D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[iserith]

I'm curious if this situation has arisen in your games, and if so how the other players felt about it.

Did the other players also feel like they had willingly broken an agreement with you? Or were they surprised to learn that you had expectations which had not been met?

For any game, I set expectations with the players prior to play and ask for buy-in. I don't normally run plot-based adventures because I find them to be problematic, but if I do run one, one such expectation I set is that sticking to the plot is required since experiencing the plot is a major factor in the game. If the players don't buy into that, then we don't play it. If they do, then I will hold them to their agreement. Luckily, I generally play with people who understand the importance of honoring their agreements.

This setting of expectations, usually in the form of a Session Zero, is what allows us to avoid the situations outlined in the original post.

 

[Lanefan]

No offense, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Any player that likes to play D&D is able to like an AP. They can have fun playing the AP. They can even prefer sandbox and then switch to preferring AP's. It's all the GM, the group they are playing with, and the chemistry between the three.

This really depends on the AP itself.

As a DM I've run several AP-like series (usually a mix of canned and homebrew modules) embedded within larger campaigns over the years; and some worked well while others...well, let's just say we were all glad to get them over with.

As a player I've been in some embedded APs that were cool as hell and some others where I was counting the sessions until they were done with.

As for them not being very good. I think that might be even more of a ridiculous statement. They may not be your style or setting. But to say they are not good, that's just not true. That's the same as saying Shakespeare is not good. Yes, he is good. You may not like his plays or poems because they don't appeal to you, but there is no denying that his writing is impeccable and put together with an enormous amount of skill.

I think you're rather gilding the lily if you're comparing published adventure paths to Shakespeare.

 

[amethal]

It looks like you're not addressing the premise of the original post though in which everyone agreed to play a certain module and half the party decided they didn't want to do that anymore and went in a new direction without discussing it with the group. If there was no prior agreement, then yeah the main problem here is a logistical one in which the DM has to decide what do on the spot, improvising what content follows accordingly. But that's not the premise as originally presented.

Thank you, I knew there was something that I was missing!

We disagree about what "agree to play a module" means.

If the GM says "I've come across this module that I think is wonderful. I had been burned out on D&D for a while, but it has got me enthused again. I'd like to get a group of friends together to run through this particular module and see if it gives me my mojo back" then of course I'm going to stick with that module through thick and thin.

However, under normal circumstances, I take "agree to play the module" to mean "agree to start the module, give it a fair chance, and see where things go from there".

 

[Lanefan]

If the GM says "I've come across this module that I think is wonderful. I had been burned out on D&D for a while, but it has got me enthused again. I'd like to get a group of friends together to run through this particular module and see if it gives me my mojo back" then of course I'm going to stick with that module through thick and thin.

Ditto if the GM says "Hey, I've just written this module and I think it might have potential for distribution somehow - mind if I run it out for a playtest as the next adventure you lot hit?". I've yet to meet a player who'd say no to that and who wouldn't then play through it to the end; and if they try to break the module* that's good, as if I'm its writer I - among other things - need to know how robust it is and-or what might need shoring up.

* - as opposed to just walk away from it, which doesn't help anyone.

 

[Remathilis]

The question I'd ask the player's is why.

Are they doing it because they don't want to run a module/campaign in a box? Are they doing it because some nugget of flavor-text interested them more? Are they doing it be drama queens and watch the DM's carefully constructed campaign crash down to make themselves feel more important? (I've seen a play say they sabotaged a campaign because it made him feel more powerful than the DM).

If no good compromise could be reached, I'd tell the group to figure out who is DMing next week and start rolling up a PC...

 

[Oofta]

Thank you, I knew there was something that I was missing!

We disagree about what "agree to play a module" means.

If the GM says "I've come across this module that I think is wonderful. I had been burned out on D&D for a while, but it has got me enthused again. I'd like to get a group of friends together to run through this particular module and see if it gives me my mojo back" then of course I'm going to stick with that module through thick and thin.

However, under normal circumstances, I take "agree to play the module" to mean "agree to start the module, give it a fair chance, and see where things go from there".

If any campaign (module or otherwise) is not working, I would hope the people at the table would be mature enough to just talk about it out of game instead of purposely sabotaging the plot. I always encourage feedback and open discussion of issues, because it happens.

 

[prabe]

The question I'd ask the player's is why.

Are they doing it because they don't want to run a module/campaign in a box? Are they doing it because some nugget of flavor-text interested them more? Are they doing it be drama queens and watch the DM's carefully constructed campaign crash down to make themselves feel more important? (I've seen a play say they sabotaged a campaign because it made him feel more powerful than the DM).

Last time I did it, it was because there was what looked (to me) like a pretty obvious solution that would get us ahead of the BBEG of the AP, but which would have A) written off a major city and B) probably resulted in a TPK when we ended up in a situation we weren't supposed to be high-enough level to handle (and the GM wasn't up for re-writing things as much as would have been needed).

Time before that, it was when I specifically didn't want to establish a headquarters for our party, because I didn't want to be that kind of target, and the AP was specifically written to have the PCs not only establish a HQ but fight for the right to do so.

Neither time was I trying to break a campaign. Just trying to succeed at the tasks in front of me in ways the AP wasn't written to handle.

 

[dave2008]

The premise is clear. Some players broke their agreement, willingly. That's all I need to know.

I would need to know more. There are many types of agreement, and the OP doesn't clarify. For example:

1. Was it a qualified agreement?
2. Was it a reluctant agreement?
3. Was it a coerced agreement?
4. Was it an informed agreement?
5. Was it a tacit agreement?
6. Was it an explicit agreement?
7. Was it an agreement to "give it a try?"
8. Was it an agreement to "see it through to the end?"
9. Was it an enthusiastic agreement?
10. etc.

There are many circumstances where I believe an "agreement" has little validity, so I would like to be more informed.

 

[dave2008]

Keep in mind, the premise of the thread is that half way through a module that everyone agreed to play, half the group just up and decides to merk the primary quest giver. This isn’t just a matter of PCs “not acting as the plot decrees,” this is half the players deciding, partway through an ongoing quest line, to completely reject the quest and actively sabotage the other half’s ability to engage with the quest.

Agreed, but to be honest I don't feel like we have enough information to give a good answer. There are so many variables that lead to the decision and we don't know the reaction of the other players to this decision.

 

[dave2008]

Last time I did it, it was because there was what looked (to me) like a pretty obvious solution that would get us ahead of the BBEG of the AP, but which would have A) written off a major city and B) probably resulted in a TPK when we ended up in a situation we weren't supposed to be high-enough level to handle (and the GM wasn't up for re-writing things as much as would have been needed).

See I have no issue with this. If my players find a way to more quickly overcome the BBEGs plans, than great - I let them. However, if that results in a TPK, then I think they didn't really find a way to more quickly overcome th e BBEG's plans. They just ran to the slaughter. As DM, it is my job, I think, to make it fairly clear they are likely heading into dangerous territory. If they want to give it a try anyway, well more glory to them.