The Opposite of Rail-roading

[chriton227]

It could be that your players don't feel capable of making decisions that are rewarded in-game. If enough of their decisions do more "biting them on the ass" than "forwarding their career", they are bound to think and rethink every decision point.

Agreed. The times I've been in sandbox style games that started to fall into analysis paralysis, it was because we were beginning to feel that every decision was a wrong decision, or because the consequences of failure were completely out of scale.

Accept a commission to retrieve the Chalice of Anduria? The patron turns out to be a secret cultist who needs the Chalice to free his lich master. Rescue a little girl in the woods? She turns out to be a disguised demon planning on devouring the party in their sleep. Let the press gang down by the docks escape after they try to "recruit" a member of the party? Their next target ends up being the benevolent king (in disguise to better observe the status of his kingdom), and with him out of the picture, his evil half brother usurps the throne. Don't manage to catch the bandits that robbed a supply caravan going to a nearby mine? The bandit use the supplies to breach a lake causing the mine to flood, killing everyone inside because the mine owner wouldn't pay protection money, and in the process destabilize the land all around the mine, causing sinkholes to open randomly under the town, eventually leading to the resident having to abandon the town lest they get swallowed up by the earth.

Occasional plot twists can add a lot of flavor and entertainment, but if they are overused the players will begin to feel that either nothing they do will turn out well, or that the DM is out to get them. If too many times the consequence for failure is huge, but the players have no way know that in advance, the players will become terrified of failing any task they attempt no matter how small, and will spend hours analyzing it looking for any indicator that the task in question is actually vitally important. In both cases, the players may decide that the only safe choice is to make no choice, and either let things go wrong naturally (reinforcing the idea that the DM is out to get them), or trying to get someone else to deal with the messes so it isn't on them if it goes wrong.

 

[Janx]

chriton227 and RC have hit upon the wrinkle, that el-remmen was concerned that "having too many timelimits would be cheesy" (not an exact quote).

To el-remmen's cheezy point, consider these 2 axioms:
1) in RPGs it is cheesy when there isn't a timeline, time limit to finish a quest (take oblivion for example). Other than the "if you find any more of these wierd things, I'll buy them" quests, most quests are problems, with some urgency
2) spend 80% of your time working on the top 20% of your task items. Your boss won't notice the items you didn't get done, because they weren't actually as important.

The 2 statements above are sort of contradictory. But they're both true. It turns out not everything is urgent, or important, in the sense that somebody else will do it, or work around it because its not done. But in the same vein, which is why #1 is true, if the quest isn't finished, SOMETHING happens. Either the monster gets stronger, another hero kills it, the monster got what he cam for an wanders off, people learn to live with the risk of monster attack (perhaps curtailing travel, or arming themselves into a paramilitary militia).

It's cheezy when something doesn't happen as a result of the PCs actions. Let's say your PCs have 3 choices when they see a mission: Do it, join the bad guys, ignore it. As GM's we tend to assume the first, they do the mission. And the expected result is "they succeed, and everything went back to normal, or things got better." But key factor, they do the mission, and things changed.

As Chriton and RC point out, IF we recklessly apply changes for the other 2 choices, we can damage our game world, take it where we didn't want to go. Ironically, that's the whole point of simulationist or sandbox play, the PLAYERS choices take the game to new directions, not the GM.

So I say that yes, every mission should have Changes, based on the 3 "big picture" choices the party could make. I also say, that giving them more work to do than they can handle, sets them up to not complete some missions. Unless you want that, don't do that.

Nextly, as Chriton excellently points out, "screwed ya" missions should be rare. You get a dog to be head shy by whacking it on the head everytime it comes near you to get petted. From then on, you got a dog that won't let you pet it. Which defeats the point of having a pet dog.

Early on (the first few adventures), quests should be straightforward. Go save the princess, go kill those orcs. Later, the PCs know people, have a good reputation, things get more complex. The first "twisted" plot should be that the party gets hired by "bad guy" to do something, and partway through, the party learns they've been duped. Which means the real quest is thwarting the bad guy. If the bad guy dupes the partly fully, then you're just teaching them that they can't trust anybody, because they'll never know who's good or bad. If you do it the way I suggest, you teach the party that they will figure it out in time, to prevent a bad guy from winning. All of this reinforces the good parties doing good with good intent will win most of the time. Only later, when things are their shiniest, do you add layers of division, betrayal, and lies to break from the pattern.

That's the second step, don't make every quest a lie to trick the players into making things worst.

From there, the consequences of "failure to do good" should vary in how far you want to take it. At the safest, another NPC party saving the day, puts things back to right, and can have the least damage.
At the darkest, having the villain get stronger, and sucessfully making the game world harsher is usually not where the GM actually thought the game was going. But none of this means the party can't turn the tide, and restore order.

I suggest the OP have some other NPCs save the day on some quests. SInce he's made a point that the PCs aren't special, than that means ANYBODY can do it. It's not like the world only has 5 special heroes (because the DM said it doesn't). It'll clean up the mess, and take some stress of the party.

 

[Pbartender]

Hey, Nemm, I used to have a lot of problems with this -- I still do to a small degree, but...

For example in this campaign, all the PCs are young nobles of low birth signed to an "adventuring charter" to gather wealth and prestige for their families while doing some exploring saving their nation.

...this is similar to how I solved the problem.

What you're missing, though, is a patron. I styled their charter more on the charters of colonial exploration companies and privateers' letters of marque from the late, late Renaissance. The idea being, first the characters are hired as professional adventurers (giving them an excuse to act as such), they were specifically hired for their talents (giving them an excuse to power-game just a little), and they were hired to work together as a team. Also, the contract specifies the cut that the adventurers get to keep from any loot they bring back to their patron (giving an excuse for the 20% sale prices). Finally, in return the patron provides them with basic supplies, transportation (my guys have use of a sailing ship and crew), and contacts across the known world. Plus, that allows me to give the PCs tasks via the patron.

In essence, some NPC bankrolls the expedition and gives it direction in exchange for taking a (large) cut of the loot.

I try to keep the goal relatively general, "Go explore this newly discovered island. Bring back any treasure you might find. Also, make contact with the natives, and see if its worth opening trade relations with them." If gives them a goal to work toward, but leaves it open for them to go about it however they see fit.

They still tend to over-think decisions (last Sunday they spent half an hour trying to decide on the best way to cross an old rope bridge - they were all paranoid about it collapsing), but it doesn't completely paralyze the game.


Is it too late for some sort of authority figure or organization to latch onto your PCs and give them a little guidance?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Another thing that they might need is guidance on context. I'll occasionally chime into PC discussions when they start talking about thigns that are outside the normal parameters of how things normally work - noting that something one player mentions would probably be looked on by a particular social group, reminding them of the social dynamics of the world - a particular church hates wizards and is unlikely to want their aid, for example.

Raven Crowking may have a point about the players being concerned with a decision biting them on the butt - I've seen that happen a lot in games where there are real consequences to the PC's decisions.

 

[jgbrowning]

So what do you all think? Suggestions? Commiseration? Questions?

Be a bit more easier on them so that every decision isn't viewed as important for survival or success. Make the failures enjoyable.

Easier said than done, of course.

joe b.

 

[el-remmen]

Just to clear up a point. . . the arguing has had little in-game effect. They have never been slow to act because of it, and so far there have been no bad in-game consequences - because basically they use the downtime between thing to argue - or like if the ship for place X leaves the next morning they'll say - well we have half the night - so we aren't taking up any time.

I have been basically making those wait time shorter, because for a long time if I said something like, "And so the evening passes. . ." They will interrupt and want to talk or do things in that time that keep the game from progressing.

Not always - but the proper positioning within that "dead time" means that only real time is being wasted not in-game time.

 

[BradfordFerguson]

Responding to the OP, I understand that your PCs have "a reason to be together" but they don't have a "stated purpose".

For example, I'm running a 4E game set in the Nentir Vale & Fallcrest (back of the 4e DMG), once the players finished Keep on the Shadowfell, I got them to agree to a group purpose that their characters' goal was to restore/spread civilization throughout the Nentir Vale by (1) strengthening each "point of light" (2) connecting the "points of light" (hooray, connect the dots!) (3) founding a kingdom/duchy (4) defending the kingdom from an external threat (5) expanding the kingdom into an empire (6) defending the empire against an external threat. They are currently in stage #2. Most simply put, their purpose is to "Civilize the Nentir Vale."


I think another failure (a strong word, but go with it) is that the PCs are "no one special". Not sure how you have set up your game, but perhaps the lands are too peaceful (?). Perhaps the players think that there will be political blowback if they decide to be proactive and "carve out their own niche"? I can see "the powers that be" wanting to keep tabs on a mercenary band, but if they lord over them too firmly then they may be reluctant to "put down roots".

Around 5th level or so, the PCs cleared a tower inhabited by undead in an abandoned town. The old town had the most powerful mage be its leader. The two arcanists in the group have laid claim to the tower and the town is in the process of being settled. That's fine. They are in the process of clearing a lord's manor in the main town they operate out of, they are already talking about claiming the manor (or at least asking to claim it). That's fine. I won't let them gain a great benefit from it in that they can just sit back and earn gold, so there isn't much harm in it.

Since they have cleared a good number of the obvious threats in the Nentir Vale, I discussed OOC with them about doing a 10-year "time skip" where there is a period of relative peace while the area is settled and trade is restored. The two arcanists are already talking about jockeying for becoming THE Lord Mage of Fastormel, and I've asked players to let me know what their characters will be up to during the time period. So I will let them shape what form the region takes as a result of and during the time skip. Then we will resume play and new threats will emerge and they will see the fruits of their actions in the development of the region (before I attempt to destroy them). muhahaha