"Skip to the END": Handling players bypassing the setup for the main villain

[InnaBinder]

So, spent some time going over your last couple threads to refresh my memory.  I realize in the last thread I explained what an encounter web was without using the phrase, and this time I just used the phrase without explaining what that meant, so my bad if it caused confusion. 

You can have two options on how to generally run a game:

1. Dynamic world - whether you use encounter webs, or just on the fly storytelling, or a number of other methods.  But effectively, the plot and encounters can shift as a result of PC actions.
2. Static world - the encounters are scripted and are independent of PC action.

In a dynamic world, it's pretty easy to solve your problem - find out what the players are interested in or care about, and tailor the encounters to effect those things.  It does take a light touch though, and you need to make sure you don't scare them away from showing that they're interested in anything in your world.  It's best if it only touches on their interests tangentially - their bartender friend has a sister in a near-by village that's under demon attack, for example.  And you can make interest run in the negative way as well - have the lackeys run into the PCs beforehand; be insulting and contemptuous.  You won't have to tell them that they have to wipe the baddies out after that, trust me

In a static world, your options are far more limited, and have mostly been rejected already.  So, not sure what to say on that front.  If you don't want divination protection, you're going to have to have secretive leaders, where the PCs are going to have to struggle to find the right questions to ask.  There's still a risk of lucky chance though - there always will be in that set up.

While this point may have gotten lost or diluted as we've progressed, this is a problem I've seen - and seen discussed - in campaigns other than my own.  I'd like to stress that again.

Personally:
I try to use the player/PCs interests to guide the dynamics of the world within my campaign.  I try to have their choices make for meaningful, dare I say reasonable, chain reactions within the world, just as I try to have their choice of where to go in the world be a meaningful one, rather than moving prepackaged adventures in front of them and reducing player choices to illusion.  That freedom of choices allows for the very real possibility that they'll avoid things that would be helpful in their showdown with the endpoint of their chosen story arc, in their rush to - or luck in getting to - fight that final showdown.

That said, if the player/PCs lead to (borrowing your example) a bartender friend whose sister has a demon problem he needs SOMEONE (hint hint) to look into, that's a Quest-Giver adventure, which can feel very WoW-esque regardless of the path they took to arrive at that particular Quest-Giver.  That's a very delicate balancing act at best, given the previously stated admonition to avoid video-game DMing.  Having antagonistic NPCs be consistently insulting and contemptuous enough to draw the PCs into a given story arc is another form of Quest-Giving, looked at from an OOG perspective.  Genre-savvy players may, and indeed have, made that very observation, either at the time in the game, or afterwards.  So, again, that's a very delicate balancing act, at best, that's heavily dependent upon player buy-in.

[Mooncrow]

The point wasn't lost or diluted - it's just irrelevant.  There's no campaign you can know more about than your own, so that's the one that we roll with, because we (in theory) have first hand information. 

I know several people mentioned this last time, but at some point everyone at the table has to accept that they're part of a narrative - whether it's all in the hands of the DM or in the hands of the player doesn't matter.  If they're going to cry foul at any hint of a structure on your part - throw it right back in their faces.  Have no structure whatsoever.  Do a freeform sandbox city where they can wander around, and do whatever the hell they want to. 

I mean, from an OOG perspective, everything the players do or have the potential to do is a "quest" of some sort.  They can choose to do them or not - I gave some examples of ways to draw them in on their own, through the things that they show interest in.  ie. the parts that they already have player buy-in on.  If you want, I have literally hundreds of other examples of things I've used.  And of course it's not easy, good DMing isn't   Especially when your players are so bloody touchy.

Personally:
I try to use the player/PCs interests to guide the dynamics of the world within my campaign.  I try to have their choices make for meaningful, dare I say reasonable, chain reactions within the world, just as I try to have their choice of where to go in the world be a meaningful one, rather than moving prepackaged adventures in front of them and reducing player choices to illusion.  That freedom of choices allows for the very real possibility that they'll avoid things that would be helpful in their showdown with the endpoint of their chosen story arc, in their rush to - or luck in getting to - fight that final showdown. 

So if this is what you try for, why argue so hard against those exact things in this thread?

[InnaBinder]

<snip>
So if this is what you try for, why argue so hard against those exact things in this thread?

Because those efforts lead to things that are called BAD by one or more of the metrics given at the start of the thread, and in other threads.  That tells me those efforts are insufficient, and need to be improved.  What avenues of improvement are available at this point, that do not fall into one of the other categories of BAD DMing, I do not know, though I would like to.

[Mooncrow]

Well, I tried, including one more that you "snipped".  Hopefully some other, better DM than I comes along and can help you out, because I'm out of ideas.

