I Might Have Fucked Up My WFRP!

[Edgewise]

It is, but I dont' want the Abbey to be filled with weird traps and swinging blades as that feels very contrived.

No, I’m talking about side effects of using the sword.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

No one said the villains get the sword. They just show up and wanting to get the sword from the players, and then we see what happens. Maybe the party wins, maybe the party loses, maybe they come up with a fair trade and offer lots of money.

It doesn't have to be The Villians. It could be a different set of villains or just another interested party.

That might be possible. The Knights that had the sword prior fell into paranoia and killed each other because of the sword. It is 'ill-omened'.

Actually it might be better for the story if the bad guys do get the sword. They need it for their ritual so if the players find it first that might rather bring things to a somewhat earlier and less spectacular conclusion (by which I mean less chaos moon demon fun). I'm just wary of constantly leaving the players on the backfoot.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Actually it might be better for the story if the bad guys do get the sword. They need it for their ritual so if the players find it first that might rather bring things to a somewhat earlier and less spectacular conclusion (by which I mean less chaos moon demon fun).

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Why this reaction? I can't parse these stupid memes, please speak plainly

 

[AsenRG]

That might be possible. The Knights that had the sword prior fell into paranoia and killed each other because of the sword. It is 'ill-omened'.

So see my suggestions. Have them show up and try to con-vince the guardian that they're the ones worthy of the sword, not the players (and if they succeed, I promise you the players are going to take it personally)!

Actually it might be better for the story if the bad guys do get the sword. They need it for their ritual so if the players find it first that might rather bring things to a somewhat earlier and less spectacular conclusion (by which I mean less chaos moon demon fun). I'm just wary of constantly leaving the players on the backfoot.

That...simply doesn't matter, sorry - and I see Black Vulmea has already mentioned he shares my opinion!

 

[Spinachcat]

I love the concept for this campaign. It's great stuff.

However, I see the problem with the campaign revolving around the witch.

I also agree with the problem of the PCs having no ties to each other. If I want disparate PCs to work together, I make sure either the players or myself create the "ties that bind" before the game.

In your campaign, the story revolves around the witch and her ancestors. The easy thing to do would have been to make the PCs one family who drifted apart as young adults to go their way in the world, but have now come back together. Thus, it isn't the witch's past, but all of their pasts and the blood of the lineage flows through all the PCs.

But you're probably too far along to retro-fit that into the story. At this stage, I might let the PCs find some journals naming the PCs as "vessels of change" and the Cult knows of some occult tie between the PCs (birth signs, locations, parentage, etc).

However, the first rule of gaming is all is good if the players and GM are having fun. If you've got that covered, the convoluted plots and the choo choo railroad aspects might not be important.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I love the concept for this campaign. It's great stuff.

However, I see the problem with the campaign revolving around the witch.

I also agree with the problem of the PCs having no ties to each other. If I want disparate PCs to work together, I make sure either the players or myself create the "ties that bind" before the game.

In your campaign, the story revolves around the witch and her ancestors. The easy thing to do would have been to make the PCs one family who drifted apart as young adults to go their way in the world, but have now come back together. Thus, it isn't the witch's past, but all of their pasts and the blood of the lineage flows through all the PCs.

But you're probably too far along to retro-fit that into the story. At this stage, I might let the PCs find some journals naming the PCs as "vessels of change" and the Cult knows of some occult tie between the PCs (birth signs, locations, parentage, etc).

However, the first rule of gaming is all is good if the players and GM are having fun. If you've got that covered, the convoluted plots and the choo choo railroad aspects might not be important.

I have to say, I find things like everyone being related to be incredibly contrived. What's wrong with being a group of people that were thrown together by circumstance and become friends through shared adversity?

By which I mean, if the foundation of the group is contrived and a bit forced, then anything that flows from it is going to be tainted by that contrivance.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

So see my suggestions. Have them show up and try to con-vince the guardian that they're the ones worthy of the sword, not the players (and if they succeed, I promise you the players are going to take it personally)!


That...simply doesn't matter, sorry - and I see Black Vulmea has already mentioned he shares my opinion!

