[DM Issue] - How would you have handled this?

[Barak]

Here's an example of a readied action that happens -during- an opponent's action, even at the risk of negating part of the action itself.

-Dwarven fighter with halberd ready his weapon against a charge.
-Orc charges dwarven fighter (note that a charge is -one- action, not just two actions put together. Heck, one can even do a charge with a partial action)
-As soon as the orc gets in range (so -during- the charge, after the movement part of it, before the attack part of it), the dwarven fighter rolls his to-hit.

Now it's very possible that the orc will die, and never get to complete the action that triggered the attack from the dwarven fighter. It doesn't mean the triggered action doesn't happen. It just means the orc was killed while he was charging, and impaled himself on the halberd.

 

[milotha]

Seriously, I've seen players that would show up to the next game with a dictionary in hand. They would then spend the next game carefully defining every action that they took just to prove a point. This isn't fun for anyone.

I think that after a player states a readied action, having the GM give a quick clarification/restatement of the readied action would help prevent this in the future.

 

[S'mon]

Here's an example of a readied action that happens -during- an opponent's action, even at the risk of negating part of the action itself.

-Dwarven fighter with halberd ready his weapon against a charge.
-Orc charges dwarven fighter (note that a charge is -one- action, not just two actions put together. Heck, one can even do a charge with a partial action)
-As soon as the orc gets in range (so -during- the charge, after the movement part of it, before the attack part of it), the dwarven fighter rolls his to-hit.

Now it's very possible that the orc will die, and never get to complete the action that triggered the attack from the dwarven fighter. It doesn't mean the triggered action doesn't happen. It just means the orc was killed while he was charging, and impaled himself on the halberd.

Yup, that's a classic case of a readied action, it occurs during the opponent's action and interrupts the second part of it. In future rounds the readier's turn will be just before the orc's initiative count.

 

[swrushing]

As a GM i try and not hoist the players at any opportunity on whether or not they took the time to precisely phrase simple instructions. I most certainly do NOT want them to feel that every statement of action or intent they voice needs to be carefully crafted, considered and scultped in bulletproof legalese to make sure i cannot cook their statement to make them fail.

Ask yourself as Dm, "do i want my players to feel that the precise wording of their statements of character action are crucial? Do i want them to, everytime they tell me what their character is about to do to be worrying about and working to avoid having ME the DM ***not the NPCs they are opposing*** become an adversary reading the wrong meaning into their choices? "

Ask yourself "Do i want them to see me, the DM, as opposition, as a guy at the table looking to nail them if they misspeak?"

If the answer to all the above is "no, oh no, not at all!" then you were wrong.

I have found working with my players, emphasising that I, the DM, am not their enemy, and in general giving them the presumption of competence on their character's part, works a lot better.

My games run a lot better when the players are having their characters fight my villains, as opposed to when the players are TAUGHT BY ME BEING A **** to fight me, the GM. When they trust me the game runs better for everyone.

For your game, for that player, he no longer feels he can trust you and now will likely be spending time and effort on covering himself against you, the DM, instead of spending time on playing your game.

Thats a loss.

 

[Bacrof]

I don't know guys. Taking the player's quote with the situation, it isn't so cut-and-dry as to what his intention really was.

If I'm surrounded by three hostile opponents, I would assume that they are all going to attack me. So why hold an attack until after they do exactly what I know they are going to do? He should have just attacked himself when it was his turn.

Clearly, he was holding his action for something other than just an attack ... and his words support this. It isn't up to the DM to read the player's mind, it is up to the player to speak clearly enough that the DM knows what you want to do.

The fault was the player's. The DM did the right thing.

 

[swrushing]

Clearly, he was holding his action for something other than just an attack ... and his words support this.

I disagree... its far from clear...

The fault was the player's. The DM did the right thing.

I disagree... lets look at results...

What if the Gm had handled it like this...

Player states readied action...
Gm rolls the first bad guy and sees a miss...
GM: "Ok you were attacked. Take your readied attack now."

Then we have either...

PLAYER: "great, i roll and..."

or we have...

PLAYER: "No, you misunderstood. i meant "on a hit" and this guy missed. I wanna payback the guy who hurts me!"
GM: "Oh, my bad, Ok cool, on to the next guy..."

Now, in this case, we do not have a confrontation between player and Gm that ends badly. In this case, the player is left focusing on the NPCs and not on "how can i word this to not get screwed by the GM again?" We do not have the next time the player thinks of readying an action a negative memory and an issue of "man, but maybe the Gm will hose me again" to deal with.

The action chosen in play turned the entire focus on "what i say and how the Gm takes it" and away from "what my character does to the NPCS."

Games will run better if its not focusing on "players vs GM" and focusing on "player characters vs NPCs and threats"... IMX.

In a perfect world, players will instinctively always say what they mean and Gms will never misspeak.

In reality, if the players are TAUGHT by the GM to worry about precisely what words they use even for routine combat events and descriptions, then the Gm will get a room full of people spending time and effort on their syntaz and word choice and worrying about THE GM as if HE is a threat or a challenge as opposed to spending time playing their character, thinking about the game and worrying about the NPCs.

He risks TEACHING them to not "play in his game" but rather "play a game against him."

Which would you rather be involved in?

For me, its a no brainer.

