How "alive" should the world be - outside the scope of the PCs?

[Mort]

One common piece of advise to DMs - make sure the PCs experience the world as a living world.

This generally means make sure the PCs see that the world exists outside of them - things happen and progress whether the PCs are involved or not.

The question then, is how far should this be taken?

Say the PCs, early in their adventuring career learn of a hermit outside the city building a strange machine. They have other things going on, however, and don't bother with this hook. The DMs gives the PCs updates on the hermit's progress through other NPCs, snippets heard, etc - as they go up in level.

As the PCs get high level, the hermit is completing his machine, which the PCs have learned is a doomsday device. The PCs decide they have better things to do (let the king, rival adventurers etc. handle the hermit) and pursue something else. How justified is the DM in blowing up the world, right with the PCs on it?

Is the better answer, do it - but make sure the PCs are "off world" so they have to clean up the mess they made but are not "directly affected" (where directly affected means dead - they still likely lost most of their stuff and connections)?

Obviously, this is too heavy handed where the actual goal is fun for the players (Though, I'd love to see the result of the players showing up and the DM opening the session with "Well, so you're all dead...") but I think this is best discussed with an initial extreme example.


Thoughts?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You shouldn’t blow up the world on an ignored plot hook if the players haven’t been given full warning that that is the consequence of inaction.

 

[Mort]

You shouldn’t blow up the world on an ignored plot hook if the players haven’t been given full warning that that is the consequence of inaction.

I tend to agree, just wanted to set an extreme example.

The reality is the example wouldn't be fun for the players and as such isn't really a great idea in practice. But the point is, how far do you take the concept of "living world?"

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me?

Things keep moving to their logical conclusions. If we are talking world-shattering consequences, I would have NPC analogs of the party deal with it...and as a result, THEY get the plum jobs. The PCs get leftovers.


...until their rivals fail.

 

[Celebrim]

Sufficient for the players to feel that the PC's actions have meaning and lasting consequence, but perhaps not so alive that the players don't feel the PC's actions have meaning and lasting consequence.

 

[Sunseeker]

You shouldn’t blow up the world on an ignored plot hook if the players haven’t been given full warning that that is the consequence of inaction.

I disagree, to an extent. I agree that if the players don't pick up the quest from the scruffy doomsayer on the street which was set up to be the lead-in quest to "God of Death Destroys the World", yeah, just leave that little gear alone. But at some point the party needs to "get it" without the DM bluntly telling them "if you ignore this quest the game is basically over because noone will stop DeathGod. No, reasonably speaking it's up to the DM to give enough in-world hints that bowing out before the final bell is a bad idea, if the players aren't "getting it" because it hasn't been reasonably laid out within the game world, yeah that's the DMs fault and the Table should probably talk about that.

Otherwise, there are better alternatives to just pressing the "pause" button on a major questline. Like, having an NPC group of adventurers resolve the situation. It both denies the players the ability to "come back later" and also shows them what they're missing out on by calling it quits early. Or potentially having a worse bad guy defeat the lesser evil and now there's an even bigger problem, but that's still got the "wheels in motion, spiraling out of control" problem without player input.

----------

@OP, in my games, the world is more alive the closer players get to it and the larger the element of the gameworld is. IE: the people of Townsville are more detailed when the players interact with the, but their day-to-day routine, which the players may witness up close, gets ignored in my larger world when the players aren't around. Large elements like political dealings between kingdoms take place, so a war make break out, or get settled in a far away land even without the players involved, but the specific details (who started it, how bad it was, which prince betrayed who) don't get filled in until the players get close to the events.

Think of it like zooming out on Google Maps. The further away you get, the less detail is written on the map.

 

[Bawylie]

For me, stuff that isn't "on screen" isn't relevant. If it is relevant, I'd better find a way to get it on screen.

Otherwise, I find more benefit in consistency than I do in constant changes. The most obvious benefit is that when lots of stuff remains constant, rare changes stand out. I use that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jhaelen]

As the PCs get high level, the hermit is completing his machine, which the PCs have learned is a doomsday device. The PCs decide they have better things to do (let the king, rival adventurers etc. handle the hermit) and pursue something else. How justified is the DM in blowing up the world, right with the PCs on it?

Given that blowing up the world will probably end your campaign, you should only do it, if that's exactly what you want to do!

If you'd prefer to continue your campaign, describe the initial effects that the doomsday device has upon the world, e.g. have it destroy a neighbouring country (or even their homebase), i.e. something that will drive home the point that they'd better deal with it personally, posthaste.

Alternatively, if you aren't really interested in the PCs dealing with the doomsday device, have npc forces succeed to eliminate the threat, but make them feel the consequences (either as above or by having them fall from favor, i.e. the npcs become the new heroes).

In my campaigns I always try to create more adventure hooks than the PCs can deal with. They must decide on their priorities (or preferences). Basically, the hooks that they aren't interested in get resolved in some way without their participation, and those they want to deal with at some later point, develop further or escalate until they're prepared to tackle them.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Having recurring NPCs and the like helps bring the campaign world to life, absolutely. Things should happen as a result of the PCs actions (or inaction). But whatever happens should be fun, interesting, and/or exciting for the PCs. I always operate under the assumption that the PCs are the protagonists of the campaign.

But there will always be hooks that die on the vine. Something as extreme as blowing up the world comes close to the DM punishing the PCs for not doing what the DM wanted them to do. If the PCs would much rather track down that vampire than deal with the hermit, so be it. If the DM is so attached to the world-destroying device, maybe the vampire turns out to be manipulating the hermit to create the device.

On the other side, most players should know the plot hook for the adventure when they see it. If the DM says there’s a doomsday device, has been laying out hints for session after session, then chances are this is what the DM had planned for the session. Just as a DM should avoid railroading, players should avoid sabotaging the DM’s hard work.

The middle ground of this is that the DM should always try to find that sweet spot of what the players enjoy and what the DM enjoys, and focus adventures there.

 

[Eltab]

If the PCs are invited to a fancy ball on Friday, but instead head into the nearby dungeon for a three-day weekend, when they return to town they should hear about the awesome party that they missed. Whoever invited them will be mad / embarrassed, gossip springs up, maybe somebody pulled a fast one in the PCs' absence.
NPCs with major plots get in a few days' work.
BBEG notices and schemes how to use the PCs to get rid of a pesky meddler, or how to distract them at a critical moment.

But don't blow up the world because the PCs cannot be everywhere at once. Make sure that what they decide to do, has an impact on the world (hopefully for the better).