D&D General The Player End Game Problem

[jgsugden]

I think you're looking at this from a difficult perspective, and a change of frame might make your job easier, might provide more fun for you, and might make the game better for your players.

When I prepare for a game I have two phases - build and execution. During build, I am creative and think about what might be interesting from a story perspective. I look at what is possible and makes sense for my setting, and then I build out the idea and shift it into my execution phase. Once something is in execution, my job is to try to not to be creative, or to think about how it impacts the story ... it is to be true to the design intent and let that collide with whatever the players decide to do. In a sense, I try to be two different people with two different jobs: The story writer in build, and the director/actors in execution.

Why do I like this approach? Because it prevents me from thinking about "the script" during the game. I am not thinking about where the story is supposed to go, but instead I think about how to unfold the collision of player approach and the materials I've prepared.

In your circumstance, during the build phase I'd have prepared the game in a way that anticipated what the player told me they thought they'd do ... and then during execution I'd have watched him collapse my house of cards and change the script. As he did so, I'd manage as the other kingdom looked at the situation and dealt with a demanding princess that wanted immediate war - when they were not set up to do it.

Now, there are times where the PCs go into unprepared situations and I have to be creative mid-game. I have been doing this a long time, so I have a lot of "ready to go" ideas that I can drop into a game if the PCs visit an unexpected NPC, if they go off the trail to look for monsters, or if they make a false assumption and decide to break into an innocent noble's house to investigate whether they're secretly a cultist. I can use those "mostly ready" materials and improvise around the things I do have prepared - but when doing so I try to create a central idea for where it is going that is not a direct response to what the PCs decided to do - and then be true to that idea.

All in all, I think this results in a better game. It feels more organic. The PCs have more agency. The world feels like they're changing it rather than it feels like they're executing my script. All of these things seem to be good to me. Rather than dealing with players doing too much to change my plans, I worry more that players are not doing enough to insert their own plans.

 

[bloodtide]

In what way did he change beyond wanting to get on with his back story?

Game session 1- we start with the Elf Princess at the royal lake house with her magic tutor. She finishes her study ("becomes a 1st level wizard"), summons her Familiar (player 2) and is gifted the magic sword (player 3). They role play a bit, then she heads home to meet with her parents. Along the way...she encounters chaos...even gets attacked twice. She hurries home just in time for the coup. She never gets close to her family before they are killed. She tries to fight some....but is only a 1st level character. A couple royal guards get her out of the city, but all die. She rushes back to the lake house to find it empty, but there is a hit squad in the area looking for her. She is forced to fight and kill one lone squad member. then she decides she should get out of the kingdom. End game .

Game session 2- the elf princess flees the lake house, heading towards the kingdoms border...with the hit squad closing in. Couple woods encounters, she gets caught by a village lord who wants to turn her over for the reward. She escapes. Almost gets caught again by the warden, but dose some quick thinking. She finds a couple village folk allies...but the hit squad shows up to burn the manor house down. More fighting. She puts all her clothing and items on one of the dead burned elf women, to make it look like the princess is dead. And slips away into the woods, crossing the border into human lands without more trouble. End game.

Game session 3- Now in disguise as an elf commoner, she takes the road to the nearest inn. I describe the inn...and this is where it starts as he is all like "ok, I head to the capatail to see the king". Ok. She travels by road and river: I describe things, have NPC try to talk to her, have events happen around her...like a normal game. He ignores everything and just says "ok, I head to the capatail to see the king". So she gets to the city, still ignores everything and just go right to the royal palace. She can't see the king until the next day. I describe things, have NPC try to talk to her, have events happen around her...like a normal game. He ignores everything, just saying "I wait to see the king" And end there.

 

[Larnievc]

Session 1 and 2 sound really fun.

What were the encounters they ignored specifically in session 3? What I'm thinking (and this is an outsider looking in) is that all the encounters in 1 and 2 seemed to be preventing her form getting to or from where she wanted to be. Everything she did after the naughty word hit the fan was trying to get out of Dodge and overcoming the obstacles in her way- she had to think fast and fight or die/get captured. All good stuff

So I wonder if, in session 3, where there were encounters she could just ignore- she did. If an encounter is something you can bypass/ignore if it's not furthering your agenda it's entirely consistent with the character's goals to ignore them.

So; brainstorming here- if the King was sick and needed the Sliverthorn flower from the Lake of Adventure she would have been much more likely to feel motivated to doing something other than waiting.

I'm going to have a punt that your player was happy to do all the good stuff in 1 and 2 that stopped them achieving their objects but when their objective could be achieved without engaging (in session3) they saw no logical reason as to why their character would. Seems to me their role playing was on point- why go off to play Gwent and do a bit of bounty work when for all she knew baddies were following her and time was of the essence?

And I mean it about session 1 and 2- that sounded really fun.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think you're looking at this from a difficult perspective, and a change of frame might make your job easier, might provide more fun for you, and might make the game better for your players.

When I prepare for a game I have two phases - build and execution. During build, I am creative and think about what might be interesting from a story perspective. I look at what is possible and makes sense for my setting, and then I build out the idea and shift it into my execution phase. Once something is in execution, my job is to try to not to be creative, or to think about how it impacts the story ... it is to be true to the design intent and let that collide with whatever the players decide to do. In a sense, I try to be two different people with two different jobs: The story writer in build, and the director/actors in execution.

Why do I like this approach? Because it prevents me from thinking about "the script" during the game. I am not thinking about where the story is supposed to go, but instead I think about how to unfold the collision of player approach and the materials I've prepared.

In your circumstance, during the build phase I'd have prepared the game in a way that anticipated what the player told me they thought they'd do ... and then during execution I'd have watched him collapse my house of cards and change the script. As he did so, I'd manage as the other kingdom looked at the situation and dealt with a demanding princess that wanted immediate war - when they were not set up to do it.

Now, there are times where the PCs go into unprepared situations and I have to be creative mid-game. I have been doing this a long time, so I have a lot of "ready to go" ideas that I can drop into a game if the PCs visit an unexpected NPC, if they go off the trail to look for monsters, or if they make a false assumption and decide to break into an innocent noble's house to investigate whether they're secretly a cultist. I can use those "mostly ready" materials and improvise around the things I do have prepared - but when doing so I try to create a central idea for where it is going that is not a direct response to what the PCs decided to do - and then be true to that idea.

All in all, I think this results in a better game. It feels more organic. The PCs have more agency. The world feels like they're changing it rather than it feels like they're executing my script. All of these things seem to be good to me. Rather than dealing with players doing too much to change my plans, I worry more that players are not doing enough to insert their own plans.

All this this sounds like great advice... for Adam. He's the one trying to force "the script" that what he says will happen without any effort or rolls. He's the one removing "agency" from the other players by refusing to react or roleplay with the situation presented. But I don't really understand how it will help the DM in this scenario.

 

[jgsugden]

All this this sounds like great advice... for Adam. He's the one trying to force "the script" that what he says will happen without any effort or rolls. He's the one removing "agency" from the other players by refusing to react or roleplay with the situation presented. But I don't really understand how it will help the DM in this scenario.

I laid that out in my post. The DM would listen to the plans the player provided during the early phases, set things in motion, and then respond to whatever the players throw at the situation. If the Elven Princess wants to wait in her room until the chance for the meeting with the Human King - no problem. Have the King respond as they would based upon what you put in place. Then continue on without trying to force the player to play by your script.

If the player asks, "Why can't I see the King yet?", then say, "You're not sure. You made the request, they asked you to wait for the King, and you're still where they asked you to wait and nobody has come back to you yet. How long do you wish to wait there? Do you want to do anything while you wait?" Then ask the other PCs what they want to do. Continue to move the story along without considering it a problem that the player is no longer on the path the DM originally intended. In the OP, the suggested responses to the situation seem to be aimed at forcing the players to do what the DM anticipated they'd do. Look at the original post and consider what options the DM would consider his "normal responses":

1.) Contriving an illness to the King to frustrate the player's purpose and put things back on the DM's timeline,
2.) Just tell the group that their side loses without any type of role playing or reason for that resolution,
3.) Abuse the DM power to just kill the PC, or
4.) Just talk to the player, which is anathema to the DM.

