To RetCon or not to RetCon?

[MrNobody]

Hi playgrounder, i need to fish in the vast sea of you experience to solve a problem that came up during the last session of a quest i'm GMing.

A little backstory first.
We play a high.narrative game, with lot of space for personal goals and sidequests, set in 1971.

Player A, high experienced player and dear friend of mine, plays an old-style gangster: from its background, few years before our "today" in game* he had a mafia-war against a gangster family of the city (let's call them Giulio's), won and exiled them.
In the first quest of the game set in another city where the Giulio's fled, i used two brother of that family as middlemen (the party had the money, the 2 brothers stole the object needed, the "mission" was about successfully accomplish the Exchange); long story short, things went bad, a young member of the Giulio's got killed, mafia war started over.

From then on, for like 6 month of games (real life time) the war went on in background, becoming a sort of chess game between me and player A. Nothing too demanding, just a couple of rolls and questions every session, actions and reaction, to keep it going while the main quests developed.

Now player A decided its time to end the game with a checkmate: he had one of his closest and most powerful subordinate call the Giulio's and feign a double play, lurking them back in the city. He manages to persuade them that they are setting a trap while they are the prey.

Now... we have also player B, Also dear friend but first time gamer, plays a violent post-fascist thug, that loves to settle arguments with his own fists.
Along with the group, he decides to help player A.

Last night we come to the showdown: the group reached the place designed for the "trap in the trap" to take place. They hide, trying to ambush the Giulio's.
The talk 2 full hours about who, what, where, when and so on and discover that what they are going to ambush is only a small part of the Giulio's army. Player A sets the plan: we take them alive, we have them call the rest saying everything it's ok, they come, we kill everybody.
Everyone in the party, including player B, agrees. They also agree on NOT using heavy weapons, like grenades, since the place they are is not THAT isolated and an explosion would alert those who live around there.

The Giulio's arrive, from one of the cars exits one of the Giulio's brothers, unexpected.

Player B has the initiative, toss in a grenade (me: are you sure? Yes i am. You really are? Yes, my PC would do that). Due to darkness and fog, he has a poor launch, manages to kill the Giulio's -every one of them- but also wounds player A (astonished) and a few peons.

The ambush is compromised, people from the surrounding starts to arrive, and police too.


In all of this, player A gets mad, like - really - mad. It doesn't put up a scene or anything but, i know him, he went berserk in his own mind. He stops to speak at the "my pc would do so"... he is mad.
I can't blame him: a grenade ruined months of work and planning.

I had the party flee to a secure place and stop the game. Things began getting awkward and air so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Today, i talked to player B, he admitted that he may have not thought enough about that action and that his PC wouldn't have done it really, after all. I explained him that his action ruined without any explenation player's A sidequest, that he was there to help and so on.

Aside from that, now i'm thinking about offering the group a retcon. Go back to the moment before the grenade was toss and continue from there. I feel like player a deserves this.

Playgrounders, what would you do? Would you retcon or go on with the flow?

[Kesnit]

Player B is on board with this, so who would be objecting?

Do the retcon.

[Malifice]

Retcon without retconning.

The PCs notice on the News TV that the Mob bosses are still alive. Badly wounded, but still alive, and in Hospital under heavy guard.

[Kaptin Keen]

Retcon without retconning.

The PCs notice on the News TV that the Mob bosses are still alive. Badly wounded, but still alive, and in Hospital under heavy guard.

Or, a week from now, the press release the news that the 'Guilio's' ... aren't the Guilio's. They're good look-alikes, but that's all. The real gangsters are nowhere to be found, but are almost sure to be plotting something, now that they know what to expect from the group of players.

[MoiMagnus]

You also need player A's confirmation before RetCon-ing.
I know some players who will feel like "they didn't deserve this victory" if the victory come from a RetCon.

RetCon is ok since you just changed the last scene. (That's just a "reloading previous save").

However, this isn't the only solution. As said by Malifice, you can also find a way to make this preparation not wasted, by offering an easy way to do "approximately the same".

[Cikomyr]

I like the RetCon without Retconing.

You can pull strings to have stuff other than what the players saw happen, happen. Some survived, or maybe someone think the grenade was from a third party.

I am not 100% on board with saying "it didn't happen". Because the whole point is that stuff happen, and there are consequences. But then again, just because it happened doesn't mean players should have their fun ruined.

I think you should consider improvising a plot twist from the seats of your pants. Your stated timeline and the setting reminds me of cheesy spy thriller, including the video game Phantom Doctrine. In that game, the idea of capturing and brainwashing people so they do a critical act at a critical moment is part of the gameplay.

Now, what if Player B had been retconned in having been previously victim of such brainwashing? And his action that, at the moment made sense but in retrospect doesn't, are explained because he wasn't 100% in control of his actions?

Make it the KGB, the CIA, the FBI, a third party. Whatever. Anyone who had a plan in place to profit from that blunder. Perhaps it's the established main villains of your campaign, maybe it's a new player?

From there, you can have perhaps tie in the war between the rival family and player A to suddenly be a small piece of a large, large puzzle. And player B's blunder is the source of all that reveal.

Having a blunder having consequences that did not ruin everyone's fun (and granted, you may have to do an ass pull in order to make sure player A doesn't feel cheated) makes sure that the blunder will be memorable for everyone. Your players will always remember how a **** up opened up the story.

[icefractal]

Retcon, but maybe talk to A first

[MrNobody]

First of all, thanks everyone!!!:smile:


Retcon, but maybe talk to A first


You also need player A's confirmation before RetCon-ing.
I know some players who will feel like "they didn't deserve this victory" if the victory come from a RetCon.


