RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

21:55, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

SIde quest rejected ...

Posted by w byrd
PCO.Spvnky
member, 263 posts
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:11
  • msg #4

SIde quest rejected ...

I find myself picturing the necromancer killing everything in the tombs in desperation in order to gain a level to learn some spell to get out.  "Gol darnit I know there are some more ants in here somewhere." giggle.

My group of friends is notorious for finding unconventional ways around the quests given.  Many a time have I witnessed the incredulous stare of the GM at one of us then a shake of the head and the GM starts laughing.
facemaker329
member, 6790 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:16
  • msg #5

SIde quest rejected ...

The old D6 Star Wars game used the concept of 'cut scenes', like the cinematic method of providing more exposition without having a character provide awkwardly lengthy explanations of information...several of the GM's I've played with also used them to illustrate the entertaining, and often unintended, consequences of actions the party had taken.  This sounds like a good place to cut away for a moment...

It also gives you the chance to drop a hint that the would-have-been-trivial bad guy may return later...bigger, more powerful, and deeply resentful that someone attempted to seal him in a tomb...*grin*
This message was last edited by the user at 16:18, Fri 03 June 2016.
tsukoyomi
member, 49 posts
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:18
  • msg #6

SIde quest rejected ...

It's hard to find a middle ground between "preparation and detailed plot" and player freedom, it's something that tends to chafe at me as a player from time to time, but it irks me beyond reason as a GM.

It's given me a certain fondness for systems that offer a mechanical benefit for compromise, where I can do "you woke chained to the wall on the villain lair..." without feeling bad about it, and where for the players the choice between genre saviness and blindness isn't a clear cut case of one offering benefits while the other doesn't.
w byrd
member, 2052 posts
I coudn't think of
a really cool screen name
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:19
  • msg #7

SIde quest rejected ...

In reply to engine (msg # 2):

Ya have to laugh at/enjoy the antics of players somedays or your GM career will be short and painful

I LOVE it when players react in ways I didn't anticipate. I had to develop a very fluid, flexible style for how I seed my settings and introduce potential side adventures to adapt to the random reactions of Players...yeah it can be frustrating. but it's not as bad as when a player seems hellbent on derailing you.( and most of the time that's not even intentional.)

I have a stockpile of little side quests I keep around. and leave lying about in a setting...not major events and they really are just there for the players to pick up as they travel about.

I like to have a game world that's not completely scripted or planned out...but is full of little potential adventures the Players can it at random...They aren't completely random in the way rolling on a chart would be..since each one has it'sown self-contained plot and structure...but the group isn't railroaded into them. If they take the bait a little side event happens..if not the story line continues uninterrupted.

I stopped getting  bent out of shape when players don't take the bait years ago. If they hit a Miniplot trigger and keep moving on I just make a note of it.At some point, it might work it's way back into the game...

In this case,  the results may be hilarious when the actual culprits are revealed..if they ever are...They may be reading so can't go into it but believe me it will be unexpected.
engine
member, 109 posts
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:43
  • msg #8

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

tsukoyomi:
It's given me a certain fondness for systems that offer a mechanical benefit for compromise, where I can do "you woke chained to the wall on the villain lair..." without feeling bad about it, and where for the players the choice between genre saviness and blindness isn't a clear cut case of one offering benefits while the other doesn't.
Any system can be such as system, I've found, if the GM and players are willing to talk, and there's less of an expectation of the GM making something on their own that the players will hopefully enjoy but at least accept.

w byrd:
Ya have to laugh at/enjoy the antics of players somedays or your GM career will be short and painful
Somewhat true. I also found that talking to the players about why they are doing what they're doing also helps, at least until you run into a player with a mindset that's just too different.

w byrd:
I LOVE it when players react in ways I didn't anticipate. I had to develop a very fluid, flexible style for how I seed my settings and introduce potential side adventures to adapt to the random reactions of Players...yeah it can be frustrating. but it's not as bad as when a player seems hellbent on derailing you.( and most of the time that's not even intentional.)
I love it as long as it's not a complete negation of something someone offered.

w byrd:
I have a stockpile of little side quests I keep around. and leave lying about in a setting...not major events and they really are just there for the players to pick up as they travel about.
I have ideas, but not really written down, just vague stuff that goes into any brainstorming about a general concept for a game. If the PCs don't have a clear course, or the game needs to be spiced up, I mention some of my ideas to the players and we pick one to flesh out and explore.

w byrd:
I stopped getting  bent out of shape when players don't take the bait years ago.
I just stopped offering the bait.

w byrd:
In this case,  the results may be hilarious when the actual culprits are revealed..if they ever are...They may be reading so can't go into it but believe me it will be unexpected.
It might be hilarious, then again the players might feel stupid. Always a risk.
T.S.
member, 193 posts
I stand in noone's shadow
except my own...
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 16:54
  • msg #9

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

Whenever I have GM'd, I don't get upset when the players don't do exactly as intended. They expect the GM to throw surprises their way. Why shouldn't the GM expect any different from the players. As for the argument that they are making the GM's work he/she put into that dungeon for nothing, I just look at it this way. The traps laid in that dungeon just became the first floor of that wizard's tower they're actually heading towards. They don't need to know. ;-)
engine
member, 110 posts
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 17:06
  • msg #10

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

T.S.:
Whenever I have GM'd, I don't get upset when the players don't do exactly as intended. They expect the GM to throw surprises their way. Why shouldn't the GM expect any different from the players.
Instead of both sides expecting unpleasantness (for the people, not the imaginary characters) that needs to be rolled with or avoided, maybe there's another way.

T.S.:
As for the argument that they are making the GM's work he/she put into that dungeon for nothing, I just look at it this way. The traps laid in that dungeon just became the first floor of that wizard's tower they're actually heading towards. They don't need to know. ;-)
I understand that, but some feel this completely defeats the players' choice. They made a choice, assuming they were avoiding something or putting it behind them. If they weren't, if they are going to experience the same thing anyway, then their choice was an illusion. That's fine, as long as the illusion holds, but if they ever have any reason to doubt it, or suspect that their choices don't matter, expect a revolt.
T.S.
member, 194 posts
I stand in noone's shadow
except my own...
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 17:15
  • msg #11

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

engine:
T.S.:
Whenever I have GM'd, I don't get upset when the players don't do exactly as intended. They expect the GM to throw surprises their way. Why shouldn't the GM expect any different from the players.
Instead of both sides expecting unpleasantness (for the people, not the imaginary characters) that needs to be rolled with or avoided, maybe there's another way.


I didn't mean to imply unpleasantries. I simply said that they should expect surprises. I love it when the GM throws a creative curveball at me. Those are the moments you look back on and joke about with the people who were there. "Remember that time when *insert unexpected event here* I can't believe we pulled it off, anyway."

engine:
T.S.:
As for the argument that they are making the GM's work he/she put into that dungeon for nothing, I just look at it this way. The traps laid in that dungeon just became the first floor of that wizard's tower they're actually heading towards. They don't need to know. ;-)
I understand that, but some feel this completely defeats the players' choice. They made a choice, assuming they were avoiding something or putting it behind them. If they weren't, if they are going to experience the same thing anyway, then their choice was an illusion. That's fine, as long as the illusion holds, but if they ever have any reason to doubt it, or suspect that their choices don't matter, expect a revolt.


In my experience with the people I regularly play with in tabletop (disclaimer: everyone's experiences may vary), whenever we've avoided a certain direction, it wasn't to avoid a set of challenges. It was simply because our characters didn't feel the need to go that direction. Perhaps they felt that whatever was in that tomb was best left undisturbed because they held reverence for the dead and letting them rest in peace. Perhaps they knew that the person who had gone exploring before them and was surely to die was a total jerk who they didn't want to save, assuming he would get what he deserved. In any event, it was rarely ever about "I'll bet there's traps down there. I think I'll pass."
w byrd
member, 2053 posts
I coudn't think of
a really cool screen name
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 18:05
  • msg #12

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

engine:
<Somewhat true. I also found that talking to the players about why they are doing what they're doing also helps, at least until you run into a player with a mindset that's just too different.


