That's not what my character woulda done!!

[dascarletm]

So I have a problem with the group I've been DMing for years with. We play 3.5 and one of their favorite things to scream out during a gaming session is, "But that's not what my character would have done!" Let me give an example; yesterday we were playing the first session of my new campaign and the players wound up in some sewers fighting of swarms of undead rats. The halfling cleric turned about half of the swarms, while riding on the shoulders of the monk. The monk went next and proceeded to flying kick the swarms which would have brought the cleric within 10' of one of the turned swarms. I realized this and asked the cleric if he wanted to hop off before the charge and he said no. When the turned swarms stopped running he realized and complained that he didn't actually ride with the monk because his character would of known that this would have broke the turning on the swarm. Should i of let him take back his action? When I wasn't going to let him saying, "People make mistakes even characters" the player complained till I gave up and let him take it back. How should I handle this situation? Mostly I just want them to stop bitching all the time.


Thanks

[BlueInc]

You gave him a chance to fix it; he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. Tell him (kindly) to suck it up.

[erikun]

If you are tired of these "takebacks", then more clearly tell the character what they are about to do. "If you ride the monk, you will come within 10' of the rats and will break the turning." It sounds like your players aren't that familiar with the rules, in which case you'd be best reminding them of factors that would influence their class abilities, so that they can make informed decisions.

Or I suppose you could set a no-takeback rule at your table, but that sounds like it would just give everyone more headaches.

[Cloaked Bloke]

The player of the cleric seems to be (slightly) metagaming. He "would have known" about the turned rat swarms? Really now? Well, you're the DM.

Does having an ability simply allow you to know every possible loophole in the mechanics of that ability? (In this case, Turn Undead.) My suggestion is this: If an ability does not outright say, or at the very least strongly imply, that the user would know about one of the mechanical flaws, then he doesn't automatically know this. He should use a Knowledge check of some sort.

I've had DMs use this as a rule in many of the games I've played in, and it always works out to make sense IC. Sure, it might be a pain in the keester OOCly, but that's casters for you.

[Kenneth]

you already gave the halfling a chance tot ake back his actions. I think thats more than fair, he should have been astute enough to realize what was going on.

For me i give everybody up to their turn to redo any actions, after that its set in stone. I have yet to hear any comlaints on my stangins on take backs. like in chess you take your hand off the peive BAM end of your turn. that is how i explain my takeback rule to my players, they all seem to understand.

[Vladislav]

Is the player a complete novice and didn't have any way of concievably knowing that coming close to the undead will break the turning? If so, try be a bit more flexible.

But if he's not a complete novice, don't pay attention to his complaints, he's just peeved that he made a mistake and is trying to project it onto you.

[dascarletm]

The player is experienced he's played almost as long as I have. He knew about it breaking the turn (in an earlier encounter he mentioned to one of the players he couldn't move up on the turned zombie as it would break it). He just made a blunder. The one thing they do when I tell them to suck it up or just accept that it happened they like to say that I'm pulling some "DM bull****." I'm a fairly lax DM and that might be my problem I let them get away with too much stuff and takebacks.
Player1: I'm going to tell the King "<Insert something about his mother>"
Me: What, why?
Player1: to get him upset its not like he'd kill me.
Me: well he tells his guards to capture you for exectution turns out he would do that
Player1: WHAT? Well my character really wouldn't of done that it didn't happen.

[TriForce]

The player is experienced he's played almost as long as I have. He knew about it breaking the turn (in an earlier encounter he mentioned to one of the players he couldn't move up on the turned zombie as it would break it). He just made a blunder. The one thing they do when I tell them to suck it up or just accept that it happened they like to say that I'm pulling some "DM bull****." I'm a fairly lax DM and that might be my problem I let them get away with too much stuff and takebacks.
Player1: I'm going to tell the King "<Insert something about his mother>"
Me: What, why?
Player1: to get him upset its not like he'd kill me.
Me: well he tells his guards to capture you for exectution turns out he would do that
Player1: WHAT? Well my character really wouldn't of done that it didn't happen.

time to say: it did happen, now deal with it

part of being a DM is also being a bit ruthless. in the cases you gave here, your best action imho would be to let the player deal with his mess-up

for your next dm session, before you start, just tell the group "no takebacks, no retcons, anything that happens, happens, so be careful"
that way your giving them a fair warning, and i they start complaining, just tell them you warned them, dont argue with them about whatever reason they give you, simply tell them you warned them, if they keep complaining, tell them again.