The DM sees only two options: The player is clueless, or lied. He doesn't see the possibility that the player had an idea before the campaign, then started playing and reacting to the world around him, and then pushed forward a different scenario than originally anticipated.

This is the same core problem that differentiates a good adventure path from a bad one. In a good one, the author of the adventure anticipates that the PCs might go off of the main script and will provide the DM with multiple paths to incentivize the PCs towards goals so that the PCs are very likely to walk the path of the adventure. Bad ones say things like, "If the PCs leave the trail, have fierce storms assault them until they get back on it", or "When the PCs talk to the merchant, the merchant will dislike them and send them away." They dictate a single path and give the PCs no chance to be inventive, creative or self-determinative. Here, the DM has a path in mind for how to resolve the adventure and is not letting the players explore other options for how to move the story forward.

 

[nevin]

Sounds like the most fundamental and common DM problem is happening. The DM is expecting the player to act like he would and would rather demonize the player than talk to him and figure out what he's missed. If you don't understand what's going on or your player keeps doing things that catch you by surprise talking in RL is a good way to go. Get your ego out of the way.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So foreign to me…

Character makes vague background. DM says “cool, I can roll with that.”

Adventure with party with that in the background. Maybe it happens, maybe not but I still play my character with those motivations.

And just roll with the game. How do I tell the DM what will ultimately happen if I don’t know if I will get to 6th level?

I admit it’s a holdover from
Another time, but I bristle at player
Telling the DM how the game will unfold. Maybe it will And maybe it won’t!

Such a different world than the one I started gaming in…

 

[Clint_L]

I split the difference. I roll with whatever the player gives me and encourage them to build on it as we go. I just try to add interesting complications so that they have to make interesting choices. Oh, your motivation is revenge for what happened to your village, huh? Cool! But what if you find out some things you didn't know about your village...

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I split the difference. I roll with whatever the player gives me and encourage them to build on it as we go. I just try to add interesting complications so that they have to make interesting choices. Oh, your motivation is revenge for what happened to your village, huh? Cool! But what if you find out some things you didn't know about your village...

Yes. That is familiar to me. But the when where how for us unfolds in game as we go on quests or whatever.

I can’t help it. My tendency is to recoil when one player dictates outcomes and not just collaborates on themes.

Story games? Good for some (no judgment!) not for me.

We still play a game in which dreams can be shattered and characters can die. Framing, scenes and spotlight? Organic. The dice and players are active agents but no promises are made to anyone. Except to be fair and have fun…

 

[bloodtide]

Update

Well, turns out Adam fell for some game sabotage. Ahhh...classic Outside the Box game drama.

So there are plenty of local players that hate me. And Adam knows plenty of them. So right after the second game, he was taking to some of them. So they went to a whole story about how a player should "rush ahead and do their planned back story because some DMs, like me, won't let a player do their background adventure. And also that some DMs, like me, might have games end before a 'poor player' can do their characters backstory quest...so you should do it as soon as possible." And Adam is the type to fall for that.

And yea, one of the players Jay was in a game I ran a couple years ago. Jays is one of the "writes a novella backstory" types. So he had a whole "orcs killed my parents and stole my dads super magic sword". This is a group game so the four other players pick an adventure to go on. But not Jay, he wants to run off on his own and find and kill the orcs and get the sword back. I make it very clear I'm not interested at all in running two games at the same time: he must game with the group. And the group does not want to do his solo quest, of course. And Jay rejected the idea of playing any solo game...he "had to" have a group for an audience.

So Jay was 'forced' to play with the group. The game only lasts a month, as two players up and quit. And the game breaks up and ends. And Jay gets all mad that "I" stopped him from doing his characters backstory.

So that is why Adam was acting so weird. Me and the other two players calm Adam down. And we recon the game back to the end of session 2. And then game forward.