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

I've got a trilogy of modules, called The Curse of the Golden Spear: The Gift, Dim Spirit, and Dark Path, for my published Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) that have gray boxed contingencies built in, in case players want to deviate from the pre-written intended path of the adventures. One event, helping to defend a wilderness town from an assault by marauding bandits in the first module (if the PCs help) have ramifications in the second and third module - locals have heard the good they've done, so can more easily gain allies to help them in the subsequent modules. The "curse" from Curse of the Golden Spear, is also a controlling element to keep parties from straying too far off the beaten path. In the last adventure the party needs to find a way to escape while in pursuit by bands of samurai and assassins, if they choose to deviate from the prepared escape route, the gray boxed text offers alternatives. Since many of the third module's encounters occur in the wilderness, for example. You needn't change the encounters, rather move them to the path the party has taken, instead of where they were supposed to happen.

The first module is arriving, getting traveling papers and making a delivery to a specific town, castle and local noble lord with 2 optional ways of getting to the destination, because the adventure is a package delivery (which is kind of railroad) it doesn't feel like it. Since the latter two adventures involve getting off the island with many alternate avenues of escape, there's no railroad there either. Not every adventure path is a railroad, if you bulid it correctly.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I have not. I don't run published adventures unless they're pretty open.

I've read lots of them and whenever I do I think "Ok but what do you do if they players don't do one of these options?"

That is one reason I started this thread.

Attach to heroes to the story is some way. Give them an additional bond that connects somehow with the adventure NPCs, locations or events.
 

Probably a bunch of this is covered by other posters above, but I'll give this a shot. I haven't done an full level 1-16ish AP per se, although I've played and DMed some fairly long adventures. I think most APs work through a combination of player buy-in, explicit bread crumb trails, metagaming, and limiting information and resources.

First off, what do I think an AP involves? An AP is a series of scenarios that the players engage in sequence. Each scenario is basically a mini-adventure, maybe enough for 0.5 to 2.5 levels. The scenarios are often site-based, but can be event-based. So for each scenario the AP should set out the personality and resources of the NPCs. For each scenario, the goal is implicit from the AP setup, or is given by a quest-giver. Its up to the PCs on how to accomplish the goal, and the AP gives enough information for the DM to adjudicate the most likely techniques. The DM is expected to adjudicate unexpected actions by the PCs based on the personality and resources of the NPCs.
Example: In the starting scenario, a friendly NPC asks the PCs to stop raids by goblins. The AP has a map of the goblin caves and sets out enough info to handle PCs deciding to kill the goblins or bribe them to go somewhere else. In the second scenario, a band of ogres will threaten the village. The AP has a map of the fort used by the ogres, and sets out enough info to handle PCs deciding to kill the ogres or trick them into leaving.

Player buy-in. So, as a player, when I start an AP, my understanding is that unlike a sandbox where I'm driving the overall goals, I'll accept the goals set out in the adventure path. I expect that I'll either have a quest-giver as a starting condition of the adventure or encounter one early in the adventure. I know that the quest-giver often has own goals and may even eventually be an enemy, so I'll be alert to the possibility of being a patsy, but to get the ball rolling or keep it rolling I'll accept the task.
Example: The DM says "Hey guys, I'd like to DM Rise of the Runelords adventure path. It's sort of an homage to the G series, with fights against goblins, ogres and giants. Are you interested?" Players "Sure, sounds like we need multiple rangers and clerics."

Bread crumbs. Either there's fairly clear clue to the next scenario is placed at the end of the current scenario, or the quest-giver has a new task.
Example: If the PCs negotiate with the goblin chief, he says he's attacking based on orders from ogres in the West Hills. If the PCs kill the goblins and search, they find a crude letter in goblin from the ogre leader. An NPC will be able to read the language of the letter if none of the players can. If the PCs kill the goblins and burn everything to the ground or don't search, well in a few weeks a couple ogres will attack the village, and the quest-giver will ask the PCs to deal with it if they don't decide to on their own.

Metagaming. Here I think of two factors. First, there are some possible solutions to the goal that players are likely to reject based on the understanding that they are in an adventure path. Could the PCs suggest that in response to the goblins menace, the whole town should simply up and move away? Sure, it's possible. But as a player I generally expect that the AP will have the bread crumb trail, and the crumbs will start where the goblins are. So my initial choice would be to interact with the goblins somehow. Second, if we're talking 3e style adventure going from level 1 to high level, there's a pretty steep power disparity. So if I get rumors of ogres in the west hills from an NPC when I'm first level, even if I suspect there's a connection, I'm not going to investigate that yet.