 

[Bacrof]

"how can i word this to not get screwed by the GM again?"

This isn't a case of the GM twisting the player's words. There is a big difference between "attacked" and "hit by". It isn't the GM's job to figure out that the player means one rather than the other.

We do not have the next time the player thinks of readying an action a negative memory and an issue of "man, but maybe the Gm will hose me again" to deal with.

How is holding a player to his stated action a case of hosing him?

The action chosen in play turned the entire focus on "what i say and how the Gm takes it" and away from "what my character does to the NPCS."

How many ways can you take "I attack the guy who hits me"? You're pandering to the players here.

Games will run better if its not focusing on "players vs GM" and focusing on "player characters vs NPCs and threats"... IMX.

I agree. But you can't let the players off the hook if they make a bad decision and then want to backtrack.

In a perfect world, players will instinctively always say what they mean and Gms will never misspeak.

Again, there is a big difference between "attack" and "hit". You can't assume that one means the other. A player who speaks English should know the difference.

In reality, if the players are TAUGHT by the GM to worry about precisely what words they use even for routine combat events and descriptions, then the Gm will get a room full of people spending time and effort on their syntaz and word choice and worrying about THE GM as if HE is a threat or a challenge as opposed to spending time playing their character, thinking about the game and worrying about the NPCs.

I think you're overstating the problem here. We aren't talking about a GM who deliberately mangles a player's words to screw him over. The player stated a clear action and the GM held him to it. That's the right thing to do. Players should think carefully about their actions BEFORE stating them to the GM, not after.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

This isn't a case of the GM twisting the player's words. There is a big difference between "attacked" and "hit by". It isn't the GM's job to figure out that the player means one rather than the other.

Actually i would say it is absolutely the Gms job to figure out the actions the character is intending to take and then to resolve them in game.

Simple example: A character has been using his bow. The line breaks and things start getting messy. The player says "Ok, time for getting serious. Taldor moves up to the bad guy and hits him." He then moves his fig over to adjacent to a troll.

I do not retort with gleee "taldor's bow breaks when you smack him over the head. bows are not good melee weapons you know, snicker."

Instead i say "drawing your sword during the move action as a free action?"

and he says "yup"

I may even add "dropping your bow along the way?" Especially if it is a two handed weapon he is drawing.

How is holding a player to his stated action a case of hosing him?

When you believe the intent was different than the statement and that it is simply a communication error and not a reversal, when you believe it is not a character thing but a player wording thing, or even are unsure, but are sticking to the letter of the law (so to speak) its hosing him or at least will likely be seen that way.

Again, would you rather have your players worrying about their wording of actions or worrying about the troll and his henchman? Me, i go for the latter.

How many ways can you take "I attack the guy who hits me"? You're pandering to the players here.

uhh... Ok so why in the world would pandering to the player so that in the end both he and i understand what he was meaning to do be a problem?

i am not in competition with them!!!
I am not here to get them!!!
Pouncing on every misstatement i can wont make the game more fun for them!!!
Having them worry that I am waiting to pounce of a misspoken phrase or poor word choice wont help my game!!!

I agree. But you can't let the players off the hook if they make a bad decision and then want to backtrack.

I don't presume that they "made a bad decision and want to backtrack" in cases like the one we are discussing. Its much more likely IMX that it was a misspoken instruction. i find erring on the side of the players to create a much better atrmosphere. They get enough hand wringing, shpincter clenching excitement from seeing "their characters against my scenarios and challenges and NPCS" and i want them thinking about that as opposed to worrying about "Steve". heck, even with my player friendly, or pandering if you prefer, they still have good cause to call me "Stevil", and its not because i hang them up on word choice.

Again, there is a big difference between "attack" and "hit". You can't assume that one means the other. A player who speaks English should know the difference.

I dont have to "assume" either way and more importantly i dont have to "assume" that the one least favoring the player is the right one and the one i will stick him with.

I can, as my example shows, handle it better than that.

I think you're overstating the problem here. We aren't talking about a GM who deliberately mangles a player's words to screw him over. The player stated a clear action and the GM held him to it. That's the right thing to do. Players should think carefully about their actions BEFORE stating them to the GM, not after.

Well, the player spent time, thought about it, and made the decision to forego an immediate action for a reactive one. It sounds like he did think carefully about it.

What he did was, it seems likely to me, MISSPEAK, choose the wrong word when communicating that decision to the GM.

there is a big difference.

if you want your players to spend time and effort worryinf about their word choice when giving you instructions, treating every GM-player conversation like its a wish spell, and focusing their attention on YOU not the scenario, the npcs, or even the characters, then thats dead spot on reasoning.

I want them "playing in my game" and not "playing a game against me."

So i will disagree with that characterization.

The lesson the players would learn from my example would be that I am not out to stick them and am working with them , as opposed to the lesson you want to teach them that they had better watch the precise wording of their instructions to you the GM or else pay the price.

All in all, we seem to be not going to reach a consensus here. Our basic styles definitely differ a lot.

 

[brellin]

yes i think you did the right thing but it was a little mean i would make it up to him/her with a small gift a bit of cash of a cool new weapon or something

 

[Celtavian]

re

I would have let the player attack first. No need to be so literal. I certainly wouldn't want a player to be able to hold me to my word if I made an inaccurate action statement during an encounter.