Silence. Confusion. Bewilderment. Something just happened at your gaming table; something you were not expecting…really not expecting. Everything seemed to be going fine and then one of those players did something and now your story is spiraling and your campaign is unraveling. What are you going to do next? Red alert! Raise shields! Someone call for the cleric!
I Didn’t Think They Would Stab The King in the Face
As GM’s we tend to become familiar with our players. We know what makes them tick and for the most part we can predict what they will do in most situations. When we write our games, no matter how open we make them, there is a part of our minds that is anticipating what the players are mostly likely going to do, and our prep – be it written or mental – is biased in that direction. That is what an experienced GM is suppose to do; keep your prep flexible enough in case the players don’t do what you thought they would.
That’s not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about are those cases where the players do something that you never thought would happen. Despite the requisite, “Are you sure you want to do that?”, they have taken an action that shakes your assumptions about who the characters are, what the players are doing, and where the campaign is going. The kinds of changes where upon hearing what happened, you stroke your chin, nod slowly and say hmmm, while on the inside your mind is racing to make sense of what happened.
Why Did it happen?
Before you react; stop and think about how this came to be. Your first instinct will be focused on the players being [Insert term: crazy, sick, idiots, etc]. That’s just emotion, so lock that down and lets use some logic. These things happen for a number of reasons. Here are some of the most common:
- Bad Night-Â
everyone has an off night. Its possible that the player(s) are distracted, tired, hungry, having work issues, fighting with their significant other, etc. - Communication Gap-
It is possible that what you described and what the players heard was misunderstood. The players are reacting correctly to a different scene. - Expectation Gap-
It is possible that in your Campaign Framework (from Odyssey) something was missed or misunderstood and you think the campaign goes one way, and they think another. - Inadequate Prep-
It is possible that you, the GM, missed this possibility during your prep. If you did not do a long enough Review Phase (from Never Unprepared) and did not use the Playtester enough to check for plot holes; you may just be caught off guard. - Malicious Intent-
This one is rare but not impossible. It is possible that the player is just messing with the game for their own reasons (i.e. Chaotic Stupid, trying to tank the game, etc).
Knowing why it happened is going to help you decide what your next move is going to be.
What do you do next?
Now that it has occurred, you have to do something. How you react, and what you do during this shakeup is going to set the tone for the rest of this session and possibly longer. Here are some tips on what to do…
Player Agency vs. GM Control
It’s worth mentioning that players are in control of their characters and that they have the right, within your social contract, to have their character take actions they desire. The GM may not like that at times, especially at times like this when a story arc could be at risk, but to negate or cancel a characters action by fiat is railroading (in the worst way). The notable exception to this is when a player violates the social contract or is acting maliciously, then do what you must.
The VCR Menu of Options
The choice of actions you take next are not unlike the buttons on my top loading VCR of yesteryear:
- Pause-Â Take a break. Use that time to think of your next move when you start playing again. Works best when you have a good idea of what should happen next, and you want to do a little mental prep to get organized. When you are ready, start up again.
- Rewind-
Ask the players if they would like to reconsider their actions. If they do, back up the scene to the point before it happened, and re-start. This works best when you think the action of the players is a session/campaign ender. - Fast Forward-
Accept the action and terminate this scene quickly and move to the next scene, where you can resume play and prepare future consequences for the action. This works best when you want to focus on the Long Term consequence (see below). - Stop-
Stop the game early so that you can go and properly create the adequate response and consequences. This is best if your response or campaign is very intricate and care needs to be taken to ensure continuity. - Play – Keep the scene going and react to the change by ad-libbing your response. This works best if you have an Initial consequence (below) in mind and have enough prep to keep going.
All In Moderation
No mater what method you take to react, you need to act in moderation. Yes the players may have toppled six months of campaign prep by killing the Duke, but don’t throw the full army at them in response. Break your response into two components:
- Initial -Â
This is what you are going to do in the current scene and the next scene. The response should be swift and intense but not overpowering: guards can rush in, people can scream and point, alarms go off. Use this response to raise the tension in the game, and put the players on the defensive. - Long Term -Â
This is what you are going to do in the next session and the session following. Action should be mostly off-screen and should sustain the initial tension: airports are shut down, wanted posters go up in the town square, bounty hunters are summoned. Then use the response to create complications for the players as they try to do other things. This is the response that should show the players the magnitude of their actions.
They Zigged When They Should Have Zagged
Players are unpredictable, and in most cases that is a good thing, but there are those times when they do something that you never saw coming. They do something that catches you off guard, topples an adventure, or damages the campaign. How we react to these moments will determine how the campaign will survive. By understanding why it happened, and using a measured response to the action, the game can go on. You may have to discard some arcs and might have to build some new ones, but you can keep playing.
Have you ever had a moment where a player took an action so shocking that it caught you totally off guard. What did they do? How did you react? How did the campaign continue?
Not that I haven’t also encountered some of the reasons listed above that might cause things to take a sharp left turn, but… IME these types of events seem to happen most often at a point where there is an extended period of dramatic roleplaying and one or more players would prefer to get to some action. So they create it.
IMO this falls under the heading of ‘Know Your Players’ and do your best to give them what they want. Some players thrive on long sessions of nothing but pure roleplay, while others may find that tedious and boring and just want to skip right to the action. If you have a mixed group it can sometimes be difficult to properly balance the action vs. roleplay so that all the players are satisfied when the session ends.
After I’ve given the requisite “are you sure you want to do that?” I typically just ‘Pause’ for a moment and consider an appropriate response and continue the game. Perhaps the PCs are captured and thrown in the dungeon and need to escape before they face execution or perhaps they escape and become outlaws. Maybe they are able to continue the original campaign, but with added difficulty, or perhaps things go in a completely new direction as they deal with the consequences of their actions. Either way the PCs are the focus of the game, NOT the campaign I had planned for them.
At the end of every session I make sure to get a definitive answer from the players as to what they want to do next and then prepare for the next game accordingly with an eye toward what the players want in action vs. roleplay. YMMV.
I had that happen to me once. I’m chalking it up to either a lack of experience on the player’s part or slight confusion because I try to flip scenes quickly if players are in different locations at the same time.
I gave the player “You know the city guards are still talking to your friend” and he replied with “That’s ok, they’re a bunch of idiots anyway” and proceeded to blurt out their nefarious schemes.
At that point I sighed, pulled the trigger, and killed a few months worth of material.
Looking back I’m wishing I gave the players a few minutes to think that one over so I didn’t have to put a lot of ideas on the backburner.
I completely disagree with this article. It sounds like you’re just upset that they ruined your railroad. The only option for any GM worth a damn is to go with it. I love those moments when a player does something crazy that makes a major permanent change to the campaign. Stabbing the king in the face changes things, sure, but opens up so many other possibilities.
I think I say “Are you sure you want to do that?†at least once per session.
Did you actually read the entire article? The author wrote, “The GM may not like that at times, especially at times like this when a story arc could be at risk, but to negate or cancel a characters action by fiat is railroading (in the worst way).”
To “just go with it” is in fact one of the author’s solutions. But there are other solutions to consider that do not involve railroading. I’m inclined to let the action roll myself, and let the consequences follow. But I think you didn’t get the full context of the article. I think the author is saying that there are options to consider OTHER THAN GM Fiat or railroad tracks. That’s my take anyway.
Yes, I did read the whole thing. What I disagree with is that the author suggested other things than “go with it”. Other choices, like rewind and redo, is railroading too.
Commander Crud, it is NEVER acceptable for one player to ruin a game that other players are enjoying for their own selfish gratification. The social contract trumps player agency. Now, when a major change is something the entire group can get behind, that’s different, but when this happens, it can ruin the game for everyone except the guy who decided his “crazy stunt” was worth attempting.
A player being a jerk ruining everyone’s fun is one thing. The DM feeling upset that player action destroyed his carefully laid out plot is something else. I still can’t see rewinding the story though, or letting it get to the point where you’d consider that necessary. Throw a jerk out of the group if you must, and I feel sorry for any group that has to deal with that. I haven’t. I guess I’m just lucky. But the article lists several other reasons besides “malicious intent.” Most RPGs are boring without a “crazy stunt” occasionally.
It is a good article.
Sometimes you do need to press “pause” and the other buttons. It is great to stop the game for a moment, and ask the players what they think of what is going on. It is also ok to admit that you had not anticipated a certain action or choice. Communication is the key.
I have seen too many people trash games apparently just for fun. Sure, you can drop that player, but that is not always a desired option.
Stopping the game and saying “um, what is going on?” is a valid choice. This article reminds us that stopping the game, re-dos, or skipping around are valid options that will help keep people happy. Again, communication is the key and I feel that this article is helping us to remember that.
Thanks for the article, Phil. Your section header “I didn’t think they’d stab the king in the face” reminds me of the most enjoyable game I ran. The players were creative in thinking of solutions I didn’t anticipate. It really pushed my capability to respond. It was tough but rewarding.
I break down unexpected player actions into three categories and apply different GM responses to each:
Unexpected, but reasonable: In the game I mentioned above, the PCs at one point were adventuring with the youngest son of a duke. The son died in combat as a result of his own foolishness. The duke summoned the rest of the group to explain. I prepared for every sort of evasion and lie. But instead, the party leader stepped forward and explained exactly what happened in simple and dispassionate terms. I was stunned, so I decided the duke would be stunned, too. He praised them for their honesty and dismissed them. Later that day he discreetly hired a gang of thugs to kill them for their insolence. 😉 The point here is that if the party’s (or one player’s) actions are reasonable but simply unexpected, the GM should strive to react fairly.
Out of character: In one case where the party was trying to locate a missing person, the rogue announced that she would go through every underworld contact she had in town and threaten to expose all their illicit behavior to the authorities unless they cooperated with her to solve the abduction. I paused for a moment and said, “Okay, you can do this, but you realize that by doing this your character is going to completely burn out every roguish contact she has and create a number of new enemies, as well. Is this goal really worth that price?” The player reconsidered and took an alternate approach. I believe this method of asking “Are you sure?” is appropriate when a player attempts to do out of character that clashes with the character concept. Of course, if the player says “Yes, I’m sure!” the GM must be ready to move forward with it!
Foolish, and dangerous: This has happened countless times in my games, and for numerous reasons. Sometimes it’s because one player is bored, sometimes because one is angry and is attacking the group/game, and other times it’s because one simply foolish. I try to address the cause away from the table. Inside the game I apply an approach of escalating intervention. If I judge the risk to the character or group is minor, I’ll make no comment on the action. The game will respond fairly, and hopefully the group learns its lesson. For larger risks I’ll try to soften the outcome by explaining the risks and asking “Are you sure?” as I described in the previous section. If the player insists and the risk is mortal I’ll apply softened consequences. For example, when a character announced that he’d run off solo into a dangerous area known to be inhabited by evil creatures, I decided that he would be captured and held for ransom instead of being killed and eaten– which would’ve been the most natural thing for the creatures to do. But I’ll only do that the first time. If a player or group insists on being self destructive I usually let them succeed the second time around. 😉
Other than the “Are you sure?” and explaining ramifications of these actions- I am all for players doing crazy things.
If someone stabs the king in the face, the king’s guard is going to kill that character. If they make it out, they are the Number 1 wanted person in the kingdom. Even merchants will trade you in rather than do business with you.
As a GM, I would call for a 5-10 minute break if the players go forward on some plan that throws my prep to the wayside. I’ll calm down, do some fast reaction prep, and then pick up the game with a plan.
If someone is just being a jerk, then I would say no. Often times, other players will respond negatively which prevents the GM from needing to “be the bad guy” in this situation.
I would like to add one thing to the list of why it happend.
× The GM didn’t give enough clues. If the players don’t know how to continue, they will start to behave erratic so something will happen. They will shoot people on a hunch, just because they feel like bad guys. This is common with GM’s that doesn’t want to give enough clues because the adventure can become “to easy”. That’s the wrong way of thinking. Instead, give a lot of clues so the players have to sort them out before they move on.
Giving a bunch of clues and forcing the players to sort it out is excellent advice. Especially compared to giving too few clues to keep the adventure difficult.
I participated in a classic misunderstand response as a player when I was a teenager. My friend, the DM says, “You see a bunch of pheasants.” I turn to my other friend and I say, “We kill them and eat them!”
Our DM gets a horrified look and says, “Cannibals!”
Now we are the puzzled ones. “What are you talking about? We aren’t birds.” He answers, “No! Pheasants! You know, poor people!” Naturally we redacted that event.
One of the most enjoyable instances of this I’ve seen happened a few years ago. The party had traveled to the capital of my setting to uncover a nefarious plot, and while several of the characters were participating in intrigues at a gladiatorial tournament, the rather bluff priestess character rounded up some other priests of her order and took the evidence straight to the Big Bad, the Prime Minister. I had to take a short ‘pause’, but I ultimately decided that the PM wanted badly to know HOW she had come by that knowledge. He imprisoned her, giving the other PCs the opportunity for a daring prison break and building bad-guy cred for my previously secret villain.
The easiest way to avoid the abberant, abusive behavior is by cause and effect. If a player’s character is acting like an idiot, have the NPCs treat him like one.
Classic Character examples:
The self proclaimed Lothario: Hits on everything that moves, thinks that they should be able to score with anything that catches their eye. Have people start treating them like the jerk they are. When they find it difficult to get information, or see higher prices at market, and you have the NPCs comment on why, they’ll get the clue.
The Belligerent bar fighter: If every bar scene ends in a fight because of a character, have bars start to refuse him service, and again, let them know why.
The quick to wield a knife to deadly effect person: This is the character that ends any situation they get confused/insulted/outplayed/outsmarted by stabbing the other person. This one is easy, eventually they’ll be seen, and reported, and wanted for murder.
The main idea here is that for each character reaction, good or bad, there is an NPC reaction. Above were more penalty type actions, but there’s the flip side too. If the party helps out, have people on the street greet them, an innkeeper offer a free drink once in a while, guardsmen call them by name, etc.
Many times players will act in an abusive manner because they’re not invested in the area. By offering them subtle rewards, a strange thing starts to happen, the players start to care about the land they’re in, the people in it, and are more likely to take care of it than they are to set about burning the place down.