• The Tavern needs to be a safe place and comply with the law. In the UK the OSA requires us to know the age of our members and posters, and yet the UK Govt. has not provided a method to do this that is affordable to small voluntary BBS like ours. To that end, all members are safe and secure, we know you must be adults by now. However if you wish to join as a member, please contact us using the form at the [very] bottom of the page and we shall do a one to one verifiaction.

[generic] Weird adventure structure... why?

Stronty Girl

Stronty Girl

Rune Priest
I've read various published scenarios recently, and a few had this plot structure for the adventure (example for illustration purposes only):

Someone has stolen all the pies from Mrs Miggins' Pie Shop.
Mrs Miggins hires the PCs to track the thief down and get her pies back. She'll pay them £100.
The PCs set off.
But Mrs Miggins doesn't trust the PCs, so she's also hired Psycho McPsychoface to track the thief down.
The PCs work out who the pie thief is and confront them.
The pie thief stole the pies to feed starving orphans.
The PCs are debating the moral dilemma (return pies to get paid £100 versus feed the starving orphans) when Psycho McPsychoface turns up and tries to murderize all to death (1) the thief, (2) the PCs, (3) the orphans and (4) anyone else who was just passing by, such as an Amazon delivery guy and everyone on the number 9 bus.

I don't get this adventure structure at all. The moral dilemma, sure. But if Mrs Miggins doesn't trust the bloody PCs, why did she hire them? Surely instead she should trust them up until the point they give her pies to the orphans? (Assuming they don't opt for the £100).
Why does she trust Psycho McPsychoface?
Will Mrs Miggins still pay the PCs £100 if they return the pies but killed her mate/employee Psycho McPsychoface?

And the question I would ask loudly and repeatedly if I was a player and several of these scenarios cropped up in a campaign... So this is ANOTHER fekking adventure where if we do the right thing there is no payment? Or if we kill Psycho McPsychoface there is no payment? Okay I want PAYMENT UP FRONT from now on!
 
Maybe Mrs Miggins is a nasty kind of patron, and relatively obviously wants to ensure that no-one but the elite oligarchs get her gold-plated pies - and the drop in trust with the party is something that happens through role-play inthe set up encounter?
So Miggins Corp elect to wipe out the bleeding-heart PCs, but exploit their investigative powers to find the pies. Mr McPsychoface is not smart enough to track down pies, but he can easily follow the PCs.

But yeah - we have far too many published adventures where we (GMs) need to work out how to shoehorn some logic into the scenario.
 
Altair-the-Vexed said:
Maybe Mrs Miggins is a nasty kind of patron, and relatively obviously wants to ensure that no-one but the elite oligarchs get her gold-plated pies - and the drop in trust with the party is something that happens through role-play inthe set up encounter?
So Miggins Corp elect to wipe out the bleeding-heart PCs, but exploit their investigative powers to find the pies. Mr McPsychoface is not smart enough to track down pies, but he can easily follow the PCs.

But yeah - we have far too many published adventures where we (GMs) need to work out how to shoehorn some logic into the scenario.
Click to expand...
Sadly this kind of double crossing is so prevalent it feeds the average roleplaying nerd's paranoia and then confirms it as valid.
 
The scenario structure in some cases seems to be half narrative double-cross (NPC vs PC) + half pathetic excuse not to pay the PCs! The latter of which feels to me as a double cross of GM vs players.
Hey, we're playing mercenaries, but you keep not paying us!
Hey, we have cyberware to maintain, but you keep not paying us!
Hey, we're trying to save up enough to open a wild west saloon, but you keep not paying us!
 
That's where Barbarians of Lemuria's XP rule shine. Players characters can find kingly treasures in their adventures, but if the player wants to spend any of the XP gained, they have to explain how they squandered all the treasure between adventures. Adventurers need to stay hungry because at the end of the day it makes no sense to hire yourself out for dangerous job after dangerous job if you are in fact already rich.
 
On a similar note - have seen variations of this is many scenarios:
At the far end is a gong. During the fight a cultist strikes the gong and X the Destroyer joins the fight.
If the cultist doesn't strike the gong (because they are dead) then X the Destroyer hears the noise if the fight and joins the fight

So - the whole bit about the cultist and the gong is pointless. X the Destroyer is going to join the fight regardless.
Now -if preventing the gong being struck STOPPED X the Destroyer from joining in then that would be great. But the scenario writer wanted X the Destroyer in that fight at that time. So why dress it up making it look like the PCs actions made a difference?
 
Polar Blues said:
Adventurers need to stay hungry because at the end of the day it makes no sense to hire yourself out for dangerous job after dangerous job if you are in fact already rich.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're a thrill seeker who likes doing liquor store hold ups?
 
ltd said:
Maybe you're a thrill seeker who likes doing liquor store hold ups?
Click to expand...

I think the question is more that money/treasure in many games has two different functions. On one hand it has narrative value, the lost treasure of Bob the Pirate is the MacGuffin of the adventure. At the same time in many games money is a form of XP. You're meant to spend it to level up your adventuring gear. These two goals don't always agree.
 
With a lot of adventures though, it's the carrot and the stick (usually a BIG stick.) Even going back to AD&D 'Steading of the Hill Giant' it was 'Do this or faced the headsman's axe.'
Perhaps Players started to question motives too much - 'Why am I doing this?' Because you're an adventurer FFS and - you signed up to play an adventure Game.
Conan never agonised over why he was doing things - he just did them
Indy went after the Lost Ark because - that's what he did. He never really expressed any concern about the Nazis getting it (true - he didn't want Belloch to get it, but Belloch wasn't a Nazi.)

But too many times are Sticks built into scenarios: -
'You have the use of this spaceship but there is a totally untraceable bomb which will explode if you deviate from the mission'
'The King has sent a more powerful force to get to the Great Thing first so you have to beat them there. - Why? What's wrong with the more powerful force? After all, the King hired us to do it.'

This can work (XREF the film: Crank. By the time you get to Crank 2 it's - oh no, not again. And then Crank 3 ...)

Ironsworn does get round this a bit by making you swear Iron Vows to do things, they are personal to you and you take a personal loss if you fail. But the overall assumption is - you do this stuff because you do this stuff.
 
Brass Jester said:
Perhaps Players started to question motives too much - 'Why am I doing this?' Because you're an adventurer FFS and - you signed up to play an adventure Game.
Click to expand...

Even if I tend towards light, comedy adventure sort of games, I still feel some sort of coherent set of motivations for the character I play is absolutely key to my enjoyment of a game. The moment I stop believing in my character I stop caring about the game. And being willing to do just anything for treasure does not inspire me.

I strongly prefer games where the premise and role of the player characters is formally defined; you are members of the Rebel Alliance, you are Avengers, you are Ghostbusters, that sort of thing. This makes clear what is your business and what is not your business. It means that though the individual characters' outlook may differ, they share the same purpose and makes it easier for the GM to create content that is relevant to all the player characters. Sure, in the course of a campaign, a character may additionally take an interest in something that is strictly "not their business" and that's fine, but if it's not something the whole party are also interested in, that sideplot isn't goint to get a huge amount of screeen time.

That said, a lot of roleplayers I know feel really constrained by such a tight premise and are much more drawn to the the generic adventurer or eclectic collection of individuals thrust together approach by circumstances. One size does not fit all.
 
This
Stronty Girl said:
I've read various published scenarios recently, and a few had this plot structure for the adventure (example for illustration purposes only):

Someone has stolen all the pies from Mrs Miggins' Pie Shop.
Mrs Miggins hires the PCs to track the thief down and get her pies back. She'll pay them £100.
The PCs set off.
But Mrs Miggins doesn't trust the PCs, so she's also hired Psycho McPsychoface to track the thief down.
The PCs work out who the pie thief is and confront them.
The pie thief stole the pies to feed starving orphans.
The PCs are debating the moral dilemma (return pies to get paid £100 versus feed the starving orphans) when Psycho McPsychoface turns up and tries to murderize all to death (1) the thief, (2) the PCs, (3) the orphans and (4) anyone else who was just passing by, such as an Amazon delivery guy and everyone on the number 9 bus.

I don't get this adventure structure at all. The moral dilemma, sure. But if Mrs Miggins doesn't trust the bloody PCs, why did she hire them? Surely instead she should trust them up until the point they give her pies to the orphans? (Assuming they don't opt for the £100).
Why does she trust Psycho McPsychoface?
Will Mrs Miggins still pay the PCs £100 if they return the pies but killed her mate/employee Psycho McPsychoface?

And the question I would ask loudly and repeatedly if I was a player and several of these scenarios cropped up in a campaign... So this is ANOTHER fekking adventure where if we do the right thing there is no payment? Or if we kill Psycho McPsychoface there is no payment? Okay I want PAYMENT UP FRONT from now on!
Click to expand...

This would have worked better if someone within Mrs Miggins organisation hired Psycho McPsychoface - one who is angry and jealous they were overlooked in favour of some scruffy adventurers. Mrs Miggins could be totally unaware her own employee was going behind her back to undermine the PCs.
 
Or it's just Mrs Miggin's arch-rival, Dr Higgins, who hired Psycho McPsychoface got get the pies for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top