Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9023633" data-attributes="member: 2629">I laid that out in my post.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If the Elven Princess wants to wait in her room until the chance for the meeting with the Human King - no problem.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If the player asks, &quot;Why can't I see the King yet?&quot;, then say, &quot;You're not sure.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; How long do you wish to wait there?&nbsp; Do you want to do anything while you wait?&quot;&nbsp; Then ask the other PCs what they want to do.&nbsp; Continue to move the story along without considering it a problem that the player is no longer on the path the DM originally intended.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Look at the original post and consider what options the DM would consider his &quot;normal responses&quot;: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.&nbsp; The DM sees only two options: The player is clueless, or lied.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &nbsp; This is the same core problem that differentiates a good adventure path from a bad one.&nbsp; 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&nbsp; of the adventure.&nbsp; Bad ones say things like, &quot;If the PCs leave the trail, have fierce storms assault them until they get back on it&quot;, or &quot;When the PCs talk to the merchant, the merchant will dislike them and send them away.&quot;&nbsp; They dictate a single path and give the PCs no chance to be inventive, creative or self-determinative.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9023633, member: 2629"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification