|
It sounds like he either enjoys derailing things, or it's just how his thought process is built.
I'm no DM, but I would like to suggest something for your consideration:
1.) Perhaps start giving him complete "dead-ends" in his derailing. Hopefully, given enough attempts, it will deter him. Although, that does make me fear he could potentially get bored if derailing is his primary take on things. Then again, he shouldn't get bored with all of the thorough investments you've put into the main story.
2.) Perhaps give him the "loop-around" in his derailings. Perhaps the only thing he finds is a spiffy and helpful clue that actually returns him to the primary purpose and storyline. An extra piece of lore, a side-character that will probably never been seen again, etc.
Edit ---- 3.) Maybe it would be wise to also covet some "Ad-Lib" parts of the game, just for him. It's a lot of work, but I think everyone may appreciate it in the long-run. ----
I hope I helped a little. Forgive me if these suggestions aren't what you are looking for as I am certainly no DM and I would not know what is best let alone good ideas for this situation.
When a player is in an AP I am about to run I let them know they are expected to be the hero. Now if he wants to do something different he needs to discuss that with me before the game so I can get an idea of how he plans to play the character.
Maybe you need to talk to the player to find out what motivates his character, and then let him know players don't dictate XP.
Question, does the player lead the party off track? Or does he go off on his own all the time in character? If he is constantly splitting the party, this is something you simply have to sit down and talk to the player about out of game. Its a kind of behavior that has to be curbed for simple and practical reasons. If he goes off and does his own thing regularly, he is splitting time and focus, and making people sit and wait for him. Thats not acceptable social behavior. Tell him so.
If he is leading the party in crazy directions off track and away from the hits/plot you have prepared, then follow the loop around method, and have his off track methods lead him back to the plot as best you can. In the end you can always have important npcs just walk up and say 'hey we need your help with x' and bludgeon him over the head with it if need be.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
AP's are prewritten so it is not so easy, and many GM's use them because they dont have time to write their own adventures.
In other word's it is not so much the GM's story, but a prewritten one that does not allow as much leeway as a homebrew game. Any player in an AP already knows this, so they should back a character that fits the story.| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up? If the players are making the story, what is the GM supposed to be doing? Is the GM giving the players 12 opportunities to help out the local villagers not enough? If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up? If the players are making the story, what is the GM supposed to be doing? Is the GM giving the players 12 opportunities to help out the local villagers not enough? If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
Usually the story the players tell when they go off in their own direction isn't very good.
For Example:
The heroes felt the call of adventure, and left the embattled village to wander the wilderness. The wilderness was a barren place, and after three weeks they encountered a family of meercats. Shortly thereafter they noticed the sunsets appeared redder than usual and smelled traces of smoke on the wind. After spending another three week traveling back to the village, the find the charred remains of the village.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loosen up and follow him down the rabbit hole! I can see why this would be an issue for a very structured campaign, but the best twists and turns are character generated. If you allow him to have his freedom and perhaps bring his other members into his way of thinking, you may end up with huge sources of inspiration, instead of one problem player. Planning 5 weeks ahead is very rigid, i plan 1 week ahead and a lot of times i end up rewriting things because my players came up with better ideas than I had on the spot.
Yeah but there's no one way to GM. Nor should there be.
Planning 5 weeks in advance between 2GM's obviously works for him. And I say works because it's just this ONE player who keeps walking off the trail.
Your way works fine for you but is not the end all be all for anyone else.
He shouldn't have to completely change the way he does things for this one player. He should find away to to work with this player because it doesn't seem like the player is being a jerk about it. But if playstyles aren't ultimately compatible then the one player needs to find a group that works well with how he/she likes to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see why some people don't like APs, but why play in one if that style of game isn't for you?
I have seen them derailed for no good reason because of anti-social players.
I have also played in a Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign that stayed on track for about 2/3 of a session before we figured out who the main villain was.
I generally dislike both situations, but I blame the player in the first case and the writer of the module in the second case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up? If the players are making the story, what is the GM supposed to be doing? Is the GM giving the players 12 opportunities to help out the local villagers not enough? If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
If the player knew that they were going to be playing in an AP and still decided to start going off on their own and trying to derail everything else (not saying that's what's going on here mind you) then the player is being a jerk. It's no different that a GM taking a assessment of what his group wants to play (a High Fantasy game with lots of magic and super action) and then running a Low fantasy game with little to no magic and high fatality.
