Don't get me wrong, I'm doing my best to keep things open ended, but I do have something of a vague plot (essentially the players are stuck between two Vivos, being used by both). My scoundrel just didn't realize I had things there for a reason and that I was trying to tell this story, with their help of course. He was the only one though. Things are shaping up much better now.

This is the reason why for one of our games our GM goes by the Moniker "Director" instead of "Game Master"

I had a related problem when I started my game. I had created a world with an interesting plot arc, some detailed NPCs that lived there and some adventure hooks that would spring from it. The players proceeded in the first adventure to burn every bridge they could - utter irresponsibility, racking up crimes, angering local gangs, making enemies of other bounty hunters, the works. They were pretty much wrecking any chance of continuing to use this interesting setting I had created. Turned out at the end that they had this idea that they could do anything they wanted because "we'll just fly to another planet". Yes, players, I'm going to create a new planet like this every time you decide to soil the nest.

When the planet was put under Imperial Interdiction at the end of the adventure (not as a response to the player's actions, it was going to happen regardless), they were all "oh! we thought this was just the planet for the adventure."

It's a problem with a setting as vast as Star Wars - people think of it as a giant sandbox where you can permanently just move on in a thousand available directions. But the behind the scenes reality is that a GM can't prepare for all of that. So you either have to have some structure and planning to it, or improvise just about everything.

I had a related problem when I started my game. I had created a world with an interesting plot arc, some detailed NPCs that lived there and some adventure hooks that would spring from it. The players proceeded in the first adventure to burn every bridge they could - utter irresponsibility, racking up crimes, angering local gangs, making enemies of other bounty hunters, the works. They were pretty much wrecking any chance of continuing to use this interesting setting I had created. Turned out at the end that they had this idea that they could do anything they wanted because "we'll just fly to another planet". Yes, players, I'm going to create a new planet like this every time you decide to soil the nest.

When the planet was put under Imperial Interdiction at the end of the adventure (not as a response to the player's actions, it was going to happen regardless), they were all "oh! we thought this was just the planet for the adventure."

It's a problem with a setting as vast as Star Wars - people think of it as a giant sandbox where you can permanently just move on in a thousand available directions. But the behind the scenes reality is that a GM can't prepare for all of that. So you either have to have some structure and planning to it, or improvise just about everything.

There are a couple of ways to bring those burned bridges back to bite them. (whoa, too much alliteration there)

It's a big galaxy, yes, but starting new all the time can be troublesome, especially if you're trying to get hired for jobs. Negotiating that you're worth more than the average Rival can be just as difficult when you have no reputation as when you have a bad one. After all, if they can't find any info on you, there must be a reason.

I had a related problem when I started my game. I had created a world with an interesting plot arc, some detailed NPCs that lived there and some adventure hooks that would spring from it. The players proceeded in the first adventure to burn every bridge they could - utter irresponsibility, racking up crimes, angering local gangs, making enemies of other bounty hunters, the works. They were pretty much wrecking any chance of continuing to use this interesting setting I had created. Turned out at the end that they had this idea that they could do anything they wanted because "we'll just fly to another planet". Yes, players, I'm going to create a new planet like this every time you decide to soil the nest.

When the planet was put under Imperial Interdiction at the end of the adventure (not as a response to the player's actions, it was going to happen regardless), they were all "oh! we thought this was just the planet for the adventure."

It's a problem with a setting as vast as Star Wars - people think of it as a giant sandbox where you can permanently just move on in a thousand available directions. But the behind the scenes reality is that a GM can't prepare for all of that. So you either have to have some structure and planning to it, or improvise just about everything.

There are a couple of ways to bring those burned bridges back to bite them. (whoa, too much alliteration there)

It's a big galaxy, yes, but starting new all the time can be troublesome, especially if you're trying to get hired for jobs. Negotiating that you're worth more than the average Rival can be just as difficult when you have no reputation as when you have a bad one. After all, if they can't find any info on you, there must be a reason.

I like it. All good suggestions, but as it happens the planet is under an Imperial blockade (this was going to happen anyway, it had nothing to do with their actions) so now they're stuck in a mess of their own making and setback dice will be piling up everywhere. But I'll keep in mind the advice about lack of reputation when they go off-world. That's a very good point.

Just an update. We played again today. It was only 2 of the players, but it was the 2 faces (who are actually fairly competent in combat, just get overshadowed by a couple droids in the party with heavy blaster rifles).

