How much Damage Controll is too Much?

[Raine_Sage]

Note: This is not me asking for advice, I'm just interested to see other people's takes on this. This is also not necessarily about railroading though it might overlap.

So basically I'm wondering, I've read stories on here about one party member being stupid and nearly getting the party killed (or in some cases definitely getting the party killed) and I'm wondering, if it might negatively impact the games of the other players how much damage control do you consider reasonable?

I'm not talking about bad combat tactics or leeroy jenkinsing during a stealth mission. Or repeated problem players persay. But one character decides to go off and do something story wise that has the potential to screw all of the other players over. Like, they decide to try and assassinate the king and the fail, or they sell out the rest of the party to the big bad, decisions they made entirely on their own without consulting anyone else and now all the players stand to need to reroll new character sheets.

So would you accept that everyone is pretty much screwed, give them a chance of fighting back (my prefered option) but no guarantee of escape, find some way to forewarn the characters so they can get out of dodge, or twist it so that only the PC who instigated the event recieves any of the fallout?

[unbeliever536]

I've never had this sort of thing happen in my games, but I make it a general rule that the party is in this together and should, generally, stick together and keep their goals aligned. How the players do it is up to them, but I'm certainly not spending several hours every week to referee a series of 1v1s (or 1v2,3,4) between a bunch of other people. A single player shouldn't be able to go off and screw things up for the rest of the party (though if the party goes off and screws things up for themselves as a group, that is, in theory, fine).

[Red Fel]

I'm a strong proponent of in-character conduct yielding in-character consequences. When a PC does something deliberate and stupid, he brings consequences on himself.

That said, I'm also a proponent of table cohesion and peace. I don't like the idea that one player's misconduct can ruin the experience for everybody. So I think you should find a middle ground.

Here are my pointers.

1. Let the offending character suffer the full consequences of his actions. If you insist on sparing him, come up with an alternative consequence that he will come to hate anyway. (An example is Belkar's Mark of Justice in the comic. Some might call that a fate worse than execution. Particularly Belkar.)

2. Give the other characters an out, or a way to seek clemency. For example, if they're not particularly loyal to the offending character, they could simply turn him in. There is no reason that the other characters should be penalized for one character's misconduct (apart from "guilt by association").

2a. Alternatively, turn the consequence for them into a plot hook. ("Very well. We shall suspend our sentence. But in return, you must do something for us.")

If you use concepts like these, the other players will still be able to enjoy the game, while the offending player will (hopefully) be disincentivized from doing stupid things in-character.

Things not to do:

1. Let them all get away scot-free.

2. Fiat away the actions that caused the problem. (E.g. "Nope! The king's not dead after all, and nobody noticed you. No harm, no foul!")

3. Impose consequences, but provide an easy and pain-free way of avoiding/escaping them.

Characters should experience the consequences of their actions, good or bad; characters who don't suffer consequences have no reason to change their conduct, and may begin to find it mandated.

[valadil]

I treat player agency as the single most important thing in my game. Choices have consequences and need to mean something. When a player makes a decision, we carry out that decision in full. IMO it's more important for the players to see their choice acted out in the game than to have their decision neutered so they can play out the story as intended.

[zephyrkinetic]

I wouldn't expect any of my regulars to do this, but I suppose new players happen now and then as a matter of course, and there's no way to know how crazy they might be.

Honestly, if it happened, I would be pouring Spot, Listen, Gather Info, etc checks on the rest of the party until one of them finds out in-game, and then let them do what they need to do. If they never do, the backup option is to find a way for the renegade's plan to backfire on them. They are now wanted by the King's guard, or become a mindless BBEG minion, or whatever. Effectively, remove them from gameplay. The player can then leave or make a new character; hopefully they'll have learned their lesson. Repeat offenders would have to take a hike, though.

