[RPG] How to narrate a player’s PC’s actions without causing unintended consequences for the PC

gm-techniquesnarration

Daxius: "I'd like to roll an investigate check on Statue 1." Rolls. "Solid… 19."

DM: "You walk around the statue, gliding your fingers along the rough outlines of it's crisp, defined craftsmanship. You pause as your fingers make contact with the mouth. You feel warm air coming out, and instinctively look to the statue's chest. It appears to be breathing, though very faintly."

This is good DMing (in my humble opinion). The player wanted to use an investigate check, and the DM wove how it happened into the context of the story. But then we continue…

Daxius: "Hmm… we'll get back to that in a second. Let's see what's going on with Statue 2." Rolls. "Ugh. 6."

Let's say Statue 2 is a magical trap of sorts — whoever touches the statue must resist turning to stone themselves. A six isn't high enough to notice this. The DM has a few options here on how to proceed…

  1. "How exactly do you investigate the statue?" This definitely alerts the player that something is up with it, and they will be naturally inclined to meta-game here, as the roll was poor so they probably don't want their character especially close to it. Plus, the DM didn't ask this during the investigation Statue 1, so the very question hints that Statue 2 is dangerous.
  2. "You make contact with the statue in the same manner as before, and are instantly overcome with abrasive magic. Roll a Con save." This is consistent with the narrative from before, but now the character is in trouble for something the player never explicitly said they did.
  3. "You don't notice anything special about this statue." This is super vague and a huge departure from the description given from the first investigation. And it leaves open the implication that they touched the statue in the same way they did the first one, which the DM would be assuming they didn't, where the players might be assuming they did.

The underlying problem here is that the DM sees in his mind's eye the way the world is, and no matter how descriptive he gets the players will always paint a slightly different picture for themselves. The small inconsistencies between the two are generally harmlessly bridged with the DM taking over how, specifically, the characters achieve the goal the players announced they were attempting. But, as above, there are certainly cases where what I would call good DMing forces the DM to either punish a player in the name of consistency, or reveal what should be unknown in the name of not subverting character control.

My question, then, is this:

As a DM, how does one resolve the occasional conflict of interest between wanting to employ creative narrative without bestowing undue consequences upon those player characters who become a part of that narrative?

Best Answer

System agnostic answer

Many roleplay games (D&D traditionally not among them) have the concept of "failing forward". This means that every roll has some consequence which is usually narrated by the GM and usually bad for the character or the party as a whole. A roll without possible negative consequences should not be made.

Examples of such rules are:

Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.

Sooner or later—sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis— they’ ll have their characters do something that someone else won’ t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the confl ict and roll the dice.

Roll dice, or say “yes.” (Dogs in the Vineyard)

Burning Wheel has "Intent" and "Let it ride" rules. Intent is stated before every roll. When the roll succeeds, the intent happens. When the roll fails, all manners of things may happen (at GMs discretion) but the intent definitively doesn't happen. This can't be changed by any roll until the situation in fiction has significantly changed. An example of this two rules in play would be:

Player: I want to pick the lock before the guards come around.

roll fail

GM: Yeah, you open the lock... just as a guard comes around the corner.

Apocalypse World has "moves" a GM (MC in Apocalypse World) can make when players fail a roll. The moves are of general nature ("take their stuff away", "separate them", "inflict harm") and don't have to be directly caused by the attempted action.

What that means for your situation

With the statue example this would mean that a failed roll would totally allow you to narrate the character springing the trap. He chose to investigate and thus took the risk of touching something, he shouldn't touch. If he insists on doing a "safe, no touch" investigation he most likely won't get much useful information (but also wouldn't have to roll).

Final advice

While some games support, encourage and even demand to be played like this, many games (including D&D) don't. Thus any attempt to start playing in this style has to be agreed upon with the whole group (trivially true when it is part of the official rules of the game being played). I strongly suggest shifting to "failing forward" as the alternative leads to very slow and static play-style where not much happens, nobody trusts one another and where there is constant rules lawyering.

Related Topic