How do YOU handle it

GMs, DMs, Storytellers... How do you handle it.

So, you're running a game and you point someone out with info the players need. There is no reason this person would approach and talk to the players at all. The players don't react. So you point the NPC out to the next and the next, but still Noone talks to them.


What do you do to force the encounter. While still maintaining that this npc has no knowledge of the players and no interest in talking to them.

I had this happen and I didn't like how I eventually made it obvious that they were to approach the npc.

My honest answer, you don't! You shouldn't hide progression behind dice that can fail, and you shouldn't hide it behind NPCs that may not be encountered.

Alternatively, have three levels of information. One can be found easily and freely. It may not be the best source, but it will get the job done. Then a better source behind a DC-wall, and a really good source behind a Big DC-wall.

If the players don't encounter that progression, looks like they're in a different story instead. I subscribe to the idea that GMs make Situations, not Stories.

It kinda depends on the circumstances. What I usually like to do is think of a backup idea. Like maybe the PCs can overhear someone talking in the pub about what they're looking for, but this NPC only knows half the story and redirects them to the one you were trying to point out.
Or just have them get the same information a different way, if that's an option. For example, they find a notebook with the information and it's signed by the NPC in question.

You can also get them in contact with each other for a completely different reason. Maybe a pickpocket steals something from the NPC and runs in the direction of the PCs. The NPC yells "Stop that thief!". If they stop the thief, the NPC is thankful, if not the NPC complains to the PCs. Either way a conversation starts.

I once read in a rulebook that if something is crucial to your story, the PCs shouldn't get the choice to miss it. But I find myself getting into these kinds of situations too :D

One that happened to me once: I had a cool magical item hidden in a room in the dungeon that I was very excited about for the PCs to get. And then all 5 players failed their search roll... So I ended up not giving them the item to my own regret.

Hope that helps you.

One of the most common assumptions in role-playing games is that the DM brings the story and the players play in it. But is that the way it should be? If the players are controlling the main protagonists in it, isn’t that, by definition, their story?

This might seem like a moot point, but it can mean a big difference in how the game plays out. For many story-focused DMs, players are on rails: You have to defeat the big bad guy at the climatic moment because that’s the ending to the DM’s story.

For those DMs, to let them do anything else feels like they’re not getting the story they want to play. There’s nothing wrong with that game, but by definition, it’s a railroad.
I don't. As the DM, the world is my character, but the players have full freedom to operate within that world. So, ideally, they’re deciding how to engage with the big moving pieces of the game. I create situations, NPCs, plot hooks. Not scripted quests.

That doesn’t mean the NPCs and the bad guys do what the players want. But if the players want to try a path that I didn’t envision, I’m going to help them come up with a realistic way to try it within the logic of the world.

I should have pointed out, this is a module. So it has a progression it has to go through. There was a way to make the intro through a third person I think I should've thrown that person into the mix. I had tunnel vision thinking I had pointed them out well enough. But really they would have been fine never meeting. It wasn't a end all have to thing.

One easy method is to simply broadcast it loud and clear. Give the NPC a vested interest in getting the PC involved. Either as a villainous ploy or seeking aid from heroes.
If there is a challenge where the PC need to find information then make sure the players are fully aware of the type of information they need and how critical it is. EX : To find the lost castle you need to talk with the older locals / hunters / priest. Until you find the castle you can not stop the hauntings that plague the region.
Some modules will include breadcrumbs for the players to follow. EX: goblin attack reports, players track them down, goblins have crates with kingdom insignia indicating theft from or collusion with the kingdom. Players learn there is a local kings agent in the area . . . .
I am not perfect at transitions myself so usually go with multiple clues, each leads to another situation, with again multiple clues. But each clue path leads to the same information eventually.

Hello Eyes!

If the encounter really need to happen for the plot, i can think of many ways to make it happens. Sorry, writing on my phone, but here's some ideas.


Maybe have the NPCs talking among themselves out loud, and the topic catch to players interest.

Maybe one NPC wear something that catch the PCs eyes, such as a holy symbol, a gang symbol etc...

