FA+
Shop
Pathfinder Shenanigans: Are you sure?
10 years ago
General
There hasn't been much need for a Pathfinder Shenanigans journal recently as things have been...fairly steady in my games lately. Well, kinda. I suppose I should just explain. Right now I'm down to just a Pathfinder game and a D&D 5th Edition game. I left the Tuesday group due to some conflicts there, and my own campaign had a successful conclusion. Through the 5th edition game, I've found a new style of gameplay that's far more laid back and fun than how I was playing previously, so I think I'll look for more groups that play in the same style. But anyway, down to business. This journal is about a recent occurrence in the Pathfinder game, and discusses how DMs should handle player choices.
Our team is preparing to attack a group of Orc terrorists in the middle of a small grove of trees. Surrounding that grove is an open area devoid of trees, with three smaller teams of Orcs patrolling around it. We coordinated our plan of attack with an ally, such that we would approach from one side and they would approach from the other. Once the signal was given (a bird call), we would both commence our assaults. Our rogue attempted to sneak in to get into position, but was detected and we had to begin our attack at once. We gave the signal and engaged, emerging from the fight with only minor injuries. Not wanting to waste any time, we continued into the grove. Our rogue was again detected as he tried to sneak in, so we again had to rush in and engage the Orcs. This time, they were ready for us, and they kicked our ass. Two of our party were killed, and a third only survived because he stabilized while dying. The remaining two members escaped.
After the smoke clears, the DM mentions, "now, if only you had given your ally the other signal to attack..." to which I respond in agitation "what other signal? We only discussed the one signal. The signal that we gave before the first fight." What followed was a brief argument where we discover that the DM made an incorrect assumption about our plan, such that our ally did not join in. Additionally, our rogue comments, "I really wish I knew stealth was so useless in this game before playing a stealth specialist." What followed then was a discussion that revealed that he had an incorrect assumption about the stealth skill - he assumed that you could just stealth wherever (since his first exposure to a stealth-focused character was a shadowdancer that could do exactly that). When we informed him that you still needed something to hide behind, he further noted that "Huh, I figured I could hide behind trees or something, you know, in a forest." Another discussion followed, but ultimately didn't really accomplish anything.
Now, how could this situation have been avoided? Obviously the old adage about assumptions comes to mind, but the question of "Are you sure?" May have helped too.
Whenever the DM says "Are you sure?" you should immediately stop and reevaluate your situation, because it usually means that you are about to do something monumentally stupid or disastrous. But when should a DM say it? Obviously you can't stop the party every time they do something bad. In fact, another good approach is to ask the player "Why do you want to do that?" More often than not, that will encourage some discussion amongst the players, and everyone will have a better understanding of why the players are taking this particular action. The DM can plan around it, suggest alternatives, or allow the players an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding or false assumption. Here are some situations that
1) It's a new player making the choice - if the player is unused to a particular mechanic or the system entirely, then you should definitely step in and make sure they are fully informed before they commit to an action. Here, the obvious issue was stealth. Our player wasn't quite sure how stealth worked, and though he did a pretty good job of it, it never once worked out for him. Although I don't think it would have changed much in this situation, I don't think our player would have played a stealth specialist if he knew how it really worked. If a player that is new to a mechanic or system makes a questionable choice, I strongly recommend asking why, as there is probably a better way to do what they want to do - they just don't know about it.
2) The players are greatly deviating from the path - if the party is tasked with going to town A, and they all up and decide to go to town B in the opposite direction, then that's going to cause some problems. The same is true if they are tasked with bringing someone in alive and they decide to kill them. Be sure to ask the why they are changing course, and give them some rolls to see if their characters appreciate the consequences of their actions.
3) The players are doing something that the characters would know not to do. Usually this can just be solved with a common sense roll (typically a DC 5 Wisdom check), but other times you'll have to do those rolls to see if the character understands the consequences of such an act.
4) The players are engaging in a seriously risky or self-destructive activity. Again, be sure to ask why. Sometimes it's totally appropriate, other times they don't realize that they're walking into death. Have them take a moment and assess the situation, then if they still want it, then at least you gave them fair warning.
5) The players are engaging in something that will likely lead to real world consequences. This usually relates to PvP matters. These are far more common in games like Shadowrun, but can happen anywhere. If one player is plotting against another, make sure that all players are okay with that from the start. Groups have broken apart because one guy decides to exercise his PvP rights and the group splits up to take sides. This is definitely an area where the DM has veto power - you are ultimately responsible for the group, and if you don't want to risk the fallout of a player's action, then don't allow it.