If as a player the game that is laid out for you at the outset isnt something that you want to play then it's your responsibility to speak up or take off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest speaking with him, preferably w/o everyone else there. Ask him why he insists on tangents, tell him that it is hurting everyone else's enjoyment and see if there is a middle ground. Your all adults (or teens at least), treat him like one. Remember this is a game and he just wants to have fun.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started typing up a response, and realized that Rich Burlew says it better then i could.
"Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning." (Rich, Giants in the Playground)
If you haven't read this section, I highly recommend it and recommend having your problem character read it as well.
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up?
...
If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.
Of course they shouldn't write out a script. And, yes, at times the GM has to make things up on the run. The GM runs the world, and applies consequences.
Now, it is of course entirely appropriate for a campaign to have a theme and boundaries, and character creation should take those into account. If the GM is going to run Skull and Shackles for instance, you make a character that wants to be a pirate and do piratical things, not someone whose goal in life is to explore the underdark. If you want your campaign to revolve around protecting a village from evil, you tell that to the players up front (and if someone refuses to make such a character it is perfectly fine to not have them be part of that game.)
The GM figures out what the bad guys are going to do, likely gives some clues to the PCs, perhaps suggests through various means some possible courses to take but ultimately it is up to the PCs to decide what to do.
And if they go hunting meercats and their home is destroyed, when consequences happen and now we perhaps have a tale of revenge and redemption.
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up?
...
If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.Of course they shouldn't write out a script. And, yes, at times the GM has to make things up on the run. The GM runs the world, and applies consequences.
Now, it is of course entirely appropriate for a campaign to have a theme and boundaries, and character creation should take those into account. If the GM is going to run Skull and Shackles for instance, you make a character that wants to be a pirate and do piratical things, not someone whose goal in life is to explore the underdark. If you want your campaign to revolve around protecting a village from evil, you tell that to the players up front (and if someone refuses to make such a character it is perfectly fine to not have them be part of that game.)
The GM figures out what the bad guys are going to do, likely gives some clues to the PCs, perhaps suggests through various means some possible courses to take but ultimately it is up to the PCs to decide what to do.
And if they go hunting meercats and their home is destroyed, when consequences happen and now we perhaps have a tale of revenge and redemption.
The point is, two GMs and four other players should not have to be subjected to one player's special snowflakeitis. To the OP, explain the expectations and demonstrate how the others are playing. If that's not good enough then being an excellent player isn't a good reason for ruining everyone's game.
I think we need clarification on what the "script" is that the OP is referring to before advice can be on target.
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up?
...
If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.Of course they shouldn't write out a script. And, yes, at times the GM has to make things up on the run. The GM runs the world, and applies consequences.
Now, it is of course entirely appropriate for a campaign to have a theme and boundaries, and character creation should take those into account. If the GM is going to run Skull and Shackles for instance, you make a character that wants to be a pirate and do piratical things, not someone whose goal in life is to explore the underdark. If you want your campaign to revolve around protecting a village from evil, you tell that to the players up front (and if someone refuses to make such a character it is perfectly fine to not have them be part of that game.)
The GM figures out what the bad guys are going to do, likely gives some clues to the PCs, perhaps suggests through various means some possible courses to take but ultimately it is up to the PCs to decide what to do.
And if they go hunting meercats and their home is destroyed, when consequences happen and now we perhaps have a tale of revenge and redemption.
The AP assumes the characters actually care about the town(or its people), and not trying to save it means the player is not cooperating. If he had a problem with the AP it should have been mentioned before it started. I don't know now the GM would have handled that, but at least it could have potentially been handled before it became a problem.
One way to rein in a character who goes off on his own is to set up fights that are meant to challenge the whole party for whoever happens to be around. So, the main party has a slightly difficult fight (since they are one party member down) and the solo PC has virtually no chance. After the solo player's PC gets killed often enough (or, if he is smart, gets tired of running away from every fight), maybe he will get the hint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had this sort of situation before, but not over a long period of time. I have a player who likes to go do her own thing, and I allow it, but I typically don't focus too much time and attention on her character while she's off doing that stuff.
