Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Nautilus Aug 15, 2014 0:41:07	It's a scenario that happens sometimes. The game's ticking along, with the PCs putzing about in some tavern, and you're getting ready to introduce them to the Important NPC who's the conduit to the next adventuring mega-path. Hardly original, but even the hairiest cliches can be combed and taken out sometimes. You've thought about how this NPC will act, how to portray their eccentric mannerisms, and the answers for all the questions they might be asked. But just as you're about to introduce them, the players hatch their own plan.   They decide it would be great fun to see the Drunken Barnacle shooting flames into the night air, and set about making this happen. You had no idea this was coming. What do you do? More importantly, how much effect do you let the PCs' pyromania have upon what you were going to run?    This thread isn't just about burning taverns, but the extent to which, as a DM, you let unexpected player actions affect the rest of your campaign. (Of course, there are groups for which setting the tavern alight would be expected behavior!). Several options exist. You could declare nothing happens, or allow a minor, entertaining interlude before steering the party back on track. You could decide the PCs actions have longer term, more reaching effects: there's a warrant out for their arrest, the tavern is unusable for weeks and the quest benefactor is angry with them. Or you could decide their unexpected actions have a major effect on the gameworld, permanently changing any intended main storyline. That's just for starters.   There's also the choice to augment options like these by thinking of possible outcomes and rolling randomly, or deciding what happens based on the current scenario conditions. Also, adopting simulationist rules, either from the upcoming DMG or another game, may give you tools to adjudicate such player actions.   As a DM, how much do you let unforeseen PC actions affect your setting, and what you were going to run? As a player, how much change would you like your PC's spontaneous actions to make?
#2 Shiroiken Aug 15, 2014 3:31:05	I always plan for expected PC actions. However, I am always ready to adapt to the unexpected. After 2 decades of DMing, I assume that if I plan 100 ways for something to be done, my players will find the 101st way. Because of this, I can usually roll with whatever the group decides to do.   These actions can create new directions for the campaign, so I don't discourage them. However, I believe in cause and effect. If the PCs take random actions, these actions can have unforseen negative effects. Because of this, my players usually plan out actions, rather than just doing something for "fun."
#3 mellored Aug 15, 2014 5:15:19	All my taverns are made of stone, or are grown into a living tree that doesn't burn so easily.
#4 Marandahir Aug 15, 2014 5:17:50	My players need to know that if they burn down a tavern, the're probably going to make enemies of the tavern-owner (and/or relatives and loved ones), the local constable and leadership, and anybody who used to go there.  There's a reason Tyrell almost got the party banded from Patcher's Place in Golden Sun: Dark Dawn.  This can be a roleplaying opportunity, and can be a great jumping off place for more of the story, because stories live on actions, reactions, and reactions to those.  Problem, Solution that makes more problems, solution that makes more problems, etc.
#5 Mecheon Aug 15, 2014 5:35:18	We had a great reason to burn down the tavern   The barkeep had skipped town with some of our stuff, so we were a bit miffed, and we needed to get into somewhere well protected. So, well, with no barkeep to stop us, tavern got lit up and we ran screaming to the tower we needed to get into, clearly not the perps in this case as we teld them oh my, we saw the barkeep light a fire and now everything is burning! And while the guards ran off, we snuck in   Tavern fires are great distractions
#6 iserith Aug 15, 2014 5:49:30	The players attacking or stealing from townies, setting fire to taverns, or turning on each other are probably a sign that the game lacks compelling action and tension. It's taking too long to get to the hook. The NPCs being interviewed are too cagey. The clues are too deeply buried in pixels. The checks being made don't have any interesting failure that drives the action. And so on. The DM is failing to create interesting situations, so the players create their own and it's often stuff that nobody really wants to spend time on like fighting town guards or screwing each other over. Everyone would probably rather be exploring fantastical locations in pursuit of gold and experience, thwarting villains, and saving princes or princesses, but instead they're doing something far more boring for some reason and so it's tavern-burnin' time!   Nautilus wrote:
#7 TiaNadiezja Aug 15, 2014 5:52:31	Why would you punish the players for burning the tavern? Natural results of behavior are natural, but if they're clever about it (and thus avoid suspicion, or just wait until they're too powerful for anyone who might care about the tavern fire to threaten them), let them enjoy the fruits of their pyromaniacal labors.
#8 Mecheon Aug 15, 2014 5:58:04	Also, hey, if you have guards at a castle and my character is damn sure what we need is in that castle, well, then you get to do a stealth segment which'll inspire us more, as it was our plan   We lose a tavern. We gain access to the king's storeroom. We gain an enemy. We gain a reputation. We gain an exciting chase scene
#9 TiaNadiezja Aug 15, 2014 6:08:02	Mecheon wrote:
#10 BoldItalic Aug 15, 2014 6:11:15	The tavern burns merrily, the wooden floor collapses, what is underneath?   A portal to the plane of water. Water-beings come through and douse the flames. PCs need to start swimming. The entrance to new dungeon, just like you were planning anyway. A portal to the plane of fire. Fire beings come through and feed on the flames. They run amok. A cellar full of barrels of vintage ale that the landlord had been hoarding. Can you get the barrels out in time? A very annoyed otyugh A complete replacement tavern, on an elevator. Every problem is an opportunity.
