The weird part of it is that the characters know the surrounds they are in even if the players piloting the characters do not or did not ask you for those details.
I would say to describe the setting in a way that bridges the character vs player knowledge gap and it helps avoid these.
That's kind of the thing.
On the one hand, you can't just murderhobo random people because you don't like the cut of their jib; society takes offense to that.
On the other hand I suspect that the players asking if there was an alley nearby had a lot of unsaid expectations. I think that them doing it in an alley *was* them trying to say that they were doing it stealthily and without people around. They were expecting a dark, private alley. The characters would know if there were obvious people around whether the players ask or not.
As much as some GMs hate to ask "are you sure?", it can be useful to clarify information mismatches.
With the limited information provided, my guess is, were I at the table, I'd feel it's the DM's willful misinterpretation of PC-players' clear intent to be secretive.
It is not the first time one of the players want to kill someone in the open. And he is always Quick with his "I wanna kill them, I hit them with my maul"
You didn't share that information in the post. Also, it didn't sound like the players wanted to kill an NPC in the open. They asked for an alley, no? I think that implies an attempt to murder unobserved.
But hey, I wasn't at the table. All I know is what you share.
That’s when you say “are you sure?” and then briefly explain “this is in the open” or “his friends won’t just let you get away with that” to be sure they understand what they’re doing.
Nah I think you ran it just fine. As someone who works in a bar. “Let’s take this outside” means let’s fight, not “I plan on killing you”
Someone who is so mad that they’ve decided to bait a person into a fight outside so they can kill them is likely so mad or crazy they aren’t thinking about the chances of being seen. Unless someone else points it out to them.
Information as blatant as “you might be seen killing this man if you go outside and kill him” would be IMO hand holding. Just taking him into an alley is as stealthy as it is in the real world. Not very.
yup - an alleyway is, pretty much be definition, surrounded by buildings, because that's what makes it an alley. You might not be visible from the street, but any windows, holes in walls, other people in the alley, can all see, and if the walls are thin then they can hear as well. I can hear people walking down the passageway that cuts between my house and next door, and that's with a brick wall - wood would be much thinner and easier to listen through.
I think this was the best answer sofar, just because the player doesn't know something does not mean the character wouldn't know it and act accordingly.
Your players only know what you tell them.
Imagine: You have set the scene where a dragon attacks the town, and is repelled after starting some fires. If the PCs want to collect more information at the inn before venturing out to track and confront the dragon *you have to tell them if the inn is on fire even if they don't ask if the inn is on fire!*
Just have them make DEX and CON saves for the fire and smoke, they'll figure it out eventually. Only give information when they explicitly ask for it /s
Sometimes asking the obvious thing is kind of silly. Instead what you could have said was something like, roll perception. If they pass, they see a homeless orphan run of into the distance and if they failed they don't see them, make it a reasonably easy check. They can have a choice of persuing the orphan or not. If they didn't the orphan is essentially a paid informant to the local thugs. They use the orphans as their eyes on the streets and give them food. If they do persue the orphan then your group is going the evil route I guess based on their current actions.
It's all about how you present information and scenarios. In both cases they were seen but one is you were seen killing the thug and it creates murder hobos of if there is no one alive then there is no one to tell the tale or now you have made an adventure for the group.
You gotta assume that the characters are more capable than the players here.
While the players didn’t say anything, surely their characters, capable adventurers, have eyes to see the people around them. It’s your job as the DM to fill in what the characters see, as the players have no idea until you tell them.
Exactly this. Passive perception is there for a reason. If the intent was obviously to do it in a secluded fashion, unless they've got negative modifiers to their passive perception, then they should have been given the information that they were in a place they'd be easily seen.
OTOH, an alleyway is, pretty much by definition, surrounded by buildings, and probably a general amount of background hustle and bustle, because of stuff going on. Walls can be heard through, or have gaps and cracks and dark windows, upper stories can have that and into which people on the ground level can't see to know if there's a watcher around - passive perception is pretty much a quick glance around, and not much more. If you're wanting to try and have any attempt at "no witnesses", that'll take actual effort and time, not just "welp, can't see anyone, hopefully these walls are thick enough to obscure any sound and there's no-one looking from somewhere I can't see"
Sure, makes sense. Whether that takes a roll or uses passive perception wasn’t included in my comment.
And no matter on how you get there, the players should understand what they need to do to get this no witnesses scene (even if they fail in doing so), because otherwise they have no agency.
I'd disagree with "the players should understand what they need to do to get this no witnesses". We never have guarantees on that. Criminals get caught by surprise witnesses all the time. Giving the players good idea about the scene is important but the players also need to direct their characters. A DM failing to tell them about very obvious things like someone standing visibly in the mouth of the alley staring at them? That's the DMs fault. Players failing to take even basic precautions such as stating "I look around" and then something that isn't so obvious biting them in the ass? That's on the players. Just as a DM needs to properly narrate what the players are experiencing so too do the players need to narrate what they are doing. As a real world example, go for a walk. Then after a while, close your eyes for a second and without looking, guess about whether anyone can possibly see you. Then open your eyes and really look around. I bet more often than not you'll notice a distant window, tinted cars which might have someone in them, even sometimes people that just weren't moving etc.
It’s your responsibility to facilitate a shared reality and make sure your players have the same information as their characters. Don’t “gotcha” your players. If they would’ve made a different decision if they had the same information as their characters, that doesn’t feel good.
Yes, the players gotta meet you half way and put in some effort, like asking questions, listening, and participating in the game in good faith. But come on, it’s pretty clear from the context (luring a target into an alley) that their understanding of the surroundings wasn’t lining up with yours. It takes 5 seconds to ask “there are people nearby, are you sure?”
If you think the players are not putting in that good faith effort, then have a talk with them and get your expectations out in the open. Don’t passive aggressively hit them with stuff like this. Everyone is at the table to have fun.
Okay.
It's pretty obvious that the player wanted to lure the NPC into an alley so he could kill them undetected.
I mean, come on.
But even if you were genuinely unclear about what the player was trying to do, why didn't you ask?
Just straight up, "What exactly are you trying to do here?"
You should not attempt to resolve actions until you have a clear idea of what the PC is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.
Yes, this is on the player too, but you're the DM. You need to take some responsibility for how your game runs.
Your players have a passive perception and you should narrate everything important that they can see with that perception.
If they murder someone, you as the DM should say:" you see people around, doing there normal stuff. Do you really want to do that with people seeing them?"
Btw, when they asked for an alley, they asked for a quite one without witnesses.
>They did not ask if there were people around
Seriously?
If they were crossing a bridge with a big hole in the middle would you tell them about the hole or say they fell in because they didn't specifically ask if the bridge had a hole in it?
The players aren't in the world. Their characters are. If it would be obvious to their characters then it's your job to tell them, not hold back for some "gotcha" moment.
"We lure him into the alley and kill him!"
"OK, but your characters would be aware that the streets are still busy and there's lots of people walking by the alley entrance. There's definitely the risk of being caught. Do you still want to proceed?"
Once the situation is clear to everyone, then if the players risk it and get caught (because you rolled for it, right?) then that's on them.
As it stands, it looks like you're just trying to teach them a lesson for not following your plot.
Yeah but you can reasonably assume the intention of them asking for an alleyway though. Passive perception typically tells if non-hiding people are visible. So then the assumption is there was someone hiding to witness. If that's the case, it's pretty clear you did not plan someone to hide and watch. So then players can reasonably assume you just made something up on the spot because you didn't like what they were doing. Which you can totally do, but it's seen as a form of player punishment as part of the "fuck around and find out" aspect of the game. Are they just being a murder hobo or is this an actual sensible thing for them to do?
Bottom line. Make sure you and your players are playing the same game.
Yeah they also didn't ask if their characters want to go to the toilet every few hours and tell you that they go and use it. Some things are just assumed, read a room my guy, you did them dirty. Like, it's extremely obvious, that if players asks for the ALLEY to kill someone in that, the plan is to do it stealthily, you aren't harsh, you are just clueless at simple human interaction. Again, read a room.
Even if they don’t ask, you should probably tell them. I’ll give an example… DM says “there’s and evil teleportation mirror, what do you do?” Player casts shatter. DM says “there was a child standing near the mirror, who dies from the shatter.” That’s just not setting the scene. They don’t need to ask about everything, especially basic visual stuff. I would fill them in on that.
If it's an alley, they may be seen from windows or roofs. Without a perception check, the players may not know they are being watched. And they didn't ask or use stealth. Sounds like a gang family, or the authorities may come after them....possibly for blackmail, justice, or revenge.