[Kajhera]

"a) railroading
b) deus ex machina fixes
c) OOC discussions on the story or game world
d) Nintendo Hard Mode
e) cakewalk final battles."

a) -> Sometimes players actually want this, but discounting that, you'll need to let the tactics the party uses work as they should (with the standard brew of complications entailing).

b) -> Yeah don't use this if you can help it. Deus ex machina sours the taste of both victory and survival, but you can give them more minor aid without it being obvious, and sometimes it's perfectly reasonable for them to survive. If you can work in a Chekov's Gun, that's more satisfying, but harder with an abrupt departure from what you expected them to do.

c) -> Don't do it. And whack any player who says something about it with a rolled-up newspaper, like these people who call anything happening or any job offer for people who do random heroic crap for a living 'WOW quests'. Should help! 

d & e) -> You should... perhaps punish a party that's not doing proper reconnaissance. If they bypass all information about the guy aside from where he is, they're probably not the best assassins in the world, which is what they're trying to be when they try to take the straight line. ... From a strictly DMG perspective, having CR = party level +3/4 is a reasonable number, and +5 and letting them run is perfectly reasonable every so often.

[InnaBinder]

"a) railroading
b) deus ex machina fixes
c) OOC discussions on the story or game world
d) Nintendo Hard Mode
e) cakewalk final battles."

a) -> Sometimes players actually want this, but discounting that, you'll need to let the tactics the party uses work as they should (with the standard brew of complications entailing).

b) -> Yeah don't use this if you can help it. Deus ex machina sours the taste of both victory and survival, but you can give them more minor aid without it being obvious, and sometimes it's perfectly reasonable for them to survive. If you can work in a Chekov's Gun, that's more satisfying, but harder with an abrupt departure from what you expected them to do.

c) -> Don't do it. And whack any player who says something about it with a rolled-up newspaper, like these people who call anything happening or any job offer for people who do random heroic crap for a living 'WOW quests'. Should help! 

d & e) -> You should... perhaps punish a party that's not doing proper reconnaissance. If they bypass all information about the guy aside from where he is, they're probably not the best assassins in the world, which is what they're trying to be when they try to take the straight line. ... From a strictly DMG perspective, having CR = party level +3/4 is a reasonable number, and +5 and letting them run is perfectly reasonable every so often.

re: a) I have no doubt that some players may want this, as I keep hearing about these players.  Hearing about them.  Second-hand, or third-hand.  I've not been in or seen a group personally that did want the rails, so I haven't been able to consider it a viable solution, nor have I seen it in actual practice.

re: b & c) Agreed. These are bad.  Of course, actually whapping players, whether with newspaper or other implements of destruction, won't actually solve anything, so I'll take the smiley at the end of that suggestion as indicative that it was made in jest.

re: d & e) I keep hearing in person, and seeing on various boards, that punishing the party highlights an adversarial relationship between DM and players, and should thus be avoided.  I know others in previous threads of mine here and on the old boards have 'scolded' me for encounters that they perceived as punishing the players for not behaving as expected, for example.  So, I don't feel like that's the proper solution either.

I know several people mentioned this last time, but at some point everyone at the table has to accept that they're part of a narrative - whether it's all in the hands of the DM or in the hands of the player doesn't matter.  If they're going to cry foul at any hint of a structure on your part - throw it right back in their faces.  Have no structure whatsoever.  Do a freeform sandbox city where they can wander around, and do whatever the hell they want to.

The reason I snipped this originally is because it raises the same questions I hoped we could answer in this thread, but doesn't answer them, from my perspective.  If it's a freeform sandbox city where they wander around, either they'll run into "skip to the END" issues where they are up against encounters too difficult to handle (which I'm told is Bad DMing), or the encounters will curiously stay within their capabilities, regardless of where they wander (which strains verisimilitude and is, I'm told, Bad DMing), or there's some other solution that happens in that scenario which I've yet to grok, and which is not apparent to me from the information provided.

[Kajhera]

They gather information and find out about the places they're getting into before they get there, so they have a general understanding what they can expect to find - occasional goblin raids vs. entire city subjugated to a dragon's will should be fairly ... comprehensible a difference though more subtle are certainly possible.

But ... basically if the world's open to them they should probably learn to look before they leap.

[veekie]

The issue here I think, is basically oversimplifying bad GMing.
Bad GMing is a policy of extremes, they can be bad for opposite reasons.

[InnaBinder]

The issue here I think, is basically oversimplifying bad GMing.
Bad GMing is a policy of extremes, they can be bad for opposite reasons.

