the PCs actually sometimes have to think and fight and work for what they want, and sometimes, yes, poor decisions will yield poor results.&nbsp; Then they can learn from it and move on.Best of luck with the rest of the campaign!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7138868, member: 7006"] When you say your group didn't have any fun... is that because their PCs are used to "succeeding" without any major difficulties and this time they didn't succeed; or is it because they just didn't find the actions of the chieftain, tribe, and cultists [I]interesting[/I]? There's a big difference between the two, and the answer to which would lead me (as the DM) into two very different directions. If the group just didn't find the encounter interesting... like because there was no change in the status quo, or no one made a move to have a fight, or because their actions were kept separate from what the chieftain and cultists were doing and thus their actions had no influence and it almost felt like they were watching a cut-scene to which they couldn't effect one way or the other... then in that regard I could see and agree with what you came away with to a certain extent. In that instance, you quite possibly didn't expect such a direct confrontation and thus were put back on your heels having to improvise some sort of reaction that you didn't have any plans expecting to make-- and oftentimes those improvs can be less than compelling. We often will devolve to what "makes the most sense" in the situation rather than "what will be the most interesting" for the scene. If they are in alignment with each other, then Yay! It's going to end up being an awesome and unexpected improvised resulting encounter. But if they aren't... then it could easily fall flat (which is what you appear to have felt.) So in this instance you are absolutely right that *if* we can think "outside the box" when it comes to having to quickly improvise an idea and not just default to "what makes sense"... then the scenes have a better chance to being memorable. But then again... the downside of course being that there's just as likely a chance of the scenes being "silly" or "unrealistic" or "non-sensical" as we try to improvise "interesting" results. There's never going to be a catch-all method. Sometimes improvising off the beaten path in reaction to unexpected PC action will work like gangbusters and be awesome, and sometimes it'll just end up being stupid because their unexpected PC action just *was* stupid. "You can't always make chicken salad out of chicken crap" as they say. Now of course if it was the former point, and your group just didn't have fun because they didn't get what they wanted... then you are well within your rights to tell them "Hey dudes, F-U. ;) " If they make ridiculous decisions that by rights SHOULD blow up in their faces (like walking into an armed camp and completely thumb their nose at the chieftain of said camp)... and they get annoyed because it didn't work like they thought it should because "Hey! We're the PCs! We get what we want!"... then they as players need to have a little dose of reality slapped across their faces. And you are well within your right to tell them (or show them via play) "You don't always get what you want just because you want it to and are the PCs. You are still just a [I]small[/I] part of this living, breathing world that doesn't just revolve around you." And the sooner they learn that there are always consequences to their actions and that they can't just run roughshod over your game... the better off they will be and the more interesting the campaign [I]as a whole[/I] will end up being. A game with no challenges will inevitably end up flopping much more than one where the PCs actually sometimes have to think and fight and work for what they want, and sometimes, yes, poor decisions will yield poor results. Then they can learn from it and move on. Best of luck with the rest of the campaign! [/QUOTE]

Verification