Playing out a "plotline" from a module.

[Finarvyn]

I almost hate to ask this question, because it will make me sound like a total noob. I've been DM'ing D&D using various editions over the decades, but most of my adventures have been "wing it" things and I have only turned to modules recently. I think I'm a pretty smart guy, but my memory for details isn't the best and I feel often like when I run a module the "plotline" gets lost and much of the module gets lost somehow.

One example is where a module called for an NPC to betray the party. My group helped the NPC and then eventually sent him on his way without betrayal. The "right time" never seemed to come up, and the party was so much stronger than the NPC I guess I figured if he did betray them then the party would just destroy him and be done with it. Plotline derailed.

Another example is where a module had a stronghold of lizard men. The party was supposed to find out the strength of the stronghold and their intentions. I figured they would smash their way in and we'd have hours of combat, but (since the group had recently had a friend NPC who was a lizard man and so "lizard man evil" wasn't part of their vocabulary) first time they encountered a lizard man patrol they offered peace and asked to see the leader so they could parlay. They made a passionate argument for peace and friendship, and as best as I could tell essentially wrecked the module because they pretty much "won" without bloodshed. Having skipped over something like 40 rooms of description, I sort of feel cheated that I bought the module and they hardly even played it.

So I guess I'm wondering if this is the way modules are supposed to be run, or are there some things I should be doing (or thinking) differently?

[sonicracer100]

I see modules as tools rather than gospel. They certainly do have parts of them that are implied to work a certain way, but if the players do something completely unexpected then just roll with it.

I ran some 5e adventures with friends which are much more storyline focused and they'd do something completely different and I'd have to wing it, because players are nothing if not unpredictable. Sounds like your players did do well beating it their way, and hey, maybe you can recycle the rooms they didn't really get to see into another dungeon.

[Dohojar]

I use modules as a source for ideas and change them to fit my plans. I used to run them as is that back in the day when I was a kid/teenager and I didn't realize that modules could be changed but years of playing and experience have shown me that once I buy a module, it is mine to do with as I wish. Don't get me wrong. Some modules work great when run as they are intended to be but some need serious changing in order to be any good.

As for players bypassing things due to their cleaver play, then good for them. Players have been screwing over DM plans for years lol. The problem with them doing this in a module is that running modules takes a fair bit of work on the DM's part in order to run it and unless you have something else planned (even a vague idea), then it will be a short gaming session.

[tdenmark]

I can't count the number of times players have derailed my carefully laid plans. Even the simplest plot lines. I expect the players to go in full attack mode, they decide on diplomacy instead. I plan for peaceful resolution to things they go in guns blazing. Those juicy story hooks I drop, they completely ignore. Some inconsequential NPC I make up on the spot they fall in love with and become besties. DM'ing since 1981 and it never gets easier.

It is hard to full proof an adventure, but key plot points should have several different ways to get triggered. Just in case.

[sixdemonbag]

Just reuse the maps and dungeons for something else to save some time and your investment. Winging it, even with a module, is still essential, in my opinion. Modules just save you some time but shouldn't dictate how the game is played.

They allow you to not have to draw new maps, create new NPCs, and create new monsters. You DMing style should still be as if you created the module yourself. I know some people don't like modules, but I like them, since I still DM as if they were my own invention and they are a great source of inspiration in a "learn by example" kind of way.

[makofan]

Sounds like good players. Just save it for a different campaign, or take the ideas and re-skin it

[Deleted]

I tend to do spreadsheets where I plan in possible forks/FUBAR moments that the party might have. A bit weird, I know, but I'm a rather expressive DM - I usually have no problem controlling the table, but I tend to get lost in my own side stories, from the fun night at the tavern to the random monster encounter. So, I need a red line to follow. Has helped me a lot with some of the more complex older D&D modules, like, say, the different iterations of "Castle Ravenloft". It doesn't constrain the party all too much, I hope, but it helps me think the action through, and anticipate moments where the party might do something otherwise unexpected.

In your situation, Fin, I realize my spreadsheet would be overkill - as sixdemonbag has said, essentially, I personally would just wing it, at least until the party gets to a point where they are closer to the story that you had in mind for the adventure.



Here's an example of how one of my spreadsheets can look like, not with one of my games as an example, but with the introductory chapter from "The Witcher II", a video game:

[DungeonDevil]

because they pretty much "won" without bloodshed.

xp times a million.

[Finarvyn]

Nice to hear that I'm not the only one, but either I'm a softie or they are great players because they do this to me a lot. I try not to get hung up on "I make a CHA roll to persuade" but instead make them come up with something to say. I like the role play aspect. But the end result does seem to be that they talk their way out of a lot of situations. I guess that's a good thing and they seem to have fun along the way, but it's annoying to have them bypass so much of a module.

[Deleted]

I'm currently running an all module DCC campaign. Ever so slowly I'm working on a back story to span the disparate modules, which unfolds with or without the adventurer actions. So far it has been excellent.

[Deleted]

A module is a starting state for an adventure. A rough outline of how things might go. They're most useful for the premade maps, encounters and NPCs. I never, ever ran one as written. I just jacked things I liked from them.

[Zenopus]

Fin, was the module U2: Danger at Dunwater? If so, that module is well-known for being "bypass-able" by parties that talk rather than attack.

Aug 3, 2020 13:30:04 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Nice to hear that I'm not the only one, but either I'm a softie or they are great players because they do this to me a lot. I try not to get hung up on "I make a CHA roll to persuade" but instead make them come up with something to say. I like the role play aspect. But the end result does seem to be that they talk their way out of a lot of situations. I guess that's a good thing and they seem to have fun along the way, but it's annoying to have them bypass so much of a module.

Do you use a reaction roll to see if the opponent (here, lizardmen) believe what the PCs are saying or not?

The players might come up with something reasonable, but the lizardmen simply think they are lying for whatever reason. This doesn't mean they will necessarily attack, but they might accuse the PCs of lying, and the players then might have to work harder to avoid combat, or undertake some kind of action to prove themselves to the lizardmen.

If this is for 5E, you could use the Persuasion check *after* players say their piece and treat it similar to an OD&D Reaction Roll result. You could even use the OD&D Reaction Roll table, but give a modifier if the Persuasion roll was successful.

You could also throw in something like a separate faction within the lizardmen led by an individual who secretly wants to usurp rule of the group. They might end up attacking despite the PCs allying with the tribal leader. The PCs might then have to help the tribal leader against the usurpers. They might have to persue the usurpers through the lair, giving you a chance to use the otherwise unexplored dungeon/lair.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 3, 2020 15:57:11 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Fin, was the module U2: Danger at Dunwater? If so, that module is well-known for being "bypass-able" by parties that talk rather than attack.

Maybe... Okay, it was. Nice guess.

[jeffb]

And possibly Ned Shakeshaft from U1?

[Deleted]

SPOILER: Click to show

Ned is dead! 

[delta]

A few comments: I cut my teeth when modules by Gygax et. al. kind of didn't have plots. There were places, regularly lived-in or haunted, and not undergoing some dramatic transition or climax at the moment the PCs came in. Modules S1-4 don't have much plot to them. The GDQ series has a very thin "go punish giants" startup, but that's not reflected with any essential urgency in the description of the locales. Same for B2, T1-4 is pretty static, WG4-6, et. (at least until PCs come in and start kicking up the hornet's nest).

I kind of liked that; my mental image was of these ancient sites and crypts, that could be lurking in their described state for centuries before the PCs come in. I found that the fun, interesting, and almost easy-to-the-point-of-unavoidable part (unavoidable in the good sense of @finarvyn here) was constructing the plot threads and complications spiraling off the unique PC interactions that my players were having with the places. To me, the plots are easy; it's the mechanics of dungeons layout, stocking, and creating tricks/traps/puzzles that are hard.

But I feel that D&D modules veered off from that relatively quickly; for some reason it's either obvious or a trap that writers want to think in terms of plot and mini-novels. In some sense it's the "boxed text assuming certain actions" problem writ on a larger scale. Modules A1-4, I2-6, L2, N1, U1-3, DL1-16, maybe R1-4 have time-based immediate plots baked in. It's kind of uncanny how much Gygax avoided that and no else did. And I think many players since that time would feel offended/ripped-off if there wasn't some kind of master plot built in, which certainly gives me the old-man feels.

My friend Paul talks about his role as DM being that of a "quilter"; taking modules as bits of fabric and connecting them into a unique campaign unlike anyone else's. I think that's pretty good way of looking at use of published modules. To a certain extent a top-level DM needs to accept that much of a module or preparation may be abandoned and never found. Chief model of that for me is module WG4; as-written it's almost impossible to find the most interesting parts.