I don't understand why you think it doesn't matter.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I have to say, I find things like everyone being related to be incredibly contrived. What's wrong with being a group of people that were thrown together by circumstance and become friends through shared adversity?

By which I mean, if the foundation of the group is contrived and a bit forced, then anything that flows from it is going to be tainted by that contrivance.

Well in my defence it's not everyone, it's the witch and she doesn't know her grandfather was the one that first had the sword. So they are playing it as a group of people bought together by fate.

Broadly I would agree. It isn't something that one should do all the time, though never? I don't know. Tzeentch is the god of fate after all.

Of the ways rpgs and stories differ one important aspect is the perception players, IME, have which is informed by the nature of the medium. In short, I'm not sure coincedence works in games, red herrings neither. At least not from this GM. Maybe others can make such things work. But it's my experience players invariably assume significance where it may not have been intended and, when that expectation isn't met, they become disillusioned. Seeding clues as red herrings for example is something that I find dangerous.

So having a connection between the witch and the doomsword is important. It's also important for the ritual since she bears the blood of the man who wounded the demon at the heart of the ritual. Although that's threating to become a bit game of thrones at this point!

So with respect to the sword: if the players do get it, then in denying it to the enemies they run the risk of ending the story earlier. That's ok as long as everyone enjoys it. I'm not wedded to a particular narrative. Or the enemies can come and take it from them. However this points back to the issue I just raised: the players will defend and if they just wake up one morning and find their sword stolen they will rightly think i've pulled a dick move. If they defend I have to contrive that encounter so they lose the sword. Whether that can be done while making them think they chose to concede is the issue.

Having the Guardian decide to give it to the villains is an interesting choice (if that's being suggested), but again I worry how that will go down with the players, specifically if it just leaves them confused and frustrated. Those are my concerns in pointing out player expectations such as these. I'm not looking to pander nor sugar coat a game experience and, for example, if a player dies through his own actions or stupidity that's his tought shit. But in the end if players come away feeling genuinely screwed that leaves a bad taste for everyone, including me. Player frustration is not ok if it isn't in character. I'm not John Wick

(now that's a dick move)

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I love the concept for this campaign. It's great stuff.

However, I see the problem with the campaign revolving around the witch.

I also agree with the problem of the PCs having no ties to each other. If I want disparate PCs to work together, I make sure either the players or myself create the "ties that bind" before the game.

In your campaign, the story revolves around the witch and her ancestors. The easy thing to do would have been to make the PCs one family who drifted apart as young adults to go their way in the world, but have now come back together. Thus, it isn't the witch's past, but all of their pasts and the blood of the lineage flows through all the PCs.

But you're probably too far along to retro-fit that into the story. At this stage, I might let the PCs find some journals naming the PCs as "vessels of change" and the Cult knows of some occult tie between the PCs (birth signs, locations, parentage, etc).

However, the first rule of gaming is all is good if the players and GM are having fun. If you've got that covered, the convoluted plots and the choo choo railroad aspects might not be important.

Thanks.

I think if I said they wer eall family that wouldn't work (not least as one of them isn't human), it would also be more contrived. It's also entirely possible that, when the Witch learns of her ancestral connection to the sword, the player might react negatively and find it contrived. That's a risk I'm willing to take, though the ancestor in question is her great (at least) grandfather. There's about a century between him and her. As far as she will know he died in battle. She's an urchin type anyway so there's very little tie - plus some of the player's ideas fit in with this concept anyway so I'm lucky there. But truthfully i think that happens a lot in gaming groups.

My real overarching concern is leaving the players confused and frustrated. Dangling a sword in front of them and then having villains steal it has to be handled with care. Having the players take it may be a problem for the story as the sword is acually key to the ritual. I could of course just do away with the Abbey altogether, or have it as a point of exposition (plus undead knights!)

 

[soltakss]

I Might Have Fucked Up My WFRP!

So, you messed up Star Wars, then you can't write scenarios, now you have fucked up WFRP.

The trend isn't you messing these things up, but believing that you have.

