DM vs. Player

[Kzach]

Who should win?

I'll give an example in a second but let me first clarify the intent of this thread. Basically, in a situation where there is a judgement call to be made, who should make the final call? I'm sure this has come up in many games before so I'm interested to see what people's experiences are.

As an example of what I mean, I had a situation in a game this week where a player's character was knocked unconscious and had ongoing damage. He got to -7 before he saved against the ongoing damage.

The enemy (a boss) was down to her last 20 hit points and had no more mooks to save her. One round of focus-fire and she was paste. Since she was adjacent to the character who had just gone to -7, she shifted away from everyone else and put a sword to his throat and said, "Back off or the dwarf dies!"

Now, immediately everyone had a negative reaction to this circumstance. It's something I'm not sure I'll do again with this group because of it. I think they like things simple, ie. enemy fights to the death no matter what. That aside, she could do 9 points of damage maximum with a coup de grace and she had readied an action that should anyone attack her, she would CDG the dwarf. 9 points of damage would take him over his bloodied amount, thus killing him outright.

The group was very mercenary about it all and were basically of the opinion that they should kill her and the dwarf be damned. I hinted strongly that there were options, i.e. she was bloodied so an intimidate would get her to back down, but nobody clued in so the situation kept playing out and round by round, the dwarf had to save to stay alive.

The problem occurs when one of the players says that his character doesn't think a sword to the throat is a big deal and that he reckons the dwarf will survive it so he wanted to attack. I told him that his character most definitely knows that the sword thrust will kill the dwarf outright so by his action, he'll essentially be killing the dwarf. He then argued that I can't tell him what his character thinks or knows, and that he's "roleplaying" that his character thinks the dwarf would survive.

So, which one is it?

 

[El Mahdi]

Who should win?

I'll give an example in a second but let me first clarify the intent of this thread. Basically, in a situation where there is a judgement call to be made, who should make the final call? I'm sure this has come up in many games before so I'm interested to see what people's experiences are.

As an example of what I mean, I had a situation in a game this week where a player's character was knocked unconscious and had ongoing damage. He got to -7 before he saved against the ongoing damage.

The enemy (a boss) was down to her last 20 hit points and had no more mooks to save her. One round of focus-fire and she was paste. Since she was adjacent to the character who had just gone to -7, she shifted away from everyone else and put a sword to his throat and said, "Back off or the dwarf dies!"

Now, immediately everyone had a negative reaction to this circumstance. It's something I'm not sure I'll do again with this group because of it. I think they like things simple, ie. enemy fights to the death no matter what. That aside, she could do 9 points of damage maximum with a coup de grace and she had readied an action that should anyone attack her, she would CDG the dwarf. 9 points of damage would take him over his bloodied amount, thus killing him outright.

The group was very mercenary about it all and were basically of the opinion that they should kill her and the dwarf be damned. I hinted strongly that there were options, i.e. she was bloodied so an intimidate would get her to back down, but nobody clued in so the situation kept playing out and round by round, the dwarf had to save to stay alive.

The problem occurs when one of the players says that his character doesn't think a sword to the throat is a big deal and that he reckons the dwarf will survive it so he wanted to attack. I told him that his character most definitely knows that the sword thrust will kill the dwarf outright so by his action, he'll essentially be killing the dwarf. He then argued that I can't tell him what his character thinks or knows, and that he's "roleplaying" that his character thinks the dwarf would survive.

So, which one is it?

The DM. The player is just using "roleplaying" as an excuse for his actions. He probably knows this also but just doesn't care. This is the same reasoning I hate behind jumping off of a 200 ft. cliff - I have enough hit points, I'll be fine - Bull! If there's a sword at a helpless persons throat, and there's no way anyone can get to the bad guy before he can attack, then the sword will kill him (I don't care about the damn hit points - this is common sense - the ultimate over-rule - the one that rules all of the other rules).

In my game I take care of this by using a critical hit chart (basically a few d100 charts with basic trauma injuries - including death on a natural 100). Certain things are automatic critical hits (such as the aforementioned "jumping off a cliff"). In this instant, even if it's not RAW, I'd rule it's an automatic critical - with the only logical outcome being death - period.

On another note, I'd just like to say that the scenario sounds like some really good role-playing on your part. This is what a DM should do. If a player wants "cardboard" bad-guys that only act in a pre-programmed way, they need to go play a videogame and get the hell away from your gametable.

 

[Walknot]

The player.

