Here are two sentences that you might consider adding to your group’s social contract:
If a PC is one small step away from death, let that character’s player know where they stand — to borrow a chess term, tell them that they’re “in check.” And if something your group is about to do is going to bring the adventure — or perhaps the entire campaign — to a screeching halt, take a quick break, share that with your players, and come up with a solution.
This quick bit of advice is in the same vein as ben robbins’s post about passing the ball, GameCraft’s thread about multi-directional feedback and the idea of talking things out when a PC’s life is on the line.
When it comes to in-game events that can have serious (and often unintended) negative consequences, sometimes there’s just no substitute for a quick metagame discussion to keep your game flowing smoothly.
I don’t usually have this problem…my players generally know that if they screw up, and their character is about to die, they likely brought it on themselves. Like the time a player dove into a pool of kuo-tao (knowing full-well that they were in there). Suffice it to say, he was torn to shreds in a matter of rounds.
As far as going “off-track”, that’s generally not a problem either, as I can whip something up on the fly which is in the same vein as what I had originally intended. It might not be as smooth as far as the storyline goes, but sometimes this is less work for me, as the players think “outside the box” and find new paths to their goal.
Sometimes players die even after doing all the right things, trying to help other players, and then there’s that open die roll that “helps increase the dramatic tension” that causes the PC to die. Take it, fool! 😀
No amount of metagame discussion solves that problem, I’ve found (and experienced).
It might help stave off the mandatory XP loss after being resurrected, however.
Common Sense to the rescue!!
If the player is about to do something really stupid, I will sometimes restate the situation, just to be sure. “OK, you’re going to climb down the hundred-foot sheer cliff in your full plate mail. What’s your climb check?” Basically, I’ll play that little voice that says “You want me to do WHAT?”
If they’re okay with that, then I say evolve, and let the chips fall where they may.
Abulia: I think the “one die roll that kills the PC” was hashed out here recently. As usual I’m too lazy to make a link, but the gist of it was that if you’re going to put a PC (or an entire adventure) on a single die-roll, you must be ready for the consequences. Resurrectors-for-hire, divine intervention, or just packing up and moving to the next campaign.
Getting back to the original comment though, I’m noticing a trend in some of the recent suggestions here at TT: don’t be afraid to meta-game.
I know in the two groups I’ve played in recently, there seems to be an unspoken rule that meta-gaming is bad, bad, bad and to be avoided, if not scorned. To me, this is just silly: if we’re going to clobber the plot or ruin the enjoyment of the evening just because we have to “stay in character,” are we really accomplishing the goal of playing the game? As Martin aptly points out in the post, covering meta-game expectations in the social contract is very important.
I agree with bcarl about people seeming to think metagaming is bad. In some senses yes. Bringing in the fact that “Hey, this creature is weak to this . . .”, because you read the monster description while you were waiting to start is bad, but putting the game on pause for a little strategy is just fine in my book. It goes along with the idea of making sure the players have fun.
(Tom) As far as going “off-trackâ€, that’s generally not a problem either, as I can whip something up on the fly which is in the same vein as what I had originally intended.
I’m not really thinking of things going off track — which, as you pointed out, just means its time to break out some improv. I’m thinking of “If the party does X, we have to stop for the night, even though we’ve only been playing for 20 minutes.” There’s definitely some overlap there, though.
(brcarl) Getting back to the original comment though, I’m noticing a trend in some of the recent suggestions here at TT: don’t be afraid to meta-game.
It’s not entirely a conscious thing, but I tend to post about topics in a pretty cyclical way. This is what I’ve got on my back burners right now, so it keeps coming up.
Involving constructive metagaming is something that (based on my experience, at least) more groups should do. “Metagaming = bad” is definitely a common opinion — and one I pretty much held myself before I started writing TT, and exploring different aspects of GMing.
Hmm. That might make a good post in its own right — I’ll have to give that one some thought.
I second that motion, Martin… I suspect that the “pro” and “anti” metagamers are speaking different languages.
What is the difference between good and bad metagaming? Discuss, citing specific examples. (Just not here – maybe in another blog entry?)
I’m not really thinking of things going off track — which, as you pointed out, just means its time to break out some improv. I’m thinking of “If the party does X, we have to stop for the night, even though we’ve only been playing for 20 minutes.†There’s definitely some overlap there, though.
———————————————–
I guess I missed the point. 😛 I’ve DMed plenty of games where this has happened, and I attribute it to over-analytical players. There’s only so many options that a character can make in any given situation, and it shouldn’t take an hour+ to figure out how to sneak into a castle, find entrance to cult hideout, or anything else for that matter.
When I see this happening, I do a recap of what they’ve discussed, and ask if that’s their final plan. If things go on for too long, I take my revenge by throwing a kink into their plans, making their planning for naught. Take that players!!
I couldn’t disagree with that statement more. If a character is on the brink of some death-dealing action, and the player is not aware of it, either I have failed as a GM or the player isn’t paying attention. Metagame has nothing to do with it.
If a single action taken by a player is about to derail my entire campaign, again, I have failed as a GM.
Taking the situation ‘meta’ is the wrong solution to the problem.
(ferret) If a character is on the brink of some death-dealing action, and the player is not aware of it, either I have failed as a GM or the player isn’t paying attention.
Wouldn’t those be exactly the two situations where you’d want to pause, take a step back, and cover your bases? If you screwed up, you get a shot at fixing it; ditto if the player in question wasn’t paying full attention.
If a single action taken by a player is about to derail my entire campaign, again, I have failed as a GM.
This is pretty harsh too. 😉 Things happen, and not always the way you planned. If you reach that point where (in your own eyes) you’ve failed as a GM, do you want to go down in flames, or have a shot at recovering instead?
I don’t see where you’re coming from on either of these. What would you do instead of taking things meta?