[McSmack]

The player is experienced he's played almost as long as I have. He knew about it breaking the turn (in an earlier encounter he mentioned to one of the players he couldn't move up on the turned zombie as it would break it). He just made a blunder. The one thing they do when I tell them to suck it up or just accept that it happened they like to say that I'm pulling some "DM bull****." I'm a fairly lax DM and that might be my problem I let them get away with too much stuff and takebacks.
Player1: I'm going to tell the King "<Insert something about his mother>"
Me: What, why?
Player1: to get him upset its not like he'd kill me.
Me: well he tells his guards to capture you for exectution turns out he would do that
Player1: WHAT? Well my character really wouldn't of done that it didn't happen.

ME: Well if your character wouldn't have done that maybe you shouldn't have told me that your character did that. You control the character not the other way around.

[Cloaked Bloke]

The player is experienced he's played almost as long as I have. He knew about it breaking the turn (in an earlier encounter he mentioned to one of the players he couldn't move up on the turned zombie as it would break it). He just made a blunder. The one thing they do when I tell them to suck it up or just accept that it happened they like to say that I'm pulling some "DM bull****." I'm a fairly lax DM and that might be my problem I let them get away with too much stuff and takebacks.
Player1: I'm going to tell the King "<Insert something about his mother>"
Me: What, why?
Player1: to get him upset its not like he'd kill me.
Me: well he tells his guards to capture you for exectution turns out he would do that
Player1: WHAT? Well my character really wouldn't of done that it didn't happen.

The actions of the players seem to be astoundingly silly. Is the aforementioned player also Chaotic Stupid? (S)he seems to have the mindset of that particular alignment.

In such cases, I always have a trick up my sleeve as the DM. When something bad inevitably happens to their character for being Chaotic Stupid, I give them a proper NPC response. Not exaggerated for effect or any such thing, mind you, just what would happen in a similar RL situation. Triforce is right, you need to be ruthless sometimes.

Kill off a PC or two, make sure they know that it was their own insistence on acting foolishly or thoughtlessly, and they'll get the picture.

[dascarletm]

Cool thanks was just wondering if I would be a douche or not to tell them that. A definite no takebacks policy is needed. Thanks again

[Cloaked Bloke]

We are here to help, after all! :smallwink:
Go get 'em!

[TriForce]

:belkar: : help a person with violence, help him for a day, teach a person to use violence himself, help him for life!

[QuidEst]

Encourage them to take your questions seriously. I know if the DM asks me "Are you sure?", I'm going to at least pause to consider it. If my character calls the king "Your royal rotundity", it is because my character would find it hilarious and do it despite the consequences. (Good ranks in Diplomacy helps mitigate any cutting off of heads, mind you.) Alternatively, you can throw "Your character wouldn't do that" back at them when they meta-game, then agree that you'd be happy to back off if they do.

[ClockShock]

In addition to the above,

Don't ask, "are you sure you want to do that?"

Ask, "are you sure your character would do that?"

It makes it more difficult to argue otherwise once they've agreed to it.

[Douglas]

For the rats thing, I'd say you should have specified why you were asking if he wanted to hop off. It's a mechanical result of one of the character's own abilities, he should be well aware of it and giving the player a reminder is reasonable and often expected.

For the insulting the king thing, yeah make him stick with it. He misjudged an NPC's likely reactions, he should take the consequences.

[AdalKar]

In one of my groups we have some simple rules regarding saying something stupid/funny that the character would normaly not do (and generaly talking OOC):

1.) If you hold one of youre hands up, palm to the DM/rest of the group, you're saying something funny/stupid/hilarious.

2.) If you do the "time-out-sign" (making a T with both hands) you're talking OOC, but you're serious (this is for questioning rules/possibilities/things the character might know).

3.) If the DM asks "Really?" or something along those lines, this is youre last chance to retake youre actions.

But then again, this functions in this particular group very well, because the players almost all the time talk IC :smallwink:

[Sylivin]

I would suggest making sure they know, "Are you sure?" is DM-speak for "bad things are going to happen if you do this." I was DMing a campaign once and had a character who decided to charge across a rickety rope bridge in full plate at a monster on the other side. I asked him, "Are you sure?" He said yes, failed his balance roll by a ton and fell. He ended up bleeding out before the party could get down there to stabilize him.

The party was (OOC) pretty shocked at this since they are used to DMs that play with the gloves always on. It's important to remember though that actions have consequences and PCs are supposed to be people that place themselves in danger all the time. Their consequences are even more extreme (and the rewards as well). As a DM though it is wise to remember that people will get focused on things and forget something like balance checks over rope bridges. Make sure to break them out of their lull with that "Are you sure?" comment. Now if they're not in a lull, they ignore your comment, and still play loose and crazy then they deserve an early dirt retirement.

[opticalshadow]

at the start of adventures i warn that i will be easier on the take backs and misconcesptions early on, as we play i become less forgiving. i do this so they have time to adjust to the game incase they are not on the right page. if this was the first couple of sessions i might have allowed him to take back (although given the fact you gave him a chance i might not have) however, if this was quite a bit in (or i knew the player played often or that class enough to have known) then he would be out of luck

one of the most facinating things as a player for me, is to see something blow up in my face, and have to adapt to the situation. more so for magic users then martial, magic is powerful arcane or divine. using it has risks and turning can go both ways in diffrent situations.


not allowing him the takeback is imo the best way to go about it.

[Flame of Anor]

The player is experienced he's played almost as long as I have. He knew about it breaking the turn (in an earlier encounter he mentioned to one of the players he couldn't move up on the turned zombie as it would break it). He just made a blunder. The one thing they do when I tell them to suck it up or just accept that it happened they like to say that I'm pulling some "DM bull****." I'm a fairly lax DM and that might be my problem I let them get away with too much stuff and takebacks.
Player1: I'm going to tell the King "<Insert something about his mother>"
Me: What, why?
Player1: to get him upset its not like he'd kill me.
Me: well he tells his guards to capture you for exectution turns out he would do that
Player1: WHAT? Well my character really wouldn't of done that it didn't happen.

Please, please tell me that character was executed.


Cool thanks was just wondering if I would be a douche or not to tell them that. A definite no takebacks policy is needed. Thanks again

No, you would definitely not be a d-----. It's entirely appropriate to make players and their characters choose and stick with their choice. It would be polite of you to warn your players of your new tougher stance, though.

[holywhippet]

You could consider asking the player to make a knowledge check, intelligence check, wisdom check etc. If they fail then their character isn't aware or isn't thnking of the possible consequences of their actions.

[Salanmander]

You could consider asking the player to make a knowledge check, intelligence check, wisdom check etc. If they fail then their character isn't aware or isn't thnking of the possible consequences of their actions.

This. In many instances characters have more information than players do, and can generally be assumed to be better at their profession than the players are at their character's profession. If this information would legitimately cause a different course of action, an int check is the perfect way of figuring out if the character would have remembered something.

[Kojiro]

"If your character wouldn't have done it, then you shouldn't have said they did" is a fair policy, in my opinion, although as the people above have said, Knowledge checks and the like are appropriate for some situations. Still, it seems like your player is trying to undo any bad choices more than anything.

[Hazzardevil]

I think for that situtation, takebacks aren't really needed.
For something like a rogue sneaking up on something and rolling hide, but forgetting move silently, I think he should have one and roll both.

[Killer Angel]

Remember also that, sometime, if a player pays for a mistake, he'll learn, and the next time, not only he won't forget a simple rule, but he'll pay more attention to your advices.
When I stopped giving "free pass" to casters forgetting the conc. check while casting in AoO areas, suddenly they started to remember it.
And now, when one forgets it (very rarely, but happens), the player blames himself.

