Plots behind the plot

[Quasqueton]

Do you other DMs ever feel the need to explain things happening in the background of the campaign so the Players realize things aren't as silly/dumb/unorganized/whatever as they may complain about?

You know, sometimes a Player will drop a comment like, "Why doesn't the baron just send some troops to take out the bandits, instead of sending us out to do it?" You, the DM, have thought out the reasons, and have a neat campaign plot hook behind it, but the Players seem to think it is all just a half-thought-out plot railroading.

Or, "How come no one has raided and pillage this dungeon years ago? If one group of 3rd-level adventurers can take out the monsters here, and find all this gold and magic, surely the local wizard could have conquered this in one afternoon." There may be real reasons why stuff has or hasn't happened, but the Players' thinking about it stops at the game level and they don't consider any potential campaign reasons.

Or, the PCs defeat the towering, walking, steam-powered colossus and the wizard that drove it, and then never mention the obvious, "Where in the world did this thing come from, and how could no one know about it before it just showed up coming out of the Tallious Mountains?" They just assume it was a self-contained adventure with no real back-story?

I've been guilty of this as a Player myself, but sometimes it has been revealed that the DM truly hadn't thought plots through. And the Players were supposed to just go along with the game without questioning the plot or looking too closely.

But then when I DM, I really do think plots through pretty deeply. I usually have weeks to think things through before the PCs interact with certain plot elements, so I've had plenty of time to work out the subtleties. But then the Players may look at that element and think, "Oh, there's a holy sword in this orc treasure. OK, give it to the paladin and lets go to the next dungeon." Instead of thinking, "A holy sword in an orc treasure? How did that happen?"

I once had a DM who had a pretty cool reason behind why the baron sent us, a group of 2nd-level adventurers, out to take on bandits. Unfortunately for that DM, we did the very thing I'm talking about here -- we accepted the mission, went out and performed (and failed), didn't investigate any plot threads we found, and just left and found a different adventure. The DM, in frustration afterward, explained to us why we were sent on the bandit mission -- he wanted/expected us to fail and die. The bandits were working for the baron, but the baron had to make a show of at least trying to stop the bandit raids in his territory. He even had a trumpted up "border dispute" in another part of his fiefdom to explain why he couldn't put troops on the bandit problem. The plot went much deeper and complicated, and the DM figured this adventure could turn into a campaign. But we were thinking as Players in a game rather than as characters in the world.

So, do you DMs ever feel the urge to just tell the Players hints to get them to realize things in the world are happening logically and beyond what the PCs see in their small, little part of it?

But then again, sometimes the Players can think too hard, and you end up with this: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76220

How do *you* walk that narrow line between keeping the Players thinking "in the campaign world" and not have them spend a game session investigating/questioning *everything* or totally irrelevant things/people?

Quasqueton

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I do it by keeping most of the plotting reasonably open. There's enough factions in my world that the players don't feel slighted for a low ammount of secret stuff.

 

[Mac Callum]

As a matter of my nature, I HAVE to do this. I can't just let it lie and write it off as "Oh, because it wouldn't be an adventure otherwise." I have to have a "real" reason for my NPCs to do the things they do.

However, I keep it pretty simple. I don't make deep complicated plots like the one example you gave. KISS, or Occam's Razor are my guidelines, and the exceptions to that are real exceptions, not the rule.

I just want to keep the story "real" enough so that belief can be suspended. The campaign world should have some internal consistency so that players can expect certain things, and also notice when those things are messed with - but I'm not trying to trip people up or 'trap' them in my plots. It's just a game after all.

Mac Callum

PS - Randomly generating treasure, NPCs and dungeons, and then thinking these things through is actually a great way to develop a campaign. When you ask yourself "Why IS this paladin's Holy Sword in the treasure?" this leads you down a whole new branching on your world - and possibly new adventures.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

What I've found myself doing a few times when the story behind isn't discovered by the players is tell them in the aftermath, so that next time they may look more closely at the depthness of it all. I'm not saying that my plots are very complicated, but if something happens, there's usually a logical reason behind (even if that logical reason is "it's magic!")

As a player, I think I sometimes do what you talk about in the other thread. In last tuesday's game, the Militia Chief went to have a drink with us, and as soon as he learned what we were doing the next day, he promptly left. I found the Chief's attitude quite suspicious, and acted on it, but I'll won't know for now what's his attitude. We know he isn't evil.

