A fellow PC killed teens by accident, What now?

[Jakinbandw]

So it's the end of the world and most people know it. Effectively, our setting's thimblewinter has started.

We (the PCs) are a group dedicated to preventing the end, and protecting humanity. Last session, we ended up in a conflict with a nomadic village full of people that had been enchanted to fight for one of the forces looking to doom the world. They had taken some diplomats we sent to them hostage, and when we found out, we realized that we couldn't convince them with words, so we entered combat, with the party intending to cower them, then break the enchantment.

One PC, not thinking, unleashed their most destructive magic on the village itself. Where our diplomats were. They were trying to prevent reinforcements, and without thinking they said they wanted to kill everyone there. The GM tried to clarify, and they confirmed it in the heat of the moment.

The rest of the party was horrified, as we'd only started fighting a guard at the entrance to the village. Tactically, it wasn't a bad idea, as it did make the fight 'easier.' Though my character ran into the enemy forces and burned all my magic healing everyone I could, taking a bunch of wounds in the process.

Needless to say, a couple diplomats, and 60 of the village folk died. This included teens as young as 14 years old. As part of what happened, the enchantment on the village was broken, so the action was witnessed by over a hundred people.

The player confirmed they hadn't meant to kill anyone, but by that point it was too late. So now we are stuck. We are trying to convince people to ally with us, but this fight was a pretty bad look. I could spin it, making people belive that the person that had enchanted the village, had taken control of the PC, but due to the magic system (where belief has power) this would empower our foe. I also feel it would be ducking responsibility.

That said, I really don't know what to do about this. Both in character and out, this was an accident, and not done with malice, but that's a lot of people dead. If we want to save the world, we need people to be willing to ally with us.

Is it right to take responsibility, even if it means risking the end of the alliance that has the best chance of saving the world? Is it right to lie, and empower one of the local monsters to keep the possibility of alliances open?

I need advice.

[gbaji]

Depending on the setting and how the GM is running the NPCs, that may be an unrecoverable error. Hard to say. It's possible you could spin this in a "this is what happens to people who allow themselves to follow <insert eviil bad guys here>". Um... Maybe. From the sound of it, this is more about trying to win people over than just cowing them into doing what the party is asking though, so might not really be viable.

I'm just curious how this happened. From your post, it sounds like the player actually said "I want to kill them all", the GM asked "Are you sure you want to kill everyone in the village", and the player said "yes". Seems odd, after the fact to insist "I didn't want to kill them all". Was this a terrible miscommunication? Was this communication not made in front of the rest of the group (so other players could perhaps caution the one that this might be a "really bad idea")? Or did the player just not realize how deadly the spell was going to be against "wimpy" NPCs, and maybe the GM should have reminded the player that "the spell you are about to use will likely wipe out X% of the villagers?".

It's not totally clear from your desciption, but that falls heavily into the category where a GM should not just say "are you sure?", but should maybe spell out the actual likely (and presumably known to the character, if not to the player) outcome of using such a spell before letting the action move foward in the first place. Again though, it's not clear.

How significant is the "law" or whatever in this world? Can you make a big show of punishing the PC who made the mistake? Banish them to a distant realm maybe? Make them scrub toilets for the rest of eternity. Send him to the bit of despair? Depending on how desperate the situation is in the game, the players may need to take some desperate and forceful action here to have any chance of winning the NPCs to their side. Handwaving this away as "well, mistakes happen" isn't likely to work out well.

On the other hand, the GM could use this as an opportunity for the adversary to gain ground. Perhaps more villages, having seen the violence the party represents are more wiling than ever to fall under the evil influence. Could be played out via consequences, and increased opposition. But perhaps with the GM inserting a similar "bad thing" on the evil side as well. Evil will eventually show their spots, and perhaps create an even worse calamity on the hapless people, which may sway them back to the party's side. But either way, this act will have put a huge damper on the party's efforts, and it will (should be) a massive uphill battle to recover. And yes, in this scenario, the total death toll as a result of this one mistake will presumably be higher than it would have been otherwise. Which maybe should be presented as a morality hit for the PC involved (and RP opportunity as well).

[Slipjig]

This sounds like it represents a horrible mistake, but you are literally trying to SAVE THE WORLD. Fimbulwinter isn't a "winning means we save evrybody" scenario, it's a "lots of people are going to die, how many of them can we save" scenario. And while it would be great to avoid killing mind-controlled enemy troops where you can, you may find yourself in situations where killing a few guards saves lives on balance.

And from a ruthlessly practical standpoint, benching somebody capable of killing that many people with a single spell is counterproductive. Maybe make it a story point that this character is a loose cannon that everybody is nervous to be working with, but he's just too powerful NOT to employ.

But yeah, you have pretty much zero chance of an alliance with this village now. Chastise them for serving the enemy, then move on to the next one. And make sure you get the word out there that this village was serving the forces of destruction and reaped the consequences of their actions.

[Jakinbandw]

I'm just curious how this happened. From your post, it sounds like the player actually said "I want to kill them all", the GM asked "Are you sure you want to kill everyone in the village", and the player said "yes". Seems odd, after the fact to insist "I didn't want to kill them all". Was this a terrible miscommunication? Was this communication not made in front of the rest of the group (so other players could perhaps caution the one that this might be a "really bad idea")? Or did the player just not realize how deadly the spell was going to be against "wimpy" NPCs, and maybe the GM should have reminded the player that "the spell you are about to use will likely wipe out X% of the villagers?".

It's not totally clear from your desciption, but that falls heavily into the category where a GM should not just say "are you sure?", but should maybe spell out the actual likely (and presumably known to the character, if not to the player) outcome of using such a spell before letting the action move foward in the first place. Again though, it's not clear.


So it was a few things. The player didn't realize that it was a village. They had saw opponents and got thinking that it was more of a war camp or something. They used the word Kill in place of defeat, and everyone was too shocked to even do anything, though the GM did double check, the player was too hyped because they rolled so high that they didn't even realize what the question was.

OOC it turned out kinda great. My character dived in throwing out healing to people that had suvived to keep them from dying. Another character had a stand out moment in the ensuing battle. It was great. IC pretty much the entire party was ready to attack the PC, but we restrained ourselves.


How significant is the "law" or whatever in this world? Can you make a big show of punishing the PC who made the mistake? Banish them to a distant realm maybe? Make them scrub toilets for the rest of eternity. Send him to the bit of despair? Depending on how desperate the situation is in the game, the players may need to take some desperate and forceful action here to have any chance of winning the NPCs to their side. Handwaving this away as "well, mistakes happen" isn't likely to work out well.

The land we are currently in is inspired a bit by the weird west, so not a heavy law presence. But at the same time, my character is the equivalent of a deputy. I could implement some punishment, though figuring out what is tricky. It can't be bad enough to remove them from the party, but it can't be seen as too weak either. I'll think about it, but if you have any suggestions, it would be good.


This sounds like it represents a horrible mistake, but you are literally trying to SAVE THE WORLD. Fimbulwinter isn't a "winning means we save evrybody" scenario, it's a "lots of people are going to die, how many of them can we save" scenario. And while it would be great to avoid killing mind-controlled enemy troops where you can, you may find yourself in situations where killing a few guards saves lives on balance.

And from a ruthlessly practical standpoint, benching somebody capable of killing that many people with a single spell is counterproductive. Maybe make it a story point that this character is a loose cannon that everybody is nervous to be working with, but he's just too powerful NOT to employ.

But yeah, you have pretty much zero chance of an alliance with this village now. Chastise them for serving the enemy, then move on to the next one. And make sure you get the word out there that this village was serving the forces of destruction and reaped the consequences of their actions.

While it's a bit more mercenary than I prefer, I do really like this suggestion. Give her some public punishment to show we have control over her, but then also use her as a threat to everyone going forward. We don't want to fight you, and want to fight monsters, but if you do make us fight you, then when we come to deal with you, we can't guarantee your safety. We will do our best, but one of our members is a known psycho, and when in a bloodlust, we can't stop her.

It gives us the benefits of scariness without making the faction as a whole look as bad as if we condoned her behavour.

[Maat Mons]

What you do is, you find some random innocent person, and disguise them to look like the PC. Then you execute the innocent person publicly, convincing everyone you’ve killed the responsible party. The actual PC spends the rest of the game disguised as some new hero who just joined your group.

[False God]

What you do is, you find some random innocent person, and disguise them to look like the PC. Then you execute the innocent person publicly, convincing everyone you’ve killed the responsible party. The actual PC spends the rest of the game disguised as some new hero who just joined your group.

This is a great option if you're not a dedicated goodie-goodie. Given that it's the end of the world, I personally see no reason to stand on ceremony. Depending on the level of magic available, you may also be able to permanently transform them into someone else. Honestly, it shouldn't even take much, little hair dye, a beard, perhaps the soon-to-be-killed PC's all-too-similar brother Joe happened to be in the area and wanted to know the circumstances of what the PC did and what led to his death.

If you are a goodie-goodie, then like the people you just killed, you might just be fragged.

[icefractal]

So it was a few things. The player didn't realize that it was a village. They had saw opponents and got thinking that it was more of a war camp or something. They used the word Kill in place of defeat, and everyone was too shocked to even do anything, though the GM did double check, the player was too hyped because they rolled so high that they didn't even realize what the question was.Incidentally, this is why I'm not a fan of simply "are you sure?" in situations where a player is doing something that seems off-the-wall.

Yeah, gamer memes and whatnot, but IMO it just doesn't have sufficient weight. In daily life we're asked that question many times a day, and 99% of the time the answer is "yes". Am I sure I want to save the file? To not save the file? To pay at the grocery store?

And even if the significance is received, it can mean too many things. If I say "I throw a grenade right there, next to those guards" and the GM says "Are you sure?", they could mean:
* Are you sure you want to use up a grenade on three foes you could probably beat pretty easily? (Sure, I have plenty of them)
* Are you sure you want to use a weapon that makes a loud noise? (Eh, I think we've abandoned stealth a while ago)
* Are you sure you want to put an explosion that close to your teammate? (It's fine, he's a heavy cyborg, it's not going to hurt him even if it goes off-target)
* Are you sure you want to blow up the prisoner too? Because two of those orc minis are guards, but the third one is a prisoner - see how it doesn't have a weapon? (Ohhhh. No, in that case I do not want to throw the grenade)

So personally, in a case like this, I'd say something more explicit:
"Are you sure you want to blow up the whole village? It will probably kill most of the citizens, including the ones indoors."

[King of Nowhere]

It's not so tragic.
Ok, it is, but it happens. It's a war. In war, friendly fire accidents happen. In fact, a significant percentage of war losses are caused by friendly fire.
So, apologize to the village, but explain that you were trying to minimize losses. considering that all those people were charmed to fight for the big bad, the party could have killed them all if they wanted to go ruthless; the fact that many villagers survived shows that you at least tried to minimize collateral damage.
Sure, that village won't like it, and probably will hate you regardless. though they will probably hate the guy who dominated them and forced them to fight on suicidal odds even more. Other villages in the area, though? in majority, they should be with you. the alternative is the guy who dominates the villagers and send them to be slaughtered by adventurers. easy choice.

[GloatingSwine]

"You work for us now, that wasn't my only spell slot." War is diplomacy by other means.

Also, recalibrate your expectations about age in pre-modern societies. 14 sounds young in high-resource, high-specialisation modern life. In pre-modern societies it meant having most of the responsibilities of adulthood because there was so much labour to do all of the time that there was no alternative.

Especially in nomadic societies which tended to have low population groupings and a lot of work for subsistence.

Those 14 year olds would be hunting, sheperding, and fighting with the tribe even if they weren't considered adults yet (but they probably almost were. 15 was the age of adulthood among the Mongols for instance.)

[Rynjin]

Eh, you've already killed 60 of them, what's a hundred more? If they all die they can't spread stories about the party to other villages.

[KorvinStarmast]

So it's the end of the world and most people know it. Mr Spock might have this to say: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. :smallyuk:

I also recommend that you read a comic called "The Order of the Stick" and consider the character called Vaarsuvius. The party is still trying to save the world, despite the familicide problem.

While this scenario was a little bit of a gotcha scenario by the DM, nuking/blasting one's own diplomats was a pretty big mistake.
Yes, friendly fire is a bad thing. The US Army has an official doctrinal word for it: fratricide. On a more humorous note, Murphy's Laws of combat say this: Friendly fire ... isn't friendly
A major mistake was made in 1944 in Normandy: the Eighth Air Force supporting Operation Cobra dropped a lot of bombs (short) on the American side of the lines, killing over a hundred friendly troops and wounding hundreds of others.
But the operation still went forward ...
Actions have consequences. Yes, the villagers will hate this PC forever. I hope the DM lets the world reflect that.

Have you all considered retiring this character?

[Vahnavoi]

The right choice is for the person responsible to take all the blame, then commit an honor suicide or be publicly executed. Incidental "good" consequences interest no-one in the face of a crime this bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

The right choice is for the person responsible to take all the blame, then commit an honor suicide or be publicly executed. Incidental "good" consequences interest no-one in the face of a crime this bad.

That is one way to retire this character, yes.

[Vahnavoi]

As additional commentary, I find it funny how people jump to "this is war, hence bully, lie to and murder villagers more" and not "this is war, hence major screw-ups get executed".

[Willie the Duck]

If, as False God suggests, the party is team goodie-goodie, then taking responsibility for the error is likely the most in-character option. The ramifications of that should be world-dependent (court martial, retire in disgrace, expectation of suicide, execution by hands of own side, handed over to aggrieved party for their forms of justice, etc.). Narrative fiction always seems to have an 'option C' between that and trying to weasel out of responsibility (I'm thinking of a Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episode where Word accidentally destroys a civilian vessel in the middle of a military conflict, but it turns out that it was an empty ship that only looked full of civilians), but realistic emergent situations rarely are so convenient.

From a diplomatic perspective, the one distinction of note is this:

They had taken some diplomats we sent to them hostage, and when we found out, we realized that we couldn't convince them with words, so we entered combat, with the party intending to cower them, then break the enchantment.
It sounds like the PCs side (and then the PCs themselves) did everything in their power to resolve this peacefully, and then the other side (mind controlled, but still) forced their hands completely (attacking or taking hostage messengers and diplomats is a great way to advertise 'we have no interest in communication, we are a threat which can only be dealt with through force'). Thus the party did so, despite misgivings and made a grievous and regrettable error. That spreads the blame around a bit, and so long as it isn't seen as passing the buck, can be used to their advantage.

Regarding 'are you sures' and that like -- I'm still a little unclear how the PC could have magic that could destroy a village, was able to target the village, but couldn't have seen that it was a village and not a war camp. That sounds like a situation where the player didn't know/realize X, but the character would have -- and perhaps the DM could have used that, offered it up as clarification, or something if they felt the PC was acting uncharacteristically consequence-be-damned violent (and thus likely not realizing the implications of their actions. My general rule is 'laid (/stated) is played... provided it's clear everyone is playing the same situation.' I say that because communication issues are the most common problems I see at the game table. There've been innumerable times when someone has said '[my character] takes a step to the left,' where to the left is off the edge of ledge to a deadly fall, but the player has that as right in their head because they and the DM have been confusing your-lefts, my-lefts, stage-lefts, or whatever -- but either way the character would know which direction is away from the edge and which is over it.


As additional commentary, I find it funny how people jump to "this is war, hence bully, lie to and murder villagers more" and not "this is war, hence major screw-ups get executed".
We have no idea what playstyle the group has, it could be anything from murderhobos (on a mission to save the world since they live on it) to expediency-focused questors to honor-bound paladins to cartoonish do-gooders to anything in between. It's not safe to assume that a party, even one trying to stop the end of the world (maybe especially not one trying to stop the end of the world), are going to be the type to jeopardize the mission for the sake of any given moral principle. Also whether, in-game-world, the PCs (who will have some justification for why they are entering situations with village-killing-capable magic in the first place) would see this as a tragedy of war, horrible mistake, or unforgivable sin. Beyond that, 'war=>major mistake=firing squad' isn't an overly interesting area to explore. It certainly seems more like expedience-for-the-player (in a game where undoubtedly death just means taking an unpleasant task off your hands and hands you a blank character sheet) than something nuanced like having to go through the extensive process of court martials and jurisdiction debates.

[Lord Torath]

How does the Village-Killing PC in question feel about this? Were they equally horrified when they realized what they'd done? A sincere apology and a promise to return after The End of the World is averted might persuade the village to still ally with you. Can you dump some valuables in the village as a sign of good faith? Not necessarily gold, but something that would be useful to their current situation. Your PC has already made a good start by running in to help everyone they could. The 'guilty' member of the party doing something similar would also be a good thing, as far as convincing the party to help. All of this is, of course, entirely up to the DM. How much do the villagers know? Do they know they were being mind-controlled?

I think a good reaction to "Are you sure?" is "Why? What have I forgotten?" I'm going to endeavor to remember this the next time a DM asks me that. And if I need to ask it as a DM, I'm going to try to remember to expound to the player the reasons his PC should know this is a bad idea.

[LibraryOgre]

Who is your PC, and, as a play consideration, what does the player want?

How is your PC going to weight the murder of innocents against the need to save the world? Are they going to be an acceptable, if regrettable, cost? Are they going to be something that requires justice? When will the justice be required... can it wait until the world is saved, or should it happen now? Who should dispense justice? Those wronged, or someone else?

That, however, is somewhat subservient to "what does the player of the murderer want"? Does he want his character to be replaced (which more easily opens up his character being subject to the justice and/or vengeance of the wronged)? Does he want to continue with this character?

[gbaji]

Regarding 'are you sures' and that like -- I'm still a little unclear how the PC could have magic that could destroy a village, was able to target the village, but couldn't have seen that it was a village and not a war camp. That sounds like a situation where the player didn't know/realize X, but the character would have -- and perhaps the DM could have used that, offered it up as clarification, or something if they felt the PC was acting uncharacteristically consequence-be-damned violent (and thus likely not realizing the implications of their actions. My general rule is 'laid (/stated) is played... provided it's clear everyone is playing the same situation.' I say that because communication issues are the most common problems I see at the game table. There've been innumerable times when someone has said '[my character] takes a step to the left,' where to the left is off the edge of ledge to a deadly fall, but the player has that as right in their head because they and the DM have been confusing your-lefts, my-lefts, stage-lefts, or whatever -- but either way the character would know which direction is away from the edge and which is over it.

Yeah. I'm putting at least part of the blame on the GM here (actually a pretty large part). There should just not be a possible way for a PC to "accidentally" cast a spell like that on a whole village. I mean, weren't the PCs trying to rescue the diplomats? I thought that was the whole point of them being there in the first place (and re-reading, a couple of the diplomats were killed as well). Um.. Yeah. This falls heaviliy into the category of "something the character should absolutely know is a bad idea, but the player might not, so really really really spell out to them why this is a really bad idea".

Even the description that the player was super excited about rolling well, so wasn't paying attention to the question is suspect. Any decent GM should set aside player excitement over die rolls or something. There's no freaking hurry. Stop. Wait for the player to calm down, get over their adrenaline/cafeein high, tell them to go take a bathroom break or something, and then ask them and make sure they fully understand what's really going on before you accept the answer. The player isn't the character. Players can often make mistakes about their perception of the game world that the characters themselves would never make.

This squarely falls into that category. The GM absolutely knew that in the heat of the moment a player just had their character do something that completely blew up the entire point of the encounter. The GM should *never* just accept that without fully conversing about this with the player (and maybe getting the entire table of other players involved as well). Not unless you're actually intentionally playing a silly/gotcha style game (I will totally do this in Paranoia for example, cause... luls! - cone rifle with tac nuke munition inside a space station... what could go wrong?). In any game where I'm actually trying for anything remotely serious theme/genre wise? Never.

But yeah. To play this out, you have to deal with the consequences. This could range from denial to punishment. I mean, is it actually obvious who cast the spell? Maybe the party can blame it on the same evil that mind controlled the village in the first place? Could also be played off as a warning to the next group maybe. But that's pretty "harsh" for a group that's at least trying to be the good guys.

[Berenger]

I think the "what now?" can't be meaningfully answered without discussing the social values, the religious commandments, the legal standards and the customary rules of war in the fictitious culture(s) involved, as well as the personality of the individual people in charge.

"We beg forgiveness for the grave sacrilege of attacking guests and diplomats. Please allow us three days to mourn in peace before we resume negotiations."
"The sorcerer must pay a weregild of twenty sheep for each person killed, after which he will be forgiven."
"Such is the nature of war. Neither of us wanted this fight. Let us make peace and bury the dead."
"The slaying of younglings is the worst crime in the eyes of the gods, only spilled blood can atone for spilled blood."

All of these make sense in the right context.

[Sapphire Guard]

Ask the Player what they want to do. Don't decide to punish the character without they player's input.

In universe, see how the village reacts. Accept a reasonable punishment, but not execution.

The fact that you accept it despite being capable of burning the whole place down in itself signals intent.

If they exile you, leave peacefully.

Don't spin it, be honest (be very easy for a lie to be dramatically revealed at an even worse moment later)

Watch how the antagonists react. Are they now running in fear of you, see you as a great threat to be eliminated immediately, and so on? Let that inform the response.

Propaganda wise, if in the setting talking about how powerful someone is increases their power, then flip it.

'Look how pathetic [antagonist faction] is, they put together this elaborate scheme to stop us, and we undid it with a single spell. Look low many lives they threw away for nothing, they took hostages because they hadn't the power to face us, the cowards. Are those the people you are scared of? They have no power except pathetic tricks, they're doing averything in their power to stop us out of desperation and we're holding back!'

[King of Nowhere]

also, by the way, why were only kids as young as 14 harmed? what of all the younger children? do they enjoy contractual immortality?

[Pex]

Incidentally, this is why I'm not a fan of simply "are you sure?" in situations where a player is doing something that seems off-the-wall.

Yeah, gamer memes and whatnot, but IMO it just doesn't have sufficient weight. In daily life we're asked that question many times a day, and 99% of the time the answer is "yes". Am I sure I want to save the file? To not save the file? To pay at the grocery store?

And even if the significance is received, it can mean too many things. If I say "I throw a grenade right there, next to those guards" and the GM says "Are you sure?", they could mean:
* Are you sure you want to use up a grenade on three foes you could probably beat pretty easily? (Sure, I have plenty of them)
* Are you sure you want to use a weapon that makes a loud noise? (Eh, I think we've abandoned stealth a while ago)
* Are you sure you want to put an explosion that close to your teammate? (It's fine, he's a heavy cyborg, it's not going to hurt him even if it goes off-target)
* Are you sure you want to blow up the prisoner too? Because two of those orc minis are guards, but the third one is a prisoner - see how it doesn't have a weapon? (Ohhhh. No, in that case I do not want to throw the grenade)

So personally, in a case like this, I'd say something more explicit:
"Are you sure you want to blow up the whole village? It will probably kill most of the citizens, including the ones indoors."

A DM only says "Are you sure?" when the PC is about to do something stupid or otherwise a really bad idea that will ruin everything, not for wasting a resource or something trivial/insignificant. When a DM says this the player's response should always be "No, never mind, I don't do that."

The DM prepared the adventure. He knows what consequences will result because they happen by his fiat. The player has a different perspective of the situation. He does not know everything. He may even have it wrong. The DM asking "are you sure" is the DM telling the player his idea won't work, will go wrong, or otherwise not work out in whatever scenario the player thinks it would. It's a polite way of telling the player he really absolutely positively should not do what he wants to do. If the player does it anyway he gets what's coming and has no casus belli to complain.

[False God]

A DM only says "Are you sure?" when the PC is about to do something stupid or otherwise a really bad idea that will ruin everything, not for wasting a resource or something trivial/insignificant. When a DM says this the player's response should always be "No, never mind, I don't do that."

Eh, I say "Are you sure?" all the time. Sometimes its because it can derail the adventure or introduce serious new variables (not necessarily negative ones), sometimes it's because I know they're indecisive and I want to be sure they did this correctly. And sometimes because I used to play with a GM who interpreted even the most simple of decisions wildly differently than I intended, and I don't want to play the interpretation game with my players.

[gbaji]

A DM only says "Are you sure?" when the PC is about to do something stupid or otherwise a really bad idea that will ruin everything, not for wasting a resource or something trivial/insignificant. When a DM says this the player's response should always be "No, never mind, I don't do that."

The DM prepared the adventure. He knows what consequences will result because they happen by his fiat. The player has a different perspective of the situation. He does not know everything. He may even have it wrong. The DM asking "are you sure" is the DM telling the player his idea won't work, will go wrong, or otherwise not work out in whatever scenario the player thinks it would. It's a polite way of telling the player he really absolutely positively should not do what he wants to do. If the player does it anyway he gets what's coming and has no casus belli to complain.

Some players aren't experienced enough to know this though. Also, some GMs will ask "are you sure" to everything (so as to not give away clues I guess), which leads players to just say "yes" every time, without actually stopping and thinking things though.

And, as the previous posters observed, the player and the GM may have very different peceptions of the game world. In this case, the GM thought he had described the outer edge of a village to the players. The players thought the GM had described the outer edge of a war camp. The GM assumes the players know this is a village and thus know that there are civilians and children and probably the hostages they are looking for within. The players assume this is just some random spot the bad guy warriors set up camp for the night, and everyone within is a combatant to be eliminated.

So the GM asking "are you sure?" is interpreted by the player as "are you sure you want to cast this spell that will likely kill all of the enemy warriors in the camp". The GM thinks he's asking "are you sure you want to cast this spell that will likely kill all of the people in this village, including non-combatants, children, and the hostages". He's getting a "yes", but to the wrong question.

This is why GMs always need to be abundantly clear about stuff like this. If he'd literally asked the question I just wrote, it's almost certain the entire table would have responded with "What? Um... Village? With civilians in it? We thought it was just a camp full of bad guy warriors". And different choices would have been made.

[Berenger]

The DM prepared the adventure. He knows what consequences will result because they happen by his fiat.

Not necessarily - you assume a near-perfect DM. I, for one, am frequently surprised by player decisions in dynamic situations and can't figure out within a few seconds what the logical (long-term) consequences would be and how to present them in a fun and convicing way. My talent for improvisation is not exactly stellar. Obviously, that makes me a less than ideal DM, but I still suspect that I am not alone with this problem. If I have a night to sleep on it, I then often find ways to incorporate the unexpected element into the plot in interesting and constructive ways. Sometimes I don't have that luxury because I have to keep the game night going, and in those cases I sometimes nudge players in the direction I expected, but that doesn't mean that the player action was stupid or makes the plot unsalvageable. (Of course, I also receive curveballs of the plain stupid variety.)

[TaiLiu]

If this wasn't what the player intended, and if everyone is okay with it, could you all just retcon that encounter? It sounds like it was spectacularly out of character.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah. I'm putting at least part of the blame on the GM here (actually a pretty large part). There should just not be a possible way for a PC to "accidentally" cast a spell like that on a whole village. I disagree.
Accidents ought to be possible. Magic is both powerful and dangerous. Which means that players need to think about the situation that they are in and what tool they are using to get the job done.

And then, how the players deal with the "oops, we did what?" is part of the play of D&D.
Heck, in a great many cases it has some of the richest material in the game. (I recall a rather catastrophic case where our monk ended up setting off ultiple beads on the necklace of fireballs in our raid against the fire giants .. AD&D 1e, and we still talk about it today, the DM and I, when we have the occasional phone call. That was 42 ish years ago. :smallcool:

The group, DM and players, in this case of "oops, we / I did what? :smalleek: " have a great opportunity to deal with that in depth.

[Catullus64]

In this instance, it honestly sounds like the motives & mistakes of the player character and those of the player align pretty well. Both of them were in a high-adrenaline moment, thought that there were reinforcements incoming, and acted on impulse. This doesn't seem like one of those circumstances where the character absolutely would have understood the full implications of what they were doing. If a player makes a mistake that their character could make in the circumstances, I'm inclined to let it stand. The DM's job is to tell you what your character can see and hear and know, not think through the full implications of everything for you. So I can't say that there's any great fault on the DM here, and this is the kind of mistake I think your group should roll with.

That said, I would lean away from solutions that the group enforces on the offending PC. Give that player the chance to take the first step in how you handle it. If your characters have been allies with this person for a long time, they might still have enough trust in them to make the best of it, and stand by them whatever happens, even as they demand that they take some responsibility for it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Regardless of who's "fault" it was, the answer depends on the general tone and culture of the game--and table. One group might enjoy the opportunity for dark roleplaying; another group might prefer a quick surrender and character replacement so as to quickly move past it; a third might find the whole incident too depressing and decide to retcon the entire session. We can give you potential options, but ultimately you and your friends are going to have to have a conversation and decide which way you want to go.

[Aliess]

- Find whichever Lord owns the village and pay the fine for killing peasants/accept the dangerous quest.
- swear an oath to whichever God is appropriate and start taking levels in paladin

[Pex]

If you're needing to teach a new player or do not understand the reasoning why a player is doing something, you ask for clarification. Use different words than "Are you sure?". If the players do not know the difference between your confusion of the situation and being nice warning them against doing something stupid, they'll do the wrong thing at the wrong time because they lack the knowledge of your warning.

[GloatingSwine]

I disagree.
Accidents ought to be possible. Magic is both powerful and dangerous. Which means that players need to think about the situation that they are in and what tool they are using to get the job done.

Accidents ought to be possible, but the players should also have enough of a mental model of their surroundings and the effects of their abilities that they can reasonably predict outcome of using them.

And if they're new then "you are aware this spell will hit friendlies/non-combatants do you wish to proceed Y/N?" might be helpful, if they're not holding all that mental information yet.

[Keltest]

Accidents ought to be possible, but the players should also have enough of a mental model of their surroundings and the effects of their abilities that they can reasonably predict outcome of using them.

And if they're new then "you are aware this spell will hit friendlies/non-combatants do you wish to proceed Y/N?" might be helpful, if they're not holding all that mental information yet.

The DM isn't a mind reader, thats the point of asking "are you sure?" Even a new player with no experience should at that point understand that the DM isn't on the same page as you as far as the good outcome goes, because if they were, they wouldn't be asking.

DM code aside, even normal discourse rules means you should probably check your assumptions at that point, maybe ask for some clarification on a few points to make sure you understand everything correctly, because the DM has just flat out said they think it might be a silly decision.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah. I'm putting at least part of the blame on the GM here (actually a pretty large part). There should just not be a possible way for a PC to "accidentally" cast a spell like that on a whole village.
It's going to depend entirely on how the magic works. If the character summons a fire spirit which says "what are your orders?" and the character responds "destroy the settlement over the hill, use as much magic-power as necessary" then I can understand it. If it is something more like D&D spell-targeting, then yeah, the character should see the village and know that, no, it isn't a warcamp.

That said, it all depends on group factors -- how does the ability work, whether 'are you sure?' means much, etc. I think it's interesting discussion, but at the end of the day we don't know the group. I think it is absolutely possible that the player had a different understanding of the situational landscape, and that 'are you sure' wasn't a useful prompt. I think it is absolutely possible that the player had every reason to know the consequences and still did what they did. I know my group has forgotten that they were intending to take prisoners or similar, despite having no excuse. Mistakes happen, and it's interesting to explore the consequences thereof.

With this, I'd love to know more about the game world. Are the PCs nobles? Soldiers of the 'empowered by the powers-that-be of an existing realm' nature? Is there any reason that they might be able to kill with limited consequences*? What is the method of justice normal to the culture? For that matter, is resurrection (or a wish to turn back time) possible?
*other than the whole 'this was an accident during a fight we weren't trying to fight' issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

Accidents ought to be possible, but the players should also have enough of a mental model of their surroundings and the effects of their abilities that they can reasonably predict outcome of using them. Good luck with that. Some pay attention, and some don't. In the ideal case, though, I agree with you. Some have a good "mental map" of the situation, and some don't.

And if they're new then "you are aware this spell will hit friendlies/non-combatants do you wish to proceed Y/N?" might be helpful Yes, I have sometimes done that and had DMs do that for folks in our group, particularly when trying out a new spell for the first time. :smallcool:

[Lord Torath]

Accidents ought to be possible, but the players should also have enough of a mental model of their surroundings and the effects of their abilities that they can reasonably predict outcome of using them.
Good luck with that. Some pay attention, and some don't. In the ideal case, though, I agree with you. Some have a good "mental map" of the situation, and some don't. Also remember that the quality of any player's mental map is hard limited by the quality of the DM's description. Doesn't matter how well the players are paying attention, if the DM's description misses a key detail, the players' mental maps are all going to be flawed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also remember that the quality of any player's mental map is hard limited by the quality of the DM's description. Doesn't matter how well the players are paying attention, if the DM's description misses a key detail, the players' mental maps are all going to be flawed. It is also best to remember not to try and teach grandma now to suck eggs. :smallwink:

[Talakeal]

Depending on the world, fourteen may not even be that big of a deal.

Fifteen was the most common age of conscription in the medieval world, and in some places it was even younger, as it is in many parts of the world today.


Even in D&D starting adventuring age is only sixteen, and I know I have had PCs who were even younger.

[Kish]

I think the OP of the thread indicates pretty clearly that 14 is not considered an "acceptable target" in this campaign world.

[Easy e]

What now?

Now you role-play! This is where the game actually gets interesting as each character gets to react to and deal with what just happened. Then, the world will react to it, and now you get to react to the World's reaction! Some characters might leave and become NPCs, some might forgive and forget, and others might cackle gleefully at what just happened and reveal who they really are!

This is what role-playing game are all about! Congratulations for getting to the next level of the game, where it really starts to get fun and interesting.

[Slipjig]

I disagree.
Accidents ought to be possible. Magic is both powerful and dangerous. Which means that players need to think about the situation that they are in and what tool they are using to get the job done.

And then, how the players deal with the "oops, we did what?" is part of the play of D&D.

Yeah, misunderstandings and bad decisions under pressure are totally plausible. Combat isn't a chess match where you can stare at the board for five minutes before making a move. Troops armed with modern weapons are prone to doing a "Death Blossom" the first time they come under fire. It's totally plausible that in the heat of combat somebody could throw a fireball into the fireworks factory, or mistake town watch for enemy combatants.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately set up situations where your PCs are likely to accidentally kill innocents. If it happens naturally during the course of play, go with it. But don't set up trolley problems on purpose. And if you DO end up with a trolley problem (deliberate or not), don't punish the players for choosing the least bad option. It's totally reasonable for the surviving friends and family members of the people hit by the trolley to blame the players, but everybody else should recognize that it was a no-win situation.

[gbaji]

Heck, in a great many cases it has some of the richest material in the game. (I recall a rather catastrophic case where our monk ended up setting off ultiple beads on the necklace of fireballs in our raid against the fire giants .. AD&D 1e, and we still talk about it today, the DM and I, when we have the occasional phone call. That was 42 ish years ago. :smallcool:

The group, DM and players, in this case of "oops, we / I did what? :smalleek: " have a great opportunity to deal with that in depth.

Hah. Yes. Some mistakes are natural and fun. We still talk about the time someone got hit with something (dragon breath attack I think). He made his save, but his Helm of Brilliance did not.... Hilarity ensued (1e D&D was "fun" that way).

I think that's a different kind of "oops" to where the player clearly did not understand the situation and/or had a very different mental map of the world around them than the GM has.


The DM isn't a mind reader, thats the point of asking "are you sure?" Even a new player with no experience should at that point understand that the DM isn't on the same page as you as far as the good outcome goes, because if they were, they wouldn't be asking.

Right. Here's the bit I keep coming back to though. The very fact that the GM is asking "are you sure", suggests strongly that the GM has realized some severe consequence of something the PC is about to do. Sufficient to ask the questinon "are you sure" in the first place. The GM does not need to read the players mind here. The moment the GM realizes that there's some consequence to the action the player is proposing, sufficient to ask "are you sure", the GM should then actually say "becuase if you do this, <result the GM thinks will happen>".

In many cases, what we find is that the consequence the GM thinks will happen is very different than the one the player thinks will happen. And that condition is almost always the result of a difference in that "mental map" between the GM and player. But since the GMs mental map is "always right", it's the GMs job to make sure that the players mental map is identical.

Again. No mind reading required here. As a GM if you *ever* find yourself asking a player "are you sure?", you need to stop and and follow up with making sure that the players perception of the situation is identical to your own. 9 times out of 10, the players perception is different. Oftein in very strange and unusual ways that you didn't even think about. It costs you nothing to make sure.

Having said that, it's not the GM's job to prevent players from doing dumb things. But it is the GMs job to make sure that if a player is doing a dumb thing, it's not because of a gap between the GMs description of the world around them and the players understanding of that world.



Also remember that the quality of any player's mental map is hard limited by the quality of the DM's description. Doesn't matter how well the players are paying attention, if the DM's description misses a key detail, the players' mental maps are all going to be flawed.

Absolutely. I've been on both sides of this, many many times. It's why I've learned that whenever players are about to do something monumentally stupid, I take great pains to make sure that they actually understand the situation they are in. There are very few things in a RPG that will upset the players more than when they do something that turns out to be a terrible mistake, and it's entirely because they thought X while the GM knows Y instead. They will accept death, destruction, and disaster if they go in knowing the risks, make a decision, and roll the dice (literally). But if they they do that, succeed with their dice roll, but the result is dramatically different than what they thought (and in a horrifically negative way like in the OP), they will be very very upset.

Same deal when you've told the players some bit of information that is key to defeating the bad guy, sneaking into the castle, bypassing some defense, or whatever, and you're watching them flail around and just not doing/using/whatever the thing you told them they needed to do. Players will forget stuff like that, while their characters will almost certainly not. And never discount the rare occasion where you the GM made a mistake (like one time when our GM just plain forgot to tell us about the special item the friendly shaman had given us which was the key to weakening the bad guy we were sent to fight so that it was possible to actually kill him). It does happen.

It's precisely because GMs and players are not perfect that it's a good idea to double check stuff like this. And yeah, as a GM, don't just sit there smirking and boggling at how "dumb these players are". That may provide you a tiny bit of satisfaction in a very "me versus the table" kind of way, but it never going to be good in the long run. The moment you realize that your players are missing something, just let them know. While it may seem to be more dramatic to have these kind of mistakes happen, it's actually just not fun for the players when it happens. And is by far the most likely thing to result in arguments at the table, and hurt feelings.

[False God]

I'd like to add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM straight-up informing the player of potential unintended consequences, before they happen.

"I want to throw a Fireball at the main hut!"
"Uh, Dave you know that hut is full of kids on our side right?"
"Oh snap, totally forgot, I don't want to blow them up."

I played with a DM for several years who rather wantonly misconstrued everything we desired to do. Because he interpreted what we said different than we meant, because he assumed we knew, because he thought rolling with random d% LOLZ was more interesting.

I know DMs and players want to keep things "in character" and not break immersion, but frankly if you understand your party well and aren't attempting to troll them, you'd probably realize Dave forgot about the kids but Dave's forgetfulness isn't his characters forgetfulness and even if a "heat of the moment" accident could be appropriate, it's worth asking yourself if it wouldn't be better to just tell Dave he's about to lob a grenade into a classroom.

Will fun increase from this action? Will the game be more interesting and engaging? Will it accomplish the player's goals? Will this action make the game more likely to end rather than continue? If you answered "NO" to several of those, I'd say just straight-up remind Dave he's about to step in some serious doodoo.

Don't play games, don't attempt to mind read, don't dance around it, don't obscure it with checks, just say something.

[KorvinStarmast]

it wouldn't be better to just tell Dave he's about to lob a grenade into a classroom. Where is your empathy for his own side's adult diplomats?
:smallyuk:
Age discrimination is a thing, eh?


They had taken some diplomats we sent to them hostage, and when we found out, we realized that we couldn't convince them with words, so we entered combat, with the party intending to cower them, then break the enchantment.

One PC, not thinking, unleashed their most destructive magic on the village itself.
Where our diplomats were.
They were trying to prevent reinforcements, and without thinking they said they wanted to kill everyone there.
The GM tried to clarify, and they confirmed it in the heat of the moment.

The rest of the party was horrified, as we'd only started fighting a guard at the entrance to the village. Tactically, it wasn't a bad idea, as it did make the fight 'easier.' Though my character ran into the enemy forces and burned all my magic healing everyone I could, taking a bunch of wounds in the process.

Needless to say, a couple diplomats, and 60 of the village folk died. This included teens as young as 14 years old. As part of what happened, the enchantment on the village was broken, so the action was witnessed by over a hundred people. It wasn't just kids who got hit by the ill advised AoE.
To that PC the meme works very well:
"You chose poorly"
Now deal with the consequences.

[False God]

Where is your empathy for his own side's adult diplomats?
:smallyuk:
Age discrimination is a thing, eh?

It wasn't just kids who got hit by the ill advised AoE.
To that PC the meme works very well:
"You chose poorly"
Now deal with the consequences.

This isn't real life. It's not permanent, it's not immutable, and there were numerous ways to avoid it.

My old DM used to roll that line out a lot "These are the consequences for your actions." when he invented supposed consequences where always dramatically beyond what the player intended, what the player said, or even what the spell they were using was capable of.

If the purported "consequences" don't make the game better(more fun, more engaging, more interesting, etc..) in some fashion, what good are they?

[KorvinStarmast]

This isn't real life. It's not permanent, it's not immutable, and there were numerous ways to avoid it.

My old DM used to roll that line out a lot "These are the consequences for your actions." when he invented supposed consequences where always dramatically beyond what the player intended, what the player said, or even what the spell they were using was capable of.

If the purported "consequences" don't make the game better(more fun, more engaging, more interesting, etc..) in some fashion, what good are they? The Pex-gambit about the evil DM fails. The "oops, you messed up" thing - and then dealing with it within the fiction of the world - is one of the fun things about the Role Playing Games.

One of the best DM's I ever played with had an old saying:
"Give 'em enough rope. They'll either hang themselves, or make a nice macrame hammock from it."

40+ years later, he's still right.
The play's the thing.

[False God]

The Pex-gambit about the evil DM fails. The "oops, you messed up" thing - and then dealing with it within the fiction of the world - is one of the fun things about the Role Playing Games.

One of the best DM's I ever played with had an old saying:
"Give 'em enough rope. They'll either hang themselves, or make a nice macrame hammock from it."

40+ years later, he's still right.
The play's the thing.

I suppose I've outgrown this sort of gameplay.

[icefractal]

Screwups can make for good gameplay, but they have to arise authentically IC, not because of miscommunication or OOC tiredness / distraction.

It's like - tricky platformers like Super Meat Boy are fun (YMMV). But playing an easier difficulty platformer with a broken controller that occasionally drops or changes inputs isn't fun, despite that in a sense it has the same effective difficulty.

[KorvinStarmast]

I suppose I've outgrown this sort of gameplay. How so? Do you dislike player agency?

Screwups can make for good gameplay, but they have to arise authentically IC, That's usually how it works when the players are making choices and decisions.

[Willie the Duck]

How so? Do you dislike player agency?
Here is a pretty good example of willful misconstruing a communication. The person with whom you are conversing is discussing a situation where a DM 'wantonly misconstrue[s]' intended actions, shies away from ensuring that the PCs are making decisions based on an understanding of the situation that the DM (and presumably their characters) would have, and alters the potential results of the decision to lean into the chaos of the 'bad decision.' This seems to be the opposite of player agency. Certainly the opposite of players able to make informed autonomous decisions.

I get what you are going for. When you strip away all the mechanics and numbers and RNG, the game is about making decisions and dealing with the ramifications of those decisions -- including (and perhaps especially) the decisions that were in retrospect poor ones. This is true. That's how some of the most memorable parts of gaming are forged. However, dealing with the ramifications of a decision that was poor only because of a disjunction between player and DM understanding of the situation based on communication breakdown isn't an especially rewarding*. Nor does it speak to a situation where the DM is giving them enough rope to hang themselves (or fail to do so and thrive) -- it is the situation where the DM and players are all caught up in a rope because neither side was communicating with the other what they were making with said rope.
*probably less impressive or engaging than the situation where the player had a correct understanding of the situation as their character would understand, made the decision, and later came to realize that that it was the wrong one based on information they didn't have (based on bad intel, etc.).

I think that brings us full circle with the OP's situation. IF the player was making decisions (that the DM was then did not willfully misconstrue when communicated back to them) based on a well-communicated understanding of the situation their character found themselves in, and simply got caught up in the moment or recklessly lobbed a munition over a hill without checking what was on the other side -- well then this was a poor decision and following up on the ramifications thereof could well result in some of the best roleplaying the group will get to do that campaign. If, on the other hand*, the player made that decision based on a failure of a shared understanding of the situation at hand, I can't imagine they'll find exploring the ramifications of that decision remotely engaging.
*and unless I've missed it, we can only guess at the likelihood of the situation.

[False God]

How so? Do you dislike player agency?

Absolutely, terrible stuff. /sarcasm


Here is a pretty good example of willful misconstruing a communication. The person with whom you are conversing is discussing a situation where a DM 'wantonly misconstrue[s]' intended actions, shies away from ensuring that the PCs are making decisions based on an understanding of the situation that the DM (and presumably their characters) would have, and alters the potential results of the decision to lean into the chaos of the 'bad decision.' This seems to be the opposite of player agency. Certainly the opposite of players able to make informed autonomous decisions.

I get what you are going for. When you strip away all the mechanics and numbers and RNG, the game is about making decisions and dealing with the ramifications of those decisions -- including (and perhaps especially) the decisions that were in retrospect poor ones. This is true. That's how some of the most memorable parts of gaming are forged. However, dealing with the ramifications of a decision that was poor only because of a disjunction between player and DM understanding of the situation based on communication breakdown isn't an especially rewarding*. Nor does it speak to a situation where the DM is giving them enough rope to hang themselves (or fail to do so and thrive) -- it is the situation where the DM and players are all caught up in a rope because neither side was communicating with the other what they were making with said rope.
*probably less impressive or engaging than the situation where the player had a correct understanding of the situation as their character would understand, made the decision, and later came to realize that that it was the wrong one based on information they didn't have (based on bad intel, etc.).

I think that brings us full circle with the OP's situation. IF the player was making decisions (that the DM was then did not willfully misconstrue when communicated back to them) based on a well-communicated understanding of the situation their character found themselves in, and simply got caught up in the moment or recklessly lobbed a munition over a hill without checking what was on the other side -- well then this was a poor decision and following up on the ramifications thereof could well result in some of the best roleplaying the group will get to do that campaign. If, on the other hand*, the player made that decision based on a failure of a shared understanding of the situation at hand, I can't imagine they'll find exploring the ramifications of that decision remotely engaging.
*and unless I've missed it, we can only guess at the likelihood of the situation.

This explains it well so suffice to say without writing up the same post, see above.

On a personal experience level, "player agency" doesn't have much value to me if the player doesn't fundamentally have an understanding of the potential consequences. It's less interesting to me that they threw a grenade and killed a bunch of friendlies on accident than it is presenting them with the decision to take the easy win and lob said grenade, or to not risk their allies and take a different approach. By directly bringing up that the hut in question is full of friendlies, I present them with a more interesting choice, rather than hitting them with an after-the-fact gotcha.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here is a pretty good example of willful misconstruing a communication. The person with whom you are conversing is discussing a situation where a DM 'wantonly misconstrue[s]' intended actions, shies away from ensuring that the PCs are making decisions based on an understanding of the situation that the DM (and presumably their characters) would have, and alters the potential results of the decision to lean into the chaos of the 'bad decision.' This seems to be the opposite of player agency. Certainly the opposite of players able to make informed autonomous decisions. But that isn't what I was advocating for, which makes that person's position non applicable to the position I was taking. And the "outgrown" snark got the treatment it deserved. :smallyuk:


I get what you are going for. When you strip away all the mechanics and numbers and RNG, the game is about making decisions and dealing with the ramifications of those decisions -- including (and perhaps especially) the decisions that were in retrospect poor ones. This is true. That's how some of the most memorable parts of gaming are forged.


However, dealing with the ramifications of a decision that was poor only because of a disjunction between player and DM understanding of the situation based on communication breakdown isn't an especially rewarding*. Is it reasonable to require perfect communication between Dm and player in order to play these games? Good communication usually suffices.

Nor does it speak to a situation where the DM is giving them enough rope to hang themselves (or fail to do so and thrive) -- it is the situation where the DM and players are all caught up in a rope because neither side was communicating with the other what they were making with said rope. Yes, that can make for unsatisfying results, and when the DMs and Players recognize it, a retcon or mitigation is usually the best practice.

The OP has described this event as "in the heat of the moment" ... which is a time when any of us, in game or out, can make a poor decision.


*probably less impressive or engaging than the situation where the player had a correct understanding of the situation as their character would understand, made the decision, and later came to realize that that it was the wrong one based on information they didn't have (based on bad intel, etc.).

IF the player was making decisions (that the DM was then did not willfully misconstrue when communicated back to them) based on a well-communicated understanding of the situation their character found themselves in, and simply got caught up in the moment or recklessly lobbed a munition over a hill without checking what was on the other side -- well then this was a poor decision and following up on the ramifications thereof could well result in some of the best roleplaying the group will get to do that campaign. If, on the other hand*, the player made that decision based on a failure of a shared understanding of the situation at hand, I can't imagine they'll find exploring the ramifications of that decision remotely engaging.
*and unless I've missed it, we can only guess at the likelihood of the situation.
Nice summary of the conversation from post number 2 to present. :smallcool:

[Satinavian]

A DM only says "Are you sure?" when the PC is about to do something stupid or otherwise a really bad idea that will ruin everything, not for wasting a resource or something trivial/insignificant. When a DM says this the player's response should always be "No, never mind, I don't do that."Meh.

Personally i use "are you sure" as well for high risk/high reward actions, for actions that lock the player/group into a certain approach or for those that don't seem congruent with previous actions/the current strategy. It is by no means a phrase exclusively reserved for bad ideas.

And even with bad ideas, players regularly choose them fully aware of the consequences because of in character considerations or because it seems interesting.

[Keltest]

Meh.

Personally i use "are you sure" as well for high risk/high reward actions, for actions that lock the player/group into a certain approach or for those that don't seem congruent with previous actions/the current strategy. It is by no means a phrase exclusively reserved for bad ideas.

And even with bad ideas, players regularly choose them fully aware of the consequences because of in character considerations or because it seems interesting.

Adventuring is a risky profession. If I "are you sure?"-ed them every time they took a risk, they'd never make a decision, and they hardly need my help to be indecisive.

[Talakeal]

Meh.

Personally i use "are you sure" as well for high risk/high reward actions, for actions that lock the player/group into a certain approach or for those that don't seem congruent with previous actions/the current strategy. It is by no means a phrase exclusively reserved for bad ideas.

And even with bad ideas, players regularly choose them fully aware of the consequences because of in character considerations or because it seems interesting.

Typically, the players won't know why you are asking that.

For example; you might think they won't like the consequences of fire-balling the king in his court, but they are thinking that you think spending a third level spell slot on this encounter is a tactical mistake.


Adventuring is a risky profession. If I "are you sure?"-ed them every time they took a risk, they'd never make a decision, and they hardly need my help to be indecisive.

True that.

[Kish]

Typically, the players won't know why you are asking that.

For example; you might think they won't like the consequences of fire-balling the king in his court, but they are thinking that you think spending a third level spell slot on this encounter is a tactical mistake.
What a remarkable expectation of completely {Scrubbed} communication as "typical."

[Easy e]

This forum has an anti-GM bias. If a player made an error, it was the GM's fault for sure!

If a player is unclear about what is happening, and the GM set-up the scenario; the Player also has a responsibility to ask questions too. In this case, the GM even tried to clarify what the player was doing, and the player confirmed their actions. How was the GM suppose to know the player's misconception before the action was taken? The player seemed certain on what they were doing.

After the fact player justification is just there to make the player feel better for a bad decision.



@OP- What should you do going forward? Well, In-character you need to role-play the situation. Perhaps for some characters this action crossed the line, others maybe fine with what happened, others may take a stance of forgiveness, others may not.

Out of character the choice is even easier. You either blow-up the game. you continue the game, or you continue the game with modifications/some different characters. I am curious which choice you make? Please report back what happened next.

[Talakeal]

What a remarkable expectation of completely {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} communication as "typical."

How many times on this forum have you seen someone exclaim that the GM expects them to be a "mind-reader" to solve an in-game mystery or puzzle, or on the flip side a GM be frustrated that players miss seemingly obvious clues?

Its the same principle, both people already have something in mind, and they are expecting the other person to be thinking the same thing.

The Alexandrian has a few articles and this video (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48897/roleplaying-games/advanced-gamemastery-are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-that)on the subject.

[Lord Torath]

Is it reasonable to require perfect communication between Dm and player in order to play these games? Good communication usually suffices. Yes, good communication usually suffices. When it doesn't, you get situations where the wizard fireballs the innocents because the player forgot they were tied to highly visible stakes right behind the BBEG. There's no way the wizard wouldn't see them, or would forget about them, but the player did, because they were mentioned once at the very beginning of the encounter. And a simple "Are you sure?" without reminding the player of the thing they've forgotten just doesn't cut it.

Or situations like: "I hit him."
"Okay, the damage is thirty-"
"No, I didn't shoot him, I hit him! I smacked him with the barrel!"
"But I already rolled the dice!"

In such cases, you need better than good communication.

[Satinavian]

Typically, the players won't know why you are asking that.My point was more that "Are you sure" does not mean "It's a dumb idea, you better don't do that." and reneging on the action is not generally the better idea.

Sure, theoretically "Are you sure" in itself also allows misanderstandings and i might accompany it with a short sentence about why i ask. But not always and i can't even remember the last time that was an issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, good communication usually suffices. When it doesn't, you get situations where the wizard fireballs the innocents because the player forgot they were tied to highly visible stakes right behind the BBEG. There's no way the wizard wouldn't see them, or would forget about them, but the player did, because they were mentioned once at the very beginning of the encounter. And a simple "Are you sure?" without reminding the player of the thing they've forgotten just doesn't cut it. Is the DM supposed to mind read to see who has or has not forgotten something? That nit pick aside, I generally agree with your basic premise of putting important information out there, but as I read the OP, the players already knew that their negotiators / diplomats were there and that player chose to let loose anyway. The kids were just salt in the wound, or a piling on of more bad effects. And as I read the OP, the other players were horrified. They, the other players, all had had a similar Situational Awareness, why didn't mister AoE have the Situational Awareness?

Given that the other players are / were in "WTF?" mode, this might be one of those times that a PC is retired, and the player introduces another one as they proceed on to the next session.

Let's look at this from an RP perspective: do you (IC) want to keep going on an adventure (IC) with someone that trigger happy? That's for the group to decide, at the table, not a bunch of armchair "experts" on the internet.

Let me offer you an example of something that happened at our table a few years ago.

A few of the party meet some NPCs and get into an argument, and our murderhobo wizard got impatient and began the old "well let's kill them" crap. My life cleric (me) was not happy (IC and OOC) and as the guards went down I used my 2d level channel divinity to give them HP right away. I appealed to the DM to let me try and heal them, since 0 HP does not have to mean dead, DM discretion. He allowed three death saves, and two made them. That meant one dead guard.

Three of us: my life cleric, the dwarf paladin (who had been in the fracas) and the rogue took the initiative and returned the body to his family, and we offered restitution from our gold piece store. Weregeld paid, and on top of that I burned my single 50 GP ruby and cast continual flame on the guard's mace. This, I explained to the grieving widow and son, was a way to recall the light he brought into their lives. The RP went pretty well.

DM's NPC reaction rolls were positive. The point? We RP'd our way through a crap decision by one of our trigger happy Players. (I have related this incident before at least once on these forums, maybe more often).

We, the players, took a bad situation and dealt with the consequences of it.

That the wizard did not contribute to the apology tour was one of several reasons that my cleric retired (she got pregnant a few session later, drunk and horny, it happens, you don't have to be a bard to be horny) to tend the shrine in that town. Besides being pregnant, she was (IC) not pleased with how reckless our wizard was in this town (where we were supposed to be making contacts and moving forward with the plot/mission).
As it worked out, that incident gave me the opening to try out a new PC: a celestial warlock who is still with the party.

[gbaji]

This forum has an anti-GM bias. If a player made an error, it was the GM's fault for sure!

I can't speak for everybody, but that's absolutely not about anti-GM bias. It's about trying to instruct GMs how to be better at GMing. And one of those tools is to learn to never just say "Are you sure?", when a player proposes an action. The video linked above was actually quite good at explaining why this is a terrible GM thing to do.

Always ask what the player is trying to do when they propose an action. Doubly so if you think the action is dumb or suicidal (or just don't know).

Always inform the player about things that they "should know about" when they propose an action. Triply so if you think the action is dumb or suicidal.

The very fact that a GM is saying "Are you sure" suggests that the GM thinks the proposed action may have negative consequences. That's literally the point the GM should stop any further action in the game and confirm that the player has the same understanding of the action and consequences that prompted the GM to even consider saying "Are you sure" in the first place.


If a player is unclear about what is happening, and the GM set-up the scenario; the Player also has a responsibility to ask questions too. In this case, the GM even tried to clarify what the player was doing, and the player confirmed their actions. How was the GM suppose to know the player's misconception before the action was taken? The player seemed certain on what they were doing.

The player doesn't know what the player doesn't know. The player only knows what the player remembers from what the GM told them. The GM knows that this is a village and not a war camp. The players maybe should know this, or maybe not. The player isn't unclear about what it happening. The player is "wrong" about what is happening (think's it's a war camp, when it's a village). That's not the same thing. The player doesn't think they need to ask any additional questions, because they think they know what the situation is.

It's the GM who should noodle this out, the moment a player says "I'm going to cast a fireball at the buildings beyond the guard post" (or whatever was actually said). The GM knows there is a village there. The GM knows that this will result in large amounts of civilian casualties (including the diplomats they are here to rescue). The GM knows that this is not something the players actually want to do. The GM knows there's something wrong about the proposed action. Don't just say "are you sure?".

And that's the point here. The GM clarified the action (which is menaingless, because GIGO), but not the intended objective of the action. The GM should have asked "Is it your intent to kill everyone in the village, possibly including young children and the diplomats you are here to rescue?".

I keep coming back to the point that the moment a GM is even thinking of saying "Are you sure?", it should be a clue that some miscommunication has occurred. Clear up the communication *first*. Then proceed.


My point was more that "Are you sure" does not mean "It's a dumb idea, you better don't do that." and reneging on the action is not generally the better idea.

Sure, theoretically "Are you sure" in itself also allows misanderstandings and i might accompany it with a short sentence about why i ask. But not always and i can't even remember the last time that was an issue.

Then why are you asking "are you sure?". Do you do this every time a player proposes any action? Assuming no, then what criteria do you use? Overwhelmingly, when a GM asks that question, it's a warning to the players that they are about to do something dumb. Some GMs, being aware of this, and not wanting to tip off their players, actually will then deliberately ask this question when the players are about to do something really clever, just to throw them off.

Both are examples of "bad GMing". Don't do that. Your job as GM is not to "trick" the players here. It's to ensure that the players actions and choices have real meaning in the game world. which also requires that those actions and choices are made based on correct information (at least "correct" as the characters should percieve it).

Players can (and do) still make dumb mistakes. Characters often have inaccurate information. That's fine. But IME, most of the time, when a GM is asking "Are you sure?", it is overwhelmingly becuase there is a miscommunication between the player and the GM. Usually about some fact or perception about the game world itself. It costs you nothing to take a bit of time to clarify the actual situation before proceeding.

In this case, maybe the PCs just didn't take the time to check what was beyond the first set of guards they encountered. Maybe the mistake was a legitimate one. And yeah, at that point, it becomes a judgement call on the GMs part what to do. If you're playing a really grim/dark setting, let the fact that the PCs didn't take the time to properly scout the area to determine that this was a village and not a war camp be the reason they made a huge mistake. Great. But if you're playing a more hopeful/heroic game? Maybe remind the player that they haven't actually checked what's behind their immediate target and don't actually know who is there and who might die if they continue with the proposed action.


That nit pick aside, I generally agree with your basic premise of putting important information out there, but as I read the OP, the players already knew that their negotiators / diplomats were there and that player chose to let loose anyway. The kids were just salt in the wound, or a piling on of more bad effects. And as I read the OP, the other players were horrified. They, the other players, all had had a similar Situational Awareness, why didn't mister AoE have the Situational Awareness?

That's not how I read the OP at all. The players all thought this was a "war camp" of the enemy warriors, and not where the diplomats where being held. Like they had encountered a camp where the outlying patrols for the people who kidnapped the diplomats were stationed or something, and not that they had arrived at their actual home village yet. Or they thought the actual village/town was larger, and this was like a guard station or outer perimeter defensive position or something. It's unclear exactly what the players thought, but it seemed clear to me that they *didn't* think this was where the diplomats where being held.

And that's the whole point. Take a few seconds to determine what the player(s) think the situation is whenever something like this comes up.


A few of the party meet some NPCs and get into an argument, and our murderhobo wizard got impatient and began the old "well let's kill them" crap. My life cleric (me) was not happy (IC and OOC) and as the guards went down I used my 2d level channel divinity to give them HP right away. I appealed to the DM to let me try and heal them, since 0 HP does not have to mean dead, DM discretion. He allowed three death saves, and two made them. That meant one dead guard.

This was not a case where the muderhobo thought that the guards were anything other than what they were though. That's just an impatient player doing something that the rest of the party didn't agree with. That's not the same as mistaking an enemy village for an enemy military installation and dropping a bomb on it.

In that same situation though, if the wizard actually proposed using a spell that didn't just hit the three guards, but everyone in a 100' radius, that would have been a good time for the GM to point out that the guards are standing in a small building on a block of other buildings, and there there are several hundred innocent people in the proposed blast radius.

Dunno. It's just a good idea for GMs to do this. It costs nothing, takes very little time at the table, and avoids conflicts like this. Sure. Players will still do "dumb things", but if you always follow the "verify clear communication of the situation" rule, the players can never blame you for what happened. It's always them making an informed (or as informed as they chose to be) decision.

Someone mentioned player agency. IMO, this increases player agency. They know exactly what they are choosing and the consequences/outcomes of that choice. Nothing destroys player agency faster than a GM forcing the players to have to deal with the consequences of an action that arose as a direct result of poor/misleading communication from the GM to the players in the first place. And no, it's not about "who's fault it is". It's about accepting that we are all imperfect, and that mistakes happen, and taking a bit of time to clarify things so as to avoid allowing a minor misunderstanding of the situation to turn into a major issue at the table.

[Satinavian]

Then why are you asking "are you sure?". Do you do this every time a player proposes any action? Assuming no, then what criteria do you use? Overwhelmingly, when a GM asks that question, it's a warning to the players that they are about to do something dumb. Some GMs, being aware of this, and not wanting to tip off their players, actually will then deliberately ask this question when the players are about to do something really clever, just to throw them off.
I already said in which other cases i use it.

In high risk, high reward cases i want to make sure that the player is really aware of the risk. That does not mean that the risk is not worth taking.
When the action locks the group into a certain approach i want to make sure the player knows that this will shut doors. That does not mean that the other approaches are better.
When an action seems incongruent with what the group did earlier, i want to make sure the player has not missed/misunderstood something. That does not mean that the other plan they seemingly pursued was good.

All very valid cases to use it. And none of them have anything to do with wanting to throw the players off. I have no interest whatsoever in doing the latter. Instead the phrase is nearly exclusively used to look for potential misunderstandings and clearing them and to make sure the players are aware of what they are doing when it matters most. But that is very different from the GM using it as
a code for "That is dumb. You shouldn't do that or I'll punish you." and directing the groups action from the backseat.

[Lord Torath]

Is the DM supposed to mind read to see who has or has not forgotten something? That nit pick aside, I generally agree with your basic premise of putting important information out there, but as I read the OP, the players already knew that their negotiators / diplomats were there and that player chose to let loose anyway. The kids were just salt in the wound, or a piling on of more bad effects. And as I read the OP, the other players were horrified. They, the other players, all had had a similar Situational Awareness, why didn't mister AoE have the Situational Awareness?

Given that the other players are / were in "WTF?" mode, this might be one of those times that a PC is retired, and the player introduces another one as they proceed on to the next session.

Let's look at this from an RP perspective: do you (IC) want to keep going on an adventure (IC) with someone that trigger happy? That's for the group to decide, at the table, not a bunch of armchair "experts" on the internet.

Let me offer you an example of something that happened at our table a few years ago.

A few of the party meet some NPCs and get into an argument, and our murderhobo wizard got impatient and began the old "well let's kill them" crap. My life cleric (me) was not happy (IC and OOC) and as the guards went down I used my 2d level channel divinity to give them HP right away. I appealed to the DM to let me try and heal them, since 0 HP does not have to mean dead, DM discretion. He allowed three death saves, and two made them. That meant one dead guard.

Three of us: my life cleric, the dwarf paladin (who had been in the fracas) and the rogue took the initiative and returned the body to his family, and we offered restitution from our gold piece store. Weregeld paid, and on top of that I burned my single 50 GP ruby and cast continual flame on the guard's mace. This, I explained to the grieving widow and son, was a way to recall the light he brought into their lives. The RP went pretty well.

DM's NPC reaction rolls were positive. The point? We RP'd our way through a crap decision by one of our trigger happy Players. (I have related this incident before at least once on these forums, maybe more often).

We, the players, took a bad situation and dealt with the consequences of it.

That the wizard did not contribute to the apology tour was one of several reasons that my cleric retired (she got pregnant a few session later, drunk and horny, it happens, you don't have to be a bard to be horny) to tend the shrine in that town. Besides being pregnant, she was (IC) not pleased with how reckless our wizard was in this town (where we were supposed to be making contacts and moving forward with the plot/mission).
As it worked out, that incident gave me the opening to try out a new PC: a celestial warlock who is still with the party.Great story. Nothing about it has anything to do with DM-Player miscommunication, but a great story. :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

I already said in which other cases i use it.

In high risk, high reward cases i want to make sure that the player is really aware of the risk. That does not mean that the risk is not worth taking.
When the action locks the group into a certain approach i want to make sure the player knows that this will shut doors. That does not mean that the other approaches are better.
When an action seems incongruent with what the group did earlier, i want to make sure the player has not missed/misunderstood something. That does not mean that the other plan they seemingly pursued was good.

All very valid cases to use it. And none of them have anything to do with wanting to throw the players off. I have no interest whatsoever in doing the latter. Instead the phrase is nearly exclusively used to look for potential misunderstandings and clearing them and to make sure the players are aware of what they are doing when it matters most. But that is very different from the GM using it as
a code for "That is dumb. You shouldn't do that or I'll punish you." and directing the groups action from the backseat.

I feel like saying "I will punish you," is unnecessarily loaded language. It would be a lot more fair, imo, to say that there could be consequences based on the established rules or setting elements.

I totally agree "Are you sure?" should be used to make players aware of the potential risks of an action (whether they are justified by the potential rewards or not) but I don't think it is sufficient without letting them know what risks you are thinking of (which can sometimes be hard to do without metagaming / spoilers).

For example, if I am driving and my passenger says "Are you sure you want to be going this fast?" they could be referring to any of a number of risks; there could be a police speed trap ahead, there could be the potential for black ice this time of year, there could be a shard / blind curve ahead, there could be a bar nearby and drunk drivers have a habit of crossing into the wrong lane, there could be a cattle crossing ahead, there could be a construction zone with tire shredding screws in the road, the car might be defective somehow, etc.

Unless they tell me what risk(s) they are thinking about, there is a good chance that I am aware of some of them and have already assessed the risk, but that there are others risks I am not aware of which would compel me to slow down.

[KorvinStarmast]

Great story. Nothing about it has anything to do with DM-Player miscommunication, but a great story. :smallsmile: Thank you for your kind words. :smallsmile:
To be clear about why I shared that: it has to do with
"the players RP through it when a player does an oops"
which is (1) a valid response to the OP in the first place. :smallwink: and (2) was mentioned by more than one response on the first page before the torches and pitchforks were brought out for DMs ... :smallyuk:
It seems that Easy e struck a nerve with a light-hearted input.

[gbaji]

Going to second what Talakael said. You need to do more than just ask "Are you sure?"


I already said in which other cases i use it.

In high risk, high reward cases i want to make sure that the player is really aware of the risk. That does not mean that the risk is not worth taking.

Why not tell them the risks? Maybe they aren't aware that what they are doing is high risk, or do not understand the risks involved. You do. Tell them the risk. You say you want them to be "really aware of the risk", but asking "Are you sure?" doesn't actually do that at all.


When the action locks the group into a certain approach i want to make sure the player knows that this will shut doors. That does not mean that the other approaches are better.

Again. You "want to make sure the player knows that this will shut doors", but just asking "Are you sure?" doesn't do that. Tell them that this will shut doors. Heck. Tell them the doors it will shut. Don't make them guess. Let them make an informed decision.



When an action seems incongruent with what the group did earlier, i want to make sure the player has not missed/misunderstood something. That does not mean that the other plan they seemingly pursued was good.

And again: Asking "Are you sure?" doesn't actually achieve the goal of "make sure the player has not missed/misunderstood something". If the player actually has missed or misunderstood something, the odds of them magically "getting it", by just asking "Are you sure?" is very nearly zero.

Tell them. Don't be cryptic. Tell them.

I guess my broader point here is that when you ask that question, you already have in mind a very specific thing which prompted the question. Don't assume that your players have the exact same thing in their minds as well. Tell them what that "thing" is. That way you are all on the same page.

And certainly there are cases where the characters should not know of some risk or consequence or whatever. But that's when you don't ask them "Are you sure?", right? Cause they should have no clue that what they're doing is going to result in something they don't know about. But in every case I can think of where a GM might be prompted to ask "Are you sure", the GM should also follow that up with a clear explanation of why the GM is asking the question in the first place. It's always a situation where the GM realizes that there are some serious consequences associated with the action (otherwise, why ask the question?). The GM should make absolutely certain that the player(s) know this (or that the GM actually understands what the player is actually proposing rather than a misunderstanding on the other side).

It costs you nothing to make sure your players are on the same page as you. It can cost your game a lot if you don't. Obvious exceptions for when the situation is a puzzle or there's supposed to be confusion or conflicting information etc. But always make sure that information the characters are supposed to know and act on, is the same information that the players know and act on. The moment it appears as though a player has missed something significant, tell them this. It will not hurt you as a GM to do this. Not a single bit. It's not a competition between you and the players (well. In most games anyway).

[Satinavian]

Going to second what Talakael said. You need to do more than just ask "Are you sure?"



Sure, theoretically "Are you sure" in itself also allows misanderstandings and i might accompany it with a short sentence about why i ask. But not always and i can't even remember the last time that was an issue.

I already adressed that. I never argued that "Are you sure" must or even should stand alone.

[Easy e]

*** A whole lot of good stuff. You should all go back and read it in context***

Here is the argument I am seeing:

1. GMs set the scenario
2. Player says they are going to do something.
3. GM asks player to clarify the action.
4. The Player confirms it
5. Some bad things happen
6. ?????????
7. GM BAD!

There seems to be an assumption, that since the GM creates the scenario they should somehow know the intention of the Player with their characters better than the Player knows it, and therefore question the Player? Does that even make sense?

What if we held the Players to a similar standard to know the intentions of their characters as well as we assume a GM knows the world/scenario. It is not just up to the GM to clarify an action, it is up to the player to know what the heck is going in the world and ask questions if they are not sure. The GM asked for clarification, the Player confirmed their action. The Player didn't ask for more information

Players are not blameless. Communication is a two-way street. RPGs are cooperative and the GM does not "own" the content. Actions have consequences.


**************************

I recently had a game of L5R where I thought the PCs handled a situation really poorly and did it "wrong". After playing a few more sessions, it turned out they had a better grasp of the situation then I had accepted, and it led to really good Role-Play and resolution in the next two sessions. If I had stepped in and stopped them earlier because I thought they were acting on poor information, I would have been the one who had been acting on poor information because they had a strategy and a good grasp of what they were doing. Perhaps, a better one than I had!

Even though I had set-up the scenario and the "world" the players ultimately had a better grasp of their characters and their actions than I did. Just because a GM knows the scenario does not mean they know better how to resolve it than the Players.

[Talakeal]

I don't know about you guys, but my players are always on their phones during the game, and I often suspect that many of these "miscommunications" or "lapses in memory" stem from the fact that the players weren't actually paying attention to the DM in the first place.

[gbaji]

Here is the argument I am seeing:

1. GMs set the scenario
2. Player says they are going to do something.
3. GM asks player to clarify the action.
4. The Player confirms it
5. Some bad things happen
6. ?????????
7. GM BAD!

The issue (and the reason this progression may result in "GM BAD!", is that you are missing a step in between 2 and 3:

2.5: GM clarifies the situation to the player. Then proceeds to step 3.

Simply asking the player to clarify the action provides information from the player to the GM, but not in the other direction.

99% of the time, when the players arrive at "GM BAD!", it's because the player learns of some incredibly important detail that would have totally changed what they did,
but only after they have already proposed the action, the GM asked them "are you sure?", and then they said "yes". If the player knows that the chasm is 200' deep and if their character misses their jump roll they will fall to their death, risks it anyway, fails their roll and falls to their death (step 5), then step 6 (???????) never happens. The player isn't confused about why their character just died, and doesn't blame the GM. But if the player doesn't realize how deep the chasm is, says "I'm going to jump over the chasm", and the GM (realizing that this is a high risk action) fails to clarify the fact that the chasm is 200' deep and will result in death if the character fails the jump roll, and instead just asks the player to "clarify the action" ("Are you sure you're going to try to jump across the chasm?"), then everything that follows may be "fruit of the poison tree". The player doens't realize the chasm is that deep, so when the GM asks for clarification he doesn't think it's a big deal,, so says "yes". Then when the die roll fails, he still doesn't think it's a big deal (I'll take some damage). But when the GM says "Ok, You fall 200' to the bottom of the chasm and die", we end up at "??????" and "BAD GM!".



There seems to be an assumption, that since the GM creates the scenario they should somehow know the intention of the Player with their characters better than the Player knows it, and therefore question the Player? Does that even make sense?

There's no assumption that the GM should know the players intention better than the player. It's that the GM knows the risks/consequences of any proposed action better than the player. Always. It's literally why the GM is asking for a given roll for any given action. The player tells the GM 'I'm going to do X", the GM then thinks about the situation, determines the difficulty of X, and the reward/risk for success/failure when attemping X, picks an appropriate skill/difficulty, and then tells the player "make <resolution mechanic picked>". It's certainly useful for the GM to ask the player "why" they are doing something (their intention). But it's also very important for the GM to tell the player "what" their action entails (risk/reward) as well (e.g. "Ok. You'll need to make a <whatever roll>. If you succeed, X will happen, if you fail Y will happen. Do you still want to try to do <whatever?").


What if we held the Players to a similar standard to know the intentions of their characters as well as we assume a GM knows the world/scenario. It is not just up to the GM to clarify an action, it is up to the player to know what the heck is going in the world and ask questions if they are not sure. The GM asked for clarification, the Player confirmed their action. The Player didn't ask for more information

Sure. We should expect the player to ask "hey. Um... I'm thinking about jumping the chasm. How deep is it? And what will happen if I fail my rolll?". And in simple examples like this, that seems quite obvious. But there are cases where it's not so obvious. Human communication is not perfect, and there are lots of situations where the GM describes the situation the PCs find themselves in, and is quite certain that he's described it clearly, but the players actually have a completely different mental image of things than he does. It happens all the time.

So yeah. If a player says they're going to do something that your mental image says is really crazy/dangerous/dumb, your first assumption should be that the player doesn't realize this maybe, and make it abundantly clear. And don't just re-describe the environment (repeating the same words rarely helps here), actually say "if you do X, here's what may happen". You'd be shocked at just how often the player's view of the world is radically different than your own.

The problem with assuming that the player should ask for more information is the case where the player thinks they already have the correct information. They think the door opens into the treasure vault, but you are certain that you described it as leading to the "room of instant death". Asking "are you sure you want to open that door", doesn't provide any additional useful information and is a pointless waste of everyone's time. Saying "As I told you previously, that door leads to instant death. Meaning that if you open it, your character will die. Are you sure you want to open the door", is actually useful. And yes, the player could surprise you in return by saying "Yes. I know that. But you gave me this ring with one charge of save-from-death, so I'm counting on that to keep me from dying, so I can go through the room of death and <do whatever clever thing>". At which point the GM could say "Uh... that saves from normal death, not what's in the room" *or* "Oh. Ok. That will work fine. I forgot you had that item. Great thinking!". And then we move on.


Players are not blameless. Communication is a two-way street. RPGs are cooperative and the GM does not "own" the content. Actions have consequences.

Correct. Communication is a two-way street. Which is why it's important for the conversation to go in both directions. Don't just ask the player to clarify their action. You need to clarify the situation and the risks/rewards of that action as well. That's information going in both directions. What you listed above only has it going in one. And, as my example above illustrates, by doing this, it may open up an entire dialogue between the player/gm that helps both to better understand the situation and what is going on. I've avoided numerous bad outcomes in games by using this technique and have never once encountered a siituation where it created a negative one.



I recently had a game of L5R where I thought the PCs handled a situation really poorly and did it "wrong". After playing a few more sessions, it turned out they had a better grasp of the situation then I had accepted, and it led to really good Role-Play and resolution in the next two sessions. If I had stepped in and stopped them earlier because I thought they were acting on poor information, I would have been the one who had been acting on poor information because they had a strategy and a good grasp of what they were doing. Perhaps, a better one than I had!

Even though I had set-up the scenario and the "world" the players ultimately had a better grasp of their characters and their actions than I did. Just because a GM knows the scenario does not mean they know better how to resolve it than the Players.

Sure. And this is a great case where you might have asked the players *why* they were doing what they were doing, and what they intended to accomplish. This is a case where you maybe aren't considering some specific skills/abilities/items the characters have, or some additional future sequence of things they intend to do to obtain some desired goal. I'm not saying to "stop them". Just ask for additioinal information and have a back and forth conversation about it.

I've also had cases where my players will propose something and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what they are trying to do. I've found that if I just ask them, they'll tell me, and I can actually incorporate that into the game better. If I know that the reason why they're allowing the thief to escape is because they know that they can use magic to track him back to his lair since they injured him and have some of his blood to use for the ritual tracking spell. Great idea. Explains what they are doing and why. And I can contribute to this conversation by reminding the players that if the thief enters a magic blocking area they might not be able to track him (maybe the players considered this, maybe they didn't, why not make sure?). I can also let them know that the thief getting away means that whomever hired him may gain information about the party (again, maybe they considered this, maybe they didn't, why not make sure?).

It's ultimately, as you said, about communication. I've found that at some tables the communication is very open and honest, and things tend to work very well. I've also found that at some tables one or both "sides" don't trust the other not to abuse that communication in some way, so they keep their intentions secret. And while there are occasions for that, I've found that most of the time, that approach tends to lead to the kinds of negative outcomes we're talking about here. Not always, but the potential is definitely there.

And, of course, this is very much theme dependent. There are some games where you are intentionally playing grim/dark (or absurd!), and these types of things are expected to happen. As with anything, it's about setting the correct expectations at the table and then following through with those expectations.

[Easy e]

All excellent points.

I would just add two thoughts, and not as an argument; just as a thought piece:

1. We seem to expect a higher level of communication from GMs because they set the scenario. Understandable. However, the GM can not explain or expand if they do not know what is unclear. Therefore, communication at the table is a shared responsibility.

2. The harder we make GMing look and feel, the less likely we are to get more GMs. The RPG space NEEDS more GMs to continue to grow.

At this point, I feel that there is not much more to say on this subject BUT I still really want the OP to let us know what happened!

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't know about you guys, but my players are always on their phones during the game, and I often suspect that many of these "miscommunications" or "lapses in memory" stem from the fact that the players weren't actually paying attention to the DM in the first place.
Why do you put up with it? You'll get the behavior you put up with until you change something.

TTherefore, communication at the table is a shared responsibility. Amen to this.

2. The harder we make GMing look and feel, the less likely we are to get more GMs. The RPG space NEEDS more GMs to continue to grow. This also.

[gbaji]

1. We seem to expect a higher level of communication from GMs because they set the scenario. Understandable. However, the GM can not explain or expand if they do not know what is unclear. Therefore, communication at the table is a shared responsibility.

Absolutely. I think we've all seen players who seem disinterested in details and just want to "get into the action" or whatever. Which can be a burden as a GM as you find yourself having to either just allow them to do dumb things and make mistakes *or* constantly have to nanny them. It's a tricky thing to balance. We have a new (young) player in one of my games (he's the teenage son of one of the older players). And yeah, I see a lot of this in him. But a lot of myself when I was that age too.

It's not terribly difficult when there is one inexperienced player at a table though. The more experienced ones will tend to "pick up the slack" and help the GM out with stuff like that. The GM need not be the only person suggesting that "hey. You might want to see how deep that chasm is before trying to jump over it", for example.

And yeah. GM's aren't perfect either (not even close). Mistakes do happen. There are techniques that both players and GMs can learn to use that can reduce the number and frequency of such things though.


2. The harder we make GMing look and feel, the less likely we are to get more GMs. The RPG space NEEDS more GMs to continue to grow.

Very valid point. I think, though, that a lot of potential GMs, having experienced one sequence like the one you listed earlier, likely go "it's not worth it for this drama", and stop GMing. The worst experience you can have as a GM is pissed off players because of a misunderstanding in the game. It leads to arguments, anger, hurt feelings, etc. IMO, anything that can help future GMs avoid that is good advice to give.

And yeah. Remediation actions that can be done after something like that happens (which can vary) are good things to know as well. But ideally you want to reduce that as much as possible. If you find yourself constantly having to retcon things to fix mistakes, you should be examining why those mistakes keep happening. What do they have in commmon? How can you avoid them?

And yeah. As a GM one of the big (and honestly easy to detect) ones is that the moment you even think to ask "are you sure?" to a player, stop right then. Ask yourself "why am I asking the player this?". Most of the time, it's because you think the player is proposing some action you know (cause you're the GM) is a bad idea. Before proceeding, make absolutely certain that the player knows exactly why you think what the player is proposing is a bad idea. Spending a minute or two making absolutely certain that everyone is on the same page before proceeding may save you hours of argument and retconning afterwards.

And certainly, as a player, if you hear the GM ask "are you sure?", you should probably ask yourself "what does he know that I don't?". Ask questions. Don't just assume that because you think that window is on the side of the building facing a short drop to an alley, and not a thousand foot drop off a cliff, that it must be. And maybe make sure before declaring "my character jumps through the window". Heck. Even if the GM doesn't ask anything, maybe do that anyway.

But, as the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". But someone at the table does know (cause if no one does, then there's no one to apply a negative effect). So communication is absolutely key. This will avoid the vast majority of such problems.

[Lord Torath]

At this point, I feel that there is not much more to say on this subject BUT I still really want the OP to let us know what happened!Me too! Come on, Jakinbandw! Service our curiosity! :smallbiggrin:

[Slipjig]

I think there's an important distinction between stopping to tell players about something that would be obvious to the characters, but they may have missed in the description (e.g. a line of hostages tied to posts that would be clearly visible to the character, but haven't been mentioned at the table in more than an hour because we've been in initiative that whole time) vs. things that are bad ideas, but the player has all the information the character does (e.g. throwing a grenade into a building when the player knows there are friendlies somewhere in the area, but there's no immediate visual reminder of that fact). In the former case, the DM should absolutely pause and remind them that there are hostages in the space they are about to fireball. In the latter case, if the player chooses to fire blind, that's a valid choice.

[gbaji]

I think there's an important distinction between stopping to tell players about something that would be obvious to the characters, but they may have missed in the description (e.g. a line of hostages tied to posts that would be clearly visible to the character, but haven't been mentioned at the table in more than an hour because we've been in initiative that whole time) vs. things that are bad ideas, but the player has all the information the character does (e.g. throwing a grenade into a building when the player knows there are friendlies somewhere in the area, but there's no immediate visual reminder of that fact). In the former case, the DM should absolutely pause and remind them that there are hostages in the space they are about to fireball. In the latter case, if the player chooses to fire blind, that's a valid choice.

Yeah. That's a tricky one (the second case). I can see it in both directions, and understand the thinking. It's not just what the characters would "know" as a result of some information obtained during the adventure, but which the player may have forgotten (the first case). It's also what the characters would "know" as a result of having lived their lives, learning their skills, working in their professions, etc, which the player might not automatically think of.

Odds are, no one who has some training in the use of grenades (or fireballs) didn't have "check to make sure the target area is clear of friendlies" drilled into their heads somewhere along the line. Anyone in a profession involving highly dangerous materials/items recieves training with regards to the safe use of those things. But the player does not have the memories of their teachers drilling them on this over and over for years inside their heads. So even though they have no reason to know that there may be friendlies in that building, the player is much more likely to make the mistake of tossing a grenade/fireball into the building then the character would be. To the character it may be "I don't do that unless I've checked. Ever". And even in the heat of the moment, the character is unlikely to violate the 'saftey rules' they were taught. The player? Not even going to think about it.

But yeah. The flip side is that you have to balance that with the idea that PCs should sometimes make mistakes because they don't have all the information they need. And you certainly need to allow your players to actually play their characters without you controlling/guiding their actions. Hence why this is a balancing point. And of course, this could preclude characters who discover or gain "new abilities" along the way that they weren't trained in, didn't spend time learning how to use or thinking through all the ramifications of said use.

For me, when a player proposes something and it fits into that range of "things the character might think twice about doing, but could make a mistake and do anyway", I basically ask myself "how much will this mess up the adventure if this happens?". If the answer is "it wont", then I let the mistake happen. But if it's going to be a significant negative to the adventure itself, break the story line, kill off important NPCs, make the party into outlaws when they're supposed to be heroes, etc? I'll give the player a headsup. Or at least, some kind of knowledge roll to realize that there's a potential flaw in what they're about to do regrding said plot objectives, hostage NPCs, party status with the law, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think there's an important distinction between stopping to tell players about something that would be obvious to the characters, but they may have missed in the description (e.g. a line of hostages tied to posts that would be clearly visible to the character, but haven't been mentioned at the table in more than an hour because we've been in initiative that whole time) vs. things that are bad ideas, but the player has all the information the character does (e.g. throwing a grenade into a building when the player knows there are friendlies somewhere in the area, but there's no immediate visual reminder of that fact). In the former case, the DM should absolutely pause and remind them that there are hostages in the space they are about to fireball. In the latter case, if the player chooses to fire blind, that's a valid choice. A point well made, and there's some overlap.

[Rynjin]

There definitely is. You always need to take into account a few other factors for that as well; chief among them how much time has passed since the last reminder/information was first given in character? It's not reasonable for a character to forget something that happened 5 minutes ago, even if the player is now forgetting about it 2 hours later (which is a thing that sometimes happens, especially when combat is involved).

[Spo]

The following two statements in the OP thread seem contradictory:

"They were trying to prevent reinforcements, and without thinking they said they wanted to kill everyone there. The GM tried to clarify, and they confirmed it in the heat of the moment."

"The player confirmed they hadn't meant to kill anyone, but by that point it was too late."

How can they both be true?

[icefractal]

The following two statements in the OP thread seem contradictory:

"They were trying to prevent reinforcements, and without thinking they said they wanted to kill everyone there. The GM tried to clarify, and they confirmed it in the heat of the moment."

"The player confirmed they hadn't meant to kill anyone, but by that point it was too late."

How can they both be true?
From the player's perspective, based on having an incorrect understanding of the situation:
"without thinking they said they want to kill (every enemy soldier, who are the the only ones there, therefore everyone). The GM (asked if they were sure they wanted to [pick one: use a spell slot / destroy the possible loot / really kill all the enemy soldiers]) and they confirmed it."
...
"The player confirmed they hadn't meant to kill (the non-combatants and the diplomats, and wait - the enemy soldiers were brainwashed villagers? Oh right, I forgot that ... I guess maybe I don't really want to kill them either), but by that point it was too late."

[Sapphire Guard]

I read that as

Player: I want to kill everyone in that building

GM: Are you sure? But="

Player: Yes.

GM: Okay, they're all dead, including the hostages.

Player: Oh, I didn't mean to do that.

[OracleofWuffing]

Me too! Come on, Jakinbandw! Service our curiosity! :smallbiggrin:
I'm hoping it involves the PC faking their own death and having to wear a fake moustache for the majority of the rest of the campaign.

Voluntary permanent disfigurement would probably be a safer alternative, but the fake moustache is classic.

[Kish]

Meanwhile, my reading, based on
They used the word Kill in place of defeat, and everyone was too shocked to even do anything, though the GM did double check, the player was too hyped because they rolled so high that they didn't even realize what the question was. , is:

Player: "I cast [AoE spell which possesses a stun setting but isn't limited to stunning]! I want to kill everyone there!"
DM: "You are attempting to kill everyone there?"
Player: "Yes, that's right! 937 damage [which could be subdual but is not, at the moment, being specified to be]!"
DM: "Everyone there is dead."
Player: "Wait, dead? People weren't supposed to be dead, I was only trying to defeat them!"
DM: "'Defeat' ain't the word you used and confirmed."
Player: "Well...asterisks."

[GloatingSwine]

I read that as

Player: I want to kill everyone in that building

GM: Are you sure? But="

Player: Yes.

GM: Okay, they're all dead, including the hostages.

Player: Oh, I didn't mean to do that.

Yeah, it's quite possible that this is true, and that's why "are you sure" needs to be a bit more of a reminder of the overall objective.

Player: "I want to kill everyone in that building"

GM: "You are here to rescue people from that building, do you still want to proceed?"

Or in the OP's case "You have friendlies in that camp and are trying to convert its residents, do you still want to drop a MOAB on it?"

[Keltest]

Yeah, it's quite possible that this is true, and that's why "are you sure" needs to be a bit more of a reminder of the overall objective.

Player: "I want to kill everyone in that building"

GM: "You are here to rescue people from that building, do you still want to proceed?"

Or in the OP's case "You have friendlies in that camp and are trying to convert its residents, do you still want to drop a MOAB on it?"

If a player is paying that little attention to the game that they just start killing people without even remembering the basic objective, its kind of moved beyond the point where a gentle reminder from the DM is a reasonable solution.

[GloatingSwine]

If a player is paying that little attention to the game that they just start killing people without even remembering the basic objective, its kind of moved beyond the point where a gentle reminder from the DM is a reasonable solution.

Or it might be just the thing they need to jolt them out of "Jamie want big boom" mode.

[Keltest]

Or it might be just the thing they need to jolt them out of "Jamie want big boom" mode.

Sometimes Jamie want big boom though. Nothing wrong with that. Games are supposed to be fun. The DM can afford to let big boom be the solution sometimes, but the players also need to pay attention.

[GloatingSwine]

Sometimes Jamie want big boom though. Nothing wrong with that. Games are supposed to be fun. The DM can afford to let big boom be the solution sometimes, but the players also need to pay attention.

