D&D 5E Is acting on player banter a dick move?

Yes OP, it would be a dick move to retroactively decide there's a spy close enough to them to hear them talk.

As Saelorn said though, not a dick move if the monsters find out the info in combat because the PCs were calling it out for everyone to hear and survive to capitalise on it.

iserith said:

It's fair if the players know ahead of time that some of the things they say may be used against them.

It's not fair if they don't know that ahead of time.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Player agency. If they have it its fair. If they don't its the GM playing by himself. -

As others have said, it's somewhat gray.

As a GM, I tend to fire a warning or two before I act, when things like disrupting chatter are getting out of hand. A lot of times, folks don't even realize they're practically making the game impossible to play. I've even been on the disruptive side of things and felt bad about it, once pointed out. There have even been a couple of nights (over 35 years of gaming) where we've decided the whole group is just too fried to actually play and called the game in favor of cards or just shooting the breeze.

All that said, it's not inherently a dick move. One table rule I've had for at least 25 years is that, if a player interrupts me reading the "boxed text" (whether or not I'm literally reading from a box), it's an in-character indication that they're not paying attention to their surroundings. If I start describing a dragon's lair with the treasure and you say, "I run over and grab the sword," then you were so tunnel-visioned that you mentally blocked out the dragon's existence. The rule started, not as a dick move, but because I had a player who was forever interrupting capstone encounter descriptions, even after being told, "You might want to let me finish." The other players were as sick of it as I was, so the rule was born. Since that time, I've always had at least one player carry over from group to group, so it's stayed in place because the continuity player brings it up.

Without context, that could sound like a dick move. With context, not so much (IMO).

I act on player's banter when it gets in the way of the game. And only on minor stuff, just to remind them that what they say is important, that I take note and pay attention, and to ensure that they're focused when things are getting serious.

But specifically, when it comes to indicators of their health or resources, I assume that a well rounded party of adventurers has means or codes to speak about those things without tipping the enemy. The warrior with 5 hp might just clear is throat a bit loudly after a hit on his shield, or the wizard might speak the incantation for her cantrip in a different tone, the rogue might just... well... flee the scene... or make a few tactical gestures, or both. I prefer to assume that the characters are competent adventurers used to fight as a group and have worked out a safe way of in fight communication after their first shared long rest.

The ability of an enemy to pick on their weaknesses depends more on the enemy smarts or instincts than what the players say during the fight.

redrick said:

In general, I would say, yes, using player banter against PCs is a dick move. For this not to be a dick move, you would have to justify it. (Specific beats general, after all.)

Certainly, I would not use knowing how many spell slots a character has left or exactly how many hp against them across multiple encounters. Knowing that a character is badly wounded? Sure. Should be clearly visible. Knowing that they've just used some spells because you heard the fireball go off? Sure. But planning a course of action based on the fact that the Fighter still has an Action Surge left but the Barbarian has used all their Rages? That's a low blow.

Now, as pming says, discussing detailed battle plans on the other side of a door from your opponents? That's foolish. But I would explain this the first time by saying, "Ok, so you guys are discussing your strategy for a few minutes in the corridor of the dungeon. Did anybody notice that the voices on the other side of the door have stopped?"

Click to expand...

My main point is when players straight out say stuff, not having foes magically know what they used up.

Mercule said:

As others have said, it's somewhat gray.

As a GM, I tend to fire a warning or two before I act, when things like disrupting chatter are getting out of hand. A lot of times, folks don't even realize they're practically making the game impossible to play. I've even been on the disruptive side of things and felt bad about it, once pointed out. There have even been a couple of nights (over 35 years of gaming) where we've decided the whole group is just too fried to actually play and called the game in favor of cards or just shooting the breeze.

All that said, it's not inherently a dick move. One table rule I've had for at least 25 years is that, if a player interrupts me reading the "boxed text" (whether or not I'm literally reading from a box), it's an in-character indication that they're not paying attention to their surroundings. If I start describing a dragon's lair with the treasure and you say, "I run over and grab the sword," then you were so tunnel-visioned that you mentally blocked out the dragon's existence. The rule started, not as a dick move, but because I had a player who was forever interrupting capstone encounter descriptions, even after being told, "You might want to let me finish." The other players were as sick of it as I was, so the rule was born. Since that time, I've always had at least one player carry over from group to group, so it's stayed in place because the continuity player brings it up.

Without context, that could sound like a dick move. With context, not so much (IMO).

Click to expand...

This is not about being rude, interrupting the player, etc.

The point I was trying to make is when the players start discussing how much firepower their characters have so as to determine whether or not to rest. To me this just has to be inter-character communication. Players talking about whether or not or not to explore more because its 1030 at night and players have to leave is player to player talk. Its not their characters talking. Players talking about how many hit points (how beat up their characters are) how many spells left, that they used up all their potions. To me that has to be the characters themselves talking and can be overheard.

Of course overhearing requires someone stealthing etc and there is every chance of being caught and unless it is part of the plot it is never going to be completely random. It at least for a specific reason, a foe they know, an enemy they have made, someone they mad angry etc.

I understand all the comments made here and I think to make things work out the best if I was to do anything like this I would start the campaign (with the right players of course) with a statement that what they say is what their characters say unless it is you stating an action.

I would also explain that if you go completely off topic, talking about work or the what movie they say last week, that is not literally what their character is saying, what their character is talking about is how talented the bard was playing at the Inn last night, how buxom the wench was, or how bad the food tasted. Basically that when you talk your character talks in some form.

Hopefully this would allow players to immerse more in the game and help to eliminate the common feel at so many tables that DnD is just playing a computer game manually while you scroll along boringly until you get to the next battle.

JacktheRabbit said:

I understand all the comments made here and I think to make things work out the best if I was to do anything like this I would start the campaign (with the right players of course) with a statement that what they say is what their characters say unless it is you stating an action.

I would also explain that if you go completely off topic, talking about work or the what movie they say last week, that is not literally what their character is saying, what their character is talking about is how talented the bard was playing at the Inn last night, how buxom the wench was, or how bad the food tasted. Basically that when you talk your character talks in some form.

Hopefully this would allow players to immerse more in the game and help to eliminate the common feel at so many tables that DnD is just playing a computer game manually while you scroll along boringly until you get to the next battle.

Click to expand...

You want to translate opaquely OOC, off topic conversations into completely unrelated IC speech? I'm baffled. If you want to minimize OOC side talk, handle it OOC. "Guys, we only have 3 hours a night to play. We can chat about movies and stuff before or after the game. Let's keep focused on the game."

When it comes to OOC discussions about IC status (like HP or spell slots remaining), the problem is that the OOC discussion produces IC decisions. Information must be communicated somehow, especially for the less visible aspects like spell slots. I usually assume the party has worked out a very basic sign language for operating in tactical situations, and I'm pretty generous with the amount of information they can communicate in this manner. I also assume that, when communicating audibly in dangerous territory, the PCs do it quietly enough their voices won't carry more than 10 or so feet. The danger in announcing one's location and disposition is much clearer to the characters than the players, so my players get a bit of a pass in that respect.

If there's a spy lurking around, I might ask exactly how the PCs are communicating. If this tips off the players and the characters act on that suspicion, it's a form of metagaming that I personally can abide. I'll just excuse it as a dramatically appropriate instance of intuition. Whether they discover him is still probably going to be managed by dice.

If there's no spy, it doesn't really matter and I leave it to the players' imaginations how that OOC discussion translates into IC communication.

Personally, I find the best way to handle these sorts of situations is simply to interrupt this sort of talk by rolling behind my screen and asking for everyone's passive perception. I'm not about to suddenly spring a monster that hadn't been there before on my players unless they're getting out of hand and keep this sort of behaviour up despite repeated warnings (and even then, I'm more likely to stop the game and handle things OOC) but, in my experience at least, players will usually take a hint from the threat of something lurking to overhear them. It doesn't matter that there isn't actually something there, only that there could be.

If it's in the middle of a battle, and the bantering PC expects the other characters to hear and act on their talk, then its fair to have intelligent monsters who stare a language with the PCs act on that talk as well.