If you were the GM, would you accept this behavior?

[Herremann the Wise]

I wasn't there myself; I wasn't even a part of that group. But my best friend at the time told me a story years ago (prolly in 1986 or 87) that really weirds me out when I think about it.

There was a game called Twilight 2000 that had come out a couple of months before. I don't know if my friend was in this particular game or just heard about it in turn; but basically, the players went into this city, traded, and left; then told the gm that the city pretty well blew up, because they had left bombs in many of their trade items.

They had all the stuff written down on their character sheets, but they sprang their move on the gm after the fact. How would you respond to this?

On the one hand, I think cool, not a problem. On the other hand I don't think it shows much trust in the GM not to metagame. I'd say it was most likely a result of getting screwed over one too many times from the GM.

I suppose one response would be:
OK, if that's how you're playing it... game on boys.
Nothing like continuing a vicious circle.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[shilsen]

I wouldn't allow it, partly because of the "us vs. DM" approach but mostly because the lack of information means I didn't get to check and see if anyone detected the bombs, which would have completely changed the scenario (esp. if someone detected a bomb while the PCs were still in the city). And I would definitely take a break and talk to the players about the roles of DM and players in the game and why taking the approach they did leads to much bad unfun.

 

[Baramay]

Some time ago when I was a player our DM allowed a player to outfit his house how he wanted as long as he tallied up the costs and informed the GM. We were visited by a cocky Zhent warrior who challenged our fighter to a duel. Our fighter opened the door accepted the duel and said let me get my sword. After he closed the door he turned the switch which opened the trap door out front. The Zhent was surprised and fell onto the spikes. I don't know if the DM would have allowed this clever move had he known about the trap.

Passing of notes should be allowed if private conversations are taking place. If the note passing is happening all the time people will start to wonder about the sneaky bastard whispering to his buddy in the corner. Just roleplay the situation accordingly.

To your situation. I would stop the game, let the players know I would need to check to see if their bombs were noticed. I am sure some would not be. The next gaming session I would let the players know which bombs went off. Then the players would find out the consequences of being a terrorist.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I would have said that about 75-80% were discovered and disarmed in time and then announced that the serious case of lead poisening they just received was from a hit squad dispatched by the local warlord who's daughter lived in that city. That BS works both ways. I am curious how things devolved to that point where it was a players vs. GM/DM situation. Once a group gets to that point (and thankfully none I have ever played with has but I have heard some pretty bad stories) the fun is one so what's the point...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Never would accept it, on multiple levels. Not the least of which is I don't run games with evil PCs. But you can't say you did something detectable and plot altering an hour later. It didn't happen.

 

[StupidSmurf]

I played T2K for a while (Corporal Jamie MacTavish of Her Majesty's Army....he could scrounge successfully for engine parts in the Arctic, and fix just about anything put in front of him!)....One of the things I learned was that communities which manage to exist in the post-nuclear mess of 2000 do so not by being helpless, stupid, or overly trusting.

In other words, I wouldn't allow it unless the townsfolk messed up a helluva lot of rolls

 

[Li Shenron]

I wasn't there myself; I wasn't even a part of that group. But my best friend at the time told me a story years ago (prolly in 1986 or 87) that really weirds me out when I think about it.

There was a game called Twilight 2000 that had come out a couple of months before. I don't know if my friend was in this particular game or just heard about it in turn; but basically, the players went into this city, traded, and left; then told the gm that the city pretty well blew up, because they had left bombs in many of their trade items.

They had all the stuff written down on their character sheets, but they sprang their move on the gm after the fact. How would you respond to this?

I'd let their characters believe that this has happened, but of course I wouldn't let it happen at all.

It wasn't even a matter of not letting the DM know their actions (for fear that the DM would have found a countermeasure to make it impossible? how immature...). It was a matter of players deciding the outcome of their own actions, which is only a DM's job.

Players are supposed to be always free to attempt anything they want, but whether they succeed it is determined by the rules, by the dice and yes sometimes even by the DM, but usually only when it is in the form of NPCs reactions.

What they did was quite the same as going into a fight, and instead of saying "I attack the evil guy", saying "I kill the evil guy" and pretending it to happen.

OTOH, their DM might have done the same to players: maybe he had a bad habit of trumping character's free will with utterly stupid ex-machina events without letting the rules and the dice playing their part. If he did that, he deserved the same treatment

 

[Janx]

While this certainly sounds like a PC vs. GM scenario, consider an alternate interpretation:

the PCs were under the assumption that during the business transactions in town, if the DM didn't "inspect the goods", then the NPC didn't do it, therefore the hidden bombs are undetected, thus justifying their declaration of the explosion at the end.

Consider a reverse of the situation:
The PC's go into town, and buy some goods. The PCs say they inspect the goods. The PCs leave town. The GM declares their car blows up, because of the hidden bombs in the boxes the PCs bought.

There are plenty of DM's who would run a game like that, especially in the eighties. the Search and Spot skills are sort of modern concepts (the closest being Search for Traps). How many RPGs didn't really cover all the kinds of searching and spotting in the rules. And if the rules didn't cover it, it was left to DM fiat on whether the PCs had a chance. Perhaps the PC's only chance (by the DM's logic) is to inspect their stuff regularly.

With that kind of logic, a player could come to the conclusion that if they have to declare any and all safety precautions their PC takes (if you didn't say it, you didn't do it), then they may (through twisted logic) come to the same conclusion of the DM.

Here's a test, how many RPG's from before 2000 had some sort of Search or Spot rule?
AD&D2: yes - Find/Remove Traps
AD&D1: yes - Find/Remove Traps

I'm not sitting on a plethora of RPGs at the moment, but I'm pretty sure FASA's Mechwarrior game didn't have anything (I have the books at home). Nor can I recall if ShadowRun had it? Start a list, include Twilight 2000. I suspect game design didn't help the situation.

Janx

 

[TheYeti1775]

No, I would not put up with it. The players did not tell the DM they were putting the bombs in until they did it. Therefore the DM did not know it, it did not happen.
A few years ago I was running a 3rd ed game. I told the players the the DM sees all notes between players. Last game the players started toi pass notes between them for 10 minutes. I asked to see the notes, the players refused. I stoped the game right there.

I definitely would disagree with this rule. Not all notes are needed by the DM, it sounds like a large missing trust there.

I pass notes all the time, to fellow players and DM's alike. Many times they are blank, especially when I play a Wiz or a Rogue.

Yeti

 

[Umbran]

...then told the gm that the city pretty well blew up, because they had left bombs in many of their trade items.

They had all the stuff written down on their character sheets, but they sprang their move on the gm after the fact. How would you respond to this?

That depends largely on the situation - if it is reasonably possible that the explosives could be detected while the party was still in town trading, then this does not fly at all. If, for some reason, the party could pretty well guarantee that The goods would not be inspected, then perhaps.

If they got treated poorly in town, such that they retroactively decide that they had done this, again, it doesn't work for me.

As others have noted - the only reasons to pull the manuver in this fashion are to "cheat" - either to avoid consequences or to manage to do soemthing that they didn't actually think of beforehand - or because you don't expect the GM to adjuicate fairly. Either sets off warning bells.