The Ethics of )(*#$ing with the PCs' plans

[Walking Paradox]

I read this, which basically says that the goal of good writing in fiction and for film/television is to make sure that the plans are never revealed. The likelihood that a plan will succeed is inversely proportional to the knowledge that the readers/audience have of it beforehand. If all of the plan is revealed from the outset, then it will fail. If the plan succeeds, then it is because certain aspects of it were surprises to the reader/audience once they are revealed.

This makes sense, because surprises make for good reading/viewing. I think a good GM should surprise his players with unexpected twists. I've had a ball springing monsters onto my players, monsters way more powerful than they were bargaining for. Another trick I used once (and you can only use this once, trust me) was the one where the PCs spoke in a language that they thought the NPCs did not understand, only to hear one of them say at a critical juncture "just how many languages do you think I can speak, you idiot!?" On the other hand, I have presented them with interesting tactical situations too, let them spend most of the time planning their ways through it like it was a puzzle, and then letting them actually play it through without any surprises; in effect rewarding them for good planning and good tactical thinking by allowing their plans to succeed.

What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?

 

[Mark CMG]

I leave the players alone for five or ten minutes every session so they can make plans alone without my hearing them (they don't often do this out-of-game, though some groups do), and sometimes at higher levels I step out of the room just after rolling initiative and give them some planning time. My justification is that they don't inhabit the PCs' skin 24/7 as they would in the actual setting, so giving them some time to make general strategies or specific tactics in a tough combats, offsets that lack of true immersion. Plus, it makes it more fun for me to not know what they are planning.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Thesaurus.com | Find Synonyms and Antonyms of Words at Thesaurus.com --> A good way to avoid having to type )(*#$ing and dick-ish.

But on topic:

I think it is good for the DM to throw a curveball or so into the player's plans, but not tenoughto dertail them totally, or even frequently.

However, it seems in some of my groups that very normal things derail their poorly-thought-out plans.

I do like to be surprised, though.

 

[Ringlerun]

Its always good to keep the players on their toes. I like to throw in the magic item. Give a small group of kobolds a wand of lightning or the Ogre a magic sword and watch the players squirm. The best part of being a GM is watching the players formulate new plans to combat the curve ball you just threw them.

 

[GSHamster]

I generally won't go out of my way to mess with players' plans. I.e. I won't change my plans once I know what the PCs are going to do.

I generally err on the side of letting the plan be more or less successful (assuming they execute correctly) if it's at all feasible, unless it's got a huge, obvious hole in the plan.

If you thwart their plans too often, the players will react by not making plans and just going with brute force all the time, in my experience.

 

[The Shaman]

What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?

I put myself in the head of the non-player characters in the campaign and act on what they know, rather than what I as the omniscient referee know. Listening to the players' plans and then thwarting them based on that knowledge is too metagamey for me.

To the extent practicable, I'll determine the non-player characters' tactics out-of-game, as part of a generated encounter or in the description of the npc. I like matching wits with the players and their characters, of throwing my plan against their's and seeing what shakes out in actual play.

 

[S'mon]

What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?

It's not railroading. However, I would regard it as poor GMing. Gygax did something a bit similar in his Greyhawk dungeon campaign by changing the design of traps etc to frustrate player-developed trap-finding techniques such as the 10' pole. My understanding is that he did it pre-play rather than on the fly, but it's not an approach I like.

 

[S'mon]

However, it seems in some of my groups that very normal things derail their poorly-thought-out plans.

Yes, just GM the environment objectively and PC plans will often fail.

Of course, players vary a lot in ability. Especially in my dragonsfoot online games, I see really smart, clever players who come up with brilliant plans, and I see... odd... players who consistently come up with idiotic plans that show a strange lack of understanding of human nature or basic physics (like 'things fall down'). GMing objectively, the clever players nearly always succeed, the foolish players nearly always fail. This can get frustrating for the foolish players.

If you have a group of limited-ability players, I think it may be ok (if you the GM are ok with it) to run more of a 'fun park' type game, where silly plans still work out, where NPCs are bumbling and ineffective. It'll resemble one of those TV shows, you know what I mean. But that approach may well frustrate higher-ability players who are looking for a challenge.

 

[Argyle King]

I prefer to not metagame. If the NPC or monsters I'm running do not know something, I run them as if they do not know it.

However, there have been times when the PCs assumed the BBEG did not know something; made plans based on that assumption, and doing so lead them into a less than desirable situation. I've found that some of the best curveballs are the ones which the PCs throw at themselves.

I think one of the most hilarious examples I can think of recently is when the party assaulted a completely innocent bartender. For some reason one of the party members got stuck on the idea that she (the bartender) was planning to attack (I never gave any indication that she was) and convinced the other PCs to engage the bartender.

Needless to say, they were no longer welcome in town, and the normally good party found themselves the enemy of the local authorities.

 

[Morrus]

I haven't particularly tried this, but I've heard it argued that it can be fair to allow a very intelligent bad guy to act on info about the PC plans that it wouldn't ordinarily have simply because the DM doesn't have the intelligence of a 3000-year old super-genius dracolich. It, to an extent, simulates the superior intelligence and tactics of the bad guy, though it's not perfect.

Haven't tried it, though. I wonder if anyone here has?