Here's the thing.  I'm asking these things to try to become a Good DM. 

If the feedback that I get from players and from folks on the internet is that things need improvement, then I'm not meeting that metric of Good DM. 

If the stories about my games are met with explanations of how my actions were those of a Bad DM, I'm obviously not meeting that metric of Good DM. 

I don't believe that repeating the actions that have been classified in the past as Bad DMing will ever transmogrify me into a Good DM, so I must seek out new actions, and, when those fail, seek counsel on OTHER new actions. 

I don't believe that being a Good DM 90% of the time is a viable metric for being a Good DM, in the same way I wouldn't call a teacher, or an accountant, or a driver who consistently screwed up one time out of ten Good at those things.  So, I don't want to settle for "usually" being Good, because that means often being Bad, which is Not Good Enough.

[CaptRory]

The problem is that being a DM is as much of an art as it is a science. Maybe moreso.

What makes a DM great to one group can make him suck in the eyes of another.

It's also a lot to do with degrees and circumstances. I HATE railroading. Except at the very start of the campaign. It's easier to handwave why all these disparate characters are together than to cross your fingers and hope roleplaying doesn't kill the game early. It did in one of the games I played in. Several characters didn't fit in with the group and once people started roleplaying out their characters things the GM tried to do to bring the party together just drove it further apart. Furthermore the GM ran it in an Episodic Format like a TV series so there was no between adventure downtime to hang out or do anything or get to know the other characters or people.



If you and your group are having fun, you're doing it right, no matter what you're doing. Not every GM's style works with every group's preferences. There's no standardized formula for the perfect GM.

[InnaBinder]

The problem is that being a DM is as much of an art as it is a science. Maybe moreso.

What makes a DM great to one group can make him suck in the eyes of another.

It's also a lot to do with degrees and circumstances. I HATE railroading. Except at the very start of the campaign. It's easier to handwave why all these disparate characters are together than to cross your fingers and hope roleplaying doesn't kill the game early. It did in one of the games I played in. Several characters didn't fit in with the group and once people started roleplaying out their characters things the GM tried to do to bring the party together just drove it further apart. Furthermore the GM ran it in an Episodic Format like a TV series so there was no between adventure downtime to hang out or do anything or get to know the other characters or people.



If you and your group are having fun, you're doing it right, no matter what you're doing. Not every GM's style works with every group's preferences. There's no standardized formula for the perfect GM.

If the feedback that I get from players and from folks on the internet is that things need improvement, then I'm not meeting that metric of Good DM.

Because this quote is true in my personal experience, I'm apparently not doing it right.

[Marco0042]

How about this option. Let your players be AWESOME! Hey they used their resources, smarts, skills whatever to bypass some threats and face the BBEG in his lair faster than you expected. Why is this bad? Why punish them for ingenuity? Let them fight the BBEG, have a reasonably challenging fight and kick his bitch ass all over till Tuesday. Then when the guards come rushing in and see the evil Necromancer Lord who was forcing them into service is dead they cheer for the awesome heroes who set them free! Ding Dong the Witch-lord's dead, woot!   

[InnaBinder]

How about this option. Let your players be AWESOME! Hey they used their resources, smarts, skills whatever to bypass some threats and face the BBEG in his lair faster than you expected. Why is this bad? Why punish them for ingenuity? Let them fight the BBEG, have a reasonably challenging fight and kick his bitch ass all over till Tuesday. Then when the guards come rushing in and see the evil Necromancer Lord who was forcing them into service is dead they cheer for the awesome heroes who set them free! Ding Dong the Witch-lord's dead, woot!   

When that happens consistently, the players perceive the threats supposedly at the end of the plot arcs as being less awesome than advertised, and voice that concern.  It becomes suspicious that, regardless of where they go in the world, the threats they meet are always appropriate level for them ("reasonably challenging fight(s)"), making the world more artificial and becoming "video-game DMing."

[Kajhera]

How about this option. Let your players be AWESOME! Hey they used their resources, smarts, skills whatever to bypass some threats and face the BBEG in his lair faster than you expected. Why is this bad? Why punish them for ingenuity? Let them fight the BBEG, have a reasonably challenging fight and kick his bitch ass all over till Tuesday. Then when the guards come rushing in and see the evil Necromancer Lord who was forcing them into service is dead they cheer for the awesome heroes who set them free! Ding Dong the Witch-lord's dead, woot!   

When that happens consistently, the players perceive the threats supposedly at the end of the plot arcs as being less awesome than advertised, and voice that concern.  It becomes suspicious that, regardless of where they go in the world, the threats they meet are always appropriate level for them ("reasonably challenging fight(s)"), making the world more artificial and becoming "video-game DMing."