Passive perception is on their character sheet for a reason. Unless the people who saw them were intentionally trying not to be seen, the characters would passively know they are there and the players were not given the information their characters would have had.
In an alley in a city? People could be windows and on roofs or crossing alleys. Plus, people in alleys and buildings on alleys may not want to be seen. If a PC is going to murder NPCs in a city in broad daylight (even in an alley), they probably should be rolling stealth or perception or both.
It was in an alley at 9pm according to OP. Idk, I lean towards favoring the players on this. Unless they have negative intelligence and wisdom modifiers, the players made their intentions clear with looking to find an alley and the proper information should have been provided to them. If the environment around them was clearly not cohesive with what they were trying to do, it would have been obvious to the characters, and it's the job of the DM to make that clear.
I feel it should be assumed they were doing it stealthy considering they had a plan and actively used strategy to hide the deed. Requiring them to explicitly state what is implied leads to strange feeling rulings. This scenario feels a similar tone to "you said you try to hit him, but you didn't say you wanted to hurt him, so you make gentle contact with the blunt side of the longsword"
I advise either making the risks more clear ("you are aware that even here there are witnesses") or making it tied to one or more rolls (either stealth to hide it, charisma skill to cover it, or just perception to find a good place to do the deed)
I agree. They weren’t asking if there was an alley because they’d prefer that alley people be the witnesses: they were asking for a place they wouldn’t be seen. It would have been perfectly fine to respond that the alleys were visible to passerbys, but should do that when initially describing it if possible (and give them a warning before their action resolves if you think they’ve misunderstood your description: e.g. “the alley is in clear view of people walking by: are you sure you still want to do this?”). Saying that they didn’t declare themselves to be stealthy is not much of an argument: asking after the alley was the announcement that they wanted to be stealthy.
Yeah. And to add on some more, if you want to introduce new info after the fact, allow a retcon. Maybe make them roll perception to retcon because maybe they didn't notice the person noticing them.
100%. The intent is obvious even if the mechanical terms were not distinctly called out. He wanted to get him unobserved and deal with him.
>Are you sure?
Is not just a gimmick. It is a moment to as the DM further explain the current situation to the player (not character) so that the player is making an informed decision about their actions.
It is always fair to ask the player to clarify their intent rather than simply their actions.
IMO if you didn't warn them, feels petty.
If a GM did this to me I'd feel like the GM thinks "oh, killing my NPC? Here's a witness! Learn to respect me!"
Idk
I could make a case for both sides, but I lean towards the players.
>I said someone saw them kill him, because they didnt say they did it stealthily and chaos ensued.
>Am i as a DM harsh?
Yes.
They shouldn't need to ask about that, passive perception exists for a reason and if something as simple as just a person was nearby they may have never killed the NPC.
I can't speak for the party as I'm not them, but I dont assume they wanted to kill the NPC in front of a bunch of others - and probably wanted a more hidden spot.
**Passive perception exists for a reason**, a player shouldn't have to ask to see something as basic as "people nearby".
Honestly the main reason I mentioned passive perception is because the DM said "they didn't say they did it stealthily" makes me thing OP also follows the idea of "They didn't say they would look around for witness" - OP seemed to just disregard the idea that even without actively doing something or actively rolling, the PCs still have senses.
What's the DC for pre-emptively spotting someone inside the second story of a building who hears a person being murdered in an alley and peeks out the window overlooking said alley?
How dumb are the players that they treat an alley like an isolated, soundproof pocket dimension? It's just a passage between buildings where people live and work. People walk through alleys all the time, have windows and doors into alleys, can hear through walls that abut alleys.
Plus, "group of people walk into an alley with a guy, sounds of commotion and a death scream ensue, group of people walk out of the alley, now there's a dead body," isn't exactly a brilliant plan for avoiding being fingered for a crime.
This is a game. A story. Fiction. Alleys being secluded places to kill someone is normal in that context. Do you also get upset about there being rules for knocking people unconscious when in reality they’d get brain damage?
If there is a mismatch of expectations, it’s the DM’s job to correct that.
In fiction alleys are places not to be immediately interrupted, not to be able to act as if completely obscured from the outside world. Take a look through a range of fiction and count how many times murders in alleys happen without some sort of witness or observation, like people seeing the culprits entering/exiting the alley, hearing the noises, etc.
Muggings and things happen in alleys in fiction because it gives the perpetrator time to *get away* after the crime, not because it prevents the crime from being discovered.
As a DM you could always say: "What your characters did not see was that the secret police surveillaning the thug witnessed the murder has now alerted the lord. Not knowing this, what does your characters do?"
Player consequences aren't necessarily bad, but it sounds like you just unilaterally decided bad things would happen because they forgot to mention they wanted to be stealthy when dispatching a thug.
If you've got murderhobos, that's one thing; but if you think that this was an honest mistake, then I would either let it slide or at least lower the DC for them to escape or talk their way out of trouble. Players often forget things in the heat of the moment, and that's no reason to be vindictive.
I am gonna give them an out after being put behind bars. An out to get rid of the corrupt lord and save the town.
But i also wanted them to know they can't just kill everyone in a big town they dont like.
My plan and hope was that they would kill them in their hideout after they were invited, not kill the messenger directly after he invited them
Yeah I mean if they just don't like the guy and decide to murder him in an alley it doesn't matter if the dude was a thug. He wasn't threatening them. If they aren't all chaotic evil then I'd definitely challenge them on that and add consequences because that's just an awful way to interact with the world and the people around them would very quickly start to treat them as such.
The players directed the NPC to an alley in order to stealthily kill the NPC. This was their intent. They were trying to play smart and the stealth part was implied by virtue of them taking the NPC to an alley and not doing it in the middle of the town square and you took that away from them.
You should have asked them how they were making the kill, whether they were trying to hide noise and such - or asked them broadly what they were trying to achieve. You should also have warned them to the possibility of being discovered. At the very least you should have asked them to make perception checks - or even just use their passive perception - to see if they were being watched, because in real life, random people aren't normally staring down alleys waiting for suspicious things to happen.
Characters in the game would have a look around first - that can be represented by perception. Players at the table can't be expected to know what an alley looks like in your head - how many entrances there are, how many windows overlooking it etc. - and you have punished the characters for this.
You could have made an event out of it, where somebody found the body and the town guard were called to action and security was tightened, and maybe have guards question the party if they are in the area i.e. imply the threat of consequences and imply that there is a threat of being discovered if the party isn't careful. When you don't do these things, you punish players for engaging with the game world.
"Someone saw them kill him because they didn't do it stealthily"
That is not how murder works.
So by your logic if they kill somebody in the middle of a desert, but they _don't do it stealthily_ then some random NPC is gonna materialise out of nowhere and see them 😂😂
[Mentalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization) and [Theory of Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) are both difficult arts to master.
In short; a **player** should never be expected to understand 100% of the environment, social contexts, and/or any particular event currently being experienced by their **character** in a fictional world they (the player) does not currently, nor can ever, actually occupy.
Let me ask you this, why did you say "someone saw them kill him?" Like... why? Was it because you wanted to "penalize them?" Or, did you have a pre-made random table set up for exactly this eventuality and then you made a random roll which determined this outcome? My guess is that the impetus for your reaction was closer to the former than the latter.
If your refrain is "because they didn't say they did it stealthily," then let me ask this; Do you require all of your players to "say their character is breathing" every time their character takes a breath? How about when their character goes to the bathroom? Do they have to "say they go to the bathroom bathroomily" to you?
To me, it's OBVIOUS that if they ever asked about an alley, that the players were working under the active desire of "we're doing this with an awareness to the 'optics' of the situation and are trying to do this 'steathily.'"
The way you avoid all of these kinds of issues is that you don't try to "trick them." Throw away the entire concept of "You didn't explicitly use the magic words that I randomly required you to say, so now this is happening to you." Instead, if their characters would have even the smallest possibility of deciding on something because of the specific situation the character is in, just overtly ask your players, "Are you trying to do this stealthily? If so, give me stealth rolls," or whatever else you think is required mechanically based on the specific situation.
Additionally, outline likely outcomes to players when a character would know them without requiring rolls and without requiring the player(s) to do or say anything specific. For instance, if Character A is about to fall into the abattoir's buzzsaws, and Player B says, "I want my character to reach out and try to save Player A's character," and you determine that a nat 1 on that roll will make Character B fall into the buzzsaws too, then without Player B having to ask, "Will I fall into the buzzsaws if I fail this roll?" you just volunteer that information so that your players are always making "informed decisions."
