Telling players about the consequences of PC actions

[GnomeWorks]

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

Ah, okay. Your conclusion sounds pretty reasonable, then!

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.

Sorry, I disagree. Simulations are valuable in and of themselves.

...and you also are putting words in my mouth. I said that whether or not they're aware of the ramifications is irrelevant, by which I meant foreknowledge of what was going to happen when they took an action. The emphasis was on the awareness; the ramifications should still take place even if the PCs aren't aware of the fact that they're ramifications to earlier actions.

It's possible that wasn't clear, so that was my bad.

Obviously you shouldn't go to extreme detail in determining the repercussions of every action the characters take; not because that's silly, but because it's incredibly time-consuming.

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

Don't get all Forge-speak on it.

...yeah, I don't even know what you're trying to say, here.

What's the difference?

One engages the simulation in and of itself. The other directly modifies it, bypassing methods developed for engaging the simulation.

It's... let me make a programming reference. You have an object, right? That object has various methods that you can call to modify it's internal variables.

Using the methods to modify the object is engaging the simulation. You acknowledge that - though the simulation is not real in a physical sense - it has rules and structure, and so you, as the DM, interact with it only through channels that were predetermined when you selected the system with which you play in the world.

Arbitrarily deciding things is like ignoring those methods, and instead directly modifying and manipulating the data inside the object without using the appropriate channels. You completely negate the point of object-oriented programming - you completely negate the point of having a setting.

 

[CardinalXimenes]

I think it's worth reminding people that sandboxing and a simulationist viewpoint do not automatically get paired together. There is no law that says that the moment you tell your PCs to just do whatever they want to do in your world, you must then have a formalized system for simulating the effects of their actions on the world.

Ultimately, having any system more formalized than a DM's best spot judgment as to outcomes just pushes the resolution back a step. The system created is nothing more than a generalized expression of the DM's judgment, and hasn't got any more inherent value because it's indifferent to ideas of story progression or DM-aided character development. If the goal of your game is to operate in a world explicitly devoid of any DM-directed story development, then that's fine, but there's no reason why _every_ sandbox has to share that zeitgeist.

In my own experience, a sandbox is much more satisfying for my players when I take steps to cater to their own particular playstyles and game goals in how I adjudicate outcomes. A sandbox under those circumstances is simply a convenient framing device for giving the players a lot more control over what kind of stories get told and what elements of the world get pulled in. If I were running an Exalted game, for example, there's no reason why I wouldn't make sure that the combat fiends of the group get lots of combat. Their sandboxing choices just tell me what kind of enemies they want to fight and what kind of reasons they want to fight for. I don't think such a style is less a sandbox simply because I'm not dicing out Mandate of Heaven domain turns every in-character season that passes.

 

[Arkhandus]

Remember: the players are not their PCs. The best thing in these kind of circumstances, at least when you're not DMing for veteran players who are used to sandbox or simulationist styles of gameplay, is to roll a Wisdom check or Intelligence check (as appropriate to the situation or type of knowledge or deduction they'd need) to see if you should remind a player about what their PC might know or might realize.

In this instance, it'd be a Wisdom check. Remember the standard rules for setting DCs; in this case, the implications are fairly obvious, so the DC should only be 10 or 15 at most. If one of the PCs succeeds at this secret Wisdom check, you let them know what their PC would have realized as a possible repercussion of what happened.

More generally: In my experience, things can get nasty if the players only realize later that their PC actions have resulted in them getting caught in an impossible fight or other auto-lose situation. Even if you run the game in a simulationist manner and all, sometimes you need to directly remind the players that you're trying to run a sandbox game where the NPCs will react accordingly to PC actions, and that there are monsters or groups in the game-world of greater power that will kill the PCs if they aren't careful enough to avoid the most dangerous places or avoid ticking off powerful, wealthy, or influential NPCs.

The players might lash out, act like childish jerks, and/or quit the group if they only find out when the %&!^ hits the fan that their PCs are not the infallible centers of the universe around which the game revolves and must always treat as perfect heroes that will conquer anything in their way and be praised for doing so. *grumble grumble, stupid SNL-inspired german-bodybuilder Hans and Frans paladin joke-PCs desecrating druidic holy sites and butchering masses of farmers and lesser druids coming to complain while archdruids come to teach them what for, grumble grumble*

 

[howandwhy99]

Ideally you don't tell the players anything their characters know and vice versa. Character knowledge and Player knowledge are to be identical when at all possible. But there is always going to be some overlap as there will always be elements that either cannot be performed/roleplayed at the table or are chosen not to be performed/roleplayed at the table. (this goes for physically acted out performances too, not just verbal descriptions)

Obviously the elements included and excluded are going to be a matter of game design, but the choices the designer makes are based upon the roles the RPG supports. For example, when roleplaying a concert rehearsal the color of shoes a person is wearing isn't really important. It's an element that can almost certainly be left undefined as that element has no bearing on the role played.

The key question to ask is: Is this element defining of the role? Does it have any influence over the performance of the role. The choice of musical instrument certainly does, so instrument types should be accounted for. Shoe color simply doesn't.

My suggestion is: whenever an element is not known by the player, then it is not known by the character and vice versa. Of course, as this is pretended roleplay and not roleplaying in reality we ourselves are going to know and be capable of things that, when put in another position, we shouldn't know or shouldn't be able to do. Making the mistake of forgetting that difference of position is historically called meta-gaming (ignore the Forge redefinition here). For example, if we were to roleplay out learning how to use wheelchair, then we need to act like we cannot walk. If we do walk, because of course we can, then we again are not playing the role. This is why metagaming is traditionally bad, as performing out of the role means a person is no longer roleplaying. In tabletop, when we are almost exclusively verbally acting out roles, it is especially bad. As describing our knowledge of proper actions is the only way proof of acting out the role can be had.

Remember, roleplaying is a guessing game, whether it be pretending like we do in RPGs or acting out the roles like in real life. Every sentence of description you use with your players is a CLUE. The DM's screen is hidden. The DMG is hidden. And most certainly the game module you are running is hidden. By guessing accurately, describing successful performace of the role they are playing, the players succeed (or fail) at the game. If you simply tell them something, then they have no means of succeeding at that element of the role. Let them fail, if that's what inevitably occurs from them not knowing. It's the only way for them to learn the role: through practice. Trial and error. It's the only way to truly gain proficiency at roleplaying.

 

[Mephistopheles]

One way to ease them into the action and reaction style of play might be to let them come across the bandits as they're murdering Nolor.

They encounter Nolor lying on the ground appearing to be seriously injured, surrounded by a number of assailants. Nolor dies three rounds after the PCs arrive unless someone can stabilize him or heal him. The bandits were sent to kill a villager and aren't really up to eliminating the PCs, but they should be capable of sticking around for three rounds and attempting to stop the PCs from saving Nolor. After three rounds Nolor will either be dead or stabilized and the bandits attempt to flee.

It's a little bit contrived that the PCs would arrive on the scene, wherever that may be, just as this was happening, but it does allow you to let the players see that there was a consequence for their action against the bandits and also give them a chance to prevent that outcome being fatal for Nolor.

 

[Ariosto]

Consider it as if you were playing some other game (e.g., Chess) with a novice.

How much do you advise, and how much do you let the other person learn from experience? If you advise, then how much at critical points and how much post-game? Do you "give the right answers" directly, or just ask leading questions?

I would ask the players how much, and what sort of, hand-holding they want. Leave it up to them to choose to ask for extra clues or not.

That kind of dialog is to my mind essential in making an RPG the best it can be by the particular standards of the participants -- which may be different from what suits some other group.

 

[LostSoul]

That's some good advice, Ariosto.

 

[Ydars]

As a general rule, if you have invested some time in a sandbox, it is wise to think of ways to recycle old characters so that, over time, the story goes deeper and deeper. I am not saying fudge things, I am saying think of ways of using the motivations of your NPCs in ways that don't lead to a high NPC body-count.

For example, why would the bandits kill Nolor? If they want the people who really messed them up, they want to kill the PCs, not some stupid farmer.

I would have them kidnap Nolor to draw the PCs into an ambush and then leave a fairly obvious trail of clues or tracks or whatever you like. Maybe they ask for a ransom, to put the Pcs off what they are up to, so that they get some loot was well.

If you want to go easy on them, you could make it so that Kolor or one of his pals dreams this plan up and so it is only a few minor bandits waiting for the PCs and not the whole band. Then, when it goes bad, have Kolor escape (if possible) as another recurring element.

Of course, the PCs may kill him but he could use his brother as a bargaining chip, the dirty rotten scum

 

[Ydars]

Oh and I would also say DON'T tell the Players anything they can't work out for themselves.

WIS and INT checks seem a bit lame to me (though YMMV): if something happens the Players don't expect then there is every chance that next time they might actually think three steps ahead instead of just charging straight in.

If Nolor knows that they stopped the bandits becuase of him, surely he would go into hiding, knowing he would be in trouble, and then try to contact the Pcs who now "owe him" to try and get him out of the area. This could lead to a nice cat and mouse where the PCs and the bandits both turn the local area upside down trying to find Nolor before the other side does. Everytime he contacts them and says I am here, he has to leave before the Pcs can actually find him.

If the bandits get him, see my suggestions above.

 

[Piratecat]

Your goal, I imagine, is to make the game as fun as possible for the players. It's also to challenge them and teach them how PC actions change the world.

So if the bandits (except for the crucial one) are slain by the PCs, what would change in the PCs' world?

- New goods and wealth would flood into the town. Give the PCs cool things that they couldn't otherwise get - rich clothing, for instance - and let them see important people visibly displaying previously stolen goods. Better yet, have a rich matron using those goods publicly thank the PCs for their service.

- The bandits try to find the squealer. People are in town asking question they shouldn't. The PCs learn this through streetwise. Maybe they find out just as the bandits ambush the snitch in question.

I think the secret is making sure that every PC action changes the world, that these changes are immediately or eventually obvious to the players, and that every action good and bad has a ramification. Then you just develop the coolest consequences into new plot hooks. I wouldn't tell the players out of character, though, unless that's more fun than working the revelations into the plot.