Quote from: CRKrueger;942050See right here Grove is why you get people here coming at you.  You don't even consider the WHY of what the characters are doing.
It's 1900, there is no internet, and I'm in San Fran dealing with an ancient Chinese Cult.
If time wasn't critical, why wouldn't I go to Shanghai or Hong Kong where you have British gov't and Law Enforcement having to deal with ancient chinese everything for a lot longer than San Fran has, and might have more experience I can draw on.  Hell, you're so much into story, globetrotting to uncover ancient secrets relating to Occult situations is how the genre works.
The problem is, it's just not within the limits of "The Story Grove has Set".

You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information. Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer. But that's not even entirely the point...

Freeform gaming to the tune of making adjustments to the plotline, introducing new elements to the setting, coming up with new and interesting NPCs, cultivating new plot elements, improvising detail when it is needed is GREAT! Im all for it. Having to improvise a whole new game because the players decided to ditch the current one midstream is not something I care to deal with. Some of you do I suppose and probably do a great job of it. I might even be able to pull it off myself but I choose not to. As GM I believe I have the right to decide what game we are playing and if its not one I enjoy, why should I continue? The players certainly wouldn't continue to play one they didn't like.

Quote from: cranebump;942112Have to agree with CRK here. The worst case result would be the characters go to the Orient and find nothing (or, something completely different, OR clues to the deeper story).

Grove, you say you can easily adjust to what players do, but you keep giving examples that you can't, or do not want to do it.  I agree that sometimes players can do douche baggy things, as in your haunted mansion one-shot example. But players electing to travel to Shanghai to go to the source of your Chinese cult thread isn't "stretching the premise," it's "exploring the scenario."  (assuming this isn't another one shot).

Of course, if the expectation up front is "thou shalt not deviate from the plan," then the suggestion of just going with what the players do is moot.

Well yes but that worse case scenario involves weeks if not months of meaningless travel - which of course could be made interesting with cool ports of call, drama aboard the ship and other sideline action but its not the game we came to play. In the end the game back in San Fran went on and probably reached a conclusion without them. Fun, fun. I don't believe exploring the scenario should involve steps that take the game completely out of the scenario.

"We are going to take a hiatus and spend a month or two at the Library of Congress to research this phenomena." Really?

Yes that's extreme but it illustrates my point. If the towns of Old West New Mexico are being raided by Vampires from a ghostly train the solution to blow up the entire rail network West of the Mississippi might work but is hardly worth pursuing in a game. Rather than waste game time on such a ridiculous venture I believe it easier to simply explain why it wont work and ask the players to proceed on a more conventional path for the betterment of everyone. The adventure was advertised as an investigation into a ghostly train and townsfolk vanishing, not a military operation to destroy the entire rail industry.

Im all for Players players playing the game their way, to a point.

Quote from: Nexus;942130The devil is in the details, of course. Are the characters going to Shanghai to "follow up on the cult" or because they got a random urge to do so or even decided to just see if they could flummox the GM. And it does seem a bit much to expect the gm to whip essentially another setting on the fly.  I admit I'd be stymied and probably end up either dropping the game (as it seems like they don't want the game I'm prepared to run) or just going "All right you spend several weeks traveling, see some interesting sites, don't really find anything ((or throw them a few bits that point back to San Fran since that's where the cult is currently active) but when you get back...' and  detail what's happened in their absence.

Going to another country in a game billed as investigation in the San Fran does feel like stretching the premise to me but maybe its just fundamental difference in expectations when it comes to rpgs and some of us will never see eye to eye. I'm used too and enjoy games with a narrower focus and tighter premise than seems generally popular here. I think rgrove is at least close to that but he's on his point in the spectrum.

I actually considered the passive/aggressive approach Nexus - telling them they spent 2 months abroad and found nothing and are now returning home. I didn't due to time constraints involving the bad guys developing plans but I get the feeling if I had most on this board would have accused me of railroading by not following up dutifully on the player's designs and bringing them back to San Fran anyway.

