DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[Doug McCrae]

thought police

I like to think I'm not quite as evil as the totalitarian government in Orwell's 1984!

 

[ciriquen]

I like to think I'm not quite as evil as the totalitarian government in Orwell's 1984!

The government is not evil! Could you please sign this form to confirm that you did in fact make this statement? Then could you accompany me to the Department of Unnecessary Bureaucracy so we can get it countersigned by an official countersignatory?

 

[Schmoe]

I guess you missed the memo, but your actions were in clear violation of the rules. Meta-gaming is explicitly illegal in 5E.

LOL! That's both sadly hilarious and preposterous. While I'm sure everyone appreciates your efforts to police their games, I think history has shown it's a losing attempt. D&D players are a notoriously delinquent bunch.

 

[iserith]

The same section also also suggests that the DM modify the campaign to fit the party’s particular power.

“You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.” - DMG 235

I think this is terrible advice. The approach to the goal suggests setting up in-game situations to solve what is ultimately a problem that occurs outside the game. Better in my view to tell the players why it is unnecessarily risky or a waste of time to act on what could be erroneous assumptions and what they can do to verify those assumptions. I have no issue with setting up challenges that might require negotiation or retreat to survive; however, that is in my opinion a substandard solution to the problem of metagame thinking.

 

[iserith]

I don't disagree at all, but there are players and DMs who are adament against it. It's one of the things I determine in session 0, how much metagaming does the table want.

I often find that the reasons they are adamantly against it are lacking or contradictory. But I suppose there's no accounting for taste. In my Tables Rules document, I include the following:

"'Metagaming,' defined as using player skill or knowledge that a character might not necessarily have, is fine as long as it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story. Assumptions can be risky though so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through in-game actions before making choices based on them.'

 

[mikal768]

Thanks for the direction. I did go back and check this morning and for the record it does specifically call out ‘player knowledge’ as the example which you have quoted above.

The same section also also suggests that the DM modify the campaign to fit the party’s particular power.

“You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.” - DMG 235

So in other words, metagame to curb metagaming. Brilliant

 

[iserith]

^ This.

As a DM I do not concern myself with why the players make a particular decision. In fact, I often remind them that they ARE allowed to think as players too, because this is a game after all. It is up to them whether they go for what their character would do, what they would do, or if they find a happy compromise between the two. I only encourage them to confirm their ideas in-game.

Yeah, or you might say that what a character would do is whatever the "player" says it will do since it's the player who determines how a character thinks or acts or what it says. There is therefore no separation between "What would my character do?" and "What will I choose to do?" because they are the same.

 

[TheSword]

So in other words, metagame to curb metagaming. Brilliant

Go figure! I have to agree that I’m not a fan of ‘teaching players a lesson’ by setting unachievable tasks. The principal of adaptating the game to your players is right there in Black and white. For me the DMG is only full of suggestions though. For instance I hate random treasure and I always tailor boards for the players. It’s one of those compromises between coincidence and enjoyment.

 

[Caliban]

I'm going to stop there, because I don't want to sound overly critical.

Too late.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wow, reading answers in threads this like really illustrates the differences between combative and cooperative gaming styles. For me, I got tired of the Players versus Dungeonmaster style about 20-25 years ago, long before 3.X and 4E got the reputation of being that type of game. I believe the players and DM are telling a story together. Sure, the players have to survive the trials the DM has created for them, and sure, really dumb choices and lots of bad dice rolls can doom them, but I never set out to try to kill the party and I do not play with DMs whose mindset is that either. So to answer the question, you don't go out of your way to try to kill them. Don't save them from their own stupidity, but if they can come up with decent ideas and they do not have suicidal dice, then you find ways to keep them alive. Maybe they have to run away from a fight or maybe they have to rescue captured teammates or maybe you just happen to make something very lucky or very unlikely happen for them, as many books and movies do, but the DM's job is not to kill the PCs, it is to make sure everyone is having fun. And if a DM gets his jollies at the expense of the fun of the players, then that person should probably not be a DM.

The are options other than being combative OR overly cooperative. The DM as a neutral arbiter and referee is a position as old as the game itself. It is not the DM's job to save the PC's bacon or to slaughter them for personal amusement. Run the game honestly and fairly and let the dice fall where they may.