We pretty much played through Under a Black Sun, however I removed the Pyke plot line and inserted our story in its stead. The only issues I encountered were due to the change in framing/context for why the players were going after the Bounty Hunter. With the adventure written with the Pyke plot in place (you like dags? ), I had to adjust some things on the fly to varying degrees of success.

But I did two things. First, I had a better handle on the NPCs and made sure I stopped to think things through when I had to come up with stuff on the fly (previously I would panic and fold to the players, undermining what I was trying to actually accomplish). Secondly I was more flexible with directions the players were going, even taking their ideas/threads and sort of gently guiding them towards what I had planned. Basically they come up with an approach/idea outside of the scope of the adventure and I helped them use it to guide them along on that adventure I had planned. This sounds more railroady than it really was. Not sure how to explain it.

So I want to thank the people here again for the advice and input they provided. It helped change my perspective and better prepare myself for all those throws coming in from left field.

Basically they come up with an approach/idea outside of the scope of the adventure and I helped them use it to guide them along on that adventure I had planned. This sounds more railroady than it really was. Not sure how to explain it.

You have discovered the Zen of GMing...

Secondly I was more flexible with directions the players were going, even taking their ideas/threads and sort of gently guiding them towards what I had planned. Basically they come up with an approach/idea outside of the scope of the adventure and I helped them use it to guide them along on that adventure I had planned. This sounds more railroady than it really was. Not sure how to explain it.

Sounds like classic Cube adventure design. You want to go left, okay, you get encounter 1. Party turned right instead, surprise! It's encounter 1. Straight ahead, encounter 1. Go back, encounter 1.

Nothing in the game world is written in stone until and unless it's been encountered by the players. Up until that point, all things retain fluidity. So if they want to enter encounter 1 from underground whilst riding on Dune sandworms, they still get to the same place they would have if they had simply walked there.

I'm glad things seem to be going better for you, though. It's always best to let the players -think- they're in control of the plot.

Just make sure that you can spin a logical thread from there to here to maintain versimilitude.

Secondly I was more flexible with directions the players were going, even taking their ideas/threads and sort of gently guiding them towards what I had planned. Basically they come up with an approach/idea outside of the scope of the adventure and I helped them use it to guide them along on that adventure I had planned. This sounds more railroady than it really was. Not sure how to explain it.

Sounds like classic Cube adventure design. You want to go left, okay, you get encounter 1. Party turned right instead, surprise! It's encounter 1. Straight ahead, encounter 1. Go back, encounter 1.

Nothing in the game world is written in stone until and unless it's been encountered by the players. Up until that point, all things retain fluidity. So if they want to enter encounter 1 from underground whilst riding on Dune sandworms, they still get to the same place they would have if they had simply walked there.

I'm glad things seem to be going better for you, though. It's always best to let the players -think- they're in control of the plot.

I hate this approach to GM'ing. I hate it as a player, I hate it as a GM. And a GM is kidding themselves if they think players don't work it out. Players must have agency.

I hate this approach to GM'ing. I hate it as a player, I hate it as a GM. And a GM is kidding themselves if they think players don't work it out. Players must believe that they have agency.

You're right, if the players figure out that the rails are that hard, bad things happen. Which is why the thread of logic must exist to allow the GM to weave the plot and their actions together. It both simplifies and complicates the GM's job.

Done well, the players never know any different. Done poorly, the players disengage.

Agreed, but I don't think the "classic Cube adventure" was what rowdyoctopus was describing (and that's not what I meant by the zen comment). It's really about making sure critical plot points or characters are touched on, whenever possible. For example, say the PCs are supposed to meet a cantina owner for a job.

Maybe the GM's idea is the PCs go to the cantina, get ambushed by thugs in the bar, stripped of weapons and are brought to the owner whose office is on the second floor of the cantina. Maybe the PC's idea is to scout the situation, break in through the roof and surprise the cantina owner in his own office. Either way is fine, the important thing is the cantina owner is met (and of course the way they meet will impact the social dialogue...)

But if the players go shopping instead, or invent some other thread, maybe it's time to bring the cantina owner to them:

"You see some rough looking characters loitering around your ship. A trim well-dressed fellow with a cybernetic eye emerges from behind some crates. 'You've been avoiding my messages', he says, 'but I have some information most critical to our mutual survival...'" The players are still free to do what they want--listen to the deal or shoot everybody right there--but the GM is also free to invest his own characters with enough motive to adapt to what the PCs do.

Edit: I also don't think its a terrible sin to move an encounter's location if the situation demands it and the encounter itself still makes sense. A planned bar fight can easily be a street fight...no need to reinvent the wheel.

I hate this approach to GM'ing. I hate it as a player, I hate it as a GM. And a GM is kidding themselves if they think players don't work it out. Players must believe that they have agency.

You're right, if the players figure out that the rails are that hard, bad things happen. Which is why the thread of logic must exist to allow the GM to weave the plot and their actions together. It both simplifies and complicates the GM's job.

Done well, the players never know any different. Done poorly, the players disengage.

The theory is correct but I don't believe it's possible to conceal what you're doing from the players for anything other than a short time. Also, even then I (as GM) feel that I am cheating the players by lying to them about their freedom. I am a pretty harsh GM and when the dice say "die" that's usually what happens to a PC. But to be like that, I have to know that I am fair to the players as well.

The theory is correct but I don't believe it's possible to conceal what you're doing from the players for anything other than a short time.

Sure it is One player I have (also a fellow GM) tells me he finds me frustrating because he can't figure out what I *want* them to do so he can do the opposite... Poker face is essential...

Also, even then I (as GM) feel that I am cheating the players by lying to them about their freedom. I am a pretty harsh GM and when the dice say "die" that's usually what happens to a PC. But to be like that, I have to know that I am fair to the players as well.

I think some of that depends on whether you're running sandbox or a campaign. The latter is going to have longer running threads that need to be woven in or out. Certainly players should be able to snip threads (forcing a rewrite) but I don't think there's anything wrong with twisting threads so long as the continuity makes sense. If you keep your cards close to your chest you can make it entirely believable...it also helps to take distance from your own plot so you feel more free to let the players stomp all over it.

I confess I don't really understand the concepts of "lying about freedom" or "fairness to the players", at least in the way you seem to be implying.

The only purpose is for everyone to have fun, and for everyone to have fun they have to be invested in the story and their character's purpose within it. It has to grab them emotionally, even if for some players the only "emotion" might be victory and loot. What's "fair" is providing that experience. Certainly the experience can be cheapened if the players don't feel like they have any control or freedom, but at the core, all player's freedom is an illusion granted by the GM. The difficulty of GMing is how well you sustain that illusion.

Just my experience as a player, but I'm not sure that "being true to the dice rolls" helps sustain a player's interest or sense of freedom or sense of fairness. Certainly doesn't help become invested in a character or their story. I've been in plenty of games where the GMs insist if the dice say "die", you die, and it's very dissatisfying. As a player I stop caring about the characters because if you have a bad dice rolling day, what could be amusing just becomes dull.

As a GM I have no problem killing off a character if the player is purposely trying to "goad the rancor", so to speak, but if a player is acting in character with reasonable intent to work with their party...ie: assisting everyone in having a good time...then it feels patently *unfair* to wipe out their PC because of unlucky dice rolls.

That is why I like recent narrative systems that tend to have more of a "taken out of the encounter" feel as a punishment rather than death. I can be as ruthless and tactically intelligent as the situation and NPCs warrant but not have the fear of death.

Of course, that is the draw of certain systems. Live fast, die young.

Agreed, but I don't think the "classic Cube adventure" was what rowdyoctopus was describing (and that's not what I meant by the zen comment). It's really about making sure critical plot points or characters are touched on, whenever possible. For example, say the PCs are supposed to meet a cantina owner for a job.

Maybe the GM's idea is the PCs go to the cantina, get ambushed by thugs in the bar, stripped of weapons and are brought to the owner whose office is on the second floor of the cantina. Maybe the PC's idea is to scout the situation, break in through the roof and surprise the cantina owner in his own office. Either way is fine, the important thing is the cantina owner is met (and of course the way they meet will impact the social dialogue...)

But if the players go shopping instead, or invent some other thread, maybe it's time to bring the cantina owner to them:

"You see some rough looking characters loitering around your ship. A trim well-dressed fellow with a cybernetic eye emerges from behind some crates. 'You've been avoiding my messages', he says, 'but I have some information most critical to our mutual survival...'" The players are still free to do what they want--listen to the deal or shoot everybody right there--but the GM is also free to invest his own characters with enough motive to adapt to what the PCs do.

Edit: I also don't think its a terrible sin to move an encounter's location if the situation demands it and the encounter itself still makes sense. A planned bar fight can easily be a street fight...no need to reinvent the wheel.

Yep. This stuff.