The Difficulty in RPGs thread

[Orion]

ISP: you're confused because you made a reasonable but mistaken assumption about the previous argument being referenced. The "table flip" Phone_Lobster is referencing isn't a protest against dying; it's someone who angrily quits the game when he learns that there is no real risk of character death.

[Username17]

ISP: you're confused because you made a reasonable but mistaken assumption about the previous argument being referenced. The "table flip" Phone_Lobster is referencing isn't a protest against dying; it's someone who angrily quits the game when he learns that there is no real risk of character death.

Right. It's always dangerous to talk to Phone Lobster as if there was any past at all. Just because he made an argument with great vehemence on this very thread is no reason to believe he's still aware it exists. Every day is a brand new day for Phone Lobster, and all of his posts must be taken without context. Because if you tried to connect them into some sort of contextual framework, you'd have to conclude that he's just a contrarion fucknozzle who argues for its own sake.

Yes, PhoneLobster is on record as being pro tantrum in that he thinks that if another player is made sad because the dice don't go their way and they insist on renegotiating the table's social contract right then and there based on the implied threat of leaving the game in a huff - that that's perfectly fine and everyone should accommodate that. But if a player gets disappointed because they find out that the MC has been lying to them about what the social contract actually was and simply lose interest in the game, that is a big no-no for some reason.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Yes, PhoneLobster is on record as being pro tantrum in that he thinks that...

...players should be able to ask for stuff and that a reasonable GM should maybe offer it especially if hey, ALL the players AND the GM also want it.

Which is not precisely "pro tantrum" indeed you are bending into a fucking insane pretzel to even BEGIN to be able to label me as "pro tantrum" in your "but he does it too!" attempt at self defense. (hint, that is a very immature form of argument even if you could pull it off, and you are only embarrassing yourself trying here).

Meanwhile "acting as if there were a past at all" I note that YOU, specifically, and actually flat out defended a guy who claimed he would, in real life, throw a real tantrum, break up a game and yell insults at the other players if they all agreed on and wanted something he did not. Because he supposedly wanted bad game ending TPKs so much he was prepared to do that to everyone else at the table, and his future hopes of ever again being allowed to sit at any RPG table that heard of his actions, to get them.

There is a world of difference there. The difference is in fact staggering. I advise a flexible responsible and sensible form of practical GMing where everyone benefits and gets what they want and the game keeps going. YOU are on record as outright defending one asshole ending the game in screaming and acrimony and insults.

You pretend it's the same. You are a dumb asshole.

[Mistborn]

[*] If you're asking people whether they would like to endure pain at a certain point in time for a benefit later, you'll get the lowest amount of compliance

I just love that language. "Endure pain"... "Compliance" you are very like the deficit hawks a blind "pain is virtue and must surely pay off eventually!" attitude and such.

But more importantly yeah you WILL get the "lowest compliance" at the point where it is MOST CLEAR to a player what they have to lose.

Similarly you will get the HIGHEST "compliance" (note that Lago words it in a manner that suggests he is trying to pressure them INTO "enduring the pain" for "later benefits" whatever the hell those are... You will get the MOST compliance pressuring players into a "hardcore mode" Way in advance when they imagine they are awesome and invulnerable and will never NEED a spare life.

Or in otherwords you are just panicking and demanding to put the scenario balanced as much as possible in your favor because you see it as better for PUSHING players into "higher compliance" with your desires.

But you know what. Fuck it. I've done it at the "highest complaince" stage and not one damn player has ever said "fuck no I want to play Hardcore mode!". So "highest compliance" with hard core mode... is still pretty fucking low.

It's really dickish to discuss a new social contract at a point when people are already invested in the project and you're at the project's most vulnerable moment.

And it's actually MORE really dickish to demand players adhere to a social contract term that they maybe recklessly agreed to or I don't know felt pressured to "comply" to to even get into the game even in the face of obvious massive adverse effects to them they may very seriously have believed they would never face.

A simple "It's here, it's going down are you SURE you want to stick to hardcore mode?" MIGHT just be I dunno... significantly less dickish than not offering that.

And indeed your suggestion that offering that is somehow more dickish than not offering that... is fuck it MASSIVELY DICKISH.

ADAPTION. It's what being a GM is about.

If for some reason the conversation didn't come up, then you go with the default assumption.

That is not the default assumption. No really. It isn't. Go round. Ask the players at the table "Do you assume your character will die an ignominious random death unexpectedly for little reason other than temporary bad luck?"

That is NOT their default assumption in D&D, no way.

Remember this conversation PL. You came out a explicitly in favor of the guy who's character died trying to renegotiate the social contract on the spot when it generates a result he does not like. This is called throwing a tantrum. Suck all the cocks you mendacious asshole.

Now if the situation that you described happen, someone would bite it and the GM handwaves that away. I would probably be upset, because if I'm at that table then the MC and/or the players most likely lied to me. Since I dislike playing in such a game. This is why me and most basketweavers (nocker specifically) don't see eye-to-eye since they advocate advertising/agreeing to one kind of game and then trying to deceitfully shift the game into something else.

[Kaelik]

Meanwhile "acting as if there were a past at all" I note that YOU, specifically, and actually flat out defended a guy who claimed he would, in real life, throw a real tantrum, break up a game and yell insults at the other players if they all agreed on and wanted something he did not.

This didn't happen, you are lying, because you lie all the time about what other people say.

You stupid liar.

[PhoneLobster]

This didn't happen, you are lying, because you lie all the time about what other people say.

You stupid liar.

In that case? Is anyone going to be happy with that campaign end? But yes, sometimes the dice are solely to blame; but the GM has the final say in adjudicating results. And if the players all say, "this ending really bums us the fuck out," the GM is perfectly within his right and power to say "let's modify it a bit."

And I'm in my right and power to walk the fuck out of the game right after that. Because I just have been thoroughly deceived about the fundamental nature of the game, and importance of things listed in my character sheet, AND importance of my input in general. I don't take kindly to deceptions that force me to waste hours upon hours of my time, I don't appreciate my input being made irrelevant whenever the GM feels like it, and I don't have a reason to trust this GM ever again.

...I question rationality or maturity of people...Demanding a retcon because you don't like an outcome is a behavior of whiny manchildren...I have no compassion whatsoever for people who behave like that.... I feel scorn towards people who are opposed to losing characters

FatR and I have made exactly the same point. I'm pretty sure we all stand by it.

Now in all fairness FatR was eventually pummeled into reluctantly backtracking and saying he might presumably be OK with people not having TPKs... if they omnisciently organized that in advance. But he really did advocate flipping out and throwing a tantrum walk out when confronted with "immature manchildren who demanded getting their way" in the form of an entire RPG group mutually deciding to not have an unexpected TPK. And that was the bit Frank later defended and agreed with entirely. Even after all that scorn and lack of compassion and whiny manchildren bullshit.

Because that's what the pro-death crowd are about. Heaping scorn and derision on a group of RPG players they like to pretend are worse than them, when in reality they are basically not especially different at all. But admitting that wouldn't let them be exclusionary elitist scum. And they have held true to that position to this very day. They claim they will literally sabotage real life games for their "ideal" of enforcing TPKs on other players who don't want that.

[Kaelik]

In that case? Is anyone going to be happy with that campaign end? But yes, sometimes the dice are solely to blame; but the GM has the final say in adjudicating results. And if the players all say, "this ending really bums us the fuck out," the GM is perfectly within his right and power to say "let's modify it a bit."

And I'm in my right and power to walk the fuck out of the game right after that. Because I just have been thoroughly deceived about the fundamental nature of the game, and importance of things listed in my character sheet, AND importance of my input in general. I don't take kindly to deceptions that force me to waste hours upon hours of my time, I don't appreciate my input being made irrelevant whenever the GM feels like it, and I don't have a reason to trust this GM ever again.

Now in all fairness FatR was eventually pummeled into reluctantly backtracking and saying he might presumably be OK with people not having TPKs... if they omnisciently organized that in advance. But he really did advocate flipping out and throwing a tantrum walk out when confronted with "immature manchildren who demanded getting their way" in the form of an entire RPG group mutually deciding to not have an unexpected TPK. And that was the bit Frank later defended and agreed with entirely. Even after all that scorn and lack of compassion and whiny manchildren bullshit.

Because that's what the pro-death crowd are about. Heaping scorn and derision on a group of RPG players they like to pretend are worse than them, when in reality they are basically not especially different at all. But admitting that wouldn't let them be exclusionary elitist scum. And they have held true to that position to this very day. They claim they will literally sabotage real life games for their "ideal" of enforcing TPKs on other players who don't want that.

No, what FatR didn't backtrack at all to recognize is that if the group agreed in advance to no TPKS, that would be totally fine, because that would not be the circumstance above that he said he would walk out on. You know, the one where the group deceived him.

Of course, even if he had specifically said that about a situation in which the other players agreed to and wanted something he didn't want as opposed to what he said, which is that they deceived them, you would still be wrong.

Because he did not say that he would break up the game or yell insults.

So you are wrong both in that you are lying and saying he would perform those actions at all, and you are also lying in that you are saying that he would apply them when he wouldn't.

[Fuchs]

And don't forget the "Guy who likes others to suffer while playing D&D".

Dude, we've already established that that guy is you! You're the kind of asshole who, if other people don't play the kinds of characters they want them to, will deliberately shortchange the campaign. You said it yourself: if other people want to play a character who is capable of death, then you are going to refuse to put in effort that you consider "normal" towards integrating their character into the ongoing story.

-Username17

Frank, can't you do math? Probability? The guy is not asking me to do same amount of investment as I do for everyone, he is asking me to do a potentially much much higher amount of work because there is a sizeable chance of my work getting wasted since his character can die any time.

The time (and more) I spend expanding other characters' background and side story will likely be spent checking and balancing and integrating the latest character of Death Guy because as you yourself once pointed out when you have a x chance of dieing in each combat, then that happens over time - and quite quickly if it's not 1 in 1000 or so.

I am not shortchanging anyone, I am simply not spending more time on them than on the other players.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, there are several character concepts that people seem to have that you seem to be missing.

There's, "important person who people care about who occasionally dies, but comes back," which Frank was talking about.

There's also, "important person who people care about who might die and never come back," which Kaelik is talking about.

Both of these character concepts depend on both doing cool stuff that people care about, and on nevertheless being able to die for real from a roll of the dice under circumstances where they really could have not died from those dice.

I've been assuming that either:

• A communication error was fixed and he actually didn't have any objections to those characters
• He realized his mistake and just doesn't want to talk about it

(In either case, he might in the future still not realize that a particular player wanted to play a character like that without being told explicitly, though)

I have no trouble with characters who die and come back. Non-permanent character death is no real character death.

Characters who can randomly permadie at any time, without warning, require by definition more time and investment since instead of integrating the players' character once into the campaign it needs to be done multiple times, especially in campaigns running for years since those characters will die. Which means picking character models for the renders multiple times, picking and inventing NPCs tailored for them multiple times, integrating backstory, juggling plot hooks, taboos, and opportunities, and so on.

A massive amount of additional work, all simply because said player wants a random chance of character death. That's not fair for the GM or the other players.

[Fuchs]

RadiantPhoenix, Fuchs never responded to that post because he has no response. Go back and look at his "If you don't warp the campaign world for my katana character, you're a dick" posts, or his "If the other players won't drop whatever the hell they want to do so that I can quest for a better weapon, they are dicks" posts in light of his "If people want to play characters that have common, normal properties I personally don't approve of, then I will institute passively aggressive shunning of their character until they die or GTFO of my campaign" posts. It's all the same thing: Fuchs is an incredibly controlling asshole, and all of his "player empowerment" bullshit is completely one sided.

He thinks he should have the power to change anything and everything in the campaign, the world, and the game system that he doesn't like. And if you have any likes or dislikes that are different from his, then fuck you.

That's seriously as deep as this rabbit hole goes. Fuchs does not have a radical player empowerment agenda, he has a massive personal entitlement complex because he is a douche who doesn't understand "compromise".

-Username17

Compromise means: "Hey, I'll spend the same amount of time on your character as on others". Meaning, each time their character dies and is replaced, what time I have to spend on integrating the new character, checking build and stats and gear, background, etc, is not spent on making new NPCs and side plots.

The thing here is that a lot of this character work is front loaded. Once the background (knight order, church, thieves guild, extended family, prophecy, personal goals integrated in campaign goals etc.) is established, running it does not require that much work. I don't have to spend that much time on it for the next few years.

But death guy? Frank actually expects me to keep making all that for his next character whenever that character dies. Frank is an entitled asshole who actually really thinks that one guy deserves twice (or three times, four times, whatever the death toll ends up) the amount of time spent on his character than any other player.

[MGuy]

Really don't understand what this arguing is about. If you like permadeath to be a thing that happens (which is how I run it) then you play that way. If you don't you don't. Play with groups who want what you want and don't attempt to expect social contracts to change just for you. If dying is a deal breaker for you find a group that is willing to make that deal (there are plenty of'em).

[Wrathzog]

We've already established that that doesn't matter. Because regardless of which group you decided to play with, the other group is playing the game wrong and Fuck Those Mother Fuckers.

[CapnTthePirateG]

What the actual fucking fuck is the point of this thread?

It can't be to convince anyone, because no one is actually convinced or changing sides.

So can we all go put our dicks in our pants and go make fun of Mike Mearls?

[Mistborn]

This is the intended point of this thread

This is basically horse shit. Of course there is objective difficulty. If the DC is 23 it is objectively less likely that the save will be made than if the DC is 22. If your opponent in a Go match is a 5-Don master, that is objectively more difficult than if your opponent was a 4-Don Go master. Objective difficulty objectively and demonstrably exists to a quite fine and tunable degree. Even in cooperative storytelling games.

Now, if you weren't trying to make stupid hyperbole arguments, you might make the claim that subjective elements in cooperative storytelling games are so large and hard to account for as to make objective difficulty hard or pointless to evaluate. I might agree with that assessment. But to say that objective difficulty doesn't exist is just obviously wrong. Like, Elennsar levels of wrong, because you're making Elennsar's actual argument. While the DM can make a lot of choices that affect the difficulty of an encounter, an adventure, or a campaign in ways likely too subtle for even the DM to notice, at the end of the day there will be a certain number of die rolls and they will have specific chances attached to them of producing specific results and collectively they will create a total decision tree and have discrete chances of ending at each branch.

Iterative probability is totally a thing, and objective chances and difficulty can be measured. Even if it would be too much of a pain in the ass to dissect the flow of the game finely enough to actually do it, you still could. And the objective difficulty still exists whether you put in the effort to figure out what it was or not.

-Username17

What ended up happening is that team basketweaver is like always committed to trolling this thread into oblivion, along with any thread that might produce consensus different form their assumed party line. Because they are just as mendacious online as they are in real life and are still butthurt that Roy called them names on the internet years and years ago.

[zugschef]

isn't it a pretty big issue with "objective difficulty" that not gm or group interprets and enforces rules the same way?

[Kaelik]

I have no trouble with characters who die and come back. Non-permanent character death is no real character death.

There you go, lying again. You explicitly stated that you reject even the concept of letting the character have the dice fall as they are. You said you invest less in a character if they even allow for the possibility of death, even if they could very easily come back to life. Remember:

Yes, Kaelik, if a player wants the dice to fall where they may and risk his character dieing in every combat I will do that for his character - for his character only. I'll also tell him though that I'll not invest much in his character either.

EDIT: Actually that brings me to another point. I once had a character who I was playing, and at a certain point, I wanted to retire (okay, yes, this has happened many times, but whatever). Sometimes, I want to play a different character.

Does that mean that your stupid undermining sense kicks in and you tell me that you damn well are unwilling to invest as much time into NPCs and plots for my characters because you never know when I am going to decide to retire a character?

Because that is really stupid, and can be filed under the whole, man, Fuchs is a tremendous dick who gives lots of negative experiences to his players because he only cares about himself.

[violence in the media]

I'm strangely curious about what sort of game Fuchs would run if all his players insisted on character perma-death. Like, would side-plots and recurring NPCs just not be things that exist?

[Aryxbez]

I was actually talking about something more fundamental.

Because, it is merely pointing out the truth, and they shouldn't see it as a buzzkill, but as correction of what was incorrect/dishonest information? If someone makes claim that their character belongs in the branch of "being overpowered" falsely (for example), then that is an insult to all the "actual" overpowered or otherwise strong material out there. You're encouraging that people should be dishonest, and those who are honest, are jerks. I don't know about you, but when someone makes a discussion about it, I'm not going to encourage lying to them to protect their "precious innocence". Since you think people so damn sensitive to any kind of criticism, like they're children, opposed to the actual adults they are. When gets down to it, the truth can hurt, and ideally, I'll be polite when informing otherwise.

Sounds like a problem in mentality, that being corrected is bad, and so is having knowledge of something?

Say some random person on the internet is talking about an amazing race they had in a computer game. How it was really close but he just managed to pull off the win.
And you know that the game is scripted and that no matter what, that is what happens.

Not sure how scripted we're talking here, but it it was literally "designed" to make the race look like the player barely hits the Finish Line, every time, then that is an example of a false accomplishment! It doesn't matter what that person's input was, as it was apparently designed for that experience for EVERYONE. His experience wasn't unique, it'd be the same tale for him, me, and anyone else who plays that portion of the game. While the scene may've been cool, he can't say that it was an actual effort of skill/luck on his part at all, hell! neither could I make the same claim!

You are being this guy:

Just because other people prefer a different play style that doesn't make their experience inferior.

