"Dear JB" Mailbag #26

Dear JB:

Simple question. You have a story, there's a BBEG, a world, stuff happening. You have planned various things. And one of them (not the whole story, but not something insignificant either) turns out to be, well. Not well liked. Not that anyone became rude/unpleasant over it, but you could tell that the affected players weren't happy. None of them. Not because they didn't succeed, but because, say, the reveal recontextualized who they are in a way they don't find fun. Like. They thought they were a poor orphan rising steadily and making a name for themselves, but aha, it turns out they're a long lost prince and know a kingdom wants them. Or, the church they thought they were doing good deeds for is actually ran by a demon who is empowered by all the bad guys the paladin thought was smiting in the name of justice.

Assuming said reveal, while not making things unplayable for the player, clearly made things less fun for them and assuming that retconing it out wouldn't destroy the campaign's story.

Would you consider retconing it? Would you talk to the affected players you suspect are unhappy to ask them if they're okay with how things went down? Would their input affect your consideration on retconning it?

Would You Change A Plot Point That Wasn't Well Received?

Dear Plot Point:

This is not a "simple question." A simple question is the one I almost pulled from the mailbag this week, namely Advice For Running A Shopping Session? I mean, that question is so simple I could have just answered it with a slap across the face. 

Your question, on the other hand, requires a bit more unpacking.

First off, let me start by saying YOU ARE PLAYING DUNGEONS & DRAGONS WRONG. Yes, yes, I am a jerk who just lives to crap all over peoples' "fun." Sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of beating around the bush on this stuff. The fact is, this wouldn't even be an issue for you if you were playing D&D in the correct fashion. 

But don't worry, I'm going to help. 'Cause I'm a helper (in addition to being a jerk).

And, NO, just by the way, this has NOTHING to do with needing to create more "dungeons" for your game. I've written before that dungeons (i.e. static adventure sites) are only the most basic (read "elementary") building block of the game. Players will of course want to come out of the dungeon...at some point...and do 'different things' besides just delving. And fortunately D&D facilitates that kind of play, too.

SO...let's get down to it. Let's first talk about the linear dimension of TIME. From our unenlightened human perspective, time is composed of three parts: the past, the present, and the future. Even narrowing our perception to these three pieces, in the real world we are pretty frigging limited in our ability to view these things. Not only are we NOT omniscient, but our memory of the past is often flawed, our ability to predict the future is a crapshoot (at best), and our perception of the present is colored by our current emotional state and influenced by those hazy past memories and our hopes and fears about the future. Limited is, perhaps, an understatement.

But at least we have clocks.

Now when it comes to the imaginary game world, our perception gets a LOT more crystal clear. We can pause the action at any moment to explain EXACTLY what is going on in the present: as DM I ask what the PCs are doing, the players tell me, and this is it. Likewise, I can clarify EXACTLY what is going on in the environment: my descriptions for the PCs are considered The Facts and, again, I can pause the game and repeat or reiterate those facts so that the players can make decisions with as close to perfect information as possible. 

And the past? The DM has perfect control of "everything that happened before" the time the campaign started. And the PLAYERS have perfect control over "everything that happened before" the campaign started with respect to their characters, though all within the parameters set by dice rolls, game rules, and (at times) the say-so of the DM...although this latter bit mainly has to do with campaign-specific house rules which are the DM's purview. 

SO...excellent perception of past and present. The future, however? Still a crapshoot...a literal "roll of the dice," more often than not.

Which is how we like it! This is (part of) WHY we play D&D...to be surprised and astonished by the emergent play that develops in unforeseen ways at the gaming table. Yes, yes, D&D also allows us our escapist fantasy into a world where we cast magic spells or swing an axe with 18/99 strength...but for those actions to matter, we can't know the outcome beforehand...the future must remain a mystery until it becomes the present. There is no risk, when the future is known...and without risk, there is no excitement. No adrenaline/dopamine high. Which is the chemical reason for why we play the game, even if there are plenty of other great reasons to do so.

[other reasons include: human contact, increasing empathy, building knowledge, practicing literacy, organization, and math skills, fostering cooperation and creativity, improving focus and attention, etc.]

Anyway...that's the way the game is supposed to be played. That ain't what you're doing.

D&D PLAY IS NOT STORYTELLING. I know I keep saying this (in different ways) but it is so difficult to drill this through the calcified ignorance of the thick-skulled modern gamer. A storyteller (for example, an author or playwright) has PERFECT INFORMATION OF THE FUTURE. Because they are telling a story for a reason and thus need to know the final destination of the story. How does it get to "The End?" How does the situation resolve for the hero/villain? Is anything "learned" by the characters of the story? Do any of the characters change/develop...for good or for ill?  A storyteller has complete control over their story and knows both its beginning and its end. For the story's audience, the future is unknown, but the audience members are simply passengers on the ride (hopefully an entertaining ride)...there is no mystery for the teller of the tale. 