For example, my players found these ancient ruins with the help of a wizened old scholar. Three of them decided to go exploring inside, while my snowflake player decided that she would stay outside to keep an eye on the scholar (since he was busy cataloging things and furiously taking notes about statues and such).
At that point, I spoke with her OOC and said something to the effect of: "You can certainly stay out here and watch this guy, but most of the action is going to happen inside the ruins. If you're ok with a minimal role over the next session or two, that's fine - but I want to make you aware of the consequence of these choices."
She was fine with this, and so the session progressed where I focused 80% of my attention on the players following the plot and 20% of the time on the player outside doing essentially nothing.
In your situation, you might do something similar. Warn your snowflake player that he can "go explore that empty alley" or whatever, but then spend the next large chunk of time focusing on the players sticking to the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on this is that it is neither the GM's game, nor the Players' game. It's everyone's game, which means that everyone should be having fun. On the one hand, I agree that a GM should not plot out a story and stick to it no matter what, even in an AP. However, a player should also not intentionally try to disrupt everything the GM plans, especially when being fed multiple, different hooks. Being fed the same hook over and over, could be a sign that the player has spotted the tracks and doesn't want to climb aboard. However, that does not appear to be the case here.
What I don't see from the OP; however, is an explanation as to why the player in question keeps ignoring the hooks. This is a very key question, the answer to which could very well suggest the answer to the problem.
Is the player merely playing up his character's backstory that says he set off on the path of the adventurer because his little sister was kidnapped by an evil wizard when she was 6, and now he wants to find and/or rescue her? If this is the case, perhaps have an NPC toss a bone the player's way by mentioning having seen a curious girl with the same fiery red hair the player describes who had a weird necklace on, which come to think of it, did rather look similar to a collar! Now, you also have that NPC point the player in the same direction as the rest of the party is being pointed. Now, the player has a reason to climb back aboard.
Or, is it that the player just likes to have everything be spontaneous, doesn't like roleplay/investigative scenarios much, and/or just wants to kick down the next door? If this is the case, then you need to talk to him AND the group (probably at separate times) to try to figure out a way in which to make both styles happy. Try to avoid having a session that is pure roleplay. Sure, the party can start investigating, but maybe while they are investigating, the BBEG's agents notice the group of strangers asking all the wrong questions, and so sets up an ambush. Now you have the action the one player craves while also satisfying the roleplay objectives of the others.
Or, is it simply that the one player doesn't like being out of the spotlight? This can be common without being ill intended. In fact, its a problem that I've at times struggled with when I am player. The reason is that I usually GM, so am used to always being "in the spotlight" because I am participating in every scene. Thus, when I am player and one player goes off to investigate something, or to catch up with a merchant, etc. I have to check myself to remember that pretty soon the other player will be in the same boat I am since the GM is going to give me my moment to go interact as well. If this is the issue with your player, and he mentions that he just gets bored when the group is doing something that doesn't interest him, simply remind him that the rest of the group will be experiencing the same thing while he is off doing his thing. Let him know that he'll get his moments, but everyone else needs theirs too.
Or is the player just concerned that if he doesn't check out every random alley that he is going to be missing out on XP? If this is the case, then let him know that not all encounters are designed to generate XP. In other words, he's free to check out the alley, but that doesn't mean he'll always earn XP should he run across something.
Finally, I would add that even in an AP, you should usually be able to seed hooks related to each PC into the campaign throughout. They don't necessarily need to be "Hit them over the head with it" hooks, but they are usually fairly easy to incorporate. If the Cleric of Erastil expresses no desire to check out an ancient temple of Erastil, there is probably a problem. If the devout monk who has always been curious about different orders of monks doesn't want to visit the monastery, there's probably a problem. Etc., etc.
All of this still comes back to "Why does the player want to go off the rails so to speak?" Until you know the answer, its going to be really hard to find the solution.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: Sandpoint is under attack! The local guard approaches your party and asks for aid in repelling the goblin invaders. What do you do?
Player 1: As a paladin of Torag, it is my duty to defeat the wicked and protect the innocent. Lead on!