#11 Mecheon Aug 15, 2014 6:11:41	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#12 ShadeRaven Aug 15, 2014 6:26:00	I try very hard not to assume anything with players. For me, this means everything that their characters do is "unexpected." My goal is simply to be able to react so that their actions have relevance.   In a recent PF campaign set in Rise of the Runelords, there was a situation that landed half the group in prison.  Definitely not in the "books", but it lead to some deeper roleplay, enmity, and/or interaction with key NPCs.   It's about consequences for me. Both for the good and the bad, as well as all the layers in between.
#13 ShadeRaven Aug 15, 2014 6:43:03	I try very hard not to assume anything with players. For me, this means everything that their characters do is "unexpected." My goal is simply to be able to react so that their actions have relevance.   In a recent PF campaign set in Rise of the Runelords, there was a situation that landed half the group in prison.  Definitely not in the "books", but it lead to some deeper roleplay, enmity, and/or interaction with key NPCs.   It's about consequences for me. Both for the good and the bad, as well as all the layers in between.
#14 SwampDog Aug 15, 2014 6:51:36	Would I "let" them?  (Why wouldn't I?)   Of course I'd let them try, and quite possibly succeed if they were clever about it.   One piece of lit parchment isn't likely to burn down the tavern, but I'm sure a smart group could come up with a way to set it ablaze. But consequences would definitely ensue; there'd be hatred by the barkeep or his family, the local citizens would be pissed at losing a favored watering hole, and the lawkeepers of the town would seek their arrest. I'd say the PCs burning down the tavern would be an excellent example of emergent adventure.   In many cases, the players are far more capable of railroading the GM than the other way around, in the sense that they can force him to respond to their stimuli.
#15 quindia Aug 15, 2014 15:14:08	I try to let my players do whatever they want, though there might be consequences for their actions. Maybe they do get away with their initial arson, but depending on where the inn is located, their might be an investigation. In a world with magic, determining what really happened my not be all that difficult. Think about using an arson as part of a plot in a game... How would your players go about trying to solve what happened. Your NPCs might be just as capable.   Is the tavern in a city? Fire is a nightmare in a crowded mideval town and might see the entire quater ablaze and there WILL be a serious investigation. In a rural community the cost might be less, but is this a random act? Unless you are playing outright evil characters, burning a tavern as a distraction seems drastic. Unless the tavern is run by the thieves guild or a cthulhu cult, you've made the owner and his family homeless and possible put several other people out of work. Even revenge against a shady bartender might have consequences as there may be other patrons killed (By Tempus, the Duke's son was in there!).   Something like a zillion years ago, I was running a game set in one of the old Judges Guild modules... I have no idea which one now. The players decided to set fire to a barn to distract some guards. The barn happened to be in the text and it said two children were playing in the loft... most of the JG books had little details like this scattered throughout. Halfway through the chaos that ensued, the PCs figured out the kids were there and ended up ditching the plan to try to rescue the kids (having to fight the guards as well as they were known enemies of the kingdom).   Anyway, yes I let my players do pretty much anything they want, but I don't always let them get away with it...
#16 iserith Aug 15, 2014 7:14:46	This thread reminded me of an old blog entry from one of my players and sometimes DM:   Taverns: Boring When Not Flaming
#17 Miladoon Aug 15, 2014 15:17:12	The funny thing about this thread is one of my characters recently started a tavern fire.   Hello everyone, my name is Miladoon, and I start tavern fires.
#18 Noon Aug 15, 2014 15:51:19	The mega-path? Railroading comes with such pretty names now ("Oh, it's not a railroad!" sure - 'entertaining interlude before steering the party back on track.'. Back. On. Track.)   I would have asked the players to have some kind of character goal before play even begins.   Maybe this is part of their goal - maybe they forgot their goal for awhile.   Once we have a context to judge that by, then we get a theme. And they follow the goals (no, it doesn't require 'random encounters' - the PC becomes a random encounter to the denizens of the game world, instead, in it's pusuit of its goal)   But I'm guessing most DM's in this thread are thinking of PC's that have no goals in life.
#19 Nautilus Aug 15, 2014 13:45:27	I'm not a fan of NPCs catching omniscience off the DM. If the PCs are smart enough to avoid detection and cover their tracks, they might very well burn down a tavern and get away with it (In my own game, the PCs really did torch a tavern, and managed to successfully blame an NPC). I'm also in favor of events like these being a spur for introducing new material, which might start out as ad libbed but can become a central part of the campaign.   Yeah, on 'let'. This didn't mean 'let the PCs do it', but 'how much effect do you let their actions have?'.  I think most DMs use the particular situation to decide this.   Unexpected actions don't always have to be destructive. A knight PC may decide to seek out a jousting tournament while in a city. The PCs may decide to follow a pair of NPCs who've just said goodbye, somewhat stymieing your plan to have the NPCs secretly murdered. If you had an elaborate whodunit all set up around the PCs investigating the murder, this might seem like a problem. But I think that resolving PC actions in a way that make sense, then deciding on wider effects that lead to more fun, is the most sensible option.
#20 animeus Aug 15, 2014 17:48:29	mellored wrote:
#21 animeus Aug 15, 2014 17:51:47	TiaNadiezja wrote: