Telling players about the consequences of PC actions

[Kwalish Kid]

Yeah. I would follow that up with, "I really don't care, you can do what you want." Which is true, I don't care. (Well, more to the point, I do care, but only as an audience member - to see which way they go. The bandits are tough and probably too much for them right now but if they act smart...)

You should ask the players what kind of consequences for their actions they want to see. They want to take part in a story of a sort, but what kind of story? This may be different for different people, but you should find out what kinds of things they expect to happen.

Now this does not mean that you can't surprise them or that bad or good things can't happen, but you've got to produce some kind of a mix appropriate to their desires. It could be that they want episodic adventures without any great continuity and they don't want to worry about sitting around playing guard.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Story schmory. I really couldn't care less about it.

And that goes for what they do; I don't really care, as long as they do something.

But: If I am running NPCs around the sandbox as real people, and they don't expect that (yet), should I let them know? I want the players to know there will be consequences to their actions. But I don't want to spring things on them that they didn't really expect.

I guess what I'm trying to say: Will there be more satisfying player choice if they know (at least at the moment) what NPCs are up to, or if they don't?

Once they get used to this play, no problem, but for now?

Part of the appeal of sandbox play is that the players can never do the "wrong" thing. If the NPC's are all worked out with thier motivations and plans have them do whatever they were planning to do. If the players do something that the NPC's become aware of then it may alter those plans.
As far as player knowledge/ character knowledge is concerned do what feels right for your group.

From experience, I am personally more satisfied as a player NOT knowing all the possible consequences of my actions. Having everything revealed about my decisions ahead of time would feel more like sneaking a peek at all options while reading a pick-a-path adventure book than a dynamic unfolding situation in the game world.

 

[Janx]

Part of the appeal of sandbox play is that the players can never do the "wrong" thing. If the NPC's are all worked out with thier motivations and plans have them do whatever they were planning to do. If the players do something that the NPC's become aware of then it may alter those plans.

I tend to see it as the opposite, the players can and almost always do the wrong thing, especially in an unstructured environment.

As general advice, whether you tell the players about probable consequences is more about "how much do you advise the players when they're about to do something stupid." Sometimes players don't have all the information their PC does. Sometimes they're just not thinking things through. Pointing out choices and ramifications is just being helpful.

Conversely, however, don't give away more than the PCs would know. It would probably be a sufficient warning, that when a PC is talking about a problem, that he mention what he thinks will happen if the PCs don't help. That doesn't mean it will happen, or happen exactly that way.

What it does is set in the players mind, that if I help, I can prevent X, if I don't X will happen. There is a choice to decide on. If you just have a problem that the players barely know anything about, and you then apply the consequence for them not fixing it, well, it's just a random event to the players.


I'd say that early on, making consequences obvious isn't a bad thing. As the campaign progresses, consequences can be more complex and longer term to come to fruition. And probably a lot more subtle.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I tend to see it as the opposite, the players can and almost always do the wrong thing, especially in an unstructured environment.

How can there be a wrong thing in an unstructured environment? What determines right and wrong (not speaking about morals in any way )?

Allowing the PC's to succeed or fail, make sound choices or terrible mistakes is part of the appeal of the adventure without structure.

Making sure the players know everything that thier characters do is a separate issue. If a player forgets a bit of information that he/she received in the prior session then a reminder of that info should be freely given (especially if the game runs infrequently).

 

[GnomeWorks]

Why? What are your reasons for that?

Because it's a sandbox.

S'mon's recommendation makes sense if you are trying to have some kind of player-character distinction. There are always going to be things that the characters know that the players don't, and ensuring that they don't do stupid things because of that gap is important. Remember that the characters have a very different set of "common sense" than the players do, and that - in a situation in which the characters would have "common sense" about what to do - you should inform the players, or at least give them a chance to know. Likewise, if you feel that the PCs would know what the ramifications of letting one of the bandits live would be (that is, leading to Nolor's death), then you should either inform them directly or have them make some kind of roll to determine if they actually are aware of this fact.

Personally, I'd have the surviving bandits do what they would do - figure out who tipped the PCs off, then deal with that individual in whatever manner is appropriate for these particular bandits. Whether or not the players are aware of the ramifications of their actions is irrelevant: actions have consequences. This idea doesn't (necessarily) magically change just because we're talking about a fictional universe rather than the actual universe.

My only problem with your scenario is that you seem to have already determined that the bandits will figure out who tipped the PCs off. Did you arbitrarily decide this, or did you perform some kind of calculation to come to that conclusion?

As for whether or not your players are ready to have this kind of paradigm sprung on them... meh. Sink or swim.

If you just have a problem that the players barely know anything about, and you then apply the consequence for them not fixing it, well, it's just a random event to the players.

If they know that at least one of the bandits survived, I don't really see how this would be construed as a random event.

It might seem that way at first, but the pieces are all there; the players just have to put them together.

 

[LostSoul]

Lots of good responses!

I'll probably tell the players at the next game, and after that keep my mouth shut. PCs will be able to make checks to get an idea of what's going on if they're not sure.

My only problem with your scenario is that you seem to have already determined that the bandits will figure out who tipped the PCs off. Did you arbitrarily decide this, or did you perform some kind of calculation to come to that conclusion?

Simple level comparison. Nolor is a "normal man" and he's out of his league.

Behind the scenes:
-Crossbowman tells his bosses about the ambush
-Bandits look for possible leaks
-Kalor (Nolor's brother) goes to talk with Nolor, and a lieutenant tags along
-Lieutenant figures it out
-Kalor gets promoted
-Kalor is asked to talk to Nolor
-Kalor figures it out; he knows either he kills Nolor or both of them will die (or face exile, same thing)
-Kalor goes to talk to Nolor and kills him
-Kalor swears that he will kill the PCs

Assuming the PCs do nothing. This will play out over the course of a week or so.

I'll stat Kalor up as a special NPC with some "vengance" abilities.

 

[Mallus]

Over the years I've become a big fan of giving players more information than their characters would have access to. I think this is a great tool for getting players involved in the events of the campaign. You can show them the results of their actions, that they're actions matter.

I've found nothing draws players in like the feeling that they can really change the campaign world (for better or for worse). Conversely, nothing does more to disengage players than the sense their actions have no effect on the larger world.

I happily err on the side of giving PC's too much information. I'd rather present them with clear choices, than waste time making them wonder what the meaningful choices are (well, most of the time, there's always room for a few mysteries).

 

[Mallus]

Whether or not the players are aware of the ramifications of their actions is irrelevant: actions have consequences.

I'd say it's terribly relevant. RPG's aren't simulations for their own sake (no simulation is, that would make it pointless). Either the consequence of PC actions have bearing on future events in the game, or there's no sense wasting time determining what they are.

This idea doesn't (necessarily) magically change just because we're talking about a fictional universe rather than the actual universe.

Sure it does. Actions occur, or rather, are presented, in fictional worlds to serve functions external to the frame of the fiction.

Did you arbitrarily decide this, or did you perform some kind of calculation to come to that conclusion?

What's the difference?

 

[Agamon]

I'll probably tell the players at the next game, and after that keep my mouth shut. PCs will be able to make checks to get an idea of what's going on if they're not sure.

Good call. If everyone is new to this, then letting them know what to expect isn't a bad idea. But I wouldn't make it a habit. Part of the fun of playing any game is you don't know the consequenses of your actions. Telling them "if you do this, this will happen, and if you do that then that will happen," is less appealing to me personally.

 

[S'mon]

Why? What are your reasons for that?

Furthering immersion through furthering player-PC identification, which is facilitated by having players know what PCs know.