Telling players about the consequences of PC actions

[Crazy Jerome]

If you want to do something in game--show. If you want (or need) to tell, do it out of game. This makes it explicit, and ties back into what Ariosto was saying: When teaching chess, and you ask the newbie if he wants to take back that move, there is no confusion that you are "playing chess" when you ask the question.

While out of game discussion is generally most applicable when teaching a new mode of play, it has its limited uses much later--even in a mostly pure sandbox, with lots of "let the players suffer the consequences" play. I'm happy, for example, to let the characters get into all kinds of trouble, but I'm not happy to let the players waste a couple of hours. They are expert sandbox players, diligent and interested in ferreting out the likely consequences of their actions even before they act, but every now and then they start down a path I think they won't enjoy very much. I'll stop and ask them: "This is what is generally about to happen. Does that sound like fun? No--OK, let's talk about options." Better 5 minutes of metagame discussion than 2 hours of frustration.

I've also been known to occasionally narrate a cut scene (sort of breaking the above rule, by essentially "telling" a "show"). I do this when something highly interesting to the evolving story happened with NPCs, off camera, because the players chose to do something else. Sure, they can get little hints and piece it together. Or I can have a bard in a tavern tell the recent events. But there are only so many devices to work that into game. Sometimes, the most expeditious and fun way to get the information out is to let them dig a bit in character, then narrate the scene that tells them what they learned. IF the consequences they are causing are interesting enough to explore, but not immediately applicable, there are ways to get them across.

Edit: None of this is a disagreement with Pirate Cat's last paragraph, above. What he said is always superior, if you can pull it off. What I'm discussing is how to handle the exceptions.

 

[MrMyth]

Did the PCs get info from Nolor? If so, he should have said "but be careful, because they might figure out I told you and kill me!" Then, when they don't do anything to stop it, and he dies, they'll realize they should have seen it coming. Not satisfying per se, but it would definitely make sense in a satisfactory way.

This. Set it up so they can see the consequences coming - and can choose whether or not to react to them - but you don't need to outright feed it to them. (Which may make it seem like you are forcing them down a specific road of action.)

 

[LostSoul]

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.

The way I see it, it's more important to the bandits that they kill Nolor.

They teach everyone that, even if they are successfully attacked, there's no way to hide. They will get you; you can't win. Just submit. If the PCs keep attacking the bandits the townspeople will pay, and the townspeople aren't going to like that - or the PCs.

They show how they deal with rats and increase loyalty among their men, and provide a disincentive to anyone who wants to inform on them.

By getting his own brother to do the killing, it ties Kalor even deeper to the bandits. If he admits to himself that he did the wrong thing (instead of taking things the way his bosses explained to him - that his brother betrayed him, would have got them all killed, he's the scum of the earth, etc.) he won't be able to live with himself; he has to make himself believe that the bandits are right, they are his family now, and he needs to stick with them no matter what.

 

[jmucchiello]

I want to point out that if Nolor has any brains, when he hears about the party's attack on the bandits, he might decide to run away before the bandits can kill him. This opens up more possible ways the players can find out about the bandits seeking vengeance.

As for player versus PC knowledge, I say err on the side of too much knowledge. Remember, whenever you say "a day passes" the character has spent 24 hours in a living breathing town. They didn't spend that time locked in a sensory deprivation tank. People around the town have waved hello or avoided them. The townsfolk are happy, nervous, self-involved, whatever. There are many chances for them to hear what everyone else in town is thinking. Simulating all the small talk accumulated by 5 PCs over the course of a day is difficult. But by providing extra information you can achieve the same effect. "Over the course of the day you piece together from various townsfolk that the bandits have become angry and have sworn oaths of vengeance against some so-called traitor."

 

[Alex319]

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.

In real life, there are lots of ways to learn skills and "roles" other than by "trial and error." There's education, study, job training, etc.

 

[Piratecat]

I've also been known to occasionally narrate a cut scene (sort of breaking the above rule, by essentially "telling" a "show"). I do this when something highly interesting to the evolving story happened with NPCs, off camera, because the players chose to do something else.

Great point. I did this very thing last game; it was better to immediately show the players what they'd accomplished, instead of letting it wait until two weeks and the next game.