Do you warn your PCs before they do something stupid?

[dreaded_beast]

Today, the druid PC wanted to cause some trouble to the local militia. Basically, he visited their barracks and gifted them with a potted plant which he planned to cast entangle on. He wanted the guards in the vicinity to be caught up in the entangle spell.

*Please note that I'm not concerned whether or not the spell could actually work using a potted plant (that's what the rules forum is for ) At the time, I ruled it was ok to use entangle with potted plants. I'm more concerned with the topic at hand.

Anyways, his character history was such that he was known for troublesome acts such as this against the town. However, this was the first time he attempted something like this in game.

So, what I did was that I informed him at that moment, that the reason he was adventuring in the first place was under the command of his mentor, who wanted him to make ammends to the town for his troublsome behavior in the past. I actually thought of this before hand, but didn't have the opportunity to tell the druid PC this.

I told him that after he announced he wanted to entangle the town guards. After he was told of his reasoning for adventuring, I said he could continue casting entangle if he wanted to. I didn't tell him what would happen exactly, but I informed him the guards would use "lethal force" if he cast a spell at them. Fortunately, he changed his mind, saving me from having the game de-railed slightly.

So, for you in similar situations, do you give warnings or just let PCs do what they want and roll with the punches?

 

[Mystery Man]

What was his motivation? Was he just being a pig-headed player? If so you should have let the guards skin him. If he had (as a druid) some sort of reasoning behind what he was doing I would have let that play itself out and move on. So for me no, I wouldn't have warned him.

 

[hong]

"Are you sure?" is my stock phrase for when a player wants to do something I reckon is immensely stupid/brave/outrageous. This has been used for situations ranging from fireballing the rest of the party, to taking a spear in the chest to save someone else.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I will sometimes do a behind the DM screen WIL role and say, you have a bad feeling about this.

I don't like to kill players but stupid is one reason to.

 

[apesamongus]

So, for you in similar situations, do you give warnings or just let PCs do what they want and roll with the punches?

First off, that's a poor use of the word "or", as you can do both. Giving a warning does not prevent the PCs from doing what they want.

And yes, I always warn players when they are about to have their PCs do something stupid. If they're about to do something stupid, it is likely because either some important piece of information has been miscommunicated or because they are bored. Both of those situations have better solutions than having something bad happen to the PC.

 

[Richards]

Originally posted by Hand of Evil:

I don't like to kill players but stupid is one reason to.

You kill players? Wow, you are an Evil DM!

Johnathan

 

[KB9JMQ]

If it is something I think is really stupid I give them a chance with a "Are you sure".
But I don't stop them if they are bound and determined to go thru with it.

 

[megamania]

I'll ask if they are sure. If they are and it effects the game too radically, I offer some what if conditions. Then if the continue ....KILL KILL KILL!

If you don't, they will think any thing they do is okay and has no consequence which is bad.

 

[Grand_Director]

I find that if players do something stupid there is a general disconnect between their perception of the game reality and the reality of the game world I have created. Most time players don’t do stupid things because they have not thought things out, rather, they do stupid things because they have different expectations of results.

We play the game with the same set of rules so that everyone involved knows the consequences of being hit with a fireball or the average chance of success of fighting with a non-proficient weapon; so too must the players understand the internal logic of your world to make informed choices. It should be common knowledge that if a Druid casts a spell in a guard barracks it will be dealt with harshly. The best thing to do is NEVER ASSUME that your player knows that. Make sure. Don’t make a judgment on the act (saying things like “that’s not a good idea” or “your wisdom is higher than that”) just make sure he understands what will happen. Let the player decided if it is a good idea or not.

I find that most disagreements I have as a DM with my players stem from different expectations of outcomes. Many players will feel justified in arguing a decision post fact if they felt mislead. Just don’t let a player argue how your world should work. If you say the guards would jump, don’t let the player argue that the guards would find it a funny joke (for example).

For spell casting, I make it know that in civilized societies the act of beginning to cast a spell is like pulling a gun in public; no one cares what you mean to do with said gun, just that it is now being waved about. “But I’m casting a healing spell!” Doesn’t matter.

 

[IronWolf]

My warnings are more judged by the tone of my voice I think. For example, I pretty much repeat the action, "So you want to walk up to the ancient red and hit him in the nose?" If they say yes then that is what they do. That is about as much as I would do.