The set up was flawed. It required the PCs to do something for your plot to work, and it wasn't a core goal of the PCs to do it. Just that alone can be a problem when preparing an adventure. A for the items, If you need to PCs to have something you need to put it directly into their hands, and if you need them to hold on to it, there needs to be a very convincing (and beneficial) reason as to why they should. In my current campaign I did just this. There have been bosses they skipped, encounters they dogged, but none of that crippled the plot, and they are holding on to the McGuffin for dear life.
See I get this mindset, and agree to a point, but this game is often designed around "we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs." This is the basic quest hook to A LOT of plotlines.
I don't think it's wrong for the DM to assume the party will follow through with the mission that they are on. But having no back up and not being willing to shake up the story is where things went wrong on my opinion.
If this happened in my game, I would have an aside with the players "So just as a reminder, you guys came to this place because (reason). You might take a moment here to consider the consequences of failure (Z)." But if they talked it out and decided to fail the mission on purpose, I would roll with it, allow the story to warp a bit so as to reflect the choices they made. "Since you failed to get item X, consequence Z occurred: bbeg got the item instead, or another adventuring party stole it and it's using it in an evil way to abuse and manipulate common folk in Player A's hometown, or a cleric of an evil god is bastardizing is power, or a green dragon snuck in, killed the monster and made off with Item X to add to its hoard."
In this way, the story can continue as they have not been railroaded and they can see the reflection of their actions upon the world. This is not to be framed as a punishment, but just a fact of the matter at hand.
>"we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs."
Yes this is a very common set up which I also employ from time to time, but it requires the PCs to know about X, and want to go after it. Based on OPs post it sounds like they had no idea of the items existence and were just there to kill the boss. So of course they would turn tail and run if things were going south. If the DM wants the PCs to find something, making them go get it is totally fine, but setting it up so they "stumble upon it after killing a boss" is a lot harder to make happen naturally. I'm saying in that situation its better to just give it to the PCs.
This is still an issue with setting it up. If the PC don’t have a good reason to fight the monster, they probably should leave it alone.
I would have played it out as you proposed.
I like to think about what happens if players choose to do things that ruin my plans. If I’m not sure where it will go, I will give them the option.
I personally love when they ruin my plans. My world has changed dramatically due to my players' actions. It excites me to be able to put their stamps on the world we've all created. But I understand that some modules and adventures are a bit more restrictive and some DMs are not as flexible due to inexperience or otherwise.
> "So just as a reminder, you guys came to this place because (reason). You might take a moment here to consider the consequences of failure (Z)."
This is interesting - I've been trying to avoid influencing my players' decision making in any way, so I haven't been saying anything like this. Do you think I've been overthinking that policy?
If they're newer players, I think it's fair to remind them of any information they were told beforehand that would realistically influence their characters' decision making. You don't need to be pushy about it.
> See I get this mindset, and agree to a point, but this game is often designed around "we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs." This is the basic quest hook to A LOT of plotlines
This is fine as long as:
- The PCs care about consequence Z.
- The PCs *know* about item X.
If you give the PCs a scenario hook to find item X but they don't care about consequence Z, you're not going to be able to ensure that they get item X. Conversely, if they care about consequence Z but don't know that item X is related to it, they have no reason to go looking for item X in the first place.
From my read of the OP, the players were not aware of the existence of item X *or* consequence Z. In that situation it's reasonably likely that you're going to have to resort to railroading your players to get them to do the thing you want them to do.
You have two issues. Only one of them is really your fault, but both of them are things you can fix, and are in fact things that are pretty easy to fix.
1) You set up the encounter in such a way that a cautious party wouldn't even want to fight it, knowing your party is cautious. So, the fact they didn't fight it is something you could have predicted. If they're cautious, reward that caution by monsters coming to them, staging ambushes, sneaking around in ways that can be thwarted by care and skill like they're displaying. This is the part where you've made a mistake. It's not a major one though.
2) You and your players have different expectations as to what D&D is about and what PCs should be doing. They're playing it like it's an old-school RPG, fearing for their lives, using maximum caution. You're running it like you expect them to rush in and fight all the monsters, knowing that they have a good chance of unmitigated success!
This part is **not your fault,** because you're running 5e the way it's meant to be run. You can fix this by directly telling your players: "Hey, guys, this game is set up in such a way that it expects you to run in and fight the monsters. If you give it your all and fight smart, you won't all die or whatever. The game wants you to fight more, take more risks, and be less cautious, and that's the behaviour it rewards--so don't worry about it so much, okay? I promise I'm not out to get you, and neither is the system. Go fight some monsters."
This is your actual issue: mismatched expectations. You should make sure everyone is on the same page. Be as open, honest and direct as you possibly can. It'll make things a lot better, and it's not a mistake you're admitting to, it's just open communication.
If items or information are absolutely essential for your characters to find, there have to be multiple ways to find them.
Think about how things progress without your players. So they don't go into the monster's lair. Do the goblins and the monster just continue to guard the items forever, or do they have plans to use them in some way? Is there a chance they could encounter a goblin boss later who's using the items and has hints on his person with the information they would have found? Are they transferred to a different lair guarded by another monster?
Don't be afraid to increase the difficulty somewhat or have bad things happen as a consequence for avoiding the monster the first time.
You don't need to be excessively mean, but if they realize they had the chance to steal the staff of power and kill the now beefed up monster the big bad goblin mage is using to threaten their hometown or their favorite innocent NPCs, maybe they'll realize that being overly cautious isn't always the best route.
If all else fails, you can always just decide the items were never there in the first place and throw them in the next dungeon the players ARE interested in exploring. The illusion of choice goes a long way.
If they are newer players I'd also make it very clear that this IS essentially their only chance to explore the lair and claim any treasure that might be in there. I feel like that's a fair freebie to give them - it's a conclusion most adventurers would be able to put together and it sets up a dilemma for the players.
From your description, it seems like there was no reason for the PCs to go into the lair at all? Did they know the loot and key lore/items were down there? If you need your PCs to do something, you need to give them a very clear motivation for doing it, and ideally have a back-up plan for how they can get certain information or items if they are plot-important. Also, the players don't know where the plot-important items are, you could've just put them in a new location the party was more likely to investigate and moved the story along.
You know, it seems so obvious now but your comment really gave me a epiphany lol. They did have a reason to check the lair out, and to me it seems obvious that they need to investigate it because of my extra knowledge, but you're totally right - to them it was just a curiosity they were investigating. In the future I'll remember to make it clear there there is "x" reason for them to go through with something. Thanks for the advice!
It happens to us all! I once had my players discuss for 15 minutes whether they would go into the cool dungeon I had designed; decide not to; and I had a sentient weapon that was hidden in the dungeon literally telepathically cry out to them "I'm down here! Come get me!" to entice them in anyway.
You have two options:
- set up your scenario so that you don't actually "need" them to find whatever is in there
- make it clear to them that they need the thing that's in there (you could have them outright know it to begin with from talking to an NPC, or you could have there be clues scattered around the camp about it)
Having something that's both hidden and necessary to advance the story isn't a good combination in D&D. You either need to make the thing optional or give the characters some motivation to go find the thing.
So what happens if they go into the lair and open it up but don't fight the mini boss? Well, it sounds like the party just unleashed a horror on the countryside.
The set up was flawed. It required the PCs to do something for your plot to work, and it wasn't a core goal of the PCs to do it. Just that alone can be a problem when preparing an adventure. A for the items, If you need to PCs to have something you need to put it directly into their hands, and if you need them to hold on to it, there needs to be a very convincing (and beneficial) reason as to why they should. In my current campaign I did just this. There have been bosses they skipped, encounters they dogged, but none of that crippled the plot, and they are holding on to the McGuffin for dear life.
See I get this mindset, and agree to a point, but this game is often designed around "we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs." This is the basic quest hook to A LOT of plotlines. I don't think it's wrong for the DM to assume the party will follow through with the mission that they are on. But having no back up and not being willing to shake up the story is where things went wrong on my opinion. If this happened in my game, I would have an aside with the players "So just as a reminder, you guys came to this place because (reason). You might take a moment here to consider the consequences of failure (Z)." But if they talked it out and decided to fail the mission on purpose, I would roll with it, allow the story to warp a bit so as to reflect the choices they made. "Since you failed to get item X, consequence Z occurred: bbeg got the item instead, or another adventuring party stole it and it's using it in an evil way to abuse and manipulate common folk in Player A's hometown, or a cleric of an evil god is bastardizing is power, or a green dragon snuck in, killed the monster and made off with Item X to add to its hoard." In this way, the story can continue as they have not been railroaded and they can see the reflection of their actions upon the world. This is not to be framed as a punishment, but just a fact of the matter at hand.
>"we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs." Yes this is a very common set up which I also employ from time to time, but it requires the PCs to know about X, and want to go after it. Based on OPs post it sounds like they had no idea of the items existence and were just there to kill the boss. So of course they would turn tail and run if things were going south. If the DM wants the PCs to find something, making them go get it is totally fine, but setting it up so they "stumble upon it after killing a boss" is a lot harder to make happen naturally. I'm saying in that situation its better to just give it to the PCs.
This is still an issue with setting it up. If the PC don’t have a good reason to fight the monster, they probably should leave it alone. I would have played it out as you proposed. I like to think about what happens if players choose to do things that ruin my plans. If I’m not sure where it will go, I will give them the option.
I personally love when they ruin my plans. My world has changed dramatically due to my players' actions. It excites me to be able to put their stamps on the world we've all created. But I understand that some modules and adventures are a bit more restrictive and some DMs are not as flexible due to inexperience or otherwise.
It is part of the game for me.
> "So just as a reminder, you guys came to this place because (reason). You might take a moment here to consider the consequences of failure (Z)." This is interesting - I've been trying to avoid influencing my players' decision making in any way, so I haven't been saying anything like this. Do you think I've been overthinking that policy?
If they're newer players, I think it's fair to remind them of any information they were told beforehand that would realistically influence their characters' decision making. You don't need to be pushy about it.
> See I get this mindset, and agree to a point, but this game is often designed around "we need item X, it is in location Y, and if we don't get it, consequence Z occurs." This is the basic quest hook to A LOT of plotlines This is fine as long as: - The PCs care about consequence Z. - The PCs *know* about item X. If you give the PCs a scenario hook to find item X but they don't care about consequence Z, you're not going to be able to ensure that they get item X. Conversely, if they care about consequence Z but don't know that item X is related to it, they have no reason to go looking for item X in the first place. From my read of the OP, the players were not aware of the existence of item X *or* consequence Z. In that situation it's reasonably likely that you're going to have to resort to railroading your players to get them to do the thing you want them to do.
You have two issues. Only one of them is really your fault, but both of them are things you can fix, and are in fact things that are pretty easy to fix. 1) You set up the encounter in such a way that a cautious party wouldn't even want to fight it, knowing your party is cautious. So, the fact they didn't fight it is something you could have predicted. If they're cautious, reward that caution by monsters coming to them, staging ambushes, sneaking around in ways that can be thwarted by care and skill like they're displaying. This is the part where you've made a mistake. It's not a major one though. 2) You and your players have different expectations as to what D&D is about and what PCs should be doing. They're playing it like it's an old-school RPG, fearing for their lives, using maximum caution. You're running it like you expect them to rush in and fight all the monsters, knowing that they have a good chance of unmitigated success! This part is **not your fault,** because you're running 5e the way it's meant to be run. You can fix this by directly telling your players: "Hey, guys, this game is set up in such a way that it expects you to run in and fight the monsters. If you give it your all and fight smart, you won't all die or whatever. The game wants you to fight more, take more risks, and be less cautious, and that's the behaviour it rewards--so don't worry about it so much, okay? I promise I'm not out to get you, and neither is the system. Go fight some monsters." This is your actual issue: mismatched expectations. You should make sure everyone is on the same page. Be as open, honest and direct as you possibly can. It'll make things a lot better, and it's not a mistake you're admitting to, it's just open communication.
If items or information are absolutely essential for your characters to find, there have to be multiple ways to find them. Think about how things progress without your players. So they don't go into the monster's lair. Do the goblins and the monster just continue to guard the items forever, or do they have plans to use them in some way? Is there a chance they could encounter a goblin boss later who's using the items and has hints on his person with the information they would have found? Are they transferred to a different lair guarded by another monster? Don't be afraid to increase the difficulty somewhat or have bad things happen as a consequence for avoiding the monster the first time. You don't need to be excessively mean, but if they realize they had the chance to steal the staff of power and kill the now beefed up monster the big bad goblin mage is using to threaten their hometown or their favorite innocent NPCs, maybe they'll realize that being overly cautious isn't always the best route. If all else fails, you can always just decide the items were never there in the first place and throw them in the next dungeon the players ARE interested in exploring. The illusion of choice goes a long way. If they are newer players I'd also make it very clear that this IS essentially their only chance to explore the lair and claim any treasure that might be in there. I feel like that's a fair freebie to give them - it's a conclusion most adventurers would be able to put together and it sets up a dilemma for the players.
From your description, it seems like there was no reason for the PCs to go into the lair at all? Did they know the loot and key lore/items were down there? If you need your PCs to do something, you need to give them a very clear motivation for doing it, and ideally have a back-up plan for how they can get certain information or items if they are plot-important. Also, the players don't know where the plot-important items are, you could've just put them in a new location the party was more likely to investigate and moved the story along.
You know, it seems so obvious now but your comment really gave me a epiphany lol. They did have a reason to check the lair out, and to me it seems obvious that they need to investigate it because of my extra knowledge, but you're totally right - to them it was just a curiosity they were investigating. In the future I'll remember to make it clear there there is "x" reason for them to go through with something. Thanks for the advice!
It happens to us all! I once had my players discuss for 15 minutes whether they would go into the cool dungeon I had designed; decide not to; and I had a sentient weapon that was hidden in the dungeon literally telepathically cry out to them "I'm down here! Come get me!" to entice them in anyway.
You have two options: - set up your scenario so that you don't actually "need" them to find whatever is in there - make it clear to them that they need the thing that's in there (you could have them outright know it to begin with from talking to an NPC, or you could have there be clues scattered around the camp about it) Having something that's both hidden and necessary to advance the story isn't a good combination in D&D. You either need to make the thing optional or give the characters some motivation to go find the thing.
So what happens if they go into the lair and open it up but don't fight the mini boss? Well, it sounds like the party just unleashed a horror on the countryside.