[Punkrabbitt]

PCs make peace with Lizard King. Lizard dudes immediately revolt; now the characters must escort the Lizard King through the map of his now murderous subjects. Complication: the Lizard Princess has been planning the revolt for a while, and messengers have been sent to her troglodyte allies, who will ambush the group should they escape the Lizard dudes.

[hamurai]

Aug 3, 2020 8:09:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

One example is where a module called for an NPC to betray the party. My group helped the NPC and then eventually sent him on his way without betrayal. The "right time" never seemed to come up, and the party was so much stronger than the NPC I guess I figured if he did betray them then the party would just destroy him and be done with it. Plotline derailed.

Depending on how the betrayal was supposed to be done, the NPC might still return some other day with some friends...

Aug 3, 2020 8:09:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Another example is where a module had a stronghold of lizard men. The party was supposed to find out the strength of the stronghold and their intentions. I figured they would smash their way in and we'd have hours of combat, but (since the group had recently had a friend NPC who was a lizard man and so "lizard man evil" wasn't part of their vocabulary) first time they encountered a lizard man patrol they offered peace and asked to see the leader so they could parlay. They made a passionate argument for peace and friendship, and as best as I could tell essentially wrecked the module because they pretty much "won" without bloodshed. Having skipped over something like 40 rooms of description, I sort of feel cheated that I bought the module and they hardly even played it.

You can still use the encounter, but maybe you need another hook for your group. Could be, some other adventurers heard of the friendly lizard men and tried to take advantage of them. The lizard men kill most of them, only one escapes and the nearby town cries for the lizard men's blood. The PC's might step in and try to calm the situation and offer to help out again. When they arrive at the lair, the lizard man shaman has finished his war chant and all warriors are in a frenzy, preparing to attack a nearby human settlement.

Just some ideas...

I've had lots of such situations over the years with modules for pretty much all games (D&D, Shadowrun, Vampire, Numenera...). The players will eventually wreck a plot completely, either by wits (like the diplomacy in your example) or stupidity (because they kill a major NPC without good reason). Sometimes I just set up a new hook immediately, or I take some time to have their actions come back to them and draw them in again, depending on the module.

I remember running Shadowrun (2.01D ) and my group decided not to trust the decker they got assigned for the run by Mr Johnson. They killed the guy and dumped him in an alley. He was supposed to help with an assault on a corp building where critical data should have been retrieved. So I turned the plot around. The corp guys got tipped off by someone who knew the decker and they decided to pay the PCs a visit to find out who was behind the assault plans. Instead of the classic infiltration scenario I got a good defense scenario with a car chase. Awesome!

[Finarvyn]

Aug 3, 2020 21:44:15 GMT -6 delta said:

A few comments: I cut my teeth when modules by Gygax et. al. kind of didn't have plots. There were places, regularly lived-in or haunted, and not undergoing some dramatic transition or climax at the moment the PCs came in. Modules S1-4 don't have much plot to them. The GDQ series has a very thin "go punish giants" startup, but that's not reflected with any essential urgency in the description of the locales. Same for B2, T1-4 is pretty static, WG4-6, et. (at least until PCs come in and start kicking up the hornet's nest).

Much truth here. My limited experience with modules was mostly the old monochrome TSR ones, and plot was mostly how you get from one kill-zone to the next.

Aug 3, 2020 21:44:15 GMT -6 delta said:

D&D modules veered off from that relatively quickly; for some reason it's either obvious or a trap that writers want to think in terms of plot and mini-novels. In some sense it's the "boxed text assuming certain actions" problem writ on a larger scale. Modules A1-4, I2-6, L2, N1, U1-3, DL1-16, maybe R1-4 have time-based immediate plots baked in. It's kind of uncanny how much Gygax avoided that and no else did.

(emphasis mine) And I will confess that I was running a 5E hardback and not an individual module. The thing is, modules today are really similar to novels. My problem stems from the fact that I like to buy the new 5E modules (to support my local store if nothing else) and then my players want to play them. I love reading, but somehow it takes me a couple weeks to plow through a good book nowadays, and the notion that I might spend a couple weeks just to prep for a module bothers me a lot. Also, my memory for details seems to be fading nowadays so I would have to take extensive notes to really get it right.

Oh, well. Rant over. I'm just glad to find that I'm not the only one who has issues with modules.

[geoffrey]

Aug 3, 2020 21:44:15 GMT -6 delta said:

A few comments: I cut my teeth when modules by Gygax et. al. kind of didn't have plots. There were places, regularly lived-in or haunted, and not undergoing some dramatic transition or climax at the moment the PCs came in. Modules S1-4 don't have much plot to them. The GDQ series has a very thin "go punish giants" startup, but that's not reflected with any essential urgency in the description of the locales. Same for B2, T1-4 is pretty static, WG4-6, et. (at least until PCs come in and start kicking up the hornet's nest).

I kind of liked that; my mental image was of these ancient sites and crypts, that could be lurking in their described state for centuries before the PCs come in. I found that the fun, interesting, and almost easy-to-the-point-of-unavoidable part (unavoidable in the good sense of @finarvyn here) was constructing the plot threads and complications spiraling off the unique PC interactions that my players were having with the places. To me, the plots are easy; it's the mechanics of dungeons layout, stocking, and creating tricks/traps/puzzles that are hard.

But I feel that D&D modules veered off from that relatively quickly; for some reason it's either obvious or a trap that writers want to think in terms of plot and mini-novels. In some sense it's the "boxed text assuming certain actions" problem writ on a larger scale. Modules A1-4, I2-6, L2, N1, U1-3, DL1-16, maybe R1-4 have time-based immediate plots baked in. It's kind of uncanny how much Gygax avoided that and no else did. And I think many players since that time would feel offended/ripped-off if there wasn't some kind of master plot built in, which certainly gives me the old-man feels.

My friend Paul talks about his role as DM being that of a "quilter"; taking modules as bits of fabric and connecting them into a unique campaign unlike anyone else's. I think that's pretty good way of looking at use of published modules. To a certain extent a top-level DM needs to accept that much of a module or preparation may be abandoned and never found. Chief model of that for me is module WG4; as-written it's almost impossible to find the most interesting parts.

Places, not plots.

[jeffb]

I don't mind.....plots.

The A series - find out what is going on, and ultimately destroy the slavers.

The U series-Stumble into a plot of the Smugglers (and as I've said, I don't hold much love for U2/U3 so I went straight from U1 tying it into A1)

The issue is when the module just doesn't work when the players don't follow along from point A to point B to point C . This is the big issue for the "Adventure Path" model- whether Paizo or WOTC or whatever. There is no way to keep players on the railroad tracks for 10 or 15 levels other than locking them in the caboose. These are simply movie plots, and the players are following a script with some randomness thrown in for the combats.

It's pretty easy with the old adventures to allow players to go off the rails, and for DMs to compensate with some general improv- either running them into some kind of sideline for awhile. It is (an assumed you will learn) set of skills for TSR era D&D. Wing it. The Adventure paths often have sections for "winging it", but from what I have seen have mostly been railroading them back into line, and no info for "what if".

This becomes more of an issue when it's a "Save the world from massive Evil" plot, which the early 5E adventure paths are very guilty of (Princes, Tyranny, etc). I avoid those kinds of plotline anyway.

One of the best things I ever did was purchasing Dungeon World. By nature the game makes you improvise on the spot and keep your plot lines and themes loose at best. I've run a few old A/D&D adventures with the system pulling back some of the world decision player facing elements, and though things went off the rails from the "pre established" plot, I was able to work in the general ideas and it actually made the adventures BETTER than as written. B3 was particularly awesome.

No reason you can't do the same thing with OD&D or 5E or GURPS.

[Piper]

As mentioned here already, the main problem with plots (as I see it) is keeping players on the script.

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "plot," doesn't it? Here's how I define it ...

Module plot: an overarching story occurring outside of player agency and perhaps not even directly involving them. Players may alter or even completely derail the plot, but the actor or actors behind the plot will likely adapt their plans according to player actions. Plot may also include certain scripted action points (on day 8 of the adventure a small force will attack the player's home city while a similar force moves directly against the players in the field). The referee could then modify the action point, for example if the players were in the target city on day 8 the ref could delay the attack or combine both enemy squads into one small army and attack any way, etc.

So, if we're talking a story behind the dungeon and calling it "plot" as I do? I'm in favor of it. The evil behind this dungeon is a group of doppelgangers. Unknown to the players until after they've defeated the doppelgangers? They're being manipulated by a triad of mind-flayers with a great deal of resources, who themselves answer to a council of demons committed to promoting Chaos in the realm, etc.

But a scripted story in which A must occur or B won't ... or a story in which players action will always lead from A to B no matter their actions ... or a "pet" NPC to keep the players on story no matter how they wish to proceed? I avoid those, though I suppose if cleverly handled it would still be a fun evening of gaming.

[jeffb]

BTW.

Fin, you seem burned out over the past few months. Methinks you need to get away from D&D for a bit and play something else. Maybe someone in your group could run a short alternate game if something different? CoC. Traveller. MSPE. Gamma World/MA.

I believe you need a recharge.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2020 21:44:15 GMT -6 delta said:

A few comments: I cut my teeth when modules by Gygax et. al. kind of didn't have plots. There were places, regularly lived-in or haunted, and not undergoing some dramatic transition or climax at the moment the PCs came in.

Trick is, I think the old dichotomy of plot-based and location-based adventures has its justifications, but doesn't entirely apply to the treatment of narrative sequences:

As soon as you start a sequence of action whose outcome you cannot estimate, you are making an error as a DM. Sure, the rules of D&D allow you to run a game based on chance/random tables alone, but a modern gamer's expectation is always going to be that you also show some narrative competence. Say, you run the old I6 adventure, "Ravenloft". Be it as it may, to the players it's fantasy "Dracula"; so, they expect - and need - to establish a certain degree of immersion that "Dracula" things happen in their game. So, there is a necessity for DMs who want to be good at what they do to prepare these things both on a structural (rules, encounters, play aids) as well as on a narrative level. (What fits with the environment, what fits with the characters?)

The bigger question, for me, personally, is whether D&D is a game that necessarily needs the kind of "immersion" that modern, more story-focused games tend to supply.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2020 20:29:09 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I believe you need a recharge.

LIKE A RECHARGE THROUGH A FINE ALE AT THE PAINTED SHIP OR THE PENANCE BATH HOUSE
IN RAFE'S STELLAR DISCORD ONLINE CAMPAIGN YEEEEEEEAAAAH

None of my business, of course, but I think Fin is, as usual, overly modest and self-critical, and overly thoughtful of others, but not at all burnt out. The more I've read about his games over the years, the more I figure that one of my "good games" is still not half as good as one of his "bad games". There we go, brother, that's your yearly compliment.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2020 6:33:31 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

(emphasis mine) And I will confess that I was running a 5E hardback and not an individual module. The thing is, modules today are really similar to novels. My problem stems from the fact that I like to buy the new 5E modules (to support my local store if nothing else) and then my players want to play them. I love reading, but somehow it takes me a couple weeks to plow through a good book nowadays, and the notion that I might spend a couple weeks just to prep for a module bothers me a lot. Also, my memory for details seems to be fading nowadays so I would have to take extensive notes to really get it right.

Oh, well. Rant over. I'm just glad to find that I'm not the only one who has issues with modules.

I'm much in the same boat now. I don't know if it's age or the craziness of the outside world, but I no longer have the will/interest/ability or something to deal with complicated rules or modules anymore. I can definitely sympathise with Gygax' decision to return to a simpler and easier to memorise ruleset. Which is odd for myself, because in my heyday I had all kinds of houserules and rules from other games bolted on. Now, I just don't want to bother anymore. I look at new OSR modules and while they seem interesting, I realise that I don't want to bother working out the permutations like I used to. I hope that when the pandemic ends and I can get the family out of the house and my hair, I can get some uninterrupted focus time. But at that time, my son will ditch me for his friends and then I won't have a game anymore.....

I do want to point out that T1 and B2 have factions and nefarious plots that the DM needs to thoroughly understand prior to running the modules. And also that there is an arc running from T1 all the way through Q1 that if the DM understands, it adds a deep richness to the campaign. Back in '79-'80 I had no appreciation or recognition of Lolth's machinations and rivalry with the Elder Elemental God which if I recall also has a tie-in with WG4 Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. Point being, that even Gygax' modules had plots within plots within plots and most of his modules were linked. It's just that a lot of us didn't make the connections at the time.

