Meh. Maybe we won't.

[kigmatzomat]

I guess the real question is if there is an existing relationship between players and the IPB or not.

IMC the PCs knew a powerful wizard; they'd helped each other where the PCs had local contacts and the wizard has stuff/knowledge. The wizard needed somebody to take the DooDad of Safety to the Pit of Doom while the wizard disabled the Doom aspect of the Pit. If the PCs had refused for whatever reason, he'd have resorted to either a Gated being or some other less effective minion. It would also have cooled their relationship.

Similar things happen with nobility and ruling classes. You can often refuse but life will be less pleasant afterwards.

For IPB with no history (eg a Deva or Pit Fiend) things get more contrived. Evil can use the "I'll eat your family for breakfast" excuse and really doesn't need to justify themselves. In those cases the campaign isn't so much about the quest as it is defeating the Evil IPB.

Good IPBs should really be used less than Evil IPBs since it's harder to justify their existence. Good IPBs send messages to clerics when they need stuff done by the piddling folk, not manifest personally.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Group of naive PCs: "What if we don't want to?"

The immensely powerful being: "You'll learn to live in interesting times." and grins evily.

Yes, very nice.

 

[Ruined]

What does the immensely powerful being do?

He teleports said offending PCs away to inflict a thousand tortures upon them in a few seconds time. Then they return, all cowed down from his omnipotence. Right?

Right?

 

[Quasqueton]

Those of you who say the opening example is bad DMing: was it bad playing for the Players to have their PCs say "no" to the IPB?

Note: Saying "yes" to the IPB does not necessarily mean the PC *will* pursue the adventure.

Quasqueton

 

[Corinth]

How the being reacts depends on who he is, what he can do, and what constraints he's under. If time isn't an issue, and the being is inclined to share such things, then he may take the time to properly brief the PCs on the matter- with the idea being that, once the group knows what's at stake, they will go along with it of their own free will. Bribes may be made if the being has the means, and is inclined to provide them. If time, resources, or inclination is lacking then he may well say "That wasn't a request.", throw a geas/quest on them and put them to work. That's why it's wise to consider the NPC in question; circumstances matter.

 

[Andor]

Those of you who say the opening example is bad DMing: was it bad playing for the Players to have their PCs say "no" to the IPB?

Note: Saying "yes" to the IPB does not necessarily mean the PC *will* pursue the adventure.

Quasqueton

Hmmm... Actual input ignored. Background not fleshed out. Arguments prodded...

I dubb this thread a Troll.

 

[Blackthorne]

It vanishes into a special Hell reserved for clumsy and heavy-handed plot devices and is replaced by a subtle, character-driven motivational technique.

Best answer yet.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Best answer yet.

Why, thank you.

 

[fanboy2000]

The origanal post simply dosen't have enough context to answer the question directly, but I can answer the more general question: what do I do when the players don't bite on the adventure hook?

Move on.

When a group dosen't take-up a quest, I've found that it's because they want to do something else. Hopefully, something that requires travel. Because if it involves travel, that means that it involves on-the-road encounters that always make for a fun session. Note, I'm not just talking about combat encounters either.

I answered the question based on meta-gameing. It's imposible to answer the question using in-game reason, without in-game context.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm... Actual input ignored. Background not fleshed out. Arguments prodded...

I dubb this thread a Troll.

Ye cads! I am defending this thread!

I don't think that it was a deliberate troll, I do think that Quasqueton was surprised when people started hashing the plot rather than answering what the OSB would do. I do think that it sounds like a beginner's first home made dungeon, and not a lot of fun. But I don't think that it was a troll. I would be upset if an experienced DM tried something like this, and would talk to him about it after the game. If he then tried defending it as a masterpiece I would find another DM.

A beginner I would also talk to after the game, though more gently.

In case anyone wonders I have played in games like this, in a few cases leaving the game, in others watching as the game folded, and in the very first (and still worst) example ended up becoming DM. (This has happened a few times since as well.)

To answer the question - no, I do not believe that it is bad play on the parts of the players. Assuming a normal group of 4-6 players it would take a fair percentage going 'meh' to derail the game. That many unenthusiastic players does not happen entirely by chance.

Hopefully it is not based on a game Quasqueton was trying to run.

The Auld Grump, to quote Diaglo 'life's too short to play crappy games.'