Giving up on the Quest

[Stormborn]

It seems like most of the DnD games my group plays involve, whether the PCs/players know it initially or not, a Quest (capitol Q) of some kind. IOW there is an end goal that will eventually be revealed and one or several ways to accomplish it. It might be destroy an artifact, recover an artifact, defeat a specific person/group, stop an invasion or other calamity, etc. It doesn’t matter if its pure homebrew or prewritten module or what, there is always a Quest.

I'm a little tired of it.

I realize that other people probably play this way all the time, but the next time I run a campaign (which will likely be a few months) I intended to have the players start out as 1st level characters in a very simple setting with little details fleshed out beyond what they absolutely need to know. Things will happen to challenge them, but there will be no Quest. The goblins that raid the livestock aren't going to be the vanguard of an invading horde, the corrupt mayor isn’t going be the pawn of a secret society, and the world isn’t about to end.

I want the game to be player driven and PC focused. With that in mind I am going to implement some other things (setting classes and races ranked by rarity so that players can be pretty much whatever they want but they have to have a good reason for it; no high level NPCs and no such thing as "adventurers"; in game reasons for the PCs to be unique; limited access to magic items so that wealth can be spent on more than just adventuring gear; campaign level cap with slower progression to maintain that "Sweet spot" for the group; PCs tied to the setting by family, relationships, history,etc.) but my goal is to make it about the players being proactive, making decisions about what they want to be and do, and how it affects their tiny corner of the world. If the PCs go on a quest it will be because they decide to do so.

So my questions:

Do you ever feel this way?
What have you done about it?
How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

 

[maddman75]

First and foremost, talk to your players about this. You might not anticipate it, but some players will reject the notion of being the driving force of the game. They *want* to find the Quest, and if it isn't there they are going to get frustrated.

The way I feel about it is that I honestly don't plan out that far ahead. I worry about having a good game *tonight*. So maybe the goblin raiders aren't part of a larger gathering horde. Or maybe they are. I'll see what the players do and then decide what would be coolest.

Of course if they say they want to be proactive but aren't used to it, its easy to get them into that mode. This isn't just about them putting in effort, its also you stopping the urge to control things. In a quest style game the GM controls the setting and sets up a lot of If X happens Then Y Else Z. Let that go. Create a dilemma, some situation that doesn't have a clear-cut answer and see what they do with it. Avoid good guys and bad guys if at all possible.

Another way to really get them involved is to use these dilemmas to set up moral problems. You aren't asking "Can the heroes overcome the foes" as in the quest game. You're asking "What kind of character is this hero?" Perhaps the evil villian is threatens an innocent - has a dagger to their throat and is about to escape. Do they go after the villian anyway, risking the person's life in order to get their man, or do they let him go for now if they can save a life?

Even in a player-driven game, you can't expect to just sit back and let the players come up with everything. Throw encounters at them, see where they take it. Be prepared to wing A LOT. This style has a lot less prep work, but a lot more work to run. I find it more satisfying.

 

[frankthedm]

First and foremost, talk to your players about this. You might not anticipate it, but some players will reject the notion of being the driving force of the game. They *want* to find the Quest, and if it isn't there they are going to get frustrated.

Indeed. Some of us want our goals to be at the end of a flowchart disguised as a stone deathtrap infested with monsters. Most times gripping character driven drama makes s me grip the remote as i change the channel.

 

[Stormborn]

Indeed. Some of us want our goals to be at the end of a flowchart disguised as a stone deathtrap infested with monsters. Most times gripping character driven drama makes s me grip the remote as i change the channel.

Yeah, but not the people I play with. I'm not overly worried about them wanting to be all about the character driven drama, I know they will be whether I want it or not. I am mainly concerned about the "how to" portion since my habit is to be, as maddman75 said (and good thoughts there maddman BTW), is to say "The villain will try to do X, if the PCs do Y it will try Z."