[Slipperychicken]

But one character decides to go off and do something story wise that has the potential to screw all of the other players over. Like, they decide to try and assassinate the king and the fail, or they sell out the rest of the party to the big bad, decisions they made entirely on their own without consulting anyone else and now all the players stand to need to reroll new character sheets.


I'd say you're best off classifying such actions as PvP, and making your own policy on them before the game starts. Like if you don't want PCs selling each other out and murdering one another, then just tell them before the campaign something like "yeah, I'm not DMing Paranoia here. This is a game about heroes who work together, so don't go around stealing from and backstabbing each other".

[Scow2]

I treat player agency as the single most important thing in my game. Choices have consequences and need to mean something. When a player makes a decision, we carry out that decision in full. IMO it's more important for the players to see their choice acted out in the game than to have their decision neutered so they can play out the story as intended.
The problem here isn't Player Agency vs. DM Story... it's one players agency depriving three others of agency by forcing them into a situation that their choices didn't cause.+

[Mando Knight]

or they sell out the rest of the party to the big bad,

Reward them as a traitor deserves. Publicly. One who has betrayed, will betray, and villains are big into doing unto others before others do it unto them.

[Fouredged Sword]

That said, one of the best games I ever played involved a party member who sold out the party to the evil BBEG who wanted to open the prime material to hell. One session ended with the party in chains and him and the BBEG walking away through a portal to the hell. He was playing a hilariously LN rogue/monk who we never trusted much anyway because he acted CN all the time.

So we though that was the last of it. The DM told us that player wouldn't be joining the group at our regular time any more, and we made out daring escape.

So a few months later we are surprised to see this guy back in the meeting area when we are set to game again for the epic showdown with the bbeg. We are a little confused and thought it an odd time to bring in a new character. Turns out he played his OLD character who had advanced roughly the same rate as our chatacters.

So we brace ourselves for a fight with the BBEG and our old party member. We all readies ourselves VS his nasty disarming/tripping combo and VS the BBEG's powerful buff bot cleric abilities.

Then he steals the BBEG's holy symbol and trips him the first round of combat, kicking him down the stairs to the rest of the group.

See, he convinced the us he turned coat. He convinced the BBEG he turned coat. He even convinced the DM he turned coat, and spent the last couple of months in a solo campaign worming his way to being the BBEG's right hand man. All of that so that he would be in the right place to backstab the BBEG at the heart of the climax. BEST ENDING EVER.

He looked at us and shrugged. "You didn't think I would let him take over the world, did you? All my stuff is here!"

[Pocket lint]

So would you accept that everyone is pretty much screwed, give them a chance of fighting back (my preferred option) but no guarantee of escape, find some way to forewarn the characters so they can get out of dodge, or twist it so that only the PC who instigated the event receives any of the fallout?

I think the most interesting way is just going with it, and letting them deal with the consequences. Not to say the other players are automatically screwed - give them a fair chance to escape, which just makes life more interesting.

King is now looking to put their heads on a spike? Well, offer hooks to put them back in his good books. BBEG now knows their cunning plan and is going to capture them? Barkeep wanders in going "there's about 20 guys dismounting in the courtyard. Friends of yours?"

What's more interesting is the consequences to the betraying player. The best is IMO to let them escape the bind they've gotten into and rejoin the party, with both sides fully aware of what's happened - or not. The second scenario, where they're trying to brown-nose the BBEG should not give any rewards though; the BBEG should be too canny to trust someone who has just betrayed their friends.

I think the main thing is that there should be consequences, possibly for a long time. I can foresee a whole plot coming along from just trying to kill the king... his chancellor will now be the quest-giver, recognising the PCs value. King finds out, fires chancellor in a fit of rage and then starts descending further into paranoia and spite. Cue new BBEG.

[valadil]

The problem here isn't Player Agency vs. DM Story... it's one players agency depriving three others of agency by forcing them into a situation that their choices didn't cause.+

I don't see a problem with this, but it could be a playstyle thing.

In some groups, the party is implicitly on the same side. In other groups everyone has their own agenda. Friction happens when players assume one type of game and someone else behaves in another way, yadda yadda yadda.

In a game where The Party is an entity and does not have internal conflict, this behavior would be problematic, whereas it's fine in a game where each player has his own agenda. My gut reaction is that if you're running the sort of game where the players are automatically all on the same side, what's going on where one player is selling out the others? I feel like the game is already busted as soon as that happens, not when the bounty hunters descend on the PCs mid combat.

[Raine_Sage]

I don't see a problem with this, but it could be a playstyle thing.

In some groups, the party is implicitly on the same side. In other groups everyone has their own agenda. Friction happens when players assume one type of game and someone else behaves in another way, yadda yadda yadda.

In a game where The Party is an entity and does not have internal conflict, this behavior would be problematic, whereas it's fine in a game where each player has his own agenda. My gut reaction is that if you're running the sort of game where the players are automatically all on the same side, what's going on where one player is selling out the others? I feel like the game is already busted as soon as that happens, not when the bounty hunters descend on the PCs mid combat.

Well sometimes miscommunications happen. If I had a penny for every time I heard a DM say "Well I thought I was being obvious that (Action X) would lead to (Result Y) but they did it anyway and were surprised when (result Y) happened." I would have several dollars. And yes "being fairly obvious" can include just telling them outright. I have told a player "I don't think you can solo this fight." Only to have them attempt to solo the fight. And then be surprised when they lost. (disclaimer: player in question is not a bad player and does not do this frequently but does get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes).

[icefractal]

"Everyone on their own side" games can be fun, but they do have a certain amount of overhead that not every group might want to deal with.

I mean, realistically, when you're forming a group to go into highly deadly situations for great rewards, with the possibility of influencing the world greatly - you don't just sign up whoever happens to bump into you. You'd want to have find out their background, try to get insight into their character, make sure they weren't going to betray you, and probably not make them full members immediately, but rather go with trial status at first. And even for those people who passed all that, there'd still be stuff you kept secret, items you held in reserve, meetings you didn't tell them about. And a lot more investigation into the validity of quest hooks.

Which can all be interesting, but it also takes up a lot of real-time, ends up splitting the party significantly more (which means more people waiting at any given point), and means that it's entirely possible that even a reasonable PC will ultimately not be accepted by the group, meaning that player needs to make a new character. So - there is definitely a trade-off there, and it's up to the group whether they want that.


Now what I've sometimes seen, and doesn't work well, is when people try to combine "PvP allowed" with "PC aura, everybody gets to be in the party (and stay in it)" That combination is essentially saying "some of the PCs get to be *******s, and nobody's allowed to do anything about it" and is usually a recipe for failure.

[SowZ]

If it yields an interesting story, I say awesome. That's basically my rule for everything. Though if the offending player really did outright betray the party, they might become an NPC and have to re-roll.

[Arxas]

I like to play out the decisions my players characters made.
The last time the group ended up killing innocent people in a town without knowing. After they realized what they've done they decided to leave the town before anyone would notice and camp in the woods.
But one players character felt bad about what he'd done and he wanted to symbolically bury his victim. So he snuck into town again at night and tried to carry a corpse outside of town. Naturally there are guards patrolling in town. Unfortunately for him the dice decided he wouldn't get away unnoticed. In the end he had to leave the corpse there and the guards on alert. After getting back to the party wondering where he wandered to he revealed what problems might come. The party wasn't pleased at all. And in the same night a large mob with pitchforks and torches came after them having them leave their safe spot. This is the only town on the island they're on and thus the only way to leave the island through the port after they've done what they came for. Tonight will be their escape from the island. I'm looking forward to what they come up with to leave from there.

That said, I let my players do what they want. But they have to deal with the consequences. In my opinion it's more fun and rewarding for me and them this way.

[KillianHawkeye]

I say to let them fight it out and face the repercussions because any time I think my PCs are screwed, they usually A-Team something together and come out relatively unscathed.