What Would You Do?

[pjrake]

running a fantasy game, and the party decided to do something totally unexpected. now, i don't want to railroad them and pretty much they can do whatever they want, but should i alter the plan of the story or just keep it the way it is for now? i'll give you the scenario quickly:

they were exploring a huge abandoned castle in search of a magic item. they found it and the evil wizard stole it from them. they went back to town they he lived but is long gone! the story is that he's working for the evil prince and went to the city with the magic item.

the party,which i thought to go to the king based on all the info they gathered, has decided to go back to the abandoned castle and finish exploring it!

there's nothing really there, except some more encounters, and some minor magic items, but nothing to further the plot.

what would you do? alter the story and have the wizard hiding in the abandoned castle for a final confrontation, or stick with the original idea of having the prince and wizard gather an army to overthrow the king?

-PJ

 

[darjr]

How about a slight change.

Go with the army vs the king thing, but have it take place while they are in the castle, maybe add a few things to help them fortify it as a defensible 'hideout' and then they could go all rebel and such on the bad guys who took over.

Maybe the bad guy would never think twice about the castle ruins being the secret rebel base.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I wouldn't change anything. The evil wizard runs off to be evil with the evil prince and work against the king, unopposed by the PCs. Let those events take their course. Sounds like the PCs aren't interested, so don't force it on them. Just let the chips fall where they may for the setting. If that means a coup or a civil war, maybe it will make the campaign even *more* interesting than it would be otherwise.

In the meantime, the PCs return to the ruins to do their own thing. I'd riff off what they want to do and what they choose. Maybe they're spending time clearing out the ruins, and a group of bandits arrive looking for a base. But these aren't just any bandits, they're a mercenary band the wizard or prince hired and told to lay-low, for now. Or they're a group of soldiers that deserted because they didn't like being under the prince's command. Or maybe they're just bandits looking for a good place to set up shop and hide their loot.

YMMV, but my approach is to always let the players "drive" the campaign. The story is created by their choices and their interests, rather than a script. I never know exactly where the campaign is headed, I just set up situations, NPCs, and sites I think might be cool or interesting, and keep reacting to the PCs' choices.

 

[Stalker0]

Maybe you could put some clue about the wizard in the castle, so the party has some benefit when next fighting him, but they still have to go and find him.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I wouldn't change anything. The evil wizard runs off to be evil with the evil prince and work against the king, unopposed by the PCs. Let those events take their course. Sounds like the PCs aren't interested, so don't force it on them. Just let the chips fall where they may for the setting. If that means a coup or a civil war, maybe it will make the campaign even *more* interesting than it would be otherwise.

This. I understand the temptation to "bring the mountain to Mohammad," but if the players aren't interested in a plot hook, the worst thing you can do is keep pushing them toward it.

 

[the Jester]

now, i don't want to railroad them and pretty much they can do whatever they want...

You have answered your own question. Alter nothing, but enforce the consequences of their failure to pursue the bad guy: the evil prince's plans advance.

 

[RangerWickett]

My response would depend on what the players think. If they think they're on the right track -- "We have to go back to the castle to find that wizard!" -- then I'd retool things so they're on the right track.

If they are just ignoring the wizard -- "Screw it, we want to find more treasure. We'll deal with the wizard later." -- then I'd have there be consequences for their decision.

Generally, I try to make the game's plot tie in with what the players are trying to do. So if they're trying to follow up on the wizard but are just doing it in a different way than I intended, I'll change my plans. It is a group game, after all, and the players should have some (subtle) influence on the overall story.

 

[Nifft]

Nature abhors a power-vacuum. When they get back to the castle, they find it in the process of being occupied by some other, totally unrelated evil critters who were just waiting for the Wizard to leave. These interlopers have some loot.

The evil Wizard and the evil Price go and be evil together. The PCs don't care? That's fine. Maybe the evil Wizard tries to recruit them later, since they're obviously not a bunch of nosy, annoying, goody-two-shoes.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If they are just ignoring the wizard -- "Screw it, we want to find more treasure. We'll deal with the wizard later." -- then I'd have there be consequences for their decision.

Under these circumstances, I'd consider revisiting the campaign structure. That might signal that the group is more about beer 'n pretzels, kill-them-and-take-their-stuff play than anything centering on any kind of significant and ongoing plot.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

The key question is what are the players' goals? If they return to the castle to find the wizard or to find out more about him, leave them a clue or a weakness to find, but show them later that they've given the wizard a big head start. If they just want to find treasure, then you need to decide what role your planned story arc will play. Are your players not engaged by your plot? If not, why not?