Yeah, but we're explicitly talking about situations where big boom is not in fact the solution just a different kind of problem, and the GM recognises that and wants to make sure the player also does before they do it.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but we're explicitly talking about situations where big boom is not in fact the solution just a different kind of problem, and the GM recognises that and wants to make sure the player also does before they do it.

Like I said, sometimes Jamie Want Big Boom. Players are, as a rule, stupid (no offense players, but I think you all know what I mean). I think its not a particularly fair ask to expect the DM to magically be able to tell between their regular poor decision making and their unintentional poor decision making.

[KorvinStarmast]

If a player is paying that little attention to the game that they just start killing people without even remembering the basic objective, its kind of moved beyond the point where a gentle reminder from the DM is a reasonable solution. Yes, seen that happen a lot.
The player is doing a leisure activity, playing a game.
The character is (inside of the fiction) involved in a life and death situation.
The failure to pay attention is also informed (sometimes) by a lack of, or a very low level of, immersion on any given player's part.
I have noticed over the years that "getting into the fiction" is a matter of personal taste.
The desire, or willingness, to do that varies wildly from one player to another within any group.

Sometimes Jamie want big boom though. Nothing wrong with that. Games are supposed to be fun. The DM can afford to let big boom be the solution sometimes, but the players also need to pay attention. And the players need to be willing to deal with the consequences of making a mistake Inside The Fiction.

[icefractal]

And the players need to be willing to deal with the consequences of making a mistake Inside The Fiction.I guess this is where I'm uncertain if I agree.

Because it's one player who isn't paying attention / taking it seriously (or legitimately mis-heard), but it's all the players who get consequences. Depends on the situation, but that's not always a good thing. IDK about you, but I don't want to be a "cop" telling the other players what to do, even if I had the power to, which I generally don't.

"Well that's the nature of RPGs, you can feel free to disagree IC" - yeah, sure, but that's a significant event, which very well may result in the party splitting up, the tone of the campaign changing, and/or character arcs (not just the one player's) changing significantly. So given the magnitude - it should be a deliberate decision by the instigator, not the result of misunderstanding.

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess this is where I'm uncertain if I agree.

Because it's one player who isn't paying attention / taking it seriously (or legitimately mis-heard), but it's all the players who get consequences. Depending on the RPG you are playing, that's on the players, plural. If you fail at Small Group Dynamics 101, then as a small group you will run into stuff like this where failure to work as a team results is preventable mistakes. (We had a number of screw ups last night in our five-person party, simply due to a couple of the players not being mentally 'present' as the various events came up and we confronted them).
That was on us, as a group of players. Not the DM's fault.

Specifically, if you are playing D&D your core unit is the team / the party.

If you - the player - don't pay attention, you are hurting the group. If you as a fellow player find that one or two of the players are not playing as part of the team, Don't Dump That Problem on the DM. That is for the players, collectively, to sort out. If you won't apply player-to-player influence to make the team function better, then you are a part of the problem.

In D&D groups, We is greater than Me.

Had another "not a team player" issue a couple of weeks ago. The bard player turned invisible as soon as combat started, and started moving, while the Sorcerer (whose plan was to put a buff spell on the bard) declared that action only to be told "you have to be able to see him to do that" ... once again, bad team work, which was compounded by a couple of polar bears sniffing the invisible bard and rendering his "you can't see me" gambit moot.

In some other RPGs that imperative isn't as present, or isn't present at all.

[gbaji]

Had another "not a team player" issue a couple of weeks ago. The bard player turned invisible as soon as combat started, and started moving, while the Sorcerer (whose plan was to put a buff spell on the bard) declared that action only to be told "you have to be able to see him to do that" ... once again, bad team work, which was compounded by a couple of polar bears sniffing the invisible bard and rendering his "you can't see me" gambit moot.

I don't see that as player miscommunication though, so much as character miscommunication. There are certain things that the whole table of players should act as a check for. The case in the OP is definitly one of them. A player proposes doing something with their character that is entirely at odds with the stated objective of the adventure. The other players should tell them this (and yeah, I also do believe that if the players miss it, the GM should give one last chance at avoiding catastrophe).

The example you just gave is a pretty minor (and normal) character miscommunication situation. This is actually one of the situations where I would likely not allow the players to use any sort of meta-communication to resolve it. If the characters didn't take the time before the encounter (or at least that round) to discuss the plan (Sorcerer telling the Bard "I'm going to cast a buff on you before you head out"), then there's no reason why the Bard would know this, or wait to cast invisibility until after the Sorcerer cast the buff spell. Now if the Sorcerer player tells the Bard player "I'm going to cast a buff on your character this round", then yes, if the Bard player later says "I'm casting invisibility on myself" before the Sorcerer has finished casting his spell, then I'll allow the meta-conversation to occur (or, you know, in-character conversation if desired).

If there was no prior discussion, and the Bard gets initiative first and decides to cast invis on himself, and then later the Sorcerer gets initiative and decides to cast a buff on the Bard, well.... too late. You didn't discuss it at the table, your characters didn't discuss it either. I see nothing at all wrong with that. It's the normal "fog of war" kind of stuff that honestly should happen. Characters can't actually perfectly communicate everything they are doing with every other member of the party and perfectly coordinate their actions. At my table, I actively disallow such coordination even if the players do think to do so, if their characters aren't in a position to actually have communicated this plan of action with eachother.

Then again, I'm a big fan of using statement of intent to handle this. Each player states what their character is doing/planning that round. And I'll allow a fair amount of coordination at that point, but only to a reasonable point. Saves a lot on the miscommunication bits. Um... Though I will also assume that any statements that do involve coordinated planning between characters must have been actually communicated between them. So unless you've got some telepathy going on, you're saying to eachother what your plan is. Which means that the NPCs may be able to hear and understand this as well, and may very well react based on that knowledge.

On the flip side though, I also make a point of playing out groups of NPCs with the same potential for miscommunication and or lack of coordinated actions. To the point that my players can generally tell how "professional" the opponents are merely by how they move on the battle mat. Skilled/trained soldiers used to working together as a unit will tend to move in unison, sticking to discrete groups, taking advantage of cover, combining on targets, and effectively blocking routes of counter attack, while maximizing their own ability to attack. Poorly trained NPCs with little practice working as a unit will kind of scramble around, sometimes blocking eachother's paths, putting too many opponents on one part of the party, and not enough on another, leaving gaps in their "line", etc. I put the same restrictions on myself and my NPCs that I place on my players and the PCs. It's only fair.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see that as player miscommunication though, so much as character miscommunication. It's all player failure to communicate. I've been playing with these guys for years. Somedays, the group dynamics click, other days they mail it in. (And how much of what they are smoking seems to correlate a bit to the latter problem ...)

If the characters didn't take the time before the encounter (or at least that round) to discuss the plan (Sorcerer telling the Bard "I'm going to cast a buff on you before you head out"), then there's no reason why the Bard would know this, or wait to cast invisibility until after the Sorcerer cast the buff spell.
What we have here is failure to communicate. Yep. This is also tough on a marriage, this failure to communicate thing ... :smallyuk:

Then again, I'm a big fan of using statement of intent to handle this.
That's good technique (approach, intent, objective) in a lot of RPGs.

[Keltest]

Oh man, communication. We have one guy in our group who insists, despite our pleas, on wanting to keep his actions and plans secret from the rest of us, especially when he wants us to trust him and coordinate with him.

This is especially frustrating as the DM because when his turn comes around, if we haven't choked the plan out of him yet, I then frequently have to tell him "well if you do that, then X chain reaction will happen." that is completely different from what he wanted, and he needs to waste time making a new plan for his turn.

[Satinavian]

In my groups we basically don't do metagame level planning.

If the characters don't coordinate in game, the players don't do so out of game either.

[gbaji]

It's all player failure to communicate. I've been playing with these guys for years. Somedays, the group dynamics click, other days they mail it in. (And how much of what they are smoking seems to correlate a bit to the latter problem ...)

Lol. Yeah. I get that. I was just commenting that while some things are exclusively about the players not talking to eacho ther, in this case, it's a miscommunication that can/should be explained "in game" as "characterA forgot to tell characterB what they were doing". And frankly, is the kind of misstep that I would expect to actually happen. The players may want to or try to play their characters with perfect coordination, but the characters are "real people" and as such these sorts of things should actually happen a lot more often than actually do in most games.

There's a reason why football teams (American, of course!) endlessly practice and drill their plays. It's so that when the QB steps back, the linemen push the defenders in the correct direction, while the RB comes in at the right angle and time, so that the QB can hand off and the RB may have a clear line to run through, or fake and pass, hoping that if the defenders did manage to get around the linemen and in position to block the run, this will mean a receiver is open. One person stepping in the wrong direction will screw up the entire thing. And despite all that practice, it happens quite often anyway.

Yet, if the players had their way, they'd imagine that their characters can all spill through a doorway into a room they've never seen, instantly recognize the exact locations of every single object and opponent in the room, and on the fly move into the room, no one ever bumping into anyone, and perfectly place the correct party members in the correct locations so as to block any counter attack from the opponents, allow their ranged folks to attack, and otherwise "win". All while casting the correct buffs on themselves, with no one ever accidentaly breaking line of sight, or going in the wrong order, or well... anything.

Most GMs (myself included) allow this to a degree. But yeah, when a mistake like that happens, it's really less a mistake as a "this is actually kinda inevitable and should be happening all the time". But hey. We're playing a fun game, so let the players have their fun.


That's good technique (approach, intent, objective) in a lot of RPGs.

I've found that it solves a heck of a lot of problems when playing things out (especially combat but anything where timing and order of actions matters). Some folks will say that this takes extra time (and it kinda does), but IMO it saves vastly more time in the long run because it allows you to avoid the kind of missteps and attempted retcons that will inevitably result if you don't use something like it.

It also allows me to police situations of "over communication" ahead of time rather than after the fact. If playerA states "I'm going to run over to that position, pull out my bow and start firing", and then playerB states "I'm going to cast a wall of defense in front of playerA to protect his character while he fires", I'm going to stop things right there and ask "Ok. playerA, is your character actually announcing that they are going to that position to use their bow? Because otherwise, playerB would have no way to know that and start casting a defensive spell for you before you even get there". Having done that, during the statement of defense phase of the round, none of the players can complain if my NPCs overhear this, and pull the lever releasing the catch on the pit trap between where said archer and his proposed firing position is (perhaps set up to be obvious for just this case), because "You said you were shouting out what you were doing so that the caster could perform his spell action to help you out, and they could hear you".

Maybe an over the top case there, but basically it justifies any action by my NPCs that would require them to know what a PC is doing that round and acting intelligently in response. My players have come to understand that any action that requires planning or coordination like that requires that their actual characters must have communicated that at some point. And if they didn't do this ahead of time in the huddle, then they're doing it right at the line of scrimmage, or even in the middle of the play. It eliminates the "how could the NPC have known to run here to block/attack/whatever me?" questions. I've already asked the question, and they've already confirmed that they openly stated this with their character wherever their character was at that point in time.

What's fun about this, is that it puts that fog of war back in, but it's not always a negative. Sometimes, two players will happen to make specific choices with their characters, with no interaction between them, and it just happens to work out perfectly (and throws the NPCs completely off). And yeah, sometimes, they miss their coordination in hillarious ways. None of which is "wrong" or "bad". It just "is". But if you allow for this open communication to happen, with all sides aware of the "rules" for said communication, then the players don't get angry at anyone for this sort of thing when it happens, or demand a retcon, or whatever. Which prevents game sessions coming to a screaching halt.


Oh man, communication. We have one guy in our group who insists, despite our pleas, on wanting to keep his actions and plans secret from the rest of us, especially when he wants us to trust him and coordinate with him.

This is especially frustrating as the DM because when his turn comes around, if we haven't choked the plan out of him yet, I then frequently have to tell him "well if you do that, then X chain reaction will happen." that is completely different from what he wanted, and he needs to waste time making a new plan for his turn.

Yeah. I've seen those players. It's sometimes just a personality trait (bit of control freak, bit of paranoia maybe). I've also seen this behavior in players who started playing with GMs who treated the game as a "me vs the players" kind of thing, so the player has learned to never let the GM know their plans in the same way you wouldn't tell other players in an adversarial game what you were doing either.

In the former case, it can be hard to fix. But usually, if them keeping their plans a secret consistently result in negative outcomes, it'll damage their own sense of "need to be in control", and they may naturally start sharing a bit more, just so that their plans have relevance. A fair amount of "gee, we'd treat you as party leader, except you aren't really leading anyone", usually will fix this. Maybe.

The latter is a bit trickier. It's hard to get a GM-shy player to trust that the GM isn't actually the enemy. About the only way I've seen players recover from this is if there are other players you can get to repeatedly tell their plans openly, and then you as the GM a) play it straight (so never "cheat" here and have NPCs take advantage of you knowing the plan), but also b) actively provide useful feedback to the players about the plans. And I don't mean give them secret information here, or know things they would not know, but allow for rolls to detect obvious flaws or mistakes that the player may not have though of. The occasional useful reminder of known NPC capabilities while planning goes a long way (ie: "Um... Don't forget that the bad guy has a ring of detect good, so if you come within X feet he'll detect you"). If you can consistently show that the GM is not an enemy, but merely runs the game fairly for all sides, you can sometimes break players of this. Sometimes.