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

Ill probably get it for this one but YES... the GM bears no responsibility, in my opinion, to take the game where he isn't prepared or doesn't want to go. Its HIS game afterall. As I stated before the players aren't expected to play a game they don't like, why should the GM be any different. If while playing D&D the GM directs the players to join a pirate ship and one of the players detests sea going adventure, I would expect him to drop out while the others went to sea, or he could go along if he felt like it. The GM should have the same option, either adjust as some of you recommend and take the game in a different direction or decide..NO, I don't want to game that, and explain that the players can adjust in this case or the game will be delayed/canceled.

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

Its a matter of degree, for me. Being clever is one thing, going completely off to a new setting is another. The initial hypothetical for the the thread was the PCs using ceiling beams to evade some undead. That is pretty different than going off half way around the on (maybe) a hunch leaving the established setting and likely most if not all of the PCs resources behind, somewhere the gm hasn't prepared or likely even thought about which would seem to imply there's little active connection to the San Fran cult besides them being Chinese.  It would be difficult for me to whip up another setting, some improvised connections and clues for them to find, etc. If the gm had clues that pointed them to Shanghai but didn't prepare for them to go there though, its a different story.

What some one  can adjust too and wing is going to vary. In this case, I see the Shanghai trips as less creative play and more going off the agreed on premise. Something more equivalent to the OP might be the characters decide that instead of going the gumshoe route they're going to try an infiltrate the cult as new worshipers or some other lateral approach.

I don't think the GM is obligated to run a game if its become something he doesn't want to run just players aren't obligated to play in something they thing sucks. For me, yes, whipping up Shanghai (and possibly altering the "reality" of the setting to accommodateThe  this change of course) would be a big deal. The suggested compromise of summarizing the trip could be an option.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information. Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer. But that's not even entirely the point...

Freeform gaming to the tune of making adjustments to the plotline, introducing new elements to the setting, coming up with new and interesting NPCs, cultivating new plot elements, improvising detail when it is needed is GREAT! Im all for it. Having to improvise a whole new game because the players decided to ditch the current one midstream is not something I care to deal with. Some of you do I suppose and probably do a great job of it. I might even be able to pull it off myself but I choose not to. As GM I believe I have the right to decide what game we are playing and if its not one I enjoy, why should I continue? The players certainly wouldn't continue to play one they didn't like.

I agree that you have the right to do that. In fact (since what you're describing seems to me like an elaborate one-shot adventure design), I am thinking that in your place, I would (assuming they had fair warning that they were ignoring a current hot situation to go do something else) perhaps have them roleplay getting their tickets, preparing and waiting and getting on board, and if they ship out, tell them "ok, well those characters are going to be at sea and abroad for quite a while. Who wants to play characters actually in San Francisco?" Especially if it were a one-shot at a convention (in my fantasy where there is plenty of time for that, and players with prepared characters lined up, laugh), it could be hilarious to welcome new players with new characters, and/or tell the old players they can start new characters who are actually in San Francisco, as that's where the game is going to be played for now. In fact, it could be interesting/funny to play out the adventure with a whole other group of players, then figure out what the aftermath is, design a scenario for Shanghai for any players still wanting to play the characters that left, and only if any of those characters are still being played, survive, and decide to return to San Francisco, figure out what the aftermath situation is there in the wake of the other group having taken on the original adventure.

On the other hand, if one is running a one-shot with limited scope for what PCs do and where, and you don't want them to leave or do something destructive to the situation you want to play out, then I would design in limits to the PCs such that they should be people who would do what you expect, and/or hard framing that just anticipates and figures out what to do if/when players balk on the scope of the game. It's a perfectly acceptable way to limit a game, and can even be interesting if you have an interesting mechanism for it, such as having some PCs leave and/or be replaced by PCs with relevant interests/loyalties. The weirdness is when there is a miscommunication between players & GM, or between us here on the forum about whether it is a limited scope game or an open campaign.