As part of my RTJ, and character creation process I ask for ideas they would like to play out. Any events or activities they enjoy playing. and Most Importantly what they dont want to run across in a game.

I have had players who just did not fit, either in player mindset or character concepts...I hate when it happens since I try not to say no...unless It threatens the enjoyment of te game for others or is so radically out of step with the setting/group/Myself that I can't figure out how to make it work.

engine:
I have ideas, but not really written down, just vague stuff that goes into any brainstorming about a general concept for a game. If the PCs don't have a clear course, or the game needs to be spiced up, I mention some of my ideas to the players and we pick one to flesh out and explore.

I like that approach...have used it myself...good communication is vital to the health of a game/group.
I had to start writing stuff down ...Memory like swiss cheese. My notes are usually a paragraph jotted down somewhere...The Group encounters X, which is doing y at Z...after 20 some years I have a lot of notes from previous campaigns...

engine:
I just stopped offering the bait.

And understandable response. Depending on the group(I play with several.) I adjust my offerings according to the group. Some enjoy and adapt well to the random occurrences..others not so much.I Tailor my games to the taste of the group/individual. It works for me but I know other GMs have to adapt to their particular audience.

engine:
It might be hilarious, then again the players might feel stupid. Always a risk.

Very true. Which is why knowing your players is a key part of being a GM...in this case I am sure they will be entertained by the unintended outcome of their actions...if I thought it would cause a negative response the results would never see the light of day...or if it had a major impact on the story line/progression of the game t would be handled very judiciously.
engine
member, 111 posts
Fri 3 Jun 2016
at 18:08
  • msg #13

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

T.S.:
I didn't mean to imply unpleasantries.
True. That's just how much I dislike "suprises" that defuse interesting encounters. I can't think of them as anything other than "unpleasant."

I really dig surprises that drive the players to engage, though. A scary cave comes up and the players aren't sure why they should or if they should go in and one of them says "Wait, my character realizes he has X good reason to go in." Sometimes that X surprises the players as much as the GM, and it leads to progress instead of a block. Those are the kinds of surprises I like.

w byrd, it sounds like our approaches as GMs are actually very similar. Best of luck to you.
Gaffer
member, 1364 posts
Ocoee FL
40 yrs of RPGs
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 03:34
  • msg #14

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

Having run and played more Call of Cthulhu than anything else for the past couple of decades, I completely understand the players' decision to err on the side of caution (and survival). In fact, I applaud it and the GM who took it in good part.
engine
member, 112 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 05:47
  • msg #15

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 14):

A certain degree of risk-mitigation is prudent and even interesting, but if the players focus on that and excel at it then the end result is... nothing happens. There's a line, I just hope players and GMs are thinking of it in the same place.
w byrd
member, 2054 posts
I coudn't think of
a really cool screen name
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 11:13
  • msg #16

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 14):

I've Derailed a few GM plans myself..and it was just a side quest. besides that the entertainment value of their solution was high. The mental image of Derp The necromancer (used name used instead of real culprit)standing slack jawed staring at the blockade as his torch begins to fade and the sounds of shuffling behind him will make me smile for a while.

It'snot nearly as bad as when my GM had a great speech written up for te Head Bigbad...who slowly rose from a flaming smoking it, unfurled hs wing to address the Horde of his loyal barbarian thralls...

I am Urghesh...Your lord I demand you.....twang...swish Urk!!!! thud...barbarian demon worshipers stare in horror.... My archer way back on a hill does his  happy dance as he skewers te dread demon lord of the Hillfolk through the eye...who actually just an imp with a flair for the dramatic.

After that, My GM made sure if I was playing an archer to keep hisBaddies well out of bowshot.

Or when a dark Lord of some scifi Empire took a bullet through his  visor as he was about to deliver his Monologue....which so explains why  am not allowed to use a High Powered Sniper rifle. In general, I am not allowed within line of sight of Monologuing baddies at any time.
ShadoPrism
member, 976 posts
OCGD-Obsessive-Compulsive
Gamer-Disorder
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 15:13
  • msg #17

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

In reply to w byrd (msg # 16):

At least not with any sort of projectile weapon and the time to aim it.
facemaker329
member, 6791 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 16:52
  • msg #18

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

In reply to w byrd (msg # 16):

I've got a track record of bypassing/short-cutting GM plans...but I also have a track record of laying the groundwork for my own side-quests which the GM never really had in mind, initially.  I don't go looking for ways to do it...it just happens.  I take some seemingly trivial action that makes perfect sense at the the time (but later proves to be a counter-measure against what had been planned), or get a random die-roll-result that totally changes the situation...or the situation the GM set up as a gentle prod to move the game forward becomes a major obstacle to my character and he decides to deal with it, rather than just moving along to avoid it.  But, like I said, never premeditated, never by design to screw things up for the GM...just, in trying to optimally handle what's happening, sometimes my solutions are a little more 'optimal' than expected.

I've had the good fortune of playing with GMs who adapt well to that, who enjoy being surprised as much as I do, and who improvise well.  And those moments have made for many a 'favorite gaming moment' story, from the GMs as often as from me.
tsukoyomi
member, 52 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 17:36
  • msg #19

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

It's a lot less troublesome in pbp than in tabletop, it's one thing to get a player pull off something unexpected and have 1~2 days to come up with something, it's another to have to dump 30+ hours of research, planning and villain design because a player pulled off something you didn't expect and then have to come up with to do on the spot that's invariably going to be of less depth and detail than the adventure so far.

On the other hand, unexpected directions is part of the charm of playing RPGs, it gets dull without them.

engine:
Any system can be such as system, I've found, if the GM and players are willing to talk
Actual guidelines of how to measure this reward system are welcome, we use game systems instead of freeform because we want to have guidelines for a lot of things (which hopefully have been tested and balanced for an enjoyable game), having guidelines for 'going along with the genre' vs 'genre-savvy' is just another one, and one that I like having out of the box instead of having to homebrew it and hope it's not a mess in actual play.

It's easier to get things done when talking about it beforehand, sure, but on the downside you sacrifice some of the surprise factor, which can be important in some genres. A system that includes them out of the box lets you be sneakier about such things, making things more enjoyable.
Tyr Hawk
member, 193 posts
You know that one guy?
Yeah, that's me.
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 17:58
  • msg #20

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

I will say that in all my years of gaming, I've never actually had a side quest rejected, but I have had players that solve problems in... interesting ways.

I could sit for hours talking about it, but the one thing that has never failed to happen in any of my games is that, inevitably, my players decide that climbing something will solve their problem. Usually it's buildings, but no matter what the setting, genre, or system I'm running might be, my players will climb something. I don't know how I've managed to encounter so many people bent on climbing, but it happens.

"This old crumbling cathedral looks tall, and there's some sort of mechanism here attached to the central column... let's go climb the outside instead!"

"I don't want to pay a few coppers for the inn or sleep for free in the church... I'm gonna climb onto that hut over there and sleep there!"

"Well, the gates to the abandoned city are over there... but there's also this terrible-looking gap in the wall from an old attack. Let's climb through it!"

"We just woke up in the middle of the desert in a gloomy town with a foreboding castle in the distance... I climb onto the nearest roof and begin leaping from building to building, singing like a ninja Disney princess!"

Not exact quotes, but those are all actual situations from games I've run, and actual player decisions made. They don't always climb everything, but no matter how long the game runes, or how quickly it's over, one of my players will climb something before it's over. Perhaps ironically, pretty much no one ever takes the Climb skill when it's available...
engine
member, 113 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 19:23
  • msg #21

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

tsukoyomi:
then have to come up with to do on the spot that's invariably going to be of less depth and detail than the adventure so far.
Collaboration solves all of that. Collaboration with the primary planned design means that the players are less likely to completely short circuit it the first place, though even if the primary design isn't a collaboration whatever is come up with on the spot can and (since the players have shown a penchant for ruining planning) probably should be.

Collaboration also deals with the issue of depth and detail, as you have players helping come up with details and they're details that the players a) care more about and anything anyone else came up with for them b) are more likely to remember and build off of and c) aren't likely to question as being contradictory or otherwise problematic.

This is usually where someone says "Yes, but surprise!" I've seen players more surprised by a detail that just came out of their own mouth than by anything a GM has ever come up with, and collaboration gives everyone around the table the chance to surprise everyone else, including the GM.

tsukoyomi:
On the other hand, unexpected directions is part of the charm of playing RPGs, it gets dull without them.
Yes, though that can be had without hours of wasted time.

And, of course, time spent being creative is not exactly "wasted," but it's advisable to keep in mind that nothing one creates is guaranteed to come into play.

tsukoyomi:
Actual guidelines of how to measure this reward system are welcome, we use game systems instead of freeform because we want to have guidelines for a lot of things (which hopefully have been tested and balanced for an enjoyable game), having guidelines for 'going along with the genre' vs 'genre-savvy' is just another one, and one that I like having out of the box instead of having to homebrew it and hope it's not a mess in actual play.
What's an example of a game you play that gives mechanical advantages for "going along with the game" vs. "genre-savviness"? Fate is the primary one I can think of, where there are mechanical benefits for "going along," though I'm told that for groups where the players are bought in anyway, those benefits turn out to be redundant.

For most games I can think of, the benefit of "going along with the game" is "actually getting to play the game" and the penalty for not being "genre-savvy" is your character being killed or blocked and nothing happening. If players get to play the game no matter what, and there aren't penalties for not being "genre-savvy" it all sort of becomes a non-issue.

tsukoyomi:
It's easier to get things done when talking about it beforehand, sure, but on the downside you sacrifice some of the surprise factor, which can be important in some genres. A system that includes them out of the box lets you be sneakier about such things, making things more enjoyable.
In my experience, you sacrifice little or none of the surprise factor, though I'm not sure I've played the games or genres you're thinking of in which it is important. Even when collaborating, surprises happen, often better and more engaging ones than those planned by a single GM. And while the games you're thinking of may be more enjoyable along one axis, the "surprise factor" axis, there are other axes to consider.

I offer the above only as a way around the frustration of lost planning time, without having to tell ourselves that it's somehow a good thing. It can be avoided almost entirely, with little or no downside, if one wants. If one is fine with how they see things, then I don't have anything to offer them on this score. I hope I'm explaining myself clearly.
tsukoyomi
member, 53 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 20:26
  • msg #22

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

Cooperation.. how much you can use depends on the table, the story and the genre.
Players that are fine to work with modicum cooperation may just not work with more, and finding players for a game is sometimes hard enough already without being pickier. Overarching arks are a hit or miss with higher levels of cooperation, intrigue just doesn't work without the storyteller holding most of the cards hidden, horror needs the players to work with you more than usual, but never to know what's coming next, and them not knowing what comes next invariably means they can do things to hopelessly derail everything.

engine:
What's an example of a game you play that gives mechanical advantages for "going along with the game" vs. "genre-savviness"? Fate is the primary one I can think of, where there are mechanical benefits for "going along," though I'm told that for groups where the players are bought in anyway, those benefits turn out to be redundant.

For most games I can think of, the benefit of "going along with the game" is "actually getting to play the game" and the penalty for not being "genre-savvy" is your character being killed or blocked and nothing happening. If players get to play the game no matter what, and there aren't penalties for not being "genre-savvy" it all sort of becomes a non-issue.

Let's take for example Mutants and Masterminds, you have something called Hero Points, you can burn hero points to do cool things: pulling special stunts that would normally tire your character, enhancing a roll, editing a scene to your advantage, pulling a piece of equipment just because, etc.
As a GM, you can screw over characters or pull in-genere things (they wake in a prison, the villain's power bypasses their defense because it's kryptonite, the villain gets to monologue without getting shot in the head, a hero's equipment short-circuited or ran out of bullets, a villain automatically escapes), they get a hero point. The GM has an emergency button they can hit in order to save their 30+ hours of work, the player doesn't feel screwed over because they got a shiny point that lets them be more special in a scene later.

As a player, it's no longer a choice between a good and a bad option, it's a choice between a 'good' and a 'bad now, good later' option. The villain gets to monologue now, but you use the hero point to edit a detail and escape the death trap later, say, you just happened to have bat shark repellent in your belt; you make your character weak to kryptonite or give it a family that can be targeted, but every time it comes into play you get a hero point you can use to help resolve the situation; if you're playing, say, horror, you can choose not to go investigate the strange sounds in the basement alone, but if you do and get jumped, you get a hero point in exchange for the trouble you put yourself into.
The net result is that the game ends up resembling the genre it's trying to portray without being forced into it.

I've seen quite a few other systems that do similar things.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:27, Sat 04 June 2016.
engine
member, 114 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 21:17
  • msg #23

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

tsukoyomi:
Cooperation.. how much you can use depends on the table, the story and the genre.
The table, yes, but not the story or the genre.

Overarching arks primarily work only with high cooperation. Genres that supposedly rely on hidden information also work with less or no hidden information, as long as the players are bought in. I can explain what I mean, if you want, though if you don't think you're likely to believe me, or benefit from such an approach, there's not much need.

The Hero Points you describe are a lot like Fate points and, like I mentioned, Fate points aren't necessary when the players are willing to go along because they're bought into the genre. For such players, it's also not a choice between a "good" and "bad" option, because every option is good for the player and they're free to pick the option that makes the better story.

This is usually where people tell me "Then why not just do collaborative storytelling, or free form than play [system X]." Well, because tooling around with rules and having random factors determining and inspiring what comes next can be interesting. All that's changing that the focus is less on keeping the playing pieces alive and happy and more on keeping the players engaged and happy. Death and failure are made interesting things to explore, rather than disheartening things to avoid.
tsukoyomi
member, 54 posts
Sat 4 Jun 2016
at 21:43
  • msg #24

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

engine:
Genres that supposedly rely on hidden information also work with less or no hidden information, as long as the players are bought in.

Sorry but I don't buy this. Intrigue, mystery and investigation plain doesn't work when the players already know it was colonel mustard with the chandelier in the bathroom, or that the king's advisor was evil all along. When the adventure is about discovering and deducing things, already knowing either makes it a chore or makes the adventure about whatever else they're doing outside the investigation, and if nobody knows who, what and when, and you're just pulling whatever comes off the hat? you don't have a proper mystery.

Horror, well, a lot of horror doesn't either, sure, you could probably do your average zombie thing, maybe some serial killer ones too, but when you start to pull into the areas where the charm is not knowing what's hunting you, where the adventure is about discovering what it is and trying to defeat it? someone has to keep that one close to the chest and make sure things are coherent instead of lolrandom that falls apart at the briefest moment of fridge logic.

engine:
Overarching arcs primarily work only with high cooperation.
Not really, sure, you need enough cooperation that they don't hopelessly derail everything (or very loose plans), and overarching character arcs sure do need near-full cooperation, but big hidden plots the players slowly discover? where they approach a big reveal where they find how their past actions have inadvertently thwarted things or accelerated things to their doom? nope, I have pulled those repeatedly without my players knowing a thing about it beforehand, they work much better that way. The hidden foe only works when it's hidden.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:45, Sat 04 June 2016.
Nerwen
member, 1849 posts
seek to understand before
you seek to be understood
Sun 5 Jun 2016
at 22:09
  • msg #25

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

Heh, everything in my game is side quest bait now. Which ones get elevated into main quest importance depends on which ones they latch onto. There is a plot (in that there's a main bad guy doing bad things in the setting), but how the PCs are going to get there - and therefore, what I fully develop with details - depends on what they choose to pursue.

This may work better in play by post format, where there's a lot more think time available to work things out on the fly than in a live game.

Also, I can imagine if the PCs ever come back to the tomb they blocked in the original post, and they find the skeletal remains of the grave robbers and all the loot next to the door ...
engine
member, 116 posts
Mon 6 Jun 2016
at 13:53
  • msg #26

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

tsukoyomi:
Sorry but I don't buy this. Intrigue, mystery and investigation plain doesn't work when the players already know it was colonel mustard with the chandelier in the bathroom, or that the king's advisor was evil all along.
It does if they want it to. People roleplay their characters not knowing things the player knows all the time.

tsukoyomi:
When the adventure is about discovering and deducing things, already knowing either makes it a chore or makes the adventure about whatever else they're doing outside the investigation,
The latter, primarily. Lots of mystery stories are like that, at least in part: at some point, they either know or think they know what the actual situation is and the mystery is about how to prove it to everyone else. I know the king's advisor is evil, but no one believes me without evidence and if I just stab him them I'm the bad guy.

tsukoyomi:
and if nobody knows who, what and when, and you're just pulling whatever comes off the hat? you don't have a proper mystery.
Rather a fun mystery that everyone's bought into than a "proper" mystery that turns out to be a disappointment.

tsukoyomi:
Horror, well, a lot of horror doesn't either, sure, you could probably do your average zombie thing, maybe some serial killer ones too, but when you start to pull into the areas where the charm is not knowing what's hunting you, where the adventure is about discovering what it is and trying to defeat it?
It's only one aspect of the charm, and if the reveal turns out to be blah (as it is in many mysteries) or if hiding details requires too much blocking then it's a setup for disappointment.

tsukoyomi:
someone has to keep that one close to the chest and make sure things are coherent instead of lolrandom that falls apart at the briefest moment of fridge logic.
That's the entire point: If the players are involved and collaborating then there's no fridge logic to worry about. People don't go around poking holes in their own fun ideas.

tsukoyomi:
I have pulled those repeatedly without my players knowing a thing about it beforehand, they work much better that way.
Players know and figure out things, and will play along even when they do to make a cool situation work. If players aren't wrecking a plan it's not necessarily because the plan is working, but might be because the players want it to work and are blocking themselves before the GM has to.

tsukoyomi:
The hidden foe only works when it's hidden.
No, it also works when the players who know about it want it to work. Even when someone has seen a movie before, it can evoke tension and fear in someone who wants to feel those things, who is bought into the movie and what it's trying to accomplish. People who don't want to feel those things can easily dismiss them, but they can also do that even on a first viewing. Fridge logic springs in large part from denialism.

To be clear: I'm not telling you to play differently, I'm just saying that there's a different way to play. No one has to accept that "players will be players" and that derailing actions have to be planned for or rationalized or accepted. There's no one way to handle mysteries or plots or intrigue and it's okay to suggest that the problems people have with the traditional methods really are problems even if they don't always happen and even if other people have found ways to cope with them.
tsukoyomi
member, 57 posts
Mon 6 Jun 2016
at 15:48
  • msg #27

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

engine:
It does if they want it to. People roleplay their characters not knowing things the player knows all the time.
There's a difference between roleplaying while knowing more than the character, and roleplaying when you already know what the plot twist is supposed to be. In a genre that is about said plot twists, it either fails flat or you're not really playing that genre.

engine:
The latter, primarily. Lots of mystery stories are like that, at least in part: at some point, they either know or think they know what the actual situation is and the mystery is about how to prove it to everyone else. I know the king's advisor is evil, but no one believes me without evidence and if I just stab him them I'm the bad guy.
If it is the advisor, what you have is that either you switched genres mid-play, or perhaps to a different mystery (instead of puzzling who did it, puzzling how it was done in order to prove it).

Not that because the players think the advisor did it means the advisor really did it. Done right with the intention to keep things ambiguous enough, the players won't even agree on who the bad guy is during most of the mystery section of the adventure, each trying to prove their own pet theory.
engine:
Rather a fun mystery that everyone's bought into than a "proper" mystery that turns out to be a disappointment.
So your argument is that it's better to ignore an entire genre on the chance you screw up as a GM? because for it to be mystery, it has to have enough internal consistency and a logical chain of evidence that the reveal can be deduced by a sufficiently clever audience, it's a genre about solving the puzzle.
If there isn't a solvable puzzle, then it isn't, by definition, mystery, it's simply another genre dressing as one.

engine:
It's only one aspect of the charm, and if the reveal turns out to be blah (as it is in many mysteries) or if hiding details requires too much blocking then it's a setup for disappointment.
Well if you fail as a GM or if the group can't get into the mood for the game's genre then of course the game fails. If it were a collaborative work and the foe is just as blah, I assure you the game would fail as well.
The group, of course, is free to change their minds and switch or alter the foe, but the sole GM is just as able to change the foe with none the wiser if it looks like it'll be a disappointment.
If the foe only turns into a disappointment when the final confrontation happens (say, a really lucky roll or someone came up with an inventive solution that oneshots it), then neither the group effort nor the single GM has any chance of salvaging that.

engine:
That's the entire point: If the players are involved and collaborating then there's no fridge logic to worry about. People don't go around poking holes in their own fun ideas.
I've had more than enough fridge logic moments of my own plots to believe I wouldn't do it if it were a collaborative work, I've had players say the next day or session "why the hell did I do that? that didn't make sense", I've had players make plans for their characters to do X or Y, only to suddenly change their minds, I've had players change their minds on what they want their character to do in the future every other hour, I've had players talk to me to kill a character and start over with a new one because they don't like where they progressed the character towards, or because they gave it this or that mannerism and they discovered they suck at portraying it or it grew annoying.

To say that a collaborative game would magically make everyone not poke holes on their own (or others) ideas or make them not change their minds is folly.

engine:
Players know and figure out things, and will play along even when they do to make a cool situation work. If players aren't wrecking a plan it's not necessarily because the plan is working, but might be because the players want it to work and are blocking themselves before the GM has to.
If it happens, it happens, just as often they'll come to the wrong conclusion, or not all players come to the right conclusion and they'll get their "I knew it"/"told you so!" satisfaction. Even if they all figure it out, if as a GM you did a good enough work and made the puzzle challenging enough to solve, the players feel good because they outsmarted the challenge.
If you missed and made the puzzle too easy, you can always add new evidence that puts the previous conclusion into doubt or shift genres, granted, this is easier to do correctly between sessions or on a slower format like pbp, but you can prepare a few things you can throw at the players to stall them while you figure out what to do.

engine:
No, it also works when the players who know about it want it to work.
Then it's no longer the hidden foe, just a foe. Not that regular foes aren't useful or interesting, mind, but they are different things. Compare the movie where you get a scene every so often about what the bad guy is doing to the movie where the real bad guy is only revealed at a dramatically appropriate time.
In order to do the later, unless there was absolutely no hint that the real bad guy existed, you need a certain level of internal consistency on the hints that were given, and you can only achieve that correctly when it's planned that way.

Just to be clear, I'm not against full on collaborative efforts, just on the idea that they magically fix everything or their use on genres that rely on a twist, puzzle or secret to work. Now, partial collaborative efforts can work on those, but they face the same 'the players did x and derailed everything' problems.
facemaker329
member, 6792 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Tue 7 Jun 2016
at 05:48
  • msg #28

Re: SIde quest rejected ...

If...IF...you have the right combination of players and GM, anything will work.  That being said, I personally am more in the camp that tsukoyomi is describing.  I've had a few GMs ask me if there are any specific storylines that I want to explore with my character, and the answer is pretty much always, "I'm here to enjoy the story that you're building with my character.  There are things I know I do NOT want to do, but beyond that, I'm game for pretty much anything you throw at me."  And I pretty much always create character backgrounds with plenty of dangling points that an intrepid GM could latch onto and build sub-plots specifically focused on my character.

But I like the element of surprise.  Even when it's sometimes an unpleasant surprise, I don't want to KNOW that it's coming, even if I suspect it is.  I spend altogether too much energy in any given day trying to make sure that the 'story' ends up going in the direction everyone expects it to (literally...I'm an assistant stage manager/wardrobe/scenic/props person, my job is all about making sure that the story goes the way the whole group expects it to go.  It's nice to sit down at a game and NOT have to worry about how we're supposed to get to the next objective, because I'm not even sure what the next objective is.)

Not everyone likes to play that way.  I get that.  And my primary rule is, as long as you are having fun (and it's not at the expense of the other players in the game), then you're doing it right, however you do it.  If that means you want to sit down and build a basic plot for the game with the other players and GM, and that works for them, more power to you.  It takes a lot of the joy out of the game, for me, so I generally avoid games that run in that fashion.  But that doesn't make my way inherently right...or inherently wrong.  It's what works for me and for the people I play with.  If it doesn't work for you, don't play that way, and do whatever does.
Sign In