Just let things flow and see what happens. If you think you have messed up, then adjust the following scenarios accordingly and things will be fine. Use "Yes But", or use "Actions have Consequences" or similar tricks to get yourself out of a tricky situation. Let the Players find their own solutions and let them think they are fantastic for doing so.

Now, I need to read the thread to see if you have really fucked it up this time.

 

[soltakss]

OK, so it's the old thread, not a new one.

You overthink things too much. Stop doing that and everything will be fine.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't understand why you think it doesn't matter.

OK, I'm simplifying it a bit, because forums.
You can wait for Black Vulmea to add more details if you wish...

But overall, you have either decided under what conditions the PCs would get the sword - and thus the PCs are exploring a world of the Referee's creation and acting like real people would to make the best of their situation - or they're following along the tug of strands of unseen fate, manipulated by the Storyteller for maximum dramatic effect.

If it's the former, what would make the most dramatic effect and what the cultists need is irrelevant. Except insofar as the PCs would actually love to deny the cultists anything they need, and then to turn it against them. That's good play there.
And if you're sticking to your own wor(l)d, the only thing that would determine whether the PCs get the sword would be whether their performance is good enough. Dramatic necessity doesn't enter into it.

OTOH, if you're going for the latter...well, some of us would say that at this point you could just tell them what happens in this session. Because good play there is to let the cultists get the sword, and then to thwart them before they could achieve the ritual, which is totally counter to playing a PC who behaves like a real person - as opposed to playing a PC that behaves in a way consistent with "character arcs 101".

Yes, the excluded middle between these two is roughly the size of the Andromeda Galaxy. But hey, I said I was simplifying a lot - because forums!

Fair warning, me and some other people on this forum are firm proponents of the former option, without (almost) any of the excluded middle. In this case, it's actually quite binary. Did you let them win or lose on their own merits*? If it's not, you're adding irrelevant factors into the equation.
As you can notice, I'm not trying to hide that, quite the contrary - take my opinion with as much salt as you wish, if my goals don't align with your goals! In fact, I thought everybody knew that already.
Obviously not, and I apologize. I promise to explain the above as often as I need to!

*Which includes auto-win or auto-lose due to taking on something too easy or too big for you. But that's still due to their own merits, just compared to those of the opposition. What I can guarantee is, however, that the opposition ain't going to get a Second Breath because of dramatic necessity - if it happens, it was in their stats from the get go.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

So, you messed up Star Wars, then you can't write scenarios, now you have fucked up WFRP.

The trend isn't you messing these things up, but believing that you have.

Just let things flow and see what happens. If you think you have messed up, then adjust the following scenarios accordingly and things will be fine. Use "Yes But", or use "Actions have Consequences" or similar tricks to get yourself out of a tricky situation. Let the Players find their own solutions and let them think they are fantastic for doing so.

Now, I need to read the thread to see if you have really fucked it up this time.

Yes, I find writing adventures tough. I don't get to play as much as I'd like so it isn't a skill that's easy to develop. I enjoy GMing and usually sessions go well - I generally play with friends so its a little more forgiving (than perhaps playing online might be). But I find it tough. Games don't do, as I've said before, a very good job explaining how to actually do this. You learn by doing, by chatting with other people on forums like this, and managing expectations. I have a notion of high expectations: I'd love to feel my adventures were engaging even cinematic - in the sense of being evocative (the way a good prose or story is). In the end though, these are still games.

My next adventure will certainly start out simpler.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Is there a spell I can cast to GM with Hansi Kursch from Blind Guardian's vox?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

It's important that a ritual commence at the end of this story. It's two parts, one involves the equations the pc's stumbled across at first to bring forth the Chaos Moon. The second part requires the presence of that Moon but isn't relevant to this question.

For the first part the baddies need some people to process the equations - cast the spell. One of the PC's can read. I think it might be fun for it to be him. Problem there is that requires him getting captured or arrested.

How can that be made to work; players aren't going to want to consent to that!

 

[Edgewise]

If you really want them to get hold of the spell, put it somewhere they don't have to get arrested for it - have an NPC give them a tip and let them choose whether they want to go after it. But honestly, this is all so inorganic - you're trying to manufacture scenes. Your question betrays a strong instinct to railroad things. Rather than manufacture scenes and then try to figure out a way to get the players to experience them, just give them enough toys and troubles to make their own scenes. Trust your players! If the situation is compelling to them, they will do so.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

That's not quite what I want to have happen. I want them to be the ones that cast the spell because I thought it might make for an interesting scene. The baddies don't know they are familiar with the spell and when they are told to recite the equations will recognise what is happening.

They don't need to acquire the spell, but they are familiar with it. But the ritual needs people to cast the spell, I thought having the pc's fill that role might make for an interesting encounter.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Stop deciding what you want your players to do. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. End of chapter. End of book. End of universe.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Stop deciding what you want your players to do. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. End of chapter. End of book. End of universe.

Ok so how would you handle it?

 

[Edgewise]

Ok so how would you handle it?

The only thing that cries out for handling is your instinct to create scenes. I thought twice about responding to today’s question because we all end up telling you the same thing every time. Just.let.go.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

The only thing that cries out for handling is your instinct to create scenes. I thought twice about responding to today’s question because we all end up telling you the same thing every time. Just.let.go.

I'm asking you: the baddies want to use the spell to summon the chaos moon. So they need people to do that. What's an interesting way for that to happen?

 

[Edgewise]

I'm asking you: the baddies want to use the spell to summon the chaos moon. So they need people to do that. What's an interesting way for that to happen?

I dunno, there are tons of possibilities, and you don’t have to make that interesting if you can’t think of anything. For instance, maybe they need a special ingredient, like a virgin sacrifice or something a PC owns. Maybe the first casting goes wrong and a demon is summoned - instead of attacking he steals a critical doodad and then goes on a murder spree, leading many parties on a merry chase.

But if you can’t think of anything interesting, then they cast the spell and you apply your creativity to come up with interesting stuff that doesn’t require very specific player choices. I just don’t see a narrative problem that needs solving.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

I'm asking you: the baddies want to use the spell to summon the chaos moon. So they need people to do that. What's an interesting way for that to happen?

Interesting my ass. What's a LOGICAL way for that to happen? Your fucking NPCs aren't interested in making an "interesting narrative," they're interested in getting the job done.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Interesting my ass. What's a LOGICAL way for that to happen? Your fucking NPCs aren't interested in making an "interesting narrative," they're interested in getting the job done.

Realistically no, but that's not how fiction is created. Or in this case, since I'm not trying to write a book or railroad in that way, how exciting adventures are made. We agree that player agency is important, but I don't agree with the implicit assumption (as I see it - and you're fre to correct me) that pc's can't ever have that agency removed. Is there no way that, for example, they can be captured, arrested, kidnapped?

So the baddies want to do their ritual. Sure they want to do so as expediently as possible. That's rational. But that doesn't preclude creating interesting encounters or scenes for the players to get involved in. I sometimes feel as though this love for the sandbox approach comes at the risk of depriving the GM has ability to create. Perhaps that's an overreaction. But again my concern has always been that the players reach the end fo the adventure too quickly - by which I mean too quickly for the adventure to be enjoyable..."is that it?"

That's just how I feel. These are not skills easily taught learned or practiced except through trial and error.

 

[Edgewise]

If I may...

Realistically no, but that's not how fiction is created.

Oh, that's going to go down well around here...

I think many here are apt to say that you, as the GM, should not endeavor to "create fiction." You give the players situations, they react, and you have fun. I'm the sort of person who believes in an emergent narrative, which is functionally the same, since it's all about not Dragonlancing your players.

But if you as GM wants to "create fiction," then I think you are bound to find yourself actively fighting your players' agency in some manner. And I don't see why you'd ever want to do this.

We agree that player agency is important, but I don't agree with the implicit assumption (as I see it - and you're fre to correct me) that pc's can't ever have that agency removed. Is there no way that, for example, they can be captured, arrested, kidnapped?

I think there's a fine line, here. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to restrict player agency, but I think it should never be undertaken lightly. If you're doing it for reasons that were telegraphed (e.g. deadly danger described by you, Draconian laws shouted by the town crier, etc.) and arose organically out of the action, then I think it is fair. Death, after all, is the ultimate loss of player agency.

