D&D 5E Is acting on player banter a dick move?

[JacktheRabbit]

Simple question, not sure what the simple answer is.

Players talking, CONSTANTLY. One of the most common conversations is players announcing when their character is out of juice after a particular fight. It is quite common for the cleric to say they are out of healing, the wizard or sorcerer may then say they only have one or two spells left, the warriors announce how low on hitpoints they are, you get the point.

It happens all the time. The conversation doesnt last long, it generally results in the party deciding to explore more or take a short or long rest.

Now here is the thing. All of this is technically "Character Conversation" sure a fighter doesnt have to tell you he is down to 5 hitpoints, he looks beat to hell and is bleeding on the marble floor. The spellcasters are not so obvious, you have to tell someone you are low on spells.


So this is the dick move part.

Is it a dick move to have foes (of course make them roll stealth checks etc) spy on and stalk the party and when they hear the party talking out loud about how low on resources they are to step out laugh at the party tell them "We appreciate you telling us how hurt you are, it will make it so much easier to kill you" and then attack the party?

To me it is totally fair, your characters were having a conversation and anyone can try to listen in and take advantage. Players may say that they were talking not their characters but to me that is impossible, your characters can only communicate this information by talking.

Opinions?

(As a side note I have not done this yet as a DM, the thought just came to me as a player listening to a bunch of my fellow party members loudly announce they were completely out of spells)

 

[iserith]

It's fair if the players know ahead of time that some of the things they say may be used against them.

It's not fair if they don't know that ahead of time.

 

[jgsugden]

Ask the players to speak in characters when communicating information to each other, and to avoid game mechanic terminology that the characters would not know. Don't make a big deal out of it if they do, but make it clear to PCs that you'll "translate" anything their character says into "in character" speech. Then respond accordingly based upon whether they just say something as their character would say it, or describe it as something that is seen.

For example: Gronko the Barbarian is very wounded and wants to ask for healing. His player might:

1.) ...say, "I'm down to 5 HP. Healing, please!" The DM might interpet that as Graonko saying, "I'm badly wounded! Heal me please"
2.) ...say, "Gronko looks really wounded and looks to the cleric for help." The DM might interpret that as the player conveying something that should be visible to the other players and not be something that is said at all (although the DM may determine that a perception or healing check is needed to see this clearly).
3.).. say, "Gronko asks the cleric for some healing." Despite not speaking in character, this might be interpreted the same as option one.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I doubt I'd have my foes be so meta about it, but sure, if an enemy has a spy that could get that sort of info, they'd certainly act on it.

 

[JonnyP71]

Yes, because player conversation does not always equal character conversation.

Unless you want it to....

 

[dave2008]

I would explain this well ahead of time: that conveying information about characters to other characters is assumed to be in game (even if abstracted). After this is clear, a month or so later spring it on them

I understand that logically this information is being conveyed in some manner in world, but your players may not think of it that way. To exploit that is kinda crappy. Give them fair warning and then you have free reign.

 

[mvincent]

I see nothing wrong with opponents listening in on Player-Character banter, and I also see nothing wrong with approximating Player-Character banter based on information that the players are passing between themselves.

 

[Tallifer]

As dungeon master I often feel compelled to remind my players that other creatures and people can hear their characters: especially when one of them calls across the table, "Just tell them we are merchants passing through, and then when he turns his back, stab him."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hit Points aren't secret information. If the fighter is beaten nearly to death, then anyone can see that by looking at them. Acting on the declaration of low HP is no different than acting on the NPC's own two eyes.

Spell slots are a thing which exist in the game world, which characters know about and can discuss. If the wizard says they're out of fireballs for the day, and someone is around to hear that, then they can absolutely act on that information. (The wizard may also be lying, of course, or may use weasel words to convey a false sense of desperation.)

As a practical matter, it would be very hard to benefit from this information in any way. Even if you had an invisible spy that was tailing the party and waiting for the wizard to say they were out of fireballs, and the party never noticed even though it would entail a lot of opposed perception and stealth checks, then you still have the issue of the spy getting that information back to someone who could use it in order to deploy the troops so that they could capitalize on this opportunity.

A more likely scenario might occur in the middle of combat, if one player asks another player to use a particular spell, and that player responds that they are out of slots for it, or that it will be their last one. In that scenario, it would absolutely be fair for the enemy NPCs who are already present to act on this verbal exchange, provided they speak that language. (Of course, the wizard may be lying here, too. In fact, if this behavior ever ends up hurting the party, I would expect the wizard to lie in every future encounter.)

 

[Nevvur]

IMO, it's only a dick move if the DM spontaneously invents the stalkers as some bizarre punishment for talking tactics.