In my open campaigns, I just don't even build in limited-scope stuff that I'm going to be upset if the PCs bail on or burn down without investigating. I only elaborately detail stuff either because I enjoy doing so, or because the players are committed and interested in it, and if they surprise me and destroy something without seeing the details, I may salvage some of those details for appropriate use elsewhere (of course being careful not to be undermining the cause & effect of their actions - if they just destroyed some good loot, gear, information and leads, or traps and foes, they're not going to magically appear nearby - they just destroyed that stuff, and it would get thoroughly reworked and scattered to different places or different games, or re-used as a one-shot for some other players or something).

If I enjoyed the elaborate pre-planned plots and mystery investigation style adventures that you (rgrove) seem to like, then ya I'd probably want to insist that the players show up and care about them and not just sack the town I prepped and/or travel somewhere else. The weirdness though seems to be that you post these examples in threads as if it wasn't a one-shot, and/or the players don't seem to have got the memo either until you go OOC and tell them what the game is supposed to be about and what they need to do or not do. (Or you surreally warp the universe to force your story to happen - which would drive me nuts either as player or GM.) I'm not sure how much of that is because you're confused about the differences in play modes and how you can limit them without going OOC, or because you have been trying to let them have freedom in character motivations and not revealing what's going on for drama/mystery/surprise. As in other threads, it sounds like what you do is ok enough by you and your players most of the time, but is just quite different from what many of us here do, and you post your examples even with questions sometimes about what we'd do, as if there weren't huge differences in the types of games we run and our players.

Sometimes I do have a specific game situation or "plot" idea that I am excited about running that essentially needs a railroad, and sometimes I even want it to be a surprise sort of like you seem to, but I don't put those in my campaigns unless it's something I'm planning for the moment the characters are actually already in between sessions (e.g. the session ended with them already starting to enter a place to investigate it, so I'm prepping the details in the downtime), so I'd run such a thing as a one-shot (I think disposable/dismissable/low-attachment one-shot PCs tend to make such scenarios more flexible/dynamic/interesting anyway), and either explicitly tell them the constraints before play, or build them in so I know where the boundary is and what I'll do about it if a PC goes outside the scope of the game, which I'll also make clear to the players before play is the sort of game I'm running that night.

Something I haven't exactly done, but that this thread suggests to me, is that one could plot out a campaign with a particular thread of interest in mind, that is the subject of the game, and have players play characters who are relevant to that plot, but who fall out of play regularly when those characters are no longer involved with the game's main thread of interest. The only characters who would continue being played would be those who stayed with that plot focus. I partly like that idea just because I think it's a funny counterpoint to player attachment to their PCs, and also because I've seen so much fun uninhibited interesting play and good roleplaying when players just get assigned relevant characters to play who aren't adventurers or heroes or particularly remarkable but just people who are where the action is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

Your examples are, 'you prepared for game x and instead it turned out to be game y.' I prepared for a game set in the courts of France, and instead I was served up Cossacks on the steppes.

In our current campaign, we're talked a bit about what happens after we finish the published adventures at the core of our campaign so far, and going someplace else has come up several times already - Deadwood and the Black Hills, Saint Louis, Mexico, even Asia. None of us are so strapped down to the gurney of our current location or campaign conceits that we can't entertain the notion of 'cowboys in the Taklamakan.'

But see, this is all horseshit, and here's why.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception.

But that's not the example you started with - careful, those goalposts may be coming around again - it was an adventure,  investigating a haunted house, and when the players decided to do something for which you weren't prepared, you pissed and moaned about how they weren't playing along with 'MAH STOREH!'

Here's (one of the many reasons) why you suck: instead of offering the characters in-game reasons to not burn the place down, you went full meta to push the players back on the rails. You don't appear to have the first clue how to motivate players and characters without stepping out of the game. Tell me, o self-proclaimed master of detail, what in your setup made burning the house down a bad idea beyond, '. . . buh-buh-buh-but that's what I prepared for tonight?!'

Quote from: rgrove0172;942149Well yes but that worse case scenario involves weeks if not months of meaningless travel - which of course could be made interesting with cool ports of call, drama aboard the ship and other sideline action but its not the game we came to play. In the end the game back in San Fran went on and probably reached a conclusion without them. Fun, fun. I don't believe exploring the scenario should involve steps that take the game completely out of the scenario.