Not really, maybe you're not really coming from a perspective of seeking to understand what I'm saying?

See, if these levels are measured by how well they can perform against challenges throughout the game, one is going to perform better/worse than the other. The Rogue is described as able to remain "competitive against appropriate CR monsters over all levels of the game, and can generally be optimized for play with", The Fighter is not, as: "will remain competitive with rogue level material and appropriate CR monsters up to level 9". Also don't forget the caveat, that the Fighter-level is also described as how they are at a lack of options, and being one-dimensional to even be on par with Rogue-level. The Fighter-level is inferior, by virtue of having less options and dimensionality for the character, these options/rules which you use to interact with the game itself. It cannot stay relevant at levels past 9th, regardless of how often games played 9th+ or below. You can call me what you will for that, but that is how it's defined, whether you like it or not.

There are plenty of people out there who are not ignorant of the ruleset and still choose to play at fighter level

Ya know what, that's whatever,if they truly know the ruleset, it's problems, and don't make common false mindsets with it. Then they're fully aware of what they're getting into, and I'd imagine that would be fine?

[Pulsewidth]

Meaning, each time their character dies and is replaced, what time I have to spend on integrating the new character, checking build and stats and gear, background, etc, is not spent on making new NPCs and side plots.

If checking takes more than a quick scan then there's something wrong with the player/GM relationship. You should be able to trust players not to attempt underhanded gamebreaking.

The thing here is that a lot of this character work is front loaded. Once the background (knight order, church, thieves guild, extended family, prophecy, personal goals integrated in campaign goals etc.) is established, running it does not require that much work. I don't have to spend that much time on it for the next few years.

But death guy? Frank actually expects me to keep making all that for his next character whenever that character dies. Frank is an entitled asshole who actually really thinks that one guy deserves twice (or three times, four times, whatever the death toll ends up) the amount of time spent on his character than any other player.

PC background is the player's responsibility, and it shouldn't require any more scrutiny than the build check.

NPC background is trivially reusable if the dead PC never met the NPC, and at least partially reusable if they did, as the replacement PC will have similar goals by virtue of being in the same party.

[Wrathzog]

What ended up happening is that team basketweaver is like always committed to trolling this thread into oblivion, along with any thread that might produce consensus different form their assumed party line.

That's every person in every thread in this board.
And even Frank mentions that while measuring Difficulty Objectively is possible, it's really not plausible.

Not sure how scripted we're talking here, but it it was literally "designed" to make the race look like the player barely hits the Finish Line, every time, then that is an example of a false accomplishment!

Why does this matter? Honestly, who cares?
My Dick does not get any bigger if I kill a Dragon, regardless of whether or not the encounter was Easy, Hard, or Just Right.

[K]

I'm strangely curious about what sort of game Fuchs would run if all his players insisted on character perma-death. Like, would side-plots and recurring NPCs just not be things that exist?

The real question is "what would you do as a DM if you had no control over PC perma-death?"

I mean, character-driven stories are right out. Your party's paladin's rivalry with the Thorn Knight stops being a motivator for a story the instant the party paladin dies. No one cares about avenging the burning of the Rogue's village by kobolds after the Rogue gets killed by some side-quest necromancer. NPC's that have relationships with PCs no longer work if that PC is perma-dead, so basically a bunch of NPc-based adventures are dead out because "my mentor asked me to help" will stop being worthwhile quest hook.

Character-driven plot elements are right out too. You won't spent the hours it takes to make a really satisfying trap-based adventure with traps if the guy with Disable Device might die in a bar-fight before the adventure and force you to scrap it all. You can't do the plane-hopping adventure without the guy with plane shift without potentially damaging your campaign by adding permanent portals or by adding a DM-PC that makes people feel small in the pants. The fire-themed adventure can easily go from "challenging" to "impossible" without the guy who has the fire-immunity spells and there might be no way to modify the adventure into not needing him.

Basically, you have to stop running adventures and start running wargame scenarios for a strategy game. The hooks have to be things like "we want gold and magic items" or "the king asked us and agreed to pay us" because actual stories about characters are right out.

And for the record, people have fun playing a strategy game and not RPing stories, and that's just fine. No judgement here.

[RadiantPhoenix]

"You wiped out my friend's village, and then he died. We're going to fuck your shit up extra hard."

