PCs are Jerks in Cutscenes

[NecessaryWeevil]

So our PCs came across a dying assassin in a dungeon last night, who had apparently tried and failed to take out the same target we were after.
Enter cutscene.

The disemboweled young man gasps and gurgles out a message over the course of about thirty seconds: "Gasp...arghh....illithid...erk...kill it...sigh"
*Dies*
My PC, with four racial and class features that could easily have saved him: *Watches impassively*

End cutscene.

My PC: "That was very sad. So, what do we know about illithids?"

I don't have a point, per se, just amused by the way narrative conventions sometimes bump up against the game.

[Millstone85]

I love video games and video-game tropes. Still, I have got to ask: Should there really be times when a tabletop RPG goes into cutscene mode?

Especially in this case. What would have happened if you told the DM that your PC was trying one of these four features? "No can do, cutscene in progress"?

[NecessaryWeevil]

Well, I can see it from his point of view. The people who sent the assassin had a general idea of what we were up against. So in theory they'd at least send a credible threat. If we save his life, why wouldn't he join us? And all the DM's encounter prep, balanced against these five PCs, goes out the window.

[Greywander]

Alternatively, restoring HP isn't the same thing as healing a mortal wound. If, narratively speaking, someone is injured badly enough, nothing short of a Revivify or stronger magic can save them.

For example, let's say a PC dies. But instead of just having the PC be already dead, they're still dying as combat wraps up and they have an emotional moment of last words to their comrades before expiring. Mechanically, they're already dead, so a Cure Wounds isn't going to save them. If a player tries to Cure Wounds, the DM could describe it as slowly mending the wound, too slowly to heal it before they die, or simply not repairing enough of the damage to downgrade it from a mortal wound.

But yeah, I agree with Millstone85 that cutscenes shouldn't really be a thing in tabletop RPGs. I understand why a DM would do it; they have a plot element laid out already, and so they want to deliver that plot element intact and let the players respond to it afterwards. Which is a shame, because some of the best moments in tabletop gaming comes when the players do something unexpected and the DM has to improvise.

[strangebloke]

Well, I can see it from his point of view. The people who sent the assassin had a general idea of what we were up against. So in theory they'd at least send a credible threat. If we save his life, why wouldn't he join us? And all the DM's encounter prep, balanced against these five PCs, goes out the window.

Speaking as a DM, that's something you need to bear in mind when you put a dying man in the way of your optimized healer.

As a general rule if allowing your players to use their class features in intuitive ways breaks your campaign, you should let it happen. Otherwise stuff like the above happens.

[Zevox]

Well, I can see it from his point of view. The people who sent the assassin had a general idea of what we were up against. So in theory they'd at least send a credible threat. If we save his life, why wouldn't he join us? And all the DM's encounter prep, balanced against these five PCs, goes out the window.
If a DM presents their players with a scenario where they could save an NPC and that NPC would then logically want to and be able to help them, yet hasn't considered at all what they'll do should the PCs actually do that, that's a rather ridiculous mistake on the DM's part.

[PhantomSoul]

If a DM presents their players with a scenario where they could save an NPC and that NPC would then logically want to and be able to help them, yet hasn't considered at all what they'll do should the PCs actually do that, that's a rather ridiculous mistake on the DM's part.

Ideally, as I see it, it's only a "cutscene" if the players can't do anything; but it being a "cutscene" gets interrupted if they can. (There can be deus ex master that mainly serves to justify that something can't be done, but that's a separate point haha)

[Zevox]

Ideally, as I see it, it's only a "cutscene" if the players can't do anything; but it being a "cutscene" gets interrupted if they can. (There can be deus ex master that mainly serves to justify that something can't be done, but that's a separate point haha)
Right, but I'd concur with earlier posters that "cutscenes" shouldn't be a thing in tabletop RPGs, barring maybe rare exceptions where it makes sense that the PCs can't interact with whatever's going on (i.e. they're being shown a vision of some sort, for instance). Whenever something's just happening around them, the PCs can and should always be able to act, or at least attempt to, and a DM who assumes they'll just sit there until whatever he's narrating finishes and is completely unprepared for (or worse, unwilling to allow) them to do otherwise is either inexperienced or just rather bad.

Unless the whole table prefers things that way I suppose, in which case knock yourselves out, but that seems to go against the whole point of tabletop gaming to me. The strength of having a DM is that the world you're playing in can react in real time to whatever the PCs decide to do, whether he expected it or not. Plus the particular case that was brought up here is not at all something the DM shouldn't expect anyway.

[Unoriginal]

So our PCs came across a dying assassin in a dungeon last night, who had apparently tried and failed to take out the same target we were after.
Enter cutscene.

The disemboweled young man gasps and gurgles out a message over the course of about thirty seconds: "Gasp...arghh....illithid...erk...kill it...sigh"
*Dies*
My PC, with four racial and class features that could easily have saved him: *Watches impassively*

End cutscene.

My PC: "That was very sad. So, what do we know about illithids?"

I don't have a point, per se, just amused by the way narrative conventions sometimes bump up against the game.

...this is D&D, there is no cutscenes.

You could have reminded them that a) they have the power to help this person if they wish so b) they have the power to act while NPCs do things.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Speaking as a DM, that's something you need to bear in mind when you put a dying man in the way of your optimized healer.

As a general rule if allowing your players to use their class features in intuitive ways breaks your campaign, you should let it happen. Otherwise stuff like the above happens.

We encountered a very injured man in Undermountain, infested with spider eggs. My DM decided that my efforts to heal and alleviate him from his (from my point of view, preventable) incoming death aggravated the eggs causing them to hatch early and kill him.

Sure, this is "reasonable" since my character could only assume how far gone the man was and isn't exactly a genius in the medical field since Magic easily covers that shortcoming, but in the future I'm not very likely to try that again. It hurt my character to be responsible for it and it hurt me knowing that I made that choice when in hindsight the DM never intended for us to be able to heal him in the first place.


...this is D&D, there is no cutscenes.

You could have reminded them that a) they have the power to help this person if they wish so b) they have the power to act while NPCs do things.
And I'm sure that the drastic response that my DM came up with was in large part because I acted more quickly than he'd prepared for, absolutely agree though.

[Lunali]

I love video games and video-game tropes. Still, I have got to ask: Should there really be times when a tabletop RPG goes into cutscene mode?

Especially in this case. What would have happened if you told the DM that your PC was trying one of these four features? "No can do, cutscene in progress"?

Then there's the other question, did the game go into cutscene mode or did the players? Until the players actually try to interrupt the cutscenes, there's no way to tell if they're really cutscenes or just the DM narrating what happens while the PCs do nothing until events stop happening.

[strangebloke]

...this is D&D, there is no cutscenes.

You could have reminded them that a) they have the power to help this person if they wish so b) they have the power to act while NPCs do things.

lmao its all fun and games until the DM asks you to roll initiative against the man to see if he can fail a death save before you heal him.

[NecessaryWeevil]

lmao its all fun and games until the DM asks you to roll initiative against the man to see if he can fail a death save before you heal him.

I think that might very well be sig-worthy.

[Greywander]

lmao its all fun and games until the DM asks you to roll initiative against the man to see if he can fail a death save before you heal him.
"Ha! I win! Suck it, losers!"
flips both birds
dies

"..."
"...We get XP for that, right?"

[Breccia]

Should there really be times when a tabletop RPG goes into cutscene mode?

No.

The previous campaign I ran, there was a "boxed text" section where the PCs happened to enter a town as a legal dispute was brought before one of the town's protectors and effective leaders, someone they would learn in about sixty seconds was a high-level fiend-worshipping warlock, who was clearly not really interested and increasingly impatient to hear a disagreement between a worker who could not complete the job and the employer who had already paid him for the job.

After six back-and-forths between the worker and employer, the warlock upcast a flame strike, killing the worker instantly, demanded not to be bothered unless it was really important, and returned to her manor.

The PCs were horrified. I think some of the players were horrified. One character, the party's paladin, quit on the spot (the player rerolled, unable to take her LG character into that situation). But they realized, they could have intervened at any time, but didn't. In fact, as I told them after the game session ended, I was not just hoping but expecting they would, especially the aforementioned paladin.

I'm not saying the OP should have healed the assassin. I don't know the context, but guessing based on stereotypes, most PCs are good, most assassins are evil, and there was no obligation to save the life of a serial murderer. But the DM should have had that option available, if the party had gone with it.

[JonBeowulf]

My problem with "no cutscenes" is it limits me to leaving dead bodies with clues to the danger ahead and/or NPCs who come up with reasons to go no further if they are saved.

Repetitive, boring, and lame.

Or I guess I could dream up some ass-pull as to why the healing didn't work.

Even worse.

DMs need options, and sometimes cutscenes are appropriate.

[Kane0]

Heh, i can think of at least three characters that would have laughed, checked his pockets before he expired, and/or immediately cast speak with dead afterward instead of just helping and asking before that.

Jerk is an understatement.

[Yspoch]

For me the (badly hidden) illusion of being able to do something is worse than being in a cutscene. I would much prefer a DM saying "Listen, i need the next scene to happen in a certain way for the plot to go forward so please lay back and relax." than letting the players try to do a lot of different things only to have the DM struggle to come up with excuses why they don't work or nullify them immediately (aka railroading).

Sure, it would be better to always be able to act and influence what's happening as a player, but not all DMs are prepared to run a full game sandbox style.

[DwarfFighter]

My PC, with four racial and class features that could easily have saved him: *Watches impassively*

I don't have a point, per se, just amused by the way narrative conventions sometimes bump up against the game.

Maybe your healing powers only restore hit points and have no effect on mortal wounds. And maybe PCs only suffer mortal wounds if they die from them? The cut that brought the PC to 0 wounds was just a flesh wound if they recovered, but if they actually die it turns out it was a split kidney or something else fatal.

When we take into account that internal bleeding, trauma, infections, loss of eye or limb, and other ill effects are more common consequences of combat than getting killed, yet not somehow never an issue for PCs outside of monster special abilities, hit point restoration of PCs is never used to manage fatal injuries.

I guess this is one of those things that should be made clear to the players in advance: NPCs *may* suffer natural fatal conditions that cannot be treated using restorative powers: A king that is dying of a poisoned wound and needs a special antidote to survive may or may not be healed by the PCs powers. There doesn't need to be a curse or other special effect that specifically blocks the PCs from solving the issue immediately, it's just that their magic isn't applicable.

That's my opinion at least.

-DF

[noob]

Maybe your healing powers only restore hit points and have no effect on mortal wounds. And maybe PCs only suffer mortal wounds if they die from them? The cut that brought the PC to 0 wounds was just a flesh wound if they recovered, but if they actually die it turns out it was a split kidney or something else fatal.

When we take into account that internal bleeding, trauma, infections, loss of eye or limb, and other ill effects are more common consequences of combat than getting killed, yet not somehow never an issue for PCs outside of monster special abilities, hit point restoration of PCs is never used to manage fatal injuries.

I guess this is one of those things that should be made clear to the players in advance: NPCs *may* suffer natural fatal conditions that cannot be treated using restorative powers: A king that is dying of a poisoned wound and needs a special antidote to survive may or may not be healed by the PCs powers. There doesn't need to be a curse or other special effect that specifically blocks the PCs from solving the issue immediately, it's just that their magic isn't applicable.

That's my opinion at least.

-DF
Maybe he had all of the following: Heal, regenerate, lesser restauration, cure light wounds and then wondered while simple flesh wounds would stop him.

[EggKookoo]

DMs need options, and sometimes cutscenes are appropriate.

There's nothing wrong with a cutscene that summarizes what happens next. Especially if it covers a decent length of time where nothing really surprising is happening.

A cutscene that literally prevents the players from taking actions is a bad idea, IMO, and has no place in a TTRPG. They only exist in CRPGs out of desperation on the part of the developers. Really they shouldn't exist there either, but until we can figure out how to allow that to happen we're stuck with them.

If you (as the DM) start a cutscene, be prepared for a player to interrupt it.

[Unoriginal]

My problem with "no cutscenes" is it limits me to leaving dead bodies with clues to the danger ahead and/or NPCs who come up with reasons to go no further if they are saved.

Repetitive, boring, and lame.

Or I guess I could dream up some ass-pull as to why the healing didn't work.

Even worse.

Are you that against having NPCs helping?


Heck, if you take the assassin example in the OP, one healing spell isn't likely to put anyone into fighting shape. More in "will crumble with one hit" shape. It's enough of a reason.

If the PCs want to spend more ressources for an ally, well, I'd call that an interesting trade-off.

[noob]

Are you that against having NPCs helping?


Heck, if you take the assassin example in the OP, one healing spell isn't likely to put anyone into fighting shape. More in "will crumble with one hit" shape. It's enough of a reason.

If the PCs want to spend more ressources for an ally, well, I'd call that an interesting trade-off.
when an added member is placed in the team it spawns up a bunch of resources and allow better use of resources already aviable.
1: You can use the healer and inspiring leader feats to spawn hp out of the existence of a new target.
2: Some mass heal abilities heals many targets and you can find yourself short in targets to heal if some members are already topped up.
3: The Assasin might have abilities too.

[strangebloke]

when an added member is placed in the team it spawns up a bunch of resources and allow better use of resources already aviable.
1: You can use the healer and inspiring leader feats to spawn hp out of the existence of a new target.
2: Some mass heal abilities heals many targets and you can find yourself short in targets to heal if some members are already topped up.
3: The Assasin might have abilities too.

Yeah but like.

That's interesting and cool? If your party has invested build resources in making themselves good at healing (say a life cleric who can bring him up to half health instantly) then that's fun. Healing is often a thankless task, this is something that's going to make the party member feel cool and powerful.

Another way to think about this. Which will make the party happier? If they overpower the encounter with an ally they gained, or if they are forced to watch someone die?

[da newt]

I have no issue with a cut scene - but as a player please tell me outright that there is nothing I can do - don't make me guess if I can interact or not.

I don't think there is any reason to make the DM's life harder by spoiling their narrative plans. This is a good time for 'yes and..' to keep the game flowing.

[Kvess]

Pobody's nerfect? You could think of half-a-dozen different ways to make this work without invalidating healers. Off the top of my head you could leave a ghost behind, have the dying assassin be missing his lower torso, or even just drop a scroll of Speak with Dead nearby... but sometimes DMs don't think of all that when they are busy spinning every other plate.

[Sigreid]

I personally don't think cut scenes are good for a table top RPG except on rare occasions where I describe what is happening somewhere else just to, well, entertain the players with what is happening meanwhile across town.

[Foolwise]

I am waiting for the post-illithid fight followup where their DM informs their party that the battle would have gone much smoother had they saved the assassin NPC.

[Sigreid]

I am waiting for the post-illithid fight followup where their DM informs their party that the battle would have gone much smoother had they saved the assassin NPC.

Nah, the big payoff is going to be a cut scene where the entire party decides to follow the illithid.

[PhantomSoul]

Nah, the big payoff is going to be a cut scene where the entire party decides to follow the illithid.

Plot twist: It was a flashback and they've been illithids for nearly the whole campaign and are only now realising it!

[Segev]

Plot twist: It was a flashback and they've been illithids for nearly the whole campaign and are only now realising it!

A party that keeps finding that the places they visit were very recently attacked by brain-eating monsters, to the point they assume they're on the mpnsters' trail or the monsters are following and taunting them, could be an interesting setup for horror.

[Foolwise]

They're were-illithid. These attacks always occur around once a month. How many attacks happen before the party connects it with the full moon?

[Segev]

They're were-illithid. These attacks always occur around once a month. How many attacks happen before the party connects it with the full moon?

Unless the DM is very good at what he does, either an eternity or right away. Depending on whether he is too obvious about mentioning the moon, or he's too subtle and they never realize the timing at all.

[Greywander]

Or I guess I could dream up some ass-pull as to why the healing didn't work.

Even worse.
Giving someone an Aspirin won't stop them from bleeding out. It's basically the same question of, "Why can't we revive [person] with a Phoenix Down?" The answer is that a phoenix down doesn't bring back the dead, and 0 HP isn't dead (even if the status effect calls it that). When [person] dies in a cutscene, she's dead-dead. When [person] drops to 0 HP, she's "not quite dead", and a simple rest at an inn is enough to bring her back to full health.

There's some middle state between "healthy" and "dead", where someone isn't quite dead, but a simple Cure Wounds isn't going to save them. I said this earlier in the thread:

Alternatively, restoring HP isn't the same thing as healing a mortal wound. If, narratively speaking, someone is injured badly enough, nothing short of a Revivify or stronger magic can save them.

For example, let's say a PC dies. But instead of just having the PC be already dead, they're still dying as combat wraps up and they have an emotional moment of last words to their comrades before expiring. Mechanically, they're already dead, so a Cure Wounds isn't going to save them. If a player tries to Cure Wounds, the DM could describe it as slowly mending the wound, too slowly to heal it before they die, or simply not repairing enough of the damage to downgrade it from a mortal wound.
Now, this doesn't mean you should do this, only that it's not implausible. A "mortally wounded" state where HP healing doesn't help, but a Revivify will (despite them not being dead yet; alternatively, Regenerate and/or Greater Restoration might work), would probably be sufficient. Perhaps with enough HP healing, you could overcome the mortal wound, so something like Heal or a paladin dumping all their Lay on Hands into one heal might do it.

Now that I think about it, I could see adding "mortally wounded" as a condition, and implementing it into the death mechanic. Three failed death saves leaves you mortally wounded, and you will die after a short time (1 minute?) without the intervention of some kind of powerful healing effect. Though in practice, this is just offering alternatives to Revivify. Hmm, if such a mechanic were to be implemented, it would probably need to be more thought out than this.

[Lord Vukodlak]

But the DM should have had that option available, if the party had gone with it.
Where was it ever stated the DM didn't have that option available?

Looking at the OP's post... he wasn't doing anything to stop the PC's from healing the dying man. He was instead commenting on the fact the PC's stood by and did NOTHING. Which happened to fit the narrative.
I think people are misinterpreting his wording for cutscene. It seems more like stuff happening outside of imitative.



Now that I think about it, I could see adding "mortally wounded" as a condition, and implementing it into the death mechanic. Three failed death saves leaves you mortally wounded, and you will die after a short time (1 minute?) without the intervention of some kind of powerful healing effect. Though in practice, this is just offering alternatives to Revivify. Hmm, if such a mechanic were to be implemented, it would probably need to be more thought out than this.
Revivify no longer revives the dead it simply removes the mortally wounded condition, which you get before dying.

[Greywander]

Revivify no longer revives the dead it simply removes the mortally wounded condition, which you get before dying.
I thought of this, but what if you die in a way that skips the mortally wounded state? For example, death by massive damage? I mean, we could say that the mortally wounded state can't be skipped, but that feels like it could cause issues with certain instant death mechanics. Certainly something like Disintegrate would skip any mortally wounded state (though Revivify wouldn't help you there anyway).

It might be one of those things that would need to be written into the system from the very beginning. Trying to cram it in after the fact means going back and tweaking a bunch of spells, monster abilities, and other rules related to death and healing. That said, I'm sure there's a simple and elegant way something like this could be implemented, but there's a lot of inelegant ways as well.

[Foolwise]

-snip-

Whoa, buddy. Spoilers!

[Greywander]

Whoa, buddy. Spoilers!
I was going to say the game is hella old by now, if you haven't played it yet then you probably weren't going to. But it occurred to me that the remake is a recent release, with additional chapters still to be released, so this could actually be a legitimate spoiler for some people playing the remake. Just to be safe, I edited my comment.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Looking at the OP's post... he wasn't doing anything to stop the PC's from healing the dying man. He was instead commenting on the fact the PC's stood by and did NOTHING. Which happened to fit the narrative.
I think people are misinterpreting his wording for cutscene. It seems more like stuff happening outside of imitative.



Sorry, I wasn't super clear because I didn't expect the post to attract so many replies. I was a player, not the DM. The DM made it clear that we weren't meant to save the guy's life. So we didn't, which made us look strangely callous.

[furby076]

Heh, i can think of at least three characters that would have laughed, checked his pockets before he expired, and/or immediately cast speak with dead afterward instead of just helping and asking before that.

Jerk is an understatement.

Well, you are Kaneo :)

Just watched the new Mortal Kombat yesterday

[Lord Vukodlak]

I thought of this, but what if you die in a way that skips the mortally wounded state? For example, death by massive damage? I mean, we could say that the mortally wounded state can't be skipped, but that feels like it could cause issues with certain instant death mechanics. Certainly something like Disintegrate would skip any mortally wounded state (though Revivify wouldn't help you there anyway).

One could say that with massive damage the body is to mangled for revivify to work. Honestly I've never seen death via massive damage after 5th level. (and obviously revivify isn't an option with 2nd level spells.)

Also
PC's don't follow the same rules as NPC's. For instance its usually expected that monsters and mooks are simply dead at 0 hp. Only special characters go through the whole dying thing.
"Monsters and NPCs and Death:
Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters."

Also with the afterlife being more of a fact then a belief i D&D. Many people would simply choose to remain dead/



Sorry, I wasn't super clear because I didn't expect the post to attract so many replies. I was a player, not the DM. The DM made it clear that we weren't meant to save the guy's life. So we didn't, which made us look strangely callous.

Okay thank you that is more clear.

[kingcheesepants]

So I've never experienced a "cut-scene" in a TTRPG before either as a player or DM. The very idea is a little odd to me, that you'd have characters just standing there not doing anything cause the DM said so. How many people actually utilize these sort of story telling devices in their games?

[DwarfFighter]

So I've never experienced a "cut-scene" in a TTRPG before either as a player or DM. The very idea is a little odd to me, that you'd have characters just standing there not doing anything cause the DM said so. How many people actually utilize these sort of story telling devices in their games?

You have probably had games where the narrative is fast-forwarded: Travel, down-time, rests. These too are cut-scenes of sorts where you describe (as a summary) what happens and what is achieved while making assumptions about the player character's actions.

There is technically little difference between these two:

GM:Your journey from the Aalfrard to Beelin goes well. The roads are in frequent youse and you pass several traders moving their goods up and down the road. You spend the night at the roadside inns and make good time. You have arrived at your destination. Deduct 4 gold each for travel expenses.

And...

GM: The force wall blocking your way shimmers and fades, and you rush into the throne room. There, on his throne, sits the king, wrapped up in bands of mystical energy. Above him, floating in the air is the evil Sorcerer, revealed as you suspected to be his brother! You, Krangor, rush in and leap to strike at the foe with your greataxe, but an unseen force halts you, then throws you back to your friends. The Sorcerer turns to you and laughs. "You are too late to stop me! My plans are already bearing fruit. Even now, [snip lengthy monologue]. As you can see, you are all doomed!" He summons orbs of magical power and prepares to strike. Roll for initiative.

In the first example, the GM makes the assumption that the PC's interaction with other characters and challenges of the road warrants no active decision from the players. However, that's a lengthy stretch where, if played out, the players might have exercised their agency and creativity by interacting with characters and the environment.

In the second example, the GM too is blocking the players for affecting the story, even taking control and deciding for the player what the character will do and resolving the action without regard for the PCs abilities.

As a general rule I like cut scenes. They allow the GM to move the game forward, to do exposition, and even to place the PCs in a challenging situation that would never otherwise come to be.

One classic example is the challenge of escaping from capture. This is a staple of movies, shows, video games, and board games: The characters are cut of from their resources until they can solve the puzzle of escaping, and then they reclaim their gear/connections/freedom. Some players like it, some players don't but regardless: Most players will resist having their characters being captured in the first place. Not because they don't want to be captured (it's an unwritten rule that if the party is captured, they will have the opportunity to escape!), but because resisting capture is the immediate challenge that must be overcome.

I can't stress how much more expedient it is to run the capture process as a cut-scene instead of an actual encounter. You can wrap that up in seconds instead of wasting time on an encounter where you defeat the PCs with the soft equivalent of a TPK. The amount of frustration you'll save is significant.

I know this sort of suggestion tends to get a lot of push-back from whiners that don't think the GM has the right to move the game in his direction, so let me add: As the GM you should know your players well enough to know if the group as a whole is OK with this sort of thing. If your group threatens to pack up their things and quit the campaign because you put them in a locked room with all their gear in the next-door storage room, maybe this is not something you should pursue.

-DF

[strangebloke]

I know this sort of suggestion tends to get a lot of push-back from whiners that don't think the GM has the right to move the game in his direction, so let me add: As the GM you should know your players well enough to know if the group as a whole is OK with this sort of thing. If your group threatens to pack up their things and quit the campaign because you put them in a locked room with all their gear in the next-door storage room, maybe this is not something you should pursue.

-DF

I think most DMs who act as complete tyrants would claim they were acting as beneficent overlords right up until their players leave. It's no good to say "you should know your players well enough" because every entitled tyrant GM would claim they do know their players that well.

DMs control the world. They don't control the players and calling any player that wants to be able to control their reaction to narration a "whiner" seems to be extremely unproductive. Ask and respond is the whole conceit of roleplay.

[Lunali]

I thought of this, but what if you die in a way that skips the mortally wounded state? For example, death by massive damage? I mean, we could say that the mortally wounded state can't be skipped, but that feels like it could cause issues with certain instant death mechanics. Certainly something like Disintegrate would skip any mortally wounded state (though Revivify wouldn't help you there anyway).

It might be one of those things that would need to be written into the system from the very beginning. Trying to cram it in after the fact means going back and tweaking a bunch of spells, monster abilities, and other rules related to death and healing. That said, I'm sure there's a simple and elegant way something like this could be implemented, but there's a lot of inelegant ways as well.

It doesn't take too much rewriting, just fluff. Someone that has either failed their death saves or taken massive damage is mortally wounded for 1min. If they get revivify within that time, they're restored from the mortal wound. Other effects that kill characters either mortally wound them or kill them outright depending on whether revivify would still work.

[kingcheesepants]

You have probably had games where the narrative is fast-forwarded: Travel, down-time, rests. These too are cut-scenes of sorts where you describe (as a summary) what happens and what is achieved while making assumptions about the player character's actions.

There is technically little difference between these two:

GM:Your journey from the Aalfrard to Beelin goes well. The roads are in frequent youse and you pass several traders moving their goods up and down the road. You spend the night at the roadside inns and make good time. You have arrived at your destination. Deduct 4 gold each for travel expenses.

And...

GM: The force wall blocking your way shimmers and fades, and you rush into the throne room. There, on his throne, sits the king, wrapped up in bands of mystical energy. Above him, floating in the air is the evil Sorcerer, revealed as you suspected to be his brother! You, Krangor, rush in and leap to strike at the foe with your greataxe, but an unseen force halts you, then throws you back to your friends. The Sorcerer turns to you and laughs. "You are too late to stop me! My plans are already bearing fruit. Even now, [snip lengthy monologue]. As you can see, you are all doomed!" He summons orbs of magical power and prepares to strike. Roll for initiative.

In the first example, the GM makes the assumption that the PC's interaction with other characters and challenges of the road warrants no active decision from the players. However, that's a lengthy stretch where, if played out, the players might have exercised their agency and creativity by interacting with characters and the environment.

In the second example, the GM too is blocking the players for affecting the story, even taking control and deciding for the player what the character will do and resolving the action without regard for the PCs abilities.

-DF

I never thought of travel and downtime as cutscenes. Probably because the players are still giving general descriptions of what they're up to and working with the DM on it, so it doesn't really feel like the same thing to me but I can see how it is a bit of a cut scene. As for the second example, it doesn't quite match my experience. I've been on both sides of the DM screen for villainous monologing but I've never had (or been) a DM who said your attack fails without the player first declaring that they attack. Sure there might be a wall of force or the bad guy might be an illusion or there might be some other thing going on that makes that first attack fail and the bad guy might continue talking throughout the first couple rounds of combat, but typically nobody is bouncing off of walls of force or swinging through illusions until first rolling initiative and deciding to attack. And in some cases the players might realize that there's a wall of force and they have something like misty step or whatever and cut off the bad guy mid sentence even with that wall up.

[DwarfFighter]

I think most DMs who act as complete tyrants would claim they were acting as beneficent overlords right up until their players leave. It's no good to say "you should know your players well enough" because every entitled tyrant GM would claim they do know their players that well.

It's not a matter of "claiming" anything: Either it works and it proves the GM knows their players, or it doesn't work and it prove he was mistaken.

This immediate assumption that we're dealing with a tyrannical GM and poor defenseless players bereft of agency is just the sort of whining I was talking about: A cut-scene where the GM momentarily drives the narrative is a tool by which they set the stage for an interesting story. It's purpose is not to replace game-play, but to enhance it. If you as a GM can't use it to achieve that, you shouldn't be using it. If you can make it work, there's no limit to what you can achieve.


I've been on both sides of the DM screen for villainous monologing but I've never had (or been) a DM who said your attack fails without the player first declaring that they attack. Sure there might be a wall of force or the bad guy might be an illusion or there might be some other thing going on that makes that first attack fail and the bad guy might continue talking throughout the first couple rounds of combat, but typically nobody is bouncing off of walls of force or swinging through illusions until first rolling initiative and deciding to attack. And in some cases the players might realize that there's a wall of force and they have something like misty step or whatever and cut off the bad guy mid sentence even with that wall up.

Bad guy monologuing is as classic as is the players declaring their attack before he's done. Your mileage will vary on whether your group prefers to wrap it in a cut-scene or not, but if you a) don't want to do the cut-scene and b) want to deliver the monologue, then you are going to have to come up with contrivances like walls of force, illusions or anti-magic fields just to physically block the PCs from succeeding on their actions. Then the PCs will still be dealing with those countermeasures after the bad guy is done talking. That last part might not be ideal for the encounter.

Run it as a cut-scene and you can skip the contrived countermeasures altogether: The bandit captain can tell his story how the adventurers killed his brother, the ghost can chastise them for entering his tomb, the beggar can be caught pick-pocketing and lead the PCs to the Thieves Guild as they chase him down the streets. You don't have to choose between "The PCs kill the NPCs in the first round!" and bringing epic-level countermeasures into effect.

-DF

[sithlordnergal]

My problem with "no cutscenes" is it limits me to leaving dead bodies with clues to the danger ahead and/or NPCs who come up with reasons to go no further if they are saved.

Repetitive, boring, and lame.

Or I guess I could dream up some ass-pull as to why the healing didn't work.

Even worse.

DMs need options, and sometimes cutscenes are appropriate.

I mean, I've never found a use for cutscenes. Heck, even in situations where I don't expect the players to logically interfere, if they do then I just roll with it. For example, I recently had an encounter that became interesting. It was originally going to take place down in some underground caverns that were connected to a sewer system. I had set up a nice boss fight at the end of the cave system, and the party was tasked with clearing out the undead down there.

The party cleared out the undead in the sewers, but instead of going further, they went back to an ally of their's that happens to be a Silver Dragon. So, I had the baddie go to them. Said baddie is an ancient gold dragon vampire that was rather annoyed that the party had destroyed the undead he was going to use to attack the city. He went to the Silver Dragon's home with a bunch of undead. I had intended for the party to defend their friend's house and hold back all the other undead while the Silver Dragon and Gold Dragon duked it out, cause the party is only about level 7 and cannot reasonably take on this vampire.

Instead they attacked the Gold Dragon first and they did essentially an 8 vs. 1 fight with this single gold dragon. Spoiler alert, even with the Silver Dragon helping them, the Gold Dragon won due to resistances and auto-healing cause he is a vampire. Don't get me wrong, the party fought valiantly, but everyone knew that all it'd take is two breath attacks from that dragon to knock them all out. And after the party was knocked out, they insisted I finish the duel between the Gold and Silver dragon, and so I did. I let it play out, even allowed one party member to convince me to let some guards join the fight. Once again, the Gold Dragon won because the Silver Dragon couldn't deal enough damage to get through the Gold Dragon's resistances and healing, and was captured.

It was a bitter end to the session, sure, but soooo much more satisfying then if I had just let it be a cut scene. The players now have an excellent feel for how dangerous this Gold Dragon Vampire is, they have a huge reason to try and kill him cause he kidnapped their friend and wiped the floor with them all, and they're more motivated than ever before to kill this villain. And had the players won, they couldn't instantly kill the dragon as it was night and he could reach his coffin with ease. So he'd have still been a threat to the party. It was a desperate fight from start to finish.

So let it play out, let them interfere with and mess with the cut scenes. You don't need to just leave dead bodies and clues, you can have your half dead guard be rescued by the party. Then have him aid the party, or have him leave to warn more people/secure an area for the party to retreat to if needed. Personally I like the idea of letting the players have one NPC as an ally for an upcoming fight because they saved him. Then he can become a reoccurring character, helping out the party in different ways.

[sithlordnergal]

I can't stress how much more expedient it is to run the capture process as a cut-scene instead of an actual encounter. You can wrap that up in seconds instead of wasting time on an encounter where you defeat the PCs with the soft equivalent of a TPK. The amount of frustration you'll save is significant.

I know this sort of suggestion tends to get a lot of push-back from whiners that don't think the GM has the right to move the game in his direction, so let me add: As the GM you should know your players well enough to know if the group as a whole is OK with this sort of thing. If your group threatens to pack up their things and quit the campaign because you put them in a locked room with all their gear in the next-door storage room, maybe this is not something you should pursue.

-DF

I'll be honest...I have to disagree with you as a DM. I'd fully run the capture as an encounter, because there is a chance, no matter how small, that the players will successfully escape. At which point I can change the story to fit the results. The party successfully evades capture and has beaten back the group trying to capture them? Welp, time to figure out why they were being targeted, and what the would-be captors were going to do. Now instead of an adventure based on escaping your captors, its an infiltration mission to figure out what's going on. Were they just bandits looking for an easy score, or is there something far more sinister going on? And if the players decide to leave well enough alone, that's fine too. They can start hearing rumors of people being kidnapped and disappearing in the dark. Did the party end up captured? Welp, time to go with the OG plan.

Again, I've never found a need for cutscenes that take away player agency. I generally find it a sign of poor writing when I see adventures that require the party to start off captured with no way of fighting back first. Sure, it may cause a soft TPK when you run the encounter, but that is actually a good thing. It shows the players that this is a force to be reckoned with, and one they need to take seriously. As a player, I'm going to take the group that soundly beat the party a lot more seriously and be far more careful than I will the group that just does it via cut scene.

[False God]

I'll be honest...I have to disagree with you as a DM. I'd fully run the capture as an encounter, because there is a chance, no matter how small, that the players will successfully escape. At which point I can change the story to fit the results. The party successfully evades capture and has beaten back the group trying to capture them? Welp, time to figure out why they were being targeted, and what the would-be captors were going to do. Now instead of an adventure based on escaping your captors, its an infiltration mission to figure out what's going on. Were they just bandits looking for an easy score, or is there something far more sinister going on? And if the players decide to leave well enough alone, that's fine too. They can start hearing rumors of people being kidnapped and disappearing in the dark. Did the party end up captured? Welp, time to go with the OG plan.

Again, I've never found a need for cutscenes that take away player agency. I generally find it a sign of poor writing when I see adventures that require the party to start off captured with no way of fighting back first. Sure, it may cause a soft TPK when you run the encounter, but that is actually a good thing. It shows the players that this is a force to be reckoned with, and one they need to take seriously. As a player, I'm going to take the group that soundly beat the party a lot more seriously and be far more careful than I will the group that just does it via cut scene.

I strongly agree with the second part. It's one thing for the party to come across a dying man who as they try to help clutches at their shirts crying "Avenge me!" before dying. It's not denying agency to say that there was nothing that could be done, it's not a slight on the party that they arrived "too late" to save this man, that's all just setup. This is still in a way a "cutscene". It doesn't "play" until the party gets within earshot/eyesight of the dying person, and if they never approach it never "plays" and the guy just dies offscreen.

There is, on the other hand, quite a problem with purposefully misleading the players and presenting a situation which they will perceive as winnable and you even advertise as such, but in reality it is unwinnable and just a setup for them to be captured.

It's why so many people object to the "capture" or the "prison break" type games. It's one thing to start captured, like, already in prison. It's another thing to give players the illusion of freedom only to take it away so a DM can get their perfect setup.

---
On the subject of cutscenes, I think a lot of video games, especially in the RPG market, have gotten it in their heads that they're here to tell a specific story, rather than have players/characters experience that story. It's the difference between reading LOTR and playing a LOTR game where you all take on the main characters. So we end up with these long cinematic cutscenes where the player basically watches their character do something, with no control at all. Or it's a "Quicktime Event" where instead of all the cool powers you've learned, you get to PRESS X!!! really fast to do something. And typically, the longer the cutscene or the QT event, the more your character feels less like your character.

It's just magnified in TTRPGs because the self-proclaimed genius who thought up the cool cutscene where all the characters dance to a tune only he can hear is sitting there with this smug little self-satisfied grin like it was some great accomplishment to do the one thing he always could: completely control the game.

[Zevox]

On the subject of cutscenes, I think a lot of video games, especially in the RPG market, have gotten it in their heads that they're here to tell a specific story, rather than have players/characters experience that story. It's the difference between reading LOTR and playing a LOTR game where you all take on the main characters. So we end up with these long cinematic cutscenes where the player basically watches their character do something, with no control at all. Or it's a "Quicktime Event" where instead of all the cool powers you've learned, you get to PRESS X!!! really fast to do something. And typically, the longer the cutscene or the QT event, the more your character feels less like your character.
Right - because in video games, things like that are inescapable. Because by their very nature, whatever happens in the game has to be something the developers already created in advance, just like in a book or movie. They can be structured such that this is multiple-choice, but that's still like a book, just a very specific type of book: a choose-your-own-adventure book. Some choose to do that; others choose to just tell a single, focused story. Both have their strengths and can work well, but may appeal more to different audiences.

In tabletop games, none of that is the case, because you have a DM/GM running things, who can react to anything the players try to do on the fly. That is their strength, which is what lets a tabletop game really emphasize roleplaying, in a way no video game can or will ever be able to. That's why cutscenes where the player can't do anything make perfect sense in video games, but not at all in a tabletop one.

[strangebloke]

The funny thing is a lot of modern video games don't have cutscenes

[SociopathFriend]

I don't have a point, per se, just amused by the way narrative conventions sometimes bump up against the game.

Frankly I 'd simply think it 'rude' to interrupt what I thought was a speech the DM had set up.

Note- I'm not saying it WOULD be rude only that it's what I would THINK in the scenario above. Unless the DM was making some sort of facial expression or motioning with their hands that he's open to speaking up.

[Greywander]

Something I remember hearing somewhere is that the players should allow the DM to finish the villain's monologue. It's the DM saying goodbye to their character.

[strangebloke]

Something I remember hearing somewhere is that the players should allow the DM to finish the villain's monologue. It's the DM saying goodbye to their character.

this is fair. Talking is generally a free action. Unless the DM is monologuing every turn, its very rude to interrupt. With that said as soon as anything mechanical happens, dice need to roll.

[Zevox]

The funny thing is a lot of modern video games don't have cutscenes
:smallconfused: Such as? Even games that are light on story that I've played in recent years, such as most fighting games, have at least a few in certain modes. Anything where the story is any kind of focus has plenty.

I mean, I guess there's mobile games, if you count those, but that's because those are just a gameplay treadmill that's designed to keep you running endlessly.

[Yspoch]

Again, I've never found a need for cutscenes that take away player agency. I generally find it a sign of poor writing when I see adventures that require the party to start off captured with no way of fighting back first. Sure, it may cause a soft TPK when you run the encounter, but that is actually a good thing. It shows the players that this is a force to be reckoned with, and one they need to take seriously. As a player, I'm going to take the group that soundly beat the party a lot more seriously and be far more careful than I will the group that just does it via cut scene.

But not every DM has the time or skill to change the campaign on the fly. Prewritten adventures exist for a reason. I agree, full player agency would be ideal. I just think that the reality of some groups is different. And i that cases a cutscene (and being transparent about it!) is the better choice than feeding the players a lie.

[DwarfFighter]

I'll be honest...I have to disagree with you as a DM. I'd fully run the capture as an encounter, because there is a chance, no matter how small, that the players will successfully escape. At which point I can change the story to fit the results. The party successfully evades capture and has beaten back the group trying to capture them? Welp, time to figure out why they were being targeted, and what the would-be captors were going to do. Now instead of an adventure based on escaping your captors, its an infiltration mission to figure out what's going on. Were they just bandits looking for an easy score, or is there something far more sinister going on? And if the players decide to leave well enough alone, that's fine too. They can start hearing rumors of people being kidnapped and disappearing in the dark. Did the party end up captured? Welp, time to go with the OG plan.

Again, I've never found a need for cutscenes that take away player agency. I generally find it a sign of poor writing when I see adventures that require the party to start off captured with no way of fighting back first. Sure, it may cause a soft TPK when you run the encounter, but that is actually a good thing. It shows the players that this is a force to be reckoned with, and one they need to take seriously. As a player, I'm going to take the group that soundly beat the party a lot more seriously and be far more careful than I will the group that just does it via cut scene.

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation: The PCs have concluded the current story-line and are meandering about, looking for the next "hook" with no real goal or direction and are losing interest in the game. The GM has an idea for a new story line where the PCs start out at the "bottom rung" of the story ladder, thus offering a chance of becoming personally invested in the story that is very different from just entering into the plot as newcomers/observer. Some examples:

* The PCs are ship-wrecked on an island. Can they survive the environment and hostiles and return home?
* The PCs are captured by slavers. Can they escape and take the fight to the oppressors?
* The PCs are wrongfully accused of crime. Can they clear their names?
* The PCs are cursed and will die at the next full moon unless they can break it. The curse, that is. Or the moon. Why not think outside box here?

The underlying premise here is that this development is benign. This isn't the GM going on a power trip and wrecking the players' fun, quite the opposite: He is revitalizing the game.

So, with the goal of getting a new story started the GM has some options for getting the players into their new starting positions:

Natural development
The GM sits back and waits for the PCs to get captured by slavers through their own decisions. I have no idea how this would even happen - players tend to want to not be captured by slavers.

Direct intervention
The GM springs encounters on the PCs designed to have them defeated and captured by slavers. If the GM plays "fair", there is a very good chance that the players will defeat these encounters, and his effort is wasted. If the GM goes to the other extreme and skews the players chances towards nil and overwhelms them in a "soft" TPK, the players have had their "agency" in making actions in the encounter that are ultimately pointless. As a player I would consider this a waste of my time, like trying to solve a timed puzzle for which there is no solution.

In this case, either the goal of getting the new story started is failed (ironically, because the PCs win, they actually lose) or the players have to suffer through a no-win scenario, starting the next story frustrated with how they got there.

Just get it over with
The GM does the cut-scene thing, declaring that the PCs wake up and find themselves captured by slavers and the new story progresses from there.

-DF

[Segev]

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation: The PCs have concluded the current story-line and are meandering about, looking for the next "hook" with no real goal or direction and are losing interest in the game. The GM has an idea for a new story line where the PCs start out at the "bottom rung" of the story ladder, thus offering a chance of becoming personally invested in the story that is very different from just entering into the plot as newcomers/observer. Some examples:

* The PCs are ship-wrecked on an island. Can they survive the environment and hostiles and return home?
* The PCs are captured by slavers. Can they escape and take the fight to the oppressors?
* The PCs are wrongfully accused of crime. Can they clear their names?
* The PCs are cursed and will die at the next full moon unless they can break it. The curse, that is. Or the moon. Why not think outside box here?

The underlying premise here is that this development is benign. This isn't the GM going on a power trip and wrecking the players' fun, quite the opposite: He is revitalizing the game.

So, with the goal of getting a new story started the GM has some options for getting the players into their new starting positions:

Natural development
The GM sits back and waits for the PCs to get captured by slavers through their own decisions. I have no idea how this would even happen - players tend to want to not be captured by slavers.

Direct intervention
The GM springs encounters on the PCs designed to have them defeated and captured by slavers. If the GM plays "fair", there is a very good chance that the players will defeat these encounters, and his effort is wasted. If the GM goes to the other extreme and skews the players chances towards nil and overwhelms them in a "soft" TPK, the players have had their "agency" in making actions in the encounter that are ultimately pointless. As a player I would consider this a waste of my time, like trying to solve a timed puzzle for which there is no solution.

In this case, either the goal of getting the new story started is failed (ironically, because the PCs win, they actually lose) or the players have to suffer through a no-win scenario, starting the next story frustrated with how they got there.

Just get it over with
The GM does the cut-scene thing, declaring that the PCs wake up and find themselves captured by slavers and the new story progresses from there.

-DF
This kind of plot is best done with new PCs, and with that being the starting premise. Rather than, "Okay, your experienced team of adventurers is somehow defeated and captured by slavers," you tell them, "Your new characters start as slaves up for auction. Tell me how they got into this situation as part of your backstory."

[sithlordnergal]

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation: The PCs have concluded the current story-line and are meandering about, looking for the next "hook" with no real goal or direction and are losing interest in the game. The GM has an idea for a new story line where the PCs start out at the "bottom rung" of the story ladder, thus offering a chance of becoming personally invested in the story that is very different from just entering into the plot as newcomers/observer. Some examples:

* The PCs are ship-wrecked on an island. Can they survive the environment and hostiles and return home?
* The PCs are captured by slavers. Can they escape and take the fight to the oppressors?
* The PCs are wrongfully accused of crime. Can they clear their names?
* The PCs are cursed and will die at the next full moon unless they can break it. The curse, that is. Or the moon. Why not think outside box here?

The underlying premise here is that this development is benign. This isn't the GM going on a power trip and wrecking the players' fun, quite the opposite: He is revitalizing the game.

So, with the goal of getting a new story started the GM has some options for getting the players into their new starting positions:

Natural development
The GM sits back and waits for the PCs to get captured by slavers through their own decisions. I have no idea how this would even happen - players tend to want to not be captured by slavers.

Direct intervention
The GM springs encounters on the PCs designed to have them defeated and captured by slavers. If the GM plays "fair", there is a very good chance that the players will defeat these encounters, and his effort is wasted. If the GM goes to the other extreme and skews the players chances towards nil and overwhelms them in a "soft" TPK, the players have had their "agency" in making actions in the encounter that are ultimately pointless. As a player I would consider this a waste of my time, like trying to solve a timed puzzle for which there is no solution.

In this case, either the goal of getting the new story started is failed (ironically, because the PCs win, they actually lose) or the players have to suffer through a no-win scenario, starting the next story frustrated with how they got there.

Just get it over with
The GM does the cut-scene thing, declaring that the PCs wake up and find themselves captured by slavers and the new story progresses from there.

-DF

As a DM, I would use a mixture of Natural Development and Direct Intervention. Lets say its a party of around level 7 and I want to do the captured by slavers bit:

First I would sprinkle in hints that there are rumors of some kidnappings going on. They can start looking into it, but eventually a group of slavers will ambush the party. And I'd set up the encounter in a way that directly counters whatever the party's usual go-to strategy in combat is. Do they rely on a bunch of spells? Welp, the slavers are going to have hired some spellcasters and gotten ahold of a Globe of Invulnerability Scroll or two, attacking from the safety of their Globe and pelting the party with spells. Does the party rely on hiding and stealth during combat? They'll be attacked in a location with little to no hiding places, like an open field. Does the party rely on enchantments and/or charms to talk their way out of engagements? A hoard of undead with the express command to knock them out and capture them won't be so easily swayed by their words.

I would set up this encounter as an extremely difficult, but not necessarily impossible, encounter, where the PCs would need to change their strategy and have some luck to win. If the PCs lose and they have the soft TPK, that's perfectly fine, now they're headed to the story where they were captured. What about if the PCs win, against all odds? Now they need to find out who this group is, why they knew so much about the PCs, where they got the supplies to counter the PCs, why were they going after the PCs in the first place, and they have a pretty good reason to do all that as well.

The DM will still be able to run their story, but with a slight twist. Instead of the PCs being full on captives, now they're infiltrating the slaver's camp, and have to start off on the bottom rung of the organization. They have to keep their identities hidden from those that are higher up, making the same allies and being careful around the same NPCs they would have had they been captured. They can get the same info, the same encounters, the same everything. Only now they get to have some extra moral choices as they're forced to choose between playing the part of a ruthless slaver or showing mercy/rescuing some slaves.

And tell me, as a player, which group are you going to take more seriously as a threat? The group of slavers that captures you via cut scene, where you can't really do anything and instead your character basically stands there like some slack jawed idiot, or being controlled by the DM out of your control? Or the group of slavers that managed to out maneuver you, out smarted you, and defeated you in a situation where you did all you could to win, but still failed because they knew how to counter you? As a player, I'm going to take the latter more seriously over the former every single time.

As for the rest:

Wrecked Ship: Depending on the level of the party I'd throw pirates and/or a storm at them. And their success or failure would result with them having more or less starting supplies. This would be more along the lines of making an impossible scenario, though instead of a cut scene the players can do whatever they can to save as much as they can, which makes the adventure easier and/or harder.

Accused of a Crime: Let the players defend themselves in court. If they succeed, they are treated as innocent by whatever law enforcement officers there are in the land, but perhaps the people of the land still treat them as criminals. Happens all the time in the real world, so its not a stretch to happen in a fantasy world. Their goal changes from proving their innocent to catching whoever framed them. Funnily enough, the story beats for those two games can literally be exactly the same, depending on how you set it up. Only now the PCs can have guards as their potential allies and sources of information.

PCs are cursed: This wouldn't even need to be an encounter, let alone a cut scene. For example, Tomb of Annihilation features a major, world wide curse that is in effect. It effects everyone equally, no matter who they are or where they are. There was no cut scene, there was no encounter. Its just happening now. Though I'd give them ways to figure out they're cursed before hitting them with the full time limit.


EDIT:

Its similar to the dragon story I told above the post you quoted. I could have run that vampire dragon encounter as a cut scene. I knew it was 100% impossible for the players to win, and I never intended for them to fight that vampire dragon in the first place. But they fought him, so I let it play out. And the players got to watch as this vampire decimated them, their favorite NPC, and some extra NPC guards along the way. Were they unhappy with the results? Yeah, they were ticked at this dragon. They HATE this dragon now, and want to kill him. But they're also cautious. They kept hearing that this dragon was dangerous, deadly, and not to be messed with. But until that encounter they treated him as a "threat", something that they worried about a little, but didn't see as being overly dangerous. Welp, after being beaten by him single handedly, they take him seriously now.

[KorvinStarmast]

...this is D&D, there is no cutscenes.

You could have reminded them that (a) they have the power to help this person if they wish so (b) they have the power to act while NPCs do things. I am reminded of two rules.
1. There is no crying in baseball.
2. There are no (generally) cut scenes in TTRPGs. (Except when the DM is running a railroad, and this is part of why I stopped watching Matt C's live D&D game. His very first session was a cut scene/railroad). (I like Matt C's stuff, mostly).

lmao its all fun and games until the DM asks you to roll initiative against the man to see if he can fail a death save before you heal him. *giggle*

"...We get XP for that, right?" *Chortle*.

Heh, i can think of at least three characters that would have laughed, checked his pockets before he expired, and/or immediately cast speak with dead afterward instead of just helping and asking before that.

Jerk is an understatement. Yeah; check pockets for loose change - it's a reflex.

Nah, the big payoff is going to be a cut scene where the entire party decides to follow the illithid. I think you spelled "railroad" as "cut scene" there. :smallbiggrin:

They're were-illithid. These attacks always occur around once a month. How many attacks happen before the party connects it with the full moon? That's good for a campaign where a lot of time passes between adventure days. I'll keep it.

Something I remember hearing somewhere is that the players should allow the DM to finish the villain's monologue. It's the DM saying goodbye to their character. Nice suggestion, keeping it. :smallsmile:

[noob]

Direct intervention
The GM springs encounters on the PCs designed to have them defeated and captured by slavers. If the GM plays "fair", there is a very good chance that the players will defeat these encounters, and his effort is wasted. If the GM goes to the other extreme and skews the players chances towards nil and overwhelms them in a "soft" TPK, the players have had their "agency" in making actions in the encounter that are ultimately pointless. As a player I would consider this a waste of my time, like trying to solve a timed puzzle for which there is no solution.

In this case, either the goal of getting the new story started is failed (ironically, because the PCs win, they actually lose) or the players have to suffer through a no-win scenario, starting the next story frustrated with how they got there.
-DF

Directer intervention: the gm asks the players if they would want their current characters to go through a jailbreak scenario then the player starts doing the jailbreak scenario if they agreed with the gm.

[DwarfFighter]

This kind of plot is best done with new PCs, and with that being the starting premise. Rather than, "Okay, your experienced team of adventurers is somehow defeated and captured by slavers," you tell them, "Your new characters start as slaves up for auction. Tell me how they got into this situation as part of your backstory."

That's great if you have the luxury of having players that are happy to discard their characters and start a new campaign.

It does however waste the opportunity of having them bring their existing established known leveled geared-up characters into a new setting with new goals. If you want to do this, cut-scene them into a new starting point and take it from there.


As a DM, I would use a mixture of Natural Development and Direct Intervention. Lets say its a party of around level 7 and I want to do the captured by slavers bit:

First I would sprinkle in hints that there are rumors of some kidnappings going on. They can start looking into it, but eventually a group of slavers will ambush the party. And I'd set up the encounter in a way that directly counters whatever the party's usual go-to strategy in combat is. Do they rely on a bunch of spells? Welp, the slavers are going to have hired some spellcasters and gotten ahold of a Globe of Invulnerability Scroll or two, attacking from the safety of their Globe and pelting the party with spells. Does the party rely on hiding and stealth during combat? They'll be attacked in a location with little to no hiding places, like an open field. Does the party rely on enchantments and/or charms to talk their way out of engagements? A hoard of undead with the express command to knock them out and capture them won't be so easily swayed by their words.

I would set up this encounter as an extremely difficult, but not necessarily impossible, encounter, where the PCs would need to change their strategy and have some luck to win. If the PCs lose and they have the soft TPK, that's perfectly fine, now they're headed to the story where they were captured. What about if the PCs win, against all odds? Now they need to find out who this group is, why they knew so much about the PCs, where they got the supplies to counter the PCs, why were they going after the PCs in the first place, and they have a pretty good reason to do all that as well.

The DM will still be able to run their story, but with a slight twist. Instead of the PCs being full on captives, now they're infiltrating the slaver's camp, and have to start off on the bottom rung of the organization. They have to keep their identities hidden from those that are higher up, making the same allies and being careful around the same NPCs they would have had they been captured. They can get the same info, the same encounters, the same everything. Only now they get to have some extra moral choices as they're forced to choose between playing the part of a ruthless slaver or showing mercy/rescuing some slaves.

And tell me, as a player, which group are you going to take more seriously as a threat? The group of slavers that captures you via cut scene, where you can't really do anything and instead your character basically stands there like some slack jawed idiot, or being controlled by the DM out of your control? Or the group of slavers that managed to out maneuver you, out smarted you, and defeated you in a situation where you did all you could to win, but still failed because they knew how to counter you? As a player, I'm going to take the latter more seriously over the former every single time.


I have working experience with exactly that approach as a player and the result was... It killed the campaign. We were allowed to fight back, but we were set up to fail. We were allowed to resist, but there was literally no point to it. The only thing we achieved by trying to break free before the GM got us to where the adventure was supposed to start, was to delay that by several sessions, and the constant futility killed our interest in it. This wasn't "agency", it was humiliation.

So if you have the kind of players that will enjoy that, go for it.

If you figure your players would like to get to the point where their actions matter, cut-scene them into a new starting point and take it from there.



(...)
PCs are cursed: This wouldn't even need to be an encounter, let alone a cut scene. For example, Tomb of Annihilation features a major, world wide curse that is in effect. It effects everyone equally, no matter who they are or where they are. There was no cut scene, there was no encounter. Its just happening now. Though I'd give them ways to figure out they're cursed before hitting them with the full time limit.


That isn't just "the same" as declaring what happens to the PC's. It literally is declaring what happens to the PC's. At least there is no BS about calling for DC40 Will saves or anything else that has to fail.



Directer intervention: the gm asks the players if they would want their current characters to go through a jailbreak scenario then the player starts doing the jailbreak scenario if they agreed with the gm.

That's good advice: The GM and players agree that here's the new adventure, cut-scene them into a new starting point and take it from there.

(Of course, it's the same as I suggested with "Get it done", so it's natural to agree.)

It's weird that some people seem to think fast forwarding the narrative is something that has to go against the players. Hence the whining.

-DF

[Segev]

That's great if you have the luxury of having players that are happy to discard their characters and start a new campaign.

It does however waste the opportunity of having them bring their existing established known leveled geared-up characters into a new setting with new goals. If you want to do this, cut-scene them into a new starting point and take it from there.

If you're "starting a new adventure" with that much disconnect from the old one ,but you want to retain the characters, then ask the players about the scenario, and, if they buy into it, ask them to tell you how they got captured.

Because if they're not happy to discard their characters to start a new campaign, what makes you think they're happy to discard their characters' liberty to start a new campaign?

[DwarfFighter]

If you're "starting a new adventure" with that much disconnect from the old one ,but you want to retain the characters, then ask the players about the scenario, and, if they buy into it, ask them to tell you how they got captured.

Why would you assume that is not happening?

The cut-scene transition is a tool. Of course you have to be careful how you use it.

Asking the players how they get captured is a great way to build the cut-scene (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25128314&postcount=42): Each player gets to make creative decisions that matter with regards to shaping the narrative. But make no mistake: The GM is deciding what is happening.

-DF

[Segev]

Why would you assume that is not happening?

The cut-scene transition is a tool. Of course you have to be careful how you use it.

Asking the players how they get captured is a great way to build the cut-scene (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25128314&postcount=42): Each player gets to make creative decisions that matter with regards to shaping the narrative. But make no mistake: The GM is deciding what is happening.

-DF

I hesitate to agree that it's the GM deciding what's happening any more than it ever is, when the players had buy-in on the scenario and were responsible for setting up whatever contrivances got their characters into the mess.

It's also not a "cut scene" so much as "downtime RP" at that point.

A cut scene as described here is a time when the events of the story are out of the players' control, even if it involves their characters and their characters' potential choices or actions. Cut scenes CAN be used appropriately, either as neat ways to tell the players something going on behind the scenes where their characters are clueless (not great if you want to avoid metagaming, but if you want to set a mood or tone and are less concerned about possible metagaming, great for foreshadowing), or for resolving something that has already been taken out of the characters' volition, such as if they ARE captured, legitimately, by the rules - preferably without the DM having deliberately railroaded them into it - and the DM is describing the way their unconscious or otherwise helpless selves get to the next point where they have some chance of acting.

[Greywander]

Asking the players how they get captured is a great way to build the cut-scene (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25128314&postcount=42): Each player gets to make creative decisions that matter with regards to shaping the narrative. But make no mistake: The GM is deciding what is happening.
I really like this. It's a great way to move the plot forward and keep the players invested, but without entirely removing their agency or railroading them. "Hey guys, I need this to happen for the next part of the story to start, but I'll let you decide the details of how it goes down, and maybe your actions can influence some of the things beyond this specific event."

[strangebloke]

IMO a cutscene like that is restricted to major scene transitions though, not minor stuff like in OP.

[sithlordnergal]

I have working experience with exactly that approach as a player and the result was... It killed the campaign. We were allowed to fight back, but we were set up to fail. We were allowed to resist, but there was literally no point to it. The only thing we achieved by trying to break free before the GM got us to where the adventure was supposed to start, was to delay that by several sessions, and the constant futility killed our interest in it. This wasn't "agency", it was humiliation.

So if you have the kind of players that will enjoy that, go for it.

If you figure your players would like to get to the point where their actions matter, cut-scene them into a new starting point and take it from there.


I'm surprised that the PCs losing would end a campaign. I always have the PCs fight back, and occasionally they've even managed to win and I had to take the story in a different direction because they beat the "impossible" scenario I created. Though reading further, I suspect that was just the GM running it poorly. The adventure should have started immediately after you guys lost. You should have awoken at the cut scene would have placed you rather then have multiple encounters where you guys lost.

And here's where I feel that you shouldn't use a cut scene. Those actions should absolutely matter. Even if they fought and failed, a good GM will make sure it mattered in some way. Perhaps there are now fewer guards to deal with, or they're treated with some sort of special respect from the other slaves. But it is on the GM to make sure the actions mattered in some way, even if its a small way.



That isn't just "the same" as declaring what happens to the PC's. It literally is declaring what happens to the PC's. At least there is no BS about calling for DC40 Will saves or anything else that has to fail.

While that is true, that situation isn't what I would define as a cut scene. A cut scene implies that the PCs are in that location, either watching or interacting in a very minor way with the situation. Something like "You guys charge into the room, but before you can even strike you're all hit by a wave of magic and find yourselves paralyzed. You struggle against the spell as each of you are implanted with <insert cause of curse here> to no avail, and the Sorcerer teleports away." is a cut scene. There could have been a meaningful encounter there, where the players could have gotten involved and had agency, even if it ended with them losing.

[Tanarii]

Players are definitely jerks in cutscenes. They keep interrupting to say "I attack".

[False God]

Right - because in video games, things like that are inescapable. Because by their very nature, whatever happens in the game has to be something the developers already created in advance, just like in a book or movie. They can be structured such that this is multiple-choice, but that's still like a book, just a very specific type of book: a choose-your-own-adventure book. Some choose to do that; others choose to just tell a single, focused story. Both have their strengths and can work well, but may appeal more to different audiences.

In tabletop games, none of that is the case, because you have a DM/GM running things, who can react to anything the players try to do on the fly. That is their strength, which is what lets a tabletop game really emphasize roleplaying, in a way no video game can or will ever be able to. That's why cutscenes where the player can't do anything make perfect sense in video games, but not at all in a tabletop one.

While n theory any game could have an infinite array of options, the reality is that those options are not infinite, and certain things are going to be inescapable, short of the party saying "Nah, we're gonna completely ignore all this material and go over there."

Which, frankly, is super annoying. If the party doesn't want to play any of the prepared material, I'd rather they just tell me to stop running the game, rather than expect me to produce an infinite amount of content.

[Easy e]

Cut Scenes are useful as I have seen players waste so much time doing non-value added things. The DM just going into a cut scene mode can erase a lot of that garbage from the game. I only have X amount of time to play, and I do not want to spend Y amount of it on non-value added stuff like shopping, petty theft, getting drunk, trying to get laid, non-character developing banter, etc.

Many people say railroading is bad. No, bad railroading is bad. Cutting out Non-Value Add time is good.

Let's not forget, the DM is a player too and if they are not having fun; the effort is wasted. Everyone at the table needs to have fun, and that sometimes involves a bit of railroading to make an adventure or scenario pay-off for the DM too.

[Breccia]

Where was it ever stated the DM didn't have that option available?

That wasn't the question I was addressing. The post I was addressing and the OP were talking about locking out PC actions while events they could normally alter unfold before them without them being allowed any actions, as shown here:


I love video games and video-game tropes. Still, I have got to ask: Should there really be times when a tabletop RPG goes into cutscene mode?

Especially in this case. What would have happened if you told the DM that your PC was trying one of these four features? "No can do, cutscene in progress"?

That question in that context was the point I was addressing. In that context, the DM has removed that option.