Limited world-based resources. So, I think APs work when the PCs start at low level with limited magic and players don't hold a lot of information about the rest of the world and/or powerful NPCs are reasonably far away. The more well developed the world into which you attempt to slot an AP, the more likely you'll have to deal with unexpected PC actions, particularly at higher level. In a well developed campaign, you might have PCs saying "Hey, remember that white dragon we encountered, I bet it hates efreeti. It might help us." Or in Forgotten Realms, you have "Let's go ask Elminster for help." The AP assumes that starting PCs just don't have that level of knowledge and that Elminster is far away or is busy. Now, if the PCs encounter a white dragon as part of the adventure path, and later think of getting as an ally? If I'm the DM, I think that's great! If the AP doesn't address that, I'm going to adjudicate based on the personality and goals of that dragon.
Example: The village being attacked by goblins is in a generally remote area, far from large cities or any standing army of the nation, so that the PCs have to deal with the situation themselves rather than go to authorities and ask for a squad of soldiers to be sent.

Limited information. Here I mean that in order to prevent the players from jumping ahead, information about the future stages simply isn't revealed until late in a given scenario.
Example: After defeating the ogres, the PCs find out that they are under orders from hill giants. During a raid on the stedding of the hill giant chief, they encounter a frost giant embassador. Even if players know drow exist, do they have any reason to venture into the underdark?

So, back to the questions. What keeps the players on the path? Based on all these factors, for a reasonably well-crafted AP where the players have bought-in, it just isn't very likely. On a scenario-to-scenario basis, they players have accepted that they are in an AP, and are looking for quest-givers or bread crumbs, and they don't know enough yet about the overall plot to jump forward, and the level disparity should prevent them from throwing a sudden wrench in the late-game portion of the adventure path. What do you do if they players don't do one of the expected options within a scenario? Again, based on all these factors, for a reasonably well-crafted AP where the players have bought-in, it just isn't very likely. They started at 1st level so they don't have a lot of unusual resources and what they get is governed by the AP, they don't know enough about the outside world to call on unexpected resources, and they know they are in an AP and are looking for a couple straight-forward tactics to handle the goals that have been set out. If they still do something unexpected, you adjudicate the best you can based on the NPC goals and resources, just like any adventure. If they manage to advance to a late scenario out of order, that's fine, level difference will probably force them to back up. If they do manage to kill an important NPC early and unexpectedly, advance someone else from the organization or otherwise adjust the scenario.
 
Last edited:

I have not. I don't run published adventures unless they're pretty open.

I've read lots of them and whenever I do I think "Ok but what do you do if they players don't do one of these options?"

That is one reason I started this thread.
I let them go wherever they want. Usually as Bawylie mentioned, they follow the path in some fashion and get to the end somehow. Sometimes they veer off the path completely and I let them. The path will continue without them and depending on what it is about, it will impact the world to a greater or lesser degree and could affect them indirectly. Occasionally, they will veer back onto the path later on. However it happens, it's all good. So long as everyone is having fun and the story is progressing, it really doesn't matter if they stay on the path or not.
 

Players know they're playing an adventure path. They buy in to the social contract. I've never had an issue. As long as people know what type of campaign they're playing, they'll play that type of campaign.

A well-written adventure path makes this easy and natural. A less well-written adventure path doesn't.

Words of wisdom!

The bye-in is essential. When I present an adventure path campaign, I don't keep secrets about it, and I don't allow players many initial secrets either. My intro to my current Wrath of the Righteous adventure path ran something like this: This is troupe play, it is about crusaders and mercenaries facing of against hordes and hordes of demons. The adventures are geared towards paladins. You will mostly have NPCs scouting for you, and casters can expect most enemies to have spell resistance. For this game I got 1 barbarian, 2 rangers, 2 paladins (one went to America to be with his wife, the other later retconned to oracle), and one fighter. Thus, I ended up with no actual paladins, but the group is still very suitable for the missions. Alignments are NG, LG, and LN. The players all bought into the concept and really hate demons and their ilk.

For adventure 2 in this path, the players have a patron. The adventure presents this patron as very humble. Beginning the monologue that was supposed to recruit them, I got interrupted pretty early with "You got us at 'killing demons'. Just point the way!". My problem has had more to do with holding the players back from charging everything. Even in an adventure path focused on demons, there are moments when you're expected to talk.

In another game set in the future-fantasy Dragonstar setting, the players were all soldiers. Each adventure was a mission, orders came from headquarters. You can go, or you can face court martial. As this was all a part of the premise of the campaign, we all had a blast. One of my more successful games.

