D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Scott Christian]

(U3- whch was where I thought we were headed)

U3 - This is like a greatest hits party! You have fine taste in modules.

Maybe when they return to town (assuming they survive the current adventure) then the sahuagin plans are more advanced and raids occuring on the docks, maybe even the town partly destroyed and so the threat willl need to be dealt with. Or maybe I'll sense hte party still aren't that keen on resuming the original nautical theme and there is no forward base and they ended the menace when they finished the Evil Tide module. Or maybe an NPC party dealt with the sahuagin threat and are the towns heroes and not the pcs (and no one cares to hear about the PCs exploits in the far off mountains).

From observation, that is what gives my players that feeling they will never "win" or "complete" anything. Again, not saying it is bad. I've seen it work for some tables. But most players I have met have a hard time if they think the DM is thinking like this. But, that's a metagame stance too. In then end, it's what works for each table.

I ran a game back in 2012-13 where one of the playres wanted to be the "Icequeen" and spent the whole campaign sowing seeds of the imminent arrival of the Icequeen, who would unite the humanoids of the northern lands (Blackmoor) and create a mini iceage on her appearance. Hey that's cool (player idea, not mine) so now those events have transpired, the pc is now an npc and the players in the last two campaings have dealt with refugees from the lands taken over by the Icequeen and her followers, talked about trying to sort out what was happening up north but as of yet not actually done anything about it (last campign was heading that way I thought but then ended up in the tropics and ToA instead).

That is an awesome character arc! And from a DM, really appreciate the way you weaved it into the next campaign. Very cool.

 

[Rdm]

U3 - This is like a greatest hits party! You have fine taste in modules.

From observation, that is what gives my players that feeling they will never "win" or "complete" anything. Again, not saying it is bad. I've seen it work for some tables. But most players I have met have a hard time if they think the DM is thinking like this. But, that's a metagame stance too. In then end, it's what works for each table.

That is an awesome character arc! And from a DM, really appreciate the way you weaved it into the next campaign. Very cool.

It’s true. They can’t ‘win’ a scenario they purposely choose not to engage with.

 

[prabe]

It’s true. They can’t ‘win’ a scenario they purposely choose not to engage with.

On the gripping hand, though, they can't lose it, either. For some players/tables, not-losing is more important than winning.

 

[Rdm]

On the gripping hand, though, they can't lose it, either. For some players/tables, not-losing is more important than winning.

but they can lose. When Losing is defined as allowing whatever they would have been stopping to occur.

 

[prabe]

but they can lose. When Losing is defined as allowing whatever they would have been stopping to occur.

If they choose not to engage, it might specifically be about not-losing. Trying to stop something and failing might feel like a worse outcome than not trying to stop it. It's probably not unrelated to PCs refusing to have goals, because you can't fail to attain a goal you do not have.

 

[Scott Christian]

It’s true. They can’t ‘win’ a scenario they purposely choose not to engage with.

Yes. I understand. But, if they have that scenario and two others, and they choose one of the other two...then the original scenario comes back to bite them. They feel like they lost, even though they didn't play. It's choosing to go and play soccer or football. You pick soccer, and succeed. But then the football coach comes and tells you they lost because you didn't play. That is what I was trying to express.
And for many, it wouldn't matter. I am just saying, my experience has been different. But, you sound like you weave it into the story quite well, so the blow might not even be felt, even though the effects come to fruition.

 

[Mort]

Yes. I understand. But, if they have that scenario and two others, and they choose one of the other two...then the original scenario comes back to bite them. They feel like they lost, even though they didn't play. It's choosing to go and play soccer or football. You pick soccer, and succeed. But then the football coach comes and tells you they lost because you didn't play. That is what I was trying to express.
And for many, it wouldn't matter. I am just saying, my experience has been different. But, you sound like you weave it into the story quite well, so the blow might not even be felt, even though the effects come to fruition.

The impact (on the world and the PCs) of "dropped" or non-pursued quests is an interesting question! How far should it go?

A couple of years ago, I posted this (extremely heavy handed and likely not fun) scenario as a hypothetical (I guess it's relevant to the OP in that the PCs rejected the premise - what are the consequences?):

Say the PCs, early in their adventuring career learn of a hermit outside the city building a strange machine. They have other things going on, however, and don't bother with this hook. The DM gives the PCs updates on the hermit's progress through other NPCs, snippets heard, etc - as they go up in level.

As the PCs get high level, the hermit is completing his machine, which the PCs have learned is a doomsday device. The PCs decide they have better things to do (let the king, rival adventurers etc. handle the hermit) and pursue something else. How justified is the DM in blowing up the world, right with the PCs on it?

Is the better answer, do it - but make sure the PCs are "off world" so they have to clean up the mess they made but are not "directly affected" (where directly affected means dead - they still likely lost most of their stuff and connections)?

Is the even better answer - have a rival group foil the hermit and move on.

Or how about, Have the hermit be partially foiled but enough of the world blows up that the PCs feel it - Actions (and inaction) have consequences.

Sorry if it's a tangent - your post got me thinking about this again.

 

[Oofta]

The impact (on the world and the PCs) of "dropped" or non-pursued quests is an interesting question! How far should it go?

A couple of years ago, I posted this (extremely heavy handed and likely not fun) scenario as a hypothetical (I guess it's relevant to the OP in that the PCs rejected the premise - what are the consequences?):

Say the PCs, early in their adventuring career learn of a hermit outside the city building a strange machine. They have other things going on, however, and don't bother with this hook. The DM gives the PCs updates on the hermit's progress through other NPCs, snippets heard, etc - as they go up in level.

As the PCs get high level, the hermit is completing his machine, which the PCs have learned is a doomsday device. The PCs decide they have better things to do (let the king, rival adventurers etc. handle the hermit) and pursue something else. How justified is the DM in blowing up the world, right with the PCs on it?

Is the better answer, do it - but make sure the PCs are "off world" so they have to clean up the mess they made but are not "directly affected" (where directly affected means dead - they still likely lost most of their stuff and connections)?

Is the even better answer - have a rival group foil the hermit and move on.

Or how about, Have the hermit be partially foiled but enough of the world blows up that the PCs feel it - Actions (and inaction) have consequences.

Sorry if it's a tangent - your post got me thinking about this again.

There's a reason why I almost never have true doomsday devices/plots in my game. I don't want the world to end.

Now, things that will end very badly for a region? Possible takeover by an evil overlord? Unleashing a zombie plague that infests a valley so that it has to be quarantined? Yep, all of those can happen. But world-ending-the-PCs-are-the-only-ones-who-can-stop-it scenarios just don't happen. So areas of my world have become "cursed" at least for a while because PCs ignored it. But ended? Nah, kind of boring.

So that doomsday device the hermit was building destroys the kingdom, potentially threatens other regions in the long term but didn't work quite as well as he hoped. Maybe it becomes a potential plot point for the next campaign.

 

[Scott Christian]

The impact (on the world and the PCs) of "dropped" or non-pursued quests is an interesting question! How far should it go?

A couple of years ago, I posted this (extremely heavy handed and likely not fun) scenario as a hypothetical (I guess it's relevant to the OP in that the PCs rejected the premise - what are the consequences?):

Say the PCs, early in their adventuring career learn of a hermit outside the city building a strange machine. They have other things going on, however, and don't bother with this hook. The DM gives the PCs updates on the hermit's progress through other NPCs, snippets heard, etc - as they go up in level.

As the PCs get high level, the hermit is completing his machine, which the PCs have learned is a doomsday device. The PCs decide they have better things to do (let the king, rival adventurers etc. handle the hermit) and pursue something else. How justified is the DM in blowing up the world, right with the PCs on it?

Is the better answer, do it - but make sure the PCs are "off world" so they have to clean up the mess they made but are not "directly affected" (where directly affected means dead - they still likely lost most of their stuff and connections)?

Is the even better answer - have a rival group foil the hermit and move on.

Or how about, Have the hermit be partially foiled but enough of the world blows up that the PCs feel it - Actions (and inaction) have consequences.

Sorry if it's a tangent - your post got me thinking about this again.

That is a great hypothetical. And it is the premise I was trying to explain. I do think a lot of it has to do with the DM-player relationship. Will the players lose trust with the DM? Will they go along for the ride and enjoy it? The DM's skills have a bit to do with it as well. I mean, we've all had the DM that says, "Well you guys didn't say you did that - so this bad thing happens." It's a crappy feeling. The more expansive is your scenario. The DM saying, "Well you guys never bothered to do something about the hermit, so your world is gone."
This is especially true when the DM is giving you other options. (Which was my original point.) If you have something that is going to cause horrific things, make it clear to the players. Don't say: you can go here, or do this, or stay in town, or find this magic wine when a cult is about to rape and pillage a town.

But that is the OP's question. If they reject the entire premise, then what? My suggestion - do nothing. The mad scientist keeps running into technical problems and never completes his bomb. That's it.

 

[Stormdale]

I agree Oofta, the end of the world is nigh adventures have to have player buy in and if the players aren't into it then what, the world ends? That's why prefer smaller localised advenrures but have always been a fan of the Gygaxian wheels within wheels approach- GDQ being a good example of this approach.

@Christian- it's not trying to have it come back to bite them for not dealing with it earlier just tring to make each decision have an impact, we can still deal with the plot just other things may have happened and the monsters don't simply sit around frozen in time till the pcs to come back. I want the pcs to have meaningful decisions and weigh up the options and consider consequences- 3 smaller adventures happened as the party were adamant about dealing with the smugglers but wanted to do some things nearby while waiting for the Sea Ghost to return the following new moon).

If they get back to Saltmarsh and find the harbour is being raided by sea devils, fishing and sea trade being affected well then they hopefully go "oh crap, we'd better deal with this now". but I refuse as a DM to tell the players what they must do next and put them into a straight jacket or railroad them- the challenge and fun of DMing is when you manage to convince the players to do what you want them to without them realising you've been pulling strings the whole time (or there is a grand reveal where they go oh crap this relates to that adventure we did way back when and they suddenly see a bigger picture and buy into it 100%). That is my aim as a DM rather than hitting them over the head with the "you have to do this or there is no game" bat.

I'm not sure about "not winning" the adventure myself, its more of a case of getting heavly sidetracked with one characters "sidequests" and will take a while to get back to the original adventures (if we do)- it may take us months (in real time) to get back to Saltmarsh, we will see and I'll gauge what kind of adventure they are looking for next. T

U3 is still on the cards after Tsojcanth but we will see. I'm more interested in the journey and not necessarily the destination and I'm sure there are more detours on the road ahead.

Stormdale