I will talk to him for sure, as well as i'll ask to the other players too: as a GM I don't like to take such an important decision without talking about it with every player, expecially if it's something that bothers me as much as a RetCon.
In 15 years of proud GMing this is the first time i find myself in the position of wanting to RetCon a game.

The main reason i cant' easily think about doing a Retcon is that pretty much goes against my GMing philosophy: never try to actively kill PCs, help them achieve their goals but never save them from the consequences of they actions.

I've seen a lot of things happen during these years: players acting stupid, going murderhobo against the NPCs and against each other with or without any reason... but not even once the event was as disruptive as this time.



The PCs notice on the News TV that the Mob bosses are still alive. Badly wounded, but still alive, and in Hospital under heavy guard.


Or, a week from now, the press release the news that the 'Guilio's' ... aren't the Guilio's. They're good look-alikes, but that's all. The real gangsters are nowhere to be found, but are almost sure to be plotting something, now that they know what to expect from the group of players.

While i like the idea of a partial retcon (that will require some work anyway, since the group had the time to make sure that the gangsters were really the Giulio's and that they were really dead, first of all because their limbs were scattered all around the place) i don't think that saving the Giulio's will solve my problem.

In fact, the deal isn't that the Giulio's were killed (the group would have attacked them the following day, anyway) but the consequences of blowing up (litterally) the plan. I'll try to explain better.

The Giulio's were planning to come to the meeting point in small waves, two cars at a time (up to 8 cars): the group the PCs ambushed were the first, that should have started preparing the meeting place for the following day.
The explosion woke up the nearby town, a lot of people came, and then also came the police that started doing it's job in a place were there was an explosion, a work that requires enough time to have the second wave arrive, discover that the place is now prejudiced and very likely that the other Giulio's are dead (or badly wounded, it's no different).
The group, meantime, fled so far that won't likely be able to stop them to find this out.

In addition, the dead/wounded Giulio's brother was the young, smarter, calmer of the couple. The other one is a CHAOTIC EVIL (all capital) old man with the attitude of a wild boar that i'm sure won't hesitate to burn down the city to avenge the brother and the other family members.

Dead or alive, the only reaction that is consistent with the Giulio's behaviour so far is an excalation of violence (considering also that now the "voice of reason" of the couple is not available), starting from the double-player that had formerly set up the meeting and then... anyone else.

That's why i think that if a Retcon is to be done, i need to go back BEFORE the grenade is tossed: otherwise, i see no way to fix things in a way that will back to player A even 1% of what he biult up during the last months of games (my first concern, above all).

That said, still i can't make up my mind about doing it or not...

[DMThac0]

Don't retcon, don't "fix" the mistake, and don't let player b off the hook.

Your side quest just took a massive left turn and went down the drain in terms of being in the background. There will be an escalation in the war, but before that happens the more aggressive brother is going to have to retreat and gather forces. So for now it'll get quiet on that front. The authorities are going to be aware of something big that just went down and are going to be on high alert. The party is going to have to regroup and figure out what to do now.

I would suggest figuring out how to take this new development and weaving it into the story arc that you had them doing. Introduce elements of the side quest into it. Make their story arc more difficult with the authorities being present and looking for trouble. have the Giulio's start interfering with them. Have them attack safe houses, store rooms, businesses and friends/family while the party tries to accomplish their original task.

It may take more work on your part, but it should emphasize the need to be more aware of "This is what my character would do..." vs "This is what we agreed on and my character actually has cognitive abilities."

[Black Jester]

With some very, very rare exceptions, a retcon is almost always the worst possible way to handle a situation like this. You do not only disruppt the actual chain of events, you also take away your player's agency, effectively robbing them on their chance to actually influence the plot and setting in a meaningful way.
Your players can only truly succeed in a meaningful way if there is a distinctive chance of failure. Without the risk of failing, there is no actual achievement in victory, but if you have the chance to fail, events as you described can happen. That is a necessary risk of freedom: You can make a bad decision and then you have to live with the consequences. By erasing these consequences, you also take the away the meaning of the decisions that let to the decision in the first place.
It is also a highly disrespectful and patronizing way to treat your players, strongly implying that they cannot handle any setbacks in a game.

I would suggest invinting the two players in question, provide sufficient amounts of cofffee and cake as well as a bit of moderation, and let them clarify their isssues in a short talk.

From a narrative standpoint, you probably have a lot of additional material now that you, as a gamemaster, can use. It is not a catastrophe, it is an opportunity to expand the game in a new direction.

[Jay R]

The word "retcon" has two different meanings. The original one was "retroactive continuity". It meant a change in the backstory that doesn't change any action you've seen, but instead, shows that what you thought you saw wasn't accurate.

A retcon in this sense is to learn that the Giulios sent look-alikes in their place. I think that allows you to continue without taking away what actually happened.

Alternatively, the new leaders of the mob have no particular beef with your character, and would rather make money than war, and offer a truce.

But you gave player B two chances to back off, and he refused. If you let him off the hook now, then he'll never learn to play well with the party.

[LordEntrails]

I agree with @DMThac0 and @Black Jester,

Things don't always go as planned. Stuff happens. To retcon it means that actions do not have consequences. Player A allowed player B to get involved. Player B messed up the plan. Both players now have to live with it. Accept it and move on. Turn it into an amazing twist that furthers the depth of the story.

If nothing unplanned happens, then you should be writing a book with a pre-defined plot, not playing an RPG.

[Kesnit]

With some very, very rare exceptions, a retcon is almost always the worst possible way to handle a situation like this. You do not only disruppt the actual chain of events, you also take away your player's agency, effectively robbing them on their chance to actually influence the plot and setting in a meaningful way.

Although in this situation, I would argue that allowing things to run the way they did is taking away player agency. This is not a situation where the PCs ran in without thinking and got in over their heads. They had a plan. They had worked out the plan. All the PCs bought into the plan. They put the plan into action. And one player decided to be a jerk. All the other PCs did what they were supposed to do - what about their agency?


Your players can only truly succeed in a meaningful way if there is a distinctive chance of failure. Without the risk of failing, there is no actual achievement in victory, but if you have the chance to fail, events as you described can happen.

And if they had all followed the plan and it still failed, that would make sense. But that isn't what happened. One player decided - without discussing it with anyone in- or out-of-character - to go off into his own little world. There was not a chance for the other PCs (or players) to stop him.


That is a necessary risk of freedom: You can make a bad decision and then you have to live with the consequences.

Not retconning forces all the other players to live with the consequences of Player B's actions. They aren't the ones who went off half-cocked. They followed the plan until out of the blue, one player did something stupid.


By erasing these consequences, you also take the away the meaning of the decisions that let to the decision in the first place.

The decision that "we won't use grenades" that every PC agreed to - including Player B? The decision to make a plan, rather than just run in and see what happens?


It is also a highly disrespectful and patronizing way to treat your players, strongly implying that they cannot handle any setbacks in a game.

It's highly disrespectful for Player B to get away with being a jerk, and take the plan that they agreed to follow and throw it out the window, just for the "fun" of it.

[DMThac0]

Although in this situation, I would argue that allowing things to run the way they did is taking away player agency. This is not a situation where the PCs ran in without thinking and got in over their heads. They had a plan. They had worked out the plan. All the PCs bought into the plan. They put the plan into action. And one player decided to be a jerk. All the other PCs did what they were supposed to do - what about their agency?

And if they had all followed the plan and it still failed, that would make sense. But that isn't what happened. One player decided - without discussing it with anyone in- or out-of-character - to go off into his own little world. There was not a chance for the other PCs (or players) to stop him.


How many times in books, movies, sports, racing, relationships, and life in general do people make plans and then someone does something to mess the whole thing up? A.lot. Just because you make a plan doesn't guarantee that someone won't change their mind and try something without communicating. Just like a drunk tattoo, a trip down the roof on a garbage can lid, or tossing a grenade to wipe out the entire opposition.

This doesn't take away anyone's agency, instead it reaasserts it by saying "You chose an action, congratulations here's your result". If, by any stretch of the imagination, there was a mistake made it's potentially in the vein that these actions happened outside of an initiative order. That is a guess since it's not something that has been clarified.


Not retconning forces all the other players to live with the consequences of Player B's actions. They aren't the ones who went off half-cocked. They followed the plan until out of the blue, one player did something stupid.

Welcome to TTRPGs, where the actions of one, or many, are going to influence THE ENTIRE GAME. It's not a vacuum where each players' actions only affect them, it's a group game. The crux of it is, no player's actions were wrong intrisicly, simply the reasoning (in my opinion) behind the "why" was wrong.


The decision that "we won't use grenades" that every PC agreed to - including Player B? The decision to make a plan, rather than just run in and see what happens?

This is how you play the game: DM narrates a scene, players choose an action, DM explains the consequences. DM narrates the new scene, players choose new actions based on the consequences of the previous scene, DM eplains new consequences, ad nauseum.

No where in there does it say "DM saves the players from their actions".


It's highly disrespectful for Player B to get away with being a jerk, and take the plan that they agreed to follow and throw it out the window, just for the "fun" of it.

It is highly disrespectful that player b CHOOSE that action. It is very respectful to explain the consequences of that choice AFTER giving the player a chance to consider the actions.

[MrNobody]

DMThac0, Kesnit, you two are exactly to two voices echoing in my mind since friday night! :)

Since DmThac0 asked, the action happened "in iniziative": i described the arrival of the Giulio's, rolling spot vs hide until the group wanted to not reveal. When they agreed to strike, given that they weren't find out, i had them roll for initiative and act in their "surprise round".

[DMThac0]

DMThac0, Kesnit, you two are exactly to two voices echoing in my mind since friday night! :)

Since DmThac0 asked, the action happened "in iniziative": i described the arrival of the Giulio's, rolling spot vs hide until the group wanted to not reveal. When they agreed to strike, given that they weren't find out, i had them roll for initiative and act in their "surprise round".

With this being said, I fall back on the age old mantra that I've used when I introduce players to any TTRPG I DM:

"I don't kill characters, players kill characters."

They are free to make any choices they want, within the scope of the game. If they choose not to follow the plan that the group made, it's on them. If they choose to befriend the BBEG and wipe out the world, it's on them. If they choose to follow every plot hook, do everything while riding on the "rails", it's on them. I am nothing more than the Referee, the adjudicator of consequences, and the voice that crafts mental images and stories for them to interact with. I do not exist in the game, I am the DM, I am the boundaries and gears that make the game continue to move forward.

[PaladinX]

I agree with team don't RetCon. Player B went off script but that kind of thing happens all the time. People don't always follow a plan. Player B should probably suffer for his actions, and someone has to take away those grenades. Player B's character has a lot to do before he can make up for this one. which could lead to an interesting redemption arch for his character.

[PaladinX]

The best DMing advice I can give for moving forward is to always give a chance for the other players to react to another player going rogue on a plan. Something like "Even though you all just agreed that you won't use heavy weapons you all see Player B's character take out a grenade and pull the pin.... What do you do?"

[Kesnit]

How many times in books, movies, sports, racing, relationships, and life in general do people make plans and then someone does something to mess the whole thing up?

In movies and books, it's scripted. The people aren't real, and everyone know that the change of plan is going to happen.

Yes, such things happen in real life, too. But the difference is that this is supposed to be a fun event. Gaming is supposed to be enjoyable. As it stands, there is a very angry player who just watched everything he had worked for go down the tubes because someone decided to be stupid.


This doesn't take away anyone's agency, instead it reaasserts it by saying "You chose an action, congratulations here's your result".

It lets Player B keep their agency, but takes away agency from every other player.


Welcome to TTRPGs, where the actions of one, or many, are going to influence THE ENTIRE GAME.

And this is where we come back to the concept of "fun." Yes, there is the saying "no plan survives encounter with the players." But that is aimed at DMs, and is a warning that players will sometimes do outlandish things to throw a wrench in the DM's plans. That isn't what happens here. Here, all the players agreed to how things would go, and then one player got stupid.

BTW, OP, why did Player B decide his PC would throw the grenade? That part is not really explained. The way your post is written, it sounds like this was Player A's plot, and Player B and the rest were just along. There's no context for Player B's PC's actions.


This is how you play the game: DM narrates a scene, players choose an action, DM explains the consequences. DM narrates the new scene, players choose new actions based on the consequences of the previous scene, DM eplains new consequences, ad nauseum.

And again, we come back to the concept of "fun." The way it reads, Player B was a jerk for no reason at all. Maybe there is a context that is missing, but the way it reads, Player B decided to throw everything the party discussed out the window.

As I said before, if the party had put their plan in motion and something external to the party (including bad rolls on their part, or good rolls for the mafia guys) caused their plan to go into the toilet, such is life. But that is not what happened. One player ACTIVELY decided to screw over everyone else for no reason at all.


No where in there does it say "DM saves the players from their actions".

And nowhere does it say players can be jerks to other players with no consequences. These forums are full of stories about bad players.

And that is what this comes down to - a bad player. One player decided that his stupidity was more important than anything else in the game. Letting him get away with it just tells everyone that they can do whatever they want.


The best DMing advice I can give for moving forward is to always give a chance for the other players to react to another player going rogue on a plan. Something like "Even though you all just agreed that you won't use heavy weapons you all see Player B's character take out a grenade and pull the pin.... What do you do?"

This is a good middle ground. Give the other players a chance to stop Player B from throwing the grenade (or whatever they do). That gives agency back to the other players. If it still comes out that Player B succeeds in throwing the grenade, at least there was some chance to stop it.

[DMThac0]

@Kesnit

From my understanding I could, rightfully, expect a RetCon from you in this example:

I tell my party I want to put the group of monsters ahead of us to sleep so we can sneak by them without a fight and the group says OK.
Just as we approach someone in my group casts a massive AoE which wipes the monsters out.

Because the other player chose to kill everything, I can expect to return to the game next time to just before we approached?

[Black Jester]

In movies and books, it's scripted. The people aren't real, and everyone know that the change of plan is going to happen.

Yes, such things happen in real life, too. But the difference is that this is supposed to be a fun event. Gaming is supposed to be enjoyable. As it stands, there is a very angry player who just watched everything he had worked for go down the tubes because someone decided to be stupid.



The overwhelming amount of media is supposed to entertain, enthrall or captivate in one way or the other. It is definetely not a unique element of an RPG that the players are involved in it because it allows for some form of satisfaction.

Also, RPGs happen in 'real life'. They are played by real players who make real decisions - albeit about fictional events. It is not the character's decisions that let to this point, it is the players' choices. Especially if they are bad decisions.

And, by its very nature, a retcon is therefore an intrusive hackjob. The continuity of the events as played out in the concrete games become irrelevant (and thus cheapened) by pretending that they didn't happen. The players were there. They, the real people, experienced what happened. This is something one cannot change, and which is why also why a retcon always feels forced and intrusive. By design, a retcon's impact on the campaign is therefore always a net negative - if the events that are retconned are not so messed up that they are uninanimously considered to be beyond the pale by all involved players.

The described events are simply not impactful enough. Sure, one player messed up. That happens. I mean, there is not even a single dead character or partially devoured infant. That isn't a tragic event that requires to put an axe to the contunity and decision-making abilities of the players; it is just a tuesday.

[Kesnit]

@Kesnit

From my understanding I could, rightfully, expect a RetCon from you in this example:

I tell my party I want to put the group of monsters ahead of us to sleep so we can sneak by them without a fight and the group says OK.
Just as we approach someone in my group casts a massive AoE which wipes the monsters out.

Because the other player chose to kill everything, I can expect to return to the game next time to just before we approached?

The difference is that the end result is the same - the party got past the monsters. Contrast the OP, where the end result is not at all like what was planned.


The overwhelming amount of media is supposed to entertain, enthrall or captivate in one way or the other. It is definetely not a unique element of an RPG that the players are involved in it because it allows for some form of satisfaction.

Except books and movies are passive enjoyment - the reader/viewer is not personally involved in the events.


Also, RPGs happen in 'real life'. They are played by real players who make real decisions - albeit about fictional events. It is not the character's decisions that let to this point, it is the players' choices. Especially if they are bad decisions.

And that is my point. One player made a very stupid decision, messing over the plans that everyone else (including the player in question) agree to.


And, by its very nature, a retcon is therefore an intrusive hackjob. The continuity of the events as played out in the concrete games become irrelevant (and thus cheapened) by pretending that they didn't happen. The players were there. They, the real people, experienced what happened.

Yes, real people experienced the events - and that is the problem. A real person is angry because another person decided to be a jerk. Again, this is not an issue of bad luck or bad rolls. This is the case of a person making a conscious decision to literally blow up another player's plot.


if the events that are retconned are not so messed up that they are uninanimously considered to be beyond the pale by all involved players.

But that is the situation here. Player A is angry. Player B is looking back and saying "I should not have done that." Granted, we don't know how the other players feel, and that is a consideration. What we do know, however, is that the players most involved think this should be changed.


The described events are simply not impactful enough.

The actions literally blew up a personal plot that Player A had been working on for 6 months. How is that not impactful?


Sure, one player messed up. That happens. I mean, there is not even a single dead character or partially devoured infant.

Except the NPCs that got blown up by Player B, leading to consequences that Player A seems to have been trying to avoid.


That isn't a tragic event that requires to put an axe to the contunity and decision-making abilities of the players

Except all the work Player A put into developing the plot.

[DMThac0]

The difference is that the end result is the same - the party got past the monsters. Contrast the OP, where the end result is not at all like what was planned.


The goal, from the OP, was:

Player A sets the plan: we take them alive, we have them call the rest saying everything it's ok, they come, we kill everybody.
Everyone in the party, including player B, agrees.

Player B was premature in the action and only got part of the forces.

So...the only real difference is that, in my example, none of the monsters were excluded from being killed, thus no RetCon necessary?

[icefractal]

But you gave player B two chances to back off, and he refused. If you let him off the hook now, then he'll never learn to play well with the party.
Hells to the no. This isn't about Player B. It isn't about his learning experience or his redemption arc. It's about Player A, and going forward with events would most likely screw his arc up.

Now isn't it about all the players equally? Usually yes. In the case that one player has been working up to something for six months, then no, it isn't. Player B has plenty of other opportunities to have an arc, this particular one isn't it.

But still, play to find out what happens, right? The situation arose in-game, it should be settled in-game, shouldn't it? IMO, no, because it didn't occur purely IC.
Meta Factor 1: Character A would probably not have involved loose-cannon Character B in his important plan, except for the fact that real person A doesn't want to exclude real person B.
Meta Factor 2: Player B, in no danger of harm, was likely taking the situation much less seriously than Character B would have been.
Therefore, a meta solution seems appropriate.

One other thing - are you prepared to have either Character A or B leave the party? Because the most plausible, non-metagaming, IC response to someone screwing up all your plans that badly is to immediately stop working with that person.

[DMThac0]

One other thing - are you prepared to have either Character A or B leave the party? Because the most plausible, non-metagaming, IC response to someone screwing up all your plans that badly is to immediately stop working with that person.

Well, you just proposed a solution that could happen in game. I've had numerous situations in game where I've told party members they weren't allowed to join me on something I was going to do because they've done things that make me not trust them. I don't have to exclude them from the game as a whole, simply let them know in game that they're not being brought along or simply go off and do my thing without even informing them that I'm heading out.

You're correct that this isn't solely about one player, it's about the whole group. So how does the group handle the situation? It's also a game, nothing is on the line, no one is out anything serious, and if it was such a horrible situation, I'd be willing to bet they'd talk about it outside the game.

I'm willing to bet that every single person who's commented on this thread has made a poor choice similar to what that player did. I'm also willing to bet that none of them lost anything more than some dignity. As well I'd bet that they all continued to play in that game for some time afterward, so long as that situation was a fluke. Players who continuously choose to screw up the game for a table, rather than a mistake, are almost always going to leave or be removed.

[BWR]

I generally only retcon major issues, like TPKs, and only if I as the GM have been at fault, like giving faulty or insufficient information to the players about what the PCs know, or if there has been a grave misunderstanding, or something of the sort. Ending or majorly messing up a game because of something you did as a player is annoying, but when it's because of a GM it really feels unfair.

In the OP's case, I agree with most other posters here. Suck it up and move on. There are lots of good suggestions about what to do. Do not just wave your GM wand and declare something a bit unpopular didn't happen.

[icefractal]

As well I'd bet that they all continued to play in that game for some time afterward, so long as that situation was a fluke. Players who continuously choose to screw up the game for a table, rather than a mistake, are almost always going to leave or be removed.I'm not talking about kicking the player out of the group, I'm talking about kicking the character out of the party.

Since a lot of people have been focusing on "go with whatever happens in-game, meta concerns mean nothing", then I'm simply looking at the likely effect of that - when you remove the fact that "Bob, the loose cannon" is played by another person at the table, a likely IC response to the events described is something like "Bob, I never want to see your lousy face again. Goodbye."

It's an issue with handling everything IC. And the other is that if you were trying to be IC-realistic when forming a gang / party / whatever, it probably doesn't involve letting some guy you've talked to in a bar for a few minutes become a full member of the group just like that.

[Pauly]

Is there any way to link the side quest to the main story. Would the Guilios join forces with the BBEG to extract revenge?

On one hand the side quest blew up. On the other you may have an opportunity to send the main plot on an interesting twist.

[Quertus]

This is a difficult and complex issue.

First off, stupid happens. OP, if you've been gaming for many years, and this is the first time you've witnessed it, consider yourself lucky / blessed.

As a rule, I oppose "do over" unless continuity is already ****ed. Usually, this involves a realization that the rules don't work the way that they were misread, the individual did not have the resource that they used, metagame knowledge was used, etc. So, "do over" means someone (usually the GM) or even everyone ****ed up.

As a rule, if there's no way that a "do over" could be preceded by, "since there's no way that could have happened", I'm vehemently opposed to them. However, much like "role-playing is good, metagaming is bad", I've found that there are exceptions worth being made.

I was taught that role-playing was Good. To the school of thought that I was trained in, "my guy" syndrome was grounds for sainthood - of course "what your character would do" is the correct answer. But, sometimes, if you take a step back, you realize that there's other options that are equally in character, that won't **** over everyone else's (or even your own) fun. Pick those, don't run "my guy". And, when there isn't an option that simultaneously is in character and preserves the fun of the game, break to an OOC discussion, and ask the group if they'd like to change reality to a more fun scenario. Give everyone the agency to roleplay their characters correctly, but allow reality to be mutable to make such role-playing produce an enjoyable game.

Same thing here. Everyone had the agency to take whatever actions they chose, and for those actions to have logical consequences. But this has resulted in an unfun game. And, depending on the group, could have long-term OOC repercussions, possibly including bad blood, or loss of players.

So, there's no easy answers. Maybe letting things go as is will be toxic. Maybe rerunning scenario will result in bad rolls and another PC's death, and be toxic. Maybe even bringing up a "do over", and making the players lose faith in the "truth" of your games will be toxic. I've seen all of these happen.

IMO, you need to walk in with open eyes as to what's on the line. You need to get your players to buy in to whichever gaming religion y'all decide on, you need to get them to believe in the righteousness of the choice, and to believe in it yourself - whichever way you go.

-----

On a related note, this is why I advocate "it is your responsibility to protect your fun". In this scenario, player A could have spoken up and called player B out on his declared actions.

Now, obviously, in this particular scenario, it's obvious that player B did a dumb that would hurt the fun of player A. But IRL (IRG? IaRG?), it isn't always this obvious, and it's both unfair and unwise to trust it to the GM to know what everyone finds fun, and to protect everyone's fun.

Really, it's on everyone to protect everyone's fun. If you see that the spider mini someone just brought out is causing someone at the table excessive discomfort, bloody well point it out / deal with it! This is a group social activity for fun - act that way, dagnabbit!

But you cannot trust that everyone is a mind reader, cannot trust that anyone but you knows what's going on inside your head, knows what you find fun. So, first and foremost, protect and produce your fun; secondarily, protect and nurture the fun of everyone else at the table.

That's my gaming religion. What's yours?

[Pelle]

This story shows why it's stupid of GMs to ask "are you sure?" when the player most likely doesn't understand why it's a bad idea. If the GM had asked "hey, if you do that it will kind of ruin the personal story Player A has going, making him have an unfun experience, so are you sure you want to do that?" the player would probably have considered his options differently. Well, hindsight is 20/20.

[PaladinX]

This story shows why it's stupid of GMs to ask "are you sure?" when the player most likely doesn't understand why it's a bad idea. If the GM had asked "hey, if you do that it will kind of ruin the personal story Player A has going, making him have an unfun experience, so are you sure you want to do that?" the player would probably have considered his options differently. Well, hindsight is 20/20.

I agree with this statement the whole "are you sure?" business is over played and some GM's use it to create dramatic tension. Better to lay down the actual consequences to the action then ask if they are sure they still want to do it.

[DMThac0]

I agree with this statement the whole "are you sure?" business is over played and some GM's use it to create dramatic tension. Better to lay down the actual consequences to the action then ask if they are sure they still want to do it.

Are you sure you want to throw that grenade? You could kill everyone on the enemy side. You could miss and do nothing. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest you. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest everyone. You could not throw the grenade and possibly die because the enemies overwhelm you. You could not toss the grenade and successfully pull off the plan. You could toss the grenade, kill everyone and find out that there's a second wave of enemies. You could not throw the grenade and find out that there's a chance at making the group your allies. You could throw the grenade and find out it's a dud. You could not throw the grenade and join with the other group betraying your party. You could....

How many actual consequences do you lay out to make sure they want to do it. I just made all of those up off the top of my head in less than a minute, the same as if I was in the DM's chair. All of those are actual consequences that could happen based on die rolls, and how the story is played out.

I agree asking "are you sure" to artificially create dramatic tension is a poor choice. I'd offer instead pretty much what the OP already did but add the last half of the question that seems to have been missing:

"Are you sure you want to do that, it's not what you guys had agreed upon."

At this point in time it's up to the player to do the rest of the thinking, not the DM.

[PaladinX]

Are you sure you want to throw that grenade? You could kill everyone on the enemy side. You could miss and do nothing. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest you. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest everyone. You could not throw the grenade and possibly die because the enemies overwhelm you. You could not toss the grenade and successfully pull off the plan. You could toss the grenade, kill everyone and find out that there's a second wave of enemies. You could not throw the grenade and find out that there's a chance at making the group your allies. You could throw the grenade and find out it's a dud. You could not throw the grenade and join with the other group betraying your party. You could....

None of these.


many actual consequences do you lay out to make sure they want to do it. I just made all of those up off the top of my head in less than a minute, the same as if I was in the DM's chair. All of those are actual consequences that could happen based on die rolls, and how the story is played out.

I agree asking "are you sure" to artificially create dramatic tension is a poor choice. I'd offer instead pretty much what the OP already did but add the last half of the question that seems to have been missing:

"Are you sure you want to do that, it's not what you guys had agreed upon."

At this point in time it's up to the player to do the rest of the thinking, not the DM.

This is what I was trying to get at.

[Pelle]

Are you sure you want to throw that grenade? You could kill everyone on the enemy side. You could miss and do nothing. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest you. You could alert the cops and they'd arrest everyone. You could not throw the grenade and possibly die because the enemies overwhelm you. You could not toss the grenade and successfully pull off the plan. You could toss the grenade, kill everyone and find out that there's a second wave of enemies. You could not throw the grenade and find out that there's a chance at making the group your allies. You could throw the grenade and find out it's a dud. You could not throw the grenade and join with the other group betraying your party. You could....


These are the sorts of questions that the player thinks the DM is asking about when he only says "are you sure?". Yes, the player has really considered all of the above, and is sure about that he wants to risk those things. Of course he is sure.

However, what the player haven't thought about, is that this action can ruin the fun for another player. If the GM suspect that might be the case, the GM needs to express why he asks if the player is sure, because the player mistakenly thinks he knows why the GM asks. Because he can't read the minds of other players. And since the GM also can't read players' mind, Player A should really speak up himself to inform the player about to ruin his fun.

[DMThac0]

These are the sorts of questions that the player thinks the DM is asking about when he only says "are you sure?". Yes, the player has really considered all of the above, and is sure about that he wants to risk those things. Of course he is sure.

However, what the player haven't thought about, is that this action can ruin the fun for another player. If the GM suspect that might be the case, the GM needs to express why he asks if the player is sure, because the player mistakenly thinks he knows why the GM asks. Because he can't read the minds of other players. And since the GM also can't read players' mind, Player A should really speak up himself to inform the player about to ruin his fun.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that what player b did was a poor choice, I agree that the answer "It's what my character would do." is a cheap response to validate that poor choice, and I agree that player a has the right to be upset that everything went south because of that choice.

The issue I have with this argument is that it assumes one person's fun is wrong because they did not follow the plan of the group.

You're telling one player that because their decision caused a different player's plan to go wrong that their fun is "bad wrong fun". Because the group made a decision and agreed upon it, that is the "good right fun". Even though our characters are supposed to have agency; because you chose to exert that agency at a critical time that's "bad wrong fun".

Last night I had a player who left his group, sneaking off in the shadows, while they were traveling through dangerous territory simply so he could steal the glory of the group's latest victory. Abandoned them, with threats around them, so he could get the reward and fame all for himself. There were a few comments about his actions, one of the players was visibly agitated by it. I didn't ask "are you sure", I didn't prompt him in any way, I simply let him do his thing. That is his fun, even though some of the rest of the players didn't agree, who am I to stop them from having their fun? The group made their way through the rest of the game just fine, had their fun as well. The night ended on a high note and they all talked about the parts of the game they enjoyed best. They also made remarks about the character sneaking off and expressed their displeasure.

Just because one player does something that one, or more, of the other players don't agree with, it doesn't make it "bad wrong fun". Part of the dynamic of this game is the social interaction while pretending to be someone else. If a player is doing something toward/against a player, rather than character, then we're talking about "bad wrong fun". If the player is making those disruptive choices repeatedly, for the sake of being disruptive, that is "bad wrong fun". If it's a singular occurrence...that's just a mistake.

[zlefin]

Hi playgrounder, i need to fish in the vast sea of you experience to solve a problem that came up during the last session of a quest i'm GMing.

A little backstory first.
We play a high.narrative game, with lot of space for personal goals and sidequests, set in 1971.

Player A, high experienced player and dear friend of mine, plays an old-style gangster: from its background, few years before our "today" in game* he had a mafia-war against a gangster family of the city (let's call them Giulio's), won and exiled them.
In the first quest of the game set in another city where the Giulio's fled, i used two brother of that family as middlemen (the party had the money, the 2 brothers stole the object needed, the "mission" was about successfully accomplish the Exchange); long story short, things went bad, a young member of the Giulio's got killed, mafia war started over.

From then on, for like 6 month of games (real life time) the war went on in background, becoming a sort of chess game between me and player A. Nothing too demanding, just a couple of rolls and questions every session, actions and reaction, to keep it going while the main quests developed.

Now player A decided its time to end the game with a checkmate: he had one of his closest and most powerful subordinate call the Giulio's and feign a double play, lurking them back in the city. He manages to persuade them that they are setting a trap while they are the prey.

Now... we have also player B, Also dear friend but first time gamer, plays a violent post-fascist thug, that loves to settle arguments with his own fists.
Along with the group, he decides to help player A.

Last night we come to the showdown: the group reached the place designed for the "trap in the trap" to take place. They hide, trying to ambush the Giulio's.
The talk 2 full hours about who, what, where, when and so on and discover that what they are going to ambush is only a small part of the Giulio's army. Player A sets the plan: we take them alive, we have them call the rest saying everything it's ok, they come, we kill everybody.
Everyone in the party, including player B, agrees. They also agree on NOT using heavy weapons, like grenades, since the place they are is not THAT isolated and an explosion would alert those who live around there.

The Giulio's arrive, from one of the cars exits one of the Giulio's brothers, unexpected.

Player B has the initiative, toss in a grenade (me: are you sure? Yes i am. You really are? Yes, my PC would do that). Due to darkness and fog, he has a poor launch, manages to kill the Giulio's -every one of them- but also wounds player A (astonished) and a few peons.

The ambush is compromised, people from the surrounding starts to arrive, and police too.


In all of this, player A gets mad, like - really - mad. It doesn't put up a scene or anything but, i know him, he went berserk in his own mind. He stops to speak at the "my pc would do so"... he is mad.
I can't blame him: a grenade ruined months of work and planning.

I had the party flee to a secure place and stop the game. Things began getting awkward and air so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Today, i talked to player B, he admitted that he may have not thought enough about that action and that his PC wouldn't have done it really, after all. I explained him that his action ruined without any explenation player's A sidequest, that he was there to help and so on.

Aside from that, now i'm thinking about offering the group a retcon. Go back to the moment before the grenade was toss and continue from there. I feel like player a deserves this.

Playgrounders, what would you do? Would you retcon or go on with the flow?

talk to all parties involved, and if they're fine iwth it retcon away.
keeping people happy is more important than verisimilitude in the game world.

[Pelle]

The issue I have with this argument is that it assumes one person's fun is wrong because they did not follow the plan of the group.

You're telling one player that because their decision caused a different player's plan to go wrong that their fun is "bad wrong fun". Because the group made a decision and agreed upon it, that is the "good right fun". Even though our characters are supposed to have agency; because you chose to exert that agency at a critical time that's "bad wrong fun".


Nope, not at all. I am saying that the player should simply be made aware that his action might hurt someone elses fun, something the player does not understand himself. It's still up to the player to make the decision, but he is owed to at least be allowed to make an informed choIce about it. If no one tells him, he can't be blamed for stepping on others toes. But if he willingly wants to that's ok (assuming it's not just to spite the other player).

