How to set up a plan against the GM without spoiling the surprise.

[druid91]

So what methods should be used to set up a plan, that the gm can verify this is what you planned from the start, not some after the fact thing without actually informing him of the plan and ruining the surprise.

For example, you are reasonably sure that the BBEG will ride out the front gate after you defeat his monster/main henchman so you send a couple of followers over to lay a minefield down the road. He rides right into the minefield, likely killing his horse and wounding him.

The idea is you spring this on the Dm as he describes the characters actions, Preferably with some warning that you have a couple of nasty surprises hidden around.

So far the only thing I can think of is remove the necessary resources from your sheet, tell the Dm beforehand that there are a few surprises, and write them down on index cards placed face down in the center of the table.

[HunterOfJello]

Some DMs like surprises and some like to control everything in the game.

~

I would suggest talking to the DM a session or two beforehand about the idea that the party would like to start trying plans as characters in-game that he, as a DM, would not be privy to.

Some DMs even encourage this kind of behavior in groups so that they'll work together as a team better. The

[JoshuaZ]

Don't set up plans against the DM. The DM needs to know about these things (like say there's a diviner that the big bad has on his side that you don't know about.) Tell it to the DM. A good DM will work out what his NPCs would do with only the knowledge they are supposed to have.

[Kaun]

I am not sure i see the point unless you're stuck in a PvDM style game.

[druid91]

Because as it is, the only surprises the Dm gets are bad, joe genericguy suddenly shooting the elven diplomat for example.

This way, though the example I gave is hostile you could use the same techniques to do something different.


Don't set up plans against the DM. The DM needs to know about these things (like say there's a diviner that the big bad has on his side that you don't know about.) Tell it to the DM. A good DM will work out what his NPCs would do with only the knowledge they are supposed to have.

If there is something that would prevent the plan, Then the DM says, No that doesn't happen, re describes things and everything moves on.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

You don't. The DM has a right to know what you're planning to do.

[Marillion]

Put your plan in a sealed envelope and give it to him.

[Flickerdart]

"Oh, by the way, there's a minefield there" isn't a plan so much as fiat. And players don't get to fiat. Tell the DM you're laying a minefield, or there isn't going to be one there.

[druid91]

"Oh, by the way, there's a minefield there" isn't a plan so much as fiat. And players don't get to fiat. Tell the DM you're laying a minefield, or there isn't going to be one there.

It's not Fiat if you write it down before going on the dungeoncrawl that leads up to this, and then put the card face down or, as suggested above, seal it in an envelope. You get to look at the shock on the dms face, and if there is any reason that the character wouldn't go barreling into the minefield he can say "okay the BBEG has X ability so he X's"

[Knaight]

Because as it is, the only surprises the Dm gets are bad, joe genericguy suddenly shooting the elven diplomat for example.


Bull. I love being surprised as a GM, and I've seen that repeatedly. For instance, last session I GMed, a group of bounty hunters tries to take the PCs alive. They sent their personal guards out to escape and bring news of their capture, and the bounty hunters fired. One of the PCs then pointed a pistol at his own head, saying "You want me alive you [censored]?!". This was not an expected tactic in the least bit, and was certainly a good surprise.

Assuming basic competence on the GMs part, they won't have NPCs know what they shouldn't know, so you can surprise NPCs at the least, and unless all the players are predictable, the plans should surprise the GM as well.

[KBF]

...I like to imagine 85% of this board are dedicated dungeon masters, and the other 15% are players brainwashed by the DM's Guild of Compliance.

Though I'd have to say doing something like this kinda breaks the flow of the game, even if it works or doesn't work as you describe it happening. And if it does work, you can nip the adventure in the bud. Which is not a good thing.

[JoshuaZ]

If there is something that would prevent the plan, Then the DM says, No that doesn't happen, re describes things and everything moves on.

You don't know how much the event will alter the DM's plan. For example, it might turn out that where you wanted to put mines happens to have lots of corpses buried there that are actually zombies waiting on orders of the BBEG. We'll if you went to put mines there, you'd notice the corpses and get a chance to figure out they were actually zombies. You don't know what the DM has planned and so can't predict what information would be relevant when.

