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


log in or register to remove this ad


One reason many of my PCs have the Message cantrip is to do 'secure comms' for pre/post-battle discussions. I'll mention using that if it seems like a thing that my PC would be concerned about.
 

mvincent

Explorer
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."
My favored response is:
(in-character voice) NPC: "You know, I can hear you. I'm right here!"
... but I then don't really assume the PC said that out loud. I try to ascribe it to rehearsed tactics, an aside whisper, a knowing look, or assisting a new player roleplay an experienced PC (else the players should treat it as out of character knowledge and not act on the communication).
 




Lanefan

Victoria Rules
One tactic from the PC side to somewhat defeat this: where two or more characters each know the same particularly obscure language, use that language for communications that aren't intended for everyone else's ears - and hope any nearby listeners don't happen to share that same language. :)

Lan-"of course, this also means each PC's known languages other than its native tongue have to be rolled for or otherwise somehow determined"-efan
 

MarkB

Legend
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?

If you happen to already have foes who are tracking the party, and successfully stealthily following them around through a long enough period to have time to observe them getting beaten down across multiple battles and listen in on their conversations, then it's not unreasonable to have them attack at an opportune moment.

If you have those foes just happen to only start following the party after they're already beaten down, that's approaching dick move territory whether or not you then tie in their attack to an out-of-character conversation.

Also, this isn't going to solve the underlying issue. If you introduce factors like this, it won't prevent those out-of-character conversations - it'll just cause each and every one of them to be punctuated by frequent descriptions of how their characters are carefully looking around for any sneaky assassins, and always huddling together to talk in whispers or passing each other notes. Is that really any improvement?
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
If you have a recurring villain who is supported by an organization, he might send a spy to tail the PCs. The spy might be built as an Arcane Trickster, with emphasis on sneaking and lurking and contacting allies, not DPR / combat ability. Give the PCs a fair clue: Ask for Perception checks (against the spy's Stealth); if they succeed, they see that they have a tail staying well back, too far away to grab or ambush. The PCs may forget about him, or scare him off; either is fine. Later, have the tail return but be more persistent: he gets closer, sticks around even when the PCs see him, &c. The tail will stay nearby when the PCs get into a fight with somebody else, and discuss aloud their tactical situation and their stats. THAT is the time for the tail to use Message or a pair of Sending Stones to call in a goon squad.

But I would not just drop this on the PCs out of a clear blue sky.

(If BBEG is sneaky and clever, and has 'gotten the drop' or 'taken advantage' on them a few times, the PCs feel more rewarded when they eventually beat him.)
 

Remove ads

Top