Player vs Plot - DM responsibilities

[ThirdWizard]

My hypothetical example is of another ostensibly conventional fantasy game, with magic and religions. One player is inspired by a tiny footnote about an imprisoned good deity and the remains of the cult associated with him and wants to play a PC who revives the cult, regain their magic and ultimately attempt to free the god.

Unfortunately, the referee doesn't particularly like religion and has decided the gods are all dead and gone, and the remaining clergy are mostly charlatans, some of the higher ups being in a secret conspiracy to conceal the secret and retain power, using corrupt magic to do so.

The referee knows this player is like a dog with a bone, and with this PC would try to interact with this setting element long before he or his party can survive the consequences. Also the player is inspired by this fantasy religion and isn't willing to drop it with this character. And it's not something the referee wants the game to revolve around, especially with the eventual reveal, which he doesn;t think the player will take well.

(I know I am deliberately creating irreconcilable differences in this example, but these issues sometimes arise).

I don't know... the idea of a PC resurrecting a good deity to end the corruption of false clergy sounds like an amazing plot hook to me. The GM wouldn't even really have to change anything about the campaign, as the game would pretty much end around when the PC achieved his goals. If the GM doesn't like religion, he'll never have to actually play with living gods.

 

[Aenghus]

I don't know... the idea of a PC resurrecting a good deity to end the corruption of false clergy sounds like an amazing plot hook to me. The GM wouldn't even really have to change anything about the campaign, as the game would pretty much end around when the PC achieved his goals. If the GM doesn't like religion, he'll never have to actually play with living gods.

Potentially, it's a great plot in another referee's game, but the hypothetical DM involved doesn't think he can do the plot justice, and frankly doesn't want to as he wants to downplay religion as much as possible in his game.

So he has to choose between owning up to the player and asking for a different character, negotiating with him to change the character or giving the player's plot a try and risking the downsides.

 

[Shiroiken]

It was in Thay... it seems like it would have been trivially simple for the DM to put a spellbook in front of the PC in less than an hour of play. I cannot see the point of not doing so, and I find it somewhat surprising that a DM would just let that happen to, presumably, a person he would like to enjoy the game. Although, to be fair, the DM might not have fully comprehended the consequences of his decision as a product of a full gaming session. DMs especially sometimes put too much emphasis on the "integrity" of the game, subconsciously placing that above the "fun" of the game. I've had bad experiences as a player due to new DMs who made decisions that turned out to hinder the fun of the game, and they always had reasons for those decisions.

With a little creativity, the DM probably could have woven something together that would have been awesome. A stolen spellbook, for instance, with some kind of strange text that isn't normal spell patterns. Everything past page 10 is trapped, and he barely escaped setting it off. What's on those pages? There's a plot hook right there. The wizard he got it from stole it himself, and now two NPCs are after it. Who originally owned it? There's another plot hook. The book itself glows of magic under detect magic, but there's no obvious sign of what the book does. Yet another plot hook.

Now you've got the PC being hounded by those who want it back, who is searching for a way to bypass certain traps, and who is researching the origins of the book discreetly. DM wins. Player wins. Everybody's happy, and the game is off to a deadly and intrigue-laden start!

Your style of play is vastly different than ours. This campaign, was meant to be gritty and difficult, and the fun was in it's integrity. We didn't even escape until the 3rd or 4th session, and even then we still had clubs for weapons, no armor, and no food. Giving the wizard a spellbook when everyone else was struggling would have been asinine. The goal was escape, so we weren't in civilized lands. Most of the campaign was survival, with combat against the occasional patrol. Once we killed a few guards and got their stuff, we could have gotten a spellbook off a dead mage... except for the fact that we ran like hell from even a whiff of one. In fact, the campaign ended with a TPK when we faced our first patrol with a mage.

If the player wasn't told in advance, I could maybe see your point, but he wasn't. He knew, was advised against, and STILL played that character. Even the player admitted (after the fact) that he made a horrible decision, and he apologized to everyone for hurting the game. This is why the DM should always talk with the players during character creation and give advice for what will work and what won't. A Campaign Handout is invaluable for this.

 

[Hussar]

Except that "no" is just as absolute as "never". Logically, if we should avoid one, we should also eschew the other.



Could you please quote for us where anyone said that play (superior or otherwise) would have, "no chance of affecting actual outcomes", in that absolute sense? Where was such a statement made in anything other than a very limited scope?

I don't think you'll find those words, or even words to that effect. So, this is a strawman, I'm afraid.

OTOH, as a general maxim, "Defer to engaged players" isn't a bad one. It certainly isn't always true. But, as a rule of thumb, letting highly engaged players sit in the driver's seat (at least for a bit) is generally a very good idea.

Potentially, it's a great plot in another referee's game, but the hypothetical DM involved doesn't think he can do the plot justice, and frankly doesn't want to as he wants to downplay religion as much as possible in his game.

So he has to choose between owning up to the player and asking for a different character, negotiating with him to change the character or giving the player's plot a try and risking the downsides.

And, again, as a general rule, "Don't make the DM do things he/she doesn't want to" is a very good rule of thumb as well. If the DM turns to you and says, "No, I really don't want this in the campaign because its no fun for me", then well, it's time to shelve that character and come up with a new one.

Additionally, in a heavier plotsy campaign where the DM does have a larger plot going on, say any given adventure path style game, then it is incumbent on everyone at the table to make characters that fit within that framework. I ran the Savage Tide Adventure Path some years ago. But, I made it absolutely clear that this was going to be a highly mobile campaign - so, no one came back to me with characters who had really strong ties and goals centred around any single location. It just would't fit within the campaign

There has to be open communication around the table. I'm a huge, huge fan of group chargen, creating a group template that fits within the campaign that the DM has in mind. If I want to run a campaign where you are unlikely to leave a single city, making a nomad character that wants to explore the world is a non-starter. OTOH, if I am running a very open, sandbox style campaign, the players are going to have to negotiate with each other as to what goals they want to pursue to find things that everyone can get on board with. If one player has a cleric that wants to stay in a certain area to defend his home temple and another player wants to go plane jumping, we're going to have a problem.

I guess, at the end of the day, secrets and secret campaign reveals are not more important than ensuring player buy in. If there is some campaign secret that is going to invalidate someone's character, I, personally, think that it's better just to be up front with the player rather than try to maintain the secret. Heck, I can always change the secret a bit, or be vague enough when talking to the player, that the impact of the secret isn't lost.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Let's say a player is highly enthusiastic about a new campaign and has come up with a character with an ambitious bunch of goals that seem perfectly viable, and might be in another campaign. The player is analytical and goal oriented and likes being successful in the game.

Unfortunately, the DM is invested in secret backstory and plot that means the player's major goals are impossible and doomed to failure, though there is no way the player or character can know that for ages. The DM believes the secrets are integral to the plot.

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) ?

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?

That's a failed session 0. I am personally not a big fan of player-driven because PC goals not only conflict with the "plot" but with each other. If the PCs all have one long-term goal then it's easy to incorporate their goal with the plot, but when you have five players with five different plots, you have a big problem.

 

[Mort]

That's a failed session 0. I am personally not a big fan of player-driven because PC goals not only conflict with the "plot" but with each other. If the PCs all have one long-term goal then it's easy to incorporate their goal with the plot, but when you have five players with five different plots, you have a big problem.

Yeah, I'm great with group driven, but individual player driven can become a mess.

I also agree that a session 0 is often a great idea. Group character generation can really solidify the group both from a mechanics and a story perspective. Also this gives the DM opportunity to discourage builds and concepts not conducive to their campaign or world.

 

[Emerikol]

Maybe I've said this before but I very much as a DM avoid having a DM plot. I have NPCs with plots and those plots can be foiled just like the PC's plots can be foiled.

I feel if you create some really interesting npcs and then turn them loose in your world you can have a lot of interesting outcomes but nothing is preordained. I tend to build my dungeons around the stuff these npcs are doing.

 

[Umbran]

OTOH, as a general maxim, "Defer to engaged players" isn't a bad one. It certainly isn't always true. But, as a rule of thumb, letting highly engaged players sit in the driver's seat (at least for a bit) is generally a very good idea.

No argument. I would only push back if it were over something pretty central to the campaign in some way.

I guess, at the end of the day, secrets and secret campaign reveals are not more important than ensuring player buy in. If there is some campaign secret that is going to invalidate someone's character, I, personally, think that it's better just to be up front with the player rather than try to maintain the secret.

So, pretty much as I said upthread, "Hey, Joe, this could be a bit of an issue, let's talk about it." Though, to be honest, maintaining the secret shouldn't be too difficult, even in that discussion. "I can't tell you exactly why, but trying to be the head of the Guild in that city might not be a good idea. It is okay by me for you to drive for it, so long as you know that the goal may become impossible or moot. Would you tell me why you wanted, that, exactly? We might be able to find you some alternatives, if you want..."

 

[Umbran]

Maybe I've said this before but I very much as a DM avoid having a DM plot. I have NPCs with plots and those plots can be foiled just like the PC's plots can be foiled.

I feel if you create some really interesting npcs and then turn them loose in your world you can have a lot of interesting outcomes but nothing is preordained. I tend to build my dungeons around the stuff these npcs are doing.

Well, there's plot, and then there's plot. And there's levels of preordination.

In my Deadlands campaign, the PCs dropped the ball in a major way, and left a McGuffin they knew was powerful and important in the open, having nearly painted a sign on it telling the bad guys where it was. Technically, in theory, the PCs could have then gotten in the way of the next steps. But they didn't know to do so. The Cthuloid horror now wandering around in Missouri was pretty much a foregone conclusion after they failed to show common sense.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say a player is highly enthusiastic about a new campaign and has come up with a character with an ambitious bunch of goals that seem perfectly viable, and might be in another campaign. The player is analytical and goal oriented and likes being successful in the game.

Unfortunately, the DM is invested in secret backstory and plot that means the player's major goals are impossible and doomed to failure, though there is no way the player or character can know that for ages. The DM believes the secrets are integral to the plot.

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 seems to me that the nature of the problem is implicit in your opening clause. The player is highly enthusiastic about what s/he believes to be the new campaign; but in fact his/her belief is wrong, and the GM knows that to be so.

What should a GM do when a player has misunderstood the campaign? That depends, I guess. Personally I'm not a big fan of secret backstory operating in the way you describe - I like secrets as reveals that affirm the players' conceptions of their PCs, or put new pressure on them, but not that block them. Especially when they don't know about the blocking.

On the other hand, there are whole schools of GMing and RPGing that would think that what you describe is exactly how an RPG should work - the players are essentially ignorant of the GM's metaplot, and the GM's job is to get them on board and keep them there come what may. On this approach, a player who "is analytical and goal oriented and likes being successful in the game" sounds like a disruptive player/munckin.

Should GM's cave to "munckins"? My default answer is yes, but then I reject the "munckin" characterisation. But I think my view is probably a minority one.