AR

When something like this happens to me as a DM, I try to use it and invent plot lines on the fly

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Do you other DMs ever feel the need to explain things happening in the background of the campaign so the Players realize things aren't as silly/dumb/unorganized/whatever as they may complain about?

You know, sometimes a Player will drop a comment like, "Why doesn't the baron just send some troops to take out the bandits, instead of sending us out to do it?" You, the DM, have thought out the reasons, and have a neat campaign plot hook behind it, but the Players seem to think it is all just a half-thought-out plot railroading.

Generally, I define certain parameters of the game. First, it is a "living world". This means that laws, politics, religious movements, cultural influences, treaties, alliances, espionage, blackmail, and covert operations are always in motion. These things are usually in the background, but they influence the game environment.

So, for things like, "Why does the Baron want us to do it?", I often reply with, "That's a question you should have asked the Baron, not me." If they do ask the Baron, he gives them an explaination (Fact or fiction? Perhaps a little of both?).

Or, "How come no one has raided and pillage this dungeon years ago? If one group of 3rd-level adventurers can take out the monsters here, and find all this gold and magic, surely the local wizard could have conquered this in one afternoon." There may be real reasons why stuff has or hasn't happened, but the Players' thinking about it stops at the game level and they don't consider any potential campaign reasons.

One of the reasons I go with lower-powered games; The PCs are the exceptions rather than the norm. While 3rd Level NPCs are common enough, 12th Level NPCs aren't. So if the question is, "Why hasn't another 3rd Level Party cleaned this out?", the answer is "Time, place, and opportunity." If the question is, "Why hasn't a high level Wizard cleaned this out?", the answer is a question, "Which of the dozen or so in existance should waste his time on such an endeavor?"

Or, the PCs defeat the towering, walking, steam-powered colossus and the wizard that drove it, and then never mention the obvious, "Where in the world did this thing come from, and how could no one know about it before it just showed up coming out of the Tallious Mountains?" They just assume it was a self-contained adventure with no real back-story?

When I work on an area, I'll produce some 20-30 legends/myths/rumors about various oddities. These can range from an old, haunted farmhouse to a collosal multi-headed dragon living in a canyon. Later, I can expand on any of these pretty much as I wish: The haunted house can be gremlins (low level) or ghosts (mid to high level), the giant multiheaded dragon can be a hydra, the Thesselmonster, or a steam-driven machine or other automaton. That's the beauty of myth: Founded on truth but almost unrecognizable from it.

I've been guilty of this as a Player myself, but sometimes it has been revealed that the DM truly hadn't thought plots through. And the Players were supposed to just go along with the game without questioning the plot or looking too closely.

This is fine, too, although this requires the opposite of the "parameters" I set, meaning that the parameters should include "light hearted adventuring in a mostly-static world used as a backdrop for adventures". This would tell me that digging too deep into the background of the setting or adventure will begin to produce discontinuity and/or contradictions, so in the spirit of fun it's best to just "go with it".

But then when I DM, I really do think plots through pretty deeply. I usually have weeks to think things through before the PCs interact with certain plot elements, so I've had plenty of time to work out the subtleties. But then the Players may look at that element and think, "Oh, there's a holy sword in this orc treasure. OK, give it to the paladin and lets go to the next dungeon." Instead of thinking, "A holy sword in an orc treasure? How did that happen?"

Yep... Hand design all adventures and hand-pick all treasure myself.

I once had a DM who had a pretty cool reason behind why the baron sent us, a group of 2nd-level adventurers, out to take on bandits. Unfortunately for that DM, we did the very thing I'm talking about here -- we accepted the mission, went out and performed (and failed), didn't investigate any plot threads we found, and just left and found a different adventure. The DM, in frustration afterward, explained to us why we were sent on the bandit mission -- he wanted/expected us to fail and die. The bandits were working for the baron, but the baron had to make a show of at least trying to stop the bandit raids in his territory. He even had a trumpted up "border dispute" in another part of his fiefdom to explain why he couldn't put troops on the bandit problem. The plot went much deeper and complicated, and the DM figured this adventure could turn into a campaign. But we were thinking as Players in a game rather than as characters in the world.

Ack! Xena flashbacks!

Sorry... I'm better now.

If anything, the GM might have noted your loosing interest. In such a case, I would have had one of the henchmen (aka, leaders of the smaller bandit bands, but not the big-up bandit himself) say something akin to, "you're tougher than the Baron thought" during combat. That would have deepened the plot immediately without really giving anything away (the question of whether the Baron betrayed them or if one of his confidants is a spy remains unanswered, and the PCs may get the wrong impression if handled right).

So, do you DMs ever feel the urge to just tell the Players hints to get them to realize things in the world are happening logically and beyond what the PCs see in their small, little part of it?

Yes and no. Most of this information is "out in the open". The PCs may not know if (and if they are travelers, as most adventurers are, than local news and politics may not be known to them), but a day or two of Gather Information attempts will easily enough produce the information.

But then again, sometimes the Players can think too hard, and you end up with this: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76220

Faced with a similar problem, a GM I knew made a 30x20 single room at the end of a 100' long corridor that included a 30' stairway decent. The in-game reason was that the room was the beginning of a never-completed lower level; The [Death Knight] that built it either ran out of resources or became more concerned with other things. At any rate, here was this room, with absolutely nothing in it, that seemed not to serve any purpose.

The reason for it: The players at the time had a knack for investigating everything; Every inch of floor, wall, ceiling, between matresses, under trunks, behind bookcases and inside books, etc. So he built the room, with it's lack of definable purpose, just to see how long they would investigate it before giving up.

Six hours... Six hours they debated, tried different abilities, proficiencies, and spells. An entire session and an hour from the next.

As I recall, the GM bought an extra 4-pack of Guiness for the occassion, knowing he was on light-duty for the evening even before the room was discovered.

How do *you* walk that narrow line between keeping the Players thinking "in the campaign world" and not have them spend a game session investigating/questioning *everything* or totally irrelevant things/people?

I don't. By keeping the mundane "mundane", the PCs learn that this is all part of the process. Think of it along the lines of a good Law & Order episode: Not everyone the police talk to will have any relevant information and not everything they look at will have any significance to the crime. While this doesn't stop the players from following false leads and hunches, it does get them accustomed to the idea that something might not pan out well and not to dwell on it too long if it starts to not "feel right".

While I'll gladly add some relevance to anything within the context of the world (i.e., everything exists for a valid reason), making it relevant to the specific adventure just because the PCs think it might be starts to feel akin to hand-holding (or, more specifically, inpromptu railroading, since you put the clues/information where the PCs go rather than forcing them to go where the clues/information actually are).

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

What I've found myself doing a few times when the story behind isn't discovered by the players is tell them in the aftermath, so that next time they may look more closely at the depthness of it all.

Hey, I do exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure if it actually encourages any of them to look at the next plot more closely, but I enjoy doing it, and that's the important part, right?

The first time I ever saw it done was after a really good Trinity game, where the GM wanted to show off all the backstory we hadn't found and tell us about all the things we'd done that had completely surprised him. I got a kick out of that, and immediately yoinked it for my own use.

--
it's my last (and sometimes only) chance to try and impress them
ryan

 

[Greybar]

At the end of a story arc, I often give the players a choice of whether they want an epilogue type description of some of the secrets. They can also ask the "what was going on with..." type questions, though I may not choose to answer...

john

 

[Hand of Evil]

I have the NPC expain it to the players for the most part.

 

[silentspace]

Reading through your post, I see that when you say "plots behind the plots" you really mean the backstory behind your adventure.

Very few people care about the backstory. And even if they do, they often won't search for it, in case the DM doesn't have one figured out! The backstory isn't really part of the story. It's just window dressing. It's not something that players are going to spend time and resources wondering about, unless it's actually part of the story. When you watch the first Star Wars movie, it wasn't really important for Luke, Han and Leia to know where Darth Vader came from. They didn't care. Sure, it would have been interesting info (and indeed turned out to be part of the later plot), but why would any of them stop to wonder about it?

The backstory, at least in most of the examples you've given, don't add to the story. All they do is add a little flavoring, a little atmosphere, a little context.

So my advice is not to make the backstory a mystery. Drop a lot of hints. Make it very easy for them to piece together. Give it to them.

 

[Faraer]

One of the main things that defines fantasy fiction, as opposed to stories of adventure or intrigue that happen to have sorcerers or orcs, is the immanence of the past as a thing not forgotten or even remembered but experienced continually or periodically in the present via what John Clute called time abyss. The modern world where the backstory doesn't matter is Tolkien's Sixth (or whichever one) Age, not a world of epic fantasy or sword & sorcery.