Sacrificing verisimilitude or adventure

[Quasqueton]

DM's: Have you ever sacrificed cause and effect to prevent the derailment of a game?

Say the PCs seem skittish about going on an adventure for some imaginary reason that they came up with by seeing a connection between actually unrelated events. Then they do something foolish that will cause trouble for them. Would/have you ignore the trouble so the PCs won't be distracted or scared completely off the adventure, even though the trouble would be an honest reaction to their foolish act?

Say the PCs have are preparing to leave town for a dungeon adventure that you've been trying to get them into for a while. Then the night before they leave, the dwarf fighter gets into a barroom brawl and ends up killing someone. The "true" cause-and-effect should have the town guard looking for the dwarf to arrest and try. But that would of course put off the adventure even more, or perhaps would completely kill the adventure as the PCs get wrapped up in the town incident and possibly flee in another direction. Would/have you let the town guard be slow to respond, or maybe the dead man was a troublemaker -- someone the town is happy to be rid of. And let the PCs go on with the planned adventure with repercussions from the barroom killing?

How about the PCs are on the trail of the BBEG they've been after for months (building to a climax for the campaign), then they make a strange leap of logic that ties a completely unrelated NPC with the BBEG. They stop pursuing the BBEG to look into the unrelated NPC. Would/have you have the BBEG "wait around" for some reason while the PCs investigate the unrelated NPC and get their sites back on the real target?

Are you absolutely willing to sacrifice the planned adventure to follow through on cause and effect or verisimilitude? Or have you ever sacrificed cause and effect/verisimilitude to keep the PCs on track for the planned adventure? If you've sacrificed either, did you regret the choice?

Quasqueton

 

[Enkhidu]

I think its a bit extreme to say that one gets sacrificed to save the other. More appropriately, both get, well, streeeeeeetched.

PC's follow the wrong lead toward the BEBG? Then the baddy's plans certainly aren't going to stop, though they might slow down for heretofore unknown reasons. I think the key is then to figure out how and why the adventure falters, and insert elements that will balance both adventure and verisimiltude.

Let's take the first example you used above:

Say the PCs have are preparing to leave town for a dungeon adventure that you've been trying to get them into for a while. Then the night before they leave, the dwarf fighter gets into a barroom brawl and ends up killing someone. The "true" cause-and-effect should have the town guard looking for the dwarf to arrest and try. But that would of course put off the adventure even more, or perhaps would completely kill the adventure as the PCs get wrapped up in the town incident and possibly flee in another direction. Would/have you let the town guard be slow to respond, or maybe the dead man was a troublemaker -- someone the town is happy to be rid of. And let the PCs go on with the planned adventure with repercussions from the barroom killing?

A good way around this is to let the PC's head off on their adventure as planned and make the town guard's repsonse be just slow enough for the PC's to get out of town. Then, you can have a posse chase scene (if the PC's left quickly, make it a posse of lawmen, if they left slowly, then make it a posse of the deadman's friends). Congratulations, you've just continued the adventure without completely sacrificing verisimilitude.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm quite happy to stretch reality in the name of fun... Don't like reworking things the players have 'seen', but will readily change 'unseen' plot elements.

I'll have a pop a the NPC/BBEG thing:

If the NPC wasn't vital to some other story, then I'd be tempted to edit the plot to make the players correct. Can always relocated the BBEGs plan/HQ/whatever until after they've dealt with the NPC. Wouldn't always do this, but wouldn't hesitate if I felt it'd make for a more interesting game.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Verisimilitude is pretty morphic in my games where just about anything that could possibly happen could happen. Therefore, if need be, I'll twist and stretch it to the breaking point.

Kane

 

[the Jester]

Are you absolutely willing to sacrifice the planned adventure to follow through on cause and effect or verisimilitude?

It's not being sacrificed, it's being delayed.

But yes, I am more than willing to change my plans based on game-world consistency. Heck, a lot of the time the reactions to pc actions turn out to be the spark of the greatest adventures!

 

[painandgreed]

I usuually do it the other way around if anything and change the adventure to match the verisimilitude. Which is to say that if the characters got off track or come up with something strange, I'm much more likely to change the adventure to fit what they're doing or let them follow it to the end. If soemthing has to be changed, better for it to change transparently to the players and keep the actions moving int eh same direction. For the most part, I just assume that most players (or the ones with good Wisdoms) have the common sence merit and inform them of when they come up with something really stupid or fantastic. If getting in trouble with the town guard would serious mess things up, I'd warn them as their character would know that before they did whatever they wanted to do and let them have the bed they make for themself. Of course, in some cases, such "bad" ideas might be necessary to complete the adventure. In other cases, most of my adventures tend to be collections of NPCs who I know the typical course of actions for. I worry about those and modify them according to the PC actions as the game progresses. IF the PCs ignore the goblins raiding the villages on the edge of the kingdom, they'll either get stronger or be cleared out by somebody else. The story is about the PCs and how they act not what I want them to do or how I want things to resolve. In extreme cases, I'll start plot threads ("There was a murder in the castle last night...", "Goblins are raiding the outlaying villages...", or "A man is murdered in front of you and all he was carrying is this statue...") without worrying about what they mean later on and just go with whatever seems to resonate with the PCs. I can make things up off the top of my head for the rest of the game session and then come up with a serious plot between sessions. The adventure will usually morph from week to week as I come up with new ideas (many of which are supplied by the PCs in the course of the adventure) and the end result is much different than what I originally had in mind.

 

[Mystery Man]

DM's: Have you ever sacrificed cause and effect to prevent the derailment of a game?

Say the PCs seem skittish about going on an adventure for some imaginary reason that they came up with by seeing a connection between actually unrelated events. Then they do something foolish that will cause trouble for them.

I would reward their characters cowardice and foolishness with pain and death. Seriously.

 

[ThirdWizard]

First off, I'll jump on a soapbox.

Usually, when players are confused, its because the DM didn't explain something adequately or in a way that the characters understand, in my experience. And, that's in my experience as a DM. I've found that if I backpetal a little and explain the situation further, maybe reminding them of a few key things that their PCs would remember, then they realize that their plans are flawed. I'm not afraid to step back a bit and tell them a few things that maybe I forgot to emphasise before or that got mangled in a description. I make mistakes, but I'm not going to let those mistakes move the game in a direction that noone actually wants to take it.

Alright, enough of that.

Things don't slow down in my game because of PCs' decisions. That's actually one of the key points of my game. Lots of things are always going on, and the PCs can never handle all of it, even at best. They already have to pick and choose what they are going to accomplish and let the rest occur on their own. If they pick out some new goal or something new comes up, that's great! That's part of the fun! The dwarf accidently kills someone in a barrom brawl? Sounds like a fun adventure, lets do it!

If the PCs know an enemy is up to no good and ignore it to go on some wild goose chase (which isn't likely) then the enemy gets to operate without their interferance for a while. Now, sometimes someone will pick up some of their slack. The world goes on without them. If there's an invasion force, the PCs don't have to form their own army, the country that is being invaded will have its own force, for example. But, then the world is on its own, and PCs in my game are world-shapers (at least at mid-high levels).

My adventure planning consists mostly of "What are your plans next session?" and going from there. So, I wouldn't have a dungeon planned unless the players expressed an interest in going to there. Thus, many of these situations would be fairly moot in my game.

 

[Obscure]

I'd have have the town guards try to arrest the dwarf. If they are successful in arresting him, he's thrown in jail and visited by a nearby big-shot NPC (or his representative) who has eyes-and-ears all over the town and knows of the PCs and the arrested dwarf. He has the power to pull strings and have the dwarf let off scott-free -- if the dwarf and his friends go into the nearby dungeon and retrieve a certain item for him.

I'd also continue to play the BBEG's actions realistically while the PCs go after the wrong NPC, but try and nudge them back on the right track...maybe the BBEG sends hitmen after the PCs and these hitmen have a note or some clue pointing to the BBEG.

 

[Steverooo]

DM's: Have you ever sacrificed cause and effect to prevent the derailment of a game?

I don't think so...

Say the PCs seem skittish about going on an adventure for some imaginary reason that they came up with by seeing a connection between actually unrelated events. Then they do something foolish that will cause trouble for them. Would/have you ignore the trouble so the PCs won't be distracted or scared completely off the adventure, even though the trouble would be an honest reaction to their foolish act?

I try to work it in... See your own examples, below...

Say the PCs have are preparing to leave town for a dungeon adventure that you've been trying to get them into for a while. Then the night before they leave, the dwarf fighter gets into a barroom brawl and ends up killing someone. The "true" cause-and-effect should have the town guard looking for the dwarf to arrest and try. But that would of course put off the adventure even more, or perhaps would completely kill the adventure as the PCs get wrapped up in the town incident and possibly flee in another direction. Would/have you let the town guard be slow to respond, or maybe the dead man was a troublemaker -- someone the town is happy to be rid of. And let the PCs go on with the planned adventure with repercussions from the barroom killing?

I would have the Dwarf very quikly arrested, and carted off to jail, hopefully before the PCs could react. Once there, I would ask them if they attempt a jailbreak, pointing out to the Lawfuls that this was an Un-Lawful act... If they tried, they could join their friend (I've had this happen, before). Otherwise, Fast-Forward to the trial... Now I would use your "Your Honor, this man was a troublemaker, and arrested many times, for starting bar-fights" idea, and have the Dwarf sentenced to BANISHMENT FROM THE TOWN! (Any other PCs participating in the jailbreak attempt also suffer the same fate, and the rest get a stern warning from the Judge!) Then kick the PCs out of town, and they're free to go on... It takes maybe five minutes, sans the jailbreak!

How about the PCs are on the trail of the BBEG they've been after for months (building to a climax for the campaign), then they make a strange leap of logic that ties a completely unrelated NPC with the BBEG. They stop pursuing the BBEG to look into the unrelated NPC. Would/have you have the BBEG "wait around" for some reason while the PCs investigate the unrelated NPC and get their sites back on the real target?

Have the BBEG continue, and word of the atrocities come to the PCs' ears...

Are you absolutely willing to sacrifice the planned adventure to follow through on cause and effect or verisimilitude? Or have you ever sacrificed cause and effect/verisimilitude to keep the PCs on track for the planned adventure? If you've sacrificed either, did you regret the choice?

Quasqueton

Nope!