So, my answer is; everything lies in the bye-in. Be honest and sell the campaign for what it is, and adventure path about this and that. Try and avoid bait-and-switch, where the campaign starts on one leg and then shifts to something else entirely. This is actually a big problem with some published adventure paths; Savage Tide (which actually does this at least twice, depending on how you count), Jade Emperor, and parts 4 and 5 of Crimson Throne being prime examples. Encourage the players to make characters invested in the story - in Pazio adventure paths campaign traits help with this. If you do the foundations right, the rest will not be a problem.
 

Do your players go "Ok, we won't try that it isn't in the module?"

Or.... something else?

well if you were tracy hickman you would make an army of infinite draconians to force the players back on the right path. or you would make a mist which caused them to die if they inhale too much. or you would put them in the desert so they would die of thirst. or just kill them at a breakfast if you attended gen con.

but since you are not. and i am not. i would avoid railroading them. it is a very bad idea. and makes for bad adventures when not executed by tracy himself.
 

I'm not entirely sure why...

You come close to one other possibility, but I think you miss it by a hair on (3):

They're fully engaged with what is on the main line, and are happy with the resulting story and play, and don't *want* to pursue other avenues. They like the current storyline, and if you present them with other things, they actively choose to continue on this one, because it suits their desires. Whether it is on the rails may be irrelevant, it is the line they are invested in.

Also,

(5) & (2) Not only do many GMs not run as sandboxy a sandbox as they think - they even more often don't give players enough information to make what the players consider informed decisions. The players probably want some indication that what they choose to do is at least sensible for the world - this is likely easy to see along a main line that is presented, but not nearly so clear for any desires they draw up for themselves. It may be less that they think you cannot handle it, but more that they don't know if there's any point to pursuing a particular goal. They do not have confidence that it won't be a dead end (perhaps with emphasis on the dead part) or just unachievable.
 

But I am curious: how do you (personally) keep players on adventure paths?

Do you make sure there's always an overriding in-world imperative?

Are your players just used to it and so make sure they're doing something that's part
the story?

Do your players go "Ok, we won't try that it isn't in the module?"

Or.... something else?

In our Pathfinder games, we almost exclusively use Adventure Paths, which are built with tons of plot hooks to ensure PCs are invested in seeing the plot onward, in the form of vibrant NPCs and campaign Traits. So for the most part, we don't need much prodding, we have an understanding that Main Plot trumps all but small side quests.

In my 5E games, I run it rather loosely, but I usually find some way to route the game events back into the main plot, which keeps my players from feeling railroaded, but at the same time keeps me from having to plan for literally EVERY eventuality. I try to give them interesting threads, and it just so happens that a lot of those threads have skeins that unknot in the direction of the big plot...
 

As I and other posters have mentioned player buy-in is crucial. And I mean genuine informed buy-in.

Situations can arise where players say they agree to play a module or adventure path, and but their actions in the campaign contradict this. This can arise for a number of reasons, including players not consciously knowing their own tastes, not caring about the issues the referee/other players are invested in, being bored, changing their minds, etc. Players typically spend less time working out their opinions on such matters than referees and the forum posters here do, and RPG concepts can get pretty complicated.

The first few sessions of a campaign are important for setting the tone of the whole enterprise. I find it useful to monitor the players, particularly those who may harbour reservations about the game, so that if anyone starts acting out or passive aggressive it's spotted quickly and can be discussed privately outside of game time.

Adventure paths involve a significant investment in time and emotion for all involved. There is often player attrition, especially early on, as players discover the campaign isn't for them, for whatever reason. Player turnover is a common feature of long lasting games, with old players leaving, and new players being recruited.

The nature of the game can change over time, as can individual people's tastes, so sometimes formerly happy players become dissatisfied and leave.

To conclude, player buy-in needs to be genuine, which is ultimately demonstrated by how they play the game.
 

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?

As long as the AP is reasonably well developed, I don't find this much of a problem. If I know what the main plot threads are, what the main actors are like, I can usually come up with a way to handle PCs doing unexpected things. This is one reason I usually don't start running an AP until I've read the whole thing. I'll foreshadow things coming up in order to generate player interest.

If, for example, they avoid investigating what happened to Meadowtown and infiltrate the goblin camp, I have a pretty good idea how the goblins relate to the main plots of the AP. I can blend in hooks back to the overall plot that fit that and help players make the connections they need to make to reveal and interact with the AP's plot.
 

Remove ads

Top