I hope these suggestions prove useful. Exploring your players' motivations can greatly help their development and also solve a lot of potential problems when they make questionable choices.
Are You Sure?Our team is preparing to attack a group of Orc terrorists in the middle of a small grove of trees. Surrounding that grove is an open area devoid of trees, with three smaller teams of Orcs patrolling around it. We coordinated our plan of attack with an ally, such that we would approach from one side and they would approach from the other. Once the signal was given (a bird call), we would both commence our assaults. Our rogue attempted to sneak in to get into position, but was detected and we had to begin our attack at once. We gave the signal and engaged, emerging from the fight with only minor injuries. Not wanting to waste any time, we continued into the grove. Our rogue was again detected as he tried to sneak in, so we again had to rush in and engage the Orcs. This time, they were ready for us, and they kicked our ass. Two of our party were killed, and a third only survived because he stabilized while dying. The remaining two members escaped.
After the smoke clears, the DM mentions, "now, if only you had given your ally the other signal to attack..." to which I respond in agitation "what other signal? We only discussed the one signal. The signal that we gave before the first fight." What followed was a brief argument where we discover that the DM made an incorrect assumption about our plan, such that our ally did not join in. Additionally, our rogue comments, "I really wish I knew stealth was so useless in this game before playing a stealth specialist." What followed then was a discussion that revealed that he had an incorrect assumption about the stealth skill - he assumed that you could just stealth wherever (since his first exposure to a stealth-focused character was a shadowdancer that could do exactly that). When we informed him that you still needed something to hide behind, he further noted that "Huh, I figured I could hide behind trees or something, you know, in a forest." Another discussion followed, but ultimately didn't really accomplish anything.
Now, how could this situation have been avoided? Obviously the old adage about assumptions comes to mind, but the question of "Are you sure?" May have helped too.
Whenever the DM says "Are you sure?" you should immediately stop and reevaluate your situation, because it usually means that you are about to do something monumentally stupid or disastrous. But when should a DM say it? Obviously you can't stop the party every time they do something bad. In fact, another good approach is to ask the player "Why do you want to do that?" More often than not, that will encourage some discussion amongst the players, and everyone will have a better understanding of why the players are taking this particular action. The DM can plan around it, suggest alternatives, or allow the players an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding or false assumption. Here are some situations that
1) It's a new player making the choice - if the player is unused to a particular mechanic or the system entirely, then you should definitely step in and make sure they are fully informed before they commit to an action. Here, the obvious issue was stealth. Our player wasn't quite sure how stealth worked, and though he did a pretty good job of it, it never once worked out for him. Although I don't think it would have changed much in this situation, I don't think our player would have played a stealth specialist if he knew how it really worked. If a player that is new to a mechanic or system makes a questionable choice, I strongly recommend asking why, as there is probably a better way to do what they want to do - they just don't know about it.
2) The players are greatly deviating from the path - if the party is tasked with going to town A, and they all up and decide to go to town B in the opposite direction, then that's going to cause some problems. The same is true if they are tasked with bringing someone in alive and they decide to kill them. Be sure to ask the why they are changing course, and give them some rolls to see if their characters appreciate the consequences of their actions.
3) The players are doing something that the characters would know not to do. Usually this can just be solved with a common sense roll (typically a DC 5 Wisdom check), but other times you'll have to do those rolls to see if the character understands the consequences of such an act.
4) The players are engaging in a seriously risky or self-destructive activity. Again, be sure to ask why. Sometimes it's totally appropriate, other times they don't realize that they're walking into death. Have them take a moment and assess the situation, then if they still want it, then at least you gave them fair warning.
5) The players are engaging in something that will likely lead to real world consequences. This usually relates to PvP matters. These are far more common in games like Shadowrun, but can happen anywhere. If one player is plotting against another, make sure that all players are okay with that from the start. Groups have broken apart because one guy decides to exercise his PvP rights and the group splits up to take sides. This is definitely an area where the DM has veto power - you are ultimately responsible for the group, and if you don't want to risk the fallout of a player's action, then don't allow it.
I hope these suggestions prove useful. Exploring your players' motivations can greatly help their development and also solve a lot of potential problems when they make questionable choices.
