I often see GMs that really struggle with keeping their plotline structured and on track. This is especially true when the GM is using clues as a campaign device to reveal the backstory and move the campaign forward. These GMs recognize an objective truth behind the mysteries they present to their players and doggedly adhere to that truth. This is often a mistake.
The problem with adhering too closely to a mysterious background plot is that players don't understand what is happening in the game (such as the Evil Overlord's overall plot). Players can feel their characters are helpless and unable to uncover the intricacies of what is going on. To make matters worse, the GM may feel they have to keep parceling out more and more clues to help (force) the players into understanding the backstory 100%. I call this problem Forcing The Backstory and it leads to the plot dictating the session's events rather than the players and GM.
For example, I recall a 3.0 D&D game I ran that involved the PCs escorting a queen (their benefactor) to some location I can't remember any longer. In transit, the party was beset by a group of entropy cultists who eventually kidnapped the Queen. The PCs dutifully perused the bad guys and tried to piece together the reason for the kidnapping. They found all my clues, put them together and armed with all this knowledge promptly misinterpreted everything. Instead of figuring out the entropy cult was behind the attack, the PCs pinned the act on a series of pirates they had encountered a few games before. My head was spinning and I remember the little bit of bile that popped in my throat as I tried to think of an out.
First thing was first. I resolved not to let any of my players figure out the quandary I was in. I nodded to them all, told them to take a break, grab a soda and give me a few minutes to work up some NPC stats (a great fail-safe of mine… when in doubt ... take 5 and claim you need to "work on an NPC"). I wrote down the highlights of what the players were discussing and went back through my clues to see why they came to the conclusions they did.
All told, they did a hell of a job. They took the clues I had given them, and placed in context, I understood why they came to the conclusion they did. In fact, I was impressed with the intuitive jumps they made and the connections between NPCs I never anticipated. They weren't wrong in any real sense, they just had a different answer than I expected. More importantly, their answer was just as fun and engaging as the entropy cultists. So, with a few quick notes scribbled, my entire plotline for the campaign changed right then and there. With a flash of the pen on a few notecards the PCs went from horribly misinterpreting my clues to 100% correct about what was going on.
Looking back, that was one of the best GMing decisions I ever made. I was ready for them to interpret the clues one way, but I remained flexible to discard the majority of that plotline and shift focus to something the players dictated. By not falling into the trap of Forcing the Backstory, my players and I forged a plotline tailor-made for what they wanted to do.
Naturally, they took the clues and interpreted them in such a way as to promote the type of game they were hoping for. They wanted to face those pirates again, and the clues were the vector for them doing so. They were excited about the prospect of going back to the pirates, and were pleased with themselves that they pieced together the clues. They were having fun and the plot made sense- I figured, who was I to tell them differently?
Forcing the Backstory is a problem for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it smacks of railroading. A good GM is one that remains flexible (my mantra for this column). Sure, it is satisfying when the PCs put the pieces together and actually unearth the backstory the GM prepared, but doggedly adhering to that backstory often leads to force-feeding clues to the players or even having to take the players aside and explain the backstory to them. Surely you can get a great story out of that sort of game, but the flexibility of being able to discard the entire plotline if required adds to the versatility of a GM.
Pride is a bit of a problem when GMs Force the Backstory. Any background or plot that took a GM hours to develop is one they have emotional ties to. GMs want to see their intricate plots uncovered and for the players to share in the accomplishment of a well written backstory. This is natural. However, when a GM becomes too proud of their backstory they are more likely to Force the Backstory and railroad the players into their pre-set encounters. This can be tedious and frustrating to the GM and players. It's wonderful if the players nail the clues and figure everything out, but if they don't, the GM needs to be ready with a plan B. More often than not, Plan B will be staring the GM right in the face as the PCs jump to their own conclusions.
Forcing the Backstory often gives the GM more work, not less. When faced with a total derailment of their plot many GMs worry that all the time, effort, and NPC statting they did in preparation for the game will be wasted. Obviously, some of those resources will not be used in the immediate campaign if the GM switches gears and follow the players' lead. However, those resources are still available in the future and when the GM needs an instant set of baddies or a new plot, it is an easy thing to go dig out the notes and NPCs from the discarded campaign.
Moreover, by using the players' creativity and conclusions to help drive the campaign, the GM is not forced to have to think of every possible outcome. Instead, the GM can see where the campaign is going, finish the session in an appropriate manner, and spend the interim preparing for the new direction. Indeed, a plotline the players select is one they are significantly less likely to diverge from- giving the GM a good idea of what the next couple of sessions (at least) will look like. Finally, the GM can move forward with the plot rather than having to make extra effort and try to force the players down a pre-set path (which is too often a Herculean effort).
Players like having control of how the plot unfolds. The willingness to discard your pre-made plot in favor of a player derailment rewards player creativity while also giving them a distinct feeling of empowerment (they solved the mystery… and now they are going to resolve it).
The players need not know the campaign is going in a distinctly different direction then you planned. Usually, it's best they don't have any idea they did not piece together the "right" conclusion. If they discover you had an entirely different campaign prepared and that they misinterpreted the clues, it takes away from their victory. Additionally, keeping the backstory shift a secret allows you to freely use the resources of the discarded campaign in the future. All the players need to know is that they were successful in their clue hunting and that the campaign is moving forward because of their success.
Avoiding the trap of Forcing the Backstory is all about remaining true to the idea of telling a story. Flexibility and the willingness to shift gears away from what you expected will keep the campaign moving at a good pace while also presenting the players with suitable challenges.
In summary:
- Don't feel like you have to force the camping into the pre-set backstory you developed. If the players have a good idea of how the plotline should go forward then take the initiative and follow their lead (but don't let them know).
- If it looks like your campaign is about to be derailed, take a break and see if it can be salvaged or if it is time to go to Plan B.
- If you divert your campaign, keep the resources of the old campaign on hand- they will prove useful in the future.
- Flexibility is a good thing.
