Bailing on a plot hook


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


A little set up here, our group is new to tabletop games and our DM is new to his role as well. In our campaign we were being very heavily hinted that we were going to be going underground. But we decided that our group was unsuited to that environment considering we only had one character with dark vision and two characters with Large animal companions.

After a little debate, we decide to just bail on the campaign altogether. Our characters packed up and left.

Was this kosher? Does anyone else think we made the right choice or should we have tried?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the GM should have given you more guidance during character creation such that you didn't make characters so unsuited for the tasks he prepared.


Is really such a problem when Light is a cantrip?


The DM puts work into his campaign also, and even after he gave hints as to what he had prepared, you guys basically wasted his time and effort spent on it. That being said, communication is always a plus. He could have been more proactive in making sure you guys were ok with that direction/premise, but on the flip side you guys could have gone with his suggestions as well.

I personally think you guys should have given it a try. (just my 2cp)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are two things to consider here.

First, what made sense to your characters. That's something only your group can answer.

But second, what made sense to the game.

Frankly, adventurers are either idiots, insane, or both. These are the people who don't just tread in the lands where dragons roam, they think to themselves "Hey, you know that dragon that's out there killing all the people? Let's go kill it!"

Sure, that may have all kinds of trappings about money, ideology, religion, revenge, or whatever else-- but it's ultimately still, by the standards of society as a whole, a really stupid and/or crazy thing to do.

So why do they do it?

Well, at the end of the day because they have to. Because Lord of the Rings would be boring if Bilbo decided not to to go join the dwarves on their quest (also that whole world would be utterly screwed, but hey. Minor details). They do it for the story.

That's ultimately what RPGs are about: telling a story. And you decided that you weren't actually interested in telling a story.

Now, there are probably a lot of things that could have gone better. Ideally, your GM would have told you that the campaign involved going underground beforehand (if he did that and still everybody made characters that unsuited to it, then well... that's on the players). Or he would have given you a chance to get properly equipped, maybe had the local priest dig up some scrolls of Permanency and used them to give everybody Darkvision, if that was really the breaking point for you all.

There were options. Realistically, "screw it, we're not doing this" is an option, but it's about the worst one you can take. "We're not doing this, unless we have X" is much better (so long as X is reasonable), and gives the GM a way to continue the campaign. "We can't see in the dark so we're not going", your party says, and the local priest overhears you. He tells the party of a number of lockets containing Heightened (4th) Continual Flames, that were taken along with some other treasures by a group of bandits to the west.

Cool. Because you added that little phrase, now you have an actual campaign. Without that, you all might as well pack up and go home.


If the GM hinted at going underground before you made the characters, then they would be justified in feeling disappointed by the abandonment. If the hints only came afterwards, then it's on the GM. Miscommunication happens from time to time and while it may be awkward, it can also be used as an opportunity for learning and making adjustments. As I see it, there are two clear ways to go forward:

1.) The GM can save the underground plot for the next party and you all continue playing your characters in a different direction, that may need to be improvised.

2.) The players can save their characters for the next plot and make a new party to follow the GM down the path that's already prepared.

Which option is best can only be determined by you and your friends. Good luck!


Short answer, you did fine. Long answer, it's all on the GM. Personally I might have suggested shelving your current characters to make ones more likely to go underground (the adventuring group that actually took up that plot hook) and running the current group through a different plot hook.

First, the game is predicated on having fun. It sounds like you knew you weren't going to have fun going underground, and that's something the GM should have anticipated.

Second, there is no plan in existence which survives actually being enacted. While you can railroad the players into going somewhere you can't control their actions and players who did not want to go on the plot hook can be resentful. And angry players are disruptive at best (at worst they're creative). That's no fun for anyone (except Old Man Henderson, but that was only fun for the players).

Third, if the GM had some kind of mitigating factor that would fix your concerns about going underground (or it was only for a short time) it's on them to speak up. Since they didn't, it's likely that all of your concerns were completely correct.

So, in summation, the GM probably needed to plan a little better. Now, absolutely, see if you can help them run it somehow (it's really a lot of work). Ask if the plot hook is vital to your current characters or if they want to run it as a one-shot or short campaign with Cave Crashers, the all dwarf percussionist band (or, you know, whatever your new characters are).


Cuuniyevo wrote:

If the GM hinted at going underground before you made the characters, then they would be justified in feeling disappointed by the abandonment. If the hints only came afterwards, then it's on the GM. Miscommunication happens from time to time and while it may be awkward, it can also be used as an opportunity for learning and making adjustments. As I see it, there are two clear ways to go forward:

1.) The GM can save the underground plot for the next party and you all continue playing your characters in a different direction, that may need to be improvised.

2.) The players can save their characters for the next plot and make a new party to follow the GM down the path that's already prepared.

Which option is best can only be determined by you and your friends. Good luck!

A little more in our defense, before he brought up going underground we were fighting in a forest and our biggest puzzle was getting across a boiling river. We found one part of an artifact and were then told the other part was in an underground Drow city. And that was all we really had as a warning.


Entryhazard wrote:
Is really such a problem when Light is a cantrip?

Space was more the issue. We have two characters with Large animal companions, one of which was an Elk that used charges almost every round.


There are easy magic means for seeing in the dark (get a level 3 wizard to cast Continual Flame, for example).

Underground doesn't necessarily mean narrow corridors. Mounts can squeeze down 5 foot corridors anyway.

The question is, do you want to play or not play? If you want to play, then sometimes that means going into dungeons (hence 'D&D'). I don't know of any campaigns that are set entirely outdoors during the daytime.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait....so the huge objection was 'oh no i won't be able to regularly charge/max dps nova if we go underground so we won't do it'?

...i got nothin.

Silver Crusade

Welcome to the Pen & Paper side of gaming OP. Just a piece of advice to consider for future table top gaming, not all environments or situations will adhere to everyone's comfort zone.

As far as space being an issue, the Underdark is vast, with gigantic caverns being fairly common, but overall dimensions vary from location to location. Large sized creatures really should be fine. Also, as others have mentioned, lighting is pretty easy to handle when going underground.


logan grayble wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Is really such a problem when Light is a cantrip?
Space was more the issue. We have two characters with Large animal companions, one of which was an Elk that used charges almost every round.

Narrow Frame is basically required for all mounts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
logan grayble wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Is really such a problem when Light is a cantrip?
Space was more the issue. We have two characters with Large animal companions, one of which was an Elk that used charges almost every round.

If you were going into a city, you probably had space. Those sort of go hand in hand. Also, they make a feat for that.

Honestly here I'm going to revise my earlier statement: your party screwed up, not the GM.

This was not a situation where the majority of the game was going to involve going underground.

This was not a situation where "the party going underground would be suicide" was a thing.

This was just a situation of reduced combat effectiveness (mildly reduced at that, as while I have my own Animal Companion Carries The Party story that's... abnormal) with easy solutions that the party decided not to take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, whoa everyone, chill. It takes 2 to tango in this game: GM's and players.

So to the OP: you say the campaign was under way already and you had no forewarning at character creation of what was to come. Rather you planned for straight-forward gaming on flat, open ground. I will tentatively agree with some other posters: this is a common thing in tabletop RPGs that your environment will not always be ideal for the characters you built.

To your credit just having Narrow Frame for your mount wouldn't have covered going underground. I played a PC, a gestalt ranger/cavalier recently. He was a Halfling riding a wolf, I figured I'd be safe since he's Medium and I knew we'd be heading underground. Then my GM gave me a chasm. How do you get a Medium sized wolf across a 40' chasm?

My point is: I can understand your trepidation.

That being said, here are some alternatives you could've offered before bailing:

1. Talk to your GM: get on the same page with them. Don't ask them to reveal any of their campaign plans but be frank and ask if there will be situations in the upcoming section of the game unsuited to riding a freaking ELK around.

2. Create new PCs: seriously, think about it. In a lot of RPG-style video games you build a new party before a mission, picking new or old PCs from the "tavern" or whatever based on what you need for the adventure ahead. You could just as easily had the 2 guys with giant animals say "look we'll only slow you guys down in the Underdark, but we know some guys..." and bam! 2 new PCs

3. Magic: Fly/levitate, light/dancing lights (for your vision), Grease for Escape Artist checks on your mounts. There are a LOT of ways to muddle through these situations.

So I think the players and the GM in this campaign need to have a sit down and come to grips with what needs to happen to move the game forward. You guys, as players, are new and got concerned. It happens. Just know that if you continue on in this hobby this is going to happen from time to time. You won't have a splash weapon for swarms; you'll forget to grab ranged weapons; you'll build for combat and there'll be lots of skill challenges. The mark of a good player is to learn from these shortfalls and try to avoid running from them.

Next time you guys make characters you'll ask more questions and consider environments before choosing mounts. If you still go Large sized, you'll know to think about HOW to deal with challenging environments before they hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
To your credit just having Narrow Frame for your mount wouldn't have covered going underground. I played a PC, a gestalt ranger/cavalier recently. He was a Halfling riding a wolf, I figured I'd be safe since he's Medium and I knew we'd be heading underground. Then my GM gave me a chasm. How do you get a Medium sized wolf across a 40' chasm?

Probably the same way you got your PCs across?

I'm assuming magic wasn't an option there, because Fly could easily target the mount. So probably you either rigged up a bridge across or climbed down/back up?

In the former case, it's really just a question of how strong you made your bridge-- and by the bestiary wolves max at 150 pounds. In the latter case, you just need somebody with a decent strength score to lower the wolf and lift him back up. If nobody had good Str, even combined, I could see the problem, but... that seems like an odd party.

Admittedly that one could become a problem for large companions. Which might make it a longer term problem, but it's still not a reason to walk from the campaign:

"you reach a wide chasm"

Party confers, decides they have no effective way to cross it.

"We retreat and begin looking for materials/items/people that would let us cross that chasm". Maybe there's a sidequest, they get a Scroll of Fly, and come back able to cross the chasm.

There's a thing I saw a while back about GMing, the idea that you (almost) never say no, you say "yes, but". The idea is that "no" gives nothing to work with and stifles your players, but "yes, but" gives them options and keeps the game rolling. I think it applies to players too. You don't say "No, I don't want to go to this encounter with a dragon". You say "Yes, but my character knows this dragon is particularly dangerous, so we're going to look for more resources before we go to battle", or perhaps "Yes, but my deity/ideology/whatever insists that I don't actually battle the dragon, so I'm going to bring it a peace offering and try diplomacy instead of fighting". Now, these things might be more work on the GM, but they're infinitely better than "No, I don't want to see the dragon, we're going to go be farmers now".

Or, in context: you don't say "No, I don't want to go underground"

You say "Yes, I'll go underground, but first I'll need to solve these two issues" and get to work on that.

One of them keeps the campaign going, the other doesn't. Now, of course, the GM should be working with you and providing options. But both sides need to work with each other here. The GM provides an obstacle. You decide you need something to bypass the obstacle. Then it's the GM's responsibility to ensure that you can get what you need (with more obstacles along the way, of course!), or a reasonable substitute (maybe there's no Scroll of Fly, but you meet a bridgebuilder who talks to your party and teaches them how to rig up a bridge strong enough to carry an elk).

Now, if it's absolutely something that can't be done, then okay, say no. I'm not saying you should go spelunking after your GM says the whole cave is Deeper Darkness and there's no light source strong enough to penetrate it. But just saying "no" isn't something that a party should say unless they've explored every other option.


logan grayble wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Is really such a problem when Light is a cantrip?
Space was more the issue. We have two characters with Large animal companions, one of which was an Elk that used charges almost every round.

Not all the underground is narrow tunnels (and large animals can squeeze through medium passages or simply pass as they're large only by one side as most of the time a horse is a 2x1 rectangle), very often a cave has more than enough room for some dragon/sphinx/large f#$% huge beast living in it in which you Elk can charge too.


logan grayble wrote:

A little set up here, our group is new to tabletop games and our DM is new to his role as well. In our campaign we were being very heavily hinted that we were going to be going underground. But we decided that our group was unsuited to that environment considering we only had one character with dark vision and two characters with Large animal companions.

After a little debate, we decide to just bail on the campaign altogether. Our characters packed up and left.

Was this kosher? Does anyone else think we made the right choice or should we have tried?

I don't think it is kosher or not kosher.

If you had completed objective 1, which led to you going underground then I would expect for heroes to go underground. Now with that said it might be a good idea to gather the necessary supplies. The game will put you in situations that you are not the best at, at times.

Another thing to consider is whether this is a long term or short term mission.

Now if the entire campaign was to be underground, then the GM would have been better off giving you a short synopsis similar to what the AP's do.

If this was a "surprise you guys are going to the Underdark" thing that the GM thought would be fun, but the players did not like at because <insert reason>, then I would suggest an open group discussion. Maybe retroing things so it is not a surprise and/or allowing you to redo characters, assuming the campaign just started would not be a bad idea.


I would say you probably missed out on some good gaming. The game is a partnership between players and GM. If the adventure path led you underground then so be it. You might not have had the optimal party for it but a little creative preparation and some GM help to overcome hurdles you could have had a lot of fun. Leaving AC behind is not that uncommon

Silver Crusade

I agree that it was a missed opportunity. I understand that everyone involved is new to tabletop gaming, but the fun involved with an Underdark romp is too much to pass up :)


wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:

A little set up here, our group is new to tabletop games and our DM is new to his role as well. In our campaign we were being very heavily hinted that we were going to be going underground. But we decided that our group was unsuited to that environment considering we only had one character with dark vision and two characters with Large animal companions.

After a little debate, we decide to just bail on the campaign altogether. Our characters packed up and left.

Was this kosher? Does anyone else think we made the right choice or should we have tried?

I don't think it is kosher or not kosher.

If you had completed objective 1, which led to you going underground then I would expect for heroes to go underground. Now with that said it might be a good idea to gather the necessary supplies. The game will put you in situations that you are not the best at, at times.

Another thing to consider is whether this is a long term or short term mission.

Now if the entire campaign was to be underground, then the GM would have been better off giving you a short synopsis similar to what the AP's do.

If this was a "surprise you guys are going to the Underdark" thing that the GM thought would be fun, but the players did not like at because <insert reason>, then I would suggest an open group discussion. Maybe retroing things so it is not a surprise and/or allowing you to redo characters, assuming the campaign just started would not be a bad idea.

We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok LG, let's clarify: did you bail because your one PC's elk couldn't charge in the Underdark, or did you bail because your GM railroaded you there in the first place. These are 2 separate issues.

This is something else that frequently happens in this hobby: railroading. This is when the GM wants you to go do X in the plot (go to a place, meet an NPC, whatever) and refuses to let you succeed at any other course of action until you do it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as everyone at the table is having fun and willing to go along with it. It sounds from the above though that you and the other players weren't into it.

So G Force, help us understand what's really going on in your game. There's a big difference between "You go in the forest and recover the gem, now on to step 2 in the Underdark" and "EVERYTHING YOU DID WAS FAILURE! TO THE UNDERDARK WITH YOU!!!"


logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to call douchey player move. The guy builds a story for you and you don't play it. That's just not cool.


Brother Fen wrote:

I'm going to call douchey player move. The guy builds a story for you and you don't play it. That's just not cool.

I don't think the player is required to play just because the GM makes a story. It is more complicated than that. From what we have so far there was a breakdown in communication however.


wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.


Mark Hoover wrote:

Ok LG, let's clarify: did you bail because your one PC's elk couldn't charge in the Underdark, or did you bail because your GM railroaded you there in the first place. These are 2 separate issues.

This is something else that frequently happens in this hobby: railroading. This is when the GM wants you to go do X in the plot (go to a place, meet an NPC, whatever) and refuses to let you succeed at any other course of action until you do it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as everyone at the table is having fun and willing to go along with it. It sounds from the above though that you and the other players weren't into it.

So G Force, help us understand what's really going on in your game. There's a big difference between "You go in the forest and recover the gem, now on to step 2 in the Underdark" and "EVERYTHING YOU DID WAS FAILURE! TO THE UNDERDARK WITH YOU!!!"

Well, I didn't want to make it sound like it was our DMs fault. But we tried many ways to avoid going underground. We tried to use diplomacy to get the king to send city guards to the drow city in our place so we could secretly make a fake gem. But a Diplomacy roll of 28 wasn't enough. We had a Hunter and a Druid in our party and they certainly didn't want to destroy a forest.


logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.

This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.

Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?


wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.

This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.

Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?

Yeah, he's still our DM. I think our next plan is to pick up an adventure path book so he doesn't have to come up with everything himself and there's a better flow.


logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.