[makofan]

Aug 5, 2020 6:06:29 GMT -6 @rafael said:

but a modern gamer's expectation is always going to be that you also show some narrative competence. Say, you run the old I6 adventure, "Ravenloft". Be it as it may, to the players it's fantasy "Dracula"; so, they expect - and need - to establish a certain degree of immersion that "Dracula" things happen in their game. So, there is a necessity for DMs who want to be good at what they do to prepare these things both on a structural (rules, encounters, play aids) as well as on a narrative level. (What fits with the environment, what fits with the characters?)

The bigger question, for me, personally, is whether D&D is a game that necessarily needs the kind of "immersion" that modern, more story-focused games tend to supply.

I disagree. Only a certain type of modern gamer expects this. I educate them otherwise, and they're free to go play with someone else. In my experience, though, my younger players have told me I ruined D&D for them with my wacky plot-less settings, because no other games they play in are as fun any more. Then they start to try to create settings instead of story themselves

[howandwhy99]

A plot isn't a game, at best it might be the emulation of a game. If your players follow along the plot of a prescripted Chess game, I say they are not really playing Chess. They are having the experience of someone else who wrote the account of a game for them. This is not a game adventure nor is the plot a game module. These are stories, not games.

D&D is the soul of gaming, including game culture and game theory. Players are meant to treat everything as being part of a game. Narrative culture and storytelling are a complete non sequitur to gaming and D&D.

Instead of creating a story, create (and balance) a design. Instead of being a lead storyteller, be the facilitator for players gaming the hidden design. Instead of telling a character's story, seek objectives which score you points (in your chosen role) by declaring actions where you attempt to manipulate that unknown design.

A campaign is both the campaign board (the design) and the whole extent of a group of players trying to game it (one play through). A scenario is really just like a good wargame scenario, a relatively small design with objectives predetermined for the players. A module is like a well balanced scenario with the borders, time limit, and objectives removed (not that points can't still be earned for meeting certain ends).

"Siege at Bodenburg" is more of a D&D module than most things written today. There are no ways for players to screw up a module, but they can succeed or fail at objectives, abd gain or lose quite a bit depending upon luck and skillful play. Change Bodenberg into a self-contained system, make it a dynamic one a la ToEE, and you have a half decent module to place in your campaign map.

I would change your perspective completely to enjoy contemporary RPGs, which are more like computer adventure games. A lot of the fun is traveling through someone else's story, many of which are quite good, with well crafted skirmish strategy games set in sequence for the players to challenge the DM.

Old school D&D is in the order of elaborate Grand Strategy games, which take 100s of hours to complete and every player action has design weight whose consequence doesn't go away the entire campaign.

[mrmanowar]

Hey Fin, just a quick thing here. I assume you were doing the 5E Ghosts of Saltmarsh bit... and then I'll stop referencing a 5E book. When I run a 5E thing, or any version of D&D wherein I use a type of module of sorts and a player or player(s) take it somewhere else, I just come with the "somewhere else" and establish threats and hooks to get them going in the direction the PC's want to go. When the session is over then I plot out the major NPC's who I wish to turn into villains or potentially allies as in stat blocks in case I need to use them in gameplay but then create some new NPC's who fit to direct them back to the module's plot points. If the PC's don't take the bait, well I've got monsters or creatures to go up against them. If they do or don't, I still have NPC's set up to aid or mislead them to keep the story going. The story might not even go anywhere near where the PC's want to go. If they follow this particular thread, well, haha... I've got an old school dungeon or keep or something similar set up that doesn't fit the "book" in case some players might be reading that. Something just on the fly with creatures/monsters you know how to run with monetary treasure but no major magical item on hand. It's like a lucrative red herring for them and you where some fun gameplay can be had, but the story arrow still points at what you have intended. Not perfect by any means, but sure explains "random monsters" in my book.

[Deleted]

I'm not saying this is what's happening in this particular case (it sounds like there was just a way to go around a dungeon here), but I also think there's an issue of good faith lurking under some of this discussion. If everyone knowingly sits down to the table to play a plot-point, narrative driven module, I think the players have some obligation to play the actual module. Much like if a DM says he has a new dungeon he wants to playtest, it would be bad form to show up to that game and then avoid the dungeon. Outside of a sandbox setting, I think there's an unspoken social contract to play the game on offer or just pass on playing.