[Heliomance]

This is the problem. The look on the DM's face when you manage to throw him a curveball he didn't expect is truly gratifying, but the problem is that you don't have perfect information on the DM's plans, so you can't know if your plan would actually go off as intended.
However, if you do do this and make it work, I'd recommend the sealed envelope ploy.

[Kaun]

Your plan would all so require that it could be performed with out any rolls required.

In most cases there are rolls you can anticipate and those you can't.

[Reluctance]

Here's the thing. If your GM is big on the Say Yes/cooperative style, you have everything to gain from telling him ahead of time. He'll be surprised and impressed when you come to him with the plans, so the gain for springing it on him is nonexistent.

If your GM is adversarial, he'll just fiat away your plans or have them backfire. There's really no way around an omnipotent entity, and trying to pull one over on him will just get you slapped down.

If your GM does like surprises in the moment, the upside-down index card sounds like a good way to say "I have a plan, let's see if you can guess what it is". At the very least, though, you'll want to know your GM is the sort of guy who likes that. By asking him ahead of time. Do not pull anything like this without asking ahead of time, and if everybody agrees, you'd probably be better off with a games that are more built for that sort of thing.

[Marillion]

There was a fantastic Full Frontal Nerdity strip wherein at the climax of the campaign, one of the characters betrayed the other, and when told that would be completely out of character, he directed the DM to a sealed envelope he'd given him at the beginning of the campaign, which revealed that he worked for the BBEG.

But I don't feel like delving through the archives right now.

[Nick_mi]

Also doesn't allow for the DM to calculate things such as people seeing you, you failing at setting down some mines, if it was even the right road, etc.

[Tyndmyr]

Sealed envelopes can indeed be interesting. But yeah, work with your DM on this, generally. DMs can help you keep something a surprise....but it doesn't work for all situations.

If you want to surprise your DM, and you believe you know what's coming, set up an unusual plan that you work towards that will be effective in this situation, yet that isn't obviously a result of that. "I, er, knew that was coming and already planted mines there" isn't likely to be a good example. In fact, I can't even think of a reason why you'd want that to be a surprise other than "otherwise, the DM might do something to counter it".

[Kaun]

If you want to surprise your DM, and you believe you know what's coming, set up an unusual plan that you work towards that will be effective in this situation, yet that isn't obviously a result of that.

yeah +1 to this as long as it doesn't end in "...are you trying to make gun powder?"

[Tyndmyr]

yeah +1 to this as long as it doesn't end in "...are you trying to make gun powder?"

I once used a plan using multiple tower shields, two pairs of wagon wheels, razor wire, immovable rods, flour and a tindertwig. The DM didn't know what my final desired outcome was, but he did get to see each step as it happened and of course, adjudicate on it.

[Knaight]

I once used a plan using multiple tower shields, two pairs of wagon wheels, razor wire, immovable rods, flour and a tindertwig. The DM didn't know what my final desired outcome was, but he did get to see each step as it happened and of course, adjudicate on it.

Sold. I love this stuff.

[Leon]

Write it all down so that if the DM questions it you have your written workings.

In our (now defunct sadly) 2e game we plotted and planed over a large battle with what we knew would include a number of dragons and mounted knights and we took the DM completely by suprise and after he had checked what we had chosen to do once it was revealed and he was over being rather shocked it went on fine.

Weighty Chest imbued Ballista Bolts wreck havoc on flying dragons.

[Psyx]

So what methods should be used to set up a plan, that the gm can verify this is what you planned from the start, not some after the fact thing without actually informing him of the plan and ruining the surprise.

You can't. This is an RPG, not a wargame.

The GM's job is to tell a story and fairly adjudicate things. You can't just pull surprises out of your backside. He's you ally, not your enemy.

You can't just say 'we set down landmines there', because that area might already be mined, protected by spells, or home to a colony of giant ants.

Do you want the GM to start randomly telling you what spells you have memorised that day? Because 'us vs GM' thinking is a very bad turn for RPGs.


razor wire

WTF? In a medieval/fantasy setting? I hope it cost a few thousand GPs!

[Jack_Simth]

There was a fantastic Full Frontal Nerdity strip wherein at the climax of the campaign, one of the characters betrayed the other, and when told that would be completely out of character, he directed the DM to a sealed envelope he'd given him at the beginning of the campaign, which revealed that he worked for the BBEG. It ended with "Rocks fall, everyone dies"

[Trouvere]

The answer, of course, would be to have two DMs. One runs the game much as usual. The other is a co-DM, who knows everything the DM is up to and to whom the players can confide their secret plans. The co-DM ordinarily does little, except speak up when plans collide. It wouldn't be very much fun for him, though, I think.

[Boci]

You can't. This is an RPG, not a wargame.

The GM's job is to tell a story and fairly adjudicate things. You can't just pull surprises out of your backside. He's you ally, not your enemy.

You can't just say 'we set down landmines there', because that area might already be mined, protected by spells, or home to a colony of giant ants.

Do you want the GM to start randomly telling you what spells you have memorised that day? Because 'us vs GM' thinking is a very bad turn for RPGs.

Its not so much PCs vs Dm, so much as there is no way a DM can claim that knowing the players plans will not influence the actions of the BBEG, whether this is for the good or the bad of the Pcs.


WTF? In a medieval/fantasy setting? I hope it cost a few thousand GPs!

Its a CR: 1 trap in the DMG.

[Cubey]

Its not so much PCs vs Dm, so much as there is no way a DM can claim that knowing the players plans will not influence the actions of the BBEG, whether this is for the good or the bad of the Pcs.

We expect players to know how to seperate IC from OOC. Let's just assume the DM will act in the same way.

The whole issue is a matter of trust. Players should talk about their plans in advance, for reasons other posters in this thread said. And on the other hand, the DM should have the NPCs know about the plan only if they had sensible ways of discovering it.

[Boci]

We expect players to know how to seperate IC from OOC.

Only the knowledge they inevitable know. No DM gives the players his homebrewd setting and says "I trust you won't metagame."


Let's just assume the DM will act in the same way.

No, the DM won't, because it is impossible. He has no way of knowing how he would have chosen the BBEG's actions had he not known the player's plans.

[Tyndmyr]

Only the knowledge they inevitable know. No DM gives the players his homebrewd setting and says "I trust you won't metagame."


Er...why not?

And how would doing so be any different than playing in an established setting? I'm not gonna force my players to not read about the setting. In fact, I welcome them doing so. It can help answer all sorts of questions in advance.

[Boci]

Er...why not?

And how would doing so be any different than playing in an established setting? I'm not gonna force my players to not read about the setting. In fact, I welcome them doing so. It can help answer all sorts of questions in advance.

I meant all their notes.

[Knaight]

No issue with that either. Of course, I'm a heavy improv GM, so my opinion only counts within that group.

[Douglas]

The problem with just telling the GM is that, no matter how much he tries to separate GM knowledge and NPC knowledge, he can't succeed completely. If the players lay a cunning trap for the BBEG and tell the GM about it in full detail, he will be in the position of deciding - with prior knowledge of the whole thing - whether the BBEG can figure out and prepare for each part of the trap. The GM essentially goes through a checklist deciding yes or no for whether each element of the trap will be prepared for or not. This is a very different planning process from making a plan with no knowledge beyond that a trap has been laid, and will almost inevitably lead to different results.

Short version: use written plans in sealed envelopes, but try to keep it to things that are practically guaranteed to not require GM knowledge to adjudicate during the setup phase.

[JoshuaZ]

The problem with just telling the GM is that, no matter how much he tries to separate GM knowledge and NPC knowledge, he can't succeed completely. If the players lay a cunning trap for the BBEG and tell the GM about it in full detail, he will be in the position of deciding - with prior knowledge of the whole thing - whether the BBEG can figure out and prepare for each part of the trap. The GM essentially goes through a checklist deciding yes or no for whether each element of the trap will be prepared for or not. This is a very different planning process from making a plan with no knowledge beyond that a trap has been laid, and will almost inevitably lead to different results.

If player characters can separate IC and OC knowledge why can't a GM? Indeed, GMs all the time need to juggle keeping track of multiple NPCs each of which have access to different bits of knowledge.

[Halaster]

There is necessarily a knowledge imbalance between the GM and the players. No way around it. There have been numerous examples for why the GM needs to know the plans beforehand. If he doesn't, everything will turn into a giant, frustrating retcon session.
Say you prepare a plan, write it down on an index card, and triumphantly turn the card over at the suitable moment. Then the GM tells you that you didn't have the six hours you would have needed to implement the plan, but only three hours. Or that there was something that prevented your plan from working (solid rock where you thought you could bury the mines), and so on. Now you're left with trying to work out what you did instead during those three or six hours, that has effects on how other things go, and you basically start an entire session over. That would have me quite put out, if I were your GM, or a fellow player, for that matter.

Also, I disagree about the GMs plans necessarily changing due to the info. I usually have the mentality of my BBEGs and other major NPCs firmly established. From that there follows that they act in certain ways. They keep acting that way, no matter what I know or don't know. Besides, this is not always a bad thing. Players plans may give the GM all sorts of cool ideas about how a major encounter might go down that are much better and more interesting than whatever he had in mind.



The problem with just telling the GM is that, no matter how much he tries to separate GM knowledge and NPC knowledge, he can't succeed completely. If the players lay a cunning trap for the BBEG and tell the GM about it in full detail, he will be in the position of deciding - with prior knowledge of the whole thing - whether the BBEG can figure out and prepare for each part of the trap. The GM essentially goes through a checklist deciding yes or no for whether each element of the trap will be prepared for or not. This is a very different planning process from making a plan with no knowledge beyond that a trap has been laid, and will almost inevitably lead to different results.

As for this, that is just a problem you run into in RPGs all the time. The characters, including NPCs are in the middle of the action, immersed in their world knowledge, with very concrete ideas about how their enemies act. The players, including the GM, are not, they're just imagining stuff, and cannot cover everything. So, when a player makes a mistake, I usually listen to the argument that his player would have known better. I expect the same to go for my NPCs, only that I have the advantage of checking beforehand.

[Knaight]

Short version: use written plans in sealed envelopes, but try to keep it to things that are practically guaranteed to not require GM knowledge to adjudicate during the setup phase.

Of course, this is not going to happen. There are ramifications in every case that the GM needs to know about. Take the mining the road example, any number of things could go wrong while doing it that have nothing to do with the BBEG (if there even is one). Some innocents could get blown up first, government people could chance upon the PCs while they were planting mines, they could discover a trap someone else laid for them to track down details on later. GM knowledge is always going to be needed to adjudicate if there is a set up phase.

[arrowhen]

The problem with just telling the GM is that, no matter how much he tries to separate GM knowledge and NPC knowledge, he can't succeed completely. If the players lay a cunning trap for the BBEG and tell the GM about it in full detail, he will be in the position of deciding - with prior knowledge of the whole thing - whether the BBEG can figure out and prepare for each part of the trap. The GM essentially goes through a checklist deciding yes or no for whether each element of the trap will be prepared for or not. This is a very different planning process from making a plan with no knowledge beyond that a trap has been laid, and will almost inevitably lead to different results.

If the BBEG is smarter than I am in real life or has access to resources that I don't, like divination magic or a network of spies, I need to know ahead of time what the cunning plan is so I can reasonably determine whether or not the BBEG would be able to figure things out or not. If the BBEG isn't smart or well-connected, it's not much of a BBEG, and you won't need a cunning plan to defeat it in the first place.

[Douglas]

If player characters can separate IC and OC knowledge why can't a GM? Indeed, GMs all the time need to juggle keeping track of multiple NPCs each of which have access to different bits of knowledge.
I'd contend that PCs can't do it either. No one can. You can attempt to simulate it by trying to reason through what a character who lacks your knowledge would logically do, but the simple fact that you know a particular important piece of information forces you to specifically consider whether the character knows it, with potentially different results than if nothing had drawn your attention to it. Having that knowledge fundamentally alters the decision-making process whether or not you are attempting to simulate an unbiased ignorant decision.