This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.

Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?

Yeah, he's still our DM. I think our next plan is to pick up an adventure path book so he doesn't have to come up with everything himself and there's a better flow.

That's a good idea. They also tend to give you a reason to go into areas you might not really want to go into.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
logan grayble wrote:
Well, I didn't want to make it sound like it was our DMs fault. But we tried many ways to avoid going underground. We tried to use diplomacy to get the king to send city guards to the drow city in our place so we could secretly make a fake gem. But a Diplomacy roll of 28 wasn't enough. We had a Hunter and a Druid in our party and they certainly didn't want to destroy a forest.

A GM can only plan so much content. A typical adventure outline looks like, "The PCs go into an forest to battle the evil within (which will take them up to level 3), then have an adventure underground with the drow (which will take them up to level 6) which leads them into the finale at the dark lord's infernal portal."

This isn't Skyrim where you have a dozen quests in your logbook and can pursue whichever one you feel like, or head off into the wilderness to seek what's over the next hill. If you don't go into the drow caves, there is nothing else, because the GM hasn't invented the rest of the world yet, and most GMs can't improvise that fast. So don't be surprised if the GM isn't keen to let you avoid the thing he spent hours preparing for your entertainment.

This kind of situation is best avoided by agreeing a campaign theme before you start out. So the GM might say this is going to be a campaign about battling evil underground, and all the players make characters who want to do that sort of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a DM, I typically ask my players at the end of a session what they intend to do next time, assuming that they have choices to make (and aren't in the middle of a dungeon crawl or something similar). I like it when my players have choices and I try not to plan too far ahead of them so they can make decisions and I can react accordingly. It's worked out well for me over my years as a DM. Granted, we play every other week so I have 2 weeks to plan out the next adventure.

It doesn't sound like that was the case for the OP. Glad your group has come to an equitable solution, though, by using APs. If he wants to add in some personalized side quests of his own design, he can easily do that with APs.


When I started my campaign, I opened the first session by showing the players the covers to every module they would play form level 1-20. I gave them a brief breakdown of the types of adventures involved: dungeoneering, wilderness exploration, demon hunting, dragon slaying, so on and so forth.

That way, they know from day one the type of campaign they will play in and will have a better idea of how to build their character over time to be prepared. So far, it's worked out great. Everyone is enjoying every module we've made it through so far.

I also took the time to completely sandbox the section of Golarion that they are playing in. I told them, you can do whatever you want because I am prepared to sandbox for you, but the module is literally the adventure, so if you don't follow the adventure, you will just sandbox kind of aimlessly.


Brother Fen wrote:
When I started my campaign, I opened the first session by showing the players the covers to every module they would play form level 1-20. I gave them a brief breakdown of the types of adventures involved: dungeoneering, wilderness exploration, demon hunting, dragon slaying, so on and so forth.

That's very interesting, and cool that it worked for you.

(My players would hate that. "What the hell are you giving away everything up front for? I/We don't want to know that! BORING.")


There's no point in having a group of cavaliers have to slog through a series of dungeons without their horses or guys without sail experience stuck on a ship for a year. In all of the companion books, it literally says, "ask your GM if your campaign will involve XYZ".

I would allow your group to excuse themselves from my table.


Brother Fen wrote:
There's no point in having a group of cavaliers have to slog through a series of dungeons without their horses or guys without sail experience stuck on a ship for a year. In all of the companion books, it literally says, "ask your GM if your campaign will involve XYZ".

Totally agree. So would my players.

Quote:
I would allow your group to excuse themselves from my table.

*shrug*


Then why respond?

Has your group ever had a sense of anticipation for the next part of an adventure? "I can't wait til we get to the dungeon or get to fight the next batch or undead or finally make it to the Golden City of Death".

Just like teasers for a movie, it helps them look forward to what is coming next.

If you want to sit at my table and say "boring" you may move along because we won't get along.


Brother Fen wrote:
There's no point in having a group of cavaliers have to slog through a series of dungeons without their horses or guys without sail experience stuck on a ship for a year.

If your character is useless indoors, you have made a bad character. Most encounters in most adventures take place indoors.

If the only thing you get to do on a ship is to make Profession: Sailor checks (as opposed to, say, having exciting pirate battles) then find a new GM.


Yes, thank you for such insight.


BEFORE rolling up characters for a new campaign, some LIGHT and SHORT hints as what to expect is always favorable, not to spoiler or to make powergameing easier, but simply to avoide choosing a character concept that will be unfun for the campaign.

Hint: "Pirate themed with ship to ship combat and some tropical island exploring."

--> Better not roll up Sir Siegfried, Master of Mounted Combat.

Hint: "Protect barbarian kingdom from the machinations of a dread necromancer from the cold north."
--> Better wait to play Slick Susie, demagogue Bard and master of courtly intrigue for another time.

Hint: "Stop an invasion from the Plane of Fire in a desert setting with some diplomacy and ally-making to gather opposing forces."
--> Hmm... playing Burninator, the fire-specialised nuking Sorcerer might not be a good idea this time.

From the info OP has gives it sounds like the unfortunate combination of railroading DM AND players who dont want to face a temporary impact on their combat effectiveness.

Important annotation!:
Enviromental constrictions are a relevant drawback for the higher combat power that Large Mounts/Animal Companions bring UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. Becoming huffy when this actually triggers and you cant take your warhorse spelunking, or not bring your Triceratops animal companion to the kingly ball is simply bad player behaviour.


A good DM will reveal enough of the campaign themes to make sure everyone can make characters that will be able to contribute and be interested in the interested in the adventure. If you want characters to defend the Holy Citadel of Sarenae, you should probably make sure that the players know that, so they don't make anti-Paladins.

That said, dungeons are kind of the staple default assumption. The original version of the game even had them in the title, so without knowing anything, you should make a character that is happy delving into the depths of the earth and killing the bad things there.

If your character can't do that, unless you know of a darn good reason why they won't have to in a specific campaign, then you probably need to rethink your character.


Brother Fen wrote:
Then why respond?

1) Messageboards. That's what people do. (Duh)

2) Because I thought it was pretty interesting what you did (i.e. show them the covers of all the modules). And I thought I'd say so. I found it fascinating what different groups do and how much information they divulge. I learn something new all the time. (Maybe add a dash of a small lament that I wouldn't be able to do anything like that...)

Quote:
Has your group ever had a sense of anticipation for the next part of an adventure? "I can't wait til we get to the dungeon or get to fight the next batch or undead or finally make it to the Golden City of Death".

Yep, to a degree. But they're strange folks - they would hate to see the actual published module being shown to them (or even know that they're going through a published module). They like everything to be more... 'natural' or 'flowing', I guess? Overall, it seems like they value surprise, more. I can't account for their tastes.

Quote:
If you want to sit at my table and say "boring" you may move along because we won't get along.

I have no idea what you're blabbering about, here. I'm not saying anything. (Like I typed before: *shrug*. I guess my players wouldn't get along with you. Or whatever.)


To the OP:

It may or may not have been a jerk move. We really don't have enough information.

If you had been told that the majority of the campaign is outdoors and made you characters accordingly, then it might not have been unreasonable.
If you just don't want to do anything that isn't the ideal situation for your build, you were out of line.
If you are playing a strix that is claustrophobic, it is in character.

Having said that, it isn't what I would have done. A light source or sight is stupidly easy to get. There are spells and magic items to help get use out of your animal companions in other areas. (Imagine how fun it would be to suddenly go crashing through the drow city on your mastodon that you pulled out of your pocket.) I would call it a poor build if it really is non-functional without the animal companion. Anyone can succeed when the situation is perfect. Challenging situations is exactly what heros do.


Brother Fen wrote:

Then why respond?

Has your group ever had a sense of anticipation for the next part of an adventure? "I can't wait til we get to the dungeon or get to fight the next batch or undead or finally make it to the Golden City of Death".

Just like teasers for a movie, it helps them look forward to what is coming next.

If you want to sit at my table and say "boring" you may move along because we won't get along.

Thanks for the suggestions [Hulk Hogan Voice]BROTHER![/Hulk Hogan Voice]

I now know how to intro my next campaign for my players:

[Movie Trailer Guy Voice] "In a world, where everything is darkness and pain," cutscene - peasants running, screaming; dragon strafes the buildings in the background "when those who rule ignore those who serve" cutscene - the king and his court kneel before a lich who laughs heartily as it settles into the throne "and when all hope is lost" cutscene - back to the village, a fiery wall is toppling towards a pair of little girls, a woman in the background screams out "MY BABIES!" as the crowd overruns her "heroes shall rise!" Cutscene - a barbarian lands just in time to catch the wall on her back, grunting with the effort but saving the girls; a downpour of water appears as a wizard conjures it forth, even as his familar flies over with even more from a bucket; a druid with a warcat animal companion and a hunter with a wolf companion leap in front of the dragon wheeling in the air and lowering to charge; a female swamp druid summons a pair of fire beetles to fly in, grab the girls out of harm's way and deliver them, unharmed, to their crying mother. The dragon is charging toward us, the barbarian throws off the wall and draws her greatsword falling into line with the other 2; the swamp druid is suddenly surrounded by a buzzing swarm of insects obscuring the edges of the frame; the wizard steps up behind them calling out "This tyrant has breathed his last blast. The people of this town have done NOTHING wrong, and yet they suffer. No longer my friends; now it ends!" fade to violence. Then...

Cutscene - dragon attack!

Cutscene - barbarian versus lich!

Cutscene - druids using their spells in unison to hold back evil plants as a fey eldest forces a Blight to spread!

Cutscene - The wizard is falling through the sky, all the while sending blast after blast at hundreds of circling gargoyles; the entire screen is FILLED with screaming NOISSEEE!!!!

Cutscene - black screne, labored breathing in the dark; the druid's voice "I think we lost them!" Hunter's voice as his eyes suddenly glow with primal power in the center of the screen "Think again, my friends" wizard casts Dancing Lights; the entire chamber around them, a huge underground vault, is flooded with eerie green glow; kobolds surge at them from EVERY direction! music "DUh Duh Duh DUHHHHHHH!"

"The Sothryn Wylds: a Sandbox. Coming soon, to a tabletop near you. Let your adventures begin..." [/movie Trailer Guy Voice]

Grand Lodge

This happens even to experienced gamers. We had one campaign where we were told we would be making characters to escort a caravan. This was a pretty optimization heavy group, so no one was too worried about having enough fire power on hand.

This resulted in each of us independantly, going home and thinking "You know, I feel like playing something quirky. Everyone else will handle the bruisers."

We wound up with a goblin chef, a halfling scout / medic, a merfolk arcane healer / illusionist, a runaway princess, an elven fop, and a deranged halfling (don't ask, really, just dont ask)

We had fun, but the GM had to adjust his campaign a lot.

Usually, when I GM, I try to have a variety of plot hooks.

Or maybe you guys could hire / convince anouther group of adventurers to go get the stuff under ground, while you do more stuff up above. (and then roll up the group of tunnel rats you sent down there and play them for that part of the adventure.)


I would've gone for the hook. It would've been more challenging (and therefore fun for me, at least) to make a character work in an environment alien to him. But to be fair, the whole thing is a delicate balancing act between player and GM. A compromise could've been reached I believe.

Also, I'd give just about anything to play in one of Mark Hoover's games.


A point from personnel experience. I have had an instance or two that the adventure I wrote was less than enjoyable to my players. But if they struggled through one and let me know I would correct the style for the next session. If your DM is willing to commit the time to creating adventures for you I can only assume that he would be willing to tailor them to the party as things progress


Based on what the OP has said, then no this is not ok. There are circumstances where it is ok to bail. Ex: I have a priest of Pharasma and the quest is specifically to go tomb raiding. But "go underground" is hardly an unreasonable plot hook. Nor do I think the DM misrepresented or failed communicating efficiently as some people here suggest. It's nice when starting a campaign if the GM suggests appropriate builds, but what GM has to warn his players "oh yeah hey in this game you guys might have to go underground!" That's ridiculous. I can't recall the last time I played a character that didn't go underground. I never ever have felt as a GM that players need to be sufficiently warned at character creation that they may have to go underground. If I did say that, I can only imagine the "well duh" looks I would get.

In short no it is not ok. I feel bad for your GM if he spent time developing that plot hook. You basically had the party say "we're not into challenge and adventure, please keep it in the comfort zone or we bail". You may think that's ok b/c you're new, but in my mind it's just the wrong attitude.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bailing on a plot hook All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.