Other thoughts?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Work more on creating the NPC around them, and figuring out what those people do. Then create scenarios that dovetail with that, always trying to keep the "adventure" in some way related to the characters.

One thing I did that worked really well (and stolen from god knows where) is to have each player create three NPC's that were important in some way to their character. One (at least) had to be a rival, though not necessarily a deadly one. Then I tried to weave thos NPC's into the story.

Another thing that will help is keeping the campaign localized - if you have everything take place around one town/city/castle you'll be able to keep the PC's plausibly involved and the players and PCs will become more invested in the world.

I try to have my adventures not be "save the world" adventures - at least not to start. They may be "save the town" or "solve the mystery" but not earth-shattering until they get much more powerful.

 

[maddman75]

Yeah, but not the people I play with. I'm not overly worried about them wanting to be all about the character driven drama, I know they will be whether I want it or not. I am mainly concerned about the "how to" portion since my habit is to be, as maddman75 said (and good thoughts there maddman BTW), is to say "The villain will try to do X, if the PCs do Y it will try Z."

Other thoughts?

If you're interested, I've written up some of my gaming theory on my blog. You may find it interesting.

I know some techniques from the indie-RPG scene that can help. I don't buy into every theory there, but some of the tools can be useful.

Kickers are backgrounds that propel the PC into action. A kicker isn't just a brief description of who the character was, but provides a plot hook that demands resolution. The more vauge and open to interpretation by the GM, the better. "My father is dead" is a part of background, but not a kicker because it doesn't direct the PC to any action. "I'm hunting for the man who killed my father" is, because it carries the assumption that the PC is looking for revenge. "My father died mysteriously, and I'm looking for his former business partner who may know something about it" is even better, because that leaves things open to the GM. Maybe the partner killed him, maybe the father killed himself. Maybe the partner knows who the killer is and is hunting him down.

Bangs are moments of decision, where we find out what kind of person the character is. A good example would be in Spider Man, when the Green Goblin drops a bus full of kids off one side of a bridge and the woman he loves off the other. (Only don't be a Hollywood wussy and let him save both - in the comic, Spider-man saved the kids.)

Flag-framing is one I haven't used, but sounds promising. Hand each player a highlighter at the end of the game, and tell them to circle three things they like the best about their character. Could be anything - a favorite weapon, a skill, a feat or spell, or even their alignment, height, or weight. Note these down and when you're running your game, try to hit these flags - put in a situation where it will be useful. Players will love you for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you ever feel this way?
What have you done about it?
How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

I've done games vaguely similar. They key is to get to know the characters' individual stories, so they have individual goals and shared goals that can motivate them.

Pay attention to character background. Pay attention to the characters' history. Pay attention to the characters' life goals.

For instance, if the character just wants to run a successful dirt farm, you know, as a DM, to introduce threats to the dirt farm. If the character wants to join the watch, you know you need to work out the challenges the watch faces. If the character lost a family to a dark sorcerer's meddling, you probably want that dark sorcerer and perhaps a magic sword so that the character can wreak vengeance. You probably want to know who the characters are related to -- if they have brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers. You don't need to threaten them with monsters, but challenges can arise from them: maybe one character's older sister is the favored of the house and the character is out to prove themselves. Maybe one character's mother is doting and bakes the PC's cookies. Maybe one has an uncle that went off to become a Knight of the Realm.

Character drama is driven by their connections to other characters. Make the PC's connected to a web of local NPC's, and to each other (maybe two are married, maybe two are siblings, maybe two just grew up together very close). Throw in monsters once in a while, but focus more on what they need to do to render their achievements, and throw in threats to those achievements.

 

[gizmo33]

The challenge IME with an open-ended game is that, without a quest to focus the players, they can wander off on various tangents and in multiple different directions. Since, especially later in my life, I have only a limited amount of time spent on gaming, it helps make things more interesting if the group has a goal. It doesn't matter to me so much as a DM if the players define the goal or if the DM does. Also, much like real life, without some extraordinary event occuring to the character, there's really no reason that the PC(s) shouldn't sit around and watch TV all day (or drink ale and watch the party bard make perform checks all day). Extremely ambitious and aggressive PCs could always turn to a life of crime. Bottom line IMO is that DnD is an adventure game, and while one could make it a "Medieval Sim City" type thing, I think the game works best when events are of a greater than normal significance, and a quest is such an event.

