What to do when one characters dumb decision would realistically kill half the party?

[Bountyhunter]

So in recent days I've been thinking back to a situation a few months ago where one player makes an incredibly stupid decision and the only reason he survived is because I was unwilling to kill the other character. So you all can understand I'll give a bit of background knowledge.

These two characters had recently been arrested due to corruption in the city and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A higher up knew they were both innocent but knowing that they would be found guilty without trial decided to spring them out of prison. So the higher up is able to provide a distraction and coincidently have their cell doors unlocked. Now at this point I'm positive they'll be able to escape and walk away with a nice plot hook when one of the characters surprises me. Lets call him J and the other character N.

J says "I kick open the door!"
"Uhh... you know the door is unlocked, right?" I say.
"Yeah, but it will be cool"
N face palms at this point.
"Your character is pretty sure it will make a lot of noise, you know, kicking open an iron door"
"I'm sure it will be fine"

So of course he fails and creates a ton of noise that brings the might of the guard atop them. Now I should note that J is an elf while N was a Halfling. I over the course of the session mentioned time and again how the guards all wore light armor so they would be better able to catch criminals. So...
J has 30 speed
N has 20
And the guards have 30

What would you personally have done in this situation? I had in the spur of the moment decided that this one particular guard was wearing plate so N would have a chance of escaping. Also feel free to mention your own experiences similar to this one so I can learn from it.

[JDL]

First, were they armed in any way? If the guards caught them, would they have motivation to kill them outright or just return them to their cells?

Honestly, if they went and created a big amount of noise, I'd let the guards catch them, beat them up a bit with nonlethal damage, describe how character J just had four teeth knocked out of his mouth, lock them back in the cell and do the whole thing again tomorrow, with a note delivered in their prison gruel that if they get caught a second time they won't be released again.

[Bountyhunter]

First, were they armed in any way? If the guards caught them, would they have motivation to kill them outright or just return them to their cells?

Honestly, if they went and created a big amount of noise, I'd let the guards catch them, beat them up a bit with nonlethal damage, describe how character J just had four teeth knocked out of his mouth, lock them back in the cell and do the whole thing again tomorrow, with a note delivered in their prison gruel that if they get caught a second time they won't be released again.

They were not armed in anyway what-so-ever. They had all their equipment taken away and I had planned for them to be able to find it while sneaking out. The guards would have likely killed them on the spot since there are known magic users in the prison and only the worst of the worst are imprisoned there. I should note that at the time I had planned for the person who busted them out to get caught so they'd have the possibility of repaying the favor.

[JDL]

I'd probably just hand-wave it away, saying the guards knew they couldn't use magic without their spell component pouches or holy symbols or whatever since they're used to guarding magic users and know their weaknesses. Better yet, have them cut off one of J's fingers for attempting to escape. There shouldn't be any in game penalty but it'll certainly teach him a lesson he'll not want to learn nine more times.

[OldTrees1]

What do I do when a player wants their character to do something that seems TPK level of dumb from my vantage as the DM?

Step 1: I notice I am confused.
There are several possibilities, none of which I was operating under.

1) It could be smarter than I expect. (Perhaps the noise would have been a suitable distraction, bait for an ambush, or some other plan in the character's head)
2) It only seems dumb from a DM's vantage due to the DM's additional knowledge. (Perhaps the PC's poor intel gathering suggested less security)
3) The player is expecting a different kind of game genre/tone and this would be smarter if we were operating under that different genre/tone. (Perhaps the player is expecting a more "Kick in the door" style of game)


Step 2: I seek clarity.
Confusion is due to insufficient communication or too much miscommunication.

A DM expressing doubt, when used infrequently, has weight without judgement. The players recognize the signal as "DM is worried for us" and double checks their estimates. After which I let their judgement hold sway since now their should be judging based on both their and my opinion which is better than I can do without telepathy.

However sometimes expressing doubt is not enough and things escalate to a bad situation. We now have strong evidence for cases 2 or 3 over case 1 and weak evidence for case 3 over case 2. So now I expect it is time to discuss expectations about the kind of game we are playing. Perhaps the player's expectations are in the minority, or my expectations might be in the minority. Given the new clarity about the average expected tone of the game, we look to the situation at hand. How would solutions to the current situation look in the new game tone. How does the group feel about a time warp if we collectively can't figure out how to play it from where it is?

[endur]

Step 1: I notice I am confused.
2) It only seems dumb from a DM's vantage due to the DM's additional knowledge.
Step 2: I seek clarity.
Confusion is due to insufficient communication or too much miscommunication.