This is why I've been saying the games you run are basic. "The Game We Came To Play" is code-language for "The Singular Adventure *I* Want To Run" (some might say, based on your posts "The Story I Want To Tell With Your Characters"). A well-designed sandbox-campaign can keep the focus on the PC's regardless of what they do. Every example you've stated implies the PC's are not the gravitational center of the game - rather, you are. It's purely arbitrary as you point out yourself - SURE you could make the boat-trip interesting... but San Fran will come to a conclusion without them." <--- That conclusion? See that? That's arbitrary too. Why does it *have* to be that way? Why can't they go to Shanghai, have a bunch of side-adventures, while in parallel the cult in San Fran has some new developments that cause setbacks which forces the plot in San Fran to mutate enough so that with whatever the PC's learn/acquire/whatever in Shanghai - they're now ready for what's going down in San Fran?

See? In my version it's WIN/WIN for everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942149"We are going to take a hiatus and spend a month or two at the Library of Congress to research this phenomena." Really?

Yes that's extreme but it illustrates my point. If the towns of Old West New Mexico are being raided by Vampires from a ghostly train the solution to blow up the entire rail network West of the Mississippi might work but is hardly worth pursuing in a game. Rather than waste game time on such a ridiculous venture I believe it easier to simply explain why it wont work and ask the players to proceed on a more conventional path for the betterment of everyone. The adventure was advertised as an investigation into a ghostly train and townsfolk vanishing, not a military operation to destroy the entire rail industry.

Im all for Players players playing the game their way, to a point.

No it's not extreme. What's it demands is for you, as a GM, to make it worthwhile. So a player playing their PC feels they can do whatever it is their PC would do and find value - even if that means it gets them and others killed in the process. It's not a waste of game-time unless you as the GM make it a waste. I look at these things as opportunities to bring new understanding and nuances into the campaign. Perhaps a chance to introduce some interesting tidbits that could be explored later, chance meetings with NPC's they might not ordinarily come across because they *weren't* in the Library of Congress late at night researching, etc.. In essence - I make the game revolve around the actions of the PCs.

Edit: I do want to add that not every GM has the capacity to run sandbox games, much less even run them well. The only way to become good at it is to do it. Over and over. So I'm not trying to say "this is ALL you have to do = success". But I'm saying once you start doing it you'll start understanding what a lot of us are talking about and it'll click.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942159Your examples are, 'you prepared for game x and instead it turned out to be game y.' I prepared for a game set in the courts of France, and instead I was served up Cossacks on the steppes.

In our current campaign, we're talked a bit about what happens after we finish the published adventures at the core of our campaign so far, and going someplace else has come up several times already - Deadwood and the Black Hills, Saint Louis, Mexico, even Asia. None of us are so strapped down to the gurney of our current location or campaign conceits that we can't entertain the notion of 'cowboys in the Taklamakan.'

But see, this is all horseshit, and here's why.


But that's not the example you started with - careful, those goalposts may be coming around again - it was an adventure,  investigating a haunted house, and when the players decided to do something for which you weren't prepared, you pissed and moaned about how they weren't playing along with 'MAH STOREH!'

Here's (one of the many reasons) why you suck: instead of offering the characters in-game reasons to not burn the place down, you went full meta to push the players back on the rails. You don't appear to have the first clue how to motivate players and characters without stepping out of the game. Tell me, o self-proclaimed master of detail, what in your setup made burning the house down a bad idea beyond, '. . . buh-buh-buh-but that's what I prepared for tonight?!'

You would prefer the GM make up some shit in game as to why the players should reconsider their actions instead of just coming clean and explaining the game was designed to go a different way? You would prefer... perish the thought... RAILROADING?

Wow, just wow. This more than any other post explains where you are coming from - taking a negative and combative stance no matter what my argument is. I see a lot of this in the current political strife our country is going through, blind resistance to anything the other side has to say , but I didn't think I would find it here.

If I had explained that I met the player's wishes to burn the place with some made up, on the spot, reason as to why they couldn't you would have cried Dirty Railroader!

