Plot Hook Problems?

[NewJeffCT]

some good ideas here. You can't really change the past out of game...

Give the players an illusion of choice sometimes makes for the best bet, I think. If the players are at point A and you want them to get to Point D you do not have to have them go through point B first to get there and then to point C. Give them the option of B or C, but then if they choose C first, you can have clues at point C that can lead them back to B.

And, if the players insist on not listening to a talking portrait again, I would make sure that said portrait gets in some choice sentences before it is stashed in a bag of holding (talking is a free action most times...) "Why I have never been treated so rudely before, not even when <important clue to plot hook> happened!"

Also, while you think a naga trapped by narcotic mushrooms is an interesting encounter, not everybody will share your point of view. Some naga are good, some are pure evil. If this is an evil naga, why risk an encounter if it is already trapped? If it was a good naga, there should be a penalty for them not helping to free it.

And, if they continually ignore plot hooks, have them suffer the consequences - have the impossible to beat monster capture them, and tell the players that the key to their freedom was on that parchment in a foreign language... or, have the monster also imprisoning a family member of one of the players and say that unless the PCs retrieve said parchment, the family member will be killed.

 

[Rune]

Also, directly regarding the talking portrait...It occurs to me that that character has a lot of future potential. It could have access (now, or at any future point) to information the PCs might need. And, as a safeguard against being strong-armed, destroying the painting might not actually kill the person in it. Rather, the painting could just be a window through which the person in it has contact with non-painting-world. Perhaps, s/he even has access to other such windows.

 

[jbear]

I would like to point out that (from a player's perspective) there was only one problem with the plot hooks. (I was a part of the game in question.) The DM asked us to create, not heros, but villins. He then asked for our motivations towards evil and our connections to the group (so we didn't stab each other in our sleep). The primary goals of our group were: Money. Murder. Kidnapping Dragonborn. With that in mind, we took a job that, through a series of events and some magic, landed us in the far north, literally freezing to death far from civilization.

That robbed us of every character hook we had. At that point, we had one goal: survive long enough to make it back down south to civilization, so we can take another job and continue with life.

The first plot hook we bypassed was a talking portrait. Having just been teleported to the ends of the earth by magic items against our will, we were not wanting to let it talk.

When we made it to the temple of the naga, the players, out of character, told the DM that we had no motivation to go inside, but we would SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTED US TO. We shamelessly metagamed to keep the plot rolling.

Once inside the underground temple, we find the prisoner who begs for help (to bad we are villins, not heros) and the NPC fails a bluff check to lie about the treasure in the cavern. We kill a group of nagas only to discover that their version of "money" are worthless peices of ceramic. So we leave.

We fight even more naga, and then, have just decided to stay and investigate now that the threat is gone, when the earth begins to shake. Since we are underground in an earthquake, we of course leave immediately.

Outside waits a purple worm. We are preparing to kill it when an npc tells us that it is unkillable. So we run away. (You have to understand, NOT running from impossible fights has been a problem with our group in the past.) We manage to escape, and, inadvertently, escape from the entire plot as we do so. We make it back down south, and the game ended due to no further DM plot.

So, that's it from our perspective.

It seems that the error was an initial one. If the campaign was based on a group of co-operative villains, including plot hooks that would require bravery and self endangerment are not really the way to go. At least, not without dangling significant personal reward and benefits that far outweigh the risks in front of them at the same time.

Characters playing villains is perhaps the one thing I don't allow in my game. Unaligned is as far as i will go down that path. Even when a Drow Warlock joined our game it was allowed only on the condition that she be unaligned and have some sense of honour, enough that she would conceivably cooperate with the group until 'her debt' was paid.

From a DM's perspective I lay things out simple at the start of a game. 'This is what we got guys, this is the adventure. It will expand from there and further up the road you will come to meaningful crossroads, but I only have so much time to prepare this stuff ... so here we go ...'

From a player point of view I find the scarcity of plot hooks and action boring and even frustrating (though I bite my tongue). I want to be part of an epic story and hence so do my characters. I follow even the slightest whiff of a clue, as for hooks ... hook, line and sinker. I consider that part of the fun of the game. What can be frustrating is when you do investigate what seems like a hook, or a clue, some interesting carrot dangled by the DM and all you find out is nothing at the end of it. Or when you know a clue must be there but you have to look in exactly the right place in the right way to find it. This can become quite tedious. One example of this that springs to mind was when our characters came into the enfirmary of a mansion and discovered that many of the bandages had been used, herbs etc etc. I then began to search for the bloodied foot prints out of the room to see where they lead. Obviosly my perception roll failed because I found nothing. Despite the fact that I knew it had to be there. My character really has no motivation to think that his perception roll has failed. He just thinks there is nothing there to be found (due to his failed perception roll). But this was the ONLY clue in the entire mansion that lead to the next encounter hidden inside. After searching fruitlessly for ages we came back and searched again and some else rolled high enough to spot the blood which I knew was there as a player from the outset. Others my have a different opinion, but this kind of one hidden clue that is totally necessary for the plot to advance, which remains hidden even when you actively search for it (because you know its there) is not fun at all. And it can make following a plot quite tiresome.

Another thing that I have seen happen is when the PCs find the clue perhaps too fast for the DMs liking, lets say they quickly discover the ancient runes written on the wall in archaic elven, which of course the elf translates. You follow the instructions and unleash upon the earth a terrible evil. What??!? Oh ... the writing was a lie? No, you only translated part of the writing on the wall... What?!??

Ok, so the last example was actually a fun one, but it still raises the question, how explicit does a player have to be in order to get ALL the necessary information? Is the player expected to ask after he has been given the translation information: 'Is there any more writing on the wall?'

So taking my experiences from both sides of the screen I'd say everyone has to do their part to make a game enjoyable, fast paced and exciting (at least in the style of game i enjoy).

 

[Riastlin]

[MENTION=75065]jbear[/MENTION]: I agree with the sentiment of having just one clue being a bad thing. Like PC says above, I agree with having three methods of finding any necessary clue. In the infirmary example you gave, maybe the party misses the two drops of blood leading out the west door, so they start searching the rest of the mansion. In another hallway, there's a slight blood smear on the wall. A second hallway features a door with some blood on the handle. In a third location, you find some papers that talk about the "secret laboratory" located behind the fireplace in the dining hall, etc.

In other words, if the party misses the initial blood trail, there is a means to pick up the trail elsewhere in the mansion rather than constantly going back to the infirmary and performing Perception checks until somebody hits the magic number.

 

[jbear]

[MENTION=75065]jbear[/MENTION]: I agree with the sentiment of having just one clue being a bad thing. Like PC says above, I agree with having three methods of finding any necessary clue. In the infirmary example you gave, maybe the party misses the two drops of blood leading out the west door, so they start searching the rest of the mansion. In another hallway, there's a slight blood smear on the wall. A second hallway features a door with some blood on the handle. In a third location, you find some papers that talk about the "secret laboratory" located behind the fireplace in the dining hall, etc.

In other words, if the party misses the initial blood trail, there is a means to pick up the trail elsewhere in the mansion rather than constantly going back to the infirmary and performing Perception checks until somebody hits the magic number.

Yep, that would be a valid way of handling it.

Another alternative would be: 'Heck, the player has realised that there is a blood trail leading out of the infirmary. Well, once he's actively searching for that it becomes quite easy to spot. So that reduces it to an Easy DC ... aww, heck ... why bother ... his passive perception is 17 ... he's going to spot that for sure...send message from brain to mouth: You're quite right, you spot a trail of droplets of blood heading out of the infirmary down the hall towards the steps.'

No dice rolling involved. Player has involved himself with the plot. Followed the clues and hit upon the right trail. Being able to advance the plot should not then rely upon whether or not the right number comes up on a dice ... should it?

This is one of the few occaisions that I actually like the idea of Passive Perception.

 

[the Jester]

Sounds like you should be ready to improvise with your group.

I wouldn't have bothered with the purple worm encounter; but I'm a sandbox dm far more than a plot- or story-oriented one. I believe the story should be what you tell about the pcs' actions after it's over rather than the events the pcs will take part in.

That said, from your player's description, it sounds like part of the problem was the campaign setup. You had the players make villains and then put them in a situation more suited to heroes (the rescue).

I never plan on the pcs solving a given problem in a certain way. I come up with the challenges and let them work out a solution. I try to throw a bunch of options out there, but I always assume that one of the pcs' choices is to somehow skip the adventure entirely, whether by refusing to be hired on to the caravan, killing the guy that they are supposed to help escape from jail, destroying the dungeon itself with an earthquake or whatever.

 

[Riastlin]

Good point jbear. Once you are already actively looking for blood, it does probably drop the difficulty down at least 1 level (Hard to Moderate, Moderate to Easy), etc. My personal style is to always allow the players to default to their passives unless there's a compelling reason not to, so good point there too.

 

[Incendax]

The first plot hook we bypassed was a talking portrait. Having just been teleported to the ends of the earth by magic items against our will, we were not wanting to let it talk.

Just to clarify, you followed a Dark Wanderer that walked to the ends of the earth. No magic item caused the transportation.

When we made it to the temple of the naga, the players, out of character, told the DM that we had no motivation to go inside, but we would SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTED US TO. We shamelessly metagamed to keep the plot rolling.

This is true. I arranged the situation so that the party was supposed to be desperately low on food and water and would see no other options but to stop at the plot point to scrounge for supplies. Instead, one of my players pointed out they had bought Everlasting Provisions and simply forgotten/never needed to use it up to this point.

Once inside the underground temple, we find the prisoner who begs for help (to bad we are villins, not heros) and the NPC fails a bluff check to lie about the treasure in the cavern. We kill a group of nagas only to discover that their version of "money" are worthless peices of ceramic. So we leave.

The naga failed his bluff check to convince you that he was willing to share the treasure, and I went out of my way to note that he was not lying about the existence of the treasure. The party wizard succeeded on his history check to learn that the ancient ceramic pieces would be worth a great deal to certain historians. This was two separate appeals to your primary motivation of money!

We fight even more naga, and then, have just decided to stay and investigate now that the threat is gone, when the earth begins to shake. Since we are underground in an earthquake, we of course leave immediately.

I said it was about a 2.1 on the Richter scale, which is about as threatening as a truck driving by a nearby road. Still, I completely understand why it would be frightening so in retrospect you were fully justified in running away post haste. But that's why I had the purple worm waiting outside.

Outside waits a purple worm. We are preparing to kill it when an npc tells us that it is unkillable. So we run away. (You have to understand, NOT running from impossible fights has been a problem with our group in the past.) We manage to escape, and, inadvertently, escape from the entire plot as we do so. We make it back down south, and the game ended due to no further DM plot.

This is also true. By this point I was so frustrated that I just gave up and ad-libbed another hours worth of amusing little encounters. I am familiar with the Gumshoe system of always using three clues, and between the talking portrait, the imprisoned naga willing to offer treasure in exchange for rescue, and the magical text that was repeatedly referenced I just couldn't get my players to bite at any of the clues.

 

[Chzbro]

This reminds me a bit of one of the LFR adventures presented at GenCon this year.

The characters are on a ship that is attacked by pirates (so far so good). We beat the pirates and find a captured nobleman, who we save. He has lots of (boring) background information and we're told that he seems like a good guy. He invites us to his estate for dinner when we land. Instead, he's arrested for murder immediately upon docking. "I'm innocent!" he yells to us. "Help!" (I'm obviously paraphrasing).

Well, we do end up investigating and finding the real killers, but (and I can't emphasize this enough) ONLY because we knew that if we didn't the adventure was basically over. The players at the table were asking themselves, "Why do we care about this guy? What are we getting out of this, dinner? I can buy my own dinner. You sure he's not guilty? He sure seems guilty based on all this overwhelming evidence."

I assure you that plot hook would have never flown in our home game. Honestly, it didn't even fly in the LFR game for me. The forced contrivance of it sucked a lot of the fun out of the game (the rest was sucked out by the paragraphs-long boxed text full of FR politics that bored me to near-tears).

This example is not intended as a slight upon the OP. It's an example of why there have to be multiple ways to "bite the hook."

If you've ever fished, you know many lures feature hooks with 3 prongs. That's a good metaphor for what I'm suggesting. You don't need to make 3 different hooks; you need 1 hook with multiple ways to "land" the party.

The talking painting is 1 hook: either they listen and the plot progresses or they don't and it doesn't. Fine for a sandbox, but if you actually have a plot, not acceptable. The talking painting needs multiple hooks: either they listen and the plot progresses or they don't and one PC hears the thing whispering to him in his dreams or it starts screaming about being afraid of the dark (while in the bag) so loudly that the PCs can't walk around with it in there without alerting the whole place. The point is, the DM has to know what happens if the characters (to go back to the LFR example) don't care anything about getting dinner from a nobleman they just met who might be a murderer. How does the plot progress if they don't? And the answer can't be, "It doesn't."

I also want to ask the OP directly: If you were getting frustrated (and the players were too), why wouldn't you just give them an "out of character" nudge in the right direction? Why opt to have a bad session instead of just saying, "Look, guys, things aren't going the way I thought they would. It would help me out a lot if one of you would just translate those papers." You're all playing a game together; they'll help you out of a tight spot in order to get things going. Won't they?

 

[Incendax]

I also want to ask the OP directly: If you were getting frustrated (and the players were too), why wouldn't you just give them an "out of character" nudge in the right direction? Why opt to have a bad session instead of just saying, "Look, guys, things aren't going the way I thought they would. It would help me out a lot if one of you would just translate those papers." You're all playing a game together; they'll help you out of a tight spot in order to get things going. Won't they?

Earlier in the story I had given the players an out of character nudge in the right direction. This happened when I was setting the story up so that the characters were desperately low on supplies and needed to scavenge for more. Yet, when one player pulled out some everlasting provisions I lost my hook to draw them in unless I wanted to fabricate some kind of cheezy thing like the plot point being covered in gold to entice them to land. We talked about it out of game and the players decided to investigate despite the fact that they had no other motivating reason to visit the plot point (because they avoided interacting with the talking portrait NPC).

I have a great hatred of railroading, and even if it is necessary in some situations I will vehemently void doing it too much. Placing the purple worm outside the plot point to try and scare them into going back inside was the extent I was willing to push. It broke suspension of disbelief for me as the GM. When the players kept pushing to escape in a direction that was not the plot point, I didn't have the heart to keep shoving. Mind you, the purple worm was relevant to the plot point and it's existence was not pulled out my ass, but it being outside to scare the characters back into the plot point definitely was.