What Would You Do?

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Set it up so that when the players get to the castle, they run into another group investigating the wizard...make that group a third faction in the conflict. Let's say that a cabal of evil cultists as figured out what is going to happen, and they want to use the chaos of the takeover attempt to summon something evil. They arrive at the castle looking for clues that will help them plan their event (which is meant as an offering to an uber-evil of you choice).

This gives you the option of a Diablo-like hackfest, or a Cthulu-esque horror scenario -- and it puts the players in a position to be thanked by either the king or the prince, depending upon who wins.

 

[pjrake]

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?

i like this!

the party did actually go back to the abandoned castle thinking the wizard is there, but in fact he traveled to the castle where the prince is (nearby city).

clues were left but looking back i think they were clear enough. they are def into the story and want to defeat him, but just took a wrong turn.

-PJ

 

[pjrake]

Set it up so that when the players get to the castle, they run into another group investigating the wizard...make that group a third faction in the conflict. Let's say that a cabal of evil cultists as figured out what is going to happen, and they want to use the chaos of the takeover attempt to summon something evil. They arrive at the castle looking for clues that will help them plan their event (which is meant as an offering to an uber-evil of you choice).

This gives you the option of a Diablo-like hackfest, or a Cthulu-esque horror scenario -- and it puts the players in a position to be thanked by either the king or the prince, depending upon who wins.

The players are actually the second group; they found the first one didn't even make it inside the castle. So a third party would make sense.

It gives the party something to do, I can drop more hints, and still not alter the main plot line.

Great ideas, guys!

-PJ

 

[Ed_Laprade]

i like this!

the party did actually go back to the abandoned castle thinking the wizard is there, but in fact he traveled to the castle where the prince is (nearby city).

clues were left but looking back i think they were clear enough. they are def into the story and want to defeat him, but just took a wrong turn.

-PJ

Ah ha, here's where things went wrong! Obviously, the clues you left were not clear enough. This is not your fault, but thinking that the players screwed up is probably a mistake, if that's the case. Just ask any long time GM here about the blindingly obvious clues they left their party which were missed and watch the horror stories roll in!

 

[darjr]

Or ask them about the little thoughtless throw away comment that the players pursued like dogs to a bone that lead to a multi year campaign.

 

[NMcCoy]

Make it so that whatever the party decides to do is the most awesome course of action they could have taken. The wizard's not home, but they get to his lab, find his evil experiment, and turn it against him - that sort of thing.

 

[haakon1]

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.

I completely agree. Let the campaign setting continue on its way, and the PC's may, in future, take more interest in it, as they realize their actions have/fail to have affects on that course.

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.

I'd expand the ruins somewhat, to give the PC's something to do, but I wouldn't have the plot come to them, if they choose not to follow it. Some sort of news of the rise of the enemy force would be useful -- maybe they meet someone on the road with tell-tale news. But sometimes a dungeon is just a dungeon, not a secret plot related to the main story . . .

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.

Nod, my NPC's have plans and plots, but they are often foiled, so I never know precisely what will happen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

This.


RC

 

[Janx]

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.

This pretty much nails it. You may not have gotten the players intent in going back to the castle. From the DM perspective, "go to the king" may have been obvious when the wizard skipped town. From the player's perspective, the wizard skipped town, and so they've go back to the last place they saw him.

Asking the players why they went back to the castle may help. Ask them what they are looking for at the castle. it may also be that they figured the villain got away and there's nothing more to be done.

If they are still pursuing the problem, but "looking in the wrong place" then move the problem to them. If they are abandoning the quest, figuring it'll become obvious when the wizard shows up again, then adjust things such that time goes by, and he does indeed show up again, further along in his plot, since he seems to have succeeded.

Basically, your villain got away. You now have the ability to re-use him as a recurring villain. Shift gears and let the party explore the castle, maybe to no effect (or simply summarize it as, there's nothing more). Then move to the next stage of the villain's plan.

 

[Rel]

Off the top of my head:

Evil Wizard goes on to execute his plot against the King while the PC's finish clearing out the ruined castle (I'd perhaps flesh out whatever encounters are there enough to make it a challenge). The King manages to escape the clutches of the Wizard with a mixed band of his royal guardsmen and some of the peasantry that helped him escape, along with a Cleric/Seer/Prophet/Whatever. This "holy man" had a vision that the King's salvation lay in the old ruined castle.

So, right about the time the PC's finish clearing the place out, the King shows up with his rag-tag band. The Evil Wizard, anxious to finish the job, is hot on his heels and will be there with his own forces in just a few days. The King and his troops must defend the castle against the forces of the Evil Wizard and he asks that the PC's be a sort of "flying column" to attack the Wizard during the battle.

I don't think you force a confrontation here. Maybe the PC's think this battle can't be won and refuse to aid the King. Maybe they think this battle can't be won and convince the King to go into exile someplace else rather than make a final stand here. Maybe they find a passageway deep in the castle that leads to a labrynth of more caverns and passages that hold the key to the destruction of this Wizard and that is where the adventure happens rather than defending the castle.

Go with what they want to do. But still have the world move forward on the plotlines they didn't pursue.