How Do You Get Your Players To Stay On An Adventure Path?

[cavesalamander]

Like, if your players think up a tactic not accounted for in the module then solve the bad guy problem in a way not anticipated then a whole chain of events planned for that path is derailed and you're not on the path anymore, right?

Let's say that happens. What are your options as DM?

1) Use the heavy-handed approach: "That doesn't work. You can't do that." Not a good idea. Nobody's happy with that approach.

2) Throw out the rest of the path. "Well, there goes $20 out the window!" If the DM is good at winging things, this could still lead to a fun night at the table, but deep inside the DM will be disappointed. They no doubt had high hopes for the campaign, and its pretty much just been shot to hell.

3) Figure out a way to keep the AP moving forward, even if its in a slightly different direction that previously planned. Each path comes full of maps, monsters and villanous NPCs that can still be used, even if the big bad guy in charge of everything has been taken care of prematurely. The least elegant method just has a different bad guy picking up the reigns and continuing on as before ('The wife was the power behind the throne the whole time, who knew?!')

This should all come with the caveat that I've never run an adventure path so I'm not speaking from actual play experience here.

 

[Celebrim]

Like, if your players think up a tactic not accounted for in the module then solve the bad guy problem in a way not anticipated then a whole chain of events planned for that path is derailed and you're not on the path anymore, right?

In general, that's not a problem. Most of the path stays usable. You just have to improvise more.

Storminator's humorous example above is not what you do.

And in Savage Tide particularly, it's not even necessary to stonewall players like that. The next section of the adventure path is very open world and expects the PC's to explore widely, so the content that they skipped remains in play. The journey across the island doesn't advance the story much so skipping it is really just skipping grindy content meant to level the PC's up (one my biggest problems with the 1-20 AP concept). You can if you need to always create new hooks to give them a reason to explore that area, and if not you can always improvise grindy content if you need to.

In particular, the PC's aren't actually behaving very rationally either. There are NPC survivors that they'd be abandoning on the beach if they took to the sea, and PC's of that level simply can't sea journey effectively. A potion? Are you serious? Trying to swim 200 miles to shelter without a guide as a dolphin in sea dragon infested waters? It won't take them long to think better of that, and even if it doesn't, I can improvise content about that journey just fine. My biggest fear would be that the players are heading to a TPK trying to get off the rails in a very irrational manner.

Most of the time, the path allows for detours or short cuts.

 

[pemerton]

That word "clearly"--that's what I'm asking about.

What makes it "clear"?

I've seen so many adventures where a wide variety of solutions is obviously possible and the module itself only addresses 1 or 2 options, and often ones that don't seem obvious.

Good thread, good questions. I don't run APs so can't really offer any answers.

 

[delericho]

Like there's a Save The World plot with NPCs pointing the way...

That's what most of the Paizo paths do, at least initially - the PCs get drawn into the plot because some friendly NPC asks them to look into some issue, and then the next one, and the next.

A lot of the paths (and the individual adventures therein) also work by giving the PCs a bunch of objectives for the adventure, but then leave it to them how to solve them - in general, the better the adventure the more open it is to different approaches.

Finally, the level-based nature of D&D (and especially 3e and Pathfinder) means that it's actually very difficult for the PCs to totally derail the BBEG's plans early on - the villains tend to be nested like Russian dolls, and it isn't until quite late on that the PCs even become aware of the end-boss, never mind having the ability to truly inconvenience him/her/it.

 

[N'raac]

Much like maintaining party harmony, keeping a party on track requires some cohesiveness to the group. If the group has agreed that we will play this AP where we become pirates and sail the seven seas in pursuit of plunder, bringing in Percy the Pure Hearted Paladin without any reason or expectation he will become a pirate is a breach of the social contract.

Saying "hey, bring in whatever" is how we get to try and run a game for Percy and his buddy, Carl the Cleric of Light as they work with a pyromaniac sorcerer who only wants to burn things down, a conniving Rogue out for #1 first, foremost and only, and Marvin the Mercenary Murderhobo Fighter.

 

[N'raac]

But even published adventure paths don't always signal "This Strategy Is Not Part Of The Path"--so what techniques do you use to signal to players what is and isn't on the path?

Like if they go "Ok we sneak into the goblin camp using an illusion" do you just go "That's not on the path, investigate what happened to MeadowTown instead"? How does it work?

You seem to be looking for very specific answers to very generic questions. OK, the players want to sneak into the goblin camp. Is it written up as part of the AP? Then they are now sneaking through the goblin camp using an illusion, and I can adjudicate what happens using the writeup of the goblin camp.

Is it not written up? Then why are they near a goblin camp to sneak into it in the first place? Assuming they are near a goblin camp that, for some inexplicable reason, the published scenario assumes they will just ignore, then I hopefully have thought "WTF? Why would the players ignore the goblin camp??" and either removed it entirely, replaced it with something else they won't see a need to investigate, provided reasons for them to see some urgency to moving on to MeadowTown or written up the goblin camp so I am able to adjudicate what happens using the writeup of the goblin camp.

What if 3 PC's continue on to MeadowTown and two slip into the Goblin Camp under an illusion. Even sandboxes tend to find a split party a pain in the posterior. Hey. maybe we give them seven different choices and they each pick a different one, going their separate ways. Won't that be fun to run? Every game faces these possibilities. You run with it as a GM.

Hey, what if they look at all seven choices, say "my, those sound dangerous and uncomfortable - let's go back to town and open up a tea shoppe instead", how do you run that? At some point, the players need to take an adventure hook, or there will be no adventure. "You found a tea shoppe. It is quite successful, eventually building branches throughout the continent. You all become rich beyond imagination, sire many sons and eventually die peacefully in your sleep after long, happy and completely adventure-free lives." The next party can even coincidentally meet in the local branch of the Five Halflings Who Avoided Adventure All Their Lives Tea Shoppe instead of the cliché tavern, from whence they will begin lives that hopefully have more adventure in them.

In an AP, they might well investigate the goblin camp, and find some further indication of why they should go to MeadowTown. Or they have now dealt with those distracting goblins, so on to MeadowTown (as they had nowhere better to go). Or they have the loot from that goblin camp, including 7 bolts of fine silk and a mahogany dining room suite. My, they are heavy. And we need more provisions. And arrows. Where can we go? Well, the closest settlement of any size is MeadowTown, so off we go to unload this loot and reprovision.

Like, if your players think up a tactic not accounted for in the module then solve the bad guy problem in a way not anticipated then a whole chain of events planned for that path is derailed and you're not on the path anymore, right?

It's tough to provide a specific answer without a specific question...Let's assume that the BBG, for some inexplicable reason, rides a horse past the PC's in the start of the AP. Despite not knowing he is destined to become the BBG, Claude the Chaotic decides to "waste him with my crossbow", and rolls a critical hit for max damage killing off the BBG instantly. "Oh well, throw out those six modules at Page 3 because it's all over?" Probably not. More likely, some other member of the organization steps into that BBG's shoes, Claude is hauled off to justice by Percy Paladin, his player leaves the group because "player agency is violated when players other than me exercise it" or some such nonsense, and we carry on, with the "BBG" just a footnote.

If the BBG was Lolth, Queen of the Spiders, I'm guessing she does not make an appearance before our novice L1 adventurers, and if she does, and is attacked, perhaps the NEXT party will demonstrate more common sense.

Most of the AP's (which are a pretty recent innovation over the old 32 page module) provide guidelines on what to do if something unexpected happens, like a key NPC dying at an inopportune time (or surviving when he wasn't expected to). If not, they provide lots of overall detail, so putting the plot back on the rails is far from impossible.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think knowing what’s the “clear” plot of an adventure is something that comes with age and experience, too. I’ve noticed that in playing at conventions where some people bring their kids to play, the kids tend to be the ones that are all over the place, getting bogged down with exploring minutiae and tangents. With experience, I think good players can recognize the direction and flow of the adventure.

With situations where the PCs come up with novel solutions and approaches not in the written adventure, that’s when a good DM bends to the ideas of the players, not the mandates of the module. It may mess something up later down the line, but running a module should never be a straitjacket experience. If I have to rewrite the final part of the module because they somehow converted the high priest of Asmodeus to worship Pelor, so be it.

 

[Bawylie]

Then in what sense are you playing the adventure path?

Like, if your players think up a tactic not accounted for in the module then solve the bad guy problem in a way not anticipated then a whole chain of events planned for that path is derailed and you're not on the path anymore, right?

I guess under a strict or literal interpretation. But I believe an AP is a bit like a map, really. It has outlined the most common routes to the destination, but so long as the players are still going toward that destination, they're still "on the map."

I'm taking a road trip to Los Angeles. I can take the 91 or the 10. Or the train. Or a plane. Heck I can walk. But even if I choose a non-traditional method of reaching my destination, I'm still on a trip to Los Angeles. If I take a detour to Disneyland and hang out there for a few days, doing whatever the heck I want to do, it doesn't mean I'm abandoning my trip to LA.

But if you only allow for "physical movement toward destination" as your definition of road trip, thereby excluding stopping for gas, food, and scenic detours, I don't think you're quite with the spirit of the thing.

Just so with APs. If your (general you, here) definition of AP is exclusively linear progress toward a single outcome, I think you (general) may have missed the point of using APs.

 

[Bawylie]

I once played a game of Clue with a guy who'd never played before. It was like a life sized Clue game as a church fund raiser. We had the rooms all done out and props, and the youth group played the "pieces" in character. But there were teams that "controlled" them as players. It was a neat night, kind of a mix of wine & cheese with big collections for the homeless. Whatever.

So on round one. The guy who'd never played before made an accusation with a place, person, and weapon that weren't in his team's hand. None of the other teams had any cards to show. He'd inadvertently guessed the solution on the first go.

The game was up. He got it.

We all laughed and played again. Now I bring this up to illustrate the point that sometimes players just outright win. Maybe through cleverness, or luck, or whatever. But that doesn't mean they didn't play the game. They did and they deserve their victory.

Did it matter that they got it right in round one? No. We just played again. Does it matter if the players think up something so clever they win the scenario? No. Good on them. Well done. Here's XP. Want to play something else now? Or keep these characters and move on to the next AP (this one is about the temple of elemental evil)? Sounds good, let's play.

 

[Aenghus]

I've run adventure paths before, and have some opinions on how to do so effectively.

First, you need players willing to play through an adventure path, and PCs who suit the genre and themes of that path. Adventure paths often assume more or less heroic protagonists and may have insufficient motivation for more mercenary or vicious parties. Super proactive players who like burning down settings may not work for adventure path play. Conversely, adventure paths for mercenary types might not suit more heroic parties.

The adventures in adventure paths may vary in quality, genre and usefulness a lot, due to different authors, bad writing, time constraints etc. The last few adventures in an adventure path often suffer from such problems, being high level and poorly playtested if at all, authors being aware that players often won't get to the last few adventures and not for some time after the module is published. I often highly modify adventures or harvest individual adventures for parts.

I try and pick an adventure path that will suit existing PCs, or arrange PC creating to suit the path. Even so I customise the individual adventures to suit the PC's individual and group goals, and the setting I use.

Adventure paths need reasonable PC continuity, either due to a low casualty rate or the PCs all being associated with some institution(s), group(s) or faction(s) that will provide replacement PCs and archive campaign lore. A TPK or even a casualty or two can derail an adventure path, if the party loses vital information, or the players fail a morale check. Early casualties don't matter as much, as the party haven't accumulated history, the parties paranoia will be at a low level and replacements are easy to justify. Further on in the adventure path, it can be more difficult as people miss the old PC, lose some of his or her personal plotlines, and trusting a new PC can be difficult to justify. Further, the replacement PC is likely a new class, possibly creating capability gaps in the party and new vulnerabilities.

There's no guarantee that the adventure path will be played to the end. Nowadays I'm very suspicious of any game making the players/PCs suffer now with the promise held over their heads that things will be great later in the campaign. There may never be a later, and a referee who can't run a fun game now may not be able to do it later either. Don't postpone the fun, make as much as possible fun right now for the players, based on their feedback and interests. If everyone is having fun they are less likely to try and run away from the adventure, and will be easier to get back on track when they do.

Flexibility is important. Try and anticipate the capabilities of the PCs and actions of the players and even when the players do something that will derail things to a greater or lesser extent, try and roll with the punches. You can always rewrite, add more bad guys, a second boss behind the first. This is where system mastery helps, for games that use mechanics as a primary resolution method. High level adventures often have gaping plot holes though the author not understanding the possibilities of high level magic, or capabilities of high level adventurers. The referee has to patch these as best he can, or throw the flawed adventure out.

Depending on time constraints, enemy bosses can be tweaked to fit the backstories of some of the PCs.

Sometimes you might need to nudge a player or players in certain directions, and this won't work for those players who immediately head in the opposite direction (barring reverse psychology, which is risky). Active cooperation from players is generally better than an old school adversarial game IMO - I imagine the latter is possible but may be more episodic.

I generally do pare down player decision trees for the big decisions to those supported by the adventure path. By this I mean if the path assumes, for instance, the players will go left or right at a certain point, I ask the players if they go left or right, not "what do you do?". A certain amount of closed question, directed/railroaded GMing may be necessary sometimes - avoid this when possible but accept the necessity when it arises. Players need to buy into this.

I hope this helps.