Maybe use more of these environmental modifiers to CR everyone's talking about, on the party's side? Have the party catch their foe by surprise, throw in improved cover they can slip behind after doing XYZ, have environmental hazards they can take advantage of (like shooting a barrel of explosive gunpowder with a bullet if that worked).

If the BBEG's truly over-CR they can teleport away, anytime after level 1, potentially. (If they can't - fly or something) If their base is penetrable enough to admit the party easily, they could easily learn that, abandon it, relocate, and deal with the party when they (and the party) are more prepared and less just-stabbed.

[veekie]

The thing is, Good DMing is not a scalar factor. You can by performing one good DMing activity, result in Bad DMing via excess. Thats why you're facing this problem, because you think its a single goalpost while it more accurately describes a balance of factors.

Railroading is bad, because it denies player volition. Railroading in its lesser form is good, its called an engaging plot. Lack of rails entirely gives you a sandbox, which not  all players are suited to, placing the wrong types of player in a sandbox is bad DMing. In gaming, the destination is practically insignificant, people derive enjoyment from the journey, and a final high from the conclusion of the journey.

Consider the differences when putting players in a scenario.
Direct railroading: They engage the plot in the exact same way no matter what they do. Extremely easy to detect, they are actors in a predefined script(bad DMing).

Sandbox: They poke around their immediate surroundings, arbitrarily decides that some trivia is a hook, and pursue it. You have no preparation for that, and either they are stonewalled, as they pursue a dead end(this is bad DMing) or you have to improvise something right then which can lead to setting inconsistency(also bad DMing). Full open sandboxes are best for self motivating players and improvisation master DMs. You cannot feasibly define all aspects of a sandbox without also making it a small box.

All Roads Lead to Rome: This is a hybrid, of the above two, leaning closer to rails. It diminishes the flaws of rails because in game there is very low perceptible differences between pursuing a given plot or following a given plot. It can be detected...only when they actively reject the plot, which is bad because you are pushing a plot they don't want, not because of the method. Its also vital to any DM who doesn't have unlimited time to use.

Law of Conservation of Detail: Best for reactive players. Just give them ONLY the details they need to go after the plot. For lack of anything else to seize on, they will follow it. Drawback, the setting will seem thin, and immersion may be lowered.

Everything can lead to bad or good DMing, including the inverse. You are to balance conflict(Scaling CR? Gygaxian Naturalism? something in between?), story(Rails to Sandbox), mechanics(RAW only, Final Destination to House of House Rules to Magic Tea Party), loot(Monty Haul to Scrooge), player volition(Only Players matter to Only Story matters) and more. The only constant is the extreme ends are bad. The ideal midpoint varies by group.

[InnaBinder]

Railroading, All Roads Lead to Rome, and Law of Conservation of Detail all appear to be the same animal to me, both from personal perception and feedback.

[veekie]

The alternative is to spend hundreds of hours determining exactly where the players can go, what they can do there, and what happens if they do so. And then they either pick only one option, wasting the other work, or pick one you didn't anticipate entirely.

You can also just Improvisational Theater it, make plot and setting up on the spot.

[InnaBinder]

The alternative is to spend hundreds of hours determining exactly where the players can go, what they can do there, and what happens if they do so. And then they either pick only one option, wasting the other work, or pick one you didn't anticipate entirely.

You can also just Improvisational Theater it, make plot and setting up on the spot.

Are the folks that are considered Good DMs really putting that many hours into it?  Are they all just improvisational masters, unfazed by any wacky ideas the PCs may have?

[Basket Burner]

The alternative is to spend hundreds of hours determining exactly where the players can go, what they can do there, and what happens if they do so. And then they either pick only one option, wasting the other work, or pick one you didn't anticipate entirely.

You can also just Improvisational Theater it, make plot and setting up on the spot.

Are the folks that are considered Good DMs really putting that many hours into it?  Are they all just improvisational masters, unfazed by any wacky ideas the PCs may have?

Or they are playing PbP where they have reaction times measured in weeks and can end up doing plenty of things that are completely off the rails.

I think your problem Inna is that you are taking certain people seriously that should not be taken seriously at all and are letting them turn you into a neurotic wreck of a DM because you are being errorenously led to believe if a campaign is remotely difficult or adaptive in any way that it means you have a horrible game and are a horrible person.

It's shocking at first, but you have to learn how to ignore them or tell them to go fuck off.

Otherwise you're just going to turn bitter and rage about basket weavers all the time.

[InnaBinder]

If by "certain people" you mean "my players and the majority folks that respond to my posts" then yes.