Player 2: AM BARBARIAN! LEAD AM TO GOBLIN SO GOBLIN FEEL WRATH OF BATTY-BAT!
Player 3: Goblins? In my town? But that's where I keep my stuff! This means war!
Player 4: Eh, I'm just passing through town and don't really give a crap. Gimme another beer, barkeep.
GM: OK. The three of you follow the guards out. Goblins are running amok, chasing villagers and setting buildings on fire. You notice that one group has trapped several children in the local schoolhouse. Fortunately, they haven't noticed the armed party.
Player 1: For Torag! I charge.
Player 2: RAGELANCEPOUNCE!
Player 3: I begin a stirring song praising the valor of the people of Varisia so as to inspire courage in the guards.
GM: Excellent. Roll initiative.
Player 4: Wait, what happens to my character?
GM: Oh, um, you get stupid drunk and pass out. The goblins burn the tavern down around you. What a shame.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an idea. If Xp is important to this player, stop awarding it. Make it clear that continuing the storyline is the only way to progress your character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped reading at 'script'
Hey!Hey!
I've got a 5 player party, which at week 10 (at the time of this writing) has formed a very balanced and powerful party. One particular player, keeps ignoring in game hints, quests and tasks and constantly winds up in "Ad-lib" territory.
[. . . .]
NOTE: In combat, and in roleplay when he's not off defining his character as a special snow flake, is utterly invaluable to the party, and roleplays very well.
All you need to do is master the art of "everything he does leads him to the story." He goes off into the woods, something happens, he meets a different NPC there. Perhaps he finds something that they will have to pick up somewhere that does not require combat. When the PCs get there to collect the item he recognizes the area as one that he wandered into.
My absolute favorite was adding "bad mmo" elements, like he starts running in place after a certain distance from town because he ran into the collision wall at the end of the "world". Then again I have a lot of "gamers" in my group who will laugh at that.
ask the player to leave the room, continue the adventure as the rest of the party would like to proceed. When they get to the proper location to continue have the player come back in and tell him he wakes up right there with no memory of what has happened since he last recalled speaking. He should probably have those seizures checked out.
If he persists just stop the campaign and tell everyone you didn't prepare for this eventuality and it will take a lot of work to get the campaign back on coarse. They can either wait a couple of months to play again or they can help the player conform to a path that gets the job done without derailing the story.
First of all, what does RoTL stand for?
Secondly, since you didn't give any specifics, we can only give general advice:
If you want a plot point to happen, you can make it happen no matter what choices the PCs are making. You're the DM. It's your world, and events that are set in motion will continue on their path regardless of PC intervention.
The world is yours, but the story is the players'. What they do is the focus of the game. You create the groundwork and the setting, but how they interact with it is entirely up to them.
Ideally you want the players' choices to revolve around your world's major plot points and hooks. If the players are making choices that have nothing to do with those hooks, then you can find a way to make those choices still matter to the plot. "As it turns out, X was controlling Y from behind the scenes the whole time!" is a great plot device, both for expanding the scope of your campaign and for tying different arcs together.
Take Rise of the Runelords, for example:
Goblins attack sandpoint. The goblins follow Chief Ripnugget. But in fact they've been following Nualia the whole time! Nualia leads an evil adventuring party and has a group of goblins under her control. But she's under the religious influence of that quasit, and therefore Lamashtu. But the quasit is an old familiar of a long dead Thassilonian wizard (as I recall), meaning that the dark force behind everything bad that's happened to Sandpoint is this runewell awakening, and therefore one of the runelords!
Suddenly the PCs need to help against a bunch of undead. That's pretty much unrelated to anything else until you discover that the undead are related to the skinsaw cult who have been secretly infiltrated by an agent of one of the runelords!
In a seemingly unrelated quest, the PCs need to help reclaim a fort on the other side of the country that's been invaded by ogres. But these ogres are very organized and being led by a giant! The giant serves another giant who serves one of the runelords!
So now you go fight some giants, and in doing so you learn that the giants are actually serving one of the runelords! (the tie-in existed in all the previous arcs, but wasn't fully revealed until now)
So then you go fight runelord stuff and then the runelord.
