you’re definitely right about the time limit. at that point you are about 5 minutes away from every spell in the party’s arsenal being cast on that crown, followed by the main quest getting derailed by the mystery of the plot armored artifact.
Technically there could be. After all, the GM has final say. But players will want to search for a reason, because they expect consistency. Spells don’t typically fail without reason. That reason can be a low die roll if the spell description calls for it, but many spells (like Prestidigitation) don’t require a roll.
So having the spell fail “because the plot says no” is inconsistent. It would immediately throw up a giant red flag in the players’ minds, and make them think the item is much more important than they initially realized. After all, if the plot says the spell doesn’t work, then that means something in the world is preventing it from working.
It makes more sense to have the item be cursed, or haunted, or protected by a god, or any other number of things that would give the players some sort of explanation to latch onto. If you keep it vague, the players will inevitably spend a lot of time trying to figure out why it can’t be cleaned. Because they expect consistency, and will keep throwing things at it until they find a reason. So it’s better to just give them a reason (even if you just came up with it in a panic) because that at least gives them some resolution, and they can file it away in their quest list for later.
We don’t do that here. The GM provides the model of physics the players accept and expect. If the GM just says “nah” when stuff is inconvenient, players don’t know what to expect, and the world becomes inconsistent.
A big part of the GM’s fun in TTRPGs is improving off that. Players always ruin my plans, but that’s part of the game.
Yes, exactly. Consistency is important, because it builds and reinforces trust. The GM just saying “nah” is the other side of the player showing up with a homebrew bullshit build.
I get a lot of pushback from the Pathfinder 2e subreddit for promoting the idea that the system is really great for character-driven, fiction-first tables, because everyone just looks at the number of rules and goes “it’s so obviously a gameist system, why would you ever try to run it as anything else?”, and the answer is it’s a fantastic physics system. The rules provide clarity and consistency where it’s really useful or important, and are easily ignorable where it doesn’t matter.
Yep, the problem with 5e is all the bullshit exceptions to the rules you have to deal with. My biggest most obvious issue every player deals with is bonus actions. They were never playtested and added really late to 5e, and it shows. It’s something like: you can use a bonus action for any action that says it can be used as a bonus action, except you can’t cast a spell with it if you’ve already cast a spell this turn… except for some spells sometimes. The P2e method of everything just costing a set amount of action points, and if you have enough you can always do it, is so much better for players and DMs. It’s just consistent and you know what to expect.
There’s still plenty of room for the DM, but the rules can always be trusted.
You’ve triggered my trap card. I’m going to do the special interest info-dump now. Apologies in advance.
It’s good. It’s written a little weird – it uses inheritance, like computer programming, which can be a little more difficult to wrap you head around than it needs to be if you’re not at least a little familiar with coding, and it’s written as if it’s doing everything possible to shut down rules lawyers, so whatever doesn’t read like API documentation reads a bit like legalese – but the actual system is nice.
It’s highly balanced, which is an awful word that its fanbase doesn’t seem to understand, but it means that it totally shuts down winning in character creation, and shifts the power game to one of tactics rather than build. The result is that much of the discussion about the game treats it as if it’s exclusively a tactical combat game (because most discussing the game are crypto-power-gamers), rather than a fantasy RPG, and the most enthusiastic players push back hard against any kind of reframing. But it has a ton of support fo roleplay focused tables, and it pares down easily for casual tables.
Plus, you know, it’s free! And it’s fairly easy to convert from 3.x/PF1, meaning that there’s a whole generation of content out there for it beyond first party offerings, for just a little more effort than standard prep.
Really, what the DM says goes. So if you want to be boring you can just say it doesn’t work for some reason. The answer above re: pivoting to it being a powerful illusion spell or something so there is a reason the spell didn’t work is a lot more compelling and interesting imo
You could also just have it work and go with whatever follows from it though.
I believe you should have a plot prepared but you also shouldn’t be afraid to adapt it if the players do something unexpected.
It’s more work, but in my experience players can usually smell when you’re just trying to block them. And they will derive fun from having found out your plans early (which is totally ok to tell them).
Ime, players are entirely willing to accept an extremely short session just so I can prep and set back up after they throw me a massive curveball. If you’re capable of doing it on the fly, that’s great, but I’m not and my players usually understand.
Had a twelve minute session once because I forgot I gave the party a foldable boat like three months ago on a whim, and they used it to skip the next ~3 sessions of content. I had an entire thing setup where they’d help a dwarfhold hunt a dragon, and had started on some city-based intrigue in the next area.
I just leveled with them that I had not even slightly expected this session to go this way and had nothing prepped so we’d stop early and pick it up next time.
Retconing things to protect muh precious twists is not compelling, though, it’s just base metagaming. The unwavering plot is the GM equivalent of the 8 page main character syndrome PC backstory. If I found out my GM was doing that, they wouldn’t be my GM anymore.
there’s two answers to this question, one is mechanical and one is social. you as the DM can tell the players no not now, and they can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try to do something about it, which depending on the group could be an issue.
so in this scenario a good DM could whip up some misdirection, for example set up a traveling artificer who just passed through town a couple weeks back and who the players could track down as a lead - conveniently in the direction of the main quest objective.
IMO this is kinda one of the problems with DnD 5e, at least if you want to do certain kinds of stories.
The players just have so many tools at their disposal to do anything and everything that its hard to put them into a challenging situation that:
A) Doesn’t involve combat
and
B) Isn’t a completely artificial-feeling scenario that’s been engineered specifically to negate all of the “I don’t have to care about this” buttons that players have on their sheets.
you’re definitely right about the time limit. at that point you are about 5 minutes away from every spell in the party’s arsenal being cast on that crown, followed by the main quest getting derailed by the mystery of the plot armored artifact.
I’m extremely naive when it comes to tabletop RPGs
Is there any kind of “plot says no” response to magic? Something like the doors in oblivion where you need a key to unlock
Technically there could be. After all, the GM has final say. But players will want to search for a reason, because they expect consistency. Spells don’t typically fail without reason. That reason can be a low die roll if the spell description calls for it, but many spells (like Prestidigitation) don’t require a roll.
So having the spell fail “because the plot says no” is inconsistent. It would immediately throw up a giant red flag in the players’ minds, and make them think the item is much more important than they initially realized. After all, if the plot says the spell doesn’t work, then that means something in the world is preventing it from working.
It makes more sense to have the item be cursed, or haunted, or protected by a god, or any other number of things that would give the players some sort of explanation to latch onto. If you keep it vague, the players will inevitably spend a lot of time trying to figure out why it can’t be cleaned. Because they expect consistency, and will keep throwing things at it until they find a reason. So it’s better to just give them a reason (even if you just came up with it in a panic) because that at least gives them some resolution, and they can file it away in their quest list for later.
We don’t do that here. The GM provides the model of physics the players accept and expect. If the GM just says “nah” when stuff is inconvenient, players don’t know what to expect, and the world becomes inconsistent.
A big part of the GM’s fun in TTRPGs is improving off that. Players always ruin my plans, but that’s part of the game.
Yes, exactly. Consistency is important, because it builds and reinforces trust. The GM just saying “nah” is the other side of the player showing up with a homebrew bullshit build.
I get a lot of pushback from the Pathfinder 2e subreddit for promoting the idea that the system is really great for character-driven, fiction-first tables, because everyone just looks at the number of rules and goes “it’s so obviously a gameist system, why would you ever try to run it as anything else?”, and the answer is it’s a fantastic physics system. The rules provide clarity and consistency where it’s really useful or important, and are easily ignorable where it doesn’t matter.
Yep, the problem with 5e is all the bullshit exceptions to the rules you have to deal with. My biggest most obvious issue every player deals with is bonus actions. They were never playtested and added really late to 5e, and it shows. It’s something like: you can use a bonus action for any action that says it can be used as a bonus action, except you can’t cast a spell with it if you’ve already cast a spell this turn… except for some spells sometimes. The P2e method of everything just costing a set amount of action points, and if you have enough you can always do it, is so much better for players and DMs. It’s just consistent and you know what to expect.
There’s still plenty of room for the DM, but the rules can always be trusted.
I haven’t played Pathfinder. Next time I pick up epic fantasy, I think I’d like to give it a shot.
You’ve triggered my trap card. I’m going to do the special interest info-dump now. Apologies in advance.
It’s good. It’s written a little weird – it uses inheritance, like computer programming, which can be a little more difficult to wrap you head around than it needs to be if you’re not at least a little familiar with coding, and it’s written as if it’s doing everything possible to shut down rules lawyers, so whatever doesn’t read like API documentation reads a bit like legalese – but the actual system is nice.
It’s highly balanced, which is an awful word that its fanbase doesn’t seem to understand, but it means that it totally shuts down winning in character creation, and shifts the power game to one of tactics rather than build. The result is that much of the discussion about the game treats it as if it’s exclusively a tactical combat game (because most discussing the game are crypto-power-gamers), rather than a fantasy RPG, and the most enthusiastic players push back hard against any kind of reframing. But it has a ton of support fo roleplay focused tables, and it pares down easily for casual tables.
Plus, you know, it’s free! And it’s fairly easy to convert from 3.x/PF1, meaning that there’s a whole generation of content out there for it beyond first party offerings, for just a little more effort than standard prep.
You forgot the most important part: it isn’t owned by Hasbro! Even if it didn’t have any of the advantages it does over 5e, this alone would be huge.
Touché! A truth I have really started to take for granted.
Neat! I’ll have to take a look sometime. Thanks for the explainer.
I GM a fair bit, so the idea of a healthy collection of modules is compelling.
Really, what the DM says goes. So if you want to be boring you can just say it doesn’t work for some reason. The answer above re: pivoting to it being a powerful illusion spell or something so there is a reason the spell didn’t work is a lot more compelling and interesting imo
That makes sense! I’ve always wanted to run a campaign (even though I’ve never really played) so I try to take guidance from stories like these
Thank you!
You could also just have it work and go with whatever follows from it though.
I believe you should have a plot prepared but you also shouldn’t be afraid to adapt it if the players do something unexpected. It’s more work, but in my experience players can usually smell when you’re just trying to block them. And they will derive fun from having found out your plans early (which is totally ok to tell them).
Ime, players are entirely willing to accept an extremely short session just so I can prep and set back up after they throw me a massive curveball. If you’re capable of doing it on the fly, that’s great, but I’m not and my players usually understand.
Had a twelve minute session once because I forgot I gave the party a foldable boat like three months ago on a whim, and they used it to skip the next ~3 sessions of content. I had an entire thing setup where they’d help a dwarfhold hunt a dragon, and had started on some city-based intrigue in the next area.
I just leveled with them that I had not even slightly expected this session to go this way and had nothing prepped so we’d stop early and pick it up next time.
Retconing things to protect muh precious twists is not compelling, though, it’s just base metagaming. The unwavering plot is the GM equivalent of the 8 page main character syndrome PC backstory. If I found out my GM was doing that, they wouldn’t be my GM anymore.
there’s two answers to this question, one is mechanical and one is social. you as the DM can tell the players no not now, and they can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try to do something about it, which depending on the group could be an issue.
so in this scenario a good DM could whip up some misdirection, for example set up a traveling artificer who just passed through town a couple weeks back and who the players could track down as a lead - conveniently in the direction of the main quest objective.
this is hard to do on the spot.
IMO this is kinda one of the problems with DnD 5e, at least if you want to do certain kinds of stories.
The players just have so many tools at their disposal to do anything and everything that its hard to put them into a challenging situation that:
A) Doesn’t involve combat
and
B) Isn’t a completely artificial-feeling scenario that’s been engineered specifically to negate all of the “I don’t have to care about this” buttons that players have on their sheets.
“You can certainly try”