Hah! Was sure before even opening this thread that I'd answer the DM. The DM always has responsibility for the entire game world, but this is the one area where the player has a say... how she role-play's her character.

That being said, it is also true that probably this player was useing the excuse of roleplaying to shield a poor decision, but that is for the player to overcome, not the DM. IN fact, even if you make the player change her mind, she will still not have learned her lesson, not until she decides that for herself.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It is the player, but the player is acting poorly. You as a DM created a interesting situation and the player is using roleplaying as an excuse to simply get it done with.

 

[brunswick]

The DM. I would have been disappointed if a player insisted on attacking despite the precarious predicament of his Dwarf ally - I dont think thats good role-playing - assuming the character got on with the unconscious dwarf then the player, if in character, should be thinking about the welfare of his comrade and not (presumably with his rules knowledge) insist on pressing the attack.

 

[Verdande]

I'd say you, but maybe not for the reasons you think.

While you, the DM, don't really have the right to tell your players what their characters think, you're certainly well within your rights to have your boss character take the dwarf and threaten to kill him if the boss doesn't get its own way. But your player doesn't have the right to say that his dwarf will survive a godd**n sword chop to the neck just because his dwarf happens to be an idiot.

So the dwarf dies, the boss probably gets killed, and the player loses a character and has to make a new one.

The moral of the story- Just because you don't want to kill a player's character doesn't mean that you have to, basically, tell the players to do it your way so the character doesn't die. They have a right to act how they'd like in their characters, and if they want to kill the boss, dwarf be damned, then you don't have the right to insist that they take other options.

 

[El Mahdi]

The DM. I would have been disappointed if a player insisted on attacking despite the precarious predicament of his Dwarf ally - I dont think thats good role-playing - assuming the character got on with the unconscious dwarf then the player, if in character, should be thinking about the welfare of his comrade and not (presumably with his rules knowledge) insist on pressing the attack.

That's a really good way of saying it (my post was a bit more of a rant than as logical as yours was). By the same extension, if his character didn't like the dwarf, and basically told the BBEG to go ahead and kill him, that would be roleplaying also (or if he said "I think you're bluffing"). But saying that he doesn't think the sword will really kill him, and then saying that's a roleplaying response, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Oni]

Ultimately it is up to the player to decide the actions and thoughts of their character even if it's stupid or doesn't make much sense.

It's the DM's job to make sure that players have the information they need to make decisions and here is the important part, supply the consequences of those decisions.

I don't think it would be outside the bounds to describe the situation as being "readily apparent to anyone with a drop a common sense" if you wanted to sway them a bit

Depending on the situation at the gaming table I might also have been tempted to address the player directly and tell him whether his character knows it or not his actions as a player will result in the death of another players character. But as I said that's pretty situational and would depend on the peopel involved and past histories of behavior, et c.

 

[Umbran]

Who should win?

False dichotomy - it isn't a win/lose thing.

I told him that his character most definitely knows that the sword thrust will kill the dwarf outright so by his action, he'll essentially be killing the dwarf. He then argued that I can't tell him what his character thinks or knows, and that he's "roleplaying" that his character thinks the dwarf would survive.

So, which one is it?

The DM is, in effect, the character's eyes and ears. The player knows nothing about the world unless you tell him - rather than the DM not being able to tell the character what he knows, the player requires the DM to tell him what he knows. In that sense, the DM wins.

What he then does with the information is his own business. The choice was his. In that sense, the player wins.

Of course, there are consequences....

 

[RFisher]

My (not so humble) opinion:

As a player, you are granting the DM the power to be the natural laws and your PC’s senses. When the DM in this situation says “your character thinks” or “your character knows”, you understand that this isn’t crossing the line into controlling your character. You trust the DM because they are your friend, you know they’re doing their best, and you know being DM can be a lot of responsibility. You express your opinion and even make arguments in your character’s favor about DM rulings, but when the DM makes a decision, you drop it and live with it. If you can’t do this, then you need to give your DM a break and volunteer to take on DM responsibilities yourself.

As a DM, you solicit and listen to your players’ knowledge, reasoning, opinions, and arguments. If they players have consensus on an issue, you almost always rule that way, because these are your friends and the game is about the group, not an individual. Sometimes, however, you don’t follow the consensus because you know something about the situation that the players don’t. You go out of your way to make sure the players know all the relevant facts and give them plenty of warning if they have their PC do something the PC would know to be dangerous.

One of the greatest things about these games are that they are non-zero-sum. It is win-win.