The title is a pun on "standing orders." In case you missed it. Feel my early morning rapier wit. (That's what the kids are calling it these days)
*ahem. Moving on....
After our game last night I was thinking about an event that happened in it and a player's reaction. He is the only one who voiced an opinion on it but given the party's actions during the event they all seemed rather surprised by how it turned out and that struck me as so weird. Allow me to explain.
***Warning: This may include spoilers for the Horde of the Dragon Queen adventure.***
I equate this to being as if an acquaintance from your workplace came over to your house. You have an understanding with this person. You'e not friends. You think he's beneath you and you don't really want him to see where you live, but he's offered to fix your plumbing issues so you'll tolerate him assuming he does the job. While he's supposed to be doing that he breaks into your locked liquor cabinet and starts opening all the bottles. How would you react?
My one player said he doesn't like it when people take the literal approach to dialogue like I did. I don't see why I would have done anything differently, or why they should have expected anything differently, based on how I had presented the ogres.
I am not looking for validation in my actions and even though he didn't like it there's no drama in the group as a result of this. That's not my reason for posting the whole thing. Instead I thought it would be more interesting to use this example as a talking point. This probably applies more to those who run the games rather than the players in them, but maybe a reverse situation has happened. When the players are completely missing the obvious, or at least what you feel is obvious, and gamely proceed along a chain of actions that you feel the characters and their players would realize is probably going to cause further problems, do you interject or let them hang themselves?