Tell me, anons, have you, or has anyone you known, while GMing just drop the non-interference act for a moment and point out why a player or players choosing to do something is a terrible, terrible idea? If not, have you or your GM friend ever come close?
>>44524727
"Anon, are you sure you want to use Dementation on the priest? Here in the church. As a follower of Road of Heaves."
I generally comment on what I thought was good play and what wasn't after the session. Some players insist that they're already brilliant gamers and are above criticism, others act like whipped puppies, while the best of them consider some of what I have to say - and disregard my bullshit.
>>44524727
Mostly when the player made a decision that goes against information their character would reasonably know but hasn't had time to be exposited in-game. More often I've seen the veil dropped because a decision is less "terrible" and more "makes a lot of work for the GM that he isn't in the mood for."
Otherwise the decision usually stands; most of the time someone else catches it anyway, but sometimes it leads to fun character growth as the player reconciles the decision with the character as presented--and, of course, dealing with the fallout of bad ideas.
Not sure if related, but here goes: I give each of my players a pool of three points for each session. Spend a point, and I'll tell you the best possible course of action in current situation, which will be guaranteed not to harm the party in any way. Spend two points in advance, and I'll tell when you do something really stupid which will end badly for you. It's possible to share the points or give them to another player. It works well for my group.As does anything when your group is not composed of autists and assholes.
reminds me of the time Prismo practically worded Jake's wish for him.
>>44525194
>allowing players to restart a dungeon instead of bitching out and scrapping the game
>bowl of what looks like candy next to GM screen
Best GM detected
>>44525278
Was there ever any doubt?
>>44525278
The GAME is being restarted, not the dungeon. That might mean they need to roll up new characters.
>>44524727
>have you, or has anyone you known, while GMing just drop the non-interference act for a moment and point out why a player or players choosing to do something is a terrible, terrible idea?
I have done this several times.
Primarily because I know that sometimes that what I know in my head as a GM may not be translated clearly to the players.
Or sometimes the players simply forget key points that their characters would not.
The player might have forgotten that the room was filling with natural gas and not realize that starting a fire might be suicidal.
Their character has the benefit of being able to smell the gas to remind them.
>Are you sure you want to light that torch?
>Yeah, it will totally scare off that thing, they hate fire right?
>True. Your character smells the strong odor from that gas main you broke open a few minutes ago. Do you still light the torch?
>Sure.
>Roll Int.
>Huh? Okay. *rolls*
>You remember that the gas you are smelling is flammable and that if you light that torch, the gas will likely cause a dangerous explosion.
>Oh. Cool, that will really scare it off. I light it.
>True. Roll for explosion damage.
Occasionally one of my players will suggest doing something completely fucking retarded and suicidal. If I feel like they're actually oblivious to the danger, I usually tell them, "If you do that, you'd cause X to happen." If they still want do to it, fine.
If the players want to do something extremely dumb, often it's due to them not fully understanding the situation or having made an untrue assumption. Rather than directly saying 'That's dumb', I'll repeat their plan back to them, adding in context and clarifying details. If they still think it's a good idea, they can go ahead, but often it helps them reconsider the approach or at least modify it to be somewhat feasible.
>>44525679
Pretty much this. l usually just say "are you sure? think about it for a little longer". lf they don't change their minds, welp, l did what l could.
>>44524727
I try to avoid it whenever I can. One of the players has a feat though that lets him do a wisdom test to realize if something is a bad idea though.
An example was when he and the sniper were enclosed in a wall of Force box by a Dragon. They both agree that they can just teleport out if need be. The sniper then tries to shoot the dragon before teleporting, hit shot hitting the Wall of Force instead. He teleports out, the other player chastises him.
On the other players turn, he prepares to instead shoot out a blast of magical explosives from his fingertips. In an enclosed place. With indestructible Force Walls and a volume smaller than the explosions.
Since he had the feat, he got to test Wisdom and realize if he did that it would have killed him instantly.
Nope, and I never will, because I don't believe in the concept of allowing players to back out of actions because the consequences aren't nice.
People have brains, and if they tell me they want to do something, I have no reason to doubt their capacity for considering the situation enough to assume they need to be corrected on a bad decision.
However this thread is exactly like that Penny Arcade comic, since all it'll result in is 100 posts of "Well we do this <invented mechanic that circumvents the point of the game>"
>>44526127
Unless, of course, you fucked up as a GM. Which is always equally possible. Did you forget to mention or to properly emphasize an important detail? Is what you think is a logical consequence some out of the left field bullshit?
This is why I talk the situation over, as in >>44525998. It ensures I fully understand what they want to do (which is why I do it even with not stupid plans, just to fully clarify player intention and to know I'm not misinterpreting them) and it gives them another chance to go over it and ensure it's really what they want to do.
Your logic falls apart because the players can't see through their characters eyes, or hear through their ears. All their sense of the world comes through you- And if you fuck up and give them bad info, it's not their fault, it's yours.
Sometimes bad ideas are purely on the player side, but assuming they always are is shitty GMing.
>>44526220
I am capable, as a functioning human being, of asking for clarifications if I feel I need more information on a subject, and I am also capable of reasoning through more than one scenario in my head and finding out where potential miscommunications may be.
Therefore. I assume other people are too. If they don't do these things, it's not my fault, it's theirs. Because they do not function on the level required to operate like a normal person.
I mean, I agree that most people in general are idiots and need to be treated like children, but I don't actually do that.
I have insisted both in and out of character that players not do a dumb thing, just because the BBEG called them out and effectively said "Come on bro, you chicken or what?"
They spoke to three NPCs, all of whom said "Don't be dumb" and me as a GM saying "You don't have to do this". They did it, it was an ambush. TPK.
>>44524727
I always point it out to players when their characters should know something would be stupid to do. They can't be expected to constantly pay attention to every little detail.
>>44526298
Wow, you're really incompetent.
If a character knows something is a bad idea, but the player doesn't, it gets clarified.
eg. you can ransom nobles if you capture them, you don't have to cap them in the face, you shouldn't attack someone in broad daylight, don't attract unwanted attention in hostile towns by carrying unconcealed weapons...
Their finger is still on the trigger, I just explain the consequences better.
>>44526298
>I am capable of asking for clarifications if I feel I need more information on a subject
>If they don't do these things, it's not my fault,
You are aware that people sometimes need clarification, but are not aware of it, right?
They may think they understand when they don't really.
There are unknown unknowns.
You are not perfect, neither are your players.
You are free to play however you like, but sometimes your players will make a mistake that comes from miscommunication between GM and player, rather than player decision.
It happens.
>>44524727
One of my players basically dropped a Wish I handed him and I made him a Warlock for his troubles, which was what he was looking for in the first place.
He's probably not going to like the genie getting him to fetch her jewelry when the fancy strikes her.