[Friv]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that what player b did was a poor choice, I agree that the answer "It's what my character would do." is a cheap response to validate that poor choice, and I agree that player a has the right to be upset that everything went south because of that choice.

The issue I have with this argument is that it assumes one person's fun is wrong because they did not follow the plan of the group.

Keep in mind that in this situation, Player B is also feeling guilty and regretful about blowing up the game. If they'd been given a moment to think about why the thing they were about to do was going to be a problem, there's a good chance that they wouldn't have done it. Like a lot of people do, they got carried away in the moment and made a mistake that hurt everyone's fun.

In this case, with the whole table in agreement, I think rewinding to the moment the grenade was to be thrown is a reasonable choice, especially if you can't really fix the situation through editing going forward. Maybe you could say that the events of the explosion were actually Character B's considering of what would happen, and you cut to him reluctantly lowering the grenade and going for an alternative method?

[MrNobody]

Thanks again everybody. Though i lacked the time to reply to each of you i read everything.
One thing that got to me is that i had oversimplified the events (the whole "are you sure" thing, for example, was a little more complex): this led to a bit of misunderstanging, my falut, i'm sorry.

Now i want to tell you how everything ended (spoiler: everything was fine :smallsmile:).

During the past week i had a talk with both player A and player B.

First i talked to player B, trying to understand what led him to act "against" player A and everything: he told me that he realized almost immediately what he had done, but then he didn't know what to do. We both agreed that his lack of experience may have had a great part in the scene, as well as a bit of forgetfulness about in-game details (he thought that the Giulio's brother he killed was the violent one, while he was the coward one). We had a small talk about "game ethics" and everything was fine.

Then i talked to Player A and calmed him down, we talked about the consequences of the recent events and i asked him if he could have appreciated the opportunity of a Retcon: my offer got him as confused as i was. We grew up together as players, we share the same game-code, so he had my same concern about game-balance, players agency and so on.
He asked for a few days to think about it: a few days later he texted me that he would have got great advantage from retconing, but that it seemed unfair so he chose to accept the current situation and to go along with it.

Friday night we played: i took a moment to speak yo both players together as well as with Player C and Player D. I also apologized for not having handled the situation at best.
Player B also apologized to Player A, and we got in a bizarre situation when Player B proposed a retcon to fix everything up.
We all voted: player A was still against retconing, player C and D was against it as well.

We so decided to leave everything aside and begin playing: long-story short, after nearly two hours of high tension, player A decided that was no use trying to defend against incoming events and decided to strike first. He sent by fax to the remaining Giulio's brother (the middleman had the number) a copy of a letter that demonstrated that the dead brother was trying to betray him (true thing) adding notes like "i killed him for you, if you come here i kill you for him".
The Giulio's brother got so mad at this that rammed with all the troops he could gather right in player's A headquarter, right in the center of the city: the middleman died, player's A lieutenant died, players C and D PCs got knocked unconscious and player B (that apologiezed in game and asked to partecipate to atone) took a lot of damage too. A lot of the Giulio's also died, and the rest fled when a second grenade (thrown in a secluded room where the other Giulio's brother and his lieutenants were) got most of Giulio's commander killed or unconscious.

We stopped there, player A already started to clean the mess up since police is coming for sure... inext sessions will be tough but we made it!

[Malifice]

First of all, thanks everyone!!!:smile:





I will talk to him for sure, as well as i'll ask to the other players too: as a GM I don't like to take such an important decision without talking about it with every player, expecially if it's something that bothers me as much as a RetCon.
In 15 years of proud GMing this is the first time i find myself in the position of wanting to RetCon a game.

The main reason i cant' easily think about doing a Retcon is that pretty much goes against my GMing philosophy: never try to actively kill PCs, help them achieve their goals but never save them from the consequences of they actions.

I've seen a lot of things happen during these years: players acting stupid, going murderhobo against the NPCs and against each other with or without any reason... but not even once the event was as disruptive as this time.





While i like the idea of a partial retcon (that will require some work anyway, since the group had the time to make sure that the gangsters were really the Giulio's and that they were really dead, first of all because their limbs were scattered all around the place) i don't think that saving the Giulio's will solve my problem.

In fact, the deal isn't that the Giulio's were killed (the group would have attacked them the following day, anyway) but the consequences of blowing up (litterally) the plan. I'll try to explain better.

The Giulio's were planning to come to the meeting point in small waves, two cars at a time (up to 8 cars): the group the PCs ambushed were the first, that should have started preparing the meeting place for the following day.
The explosion woke up the nearby town, a lot of people came, and then also came the police that started doing it's job in a place were there was an explosion, a work that requires enough time to have the second wave arrive, discover that the place is now prejudiced and very likely that the other Giulio's are dead (or badly wounded, it's no different).
The group, meantime, fled so far that won't likely be able to stop them to find this out.

In addition, the dead/wounded Giulio's brother was the young, smarter, calmer of the couple. The other one is a CHAOTIC EVIL (all capital) old man with the attitude of a wild boar that i'm sure won't hesitate to burn down the city to avenge the brother and the other family members.

Dead or alive, the only reaction that is consistent with the Giulio's behaviour so far is an excalation of violence (considering also that now the "voice of reason" of the couple is not available), starting from the double-player that had formerly set up the meeting and then... anyone else.

That's why i think that if a Retcon is to be done, i need to go back BEFORE the grenade is tossed: otherwise, i see no way to fix things in a way that will back to player A even 1% of what he biult up during the last months of games (my first concern, above all).

That said, still i can't make up my mind about doing it or not...

Have them come after Grenade boy and not the PC in question.