Are they returning to VIP? Perhaps VIP can ask them how Brother Tuck is, mentioning . Then VIP can react with horror when they confirm that the person they talked to definitely does not have that distinguishing feature. Now it's a race against time to capture or silence this Father person before he talks to someone important about the plot.
I think I might go this route. Part of making contact was dropping off a quill magically paired with his own that would write what he did so they could communicate in secret (yes, it's a spanreed from Stormlight Archive). So I'm thinking he could ask if Tuck had an injury to his hand that would alter his penmanship, maybe mentioning that he's missing a couple fingers, which gives him very distinctive handwriting.
"Wait, he SPOKE to you? He took a vow of silence over ten years ago! Are you certain you spoke to the right person?! How did you confirm his identity?"
If they want to do a heist of this, I would recommend reading over "Kidnap the Archpriest" by Skerples. Might give you some great ideas on how to set it up as a really fun and involved heist encounter.
I agree with /r/DrDirtPhD , I ran "Kidnap the Archpriest" using the [CAIRN RPG](https://cairnrpg.com/) rules and it was an absolute blast. The open-ended, sandbox scenario brings out so much creativity in players and really fun as GM to add hidden treasure rooms, sewer tunnels, crypts with undead, etc
Knowing most players that would go:
"Yeah he seemed fine"
*dm confused they didn't react to physical feature comment*
"crazy how he only has one leg and blue skin and speaks only in poems"
*players look slightly confused because they don't remember that but otherwise shrug and ignore it and move on*
this is exactly what will happen with players who didn't bother to remember their contact's name and assumed the first NPC they spoke to was their guy
no hate for players like that, they're probably raised on video games and they're just acting as trained, progressing through the plot points. you can probably break that conditioning if you want to but it'll be work.
at least when a situation like the OP's happens, you now know you have to go overboard with your next "quest giver" cautioning the players to make sure they're talking to the right guy or collecting the correct macguffin, whatever. If they still act like they're following a map marker to a video game objective you will at least be 100% fair in dropping the hammer on them for it.
> raised on video games and they're just acting as trained
Or they aren't expecting the DM to lead them on a goose chase to do what is effectively a fetch quest and want to get back to actually playing the game. Not everything is the fault of "players dumb" and play style mismatch is a common problem for new DMs.
Likely, yes. What is the challenge? What problems are the characters working through? What room is there for players to act creatively or use their character's abilities?
It certainly *can* be done, but if you are playing a game where this is a major part of "gameplay" you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be playing a game that supports social play. I've just sat through too many sessions of a DM running us from NPC to NPC with no challenge or action, with players twiddling their thumbs at their character sheets full of spells and combat abilities.
The above situation probably shouldn't have been fully roleplayed out; saying "ok we go find the Father and deliver the message" gets the same thing done in zero time, letting everyone get back to playing the actual game. Full roleplay scenes are good fun, but fully roleplaying *everything*, *all the time* should really be using a system that supports that kind of play.
I didn't say they were wrong, I said a different system would support them better. D&D is not a universal system and it doesn't support heavy social roleplay groups very well. Again they are *allowed* to do it, and if it works it works, but I wouldn't want to be at that table.
Reminder that this entire thread is about how the players disengaging with the roleplay are idiots who don't know how to do it because they're "probably raised on video games", and that we only have one side of this story, from the DM who is being advised to double down and rugpull the players instead of talking to them about expectation mismatches.
This response reads like someone who finds any D&D that isn't combat tiresome
There are groups for players like you, but assuming you are the norm is silly, and also common for your type of player.
There are many ways in which a group could use their skills and abilities to assist them in the premise provided by OP, and the point is that they availed themselves of none of them and acted like video game characters for whom all interactions are managed.
I love running dialogue scenes, heists, skill challenges etc. But "go here and tell this to this person" is not a challenge, it is a waste of everyone's time.
This seems wise. Or maybe the illuminated father lets on what he knows to Brother Tuck, who is angry at the PCs because he had to silence the innocent Father. Some sort of consequence which they will remember but doesn't torpedo the plot
This is the right answer. Don't take away their agency by having everything blow up instantly, but do have there be consequences for acting recklessly.
I agree, give them a chance to fix it because it makes for better game play. But this blowing up immediately wouldn't be taking away their agency what so ever. That term is starting to become the new "railroad"
I agree with this. I think a better metric would be "how much fun would we all (me included) have if the entire plot was ruined by this incident?" This is table dependent, some might see the funny side of their idiocy and roll with a new direction, others might get demotivated by such a setback. And the DM will have a lot of work to do to keep some kind of thread going!
It kind of is. They acted on a reflex born from playing video games and talking to the first npc they see. I wouldn’t punish them too hard for it since I too would have assumed the first npc pushed by the dm is the contact. They made a mistake but it never occurred to them that it might be a mistake
Welcome to DnD.
There’s definitely no use in punishing them harshly for their decision, but you cannot forego consequences for the sake of player integrity.
If there is no consequence for the parties actions in game, you allow players to begin a line of understanding that they are free to do and act as they wish with little to no world consequences. You allow them to start believing they can do what they want, and that world you have created is subsequently less interesting because of it.
But that has nothing to do with taking away the players' agency. Maybe people are misunderstanding that term?
A player's, or the players', agency, is the concept of the players having choice in what their characters do, say, where they go, and how they act, without that being imposed upon them.
The DM saying "your contact is Brother Tuck in urban monastery, talk to him" doesn't remove the players' agency at all, unless they're *forced* to go there. They could just as easily have gone somewhere else, presumably.
Following, having the game world react to the players telling *the entire plan* to overthrow the city's elite, to a member of said city elite, isn't taking away the players' agency at all. I'd argue, in fact, it's *respecting it*. The players acted how they acted, and now there are consequences to that. As long as they're not forced to do anything because of it, all good.
Alright buddy, calm down. It's not that serious. I think a middle ground here is appropriate, that's all I was trying to say.
I agree that the players should face the consequences of their choices, as I mentioned in the comment you replied to. I just think there are multiple ways to handle that, and the best way is one that moves the story forward instead of backwards, and produces more fun for everyone involved.
Let's remember that this is a game, the ultimate purpose of which is—and has always been—to have fun.
**Personally**, I mean, I'd just play it out.
Dunno what the infiltration entails, but I'd contrive a way to absolutely inform them that their message hit the wrong person, even if it's just the VIP saying "Brother Tuck reached out to me, saying he hasn't recieved any message. Who exactly did you talk to???"
I feel like there are a lot of fun ways to develop the scenario, as is.
Maybe they have to come up with a Plan B, since Plan A is no longer viable.
Maybe they have to bring the Father into the fold of the plan, and he has his own agenda that complicates the initial mission.
Maybe we have to do a side mission to silence the Father from spilling the beans.
Obviously, I don't know the particulars, but this sounds like an intriguing complication - it does NOT have to be a "everything blows up in their face" affair, if you don't want it to be.
Part of making contact was delivering a magic communication device, so I think Brother Tuck's silence despite "receiving" it would be a clue. I think this middle route is probably the way to go.
Does the Illuminated Father not know it’s a magic communication device? Does he think it’s just a normal quill? Because that could be fun too… VIP sees a message coming through, but it’s just really bad fan fiction, or an inappropriate letter, or a grocery list, or a bad doodle or sketch.
Oh to expand on this (and hopefully OP sees), they could start getting an enchanted message as they arrive. A letter detailing their plan and seeking a solution to the matter, written by the Father with the intent to be hand-delivered or sent by a messenger.
Then it turns to an interception mission to stop the message from getting to the wrong people, followed by figuring out how to deal with their (incredibly) loose end.
If Illumined Father isn't aware it's a magical quill, he might end up using it and giving away he's not Brother Tuck before the players ever get back to the VIP... "Archbishop Vectron, I just received the most amazing information about a plot about which I must inform you..."
My players once told their plans verbatim to the enemy who had been pretending to be a traveling bard (enemy govt spy).
But the realization when their plans were foiled, perfectly, that it could only have been her was awesome. That was a decade ago and they still sometimes will randomly say 'fuck you sithril'.
Don't beat yourself up too much about it- all GMs have to find that balance. And then when you find it, you'll have another group and have to figure it out all over again.
Let them have that moment of dawning horror though, it'll be a good gaming moment.
my players were once running from the law in an authoritarian city and they manage to escape.
but after a while, the party has to return to the city to do some rebel activity inside.
a days walk outside the city, they encounter a group of guards and a short fight later the party has captured the captain of the squad. the guy doesn't wanna get killed and lies to the party that he's actually totally against evil government and is only a guard because he has no other choice. the players all believe him and don't wanna roll insight, even upon prompting.
the next day, they wanna sneak into the city and are talking plans. the guard captain suggests a brilliant one: those who fit are gonna dress in the armor of the guards they killed yesterday. they're gonna put one of themselves in chains and the guard captain is gonna lead them into town as guards who captured one of the escapees. NO INSIGHT AGAIN. ALL AGREE TO THE PLAN.
so they get going, they put their barbarian in irons and strap on the guard armor/use disguise self. they walk up to the gate, the guard captain greets the other guards and has them open the gate. they walk in, the gate closes and the captain announces to the real guards: "these guys are all criminals, they defeated my guards, capture them!" and another fight begins.
my players where SHOCKED at the betrayal.
I mean this sounds pretty funny, good fodder for some hijinks.
But in the future - this is player/PC disconnect. Players are not good at... NPCs. I rewarded one of my players with _inspiration_ last week because they got an NPC's military rank right in the session recap.
Whenever my players seem disoriented, I ask myself, "would their _characters_ be confused right now, too?" Or do the characters have a better grasp on the situation by virtue of being in front of that door with all five senses, and living in that world.
Finally a correct answer. So many DMs are acting like this is an opportunity to trick and punish the players for making wrong assumptions. If the players assume that they are doing one thing, the DM should either play along or they should make it clear that their assumptions are wrong. I really believe that it is a bad practice to trick your players like this, as they will just learn to shut up and not interact with anything because they don't want to get punished.
Yea I definitely would have said “hey uhhh y’all know you are looking for BROTHER Tuck right. …not father whoever this is. I mean, if y’all want to talk to him he seems nice and has invited you in, but just to be clear this is a different person than you are looking for and your character would 100% know that”
Now if they decide they wanna talk to father whoever cuz he seems nice? Game on.
Agreed. You're allowed to interject and clarify if you think they're operating on incomplete/fuzzy info. Which is going to happen pretty frequently a picture is worth a thousand words and all.
I both agree and disagree. Players ***should*** always know what their characters know. I agree with that 100%. But players are also free to make bad decisions and it's fair to play those out as their characters making mistakes instead of retconning them away.
OP's example is a real grey area for me. My group had a similar situation where one player told our prime suspect in a murder mystery where we were hiding the potential witnesses to his crime. All the information was properly presented, the player just wasn't thinking about what he was doing, and that turned into his character not thinking either. I guess it was out of character because the PC was acting as blasé about a murder as the player was acting about his weekly D&D game, but we just treated it as a bad lapse of judgment in-Universe. And my poor Monk had to Step of the Wind himself half to death to run across town and warn those witnesses that *somehow* the suspect found out where they were hiding...
I’ve never had this problem as a player.
Walked into a room with our favorite priest NPC once. He said, “Good morning.” after looking up from his papers.
I immediately when and grabbed the vengeance Paladin to use divine sense. Priest buddy is always looking at the door before I open it cuz he has excellent hearing.
Turns out it was a succubus in disguise and it was a fiend plot to infiltrate the church.
I pay attention to the smallest stuff. DM was thrown.
I am glad this works for you, but this is a perfect example.
I, as a player, don't give a shit about small NPC mannerisms because I've got twelve thousand other things going on, including the fact this is a game.
For my charecter though? I should absolutely be given a roll for my bard to note this minor discrepancy, since they're the one who lives in the world and would notice these things.
I have 2 players who take notes like psychos. One even tracks how much HP and DPS my monsters do. In this case I would make it a thing they have to deal with because I think they would think its fun and they like when stuff is realistic. IDK if even they'd pick up on a mannerism thing like that though. I'd probably let em roll like you said depending if I want it to be found or not.
I remember being told to rescue a halfling from a fire giants lair, except that I rescued the wrong halfling, i just assumed, it made for a funny moment when I returned the wrong halfling to the waiting mrs halfling 🤣🤣🤣
I've since learned to ask more questions on appearances etc. that and assuming makes an .... out of you and me. 😅😅
Alas she did not, more a case of what the? This isn't my husband?, My bard character was like ah nuts, well I escaped the lions den that is the fire giants lair, I ain't going back for my hat 😅🤣🤣🤣
Me, I would have asked them "can I ask why you are telling this random person the entire plan?". Likely just a misunderstanding and the players can clarify their intent.
Yeah theres a big difference between players insisting their characters do something dumb and just accidentally doing something dumb because they misunderstood who the NPC they were talking to was.
OP said they werent trying to trap the party, but they did, and honestly is a minor dick move.
I am relaxed, its only a minor dick move, not a major dick move. Easily recoverable, easily moved on even if OP doesnt recover. Still a slight dick move.
It’s not any kind of dick move, the players literally know nothing about this yet? Best outcome here is they get their asses chewed by their contact and realize they’re dumb af, and learn from it.
Yeah and punishing the characters because of a miscommunication between DM and Players would in fact be a dick move.
The best outcome is the DM sits down and clarifies things with the players and gives them a chance to do over the scene.
Punishing the characters? For doing something dumb? They literally just chose the first npc they ran into and spilled all the clandestine secrets of this scenario, down to naming coconspirstors…they were phoning it in and now the cooperative story they are all telling gets to change. When you mess up the message you were supposed to deliver things change. The dm can literally double or triple the amount of xp/mileage/time expenditure/story development/etc. from this arc now. Things have gone wrong and there’s soooo much more room for shenanigans now.
Hit the characters with a “punishment” but the players get rewarded with an even wilder ride.
Or…you know, just hand wave it and move on the players will never know. Start having to hold their hands more or start phoning in the scenarios yourself as the dm are the outcomes of play like this.
They only did something dumb because the players thought they were talking to someone else. The characters themselves presumably would have known better. Thusly the players should be given a second chance to confirm how their characters would behave in the situation. Part of a DM's job is to make sure everyone is on the same page.
Punishing them otherwise is classical antagonist DMing and would be pretty dickish.
For better or worse it’s the players that make the decisions for the characters. That’s the nature of the game. The characters can’t know any better because they are controlled by the players.
The Father was not aware of the plot before, but now he wants in and and wants a cut of the action. The party gains an ally but now has to manage the egos of both Brother and Father while still executing the original plan.
Sometimes it's a good idea to make sure players are seeing the same situation you are. When they still the thing, that's on them.
But I have literally asked my players more than once "what do you think you are doing" or "what do you think that will achieve"
Also have him add a complication to the plan, something to make it more awkward. He wants to retain power while the other people in the plot hate him, someone killed or having it committed in a certain way or at a certain time. Or all three
“ it must be done in 3 days time before the succession of the new arch bishop, ensure my rival doesn’t make it”
Passive insight, DC15.
On success: In hindsight, something seems a bit... off with that whole interaction.
Passive insight, DC 10.
You feel unsettled, but are unable to place why. See if prompts anyone to roll an active insight check with the above DC.
If these fail? Just play things out.
I'd set it lower than that, personally. They went looking for a peon and found a pope, that stands out. If shit is obvious for their characters *it can just be obvious*.
Okay, I think there's a way for you to have your cake and eat it too.
1. Next session, Brother Tuck is scheduled for some kind of public event that the party will come across. They will see that he isn't the same person they talked to last session.
2. Fortunately for the party, the person they _did_ talk to hasn't sounded the alarm yet. Maybe he's corrupt and trying to quietly use the information to gain money, power, prestige, etc? You can have the party find out when he is planning to meet with whoever will pay him for the info.
3. Party now has to race to stop the person they unwittingly spilled everything to, without raising attention.
4. Depending on what the party does for #3, they may also need to come up with a plan to keep the person he was going to meet with from becoming suspicious (ie, impersonate him and provide false info to the contact since they are expecting info from him).
This way, the party has consequences for their blunder, but it's fun, and the Grand Plan can still be enjoyed later too.
Just an idea. You'll have to fill in lots of blanks, of course.
Good luck!
Give them a reason to return to the area during the day to find a person hung in front of the monastery and if they stop to ask someone nearby the person says "of, that's Brother Tuck. He was hung for treason."
Then have other people named in the plot start turning up dead, and now they need to escape and all of their allies are 1) pissed at them and unwilling to provide assistance and 2) hunted themselves.
Have the BBEG put Brother Tuck on trial for treason, call the players as witnesses. Loudly and publicly thank the player for their tip-off afterwards.
Instead of attacking the elite, have the players defending themselves against the pissed off poor while being flattered by the elites.
Oh, absolutely blow it up. Those are my favorite sessions. Say hello to the consequences of your actions! Failure should always be as much fun as success.
Loose lips sink ships. I'd absolutely blow it up in their faces.
Few options here:
Party returns to VIP, he asks how Brother Tuck's adjusting to his crutches following his leg amputation a few days hence. Party realizes their guy had both legs, and now has to decide whether to fess up or fix their mistake (how?) Without putting themselves.
If the party is not intending on returning, have them recieve an urgent message from VIP, Brother tuck has reported she hasn't Recieved the intel she was expecting, now VIP can either summon them back to answer what the hell happened or may decide they were double agents, informers, conspirators, and as such need to be dealt with. Or maybe Brother Tuck reports that his monastery seems in the middle of a witch hunt as late at night a group arrived unannounced, rumours circulating are enough for Brother Tuck to piece together the rumours are very much real, and now they are in jeopardy, does the VIP need to extract Brother Tuck, or tie up loose ends.
Maybe the party nerds to get the father they spilled all the beans to onside, or disappeared
I would likely have it blow up in their face, have them and their co-conspirators arrested and tried, the whole nine yards. Obviously someone did not take the whole SECRET part of a secret plot seriously enough to verify who their contact was so there needs to be consequences. This doesn't mean it's the end of course as not everyone will be caught and someone might break them out of the dungeon but this is going to be a very different campaign at this point.
Of course you know your players better and how they'd respond to the situation blowing up, but I am personally a big fan of failing forward. Not all has to be lost, but now there's an entirely new problem to come solve. My players kind of enjoy bumbling into stuff without catching on and they really take in stride, so it's usually a fun time for my table. That being said, when your players look back at their actions, they should be able to clearly tell where they went wrong rather than be confused as to why it blew up. If it's a misunderstanding, it's going to feel like you made them fail.
Case in point, my players were investigating a series of graverobbings and strange rituals going on around a particular clan where one of the PCs is from. They strongly believe someone within the clan is involved bc its clear the culprit has knowledge of the clans practices. Later they track down an exile from this clan, who lives close by. He was exiled due to a mistake and misunderstanding but decided to keep his distance bc he's a grumpy old man, and most of the clan treats him as a non-threat, and he still wants to help the clan from a distance. The players immediately sympathize with him, and offer to help him win back the clans favor by having him pretend to be a corpse to lure out the graverobber. They do not investigate him at all, not even an insight check, detect magic, divine sense, all of which would have given them hints.
He hired the graverobber. So this is the perfect opportunity for him to fake his own death at the hands of his co-conspirator who escapes with his "body", and now he's effectively cleared himself of blame by being dead. When my players eventually tracked down the bad guys much later (giving them ample time to prepare and get reinforcements), they were absolutely floored that old guy was still alive and couldn't stop laughing at how they'd been had. We still talk about it and they had a field day taking him down.
Its time to give the father a fleshed out background story and goals for his life as well as his institution and maybe a political standpoint.
Then ask
How does the plan affect the father personally? Would it make him unsafe? Would he be able to use it for his own benefits?
How does the plan affect the church? Specifically this monestary? If so what actions need to be done to keep it safe? Does it need outside reenforcement? (And: who would reenforce it? The city watch? Or something private like the swiss guard?) or maybe the monestary could gain new population by offering safety to traitors and refugees from the cities- depending how connected worldly and sprititual lives are in your world (in european medieval times a monestary was its own city with its own rules and worldly leaders often had less to say there or nothing at all)
How does father think about politics? Is it important to uphold the order as it is? Could this be used to break down on the softness that came over society and reeintitute a ruling with an Iron fist? Could this be used tonget rid od opponents and/or bad leaders that go against the freedom?
Maybe he is with her harpers? That would probably influence the whole plot?
When in doubt, play the long game.
What is the possible impact now that the wrong person/group knows? What would YOU do?
These are members of a religious order. They are by nature and training contemplative. They won't act impulsively. They know the plans of the conspirator and co-conspirator (including timing, presumably). Do they wait and ambush? Do they reach out to allies? Do they launch a pre-emptive strike? Do they ignore the players because they are more worried about VIP?
This might be a good time to learn.
How good is Father's poker face? (Father? Father is the name of this person? Father Something?)
Insight check.
It's a little late now, but if this would have been shocking or otherwise surprising, would something have given it away?
Similarly, a religion or other kind of check to put "Illumined Father" together with "Brother" and come up with knowing that the two don't equate.
These are both "in the moment" things you can do in the future the *next* time someone screws up like this. Less of a now solution, and more of a "here's what to learn for next time" solution.
Wow. Now that is a whole other level of dumb. How could, not one, but a whole party of people be so careless 😂. Honestly hope it blows up in their faces, it’s definitely deserved.
I'd handle it by having that guy have been Brother Tuck the whole time. Only works in the moment, you can't go back in time and retconning is no fun, but quick adaptation in the moment, Brother Tuck is the one that answered the door. Players get excited. They sometimes don't behave like real people because they're playing a game. The character probably has higher wisdom and more common sense than the player. I wouldn't let it derail things too much.
I agree. Nothing in a game should be set in stone until it is said aloud. Unless someone said out loud that the guy is not brother tuck, he can still be brother tuck. Think about the most interesting idea you can have and roll with it.
So now they need to run into the person they were supposed to meet. Maybe he approaches them, then he should emphasize how they need to keep it a secret, especially from the father guy, and this will be hilarious to watch as they realize...
Lmao this happened (sort of) to my party. They found out that a lord's seneschal was a fiend. They sent him a letter telling him that. He then realized that they were on to him, and they never found out he was a vampire because before they had a chance to Divine Sense him he had some court mage or something cast Nystul's Magic Aura to disguise both of them. (To make it fair, though, I also had them NMA the seneschal out-of-session so when the paladin Divine Sensed again they saw that the aura had changed so they could easily glean that their information was possibly flawed)
I mean, sounds like more added drama to me! Have them run into the actual contact. It they don't tell actual contact what happened have him ask like "hey, how'd you guys manage to sneak in here?" and then let him be shocked and illuminate for them their recent errors. Now, can they find the Father in time to deal with him, or not, and let them deal with the fallout.
Some great ideas here of how to play it out, but something I just wanted to suggest for the future is that when my players completely misinterpret a situation to the point that it causes an issue this severe, I usually force a low DC intelligence saving throw. If they succeed, they recall the info I already gave them correctly, and I as a DM point out “hey, this is a really bad idea”.
Sometimes it’s not the players fault, we DMs tend to throw a lot of shit at the wall and sometimes it just doesn’t stick. Misunderstandings happen. Easier just to give the benefit of the doubt, and then if they still want to make the terrible decision, let them do it and see how it plays out!
Lmao, this is amazing, I don't get why you're upset. My campaign lives on the dumb choices of my players. This was a royal fuckup (pun intended), bring down the consequences, HARD, make sure they find out why they are pursued by the inquisition, royal guard and anything and everything in-between. It's going to be funny as hell, these fumbles create the most memorable campaigns even if they end in bloodshed.
My current players stole a very valuable artifact from a powerful necromancer. They went back to town and on their way asked every single non-violent encounter IN THE DUDES DUNGEON if they knew what it was for and showed it to them. I can't wait for the next sessions when they'll have to figure out why they are being hunted down by all kinds of undead all of a sudden. The campaign basically runs itself at this point.
So clearly the players were confused. At the time it would’ve been good to say “Hey, to remind you guys, your contact is Brother Tuck. This is the Illumined Father.” And they probably would’ve said “oh, nevermind, we’ll be on our way.”
If you proceed to blow everything up because of this misunderstanding it’s kind of like letting a character walk off a cliff because he didn’t understand how you described the terrain. Obviously his character, who is physically present in the world and would have an easier time following what’s happening, wouldn’t do that.
So I would be straight with them and tell them what happened. I’d ask them whether they want to retcon that scene and maybe play it out again now that they understand what’s happening. If they want to roll with it, fine. But this appears to be a miscommunication and it won’t be a fun experience if you dump a bunch of consequences on them without clarifying.
Rule of thumb, assume players are absorbing at most 50% of the information you’re putting in front of them.
I'd use this as an opportunity to stir a bit more chaos in without letting their plan completely fail:
Maybe the Father is fairly corrupt. He gathers a few level-appropriate "paladins" (people more loyal to him than the church) and confronts the party again by calling then to his private chambers.
If they go, he threatens to reveal their plot to the ruling class unless they do X (pay him off, retrieve some artifact, kill some political enemy etc).
Normally I'd go full 'cover's blown, the whole city is coming for you.' But here, honestly, I think I'd tell them at the start of next session what they did, laugh at them, and let them off with a warning to be better spies and pretend they did not drop the ball like a meteor.
As someone paranoid about what a DM expects me to know and do, I empathize with their weird choice, but this does seem a bit excessive. Did they assume that dude was Tuck? Do they usually do this? WHY was this choice made?
You could have them stumble upon the illuminated father trying to confront brother tuck possibly the brother is about to be executed. Then they need to modify their plan as they will realise they were two different people
If this is something that their CHARACTERS would have caught, having lived in a world where monks with various titles are a common thing, then I think it might be correct to re-do it.
The PLAYERS probably don't know a bunch of monk-stuff, and they assumed things that weren't in order... true. But if it were me, I'd expect the GM/DM to say, "Your guy knows that someone addressed as 'Father' would NEVER-EVER be presented as BROTHER by your patron."
Unless everyone in the game is really up on monk-nomenclature, I'd re-do it.
Even if both of them did have the exact same title, they should have checked the name. Whether they know all the titles or not, they didn't bother checking if this was the right person at all. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the DM to spell it out to them.
You should have had him say "Have you told anybody else?" because that's an instant giveaway. And if that wasn't clear enough, he should have told them "they'd get what's coming to them". And if that still doesn't clue them in, there should be a cut scene where he calls someone into his office and says, "You know what to do."
Don't prep plots, prep situations & the best laid plans never survive contact with the players. You handed them a situation ( the whole conspiracy ) they interacted with it and the world and created a new situation. Ideally you should never have more then 2 sessions prep work done outside of maps which are ALWAYS useful, Trust me your players won't recognize a map you used three years ago, so if this conspiracy falls apart that's the new situation and you need to prep only what they tell you they want to do about it & think about how the NPCs involved would react.
I can see why your players would assume he's the Father, based on the details you shared here so far. If you had the NPC mentioned the Father in third-person and you didn't describe this guy in detail, you have to realize they probably just assumed (not unreasonably) that the guy answered his own door, especially late at night. Players' eyes are limited to exactly what words and details you speak. When I have porters and assistants in between the party and an NPC I do try to make it obvious the secretary or whomever is an in-between dude, which seems to have been unclear at best.
In this case I say let your players have this one for free and silently retcon it so that they met Brother Tuck, because this one's not 100% on them. In the future try to make it more obvious that it's the NPC or not, even have the NPC have the decency to go "oh this sounds dreadfully important, please, I'll go get Brother Tuck immediately."
There are times the party screws themselves over, but I don't think this time is a time that will make them better players or increase their fun. To them it will feel like DM fiat.
>I can see why your players would assume he's the Father, based on the details you shared here so far.
Really? Because the details shared so far were,
>Very Important Person gave them a name to contact, "Brother Tuck." So they head over to this urban monastery in the dead of night and rap on the first door they see. A man opens it and says "Who are you to disturb the Illumined Father at this hour?" and my player tells him they have a secret message for him from VIP. He's curious what this is, so he lets them in, and they monologue their entire scheme.
The PCs knocked on a door in a monastery looking for *Brother* Tuck, were asked who disturbs the Illuminated *Father*, and that's it, they immediately assumed that the two NPCs who don't even share the right title (brother vs father) were the same person and immediately started talking.
Why would the players ever expect that the first person who answers the door of an entire monastery would have to be the one specific NPC they're looking for?
If I had to guess the players were imagining it as a standard regular local church which would typically only have one occupant. They were still lax not confirming their identity but their behaviour is much more reasonable in that scenario.
How clearly OP got across that it was a larger monastery with multiple occupants is something that's difficult to gauge when we only have OPs perspective but fundamentally their behaviour seems so absurd on the face of it, I do think it would have been worth clarifying OOC they were understanding the scene correctly.
That is a point I was pretty clear on, actually. I described a multitude of doors, they asked if one was different, and I said one was bigger and more ornate (being the leader's), and they chose that one.
I mean I'm not sure I've ever been in a church that didn't have a grander main entrance for the public and other smaller side accesses - even tiny ones.
Maybe you were clear, maybe you weren't. I can't count the number of times I've had a DM think they clearly explained something only for players to have a wildly different perception of what was going on (and to be clear - that is not always the DMs fault, sometimes players just generate their own preconceived notions).
Either way, it seems to me that in the moment for whatever reason all of your players clearly were fundamentally all misunderstanding something about what was happening in the game world.
It's the sort of accidental metagaming that new players might fall into, particularly if the world doesn't feel especially "real" or big to them. "The only characters we will encounter are those relevant to The Plot."
It’s possible. Players can have that video game mentality.
And the DM confirming the assumption by making the world with that way might not help.
them getting consequences that show the assumption was wrong, otoh, may help them make better choices next time.
How is this not on them? They met an NPC who didn't even introduce himself and spilled their entire secret plan without verifying he's the contact. And by "verify" I mean *ask him his freaking name*. The fact that they somehow connected "Illumined Father" to "this guy must be Brother Tuck" (at a monastery, nonetheless) is absolutely not on the DM.
I don't think this means OP needs to make everything totally blow up in their faces, but there can and should totally be consequences for that kind of recklessness.
>I can see why your players would assume he's the Father
Is the "he" in that sentence Brother Tuck?
>they probably just assumed (not unreasonably) that the guy answered his own door, especially late at night.
To clarify, they just knocked on *a* door at random.
>have the NPC have the decency to go "oh this sounds dreadfully important, please, I'll go get Brother Tuck immediately."
They didn't mention Tuck at all, they just said "We have a secret message for you," having assumed that the person they were speaking to *was* Tuck.
>To them it will feel like DM fiat.
I'm actually typically a *very* lenient DM, so I do wonder if that's partially why I don't want to completely write this off. The party's faced few consequences for many shenanigans, so when there's something big like this, I'm loath to retcon it.
Even if they did mention Brother Tuck, it doesn't make sense for the abbot to go get a monk instead because "this sounds important," he's already the guy in charge. Sure ecclesiastical titles are confusing sometimes, but come on, do these mfs buy their dads "world's #1 brother" mugs?
Definitely don't retcon it, when they find out how dumb their mistake was you'll all have a good laugh. The outcome's not all that different than it would be if, say, they were overheard and the abbot had Brother Tuck locked up, it just happened in a much funnier way. If you want them to feel redeemed after they figure out the mistake, have the abbot impersonate Brother Tuck and try to feed them false information, not knowing that they got up to speed in the meantime. Sometimes as a DM you try for Cloak and Dagger, but when your table starts playing Sack and Cudgel instead you're allowed to join in.
I agree with venator, there’s a good chance your players will feel you tricked them and screwed them over.
Knowing that you don’t call a monk father is assuming specific knowledge of the Catholic Church. Orthodox monks do get called father and protestants wouldn’t know there was a difference.
Well in this situation, I’d give them 2 options when the return to the quest giver. Either you go silence the witness you just created and hopefully you do it well enough not to get caught or cause concern. Or you move ahead with the plan with the possibility of walking into a trap because the Father told someone.
However I can understand where your players are coming from. What was said to them if that’s a direct quote doesn’t sound like someone referring to themselves. Also have they played more intrigue heavy DnD games? If you’re playing with a hack and slash party or a party of actors then often the train of thought for players is more like a video game where you can’t give the message to anyone besides who’s it’s intended for or the person that would shut it down. Like go to the meeting with the crime boss or go tell the captain of the guard are the only 2 available options. That’s not the case in DnD and sometimes a party has to learn the hard way.
I would just have small things prepared to thwart them. They are being watched after all and their plan is now known to the enemy. By small stuff I mean things that just directly/indirectly inconvenience them such as:
- their pictures have been spread amongst enemies
- theyre required to meet at a dock, security has now been beefed up
- they need to steal a key for access to a hidden/secret/convenient door... the locks have been changed
- the bridge they need to cross to get to a key place has been destroyed
Just make it seem like they have the WORST luck but not necessarily dooming everything and the world crashes down
Let everything play out.
Gives hints that they gave the information to the wrong person.
Then at the end the BBEG reveals their fool hardiness. Hopefully by that time, too much of the original is different then what it originally was that the BBEGs cockiness gets the better of him.
The person they were trying to contact may well have got wind of a group of impetuous adventurers turning up in the middle of the night.
So ... some kind of information may also get back to them, at least. Trying to fix their screw up may be a more interesting development.
Natural Consequences -> the plot is blown and the guy they told takes whatever moves would be in character to counter it. Whether that's having them jailed, assassinated, whatever depends on the dude, but the players need to reap what they've sown.
It would be interesting if the players learn through a friendly or allied NPC that they blabbed to the wrong person. The VIP or a minion of the VIP could approach the party early the next day and ask “why didn’t you contact Brother Tuck? You need to make contact with him.”
For the person they blabbed too, think in great detail about what they would do. Would they try to take action quickly? Would they try to gather more evidence to prove the case? Would they try to learn if there are others involved in the conspiracy whom your PCs failed to mention? Does the VIP have political protections or other protections that slow down the Father from responding as openly as he might otherwise?
Another option is that the Father character tries to send guards or militant supporters to arrest or confront everyone. Does he have enough resources to capture everyone all at once, or does he have to prioritize? Do the PCs end up learning that the VIP or other conspirators have been captured or killed? Would the Father instead go after the PCs first? Or would the Father move against some of the other conspirators, prompting the PCs to panic and reveal the hidden meeting place they have with the VIP (by the PCs seeking out the VIP at the usual, secret spot?).
The players will have plenty of ways to be unpredictable. You can have in mind what them trying to fight to an escape would look like, what trying to salvage the original plan would look like, what pretending to have flipped as double agents could look like, what fleeing to another city would look like immediately and over time in the campaign, and what trying to enlist other, outside factions to rally to the aid of the now-under-the-gun conspirators might look like. Do some of the conspirators have the means to go underground if needed?
My party did something similar though I kind of set it up. The person they spilled everything to was in disguise. But, before it got to that point, they failed a couple important rolls and a lot of shady red flags. I rolled with it and it's made it very interesting and overall they accepted they messed up and dealt with the fallout. I think it added a lot of drama for a party that normally always succeeds.
That said, I'd personally worry abit that I didn't telegraph it enough. It kinda sounds like they just assumed they got to the next location and were ready to deliver the message to move the story along quickly. I'd probably have called attention to it, at least in game, try and give them something to realize before they spill it all.
But you know your players more than any of us. Will this add drama to the game? Or do you worry some of your players might be likely to feel like they weren't given a fair chance to redo their mistake? I'd base it around what feels right for the party and their story and go from there.
If it makes you feel any better one of my party members tells every NPC we come across that we're not only on a mission, but a "SECRET" mission. 🤣 He's brand new though so can't blame him.
It would be a shame if everyone in the conspiracy was rounded up and imprisoned and/or executed allowing the ruling class to take drastic and tyrannical measures…
Just have it progress logically. The frustration you are feeling is due to your expectations as to how it would all play out not being met.
Throw away those expectations and just go with what happened.
I think brother Tuck tracks them down and gives them a scolding. THANKFULLY illuminated father is also a supporter of the plot... With a bit of bribing... That the characters will have to acquire. Rare vintage wine or something from the old abbey that is now occupied by a rival priesthood. Then the plot moves on, brother Tuck proves his position and usefulness to the cause, and they learn to verify contacts.
I agree with a lot of the input that centers around an NPC somehow letting the party know they messed up, so no hand-waving or retconning.
This seems like a consequential mistake though, so I think if it was me, I would stop trying to build an infiltration/undermining operation and this would immediately become a cat & mouse sort of intrigue game. The ruling class your players were garnering attention for, focusing on... are suddenly aware of the plot and have turned the eyes & resources of the rich onto this little party. The forces they wanted to undermine and dismantle are suddenly locked onto the party and preparing protection and retaliation. The players can learn what that means first hand, instead of only hearing through in-game narratives or out-of-game handouts, that the ruling class is oppressive. It could be a lot of work if you'd already planned out the campaign, but honestly, worlds are more real when we as GM's adapt our stories to what's happening, instead of keeping narratives stagnant.
Similar but different, I had a party spend an entire session pulling threads on a Moon Priestess leading into a secret chamber where she was housing members of a village affected by Lycanthropy and trying to tame the more feral ones and create a co-existence.
Two of my players just burst out "Wait, she's not taking us to the feywild?" Why would she be taking you to the feywild? Who said anything about the feywild?
Apparently in Critical Role the Moonweaver wanders back and forth between the material plane and the feywild? I just stood there asking questions "Are we in a CR campaign? Also you know this priestess worships Selune....also this is just a priestess not the goddess herself....we spent this whole session doing this because you heard MOON and assumed that meant feywild based on CR?"
One of the guys wanted me to retcon the whole session because they were originally planning to board a pirate ship and he thought that was more interesting. Left me wondering what the hell I could even do with where the game left off.
This doesn't seem like a "worst possible person" honestly, there's room to stretch here!
- Brother Tuck (BT) is a new NPC, I gather
- Even if the ruling class have incorporated themselves into the clergy, loyalty to a system is a spectrum
- So what does BT do with this information?
- *Competent Lawful*: BT tactfully informs proper authorities so to not ruin a potential trap being laid
- *Lawful: BT immediately informs proper authorities
- *Simpleton Lawful*: BT could confront the Father directly, effectively relaying the message but explaining why they're Citizens Arresting Father (leading to the Father "taking care of things" themselves and potentially deeply compromising their position, but being able to reconnect with the Party)
- *Competent Selfish*: BT orchestrates their own mini-coupe - [they're playing both sides](https://imgs.search.brave.com/eStxBERgxNRZ_07p5VYuC93En8hJuXhLM2kHnuScd2o/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmt5/bS1jZG4uY29tL3Bo/b3Rvcy9pbWFnZXMv/bmV3c2ZlZWQvMDAy/LzAwMi85MTAvMTAy/LnBuZw) and design a "gotcha" where BT essentially Little Finger-s the situation and they come out more powerful either way (**I like this one** because you can turn BT into a recurring character they know is exceptionally competent but completely self-motivated - might even be a fun temporary-ally-turned-bbeg for a later story arc)
- *Selfish*: The BT realizes that they could inform on the Party, but they might appear embroiled in this - hurting their future career chances. They decide to spy on the Party and the Father, to gather evidence.
- *Simpleton Selfish*: BT can be simply horrified by this news - their first thought turns to how 'I know! *I'm* now implicated in this plot!", and BT leaves town in a panic leaving little notice for anyone (this is the most 'mulligan' option for the Party - you can have mild set-backs from the BT neither relaying the message, nor informing on the Party)
- And if you want to buy even more time for the Party...
- *Competent Incapacitated*: BT was pretty drunk/awoken in the middle of the night/etc etc etc - they are gobsmacked at the audacity of the Party, but so gobsmacked are they that they don't really believe it. They will set upon themselves to subtly verify the points of fact in the plan they heard, and from there
- *Incapacitated*: BT heard it all and was shocked, shocked I tell you - but then went to bed and forgot all about it. (You could pocket this one as a tension-builder where BT *could* remember anytime, and if you don't put play that angle just pay it off after the coup with BT having an "Oh, yeaaah!" moment of recollection after they see it unfold)
- *Simpleton Incapacitated*: BT literally has no recollection of this conversation. They didn't ask a follow-up because they are a high-functioning alcoholic and they fell back asleep (standing up, eyes open) in the middle of the Party's long, BORING, diatribe.
One of the prominent members they named is either very publicly arrested or very quietly disappears, depending on the vibe. Just obvious enough that the co-conspirators can't assume it's a coincidence. One of the rulers the city has been told, and wants to see if he can use this info privately before blowing everything up.
The conspirators send *reliable* agents to find out who the party told, what they told, why they told. Then those agents try to kill them (duh). From these people(or their corpses) they also find out Brother Tuck is going to get the same treatment in a few short hours
The only way to save the plan: save Tuck, get to the Father, find whoever he sold them out to and kill them
I will say- what a funny and wonderful moment to have their entire plan blowup in their face. I think this can be transformed into a fun adventure- say they are arrested and have to escape jail, or they are surrounded and have to escape or fight, etc. you can still peruse the coup by having the co-conspirators suspecting the PCs would do a bad job anyways, so they have a plan B. The specifics would depend on the story tho
Could have missed it in the comments, but what would be the most fun? For you and the players. Nothing is fixed until spoken. However, maybe the players would LOVE the screwup.
Let it blow up in their face.
Best role playing is when adversity comes into play.
Maybe prompt wisdom checks for the characters to realize that they totally messed up.
That's the players being dumb, like really dumb.
I'm afraid you need to properly slap them for this, otherwise there is a chance they won't learn and will assume the DM will always bail them out.
You might want to give them chance to try to fix this, but they should not be able to do so entirely.
This SHOULD come back to bite them sooner or later.
Sometimes you just mess up and bad shit happens. You have to give them an opportunity to turn it around but you shouldn’t hand wave it. It’s also up to the players to get out of the hole they dug.
Make sure they clearly understand the situation at some point. Maybe a spy waves them over in an alley way to let them know that they just gave up all the information to the baddie and they are in incredible danger. Or a child hands them a letter in a toy box or something.
TPK TPK TPK. Sometimes it’s a good laugh when the entire party makes a major poor decision and it’s okay for them to pay accordingly 🤣. Have them arrested the following morning with hundreds of guards etc.
You can't have nothing happen, I mean come on. They willingly and unprompted gave their whole plan to an enemy, there HAS to be consequences. It's not like you made a spy sweet talk them or meta-gamed. They gave the plan for no reason, kill em
If you don’t want to mess up your story, just pretend that the person they talked to was the person they were meant to talk to. Just combine those two characters into one character.
They don’t know that they’ve messed up. They currently think they’ve given the info to the right person; let the person be the right person. Switch it in you own mind and come up with your own reason why that person would have been there and responded like that, but don’t tell them that.
To them, they’ve just done what they were asked. To you, a character you thought was somewhere else was actually talking to your group and had a title you didn’t know about and a weird reaction. It shouldn’t hurt the overall fabric of your story too much.
Or, let it play out and come up with a new thing that happens instead of what you thought might happen. Either way, your story isn’t broken; it’s just a bit different than what you thought it was.
Even if you tell your party something, it is not set in stone. In future sessions, the only things that “actually happened” in previous sessions are what your party remembers. They remember delivering the message to the correct person.
After they return to their VIP and the conclusion gets drawn that they went to the wrong person, I would turn it into kind of like a Mission Impossible thing where now they had to achieve the mission while also on the run
I feel like there is no good solution for you other than a TPK to teach them to check with whom they are talking with. I would have them rounded up put on trial and done in sometimes a new character is the only way they learn.
No, that's all on them. Sounds like a group who doesn't actually know you're to do shady shit in real life. * experience is the best teacher. This should be a learning experience in the campaign.
And major character development! The biggest losses are the best traders my dude! Have fun with this, and drag it out. Let them continue to think they are talking to the right guy and let them get in deep.
Unpopular opinion; I'd adapt and not tell.
The players think they've done well and have played at being conspirators. It sounds like this was a mistake due to a misunderstanding, and however obvious it might seem to us as DMs, it's easy to forget that players can miss details or misunderstand situations their characters would easily spot.
If your players think the character they spoke to was a trusted contact, and it makes your job easier to tell an interesting story if they were a trusted contact, I'd make that character a trusted contact. It goes against the storytelling instinct a lot of DMs have, but you don't stand to gain that much by having all aspects of your NPCs set in stone - even major aspects - if your players haven't discovered them yet.
I'm not saying your players shouldn't ever face consequences of their decisions. But they'll rarely enjoy it if they face the consequences of a decision they didn't fully understand. Take it as a lesson of what your players need - emphasise important details and don't be afraid to interrupt them if you think they're making a mistake because they've made a wrong assumption.
Do people not just inform their players when they're making incorrect assumptions that would glaringly conflict with what their characters are actually experiencing?
I don't know that anything did conflict with their assumptions. Usually I do point it out if player assumptions conflict with character knowledge, but that wasn't really the case here. It was more that their assumptions were just... baseless.
Sorry but, I’d have them watch in abject horror as the vip and Tuck are publicly executed for treason. (Reasonable thing to do if they are trying to subvert or overthrow the ruling class) and then watch as their own posters and faces are plastered over the town. Turn it into a thrilling escape from the city and let them live with some bounties for their stupidity. Then introduce the underground resistance who is set on overthrowing the now openly tyrannical ruling class. Toss in a few sharp comments point at them ruining the first plan from a disgruntled monk (Tucks former bff) and you’ve got a whole on the run revolution arc to go through.
Maybe they’ll learn their lesson too after their leads literally go dead before their eyes.
Or just start having assassins come after them from the church. Nothing said tyrant ruling class like church assassins.
Don't be so obtuse. That guy is now father Tuck or another faithful member of his clergy. The world lives in your head with your prep and notes, and you need to communicate that and players need to interpret that. Stuff gets lost in translation, often people experience what scene you're trying to convey totally different. You set the scene and they thought they were talking to Father Tuck. In the street with him at the door where everyone around could've heard probably too, or you could just work with the party and allow some leeway to make things be as they intended.
If I pulled shit like this over misinterpretations on my players I would stunlock them in every following session about every minute detail, too afraid to mess up again. Just "yes and ..." them and keep the story you're trying to tell going
You shouldn't harshly punish this mistake because its definitely a result of something that can easily happen in ttrpgs of just miscommunication leading to a desynchronisation in understood continuity between GM and players (in hindsight you probably could've just told them "hey hey wait pause for a second you just confirmed this guy's name he's not who you're trying to talk to" but there's not much point in going "the solution was to do this instead" outside of trying to learn for the future it doesn't help. Maybe the person they spoke to has a sudden crisis of faith, themself dumbfounded by what they were told and would lead to them trying to verify what they heard with someone else who actually was in on it, who eases his concerns while wanting to remind the pcs of their mistakes and to be more careful next time.
Are they returning to VIP? Perhaps VIP can ask them how Brother Tuck is, mentioning. Then VIP can react with horror when they confirm that the person they talked to definitely does not have that distinguishing feature. Now it's a race against time to capture or silence this Father person before he talks to someone important about the plot.
I think I might go this route. Part of making contact was dropping off a quill magically paired with his own that would write what he did so they could communicate in secret (yes, it's a spanreed from Stormlight Archive). So I'm thinking he could ask if Tuck had an injury to his hand that would alter his penmanship, maybe mentioning that he's missing a couple fingers, which gives him very distinctive handwriting.
"Wait, he SPOKE to you? He took a vow of silence over ten years ago! Are you certain you spoke to the right person?! How did you confirm his identity?"
Lmao very tempted to use that
Please do, and let us know how it goes. That is *hilarious* and would get the point across immediately.
Id love to see the look on their faces when the penny drops.
Dude I’m following your profile just to catch this update haha
I’m also following for the update!
Ditto
Make him a mute. Tongue cut out for vow of silence so you're players can't jump to dumb idea that he broke said vow?
Right you clearly can't expect the players to have bright ideas, ever, after this
Yes, do. Anything more subtle will likely be missed
Party has shown it can’t be trusted with anything lol
That's fucking hilarious
If they want to do a heist of this, I would recommend reading over "Kidnap the Archpriest" by Skerples. Might give you some great ideas on how to set it up as a really fun and involved heist encounter.
Well the title certainly sounds relevant lol
I agree with /r/DrDirtPhD , I ran "Kidnap the Archpriest" using the [CAIRN RPG](https://cairnrpg.com/) rules and it was an absolute blast. The open-ended, sandbox scenario brings out so much creativity in players and really fun as GM to add hidden treasure rooms, sewer tunnels, crypts with undead, etc
It even has a "race against time" component to it!
I’m reading this series for the first time right now, how wild! I hadn’t heard of it before this week.
You're in for a ride!
Oh boy. Journey before destination, Radiant. It’s a hell of a ride.
I think I'm on my 8th reread since finding SLA last year if that tells you anything lol
Spanreeds are the coolest, I love how you added them to your game and made them available for the players to strategize with!
Made available? Check. Given to completely the wrong guy? Check. *Gru looking back at the bad panel meme*
Such is the way of the life of a DM 😆
The cost for their carelessness could be the VIP being captured in their climactic escape.
Love the stormlight reference
Knowing most players that would go: "Yeah he seemed fine" *dm confused they didn't react to physical feature comment* "crazy how he only has one leg and blue skin and speaks only in poems" *players look slightly confused because they don't remember that but otherwise shrug and ignore it and move on*
this is exactly what will happen with players who didn't bother to remember their contact's name and assumed the first NPC they spoke to was their guy no hate for players like that, they're probably raised on video games and they're just acting as trained, progressing through the plot points. you can probably break that conditioning if you want to but it'll be work. at least when a situation like the OP's happens, you now know you have to go overboard with your next "quest giver" cautioning the players to make sure they're talking to the right guy or collecting the correct macguffin, whatever. If they still act like they're following a map marker to a video game objective you will at least be 100% fair in dropping the hammer on them for it.
When they get back, the VIP is gone, his property shows heavy signs of fire damage, and there’s an inquisitor waiting for the party.
> raised on video games and they're just acting as trained Or they aren't expecting the DM to lead them on a goose chase to do what is effectively a fetch quest and want to get back to actually playing the game. Not everything is the fault of "players dumb" and play style mismatch is a common problem for new DMs.
Is finding one person that you know the location of and delivering a message really a goose chase?
Likely, yes. What is the challenge? What problems are the characters working through? What room is there for players to act creatively or use their character's abilities? It certainly *can* be done, but if you are playing a game where this is a major part of "gameplay" you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be playing a game that supports social play. I've just sat through too many sessions of a DM running us from NPC to NPC with no challenge or action, with players twiddling their thumbs at their character sheets full of spells and combat abilities. The above situation probably shouldn't have been fully roleplayed out; saying "ok we go find the Father and deliver the message" gets the same thing done in zero time, letting everyone get back to playing the actual game. Full roleplay scenes are good fun, but fully roleplaying *everything*, *all the time* should really be using a system that supports that kind of play.
Agree to disagree I guess. Some people like to RP everything and they aren't playing wrong by doing so.
I didn't say they were wrong, I said a different system would support them better. D&D is not a universal system and it doesn't support heavy social roleplay groups very well. Again they are *allowed* to do it, and if it works it works, but I wouldn't want to be at that table. Reminder that this entire thread is about how the players disengaging with the roleplay are idiots who don't know how to do it because they're "probably raised on video games", and that we only have one side of this story, from the DM who is being advised to double down and rugpull the players instead of talking to them about expectation mismatches.
This response reads like someone who finds any D&D that isn't combat tiresome There are groups for players like you, but assuming you are the norm is silly, and also common for your type of player. There are many ways in which a group could use their skills and abilities to assist them in the premise provided by OP, and the point is that they availed themselves of none of them and acted like video game characters for whom all interactions are managed.
I love running dialogue scenes, heists, skill challenges etc. But "go here and tell this to this person" is not a challenge, it is a waste of everyone's time.
This seems wise. Or maybe the illuminated father lets on what he knows to Brother Tuck, who is angry at the PCs because he had to silence the innocent Father. Some sort of consequence which they will remember but doesn't torpedo the plot
This is the right answer. Don't take away their agency by having everything blow up instantly, but do have there be consequences for acting recklessly.
I think it is a LITTLE strong to say that it is taking away their agency, but this solution is still a great one, nonetheless.
I agree, give them a chance to fix it because it makes for better game play. But this blowing up immediately wouldn't be taking away their agency what so ever. That term is starting to become the new "railroad"
I agree with this. I think a better metric would be "how much fun would we all (me included) have if the entire plot was ruined by this incident?" This is table dependent, some might see the funny side of their idiocy and roll with a new direction, others might get demotivated by such a setback. And the DM will have a lot of work to do to keep some kind of thread going!
It kind of is. They acted on a reflex born from playing video games and talking to the first npc they see. I wouldn’t punish them too hard for it since I too would have assumed the first npc pushed by the dm is the contact. They made a mistake but it never occurred to them that it might be a mistake
Welcome to DnD. There’s definitely no use in punishing them harshly for their decision, but you cannot forego consequences for the sake of player integrity. If there is no consequence for the parties actions in game, you allow players to begin a line of understanding that they are free to do and act as they wish with little to no world consequences. You allow them to start believing they can do what they want, and that world you have created is subsequently less interesting because of it.
But that has nothing to do with taking away the players' agency. Maybe people are misunderstanding that term? A player's, or the players', agency, is the concept of the players having choice in what their characters do, say, where they go, and how they act, without that being imposed upon them. The DM saying "your contact is Brother Tuck in urban monastery, talk to him" doesn't remove the players' agency at all, unless they're *forced* to go there. They could just as easily have gone somewhere else, presumably. Following, having the game world react to the players telling *the entire plan* to overthrow the city's elite, to a member of said city elite, isn't taking away the players' agency at all. I'd argue, in fact, it's *respecting it*. The players acted how they acted, and now there are consequences to that. As long as they're not forced to do anything because of it, all good.
> Don't take away their agency It's called a consequence of their "agency." JFC so many DMs these days are soft af, no wonder players are spoiled.
Alright buddy, calm down. It's not that serious. I think a middle ground here is appropriate, that's all I was trying to say. I agree that the players should face the consequences of their choices, as I mentioned in the comment you replied to. I just think there are multiple ways to handle that, and the best way is one that moves the story forward instead of backwards, and produces more fun for everyone involved. Let's remember that this is a game, the ultimate purpose of which is—and has always been—to have fun.
It's a game dude. Touch grass.
A birthmark in the shape of Whistler’s Mother.
Deep cut.
Ah yes brother tuck, the storm giant! I haven't seen him in a while, how is he?
This is the way
**Personally**, I mean, I'd just play it out. Dunno what the infiltration entails, but I'd contrive a way to absolutely inform them that their message hit the wrong person, even if it's just the VIP saying "Brother Tuck reached out to me, saying he hasn't recieved any message. Who exactly did you talk to???" I feel like there are a lot of fun ways to develop the scenario, as is. Maybe they have to come up with a Plan B, since Plan A is no longer viable. Maybe they have to bring the Father into the fold of the plan, and he has his own agenda that complicates the initial mission. Maybe we have to do a side mission to silence the Father from spilling the beans. Obviously, I don't know the particulars, but this sounds like an intriguing complication - it does NOT have to be a "everything blows up in their face" affair, if you don't want it to be.
Part of making contact was delivering a magic communication device, so I think Brother Tuck's silence despite "receiving" it would be a clue. I think this middle route is probably the way to go.
Does the Illuminated Father not know it’s a magic communication device? Does he think it’s just a normal quill? Because that could be fun too… VIP sees a message coming through, but it’s just really bad fan fiction, or an inappropriate letter, or a grocery list, or a bad doodle or sketch.
Oh to expand on this (and hopefully OP sees), they could start getting an enchanted message as they arrive. A letter detailing their plan and seeking a solution to the matter, written by the Father with the intent to be hand-delivered or sent by a messenger. Then it turns to an interception mission to stop the message from getting to the wrong people, followed by figuring out how to deal with their (incredibly) loose end.
This is gold!
If Illumined Father isn't aware it's a magical quill, he might end up using it and giving away he's not Brother Tuck before the players ever get back to the VIP... "Archbishop Vectron, I just received the most amazing information about a plot about which I must inform you..."
My players once told their plans verbatim to the enemy who had been pretending to be a traveling bard (enemy govt spy). But the realization when their plans were foiled, perfectly, that it could only have been her was awesome. That was a decade ago and they still sometimes will randomly say 'fuck you sithril'.
That does sound fun! I'm so bad at hinting at things though. I can't find a balance between being too subtle and spelling everything out.
Don't beat yourself up too much about it- all GMs have to find that balance. And then when you find it, you'll have another group and have to figure it out all over again. Let them have that moment of dawning horror though, it'll be a good gaming moment.
my players were once running from the law in an authoritarian city and they manage to escape. but after a while, the party has to return to the city to do some rebel activity inside. a days walk outside the city, they encounter a group of guards and a short fight later the party has captured the captain of the squad. the guy doesn't wanna get killed and lies to the party that he's actually totally against evil government and is only a guard because he has no other choice. the players all believe him and don't wanna roll insight, even upon prompting. the next day, they wanna sneak into the city and are talking plans. the guard captain suggests a brilliant one: those who fit are gonna dress in the armor of the guards they killed yesterday. they're gonna put one of themselves in chains and the guard captain is gonna lead them into town as guards who captured one of the escapees. NO INSIGHT AGAIN. ALL AGREE TO THE PLAN. so they get going, they put their barbarian in irons and strap on the guard armor/use disguise self. they walk up to the gate, the guard captain greets the other guards and has them open the gate. they walk in, the gate closes and the captain announces to the real guards: "these guys are all criminals, they defeated my guards, capture them!" and another fight begins. my players where SHOCKED at the betrayal.
I mean this sounds pretty funny, good fodder for some hijinks. But in the future - this is player/PC disconnect. Players are not good at... NPCs. I rewarded one of my players with _inspiration_ last week because they got an NPC's military rank right in the session recap. Whenever my players seem disoriented, I ask myself, "would their _characters_ be confused right now, too?" Or do the characters have a better grasp on the situation by virtue of being in front of that door with all five senses, and living in that world.
Finally a correct answer. So many DMs are acting like this is an opportunity to trick and punish the players for making wrong assumptions. If the players assume that they are doing one thing, the DM should either play along or they should make it clear that their assumptions are wrong. I really believe that it is a bad practice to trick your players like this, as they will just learn to shut up and not interact with anything because they don't want to get punished.
Yea I definitely would have said “hey uhhh y’all know you are looking for BROTHER Tuck right. …not father whoever this is. I mean, if y’all want to talk to him he seems nice and has invited you in, but just to be clear this is a different person than you are looking for and your character would 100% know that” Now if they decide they wanna talk to father whoever cuz he seems nice? Game on.
Agreed. You're allowed to interject and clarify if you think they're operating on incomplete/fuzzy info. Which is going to happen pretty frequently a picture is worth a thousand words and all.
Absolutely agree with this answer.
I both agree and disagree. Players ***should*** always know what their characters know. I agree with that 100%. But players are also free to make bad decisions and it's fair to play those out as their characters making mistakes instead of retconning them away. OP's example is a real grey area for me. My group had a similar situation where one player told our prime suspect in a murder mystery where we were hiding the potential witnesses to his crime. All the information was properly presented, the player just wasn't thinking about what he was doing, and that turned into his character not thinking either. I guess it was out of character because the PC was acting as blasé about a murder as the player was acting about his weekly D&D game, but we just treated it as a bad lapse of judgment in-Universe. And my poor Monk had to Step of the Wind himself half to death to run across town and warn those witnesses that *somehow* the suspect found out where they were hiding...
I’ve never had this problem as a player. Walked into a room with our favorite priest NPC once. He said, “Good morning.” after looking up from his papers. I immediately when and grabbed the vengeance Paladin to use divine sense. Priest buddy is always looking at the door before I open it cuz he has excellent hearing. Turns out it was a succubus in disguise and it was a fiend plot to infiltrate the church. I pay attention to the smallest stuff. DM was thrown.
I am glad this works for you, but this is a perfect example. I, as a player, don't give a shit about small NPC mannerisms because I've got twelve thousand other things going on, including the fact this is a game. For my charecter though? I should absolutely be given a roll for my bard to note this minor discrepancy, since they're the one who lives in the world and would notice these things.
I have 2 players who take notes like psychos. One even tracks how much HP and DPS my monsters do. In this case I would make it a thing they have to deal with because I think they would think its fun and they like when stuff is realistic. IDK if even they'd pick up on a mannerism thing like that though. I'd probably let em roll like you said depending if I want it to be found or not.
I remember being told to rescue a halfling from a fire giants lair, except that I rescued the wrong halfling, i just assumed, it made for a funny moment when I returned the wrong halfling to the waiting mrs halfling 🤣🤣🤣 I've since learned to ask more questions on appearances etc. that and assuming makes an .... out of you and me. 😅😅
Did the halfling Mrs. see it as a trade up? “Yeah, I like this guy better”
Alas she did not, more a case of what the? This isn't my husband?, My bard character was like ah nuts, well I escaped the lions den that is the fire giants lair, I ain't going back for my hat 😅🤣🤣🤣
Me, I would have asked them "can I ask why you are telling this random person the entire plan?". Likely just a misunderstanding and the players can clarify their intent.
Yeah theres a big difference between players insisting their characters do something dumb and just accidentally doing something dumb because they misunderstood who the NPC they were talking to was. OP said they werent trying to trap the party, but they did, and honestly is a minor dick move.
It's not a dick move it's a minor mistake man. Relax.
I am relaxed, its only a minor dick move, not a major dick move. Easily recoverable, easily moved on even if OP doesnt recover. Still a slight dick move.
It would be a dick move if it was intentionally malicious. It was not.
It’s not any kind of dick move, the players literally know nothing about this yet? Best outcome here is they get their asses chewed by their contact and realize they’re dumb af, and learn from it.
Yeah and punishing the characters because of a miscommunication between DM and Players would in fact be a dick move. The best outcome is the DM sits down and clarifies things with the players and gives them a chance to do over the scene.
Punishing the characters? For doing something dumb? They literally just chose the first npc they ran into and spilled all the clandestine secrets of this scenario, down to naming coconspirstors…they were phoning it in and now the cooperative story they are all telling gets to change. When you mess up the message you were supposed to deliver things change. The dm can literally double or triple the amount of xp/mileage/time expenditure/story development/etc. from this arc now. Things have gone wrong and there’s soooo much more room for shenanigans now. Hit the characters with a “punishment” but the players get rewarded with an even wilder ride. Or…you know, just hand wave it and move on the players will never know. Start having to hold their hands more or start phoning in the scenarios yourself as the dm are the outcomes of play like this.
They only did something dumb because the players thought they were talking to someone else. The characters themselves presumably would have known better. Thusly the players should be given a second chance to confirm how their characters would behave in the situation. Part of a DM's job is to make sure everyone is on the same page. Punishing them otherwise is classical antagonist DMing and would be pretty dickish.
For better or worse it’s the players that make the decisions for the characters. That’s the nature of the game. The characters can’t know any better because they are controlled by the players.
Which is why itd be dickish to punish them for a DM to Player misunderstanding.
The Father was not aware of the plot before, but now he wants in and and wants a cut of the action. The party gains an ally but now has to manage the egos of both Brother and Father while still executing the original plan.
I hadn't considered having him turn his coat. He'd be a very unsavory ally, but that's an interesting proposition.
Sometimes it's a good idea to make sure players are seeing the same situation you are. When they still the thing, that's on them. But I have literally asked my players more than once "what do you think you are doing" or "what do you think that will achieve"
Assuming they don't know much about him he can be character shifted.
All the better! Perhaps he blackmails the party for more influence in their plot
Also have him add a complication to the plan, something to make it more awkward. He wants to retain power while the other people in the plot hate him, someone killed or having it committed in a certain way or at a certain time. Or all three “ it must be done in 3 days time before the succession of the new arch bishop, ensure my rival doesn’t make it”
Fathers share/bribe for his silence comes out of the parties cut. Things go smoothly, but party learns (maybe)
Passive insight, DC15. On success: In hindsight, something seems a bit... off with that whole interaction. Passive insight, DC 10. You feel unsettled, but are unable to place why. See if prompts anyone to roll an active insight check with the above DC. If these fail? Just play things out.
I'd set it lower than that, personally. They went looking for a peon and found a pope, that stands out. If shit is obvious for their characters *it can just be obvious*.
Why make it a roll at all? When it's this obvious, just tell them since their characters would certainly know.
Okay, I think there's a way for you to have your cake and eat it too. 1. Next session, Brother Tuck is scheduled for some kind of public event that the party will come across. They will see that he isn't the same person they talked to last session. 2. Fortunately for the party, the person they _did_ talk to hasn't sounded the alarm yet. Maybe he's corrupt and trying to quietly use the information to gain money, power, prestige, etc? You can have the party find out when he is planning to meet with whoever will pay him for the info. 3. Party now has to race to stop the person they unwittingly spilled everything to, without raising attention. 4. Depending on what the party does for #3, they may also need to come up with a plan to keep the person he was going to meet with from becoming suspicious (ie, impersonate him and provide false info to the contact since they are expecting info from him). This way, the party has consequences for their blunder, but it's fun, and the Grand Plan can still be enjoyed later too. Just an idea. You'll have to fill in lots of blanks, of course. Good luck!
Give them a reason to return to the area during the day to find a person hung in front of the monastery and if they stop to ask someone nearby the person says "of, that's Brother Tuck. He was hung for treason." Then have other people named in the plot start turning up dead, and now they need to escape and all of their allies are 1) pissed at them and unwilling to provide assistance and 2) hunted themselves.
This.
I like this one. Esp if you're running a sandbox-esc type world and the town/city isn't immensely important to the larger plot.
Have the BBEG put Brother Tuck on trial for treason, call the players as witnesses. Loudly and publicly thank the player for their tip-off afterwards. Instead of attacking the elite, have the players defending themselves against the pissed off poor while being flattered by the elites.
Please please please post an update after
Oh, absolutely blow it up. Those are my favorite sessions. Say hello to the consequences of your actions! Failure should always be as much fun as success.
Yessss. These guys fucked up hard. Let um get deep into the shit and make it fun and difficult but achievable to crawl out!
- Good evening. Who are you ? - Listen, Eren. I'm the armored Titan and he is the colossal...
Loose lips sink ships. I'd absolutely blow it up in their faces. Few options here: Party returns to VIP, he asks how Brother Tuck's adjusting to his crutches following his leg amputation a few days hence. Party realizes their guy had both legs, and now has to decide whether to fess up or fix their mistake (how?) Without putting themselves. If the party is not intending on returning, have them recieve an urgent message from VIP, Brother tuck has reported she hasn't Recieved the intel she was expecting, now VIP can either summon them back to answer what the hell happened or may decide they were double agents, informers, conspirators, and as such need to be dealt with. Or maybe Brother Tuck reports that his monastery seems in the middle of a witch hunt as late at night a group arrived unannounced, rumours circulating are enough for Brother Tuck to piece together the rumours are very much real, and now they are in jeopardy, does the VIP need to extract Brother Tuck, or tie up loose ends. Maybe the party nerds to get the father they spilled all the beans to onside, or disappeared
Awesome options. There’s a lot of potential here!
I would likely have it blow up in their face, have them and their co-conspirators arrested and tried, the whole nine yards. Obviously someone did not take the whole SECRET part of a secret plot seriously enough to verify who their contact was so there needs to be consequences. This doesn't mean it's the end of course as not everyone will be caught and someone might break them out of the dungeon but this is going to be a very different campaign at this point.
I would simply apply the natural consequences. As co-conspirators are rounded up, the PCs can choose to fight or flee.
Of course you know your players better and how they'd respond to the situation blowing up, but I am personally a big fan of failing forward. Not all has to be lost, but now there's an entirely new problem to come solve. My players kind of enjoy bumbling into stuff without catching on and they really take in stride, so it's usually a fun time for my table. That being said, when your players look back at their actions, they should be able to clearly tell where they went wrong rather than be confused as to why it blew up. If it's a misunderstanding, it's going to feel like you made them fail. Case in point, my players were investigating a series of graverobbings and strange rituals going on around a particular clan where one of the PCs is from. They strongly believe someone within the clan is involved bc its clear the culprit has knowledge of the clans practices. Later they track down an exile from this clan, who lives close by. He was exiled due to a mistake and misunderstanding but decided to keep his distance bc he's a grumpy old man, and most of the clan treats him as a non-threat, and he still wants to help the clan from a distance. The players immediately sympathize with him, and offer to help him win back the clans favor by having him pretend to be a corpse to lure out the graverobber. They do not investigate him at all, not even an insight check, detect magic, divine sense, all of which would have given them hints. He hired the graverobber. So this is the perfect opportunity for him to fake his own death at the hands of his co-conspirator who escapes with his "body", and now he's effectively cleared himself of blame by being dead. When my players eventually tracked down the bad guys much later (giving them ample time to prepare and get reinforcements), they were absolutely floored that old guy was still alive and couldn't stop laughing at how they'd been had. We still talk about it and they had a field day taking him down.
Its time to give the father a fleshed out background story and goals for his life as well as his institution and maybe a political standpoint. Then ask How does the plan affect the father personally? Would it make him unsafe? Would he be able to use it for his own benefits? How does the plan affect the church? Specifically this monestary? If so what actions need to be done to keep it safe? Does it need outside reenforcement? (And: who would reenforce it? The city watch? Or something private like the swiss guard?) or maybe the monestary could gain new population by offering safety to traitors and refugees from the cities- depending how connected worldly and sprititual lives are in your world (in european medieval times a monestary was its own city with its own rules and worldly leaders often had less to say there or nothing at all) How does father think about politics? Is it important to uphold the order as it is? Could this be used to break down on the softness that came over society and reeintitute a ruling with an Iron fist? Could this be used tonget rid od opponents and/or bad leaders that go against the freedom? Maybe he is with her harpers? That would probably influence the whole plot?
Maybe the person they blabbed to will try to turn the tables and blackmail them.
Or blackmail the VIP. New set of quests, angry patron…
When in doubt, play the long game. What is the possible impact now that the wrong person/group knows? What would YOU do? These are members of a religious order. They are by nature and training contemplative. They won't act impulsively. They know the plans of the conspirator and co-conspirator (including timing, presumably). Do they wait and ambush? Do they reach out to allies? Do they launch a pre-emptive strike? Do they ignore the players because they are more worried about VIP?
This might be a good time to learn. How good is Father's poker face? (Father? Father is the name of this person? Father Something?) Insight check. It's a little late now, but if this would have been shocking or otherwise surprising, would something have given it away? Similarly, a religion or other kind of check to put "Illumined Father" together with "Brother" and come up with knowing that the two don't equate. These are both "in the moment" things you can do in the future the *next* time someone screws up like this. Less of a now solution, and more of a "here's what to learn for next time" solution.
Wow. Now that is a whole other level of dumb. How could, not one, but a whole party of people be so careless 😂. Honestly hope it blows up in their faces, it’s definitely deserved.
I'd handle it by having that guy have been Brother Tuck the whole time. Only works in the moment, you can't go back in time and retconning is no fun, but quick adaptation in the moment, Brother Tuck is the one that answered the door. Players get excited. They sometimes don't behave like real people because they're playing a game. The character probably has higher wisdom and more common sense than the player. I wouldn't let it derail things too much.
I agree. Nothing in a game should be set in stone until it is said aloud. Unless someone said out loud that the guy is not brother tuck, he can still be brother tuck. Think about the most interesting idea you can have and roll with it.
So now they need to run into the person they were supposed to meet. Maybe he approaches them, then he should emphasize how they need to keep it a secret, especially from the father guy, and this will be hilarious to watch as they realize...
Lmao this happened (sort of) to my party. They found out that a lord's seneschal was a fiend. They sent him a letter telling him that. He then realized that they were on to him, and they never found out he was a vampire because before they had a chance to Divine Sense him he had some court mage or something cast Nystul's Magic Aura to disguise both of them. (To make it fair, though, I also had them NMA the seneschal out-of-session so when the paladin Divine Sensed again they saw that the aura had changed so they could easily glean that their information was possibly flawed)
I mean, sounds like more added drama to me! Have them run into the actual contact. It they don't tell actual contact what happened have him ask like "hey, how'd you guys manage to sneak in here?" and then let him be shocked and illuminate for them their recent errors. Now, can they find the Father in time to deal with him, or not, and let them deal with the fallout.
Some great ideas here of how to play it out, but something I just wanted to suggest for the future is that when my players completely misinterpret a situation to the point that it causes an issue this severe, I usually force a low DC intelligence saving throw. If they succeed, they recall the info I already gave them correctly, and I as a DM point out “hey, this is a really bad idea”. Sometimes it’s not the players fault, we DMs tend to throw a lot of shit at the wall and sometimes it just doesn’t stick. Misunderstandings happen. Easier just to give the benefit of the doubt, and then if they still want to make the terrible decision, let them do it and see how it plays out!
Lmao, this is amazing, I don't get why you're upset. My campaign lives on the dumb choices of my players. This was a royal fuckup (pun intended), bring down the consequences, HARD, make sure they find out why they are pursued by the inquisition, royal guard and anything and everything in-between. It's going to be funny as hell, these fumbles create the most memorable campaigns even if they end in bloodshed. My current players stole a very valuable artifact from a powerful necromancer. They went back to town and on their way asked every single non-violent encounter IN THE DUDES DUNGEON if they knew what it was for and showed it to them. I can't wait for the next sessions when they'll have to figure out why they are being hunted down by all kinds of undead all of a sudden. The campaign basically runs itself at this point.
So clearly the players were confused. At the time it would’ve been good to say “Hey, to remind you guys, your contact is Brother Tuck. This is the Illumined Father.” And they probably would’ve said “oh, nevermind, we’ll be on our way.” If you proceed to blow everything up because of this misunderstanding it’s kind of like letting a character walk off a cliff because he didn’t understand how you described the terrain. Obviously his character, who is physically present in the world and would have an easier time following what’s happening, wouldn’t do that. So I would be straight with them and tell them what happened. I’d ask them whether they want to retcon that scene and maybe play it out again now that they understand what’s happening. If they want to roll with it, fine. But this appears to be a miscommunication and it won’t be a fun experience if you dump a bunch of consequences on them without clarifying. Rule of thumb, assume players are absorbing at most 50% of the information you’re putting in front of them.
I'd use this as an opportunity to stir a bit more chaos in without letting their plan completely fail: Maybe the Father is fairly corrupt. He gathers a few level-appropriate "paladins" (people more loyal to him than the church) and confronts the party again by calling then to his private chambers. If they go, he threatens to reveal their plot to the ruling class unless they do X (pay him off, retrieve some artifact, kill some political enemy etc).
Normally I'd go full 'cover's blown, the whole city is coming for you.' But here, honestly, I think I'd tell them at the start of next session what they did, laugh at them, and let them off with a warning to be better spies and pretend they did not drop the ball like a meteor.
As someone paranoid about what a DM expects me to know and do, I empathize with their weird choice, but this does seem a bit excessive. Did they assume that dude was Tuck? Do they usually do this? WHY was this choice made?
You could have them stumble upon the illuminated father trying to confront brother tuck possibly the brother is about to be executed. Then they need to modify their plan as they will realise they were two different people
If this is something that their CHARACTERS would have caught, having lived in a world where monks with various titles are a common thing, then I think it might be correct to re-do it. The PLAYERS probably don't know a bunch of monk-stuff, and they assumed things that weren't in order... true. But if it were me, I'd expect the GM/DM to say, "Your guy knows that someone addressed as 'Father' would NEVER-EVER be presented as BROTHER by your patron." Unless everyone in the game is really up on monk-nomenclature, I'd re-do it.
Even if both of them did have the exact same title, they should have checked the name. Whether they know all the titles or not, they didn't bother checking if this was the right person at all. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the DM to spell it out to them.
You should have had him say "Have you told anybody else?" because that's an instant giveaway. And if that wasn't clear enough, he should have told them "they'd get what's coming to them". And if that still doesn't clue them in, there should be a cut scene where he calls someone into his office and says, "You know what to do."
Don't prep plots, prep situations & the best laid plans never survive contact with the players. You handed them a situation ( the whole conspiracy ) they interacted with it and the world and created a new situation. Ideally you should never have more then 2 sessions prep work done outside of maps which are ALWAYS useful, Trust me your players won't recognize a map you used three years ago, so if this conspiracy falls apart that's the new situation and you need to prep only what they tell you they want to do about it & think about how the NPCs involved would react.
I can see why your players would assume he's the Father, based on the details you shared here so far. If you had the NPC mentioned the Father in third-person and you didn't describe this guy in detail, you have to realize they probably just assumed (not unreasonably) that the guy answered his own door, especially late at night. Players' eyes are limited to exactly what words and details you speak. When I have porters and assistants in between the party and an NPC I do try to make it obvious the secretary or whomever is an in-between dude, which seems to have been unclear at best. In this case I say let your players have this one for free and silently retcon it so that they met Brother Tuck, because this one's not 100% on them. In the future try to make it more obvious that it's the NPC or not, even have the NPC have the decency to go "oh this sounds dreadfully important, please, I'll go get Brother Tuck immediately." There are times the party screws themselves over, but I don't think this time is a time that will make them better players or increase their fun. To them it will feel like DM fiat.
>I can see why your players would assume he's the Father, based on the details you shared here so far. Really? Because the details shared so far were, >Very Important Person gave them a name to contact, "Brother Tuck." So they head over to this urban monastery in the dead of night and rap on the first door they see. A man opens it and says "Who are you to disturb the Illumined Father at this hour?" and my player tells him they have a secret message for him from VIP. He's curious what this is, so he lets them in, and they monologue their entire scheme. The PCs knocked on a door in a monastery looking for *Brother* Tuck, were asked who disturbs the Illuminated *Father*, and that's it, they immediately assumed that the two NPCs who don't even share the right title (brother vs father) were the same person and immediately started talking. Why would the players ever expect that the first person who answers the door of an entire monastery would have to be the one specific NPC they're looking for?
If I had to guess the players were imagining it as a standard regular local church which would typically only have one occupant. They were still lax not confirming their identity but their behaviour is much more reasonable in that scenario. How clearly OP got across that it was a larger monastery with multiple occupants is something that's difficult to gauge when we only have OPs perspective but fundamentally their behaviour seems so absurd on the face of it, I do think it would have been worth clarifying OOC they were understanding the scene correctly.
That is a point I was pretty clear on, actually. I described a multitude of doors, they asked if one was different, and I said one was bigger and more ornate (being the leader's), and they chose that one.
I mean I'm not sure I've ever been in a church that didn't have a grander main entrance for the public and other smaller side accesses - even tiny ones. Maybe you were clear, maybe you weren't. I can't count the number of times I've had a DM think they clearly explained something only for players to have a wildly different perception of what was going on (and to be clear - that is not always the DMs fault, sometimes players just generate their own preconceived notions). Either way, it seems to me that in the moment for whatever reason all of your players clearly were fundamentally all misunderstanding something about what was happening in the game world.
It's the sort of accidental metagaming that new players might fall into, particularly if the world doesn't feel especially "real" or big to them. "The only characters we will encounter are those relevant to The Plot."
It’s possible. Players can have that video game mentality. And the DM confirming the assumption by making the world with that way might not help. them getting consequences that show the assumption was wrong, otoh, may help them make better choices next time.
How is this not on them? They met an NPC who didn't even introduce himself and spilled their entire secret plan without verifying he's the contact. And by "verify" I mean *ask him his freaking name*. The fact that they somehow connected "Illumined Father" to "this guy must be Brother Tuck" (at a monastery, nonetheless) is absolutely not on the DM. I don't think this means OP needs to make everything totally blow up in their faces, but there can and should totally be consequences for that kind of recklessness.
>I can see why your players would assume he's the Father Is the "he" in that sentence Brother Tuck? >they probably just assumed (not unreasonably) that the guy answered his own door, especially late at night. To clarify, they just knocked on *a* door at random. >have the NPC have the decency to go "oh this sounds dreadfully important, please, I'll go get Brother Tuck immediately." They didn't mention Tuck at all, they just said "We have a secret message for you," having assumed that the person they were speaking to *was* Tuck. >To them it will feel like DM fiat. I'm actually typically a *very* lenient DM, so I do wonder if that's partially why I don't want to completely write this off. The party's faced few consequences for many shenanigans, so when there's something big like this, I'm loath to retcon it.
Even if they did mention Brother Tuck, it doesn't make sense for the abbot to go get a monk instead because "this sounds important," he's already the guy in charge. Sure ecclesiastical titles are confusing sometimes, but come on, do these mfs buy their dads "world's #1 brother" mugs? Definitely don't retcon it, when they find out how dumb their mistake was you'll all have a good laugh. The outcome's not all that different than it would be if, say, they were overheard and the abbot had Brother Tuck locked up, it just happened in a much funnier way. If you want them to feel redeemed after they figure out the mistake, have the abbot impersonate Brother Tuck and try to feed them false information, not knowing that they got up to speed in the meantime. Sometimes as a DM you try for Cloak and Dagger, but when your table starts playing Sack and Cudgel instead you're allowed to join in.
I agree with venator, there’s a good chance your players will feel you tricked them and screwed them over. Knowing that you don’t call a monk father is assuming specific knowledge of the Catholic Church. Orthodox monks do get called father and protestants wouldn’t know there was a difference.
Well in this situation, I’d give them 2 options when the return to the quest giver. Either you go silence the witness you just created and hopefully you do it well enough not to get caught or cause concern. Or you move ahead with the plan with the possibility of walking into a trap because the Father told someone. However I can understand where your players are coming from. What was said to them if that’s a direct quote doesn’t sound like someone referring to themselves. Also have they played more intrigue heavy DnD games? If you’re playing with a hack and slash party or a party of actors then often the train of thought for players is more like a video game where you can’t give the message to anyone besides who’s it’s intended for or the person that would shut it down. Like go to the meeting with the crime boss or go tell the captain of the guard are the only 2 available options. That’s not the case in DnD and sometimes a party has to learn the hard way.
I would just have small things prepared to thwart them. They are being watched after all and their plan is now known to the enemy. By small stuff I mean things that just directly/indirectly inconvenience them such as: - their pictures have been spread amongst enemies - theyre required to meet at a dock, security has now been beefed up - they need to steal a key for access to a hidden/secret/convenient door... the locks have been changed - the bridge they need to cross to get to a key place has been destroyed Just make it seem like they have the WORST luck but not necessarily dooming everything and the world crashes down
Let everything play out. Gives hints that they gave the information to the wrong person. Then at the end the BBEG reveals their fool hardiness. Hopefully by that time, too much of the original is different then what it originally was that the BBEGs cockiness gets the better of him.
The person they were trying to contact may well have got wind of a group of impetuous adventurers turning up in the middle of the night. So ... some kind of information may also get back to them, at least. Trying to fix their screw up may be a more interesting development.
Natural Consequences -> the plot is blown and the guy they told takes whatever moves would be in character to counter it. Whether that's having them jailed, assassinated, whatever depends on the dude, but the players need to reap what they've sown.
It would be interesting if the players learn through a friendly or allied NPC that they blabbed to the wrong person. The VIP or a minion of the VIP could approach the party early the next day and ask “why didn’t you contact Brother Tuck? You need to make contact with him.” For the person they blabbed too, think in great detail about what they would do. Would they try to take action quickly? Would they try to gather more evidence to prove the case? Would they try to learn if there are others involved in the conspiracy whom your PCs failed to mention? Does the VIP have political protections or other protections that slow down the Father from responding as openly as he might otherwise? Another option is that the Father character tries to send guards or militant supporters to arrest or confront everyone. Does he have enough resources to capture everyone all at once, or does he have to prioritize? Do the PCs end up learning that the VIP or other conspirators have been captured or killed? Would the Father instead go after the PCs first? Or would the Father move against some of the other conspirators, prompting the PCs to panic and reveal the hidden meeting place they have with the VIP (by the PCs seeking out the VIP at the usual, secret spot?). The players will have plenty of ways to be unpredictable. You can have in mind what them trying to fight to an escape would look like, what trying to salvage the original plan would look like, what pretending to have flipped as double agents could look like, what fleeing to another city would look like immediately and over time in the campaign, and what trying to enlist other, outside factions to rally to the aid of the now-under-the-gun conspirators might look like. Do some of the conspirators have the means to go underground if needed?
My party did something similar though I kind of set it up. The person they spilled everything to was in disguise. But, before it got to that point, they failed a couple important rolls and a lot of shady red flags. I rolled with it and it's made it very interesting and overall they accepted they messed up and dealt with the fallout. I think it added a lot of drama for a party that normally always succeeds. That said, I'd personally worry abit that I didn't telegraph it enough. It kinda sounds like they just assumed they got to the next location and were ready to deliver the message to move the story along quickly. I'd probably have called attention to it, at least in game, try and give them something to realize before they spill it all. But you know your players more than any of us. Will this add drama to the game? Or do you worry some of your players might be likely to feel like they weren't given a fair chance to redo their mistake? I'd base it around what feels right for the party and their story and go from there.
If it makes you feel any better one of my party members tells every NPC we come across that we're not only on a mission, but a "SECRET" mission. 🤣 He's brand new though so can't blame him.
It would be a shame if everyone in the conspiracy was rounded up and imprisoned and/or executed allowing the ruling class to take drastic and tyrannical measures…
I really want to know how this plays out… I’d suggest that they bump into brother Tuck and he introduces himself the next day and boom …..
Just have it progress logically. The frustration you are feeling is due to your expectations as to how it would all play out not being met. Throw away those expectations and just go with what happened.
I think brother Tuck tracks them down and gives them a scolding. THANKFULLY illuminated father is also a supporter of the plot... With a bit of bribing... That the characters will have to acquire. Rare vintage wine or something from the old abbey that is now occupied by a rival priesthood. Then the plot moves on, brother Tuck proves his position and usefulness to the cause, and they learn to verify contacts.
I agree with a lot of the input that centers around an NPC somehow letting the party know they messed up, so no hand-waving or retconning. This seems like a consequential mistake though, so I think if it was me, I would stop trying to build an infiltration/undermining operation and this would immediately become a cat & mouse sort of intrigue game. The ruling class your players were garnering attention for, focusing on... are suddenly aware of the plot and have turned the eyes & resources of the rich onto this little party. The forces they wanted to undermine and dismantle are suddenly locked onto the party and preparing protection and retaliation. The players can learn what that means first hand, instead of only hearing through in-game narratives or out-of-game handouts, that the ruling class is oppressive. It could be a lot of work if you'd already planned out the campaign, but honestly, worlds are more real when we as GM's adapt our stories to what's happening, instead of keeping narratives stagnant.
Similar but different, I had a party spend an entire session pulling threads on a Moon Priestess leading into a secret chamber where she was housing members of a village affected by Lycanthropy and trying to tame the more feral ones and create a co-existence. Two of my players just burst out "Wait, she's not taking us to the feywild?" Why would she be taking you to the feywild? Who said anything about the feywild? Apparently in Critical Role the Moonweaver wanders back and forth between the material plane and the feywild? I just stood there asking questions "Are we in a CR campaign? Also you know this priestess worships Selune....also this is just a priestess not the goddess herself....we spent this whole session doing this because you heard MOON and assumed that meant feywild based on CR?" One of the guys wanted me to retcon the whole session because they were originally planning to board a pirate ship and he thought that was more interesting. Left me wondering what the hell I could even do with where the game left off.
This doesn't seem like a "worst possible person" honestly, there's room to stretch here! - Brother Tuck (BT) is a new NPC, I gather - Even if the ruling class have incorporated themselves into the clergy, loyalty to a system is a spectrum - So what does BT do with this information? - *Competent Lawful*: BT tactfully informs proper authorities so to not ruin a potential trap being laid - *Lawful: BT immediately informs proper authorities - *Simpleton Lawful*: BT could confront the Father directly, effectively relaying the message but explaining why they're Citizens Arresting Father (leading to the Father "taking care of things" themselves and potentially deeply compromising their position, but being able to reconnect with the Party) - *Competent Selfish*: BT orchestrates their own mini-coupe - [they're playing both sides](https://imgs.search.brave.com/eStxBERgxNRZ_07p5VYuC93En8hJuXhLM2kHnuScd2o/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmt5/bS1jZG4uY29tL3Bo/b3Rvcy9pbWFnZXMv/bmV3c2ZlZWQvMDAy/LzAwMi85MTAvMTAy/LnBuZw) and design a "gotcha" where BT essentially Little Finger-s the situation and they come out more powerful either way (**I like this one** because you can turn BT into a recurring character they know is exceptionally competent but completely self-motivated - might even be a fun temporary-ally-turned-bbeg for a later story arc) - *Selfish*: The BT realizes that they could inform on the Party, but they might appear embroiled in this - hurting their future career chances. They decide to spy on the Party and the Father, to gather evidence. - *Simpleton Selfish*: BT can be simply horrified by this news - their first thought turns to how 'I know! *I'm* now implicated in this plot!", and BT leaves town in a panic leaving little notice for anyone (this is the most 'mulligan' option for the Party - you can have mild set-backs from the BT neither relaying the message, nor informing on the Party) - And if you want to buy even more time for the Party... - *Competent Incapacitated*: BT was pretty drunk/awoken in the middle of the night/etc etc etc - they are gobsmacked at the audacity of the Party, but so gobsmacked are they that they don't really believe it. They will set upon themselves to subtly verify the points of fact in the plan they heard, and from there - *Incapacitated*: BT heard it all and was shocked, shocked I tell you - but then went to bed and forgot all about it. (You could pocket this one as a tension-builder where BT *could* remember anytime, and if you don't put play that angle just pay it off after the coup with BT having an "Oh, yeaaah!" moment of recollection after they see it unfold) - *Simpleton Incapacitated*: BT literally has no recollection of this conversation. They didn't ask a follow-up because they are a high-functioning alcoholic and they fell back asleep (standing up, eyes open) in the middle of the Party's long, BORING, diatribe.
One of the prominent members they named is either very publicly arrested or very quietly disappears, depending on the vibe. Just obvious enough that the co-conspirators can't assume it's a coincidence. One of the rulers the city has been told, and wants to see if he can use this info privately before blowing everything up. The conspirators send *reliable* agents to find out who the party told, what they told, why they told. Then those agents try to kill them (duh). From these people(or their corpses) they also find out Brother Tuck is going to get the same treatment in a few short hours The only way to save the plan: save Tuck, get to the Father, find whoever he sold them out to and kill them
I will say- what a funny and wonderful moment to have their entire plan blowup in their face. I think this can be transformed into a fun adventure- say they are arrested and have to escape jail, or they are surrounded and have to escape or fight, etc. you can still peruse the coup by having the co-conspirators suspecting the PCs would do a bad job anyways, so they have a plan B. The specifics would depend on the story tho
Could have missed it in the comments, but what would be the most fun? For you and the players. Nothing is fixed until spoken. However, maybe the players would LOVE the screwup.
Let it blow up in their face. Best role playing is when adversity comes into play. Maybe prompt wisdom checks for the characters to realize that they totally messed up.
That's the players being dumb, like really dumb. I'm afraid you need to properly slap them for this, otherwise there is a chance they won't learn and will assume the DM will always bail them out. You might want to give them chance to try to fix this, but they should not be able to do so entirely. This SHOULD come back to bite them sooner or later.
Sometimes you just mess up and bad shit happens. You have to give them an opportunity to turn it around but you shouldn’t hand wave it. It’s also up to the players to get out of the hole they dug. Make sure they clearly understand the situation at some point. Maybe a spy waves them over in an alley way to let them know that they just gave up all the information to the baddie and they are in incredible danger. Or a child hands them a letter in a toy box or something.
CLAP THEM IN IRONS!
when in doubt use the cold war approach, he is now a double agent with infromation to sell
TPK TPK TPK. Sometimes it’s a good laugh when the entire party makes a major poor decision and it’s okay for them to pay accordingly 🤣. Have them arrested the following morning with hundreds of guards etc.
You can't have nothing happen, I mean come on. They willingly and unprompted gave their whole plan to an enemy, there HAS to be consequences. It's not like you made a spy sweet talk them or meta-gamed. They gave the plan for no reason, kill em
If you don’t want to mess up your story, just pretend that the person they talked to was the person they were meant to talk to. Just combine those two characters into one character. They don’t know that they’ve messed up. They currently think they’ve given the info to the right person; let the person be the right person. Switch it in you own mind and come up with your own reason why that person would have been there and responded like that, but don’t tell them that. To them, they’ve just done what they were asked. To you, a character you thought was somewhere else was actually talking to your group and had a title you didn’t know about and a weird reaction. It shouldn’t hurt the overall fabric of your story too much. Or, let it play out and come up with a new thing that happens instead of what you thought might happen. Either way, your story isn’t broken; it’s just a bit different than what you thought it was. Even if you tell your party something, it is not set in stone. In future sessions, the only things that “actually happened” in previous sessions are what your party remembers. They remember delivering the message to the correct person.
The next morning maybe let vip find them as they see the other hustle off. Race to capture?
Very excited for the update here haha
After they return to their VIP and the conclusion gets drawn that they went to the wrong person, I would turn it into kind of like a Mission Impossible thing where now they had to achieve the mission while also on the run
I feel like there is no good solution for you other than a TPK to teach them to check with whom they are talking with. I would have them rounded up put on trial and done in sometimes a new character is the only way they learn.
No, that's all on them. Sounds like a group who doesn't actually know you're to do shady shit in real life. * experience is the best teacher. This should be a learning experience in the campaign. And major character development! The biggest losses are the best traders my dude! Have fun with this, and drag it out. Let them continue to think they are talking to the right guy and let them get in deep.
Unpopular opinion; I'd adapt and not tell. The players think they've done well and have played at being conspirators. It sounds like this was a mistake due to a misunderstanding, and however obvious it might seem to us as DMs, it's easy to forget that players can miss details or misunderstand situations their characters would easily spot. If your players think the character they spoke to was a trusted contact, and it makes your job easier to tell an interesting story if they were a trusted contact, I'd make that character a trusted contact. It goes against the storytelling instinct a lot of DMs have, but you don't stand to gain that much by having all aspects of your NPCs set in stone - even major aspects - if your players haven't discovered them yet. I'm not saying your players shouldn't ever face consequences of their decisions. But they'll rarely enjoy it if they face the consequences of a decision they didn't fully understand. Take it as a lesson of what your players need - emphasise important details and don't be afraid to interrupt them if you think they're making a mistake because they've made a wrong assumption.
Do people not just inform their players when they're making incorrect assumptions that would glaringly conflict with what their characters are actually experiencing?
I don't know that anything did conflict with their assumptions. Usually I do point it out if player assumptions conflict with character knowledge, but that wasn't really the case here. It was more that their assumptions were just... baseless.
Sorry but, I’d have them watch in abject horror as the vip and Tuck are publicly executed for treason. (Reasonable thing to do if they are trying to subvert or overthrow the ruling class) and then watch as their own posters and faces are plastered over the town. Turn it into a thrilling escape from the city and let them live with some bounties for their stupidity. Then introduce the underground resistance who is set on overthrowing the now openly tyrannical ruling class. Toss in a few sharp comments point at them ruining the first plan from a disgruntled monk (Tucks former bff) and you’ve got a whole on the run revolution arc to go through. Maybe they’ll learn their lesson too after their leads literally go dead before their eyes. Or just start having assassins come after them from the church. Nothing said tyrant ruling class like church assassins.
Don't be so obtuse. That guy is now father Tuck or another faithful member of his clergy. The world lives in your head with your prep and notes, and you need to communicate that and players need to interpret that. Stuff gets lost in translation, often people experience what scene you're trying to convey totally different. You set the scene and they thought they were talking to Father Tuck. In the street with him at the door where everyone around could've heard probably too, or you could just work with the party and allow some leeway to make things be as they intended. If I pulled shit like this over misinterpretations on my players I would stunlock them in every following session about every minute detail, too afraid to mess up again. Just "yes and ..." them and keep the story you're trying to tell going
Shut down the group, now. Your players are too stupid to play.
oh no
Goon could try to use their information to their own benefit, and it blows up in their face, queue other unintended consequences
You shouldn't harshly punish this mistake because its definitely a result of something that can easily happen in ttrpgs of just miscommunication leading to a desynchronisation in understood continuity between GM and players (in hindsight you probably could've just told them "hey hey wait pause for a second you just confirmed this guy's name he's not who you're trying to talk to" but there's not much point in going "the solution was to do this instead" outside of trying to learn for the future it doesn't help. Maybe the person they spoke to has a sudden crisis of faith, themself dumbfounded by what they were told and would lead to them trying to verify what they heard with someone else who actually was in on it, who eases his concerns while wanting to remind the pcs of their mistakes and to be more careful next time.
"Rap on the first door they see" Was it something like this? "AYO! SKRRT! Brother Tuck at the door! You are the one we are looking for!"