GM-player Communication vs. Metagaming

[pemerton]

D&D gives you a decent way to deal with this: Intelligence, Wisdom, and relevant skill checks. If the plan is smart, let it lie. If the plan is bad, and the PCs should have all the information, but the players have missed something, run it through the dice. If they dice say no, you let it lie.

I see this suggested from time to time - from [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] upthread, I think, and it was mentioned in another thread that I read recently - but I'm not a big fan.

If the game would play better if the GM speaks to the players, then speak! If there's no obvious need to speak, then don't! But I don't see the point of leaving it up to the dice in this sort of situation.

(The sort of situation where I might use an INT check is like one that came up in my game recently - the PC encounters a signalling system s/he has never encountered before, and tries to quickly decipher it. But that is not about the foolishness or otherwise of player decision-making - it's just another exploration mechanic.)

Players should be actively participating and writing information down. So the chances of missed or forgotten information is kept to a minimum.

This is an ideal which unfortunately is not always reached. The best notetakers in my group both now live in England, and the quality of notetaking has declined among those of the players who remain. (We play on Sunday afternoons, often still tired from work, and with kids playing in the background. Both internal and external factors make good note taking harder than it used to be.)

The frequent turnover of PC sheets in 4e is also the enemy of good notetaking, as notes on old PC sheets get lost in the updating.

So I'm reasonably forgiving in this department, and generally happy to help my players out with their PCs' memories - this generally comes up because they remember that they should know something, but can't remember what exactly it is. If they ask me, I'll tell them.

This does sometimes reduce the dramatic force of a revelation, if the players don't fully feel the force of the big reveal on their own. But the alternative is just ignorance about the stakes of the game, and that is worse for drama, and for play generally.

 

[pemerton]

You sleep in the bed you make.

Agreed, but maybe in a slightly different sense from what you meant (see below).

Scenario #1:
Players are about to do something awfully stupid. GM subtly informs them that their plans are taken straight from the litter-box. Players change their plans and from now they expect their GM to save them again if they are about to something dumb. GM is happy that the PCs are alive and well.

I chose option 1 in the poll before reading the OP, and I don't think that this scenario captures what I had in mind in choosing Option 1.

There are many forms of GM-player communication other than commenting on tactical or operational plan. And there are many forms of silliness other than TPK. And just because the players take note of what the GM says, it needn't follw that they expect the GM to save them - they may well become motivated by pride, for example, to do better.

I've only had one "TPK" in my 4e game, and in fact only one of the PCs died permanently. I asked the players whether or not they wanted to keep playing the same PCs, and all but one did. So three of the four who were only at 0 hp were captured rather than killed by the goblins who had set the successful trap for them. (The half-elf feylock was killed and cooked up, however - the player of that PC wanted to bring in a drow sorcerer instead). And the one PC who had been dropped to negative bloodied (by friendly fire, from memory) came back to life - the goblin shaman summoned the spirit of the PC's nemesis back to unlife as a wraith, and the Raven Queen sent the spirit of the PC back into the world two, to bring the nemesis to heel.

The response of the players to this wasn't to become lazily dependent upon the GM. It was to be embarassed by having fallen for the goblin's trap, and to resolve to do better next time!

For me, the main role of GM communication is to remind the players of what is at stake, and to keep up the pressure. To borrow The Shaman's phrase, I want to make sure that they're acutely aware of the bed that they're making for themselves to sleep in. In my game, the risk of TPKing is not a very big part of that.

not only is it not my job as DM to help the pcs avoid making mistakes, it is not my place to do so. IMHO the dm who interferes with pc decisions, unless that interference is based on in-game stuff (the players are missing something their characters know, there is a charm effect on one of them, someone has bee replaced by a doppelganger, whatever), is out of line to do so.

This depends, doesn't it? I guess it depends in part what you mean by "interfere" - but when my players are debating what to do, I will speak up all the time - think of it as playing the little angels and/or devils on their shoulders, reminding them of what is at stake and what could go right or wrong, thereby building up the investment in the situation and the ancticipation of its outcome, whatever that happens to be. I don't particularly care what my players have their PCs do, but I do care that my players care about what is happening in the game. And I find GM commentary and interjection is one effective way to bring this about.

 

[pemerton]

The problem comes in when players THINK they have a clear picture, but it turns out that it does not match the GM's actual picture.

Agreed.

As a GM, what do you do when the player announces his decision to jump? Bear in mind, you may not have explicitly described the distances involved.

In my case, I would clearly state the distance and the elevation and check if the player still wants to have his/her PC attempt a jump that will almost certainly be fatal.

