D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Campbell]

In general I am a firm believer in the notion that the GM sets the stage, but does not get to have much of a say in what the players have their characters do. Other people feel differently. If there is an expectation that players should be sniffing out and following a predetermined linear story I think it should be spelled out explicitly at the start of play.

In general we should be more explicit about our expectations for play.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I feel like that's a good way to say it. There's an understanding that the group is going to use the content they paid for. I like the idea of adding side quests, personalizing the module to accommodate character backstories, and using Paizo style "campaign traits" to tie PCs to the existing storyline.

Isn't that one of the risks of buying material instead of creating it?

But beyond all that, there's an unspoken understanding that you're playing the module to arrive at its conclusion, not your own.

Is there? Odd.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

That's a good wisdom. Case in point.

That said, I find myself reading through Zelazny's "Amber" at the moment, and it's been refreshing to see an old school law vs. order conflict play out.

With Chaotic Amber against the disciplined Courts of Chaos?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

With Chaotic Amber against the disciplined Courts of Chaos?

That's Zelazny.

Lord of Light is even crazier than Amber.

 

[Blue]

This is an interesting point because there's a lot of assumptions and expectations that can rear their head. As a DM, I run sandbox-y, where there's always more hooks than the players can follow, and they can (and do) go off an do something completely else. 100% homebrew.

Another DM in the same group also runs homebrew, and usually has a "here's your hook and adventure", but is game if we go off course to improv - though he may ask for a few minutes of prep time before doing something like a big improved fight to make it interesting, which is completely fair and for our benefit.

A third DM does an excellent job running adventures, and is up for lots of improving within the adventure, but expects that we'll be following the adventure put in front of us. Maybe not as the writers expected, but staying on goal.

And all three of our DMing styles come out in play. A good example was in a campaign run by the second DM where to where we wanted to go, we needed to promise something powerful to a faction we didn't support. There had been a number of moral choices in this campaign and one character drew the line at this. From my perspective that's not only fine, but the point of putting moral choices in. From the third DM, that was the next set to move forward in the adventure so we needed to take it. We were both right - if we were running our own campaigns. But what was right for this campaign depending on this DM. And that was a good lesson to be reminded of.

(BTW, the third DM does put morale quandries in his games. They are usually for bonus power, more loot, or something like that, so turning them down doesn't derail the plot. He's a hell of a lot of fun to run with and to run for even if we have different styles in this one aspect.)

 

[Rdm]

In general I am a firm believer in the notion that the GM sets the stage, but does not get to have much of a say in what the players have their characters do. Other people feel differently. If there is an expectation that players should be sniffing out and following a predetermined linear story I think it should be spelled out explicitly at the start of play.

In general we should be more explicit about our expectations for play.

Thing is, if you say you are running a module it is kinda explicit. You are trying to, you know, run the module. Kind of self implying.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Thing is, if you say you are running a module it is kinda explicit. You are trying to, you know, run the module. Kind of self implying.

Then the DM should also explicitly ask the players if they're OK with player that adventure completely on rails. As long as everyone knows what they're signing up for, major issues shouldn't arise. If the players think the module is only a jumping off point, but the DM wants to run the module exactly as written, problems will arise.

 

[Rdm]

The is a quite big difference between no accepting the basic premise of a module and being ‘completely on rails’. Most modules have plenty of room for creativity. That not everything imaginable works doesn’t mean nothing does.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The is a quite big difference between no accepting the basic premise of a module and being ‘completely on rails’. Most modules have plenty of room for creativity. That not everything imaginable works doesn’t mean nothing does.

In which case the DM should explain how much and what kind of creativity is allowed at his/her table. It's the DM's job to set expectations. If the DM sets those expectations poorly, the players don't understand them well enough, or the player rebel against them, the DM is responsible. It's the DM's game.

 

[Rdm]

In which case the DM should explain how much and what kind of creativity is allowed at his/her table. It's the DM's job to set expectations. If the DM sets those expectations poorly, the players don't understand them well enough, or the player rebel against them, the DM is responsible. It's the DM's game.

Uhhuh. There is no responsibility on players to, basically, buy into the premise of the game being played?