But if you're doing it to force your story down the players' throats...that's one place I think that storygamers and OSR grogs can firmly agree that you've gone mad with power and must be stopped.

I sometimes feel as though this love for the sandbox approach comes at the risk of depriving the GM has ability to create. Perhaps that's an overreaction.

There's a difference between "create" and "control." Create situations, don't control them.

But again my concern has always been that the players reach the end fo the adventure too quickly - by which I mean too quickly for the adventure to be enjoyable..."is that it?"

It sounds like you don't usually run adventures so much as an ongoing series of events. So why is that a concern? Just plan out what various NPCs would like to do and have them adapt to the PCs just like people react to people. If you need some structure to it, I suggest taking a look at the faction mechanics in Stars Without Number.

No matter how little I plan, the players end up doing far less in a session than I expect, but what they do accomplish tends to have some element of the unexpected. So if you're willing to take your hands off the wheel a little, you'll have to prepare even less, but you'll also have to be nimble in reacting believably to the weird shit your players will throw at you.

It's so much more fun that way. You have to let go of your fear that your players won't pick up their end of the action, as well as your fear that you won't be able to improvise anything interesting on the fly. And then you need to let go of your need to control. And then ye shall be free.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

If I may...

Oh, that's going to go down well around here...

Right, but directly following that I qualified what I meant.

I think many here are apt to say that you, as the GM, should not endeavor to "create fiction." You give the players situations, they react, and you have fun. I'm the sort of person who believes in an emergent narrative, which is functionally the same, since it's all about not Dragonlancing your players.

Yes, that's what I meant. Fiction in the sense of that which gets created at the table as a result of player involvement in the situation i give them.

I think there's a fine line, here. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to restrict player agency, but I think it should never be undertaken lightly. If you're doing it for reasons that were telegraphed (e.g. deadly danger described by you, Draconian laws shouted by the town crier, etc.) and arose organically out of the action, then I think it is fair. Death, after all, is the ultimate loss of player agency.

I think the issue here pertains to the nature of the scenario: the plot revolves around a ritual to restore a cult leader. So either that gets stopped or it doesn't. My concern is in how that happens. I think it would be evocative and exciting if that happened at the height of the ritual. The sort of thing you see in movies. EG, Frodo didn't drop thering into the fire before the Black Gates were besieged. He dropped it right at that dramatic moment mid battle. Of course contriving that is something difficult for the GM without causing the problems we agree are best avoided. This is my issue. If the players learn what's happening and then turn up and defeat/kill/arrest those responsible before the ritual even starts I feel that would be anticlimatic. It might be logical or rational, but is it fun? What if they turned up when the chaos moon started to appear and the stakes are peaking...and then defeat the baddies? My idea stems from that: putting them front and centre. Now they are involved in the ritual, it's going on around them, what do they do?

But if you're doing it to force your story down the players' throats...that's one place I think that storygamers and OSR grogs can firmly agree that you've gone mad with power and must be stopped.

I don't think there's anything being forced down their throats anymore than any adventure players sit down to participate in. GM presents a situation or scenario, they are involved. Otherwise you don't have a game IMO. That isn't forcing anything, that's people consenting to participate in an RPG.

It sounds like you don't usually run adventures so much as an ongoing series of events. So why is that a concern? Just plan out what various NPCs would like to do and have them adapt to the PCs just like people react to people. If you need some structure to it, I suggest taking a look at the faction mechanics in Stars Without Number.

Sure. Seems similar to the Influence rules in 7Sea2e. I haven't played that yet (want to!) but they seem really interesting in measuring the villain's schemes in the abstract and the players' effect upon them.

I want the session to feel evocative or exciting in whatever way is appropriate for the genre.

No matter how little I plan, the players end up doing far less in a session than I expect, but what they do accomplish tends to have some element of the unexpected. So if you're willing to take your hands off the wheel a little, you'll have to prepare even less, but you'll also have to be nimble in reacting believably to the weird shit your players will throw at you.

It's so much more fun that way. You have to let go of your fear that your players won't pick up their end of the action, as well as your fear that you won't be able to improvise anything interesting on the fly. And then you need to let go of your need to control. And then ye shall be free.

I don't think that's my issue. I am happy for players to do just that. However players can only act with what they're given so I have to make sure relevant details are there along with a reasonable trajectory for them to infer. If Frodo doesn't learn that his uncle's ring isn't just some trinket there's no imperative to trek across the world to throw it into a volcano he's never heard of

EDIT TO ADD: so for example I have the situation with the sword. It's essential for the ritual. If the players get it first, then the adventure could come to an end unless the villains somehow learn who has it and how to get it from them. I wanted an element of mystery: a dark shadowy cult and players unaware of the truth and slowly learning what's happening. THat's proved difficult to manage.
It implies the villains and the pc's know each other at the point the sword comes into play. So that they can respond. If the villains take it, they can be chased down. if the players have it, the villains either find them and try and take it, or the players...win? Maybe the sword needs disposing (something i hadn't anticipated).

 

[AsenRG]

I think the issue here pertains to the nature of the scenario: the plot revolves around a ritual to restore a cult leader. So either that gets stopped or it doesn't. My concern is in how that happens. I think it would be evocative and exciting if that happened at the height of the ritual. The sort of thing you see in movies. EG, Frodo didn't drop thering into the fire before the Black Gates were besieged. He dropped it right at that dramatic moment mid battle. Of course contriving that is something difficult for the GM without causing the problems we agree are best avoided. This is my issue.

Good, you understand the problem.
Now it's time to realize that it's a made-up problem. Keep reading.

If the players learn what's happening and then turn up and defeat/kill/arrest those responsible before the ritual even starts I feel that would be anticlimatic. It might be logical or rational, but is it fun?

For the players or for you?
As a player, I can tell you that I'd consider it more fun than a contrived final. (Your players might be different, but then: ask them, not us!) Why? Because it's a job well done, and me and my PC are doing that job!
Now, would it be fun to watch the same? Probably no, hence why screenwriters have to jump through all sorts of hoops.
But it's time for GMs to realize that they don't need to. At least, not always, and not with all groups!
Different mediums and all that...and sometimes that works to your benefit!

What if they turned up when the chaos moon started to appear and the stakes are peaking...and then defeat the baddies?

"Good fight, guys!"

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I think it's also a matter of session structure. So if the pc's quickly defeated the baddies half an hour into the session that would feel, to me, anti climatic. Perhaps undeservedly so. I do like to try and end each session on a meaningful point if not a cliffhanger (where appropriate).

Clearly I have tried to be a bit too clever with all this. Which is a problem. I do think that the ideas are, per se, not bad. Just too vague, and perhaps too many. Including the Skaven and the coins was probably a mistake. But again that was because I felt the adventure would be over too quickly. Maybe, maybe not.

I wanted to create an adventure, like I say, with that 'dark shadowy cult' paranoia, but that's proved quite difficult: leaving players in the dark is probably something best left to actual fiction, or at least someone better able to GM that way. When it's all just whispers and shadows the players can be easily lost and without purpose. Finding no in character motivation to participate. That's why I involved the Skaven, kidnapping the pc's contact.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

If you're concerned about the game "feeling anticlimactic" to you as referee, you need to quit running games that are so wide open.

Contriving things so that everything happens "at the dramatic moment" is railroading with a four-track main line and CTC. If your players are ok with that, then switch to a game like dungeon world or some other game that supports that sort of thing.

Personally I hate that sort of shit. If I am smart and short circuit the evil plot long before it happens, yay me. I want my brains and my auctions to matter, not play a role in a contrived little drama.

Just like wargames. If my brilliant tactical plan succeeds, it will not result in a long hard battle, it will result in my crushing the enemy. If you prevent this from happening as referee, I'm going to be pissed. Don't rob players of their legitimately won victory, for Set's sake!

 

[Ghost Whistler]

Well it can't be both wide open and a railroad, surely?

 

[Ghost Whistler]

I don't really understand how wanting to avoid anti climax is symptomatic of being too open. I'm not sure what you mean by too open?

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

I never said TOO wide open, I said "so wide open."

You can't give the players total freedom, AND make sure things happen the way you want.

 

[Edgewise]

Yes, that's what I meant. Fiction in the sense of that which gets created at the table as a result of player involvement in the situation i give them.

You say that, but when you ask how you can get a PC incarcerated and casting the McGuffin spell, you're taking a heavy-handed role in steering that player involvement.

Of course contriving that is something difficult for the GM without causing the problems we agree are best avoided.

I'm glad we agree on this because honestly it answers all your questions. I would just completely give up on trying to manufacture these climatic scenes. Full stop. It's not a movie so stop trying to insure climactic moments. I keep saying over and over again to have faith in the players' ability to bring the drama and this is one point you consistently refuse to accept.

If the players learn what's happening and then turn up and defeat/kill/arrest those responsible before the ritual even starts I feel that would be anticlimatic.

Just let go of this. Let it go. Don't worry about this at all. As long as there's something else to do, then just move on to the next thing. You're worrying about a non-problem because you want it to be a movie.

I don't think there's anything being forced down their throats anymore than any adventure players sit down to participate in.

You were talking about how to have a player incarcerated by the opposition so he could coincidentally cast the Spell of Plot. This meets my definition of forcing the story down their throats.

I want the session to feel evocative or exciting in whatever way is appropriate for the genre.

The genre is "role-playing." Don't expect book or movie conventions to map into role-playing conventions. Fantasy role-playing is very different than fantasy novels.

It's certainly in vogue for game mechanics to support genre conventions, so you're in good company on this one. But I personally think it's a misguided outlook, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

However players can only act with what they're given so I have to make sure relevant details are there along with a reasonable trajectory for them to infer.

That's fine and dandy, but your original question goes a few steps beyond informing the relevant parties.

I hear a lot of worrying that your players will solve the problem too easily. I'm not going to completely dismiss this concern, because such a thing is possible if you consistently create easy challenges. But the solution isn't to keep thinking of contrivances to keep the story going. The solution is to try to design interesting situations with inherently challenging elements, and let them play out. If it's too easy and the players are done too quickly, then you observe that and do better next time. You also have to be willing to occasionally fail, or having a dull session. When that happens, view it as a learning experience.

Besides, as others have consistently said, your players may not be as disappointed as you think by a well-earned easy victory. If the challenge was reasonable and a player comes up with a shortcut to victory, they will feel good about it! That's the whole point of things being open-ended. It gives players a chance to be clever. This is totally expected, because there's no way you're going to be able to out-think them at every turn. Nor should you be trying to.

The thing is, those moments will be more than balanced by the times that your players over-complicate things. Allow them to do this, too. For every boss monster they one-shot with a well-timed avalanche, there will be three villages they needlessly provoke into torches-and-pitchforks. That shit is always funny.

As a GM, the two things I love the most are: brilliant player plans and moronic player plans. Having my players surprise me is literally the #1 reason I GM. I will kick back and hold in my laughter while the PCs are trying to wedge two donkeys into an owlbear costume, and then I'll lose my shit when they make their roll and create a scene so absurd that I could never have invented it. I would never trade those moments for a movie-appropriate "climax."

 

[OHT]

Good, you understand the problem.
Now it's time to realize that it's a made-up problem. Keep reading.


For the players or for you?
As a player, I can tell you that I'd consider it more fun than a contrived final. (Your players might be different, but then: ask them, not us!) Why? Because it's a job well done, and me and my PC are doing that job!
Now, would it be fun to watch the same? Probably no, hence why screenwriters have to jump through all sorts of hoops.
But it's time for GMs to realize that they don't need to. At least, not always, and not with all groups!
Different mediums and all that...and sometimes that works to your benefit!


"Good fight, guys!"

I gave you a like, but am quoting for an added bonus. Yes to the above.

 

[AsenRG]

Personally I hate that sort of shit. If I am smart and short circuit the evil plot long before it happens, yay me. I want my brains and my auctions to matter, not play a role in a contrived little drama.

Don't rob players of their legitimately won victory, for Set's sake!

