Keeping control of your game while keeping illusion of liberty

[Pbartender]

So, I skimmed through this piece of work, and while can I agree to a certain degree with the basic premise -- "How to maintain minimal basic control of the game plot, while preserving the illusion of the player's unlimited freedom of choice." -- I completely disagree on the emphasis of the article, and his suggested solutions.

He focuses on how to contain the players, so that they can't get away from an adventure they really don't want to play. This only leads to angry and frustrated players.

Instead, he should be focusing on how to adapt the plot hooks and adventures that you want the players to play into something that the player are also willing to play... done carefully, a flexible and imaginative DM can have a half dozen different plot hooks that are tailor made to entice the party into six slightly different variations of the same adventure. To the players it should look as if they have -- and a truly convincing DM will let them believe that they do -- many options, but behind the screen it ends up being the same basic adventure no matter which choice they make.

It's insidious and rather deceptive on the DM's part, but you'd be surprised how well it can work, so long as the players don't find out...

 

[Stoat]

The smartest thing I ever did as a DM was to stop starting my games with adventure hooks.

I end my games with adventure hooks.

At the end of every session, I make it a point to find out what the PC's want to do next. If we don't have time to talk about it in person, we figure out using email and the messageboard. Then, when we sit down to play, I know what they're expecting to do, and I've had a chance to prep for it.

I cannot recommend it enough.

 

[Pbartender]

The smartest thing I ever did as a DM was to stop starting my games with adventure hooks.

I end my games with adventure hooks.

At the end of every session, I make it a point to find out what the PC's want to do next. If we don't have time to talk about it in person, we figure out using email and the messageboard. Then, when we sit down to play, I know what they're expecting to do, and I've had a chance to prep for it.

I cannot recommend it enough.

Incidentally, you can gather the same information by carefully listening to their planning sessions at the table... That alone will give you a good compass for where they intend to go and what they intend to do next. Plus, you can often use their discarded ideas and plans to tie in forehead-smacking revelations and clues for subplots and such later -- that makes it seem as if you had alternate adventures and plots planned at the time, with little extra effort and despite the fact that you didn't actually.

Listen close to the OOC table talk when they plan a course of action, and take good notes. Then, adjust your preferred adventure to fit in with the players' plans.

 

[LostSoul]

To bring some 4e stuff into this, I think the quest system will handle this problem well. Just ask the players to come up with some quests, to go along with some that you have prepared yourself, and there you go.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...objecting to is the advice that it's better to try and manipulate the people playing D&D with you instead of just talking to them...

Thank you, yes, this is what I was (vehemently) saying.

 

[buzz]

He focuses on how to contain the players, so that they can't get away from an adventure they really don't want to play. This only leads to angry and frustrated players.

This is the bigger issue, for me, than the whole prep discussion; there are plenty of RPGs that are low- to no-prep. But this article assumes that the GMs job is to herd players along a pre-defined plot, and thus it's "solving" a problem that really shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the whole group isn't on the same page about what's going to be played out that session, they really need to stop and talk to each other. As Pb implies above, the session should focus on stuff the players clearly want to be doing. Even with a heavily plotted, published adventure product, it should be clear to everyone that hey, this is what we're all going to play tonight.

 

[buzz]

To bring some 4e stuff into this, I think the quest system will handle this problem well. Just ask the players to come up with some quests, to go along with some that you have prepared yourself, and there you go.

QFT.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm going to go against the flow here (nothing new)

I don't see any legitimate cause to scream "railroad" here. He just gave a list of obstacles to put in the way of PCs to help focus an adventure. Obstacles are part of the game and having a variety of them so you don't get bored is a good thing. Nowhere did he say that you should put barrier after barrier in front of the players to frustrate them in their goals. Barriers are a natural part of play. The PCs don't get to go to jump to the moon just because the players think it would be neat. It might be cool in some games, but in others it would break genre, and it's the DMs job to put his foot down in such a case.

And while "talking to your players" OOC is a good solution for most things, in this cases it sucks. My greatest enjoyment in RPGs is exploration and having it cut off OOC sucks the fun right out of the game for me. On the other hand a barrier that's logical and in-genre is just part of the game.

I remember telling the players "don't go there - I haven't written that part of the dungeon yet" as a new DM. With more experience I learned that that wasn't fun for either me or my players and started other approaches.

YMMV of course.

 

[S'mon]

And while "talking to your players" OOC is a good solution for most things, in this cases it sucks. My greatest enjoyment in RPGs is exploration and having it cut off OOC sucks the fun right out of the game for me. On the other hand a barrier that's logical and in-genre is just part of the game.

I remember telling the players "don't go there - I haven't written that part of the dungeon yet" as a new DM. With more experience I learned that that wasn't fun for either me or my players and started other approaches.

I think if the players reach a part of the dungeon you haven't written, you've screwed up. But if you've prepped a module, the players have agreed to play it, then they decide to quit it, it's not your fault - though it may be the module's fault! In the latter case you may wing it, stick in delaying encounters, or end the session early. All are valid approaches IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

If your party is on its way to somewhere you haven't prepped, and you can't or won't wing it, I have 5 words of advice:

Wandering Monsters Are Your Friend.

Lanefan