J has 30 speed
N has 20
And the guards have 30

GM has over-simplified.

Halflings are small. In a panic situation, the big guards are much more likely to focus on the big enemy (the elf) than the small enemy. How many times did Bilbo get overlooked by enemies in the Hobbit?

Personally, I don't think there are dumb decisions. Instead, there are decisions that the GM wouldn't make based on the GM's understanding of the situation.

Part of Great GMing is to listen to the Player's view and make the player's view part of the GM's world.

The elf kicks the door open. The guards tremble in fear. "Don't kick me. I have a wife and four kids to feed."

Or ...

The elf kicks the door open. The elf stubs his toe and limps visibly as he attempts to flee from the guards.

Or ...

The elf kicks the door open. None of the guards pay attention, but one of the other crooks yells, "Go back to sleep. You are making too much noise."

Or ...

[avr]

Maybe during the escape there's a hole a halfling can squeeze thru, but the elf will need to take a longer route around. Maybe the faster guy runs into guards waiting in ambush (seriously, police don't count on being faster runners), leaving the slower guy enough time to duck back and hide.

I'd try to separate the PC whose player made the mistake from the one who didn't. I wouldn't kill off/permanently incarcerate the PC, but he might find himself owing a favor to the guy who eventually gets him out.

[Nibbens]

What do I do when a player wants their character to do something that seems TPK level of dumb from my vantage as the DM?

Step 1: I notice I am confused.
There are several possibilities, none of which I was operating under.

1) It could be smarter than I expect. (Perhaps the noise would have been a suitable distraction, bait for an ambush, or some other plan in the character's head)
2) It only seems dumb from a DM's vantage due to the DM's additional knowledge. (Perhaps the PC's poor intel gathering suggested less security)
3) The player is expecting a different kind of game genre/tone and this would be smarter if we were operating under that different genre/tone. (Perhaps the player is expecting a more "Kick in the door" style of game)


Step 2: I seek clarity.
Confusion is due to insufficient communication or too much miscommunication.

A DM expressing doubt, when used infrequently, has weight without judgement. The players recognize the signal as "DM is worried for us" and double checks their estimates. After which I let their judgement hold sway since now their should be judging based on both their and my opinion which is better than I can do without telepathy.

However sometimes expressing doubt is not enough and things escalate to a bad situation. We now have strong evidence for cases 2 or 3 over case 1 and weak evidence for case 3 over case 2. So now I expect it is time to discuss expectations about the kind of game we are playing. Perhaps the player's expectations are in the minority, or my expectations might be in the minority. Given the new clarity about the average expected tone of the game, we look to the situation at hand. How would solutions to the current situation look in the new game tone. How does the group feel about a time warp if we collectively can't figure out how to play it from where it is?

There's an old meme out there somewhere of Gary Gygax and the quote says "Are you sure you want to do that?"

When the creator of the game says "Are you sure you want to do that?" in so many words or less - you have given your players a warning. When they go through with the action you can either:

TPW - because they knew the consequences would be bad regardless of their reasoning of "it would be cool."

or,

Have them caught again easily (besides, guards don't usually try to 'sword in the gut' unarmed people, even if they are prison escapees) and sent back to jail and now suffer the consequences for "attempting to break out of jail" - this could be anything from losing fingers as suggested earlier, higher fines, or even death (if you're so inclined) (which could lead to more drama as they attempt another escape attempt (this time hopefully better planned - and if I were the elf, I'd kick the door again during the escape just for congruity. lol) This failed escape attempt should spark an investigation into who aided them - and possibly get their benefactor in trouble - which could lead to another twist/complication in the plot - or perhaps it could lead to an internal audit which the guards are now more alert while in prison duty for the next 6 month making all escape attempts harder... Your possibilities are endless.

Also, I wouldn't TPK them just because i'm not that cruel. lol. Besides, there's so much you can build from here.

[atemu1234]

Well, the guards will go for the obviously slower enemy that they CAN catch. Referencing 'The Hobbit' is not an argument.

[Galen]

So in recent days I've been thinking back to a situation a few months ago where one player makes an incredibly stupid decision and the only reason he survived is because I was unwilling to kill the other character.

<snip>
This is where you're wrong. There was no need to kill anyone. The guards that arrive are not there to kill, they arrive to put the prisoners back in their cells. And of course the one who kicked the door, is the instigator, and will get kicked around for a good measure, possibly tightly bound and gagged as not to perform such schenanigans in the future. The halfling will be unharmed (except locked back in his cell).