This.

I think it's also a matter of session structure. So if the pc's quickly defeated the baddies half an hour into the session that would feel, to me, anti climatic. Perhaps undeservedly so. I do like to try and end each session on a meaningful point if not a cliffhanger (where appropriate).

Yes to "underservedly so". It simply means you need to come up with something else for the rest of the session.
And no, cutting it short isn't an option, either, because punishing the players for in-game success is beyond lame. But then you know that already, I just remembered some old discussions on another site!

I gave you a like, but am quoting for an added bonus. Yes to the above.

Thank you!

 

[Simlasa]

I really dislike playing in games that are concerned with telling a 'good story'.
Maybe the WORST GMing moment I've experienced (except for that GM that pulled the gun... or the GM who had Deep Ones rape our PCs):
At the end of a long campaign, centering on a GMNPC, we reached the big bad guy prematurely and were caught with our pants down... and all our PCs fell unconscious due to a spell. THE END... or rather it should have been... but nooooooo...
See, the GM had a plan... he had set his mind on how this story ended and our fuck-up was not going to get in his way.
With our PCs inert and out for the count... he kept on going... he started up the Adele song he'd always planned to play during this battle... and he sent in that GMNPC to fight the bad guy single-handed.
So there, music playing, we watched as the GM fought out a solo battle... explaining various bits of backstory and whatnot as he went.
... and in the end it WAS like the ending of a book or a movie... but it had nothing much at all to do with our characters... because we had fallen off the GM's plotline.

Honestly, the guy was generally an excellent GM... but he hoisted himself high on his own petard that time.

 

[Edgewise]

So, with our PCs inert and out for the count... he kept on going... he started up the Adele song he'd always planned to play during this battle... and he sent in that GMNPC to fight the bad guy single-handed.

The Adele song is a critical part of this story.

 

[Baulderstone]

Okay, I'm going to try and meet you halfway. You seem to really want to have the image of the Chaos Moon appearing in the sky. Fine. Let's say that the ritual needs to be performed repeatedly over a number of nights. Each night, the Chaos Moon looms larger in the sky. You are almost guaranteed to have that image in your game, but the players still have a lot of leeway in when they stop the bad guys, assuming they do stop the bad guys.

I'll just mention, there is a classic WFRP adventure in which the players need to stop a big ritual, but the adventure gives you guidance for what happens if they fail and gate to the Realm of Chaos opens up in the heart of The Empire. A subsequent adventure even has space set aside for GMs running a campaign where the players failed in that adventure.

When I ran that game, I was actually secretly hoping they would fail (but survive) as it would be cool for a world-changing event to happen. As it happened, they won, and while I'll admit there was a part of me that wanted to screw them out of their victory so I could have the big set-piece that I wanted, I let things play out fairly.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Okay, I'm going to try and meet you halfway. You seem to really want to have the image of the Chaos Moon appearing in the sky. Fine. Let's say that the ritual needs to be performed repeatedly over a number of nights. Each night, the Chaos Moon looms larger in the sky. You are almost guaranteed to have that image in your game, but the players still have a lot of leeway in when they stop the bad guys, assuming they do stop the bad guys.

I'll just mention, there is a classic WFRP adventure in which the players need to stop a big ritual, but the adventure gives you guidance for what happens if they fail and gate to the Realm of Chaos opens up in the heart of The Empire. A subsequent adventure even has space set aside for GMs running a campaign where the players failed in that adventure.

When I ran that game, I was actually secretly hoping they would fail (but survive) as it would be cool for a world-changing event to happen. As it happened, they won, and while I'll admit there was a part of me that wanted to screw them out of their victory so I could have the big set-piece that I wanted, I let things play out fairly.

Shdows over Bogenhafen is one of the best published modules out there. My players failed back in the day, but I didn't have any of the follow up stuff from The Enemy Within, so I ended up just kind of running with an open portal to Chaos being in the Empire.

That was when I learned that Elven Wardancers are really, really broken. And that a fluke damage roll from a player with Initiative just 1 higher than a Bloodthirster can end an unwinnable fight before it even starts.