Player vs Plot - DM responsibilities

[Celebrim]

I deliberately avoided a specific example as I'm interested in the general case. I find any examples given risk focusing exhaustively on the details of the example rather than the general problem.

Pouring exhaustively on the details of the problem is probably the best approach to resolving it.

Ultimately this is a negotiation between two parties with a vested interest. The reason that negotiation can break down can either turn out to be a big picture problem or it can turn out to be something minor. The most important step in resolving the negotiation is figuring out exactly what is the sticking point. Often the two sides perceive the sticking point as being different than it actually is. So one side never proposes a big picture alternative because they are focused on the wrong small detail, while the other side never realizes that a small detail alternative is available because they think that the other side is objecting to the big picture.

To keep with my own example, a player might ask me if they can have in their backstory that the goddess Philotia is their past lover, and have me say, "No." And the player might conclude that this is because I'm unwilling to accept the backstory of a past divine lover, when in fact the problem could be that Philotia is chaste. If they then propose Aynwen as a past lover, and have me say "No.", they might not realize that the problem is that Aynwen is (probably surprisingly considering her dominion and the typical sterotypes of a goddess of romantic love) monogamous and in eternal mutually faithful relationship with the god Lado. The important point for me as a DM is to realize that in fact the player isn't committed to the plot point 'Philotia' (which I might first assume), but to the idea of a divine lover, which would allow me to propose the cosmologically acceptable alternative Showna (among others). Once I know what the sticking point is, then we can negotiate an agreement which mechanically probably involves doing something like taking Mentor (Showna), Divine Favor, and possibly Major Enemy (Showna) and figuring out what additional disadvantages you need to take to pay for all of that.

And some times the sticking points are mechanical, which if they are reasonable might mean me smithing new rules on the fly or perhaps just saying, "No, I can't allow that because it means not enough spot light sharing." Or it might mean me saying, "Ok, so you want to be a guy that rides dinosaurs and shoots lasers out of his eyes. What you want is possible, but not as backstory. Your free to pursue that dream in forestory, but understand that full gratification might not ever arrive or be a long time in coming. The best I can do for you is give you some tips about where you can start to make it easier to achieve those goals in the long run."

Fundamentally, it's negotiation between two people with their own feelings, hangups, aspirations, and needs. You can't expect the details to not matter.

 

[Umbran]

"Hey, Joe, this background is great! I should note, though, that I have some things coming up that you don't know about yet that may make some of the goals you've laid out really difficult. I'm worried that might be frustrating for you. Can we talk a bit, and see if we can figure out how to adjust things so they work better together?"

Be willing to negotiate and find a compromise with the player.

 

[Agamon]

The real question isn't whether the GM is dictating the game or whether the player should follow along, but what sort of demands that each player can make on the other's game and enjoyment of the game are really reasonable. It's a trivial matter to postulate a character concept that offends a GM's sensibilities in a way you'd be sympathetic about, we just have to start breaking the grandma rule to discuss the details. Once we establish that there is an actual limit to the demands one player can make on the other, all the rest is just negotiation. Pretending that there is this one absolute rule and one side of the negotiation you have to come down on to make games work well (or better, or at all), is to be really blind to the actual nature of the game.

Sorry, I might not have been clear in that post. I'm not saying let chaos reign, I'm just saying that DM dictation is the other extreme that I'm not fond of. When I set up a game, I get the players together and we discuss as a group what the boundaries of the game will be, and then everyone agrees to conform to those boundaries. They are set by the group, not by one person. And if a player doesn't care one way or another, that's fine, as long as those that want to contribute, can.

And I meant it when I said, "If you're having fun, keep on trucking." This is personal preference only. If the players are fine with simply being pawns in the GM's machinations and everyone has fun with it, rock on.

 

[Mort]

"Hey, Joe, this background is great! I should note, though, that I have some things coming up that you don't know about yet that may make some of the goals you've laid out really difficult. I'm worried that might be frustrating for you. Can we talk a bit, and see if we can figure out how to adjust things so they work better together?"

Be willing to negotiate and find a compromise with the player.

I'll start with THIS. Great way to resolve the situation.


Next, I have to say I'm rarely a fan of "super secret plot twists" if those plot twists take the campaign I was expecting and turn it into something else entirely.

For example, the DM says he's running an urban intrigue campaign and Players design characters accordingly. Somewhere around session 2 or 3 the DM (as per his super secret plot twist) pulls the characters (through a portal for ex.) into a far off jungle with animals monsters and more monsters and a decided lack of any intrigue whatsoever. The actual campaign is the characters figuring out how to get home. If the DM knows his players well enough to know they'll enjoy this - Awesome! Otherwise though, this could go very badly.

 

[wedgeski]

What do people think a responsible DM should do, given that doing nothing will lead to the affected player most likely having a sucky game of constant failure capped by finding out his goals were impossible all along(as he's the most likely player to discover the secret) ?

It should be perfectly possible for the DM to adjust his plans to accomodate the player's ideas, perhaps with some compromises on both sides. I really can't believe that the two sets of ideas can't be made to work together, except cases where player and DM expectations about the campaign are completely at odds (low magic vs. super-hero, or whatever). In that case there are bigger fish to fry than this.

Leaving the player in the dark and then hitting him with "nothing your PC ever wanted was ever going to happen" is about the worst outcome in the history of bad outcomes. The DM should completely deconstruct his campaign before allowing that to happen.

Does your opinion change if the problem invalidating the character's goals isn't crucial to the overall plot and can be changed without affecting it majorly?

If the DM and the player can come to an arrangement, sure. But the two of them need to talk it out. Keeping this problem bottled up is a recipe for total disaster.

 

[Umbran]

But, (you knew there was a "but", coming, right?) if a GM is worrying about his precious story over the inclusion of his players' PCs...that's not a game I want to be a part of.

If the players are fine with simply being pawns in the GM's machinations and everyone has fun with it, rock on.

How about we step back from the absolutism for a second or two. This is not digital, all or nothing. "One player happens to have stepped into the area that is problematic," does not equate to, "players are simply pawns". For all we know, the GM has already accommodated the players on dozens of other points. The players should get a lot of what they want, sure. But the GM should get some of what he or she wants too.

So, really, don't overstate it. It isn't constructive to jump to the extreme case.

 

[Savage Wombat]

In principle and in abstract, I agree wholeheartedly that players should be consulted as to the storyline of the campaign.

In practice, at least in my case, I can't ask players to make up a character and backstory, and then wait three to six months while I work out the campaign.

 

[Umbran]

I'll start with THIS. Great way to resolve the situation.

Next, I have to say I'm rarely a fan of "super secret plot twists" if those plot twists take the campaign I was expecting and turn it into something else entirely.

A live-action game I sometimes play NPCs for did this recently, and lost about a third of the players when they did the bait-and-switch. Only occasionally does such a thing end well. Usually the GM has to know the players pretty well, and guide character creation such that the change leaves the characters in a situation the players will still find interesting and playable. It is kind of tough to pull off.

But, I don't think we should paint this situation in that form. Because there's lots of territory between full on bait-and-switch and "bad guys are going to mess up the thing you want well before you're of high enough level to stop them".

 

[Agamon]

So, really, don't overstate it. It isn't constructive to jump to the extreme case.

I'm just responding to the OP, where the DM has his own story and PC has his. That sounds like a dichotomy to me. I'm just saying if you don't let it get to that point, it never becomes a problem.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

I think in general the story wins out. Often campaigns end before the character in question dies and the goal he is working to may be unresolved. For example if I have a backstory that says I am a changeling at birth and will some day go back to the feywild to confront my parents, does it matter if that is resolved in a campaign that mostly focuses on goblins?

In the mind of the player he could always write his own epilogue after the completion of the campaign.

Edit: typo