I'll go over the specifics of something as much or as little as the players want. I have maps and diagrams and pictures and miniatures to illustrate the scene, and I'll whip up a sketch if something still isn't clear.

<snip>

I'll tell the player what the distance is and if there are any obvious obstacles between where they take off and where they land.

I'm unsure about one thing. If it's obvious that, given the action resolution mechanics, the PC has no chance of success and is jumping to his/her death - would you explicity raise that with the player? My assumption as GM is that, in such a situation, it's almost certain that the player has misunderstood something - either about the situation, or about the mechanics - because it is extremely unlikely that the player is intending to pointlessly sacrifice his/her PC.

 

[S'mon]

I see this suggested from time to time - from [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] upthread, I think, and it was mentioned in another thread that I read recently - but I'm not a big fan.

If the game would play better if the GM speaks to the players, then speak! If there's no obvious need to speak, then don't! But I don't see the point of leaving it up to the dice in this sort of situation.

I think there are many cases where the GM should just remind the PCs of relevant facts.

But in the kind of Simulation-Gamist game normally run, it often makes sense to allow PCs and players to make mistakes. The consequences in the particular instance may be unpleasant, but maintaining the general rule that consequences lie where they fall is beneficial.

 

[pemerton]

in the kind of Simulation-Gamist game normally run, it often makes sense to allow PCs and players to make mistakes. The consequences in the particular instance may be unpleasant, but maintaining the general rule that consequences lie where they fall is beneficial.

Agreed. And I've got nothing against the players making mistakes. Even in my TPK scenario dsecribed a few post ups, the GM's helping hand came at the end - do they want their PCs to be dead or captured? - not at the beginning.

But given that mistakes can be good, it seems to me that there is no need for the INT/WIS check. It's that particular mechanics that I'm sceptical about. (Not so sceptical that I'm not open to argument that it's worthwhile - but fairly firmly sceptical in the absence of such argument.)

 

[S'mon]

But given that mistakes can be good, it seems to me that there is no need for the INT/WIS check. It's that particular mechanics that I'm sceptical about. (Not so sceptical that I'm not open to argument that it's worthwhile - but fairly firmly sceptical in the absence of such argument.)

A "3 in 6 chance you know this" mechanic might work just as well.

 

[pemerton]

A "3 in 6 chance you know this" mechanic might work just as well.

Agreed that it would do the same job. But I'm still not sure what the job actually is, or why it's worth doing? Either tell, or tell not - there is no check!

 

[S'mon]

Agreed that it would do the same job. But I'm still not sure what the job actually is, or why it's worth doing? Either tell, or tell not - there is no check!

Simulation of the fog of war!

I appreciate simulation is not a goal of yours.

 

[pemerton]

Simulation of the fog of war!

That reminds me somewhat of [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]'s use of tables to simulate the "chance meetings" etc of the swashbuckling genre.

I appreciate simulation is not a goal of yours.

You're right that I have a preference to (as I see it) cut to the chase, but your answer makes sense. And I can see how I might use it as a technique in certain situations.

 

[Janx]

If I've explained the situation, set the minis out, drawn a map and a sketch, answered any and all questions, and the player still doesn't get it? Then it doesn't matter, 'cause I quit.

Seriously, there's nothing about this hypothetical that strikes me in the least bit plausible.

Are you actually calling me a liar about my real life example? If yes, you owe me an apology or a mod owes you a visit to BanTown for insultiing behavior.

It really did happen. The GM was Ned, and the other players were Paul and Nicole.

Ned gave a simple description of "it's like the Ewok Village" We climbed up the ladder, got attacked from another platform, and Paul announced his act of idiocy.

Paul tends to acts of idiocy, and our group has 2 choices, let him die (and possibly take us with him) and have to keep spinning up new PCs into the party, or pause the game, talk him off the ledge and resume. We choose the latter.

Paul is a good friend, a good portrayer of character and a good team player. He's not always so good with acts of spontaneity. He also gets silly when he doesn't take things seriously. So letting him plow through PCs means he will stop taking the game seriously because he doesn't take his PC seriously anymore.

A situation like this can happen in the blink of an eye. I was surprised when he said "I run and jump across to the other platform!" There are some GMs who I have met who would have rolled the Jump check and said "OK, you run and jump and fail to cross the 20' and fall 60' to your death."

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] implies with his other statements that he normally lays out minis, diagrams, etc. If he was GMing and the situation played out like I describe (no chance to draw or explain before Paul blurts out, would he make Paul jump and die?