D&D is not an act of storytelling. The DM is not a storyteller; they are a participant in a game. The players are not characters in a story; they are participants in a game. We do not know the outcome of a game; we play a game NOT ONLY for the enjoyment of the game play BUT with at least some curiosity to see in what way the play of the game will resolve itself. 

These "problems" you cite, Plot Point, are only problems that come from your attachment to outcomes...they come from you wanting to be a storyteller, from wanting the future to play out in a particular fashion, and from wanting a deeper control over the past and present than what you have a right to or (I'd argue) what you are authorized to have.

Let's look at the two examples you give in your letter:

#1 A player creates a character. Let's say the character is a human fighter. The player says the character was an orphan (a good enough concept...they could have just as easily said they came from a loving household full of siblings), and you tacitly gave permission to this...as the player proceeded to act under this assumption ("rising steadily," working to "make a name for themselves") without you disabusing themselves of this notion until, "O Wait...you're a prince and your people want you back." 

Nope...you don't get to do that. I mean, you can (it would seem you certainly did) but this kind of pulling the rug out will breed distrust within your players. And without trust in the DM as a neutral referee (because, instead, the DM has demonstrated an arbitrary nature of warping reality, i.e. the game "past") the players are no longer under any obligation to take the game seriously. Certainly, they will be less "free and open" with the choices they make (i.e. you've clamped down on player agency) because they now understand that reality is subject to whimsical DM fiat at any moment the DM is inclined to make things "a better story." If the DM can suddenly say one character is a "prince" what's to stop the DM from saying another character is "demon spawned" or another PC has a "hereditary disease that will eventually cause blindness" or...whatever? Nothing, that's what.

The game has rules. Players make their characters. DMs make the world. Them's the rules. Fuck your story. This kind of shit kills players' desire to play.

#2 You have a "big reveal" that the church of good deeds is run by "a demon who is empowered by all the bad guys the paladin thought was smiting in the name of justice." First off, this doesn't make any sense in terms of D&D game concepts. Second off, it's lazy and stupid world building.

Now, a quick caveat: it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for a DM to create an organization (church, guild, town council, whatever) that is being influenced or controlled by nefarious actors (demons, evil mages, Russian oligarchs, whatever). Corruption and organized crime are a lot older than the Medici family. In fact, depending on how "grimdark" the DM's campaign, it might be a challenge for the players to find ANY outside group or institution worth trusting or working for...and that's FINE. Such a campaign world can foster a deep sense of camaraderie and trust in the players (which we want for a solid game) as they come to find that the only folks they can rely on are themselves. Just understand where this is going to lead your campaign (some DMs dislike the idea of a "grimdark" setting) and understand that you, DM, are creating this paranoia in your players.

However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. Instead, Plot Point, there's a decision to pull the rug out (again) for the sake of a "big reveal" (for effect) that makes little sense in terms of verisimilitude: why is the demon-ruled church hiring the PCs to do "good deeds?" How is the demon empowered by smote "bad guys?" How is this church even continuing to function? Do the clerics still offer healing magic? How? Why has there been no hint/foreshadowing of this before (in terms of clerics losing spell casting ability, weirdness among the church hierarchy, parishioners being "disappeared," temple losing its feeling of "sanctity," paladin detecting evil, etc.)? 

And perhaps the answer to all those questions is "it's a new thing;" the demon JUST took over, the process of corruption has just begun, and the church is going to be WAY different now that there's 'a new sheriff in town.' And if that's the case, then this new development represents NOT a "plot point" but just another SITUATION to occupy the attention of a hearty group of adventurers. 

And that is "normal" D&D. And, as such, there's NOTHING to "retcon:" as with any and all "normal D&D" scenarios, players are free to take it or leave it...they have agency; they have choice. There's nothing to complain about...either they'll say "Boo! Hiss! We need to stop this demonic entity for the sake of getting our goody-goody church back!" Or they'll say "Eh, not worth the effort" and move on to a different town with a different church/patriarch (while the demon-corrupted shrine continues to grow and fester and become a bigger problem to the campaign world). 

SO...if I were to give a "simple answer" to your "simple question," I'd (simply) say: there's never any reason to retcon. Keep your hands off PCs' personal histories (i.e. "backstories") once the PCs are in play. And don't undermine verisimilitude and basic game tenets in the name of "cheap thrills" (i.e. reveals, plot twists). Stop worrying about the integrity/continuity of your campaign's precious "story;" D&D is not a game about telling stories.

How many ways do I need to say this?

Sincerely, 

JB