GM-player Communication vs. Metagaming

[Sunseeker]

Mistakes happen, but I prefer the more subtle hint of a maniacal laugh or a Cheshire-grin. I don't enjoy killing my party, but if I must, I will try to make the best of it.

Generally through I've tested my party enough through smaller encounters so that they will rarely just run into things blindly, and even if they did, my important events tend to be more tricksy, giving players more time to come up with something on the fly rather than get TPKed in the first round.

Sometimes, I just roll the die and make stuff up.

 

[delericho]

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.

Scenario #2:
Players are about to do something awfully stupid. GM takes a moment to ponder is there any in-game solution (not too far-fetched) that could save them. However, players are in a dungeon and there aren't any NPCs to scream from horror after hearing their plan. So the players carry out their plan and a TPK occurs. Players will remember their folly and make a mental note not to repeat it. New characters everyone...

Which one is closer to your gaming style? Or your ideal game?

Neither.

My scenario:

The players are about to do something awfully stupid. I take a moment to consider if this is because of a failure to communicate on my part. (Or, more properly, I've been keeping tabs on their discussions, and corrected any failures as they've come up.)

If the players are in possession of all the information they should have, and they decide to go ahead, then that's their call. If a TPK results, so be it.

It is not my job as DM to "subtly inform them that their plans are taken straight from the litter-box", nor to find "an in-game solution that could save them". They get the information, and they get to decide how to act on the information. And that includes being allowed to make stupid mistakes.

 

[One90proof]

I think the number one thing to consider is what is going to provide Maximum Fun for everyone involved. That is the point of playing the game in the first place. A TPK is no fun, unless it is (know your players!), so whatever it takes to keep the game fun is the right answer to me.

 

[kitsune9]

If the players are about to do something really stupid, I let it happen. My players should be smart enough to not do idiotic things but sometimes mistakes happen.

An example is that the players hear of an ancient red dragon that is terrorizing the land. They assume that this is a plot hook and that the DM is tossing them a bone when all I'm doing is keeping them up on current events. Not being high-level is a sure fire way of death, but the players are insistent on finding the red dragon's lair.

My only hint will the be high-level random encounters on the way to the lair. If the PC's somehow stubbornly survive those, then it's crunch time at the dragon lair.

 

[S'mon]

I think the number one thing to consider is what is going to provide Maximum Fun for everyone involved. That is the point of playing the game in the first place. A TPK is no fun, unless it is (know your players!), so whatever it takes to keep the game fun is the right answer to me.

The big problem with this is that what leads to most Fun at any one moment may result in reduced Fun down the line. If you're going to aim for Fun, be very careful with the 4e DMG Get to the Fun! Fun! Fun! approach. Consider what will lead to most fun for the entirety of your playing experience. An un-fun TPK now may result in more fun not-TPKing later.

 

[GSHamster]

If the players are going to do something completely and utterly stupid, then my first reaction is that there is a miscommunication, and it should be resolved. In my view, it's the DM's job to communicate the world to the players, and the DM is responsible for miscommunications.

If the players are merely going to do something plausible, but improbable that it will succeed, then we play it out.

 

[One90proof]

The big problem with this is that what leads to most Fun at any one moment may result in reduced Fun down the line. If you're going to aim for Fun, be very careful with the 4e DMG Get to the Fun! Fun! Fun! approach. Consider what will lead to most fun for the entirety of your playing experience. An un-fun TPK now may result in more fun not-TPKing later.

I understand what you are saying and agree. The big picture needs to be considered when deciding how to move forward from a tricky situation. Fun isn't always getting what you want, right now, and being unstoppable. Sometimes it's learning from failure and being better because of it.

I'm just not a fan of the GM that refuses to ever deviate from the rules or won't give the players a "head's up" when something is about to happen that will ruin the game for the group. Of course there is a time and place for everything and sometimes character death is the right thing to do. However, if a TPK is going to spoil the game for everyone the GM should be willing to help the players make a life-saving decision. Now if the players are just acting stupid then all bets are off. Kill 'em dead! ;-)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I tend to give my players a lot of information and analysis during the game. Just the last session I ran, a player stated an action that was obviously (to me) suicidal, and I rolled a quick Wis check for him and informed him of that, and he reconsidered. (Of course, the character is still in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, so it's not looking good for him regardless).

To me, what matters is the outcome, not how you get there. The players never know very much about what's going on, so I have no trouble informing them of what I think if it helps us to a more dramatic or appropriate outcome. I am careful to frame these discussions in terms of what the characters would know.

I also sometimes give metagame information specifically if the players raise a metagame concern and I feel the need to address it. Some of my sessions are almost like watching a movie with director's commentary.

I'm pretty happy with the stories that result.

 

[The Shaman]

You sleep in the bed you make.

 

[Janx]

My favorite way to deal with this is to ask: "Are you sure you want to do this?"

I also like asking that if the players come up with a particularly clever idea, though

I figured this was common practice. If the player says he wants to do something stupid, ask "Are you sure?"

The original topic made it sound like players only learn by actually suffering the consequences of bad mistakes.

I'm pretty sure that's how we all learned to drive our cars. I know everybody's parents appreciated buying a new car each week as their children mastered the art of crossing intersections, parking and braking as they drove around town by themselves with no training by adults.

I'm exagerating to illustrate how unrealistic that philosophy is. We learn more by having an experienced person by our side and to STOP us from making a horrible mistake.

Most of the people here have the right of it that miscommunication is the likley cause of "stupid" player choices. Either that, or a really stupid player. It's best, as a GM, to err on the side of assuming you miscommunicated. Once your clarify, if it is revealed that the player is stupid, it's no longer your fault.