Quote from: mcbobbo;757485If it were WEG Star Wars I would be more inclined to let them suicide.

As it was actually Pathfinder where character generation takes days (and for the 12 year old great gnashing of teeth), I took their free will away.

Herein lies one of the great faults in 3.X. Chargen when done correctly takes hours and a pile of PDFs as tall as a Great Dane.

Btw, not edition warring here. I like 3.X for what it is. But it's not a game friendly to TPKs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757361Hmm this is a fine line.  Letting someone know setting information their character has but the player has forgotten or failed to consider is one thing, and should be done lightly.

Pausing to let the player know the action is unwise...is unwise.  The great thing about RPGs is a player can play more then one character.  If someone has gone into "Big damn Hero" mode, it's best to let them reap the whirlwind and learn the nature of the setting's reality.

In the example of the trout, or something less absurd but equally stupid, I think it's essential that you don't pause the game state.  If someone is being that stupid, they need a harsh lesson.  Of course, dealing with adults, here, if it's a kid, you may want to evaluate how you proceed as the best way to show them the nature of consequences.

Amen.

A PC charging unbeatable odds and dying looses the PC. The DM intervening and prevening the action looses the entire verisimilitude of the setting IMHO YOMV etc etc

Quote from: Simlasa;757407I think that is an important qualifier. I want to make sure the Player has all the information he needs so that his bad choices are all on him, not on my faulty presentation.

Entirely true and your job as GM is to present the entirity of the world. NPCs are useful as they provide for a seemless was for the GM to replicate the internal monologue.

Not sure if this has been covered many times before, but:
A gm has to be careful they don't make too many assumptions.
People interpret the same data differently.
As a gm, I clarify setting information and details the characters would know when I think the players are drawing a conclusion that is flat out wrong.

But, only if I think the information I provided as gm is not being interpreted correctly. perhaps I gave bad info; it happens.

I don't warn player that a dragon will kill them; I make sure they know dragons are deadly.

It's far from an exact science though.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;757549That bit me on the ass once, as a player. Deadlands, first time, never read it before, never played before, know nothing of the setting.

We create characters, and I elect to play a Veteran of the Weird West, which allowed me to turn my gambler into a Huckster and cast spells. I also got an addiction to opium, so...

We start with our first module, the vampire train TPK factory one. We're in a town and the GM tells us we see a kind of slightly spooky train in the distance. We warily open the station, and it disgorges hundreds of super-powered vamps, which eat the entire party except me and the GM's brother (playing a Harrowed, so already more powerful than any other character).

I lose a limb and flee, along with the Harrowed. He's also a blessed, and tries to heal my limb but fails, taking a lethal wound to the gut and his Manitou takes over.

Yeah. TPK.

The GM literally yells at me for not having done something at the station, given that I chose to play a Veteran of the Weird West. I should have known what was going to happen and the TPK was all my fault.

My response was "How was I supposed to know that 'mildly spooky' equates to 'rolling vampire death train that eats whole towns'? My character may have known that, but how was I supposed to?"

My lesson, for my own DM'ing: don't assume the players have all the facts. Especially when they're about to do something suicidal. Spoon feed it to them, if necessary.

OTOH, pure stupidity you just let go. It'll be a learning experience.

Yeah, to me this falls under the heading of GM not relating setting nuance to the Players. What the Player does not know, the Player cannot react well to.

I'm talking about the guy who decides at the start of the Star Wars game, during character creation, loudly announces to the rest of the party of  Rebels that he is creating an Imperial Spy who will turn in the rest of the party for a reward once enough evidence is gathered. I just said that PvP is allowed and the problem was solved.

Quote from: Marleycat;757426This would get the raised eyebrow from me NOT a TPK. The smart people in the party usually catch a clue muzzle the idiot and we move on.

I've seen a lot of Players not try to police their own because they are afraid of pissing the friend off who is about to do something stupid when they do. I think it plays right into the Geek Social Fallacies.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757534No, they won't. Seen it. It just means they've discovered a new toy to light their friends' hair on fire. Oh, they may tone it down for a bit, but like fishing they are waiting for the next big bite.

In life assume petty asshole games. Call people on it openly and state that's not what you're interested in and watch it calm down. They either were innocent of it and ignorant of expectations, or guilty as sin and called on the carpet. In-game punishment for out-of-game bad behavior does. not. work.

Who the hell said anything about in-game punishment for out-of-game behavior?  I'm talking about in-game punishment for in-game stupidity.  I'm not talking about players OOC stopping a character because the player is being a stupid jackass.  I'm talking about a character doing something to stop another character from doing something stupid.

Either the player is an adult or not.  If they're an asshole, they're probably not gonna play more then once.  If the problem is a "Big Damn Hero" mentality, then the death of their character is probably going to spark a discussion, which will probably become heated, then they either adapt to the table or don't.  I don't care which.   Experience tells me the worthwhile players will adapt, the useless ones will leave and I don't have to hold anyone's hand or sacrifice my world's integrity.

If anything is using in-game means to deal with out-of-game behavior, it's pausing the game state for cheats and hints.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;757549That bit me on the ass once, as a player. Deadlands, first time, never read it before, never played before, know nothing of the setting.

We create characters, and I elect to play a Veteran of the Weird West, which allowed me to turn my gambler into a Huckster and cast spells. I also got an addiction to opium, so...

We start with our first module, the vampire train TPK factory one. We're in a town and the GM tells us we see a kind of slightly spooky train in the distance. We warily open the station, and it disgorges hundreds of super-powered vamps, which eat the entire party except me and the GM's brother (playing a Harrowed, so already more powerful than any other character).