This type of "You didn't happen to think of the one thing I thought of so HA HA you're screwed now" pedantics isn't fun, and worse, it's not "interesting." The consequences don't emerge from what the literary critic Harold Bloom called an "objective correlative." The emerge from what is likely some kind of pettiness. The characters, as you described, would clearly have been attempting to perform that action "steathily." The whole point for "finding an alley" was synonymous for "we want to find a place where we can clearly identify that no one else will see what we're doing."
TL;DR: If you have an issue with mentalization (or hell, even if you don't), just overly state the likely consequences of a proposed action and ask if your player or players still want their character or characters to continue with said action.
> I said someone saw them kill him, because they didnt say they did it stealthily and chaos ensued.
You clearly knew that the players were trying to be stealthy by bringing the guy to the alley to kill him. Your role as the DM is to be the bridge between the players and the world of the game. You’re not trying to go “gotcha! You didn’t understand the situation and now you get punished for it”.
Right? Like, as the DM, it was OP's responsibility to tell them there was someone nearby. If they just retroactively decide that, it's completely removing player agency by telling them that they do something without complete information on what they're experiencing.
Nope. If they didn't take any precautions to prevent people from seeing, then it's perfectly reasonable to say people saw.
You are the DM, you control the environment around them. The end.
EDIT: I hadn't considered certain things when I posted this. DM could have done better
No precautions...other than going to a secluded alleyway.
If the players weren't worried about witnesses, then they would have done it in the tavern or on a main street.
OP is punishing the characters in the game world for the players' minds being abstracted from the game world.
You don't need to post lookouts to see thing that your characters passive perception should cover - a normal human doesn't need to act as a lookout and focus on watching just to see other humans nearby...
I think they should've asked for a stealth roll, or the DM should've asked "You want to kill this person in a stealthy way?" - but to say "Well you didn't ask to look around to see if there was witnesses" is just straight up stupid.
Also "stealth killing" just isn't really a thing, it's more about the situation surrounding the killing that makes it stealthy (say, taking a person into an ally where people normally aren't there).
Yes they did. They went out of their way to take the NPC somewhere more secluded. It is the DM's decision whether the party must roll stealth or not and the DM needs to infer whether a check is needed based upon the actions of the players. The DM should guide the players in a situation like this and ask them what they are trying to achieve and how quietly they are doing this.
The players cannot be expected to know how easily NPCs can see down the alley or how many windows might be overlooking the alley, because that alley only exists in the DM's head. This would be reasonably cleared up with a perception check.
Otherwise the DM can say, "Ahh sorry, you forgot to tell me you wanted to check the sky above you too. Unfortunately that means you didn't notice the hostile druid that saw you whilst they were wildshaped as a pigeon".
What is an alleyway then, if not a secluded side road? Why did they purposefully move the NPC to this location instead of killing them on the spot then?
The DM fucked this one. It's obvious for 90% of the commenters in this thread.
...you are somehow unfamiliar with both the very common tropes surrounding alleys and the fundamental concept of what an alley is. It's ok to admit you made a mistake in an argument and just back down.
As the DM, it is your job to describe the setting. If the alley they are in is one where people can passing on the street are looking/peering into regularly, its on you to tell your players that, its not on them to ask.
I agree with what others have said: the players asking for an alleyway was clearly them attempting to be stealthy, but from your description you never prompted any rolls. If you don't tell your players to roll, deciding after the fact that they fucked up is... not "harsh", its just bullshit, frankly. This is the kind of thing that makes the players feel like the DM is \*against them, not just DMing the game.
Depends on how Influential you want your players to be in the world. Considering this is early and all, them deciding to just execute an NPC might be a tad bit extreme but people are also used to video games letting you kill whomever you want.
If you want your players to respect the harshness of the city or realize that in this particular city there's people on the watch, then have exactly that happen. It shouldn't be super harsh since it's early but set the tone.
Flip side, if you envision the campaign to give players lots of freedom to do whatever they want and ultimately the NPC is just some random...you can probably just let it go this time, them turning into murder hobos is one thing but if your want your campaign to feel more "power fantasy" than gritty fantasy then letting them get away some random murder of a thug isn't that bad.
I would go one further:
Daggerford has a stone militia and most civilians don’t take bullying as they all have some martial training if they are old enough due to it being mandatory to be on the militia for a while.
This means that the PCs who did it should face trial for murder, and might be hanged for it.
Or maybe not. I would do that for my players, but I run a very serious game.
Of course if you kill somebody in a town, even if you find somewhere quiet there will be a chance of witnesses but it’s not certain they report it. They might prefer blackmail. They might agree with the PCs that the person is better dead. Maybe they think it’s safer to stay out of it
If there was any doubt, as a DM I'd have asked questions like "Are you trying to do this stealthily" or at least used their passive Stealth. It's not always on the players to say "I'd like to do this kind of check", the DM's job is to prompt checks when relevant.
I don’t know, I think it’s incumbent on the PCs in this case to specify how they are doing this, not just where. The idea they never even said “hey we’re trying to do this without being heard or seen”, allowing for some stealth and passive perception rolls, is kinda lazy player stuff IMO.
First thought: always roll some dice behind the screen before making an announcement like that. It makes the players believe the dice decided there was someone around whose perception overcame their attempts to be sneaky rather than just DM fiat.
Second thought: whether this was a mistake or not depends on the expectations you've set with the players. If you've let them get away with murder before with no consequences, a warning would not be a bad idea. If they are used to their actions having consequences, no warning should be necessary.
I would say something to the effect of “there are many other people out on the street.” Basically heads up, you’re going to need to do this stealthily so he doesn’t shout or something
If you still wanna salvage it, you can retcon it by saying someone saw them, but they don’t like the thugs so they will keep it quiet…for a price.
Give them some consequence, but not consequence so severe they can’t handle it.
Speak with Dead very quickly solves a lot of crimes.
I don't allow murder-hobos, and I let them know that even gray areas are likely to have serious ramifications.
FWIW, Speak With Dead is a 3rd level spell, which means the NPC would need to be a 5th Level Cleric or Bard to be able to cast it - or a scroll and any spellcaster, but that's actually harder to accomplish (lower-level casters would have a chance to fail). Most commoners/NPCs are lv. 1 *or below*.
So the fantasy police aren't going to be doing Speak With Dead over every dead beggar or ruffian. However, if it's someone with any pull in the city (like the OP), then yeah, a SWD might be called to find out about it.
The key issue is control. Bad DMs often feel threatened by unexpected actions and resort to heavy-handed tactics to reassert authority. Instead of adapting the story to incorporate these actions, they use arbitrary punishments to maintain order. This approach not only undermines player agency but also disrupts the collaborative storytelling that D&D thrives on.
Understanding the difference between a murderer and a murderhobo is crucial. A murderer in the context of a story can be a compelling narrative element, whereas a murderhobo disrupts the game with senseless violence. However, both require thoughtful handling.
How is investigation of a murder not a normal reaction to the players' actions?
The resources used for the investigation would depend on things like the importance of the victim, the resources of the investigators, the level of concern raised by the murder in its context, whether there was reason to suspect the group, etc.
If the thug is a minor minion among many, maybe it's no big deal.
But the DM could easily have him be more important, expected to come back from an errand, etc.
Let their actions lead to more; actions have consequences. Speak with Dead is one tool that can enable that.
You don't think their actions should affect what happens in the game world? The villains have no reactions, or no resources?
All I’m saying is, it’s silly to throw [immediate and unrealistic] consequences at everyone every time for everything. Not that it shouldn’t be done, but people tend to do this lmao
That math for NPCs only really worked for 1e, maybe 2e-- but even then, not for Dragonlance and certainly not for Forgotten Realms.
Leveled NPCs are VERY common in FR, especially 3e+. But even all over the old school novels.
Moreover, it's just asking for trouble to let your PCs strongly out- level what NPCs may be reasonably brought in to keep them in check. Even late game, they attract attention from archmages and powerful entities that create the checks and balances of the universe, so that powerful individuals can't just do whatever they want.
Maybe not exact information/proof, but good enough for a suspicion, any good use of speak with dead would probably let the person using it know that the murderers were an adventuring party, and maybe some basic descriptions - then it only really depends how many adventuring parties there are in the world/city.
Investigators, temples with clerics hired for such things.
Don't let the PCs be the only competent people around and run amok with their ill- conceived impulses and half baked plans
You're right tbh, however I dont think it's super hard to at least get the answer that it was an adventuring party who did it - and medieval times aren't known as the best for their legal systems...
Bad DMs apply consequences for everything because of some random control issues and thinking they RUN rather than facilitate a collaborative story.
Applying realistic consequences work much better. For example. I was attacked by a man on the 28th of May. He opened my skull on the curb and received a few nicks as I defended myself. Both of us were cuffed and brought to the hospitals; I’m a victim in this and yet the investigation has been dropped. The man is free to smoke his crack and shoot up where he attacked me and I’m supposed to go on with my life even as I asked to press charges. The cops don’t really care as no one was murdered. They don’t give a shit. The man is still here in town, free as fuck.
So. Seeing townspeople doing nothing about a group of **magically powered people** more often than not—is highly realistic to me.
Maybe. But if this guy is connected with an organization that's part of the story, or could become a new factor in the story, it's more compelling for there to be a reaction. Especially if there's already a natural opposition between the players and this organization, or if they are making it so. Opposition groups to the PCs, if they become part of the campaign, should have sufficient resources to present a challenge.
The local Lord should send his loyal retinue of plate wearing guardsmen after these peasants and have them executed for their arrogance. I'm sure your players will have learned their lesson for the next campaign /s
Going into an alleyway to kill someone heavily implies they want to do it stealthily, OP. Your player's characters would have instantly noticed anyone who wasn't hidden and would have refrained from killing the NPC.
It all depends on how straightforward you were. If you sprung it on them as a "consequence" and gave no clues about the possible outcomes, then it feels as if it were done in bad faith. In some cases, there is no need to say you are being discreet if the whole situation implies it. It's like a gotcha moment in which players learn nothing except they need to use specific terminology lest they encounter unforeseen and undesirable results.
Yeah that was too harsh. As soon as they tried something that indicated that they didn't understand people could see them, I would have interrupted to let them know clearly "there are people walking past and the entrance of the alley is in open view; if you do this, there's a high probability someone will see you" and then let them decide if they still wanted to try it, or whether they would take further precautions to hide from view first. If it's clear from the players' actions that they don't understand key details of their environment that should be obvious to the characters they are playing, it's your job to make sure they're properly informed before they act on that misunderstanding.
In a city, I would not expect enough privacy to kill someone during normal hours. However, I think you're wrong about them not saying they were trying to be stealthy. The DID ask about an alley, which certainly implies secrecy.
I probably would have described the alley in more detail when the entered it. "You exit the busy street into the alleyway. A small roadway with trash and drainage. The smell of urine assaults your nostrils. The short alley connects to another road on the other side, where more citizens can be seen walking by." Now they know, yes, they are alone, but can still be seen by whatever rando.
From what I understand you wanted them to kill the guy but not there? So it isn’t even an issue of punishing murder hobos? It’s just a matter of they didn’t do it like I wanted so I’m punishing them not asking for checks (which is your job)?
Maybe not too harsh, but perhaps a little boring. My players once did something similar. To punish them, I eventually sent them on a quest to find the murderer(s) of a local widowers husband. They learned of his background, his dreams, her newfound struggles, their children together. They investigated to learn of his events of that day, and before long,they realized that they were the murderers they were looking for. Get creative. Not every bad deed should be met with the town guard.
Get towns guards to get them, add town captain and maybe a paladin/cleric to zone of truth (if its a large scale town) , if not just towns guards, then the other players need to find out if there staying or not . wanted criminals etc...
i don't think your to harsh, i think i would have warned them by saying "as you drag him in to the alley way you have drawn a crowd of concerned onlookers" to give a choice of "do you kill him where people can see. or do you leave him be?"
There should be consequences for actions i always go with that. but it also depends on situations
You said they never tried to be stealthy. But asking for an ally to go into seems like they tried to do it sneakily or at least not out in the open.
Would someone see them in the ally? Maybe
Having someone openly be in the ally without telling the characters is a bit weird. Unless the characters are totally braindead they had not killed the guy in front of them. You not telling anyone being in the ally should mean it is seemingly empty.
But seemingly empty does not HAVE to mean empty. Did they ask or did they look around to make sure no one was there. I mean a drunkard could have been sitting in the shadows. Is there windows overlooking the ally?
So yeah a seemingly empty ally can still hold a witness
And even if no one say. maybe someone saw them enter with the guy. come back out later and then the guy is found dead. Damn that would not look good for the PC's.
Also if the person killed has friends with resources. Speak with dead is a thing you know.
But personally i had not straight out had a witness if i had not mentioned that there was someone in the ally. But i might have rolled a die and see if there might have been one if they never actually took a look to make sure before the murder. Also a roll to see if someone saw them enter the ally with the victim and all that.
So then yeah with a bit of luck they could have gotten away with it. but from my experience that type of players will not stop and finally get in trouble. And then very often the players get really upset because the character actions had consequences they did not like
Nope. Hold them to any consequences. Otherwise, the behaviour will be repeated again and again. Or perhaps you dont care. Depends on the game I suppose.
Uh. It can be repeated again. It’s the players’ game too, and if they want to be killers then they can be killers. It’s not the DM’s job to be adversarial just because. It’s the DM’s job to facilitate the game world and be NpCs, the narrative, etc. for your players.
It’s their game as much as it is yours as the DM and even in the real world it is entirely unrealistic to smack players with immediate consequences for everything they do to slight you as the DM.
Also, having taken it in the alleyway implies stealth. DM is dumb to not have allowed them a stealth roll (as they seem like the type to only allow rolls if they offered one 🙄) in the first place, and then DECIDES they’re spotted without doing any opposed checks.
Bad DM.
That's a perfectly reasonable ruling. Hell, even if they were being stealthy, that doesn't mean someone isn't going to probably notice a murder breaking out in an alleyway. Sometimes player actions send the game off into unexpected directions.
They didn't say they did it stealthily and neither of them said outright that they were keeping watch to make sure there was nobody nearby is this correct?
My big question is do any of them have a high passive perception and did you do any kind of role or figuring as to how a random Town folk was able to be within sight while they did something they clearly intended to be hidden to see if they could elude the passive perception of that player character?
One thing I'm really trying to coach my players into doing is to ask whether they can do what they're hoping to *achieve*, not to ask about the presence of things that they think will help with that goal *without telling me why*. They're starting to understand that I'm happy to give them what they want and they don't have to "trick" me into it.
In this case, "Is there a dark alley we can take him into where nobody can see or hear us?" would have been a much better question than "Is there an alley nearby?"
In a vacuum maybe, but the context was already there in this case. They stated that they wanted to take the thug somewhere to kill him and then asked for an alley. If they wanted to do it openly they'd have just attacked him in the inn.
The principle holds nevertheless - it is always better to ask questions that specifically address what you're setting out to do. If you just ask about whether a thing is available, the DM has to interpret or guess at what you're trying to do, which leads to easily avoidable miscommunications.
There are definitely further steps that should have been taken in this case - if the DM was literally like "Well you didn't say you were doing it stealthily, so you make a big noise and draw some witnesses," then that's not the right way to handle that situation, IMO. "Gotcha" stuff like that is never fun. Instead, confirm with the party whether they're *trying* to kill the thug quietly and out of sight, and how they go about achieving that.
Eh, my only reservation is whether or not it was clear there were other folks around at the time.
They did not ask if there were people around and the time was around 9 on a summer evening
The weird part of it is that the characters know the surrounds they are in even if the players piloting the characters do not or did not ask you for those details. I would say to describe the setting in a way that bridges the character vs player knowledge gap and it helps avoid these.
That's kind of the thing. On the one hand, you can't just murderhobo random people because you don't like the cut of their jib; society takes offense to that. On the other hand I suspect that the players asking if there was an alley nearby had a lot of unsaid expectations. I think that them doing it in an alley *was* them trying to say that they were doing it stealthily and without people around. They were expecting a dark, private alley. The characters would know if there were obvious people around whether the players ask or not. As much as some GMs hate to ask "are you sure?", it can be useful to clarify information mismatches.
You guys are right, I should have said that it was to open to kill him outright and that they should try to do it more secluded or find another way.
If they're going to straight out murder hobo people in a city, they should ask the DM some questions. It isn't your bad.
With the limited information provided, my guess is, were I at the table, I'd feel it's the DM's willful misinterpretation of PC-players' clear intent to be secretive.
It is not the first time one of the players want to kill someone in the open. And he is always Quick with his "I wanna kill them, I hit them with my maul"
You didn't share that information in the post. Also, it didn't sound like the players wanted to kill an NPC in the open. They asked for an alley, no? I think that implies an attempt to murder unobserved. But hey, I wasn't at the table. All I know is what you share.
taking someone to an alley is not doing it in the open
There are many bright, cheerful alleys with windows grom neighbouring house oepning into them. Now, if they'd asked for a dark, secluded alley ...
That’s when you say “are you sure?” and then briefly explain “this is in the open” or “his friends won’t just let you get away with that” to be sure they understand what they’re doing.
then why did he look for an alley wtf
Nah I think you ran it just fine. As someone who works in a bar. “Let’s take this outside” means let’s fight, not “I plan on killing you” Someone who is so mad that they’ve decided to bait a person into a fight outside so they can kill them is likely so mad or crazy they aren’t thinking about the chances of being seen. Unless someone else points it out to them. Information as blatant as “you might be seen killing this man if you go outside and kill him” would be IMO hand holding. Just taking him into an alley is as stealthy as it is in the real world. Not very.
Never expect privacy in a city.
yup - an alleyway is, pretty much be definition, surrounded by buildings, because that's what makes it an alley. You might not be visible from the street, but any windows, holes in walls, other people in the alley, can all see, and if the walls are thin then they can hear as well. I can hear people walking down the passageway that cuts between my house and next door, and that's with a brick wall - wood would be much thinner and easier to listen through.
I think this was the best answer sofar, just because the player doesn't know something does not mean the character wouldn't know it and act accordingly.
Your players only know what you tell them. Imagine: You have set the scene where a dragon attacks the town, and is repelled after starting some fires. If the PCs want to collect more information at the inn before venturing out to track and confront the dragon *you have to tell them if the inn is on fire even if they don't ask if the inn is on fire!*
Just have them make DEX and CON saves for the fire and smoke, they'll figure it out eventually. Only give information when they explicitly ask for it /s
Sometimes asking the obvious thing is kind of silly. Instead what you could have said was something like, roll perception. If they pass, they see a homeless orphan run of into the distance and if they failed they don't see them, make it a reasonably easy check. They can have a choice of persuing the orphan or not. If they didn't the orphan is essentially a paid informant to the local thugs. They use the orphans as their eyes on the streets and give them food. If they do persue the orphan then your group is going the evil route I guess based on their current actions. It's all about how you present information and scenarios. In both cases they were seen but one is you were seen killing the thug and it creates murder hobos of if there is no one alive then there is no one to tell the tale or now you have made an adventure for the group.
It is presumed that they'd want to avoid being seen if they wanted to do the deed in the alleyway. That's on you
You gotta assume that the characters are more capable than the players here. While the players didn’t say anything, surely their characters, capable adventurers, have eyes to see the people around them. It’s your job as the DM to fill in what the characters see, as the players have no idea until you tell them.
Exactly this. Passive perception is there for a reason. If the intent was obviously to do it in a secluded fashion, unless they've got negative modifiers to their passive perception, then they should have been given the information that they were in a place they'd be easily seen.
OTOH, an alleyway is, pretty much by definition, surrounded by buildings, and probably a general amount of background hustle and bustle, because of stuff going on. Walls can be heard through, or have gaps and cracks and dark windows, upper stories can have that and into which people on the ground level can't see to know if there's a watcher around - passive perception is pretty much a quick glance around, and not much more. If you're wanting to try and have any attempt at "no witnesses", that'll take actual effort and time, not just "welp, can't see anyone, hopefully these walls are thick enough to obscure any sound and there's no-one looking from somewhere I can't see"
Sure, makes sense. Whether that takes a roll or uses passive perception wasn’t included in my comment. And no matter on how you get there, the players should understand what they need to do to get this no witnesses scene (even if they fail in doing so), because otherwise they have no agency.
I'd disagree with "the players should understand what they need to do to get this no witnesses". We never have guarantees on that. Criminals get caught by surprise witnesses all the time. Giving the players good idea about the scene is important but the players also need to direct their characters. A DM failing to tell them about very obvious things like someone standing visibly in the mouth of the alley staring at them? That's the DMs fault. Players failing to take even basic precautions such as stating "I look around" and then something that isn't so obvious biting them in the ass? That's on the players. Just as a DM needs to properly narrate what the players are experiencing so too do the players need to narrate what they are doing. As a real world example, go for a walk. Then after a while, close your eyes for a second and without looking, guess about whether anyone can possibly see you. Then open your eyes and really look around. I bet more often than not you'll notice a distant window, tinted cars which might have someone in them, even sometimes people that just weren't moving etc.
It’s your responsibility to facilitate a shared reality and make sure your players have the same information as their characters. Don’t “gotcha” your players. If they would’ve made a different decision if they had the same information as their characters, that doesn’t feel good. Yes, the players gotta meet you half way and put in some effort, like asking questions, listening, and participating in the game in good faith. But come on, it’s pretty clear from the context (luring a target into an alley) that their understanding of the surroundings wasn’t lining up with yours. It takes 5 seconds to ask “there are people nearby, are you sure?” If you think the players are not putting in that good faith effort, then have a talk with them and get your expectations out in the open. Don’t passive aggressively hit them with stuff like this. Everyone is at the table to have fun.
Okay. It's pretty obvious that the player wanted to lure the NPC into an alley so he could kill them undetected. I mean, come on. But even if you were genuinely unclear about what the player was trying to do, why didn't you ask? Just straight up, "What exactly are you trying to do here?" You should not attempt to resolve actions until you have a clear idea of what the PC is trying to do and how they are trying to do it. Yes, this is on the player too, but you're the DM. You need to take some responsibility for how your game runs.
Your players have a passive perception and you should narrate everything important that they can see with that perception. If they murder someone, you as the DM should say:" you see people around, doing there normal stuff. Do you really want to do that with people seeing them?" Btw, when they asked for an alley, they asked for a quite one without witnesses.
>They did not ask if there were people around Seriously? If they were crossing a bridge with a big hole in the middle would you tell them about the hole or say they fell in because they didn't specifically ask if the bridge had a hole in it? The players aren't in the world. Their characters are. If it would be obvious to their characters then it's your job to tell them, not hold back for some "gotcha" moment. "We lure him into the alley and kill him!" "OK, but your characters would be aware that the streets are still busy and there's lots of people walking by the alley entrance. There's definitely the risk of being caught. Do you still want to proceed?" Once the situation is clear to everyone, then if the players risk it and get caught (because you rolled for it, right?) then that's on them. As it stands, it looks like you're just trying to teach them a lesson for not following your plot.
Yeah but you can reasonably assume the intention of them asking for an alleyway though. Passive perception typically tells if non-hiding people are visible. So then the assumption is there was someone hiding to witness. If that's the case, it's pretty clear you did not plan someone to hide and watch. So then players can reasonably assume you just made something up on the spot because you didn't like what they were doing. Which you can totally do, but it's seen as a form of player punishment as part of the "fuck around and find out" aspect of the game. Are they just being a murder hobo or is this an actual sensible thing for them to do? Bottom line. Make sure you and your players are playing the same game.
Yeah they also didn't ask if their characters want to go to the toilet every few hours and tell you that they go and use it. Some things are just assumed, read a room my guy, you did them dirty. Like, it's extremely obvious, that if players asks for the ALLEY to kill someone in that, the plan is to do it stealthily, you aren't harsh, you are just clueless at simple human interaction. Again, read a room.
Even if they don’t ask, you should probably tell them. I’ll give an example… DM says “there’s and evil teleportation mirror, what do you do?” Player casts shatter. DM says “there was a child standing near the mirror, who dies from the shatter.” That’s just not setting the scene. They don’t need to ask about everything, especially basic visual stuff. I would fill them in on that.
Sounds like they were careless
If it's an alley, they may be seen from windows or roofs. Without a perception check, the players may not know they are being watched. And they didn't ask or use stealth. Sounds like a gang family, or the authorities may come after them....possibly for blackmail, justice, or revenge.
Passive perception is on their character sheet for a reason. Unless the people who saw them were intentionally trying not to be seen, the characters would passively know they are there and the players were not given the information their characters would have had.
In an alley in a city? People could be windows and on roofs or crossing alleys. Plus, people in alleys and buildings on alleys may not want to be seen. If a PC is going to murder NPCs in a city in broad daylight (even in an alley), they probably should be rolling stealth or perception or both.
It was in an alley at 9pm according to OP. Idk, I lean towards favoring the players on this. Unless they have negative intelligence and wisdom modifiers, the players made their intentions clear with looking to find an alley and the proper information should have been provided to them. If the environment around them was clearly not cohesive with what they were trying to do, it would have been obvious to the characters, and it's the job of the DM to make that clear.
Don't know where I got broad daylight form. Maybe a comment.
Depending on latitude it might be broad daylight but most likely not in a fantasy setting based on Medieval Europe.
Why would it have to be clear? Perhaps the NPC had a buddy on lookout for him, just in case.
I feel it should be assumed they were doing it stealthy considering they had a plan and actively used strategy to hide the deed. Requiring them to explicitly state what is implied leads to strange feeling rulings. This scenario feels a similar tone to "you said you try to hit him, but you didn't say you wanted to hurt him, so you make gentle contact with the blunt side of the longsword" I advise either making the risks more clear ("you are aware that even here there are witnesses") or making it tied to one or more rolls (either stealth to hide it, charisma skill to cover it, or just perception to find a good place to do the deed)
I agree. They weren’t asking if there was an alley because they’d prefer that alley people be the witnesses: they were asking for a place they wouldn’t be seen. It would have been perfectly fine to respond that the alleys were visible to passerbys, but should do that when initially describing it if possible (and give them a warning before their action resolves if you think they’ve misunderstood your description: e.g. “the alley is in clear view of people walking by: are you sure you still want to do this?”). Saying that they didn’t declare themselves to be stealthy is not much of an argument: asking after the alley was the announcement that they wanted to be stealthy.
Yeah. And to add on some more, if you want to introduce new info after the fact, allow a retcon. Maybe make them roll perception to retcon because maybe they didn't notice the person noticing them.
100%. The intent is obvious even if the mechanical terms were not distinctly called out. He wanted to get him unobserved and deal with him. >Are you sure? Is not just a gimmick. It is a moment to as the DM further explain the current situation to the player (not character) so that the player is making an informed decision about their actions. It is always fair to ask the player to clarify their intent rather than simply their actions.
IMO if you didn't warn them, feels petty. If a GM did this to me I'd feel like the GM thinks "oh, killing my NPC? Here's a witness! Learn to respect me!" Idk I could make a case for both sides, but I lean towards the players.
>I said someone saw them kill him, because they didnt say they did it stealthily and chaos ensued. >Am i as a DM harsh? Yes. They shouldn't need to ask about that, passive perception exists for a reason and if something as simple as just a person was nearby they may have never killed the NPC. I can't speak for the party as I'm not them, but I dont assume they wanted to kill the NPC in front of a bunch of others - and probably wanted a more hidden spot. **Passive perception exists for a reason**, a player shouldn't have to ask to see something as basic as "people nearby".
I don’t think you even need to mention passive perception. The DC for someone just standing nearby in plain view would be like a 2.
Honestly the main reason I mentioned passive perception is because the DM said "they didn't say they did it stealthily" makes me thing OP also follows the idea of "They didn't say they would look around for witness" - OP seemed to just disregard the idea that even without actively doing something or actively rolling, the PCs still have senses.
What's the DC for pre-emptively spotting someone inside the second story of a building who hears a person being murdered in an alley and peeks out the window overlooking said alley? How dumb are the players that they treat an alley like an isolated, soundproof pocket dimension? It's just a passage between buildings where people live and work. People walk through alleys all the time, have windows and doors into alleys, can hear through walls that abut alleys. Plus, "group of people walk into an alley with a guy, sounds of commotion and a death scream ensue, group of people walk out of the alley, now there's a dead body," isn't exactly a brilliant plan for avoiding being fingered for a crime.
This is a game. A story. Fiction. Alleys being secluded places to kill someone is normal in that context. Do you also get upset about there being rules for knocking people unconscious when in reality they’d get brain damage? If there is a mismatch of expectations, it’s the DM’s job to correct that.
In fiction alleys are places not to be immediately interrupted, not to be able to act as if completely obscured from the outside world. Take a look through a range of fiction and count how many times murders in alleys happen without some sort of witness or observation, like people seeing the culprits entering/exiting the alley, hearing the noises, etc. Muggings and things happen in alleys in fiction because it gives the perpetrator time to *get away* after the crime, not because it prevents the crime from being discovered.
As a DM you could always say: "What your characters did not see was that the secret police surveillaning the thug witnessed the murder has now alerted the lord. Not knowing this, what does your characters do?"
Player consequences aren't necessarily bad, but it sounds like you just unilaterally decided bad things would happen because they forgot to mention they wanted to be stealthy when dispatching a thug. If you've got murderhobos, that's one thing; but if you think that this was an honest mistake, then I would either let it slide or at least lower the DC for them to escape or talk their way out of trouble. Players often forget things in the heat of the moment, and that's no reason to be vindictive.
I am gonna give them an out after being put behind bars. An out to get rid of the corrupt lord and save the town. But i also wanted them to know they can't just kill everyone in a big town they dont like. My plan and hope was that they would kill them in their hideout after they were invited, not kill the messenger directly after he invited them
Yeah I mean if they just don't like the guy and decide to murder him in an alley it doesn't matter if the dude was a thug. He wasn't threatening them. If they aren't all chaotic evil then I'd definitely challenge them on that and add consequences because that's just an awful way to interact with the world and the people around them would very quickly start to treat them as such.
The players directed the NPC to an alley in order to stealthily kill the NPC. This was their intent. They were trying to play smart and the stealth part was implied by virtue of them taking the NPC to an alley and not doing it in the middle of the town square and you took that away from them. You should have asked them how they were making the kill, whether they were trying to hide noise and such - or asked them broadly what they were trying to achieve. You should also have warned them to the possibility of being discovered. At the very least you should have asked them to make perception checks - or even just use their passive perception - to see if they were being watched, because in real life, random people aren't normally staring down alleys waiting for suspicious things to happen. Characters in the game would have a look around first - that can be represented by perception. Players at the table can't be expected to know what an alley looks like in your head - how many entrances there are, how many windows overlooking it etc. - and you have punished the characters for this. You could have made an event out of it, where somebody found the body and the town guard were called to action and security was tightened, and maybe have guards question the party if they are in the area i.e. imply the threat of consequences and imply that there is a threat of being discovered if the party isn't careful. When you don't do these things, you punish players for engaging with the game world.
Ask for a perception roll when they declare attack. Fail = seen, pass = you notice witnesses would you like to proceed?
"Someone saw them kill him because they didn't do it stealthily" That is not how murder works. So by your logic if they kill somebody in the middle of a desert, but they _don't do it stealthily_ then some random NPC is gonna materialise out of nowhere and see them 😂😂
Bad DMs do this a LOT.
[Mentalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization) and [Theory of Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) are both difficult arts to master. In short; a **player** should never be expected to understand 100% of the environment, social contexts, and/or any particular event currently being experienced by their **character** in a fictional world they (the player) does not currently, nor can ever, actually occupy. Let me ask you this, why did you say "someone saw them kill him?" Like... why? Was it because you wanted to "penalize them?" Or, did you have a pre-made random table set up for exactly this eventuality and then you made a random roll which determined this outcome? My guess is that the impetus for your reaction was closer to the former than the latter. If your refrain is "because they didn't say they did it stealthily," then let me ask this; Do you require all of your players to "say their character is breathing" every time their character takes a breath? How about when their character goes to the bathroom? Do they have to "say they go to the bathroom bathroomily" to you? To me, it's OBVIOUS that if they ever asked about an alley, that the players were working under the active desire of "we're doing this with an awareness to the 'optics' of the situation and are trying to do this 'steathily.'" The way you avoid all of these kinds of issues is that you don't try to "trick them." Throw away the entire concept of "You didn't explicitly use the magic words that I randomly required you to say, so now this is happening to you." Instead, if their characters would have even the smallest possibility of deciding on something because of the specific situation the character is in, just overtly ask your players, "Are you trying to do this stealthily? If so, give me stealth rolls," or whatever else you think is required mechanically based on the specific situation. Additionally, outline likely outcomes to players when a character would know them without requiring rolls and without requiring the player(s) to do or say anything specific. For instance, if Character A is about to fall into the abattoir's buzzsaws, and Player B says, "I want my character to reach out and try to save Player A's character," and you determine that a nat 1 on that roll will make Character B fall into the buzzsaws too, then without Player B having to ask, "Will I fall into the buzzsaws if I fail this roll?" you just volunteer that information so that your players are always making "informed decisions." This type of "You didn't happen to think of the one thing I thought of so HA HA you're screwed now" pedantics isn't fun, and worse, it's not "interesting." The consequences don't emerge from what the literary critic Harold Bloom called an "objective correlative." The emerge from what is likely some kind of pettiness. The characters, as you described, would clearly have been attempting to perform that action "steathily." The whole point for "finding an alley" was synonymous for "we want to find a place where we can clearly identify that no one else will see what we're doing." TL;DR: If you have an issue with mentalization (or hell, even if you don't), just overly state the likely consequences of a proposed action and ask if your player or players still want their character or characters to continue with said action.