This campaign's underlying principle is that, "Everything bad happened because of the big bad at the very end." You can apply this same principle to your own game. Figure out who the big big bad is and make him responsible in a very roundabout way for whatever it is that this loose cannon PC is uncovering in his random explorations.
A few thoughts, get rid of experience. Seriously. APs all have notes about what level characters should be when encountering various parts of the adventure. Follow that, don't worry about keeping track of experience or handing it out. If you know that next session they're going to encounter the thing they should be 5th level for then tell them they've reached next level and to prepar their characters for the next session.
This removes the concept of I want adventure alone to get extra experience and be ahead of the party. Once they know experience is off the table, it leaves them only gold or character development on the table. Tackling the issue of wealth is difficult. Personally, I employ the concept of Magical Encumbrance by level. If you are interested I can elaborate, but the short version is you can have as much wealth as you like, but your body can only handle such much magical items on it at a time (and is basically equal to your wealth by level and can never be altered). With a control on wealth/power tied to level, and level tied to the plot it leaves players without any incentive except character development.
Now, I wouldn't want to discourage the development of the character. But if a player chooses to have his character not follow along with everyone else he/she needs to be told that they will be given time to explore it when it does not eat up or waste other player's time. You can do a solo session with just the two of you, but you're not going to make 4 other people wait just so you can have your journey. Generally, knowing that they aren't going to be given much screen time compared to other players is enough to stop most players from trying. if they persist, hear out what they would like to do and let it happen (keeping in mind they wont be acquiring any experience or significant loot). Hopefully if they do this once or twice they will realize it's more fun to play along with the party and share the spotlight rather than trying to demand their own.
When the group derails the plot too much, my normal response is "Ok, that's fine if you guys want to do that. But I don't have anything prepared for it. I will have something by next week. Do you have anything else you want to do before I get the new material ready.
If it is one person derailing the adventure, my response would be "So you are going off by yourself? Yes, ok we can do that but I don't have it prepared right now. We'll get it done next week when I've had time to prepare something for that. Ok, so JJ has left the group. What are the rest of you doing?"
Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
I possibly agree with you 100% or possibly dis-agree with you 100%.
I agree that it is the story of the group of player characters.
I disagree if you mean it is the story of that one particular player character.
If he has a wild idea and the rest of the party says, "kool idea let's go there and ...", I am perfectly fine with that.
If he has a wild idea and drags the rest of the party along with him regardless of what they want to do or are trying to accomplish, I have a problem with it.
get rid of experience.
Since we've done this things have gotten better in our campaigns. It's totally pointless to be tracking how much XP you have in a campaign where you know you'll need to be level X by plotpoint Y. The level layout is given in every AP (at the beginning) so there's no point in tracking it at all anymore IMO.
The party realizes they don't level up until they progress the plot, and they'll want to do that efficiently instead of by wasting time on pointless tail-chasing sidetracks.
Some players like tail chasing sidetracks, with or without advancement. It's the journey, not the destination.
True, but other players like the tail-chasing sidetracks, hoping to gain more stuff that they wouldn't have had if they went straight.
The real question is, as mentioned above by Gargs454, why does the player want to run off into sidetracks all the time? If it's to get more stuff, then the next question is, is it to get more stuff relative to the challenges in the main plot (in which case, don't bother, we'll just scale them to maintain the challenge), or is it to get more stuff relative to the other PCs (in which case, get out)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it. If he's not following the script, there are still other players. So there are two possibilities:
1. He's going off by himself, and the others aren't. Solution: Play out the game with the other 4, and have a solo PBP game with the loner, until he rejoins the group or gets killed. Depending on your time, this PBP might be one post a day or one post a year. But if he's not in the same game as everyone else, so be it.
2. He's going off and everyone else is going with him. Observation: It's no longer "one problem player" if all 5 of them are ignoring your rails. Solution: Abandon the script, or learn to make it a LOT looser, or (if you can't or won't), step down as DM.
I don't see either case as a particular problem.
Some players like tail chasing sidetracks, with or without advancement. It's the journey, not the destination.
This is true, but it is often a minority. If you remove experience or the ability to gain signficant wealth from the adventure, I have found few are willing to take it. At least compared to being with their friends to share the spotlight, and wealth, and advancement.
Of course, things are different if the whole party wants to go off track, but that isn't the case here.