As a player I prefer not to be railroaded, so I like to pick my own quest. But it's still a quest - even if it's just to see what's over the next hill.

 

[Arkhandus]

Do you ever feel this way?
What have you done about it?
How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

Eh, not really. I haven't been actively roleplaying long enough to get tired of big quests and dungeon crawls and other such tropes. I still find them enjoyable.

That said, knowing my own strengths and weaknesses (and my preference for not being stupidly/obstinately railroaded, as opposed to discreetly and/or cleverly railroaded), the campaigns I run are generally free or nearly-free of railroading and big plots. My first campaign had an overall plot that was going to become apparent to the group over time, but allowed for plenty of free-roaming. That group fell apart from scheduling issues though.

My Rhunaria campaigns so far have been largely about exploration, character development, and personal quests. The party started out each time with a short adventure that would bring them together and give them a bit of unity as a group, so they'd have a reason to go adventuring together. And after that it's been entirely a matter of taking the campaign wherever the PCs feel like going at any given time. One way or another, adventure finds them or they seek out adventure for themselves.

Sometimes that's just been 'looking around town for any adventure or job opportunities', but most of the time the groups have found something personal to pursue. I figure out and present adventure hooks, and just let the PCs roam where they feel like and pursue whatever jobs or adventures they want to, which eventually leads to personal quests or goals, one way or another (usually as I just adapt to whatever they're doing at the moment, or when they pass through some place or meet someone that strikes up their interest).

 

[(contact)]

Do you ever feel this way?
What have you done about it?
How would you run a game that encourages players to be proactive, and how do you teach them to be that way if they say they want to be but do not know how?

Yes, I ran my Liberation of Tenh game this way-- the characters had just reached 9th level, and we were looking for a change of pace. I took over DMing chores, and my preferred DM style is player-driven plotting.

Even a player-centric game is going to need concrete goals-- difficult, time-consuming, multiple-adventure goals (i.e. a quest). If your players are knowledgeable about the campaign world, they may be able to pull political or appropriately high-level long term goals out of the setting (i.e "Free Tenh").

Otherwise, you're going to need to throw a lot of hooks at them in the form of rumors, NPCs and Big Happenings.

Remember, sometimes their reactions can show you what they think of a setting/location/NPC/hook even if they don't explicitly say, "let's go kick THAT guy's a-s!" You may have to slow-pitch them some adventures early on, until they get a sense that they really are in charge of their destinies.

Big Happenings are the most critical, IMO, because they represent the campaign world as it evolves without the PCs interferance. If a couple hundred refugees show up in your quiet little town one day, that's an adventure hook. Who displaced them? What does it mean for the group? For the world?

Without putting a huge monstrous conspiracy behind every event (a staple of many D&D campaigns, all the way back to the G-D-Q series), the world still has chains of political and environmental cause-and-effect, and offering the group free rein as to where they want to dive in to that cause-and-effect goodness is what the player-driven game is all about.

One trick I used with quite a bit of sucess is to stat up two or three encounters appropriate to the party's level, and just keep them around for when things bog down and a fight needs to happen. Usually, if you're careful, you can tie it into whatever plotline they are interested in at the time.

If you're quick-thinking, and can re-skin an encounter "theme" on the fly, you can also use these pre-prepared battle royales to buy yourself enough time to prepare location-based adventures (once the intrepid adventurers have finally decided, "yes, we really do need to go attack the Citadel of the Stone Raven") by filling up the remainder of a session with a couple of tough fights you'd prepped earlier.

When the next sesson rolls around, you've had time to prepare your location, and everyone wins.




Except the monsters.