Maybe one of PC catch the interest of one of the NPC in a romantic way.

Maybe the NPCs begin playing cards for gold and invite the PCs to join.

I know you said the NPCs has no interest in the PCs but maybe you can change that for the sake of the module.

Really depends on the interests of the NPCs and the kind of PCs you have.

Worst case give a second alternative of how the PCs can find the information they need, in a letter or book they can find etc...

My suggestion is if they are looking for information. And that specific NPC has it. Then when trying to find out by asking other NPCs they are told to go talk to that one NPC.

Boom encounter done.

If they aren't asking hoping the information just is freely given. Then they already failed. And no point forcing it.

If it's just they failed to notice but they aren't asking either. Then use other NPCs to steer them in the direction of the NPC you want.

I could go on but if you dm. You have to be fluid, like water, adapt to everything. Or you will have to tell the players everything in advance and see if that makes them do exactly what you want. Which really takes the fun out of it

Breadcrumbs!

That is, if the information is critically necessary. But if it is, then as a GM we must admit for this branching path we prefer a railroad. The PCs can eavesdrop, or it can come in the form of some other prompt.

More interesting is if the PCs get one kind of info speaking with NPC 1, but different kind from NPC 2, leading to different outcomes. That way we're never locked into waiting for the PCs to encounter the right NPCs in the right sequence.

If the players don't seek the information that their PCs need to advance the adventure, you have to come up with another way to provide it to them, or just toss out the module. For other ways, you can reveal the information overheard while the PCs are unintentionally eavesdropping, they can find it in a note, you can come up with a reason for the NPC to interact with the PCs (running from muggers, say). Tossing the module is obvious, but it's not desirable: presumably the players have joined the game knowing that they are playing the module.

There's a third option: let the players engage with something else - a side quest, or improvised content - and let them come back to the original adventure as they progress/complete the sidetrack. I do this all the time; one advantage is that it gives you time to think about something else for a while, and that usually makes room for inspiration to strike regarding a better/alternative way to make the needed information available to the PCs.
This reminds me of another, sadly common, scenario: when the players take an instant dislike to a key ally and refuse to work with that character. It happens all the time, but my favorite example/cautionary tale is a game of Defiance in Phlan (the very first Adventurers League adventure) that I played right here on Gamers Plane. Defiance in Phlan is a collection of five mini-adventures, where each adventure starts with a representative of a different one of the five Forgotten Realms factions (Emerald Enclave, Zhentarim, Harpers, Order of the Gauntlet, Lords Alliance) presenting the party with a mission, then the mission happens, and at the end, completing the mission can earn the PCs favor and standing with that faction. Everybody playing the adventure knew this story structure, and all of us players had played in at least one of the mini-adventures before we started this one, so there should have been no surprises.

In the adventure in question, a half-orc of the Emerald Enclave appears and tells us that a dangerous magic item has been smuggled into this very restaurant, and he'll pay us to help find and confiscate it. The majority of the PCs go off and start interacting with the adventure, but the one player got it into their head that this was a trick (!!), and the Emerald Enclave agent was actually a villain trying to steal the magic item from an honest citizen and trap us into being accessories. Their character got into a shoving match with the NPC, and the DM appropriately played the NPC as shocked and angry. The player took this as confirmation that the half-orc was evil, and provoked him further. The rest of us kept trying to talk to them in character, but the player refused to be convinced, and their obstinacy actually convinced another player to stop what their character was doing and join him in shaking down the half-orc. We then got to the point that we were begging the players in the OOC thread to figure out a way to stop it - there was no way that this adventure threw out the story structure that all of the adventures followed. But they couldn't figure out a way to back out of their commitment to the suspicion bit - "My character doesn't trust him!," and their characters got more and more belligerent with the half-orc, finally starting a fight with the quest giver!!! After the rest of us completed the mission, the pugnacious players' characters refused to let us deliver the dangerous magic item to complete the mission. This confrontation resulted in several of the players quitting the game, eventually including the ones who picked the fight with the ally NPC. In addition, the poor, bewildered DM abandoned the nearly-empty game and I believe hasn't returned to the site since.

That's the most egregious example I can think of, but this thing happens in some form or another with distressing frequency. RPG players in general have a strong dislike of authority, and will often reject NPCs in positions of authority. I think this tendency may be exaggerated in play-by-post, so I encourage that GMs introduce NPCs in clear terms rather than trying to have the PCs interact with them to figure out their relationship. In play-by-post, it's better to say "You see Leb, the contact you were sent to meet" or "There's the Duke, who has had to make tough, unpopular decisions to prevent the most harm to his subjects" rather than "You are looking for Leb, and you see three people who fit their description" or "You see the Duke step out of the carriage and order his guards to question everyone." I wish I was more consistent with this, myself. Once the relationship is declared at the start, plenty of role-play in character can still happen, but you can nip in the bud the natural tendency of players to pick on a little detail as proof that the NPC is a bad guy who needs to be opposed at all costs.

Edit: In my example above, the DM could/should have nipped it in the bud, saying "This is your quest giver, and each of you know that what he's saying is true: there is a dangerous item that needs to be found and confiscated before it kills everyone in the restaurant." But the DM didn't, and the players couldn't find their way out of the corner they'd roleplayed themselves into. Don't be like that DM.

This is so true! Happen ALL the time. :D But in general many players by default are suspicious of NPCs to begin with.

Hey, Nebula. Sometimes it's a life saver to just kill the npc before they kill you or get you caught.

Lots of great advice above. But let me ask this -- in the adventure, what happens if the PCs don't talk to the NPC and learn what they need to learn? Absolutely nothing? There's no time pressure, no ticking clock, no faction or foe who will use that lull to take advantage of the situation and change what's going on? If it's not called out in the module, that's something the GM could develop. Consequences.

Yeah, sometimes you have to make stuff up that isn't in the module, because the writers haven't anticipated everything that the players might do. I mean, they can't anticipate everything that a party might do - no one can! - so of course there will be gaps!

I have another, real-time campaign that I've been running since 2020. The published adventure has the PCs chasing after a villain who is masquerading as a different villain that the PCs know is dead. In the module, the adventure has the villain gathering four parts of an evil contraption, and the party gets closer to catching up to the villain with each piece. The party catches up as the villain is trying to find the fourth and final piece, and there's a big semi-boss fight with the villain to stop him and foil his plans. The module doesn't go into what the villain is going to do with the contraption, because the PCs will stop him or die trying. Right? Wrong. My players' PCs caught up to the bad guy, fought him for one round, and RAN as soon as one of the PCs was killed.

I was stuck with trying to figure out what happens if the PCs live but they don't stop the villain. The rest of the campaign up until this point - the last three and a half years or so - has been the players dealing with the consequences of their characters' failure to stop the villain when they had the chance. We are now, finally, almost at the point where we're back in the final part of the published adventure (I made the consequences a little too big and world-threatening).

Right... I hope it's not a good reason to become serial killer on all suspicious NPCs the group encounter. :D

This is what I'd go for.

Alternately if passive information, npc must be questioned, is not working then make it active. You can have the villain assume the party has found the clue and sends his henchmen to stop the party. This could "inadvertantly" get the party back on track.

The classic villain shows up and spills the beans gag

I will get them what they need, one way or another. In one game I ran, the players attacked and killed their contact by mistake, thinking he was an enemy, so I had a note on his body that contained the information they needed. In other instances, I've taken more drastic measures. I remember one adventure I was running where the players were to go to a city sunken in the desert sands. For whatever reason (because players will be players), they went to the swamp instead of the desert, despite fairly obvious clues. I called a brief respite for 15 minutes, picked the temple up out of the desert, shook the sand out, dropped it in the swamp, sunk the lowest level beneath the waterline, and swapped out a few key encounters for more appropriate monsters. They never knew that they had gone in the wrong direction. I very rarely railroad my players; only when absolutely essential (if they are doing their damndest to avoid the adventure I have planned that evening, I will say something to them). If what they need is vital, I will usually have more than one method of getting it to them.

In a more extreme example: