The Line Between Bad Assumptions and Good Improvisation

[No brains]

I've seen a few sources that claim that sometimes when a player makes an assumption about the plot, the good DM should roll with that assumption rather than refute it. I can see some merit to this idea. It keeps players engaged, it encourages them to think, and it lets them be cool.

The trouble I have is in deciding when something is crazy enough to work and when it is just plain wrong. Not every idea should work out for some very good reasons. Although I am curious what the good reasons are. Can anyone share some experiences?

[Kaptin Keen]

Sometimes a good GM should simply let players pursue their deluded plans - and laugh at them when they finally realise their error. Not to be done lightly or maliciously, of course, but tremendous fun can come from misunderstandings.

[GrayDeath]

Sometimes a good GM should simply let players pursue their deluded plans - and laugh at them when they finally realise their error. Not to be done lightly or maliciously, of course, but tremendous fun can come from misunderstandings.

Oh yes.

A few years agoe my Scion group decided that a guy I had actually intended as a minor, if cool, recurring Rival-but-not-Enemy was THE central thing of the plot.

And proceeded to find and befriend him, thereby completely forgetting that they were actually following up on a "Do this for me and I will give you Info" from LOKI.

Once they realized whom they had stood up (and that while poverful their new friend was much more fragile than the normal scion) they scrambled and hastened through a lot of close ccalls to get back on track, to my delight however, they managed it. ;)

[Quertus]

Well, personally, I'm not one of those people. I believe in making a world that makes sense, and sticking to your guns regarding what's what.

However.

1) The adventure is whatever the PCs make of it.

There's a series of murders. Instead of trying to solve the murder, they use the confusion to get away with, well, murder? Cool.

2) If the PCs act based on a misunderstanding, is it reasonable for the PCs to misunderstand things that way, or is it a sign of a communications failure with the players? For the former, great, let them run with it until they realize their mistake; for the latter, break to OOC, find out what they think that they're doing, and fix the mistake.

[AMFV]

I've seen a few sources that claim that sometimes when a player makes an assumption about the plot, the good DM should roll with that assumption rather than refute it. I can see some merit to this idea. It keeps players engaged, it encourages them to think, and it lets them be cool.

Well it depends, on how much prepwork you're going to waste honestly. That's the key factor, if you've done a lot of prepwork the other way, then that's real time and energy you've spent and you should try to pull things back towards that. But if as a DM you decide you can just table it you can let them do something else. Basically the key is when they start hitting on something that sounds more interesting than what you came up with, it's a judgement call.

The trouble I have is in deciding when something is crazy enough to work and when it is just plain wrong. Not every idea should work out for some very good reasons. Although I am curious what the good reasons are. Can anyone share some experiences?

Well basically the key here is that there is a rules framework for that very reason. If something is "crazy enough to work" the dice will say so and back it up, if it's plain wrong, the dice will not work and the players will have to deal with the consequences of their failure. That's literally the reason you have rules rather than freeform in this case.

[False God]

I'm not sure if you're talking about changing the plot because the players think it's something else, or running with a side-idea because the players went left instead of following the breadcrumbs?

The examples by other posters seem to be more of the "If the players go left, let them go left." sort.

I don't think I'd rewrite a campaign just because the players misunderstood something that's going on. Though I might evaluate where that misunderstanding stems from and see if that can be cleared up somehow.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I've seen a few sources that claim that sometimes when a player makes an assumption about the plot, the good DM should roll with that assumption rather than refute it. I can see some merit to this idea. It keeps players engaged, it encourages them to think, and it lets them be cool.

The trouble I have is in deciding when something is crazy enough to work and when it is just plain wrong. Not every idea should work out for some very good reasons. Although I am curious what the good reasons are. Can anyone share some experiences?

I'm firmly in the "give PCs enough rope to hang themselves" camp. But I don't see any fun in completely screwing them over. I have an example, but it's kind of a long story...

Spoiler

Show

I ran a game in which the PCs had to infiltrate a prison (disguised as inmates) to rescue a political prisoner. They knew the opposition had an assassin, already inside, who planned to kill the guy they were supposed to rescue. So they get in there, come up with a plan, and start looking for their prisoner. But they find the assassin instead, and somehow get him confused with their guy. And they tell him their entire plan. Hilarity ensues. The plan involved a good old fashioned prison riot.

The riot begins. Nobody can find their guy, because he's not actually their guy; he's looking for his target so he can kill their guy. Meanwhile, the political prisoner is escaping in the confusion without their help. The PCs give up and escape, empty-handed. Now everyone's out of the prison, but the mission is a failure. (They think.)

BONUS INSANITY: They're back on board their ship, getting ready to leave, and the prisoner they were supposed to rescue arrives, asking them for safe passage. They don't trust him and refuse to let him on board because he's lying about his identity. When he finally tells him who he really is, they don't believe that either. Yes, I practically dumped the "MacGuffin" in their lap after their mission failed and they almost killed him on sight.

And the moral of the story is, don't play RPG's drunk when your DM is stone cold sober, boys and girls.

[Kaptin Keen]

Oh yes.

A few years agoe my Scion group decided that a guy I had actually intended as a minor, if cool, recurring Rival-but-not-Enemy was THE central thing of the plot.

And proceeded to find and befriend him, thereby completely forgetting that they were actually following up on a "Do this for me and I will give you Info" from LOKI.

Once they realized whom they had stood up (and that while poverful their new friend was much more fragile than the normal scion) they scrambled and hastened through a lot of close ccalls to get back on track, to my delight however, they managed it. ;)

Heh, yes - that's so funny. I've had players going out of their minds because they figured - 'this guy is too cool to be anything but a main enemy, but he just doesn't seem to have any real part in the plot!' And the real villain was still operating exclusively in the shadows, so that was a long lived misconception.

[Jay R]

Which decision would make the best game?

I've had to add another clue to get the players back on track once. If their deductions had led to a better game, I would have gone that way. [Doing extra prep work is not at issue. I enjoy doing that.

Years ago, I played in a Champions (superheroes) game. The first three clues found were "chess", "match", and "clock"

One player thought a bit and said, "The clock used in a chess match has two faces. I wonder in Two-Face is involved?"

He wasn't. But if I had been the DM, I would have somehow worked him into it, just because that was too good an idea to pass up.

[Kaptin Keen]

Add another clue? Heh, it seems half the time I eventually break down and exclaim 'no, you fools! You're suppose to [whatever].'

And half the time they'll go 'oohh, yea, I can see how that makes more sense.' While the other times they'll go 'what?! How does that even ..?'

[Jay R]

Add another clue? Heh, it seems half the time I eventually break down and exclaim 'no, you fools! You're suppose to [whatever].'

And half the time they'll go 'oohh, yea, I can see how that makes more sense.' While the other times they'll go 'what?! How does that even ..?'

Oh, I didn't show them the answer. I merely proved conclusively that their theory was wrong.

They can keep failing to figure it out as long as I can keep making that fun. When the frustration sets in (ideally, just before the frustration would have set in), then an NPC provides a solution, or the bad guy makes a visible mistake, or something else happens in-game.

[martixy]

Misunderstandings can sometimes be just as fun, or more.

I operate on the rule of cool - that is, if I think something is cool, I'll allow it, even if it wasn't in the original plan.
My cool is held to very stringent standards.

[JBPuffin]

I’m not the best communicator, and not everyone at my table is particularly attentive (which led to a brilliant piece of dialogue in and of itself...), so usually I reassert the critical information if they come up with a crazy idea. If they want to stick to it, well, I’m the sort of DM who has maybe fifteen minutes of content set in stone and another four hours worth of reserve imagination ready to go, so if their mad logic and the luck of the dice agree, sometimes those ideas work. I am also the sort of DM who will suddenly realize details that make those plans somewhat less optimal, of course - like the ranger throwing a Molotov, only to watch it destroy the floor his party is standing on and nearly kill the rogue. You know, details ;).

[ezekielraiden]

For my own game, I have established a *loose* but fairly fixed framework for the overall story; I know who the big threats are, why they are threats, and have a decent idea of a good way to take them down. There are planned scenes waiting for the right trigger, but if a better alternative arises, I'm not too proud to take it. Sometimes I leave threads to dangle while we explore their preferred mission, sometimes I give them consequences for focusing on "something else" while the plot thickens elsewhere. Sometimes there are two choices and they *can't* do both (e.g. the Shadow Druids had two major hideouts, but by the time they had travelled to and addressed one, the other would find out and the occupants would flee). Sometimes I very much intend for them to be mistaken; there's a merchant that they very much don't like, but don't realize his significance; they're too caught up in not liking him and wanting to mess with him to see how the breadcrumbs lead to his secrets. But more clues will appear in time.