D&D General Should you clarify information to the detriment of the players?

kenada

Legend
Supporter
So a situation came up last session (and similar ones have come up before) where I as the DM clarified information to a player in order to help them execute a plan that had a very high chance of getting them killed.

The situation last session, for example, was players trying to break into a wizards tower via gaseous form. The front door was airtight but there was a window (which i had mentioned in the description) halfway up the tower that wasn't. The problem being going in the window would leave the player halfway through the dungeon alone. While they were debating i reminded them about the window (and clarified i wasnt suggesting they use it just supplying info their character would have). They ended up using the window nd it went very badly (end result was very close to a TPK).

so my question os in situations where doing so will likely lead to character/party death do you reiterate/remind players about information that will make it easier for them to proceed with a bad plan or keep quiet?
It depends on how the information is presented to the players. If the DM reminds them of a particular path without any other information, they might interpret it as a nudge towards an intended or preferred solution. If the DM also notes risks (particularly those would occur or be known to the characters), the players can make an informed decision (even if it’s a bad one). If they don’t actually think they do, they can take extra steps to clarify the risks or find another path (e.g., cast divination spells, do additional information gathering, etc).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Telegraph danger liberally with an eye toward what can be reasonably perceived or deduced by the characters. The rule I use is that if things go awry and the players can say "Oh, right, we totally ignored that detail," or words to that effect, then it's fair. It's total blindsiding (i.e. gotchas) that is to be avoided in my view.

Also, a near TPK isn't necessarily a bad thing in my book. Presumably at least some of the party is still kicking and can press on!
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
So a situation came up last session (and similar ones have come up before) where I as the DM clarified information to a player in order to help them execute a plan that had a very high chance of getting them killed.

The situation last session, for example, was players trying to break into a wizards tower via gaseous form. The front door was airtight but there was a window (which i had mentioned in the description) halfway up the tower that wasn't. The problem being going in the window would leave the player halfway through the dungeon alone. While they were debating i reminded them about the window (and clarified i wasnt suggesting they use it just supplying info their character would have). They ended up using the window nd it went very badly (end result was very close to a TPK).

so my question os in situations where doing so will likely lead to character/party death do you reiterate/remind players about information that will make it easier for them to proceed with a bad plan or keep quiet?
If it’s info the characters would know, tell them. If it’s info the characters wouldn’t know, don’t tell them. It’s not the referee’s job to protect the players from their bad choices. But, ultimately, they should be taking notes and referencing those notes more than relying on you to remind them.

If something’s obviously suicidal, like jumping out a window 100ft up without any flying abilities, clarify the situation. The player might have forgot in the heat of the moment they were that high up. But once they know the circumstances, it’s 100% on them whether to jump or not.
 

Stormonu

Legend
I enjoy giving my players enough rope to hang themselves.

As others have stated, if it's an obvious detail the characters would have access to, I'd make a mention of it - they're not physically at the location so its fair to remind them of "mind's eye" detail they'd have. Or some tidbit of information they picked up last session or so ago and may have forgotten (especially when I only play once a month or less, due to schedules).

Also, when they are planning things, if there are things they are about to do that I feel there are additional details their players may have access to ("Alright guys, the lich has an zombie, butler - I'll charm him so we can get inside without raising the alarm"), I might have them make a knowledge check of some sort ("Arcana check please - made it? Well, you know undead can't be charmed by spells like charm person, so that plan won't work on the butler.").
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
so my question os in situations where doing so will likely lead to character/party death do you reiterate/remind players about information that will make it easier for them to proceed with a bad plan or keep quiet?
I will give my players all the information their characters could reasonably get. If they use it to set themselves on fire, that's their choice.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
So a situation came up last session (and similar ones have come up before) where I as the DM clarified information to a player in order to help them execute a plan that had a very high chance of getting them killed.

The situation last session, for example, was players trying to break into a wizards tower via gaseous form. The front door was airtight but there was a window (which i had mentioned in the description) halfway up the tower that wasn't. The problem being going in the window would leave the player halfway through the dungeon alone. While they were debating i reminded them about the window (and clarified i wasnt suggesting they use it just supplying info their character would have). They ended up using the window nd it went very badly (end result was very close to a TPK).

so my question os in situations where doing so will likely lead to character/party death do you reiterate/remind players about information that will make it easier for them to proceed with a bad plan or keep quiet?
If I believe the players are mistaken about something they, or their characters, should already know clearly, then I will clarify. Even if it means supporting them making a "bad" plan that is likely to cause issues.

But--and this is the key thing--I will always give them opportunities to re-appraise their choices. Especially if the characters would know that a particular action is quite dangerous, risky, etc. If I think the players are doing something particularly risky/unwise and suspect they might not actually want to do that, I will use a ritual phrase:

"Are you sure you want to do that?" (sometimes just "Are you sure?")

This is my subtle-not-subtle way of saying, "I don't know if you're going to be happy about the results if you do that." Often, my players take the warning and reconsider their approach. Occasionally, however, they recognize the warning, and specifically choose to forge ahead anyway. I consider both of these results success on my part. The former means I've successfully communicated with my players, so that they feel comfortable about playing and making choices. The latter means that, when players take serious risks, they already know it, and have made peace with it. This eliminates a huge swathe of potential hurt feelings, frustration, and manipulative player behavior.

While it requires finesse, it isn't hard. And the benefits are absolutely worth the effort.
 

jgsugden

Legend
When you speak to anyone you are usually having three conversations at once. The first is what is included directly in the words you're delivering.

The second is the intentional subtext. We convey a lot of information indirectly in how we say things. If I tell you a building is on fire, the first convesation is literally passing along information that the building is aflame. Depending upon how I say it, those words could also be meaning to tell you, "You need to get in there and save your stuff" or "You can't go in - I don't want you to get hurt."

The third conversation is what you reveal that you did not intend to reveal - but is true. "If my subtext was "You need to go in there and save your stuff", I might be unconciously revealing to you that I'd rather risk you getting hurt than see your board game collection be ruined, or I might be unintentionally revealing just how much faith I have in you to be able to navigate such a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this third conversation isn't a very clear form of communication and people often hear things that are not actually being conveyed and are not true.

For example: "For the last time, Telling you that you look hot in that outfit does not mean I think you're ugly in the thing you wore yesterday."

As a DM, we need to be aware of these three conversations, be in control of the first two, and manage the third.

We need to be ... intentional ... in what we intnetionally tell PCs - both directly and indirectly. Then we need to listen to how they react to us and realign what we've said to address anything they seem to have picked up from the unintentional third conversation.

How does this apply here?

OP told the players about the window and clearly said he was not suggesting they should try it. That could mean a lot of things. So let me go over how I'd handle the situation. I use words to convey hints of danger .... and double down on it when the player seems oblivious. When I give a passage like the below, the first conversation is the description. The second conversation is hinting that there are traps and dangers. The third conversation isn't in my control, so I have to listen to the player and see how I need to react to what they're hearing that I did not intend to convey. I tell them what they see, hint at dangers indirectly, and then realign when they seem to be drawing conclusions I did not mean to imply.

Me: "Your gaseous form isn't finding any gap in the magically sealed main door, or any cracks through which to enter on the bottom level. However, your perception check noted that there is a dark window halfway up the tower. It would be a pretty good fall if you fell while entering it, but you believe you'll be able to pass through it in your gaseous form... unless this wizard took precautions."

Player: "Cool. I'll puff up there."

Me: Rolls dice. "As you approach you pick up an acrid smell floating out of the window, as if something recently ... burned, perhaps? Or maybe there was some chemical reaction? You're not sure, but if you had a back of a neck right now, the hairs on it would be standing up. It is dark inside, but as you glance in you can see the outline of a circular staircase going up and down, although the curve of the staircase that runs around the outside wall of the building prevents you from seeing any exits. You also detect the faintest glimmer of light, as if there is something glowing softly inside the tower - right beneath the windowsill."

Player: "No guts, no glory. I waft in and see what is glowing. Gold?"

Me: "Brave soul. This time ... it seems to have paid off, but not in gold. The glowing comes from a hooded lantern that is currently covered and resting on a small stone shelf along the wall. You notice that everything in this corridor is either stone or metal. That acrid smell is stronger now that you're inside. It is not enough to damage your gaseous form, but you wonder if you'd be so lucky in your normal form."

Player: "Right. I need the rest of the party, then. I float down the stairs to the bottom level - do I know which direction the door would be in?"

Me: "You're thinking about the door's location ... and realize that it kind of doesn't matter at the moment as there seems to just be one exit from the staircase at the base of the tower. It is a large door with a metal security bar on this side of the door. The bar seems to be intended to keep people from entering from the other side. The bar, door and much of the floor in this lower staircase is covered in some sort of grey dust. Footprints in the grey go back and forth, up and down the staircase.

Player: "Cool. We'll figure that out once I get everyone inside. I try to slide under or through the door."

Me: " ... and need to roll a Dexterity Saving Throw (with advantage from gaseous form). As you're wafting down towards the door you seem to have set off a trap somehow - something your passive perception did not pick up."

Player: "Uhhh ... 13."

Me: "The entire hallway bursts into flame and you take 26 fire damage. The explosion is heard very clearly by the party below. You still have an action and half your movement left - but you're in feet down from the window and 10 feet from the door at the bottom of the staircase. You've seen no other exits from the hallway, but you could not see the top of the staircase from the window. However, you instantly hear the sounds of movement from the top level of the tower and the first level."
 

MarkB

Legend
Where I'll clarify is if it becomes clear that, due either to their misinterpretation or my poor description, the in-game situation as they understand it is not the actual situation. If someone's forgotten something that happened last session but was only a few minutes ago for their character, I may provide a reminder.

I try to be as neutral as possible in such clarifications and not build them up as important, but sometimes players will just fixate on that most recent detail and build their plans around it.
 

I'm generous in terms of providing information that I think the characters would know if it seems like the players don't (or have forgotten) or reminding them of risks they're likely to face. As others have said, ideally, if the player characters are going to get themselves in a pickle, it should be on their heads!

@p_johnston It's not clear from the description in the OP to what extent you communicated the possible risks to the player characters.

I don't think that's a problem as such: unless the player characters performed remote reconnaissance of the tower interior (assuming it was possible for them to do so), they wouldn't have known its specific defences against intrusion.

It's not hard to get caught up in optimism bias though, so maybe a reminder that wizard's towers are (usually) dangerous for trespassers might have been useful. That's not to dissuade them from trespassing, of course, just a gentle reminder that, yes, things could go wrong.
 

MGibster

Legend
So a situation came up last session (and similar ones have come up before) where I as the DM clarified information to a player in order to help them execute a plan that had a very high chance of getting them killed.
I pretty much let the players do as they wish. If they think it's a good idea to split the party to explore a dungeon, well, good luck.
 

Remove ads

Top