Later, you drop another plot hook into their lap in the shape of some lockpicks passed to them somehow... maybe inside a cake (classic!). The bound and gagged character has to endure some time of being useless while his halfling pal uses the lockpicks to save them both.

There can always be middle ground - there are consequences for a character's stupidity, but those consequences aren't necessarily "Game Over".

[Darth Ultron]

What would you personally have done in this situation? I had in the spur of the moment decided that this one particular guard was wearing plate so N would have a chance of escaping. Also feel free to mention your own experiences similar to this one so I can learn from it.

The best thing to do here is:

1.Ignore the action So J says ''I kick open the door''. The DM then says ''the door swings open'' and the game rolls on from there exactly like if they had just opened the door like a normal person.

Or you could:

2.A little bad The DM has the door kick open and make a THUMP. Only a single guard, guard Dumbeldum is nearby and rushes over to stop the escape.

3.Foresight Foreshadowing Good guy says ''ok I got all the guards in the armory as a distraction for a couple minutes. Once you get out of your cell, head for the red door. It leads to some stairs on the other side of the building from the armory. Run quick and you can get out no problem''.

[Nightcanon]

Well, the guards will go for the obviously slower enemy that they CAN catch. Referencing 'The Hobbit' is not an argument.Part of the deal with Hobbits in The Hobbit/ LOTR books is that Hobbits aren't obviously or noticeably anything- they are naturally quiet and small and easily overlooked. D&D crunches this with numerical bonuses but to keep the campaign rolling you could hand-wave all sorts of bonuses available to the guy who is the size of a 3 year old.

[Galen]

2.A little bad The DM has the door kick open and make a THUMP. Only a single guard, guard Dumbeldum is nearby and rushes over to stop the escape.
I want to say that, while (1) and (3) are good advice, (2) is probably the worst response possible. The worst thing you can do with an instigator player such as this is giving them an easy fight. It's a fight, so basically what they wanted, and it's easy - he gets to defeat the guard and be cool as he wanted - so encourages such behavior in the future.

[Segev]

When he said, "I'm sure it will be fine," I would have gone on to ask him, "What do you expect the outcome of this action to be?"

That would help get an idea of what the player really is picturing, and what he thinks a reasonable end result might be. If he's not taking "are you sure?" as a big, glaring warning sign, that implies that he is pretty sure that he's got something clever planned.

Your solution of having "this particular guard" wear plate is a valid one. Another solution might've been to have that guard be a dwarf or a halfling or a gnome. (I don't know the demographics of the kingdom in which this took place.)

Personally, I'd probably have suggested to the halfling that he could hide, and then hand-waved the guards' perception checks as being caught by the obviously fleeing Medium-sized elf.

Your solution worked, though, without being unrealistic. Maybe he (foolishly) thought heavier armor made him safer from mages.

[Ferronach]

Personally I would have waited to see what "N" decided to do before doing anything. You clearly provided a warning so the "ball was in their court" so to speak.

If I were N I would have let J make his ruckus and then escaped while the guards were dealing with J.
I then would have come back with the rest of the party and a plan.

There are many ways that N could have responded to the situation and J's actions.
I have found as a DM it is sometimes best to sit back and let the players do what they feel is best and then come up with appropriate consequences.

[elonin]

Maybe I'm an oddball but having relatively little experience I'd let them take what ever actions they choose. And deal with the consequences.

[Deophaun]

If I were N I would have let J make his ruckus and then escaped while the guards were dealing with J.
I then would have come back with the rest of the party and a plan.
Basically this.

If I was DMing and the above happened, I'd give whatever favorable circumstances were reasonable to help N's plan succeed. J, however, can reap what he sows.

[Darth Ultron]

I want to say that, while (1) and (3) are good advice, (2) is probably the worst response possible. The worst thing you can do with an instigator player such as this is giving them an easy fight. It's a fight, so basically what they wanted, and it's easy - he gets to defeat the guard and be cool as he wanted - so encourages such behavior in the future.

Odd you read ''a little bad'' as ''give the player an ego trip''?

[Barstro]

Basically this.

If I was DMing and the above happened, I'd give whatever favorable circumstances were reasonable to help N's plan succeed. J, however, can reap what he sows.

While I do not like allowing players to change the rules (without the correct spells, anyway), this punishes the culpable party and does what it can for the "innocent".