To take an example I vaguely remember from Knights of the Dinner Table, the BBEG has the party at his mercy and decides to look through their belongings.
Situation A: The party wizard has put a Fire Trap on his pack and put a note detailing this in a sealed envelope. The GM doesn't even consider this possibility, the BBEG starts opening packs, and when he gets to the wizard's pack the player tells the GM to open that sealed envelope. The BBEG gets a Fire Trap to the face.
Situation B: The party wizard has put a Fire Trap on his pack and told the GM about it. The GM is prompted by his specific knowledge of this trap to consider whether the BBEG is suspicious and paranoid enough to cast Detect Magic or thoroughly Search before going through everything. He might decide to imitate situation A, or he might decide to use methods that would detect the trap before triggering it. The chances of each are potentially very different from in situation A, even with a good GM who tries his best to avoid it. The GM might have thought to check for traps even if he hadn't known about this one, but no one will ever know because he does know about the trap.

I'm not saying that separation of IC and OOC knowledge is futile, or that people shouldn't attempt it on both sides of the GM screen, but for best results the need for that separation should be minimized.

[Halaster]

Like I said above, the knowledge gap cuts both ways. There is just no way the GM or the players can know all that their characters know, nor "forget" all that they don't know. In effect, knowing that something is planned just allows the GM to take that possibility into account.

Do I know, or rather remember, all the spells the wizard might have cast to prevent me from rifling through his equipment? Of course not.
Does the BBEG? Possibly, particularly if he is a wizard himself, but most people in a D&D world might. They live their lives considering spells and their ramifications. I, on the other hand, have a lot of stuff beside gaming going on, so I don't memorize all the options.

Therefore, option B is not just better, it is the only possible choice.

Remember folks, this is a role-playing game. It's not a matter what you know or think of as much as it is a matter of what your characters know or think of.

As I said, this goes for both sides. As a GM, you should always consider a player's contention that his character might have foreseen an eventuality he missed. You don't need to agree, but don't dismiss it out of hand.

[DabblerWizard]

Douglas - You make an interesting point.

It definitely seems reasonable to conclude that a DM's NPC may be impacted by information that is for the DM's ears only, and that this can happen intentionally or unintentionally.

A simple and fair solution to this problem, that I have used, is for the DM to simply roll a dice. Low rolls mean that the NPC doesn't consider the information, high rolls means that they do.

There's no way for me to unlearn a piece of information (except by neural degradation or brain injury :smalltongue:), but I can make it so that I am not the one deciding whether that piece of information is being used. (Just to be clear, this concerns information that was given to me by a PC, that wasn't considered by me originally, but that I may consider useful because it's interesting or relevant. This doesn't include PC information that I ignore or definitely know I don't want to use).

I allow chance to decide for me, which minimizes my personal bias "against" my PCs, or "for" the NPCs.

Ultimately, I am in favor of DMs (and players!) knowing as much about what is going on as possible. Only in the case of intrigue and mystery play, do I include an element of suspense and non-disclosure. Everyone rolls openly, we discuss our views and try to make reasonable compromises whenever there is a conflict. I think everyone in the group is better for it.

The only way that works, though, is if knowledge and ideas are shared openly.

Plus, I just don't like being caught off guard, as a DM.

[Christopher K.]

I think the only way to really set up a plan without the GM's knowledge is to be slow about it and make sure he or she knows every step of your process, even if they don't know for sure what the heck you're trying to pull.

For example, since this season of Encounters ends tomorrow, I'm going to pull out the canopic jar I looted from a tomb way back when and toss it at the Waste Walker. He's seen me waving it around a couple times, so it isn't a total surprise, but the sheer audacity of throwing pickled organs at the final boss should be enough to catch the DM off-guard.

[The Big Dice]

If I'm ever feeling what I think of as a conflict of interest, you know, when something I know OOC could affect a choice an NPC makes IC, one solution is to get the players to roll some dice for me. Like in the situation of the BBEG rummaging through party equipment, I might ask someone to roll a Sense Motive check for the BBEG.

If he gets a good roll, he acts supicious. If not, he gets a Fire Trap to the face.

With the landmines thing, I like games that have mass combat systems, so if the players figured out a way to mine an area, I'd give them a positive modifier on their Mass Combat roll. I say that because before a battle is the kind of time when I could see people setting up minefields.

If it was a lower scale reason for it, I'd probably get one of the players to roll a Spot check of some kind for the BBEG.

But in general, I've been known to tell players many times "Don't tell me what your plan is and then carry it out. That contaminates the result. Just put your plan into action."

I like to have the BBEG's plan already in place and then see how it interacts with the plan the players came up with.