[Kaelik]

I mean, character-driven stories are right out. Your party's paladin's rivalry with the Thorn Knight stops being a motivator for a story the instant the party paladin dies. No one cares about avenging the burning of the Rogue's village by kobolds after the Rogue gets killed by some side-quest necromancer. NPC's that have relationships with PCs no longer work if that PC is perma-dead, so basically a bunch of NPc-based adventures are dead out because "my mentor asked me to help" will stop being worthwhile quest hook.

So is your position that players are damn straight not allowed to retire their characters? Because that is a kind of permanent "death" that occurs more often than actual permadeath, and the DM has absolutely no control over that.

So do you just not ever make character stories because the players might retire their characters, or do you demand that characters stay with the party for the rest of the campaign no matter what?

[K]

I mean, character-driven stories are right out. Your party's paladin's rivalry with the Thorn Knight stops being a motivator for a story the instant the party paladin dies. No one cares about avenging the burning of the Rogue's village by kobolds after the Rogue gets killed by some side-quest necromancer. NPC's that have relationships with PCs no longer work if that PC is perma-dead, so basically a bunch of NPc-based adventures are dead out because "my mentor asked me to help" will stop being worthwhile quest hook.

So is your position that players are damn straight not allowed to retire their characters? Because that is a kind of permanent "death" that occurs more often than actual permadeath, and the DM has absolutely no control over that.

So do you just not ever make character stories because the players might retire their characters, or do you demand that characters stay with the party for the rest of the campaign no matter what?

No, but you ask the player to keep playing the character for a little while longer until it's convenient for them to retire. Retirements are planned, unlike character perma-deaths.

I mean, you are a special kind of dick if you want to retire your Rogue while the party is in the middle of the adventure where the party is avenging that Rogue's destroyed village. Sucking it up and playing your character for an extra session so that the DM can wrap up the plot points is a perfectly reasonable request.

Chances are good that even a surprise character change at the start of a session is not a problem, but it's just courtesy to tell the DM that you are thinking about changing your character so that he has time to phase him out.

That being said, if you are the guy who changes his character all the time, you should not be surprised when there are no adventures that feature your character's story.

[Schleiermacher]

The real question is "what would you do as a DM if you had no control over PC perma-death?"

I mean, character-driven stories are right out. Your party's paladin's rivalry with the Thorn Knight stops being a motivator for a story the instant the party paladin dies. No one cares about avenging the burning of the Rogue's village by kobolds after the Rogue gets killed by some side-quest necromancer. NPC's that have relationships with PCs no longer work if that PC is perma-dead, so basically a bunch of NPc-based adventures are dead out because "my mentor asked me to help" will stop being worthwhile quest hook.

Character-driven plot elements are right out too. You won't spent the hours it takes to make a really satisfying trap-based adventure with traps if the guy with Disable Device might die in a bar-fight before the adventure and force you to scrap it all. You can't do the plane-hopping adventure without the guy with plane shift without potentially damaging your campaign by adding permanent portals or by adding a DM-PC that makes people feel small in the pants. The fire-themed adventure can easily go from "challenging" to "impossible" without the guy who has the fire-immunity spells and there might be no way to modify the adventure into not needing him.

Basically, you have to stop running adventures and start running wargame scenarios for a strategy game.

Actually, K, that's not true. The trick, when you're running a game like that, is that you don't make your setting features as accessories to the PCs, you make them persistent. Then the players get to decide the terms of their interactions with the setting. If the party accepts a mission from the wizard's mentor and the wizard dies before it can be carried out, it's up to them if they want to complete it or not, and their relationship with the older wizard will probably be affected either way. If the Paladin decides to pursue a rivalry with the Thorn Knight, well and good, but if the Paladin later dies in an unrelated misadventure, the Thorn Knight just keeps on trucking. His animosity might extend to the rest of the PCs, or he might be willing to bargain with them now.

And if no rivalry between the Thorn Knight and the Paladin develops in the first place, the Thorn Knight is still there, running his fief with an iron hand and "taxing" all travel through the Bramblewood with his band of half-fey outriders (or whatever.) The PCs can still have Thorn Knight-related adventures, just coming at them from a different direction.

But it's now up to the characters (or the players, rather) to initiate character-driven stories. It's not really your job to serve them up, just to create starting conditions that are rife with possibilities for adventure. That way it's up to the PCs to choose whether they go to Muspelheim and have the "fire adventure", or if the trap-filled Vault of Kwalish is more their speed. Maybe you decide Surtur invades and the "fire adventure" comes to them, but it's still their choice whether they want to stand up against the fire demon menace or just get out of Dodge.

Basically, don't tailor the stories to the PCs. Just create an interesting setting and the players will make their own stories.