Player vs Plot - DM responsibilities

[GX.Sigma]

Hm.

If the character has a goal that turns out to be impossible ("Liegax wants to find a way to become undead without losing his mind"), that's fine. That story ends with the character finding out it's impossible (or never ends, like Gilligan's Island).

If that's actually the player's goal ("I want my character to end up as a lich"), that's a different matter entirely. If you're running a 'storytelling' campaign where you want the player to have some say in that, either tell them they can't have their story, or let them tell you you can't have your story, or compromise. If you're running a 'roleplaying' campaign where players always act in character, remind the player that they won't necessarily get what they want.

 

[Hussar]

Some years ago, in a live-action campaign, the writers had a specific call out to this. They specifically asked players to denote in their backgrounds what things the GMs were supposed to avoid, and things they were invited to muck around with. So, f'rex, your character's missing parents could be your own internal roleplaying angst, or a campaign plot point - you choose.

Since then, I've applied this to my tabletop campaigns.

There's a cool RPG whose name I am blanking on right now that does this. They call it Backgrounds and you get three. Anything you put in there is true in the game world and the DM is not allowed to mess with it. Great idea.

 

[the Jester]

The way you couch the question makes this sound like a railroad ("doomed to failure").

I'd rather the game go on with the chance of the player messing up the dm's plot.

 

[WitchyD]

There's a cool RPG whose name I am blanking on right now that does this. They call it Backgrounds and you get three. Anything you put in there is true in the game world and the DM is not allowed to mess with it. Great idea.

Sounds like 13th Age. It was pretty great at getting me and my players to talk about what they expected to happen in the game. One player wanted to go on a holy crusade against evil, so he picked negative relationships with as many villain icons as he could. Another wanted to explore shades of morality, and so he went with a positive relationship with the Lich King, saw him as a tragic figure who's rule was taken from him, and wanted to work to restore his rule, etc, etc.

 

[Hussar]

Sounds like 13th Age. It was pretty great at getting me and my players to talk about what they expected to happen in the game. One player wanted to go on a holy crusade against evil, so he picked negative relationships with as many villain icons as he could. Another wanted to explore shades of morality, and so he went with a positive relationship with the Lich King, saw him as a tragic figure who's rule was taken from him, and wanted to work to restore his rule, etc, etc.

Naw it was some indie press thing that I picked up years ago. You played 12th century monks playing a roleplaying game set in their modern times. IOW, it was sort of d20 Modern, if d20 Modern were set in the 12th century and played by 12th century players. It was a fun read. I never did get to play it. The title was something latinish, but I can't for the life of me remember the title and the pdf I had of it is on my old computer in storage.

 

[Lanefan]

It comes down simply to one player (or character) trying to be bigger than the game.

For the game to succeed this must never happen.*

* - exception: a one-player game, in which case anything goes because that one player *is* the game.

It's a playstyle thing too - sometimes my characters have long-term goals (whether realistic or not) in full as-player knowledge that not only might those goals never be met, but that I might never even get close. Other times my character's only goal of any kind might be - on an ongoing basis - to just win the next battle it fights. And in any case I know that I-as-player have very little if any input into the game-world's overarching storyline; for example if it's year 1055 right now and the DM has pre-plotted a world-altering cataclysm for the first day of 1056, I'm just going to have to make the best of it on and after the second day of 1056. That doesn't give me-as-player any right to know ahead of time the cataclysm is coming if my characters have no valid reason to know.

What we-as-players can do is to write our own story and history against the backdrop of the world and the bigger tale there writ.

Lan-"and that's enough philosophy for tonight"-efan

 

[steenan]

I'm happy when my players come up with ambitious plans and big motivations as a part of character creation. If anything, it's the passive players that give me trouble because they give me nothing to hook them in and I have to work hard to give them some spotlight.

Player plans never come into conflict with "my plot", because there is no pre-planned plot. I weave the campaign from the threads my players give me.

This does not mean that whatever a player plans for their character will succeed. But it means that pursuing this goal will be a big thing in the campaign, something that will get a lot of focus. No hidden assumptions or random situation that the player can't predict will make achieving the goal impossible.

But I will put challenges on the PC's path. They may fail. They may have to make a hard choice. Maybe, at some point, they will decide that what they're trying to achieve is not worth the cost. But, unless the goal does not fit the setting and genre (which I make clear before play begins), the player will get a fair chance to achieve it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No plot is more important than a really engaged player.

Never say never.

If superior play has no chance of affecting actual outcomes why play?

 

[Umbran]

No plot is more important than a really engaged player.

Never say never.

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

If superior play has no chance of affecting actual outcomes why play?

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.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I like to start a number of threads that in some way connect to my central plot. This way the players can choose and pick them as they play and other events are happening in my setting to get to the plot. This way players invest in the campaign.

some rules I follow as a DM:

• Everything has a reaction - This means I "what if" the actions of my players. Example: players burn down a couple of taverns, they may be seen as arsonist.
• Remember and Note - Time moves on but it is important for a DM to remember and note items in their campaign. If the players burn down a tavern, it is not going to be there until it gets re-built and there may be an NPC that has a sad story of his tavern being burned down.
• Talk to the Players - sidebar or do a survey with your players to make sure they are enjoying your game and make sure you are meeting their expectations.