[Divide by Zero]

You could consider asking the player to make a knowledge check, intelligence check, wisdom check etc. If they fail then their character isn't aware or isn't thnking of the possible consequences of their actions.

I don't remember what the system was, but I remember seeing a "Common Sense" perk, where the GM was required to inform that player when their character was about to do something really stupid. Sounds like something this table desperately needs.

[Killer Angel]

I don't remember what the system was, but I remember seeing a "Common Sense" perk, where the GM was required to inform that player when their character was about to do something really stupid. Sounds like something this table desperately needs.

There's definitely in GURPS (don't know 'bout other game systems): it's an advantage, that you must pay with character points; the master will inform you that your character is going to do something stupid (probably telling also why it's stupid), so you can reconsider the action.

[some guy]

Yeah, after the "Are you sure?" there's no take backs. Perhaps give them a few reasons why they would not want to do a particular action. For a while.
Let's set up some learning system:
1. For some sessions: "Are you sure? It will probably result in death/horrible maiming/horrible deadly maiming, for these reasons. You might want to reconsider that." No takebacks if they want to go through with their actions.
2. After that, just ask "Are you sure?". No takebacks if they want to go through with their actions.
3. After that, no warning, only consequences. No takebacks.


I don't remember what the system was, but I remember seeing a "Common Sense" perk, where the GM was required to inform that player when their character was about to do something really stupid. Sounds like something this table desperately needs.


There's definitely in GURPS (don't know 'bout other game systems): it's an advantage, that you must pay with character points; the master will inform you that your character is going to do something stupid (probably telling also why it's stupid), so you can reconsider the action.

In the new Gamma World there's the Super Genius mutation which gives this benefit (and some more):
"You also instantly discern the stupid ideas of others (ask the GM if you're not sure). This doesn't include your own stupid ideas."
It's really fun if one of the players with this mutation has a stupid plan himself.
Players are on a roof and discover a hatch:
Player 1: Maybe I can just jump down?
Player 2 (ratswarm): Wait, that could be a stupid idea. GM, is it a stupid idea, I am a Super Genius, so you have to tell me.
GM (me): Well, it's a 40 foot drop, so that's 4d10 damage.
Player 2: Can I hang on to myself? Like create a rope of dangling rats hanging on to themselves?
Gm: Well, you're probably, like, what? 500 rats? Yeah, sure.
Player 2: Awesome. So I'm on the ground.
Gm: Tell me how you get on the ground. [grins]
Player 2: Well I just crawl along myself down to the ground.
Gm: Okay, but that will result in, hm, like around 40 of you on the ground. The rest of you is being busy being a rope.
Player 2: Oh, yeah. What if the top rat would let go?
Gm: Falling damage.
Player 2: Gorram. Okay, so I climb up.
Gm: I need a climbing check and a perception check from you.
Player 2: Oh ****.

[Killer Angel]

It's really fun if one of the players with this mutation has a stupid plan himself.
Players are on a roof and discover a hatch:
Player 1: Maybe I can just jump down?
Player 2 (ratswarm): Wait, that could be a stupid idea. GM, is it a stupid idea, I am a Super Genius, so you have to tell me.
GM (me): Well, it's a 40 foot drop, so that's 4d10 damage.
Player 2: Can I hang on to myself? Like create a rope of dangling rats hanging on to themselves?
Gm: Well, you're probably, like, what? 500 rats? Yeah, sure.
Player 2: Awesome. So I'm on the ground.
Gm: Tell me how you get on the ground. [grins]
Player 2: Well I just crawl along myself down to the ground.
Gm: Okay, but that will result in, hm, like around 40 of you on the ground. The rest of you is being busy being a rope.
Player 2: Oh, yeah. What if the top rat would let go?
Gm: Falling damage.
Player 2: Gorram. Okay, so I climb up.
Gm: I need a climbing check and a perception check from you.
Player 2: Oh ****.

This story is made of win. Kudos to the GM, and thanks for sharing the fun. :smallbiggrin: