Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010829How do you handle bottlenecks? I know it's situational to the adventure, but in a general sense.

I try very hard to avoid writing adventures with impassible bottlenecks. the players may well encounter a seeming impasse and take things off the rails in a completely unexpected direction, but I am OK with that. The world does not come to a screeching halt because they cannot, or do not, complete their "mission". The consequences may be less than pleasant.

Consider Star Wars. A game in which the Rebels (likely PCs) fail to capture the Death Star plans before the Battle of Yavin is going to result in the main Rebel base being obliterated and the Empire having a firmer grip on power in the galaxy, at least until a fresh rebellion springs up.If I set up a game in which the mission of the PCs is to steal the Death Star plans, I make sure I have come to terms with what will happen if they don't.  To me it feels like "cheating" to have a back up team who will still the plans if the PCs fail. If I am going to do that, why not just give the PCs a different mission to begin with?

Failure should have consequences that are as interesting as those of success. If it doesn't, just let the PCs succeed or accept the risk of a boring game.

My current players like games with clear "missions". I can get quite railroady with them, but I still design branches for success and failure. A single path railroad that is completely blocked by failure seems like bad adventure design to me. Think of failure as a switch in the tracks shunting the train onto another line.

In the Lord of the Rings the fellowship tried to go over the mountains. They failed. This led to them taking the route through the Mines of Moria. They could also have tried the Gap of Rohan. Effectively there were options for failure built into the adventure so the failure to complete the crossing of the mountains did not bring the adventure to a halt.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010829I bought Incident at Absalom Station this past week, and have been reading thorough it. There is a glaring bottleneck in the second part.

Spoiler

The Eoxian ambassador attempts to hire the characters to explore the abandoned space ship. This is pointed out as a point where the characters may refuse, and the author's advice is to really stress that the characters should do it.

How do you handle bottlenecks? I know it's situational to the adventure, but in a general sense.

My approach has been to start with a strong suggestion that "There be adventure here!" and coax the players. But, I'm no fan of the railroad, and so I try never to break down and shove them down the path. I'd rather fiddle around for a couple of hours doing random encounters or letting the players explore side content, and then regroup for the next session.

Whenever I run a module, which happens more often lately*, I treat bottlenecks differently, depending on their type.
One type is "here they might not decide catch the train, and the show is on the Orient Express". The other is "here they need a ticket to catch the train, but the ticket will be crucial to prove their alibi later".

The first type I resolve OOC: "Guys, the module assumes you're going to do that. Do you want to go elsewhere, and have me improvise the rest of the session? You know I can".
The second type I resolve IC: They need to do something to succeed, or at least, the module writer didn't imagine another variant.
If the players can come up with another option, they can. If it works, it works. If not, they fail at the module's goals.

*Because I've been thinking to write a module of my own;).

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010987Failure should have consequences that are as interesting as those of success. If it doesn't, just let the PCs succeed or accept the risk of a boring game.

I could not agree more with this statement and your examples were totally on point.

Quote from: AsenRG;1011033Whenever I run a module, which happens more often lately*, I treat bottlenecks differently, depending on their type.
One type is "here they might not decide catch the train, and the show is on the Orient Express". The other is "here they need a ticket to catch the train, but the ticket will be crucial to prove their alibi later".

The first type I resolve OOC: "Guys, the module assumes you're going to do that. Do you want to go elsewhere, and have me improvise the rest of the session? You know I can".

Back when we were playing Star Trek in situations of the first type one of the GMs would say something along the lines of "Guys, I need you to beam down to the planet [investigate the derelict space ship, allow the alien to possess somebody,...]. Play along."

Quote from: Bren;1011056"Guys, I need you to beam down to the planet [investigate the derelict space ship, allow the alien to possess somebody,...]. Play along."

Those situations are great candidates for in media res. Though when I do/did that (eg GMing OGL Conan) I always gave out some metagame reward as a sweetener, eg a Fate Point.

Quote from: Bren;1011056I could not agree more with this statement and your examples were totally on point.

Back when we were playing Star Trek in situations of the first type one of the GMs would say something along the lines of "Guys, I need you to beam down to the planet [investigate the derelict space ship, allow the alien to possess somebody,...]. Play along."

Well, Bren, the difference is I don't need them to do that:). I'm just telling them what the adventure assumes, but all my players would know that I have no issues going off the rails, so it's really up to them!

Quote from: S'mon;1011085Those situations are great candidates for in media res. Though when I do/did that (eg GMing OGL Conan) I always gave out some metagame reward as a sweetener, eg a Fate Point.

You could do it in media res. One reason we didn't was that this was a troupe style of play where each player had multiple characters. So we usually let the players who ran the captain and crew figure out who was going to go where and do what which would then effect how things played out e.g. who was on the planet or the derelict vs. who remained behind on the bridge or in the engine room. And in the event that it was a get taken over by aliens type of plot the players' decisions on who went where and did what would determine who was in the place to end up getting possessed by the alien intelligence, mind controlling bugs, turned into a pod person, etc.

Quote from: AsenRG;1011112Well, Bren, the difference is I don't need them to do that

No the difference is you aren't playing the same kind of game as we were at that time and place so you have different needs. I've played both ways. I don't need to play a certain way, I choose to play a certain way and sometimes I choose to play different games differently rather than play every game the same way. Neither way is better, though some people will strongly prefer one or the other. But the two different ways of playing result in two different experiences.

Quote from: Bren;1011131You could do it in media res. One reason we didn't was that this was a troupe style of play where each player had multiple characters. So we usually let the players who ran the captain and crew figure out who was going to go where and do what which would then effect how things played out e.g. who was on the planet or the derelict vs. who remained behind on the bridge or in the engine room. And in the event that it was a get taken over by aliens type of plot the players' decisions on who went where and did what would determine who was in the place to end up getting possessed by the alien intelligence, mind controlling bugs, turned into a pod person, etc.

Interesting point on the Star Trek genre, thanks. If I run that I'm going to bear this in mind as a good way to start/set up 'this week's episode'. I love the idea of troupe play for emulating a big starship.

Quote from: Bren;1011131No the difference is you aren't playing the same kind of game as we were at that time and place so you have different needs.

...I meant the difference with how the adventure was meant to be played. In retrospect, I see I wasn't clear.

QuoteI've played both ways. I don't need to play a certain way, I choose to play a certain way and sometimes I choose to play different games differently rather than play every game the same way. Neither way is better, though some people will strongly prefer one or the other. But the two different ways of playing result in two different experiences.

I've played both ways, too. That's why I chose the way that I'm using almost* exclusively now, because they result in different experiences, but I am well aware some people are after another feel;)!

*I tend to run one-shots with unknown players, which I run regularly on a local mini-con, much closer to the way your GM worked, because then I can't afford any dithering, and any measures I take to correct that would eat up limited game time.

Quote from: S'mon;1011133Interesting point on the Star Trek genre, thanks. If I run that I'm going to bear this in mind as a good way to start/set up 'this week's episode'. I love the idea of troupe play for emulating a big starship.

Running a ship or starship is one of the best reasons to use troupe play. Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a hierarchy of rank on a ship. Someone runs the captain which means that sometimes that player will be giving orders to the other PCs. There are a few players (very few over the age of 16 in my experience) who appear not to unable or unwilling to play a character who follows orders. Any orders. It's may be useful to have a conversation about what giving and taking orders is supposed to play like.

One thing I have seen done very successfully for one shot adventures when introducing new players to Star Trek is to make the new player (or newest player) the captain of a new ship. That puts them right in the middle of the action and ensures that they have to do and say something. If the captain turns out interesting they and their ship can become permanent PCs.

It sure sounds like the adventure has a shittily-designed bottleneck.

Bottlenecks in general are not recommendable, but when they are being used, they should probably be used with caution to make sure that they give a good, coherent, and natural-feeling reason why the PCs must go forward and can't really avoid going forward.

Star Trek is a terrible example because you don't need to coax anything to make an adventure go where it needs to go , you just say, "Starfleet ordered you to..."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010975Shrug.  That's what happens when D&D and its offspring, legitimate and ill-, take up so much of the landscape.

Mission based games are entirely appropriate for genres such as Star Trek, Star Wars, 4-color 70s superheroes, and probably some others.  And when everybody is sufficiently on the same page, they can be glorious.

This is always the key. What game did the players sign up to play? Mission based games works for fantasy to, if that's what people want to play and they sign up for it.

But if some players have signed up for sandbox and that's not what the GM wants to run, there's a problem. Either there was a miscommunication of expectations and interests, or at least one person is being disingenuous.

Now how to solve the roadblock problem depends on the type of game, and the tolerance of the players for GM intervention.

If the players have signed up for a mission based game and they're totally ignoring the mission on offer, it's appropriate for the GM to say "hey, this is the hook, please take it." Another option that may work in some campaigns (which may be mission based, but have a veneer of sandbox), it may be appropriate to say "that was the hook, obviously it didn't work for your PC, what would be a more appropriate hook for your PC? Oh, your PC wants to be paid? Sure, I get it, the guy offers $10,000").

In a sandbox, it may be appropriate for the GM to say: "Hey, maybe you didn't understand what the NPC was offering, that was a hook, if you want to take it cool, if you want to do something else with it cool, if you want to ignore it, cool. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding." In another sandbox, the GM might quietly ignore the fact the players didn't bit at one of his hooks, and resolve to offer better hooks next time, in the meantime, what IS grabbing the players?

Now other roadblocks are in the middle of an adventure, and to some extent the same techniques may apply. On the other hand, let's say the "module" is fairly scripted (and the players signed up for such a game), but the players are stuck and can't solve a puzzle. In such a campaign, it may be appropriate for the GM to find a way to shortcut the puzzle or offer a different one. Or maybe the players just need some hints, maybe even including "this is a puzzle that needs to be solved before you can proceed down the rails." In a true sandbox, again, the roadblock may just stick that way, and the players will find some other path tot take.

Frank

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010829I bought Incident at Absalom Station this past week, and have been reading thorough it. There is a glaring bottleneck in the second part.

Spoiler

The Eoxian ambassador attempts to hire the characters to explore the abandoned space ship. This is pointed out as a point where the characters may refuse, and the author's advice is to really stress that the characters should do it.

How do you handle bottlenecks? I know it's situational to the adventure, but in a general sense.

My approach has been to start with a strong suggestion that "There be adventure here!" and coax the players. But, I'm no fan of the railroad, and so I try never to break down and shove them down the path. I'd rather fiddle around for a couple of hours doing random encounters or letting the players explore side content, and then regroup for the next session.

I really don't think there has to be a "but thou must" moment if the player have to do something no matter what. Just cut it out, create a seamless flow from one adventure into another. Give them a proper reason for them to go on, something that connects the new adventure to an odler one, maybe common allied characters, threats, or some loot/gear they looked for for a long time (in case of starships maybe a new jump drive or shield generator)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust

Spoiler

[video=youtube;4ZMuv4NLyB0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZMuv4NLyB0[/youtube]

The setting and reason of playing/acting matters a lot, good people in a Federation ship (Star Trek) are absolutely going to respond to every single call of help and emergency signal. Other type of characters elsewhere might not even bother to check where the signal comes from.

I build worlds, not adventures, and rarely if ever run published intended adventures. When there is a big adventure location, I include various ways for players to learn about it and NPCs who might suggest the PCs go there one way or another, but I don't make the players do anything. If they don't want to go explore something, and want to do something else, that's generally not a problem. If it's a developing situation and they ignore or avoid it, the consequences unfold naturally from that, just as they would if they got involved, but there's nothing wrong with that either. If I over-prep a bunch of stuff I expect the players to get involved in, and they keep avoiding it, I just prep differently, and ask them what they are thinking of doing next and prep around that instead. If I end up with a bunch of unused content, I keep it around for later and/or other players.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012327Star Trek is a terrible example because you don't need to coax anything to make an adventure go where it needs to go , you just say, "Starfleet ordered you to..."

Well yes. It is an example of a type of campaign where a bottleneck feels utterly natural, and can therefore be allowed.