When should a DM say "Are you sure you want to do that?"...

When should a DM say "Are you sure you want to do that?", and when should they sit back and let the party fuck everything up?

>When should a DM say "Are you sure you want to do that?"

Never.

>When should a DM say "Are you sure you want to do that?"
When one of the players does something they think is the right choice, but isn't quite certain about it.

When the players don't seem to understand their fictional positioning.

Like sometimes when players play super powerful muderhobos, it might be hard to understand when they are clearly outnumbered.

>When the players don't seem to understand their fictional positioning.
This.

>Like sometimes when players play super powerful muderhobos, it might be hard to understand when they are clearly outnumbered.
Not this. They'll only learn if you let them fail. I thought you meant fictional positioning, as in, they didn't realize that the crack in the floor they walk over is actually a gaping chasm, something their PC would obviously know but was miscommunicated to the player. That's when the GM should ask.

Meh.

I do this sometimes. Mainly when I've failed to give a description that my players grasp for whatever reason.

How do you tell when the players haven't grasped something or there's some miscommunication and not that they're just being idiots?

I generally assume that you know your players, and if they are idiots.

When it's not clear, that's exactly when you ask.

Telepathy.

Three strike system
First strike - let them get away with something foolish and let the backdrop take flank
Second strike - let them half get it with an in character 'that shit will get you killed'
Third strike - Clearly not learning anything. hold no punches. let the dice fall as they may

Yeah, a guy in our group once said "I slide down the hill" except it was far steeper and deeper than he realised. It was less sliding and more like jumping off a three story building.

>I thought you meant fictional positioning, as in, they didn't realize that the crack in the floor they walk over is actually a gaping chasm, something their PC would obviously know but was miscommunicated to the player. That's when the GM should ask.
This.

I ask when I want to confirm that there hasn't been a miscommunication or the player hasn't forgotten something that the character would never forget, like that an NPC is still standing in the room in front of them or that they took off their armor.

And sometimes you do it just because the idea is so ass-numbingly stupid that you have to confirm you heard it right and want them to repeat it before figuring out how to deal with it.

If the character should know better you should warn the players, it's a GMs job to intervene when a disconnect between character and player knowledge may disadvantage the player.

If the character wouldn't know any better, don't warn them.

Same way you tell when a woman is ready for consensual sexual intercourse with you.

Why would I carry ether to the game

I ask when I as the GM is unsure. Are they making this incredibly stupid move as a joke? Did I explain the scene inaccurately that the player thinks there is half the danger I tried to convey? Did they have some kind of plan I wasn't aware of as a gm that would require prior rolls or items they may not have?

I never ask as a player safety net. Mistakes will be made.

One thing.
Just be willing to warn players.
Because if there is one thing I know, it's that those warnings don't matter.
If you give them a gun, pointed at their own head, they are willing to pull the trigger, no matter warnings.

This,
It shouldn't be used to influence player decisions. It should only be used to confirm what the characters will do after some obvious speculation from the players.

We drink & D&D. Can my players take back their consent in the morning?

When the player is obviously doing something astonishingly, game-destroyingly stupid.

"The king welcomes you into his..."
"I SHOOT HIM WITH AN ARROW"
"No, seriously, he's about to give you your quest, shut up for a second and take your meds"
"I'M SERIOUS I WANT TO KILL THE KING SO I CAN BE KING"
*Other players grumbling about not inviting this stupid asshole*
"I don't think you understand the point of this game"
"I. SHOOT. THe. KING"
"Are you sure you want to do that?"

> When should a DM say "Are you sure you want to do that?
When you don't have a plan on what to do next after they fuck up everything.
> when should they sit back and let the party fuck everything up?
When you do have a rough plan on what to do next after they fuck up everything.

>"You should let TPK happen so that the players learn."
You guys do realize that it's a bit hard to adapt to a campaing once it's over due to everyone getting killed?

Practically none of the people here would be able to know that.

Of course they do.
They're ready after you've paid them.

When the player's plan is clearly not going to achieve the thing they think it will due to a crucial element being missed.
You see, OP, many of the responses ITT are from people who either do not game at all or are not GMs, so they see nothing wrong with bringing the entire game to a screeching halt over one bad decisions; it isn't their responsibility to pick up the pieces of the game once they allowed it to fall apart, so like children, they don't care about breaking it.

that's the issue with the hegemonial chauvinistic roll-culture #notalldice

kek