I cant win with some of you guys, that much is obvious.

Quote from: tenbones;942177This is why I've been saying the games you run are basic. "The Game We Came To Play" is code-language for "The Singular Adventure *I* Want To Run" (some might say, based on your posts "The Story I Want To Tell With Your Characters"). A well-designed sandbox-campaign can keep the focus on the PC's regardless of what they do. Every example you've stated implies the PC's are not the gravitational center of the game - rather, you are. It's purely arbitrary as you point out yourself - SURE you could make the boat-trip interesting... but San Fran will come to a conclusion without them." <--- That conclusion? See that? That's arbitrary too. Why does it *have* to be that way? Why can't they go to Shanghai, have a bunch of side-adventures, while in parallel the cult in San Fran has some new developments that cause setbacks which forces the plot in San Fran to mutate enough so that with whatever the PC's learn/acquire/whatever in Shanghai - they're now ready for what's going down in San Fran?

See? In my version it's WIN/WIN for everyone.



No it's not extreme. What's it demands is for you, as a GM, to make it worthwhile. So a player playing their PC feels they can do whatever it is their PC would do and find value - even if that means it gets them and others killed in the process. It's not a waste of game-time unless you as the GM make it a waste. I look at these things as opportunities to bring new understanding and nuances into the campaign. Perhaps a chance to introduce some interesting tidbits that could be explored later, chance meetings with NPC's they might not ordinarily come across because they *weren't* in the Library of Congress late at night researching, etc.. In essence - I make the game revolve around the actions of the PCs.

Edit: I do want to add that not every GM has the capacity to run sandbox games, much less even run them well. The only way to become good at it is to do it. Over and over. So I'm not trying to say "this is ALL you have to do = success". But I'm saying once you start doing it you'll start understanding what a lot of us are talking about and it'll click.

What you have never understood tenbones, and your not alone, is that I totally get what you are saying. It 'clicked' a long time ago but I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice. Ive played in and run sandbox games - for me they lacked something I was looking for in my gaming both as player and as GM. Some people I have played with feel the same way. Its totally cool that you are into it and have mastered the ability to run them. Awesome! And I mean that - really, that's GREAT. It does not however, in anyway, overshadow what we do. Its apples and oranges not T-ball and Major League.

You made the comment that the PCs are not the gravitational center of my games. You are right. They are participants in the story, no not "Mah Storeh" or whatever the fuck that is, but "Our Story". As GM I have as much influence as the players do, sometimes more, sometimes less but its a partnership. Im not there to entertain their whims. That sounds bad but Im not sure how else to say it. The game does not revolve around the players solely, at least ours doesn't. They have a part in it certainly, a huge part but they understand they are 'part of something bigger' the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away. My players have always gotten this and for the most part, except for a couple new guys with previous experience to the contrary, fit in perfectly. Ive found many around the web, even a few here who have messaged me privately, that agree or at least understand and appreciate our kinds of games too.

The issue I take with a few of you like Black and yourself and others is the condescending tone you use when replying or commenting, as though anyone (Not just me) that doesn't agree with you is inferior in some way and need only practice a bit more, accept your propaganda, and someday they too will be awesome. I don't want to pick fights on this damn forum but Im simply not going to agree to that, ever.

So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons.

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away.

heh, you don't have a world, you have a sound stage, and the game just ends when they accidentally step over the wrong line of masking tape.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons.

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Youre not getting it, my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942200heh, you don't have a world, you have a sound stage, and the game just ends when they accidentally step over the wrong line of masking tape.

Even so its an awesome stage (a really big but well detailed one) and the actors have a ball performing on it. They know the lines are there and choose to play their parts within them instead.

That's a strong analogy but not an inaccurate one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942201Youre not getting it, my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

Hmm, did they catch you with this Shanghai thing out of the blue?  Were you surprised? I mean clues must have led them there, right?  Clues you put there...see where I'm going?  Why did they get clues that Shanghai is where this all started but not get any clues that time is of the essence and there was no time for Shanghai?