I lose a limb and flee, along with the Harrowed. He's also a blessed, and tries to heal my limb but fails, taking a lethal wound to the gut and his Manitou takes over.

Yeah. TPK.

The GM literally yells at me for not having done something at the station, given that I chose to play a Veteran of the Weird West. I should have known what was going to happen and the TPK was all my fault.

My response was "How was I supposed to know that 'mildly spooky' equates to 'rolling vampire death train that eats whole towns'? My character may have known that, but how was I supposed to?"

My lesson, for my own DM'ing: don't assume the players have all the facts. Especially when they're about to do something suicidal. Spoon feed it to them, if necessary.

OTOH, pure stupidity you just let go. It'll be a learning experience.

Ok that GM was a total and complete idiot, not to mention wrong about the rules.  If he wanted to make Veteran of the Weird West tell you something about the train, then he should have described the train, then make it clear you had a specific feeling about the train, and/or had the Harrowed have the Manitou react to the Train.

There's nothing about Veteran of the Weird West that would have you equate 'mildly spooky' to 'rolling vampire death train that eats whole towns'?

A shitsucker GM is a shitsucker GM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757745Who the hell said anything about in-game punishment for out-of-game behavior?  I'm talking about in-game punishment for in-game stupidity.  I'm not talking about players OOC stopping a character because the player is being a stupid jackass.  I'm talking about a character doing something to stop another character from doing something stupid.

Either the player is an adult or not.  If they're an asshole, they're probably not gonna play more then once.  If the problem is a "Big Damn Hero" mentality, then the death of their character is probably going to spark a discussion, which will probably become heated, then they either adapt to the table or don't.  I don't care which.   Experience tells me the worthwhile players will adapt, the useless ones will leave and I don't have to hold anyone's hand or sacrifice my world's integrity.

If anything is using in-game means to deal with out-of-game behavior, it's pausing the game state for cheats and hints.

Maturity is a finite reserve apparently; not everyone shares the same amount and quality, and everybody seems to have their lapses. I find relying on personal maturity to stop ignorant and/or trollish behavior about as useful to stop the flood of Monty Python and Simpsons quotes. I am talking about clarification because it stops BOTH player confusion and petty OOC games. Since I have no interest in splicing the two at my table through using IC "guess what I'm thinking" consequences, it is far easier for me to assume my players are 'confused' and then clarify and confirm.

And it is in no way "cheats or hints" to people who are genuinely ignorant of the contextual state. Not everyone is as active a listener, or gifted with such critical thinking, so I have no problem giving them more time to think before they act. That it also shuts down a lot of asshole behavior, flagging you're in no mood for your other players or your campaign to be jerked around, is absolute gravy.

Trying to get people on the same page is what I feel is the table's responsibility, including me the GM. Laissez faire only works so far.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757756Trying to get people on the same page is what I feel is the table's responsibility, including me the GM. Laissez faire only works so far.

Yep.  Just like the other tools, "consequences" is not always the best route.  No one tool is, for a job as complex as Game Mastery.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757756"guess what I'm thinking" consequences

Total and complete strawman.  One owlbear almost tears a party a new one, it's "guess the DM's thinking" to consider that maybe going into it's lair you might find another one or more and that might not be the best idea since the party is messed up?  That's called not being a total idiot.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757756it is far easier for me to assume my players are 'confused' and then clarify and confirm.

Who the heck do you play with on a regular basis, whoever rolls into the FLGS on game day?

Quote from: Opaopajr;757756And it is in no way "cheats or hints" to people who are genuinely ignorant of the contextual state.

I believe your own example was something like charge forward and attempt to sodomize the queen with a trout at court.  If someone is actually ignorant of that contextual state, you're GMing in an asylum.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757756That it also shuts down a lot of asshole behavior, flagging you're in no mood for your other players or your campaign to be jerked around, is absolute gravy.

Again, do you mostly play with one-offs?

No gaming is better than bad gaming, just get yourself some adults to regularly play with, christ.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757760Yep.  Just like the other tools, "consequences" is not always the best route.  No one tool is, for a job as complex as Game Mastery.

Best route for what?  Since when does the natural consequences of your own fucking choices count as a tool or a means of punishment or modifying behavior?  Jesus Wept.

Quote from: Bill;757667I don't warn player that a dragon will kill them; I make sure they know dragons are deadly.

An elegant turn of phrase.

The key to settign expectations is to show not talk.

Telling the players a dragon is dangerous is fine I guess... doing it really loudly as they are about to charge a dragon and saying "No you don't do that" is Unforgiveable.

Want to show them a dragon is dangerous. Take the captain of the guard that they just saw take out 4 bandits and you are roleplaying as hte toughest guy on the street and have the dragon bite him in half. The players and the PCs now both know dragons are dangerous. If they choose to charge the dragon then more power to them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757792...

No gaming is better than bad gaming, just get yourself some adults to regularly play with, christ.

The so-called "adults" you are describing don't exist as far as my experiences go.  At a minimum everyone has bad nights.  From my perspective you are saying:  "No gaming is better than less than perfect gaming."  In 30+ years of gaming/GMing everything from one-shot con games to long-term games at a friends dinner table (in places from Gitmo to Guam)  I've never met players that would fit your criteria consistently.  I play with fallible human beings not super gaming robots.  I'm also willing to overlook/tolerate the quirks of my friends.  The purpose of gaming to me is having fun with new and old friends, not having the perfect gaming session, though I/we still strive for best.