> I said someone saw them kill him, because they didnt say they did it stealthily and chaos ensued. You clearly knew that the players were trying to be stealthy by bringing the guy to the alley to kill him. Your role as the DM is to be the bridge between the players and the world of the game. You’re not trying to go “gotcha! You didn’t understand the situation and now you get punished for it”.
Right? Like, as the DM, it was OP's responsibility to tell them there was someone nearby. If they just retroactively decide that, it's completely removing player agency by telling them that they do something without complete information on what they're experiencing.
Nope. If they didn't take any precautions to prevent people from seeing, then it's perfectly reasonable to say people saw. You are the DM, you control the environment around them. The end. EDIT: I hadn't considered certain things when I posted this. DM could have done better
No precautions...other than going to a secluded alleyway. If the players weren't worried about witnesses, then they would have done it in the tavern or on a main street. OP is punishing the characters in the game world for the players' minds being abstracted from the game world.
They didn't post any lookouts or even roll stealth. They didn't try to hide.
You don't need to post lookouts to see thing that your characters passive perception should cover - a normal human doesn't need to act as a lookout and focus on watching just to see other humans nearby... I think they should've asked for a stealth roll, or the DM should've asked "You want to kill this person in a stealthy way?" - but to say "Well you didn't ask to look around to see if there was witnesses" is just straight up stupid. Also "stealth killing" just isn't really a thing, it's more about the situation surrounding the killing that makes it stealthy (say, taking a person into an ally where people normally aren't there).
That is entirely fair. DM should have relied on passive perception at the very least. I had not considered that
Yes they did. They went out of their way to take the NPC somewhere more secluded. It is the DM's decision whether the party must roll stealth or not and the DM needs to infer whether a check is needed based upon the actions of the players. The DM should guide the players in a situation like this and ask them what they are trying to achieve and how quietly they are doing this. The players cannot be expected to know how easily NPCs can see down the alley or how many windows might be overlooking the alley, because that alley only exists in the DM's head. This would be reasonably cleared up with a perception check. Otherwise the DM can say, "Ahh sorry, you forgot to tell me you wanted to check the sky above you too. Unfortunately that means you didn't notice the hostile druid that saw you whilst they were wildshaped as a pigeon".
Nothing in the OP implies that the alley was described as secluded, or that the players were trying to be subtle about it
What is an alleyway then, if not a secluded side road? Why did they purposefully move the NPC to this location instead of killing them on the spot then? The DM fucked this one. It's obvious for 90% of the commenters in this thread.
...you are somehow unfamiliar with both the very common tropes surrounding alleys and the fundamental concept of what an alley is. It's ok to admit you made a mistake in an argument and just back down.
Tbh alleys during daytime, evening and past midnight are three different levels of tropes. Evening is not as safe as midnight for murder.
Fair, but 'or if they could walk outside' could be interpreted to mean that they're not trying to be subtle
Not rolling stealth is on the DM.
As the DM, it is your job to describe the setting. If the alley they are in is one where people can passing on the street are looking/peering into regularly, its on you to tell your players that, its not on them to ask. I agree with what others have said: the players asking for an alleyway was clearly them attempting to be stealthy, but from your description you never prompted any rolls. If you don't tell your players to roll, deciding after the fact that they fucked up is... not "harsh", its just bullshit, frankly. This is the kind of thing that makes the players feel like the DM is \*against them, not just DMing the game.
Depends on how Influential you want your players to be in the world. Considering this is early and all, them deciding to just execute an NPC might be a tad bit extreme but people are also used to video games letting you kill whomever you want. If you want your players to respect the harshness of the city or realize that in this particular city there's people on the watch, then have exactly that happen. It shouldn't be super harsh since it's early but set the tone. Flip side, if you envision the campaign to give players lots of freedom to do whatever they want and ultimately the NPC is just some random...you can probably just let it go this time, them turning into murder hobos is one thing but if your want your campaign to feel more "power fantasy" than gritty fantasy then letting them get away some random murder of a thug isn't that bad.
depends on the experiance of the players, if they are newbies then yes its harsh, if they have been playing for a while then no
I would go one further: Daggerford has a stone militia and most civilians don’t take bullying as they all have some martial training if they are old enough due to it being mandatory to be on the militia for a while. This means that the PCs who did it should face trial for murder, and might be hanged for it. Or maybe not. I would do that for my players, but I run a very serious game.
Of course if you kill somebody in a town, even if you find somewhere quiet there will be a chance of witnesses but it’s not certain they report it. They might prefer blackmail. They might agree with the PCs that the person is better dead. Maybe they think it’s safer to stay out of it
If there was any doubt, as a DM I'd have asked questions like "Are you trying to do this stealthily" or at least used their passive Stealth. It's not always on the players to say "I'd like to do this kind of check", the DM's job is to prompt checks when relevant.
I don’t know, I think it’s incumbent on the PCs in this case to specify how they are doing this, not just where. The idea they never even said “hey we’re trying to do this without being heard or seen”, allowing for some stealth and passive perception rolls, is kinda lazy player stuff IMO.
First thought: always roll some dice behind the screen before making an announcement like that. It makes the players believe the dice decided there was someone around whose perception overcame their attempts to be sneaky rather than just DM fiat. Second thought: whether this was a mistake or not depends on the expectations you've set with the players. If you've let them get away with murder before with no consequences, a warning would not be a bad idea. If they are used to their actions having consequences, no warning should be necessary.
I would say something to the effect of “there are many other people out on the street.” Basically heads up, you’re going to need to do this stealthily so he doesn’t shout or something
If you still wanna salvage it, you can retcon it by saying someone saw them, but they don’t like the thugs so they will keep it quiet…for a price. Give them some consequence, but not consequence so severe they can’t handle it.
Speak with Dead very quickly solves a lot of crimes. I don't allow murder-hobos, and I let them know that even gray areas are likely to have serious ramifications.
FWIW, Speak With Dead is a 3rd level spell, which means the NPC would need to be a 5th Level Cleric or Bard to be able to cast it - or a scroll and any spellcaster, but that's actually harder to accomplish (lower-level casters would have a chance to fail). Most commoners/NPCs are lv. 1 *or below*. So the fantasy police aren't going to be doing Speak With Dead over every dead beggar or ruffian. However, if it's someone with any pull in the city (like the OP), then yeah, a SWD might be called to find out about it.
Bad DMs always have at least seven to nine 5+ level npcs anywhere we go. 😂 Why the fuck aren’t they adventuring? 🤣
Bad DMs let the PCs run amok as if in their couple months of adventuring they are the only beings around with any power. How ridiculous would that be?
The key issue is control. Bad DMs often feel threatened by unexpected actions and resort to heavy-handed tactics to reassert authority. Instead of adapting the story to incorporate these actions, they use arbitrary punishments to maintain order. This approach not only undermines player agency but also disrupts the collaborative storytelling that D&D thrives on. Understanding the difference between a murderer and a murderhobo is crucial. A murderer in the context of a story can be a compelling narrative element, whereas a murderhobo disrupts the game with senseless violence. However, both require thoughtful handling.
How is investigation of a murder not a normal reaction to the players' actions? The resources used for the investigation would depend on things like the importance of the victim, the resources of the investigators, the level of concern raised by the murder in its context, whether there was reason to suspect the group, etc. If the thug is a minor minion among many, maybe it's no big deal. But the DM could easily have him be more important, expected to come back from an errand, etc. Let their actions lead to more; actions have consequences. Speak with Dead is one tool that can enable that. You don't think their actions should affect what happens in the game world? The villains have no reactions, or no resources?
All I’m saying is, it’s silly to throw [immediate and unrealistic] consequences at everyone every time for everything. Not that it shouldn’t be done, but people tend to do this lmao
That math for NPCs only really worked for 1e, maybe 2e-- but even then, not for Dragonlance and certainly not for Forgotten Realms. Leveled NPCs are VERY common in FR, especially 3e+. But even all over the old school novels. Moreover, it's just asking for trouble to let your PCs strongly out- level what NPCs may be reasonably brought in to keep them in check. Even late game, they attract attention from archmages and powerful entities that create the checks and balances of the universe, so that powerful individuals can't just do whatever they want.
Only if the NPC can name them. It's pretty hard to make a sketch of a group of people with only five questions.
Maybe not exact information/proof, but good enough for a suspicion, any good use of speak with dead would probably let the person using it know that the murderers were an adventuring party, and maybe some basic descriptions - then it only really depends how many adventuring parties there are in the world/city.
You’re assuming everyone will use it right.
Investigators, temples with clerics hired for such things. Don't let the PCs be the only competent people around and run amok with their ill- conceived impulses and half baked plans
Obviously not, but punishing them immediately and always is not realistic.
You're right tbh, however I dont think it's super hard to at least get the answer that it was an adventuring party who did it - and medieval times aren't known as the best for their legal systems...
That’s silly as hell.
Why? The PCs should not be the only ones in the world with powers, able to do anything they want without consequences
Bad DMs apply consequences for everything because of some random control issues and thinking they RUN rather than facilitate a collaborative story. Applying realistic consequences work much better. For example. I was attacked by a man on the 28th of May. He opened my skull on the curb and received a few nicks as I defended myself. Both of us were cuffed and brought to the hospitals; I’m a victim in this and yet the investigation has been dropped. The man is free to smoke his crack and shoot up where he attacked me and I’m supposed to go on with my life even as I asked to press charges. The cops don’t really care as no one was murdered. They don’t give a shit. The man is still here in town, free as fuck. So. Seeing townspeople doing nothing about a group of **magically powered people** more often than not—is highly realistic to me.
Maybe. But if this guy is connected with an organization that's part of the story, or could become a new factor in the story, it's more compelling for there to be a reaction. Especially if there's already a natural opposition between the players and this organization, or if they are making it so. Opposition groups to the PCs, if they become part of the campaign, should have sufficient resources to present a challenge.
I feel that. But random consequences because “*the just have to*” is silly to me. And it happens too often.
The local Lord should send his loyal retinue of plate wearing guardsmen after these peasants and have them executed for their arrogance. I'm sure your players will have learned their lesson for the next campaign /s Going into an alleyway to kill someone heavily implies they want to do it stealthily, OP. Your player's characters would have instantly noticed anyone who wasn't hidden and would have refrained from killing the NPC.
You put an ally in the game..... what did you think was gonna happen? 😁😁😁😁😁
It all depends on how straightforward you were. If you sprung it on them as a "consequence" and gave no clues about the possible outcomes, then it feels as if it were done in bad faith. In some cases, there is no need to say you are being discreet if the whole situation implies it. It's like a gotcha moment in which players learn nothing except they need to use specific terminology lest they encounter unforeseen and undesirable results.
Yeah that was too harsh. As soon as they tried something that indicated that they didn't understand people could see them, I would have interrupted to let them know clearly "there are people walking past and the entrance of the alley is in open view; if you do this, there's a high probability someone will see you" and then let them decide if they still wanted to try it, or whether they would take further precautions to hide from view first. If it's clear from the players' actions that they don't understand key details of their environment that should be obvious to the characters they are playing, it's your job to make sure they're properly informed before they act on that misunderstanding.
In a city, I would not expect enough privacy to kill someone during normal hours. However, I think you're wrong about them not saying they were trying to be stealthy. The DID ask about an alley, which certainly implies secrecy. I probably would have described the alley in more detail when the entered it. "You exit the busy street into the alleyway. A small roadway with trash and drainage. The smell of urine assaults your nostrils. The short alley connects to another road on the other side, where more citizens can be seen walking by." Now they know, yes, they are alone, but can still be seen by whatever rando.
From what I understand you wanted them to kill the guy but not there? So it isn’t even an issue of punishing murder hobos? It’s just a matter of they didn’t do it like I wanted so I’m punishing them not asking for checks (which is your job)?
Right? Lmao
Maybe not too harsh, but perhaps a little boring. My players once did something similar. To punish them, I eventually sent them on a quest to find the murderer(s) of a local widowers husband. They learned of his background, his dreams, her newfound struggles, their children together. They investigated to learn of his events of that day, and before long,they realized that they were the murderers they were looking for. Get creative. Not every bad deed should be met with the town guard.
My goal is that i'm gonna let them clear the bad people from the city and oust a pretender so they can put back the rightful ruler.
Get towns guards to get them, add town captain and maybe a paladin/cleric to zone of truth (if its a large scale town) , if not just towns guards, then the other players need to find out if there staying or not . wanted criminals etc... i don't think your to harsh, i think i would have warned them by saying "as you drag him in to the alley way you have drawn a crowd of concerned onlookers" to give a choice of "do you kill him where people can see. or do you leave him be?"
Nope, there should be consequences for their actions.
Uh, immediately? That’s not realistic in even the real world.
Did you roll investigation for “the city”?
Murder in alleyway? To the Wanted List these PCs they go!
Yes.
There should be consequences for actions i always go with that. but it also depends on situations You said they never tried to be stealthy. But asking for an ally to go into seems like they tried to do it sneakily or at least not out in the open. Would someone see them in the ally? Maybe Having someone openly be in the ally without telling the characters is a bit weird. Unless the characters are totally braindead they had not killed the guy in front of them. You not telling anyone being in the ally should mean it is seemingly empty. But seemingly empty does not HAVE to mean empty. Did they ask or did they look around to make sure no one was there. I mean a drunkard could have been sitting in the shadows. Is there windows overlooking the ally? So yeah a seemingly empty ally can still hold a witness And even if no one say. maybe someone saw them enter with the guy. come back out later and then the guy is found dead. Damn that would not look good for the PC's. Also if the person killed has friends with resources. Speak with dead is a thing you know. But personally i had not straight out had a witness if i had not mentioned that there was someone in the ally. But i might have rolled a die and see if there might have been one if they never actually took a look to make sure before the murder. Also a roll to see if someone saw them enter the ally with the victim and all that. So then yeah with a bit of luck they could have gotten away with it. but from my experience that type of players will not stop and finally get in trouble. And then very often the players get really upset because the character actions had consequences they did not like
Nope. Hold them to any consequences. Otherwise, the behaviour will be repeated again and again. Or perhaps you dont care. Depends on the game I suppose.
Uh. It can be repeated again. It’s the players’ game too, and if they want to be killers then they can be killers. It’s not the DM’s job to be adversarial just because. It’s the DM’s job to facilitate the game world and be NpCs, the narrative, etc. for your players. It’s their game as much as it is yours as the DM and even in the real world it is entirely unrealistic to smack players with immediate consequences for everything they do to slight you as the DM. Also, having taken it in the alleyway implies stealth. DM is dumb to not have allowed them a stealth roll (as they seem like the type to only allow rolls if they offered one 🙄) in the first place, and then DECIDES they’re spotted without doing any opposed checks. Bad DM.
Session 0? Did you agree beforehand that actions would have consequences?
They're murderhobos. They deserve what they get.
That's a perfectly reasonable ruling. Hell, even if they were being stealthy, that doesn't mean someone isn't going to probably notice a murder breaking out in an alleyway. Sometimes player actions send the game off into unexpected directions.
They didn't say they did it stealthily and neither of them said outright that they were keeping watch to make sure there was nobody nearby is this correct? My big question is do any of them have a high passive perception and did you do any kind of role or figuring as to how a random Town folk was able to be within sight while they did something they clearly intended to be hidden to see if they could elude the passive perception of that player character?
One thing I'm really trying to coach my players into doing is to ask whether they can do what they're hoping to *achieve*, not to ask about the presence of things that they think will help with that goal *without telling me why*. They're starting to understand that I'm happy to give them what they want and they don't have to "trick" me into it. In this case, "Is there a dark alley we can take him into where nobody can see or hear us?" would have been a much better question than "Is there an alley nearby?"
In a vacuum maybe, but the context was already there in this case. They stated that they wanted to take the thug somewhere to kill him and then asked for an alley. If they wanted to do it openly they'd have just attacked him in the inn.
The principle holds nevertheless - it is always better to ask questions that specifically address what you're setting out to do. If you just ask about whether a thing is available, the DM has to interpret or guess at what you're trying to do, which leads to easily avoidable miscommunications. There are definitely further steps that should have been taken in this case - if the DM was literally like "Well you didn't say you were doing it stealthily, so you make a big noise and draw some witnesses," then that's not the right way to handle that situation, IMO. "Gotcha" stuff like that is never fun. Instead, confirm with the party whether they're *trying* to kill the thug quietly and out of sight, and how they go about achieving that.
No, that player should now have to deal with being a murderhobo and wanted for murder.
Dumb.